What's the take on this quote?

[PaceAdvantage]

From an article concerning the recent NYRA "weight" raids....

Jerry Brown, operator of Thoro-Graph, a handicapping service in Manhattan, said jockey weight, or the load borne by a horse, is a key factor.

"Three pounds is about a length in a mile race," he said. "(Weight) determines how fast they run. We built that into the system of ratings. Any professional handicapper who doesn't use weight isn't a professional handicapper."

Hmmmmm.........comments?

[RXB]

"Any professional handicapper who doesn't use weight isn't a professional handicapper."

Funny quote coming from somebody who says PACE DOESN'T MATTER.

Okay, now that I've got that off of my chest-- simple physics tells you that weight makes a difference. But it's generally way down the list of important factors in my unprofessional opinion.

If Jerry thinks an additional two pounds is going to stop a 1000-pound thoroughbred he should tape a few flies to a cat's ribs and then see if he can catch the cat when it's running.

[SAL]

I barely ever look at weight. If they eliminated the weight information from the pp's it wouldn't bother me one bit.

And I'm doing alright.

[toetoe]

speaking of weight, one thing we can learn from the south americans(& the chinese, i just noticed) is to list the weight of the horse itself. majority of the time, no big deal, but when that overraced claimer starts losing weight, or that strapping 3yo comebacker puts on 50 lbs. & looks like a million, it can really help.

[Tom]

The guy is obviously in idiot. Plane and simple, he is a jerk that you cannot take seriously. ANYONE who claims someone can't do this or can't do that or is not a professional because he doesn't use "X" is not worth the bother to listen to. His numbers are just one of a bunch of commercial numbers and he is just a salesman. And if I memory serves me, he didn't even invent the numbers, he stole them from Thorograph, right?
The world is full of little people like this nut who think they are something important. He is not.

I read a post at DerbyList about weight - if 3 lbs really equal a length at a mile, then when a rider (120 lbs) fall off, why dosen't the horse run a mile in 1:28???

[TRM]

Ken Massa wrote an interesting article on weight back in Jun 03'. Basically the weight on/off conundrum in his opionion is inconclusive. He backs it with various computer sims.

Check it out under handicapping artilces at:

www.htr2.com

TRM

[NoDayJob]

:D First, I'd consider the source. Second, I'd consider the source. Third, I'd consider the source. That said, fugetta 'bout it! :D

NDJ

[schweitz]

Originally posted by SAL
I barely ever look at weight. If they eliminated the weight information from the pp's it wouldn't bother me one bit.

And I'm doing alright.

Ditto.

[Observer]

To me, a jockey's ability is much more important than the weight a horse in carrying. If a jockey is not working in motion with the horse, than he's working against the horse, creating more work for the horse. That to me is a bigger issue than if a horse is toting around a couple of extra pounds today.

However, that's not to say in a given race, if a horse is asked to carry 10-15 pounds more than his/her rivals that that will not be a factor.

But do most handicappers second guess their selections if an announcement is made that the horse will be running a pound or two .. or even three or four .. overweight??? I'd guess many don't make a change in their selections.

[Shacopate]

My take is that he is trying to sell his service.

I only consider weight as a "handicapping factor" when a horse is giving 10+ pounds to another contender. A lighty weighted horse is usually younger, lesser accomplished or under a bug.

It's all about the trip and in sprints (the break). Weight doesn't usually affect either.

Of course, there are exceptions.

[Dan Montilion]

What the heck does the Mayor of Oakland know about weight?

Dan Montilion

[cj]

I have a weight adjustment built into my numbers, but it is very slight. I can't imagine where the difference it produces would ever be the determining factor in a bet.

You guys should really check out the T-graph board sometime, its actually pretty comical. They haven't had a Race of the Week win in about six months, so JB just keeps saying its a "learning tool," not selections!

Of course, you have to sift through the 8,000 posts where Jerry knocks the Ragozin figures as well.

I'm sure his final time figures are pretty good, but having seen them, I don't think there is any way they are worth the price he charges. If he thinks weight is more important than pace, he must be smoking some good stuff...

[ratpack]

I got into looking at weight in only one way years ago and that is if the horse is adding 5 lbs or over and that puts the weight over 120lbs.

Another Jockey weight angle that is fun to check out. If a rider normally rides at lets say 117lbs and he is 2 or more lbs overweight for the race conditions, watch out. This one is based on the theory that the jockey has been "PARTYING" and overate or drank and may not be at his best. This FACTOR" usually occurs after the tracks dark days.

[Valuist]

I think T-Graph's dirt numbers are completely meaningless. Their turf numbers do have some credibility, with the ground loss factored in. But it is strange that he can factor in weight and wind, two very minor factors, yet neglect pace and track bias, arguably the two or two of the most important, factors.

[JackS]

I've noticed that a lot of the "old timers" still consider weight a major factor. I pay little attention to it but occaisionally might use it as a tie breaker.
I also suspect that weight was much more important in years past when some horses were required by the conditions to carry 130lbs or more.

