I am already on record as stating that weight is insignificant when analysing form. I will now state that for the most part, sectional times are also irrelevant when analysing form. Before I start, let me state that after abandoning weights in the mid 80's I started looking at times. It didn't take me long to realise that a 1.08 for 1200m at Doomben was not necessarily good enough to win a race run in 1.10 for 1200m at Rosehill. With the availability soon after of sectional times I spent many hours over years trying to understand sectional times.
The reasons for my statement regarding sectional times are numerous but I will concentrate on two main points. Firstly, there are a number of tracks where the sectional times are inaccurate and/or inconsistent. Even with the introduction of equitimes in Melbourne and Sydney there are inconsistencies. In particular in Sydney, where the published times vary from the equitimes on a regular basis. You only have to look at the official time and sectional time for a Sydney race and then compare it with the equitimes sectionals to see that one or both cannot be correct.
To understand the second point I will point out the obvious. That is, that in a slowly run race the leaders are favoured, as all horses are conserving their energy fairly much equally and if there is not a huge difference between the field, the horses that are closer to the lead have the advantage. Conversely, in a fast pace race the horses that are away from the leading pack and have cover are favoured, as the horses that are in the leading pack or have no cover are using up energy, whilst the others with cover or back in the field will have conserved their energy allowing them to finish strongly.
There are then two anomalies (there are many more actually but I'm sure you don't want to read a thesis). These are the fast pace races that are won by horses leading, and slow run races that are won by horses from back in the field.
The fast pace races that are won by horses that are leading can be explained in a number of ways. The horse could be a star and a couple of classes above the opposition. Or the horse is better than the opposition but the opposition is very average to weak. In this case, on paper the run looks full of merit but when studied closer it is revealed that it is a risk of repeating the performance at its next start against better opposition.
The slow pace races won by a horse from well back, or which are highlighted by a horse storming home from an impossible position are responsible for one of the most common misconceptions I have seen in racing. There are also a number of ways to explain this. The horse may be a star and is a couple of classes above its opposition. Or the horse is better than the opposition, but the opposition is very average or weak. Most importantly if the race was run at a slow pace, the race becomes almost a barrier trial. The horse out the back has dawdled out of the barriers, hasn't spent a penny for the duration of the trip, peels off the horses in front of it and storms home in the fastest sectional of the day. Many will make this a horse to follow. I would advise you to look closer at the way the horse races.
The thinking of the average punter is that this horse has produced stunning sectionals off a slow pace. Just imagine what it could do off a faster pace! The answer to this is not so easy and this is where you need to know more about the horse. Some horses enjoy slowly run races because they do not have much stamina and can be saved for a sprint from the 300m mark. This is what you see in barrier trials and trackwork. Many horses loaf around and then sprint home the final 400m or 200m in stunning sectionals, demanding that we all be impressed. Once they are in a race with average pace or a fast pace they are so busy expending energy to keep up with the field that when it comes to the business end they have nothing left. Punters are left scratching their heads as the horse fails to run on.
The challenge is that the next time a horse puts up a seemingly good run against the pace of the race you need to determine whether it has genuine merit or whether it was false merit due to the weakness of the opposition. This is not necessarily an easy task but one you need to master.
The next time a horse runs a sizzling sectional at trackwork or the fastest sectional on race day, do your homework and don't believe the hype.
Any feedback is welcome at info@intelligentpunter.com.au
Please visit the Intelligent Punter web site for the latest analysis for upcoming races.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
Golden Slipper Pre-Post
I have been asked by a number of people about my early selection(s) for the Golden Slipper. Let me start by saying that I am not a fan of Pre-Post markets especially 6 weeks away from the race. Particularly in a 2yo race where they are racing propositions from week to week. I advise only to have a go if your selection is at big odds and obviously has a chance.
3 of the horses that have impressed me to this point are the top 3 in the market.
Danehill Smile impressed from her 1st start where she ran down Mimi Lebrock. She then took a while to run down Keiki at her 2nd start but this was a sprint home and when she got going she was very strong. After a break she wins the Inglis Classic at Randwick by 5 lengths running away after unleashing a devastating sprint.
Murtajill looked the ultimate professional on debut in September in one of the 1st 2yo races. Was impressive but he needs to have at least held that form and improved. That is the unknown, but he is nominated for this week in the Silver Slipper at Rosehill and that question will be answered.
