Effect of Racing Position

[barjon]

I’ve been lying here in my bed for the last couple of weeks just watching race after race without any interest in betting so just totally focussed on the race unfolding. My conclusion is a simple and obvious one - the further off the rail you race the greater the challenge you set your horse.

On a two mile circuit a rough calculation is that you lose* 3 yards one off the rail, 6 yards two off the rail, 9 yards three off the rail and so on.

*or have to regain

 

[Len Madeiros]

A possible in running angle, Barjon?

 

[edgt]

Some horses are claustrophobic as indeed are some jockeys.
Some like a clear run .
Some are going for better ground.
The brave man's route requires bravery from jockey and horse, not all have it.

 

[EC21]

Barjon.

I did this analysis years ago. My thinking was, at such a Wolves, tight track, if a horse finished 2nd after running wide it had run further so was a winner without a penalty. I actually measured the number of lengths that a horse would lose 2, 3, or 4 wide using google earth. I never found it helped me. I also watched courses like Exeter over the sticks. When it is soft there, if you raced on the inside, you were running on the slowest ground, so marked up second placers. Had some success with both methods, but illogically for some reason, it doesn't make a profit over a period of time. You make a note of such disadvantaged horses, they don't win enough. It looks a great angle on paper, but try it out, you will have winners, but not enough to strike gold sadly. I did so much of this geeky study years ago, I used to hand time every AW race sectionals too, made some money too, but it was too much work, drove you mad over a period of time. All the pace stuff is there now on ATR. The wide running horse thing does look like a good angle, but for some reason it isn't.

Great thread Barjon, not trying to dishearten you chap at all here, you think like I do with this stuff, outside the box, I been in all these places before believe me. I am a totally obsesive thinker re racing, been doing that for years. Maybe you can do better with this idea than I did. Andrew Mount does a lot of the "inside slow ground disadvantaged horses", he gets winners, but not long term profit. Still worth looking at. I'm not trying to shoot this down, it is just I have been here before.

When you look at it, we all get winners, even if we use a pin, but do they happen often enough to beat the odds? We are then back to value, and to be fair, whatever method or system you use, even if it just your eye. If you don't show a profit, you are losing and may as well just use a pin.

 

[barjon]

A possible in running angle, Barjon?

I don’t know, LM, it was just an observation with all these races passing before me of how much of a disadvantage it seemed to be. Many other factors are significant, as edgt has pointed out, and as EC21 points out it’s easier to see something that looks significant than to do something with it.

My modus operandi is to watch races to try and point up horses that are ready to rock next time. I think I’ll probably pay more attention to how horses were positioned than I did before.

 

[EC21]

I'll just try to give an example of why racing wide might not be a disadvantage. Lets take a 10 runner race over 6f at Wolves. The two horses drawn inside take each other on, they go too fast early on, that then loses them 5 lengths at the end. Horse drawn 10 runs wide but stays away from strong pace, he loses 3 lengths on the turns through being wide, but still wins by 2 lengths by avoiding the strong pace. See what I mean?

So, lets look at this again, what about noting horses in slowly run races, that also run wide, and still finish close? So you just have to put two angles together there, a steady pace, where it is hard to finish close pacewise anyway, and one that also runs wide losing actual lengths, so has a wide run and pace negative. Maybe be you would like to look for for those? ATR has good pace analysis, so not hard to do. A few years ago I would have been on to this angle good style, can't be arsed now Barjon, but I just bet those types of double negatives could do rather well in future..and even more so if the pace of their next race looks strong. Just a thought. All you have to do, and this sounds so easy, is watch horses that run wide, flat horses obviously, that then finish close up. Then look at the pace of the race to see if they were running against the pace of the race as well as running wide. They then need a strong pace in their next race. Just invented a system there off the cuff

 

[barjon]

Sure do, EC, but the constant is that he would lose three lengths on the turns. Whether other events in the race nullify that disadvantage (as they often will) it is still there and bears consideration?

 

[EC21]

Simple system rules. Note a less than even pace race...note a horse running wide that finishes less than 2 lenths off the winner. Back it next time if predicted pace is strong. Jobs a good un

 

[Outsider]

I could never understand why high drawn horses in the cesarewitch was at a disadvantage due to being 2m 2f and so does that mean horses that start out the back in a 2m hurdle race (big fields) have no chance.