[Marc At DRF]

Just a quick opinion on weight, not Brown. There's a difference between not using weight in your handicapping and not using it in the construction of speed figures. The latter is an interesting decision, maybe the right way to go, maybe not. The subtleties of things that are worth a length at a mile are just mind-boggling-- we're talking about tiny fractions of seconds here. How about a break from the gates that is slightly slow-- imperceptable to many, but could it cost the horse a length? IMO, of course.

I'm saying that disregarding weight differences of 3 or 5 pounds in your handicapping could make perfect sense while at the same time factoring those weights in your figure making.

[schweitz]

I remember reading a study of weight as it applies to handicap races from many years back---the higher weighted horses won more than their fair share.

[JackS]

For good reason the high weights were considered better horses. Weights are/were applied to slow them down so the lesser horses could be competitive.

[NoDayJob]

Originally posted by Dan Montilion
What the heck does the Mayor of Oakland know about weight?

Dan Montilion

:D Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown knows that he's losing weight. It's coming out over his belt. Sorry, not the same Jerry Brown. It's bad enough there's one of him. :D

NDJ

[thoroughbred]

Here is a table for the effect of weight on a horse's performance.

The way I use the effect of weight is in the comparison of a horse's performance from paceline to paceline and, of course, in predicting how a weight change will affect "today's" performance.

You can see how I derived the weight effect iin the paper "Engineering Analysis of Thorougbred Racing." at our web site:
www.revelationprofits.com

at the "Documentation" link.

I compared, where possible, the weight data I obtained with that given by Ainsley in his "Encyclopedia of Thoroughbred Handicapping" and the match was good.

The weight effect is small at the shorter distances, but increases at the longer distances. However, even at the short distances, the effect can, at times, be important.


TABLE 1
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 0.719
10 0.930
12 1.479
15 2.716
16 3.276

[andicap]

Are "ticks" equal to 1/5 of a second??

Then at 6f, weight would be worth only 28% of a fifth of a second. Very little indeed.

Or is a tick 1 second in which case weight would be worth 28% of that, which is a bit more than 1/5 of a second.

That's how I read the chart

[Marc At DRF]

Andicap writes:

"Then at 6f, weight would be worth only 28% of a fifth of a second. Very little indeed."

Assuming that chart is right, and assuming the quoted take on it is an accurate reading of it, why on earth would one pound equaling more than a quarter of a fifth of second strike you as inconsequential? Given the number of 5 pound weight breaks we see every day, someone has just showed you a chart indicating 5 pounds is worth well over a length at 6 furlongs. How many races are decided by a length or less?

Or perhaps I'm misreading "very little indeed."

[JackS]

But if you considered the high weight horse to have carried the same weight in a previous win at the same class level, you might decide to disregard weight altogether.
Between close number matches maybe its better to let the tote be your guide.

[cj]

I use roughly 3 pounds = 1 point on the Beyer scale. The effect on time is of course longer as the distances get longer, but on the Beyer scale, this is built in anyway.

For example, 3 pounds might cost 20 hundreths of a second at 6f, but 30 hundreths of a second at 9f. However, The value of 20/100 of a second at 6f is roughly even to the value of 30/100 of a second at 9f when making speed figures. So, I'm pretty confident that a standard adjustment for weight regardless of distance is close enough for me.

Now, lets say Horse A runs a 100 carrying 112 lbs, while Horse B runs a 100 carrying 126. Today both are entered in the same race carrying 119. Horse As figure would now be downgraded by 2 points to a 98, while Horse B would be upgraded 2 points to a 102. Definitely could change my view of the race. To be honest, I've never really checked to see how often these situations arise, I just know I've already built it into my calculations, so it is one less thing I have to worry about.

[Marc At DRF]

"But if you considered the high weight horse to have carried the same weight in a previous win at the same class level, you might decide to disregard weight altogether."

Logic I understand: If 5 pounds of weight really does equal a length, well, there's so many things that are worth a length (or more) in a race, that those 5 pounds are hardly something that I will make a prominent part of my handicapping.

Logic I just don't get: The high weight horse won carrying this weight previously at this level, he's carrying this weight again against a bunch of different horses who are carrying different weights, so that somehow impacts the way I view the weight he is carrying today. I just don't follow.

[RXB]

Well, according to this great quadratically derived formula, five pounds would be worth three lengths at a mile. At 10 furlongs, five pounds would be worth five lengths. And if that were the case, apprentice jockeys would be almost unbeatable at route distances. Also, older horses would have very little chance against 3YO's, and males against females, because the weight concessions would overwhelm them.

I say "Bollocks." I don't need an engineering degree; I've been playing the races for 25 years and there's no way that this weight formula is accurate.

Think about it. Female horses typically run two to three fifths slower than male counterparts at the same class level. So if all it took was five pounds to equalize things or even tip them in the females' favour, then the female horses, given the typical five-pound allowance that they normally receive when running in an open sex race, would actually have the advantage when running against male horses. But that isn't the case at all.

