Thought I'd put together a small study which proves many of my theories regarding weight.
The validity of the weight scale in handicaps.
The impact of weight on results.
The effect or accuracy of an attempt to impose penalties.

The handicapper allocates weight penalties to horses in an attempt to get them to hypothetically cross the line at once all together.
Of course there are many other factors that come into play, but if the handicapper is doing his job correctly, they every weight bracket should have the same strike rate, as should every TAB NUMBER.

I further contend that because of the way in which weight is allocated, it makes poor horses look worse than they really are, because the weight advantage they get is minimal and the really good horses get all the advantages from the handicapper.

The way weight is allocated at this point in time, means that the more weight your horse is allocated, the better chance it has of winning, because the penalty is an indication of class, but not enough of a penalty to even out it's chances.

This leaves me wondering why we have a weight scale at all, and why we pay handicappers at all.



It's clear that in general, the more weight a horse carries, the better chance it has, considering weight carried as the only factor.

But this isn't about tearing strips off handicappers, because it's also clear that they do a great job in identifying class. It isn't their fault that the scale isn't sufficient to even things out.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 412,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/12/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

What's the additional 6%?

covered by numbers 11 to 24

That would make it 112%

true, I spook in haste I thought 6% was missing instead of being in excess!

I don't know, but could be that some weights overlap?