Wet tracks in
So here's part of a letter
a quick question which I know hasn't a definitive answer - what do
you do with wet tracks with regards to selections:
the track condition
b) Assess the runners ability on wet tracks based on prior runs.
question that deserves a good answer so here's the best I've got and
it's the answer that suits the staking plan I use - a)
you want more? You want to know why? Okay, well this may take a bit
so hope you've got a minute. This is one of the most over-rated aspects
of form assessment - of course, in my opinion. I was going to write
humble opinion but I then realised how silly that would be.
think it's over-rated because frankly, just because a horse has won
in the wet before, what difference does that make? If it has won on
a wet track, maybe it got lucky and simply found a better part of
a sloppy track to race on.
the jockey displayed extra skill in finding that better part of the
track? So what do we have here? A horse that every man and his dog
whispers "this one can handle the wet!" - (Cue course announcer:
"started $2.20 favourite and ran unplaced")
it handle the track? You know for sure?
the man or woman to trust in this whole exercise is the trainer. He
/ she is obviously a horseman / horse woman (God I hate this political
correctness!) of some ability or they wouldn't be doing the job
they're doing and they work these horses on good tracks and wet tracks
every day of the year.
you reckon that they, of all people, would know whether a horse performs
reasonably well on a wet surface. They watch it every day - not just
on race days like we armchair experts.That's why I guess many do scratch
the horses they're responsible for when the tracks are rain affected.
The ones that remain, we can assume the trainers think they can handle
the soft slippery tracks or simply don't know.
what I've observed the ability of a horse to handle these conditions
is a learned behaviour - the same as some horses don't like going
in to those cold hard steel barriers without a barrier blanket. All
habit. All things from the past that play in to the present - not
that much different from humans really.
here's a little test - let's run our computer programme through the
month of January's results - 1.1.13 to 31.1.13 - and let's tell this
magic software we are looking only for horses that are running on
a slow or heavy track, we are looking only for horses that have won
at least one race (so we're eliminating maidens), and we're looking
only for horses that have NEVER EVER run a place on rain affected
The programme highlighted 178 runners in 41 races in this exact category
and the strike rate per race was 48.8% for a win and 82.9% for a place.
(Naturally there was more than one runner in most race cases so profit
on turnover was minus 19.5%). Wow - this may be the start of an off
beat new methodology?
where would you like to go from there?
I were using just one selection methodology that over time had shown
a reasonable % of favour to those that have displayed ability (or
lack of it) on wet tracks, I would definitely take note and adjust
my betting accordingly. If, as I do, you are taking the what I call
"supermarket approach" to selection, I take no notice of
it all all, confident that in the long term, the multi-method selections
will even out any disadvantage.
I'm wrong, well so be it. The fullness of time will point out the
error of my ways and I'll change. Until then - wet tracks - hurrrumph!
This article is copyright RaceRate.com
2013 . All rights reserved. May be copied freely for personal use
and yes you can put it up on your web page providing this copyright
notice stays intact.