Draw guide to all meetings.

[Carl]

this may prove to be useful. AYR Two features stood out in 2005. Firstly, the strip next to the far rail again proved advantageous on the round course, particularly from September onwards when the rail was moved out to its full width. This meant that horses racing prominently again were at an advantage, with the winner making all in 9 of the 46 handicaps run on the round course. Secondly, over sprint distances, high numbers had much the better of things except for those races at the Western meeting where there was a big field and the far rail was at its furthest point, opening up fresh ground. Overall, 18 of the 22 sprint handicaps were won by a horse from the top half of the draw. 5f: 8 handicaps run in 2005, all bar two with the stalls on the stands side; Mecca’s Mate won a 7-runner affair from stall 1, but of the other 7 handicaps three were won by the highest-drawn horse, two more by the horse drawn one off the rail, and the other two winners were both in the five highest-drawn horses. This means that the top five stalls have now supplied the winner of 11 of the last 14 handicaps run over this trip. 6f: Both the Gold and Silver Cups were won by low-drawn horses, but there wasn’t actually much bias other than it was an advantage to race close to either rail. However, in the rest of the season a high draw had proved a big advantage, as had been the case in 2004. In the 11 other handicaps run at this trip, the winner came from the top half of the draw on every occasion bar Fullandby’s win in a six-runner affair. The far rail being moved out to its full width from September onwards seems to be the only time going across to that far side is a viable option for low-drawn horses. 7f: Stalls 1-3 accounted for 4 of the ten handicap winners, but the remaining six were all drawn 9 or higher. Three of the ten winners made all the running, and only one did not race prominently, meaning that in the last two years 17 of the 20 7f handicaps here have been won by horses racing prominently throughout. 1m: It was a big advantage to be drawn very low at this trip, with 9 of the 15 winners being drawn in stalls 1-3; again, most of the winners raced prominently. 1m1f: Only 4 handicaps run in 2005, but the trend for low-drawn winners continued, with stalls 1-3 providing three of the four winners, albeit in smallish fields. 1m2f: 8 handicaps run in 2005, with the winners evenly spread across the draw spectrum at this trip. 1m3f+: 9 handicaps run in 2005; 7 of the 9 handicaps were won by horses from the bottom four stalls.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. BATH The two strongest pointers for punters were the same as in 2004; high numbers continued to do well in sprints, especially when the pace was strong, and front-runners tended to face a tough task unless the opposition was very weak (only 4 handicap winners made all from 63 races). 5f11y and 5f161y: 19 handicaps run in 2005; the double trend from previous years continued, with very low numbers doing well in steadily-run races (six wins from stalls 1-3) but high numbers dominating when there was a decent pace (nine winners from the top third of the draw). The percentage is probably still to go high, especially in big fields; since 2000, in handicaps with 15 runners or more, stalls 1-5 are only 5-158 for a loss of 117 pts, and 22 of the 33 handicap winners in that time came from the top half of the draw. 1m: As had been the case in 2004, low numbers fared poorly, going against the grain of what might be expected on this left-handed track; stalls 1-4 managed only 3 wins from 64 handicap runs, with the front-runners again often going off too fast. 1m2f+: No obvious advantage from a draw point of view, but again hold-up horses fared better than prominent racers, whilst no horse made all in any of the 27 handicaps run at 1m2f or further.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. BEVERLEY It was business as usual at Beverley in 2005, with high numbers once again dominating over 5f, and to a much lesser degree at 7f100y, 1m100y and 1m1f207y, though at these three distances the ability to race prominently was the most significant factor in the track bias. The most remarkable feature at Beverley last year, possibly even more so than the high-draw bias to which we are well accustomed at 5f, was the record at 7f of Joe Fanning (see below). 5f: The bias towards high numbers remains. 12 of the 13 handicaps were won by horses from the top half of the draw (the only horse to win a 5f handicap from the bottom half was Golden Asha, who was switched to race up the far rail from the start). In non-handicaps, the smaller average field sizes and wider range of abilities reduces the advantage, and 10 of the 22 winners came from the bottom half of the draw. 7f100y: The draw was not so much the story here as the ability to break well and hold a prominent position; the winner made all in five of the 13 handicaps, and apart from the two selling handicaps, where the frontrunners failed to last home, the winner was prominent throughout in every other handicap at this trip. Make a note of anything Joe Fanning rides at this course and distance; his ten rides in 2005 produced EIGHT wins (the other two rides both finished third), all of them ridden prominently. Six of the wins came in handicaps and only one of them started at less than 9-4. This is a truly amazing C&D record. 1m100y: Again front-running was the key, with the winner making all in five of the ten handicaps run. The other five winners all earned the formbook description “tracked leader(s)”. Obviously, a high draw is of assistance and five of the ten winners came from the top two stalls. 1m1f207y: A high draw was a slight advantage at this trip, with 11 of the 19 handicap winners coming from the top half of the draw, but again racing prominently was the key, with 4 of the 19 winners making all and a further 11 racing prominently. 1m4f: The highest-drawn horse won three of the 11 handicaps, but as stalls 1 and 2 provided five winners, there didn’t seem to be any real advantage in the draw. Again it was an advantage to race close to the pace though only one of the 11 handicap winners made all. 2m: 6 handicaps in 2005, with no draw bias indicated, as had been the case in previous years.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. BRIGHTON As had been the case in 2004, riding tactics were probably more relevant than the draw, for two reasons. Firstly, the jockeys continued to explore all areas of the track in an attempt to find the freshest strips of ground, and secondly, any slight natural advantage to horses drawn on the inside (i.e. low) was sometimes sacrificed by the leaders going off too fast. Stall 1 had a fairly modest record for the supposed plum draw on a turning track; only 8 wins from 145 handicap runs in 2005, a figure which looks all the more moderate given that there were a lot of well-fancied horses that started from stall 1 last year; of those horses that started at 6-1 or bigger the record in handicaps was 0-103. With jockeyship proving of great importance at this track, the men to follow last year were John Egan (14/86, +64pts), Ryan Moore (30/155, +11pts) and Seb Sanders (22/101, +25pts). 5f: 14 handicaps run in 2005; as was the case in 2004, where all 11 5f handicap winners had come from the top five stalls, high numbers did remarkably well; 9 of the 14 winners came from the top half of the draw, and seven of the 14 came from the three highest stalls. 6f: Ten handicaps run in 2005; stalls 1 and 2 provided five of the ten winners, but stalls 13-15 provided three wins between them, with a late challenge up the middle of the course proving a viable alternative to hugging the far rail. 7f: 15 handicaps run in 2005; no apparent draw advantage, with winners coming from right across the draw spectrum. Stall 1 has only 3 handicap wins from 87 runs since 1998. 1m: 17 handicaps run in 2005; 12 of the 17 winners came from the top half of the draw, with plenty of winners again challenging wide, and a suspicion that the lower-drawn horses were sometimes going off to fast and teeing the race up for a finisher. 1m2f: 15 handicaps run in 2005; nine of the 15 went to horses from the top half of the draw, otherwise no real pattern to the results. 1m4f: 14 handicaps run in 2005; no obvious draw bias.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. CARLISLE Although high numbers continued to be the percentage call at Carlisle, it’s worth noting that the winningmost stall in handicaps in 2005 was actually stall 1, with seven wins, though most of those came in small fields in which the draw was of little relevance. It was again usually an advantage to race prominently, with 13 front-running winners from 51 handicap races, a remarkable percentage for a track with such a stiff uphill finish; there were signs later on in the season that the jockeys were catching on to this advantage and competition for the lead became more fierce, with the result that quite a few more hold-up horses came sweeping through to win in the final furlong. 