How to Follow Form Lines

[cyriljnr]

Question 1 - What is the best way to select a "form" race to follow - based on what criteria?
Question 2 - How long can a form line be followed?

[topsy99]

heard a point on form races last week.
where the expected favorite draws badly or for whatever reasons fails through an incident then the race may not be a form race. this would translate to where the expected horse wins it should be a form race.

[becareful]

Unless the whole field is showing up again in the same race the following week I reckon it is pretty much a load of c#$p dreamt up by racecallers! The usual argument seems to go that horse A beat horse B 2 weeks age - horse B then won a race so when horse A lines up for his race the "formline" says he will win. What about all the other runners lining up against A? What about the relative strengths of the various races? Distance changes? Weight changes? etc, etc, etc.

[Shaun]

I'm with you BC the only way to work out form is to see what the horses has done in the last couple of races and what class it did it in then you look at the class of todays race....you also have to consider weight and a few other things....sorry to the time ratings people...i don't use them....but then most of my races are 1600 up in my view it is the best type of race because your horse can have a bad start or get blocked in or what ever but if good enought can still win

[crash]

Systems aside Becareful, what would you recommend as an alternative to what is basicly a major part of handicapping ?

Throw darts ?

Cheers.

[osulldj]

To offer an alternative view point, form lines ARE one of the most important aspects in racing.

Identifying strong and weak form races is very helpful in doing the form in future events and finding runners you can have high confidence in to run either very well or worse than the market expects them to. Betting decisions depend on race conditions and the level of opposition being faced.

Runners out of good form races can be either good win bets, outstanding place bets if at nice odds, or excellent bankers in multiples.

My own approach to identifying strong races is centred on speed and pace ratings or to put it simply, the overall time relative to the first and last section. For example...a bunch of average horses can finish close up in 1200m race won in 70 seconds with a final section of 35 secs, but only a strong race will be won in 70 secs with a final section of 33.5secs. The final time is the same but the strength of the races are at opposite ends of the scale.

I personally compare the figures from each weeks races against others in my database from the last few years and get a feel for how the race ranks, relative to its own class and also relative to all classes. This historical benchmarking is a big edge in my punting.

Most strong form races I come across are ones that ranks a little better than the stated class. That doesn't mean I'm going to find 5 winners out of the race, but it means I can be confident that certain runners are likely to run very well in their next one or two runs. The opportunity to make money will depend on future race circumstances.

As an example... on 22/11/03 at Caulfield, race 3 was won by Bulbasaur and in my opinion the figures from that race stacked up as a a little better than the average open handicap. I expected the form out of the race to prove strong.

Since then...

5/12 Choreograph (2nd on 22/11 to Bulbasaur) came out and won by 5L at the MOV night meeting at a very generous $4.20 with up to $4.80 available.

13/12 Bulbasaur finished 2nd to Step Ahead at his next start. I expected him to win the race but Step Ahead is smart and was a shade too good. They ran blistering figures that day so Bulbasaur ran up to his form but found one better ont he day.

13/12 Don't Tell Tom (3rd on 22/11 behind BUlbasaur) ran 3rd in the race behind Step Ahead and Bulbasaur (again) at $8 and $2.10 the place.

13/12 Raja Lane (4th on 22/11) ran 2nd to Danrego at $10 in track record time. Again, I expected her to win and the price was sensational, she just found a very smart one better on the day.

18/12 Suit (well beaten 5th behind Bulbasaur on 22/11) came out and ran 3rd at $8 with 58kg's at his next start.

5/12 Little Dozer (beaten over 4L into 6th behind Bulbasaur) came out and ran 3rd at the MOV night meeting at over $10 on the tote.

20/12 Alqasar (beaten 4.6L into 7th behind Bulbasaur) came out and ran 1.1L 3rd in Open company at Flemington at $8

So from identifying one race as a little stronger than the typical Open Handicap the first 7 runners (down to 4.6L away from the winner) have all come out and run very well ..all of them at nice odds except Bulbasaur.

Another example that sticks in my mind purely from the profit that was made comes from June this year. On 14/6 there was a Gold Coast Maiden won by Velvet Mamma and the figures stacked up as especially strong for maiden class.

Out of that race...

Velvet Mama spelled but came back 1st up and ran 0.9L 3rd at 20/1

2nd horse Working Class Man won next start on 28/6 at $4.50 with similar strong figures which became a new race to follow.

