curious

The problem you have Thommo is that neither you, the media nor the likes of the BHA handicappers who promote these silly ideas about the effects of weight can produce any evidence other than anecdotal or citing each other. Aside from the hard raceday evidence that I've shared, I've ridden heaps of gallops with horses of well established comparable ability where I was giving 20kgs to the other rider. I can make two solid empirical observations from those. 1. 20kgs makes a difference to performance. 2. That difference is much closer to 2 lengths than 20 lengths. You haven't produced an iota of evidence in support of your claims about the effect of weight other than "so and so said so it must be right."

"Weight rise handicappers running in the same class have an advantage" Effect of Weight in Horse Racing Do you believe that weight is an effective tool for controlling the performance of a horse? Do you think a horse going up 10lbs in the weights has less chance of winning today than last time out? Weight is one of the great racing conundrums. How can a few pounds extra on the back of a 1000lb thoroughbred influence its performance? Weight is used to handicap a horses chance of winning. The more successful the horse, the more weight it carries and the less successful it should be in future races. At the other end of the scale poor horses are allowed to carry less weight and should thus be able to compete on a more level playing field. The following tables should shed some light on how much of an effect weight has on a horse. First we will look at the performance of horses carrying more or less weight than their last race, next the performance of the handicapper, and finally the effect on extra weight influences such as overweight, penalties and allowances. Changes In Weight All Turf Runners Win% 108,413 carried more weight, 11,083 won 10.22% 113,231 carried less weight, 9,768 won 8.63% index 1.19 The above table shows the results of 221,644 runners on the turf since 1993. Horses carrying more weight than their last race won 10.22%. Horses carrying less weight than their last race won 8.63%. This means a horse carrying more weight than last time is 1.19 times more likely to win than one that is carrying less. Obviously, this is looking at all turf races and does not take into account horses going up or down in class which will have a bearing on the allocated weight. Turf Runners in Same Class Win% 38,120 carried more weight, 3,925 won 10.30% 40,950 carried less weight, 3,630 won 8.86% index 1.16 The figures are pretty much the same as in all races. Horses carrying more weight than in their last race, which was of the same class, won more than those carrying less. Turf Runners Handicap Today, Handicap LTO Win% 55,031 carried more weight, 5,474 won 9.95% 57,085 carried less weight, 4,217 won 7.39% index 1.35 The above table examines handicap races where the last race was a handicap too. Although the strike rates are lower, the index is bigger indicating that a horse that is rising in the weights is progressing in the right direction. Turf Runners Handicap today, Handicap LTO, Same Class Win% 20,108 carried more weight, 2,092 won 10.40% 22,380 carried less weight, 1,658 won 7.41% index 1.40 Weight rise handicappers running in the same class have an advantage. Turf Runners in Stakes Races Win% 36,323 carried more weight, 4,268 won 11.75% 39,751 carried less weight, 4,665 won 11.74% index 1.00 Weight change in stakes races has no effect. Turf Runners Handicap Today, Stakes LTO Win% 10,155 carried more weight, 1,035 won 10.19% 11,093 carried less weight, 1,412 won 12.73% index 0.80 The above table is the only one where it is an advantage to be carrying less weight. Turf Runners Handicap Today, Handicap LTO, Same Going Win% 6,046 carried more weight, 713 won 11.79% 6,710 carried less weight, 511 won 7.62% index 1.5 In this table we are looking at horses running in handicaps that run on the same going as last time. As higher weighted horses win more on firm ground and less on soft ground we want to be sure that changes in going are not causing spurious results . The weight rise horses have a much bigger advantage when the going is the same. The Handicapper The handicapper has a tough task. He has to allocate a rating for every horse that runs. His task is to assign a rating such that all the runners in a handicap will finish in one big dead heat. This has never happened, and probably never will. The following tables examine his performance over the years and in different race conditions. Each table shows the average winning distance that the winner beat the second placed horse. If the handicapper were to be 100% accurate the figure should be 0 as we would expect to see a dead heat. We will look at all handicap races run on good ground only. This is to ensure the figures are not influenced by soft or firm ground. Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1.7L 1.6L 1.5L 1.3L 1.4L Over the past 5 years the average winning distance the winner beat the second horse has fallen steadily from 1.7 lengths to 1.4 lengths. This can mean one of two things. Either the quality of horses in this country are getting better, or the handicapper is becoming more accurate. We suspect the later. The handicapper is sure to be utilising the advances in technology which enable him to rate faster and more accurately. Like the world record for the 100m sprint, will the average winning distance ever reach zero? Race Class A B C D E F G 1.2L 1.3L 1.4L 1.4L 1.5L 2.0L 2.0L This table shows the average winning distances for each class of race. As the class lowers the winning distance goes up. This could indicate that it is harder for the handicapper to rate lower quality horses, or that at the best races the competition is better. Some speed rating experts say it is indeed harder to win with their ratings in the higher class races as the difference in speed points is minimal, yet in races such as sellers there is a wide difference in ratings. Race Distance Sprints Middle Long 1.3L 1.4L 1.9L The margin for error is greater in longer distances. Ratings experts use a scale to adjust ratings for different distances, e.g. 5lbs=1 length upto a mile, 5lbs=1.5 lengths a mile to 12f etc., It could be flawed. Horse Age 2yo 3yo 4yo 5yo 6yo 7yo+ 1.2L 1.6L 1.5L 1.4L 1.5L 1.6L It is always thought that the handicapper underestimates the rating for 2yo's. The above table shows this is clearly not the case. It is 3yo's where the handicapper has the most trouble trying to get an accurate rating. This could be because many horses don't race at 2. The same applies with older horses. They may not have won for a couple of years and their rating may have plummeted too far. Month Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 2.0L 1.8L 1.4L 1.4L 1.6L 1.5L 1.4L 1.3L The early part of the season could be affected by soft going which creates bigger winning margins. But there is no evidence of this at the end of the season when it is as likely to have softer going. What we think is happening here is the all weather effect. Horses that have run just before the start of the season hold an edge over horses that have not run since last season. The situation does not settle down until May. Many punters do not bet until then because they want to wait until the form settles down. The handicapper can't do this he has to rate every race. Other Weight Influences Why would a trainer use a jockey that would be overweight? The trainer may be disgruntled when the handicapper raises his horse too steeply but do you see him arguing with the jockey for being a pound or two overweight? Could it be that trainers like to run their horses overweight to disguise form? If the horse runs badly his rating should go down. He can then drop in class (and rise in absolute weight) and enjoy the extra pound or two gain from not being overweight. The following table shows the average distance behind the winner of horses carrying overweight. Overweight 0lbs 1lb 2lbs 3lbs 4lbs 5lbs 6lbs 7lbs 8lbs 9lbs+ 11.1L 13.0L 14.9L 15.5L 15.5L 16.0L 16.7L 17.2L 21.2L 21.5L It is clear the more overweight a jockey is the bigger distance it will lose by. Penalty 0lbs 1-4lbs 5lbs 6lbs 7lbs+ 11.3L 9.0L 7.2L 6.1L 5.6L It sure is an advantage for a trainer to turn out his recent winner quickly before the rating is reassessed. The bigger the penalty the closer the horse is to the winner. Allowance 0lbs 3lbs 4lbs 5lbs 6lbs 7lbs 8lbs 10lbs 11.0L 12.2L 14.8L 11.7L 12.3 12.3L 8.5L 10.3L Overall apprentices are a bad thing. In standard races the only allowances claimed are 3, 5 and 7lbs. Each of these riders lose a 1.2, 0.7, 1.3 lengths more respectively than a professional. We are not saying you should avoid apprentices. You need to spot the best races for them, and you need to catch them when they are 'riding the wave'. This is where they have outclassed their allowance band and are close to dropping down a level e.g. from a 5lb to a 3lb claimer. Note that 4, 6, 8, 10lbs are allowances in Apprentice only races. The apprentices that are claiming 8 and 10lbs (for having only won a few or no races) are good value for their claim. Summary Increasing the weight on a horse will not disadvantage it: it will not slow a horse down. Similarly decreasing a horses weight will not speed it up. Overall weight risers will mostly beat weight fallers. The handicapper is becoming more accurate as the years go by. This is going to make it harder for punters to win in handicap races. Take a close look at penalty carriers. Don't be put off by the weight rise as the bigger the penalty, the closer the horse will be to winners enclosure. Overweight horses should be avoided but taken note of for future races. Article created 10-Feb-01. Stats may have changed since.

