Give yourself an edge, drop races less than 1400m.

[crash]

I am a firm believer in keeping my eye out for little edges that improve my bottom line wherever I can find them and then embracing them long term if they prove their worth.

As punters, beyond trying to hone our selection ability [and all that's involved there] and our money management skills, looking for an edge often stops at finding what we perceive as betting 'overlays'.

The more serious and self controlled punters without a scattergun betting approach, usually drop the maidens and 2yr. old races and leave the wet tracks alone also. Beyond that, progress toward improving our chances often stops and concentrates on selection.

For approx. the last year I have dropped any race under 1400m as well as my usual F&M, Cups, Hurdles and Stakes races as generally poor value betting propositions [though I do have interest bets in all the major group races] and have dramatically improved my punting performance since doing so.

The problem will all sprint races is that they can be won by unfit horses and they often are. An unfit horse [even you and I] can sprint over a short distance but knock up very quickly beyond that. For horses[not us] that would include a lot of races up to 1200m and often even 1300m. This adds a layer of selection hardship that just does not exist in middle distance races. The blanket finish of many of these sprint races is due to fitness not necessarily being the major winning factor, especially in 1000m. races [and look at how many of those we have at meetings now. Their numbers have spawned like the plague over the last 20yrs.].

The advantage of middle distance races is that by being able to work out fairly easily, the fit [at least 3/4 starts in] from the unfit, before applying any other selection criteria, gives us an added edge as the last thing we need is a surprise sprint from a runner ruining our winning chances.

Relying on a selection in the [often] blanket finish of a sprint, where a nose might be all that's between a cab home from the races and the pie stall and bus stop, just doesn't make rational punting sense to me.

[La Mer]

I am a firm believer in keeping my eye out for little edges that improve my bottom line wherever ... the last year I have dropped any race under 1400m as well as my usual F&M, Cups, Hurdles and Stakes races as generally poor value betting propositions [though I do have interest bets in all the major group races] and have dramatically improved my punting performance since doing so.

Good post Crash ... might not totally but some food for thought in what you've written.

[Sportz]

Yep. Recently, I have been trying to concentrate on 1400m+ and I found it worked quite well. I've found that I usually do pretty well in races of 1400-1800m. I will still occasionally bet on shorter races but only if they are really good class races (especially group races like the Lightning and the Frederick Clissold last Saturday).

I posted some Tips and Ratings today and I used races of all distances. Well, I've noticed some poor results already in the sprint races. Thanks Crash for your post and I'll use it as a reminder to in future stick to my guns and concentrate almost exclusively on 1400m+.

[Sportz]

I've looked at my results today and deleting the shorter races certainly made a HUGE difference. As I said, I had recently been trying to concentrate on the longer races but today's results have just reaffirmed it for me.

[Top Rank]

Once again proof of the crazy mixed up world of trying to find winners at the track. If someone had asked me about the basis of crash's thread I would have said stick to races up to 1600m.

Stayers in Australia on the whole are slow and lacking in class and consistency, basically because our breeeding industry caters for speed.

My comment is not whether crash is right or wrong but just how many different and varied ways people look at the same problem, where to find a winner.

Good food for thought crash, if it works for you good luck.

[Sportz]

You're thinking of those races 2100m+ where there's a different winner each week. I like to stick to 1400-2000, preferably 1400-1800. That may only leave you with 1 or 2 races on the program, but I think it's a good distance range to concentrate on.

[Shaun]

Like i have always said it is better to pick your races rather than pick your horses.....if we all worked out a basic race type that suits us this would cut down on the amount of races we would bet in....i personaly have done better in races 1600m-2400m but thats me....plus i rather stick to open class and above none of these restricted to mares or filles or 1 metro win or just 2yo and 3yo....give me the open and welters and the stakes races any day

[KennyVictor]

Just ran it through my West Aus selection system and found I do better on 1400m and over races at the major tracks but seem to do better on the shorter races at country tracks. Just to confuse me even more I get more percentage winners overall (only half a percent extra) but less money back (couple of percent ROI) on shorter races and half a percent less winners but a couple of percent more cash on longer races.
Stupid horseracing, there must be simpler hobbies.

