- This topic has 54 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
If they are to view such information in such a way, that is fine although I doubt that too many would. Many (if not most) people who speak on the subject of wanting horses weights published seem to treat such information literally and not take any growth or maturing into account.
Wouldnt "Noble Request – Kempton blatantly not fit" have been a more apt title for this thread?
The condition of the horse was flagged up on RUK in the pre race analysis.
In fact, many times when I’ve pointed out such matters as growth or strengthening to people who have opined that horses’ weights should be published, they’ve replied with "oh, I didn’t think of that", many seem to think they’re not going to grow or change shape again.
Of course there will be people who will use the information professionally and thoroughly but I fear that the majority who call for weights to be made public don’t truly know what they’d do with them (or what they’d mean) were they to be published anyway!
If you follow racing you know that a "Twisty" horse will be ready first time after an absence (except for the creature i backed at Chepstow last week) but otherwise you take a big
gamble
on their fitness and whether they’ve retained their ability.
You won’t find me arguing otherwise. Mr Twiston-Davies’ long-absent horses will look back to their physical peak, rather than as tubby as Noble Request, but after that you’re relying on the horse’s ability and will to pick up where he’d left off X hundred days ago, and / or the trainer’s skills at enabling him to do so.
I was all over Bradley Boy myself at Chepstow last weekend as well – partly because of the trainer’s reputation with the type; partly because there were no indications from the yard that he’d need the run; and partly because he cut a pleasing enough figure in the preliminaries.
(Oh yes, and partly also because Gullible Gordon looked more there for the taking on a sounder surface than a slower one (in theory!); partly becuase the penalised horses were ordinary; and partly becuase Theatrical Moment ran abysmally on one previous visit to Chepstow).
That train of thought didn’t work there for me, but certainly did in the case of those who were on Ahmedy (not I, alas).
You’re right, it’s always an inherently risky strategy to presume that any long-absent animal constitutes a winning proposition first time back just because his belly isn’t scraping the ground, but at the same time it’s still nothing to be disregarded
en bloc
(especially as, in the case of Ahmedy, pretty much all else in the race had something to prove – Birkside can’t win a handicap for toffee nowadays, Too Tall had stamina over 1m4f to prove, Wind Flow is a bunny, and Bramalea and Seventh World were racing off elevated marks).
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
I’m happy to take your word for that SL, as I hope you are to take mine that all the people I know who are interested in this matter have thought it through.
Even if some people who have called for this initiative are ignorant as to what it means it need not change the fact that the initiative itself is/is not (delete as you see fit) a good one.
In fact, many times when I’ve pointed out such matters as growth or strengthening to people who have opined that horses’ weights should be published, they’ve replied with "oh, I didn’t think of that", many seem to think they’re not going to grow or change shape again.
Of course there will be people who will use the information professionally and thoroughly but I fear that the majority who call for weights to be made public don’t truly know what they’d do with them (or what they’d mean) were they to be published anyway!
The majority of punters approach betting handicapped by ignorance and unaware of many of the tools at their disposal to unearth bets. In the case of the recreational punter by choice and in the case of many because they can’t be bothered to put in the work.For those prepared to put in the work and who relish an intellectual challenge weight analysis will provide a welcome addition to the betting puzzle, and I suspect an important one.
Actually it’s the ‘will it actually be of any use’ argument and problems that may be encountered with the growing horse that attract me to it as an area worthy of study.
If weight information was disseminated 10 minutes before the race, would it be the end of any meaningful pre race morning/afternoon markets? What effect would that have on the betting industry/levy?
I have no doubt that the sort of people you’ve been discussing the subject with would only be interested in researching the topic thoroughly, Prufrock! It will by no means be an easy source of information to utilise effectively though without a great deal of work and prior research and information gathering. Which again, I have no doubt the people you refer to will be more than prepared to undertake.
Even with that it will be more difficult to use as much of an accurate guide for the younger horses especially when factoring in the different physical type of each animal (ie slow maturing, precocious etc) but I can see why it would no doubt be a very useful tool, if utilised correctly and on holding previous records with which to compare, for the likes of flat handicappers of around 4 and above [plenty of flat horses will have matured sufficiently at 4 for there not to be as much of a discernible difference in future seasons], for example, or older perennial hurdlers and chasers.
I think disclosing the weight of the horse would just be another stat to muddy the waters.
The only time I would potentially see a benefit is if a runner is reappearing quickly (i.e. within a few days of a previous run)to indicate if there has been a possible significant weight change between the two runs, other than that I don’t think it is a tool I would use – I would much prefer to trust what I see in the parade ring with my own eyes.
Anyway what use would the weight be without knowing other dimensions of the horse?
A 5′ short woman who weighs 9 stone would be considered (by me anyway) nicely proportioned, a 5′ 9" tall woman weighing 9 stone would be positively anorexic.
Anyway what use would the weight be without knowing other dimensions of the horse?
A 5′ short woman who weighs 9 stone would be considered (by me anyway) nicely proportioned, a 5′ 9" tall woman weighing 9 stone would be positively anorexic.
That’s not really the angle, Paul – not in my case, at least
My angle is one which suggests that if a horse won in January at 510kg, and turns up at the racecourse in February weighing 510kg, it’s a reasonable bet that it is physically in condition to do itself justice. If it then returned to the track in March weighing 480kgs (or 530kg), anyone who has anaylsed previous weights is free to ponder the potential significance of the weight differential.
