Draw Bias: Does it exist?

EC1

EC1

On a break
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
17,679
Location
late 1960's early 70's
Visually yesterday there was a clear draw bias at Ayr over the 6f track....many people try and explain away draw biases using.....best horses were on that side..pace was on one side only etc...when in fact these two factors..imo..don't cause the kind of differences in competetive sprints that we witness week in week out.

Jim McGrath for example yesterday..after viewing the Silver Cup....suggested the best horses were on the far side....well thats a pretty sweeping statement when its a high grade sprint handicap where most of the field are pretty much on a level playing. What would be the chances that every horse "with a chance" are all on one side of a draw anyway? In these handicaps most of the field are "in with a chance".

He didn't use the pace excuse..as it was clear they went hard both sides..again..most decent sprints are run hard early over 6 when a field splits because the leading jockeys on each side are aware of where each other is..in fact..it might be fair to say that when a field splits it creates a strong pace each side because neither leader wants to be far behind the other side.

In the Firth Of Clyde that followed..the "best horses" were on the standside..and still lost...again pointing to a draw bias

A simple way of measuring the difference between two sides is to look at the first 6 home on each side..treating them as two separate races....its fair to say that the first 6 home each side are actually really competing and have not been eased in any way..if you use the whole field each side it skews things a bit..especially as the last horse in the Siver Cup..for instance.. was eased considerably. When the surface is slower the distances between horses in a finish are elongated.

I've used RSB to calculate average distances between each horse at sprint trips in Class C and higher handicaps...the results show the following average distances between horses in a finish

GOOD or faster = 0.65 len
Slower than GOOD = 1.30 len


SILVER CUP
Far Side
1. Khaldoun Kingdom
6. Quest For Success beaten 2.5 Len
Average distance between each horse = 0.5 Len

Standside
1. Protector
6. Six Of Hearts beaten 5.25 Len
Average distance between each horse = 1.05 Len

GOLD CUP
Far Side
1. Jimmy Styles
6. Hogmaneigh beaten 2.75 Len
Average distance between each horse = 0.55 Len

Standside
1. Tombi
6. Everymanforhimself 4.75 Len
Average distance between each horse = 0.95 Len

Those results are remarkably similar suggesting strongly that the standside was a fair bit slower ... 0.4+ Len

obviously we are looking at one race so comparing it to an average isn't going to be exact..but 0.5+ len difference in both races is pretty comparative and shows that racing standside was a big negative...those that finished close up in the standside GOLD cup have run seriously good races as they ran 4 lengths faster than their standside counterparts in the Silver Cup.

TOMBI
FOL HOLLOW
REDFORD
ARGANIL

will be underestimated next time they run by anyone who thinks draw biases don't exist ..so should be worth following



or

are draw biases in general just imagination?

discuss?
 
Last edited:
I don't think there can be any doubt that there was an advantage in racing on the far side at Ayr yesterday.

There may be a case for returning entry fees to owners and stakes to punters for those horses racing stand side, they might just as well have stayed in their stables........this isn't a serious suggestion, by the way.:o
 
this isn't a one off though Colin

to be fair..its one of the few edge's punters have..if they recognise the bias and use it to follow horses

had it rained at Ayr this week?..its been dry where I am for weeks..I am assuming they didn't create yesterdays bias with the hose earlier in the week..I just assumed it was a continuation of the early season problems they had.
 
Last edited:
Another interesting pointer to the validity of the Gold cup result is the time the race was run in..71.35

It was slower than the lower class Silver Cup ..71.12....by approx 1.5 lengths.

Those racing standside in GC appear to have been disadvantaged by about 4 lengths..looking at the above analysis....so if you give that 4 lengths back to the standside then Tombi would have beat Jimmy Styles by 1.75 lengths...making the race time just that bit faster than the SC as the class of horse should reflect..well more in line with it anyway

I'm sure on a level playing field Tombi would have won..be interesting to see him in particular run next time
 
There was a bias, even the old bloke down the bookies knew this and don't see why you are investigating trying to complecate things.

The bias exposes the younger horses and you could see that with Beyond Desire and Conniption yesterday, older horses are more battle hardend and yet they still struggled yesterday.

The evidence is conculsive, I just don't see how anyone can try worm there way around trying to convince people there wasn't sorry.
 
ItalianStallion said:
There was a bias, even the old bloke down the bookies knew this and don't see why you are investigating trying to complecate things.

The bias exposes the younger horses and you could see that with Beyond Desire and Conniption yesterday, older horses are more battle hardend and yet they still struggled yesterday.

The evidence is conculsive, I just don't see how anyone can try worm there way around trying to convince people there wasn't sorry.
Click to expand...

The old bloke may have known..but Jim McGrath (Racing Expert) wasn't sure:)..even though you say the evidence was conclusive.

We have had many discussions on here..and I have read elsewhere where people will come up with any reason to explain away a bias.

You are happy that the analysis does point to a bias I assume?

So if I post another race..would you like to say if its also conclusive?



HIGH
1. winner A
6. placed horse B beaten 7 lengths
Average distance between each horse = 1.40 len

LOW
1. winner C
6. placed horse D beaten 9.75 len
Average distance between each horse = 1.95 len

as you can see..the difference between the sides is 0.5 length per horse beaten..very similar to the Ayr races yesterday

I wonder if the old man would have agreed there was a bias here.....most punters didn't at the time..in fact ...exactly the opposite..... its so close to yesterdays bias you would think it was blindingly obvious as was yesterdays wouldn't you?
 
EC1 said:
GOLD cup have run seriously good races as they ran 4 lengths faster than their standside counterparts in the Silver Cup.
Click to expand...