[ratpack]

We have not even touched on the "Live Weight-Dead Weight"issue.

[RXB]

Having just seen cj's post containing his formula, I'd say his weight adjustment seems quite reasonable.

[andicap]

Originally posted by Marc At DRF
Andicap writes:

"Then at 6f, weight would be worth only 28% of a fifth of a second. Very little indeed."

Assuming that chart is right, and assuming the quoted take on it is an accurate reading of it, why on earth would one pound equaling more than a quarter of a fifth of second strike you as inconsequential? Given the number of 5 pound weight breaks we see every day, someone has just showed you a chart indicating 5 pounds is worth well over a length at 6 furlongs. How many races are decided by a length or less?

Or perhaps I'm misreading "very little indeed."


What I meant was in sprints that 28% of one-fifth of a second seemed inconsequential. I'm not a math guy but that seems like 1/5 times 28/100 28/500 or about 6/100 of a second. You think that's significant? Worth maybe a neck.

At routes the weight seemed a bit more important. That's what I meant. 9f, 72/100 times 1/5 is 72/500 or 14/100 which is almost 1 tick. Not huge IMO but could be the difference at the wire, a 1/2 length.

Of course I disregard weight altogether -- with one exception, if a horse is carrying a weight it has never carried successfuly before -- but I could be 100% wrong since I've never seen empirical data on this that I believed.

[andicap]

Originally posted by cj
I use roughly 3 pounds = 1 point on the Beyer scale. The effect on time is of course longer as the distances get longer, but on the Beyer scale, this is built in anyway.

For example, 3 pounds might cost 20 hundreths of a second at 6f, but 30 hundreths of a second at 9f. However, The value of 20/100 of a second at 6f is roughly even to the value of 30/100 of a second at 9f when making speed figures. So, I'm pretty confident that a standard adjustment for weight regardless of distance is close enough for me.

Now, lets say Horse A runs a 100 carrying 112 lbs, while Horse B runs a 100 carrying 126. Today both are entered in the same race carrying 119. Horse As figure would now be downgraded by 2 points to a 98, while Horse B would be upgraded 2 points to a 102. Definitely could change my view of the race. To be honest, I've never really checked to see how often these situations arise, I just know I've already built it into my calculations, so it is one less thing I have to worry about.

But how do you know this adjustment works?
Have you handicapped a bunch of races using the adjustment and the same races without them and seen any gains?

[Marc At DRF]

"What I meant was in sprints that 28% of one-fifth of a second seemed inconsequential. I'm not a math guy but that seems like 1/5 times 28/100 28/500 or about 6/100 of a second. You think that's significant? Worth maybe a neck."

It's significant, if it is accurate, because it's 1 pound we're talking about and weight breaks are very often 3 or 5 pounds or more.

BTW, I do believe some horses carry weight better than others. And there's probably a million other tiny factors, with these imperfections acknowledged. The question is whether it's worth throwing it in as a factor or not, either as a figure maker or a handicapper. It's a tough call.

[cj]

Before implementing my adjustment, I looked at literally thousands of races, and also used the study Beyer did in one of his books using the massive DRF database.

I don't know if its exact, and actually I'm sure its not, but its close enough. Its just common sense to me that weight has to have some effect, its just a matter of how much, and with so many factors going into a horse's race, we'll never really know.

Not to mention the differences in lead weight and human weight, but that's a whole different story for another day.

[Light]

Trainers do consider weight a major factor. So much so that they will withdraw their horses from stakes races based on weight. Jocks lose mounts when they are overweight .

Trainers also lose races to be eligible to lose weight next time the horse is entered in a race.I have made some dough on this angle.Certainly weight is a factor in the industry,but is it based on sound physics for the handicapper?

IMO No.But I'm not a trainer. However I have lost enough money betting 114 horses over 124 horses to disprove a trainers theory that weight is that significant. And I am sure every trainer's theory on weight is different.

[Valuist]

Usually when a horse throws its rider, if it was even remotely considered a contender, it usually finishes in front of the field. So at a 115 lb break, obviously it makes a difference. But these horses aren't finishing in front by 15-20 lengths. Usually they aren't in front by much.

[Marc At DRF]

"Usually when a horse throws its rider, if it was even remotely considered a contender, it usually finishes in front of the field. So at a 115 lb break, obviously it makes a difference. But these horses aren't finishing in front by 15-20 lengths. Usually they aren't in front by much."

Does the fact that no one is either steering or urging them have anything to do with it? Or the fact that there was (usually) a traumatic event that caused them to lose the rider have anything to do with it?

[Pace Cap'n]

Originally posted by Valuist
Usually when a horse throws its rider, if it was even remotely considered a contender, it usually finishes in front of the field. So at a 115 lb break, obviously it makes a difference. But these horses aren't finishing in front by 15-20 lengths. Usually they aren't in front by much.

The "run with the herd" factor?

