B
Bruce_Savage
Guest
Nothing, I've been producing new data as the thread has gone along.
Don't know how you edit the title anymore?
Don't know how you edit the title anymore?
I can see you've been adding lots of data as you've gone along! I don't think we humble members are allowed to change titles, even our own, for fear of naughty pranks. One of the Moderators can change it for you, Bruce, to whatever you think it more aptly represents. "Brucey's Random Musings on Trends and Fancies"?? 
On The Bridle
At the Start
Bruce's Utterings Listings Lays Stories Horses Intellectual Thread or BULLSHIT if you want to shorten it a little.
B
Bruce_Savage
Guest
Well you're a nice person aren't you?
Last edited:
On The Bridle
At the Start
Bruce - I'm only acting the goat! Welcome to Talking Horses.
On The Bridle
At the Start
Was having a quick look at the HRI reports for 2010 Flat season and the following puts into clear focus where the majority of the horse population lies:-
Off all horses given an official mark in 2010 (2,573)
86% were rated 90 or below.
76% were rated 80 or below.
60% were rated 70 or below.
41% were rated 60 or below.
In horses 4yo and upwards the figures are even more stark.
90% were rated 90 or below.
81% were rated 80 or below.
65% were rated 70 or below.
45% were rated 60 or below.
The lower end of flat racing in Ireland needs to be protected from any further funding cuts. Ger Lyons went on record in an interview after his Group 1 win in Newmarket stating he wouldn't charge any owner training fees for horses rated below 65.....He has had several of those recently....I wonder did he hold true to his word????
Off all horses given an official mark in 2010 (2,573)
86% were rated 90 or below.
76% were rated 80 or below.
60% were rated 70 or below.
41% were rated 60 or below.
In horses 4yo and upwards the figures are even more stark.
90% were rated 90 or below.
81% were rated 80 or below.
65% were rated 70 or below.
45% were rated 60 or below.
The lower end of flat racing in Ireland needs to be protected from any further funding cuts. Ger Lyons went on record in an interview after his Group 1 win in Newmarket stating he wouldn't charge any owner training fees for horses rated below 65.....He has had several of those recently....I wonder did he hold true to his word????
Your first table of 2,573 is for Irish horses only, aged 2 and 3?
I don't understand how, if 2,573 = 100%, how all those different percentages work out? If 41% of 100% (2,573) is rated below 60, then the rest is surely 59% rated above 60?
Likewise with your show of 4+ years - if 45% are rated below 60, then the balance of 55% is rated above 60?
No?
I don't understand how, if 2,573 = 100%, how all those different percentages work out? If 41% of 100% (2,573) is rated below 60, then the rest is surely 59% rated above 60?
Likewise with your show of 4+ years - if 45% are rated below 60, then the balance of 55% is rated above 60?
No?
You seem to need an interpreter. And I thought you had such a precise appreciation of language.
In the first set of figures, which refers to officially assessed horses of all ages, the 86% of horses rated 90 or below includes the 76% rated 80 or below, the 60% rated 70 or below, and the 41% rated 60 or below.
The figures relate to Ireland (HRI = Horse Racing Ireland). The second set of figures refers to horses of age 4yo+.
In the first set of figures, which refers to officially assessed horses of all ages, the 86% of horses rated 90 or below includes the 76% rated 80 or below, the 60% rated 70 or below, and the 41% rated 60 or below.
The figures relate to Ireland (HRI = Horse Racing Ireland). The second set of figures refers to horses of age 4yo+.
B
Bruce_Savage
Guest
How can you have a total population of 281%?
On The Bridle
At the Start
Grey knows!
You can't. I think the HRI know that as well. "90 or below", "80 or below", etc are overlapping categories. You can't add them together.
If your first table is for all-aged horses with ratings, why is the table split out for horses aged 4 and above? What is the rationale for that, if the 4-14 y.o.'s are included in the first table? What's the purpose of an age definition in that category?
I don't know what a precise appreciation of language has to do with percentage tables when they point to an imprecise understanding of there not being more than a possible 100%! Crap as I am at maths, even I know you can't, really, have 101%!
I don't know what a precise appreciation of language has to do with percentage tables when they point to an imprecise understanding of there not being more than a possible 100%! Crap as I am at maths, even I know you can't, really, have 101%!
rorydelargy
At the Start
Given your inability to understand figures, Bruce, do you really think a statistical approach to betting is the way forward for you?
On The Bridle
At the Start
The first list was for all aged, the second I just separated the 4yo + as there would likely be more of the handicapper types in this bracket and therefore wouldn't be as skewed when exclusding the classic generation.
What it shows to me is the HRI brief to ballot as many horses out of the system as possible is flawed in that the core horse population inevitably falls into the lower categories and this is where most trainers / owners / stable staff etc. operate.
What it shows to me is the HRI brief to ballot as many horses out of the system as possible is flawed in that the core horse population inevitably falls into the lower categories and this is where most trainers / owners / stable staff etc. operate.
B
Bruce_Savage
Guest
To be fair I am training to be a Psychologist so I have a good understanding of Quantiative Methods and Research Methods/Statistics...
