The Great Weight Debate

[Thomass]

It's a constant with NZ Trainers as well....

Moaning endlessly about their neddy's weight and how unjust the World's become...

However stats from Australia tell a different story....and maybe our resident stats statsman can insert play 21,000 stimulations on the NZ figures...especially over winter....

...which to be fair...could show something different on our Bogs

It all stemmed from Wayne Hawkes on 'On after the Last' show where he said "when an average horse goes up in weight, they struggle to win, simple as that"

These stats are BM 64/78 VIC/NSW 3.5yrs

 

 

Edited February 19, 2019 by Thomass

[Fred]

The stupidity of statistics -the better horses have the higher weights as they proceed to better class races.

[mardigras]

55 minutes ago, Fred said:

The stupidity of statistics -the better horses have the higher weights as they proceed to better class races.

What happens to the horses that lose points and start in lower grade.  Are they proceeding to better class races?

You seem to be suggesting that the progressive horses are always at the top of the handicap. Strange idea.

[Huey]

10 minutes ago, mardigras said:

What happens to the horses that lose points and start in lower grade.  Are they proceeding to better class races?

You seem to be suggesting that the progressive horses are always at the top of the handicap. Strange idea.

What about the drop back multi win horses that can make their way back to R65 they are also up or near the top in most cases.

[mardigras]

1 minute ago, Huey said:

What about the drop back multi win horses that can make their way back to R65 they are also up or near the top in most cases.

Quite agree. Certainly not progressing through the grades.

It's illogical to think better performing horses are at the top of the handicaps. Higher rates horses are, which is what handicap racing is about. And the stated purpose of that is to equalise chance. 

[Chief Stipe]

32 minutes ago, mardigras said:

Quite agree. Certainly not progressing through the grades.

It's illogical to think better performing horses are at the top of the handicaps. Higher rates horses are, which is what handicap racing is about. And the stated purpose of that is to equalise chance. 

So isn't that an inherent flaw in the system?

[Sandpiper]

The intent of WH's comments is unclear. What I am sure about is he was not talking about physical weight being carried, he is talking about rating points.

Leaving that aside and looking the table on its merits, the min weight strike rate is explained away by runners out of the handicap. For the mid weight band I would be interested to see the table extended to show the % of male versus female runners, since I would expect the mid band to be quite female dominated proportionally. Why does that matter? Well maybe it is evidence that the equilibrium allowance is 2.5kg rather than 2.0kg.

 

[mardigras]

19 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

So isn't that an inherent flaw in the system?

The allocation of points and the spread of weights/weights per point is flawed here and in Oz. But weighting based on rating isn't flawed by itself.

[Chief Stipe]

Just now, mardigras said:

The allocation of points and the spread of weights/weights per point is flawed here and in Oz. But weighting based on rating isn't flawed by itself.

Ok the system isn't flawed but the application of it is.  So if it was applied correctly what difference to the stats that have been posted would you expect to see?

[mardigras]

19 minutes ago, Sandpiper said:

The intent of WH's comments is unclear. What I am sure about is he was not talking about physical weight being carried, he is talking about rating points.

Leaving that aside and looking the table on its merits, the min weight strike rate is explained away by runners out of the handicap. For the mid weight band I would be interested to see the table extended to show the % of male versus female runners, since I would expect the mid band to be quite female dominated proportionally. Why does that matter? Well maybe it is evidence that the equilibrium allowance is 2.5kg rather than 2.0kg.

 

I've been involved in studies that have gone to NZTR, the same relative % apply if you just take males or just take females. 

The weight variance for a point based on their scale is insufficient to equalise chance 'generally' in NZ and Oz.

[mardigras]

2 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Ok the system isn't flawed but the application of it is.  So if it was applied correctly what difference to the stats that have been posted would you expect to see?

I'd expect it flat from the top until around 0.5kg above the minimum, then a drop away as horses on the minimum aren't all getting all the weight relief their rating suggests they should.

[Thomass]

3 minutes ago, mardigras said:

The allocation of points and the spread of weights/weights per point is flawed here and in Oz. But weighting based on rating isn't flawed by itself.

Where's the BEST Handicapping in the World IYO?

HK for mine...

But how soon until a Bot takes over...analysing sectional data splits, in form out of, unsuitable distance, checked, wide without cover...et el

The Chinese have probably already incorporated it in the 5G's...

[Chief Stipe]

7 minutes ago, Thomass said:

Where's the BEST Handicapping in the World IYO?

HK for mine...

But how soon until a Bot takes over...analysing sectional data splits, in form out of, unsuitable distance, checked, wide without cover...et el

The Chinese have probably already incorporated it in the 5G's...

Some of those data items are unquantifiable so wouldn't make it into any algorithm.  

[Huey]

1 hour ago, mardigras said:

Quite agree. Certainly not progressing through the grades.

It's illogical to think better performing horses are at the top of the handicaps. Higher rates horses are, which is what handicap racing is about. And the stated purpose of that is to equalise chance. 

Or horses finding their place in a grade i.e. R65 drop backs.

[mardigras]

3 hours ago, Huey said:

Or horses finding their place in a grade i.e. R65 drop backs.

Which is fine. I think the handicapping model of the UK is as good as any. It allows for an overall ranking of runners and can include re-rating horses even if they haven't started in the interim.

[Thomass]

17 hours ago, mardigras said:

I'd expect it flat from the top until around 0.5kg above the minimum, then a drop away as horses on the minimum aren't all getting all the weight relief their rating suggests they should.

This works well in the BP..

...taking into account these mares...who don't receive the 2kg allowance in a higher grade wrt a male...but do when dropping back to R65

Lets see...I allow an extra length advantage over the male dropping back

Just get on

[Thomass]

17 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Some of those data items are unquantifiable so wouldn't make it into any algorithm.  

Almost all are...a Handicapper would simply data entry his opinion if for example they think the check received was bad enough...

Very few of the below are currently being actioned...simply they're ignored

The Handicapper may decide not to lower a horse’s Rating despite that horse having nished well back in a race in the following circumstances:

• §  If the horse is racing at an unsuitable distance (such as a stayer in sprint events);

• §  Where the horse suffers interference in running;

• §  Where the horse misses the start;

• §  Horse being wide throughout the race;

• §  Horse contesting a signi cantly higher rating band race;

• §  Horse resuming from a spell.

• §  Other reasons that the Handicapper considers relevant to the horses performance.

  Furthermore, if a horse falls, bleeds, is brought down, pulled up, runs off, disquali ed, or loses its rider there may be no adjustment to its Rating.

  As a consequence of the introduction of Ratings based programming, the Handicapper may also take into account the future eligibility of a horse for a particular rating band when assessing a beaten performance. This means that a horse may have its rating lowered, even though it suffered interference or was caught wide in a race. The rationale for this is that the connections of that horse should not be effectively penalised twice as a result of bad luck in running, provided the horse’s overall performance history warrants its eligibility for the rating band it is dropping back into.