recently a discusion on barriers came up.
i know one swallow doesnt make a summer but yesterday at belmont ( a track that i think gives insiders a help)

i had kaprats top selection from barrier one and kentiara 2nd top from barrier 19 (top was lady go bello from 17)(different races of course ) kaprats won and kentiara ran last)
co-incidence????
i still like inside barriers regardless of the stats (unless moonee valley of course)

Anyone backing outside barriers hasn't been punting long enough to know better and I don't care if the stats. show it's almost a level playing field. The most winners still come from leaders and on pacers and the fence is always the shortest way to the winning post.

Cheers.

Lets look at the stats for Saturday meetings (all venues) for this year. You will notice:

1. Barrier 1 has produced 335 winners but barrier 14 only 83. Case closed I hear you shout! BUT inside barriers are used a lot more than outside ones. For example every race has a horse starting from 1, 2 or 3 but only about a third of races run have a starter from 14. In the sample we had 3113 starters from B1 but only 970 from B14.

2. When you adjust for the actual number of starters from each barrier there is still a bias towards the inside winning more than the outside but it is not as big as most punters believe. In this sample B1 had a strike rate of 10.7% (the highest in the sample) whilst B14 had 8%.

3. If you look at the POT then a surprising (for many people) thing shows up. Outside barriers show a much smaller loss than the inside. In this sample B1 had a loss of 20% whilst B14 actually showed a profit! If we say B1 to B10 is inner and B11 to B24 is outside (just for arguments sake) then we get:

Inner Barriers (1-10) = 22% LOSS ON TURNOVER
Outer Barriers (11-24) = 10% LOSS ON TURNOVER

In my opinion this shows that punters place way too much emphasis on the disadvantage of outside barriers. In reality the barrier makes ************ all difference (talking in general here - obviously there are some courses/distances where an outer barrier can be a much bigger disadvantage) and the smart punter can take advantage of the fact that the herd mentality is to avoid the outer barriers so those winners will be much better value.


_________________
"Computers can do that????" - Homer Simpson

[ This Message was edited by: becareful on 2003-12-08 08:23 ]

Can't argue with your stats. Becareful and I know that overall the numbers come out almost even but I only back outside barriers
[outside 9 regardless of amount of starters] if it suits the runner or it's Moonee Valley [I then ignore the inside unless it suits the runner]. For those who can't work out what suits a horse they should stick to the inside. A good Jockey is a must on the outside too.

I have a little system of mine [that I am not posting here] that has a 'barrier 9 or less' rule in it. If you give me somewhere to send it you can check out with your data base how it would have gone without that rule if you like. It would be interesting to know if the rule is helping or hindering.

Cheers.

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-12-08 08:57 ]

Becareful, I agree wholeheartedly. While it may be an advantage to start from an inside barrier, the fact is that so many punters think that way and totally ignore outside barriers. As a result, horses with outside barriers might have a lower strike rate, but they tend to produce better dividends.


[ This Message was edited by: sportznut on 2003-12-08 09:14 ]

Crash,

You can email me at:
racing AT tlcbc DOT com DOT au
(remove the spaces and replace the obvious - just trying to avoid the dreaded spam robots).

It may take me a day or two to get back to you as I have a lot of work scheduled for this week!

Heres a plane based on backing the wider barriers .

RULES
Target the TAB 1st.& 2nd. FAVS just before jump.(they tend to get up 45% of the time)
Bet the wider barrier of the 2 .

You may wont to add a couple of filters to this plan .
E.G.
Only bet Fast,Good,Dead tracks.
Only bet if the final selection is paying $3.30 or more.

You will see that the wider barrier does seem to dominate , it does pull a number of good winners ,7 days a week.

Hi guys,

Sorry but you are fair dinkum paying for the bookies yearly holidays in ahiti and hawaii.

I have done form stats for Gold coast & Sydney bookies for 30 yrs and we had statistically proved that of races with 10 runners, 70% of winners came from 1-7,
When field go 12-14, barriers 1-9 provided 75% of winners, all tracks all conditions.

You may say you are getting value with outside runners but guys you ask any trainer and they don't want to be wider then about 7 or 9 at most.

They either have to be used up early and often have no gas left or go back and come around or through whole field.

Guys have a saver on your wides but just like cricket, close to the wicket (fence ) is the way to go.

I think that a horse if good enough with a jockey also good enough to over come it will
Brew won a Melbourne Cup from 24. Not because he had luck, but because his Jockey was good enough to get him where he had to be to win the race.
Too many Jockeys think you need to go back or fight for the lead, but from the outside at most tracks you can get to where you need to be without using the horse up.
on another site they have stats for each br.
These will have you taken back, most horses will win from gates 4 to 6 at most tracks.
There's also a paid site which has each jockeys stats from everything you can think of inc. Gates.
Oliver is of cause the best.

