Facts

1. Winners carrying 59kgs or more in flat races in Australia represent a small percentage of total winners.
2. Most winners rose less than 3kgs from their last start.
3. If you look at the winners who carried 59kgs or more, or rose by > 3kg they are usually quality horses or are far superior to their opposition.

If anyone has any comments, please stick to the facts, rather than opinions or here say which is not supported by reliable statistical data.

[ This Message was edited by: Facts only on 2002-07-03 16:47 ]

Well if you were sticking to facts, you wouldn't need to use words like "most" and "small percentage".

Just my opinion (oops, not supposed to give those).

Placegetter

They are facts, oops. I forgot here say and hollow opinions seem to be the order of the day.

I haven't given exact %, because I choose to keep them to myself.

Only those privilaged enough receive more precise data.

Saying the sun rises in the east and sets in the west is still a fact, without producing % on it. Common sense should prevail, however the problem is that common sense is not very common.

Must be a run-on at Births, Deaths & Marriages.....the form is the pink one -Change Of Name!

How can you possibly be this negative after only four posts? We have tried really hard lately to tone down the negativity. Let's start again.

Hi Facts Only, nice name, welcome to the forum. We hope we are privileged enough to learn your special systems and methods over time.

Placegetter

TAB No1 wins more races than any other TAB no.

Horses weighing 59kg are 'most often' TAB No 1. ( Unless a picnic race or steeples or hurdles etc)

A rise in weight is a penalty to even the horses chances of winning.

What is class? I have always wondered that, like people who try to tell me the flavour of an orange.


[ This Message was edited by: Fryingpan on 2002-07-03 19:08 ]

Fryingpan, my interpretation of class is this...

Class is the ability to perform at a higher level consistantly. For example, there are days where some people can hit a round of golf at better scores than the pros. However, Tiger Woods will hit those scores consistantly over many circuits during the year.

Golf is different to racing but the same principles apply.

[quote]
On 2002-07-03 19:06, Fryingpan wrote:
"TAB No1 wins more races than any other TAB no."

This is true. However, the majority of times when No 1 wins, it's carrying less than 59kg, even if you only looked at handicap races.

In some handicap races the topweight is carrying only 56kgs, while the minimum is 52kg providing a condensed field.

Here are some stats taken from hundreds of races across 3 states, excluding hurdles and WFA races. Sat Metro only

52-58.5kgs = 91% of winners
59kg+ = 5% of winners
Less than 52kgs = 4% of winners

In regards to the winners which carried 59kgs or more, all but one was ranked 1st by $$$ per race which contradicts the following statement made earlier:

"You assume that the amount of prizemoney a horse has won directly links to the ability of a horse to carry weight. No relationship whatsoever!" (Equine Investor)

In future please stick to facts, not opinions, not here say or myths.

Words without facts to back them up are hollow and almost meaningless.

WRONG AGAIN!

Of course the horse with the top $$$ carried the top weight, I think everyone accepts that the topweight is topweight because the handicapper has assessed it to be.

Where you are wrong is relating that to a horse's ABILITY to carry that weight.
Both mutually exclusive equations. Obviously with only 5% of winners you just proved my statement correct -thankyou.

Rosehill
Horse	Weight	SP Odds	Finish
Obsession	59kg.	$8.00	6/12
Recruiting	61.5kg.	$5.50	10/11
Domero	59kg.	$5.50	3/12
Marrakesh Express	60.5kg.	$3.50	11/11
Matter Of Honour	60kg.	$10.00	8/10
Glenrowan	60kg.	$13.00	3/10
Skiddaw	59kg	$8.50	2/12
Flemington
Horse	Weight	SP Odds	Finish
Windigo	61.5kg.	$3.80	5/11

FACT:
You don't provide statistics whatsoever to say how MANY horses carried over 59kgs, if you are going to be picky on others I think you should be consistant yourself.





[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-07-03 23:46 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-07-03 23:50 ]

Hi Facts only,

If we have an opinion on something, we are entitled to give it. If you choose to ignore it, that is your decision. I will continue to post opinions, heresay and myths to my heart's content and encourage others to do so as well.

This is an open forum with only a few rules about personal attacks, as long as the opinions are racing related they are fine by me.

Just my meaningless opinion. Sorry if it doesn't suit you.

Placegetter

EI,
The tables we put in Punt to Win the last two weeks had all the runners at 59kg.+ in the 4 main meetings on Saturday included.
Cheers.
PS What about National Saint yesterday winning with 63.5kg!

The most important aspect to consider when looking at statistics is not the % of winners which fit the given criteria but how this % relates to the % of starters that fit the criteria.

eg. last start winners (the numbers are made up!)

25% winners are last start winners
but 30% runners are last start winners

This means that last start winners actually won less races than would be expected (30%)

Here is a list of the % of starters that carried the given weight.

<52kg 1.5%
52-54.5 59.5%
55-59 34.6%
>59kg 1.9%

This is from races run everywhere by all classes (including jumpers) which account for the majority of weights >61kgs.

The challenge is to post the most accurate figures as to the % of winners that fall into each category.