5f: Eight handicaps run in 2005; the most significant stat by far is that the winner made all in five of the eight. Several of the front-running winners raced wide of the rail from a low draw, so the advantage seems to have been a genuine pace bias rather than there being a faster strip of ground up the far rail. 6f: Eight handicaps run in 2005; two horses made all, and a high draw was a major advantage, with stalls 1-6 0-42 in handicaps, and all bar one handicap winner coming from stall 9 or higher. Again, it was usually an advantage to race prominently. 7f: Seven handicaps run in 2005; this is a very limited sample, especially as three of the seven handicaps were won by C&D specialist Whitethorne. When the ground is on the fast side high numbers have historically had a small advantage. 1m: Ten handicaps run in 2005; hold-up horses performed much better at this trip than at shorter distances, and low numbers were at little disadvantage, with stall 1 providing three winners and stall 2 another one; most of the handicaps at this trip were run at a sound pace, which is why hold-up horses had so much success. 1m1f and upward: 18 handicaps run in 2005; five winners made all, though most of these wins came in small fields; in double-figure fields high numbers seemed to have a slight advantage.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. CATTERICK: Low numbers had the better of things in 2005, especially when the going was on the fast side of good; on softer ground, when the field tended to come stands side in the home straight, high numbers performed better, especially in big fields. Stalls 1 and 2 provided 19 of the 66 handicap winners, though the fact that they only showed a 10pt profit backed blindly suggests the market reflected the advantage they enjoyed. No sprint handicap winner here has earned the description "held up" in the official formbook since 1999, and it remains a huge advantage to race prominently over sprint distances here, especially at 5f. 5f: 13 handicaps run in 2005; the winner made all in five of the 13; 11 of the 13 winners came from the bottom half of the draw; only two of the 13 winners were not prominent throughout. 6f: Ten handicaps run in 2005; stalls 1 and 2 produced two winners each; again there were no hold-up winners. 7f: 20 handicaps run in 2005; the bottom three stalls provided ten of the winners and would have produced a profit of 35pts backed blindly in handicaps. However, in big fields on softish ground (when the field often came stands side in the straight) high numbers performed with more credit, and in the six handicaps with maximum fields (18) the winners came from stalls 3, 8, 13, 14, 16 and 17. 1m4f and upward: 23 handicaps run in 2005; low numbers tended to have a small advantage, with stalls 1 to 4 providing 11 of the 23 winners, though again the advantage was reduced if not reversed when softer ground meant the field headed for the stands side in the straight.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. CHEPSTOW: Front-running was again a good option on the straight course (1m and under) in 2005, with 6 of the 29 handicaps going to a horse making all or virtually all the running. Surprisingly, 21 of the 32 handicaps run on the straight course went to horses from the bottom half of the draw, suggesting the dominance of the stands side has been eradicated, though there were several races where it still seemed an advantage to race tight to the stands rail. The jockey to follow at Chepstow continued to be Fran Ferris on the straight course, mostly due to his understanding of how favourable it is to make the running here. 37 rides produced seven wins at prices ranging from 9-2 to 50-1 and an overall profit of 58 points, and for good measure he finished runner-up on a trio of Bryn Palling’s horses at prices of 20-1 (twice) and 50-1. Over the last two years Ferris has now won on 13 of his 75 rides on the straight course here, making all in nine of those 13 races, an excellent record considering the moderate quality of many of the horses he rides. 5f: Only three handicaps run in 2005, so difficult to draw any conclusions (the winners were drawn 1 of 8, 2 of 20 and 5 of 10). All three winners raced prominently. 6f: Nine handicaps run in 2005; prominent racers were very strongly favoured, with the winner in front at halfway in five of the nine races; Fran Ferris was highlighted in this column last year as a jockey who was well aware of the advantage enjoyed by front-runners on the straight course here - and he made all in three of these nine handicaps. The draw itself was of less significance than racing tactics, with five of the nine winners coming from the bottom half of the draw. 7f: Seven handicaps run in 2005; the stands side seemed the place to be, though in two of the three races where the field split into two groups the centre/far side group was only beaten around half a length; a very high draw seemed an advantage in the second half of the season, with the last three handicaps (in fields of 14, 17 and 19) all being won by one of the two highest-drawn horses. 1m: 13 handicaps run in 2005; nine of the 13 winners came from the bottom half of the draw (the stands side bias had been on the wane in the second half of the 2004 season); stall 1 provided three winners, stall 2 was responsible for two victories and stall 3 also had a winner. Two horses made all, with one of them ridden by Fran Ferris (see stats for 6f). 1m2f+: Five handicaps run in 2005; no obvious bias, though only two winners came from the bottom third of the draw; stall 1 managed 1 handicap win and one non-handicap win, meaning that over the last 3 years the inside stall on the round course has a record of 2-31 in non-handicaps and 1-43 in handicaps.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. CHESTER Now here’s a statistic to make every punter in the land sit up and take notice; of the 44 handicaps run at Chester in 2005, 26 (59%) were won by horses from the top half of the draw, with TEN winners coming from double-figure stalls. The bigger the field, the more high numbers seemed to come into it, and the five handicaps with 15 or more runners were won by stalls 9, 13 (three times) and 15. Strangely, in non-handicaps the advantage for low-drawn horses seemed as strong as usual, with stall 1 providing the winner of 8 of the 29 races, and stalls 8 and upwards failing to score from 44 attempts. It’s worth pointing out that non-handicaps at Chester tend to have much smaller fields, and only 2 of the 29 races had more than 10 runners. The inference is that, in 2005 at least, a low draw was only a significant advantage in small fields. In bigger fields, low-drawn horses seemed frequently to use up too much petrol in the fight for the early lead (of the 40 horses who raced from stall 1 in handicaps, ten tried to make all, and all ten were beaten, nine of them unplaced). Those horses held up in big fields from very low draws often struggled to get a run. 2005 was consequently the first year since 1998 when backing stall 1 blindly in all races at all distances had not shown a profit (it still showed a loss of only 6 points, however). Backing stalls 1 and 2 blindly did manage to show a tiny profit of 2 points, adding only marginally to the profit of 170 points that would have been previously accrued by following this system since 1998. 5f: Nine handicaps run in 2005; three wins for stall 1 and one each for stalls 2,3 and 4 confirmed a low draw was still an advantage at this trip; the only wins from a wider draw than stall 4 in 5f handicaps all came from Adrian Nicholls, whose three wins came from stall 6 of 14, 8 of 9 and 11 of 9, in each case the rider firing the horse from the gates to lead or sit second early on; in all bar two of the nine handicaps the field consisted of ten runners or fewer. 6f: Four handicaps run in 2005; three of the winners were drawn in stall 8 or higher, though on one of those occasions the winner was quickly away and made all, and on another the rails were dolled out significantly. Conversely, the four non-handicaps were won by stall 1 (three times) and stall two (once). 7f: Six handicaps run in 2005; lower numbers had only slightly the better of things, with stall 2 winning two races, whilst two of the six races had 7-runner fields. 1m: Six handicaps run in 2005; remarkably, five of them went to horses drawn from the top half of the field, including three wins from double-figure stalls; it will be interesting to see if low numbers return to dominance at this trip in 2006. 1m2f: Eight handicaps run in 2005; the bottom five stalls had only two wins from 40 runs, whereas the top five stalls had six wins from the same number of runs. 1m4f: Six handicaps run in 2005; five went to horses from the top half of the draw, including four from stall 8 and above. 2m+: Four handicaps run in 2005; two won by stall 4, the other two by stalls 14 and 15.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. EPSOM There weren’t many obvious patterns in races run at up to 1m at Epsom in 2005, with small fields a contributory factor in some cases; it’s probably too early to dismiss the evidence from previous years that very low-drawn horses are underbet at 7f but overbet at 6f and 1m. There seems fairly convincing evidence that high-drawn horses have the best of things at 1m2f and 1m4f, with 15 of the 19 handicaps run at these distances going to horses from the top half of the draw, and despite Eshwarah’s Oaks victory from stall 2, horses in stalls 1 and 2 in big fields at 1m4f should still be treated with caution. Martin Dwyer rides this course as well as anyone over longer distances, and at 1m+ his record over the last four years is 12 wins from 45 rides and a profit of 66pts; contrary to popular opinion (which owes everything to his failure to win the Derby), Frankie Dettori has a good record here, and has a 25% strike rate and 7pt profit since 2000; backing all David Nicholls sprint handicappers here since 2002 would have produced 11 wins from 57 runs and a profit of 60pts, with no freak-odds winners skewing the stats (biggest-priced winner was 16-1). 