Outsiders in small fields
 

I was watching the races today and a few outsiders in small fields (ie 8 or less horses) ended up winning. I usually ignore races like these. But I remember hearing Richard Freedman mention that it happens frequently...

I was wondering what the stats are like for these type of races if anyone has them. At Port Macquarie, race 6 the 100 rating won - even if it was the outsider. At Mornington, race 8, the 94 rating won (second worse horse) - and it was the clear outsider.

In a sense, Freedman is correct, but not telling the whole story? The smaller the field, the strike rate of the outsider will always be higher. It's not that you've stumbled across an edge or anything, it's just that the less horses to beat, the higher the percentage of win rate. The price of the outsider/longshot usually reflects that though, unless it's an absolute 'donkey' with no hope at all.

The more important factor to consider is the price of the favourites in a small field. Sometimes punters Focus and plough too much money into the first three and ignore the outsiders....to their detriment, as some of these outsiders can end up a value bet. The best place to cash in on this, is the Harness/Dogs, but only if you're an expert on form. Lightly traded Dog and Harness races often see a big bet placed on a particular selection by connections, then the sheep stampede to get on this 'sure thing' with little else wagered on the rest, pushing their prices out.

Similarly big fields of novice two year olds. The few with any form at all, tend to attract the punters money, as what else will the AAP computers be able to rate? Then along comes a longshot smokie, with only barrier trial form, and wins.

"The less horses to beat, the higher the percentage of win rate" - I would think this also refers to favourites in small fields? If so, one can assume there is no real advantage in backing outsiders for these races?

If you're looking for races with small fields, then Exeter in the UK, is the place to be! Their race card overnight, comprised 2 x 7 horse, 2 x 4 horse and 3 x 2 horse races. And if you think there's no money for these races, forget it, as I think the smallest Betfair pool was 360,000 pound and over a million for one of the 2 horse races where you had a 1.05 fave and 18 2nd fave. Fortunately for some, the 1st fave got up (it was a Hurdle race, so anything can happen)

It's the same in any size field. The price of the outsider or the favourite roughly corresponds with the strike rate for that size field. With exception of course of various stars or donkeys.
Over time it evens out.
However you have periods where outsiders get up in small fields, and you remember it. Then you have periods where the faves get up. You don't remember that as well, because it's expected, if you get my drift.

So are we saying that the favourite still wins roughly 30% of the time for smaller fields. Or do the outsiders (ie 10-1 and greater) have a better strike rate for smaller fields ?

Sheesh....I'm sure that's what the last 3 posters said??....but so that it really sinks in:

5 horse race..1st fave 41%.......5th fave 6%
6 horse race..1st fave 38%.......6th fave 3%
7 horse race..1st fave 37%.......7th fave 2%
8 horse race..1st fave 35%.......8th fave 1%

14 horse race.1st fave 29%......14th fave 0%*

* No such thing as zero % strike rate in racing (rounded down from less than half of 1%)

dcpg,

For all races of all field sizes the 1st fave is around that magical 30% mark.

For each field size the 1st fave win % is different as per RCP's post. But what CP and RCP are getting at is that those %'s essentially do not change over time and that the available odds generally reflect these % chances of winning less the take out.

So yes the 5th fave in a 5 horse field does have a higher chance of winning - 6% - BUT the odds available on that horse are also much lower on average too i.e. $15 compared to the 14th fave of a 14 horse field where the odds would be maybe $300 which reflects its <1% chance of winning.

Hopefully that clears it up.

If you lay horses in Oz gallops races whose price is 1.5 - 1.95 at the jump and with 7 or more starters you will collect 48% of bets. If you lay off in running any that lead you will do even better.

I've been monitoring this since I saw it on 24/4 and since a 7.45pm winning race at Cranbourne. There have been 14 bets for 7 winning lay bets and a profit of $4.13 for $5 lay bets after commission (+$6.40 before commission) and no laying off after the race - just straight out lay bets. Does this correspond with your findings?