Top 10 biases in handicap pursuits, part 1: 10 to 6 geegeez.co.uk

The Top 10 Biases in Handicap Pursuits Part 1 – 10 to 6

In the next two articles I will share what I believe are the top ten current prejudices about running style disabilities in Britain and Ireland, writes Dave Renham. In this first half I will reveal positions 10 through 6; and next week I will announce my top five. Of course, I appreciate that there will be people who disagree with my hierarchy, but in the end, all ten biases have proven to be profitable to use alongside more traditional form reading. As a bonus, today I’m also sharing three near misses that narrowly made it into the top ten.

Introduction

To compile my top picks, I only used handicap chase data, as it is not as susceptible to distortion by the abilities of the participating horses. Data is from 2018 to 2024, with no minimum consideration for runners.

I mentioned in a recent offer that Geegeez Gold members have so many benefits and one of them is access to the Pace Analyzer. This allows users to delve into the running style/pace biases at every racecourse in the UK and Ireland. The data can be filtered based on going, field size, distance and race type. There is also the option to separate obstacles and pursuit data (and NH Flat) for the jumping course; and for all courses, the data can be further filtered by year to allow for possible changes in any biases. The Pace Analyzer is ideal for research like this, and it was the main source I used to produce the following.

The running style data on Geegeez is split into four groups: Led, Prominent, Mid Division and Held Up. Just a quick refresher course on which type of horse suits which profile:

Guided – horses that take the lead early, usually within the first furlong; or horses contesting or fighting for the early lead.

Prominent – horses close to the pace just behind the leader(s).

Middle division – horses racing in the middle of the pack.

Stopped – horses held up at or near the back of the field.

Near misses

Generally, the ‘led’ group has an advantage in most handicap pursuits. Some courses offer a stronger edge than others, so let me start by looking at the C&Ds that were near misses:

Exeter 2m3f

To get this distance on Geegeez we need to use the distance figure of 2m4f on the Query Tool/Pace Analyzer as distances are grouped every two furlongs. It should also be noted that some race distances on a track sometimes change slightly due to rail adjustments. This is happening more and more these days, or at least it’s being reported more accurately these days!

Let me share the Exeter numbers taken from the Pace Analyser:

This is a good time to note that not all running style groups have the same number of runners; there will always be many more hold-up horses than frontrunners/early leaders. Despite the ‘led’ group having only 82 qualifiers compared to the trailing group of 161, they still won 20 races, compared to 15. The Win%’s in the table show the strike rate within each running style group, and for this article that is how I will quantify the ‘win strike rate’.

The ‘guided’ group produced by far the highest percentage at 24%. That is, 24.39% of the horses that led early won their races. (They actually won 31.25% (20/64) of all races in the sample).

The leaders’ place percentage was also easily the best, with 47.6% of the early leaders still in the frame at the finish; while their A/E index of 1.39 indicates that the leaders had very good value.

If we were to consider just favorites in these races and their performance by run style, we saw the following win strike percentage distributions (I combined favorites whose run style was Mid Div or Held Up):

Front runners/horses that challenged the early lead had an excellent track record when favored by the market. However, it’s a different story for the favorites who raced in the middle of the pack or early at the back. As you can see, the bias on this course and the distance was very strong indeed, but it still wasn’t enough to make my top ten. Exciting times!

Before we go any further, in terms of what happened in 2025, of the eight races so far, five have been won by frontrunners.

Sedge field 2m5f to 2m5½f

Using the Geegeez tools we use the distance of 2m6f.

Front runners have achieved a win rate of over 30% and the only reason this track/trip didn’t make the list is due to the relatively strong stats for horses racing early in the midfield. Also, the statistics from 2025 to date show that horses racing early in the pack have done well, winning three of the six races so far.

Lingfield 2m

The statistics were as follows:

Again strong figures for front runners, although this is a different course and distance (C&D) where qualifying races were relatively rare (on average only four races per year). At the time of writing there has only been one qualifying handicap chase in 2025, but it was won by the early leader, as we can see:

It’s also worth noting that he was projected as the ‘likely only speed’ in the race:

Okay, near misses shared; to position ten in my list.