5f: Five handicaps run in 2005; a high draw may have been a slight advantage, but as usual previous course and distance form was the most significant guide, with Jayanjay and Bishops Court both winning again. 6f: Six handicaps run in 2005, but few conclusions could be drawn as four of the six races had seven runners or fewer; over the years very low numbers have tended to be overbet at this distance, as they are perceived to have a big natural advantage due to the bend, but in practice sometimes face the choice of either going off too fast to try and maintain their position, or getting boxed in on the rail if they are held up; since 1998 stalls 4 to 6 have a better strike rate and a much lower overall loss in 6f handicaps than stalls 1 to 3. 7f: Seven handicaps run in 2005; no obvious pattern to the results from a draw bias perspective this year, though stall 1 has provided 10 of the 40 handicap winners since 2000, producing a 35pt profit backed blindly. 1m114y: 11 handicaps run in 2005; no obvious pattern to the results, but long-term stalls 1 and 2 have an ordinary record (6 wins from 83 handicap runs since 2000, 36pt loss), presumably because there is a long run to the first bend from this trip; stalls 3 and 4 remain the percentage call and have landed 12 wins from 82 handicap runs since 2000 for a profit of 53pts. 1m2f: Nine handicaps run in 2005; seven were won by horses from the top half of the draw; the feature seemed to be the number of winners who came from a long way back at this distance; Burgundy was last of eight 3f out, Iffy was seventh entering the straight Enforcer was 9th, Gavroche was 9th turning for home for one of his wins and tenth for the other one, and Golden Dynasty was 13th of 16 entering the straight. Epsom is renowned as a track where it is hard to come from behind because of the camber, but that did not seem to be the case at this trip in 2005, although there were a couple of prominent-racing winners as well. 1m4f: Ten handicaps run in 2005; high numbers fared best, with eight of the ten going to horses from the top half of the draw; exaggerated hold-up tactics did not feature heavily amongst the winners here as had been the case at 1m2f, but that is partly because there were fewer very large fields; the other point to note is that once again stalls 1 and 2 failed to record a victory in handicaps, and they remain stalls to be wary of except in very small fields; indeed, Eshwarah’s Oaks victory from stall 2 was the first time a horse had won from the bottom two stalls in any race with a double-figure field at this trip since Oath’s Derby win back in 1998.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. FOLKESTONE: A big changeover took place at Folkestone on the straight course last season, possibly as a result of the ambulance no longer ploughing a furrow down the far side of the track itself (it now travels outside the far rail) — though whether it was a permanent change or going-related remains to be seen. The five handicaps run in March and April — all on ground with plenty of give in it — saw the traditional tactic of racing up the far side pay off, with all five winners coming from double-figure draws (max field size 14); from May to August, when the ground was invariably good or better, the stands side dominated and no horse drawn in double figures won a handicap on the straight course. Overall, in the 24 handicaps run on the straight course in 2005, the field split into two groups on 13 occasions, and the score (at least in terms of winning the race) was 8-5 in favour of the stands side. However, before becoming too dogmatic about the stands side being favoured early in 2006, it’s worth remembering the possibility that softish going will again favour the far side in the early-season races. Jamie Spencer was clearly the star turn here in 2005, winning on ten of his 30 rides and producing a profit of 26pts, with none of his winners starting at shorter than 13-8. 5f: Five handicaps run in 2005; although four of the winners were drawn eight or higher, three of them raced on the stands side, whilst the fourth, Walklikeanegyptian, did race towards the far side from stall 14 of 14 but gave the impression he was just much better than any of his rivals (he was the only one of six far-side racers to finish in the first five); with the stalls on the stands side, this is the hardest trip at which to execute the manoeuvre of going to the far side, but with a maximum field it is nonetheless only a few yards from stall 14 to the far rail. 6f: 12 handicaps run in 2005; eight went to horses racing on the stands side; three of the four far-side victories came on softish ground in April, and the fourth involved the joint favourites fighting it out on the far side; racing tight against the stands rail often seemed an advantage. 7f: Seven handicaps run in 2005; four winners raced on the stands side, three on the far side (all three on soft ground); perhaps the most interesting factor was that all four stands side winners raced tight against the stands rail. 1m1f149y: Nine handicaps run in 2005; low numbers dominated — the opposite of the previous few years — with no winner drawn higher than 6; however, five of the nine handicaps had 8 runners or fewer, so it remains to be seen whether this reversal of the trend will continue in 2006. 1m4f or more: Nine handicaps run in 2005; possible slight advantage to high-drawn horses in big fields, and the two handicaps with maximum fields of 14 both went to the highest-drawn horse, but it’s only when the field reaches the full safety limit of 14 that the draw is really of much relevance.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. GOODWOOD The sprint course showed signs of reverting to its previous tendency in 2005, with the Stewards’ Cup being dominated by horses racing on the far side and high-drawn horses generally having the better of things over 5f and 6f. Indeed, in double-figure fields on the straight course, the only winner from the bottom three stalls in 69 attempts was Sir Percy when he won his maiden. It will be interesting to see if any enterprising jockeys try tacking across to the far side from a high draw early in 2006. The other stat worthy of serious attention is that relating to horses drawn in double figures over 7f. It’s amazing that a system that can throw up as many as six or seven qualifiers per race is showing a profit over such a significant sample size. The jockey to follow at Goodwood over lately has been Richard Quinn; over the last three years Quinn has won on 20 of his 109 mounts, returning a thumping profit of 140pts. 5f: Seven handicaps run in 2005; there didn’t seem to be any consistent bias but two things are worth noting — firstly, the far side dominated in the King George Stakes, one of the few races where several horses elected to track across to that side (the rail had been brought out up the far rail); secondly, stalls 1-3 failed to win any 5f race (handicaps or otherwise) from 40 attempts. 6f: 13 handicaps run in 2005; high numbers had the better of things, including in the Stewards’ Cup, and stall 1 to 3 were 0-34 in handicaps. 7f: 11 handicaps run in 2005; seven of the eleven went to horses drawn in double-figure stalls; in this column last year it was pointed out that backing all horses with a double-figure draw in 7f handicaps since 1998, and sure enough in 2005 following that policy would have provided a profit of 29pts; this means that following this blanket system since 1998 would have produced 40 wins from 359 runs and a profit of 50pts, whereas backing all horses drawn in single figures would have resulted in a loss of 313pts; this system shows a profit of 32pts even when applied to non-handicaps as well as handicaps. 1m: 11 handicaps run in 2005; high numbers had the better of things overall, though a combination of softish ground and the rail being moved out on occasion brought lower numbers into it on occasions; Lord Chamberlain’s victory from stall 2, when the far rail had been dolled out, was the first handicap win for stall 1 or 2 at this trip since 1999. 1m1f: Seven handicaps run in 2005; no obvious bias last year, but it’s worth noting that overall high numbers have tended to be overbet at this trip, as the evidence suggests that they are nowhere near as favoured as is the case at 7f/1m, probably because of the long run to the first bend; in fact backing stalls 1-3 in handicaps since 1998 currently returns a profit of 21pts. 1m2f: Eight handicaps run in 2005; horses won from the full range of draw positions, although the long-term bias is towards high-drawn horses, with 35 of the 52 handicaps run since 1998 going to a horse from the top half of the draw; however, the bias to really high numbers is nothing like as strong as it is at 7f. 1m3f: Seven handicaps run in 2005; results last year and long term suggest only a marginal benefit for middle to high numbers. 