Tag Archive for: run style bias

The WORST Draw / Run Style Tracks in 2026

/in /by

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:

 

Table with three clusters: each cluster has two columns labeled 'Market rank' and 'Dec odds' and lists four entries (ranks 1–4, 5–8, and 9–12) with their December odds.

 

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:

 

Heat map of scores by level (LOW, MID, HIGH) across categories Draw, Held Up, Mid Div, Prominent, Led with color grades.

 

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:

 

Table labeled DRAW/RUN STYLE COMBINATIONS showing counts (Runs, Wins, Places) and profitability metrics (Win% and P/L) by pace and draw/run style across categories like LED, PROM, MID-DIV, HELD-UP.

 

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:

 

Performance table for a horse: 71 runs, 6 wins, 11 places; Win 8.45%, Place 15.49%, A/E 0.89, IV 0.84, PRB 0.38

 

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:

 

Performance stats: 45 runs, 2 wins, 8 places; Win% 4.44, Place% 17.78; A/E 0.44, IV 0.42, PRB 0.38.

 

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:

 

Performance data table: Runs 64, Wins 3, Places 11, Win% 4.69, Place% 17.19, A/E 0.64, IV 0.48, PRB 0.38.

 

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:

 

Performance stats: Runs 102, Wins 3, Places 9, Win% 2.94, Place% 8.82, A/E 0.48, IV 0.5, PRB 0.38.

 

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:

 

Table row of statistics: Runs 115, Wins 4, Places 13, Win% 3.48, Place% 11.3, A/E 0.34, IV 0.34, PRB 0.38.

 

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:

 

Bar chart of win% for horses drawn low and held up, 2021–2025; values: 5.6, 3.6, 4.6, 3.3, 0%.

 

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:

 

Compact table of performance stats: Runs 44, Wins 1, Places 4, Win% 2.27, Place% 9.09, A/E 0.24, IV 0.23, PRB 0.38.

 

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:

 

Row of race stats: Runs 53, Wins 1, Places 9, Win% 1.89, Place% 16.98, A/E 0.21, IV 0.2, PRB 0.38.

 

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:

 

Table of racing statistics: Runs 54, Wins 1, Places 5, Win% 1.85, Place% 9.26, A/E 0.27, IV 0.19, PRB 0.37.

 

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:

 

Table row with racing stats: Runs 115, Wins 7, Places 14, Win% 6.09, Place% 12.17, A/E 0.85, IV 0.79, PRB 0.37

 

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:

 

Stat row: 50 runs, 2 wins, 7 places, Win% 4, Place% 14, A/E 0.46, IV 0.43, PRB 0.37.

 

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:

 

Stat line for a horse: Runs 123, Wins 6, Places 26; Win 4.88%, Place 21.14%, A/E 0.42, IV 0.42, PRB 0.37

 

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:

 

Compact performance stats table: Runs 56, Wins 1, Places 8; Win% 1.79, Place% 14.29; A/E 0.17, IV 0.18, PRB 0.37

 

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:

 

Horse racing stats: Runs 336, Wins 17, Places 49, Win% 5.06, Place% 14.58, A/E 0.56, IV 0.48, PRB 0.37

 

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:

 

Table of race performance metrics: Runs 1.14, Wins 3, Places 12, Win% 2.63, Place% 10.53, A/E 0.42, IV 0.43, PRB 0.37

 

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:

 

Performance table with race stats: Runs 104, Wins 2, Places 14, Win% 1.92, Place% 13.46, A/E 0.2, IV 0.21, PRB 0.37

 

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:

 

Small data table with racing stats: Runs 72, Wins 4, Places 10, Win% 5.56, Place% 13.89, A/E 0.79, IV 0.59, PRB 0.37.

 

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:

 

Table of race statistics: Runs 73, Wins 3, Places 11, Win% 4.11, Place% 15.07, A/E 0.41, IV 0.44, PRB 0.37.

 

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:

 

Bar chart comparing PRB for front runners vs hold-up horses in 2021–2025 Catterick 5f handicaps; Led 0.62, HU 0.40.

 

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:

 

Table row of performance stats: Runs 87, Wins 3, Places 11, Win% 3.45, Place% 12.64, A/E 0.38, IV 0.35, PRB 0.35.

 

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:

 

Compact performance metrics table with headers Runs, Wins, Places, Win%, Place%, A/E, IV, PRB and values 1.10, 3, 9, 2.73, 8.18, 0.35, 0.27, 0.35.

 

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:

 

Table of race statistics: Runs 63, Wins 3, Places 10, Win% 4.76, Place% 15.87, A/E 0.5, IV 0.4, PRB 0.34

 

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:

 

Performance stats row: 1856 runs, 75 wins, 251 places, win% 4.04, place% 13.52, BSP P/L -881.67, BSP ROI -47.5, PRB 0.37

 

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

Top 10 Front Running Biases in Handicap Chases, Part 2: 5 to 1

/in /by

Top ten front running biases in handicap chases, Part 2 – 5 to 1

In this second article of two, I will be sharing what I believe to be the Top Five run style biases in handicap chases in the UK and Ireland, writes Dave Renham. In the first article, which you can read here, I revealed positions 10 down to 6; they all had very strong biases towards front runners. The five shared below I feel have been even more advantageous to early leaders.

I have used data for handicap chases only as they tend to offer more robust data; and I have gathered data from 2018 to 2024 with no minimum runner consideration. To assist with the correlation I have used two tools from this site, namely the Pace Analyser and the Query Tool. Having access to them is a huge benefit to Gold membership in my opinion.

The run style / pace data on Geegeez is split into four - Led, Prominent, Mid Division and Held Up. A quick recap of the four run styles:

Led – essentially horses that lead early, usually within the first furlong or so; or horses that dispute or fight for the early lead.

Prominent – horses that lay up close to the pace just behind the leader(s).

Mid Division – horses that race mid pack.

Held Up – horses that are held up at, or near the back of the field.

OK, let me kick on starting with number five.

 

5 Kelso 2m5½f-2m6½f

We start in the Scottish borders at Kelso, essentially over a trip of 2m6f. They sometimes race over a half furlong more or less then 2m6f. The stats for 2018 to 2024 were as follows:

 

 

Strong prominent stats make this a course where a position at or near the front early has been a huge advantage. There were slightly stronger Led stats at some other course and distance combinations that I looked at last week but, for me, the additional strength of the prominent figures cemented a very robust overall run style bias.

