Stalls numbering

[RussP]

Don't forget this, it's very important...... "Currently on all British racecourses the starting stalls are numbered in ascending order from left to right if you are looking through the stalls from behind. This practice applies regardless of whether the track races right handed or left handed. The only other racing jurisdiction which adopts this practice is Ireland. In all other jurisdictions left handed racecourses adopt this practice, however, right handed racecourses number their starting stalls in ascending order from right to left if you are looking through the stalls from behind. From 30 March 2011 (start of the flat turf season) Britain will change the manner in which the starting stalls are numbered on those racecourses which stage flat racing and are classified as right handed. No change will be made to racecourses classified as left handed. This change will see the starting stalls on the 14 racecourses listed below, all of which have been classified as right handed, being numbered in ascending order from right to left if you look through the stalls from behind. The change in practice will be effective for all races, including those run on a straight course, run at these racecourses. The Clerk of the Course at each of these courses will continue to adopt their current practices in where they position the starting stalls on the track for races run over a straight course. Publications which make available draw statistics have been consulted and advise that they will be able to ‘flip’ their existing statistics so as they will maintain their relevance. Consultation has also taken place with the RCA, NTF, and PJA, who have all expressed their support for this change in the numbering of the starting stalls. The racecourses which have been classified as right handed, due to the major bend being right handed when races are run around a turn, are Ascot, Beverly, Carlisle, Folkestone, Goodwood, Hamilton, Kempton, Leicester, Musselburgh, Newmarket (Rowley Mile and July Courses), Ripon, Salisbury, Sandown, and Windsor."

[Mirage]

Re: Stalls numbering Surely there are more important things for the men in charge of racing to dissuss than this? :eyes

[Trotter]

Re: Stalls numbering It's a simple thing but probably long overdue............it should be made obvious to punters that stall 1 is always on the inside ! Might be an opportunity here for a few weeks until everyone gets used to this............maybe somewhere like kempton where an inside draw is pretty valuable in sprints, people might still be backing the high numbers for a while !

[RussP]

Re: Stalls numbering To me, it's not so much places like Kempton where the sprints are on the round course, it's the tracks where there's a straight sprint course. That'll be tough to get used to, IMO.

[skylark2009]

Re: Stalls numbering

Don't forget this, it's very important...... "Currently on all British racecourses the starting stalls are numbered in ascending order from left to right if you are looking through the stalls from behind. This practice applies regardless of whether the track races right handed or left handed. The only other racing jurisdiction which adopts this practice is Ireland. In all other jurisdictions left handed racecourses adopt this practice, however, right handed racecourses number their starting stalls in ascending order from right to left if you are looking through the stalls from behind. From 30 March 2011 (start of the flat turf season) Britain will change the manner in which the starting stalls are numbered on those racecourses which stage flat racing and are classified as right handed. No change will be made to racecourses classified as left handed. This change will see the starting stalls on the 14 racecourses listed below, all of which have been classified as right handed, being numbered in ascending order from right to left if you look through the stalls from behind. The change in practice will be effective for all races, including those run on a straight course, run at these racecourses. The Clerk of the Course at each of these courses will continue to adopt their current practices in where they position the starting stalls on the track for races run over a straight course. Publications which make available draw statistics have been consulted and advise that they will be able to ‘flip’ their existing statistics so as they will maintain their relevance. Consultation has also taken place with the RCA, NTF, and PJA, who have all expressed their support for this change in the numbering of the starting stalls. The racecourses which have been classified as right handed, due to the major bend being right handed when races are run around a turn, are Ascot, Beverly, Carlisle, Folkestone, Goodwood, Hamilton, Kempton, Leicester, Musselburgh, Newmarket (Rowley Mile and July Courses), Ripon, Salisbury, Sandown, and Windsor."