1m4f+: Traditionally there hasn’t been much of a bias at long distances here, but there were some interesting results in 2005; there were only eight handicaps with more than 12 runners at 1m4f or further, but remarkably stall 13 won five of them (safety limit 16) and stall 15 another, and whilst the record of stall 13 is clearly a statistical blip, very high numbers might be worth extra attention in big fields even at these long trips.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. HAMILTON Until a couple of years ago, Hamilton provided one of the biggest pace biases in the country, with front-runners having an excellent record, particularly when hugging the far rail over 1m or 1m1f. However, over the last couple of years, an apparent combination of the jockeys seizing on this trend and what seems to have been a reduction in the advantage of the far rail has resulted in fewer instances of horses making all. In 2003, the winner made all the running in 15 of the 54 handicaps run here, but in 2004 that figure was reduced to 10-55, and in 2005 it was down to 6-61, though it’s worth noting it is still a major advantage to race prominently over 5f, at least; at other trips it seems to depend on the pace of the race. The far side seemed better than the stands side on softish ground on the straight course, but frequently the field came up the middle in 2005, and certainly on fast ground the low numbers/stands side more than held their own. 5f: Ten handicaps run in 2005; winners came from right across the track, but it seemed to be an advantage to race on the far side when the going was on the soft side of good; all ten winners raced prominently, and it is almost impossible to come from a long way back over this trip here; over the last five years, horses that have earned the principal formbook comments “behind”, midfield”, “outpaced”, “held up” or “in touch” in handicaps have a record of 0 wins from 186 runs. 6f: 17 handicaps run in 2005; five went to stall 1, but on at least three of those occasions the winner migrated well away from the stands side rail so that statistic is probably of little relevance; on softish ground the far side again seemed to have the edge (though the stands side dominated the finish of one handicap run on ground officially described as good to soft), whereas on fast ground the stands side sometimes seemed to have the advantage; unlike at 5f, it was perfectly possible to win from behind in strongly-run races. 1m: Six handicaps run in 2005; the huge advantage enjoyed by front-runners a couple of years ago seems to have been reduced somewhat; in very large fields high numbers still have the edge, and since 2000 16 of the 20 handicaps run with 15 or 16 runners (i.e. maximum field) have gone to a horse from a double-figure draw, with stalls 1-4 0-76 in these races. 1m1f: Ten handicaps run in 2005; the top three stalls provided seven of the winners, and in all four races with double-figure fields the winner came from the top half of the draw. 1m3f+: Little sign of bias at these distances — if anything, low numbers had the better of things, with stalls 1-3 providing 11 of the 18 winners, but most of these were in small fields and there is probably no advantage either way at longer distances.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. HAYDOCK Not really a big draw-bias course, and arguably the biggest bias takes place at a trip (7f) that only stages one handicap each year. As in previous years, the evidence suggested that the natural advantage for low-drawn horses at the 1m2f120y trip is reversed in big fields. Two factors worth noting from 2005; the use of a false rail in the early part of the straight enabled the runners to fan out over the final two furlongs, and in the latter months there was evidence that the jockeys were starting to exploit the stands rail on the sprint course again, with success on occasions. 5f: 11 handicaps run in 2005; not much sign of obvious bias, but when the stalls were on the stands side high numbers had marginally the better of things. 6f: 15 handicaps run in 2005; little obvious sign of bias, though middle numbers seemed to do best, with stalls 5 to 7 providing nine of the 15 winners. 7f30y: Since 2003 only one handicap per year has been run at this trip; backing the bottom four stalls blindly in handicaps at this trip since 2000 would have yielded the winners of 13 of the 23 races and a profit of 76 points. 1m30y: 20 handicaps run in 2005; low numbers are best, and since 2000 49 of the 79 handicaps run at this trip have gone to a horse from the bottom half of the draw. 1m2f120y: The pattern of a low draw being a disadvantage in large fields continued; since 2000, in handicaps with more than 12 runners stalls 1 to 5 have a record of just 4 wins from 130 runs; however, in smaller fields, very low numbers have an excellent record, with stalls 1 and 2 providing the winners of 15 of the 46 handicaps run with fewer than 12 runners. 1m3f200y: Seven handicaps run in 2005; stall 3 provided four of the winners, meaning that the bottom four stalls have provided the winners of 23 of the 46 handicaps run since 2000. 1m6f+: No obvious sign of bias.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. LEICESTER The trend on the straight course in recent seasons has been that the field tends to stay towards the stands side for most of the season, and then in the last couple of months, either because the ground is on the soft side or because the jockeys are looking for fresher ground, the field tends to come more up the middle. Recent evidence suggests that although the jockeys sometimes ignore the strip of ground alongside the stands rail, that might be a mistake at 5f and 6f, where a number of winners hugged the rail, though at 7f the rail advantage seems to disappear. As with many undulating courses, front-runners do well here, and the winner made all in 18 of the 75 races run on the straight course in 2005. 5f: Five handicaps run in 2005; at this trip, the stands rail sometimes seems to be favoured, and it’s worth noting that Philip Robinson stuck closely to the rail to win two of those five handicaps (he didn’t ride in the other three); the winner made all in six of the 17 total races (including non-handicaps) run at this distance in 2005. 6f: Eight handicaps run in 2005; it seemed to be an advantage to race prominently, with five of the 22 total races (including non-handicaps) going to an all-the-way winner; stall 1 did not have a handicap winner but five of the seven horses to race from stall 1 in handicaps finished second or third, at average odds of 16-1, and stall 1 still shows a profit of 29pts backed blindly in all 6f races since 2000. 7f: 11 handicaps run in 2005; high numbers had the better of things at this distance, with six of the winners coming from double-figure draws, and very low numbers seem to perform much worse at this trip than at 5f or 6f; stalls 1 to 5 have won only 3 races from 102 handicap runs over the last two seasons at this trip. 1m60y: Eight handicaps run in 2005; possible slight advantage to high-drawn horses in big fields — of the five total races (including non-handicaps) with a maximum field of 14, the winner came from a double-figure draw four times. 1m1f218y: 12 handicaps run in 2005; in 2004 there had been a bias towards the lower numbers, but that wasn’t the case in 2005, with 8 of the 12 handicap winners coming from the top half of the draw and only 1 winner from stalls 1 to 4. 1m3f183y: Seven handicaps run in 2005; no obvious sign of bias.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. LINGFIELD (turf) 2005 marked the return of a major draw bias on the straight course here. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the stands rail had enjoyed an overwhelming superiority over the rest of the track for much of the time. This appeared to have been eradicated by drainage work and a new watering system installed in the mid 1990s. However, for some reason, in 2005 high numbers and horses racing close to the rail once again began to dominate. 33 of the 41 handicaps run on the straight course went to horses from the top half of the draw; stalls 1-4 were 0-127 in handicaps with double-figure fields. In fact, blindly backing every horse drawn 10 and above in handicaps on the straight course would have produced 25 wins from 231 runs and a profit of 74pts; stalls 15 and upwards (safety limit is 18) produced 11 wins from 80 runs and a profit of 65pts; backing those drawn in single figures would have produced a loss of 230pts. 5f: Six handicaps run in 2005; apart from a six-runner affair (won by stall 1), they all went to horses from the top half of the draw; the highest-drawn horse recorded two wins, three seconds and a third from the six runs. 6f: Twelve handicaps run in 2005; it was an enormous advantage to be drawn high, with the top two stalls providing six of the winners; high numbers dominated to such an extent that despite average field size being around 14 runners, the two highest stalls filled the first two places on four occasions, with the CSF paying £33.60, £18.13, £124.10 and 29.29, whilst including the top three stalls in a tricast perm would have provided one winner (paid £145) and a couple of near misses (Labelled With Love’s race resulted in an 18-17-14-16 first four, whilst Gimasha’s race finished 10-13-11-12). All in all, this was a remarkable return to the high-draw bias races of the late 1980s and early 1990s, and combination forecasts and tricasts might be worth a venture in 2006. 7f: 17 handicaps run in 2005; with the exception of two races (one of which was the transferred Victoria Cup won by Iffraaj), high numbers dominated, and the winner was in the top half of the draw in 14 of the 17 handicaps; the race won by Katiypour saw the three highest-drawn horses in the frame, with the tricast paying £324; the bottom four stalls had a record of 0-61 in handicaps. 7f140y: Six handicaps run in 2005; a couple of the races seemed to favour high numbers/rail racers, though any bias was not as apparent as at shorter distances, possibly because at this distance the stalls are placed in the centre of the track rather than on the stands side. 1m2f+: Ten handicaps run in 2005, seven of them with ten runners or less, and there was no obvious sign of draw bias on the round course.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. MUSSELBURGH At 5f, low numbers on fast ground and high numbers on soft ground seems to be the percentage call, whilst the 7f distance continued to provide no advantage for high-drawn horses despite the configuration of the course. It might still be worth concentrating on the highest-drawn (and maybe second-highest) horses over 1m4f given the sensational results in 2004, when the form of the highest-drawn horse in all races read 0211222110. 5f: 17 handicaps run in 2005; somewhat bizarrely, stall 3 provided 7 of the winners, whereas stalls 1,2,4 and 5 provided only one winner between them, but this is probably just a statistical blip, though clearly a very low draw can help here on good ground or faster; on softer going high-drawn horses fared much better; in the four races where the official going was good to soft or softer, the winners were drawn 6 of 10, 11 of 11, 11 of 14 and 16 of 16. 7f: 14 handicaps run in 2005; as was the case in 2004, a high draw was not the advantage that it is often assumed to be over this trip here, and horses with double-figure draws recorded just two wins from 34 runs in handicaps; seven of the 14 winners came from the bottom half of the draw, with stalls 1-3 accounting for five of the wins; there probably isn’t much in the draw at this trip, but high numbers can be overbet on occasions. 1m: 12 handicaps run in 2005; low numbers generally find it harder at this trip, but in 2005 there didn’t seem to be much bias at all. 1m4f: Six handicaps run in 2005; three of them were won by course specialist Platinum Charmer; in 2004 the highest-drawn horse had a tremendous record, but this system did not provide any of the six winners in 2005, though the highest stall provided a 6-1 winner in one of the three non-handicaps run at this trip. 1m5f+: No obvious sign of bias

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. NEWBURY It’s difficult to be dogmatic about any bias on the straight course because the jockeys still tend to race in one group up the middle of the track on many occasions, especially when the stalls are placed in the centre. There were certainly occasions when it seemed an advantage to race tight against the stands rail, notably when Kieren Fallon executed this tactic to land the Princess Margaret Stakes on 25-1 shot Mixed Blessing (subsequent events suggested the bias played a significant part in that victory). The problem for punters, as ever, is guessing which days the rail is favoured — and which jockeys are going to take advantage. There are easier tracks to assess from a bias perspective than Newbury, and a meeting-to-meeting watching brief before betting is advised. 5f: Six handicaps run in 2005; four of them had single-figure fields so difficult to judge any bias; the 25-runner Super Sprint was won by stall 1, who raced on the far side, but stalls 24 and 25 were not far behind on the stands side in second and third. 6f: Seven handicaps run in 2005; in the two races where the stalls were on the stands side, the winners were drawn in stalls 12 of 12 and 15 of 17; the field mostly came down the centre of the track in the other races (where the stalls were placed in the centre), although Saint Etienne hugged the stands rail when winning her race. 7f: 11 handicaps run in 2005; seven of the winners came from double-figure stalls; in the five fields with 20 or more runners, the lowest winning stall was 13; overall, whilst the bias was not consistent, there were enough races where the winner came up the stands rail to make high the clear percentage call. 1m: Six handicaps run in 2005; Fine Silver won the Spring Cup from stall 22, but the field raced centre to far side in the muddy conditions; not really enough evidence to suggest a bias in the other races. 1m1f: Only one handicap run in 2005; seven of the 14 handicaps and eight of the 16 non-handicaps run at this trip since 1998 have gone to a horse drawn in stalls 1-3. 1m2f: 15 handicaps run in 2005; there appears to be no bias at this trip. 1m3f+: The draw appears to be of little consequence.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. NEWCASTLE Making predictions about the effect of the draw at Newcastle in 2006 is fraught with difficulty for two reasons. Firstly, the bias was so difficult to predict from meeting to meeting in 2005; secondly, the effect of drainage work carried out on the straight course since the end of the season is yet to be discovered. On the straight course in 2005, horses from the top half of the draw won 21 handicaps compared with only 10 for horses from the bottom half of the draw. However, this does not mean that the stands side was favoured over the stands side. The overall score (in terms of the winner) in split-field handicaps in 2005 was 8-6 to the stands side. Perhaps the most significant trends, however, came when the horses all raced on one side or the other (as opposed to splitting into two groups). When they stayed stands side, it was an advantage to race close to the stands rail, and so high numbers dominated; however, when the field all raced on the far side, it did not prove an advantage to be drawn very low, and indeed there were several handicaps where very high-drawn horses won after tacking over to the far side with the rest of the field. The general rule that the far side dominates when the going is soft and the stands side on fast ground could not be relied on either, with a couple of races run on softish ground going to horses racing stands side and similarly a couple of fast-ground handicaps being won by horses racing on the far side. It’s also worth noting that over the last two seasons the stands side has been the place to be in the closing weeks of the season, presumably as result of the far side becoming more cut up due to the extra usage. From a draw bias point of view, a watching brief is advised in the early stages of 2006. 5f: Six handicaps run in 2005; in some races the whole field stayed stands side, in some they all went far side; in the three races which saw a significant split, the stands side dominated two finishes and the far side one; when the entire field stayed stands side, high numbers had a big advantage. 6f: Ten handicaps run in 2005; in two races (both in June) the whole field went far side, but in fact these races were won by stalls 11 of 12 and 14 of 15; six of the races saw the runners split between the far side and the stands side, and the score — in terms of winners, at least — was 4-2 to the stands side, including when Effective raced on his own up the stands side. 7f: Six handicaps run on the straight course in 2005 (one 7f handicap was run on the round course in October after drainage work had begun on the straight course); the entire field went far side in two races and stands side in one, and in the three split races the far side provided two winners and the stands side one. 1m straight: 8 handicaps run on straight course in 2005; the whole field went far side three times, stayed stands side three times, and the two split-field races saw one winner from each side. 1m round: Six handicaps run in 2005; no obvious sign of bias. 1m2f+: No sign of bias except in the large-field Northumberland Plate over 2m, where it continues to be an advantage to be drawn low.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. NEWMARKET (July Course) Because the July course is divided into two courses that are used at different stages of the year, and also because the stalls can be placed on either side of either track, it is not a straightforward task to form impressions of any track bias these days. On the stands side course, even though the runners didn’t always race tight to the stands rail, it sometimes seemed an advantage to be drawn high when the stalls were placed on the stands side. On the far side course, there were occasions when both rails seemed to be favoured, but with the July meeting again being affected by the weather mid-meeting it was difficult to reach too many conclusions; the jockeys tend to head middle to far side when the going is on the soft side on this half of the course. The July course was a graveyard for front-runners in 2005; only two horses made all in handicaps, one of which was in a five-runner nursery.

