PDA

View Full Version : Weight


sq764
04-14-2003, 09:24 PM
At what point does weight become a factor to not bet a horse? Or to consider not betting a horse?

I only take consideration when its 4 lbs or more, but to be honest, I really ignore anything less than that.

It has always been a mystery to me how to play the weights into your handicapping..

andicap
04-14-2003, 09:42 PM
I use weight in two instances, but the first one is much less important factor than it had been a few years ago.


1. Handicap stakes races. Some horses have their limit on what weight they can carry. But with racing secretaries not handing out weights over 125 or so, this is now a minor factor.

2. Trainer intent. No matter what handicappers think of weight, trainers believe it is important. So if a horse you like is getting a nice weight break today, it could be a sign the trainer will "go."
Just another factor to consider.


Other than that, I've never seen weight influence a race one way or another, although the Sheets players do believe that 5 lbs more or less will hurt or help a horse.

karlskorner
04-14-2003, 09:55 PM
I think the real question is whether the "weight" in on the jockey or 'dead weight" in the saddle

Figman
04-14-2003, 10:05 PM
How about the actual weight of the horse compared to his last few races. Lasix use can greatly affect weight drops. Less weight - less mass to move. Seem to remember that Minnesota track weighing horses before their races a few years ago. Maybe they had it right!

sq764
04-14-2003, 10:13 PM
And does the extra weight factor diminish as you go from 5F to 6 or 7 or 1M or 1 3/8?

karlskorner
04-14-2003, 10:22 PM
Ever watch a Jock's valet carry the saddle, pad & cloth to the paddock with no weight, he is swinging it on one arm, but put 10 lbs of lead in the saddle and he is lugging with both arms.

Tom
04-14-2003, 10:55 PM
I always thought the term referred to the jockey <G>

Fastracehorse
04-15-2003, 12:13 AM
<Trainer intent. No matter what handicappers think of weight, trainers believe it is important. So if a horse you like is getting a nice weight break today, it could be a sign the trainer will "go."
Just another factor to consider.

Sometimes there is trainer intent with just a 2 lb. weight break. I often look for the intent of a trainer entering his horse for a few k less.

Eg., I hit a nice longhshot at the Gulf this year where the trainer entered the horse for 25k in a ( 30-25 N2L ) event. The previous race the horse had been enterd for 30 in the same class.

Fastracehorse
04-15-2003, 12:16 AM
I once read that a horse can lose up to 45 lbs in moisture do to the anti-diuretic effect of the drug.

No wonder so many routers improve dramatically on it.

fffastt

WINMANWIN
04-15-2003, 12:22 AM
Weight is Comedy Central in my book. I love when the announcer
states a weight change of +1 LB, or 2 LB'S, 30 MINS TO POST
FOR the Races... :rolleyes: The real comedy is, when they
weigh the jock, after a race WIN and the pinhead gets On/Off so fast its impossible for the Clerk of Scales to Register IT...:confused: I was laughing to myself Today watching the jock, stand on scale with saddle, and he was ON/OFF in an Eye BLINK..Clerk had his Sheet Out and followed procedure though......:o

kenwoodall
04-15-2003, 03:09 AM
Weight limit depends on the individual horse.

thoroughbred
04-18-2003, 12:28 AM
sq764

Here is a table that shows the effect of weight carried by a horse.

TIME CHANGE PER ONE POUND WEIGHT CHANGE *

RACE DISTANCE (furlongs) TIME CHANGE (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

* Using 116 pounds as reference
** One tick is 0.2 seconds

With other factors not changing, the table shows the finish time change that can be expected when comparing a previous race with, say, todays race, due to a change in the weight carried.

The derivation of the table is given in my "Engineering Analysis of Thoroughbred Racing" To the extent possible, I have been able to verify the results at some race distaces by means of published trainer opinion, and in Ainsley's (Encyclopedia of Thoroughbred Handicapping.)

NOTE: I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO HAVE THE COLUMNS IN THE TABLE BE SEPARATED FOR EASY READING HERE. jUST KNOW THAT THE FIRST NUMBERS ARE RACE DISTANCE, AND THE NUMBERS WHICH FOLLOW ARE THE TICKS AT THE DISTANCE.

Pace Cap'n
04-18-2003, 06:26 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by thoroughbred
[B]sq764

* Using 116 pounds as reference
** One tick is 0.2 seconds

__________________________________________________ _

Would it be correct to calculate that over one mile, a horses time would be reduced by 1.086 seconds?

Steve

karlskorner
04-18-2003, 08:35 AM
If the 2 lbs. "overweight" is announced for the Jockey, makes little difference, however, if the "conditions" call for 121 lbs and the Jockey weighs in at 110 lbs, thats 11 lbs of "dead weight" across the horses back. The Jockey shifts his weight over the horses withers and can be carried easily.

Show Me the Wire
04-18-2003, 09:07 AM
Weight affects balance of the racehorse. Balance is important to the horse’s rhythm (timing) and by influencing rhythm you are directly affecting the horse’s ability to carry its speed over a distance of ground. Karl is correct a horse carries weight more efficiently over its withers and thus the impact on its rhythm is lessened.

Compare the balance point of the the more sucessfull jocks to less sucessfull jocks and you may see the subtle difference in postioning over the horses withers.

Cordially,
Show Me the Wire

thoroughbred
04-18-2003, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Pace Cap'n
[QUOTE]Originally posted by thoroughbred
[B]sq764

* Using 116 pounds as reference
** One tick is 0.2 seconds

__________________________________________________ _

Would it be correct to calculate that over one mile, a horses time would be reduced by 1.086 seconds?

