I am a firm believer in keeping my eye out for little edges that improve my bottom line wherever I can find them and then embracing them long term if they prove their worth.

As punters, beyond trying to hone our selection ability [and all that's involved there] and our money management skills, looking for an edge often stops at finding what we perceive as betting 'overlays'.

The more serious and self controlled punters without a scattergun betting approach, usually drop the maidens and 2yr. old races and leave the wet tracks alone also. Beyond that, progress toward improving our chances often stops and concentrates on selection.

For approx. the last year I have dropped any race under 1400m as well as my usual F&M, Cups, Hurdles and Stakes races as generally poor value betting propositions [though I do have interest bets in all the major group races] and have dramatically improved my punting performance since doing so.

The problem will all sprint races is that they can be won by unfit horses and they often are. An unfit horse [even you and I] can sprint over a short distance but knock up very quickly beyond that. For horses[not us] that would include a lot of races up to 1200m and often even 1300m. This adds a layer of selection hardship that just does not exist in middle distance races. The blanket finish of many of these sprint races is due to fitness not necessarily being the major winning factor, especially in 1000m. races [and look at how many of those we have at meetings now. Their numbers have spawned like the plague over the last 20yrs.].

The advantage of middle distance races is that by being able to work out fairly easily, the fit [at least 3/4 starts in] from the unfit, before applying any other selection criteria, gives us an added edge as the last thing we need is a surprise sprint from a runner ruining our winning chances.

Relying on a selection in the [often] blanket finish of a sprint, where a nose might be all that's between a cab home from the races and the pie stall and bus stop, just doesn't make rational punting sense to me.

Good post Crash ... might not totally but some food for thought in what you've written.

Yep. Recently, I have been trying to concentrate on 1400m+ and I found it worked quite well. I've found that I usually do pretty well in races of 1400-1800m. I will still occasionally bet on shorter races but only if they are really good class races (especially group races like the Lightning and the Frederick Clissold last Saturday).

I posted some Tips and Ratings today and I used races of all distances. Well, I've noticed some poor results already in the sprint races. Thanks Crash for your post and I'll use it as a reminder to in future stick to my guns and concentrate almost exclusively on 1400m+.

I've looked at my results today and deleting the shorter races certainly made a HUGE difference. As I said, I had recently been trying to concentrate on the longer races but today's results have just reaffirmed it for me.

Once again proof of the crazy mixed up world of trying to find winners at the track. If someone had asked me about the basis of crash's thread I would have said stick to races up to 1600m.

Stayers in Australia on the whole are slow and lacking in class and consistency, basically because our breeeding industry caters for speed.

My comment is not whether crash is right or wrong but just how many different and varied ways people look at the same problem, where to find a winner.

Good food for thought crash, if it works for you good luck.

You're thinking of those races 2100m+ where there's a different winner each week. I like to stick to 1400-2000, preferably 1400-1800. That may only leave you with 1 or 2 races on the program, but I think it's a good distance range to concentrate on.

Like i have always said it is better to pick your races rather than pick your horses.....if we all worked out a basic race type that suits us this would cut down on the amount of races we would bet in....i personaly have done better in races 1600m-2400m but thats me....plus i rather stick to open class and above none of these restricted to mares or filles or 1 metro win or just 2yo and 3yo....give me the open and welters and the stakes races any day

Just ran it through my West Aus selection system and found I do better on 1400m and over races at the major tracks but seem to do better on the shorter races at country tracks. Just to confuse me even more I get more percentage winners overall (only half a percent extra) but less money back (couple of percent ROI) on shorter races and half a percent less winners but a couple of percent more cash on longer races.
Stupid horseracing, there must be simpler hobbies.

Well perhaps some systems perform better over longer distances, but here are my results....

OVERALL
9.96% POT

<1200m
16.26% POT

<1400m
7.15% POT

>1200m
7.67% POT

>1400m
16.00% POT

So 1200m...1400m -2.16% LOT.

Hmmm.

I wouldn't draw too much from this as there is not a lot of data to go by when breaking it up into distance ranges, but clearly the short distances are no disadvantage to my system.

An interesting mixed bag of responses. I think it means everybody is correct one way or another.

Interesting figures [as usual] there Chrome.
As an aside from my main betting efforts which are based on selection through form study, I have 2 systems running, one based on all distances and the other on middle distances. The only difference so far that I can observe is that the latter's peaks and troughs are less volatile and as they are very different systems, it isn't possible to draw conclusions regarding distance factors. The rules would have to be identical except for distance to do that.

Your right Sportz, I did mention I was talking about 'middle distance races' in my post. I am glad your winning efforts among sprint and middle distance events have been viewed separately and your efforts calmly compared.

My personal cut off point in distances to bet on is 2200m., as above that distance we run into a whole new ball game. I know winning on sprints, or any other type of race is possible, but I have yet to see a convincing argument that it is easier to do than on middle distance races, or that the odds offered are better, which brings us back to the original thrust of my thread - 'edge'.

My point about the 'blanket finish' so common to sprint races also has some legs and deserves some thought. In so many of these sprints it would be hard to pick the winner of the race if was frozen at the 50m mark, let alone before the start, which points out an obvious difficulty with the selection process involved in sprint races.

Sticking to middle distance events doesn't allow me a lot of action and certainly wouldn't suit everyone, but it has improved my personal focus, where less has become more.

At my [maturing gracefully] age, I can live without the fast and furious action demanded by the young, or those poor afflicted souls among the brethren who go into withdrawal symptoms unless they have a constant flow of races before them to throw money at [you know who you are :-) ].