mardigras Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 Many posts on the meaning of many, on a racing site. Anyone would think this was a site for remedial English students. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 (edited) What a crackup. The scale has been changed based on a study of 90,000 handicap runners and only 5,000 WFA runners. And the numbers represent trying to address a very marginal imbalance in both margin and success rate (from both the handicap and WFA races). And is a poor method anyway since it focuses predominantly on strike rate. Which I could go on about but Thomass would call me arrogant. I wonder what looking at handicap races did for them. Edited November 16, 2018 by mardigras Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 15 minutes ago, mardigras said: What a crackup. The scale has been changed based on a study of 90,000 handicap runners and only 5,000 WFA runners. And the numbers represent trying to address a very marginal imbalance in both margin and success rate (from both the handicap and WFA races). And is a poor method anyway since it focuses predominantly on strike rate. Which I could go on about but Thomass would call me arrogant. I wonder what looking at handicap races did for them. Congratulations, you've finally decided to read up on it instead of flying off diatribe after diatribe in gross ignorance... ...but you'll still claim "many WFA races are won by a pixel" Keep pulling the pudd sonny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 Sure are. Many. Thousands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 On 15/11/2018 at 9:53 AM, Thomass said: The experts work to 0.5kg=1L...which is about right... On 15/11/2018 at 12:51 PM, Thomass said: The NH handicappers know 1/2kg=1L over 2000m-2400M So if 'they know' this and the 'experts work' to this, then why when trying to address an imbalance according to their own report of between 0.2L to 0.4L in longer races, they have changed the allowance by as much as 3lb? Surely based on what 'they know', that would cause a close to 3 length change? No? So they changed it by 1lb to 3lb to cause a change of 0.2L generally. Interesting. On something based largely on handicap races. Interesting. Next time you want to present some info, perhaps you should ensure it aligns with your views - and not mine. 3lbs - yep, around 0.15L. Seems reasonable as an approach to move towards leveling things out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted November 18, 2018 Share Posted November 18, 2018 If anyone else is interested in reading some of the detail behind the BHA decision to adjust the WFA scale, here is a link. https://www.britishhorseracing.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DATA-PACK-WFA-Scale-22-09-16.pdf I find it hilarious that our resident 1kg = 1L (and 1kg = 2L over longer distances) expert, tried to use this to support his stance. When they are attempting to correct an imbalance of mimimal levels, based on his view, they only needed to make a 200gm adjustment at the longer distances, not 7 times that amount that they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted November 18, 2018 Share Posted November 18, 2018 Why do they use strike rate as an assessment measure? That's bizarre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted November 18, 2018 Share Posted November 18, 2018 (edited) 24 minutes ago, curious said: Why do they use strike rate as an assessment measure? That's bizarre. Yes, I mentioned that it wasn't a great study when I first discussed having read it. You can actually achieve the varying strike rates based entirely on their starter numbers in each category whereby each age wins what it should (but still with the strike rate shown). It is a pointless metric, but then according to some, these are the experts. Edited November 18, 2018 by mardigras Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted November 18, 2018 Share Posted November 18, 2018 Yeahh, it's weird analysis. Has nothing to do with weight carried necessarily. Wouldn't make it to any peer reviewed journal. Pure crap. Can't be bothered reading any further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted November 18, 2018 Share Posted November 18, 2018 (edited) It's been said that these people are the experts and they know stuff. I wonder if they know more stuff all than our resident 'general' statistician. Edited November 18, 2018 by mardigras Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted November 18, 2018 Share Posted November 18, 2018 It's total rubbish. I'm doing a PhD confirmation tomorrow. I'm pretty sure if the panel were presented with that crap they'd say go away and start over. Come back when you have something sensible for us to consider. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted November 18, 2018 Share Posted November 18, 2018 18 hours ago, mardigras said: If anyone else is interested in reading some of the detail behind the BHA decision to adjust the WFA scale, here is a link. https://www.britishhorseracing.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DATA-PACK-WFA-Scale-22-09-16.pdf I find it hilarious that our resident 1kg = 1L (and 1kg = 2L over longer distances) expert, tried to use this to support his stance. When they are attempting to correct an imbalance of mimimal levels, based on his view, they only needed to make a 200gm adjustment at the longer distances, not 7 times that amount that they did. As Pink Floyd said "you're as thick as a brick" Big ups for finally reading the document...but going off half cocked is your raisin day tear..... ...and fully pissed when telling your avid sycophants the difference is 0.05L... ...which is a pixel.... ....and "many" races are decided by a pixel idiot I do 1Kg=3/4L...at least get it right Very similar to what the experts use.... ...you know the Handicappers who know the real impact... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted November 18, 2018 Share Posted November 18, 2018 On 15/11/2018 at 9:53 AM, Thomass said: The experts work to 0.5kg=1L...which is about right... 