Ellerslie track

[barryb 2,064]

1 minute ago, Leggy said:

If they are winning more than their fair share (as they are), then the weight difference is not making enough difference to equalise chances.

100% correct.

The weight difference between TAB no 1 & tab no 19 is not enough to equalise chances as clearly illustrated above.

[Leggy 4,089]

1 hour ago, 2Admin2 said:

Based on your statistical analysis?  If so then the currently handicapping model is completely screwed.  Why bother!

Good question and yes, it is completely screwed.

[Idolmite 2,560]

8 minutes ago, barryb said:

100% correct.

The weight difference between TAB no 1 & tab no 19 is not enough to equalise chances as clearly illustrated above.

There's always a number 1 saddlecloth in the handicap. How often is there a number 19?

[N1MUE 1,877]

20 minutes ago, barryb said:

Below is handicap races in Aust/NZ since Jan 2016, TAB No 1 winning nearly 16% of all Handicap races.

You might want to check your data and your interpretation.

If you're saying that this table suggests that #1 wins 16% of all handicap races, then the total data suggests all saddlecloths combined win 155% of all handicap races???   

That's an awful lot of dead-heats 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, N1MUE said:

You might want to check your data and your interpretation.

If you're saying that this table suggests that #1 wins 16% of all handicap races, then the total data suggests all saddlecloths combined win 155% of all handicap races???   

That's an awful lot of dead-heats 

That's why I asked if it has been normalised.  What the SR shows is that for number 20 - 3 divided by 118 = 2.54.  Statistically this is a nonsense when you compare the sample size to the lower numbers.

[N1MUE 1,877]

It always amuses me when people pull out some data to support their argument, yet they have no idea what the data means.

Yeah I know that's a sad thing to be amused by but I am a bit of a maths geek

[Kloppite 315]

5 minutes ago, 2Admin2 said:

Statistically this is a nonsense 

this guy's whole argument is a nonsense

[barryb 2,064]

n1mue, that is very good spotting, however, your conclusion is not correct.  The data represent approx 26,000 races, and there are 25,746 winners counted.  In fact I am missing a few winners.  However, the data represent the s/r for the races in which the TAB # in question contest, so the raw S/R will never add up to 100%.  For example, consider 5 races where TAB #1 is scr from 4 and only runs in 1 of those races which it wins.  It will have a S/R of 100% (1 win from 1 run) and the s/r of the other horses will clearly add up to over 100%.

[N1MUE 1,877]

Yes I understand that, but that's a different statement, ie.  #1 winning 16% of all handicap races that #1 contested.

Interesting that #1 was scratched nearly 14% of all handicap races.

[barryb 2,064]

5 minutes ago, N1MUE said:

Yes I understand that, but that's a different statement, ie.  #1 winning 16% of all handicap races that #1 contested.

Interesting that #1 was scratched nearly 14% of all handicap races.

I thought that may have been fairly obvious to most, that you cant win a race you don't run in.

[Kloppite 315]

I'm not sure how this data helps your argument.

The original question was; did that 0.5kgs over carded weight cost FTN the race?

You've produced some data that shows the highest horse in a handicap race only wins 16% of the time.   The fact that the best horse doesn't win a lot more often suggests that higher weight does make a difference.  QED 

[barryb 2,064]

8 minutes ago, Kloppite said:

You've produced some data that shows the highest horse in a handicap race only wins 16% of the time.   The fact that the best horse doesn't win a lot more often suggests that higher weight does make a difference.  QED 

I think with that logic you should invest your life savings into Lotto this Wednesday.

[Portfolio 728]

Now, all these facts and figures are above me. But look at this pic, if you are entering in the annual wife carrying competition, would you rather be giving this girl a lift, or would you pick a lighter version? 

[scooby3051 10,930]

I think this applies to a few in here.......

 

 

[Idolmite 2,560]

The thing is, bestie the stats on 26,000 races you can't prove anything with regards the Auckland Cup. Or most races for that matter. You could run the same 16 horses (or however many there was) on the same track over the same distance with the same weight from the same barrier draw and with the same jockey up on the same track conditions 20 times, and get a different top three every time. Every step of every race counts towards the end result, every little check, every little bit of unstable ground they might step into, every wrong decision by the jockey......I'm sure some horses are more moody (especially the mares haha) and try harder one day to the next. 

[Portfolio 728]

Just imagine looking across and seeing this girl on another guys back. Surely you would late scratch.

[Idolmite 2,560]

I think you'd have to say if EVERYTHING was run again, EXACTLY the same, with Opie 0.5kg lighter and considering the ultra small margin, that 0.5kg might of made the difference. But without Opie in the saddle the horse could likely of been down the track. Thing is, despite the stats and arguments, nobody can prove a thing. Get that hammer out Scooby......

[barryb 2,064]

2 minutes ago, Idolmite said:

The thing is, bestie the stats on 26,000 races you can't prove anything with regards the Auckland Cup. Or most races for that matter. You could run the same 16 horses (or however many there was) on the same track over the same distance with the same weight from the same barrier draw and with the same jockey up on the same track conditions 20 times, and get a different top three every time. Every step of every race counts towards the end result, every little check, every little bit of unstable ground they might step into, every wrong decision by the jockey......I'm sure some horses are more moody (especially the mares haha) and try harder one day to the next. 

With regard to 1 race you are correct, however what I did show is that weight  is not a significant factor in the outcome of a handicap race, its not even a minor influence. Some of the things you mentioned above contribute far more to the race outcome than weight.

[Kloppite 315]

12 minutes ago, scooby3051 said:

I think this applies to a few in here.......

 

 

Amen to that!

[barryb 2,064]

1 minute ago, Idolmite said:

I think you'd have to say if EVERYTHING was run again, EXACTLY the same, with Opie 0.5kg lighter and considering the ultra small margin, that 0.5kg might of made the difference. But without Opie in the saddle the horse could likely of been down the track. Thing is, despite the stats and arguments, nobody can prove a thing. Get that hammer out Scooby......

Again wrong, it would not have run any faster or better with 500grms missing. 

[Kloppite 315]

2 minutes ago, barryb said:

however what I did show is that weight  is not a significant factor in the outcome of a handicap race, its not even a minor influence. 

Where did you show that? 

[Kloppite 315]

It's pretty simple.  All other things being equal, had FTM carried 0.5kgs less then it wouldn't have been beaten by a lip.

[scooby3051 10,930]

1 minute ago, barryb said:

Again wrong, it would not have run any faster or better with 500grms missing. 

And how do you know that for sure...simple answer is you dont.

[barryb 2,064]

3 minutes ago, Kloppite said:

It's pretty simple.  All other things being equal, had FTM carried 0.5kgs less then it wouldn't have been beaten by a lip.

explain to us why.

 

 

[Leggy 4,089]

Give up Barryb. You are better off to let them continue distorting price:chance based on their ill-founded beliefs. Keeps the rest of us in business.