In this Discussion
- brady November 2012
- BrisburghPhil November 2012
- carey November 2012
- darkshines November 2012
- DarkTarget November 2012
- octavius November 2012
- Radman November 2012
- RIO November 2012
- Rodent November 2012
- TheDiva November 2012
- Vorgtraffic November 2012
kg to length opinions.
West Australian Racing
carey
6,424 posts
semipro punter ..........2kg = 1 length
dungy..........1kg = 1 length
octavius.....1kg = 1 length
singapore handicapper.........1kg = 1 metre ........if 1 length is 2.5 metres(????????) then 1kg = .4 length???
south africa handicapper......1 kg = 1 length at a mile.
(sth africa and singapore also introduce drag into the equation....... =)) )
rodent..(my guess of rodent's opinion)........1.5kg = 1 length
anybody else.......x kg = y lengths ??????????????
who is right????
and why?????
edit:
oh bugger, on a different page, singapore decides it is 1kg = 1 length at a mile too......make up your mind! :^o
dungy..........1kg = 1 length
octavius.....1kg = 1 length
singapore handicapper.........1kg = 1 metre ........if 1 length is 2.5 metres(????????) then 1kg = .4 length???
south africa handicapper......1 kg = 1 length at a mile.
(sth africa and singapore also introduce drag into the equation....... =)) )
rodent..(my guess of rodent's opinion)........1.5kg = 1 length
anybody else.......x kg = y lengths ??????????????
who is right????
and why?????
edit:
oh bugger, on a different page, singapore decides it is 1kg = 1 length at a mile too......make up your mind! :^o
Comments
Default setting 3kg = 1 length
Over further, adjusted stronger
Stronger pace/faster time, adjusted stronger
darkshines reckons that distance plays a part, do you?
1100m - 1300m 1 length 2.5kg
1400m - 1800m 1 length 2.0kg
1800m - 2200m 1 length 1.5kg
2400m + 1 length 1.0kg
any thoughts carey
ok, so you don't think pace would negate that?
the following is from a convo i was having with aw's 2ic a few years back.
.......................
[aka carey]
This is why I asked you in another post if you would tell me what you
think a length equals in weight terms for you blokes
Basically with the Australian class system, my program emulates the
relative class scales the official handicappers use, and shows where
they stuff up!
I even get the 2.5kg allowance they give to fillies and mares, or more
precise I get 3kg most times, which means they(handicappers) are .5kg
out collectively!!!!!
[Paul]
We get around 1 length = 2.3kg - we also don't see much variation over
distance but we do get large variation from going (although going and pace
are hard to separate). Perhaps the difference is related to the relative avg
going in each country?
We use more like 5kg for fillies on the dirt in japan - less on turf (3kg
actually)!
i should also say his 2.3 kg for a length is for dirt tracks, it would be more for turf.
If anything if they go slowly then bigger weights mean more . I think there are heaps of factors though. Size of horse, track state, racing position, instead or outside barrier etc.
lots of factors yes, so that there can be no definitive number i suppose, still there has to be a best fit?
"If anything if they go slowly then bigger weights mean more ."
i'm intrigued by that statement, care to enlarge?
well dungy says 1kg=1 length
you say 3kg for starters.
therefore you reckon dungy must be way out, thus my 'he has not got a clue' statement.
Mine was calculated in a way very specific to way I do things, determined retrospectively on analysis of MY past results, which is obviously dependent on every other element of the way I do form and frame markets. Therefore really my value is not at all applicable to anyone else.
A number just under 3 proved to be the most profitable over multiple previous years. Therefore 3 it is for me.
And I do agree with AW's man, pace more a factor than distance. Going not an issue where I bet. Nice to know that I'm closer to 'the mark' than the average punter.
1st two, yes, last one probably not, or not of any note.
basically, it's not how far you run, but how you do it.
This is the way i see it.
In slower races, the difference between a horses top speed and the speed they are travelling at is greater than in a faster run race. So they have less time/chance to perform at their top speed or run to their rating.
With larger weights, it is inherently more difficult to accelerate and at the same time harder to slow down, so in faster races horses with larger weights can use this momentum but do not get the same benefit in slower races.
Reflecting, it may be more important that there is a building tempo rather than just a faster tempo.
anyway, that's a great explanation thanks.
good to get things to think about.
maybe your opinion is better than mine
maybe we can ask mr hunter to give us all his opinion.
i just noticed that when i wrote the above a few years back, the wfa allowance for females was 2.5kg.
at various other times it has been 1kg and 2kg, and possibly even 1.5kg
then there are the 5436 times that they have changed the wfa scale because they decided rous didn't have a clue.
if the so called experts have no idea, what hope the rest of us!
Vorg - great post.
if it's the most profitable, then by definition it must be the most accurate?
impressive that you can test these things too.
as far as aw's man is concerned, one day i might post all i have(theories/correspondence/factors/ip others(who have pissed me off) have pinched from them that i have), and wouldn't that set the cat amongst them.
nice thought, maybe they will even read this and pay their debts.
in WA where the weights in most race vary by 3 - 4 kg and not many races are over 1600...does weight really matter???? I know it does, but the reality is that it doesn't make such a big difference when our horses are so closely rated in races..
I've always worked on 3kg up to the mile is less than a length....but unless more than 3kg hardly every worry about it. Reckon the pace of the race is more important...
As Diva says, you can't argue with the laws of physics.........applied properly.