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.

__________________
"Computers can do that????" - Homer Simpson