The BTC Horse Racing Thread

[Finn Kristensen]

@john-folan It can do a lot of things

I just checked the results if we only accept horses with BSP between 1 - 9.0. This is what I get:

Stall 2 keeps showing as the best, however, stall 10 also keeps reappearing as profitable. I am not familiar with Doncaster's 5F track so I don't know if there is anything that speaks for high draws as well?

[John Folan]

@john-folan said in The BTC Horse Racing Thread:

@finn-kristensen said in The BTC Horse Racing Thread:

@john-folan I just included odds rank, so we only use horses ranked 1-3 at BSP. These are the results:

Interesting. What else can your software do? Filter wise?

Shows there is deffo bias. Just a case of how to approach it

[John Folan]

@finn-kristensen said in The BTC Horse Racing Thread:

@john-folan I just included odds rank, so we only use horses ranked 1-3 at BSP. These are the results:

Interesting. What else can your software do? Filter wise?

[Finn Kristensen]

@john-folan I just included odds rank, so we only use horses ranked 1-3 at BSP. These are the results:

[John Folan]

@finn-kristensen said in The BTC Horse Racing Thread:

@john-folan I just made an analysis on Doncaster. Can't really confirm your figures there tbh.

For the 5F races (AW) I get the following:

So, nothing really tells us that there is a clear advantage for the low draws. However, Stall 2 seems to be the best for whatever reason. I did an extra analysis where I expanded the number of runs to include all races with 5-14 runners - the results are pretty much the same. Stall 2 seems to be the best, but the win rate remains at around 24%. The corresponding Place figures are just below 40% for the Draw at 2.

I again have to stress that the numbers we look at here are at the low end, so it would be problematic to draw too clear conclusions based on these findings.

Needs odd filters. I’m interested in an aw backing system. Draw is the obvious filter that’s needed. I’m going to play a bit. Thanks for the input. I like the way that software you use sets it out. It probably needs runners in the top three in the betting to really notice the benefit. A crap horse is. Crap horse no matter what stall.

[Finn Kristensen]

@john-folan I just made an analysis on Doncaster. Can't really confirm your figures there tbh.

For the 5F races (AW) I get the following:

So, nothing really tells us that there is a clear advantage for the low draws. However, Stall 2 seems to be the best for whatever reason. I did an extra analysis where I expanded the number of runs to include all races with 5-14 runners - the results are pretty much the same. Stall 2 seems to be the best, but the win rate remains at around 24%. The corresponding Place figures are just below 40% for the Draw at 2.

I again have to stress that the numbers we look at here are at the low end, so it would be problematic to draw too clear conclusions based on these findings.

[Finn Kristensen]

@john-folan said in The BTC Horse Racing Thread:

@finn-kristensen said in The BTC Horse Racing Thread:

@john-folan Just wanted to check the Place figures, given how good the low draw figures looked.

So 50%+ place positions for stalls 1-3. There is a clear positive correlation between low draw and good runs, however, the data set is limited.

There is an edge there. Might be onto something. Half tempted to get proform back to really go to town on it.

Thanks for looking it’s good to get a conversation going.

Have a look at Chester and Doncaster for the short flat races when you get a mo. Even more bias than Kempton.

Will look at Doncaster. Just for the record, the Place figures are for 5f (actually 5.5 f) races at Chester.

[John Folan]

@finn-kristensen said in The BTC Horse Racing Thread:

@john-folan Just wanted to check the Place figures, given how good the low draw figures looked.

So 50%+ place positions for stalls 1-3. There is a clear positive correlation between low draw and good runs, however, the data set is limited.

There is an edge there. Might be onto something. Half tempted to get proform back to really go to town on it.

Thanks for looking it’s good to get a conversation going.

Have a look at Chester and Doncaster for the short flat races when you get a mo. Even more bias than Kempton.

[Finn Kristensen]

@john-folan Just wanted to check the Place figures, given how good the low draw figures looked.

So 50%+ place positions for stalls 1-3. There is a clear positive correlation between low draw and good runs, however, the data set is limited.

[Finn Kristensen]

@finn-kristensen

Favourites at Chester:

Not a lot of data so difficult too draw any conclusions for faves I think.

[Finn Kristensen]

@john-folan This is what I get for Chester (5.5 f):

(All runners - favourites to follow)

[Finn Kristensen]

@john-folan I use PR Ratings (lifetime membership).

This is what I get for the favourites:

[John Folan]

@finn-kristensen said in The BTC Horse Racing Thread:

@finn-kristensen said in The BTC Horse Racing Thread:

@john-folan Hi John

I just checked through the software I use what the Draw delivers for 5F races with 8-12 runners at BSP at Kempton (since 2015). This is what I get (5% commission):

(I don't know why I only get the first 10 stalls).

Turns out there have only been races with 10 runners or less.

Interesting. Similar especially for the 5f. Be interested in the favourite stats for that as well. Hopefully Adam can come up with something. Which software by the way? Horse Race Base?

I think we can concoct something for each course like this. Chester 5f is interesting in the lower stalls.

[Finn Kristensen]

@finn-kristensen said in The BTC Horse Racing Thread:

@john-folan Hi John

I just checked through the software I use what the Draw delivers for 5F races with 8-12 runners at BSP at Kempton (since 2015). This is what I get (5% commission):

(I don't know why I only get the first 10 stalls).

Turns out there have only been races with 10 runners or less.

[Finn Kristensen]

@john-folan This is what I get for the 6F races (all race types) at Kempton:

[Finn Kristensen]

@john-folan Hi John

I just checked through the software I use what the Draw delivers for 5F races with 8-12 runners at BSP at Kempton (since 2015). This is what I get (5% commission):

(I don't know why I only get the first 10 stalls).

[John Folan]

I'm harping on about Kempton as I get some good results there from a couple of little price sensitive micro strategies. Particularly in the lower part of the draw. These stats prove my point as well. Bare in mind that the results below are to SP so BSP returns will be a decent percentage higher. No other filters either(price for example which is a massive consideration). massey's stuff is limited so I cannot combine things sadly and I'm not shelling out for Proform at the moment when it is basically unusable.

[John Folan]

@martin-futter said in The BTC Horse Racing Thread:

@john-folan said in The BTC Horse Racing Thread:

Still nothing. Been experimenting a bit on the dogs and course stats and wondered if the same thing applied to horse racing. Having an inital look at Kempton for example there is an obvious draw bias on the AW. I've been using the Adrian Massey site as it is free at present and you can run all sorts of things through it. The link is on my resources page.

It's got me thinking. I think it works in football too as there is differences between leagues(not so much grounds) where LTD works, backing unders and backing overs work. So I think that specific strategies may only work on certain courses. It makes sense and that old phrase 'horses for courses springs to mind. I'm going to do more research(i'll leave the football upto the experts. Stuart's LTD thread being a supreme example of league knowledge). I will see what I can find either from backing or laying perspectives.

Any thoughts?

good idea to test, think the software may be able to help with this @adam-williams?

This is kind of what I had in mind

[Martin]

@john-folan said in The BTC Horse Racing Thread:

Still nothing. Been experimenting a bit on the dogs and course stats and wondered if the same thing applied to horse racing. Having an inital look at Kempton for example there is an obvious draw bias on the AW. I've been using the Adrian Massey site as it is free at present and you can run all sorts of things through it. The link is on my resources page.

It's got me thinking. I think it works in football too as there is differences between leagues(not so much grounds) where LTD works, backing unders and backing overs work. So I think that specific strategies may only work on certain courses. It makes sense and that old phrase 'horses for courses springs to mind. I'm going to do more research(i'll leave the football upto the experts. Stuart's LTD thread being a supreme example of league knowledge). I will see what I can find either from backing or laying perspectives.

Any thoughts?

good idea to test, think the software may be able to help with this @adam-williams?

[John Folan]

Still nothing. Been experimenting a bit on the dogs and course stats and wondered if the same thing applied to horse racing. Having an inital look at Kempton for example there is an obvious draw bias on the AW. I've been using the Adrian Massey site as it is free at present and you can run all sorts of things through it. The link is on my resources page.

It's got me thinking. I think it works in football too as there is differences between leagues(not so much grounds) where LTD works, backing unders and backing overs work. So I think that specific strategies may only work on certain courses. It makes sense and that old phrase 'horses for courses springs to mind. I'm going to do more research(i'll leave the football upto the experts. Stuart's LTD thread being a supreme example of league knowledge). I will see what I can find either from backing or laying perspectives.

Any thoughts?