Steve

Since the table lists the weight factor for 8 furlongs to be 0.543 ticks, and each tick is 0.2 seconds, then:

0.543 X 0.2 = 0.1086

So, at the 8 furlong distance, the time change will be:

0.1086 seconds per pound weight change.

Example: If the weight increase was 4 pounds, then the increase in finish time, (all other things being the same), would be about:

4 X 0.1086 = 0.434 seconds.

If the weight was reduced by 4 pounds, the finish time would be about 0.434 seconds less.

Observer
04-18-2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by sq764
At what point does weight become a factor to not bet a horse? Or to consider not betting a horse?

This isn't going to seem helpful, but I really believe in taking each instance separately. For me, I wouldn't be able to give definitive cases on where the line is for weight becoming a deciding factor.

Claim digger
04-19-2003, 12:16 AM
Here's how one might think about the effect of weight.

Let's say a horse weighs about 1,000 lbs with a 100 pound jockey for a total of 1,100 lbs.

He has to move this weight say 1 mile or 5,280 ft., so lets call his effort 1,100 X 5280 = 5,808,000 energy "units"

Let's say he now has to carry an extra pound.

If he expends the same amount of "units" he will travel 5,808,000/1101 = 5,275.2 ft. or about 4.8 ft. less to expend the same amount of energy. Under this calculation a pound will equal a little over 1/2 length at a mile. The impact would be smaller at shorter distances.

Steve 'StatMan'
04-19-2003, 12:58 AM
I haven't studied the effects of weight, but I really can't believe it is as important as it is given credit. I have, however, given the concept of weights some thought.

For example, if weight carried is so important, what about all the time the rider spends on the horse before the race - in paddock, post parade, warmups, etc. If weight carried were that draining and stressful, they should put the jockeys on a shuttle bus or on golf carts, and meet their horse at the starting gate!

Sometimes the post parades on bad weather days are as short as 2 minutes, at least in Chicago. Less time spent on the horses back. Most other days, it is 8 minutes. 6 minutes of time - 3 or 4 times as long as the race is run! What is the effect? Who knows!

Another big case where the horse did win was Cigar in the Arlington's Citation Challenge, the race created to give him an early opportunity to tie the record (and was his last win of that streak, by the way).

To give TV Coverage a better view of Cigar, the horses were ordered from the paddock into the post parade with something like 15 TO 18 MINUTES TO POST! His rider was on his back, with the high weight, the whole time! Of course, the others had their own riders on their backs as well for that whole time. What was the difference carrying all that weight for 15+ minutes, plus another 2 minutes in the race? Who knows! Did the 10+ pounds matter? What was the difference of 110 to 120 pounds for 15+ minutes? Who will ever really know for sure!

Would a hot or cold day be different?

If a few pounds matters, and we're worrying about the above, then have we really been 'improving the breed?'

At best, it seems weight is like a handicap in a bowling league. Say Player A's average is 60 pins better than Player B. Suppose the handicap in the league is 70% of the difference between one's average and 200. Player B is compensated by 42 pins per game, but Player A still has an 18 pin advantage.

Player A can still lose to Player B if either performs bad enough compared to Player B with his handicap, or has bad luck. Player B can succeed by playing above his average, and Player A must play at or below his average.

Likewise, with horses, I don't think weight makes the difference, but at most can help even things out. Normally, the higher weighted horses are the ones that have done better recently (like Player A). If they perform to their capabilites, and if the weight does not completely compensate for the difference in talent, then the lower weighted horse (Player B) will still be at some disadvantage. The lower weighted horse could benefit also if the higher weight fails to run his best race.

Since there are so many reasons why horses can fail or run badly, I don't know if sweating the weights out is all that important. If they stumble, the end up wide on the turn, await room in traffic, that's more important in deciding how well a horse will perform than how much weight he's carrying at the time.

Perhaps weight only matters when the contestants all run their best races - but we have speed figures and pace figures to help us with that.

Another sports example - Football and Betting, I don't know if a team should really be -3 points or +4 points, etc. I do know if the one team plays under potential, perhaps has an inopportune fumble, bad snap on a field goal, etc., it can change the result of the game.

What happens in a football game or a horse race can seriously determines the outcome. The handicap of weights or specifics of point spreads pales once the action starts and things start to happen that determine the result.

rastajenk
04-19-2003, 11:20 AM
I've never been one to give weight much weight in making handicapping decisions,because most of the time weights are within a pretty limited range, but there is a current situation that I find more than a little intriguing: Ten Most Wanted.

The Illinois Derby had weight conditions that penalized Alysweep for his Gotham win an extra two pounds, while Ten Most Wanted's non-winning ways earned him an eight-pound allowance from the original 122. So there's a 10-pound swing between the two, and they ran like it made a difference. But now....

Ten Most Wanted now goes an extra furlong with an extra 12 pounds over his Illinois Derby weight. Do you think he'll be cruising through Churchill's stretch like he did at Hawthorne? This seems like a case where weight could make a significant difference.

Any opinions?

cj
04-19-2003, 11:41 AM
Last year...War Emblem

Illinois Derby-114
Kentucky Derby-126

Didn't seem to bother him too much!

CJ

Tom
04-19-2003, 12:12 PM
If the Beyer figure is within 15 points of the weight, I don't think it matters.