Why do more favourites get up in the WET

[Lord Greystoke]

Why do more favourites get up in the wet? A casual observation yes, but it seems to ring true nevertheless. The unpredictable appears to be somewhat more predictable!

Anyone got stats on this?

Cheers LG

[Shaun]

Without knowing stats i would say because fewer horses can handle wet conditions it is easier to find those that can, in dry conditions horses have a more even chance of winning.

[michaelg]

Shaun, I've heard that theory, but I also heard that some of the top punters won't bet on rain-affected tracks because of the unpredictability.

[Mark]

I didn't know they did.

[Michal]

Not the case at all. Quite the opposite. Last 1000 days results show:

Fast - 30.9% (small sample 643 races)
Good - 32.6% (32,000 races)
Soft - 31.6% (9,000 races)
Heavy - 30.9% (3,600 races)

[Vortech]

It could be that rain affected tracks see smaller fields which would just naturally see a higher % of favourites

interesting to see the stats on fields of say 12-14 on good tracks versus 12 to 14 starters in wet tracks

[blackdog1]

Bit OT from favs.

I have a different slant on things re. wet tracks, when I still dabbled in gallops I found that my ratings worked better or more true on wet tracks that is slow to heavy.
I think it had to do with what someone alluded to, the ability of the horse to handle the conditions .
Avoided "dead" tracks if I could.
Have no idea what the new track-condition classifications mean.

[SpeedyBen]

Just returned from checking on the tenant farmers, my lord?

[demodocus]

ALL

Good* ..... 32.47% ... (146,355)
Soft* ....... 31,05% ... ( 61,354)
Heavy* .... 29.69% ... ( 17,944)

12 - 14 starters ONLY

Good* ...... 29.19% .. 45,386
Soft* ........ 27.40% .. 20,364
Heavy* ..... 24.57% .. 4,521

[Lord Greystoke]

Just returned from checking on the tenant farmers, my lord?

NAILED IT speedy

Cheers LG

[Lord Greystoke]

Thank you for the the sanity in your stats above gentlemen.

I would be interested to know if there is a tasty slice or two buried somewhere deep in these 'number mountains'. The field size angle looks interesting as per Vortec's suggestion.

Cheers LG