[cj]

Yes Marc, I agree. When a horse loses a rider, they generally lose several lenghts just in the actual event of the spill, then run wide and weave all over the place, and still "win" easily.

[ratpack]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Light
[B]Trainers do consider weight a major factor. So much so that they will withdraw their horses from stakes races based on weight. Jocks lose mounts when they are overweight .


It does seem like trainers are more concerned about the spread of weight in those Handicap races then the actual weights.

As far jocks losing mounts that is correct but I have also seen trainers put better jocks on horses and live with the 2 lbs over weight. Is Jerry Bailey worth 2lbs over Joe Bravo

[Valuist]

The whole "urging" argument goes against what Brown (and Friedman) claim. They claim a horse who wins handily would not win by more if it was under a hard drive. The trauma thing is debatable. Certainly there could be a case made that its traumatic for the horse in some cases....but lets face it: its the jock who's going thru the trauma.

[Marc At DRF]

"The whole "urging" argument goes against what Brown (and Friedman) claim."

This is a pretty substantial distortion of their claims. We're talking about not even having a jockey on the horse!


"The trauma thing is debatable. Certainly there could be a case made that its traumatic for the horse in some cases....but lets face it: its the jock who's going thru the trauma."

????? How is this possibly relevant?

[OTM Al]

I've only felt weight mattered if the changes are extreme. I don't even believe a horse could feel the difference between, say 117 and 121 lbs, but take it up to 130 and that may be enough that he would feel a difference. There once was a study with human weightlifters in which the scientists determined the threshold amounts at which the lifters could actually tell a difference. I wish I could remember what that threshold was, around 5% of the initial weight used if I remember right, but it has been some time since I read it. I would guess that the situation is much the same for horses, though its kind of hard to ask them when the feel differences

[thoroughbred]

It looks like it would be helpful if I gave some additional comments about the weight table I presented.

A key point is that it addresses the DIFFERENCE in weight carried to find the change in time. If the weight of the horse itself does not change, then it is this DIFFERENCE in weight carried that is addressed in the table.

Sure there are many other factors that enter into handicapping; we all know that. But weight is one of those factors. The effect of weight change can, often, be insignificant compared to those other factors, but that doesn't change the fact that there IS an effect due to weight.

It is generally known, that many trainers have "rules of thumb" developed over many years of their experience, as to what the weight effect is.

The basic fact that a weight allowance is made for an Apprentice jockey tells us that many understand this weight effect.

Here is an experiment that, while not exactly an analogy to horse racing, will give you some feel for this. Jog, (or even walk), a mile in your normal way. Then repeat it carrying, say, an extra pound or two. Most of us would feel the difference even though the pound, or two, is a small percentage of our body weight.

[cj]

Originally posted by thoroughbred


Here is an experiment that, while not exactly an analogy to horse racing, will give you some feel for this. Jog, (or even walk), a mile in your normal way. Then repeat it carrying, say, an extra pound or two. Most of us would feel the difference even though the pound, or two, is a small percentage of our body weight.

I agree weight has an effect as I've said earlier in the thread.

However, your experiment would probably be a stretch. A better experiment would be to sprint 100 or 200 meters with a pound in each hand and see if you notice a difference. More importantly, does it affect your time?

[RXB]

Originally posted by thoroughbred
It looks like it would be helpful if I gave some additional comments about the weight table I presented.

A key point is that it addresses the DIFFERENCE in weight carried to find the change in time. If the weight of the horse itself does not change, then it is this DIFFERENCE in weight carried that is addressed in the table.

Sure there are many other factors that enter into handicapping; we all know that. But weight is one of those factors. The effect of weight change can, often, be insignificant compared to those other factors, but that doesn't change the fact that there IS an effect due to weight.

It is generally known, that many trainers have "rules of thumb" developed over many years of their experience, as to what the weight effect is.

The basic fact that a weight allowance is made for an Apprentice jockey tells us that many understand this weight effect.

Here is an experiment that, while not exactly an analogy to horse racing, will give you some feel for this. Jog, (or even walk), a mile in your normal way. Then repeat it carrying, say, an extra pound or two. Most of us would feel the difference even though the pound, or two, is a small percentage of our body weight.

The question is not whether weight has an effect; the question is to what degree does it slow down a horse. I feel completely confident in saying that your table demonstrably overstates the effect by a considerable factor.

A 5-pound weight break is not going to allow $20,000 female claiming milers to run evenly with $20,000 male claiming milers, just as a 5-pound differential is not going to allow $10,000 male milers to run evenly with $20,000 males. Yet, according to your table, it should. Time to recalibrate the slide rule.

[schweitz]

Originally posted by JackS
For good reason the high weights were considered better horses. Weights are/were applied to slow them down so the lesser horses could be competitive.

Thats was my point---the higher weighted horses still win. I know you can add enough weight to make a difference but it is my opinion that 3 to 7lbs has little effect.