I'm sure you're aware that a large part of Psychological research involves statistics, dependant variables, repeated measures, ordinal/nominal scales etc
Now I was listening to Betfair radio and someone with your name come up, are you really him or someone pretending to be him?
/
Ps. would some like to give my theory a try for a handicap hurdle tomorrow?
Go and give it ago!
...perhaps I haven't been paying attention Bruce, but what theory?
B
Bruce_Savage
Guest
SteveM,
Here's the Hypothesis
Here's the Hypothesis in practice
/
If you've had a long day at work then this is a sight for sore eyes, so because I'm a loving and caring individual I'll break it down for you guys into three simple steps.
1. Find a race where the majority (70%+, open to intereptation) are dropping in the weights i.e their last mark they ran of is higher than todays mark.
2. Find a horse that's taking a significant plunge (4-5lbs+)
3. Go back to their last 3-4 runs and see if their mark has been consistant i.e (98-97-97-97) and check if they have been running well off that mark, have the been reaching a winning position at any point in the race?
Here's the Hypothesis
Here's the Hypothesis in practice
/
If you've had a long day at work then this is a sight for sore eyes, so because I'm a loving and caring individual I'll break it down for you guys into three simple steps.
1. Find a race where the majority (70%+, open to intereptation) are dropping in the weights i.e their last mark they ran of is higher than todays mark.
2. Find a horse that's taking a significant plunge (4-5lbs+)
3. Go back to their last 3-4 runs and see if their mark has been consistant i.e (98-97-97-97) and check if they have been running well off that mark, have the been reaching a winning position at any point in the race?
I understand you have included some charts to support this. Unfortunately I am unable to view them on the machine I’m using.
However, the principle of backing a horse that is coming down the weights sounds less like a theory and more like a statistical likelihood given that the horse retains any ability.
However, the principle of backing a horse that is coming down the weights sounds less like a theory and more like a statistical likelihood given that the horse retains any ability.
B
Bruce_Savage
Guest
I have found one in the 12:20 at Catterick tomorrow, just going to look at some statistics for her on Proform
Might be worth a bet, I reckon she's going to be a good price aswell!
Might be worth a bet, I reckon she's going to be a good price aswell!
OTB, you're only working those stats for the Flat, yes? In that case, yes, obviously there's a much bigger percentage of animals in the lower divisions, where some are still working their way into the handicaps (post third-run 2 and 3 y.o.'s) and some are dropping back through the ratings as they age. Now that you have Dundalk in Ireland (an AW facility) you will probably see many more older horses retained in training, as we have in the UK, which bolsters the numbers of the lower-rated groups, regardless of their age definitions (3+, 4+, 5+). We have loads - shedloads - of 6+ animals running technically on 'the Flat', but they're almost all performing the most on the AW, where the standard surface is much kinder to older joints, as it is to younger ones.
As is the case with any demographic, the elite is, unsurpisingly, the elite, and therefore will always form a small percentage of whatever it is you're analysing - men's clothing, restaurants, social groups, cars - I'm sure there are more Fords and Vauxhalls on the roads than Bugattis, for example? The majority of Flat horse ownership, taking out the sheikhs, and in Ireland taking out Coolmore, is with multiply-owned or leased horses (such as partnerships, syndicates or racing clubs), followed by a small amount of business-sponsored horses, dual ownerships between friends, and then solo owners - meaning that the bulk of the type of ownership reflects the purchasing price of the animals, the trainers' costs, and the likely ratings their horses will attract.
In both the UK and Ireland, you have what is a tiny elite of ownership able to pay big bucks for higher-class animals, which obviously go to the minimum number of top training yards. The horses will be the produce of the highest end of the breeding spectrum and be entered up accordingly. If they fail to run well enough, they're disappeared - they rarely seem to just run downmarket for cheap 'n' cheerful owners, but they get sold to run out of sight overseas, or are just 'retired', one way or the other. That means that you do have a continual culling of the more elite-bred horses if they fail to match their price tags in performance - you really don't see these sliding down the ratings into Class 6 AW handicaps.
The horses which bulk out the lower echelons (Class 4, 5 and 6) tend to be those whose owners don't have deep pockets, per se, but who do like to keep a steady interest in horses which will turn out doing enough to keep them in training. Thus, having a win here and there in a Class 4 will be thrilling enough to keep the horse going, as will even lower Classes, since it is more enthusiasm about racing which maintains these animals, more than a coldly commercial eye to potential stud fees or filly breedability in future.
If there is a desire to clip out lower-rated animals by balloting them out frequently, then there will be a huge drop-off in ownership and you would, taken to its extreme view, end up with racing back in the hands of an extremely wealthy elite, from breeding through ownership and then directly back into breeding, in a self-maintaining cycle. There would then be a reduction in bread-and-butter runners, reducing field sizes and therefore, were they to regularly come in under 8 per race, seeing courses not being paid picture rights. It is not in the interest of courses or international betting to see racing cut back to where there are small fields and no doubt much reduced crowds, who won't be interested in compressed SPs.
