Odds-on favourites stats in Vic

[Messenger]

With the beginning of a new month I thought I would start a spreadsheet to track Odds-on faves in Vic.
What a day to pick as the very first meeting was Mildura today

They had 6 Odds-on faves today and they all LOST

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=ML010618&fromstate=vic

I have taken stats on Odds-on pops before and found that about Half Lost - they are certainly off to a bad start this time around

[Messenger]

I figure I will update this on a weekly basis
1 week down

75 races
42 Odds On Favs = 56%

20 Won so Success Rate = 47%

[Messenger]

11 races at Bendigo tonight and only 1 Odds On

[Messenger]

2 weeks down

165 races
87 Odds On Favs = 53%

52 have won so Success Rate = 60%

[gutwagon]

53% odds on favs in races just shows the current handicap system is not producing even races. I would expect the 3.5k races could have an even higher % as they seem to be the most uneven races.

[Messenger]

I have not divided the races into classes, I was more interested in which tracks and stables. I know that in the 2 weeks we have had 2 All $3.5k meets: Shep 6/11 odds on and Melton 5/10, so no worse at this stage. The Melton Metro meet on June 8 had 8/11.

So far the 87 Odds on pops have come from 63 different stables

[aussiebreno]

I have not divided the races into classes, I was more interested in which tracks and stables. I know that in the 2 weeks we have had 2 All $3.5k meets: Shep 6/11 odds on and Melton 5/10, so no worse at this stage. The Melton Metro meet on June 8 had 8/11.

So far the 87 Odds on pops have come from 63 different stables

We demand class records. You are as bad as HRV in regards to not providing class records!!! :p:cool: Just joking Kev

[Messenger]

I have already pushed my computer skills to the limit to have a single spreadsheet that sorts trainers alphabetically, sorts meeting alphabetically, indicates what the favourites odds were and whether it won or lost, as well as recording the number of races on the card and how many of the faves were odds on. I for one am pretty impressed (with excel)

[Messenger]

Tonight at Bendigo 11 out of 11 Odds On favourites

6 out of 11 LOST

including $1.30 Lost, $1.20 Lost, $1.10 Lost - can you imagine the uproar if that happened in another code

What is going on?

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=BN190618&fromstate=vic

[Dot]

Not sure your comparing apples with apples Kev, if the other codes don't have as many odds on favs then they can't have as many lose at a meeting so no I can't imagine the uproar but of course all codes can have a short priced favourite lose.

Most but not all of these races were Vicbred heats which were clearly seeded to spread the better performed, and or likely to be better supported horses across the card which resulted in the short priced favourites in these events. I imagine that pattern will continue across the remainder of the Vicbred series. Perhaps at the conclusion of the series it is time to review the structure of the series.

Currently it operates as an all in concept during the heats before the cream rise to the top into the semis and then rises further into the final with one or two consolations conducted for those not making the final. It's designed to keep the best horses apart before reaching a crescendo and crowning a champion, not maximise wagering along the way. Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that not all starters are equal and tier the series from the beginning into "gold" and "silver" divisions ( and even "bronze" if there are enough horses) with the "gold" horses competing for higher levels of prizemoney in both the heats and final then horses engaged in the "silver" series, and likewise for horses engaged in a "bronze" series if there was one. Just have heats into a final and consolations and use the prizemoney allocated for the semi finals to fund the two/three tiered series. I'd like to think there are more then some 70 odd 2yos available to race in Vic and a tiered Vicbred series may draw more starters and make more participants feel a part of the Vicbred series and "family". It would pit more like against like from the beginning and as a result should even up the starting prices somewhat though it won't of course guarantee an odds on pop doesn't get beaten.

[arlington]

Not sure your comparing apples with apples Kev, if the other codes don't have as many odds on favs then they can't have as many lose at a meeting so no I can't imagine the uproar but of course all codes can have a short priced favourite lose.

Most but not all of these races were Vicbred heats which were clearly seeded to spread the better performed, and or likely to be better supported horses across the card which resulted in the short priced favourites in these events. I imagine that pattern will continue across the remainder of the Vicbred series. Perhaps at the conclusion of the series it is time to review the structure of the series.

Currently it operates as an all in concept during the heats before the cream rise to the top into the semis and then rises further into the final with one or two consolations conducted for those not making the final. It's designed to keep the best horses apart before reaching a crescendo and crowning a champion, not maximise wagering along the way. Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that not all starters are equal and tier the series from the beginning into "gold" and "silver" divisions ( and even "bronze" if there are enough horses) with the "gold" horses competing for higher levels of prizemoney in both the heats and final then horses engaged in the "silver" series, and likewise for horses engaged in a "bronze" series if there was one. Just have heats into a final and consolations and use the prizemoney allocated for the semi finals to fund the two/three tiered series. I'd like to think there are more then some 70 odd 2yos available to race in Vic and a tiered Vicbred series may draw more starters and make more participants feel a part of the Vicbred series and "family". It would pit more like against like from the beginning and as a result should even up the starting prices somewhat though it won't of course guarantee an odds on pop doesn't get beaten.