Top 10, 10 to 6

#10 Chepstow 3 meters

Some readers might expect that longer-distance front runners would be at a disadvantage in handicap pursuits: surely it wouldn’t be an easy task for a horse to lead from start to finish in a 3-mile race, would it? However, looking at the slump in Chepstow, I suspect some people will change their minds!

Front runners have led in these races in recent seasons, while prominent racers were clearly in second place with much better statistics than horses not running at the pace. 68 of the 96 winners were close to the pace or at the front – that’s 71% of winners compared to 47% of runners. And a front runner is over four times more likely to win than a hold-up horse when you analyze the winning percentage within their respective groups (25% vs. 5.7%).

Now, as previously mentioned, we get more hold-up horses than front-runners in most races and between 2018 and 2024 there were just over twice as many hold-up horses compared to front-runners. So that means that if we talk purely about race wins, frontrunners have won just over twice as many races as hold-ups.

Seven races have been held so far this year, two of which were won from the front.

#9 Sandown 2m4f

It’s time to head to Surrey now, and Esher specifically, to check out Sandown’s 2m4f stats. The run style splits for this time frame were as follows:

It’s a similar story to the 3 mile Chepstow run, but the front runners have achieved a better place record here, with a score of over 53%. There haven’t been that many qualifying races per year (about five to six), but keep an eye on the confirmed frontrunners as they race across this C&D. Those who led early had an even stronger lead on soft/heavy ground, as seen below:

From Sandown we head inland to Haydock.

#8 Hay dock 2m3f-2m5f

Haydock seemed to have ‘played around’ a bit, with the usual 2m4f journey occasionally adding or dropping a furlong. So I combined the results over a distance of two and a half miles on either side. Let me share the running style stats:

Once again there have not been a large number of races per year, but the frontrunners have been extremely strong during the study period. 11 of the 29 races were won from the front and that cohort also had an excellent placing record. Hold-up horses really struggled when it came to winning, although they did better from a placed perspective.

Haydock, like Sandown, has seen the forward bias become stronger on softer ground. On soft or heavy, run style win rates were as follows:

It should be noted that the sample size is only 17 races. The A/E indices correlate highly, as the chart below shows:

All in all, over 2m4f, Haydock has a strong preference for horses that race at the front.

#7 Carlisle 2m4f

We continue north for number seven as we then head to Carlisle. The run style splits were:

It could be argued that both Haydock and Sandown should be positioned higher in the list than Carlisle; but Carlisle’s overall sample size was larger and that was the deciding factor for me, along with an excellent A/E index of 1.57 and an excellent IV of 2.4. The figures for both measures were the highest of the four C&S shared to date, which is more than adequate.

Regarding the subsoil, we have again seen a strengthening of the preference for softer ground. I’ll share the profit strike rates and A/E indices again. First, the profit stats:

Clearly, as with the 2m4f runs at Sandown and Haydock, on soft or heavy terrain it was difficult to make up ground from further back. 21 of the 27 races were won by frontrunners (12 wins) or prominent racers (9). Hold-up horses had a win rate of less than 3% within their running style group, which is the lowest figure to date.

The A/E indices correlate positively with earnings SR%s, as we expected:

An ‘LED’ figure of 1.79 suggests tremendous value; not so for the 0.26 hold-up A/E index.

One final progressive statistic to share for this track-and-trip combination relates to the early leaders who were in the top three of the betting market. This collective won 16 races from 36 qualifying tournaments, for a winning percentage of over 44%.

This year, at the time of writing, there have only been four qualifying races at this C&D (all good conditions), and three of the four have been won from the front.

#6 Doncaster 2m3f to 2m4½f

On to Donny to close out the first half of my top ten. They have races over similar distances from 2m3f to 2m4½f, so all races within that distance band are included (2m4f for everyone on Geegeez Pace Analyser):

The leaders have won 20 of the 51 races and also have an excellent placing record. The ground is rarely tested at Doncaster, but on good to soft or softer the bias seems to become even stronger:

Under these conditions, 11 of the 25 races, representing 44% of all races, were won from the front.

Considering only favorites at Doncaster and their performance by run style, we saw the following win strike percentage distributions (I’ve again combined favorites whose run style was Mid Div or Held Up):

Early lead favorites have been much more successful than other running style groups.

And that rounds out the bottom half of my top ten. Next time it will be the top five, some even stronger biases than these! Until then…

– DR

Other recent posts from this author: