If it was me i would be backing the ************ horse that ran first by 5 legths

If everything is exactly the same then the time would have to be the only judge you could work by, better time - better run. I would much rather my horse finish second then sixth though.

Yes, I stick by my diagnosis here given that all other hypothetical parameters are the same.
Your example of Doriemus is quite different, here we know the class of the races are different (different G1's are still different quality or class), we know the race time and we know how good M&P was, beaten by a quality horse, we do not have this info for the hypothetical race.

To make my point another way: back to my theoretical horse - our theoretical horse ended up winning because the intended winner was scratched, is his run still a length worse than his sixth beaten four in the same grade with the same weight the previous week???

No because now he won, a totally different ballgame because we have no info on beaten distance for the win. You cannot say if a horse was beaten 3 lengths second, that if the winner was scratched, the second horse would win; nobody really knows unless the distance between second and third is huge.

We are looking at lengths beaten, not lengths won by, apples and oranges.

But are not ratings basically an expression of how well a horse ran?

Say the horse wasn't a late scratching, but ran second beaten 5 lengths. Your ratings method then says, OK he went one length worse than the previous week. Then, the winner weighs in light. He would now rate 4 lengths better using that logic than he did the previous week. This is the stumbling point - surely he rated the same whether the jockeyweighed in light or not, because his run did not get any better, he just got promoted a position.

Can you see where I am going here? Essentially, I think ratings are an expression of how well a given horse ran on a given day. How can his run have gotten better by five lengths ten minutes after he completed it, b/c a jockey weighed in light? He ran how he ran surely, and the rating should be the same either way, and if this is true, him therefore winning in the same grade that he ran 6th beaten 4 lengths in the previous week cannot be a length worse.

I hope this all doesn't sound annoying or petty or whatever, I actually consider the ramifications of this to be very important in terms of ratings.

Duritz

The issue with attempting to make a judgment of this nature is the isolation of one single run and in racing, leaving aside early 2yo/3yo races, this is not normally the case. There are many factors to take into consideration such as distance, runs this preparation, going, pace, jockey etc, etc, and as this poser has been set you might as well ask how long is a piece of string.

Ummm 4 cms?

See I don't think ratings are like that. I think ratings are simple - they are an expression of how well a horse ran under the prevailing circumstances. I think the way a horse went is how it went, and there is only one answer for how a horse ran on a given day. It's like this: if I go out and run four kilometres this morning (I will be knackered) in about 25 minutes, then tomorrow run it in 24.50, I have gone ten seconds better. End of story. A horse goes out and runs one week, then runs somewhere else the following week. Either they were equal runs, or one of the two was better. I think there can only be one answer to how good or bad a run was, because there was only one run. The horse ran, express how it ran in ratings form.

So, when all is said and done:

Case A) a horse runs 6th one week beaten four lengths. The next week, same grade same weight, it wins. Initial thoughts are it went four lengths better.

Case B) a horse runs 6th one week beaten four lengths. The next week, same grade same weight, it runs second beaten five lengths. Initial thoughts are what?

Isn't it possible though, that the same horse could put in exactly the same run as in Case B and win the race? If the answer is yes (which of course it is) then how can he possibly rate any differently???? How can a horse do two runs exactly the same and get two different ratings, if ratings are an expression of how well it ran?

Duritz.

Actually, I have thought of a better way to put it!!! Think on this!!!!

Say you build a robot horse. This robot horse runs 1600m exactly the same every time. He expends the exact same amount of battery running exactly the same speed every single time he does it. Without fail.

So - RoboHorse does this run one week in a WFA listed race at Flemington with 57kgs, and wins by a short half head. The next week, in another WFA listed race carrying 57kgs again he does his same run and runs fourth beaten 2 lengths.

How would your ratings method rate my RoboHorse? And if your rating method would have him returning an inferior rating at his second one, isn't it coming up with the wrong ratings?

If the ratings method just said "The class figure for a listed wfa race at flemingon is 64 kgs, he carried 6 over the limit, so week one he rates 70, week two though he rates 67 due to the margin" then it is WRONG, because RoboHorse does the same rating every week.

This is what I am getting at - because surely if a fourth beaten 2 lengths can be the same rating as a win (as it can with RoboHorse) then surely a second beaten 5 can be better than a sixth beaten 4.

Duritz.

Duritz,

Yes I see what your saying, it's a damn confusing puzzle and has had me hitting my head against my desk. :eek:

Robohorse's non-win is not just as good because he was beaten by a better (faster) horse, however he will run the same time and win a race, so you have to rate him objectively.

If the ratings method just said "The class figure for a listed wfa race at flemingon is 64 kgs, he carried 6 over the limit, so week one he rates 70, week two though he rates 67 due to the margin" then it is WRONG, because RoboHorse does the same rating every week.

No some ratings are based on lengths beaten on the strength of the race and lengths beaten. You're still missing that he was beaten by better horse. I think you need to apply a base rating to a wfa at flemington BUT also adjust it for field strength so you get a more accurate rating. This is the key.
Your rating for the losing run should suffer, his run was not as good because he was beaten by a better horse, even though he would win 9/10 times etc.

I picked the 2nd horse.
Do I get a cigar Duritz?

If robo horse runs the same in each event then I would rate the second race 3 points higher and thus he would earn the same rating.