Are trifecta pools large enough in dog races to make it worthwhile?
I like backing no 1 or 8. Whichever has the best price.

Re barriers, I agree, I believe barriers have little importance. In fact I don't agree with most so-called racing theories, ie leaders win slow run races, alternatively backmarkers win fast run races, light weights in the wet, 2nd up hoodoo, big horses or long striders need big tracks, such & such is a leaders track, all can be argued for & more importantly against, & there are literally thousands more. Could one of the stats people do a study of inside versus outside barriers (field of 10, 1-5 inside, & 6-10 outside) over say the last 1000 races, all distances, fields, tracks, conditions. My guess would be 55% inside to 45% outside, no great advantage. If I studied the form & came down to 2 picks, 1 drawn the inside & 1 drawn the outside, I would take the outside. More likely to be better odds & more likely to get a clearer run. Just my opinions.

Roo

I would like to suggest that you be ready to open an account with the NSWTab.

From what you have revealed, I believe I have a pretty good idea of which boxes you back for the tris. I went back to the results for last Monday at Launceston. If I have worked out the 5 races that you won on, your return would have been (for a full unit) $957.90 instead of $773.70 --- $184.20 more (or on your half unit, an increase of $65.25 over the $26.85 you achieved). Worthwhile :smile:

Incidentally, that $26.85 is still 7.46% POT!

If I did not pick your five winning races, my suggestion still has merit. The total returns on the tris for the night were:
NSWTab - $1389.20
Unitab - $1137.00
That's an increase of $252.20!!!

Even the two First 4s at Albion Park that NSWTab had open (Races six & eight) produced a substantially increased return --- $1892.10 versus $1048.20.

I guess this varies from meeting to meeting --- one TAB won't always outdo the other. Actually I thought that they worked together to produce a rough parity between TABs. Others would know more about this tan myself.

Am enjoying the research!!

[ This Message was edited by: Merriguy on 2002-08-01 12:03 ]

Mark,

Your comments are interesting.

In regards to speed of a race. How would a horse like Universal Prince beat a leader from 15 lengths behind at the 600m if the race was slowly run?

example
2000m time 2.05 mins
last 600m in 34 secs (leader's time)
first 1400m in 91 secs

Do you think UP could run 31.4 secs in the last 600m and win?

Merriguy,
The TABs do not work together to give parity. The Win divs are usually very similar since people can see any discrepancies and will back them on the other TABS and/or avoid them on the TAB where odds are too short. With exotic dividends, particularly trifectas, it is not possible to get approximates so you often get massive unders or overs (compared to what the "true" div should be based on the placegetters odds). I think you will find that in the long run it probably wont make much difference which TAB you go with as I believe they all take the same % off the pool so in theory the divs should work out the same over the long term. Some days 1 TAB will pay higher divs - the next day it will probably be the other way round. Personally I do not like placing bets on things where you have no idea of the odds (ie. trifectas) - but thats just my opinion.

Manikato,
I tend to agree with Mark - in the example you give the simple answer is that if the race was run slower then UP would not have been 15 lengths behind at the 600M (if the jockey is any good) - he would probably have only been a few lengths behind and therefore could still have won the race. With all these "theories" the advocates will quote specific examples that prove their theory whilst ignoring any races that don't follow the pattern. Whilst there are some that do have a degree of merit (eg. inside barriers at certain tracks/distances) in most cases the benefit is overestimated by the punting public so you tend to get good "overs" on the "disadvantaged" horses.

__________________
"Computers can do that????" - Homer Simpson

Becareful,

If Sheehan was riding him, he be 15 lengths back. If Beadman was riding him he might be a lot closer.

If a leader is able to run slower over the 1st part of the race, the horse has more energy to run a faster last 600m (look at some sectional times) If they walk the first part, a leader could run 34 secs or less for the final 600m. Even if a horse like UP was only 6 lengths back, it would still be very difficult for him to win.

If you look at Sportscolour re 200m sectionals, horses often run about 12 secs for last 200m and about 23 secs from 600-200m. Given a slower early pace, leaders can
run 22 secs from 600m to 200m and less than 12 secs over the final 200m. If this happens, it is near on impossible for backmarkers to win. A leader does need to be able to sprint though.

If the pace was fast, more horses tire, and the stronger, stayer types have the advantage.

Ian Thorpe is the perfect example of a on pacer who can sprint. The only way Grant Hackett could beat him over 400m is if Thorpe went thru the first 250m like a 50m sprint. Even then Thorpe would probably still win due to class.

[ This Message was edited by: manikato on 2002-08-01 16:16 ]

I think over estimated are the key words. I'm sure we've all been around long enough to see leaders win/lose, backmarkers win/lose, both in fast/slow races, inside/outside barriers win/lose, odds on favs win/lose, 100/1 shots win/lose, etc etc I'm sure someone has the time to do the barrier study that I suggested, the reult being immaterial to me as I don't do the form, just bet to figures.
Good Punting.

Mark I have recently done the barrier stats for someone on this forum who kindly did me a favour.
The end result over thousands of races over various distances on various tracks and in varied going gave only a slight disadvantage percentage wise to extreme outside barriers.

The percentage difference over any distance was 1-2% and not even worth worrying about.

What this tells us is that the barrier must suit the horse's style of running.The way the race is run also dictates whether the barrier will be of any consequence. Even over short distances this was true.
For example I would not back a leader from an extreme outside barrier, but would back a swooper.
But remember - there will always be exceptions to any rule, that's what keeps us on our toes!

Eq Inv,
I wouldn't mind backing a leader from 16 if the inside 15 were slugs.
I do speed maps for the first 200 metres of a race with some degree of accuracy and it can make a huge difference to ones thinking of a particular race. Take Randwick, the 1400, 1800 and 2000 starts are treacherous and if you can figure who is going to be where it is an enormous help.
As for your swooper, I'd rather it drew in the middle as it could settle say 10th of 16th. If it drew the outside there are two possibilities - drop out to last or sit deep in the mid to rear of the field. I'd much rather back a swooper from 10th on the turn than last on the turn.
Cheers.

Most racing ideas are over rated I would agree. You need to assess each circumstance on its merits.

A wide barrier would make no difference to Sunline if she is racing against stayers for instance, despite being a leader.

At some distances and tracks, wide barriers can be an advantage (though not too wide). Take the 1600m at Randwick for example.
Dye always liked a barrier in the range of 10-14.