Mimi Lebrock improved after her debut defeat to Danehill Smile where she raced a little greenly. She won well at her 2nd start and then after racing 4 wide with no cover still fought on to win the Magic Millions at her 3rd start.
The other 2 that have caught my eye are two roughies from Queensland.
Miss Watagan is clearly the best of the Brisbane fillies and has won all 3 starts. She has not raced since 30 December 2006 where she beat Sashenka and Rock Idol. Both went down by just over 2 lengths in the Magic Millions to Mimi Lebrock. She is bred to improve with age and if she has found a length or 2 over her break she will be right in the slipper. However, from what I can see whe was not nominated originally in the Slipper and will have to be a late nomination. She is not listed in the TAB Fixed Odds. She is nominated for the Silver Slipper and will be interesting to see how she lines up against Murtajill.
The last horse is Chinchilla Rose. Won her only start impressively. Was not an overly strong race but the 2nd horse won at subsequent start. Should be improved for her next start and if continues to improve can put herself into the picture.
info@intelligentpunter.com.au
See my latest analysis for upcoming races at www.intelligentpunter.com.au
3 of the horses that have impressed me to this point are the top 3 in the market.
Danehill Smile impressed from her 1st start where she ran down Mimi Lebrock. She then took a while to run down Keiki at her 2nd start but this was a sprint home and when she got going she was very strong. After a break she wins the Inglis Classic at Randwick by 5 lengths running away after unleashing a devastating sprint.
Murtajill looked the ultimate professional on debut in September in one of the 1st 2yo races. Was impressive but he needs to have at least held that form and improved. That is the unknown, but he is nominated for this week in the Silver Slipper at Rosehill and that question will be answered.
Mimi Lebrock improved after her debut defeat to Danehill Smile where she raced a little greenly. She won well at her 2nd start and then after racing 4 wide with no cover still fought on to win the Magic Millions at her 3rd start.
The other 2 that have caught my eye are two roughies from Queensland.
Miss Watagan is clearly the best of the Brisbane fillies and has won all 3 starts. She has not raced since 30 December 2006 where she beat Sashenka and Rock Idol. Both went down by just over 2 lengths in the Magic Millions to Mimi Lebrock. She is bred to improve with age and if she has found a length or 2 over her break she will be right in the slipper. However, from what I can see whe was not nominated originally in the Slipper and will have to be a late nomination. She is not listed in the TAB Fixed Odds. She is nominated for the Silver Slipper and will be interesting to see how she lines up against Murtajill.
The last horse is Chinchilla Rose. Won her only start impressively. Was not an overly strong race but the 2nd horse won at subsequent start. Should be improved for her next start and if continues to improve can put herself into the picture.
info@intelligentpunter.com.au
See my latest analysis for upcoming races at www.intelligentpunter.com.au
Monday, February 12, 2007
The Dawning Of A Golden Age For Australian Racing?
It can't be denied that in the last 10 years we had the emergence of stars Sunline, Northerly, Lonhro, Makybe Diva and to a lesser extent Elvstroem. But maybe I miss the years of 1995 and 1996 where we had younsters like Octagonal, Saintly, Nothin Leica Dane, Filante, Our Maizcay, Flying Spur and an older horse like Doriemus dominating the staying events. Then a year later Might And Power emerges.
The depth in the Australasian scene seems to have diminished. The emergence of Hong Kong as a racing power and buying many unraced and lightly raced horses from Australia and New Zealand seems to have taken an effect.
The 4 highest profile horses in HK over the last couple of years were all bred in Aus or NZ-Silent Witness, Vengeance Of Rain, Armada and most recently Absolute Champion. Then you throw in group 1 winners and placegetters like The Duke, Floral Pegasus, All's Well, Danacourt, Hello Pretty and many more that were all bred in Aus or NZ and you start to wonder what the Australasian racing scene could have been like. They have won and placed in the HK International Sprints, Miles and Cups against the best from around the world.
However this may all be about to change as it looks possible that we are about to reach the heights of the mid 90's. In early 2006 Miss Finland burst onto the scene winning the Golden Slipper easily and then managed to come back as a 3yo filly and win the Thousand Guineas and VRC Oaks. In the process she managed to just beat a 1/2 brother to Elvstroem that is being touted as the rebirth of the King-another 3yo-Haradasun. Haradasun having only his 3rd start was unlucky to lose his unbeaten tag to Miss Finland but he made it known that he was here to stay.