3rd horse Squeel finished 2L behind Working Class Man in the race above (a new race to follow)

4th horse Aqua Dor (beaten 7.8L) finished 3rd at 25/1 next start.

Then following the race on 28/6 won by Working Class Man...

Working Class Man (1st on 28/6) came out and easily won next start at $6.50

Reality Check (2nd on 28/6) hasn't raced since

Aqua Dor (3rd on 28/6) ran 3rd in next start at $6.50 and won start after.

Squeel (4th on 28/6) easily won next start at $12

So personally I find the understanding of form lines to be both very important and immensely profitable. My own approach to benchmarking based on figures against events going back a couple of years is an ideal approach to identifying both strong and weak races. Its important that I validate my opinion as time goes on and adjust it if necessary. It also helps to have a good process and supporting tools to capture and monitor that information.

Merry xmas :smile:

[Chrome Prince]

Hi osulldj,

Twice in your post you said "but found one better on the day".

Isn't this the whole nuts and bolts of formline?

You got some nice winners and a string of placings from your time analysis, but a stronger horse beat two selections, when, if you'd done the time analysis on THOSE winners, you should have come up with the winner in the race.

I have to also discount the winners that won after a spell, you can't possibly attribute a time rating to today's race first up that was run over three months ago at the end of a preparation, surely?

My analysis of time rating has shown many flaws in using time - wind, rail position, position in running, weight variation, distance variation, different competitors, different track etc etc.

However, I agree that if you're selective about price and can see real value worth the risk, then you have something.

Analyse horses that break track records or win by over three lengths, and you'll see it equates to very poor value because of expectation of repeat performance.

Except for Champions, very few horses repeat their best run time wise, next time out.

Merry Christmas ans Happy New Year.

[becareful]

Crash,

I think you missed my point (or maybe I just didn't make it very clear).

I am not suggesting that form study is a bad thing - my point was that most people who I have heard talk about "formlines" generally DONT analyse the complete form for each horse in a race. Instead they tend to say things like "Well horses A and B raced each other two weeks ago and A beat B in that race. Earlier today B won its race and A is starting in the next race so A is a good bet"

Now as an astute form studier you would know that the above is total BS. Sure the results from the previous race are relevant but you must look at ALL the potential winners of the race and look at their form as well - simply saying that a horse in this race beat a different horse 2 weeks ago which then won its next race is totally meaningless by itself.

Hope that is a bit clearer. Merry Christmas!

[osulldj]

G'day Chrome,

There were no runners that won after a spell...one placed at 25/1 and I agree its not chased through from the previous form line.


You said...

"Twice in your post you said "but found one better on the day".
"Isn't this the whole nuts and bolts of formline?... if you'd done the time analysis on THOSE winners, you should have come up with the winner in the race."

Not really...do you expect that I pick the winner to every race? like I said...a strong race doesn't mean you have five winners at their next start...horses improve and decline and race circumstances are always different. Step Ahead was first up and on his best with form around Innovation Girl and Titanic Jack he was a super chance, it was a matter if he could produce it on the day and he did. Danrego isn't too shabby either and improved even further from her first up run to win that 2nd up race. It's plausible that they both won.

Formlines are about finding races where you expect good or weak form to follow through to future races. It's obviously impossible to say that horse A will win next start because its coming out of a strong race...especially when you don't even know the field it is coming up agains.

However, when the first 7 horses of one OPen Handicap race all come out and place at their next start, one of them winning by 5L..then I consider that a strong form line.

You also said...

"My analysis of time rating has shown many flaws in using time - wind, rail position, position in running, weight variation, distance variation, different competitors, different track etc etc."

That's your analysis...but my analysis earns me a handsome living and a big part of that is figure based formlines so it can't all be that bad.

Obviously there is more than one way to get the job done....no single one is right or wrong. There are people I know making a living from punting following ideas that I can't quite come into...but they get the job done with it..at the end of the day thats all that really matters.

[Chrome Prince]

Osulldj,

Apologies if I seemed to be canning your theories, I was pointing out that my research had pointed elsewhere.

If it works for you, then you've done one hell of a job!

It would be interesting to pit weight handicappers, time handicappers, class handicappers, and statistics against eachother! (and combinations thereof).

If we all came up with the same selection in two or three races per week, if the price was value - you'd think it would have a pretty good chance.

:wink:

[crash]

Hi Becareful,

Well I get your point now. I thought what you were saying was alluding to handicapping in general being a waste of time.