An interesting take on it Dot, the heats. Pretty sure it's owner and trainer splits not seeding. Would be appalled if it was seeding. If the heats were, and will continue to be, formed due to splits, would that change your thoughts and what you've proposed? Is splitting outdated with the increase and promotion of syndication?

edit: Kyle's relevant post #12 reminded me of the thread topic. Splits are causing odds on faves.

[Amlin]

The Quad at Sale dogs last week was due to pay $9 with the fav in the last leg, small reward for picking one third of the nights winner. The fav got rolled!

[Dot]

Wayne seeded may not be entirely accurate terminology and trainer/owner driver splits contribute to the process but the situation is we had a series of heats with odds on favourites in them, along with much longer priced, including over 100 to 1 runners, creating a poor wagering environment, and only around 70 2yos participating in the Vicbred series.

While any series involving heats will need to have a process to determine the runners in each heat be it seeding, trainer owner splits or random draw or a combination of those, what I'm proposing is intended to be a tiered Vicbred series which encourages greater levels of participation in the series from all sectors of the industry, not continuation of the current concept that the series is just for the best and which sees horses of similar abilities pitted against each other from the start, creating a better wagering product and more people with a Vicbred Super Series trophy on the mantle at the end of it.

At the beginning of the season Wayne it would be presumed that all horses are targeted at the "gold" level of the series, by the time the series rolls around it should be established by performance which are the "gold" tier horses regardless of the connections and which are not at that standard. It may be that all horses in the series must have been racing prior to commencement of the series ( in the case of juveniles in particular) and in some instances the handicappers may have to make a determination of which tier of the series a horse belongs in.

Dividing a series such as Vicbred is not unprecedented Wayne, the sires stakes series in Ontario operates on "gold" and "grass roots" levels and there may be others.

[Messenger]

A 2yo series is probably distracting from the point I wanted to make (although I wonder whether Dots idea might have merit - tricky with 2yo's however: would first starter Tiger Storm have been in the Gold or Bronze heats?)

With 40% of Odds On pops losing my first thought was that their Odds/Assessment was wrong or that "Trots punters are terrible punters" (as we make the odds) but on further investigation, maybe they are not as bad as I thought.

We all know that Even money means you have a 50/50 chance but taking into account the 'take out' from the pool we are only ever going to get $1.90 about Even money chances and we should expect 50% of them to lose.
The other one my simple maths brain can get its head around is that 1/2 (or $1.50) odds suggest that a horse is assessed as likely to beat the rest of the field 2 out of 3 times you run the race or only lose 33% of the time . After the pool 'take out' we are only going to get $1.40 about a true 1/2 fav.

So working on these assumptions we can expect
$1.90 favourites to lose 50% of the time
$1.40 favourites to lose 33% of the time.

So splitting the difference we could expect $1.60 favs to lose 40% of the time

We are only a little below this (for the month of June) with the average of Odds On favourites being $1.50 so far so you would expect them to have been beaten just a little less than 40% of the time

Overall it surprised me and I may even stop highlighting how often Odds On favs get beat but it sure confirmed for me

"Odds On Look On"

[aussiebreno]

A 2yo series is probably distracting from the point I wanted to make (although I wonder whether Dots idea might have merit - tricky with 2yo's however: would first starter Tiger Storm have been in the Gold or Bronze heats?)

With 40% of Odds On pops losing my first thought was that their Odds/Assessment was wrong or that "Trots punters are terrible punters" (as we make the odds) but on further investigation, maybe they are not as bad as I thought.

We all know that Even money means you have a 50/50 chance but taking into account the 'take out' from the pool we are only ever going to get $1.90 about Even money chances and we should expect 50% of them to lose.
The other one my simple maths brain can get its head around is that 1/2 (or $1.50) odds suggest that a horse is assessed as likely to beat the rest of the field 2 out of 3 times you run the race or only lose 33% of the time . After the pool 'take out' we are only going to get $1.40 about a true 1/2 fav.

So working on these assumptions we can expect
$1.90 favourites to lose 50% of the time
$1.40 favourites to lose 33% of the time.

So splitting the difference we could expect $1.60 favs to lose 40% of the time

We are only a little below this (for the month of June) with the average of Odds On favourites being $1.50 so far so you would expect them to have been beaten just a little less than 40% of the time

Overall it surprised me and I may even stop highlighting how often Odds On favs get beat but it sure confirmed for me

"Odds On Look On"
Kev as you point out in a 100% market $ 1.50 should win 66% of the time. You suggest average of odds on fave are $1.50 and that 40% are losing. This means 60% are winning. 66% / 60% is only a 10% loss to the punter. Given TAB take out is 14.5% that means the odds on horses are actually providing some value.

In a 114.5% market with $1.50 fave rest of field would be $2.10. $2.10 shots should win 48% of time. Your figures suggest they are only upstaging the $1.50 shots just shy of 40% of the time. 48%/40% = 20% so they doing even worse than the 14.5% TAB takeout.

