| “Draw bias is not what it used to be” - this is a comment
I got from a friend of mine who e mailed me the other
day. He went on to say, “why is it when a good source
of highlighting winners is found, within a few years
it no longer works”. This is very much a horse racing
trait - good ideas gain an initial edge because the
majority of people do not use that “winner finding”
approach. As time goes on however, the betting public
and the bookmakers catch up, and as a result the prices
tend to contract and the value begins to disappear.
So is this really happening with draw bias? I think
many people believe it is. Not only are the bookmakers
clued up to the traditional draw biases, course officials
are spending more and more time trying to eliminate
the bias by “recreational” watering, or moving running
rails. All in all, on the surface it looks a worrying
picture for the draw punter.
Let us examine a traditionally strong draw bias course
and see what has happened in the last eight years :
For many years, the sprint course at Hamilton has favoured
high draws. If we examine the 1996 to 1999 statistics,
we see that high draws did have a significant edge.
In this period there were 64 races with 10 or more runners
- the results are shown below :
| |
Top “third” of
the draw |
Middle “third” of the draw |
Bottom “third” of the draw |
| |
|
|
|
| Winning
percentage |
54.7 |
28.1 |
17.2 |
The top “third” of the draw produced an impact value
of 1.64 which demonstrates a strong bias. Indeed, you
were over three times more likely to win if you were
drawn in the top “third” of the draw than if you were
drawn in the bottom “third”.
From 2000 to 2003 there has been more qualifying races
- 95 in total and they have produced the following stats
:
| |
Top “third” of
the draw |
Middle “third” of the draw |
Bottom “third” of the draw |
| |
|
|
|
| Winning
percentage |
42.1 |
29.5 |
28.4 |
Although
high draws still have the advantage, the statistics
show clearly that the high draw bias has diminished.
During this period, horses from the top “third” of the
draw are only 1.48 times more likely to win that those
drawn in the bottom “third”.
Why
has this happened? Well I believe there are two reasons
- firstly I think Hamilton have over watered the far
rail (high) from time to time. This would help even
the bias out. Secondly, the bias at Hamilton is well
documented and jockeys are starting to get clued up
to the fact. Hence, there is much more crowding over
the far side than there was a few years ago, and it
is quite common to see the whole field trying to get
as close to the far rail as possible. With a maximum
18 runner field this can create traffic problems for
the higher drawn horses and those with no real early
pace end up stuck behind a wall of horses.
This
changing trend has happened this season at other courses
- Thirsk being a prime example. The old high draw bias
was not in evidence all season and there were plenty
of sprint races where the lower draws definitely had
the advantage.
HOWEVER,
before we all hang up our “draw bias boots” and look
for something else to research and use, it should be
stressed that draw bias is alive and well at many courses.
Some newer biases are coming to light and below I have
illustrated a few course and distances where a strong
bias exists. I am still trolling through the stats for
2003 and I still have over half the courses to collate,
so this is not an extensive list! The stats below come
from the last four seasons (2000 to 2003) :
| Ayr (1 mile) |
Top “third” of
the draw |
Middle “third” of the draw |
Bottom “third” of the draw |
| |
|
|
|
| Winning
percentage |
24 |
24 |
52 |
Conclusion
:
low draws have a decent edge at Ayr over a mile.
| Beverley (1 mile) |
Top “third” of
the draw |
Middle “third” of the draw |
Bottom “third” of the draw |
| |
|
|
|
| Winning
percentage |
53.7 |
34.1 |
12.2 |
Conclusion
:
Strong high draw bias over the extended mile at Beverley.
| Epsom
(1 mile 114yds) |
Top “third” of
the draw |
Middle “third” of the draw |
Bottom “third” of the draw |
| |
|
|
|
| Winning
percentage |
28 |
12 |
60 |
Conclusion
:
low draws have a significant advantage over this extended
mile trip. The bias is strengthened if you concentrate
on handicaps only with the bottom “third” providing
66.7% of the winners.
| Folkestone
(7 furlongs) |
Top “third” of
the draw |
Middle “third” of the draw |
Bottom “third” of the draw |
| |
|
|
|
| Winning
percentage |
50 |
32.5 |
17.5 |
Conclusion
:
high draws have a decent edge. 17 of the 40 races were
won by horses drawn in one of the three highest stalls.
| Goodwood
(5 furlongs) |
Top “third” of
the draw |
Middle “third” of the draw |
Bottom “third” of the draw |
| |
|
|
|
| Winning
percentage |
50 |
23.3 |
26.7 |
Conclusion
:
High draws have a clear edge. The bias is extremely
strong in races of 15 or more runners with 12 of the
18 races (66.7%) going to horses drawn in the top “third”.
---------
So
it is not all bad news! There are still plenty of courses
that offer the draw punter an edge, and some courses
are still misunderstood by the majority of the betting
public. Draw biases come and go, but what we must do
is keep close tabs on it. If we do, we can still maintain
that winning edge. |