Thorograph?

[Mc990]

Curious if anyone uses thorograph as their prime set of data... I personally think the numbers are top notch. Obviously numerous factors go into making a wager but I can't bet serious money without consulting their data. Prices are steep ($25) compared to what else is on the market but IMO worth it many times over.

[Stillriledup]

Unless you're betting thousands a day, I don't know if the math adds up to justify the price. Also, you're buying a product that's used by plenty of big money, it's less valuable if a lot of your major competition is using the same thing.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Curious if anyone uses thorograph as their prime set of data... I personally think the numbers are top notch. Obviously numerous factors go into making a wager but I can't bet serious money without consulting their data. Prices are steep ($25) compared to what else is on the market but IMO worth it many times over.
I've gotten thorograph in the past. I'll admit I didn't understand how to use it to its best advantage, so for me it wasn't particularly valuable. I don't know if the calculation has changed, but there were two things I didn't care for in Jerry Brown's methodology when I looked at it years ago - his emphasis on weight and running path.

Obviously there is an intuitive argument to be made about the effect of weight and ground loss on final time.

Weight was a critical handicapping factor in the early to mid 20th century, and I think a lot of older handicappers stayed fixated on weight. I've always given very little emphasis to weight. Given the size of the thoroughbred, I don't believe weight becomes a real imposition until it gets over 124. For a 1200 pound horse, a ten pound weight difference in weight (say 120 vs. 110) is 8 tenths of a percent difference. I know Brown's calculations were derived empirically, but I I've always thought the relationship is more logarithmic. I think the difference between 110 and 120 is less significant than the difference between 115 and 125, but I'll admit I don't have real data to back me up. Just anecdotal experience.

The thing about running path is that when a horse has momentum coming out of the turn it counts more for me than saving ground in many races. Horses in top condition can be three paths off the rail on the turn, angle outside for the stretch run and run by the field because they are superior. I actually think it is harder to hold your speed on the extreme inside (because of centrifugal force) and that ideally the 3-5 paths are best. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but some ground loss can be an advantage. I think the importance of moderate ground loss also depends on the specific race and if there is a glib part of the track as to whether it is significant or incidental. Once again, I don't know how JB makes the calculation, but I do think you can run faster with moderate ground loss. Of course, I also think if a horse is in the 6 or 7 path it will affect final time.

I think the bottom line is that if you know how to use premium figures (like Ragozin or Thorograph) and they work for you, that is all that matters.

[ReplayRandall]

Thorograph and the Sheets are much the best when it comes to 4yr olds and up, 2-turn Turf races. The rest of the figs are mediocre, being surpassed by Timeformus and HTR products......

[v j stauffer]

Curious if anyone uses thorograph as their prime set of data... I personally think the numbers are top notch. Obviously numerous factors go into making a wager but I can't bet serious money without consulting their data. Prices are steep ($25) compared to what else is on the market but IMO worth it many times over.

I have been using Thoro-graph for over 20 years.

It is the bedrock of my entire handicapping process.

Their ratings are 100%, dead on balls accurate.

ANYBODY who starts using them and takes the time to fully understand their value WILL have an improved ROI. Period! :ThmbUp:

[ReplayRandall]

I have been using Thoro-graph for over 20 years.

It is the bedrock of my entire handicapping process.

Their ratings are 100%, dead on balls accurate.

ANYBODY who starts using them and takes the time to fully understand their value WILL have an improved ROI. Period! :ThmbUp:

And just think how much higher your ROI would be if you took my advice... :cool:

[v j stauffer]

I've gotten thorograph in the past. I'll admit I didn't understand how to use it to its best advantage, so for me it wasn't particularly valuable. I don't know if the calculation has changed, but there were two things I didn't care for in Jerry Brown's methodology when I looked at it years ago - his emphasis on weight and running path.

Obviously there is an intuitive argument to be made about the effect of weight and ground loss on final time.

Weight was a critical handicapping factor in the early to mid 20th century, and I think a lot of older handicappers stayed fixated on weight. I've always given very little emphasis to weight. Given the size of the thoroughbred, I don't believe weight becomes a real imposition until it gets over 124. For a 1200 pound horse, a ten pound weight difference in weight (say 120 vs. 110) is 8 tenths of a percent difference. I know Brown's calculations were derived empirically, but I I've always thought the relationship is more logarithmic. I think the difference between 110 and 120 is less significant than the difference between 115 and 125, but I'll admit I don't have real data to back me up. Just anecdotal experience.

The thing about running path is that when a horse has momentum coming out of the turn it counts more for me than saving ground in many races. Horses in top condition can be three paths off the rail on the turn, angle outside for the stretch run and run by the field because they are superior. I actually think it is harder to hold your speed on the extreme inside (because of centrifugal force) and that ideally the 3-5 paths are best. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but some ground loss can be an advantage. I think the importance of moderate ground loss also depends on the specific race and if there is a glib part of the track as to whether it is significant or incidental. Once again, I don't know how JB makes the calculation, but I do think you can run faster with moderate ground loss. Of course, I also think if a horse is in the 6 or 7 path it will affect final time.

I think the bottom line is that if you know how to use premium figures (like Ragozin or Thorograph) and they work for you, that is all that matters.

Wow. What a truly great post.

Thanks for your thoughts.

One thing I'd say in response is everyday at every track horse races are won and lost by inches. Sometimes less.

[v j stauffer]

And just think how much higher your ROI would be if you took my advice... :cool:

To the moon Alice, to the MOON!

[woodbinepmi]

As a former employee of the Ragozin Sheets, I can testify how good the products are when you take (and it does) the time to learn how to read the cycles. To me the best are baby races and turf routes. The difference as I have been told from a former boss was that Jerry is a lot quicker to adjust numbers based on a suspicious variant. I will say, the Thorograph sheets are a lot better looking and give a lot more information other than the figs themselves. Every top trainer at every track that I was involved in used one if not both of them. Yes, they are pricey but for big days such as Derby Day and Breeders' Cup they are worth it. Have started to make a form of the numbers for Hong Kong, hopefully it will be worth the effort in the long run.

[no breathalyzer]

over priced and over ratted .. and like that was already stated they are not as valuable when all the big $$ uses it

[v j stauffer]

over priced and over ratted .. and like that was already stated they are not as valuable when all the big $$ uses it

That's like saying the Form is over rated.

Thoro-graph is a tool. Many arrive on different plays.

Especially because the numbers are just one piece of the puzzle.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Wow. What a truly great post.

Thanks for your thoughts.

One thing I'd say in response is everyday at every track horse races are won and lost by inches. Sometimes less.
You're right. And figuring out how a horse may have lost those inches can often be subtle. You can look at Trakus and say, Horse A ran 20 feet farther than Horse B and lost by a nose and there you have it. That is why it is so critical to watch the race. Maybe Horse A checked slightly down the backstretch - that could cost an inch or two. Maybe he got out just a hair slowly. There are so many reasons a horse could do something to cost a nose loss and it's important not to oversimplify.

The other thing to remember is that ground loss primarily occurs around the turn (you can run some extra ground down the backstretch breaking from the outside in a sprint, of course). Once the horses straighten out, it is exactly the same distance whether a horse is at the inner fence or the outer fence. So if Horse A is ahead a nose at the eighth pole and loses the race by a nose, ground loss may have been irrelevant (except perhaps related to overall energy expenditure). And no matter how good the figures, there are always those subtle things that create the inches.

[woodbinepmi]

That's like saying the Form is over rated.

Thoro-graph is a tool. Many arrive on different plays.

Especially because the numbers are just one piece of the puzzle.
Give it a few more years and the Form will cost as much as a set of sheets at the rate it's going up.

[Mc990]

In regards to the weight argument, I think the evidence is pretty clear that weight matters. Regardless if it is 1 lb or 15 lbs. I'm not going to get into the science of it but lets assume weight doesn't matter for a minute (just to play devil's advocate)... Wouldn't the entire database for thorograph and ragozin be off? Every figure they have ever made would need to be changed because weight is a variable in every figure. If you don't believe weight matters, you are essentially saying these figures are garbage.

[pandy]

I have been using Thoro-graph for over 20 years.

It is the bedrock of my entire handicapping process.

Their ratings are 100%, dead on balls accurate.