Horses trying to mount their challenges from off the pace have really struggled over the past few years here, as the win and placed stats clearly show. The struggles of horses racing off the pace early can be highlighted further when sharing the PRB stats. PRB stands for ‘Percentage of Rivals Beaten’.

 

 

I grouped the Mid Div and Held Up stats together; their figure of 0.40 (40% of rivals beaten) is a poor one and, to coin a phrase, ‘well off the pace’.

The bias to horses up with or close to the front was stronger on good or firmer ground, or at least the stats suggested this:

 

 

17 of the 20 races were won by either early leaders or prominent racers. The 'Led' A/E of 1.87 indicates that front runners were very good value on better ground during this timeframe.

Having started in Scotland we now travel south to Cheltenham.

 

4 Cheltenham 2m4f–2m5f

It is the middle distance range again, around the 2m4f mark, at Cheltenham (both courses, Old and New, combined). Perhaps not a track that initially would scream out front running bias, but the stats were very strong:

 

 

The comparison that caught my eye was the Led versus Held Up win ratios. Front runners won 26 races from just 96 runners, while Hold Ups won just seven from 260! If we had been able to predict the front runner(s) pre-race we would have made a fortune to SP, let alone BSP. Even backing each way would have been extremely profitable.

On good or quicker ground the bias seemed to strengthen as these stats suggest:

 

 

Of the 20 races with 15+ runners, just one win was achieved by a hold up horse from 114 qualifiers. The bias has still been strong on easier ground but not as strong.

Onto the PRBs (all going conditions):

 

 

I had expected a slightly higher Led PRB based on the placed stats but they have still been comfortably the best. A higher PRB would have probably edged this track/trip further up the list.

Finally, I felt the stats for races with bigger fields (10+ runners) were worth sharing:

 

 

Front runners have offered huge value in these races (A/E index 2.53), with potential returns to BSP of nearly 200%!

There have been 11 races so far this year, with just a single win from 16 front runners. However, they have had three further placed horses including a place BSP of 37.55!

 

3 Tramore 1m7f-2m

The Irish course of Tramore may not be that familiar to some UK punters but run style stats for handicap chases over the 1m7f/2m trip there are well worth sharing:

 

 

Yes, the sample size was relatively small but it was potent in favour of front runners with an extremely high A/E index at 1.79 and IV of 2.56. The PRBs correlate strongly and underscore the bias:

 

 

The 0.64 figure for front runners, compared with 0.42 for Mid Div/Held Up runners, over this timeframe indicated that the edge was huge. The big advantage of PRB figures is that they effectively help to make small datasets bigger. In racing we often deal with modest sample sizes, relative to what general statistics would consider so at any rate. Hence, when we then try to discern knowledge from the data by using PRBs we are examining all the runners in all the races, rather than just the winners and/or the placed horses. It's not a perfect metric - what is? - but it adds depth to shallow cohorts.

For the record, of the four qualifying races held in 2025 to date, two have been won from the front, at odds of 7/2 (BSP 4.99) and 6/1 (8.2). A third front runner in that quartet was still leading when unshipping his jockey five out.

 

2 Killarney 2m4f-2m5f

Staying in Ireland for number two, we head to Killarney over 2m4f-2m5f (use 2m4f when using the Pace Analyser / Query Tool):

 

 

The Led group of runners hit 2.14 in terms of A/E index and 2.88 in terms of IV. There was a huge 58.6% placed figure to boot. Horses that were held up managed a place percentage of just 13.3%. As with Tramore the sample size was relatively small so let me share the PRB figures:

 

 

The 0.66 figure for the Led group compared with 0.39 for Mid Div/Held Up runners helps to confirm the huge front running edge there has been over the past few seasons.

Each year we mighgt reasonably expect four or five qualifying races, which is fewer than ideal, but when they do occur they are races we need to try and take advantage of.

And now for my number 1...

 

1 Uttoxeter 2m4f-2m5f

Top spot goes to Uttoxeter and its mid-range handicap chases. The majority of races were at 2m4f, but a handful were contested over an extra furlong. These are grouped together in Geegeez (using the 2m4f distance) and stats were as follows:

 

 

There were over 100 races in the sample, making this set of data extremely robust. Front runners won better 31% from within their group, had strong metrics across the board and potential profit levels were high. Front runners and prominent racers won 73% of the 112 races from 46% of the runners; and front runners alone won 38% of the races from just 16% of the runners!

The PRBs confirmed the pattern:

 

 

The front running edge is clear to see by looking at the bars on the graph, especially noteworthy due to the large number of races at this course and distance.

Ground conditions have made little difference with the win rate for front runners on good or firmer being 32.2%, while on good to soft or softer it was 30.8%.

At the time of writing, 2025 had seen 14 such races of which seven were won from the front.

 

*

 

Incredibly, run style bias in NH racing is something that still goes under the radar for many punters. There are not many clear-cut edges we can still get as punters these days, but knowing which course and distance combinations offer the strongest biases will almost force us to improve our bottom line.

Until next time...

- DR

Run Style Bias in Handicap Chases: 2024/25 Season Update (Part 1)

/in /by

It has been three years since I looked at run style bias in National Hunt racing, so I felt now was a good time to revisit the topic, writes Dave Renham. Personally, I use run style bias for around 50% of my National Hunt bets so it is an area that I feel is extremely important. This article is the first of a two-parter.

The focus for both articles will be handicap chases with seven or more runners. Data has been taken from UK NH racing spanning from 1st January 2017 to 6th October 2024. I have split the races into four distance bands – 2m1f or less, 2m3f-2m4f; 2m5f-2m6f and 2m7f-3m2f. In this piece I will concentrate on the two shorter distances of 2m1f or less and 2m3f-2m4f. There is a relatively small number of handicap chases at 2m2f and these have a micro-section below.

As a reminder, geegeez.co.uk offers some powerful resources and the stats I am sharing with you here are based on the site’s pace / run style data, which can be found within individual racecards, a separate Pace Analyser tool, and in the highly configurable Query Tool. The run style data on Geegeez is split into four groups – Led (4), Prominent (3), Mid Division (2) and Held Up (1). The number in brackets is the run style score assigned to each group. Below is a basic breakdown of which type of horse fits which type of run style profile:

Led – horses that lead early, usually within the first furlong or so; or horses that dispute the early lead. The early leader is often referred to as the front runner.

Prominent – horses that lie up close to the pace just behind the leader(s).

Mid Division – horses that race mid pack or just behind the mid-point.

Held up – horses that are held up at, or near, the back of the field.