The figures posted by thekey prove that horses with 59kgs or more have a high strike rate relative to the no of starters. If you took out jumpers, the strike rate would be even higher. This suggests that horses "can" handle weight when they have the necessary class.

1.9% of starters (if you took out jumpers maybe 1.5%)

5% of winners.

Rob

Those figures (5%) quoted earlier in this thread are different from my stats.

thekey,

What are your figures and what races are they based on?

Something is wrong with the statistics and maths here.

If only 1.9% of starters carry greater than 59kgs that is less than two per 100 races. Highly questionable.

Then if 5% of those horses win, that is less than 1 in a thousand races!!!



[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-07-04 15:41 ]

example
1000 races with 12 horses per race - that's 12,000 horses in total
2% of 12,000 is 20*12 = 240

Those heavily weighted horses won 5% of 1000 races which is 50 races.

50/240 = about 1 in 5 or 20% roughly.

Certainly not 1/1000!!!

EI - I think the figures quoted were 1.9% of all runners carry 59+kg but 5% of all winners carry this weight. Of course if this figures were correct you could potentially make money by backing any horse carrying 59+ kg as their strike rate is over double what it should be (depending, of course on the ave div). I suspect that the 1.9% figure is too low but don't have any concrete figures to back this up.

[ This Message was edited by: becareful on 2002-07-04 15:54 ]

O.K. but there needs to be a common denominator, you can't compare apples with oranges.

Is it winners per race, winners per QUALIFYING starter, or winners per starter?
When you look at say % of favs saluting, it's favourite per race. The figures all need to be consistant to be able to draw an equivalent evaluation.

Over the last two weekends of racing there were 8 qualifying starters which carried in excess of 59kg.
Not one of those horses saluted, which adds further weight(forgive the pun) to my conclusion that the amount of prizemoney a horse has won has no reflection on it's ability to carry weight.
The ability of a horse to carry weight comes from internal strength and body mass.
Now you could draw conclusions that horses weighing over 1000kg for example, are more likely to be able to carry the extra weight than a horse weighing 750kg. But to say that a horse can carry the extra weight and still be able to win because of the amount of prizemoney it has won is like saying that Greg Norman is a good golfer so therefore he must be a good swimmer.
No logical correlation at all.

The only way to assess correctly if a horse is able to handle the weight is to see if it has carried and won with that weight over the same distance and in the same track conditions.

Anyhow I am going to do some statistical research on this and post it here soon.
Will post actual researched statistics.

[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-07-04 16:05 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-07-04 16:13 ]

With a strike rate of 20%, if this was accurate, then its not double what it should be. You would expect some different weight sections to have a high strike rate. But for it too be profitable it all depends on the avg dividend received.

Given an average dividend of $6 this would be lucrative. If you take short odds like $2.80 then you would lose betting on heavily weighted horses over the long term.

I have figures of 1/6 certainly not 1/1000!!!

So you would need an avg dividend of more than $6 if you back every one of these starters with 59kgs or more.

This would suggest 2.5% of all starters have 59kgs or more (assumes 12 starts per race)

So it would look like this:

1000 races with 12 starters avg
12,000 starters in total
300 horses starting with 59kgs or more
50 of those horses winning





[ This Message was edited by: Rob on 2002-07-04 16:17 ]

the 1.9% figure is for all horses carrying 59.5kgs or more (>59) it is for all races run by thoroughbreds (as posted earlier).

Rob, no I am not going to post the winning percentages to match the runners % I posted earlier.

The challenge was for you to try to figure it out (provoke thought). I will offer some guidance as to if you are on the right track.
5% is significantly higher.

I just picked a random day Dec 1 2001 to illustrate my point. @ the metros B,S,M,A 366 horses went around in 32 races, 5 carried 59.5kg or more. This is 5/366 = 1.37% of these 0 won, 0/32 = 0%

For those who think 1.9% is too low consider this. On your average 8 race card say there are 100 runners (12.5/race) this means there should be 1.9 horses weighted to carry 59.5kgs or more. There is probably only going to be 1 horse per race weighted this highly so that's two races gone. Say a couple of set weights races another two gone and the other four races are just your average handicap with a top weight around 56-58kg.

A further point: the horses that win with big weights are often horses racing in the country that are significantly better than their opposition (eg Century Kid @ Wagga)

Ok,

Let's assume horses with 59kgs or more win 3% of races, but have a strike rate of 1/8.

Sample

1000 races with 12 starters on avg.
12,000 starters in total
3% of 1000 is 30 winners
Therefore 240 starters with 59kgs using a 1/8 strike rate.
240/12,000 = 2% of all starters have 59kgs+

Either way the % of races won is not the real issue, its the strike rate of heavily weighted horses when they start.

You probably need 2-3 years of data given that not many horses start with 59kgs all that often.

Avg dividend needed would be $8+.

[quote]
On 2002-07-04 15:54, Equine Investor wrote:
"But to say that a horse can carry the extra weight and still be able to win because of the amount of prizemoney it has won is like saying that Greg Norman is a good golfer so therefore he must be a good swimmer.
No logical correlation at all."

huh? Your sentence was not logical. Prizemoney won relates to golf not swimming!!!!! It says he was a damn fine golf player. I think you're comparing apples with bits of dirt.