ANYBODY who starts using them and takes the time to fully understand their value WILL have an improved ROI. Period! :ThmbUp:


When you used to analyze races on TVG, you often referred to the Thoro-graph figs. Your explanation and analysis was interesting and insightful. You do well with the figures because you've figured out a smart way to use them. However, I've heard other people, including Jerry Brown himself, analyze races using his figures and I wasn't as impressed.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

In regards to the weight argument, I think the evidence is pretty clear that weight matters. Regardless if it is 1 lb or 15 lbs. I'm not going to get into the science of it but lets assume weight doesn't matter for a minute (just to play devil's advocate)... Wouldn't the entire database for thorograph and ragozin be off? Every figure they have ever made would need to be changed because weight is a variable in every figure. If you don't believe weight matters, you are essentially saying these figures are garbage.
Nobody is suggesting Ragozin or Thorograph is garbage. That's patently a ridiculous jump based on what I said. Obviously there are a number of factors that go into making a figure. One could only make the argument the figures are garbage if they were primarily based on weight, which they are not. Obviously the success of figure users suggests the numbers have value.

I said that years ago when I looked at thorograph, although I thought JB had empirical data on weight, I didn't agree with the emphasis I perceived he gave it. I also said, I don't have specific knowledge of the algorithms he uses, just an anecdotal sense of the importance placed on weight from my own use and reading of TG race analyses.

I simply don't believe weight is a particularly critical factor in most modern races. For one thing, minimum weight for races is higher than it used to be. This means most of the weight carried by a horse is the jockey, and the jockey's weight is well distributed. At the time when jockeys were lighter and weight was carried in the saddle in the form of weight bars, that weight may have made a difference, but I don't think a horse will be very affected by 121 vs 118 if the weight is all in the jockey. It's far more common these days for weight differences between horses to be minimal and all jockey instead of in the saddle.

Second, weight breaks usually go to either horses with deficiencies to start (Non-winners of a race at a mile since July 1 allowed 3 pounds) or with an apprentice allowance.

Finally, I clearly understand the physics involved, and have argued that the lower weight a horse has as a result of water loss due to the administration of Lasix can improve running time. The same force applied to a lighter object results in overcoming inertia more quickly. The same physics are technically behind giving lighter jockey weights an advantage, but I would suggest the advantage is so minimal as to have a very small affect on the outcome for reasons already cited. I'd be happy to review the evidence you believe is clear, as long as it is scientific and objective. Unfortunately I am not familiar with studies that isolate weight as a factor and demonstrate a clear relationship between weight carried and racing success. If they exist, I'd love to read them.

The one situation where I might look at weight is when a trainer shows a pattern of moving to an apprentice when he has a live horse. If the trainer perceives weight is a key to a win and he reveals it, then for that trainer weight becomes a consideration.

I post my NYRA selections daily, and true to form I don't think I've ever said I like a horse just because he is dropping weight. I've had a long and pretty good handicapping career pretty much ignoring weight, and I'm fine with that.

For me, once a horse has exposed it's ability, unless it is obvious the horse reacts to weight, weight becomes irrelevant, and based on my experience, few horses show a significant reaction to weight.

These are the results from Sunday at AQU

R1 Highweight (120) - 4th, Low weight (113) - 3rd, Winner - 118
R2 All horses carried 121 except winner (116) with 5 lb apprentice alw
R3 Highweight (123) -1st & 5th, Low weight (118) - all others
R4 Highweight (123) - 5th, Low weight (113) - 1st with 5 lb apprentice alw
R5 All horses carried 120 except one that carried 5 lbs less and finished 3rd
R6 Highweight (123) - 6th, Low Weight (115) - 8th, Winner - 120
R7 All horses carried 119 except one that carried 5 lbs less and finished 3rd
R8 Highweight (120) - 3rd, all other horses carried 118
R9 Highweight (120) - 1st, 4th, 5th, Low weight (108) - 3rd

That last race was the 9th that got it's own thread here. The low weight, Is She Hot, that finished 3rd ran her highest figure carrying 120, and ran her second high figure last race under 114. The six pound weight drop today should have been substantial, and kept the horse from getting passed by a horse carrying 12 pounds more in the stretch, right? The raw time from the horse's previous race at the distance was 1:44.3, while the race on Sunday went 1:46.07, same distance.

The races where the winners were the light weights the horses were 5/2 and 2-1, and in my opinion were not bet based on weight. It's one day, and not a scientific sample, but I thought it was pretty typical. In many races the weights are too close to each other to be a factor. The other thing was that Eric Cancel is a pretty good apprentice rider who gets live horses.

I said that if you use Thorograph successfully, that's great. I have my reservations about it, but look at the bright side. You'll have a great edge and can take my money.

[thaskalos]

Anybody who has read Ragozin's book The Odds Must Be Crazy has to come away impressed with all the work that goes into the construction of these types of figures. It isn't just the ground-loss adjustments; they also employ their own race timers...in order to avoid having to deal with those disturbing race-timing malfunctions that we see today. They also factor the wind into their figure calculations...which appears to be a substantial factor during wintry conditions. These figures are a vast improvement over the conventional, "Beyer-type" figures that we commonly see today...there is no doubt about that, IMO.

Yes...they don't give adequate consideration to the concept of pace...and the upward adjustment of a horse's figure because of ground loss doesn't preclude that this horse won't still lose ground in its race today. But this just means that the horseplayer will still have an important role to play in this game...even while possessing the best figures out there. When this game becomes a contest of FIGURES instead of horseplayers...then we are all in trouble, IMO.

[Mc990]

So maybe "garbage" was too harsh.... Inaccurate might be a better term. If you do not believe weight matters then you are implying the figures are inherently inaccurate... Not just 1 figure but the entire database. You would literally need to change every figure in order to re-adjust for the absence of the weight carried function. Make sense?

By no means am I trying to shill for these figures... I'm just trying to understand other player's approach to them. It seems like a sharp sheet player can still find an advantage on the big race days but on a week to week basis, most of the value is sucked dry by the big money players.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Anybody who has read Ragozin's book The Odds Must Be Crazy has to come away impressed with all the work that goes into the construction of these types of figures. It isn't just the ground-loss adjustments; they also employ their own race timers...in order to avoid having to deal with those disturbing race-timing malfunctions that we see today. They also factor the wind into their figure calculations...which appears to be a substantial factor during wintry conditions. These figures are a vast improvement over the conventional, "Beyer-type" figures that we commonly see today...there is no doubt about that, IMO.

Yes...they don't give adequate consideration to the concept of pace...and the upward adjustment of a horse's figure because of ground loss doesn't preclude that this horse won't still lose ground in its race today. But this just means that the horseplayer will still have an important role to play in this game...even while possessing the best figures out there. When this game becomes a contest of FIGURES instead of horseplayers...then we are all in trouble, IMO.
I totally agree that the premium figures (Ragozin, Thorograh, Timeform) are put together thoughtfully. I can even remember having spirited discussions about a closer's wind vs an early speed wind. It's my opinion that weight is a minor factor, and that "ground loss" cannot always be applied mechancally. That's not an indictment of Thrograph. It obviously wouldn't be successful if it didn't have a lot of value for a lot of people.

I've written that the mechanical application of figures, however good, is not the path to consistent profit. Even armed with figures you still have to handicap the race. I once mentioned how Captain Kirk in Star Trek used to outsmart the space computers with non-linear thinking, and I've thought the key to success in anything is the combination of the linear and non-linear. Handicapping is particularly that way.

We all weight factors to our own style and draw a line at what we see as more noise than essential. If we are wrong in how we evaluate factors, it will be reflected in our balance sheet.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

So maybe "garbage" was too harsh.... Inaccurate might be a better term. If you do not believe weight matters then you are implying the figures are inherently inaccurate... Not just 1 figure but the entire database. You would literally need to change every figure in order to re-adjust for the absence of the weight carried function. Make sense?

By no means am I trying to shill for these figures... I'm just trying to understand other player's approach to them. It seems like a sharp sheet player can still find an advantage on the big race days but on a week to week basis, most of the value is sucked dry by the big money players.
It's my opinion, and I could be wrong, that Thorograph overemphasized weight, but I admitted my opinion is not based on anything scientific, just anecdote. I suppose you are right that I'm suggesting some inaccuracy, but I have no idea how much. I just remember when I would read the race of the week write-ups, there were times I thought the analysis overemphasized weight. Again, that is off the cuff. It's entirely possibly JB has such a sophisticated algorithm that his calculation of weight is dead on. It's also my opinion that weight has taken less importance with the way races are written and the higher minimums that tracks employ. I also suggested weight differences are not simply linear - that 10 pounds can be more or less significant depending on the how low the smaller weight is. To be clear, I don't think weight is irrelevant - it definitely is a factor. Just a minor one for me.

[cj]

...they also employ their own race timers...in order to avoid having to deal with those disturbing race-timing malfunctions that we see today.

I think the "hand timing angle" is overplayed big time personally. Humans just aren't that good at it no matter how many times they do it. It doesn't take much to be off by three or four fifths of second.