Sure if you find the right non-odds horse to back the rewards are there, but by the same token it can be about finding the right odds on horse to back. As a mere philosophy your stats point to odds on chances providing more value than the non-odds on horses.

Of course the statistic about $1.50 winning 40% of the time is only worked on an average $1.50 so may not be entirely accurate. And sample size etc.

[Messenger]

I was hoping you would post Brendan - very interesting indeed

[Dot]

As an actual non punter I'll leave the punting math to you and Brenno Kev. As to whether a Tiger Storm would be gold or bronze as a first starter I'd suggest first starters would be ineligible to the series, with all participants required to have had at least one start previously. There's no perfect system Kev but I suggest participation in the gold series be a reward for effort, and those horses who have established the best form and highest levels of prizemoney be the ones in the gold series ( similar to the jewels) so a Tiger Storm would be a bronze starter. At that level yes she's probably a very short priced favourite or her connections may have made sure she had the runs on the board to be contesting a tier at a higher level for more prizemoney and prestige or the series could have a clause that facilitates the handicappers having some descretion to insert a horse into a higher level of the series.

I wouldn't suggest the tiers be limited to 2yos but used across the whole series and based on seasonal earnings.

On the subject of Math what percentage of Vicbred 2yos actually contested the series? Foals conceived and foaled in Vic, SA and Tas are eligible, as are, subject to a fee, foals by a stallion based in those states but foaled intestate. There are other benefits to being Vicbred such as first win bonuses and eligibility to other races but the Vicbred Super Series is the premier event and I'd suggest participant involvement in our premier Vicbred event is not high enough as it currently stands

[Messenger]

An interesting take on it Dot, the heats. Pretty sure it's owner and trainer splits not seeding. Would be appalled if it was seeding. If the heats were, and will continue to be, formed due to splits, would that change your thoughts and what you've proposed? Is splitting outdated with the increase and promotion of syndication?

edit: Kyle's relevant post #12 reminded me of the thread topic. Splits are causing odds on faves.

Interesting point Wayne. If owner and trainer splits are happening isn't that a reason for a person with a good horse to place his horse with the trainer of his hottest opposition as in early rounds there is an excellent chance they will not draw each other.

[aussiebreno]

Most series finals have 3 or 4 genuine winning chances. Half the final field is hoping for a good draw and sneak a place. Grossly unfair to have the also runs in the Gold series receive less prize-money than Bronze winners. Nobodies rankings are perfect and trainers would complain about being ranked too low/high. While the top tier of the state are at the semi finals there is more opportunities for the also runs from the heats to win ordinary 2C front races and get their bonus.

[Dot]

Most series finals have 3 or 4 genuine winning chances. Half the final field is hoping for a good draw and sneak a place. Grossly unfair to have the also runs in the Gold series receive less prize-money than Bronze winners. Nobodies rankings are perfect and trainers would complain about being ranked too low/high. While the top tier of the state are at the semi finals there is more opportunities for the also runs from the heats to win ordinary 2C front races and get their bonus.

Fortunately for racing Brenno most owners and breeders have a more colourful view of their involvement then a profit and loss sheet at the office and the dollars won/lost on the punt. Sure there are often only a few genuine winning chances in a race but I think we've already established that racing doesn't always go to script. Whilst I'd envisage a very significant differential in prizemoney between tiers it would be possible for an unplaced runner in the higher tier to earn less then the winner of another tier, happens in consolations now doesn't it? But does every grade cricket player long to play on some suburban ground every weekend and score a ton or do they think of representing their state, and dream of a baggy green, or coloured clothing, rock music and fireworks on the sideline these days, even though their chance of scoring a duck has increased exponentially?

Covering costs and rate of return is in owners minds Brenno but those could never solely be first thing in the minds of all owners for there could be no racing if they were. Don't know if there are figures for Australia but from the U.S. gallops investment in the breeding industry runs at 2.5 times the available prizemoney, and training fees haven't been factored in yet.

Your right though, nobodies rankings are perfect, but what is it they say about all publicity is good publicity, a little controversy in the rankings wouldn't go astray. Or perhaps you'd find it more appealing to assign rankings purely on dollars earned, black and white, no controversy there. Having been a trainer on a communal training centre for twenty years let me tell you regardless of what you do trainers will find something to complain about, they always do.

Not sure your last sentence makes sense, presumably the top tier at the semis would predominately have already won their first win bonus and not eligible to contest 2A0 races that the also rans from the heats that haven't won their first win bonus are.

[aussiebreno]

Fortunately for racing Brenno most owners and breeders have a more colourful view of their involvement then a profit and loss sheet at the office and the dollars won/lost on the punt. Sure there are often only a few genuine winning chances in a race but I think we've already established that racing doesn't always go to script. Whilst I'd envisage a very significant differential in prizemoney between tiers it would be possible for an unplaced runner in the higher tier to earn less then the winner of another tier, happens in consolations now doesn't it? But does every grade cricket player long to play on some suburban ground every weekend and score a ton or do they think of representing their state, and dream of a baggy green, or coloured clothing, rock music and fireworks on the sideline these days, even though their chance of scoring a duck has increased exponentially?

