SPELL

[garym]

hELLO, i'm new to the punting game and wondered if anybody could tell me just how long is a SPELL? Is it 2 months or 3 months or less??
thanks

[sportznut]

It depends on the form guide. It always used to be either 3 months or 12 weeks (84days), but now some form guides list a spell as less than that. I'm not totally sure, but I think they possibly use 8 weeks (56days). Might even be less than that. Does anyone else know?

[tomo]

I think any breaks of 60 days or more is a spell. Any breaks between 32 days (or as low as 27 days ) to 59 days is consider as a letup.

[Paddy]

I’d keep it simple & stick to 3 months or longer

[Chrome Prince]

Technically 45 days, but it depends on who you ask.

[Felicity]

hELLO, i'm new to the punting game and wondered if anybody could tell me just how long is a SPELL? Is it 2 months or 3 months or less??
thanks

AAP and most of the form guides use 85+ days.

[stugots]

AAP and most of the form guides use 85+ days.

yeh & this is of course decidedly deceiving.

[Felicity]

yeh & this is of course decidedly deceiving.

Yawn.

I’ve been on nights at DFAT for the past few months after my last little spat with the owners of this website.

It’s been fascinating to watch the “gurus” defending their positions in relation to racing statistics and their use. Poor old ‘thoroughbred’ who pointed out some very poor ideas that were on offer was trenchdug by Chadban who is (apparently) a supporter of poor statistical methodology.

You see the problem is that people tend to believe the written word.

A lot of it is sheer rubbish.

Let’s examine the statement (paraphrased) which was published in shiny covered book form and swallowed whole :-

“18% of 1200 metre races are won by horses which have had a 46+ day spell”

This gem of wisdom is based on a sample of 1300 races.

When one examines 303,347 1200 m. races then you find that ONLY 8.3% of races were won by horses with this characteristic and horses with a 46 day spell have a winning Relative Frequency of 0.87 (1993 – 2003).

It appears that the originator of the original statistics ignored 99.5% of the available races and he wrote to me that “As a matter of interest my statistics were done over a period of 10 years and not 10 years of manipulated computer analized data.”

I would venture to suggest that 10 years of properly analysed data exposes the less than accurate data and conclusions that was peddled as the truth.

The REAL statistics say that in 1200 metre races you need to look at horses with <= 24 days since last start.

xxxx
F.

[KennyVictor]

When one examines 303,347 1200 m. races then you find that ONLY 8.3% of races were won by horses with this characteristic and horses with a 46 day spell have a winning Relative Frequency of 0.87 (1993 – 2003).


Wow, that's one hell of an impressive database you have there. If it's got 300,000 1200m races in a ten year period how much of the world does it cover? I reckon there'd only be about that many races in total in Aussie in the last ten years. Tell me where a person goes to get such a database because I'm going right out to the bin to throw my sad little collection of Sportsman's away right now.

[beton]

Isn't human nature a complex thing. The moment disbelief strikes derogatory comments rise. Beton

[moeee]

I was going to say I don't believe you and then tell you things you didn't know!
Only jokin' ay!
But I tell you what Beton,that Felicity has got some really good reading material in the archives.
Like the starters in a race,they can't all win,but if they put in a good performance,well,what more can you ask for?

[beton]

I agree. I have read every post and found that Felicity gives quality in every post. A forum is a two way street Those that don't know should listen (read) and learn. Those that know give back the knowledge for others. In between those that already know and are open to learn more may pick up that little bit of knowledge that allows them to view things in a different manner.

To jump in and deride others does not help anyone least of all he who is sitting in trying to glean someone else's knowledge

Beton

[stugots]

as i have no idea what the previous few posts are about i will just clarify my "decidedly decieving" comment by stating that anyone that takes for granted a form guide which states a nag is back from a spell / back from a break / back from whatever based on the number of days it had it hoofs up is probably making a mistake.

is there an easy solution to avoid such mistakes? yes & i am sure i dont need to post the answer here.

[Chrome Prince]

Yawn.

I’ve been on nights at DFAT for the past few months after my last little spat with the owners of this website.



Well that's probably not in the right spirit to add something constructive for a start.



Let’s examine the statement (paraphrased) which was published in shiny covered book form and swallowed whole :-

“18% of 1200 metre races are won by horses which have had a 46+ day spell”

This gem of wisdom is based on a sample of 1300 races.

When one examines 303,347 1200 m. races then you find that ONLY 8.3% of races were won by horses with this characteristic and horses with a 46 day spell have a winning Relative Frequency of 0.87 (1993 – 2003).

It appears that the originator of the original statistics ignored 99.5% of the available races and he wrote to me that “As a matter of interest my statistics were done over a period of 10 years and not 10 years of manipulated computer analized data.”


But this in itself is mesleading depending on your point of view.

I would hazard to guess that the author included only metropolitan tracks and not the last at Wycheproof, which really bears no resemblance to the training methods of the elite and the "setting the horse for a first up win at Flemington" and the like.

This is why my database only contains current Metropolitan data but past provincial form.

Someone like a Lee Freedman or a Tony McEvoy, sets their horses on a campaign whether it be first up or third up and depending on the Prizemoney.

By contrast the lower echelon just try and win a race!

A spell can mean a miriad of things...

The horse is buggered and under intensive treatment for a long time.
The horse is out in the paddock with the sheep.
It's having a break but always under light work
etc etc.


The REAL statistics say that in 1200 metre races you need to look at horses with <= 24 days since last start.


It's the price you're able to get which is more important than the statistic.