I'm not knocking the product. I'm sure it is fine. But I have never believed much in the hand timing department. There is also the issue of timing from the gate. Exactly where is the gate? How far is the race they are timing?

This stuff can all be done a lot more accurately today with video replays than it can by any on track hand timing. But, not all tracks provide replays in a user friendly format. Most tracks make it tough to download videos and work with them.

[cj]

It's my opinion, and I could be wrong, that Thorograph overemphasized weight, but I admitted my opinion is not based on anything scientific, just anecdote. I suppose you are right that I'm suggesting some inaccuracy, but I have no idea how much. I just remember when I would read the race of the week write-ups, there were times I thought the analysis overemphasized weight. Again, that is off the cuff. It's entirely possibly JB has such a sophisticated algorithm that his calculation of weight is dead on. It's also my opinion that weight has taken less importance with the way races are written and the higher minimums that tracks employ. I also suggested weight differences are not simply linear - that 10 pounds can be more or less significant depending on the how low the smaller weight is. To be clear, I don't think weight is irrelevant - it definitely is a factor. Just a minor one for me.

I have read more than a few studies on weight. The biggest ones I have seen agree with you. Weight changes do have an effect, but below a certain level they don't seem to matter. In your product, anything at 117 or below just counts as 117. When you start giving credit to horses for dropping pounds below that level, you are asking for trouble.

[classhandicapper]

IMO, the best features of Thorograph are the figure based trainer and pedigree stats and information. It gives you another way of looking at the data besides win%, ITM%, ROI etc... I think looking at data in multiple ways can reinforce or refute certain views.

[Stillriledup]

Horsemen believe in weight a lot, you can tell this by some of the claiming races that give you 1 or 2 lbs for entering at a lower claiming price, horsemen are always taking what they believe to be an edge.

If you win a 10 minute photo and you took that 2lbs, you can certainly make a case the 2 lbs was the difference.

[pandy]

The proof that horsemen believe weight matters is apprentice jockeys. If trainers didn't think weight mattered, apprentice jockeys would never get a decent horse to ride.

Weight is a tricky thing to access, but I know if I see a horse beat another horse by a nose and that horse has a 2 lb advantage, then a week later the two horses come back but the horse that had a 2lb advantage now has a 7 lb disadvantage (a 9 pound swing in favor of the other horse), I would make the horse that lost by a nose and is getting the 9lb favorable weight shift my top pick. Vinnie Abate, who picked a higher percentage of winners than anyone I ever saw, did it that way.

Moreover, since I bet a lot of longshots, and I've done well over the years with horses picking up an apprentice rider, I'd be reluctant to dismiss weight as a factor.

[steveb]

The proof that horsemen believe weight matters is apprentice jockeys. If trainers didn't think weight mattered, apprentice jockeys would never get a decent horse to ride.

Weight is a tricky thing to access, but I know if I see a horse beat another horse by a nose and that horse has a 2 lb advantage, then a week later the two horses come back but the horse that had a 2lb advantage now has a 7 lb disadvantage (a 9 pound swing in favor of the other horse), I would make the horse that lost by a nose and is getting the 9lb favorable weight shift my top pick. Vinnie Abate, who picked a higher percentage of winners than anyone I ever saw, did it that way.

Moreover, since I bet a lot of longshots, and I've done well over the years with horses picking up an apprentice rider, I'd be reluctant to dismiss weight as a factor.

the simple fact that trainers believe weight matters, is ENOUGH to prove that it does matter, even if it was meaningless(which it's not).

but i learned long ago that weight is an important factor, irrespective of what others may think.
if you ran a 100 races and EVERYTHING was the same with them all carrying the same weight, and then you ran the 100 races again, but they all carried 1 pound extra.
i am 100% sure that the races where they carried 1 pound more would be run at a slower average time.
if it can be measured then it MUST have an effect, but i would be happy if everybody thought it meaningless.
well i would if i still lived in that world.

[tophatmert]

I think the "hand timing angle" is overplayed big time personally. Humans just aren't that good at it no matter how many times they do it. It doesn't take much to be off by three or four fifths of second.

I'm not knocking the product. I'm sure it is fine. But I have never believed much in the hand timing department. There is also the issue of timing from the gate. Exactly where is the gate? How far is the race they are timing?

This stuff can all be done a lot more accurately today with video replays than it can by any on track hand timing. But, not all tracks provide replays in a user friendly format. Most tracks make it tough to download videos and work with them.
The "hand timers "are the trackmen who also do the ground loss, the wind , run ups, rail placements etc. , they may be using video now for timing errors. I have used Rag or TG for 28 years and think they are a good tool .The theories about racehorse development and condition analysis that have come from the sheet guys are the thing that has helped me the most.

[pandy]

the simple fact that trainers believe weight matters, is ENOUGH to prove that it does matter, even if it was meaningless(which it's not).

but i learned long ago that weight is an important factor, irrespective of what others may think.
if you ran a 100 races and EVERYTHING was the same with them all carrying the same weight, and then you ran the 100 races again, but they all carried 1 pound extra.
i am 100% sure that the races where they carried 1 pound more would be run at a slower average time.
if it can be measured then it MUST have an effect, but i would be happy if everybody thought it meaningless.
well i would if i still lived in that world.


Back when they actually had true handicap races, you would not find many handicappers who thought that weight didn't matter. I never saw Kelso race but many people told me how Kelso bravely carried the weight.

Forego was a huge, powerful horse, but there's no question that he felt that extra 10 pounds on his back. You could see him battling it. I can't remember the race off the top of my head, it may have been the '76 Marlboro in the mud, but in that race, you could actually see his legs buckling at one or two moments in the stretch, but he battled through it and got up. It was something to see. These horses nowadays have it easy. If Forego's legs hadn't buckled, he would have won easily, which is why they have Handicap races, to make it more exciting.

[elhelmete]

I like to watch a loose horse continue to run with the pack in a race (assuming of course, the fallen rider is fine).

That horse rarely finishes forwardly, despite being 117# lighter than the rest.

Obviously I'm being somewhat facetious...

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I have read more than a few studies on weight. The biggest ones I have seen agree with you. Weight changes do have an effect, but below a certain level they don't seem to matter. In your product, anything at 117 or below just counts as 117. When you start giving credit to horses for dropping pounds below that level, you are asking for trouble.
I can't remember a time when I ever looked at weight as an important handicapping factor, so if I've missed out on some good things I'll never know. And your post is right on for me. I suggested once a horse starts getting 124 or above, perhaps weight differential is more significant, but when you have a race with half the field at 118 and the other half at 120, my handicapping essentially ignores and value of the differential.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Horsemen believe in weight a lot, you can tell this by some of the claiming races that give you 1 or 2 lbs for entering at a lower claiming price, horsemen are always taking what they believe to be an edge.

If you win a 10 minute photo and you took that 2lbs, you can certainly make a case the 2 lbs was the difference.
There are too many variables to zoom in the two pounds as the determinant with any certainty. Give me horses with exactly equal ability ridden by exactly equal jockeys with exactly equal trips and then we'll talk about the two pounds.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Back when they actually had true handicap races, you would not find many handicappers who thought that weight didn't matter. I never saw Kelso race but many people told me how Kelso bravely carried the weight.

Forego was a huge, powerful horse, but there's no question that he felt that extra 10 pounds on his back. You could see him battling it. I can't remember the race off the top of my head, it may have been the '76 Marlboro in the mud, but in that race, you could actually see his legs buckling at one or two moments in the stretch, but he battled through it and got up. It was something to see. These horses nowadays have it easy. If Forego's legs hadn't buckled, he would have won easily, which is why they have Handicap races, to make it more exciting.

Forego carried 137 in the '76 Marlboro. Of course he was known to have the worst legs in the business. Today you might not find a vet that would have let him on the track.

Give me a handicap race in the last decade where a horse carried more than 128. Trainer gets that weight and he's looking for another race.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Just to be perfectly clear, I started this with my opinion that Thorograph overemphasized weight and ground loss. Not that weight was completely irrelevant - it may be important in some cases - and yes, I don't give it great attention but that's me. Not that ground loss was irrelevant - it can be depending on how it occurs. Not that Thorograph or The Sheets are not good products - they are. Not that trainers don't see weight as important - I've talked to enough of them to know they have all sorts of opinions, and not all of them worthy of recording on tablets of stone.

I've learned two things on PA. One, there are no perfect analogies and two, you'll never know what you really said until everyone gets to comment.

[Stillriledup]

There are too many variables to zoom in the two pounds as the determinant with any certainty. Give me horses with exactly equal ability ridden by exactly equal jockeys with exactly equal trips and then we'll talk about the two pounds.

