Almanac Horse Racing: Fun with Numbers 3

May 6, 2026 by Pestwac Leave a Comment

Working on course, and at the paying queue after every race it was an opportune time to ask, how did you pick that? Clients become first name cobbers almost, most of the time. I have had invites to parties, birthdays, tea, golf, footy, and plane flights, motor bike rides, parachuting, small bore, boxing, fishing, yachting, this is my Mum, this is my sister. I went flying and on the motor bike. Others, clients, might say 4 words tops – ’40 win, such and such’ when betting and nothing, not a thing, when collecting. Still, it’s the same at the tote (or used to be). The price is better with us, just ask!

B-I-G

Runners remain viable choices to run into places (usually annoyingly) long into their careers (say 15 starts or more).

Determine the number of campaigns a runner has undertaken – usually a ‘First Up’ stat showing as 6: 3,3,3. – 6 is the takeaway from this, the runner has started 6 times.
Determine the runners place record – usually a ‘Career Record’ showing 15: 6,4,5. Sum 3+4+5 from this information being the number of occurrences for winning/place.
Determine a value from this information -12/6 =2 * 100 = 200 (%) – strong indication of a serious race horse. It might be $101 in this field. That would depend on the strength calculation of the other runners – B-I-G – big is good.
Do the same calculation for all runners and compare them. Delete them from contention in accordance with you own preferences, remember BIG.

UPSTARTS, YOUNG TARTS AND OLD FARTS

Trainers keep older runners in the stable for a multitude of reasons- ownership, family connection, a once very viable sire or dam line (think Danehill, Little Miss Bourke (a pinup of mine)), a once upon a time good horse, a because, a why not, or some such.

Economic theory dictates that the asset has to pay for itself – all of them are hay pirates, then there is the vet, the groom, the transport, the entry fees, and the remaining two thirds outgoings.

If a runner, male, is older than 6 years, and top weight on its own, it is a selection.
If a runner, female, is older than 5 years, and a top weight, solo or in company, it is a selection.
If a runner, either, is in the first 3 in the weights, equal weights apply, and is priced at $11.00 or better, it is a selection and more so if it is showing $4+ place in the last minutes of betting up.
IMPORTANT: Either will place, or may win, during each campaign now – be ready for the windfall. This is not a form reversal, this is a clever horse who feels like a romp on the grass today, that’s all. Annoying aren’t they. (a suggestion from Mr Lord)

Male aged 7 or older – pick –especially if top weight on its own

Female aged 6 or older – pick – can be part of a group at top weight – an enclave!

MULTIPLE RUNNERS FROM THE STABLE – in this race

There are many theories, none proven.

A last start winner will get assistance in running by following its stablemate in the queue of horses just before the fan at the corner – is this legal?

In steeples/hurdles one runner is being schooled, as in training, and seems to enjoy the outing.

Jockey A and Jockey B may collude, and do (they say) – which completely disregards the actions of the other jockeys in the race.

Jockeys have a race amongst themselves – beat ya!

$11.00 =10/1 – referred to as ‘it’

A $11.00 runner will beat (finish in front of) another $11.00 runner 50% (half) of the time – accept that as a given please – it’s the maths talking. Some other acceptances you will be asked (and used)

In a 1000 races it may win 71 – scaled from 55-79 probable.

Calculated Win 71, 2^nd 106, 3^rd 117 Placed 234, Unplaced 716 – it is very important that somebody tells the horse how to behave otherwise these numbers are shite.

So, in separate events winners at $11.00 the odds

4 wins 24400/1 – 3 wins 1fail 530/1 – 2 wins 2fail 29/1 – 1 win 3fail 3/1 – no wins 2/5

If you have accepted $11 v $11 = 50%, then v 13 (55%), v 9 (44%), v 7 (41%), v 6 (38%), v 5 (32%) v16(58%) v 21 (65%) – this presumes 9 runners with the favorite at $2.50. It won’t change too much otherwise. This is comparing $11 against (say) $6 when it is calculated it will finish in front of the $6 runner 38% of the time. Please tell the horse, it’s important. ‘Maffs’ –awesome eh? After Eisler.

