- This topic has 66 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The pace of the race is the first factor I look at when assessing a race, the draw is the second. I then put these together to come up with some race shape.
If it’s a key component on American tracks of the same size and shape – it is critical aspect of our racing.
Sometimes I just think people try to make things more complicated than they really are…..
Ted, you’re not the only one, I tend to go easy on the draw although don’t dismiss it entirely but that’s probably why we can find some winners that people who use the draw can’t, if you get what I mean.
It is a matter of each to their own as there’s plenty of ways in finding winners, if we all stuck to stats, draws and ratings we’d all come up with the same selections and we’d all be loaded wouldn’t we. :biggrin:
- Total Posts 17716
Quote: from EC on 11:44 pm on Mar. 24, 2006[br]lets see
don’t bother with the draw..speed figures don’t work…pace means nowt..trainerform means nowt
I would love to know whats left..is it a pin?<br>(Edited by EC at 11:45 pm on Mar. 24, 2006)<br>
Just the inconsequential details, like form, class, fitness, and ability on the terrain?
sberry Posted on 11:54 pm on Mar. 24, 2006 <br>Sometimes I just think people try to make things more complicated than they really are….. ÂÂÂ
That kind of thinking could carry you a long way – wouldn’t go down too well in some quarters, but worth persevering with. ;) ÂÂÂ
Steve – I think you have indeed missed my point.
Yep – you’re right, I completely missed it.
Steve
EC
If/when the front two in the betting get beat tomorrrow. I am sure it will be too simplistic to blame the draw.
Perhaps if I put it another way……As the effect of the draw has such little effect, bearing in mind the many unknowns and variables that can and do happen in a race along with the more important factors such as form, fitness, distance, course, going, etc……if you are having to come down to considering the draw the race might just be too close to call, so just roll a dice and save yourself a few hours with your draw charts and stopwatches……
- Total Posts 17716
Quote: from stav on 12:31 am on Mar. 25, 2006[br]Steve – I think you have indeed missed my point.
I was simply responding to Reet Hard’s statement that because Redcar is a ‘fair’ track, the ‘best horse’ will win.
After offering past results which suggest there is no evidence of ‘fair’ tracks being happy hunting grounds for the ‘best horses’, he appears to have performed a u-turn.
That’s all it was.<br>
Stav<br> I think you may have missed my point?<br> No U-turn, the fairness of the course cannot be measured by the price of the winners. As I thought I had demonstrated, even your own tables show this.<br> Fairness, one assumes, means every horse has a more or less equal chance, yet the reason courses like Beverley and Chester figure quite highly in your tables owes more than a little to the fact that the majority of the field don’t figure in the shorter prices, precisely because of the unfairness of the courses.<br> As to the best horse winning today’s race, I will stick to my guns. Your Redcar stats are based on generally poor quality races, not Lincoln Handicaps!
I think you are a little brave ruling out Cesare who is housed one stall away from your best-performing quintile. Your analysis has value, but to say he can’t win because he is one stall "wrong" is a bit daft, IMHO.
The draw is but one factor amongst many. These factors are very difficult to quantify exactly, so anyone using the quantitative approach is really dealing in average values for the significance of each factor.
For instance, if we believe the draw will have an influence of up tp 6lbs on the outcome of a race, each horse favourably drawn will have its chances improved between 0 and 6lbs depending on whether the factor comes into play in the chaos of the race.
Similarly, suppose I feel that advantageous speed ratings may give an horse an edge of up to 8lbs. In practice, that edge will materialise as something between 0 and 8 depending on how the race pans out.
Having weighed up all factors, I might award a particular horse a composite rating of +25(about the maximum in my scheme), but I know that the horse is unlikely to achieve that level unless everything drops right. By the same token, the opposition are also unlikely to achieve their maximum ratings, so on average the better rated horse will perform better.
Probably a long-winded way of saying that racing is unpredictable and we are only dealing with ranges of notional probabilities of events. We as form students assign the probabilities either explicitly(as I do with ratings) or intuitively. By making estimates of the maximum effect of various factors, we accept that the margins of error are very great and can at times make our deliberations seem a nonsense.
(Edited by Artemis at 1:15 pm on Mar. 25, 2006)
Artemis, I do like your last response (and all of the other replies) and this is why this is one of my favourite and effectively, unanswerable racing questions. You’re either in one camp or the other, or sitting on the fence and you’ll never be proved right or wrong.
Thank heavens the flat season has started again…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.