But we aren't comparing two horses with everything being equal, we are comparing the same horse. Same jock and everything else being the Same except one is 117 vs the other at 119. Weight is physical, it takes more 'horsepower' to pull 119 than it does to pull 117.

[pandy]

I like to watch a loose horse continue to run with the pack in a race (assuming of course, the fallen rider is fine).

That horse rarely finishes forwardly, despite being 117# lighter than the rest.

Obviously I'm being somewhat facetious...

Actually, I have done extremely well with loose horses that finish first, which is my favorite trip angle. Whenever a horse throws its rider and finishes first, I put the horse on my watch list and as long as the horse is a longshot in next start, I bet it. I hit three in a row a few years ago and two paid over $30.

I'm not sure why it works because being riderless is a tremendous advantage to any horse that is a good competitor and knows what it's doing out there.

[theiman]

In regards to the weight argument, I think the evidence is pretty clear that weight matters. Regardless if it is 1 lb or 15 lbs. I'm not going to get into the science of it but lets assume weight doesn't matter for a minute (just to play devil's advocate)... Wouldn't the entire database for thorograph and ragozin be off? Every figure they have ever made would need to be changed because weight is a variable in every figure. If you don't believe weight matters, you are essentially saying these figures are garbage.

What evidence is pretty clear?
To me its opinions vary.

Other than trainers dont like what more weight what is the evidence that weight, from 1 lb to 15 lbs or even 30 lbs makes a difference?

[steveb]

What evidence is pretty clear?
To me its opinions vary.

Other than trainers dont like what more weight what is the evidence that weight, from 1 lb to 15 lbs or even 30 lbs makes a difference?


there is plenty of evidence for those that know how to find it, and have the data.
some people just ignore, or downplay, because they have no idea how to go about it, or it adds another layer of complexity that they don't want.

i guess we could transpose the question.......what evidence do YOU have that it makes no difference?

if 2 horses were evenly matched in a 2 horse race, their fair prob is .5.
add a pound or kg to one horse, and there is NO way they are both still even money chances.
the trick is to figure how much that weight change would alter the probs of them.

[proximity]

a slave to the printed page with one foot out the door i haven't converted yet but between the price and the use of pace in making accurate variants i don't see how cj's ratings aren't by far the best value in the business?? :confused:

[theiman]

there is plenty of evidence for those that know how to find it, and have the data.
some people just ignore, or downplay, because they have no idea how to go about it, or it adds another layer of complexity that they don't want.

i guess we could transpose the question.......what evidence do YOU have that it makes no difference?

if 2 horses were evenly matched in a 2 horse race, their fair prob is .5.
add a pound or kg to one horse, and there is NO way they are both still even money chances.
the trick is to figure how much that weight change would alter the probs of them.

That is only an opinion, not evidence.

Do you really believe a 1 lb difference on a 1200 lb animal, where the weight is distributed in a saddle pad has an effect?

Just curious, how much weight equals a length or a time differential. How is your calculation determined?

If two horses both carry 120 lbs would it affect a horse weighing 1100 lbs different vs a 1200 lb horse.

Next someone will tell me that with rails up on the turf course it is easier to wire the field.

[steveb]

That is only an opinion, not evidence.

Do you really believe a 1 lb difference on a 1200 lb animal, where the weight is distributed in a saddle pad has an effect?

Just curious, how much weight equals a length or a time differential. How is your calculation determined?

If two horses both carry 120 lbs would it affect a horse weighing 1100 lbs different vs a 1200 lb horse.

Next someone will tell me that with rails up on the turf course it is easier to wire the field.

well, it does not really matter as i don't care what others may think
but it's not a matter of believing, it's fact.
100%
as for telling you how, it's not going to happen, although i have showed others before.
it is incalculable i suppose for any one horse, but the averages are easy to figure.
i long ago learned my probs were more accurate using weight as a factor, than ignoring it.

then there is the fact that the biggest and best on the planet will all have weight factors.
there is a page somewhere on the internet where entropy(under his real name) frequented before he was no more, saying that weight was the 3rd most important factor in his models.
google is your friend.
of course he would have known bugger all, and died penniless!!

your last sentence would be classified as obfuscation. meaningless

your second last sentence, i don't know the answer to, because it would depend on the horses on the day, but that in itself does not detract from the fact that carried weight is very very very very important.
i do know that it is not a reasonable question to ask, because nobody could accurately answer it

[HalvOnHorseracing]

there is plenty of evidence for those that know how to find it, and have the data.
some people just ignore, or downplay, because they have no idea how to go about it, or it adds another layer of complexity that they don't want.

i guess we could transpose the question.......what evidence do YOU have that it makes no difference?

if 2 horses were evenly matched in a 2 horse race, their fair prob is .5.
add a pound or kg to one horse, and there is NO way they are both still even money chances.
the trick is to figure how much that weight change would alter the probs of them.
There is an old economics joke. How does an economist bake a cake? First assume two eggs. The great thing about extreme hypotheticals is that they are rarely something to worry about in the real world.

I say, be a sport and tell us where the recent revelatory studies are on weight instead of a "know where to find it" comment. When I say recent I mean say the last ten years, especially since I've pointed out fewer and fewer races have significant weight differences among the participants, and as a handicapping factor it may have dropped a few places in importance. Something that shows carrying a jockey and no dead weight at 120 and carrying a jockey and dead weight equivalent to 118 are gives a horse a significant advantage, because I don't know that is necessarily the case, and I doubt it is provable except as a theoretical exercise in physics because there are myriad other factors relating to a horse's condition, ability, running style, and racing luck. Unfortunately, all things being equal rarely applies to a horse race. I've been following the thread closely and there seem to be two posts regarding studies. One, weight is a big deal and there are studies out there to prove it, although nothing we can click on. Two, weight up to about 117 can be treated equivalently for handicapping purposes, and I would say the person who posted that has tremendous credibility on this site and in the industry.

I'll also suggest that before you call people with a reasoned opinion on any handicapping factor incapable (don't know how to go about it), purposely ignorant, or unwilling to pile on complexity, you might want to determine if that is actually the case. You want to make a good case? Leave out the improbable hypotheticals and instead provide some empirical evidence.

[steveb]

There is an old economics joke. How does an economist bake a cake? First assume two eggs. The great thing about extreme hypotheticals is that they are rarely something to worry about in the real world.

I say, be a sport and tell us where the recent revelatory studies are on weight instead of a "know where to find it" comment. When I say recent I mean say the last ten years, especially since I've pointed out fewer and fewer races have significant weight differences among the participants, and as a handicapping factor it may have dropped a few places in importance. Something that shows carrying a jockey and no dead weight at 120 and carrying a jockey and dead weight equivalent to 118 are gives a horse a significant advantage, because I don't know that is necessarily the case, and I doubt it is provable except as a theoretical exercise in physics because there are myriad other factors relating to a horse's condition, ability, running style, and racing luck. Unfortunately, all things being equal rarely applies to a horse race. I've been following the thread closely and there seem to be two posts regarding studies. One, weight is a big deal and there are studies out there to prove it, although nothing we can click on. Two, weight up to about 117 can be treated equivalently for handicapping purposes, and I would say the person who posted that has tremendous credibility on this site and in the industry.

I'll also suggest that before you call people with a reasoned opinion on any handicapping factor incapable (don't know how to go about it), purposely ignorant, or unwilling to pile on complexity, you might want to determine if that is actually the case. You want to make a good case? Leave out the improbable hypotheticals and instead provide some empirical evidence.

translate your last sentence and i may try to answer it, but first tell me where i called somebody incapable.
just because somebody cant do specific things, does not make them incapable. so please cut the emotive nonsense.

as for cj who it is obvious you are referring to in part then, i have no doubt he is a very intelligent guy as far as racing goes.
but as far as weight goes we are poles apart it seems.
and to make a point...i am sure cj is quite capable of making his own arguments, he does not need your help sir.
you need to make your OWN points, not invoke others, unless of course you are not clever enough to do so.

weight is just as important now as it ever was, and probably even more so on dirt than turf, because it's a more tiring surface.
in your country dirt is king i believe, yet it is the one place as far as i can figure, where the majority ignore weight,
perhaps that is because it is speed orientated, and it is hard for people to unite weight and time.
but it is time that enables one to calculate the values of weight......go figure!

[HalvOnHorseracing]

translate your last sentence and i may try to answer it, but first tell me where i called somebody incapable.
just because somebody cant do specific things, does not make them incapable. so please cut the emotive nonsense.

as for cj who it is obvious you are referring to in part then, i have no doubt he is a very intelligent guy as far as racing goes.
but as far as weight goes we are poles apart it seems.
and to make a point...i am sure cj is quite capable of making his own arguments, he does not need your help sir.
you need to make your OWN points, not invoke others, unless of course you are not clever enough to do so.

weight is just as important now as it ever was, and probably even more so on dirt than turf, because it's a more tiring surface.
in your country dirt is king i believe, yet it is the one place as far as i can figure, where the majority ignore weight,
perhaps that is because it is speed orientated, and it is hard for people to unite weight and time.
but it is time that enables one to calculate the values of weight......go figure!
Stunning.

