How 'The best of the best' are tops
GROUP GRAB!

• Statistics • Views • Results • Plans • Profits

It is often said about a certain famous trainer that he kept himself in the best company and his horses in the worst company. He made a mint that way.

The best company for a racehorse is Group company. That trainer would have shied clear of such elite associations, but I can assure you that for any breeder a Group win is the supreme achievement. It determines to a large extent the value of a stallion or mare for breeding purposes.

If a stud master can say, as with one recent departure (Encounter), that your sire won five Group One races, you have it made. The equine ladies will flock to your stable door and life will be a regular bowl of cherries.

Group races are the best, and Group One is the best of the best. The cream of the cream. There are about 65 of these races run every season in Australia, and about 225 races at all Group levels.

Races like the Golden Slipper, the Melbourne Cup, the Cox Plate, the Caulfield Cup, Sydney Cup and Doncaster Handicap, etc., are all in the top Group. It's tempting to say "stick to these and you can't go wrong", but they are contested by the very best and there often seems to be several chances.

One old wag of my acquaintance always used to advise young players to avoid these races like the plague, because "every horse is trying". That's a sobering thought indeed!

I have made a detailed analysis of Group races run over the past three seasons, courtesy of Steve McAllister's database (for details see page 25).

Needless to say, three seasons are not as useful as fifty seasons, but I have had the advantage of 671 Group races to study.

There were 671 Group races run over the past three seasons up to time of writing. Of these, 186 were at Group One level, 213 at Group Two and 272 at Group Three.

Favourites won 223 of these races, or 33 per cent. That is, at face value, a very good percentage. However, there were races with equal favourites and three equal favourites.

The second column in the chart on the left tells you how many horses actually ran as lone favourite in the races concerned. Overall, an additional 52 horses ran as equal-favourites, a significant number. Approximately one race in every 14 had more than one favourite.

This makes a difference to our figures as, taking Group Three as an example, there were 100 winners from 272 races, a percentage of nearly 37, but those additional equal-favourites haul the percentage back three points to 34 (see final column).

So, overall, favourites won 33 per cent of their races, but the true figure is 31, two points lower.

That is highly significant because (as we will see later) the majority of those favourites started at quite short odds.

Of the 671 races, one-third of them were won by favourites, which is reduced to 31 per cent because of multiple favourites.

What of the returns (based on $1 unit bets on each race winner)?

The average price of each Group winner from 1995 to 1998 was 7/1 (7.19/1 exactly).

What of the returns of favourites and their profits or losses?

Backing all favourites in each race would have resulted in a loss of 73 units, around 10 percent on outlay.

LOSING SEQUENCES
Now what about the losing sequences of favourites? One of the most important things in many investors' minds is the length of time between returns, and this is especially important to those who make favourites their mainstay.

Over the survey period, the worst run of cuts by favourites was 11, recorded twice by Group Three.

Group Two suffered 10 and Group One's worst was eight (once).

(LLS below is shorthand for longest losing sequence.)

Group One
LLS 8
Second LLS 6 (five times)

Group Two
LLS 10
Second LLS 9
Third LLS 7
(four times)

Group Three
LLS 11 (twice)
Third LLS 9
Fourth
LLS 7
Fifth
LLS 6 (four times)

OVERALL  LLS
11 (twice), 10, 9 (twice), 8, 7 (four times), 6 (nine times).

With losing sequences like those, there is caution in the wind for a favourite supporter. What of those runners at the other end of the spectrum, the longshots?

LONGSHOTS
The figures are remarkable as the odds increase. We deal with the double-figure winners (remember the average odds of winners was 7/1), then we look at any triple-figure results. Because triple-figure results assist exotics (greatly!), we have a look at the placed horses too.

For those who are already wondering about placings, we will also investigate the place performances of the favourites.

One in just under four Group races was won at double figures. The trick is, of course, to find which one in each race to back; there could be 15 runners at double-figure odds!

TRIPLE FIGURES
This is short and simple. One winner in three years.

And at 100/1, not 250 or something fanciful. Name of Macdrury.

Plenty of 50s and 60s, but only one 100/1 winner, in a Group Three. So we can say, with a fair amount of confidence, if we are betting on exotics, omit the real triple-figure longshots from first place.

But what about the 2nd and 3rd placegetters?

Group One had TWO placed at 100/1-plus, in 558 place slots.

Group Two had SEVEN placed at 100/1-plus, in 639 place slots.

Group Three had EIGHT placed at 100/1-plus, in 816 place slots.

I have ignored a very few cases where there was a dead-heat for third.

There were 17 placegetters from 2013 place slots at 100/1 or over. And 1 from 2013 won at 100/1.

The percentages are 0.8 and 0.05, not healthy. One race in every 39 had a 100/1 or more placing.

Moving back to the favourites, how did the shortest-priced of them fare?

ODDS-ON FAVOURITES
Group One
14 odds-on won, 8 lost.

Group Two
15 odds-on won, 16 lost.

Group Three
12 odds-on won, 15 lost.

TOTALS
41 odds-on won, 39 lost.

A winning percentage of 51 from 80 races with an odds-on favourite (12 per cent of all races).

What about favourites at better prices? I analysed those starting at higher than 2/1 and those at 2/1 or less.

FAVOURITES AT GREATER THAN 2/1

As you can see, the damaging factor here over the three-year period was from only backing favourites at Group One level when they were at a price in excess of 2/1. Groups Two and Three were affected very little.

FAVOURITES AT 211 OR LESS

As you will note, the following stats correspond with the first table's figures overall:

ALL FAVOURITES

DISTANCES
What about the distances run? I separated these into two categories - up to and including 1600 metres and then over more than 1600 metres.

UP TO AND INCLUDING 1600M

1600M AND OVER

We can say that all distances will return the same approximate percentages, with the comment that there was a slight advantage to Group Three at 1600 metres or less.

Don't forget that these figures need to be reassessed in line with the fact that there were another 52 equal-favourites that didn't win.

What about favourites that were placed second or third? Is there anything to be said here? There certainly is. This was one of the most interesting revelations of all.

Tune in next month and we'll continue exploring this fascinating subject.

by The Optimist

PRACTICAL PUNTING - AUGUST 1998