It is the turn of Windsor to come under the draw spotlight in this article. 2000 to 2003 stats are examined (10 or more runners).
The 55 qualifying races gave the following statistics:
| |
Top “third” of
the draw |
Middle “third” of the draw |
Bottom“third” of the draw |
| Winning % |
49.1 |
38.2 |
12.7 |
Placed 1st, 2nd or 3rd % |
44.8 |
33.3 |
21.8 |
high draws seem best, with low draws at a significant
disadvantage.
Horses drawn in the highest stall accounted for 12
of the 55 winners (21.8%).
If, in every race, you’d placed 1pt on the
highest stall, you’d have made a 76.5pt profit
(139% profit on turnover).
Of the 55 races, 24 went to horses drawn in one of
the top three stalls. This compares rather favourably
with only three wins for horses drawn in the bottom
three stalls.
On good to firm or faster ground, low draws struggled
even more, with just one win in 24 races (4.2%).
The high bias seems to strengthen when the field
size increases. In races of 18+ runners, ten of the
13 races (77%) went to horses drawn in the top third.
The 26 handicaps gave the following win statistics:
| |
Top “third” of
the draw |
Middle “third” of the draw |
Bottom“third” of the draw |
| Winning % |
61.5 |
23.1 |
15.4 |
The 110 qualifying races gave the following statistics:
| |
Top “third” of
the draw |
Middle “third” of the draw |
Bottom“third” of the draw |
| Winning % |
52.7 |
27.3 |
20 |
Placed 1st, 2nd or 3rd % |
45.5 |
28.8 |
25.8 |
high draws have a clear advantage.
On good to firm or firmer ground,
the high bias increased, with the top third providing
32 of the 56 winners (57%).
The top three stalls provided 33 of the 110 winners.
The 46 handicaps gave the following win statistics:
| |
Top “third” of
the draw |
Middle “third” of the draw |
Bottom“third” of the draw |
| Winning % |
47.8 |
26.1 |
26.1 |
The draw bias here is among the strongest in the country,
with high-drawn horses favoured thanks to the ground
nearest the stands’ rail (high) riding much quicker
than the rest of the course. This bias seems to strengthen
further on good to firm or faster going.
The theory that, on softer ground, the bias switches
in favour of low draws has not been borne out by results
over the past four seasons (14 of the 19 qualifying
races under these conditions going to a runner drawn
in the top third).
The going conditions that do seem to reduce the high
bias are good or good to soft ground. Of the 66 races
staged between 00-03, 27 were won by the top third (40.9%),
23 by the middle third (34.8%) and 16 by the bottom
third (24.2%).
In 03, the high bias was as strong as ever, as shown
by the below results from the 38 qualifying races:
| |
Top “third” of
the draw |
Middle “third” of the draw |
Bottom“third” of the draw |
| Winning % |
60.5 |
28.9 |
10.5 |
Placed 1st, 2nd or 3rd % |
45.6 |
33.3 |
21.1 |
Based on these figures, high draws are nearly six times
as likely to win as low draws, which represents an incredibly
strong bias (the top two stalls were particularly successful
last year, with six wins apiece).
There were several individual examples of the high
bias in 03, including the 18-runner five-furlong handicap
on 31 May, in which Dubaian Gift (drawn 17) beat Beyond
The Clouds (18), Henry Hall (15), The Tatling (7) and
Candleriggs (16). The Tatling, who had clearly been
hampered by his draw, went on to win a Group 3 sprint
later in the year.
To conclude, the five-furlong bias at Windsor is one
of the strongest in the country (six furlongs not far
behind) and in big-field handicaps it pays to concentrate
on the highest four or five stalls, giving preference
to the highest stall, over the second highest, etc.
The bias seems considerably stronger on good to firm
or firmer going.
Here are the results of the 110 qualifying races over
the extended mile during the past four seasons:
| |
Top “third” of
the draw |
Middle “third” of the draw |
Bottom“third” of the draw |
| Winning % |
38.2 |
41.8 |
20 |
Placed 1st, 2nd or 3rd % |
41.8 |
33.9 |
24.2 |
Low draws are at a definite disadvantage, and in handicaps
this disadvantage becomes more acute:
| |
Top “third” of
the draw |
Middle “third” of the draw |
Bottom“third” of the draw |
| Winning % |
37.3 |
47.5 |
15.3 |
Interestingly, middle draws have proven more successful
than high numbers, but this is quite possibly an anomaly.
Splitting the draw into two halves, though, the results
become nearer expected, with the top half taking 42
races (71.2%) and the bottom half just 17 (28.8%).
Here are the statistics from the 30 races containing
the capacity 18 runners:
| |
Top “third” of
the draw |
Middle “third” of the draw |
Bottom“third” of the draw |
| Winning % |
50 |
36.7 |
13.3 |
Higher draws have won nearly four times as often as
lower draws.
To conclude, it’s best to concentrate on horses
drawn in the top half, and a line can be put through
virtually all horses drawn low. In capacity fields,
high draws have a very good record.
|