Race Leaders in Handicap Chases

Let me start by comparing the win percentages for the ‘L’ group (early leaders/front runners) versus the other three groups combined (Prominent, Mid Div, Held Up) across all distances by Year:

 

 

As the graph indicates front runners have a definite edge when it comes to strike rate. It is important to be aware that the number of runners in each run style group differs: prominent and hold up categories usually have more runners within their groups. 'Leaders' is the smallest group as usually you only get one early leader in this type of race, occasionally two when there is a battle for the early lead.

Hence although raw strike rates have significance, it is may be instructive to look at metrics like Impact Values (IV) and the A/E index (Actual winners/Expected winners). More information on these IV and A/E metrics can be found here.

First here are the A/E index splits by year:

 

 

These figures correlate positively with the strike rates. The ‘L’ group of race leaders have recorded consistently high A/E indices ranging from 1.09 to 1.33. The three other run style groups combined have ranged from 0.76 to 0.82. Anything above 1.00 for A/E indices suggests good value so front runners have consistently offered punters good value year in year out. Onto the Impact Value comparison now:

 

 

This is to all intents and purposes a carbon copy of the A/E graph. These initial findings already highlight why run style bias is important in handicap chases and something that needs to be factored in to your form study. It is time now to break the stats down into the distance bands as mentioned earlier. Let me start by examining the shorter distance handicap chases.

Handicap Chases of 2m1f or less

To begin with l will share the win strike rates for each group. Note that these figures are based, as before, on the wins to runs ratio within each specific group. Here are the splits:

 

Based on what we have seen already in this article in terms of the overall stats, these figures should come as no surprise. The ‘led’ group is comfortably clear of the rest in terms of win rates. Thereafter, the graph slopes from left to right implying that the nearer a runner is to the front of the race in the early part the better. We will see this pattern tend to recur across all race distances. Let me share the A/E indices for these shortest distance handicap chases next:

 

This is another demonstration of how the 'Led' group have offered punters excellent value. 1.23 is a strong A/E index figure on a significant sample size. We again see the sloping pattern from left to right, giving us the correlation statisticians are always looking for. The IV splits complete the set:

 

There is strong positive correlation once more, emphasizing the edge front runners have over 2m1f or less. Indeed, if you had sourced a crystal ball in perfect working order and been able to predict all the horses that led or contested the lead early in these races you would have secured a huge £1 level stakes profit of £330.21 (ROI +29.9%). This is just to Industry SP; to Betfair SP you could probably double that figure.

Now I want to examine the individual course run style stats over 2m1f or less. Courses that had a handful of qualifying races have not been included. Below is a table comparing the wins to runs ratio within each run style group, as well as their A/E indices. I have colour coded it to help make the biases clearer. Numbers in green are positive, numbers in orange or red are negative.

 

 

The strongest front running biases look to be at Cheltenham, Doncaster, Hereford, Hexham, Sedgefield, Southwell and Stratford. Other courses where the bias is still very significant include Cartmel, Huntingdon and Plumpton.

I did a little extra digging into the Cheltenham and Sedgefield run style stats because, as we know, it is all very well having a front running bias, but it is not easy predicting who will lead a race early. Looking at the Cheltenham numbers first, five of the 27 winners were top rated pre-race in the PACE section of the geegeez.co.uk racecards, while 12 of the 27 came from the top three in the pace ratings. If you had backed ‘blind’ the top three pace rated horses in all qualifying races at Cheltenham, you would have made a profit of £29.18 to SP (ROI +36%). Looking at Sedgefield, where there were more qualifying races (44), the top-rated pace horse won 12 times and backing them blind would have secured an SP profit of £16.55 (ROI +37.6%). The second rated pace horse won eight times for a profit of £28.04 (ROI +63.7%). So, 20 of the 44 races were won by one of the top two rated pace horses in the pre-race pace cards. That is extremely impressive going.

Clearly, I have delved more deeply into just two courses and distances as regards analysing the performance of the pre-race pace ratings, but the initial signs are promising. The problem with this type of research is that it is quite time consuming as you can only cross-check one race at a time. However, when I get some time, I will analyse some more.

In terms of courses where front runners ‘under achieve’, these include Carlisle, Ffos Las, Newbury, Sandown, Uttoxeter and Warwick. As punters, it is important to recognise the uniqueness of British horse racing in terms of how different course configurations can be. Courses can be left- or right-handed, sharp or stiff, undulating or flat, while the circumference and shape of each track differs too. Fences are placed in different positions and the length of run ins also varies. Some of these factors may help to strengthen or indeed weaken any front running bias.

Now it is time to switch to the next distance band.

Handicap Chases at 2m2f

Briefly, there were 86 races at this specific distance in the near eight year study period. The breakdown is below and, happily, the pattern is repeated: horses that lead do much the best, though those racing midfield have outperformed prominent runners. Hold up runners have found life difficult.

 

 

Of the five qualifying tracks with 7+ runner handicap chases at this specific distance, Kempton was by far the best performing for front runners.

 

 

Handicap Chases of 2m3f to 2m4f

I am going to start with this cohort by looking at the strike rates for each run style group as I did before. Keep in mind that these are wins to runs ratios calculated within each group.

 

These figures mimic closely those for the 2m1f or less distance band. Front runners would have again been a licence to print money should you have been able to predict them pre-race. Backing the front runner during this timeframe, would have made a profit of £548.82 to £1 level stakes (ROI +33.3%).

Onto the A/E indices now:

 

These numbers suggest the front running bias is stronger than over the shorter distance. Let’s see if the IV figures back up that assertion:

 

The chart does correlate with the slightly improved A/E indices. To save readers scrolling up and down to compare the two distances, the table below shows these stats in one place to make the comparison easy:

 

 

The led and prominent figures are higher for both metrics at the 2m3f-2m4f distance, while the mid div and held up figures are lower. All of this points firmly to an even stronger run style/pace bias to front runners.

Time to examine the individual course data for the 2m3f-2m4f group now, and below is another table comparing the wins to runs ratio within each run style group, as well as their A/E indices. It’s colour coded as before:

 

 

It is interesting to see that Cheltenham, Doncaster, Sedgefield and Southwell have strong front running biases again as does Plumpton. Other courses that have displayed a good edge to early leaders include Carlisle, Musselburgh, Perth and Uttoxeter. There are three courses where front runners have been at a disadvantage which were Bangor, Ffos Las and Lingfield. The Ffos Las figures for 2m1f or less were also poor for front runners.

