Tag Archive for: flat racing

Changes in UK Flat Racing: 2010-2025

/in /by

Changes in UK flat racing over the past 15 years

This article is slightly different from what you might be used to from me, and I will be reviewing the changing face of flat racing in the UK, writes Dave Renham.

Comparing different sets spanning the period from 2010 to 2025 I will consider how the racing programme has changed, what has been happening to field sizes, whether there have been any significant changes in the jockey community, and so on. My analysis covers all flat racing in the UK, turf and all-weather.

Scheduled meetings

We are less than two weeks from the start of the 2026 turf season, so I would like to start by comparing the number of flat meetings that were scheduled in 2010 with 2025.

 

 

There is only a small difference of 17 meetings, which equates to roughly one every three weeks.

 

Composition of Turf vs AW Race Meetings

What has changed is the split in terms of turf flat meetings versus all weather meetings. Firstly, let me share the division for between the surfaces in terms of the number of meetings across each of these two years:

 

 

Over these 15 years there has been a 5.7% decrease in the number of turf fixtures and, therefore, a 5.7% increase in AW meetings. While I do not have the schedules for all years in between, I do have yearly data in terms of the number of turf flat races and the number of AW races run.

Below is a graph showing the percentage of turf flat races each year compared with the percentage of AW ones. I have not included the splits for 2020 due to the disruption caused by Covid, hence the lack of a blue and orange dot above 2020 on the graph.

 

 

As expected, given the ‘number of meetings’ evidence, the general trend has been for the gap between the two to narrow. In 2010 turf accounted for 64.1% of all flat races with 35.9% on the AW. By 2025 this read 57.3% turf and 42.7% AW.

 

Average field size

A look now to see what has happened to field sizes over the past 15 years, comparing the 2010 average with the 2025 one.

 

 

The average number of runners per race has dropped by exactly three-quarters of a runner over the past 15 years. Another noptable change can be detected when we compare turf field sizes with AW ones:

 

 

As the graph shows, there has been a much bigger drop in the average field size in turf flat races (roughly one runner per race on average). The AW figure has dropped a little, and in 2025 we had bigger fields on average on the AW compared with those running on turf.

 

Average field size by course

I now want to look at what happened at each course in terms of field size when comparing 2010 with 2025. In the table below the averages for each individual track are shown along with a column calculating the percentage difference between the two. Any percentage figure in green indicates an increase in the average number of runners, whereas percentage figures in red indicate a decrease. For the record Chelmsford and Wetherby are not included as they did not race on the flat at either venue in 2010.

 

 

Only six courses have seen an increase in their average field sizes, which will come as no surprise based on the previous data shared. The average field size at Southwell has increased by 10% which is the most by any of the courses. I wonder if that might have something to do with the change of surface. Impossible to say for sure, but that feels to be the most likely reason. Conversely, there have been some significant drops, most notably at Salisbury, Nottingham, the Rowley course at Newmarket and Chepstow. All four have seen field size decreases of more than 20%.

It should be noted that average field size decline may have been affected slightly by courses which decide to split more handicap races into two divisions than was the case previously. I don’t have any hard data here, so it is more an observation of a potential mitigating factor.

 

Field size and each way betting

One impact of smaller field sizes is reduced opportunities for savvy each way bettors. In 2025, 33% of all flat races had seven or few runners: a third of all races.

If you have not yet read Russell Clarke’s excellent article where he discusses whether win bets or each way bets are optimum in terms of the number of runners in a race, I suggest you take a quick look before reading on. The link is here: www.geegeez.co.uk/money-without-work-5-bookmaker-concessions-each-way-betting/

Essentially, in 5, 6 and 7-runner handicaps, and in 6 and 7-runner non-handicaps, the percentages favour win betting over each way betting. It is only 5-runner non-handicaps where each way punters have an edge over win punters.

A mere 2.7% of all races in 2025 were 5-runner non-handicaps. In contrast, 5, 6 and 7-runner handicaps coupled with 6 and 7-runner non-handicaps accounted for 26% of all races in 2025 which is a huge number of races where each way bettors were at a disadvantage. To give further context, as well as to show reduced opportunities for each way bettors, in 2010 these races equated to 21% of all races.

Another impact of smaller field sizes is an increase in shorter priced favourites. This, for many - me included, presents a much less appealing product.

And a further impact of smaller field sizes is more limited opportunities for jockeys, which brings me on to...

 

Women jockeys 

Horse racing is a rare sport in that women compete against men on a completely level playing field. However, for many years the sport has been dominated by male jockeys and despite some excellent lady riders coming along – Hayley Turner, Hollie Doyle and Saffie Osborne to name but three - has anything really changed? Let’s see.

Firstly, below are the annual percentage of rides for male jockeys versus females.

 

 

In general, there has been a slight uptick in the percentage of female rides over the timeframe, but it is disappointing to see the figure drop back under 10% in 2025. Moreover, if we look at the better races, just 2.6% of riders in Class 1 events in 2025 were female. Indeed, only four female jockeys from 2010 to 2025 had 50 or more rides in these contests: Hollie Doyle, Saffie Osborne, Hayley Turner and Josephine Gordon.

Combining their performances in Class 1 events during this period, they recorded a profit at BSP of £104.31 to £1 level stakes which equates to returns of over 13p in the £. Not only that, if we had backed all of their mounts on the Betfair Place Market a profit of £21.13 would have been secured. Clearly, female jockeys continue to be something of a blind spot in both owner/trainer and bettor sectors.

I have more bad news for fans of female riders because 173 different female jockeys rode at some point during the year of 2010, but in 2025 this had dropped to 134. On a personal note, I find this whole situation sad, disappointing and wrong. As a whole, female sport in the UK is booming thanks in part to the success of the England Lionesses, the World Cup winning England rugby team and the exposure of ladies’ cricket at international level and in ‘the Hundred’. However, this is not being reflected in horse racing, and something needs to change soon.

 

Apprentice jockeys 

How about apprentice jockeys? Are there more or fewer apprentices riding now as compared to 2010? The answer is emphatic: there were far fewer apprentice jockeys riding in 2025 compared to 2010. Specifically, there were just 244 last year compared to 377 in 2010.

This is also reflected when we see the total number of rides apprentices had – there were 9941 in 2025 compared with 13948 in 2010. If we look year on year comparing open races - that is, races for both professionals and apprentices - we can see that the percentage split for apprentices has generally been on a downward trajectory.

 

 

2025 saw the biggest difference between the percentage of professionals riding in open races and the percentage of apprentice riders riding of any year going back to 2010 – 85% against 15%. With apprentice jockeys being the future of the sport this trend is a little worrying.

I would like to say that from a punting perspective some apprentice jockey data have been extremely positive in recent years. For example, the most successful apprentices, those claiming 3lb in open races, have performed extremely well in the last few years when riding shorter priced horses.

From 2018 to 2025 when riding horses priced BSP 4.0 or less, these 3lb claimers in open races have produced the following figures:

 

 

A tidy profit with returns of over 6 pence in the £. Not only that, but the yearly stats also show how consistent these performances have been:

 

 

There have been seven winning years out of eight with only a small reverse of 2.2p in the £ in the one losing year of 2022.

Another positive apprentice angle is when apprentices claiming the full 7lb allowance ride over the minimum distance (5f) in turf handicaps. They have made a decent blind profit across all price bands (around 18p in the £), but two big-priced winners have skewed the bottom line somewhat.

However, when restricting qualifiers in these handicap sprints to horses priced BSP 12.0 or less the record reads 131 wins from 678 rides (SR 19.3%) for a profit of £70.44 (ROI +10.4%). Despite their inexperience, it seems that over the shortest distance, when I guess fewer mistakes can be made due to the time the races take, apprentices claiming 7lb have offerred good value.

 

Changes in Race Type Topology

There have been some significant changes since 2010 in the flat racing schedule when it comes to race types. For example, in the UK in 2010 there were 277 claiming races on the flat. By 2018 this had dramatically reduced to 81, and in 2025 there were just six!