In the Golden Slipper, whilst Miss Finland hugged the rail, Gold Edition was 3 wide on the pace all the way and went extremely wide around the turn, losing all hope but only finishing 2 lengths from the placings.
In the meantime over in Perth a big horse that carried the silks of Northerly and trained by the same master, Fred Kersley was taking all before him. His name, Marasco, a 4yo. Meanwhile, El Segundo was still holding his claim as the best horse in Australia with consistent performances in Group events.
Then on Derby day, 3yo Efficient delivered on all the promises made in the weeks proceeding.
With Efficient, Marasco, Haradasun, Miss Finland and Gold Edition throwing down the gauntlet to El Segundo there is also a number of others ready to take aim. Other 3yo's such as Court Command, Wonderful World, Mentality and a number of others, suddenly make our racing stocks look great.
We are a week or so into the autumn carnival and some of these have had their 1st run back from a spell. It is now time to take stock and see what will come out of 2006 and continue rising in 2007.
Gold Edition-this iron filly really hasn't gone away and has had 5 runs since the Melbourne spring and despite one little glitch has proven herself capable of taking on the best of the older sprinters.
Marasco has just had his 1st Eastern States run in the C.F.Orr Stakes and put in a gallant effort. 3 wide the whole trip, forced wider around the turn, Childs drops the whip and he even looked lost for a little bit. But once he balanced he made good ground to run a great 2nd to proven Group 1 performer El Segundo.
Miss Finland also had her 1st up run in the Orr and whilst not as impressive, her run still had merit. She was close to the pace but didn't have the acceleration of the big boys in the straight. ( I don't subscribe to the theory that the inside was off-there were many good runs along the fence throughout the day). The fact is had she been racing against 3yo fillies she probably would have won well (unless up against Gold Edition). She was up against a higher grade of horse and they could match and better her acceleration when it counted. I would assume she would take benefit from the run.
Haradasun has had 2 runs since resuming and has not been tested. He has stuck against his own age group and has won easily without being extended. Hard to gauge how much he had left in the tank but did seem to be cruising. One negative, is that I noticed at his last start that he didn't really get away from them when slapped with the whip a couple of times in the last 200m. He did hold the margin though and looked like a horse that would appreciate a longer distance.
The one we have yet to see in 2007 is Efficient.
Who will turn out to be the star? Possibly all of them.
If I had to stick my neck out I would go for Efficient even without seeing him this year. From what I saw in the spring of 2006, Efficient could be the superstar we have all been waiting for.
For my latest analysis for upcoming races visit www.intelligentpunter.com.au
Any comments email on info@intelligentpunter.com.au
The depth in the Australasian scene seems to have diminished. The emergence of Hong Kong as a racing power and buying many unraced and lightly raced horses from Australia and New Zealand seems to have taken an effect.
The 4 highest profile horses in HK over the last couple of years were all bred in Aus or NZ-Silent Witness, Vengeance Of Rain, Armada and most recently Absolute Champion. Then you throw in group 1 winners and placegetters like The Duke, Floral Pegasus, All's Well, Danacourt, Hello Pretty and many more that were all bred in Aus or NZ and you start to wonder what the Australasian racing scene could have been like. They have won and placed in the HK International Sprints, Miles and Cups against the best from around the world.
However this may all be about to change as it looks possible that we are about to reach the heights of the mid 90's. In early 2006 Miss Finland burst onto the scene winning the Golden Slipper easily and then managed to come back as a 3yo filly and win the Thousand Guineas and VRC Oaks. In the process she managed to just beat a 1/2 brother to Elvstroem that is being touted as the rebirth of the King-another 3yo-Haradasun. Haradasun having only his 3rd start was unlucky to lose his unbeaten tag to Miss Finland but he made it known that he was here to stay.
In the Golden Slipper, whilst Miss Finland hugged the rail, Gold Edition was 3 wide on the pace all the way and went extremely wide around the turn, losing all hope but only finishing 2 lengths from the placings.
In the meantime over in Perth a big horse that carried the silks of Northerly and trained by the same master, Fred Kersley was taking all before him. His name, Marasco, a 4yo. Meanwhile, El Segundo was still holding his claim as the best horse in Australia with consistent performances in Group events.
Then on Derby day, 3yo Efficient delivered on all the promises made in the weeks proceeding.
