Negative run style bias | geegeez.co.uk

Tag Archive for: Negative run style bias

The WORST Draw / Run Style Tracks in 2026

28 April 2026/in Dave Renham/by Dave Renham

The draw and run style combinations we need to avoid

The inspiration for this piece was the recent Form Hacker’s Guide researched and compiled by Matt, and I suggest readers to take a look if not done so already, writes Dave Renham. In those two excellent pieces (which you can read here and here), Matt started by focusing on 10-runner handicaps on turning tracks, expanding later to 8- to 12-runner handicaps.

His research noted that the wider drawn runners generally struggled, as did those drawn 1 (those closest to the inside rail) if they did not get away well. He also noted that races of 1 mile or less were best as they tend to be run at a true gallop. My aim for this article is to build on those initial Form Hacker findings.

Approach

So, this was my plan. I wanted to highlight the worst course and distance (C&D) draw/run style combinations in the UK. I decided to look at handicap races only but expanded the remit to 8+ runner handicaps from 5 furlongs to 1 mile: the majority of these were 8 to 12 runner affairs. Unlike Matt's research, I also included races run on straight courses. Data has been taken from between 2021 to 2025, so five full years/seasons.

Being able to consistently find horses that represent poor value is extremely useful when it comes to improving your bottom line. The more horses we can (reasonably) confidently put a line through the better. If we can ignore, say, three horses in a 12-runner field due to the chance of any of them winning being considerably lower than their prices suggest, then we suddenly turn the betting market in our favour.

For example, imagine this hypothetical market on Betfair for a 12-runner handicap:

This market gives a book percentage of 102.3% (that is, an overround of 2.3%), so the type of market we will find on Betfair for this sort of race. Let us imagine that the horses ranked 4, 6 and 10 in the betting can be as good as ignored due to their draw and likely run style. That takes out just under 21% from the market book and turns the odds well in our favour.

Now, I appreciate that one of those horses we eliminated could win, but if we are right with our research then this will happen sufficiently rarely that the method will still give us a decent edge over the longer term. It’s time to crack on.

Mechanics

On geegeez.co.uk, we are able to look at draw and run style combinations through the Draw Analyser. Below is a 'heat map' screenshot taken from Chepstow over 6f for this recent five-year time frame in 8+ runner handicaps:

The numbers in this heat map image are PRBs (Percentage of Rivals Beaten). To refresh, Percentage of Rivals Beaten (PRB) is a calculation based on a horse's finishing position in relation to field size. It makes key distinctions between a horse finishing, say, third in a five-horse race (PRB 50%, two rivals beaten, beaten by two rivals) and finishing third in an eleven-horse race (PRB 80%, eight rivals beaten, beaten by two).

PRB is beneficial for researchers like me because it helps to make datasets bigger. In racing we are often blighted by small datasets, relative to what general statistics would consider so at any rate. And when we then try to discern knowledge from the data by looking only at wins, we ignore nine-tenths of the information we have (assuming an average field size of ten, one winner, nine losers).

The Draw Analyser also gives us more extensive data for each draw/run style group, and this is shown for the same Chepstow example below:

We are able to see in this one table the sample sizes in more detail. They include win and placed percentages, profits/losses (SP and Betfair SP), A/E indices, Impact Values and the PRBs.

On geegeez.co.uk, we express PRB as a number in decimal form between 0 and 1 rather than a percentage. So 0.69 for example, the PRB for the low drawn led group (see table above), equates to 69% while the low drawn held up figure of 0.39 equates to 39%, and so on. The key thing to remember about PRB figures is that a par score is 50% of rivals beaten, or 0.50, so better than 0.55 is positive and worse than 0.45 is a fair negative.

To qualify as a ‘poor’ C&D draw/run style combination I am looking for groups of runners with draw/run style PRBs below 0.40, as this indicates these horses have really struggled. In addition, there must have been at least 40 horses within each specific C&D draw/run style combination which will give us a decent PRB sample size from which to work from.

Below are the worst 20 draw/run style C&Ds starting with those with PRBs of 0.38. The C&Ds are not strictly in order of poorness culminating with the ‘worst’, but in general the later C&Ds will show a slightly stronger negative bias.

Let's get to it!