Thanks Russ for this info, :ok this could likely affect punters who use the draw bias in their analysis when selecting potential bets. I imagine that the courses that will be affected that have a high draw bias, may change to a low draw bias. And the courses that will be affected that have a low draw bias, may change to a high draw bias. (But only time will tell.) Below is a draw bias list copied from another site with the likely affected courses underlined. (It's quite long and I'm not sure how accurate this list is!) N.B On the affected courses high should now be read as low and low read as high. DRAW BIAS FOR UK FLAT COURSES ASCOT: No draw advantage. AYR: In large fields over the straight course low numbers are favoured. BATH: Low numbers are favoured in races up to a mile. BEVERLEY: High numbers have an advantage in races up to one mile. Low on soft ground. (Change to low up to 1M, high on soft ground) BRIGHTON: In sprint races low numbers tend to have an advantage. CARLISLE: High numbers have an advantage in races up to a mile. (Change to low) CATTERICK: Low numbers have an advantage in races up to seven furlongs. CHEPSTOW: No draw advantage. CHESTER: A low draw and a fast start give a distinct advantage in sprints. EPSOM: High numbers best over 5f and 6f, low numbers best from 7f to 1m 2f. FOLKESTONE: High numbers greatly favoured at 5f and 6f. (Change to low) FFOS LAS: No draw advantage. GOODWOOD: Low numbers best in sprints, though a fast start is equally important. (Change to high) GREAT LEIGHS: No draw advantage. HAMILTON: Middle to high numbers best in sprints, especially on soft ground. (Change to low) HAYDOCK: In 5f and 6f races on soft ground high numbers have an advantage. KEMPTON: High numbers usually best on round course, low numbers best in sprints. (Change to low on round course, high best in sprints) LEICESTER: High numbers best on the straight course. (Change to low) LINGFIELD: High numbers best in sprints. MUSSELBURGH: In races up to a mile high numbers are usually at an advantage. (Change to l.ow) NEWBURY: High numbers best in large fields, especially in very soft ground. NEWCASTLE: Low numbers best on the straight course in soft or heavy ground. NEWMARKET: July Course - No significant advantage. NEWMARKET: Rowley Mile - Any advantage in the draw is dependent on the position of the stalls. NOTTINGHAM: The advantage of the draw is dependent on the position of the stalls. PONTEFRACT: Low numbers best in sprints. ROYAL ASCOT: No draw advantage. REDCAR: Middle to high numbers have a decided advantage on the straight course. RIPON: Low number draw favoured on the sprint course except when the going is soft or heavy. (Change to high) SALISBURY: Low numbers at an advantage in sprints when the going is soft. (Change to high) SANDOWN: High numbers best in sprints, especially in large fields on soft going. (Change to low) SOUTHWELL: 5f None, 6f Low best. THIRSK: High numbers best on the straight course, low numbers best at 7f & 1m. WARWICK: Low numbers are favoured. WINDSOR: High numbers hold a slight advantage in sprints. (Change to low) WOLVERHAMPTON: No draw advantage . YARMOUTH: High numbers best on the straight course, especially in large fields. YORK: Low to middle numbers best on the straight track, especially when soft going prevails.

[RussP]

Re: Stalls numbering Good post Skylark. However, I think it's important that we don't take these comments as gospel. I'd urge everyone to do your own research and look at past results. Quite often, people just work off these sorts of comments but when you delve into the detail, there's a lot to be gleaned. Prime example being the 7f all age handicap yesterday at Leopardstown, a course with apparently no draw bias. However, 6 of the previous 7 runnings of this handicap had seen a horse drawn in the lowest 7 stalls winning, generally with a field of c.15/16 runners. The left handed bend would also suggest a low draw is best. The result, winner from stall 2 with the next 3 drawn 3-10-6, and 4L back to the 5th horse home. Of the front 6 in the betting, 3 were drawn in the lowest 7 stalls and they occupied the 1-2, with the other a disappointing 11th of 14. The other 3 finished 6th (drawn 12), 13th (drawn 10) and last (drawn 8). The other thing to remember in big field straight course races is to follow the pace. Yes, factor in the draw but those drawn very near to the expected leader have a better than average strike rate due to the 'arrow effect', and being able to race up with the pace.