The one thing that gets me is jockeys who think they HAVE TO GO BACK!

For all those praising outside barriers as 'value' just change 'outside barriers' to 'longshots' and you have a similar argument to the one you are collectivly using: better value and often ignored, but regularly get up. Track by track, distance by distance and horse by horse is the only way to consider o/s barriers. Failing that, ignore them [and long shots] and you will be better off in the long run.

I note that Jaffa hs been on the punt for 30yrs. Almost as long as I have. I stick with my original claim that anyone backing outside barriers havn't been backing horses long enough to know better. Ask any Jockey or trainer what they think.

Problem is Jaffa old son your stats are screaming : 70% come from barrier 1 to 7 in a 10 horse field. So that means the other 30% come from barriers 9 and 10 [ Meaning barriers on the G/C are even ]. Thought I better point that out because everyone ealse sure will !!

Cheers.


[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-12-09 05:23 ]

Sorry - couldn't resist Jaffa even though Crash has already mentioned this.

By your statistics in 10 horse races the inside 70% of barriers give 70% of winners and the outside 30% of barriers give 30% of winners. In the larger races, taking an average of 13 starters we get the inside 70% of barriers giving 75% of winners so the outside 30% of barriers gives 25% of winners. Not exactly earth-shattering bias there! Of course with the punters avoiding those outside barriers in droves I have no doubt that those 25% of winners will pay much better than the average so the POT for the outside barriers will be better.

Some more stats that some may find interesting. I checked the results for ALL races this year with a minimum of 14 actual starters. This gave just over 2000 races considered with a bit over 30700 starters.

B1 to B7 - 7.6% strike rate, $10.68 Ave Div for a LOT of 19%
B8 to B13 - 6.1% strike rate, $11.22 Ave Div for a LOT of 31%
B14 to B24 - 6.4% strike rate, $14.69 ave div for a LOT of only 5%

My point here is that inner barriers will generally have some advantage over outer barriers but the market OVERESTIMATES this advantage so runners from outside barriers are, generally speaking, better value than they should be. I am not suggesting that people should be looking to back outer barriers only, but if your selection is starting from an outside barrier I wouldn't discount it (maybe just increase your required price by a dollar or two).

As an example 2 weeks ago I had a runner rated clearly on top and was expecting a fairly short price - but it was starting from the outside barrier in a field of 16 (from memory) and it ended up starting well into double figures. It won nicely and I am sure if it had drawn barrier 1 I only would have got half the price. No doubt many others ignored it because of the barrier and put their money elsewhere.

Just another point on your comments regarding what jockey's say about barriers. One of the things that has always amazed me is how LITTLE jockeys apparantly understand about the mathematics behind racing, in particular geometry. It seems to me that for a lot of them a basic course in geometry and a few hours spent watching race replays with a good analyst would help their racecraft a huge amount.

Anyway how about a quick quiz to illustrate just one point. Lets say horse A is starting from barrier 1 and horse B is starting from a barrier 20 metres further out. The first turn is 200 metres from the starting point. Lets say horse B runs in a straight line for the turn and crosses the field to get to the rail at the start of the turn. How much further has it had to run than Horse A that was on the rail the whole time????

Back later with the answer.

Answer: just shy of 1 metre, or about a long neck.

Correct Mark (as usual!) - go to the top of the class :smile:

Now maybe someone can explain to me how a 1 metre difference in distance travelled is such a huge disadvantage? Of course the risk of getting trapped wide is there for the wide barriers but inner barriers have the risk of being "boxed in" which can be just as bad.

Nice work guys. I think you have to look at the early speed in the race. If they get an early cross in then thats fine and some horses like galloping room. If a horse is suspect at the distance then a wide barrier is a major deterant.

And there's always the risk of those drawn inside to miss the kick, and have to go wide, usually around a bend, to make up ground.
The scenario's are almost unlimited.

too true.

Like some o/s racing clubs, let's forget about drawing for barriers altogether - align the barriers with the saddle-cloth number - in theory the better the horse the better the barrier draw.

no way thats ridiculous.

why?

its not an equitable way of distributing gates.

What a cool idea MyHatMyCoat, works for me :smile:

On the subject of gates umrum:

An Englishman, a Scotsman and an Irishman were without tickets for the opening ceremonies of the summer Olympics but hoped to be able to talk their way in at the gate.

Security was very tight, however, and each of their attempts was met with a stern refusal.


While wandering around outside the stadium, the Englishman came upon construction site, which gave him an idea. Grabbing a length of scaffolding, he presented himself at the gate and said, "Johnson, the pole vault," and was admitted.


