Important factors

[DR RON]

To my fellow forum users, out of the following two factors, which do you think has the greatest bearing on the winning chances of a horse?
1. Suitabillity at the distance
2.Suitabillity at the going

e.g A horse thats got a great record at the distance but a lousy record in the going, up against a horse with a poor record at the distance and a great record in the going?

Who would your money be on???

[osulldj]

My money would be in my pocket.

You should only bet when you feel like you have a winning advantage over the market, situations of such uncertainty aren't really key opportunities to play.

Unless the horse is a ridiculous price and it is the only factor going against it, why would you back a runner that isn't suited at the distance? or suited at the going for that matter?

I have a philosophy that says the race should tell you if there is a profitable play to make, if you have to work the race over too hard then you are most likely forcing a bet which in the long run isn't the way to play the game profitably.

Situations like those outlines Dr. Ron are a classic example of forcing a bet.

[DR RON]

The example I used was probably a poor one.
My money would stay in my pocket too.
Basically my question was which factor would you think plays a bigger role in a horses chances?

Dr Ron,IMO if you restrict your betting to good/fast/dead tracks,then suitability "in the going"does not enter the equation.Horses that only have dry track form will rarely win if it's wet,and horses with only wet track form will rarely win on good tracks.A horse with suitable form at the distance would obviously be a better proposition than a horse with no form at the distance,all things being equal,however,having said that,horses can and do make fools of all at times.As an aside,IMO a horse is more likely to win at the distance it has proven form at,or if it is moving UP in distance,not down.Maybe Ossuldj could prove my assumption right or wrong?

[osulldj]

There's no reason why anyone shouldn't bet on wet tracks....it's really just another myth....another so called gospel rule that someone theorised about, I suspect without any real practical profit making experience behind them.

To give an example, if you backed every favourite on a Saturday this year (to 31/5) where the race was held on a slow or heavy track, you would have made a profit of 1.7% on turnover. Fast and good tracks produced >10% loss.

That doesn't show that wet tracks are necessarily better or that you should start backing wet track favourites. But there is nothing that says you should stay away from a wet track. If you apply common sense form analysis there is no reason why you can't be successful betting on wet tracks.

Angel, your concepts that a horse with proven form in a given track condition will perform better than a horse that has its proven form on a different track conditions is true to some extent.

What is more true is that there is less risk in backing a horse with proven form in the going than a horse that doesn't. However, the market will generally compensate for these factores and the profit position at the end of the day would be no different if theoretically that was the only difference between the horses.

Statistically there is next to no difference between the strike rate of horse going up in distance as opposed to coming back.

As I've said in many posts though, you can ill afford to make generalising assumptions about any aspect of racing. That's where many people fall down.....the little fixed rules they have in their head that influence their form analysis and betting decisions.

Each horse and race needs to be looked at in isolation for the unique event that it is. There will be times where a horse going up in distance is a top chance and other times where that distance rise menas it has little chance.

In my view, the sooner a punter can move themselves away from thinking about racing as a group of fixed rules or assumptions and more towards having an ongoing open mind that looks at each races context as unique, the sooner they can progress towards making money. :smile:

[Bhagwan]

Here is a question
Would you think horses which have had 10 wins or more at the distance ,would generally perform better than horses with zero wins .
Answer ,the stats show that the more wins at a distance ,the worse the percentage S/R,
it can be seen on a sliding scale , amazing .

The same can be said for the Going , horses that have never run on a say , slow or heavy track actually perform better than a horse that has had say 5 starts or more at the Going.The more starts its had at the going or distance , the worse the win %.

Another myth exposed.

This stat comes from 4 years of data

[woof43]

maybe the real secret is, its not the distance of Todays race , but the avg distanced raced by all competitors in Todays race...one of the most powerful formulas in racing is Linear regression...the answer lies in the Slope..if you know the rate of deceleration of record holders over each distance carrying various weights...your at a good starting point...ever heard of a thing called a Track Constant and a Universal Constant..