An interesting mixed bag of responses. I think it means everybody is correct one way or another.

Interesting figures [as usual] there Chrome.
As an aside from my main betting efforts which are based on selection through form study, I have 2 systems running, one based on all distances and the other on middle distances. The only difference so far that I can observe is that the latter's peaks and troughs are less volatile and as they are very different systems, it isn't possible to draw conclusions regarding distance factors. The rules would have to be identical except for distance to do that.

Your right Sportz, I did mention I was talking about 'middle distance races' in my post. I am glad your winning efforts among sprint and middle distance events have been viewed separately and your efforts calmly compared.

My personal cut off point in distances to bet on is 2200m., as above that distance we run into a whole new ball game. I know winning on sprints, or any other type of race is possible, but I have yet to see a convincing argument that it is easier to do than on middle distance races, or that the odds offered are better, which brings us back to the original thrust of my thread - 'edge'.

My point about the 'blanket finish' so common to sprint races also has some legs and deserves some thought. In so many of these sprints it would be hard to pick the winner of the race if was frozen at the 50m mark, let alone before the start, which points out an obvious difficulty with the selection process involved in sprint races.

Sticking to middle distance events doesn't allow me a lot of action and certainly wouldn't suit everyone, but it has improved my personal focus, where less has become more.

At my [maturing gracefully] age, I can live without the fast and furious action demanded by the young, or those poor afflicted souls among the brethren who go into withdrawal symptoms unless they have a constant flow of races before them to throw money at [you know who you are :-) ].