Traded at 1.50 In-Running: Won, Placed or Out of the Frame?
When a horse hits 1.50 in-running, it usually wins. When it doesn't, it usually still places. I go through the branches, the prices and where the edge does not exist.
When a horse trades at 1.10, 1.50 or 2.00 in-running, how often does it go on to win, how often is it beaten but still places, and how often does it miss the frame altogether?
- A67.8%won after trading at 1.50 or shorter
- B81.7%of those beaten from 1.50 still placed
- C0.7%unplaced after trading at 1.10 or shorter
- D51.6%won after trading at 2.00 or shorter
Every racing fan has watched a horse trade odds-on in the straight and then get swallowed up late. I wanted to know how often that really happens, and how often it is a disaster rather than a near miss. This study covers 127,826 flat races with a place market in Australia and New Zealand, and it tracks runners by the shortest price they were matched at during the race.
The headline answer is plain. Of 182,025 runners that traded at 1.50 or shorter, 67.8% won, 26.3% were beaten but placed and only 5.9% finished out of the frame. That matters for anyone who reads the form on my today's racing tips page and thinks in each-way terms. A short in-running price is a strong signal for the place, and a slightly weaker one for the win.
Branch AShort in-running prices rarely end out of the frame
This chart splits runners into three branches at each price threshold: won, beaten but placed, and unplaced. At 1.10 or shorter the picture is almost all green. Those runners won 91.1%, placed without winning 8.2% and missed the frame just 0.7% of the time, across 127,452 runners.
Move out to 2.00 or shorter and the win share falls to 51.6%, with 34.3% placing and 14.1% unplaced. The unplaced slice grows faster than the placed slice as the price lengthens, which fits the races I study. A horse at evens in-running is often still in the pack with work to do.
Races with a place market only.
View the data: traded short in-running: won, placed or unplaced
| Won | Beaten but placed | Unplaced | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.05 or shorter | 94.5% | 5.1% | 0.4% |
| 1.10 or shorter | 91.1% | 8.2% | 0.7% |
| 1.20 or shorter | 83.2% | 14.9% | 1.9% |
| 1.30 or shorter | 77.2% | 19.8% | 3.0% |
| 1.50 or shorter | 67.8% | 26.3% | 5.9% |
| 2.00 or shorter | 51.6% | 34.3% | 14.1% |
| 3.00 or shorter | 36.9% | 36.6% | 26.5% |
The figure I keep coming back to is this one. Of the 58,662 runners beaten after trading at 1.50 or shorter, 81.7% still placed. For beaten runners from 2.00 or shorter it was 70.8%, and from 3.00 or shorter 58.0%. A horse that gets that short is nearly always in the finish, and that is the case for the place bet.
Branch BIn-running prices match the win rate almost exactly
Here each row sets the chance implied by the in-running price against how often those runners actually won. At the short end the two dots almost sit on top of each other. A price of 1.20 implies 83.3%, and runners that traded there won 83.2% (ยฑ0.2 points). That is a well-calibrated market.
At 1.50 the implied figure is 66.7% against 67.8% won, and at 3.00 it is 33.3% against 36.9% across 342,184 runners. The gap widens at the longer prices. I would not read that as the market being slow, for reasons I explain in the last section.
Implied = 1 รท the in-running price. 95% ranges shown.
View the data: the in-running price vs how often it won
| Implied by price | Won | 95% range | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.05 or shorter (119,079 runners) | 95.2% | 94.5% | ยฑ0.1 |
| 1.10 or shorter (127,452 runners) | 90.9% | 91.1% | ยฑ0.2 |
| 1.20 or shorter (143,844 runners) | 83.3% | 83.2% | ยฑ0.2 |
| 1.30 or shorter (157,506 runners) | 76.9% | 77.2% | ยฑ0.2 |
| 1.50 or shorter (182,025 runners) | 66.7% | 67.8% | ยฑ0.2 |
| 2.00 or shorter (242,668 runners) | 50.0% | 51.6% | ยฑ0.2 |
| 3.00 or shorter (342,184 runners) | 33.3% | 36.9% | ยฑ0.2 |
Branch CStarting price barely changes the in-running conversion rate
This heatmap asks whether a well-backed favourite converts better than an outsider once both are trading at the same in-running price. The answer is only slightly. From 1.50 or shorter, runners under 3.00 at the off won 68.9%, while runners at 21.00+ won 66.4% across 14,992 runners. From 1.20 or shorter, the 3.00-5.99 group won 83.3% and the 21.00+ group 82.2%.
