Odds On Pops and Other Effects on Market Share

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Messenger

You have to seize the opportunity to write such pieces Cody - I reckon it has been a long time since Melton had three winners over $30 and no doubt why it got a mention in the Melton Review thread. I think the reduction in the number of odds on favourites might be worth publicising too

---

Don't know if interesting or not but said to Luke on the way home from the track 5 weeks ago "Number 1 didn't win a race tonight".


And could have said same at the next 4 meetings as number 1 hasn't won at Melton at the last 5 Friday\Saturday night meetings. Number 8 (1) on second line has won only 3 times and one of them was Lennytheshark the other week. Given that the 1 and 8 will usually end up on the pegs somewhere after the start and there's a sprint lane operating, surprising they haven't won more times.


Winningest numbers last 5 meetings are 4 and 7 (outside the front) with 10 each. The rest 'evenly' spread.

Paul, when I first read that I thought WOW but knowing that I had once done some barrier stats, I thought I would dig them out - see post 2

http://www.harnessracingforum.com/sh...ghlight=Melton

They are just a small sample too but also dismiss 1 & 8 as having any advantage

Hi Wayne, you would imagine that the stats are available to rank SS manners eg. 2 GO from 5 attempts, especially seeing as though there are so few of them.
I agree that reasonable odds faves winning are more likely to attract punters than $65 blowouts

In relation to the November barrier conditions for races,I understood the purpose was to increase Wagering Revenue,the assertion that we have now less odds on favourites winning,is a tick for the change,is not the real fact.Have we increased the Wagering revenue?l think for transparency we should have the Wagering Revenue for the like weeks in November 2014 with the achieved revenue in the same weeks in 2015,Cody could provide us with this,to see the real evidence .
I hold real concerns that " good horses" that bring industry participants to meetings & professional punters back @ odds on will be handicapped unfairly,especially @ Metro Class.
I nominate a comparison to the Greyhounds with "Fernando Bale", they did not penalise him,they allowed him to help promote the sport,whether he was $1.10 .We need to be careful that barriers are not used to destroy natural talent!
It will take a large number of $5 punters to match the outlays of professional punters on odds on favourites,I see the need for some change ,but not the degree used in Novembers Race Programming.

A belated welcome to Bill - the above post should have come up a couple of weeks ago

As has been alluded to here previously Bill, one would imagine the wagering results will be made public especially if the experiment was successful in it's objective of higher turn over. I wouldn't think we'd go to all PBD race programming even if the data shows a positive effect on turn over. The month of November was used as there were no 2yo's and a reduced number of 3yo races...more lower grade C class races, and also to congest the period needed to gather sizeable data? The black type races were left untouched?


One would have thought HRV ran it by the high volume (professional?) punters they met with prior to the experiment?


From the CEO's desk August 2015
Wagering Consultation
On the subject of consultation, HRV met with a number of high volume harness racing punters recently to discuss a variety of matters with respect to wagering on harness racing. Tabcorp Executives were also in attendance and it was a very useful exchange of views and ideas. I am sure the punters who attended are more informed of issues facing HRV and equally we are more aware of matters of interest to the punting sector.
More of these sessions are contemplated in the future.

Are we able to deduce anything from the PBD third round Inter heats? Quality drawcard horses but with the issue of favoured runners having already qualified.


The 'handicapping', via PBD, of the male horse is likely to continue in some respects with PBD for mares. We all know, and agree with, the objectives there? However, those quality males, and females, will have access to free for all conditions during their juvenile years in the Group/futurity, showcase, races.

Not wanting to deviate from your post Bill, but in line with the thread, HRV has reduced sectional times further, state wide. I was aware of the conversation re Melton leader bias and the possibility of reduced sectionals at Melton, so now I'm assuming the thought behind the state wide reduction is related to odds on numbers?

Considering Bill's thoughts on the 'Fernando Bale' aspect and the above, might an alternative to PBD's be the use of personal times to program some races? Worth an experiment with lower class, C0,C1 etc. horses? The personal times for each horse are available on Harnessweb, i.e. 'my mile rate', avg mile rate last 10,6...starts. Not sure how readily accessible, or how useful all this info is to the punter at present, but for programming purposes?
As an aside, may also help in maintaining/increasing the horse racing population and ease the pressure on initiatives such as HERO.
In recent times Albury used to, although they may have been non TAB meetings. Was only made redundant with the advent of current HRNSW programming guidelines and funding agreements with HRNSW?
The negatives are?

When you consider we are talking Metro meetings it is amazing to see consecutive $1.04 faves at Menangle tonight and FOUR long odds on faves at Melton $1.20, $1.30, $1.40, $1.70 (gallops followers would not accept that a $1.20 and a $1.40 fav could both get beat at the same meet)

Melton last night saw 8 out of 8 Odds On favourites (last 6 won)

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-re...X080216&ms=vic

Five odds on or even money favourites beaten at Cranbourne tonight. I reckon we are the only code where you would see that

Favourites in first 6 races at Stawell today

$1.80 $1.40 $1.50 $1.10 $1.70 $1.30

Only one of them won

http://www.harness.org.au/meeting-re...W160216&ms=vic