1. The definition of incapable in every dictionary is "unable to do something". So yes, telling a person that can't do certain things calls them incapable. Duh on that one.

2. If you've read all my posts, I have made specific arguments for why I believe weight is overemphasized and I actually gave a real world example from Feb 28 at AQU

3. Whether or not CJ is capable of making his own arguments, he was the one that cited studies suggesting the line between where weight may matter or not is 117. I made essentially the same argument - although I suggested higher - and was noting the agreement. In fact, if you read his post, he was supporting me. Subtle difference between support and defense. And once again, I never said weight was irrelevant. I said it was overemphasized by some figure makers, and for me it is a minor consideration. As is often the case, there are those who, when someone says they don't like broccoli, jump to the conclusion they hate all vegetables.

4. Finally, YOUR hypothetical about the exact same horse running with a pound difference does not mirror reality. I suggested you'd do better to cite empirical data from the real world. "I believe," is only proof of what you believe and not an immutable fact.

[classhandicapper]

I haven't change my view on weight in 40 years.

When I'm done handicapping a race, my view on the chances of each horse is never so clear that a few pounds either way is going to change it at all.

I'll use someone else's theoretical example. If I had 2 horses that were absolutely identical and then I added a couple of pounds to one of them, they would no longer be identical. It's just that that never happens.

I typically have 2 horses that are roughly similar. They may both be in the 25%-30% range or 8%-12% range. There are so many factors I have to analyze that are not very clear, adding weight to that analysis just adds noise. Now if it's a 10 or 15 pound shift, I might notice. But that rarely happens either.

My feeling is that if the race is so close that you are worried about a couple of pounds, you should be focusing on the odds and not the couple of pounds.

[cj]

translate your last sentence and i may try to answer it, but first tell me where i called somebody incapable.
just because somebody cant do specific things, does not make them incapable. so please cut the emotive nonsense.

as for cj who it is obvious you are referring to in part then, i have no doubt he is a very intelligent guy as far as racing goes.
but as far as weight goes we are poles apart it seems.
and to make a point...i am sure cj is quite capable of making his own arguments, he does not need your help sir.
you need to make your OWN points, not invoke others, unless of course you are not clever enough to do so.

weight is just as important now as it ever was, and probably even more so on dirt than turf, because it's a more tiring surface.
in your country dirt is king i believe, yet it is the one place as far as i can figure, where the majority ignore weight,
perhaps that is because it is speed orientated, and it is hard for people to unite weight and time.
but it is time that enables one to calculate the values of weight......go figure!

I have said weight does matter many times. I just don't count it below a certain level. The data for North American racing doesn't support it. It could be that jockeys able to make the really low weights aren't as strong and counteract the boost of carrying less. Maybe it is just mostly apprentices that aren't polished, but I don't really know.

The why doesn't matter to me. It is just what I have found. Andy Beyer found similar (where horses that dropped weight at lower levels actually ran slower) as did Nick Mordin. So I'm not alone.

[theiman]

well, it does not really matter as i don't care what others may think
but it's not a matter of believing, it's fact.
100%
as for telling you how, it's not going to happen,

Love your answer, Mate. Its a fact but I am not going to tell you. :bang:

I would still love for someone to tell me a calculation, proven by some testing, that shows how much weight slows down, or perhaps even speeds an animal up.

[aaron]

What doesn't make sense to me is that that many handicappers will worry about a few pounds being added or reduced on a horse,but don't factor in the jockey. Does anybody really believe getting a 5lb apprentice is a plus factor when you are being switched from a Rosario or a Castellano ?

[v j stauffer]

What doesn't make sense to me is that that many handicappers will worry about a few pounds being added or reduced on a horse,but don't factor in the jockey. Does anybody really believe getting a 5lb apprentice is a plus factor when you are being switched from a Rosario or a Castellano ?

Yes. I most certainly do.

[RXB]

There are form reasons for most weight shifts, involving recent wins or lack thereof. And if a horse is assigned 110 pounds in a handicap race, it is probably outclassed and the low weight assignment won't be enough to allow it to be competitive.

Perhaps added saddlebag weight might affect a horse differently than the weight of a jockey.

But I know firsthand from my own running that any excess weight impairs performance.

[theiman]

What doesn't make sense to me is that that many handicappers will worry about a few pounds being added or reduced on a horse,but don't factor in the jockey. Does anybody really believe getting a 5lb apprentice is a plus factor when you are being switched from a Rosario or a Castellano ?

++++ That I can agree with.

[cj]

Love your answer, Mate. Its a fact but I am not going to tell you. :bang:

I would still love for someone to tell me a calculation, proven by some testing, that shows how much weight slows down, or perhaps even speeds an animal up.

I want my bank to just give me $1000 a week too but I'm not holding my breath. Why do people expect others to give away their work on horse racing?

[ultracapper]

When they refer to it in such strong terms to make a point, it's kind of natural to ask how they came up with it.

Plenty of hearsay around here.

[cj]

What doesn't make sense to me is that that many handicappers will worry about a few pounds being added or reduced on a horse,but don't factor in the jockey. Does anybody really believe getting a 5lb apprentice is a plus factor when you are being switched from a Rosario or a Castellano ?

I know some people don't factor in the jockey much, though that is mostly for value reasons in my opinion. I doubt there is much crossover between the groups you mention.

[theiman]

I want my bank to just give me $1000 a week too but I'monbuilding my breath. Why do people expect others to give away their work on horse racing?

Who is asking for others work? Someone is stating there is evidence, not theirs, but evidence. I am asking what it is?

The other poster, from Australia, that I was responding to said it was on the internet, to google it. It wasnt like it was his own calculations or theory. Isnt this a forum to discuss such things?

I have never walked away from a losing, or winning photo and been PO'd, or elated, that the weight was the difference in my win or loss.

I am not saying that weight shouldnt be incorporated into someones handicapping, I just have never seen concrete proof, just beliefs, that have been posted and passed down.

[classhandicapper]

I don't spend a lot of time looking at the jockey either. I know there are differences in riding strengths and styles. Some are better at recognizing biases than others. "Trainer intent" can also come into it. But I haven't been able come up with many value oriented insights where the jockey was a key to the play.

[classhandicapper]

Who is asking for others work? Someone is stating there is evidence, not theirs, but evidence. I am asking what it is?


Years ago in the Fall Highweight in NY, horses would carry really huge imposts (like 135-140). Len Friedman (Ragozin) once told me that when he would make his speed figures for those days the FH would invariably come up slow if you didn't use a weight adjustment for that race. I considered that pretty good evidence because higher caliber horses are more consistent, the weight shifts were pretty large, and it was a pretty controlled experiment.

[RXB]

I also think weight is a feasible solution for the Lasix issue. Assign full weight if Lasix; 4-6 pounds less if no Lasix. I think that would stop quite a bit of Lasix administration that is based more on the performance benefits of diuretic-induced weight loss than for the purpose of controlling bleeding.

[Magister Ludi]

The following is the impost (i) required to slow down a horse by one second in a k-furlong race:

k (f)..... i (lb)
5.......... 30
6.......... 24
7.......... 20
8.......... 17

The above table is derived from a whole-body metabolic model of thoroughbred racehorses. An increase in impost increases energy expenditure through kinetic energy and locomotion.

[ultracapper]

17 lbs. to slow a horse down one second at a mile. Hmm.

I'm handicapping the 6th at SA tomorrow and the 3yos are starting to run with the older horses at the maiden levels now. Those 3yo are getting 7 lbs. I've always kept one eye on weight, but never my good eye. I doubt the effect would be linear (ie: 7 lbs. would be 7/17 of a second at a mile), but it must have some effect.

[Magister Ludi]

17 lbs. to slow a horse down one second at a mile. Hmm.

I'm handicapping the 6th at SA tomorrow and the 3yos are starting to run with the older horses at the maiden levels now. Those 3yo are getting 7 lbs.

They're actually getting 6 lb. The average three-year-old thoroughbred racehorse (TBR) weighs about 1100 lb. The average TBR > three years old weighs about 1150 lb. All other factors being equal, a heavier bodyweight TBR is faster than a lighter bodyweight TBR. The 1150 lb older/heavier/faster TBR will outperform the 1100 lb younger/lighter/slower TBR by about .23s over 6f. The six-pound impost will affect the older/heavier/faster TBR as follows:

(from the table above in my previous post)

6f = 24lb/s

6lb = .25s

Excellent impost allocation!

