last saturday at morphetville provided a salutory lesson on the folly of taking short prices about horses unproven at the distance of the race.

in race 2 a 1600 metres race, stylish bow faced the double whammy of stepping up in distance 400 metres and being untried at the trip.....it started odds on and finished a well beaten 4th .......because of her silly price on the tote she pushed the odds out on snippify which i backed ......i had the winnings spent with 100 metres to go, only to be run down by a freakish performance from chic choice........it's never easy is it????

similarly in race 6 candy vale was stepping up 400 metres to 2000 metres for the first time and started at silly odds of $2.10 in a big field....i thought kylikwong was a good thing here and may have got overs on the tote with candy vale's silly price......alas it was not to be as she started pretty short also, and fortunately i saved my money when she got beaten into 2nd.

i find using distance stats to eliminate short priced favourites very useful, unfortunately it still leaves you with the rest of the field to find a winner!

Hi, Noel.

I agree with you about distance.

I'm currently working on a Place system where one of the rules is that the horse must not be increasing in distance by more than 200 metres or reducing by more than 100 metres from its last start. Stylish Bow would have been a selection but the Distance Rule (wisely) eliminated it. And it's not the first time the Distance Rule eliminated a losing horse. As a matter of interest, there is one selection today - its only a probational selection because I have not a large enough sample with claiming apprentices:
Donald R7 no.1

noel, you make a good argument. Though Gai often makes her lightly raced horses jump in distance with success....Was a tough day at Morphetiville for the short fav backers....$2 Tagine 4th, $1.90 Stylish Bow 4th, $1.80 Lions Gate 4th, $2.10 Candy Vale 6th

horses stepping up a fair whack in distance no longer causes me much concern as after spending day after day some years ago trying to make sense of it all, i came to the simple conclusion that if i thought the trainer was 1/2 decent & the horse was unlikley to be impeded by other factors such as a too big a jump in class or weight, then i wasnt going to hold off & watch the thing win by 2 lengths (as a few did).

noel, i think the real folly is taking too short a price about any nag, & in my book taking < 2/1 on anything, other than maybe tulloch , will in the long run hurt big time.

last saturday at the gold coast race 6 .......perlin steps up 400m in distance to 2400 metres for the first time @ short priced $2 favourite, beaten into 2nd place......should that really have been its fair price???

Davez has hit the nail on the head; it's all about the price. If we were very rigid about rises in distance then we'd never get a bet in any big cup (all 3200) since 99% of runners are stepping up 800 at least.What we need is proof that the trainer BELIEVES (not just hopes) his/her animal can do it when made to race extra distance.For example the trainer has put a better jockey aboard (ie how did the trainer persuade the jockey?), or the trainer has taken the horse a long way for a better paying race(ie you do your experimenting at home and your serious stuff when it's worth it). Then you,the punter, decides on a general minimum price (ie you won't accept any horse rising in distance at under 10-1 for example) and stick to it.You would've been crowing last Saturday 14/05/2005 as Tails of Triomphe took the S.A.Derby at $70 on Unitab.A class 2 winner coming 700 kilometres after a losing 2100 run at class 5 level,wins a Group 1. Well?? Hope you get a few like this. Cheers