---

NEWMARKET (Rowley Mile) The Rowley course, like the July course, is difficult to assess from a draw bias perspective because of the extensive use of rails to split and doll off the track. However, one pattern to have remained consistent is that by the end of the season there is an advantage to racing tight against the far rail when the far side of the track is used (as at the Middle Park meeting) and the stands rail when the stands side is used (on Champions’ day, when the runners are racing on ground previously dolled off). Otherwise, unfortunately the course tends to fall into the category of watching the first race at each meeting. The course continues to be a tricky one on which to make all the running, and that feat was achieved in only 4 of the 58 handicaps run in 2005.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. NOTTINGHAM The two interesting features in 2005 were the dominance of high numbers at 6f (especially when the field split), and the continued good record of high-drawn horses over 1m6f. It is difficult to be dogmatic about why this latter situation should exist, but it is starting to look like more than a statistical blip now, and is likely to fly under the radar of most punters even if the trend continues. 5f: Six handicaps run in 2005; the evidence seemed to confirm that of previous years, in that there was little between the far side and the stands side, with the far side having a narrow edge on soft ground (far side horses won both handicaps that split, though not convincingly enough to be dogmatic that there was a bias). 6f: A low draw proved a significant disadvantage in 2005, and stalls 1-4 were 0-53 in handicaps, whilst 13 of the 14 handicap winners came from the top half of the draw (the 14th was won by stall 5 of 11); the field split into two groups in ten handicaps (though sometimes only one or two horses went far side) but on all ten occasions the far side provided the winner; 48 horses raced on the far side in split-race handicaps at this trip last year and apart from Marinaite, who finished second in April, they were all unplaced; the last 91 horses to race on the far side in split-race handicaps (going back to May 2004) have all been beaten ; it’s worth noting that the stalls are usually placed on the stands side at this trip, though on the one occasion when they were on the far side last year, the entire field tacked across to the stands side. 1m54y: 21 handicaps run in 2005; a low draw was a slight advantage, with stalls 8 and higher only managing 5 wins from 138 runs whereas stalls 7 or lower had 16 wins from 130 runs. The advantage of a low draw has historically tended to be negated on soft ground as the field often swings wide in the straight. 1m2f: 23 handicaps run in 2005; no obvious sign of bias, though the higher numbers more than held their won, with 13 of the 23 winners coming from the top half of the draw. 1m6f: Ten handicaps run in 2005; last year this column highlighted the surprisingly good record of high-drawn horses at this trip, and the trend continued in 2005; stalls 1-7 had a record of just 3 wins from 65 runs, whereas stalls 8 and upwards had a record of 7 wins from 63 runs; in large fields (10 or more) stalls 1-3 have a record of just 4 wins from 135 runs in handicaps at this trip since 2000; backing horses drawn 12 or higher in handicaps since 2000 has produced 21 wins from 234 runs and a profit of 21pts. 2m: Three handicaps run in 2005; no obvious sign of bias at this trip, though high numbers hold their own from year to year.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. PONTEFRACT The poor record of stall 1 at 6f (and to a lesser extent, 5f) continues to be the outstanding statistic at Pontefract. Sooner or later, stall 1 is going to provide a handicap winner again at that trip, of course, but it is likely to continue to provide poor value, win or lose. 5f: Seven handicaps run in 2005; stalls 1 and 2 have tended to struggle considering this is a left-handed turning track, recording only 5 wins from 83 handicap runs since 1998; that apart, there doesn’t seem to be much of a bias at this trip, with little difference between high and low numbers on a long-term basis; the pace of the race does have an influence, with low numbers being favoured in more steadily-run races, whereas high numbers come into it down the centre of the track in strongly-run affairs; also, softer ground tends to favour high-drawn horses, whereas fast ground favours those drawn low. 6f: Ten handicaps run in 2005; the most interesting feature was that stall 1 yet again drew a blank, meaning that the last horse to win a 6f handicap from the inside stall was Pleading back in 1998 (60 races ago); one leading form publication described Kodiac as having had “the plum draw” when a beaten favourite from the inside stall here last year, but this is clearly not the case; five of the ten winners last year came from double-figure draws, and as at 5f, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that a strong pace and/or soft ground improve the chances of high-drawn horses. 1m: 15 handicaps run in 2005; winners from right across the draw spectrum, including six from double figures; a very wide draw (17+) is probably a disadvantage unless the going is soft (only 2 wins from 111 handicap runs since 2000); stalls 1-7 have a 9.1% strike rate since 2000 whereas stalls 8+ have achieved only 5.4%. 1m2f: 15 handicaps run in 2005; wide draw proved a disadvantage, with stalls 8 and higher only 1-69; stalls 1-7 have twice the strike rate of stalls 8+ since 2000, though as at 1m, this would be expected to a certain extent given that the lower-drawn numbers have the advantage of sometimes racing in small fields. 1m4f: Eight handicaps run in 2005; overall results suggest little bias. 2m+: No obvious sign of bias.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. REDCAR Generally little bias on the straight course; stall 1 had no wins and just 1 place from 31 runs in handicaps, but Misu Bond proved that to be drawn very low was no disadvantage in the Two-Year-Old Trophy; otherwise, the tendency of the field to congregate up the centre of the track negates any draw bias. Jockey David Allan seems to judge pace on the straight course well; his six winners (from 34) rides) were all close up throughout and included victories at 20-1, 25-1 and 40-1. The only other feature at Redcar seems to be that front-runners have a tough time of it on the round course. 5f: Seven handicaps run in 2005; high numbers possibly had a slight edge, with no wins for stalls 1-3, whilst the bottom third of the draw (e.g. stalls 1-4 in a 12-runner race) were 0-29. 6f: Ten handicaps run in 2005; six winners from the top half of the draw, though Skiddaw Wolf raced more towards the far side than her rivals when winning from stall 3; in the six races with large fields (15 or more runners) stall 7 provided one win and the remainder all came from double-figure draws. 7f: Five handicaps run in 2005; the winners all came from stalls 4-8, though the field sizes varied from 9 to 19. 1m: Ten handicaps run in 2005; stall 3 provided four of the winners, but there were winners from high draws too. 1m1f+: No sign of draw bias, but the round course remains a particularly difficult one on which to make all the running; no winner made all the running in the 26 handicaps run last year, which means only six horses have made all in the 153 handicaps run on the round course since 2000.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. RIPON A larger-than-usual number of meetings at Ripon were run on softish ground. This had a number of effects. Firstly, the tendency for runners to make all was reduced both on the straight course (in particular) and also on the round course, though the winner still made all in five of the 16 handicaps run at 1m/1m2f; high-drawn prominent racers are still likely to be the percentage call on the round course, especially when the going is on the lively side. Secondly, over sprint distances the far side dominated when the going was on the soft side, though the stands side started to come back into it when the ground dried up. If the ground is on the soft side early in 2006, high numbers are more likely to be favoured again. 