Covering costs and rate of return is in owners minds Brenno but those could never solely be first thing in the minds of all owners for there could be no racing if they were. Don't know if there are figures for Australia but from the U.S. gallops investment in the breeding industry runs at 2.5 times the available prizemoney, and training fees haven't been factored in yet.

Your right though, nobodies rankings are perfect, but what is it they say about all publicity is good publicity, a little controversy in the rankings wouldn't go astray. Or perhaps you'd find it more appealing to assign rankings purely on dollars earned, black and white, no controversy there. Having been a trainer on a communal training centre for twenty years let me tell you regardless of what you do trainers will find something to complain about, they always do.

Not sure your last sentence makes sense, presumably the top tier at the semis would predominately have already won their first win bonus and not eligible to contest 2A0 races that the also rans from the heats that haven't won their first win bonus are.
No trainers/owners long term view is going to be "yeah we are targeting the bronze series in 6 months, cant wait!"
Those third grade cricketers may aspire to play at the MCG but they simply arent performing to that level so play at a suburban grounds for no $$. If you arent up to the standard you miss out like the bottom half of the ladder miss finals in footy. No consolation prizes.
Ranking on prizemoney would only lead to 2yo babies having more starts, a lot of which will then press on to the ABC. A lot of trainers want to look after their 2yos.
The chance to compete in 2C0 races is primetime in the next couple weeks for the horses you would put in silver/bronze.

[Dot]

No trainers/owners long term view is going to be "yeah we are targeting the bronze series in 6 months, cant wait!"
Those third grade cricketers may aspire to play at the MCG but they simply arent performing to that level so play at a suburban grounds for no $$. If you arent up to the standard you miss out like the bottom half of the ladder miss finals in footy. No consolation prizes.
Ranking on prizemoney would only lead to 2yo babies having more starts, a lot of which will then press on to the ABC. A lot of trainers want to look after their 2yos.
The chance to compete in 2C0 races is primetime in the next couple weeks for the horses you would put in silver/bronze.

Actually Brenno Kevs posts here with regard to $3500 restricted races led to a clear statement from David Martin that there is a subset of trainers/participants who are in favour of races at this level. How do you know that they would not also be supportive of a low prizemoney series resulting in a Vicbred trophy albeit a bronze one on the mantle piece?

So are you suggesting no one ever start their horse in a race at long odds as they clearly aren't up to the standard of the favourites and should confine themselves to running around on the training track for no dollars? That the third grade Cricketer sitting in the stands at the MCG should ignore the call up to make up the fielding numbers in the event of injuries because he's not up to it and has no prospect of being paid for his time on the field?

Of course most owners/trainers at least want to look after their babies, many actually all their horses, I do, over racing is a drawback in a prizemoney eligibility system, though doesn't appear to have been too much of a negative for the jewels and many stakes events in the U.S., or the Magic Millions. I'm sure many trainers would weigh up the accumulating effects on the horse of earning prizemoney to be eligible against the probability of earning some in the main event with a tired horse. As you said there is no perfect ranking system but perhaps there is an optimal one.

As it stands Brenno with only 3 colts heats in particular most of the colts will be engaged in the semi finals now anyway, I don't think they can scratch without a penalty to contest maiden races though perhaps they can be withdrawn before acceptances to contest maiden races instead. I don't see how you view a silver/bronze series over two starts as an impost on a 2yos ability to contest maiden races, at bronze level these races could actually be at near maiden status.

I'm interested Brenno in how you would propose to increase participation rates in the Vicbred Schemes premier event, or if in fact you would consider that a desirable occurrence? And by what means, beyond having the punters rely on their own recognisance, Would you try to create better wagering outcomes for punters and industry alike from the series?

[Messenger]

On the issue of heats and semi's - if there are not more than 4 heats IMO we should not need semi's

[aussiebreno]

Actually Brenno Kevs posts here with regard to $3500 restricted races led to a clear statement from David Martin that there is a subset of trainers/participants who are in favour of races at this level. How do you know that they would not also be supportive of a low prizemoney series resulting in a Vicbred trophy albeit a bronze one on the mantle piece?

So are you suggesting no one ever start their horse in a race at long odds as they clearly aren't up to the standard of the favourites and should confine themselves to running around on the training track for no dollars? That the third grade Cricketer sitting in the stands at the MCG should ignore the call up to make up the fielding numbers in the event of injuries because he's not up to it and has no prospect of being paid for his time on the field?

Of course most owners/trainers at least want to look after their babies, many actually all their horses, I do, over racing is a drawback in a prizemoney eligibility system, though doesn't appear to have been too much of a negative for the jewels and many stakes events in the U.S., or the Magic Millions. I'm sure many trainers would weigh up the accumulating effects on the horse of earning prizemoney to be eligible against the probability of earning some in the main event with a tired horse. As you said there is no perfect ranking system but perhaps there is an optimal one.