--------------------

And that is where we will leave the first of this two-parter. It will be interesting to see how strong the front running biases are at the two longer distance groups - find out next week! Until then...

- DR

Past Run Style as a Profitable Indicator

/in /by

In this article, I continue to look into run style and its impact on the outcome of horse races, writes Dave Renham. This piece focuses on the run style profile of individual horses and initially examines data from 2021, before comparing with results from the first part of the 2022 flat season, up to June 24th.

Before divulging my findings, for new readers I will briefly discuss what is meant by run style. Essentially, run style is the position a horse takes up very early on in the race. These are split into four categories as follows:

Led (4) – front runners; horses or horses that take an early lead; Prominent (3) – horses that track the pace close behind the leader(s); Mid Division (2) – horses that race mid pack; Held Up (1) – horses that race at, or near the back of the field early.

The number in brackets is the run style score that is assigned to each section. These numbers can be a useful tool for number crunchers like myself and they will be used at certain points in this article.

If we look at any Geegeez racecard and click on the pace ‘tab’ we get some past run style data for the race in question. Here is an example from April of this year – a 5f handicap at Windsor:

 

 

As can be seen, the run style figures from each horse's previous four races are shown (LR, 2LR, 3LR, 4LR). These figures are quite tight / close and hence it is difficult to be confident about predicting the order in which the field is likely to order itself early in the race.

The most important run style prediction is always which horse is most likely to front run and that is tricky here too. La Roca Del Fuego topped the list, just, on 14 points, so was marginally the most likely front runner, and as it turned out did lead from start to finish.

 

 

However, pre-race, one could not have been confident that La Roca Del Fuego was going to lead. In an ideal world when trying to predict the front runner, we would prefer a horse to be well ahead numerically of the rest of its field. For example, Horse A has 16 points (the maximum possible for a four-race sample), and Horses B, C, D, etc all have scores in single figures. Even then we cannot guarantee Horse A will lead but all things being considered, the chances are very likely he/she will.

Some less regular readers at this point may be asking themselves why trying to predict the front runner is a useful thing to try to do. The answer is simple: front runners are the best value at most distances on the flat; and many distances over the sticks, too. For example, in 5f handicaps in the UK from 1st Jan 2018 to 31st Dec 2020, if you had predicted who would front run pre-race and place a £1 bet on every single horse you would have won nearly 20% of all your bets for an impressive profit of £619.46 (ROI +32.7%).

 

Now to the article proper as it were:

My focus today is on UK handicaps of 5 furlongs to 1 mile; I am using these races as there is a strong front running bias in general at shorter distances. The bias is strongest over 5f (see example above), but it is still potent up to a mile on most courses. My initial dataset looked at all such races in 2021.

To start with I focused on all horses that had raced at least 4 times in 5f - 1 mile handicaps in 2021. From there I wanted to check a few different things.

 

Horse run style averages (UK turf flat handicaps, 5f-1m, 2021)

First stop was producing run style averages for each horse: this was performed in exactly the same way that I have created trainer, jockey and course run style averages in the past. I simply added up the Geegeez pace / run style points for a particular horse over the 2021 season and divided it by the number of races. The higher the average the more prominent the horse tends to race. The averages ranged from 4.00 (horses that led in every race they contested in 2021) to 1.00 (horses that were held up in every race they contested in 2021). Just 12 horses had run style averages of 4.00, which will come as no surprise as I was looking at ALL their runs in these handicaps over the year.

There was a horse that raced 37 times in 2021 – yes, 37! The horse in question was Qaaraat. Qaaraat had a run style average for the year of 3.11 thanks to leading 11 times, racing prominently 21 times, mid-division three times, and being held up just twice.

Here is a selection of horses with their run style averages for 2021. I have chosen those with some of the highest run style averages, and those with some of the lowest – the number of races they contested in also shown:

 

Horse 2021 races 2021 run style average Horse 2021 races 2021 run style average
How Bizarre 5 4.00 Diffident Spirit 4 1.25
Isla Kai 4 4.00 Elmejor 4 1.25
Master Matt 4 4.00 Hope Springs 4 1.25
Pinnata 6 4.00 James Park Woods 4 1.25
Tomouh 5 4.00 London Palladium 8 1.25
Ventura Rascal 7 4.00 Maysong 8 1.25
Lethal Blast 12 3.92 Munificent 4 1.25
Motawaazy 11 3.91 Natchez Trace 4 1.25
Asad 8 3.88 Nick Vedder 12 1.25
Rains Of Castamere 7 3.86 Otto Oyl 4 1.25
Grandfather Tom 6 3.83 Pentimento 4 1.25
La Roca Del Fuego 6 3.83 Rectory Road 12 1.25
Show Yourself 6 3.83 Rooful 4 1.25
Destroyer 5 3.80 Mondammej 17 1.24
Eye Of The Water 5 3.80 Eyes 13 1.23
King Of Stars 10 3.80 Treacherous 13 1.23
Mejthaam 5 3.80 Imperium Blue 9 1.22
Siam Fox 5 3.80 Mutanaaseq 14 1.21
Toussarok 14 3.79 Second Collection 14 1.21
Araifjan 13 3.77 Aiguillette 5 1.20
Twilight Madness 4 3.75 Amazing Amaya 5 1.20
Kraka 15 3.73 Cairn Gorm 5 1.20
Gullane One 11 3.73 Celsius 5 1.20
Ornate 11 3.73 Edessann 10 1.20
Howzak 7 3.71 Engles Rock 5 1.20
Just Glamorous 7 3.71 Our Little Pony 5 1.20
Zulu Girl 7 3.71 Power On 10 1.20
Airshow 10 3.70 Snazzy Jazzy 5 1.20
Fangorn 10 3.70 Urban Highway 5 1.20
Thaayer 10 3.70 Jewel Maker 11 1.18
Harrogate 16 3.69 Lady Alavesa 11 1.18
Al Simmo 6 3.67 Air To Air 6 1.17
Alcazan 9 3.67 Billian 6 1.17
Autumn Flight 12 3.67 Fantasy Believer 6 1.17
Boogie Time 9 3.67 La Rav 6 1.17
Enduring 15 3.67 Power Player 6 1.17
Global Esteem 11 3.64 True Mason 12 1.17
Gometra Ginty 11 3.64 Duke Of Firenze 19 1.16
Antagonize 8 3.63 The Cola Kid 13 1.15
Bankawi 8 3.63 Fauvette 7 1.14
Blackcurrent 8 3.63 Magnetised 7 1.14
Charming Kid 8 3.63 Papas Girl 7 1.14
Just Frank 8 3.63 Surprise Picture 7 1.14
Air Raid 5 3.60 Alba Del Sole 8 1.13
Alba De Tormes 5 3.60 Clashaniska 8 1.13
Animal Instinct 5 3.60 Desert Land 16 1.13
Forest Falcon 5 3.60 Otago 8 1.13
Hieronymus 5 3.60 Canoodled 9 1.11
Langholm 10 3.60 Bronze River 10 1.10
Wings Of A Dove 5 3.60 Libby Ami 11 1.09
Bowman 12 3.58 Venturous 11 1.09
Thegreyvtrain 24 3.58 De Vegas Kid 12 1.08
Gobi Sunset 7 3.57 Golden Apollo 12 1.08
Healing Power 7 3.57 Van Dijk 14 1.07
Spring Bloom 7 3.57 Alicestar 6 1.00
Bezzas Lad 9 3.56 Biplane 4 1.00
Mountain Brave 9 3.56 Catch My Breath 14 1.00
Militia 11 3.55 Chocco Star 6 1.00
Goddess Of Fire 13 3.54 Divine Messenger 6 1.00
Late Arrival 15 3.53 Dundory 4 1.00
Ustath 17 3.53 Eligible 6 1.00
Bert Kibbler 6 3.50 Fastnet Crown 6 1.00
Big Bard 4 3.50 Inaam 7 1.00
Captain Corcoran 10 3.50 Marselan 7 1.00
Della Mare 4 3.50 Mayson Mount 5 1.00
Firepower 6 3.50 Nellie French 4 1.00
Louie de Palma 6 3.50 Raatea 7 1.00
Marnie James 8 3.50 Sanaadh 13 1.00
Modular Magic 6 3.50 Sin E Shekells 5 1.00
Punchbowl Flyer 8 3.50 Steelriver 5 1.00
Rhubarb Bikini 6 3.50 Stone Of Destiny 6 1.00
Secret Handsheikh 10 3.50 Sunset 5 1.00
Sir Titan 6 3.50 Tangled 9 1.00
Wrenthorpe 6 3.50 Wicklow Warrior 4 1.00

