Quirin on weight.

[gillenr]

If memory serves, he says the higher wts beat the lower back then. If I remembered right, is that still true or not?
Thanks

[Krudler]

I think it is, as a general rule. I don't have a database to crunch the numbers but I did listen to Derek Simon's TwinSpires horse racing podcast from 11 Dec 2014 and he discussed weight as a factor.

As I recall, he tested his db of recent race results and found that horses carrying more weight won more than their fair share. He postulated that it related to these horses fitting the race conditions more closely.

[HUSKER55]

WHEN THE TRACK SECRETARY SETS THE WEIGHT CARRIED THE TOP WEIGHTED HORSE IS THE ONE TO BEAT. you could email dave and ask him.

[Some_One]

For American racing - Higher weights win more, lower weights pay more, no statistical difference in ROI for weights.

[Robert Goren]

Generally speaking, putting on weight with higher odds horse with a string of bad races could signal an improved performance, but whether you want to bet on it is an another question. Taking off weight when the horse did not win last out is a very bad sign assume it is not jockey related. But if you are down to using weight as the determining factor to pick the winner, you are probably better off skipping the race.

[cj]

If memory serves, he says the higher wts beat the lower back then. If I remembered right, is that still true or not?
Thanks

Sure. It has more to do with the way conditions are written than the weight itself.

[DeltaLover]

Whether top weights are winning more (or less) is irrelevant for betting purposes; what really matters is how good or bad the weight differences are projected on the betting pools and how well the crowd adjusts its opinion based on them

[Secondbest]

There is old stat that the highweight wins 50% of handicap races.Not sure if that is still true

[Some_One]

There is old stat that the highweight wins 50% of handicap races.Not sure if that is still true

That was never true.

[Robert Goren]

Whether top weights are winning more (or less) is irrelevant for betting purposes; what really matters is how good or bad the weight differences are projected on the betting pools and how well the crowd adjusts its opinion based on themWeight has zero effect on the outcome of a race. The public has accept that fact about 30 years ago, so it has zero effect on the pools. A novice $2 bettor might take in to consideration, but nobody else does.

[Robert Goren]

There is old stat that the highweight wins 50% of handicap races.Not sure if that is still trueOnly in races that Kelso and Native Diver ran in.

[Overlay]

Only in races that Kelso and Native Diver ran in.
What about Forego? :)

[steveb]

Weight has zero effect on the outcome of a race. The public has accept that fact about 30 years ago, so it has zero effect on the pools. A novice $2 bettor might take in to consideration, but nobody else does.

and so might the biggest gamblers on the planet.
well, i think we had better change 'might' for 'will'

i learned a long time ago that weight matters more on dirt than it does on turf, and it is a big a factor on turf, so it follows that it is an even bigger factor on dirt.
i am sure that certain people are happy that most others appear to share your belief.

[Some_One]

Weight has zero effect on the outcome of a race. The public has accept that fact about 30 years ago, so it has zero effect on the pools. A novice $2 bettor might take in to consideration, but nobody else does.

That is also not true, in American racing, it doesn't really come into play as the spread, even in handicaps, is maybe 5-6 lbs? Take extreme examples like the Melbourne Cup or The Grand National and you get data which suggests the low weights make a difference over the extended differences. Also in HK where you can have a 20 lbs spread in weights in a race.

[Tom]

Weight has zero effect on the outcome of a race. The public has accept that fact about 30 years ago, so it has zero effect on the pools. A novice $2 bettor might take in to consideration, but nobody else does.
Some trainers do, and so it does affect the outcomes of races.

[PIC6SIX]

If weight DOES NOT MATTER why do so many trainers in southern CA like to use the bug boy. Most recently, Dryden Vandyke. Every year there is some bug boy in CA that does well. When he loses the bug they stop using him or her and they move to some other circuit.

[Robert Goren]

Some trainers do, and so it does affect the outcomes of races.That part is true. But how do you know which trainers think that way.

[Secondbest]

That was never true.
I remember reading it somewhere .Can't remember where it was back into late 70' s early 80's

[Stillriledup]

Weight has zero effect on the outcome of a race. The public has accept that fact about 30 years ago, so it has zero effect on the pools. A novice $2 bettor might take in to consideration, but nobody else does.
YpuRcmPnSTM

[Robert Goren]

For those of you who think weight has some effect, pray please tell us how much. Does 4lb equal a length? Does 5lbs reduce the chances of winning 1%? Does 6lbs reduce the amount of money bet on a horse by 1%? You must have some guess you would care to share.

[JohnGalt1]

There was an old system where you subtract the odds from the jockey's weight. Bet the highest number.

It was probably more effective years ago with more handicap races.

Using Saturday's third race at Gulfstream 12/20/14 for 3 and up, and for this example every horse goes off at exactly the morning line odds.

The 1 carries 111, jockey 3-1, rating 108

The 2 121, 20-1, rating 101

3-123, 12-1 rating 112

4-121, 2-1 rating 119

5-121,15-1 rating 104

6-121, 20-1 rating 101

7-121, 6-1 rating 115

8-121 9-2 rating 116.5

9-121 10-1 rating 111

10-121 10-1 rating 111

So the bet would be the 4.

But the 3-1 second choice has one of the lowest ratings because of the bug weight allowance.

Of course the Kentucky Derby with all carrying the same weight, the play with this almost worthless system, is always on the favorite.

[PICSIX]

An 1,000 lb. horse carrying 115 vs 125 is the same as an 100 lb. person carrying 11.5 vs 12.5. That is an 8.6% increase in weight........does it matter? I don't know. I'm a runner, maybe I'll conduct a self-study carrying a backpack to find out :confused: If we could just ask the horses it would be so much easier :lol: :lol:

[Robert Goren]

An 1,000 lb. horse carrying 115 vs 125 is the same as an 100 lb. person carrying 11.5 vs 12.5. That is an 8.6% increase in weight........does it matter? I don't know. I'm a runner, maybe I'll conduct a self-study carrying a backpack to find out :confused: If we could just ask the horses it would be so much easier :lol: :lol: Weight will stop a train if it is enough. But a 1000-1200lb horse can not feel the difference of 3 or 4 lbs. It would be like you adding 3 or 4 ounces to your back pack and running 200 yards.

[Judge Gallivan]

In Formula 1 1 kg (2.2 lbs) of extra fuel weight adds around 1/10 of a second to a lap time.

So if 2 pounds of weight can make a relatively significant difference in speed of such powerful, heavy and aerodynamic vehicles I would be surprised if it made absolutely no difference with living animals.

[Cratos]

In Formula 1 1 kg (2.2 lbs) of extra fuel weight adds around 1/10 of a second to a lap time.

So if 2 pounds of weight can make a relatively significant difference in speed of such powerful, heavy and aerodynamic vehicles I would be surprised if it made absolutely no difference with living animals.
The confusion here as I see it is "race conditions weight" is being interpreted as "load weight" and that is incorrect.

Race conditions weight is a subjective load applied to a horse based on its prior performance by the racing secretary.

Load weight is the weight toted by the horse plus it's body weight and acts on the horse's speed, stamina, and strength as a function of its TME.

To find the weight impact on a horse's performance you need to use its "load weight" in your calculations to obtain the TME needed or used for a given performance.

[cj]

To find the weight impact on a horse's performance you need to use its "load weight" in your calculations to obtain the TME needed or used for a given performance.

But of course we can't because we don't know the weight of the horse.

[ReplayRandall]

These are my weight differentials equal to one length:

Turf or Dirt

5F races- 4 lbs.

6F races- 3 lbs.

7F races- 2.5 lbs.

8F races- 2 lbs.

9F races and above- 1.5 lbs.

[Cratos]

But of course we can't because we don't know the weight of the horse.
The weight range of a thoroughbred in NA is 838 lbs - 1201 lbs with a mean value of 1084 lbs which is a very good metric for calculation.

If you prefer a more precise calculation you can Google the Internet for the formula on determining a horse' s weight.

[cj]

The weight range of a thoroughbred in NA is 838 lbs - 1201 lbs with a mean value of 1084 lbs which is a very good metric for calculation.

If you prefer a more precise calculation you can Google the Internet for the formula on determining a horse' s weight.

That is a pretty big spread. Using the mean value will have a pretty big built in error for a lot of horses. But this is my point...if you are going to just use the average weight for every horse, it is irrelevant to the calculation. You are really just using the difference in assigned weight.

[Robert Goren]

If you are going the physics, it probably best to treat the weight being carried differently than the way you treat the weight of the horse. I think if you start comparing SRs between races and checking to see if weight makes a difference, you are not going find much to hang your hat on. I have tried and found less than nothing. But go ahead and try. good luck!