Ok the answer is 2.4%. This means they win (2.4/1.9)/1.9= 26.3% more races than they should. This is what is important!

A stat that can stand alone as pointing out that all other things being equal, more horses that have this characteristic win, than should win.

If there were 1000 races run with 12000 runners the numbers would be this:

.019*12000= 228 runners
.024*1000=24 winners
SR= 24/228 = 10.5%
To break even you would need an average dividend of $9.52

At this stage it is worthwhile pointing out that if the 12 runners in each race had an equal chance the strike rate would be 8.5%

It should also be noted that there is no single factor which can be blindly bet on every race every day to show a profit. (at least none that I am aware of)

In fact I think you might find that if you only wish to consider one thing the strongest single factor (ie more winners than expected by random luck), is favourites. You'll have a good strike rate but lose about 12c in the $ year in year out but its reassuring to know that everyone else agrees with you - even if you are wrong 70% of the time.

Yes, perhaps badly worded on my part Rob,however my point was prizemoney says that a horse can run fast times and beat other horses when the pressure is on, even at times overcome bad luck to win a race and beat horses of a certain class. It says nothing about it's ability to carry weight....unless it has carried and won with the same weight previously!

As for my stats...and I stress it's a small sample:-

Of 224 metro races (Saturdays only) there were 46 runners who were handicapped above 58kgs. That is not to say they actually may have carried less with apprentice claims.

Of the 46 runners (some of which were in the same races) there were 8 winners.

Which gives a win % of 17.39%

The average dividend of the winners was $5.28

Very small sample but indicative of results.

With only 8 out of 42 being successful I think conclusions can be drawn even though this is a little higher than average.What one has to bear in mind, is that some of the winners were NOT the topweight in the race, they were actually second topweight and still carried more than 58kg.





Following on from that, would love to know what the stats are on favourites, which have the highest prizemoney in the race and carry the topweight. Could be an interesting exercise. Unfortunately I don't have the resources to filter out all three stats in the results.

[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-07-04 17:46 ]

The key is to weed out the 70% of favourites which are not successful. At this point in time I am able to get it down to 50% winning favourites by applying two simple filters. But then again ...that's a whole new thread.
:wink:

[ This Message was edited by: Equine Investor on 2002-07-04 17:53 ]

Question: which is the best horse in the race?

Answer: The horse with the most weight.
(this only applies to handicaps)

Does this mean it will win?
Sometimes.

Research Conclusions on weight:

The worst weighted horse in a handicap is very often the horse on the minimum. Why? Quite simply because the handicapper is not allowed to give it any less weight (due to restrictions placed on him by the rules of the race). So it is forced to carry more weight than it should carry were it to be given an equal chance of winning.

A prime example is this years Stradbroke Handicap. Falvelon and Show A Heart got 56kg.
The bottom weight in the final field was Princess Clang 48kg. On her best form she would have needed to only carry about 40kg if she was to be competitive (in theory) so was in fact carrying 8kg more than what the handicapper would have needed to give her to even up her chances of winning. She was therefore very poorly weighted despite having to carry the lightest impost.

For the reason outlined above horses who carry the minium weight are often the worstly weighted horse in the race.

You can not dismiss a horse simply because of the big weight it has. You can however dismiss a horse because of the small weight it has. NB. This does not mean that you should never back a horse on the minimum weight.

Any system that throws horses out because of their handicap is a joke.

Each horse must be considered individually and flaws in the handicapping sought after.





[ This Message was edited by: thekey on 2002-07-04 18:18 ]

is "worstly" even a word?

Agree with you wholeheartedly there, thekey.
The question then is, which horse is weighted the best according to class, AND in relation to fitness.

Surely this reinforces hermes little fun plan of backing the top horse in the weights which is a last start winner. And my jockey plan incorporating last start winners providing they are in the top three weight wise.

Ummm - no. The horse with the most weight is simply the horse that in the handicappers opinion, based on previous results, is the best horse in the race. Not necessarily the best horse at all.

Agree also becareful, but the handicapper can't allot penaties to a horse on what it will do in the future, nor can anyone forsee the future.
So all of us (punters/investors/gamblers/coattuggers/whisperers and manic depressives) can do is go on past results.

:wink:

becareful,

It should be noted that I said best, not most likely to win.

An example from Golden Slipper Day in the 1500m race won by Mowerman, Old Comrade was top weight having just won the Australian Cup. Surely he was the best horse in the race(which other horse was a group 1 WFA winner, Referral won the George Ryder at group 1 in 1999 it was the second top weight), however under the conditions of the race did Old Comrade have the best chance to win? Probably not.
Did Referral have the 2nd best chance.
No way.

But until one of these other horses wins at that level these two will be better horses.


How else can you determine what is the best horse in the race other than by looking at past performances?

Yes, you can only make an educated guess. The only way to ensure a profitable outcome in the longterm is to work out the likelihood of each runner and then the odds that you will accept. When you are able to obtain over the odds, that's when you can make a profit.

That's the most sensible thing I've heard all day!