It’s that time again

The draw and potential draw biases is where my interest in horse racing began. It was around 1996 / 1997 when I remember reading some excellent draw articles by Russell Clarke in a magazine called Odds On.

Within days of being inspired I was doing my own draw research using my yearly Superform Annuals and noting down the first three draw positions for as many course and distances as I could. I dread to think how much time I spent collating data!

This article is part of our Complete Draw Bias Guide — covering every UK course and distance in one place.

My main memory is working on my computer from 9pm to 2am on a regular basis, despite holding a full-time teaching job at the time.  I soon ‘progressed’ to putting the data into my computer using Excel. However, in those days all the hours spent burning the midnight oil were worth it because it was still a very under-researched area and draw biases were quite strong at certain courses. In addition to that, it was at a time before racing computer programs were commercially available.

Within a year I ended up writing books on the draw and my racing journey then switched to tipping which I did for about six years. From there I was asked by the Racing and Football Outlook to research and write a weekly column looking at big race ten-year trends. In the last 10 to 12 years, I switched to being regular article writer for different publications.

This introduction hopefully has pointed you in the direction of where this article is heading – yes, I am revisiting my trusty old friend ‘draw bias’.

At this time of year, I religiously update my draw stats for the upcoming turf season. It is important to be aware that draw biases can change over time and hence a strong bias 10 years ago, maybe not be so now.

Courses are doing more and more to try and level out any biases, some with more success than others.

Whenever I study draw bias, I always use a number of runners stipulation. I feel this is especially important for draw bias analysis because you need a certain number of runners for any potential draw bias to take effect. Hence for this article the races I will only be considering races with 8 or more runners. I am also going to restrict the races just to handicaps.

My belief is that handicap races give a better and fairer data set as they are generally competitive affairs.

My preference for draw bias crunching is to divide the draw into thirds – those drawn in the bottom third (low), those drawn in the middle third, and those drawn in the top third. It should also be noted that I also adjust the draw positions when there are non-runners – for example if the horse drawn 3 is a non-runner, then the horse drawn 4 becomes drawn 3, draw 5 becomes 4 and so on.

On a completely fair course the winning percentages for each “third” of the draw should be around 33% each. The differences in the percentages will help to determine the strength of the bias.

Data has been collated from the last six completed years (2019 through to 2024). In this article I am going to examine what I consider to be currently the five strongest turf flat biases in the UK starting with the strongest.

1. Pontefract 1 mile

We head up North to Ponte and 1-mile trip.

Let me start by sharing the draw third splits:

Bottom third of draw (low) Win %	Middle third of draw Win %	Top third of draw (high) Win %
53.4	28.8	17.8

These figures are the types of numbers I saw back in the 90s at places like Beverley, Thirsk, Sandown, to name but three.

As the numbers show, low draws have a significant edge winning almost twice as often as middle draws, and three times as often as higher draws.

I want to now look at the placed / Each Way stats (in other words the win and placed stats combined), to see what splits they give:

Bottom third of draw (low) EW %	Middle third of draw EW %	Top third of draw (high) EW %
50.7	30.9	18.4

Normally the placed stats follow a similar pattern, and these numbers really confirm to me how strong the bias is. It is very unusual to see a 50% + figure for one specific draw third these days.

There are other metrics that I can use to help analyse the strength of the bias and one is Percentage of Rivals Beaten (PRB for short).

PRB is a calculation based on a horse's finishing position in relation to number of runners in the race. It makes key distinctions between a horse finishing, say, third in a five-horse race (PRB equals 50%, two rivals beaten, beaten by two rivals) and finishing third in an eleven-horse race (PRB equals 80%, eight rivals beaten, beaten by two rivals).

Here are the PRBs for 1-mile trip at Ponte:

Bottom third of draw (low) PRB	Middle third of draw PRB	Top third of draw (high) PRB
0.62	0.48	0.40

Anything 0.55 or higher I tend to use as a benchmark to determine whether draw bias is in play or not. Hence, 0.62 is a very high figure equating to 62% of rivals beaten.

The good news for punters is that 2024 saw no ‘let up’ in the bias.

10 of the 16 races last year (62.5%) were won by horses drawn in the bottom third of the draw. The PRB figure was a little lower than the six-year average at 0.59.

Another positive is that A/E index for low drawn horses over this C & D stands at 0.98 – this suggests that lower draws have been fairly good value over the last six years.

For a comparison the higher draws A/E index is down at 0.64.

I am going to have to patient to wait for the first qualifying race of 2025!

2. Pontefract 1 mile 2 furlongs

Sticking with Pontefract and onto the 10-furlong trip.

It is rare to get draw biases over distances longer than 1 mile, but this C&D bucks the trend.

A look first at the draw splits by thirds:

Bottom third of draw (low) Win %	Middle third of draw Win %	Top third of draw (high) Win %
48.5	33.3	18.2

The bias has not been as strong as we saw over the mile-trip, but it is still significant.

A look and the placed stats now:

Bottom third of draw (low) EW %	Middle third of draw EW %	Top third of draw (high) EW %
48.5	32.3	19.2

We see virtually the same percentages here suggesting that this bias is strong.