Sellers have suffered a similar fate although there were still 30 such races in 2025, compared with 237 in 2010. I know for punters as a whole these two race types can be a bit ‘marmite’ but personally I have always liked claimers and sellers as betting mediums.

Another seismic switch has been that of maidens (non-handicap) versus novice races. In 2010 there were 1326 non-handicap maiden races and 45 novice races. By 2025 there were more novice races than maidens – 765 against 630.

Finally, while looking at race types, we can see that there are more handicaps and fewer non-handicaps now than there were in 2010:

 

 

In percentage terms, handicap races have increased from 63.1% of all flat races in 2010 to 70.75% of flat races in 2025, a relative increase of 12% in the last 15 years. As a rule, I personally prefer handicaps, so for me this is a ‘win’, but I appreciate there will be punters with other points of view and for some this would not have been a good development over time.

 

Headgear / tongue ties

When talking headgear I am excluding tongue ties, so blinkers, cheekpieces, hoods, eye-shields and visors. There has been a 47% increase in the number of horses wearing headgear in races between 2010 and 2025.

Just under 18,000 runners in 2025 ran in headgear; that is 18,000 runners in total rather than 18,000 individual horses, as most horses wearing headgear will have had the equipment deployed more than once across the year. This equates to 31% of all runners. For the record, horses that wore headgear were poorer value than those which did not. The difference from 2010 to 2025 was around 3.5p in the £ in favour of horses that did not wear headgear.

Regarding tongue ties, the numbers of runners wearing them have more than doubled since the 2010 flat season: 2,927 runners wore a tongue tie in 2010, and it was up to 6,090 in 2025. Horses wearing tongue ties have some very interesting stats which I wrote about recently so check out that piece here if not done so already.

 

*

 

There have been a lot of changes in flat racing over the past 15 years. Change always has the potential to affect betting performance and punters need to be prepared to adapt to such new challenges.

Until next time...

- DR

Horse Performance: Course, Distance, and C&D Winners Compared

/in /by

I looked at course, distance, and course and distance National Hunt data a few months back, writes Dave Renham. I will revisit this area now but switch my attention to the flat. I will ignore all-weather racing to write about that in the future. Hence, these findings apply only to UK turf flat racing, and I have looked at the last eight full seasons from 2016 to 2023.

I mentioned last time that there is a perception that course form is necessary; likewise, some see it as a positive if the horse is proven over the distance. In the National Hunt article, previous course winners/distance winners/C&D winners won more often than horses that had not won at the course/distance/C&D. They offered slightly better value despite the market adjusting quite well. Let us see if we see a similar pattern ‘on the level’.

Course winners

I will start with course winners. As we know, courses in the UK are not uniform – the topography for each course varies. Hence, one would assume some horses act better on specific courses than others. I would like to begin by comparing the strike rates of course winners versus horses that have not won at the course (non-course winners). Both win and each way figures are shown:

 

 

Course winners clearly perform better from a win and a win-and-placed perspective.

Regarding returns to SP, course winners fare slightly better, although the difference between the two is barely 2p in the £. To Betfair SP, the roles are reversed, with non-course winners doing a little better. As we have seen in various previous scenarios, the betting market seems good at making the necessary adjustments.

Looking at the non-course winner group first, if we split them into two as follows:

1 -  those who have previously run at the course

and

2 -  those who have not run at the course previously,

then we see that those who have not run at the course have been slightly more successful in terms of win percentage, with an 11.3% strike rate compared to 9.9%. In terms of returns, however, they are virtually identical.

One statistic worth sharing is that horses with no course wins which have raced 15 or more times at the track in question have won just one race from 81 attempts. Such horses are rare but it looks like any future qualifier can be discounted.

Concentrating now on course winners, I would like to start by looking at horses with just one previous course win to their name.

Course Wins = 1

I will split the performances by number of runs they have had at the track. The reason behind this is simple: you could get some horses that have raced once at the course and hence are one from one, whereas you could get horses that are one from 10 or even one from 20. A horse that has just won once in 20 attempts at the same venue will not scream out as a horse that is particularly suited to the track.