The Worst 20 Course/Distance Draw/Run Style Combinations in UK Flat Racing

Carlisle 6f – draw third LOW; run style – HELD UP

We start with Carlisle over 6f. This C&D sees runners turn right roughly 150 yards after the start and then take a further shallow right turn just after two furlongs, with a final slight turn between the two- and three-furlong pole. Let’s look at the splits for low drawn held up runners:

The win rate was higher than both the placed% and the PRB of 0.38 suggests it should be. An extra win or two over 71 races can change the win percentage considerably. I surmise though, that over a longer period the win rate would be nearer 5 or 6% based on the PRB. All in all, low drawn held up runners over this C&D have been horses that have generally found it tough.

Chester 7f – draw third MIDDLE; run style – HELD UP

Chester is the tightest track in the country, so I had expected to see it make the list somewhere. Over 7f, horses positioned in the middle third of the draw have been at a significant disadvantage as the figures below show:

These runners lost a little over 70p in the £ over the past five years. I am guessing that some of the runners get squeezed somewhat from both lower and higher drawn runners starting more quickly and, on this tight track, being behind a wall of horses makes life very tricky. For the record low drawn hold up horses have also struggled with a PRB of 0.42.

Leicester 6f – draw third HIGH; run style – HELD UP

To the Midlands and Leicester. The 6f trip at Leicester is run over on a straight course and high drawn held up types have had a poor time of it as the stats show:

Just the three wins from 64 qualifiers, and when we look at the stall position rather than simply highest third of the draw, horses drawn 10 or higher that were held up won no races from 40 runners. Indeed, horses that raced in mid-division when drawn 10 or higher over 6f here also failed to score, this time from 34 runners. Thus, high drawn runners that raced mid div or were held up have seen 74 consecutive losers over this 6f trip at Leicester.

York 1 mile – draw third HIGH; run style – HELD UP

I have always been a fan of this C&D as low draws have enjoyed a strong edge in such races for many years. York's mile handicaps are run around a bend and the horses drawn in the top third (high), when held up, have struggled as the numbers below illustrate:

This C&D witnessed extremely low win and placed percentages for the high/held up cohort, especially considering the very decent sample size. Also, if we concentrate on handicaps with bigger fields, horses drawn 13 or higher when held up won just once from 61 (SR 1.6%) with only 3 horses placing (SR 4.9%). This is the strongest bias seen to date and clearly we should steer clear of habitual hold up horses drawn high over this C&D.

Windsor 1 mile – draw third LOW; run style – HELD UP

Windsor is a unique flat track as the racecourse is a figure of eight, although over a mile it is effectively like a round course. Horses drawn low that were held up really struggled since 2021 as these numbers indicate:

As we can see, not only has the PRB figure been very poor, but all other metrics have followed suit. Both the win and placed rates were extremely low and if backing all 115 runners we would have lost just over two-thirds of stakes. It should also be noted that horses drawn in the lowest stall (1) have performed dreadfully with 0 wins and just one placed effort from 26 runs; the PRB stands at a dismal 0.30. This backs up Matt’s findings in his Form Hacker’s Guide where he noted that slow starting horses drawn 1 tended to really struggle.

We can also see that the runners drawn in the bottom third of the draw struggled year on year when viewing the win percentages for each year. The graph below shows the splits:

In addition, the yearly PRBs correlate positively with the win percentages with four of the five years seeing PRBs of 0.39 or lower.

Musselburgh 1 mile – draw third LOW; run style – HELD UP

Musselburgh is a course I like from a punting perspective as over 7f and 1 mile there is a very strong front running bias. Hence, it comes as no surprise that we see hold up horses struggling over the mile trip when drawn low. Here are the splits:

As can be seen these low drawn runners have really found it tough going. They have the same PRB as the other C&Ds shared to date, but the lowest win rate, lowest A/E index and lowest IV value. If we had backed all 44 runners we would have lost over 85p in the £. Hold up horses drawn either 1 or 2 went 0 from 21 with just two placing in the five year review period. Low drawn hold ups are a ‘no no’ from a backing perspective.

Chepstow 7f – draw third LOW; run style – HELD UP

Chepstow’s 7f races are run on a straight track and hold up horses have struggled generally (we will see more evidence of this in a minute). Those hold up types drawn low produced the following stats:

Just a single win and, although the place% is one of the highest we have seen so far, when we compare it to the ‘LED’ place% over this C&D (all draw thirds combined) we see that this stands at 44.4%. There is quite a difference between the two percentages.

The next C&D on the list is the first where the PRB drops to 0.37 and it happens to be the same C&D as this one!