[Tom]

And the weight carried is combined of both live weight and dead weight.
Contrary to popular opinion, the lead is the dead weight.

[lansdale]

and so might the biggest gamblers on the planet.
well, i think we had better change 'might' for 'will'

i learned a long time ago that weight matters more on dirt than it does on turf, and it is a big a factor on turf, so it follows that it is an even bigger factor on dirt.
i am sure that certain people are happy that most others appear to share your belief.


Since you sound like someone using logit regression a la Benter, you must also know that weight was one of his key factors.

[Show Me the Wire]

And the weight carried is combined of both live weight and dead weight.
Contrary to popular opinion, the lead is the dead weight.

Bingo. Live weight is better than dead weight.

[PhantomOnTour]

I am one who still considers weight in a few situations:

a) in rematch scenarios, where one horse beat another by a small margin while getting weight and today he concedes weight
b) 3yr olds carrying more weight than older runners...it's rare, but it's a death sentence for the 3yr old, who virtually has no shot to win.

[steveb]

For those of you who think weight has some effect, pray please tell us how much. Does 4lb equal a length? Does 5lbs reduce the chances of winning 1%? Does 6lbs reduce the amount of money bet on a horse by 1%? You must have some guess you would care to share.

weight carried has a measurable effect on how fast they run.
if it can be measured, then it makes a difference and thus matters

if you could have a nice neat little test of a field of the same horses all carrying 54kg a good number of times.
then the same with them all carrying 58kg, there would be a difference in how fast they run on average.

it does not take a big imagination, to wonder what you can do when it is not quite so neat.

it's like many things, that you can't give an explicit value to always, but that does not mean that one can't know the averages.

it is just one factor of many, but i learned a long time ago if that i could measure it, then i wanted to use it, no matter how minor.

i suppose it may appear counter intuitive to some that the more weight a horse is asked to carry in a handicap, then the more likely it is to win.
but that is easily explainable, because the best horses carry the most, and the official handicappers tend to be far too lenient, at least in australia.

anyway, i will give you a clue, the imperial system of weights and measures is not quite as revealing as the metric system is.

[Cratos]

That is a pretty big spread. Using the mean value will have a pretty big built in error for a lot of horses. But this is my point...if you are going to just use the average weight for every horse, it is irrelevant to the calculation. You are really just using the difference in assigned weight.
Wrong, this is a nonlinear calculation

[steveb]

Since you sound like someone using logit regression a la Benter, you must also know that weight was one of his key factors.

i am like most people, i only know what i have read of benter, nothing more.

but i have done work for the bloke that was once his partner.
as far as logits go, i am an amateur(i use it, but don't really understand it as it's not my area of expertise!), but i know absolutely that carried weight, at one stage at least, was their 3rd most important variable.

it has nothing to do with why i know it's an important variable though.
i just know that my method of times study, is a great thing for revealing values of things seemingly unrelated to times, and maybe that is why those guys sought me out in the past.

[cj]

Wrong, this is a nonlinear calculation

It doesn't matter...if A and B are the variables and A is always the same, B is the only variable that will cause different results.

[Cratos]

It doesn't matter...if A and B are the variables and A is always the same, B is the only variable that will cause different results.
Wrong again, do the calculation using differential calculus and by the way what is being calculated is TME dissipation (exponential) with respect to speed and stamina and measured by time which is constant; this is a nontrivial calculation.

Also the impact on turf and dirt is different because of surface resistance

[cj]

Wrong again, do the calculation using differential calculus and by the way what is being calculated is TME dissipation (exponential) with respect to speed and stamina and measured by time which is constant; this is a nontrivial calculation.

Also the impact on turf and dirt is different because of surface resistance

I wasn't clear. You aren't only using jockey weight of course, you are using jockey weight in combination with a constant. If one of two variables is actually a constant (in this case horse weight), then the only way to change the outcome of the calculation is by changing the variable (in this case assigned weight.)

Disguise it any way you like, but you don't know the most important factor in your calculation, horse weight. You are trying to quantify the impact of a few pounds of weight while guessing at something you admit has a range of nearly 400 pounds.

All I can say is good luck with that. I'll stick with adjusting by weight assigned and consider it good enough. I have tested this against making no adjustments and it definitely helps results. That is what I care about. When they start publishing the weight of horses, maybe I'll revisit this.

[Cratos]

I wasn't clear. You aren't only using jockey weight of course, you are using jockey weight in combination with a constant. If one of two variables is actually a constant (in this case horse weight), then the only way to change the outcome of the calculation is by changing the variable (in this case assigned weight.)

Disguise it any way you like, but you don't know the most important factor in your calculation, horse weight. You are trying to quantify the impact of a few pounds of weight while guessing at something you admit has a range of nearly 400 pounds.

All I can say is good luck with that. I'll stick with adjusting by weight assigned and consider it good enough. I have tested this against making no adjustments and it definitely helps results. That is what I care about. When they start publishing the weight of horses, maybe I'll revisit this.
I never implied that you should change your method, but if you do the research you find the method that I suggested is common place and historic in thoroughbred racing.

Incidentally, I didn't come up with this methodology; Newton did many years ago and it works for the motion of man, animal, or machine.

[cj]

I never implied that you should change your method, but if you do the research you find the method that I suggested is common place and historic in thoroughbred racing.

Incidentally, I didn't come up with this methodology; Newton did many years ago and it works for the motion of man, animal, or machine.

Great, I just don't see the point if the major variable is unavailable.

By the way, I do remember well when Freehold started weighing horses. They included race day weight in the PPs, and announced horse weight on the day of the races. I have no idea if they still do this. I did notice horse weight was in the PPs for either Japan or Hong Kong racing, don't remember which. Could be both for all I know.

[steveb]

Great, I just don't see the point if the major variable is unavailable.

By the way, I do remember well when Freehold started weighing horses. They included race day weight in the PPs, and announced horse weight on the day of the races. I have no idea if they still do this. I did notice horse weight was in the PPs for either Japan or Hong Kong racing, don't remember which. Could be both for all I know.

both singapore and hk give horse weight, dunno about japan.

not hard to imagine how important it could be as a factor in ones model.

[Cratos]

both singapore and hk give horse weight, dunno about japan.

not hard to imagine how important it could be as a factor in ones model.
Yes, it would be essential because you could model each horse without an impost at the given race distance and because of the different body weights there would be different times (speed) and then incrementally add weight and calculate the added weight affect on the horse's speed.

[Robert Fischer]

i suppose it may appear counter intuitive to some that the more weight a horse is asked to carry in a handicap, then the more likely it is to win.
but that is easily explainable, because the best horses carry the most, and the official handicappers tend to be far too lenient, at least in australia.


Basically the same in the states.
With everything, I think you want to do a a case-by-case basis.

I do not consider weight other than about 1 or 2 of the more severe handicaps here, and then a minor factor.

[Robert Fischer]

And the weight carried is combined of both live weight and dead weight.
Contrary to popular opinion, the lead is the dead weight.
;)
I remember my father had a chance to talk to Pat Day, and he proudly asked the hall of fame jockey a question about the weight of the jockeys, and how heavier jockeys carry less dead-weight etc...

I don't think my father assigned a ton of value to weight either to be honest, but he was satisfied with his question that day.

[DeltaLover]

I am convinced that weight change represent a significant handicapping factor.. What has been written so far in this thread is based mostly on opinions or theoretical approaches. I believe that the best way to attack the problem is by mining the data and some of my related findings can be read in the the following document (http://themindofagambler.com/weight-as-handicapping-factor.html) ....

As you can see, it is very easy to prove that indeed weight can be significant for betting purposes and it definitely should be considered when handicapping a race.

[ReplayRandall]

I am convinced that weight change represent a significant handicapping factor.. What has been written so far in this thread is based mostly on opinions or theoretical approaches. I believe that the best way to attack the problem is by mining the data and some of my related findings can be read in the the following document (http://themindofagambler.com/weight-as-handicapping-factor.html) ....

As you can see, it is very easy to prove that indeed weight can be significant for betting purposes and it definitely should be considered when handicapping a race.


Santa Delta, nice little stocking stuffer to give everyone during the holiday season.....HO..Ho..ho..

[DeltaLover]

Santa Delta, nice little stocking stuffer to give everyone during the holiday season.....HO..Ho..ho..


Note how obviously significant is the addition of over eight pounds, which is over-bet across all odds brackets... Anyone who claims that weight does not make a difference should go through these tables....

[Cratos]

Note how obviously significant is the addition of over eight pounds, which is over-bet across all odds brackets... Anyone who claims that weight does not make a difference should go through these tables....
The table is simply based on "race conditions weight" .