 

To be honest, I wasn’t sure how relevant looking at run style averages from a longer period of time (rather than the four most recent races) would be; but I use longer term data for trainers and jockeys so felt there was some logic to justify analysing it.

Now I had the run style averages for 2021 for each horse, I grouped them as follows:

1.49 or below
1.50 to 1.99
2.00 to 2.29
2.30 to 2.59
2.60 to 2.99
3.00 to 3.49
3.50 to 4.00

 

From there I looked at the performance of each of the groups in terms of 2021 results. Here is what I found – I looked at strike rates first:

 

 

As the graph neatly shows, horses with higher run style averages based on the 2021 season were more successful in terms of strike rate. Horses that had an average of at least 3.5 for 2021 scored nearly 20% of the time. If we now do a comparison of return on investment (ROI%) we can see a clear correlation:

 

 

I used a line graph here as it is slightly easier to see than if using a bar chart. There was a huge return on investment for horses with an average of 3.5 or more – more than 40p in the £.

 

Horse Led Percentages (UK turf flat handicaps, 5f-1m, 2021)

I did the same type of analysis but using 'led percentages' rather than run style averages. In order words, I worked out in what percentage of races each horse led early during 2021. For instance, if a horse ran ten times and it led early in four of these, its figure would be 40%. As with run style averages, I grouped the led percentages to ensure acceptably sized datasets:

 

 

The chart shows a very similar pattern to what we saw with run style averages: this time, horses that led the most in percentage terms were the most successful.

Here are the figures in terms of return on investment:

 

 

Again, there is excellent correlation with both graphs; in fact all four graphs correlate strongly. Horses that led in 50% or more of their races in 2021 were extremely profitable – a return of £1.28 for every £1 bet. It should also be noted that these returns are based on starting prices, so with early prices, BOG or Betfair SP one would expect to improve markedly on this baseline figure.

 

Let's stop using history to predict the past...

Now statisticians will tell you, quite rightly, that using past data from one particular year in this way is going to produce slightly skewed results. This is because we are looking retrospectively at horse performances; we know horses that lead early win more and so looking at horses that led the most often in 2021 should produce the kind of positive results we have seen.

However, there are two points I’d like to make. Firstly, these data prove the point once more about how important early speed is, and secondly it shows that creating horse run style averages seems to be a worthwhile project. Indeed, the run style averages actually outperformed the led percentages, at least at the business end of their respective spectrums (the highest run style averages versus the highest led %’s).

At this point in my research I decided to use the 2021 run style averages I had created and apply them to races in 2022 – up to June 24th. Of course, these run style averages are based on the previous year with no new runs in 2022 taken into account. However, I was hoping to demonstrate that the higher run style averages would still outperform the lower ones. This is what I found.

 

 

The strike rates are much more even as you might expect, but still there is a positive edge when we get to a run style average of 3 or more. Conversely, the two lowest strike rates also occur for the two lowest run style groups. The best part, naturally, is seeing the profit/loss figures – profits for those averaging 3 to 3.49 and 3.5 to 4; and the commensurate losses for horses averaging 2.59 or lower are quite steep when viewed as a group.

As we have done to this point, let us again overlay the 2021 led percentages on the 2022 results hoping for a similarly upbeat picture:

 

 

It is gratifying to see similar results here. Specifically, horses that led 20% or more in 2021 have outperformed lower 'led percentage' groups both in strike rate terms and in returns on investment. Meanwhile, a 2021 'led percentage' of 33.3% to 49% produced a small profit from 2022 runs, with considerably bigger profits generated by the 50% or more group.

 

Closing thoughts

The main takeaway from this research into 5f to 1mile handicaps is that horses which led more often (in percentage terms) over a recent period of time are more likely to be profitable to follow than horses which have led less frequently. The same can be said for horses with higher run style averages.

The million dollar question, however, is how many races should we use? The four currently published in the 'pace' tab on the Geegeez racecard is a great starting point. We know from earlier research that horses which led at least once very recently are more likely to lead early than horses that have not. Likewise a last-four-race run style average is useful too (also shown in the 'pace' tab under the column ‘Ave’). The higher the average, again, the more likely it is that a horse will lead.

In answer to the question, my best guess is that anything between four and a dozen races would be optimal. In this piece, for example, some horses had run style averages based on their last four runs, and some had an average based on a lot more than four runs. One could argue this is not perfect and I'd have some sympathy with that argument; but, for me, the time it takes for data collection is important.