There's almost the whiff of eugenics involved, where the assumption is that if you reduce the lower-rated animal, you will somehow miraculously end up with only high-class ones. As any breeder would tell those with such delusions, "if only it were that easy"! You'd only have to whip your multiply-winning mare to a Group 1 stallion and hey, presto! Instant success every time! Total La-la Land, of course, as any breeder knows. It's the old 'what if Einstein had a baby with Monroe?' question, where it's assumed that the babe would turn out to be a beautiful genius.
It's because the Einstein-Monroe doctrine doesn't work in real life, that you see card after card filled by Class 5 and 6 runners with excellent sires, but not trained by those who charge a king's ransom and certainly not owned by people who will have shelled out tens of thousands at the foal sales, when the little dear, bred to the back teeth, was first presented.
Chuck out this less able, but well bred and usually much loved, stratum, and say goodbye to a healthy betting medium, well-attended courses, thousands of people who can at last afford a real interest in racing, and all the knock-on effect through the industry, from less work for everyone - jockeys, farriers, transporters, stable staff...
In fact, if you want to throw a load of people out of their livelihoods, then go ahead!
As is the case with any demographic, the elite is, unsurpisingly, the elite, and therefore will always form a small percentage of whatever it is you're analysing - men's clothing, restaurants, social groups, cars - I'm sure there are more Fords and Vauxhalls on the roads than Bugattis, for example? The majority of Flat horse ownership, taking out the sheikhs, and in Ireland taking out Coolmore, is with multiply-owned or leased horses (such as partnerships, syndicates or racing clubs), followed by a small amount of business-sponsored horses, dual ownerships between friends, and then solo owners - meaning that the bulk of the type of ownership reflects the purchasing price of the animals, the trainers' costs, and the likely ratings their horses will attract.
In both the UK and Ireland, you have what is a tiny elite of ownership able to pay big bucks for higher-class animals, which obviously go to the minimum number of top training yards. The horses will be the produce of the highest end of the breeding spectrum and be entered up accordingly. If they fail to run well enough, they're disappeared - they rarely seem to just run downmarket for cheap 'n' cheerful owners, but they get sold to run out of sight overseas, or are just 'retired', one way or the other. That means that you do have a continual culling of the more elite-bred horses if they fail to match their price tags in performance - you really don't see these sliding down the ratings into Class 6 AW handicaps.
The horses which bulk out the lower echelons (Class 4, 5 and 6) tend to be those whose owners don't have deep pockets, per se, but who do like to keep a steady interest in horses which will turn out doing enough to keep them in training. Thus, having a win here and there in a Class 4 will be thrilling enough to keep the horse going, as will even lower Classes, since it is more enthusiasm about racing which maintains these animals, more than a coldly commercial eye to potential stud fees or filly breedability in future.
If there is a desire to clip out lower-rated animals by balloting them out frequently, then there will be a huge drop-off in ownership and you would, taken to its extreme view, end up with racing back in the hands of an extremely wealthy elite, from breeding through ownership and then directly back into breeding, in a self-maintaining cycle. There would then be a reduction in bread-and-butter runners, reducing field sizes and therefore, were they to regularly come in under 8 per race, seeing courses not being paid picture rights. It is not in the interest of courses or international betting to see racing cut back to where there are small fields and no doubt much reduced crowds, who won't be interested in compressed SPs.
There's almost the whiff of eugenics involved, where the assumption is that if you reduce the lower-rated animal, you will somehow miraculously end up with only high-class ones. As any breeder would tell those with such delusions, "if only it were that easy"! You'd only have to whip your multiply-winning mare to a Group 1 stallion and hey, presto! Instant success every time! Total La-la Land, of course, as any breeder knows. It's the old 'what if Einstein had a baby with Monroe?' question, where it's assumed that the babe would turn out to be a beautiful genius.
It's because the Einstein-Monroe doctrine doesn't work in real life, that you see card after card filled by Class 5 and 6 runners with excellent sires, but not trained by those who charge a king's ransom and certainly not owned by people who will have shelled out tens of thousands at the foal sales, when the little dear, bred to the back teeth, was first presented.
Chuck out this less able, but well bred and usually much loved, stratum, and say goodbye to a healthy betting medium, well-attended courses, thousands of people who can at last afford a real interest in racing, and all the knock-on effect through the industry, from less work for everyone - jockeys, farriers, transporters, stable staff...
In fact, if you want to throw a load of people out of their livelihoods, then go ahead!
B
Bruce_Savage
Guest
Just popping in to say the horse is Obara D'Avril, currently a 33-1 shot but I wouldn't be going in too strong as I think she may need faster ground - still worth a shot.
Have to catch a train around 12ish today so I won't be on till later tonight but I hope to catch the result at Ladbrokes Victoria, cash in my ticket maybe.. lol
Have a nice day people
rorydelargy
At the Start
You have shown on numerous occasions that you either don't understand quantitative methods at all, or you're on a massive wind up. I'm inclined to be kind and go with the former.
Associating an unsubstantiated "trend" among the OHR of race winners with an individual horse whose rating has followed a similar pattern is frighteningly naive at best. Using pseudo-intellectual language to justify said assumptions rather than use any logical analysis shows you to be either a fraud, or deluded.