I have found incorporating the study of sectionals [last 600m] and overall times to 1600m with my handicapping has improved my winnings/reduced my loses. I have plenty of time and I find studying form, especially down by the lake on a sunny morning with the Sportsman and my black book, a most relaxing and enjoyable pursuit as my approach to this Sport of Kings for me anyway, has always been recreational.
Some years I am in profit others I am not.

I would hate to try and make a living from this game, but find the odd financial boosts I get as pleasant effort rewarded.

Cheers and have a good one too !!


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-12-24 17:32 ]</font>

[stebbo]

On 2003-12-24 17:27, crash wrote:

I have found incorporating the study of sectionals [last 600m] and overall times to 1600m with my handicapping has improved my winnings/reduced my loses.

Hi Crash,

could you please give me a brief rundown on how you go about this??? Sectionals is something that I've never really looked at... Are the sectional times available anywhere or do you need to work them out or what ????

Cheers,
Chris.

[crash]

Hi Stebbo,

Sectionals are available [the last 600m I am interested in] in town and overall times everywhere naturally. I'm looking at both and using these figures [and others] to look for form improvement that during a campaign points to when a future win is imminent. This for me anyway is easier to do than to write about as Osulldj has done so eloquently in describing formline.

As an example, I think my last tip here concerned the Traralgon Cup winner Just Cris who won the 1900m. race in 1.58.01. 2nd. was Sand Belt by a neck to Aggro 2.9 lth. 3rd. I will come back to Jus Cris a bit latter. Country Cup races is one area I do note the times to distances up to 2400m as I find them consistent and a great place to pick up city wins from the place getters at good odds.

When Sand Belt next appeared at MV with the top Jockey Noel Callow on board in a rather weak 2040m open Hcp. [again on a good track] the Traralgon time held up well and I pocketed a nice 6/1 profit on his win. Aggro's next start was last Sat. at Flemington on a dead track over 2550m. for a respectable 1.9 lth. 5th. A no bet. That race I believe was to reduce weight and improve odds as the distance was all wrong for him. His next start over 1900m. to 2040m on a good track should see a nice win at good odds [you read it here first !! ]. Look out for it.

Greg Eurell is a trainer I particularly like. He places his horses well and his efforts with Just Chris [had been suffering a lung infection prior to this campaign] was a good example, improving from a C3 at Cranbourne over 2025m in 2.07.22 carrying 56kg. to a Traralgon Cup Win in three starts. The 2040m. race 2nd.up at MV saw him beaten by only 1.5 lths for 5th. carrying 55kg. in an improved time of 2.07.30 with the last 600m. run in a respectable 36.53. His next start in the Cup with only 54kg. had my money all over him. Time was 1.58.01. Out to spell now I think. You can see by the times a horse on the improve to a good odds win.

Hope this has made some sense. With handicapping there is no correct way of doing things. Personal methods just develop over years without there being a 'formula'. Some punters are mostly formline handicappers but my niche is watching horse placement, trainers, times and weights. Formline is in there but for me not as prominently as it is for Osulldj.

This time of year I don't have as much free time and tend to pull out a couple of tried and tested systems to use until after the holidays. I don't back the selections blank but do a bit of general handicapping and if they stand up it's a bet. They are doing very well at the moment with two weeks of consistent profit but they don't produce the enjoyment that straight out handicapping does. It's the intellectual challenge of playing sleuth that's attractive.

Cheers and have a good Crissy.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: crash on 2003-12-25 07:44 ]</font>

[becareful]

Chris,

Cyberhorse form contains sectional times (as do most others) and also the position in running at various points - BUT this information is only available for metro tracks which in my mind limits its usefullness.

Can't really understand why they dont record the sectional time for all TAB meetings these days - the equipment required is relatively simple and given they send TV broadcast trucks to all the venues it should be a simple task to have the TV guys set the equipment up each day.

Anyway so far I have not found a useful way of incorporating times into my systems because of the difficulties with no times from some venues and comparing times between other venues (different track layouts, surfaces, etc). However I do store it in my database just in case I find a way to use it effectively one day!

Hope you are having a great day!