With Efficient, Marasco, Haradasun, Miss Finland and Gold Edition throwing down the gauntlet to El Segundo there is also a number of others ready to take aim. Other 3yo's such as Court Command, Wonderful World, Mentality and a number of others, suddenly make our racing stocks look great.
We are a week or so into the autumn carnival and some of these have had their 1st run back from a spell. It is now time to take stock and see what will come out of 2006 and continue rising in 2007.
Gold Edition-this iron filly really hasn't gone away and has had 5 runs since the Melbourne spring and despite one little glitch has proven herself capable of taking on the best of the older sprinters.
Marasco has just had his 1st Eastern States run in the C.F.Orr Stakes and put in a gallant effort. 3 wide the whole trip, forced wider around the turn, Childs drops the whip and he even looked lost for a little bit. But once he balanced he made good ground to run a great 2nd to proven Group 1 performer El Segundo.
Miss Finland also had her 1st up run in the Orr and whilst not as impressive, her run still had merit. She was close to the pace but didn't have the acceleration of the big boys in the straight. ( I don't subscribe to the theory that the inside was off-there were many good runs along the fence throughout the day). The fact is had she been racing against 3yo fillies she probably would have won well (unless up against Gold Edition). She was up against a higher grade of horse and they could match and better her acceleration when it counted. I would assume she would take benefit from the run.
Haradasun has had 2 runs since resuming and has not been tested. He has stuck against his own age group and has won easily without being extended. Hard to gauge how much he had left in the tank but did seem to be cruising. One negative, is that I noticed at his last start that he didn't really get away from them when slapped with the whip a couple of times in the last 200m. He did hold the margin though and looked like a horse that would appreciate a longer distance.
The one we have yet to see in 2007 is Efficient.
Who will turn out to be the star? Possibly all of them.
If I had to stick my neck out I would go for Efficient even without seeing him this year. From what I saw in the spring of 2006, Efficient could be the superstar we have all been waiting for.
For my latest analysis for upcoming races visit www.intelligentpunter.com.au
Any comments email on info@intelligentpunter.com.au
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Weight Over Matter
Why Weight Doesn’t Matter.
In the 1970’s and 1980’s the Australian horse racing scene was all abuzz with the Don Scott method of weight handicapping. Growing up through this era, I was caught up in this method of finding a winner. As I grew older and more experienced and saw many weighted certainties not only getting beaten but well beaten, I started to do my own research. I started looking into whether the weight of a jockey really mattered in the outcome of a horse race.
Using my Science/Mathematical based degrees I started to look at this scientifically. I will try and simplify this as I may have gone overboard at the time! If you had a machine and loaded it with different weights you could see that extra weight would require more revs to get to the same speed as with a lighter weight. But translating this to horses, there is no way we can measure the effect of weight on a single horse. A horse will not perform exactly the same from one gallop to another so trying to calculate the effect of extra weight on a single particular horse is useless as it can not be measured with any degree of confidence.
Lets get to specifics regarding a horse and the weight it carries. An average racing thoroughbred horse weighs approximately 500 kgs. Lets say the Average weight of a jockey would be 54 kgs. Meaning that on average a horse must carry approximately 10.8% of its body weight.
A horse weighted on 50 kgs would have to carry 10% of its body weight and a horse carrying 58 kgs would have to carry 11.6% of its body weight.
If we say that the average male human weighs 80 kgs then the equivalent weights would be 8 kgs 8.64 kgs and 9.28 kgs for 10%, 10.8% and 11.6% of his body weight respectively.
Do you think a man carrying 9.28 kgs can run as fast as a man carrying 8 kgs? I think your answer will be, no way! But before you dismiss this, remember that a cereal box can contain anything from 500g to 1.5 kgs. We are also assuming that these males are fit. Still you would probably say that the 1.28kgs extra would make a difference.
When comparing the weights between horses and humans we must remember a number of factors to make the comparisons more applicable. Humans stand on 2 feet and need to carry the weight on their back whilst upright or perhaps hold it in front of them. Horses stand on 4 legs and cover well over 2.5 metres. This means the weight of a jockey that they have to carry is actually distributed not only on 4 legs but over a larger area.
It is hard to then make a direct comparison of body weight carried by a horse or a man but using only the fact that a horse has double the number of legs then we can say that a horse carrying 10% of its body weight is similar to a man carrying 5% of its body weight (Even this is conservative as we have already mentioned that a horse distributes the weight over a larger area whereas a man is carrying it whilst upright with the full weight being subjected to the force of gravity).