 

[EC21]

Losing 3 lengths on a turn is really bad if those up front have gone slow or even pace, not so bad if those up front have gone too fast early. Don't ever underestimate how an overly fast pace damages horses late on. Like I said above, try and find a few of those types who run wide, they beat that negative and the slow pace negative too that they also have to put up with. You could be spotting a horse then that is ready to be able to eat it's next race given a decent pace to run at.

 

[EC21]

I could never understand why high drawn horses in the cesarewitch was at a disadvantage due to being 2m 2f and so does that mean horses that start out the back in a 2m hurdle race (big fields) have no chance.

No. To be fair we are talking flat races, probably 7f or less. AW is usually good for this stuff, but some turf races at certain courses too. AW is brilliant for noting wide horses running well, but also with the double whammy in a slow run race where they have clearly been held up mistakenly by the jockey.

 

[EC21]

Fascinating stuff is finding horses who should have won easily, and then getting on them next time out. As punters we only get certain tells about a horse's well being. One thing is for a sure, a horse who can lose lengths on a turn, and run against a pace bias, are well on their game next time out given a fair pace to go at, even better if drawn better. If I had the time and patience these days I would be on this, but I can't do it now, I'm busy worrying about my cat's health, my own health, keeping warm and generally getting from day to day

 

[Desert Orchid]

I’ve been lying here in my bed for the last couple of weeks just watching race after race without any interest in betting so just totally focussed on the race unfolding. My conclusion is a simple and obvious one - the further off the rail you race the greater the challenge you set your horse.

On a two mile circuit a rough calculation is that you lose* 3 yards one off the rail, 6 yards two off the rail, 9 yards three off the rail and so on.

*or have to regain

Yes, been saying the same for years. I hate seeing anything I back being given an unnecessarily wide ride, unless there's better ground out there.

In terms of the calculation, I even asked on here for the dimensions of stalls to give me a more accurate idea of a horse 'width'.

If such a 'width' is 3ft (ball-park) then a circuit, regardless of how tight or not, implies an increase of distance travelled of nearly 20ft (first yr maths, circumference of a circle being 2PiR). If a horse is [ball-park] nine feet long then it's losing over two lengths per circuit for every 'width' off the rail.

The problem is, horses tend to be ridden largely the same way from race to race so a horse that races wide will pretty much always race wide, not unlike dogs being categorised as rail runners or wide runners.

It's also why I was recently critical of Skelton for riding one I'd backed out wide when normally you can rely on him to rail them.

For a wee while a number of years back, there was data detailing exactly how far each horse ran in a race. They seemed to drop it for some reason.

 

[chaumi]

This was really interesting, Barjon, and had me thinking at various points throughout the afternoon and evening.

If I had time, and I might yet find enough over the next few weeks, I'd be going back over historical races (say from Nov last year to the end April this), identify qualifiers, then look to see how they subsequently performed.

If there's anything in it, you'd expect at least some obvious evidence to show up, either from a win or a good enough run somewhere.

And, if a year wasn't enough, at the least there would be a list of names to monitor.

But, unless I'm not thinking cleverly enough, it does seem time-consuming ( born out by a few tests I ran). You need to go watch every race (at whatever distance range deemed appropriate or likely to yield something worthwhile), look for the qualifiers, and at the same time, try and judge the performance in the overall context of the race, how it was run, the potential requirements/preferences of the qualifier etc etc. And we know, as has been pointed out on the thread already, there will be multiple influences at play in any individual race that might confound the judgment you make and the conclusion you might reach.

I found it quite difficult to judge in the limited number of attempts made. But no doubt there will be some clear-cut cases that will be worth following up on.

I guess one way out of the time issue would be to solely look at the reasonably- or fast-paced races and follow qualifiers from those only. ofc that seems sensible for the reasons previously stated, but I can't help thinking that might lose the possibility of landing on a diamond or two.

Maybe the answer is to do it in real-time from now onwards and see how it goes on paper.

Have to say, at the shorter end of the market, I'm suspecting there won't be enough positive results to make it worth the time and effort.

I can see some potential with longshots, though, where a positive 'hidden' run might not result in a subsequent good follow-up run until three months, 6 months, one, two, or even three years down the line.

Might be fun to find out.