Using this more flexible approach (a minimum of four runs) meant it took me less time to create all the data I needed to start writing the article. I shared nearly 150 individual horse run style averages earlier; in total I had to calculate nearly 6000. If I had tried to create ‘last eight runs averages’ for example for all horses I probably would still be trying to do that at Christmas, and probably Christmas 2025! Research is just that, research. It will never be perfect, but for me it is a fun way to learn more about racing and to help me share ideas with the wider geegeez.co.uk audience.

Thanks, as always, for reading.

- DR

Run Style Bias in Non-Handicap Chases

/in /by

In this fourth and final part of my investigations into run style bias in National Hunt racing, I'll look at the effect of pace, or run style, in non-handicap chases, writes Dave Renham.

The previous three parts can be found below:

- Run Style Bias in Handicap Hurdles
- Run Style Bias in Non-Handicap Hurdles
- Run Style Bias in Handicap Chases

Run style is all about the position a horse takes up early in a race. Here at geegeez there is a pace section which splits the early positions of horses into four groups. The groups are called Led, Prominent, Mid Division and Held Up. Each group is also assigned a numerical value starting at 4 for led, and then 3 for prominent, 2 for mid division and 1 for held up. Essentially, ‘led’ means horses that led the race early, also known as front runners; ‘prominent’ equates to horses which race close up behind the leaders; ‘mid division’ refers to those racing in the middle portion of the field; while ‘held up’ covers the cohort close to or right at the back of the pack.

For this piece I will look at races with seven or more runners – for the other articles I used eight as my cut off, but non-handicap chases too often have smaller field sizes so I wanted to increase the overall data set. Indeed, despite including seven-runner races, in recent seasons the average number of qualifying races per year has been less than 100. That's quite a difference from the 2009 season when there were 226 qualifying races. Note also that hunter chases have been included in this dataset.

Overall Run Style Bias in Non-Handicap Chases

The first set of figures I wish to share with you are the overall run style stats for all National Hunt non-handicap chases in the UK from 1/1/09 to 31/7/21. These have been sourced from the excellent Geegeez Query Tool:

 

There is a definite advantage to early leaders / front runners here, with prominent racers notably second best. Horses that race mid division or are held up have remarkably similar records, both poor in relation to those campaigned more forwardly.

The strike rates for each run style section have stayed extremely consistent over the last 12 years or so, as the following bar charts illustrate. As with previous articles I have split the non-handicap chase data into two in order to compare 2009 to 2014 run style results with those for 2015 onwards. The bar chart below compares the win strike rates (SR%) over these time frames:

 

The difference in percentages is not significant when factoring in the reduced field sizes, so we can reasonably expect these run style patterns to continue in the coming season and over the coming years.

Onto the A/E values now and their comparison over the two time frames:

 

Again, there is very good correlation within the respective run style groupings.

The general pattern is clear, so let's drill down into different areas to see what differences, if any, there might be. With the data being consistent enough across the two halves of time I will analyse these areas over the whole period (Jan 1st 2009 to July 31st 2021).

 

Run Style Bias in Non-Handicap Chases by Distance 

I have split all race distances into three groups, as I did in the previous instalments in this series: the groupings are 2m 1f or less, 2m 2f to 2m 6f, and 2m 7f or more.

2m 1f or less

 

The shorter distance races seem to accentuate the front running bias. In addition hold up horses perform more poorly than the 'all distance' group. The stronger front running bias can be appreciated more clearly perhaps by comparing SR%, A/E values and Impact Values (IV) between these 2m1f or less contests with races of 2m2f or more:

 

Let us now split the last two groupings up and you will see they are similar, still giving an edge to front runners:

2m2f to 2m 6f

 

2m 7f or more

 

One factor to keep in mind in non-handicap chases is that there can often be a significant ability bias; that is, the horses at the front are frequently a good bit better than some of those at the back.

 

Run Style Bias in Non-Handicap Chases by Course

Let's move on to specific racecourses. The problem when slicing data to the course level is that sample sizes are quite limited, especially when focusing on specific course and distance combinations.

Only twelve specific course and distances have hosted thirty or more qualifying races during the period of study. These are the strongest front running biases from that small group:

 

Chepstow 2m 7f or more

At Chepstow they tend to race over 3 miles exactly (officially, at least). Twice in the last 12 years they have raced over further. Here are the run style splits by strike rate:

 

Leaders seem to have enjoyed a huge edge at the Welsh venue. The A/E values back this up from a betting perspective:

 

Front runners enjoy an A/E value of over 2.00 (2.16) with all other run styles falling well below 1.00. 

 

Exeter 2m 7f or more

At Exeter they race over 3 miles only. Here are the front running strike rates:

 

While not as strong as the Chepstow bias, it is still far more beneficial for a horse to be ‘on the front end’. Moreover, the prominent racer stats are strong, too, suggesting that this is not an easy C&D over which to come from off the pace. A/E values for the same now:

 

Again, we see good correlation, backing up previous observations. There is a less striking disparity between front of pack racers and later runners than at Chepstow's longer distance, but it is still comfortably the difference between long-term profit and the poor house.

 

Cheltenham 2m 4f and 2m 6f

Combining these two trips across the two courses (New and Old) at Cheltenham shows that that even with the fiercely competitive racing, and the individual track nuances, front runners remain the value:

 

As you might have come to expect the A/E values mirror the above run style split:

 

These are the three strongest course and distance run style biases I could find with big enough datasets. There will doubtless be others but some 'flyers' will need taking due to the small samples.

 

Run Style Bias in Non-Handicap Chases by Race Class

With such limited useful data at the course level, I decided to explore alternative areas. Class of race is something I have analysed before in relation to run style, but never in non-handicap chases. I decided to split the class of race into three groups, namely Classes 1 and 2, Classes 3 and 4, and finally Classes 5 and 6 (including the majority of hunter chases). Here are my findings for strike rates:

 

Now this is interesting. The orange bars, showing Class 3 and 4 run style results, clearly indicate at this class level the front running bias is at its strongest. Looking at the lowest class group (5 and 6) there is a front running edge but it is somewhat diminished. The highest Classes (1 and 2) have very similar figures for front runners and prominent racers. Those forward groups still have the edge on hold up horses but the bias is less potent than with the Class 3 and 4 group.

There are many ways one could interpret these findings. I am going suggest the following.

Firstly, in Class 1 and 2 races, these are often more competitive and hence it may be harder for front runners to repel later running challengers with a touch of quality. In Class 5 and 6 races, I surmise that front runners have less ability and, as such, are unable to sustain their pace throughout the whole race, thus fewer end up winning.

