- This topic has 14 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi all you clever guys on Racing Forum. I have recently had an email saying I have been missed on here. I do realise that it’s only the computer that’s missed me, but the reason I stayed away was that I quickly realised that most of the people on here are wayyyy out of my league betting-wise. Your knowledge and understanding of the game astounded me and made me feel stupid.
I know I asked some daft questions when I first joined, and something I saw today made me brave about asking again.
I’ve had what I call a pretty good day at Taunton and Folkstone. 3 winners (Easement, Marsh Court and Karky Shultz), 5 x 2nd, and 3 x 3rd. I get nearly as much of a kick from picking Bathwick Quest (10p @ 66/1) to come 3rd as I did from my 3 winners @ 20p E/W. So that tells you my levels of betting!! Seriously small-time!So, to my main question. I know I have confessed to confusion over handicap weights before, and I really thought I had got my head around the system, but there are many anomalies I really do not understand.
For instance, Taunton 4.20 today. Can someone please explain how poor Betty Browneyes cops for top weight of 11st 12lbs when she has only had 4 very unsuccessful runs over hurdles in her career, never run in a chase, and appeared an obvious no-hoper. Other horses, with much more experience and jumping talent (as was proved in the race) were given much less weight. WHY?????
Nighhorse, a decent starting point is to read the BHA’ Guide to Handicapping Here Scroll down to see link.
But, regardless of how long you’ve been in this gane things will always turn up to suprise you – it was only last weekend I learnt that a horses hurdle mark may be revised (in this case upwards) due to their Chase form….
Horse A wins his race and is 20 lengths in front of horse B at the line who is in turn 10 lengths ahead of horse C. Making Horse A 30 lengths superior to horse C. Agreed?
But, by the time horse B gets to the finishing line, horse C has caught up with him and dead-heats for second place.
The result will show on paper the distances as 20 lengths and a dead-heat, suggesting that horse A is 20 lengths superior to horse C (assuming level weights) whereas he was actually 30 lengths superior.
Go handicap!
Oh Insomniac, I do understand how distances affect things in the normal way of the game, but I am still at a loss to understand how a 6-y-o mare which has shown nothing in 4 runs over hurdles gets to be given TOP weight agaainst obviously talented horses in a chase.
- Total Posts 17716
Just guessing here, nighthorse, but probably because her only measurable form was in finishing 27l behind previous winner Organisatuer, who was awarded a mark of 128 for that run, and those behind rated accordingly.
Generally speaking, horses receiving weight from an 86 rated NH mare would not be deemed ‘talented’.Ok Reethard, hear what you are saying re "talented" horses, but almost all the other horses in that race would appear on form to have lots more ability, and they quite expectedly ran rings round poor old Betty Browneyes with her heavy load which still seems totally undeserved, and very unfair to her obviously limited ability over fences.
- Total Posts 17716
The weight a horse carries is governed (in the main) by its ability relative to the top-rated horse in the race, nighthorse. In this case, Betty Browneyes was deemed to be the best horse on show and was therefore compelled to concede weight all round.
Your problem seems to be with how the horse has been handicapped, rather than how today’s race was framed. Unfortunately, few (if any) of us truly understand the rationale behind Phil Smith and co’s sometimes incredulous decisions.
Hi AJ, that’s the most comprehensible thing that’s been said since I asked the question. It seems that the handicapper’s decisions do not always make any sense. This is most certainly not the first time I have thought this, it’s just that Betty’s situation really made me ask questions today, as she trailed in the rear alongside the BOTTOM weighted horse. A very unjustified weight for a horse that obviously needs all the help it can get!
Let’s hope she makes a good brood mare!!Good question I thought Nighthorse.
Suppose most of us have a feeling about horses looking well handicapped against others in some races but seems a lot more difficult to fathom in the roundHorse A wins his race and is 20 lengths in front of horse B at the line who is in turn 10 lengths ahead of horse C. Making Horse A 30 lengths superior to horse C. Agreed?
But, by the time horse B gets to the finishing line, horse C has caught up with him and dead-heats for second place.
The result will show on paper the distances as 20 lengths and a dead-heat, suggesting that horse A is 20 lengths superior to horse C (assuming level weights) whereas he was actually 30 lengths superior.
Go handicap!Surely it makes more sense to handicap horses on the time it takes them to finish the race rather than where they were when the winner crossed the line?
Surely it makes more sense to handicap horses on the time it takes them to finish the race rather than where they were when the winner crossed the line?
Indeed it does.
Nighthorse – my first post wasn’t suggesting that you didn’t know ‘owt about handicapping, just that – whatever we may think – neither do most (if any) of us. Carvillshill calls it right in saying that handicapping by time is the best method – and I agree with him. But, as with any method of handicapping, it is not an exact science and has its paradoxes. In fact racehorse handicapping is proof that Heisenberg’s
uncertainty principle
doesn’t just apply to quantum physics!
Take the race I described in my intial post. (Let’s assume level weights and truly run race).
As horse A passes the line he’s 20 lenghts in front of horse B and another 10 lengths ahead of horse C. So – it can be rationally argued that he’s 30 lengths superior to horse C. Yet, by the time horse B passes the line, he’s been caught by horse C and they dead-heat for second. The paper result will show the distances as 20 lengths and dead-heat, suggesting that horse A is only 20 lengths superior to horse C.
So, knowing that this is incorrect, you decide to rate them by time. The following week you go racing again and lo and behold horses A B and C are competing against one another in a 3 horse race over exactly the same course, same trip and on the same ground at the same weights with the same jockeys and the same riding instructions. This time though, as horse A is such a short odds-on fav, the bookmakers will allow you only to back on the distances between the assumed winner (A) and either of the remaining two runners.
You know that horse A is 30lenghts superior to horse C and only 20 lengths better than horse B, yet horses B and C both recorded the same time on their previous run.
The odds offered about the distance between A beating horse B are much too skinny for your liking, so you decide to punt on the distance horse A will beat horse C.
So – if you’re a time boffin, you’ll selct 20 lengths, but logically you know A is 30 lengths superior to C. Yet you know that horse B is the equal of horse C both on time and distance – and as horse A is only 20 lengths superior to horse B, that means 20 lengths is the logical bet – or is it?
Place your bets! insomniac
Not knowing much about betting is there a way of backing the distance between A & C when A finishes the race, rather than when C does?
Hi Nor; just read your post – sorry for not replying earlier. I guess the answer to your question is no. As far as I understand it (and I’m happy to be corrected if wrong), when you bet on winning distance, it’ll be the "official" distance only – with no option to select the distance between the 2 horses when the first passes the post. I believe distances are now "officially" calculated by the times when horses pass the post, thus no attention would be paid to where horses yet to finish are when the winner gets to the line.
So, in theory, in my race example, the pay-out will be on a winning distance of 20 lengths, even though horse C was 30 lengths behind A when A reached the winning post. So, is the true measure of A’s superiority over C 20 lengths or 30 lengths? I don’t know.Just goes to show how difficult, and probably very unfair, handicapping horses accurately (particularly middle or lower ability) is. For me there are far to many variables.
First, you have to assume the horse is racing to ability.
Then: is the horse fit and well; does it run better for one jockey to another; is the riding jockey competent; is the race run to suit; are track, ground conditions, and distance ideal;……..?
Regarding your example, insomniac, I would prefer to judge A 30 lengths superior to C on the day. It could be argued that C’s stamina, sprinting ability, and finishing time, could make it 20 lengths, but surely this would be unfair to A. He did not have to sprint and had stopped racing by the time C finished. What is to say, given another furlong he would still have been 30 lengths in front or even extended his lead. Or not!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.