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'd lose because you used the top 5 weights..i was talking about top weight to be fair

In a race where there are 40 runners..there are no real conclusions to be drawn anyway from just a few races either

Synchronised would be an example of what i mean to be fair..a horse who clearly wasn't targetted at the race

To prove anything with stats we need a lot of data when a race has 40 runners.

What we do know is that the National has traditionally been hard to win with topweights..same can be said of all the other Nationals.carrying weight over extreme distance isn't easy ..thats just a physical fact.

But if its so hard to do...maybe thats why the race is special.

Its also worth bearing in mind that over a period of time...as most of the field are carrying less than 11.00..that most winners will carry less than 11.0..so if we get 20 winners in a row winning with less than 11.0..it doesn't signify anything because statistically you could go 40 years without a higher weight winning..just because of how many horses run in each weight group

I still believe that actual top weights in the main..are there as an after thought though..including Many Clouds

We aren't talking about every year top weight will win because he changed it..there are so many other things that can stop a horse winning..so saying that loads haven't won because he helped them doesn't statistcally prove anything. But when a horse rated lets say 170 wins off a mark of 164 or 165..then its obvious that people will scrutinise it.

<blockquote data-quote="EC1" data-source="post: 2520065" data-attributes="member: 65360">I&#039;d lose because you used the top 5 weights..i was talking about top weight to be fairIn a race where there are 40 runners..there are no real conclusions to be drawn anyway from just a few races eitherSynchronised would be an example of what i mean to be fair..a horse who clearly wasn&#039;t targetted at the raceTo prove anything with stats we need a lot of data when a race has 40 runners.What we do know is that the National has traditionally been hard to win with topweights..same can be said of all the other Nationals.carrying weight over extreme distance isn&#039;t easy ..thats just a physical fact.But if its so hard to do...maybe thats why the race is special.Its also worth bearing in mind that over a period of time...as most of the field are carrying less than 11.00..that most winners will carry less than 11.0..so if we get 20 winners in a row winning with less than 11.0..it doesn&#039;t signify anything because statistically you could go 40 years without a higher weight winning..just because of how many horses run in each weight groupI still believe that actual top weights in the main..are there as an after thought though..including Many CloudsWe aren&#039;t talking about every year top weight will win because he changed it..there are so many other things that can stop a horse winning..so saying that loads haven&#039;t won because he helped them doesn&#039;t statistcally prove anything. But when a horse rated lets say 170 wins off a mark of 164 or 165..then its obvious that people will scrutinise it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EC1, post: 2520065, member: 65360"] I'd lose because you used the top 5 weights..i was talking about top weight to be fair In a race where there are 40 runners..there are no real conclusions to be drawn anyway from just a few races either Synchronised would be an example of what i mean to be fair..a horse who clearly wasn't targetted at the race To prove anything with stats we need a lot of data when a race has 40 runners. What we do know is that the National has traditionally been hard to win with topweights..same can be said of all the other Nationals.carrying weight over extreme distance isn't easy ..thats just a physical fact. But if its so hard to do...maybe thats why the race is special. Its also worth bearing in mind that over a period of time...as most of the field are carrying less than 11.00..that most winners will carry less than 11.0..so if we get 20 winners in a row winning with less than 11.0..it doesn't signify anything because statistically you could go 40 years without a higher weight winning..just because of how many horses run in each weight group I still believe that actual top weights in the main..are there as an after thought though..including Many Clouds We aren't talking about every year top weight will win because he changed it..there are so many other things that can stop a horse winning..so saying that loads haven't won because he helped them doesn't statistcally prove anything. But when a horse rated lets say 170 wins off a mark of 164 or 165..then its obvious that people will scrutinise it. [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?