WEIGHT INFLUENCE ON HANDICAPPING

[duckhunter3]

I started a thread about who was the best (Z or RA) and got some interesting comments and a couple of smart ass comments. I mentioned that THEORETICALLY 2 lbs of extra weight in a handicap race was equivalent to spotting the field 1 length. Yes, that was mentioned by Gary Stevens, a former jockey, as I recall.

Zenyatta had 16 lbs more than the rest of the field yesterday.

One member here said NO WAY. with no explanation. Just no way.

Well, let's have a meaningful discussion here, and also include the reasons for our very "strong opinions".

1. How much weight WILL equal 1 length disadvantage?
2. Is there any way to quantify it or is it too nebulous and too dependent on too many other factors?
3. How do you deal with extra weight when you are analyzing a race?
4. Under what circumstances do you think extra weight is important?

Let's have some meaningful discussion. If there are former jockeys out there, like Gary Stevens, let's hear from them, especially.

And of course we want to hear from all of the computer gurus who think that crunching numbers is the end-all to handicapping.

Seriously I want to learn. But I find dismissive comments not very helpful, and actually destructive of the true purpose of this board.

Waiting to hear from the experts on weight.
duck

[andymays]

I think it means something at one mile and one eighth and longer. Look for weight swings between contenders that faced each other in the previous race.

Sometimes two horses will come out of the same race and when they face each other in the next race one will pick up 4 pounds and one will drop 4 pounds. An eight pound swing is significant in this instance. The swing in weights could be because of the conditions of the race or the switch to an apprentice jockey.

Weight isn't as big a deal as many novice handicappers think it is unless it fits the conditions I layed out above.

Good Luck!

[duckhunter3]

Thanks for the reply. AT LEAST you gave some reasons for your opinion. I am challenging those here who choose to be dismissive in my previous post about who is better, RA or Z, and when I mentioned the tremendous weight differential Z carried. I want to hear from them. Hope I do.
duck

[andymays]

Originally Posted by duckhunter3

Thanks for the reply. AT LEAST you gave some reasons for your opinion. I am challenging those here who choose to be dismissive in my previous post about who is better, RA or Z, and when I mentioned the tremendous weight differential Z carried. I want to hear from them. Hope I do.
duck

You can't tell much from yesterdays races when it comes to the weights because one has won more races than the other and is older. The race conditions were different as well.

[sjk]

I use .22 pts per lb, so at 1 1/8 miles a length is 1.75 pts or 8 lengths. I got the .22 through calculation but I have read similar values elsewhere.

[fmolf]

Originally Posted by sjk

I use .22 pts per lb, so at 1 1/8 miles a length is 1.75 pts or 8 lengths. I got the .22 through calculation but I have read similar values elsewhere.

weight begins to matter somewhere after 8f.I believe it is very hard to quantify because you are trying to weigh the disadvantage of added weight against what should be a sharp in form horse.i agree with andy that weight swings/differentials are more important then actual weight carried.

[098poi]

I think weight has been studied statistically with regards to racehorses and if I remember correctly I don't think it is anything you should pay too much attention to. In fact if you focus on the higher weights in a race you are more likely to find the winner because they were assigned higher weights because of them being higher "class", older or better PP's. I think "2 lbs. to a length" is way off base. Unfortunately I can't remember my source for this info!

[Charlie D]

Simple beaten length formula

# of Beaten lengths * 15/ Distance

So a horse beaten 1 length over 5f is 1*15/5 = 3lb, over 8f = 1.875lb and so on.

[duckhunter3]

I, who started this thread, never pay any attention to it, unless it is a close call in a route and one contender has more than 5 lbs extra over the rest of the field. Even then, it is a minor issue, as I think most of you agree.

But still waiting to hear from the "Weight Experts" who were so dismissive of Gary Stevens' comments about 2 lbs costing a horse 1 length. I agree, that sounds far out. But he is a former jockey, and a good one.

Any former jockeys out there who want to weigh in? I just get so disgusted with the arrogance of some people on this board. They may know a lot (probably more than me), but LET'S HEAR THE BASIS of their "expert" opinions.
duck

[duckhunter3]

Originally Posted by Charlie D

Simple beaten length formula

# of Beaten lengths * 15/ Distance

So a horse beaten 1 length over 5f is 1*15/5 = 3lb, over 8f = 1.875lb and so on.

Great, Charlie. Sounds like you and Gary Stevens agree essentially. I personally don't know. And would not presume to refute a former jockey on this.

But others who made fun of his comments (see the post on who is the best, RA or Zenyatta) need to give the basis for their dismissive comments, if they want to be credible for me.

I don't know about your math. But you and Stevens agree and have AT LEAST given an explanation for your position.
duck

[duckhunter3]

Originally Posted by sjk

I use .22 pts per lb, so at 1 1/8 miles a length is 1.75 pts or 8 lengths. I got the .22 through calculation but I have read similar values elsewhere.

Man, we have opinions ALL OVER THE PLACE ON THIS ONE.
duck

[duckhunter3]

Originally Posted by andymays

You can't tell much from yesterdays races when it comes to the weights because one has won more races than the other and is older. The race conditions were different as well.

True, but I am trying to flush out the BASIS for the dismissive comments by others on the who is best, RA or Z thread? They seem to know it all, but don't tell the rest of us.

Now we have many, many different opinions on this thread, and I appreciate all of them, because I want to learn.

Thanks for everyone responding so far saying something substantive instead of just something dismissive, which is so, so destructive of the purpose of this board.
duck

[duckhunter3]

Originally Posted by 098poi

I think weight has been studied statistically with regards to racehorses and if I remember correctly I don't think it is anything you should pay too much attention to. In fact if you focus on the higher weights in a race you are more likely to find the winner because they were assigned higher weights because of them being higher "class", older or better PP's. I think "2 lbs. to a length" is way off base. Unfortunately I can't remember my source for this info!

Once again, I agree. But where are the "experts" on weight who laughed at Gary Stevens' comments about the effect of 16 lbs on Zenyatta? the ones who were very dismissive in the rachel or zenyatta thread?

I want to know the basis for their laughing and dismissiveness.

Haven't heard yet.
duck

[DeadHeat]

I believe I remember Professor Frank George in his book A Better Bet say that 3 lbs in was equal to 1 length, or 1/5th second at the finish. I really don't even know if that is accurate but just something I remember from the 80's.

DH

[Charlie D]

duckhunter

Should have stated.

The formula comes from a book called Horseracing, AGuide To Profitable Betting by Peter May ( 2004) which includes Chapter on such things as Race Profiling, The Effect of Weight in Flat handicaps, Trainer Trends and Computer Modelling.