[woof43]

I think there's a few important questions that need to be asked when dealing with Time, they are How long is a Length? and How long is a race?
I personally use Time as the most important Variable.
To me, its not the distance of Todays race but the distance raced by each runner Life To Date(LTD).I use all a horses LTD formlines.
If you plot Track records by weight carried over each distance at the major tracks you can develop an accelrartion/deceleration matrix based on those Fixed Points, you'll then find the Slope/Intercept Standard, this will provide the first crosshair in pinpointing the Speed ability of each horse
The answer to the first question, in gryhound racing they assign .066 as the time for a length, but this is inacurate, think of a distance race the speed of the winner and the speed of a short sprint race winner as they cross the line, the time it takes to travel a length is different..
Cheers

[osulldj]

While on the topic of formlines, there has been another great recent example.

On 6/12 there was a maiden won by Debonair, which on figures shaped up as stronger than usual.

Out of that race...

2nd place Cathys Gold has won next start by 8L at 6/1

3rd place Troubadors Gem won next start by 3.8L at 6/4

4th place Debonair won the first at Newcastle today as favourite

5th place Incontro won next start by 3.3L at 11/4

6th and 7th place ran 2nd in separate races won by horses mentioned above.

The winner of the formline race Mediator is going around well up in class at Randwick today in race 7. Ironically she looks the one least likely to win due to the class rise but time will tell.

[crash]

Interestingly Osulladj, Bulbasaur is running today in R7 at Caufield. I have backed it in it's last 2 starts for a win and a 2nd. but I am hopping aboard Choreograph who I think may have the weight advantage today. With Danny Nickolic riding I am happy with the early 7/1 I obtained.

Cheers.

[osulldj]

Hi Crash,

$7 was a great price Choreograph given it started $4.40 fav. I didn't bet in the race but unfortunately Bulbasaur was just able to fend off what I'm sure would have been a great collect for you.

Interesting that the 3 formline horses mentioned previously ran the trifecta. There is no doubt that the form around their recent runs is quite strong. I should say though that they were all in the market so no genuis awards there. Cariboo was the lay in my view...he beat nothing here in Sydney and I don't know how he started close enough to favourite.

[Punter4211]

I think there's a few important questions that need to be asked when dealing with Time, they are How long is a Length? and How long is a race?
I personally use Time as the most important Variable.
To me, its not the distance of Todays race but the distance raced by each runner Life To Date(LTD).I use all a horses LTD formlines.
If you plot Track records by weight carried over each distance at the major tracks you can develop an accelrartion/deceleration matrix based on those Fixed Points, you'll then find the Slope/Intercept Standard, this will provide the first crosshair in pinpointing the Speed ability of each horse
The answer to the first question, in gryhound racing they assign .066 as the time for a length, but this is inacurate, think of a distance race the speed of the winner and the speed of a short sprint race winner as they cross the line, the time it takes to travel a length is different..
Cheers
Dear Woof43...

I am in pursuit of accurate info on speed ratings... What do you think of the information provided at sportscolour.com.au ? The technology they use should over come the length of a race problems and recently I read a funny article on how far is a length... It seems in Europe horses are 3 meters long, in the USA they shorten to 2.8 meters and in Oz we have the shortest at 2.75m.. I understand the rail markings at Randwick and Rosehill are 2.75m but at Canterbury horse gain a n extra .05m...

Without real facts it's all a bit up in the air..

Kind Regards

OzPunter...

Allways the student...

[woof43]

Hi Oz
I'm not sure that you understood what I meant regarding "How long is a Race" think about it that when the winner crosses the finishline the race is over.

You really don't want to know what each runner took to run the allotted distance, you need to find out how far they ran in the winning time and this this is the 2nd step.

The first step is you need to change the measure of each race, a good starting point is to multiply the race distance by the Track record, I'm not going to disclose everything but that should get you thinking.

Then you will progress to "how far is a length" the answer to that is located in the above two steps.

Cheers

[Punter4211]

Hi Oz
I'm not sure that you understood what I meant regarding "How long is a Race" think about it that when the winner crosses the finishline the race is over.

You really don't want to know what each runner took to run the allotted distance, you need to find out how far they ran in the winning time and this this is the 2nd step.

The first step is you need to change the measure of each race, a good starting point is to multiply the race distance by the Track record, I'm not going to disclose everything but that should get you thinking.

Then you will progress to "how far is a length" the answer to that is located in the above two steps.

CheersDear Woof43,

I have allocated many hours of grey matter processing time to the topic of sectional times and your clue when the winner crosses the finish line the race is over is a gem in itself (I already knew that but had overlooked the importance) as is the gem I gleaned from a comment made by Osulldj when he reminded me that at the start if "leaders" are at wide barriers where there is a short run to the first turn they may be disadvantaged by not being able to get accross to the rails if reasonable "On Pace" runners are drawn inside them. "Back" runners and slow starters will not be disadvantaged in this way...