[Stillriledup]

Some weight discussion in this thread, the Fort Larned riderless situation.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=101675&highlight=Fort+larned

[v j stauffer]

I also think weight is a feasible solution for the Lasix issue. Assign full weight if Lasix; 4-6 pounds less if no Lasix. I think that would stop quite a bit of Lasix administration that is based more on the performance benefits of diuretic-induced weight loss than for the purpose of controlling bleeding.

The only horsemen that would take advantage of this are ones that had no intention of using Lasix anyway.

I've never met a trainer in 40 years that would take a chance on his horse choking down to run with a few less pounds.

[cj]

I also think weight is a feasible solution for the Lasix issue. Assign full weight if Lasix; 4-6 pounds less if no Lasix. I think that would stop quite a bit of Lasix administration that is based more on the performance benefits of diuretic-induced weight loss than for the purpose of controlling bleeding.

I agree with you 100%!

[cj]

The only horsemen that would take advantage of this are ones that had no intention of using Lasix anyway.

I've never met a trainer in 40 years that would take a chance on his horse choking down to run with a few less pounds.

I think horsemen would figure out pretty quickly that horses recover faster without Lasix and would take advantage of increased racing opportunities.

[ultracapper]

Just for accuracy, the race I'm handicapping the conditions provide for 3yos carrying 118, older 125.

The math is simple once you know the variables anyway.

[ultracapper]

The only horsemen that would take advantage of this are ones that had no intention of using Lasix anyway.

I've never met a trainer in 40 years that would take a chance on his horse choking down to run with a few less pounds.

Then reward them accordingly. When a guy like Fabre says he won't put the stuff in any of his horses, that gives you plenty of food for thought.

[classhandicapper]

I'm going to guess that a lot of trial and error research went into the original weight for age charts. That doesn't mean they are perfect but I doubt they are off by a lot.

There could potentially be some differences between dirt and turf racing for example because the paces are different.

THere are also huge differences between races restricted to 3yos and races for older depending on the class even at the same time of year.

http://horseracing.about.com/library/blscale.htm

[ReplayRandall]

Then reward them accordingly. When a guy like Fabre says he won't put the stuff in any of his horses, that gives you plenty of food for thought.

No, when Fabre makes the comment about Lasix, it just shows me the game, as it's played today, has passed him by. At one time, his opinion meant something, but no more.....

[classhandicapper]

No, when Fabre makes the comment about Lasix, it just shows me the game, as it's played today, has passed him by. At one time, his opinion meant something, but no more.....

He's one of the greatest trainers in the history of the sport. What it probably means is that he won't sell his soul and hurt the horses in his care just to get a few extra wins.

[cj]

No, when Fabre makes the comment about Lasix, it just shows me the game, as it's played today, has passed him by. At one time, his opinion meant something, but no more.....

That is a pretty big leap. If bleeding was the problem many pretend it is I can't imagine he wouldn't use Lasix. I'm sure he is aware of the benefits and the negative effects Lasix can have.

[ReplayRandall]

He's one of the greatest trainers in the history of the sport. What it probably means is that he won't sell his soul and hurt the horses in his care just to get a few extra wins.

So the vast majority of trainers have therefore sold their souls because they use Lasix?.......Get a check-up CH, something ain't right with your noggin'.

[RXB]

So the vast majority of trainers have therefore sold their souls because they use Lasix?.......Get a check-up CH, something ain't right with your noggin'.

Lame, especially toward a guy who is a very reasonable person.

[Stillriledup]

Elite euro trainers like Fabre are trying to create stallions and they want to be able to have 'no lasix' as a selling point.

[ReplayRandall]

Lame, especially toward a guy who is a very reasonable person.

It was a joke there, Sport.....BTW, He doesn't need your help....Buzz off, Troll Fly.

[cj]

It was a joke there, Sport.....BTW, He doesn't need your help....Buzz off, Troll Fly.

Sometimes print doesn't come off the way it was intended. I didn't read it as a joke either. I apologize for that. Your response to RXB is a bit much.

[classhandicapper]

So the vast majority of trainers have therefore sold their souls because they use Lasix?.......Get a check-up CH, something ain't right with your noggin'.

There are always side effects and risks with taking drugs long term.

Doctors prescribe drugs to humans because the risks of some health condition they are dealing with are greater than the risks of the drug they are giving to them to control it.

In many cases, trainers give Lasix to horses because they want them to run faster even though they have no health issue.

If you are asking me if I understand the economics that drive these decisions, the answer is yes.

If you are asking me who has the long term health of the horses in mind when he trains them, the answer is Andre Fabre.

I want drug free racing and that includes lasix. I am unlikely to win that debate, but it's still what I want.

By the way, I didn't take the "noggin" comment in a bad way. ;)

[ReplayRandall]

Sometimes print doesn't come off the way it was intended. I didn't read it as a joke either. I apologize for that. Your response to RXB is a bit much.

I'll use emoticons next time......Still, CH doesn't need RXB's help....then again, maybe he does.. :)

How does that come off CJ?.. :cool:

Better?......Now you know I'm kidding, right?

FABRE'S opinion is no longer relevant in the horse racing world......For the 2nd and last time.

[cj]

So the vast majority of trainers have therefore sold their souls because they use Lasix?.......Get a check-up CH, something ain't right with your noggin'.

You really need to chill a bit here man. There was no reason for this kind of response either.

[ReplayRandall]

You really need to chill a bit here man. There was no reason for this kind of response either.

I have no problems here, does RXB? We see things differently CJ, doesn't make either one of us, right or wrong.......Good-afternoon gents.

[RXB]

The only horsemen that would take advantage of this are ones that had no intention of using Lasix anyway.

I've never met a trainer in 40 years that would take a chance on his horse choking down to run with a few less pounds.

For many horses, the "bleeding" in their lungs is microscopic. Back in the days when some jurisdictions required proof of "bleeding" before adminstration of Lasix would be allowed, trainers were praying that a trace of blood would be found during a scoping.

Plenty of horses would be entered without Lasix if there was a more level playing field. What I proposed would end any controversy over banning Lasix; instead it would mitigate the unfair playing field that Lasix creates in short-term performance.

Look at how starts per horse has plummetted since 1975, which is exactly when Lasix began its eventual sweep across the continent. http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=FB&area=10

[cj]

I have no problems here, does RXB? We see things differently CJ, doesn't make either one of us, right or wrong.......Good-afternoon gents.

Nothing wrong at all with the differences of opinion. This is the stuff I was asking to stop:

...Buzz off, Troll Fly.

...Get a check-up CH, something ain't right with your noggin'.

[ReplayRandall]

Nothing wrong at all with the differences of opinion. This is the stuff I was asking to stop:

My apologies gentlemen, the miscommunication is my fault.....Lasix conversations do this to me... ;)

[cj]

My apologies gentlemen, the miscommunication is my fault.....Lasix conversations do this to me... ;)


No worries, Randall, you're good by me.

[RXB]

My apologies gentlemen, the miscommunication is my fault.....Lasix conversations do this to me... ;)

I didn't help matters with the word "Lame" so I'll recant on that comment.

[steveb]

What doesn't make sense to me is that that many handicappers will worry about a few pounds being added or reduced on a horse,but don't factor in the jockey. Does anybody really believe getting a 5lb apprentice is a plus factor when you are being switched from a Rosario or a Castellano ?


i have no idea who those guys are, but no, i don't believe it would be a plus, depending of course on the skill of the 5lb claimer.

the weight is just one factor of many, i doubt anybody is going to use it as a standalone factor.

as far as riders go, then they are very very important, because, a race has horses AND riders, and usually only one of them is pulling the strings, and makes the decisions.
thus it is not too smart to consider one and not the other.

[Grits]

No, when Fabre makes the comment about Lasix, it just shows me the game, as it's played today, has passed him by. At one time, his opinion meant something, but no more.....

http://www.horseracingnation.com/person/Andre_Fabre

R2, Huh???? What has passed Andre Fabre by? He just prefers not loading up his horses. Though, I guess one could say he beat nothing while winning the Sword Dancer? I watched that one last August. Maybe its not enough either when one produces the 2nd place finisher in the world's most celebrated turf race, two years running. Aside from the seven times he's won the thing.

