By Todd Burmester
Horses for courses…. it’s a saying that’s been around for as long as you can remember, but does it really ring true in the case of chasing a winner? On the surface, most punters would probably be of the opinion that having a good record at the venue of today’s race is an advantage. Most would also probably tell you that some horses just don’t handle a particular venue. One of those venues is Moonee Valley. Plenty of times you’ll hear in the post race analysis “he just didn’t handle The Valley”. This will become more and more topical over the coming weeks as we are about to head into the Moonee Valley night racing series for another season. I thought I would explore this a little further and see whether I can put some meat around the bones of whether “The Valley” really does bring runners undone.
To have a closer look at the theory, I decided to source some data based on a sample of Moonee Valley winners, and see how many of those had won there before, and how many hadn’t. The next step was to compare and contrast this to another course, being Flemington. When you think about the two courses, they are very different in layout. Flemginton has the long sweeping bend that seems to go forever, prior to a lengthy home straight, where as “The Valley”, is a tighter turning course, and has the shortest of the home straights of all metropiltan tracks. I figured if the “The Valley” truly brings horses undone, comparing it to Flemington, would give me a fair gauge.
From a sample of 2084 Moonee Valley race winners and 2155 Flemington race winners here is what I found:
41.5% of the Moonee Valley sample of winners had never started at the course before. Thie compares to 36.8% of the Flemington sample that had never started at that course before. Interesting that a higher percentage of the sample were able to take straight to Moonee Valley at their first go, than those starting for the first time at Flemington
From those who had started at the respective course before, 56.7% had not won at Moonee Valley previously, 57.1% had not won at Flemington. This indicates that an almost identical amount of winners turned their previous losing record around at both courses. Maybe Moonee Valley is not such a specialist course after all.
What about if we take the opposite tact and look at winners at the course that have won on multiple occasions? Of the Moonee Valley sample, 8.1% were multiple winners, which compares almost identically to 7.8% of the Flemington sample that were multiple winners
The only statistic that I could find that indicated Moonee Valley was a specialist course, was that of the sample of 2000 odd winners, 7 of them had won 7 times or more at the venue, where as the most number of wins at Flemington in the sample as 6 wins, by two horses.
In conclusion, I’d say writing a horse off due to a poor record at a particular track is somewhat a trap, and furthermore I would say that having a suspicion that a horse will not handle Moonee Valley is even more of a trap. Going after horses that have a specialist record at a particular track may produce winners in terms of strike rate, but it also may diminish value. It’s each to their own, but I am prepared to place “record at the track” low on my list of criteria when looking for a winner.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
What about Geelong Synthetic?? One would expect horses to react differently to the different surface.
I’ll get back to you on that Mark.
Horses that have never previously had a run on the Geelong Synthetic lose 7.8% on turnover, while those with experience at the track perform better, losing 3.6%.
That sample was a ridiculous way to determine whether horses for courses worked more at Mooney Valley than Flemington,, Like comparing Frankenstein and The Wolfman for ugliness, they are both of similar ugliness so therefore neither are ugly? Obviously most horses like either course but it is undeniable that Mooney Valley is a Course the engenders “specialists” ie Fields Of Omagh, Dandy Kid etc more so than Flemington, Flemington horses can usually win anywhere in similar Class whereas there are some hores like those aforementioned who would be single figures at the Valley and against the same field anywhere else would be more than double that price, all I am saying is compare apples with apples, statistics will say anything you want them too if you are selective
CHIEF DE BEERS, A GREAT HORSE COULDN’T WIN ANYWHERE EXCEPT AT DOOMBEN
I don’t debate for one moment that the valley probably does produce more speciialsts, and that was pointed out, with there being 7 winners who had won 7 times or more in the sample I used. What I do debate however is that it will make little difference at all trying to focus on this to gain an overall edge in the big picture of punting – which is the purpose behind the piece. In the times that those valley specialists started there and lost, it’s likely they started unders in regards to price due to their love affair with the track, but other factors potentially identified them as a lay that were overlooked by many. The same goes in the case of Chief De Beers – he built such a profile through his love for Doomben, that it’s likely in many of his starts he was “unders” in regards to being a punting proposition.
Re: Article by R. Waterhouse in SMH about his solution to “unjust” weights carried by imported horses in Melbourne Cup.
Mr Waterhouse complains that the weight spread ( 7kg according to him) results in imported horses not receiving a “just” weight relative to local horses and suggests that the weight spread should be increased to 10kg so that local horses are not at a relative weight disadvantage compared to the imports.
I find this galling coming from one of the architects of the Benchmark Rating system who I once saw in an interview justifying the 5kg weight spread with his arms outstretched claiming that it was “inclusive” as opposed to the “restrictive” class handicapping of races that it replaced. In nearly every race that I analyse I have to impose penalties on horses carrying the limit weight that should, according to their Bench Mark Rating and the rating of their last start, be carrying many kilos less. Conversely, I occasionally find a horse that has been perfectly placed and is carryng less weight than it’s last start race rating and BM rating would justify. Mr Waterhouse’s argument that the Melbourne Cup should receive special consideration regarding the weight spread because local horses are at a relative weight disadvantage on the limit weight is pure jingoism. What about the hundreds of local horses in local races that have to labour under the same relative weight disadvantage? Where has the weight handicapping gone? Form students are now reduced to rating horses based on sectional times and speed maps, a sure recipe for disaster. Luckily, for a small fee, we can avail ourselves of tipping and rating services provided by Mr Waterhouse and others of his kind. As a punter I don’t care where a horse has come from or where it’s going. All I want is some sort of exposed form. Of course, for owners, breeders and trainers seeing big prizemoney that is rightfully “theirs” going overseas may be of some concern. In any case, if it is unfair on Australian horses against imported gallopers why is it not just as unfair when local horses race against each other with only a five kilogram weight spread?
You raise some very valid points there Peter. Thanks for your contribution.