SC
Protector - 90
Mister Hardy - 94
My Gacho - 92
Joseph Henry - 93
Invincible Force - 94
Six of Hearts - 93

GC
Tombi - 103
Fol Hollow - 97
Reford - 102
Genki - 103
Arganil - 100
Hitchens - 97

Average OR Standside Silver Cup - 92.66
Average OR Standside Gold Cup - 100.33

Gold cup standside runners are on average 7.67 lb better horses, you'd expect them to be 4 lengths faster?

Now if Silver Cup had run 4l faster than Gold Cup, you'd be onto something.
 
ItalianStallion said:
SC
Protector - 90
Mister Hardy - 94
My Gacho - 92
Joseph Henry - 93
Invincible Force - 94
Six of Hearts - 93

GC
Tombi - 103
Fol Hollow - 97
Reford - 102
Genki - 103
Arganil - 100
Hitchens - 97

Average OR Standside Silver Cup - 92.66
Average OR Standside Gold Cup - 100.33

Gold cup standside runners are on average 7.67 lb better horses, you'd expect them to be 4 lengths faster?

Now if Silver Cup had run 4l faster than Gold Cup, you'd be onto something.
Click to expand...

They were 4 lengths faster by comparison to there own far side races - not compared to each race IS

in both races both sides should be the same with no bias..in the GC the near side were a lot nearer the far side...in the SC they were further back..hence the GC near side have run 4 lengths better than the bias allowed

do you see?

what do you think to the other race I posted..was there a bias there as well?
 
In that other race I asked you about..if we say that 0.5 len difference equates to about 4 lengths then the horse that "won" on the slower side ..would have theoretically won overall..same as Tombi

the horse in question then ran in two of the most competetive handicaps of the year and won the 2nd one

interesting today as well ETON RIFLES a stable mate of TOMBI won his best race to date when badly in at the weights...I wonder if ER and Tombi have been galloping together
 
I think it was pretty obvious - to the point of saying a blind man could see it - that the far side was favoured at Ayr but that doesn't mean EC1's excellent work deserves to be rubbished.

That's what wrong with internet forums, I find, and it really pisses me off. Enthusiasts put in loads of time and effort trying to find edges then some are kind enough to share them with us.

Then what? A minority decide that, rather than offer some constructive criticism, they get some kind of kick out of rubbishing them.

If people aren't willing to contribute meaningfully to the debate, they should not contribute at all.
 
Desert Orchid this is a forum based around opinions and if you can't handle someone challenging your opinions then you shouldn't be on the internet.

Think more carefully about what you say in future, seems like your forming a biased opinion.
 
ItalianStallion said:
Desert Orchid this is a forum based around opinions and if you can't handle someone challenging your opinions then you shouldn't be on the internet.

Think more carefully about what you say in future, seems like your forming a biased opinion.
Click to expand...

Of course it is based around opinions but constructive criticism will always carry more weight with me than thoughtless gobshite.

Perhaps I shouldn't be on the internet as I am very thin skinned.

I always think carefully about what I say.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gal, I'm disappointed you edited that comment. Am I not allowed the right to reply in kind?

IS's comment comes across as a personal threat yet it hasn't been edited.

Cheerio.
 
Last edited:
Agree that the stands side runners might be overlooked next time out, there was a clear bias which I myself was sceptical of until the Firth of Clyde ran and that confirmed it really.
 
thanks DO


the point I am trying to make is that each week we have races splitting like this..where horses are being disadvantaged due to not being on a level playing field..these horses are very handy to know for the future

the other example I posted..that showed a similar bias to Ayr...was..the Wokingham..and the horse who would have won the wokingham..given an even playing field..was Markab...worth following wasn't he?

using this sort of analysis can highlight a bias..where other people think there is none..Ascot being a case..where the old man wouldn't have spotted it:).....as most people didn't believe it at the time either

a few more races must be worth looking at i reckon
 
Last edited:
A quick look back on the hunt cup threw up no horses worth following..it gave

High - ave beaten len = 2.1
Low - av beaten len = 1.7

that would suggest a faster surface on the low side..but even adding say 3 lengths to the far side still left the leader there ..Lovelace well out of the frame

so even though it looked like the far side was a lot slower..because Lovelace finished so far back..it wasn't the only reason he was beaten that far..he just didn't perform as also didn't those behind him

that would be a case where some people would be blaming the bias and thinking Lovelace was worth following..when in fact the bias was only a part of the reason for the beaten lengths

be interesting to follow some of these horses that do actually show as the winner after bias lengths are taken into account ...might even be worth trying over the straight 5 at Southwell during the winter months

Lets hope Tombi runs again before the end of the season under suitable going conditions..he is ready for winning hopefully
 
Would the early realisation by certain jockey's that they were on the wrong side not exaggerate the average beaten figure? Obviously it wouldn't invalidate it.
 
Interesting discussion. It is certainly valid to challenge preconceived ideas (and the forum is an excellent place for this). The human race has progressed by finding a better description of reality than the apparent… Most people were happy with the idea that the world was flat, before it was deemed otherwise.
 
Isn't there an argument to suggest that there are even biases within biases? The first three home in the near side group in the Ayr Gold Cup were all drawn extremely high (25, 26 and 27) and are perhaps not the horses to take from the race at all. Oddly enough, Jimmy Styles had the worst "official" draw, as it was the last stall any trainer wanted to choose. Despite racing on the far side, he had to make his run furthest away from the apparently favoured rail, so could arguably be deemed the outlier in the race. I'm far from convinced actually, but it's an interesting theory....
 
Back
Top