This topic comes up so frequently and the 30% average for winning favourites is so embedded in my mind that I seldom question the validity of it.

I came across these track by track figures and some of the statistics surprised me.The percentages are based on an average of the past thirteen meetings at each track.

Eagle Farm.....Winning favourites 29%..Right on cue..But...in five out of the last thirteen meetings (or 38.5%)the average number of winning favourites was a mere 7%..Naturally it follows that the other eight meetings had a very high strike rate of winning favourites.

Doomben.....Winning favourites 30%..Right on cue again..But,,similar to Eagle Farm seven out of thirteen meetings (54%) the average number of winning favourites was a very modest 10.8%.

Rosehill had an incredibly high percentage over thirteen meetings..,.41%

Randwick/Ken was also high at 45%

Sandown/Hill 34%

Caulfield 31%

Belmont (for KV) was 38%

So whilst the average may well be steady at around 30% the wild fluctuations used to finally arrive at that figure make it less than reliable.Also I must acknowledge that thirteen meetings is not a very good population for statistics,but these were the only figures available.

Belmont over the last 2700 races gives 33% favorites and Ascot over about the same amount gives 32%.

The size of the fields no doubt determines the percentage of winners to a large degree.
Now Kojonup, where we're all headed tomorrow has a return of 47.61% favorites over the last 42 races in 7 years or so.

KV

P.S. But then if you'd bet the first horse in alphabetical order at kojonup you'd have scored 35% winners and made a 6% profit. Last horse in alpha order only 21% winners and a loss of 40%.

I think some people on this forum could base a system around that :-)

Mate,,,,There's no pub....

Accommodation in Kojanup

No accommodation listed for Kojanup

Though I did find this,,so i might come too.

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Perth, Austraya
Posts: 36



well on saturday just gone i had a rockin 21st in a shearing shed on a farm 15km north of a town called Kojanup, in West Aust. (about 250k's from Perth)

130ppl, enough ******** to drown all of the farm animals and still get drunk when your finished, people who you don't know talking to ya as if you've known them your whole life, decent tunes (here and there, thecountry folk get a little odd with the country music), sleeping on the rocks in a swag next to the car, waking up at 6am buy guys doin 'nuts in the paddock next to ya, then havin a bbq for breaky...does it get much better?

Well i couldnt do it every weekend, cause i'd turn into a total country hick, but every now and then its all good dirty fun
__________________
We'll ride the spiral to the end, and may just go where no-one's been.
Spiral Out.
Keep Going

You must remember that it is an average over a long period of time....

While your stats over 13 meetings might suggest strange happenings to you, you must consider other factors. The biggest of these would be the price of these favourites. Some meetings run with small fields all day, where you would expect shorter priced favourites and obviously a higher strike rate....

I think the most important thing to remember is this: The chance of a horse winning is generally represented by its market share. A horse showing $2 will win about 42-45% of the time returning about 90% of your investment. This is the same for all horses in a race ( although once you get down passed $15-$20, the winning chance becomes alot more volatile.... )

Please note : These are average figures. Alot of people in here will argue that there are $2 favourites that should be almost certainties whereas other $2 favourites are questionable favs....
My opinions here are based on passed stats, and only looking at dividends as opposed to form/class etc....

BJ, you have touched on something that has worried me for a long time!! i.e. no matter how the selections are arrived at, they all seem to adhere to the ultimate law. i.e. all 1/1 money chances will win I dunno , about 45% of the time, all 4/1 shots will win about 20% of the time etc etc. Unfortunately it's quite sobering!!
What I'm saying is that whichever the system, whatever the S/R whatever the ave. SP, when its annalysed over a long period of time, it always seems to follow this unwritten law!!
So it's my belief (even though I bet to the contrary) that this will ALWAYS be the case over time. THe reason of course is that 4-1 is NEVER given for a 4-1 chance (well not for long anyway)
1/1 is NEVER given for an even money chance etc etc. eg. if I flipped a coin I would not give you evens, I would offer 10/11 AT BEST, you see what I'm getting at!!!! Yet we are all still convinced that we can beat the book. It is a bit like the big firms offering 20% deposit bonus, yep they know "overall" they can give you 20% and still beat you!!

Sorry thats a bit negative isn't it, let me close by saying that I've beat em' for more than 2 years!!

PP,
That's because you are a place better.

Every trck has it's own features and some horses run better at some tracks.....it is a very hard thing unless you study the tarck and the way it races....but here is one pointer...when looking in the form guide the horse with a "C" by it's name could be one to check out if it is in form

Flemington is rarely biased, Caulfield is rarely not. That makes Flemington a better place to do the form, and it means horses who don't deserve to win can win at Caulfield if on the right part of the track. That makes an analysts job harder at Caulfield than at Flemington.

We were talking about putting a dollar on each horse in each race at meetings some time ago and what the returns meant, well I've come up with a few results to mull over.

These are returns over the last 10 years on the NSW TAB if you plonked a dollar on pretty much every horse in pretty much every race (I say pretty much because data on the net just ain't perfect).

Over the 10 years 79.0% Returned overall (i.e.$79 back for every $100 bet).

1995 - 2001 is fairly consistent around the 79.6% area then progresses to 77.8% by 2004.
I guess the punters are getting more accurate.

There is only 2% between the highest and lowest yearly return so it's pretty consistent.

What puts the meaning of this ROI in perspective for me is the returns under different track conditions.

Avg Var from
Year to year
Fast Tracks 79.0% + or - 5%
Good Tracks 77.8% + or - 2%
Dead Tracks 79.6% + or - 5%
Slow Tracks 82.0% + or - 4%
Heavy Tracks 84.8% + or - 5%

You can see the punter does a more efficient job on Good tracks than any other sort. Heavy tracks overall are only 7% different and as many people say leave the punt alone on wet tracks it shows what a difference that 7% makes.

Metro tracks: 78.7%
Non Metro: 79.2%
Not much difference here.

1 to 8 Runners: 80.0%
9 to 12 Runners: 79.3%
13 to 25 Runners: 78.2%
This is a strange one. Does it mean we bet more efficiently in bigger fields? I'll be interested to hear anyones explanation of this one.

Canterbury: 77.5%
Rosehill: 78.1%
Randwick (Kens): 75.0%
Royal Randwick: 78.9%
Warwick Farm: 76.9%
Caulfield: 79.95%
Flemington: 82.7%
Moonee Valley: 82.4%
Ascot: 80.1%
Belmont: 77.0%
Eagle Farm: 76.95%
Doomben: 77.6%
Morphetville: 81.4%
Sandown: 80.05%
Hillside(03-04): 86.0%
Lakeside(03-04): 75.0%

6% ish difference from easiest track to hardest. Almost as much as Good track to Heavy track.

Well, Duritz said Flemington was a better betting prospect than Caulfield and the figures bear him out. We are 3% better at our job as punters at Flemington than Caulfield. About the same as we are better on Good tracks rather than Slow tracks.

Returns by the three TABs 1/8/02 to 31/12/04.

NSW Tabco UniTab
All courses: 78.0 77.6 77.3
NSW Races: 78.0 77.7 78.2
QLD Races: 77.9 77.9 76.4
WA Races: 77.0 75.8 75.9

Hope you find this interesting. Any ideas how we can use it to improve our betting?

KV

Use your imaginations with the headings above the figures. They shifted in the move from white page to green page. Sorry.