Favourites Hit 32% Year In Year Out. Why?

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by raybo

Excuse me, but isn't that exactly what he said? Jeez!

No he didn’t; jeez!!!!

The question was: Favourites Hit 32% Year In Year Out. Why?

The reply stated that the trend of winning favorites was positive and it didn’t make any difference about field size, but the reply did not answer the “why.”

[davew]

It is because the racing secretary's does an excellent job of writing conditions and most of the time, the competitors want to win for the $$$$.


What would racing be like if the favorite won over 80% of the time?

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Cratos

No he didn’t; jeez!!!!

The question was: Favourites Hit 32% Year In Year Out. Why?

The reply stated that the trend of winning favorites was positive and it didn’t make any difference about field size, but the reply did not answer the “why.”

The "why" is that players are getting better, isn't that what he said before posting the stats?

[Dark Target]

Originally Posted by Redboard

Me too. Flatstats could you expound on your following statement:

"The A/E is the actual wins / expected wins stat. This compensates for different prices and is a good indicator of valueness....The A/E is not affected by field size because usually the bigger the field size the bigger the odds etc."

Sounds to me like a ML fav vs. Betting fav comparison. But I'm just shooting in the dark.

Actual winners V Expected winners.

10 race card, say all 10 favs are paying $2.00 = .50 win probability. The public is saying they expect 5 favs to win today (10 races * .5 = 5), thats your expected winners, the actual is obviously how many actually won.

A group / sample with an A/E of greater than 1.0 could mean they are being under bet and might be worth looking into further.

[flatstats]

Hmm. Doesn't seem to be much pick up on the fact that as field sizes get smaller favourites strike rates *should* naturally increase.

---

The point about the public getting smarter? If so then they would be backing more winners. Thus if the public tend to back favourites then this should see an upsurge in favourite strike rate too. The fact that the favourite strike is level (when field sizes are shrinking) would indicate that the public that are backing favourites are getting dumber?

---

A/E: this is based on the odds the horse started at. In GB we have the SP (starting price). In the US you have the PMU payout dividends. Either case there is still the odds chance of the horse winning (the E) and there is the actual result of the horse winning (the A).

If the A/E for favourites has remained constant then this indicates no increase or decrease in over or under betting and so no increase or decrease in punter smartness.

The question is still unanswered. If field sizes are getting smaller why isn't the favourites strike rate increasing?

[raybo]

Originally Posted by flatstats

Hmm. Doesn't seem to be much pick up on the fact that as field sizes get smaller favourites strike rates *should* naturally increase.

---

The point about the public getting smarter? If so then they would be backing more winners. Thus if the public tend to back favourites then this should see an upsurge in favourite strike rate too. The fact that the favourite strike is level (when field sizes are shrinking) would indicate that the public that are backing favourites are getting dumber?

---

A/E: this is based on the odds the horse started at. In GB we have the SP (starting price). In the US you have the PMU payout dividends. Either case there is still the odds chance of the horse winning (the E) and there is the actual result of the horse winning (the A).

If the A/E for favourites has remained constant then this indicates no increase or decrease in over or under betting and so no increase or decrease in punter smartness.

The question is still unanswered. If field sizes are getting smaller why isn't the favourites strike rate increasing?

As field sizes get smaller, smart players know that the odds will be lower on the logical winner, so they bet horses that aren't the logical favorite, with the goal of making profit, not hitting favorites at 35-40% hit rates.

[ReplayRandall]

Maybe the search for value stays constant, therefore the strike rate on favorites also stays constant?

[Some_One]

How's the split between NH and the flat? Also are you using Industry SP's? If so how do you handle joint favs? An issue that isn't a problem for US stats since the horse with the most dollars if at the same decimal odds is deemed fav.

[flatstats]

I don't know about NH - only flat.

Yes the fav is the industry 'bookie' SP favourite. There are no joint or co favs as these are worked out to standard Tote terms.

Now here's the interesting part, which no one has mentioned: All Weather racing.

AW racing accounts for 37% of all flat races, so it is not a minority surface. Favs on this surface should be influenced by the same punters as flat turf, although there are some differences (such as max field sizes, class, TV exposure etc.)

Favourites on GB All Weather
2005 28% strike rate, 0.94 A/E
2006 30%, 0.95
2007 31%, 0.92
2008 33%, 0.95
2009 32%, 0.90
2010 33%, 0.93
2011 33%, 0.92
2012 35%, 0.95
2013 35%, 0.92
2014 38%, 0.97 (to 25-Oct-14)

and here are the average field sizes

2005 11.3 runners
2006 10.7
2007 10.3
2008 9.5
2009 9.6
2010 9.4
2011 9.1
2012 9.3
2013 8.7
2014 8.5 (to 25-Oct-14)

So this is totally different to turf. It clearly shows a correlation with smaller field sizes and higher strike rates.

[Some_One]

So what are the numbers then for turf only, can you also factor in going?

[arno]

One of the biggest difference in USA wagering and Europe is the percentage of handle on exotic bets. I'd love to know the percent bet on win pool Europe vs USA

Maybe all the smart bettors in the USA play exotics and stay away from the win pool.

Horizontal wagering is almost non existent in Europe.

Another reason is the percentage of dumb money from players who are at track for a day out.

In the 60s when there were 30,000 at tracks there were many who went to track just for fun. More bet on names and colors back then and who except Ragozin heard of speed numbers.

The dumb money is not at Hawthorne on a wintery day on Thursdays

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by arno

The dumb money is not at Hawthorne on a wintery day on Thursdays

You won't find a MENSA meeting happening at Hawthorne on a wintery day either.

[zerosky]

Dang those folks at hawthorn will be getting the violin cases out soon.

A rarity I know but has anyone got fav stats on two or three horse races?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by AndyC

You won't find a MENSA meeting happening at Hawthorne on a wintery day either.

Hey...I think there is an insult there somewhere.

[raybo]

I take it that Hawthorne is not pleasant in the winter?

Or, maybe this is all about the fact that the average win payout there really sucks?