[azibuck]

Here is an experiment that, while not exactly an analogy to horse racing, will give you some feel for this. Jog, (or even walk), a mile in your normal way. Then repeat it carrying, say, an extra pound or two. Most of us would feel the difference even though the pound, or two, is a small percentage of our body weight.

Let's say a horse is 1200 pounds. And the jockey is 120 lbs, or 10% of the horse's weight. Take off 12 pounds, or 10 percent of the jockeys weight, and the horse carries 108, allegedly a big difference, one that the horse would allegedly feel.

So the experiment should be, if I'm a 200 lb man, I run a mile, or 100 yards (or meters) carrying 20 lbs. Then do it again carrying 18 (10% less carried weight). Would I feel this "big" difference? I, uhh, bet not.

I'm waiting for some fatass jockey like Assmussen to just buy a string of horses, have him or his brother train them, and ride at 130 and win a bunch of races. If jocks really want to change weights and get rid of hot boxes and stuff, they'll have to prove it this way.

[Marc At DRF]

"Let's say a horse is 1200 pounds. And the jockey is 120 lbs, or 10% of the horse's weight. Take off 12 pounds, or 10 percent of the jockeys weight, and the horse carries 108, allegedly a big difference, one that the horse would allegedly feel."


I've been surprised to see the word "feel" come up in this dialogue. The horse doesn't have to "feel" anything. The question is whether it would slow him down or not.

"So the experiment should be, if I'm a 200 lb man, I run a mile, or 100 yards (or meters) carrying 20 lbs. Then do it again carrying 18 (10% less carried weight). Would I feel this "big" difference? I, uhh, bet not."

1) I actually disagree. I think you would "feel" the difference.
2) But that shouldn't be the point. The question is whether you would run any slower or not.

BTW, Jerry Bailey had a great and pretty interesting quote about weight a couple years ago. He said horses seem to feel it the most right at the start, if they're carrying extra weight. Once they get going, they're fine. But it's harder to start when you're carrying more weight than the competition.

No science backing that, just like there is no science backing many of the assertions here.

[azibuck]

I've been surprised to see the word "feel" come up in this dialogue. The horse doesn't have to "feel" anything.

Whatever.

[RXB]

Originally posted by Marc At DRF
"Let's say a horse is 1200 pounds. And the jockey is 120 lbs, or 10% of the horse's weight. Take off 12 pounds, or 10 percent of the jockeys weight, and the horse carries 108, allegedly a big difference, one that the horse would allegedly feel."


I've been surprised to see the word "feel" come up in this dialogue. The horse doesn't have to "feel" anything. The question is whether it would slow him down or not.

"So the experiment should be, if I'm a 200 lb man, I run a mile, or 100 yards (or meters) carrying 20 lbs. Then do it again carrying 18 (10% less carried weight). Would I feel this "big" difference? I, uhh, bet not."

1) I actually disagree. I think you would "feel" the difference.
2) But that shouldn't be the point. The question is whether you would run any slower or not.

BTW, Jerry Bailey had a great and pretty interesting quote about weight a couple years ago. He said horses seem to feel it the most right at the start, if they're carrying extra weight. Once they get going, they're fine. But it's harder to start when you're carrying more weight than the competition.

No science backing that, just like there is no science backing many of the assertions here.

There's enough scientific data to show fairly conclusively how much faster certain classes/ages/genders run compared to others. And the weight table that was posted here doesn't even come close to making sense, given what we know about relative speed.

If that table was accurate, then weight shifts would be almost paramount when handicapping routes. Females would be thumping males regularly thanks to the five-pound allowance. 4YO's would take it on the chin from 3YO's in scaleweight races. Every trainer would take the lowest possible claiming price in the race conditions just to drop a couple of pounds. Dr. Fager, Forego, Kelso, etc., couldn't have overcome their 130+ imposts to win race after race.

As for Bailey, this is a guy who claimed that the reason why Azeri beat Sightseek (by two lengths) at Saratoga was the two-pound weight differential. Therefore, I'm skeptical about his assertions on the subject. (Makes you wonder why he was angling so hard earlier to ride Azeri.)

[Marc At DRF]

"If that table was accurate, then weight shifts would be almost paramount when handicapping routes. Females would be thumping males regularly thanks to the five-pound allowance. 4YO's would take it on the chin from 3YO's in scaleweight races. Every trainer would take the lowest possible claiming price in the race conditions just to drop a couple of pounds. Dr. Fager, Forego, Kelso, etc., couldn't have overcome their 130+ imposts to win race after race."

I'm not saying that table is accurate. I am saying weight is worth a little bit, it's difficult to quantify, but if there are figure makers who find their figures are better with it included as opposed to not, I don't think that should be dismissed out of hand.

[JackS]

It seems to me that you have three choices regarding weight.
1. Weight has a huge impact on the outcome of races.
2. Weight has some impact on the outcome of races.
3. Weight has little to do with the outcome of races.
If you consider #1 and #3 to be extremes, then consider #2 to fit.
If you are still unsure about #2, I'd suggest a number modification to lessen the effect on your line i.e- 10/100ths/sec reduced to 5/100ths sec. ect,ect.
Call this a sceptics point of view that has no basis in any fact and could probably never be proved or disproved but it still is an acceptance that weight has some effect on racing.
While everyone else is using method 1,2 or 3, I think I'll use rule #4.