Chepstow 7f – draw third MIDDLE; run style – HELD UP

It is the middle third of the draw this time combined once again with held up runners. Here are their splits:

We see similar figures for most metrics, although the place% is lower than the high drawn figure previously shared. It should be noted that hold ups from the highest third also struggled and almost made the list as well but their PRB of 0.41 was just above the cut-off point.

It should also be noted that when we look at ALL hold up horses over this C&D (all draw thirds combined) that started in the top three of the betting, only two of 32 won for hefty losses of over 77p in the £.

Ayr 6f – draw third HIGH; run style – HELD UP

Back up to Scotland and one of the sprint trips at Ayr next. Here are the stats:

The win rate looks slightly inflated based on the PRB and Place% but, having said that, backing all runners would have still incurred losses of £74.75 (ROI -65%). The bias against high drawn held up horses seems to have been accentuated on softer ground. On going described as good to soft or softer the PRB was just 0.32 over the past five years with a win percentage of under 5%.

Nottingham 6f – draw third LOW; run style – HELD UP

Over to Nottingham now and low drawn runners when held up off the pace performed poorly between 2021 and 2025. Their stats were as follows:

Just the two wins from the 50 hold up horses and the PRB as with Ayr 6f stands at 0.37. It may be that this bias is stronger on slower ground because for the 19 qualifiers who ran on good to soft or slower their PRB was a measly 0.31. They did manage one win from those 19 runners, but no other horse managed to place. Also, when we look at the other hold up horses from middle and high draws their performance on easier ground was much worse also. Hence this gives extra confidence that slower ground here makes it even harder for hold up horses.

Lingfield AW 5f – draw third HIGH; run style – HELD UP

Lingfield's all-weather (AW) track next. The 5f trip is slightly unusual as round course 5-furlong tracks go because the stalls are placed on the outside, rather than next to the inside rail. I wonder if this is why high drawn hold up horses have struggled, especially when factoring in that the first turn at Lingfield occurs before a furlong of the race has been completed.

Hold up horses are either going to be trapped very wide having to go the longest route or, if they dive to the inside, they are likely to encounter significant traffic. We have a decent sample size supporting these assertions:

Such hold up horses over Lingfield's all-weather five incurred losses of 55p in the £ if backing all blind to £1 level stakes. Focusing on horses from the top three in the betting that were held up from one of the three highest draws, this cohort won just four of the 36 races (SR 11.1%) for a loss of £17.54 (ROI -48.7%).

Windsor 5f – draw third LOW; run style – HELD UP

5f at Windsor sees horses essentially race over a straight five though there is a slight kink at halfway, so horses on the inside (low) can get squeezed if racing off the pace and close to the rail. I am guessing this has been a contributing factor to the poor figures for this combination. The stats were as follows:

One win, and a placed rate of just one in seven. Compare this place% with that of early leaders here (any draw) which stands at 58%! Hence, front runners have been four times more likely to place than low drawn hold up horses over this 5f trip.

Backing all low drawn hold up horses over this 5-year period would have lost £50.22 (ROI -89.7%), and one additional finding is that on firmer ground (good to firm or firmer), the bias against hold ups seems to have strengthened still more. Under these conditions hold up runners were 0 from 33 with just three placed efforts; PRB 0.34.

This makes sense because, on firmer ground, the horses tend to congregate near the stands’ rail (low) meaning real traffic problems for hold up horses close to the rail. Conversely, on softer ground horses often fan out in the final two furlongs, racing middle to far side more, meaning that low drawn hold ups are not faced by a wall of horses sticking to the stands’ rail.

Wolverhampton 5f – draw third HIGH; run style – HELD UP

Our second AW C&D, again over 5f, this time at Wolverhampton. Here the stalls are positioned, as we would expect, on the inside and higher draws are at disadvantage regardless of run style. However, the disadvantage is made worse if they are held up as these stats show:

This is the biggest sample of the 20 C&Ds in this article so we can be very confident in the findings. Backing all high drawn hold up runners would generated eye-watering losses of £193.48 which equates to just under 58p in the £. Horses drawn high that raced midfield also performed poorly with a win rate of under 4% and a PRB of 0.42.

York 6f – draw third MIDDLE; run style – HELD UP

Coming from behind at York over 5f or 6f has always been difficult and middle drawn held up runners over 6f have had a particularly poor record in recent times:

The draw, as well as run style, has often been key here over the past few seasons with lower draws definitely enjoying an edge. Hence, middle and higher draws have tended to be at a disadvantage at most meetings. As well as the middle, high drawn hold up runners have also found it tough over 6f here winning just five races from 126 runners; PRB 0.41.