[mileni4uk]

Re: Stalls numbering Pace is far more important than draw in big field handicaps over a straight. Also for the flat in general race reading is far more important than form reading. I can back winners over the jumps without watching all of their past runs, but for the flat it's essential to watch previous races and be able to read them. The margin between winning and losing on the flat is very slim. Jockeys, tactics, pace, position. You can never gather this from the form-book. P.S. Jamie Spancer still shit! Are we having the debate again this season? :D

[RussP]

Re: Stalls numbering

Pace is far more important than draw in big field handicaps over a straight.

Hmmm, be careful with such a bold statement. It may mean that the normal front runners can't lead because of such a poor draw.

[mileni4uk]

Re: Stalls numbering I think draw is very overrated. It's the same with course form at Cheltenham. There's so much more to it. Draws are factored into prices and there is no edge in going with a good draw, because the price is already factored in. There is an edge in pace study however, because it is often misunderstood or misjudged. And after all horses beat poor draws all the time. For me, draw biases aren't usually draw biases, they are the result of a pace bias. Like last year, the so called "draw bias" at Ascot, which was actually just a few stupid jockeys riding like first time amateurs. There's probably just one thing that is slightly more overrated and that is paddock watching. Esepcially for handicap punters it's a total waste of time.

[RussP]

Re: Stalls numbering

I think draw is very overrated. It's the same with course form at Cheltenham. There's so much more to it. Draws are factored into prices and there is no edge in going with a good draw' date=' because the price is already factored in. There is an edge in pace study however, because it is often misunderstood or misjudged. And after all horses beat poor draws all the time. For me, draw biases aren't usually draw biases, they are the result of a pace bias. Like last year, the so called "draw bias" at Ascot, which was actually just a few stupid jockeys riding like first time amateurs. There's probably just one thing that is slightly more overrated and that is paddock watching. Esepcially for handicap punters it's a total waste of time.[/quote'] Couldn't disagree more. If you follow the crowd, then yes but there is still an edge in draw bias if you know what you're looking for. Check out post #6. Ascot is, I do admit, a pace bias track in the main rather than draw bias but there are still several draw biases that the wider public aren't aware of.

[BillyHills]

Re: Stalls numbering I think todays race at Catterick does question the importance people put on the draw and also when looking back at past results. As Russ rightly said in his thread low numbers had done well at the track and in the race previoulsy, now if we look at the result the first 5 home were drawn 14,1,12,11 and 15? It doesnt tell half the story, Spirit Of Coniston in trap 12 flew out the boxes and was on the far rail after a furlong and was with the low numbers, the winner stayed where he was and won. Now if you look back at this race next year and didnt remember the race you would say that high numbers have an advantage. You can't rely on the draw in my opinion, saying that it was a race for young jockeys, now does that make a difference?

[fintron]

racing post re-write the history books Apologies if this has been pointed out already but now the stalls numbering at all right handed british racecourses has been changed, so stall one is always on the inside, the racing post, rather than leaving old results as they were, have gone back and changed everything. For example in the 3.10 at beverley today in the post race analysis for last years renewal they say lenny bee was drawn highest of all yet now they've changed the stall number next to each runner he actually has a 1 next to his name. Most confusing, surely it would have been easier to leave it as it was?

[StuSimmy]

Re: racing post re-write the history books

Apologies if this has been pointed out already but now the stalls numbering at all right handed british racecourses has been changed, so stall one is always on the inside, the racing post, rather than leaving old results as they were, have gone back and changed everything. For example in the 3.10 at beverley today in the post race analysis for last years renewal they say lenny bee was drawn highest of all yet now they've changed the stall number next to each runner he actually has a 1 next to his name. Most confusing, surely it would have been easier to leave it as it was?

I noticed that when studying the race and I did get quite confused to start with when I noticed four of the first five home were low draws when it was supposed to be a high draw bias but I watched the replay to make sure they had changed it and rightfully so, four of the first five home were in fact high drawn.

[gbettle]

Re: Stalls numbering So typical of the Racing Post to mess with historical data.