Favorites Strike rate Up?

[Handiman]

In the past it was a general rule, if I remember right, that favorites won at about a 33% rate, or there abouts.

I have been doing some research as of late, and it seems like the win rate for favorites has gone way up. Am I out to lunch on this or is it in fact happening. And if so what do you suspect is the reason?

And how has this changed your handicapping and betting?

Handi:)

[cj]

In the past it was a general rule, if I remember right, that favorites won at about a 33% rate, or there abouts.

I have been doing some research as of late, and it seems like the win rate for favorites has gone way up. Am I out to lunch on this or is it in fact happening. And if so what do you suspect is the reason?

And how has this changed your handicapping and betting?

Handi:)


Yes, mostly due to field size shrinkage in my opinion.

[fiznow]

My primary goal is still to hit the 60 - 70 % non winning favorites and longshots. ;)

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

My primary goal is still to hit the 60 - 70 % non winning favorites and longshots. ;)

Sound strategy as long as you pass the races with the validated can't bet on or against favorites.

[Augenj]

Yes, mostly due to field size shrinkage in my opinion. :ThmbUp:

[EMD4ME]

Other reasons why fav strike rate is up, IMHO, is that horses are juiced to the gills these days in slot money inflated purses. Connections not only juice, they bet and take every penny they can.

In the old days, if a horse dropped suspiciously, the win ratio was much less VS today. Now the juice gets the horse to NOT FEEL it's pain AND the stable smashes the horse in the pools for gravy.

That is why I DETEST claiming races.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

Other reasons why fav strike rate is up, IMHO, is that horses are juiced to the gills these days in slot money inflated purses. Connections not only juice, they bet and take every penny they can.

In the old days, if a horse dropped suspiciously, the win ratio was much less VS today. Now the juice gets the horse to NOT FEEL it's pain AND the stable smashes the horse in the pools for gravy.

That is why I DETEST claiming races.

I agree with your point....but I love when they fail and I get double digit win prices when my charge is over looked.

[fiznow]

I remember Charles Bukowski. He said, the only way to win at the races is to bet against the crowd. He never played the favorite, not just longshots, often the 2nd or 3rd choice and he was successful. Just a thought...

[EMD4ME]

I agree with your point....but I love when they fail and I get double digit win prices when my charge is over looked.

I agree. These days anything DJ throws out at NYRA on the drop (or in any claiming race) is almost a complete throwout from the win pool. I hope people keep betting him while he slumps.

Years ago, he'd drop suspiciously, you throw him out and he won way more than expected.

[Tom]

I think I saw somewhere that the recent Aqueduct inner meet had favorites winning at 39%.

[SG4]

I find it interesting that nobody has so far credited who actually makes the favorite, the general betting public. Between the data available and stats to be found using tools like formulator, plus the breadth of simulcasting & replays available, doesn't that have to play the top role?

If anyone has numbers on this I'd be interested in seeing it, but compared to say 20 years ago, what % of favorites win today vs. then while holding field size steady? Maybe examples for say 6, 9 & 12 horse fields?

[pondman]

I attribute it to the rise of ADWs and sophisticated whales. I also believe that there is a large decline in the number of people interested in the game.

[o_crunk]

This is all field size.

In the last 20 years field size has gone from high 8's to 7's.

Favs win at a constant rate of between 33-36% when field size between 8 and 9 in the last 20 years.

As the rise of the 7 horse field has become the median and mid point for races, the favorite wins at 38%.

[castaway01]

This is all field size.

In the last 20 years field size has gone from high 8's to 7's.

Favs win at a constant rate of between 33-36% when field size between 8 and 9 in the last 20 years.

As the rise of the 7 horse field has become the median and mid point for races, the favorite wins at 38%.

Actually, in the last 20 years average field size has gone from 8.20 to 7.82. Does that really explain all of the increase in favorites' winning percentage. Some of it, sure.

[o_crunk]

Actually, in the last 20 years average field size has gone from 8.20 to 7.82. Does that really explain all of the increase in favorites' winning percentage. Some of it, sure.

I should have been clearer. Since 1991.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I agree with the field size, and the computer robotic wagering that is as prevalent as it is today sucking the value out of races.

[Grits]

I attribute it to the rise of ADWs and sophisticated whales. I also believe that there is a large decline in the number of people interested in the game.

