![]() |
Is there any consensus about the relative merits of a second placing compared with a first on average?
I notice that prize money is allocated with a second receiving approx 30% of first prize whereas a third gets about 15% of first prize. Is there some rational for this allocation? Taking a different approach, if on average there are 10 horses per race then a second is probably worth 90% of first. I am only considering averages and realise that an individual result will depend on margins and other factors. John |
John,
I suggest you ignore the actual placing and look at lengths beaten or lengths won instead. If a horse runs fifth beaten by 1 length I consider that "better" than a horse that run 2nd but was beaten by 2 lengths (assuming races were of equal quality). Of course you also have to look at the class of the 2 races and the opposition, etc. So a horse beaten by 1 length in a good quality race is probably better than one that wins a poor quality country race. |
All times are GMT +10. The time now is 05:51 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.