Therefore a horse carrying 50, 54 or 58 kgs is equivalent to a fit 80 kg human male carrying 4, 4.32 or 4.64 kgs. Do you think a man carrying 4.64 kgs can run as fast as a man carrying 4 kgs? You may still be saying no. Remember that the true comparison would mean the weight difference for a human would probably be less than 640 grams and most probably less than 500 grams (a tub of butter). Also remember that this 640 grams is equivalent to 8 kgs on a horse. How many times do you see an 8 kg turnaround between horses?
Why then do they use handicapping by weights?
The simple answer is because they always have. Like many things in the universe we do things because we have always done things. Handicapping by weight started hundreds of years ago and those who like tradition will never change it. By the way, I am not suggesting to get rid of weight handicapping. The WFA scale was set to allow for the difference in size of horses between ages and sexes. Perhaps all racing should be at the WFA scale.
Then what matters in a race?
Speed, pace and run of the race. Pace makes a race. A slowly run race will in the large majority of cases, suit the horses up on the pace. A fast run race will in the large majority of cases suit the horses well off the lead. Horses that have pressure applied to them whilst leading will find it difficult to win. Horses caught wide without cover are unlikely to win. A clear uninterrupted run obviously helps a horse run at its best. There are so many factors in running that determine a horse’s chance of winning that the weight becomes insignificant.
Why do a lot of racing analysts talk about weight turnarounds?
Because that is how they were taught and that is the way they have always assessed their form. Whenever I hear or read an analyst, trainer or jockey talking about Horse A meeting Horse B on 4 kg better terms or even 1 kg better terms, I have a good laugh. I have never seen any evidence that weight turnarounds make a difference. If anyone has a list of weight turnarounds that actually work then I’d be interested in seeing them. But remember you must include all the weight turnarounds that didn’t work.
Do I have any evidence that weight doesn’t matter?
Well, not anymore. I kept statistics in the 1980’s of weight turnarounds between 2 horses in a race from previous meetings and seeing which horse got home in front. The results were almost 50% for each. Examples of weight turnarounds having no bearing on the outcome of a race occur every day, I just don’t have the time or need to look for them, anymore.
There is no way you can truly handicap a horse. My example of male humans above, carrying different weights is assuming that the men are equal in ability. In this case significant extra weight will make a difference. But there is no way we can determine how good a horse is and then how many kilos will need to be added to slow it down. If anyone has a scientific study that shows that a horse slows down by a certain amount for each extra kilo of weight, I would again be happy to read this.
What about the world ratings scales?
Most of these Timeform ratings are so misleading. They are called Timeform but are basically based on class and weights. I pay little attention to these type of ratings. Why? They tend to rate all races of the same level similarly. In other words all Open Handicaps at a certain racetrack are rated practically the same. This is the 1st flaw as we all know that races of the same level vary significantly. The 2nd flaw is that the rating is then based on the weight the horse has carried in that race.
In closing, forget about looking at weights. There are so many factors that determine the outcome of a race that the weight it has to carry is as trivial as the colour of the jockey silks.
Any comments feel free to email at info@intelligentpunter.com.au
To see our latest analysis visit www.intelligentpunter.com.au
In the 1970’s and 1980’s the Australian horse racing scene was all abuzz with the Don Scott method of weight handicapping. Growing up through this era, I was caught up in this method of finding a winner. As I grew older and more experienced and saw many weighted certainties not only getting beaten but well beaten, I started to do my own research. I started looking into whether the weight of a jockey really mattered in the outcome of a horse race.
Using my Science/Mathematical based degrees I started to look at this scientifically. I will try and simplify this as I may have gone overboard at the time! If you had a machine and loaded it with different weights you could see that extra weight would require more revs to get to the same speed as with a lighter weight. But translating this to horses, there is no way we can measure the effect of weight on a single horse. A horse will not perform exactly the same from one gallop to another so trying to calculate the effect of extra weight on a single particular horse is useless as it can not be measured with any degree of confidence.
Lets get to specifics regarding a horse and the weight it carries. An average racing thoroughbred horse weighs approximately 500 kgs. Lets say the Average weight of a jockey would be 54 kgs. Meaning that on average a horse must carry approximately 10.8% of its body weight.
A horse weighted on 50 kgs would have to carry 10% of its body weight and a horse carrying 58 kgs would have to carry 11.6% of its body weight.