Be clear about what this comparison means. Once a horse is trading at 1.50 in the race, its starting price is history and can no longer be bet. The useful lesson is that the pre-race price adds little once the race is unfolding. For the record, the median starting price of runners that traded at 1.50 or shorter was 5.30.
Rows = starting price. Runners under 3.00 at the off can reach 2.00 simply by jumping well.
View the data: converted to a win, by the pre-race price
| โค1.10 | โค1.20 | โค1.50 | โค2.00 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Under 3.00 | 91.7% | 84.5% | 68.9% | 53.7% |
| 3.00-5.99 | 91.1% | 83.3% | 67.9% | 51.9% |
| 6.00-10.99 | 90.9% | 82.7% | 67.4% | 50.8% |
| 11.00-20.99 | 91.0% | 82.5% | 67.3% | 50.8% |
| 21.00+ | 90.6% | 82.2% | 66.4% | 48.5% |
The widest spread is at 2.00 or shorter, where runners under 3.00 won 53.7% and runners at 11.00-20.99 won 50.8%. As the chart note says, a short-priced favourite can reach 2.00 just by jumping well. A longshot usually has to be travelling strongly to get there.
Branch DBacking at the exact price shows no reliable edge
This last chart is hypothetical. It assumes you backed every runner at exactly the in-running price whenever it traded there, after commission. At 1.50 the return was 0.0%, at 1.10 โ0.2%, and at 3.00 it jumps to +6.9%.
That +6.9% is the trap. Every winner counts at every price, because it trades down to the minimum, while a loser only counts if a bet was actually matched there. In-running highs and lows are also only known after the race, and fast markets rarely fill you at exactly the number. All of that flatters the longer prices, so I treat the short end, which sits close to zero, as the honest reading.
Hypothetical: assumes a fill at exactly the price for every runner that traded there.
View the data: backing at exactly that in-running price
| Back at the price | |
|---|---|
| 1.05 or shorter | โ1.0% |
| 1.10 or shorter | โ0.2% |
| 1.20 or shorter | โ0.9% |
| 1.30 or shorter | โ0.9% |
| 1.50 or shorter | 0.0% |
| 2.00 or shorter | +0.5% |
| 3.00 or shorter | +6.9% |
If this happensโฆ
A runner that traded at 1.50 or shorter and was beaten still placed 81.7% of the time. If you hold a place bet on a horse that has been that short in-running, it is rarely dead.
From 1.50 or shorter, outsiders at 21.00+ won 66.4% against 68.9% for favourites under 3.00. Judge the race in front of you, not the pre-race market.
The +6.9% at 3.00 comes from how the prices are counted, not from a real edge. At 1.10 and 1.50 the returns sit at โ0.2% and 0.0%, which is what a fair market looks like.
Questions bettors ask
How often does a horse trading at 1.50 in-running win?
In this study of flat races, 67.8% of runners that traded at 1.50 or shorter went on to win. The price implies 66.7%, so the market was close to fair.
Do horses that trade at 1.10 in-running ever lose?
Yes, but rarely badly. Runners at 1.10 or shorter won 91.1%, were beaten but placed 8.2% and finished unplaced just 0.7% of the time.
Is backing horses in-running at short prices profitable?
Not on this evidence. Backing at exactly 1.50 every time it traded returned 0.0% after commission, and at 1.10 it returned โ0.2%, assuming every bet was matched at the price.
I'm Mei Chen, based in Beijing, and I write the horse racing tips at cricketscoretips.com โ reading form, going and pace rather than chasing the name at the top of the market.
View profile โ