Let me share the win strike rates for different numbers of course run groupings:

 

 

The graph clearly shows that one-time course winners with fewer previous course runs win more often. Horses that have won once at the track but raced there ten or more times have scored less than once in every 14 attempts.

Let's see if the A/E indices correlate with these strike rates:

 

 

The graph shows a strong relationship between the A/E indices and the strike rates. Any potential value in one-time course winners tails off once we hit seven or more previous course runs.

Course Wins = 2

I will look at the same idea for horses that have won twice previously at the course. Once again, I’ll start with the win strike rates for different numbers of course run groupings:

 

 

We see the same pattern as before. It should also be noted that horses with two course wins and that had previously raced at the course either twice or thrice broke even to BSP (ROI was –0.4%).

Onto the A/E indices now:

 

 

The two to three previous course run group has a very solid A/E index at 0.92. The 10+ group spoils the correlation, but if we look at the complete stats, we can clearly see that the returns to BSP indicate that the fewer previous course runs, the better.

 

 

Losses become significant once we get to seven or more previous course runs.

Course Wins = 3+

I will now lump together horses with three or more course wins to give a decent sample size. This time though, as we have different numbers of previous course wins, it makes sense to share the data using past course win percentages. Hence, a horse with three wins from 5 visits would sit at 60%, a horse with four wins from 25 would sit at 16%, and so on. This time I will go straight to a table showing all key stats in one area:

 

 

Horses with three-plus course wins and who have previously won at least two-thirds of their starts at the course - the 67-100% group - have by far the best overall figures. They have a much higher strike rate and the best A/E index and have made a small profit to BSP.

 

We have seen the same pattern across all data sets to date: horses with the best course win rates (based on all previous course runs) perform the best.

 

Before moving on to distance winners, I want to examine the results for individual courses. To do this, I will look at the A/E indices for horses that have won at least once at the relevant course. Here are the courses with the ten highest A/E indices.

 

*I am using A/E indices regularly in this piece and if you would like to read more about A/E use this link

 

 

Haydock and Epsom have particularly strong indices. Epsom is a unique track, and it will come as no surprise to many that it appears so high on the list. Two courses that have not made the cut, and which I expected to, are Brighton and Chester. They were joint 14th on the list with an A/E index of 0.87.

Three courses have recorded an A/E index of below 0.80: Yarmouth (0.77), Thirsk (0.75), and Carlisle (0.75). Wetherby also has a figure below 0.80, at just 0.71, but the data set is too small to be confident in at this stage.

Distance winners

It is time to switch our attention to distance winners. As with course winners, I will start by comparing the strike rates of distance winners versus horses that have not won at a distance (non-distance winners). Both win and each way figures are shown once more:

 

 

There is a slight edge to distance winners, but they have virtually identical A/E indices at 0.87 and 0.86, respectively. When looking ‘generally,’ winning previously at a distance does not offer much of an edge in turf flat racing. However, it is always worth digging a little bit deeper.

Let me compare past distance win percentages by grouping all past distance winners. Here are the findings:

 

 

Horses who have previously won at least two-thirds of their starts at a particular distance did best, and showed a very solid-looking A/E index of 0.92 with losses of just 2p in the £. This presents a similar pattern to when I combined the 3+ course win data earlier, especially when considering that top group.

Next, I decided to examine whether it makes a difference how recent the last distance win was. This is what the stats told me:

 

 

Unfortunately, this data offers little, with the only discernible general pattern being that the more recent the win, the more likely a horse is to repeat that win. That may very well be conflated with the fact that recent winners overall are more likely to win again the recent non-winners.

After further digging, I discovered the most interesting findings concerning distance winners.

1. Looking at horses aged 5+, if you restrict this cohort to having won once at a distance on their only start at that distance, they have proved profitable to follow. Hence, if backing ALL 5yos and older with one distance win from one distance start when having their second start at the relevant distance, you would have won 133 races from 862 qualifiers (SR 15.4%) for a BSP profit of £220.34 (ROI +25.6%). These runners have an A/E index of 1.01 and have been profitable for the past five years.

