Post Positions
I’ve always been curious to see if the post position for a horse has an effect on the race. Whether you own a horse, or simple want to put a wager on a race, the post position a horse leaves from can have an impact on the effort of the horse.
My original thoughts are that the inside, or center of the track may be more favorable spot to leave from. Sometimes drawing the rail isin’t the best, as it can be a soft spot due to drainage run off. And the most extreme outside post, the 14th spot, would at face level appear to be a challenge to overcome, as there are 13 horses inside of you that you have to pass to get to the front.
So I decided to do my own mini-analysis on a sampling of sim races. Being that each race varies in the number of horses competing in it, I elected to focus on only races with a full field of 14. This covers all post positions and will identify any bias towards the inside, outside or center posts.
Now this analysis does not take into account a number of factors. There was no seperation made for the length of the race, the track conditions, the track surface, the track location or the level of competition (stakes, claiming, etc..). With this in mind, there may be some deviations if these factors were to be reviewed specifically.
I selected 300 races randomly, covering various tracks. Although not a statistical sample, I feel that it is large enough to produce some results that are reflective of the overall nature of racing on one of the plentiful Sim tracks. The following shows the results of this analysis sorted by winning percentages:
Pos/ Wins/ Win %
8/ 28/ 9.3%
9/ 27/ 9.0%
14/ 26/ 8.7%
6/ 25/ 8.3%
1/ 22/ 7.3%
3/ 22/ 7.3%
12/ 21/ 7.0%
7/ 20/ 6.7%
5/ 19/ 6.3%
10/ 19/ 6.3%
13/ 19/ 6.3%
4/ 18/ 6.0%
11/ 18/ 6.0%
2/ 16/ 5.3%
Based on the above, there does not seem to be any position that stands out more than the other. Post positions 6 through 9 do appear in the top half of the results. From this, an arguement can be made that perhaps the middle posts, 6-9, do come in the winners circle more often than any other grouping of posts.
To take the analysis a step farther, I also tracked the number of times a post finished in one of the top 3 positions (ITM=in the money), with the following results:
Post/ ITM Count/ ITM %
14/ 75/ 25.0%
9/ 74/ 24.7%
1/ 70/ 23.3%
12/ 69/ 23.0%
8/ 68/ 22.7%
4/ 64/ 21.3%
3/ 63/ 21.0%
5/ 63/ 21.0%
6/ 62/ 20.7%
7/ 61/ 20.3%
11/ 61/ 20.3%
10/ 60/ 20.0%
2/ 56/ 18.7%
13/ 54/ 18.0%
These results show some slight changes when compared to the win only results, but not much to draw too many conclusions from. The middle posts (6 through 9) don’t appear as powerful here. If anything, my original thoughts of the rail (post 1) and post 14 not being desirable proves to be incorrect as both made the top 3 ITM. It is odd that the posts next to them post 2 and 13 had the lowest ITM %.
The analysis does not show any strong location to start a race. Usually, in racing, you will see some posts that are adjacent to each other that tend to have more winners than others. My analysis does not reflect any grouping of posts that are more favorable than any other groupings.
This may be the most useful part of the analysis, if you happen to be betting on the race. Also, if your owned horse is a favorite in a field of 14, you’ll appreciate this. I reviewed the number of favorites winning and ITM as part of the analysis and had the following results:
# of races 300
# of favorites winning 83
% of favorites winning 27.7%
# of favorites ITM 174
% of favorites ITM 58.0%
This may open an eye for the gamblers. With a large field of 14, the odds of a favorite winning are reduced. 27.7% is an excellent winning percentage in this field size (roughly 1 win in 4 races). Many of the favorites can go off at 5-1 odds or better, giving you a great return on your dollar. The ITM percentage is nice too. The number of places (52) and number of shows (39) were lower than the win count (83).