[sjk]

I have always used .22 points per pound which is far less than the table posted earlier.

It is a pretty easy thing to calculate:

1). Take pairs of races where a horse ran twice within a certain number of days.

2). Use the first race to project a speed rating for the second using factors which do not include weight.

3). Average the differencve between actual speed rating vs projected and plot against the weight change. Use regression to find the slope or points per pound.

I just ran a quick calculation (dirt races only) and got .236 points per pound overall. Looked at a few distances to see if the weight effect was far greater at longer distances. I got .25 at 6 furlongs, .24 at 7 furlongs and .22 at 1 1/16 miles.

[thoroughbred]

Here's another take on the weight question.

In Ainsley's "Encyclopedia of Thoroughbred Handicapping", page 276, he addresses the question of weights for races below stakes level.

Here's a direct quote from there:

"At a mile or beyond, and to a lesser extent in sprints involving closely matched animals, weight shifts may tip the balance. If one horse beat the other by a nose last week but was carrying four pounds less than the loser, and if the weight advantage no longer exists today last week's finish should be reversed."

He goes on to say:

"Racing secretaries, and other professionals, generally regard four pounds of weight as equivalent to a length at sprint distances. Three pounds are worth the same at a mile. Two pounds are a length at a mile and a furlong, and one pound is a length at a mile and a quarter."

[rokitman]

I believe the weight is primarily a start issue, as Marc alluded to. Whole different equation getting the weight up to speed from a standing start than maintaining it after you're up to speed. And if it is a start issue, any point system would have to be, uh, "weighted" higher as the distances get shorter.

But I think if you could interview a horse on this matter he would say something like, Are you kidding? You sonsabitches are quibbling about 3 or 4 pounds? That load Jose Santos feels like 200 pounds on my back!! And I think he might say something quite the opposite about Ramon Hernandez. I don't think the load the horse will ultimately carry is weighed on the scale. 120lbs*Ramon saddle skills=what? 117lbs*Jose saddle skills=what? I think the jockey saddle skill variable far exceeds the relatively small differences in assigned weight and renders quantifying those few pounds as an excersize in futility. But if you are using Jockey ROI as part of your package you probably already are unknowingly making a adjustment for "Ultimate Weight," in effect.

[andicap]

I recall watching Forego run on TV when he was given 137 lbs in a route and started out very slowly and then came like a freight train in the stretch (or decelerated slower than the others, I'm not sure).
One of the analysts, a trainer, agreed with what was said here about high weights: It's harder for a horse to get started, but once he does the high weight gives him momentum to go forward strongly. Or else his momentum ensures his high weight doesn't slow him down as much as it did earlier in the race.

All this talk about weight -- it's really pretty fruitless (but interesting I will say) since none of us have empircal evidence. We might as well be talking about religion. They are both just a matter of faith.

[RXB]

Originally posted by thoroughbred
Here's another take on the weight question.

In Ainsley's "Encyclopedia of Thoroughbred Handicapping", page 276, he addresses the question of weights for races below stakes level.

Here's a direct quote from there:

"At a mile or beyond, and to a lesser extent in sprints involving closely matched animals, weight shifts may tip the balance. If one horse beat the other by a nose last week but was carrying four pounds less than the loser, and if the weight advantage no longer exists today last week's finish should be reversed."

He goes on to say:

"Racing secretaries, and other professionals, generally regard four pounds of weight as equivalent to a length at sprint distances. Three pounds are worth the same at a mile. Two pounds are a length at a mile and a furlong, and one pound is a length at a mile and a quarter."

Which just goes to show that the well-intentioned Mr. "Ainslie" was wrong about some things-- and so were these so-called professionals.

[cj]

Originally posted by RXB
Which just goes to show that the well-intentioned Mr. "Ainslie" was wrong about some things-- and so were these so-called professionals.

How do you know he is wrong?

[RXB]

Originally posted by cj
How do you know he is wrong?

Do the math. Compare the relative speed par differentials of male vs. female, older vs. 3YO, $20k claiming vs. $10k claiming. Then start applying Ainslie's weight formula for routes, using the five-pound allowances for females and the scaleweights for 3YO's running against older horses. See if the resulting shifts in speed have any basis in reality.

Fact is, the few females that do run against males have a terrible win %, weight allowances and all. 3YO's rarely run against older horses in non-conditioned races because they know that the weight concessions afforded to them do not compensate for the increase in quality of competition. (Neither of these scenarios would be so, if weight shifts caused performance changes of the magnitude suggested by Thoroughbred or by Ainslie's book.)

Anyway, I've said my piece on this subject. We can all believe what we choose to believe.

