| Is there any value in backing "the obvious"? |
|
By David Renham |
|
With the all weather season approaching, I decided it was
worth trolling through some stats. As most readers will know, my preference
is for handicap sprints, but I wanted to look further than just sprints and
hence I concentrated on 3 year old plus all age handicaps (all weather races
only). Racing experts constantly "bang on" about the key word "value". I agree that finding good "value" is extremely important when it comes to trying to make money at this game. However, for some time I have long held the view that you must look away from "the obvious" to gain that vital edge. My personal betting rarely sees me backing favourites, or the "obvious" horses. I try to look for bigger priced animals that are not near the head of the betting market and are often dismissed by the majority. Of course the strike rate is quite low, but the winning prices over a sustained period of time tend to make up for it. For this piece of research though, I have chosen an unusual path for me, which is trying to find "the obvious" - and is there money to be made from doing so. The data collected is from 1989 to 2002 (around 5000 races). Only all age handicaps on the all weather were considered. I look at four key areas : the market, last time out performance, weight carried and fitness (measured in days since last run). This is what I found : |
| THE MARKET |
|
Backing favourites produced a winning strike rate of
25.2% and returned a loss of 11.2% on investment. Backing second favourites
produced a winning strike rate of 17% and returned a loss of 10.6% on
investment. Backing third favourites produced a winning strike rate of 11.8%
and returned a loss of 22.9% on investment. Backing horses 7th or worse in
the market produced a winning strike rate of only 3.3% and returned a loss
of 41.6% on investment. Points to note : the top two in the betting accounted for 42.2% of the winners. The betting market, as we would have hoped, gives a very accurate guide of the chances of the runners. |
| FINISHING POSITION LAST TIME OUT |
|
Backing horses that finished 1st last time out produced a
winning strike rate of 17.8% and returned a loss of 17.3% on investment.
Backing horses that finished 2nd last time out produced a winning strike
rate of 14.5% and returned a loss of 23.9% on investment. Backing horses
that finished 3rd last time out produced a winning strike rate of 11.4% and
returned a loss of 21% on investment. Backing horses that finished 7th or
worse last time out produced a winning strike rate of 5.1% and returned a
loss of 38.4% on investment. Points to note : recent form as you expect is an important factor. |
| WEIGHT CARRIED |
|
Backing horses in the top three of the weights produced a
winning strike rate of 12.5% and returned a loss of 18.2% on investment.
Backing horses in the bottom three of the weights produced a winning strike
rate of 6.6% and returned a loss of 37.4% on investment. Points to note : the top three in the weights are roughly twice as likely to win as the bottom three in the weights. |
| DAYS SINCE LAST RUN |
|
Backing horses that have run within the last 7 days (1 to
7 days inclusive) produced a winning strike rate of 12.0% and returned a
loss of 22.3% on investment. Backing horses that have had their last run between 8 and 31 days inclusive produced a winning strike rate of 9.5% and returned a loss of 26.5% on investment. Backing horses that have had their last run 32 days or more produced a winning strike rate of 6.1% and returned a loss of 35.7% on investment. Points to note : the more recent the run the better. |
| COMPARING TWO SYSTEMS |
| Having looked at these stats I decided to compare two systems - one using the "obvious", and one not so "obvious" : |
|
"THE OBVIOUS" SYSTEM" Rules :
The results :
A pretty good system therefore - for every £100 invested, you would lose just £1.40. With a bit more refinement, one may be able to make a fair profit using these rules as a basis for a selection process. |
|
"THE NOT SO OBVIOUS" SYSTEM Rules :
The results :
Not so good! For every £100 invested you would lose nearly £60. |
|
Perhaps it is worthwhile looking at "the obvious" after all. Food for thought in this article I hope. |
|
Visit Drawn 2 Win website |