6 minutes ago, Thomass said: I do 1Kg=3/4L...at least get it right Very similar to what the experts use.... ...you know the Handicappers who know the real impact.. So is 0.5kg =1L about right since it isn't the same as 1.0kg =3/4L. In fact, not even what I would call close. And aren't the BHA handicappers experts. Since the report shows they don't believe your numbers or maybe just decided not to use them and use mine instead. Are you disputing the 3% I said would generally be the case for the percentage of WFA races won by 0.05L or less. You're not going to continue with the self humiliation relating to your substandard education. You've already done that today in the NZ cup thread. We don't need you to fill up the site with more of you demonstrating that you are illiterate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Smallhaussen Posted November 18, 2018 Share Posted November 18, 2018 32 minutes ago, Thomass said: As Pink Floyd said "you're as thick as a brick" Wrong - that was Jethro! Pink Floyd said - " got to keep the loonies on the path" ? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted November 19, 2018 Share Posted November 19, 2018 Yes but the bricks were thick az in the wall!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted November 19, 2018 Share Posted November 19, 2018 1 hour ago, mardigras said: So is 0.5kg =1L about right since it isn't the same as 1.0kg =3/4L. In fact, not even what I would call close. And aren't the BHA handicappers experts. Since the report shows they don't believe your numbers or maybe just decided not to use them and use mine instead. Are you disputing the 3% I said would generally be the case for the percentage of WFA races won by 0.05L or less. You're not going to continue with the self humiliation relating to your substandard education. You've already done that today in the NZ cup thread. We don't need you to fill up the site with more of you demonstrating that you are illiterate. Omg... Youre getting horribly pickled... what comparative weight the 3yo's carry and what they've just taken away compared to older horses...are two totally different beasts you pillick My average is up to 2200M as we have very few races over that.... their alteration for 3YO's over 2 miles is 3lbs...they're winning by larger margins than older horses as well... 0.5L more It always pays to read ...or you'll claim "many races are decided by a pixel" ..next you'll be claiming 0.05L=1/2L half witted stuff... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted November 19, 2018 Share Posted November 19, 2018 (edited) I can't help you if you didn't understand what they wrote, even if it isn't robust. They are wanting to equalise the average winning margin of a 3yo to be that of an older horse, so that in theory, the strike rates will match. They told you the average variance in winning margin between a 3yo and a 4yo ranges from 0.2L at middle distances, up to as high as 0.4L at high distances. That is what they are trying to correct . 14 minutes ago, Thomass said: their alteration for 3YO's over 2 miles is 3lbs...they're winning by larger margins than older horses as well... 0.5L more Actually they claim 0.4L. which is what the 3lb is attempting to address. Yet at those distances, 3lb less should change the margin by nearly 3 lengths if we believed your tripe So in their wisdom, they chose to adjust the allowance by an amount they believe will bring about the reduction in average winning margin to that of a 4yo. A 0.4L adjustment at the longest distances. Ergo, they are claiming 1 to 2lbs will make the 0.2L adjustment at some of those middle distances, and 3lb is required to make an adjustment of 0.4L. Why do you persist in highlighting how uneducated you are. I know it had writing and wasn't all pretty pictures, but the non robust report still supports my claim. Not yours. Hahahaha. Edited November 19, 2018 by mardigras Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turny Posted November 19, 2018 Share Posted November 19, 2018 Don't bother engaging Mardi He's an idoit 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted November 19, 2018 Share Posted November 19, 2018 Yep, I've blocked his posts. You can only try for so long. I'm tolerant, but he is beyond help. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted November 19, 2018 Share Posted November 19, 2018 9 hours ago, mardigras said: I can't help you if you didn't understand what they wrote, even if it isn't robust. They are wanting to equalise the average winning margin of a 3yo to be that of an older horse, so that in theory, the strike rates will match. They told you the average variance in winning margin between a 3yo and a 4yo ranges from 0.2L at middle distances, up to as high as 0.4L at high distances. That is what they are trying to correct . Actually they claim 0.4L. which is what the 3lb is attempting to address. Yet at those distances, 3lb less should change the margin by nearly 3 lengths if we believed your tripe So in their wisdom, they chose to adjust the allowance by an amount they believe will bring about the reduction in average winning margin to that of a 4yo. A 0.4L adjustment at the longest distances. Ergo, they are claiming 1 to 2lbs will make the 0.2L adjustment at some of those middle distances, and 3lb is required to make an adjustment of 0.4L. Why do you persist in highlighting how uneducated you are. I know it had writing and wasn't all pretty pictures, but the non robust report still supports my claim. Not yours. Hahahaha. Wtf is this load of buggery bollocks?? Youre clueless when it comes to this stuff For a start not only does the well respected TIMEFORM use 1lb=1L over the extra staying distances but so do the pro Brit. HANDICAPPERS Pray tell how taking off 3lbs for 3yo's equates to the Handicappers thinking that'll adjust to 0.4L...when they use 1 for 1 ffs? The total joke though is your arrogance in suggesting an alteration relates to a 0.05L margin Which is a pixel....in anyone's lingo And then telling us that equates to "many races"...which then turns out it's really 3% Its LALA Land you're in....it's an Acadamy Award winning performance in gross moronism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted November 19, 2018 Share Posted November 19, 2018 14 hours ago, mardigras said: Yep, I've blocked his posts. You can only try for so long. I'm tolerant, but he is beyond help. This is hilarious... So you CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH.... ...your Racing Site Tombstone will be tagged... "I believe 0.05L will change 'many' race outcomes" Onya bike sulker...god speed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeelTheFear Posted November 19, 2018 Share Posted November 19, 2018 14 hours ago, mardigras said: Yep, I've blocked his posts. You can only try for so long. I'm tolerant, but he is beyond help. welcome to the club. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.