Catterick 7f – draw third LOW; run style – HELD UP

A look at 7f at Catterick now. This is a round course 7f where the stats have been as follows:

We see a very low win rate from a decent sample of over 100 runners. I mentioned earlier about Matt’s findings regarding horses drawn 1 struggling when running around a bend. This has definitely been the case here as hold up horses drawn 1 have won zero races from 26. It has not been any better for those drawn 2 either, that group going 0 from 21. Nine of those losers (both draws combined) started either favourite or second favourite.

Catterick 5f – draw third HIGH; run style – HELD UP

Over to the 5f trip at Catterick which is well known for favouring early speed. Hence, one would expect horses that have been held up to struggle and that has been the case. Those drawn high have produced the following stats:

Hold up horses have struggled regardless of post position here. Low drawn hold ups have a PRB of 0.41, while hold up horses drawn in the middle third of the draw appear next on this list...

Catterick 5f – draw third MIDDLE; run style – HELD UP

Horses drawn in the middle have also struggled over this C&D when being held up. As with the high drawn runners their PRB has ended up at 0.37. Here are all the relevant metrics:

We see a slightly lower win rate, coupled with a marginally higher placed rate. The A/E index though has been much lower as has the Impact Value (IV). I should also share that horses which raced mid-division from either a high or middle draw also performed poorly, winning just twice from 50 combined qualifiers (SR 4%).

It will come as no real surprise that there is a significant run style bias over this C&D as the graph below shows:

The graph combines all early leaders / front runners comparing their record to all hold up horses regardless of post position over this course and distance. This type of difference occurs at numerous courses over 5f.

Musselburgh 7f – draw third HIGH; run style – HELD UP

Back to Musselburgh over 7f this time where high drawn held up runners have produced a poor set of figures:

This is the lowest PRB so far standing at just 0.35 suggesting it has been a huge disadvantage to be held up here when drawn high. Indeed, stall 8 seems to be where the trouble has started, as horses drawn 8 or higher when held up won just one of 70 races (SR 1.43%) over the five years with a place% of just 7.1% and a PRB of 0.33.

Musselburgh 5f – draw third LOW; run style – HELD UP

Sticking with Musselburgh we now look at the stats for low drawn runners when held up over the minimum trip of 5f:

Low drawn runners are stuck out wide at Musselburgh over five furlongs and it seems if they start slowly their chances of success are very low indeed. The lowest drawn runner (drawn 1) has a quite dreadful record when being held up managing no wins and also no placed efforts from 36 runs! The PRB for this cohort has been... wait for it... just 0.20. Runners berthed in stall 2 also drew a blank from a win perspective when held up (0 from 28 with just 2 placed efforts). There is an argument to suggest that this C&D has shown the strongest bias in the list.

Leicester 1 mile – draw third HIGH; run style – HELD UP

We come to the final C&D and the one with the lowest PRB in the list, at just 0.34. Leicester’s 1 mile trip has seen the following stats for high drawn hold up horses:

15 of the 44 races over this C&D over the past five years were won by the horse taking the early lead. Higher draws were at a disadvantage so knowing these two facts helps explain the poor figures for hold up horses drawn high. Finally, horses drawn 9 or higher when held up over C&D were 0 from 28 over the period of study.

Summary

Before I finish this table shows the combined results from all 20 C&Ds including the Betfair profit and loss - well, just loss! - figures:

It makes fairly damning reading. Roughly one win in 25 and for every £100 staked a loss of £47.50. Ouch!

It is not an accident that all twenty draw/run style combinations were draw third/held up.

Horses that race at the back of the field early do not win very often in flat handicaps at a mile or shorter.

Here's a handy 'cut out and keep' guide to the 20, listed alphabetically:

How to spot a hold up horse...

The million dollar question, of course, is how do you spot a hold up horse? Well, that's not straightforward to answer, but I can tell you this: in the five year study period, across UK flat handicaps, horses that were held up in their two previous races led on their next start just 4.2% of the time... and they were held up again 56.5% of the time. 27% of this 30,000+ sample size raced in midfield, meaning that five out of every six horses that were held up in their previous two races raced in the latter part of the field on their next start.

It's not a crystal ball by any means, but it's a pretty good start. Being able to eliminate horses confidently from races we are analysing means we start to move the odds in our favour. As Matt also indicated in his ‘hacks’ there are not just negative angles which will help us but positive ones too.