[cj]

Ainsley was merely quoting racing secretaries with the scale, he never said it was accurate. He said a 4 pound difference would reverse a nose decision, all other things being equal.

I don't think that's wrong. You can argue that 4 pounds won't change a result by two noses, I would disagree. However, we'll never really know, will we?

[RXB]

Fair enough. It was quoted in Ainslie's book, but maybe he didn't believe it, either.

Now, please show me where I argued that four pounds wouldn't reverse a nose defeat. My argument is that four pounds wouldn't reverse a two-length or three-length defeat.

[Marc At DRF]

"Now, please show me where I argued that four pounds wouldn't reverse a nose defeat. My argument is that four pounds wouldn't reverse a two-length or three-length defeat."

So if you have 2 horses handicapped equally, wouldn't you then use the weight break as a factor?

[RXB]

To me, the weight shift is generally of such minimal consequence that it's not going to be enough for me to say "well, now this one has a distinct advantage." There are enough factors of far greater importance for me to ponder. My real feeling on weight is: if I notice it, and it seems like an issue for a particular horse, I consider it. Most of the time, I don't.

And now I'm wondering, how is it that cj and I are arguing, when I'm on record as saying that his weight adjustment seems reasonable? Actually, I know why-- I like to argue.

Alright, this time I mean it. I'm outta this thread.

[Valuist]

IF...I had two horses rated equally based on current form, I'd have many factors rated ahead of weight to split the two. Likely pace scenario, track bias (or lack thereof), physical appearance, trainer and current trainer form, rider and his current form and whether his style fits the horse and, obviously, likely odds. Then maybe, weight may become a factor.

[schweitz]

For me, I would never reach the point where weight would be THE deciding factor---but then I pay no attention to it anyway.;)

[Marc At DRF]

"IF...I had two horses rated equally based on current form, I'd have many factors rated ahead of weight to split the two. Likely pace scenario, track bias (or lack thereof), physical appearance, trainer and current trainer form, rider and his current form and whether his style fits the horse and, obviously, likely odds. Then maybe, weight may become a factor."

That's not what I meant. I meant-- what if you have two horses rated equally (inclusive of other factors), then would you consider weight? And your answer seems to be yes.

2 comments:
1) I think sometimes people tend to blur the line between downgrading the importance of weight and throwing it out altogether. I find it very easy to consider it when handicapping, yet it is pretty rare that I find it acting as a real tie-breaker. It's a small factor. That's it, for me.

2) I still think it's kinda weird when people purely dis the concept of including it in figure making. Figure making is all about minutiae. If you want to argue it's impossible to accurately measure, that I understand, but sometimes people say it's completely without substance, the issue of weight. And I think that just has to be false. There's a difference between a tiny factor and no factor at all.

[Valuist]

I think people dis it because they (we know who I'm referring to) use weight and wind yet totally leave out pace and track bias. One could certainly argue that bias is subjective but can it be factored into a figure? Absolutely. I know a guy in Chicago who factors both pace and bias in. Its not easy but this guy is probably the best handicapper I know of.

[Marc At DRF]

"I think people dis it because they (we know who I'm referring to) use weight and wind yet totally leave out pace and track bias. One could certainly argue that bias is subjective but can it be factored into a figure? Absolutely. I know a guy in Chicago who factors both pace and bias in. Its not easy but this guy is probably the best handicapper I know of."


Coming up with rough quantifications that work for weight and wind is not all that difficult, though perhaps debatable. Coming up for similar quantifications that measure pace and track bias, well, the nice way of putting this is it's way, way more difficult. I think the general feeling from the major players is that it's just too hard to do with any sort of accuracy that they feel good about, though I also here rumblings about pace figures from some of them, including Beyer-- it's no secret that Beyer and his team are working on pace figures right now.

I'm curious to see how these new products comes out. I've always found it not all that difficult to apply my ideas on pace to the speed figures I use. Not incorporating pace into the figures, I haven't found that to be hugely problematic. I am saying I don't think any figures are less credible if the figure makers determine that the inclusion of pace or track bias would diminish the quality of their figures, even if they know that these are real and significant factors in the way a horse runs.

[JackS]

Many good points posted by everyone. We're not arguing handicapping differences, just discussing differences of opinion.
If there was one hard rule concerning weight, We'ed all soon learn it and our discussion would be over.
Aren't these little differences of opinion the exact reason we all love handicapping so much?
What I believe today to be the best approach to these never ending little question marks may not be the approach I will be using a year from now. I like knowing that change is not only possible but probable.
Opinions from everyone here are appreciated and the knowledge expected is no dissapointment.

[Valuist]

I would agree that factoring bias in is extemely difficult. I tried doing it myself and gave up because it was too difficult and time consuming. I do pace figures separately from the speed figure. But if they have all the trip notes to factor in path into the numbers, it makes one wonder why they don't try to take the next step and add bias.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I've mentioned once in a long ago thread, but I'll repeat it here. If weight were a crutical factor, the jockeys would not be on the horses before the race to warm them up - they would meet their mounts at the starting gate. Who knows what the difference in having 2 minutes of available warmup time with rider on back vs 10 minutes before the race. Let alone the difference of 3-5 pounds during the prerace warmup time. Or vigorous warmups vs. modest warmups vs. just walking(bad sign anyway).

