Handicaps, handicaps

[barjon]

You guys seem to love delving into the big handicaps, but I am haunted by the words of my mentor when I was but a callow youth - “Don’t bet on handicaps, young man, for they be dangerous and murky waters.”

I’ve often ignored his advice, of course, but I do wonder. After all, a handicap is supposed to put the horses in with an equal chance, but when did you last see a multiple dead head and how come there’s more often than not many lengths between the finishers? And how is it that a horse weighing some 1000 lbs and already loaded up with 160 lbs of rider and equipment can be slowed significantly by the odd pound or so of lead ? And how is it that a horse can apparently improve by over a stone in a few weeks, or is it the rating that’s improved whilst the horse’s ability has stayed the same? The mystery to me is why it seems to work out some of the time and you guys show that it’s not just coincidence?

Rightly or wrongly, that sort of form study is not for me because when all is said and done it’s the peripherals that hold sway in my opinion (the reason the horses don’t finish as per handicap) and first amongst those is that the horse is up for it. So, the horse has to have the ability (broadly judged) and then:

Ready to rock
Right conditions
Right jockey
Right tactics
No misfortune in running

Unfortunately, it’s only the first three that you can know in advance.

 

[Maxbet]

You guys seem to love delving into the big handicaps, but I am haunted by the words of my mentor when I was but a callow youth - “Don’t bet on handicaps, young man, for they be dangerous and murky waters.”

I’ve often ignored his advice, of course, but I do wonder. After all, a handicap is supposed to put the horses in with an equal chance, but when did you last see a multiple dead head and how come there’s more often than not many lengths between the finishers? And how is it that a horse weighing some 1000 lbs and already loaded up with 160 lbs of rider and equipment can be slowed significantly by the odd pound or so of lead ? And how is it that a horse can apparently improve by over a stone in a few weeks, or is it the rating that’s improved whilst the horse’s ability has stayed the same? The mystery to me is why it seems to work out some of the time and you guys show that it’s not just coincidence?

Rightly or wrongly, that sort of form study is not for me because when all is said and done it’s the peripherals that hold sway in my opinion (the reason the horses don’t finish as per handicap) and first amongst those is that the horse is up for it. So, the horse has to have the ability (broadly judged) and then:

Ready to rock
Right conditions
Right jockey
Right tactics
No misfortune in running

Unfortunately, it’s only the first three that you can know in advance.

Are they all not handicap's in one way or another? They have a rating in the 2,000 guineas but they all go off at level weights, so retrospectively the lower-rated individuals are giving weight away by the simple fact; that they aren't receiving it!

Ready to rock
Right conditions
Right side of the draw
Right jockey
Right tactics
Right side of any misfortune in running

 

[simmo]

"There are two times when a man shouldn't bet in handicaps. When he can't afford to lose the money and when he can" Mark Twain.

I, of course, ignore Mr Twain's advice whenever possible.

 

[reet hard]

Though some are obsessed with weights and handicap marks I'd warrant that few consider the circumstances behind those figures (said adisedly,as I see endless faux pas from handicappers,tipsters, Timeform,RP analysts etc.
How can they possibly guage a horse's capablity without account of pace,tactics,terrain,fitness and other factors that prejudice a horse's chance?
Had a few good scores in the better handicaps in recent times, but have lately become aware that most ratings are guesses,and I'll retain my cyniciism till proven otherwise.

 

[wilsonl]

Are they all not handicap's in one way or another? They have a rating in the 2,000 guineas but they all go off at level weights, so retrospectively the lower-rated individuals are giving weight away by the simple fact; that they aren't receiving it!

Ready to rock
Right conditions
Right side of the draw
Right jockey
Right tactics
Right side of any misfortune in running

Big difference. In handicaps horses are conceding or receiving weight relative to others based on human perception, i.e. the BHA or HRI, which offers an increased chance of deception to the less scrupulous connections.

 

[Grasshopper]

Rating/Weight in handicaps is just one more factor to work into analysis when weighing-up a race, imo. I don't view them - or analyse them, really - any differently from WFA races, tbh.

 

[Desert Orchid]

I certainly do love delving into handicaps but really only the ones with a decent prize on offer. The more valuable the race the more likely they will be running on their merits.

I think you're more likely to find value bets in handicaps - assuming you have a decent method of analysing the form - because they are all theoretically supposed to have the same chance. In theory, in a 10-runner handicap they should all have a 9/1 chance but I doubt you'll ever even see 5/1 the field in such a race. There was a time in my distant past when I wouldn't back anything at less than 9/1 in a 10-runner handicap for that reason but I soon realised I was playing with fire using that approach.

