Flat sires whose strike rate is...

Dunno but on chit chat it's normally the fault of guardian readers or immigrants

Smaller fields in Group races? Just a small pool of the same stallions competing against each other.

Also, the progeny of top stallions which end up in handicaps and sellers are inevitably the poorer ones. Otherwise they wouldn't be running in those races.

Yes, that could be it.

I'll have to look a little closer though - the stallions in question usually aren't usually aren't the top ones.

Don't forget, some sires will have excellent strike rates in Group races but even better in non.

Hmm. Well, if we're talking second-division stallions, then only their most outstanding foals are going to run in Group races. With the most expensive stallions, on the other hand, their progeny have to be targeted at Group races, even if they're not good enough. No other way of getting the money back. The initial cost of a horse has a huge bearing on how its campaigned and its chances of finding a race it can win.

As an example, at a much lower level, the only racehorse I've ever owned was by a stallion called Greensmith, who was standing at a fee of £500 at the time my foal was conceived (I bought her out of a field for £3,000 as a yearling). She raced on the Flat, and won three sellers and a handicap from ten starts, mainly because I was able to run her in those bad races, being so cheap. She never had a handicap mark higher than 60.

At the same time, the same stable had a Greensmith colt of the same age who had been bought for 17,000 gns in the sales ring. That one ran unplaced in three maidens, and was given a handicap mark of 71. It was punted down to favourite for its nursery debut, and finished unplaced. The only race it ever won was a juvenile claiming hurdle, for which AP McCoy got a whip ban.

The differing race records and strike rates were really all down to the differing costs of the two horses.

Interesting. Thank you.

I respect your views and experience so just playing devil's advocate... I doubt many horses make money for their owners especially after taking into account training fees and other expenses.

If someone pays big money for horse and it turns out to be a relative dud, wouldn't they rather see it win a race or two at a lower level than go for a Group race?

I think it depends on the mentality of the owner.  Some may prefer a day out watching their horse run in a prestigious event even if it has no chance.

Do you have any specific examples ?

I monitor around 100 sires. Of these, there are about 12 whose s/r is better in Group races than overall (ie incl Group races).

This doesn't include those sires who have had fewer than 30 runs.

I don't have the stats for all races below Group level but if you compared Group to non-Group, there would be a few more.

Examples:

Bated Breath
Lawman
Mastercraftsman
Paco Boy

Don't mention Paco Bloody Boy to me

I got a "hot tip", allegedly straight from the stable, for his tilt at the Dubai Duty Free.
Slow out of the gate, I could have walked from Dubai to Abu Dhabi and back again before he made it to the finish line

Much smaller samples in the pattern races stats

Bated breath had a good year with the group races last year was previously 1-30 but this went to 8-53 last year.

259-2109 in non major races

Paco Boy 11-55 in pattern races if you take out the best 2 horses in terms of multiple wins (Beat The Bank 6-14 & Galileo Gold 3-7) you get  2-34 in these races.

The sample for non major races again of course much bigger 214-2295

not surprising this sort of thing occurs when the small samples can be skewed so easily