• Hi Guest Just in case you were not aware I wanted to highlight that you can now get a free 7 day trial of Horseracebase here.
    We have a lot of members who are existing users of Horseracebase so help is always available if needed, as well as dedicated section of the fourm here.
    Best Wishes
    AR

Non Runners

Michael231

Michael231

Gelding
Afternoon all.
I was just wondering if anyone has delved into the non runners in regards to the trainer of the winning horse from the non runner to see if there is a pattern in the trainer that has the non runner and the actual winning trainer.
Like horse A non runner and horse b wins, is there any other races where both trainers do the same in other races in the course of a season.
There may be a way of making some money from it.
Apologies if someone has put up before.
 
I'm aware that this is a common theme in USA racing, with the phrase "Why run two when one will do" often thrown out there by the talking heads. Have not seen it often in regards to uk racing where a trainer or owner declares two and scratches one.
 
Hi pete pete thanks for the reply.
I actually meant different trainers from each race so that 2 trainers know if the other one knows the other one can beat it or been laid out for the race so pulls it out as a non runner.
I'm sure it's not too hard to make an excuse for it not to run.
 
Michael231 said:
Hi pete pete thanks for the reply.
I actually meant different trainers from each race so that 2 trainers know if the other one knows the other one can beat it or been laid out for the race so pulls it out as a non runner.
I'm sure it's not too hard to make an excuse for it not to run.
Click to expand...
Michael231 Michael231 - Do you actually think the game is as bent as this mate ??? That trainers are colluding in every race and the winners are pre-determined ? - Anyway this would be an absolute nightmare to research if you think about it - average non-runners per day is well into double figures, so then you would need to team those non-runner trainers (a) each with the trainer (b) of the winner of those races - so for each combination, trainer-a and trainer-b, you would need to manually check all of trainer-b's previous winners to see if trainer-a also had a non-runner. Just using yesterday's results for example there would have been 32 different combinations of trainer-a (with non-runner) and trainer-b (winner) - imagine just trying to manually check those, and that's just for one day's results.
 
Last edited:
4.40 kemp...DASHING HARRY nr............" poor draw in stall 12"
Obviously connections don't say this out loud but we all know it goes on, now i thought the logic behind the thread was to consider if such a withdrawal might suggest the horse in question might be on a decent enough mark so they don't want to get beat by a bad draw and ruin both mark and price.
Conversely running horses poorly drawn can be used to hide the positives with a poor ride, it's all part of the game and if you object to such approaches you need to play bingo.
 
tacker said:
4.40 kemp...DASHING HARRY nr............" poor draw in stall 12"
Obviously connections don't say this out loud but we all know it goes on, now i thought the logic behind the thread was to consider if such a withdrawal might suggest the horse in question might be on a decent enough mark so they don't want to get beat by a bad draw and ruin both mark and price.
Conversely running horses poorly drawn can be used to hide the positives with a poor ride, it's all part of the game and if you object to such approaches you need to play bingo.
Click to expand...
EVERYBODY KNOWS that a high % of non-runners are drawn wide at certain courses - fail to see what that has to do with what Michael231 Michael231 is suggesting ? Trainers withdrawing runners based on knowledge from other trainers

Michael231 Michael231 wrote
I was just wondering if anyone has delved into the non runners in regards to the trainer of the winning horse from the non runner to see if there is a pattern in the trainer that has the non runner and the actual winning trainer.
Like horse A non runner and horse b wins, is there any other races where both trainers do the same in other races in the course of a season.
There may be a way of making some money from it.
 
ARAZI91 said:
EVERYBODY KNOWS that a high % of non-runners are drawn wide at certain courses - fail to see what that has to do with what Michael231 Michael231 is suggesting ? Trainers withdrawing runners based on knowledge from other trainers

Michael231 Michael231 wrote
I was just wondering if anyone has delved into the non runners in regards to the trainer of the winning horse from the non runner to see if there is a pattern in the trainer that has the non runner and the actual winning trainer.
Like horse A non runner and horse b wins, is there any other races where both trainers do the same in other races in the course of a season.
There may be a way of making some money from it.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was.
 
