Horse racing draw advantage bias
York 1m 2f
Stalls usually positioned LOW
Link
to course and distance menu
Back to Race Of The Week
York 5F
York 6F York
7F York
7F 205yds
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 |
1111 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1111 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
1111 |
111 |
1 |
11 |
|
1 |
1 |
1111 |
|
|
|
|
3yr olds and older
10 seasons results
1997 - 2006 |
|
10 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
11 |
|
11 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
11 |
|
|
11 |
|
|
1 |
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
11 |
|
11 |
11 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
21 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
111 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
7 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
5 |
6 |
<--Good or better --> |
4 |
4 |
6 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
|
|
40
|
25
|
Copyright © 2005
[H
Hutchinson]. All rights reserved.
|
These results are shown as a direct
result of extremely misleading draw advantage information have been given for
this course and distance by television presenters, specifically in relation to
The John
Smith's Cup.
Stalls 1 to 9 were recommended very forcefully in 2004 and 2005 for that race.
The effect of the going was completely ignored.
A recommendation of 9 horses, is not an indication of a strong draw advantage.
This is a very weak pattern indeed, with
results not favouring a small minority of stalls on any type of going anywhere
on the chart.
No doubt television presenters will continue to recommend a Low draw advantage in these
races, but do these people really have time to look at results in detail, or are
they looking at the shape of the course and the proximity of the running rail,
and making an uneducated guess ?
Distance is a great leveler, and
draw advantages are often affected in a negative way by increased distance.
These races are over 10 furlongs, and show a great deal of inconsistency.
Although the Bottom half of the draw has been favoured to some extent during the last
10 years, the 2004 results demonstrate how these results will let you down.
Just 3 winners in 8 races started from the Bottom half of the draw in 2004.
All 3 of those races took place on good/good to soft in
places or softer going - by far the
weaker (and less predictable) part of this pattern.
On good or better going in 2004, there were no wins from the Bottom half of the
draw.
On good or better going, (results
shown in black), the
Bottom half, Top half split shown at the Bottom of the chart favours the Bottom
half of the draw by 40 wins to 25.
During 2004, on good or better going, the Top half of the draw won 3 of 3 races.
In 2005, there were 3
wins from stalls 1 to 4, and 3 wins from the Top 3 stalls.
In 2006, Stalls 1 to 6 won 2 of 4 races, the Top 6 stalls won 3 of 4 races.
On good or better
going during the last 10 seasons in races of 16 or
more runners, the Top 6 stalls won only 3 in 26 races, but even so, the best
that can be said of this part of the chart is that results have favoured the
Bottom half of the draw by 19 wins to 7.
Over such a long distance, this could easily be coincidence and results will not
consistently favour the bottom half each year.
This is demonstrated by the 2004 results - both drawn in the Top half, 11
of 18 and 13 of 20 runners.
A recommendation of
half the runners in fields of 16 or more runners would be a recommendation of 8
or more horses.
This is a very weak draw advantage when compared to sprint races over other
courses and distances, and demonstrates a great deal of inconsistency if we look at results each
year, and the 2004 results in particular.
On good,
good to soft in places or softer going,
(results
shown in red), results
are spread across most stalls throughout the chart.
This course and
distance is not a good betting or laying proposition from a draw advantage point
of view.
There is no
recommendation.
2006 results :- 4-8,
5-8, 5-8, 5-13,
12-13, 5-14, 14-19,
1-20, 9-20 (John Smith's Cup)
2005 results :-
1-8,
3-8, 3-9, 9-9,
9-9, 9-10,
11-12, 3-20, 4-20, 19-20 (John Smith's Cup)
2004 results. 5-8, 1-10,
8-12, 5-13, 7-14, 11-18, 13-20, 18-22 (John Smith's Cup)
Results on Going softer than good (good/good to soft in places or softer),
shown in Red.
|
|