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.

__________________
laurie

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.

__________________
laurie

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.