I’m also satisfied that this information would be (selectively) usable from pretty-much day one, and that it wouldn’t need Drone’s carefully compiled 5-year statistical analysis to prove useful (though it would undoubtedly be moreso in the medium term).
Regardless, the argument isn’t about whether such information would be useful. Publish and be damned, and let the punter decide on it’s usefulness.
The argument against publication of horse-weights would appear to be based on costs grounds, but as has already been stated by Pru, the evidence backing up this position appears to be flimsy or ill-thought, at best.
My angle is one which suggests that if a horse won in January at 510kg, and turns up at the racecourse in February weighing 510kg, it’s a reasonable bet that it is physically in condition to do itself justice. If it then returned to the track in March weighing 480kgs (or 530kg), anyone who has anaylsed previous weights is free to ponder the potential significance of the weight differential.
Taking on board Shadow Leader’s comments it may well be the case that weight analysis would be of greater value in NH racing, or perhaps the analysis would at least be less complex: mature horses around long enough to compile a "5 year statistical analysis"
As you say it would be nice if we ‘stakeholders’ were allowed the chance to suck it and see
Nothing to lose, possibly a lot to gain
To be fair to the Hobbs team which is one of the more forthcoming generally, it was clearly stated in ‘sick note’ in yesterday’s RP that the horse was still fat and he was struggling to get the weight off. For an old boy coming back off a long break he was given a considerate ride really.
Still seething that I didn’t back the winner though!
Hobbs’ record over the last 6 years with horses running after a lay-off of 300 days or more.
164 runners
18 winners (11% SR)
£1 Level Stake – Loss 5.2%PF Nicholls
152 runners
30 winners (19.7%)
Loss 15.2% to £1 Level StakeAlan King
108 runners
16 winners (14.8%)
Profit 55.8% to £1 Level StakeAm a little sceptical about how much use weighing horses will be to me. But that does not matter, if some punters perceive it of use then it should be published. If; that is, it’s practical and economic to do so.
Is it practical?
It’s not like in Hong Kong; trainers here are all over Britain. And we can’t rely on trainers to weigh them anyway. So it has to be at the racecourse.
How late can a horse arrive at the course and still be able to run?
The last to arrive has to be weighed and all weights “published”.
Is there enough time to “publish”, and still be of use to the punter?
How will these weights be “published”? On BHA website? Racecourse website? Racecourse loud speakers? It will certainly be too late to be used in the Racing Post or race card.Isn’t this only going to be of use to a punter who bets very late?
If so is it economic?If it is practical and economic then I’d be in favour. Can anyone answer these questions for me to form an opinion?
Value Is EverythingDon’t like such an equivical tital to this thread. For those who think someone has done wrong, non-trier etc. Can they please put a "?", the word "seems" or "I think" somewhere. It is their opinion and not a fact after all. Would not be in danger of getting themselves or TRF in trouble either. There are ways of saying these things.
Sorry, I am being a prefect again.
Value Is Everything
- Total Posts 17716
Punters have to suffer unforeseen changes every day of the week, Mark – going updates, non-runners, reserves (especially in greyhound racing), over-weights, jockey changes etc – so I don’t think limited access to an additional piece of information is going to prove too problematic. Someone who bets on their way to work in the morning is inherently less likely to be successful than someone who bets 10 minutes before a race, with every conceivable variable determined and hence in their favour.
That fact is people will make what they want of a horse’s weight – they may use it, they may ignore it completely – but they need to have the data available to work from in the first place. Increases in body mass due to growth and physical development, for instance, may not occur to some people, but that’s their mistake to make (not withstanding, of course, that easily identifiable trends will emerge over time to differentiate between fitness and growth). It differs in no way to someone failing to spot that a horse is well-handicapped, or suddenly prefers softer ground having previously been successful on fibre-sand – the information is there, you use it as you wish.
And how hard would it be to implement? The most expensive scenario is that each racecourse installs its own set of scales but, as has been suggested, a small number of mobile units would prove equally effective. Horses are, as I understand it, chipped to verify their identity, so is it really that impractical to have horses walk over the scales as they enter the racecourse stables with a computer automatically recording weight and chip number in just a few seconds? A ‘live update’ function, which relays the information to the BHA website as soon as it has been recorded, could be coded in to the software, bringing the overall processing time for each horse to little more than 10 seconds.
It’s really not that hard at all.
I must admit, I most probably wouldn’t bother using the information about a horse’s weight; I’m one who prefers to go by what I can see rather than material information. It’s the same when it comes to blooding/scoping horses; I don’t bother with mine since you can more often than not tell if a horse is ill or not. If it is bucking people off, with a glossy coat and troughing its feed, I don’t need a blood test and scope to tell me that it’s well! Surprisingly enough, given the amount of scientific technology readily available, I’d say that there is still a roughly 50/50 split amongst trainers when it comes to the theory of regular bloods/scopes vs only using them when [the trainer feels it is] necessary. Top trainers such as Alan King and Venetia Williams would hold opinions very similar to mine, whilst trainers such as Pipe and Nicholls would blood and scope as routine. It’s a similar argument to using weight information for me personally. That’s not to say the information shouldn’t be made public, I just personally wouldn’t use it so don’t see the point.
Oh, and for interest, how many punters are actually aware of overweights put up by jockeys pre-race? The information wouldn’t be that readliy available; you’d have it on-course or if you were in a bookies, they might mention it on a racing channel but it still wouldn’t be widely broadcast information since it is only available in the last minutes pre-race.
So Paul, at 5′ 2" and 8st10lbs, would I just about pass muster? I can’t surely fall into the anorexic category!!!!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.