Some stats, pages of them, actually. You gotta do a better job of proving one of the greatest turf trainers ever (IMO) is no longer of consequence. :faint:

[classhandicapper]

As long as we are all playing nice, "sell his soul" was a rather extreme way of making my point that Fabre won't do what he thinks is not in best interests of the horses under his care. It implies that almost everyone else will. That was not what I was attempting to say. Lots of people clearly think there is no downside and others are training horses that need it to run. ;)

[steveb]

Love your answer, Mate. Its a fact but I am not going to tell you. :bang:

I would still love for someone to tell me a calculation, proven by some testing, that shows how much weight slows down, or perhaps even speeds an animal up.

you need to look at it another way.
you have decided weight is unimportant, of course that means YOU have proven to yourself that it does not matter.
at least i hope you have.
if you have done that, then it matters not one iota what i say, because YOU then KNOW BETTER.
enjoy your wealth and have a happy life.

i have proven to myself that it does matter, and i can put a figure on it, for the AVERAGE horse.
although i can't tell you exactly how much it will affect any one horse at any one time, because there are too many imponderables.
but i learned a long time ago, that to use it, even imperfectly, is more accurate than to ignore it completely.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Thorograph to weight to Lasix. Fascinating segues.

[cj]

Thorograph to weight to Lasix. Fascinating segues.

It was proposed by Jerry Brown that Lasix users should get a weight penalty. This isn't a new thing, just found its way here.

[steveb]

Stunning.

1. The definition of incapable in every dictionary is "unable to do something". So yes, telling a person that can't do certain things calls them incapable. Duh on that one.

2. If you've read all my posts, I have made specific arguments for why I believe weight is overemphasized and I actually gave a real world example from Feb 28 at AQU

3. Whether or not CJ is capable of making his own arguments, he was the one that cited studies suggesting the line between where weight may matter or not is 117. I made essentially the same argument - although I suggested higher - and was noting the agreement. In fact, if you read his post, he was supporting me. Subtle difference between support and defense. And once again, I never said weight was irrelevant. I said it was overemphasized by some figure makers, and for me it is a minor consideration. As is often the case, there are those who, when someone says they don't like broccoli, jump to the conclusion they hate all vegetables.

4. Finally, YOUR hypothetical about the exact same horse running with a pound difference does not mirror reality. I suggested you'd do better to cite empirical data from the real world. "I believe," is only proof of what you believe and not an immutable fact.

1 i will ignore as it is semantics
2 no i have not read your past posts, and i don't plan to after this, because as far as i can tell you don't say anything.
one 'real world' proves exactly nothing about anything, although i don't plan on looking at your example.
how does a sample size of one prove anything anyway?
3 what can i say to that?
4 it does mirror reality, or i would not have mentioned it.
can't understand your last sentence, as in the real world, i have been where you will never reach, as far as horse racing is concerned.
of course i may just be full of it.
who knows.

[steveb]

I have said weight does matter many times. I just don't count it below a certain level. The data for North American racing doesn't support it. It could be that jockeys able to make the really low weights aren't as strong and counteract the boost of carrying less. Maybe it is just mostly apprentices that aren't polished, but I don't really know.

The why doesn't matter to me. It is just what I have found. Andy Beyer found similar (where horses that dropped weight at lower levels actually ran slower) as did Nick Mordin. So I'm not alone.


cj, your last paragraph is really interesting, and also, i think we are thinking along different lines.
it is no surprise to me that horses that drop weight actually run slower.
regardless of if they are low level or not.
the opposite is also true, but I don't think it has anything to do with weight as such.
dropping weight would generally be a sign of rising in class or losing form, and the weight drop is rarely enough to compensate for it.

although i think weight is a big deal, i would never hesitate to back a horse with a huge impost, if i thought it a chance, and the odds available were better than required.
it's the relative weights that i care about, not the actual imposts.

[ebcorde]

cj, your last paragraph is really interesting, and also, i think we are thinking along different lines.
it is no surprise to me that horses that drop weight actually run slower.
regardless of if they are low level or not.
the opposite is also true, but I don't think it has anything to do with weight as such.
dropping weight would generally be a sign of rising in class or losing form, and the weight drop is rarely enough to compensate for it.

although i think weight is a big deal, i would never hesitate to back a horse with a huge impost, if i thought it a chance, and the odds available were better than required.
it's the relative weights that i care about, not the actual imposts.



I stopped using weight for the time being because there's way too many other things to look at.

I think Weight is very important in high value races. but it can swing both ways. Take California Chrome last week. Carrying 15 more lbs than everyone else. He could have won carrying LeBron James.

On the opposite side the weight advantage is useful when a Horse that you think can compete has a min 4-5 lb wgt advantage.

And the longer the distance, less weight is better.

they way I see it the Brits believe in it therefore it's a factor , they've been racing before we became a country.

BTW: I got into a shouting match over this weight crap about 5 years ago I never discussed it again. You Horse people are nuts about silly things like this and turf sires. I broke up a shoving match over who was the best turf sire once. You people are crazy.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

There are always side effects and risks with taking drugs long term.

In a general sense that is true. I've had my turn talking about Lasix ad nauseum, and I won't get into it here, but I would point out that taking Lasix on raceday and no other time is very different than taking certain medications daily, or for long periods. For example, American Pharoah had 11 shots of Lasix in his two year racing career. Not likely anything that will compromise his life span or his effectiveness as a stallion.

[steveb]

I stopped using weight for the time being because there's way too many other things to look at.

I think Weight is very important in high value races. but it can swing both ways. Take California Chrome last week. Carrying 15 more lbs than everyone else. He could have won carrying LeBron James.

On the opposite side the weight advantage is useful when a Horse that you think can compete has a min 4-5 lb wgt advantage.

And the longer the distance, less weight is better.

they way I see it the Brits believe in it therefore it's a factor , they've been racing before we became a country.

BTW: I got into a shouting match over this weight crap about 5 years ago I never discussed it again. You Horse people are nuts about silly things like this and turf sires. I broke up a shoving match over who was the best turf sire once. You people are crazy.

nice post.
shouting matches are not worth it.
i just say what i think, and don't care what others think about it, but i don't purposely set about trying to alienate people.

your line.....
'And the longer the distance, less weight is better.'
is something i have long disagreed with.

i have never been able to find any evidence that it is true, despite looking hard for it(on turf anyway).
it comes down to how they run the race.
the less work you do,then the less the weight matters.
the longer the race, the less you do until turning for home usually.
and it's not just me that thinks this way.
i can remember analysing data for entropies syndicate, when i commented to his 2ic, that i can't find any evidence that weight means more as the distances increase.
he replied to me that despite all their studies, they too had been unable to confirm it

[ebcorde]

I don't know how to use it. also I noticed visually it seems worthless on derby day, breeder cup type days.

Since I already said I don't know how to use it, I see the one number for a race, I look for the most recent low number and for bounce. On Breeder's cup day all I see are 1's and 0's. where's the separation?

I also noticed Thorograph's lowest number matches Brisnet data, equibase data or any custom speed fig.


I know a couple people who use them daily. They prefer the Sheets over Thorograph The reason? neither guy can really explain why, they just feel the sheets are a little more accurate. They bet hundreds of dollars on a race when they bet.

[jasperson]

Actually, I have done extremely well with loose horses that finish first, which is my favorite trip angle. Whenever a horse throws its rider and finishes first, I put the horse on my watch list and as long as the horse is a longshot in next start, I bet it. I hit three in a row a few years ago and two paid over $30.

I'm not sure why it works because being riderless is a tremendous advantage to any horse that is a good competitor and knows what it's doing out there.
Because the horse knows what he is out there for and has the desire to win.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

1 i will ignore as it is semantics
2 no i have not read your past posts, and i don't plan to after this, because as far as i can tell you don't say anything.
one 'real world' proves exactly nothing about anything, although i don't plan on looking at your example.
how does a sample size of one prove anything anyway?
3 what can i say to that?
4 it does mirror reality, or i would not have mentioned it.
can't understand your last sentence, as in the real world, i have been where you will never reach, as far as horse racing is concerned.
of course i may just be full of it.
who knows.
You are comically inane. That had to be one of the lamest posts I've ever read.

[ebcorde]

nice post.
shouting matches are not worth it.
i just say what i think, and don't care what others think about it, but i don't purposely set about trying to alienate people.

your line.....
'And the longer the distance, less weight is better.'
is something i have long disagreed with.

i have never been able to find any evidence that it is true, despite looking hard for it(on turf anyway).
it comes down to how they run the race.
the less work you do,then the less the weight matters.
the longer the race, the less you do until turning for home usually.
and it's not just me that thinks this way.
i can remember analysing data for entropies syndicate, when i commented to his 2ic, that i can't find any evidence that weight means more as the distances increase.
he replied to me that despite all their studies, they too had been unable to confirm it


your line.....
'And the longer the distance, less weight is better.'
is something i have long disagreed with.



okay, I added that it's useful metric when the Horse you like has a weight allowance. I see it as the better or equal Horse with a weight advantage.

