Betting Strategy: Why York is no pacers' paradise

Betting Strategy / Simon Rowlands / 12 May 2009 / 4 Comments

Simon Rowlands debunks a famous myth, tells us who he'll be backing and laying at York this week and explains why Chelsea fans should get over it...

I am off to York this week, combining a stag do (or, at our age, more likely a stag don't) with taking in the first two days of the Dante meeting.

Some people seem incapable of approaching a race at the course without identifying an angle - real or (usually) imagined - over and above a consideration of things like the horses' abilities, requirements, preparedness, suitability to the task in hand and, all importantly, odds.

To these people, York, with its perceived pace biases and "golden highways", has been a Godsend. They might not have been able to back loads of winners at the Knavesmire over the years, but they have sure been able to prattle on about its being a front-runners track until the requisite column or radio/tv space has been filled.

Unfortunately for them, recent drainage work at the course threatens to derail their theories. Or perhaps that should be "fortunately".

The evidence that York has favoured front-runners is mostly anecdotal and in any case misses the point entirely that such "biases" are as nothing compared to the effect of pace, which is specific to each race. I covered this in an earlier blog and don't see the point in stating the bleeding obvious yet again.

Interestingly, a chap called Ricky Taylor did some proper research in this area and published it in a 2006 book called "Pace Wins The Race".

"Racing Prominently Wins The Race (A Lot of The Time)" would have been a more accurate, if less snappy, title. Racing prominently and pace is not one and the same thing, obviously. Still, you get the idea.

In the book, Taylor examined the performances of "pacers" by various categories, including by course. "Pacers" were defined as horses that led/raced prominently from Form Book comments.

The findings where York was concerned made interesting reading. The course ranked equal 11th of 30 courses in favour of pacers at 5f; 31st of 35 at 6f; 28th of 28 at 7f; 27th of 31 at 8f; 16th of 20 at 9f; 10th of 16 at 10f; 21st of 29 at 12f; and 9th of 34 at 13f, judged on all races in 2004.

"York is a front-runners track" does indeed appear to have been bunkum all along.

* * *

I already have an interest in two of the runners in the classic trials at York, as I am on High Heeled for the Oaks (can now be backed at 10) on June 5th and Freemantle for the Derby (available at 30) on June 6th.

The former can be backed at [3.7] on Betfair for the Musidora Stakes at York on Wednesday - I already have a small bet on and will be going in again - while the latter is [6.8] for the Dante Stakes there the day after.

An alternative to backing Freemantle that I am interested in is simply laying the short-priced favourite Crowded House at [2.8] or less. He has plenty of credible rivals and has shown a tendency to go freely that may be more pronounced after a 7-month break.

* * *

You do not have to be a fan of Chelsea to believe they wuz robbed in their Champions League semi-final against Barcelona last week.

But what struck me as much as anything about the occasion was how different people in different sports react differently to clear injustices or just plain old bad fortune.

"Stuff" happens, and anyone who punts regularly simply has to learn to accept this without going off on one every time he or she feels hard done by. Or, as the cruelly ignored band Black Box Recorder once put it: "Life is unfair: kill yourself or get over it" (they got over it).

Those punters who have not taken the former action are more likely, or so it seems, to take the latter action than are spoilt footballers or football fans. The racegoers who booed and swore at the hapless Johnny Murtagh at Chester last week are, thankfully, an exception, and even that was eminently civilised compared to some of what went on at Stamford Bridge.

In this respect, betting is a morally commendable pastime, preparing the individual to meet life's slings and arrows of outrageous fortune with stoicism and equanimity. Perhaps they should teach betting in schools in place of other attempts at "moral" education of our youth.

I have met my share of [1.01] "gubbings" with horror, disbelief and sometimes even with anger. But, thanks to a lifetime of betting education, I have never gone so far as to issue death threats to the steward, jockey, trainer or other person that I perceive to have been responsible for my misfortune.

"Betting rage" simply does not work in the long-term. Whinging is far less self-defeating, and, if nothing else, I can at least claim to be a whinger of Drogba-like standing.

Or should that be of Drogba-like falling over?

Comments (4)

1. Ian | 12 May 2009

   Hi Simon,
   Completely agree with you about the garbage that is often spouted about the York bias. Must say I'm surprised you're strong on High Heeled. She looked far from special last year and I don't think her slow final time Newbury win amounts to much, despite some of the beaten horses making the form look good afterwards. Looking from where she came from in a sprint finish I'm guessing that her late sectional was a good one and that's why you've backed her. I'm unconvinced that she can run a faster overall time until she proves it.

2. Simon Rowlands | 18 May 2009

   Hi Ian.

   Sorry, missed this until now. Nothing as intricate as a good sectional. I just thought the form of the race she won at Newbury was good (though, as you point out, not backed up by a good time) and undervalued by the public.

   It doesn't look any worse now, other than on account of High Heeled herself. That said, I don't think she is in Sariska's class and reckon it was essentially a bad call by me.

   We live and we learn. Or, we live, anyway.

   Simon

3. Ian | 19 May 2009

   I missed it too, don't think it appeared on here until yesterday. I was just interested in understanding your reasons for fancying her, good call on Crowded House though.

4. Ian | 05 June 2009

   Doesn't look such a bad call now after the Oaks.