5f: Five handicaps run in 2005; four of the races split, with two winners going far side and two stands side; overall it wasn’t easy to predict which side would be quicker on a meeting-to-meeting basis. 6f: 17 handicaps run in 2005; the field split in 12 of those races, with the far side winning 8 and the stands side 4, with the far side proving the place to be on softish ground and the stands side holding its own on good ground or faster. 1m: Six handicaps run in 2005; the highest-drawn horse won three of them (and had won two of the six handicaps run here in 2004); since 2000, the winner has made all in ten of the 40 handicaps run at this trip. 1m2f: Ten handicaps run in 2005; most of them had small fields so little actual draw bias; four winners made all, meaning 12 of the 54 handicaps run here since 2000 have gone to an all-the-way winner. 1m4f+: All bar one handicap had single-figure fields so draw had little impact.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. SALISBURY In races at up to 1m, horses from the bottom half of the draw won 16 races compared with 17 won by those from the top half of the draw; in other words, there wasn’t much in it in 2005. There were a few races where the traditional high draw/prominent position against the far rail seemed to confer an advantage, but equally there were a number of races where the best ground seemed to be up the middle of the track, and with the far rail sometimes dolled off, it would seem that any bias here has been reduced to a minimum. Unusually, there weren’t many races where the field split into two groups, and on soft going there was more than one occasion where the jockeys initially took the traditional soft-ground route up the stands rail but then switched to the centre of the track as the meeting progressed. In summary, not much by way of punter-useful bias in 2005, and a meeting-by-meeting watching brief is advised. 5f: Three races run in 2005; high numbers have tended to have a small advantage over the years (11 of the 18 handicaps run since 2000 went to horses from the top half of the draw). 6f: Nine handicaps run in 2005; four of the nine winners came from stalls 1 to 3, whilst there were also a couple of races (early in the year) where a high draw seemed a slight advantage, so difficult to draw firm conclusions. 7f: Nine handicaps run in 2005; the top two stalls provided four winners, but the bottom three stalls provided three, and as at the other sprint distances, the frequent tendency for the field to race up the middle of the track in 2005 negated any draw bias. 1m: 12 handicaps run in 2005; the bottom half and the top half of the draw provided six winners each, suggesting that any draw bias was marginal. 1m2f and 1m4f: 14 handicaps run in 2005; the top five stalls provided 12 of the 14 winners, though it’s worth noting the fields tended to be small (only six had 10 or more runners). 1m6f: Flag start.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. SANDOWN This column last year warned of the poor record of horses that started favourite from double-figure draws in 7f or 1m handicaps. There were seven examples this year and all seven were beaten, with six finishing unplaced. Since 1998 the record of favourites in such circumstances is now just 3 wins from 35 runs. The other interesting feature at Sandown in 2005 was the return of the far-rail bias at 5f; it will be interesting to see if this continues in the early stages of 2006, and whether or not the rail will be brought in again if it does. The jockey to follow here in recent seasons has been Richard Hills; since 2002 his record is 26 wins from 91 rides (29%) and a level stakes profit of 75pts. 5f: 14 handicaps run in 2005; nine winners came from the top half of the draw, and a high draw did prove a significant advantage; seven of the 14 winners raced tight against the far rail almost throughout the race; in 2003 and 2004 the high-draw bias seemed to have disappeared, but it returned in 2005; it’s worth noting that on a couple of occasions the far rail was moved in a few yards, resulting in the eradication of the bias, notably when The Jogger sprang a 66-1 shock in a 16-runner race where the first three home were drawn 1,4 and 2; it is to be hoped for punters’ sake that any such moves are well publicised this year. 7f: One of the common misconceptions is that a high draw is a big advantage over this trip; there’s little in it on fast ground, but on good to soft or softer a low draw has been a distinct advantage over the last few years; since 2000 there have been 17 handicaps run on good to soft ground or softer and the bottom four stalls have won 11 of them, including all three last year; a low draw seems to be an advantage regardless of whether or not the field comes stands side in the home straight (the customary soft-ground tactic here). 1m: 12 handicaps run in 2005; a very high draw seems a disadvantage in big fields, and since 1998 stalls 14 and higher have a record of just 1 win from 90 runs in handicaps. 1m2f: 13 handicaps run in 2005; little apparent advantage in the draw but low numbers have a good record in recent years when there is give in the ground; since 2000 there have been 19 handicaps run on good to soft or softer and the bottom four stalls have provided the winner of 12 of them. 1m6f+: No sign of bias.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. SOUTHWELL (turf) Southwell’s turf course only hosts a couple of fixtures each year. However, punters are advised to take note of their arrival — because they provide one very interesting bias. Over 6f on the left-handed turning track, the bias is as you’d expect, in favour of low-drawn horses, and the bottom four stalls have provided the winners of six of the nine handicaps run here since 2000. However — over 7f, it is a totally different story. There is a long run to the first bend, and the jockeys on the low-drawn horses seem to go off too fast in a bid to get to the turn in a good position. As a consequence, high numbers have dominated; since 2000 stalls 1-7 have a record of just 2 wins from 102 runs and a loss of 95pts in 7f handicaps here, whereas stalls 8 and over have a record of 13 wins from 110 runs and a profit of 42pts.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. THIRSK Thirsk used to be famous for its high-draw bias in sprints, but in recent years low numbers have held their own. At 5f, there doesn’t seem to be enough time for the low-drawn horses to get across to the far rail without losing ground, and over the last two years none of the 40 horses to race on the far side have managed to win and only two have been placed (though only six of the 40 to try started at single-figure odds). At 6f seven of the 84 horses that raced far-side in the last two years won. When the field stays stands side, a high draw and/or the ability to race close to the rail is an advantage. Prominent racers do well on the sprint course, though the number of “made-all” winners fell from 14 in 2004 to 7 in 2005. 5f: Ten handicaps run in 2005; high numbers had the better of things, with nine of the ten being won by a horse from the top half of the draw and the tenth going to a horse (Westbrook Blue) who tacked across from stall four to join the stands side group despite four horses racing on the far side; a total of 23 horses raced up the far side in five different races, but none won and only two made the frame. 6f: Nine handicaps run in 2005; in races where the field split the score was 4-2 in favour of the far side, and in one of the two split-field races won by the stands side, only two horses raced on the far side and both ran well; however, there was very little between the two sides in any of the split-field races, and in all six split races the side which did not provide the winner provided one of the placed horses. Two horses made all and several other winners raced prominently throughout; the three races that did not split were won by stalls 10 of 15, 11 of 12 and 12 of 13. 