Hi Arazi — cracking write-up. The way you linked the crawl, field compression and late kick to the race geometry really chimed with what I saw. I’ve got a few follow-ups I’d love your take on:


  • Lengths ↔ seconds: Do you run a single conversion everywhere, or vary by track/trip and configuration (e.g., round vs straight)? And how do you keep it calibrated when the ground profile isn’t uniform across the course?
  • Analysis window: When you call out the mid-race window, are you using fixed poles or a percentage of available splits so it scales for 5f dashes and staying trips alike?
  • LSR methodology: Your read looks leader-anchored. Do you also compute a runner-level late-speed ratio, and if the two stories diverge, what’s your tie-breaker?
  • Compression metric: When you reference pack spread, is that a maximum inside the window or an average? What’s your rule of thumb for when compression is high enough to materially raise traffic risk?
  • Hidden moves: Beyond simple position changes, do you normalise time-behind-leader improvements by the degree of compression so the same gain “counts more” in a tighter field?
  • Pocketed vs delayed: What’s your hard line for separating “boxed/no lane” from “over-delay”? Is it a combo of worsening rank, a flat time-behind profile, rail geometry, rider style, etc.?
  • “Too far back” threshold: Do you prefer a time-relative cut (share of leader’s elapsed at a given pole) rather than a fixed lengths cutoff so it scales with distance?
  • Weight in the kick: When races turn sharply late, do you apply any late-phase weight sensitivity, even a simple adjustment, to reflect that load bites harder in that segment?
  • Ground profile: If straight and round ride differently, are you feeding turf/going maps quantitatively into pars/sectional standards, or just using them qualitatively post-race?
  • Upgrade policy: If sectional adjustments help a horse but still leave them shy of their known ability, do you log it as a “shape note” only, or do you still grant an upgrade under certain conditions?
 
Michael231 said:
Hi pete pete thanks for the reply.
I actually meant different trainers from each race so that 2 trainers know if the other one knows the other one can beat it or been laid out for the race so pulls it out as a non runner.
I'm sure it's not too hard to make an excuse for it not to run.
Click to expand...
There are all sorts of conversations among trainers , owners etc where everything is discussed, you would expect that, lets take Nick Bradley multiple trainers, he will have his say and he’s reasonably open about it on his What’s App group etc
Trouble is then people often argue all racing is bent which it isn’t.
 
tony spencer said:
Hi Arazi — cracking write-up. The way you linked the crawl, field compression and late kick to the race geometry really chimed with what I saw. I’ve got a few follow-ups I’d love your take on:


  • Lengths ↔ seconds: Do you run a single conversion everywhere, or vary by track/trip and configuration (e.g., round vs straight)? No And how do you keep it calibrated when the ground profile isn’t uniform across the course? No calibration - a length is derived from the speeds as elapsed time - they are the same thing, just expressed differently
  • Analysis window: When you call out the mid-race window, are you using fixed poles or a percentage of available splits so it scales for 5f dashes and staying trips alike? - No - don't even know what an "analysis window" is ???
  • LSR methodology: Your read looks leader-anchored. - It's not Do you also compute a runner-level late-speed ratio, and if the two stories diverge, what’s your tie-breaker? - the ratios are at runner-level - why would there be a tie-breaker ?? They are not "scores" as such where one is "better" than another
  • Compression metric: When you reference pack spread, is that a maximum inside the window or an average? - Neither, it's the actual "field spread" from first to last and expressed in "seconds" What’s your rule of thumb for when compression is high enough to materially raise traffic risk? - Don't use a "rule of thumb"
  • Hidden moves: Beyond simple position changes, do you normalise time-behind-leader improvements by the degree of compression so the same gain “counts more” in a tighter field? - No
  • Pocketed vs delayed: What’s your hard line for separating “boxed/no lane” from “over-delay”? Is it a combo of worsening rank, a flat time-behind profile, rail geometry, rider style, etc.? - Neither, there is no "hard line"
  • “Too far back” threshold: Do you prefer a time-relative cut (share of leader’s elapsed at a given pole) rather than a fixed lengths cutoff so it scales with distance? - Again don't know what this is ???
  • Weight in the kick: When races turn sharply late, do you apply any late-phase weight sensitivity, even a simple adjustment, to reflect that load bites harder in that segment? - No - but there are certain sections of a race where how fast or how slow they go matters MUCH more than other sections of the race
  • Ground profile: If straight and round ride differently, are you feeding turf/going maps quantitatively into pars/sectional standards, or just using them qualitatively post-race? - Neither - though definitely look at turftrax's going maps as well as weather data from the course
  • Upgrade policy: If sectional adjustments help a horse but still leave them shy of their known ability, do you log it as a “shape note” only, or do you still grant an upgrade under certain conditions? - Don't know about a "policy" - All horses in All races are handicapped and rated on "form/ability" first similar methodology to the BHA or RP - then timefigures are calculated against those "ability" figures on the same scale. Those timefigures are then adjusted by sectionals, efficiency, bias, in-run visuals (using replays) - in nearly every race there is a margin of error in most jockeys rides - it's the nature of the game - rather than label them "good" or "bad" i prefer to break them down - what happens in one section of the race usually has an effect in another section of the race. Sectional data allows you to break races down and are much more than a record of a horses speed - there also a measure of a horses position and it's relativity to the rest of the field, at every sectional point. They help in either confirming or denying what the visual and the eyes are telling you. Analysis is best done with as much bias removed as possible - even if you have had a small financial interest in the race that can still come through in your findings.
Click to expand...
Was this AI generated ? - think it's trying to conceptualise too much.
I only posted in that thread because the guy was "talking through his pocket" and I felt the criticism was unnecessary. The horse was stuck in a pocket on the rail from 8 out to inside 3 out, surrounded by horses, with nowhere to go, in a very slowly run race where space and gaps were at a premium. Despite that, the horse did have a clean 2.75 furlongs AFTER THAT to reel in 4.2 lengths - he just was not good enough on the day and after taking a while to pick up, finished on the heels of FOUR other horses and was 1.6 lengths adrift at the line. The guy in the thread still thinks that he would have landed his bet if there was "another 30 yards" after the line - he's neglected to acknowledge the effort of the third placed horse who was giving his horse 6lbs and is a more thorough stayer, was also a "fast" finisher and also made up "significant" ground in the final furlong - there is no way his horse passed even the fourth placed horse never mind the third placed horse in the run-out.
The "run-out" speeds (30 yds before the line to 30yds after the line) from that race were not even up on the ATR site when i posted in that thread but their up now

