DISTANCE BETWEEN WINNER & PLACE HORSE
 

I would like to know if anyone has a data base that lists the winning distance between the winner and the place horse. Hopefully, your DB is broken down by race conditions and distances. Thanks

I have that.

What are you wanting to know, specifically?

His question sounded pretty specific to me:

"winning distance between the winner and the place horse"

I don't have a data base but, if it helps, I once did a small study and I recall it was about 1 length for 6F races and proportionally greater for longer distances on dirt. It's shorter for turf.

That is pretty easy to do, you just use the beaten lengths at the finish for the runner up. I could do that and have. I have posted similar here in the past to show how the value of distance can change at different distance and on different surface, including varying track conditions.

If memory serves you won't find it varies much at all by class.

But then he asked about broken down by classes and distances. Beginning to sound like a lot of work.

I read you loud and clear.

BTW, having done this study years ago, I completely agree with what CJ said. (Why wouldn't I? He's like the best figure maker in this generation.)

What I found was that as distances got longer, there was a slight increase in margins, but not near as much as one might expect.

Also, the dynamics of bullrings also had an impact.

It appeared to me, at the time of the study (which was over a decade ago) that the length of the stretch run also had an impact in the margin increase.

When I kept a large data base, I used the winning margin. ( I only kept a data base of winning horses). Found pretty much exactly what Dave and CJ have said. Also found that when there is a unusually large margin of victory, usually it happened in 3 situations.

1. Big class drop.

2. Ideal set up. Lone speed or pace meltdown.

3. Bias to the track.

May I offer up a question?
Why in the world would an overall statistical margin of victory over the Placer in any number of events with varying race and track conditions have any significance what-so-ever?

Please.stop.

I ran a quick average over a relatively small data base for tracks all over the country dirt, turf, all distances combined and the average was 2.23 beaten lengths between winner and place horse. Sample size is small, less than 500 races. So for a quickie comparison I looked at a sampling for recent races at Belmont and Parx over five days and the number was 2.31 BL's for the 2nd place horse.
I didn't find anything offensive in Nitro's question, as I was going to ask the same thing earlier. I too am curious as to how the OP might use that info? In my case, when I previously used a multi-factors program to rate form, a close up 3rd or 4th place finish was upgraded for points.

Man, that is a retro-dumb question from someone who apparently has forgotten more than most know about figure making. The relevancy of such a study is that it provides a benchmark (mean , median , percentiles or whatever) and context to figure makers in up/downgrading performances once the external conditions of the race and the internal condition of the horse are normalised. There is much value in determining how races "should" be run at varying trips over various surfaces and within that where horses "should" finish behind each other in lengths (the old universal metric of racing) which are effectively time margins(or should be in theory)
Seeing that you bet on HK racing and they use the OR (Official Ratings) system there very similar to other racing jurisdictions - (Aus, UK and even in the US , Experimental Free Handicap?) to frame races (lol) i would have thought that this would have needed no explanation. Since the days of Old Admiral Rouse , up through Phil Bull & Dick Whitford and on through Ragozin , Beyer & Carroll there is a line that leads to modern day guys like CJ , who put a figure on a thoroughbred's performance in the same manner (if done correctly) as your team of HK handicappers (margins = time). To get to those figures and to make them more accurate and meaningful we need to know the relationship of margins to different distances and surfaces and also the worth of those margins , be it equated to points , pounds or whatever.

not sure this is of any interest.

i can find no evidence that as the distances increase so do the margins.
that's more pace issue than a distance issue.

dunno if has relevance to usa but the awt in hong kong is dirt
shtn & hpvy turf.

the graphic is just mean and median for speed points(relative to winner....all winners would be zero)finish possies 2 to 10 and grouped by track and distance.

forgive my arrogance but i have always thought beyer was wrong.
he may have changed but the beyer ones are how it was explained in his early books are nonsensical.

in other words the beyer way the numbers smaller over short trips and larger over longer that's because he reckons beaten 1 length over a long trip is better than being beaten a length over shorter trip.

done the correct way, then it's pretty obvious that distance is only a very minor factor.

using time margin as an alternative....
for example AWT 1200 seventh averages .845 seconds slower than winner
and the median for same is .8


but again it should demonstrate that as distance increase then margins don't necessarily.
well it does show it a little more over longer trips and not so good finish possie, where they are probably compounding/weakening when they can't get the trip.