[DeltaLover]

The table is simply based on "race conditions weight" .

The table is based on the weight that is assigned to each horse.

[Cratos]

The table is based on the weight that is assigned to each horse.
Yes and that is "race conditions weight". Many years ago weight assigned to a horse was based on the Jockey Club Scale of Weights; I am not sure if that is exactly true today.

[DeltaLover]

Yes and that is "race conditions weight". Many years ago weight assigned to a horse was based on the Jockey Club Scale of Weights; I am not sure if that is exactly true today.


As far as we can prove some significant impact for an objectively defined factor, it does not really mater how it is defined.

[Cratos]

As far as we can prove some significant impact for an objectively defined factor, it does not really mater how it is defined.
Yes it does and that is what's wrong with much of the handicapping methods being used today; too much hyperbole based on anecdotal evidence.

There is much credible work that has been done by respected institutions worldwide that proves the effect of weight on the work of a racehorse during a race.

Just for your information a racehorse can tote up to 25% of its body weight.

[DeltaLover]

Yes it does

Can you prove your case?

[DeltaLover]

Just for your information a racehorse can tote up to 25% of its body weight.

I do not care about the weight of the horse. I only use the past performance data trying to discover significant factors based only on them

[Cratos]

I do not care about the weight of the horse. I only use the past performance data trying to discover significant factors based only on them
You should because that is the horse's energy source, but from your posts you don't understand the science and don't want to learn.

I have zero objection to you believing what you desire because this is pari-mutuel wagering and as Alfred P. Sloan stated: "when the man with the knowledge meets the man with the money; the man with knowledge gets the money and the man with the money gets the knowledge."

[DeltaLover]

You should because that is the horse's energy source, but from your posts you don't understand the science and don't want to learn.

I have zero objection to you believing what you desire because this is pari-mutuel wagering and as Alfred P. Sloan stated: "when the man with the knowledge meets the man with the money; the man with knowledge gets the money and the man with the money gets the knowledge."

WOW!! I do not understand the science behind the horse's energy source!! Hmm.. Yes, you are right, I do not..

One detail though, I think the correct wording needs the addition of pseudo before the word science for what you are trying to say here...

By the way where is the horse's energy source coming from? Grass?? Brome Hay?? Carrots??

[Cratos]

WOW!! I do not understand the science behind the horse's energy source!! Hmm.. Yes, you are right, I do not..

One detail though, I think the correct wording needs the addition of pseudo before the word science for what you are trying to say here...

By the way where is the horse's energy source coming from? Grass?? Brome Hay?? Carrots??
I wasn't being sarcastic to you, I was responding in kind. Yes through nutrition an animal gets its energy which is stored in its body and measured by its body weight .

However your circumventive respond is accepted

[Wizard of Odds]

Please excuse my ignorance...What are "Natural Odds"?

Thanks

[DeltaLover]

Please excuse my ignorance...What are "Natural Odds"?

Thanks

In a race of N horses, I define as natural the following range:

From: N-2
To: N +1

Example: In a 10 horse race NO will fall in the range:

from: 8-1
to: 11-1

Note that it is a matter of definition. Somebody else might define Natural Odds to be exactly N, or in our 10 horse race example exactly 10-1

[thaskalos]

I wasn't being sarcastic to you, I was responding in kind. Yes through nutrition an animal gets its energy which is stored in its body and measured by its body weight .

Is this strictly an equine phenomenon...or is a human's energy also measured by his body weight?

[Cratos]

Is this strictly an equine phenomenon...or is a human's energy also measured by his body weight?
I cannot answer that, but apparently you have some insight which might be interesting if you decide to share.

[classhandicapper]

If I handicap a race and things are tight enough that a weight shift of a few pounds could be key to the outcome, I think I'm probably better off either passing the race or using odds to settle it.

I routinely find final time figures differences of more than 5 lengths between quality sources or see conflicting information between time and class. Things like that tend to swamp my worries even though I agree weight matters and the public may not be betting the factor efficiently. Some of the time I'm not even sure I'm getting the big issues right.

[DeltaLover]

If I handicap a race and things are tight enough that a weight shift of a few pounds could be key to the outcome, I think I'm probably better off either passing the race or using odds to settle it.

I routinely find final time figures differences of more than 5 lengths between quality sources or see conflicting information between time and class. Things like that tend to swamp my worries even though I agree weight matters and the public may not be betting the factor efficiently. Some of the time I'm not even sure I'm getting the big issues right.

The absolute performance of a handicapping factor is not important for us a horse bettors. By absolute, here, I am referring to whether a matching horse will win less or more than its far share.

What we really care about, is the way the betting public is reacting to a specific angle..

It is very possible for a factor that really affects the performance of a horse to be neutralized for betting purposes (if the crowd is doing a very good job) or in contrary, a factor that has not a real impact to the final result, might present a large overlay.

As it turns out to be, weight is a handicapping factor that tends to confuse the betting public, systematically creating over and under lays and this is exactly what we should be looking for when handicapping a race.

As can easily be seen from the tables I presented, weight addition is one of the prime reasons to find horses who are over bet, making the other starters of the race, prime candidates for a good bet..

[Magister Ludi]

WOW!! I do not understand the science behind the horse's energy source!! Hmm.. Yes, you are right, I do not..

One detail though, I think the correct wording needs the addition of pseudo before the word science for what you are trying to say here...

By the way where is the horse's energy source coming from? Grass?? Brome Hay?? Carrots??

Adenosine triphosphate (ATP). When ATP molecules split, energy is released. Anaerobic sources of ATP are found in liver glycogen, the muscles, and blood glucose. Aerobic sources of ATP are found in the circulatory and respiratory systems.

Where t = 0s, 100% of the power source is anaerobic. Where t =~ 50s, 50% of the power source is anaerobic and 50% is aerobic. Where t >~ 50s, the aerobic power source > the anaerobic power source. Aerobically-gifted equine athletes with a preponderance of slow-twitch muscle fibers and/or those who have undergone a program of intermittent hypoxic training will be found to excel in routes. Conversely, anaerobically-gifted equine athletes with a preponderance of fast-twitch muscle fibers will be found to excel in sprints.

[classhandicapper]

The absolute performance of a handicapping factor is not important for us a horse bettors. By absolute, here, I am referring to whether a matching horse will win less or more than its far share.

What we really care about, is the way the betting public is reacting to a specific angle..

It is very possible for a factor that really affects the performance of a horse to be neutralized for betting purposes (if the crowd is doing a very good job) or in contrary, a factor that has not a real impact to the final result, might present a large overlay.

As it turns out to be, weight is a handicapping factor that tends to confuse the betting public, systematically creating over and under lays and this is exactly what we should be looking for when handicapping a race.

As can easily be seen from the tables I presented, weight addition is one of the prime reasons to find horses who are over bet, making the other starters of the race, prime candidates for a good bet..

I understand what you are saying, but I would have a big problem pulling the trigger on a horse because of a weight shift that may be creating marginal value when the speed figure I am looking at could be off by 5 lengths leading to the horse I am betting being a dramatic underlay.

If I were to think much about weight (and I don't) at best I would see it as a marginal plus or minus to a horse I already had strong convictions about.

[DeltaLover]

Adenosine triphosphate (ATP). When ATP molecules split, energy is released. Anaerobic sources of ATP are found in liver glycogen, the muscles, and blood glucose. Aerobic sources of ATP are found in the circulatory and respiratory systems.

Where t = 0s, 100% of the power source is anaerobic. Where t =~ 50s, 50% of the power source is anaerobic and 50% is aerobic. Where t >~ 50s, the aerobic power source > the anaerobic power source. Aerobically-gifted equine athletes with a preponderance of slow-twitch muscle fibers and/or those who have undergone a program of intermittent hypoxic training will be found to excel in routes. Conversely, anaerobically-gifted equine athletes with a preponderance of fast-twitch muscle fibers will be found to excel in sprints.

Wow, now I am really impressed!

Do you bet for a living or it is just your hobby?

[classhandicapper]

Adenosine triphosphate (ATP). When ATP molecules split, energy is released. Anaerobic sources of ATP are found in liver glycogen, the muscles, and blood glucose. Aerobic sources of ATP are found in the circulatory and respiratory systems.

Where t = 0s, 100% of the power source is anaerobic. Where t =~ 50s, 50% of the power source is anaerobic and 50% is aerobic. Where t >~ 50s, the aerobic power source > the anaerobic power source. Aerobically-gifted equine athletes with a preponderance of slow-twitch muscle fibers and/or those who have undergone a program of intermittent hypoxic training will be found to excel in routes. Conversely, anaerobically-gifted equine athletes with a preponderance of fast-twitch muscle fibers will be found to excel in sprints.