There's still lots of thinking to be done but I know I'm getting closer... When I was talking about the length of a race I have observed that the ground staff don't always position the starting gates in the right place. Taking into account the false rail they could be 25m or so out... One day when I was at Randwick they started a race at the 2400M mark and I was at the rails to watch proceedings. The barriers were 3-4 m away from the rails and were not even at 90 degrees.. The attendants fiddled around with the tractor but had to stop when the first horses arrived.. The race started with the barriers in a "She'll be right, mate" type of position....

As much as we want to accurately define everything we still have to allow for the human factor...

With the sportscolours.com.au figures, the technology they use is similiar to the chips we used to tie into our shoelaces
when I was running... I understand how it all works and the sensors are embedded in the ground so their position is constant, it's just the start that moves about a little.

Still we can only process the figures we are given, so we have to make some assumpions and give some leeway. Like the length of a horse for example...

Kind Regards

OzPunter

[La Mer]

Dear Woof43,

I have allocated many hours of grey matter processing time to the topic of sectional times and your clue is a gem in itself (I already knew that but had overlooked the importance) as is the gem I gleaned from a comment made by Osulldj when he reminded me that at the start if "leaders" are at wide barriers where there is a short run to the first turn they may be disadvantaged by not being able to get accross to the rails if reasonable "On Pace" runners are drawn inside them. "Back" runners and slow starters will not be disadvantaged in this way... OzPunter

Ozpunter ... I would disagree with that quote of Woof43, "when the winner crosses the finish line the race is over". The race is only over for the winner and not necessarily for the placegetters.

In at least one race last Saturday, when the winner went over the line the horse that officially finished 3rd was actually in 2nd position with the horse that officially finished 2nd in 3rd position (not by much but it was certainly not in 2nd position at that stage of the race.

The scenario happens on a regular basis where one horse is slowing considerably and another running is finishing on strongly (or appearing to finish strongly).

The other factor which you might not have considered is the affect of weight on racetime.

Don Scott used as a standard the conversion of 1.5kgs (3lbs) to equalling one length, which in turn would equal 0.167 of a second. UK racing professional Nick Mordin believe that the adjustment should be variable dependent on the distance of the race.

I use a variable measurement in my own calculations, as follows:

=((B*2.75)+(W)*(D/2.75))

where B = Beaten Margin; W = Weight Carried; D = Distance of the race; 2.75 which equals one length in metres.

Care should be used when considering weight in this manner, as each horse as its upper and lower limits. That is, once a horse reaches a certain point, its weight carrying ability will be impaired and the more weight it carries above this weight the more the impairment. A good rule of thumb guide is to use the maximum weight a horse has carried to victory (or within one length in races of 1400m or less, two lengths in races at 2000m or less or three lengths in races above 2000m).

Probably more importantly, less weight will definitely not make a horse run faster, as horses have varying degrees of ability and each has its own maximum speed and while more weight will impair its ability to run at that maximum speed, less weight at the very best will only ever allow it to run up to its own maximum speed.

In one of his books, Mordin reveals the results of research he did into the effects of weight, the results of which clearly indicate that it is an overrated factor.

He disclosed four factors in regard to weight:
* Horses carrying a greater weight will be slowed down more than what less weight will speed a horse up;
* Once a horse has dropped down in weight to a certain point, then any further weight reduction will not make it run any faster than what it is capable of doing;
* Horses of a higher class generally weigh more then those of a lower class; and
* Weight affects lower class horses to a greater degree than those of a higher class.

Research carried out in the US would indicate that once the 'average' horse is weighted below 52kgs then additional weight off its back will be of little importance, while once a horse reaches 53.5kgs or more, weight will start to slow a horse down.

Mordin's research disclosed that weight required to slow a horse down by a length is dependent on the distance of the race according to the following scale:
* 1000m - 1.75kgs
* 1200m - 1.5kgs
* 1400m - 1.25kgs
* 1600m - 1kg
* 2000m - 0.8kg
* 2400m - 0.65kg
* 3200m - 0.5kg

However, Mordin also quite correctly states, "It has always been true that the higher the weight a horse is being set to carry in a handicap race, the more likely it is to win."