 

[barjon]

Chaumi,

I suppose the “ideal” scenario would be be where a horse has won before from up with the pace close in and has recently run out wide down in the pack, but finished well making up most of the “lost” ground. That recent run might indicate it is ready to rock.

Trouble is you won’t know until it starts whether the previous winning tactics are being employed or not, although similar market action to the previous win might give a clue. Otherwise you’re really stuck with trying an in-running bet.

Probably better to rely on sound analysis like someone on here who has just posted up a 50/1 winner :blink: Well done that man!!

 

[chaumi]

Whoever that was, we all get lucky every now and then!

*****************************

Actually, I think I have a reasonable example of success on the wide-runner front....


So watch Adace in this 7f race at Chelmsford last Nov. Out the back, 3 or 4 widths wide all the way until into the straight, then had to come virtually 6 wide to win going away.

https://www.racingpost.com/results/1083/chelmsford-aw/2021-11-06/795078

With our theory here, that run looks even better than it did at the time (with the race time stacking up better than half the other races on the card, and close to par with the others).

So, let's say we spotted and noted it.

Next run, runs the same way out the back but comes inside for the finish, beaten a very short-looking head (could easily have gone either way)

Runs two unplaced.

Has a long break, runs, but blindfold comes off super late and no chance.

Another break ( and this is where we note it, I think on the longshot thread). Comes back for a Kempton race, on paper the signs are good that 66-1 might be too big. But....jockey (or horse) takes off in front (when all available evidence says that's not his ideal way of running), and the obvious happens (Outsider and I subsequently toyed with a theory that might have been a deliberate ploy. And well it might!).

But all is not lost....

Out a bit later and a fast-finishing 4th at 40-1...and then a few days ago, goes in at 12-1 with a perfectly-positioned run out the back and trademark finish (I missed it, but you can't win 'em all!).

All in all, not a bad return from spotting a class 5/6 runner that won running wide all the way around, clearly indicating he's better than a fair number of the regular performers you normally see at that level.

But you'd have done your cash if you were going for it on the first run after the first qualifying run (all be it a very narrow-margin loss)...and it was a matter of waiting on a few unplaced runs to knock the odds up again, and then try to second-guess the race he'd do it again in.


*******************

So my first thought was that this approach might work best on longer distance races, where clearly the number of lengths lost/in the deficit would be greater.

But that's likely to be rare to spot a qualifier...because the extra distance and slower pace mean runners can (normally) sort themselves out and slot into wherever they prefer (or are forced) to be.

Shorter distances mean the qualifiers are potentially more likely to be 'true' qualifiers. More likely to be held wide because everything else is likely going at a similar pace, at least through the first half to three-quarters of the race. And there could be enough qualifiers to give a chance (over time) of concluding that there really is a profit to be made, balancing the certain volume of subsequent losers against the low (but possibly well-priced) number of winners or big-priced placers.

*****************

Either way, worth keeping an eye on it. I'll certainly watch races in a slightly different way from now on. Thanks for bringing it up.

 

[barjon]

Blimey, chaumi, that’s some stretch - I’d have given up long before. Only stay in my tracker for their next race unless there’s a good reason for keeping them longer.

 

[Outsider]

Blimey, chaumi, that’s some stretch - I’d have given up long before. Only stay in my tracker for their next race unless there’s a good reason for keeping them longer.

You have to have patience BJ.
Cant believe you missed it Chaumi,but,I just looked through my bets history and I did back it and luckily had it in an ew trixie with a couple of big priced places but I didnt realise at the time that this was the horse we had discussed.
Just came up in my alerts so I backed it but didnt have as much on as I would have if I had realised.
Feel a bit dejected now.

 

[chaumi]

You have to have patience BJ.
Cant believe you missed it Chaumi,but,I just looked through my bets history and I did back it and luckily had it in an ew trixie with a couple of big priced places but I didnt realise at the time that this was the horse we had discussed.
Just came up in my alerts so I backed it but didnt have as much on as I would have if I had realised.
Feel a bit dejected now.

Oh I'm glad you got some of it at least, Outsider. That's great news, I thought we both had missed it. It would have been much more painful (for me) if our friend Adace had gone in at 33+. 12s is just about bearable.

The plus side....it does mean we were on the ball...just I failed to kick it the right way!!

There will be other days.

 

[Outsider]

The credit goes to you Chaumi.it was you that made me watch it.
It just goes to show that there are so many ways to stop a horse until the right time.