[Chrome Prince]

Well perhaps some systems perform better over longer distances, but here are my results....

OVERALL
9.96% POT

<1200m
16.26% POT

<1400m
7.15% POT

>1200m
7.67% POT

>1400m
16.00% POT

So 1200m...1400m -2.16% LOT.

Hmmm.

I wouldn't draw too much from this as there is not a lot of data to go by when breaking it up into distance ranges, but clearly the short distances are no disadvantage to my system.

[crash]

An interesting mixed bag of responses. I think it means everybody is correct one way or another.

Interesting figures [as usual] there Chrome.
As an aside from my main betting efforts which are based on selection through form study, I have 2 systems running, one based on all distances and the other on middle distances. The only difference so far that I can observe is that the latter's peaks and troughs are less volatile and as they are very different systems, it isn't possible to draw conclusions regarding distance factors. The rules would have to be identical except for distance to do that.

Your right Sportz, I did mention I was talking about 'middle distance races' in my post. I am glad your winning efforts among sprint and middle distance events have been viewed separately and your efforts calmly compared.

My personal cut off point in distances to bet on is 2200m., as above that distance we run into a whole new ball game. I know winning on sprints, or any other type of race is possible, but I have yet to see a convincing argument that it is easier to do than on middle distance races, or that the odds offered are better, which brings us back to the original thrust of my thread - 'edge'.

My point about the 'blanket finish' so common to sprint races also has some legs and deserves some thought. In so many of these sprints it would be hard to pick the winner of the race if was frozen at the 50m mark, let alone before the start, which points out an obvious difficulty with the selection process involved in sprint races.

Sticking to middle distance events doesn't allow me a lot of action and certainly wouldn't suit everyone, but it has improved my personal focus, where less has become more.

At my [maturing gracefully] age, I can live without the fast and furious action demanded by the young, or those poor afflicted souls among the brethren who go into withdrawal symptoms unless they have a constant flow of races before them to throw money at [you know who you are :-) ].

[Duritz]

Just read all the posts with interest. I am in your camp Crash. As most of you will know by now I rate and price, basically Melbourne only because I know the horses, and knowing the horses is a big advantage, and something that only comes with watching them race time and time again. I have DEFINITELY found my best results to be 1400 - 2000. I probably have my best results 1400-1600 but I know that the 2000m at Flemington - for example - is a great 2000m to bet. I'm with you - I rarely do the sprints. The lower amount of action is more than compensated by the greater amount of profit.

I agree completely with the reasons you expounded for not doing those kinds of races, too. Those are the exact reasons I don't do them.

So, nice post. (Of course, I was always going to think it a nice post considering it agrees with everything I think...............!)

Duritz.

[Luckyboy]

Hi Folks,

Long time between posts, but I've been hanging around so to speak.

crash, your analysis is well founded and exacerbated at this time of the year when we have a lot of horses returning from spells, or second up or running in what seem to unsuitable distances in these under 1400m races.

As a rule I don't discount races below 1400m, but I will discount a race wherein more than 30% of the starters are first up or second up or there are a number of horses without historical evidence of performance at the distance.

I have found races below 1400m with clearly exposed form for all horses are reasonably easy to rate. Not that I necessarily always pick the winner (bad luck happens at times) but generally, I am there or thereabouts.

Recently, Noble Gent took me on a good ride in Brisbane until last Saturday. Encierro was another that springs to mind.

So what I would recommend is not so much canceling the race because of its distance, but because of it unpredictability brought about by too many horses with question marks against them.


Cheers,
Luckyboy

[yuckman]

Australia caters primarily for the sprinter(800-1400 metre runners).
There are easily twice as many races programmed for those distances than longer distances.
If you target certain distances at certain tracks ALONE, you'll find better success overall.
For example horses can be drawn wide over longer distances on tracks like Randwick & Flemington, yet at tighter turning tracks like Mooney Valley or Doomben, for example- it pays to jump from an inside barrier.

Agree?

[Sportz]

Well, today I decided to stick to my guns and pick out only the best races at each venue between 1400 and 1800 and it worked well.

I must admit that at Ipswich the distance was actually 1350m. I'm certainly prepared to go down to 1350m at some tracks that don't have 1400m races. I would even look at 1300m sometimes.