As it stands Brenno with only 3 colts heats in particular most of the colts will be engaged in the semi finals now anyway, I don't think they can scratch without a penalty to contest maiden races though perhaps they can be withdrawn before acceptances to contest maiden races instead. I don't see how you view a silver/bronze series over two starts as an impost on a 2yos ability to contest maiden races, at bronze level these races could actually be at near maiden status.

I'm interested Brenno in how you would propose to increase participation rates in the Vicbred Schemes premier event, or if in fact you would consider that a desirable occurrence? And by what means, beyond having the punters rely on their own recognisance, Would you try to create better wagering outcomes for punters and industry alike from the series?

$3500 races on random days of the week are a different kettle to fish to messing with the format of one of the few showcase meetings we have each year. The heats and semis provide an important lead up and get the right horses in to the final. The semi final cards themselves are one of the meetings each year where you ensure you don't accept an invitation to a relatives kids birthday party in order to stay home and watch Sky. Can't say I'd care if I missed the Bronze meeting.
The point of the heats is to get the 'rankings' correct and let the better ones earn their way to the semis. Plenty of horses who would have been ranked Bronze going into the heats have made their way to the big dance and run well over the years. The series always provides a few bolters and a feel good story.
I'm suggesting the long odds should give it a crack as they do now and start in the heats and do try to make it to the MCG, rather than going to your suburban/Bronze ground.
If your aim is participation, how much participation is in the Jewels and Magic Millions? Less than the Vicbred I can assure you.
The top end of town isn't so much about participation but showcasing the premier event. Not every horse is made out for Group1 races but I fully endorse they participate at a Country level. I can watch ordinary horses go around every day of the week, there is only so many feature meetings so lets not ruin them, after all its the showcase meetings that are more likely to get new fans involved.

[aussiebreno]

If they were $500K finals and no Vicbred bonuses sure something may need to be done about that, but they are $100K finals and there are Vicbred bonuses so its not as if the masses are missing out.

[Dot]

On the issue of heats and semi's - if there are not more than 4 heats IMO we should not need semi's

31 in 4yo mares 3 heats 34 in 4yo E&Gs 3 heats.

2.68% reduction in pacing mares served in Vic last season.

[Messenger]

A bit late with the weekly update but I have been in Melbourne
It has been a big week for odds on faves

3½ weeks down

90 Different trainers have supplied our odds on faves for the month so far
with Emma Stewart supplying 16 of them followed by Kerryn Manning with 9

299 races
165 Odds On Favs = 55%

104 have won so Success Rate = 63%

[arlington]

A bit late with the weekly update but I have been in Melbourne
It has been a big week for odds on faves

3½ weeks down

90 Different trainers have supplied our odds on faves for the month so far
with Emma Stewart supplying 16 of them followed by Kerryn Manning with 9

299 races
165 Odds On Favs = 55%

104 have won so Success Rate = 63%


As advised in the April/May Harness Racer Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) will trial a month of preferential barrier draws (PBDs) during July.
With the exception of races conducted as part of a futurity series or programmed feature list races that have been previously advertised as random barrier draw events, all other events will be run as PBD races.

[Messenger]

We come to the end of June
Exactly 100 different trainers had an Odds On pop for the month

There were 370 races for the month
207 had an Odds On fav = 56%

126 won so the Success Rate = 61%

Emma Stewart supplied 26 of them with 18 of hers winning (69%)
Kerryn Manning was the next most with 10 and 60% winning

The best strike rate with Odds On pops was Gavin Lang with 5/5 = 100%

[Messenger]

I thought I had better work out what the average Odds On pop was for June to see if July's preferential draws make a diff
June Odds On average price = $1.43

[Messenger]

Week 1 of July

76 races
41 odds on favs = 54%
24 won = 58.5% success rate

[aussiebreno]

These Silver and Bronze races are a great opportunity for the lesser likes likes to get a photo on the wall. Owners of strugglers like Molly Kelly and Lochinvar Art must be very chuffed to race against similarly credentialed horses. Note the sarcasm.

It just adds to the reasons not to run these races.

[Dot]

I'll confess I haven't read the fine print on the Vicbred series, are these consolations? Molly Kelly and Lochinvar Art didn't contest the Vicbred series, they were both in the breeders challenge in NSW so if these are consolations for the Vicbred Series then I wouldn't have expected to see them in them. But wasn't that what you wanted Brenno, no consolations.

[aussiebreno]

I'll confess I haven't read the fine print on the Vicbred series, are these consolations? Molly Kelly and Lochinvar Art didn't contest the Vicbred series, they were both in the breeders challenge in NSW so if these are consolations for the Vicbred Series then I wouldn't have expected to see them in them. But wasn't that what you wanted Brenno, no consolations.

I want the showcase finals like they are at the moment and have been for years.

The horses who get don't make the final shouldn't get a second bite of the cherry though whether that be a consolation or a silver or a bronze - I don't care what you call it. That money is better spent elsewhere.

