- This topic has 12 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Am I right in thinking that it’s too soon to start thinking about young fillies competing successfully with their male counterparts yet, please? Is it more towards the Autumn when they really begin to take advantage of their weight allowance?
Cheers
KenDamn, just done some number crunching, and then noticed that you mention young fillies. I’ll have to do it again.
Anyway, this is what I’ve got. Last 5 years or so, horse is not a horse, gelding or colt, running in a handicap without the word "Fillies" in the title, on the Flat (Turf), in Great Britain:-
Winning %
7.5 Mar
6.2 Apr
7.4 May
8.9 Jun
9.7 Jul
9.2 Aug
7.7 Sept
7.3 Oct
6.5 NovReturn on turnover %
-16.4 Mar
-43.3 Apr
-21.9 May
-17 Jun
-22.3 Jul
-17.7 Aug
-28 Sep
-28.2 Oct
-43.6 NovI knew that April was a bad month, but I’m surprised by Sept/Oct as we’ve all learned from Big Mac that that is when F&M come into their own. Actually, September is when one should STOP.
Bit of a different picture here.
Fillies, 3yo, running in a h’cap with
[edit: out
] the word "Fillies" in the title, in Great Britain.
Return on turnover %
-37.3 Jan
-23 Feb
+0.2 Mar
-33.6 Apr
-21.1 May
-25 Jun
-23.6 Jul
-29.7 Aug
-15.5 Sep
-11.9 Oct
-30.9 Nov
-28.7 DecLooks like one plays the 4yo+F&M now, and then dump them for younger models in Sep & Oct.
Thanks for checking that out for me Gerald. Maybe your info. takes it into account but I reckon a more in-depth analysis might have to consider the actual percentages of each sex running in each individual race before anyone can categorically state that overall the boys are better than the girls. Or have I got it wrong?
When fillies / mares run against colts / geldings / horses, their sex allowance makes up for being female.
I would not be put off backing any female aganst males, as long as she is value to win. Interesting to see what percentage of females that run against males win. And vice versa. It is essential to deal in percentages, as colts will always outnumber fillies in such races.
Value Is EverythingSorry about the error in desciption, which I have now corrected.
The number of fillies running is irrelevant for the return on turnover percentage, which is measuring how much loss one is making.
Thanks for checking that out for me Gerald. Maybe your info. takes it into account but I reckon a more in-depth analysis might have to consider the actual percentages of each sex running in each individual race before anyone can categorically state that overall the boys are better than the girls. Or have I got it wrong?
Oh, I wasn’t measuring how good or bad the boys were. But that can be done.
I was just assuming that a figure of -20% was "normal", and okay.
Here are the figures for 3yo geldings, running in British H’caps
Return on turnover %
-31.4 Jan
-35.4 Feb
-39.8 Mar
-19.1 Apr
-22.5 May
-26.0 Jun
-20.3 Jul
-22.5 Aug
-23.0 Sep
-17.1 Oct
-12.4 Nov
-22.7 DecI was trying to make it simple by just using one measure, but that doesn’t paint the picture. For example, there is a greater percentage of winners in Jan & Feb than Oct & Nov, but a much greater loss. 12.1% & 11.1% of 3yo geldings are winning races in Jan & Feb, but only 8.9% in both Oct & Nov. However, there is a substantial 35.4% loss on turnover in Feb, but only 12.4% in Nov. This difference can be explained not just by the field sizes being larger on the turf in the autumn than on the AW in Winter, but that the prices of the winners are much bigger.
Okay, these are the figures for 3yo colts, running in British H’caps
Return on turnover %
+11.7 Jan
+0.8 Feb
+1.7 Mar
-5.8 Apr
-7.7 May
-6.0 Jun
-14.8 Jul
-23.1 Aug
-26.2 Sep
+0.7 Oct
+1.8 Nov
+13.1 DecSorry about the error in desciption, which I have now corrected.
The number of fillies running is irrelevant for the return on turnover percentage, which is measuring how much loss one is making.
I do think knowing the numbers involved makes a difference Gerald. Even in a 5 year sample, 1 or 2 big priced winners will put a different perspective on figures.
To know pretty much for certain if fillies have a disadvantage we need to know what percentage of fillies win against colts. And (to know if that percentage is good or bad) the percentage of colts who win against fillies.
i.e.
If in a sample of 1000 races, 10,000 runners took part 90% (9000) of runners were colts and 10% (1000) were fillies. Obviously if colts and fillies do equally as well, then you can expect 900 to be won by colts and 100 by fillies. But say 850 were won by colts and 150 winners were fillies. So 9.44% of all colts (850 out of 9000) won, and 15% of all fillies (150 out of 1000) won. It may be that backing all of those fillies made a big loss, but from the figures it is evident fillies had a better record than colts.
However, even this does not mean fillies have an unfair advantage. It may mean trainers don’t go against colts unless believing they have an excellant chance of winning.
Every filly should be judged on her own merits.Value Is EverythingOkay, these are the figures for 3yo colts, running in British H’caps
Return on turnover %
+11.7 Jan
+0.8 Feb
+1.7 Mar
-5.8 Apr
-7.7 May
-6.0 Jun
-14.8 Jul
-23.1 Aug
-26.2 Sep
+0.7 Oct
+1.8 Nov
+13.1 DecInteresting stuff that Gerald.
3 year old colts doing well from October to the end of March.Value Is EverythingYeah, the only problem is that Barry Dennis reads this, and any advantage in the prices will disappear at Lingfield next winter.
On another sex issue, just noticed that some nutter has requested that Casual Conquest be added to the Champion Hurdle market. Anyone any idea when he was gelded? The Racing Post apply it retrospectively, so Casual Conquest now shows up as a gelding when he ran in the Derby!
The act of gelding adds some credence to this Champion Hurdle idea.
Looks like those figures have another health warning. I did a search for geldings running in Derbies at Epsom in June, and came up with Mountain, Sienna Storm, Unfurled, Before You Go and Noddies Way, so it looks like Raceform Interactive applies it retrospectively as well. However, it isn’t consistent, as for example The Geezer didn’t appear in the list.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.