[Duritz]

Trust me Sportz, it's a good move and you'll win more for it.

[Chrome Prince]

Here are some stats for favourites...

ALL DISTANCES
30.44% S/R
-13.18% LOT

<1400m
31.10% S/R
-13.77% LOT

>1400m
30.05% S/R
-12.29% LOT

The strike rate is pretty much the same, but slightly better on LESS than 1400m, but the loss is slightly less on >1400m.

I can't draw any conclusions on distance based on these facts.

[KennyVictor]

Interestingly Chrome Prince's results have a similar trend to the ones I mentioned above for my West Aus handicapping system.

NSW TAB returns

<1400m (4000+ races)
27.97% S/R
3.19 % POT

>=1400m (3000+ races)
27.34% S/R
8.76 % POT

less winners on longer distances but better return

Taking place returns though on the same races the trend is reversed on these same races although the strike rate is still better on short ones.

<1400m
60.10% S/R
3.68 % POT

>=1400m
57.27% S/R
1.20 % POT

I'd be interested to know if Chrome's favorites do the same thing for a place.

Looks like I'd be better off betting for a place in short races and winners in the long ones.

[Duritz]

However those stats are on favourites. What the meaning of the post is, is that when assessing the form, th middle distance races have less question marks. From my experience this is true. Less question marks makes for a more confident set of selections. That surely makes for better punting.

[davez]

interesting thread - for what its worth i improved my overall margin some time ago by dropping races > 1600m at provincial & country tracks & have never bet < 1000m, but still have a go at city meets on distance races.

as it happens one of my favourite betting races are the 3000m jogs around mooney valley as the outcome is usually fairly obvious & at good odds.

still any sprint races with a large contingent of 1st/2nd uppers are a nightmare & rarely get my money.

[Chrome Prince]

However those stats are on favourites. What the meaning of the post is, is that when assessing the form, th middle distance races have less question marks. From my experience this is true. Less question marks makes for a more confident set of selections. That surely makes for better punting.

A valid point Duritz,

I used favourites as a guideline.

Of course the form may be harder to do, but seeing as the best guide to a horse's chances is it's market price, the public gets it right just as much over shorter distances as in long.

This is what I was trying to demonstrate. In a nutshell, my systems do not perform any better or worse over various distances. They are mechanical though.

Perhaps jump or drop in distance is the factor which makes it harder,as many fresh horse's hitout below 1400m before gaining real race fitness to perform later on.

Another furphy, is the second up from a spell hoodoo. It does not exist!
In fact, my figures reflect that third up from a spell is worse performing than second up. But that's another topic...

[Duritz]

Hey I got one for you - can you research this one?

How many second uppers, having won first up, win again, or run unplaced etc, what is the ROI.

If I were a betting man (I love saying that), I'd bet on a very bad result.

Duritz

[Sportz]

I don't have any figures, but personally I don't mind first-up winners that have won at this course and distance (c) or first-up winners that also won 1 of their last 2 starts prior to the spell (preferably their 2nd last start before the spell). Certainly wouldn't bet on all of them, but when I see those formlines, I take a closer look.

[Chrome Prince]

Hey I got one for you - can you research this one?

How many second uppers, having won first up, win again, or run unplaced etc, what is the ROI.

If I were a betting man (I love saying that), I'd bet on a very bad result.

Duritz

2ND up under your criteria
17.20% WIN S/R
-15.26% LOT

3RD UP under your criteria (I.E they won 2nd up and are having they're third run)

15.77% WIN S/R
-18.28% LOT

AND 3rd up but won first up

16.32% WIN S/R
-6.23% LOT

But this includes horses that won first up AND second up.

3RD up from a spell is clearly worse than second up.
2nd up from a spell is certanly no worse than first or third up.

Another furphy ;)

[DR RON]

At a guess i would say that 4th run from a spell would produce the best strike rate. I always feel more confident if they have had three runs in and now racing at their preferred distance.

[Chrome Prince]

While we're on the topic of furphy's (and I know this thread was about distance) so this will be my last furphy....

GOING - the old adage steer away from heavy tracks is untrue!

