Almanac Horseracing: Fun with numbers 4

 

Barrier System.

Mr Wigg lived and worked in Albury. He was a drycleaner, more lately a presser in a dry cleaning shop whose clientele was shrinking. He seemed to attend every meeting at Flemington and Caulfield. He caught the morning train at 0730 and arrived in Melbourne at 11.30am. He returned that evening after 7.30pm, sitting up with a feed and drink purchased on board.

I worked on course in Melbourne and I recall our first meeting was in the $100 tote queue. There were 4 of us and he was asking for $17 place on Ben Lomond (this was back then, remember). The tote refused to serve him and he stood aside to allow us others to lay off with them. I spoke to him, the then unknown Mr Wigg, and advised that he could bet at the windows at the end of the building although these had a queue of some magnitude. He said thanks, he said he knew, and he said he wouldn’t now. I took my paperwork back to the stand then had to layoff on another before the start. This I did.

During the race I sat on the bench around the tree near our ring. I wasn’t working on the stand that day. The regular bag slinger, ‘Punchy’, was there for that but the staff had asked me to run some bets for them. I worked for the firm ordinarily and had done so for many months.

While I sat I was joined by Mr Wigg. He asked if I was a bookie. I said I worked for the firm, that’s all.

In the ensuing weeks Mr Wigg was a regular customer of ours, 4 races, 3 or four runners, and in the payout queue sometimes. I asked him how was he doing puntwise and he told me he was ‘in the red now’.

It was a fascination for me how some selected their bets. I asked and invariably I was told, informed, how their decision arrived. Public selectors figured, last start winners also, betting on jockeys as well, horse age, horse sex, TAB number. Nearly everyone was a single element input, one factor only determined a selection. Two or three selections in each race may arise from three form elements being used, last start winners etc.

Some said no way. They were not divulging their method to me. Fair enough. Thank you all.

Race distance did not figure large or loud in selection methods. It should. Horse weights neither (this was back then, remember) but levels of weights seemed important, top weights were proven runners, whereas fillies and mares were inferior because of their lesser weight impost. Strange. A race was lost because their chosen runner could not get a run, was blocked, could not be tested fully, went wide, had a bad barrier, the jockey, the trainer, the weather, particularly the wind, the jockey for some other reason, ‘shonks’, ‘pulled’ or often ‘shonks’ and/or ‘pulled’ in its  form line to hide its real ability today (although this was an explanation of the actions of the winner, mostly).

I’m sure you can ignore the possibilities of ‘shonks/pulled’ – there is a minute exposé of racing actions and results.

Mr Wigg told me that barriers have an effect on race results up to 9 furlongs. He had opinions on other aspects of the race too.

He only included barriers (and distance less than/equal to 1800 metres (9 furlongs in old money) in his selection process.

He had collated several books of statistics regarding favourites in races, barrier numbers (where they finished in the race), jockey places particularly finish margins from barriers.

 

What he done was this, as they say.

Consider races up 1800 metres, at least 10* running, track condition immaterial, metropolitan location.

1. Choose the 4 widest barriers.
2. Selections should be priced at $20 or less.
3. If selections exceed $20 consider replacements from barriers 1 to 4.
4. He bet to win. He saved on place bets if win dividends were $20+

He bet with bookmakers ordinarily. The tote was used for place betting.

Some examples 11/07

Caulfield R7 Barrier 11,10,9,8 corresponds to Tab 1,9,8,10 – Tab 8 won, Tab 9 2^nd

Caulfield R8 Barrier 9, 1,3,4 corresponds to Tab 6,10,2,3 – Tab 3 won Barrier 4,  1 , 2 placed.

Caulfield R9 Barrier 16,14,1,2 corresponds to Tab 4,13,11,1 – 4,11 placed

For the day winners arrived in R1 $2.30, R2 $6.10, R3 $3.00, R4 0, R5* $7.60, R6* $6.50.

(*) Means the race distance is outside selection parameters (or they’re too long!)

 

SR1 select Tab 8492 – Tab 9 won $51.00 – probably deselected because of price.

SR2 select Tab 7 (other wides deselected because of price) – add Tab 8,16,1 – Tab 16 won $20.

SR4 insufficient starters

SR3 select Tab 17,12,3,9 – Tab 3 won $4.20

SR5 select Tab 4,2,9,7 $0

SR6 insufficient starters Tab 1 7 9 3 – Tab 7 won $4.00

SR7 select Tab 9,4,7,12 –Tab 4 won $4.00

SR8 $0

SR9 select Tab 10,14,6,4 – Tab 10 won $12.40

SR9 select Tab 11,6,10,3 – Tab 6 won $11.00

The barrier may encourage a runner (or jockey) to run more energetically than otherwise. Start wide and then bustle to cross and lead and if 80 winners come from the front 4 this works.

How many runners in a race before the barrier has an effect, implied or otherwise? Mr Wigg wanted 12 runners, the beginning of a crowd. Perhaps barrier allocation is the singular most important reason for a runner to lose, win, or be scratched. Price of the runner is a consideration also.

You are backing 4 runners in each race. Those runners are less than 20/1 and can be favourites.

The widest barriers are chosen, the first/last 4 if paying under $20. If no horses qualify, choose runners from the close in barrier (barrier 1,2 etc) and provided they too are paying less than $20.

I don’t use the scheme. I don’t recommend it.

 

To read more by Pestwac click here.

 

To return to our Footy Almanac home page click HERE.

 

Our writers are independent contributors. The opinions expressed in their articles are their own. They are not the views, nor do they reflect the views, of Malarkey Publications.

 

Do you enjoy the Almanac concept?

And want to ensure it continues in its current form, and better? To help things keep ticking over please consider making your own contribution.

 

Become an Almanac (annual) member – click HERE.