Open any newspaper or look at any racing web site on the internet and you will be flooded with horses, races, statistics, jockey names, trainer names, course stats, the going and a heck of a lot more. Even starting to try and filter the info into manageable chunks can seem quite daunting, in fact just where do you start?
As you may or may not know I am a firm believer that the place to find a large percentage of winners is at the head of the betting market, specifically the first four or five favourites.
The stats do not lie and when there is a consistent 75% to 80% of all winners coming from the first five in the betting then you just have to say it would be crazy to start looking elsewhere for your winners.
I also believe that there is enough racing to be able to concentrate on certain races, (specialisation is another of my favourite topics) and field sizes comes into this with races of between 7 and 12 runners being my personal preference as you have enough horses to be able to get a decent price.
Not too few to make the race possibly be a falsely run affair and not too many to make the task of picking the winner too tough.
If you look at the data below, you can see what percentage of each race, the first 5 horses gives us.
7 runners = 71.4%
8 runners = 62.5%
9 runners = 55.5%
10 runners = 50%
11 runners = 45.4%
12 runners = 41.6%
So for 7 to 10 runner races you have at least 50% of the runners and for the 11 and 12 runner races you still have over 40%. Bearing in mind we are going to find the winner from the first 5 in the betting around eight times out of ten, these stats confirm that you have a massive advantage or edge, simply looking no further than these five horses and by looking outside of these runners could be considered a waste of time.
In 2013 there were 6303 races with between 7 and 12 runners, meaning an average of 17 races per day, so as you can see that just by concentrating on these field sizes there are more than enough decent betting opportunities throughout the year.
Recent Results
I have just taken a look back at the last three days racing and the results bear out this strong pointer towards the first five in the betting when you concentrate on races of between 7 and 12 runners.
The lists below show the price of the winner and it’s place in the betting market, 1st equals Favourite, 2nd equals 2nd fav etc. up to 5th.
Monday 24th
3/1 2nd
16/1 5th
8/1 5th
3/1 2nd
12/1 XXX
11/4 2nd
7/2 2nd
9/4 2nd
5/1 3rd
4/1 3rd
1/3 1st
9/1 4th
50/1 XXX
9/2 3rd
11/1 XXX
13/8 1st
Sunday 25th
9/4 1st
6/1 4th
8/11 1st
7/1 3rd
11/4 2nd
5/1 3rd
4/1 2nd
Saturday 26th
7/2 2nd
3/1 1st
9/4 1st
5/2 2nd
Evens 1st
8/1 5th
11/10 1st
3/1 2nd
9/4 1st
9/2 3rd
2/1 1st
1/4 1st
8/1 5th
7/1 3rd
2/1 1st
9/2 2nd
7/1 4th
10/3 2nd
10/1 4th
15/2 4th
33/1 XXX
8/11 1st
12/1 XXX
7/4 1st
11/2 3rd
So from 48 races over three days, the winner of 43 of them came from the first five in the betting market, giving this small sample a 90% strike rate and for me more than enough proof that if you want to know where to start looking for the winner of winnable races (7 to 12 runners), you just have to concentrate on these five horses.
Looking at the winners too you will see some decent priced winners at 16/1, 10/1, 9/1, 8/1, 7/1 and more, so you do not have to compromise on price every time, with the average starting price being 4.3/1.
As I say this is a very, very small sample and some days will be better than others but it does give a good pointer I am sure you will agree.
The Next Step From Here
So if you want to narrow down a field then you know which horses to look at and in many cases you could back two or even three and still make a profit, however you don’t want to compromise too much on price as a couple of races without the winner will leave you a fair bit behind.
Clearly however, you are still going to have to make a selection from these five and this is down to you but it can also depend on what type of race you are looking at, Handicaps or Non handicaps for example.
In Non Handicap races you should concentrate on recent form, the better trainers and the class of the horse. In Handicaps races form can of course be important but also horses that are dropping down the weights close to or coming close to their last winning mark and stable confidence or gambles on horses that should not be one of the first five in the betting going on recent or overall form.
With 10 runners, 50% of winners come from first 5 in the betting and 50% from the second five. Clearly concentrating on the second five would be more profitable, given the bigger prices.
Also I am not sure that your stats support the view that the first five win more than would be expected in percentage terms. You say the first five give winners at 80% yet even with 7 runners it is only 71.4%!
Hi Tom, this is an overall view of all races between 7 and 12 runners and I say it is between 75% and 80% not just 80%. I agree I have just shown a very small sample of three days racing but this gave 90% from the first five in the betting.
There were 202 horses over these three days outside the first five in the betting and they produced only 5 winners. Despite two winners at 50/1 and 33/1, many horses outside the first five will only be 8/1, 9/1 or 10/1 and with a lower strike rate of success is not the place to look in my opinion.
This post is about finding a quick starting point to narrow down the field to where a huge number of winners come from. If you want to look at the outsiders that is great but I think you are more ‘hoping’ the horse will win or ‘guessing’ it will come back into form. Otherwise you need to be a competent form student which many people are not or do not have the time to be. You also need to accept you will have much longer losing runs which can be destructive to many and with Betfair, the market is so accurate now that I believe the first four or five in the betting will probably win even more in future.
Hello James I find your site very interesting. Was reading the first 5 in the betting forecast are over 75 per cent winners so is the any way of doing say a perm or plan in doing the 5 in the betting forecast in singles or each way doubles per race or combine two races together as I am a learner in horse racing as know of lucky 15 bets of 4 horses as this pay well if get good odds with 4 horses up even at small bets so hope you can help John.