[Dot]

But what does that have to do with Lochinvar Art and Molly Kelly in these races?

[Messenger]

The $25k 2yo C&G Silver pace has 3 first starters in it

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX120718&fromstate=vic#MXC12071809

[Dot]

Well clearly not a consolation for those who were unsuccessful in progressing through the original series then.

Just checked, only horses that made the Vicbred final are excluded from these. So horses who dont support the series are eligible even if they have run second in the final of the equivalent series in NSW. Something doesn't seem quite right......

[Messenger]

July update (fini of 17/7)

178 races
87 odds on favs = 49%
51 won = 58.6% success rate

PBD conditions may already be making a diff as 49% is a drop

and this is despite many small fields where everyone is off the front. With bigger fields and PBD conditions we may see a serious reduction in Odds On Pops. 33% would be fantastic

[arlington]

July update (fini of 17/7)

178 races
87 odds on favs = 49%
51 won = 58.6% success rate

PBD conditions may already be making a diff as 49% is a drop

and this is despite many small fields where everyone is off the front. With bigger fields and PBD conditions we may see a serious reduction in Odds On Pops. 33% would be fantastic


Bigger fields might mean the "handicapped" runners are drawn 8 & 9.

[Messenger]

It is hard to know what is worst for PBD Wayne so maybe PBD is flawed - especially straightforward 1-12 PBD (I am sure Brenno had pointed this out before)

Kilmore and Maryborough are two of our most used tracks
The stats are only for the last 12mths (I don't know why they do that!)
but at Kilmore while the 8 & 9 are not bad draws - 7 has the best strike rate of any draw!
Maryborough sees 8 is fine but 9 so-so while 12, 10, 6 are their winningest - in that order

At Melton 8 & 9 are not as good as anything off the front with 1 then 5 the winningest

[Dot]

I'm sure winningest barriers Kev are a rough guide at best. A better guide would relate to field position, front end speed holds up better these days then ever before and I've no doubt that horses positioned in the front half of the field take the lions share of the spoils the majority of the time.

Whilst the trend for short priced favourites in your sample appears promising Kev, I've little doubt it will be accompanied by an equally unfavourable trend of reduction in field size. Trainers as a rule want to place their horse where they have the best opportunity to win. A program of solely PBD races on dollars in however many last starts allows trainers to calculate their likely starting position before the fields are finalised and withdraw if they feel their chances will be negatively impacted by their likely position in the draw.

Winning a race under these conditions also sees connections likely doubly penalised in their next start, going up a grade for winning, and almost certainly being drawn badly as well.

[Messenger]

July update (fini of 24/7)

259 races
131 odds on favs = 50.6%
83 won = 63.4% success rate

The percentage of Odds on Pops has jumped a bit this week to be 50.6 for the month
While the week saw many of them successful - improving the success rate to 63.4% so far this month

[Messenger]

We come to the end of July

There were 340 races for the month
178 had an Odds On fav = 52%

111 won so the Success Rate = 62%

So compared to June the % of Odds On faves dropped by 4% (56 down to 52)

July's average Odds On price was $1.48 so it has gone out by 5c ($1.43 to $1.48)

That was the first month of the PBD trial

For the 2 months I have recorded, the lady trainers are still out in front when it comes to supplying Odds On faves
Emma Stewart has now supplied 42 with 30 of them successful (71%)
Kerryn Manning still has the next most with 17 and 12 winning (71%)

but Andy Gath was the big mover of the month
He has now had 16 odds on pops with 12 winning (75%)

The Terang crew have only been going so so with favourites in the red
Marg Lee has only had 4 of her 11 win
while Matty Craven has only had 5 of his 10 win

No track has stood out as having more than the average number of Odds On pops

[Toohard]

We come to the end of July

There were 340 races for the month
178 had an Odds On fav = 52%

111 won so the Success Rate = 62%

So compared to June the % of Odds On faves dropped by 4% (56 down to 52)

July's average Odds On price was $1.48 so it has gone out by 5c ($1.43 to $1.48)

That was the first month of the PBD trial

For the 2 months I have recorded, the lady trainers are still out in front when it comes to supplying Odds On faves
Emma Stewart has now supplied 42 with 30 of them successful (71%)
Kerryn Manning still has the next most with 17 and 12 winning (71%)

but Andy Gath was the big mover of the month
He has now had 16 odds on pops with 12 winning (75%)

The Terang crew have only been going so so with favourites in the red
Marg Lee has only had 4 of her 11 win
while Matty Craven has only had 5 of his 10 win

No track has stood out as having more than the average number of Odds On pops

We should open betfair accounts and start laying the odds on favs NOT trained by Emma, Kerryn and Andy? Not going to lose a lot laying odds on favourites..

[Messenger]

We should open betfair accounts and start laying the odds on favs NOT trained by Emma, Kerryn and Andy? Not going to lose a lot laying odds on favourites..

Too hard ;)

[Amlin]

We should open betfair accounts and start laying the odds on favs NOT trained by Emma, Kerryn and Andy? Not going to lose a lot laying odds on favourites..