Combining positive draws with positive run styles moves the odds even further in our favour. From there, it should be easier (note, easier not easy!) to find value selections which is the route to long term profit.

I guess I should plan another article in the near future looking at the C&Ds with the highest draw/run style combo PRBs. Until next time...

- DR

Run Style: When Early Leaders Don’t Have The Edge

11 July 2023/in Dave Renham/by Dave Renham

Regular readers of my Geegeez articles will know that probably my favourite area of horse racing research is connected with the run style of horses, writes Dave Renham. This is mainly due to the fact that at shorter distances early leaders/front runners tend to have an edge over horses which initially take up a prominent, mid-division, or held up position. Indeed, as I've observed before, this front running edge is extremely potent at a good number of course and distances. However, there are plenty of races where front runners do not have an edge, and hold up horses start to become much more competitive. In this article I am going to explore this area, and I will begin by digging into some general stats.

For this piece I will be looking at UK racing from 2015 to 2022 with the focus on 8+ runner handicaps.

General Hold Up Run Style Data

Let's start by looking at a graph comparing front runners with hold up horses across all the flat distances, looking firstly at win strike rate:

This graph illustrates neatly how the general advantage to front runners drops as the race distance increases. We do not really have to worry about different field size averages for different distances, because we are basically comparing the strike rates for one run style group against the other at each specific distance range. However, it should be noted that in any race there are almost always going to be more hold up horses than front runners. In a 12-runner race for example, we might expect to see one front runner, maybe two; but in terms of hold up horses we are likely to have three or perhaps four. This is something to keep in mind when comparing run style win percentages.

If we look at the A/E indices*, a measure of value, we see excellent correlation with the win SR% graph:
*You can read more about A/E here

In 8+ runner handicaps of 1m5f or more there is virtual parity in terms of betting value between front runners and hold up horses. Although just about equal, however, following either run style as a betting approach is a sure route to potlessness! Sticking with these longer races, there are some interesting findings when we break down results by going. Here are the win strike rates for front runners / hold up horses when comparing results on good or firmer ground with good to soft or softer:

As we can see the going on turf does seem to make a difference in 1m5f+ handicaps. On firmer ground there is a smaller difference between the records of both run style groups, when compared with data on softer ground. It seems harder to make up ground from the back on a softer surface.

If we look at the all-weather data for these longer races, we can see a different outcome from the turf:

Hold up horses actually have a better strike rate in longer handicap races on the synthetics with front runners struggling, winning less than 1 race in every 14. There is also a big difference between the all-weather A/E indices, with front runners standing on a lowly 0.61 figure (akin to punting suicide) and hold up horses at 0.86.

Let's now dig into some individual course data in terms of hold up horse performance. In the graph below we can see a comparison between courses that have the highest A/E indices for hold up horses versus those with the lowest. The top 10 course figures and the lowest 10 figures are shown – all distances have been combined:

There is a huge difference between the top figures and the bottom ones: Yarmouth heads the list with a highly credible A/E of 0.95 which is a world away from Ripon’s hideous 0.53 figure. The ‘returns’ for hold up horses at each of these courses mirror the A/E index chasm with Yarmouth hold up horses losing 18.7 pence in the £ at Starting Price, while Ripon hold ups lost a massive 53.7 pence in the £.

Course Specific Hold Up Run Style Data

We will look now at some specific track statistics concerning hold up horses, beginning at the Norfolk seaside.

Yarmouth 5f

Here are the win strike rates for each run style category over Yarmouth's 5f distance:

This is a highly unusual set of run style figures: the minimum trip at most flat tracks shows the highest positive edge to front-runners. Looking at the ALL courses data combined over five furlongs, front runners win 18.2% of races while hold up horses are down at 6.5%. But at Yarmouth we have the reverse with the strike rate for hold up horses being three times that of front runners.

In addition to the win stats, the A/E index for hold up horses over 5f at Yarmouth stands at an impressive 1.04. Sticking with A/E indices, at five of the eight distances run at Yarmouth hold up horses have secured a figure of above 1.00, suggesting the advantage to patiently ridden horses is underbet.

Newcastle 1m

I have always felt that the all-weather track at Newcastle is one where hold up horses are competitive due to the stamina-sapping nature of the configuration coupled with the uphill half mile finish in the straight. I am pleased to see the stats back this up. It should be noted that for Newcastle I am looking at data from 2016 onwards, when the course changed from a turf course to an all-weather one.