Another factor is one that Daniel O'Sullivan alluded to and that is the affact of wide running. Horses running wide will cover more ground, thus using more energy. However those running wide when the pace is 'on' will use a greater level of energy than those running wide when the pace is 'off' and wide running is only of real importance around the turns and no so much when running down the straight.

[jfc]

Can anyone point to official documentation that a length=2.75m?

Using a tape measure I concluded it was 3m.

However from this data it seems to be 2.5m for Race 1.

http://www.stc.com.au/racing/history/2005/racingresults1.asp?file=/racing/history/2005/r050502c.htm

http://www.stc.com.au/racing/SectionalTimes.asp?date=050502

Feel free to dispute this.


Also, La Mer, thank you for your attempts to introduce some sanity on Friday night.

[jfc]

However, Mordin also quite correctly states, "It has always been true that the higher the weight a horse is being set to carry in a handicap race, the more likely it is to win."



Not quite correct.

It is in the handicapper's interest to err on the side of leniency when weighting better runners.

That can easily be seen where in handicaps TAB# n outperforms n+(1..23) in terms of fair share of wins.

However ability at the distance and fitness presumably are not factors in the handicapping equation.

After Makybe Diva's 2003 Melbourne Cup win, she resumed as a 59.5 kg topweight at 16/1 in an unsuitable 8 runner 1400m race, to finish 5th by 10 lengths.

[Punter4211]

Ozpunter ... I would disagree with that quote of Woof43, "when the winner crosses the finish line the race is over". The race is only over for the winner and not necessarily for the placegetters.

In at least one race last Saturday, when the winner went over the line the horse that officially finished 3rd was actually in 2nd position with the horse that officially finished 2nd in 3rd position (not by much but it was certainly not in 2nd position at that stage of the race.

The scenario happens on a regular basis where one horse is slowing considerably and another running is finishing on strongly (or appearing to finish strongly).

The other factor which you might not have considered is the affect of weight on racetime.

Don Scott used as a standard the conversion of 1.5kgs (3lbs) to equalling one length, which in turn would equal 0.167 of a second. UK racing professional Nick Mordin believe that the adjustment should be variable dependent on the distance of the race.

I use a variable measurement in my own calculations, as follows:

=((B*2.75)+(W)*(D/2.75))

where B = Beaten Margin; W = Weight Carried; D = Distance of the race; 2.75 which equals one length in metres.

Care should be used when considering weight in this manner, as each horse as its upper and lower limits. That is, once a horse reaches a certain point, its weight carrying ability will be impaired and the more weight it carries above this weight the more the impairment. A good rule of thumb guide is to use the maximum weight a horse has carried to victory (or within one length in races of 1400m or less, two lengths in races at 2000m or less or three lengths in races above 2000m).

Probably more importantly, less weight will definitely not make a horse run faster, as horses have varying degrees of ability and each has its own maximum speed and while more weight will impair its ability to run at that maximum speed, less weight at the very best will only ever allow it to run up to its own maximum speed.

In one of his books, Mordin reveals the results of research he did into the effects of weight, the results of which clearly indicate that it is an overrated factor.

He disclosed four factors in regard to weight:
* Horses carrying a greater weight will be slowed down more than what less weight will speed a horse up;
* Once a horse has dropped down in weight to a certain point, then any further weight reduction will not make it run any faster than what it is capable of doing;
* Horses of a higher class generally weigh more then those of a lower class; and
* Weight affects lower class horses to a greater degree than those of a higher class.

Research carried out in the US would indicate that once the 'average' horse is weighted below 52kgs then additional weight off its back will be of little importance, while once a horse reaches 53.5kgs or more, weight will start to slow a horse down.

Mordin's research disclosed that weight required to slow a horse down by a length is dependent on the distance of the race according to the following scale:
* 1000m - 1.75kgs
* 1200m - 1.5kgs
* 1400m - 1.25kgs
* 1600m - 1kg
* 2000m - 0.8kg
* 2400m - 0.65kg
* 3200m - 0.5kg

However, Mordin also quite correctly states, "It has always been true that the higher the weight a horse is being set to carry in a handicap race, the more likely it is to win."

Another factor is one that Daniel O'Sullivan alluded to and that is the affact of wide running. Horses running wide will cover more ground, thus using more energy. However those running wide when the pace is 'on' will use a greater level of energy than those running wide when the pace is 'off' and wide running is only of real importance around the turns and no so much when running down the straight.
Thank You La Mer,

I have always worked on 1.5ks being 1 length but looking at your scale I may have stumbled into the same result... Most of my success comes from races under 1400m and in particular 1200m.. Coincidentally 1200m on your scale is 1.5 kg... Perhaps my honing of my scope of races in pursuit of better results has led me back to the same common ground?