How much of a length shift in the impact of the female allowance is necessary to shift the win rate by 1% in favour of females in NZ handicaps?

People Who Constantly Point Out Grammar Mistakes Are Pretty Much Jerks, Scientists Find https://www.sciencealert.com/people-who-pick-up-grammar-mistakes-jerks-scientists-find

Exactly Chief. No-one is suggesting that a "good" apprentice with a 3kg claim won't make a positive difference to a horse's chance. What I think those posters are saying is that depending which statistics you believe, you can't apply apprentice claims to your assessment across the board whether you think it's positive or negative. It has to be applied to the individual horse. Most would also say that and carried weight in general is a relatively small contributor to chance in NZ racing. Plenty of evidence backs that up. On the other hand, similar evidence suggests that the effect of a .5kg increase in the female allowance may have impacted female win rates on average across the population. As ATA notes, there is considerable variation in assessments of chance in a single race such as have been used in that exercise. You have to remember though that some of those posters are just learning to frame markets and others are not familiar with doing so on NZ racing. That said, I don't agree that it's about backing winners per se. Of course you have to back some winners but whatever rate you do that won't bring success unless you are doing that on runners at value (that is having a better chance and winning at a higher rate than the available pricing indicates). That requires reasonably accurate assessment on average. Some will rely more heavily on one factor than the other. So, some rate significantly based on speed maps, others primarily on time based ability assessments. If you look at the summary of those assessments to date from 370 bets only 11 of those have been on a winner but the ROI is still over 100%, not that I'd expect for a moment that to be achieved in the longer term but the point is it's not the win strike rate that matters to in order to gain a POT.

Interesting. I doubt anyone on the other channel would say claims don't make a difference ATA. Just that the evidence suggests that those carrying claims win at a lower than expected rate compared to those with non-claimers, particularly on heavy tracks.

And it's very different from other Coaches/Trainers in Professional Sport who are employed/contracted by the sport. He is employed by himself and can do what ever he sees fit to that is in compliance with the rules of racing.

There seems to be a proclivity in some of these track drainage projects to try and get it to do otherwise. About to try that here but from my limited engineering design skills and if the understanding about gravity hasn't changed since I went to school, I'm pretty sure that will require a pump. I'm putting one in anyway just to be on the safe side.

What's plain wrong?

At the bottom of the handicap it equals a big fat ZERO. So if you are doing any real analysis of the effect of the allowance you need to leave out those horses not carrying their rated weight.

Did they fix it? Or Fuxx it up?

Not sure I understand the point in your question?

Yep, because that will leave the other 13 runners continuing to run on a competitive basis and thus generating punter interest, turnover and revenue. None of which we have with the current system. Hence declining stakes, foal crops and ownership interest. You surely don't think a Phar Lap type maiden winner should then be competing at the next level with your average type maiden winner at level weights? It's insane to operate a handicapping system like that.

Agree. Not that keen on the idea of the prosecutor and judge being one.

Yeahh agree. Done that plenty of times and didn't fall over (till later) and managed to get the saddle on the right horse (I think). Some of them maybe need more practice.

Burgess Special Review Report - For Consultation - 29 July 2019 (1).pdf

Final Terms of Reference for Special Review of Integrity Bodies.pdf MinisteNo.38 - 26-04-19 - NZTR Circular FY18-19 - Special Review of Integrity Services.pdfrial Advisory Committee Communications Release - Appointment for the Special Review of the Integrity Bodies.pdf

No they didn't. They indicated what you quoted him saying above. That females were not dominating in handicap races (and also that neither were males.) Read them again.

I've posted heaps of data showing the effect. Where's your evidence that it has had less effect?

If you define working as giving females a diisproportionate win rate and getting them through the classes more easily than males, that's true. But in terms of the mission, reversing the 1. Declining foal crop and 2. Declining Broodmare Numbers, no dice.

If you look at the provided stats as well you will see that the 1.5 kg allowance was about right. So why would he recommend increasing it. Not to make the handicaps more competitive but because "to assist the breeding platform an increase in opportunity for this sex must be considered." To identify and confirm the opinions expressed a review of statistics published in the New Zealand Fact Book places the concerns in perspective. The statistics identify: 1. Declining foal crop 2. Declining Broodmare Numbers While it may be perceived that these issues are not relevant to a review of handicapping and race programming, I remain of a differing opinion and am fearful unless these concerns are addressed there will be a continued decline in the racing pool. Bad reason.

Have you even read the NZ Handicapping guide? Horses may receive an increased rating for placing within their own rating or higher rating bands, which may mean that this horse moves into the next ratings band.

oops... pressed play by accident ... This all seems to be consistent with the data in the head post article. It's tricky though because that was evident in the years after the allowance change whereas %s were about equal before it. And we can't say for certain that the allowance caused the shift, at least not directly. There was also a significant drop in starts by lower rated males for example, perhaps due to the perception of the impact of the increased female allowance. There may have been an increase in export of better males. Even more tricky would be the palatability of changing it back to see if that corrects the situation. Especially when it is accepted in Australia and the WFA scale and thus many including the likes of Thommo and the BHA handicappers believe it is correct if you are going to have a RBH + allowances system rather than a pure handicapping system.