Myth Busters

[Chrome Prince]

A recent un named publication supplied figures showing that Heavy Tracks have the worst S/R for favourites, and an amazing 17% Loss on turnover.

As this is one of my first busted myths some years ago, I couldn't help but chuckle at the perpetuation of urban myth.

The real story is this:

Fast 32.09% SR, 10.94% LOT
Good 21.41% SR, 12.79% LOT
Dead 29.36% SR, 16.81% LOT
Slow 29.18% SR, 13.59% LOT
Heavy 29.10% SR, 11.82% LOT

Heavy is second only to Fast tracks in Loss on turnover and a lot better than Good going for strike rate, and that includes winter Hurdles / Steeples.

An even bigger picture emerges when you eliminate hurdles, first uppers, first starters.

"The things that you're liable, to read in the Bible, they ain't necessarily so"

Myth Busted ;)

[crash]

Of course like all stats Chrome they will support anything you like [you don't work for the Government do you?].

The important info that has not been taken into account in your figures is that wet tracks decimate field sizes. The wetter the track the more scratchings there will be so naturally the eventual favorites for 'X' number of say 'heavy' track races, might have 50% less runners than the same number of races on a 'good' track.

Naturally under these [distorted] circumstances more favorites will win on wet tracks. Try the states again were the runner numbers are the same [all things being equal] and you will have crumbs on your chin old boy.

Myth Buster Busted :-))

[lomaca]

Of course like all stats Chrome they will support anything you like [you don't work for the Government do you?].

True but meaningless stat.
100% of the people who eat bread will eventually die !

[La Mer]

I guess this is just another case of stats, damned stats & different outcomes.

I think its correct to state that Chrome's database only records metro meetings, not sure if only the Saturday metro races are recorded or all of them.

Whatever, I've run a check of my database covering all meetings for the last six months, every meeting, every race, everywhere & the outcomes are somewhat different.

Comparing favourites on Good & Heavy track conditions only:

Heavy:
Races: 403
Winners: 120
S/Rate: 29.8%
LOT: 15.3%

Good:
Races: 6,387
Winners: 2,130
S/Rate: 33.3%
LOT: 11.7%

Observations & other tests of similar in the past indicate that what has happened in the last six months is an indicator of the long term performance of favourites on good & heavy tracks.

Chrome, I'm not sure it's the myth buster you claim it to be.

[KennyVictor]

NSW races with 8 runners about last 10 years. SP Favorites.

Fast going 1054 bets, SR 36.43%, ROI 90.83%
Good going 5231 bets, SR 36.05%, ROI 89.89%
Dead Going 1364 bets, SR 34.53%, ROI 89.48%
Slow going 736 bets, SR 31.79%, ROI 81.69%
Heavy going 563 bets, SR 33.03%, ROI 87.96%

KV

[crash]

3 lots of stats 3 different outcomes which makes them worth....?

Here is another more recent stat. that is 100% reliable:

Gosford today [heavy track]:

Fav. SR 0%

[Chrome Prince]

The database records all metro meets not just Saturdays, it also has the country past runs as well.

Crash, while I understand about field sizes, the point is that one can filter to a point where the results are actually unreliable.

Regardless of field size, first up, first starter, hurdle/steeple etc...there is no apparent reason to steer clear of favourites on heavy going. They perform better than Good going, but you never hear anyone say "I'll give up punting while the tracks are Good."

These are raw stats without any filters whatsoever, so I can't be accussed of manipulating data.

I could find any one of meeting in any one off day where a favourite didn't win.

If the stats are meaningless, then why is there this myth about wet tracks?

Because it's been drummed into punters for years and every bolter that wins in the wet becomes food for perpetuation. When it happens in firmer going, the reply is either "how did I miss that" or "setup".

The variance in the other poster's figures are because of limited data fluctuation, the picture becomes distorted or skewed with limited numbers, you can catch the ebb or flow rather than the overall outcome.

My Good data was based on over 13,500 races
My Heavy data was based on over 1062 races

Almost double the other samples.

Even KV's figure reflect that Heavy is still not the worst contender even when divided down into one State and only a small percentage of the data.

I did want to compare apples with apples with no other filters as that was what was offered in this publication.

Therefore, the myth has been busted at least in regards to what was published and in my personal opinion overall.

Surely the inclusion of hurdles and steeples compensates for field size issues, not all races are decimated by scratchings in Heavy going, by the time it's got to heavy weather, they are either running or not, it's the transitional months where it is slow where the scratchings are more prolific.

[Chrome Prince]

For the sake of the argument, let's eliminate first starters, first uppers, hurdles and steeples.


Going Avg No. Of Starters

Fast 11.28
Good 10.73
Dead 10.90
Slow 10.61
Heavy 10.06

Sure there are less runners in Heavy than other going, but the impact is a variance of less than 1 on average, so I can't see this distorting the figures to any extent. I'm sure many thought that the average number of runners in Heavy going would be FAR less than other conditions, not a variance of less than 1 runner.

Here are the amended S/R's...

Fast 32.21%
Good 31.67%
Dead 29.34%
Slow 29.33%
Heavy 29.26%

Well is this where the myth started, I wonder?