The distance where hold up horses do best at Newcastle is over 1 mile. This trip is the longest of the four distances on the straight course, and it clearly plays more to the strengths of hold up horses.

These strong figures for late runners are replicated when we look at the Percentage of Rivals Beaten (PRB) data:

The held up PRB figure of 0.55 is a strong one. Closers have actually made a blind profit to Industry SP despite there being nearly 1400 of them. Such runners have secured returns of just over 3p in the £. Compare this to the combined losses of the other three run style groups which stands a depressing 29p in the £.

Digging deeper into hold up horses over 1 mile at Newcastle, when they have started in the top three of the betting they have won 80 races from 360 (SR 22.2%) for an SP profit of £49.98 (ROI +13.9%). Hence, a well fancied hold up horse over this course and distance is definitely worth a second glance.

The longer distances of 1m4f and 2m at Newcastle see front runners having a really hard time of it winning under 6% of all races and backing all front runners would have yielded heavy losses of 54p in the £.

Doncaster 1m4f+

In races of 1m4f or more on Town Moor, hold up horses perform strongly as any group, while front runners have really found it hard going. Taking the data straight from the Geegeez Pace Query Tool we see the following:

There were just two wins from 92 runners for horses that took the early lead in such races between 2015 and 2022; and front runners as a group also had notably the poorest placed record. One plausible reason for these humbling figures, along with the fact that we are dealing with longer distances, is that the Doncaster straight is 4½ furlongs in length. I am a believer that longer straights as a rule tend to be harder for front runners to maintain their advantage when compared to tracks with shorter straights.

Over 5f at Doncaster front runners also had a hard time of it, winning just twice from 54 runs. Hold up horses at that trip edged it over the other three run styles winning just shy of 10% of the time (A/E 0.98).

Ascot 1m

1 mile handicaps at Ascot are often extremely competitive and, from a run style perspective, hold up horses do best. Here are the splits:

These are highly noteworthy figures for hold up horses considering the stats for ALL courses combined over 1 mile (8+ runner handicaps) sees front runners winning 12.8% of the time and hold up horses just 7.6% of the time.

The PRB figures are also very strong for hold up horses as the graph below shows:

Backing these 2015-2022 data up, both the Royal Hunt Cup (22/1 Jimi Hendrix) and the Britannia Handicap (6/1 Docklands) were won by hold up horses at the recent Royal Ascot meeting.

Earlier I looked at some data for all courses across all distances. Having looked at a few specific course and distances, I want to now share data for more courses at two different distance ranges.

Run Style Negatives: Front runners in handicaps of 1m4f+

At the beginning of the article when looking at long distance races I used 1m5f or more as my cut off point. However, in order to get better and bigger data sets when looking at individual courses (rather than ALL courses), we need to include races of 1m4f or more.

Below are the courses where front runners have the lowest win strike rates at distances of 1m4f+ – the ten lowest in fact (at least 45 races during the study period):

Doncaster and Newcastle, which we have previously discussed, top the list. It is also no surprise to see four of the six all-weather courses in this table considering what we found earlier with the overall 1m5f+ AW data.

Here now are those courses with the lowest A/E indices:

This table correlates well with the first one, eight of the ten tracks appearing on both lists – Doncaster, Goodwood, Newcastle, Brighton, Chelmsford, Ayr, Wolverhampton and Kempton.

It is clear that if we are ‘sweet’ on a front runner at any of these courses in handicaps races of 1m4f or more, we need to be really sweet! The stats are truly against us.

Run Style Negatives: Front runners in handicaps of 1m 1f to 1m3f

My final port of call in this piece is 8+ runner handicaps incorporating races from 1m1f to 1m3f. Below is table showing performance data for all courses with at least 45 qualifying races, ordered by win strike rate. As can be seen, there is quite a difference between York, with the poorest front running record, and Musselburgh (the best):

This table illustrates how important it is to appreciate that UK courses vary so much when analysing certain stats sun as run style ones. That should come as no surprise because the turf courses especially are so different: some sharp, some undulating, some stiff, and so on. That is why the pace maps on the Geegeez racecard are like gold dust. Having past run style insights for a specific course and distance (and going and field size) gives us a huge edge when gauging how important a factor run style is likely to be.

As you know, I am a huge believer that run style can be the key to unlocking the winner of many races. It is something I strongly feel that all punters should include in their form analysis. I hope that, if you're not already, the findings in this article might encourage you to start!

Good luck.