I assume the type of muscle you have is somewhat hereditary?

[Show Me the Wire]

Adenosine triphosphate (ATP). When ATP molecules split, energy is released. Anaerobic sources of ATP are found in liver glycogen, the muscles, and blood glucose. Aerobic sources of ATP are found in the circulatory and respiratory systems.

Where t = 0s, 100% of the power source is anaerobic. Where t =~ 50s, 50% of the power source is anaerobic and 50% is aerobic. Where t >~ 50s, the aerobic power source > the anaerobic power source. Aerobically-gifted equine athletes with a preponderance of slow-twitch muscle fibers and/or those who have undergone a program of intermittent hypoxic training will be found to excel in routes. Conversely, anaerobically-gifted equine athletes with a preponderance of fast-twitch muscle fibers will be found to excel in sprints.

Absolutely correct. However, the problem for a handicapper it is an unknown quantity, as is how many red cells, oxygen carriers, the animal has pre-race and how much weight is muscle versus fat. All are unknown factors for the handicapper.

[Show Me the Wire]

I assume the type of muscle you have is somewhat hereditary?

Of course. Stayers usually produce stayers and sprinters produce sprinters. The caveat is the thoroughbred gene pool is limited due to the foundation based on the few original sires that each thoroughbred must trace its lineage to and some possibility of regressive genes being passed. Exactly, why a thoroughbred with humble parents, by breeding standards, maybe the next Man'o War.

[Show Me the Wire]

The carried weight issue, especially dead weight, and its effects can be summed up by the affect it has on the horses balance. A horse not running in optimum balance will accelerate slower and cover less ground while running.

[Magister Ludi]

I assume the type of muscle you have is somewhat hereditary?

It is a result of both nature and nurture.

[Cratos]

The carried weight issue, especially dead weight, and its effects can be summed up by the affect it has on the horses balance. A horse not running in optimum balance will accelerate slower and cover less ground while running.
An excellent point

[DeltaLover]

I understand what you are saying, but I would have a big problem pulling the trigger on a horse because of a weight shift that may be creating marginal value when the speed figure I am looking at could be off by 5 lengths leading to the horse I am betting being a dramatic underlay.

If I were to think much about weight (and I don't) at best I would see it as a marginal plus or minus to a horse I already had strong convictions about.

Coincidentally, I am currently working on a specific factor (let's call it X since I do not like to expose it ). In the following picture you can see the performance of X in two different types of races:

(1) Containing at least one horse adding at least eight pounds

(2) All other races.

Note how a single horse adding weight can completely change the behavior of the factor.


http://themindofagambler.com/compare-factors.jpeg

[Robert Fischer]

I think it's interesting that the physics seem to indicate that weight should be more of a factor than what I consider to be a reality.

* I am poor at physics and may have made significant errors. Please correct any you may see.


1250lb horse
+120lb jockey
1370lb mass

1mile = 5280ft in 1:36.00

force = 1370 x (5280/96) = 75350

add 10lbs assume same force = 1mile 1:36.70

@ 0.18 seconds per length = 3.9 Lengths slower

[Robert Fischer]

Coincidentally, I am currently working on a specific factor (let's call it X since I do not like to expose it ). In the following picture you can see the performance of X in two different types of races:

(1) Containing at least one horse adding at least eight pounds

(2) All other races.

Note how a single horse adding weight can completely change the behavior of the factor.


http://themindofagambler.com/compare-factors.jpeg




I see this graphic, and the first thing I ask is "where is the additional ROI coming from"?
If the favorite's ROI did not decrease, how did all of the other horses increase significantly?

What am I missing?

EDIT - It appears that you are applying and additional factor "x" as well. :ThmbUp:

[DeltaLover]

I see this graphic, and the first thing I ask is "where is the additional ROI coming from"?
If the favorite's ROI did not decrease, how did all of the other horses increase significantly?

What am I missing?

EDIT - It appears that you are applying and additional factor "x" as well. :ThmbUp:

Yes.

The point I am trying to make with the picture, is that a factor like a horse adding more than eight pounds, is misestimated and overbet enough by the crowd, to convert a specific factor (X in our example) to a profitable bet assuming the presense of single occurance.

[Magister Ludi]

I think it's interesting that the physics seem to indicate that weight should be more of a factor than what I consider to be a reality.

* I am poor at physics and may have made significant errors. Please correct any you may see.


1250lb horse
+120lb jockey
1370lb mass

1mile = 5280ft in 1:36.00

force = 1370 x (5280/96) = 75350

add 10lbs assume same force = 1mile 1:36.70

@ 0.18 seconds per length = 3.9 Lengths slower


I don't understand how you arrived at your answer but it's very close. The effect of weight on time for one mile is about 17lb/s. A 10-pound impost would add about .6s.

[cj]

I don't understand how you arrived at your answer but it's very close. The effect of weight on time for one mile is about 17lb/s. A 10-pound impost would add about .6s.

What good does this do us if we don't know the weight of the horse?

Another question, there has to be more to the ability to carry weight than just the weight of the horse. I can't believe, for example, that all 1,000 pound horses would handle a 150 pound impost the same. It certainly isn't true in humans.

[Saratoga_Mike]

What good does this do us if we don't know the weight of the horse?

Another question, there has to be more to the ability to carry weight than just the weight of the horse. I can't believe, for example, that all 1,000 pound horses would handle a 150 pound impost the same. It certainly isn't true in humans.

Please keep real life racing out of this discussion.

[PIC6SIX]

Ok cappers, if weight does not make a difference, why does a horse that loses the jockey during the race tend to run close to the front of the field or actually lead in the front of the field?????? Also, why did Bobby Frankel complain about weight on many occasions???????.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Ok cappers, if weight does not make a difference, why does a horse that loses the jockey during the race tend to run close to the front of the field or actually lead in the front of the field?????? Also, why did Bobby Frankel complain about weight on many occasions???????.

Frankel was dead wrong on the matter....a few pounds just doesn't matter. If you were running a half mile carrying an extra 5 or 6 ounces would it matter? No. But if you were carrying an extra 18 or 20 lbs, it would matter. The extra 18 or 20 lbs is the horse that loses the jockey during the race.

[Stillriledup]

Ok cappers, if weight does not make a difference, why does a horse that loses the jockey during the race tend to run close to the front of the field or actually lead in the front of the field?????? Also, why did Bobby Frankel complain about weight on many occasions???????.

Frankel was a Rag/Tgraph user i believe and as a user of those products, weight is really a huge factor in how the horse's sheet number is scored...so, as a sheet user or a person who strongly believes in that methodology, you are really sensitive to weight and ground loss.

Often you'll hear sports announcers talking about a coach screaming at a ref and say that the coach is not necessarily arguing about THIS call, he's really lobbying for the next call. Same with Bobby....maybe if he constantly made a stink about weights, even 1 or 2 lbs, he might get the benefit of the doubt somewhere down the line from a racing secretary who just wants some peace and quiet once in a while and or wants to be able to say to him "here you go, happy now?"

As far as horses running with no weight and leading the field, that just goes to show you that weight means a lot, if not everything. With horse races decided by hundredths of seconds, even 1 lb can be the difference between a dead head and a millimeter loss.

[Robert Fischer]

What good does this do us if we don't know the weight of the horse?

In the fantasy world that my calculations are accurate? -
Roughly 1/2 Length for every 200lbs in the body weight of a horse.
*(So, with a 10lb handicap, an average horse loses 4 Lengths. A small horse is looking at 4.5Lengths lost, and a large horse is looking at 3.5 Lengths lost).

I just don't have any real faith in those physics translating to an exact figure in actual race conditions.

-horse idiosyncrasies (soundness?, height vs. bulk? etc...)

-running style (early speed? closer?)

-1turn or 2?

-track dimensions?

Those questions and more can make '4 Lengths' smaller, or too horse-specific to matter.

And we are talking about a relatively rare '10lbs difference', not a pound or two...

[traynor]

Yes.

The point I am trying to make with the picture, is that a factor like a horse adding more than eight pounds, is misestimated and overbet enough by the crowd, to convert a specific factor (X in our example) to a profitable bet assuming the presense of single occurance.

The profile looks a lot like heavy favorites in a race--that run out of the money often enough to up the return on the other entries. It is an interesting scenario that I have been exploring for some time.

[RXB]

Frankel was dead wrong on the matter....a few pounds just doesn't matter. If you were running a half mile carrying an extra 5 or 6 ounces would it matter? No.

Five or six ounces of deadweight would probably cost an elite 800m guy about a metre which could be the difference between pipper and pippee in a competitive race.