7f: Six handicaps run in 2005; the course configuration suggests that a low draw should be an advantage, but this hasn’t been borne out by the results in previous years; in 2004 all six handicaps were won by stall seven or higher, and although stalls 2, 4 and 5 each provided a winner in 2005, so did stalls 9 (of 12), 10 (of 11) and 10 (of 14), so at the very least we can say there is no advantage to low numbers, and in terms of market position high numbers may often provide the value. 1m: 13 handicaps run in 2005; no obvious sign of bias over the years, but worth noting that only three winners in 2005 came from the bottom third of the draw. 1m4f+ No sign of bias in 2005, though historically high numbers have done surprisingly well in big fields over 2m.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. WARWICK Last year this column highlighted one of the least well-known, but most profitable draw systems in racing. Backing all horses drawn 1, 2 or 3 in handicaps at 7f or above since 2000 had shown huge profits. Followers of the system were not disappointed in 2005; 98 runners produced 16 winners and a level stakes profit of 47pts. That means that since 2000 backing the bottom three stalls in handicaps has produced 80 wins from 556 runs and a profit of 246pts. Backing the bottom three stalls in non-handicaps has also been profitable (to the tune off 44pts), meaning that since 2000 backing stalls 1-3 blindly in all races at 7f+ has produced 148 wins from 1056 runs and a profit of 290pts. It’s worth noting that at 6f or less a low draw, although an advantage, once again failed to show a profit. The other factor to note is that hold-up horses tend to do better than front-runners here. Only 3 of the 46 handicap winners in 2005 made all, and two of those winners won off much higher marks next time. 5f: Three handicaps run in 2005; long-term statistics show little draw bias. 6f: Nine handicaps run in 2005; stall 1 provided three winners, but since 2000 the bottom half of the draw has provided 17 handicap winners compared to the top half’s 16, suggesting there is little in the draw. 7f: Six handicaps run in 2005; stalls 1 and 2 provided two wins each; since 1998 the bottom two stalls have provided the winner of 16 of the 35 handicaps run at this trip (42pt profit backed blindly over that timespan). 1m: 11 handicaps run in 2005; three wins for stalls 1-3, now showing a profit of 51pts since 1998. 1m2f+: Nine of the 20 handicaps run at 1m2f or beyond went to horses drawn 1, 2 or 3, providing a 47pt profit.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. WINDSOR The course was dolled off in the straight from the 6f start to around the 3 1/2f mark in 2005. This certainly didn’t have much effect on the usual high-number bias round course, where 33 of the 44 handicaps went to a horse from the top half of the draw; at 1m forecasts and tricasts are certainly worth considering. On the round course, the advantage to high numbers has been diminishing over the last couple of years, regardless of the introduction of the new rail last year; on a number of occasions last year the stands rail also seemed to have been pushed out, which has always had the effect of reducing the advantage of high numbers/rail runners. On softish ground, as has been the case for many years, the field tended to head for the far side. Richard Hughes has always ridden the round course well here, and his record in handicaps at 1m or more here in 2005 was eight wins from 29 rides and a profit of 40pts. 5f: Eight handicaps run in 2005; four were won by horses from the bottom half of the draw, but on more than one of those occasions the low-drawn horse was quickly out of the stalls and across near to the stands rail; as at other distances, the field tends to race up the far rail on soft ground. 6f: 19 handicaps run in 2005; eleven winners came from the top half of the draw; at both 5f and 6f, the field tended to follow the traditional tactics for the ground regardless of which side was dolled off for the first three furlongs i.e. on soft ground they headed towards the far side and on the stands side they made a beeline for the rail. Stall 1 has had 84 consecutive losers in sprint handicaps here going back to July 1998. 1m: 18 handicaps run in 2005; high numbers had the better of it despite the rail being dolled off early in the straight at some meetings; dutching the three highest-drawn horses would have provided three straight forecast payouts and two tricasts (paying £399 and £270) from the 18 handicaps, and the first three home in selected races included 13-12-14 in a 14-runner race, 13-12-9 (12 runners), 10-11-9 (11 runners), 9-8-11 (11 runners), so punters who like playing these sort of bets should keep 1m at Windsor in mind. 1m2f: 11 handicaps run in 2005; in all bar one the winner came from the top half of the draw, though historically the advantage to high numbers has not been as great at this trip as at 1m. 1m3f135y: 15 handicaps run in 2005; 11 winners came from the top half of the draw; as this figure suggests there is probably a small advantage to being drawn high, and indeed 53 of the 87 handicaps run at this trip since 2000 have gone to a horse from the top half of the draw.

[Carl]

Re: Draw guide to all meetings. YARMOUTH The jockeys have a tendency to race up the middle on the straight course at Yarmouth, and although there was the odd race where either the stands side or the far side seemed quicker, the uncertainty over tactics meant that in 2005 draw bias aficionados really had to watch the early races at each meeting before coming to any conclusions. Prominent racers dominated over 5f and 6f, with the winner making all in four of the 14 sprint handicaps and all six of the remaining eight winners racing prominently. For a relatively small trainer, Christine Dunnett deserves credit for saddling the winner of six of the 39 handicaps run on the straight course, including four of the 14 sprint handicaps. Neil Callan’s 36 course rides over the last two years have produced ten winners, at odds including 50-1, 40-1, 33-1, and 14-1 (twice); he shows a profit of 151pts over the last two years here. 5f: Five handicaps run in 2005; in most of them the majority of the field stayed towards the stands side; there didn’t seem to be much of an advantage, as exemplified by the fact that One Way Ticket cut little ice in two separate races when his rider went out on a limb, on one occasion racing solo up the stands rail (remainder raced up centre), and on another racing with just one rival up the centre (remainder raced stands side). 6f: Nine handicaps run in 2005; confusing messages from those races; Blessed Place won on rain-softened ground on the far side, and Daniella ploughed a lone furrow up the far side to win her race on fast ground, but there were also at least three races where high numbers dominated; three of the nine winners made all. 7f: 13 handicaps run in 2005; high numbers had the better of it, with the top half of the draw providing nine of the 13 winners; however, more often than not the field raced in one group in the centre of the track so it might be a mistake to make too much of the draw. 1m: 12 handicaps run in 2005; little consistent bias; Deeper In Debt’s race suggested an advantage for horses racing against the stands rail, but a couple of other handicaps saw small groups racing against that rail and failing to trouble the judge. 1m2f: Ten handicaps run in 2005; no obvious sign of bias. 1m3f101y: Six handicaps run in 2005; previously low-drawn horses have held sway over this trip but there seemed little advantage this year. 1m6f: 4 handicaps run in 2005; prior to 2005 stalls 1-3 had won more than half the handicaps run since 1998, and Domenico’s 40-1 win means those bottom three stalls are now showing a profit of 60pts during that time. 2m: Four handicaps run in 2005; small fields tend to negate the possibility of a bias at this trip.