Plus figures made without detailed trip notes (not just the wides, but adjusting or tossing horses with troubled starts, stumbles, checking & steading, etc.) will have errors in the variant whenever winner's and/or top finisher's trouble is not concidered. Far more important, in my mind at least, to include than weight, given my thoughts above.

I'm admittedly skeptical of figures with automatic adjustments made that for factors I don't agree with, but can't take out because I'm not told of what adjustments were made, and how much for each 'proprietary factor'. (Do use whatever figures you trust, or trust enough, with or without your own adjustments. Don't let me talk you out of something that works for you. This is just my opinion, although strongly felt).

Perhaps from some other threads, maybe weight in a 4 mile race, or one of those non-parimutuel cross-country 100 mile endurance marathons would have a cumulative effect, but I doubt a truly reliable speed figure could be made on a rare-distance race anyway, let alone be of use in later handicapping. If they aren't going to run another 2 mile race for a year, the horse may not see that distance again, and be a completely different horse by then.

[JackS]

Beyond any speed and pace figures which we are inclined to trust because they are as close to an actual truth as we'll be able to get during figure making.
The more esoteric numbers applied to account for weight, jock, trainer, bias,variant PP and on and on require a number to adjust time.
Unless these numbers are kept seperate and analyzed in relation to seperate speed/pace figures and decissions made using both factors, we wind up with a point method rather than anything that even resembles actual time.
Not trying to dissuade anyone from doing this but, your success or failure resides in the number you decide to use to define these finer points.
For now, I think the seperate ledger seperating these two different types of numbers might be best.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Let's face it, once the gates open, it no longer matters what our numbers say. Anything can, and will happen.

[thoroughbred]

Originally posted by Steve'StatMan'BTW
Let's face it, once the gates open, it no longer matters what our numbers say. Anything can, and will happen.

Steve,

If we take what you say literally, it would lead to one conclusion:
"Why bother to do any handicapping at all?"

[Steve 'StatMan']

It matters in our choices, of course. But once the gate opens and a rival veers in front of my horse and is forced to take up, it no longer matters that I thought the horse was capable of a 65 today - at this point he'll now be hard pressed to recover enough to run to that 65. If he doesn't need near a 65 to win the race, perphaps he could still win.

We do our best job, and hopefully they run the way we projected.

[formula_2002]

To place a value on weight I would look at the following;

1. average winning lenghts by incremental weight by incremental odds by track-take-out .

2. average beaten lengths by incremental weight by incremental odds by track-take-out and go on from there.


that is, say, 1000 horses carry 122 # at odds>=1.and.<=1.5 at 1 winning length at a 15% take-out track win "x" times in "y" tries

That should answer a lot of question about the value of weight

;)

[cj]

Originally posted by RXB
And now I'm wondering, how is it that cj and I are arguing, when I'm on record as saying that his weight adjustment seems reasonable? Actually, I know why-- I like to argue.

Alright, this time I mean it. I'm outta this thread.

I wasn't really arguing, sorry if it seemed that way. Here is what I saw that I didn't understand:

The only quote attributed to Ainslie:


"At a mile or beyond, and to a lesser extent in sprints involving closely matched animals, weight shifts may tip the balance. If one horse beat the other by a nose last week but was carrying four pounds less than the loser, and if the weight advantage no longer exists today last week's finish should be reversed."

Then this from you:

Which just goes to show that the well-intentioned Mr. "Ainslie" was wrong about some things-- and so were these so-called professionals.

I'm sure I read too much into it now, and I agree the scale he mentions later is not reliable for adjustments.

Please come back to the thread! :D

Long live Mr. Richard Carter!

[Hosshead]

Your horse is picking up 4lbs. He loses by a nose, or even a neck. - How can anybody say it was NOT a factor. And there are a hell of a lot of races decided by a neck or less. It's not whether or not weight is a factor, it's being able to guess when it may be a deciding factor. If he wins/loses by 10 lengths, it wasn't a deciding factor, but it's always a factor..

If you've ever switched from a 16 lb. bowling ball to a 14lb ball, You find that the 14 lb. goes down the lane like a rocket ! And definitely arrives at the head pin (or gutter) faster than the 16 lb. ball. And that's only 2 lbs. difference. What more proof do ya need?
(and I only weigh 100 lbs. less than a racehorse):D

[Tom]

Originally posted by thoroughbred


Here is an experiment that, while not exactly an analogy to horse racing, will give you some feel for this. Jog, (or even walk), a mile in your normal way. Then repeat it carrying, say, an extra pound or two. Most of us would feel the difference even though the pound, or two, is a small percentage of our body weight.

Yeah, right. See which heart attack is the worse!:D