[classhandicapper]

Coincidentally, I am currently working on a specific factor (let's call it X since I do not like to expose it ). In the following picture you can see the performance of X in two different types of races:

(1) Containing at least one horse adding at least eight pounds

(2) All other races.

Note how a single horse adding weight can completely change the behavior of the factor.


http://themindofagambler.com/compare-factors.jpeg


That's a pretty amazing difference, but hard to evaluate without more details. (not asking for your special sauce, could be too valuable to give away)

[DeltaLover]

As I said above I do not want to reveal the specific factor, since it consists of a weighted composition of several simpler factors and is indeed very significant for betting purposes.

The same effect though, is also experienced in many other simpler factors. For example in the following picture, you can see how the behaviour of a trivial recency factor (3rd of a 35 days lay-off) changes dramatically when combined with a horse who is adding more than eight pounds:


http://themindofagambler.com/3rd-of-layoff-with-plus-8-pounds.gif


In contrary to what others have already said in this thread, weight change is a very significant handicapping factor that tends to confuse the betting crowd to a large extend.

[Cratos]

In the fantasy world that my calculations are accurate? -
Roughly 1/2 Length for every 200lbs in the body weight of a horse.
*(So, with a 10lb handicap, an average horse loses 4 Lengths. A small horse is looking at 4.5Lengths lost, and a large horse is looking at 3.5 Lengths lost).

I just don't have any real faith in those physics translating to an exact figure in actual race conditions.

-horse idiosyncrasies (soundness?, height vs. bulk? etc...)

-running style (early speed? closer?)

-1turn or 2?

-track dimensions?

Those questions and more can make '4 Lengths' smaller, or too horse-specific to matter.

And we are talking about a relatively rare '10lbs difference', not a pound or two...
You are not in a "fantasy world" although "energy" would have been the preferred variable over "force."

Also all of the other concerns you have can be answered.

[gillenr]

I think it is, as a general rule. I don't have a database to crunch the numbers but I did listen to Derek Simon's TwinSpires horse racing podcast from 11 Dec 2014 and he discussed weight as a factor.

As I recall, he tested his db of recent race results and found that horses carrying more weight won more than their fair share. He postulated that it related to these horses fitting the race conditions more closely.

Thanks!

[DeltaLover]

Just knowing that horses matching a handicapping factor are winning more than their fair share does not mean that they represent good bets. What matters the most for betting purposes is how the betting crowd is reacting to the specific handicapping factor. In the case of weight increase, it is sure that the crowd tends to overbet it, creating huge underlays in this type of starters

[Tom]

But does the crown simply bet weight?
That is only one factor and, and not a mainstream factor.

[ReplayRandall]

But does the crown simply bet weight?
That is only one factor and, and not a mainstream factor.

Agreed, but how much cause and effective does it have? 2%-5%-10%?

[classhandicapper]

What matters the most for betting purposes is how the betting crowd is reacting to the specific handicapping factor.


I agree with this, but the one downside of this approach is that the crowd changes its betting patterns. You have to be careful you aren't behind the curve.

[DeltaLover]

I agree with this, but the one downside of this approach is that the crowd changes its betting patterns. You have to be careful you aren't behind the curve.

There is no doubt that the crowd is changing its preferences as time goes by! It is also true that can keep track of theses changes so I do not see it as a major problem. What is more important is not the specific factors that each period of time are more significant for betting purposes but to understand and systematize the process about discovering and keeping track of them.

I also believe that, identifying those situations where the crowd is most probable to be confused, should serve just as an indicator and not determine our final betting decisions, since the most important handicapping factors are associated with trip and pace rather than macroscopic scenarios that apply to the high level scope.

Although both are useful for betting purposes, I would say, that race specific details should always take precedence over generic conclusions that involve deep historical data and balancing these two distinct approaches is exactly where the real handicapping talent can be found.

[traynor]

There is no doubt that the crowd is changing its preferences as time goes by! It is also true that can keep track of theses changes so I do not see it as a major problem. What is more important is not the specific factors that each period of time are more significant for betting purposes but to understand and systematize the process about discovering and keeping track of them.

I also believe that, identifying those situations where the crowd is most probable to be confused, should serve just as an indicator and not determine our final betting decisions, since the most important handicapping factors are associated with trip and pace rather than macroscopic scenarios that apply to the high level scope.

Although both are useful for betting purposes, I would say, that race specific details should always take precedence over generic conclusions that involve deep historical data and balancing these two distinct approaches is exactly where the real handicapping talent can be found.

The performance factors that cause the higher weight assignment are more likely to be the things the bettors are considering, rather than the weight. Emphasizing the weight component makes the race simpler to view, because it puts a label on a cluster of attributes that led to the higher weight assignment. That is pretty much what Quirin said all those many years ago--higher weights are (usually) assigned to "better" horses.

It is highly unlikely that many bettors use weight as a decision criteria.

[Cratos]

The performance factors that cause the higher weight assignment are more likely to be the things the bettors are considering, rather than the weight. Emphasizing the weight component makes the race simpler to view, because it puts a label on a cluster of attributes that led to the higher weight assignment. That is pretty much what Quirin said all those many years ago--higher weights are (usually) assigned to "better" horses.

It is highly unlikely that many bettors use weight as a decision criteria.

I concur with you; many bettors "run away" from high weighted horses.

[classhandicapper]

I'm curious how many people bother to evaluate weight shifts or weight carried. In my day to day conversations I literally can't remember the last time the subject of weight came up in any conversation of mine at the track or work.

It's import to TG and RAG players. Their handle is probably fairly large. So it could have an impact. But outside their world I think people are so focused on other variables and complications that weight gets little or no attention.

Other than the sheet players, I think horses that have better current form tend to be assigned more weight and people are generally focused on horses with better current form.

[raybo]

I also agree. Weight, in and of itself, when you're only talking about a few pounds up or down, has very little effect, if any, on the performance of a thoroughbred horse. However, the underlying reasons that horses are assigned higher or lower weights are many times very significant, and that is where one should be looking, rather than the impost amount. The impost itself is trivial, at best, unless you're talking about 20 pounds or so, and even then would probably result in an unbettable situation.

[classhandicapper]

I also agree. Weight, in and of itself, when you're only talking about a few pounds up or down, has very little effect, if any, on the performance of a thoroughbred horse.

People tend to try put things into a formula to adjust final time figures (1 path wide = x points, 5 pounds = y points, etc..). I think the correct way to think about these things (and trips in general) is energy consumed and position.

How much extra energy did carrying 5 extra pounds cost that horse?

Did running wide for an 25 extra feet cost the horse position or was he exactly where he wanted to be anyway?

How much extra energy did it take for that horse to run 25 extra feet while wide (during a 23 quarter, during a 25 quarter....) relative to the horse on the rail?

One reason why formulas break down is that horses don't use all their energy during a race. When they cross the finish line they still have reserves and continue to gallop out. Some are close to empty, but some are still loaded. IMO, the impact of these things on the final time varies depending on how much the horse had left in the tank.

[Cratos]

People tend to try put things into a formula to adjust final time figures (1 path wide = x points, 5 pounds = y points, etc..). I think the correct way to think about these things (and trips in general) is energy consumed and position.

How much extra energy did carrying 5 extra pounds cost that horse?

Did running wide for an 25 extra feet cost the horse position or was he exactly where he wanted to be anyway?

How much extra energy did it take for that horse to run 25 extra feet while wide (during a 23 quarter, during a 25 quarter....) relative to the horse on the rail?

One reason why formulas break down is that horses don't use all their energy during a race. When they cross the finish line they still have reserves and continue to gallop out. Some are close to empty, but some are still loaded. IMO, the impact of these things on the final time varies depending on how much the horse had left in the tank.
I agree with you, but to do what you are suggesting requires a high level of quantitative analysis.

[Sapio]

Coincidentally, I am currently working on a specific factor (let's call it X since I do not like to expose it ). In the following picture you can see the performance of X in two different types of races:

(1) Containing at least one horse adding at least eight pounds

(2) All other races.

Note how a single horse adding weight can completely change the behavior of the factor.


http://themindofagambler.com/compare-factors.jpeg



Hi DeltaLover,

Several questions:

Why an 8 lb differential? Is there a smooth transition from x-lbs to y-ilbs? If the crowd is indeed "confused" by a single horse with an 8lb differential, couldn't your Factor X be replaced by any predictive factor and one should expect an improved ROI? For example, replace Factor X with best last race speed rating.

Thomas Sapio

[traynor]

I think a point of confusion is the significance of the weight change (in the final odds of the race). It seems from what dl is writing that he does NOT bet on that horse, but rather that "a horse in that race" has the 8 lb. assignment. Unless, of course, I am completely misinterpreting what he is writing. The 8 lb. attribute looks as if it could as easily be replaced by a number of other data points to achieve the same outcome.