RunOutspeeds.jpg
 
Last edited:
ARAZI91 said:
Was this AI generated ? - think it's trying to conceptualise too much.
I only posted in that thread because the guy was "talking through his pocket" and I felt the criticism was unnecessary. The horse was stuck in a pocket on the rail from 8 out to inside 3 out, surrounded by horses, with nowhere to go, in a very slowly run race where space and gaps were at a premium. Despite that, the horse did have a clean 2.75 furlongs AFTER THAT to reel in 4.2 lengths - he just was not good enough on the day and after taking a while to pick up, finished on the heels of FOUR other horses and was 1.6 lengths adrift at the line. The guy in the thread still thinks that he would have landed his bet if there was "another 30 yards" after the line - he's neglected to acknowledge the effort of the third placed horse who was giving his horse 6lbs and is a more through stayer, was also a "fast" finisher and also made up "significant" ground in the final furlong - there is no way his horse passed even the fourth placed horse never mind the third placed horse in the run-out.
The "run-out" speeds (30 yds before the line to 30yds after the line) from that race were not even up on the ATR site when i posted in that thread but their up now

Sorry — I read your post the wrong way. Great write-up, by the way.
Just to clarify what I meant: I was talking about race profiles before the race — a quick map of how it might set up. I look at recent early pace for each runner (last six, newest weighted more) to guess who’s likely to be on the speed, who sits handy, and who drops in. Then I layer in the course & distance tendencies (does speed usually hold here? does the mid-race get testing?) and a simple wins-by-style view over a few years, so I’ve got context for whether front-enders or closers are usually favoured.
Afterwards I sanity-check the run with a few plain things — was the horse actually boxed, did it make ground in the key part of the race, and did it finish faster than the field when it saw daylight. If those don’t line up, I file it under “not good enough on the day” rather than “unlucky”.
That’s all I’m trying to do: set expectations before they jump, then be honest about what actually happened after.
Click to expand...
 
Larry said:
this is in response to Michael231 Michael231 non runners comments, there are a group of trainers who were at some point linked with Barney Curley, they often put multiple horses in the same race then a number are withdrawn BUT the remaining horse(s) don't always win
Click to expand...
Larry Larry Racing's version of "Live-Aid" with Barney taking the Geldof role lol - most of the money won from the BIG 4-timer went back into Curley's African Aid Charity DAFA - John Butler, Des Donovan and Sophie Leech (denied all knowledge) were the trainers
Barney to his dying day treasured a postcard from the Pipe stable that was sent to him the day after that coup was landed - it simply said "Barney Curley - Genius"
He had a few go's before that one landed (think the Northern trainer Chris Grant was involved) and it's rumoured there was one after that
"The story would make a good book"

already has :)
Dropbox
 
ARAZI91 said:
Larry Larry Racing's version of "Live-Aid" with Barney taking the Geldof role lol - most of the money won from the BIG 4-timer went back into Curley's African Aid Charity DAFA - John Butler, Des Donovan and Sophie Leech (denied all knowledge) were the trainers
Barney to his dying day treasured a postcard from the Pipe stable that was sent to him the day after that coup was landed - it simply said "Barney Curley - Genius"
He had a few go's before that one landed (think the Northern trainer Chris Grant was involved) and it's rumoured there was one after that
"The story would make a good book"

already has :)
Dropbox
Click to expand...
It is widely thought(internet rumour) John Butler, Des Donovan, Alice Haynes & a couple of others sometimes try for a coup again, often when they have multi runners bookies refuse accumulator bets on their horses
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top