I can't find much statistical info on placegetters (as opposed to winners) so I've compiled some figures from my small selection of old form guides. Sample is small but some trends are apparent and should hold good in a larger sample. Looking at 200 metro races, no 2yo, no hurdles or sprints:

AVERAGE PLACE PERCENTAGE

Average place percentage of placegetters = 48.78%

PLACEGETTERS WITHIN SIXTH LAST START

Last start winners = 32% of placegetters
Last start second = 14%
Last start third = 19%
Last start fourth = 16%
Last start fifth = 10%
Last start sixth = 9%

AVERAGE DAYS SINCE LAST RUN

31 days.

LAST START IMPROVERS

Last result was better than or equal to second last result = 69.6% of placegetters.

NINES

Best three of last four starts adds to nine or less. (eg. 3 x third = 9) A "Nines" horse has score of nine or less.

57.7% of placegetters = nines horse.

More stats as I compile them

Hope its helpful to someone

Cheers

Hermes

[quote]
On 2002-06-27 09:27, hermes wrote:

AVERAGE DAYS SINCE LAST RUN

31 days.

The problem with this is 1st up horses will distort the figure. Most will be within 7-21 days. Anyway most horses in general will fit into either 7-21 days or 1st up, so while this stat seems important it doesn't eliminate many horses.

ANYWAY KEEP DOING THE RESEARCH AND HOPEFULLY YOU'LL FIND PLENTY OF GOOD STATS TO HELP YOU.

Can you please define a sprint? It seems unusual that you would leave these races out as most of the races in Australia are less than or equal to 1600m.

Sprint is wrong terminology. I eliminated races of less than 1200m.

hermes..no placegetters finished worse than sixth last start ? Or did you only include placegetters which finished no worse than sixth last start. If so I wonder what percentage finished worse than sixth last start. As a total percentage.

You might need a bigger sample to gain a beeter indication. But this is well worth persuing. You're definately on the right track!

The other factor to consider is that there may be at least half the field that qualify as finishing no worse than say 4th. Then you got real trouble.

It's a great place to start though.

[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-06-28 00:23 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-06-28 00:25 ]

More results from the same sample + about 20 more races:

THE ZIP

The Zip ratings from the Sportsman give interesting results. In round figures:

17% of placegetters have a Zip Star* (Top zip rating)
16% of placegetters one point from top zip.
21% of placegetters two points from top zip.
11% three points from top zip.
16% four points of top zip
15% five or more points from top zip.

That is:

About two-thirds of placegetters are top zip or within three points of top zip.

About half of placegetters are within two of top zip.

About 85% of placegetters are within four of top zip.

In practical terms:

If you have within three of zip as a qualifying parameter you will net two thirds of placegetters. (Conversely, you will lose a third of your placegetters.)

If yopu have within two of zip as a qualifying parameter you will net half your placegetters (and lose half).

If you have within four of zip as a qualifying parameter you will catch 85% of the little ************s while sacrificing 15%.

Useful? I'm not sure yet...

Hermes

And here's a set of numbers:

Looking at a raw batch of 280 races (all races, any races)

In 192 cases one or more placegetter was saddlecloth 1, 2 or 3. (In only 88 races no placegetters in first three numbers.)

Of 840 placegetters (280 x 3) 284 were in top three saddlecloth numbers. 33%.

There were only 4 cases where all three placegetters were in top three, i.e. #1, #2 and #3. There were 80 cases where two placegetters were #1, #2 or #3.

Figures don't account for races with no third div. and other such factors. Just raw figures. But it seems in about 60% of races one or more placegetter is 1, 2 or 3. And a third of all placegetters carry 1, 2 or 3 - what you'd expect in a ten horse race, I suppose.

A general question about placegetters. They are a very diverse bunch with diverse characteristics. Is it the *third* placegetter that makes the stats such quicksand? Is there more terra firma looking at only first and second placegetters and chasing them?

If someone can answer that question for me it might save lots of wear and tear on the calculator.

Thanks

Hermes

You can't possibly catch all winners or placegetters, so just focus on a group which is above 50% and take the good dividends when they arrive.

Another one:

This time looking at those runners who have scored a first, a second and a third in its last six starts. A spread of places. Finished in all three places (as opposed to say all seconds and firsts).

The theory is that such a horse has proven its ability to be in the money on a consistent basis. Its a reliability factor.

Looking at a sample of 148 races, metro, 1200m or more, no hurdles, no 2yo:

1904 runners.
Of these only 156 had a 1, 2 and 3 in its last six starts.
Of these, 76 were placegetters.

Or, about 8% of all runners qualified. About 50% of those 8% placed.

In practical terms, seek out those runners with a 1, 2 and a 3. Half of 'em will be placegetters. So what? you say.

Stay tuned for more Hermes' useless placegetter stats....

Maybe seek out those which had 2 or more places in past 4 starts???