Finally, then, Class 3 and 4 races may then be the sweet spot, with horses that lead early having enough ability to see a race out while being faced with slightly lesser calibre rivals compared with Class 1 and 2 contests.

The above is, of course, just one interpretation and I may be wrong. Racing, and particularly analysing and betting on racing, is as much about opinions and theories as it is cold hard data.

 

Run Style Bias in Non-Handicap Chases by Field Size

My next port of call was to look at field size to see if smaller or bigger fields had any bearing on run style stats. I have again split the results up into three groups – races with 7 or 8 runners; those with 9 to 11 runners; and those of 12 or more runners.

For field size one needs to look at A/E or IV values rather than strike rates. Strike rates give an inaccurate comparison as seven-runner races are going to produce higher strike rates across the board than, say, twelve-runner races. I've used A/E as it offers an indication of market potential, higher numbers (above 1.0) leaning towards a suggestion of future profitability.

The bar chart below compares each section.

 

The data suggest that there may be less of an edge to front-runners in mid-sized fields (9 to 11). Unlike with the class data, I cannot offer a ready explanation for why this might be the case. I had expected smaller fields to do quite well in terms of front runners due to the limited competition numbers wise, but I had not expected bigger field races of 12 or more runners to be on a par with 7- or 8-runner races, however.

 

Run Style Bias in Non-Handicap Chases by Going

I wanted to study the going to see if faster or slower ground conditions made a difference. Here, I have split the data in two – firstly good going or firmer; secondly good to soft or softer. The bar chart shows the findings. The blue bars are good or firmer; the orange good to soft or softer:

 

One could argue there is a slightly stronger front running bias in softer conditions, as well as it seeming to be harder to win from the back or near the back (held up) when the turf is wet. However, the differences are relatively small so I'm not fully confident that this is the case.

 

Trainers showing a Front Running Bias in Non-Handicap Chases

Let's finish off by looking at trainers' front-running percentages. Below is a table highlighting the percentage of runners from a given trainer that front run. This type of information can be very useful when trying to work out which horse might lead early in a race, especially when there is little evidence in the form book. Here I have included those trainers with at least 50 runners under the conditions (7+ runner non-handicap chases, 2009 to end July 2021) :

 

There are some huge variations!

Donald Mc Cain’s runners lead over 39% of the time, just about four out of every ten runners; and Rebecca Curtis also seems to favour the front running option: not only do 31% of her horses take the early lead but 30% of those which lead have gone onto win their respective races.

 

Run Style Bias in National Hunt Racing Overall Summary

Looking at the four articles in this series as a whole, I hope readers can see the unarguable edge that front runners have in National Hunt racing. It is true that some front running biases are stronger than others, but in every article, thanks to a bit of extra digging, useful angles and stats have emerged to be deployed throughout the autumn, winter, spring and beyond.

If you have never personally researched run style angles or ideas, I really recommend doing so. Geegeez gives you the tools to unearth profitable pace/run style angles that very few other punters know about. And the great thing is, gathering and crunching data on Geegeez is a quick (and, dare I say it, fun!) process. Gone are the days of scrolling through formbooks and looking at one race at a time.

When you do find something interesting, or if you have any ideas you’d like me to research, please post them in the comments below.

- DR

Run Style Bias in Handicap Hurdle Races

/in /by

This is the second instalment in my latest series on run style bias in National Hunt racing. After analysing non-handicap hurdles last time, it is time to move onto handicap hurdle races.

Pace, or the running styles of horses, has long been an area of interest as any bias can potentially give us an edge when analysing a race. It is still an area that many punters ignore, and the longer that goes on the better as far as I am concerned!

Apologies for the regular readers of these pieces, but for new readers I must give a quick explanation of pace (or run style, which for our purposes are interchangeable) and how Geegeez can help you.

The first furlong or so of any race sees the jockeys try to manoeuvre their horses into the early position they wish them to adopt. Some horses get to the front and lead (referred to as front runners); some horses track the pace just behind the leader(s); other horses take up a more middle of the pack position, while the final group are held up near to, or at the back of the field. Geegeez racecards have a pace tab which is split neatly into four sections which match the positional descriptions above. So we have: Led (4), Prominent (3), Mid Division (2) and Held Up (1). The number in brackets are the scores that are assigned to each run style, which for a mathematician like myself are really helpful as I can make easy comparisons between different runners, courses, trainers, jockeys, etc.

As with my previous research I have only looked at races with eight or more runners – this avoids many falsely run races which are more likely to occur in a small field scenario.

The first set of data I wish to share with you is the overall run style dataset for all handicap hurdles races in the UK from 1/1/09 to 31/7/21. I have used the Geegeez Query Tool for all my number crunching – the pace section on Geegeez is another area on the site where you can gather individual course run style data from:

 

These figures are far more even than we saw in the non-handicap hurdle research. In non-handicap hurdles we saw front runners (early leaders) win roughly 18% of the time, form the smallest run style group. Here, though, leaders have won only around 12% of the time. That is to be expected given the generally more competitive nature of handicaps when set next to non-handicaps. Further, before we write off a leader / front running run style bias, it should be noted that the A/E figures still give front runners a positive market edge (1.06), as does an impact value (IV) of 1.35 - meaning early leaders are winning about a third more often than the overall population of handicap hurdlers.

That said, it is clear that the front running bias is weaker in handicap hurdles compared with non-handicap hurdles.

The success for each run style section has stayed extremely consistent over the last 12 years or so, as the following bar charts illustrate. I have split the handicap hurdle data into two in order to compare 2009 to 2014 results with those for 2015 onwards. The bar chart below compares the A/E values over these time frames:

 

That's an amazingly strong positive correlation across all four categories in market influence (A/E) terms.

 

Comparing the strike rates give us a similar picture of consistency:

 

Now it is time to start narrowing down the stats into different data sets to see whether any stronger edges emerge. With the data being consistent across the years I will review the following over the full time period (Jan 1st 2009 to July 31st 2021).

Run Style Bias in Handicap Hurdles by Distance

Let us first look to see if race distance affects the strike rates or A/E values. I have split race distances into three parts as I did for the previous article: the groupings are again 2m 1f or less; 2m 2f to 2m 6f and 2m 7f or more. Here is a comparison of strike rates within each group:

 

These are a remarkably consistent set of figures for each run style group, regardless of distance.

Below are the Actual vs Expected (A/E) figures*.