I would argue, though, that in a lot of handicaps you'll find very little between the majority of the runners about two furlongs out, especially on the Flat. It's in the final stages that the weight impacts on overall performance.

 

[reet hard]

Imo, it's a dangerous assumption that all will be running on their merits when the pot is big enough.
On a more positive note, it's a fact of life that trainers often run horses in classy handicaps to bring them on with a view to a future target, and there's little doubt that races like the Lincoln will prove a rich source of future winners amongst the 'also rans'.
It's also tenable that it may be decided to 'take a pull' owing to going, draw or opposition on the day, and no ratings (I'm aware of) will allow for such circumstances.

 

[Maxbet]

Big difference. In handicaps, horses are conceding or receiving weight relative to others based on human perception, i.e. the BHA or HRI, which offers an increased chance of deception to the less scrupulous connections.

How is that, any different from a non-handicap (2,000 guineas used as an example) that human perception is the foundation for forming the market that you bet on?
The ratings don't include accurate measures of improvement or well-being. How often has the less scrupulous connection won the big race with the less considered horse at the much bigger price that was gobbled up in the morning?

 

[barjon]

Reet, I think the many racing incidents - missing the start (flat), poor jump, losing position, wrong pace, losing rhythm, interference, etc, etc - will mostly result in a horse losing any realistic chance and the jockey more concerned with looking after it than giving it a hard time chasing rainbows. Add to that horses being off-colour or lacking full fitness and it’s a wonder anything wins!

 

[reet hard]

Or any punter.

 

[Desert Orchid]

Imo, it's a dangerous assumption that all will be running on their merits when the pot is big enough.
On a more positive note, it's a fact of life that trainers often run horses in classy handicaps to bring them on with a view to a future target, and there's little doubt that races like the Lincoln will prove a rich source of future winners amongst the 'also rans'.
It's also tenable that it may be decided to 'take a pull' owing to going, draw or opposition on the day, and no ratings (I'm aware of) will allow for such circumstances.

I agree but it's definitely more likely that more will be trying when there's more money on offer. The majority of those not trying as hard are likely to be the ones not well handicapped to start with but there will be well handicapped ones targeting something else down the line.

 

[Desert Orchid]

Reet, I think the many racing incidents - missing the start (flat), poor jump, losing position, wrong pace, losing rhythm, interference, etc, etc - will mostly result in a horse losing any realistic chance and the jockey more concerned with looking after it than giving it a hard time chasing rainbows. Add to that horses being off-colour or lacking full fitness and it’s a wonder anything wins!

Yes. But what [sound] ratings do is give a good indication of true (or maybe that should say 'best-case-scenario' ability) because things tend to go right in a race for a horse to win. When they don't go right they can still win, in which case you can add a '+' to the rating and make some kind of poundage allowance going forward. For instance, If a horse loses a couple of lengths due to interference but still wins, I'd always add the poundage for the ground lost at the race trip.

(Actually, I add more because I reckon if you lose two lengths you have to find four to overcome it.)

 

[barjon]

Yes, desert, agree with all that. The problem is whether the horse will run up to its best scenario and that depends on whether it is ready to rock and then whether it has a trouble free(ish) run. We can make a stab at the first (most my time spent on this), but the second is in the lap of the racing Gods (and the jockey).

 

[chaumi]

Yes, desert, agree with all that. The problem is whether the horse will run up to its best scenario and that depends on whether it is ready to rock and then whether it has a trouble free(ish) run. We can make a stab at the first (most my time spent on this), but the second is in the lap of the racing Gods (and the jockey).

...and that's at least one of the reasons why some of us will specifically search for the runners at bigger prices, or shorter where they should be much, much shorter. There are far too many potential or anticipated influences on a race (as detailed through the thread and there are probably one or two not mentioned) and its participants to be taking 3, 4, or 5-1 about 3,4,or 5-1 shots (in handicaps)

 

[Desert Orchid]

Yes, desert, agree with all that. The problem is whether the horse will run up to its best scenario and that depends on whether it is ready to rock and then whether it has a trouble free(ish) run. We can make a stab at the first (most my time spent on this), but the second is in the lap of the racing Gods (and the jockey).

Yes, that's why races are seldom all about the ratings.

The ratings are to give a picture of relative ability. After that, it's a matter of trying to work out which is most likely to run closest to that ability. It's why I prefer improvers. There's a fair chance they'll run better than before so it kind of builds in a degree of insurance against minor bad luck in running.