Or have $100 on the nose on every odds on fav. Better than bank interest!

[Messenger]

Interesting Kyle.
Rounding out the success rate to 60% ie 6/10
at the average of the 2 months $1.45
= 6 x $45 profit - 4 x $100 = 270 - 400
So we would be losing $130 every 10 odds on pops (interesting $130 every $1,000 = pretty much TAB takeout, whose odds I have been using)

Of course we may get better odds on Betfair and I didn't actually work out the average price of WINNING odds on pops but I would imagine it to be similar (I don't really want to do the extra calculations on my spreadsheet - not so simple as I did not put winners and losers prices in separate columns, I only colour coded them and entered W/L ratio at the bottom of each meet's column)

[Toohard]

Too hard ;)

Haha!!
Check my maths
Take Emma, Kerryn & Andy out
Reduces win percentage to 45%
Avg price 1.50 = 1/2
Lay each to lose $100
You 'lose' 45% = $4500
You 'win' 55% = $11000
Net gain $6500* ??!

[gutwagon]

Thanks for all the time and effort you put into supplying this data Kevin. It is appreciated.

[Messenger]

Week 1 of August

78 races
42 odds on favs = 54%
23 won = 55% success rate

In race 3 at Ballarat tonight we had the unusual occurrence of 2 Odds On Pops in the same race (only 1 was fave and is therefore counted in the above stats)

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=BA070818&fromstate=vic#BAC07081806

[Messenger]

Only 2 Odds On pops on tonights 9 race program at Melton
$1.40 and $1.50 both beaten

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX110818&fromstate=vic

[Messenger]

Aug update (fini of 14/8)

158 races
80 odds on favs = 50.6%
46 won = 57.5% success rate

Interesting to see in the Big Bets article that only one of the 'misses' was an odds on pop

https://www.thetrots.com.au/news/articles/big-bets-breeders-crown-heats-prominent/

[Messenger]

A crazy night at Ararat

Kerryn Manning had two $1.20 pops beaten

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=AR150818&fromstate=vic

[Messenger]

Aug update (fini of 21/8)

236 races
132 odds on favs = 55.9%
75 won = 56.8% success rate

The number of Odds on pops this last week was huge, resulting in the percentage going up over 5% (it takes some doing when there are already 2 wks to add the figures to)
No doubt the juvenile races and the Stewart stable played a fair part in the swing

[Messenger]

A terrible day for Odds On pops today

We saw a $1.04 pop beaten at Mildura (they are supposed to win 24/25 times)

Then only 1 out of 5 Odds on favourites winning at Melton with a $1.10 and a $1.20 both beaten

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=ML240818&fromstate=vic#MLC24081809

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX240818&fromstate=vic

[Messenger]

5 Odds On favs at Geelong tonight all beaten (including 3 from the Stewart stable) - in fact all 9 favourites beaten

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=GE290818&fromstate=vic

[Messenger]

Well that is the end of August, the season and my 3 month survey of Odds On favourites

For August:

367 races
200 odds on favs = 54.5%
114 won = 57% success rate

August's average Odds On price was $1.46

Emma Stewart had a HUGE month for Odds on pops with 42. That means one stable contributed over 20% of the Odds On favs.
In June and July she had 42 in total so her 3 month total was 84
58 won so her personal success rate for the 3mths is 69%

The next most were both Kerryn Manning with 28 Odds On pops for the 3mths with 18 winning so a success rate of 64%
and Andy Gath with 28 and 19 winners so a SR of 68%

The next most are Anton Golino 17/10 and Brent Lilley 16/11

Gavin Lang is still the 'money man' with 13/11

For the 3 months, 175 different trainers supplied the 1,077 odds on pops

The percentage of Odds On pops for the 3mths went:

56% - 52% - 54.5%

The Av price of Odds On pops went:

$1.43 - $1.48 - $1.46

The use of preferential barrier draws (for July and Aug) does not seem to be making a great deal of difference but we do have a lot of races that PBD is not applied to

[Messenger]

What with the new NR system in place, I thought I might keep a tally and a tally only this time, of Odds On pops for the new season

For the meetings so far
6/8
3/7
2/8
6/6 Ballarat (so that I don't forget where I am up to)

=17/29

[Messenger]

6/11, 4/10, 3/11, 4/7 (Cranbourne)

= 34/68

[Messenger]

6/10, 5/11, 6/7, 4/8 (Ballarat)

= 55 odds on/104 races

[Messenger]

2/9, 5/11, 4/8 Cobram

= 66/132

[Messenger]

5/8, 3/7, 2/8, 7/8, 3/10 Shep

= 86/173

So we continue to track at 50% odds on favourites

[Messenger]

4/10, 4/7, 5/7, 4/11, 1/6 Geelong

= 104/214

[Messenger]

5/10, 2/12, 4/8, 4/7 Cranbourne

= 119/251

47.4% coming down a bit

It wouldn't surprise me that once the system has been in place for about a year and we are no longer using the transition table, then this number will come down (I hope so)
2yo's and 3yo's do however have the advantage of ratings points above the starting 40 or 50 points is halved when they go up an age

