REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Reply to thread

Message

I take the point you are making. With a less physical looking horse you would be inclined to give a horse more credit for margin of victory than the standard 1lb per length (or whatever you use) for a top weight on testing ground. He may well not improve as much as you'd think for running off a lower weight, but that wont count while he counts. In this case even if you just use the standard approach and give him no further credit you end up with 161 + 7 (Dream Alliance was surely 7lbs ahead of the handicapper at least, which is very conservative as it means every other runner ran below its mark) + 11 = 179, you still end up with a performance that would win virtually every Gold Cup for the last 30 years.

Yet this year it may not be good enough.

[QUOTE="Melendez, post: 2122484, member: 64942"] I take the point you are making. With a less physical looking horse you would be inclined to give a horse more credit for margin of victory than the standard 1lb per length (or whatever you use) for a top weight on testing ground. He may well not improve as much as you'd think for running off a lower weight, but that wont count while he counts. In this case even if you just use the standard approach and give him no further credit you end up with 161 + 7 (Dream Alliance was surely 7lbs ahead of the handicapper at least, which is very conservative as it means every other runner ran below its mark) + 11 = 179, you still end up with a performance that would win virtually every Gold Cup for the last 30 years. Yet this year it may not be good enough. [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?