1200m is where I get the best results, perhaps the fact that I use 1.5 kg per length is the reason.....

I'm a bit reluctant to change, given that I'm getting good results now so I have more research to do. I remember Don Scott was adamant that 1.5 kg should be used and so I've taken this figure as gospel and been a bit blind to other suggestions.

I shall create another field in my database and calculate ratings based on both figures so I can compare results over time.

P.S. I got an automated rap over the knuckles from Neil's server for mentioning that web site where sectionals can be found, opps... sorry Neil... They can also be found at the club sites STC & AJC but I've written my program around decoding the data in the format used by the www.unmeantionable.com.au (http://www.unmeantionable.com.au) site....

Thank you La Mer, (that's French for The Sea, right?) and thank you to all who have helped me in my quest for reliable info..


Kind Regards
OzPunter

[Punter4211]

Not quite correct.

It is in the handicapper's interest to err on the side of leniency when weighting better runners.

That can easily be seen where in handicaps TAB# n outperforms n+(1..23) in terms of fair share of wins.

However ability at the distance and fitness presumably are not factors in the handicapping equation.

After Makybe Diva's 2003 Melbourne Cup win, she resumed as a 59.5 kg topweight at 16/1 in an unsuitable 8 runner 1400m race, to finish 5th by 10 lengths.
Dear jfc,

As I understand it, and it was explained to me by someone who should know, handicappers are restricted by a scale of weights approved by the ruling body so they may err on the side of leniency but are restricted in what they can do.. The process, as I understand it, is to allocate weights according to this scale then compress them to fit racing rules. Given that they have to work to .5kg increments it's hard for them to truly allocate weights according to performance. Also they can only allocate weight on DISPLAYED performance and not on expected improvement or decline.

Thank you for your comments on my previous posts, all information is greatly
appreciated....


Regards
Oz Punter

[Punter4211]

Can anyone point to official documentation that a length=2.75m?

Using a tape measure I concluded it was 3m.

However from this data it seems to be 2.5m for Race 1.

http://www.stc.com.au/racing/history/2005/racingresults1.asp?file=/racing/history/2005/r050502c.htm

http://www.stc.com.au/racing/SectionalTimes.asp?date=050502

Feel free to dispute this.


Also, La Mer, thank you for your attempts to introduce some sanity on Friday night.
Dear jfc,

Can I ask what it was you measured with your tape? Was it the markings on the rails near the finish line, or a horse, or a photo of the finish like those in your links above?

The humans allocating the results use the rail markings as a guide I'm sure, but as La Mer correctly points out, they don't always get it right


I've got my head stuck into the "Rules of Racing Manual", I'll let you know what I find.


Kind Regards

OzPunter

[Punter4211]

Ozpunter ... I would disagree with that quote of Woof43, "when the winner crosses the finish line the race is over". The race is only over for the winner and not necessarily for the placegetters.

In at least one race last Saturday, when the winner went over the line the horse that officially finished 3rd was actually in 2nd position with the horse that officially finished 2nd in 3rd position (not by much but it was certainly not in 2nd position at that stage of the race.

The scenario happens on a regular basis where one horse is slowing considerably and another running is finishing on strongly (or appearing to finish strongly).

The other factor which you might not have considered is the affect of weight on racetime.

Don Scott used as a standard the conversion of 1.5kgs (3lbs) to equalling one length, which in turn would equal 0.167 of a second. UK racing professional Nick Mordin believe that the adjustment should be variable dependent on the distance of the race.

I use a variable measurement in my own calculations, as follows:

=((B*2.75)+(W)*(D/2.75))

where B = Beaten Margin; W = Weight Carried; D = Distance of the race; 2.75 which equals one length in metres.

Care should be used when considering weight in this manner, as each horse as its upper and lower limits. That is, once a horse reaches a certain point, its weight carrying ability will be impaired and the more weight it carries above this weight the more the impairment. A good rule of thumb guide is to use the maximum weight a horse has carried to victory (or within one length in races of 1400m or less, two lengths in races at 2000m or less or three lengths in races above 2000m).

Probably more importantly, less weight will definitely not make a horse run faster, as horses have varying degrees of ability and each has its own maximum speed and while more weight will impair its ability to run at that maximum speed, less weight at the very best will only ever allow it to run up to its own maximum speed.