The Scotsman, overhearing this, went at once to search the site. When he came up with a sledge hammer, he presented himself at the gate and said, "McTavish, the hammer." He was also admitted.


The Irishman combed the site for an hour and was nearly ready to give up when he spotted his ticket in. Seizing a roll of barbed wire, he presented himself at the gate and announced, "O'Sullivan, fencing."

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Everyone has their own ideas on things but a professional punter I know who has won for the last 60 years completely disregards jockeys and barriers.
Bad barriers beat bad horses and ensure a better price.
If people make their pay packet betting they should be taken notice of irrespective of what we all think.

...and a bad jockey can defeat a good horse but a good jockey will never defeat a bad horse.

I can't think of too many tracks that I would confidently back an outside barrier in a 1000m sprint. Horses for courses I think.

Cheers.

I can't think of too many 1000m races with large fields that I would even want to bet on regardless of barrier! Generally the larger fields in 1000m races are made up of inexperienced horses with ************ all exposed form.

How about Flemington?
:smile:

"Horses for courses" is one of the most overrated sayings I can think of. There are horses that do well at certain tracks, but this is a miniscule number compared to the number of runners.
In fact there is better value amongst horses that have never won on the track - horses that have won a lot of races on the track are usually overbet and undervalue.

'Horses for courses' meaning one race at time, one track at a time and one bet at a time. Nothing over rated about that.

Horses that are over bet are generaly called 'favorites'. Meaning what, we should only back the 'value' long shots in outside barriers ? Phooee. You still have to spot em' and back em' and I bet we would get it wrong enough times to look financialy silly. A bit too much backfitted punting going on here [as usual].
Nothing wrong with shortish prices and comfortable barriers [ pull yourself togeather guys. Waxing lyrical a bit arn't we ? ].

Cheers.

[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-12-10 13:54 ]

A bit too much backfitted punting going on here [as usual].

Where? I don't see any (at least on this thread!).

Horses for courses means horses perform well at certain tracks and poorly at others.
This is based on retrofitted goobledegook and not as you say one race at a time.
A horse that has won four starts at Caulfield and is racing at Caulfield will always be a couple of points shorter than it's realistic chance of winning.
A horse that is racing at Caulfield for the first time but has won at Moonee Valley four times will usually be at least close to a realistic price depending on other factors.
research of prices for in excess of 14,000 races shows this.



Price and value are two different entities.

BACKFITTED RESULTS CRASH,

Strange I haven't seen you know who from THAT magazine posting on this thread.

Actually they are very kind' they just sent me an email saying I can pay a deposit on my credit card and pay the balance monthly.

My question is that I have subscribed for the last 12 months and if what they send you was any good why would I have to pay off a new subscription.

I would just be happy to pay cash.

Shows how much crap they peddle.

Chrome Prince,

A Horse that has won 4 times at Caufield from 4 starts would have strong claims to my bet [ amongst other considerations including value ] even though it might start favorite. Good form at a track usualy means more good form to be expected [ but not always naturaly ]. So what do we do , dump horses with good stats. because they will shorten the price beyond value ? Value is very subjective and the ability to disern it and measure it is owned by no single being. How many punters who visit this forum backed FOO racing in Hong Kong at what was it $3.50 somthing here when it was $30 over there ? Obviously to some it was a value bet.

'Horses for courses' has long ago become a figure of speech that can mean many things, even about things that have nothing to do with horses : 'sharp knife for a steak, not chopsticks' [ horses for courses ]. I used it to mean an orderly approach to future punting as in worry about one race at a time.

My point regarding backfitting was just a light hearted prod at the use of Stats. to bludgen a point to death. The problem of using stats to deal with selection or staking is that apart from being a great selection aid they can also lead to assumed wisdom and rightiousness, not just valid speculation amongst other valid speculation.

Cheers.


[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-12-10 23:41 ]

Crash,

See your point.

In fact on this very forum I said that FOO would run close to last in Japan based on my original argument re the time run in the Cox Plate.
I said I'd be laying FOO on Betfair for as much as I could - and I did.
:smile:

Re stats, no righteousnous, but wisdom can come from a decent sample of stats.
The problem is that some draw conclusions from even 1,000 races and this is not nearly enough.
I have recently expanded my database to over 14,000 metro class races in order to identify the trends which repeat year in year out - these trends cannot be ignored.

All the best.

Gee Chrome don't start sounding like a politician, they are all wisdom when it comes to Stats. Just listen to those little humbug sprukers from Camberra!! You are right though about the need for very large amounts of stats to identify trends and in that role they are great. Not bad for handicapping purposes either.

FOO was looking forward to a very large paddock not another race.

Cheers.

Crash,

I see a huge difference between analysing stats to see if they refute or support a particular argument and backfitting (which in my book means applying different rules and filters to data until you come up with something that shows a profit, regardless of whether it is logical or not).