* A reminder that you can read about all of the metrics we publish on geegeez.co.uk in this article

 

Once again, there is correlation across the board: perhaps slightly poorer front running stats for the longer distances, but that is probably not statistically significant. All early leader / front running A/E values are in excess of 1.00, which is noteworthy.

 

Run Style Bias in Handicap Hurdles by Course

The second area to analyse is by racecourse.

Normally I like to concentrate on positive front running courses but to give readers more useful information I feel it is also worth sharing the course records where front runners perform relatively poorly. These tracks have all seen front running win strike rates of under 10% in the past 12 seasons, which may only partly be explained by field size:

 

We need to be wary about Cheltenham’s low figure as this is skewed by the fact that the average field size there has been a huge 16.5 runners. Hence, as front running tracks go I would liken it to Wetherby – below average, but nowhere near as poor as the raw strike rate performance implies.

Moving onto to the positive courses in terms of front running (early leaders) performance, and below is a look at those tracks with a handicap hurdle race front running win strike rate% greater than 13%:

 

14 courses make the list and I want to compare this list to the course list with the highest front running A/E values, with the hope (and expectation) of seeing most of the courses in both graphs:

 

As can be seen, 13 of the 14 courses appear in both graphs / lists – Leicester and Ayr are the ones to appear just once. This is extremely positive, implying the run style advantage to those who go on from the outset is still not fully factored into the market (insofar as it is predictable before the race begins - nobody said this was an exact science!), and it makes sense to look at a couple of these courses in more detail.

Bangor on Dee

Bangor-on-Dee tops the front running list in terms of strike rate and lies second when comparing A/E values. You may recall from the first article in this series that Bangor also topped the front running charts in non-handicap hurdles over 2m 1f or less. I did not look in detail at other distances at Bangor in that piece but I can reveal that the 2m4f trip in non-handicap hurdles saw a front running win strike rate of 32.6 % with a huge A/E value of 1.79. This add further confidence to the very positive looking handicap hurdle data here.

Let me break the Bangor handicap hurdle data down. I am going to be looking at percentage of winners from each run style section. Here is how the percentage split looks for all courses. This will help us when trying to appreciate the strength of any bias:

 

Over this trip the front running bias is moderate – the percentage figure for winning front runners is 16% compared to the all courses average figure of 15%. The one group that has performed above the norm here is the mid division group – 23% of the winners at Bangor compared with 18% for all courses.

Over two and a half miles, we see a big difference with front runners winning roughly a third of all races: 33% compared with the overall course average of 15% is a very significant finding and a very strong looking front running bias.

 

Onto the longest Bangor hurdle distance now of three miles:

 

Again, a decent enough front running bias over this trip. 22% of all winners have been front runners which gives them a solid edge of around 50% on the average front running strike rate at all courses across all distances. The A/E value for front runners over this trip is an attractive 1.66.

At Bangor therefore, potential front runners over 2m4f and beyond are definitely worth noting.

 

Ascot

I was quite surprised to see Ascot as giving front runners such a clear edge in handicap hurdles. I had perceived Ascot handicaps to be very competitive and thought front runners might actually struggle. However, at all distances Ascot’s front runners perform extremely well. Below are the two mile data:

 

23% of two mile Ascot handicap hurdle races were won by front runners – remember the average all courses figure stands at 15%. The A/E value is strong at 1.68.

 

I have lumped the intermediate 2m 4f and 2m 6f data together as they are similar distances and give us a bigger collective data set:

 

There is a stronger edge here with 27% of races won by front runners and fully 60% won by front runners or prominent racers. The front running A/E value is a huge 1.83.

 

Over the longest Ascot hurdle range of three miles, the figures are thus:

 

Again, there is a really solid front running edge (A/E 1.70) and, related, it seems harder for hold up horses to prevail (22% strike rate compared with the all courses average figure of 32%).

 

I have one final stat to share regarding Ascot handicap hurdles: fancied front runners, whose price was 6/1 or shorter, won 15 of 41 races. If you had been able to predict that these 41 horses would lead early, backing all of them would have returned you an impressive 88p in every £1 bet. Oh, for a crystal ball!

 

Other strong course / distance front running biases

Below is a list of other course / distance combinations where front runners have done especially well in recent years:

Sedgefield 3m 4f

The marathon distance of 3 miles 4 furlongs at Sedgefield would not necessarily be a track and trip where you’d expect handicap hurdling front runners to thrive. However, the stats suggest otherwise – the bar chart below compares the win strike rate percentage for each of the four run style categories:

 

Front runners have enjoyed a massive edge, backed up by a huge A/E figure of 2.26. It also can be seen that hold up horses have a miserable record showing that is extremely difficult to make up ground here over this distance. Most lower class marathon handicap hurdlers lack a gear change: who knew?!

 

Haydock 3m

Not quite as strong a bias as the Sedgefield one, but a significant advantage to the front again nonetheless:

 

Front runners with this kind of strike rate coupled with an A/E of 1.92 is not to be sniffed at!

 

Cartmel 2m 1f 

The final course/distance combo to share graphically is Cartmel's 2m 1f win strike rate, which demonstrates another strong looking front running bias:

 

Front runners in this context have produced a very satisfactory A/E value of 1.63.

 

Sticking with Actual vs Expected, there are five other course and distance combinations whose A/E value for front runners is in excess of 1.50 – they are:

Catterick 2m

Ffos Las 2m

Newbury 2m and 2m 1f

Exeter 2m 1f

Musselburgh 2m 4f

 

Those are well worth noting, and may provide a starting point for your own Query Tool research should you feel so inclined.

 

Hold up horses

For fans of hold up horses, there is a handful of course and distance groupings where the late runner A/E sneaks above 1.00. The A/E values are in brackets in the table below:

 

In races at these tracks and over these distances, front runners do not enjoy the advantage, conceding that to hold up horses. For the record, the Lingfield Park data in each grouping is very small indeed so caution is advised.

 

Run Style Bias in Handicap Hurdles: Summary

To conclude, front runners enjoy far less of an edge in handicap hurdle races when compared with non-handicap hurdles, but there are still a number of courses (and/or specific course/distance combinations) where we need to be aware of a possible edge.

Elsewhere, there is a smaller number of track/trip combinations that tend to favour hold up horses.

Knowing how a race may pan out from a running style perspective is always an important factor to consider, and the knowledge of any potential biases a significant bonus. Hopefully the information above, allied to specific race pace maps found on this website, will give you a leg up with your handicap hurdle betting.

- DR