Favourites ALL
30.44% WIN S/R
-13.18% LOT

Fast
32.15% WIN S/R
-10.86 LOT

Good
30.68% WIN S/R
-13.02% LOT

Dead
29.50% WIN S/R
-15.34% LOT

Slow
28.49% WIN S/R
-15.15% LOT

Heavy
29.07% WIN S/R
-10.85% LOT

Very marginal, with Heavy tracks producing the least loss on turnover and just as comparable with fast tracks, the problem lies in marginal conditions where tracks are downgraded to Dead or Slow.

[foxwood]

Several years ago I thought I would make a fortune on a mechanical system which only looked at 1000m races at MV. It looked promising and then the powers that be decided the track should be closed to be relaid and I gave away that system for the duration and frankly, forgot about it until I saw this thread. The basis of the system, for anyone who might want to check it out now (and possibly at other tracks) is that the chances in 1000m races can usually be very easily identified.
Rule 1. Only for 4y.o. + 0r 3y.o. after February.
Rule 2. Initially look at horses having at least 3rd start from a spell.
Rule 3. Consider only those who have have min 50% of all their wins at 1000m.
(e.g. 5 career wins, would need => 3 wins at 1000m.) If more than one go by barrier or even skip the race.
Rule 4. If no selection from the above, best 1st up record amongst the first uppers this time in.

The point is that 1000m races are usually won by 1000m specialist horses. That's my feeling anyway. Most horses, as has already been mentioned, are using this distance as a conditioner but if they are still racing at 1000m after 2 runs in they probably are being aimed at a win at 1000m.

I'd be interested to hear if any statsman could give some data on the number of 1000m races won by horses that don't win at any other distance. Might be too hard to specify those criteria in a database search.

Cheers

[crash]

That was a bit slick there Chrome.

'Furpy' ? I don't think so.
In fact your stats. actually prove the furpy correct, which is that it is harder to WIN on heavy tracks [if all thing are equal besides track conditions] than on good tracks.

Stats can be used as 'evidence' to support almost any incorrect conclusion. Mistakenly, I think you have drawn one here.

Your figure perfectly represent 2 things about heavy tracks. One is clearly shown, but the other is the [hidden] uneven playing field in the comparison.

Slightly more favourites win races on heavy tracks, but what is hidden here, is that after scratchings the fields on heavy tracks are a lot smaller than those raced on good tracks. Naturally the smaller the field the better the favourites perform, as races over all distances have far fewer runners in heavy contd. and the smaller the field, the less the favourites pay overall.

'X' number of races with 'y' no of runners per race, raced on both good and heavy tracks would produce a very different stats. outcome if x and y were equal under both good and heavy conditions. Of course they are far from it. !!

[Chrome Prince]

That was a bit slick there Chrome.

'Furpy' ? I don't think so.
In fact your stats. actually prove the furpy correct, which is that it is harder to WIN on heavy tracks [if all thing are equal besides track conditions] than on good tracks.

Stats can be used as 'evidence' to support almost any incorrect conclusion. Mistakenly, I think you have drawn one here.

Your figure perfectly represent 2 things about heavy tracks. One is clearly shown, but the other is the [hidden] uneven playing field in the comparison.

Slightly more favourites win races on heavy tracks, but what is hidden here, is that after scratchings the fields on heavy tracks are a lot smaller than those raced on good tracks. Naturally the smaller the field the better the favourites perform, as races over all distances have far fewer runners in heavy contd. and the smaller the field, the less the favourites pay overall.

'X' number of races with 'y' no of runners per race, raced on both good and heavy tracks would produce a very different stats. outcome if x and y were equal under both good and heavy conditions. Of course they are far from it. !!

Hi crash,

Fact is that regardless of field size, the end result is not worse. It does not matter whether there are 2 horses or 100 horses in the field, it does not affect the end result which is a slighty LESS loss on turnover. So there is no reason to avoid those races. That's the point.
And no, they don't pay less as the LOT is least.
It's the reality of having $1 on each favourite on a Fast track versus Heavy track etc. It doesn't matter why to me.

It's the same as field size rules, the favourites salute less, but pay more - so why avoid them? It's because punters get it stuck in their brain out of a bad run, but should they continue, the overall loss would still be very much the same.

Punting and losing is very much like Houdini's curse, the losses stay in the subconscious and create illusions which hard facts tear to shreds.

[Duritz]

I think when we all wake up each morning we should say to ourselves, "Today is a winning day, today is a WINNING day!" into the mirror, smiling brightly, then confidently stride out the bedroom to greet the winning day.

(Remember to open the bedroom door first, or else the winning day will start very badly when you walk right into it)

Duritz

[crash]

....'Today is a DRY day. Today is a DRY day' !!

I stand corrected Chrome. I guess this time I have been the one to draw an incorrect conclusion from the stats. Problem for me though is that I don't bet on favourites very often and I usually find my selections scratched anyway when the going goes to heavy, so I just don't bother with those condt.

Just out of interest I was wondering if your stats. say the same thing about Good and Slow tracks, as I have seen other figures based on favourites saying there is a definite loss on Slow tracks [?].

Have a winning day everyone.

[Top Rank]

Duritz,

If I were able I would love to take your money on betting on horses having there second run having won first up.
Stats I keep on my own methods show that this group of horses can win close to 30+% of the time. Problem is there short price.

Some recent first up winners who have won again at there next start include:
I Believe, Cool Front, Run Rita Run

I stress this is with my method of selection, not all runners with this stat.

Good Punting.

[La Mer]

Duritz,

If I were able I would love to take your money on betting on horses having there second run having won first up.
Stats I keep on my own methods show that this group of horses can win close to 30+% of the time. Problem is there short price.

Based on the last 13 months on metro tracks, 1st up winners repeat that win only 21% of the time 2nd up, losing a little over 14%.

[Duritz]

You have me the wrong way - I don't want to BACK 2nd uppers who've won first up, I'd like to LAY them. I reckon 2nd uppers who've won first up can be a good lay because they can be flattened by the first up big run.

If you want to back them with me I'll let you, that 14% L.O.T would sit very nicely in my pocket!

[La Mer]

You have me the wrong way - I don't want to BACK 2nd uppers who've won first up, I'd like to LAY them. I reckon 2nd uppers who've won first up can be a good lay because they can be flattened by the first up big run.

If you want to back them with me I'll let you, that 14% L.O.T would sit very nicely in my pocket!

Just a little more on these type of runners. The strike-rate is based on per race, so there could be more than one runner in any given race.

When based on runners priced $5 or less, then the strike-rate per race jumps to slightly over 35% but the loss remains, but comes down to 10.6%

[Sportz]

I like to back Unitab 100 raters which won 1st-up if they're a winner at this course and distance (c) or if they won their 2nd last start before a spell (in other words, their 3rd last start). I've done okay with that in the last year or so.

[Top Rank]

I don't doubt your stats La Mer, which is why it is important to keep your own stats on your own methods.
When a horse has the formline x1 and is selected by my methods it is a regular winner.
If anyone has read books by Malcolm Knowles they would know that a horse with this formline that also has the best place strike rate has a high win percentage.
I have in some ways improved on Malcolm's good work.

Good Punting.

[crash]

It would all depend on the class, distance and weight of the next race if a last start winner's finishing position meant anything.

The fact that a runner won it's last race or it's last 3 or 4, is surely meaningless, unless it is again competing in a similar race to it's last start [and it's weight will go up and it's price down if it is]. The new price may or may not make a last start winner a good bet, regardless of it's finishing position. A win is a win is a win regardless of price, is a well travelled road to long term loss.

[Bhagwan]

RESULTS
Area Bets Win Plc WOut WRet WPrf Wsr% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country 164 21 54 1640 1301 -339 12
Metropolitan 150 17 49 1500 1160 -340 11
Provincial 226 33 74 2260 2943 +683 14
>>> Totals 540 71 177 5400 5404 4 13



Top Ran Method Modified

RACE RULES:
include if Area = Provincial only.

HORSE RULES:
include if Barrier between 7 and 24

HORSE RATING RULES:
include if Place% between 5 and 49
include if Win% Rank between 1 and 1

HORSE STATISTICS RULES:
include if Career Starts between 4 and 40

HORSE FORM RULES RUN #1:
include if Days Ago between 1 and 27
include if FinPos Last Start between 4 and 24

17% SR
Approx 45% POT