In a previous article I detailed a study of the top rated selections of the weekend racing paper The Wizard covering the spring racing period from September 3 to November 19 last year, over 12 Saturdays and 369 races in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and Queensland.

The overall figures showed a flat stake on each runner would have returned the punter $348 for a level stakes loss of 5.69 per cent.

At the end of the article I proposed four rules worth considering as the nucleus of a system:

RULE 1: Do not back mares to beat the males.
RULE 2: Do not back any horse that has not raced in the last 21 days or less.
RULE 3: Do not back any horse that has not had two runs this campaign.
RULE 4: Do not back any horse aged 6 years or older in open company races.

In this article the results of further study of those selections mentioned earlier relevant to Distance, Best Fluctuations, 3rd up at 1500m or longer and 4th up at 1800m or longer will be discussed.

I also did a quick study of 2yo and 3yo fillies against their male opponents but with a very low sample figure of 13.

I felt there was little point in discussing this area,  though the returns were 15.5 units. The 3rd and 4th up runners were also of dubious worth with only 34 occurrences.

I had better preface that by saying the returns were 56 units so this is an area well worth considering for the future.

Commonsense says those excellent figures reflect back to the poor figures of the 1st and 2nd up figures,  in that horses with runs 3rd and 4th up will have better results.

One of the most fascinating racing statistics I have always found is that no matter the type of racing, the various restructuring of racetracks, race conditions and raceday track conditions, it is always difficult to win by betting on horses priced at 9/2 or longer.

It seems as if the public draws a line in the sand and decrees that past the break even each way price of 4/1, betting regularly on those runners becomes a practice fraught with danger.

Does it happen with The Wizard stats.? Here are the figures:
$1.20 to 1.90 15 returned 17.00
$2.00 to 2.90 52 returned 42.90
$3.00 to 3.80 80 returned 73.80
$4.00 to 4.75 65 returned 69.80
$5.00 18 returned 30.00
$5.50 to 9.00 117 returnsed 84.50
$10.00 => 22 returned 22.00

Yes, it has happened again! From odds-on to 4/1 ($5.00) the figures show 230 returning 233.50 while at 9/2 or longer 139 returning 106.50. You will note the worst area is exactly at those odds most each way punters seek the majority of their bets.

Distance has always been a contentious issue amongst serious punters, with some declaring sprint races are better as there is genuine pace, while others argue distance does not matter. I broke the figures into five sections so let’s have a look:

1000 – 1200m 138 returned 114.80
1250 – 1460m 84 returned 62.10
1500 – 1650m 70 returned 64.95
1800 – 2200m 58 returned 71.75
2400m => 19 returned 31.1

It is quite obvious that sprint distances as well as the distances around the “milers” are a problem (1000m – 1650m = 292 returning 241.85).

As we get closer to the longer distance horses the figures showed a startling bias (1800m => equalled 77 returning 102.85).

I must admit to some surprise at these figures. Although the shorter distances have 213 more occurrences, the spread of plus and minus is a significant 74 units and it is difficult to assume that in the next 213 races over longer distances that the loss on turnover is going to be so massive as to redress the 74 units spread.

In light of these further figures I am willing to add two additional rules to the original four:

RULE 5: Do not bet on horses at 9/2 or longer.
RULE 6: Only bet on races at 1800m or longer.

In the final analysis, as far as The Wizard selections are concerned, we are looking for male horses not worn out from too much racing (5yo and under), who are fit (no 1st up, 2nd up or 21 days or longer off the scene), racing over distances at 1800m or longer and which are very well fancied in the market.

As mentioned in my last article, I intended studying the selections of Tony Brassel and Chris Scholtz, who both select for Sydney and Melbourne races. The figures showed both had selected in 199 races with Brassel returning 173.45 and Chris Scholtz 172.85.

How about that! This equated to a loss on turnover of close to 13 per cent which is over double the results shown by The Wizard selections. I was hoping there would be a better result for the tipsters and once I saw those statistics I feared there would be little purpose in calculating their figures in the areas I covered for The Wizard selections. In several areas there were too many low occurrences and the validity of making assumptions on small sample figures is questionable.

However, I found they did well in the 4 and 5yo runners but even then 92 returning 84.95 (Brassel) and 90 returning 86.5 (Scholtz) were nowhere near the figures for The Wizard selections.

The area that was worth researching was the Best Fluctuations, as the sample figure of 199 does have some validity, and their figures are quite interesting: in fact, they are astounding:

Chris Scholtz
Odds-on to 1.90 9 returned 11.00
$2.00 to 2.90 28 returned 34.60
$3.00 to 3.75 31 returned 35.50
$4.00 to 4.75 28 returned 30.75
$5.00 10 returned 15.00
$5.50 to 6.00 17 returned 0.00
$6.50 to 7.50 18 returned 27.00
$8.00 to 9.00 23 returned 8.00
$10.00=> 35 returned 11.00

In the 4/1 and less range 106 returned 126.85 which is an excellent set of results; however, at 9/2 and longer 93 returned 46 which are terrible figures. Do NOT back Chris’s tips at 9/2 or longer.

Tony Brassel
Odds-on to 1.90 9 returned 9.80
$2.00 to 2.90 25 returned 27.65
$3.00 to 3.75 26 returned 27.00
$4.00 to 4.75 27 returned 44.25
$5.00 11 returned 20.00
$5.50 to 6.00 13 returned 6.00
$6.50 to 7.50 23 returned 13.00
$8.00 to 9.00 24 returned 17.50
$10.00=> 41 returned 13.00

In the 4/1 and less range 98 returned 128.70 which are also an excellent set of of results; however, as with Chris Scholtz, at 9/2 or longer the performance dropped remarkably to 101 returning 49.50. Once again, as with Scholtz, do NOT back Brassel at 9/2 or longer.

Quite remarkably their combined $10.00 and longer selections returned two winners from 76 selections (keep in mind some would have been selected by both tipsters).

In all fairness to both tipsters the sample figure of 199, although reasonable, would be more significant if closer to 500 for my liking but by the same token are they going to perform that badly in the autumn and next spring in the 4/1 and less price range and come back to The Wizard figures?

There is no doubt it is always a worthwhile experience researching any racing theories. In this set of two articles I have covered quite some ground and in the final washup some very interesting statistics have emerged.

I was quite surprised at the excellent figures for the 4 and 5 year olds against their older counterparts (this included mares against mares), and the results for the tipsters at 4/1 or less astounded me.

I wasn’t quite as surprised at the fitness figures as fitness has always been of paramount importance and that will never change, while the distance figures were a revelation.

The 4/1 and less figures for both The Wizard and tipsters were most promising and I will monitor the autumn selections of the trio as well as the 2006 spring. In a follow-up article early 2007 we will have more significant stats to consider.

I will also throw their opposition, The Sportsman, into the fray as well, as they have a top rating selection called Zip Form I have never studied and some tipsters also worth studying. Until then, good punting.

Click here to read Part 1.

By Roman Kozlovski