If we say that the average male human weighs 80 kgs then the equivalent weights would be 8 kgs 8.64 kgs and 9.28 kgs for 10%, 10.8% and 11.6% of his body weight respectively.
Do you think a man carrying 9.28 kgs can run as fast as a man carrying 8 kgs? I think your answer will be, no way! But before you dismiss this, remember that a cereal box can contain anything from 500g to 1.5 kgs. We are also assuming that these males are fit. Still you would probably say that the 1.28kgs extra would make a difference.
When comparing the weights between horses and humans we must remember a number of factors to make the comparisons more applicable. Humans stand on 2 feet and need to carry the weight on their back whilst upright or perhaps hold it in front of them. Horses stand on 4 legs and cover well over 2.5 metres. This means the weight of a jockey that they have to carry is actually distributed not only on 4 legs but over a larger area.
It is hard to then make a direct comparison of body weight carried by a horse or a man but using only the fact that a horse has double the number of legs then we can say that a horse carrying 10% of its body weight is similar to a man carrying 5% of its body weight (Even this is conservative as we have already mentioned that a horse distributes the weight over a larger area whereas a man is carrying it whilst upright with the full weight being subjected to the force of gravity).
Therefore a horse carrying 50, 54 or 58 kgs is equivalent to a fit 80 kg human male carrying 4, 4.32 or 4.64 kgs. Do you think a man carrying 4.64 kgs can run as fast as a man carrying 4 kgs? You may still be saying no. Remember that the true comparison would mean the weight difference for a human would probably be less than 640 grams and most probably less than 500 grams (a tub of butter). Also remember that this 640 grams is equivalent to 8 kgs on a horse. How many times do you see an 8 kg turnaround between horses?
Why then do they use handicapping by weights?
The simple answer is because they always have. Like many things in the universe we do things because we have always done things. Handicapping by weight started hundreds of years ago and those who like tradition will never change it. By the way, I am not suggesting to get rid of weight handicapping. The WFA scale was set to allow for the difference in size of horses between ages and sexes. Perhaps all racing should be at the WFA scale.
Then what matters in a race?
Speed, pace and run of the race. Pace makes a race. A slowly run race will in the large majority of cases, suit the horses up on the pace. A fast run race will in the large majority of cases suit the horses well off the lead. Horses that have pressure applied to them whilst leading will find it difficult to win. Horses caught wide without cover are unlikely to win. A clear uninterrupted run obviously helps a horse run at its best. There are so many factors in running that determine a horse’s chance of winning that the weight becomes insignificant.
Why do a lot of racing analysts talk about weight turnarounds?
Because that is how they were taught and that is the way they have always assessed their form. Whenever I hear or read an analyst, trainer or jockey talking about Horse A meeting Horse B on 4 kg better terms or even 1 kg better terms, I have a good laugh. I have never seen any evidence that weight turnarounds make a difference. If anyone has a list of weight turnarounds that actually work then I’d be interested in seeing them. But remember you must include all the weight turnarounds that didn’t work.
Do I have any evidence that weight doesn’t matter?
Well, not anymore. I kept statistics in the 1980’s of weight turnarounds between 2 horses in a race from previous meetings and seeing which horse got home in front. The results were almost 50% for each. Examples of weight turnarounds having no bearing on the outcome of a race occur every day, I just don’t have the time or need to look for them, anymore.
There is no way you can truly handicap a horse. My example of male humans above, carrying different weights is assuming that the men are equal in ability. In this case significant extra weight will make a difference. But there is no way we can determine how good a horse is and then how many kilos will need to be added to slow it down. If anyone has a scientific study that shows that a horse slows down by a certain amount for each extra kilo of weight, I would again be happy to read this.
What about the world ratings scales?
Most of these Timeform ratings are so misleading. They are called Timeform but are basically based on class and weights. I pay little attention to these type of ratings. Why? They tend to rate all races of the same level similarly. In other words all Open Handicaps at a certain racetrack are rated practically the same. This is the 1st flaw as we all know that races of the same level vary significantly. The 2nd flaw is that the rating is then based on the weight the horse has carried in that race.
In closing, forget about looking at weights. There are so many factors that determine the outcome of a race that the weight it has to carry is as trivial as the colour of the jockey silks.
Any comments feel free to email at info@intelligentpunter.com.au
To see our latest analysis visit www.intelligentpunter.com.au
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
