22nd June 2006, 02:59 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 4,431
|
|
For the sake of the argument, let's eliminate first starters, first uppers, hurdles and steeples.
Going Avg No. Of Starters
Fast 11.28
Good 10.73
Dead 10.90
Slow 10.61
Heavy 10.06
Sure there are less runners in Heavy than other going, but the impact is a variance of less than 1 on average, so I can't see this distorting the figures to any extent. I'm sure many thought that the average number of runners in Heavy going would be FAR less than other conditions, not a variance of less than 1 runner.
Here are the amended S/R's...
Fast 32.21%
Good 31.67%
Dead 29.34%
Slow 29.33%
Heavy 29.26%
Well is this where the myth started, I wonder?
As overall field size increases, so does the average win dividend in all going, a compensation in price for chance, so let's see how punters compensate for the going and if it's a poor bet in Heavy going....
Here are the amended Loss On Turnover figures....
Fast -11.02%
Good -11.30%
Dead -16.16%
Slow -12.73%
Heavy -11.06%
Dead and Slow are far far worse than Heavy, and Heavy is even better than Good going.
I still see absolutely no reason not to be on Heavy tracks, and to say that Heavy is the worst return and almost 17% loss on turnover is misleading to the punter.
Incidentally, the usual benchmark is "rain affected" or "not rain affected"
I tend to see it as "rain affected", "transitional", "not rain affected"
Transitional is the one to look out for, the "might see how he goes" trainer mentality. Or the "give him a run anyway".
By the time we look at Heavy, the horse is a good bet if still running, as the trainer thinks he can handle it, and so does the public.
|