In one of his books, Mordin reveals the results of research he did into the effects of weight, the results of which clearly indicate that it is an overrated factor.

He disclosed four factors in regard to weight:
* Horses carrying a greater weight will be slowed down more than what less weight will speed a horse up;
* Once a horse has dropped down in weight to a certain point, then any further weight reduction will not make it run any faster than what it is capable of doing;
* Horses of a higher class generally weigh more then those of a lower class; and
* Weight affects lower class horses to a greater degree than those of a higher class.

Research carried out in the US would indicate that once the 'average' horse is weighted below 52kgs then additional weight off its back will be of little importance, while once a horse reaches 53.5kgs or more, weight will start to slow a horse down.

Mordin's research disclosed that weight required to slow a horse down by a length is dependent on the distance of the race according to the following scale:
* 1000m - 1.75kgs
* 1200m - 1.5kgs
* 1400m - 1.25kgs
* 1600m - 1kg
* 2000m - 0.8kg
* 2400m - 0.65kg
* 3200m - 0.5kg

However, Mordin also quite correctly states, "It has always been true that the higher the weight a horse is being set to carry in a handicap race, the more likely it is to win."

Another factor is one that Daniel O'Sullivan alluded to and that is the affact of wide running. Horses running wide will cover more ground, thus using more energy. However those running wide when the pace is 'on' will use a greater level of energy than those running wide when the pace is 'off' and wide running is only of real importance around the turns and no so much when running down the straight.
Dear La Mer and others,

From the Rules of Racing I quote;

Australian Rules of Racing
amended 1st March 2005

AR. 154. Placings in a race shall be decided only by the Judge,
occupying the Judge's Box at the time when the horses
passed the winning post

AR. 155. A camera may be used to make photographs or images
of the horses at the finish to assist the Judge in
determining their positions as exclusively indicated by their noses.
I hope I haven't infringed a copyright with that but it is public info available on the web.

Good Night all, catch you again soon.

Kind Regards

OzPunter

[jfc]

Can I ask what it was you measured with your tape? Was it the markings on the rails near the finish line, or a horse, or a photo of the finish like those in your links above?

The humans allocating the results use the rail markings as a guide I'm sure, but as La Mer correctly points out, they don't always get it right





Fed up with trying to find a proper definition for length I trespassed onto a racetrack and measured the markings on the finish line rails.

Ken Callender once waffled on about how meticulous the false rail track re-measurement is, so I figure that it's relatively easy to get the length markings right.

Given that the metric system is relatively recent, maybe that marking was really 10 feet instead of 3 metres (which is only 9.84 feet).

[La Mer]

Fed up with trying to find a proper definition for length I trespassed onto a racetrack and measured the markings on the finish line rails.

Ken Callender once waffled on about how meticulous the false rail track re-measurement is, so I figure that it's relatively easy to get the length markings right.

Given that the metric system is relatively recent, maybe that marking was really 10 feet instead of 3 metres (which is only 9.84 feet).

JFC, as I mentioned I use 2.75m as a standard measurement of a horse, but
according to the US Horserace Breeders Association it is 2.74m.

Mordin and others state that approx 6 lengths equals one second, which equates to a horse length of approx 2.75m. If horses were 3m in length then that only equates to 5.5 lengths per second, which I don't think is right at all.

[Punter4211]

Fed up with trying to find a proper definition for length I trespassed onto a racetrack and measured the markings on the finish line rails.

Ken Callender once waffled on about how meticulous the false rail track re-measurement is, so I figure that it's relatively easy to get the length markings right.

Given that the metric system is relatively recent, maybe that marking was really 10 feet instead of 3 metres (which is only 9.84 feet).Good Morning jfc,

Ok, lets all agree that 2.75m is sufficient rule of thumb measurement of a length. When I was talking about the false rail, I meant the distance of the race from start to finish.. When the false rail is out 4-5 meters, the start is still effected in the same place, but the actual distance travelled varies. If you have a fixed start and a fixed finish, but vary the radius of the arc you must get a different circumferance.

I think you're talking about the length markings on the rails at the finish that aid the camera. Surely thay get those right....

Tis amazing that the "academics" of the punting profession have to resort to trespassing to find out truly accurate information, makes you feel for the "mugs" that are fed a constant stream of poppycock, doesn't it?

Have a nice day,

OzPunter