2. Horses with three wins from three starts at the same distance have proved profitable to follow when they have attempted to make it four distance wins out of four. They have won over 28% of the time (53 wins from 188) for a BSP profit of £62.52 (ROI +33.3%). The A/E index stands at an impressive 1.13.

3. Horses aged nine or older that have achieved two distance wins in their careers have proved to be poor investments, regardless of how many distance runs they have had. This group has provided 921 runners of which only 56 won, hitting a win percentage of just 6.1%. Backing all qualifiers to £1 level stakes would have lost you £216.64, which equates to over 23 pence in the £.

4. Two-year-olds with two or more distance wins have made a profit when attempting the distance again. They have 144 wins from 891 (SR 16.2%) for a BSP profit of £38.23 (ROI +4.3%).

Course and distance (C&D) winners

It is now time to combine the two elements. I will start by comparing the strike rates of C&D winners versus horses that have not won over C&D (non-C&D winners). Both win and each way figures are shown once more:

 

 

These are the highest win percentages we have seen for the ‘winning’ group to date, but only just. The returns to SP have been virtually identical, with a wafer-thin edge to C&D winners; but, to BSP, non-C&D winners have proved better value by nearly 6p in the £ (4% loss compared with 10% loss).

On to the win strike rates in terms of the number of C&D wins. Here are the splits:

 

 

The results for 4+ C&D winners are the reverse of the National Hunt findings. In NH races, horses that had won four or more times over course and distance scored 15.5% of the time, procuring a healthy return of over 41p in the £. On the flat, this group scored less than 10% of the time, losing over 34p in the £.

It is past C&D win percentages I want to look at next. I am using the same percentage bands/groupings as before:

 

 

We see the usual trend of the strike rates dropping as the C&D win percentages drop. Once again, the best overall stats are the group with the highest C&D Win% of 67% or more. It is possible that some value bets could be found within this group.

Individual course C&D data is the next port of call. Courses are listed alphabetically with ‘positive’ A/E indices (0.93 and above) shown in green and ‘negative’ indices (0.80 or lower) shown in blue. Profit/losses have been calculated to BSP less 5% commission:

 

 

Just two of the six ‘green’ courses (Chester and Newbury) managed a blind profit to BSP. Generally, though, the takeaway should be to avoid C&D winners from the courses in blue, especially Carlisle, Thirsk, Windsor, and York.

Finally, I want to share the trainers who have performed best with past C&D winners when comparing their performance to their non-C&D winners. Seven trainers are listed in the table below, comparing their win percentages for the two respective groups:

 

 

These seven all perform above the norm when it comes to past C&D winners. Five of the seven have produced blind profits to BSP with their C&D winners, with six hitting A/E indices of 1.00 or bigger. Here are the individual figures for these past C&D winners:

 

 

There are some solid statistics there. It will be interesting to see how these trainers fare in the next few years with their past C&D winners.

 

**

Summary

To conclude, previous course winners, distance winners and C&D winners clearly win more often than horses that have not won at the course/distance/C&D. However, evaluating the better value is more complicated. Generally, course, and course and distance, winners give better results than do distance winners.

I will leave you with what I feel are the most interesting findings:

1. For horses which have won once or twice previously at the course, stick to those horses that have raced six or fewer times at the venue.

2. With horses that have won three times or more at the course, focus on horses that have won at least two-thirds of their races (67%+).

3. Past winners returning to Haydock, Epsom or Ripon can be seen as a positive.

4. Horses that have won at least two-thirds of their races (67%+) at today's race distance are the best distance group to concentrate on (losses of only 2p in the £).

5. Avoid horses that have won four or more times over C&D. They tend to be over-bet.

6. Chester and Newbury are courses where C&D winners generally perform above the norm.

7. Be wary of past C&D winners at Carlisle, Thirsk, Windsor or York.

8. The stables of Mick and David Easterby, Charles Hills, Brian Ellison, Mick Appleby, Iain Jardine, Bryan Smart and Ed Walker have all done well with previous C&D winners.

Until next time...

- DR