Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brendon
This is just my opinion. The worst heavy tracks are those where the rain has come down a day or two before the meeting. Why? I don't know. I just remember a lot of unfancied longshots win on those days. When there hasn't been a heavy track for quite a while, it can be treacherous. Even good wet trackers don't do so well quite often on those days. But in the middle of winter when there is a lot of slosh about and a lot of slosh form too, its like any other day.
|
Gotto agree with that. In the slosh, chances of a win are similar to that on a good track. But wait, there is a good reason !!!
As far as the stats go originally put up, well there is stats and stats [decide a position and then find 'stats' to fit].
Everything seems about even going regarding % outcomes between good and heavy tracks. In reality however, they become a little tricky in what they actually show and why the win chances of a pick are about even.
Heavy tracks have as much as 30% less runners on a card than on good tracks, so of course 1st. 2nd and 3rd favorites on a heavy track have a high success score [similar to good tracks] because they have less runners. And in the scheme of things, we should also remember that smaller fields have lower SP prices [not an insignificant point].
Have a look at stats that show equal field sizes for heavy and good tracks and as far as 1st, 2nd. and 3rd fav. go, we see a totally different picture. Of course, this little bit of % significance has been left out of the heralded stats initially presented here.
Look at it this way, if a field of 12 runners has 4 scratchings because of a heavy track, naturally the % of 1st, 2nd. and 3rd favorites getting up in the heavy are going to look good. As good as 1st. 2nd and 3rd. favorites getting up in the good in a field of 12 runners! The fact the % is about even for the field of 8 compared to the field of 12 says a lot! Get what I mean?
Just my 2c worth anyway.