22nd June 2006, 02:09 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 4,431
|
|
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.
|