To confirm this by the most simple of measures, one has only to scroll to the bottom of the main page and look at the number of birthdays here at PA today.

Sadly, out of the ten listed, there is only one person under the age of 50. ... Accept it or not, like reading it or not, this is never a good thing. :(

[MonmouthParkJoe]

To confirm this by the most simple of measures, one has only to scroll to the bottom of the main page and look at the number of birthdays here at PA today.

Sadly, out of the ten listed, there is only one person under the age of 50. ... Accept it or not, like reading it or not, this is never a good thing. :(

So true. For years I was the youngest person at the track. Now I am 34 and for the most part that still rings true, with the exception of the boutique meets. But day in and day out it holds.

[Magister Ludi]

Actually, in the last 20 years average field size has gone from 8.20 to 7.82. Does that really explain all of the increase in favorites' winning percentage.

No.

field size///estimated favorites' win%//actual favorites' win%
7.82///////////////33.5%//////////////////////////////33%
8.20///////////////34.6%//////////////////////////////37.6%

[Dave Schwartz]

39% is normal.

Not JUST due to field size.

[Handiman]

So is the game a slowly dying dinosaur?

[green80]

39% is normal.

Not JUST due to field size.

if that is true then anything over 8/5 could be an overlay. It may get to the point where favorites are underbet and the longshots are overbet.

[cj]

if that is true then anything over 8/5 could be an overlay. It may get to the point where favorites are underbet and the longshots are overbet.

I'll guarantee you find that 8/5 shots and above win nowhere near 39%. The win percentage will correspond to the odds, i.e. 1-5 favorites win a lot more than 8 to 5 favorites, and so on.

[Dave Schwartz]

if that is true then anything over 8/5 could be an overlay. It may get to the point where favorites are underbet and the longshots are overbet.

Not sure why you would think that.

CJ, of course, had it exactly right.

[formula_2002]

In the past it was a general rule, if I remember right, that favorites won at about a 33% rate, or there abouts.

I have been doing some research as of late, and it seems like the win rate for favorites has gone way up. Am I out to lunch on this or is it in fact happening. And if so what do you suspect is the reason?

And how has this changed your handicapping and betting?

Handi:)

the win rate may be up because their probability of winning is up.
sounds a bit obvious but consider this.
take all the favorites you are researching and sum their true odds and compare it to their actual win rate, where true odds = (1/(odds+1)/ (say 1.20 for a 17% take out).

break that analysis down by distance or surface, wet or dry track..etc
for perhaps 500 to 1000 races (each) you will then have your answer, which should be, favorites win at the rate they are expected to win (with some variation for short odds biases). And you can thank the betting public for that!! :cool:

[ultracapper]

I play cheap races on the SoCal circuit and most 7 horse fields are 2 or 3 horse races. Smaller fields, less competitive races, more and better data, in that order. JMO

[zerosky]

The Jockey Club (http://www.jockeyclub.com/Default.asp?section=Resources&area=11) has good info on field sizes, I snipped this chart

[zerosky]

Thinking about it that chart doesn't show the recent decline because of the way it compresses the scale.
This one is rescaled and shows the decline from the 1990's using the original data.

[flatstats]

I still can't believe you guys are so fixated on strike rates and ROIs. These figures have no value in them, and are easily biased such as varying field sizes or types of race.

The key stat is the A/E: How is the favourite performing based on how it actual won compared to how it was expected to win?

Has this gone down over the years? If yes then that is much more significant than strike rate or ROI and would indicate a problem for favourite backers.

[formula_2002]

I still can't believe you guys are so fixated on strike rates and ROIs. These figures have no value in them, and are easily biased such as varying field sizes or types of race.

The key stat is the A/E: How is the favourite performing based on how it actual won compared to how it was expected to win?

Has this gone down over the years? If yes then that is much more significant than strike rate or ROI and would indicate a problem for favourite backers.


I JOIN YOU WITH THAT MIGHTY OBSERVATION. HAIL "A/E"

[VigorsTheGrey]

Thinking about it that chart doesn't show the recent decline because of the way it compresses the scale.
This one is rescaled and shows the decline from the 1990's using the original data.

This is pretty bad reduction over the years...I wonder if it was adjusted to the fewer number of tracks currently in operation?