PAYING FAIR

This may show the real odds of some runners – in Melbourne in 60’s.*2/1 should be 5/2* off results

1/1 =2.00-10/9, 5/4 =2.25-13/8, 6/4 =2.50-2/1, 7/4 =2.75-9/4, *2/1 =3.00-5/2*, 5/2 =3.50-13/4

3/1 =4.00-15/4, 7/2 =4.50-9/2, 4/1 =5.00-11/2, 9/2 = 5.5-11/2, 5/1 = 6.00- 13/2, 6/1 =7.00-8/1

8/1 =9.00-11/1, 10/1= 11.00-14/1, 12/1 = 13.00-20/1, 15/1=16.00- 21/1, 20/1 =21.00-33/1

25/1 =26.00-40/1, 33/1=34.00-50/1, 50/1=51.00-80/1, 100/1= 101.00- write your own ticket.

Place – goodness! Helped/not helped because of a probability of three dividends in each event. A win at evens (1/1) had that runner 1/8 to place off results

Place in same order as above, 1/1 =1/8, 5/4=1/7, 1/5, 1/3, 2/5, 5/2=4/7, 8/11, 9/10, 4/1=1/1, 10/9,

5/4, 6/1=6/4, 10/1=5/2, 13/4,9/2, 20/1 = 6/1, 9/1,11/1, 20/1,35/1

These are observations/results and now supported from maths (After Eisler)

Win 10/1 is shown as 14/1 off observation/ results/maths. Multiple runners at 10s in a race cause the calculated price to balloon. Bookmakers sold them at 10s but they were 14s in fact. Bookmakers didn’t bother with this so much.

PAYING FAIR – GETTING A PRICE

This was back then

At odds between 9/1 and 20/1: D = B + T / 2 (B is bookmaker, T is tote) sum the prices showing and divide by 2. This meant to show the dividend at close (and probably does quite well)

There are variations, like (3B+T)/4 when evens or a little better is on offer.

Now. Not sure how those equations cope now with corporates and instantaneous totes. All ups spoil it too.

WORTHY OR WOT

I bet quinella more often, so using the payout display, and squaring the dividends you can see if your runners are worthy. Say $22 = square root 22 = 4.70, both engagees should be 4.70 on the tote otherwise it is over bet ( and popular is good?)

There may not be any evidence that suggests quinella bettors are better informed. What makes them win, often, is the box bet. How would you test for that?

I can access a quinella matrix also (and exacta) so ranking the dividends is a probable act as well.

I can also access trifecta matrix (locally held)

What I don’t do is spend hours at the screen, shudder.

FANGING IT

His name for this. Form from a previous race. Sum the winners PACE time and the SECTIONAL PACE time and divide by 2 for an average. His form guide had these pace values, that guide is now defunct.

Work them yourself using form race distance less beaten margin and form race overall time.

Say 1600 metres in 96.96 seconds, loss 4 lengths. Use 2.75 metres/length.

So 4 * 2.75 = 11 metres

1600 – 11 = 1589 metres

Now 1589/96.96 = 16.38 metres a second. This is pace, correctly pace impact value

To fine it down, not necessary, use 16.38/2.75 = 5.95636363636363 lengths each second

Sectional times are dealt with the same. Say 35.7 seconds over 600 metres for the winner of the form race

600 – 11 = 589

589/35.7 = 16.49 metres a second (slow)

16.49/2.75 =5.9999999 lengths each second.

Sum 16.38 + 16.49 = 32.87 – divide by 2 for an average =16.43. Compare ALL runners in this race.

The author does not modify for race distance, going ,weight, barrier – lesser values are NOT good.

IMPUDENCE IN THE SADDLE

Correctly the thesis is called ‘Hot Hands’ and the title is in the introduction. There is a belief that a jockey can repeat a winning result because of his endeavours in previous races, hence the ‘repeat’ accusation. There is a lot of writing, some statistics and innumerable decimal points. They can, them jockeys, but probably not because Radish came in, with him on, recently, and it was expected.

A good jockey can make a difference.

Good jockeys get to ride good horses.

A runner when winning and running on from back in the field is going to be short priced !.

A front runner when place priced between 2^nd and 3^rd favorite is value, every day. The place dividend is then one of the best values in the race. This is an observation determination, probability maths don’t support this. Front runners often back up into a place.

It is a fact that the ‘Hot Hands’ assertion extends onto other activities. Good performances are noted (thus ‘Hot Hands’) in high jumping (as one example far removed from horse racing).

However, no matter how ‘hot’ a jock can be assumed it really comes down to the horse, or the barrier!

There is an Australian thesis on just this topic.

HEAD TO HEAD

Using maths to show probability of one horse beating another with their sp as the prime input.

Obviously a runner at 5/2 would beat another at 5/2 50% of the time. A runner at 5/2 would beat another at 9/2 64% of the time. A runner at 9/2 would beat another at 5/2 36% of the time.

‘would’ may have to be substituted with ‘should’ – it’s just maths