Lots of people have developed "how to locate a false favorite" strategies. Labeling a weight assignment is a neat shortcut method.

[Sapio]

I think a point of confusion is the significance of the weight change (in the final odds of the race). It seems from what dl is writing that he does NOT bet on that horse, but rather that "a horse in that race" has the 8 lb. assignment. Unless, of course, I am completely misinterpreting what he is writing. The 8 lb. attribute looks as if it could as easily be replaced by a number of other data points to achieve the same outcome.

Lots of people have developed "how to locate a false favorite" strategies. Labeling a weight assignment is a neat shortcut method.

Hi traynor,

From what I read, the 8 lb. attribute is used as a race classifier.

Thomas Sapio

[traynor]

Hi traynor,

From what I read, the 8 lb. attribute is used as a race classifier.

Thomas Sapio

I think you had it down pat a couple of posts back when you suggested Factor X could be replaced with something else with the same result (or better).

Similarly, the 8 lb. attribute could be replaced by a number of other attributes that function similarly--to point out races in which the entry one bets is not the favorite, and the tote board favorite is overbet for one reason or another.

[traynor]

Perhaps dl would be willing to post the stats on the number of entries that added 8 pounds, and the number of those entries that won.

[thaskalos]

People tend to try put things into a formula to adjust final time figures (1 path wide = x points, 5 pounds = y points, etc..). I think the correct way to think about these things (and trips in general) is energy consumed and position.

How much extra energy did carrying 5 extra pounds cost that horse?

Did running wide for an 25 extra feet cost the horse position or was he exactly where he wanted to be anyway?

How much extra energy did it take for that horse to run 25 extra feet while wide (during a 23 quarter, during a 25 quarter....) relative to the horse on the rail?

One reason why formulas break down is that horses don't use all their energy during a race. When they cross the finish line they still have reserves and continue to gallop out. Some are close to empty, but some are still loaded. IMO, the impact of these things on the final time varies depending on how much the horse had left in the tank.

Is it that "horses don't use all their energy during a race"...or is it that the horses DO use up all their energy, but they disperse it in a different manner? The speed horse uses up a disproportionate amount of his "energy" during the race's early stages...and his slowing down during the latter stages is predictable, as his energy reserves get depleted.

The stretch runner, on the other hand, having RESERVED a disproportionate amount of his energy in the early going, uses his expected late burst to give the impression that there was a lot of energy still left in his tank...when the reality is that this "late burst" was mostly an illusion...and that the stretch runner was slowing down late too -- although at a lesser rate of speed. Again, entirely predictable given the circumstances of the race.

When a horse closes menacingly down the stretch, or when it seems to gallop out powerfully after the race...it is seldom an exhibition of "spare energy" put on display. In the vast majority of the cases, the stretch runner is slowing down too...and his menacing late kick is only an illusion. It's the same energy as anybody else's...expended in a radically different manner. Trainers sometimes get fooled by this phenomenon too...and will enter their hard-charging steed in a slightly longer race the next time...hoping to put this "reserved" energy of the horse to profitable use. Alas...the results are seldom what they expect them to be.

[Stillriledup]

Is it that "horses don't use all their energy during a race"...or is it that the horses DO use up all their energy, but they disperse it in a different manner? The speed horse uses up a disproportionate amount of his "energy" during the race's early stages...and his slowing down during the latter stages is predictable, as his energy reserves get depleted.

The stretch runner, on the other hand, having RESERVED a disproportionate amount of his energy in the early going, uses his expected late burst to give the impression that there was a lot of energy still left in his tank...when the reality is that this "late burst" was mostly an illusion...and that the stretch runner was slowing down late too -- although at a lesser rate of speed. Again, entirely predictable given the circumstances of the race.

When a horse closes menacingly down the stretch, or when it seems to gallop out powerfully after the race...it is seldom an exhibition of "spare energy" put on display. In the vast majority of the cases, the stretch runner is slowing down too...and his menacing late kick is only an illusion. It's the same energy as anybody else's...expended in a radically different manner. Trainers sometimes get fooled by this phenomenon too...and will enter their hard-charging steed in a slightly longer race the next time...hoping to put this "reserved" energy of the horse to profitable use. Alas...the results are seldom what they expect them to be.

When a "big closer" doesn't gallop out steaming with energy and still passing horses on the out, i take notice, those horses are amazing bet againsts in their next start, a closer who's really not 'closing' and is essentially hitting the wall on the gallop out and at the same time, their PP line looks like they're FLYING....not a good sign.

[Sapio]

Another way to look at what DL is saying is the following:

Given a race, call it R.

Now, let R-prime be a race with the same composition as R (same horses, same conditions, etc). The only difference between R and R-prime is that one or more horses is carrying an additional 8 lbs from its previous race.

DL's is suggesting that the odds (tote) distribution will be different for race R and R-prime. In fact, more favorable (overlays), if you bet into R-prime instead of R (Here I am assuming he doesn't make a wager on the horse(s) that are carrying the additional 8 lbs).

Thomas Sapio

[Tom]

What if that horse picking up the weight is 20-1 morning line?
Will it affect the race betting to any significant degree?
If it were a 8-5 M< I can see some people backing off enough tom ake a difference.

But now those people will bet other horses who would not have taken as much money, so their odds will be less than in R.

[DeltaLover]

Hi DeltaLover,

Several questions:

Why an 8 lb differential? Is there a smooth transition from x-lbs to y-ilbs? If the crowd is indeed "confused" by a single horse with an 8lb differential, couldn't your Factor X be replaced by any predictive factor and one should expect an improved ROI? For example, replace Factor X with best last race speed rating.

Thomas Sapio

The 8 pounds theshold is based on a series trial and error experiments (I do not have an analytical reasoning)


I added some related data in the following extract from my notes:

http://themindofagambler.com/weight-as-factor.pdf


I think you had it down pat a couple of posts back when you suggested Factor X could be replaced with something else with the same result (or better).

Similarly, the 8 lb. attribute could be replaced by a number of other attributes that function similarly--to point out races in which the entry one bets is not the favorite, and the tote board favorite is overbet for one reason or another.

It can be replaced by some other attributes, all of them have in common that they tend to mislead the betting crowd.

[traynor]

The 8 pounds theshold is based on a series trial and error experiments (I do not have an analytical reasoning)


I added some related data in the following extract from my notes:

http://themindofagambler.com/weight-as-factor.pdf




It can be replaced by some other attributes, all of them have in common that they tend to mislead the betting crowd.

Agreed. Such attributes are relatively easy to uncover by establishing relationships between incidence rates, win rates, and final odds. The key point seems to be including such analysis overall, rather than focusing on single entry attributes. That is, knowing the various probabilities for a given set of attributes in general, and specifically when those probabilities are seriously skewed by the existence or non-existence of "confounding variables" (attributes usually ignored, overlooked, or unknown by bettors) that affect the outcome of the race.

It is an interesting area of research. Your example(s) point out easy ways for the average bettor to wrap his or her thinking around the notion that races are not run by individual horses on their own--every entry in a race has, or may have, some effect on the outcome of the race. And the result of wagering on that race.

[sjk]

I don't understand how you arrived at your answer but it's very close. The effect of weight on time for one mile is about 17lb/s. A 10-pound impost would add about .6s.

I have always used .44pts/lb so with 10 pts/sec at a mile I am around 21lb/s.

I have used the same number for 20 years and have no reason to believe it is precise. I am happy to believe that 17lb is right and I have been close all these years.

My real point is that a whale or reasonably sophisticated player should have a grip on weight correction. If you find something that only the rubes at the racetrack will get wrong the whales will come in and correct the odds. You need something that the whales miss.

[DeltaLover]

Agreed. Such attributes are relatively easy to uncover by establishing relationships between incidence rates, win rates, and final odds. The key point seems to be including such analysis overall, rather than focusing on single entry attributes. That is, knowing the various probabilities for a given set of attributes in general, and specifically when those probabilities are seriously skewed by the existence or non-existence of "confounding variables" (attributes usually ignored, overlooked, or unknown by bettors) that affect the outcome of the race.

It is an interesting area of research. Your example(s) point out easy ways for the average bettor to wrap his or her thinking around the notion that races are not run by individual horses on their own--every entry in a race has, or may have, some effect on the outcome of the race. And the result of wagering on that race.

The objective is to identify factors with significant discrepancies over the average (always ROI - wise) and apply them as filters to the race as a whole.

The absolute performance of a factor (wheater it has a positive or negative IV for example) is not important.

What counts is the degree of a specific factor, is confusing the crowd.