Lucky 15 a very bad bet for punters as you have to do every horse with the same bookmaker best to stick to single bets go on oddschecker.com get best odds for each horse and make sure to use best odds guaranteed bookies only.
Not true if you bet online. Use the Oddschecker facility ( coupon) and you will find it automatically gives you the bookie offering the best accumulator price. If you use the best offering BOG then you are onto a good thing. I have won hundreds of pounds from Lucky 15s, 31s and 63s- 5p stakes.
Thanks for the heads up on the Oddschecker coupon Michael. I personally never knew about this and looking at the difference in some of the total payouts it could make a huge difference.
What about backing top weights at betfair sp or best odds on oddschecker website? Loss at sp but at better odds chance long term of five to ten per cent profit margin.
I tried this. Non handicaps, 7-12 runners, 2nd-5th faves in 1pt cross doubles with similar race (4×4=16 doubles). Then as back up, both faves in 4pt double. Faves have to be odds against or don’t play. Only loss is if only one fave wins or winner is outside first 5 in betting.
In July 2018 I did my own “survey” of the number/percentage of WINS for the first 3 Betfair SP favourites for ALL races irrespective TYPE – CLASS – No. RUNNERS etc.
The data does NOT indicate any profit-related information. What it MIGHT show is that the long held wisdom relating to the percentage of “favourites” winning races – 30% – is no longer true. The indicator here, albeit for only 1 month, is a winning percentage of 40% for favourites and 62% combined for 1st and 2nd favourites. Perhaps this is an indicator of “Market Efficiency”?
Total No. races = 1260
1st Fav Wins = 514 – 40.79%
2nd Fav Wins = 266 – 21.11%
3rd Fav Wins = 136 – 10.79%
1st and 2nd = 780 – 61.90%
1st/2nd/3rd = 916 – 72.70%
hi Ian. i would love your opinion on drifters i can not back a horse that drifts we say 6s to 10s on betfair or 2.5 to 3.5 in run of the mill hcps.unless they are the big prize money hcps i think it would be a great pointer with your top five in the betting i dont mind a big field hcp. and if something moves from 25s to 20s or less in the last few mins on betfair especially if the right trainers name is after the horses name i would love to see a list of trainers that are known for landing a touch when you think about it the for the smaller trainers its a better pay day to keep the show on the road than 3s to 6/4 im noticing a lot of womens names in that category latley thanks for what you do Paddy K.
Absolute rubbish. How on earth does only 50% of 7 to 10 runner races and and only 40% of 11 and 12 runner races miraculously give you 8 out of 10? 8 out of 10 winners is 80%?
claiming that over 70% of all winners come from the first five in the betting.
It’s a seductive headline — it suggests the market is all you need, and that if you simply stay near the top of it, you’ll land most winners.
But once you apply a bit of logic, the entire claim collapses. What looks like a statistic of value is nothing more than basic arithmetic.
1. Coverage isn’t accuracy
The article’s centrepiece is a table showing that in races with 7 to 12 runners, 71% to 42% of winners came from the first five in the betting.
At first glance, that looks like insight. In reality, it’s just the percentage of the field you’ve chosen.
If you pick five horses in a seven-runner race, you’ve automatically covered 71.4% of the field. The table matches those ratios exactly.
Field Size Horses Covered % of Field Claimed Strike Rate
7 5 71.4% 71.4%
8 5 62.5% 62.5%
9 5 55.6% 55.5%
10 5 50.0% 50.0%
11 5 45.5% 45.4%
12 5 41.7% 41.6%
Those numbers don’t show predictive skill. They simply show that if you pick most of the runners, you’ll “find” most of the winners.
It’s statistical sleight of hand dressed up as insight.
2. The sample size is meaningless
The author then cites a small three-day sample of 48 races where 43 winners came from the first five in the betting, calling it a 90% strike rate.
That’s not evidence — it’s noise. Another random week could show the opposite.
You can’t build logic on a handful of races cherry-picked from thousands.
3. The real question is “above expectation”
If we want to measure accuracy, the right question isn’t “how many winners came from the first five?”
It’s “how many more than chance should we expect, given field size?”
If the top five win 70% of twelve-runner races, that’s meaningful — because they only make up 42% of the field.
But the article never makes that comparison. It stops at raw counts, never testing whether the market actually outperforms randomness.
4. No context, no segmentation
Every race type is different.
Handicaps behave differently to maidens. Flat racing behaves differently to jumps.
To lump all codes, classes and distances into one headline number is meaningless. It creates a comforting narrative, not a credible metric.
5. False simplicity sells
This kind of claim always sounds good because it confirms what casual bettors want to hear: that the market knows best, and you just need to follow it.
But winners come from the top of the market because those horses are already most likely to win — that’s why they’re short.
You don’t gain an edge by following the obvious; you gain it by identifying when the obvious is wrong.
Conclusion
Yes, most winners come from near the head of the market. Everyone already knows that.
The question that matters is whether you can identify when the market has misjudged a horse’s chance.
If your statistic merely reflects the percentage of runners you’ve included, you haven’t uncovered an angle — you’ve uncovered arithmetic.
The “over 70%” claim isn’t insight; it’s illusion.
Real analysis isn’t about counting winners. It’s about understanding probability, suitability, and when the market’s confidence is misplaced.