2nd up FURPHY!!!!!
 

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

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.

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 ;)

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.

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.

My 1000m twopence worth
 

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

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.

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

....'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.