This is why, even if a factor that has no real impact to the performance of a horse, it still can be significant for betting purposes. Similarly, another factor that really affects the perfomance of a horse can very well be neutralized, if it is obvious for the betting public.

Of course, as I have already said before, any race is an independent event, presenting its own special profile and any kind of a macro - handicapping approach (like the one we are discussing here) should only be used as a generic signal, having secondary importance compared to micro - handicapping factors derived from the composition of the specific event.

Combining the two approaches is all that a good bet is all about.

[classhandicapper]

Is it that "horses don't use all their energy during a race"...or is it that the horses DO use up all their energy, but they disperse it in a different manner? The speed horse uses up a disproportionate amount of his "energy" during the race's early stages...and his slowing down during the latter stages is predictable, as his energy reserves get depleted.

The stretch runner, on the other hand, having RESERVED a disproportionate amount of his energy in the early going, uses his expected late burst to give the impression that there was a lot of energy still left in his tank...when the reality is that this "late burst" was mostly an illusion...and that the stretch runner was slowing down late too -- although at a lesser rate of speed. Again, entirely predictable given the circumstances of the race.

When a horse closes menacingly down the stretch, or when it seems to gallop out powerfully after the race...it is seldom an exhibition of "spare energy" put on display. In the vast majority of the cases, the stretch runner is slowing down too...and his menacing late kick is only an illusion. It's the same energy as anybody else's...expended in a radically different manner. Trainers sometimes get fooled by this phenomenon too...and will enter their hard-charging steed in a slightly longer race the next time...hoping to put this "reserved" energy of the horse to profitable use. Alas...the results are seldom what they expect them to be.


I agree that in most cases (especially on dirt) horses are slowing down and use energy at different points in the race, but IMO they do have different amounts of energy left after the wire.

Think of this way.

Suppose we have 2 horses of the exact same ability. One raced on the rail and the other ran an extra 60 feet because he was wide. The pace was extremely slow at the time the 2nd horse was wide. As a result, the wide horse was able to be in the exact position the rider wanted at that point in the race without using up much incremental energy. He was still just loafing well within himself.

They hit the top of the stretch together.

Pure ground loss adjustments will tell you the first horse should beat the second by 60 feet. I think they will ding dong to the wire in a photo. Running an extra 60 feet at a very sow pace doesn't consume much incremental energy, the wide horse is in perfect position, and since horses will typically have at least "something" left at the wire (even though they are tiring) he will finish well anyway.

Now change this example to a very demanding wide trip where the pace is fast. IMO the results will be disastrous because the extra energy consumption during that extra 60 feet will be huge. He'll have to work extremely hard to keep that position or fall behind and have to work hard later to catch up.

Now change this to 5 extra pounds instead of 60 feet.

The calculations are different but my guess is the outcome is similar.

I don't think there's any kind of easy formula for weight or ground loss that won't break down under extreme trips in either direction.

[flatstats]

The point of top weights winning more than lower weights is true in the UK.

In Handicap races (where weights are assigned by the official handicapper) the top weight wins at a rate higher than any other weight position.

In Stakes races (maidens, weight for age etc) the higher weights will win more races because they would tend to be males whilst the lower weights would be females.

---

One interesting phenomenon in the UK at the moment is the success of top weights on Tapeta.

Wolverhampton installed Tapeta in August 2014. It is currently the only UK course to use this surface. The results since it has been in use have been worse than random.

Here are some stats for Top Weights, in Handicaps, that were Fancied in the Betting since 11-Aug-14

Kempton (Polytrack) 27 wins from 124 runs, 22% strike rate, 0.87 A/E, 16% loss
Wolverhampton (Tapeta) 19 wins from 153 runs, 12% strike rate, 0.52 A/E, 54% loss

Fancied top weights are flopping on Tapeta. The results seem to be much worse than random,

[mountainman]

Is it that "horses don't use all their energy during a race"...or is it that the horses DO use up all their energy, but they disperse it in a different manner? The speed horse uses up a disproportionate amount of his "energy" during the race's early stages...and his slowing down during the latter stages is predictable, as his energy reserves get depleted.

The stretch runner, on the other hand, having RESERVED a disproportionate amount of his energy in the early going, uses his expected late burst to give the impression that there was a lot of energy still left in his tank...when the reality is that this "late burst" was mostly an illusion...and that the stretch runner was slowing down late too -- although at a lesser rate of speed. Again, entirely predictable given the circumstances of the race.

When a horse closes menacingly down the stretch, or when it seems to gallop out powerfully after the race...it is seldom an exhibition of "spare energy" put on display. In the vast majority of the cases, the stretch runner is slowing down too...and his menacing late kick is only an illusion. It's the same energy as anybody else's...expended in a radically different manner. Trainers sometimes get fooled by this phenomenon too...and will enter their hard-charging steed in a slightly longer race the next time...hoping to put this "reserved" energy of the horse to profitable use. Alas...the results are seldom what they expect them to be.

Great post. Over the years, my whole take on "reserve racing energy" has evolved a bit. And that's because lots of winners ("swift" one-dimensional speeds possibly excepted) come under a ride early.

Prove it to yourself by watching replays of unfamiliar races and horses. Even a seasoned observer will be surprised at how infrequently he can predict the winner, with, say, a half-mile or 3/8 remaining.

In other words, the winning edge (regardless of running style), rather than superior tactical speed, is often the ability (sharpness? class? fitness? determination?) to sustain a hard, prolonged run.

Also, I've come to believe that reserve racing energy is rarely proportionate to an animal's utter top-speed. In other words, just because some sprinter can smoke a half in 46 doesn't mean a 49 will be all that easy. Lots of slower route horses, for instance, can spin the same half in 49 while holding more in reserve.

[Robert Fischer]

Also, I've come to believe that reserve racing energy is rarely proportionate to an animal's utter top-speed. In other words, just because some sprinter can smoke a half in 46 doesn't mean a 49 will be all that easy. Lots of slower route horses, for instance, can spin the same half in 49 while holding more in reserve.

Almost like "raw elapsed time from start" has some correlation to energy for certain horses, rather than just pace?

Once they get their engines going, they burn fuel at a high rate regardless of whether they are 'cruising' (at a fast numeric pace), or fighting against a hammerlock(at a sensible numeric pace).

Some logic to that theory.

[098poi]

I was under the impression from something I read that weight could be considered as a handicapping factor not so much because the extra pounds actually helps or hurts a horse but because the one's "penalized" with extra weight get that weight assigned because they are higher class animals. (based on their PP's relative to others in the race)

[Robert Fischer]

I was under the impression from something I read that weight could be considered as a handicapping factor not so much because the extra pounds actually helps or hurts a horse but because the one's "penalized" with extra weight get that weight assigned because they are higher class animals. (based on their PP's relative to others in the race)

The only obvious time I can think of off-the-top(although i'm sure there are occasional instances where the conditions simply don't connect to the class of one race or another) where it isn't pointing to a worse (or better) horse, is with an apprentice jockey.

Seems certain rides (wire-to-wire perhaps?) could provide an opportunity for data... hmmm

[mountainman]

Almost like "raw elapsed time from start" has some correlation to energy for certain horses, rather than just pace?

Once they get their engines going, they burn fuel at a high rate regardless of whether they are 'cruising' (at a fast numeric pace), or fighting against a hammerlock(at a sensible numeric pace).

Some logic to that theory.

The knack for rating kindly definitely comes into play-I've heard lots of riders refer to mounts that seem to "rate themselves." And I love your "fuel burning" analogy. It's a simple, descriptive way to put the issue in perspective.

[raybo]

The knack for rating kindly definitely comes into play-I've heard lots of riders refer to mounts that seem to "rate themselves." And I love your "fuel burning" analogy. It's a simple, descriptive way to put the issue in perspective.

This is why you hear jockeys and trainers mention that the horse "relaxed" after the start and the initial burst of speed. By relaxing, the horse is not expending excess energy unnecessarily. Some horses just can't relax.

And, some horses are just physiologically superior, larger heart and lungs to intake more oxygen and pump more oxygen holding blood throughout the body, which feeds the muscles better which decreases muscle fatigue.

[flatstats]

And, some horses are just physiologically superior, larger heart and lungs to intake more oxygen and pump more oxygen holding blood throughout the body, which feeds the muscles better which decreases muscle fatigue.

Same goes for jockeys. They are not all exactly 5ft 4", 7st 12lbs. Jockeys are different in physique too, and that is something the masses of punters are not aware of.

[thoroughbred]

Weight has zero effect on the outcome of a race. The public has accept that fact about 30 years ago, so it has zero effect on the pools. A novice $2 bettor might take in to consideration, but nobody else does.

