Does York really favour prominent runners?

Betting Strategy / Jack Houghton / 18 August 2008 / 2 Comments

Jack Houghton discusses the psychological make-up of the successful in-running punter and questions the received wisdom on York.

Although not a concept it invented - on-course bookmakers did, at one time, occasionally offer prices during races - Betfair has certainly established in-running horseracing betting as part of the mainstream. And it's been a fascinating process to watch.

Many of us - myself included - considered ourselves to be great race-readers in those pre-in-running days. However, when given the opportunity to test this ability against the wider market, many of us - myself included - realised there's a big difference between assessing which horse is going best, and assessing the right price to take.

Should that horse so clearly travelling on the bridle be a [1.2] shot? A [1.7] shot? A [3.0] shot? It, of course, depends on a multitude of factors. The difficulty is, in the time it takes you to think "multitude of factors", the situation can change dramatically.

An ex-colleague who specialises in betting in-running is shocked that those who have had success with pre-race betting believe their skills will easily transfer into this faster paced arena. He likens the difference between pre- and in-running betting to the difference between "static" and "dynamic" sports. The psychological make-up of a golfer or snooker player - who is consistently faced with a static situation to consider at relative leisure - is necessarily unlike that of the footballer or rugby player; who is faced with an ever-changed situation and must react accordingly.

Perhaps this explains the prevalence of dramatic - [1000.0] winners and [1.01] losers - in-running stories: there are people playing in-running who should instead take up golf or snooker?

Of course, that there are [1.01] losers is not a shock in itself; the maths tells you they should, occasionally, lose. But in some data I looked at, with [1.01] shots, one in every 75 lost, and not the expected one-in-a-hundred. It also showed that, with [1000.0] shots, one in every 880 won, and not the expected one-in-a-thousand.

Whether or not you have the necessary psychological make-up to be a successful in-running punter, what's clear is you have to be careful of believing received wisdom. This week's Ebor meeting at York provides a good example of why. Time and again, pundits inform us that York is a track that favours front-runners. During the Dante meeting, as an example, one tipster prefixed his advice by saying: "Prominent racers tend to have a bit of an edge at York."

The facts don't seem to back this up. I looked at around 300 races run at York prior to this Ebor meeting and categorised winners depending on their field position during the race. It was a pretty crude process, and I wouldn't publish the results in any scientific paper, but the results showed that 30 per cent of winners raced prominently, 36 per cent raced in midfield and the remaining 34 per cent brought up the rear. And of those that won when racing prominently, over 42 per cent were in fields of eight or less.

Ground conditions made little difference. On ground softer than Good, there was a slight increase in the success of prominent racers - up to 38 per cent - but it was still pretty much split into thirds.

Relatively small sample and dodgy science aside, it demonstrates at least that those approaching their analysis of races at York this week by ruling out hold-up horses, or those intending to take short prices in-running on race leaders, should perhaps reassess.

The main factors that dictate the winner of a race - ability, fitness and suitability to the conditions - should remain the focus for pre-race selection.

And the focus for those betting in-running? Well, after an exceptionally bruising in-running betting week, I'm not sure I'm the right man to ask. I'll be putting my bets on in the morning and play snooker in the afternoon.

Comments (2)

1. Simon Rowlands | 22 August 2008

   Hi Jack.

   Only just read this. I made a similar point, though by necessity at much less length, in my Racing Post piece on the same day.

   You may find the book "Pace Wins the Race" by Ricky Taylor of use in this context. It is well-researched and soundly put together, if rather limited in its scope. Interestingly, York figures well down the lists of "front-runners tracks" at all but one of the distances at which races are run at the track.

   However, the point surely is that any general trend is liable to be rendered inconsequential by specific pace biases. It is likely to matter not one bit that a course "is" a front-runners' track if 8 of the 10 runners in a race go hell for leather and set it up for the pair who are ridden sensibly and race efficiently.

   This is a simple fact that far too many commentators on the sport seem not to have grasped yet.

   Simon

2. Jack Houghton | 24 August 2008

   Thanks Simon - I'll check the book out.

   And agree completely regarding pace.