Horse racing draw advantage bias YARMOUTH 6F
Stalls positioned HIGH.  2 charts (See chart below for Low positioning )

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 21 22
No

of

R

U

N

E

R

S

8 1 1 1   1     1
9       1          
10     11 1       11 111 1 Stalls positioned HIGH
11   11   1     1   1 1  
12   1   1       1   1 1  
13 11        11 1 1       11    
14 1 1  1                  1    
15   1            1 1           1
16         1   1   11   1   1     1
17         1           1           1
18                 1                 1
19           1               1         1
20     11 1 1       11         11 11   1   1 11
21                                          
22                                            
4 6 4 4 3 2

<--Good or better -->

6 2 1 7 4 7
24 29

Copyright 2005 [H Hutchinson]. All rights reserved.

There appears to be an even spread of results throughout most of this chart.
On good or better going, the Top 6 stalls won 27 of 55 races 49%, a very low percentage for 6 stalls.
Stalls 1 to 6 won 23 races.
2 winners were drawn dead centre.
A interesting feature is that on good or better going, in races of 17 - 20 runners the Top 7 stalls won 11 of 12 races.
Races sometimes split here as jockeys search for faster ground.
Races can split with as few as 10 runners (Aug 4th 2004), but not all races split.
Maybe those crossing to the Low side are at a disadvantage.
12 races is a very small sample.
In 2006, the max field size was 16.
On good or better going, there were 5 wins from both halves of the draw, and one other winner drawn 8-15, dead centre.

The chart below showing races with stalls positioned Low, could add weight to this theory.
Although there are not many results, on the chart below, there is a definite drift of wins away from the Low side of the course as field sizes increase.
Additionally, on the 5F chart, in races with the stalls positioined Low, 3 of 4 races were won from the Top 2 stalls, and there is some clustering of 5F results in the Top 6 stalls in races with 9 to 14 runners.
Future races will prove or disprove whether the Low side of the course is slower.

On good/good to soft in places or softer going, results are spread.
There is no recommendation at present.

2006 results :- 5-8, 4-10, 8-10, 2-11, 7-11, 10-12, 5-13, 1-14, 8-15, 15-15,
                     7-16, 11-16, 13-16

2005 results :-  9-10, 4-11, 11-12, 1-13, 1-13, 6-13, 9-16, 5-17, 11-17, 14-19, 19-19, 3-20, 5-20, 14-20

YARMOUTH 6F    Stalls usually positioned LOW 2 charts See High positioning above

WINNING STALL NUMBER

 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
No

of

R

U

N

E

R

S

8   1 1   1 1 1  
9 1     1   1   1  
10   1     1           Stalls positioned LOW
11         1            
12                      1  
13            1              
14               1     1       1
15                           1    
16             1                  
17                                  
18                                    
19                 1                    
20                   1                   1
21                                          
22                                            
1 1 1 1 3 3

<--Good or better -->

3 1 2 2 3 2
10 10

Copyright 2005 [H Hutchinson]. All rights reserved.

Looking at the Top 6 and Bottom 6 totals, this looks like results favour the Top 6 stalls, but there is a spread of results in races of 8 and 9 runners where 5 results are shared between the Top and Bottom 6 stalls.
On good or better going, in races of 10 runners or more the Top 6 stalls only won 6 of 11 races.
The interesting feature here is the lack of winners from stalls 1 - 4 in races of 11 or more runners.
There appears to be a definite drift away from the bottom stalls (next to the Low rail) as the number of runners increases.
With so few results above 11 runners, this is one to watch for a Lay.

2005 and 2006 results :- No races had stalls positioned Low.