|
Horse racing draw advantage bias
York 1 mile (7F
205 yds)
Stalls usually positioned LOW
Link
to course and distance menu
Back to Race Of The Week
York 5F
York 6F York
7F York 1m 2F
|
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 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
| No
of
R
U
N
E
R
S |
8 |
|
1 |
111 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
|
|
11 |
1 |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3yr
olds and older
10 seasons results
1997 - 2006 |
|
|
|
| 10 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
11 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
11 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 16 |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 17 |
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 19 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 20 |
11 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 21 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 22 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 23 |
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
26 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
6 |
8 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
<--Good or better --> |
4 |
2 |
3 |
8 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
32 |
19 |
Copyright © 2005 [Howard
Hutchinson]. All rights reserved.
|
This is a very weak pattern.
There is a left hand bend of more than 90 degrees shortly after the start in
these races, which should in theory benefit horses drawn in Low numbered stalls,
close to the running rail.
Although Low numbers have been favoured to some extent during the last 10 years,
any advantage has been only slight.
As field sizes increase, horses drawn Low have won more races.
Traffic problems, and horses having to put in an early effort form High numbered
stalls to secure a good position could be benefiting horses drawn Low.
All obvious stuff, but note that results are spread across wide ranges of stall
numbers throughout, with no significant tight clustering of wins anywhere on the
chart.
Distance is having a negative effect in these races.
On good or better going,
the Bottom half, Top half split favours the
Bottom half of the draw by 32 wins to 19.
1 other winner was drawn dead centre.
On good or better going, stalls 1 to 6 won 30 of 52 races 57%, a low percentage
for 6 stalls.
The Top 6 stalls won 18 of 52 races 34%..
As the number of runners increases, the percentage of wins from stalls 1 to 6
increases.
On good or better going,
In races of 15 or more runners, stalls 1 - 6 won 18 of 28 races 64%
In races of 20 or more runners, stalls 1 - 6 won 10 of 14 races 71%,
14 races
is a very small sample.
The distance of almost 1m is a very long way for a draw advantage to show a
consistent and reliable series of results.
As a general rule, both increased distance and large field sizes, usually have a
negative affect on draw advantages
During 2005, on good or better going, in races of 15 or more runners, stalls 1 -
6 won 4 of 7 races.
In 2006 there were no races with those conditions.
On
good, good to soft in places or softer going,
the results shown in red, wins are spread
across a wide range of stall numbers.
There have been no wins from the Top stall
on any kind of going during the last 10 years (70 races).
You may choose to follow these trends, BUT :-
realistically, results throughout
most of this chart are spread across a wide range of stall numbers.
There is no
recommendation.
2006 results :- 3-8, 1-12, 7-13,
8-13, 12-22
|
|