As overall field size increases, so does the average win dividend in all going, a compensation in price for chance, so let's see how punters compensate for the going and if it's a poor bet in Heavy going....

Here are the amended Loss On Turnover figures....

Fast -11.02%
Good -11.30%
Dead -16.16%
Slow -12.73%
Heavy -11.06%

Dead and Slow are far far worse than Heavy, and Heavy is even better than Good going.

I still see absolutely no reason not to be on Heavy tracks, and to say that Heavy is the worst return and almost 17% loss on turnover is misleading to the punter.

Incidentally, the usual benchmark is "rain affected" or "not rain affected"

I tend to see it as "rain affected", "transitional", "not rain affected"

Transitional is the one to look out for, the "might see how he goes" trainer mentality. Or the "give him a run anyway".

By the time we look at Heavy, the horse is a good bet if still running, as the trainer thinks he can handle it, and so does the public.

[Chrome Prince]

True but meaningless stat.
100% of the people who eat bread will eventually die !

Bread has nothing to do with it because 100% of people will die.

100% of bread eaters will die
100% of non bread eaters will die

The stats tell you this as well.

Oh...and no crumbs on my chin :D

[breadman]

Does this mean im going to die too :O

[Chrome Prince]

LMAO ...poor Breadman :(

[KennyVictor]

Does this mean im going to die too :ONo sir it means you are a purveyor of death. Shame on you.

[breadman]

Thanx kv. LOL

[crash]

OK Chrome. lets eliminate everything except experience.

My 35 [odd] years of experience as a punter says 'leave wet tracks alone' [and I never back favorites anyway except by mistake as they are always 'unders'].

Faced with any field, horses that have not run on a wet track are 'wet track maidens' and they exist in most races on wet tracks. You have no form to work with. The very reason that handicappers don't back maiden races. They may or may not perform well and the punter has no way of knowing except perhaps 'prediction' from sires wet track ability which is not reliable, but superstition [Tarzan's brother drowned in a bath].

Unknown form is the first reason to bypass a race and there is plenty of it in any race on a wet track.
.

[Chrome Prince]

It's a matter of each to their own Crash, we all have preferences and dislikes, but statistically there is no reason to avoid these track conditions.

It was not meant to turn anyone around, just the myth of not believing what is written as gospel.

I wouldn't back wet track maidens either, but I would have no hesitation in backing a proven mudder in wet conditions and would not be put off by the mere fact that it's wet.

I didn't post the figures for proven runners on purpose ;)

[breadman]

Well with all these differing opinions, im left with only one thing to do. Who am i gonna call??? Myth Busters!!!

[monkeyinjapan]

OK Chrome. lets eliminate everything except experience.

My 35 [odd] years of experience as a punter says 'leave wet tracks alone' [and I never back favorites anyway except by mistake as they are always 'unders'].



I know it's a little off-topic, but Crash are you serious in your belief that favourites are ALWAYS unders?

Monkeyinjapan

.

[crash]

Monkeyinjapan,

'Unders' is a subjective thing.

I look for races where I think the likely favorite can be beaten and in most races favorites are beaten, so why look for and back favorites you think can win and accept their inferior prices when there are plenty of races where the actual winner is more than likely going to be 2nd, 3rd, or 4th. SP fav. That's the easiest way to find good prices .......for this punter anyway.


Chrome,

If a punter backs a good wet tracker on a 'heavy' track and there are say 4 runners in the race who have never run on heavy before [wet track maidens], the punter is betting blind and guessing [and bad luck also if your runner cops a big lump of turf in it's face at speed].
One [or more] of those 4 runners just might be a brilliant wet tracker and even better than the one that has been backed. There is no way the punter can know this until after the race.

If any horse[s] in a race does not have exposed form for the track conditions, the race is a guessing game. Guessing and punting are a good recipe for losing money. There will always be another race, so why bother with slow or heavy tracks where horses are having mud and turf kicked up in their faces at 60ks? Some punting tragics justify it because they just HAVE to have a bet, regardless of conditions.

[Chrome Prince]

In my opinion you aren't betting blind if you know the horse can handle the going and is what you think is a fair price. Upsets happen in any going, interference, jockey error etc etc.

The statistics reflect that it is no worse backing Heavy runners than any other track regardless of the other horses.

I'd rather back a plodding Heavy tracker with good class and form than a reefing and tearing fast tracker any day, but as I said we have different methods and different views which is all good.

The point is what was published was misleading and, in fact, wrong.

[crash]

[QUOTE=Chrome Prince]In my opinion you aren't betting blind if you know the horse can handle the going and is what you think is a fair price.
QUOTE]

Yep, that will work in a 1 horse race or where unknown form of the other runners is unimportant. You'll get rich quick with that handicapping method:-))

[Chrome Prince]

Crash, how can I stress to you that I don't handicap, but win?

We have diversely opposing methods and sometimes views, but for me the bottom line is not what other horses are in a race, the bottom line is - do my selections (bets) strike rate multiplied by the average dividend give me a positive outcome.

My bets on Heavy tracks do ;)