[Messenger]

At various times this thread has illustrated that very often odds on favourites lose

I found it strange that the HRV bets story this week shows 5 successful big bets ($18k - $60k)
and yet in the unsuccessful $4k was the biggest ???

https://www.thetrots.com.au/news/articles/only-a-neck-between-pleasure-and-pain-for-punters-60-000-plunge/

[Messenger]

We had an abundance of VERY short favs at Melton tonight

$1.20 $2.70 $1.30 $1.10 $2.70 $1.04 $1.10

I was looking at the Vic TAB turnover to see if they affected turnover

At best I could see that there was around 25% more in the win pools in the two races with the longer odds favourites (although all win pools were small)

BUT any thought that Long Odds On are bad for betting went out the window in the last where despite Poster Boy being $1.10, the Win, the Place, the Trifecta, the First Four (the one's I look at) were all easily the BIGGEST of the night
Of course there could be a bit of 'get out in the last' going on BUT still

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX230520

ps There was $51,192 in the Quaddie pool (and that is after 20% has been taken in commission)
Maybe heaps of people took Jason Bonnington's $100 suggested in Good Form - he suggested taking the winning combination 50 times (it paid $7.40)

[Messenger]

Nothing is assessed shorter than $2.70 at Cranbourne today (by Rob Auber, I think)
It will be interesting to see how it turns out
Mind you Emma Stewart doesn't go to Cranbourne

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=CR271220

[Messenger]

Well we ended up with 3 in the red including $1.20 in R1 but Rob's tips were on the mark
with 4 winners and 2 thirds from 7 picks (one race his selection was scratched)

[Messenger]

No Favourites won at Warragul today
3 Odds On pops beaten
I reckon it has been a while since I saw a favourite at the odds of $5.10 (R7)

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=WR140621#WRC14062103

[Messenger]

R2 at Bendigo tonight, somehow no.7 Outside Fighter was sent out $1.70 fav
A young driver who happens to be part owner (and breeder) drove for luck and once 4 back pegs was going to need a heap of it.
Of course the stable doesn't set the odds but once they settled it was $10.70 at best

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=BN160621#BNC16062110

[Messenger]

There can be no greater mugs than harness punters
Have you ever seen 3 odds-on favourites in 3 consecutive races go around at the gallops at
$1.10, $1.30, $1.60
MUCH LESS GET BEAT
It is not that unusual at the trots - Stawell today

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=SW250621

[Messenger]

$1.04 favourite and beaten a nose

http://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=HM210721#HMC21072104

His check and early gallop cost him the race - who do you blame? Driver Sofia for not seeing what was going on or Anthony O'Connor for one second being ¾ across to the lead and then the next second taking a hard hold to try and drop in

There was so much plonked on the favourite that the 2nd favourite (winner) was $25

[Showgrounds]

Hmm. Third start in 2 years, first up for 13 months and its only win was at Rangiora which caters for horses that, mainly, struggle to make the grade.

How on earth did this next Village Kid (not!) Start $1.04? Who would put so much money on it? Honest questions to which I have no answers. Feel free to explain.

[Messenger]

So what does everyone think? Is the new ratings system reducing the number of odds on favourites?

[Messenger]

I haven't really been thinking about the Odds On issue for some time
If today's Cobram meet is anything to go by, we are doing well
Only 2/10 Odds On favs
And it took until the last for a favourite to get up
Average winning price for the meet was $11.50

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=CO120522

[Messenger]

There must be figures available that tell us if the new NR system is reducing Odds On pops
One could not help but notice that at Ballarat tonight 6/10 were odds on
The Stewart stable contributed most of these, namely $1.18 $1.25 $1.40 $1.50

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=BA230622

[Messenger]

I wonder what became of the aim to reduce Odds On favourites

The Vicbreds cannot be doing much for the stats or Turnover
Tonight 6 Vicbred heats with a favourite of $1.40 or shorter

4 of them were from the Stewart stable - actually there are not many 'age' races with a Stewart runner, that do not have an Odds On favourite

5 of tonights 6 won

I could not have a bar of Longfellow being Odds On ($1.35!) but it is pretty hard to back a stablemate to beat him

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX161222#MXC16122207

[aussiebreno]

I wonder what became of the aim to reduce Odds On favourites

The Vicbreds cannot be doing much for the stats or Turnover
Tonight 6 Vicbred heats with a favourite of $1.40 or shorter

4 of them were from the Stewart stable - actually there are not many 'age' races with a Stewart runner, that do not have an Odds On favourite

5 of tonights 6 won

I could not have a bar of Longfellow being Odds On ($1.35!) but it is pretty hard to back a stablemate to beat him

https://www.harness.org.au/racing/fields/race-fields/?mc=MX161222#MXC16122207
In this type of racing there is no handicapping system to remove odds on favourites. Which is the way it should be in top grade racing.

Great to see Jodi Quinlan learn how to stagger sectionals.....