- This topic has 82 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Ginge, some of your figure manipulation would make many accountants proud!!!
The key thing this year is the compression of the weights rather than anything else giving those higher up a much better chance.
I find it truly absurd that somebody can put a very solid trend (no top weight winning since Red Rum in 1977) down to coincidence. With a sample of 30 renewals surely such a theory contradicts the law of averages.
Why is it absurd? If every horse has the same chance of winning and the number of runners were always 40. Then you can expect the top weight to win once every 40 years.
Ginge
Value Is EverythingGinge, some of your figure manipulation would make many accountants proud!!!
The key thing this year is the compression of the weights rather than anything else giving those higher up a much better chance.
It is others who have manipulated the figures Aragorn, not I.
For people to say those carrying 11 st or more have less chance, without pointing out under 14% of runners have carried that weight, with over 86% of runners carrying less than 11 st. That is manipulation.
Ginge
Value Is Everything
- Total Posts 17716
I would suggest that any trends that are based on races before 1989 would be misleading.
That is the year when Becher’s and Valentine’s were significantly altered, and since then the trend has been more and more for only the higher rated horses to make the cut, suggesting that trainers are more willing to run their better horses now it is a safer race?So in summation and given that as we stand 47.5% of the runners will carry 11st or more what we can conclude is that we can ignore any trends relating to weights? Or at least pay less heed. Have there been any other races during that time where there was a similar percentage of runners carrying that weight?
I think a more important statistic is that horses carrying over 11-5 are 0/75 since 1977, and Red Rum is the only horse to carry more than that to victory in the past 50 years. That’s where I’d make my cut.
I did try this once myself may years ago…got all the stats I could put them in the melting pot and come up with 2 horses I couldn’t have backed with bad money. I am just wondering how many people stick 100 to the rules on this…or if they don’t get the answer they want they stick another stat in
…surely one additional stat can make a huge difference to the result you get?I never normally back a horse carrying more than 11 stone – only Hedgehunter has in 18 years to win? Not sure at the exact figure. He carried 11 stone 1 and was classy enough to be second in the Gold Cup AKA he was a very high class animal. Im going to stick to my guns and stick to horses carrying 11 stone or less even despite the compressed handicapped. Think Snowy Morning has 11 stone 1. 10 lengths behind Denman in the Sun alliance last year, he could have the class to cope with that weight if any.
I think a more important statistic is that horses carrying over 11-5 are 0/75 since 1977, and Red Rum is the only horse to carry more than that to victory in the past 50 years. That’s where I’d make my cut.
Carvills,
What about the stat that says 3 of the last 4 Nationals would have been won by the top weight had just 7 of the 119 horses not taken part. If top weights are capable of being placed so many times, is it not a coincidence they have not won?Ginge
Value Is EverythingIf my aunt had bollix she’d be my uncle- I’ll be against the topweights until one wins the thing.
Have now found and updated my study in to top weights, both the top weight and those carrying 11 stones and above.
From 1985 to 2007 (22 Nationals).
Of the 853 runners:
Only 117 (13.7%) carried 11 stones or more.
736 (86.3%) carried less than 11 stones.Of the 88 horses who finished in the first 4:
16 carried 11 stones or more.
72 carried less than 11 stones.
So 18.2% of those placed in the first 4 carried 11 stones or more and 81.8% carried less than 11 stones.
This means 13.7% of those carrying 11 stones or more were in the first 4 (16 Divided by 117).
9.8% of those carrying less than 11 stones were in the first 4 (72 Divided by 736).Of the winners:
2 carried 11 stones or more. 20 carried less than 11 stones.
9.1% of winners carried 11 stones or more.
90.9% of winners carried less than 11 stones.
1.7% of those carrying 11 stones or more won the race (2 Divided by 117).
2.7% of those carrying less than 11 stones won the race (20 Divided by 736).In 1997 only 1 horse Master Oats carried 11 stones or more.
3 times only 2 carried 11 stones or more.
4 times only 3, 4 times 4.
On 11 occasions less than 10% of the field carried 11 stones or more.On 4 occasions there was an automatic top weight from Czechoslavakia etc. at 100/1 or more.
A 1 point each way bet on all well fancied top weights (those at an SP of under 12/1) would have shown a 2.5 point profit.Of the last 119 horses to have taken part. If just 7 particular horses did not run, then 3 top weights would have won in the last 4 Nationals.
In 2004 take out the first three home Amberleigh House, Clan Royal and Lord Atterbury, plus Le Coudray (top weight). Monty’s Pass would have won as top weight.
In 2005 take out Hedgehunter and Le Coudray. Royal Auclair would have won under top weight.
In 2006 take out Numbersixvalverdie and Hedgehunter would’ve won again as top weight.So:
In the last 22 years those carrying less than 11 stones have only a 1% better record of winning the National than those carrying 11 stones or more.
But those carrying less than 11 stones have almost 4% worse record at finishing in the first 4, than those carrying 11 stones or more.
Those top weights with a good chance on form actually have a decent record in the National.My conclusion is that it is probably a coincidence a top weight has not won the National since Red Rum.
The record of those carrying 11 stones or more being placed, suggests it is mere coincidence they have not won the race more times. Although one reason could be the best horses do not take part until exposed, so are easier for the handicapper to judge. Capable of being placed but not winning. Horses like Halcon Genelardais and Miko De Bauchene are not allowed to take part until later on in their careers. Unexposed horses higher up the weights are worth considering just as much as those lower down.Ginge
That’s a very informative post Ginge and I agree much depends on what actually would have happened had certain horses not run.
The same way as if others had
I have always thought stats can be thrown out the window in certain cases if for example Crisp was carrying top weight……..How many of the Nationals would he have won had he been around at different times.
The fugures exist because the real top class horses don’t run in the national…Just think what was top weight.Beef or Salmon……he wouldn’t win a National in a hundred years,,,,,,Denman however would be 6/4 fav if he was in it and more than likely trot up
First ten home carried less than 11-5
Good luck with the topweights next year Ginger!
Of course if those 10 hadn’t taken part…..Hang on Carv,
Never said they had a better chance than those below, just their form should be judged against the rest in the same way as you do for a lower weighted horse.
Of the horses carrying 11st 5lbs and upwards, only Turko (non stayer) had run to form last time. Albeit Simon ran over an inadequate trip in the Racing Post.Cloudy Lane, Comply Or Die, Snowy Morning and King Johns Castle were all well handicapped. And they came to the fore.
I note you have plucked out a weight from nowhere. The horses carrying between 11 st and 11st 5lbs ran well.
Nice try Carv.
Ginge
Value Is EverythingI think a more important statistic is that horses carrying over 11-5 are 0/75 since 1977, and Red Rum is the only horse to carry more than that to victory in the past 50 years. That’s where I’d make my cut.
??
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.