Mark, or anyone - have you any comments on horses going down in distance? Looking at today's races there were four horses that were $3.50 or under pre-post that were reducing in race distance by at least 150 metres. They were:
Geelong R6 no.2 - Highly Elated.
Echuca R6 no.2 - Prince Of Scribes
Warren R4 no.3 - Moville Eddie
Kalgoorlie R3 no.1 - Christobal.

None of them won, nor were they placed which I suppose is encouraging.

Out of interest I also looked at $3.50 pre-post that were increasing in distance by more than 200 metres. There were 5 selections for three unplaced and a second - the fifth is still to run (Kalgoorlie R6 no.2). There were three such selections yesterday including Perlin, none won.

i use a simple rule when deciding wether to back a horse down in distance - unless they have been placed at their last start & that start was within the last couple of weeks they dont get my money. i improved my strike rate considerably once i started aplying this test.

Hi, Davez.

Your posting supports not backing/laying horses going down in distance. I'll look at those that are now dropping in distance by at least 150 metres without any other rules, and will list them in two categories. The first category is placed at last start, and the second will be those unplaced. We'll see how they go...

Unplaced.
Flemington R5 no.1 - Our Smoking Joe.

Yesterday's selection won, paying $2.70 - not a good start.

No selections today.

Two selections today:

Placed last start.
Ipswich R8 no.2 - Finder Page

Unplaced
Ipswich R6 no.2 - Miss Ab Fab

There is a third selection today which I mistakenly omitted. It is:

Unplaced last start.
Sandown R8 no.9 - Mahr.

If it's a sprinter down in distance and that horse has won before at the shorter distance,it's a no brainer as it's obviously got some chance. More difficult is a 2000 type going back to 1600 or so. It's a question of price in that case (so long as the horse has had success at the shorter distance). Two examples: (1) La Bella Dama 7/10/2001 loses by 12.3 lengths Canberra Cup (2000m Quality Hcp),27/10/2001 enterred Group 3 Moonee Valley 1600 (down 400) and wins at 33-1,showing that her trainer wasn't "doing his dough" by shifting her and stumping up the extra costs.That she then won the McKinnon,up to 2000 again,(at 50-1 tote) the next week shows that moving horses around pays for astute trainers (and punters).Example (2) Jameela has been sent to Randwick 10/04/2004 by Tony McEvoy and thrashed 17.7 lengths in a 2600 Group 2, after previously winning at 1600,1700,1800 and doing O.K. at 2000. Now,8/05/2004 she is back in Adelaide in Group 2 1600 (Down 1000m!!!!). Why wasn't she spelled or something?? one might ask. Answer:because she won at$43 on the tote!!! What I'm getting at is that when they go down there has to be an EXTRA angle, something unexpected in the placement of the horse to justify a suspicion of victory ahead.Cheers

Hi, Punter57.

You're right, there should be an angle. From your examples, the horses have failed at a longer distance then the trainer reduces its next-start distance so that a good price is available. Hopefully the angle is the price. The selections I am looking at is the pre-post fave at $3.50 or shorter and not at double figures.

And concerning sprinters - I agree with you. I am not looking at any horse whose last start was at 1,200 meters and is now racing in a 1,000 metre race. It seems (I could be mistaken) that these sprint races do not provide a distinct disadvantage concerning the reduction in distance. There would have been two selections today but I have omitted them due to the above reason. Out of interest, they are
Townsville R2 no.1 - Sea Zulu
Townsville R3 no.1 - Zozulina.

There is one selection for the system today:
Placed last start.
Townsville R7 no.3 - Brunt

have to add that i find the worst offenders ARE those racing over the shorter distances, esp those dropping from around 1200 to <1100, terrible record as far as the shorter priced nags go.

Davez, you've confirmed what we suspected about the sprint races.

And from today's two "sprint" selections, the first won ($1.50 and $1.10) and the other ran second ($1.20) in their respective races. As the shorter priced nags have a terrible "lay" record I'll list any future selections ($3.50 pre-post and under) here as they might be worth backing each way? We'll see how they go.

The system selection ran third - a good result.