Skip to main content

Blue Diamond Historical Analysis

A tremendous weekend of racing ahead, spread around the globe, and headlined by the AUS$1m Group 1 Blue Diamond Stakes at Caulfield. I'll have a full preview of the race available tomorrow, but to provide some background on the race, here's some historical analysis from the experts at Premium Punting. You can read more of their work via @PremiumPunting.

-----------------------------

Blue Diamond Historical Analysis

In what looms as the most fascinating race of the Melbourne autumn carnival, the battle between top 2YOs Rubick and Earthquake will cause debate between racing fans.

Although our early opinion is not yet decided, below is some historical analysis which could help identify which winning patterns could be correlated to one of the two undefeated horses.

17/31 winners ran in the preludes the fortnight before
11/30 of these won their prelude races
22/30 winners won their previous start
14/23 winners started from barriers 1-5

Below is a table of the last 15 winners with some relevant statistics that can be analysed:



Some key points that can be brought out of this include:

10/15 were from the colts division
12/15 had a PB rating last start
As expected, majority of winners hadn’t had a run at 1200m beforehand
Average position in running (PIR) is around midfield

Visit the PremiumPunting website on Friday for their extensive analysis...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

It's all gone Pete Tong at Betfair!

The Christmas Hurdle from Leopardstown, a good Grade 2 race during the holiday period. But now it will go into history as the race which brought Betfair down. Over £21m at odds of 29 available on Voler La Vedette in-running - that's a potential liability of over £500m. You might think that's a bit suspicious, something's fishy, especially with the horse starting at a Betfair SP of 2.96. Well, this wasn't a horse being stopped by a jockey either - the bloody horse won! Look at what was matched at 29. Split that in half and multiply by 28 for the actual liability for the layer(s). (Matched amounts always shown as double the backers' stake, never counts the layers' risk). There's no way a Betfair client would have £600m+ in their account. Maybe £20 or even £50m from the massive syndicates who regard(ed) Betfair as safer than any bank, but not £600m. So the error has to be something technical. However, rumour has it, a helpdesk reply (not gospel, natur

What shits me about match-fixing 'journalism'.

The anti-wagering media bandwagon has dozens of new members this week, all weighing in an industry they have absolutely no idea about. I'm all for getting the betting industry into the mainstream but it shits me no end when they roll out reports and celebrities who simply don't have a clue what they are talking about and don't bother to check basic facts which key arguments in their story. If this was the financial industry, making errors like this would have them in all sorts of trouble, but the same level of regulation doesn't apply because finance stock markets are supposedly all legitimate and serious, whereas sports betting is just a bit of fun for people who can never win in the long-term... according to the media. This week we have seen the sting by the Telegraph which, on the face of it, looks to be a tremendous piece of investigative work into fixing in English football. But the headlines around it are over-sensationalised yet again. Delroy Facey, a former pla

lay the field - my favourite racing strategy

Dabbling with laying the field in-running at various prices today, not just one price, but several in the same race. Got several matched in the previous race at Brighton, then this race came along at Nottingham. Such a long straight at Nottingham makes punters often over-react and think the finish line is closer than it actually is. As you can see by the number of bets matched, there was plenty of volatility in this in-play market. It's rare you'll get a complete wipe-out with one horse getting matched at all levels, but it can happen, so don't give yourself too much risk...