Onto the PRB figures now:

Bottom third of draw (low) PRB	Middle third of draw PRB	Top third of draw (high) PRB
0.59	0.50	0.41

Thes figures correlate with both sets of draw splits seen so far indicating that this is one of the stronger biases around. Remarkably, you could have made a blind profit to SP backing all horses drawn 1 during this timeframe.

Not only that, but horses also drawn 2 produced a profit, as did those drawn 3, 4 and 5! I can’t ever remember seeing five individual stall positions at one C & D all being profitable, especially to traditional SP.

So, the two strongest biases occur at the same track.

Actually, make that three ……..

3. Pontefract 5 furlongs

The minimum distance at the West Yorkshire track comes in at number three on my list.

Gone are the days of Chester dominating the draw bias scene.

Win splits first:

Bottom third of draw (low) Win %	Middle third of draw Win %	Top third of draw (high) Win %
47.6	26.2	26.2

Based on the previous two Ponte distances it should come as no surprise that lower draws hold sway here to. This is all due to the fact that lower draws are berthed next to the inside rail, and I guess where the bends are situated help increase the edge gained by potentially running the shortest inside route.

Time to share the placed stats for each of the three thirds of the draw now:

Bottom third of draw (low) EW %	Middle third of draw EW %	Top third of draw (high) EW %
44.4	28.6	27.0

Again, positive correlation with the win breakdowns. The PRB figures are next:

Bottom third of draw (low) PRB	Middle third of draw PRB	Top third of draw (high) PRB
0.59	0.49	0.42

These are virtually the same as what we saw over 1m 2f.

This bias is very potent and for the record, horses drawn 1 (closest to the inside rail) have won 24% of all the races in the past six seasons.

Backing all horses drawn 1 ‘blind’ would have yielded returns of 91 pence in the £ to SP and 136p to BSP.

That would have been a nice little earner!

For position 4 we move away from Pontefract.

4. York 5 & 6 furlongs

Sticking with the county of Yorkshire but moving to the North of the county we head to York and the straight course at this picturesque venue where two trips, 5 and 6 furlongs, are run. It makes sense to combine them as they both paint the same picture in terms of draw bias.

As usual let me start with sharing the win splits for each third of the draw:

Bottom third of draw (low) Win %	Middle third of draw Win %	Top third of draw (high) Win %
50.0	26.2	23.8

A definite edge here to lower drawn runners, while middle draws just edge high draws. The placed stats are next up:

Bottom third of draw (low) EW %	Middle third of draw EW %	Top third of draw (high) EW %
42.1	30.6	27.3

Low still have a strong edge but it is diminished somewhat. This may be partly due to several races offering four placed positions due to York sprints often having big fields.

In fact, just over half of all qualifying races had 16 or more runners offering four places.

Time to see if the PRB figures correlate:

Bottom third of draw (low) PRB	Middle third of draw PRB	Top third of draw (high) PRB
0.56	0.49	0.46

0.56 for low draws is the lowest figure we have seen to date but as I mentioned earlier based on my past research any figure of 0.55 or higher indicates that there is a draw bias in play.

The A/E index for the lowest third of the draws stands at a very high 1.02 confirming low draws have been very good value in the recent past. It should also be noted that in big fields (16+) the bias strengthens a little further.

5. Redcar 7 furlongs & 1 mile

As I did with York, I have combined these two trips as they are both on the straight course. 5- and 6-furlong races also occur on the straight course and there is a low draw bias prevalent over both sprint trips as well. However, as the distance increases this draw bias does start to strengthen a little.

The draw splits for wins first:

Bottom third of draw (low) Win %	Middle third of draw Win %	Top third of draw (high) Win %
46.2	30.1	23.8

As the numbers indicate a low drawn runner has been twice as likely to win as a high drawn runner. This is simply due to the fact that low draws are berthed near the far rail and the ground closest to the rail seems to ride quicker than the rest of the straight track.

How do the placed / EW stats match up?

Bottom third of draw (low) EW %	Middle third of draw EW %	Top third of draw (high) EW %
46.4	28.0	25.6

The low drawn percentage is virtually the same here as it was for the win only stats.

This bias is noteworthy although it is less strong than the four C & Ds discussed previously.

The PRB figures offer the following splits by ‘third’:

Bottom third of draw (low) PRB	Middle third of draw PRB	Top third of draw (high) PRB
0.55	0.50	0.45

Lower draws hit 0.55 which correlates with the other two splits shared above. Also, the A/E index for low draws is 0.94 which is much higher than the 0.79 and 0.74 figures for middle and high draws.

Hence, the lower draws have offered the best value.

So those are what I perceive to be the five strongest draw biases in the UK. I mentioned Chester earlier and I am guessing many readers will be wondering how a Chester C&D didn’t make the list. The answer lies in the fact that the inside rail was moved in races of 5 to 7 furlongs around 80% of the time last season. When the rail is moved the low draw bias at the track weakens. Indeed, combining all 5 to 7f handicaps with 8 or more runners at Chester last year, the highest third of the draw won 13 of 27 races! Just under half. That is a massive switch around. As I mentioned in my opening salvo it is important to be aware that biases can change. Chester’s long standing low draw bias looks to be on the wane.

David Renham