Ive attached a listing of the Favourites and the S/R per venue since 2002. I've only included the venues with 200 or more races

cheers

Attached Files

Favourites per Venue.xlsx (17.9 KB, 777 views)

If you also add average field size for each track, you'll see a direct correlation.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 412,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/12/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

So should one run a test of the strike rates of favourites per field sizes.
Then run the average field sizes per track.

No I don't think that's necessary, just average field size per track and add that to the csv output. With some exceptions, mostly there's a direct correlation.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 412,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/12/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

Course details on this site.

http://www.racerate.com/Horse_Racin...es_SnapShot.htm

__________________
At the feast of ego everyone leaves hungry

Vortech, do you have favourites broken down to classes eg mdns, etc.

Wet tracks eliminate a lot of favourites as does distance beyond 1400m.

Large fields also cause concern to favourites.

We need to know under what conditions favourites win

__________________
At the feast of ego everyone leaves hungry

I can run a few tests tonight if you like.

Some of the data is slightly out as CP pointed out but over the 12 years you only really have a 0.03% variance I have found.

Do you want the tests done in isolation or with two filters combined?

I'd be surprised if distance over 1400m has too much effect, my guess/assumption would be that you generally find larger fields over that distance which would be the contributing factor to favourites winning less, not the distance itself.

Happy to stand corrected though.

What would be of interest is the following tests although it would be time consuming:

Favourite stats at 1400m based on size of field (i.e. 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 and 14+ runners)

Then do the same for 1600m and so on, I've suggested 14+ because i've found myself doing my ratings that 8-10 is the sweet spot for picking winners with ratings, 10-12 offers some value, 12-14 it gets quite difficult and 14+ poses to much potential for issues out of the jockey/trainers/horses control.

I have seen several studies which show favs have a higher hit rate on wet tracks. Probably because of smaller field sides I would guess.

SpeedyBen, Could it also possibly be that horses with proven wet track form and fitness get heavily backed into favouritsm and hence win quite a lot of races?

I guess the devil is in the detail and we'd need to see the stats. Personally I have been omitting any races classed as Heavy from my betting/laying lately as I don't believe in backing horses running on Heavy tracks in the summer season, whereas in the winter season horses are more prepped for it.

Just my personal thoughts not sure if others think the same.