Robert,

Analyses have shown that weight does affect the outcome. It is also well known that trainers often seek to find jockeys of lesser weight.

My own analysis of this question can be found under "Documentation" at www.revelationprofits.com This analysis is in general agreement with the data presented in "Ainslely's "Encyclopedia of Thoroughbred Handicapping" page 253.

This is the summary of weight analysis from my paper
I'd be very interested in your showing the basis for your statement that weight is of zero importance.

Time Change per One Pound Weight Change
Normalized to 116 pounds)

Race Distance Time Change
(Furlongs) (Ticks)

5 0.187
5.5 0.231
6 0.280
6.5 0.336
7 0.398
7.5 0.467
8 0.543
8.5 0.627
9 0719
10 0.930
12 1.479
15 2.716
16 3.276

[Magister Ludi]

Time Change per One Pound Weight Change
Normalized to 116 pounds)

Race Distance Time Change
(Furlongs) (Ticks)

5 0.187
5.5 0.231
6 0.280
6.5 0.336
7 0.398
7.5 0.467
8 0.543
8.5 0.627
9 0719
10 0.930
12 1.479
15 2.716
16 3.276

The figures below were derived from a whole-body metabolic model of aerobic and anaerobic energy production in thoroughbred racehorses (TBR):

Time Change per One Pound Weight Change
Normalized to 116 pounds)

Race Distance Time Change
(Furlongs) (Ticks_TB)(Ticks_ML)

5///////// 0.187/////////.17
6//////////0.280/////////.21
7//////////0.398/////////.25
8//////////0.543/////////.29
10/////////0.930////////.38
12/////////1.479////////.46
16/////////3.276////////.63



Forcing the metabolic model to your values implies a supramaximal effort with a required rate of oxygen absorption far greater than 200mlO_2/min/kg, the maximum rate for an average TBR.

[Cratos]

The figures below were derived from a whole-body metabolic model of aerobic and anaerobic energy production in thoroughbred racehorses (TBR):

Time Change per One Pound Weight Change
Normalized to 116 pounds)

Race Distance Time Change
(Furlongs) (Ticks_TB)(Ticks_ML)

5///////// 0.187/////////.17
6//////////0.280/////////.21
7//////////0.398/////////.25
8//////////0.543/////////.29
10/////////0.930////////.38
12/////////1.479////////.46
16/////////3.276////////.63



Forcing the metabolic model to your values implies a supramaximal effort with a required rate of oxygen absorption far greater than 200mlO_2/min/kg, the maximum rate for an average TBR.

Magister Ludi,

My question to you would be whether aerodynamic drag, surface wind force, surface resistance, and turn impact results are included in your time numbers or am I missing something?

[thoroughbred]

The figures below were derived from a whole-body metabolic model of aerobic and anaerobic energy production in thoroughbred racehorses (TBR):

Time Change per One Pound Weight Change
Normalized to 116 pounds)

Race Distance Time Change
(Furlongs) (Ticks_TB)(Ticks_ML)

5///////// 0.187/////////.17
6//////////0.280/////////.21
7//////////0.398/////////.25
8//////////0.543/////////.29
10/////////0.930////////.38
12/////////1.479////////.46
16/////////3.276////////.63



Forcing the metabolic model to your values implies a supramaximal effort with a required rate of oxygen absorption far greater than 200mlO_2/min/kg, the maximum rate for an average TBR.

Magister,

Very interesting. My analysis is shown in detail at our website documentation link. Can you please analyze it, and see where you may have some comments about it.
Also, please post the details, i.e. the references, for the conclusion you have cited so that I can review the data.

Thanks much.

[Magister Ludi]

Magister Ludi,

My question to you would be whether aerodynamic drag, surface wind force, surface resistance, and turn impact results are included in your time numbers ?

Yes

[Magister Ludi]

Magister,

Very interesting. My analysis is shown in detail at our website documentation link. Can you please analyze it, and see where you may have some comments about it.
Also, please post the details, i.e. the references, for the conclusion you have cited so that I can review the data.

Thanks much.

Here are a few highlights. (It would require several monographs to go into meaningful detail):

Flats only
Thoroughbred racehorses (TBR) only
STP (sea level and 20C)


Energy Sources

Anaerobic
Anaerobic energy available = E(1-e^(-t/t_n)
where
E = the total aerobic energy store for an average TBR =~ 2600J/kg
t_n = the time constant governing the available anaerobic metabolic energy supply growth =~ 18s

Aerobic
Aerobic energy available = p(1-e^(-t/t_a)
where
p = maximum aerobic power =~70W/kg (corresponds to approximately 200mlO_2/min/kg
t_a = the time constant governing the available aerobic metabolic energy supply growth =~ 15s


Energy Expenditures

Cost of transport
c = cost of running =~ 3.7J/kg/m

Kinetic energy
Stored kinetic energy = mv^2/2
Required metabolic energy (25% efficiency) = 2mv^2

Aerodynamic drag
k(d/t)^3
where
K = .00227Ws^3/kg-m^3
W = weight of horse


therefore

Anaerobic + aerobic = cost of transport + kinetic energy + aerodynamic drag

E/t(1-e^(-t/t_n) + p(1-t_a/t(e^(-t/t_a)) = c(1+w/W)(d/t) + 2(1+w/W)(d/t)^2(1/t) + k(d/t)^3

where
w = jockey weight + impost


Here are a few citations:

McCutcheon, L.j., Geor, R.J., and Hinchcliff, K.W. Effects of Prior Exercise on Muscle Metabolism during Sprint Exercise in Horses. The American Physiological Society, pp 1914-1922 (1999).

Mureika, J.A. A Simple Model for Predicting Sprint Race Times Accounting for Energy Loss on the Curve. Canadian Journal of Physics 75, pp 837-851 (1997).

Potard, U.S.B., Leith, D.E., and Fedde, M.R. Force, Speed, and Oxygen Consumption in Thoroughbred and Draft Horses. The American Physiological Society, pp 2052-2059 (1998).

Staniar, W.B., Kronfeld, D.S., Treiber, K.H., Splan, R.K., and Harris, P.A. Growth Rate Consists of Baseline and Systematic Deviation Components in Thoroughbreds. Journal of Animal Science. Vol. 82, pp 1007-1015 (2004).

[Cratos]

Yes
Thanks, I thought that' would be true given the thoroughness of prior calculations in your previous posts.

[Cratos]

Here are a few highlights. (It would require several monographs to go into meaningful detail):

Flats only
Thoroughbred racehorses (TBR) only
STP (sea level and 20C)


Energy Sources

Anaerobic
Anaerobic energy available = E(1-e^(-t/t_n)
where
E = the total aerobic energy store for an average TBR =~ 2600J/kg
t_n = the time constant governing the available anaerobic metabolic energy supply growth =~ 18s

Aerobic
Aerobic energy available = p(1-e^(-t/t_a)
where
p = maximum aerobic power =~70W/kg (corresponds to approximately 200mlO_2/min/kg
t_a = the time constant governing the available aerobic metabolic energy supply growth =~ 15s


Energy Expenditures

Cost of transport
c = cost of running =~ 3.7J/kg/m

Kinetic energy
Stored kinetic energy = mv^2/2
Required metabolic energy (25% efficiency) = 2mv^2

Aerodynamic drag
k(d/t)^3
where
K = .00227Ws^3/kg-m^3
W = weight of horse


therefore

Anaerobic + aerobic = cost of transport + kinetic energy + aerodynamic drag

E/t(1-e^(-t/t_n) + p(1-t_a/t(e^(-t/t_a)) = c(1+w/W)(d/t) + 2(1+w/W)(d/t)^2(1/t) + k(d/t)^3

where
w = jockey weight + impost


Here are a few citations:

McCutcheon, L.j., Geor, R.J., and Hinchcliff, K.W. Effects of Prior Exercise on Muscle Metabolism during Sprint Exercise in Horses. The American Physiological Society, pp 1914-1922 (1999).

Mureika, J.A. A Simple Model for Predicting Sprint Race Times Accounting for Energy Loss on the Curve. Canadian Journal of Physics 75, pp 837-851 (1997).

Potard, U.S.B., Leith, D.E., and Fedde, M.R. Force, Speed, and Oxygen Consumption in Thoroughbred and Draft Horses. The American Physiological Society, pp 2052-2059 (1998).

Staniar, W.B., Kronfeld, D.S., Treiber, K.H., Splan, R.K., and Harris, P.A. Growth Rate Consists of Baseline and Systematic Deviation Components in Thoroughbreds. Journal of Animal Science. Vol. 82, pp 1007-1015 (2004).
This some good stuff; I will review the citations over the next few days.