A poser for all
 

OK everyone, I am welcoming opinions on this:

If one week a horse runs 6th beaten four lens, then next start in exactly the same class of race with exactly the same weight on the same limit runs second beaten five lengths, which is the better run, or are they the same, and if one is better than the other, by how much and why?

Duritz.

At first glance, running 2nd being beaten by 5 len is probably the higher rating performance. A 5 length winner generally means a high rating race for its class, imo. It would depend on the quality of the horses in both races however.

Having said that, they are both very similar aren't they? Beaten 4 lengths , then 5 lengths in same grade. One rating figure could fit both performances here.

I tend to grade horses now in blocks of 3 pts; eg 100, 97, 94, 91, 88 etc. based on their recent ratings.

my rating method would require me to know how much weight the winner carried.
if the winner carried 6 kgs more than the horse in question neither run was very good.

OK what if we assume all horses in both races carried 53 kgs, and they were all about the same standard of racehorse, in the same class, with the same weight, under the same conditions, and this particular horse runs 6th beaten 4 lengths then runs say third beaten five lengths, which is better, how much and why?

Duritz

It would depend on three factors:

The class of the opposition and race time and track condition.

Class of opposition

The race may be the same class but the competing horses may be better or worse.
Look at the API of the horses in the race as a guide only.

Race time

If the track condition was the same, then look at the race time.

Track

Was it on the same track.

OK I don't think I am getting my point across properly. This is not a real race I am talking about, this is theoretical. And I am therefore assuming that all things were exactly the same and things like time etc. are irrelevant because the question merely is a matter of theory - which is the better run, when a horse runs 6th beaten 4 lengths or 2nd beaten 5 lengths. It's a question of theory. For what it's worth my method would assume that the 2nd was 1.5 kgs or 1 length superior to the sixth, I am just interested to hear what others think of this theoretical situation, basically do people look at lengths beaten as the be all and end all, or at finishing positions, or both.

So for the sake of argument say it was over a mile at the same track with exactly the same track speed, but the times ran were irrelevant because the first week was slowly run (hence the small margins!) and they ran 99 seconds when the next week was quick run and they ran 96. They CRAWLED first week though, so their time doesn't matter. The class was the same, the horses the same level with the same API, just looking at this one theoretical horse who one week ran 6th beaten 4 and the next second beaten 5. I reckon the second week is the better run even with the bigger margin.

Any other thoughts?

Duritz.

Well the prizemoney for 2nd is a hell of a lot more than for 6th,so I'd give the cigar to the distant second!

Plus a lot less horses beat it to the line.

i realise you want a straight answer so i would say the closer to the winner the better.

just as a side issue ratings amaze me due to the traps they can lead you into.
i was watching sky this afternoon and after doing my horses (listed) they only listed horse running at sunshine coast was finnegan.
i decided that is stood a start of 10.577 lengths to the winner of its last start race.
this was too much so conceded it wasnt worth a bet.
then i saw the price odds on. and the caller had given it out as his best bet/
for those who saw it finnegan was last all the way and made ground when it was too late and finished a distant second.
in a 6 horse race.

i suppose if you look at a horse long enough you will be convinced it is possible to make a reason to put money on it.

but we shouldnt try too hard.

Sorry Duritz,

Did not realize it was a theoritical question, thought it was a real race comparison, so I might have overcomplicated the answer. Theoretically the 6th beaten 4 lengths is one length superior to to the 2nd beaten 5 lengths.
It does not matter about the finishing position, it was the horses ability over the distance, especially with similar time weight track going and distance, this is where the obvious get plucked as a bet and your 6th placing can be overlooked and hence value.

Sorry, I confused the issue.

All the best.

You really reckon the sixth is better? I can't see that - for example how does that augur for Doriemus' second to M&P in the 96 caul cup, beaten 7.5 lengths? Does that make his 8th beaten 6 lengths in another group one race a better run than 2nd beaten 7.5?

To make my point another way: back to my theoretical horse - say the winner (who won by 5 to our theoretical horse second) got afflicted by a virus at the stalls passed to him by Marty McFly in his DeLorean as he went back in time for the purposes of this example, and became a late scratching and 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???

THINK about that one and the ramifications before responding.

Duritz.

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.

The only sensible response.

Duritz, the question's a bit silly because everything falls into place after you rate the winners. i.e. once you've decided whether it was an outstanding performance on the one hand or an ordinary field on the other or whatever.
The rating given to the winner dictates the ratings given to the horses finishing behind it.

Theoretical questions are allowed to have some leeway...

The point is this. What I was trying to discover was people's thoughts on lengths beaten as opposed to margins. Basically, do people place more emphasis on one or the other or equally. Like say you were going to have a bet today in South Africa and you didn't know the horses, but you saw a two horse race where both horses had had one start in a maiden, right? Both started about 5/1 first start, one ran second beaten 5 lengths the other ran 6th beaten four lengths. Which would you consider better.

Duritz.

What I was trying to discover was people's thoughts on lengths beaten as opposed to margins.

Sorry what I of course meant was lengths beaten as opposed to finishing positions...

A combinatiion of both. While I think lengths beaten is a more accurate way of determing a horses performance than the finishing position, I stiill like to give some credit to horses who have run a place. Before you ask , Iam still working on how to combine the two in some sort of meaningful way.

A lot of my bets come from horses that finish close up but out of the places.
One of my best results came from Final fantasy when he won the epsom at big odds on the Kensington track. He was beaten the start before by Shogun Lodge running about 9th I think but just 2 lengths from the winner. One thing to keep in mind is sometimes horses get sucked along by the pack and finish closer than they should. An example was a horse was beaten by Northerly(early in his career) by only about 4 lengths in a Belmont midweeker. He ended up in Kalgoorlie but was an absolute crab and got beat there easily. So I would say watch the races closely to see if they get an easy run or if they get sucked laong by the pack.

I like crabs. They are yum.

Interesting to read the query about position or margin. Well, one of my major points in selections is lengths from the winner. I've done some studies on this and particularly on weekends city racing across Australia about 75% of winners either won or finished within 4 lengths of the winner at their last start. Will sometimes creep out a little whan making my final selections, but 6 lengths is my limit, but very rarely. Sure, you get the odd one to salute that has finished 9-10 lengths from the winner at its last start. But believe me they are particularly rare. Have had many huge priced winners over the years that finshed 2.5 to 3.5 lengths from the winner previously.

If I have the choice of something that finished third 5 lengths from the winner at last start or one that finished 10th beaten 3.5 lengths. You know by now which I choose.

I appreciate the "suck-along" theory and will look into that!

quote,,I appreciate the "suck-along" theory and will look into that!
 

If you look at the Tour de France on SBS the peleton effect is incredibly significant.Those breakaway guys are inevitably overhauled by the peleton.The riders sitting off the pace are certainly getting a very easy time,expending very little energy until they unleash their finishing burst.

The riders who get too far back in the peleton simply cannot peg back the leading half dozen and will often be "dropped off".

Gai Waterhouse trains her horses to run just off the pace for this very reason.It has been a succesful method for her and I'm sure that it will continue.Anything over 1300m its well worth noting horses that consistently run their races in the leading bunch.

I dont know about you guys, but when they balance up for the run home I like to see my horses with a winning chance,not looking for miracle runs,or blocked up in midfield.Any trainer who prepares their charges to run just off the pace is worth $$$$

On the other hand if the "suck along" effect has something to do with King's Cross then I'm in the wrong forum....

Australia's number one trainer (in terms of victories). Where do his horses ALWAYS (98% of them, OK) possie up? On the pace. Always.