I have not seen evidence that weight has a profound advantage, possibly Class ,Form and ability are more important than 5 lbs.

[completebill]

i have no idea who those guys are, but no, i don't believe it would be a plus, depending of course on the skill of the 5lb claimer.

the weight is just one factor of many, i doubt anybody is going to use it as a standalone factor.

as far as riders go, then they are very very important, because, a race has horses AND riders, and usually only one of them is pulling the strings, and makes the decisions.
thus it is not too smart to consider one and not the other.

A far as the importance of the rider goes, I often have my doubts. It seems a very common occurrence in instances where a horse loses the jock at the gate, that the horse, sans jockey, runs his race anyway, and usually with prowess, "finishing" unexpectedly well, and some times "winning" the race, though originally appearing to be a non-contender.

Yes--I know that this might, at least to many handicappers, lead to a conclusion that was an issue of weight. I'm not sure, though. These riderless horses often run "intelligently", taking advantage of racing room opening up, splitting horses, etc.

I'm not suggesting hat the rider is completely useless! I watched a race today in which even a cursory glance at the pace setup showed that the inside (#1) and outside (#7) horses were the ONLY early speed, with the #7 seeming to have a very slight advantage.

When the gates opened, sure enough, The 1 & 7 both broke sharply, almost immediately clearing the field. The rider of the 7 though, let his horse settle back, with no urging, and was quickly passed by others, and fanned pretty wide, losing all chance. REALLY an incompetent ride!

I DO strongly disagree, though, with the statement that riders are "...very, very, important...).

[Stillriledup]

A far as the importance of the rider goes, I often have my doubts. It seems a very common occurrence in instances where a horse loses the jock at the gate, that the horse, sans jockey, runs his race anyway, and usually with prowess, "finishing" unexpectedly well, and some times "winning" the race, though originally appearing to be a non-contender.

Yes--I know that this might, at least to many handicappers, lead to a conclusion that was an issue of weight. I'm not sure, though. These riderless horses often run "intelligently", taking advantage of racing room opening up, splitting horses, etc.

I'm not suggesting hat the rider is completely useless! I watched a race today in which even a cursory glance at the pace setup showed that the inside (#1) and outside (#7) horses were the ONLY early speed, with the #7 seeming to have a very slight advantage.

When the gates opened, sure enough, The 1 & 7 both broke sharply, almost immediately clearing the field. The rider of the 7 though, let his horse settle back, with no urging, and was quickly passed by others, and fanned pretty wide, losing all chance. REALLY an incompetent ride!

"I'm not suggesting the rider is completely useless"

Suggest it. :D

[steveb]

You are comically inane. That had to be one of the lamest posts I've ever read.

thanks for your input sir.
well reasoned statements of fact are always appreciated!

[steveb]

A far as the importance of the rider goes, I often have my doubts. It seems a very common occurrence in instances where a horse loses the jock at the gate, that the horse, sans jockey, runs his race anyway, and usually with prowess, "finishing" unexpectedly well, and some times "winning" the race, though originally appearing to be a non-contender.

Yes--I know that this might, at least to many handicappers, lead to a conclusion that was an issue of weight. I'm not sure, though. These riderless horses often run "intelligently", taking advantage of racing room opening up, splitting horses, etc.

I'm not suggesting hat the rider is completely useless! I watched a race today in which even a cursory glance at the pace setup showed that the inside (#1) and outside (#7) horses were the ONLY early speed, with the #7 seeming to have a very slight advantage.

When the gates opened, sure enough, The 1 & 7 both broke sharply, almost immediately clearing the field. The rider of the 7 though, let his horse settle back, with no urging, and was quickly passed by others, and fanned pretty wide, losing all chance. REALLY an incompetent ride!

I DO strongly disagree, though, with the statement that riders are "...very, very, important...).


i think i am spending too much time here, but best offer my opinion.

i treat riders and weight as different factors, so one has no bearing on the other for me.
to ME, riders are more important than nearly every other factor, certainly much more than weight, and i think weight is important, but nowhere near as much as rider.

when there is a race on.....there are two things out there.
one is the horse, the other the rider.
the rider is the one with the control.
how can it not matter?
if you had a field of evenly matched horses, then it is more than likely the rider that makes the best decisions, and places his horse in the best position for the prevailing pace that will win the race.

and that is assuming that the races are all run honestly and the riders are all trying.
of course we know that's not the case always, but i realised a long time ago, if i was going to work on the premise that is was crooked, i was never going to be able to make a go of it.
because i would always be looking for shadows
and i would find them too, even when they did not exist.

[steveb]

your line.....
'And the longer the distance, less weight is better.'
is something i have long disagreed with.



okay, I added that it's useful metric when the Horse you like has a weight allowance. I see it as the better or equal Horse with a weight advantage.

I have not seen evidence that weight has a profound advantage, possibly Class ,Form and ability are more important than 5 lbs.

i don't think it matters if it is profound or not; if it makes your model more profitable when you use it.
i would use anything and everything that made it more profitable, unless the cost of getting that information was more than the profit it generated.

class, form and ability, may well be worth more than weight, but using them, should not preclude you from using weight, or anything else that you may be able to find that improves your model.

i don't know if i have given the impression that i value weight above other factors, but if i have it was certainly not my intention.
i am more at home with times than any other single factor, as that is my area of expertise.
oddly, it is my knowledge of times, that lets me figure the value of weight.
well maybe not oddly, because to me it's logical that the more you carry the slower you go.
it is just that i imagine that for most people the way to figure it is not obvious.

[highnote]

i don't think it matters if it is profound or not; if it makes your model more profitable when you use it.
i would use anything and everything that made it more profitable, unless the cost of getting that information was more than the profit it generated.

class, form and ability, may well be worth more than weight, but using them, should not preclude you from using weight, or anything else that you may be able to find that improves your model.

i don't know if i have given the impression that i value weight above other factors, but if i have it was certainly not my intention.
i am more at home with times than any other single factor, as that is my area of expertise.
oddly, it is my knowledge of times, that lets me figure the value of weight.
well maybe not oddly, because to me it's logical that the more you carry the slower you go.
it is just that i imagine that for most people the way to figure it is not obvious.

You wrote earlier that as the race distance gets longer weight matters less. That makes sense.

It seems to make sense that weight also matters less the shorter the distance of the race.

I wonder if there is a distance or a range of distances where weight matters the most?

[cj]

You wrote earlier that as the race distance gets longer weight matters less. That makes sense.

It seems to make sense that weight also matters less the shorter the distance of the race.

I wonder if there is a distance or a range of distances where weight matters the most?

As races get longer weight should cost more actual time. But, speed figures are weighted to equate different distances where time is less valuable as races get longer. Therefore, the value of weight changes for speed figures probably won't vary much at different distances...if the distance equalization is done properly that is.

[highnote]

As races get longer weight should cost more actual time. But, speed figures are weighted to equate different distances where time is less valuable as races get longer. Therefore, the value of weight changes for speed figures probably won't vary much at different distances...if the distance equalization is done properly that is.

If I understand steveb correctly, his studies, and Woods' studies, found that as the distances get longer, weight matters less. I assume this is because of pace -- especially in turf route races, where horses run slow early and then sprint to the wire.

In sprint races on turf or dirt horses sprint the entire distance. So the cumulative effect of carrying weight takes its toll on the horses late in the race. Although, a deep closing sprinter, might be affected by weight less than a front-running sprinter.

It should be easy enough to test this by comparing the effect of weight on front-running winners to deep-closing winners.

When making speed figures and figuring out the distance equalizations, maybe weight should be factored in by dividing the sample races into weight classes?

[cj]

If I understand steveb correctly, his studies, and Woods' studies, found that as the distances get longer, weight matters less. I assume this is because of pace -- especially in turf route races, where horses run slow early and then sprint to the wire.

In sprint races on turf or dirt horses sprint the entire distance. So the cumulative effect of carrying weight takes its toll on the horses late in the race. Although, a deep closing sprinter, might be affected by weight less than a front-running sprinter.

It should be easy enough to test this by comparing the effect of weight on front-running winners to deep-closing winners.

When making speed figures and figuring out the distance equalizations, maybe weight should be factored in by dividing the sample races into weight classes?

I've never found that be the case in North America, but our weight assignments are different.

[highnote]

There are a lot of handicap races in HK and the weight carried can vary substantially compared to the US.

The weight differentials in the US might be too small to bother with.

[Elliott Sidewater]

That's like saying the Form is over rated.

Thoro-graph is a tool. Many arrive on different plays.

Especially because the numbers are just one piece of the puzzle.
Vic, the Form is not overrated, it's overpriced.