Just read all the posts with interest. I am in your camp Crash. As most of you will know by now I rate and price, basically Melbourne only because I know the horses, and knowing the horses is a big advantage, and something that only comes with watching them race time and time again. I have DEFINITELY found my best results to be 1400 - 2000. I probably have my best results 1400-1600 but I know that the 2000m at Flemington - for example - is a great 2000m to bet. I'm with you - I rarely do the sprints. The lower amount of action is more than compensated by the greater amount of profit.

I agree completely with the reasons you expounded for not doing those kinds of races, too. Those are the exact reasons I don't do them.

So, nice post. (Of course, I was always going to think it a nice post considering it agrees with everything I think...............!)

Duritz.

Hi Folks,

Long time between posts, but I've been hanging around so to speak.

crash, your analysis is well founded and exacerbated at this time of the year when we have a lot of horses returning from spells, or second up or running in what seem to unsuitable distances in these under 1400m races.

As a rule I don't discount races below 1400m, but I will discount a race wherein more than 30% of the starters are first up or second up or there are a number of horses without historical evidence of performance at the distance.

I have found races below 1400m with clearly exposed form for all horses are reasonably easy to rate. Not that I necessarily always pick the winner (bad luck happens at times) but generally, I am there or thereabouts.

Recently, Noble Gent took me on a good ride in Brisbane until last Saturday. Encierro was another that springs to mind.

So what I would recommend is not so much canceling the race because of its distance, but because of it unpredictability brought about by too many horses with question marks against them.


Cheers,
Luckyboy

__________________
Form is Temporary, Class is Permanent.

Australia caters primarily for the sprinter(800-1400 metre runners).
There are easily twice as many races programmed for those distances than longer distances.
If you target certain distances at certain tracks ALONE, you'll find better success overall.
For example horses can be drawn wide over longer distances on tracks like Randwick & Flemington, yet at tighter turning tracks like Mooney Valley or Doomben, for example- it pays to jump from an inside barrier.

Agree?

__________________
why gobble with the turkeys, when you may soar with the eagles!!

Well, today I decided to stick to my guns and pick out only the best races at each venue between 1400 and 1800 and it worked well.

I must admit that at Ipswich the distance was actually 1350m. I'm certainly prepared to go down to 1350m at some tracks that don't have 1400m races. I would even look at 1300m sometimes.

Trust me Sportz, it's a good move and you'll win more for it.

Here are some stats for favourites...

ALL DISTANCES
30.44% S/R
-13.18% LOT

<1400m
31.10% S/R
-13.77% LOT

>1400m
30.05% S/R
-12.29% LOT

The strike rate is pretty much the same, but slightly better on LESS than 1400m, but the loss is slightly less on >1400m.

I can't draw any conclusions on distance based on these facts.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 422,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/07/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

Interestingly Chrome Prince's results have a similar trend to the ones I mentioned above for my West Aus handicapping system.

NSW TAB returns

<1400m (4000+ races)
27.97% S/R
3.19 % POT

>=1400m (3000+ races)
27.34% S/R
8.76 % POT

less winners on longer distances but better return

Taking place returns though on the same races the trend is reversed on these same races although the strike rate is still better on short ones.

<1400m
60.10% S/R
3.68 % POT

>=1400m
57.27% S/R
1.20 % POT

I'd be interested to know if Chrome's favorites do the same thing for a place.

Looks like I'd be better off betting for a place in short races and winners in the long ones.

However those stats are on favourites. What the meaning of the post is, is that when assessing the form, th middle distance races have less question marks. From my experience this is true. Less question marks makes for a more confident set of selections. That surely makes for better punting.

interesting thread - for what its worth i improved my overall margin some time ago by dropping races > 1600m at provincial & country tracks & have never bet < 1000m, but still have a go at city meets on distance races.

as it happens one of my favourite betting races are the 3000m jogs around mooney valley as the outcome is usually fairly obvious & at good odds.

still any sprint races with a large contingent of 1st/2nd uppers are a nightmare & rarely get my money.

A valid point Duritz,

I used favourites as a guideline.

Of course the form may be harder to do, but seeing as the best guide to a horse's chances is it's market price, the public gets it right just as much over shorter distances as in long.

This is what I was trying to demonstrate. In a nutshell, my systems do not perform any better or worse over various distances. They are mechanical though.

Perhaps jump or drop in distance is the factor which makes it harder,as many fresh horse's hitout below 1400m before gaining real race fitness to perform later on.

Another furphy, is the second up from a spell hoodoo. It does not exist!
In fact, my figures reflect that third up from a spell is worse performing than second up. But that's another topic...

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 422,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/07/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg