Horse racing draw advantage bias NEWMARKET JULY 7F
Stalls usually positioned HIGH.  (Low shown L)
This course is sometimes split into 2 by a false rail, so some races may have taken place on the Low half or the High half of the course.
At present, there is no way of identifying this from race returns.

Link to course and distance menu

WINNING STALL NUMBER

 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
No

of

R

U

N

E

R

S

8   1   1 L 1 11 1
9 1 11 1   111 1 11 L  
10 11 L1 1 1     1 1L   1
11 1111   L11 1 1 11 1 L 1 1111L  
12     1   1 1 11   1 1    
13 11   111         1L   1 1 1 1
14   1 1     1 1   1     11 1  
15   1 1     1   1     1 1   11 1
16 11         1               111    
17     1L 1         1 1   1         1
18       1   1 1 1                 1  
19               1   1 1   1   L        
20   1 1   11 1LL   1 1 11 1     1L       11 11 11L
8 8 12 3 5 6

<--Good or better -->

6 5 6 13 13 8
41 53

Copyright 2005 [H Hutchinson]. All rights reserved.

A very weak pattern.
On good or better going, the Top half of the draw has been slightly favoured, by 53 wins against 41 from the Bottom half, but results are spread across most stalls throughout this chart.
As you probably know, splits occur here quite regularly as jockeys race down different parts of the course in search of faster ground.
That will no doubt be a contributory factor towards the pretty even spreads of results.
On good or better going, the Top half of the draw won 53 of 100 races 53%.
That is a very low percentage for 6 stalls.
A good pattern would produce 65% or more.
Stalls 1 to 6 won 42 races.
6 winners were drawn dead centre.
All this looks pretty even, so from a draw advantage point of view, winners could start from anywhere.
There is no recommendation.

On good/good to soft in places  or softer going, the Bottom half of the draw won 17 of 26 races 65%.
Results on going softer than good often prove unreliable, and that was the case in 2006.
The Top 6 stalls won 3 of 3 races in 2006 under those conditions.
All had stalls positioned Low.
There are a lot of unknowns here :-
The course is often split in half, so there are 6 possible stalls positions.
Stalls positioning is only shown on the chart for 2004, 2005, and 2006.
Fields often split, and with such a weak overall pattern, it is impossible to estimate at what point (Number of runners) results are may be adversely affected by splits.
See
Thirsk 5F and 6F races for excellent examples of the effects of field splitting, and how we can make sure those manouevres work in our favour. 

2006 results :-  5-8, 8-9 (L), 8-10 (L), 3-11(L), 10-11 (L), 3-12 (H), 10-12 (H), 8-13 (L), 7-14 (H), 8-18 (H), 15-19 (L), 14-20 (L)