Your original comment on this thread was:

Anyone backing outside barriers hasn't been punting long enough to know better and I don't care if the stats. show it's almost a level playing field.

To me this makes no sense - you are saying in the one sentence that you think outside barriers are bad but acknowledge that the statistics show there is no difference! Why are you opposed to outside barriers if you have never bothered to check what the results would have been from including them in your betting???

The statistics I quoted showed that barriers do have a small impact on the strike rate but that punters obviously over-estimate this affect as average dividend goes up by more than it should given the small disadvantage.

I guess my point is that at least I am basing my decision to generally ignore barriers on some factual evidence rather than just a perception that they are bad. The strange thing about human perception is that two people can view the same events and come to totally opposite conclusions depending on their previous assumptions or beliefs.

There have been some really interesting psychology experiments that I have read about that basically show humans will remember things that confirm their beliefs but dismiss and forget those that challenge the beliefs - therefore over time your beliefs are reinforced even when they are not necessarily true. In one experiment half the subjects were given a very convincing (but totally false) lecture on why left-handed people are worse at catching balls than right-handed people (or it might have been the other way round). They then watched a video of a baseball game with a team of "righties" playing a team of "lefties" and at the end had to estimate how many catches each team had dropped. Something like 90% of the subjects who had received the lecture over-estimated the dropped catches by the left-handers and underestimated the right-handers whilst the ones that did not receive the lecture were much better at estimating the true numbers (which were, in fact, the same for both teams).

With the barrier example each time you see a race where the favoured runner starts from a wide barrier and is beaten your brain will see this and store it away as confirmation that your previous perception of barriers is correct. When the winner starts from an outside barrier you will more than likely not remember the barrier position or dismiss it as it conflicts with your perception. It is only when you see the real figures down on paper that you can make a judgement on whether your perception is true or false!

PS. If you are going to put my home town down at least spell it right! Of course Canberra actually has the lowest number of politicians in permanent residence of any Australian state or territory - all the w**kers live out there with you guys and only visit here for a few weeks at a time (and only during the week - you should see the suits at Canberra Airport on a Friday evening)!
_________________
"Computers can do that????" - Homer Simpson

[ This Message was edited by: becareful on 2003-12-11 13:19 ]

Hi crash,

Politicians use stats to hoodwink the public.
Did you know that the reason that the unemployment rate has dropped to around 5% is purely because JH takes people on the dole off it, and sends them to study basic courses at TAFE.
They are then transferred OFF unemployment and onto study allowance.
Thus, the stats say there are less unemployed technically than in reality.

It's akin to sending all criminals to New Zealand for a day, then doing a survey of criminals in Australia and after the survey's done, shipping them back here.

headline: "Australia has the lowest criminal record."

This is exactly how it's done.

This is false and misleading.

Enough politics.

:sad:

BC, just went thru the stats in the first pages.
Are you able to filter the same using slow/heavy/wet/raining?

Let's say a heavy track, majority of winners from which barrier numbers.

So JH started the fiddling of the unemployment figures.
I thought it started 30 years ago with the increase in invalid pensions etc. and disabilities, increased school leaving ages and all those things. statistics are statistics. but having said that i dont believe government is necessarily the party of the day. government is the departments who introduce policies for their current politicians to carry out.
its a pity there isnt a department for sydney racing then it might improve also.

Puntz,

I reran the 14+ runner scenario for Slow and Heavy tracks only. To get a more reasonable number of races I extended the timeframe back to the beginning of 2001 which gave about 500 races. The results were:

B1 to B7: 7.6% strike rate, $11.30 Ave Div, 14% Loss
B8 to B13: 6.2% strike rate, $11.21 Ave Div, 30% Loss
B14 to B24: 7.5% strike rate, $12.40 Ave Div, 6% Loss

Interestingly it is quite consistant with the all tracks data.

Looking at this maybe I SHOULD be considering barriers in larger fields - but the danger area is not the outside as most people seem to think but rather the MIDDLE barriers as these show a big dip in the strike rate!

_________________
"Computers can do that????" - Homer Simpson

[ This Message was edited by: becareful on 2003-12-12 08:11 ]

Those figures are pretty much what I would have expected. Any disadvantage that might exist from a wide barrier is more than compensated by increased dividends.


[ This Message was edited by: sportznut on 2003-12-12 09:40 ]

Thanks BC.
Place bets on the outsiders I suppose on heavy tracks.
Victoria Park brings back memories one day punting.It was pouring and listening on the radio how these mud-grubbers were coming in, using the "better" section of the track *from* about race 4 and onwards. No need for rocket science to work out why.
I know it POURED with rain and outside barriers won most of the day.