HANDICAPPING - WEIGHT FACTOR EFFECT ON THE RACE HORSE

 

 WEIGHT FACTOR AND THE THEORY BEHIND IT

 

The articles below give out various theories on how the weight affects the race horses. It will definitely help to analyse the factor from the Indian system of horse racing.

CONCEPT OF WEIGHT 

By Alan Jacobs

Weight is the most important single factor when any punter comes to analyse race form. It doesn't matter if a race is a handicap or a Set Weights or Weight For Age event-weight counts!

There is a rigid simplicity behind handicapping. The handicapper allocates higher weights to the horses with the best form. The aim is to get all the horses across the line in a dead-heat, something which never happens except on a small scale (two horses dead-heating).

It is vital for the keen punter to understand how weight is used to 'control' a horse's performance. Some horses can carry weight better than others, because of their individual size and often because of their courage (or lack of it). It's often suggested that a horse is not greatly affected by weights less than 51kg but as its weight is increased beyond this mark there is a growing effect on performance.

'Weight will stop a train' is one racetrack saying, which is at some point true in regards to horses. A horse eventually will be beaten by the weight it has to carry. Determining when a horse is weighted to lose is one of the mysteries of horseracing selecting.

I suppose we can call this the 'critical weight'. If you were to examine all horses racing, you could draw up a 'critical weight' level for each of them, based on their past performances. Let me explain this with an example:

Horse: MYTHICAL MICK

Runs at Weight	Weight	Placed
1st	51.0	3rd
2nd	51.0	1st
1st	53.0	2nd
2nd	53.0	4th
1st	55.5	7th
2nd	55.5	8th

The table shows that Mythical Mick has been placed twice when carrying 51kg and has won and been placed 4th with 53kg but has failed twice when carrying 55.5kg. A quick study of such a few runs would instantly tell you that Mythical Mick's critical weight is probably 53.5 or 54kg. He is unlikely to win when carrying more than that.

Let's look at this further and look at another theoretical horse.

Weight	51	52	53	54	55	55.5
Places	5	5	5	6	2	1
Runs	15	16	10	24	18	10
Percent	33	31	50	25	11	10

You can see from this that the horse's place percentage drops away sharply once it is asked to carry more than 53kg. Its critical weight is 54kg - once it is asked to carry that weight, or more, it has to be treated with some suspicion.

Weight, as I have said, is an important factor-but its importance varies from horse to horse and, very importantly, between distances. In sprints, weight is not so important; the longer a race the more important each kilo of weight becomes. In Australia, we usually use 1.5kg as being the equivalent of a length, yet there is a body of opinion that suggests we should really be 'grading' the effect of weight according to distance.

I'm not so sure about that. I have always had a certain faith in the 1.5kg equals a length philosophy. Constant use of this has convinced me that the conversion is just as accurate as attempting to use a more complicated variable scale.

The area in which many punters experience a dilemma in sorting through 'weight form' is when a horse is going up in weight from one race to the next. What is a reasonable yardstick for caution? Is it a rise of 1.5kg or 2kg, or 2.5kg or more?

My answer is that the cut off point should be around the 2.5kg mark. A bigger weight rise than that - often an indicator that the horse is dropping sharply in class - must be viewed with a degree of scepticism.

But, yes, horses can win when carrying up to 7kg or 8kg more than they did at their most previous start - but they are in the minority. In my research, it is always horses diving in class that can do so, and usually they are helped, though, by an apprentice's claim.

Generally, the handicapper will penalise winners 2kg or 2.5kg for a win, and that's about the ultimate mark you should be looking at. Treat with enormous caution a horse raised in weight more than that, but do take into account the effect of any weight claim by an apprentice rider (make sure, though, the youngster is worth the claim!).

A system I was told about many years ago relies heavily on weight to determine its selections. I am sure many readers will be interested in looking at it closely, because it certainly has the potential to add at least a bullet or two to your punting ammunition belt.

The system is used only in handicaps. Firstly, you eliminate any runner which did not finish in the first four at its last start. From those horses remaining, you add together the total of their last three finish positions and eliminate any which total more than 10 (that is, 11 or more). So a horse finishing 1st, 5th, and 3rd at its last three starts would have a total of nine, while a horse finishing 1st, 8th, and 5th at its last three runs would have a total of 14 and would be eliminated.

Now we come to the weight aspect. With the final qualifiers you are looking for the runner with a weight advantage. You mark down the weights each horse has carried at its last three outings, and then single out the race in which it carried the highest weight. If it has more weight today than it did in that race it is eliminated.

The final selection is the horse which has the biggest reduction in weight for today's race compared with the weight it carried in the marked race. In the event of a tie, go for the horse with the best winning strike rate.

This is an ideal system for those punters looking for 'wild card' horses to include in quinella and trifecta combinations. Many of you will be wondering about apprentice claims. Do you take an apprentice's claim into account? In my view, the answer is Yes, because we are talking about weight carried in a race, and thus claims and overweights have to be considered.

Example: Three contenders left. Horse A has previous highest weight carried in last three starts of 57kg. Today, carries 56.5kg. Drop of a half kilo. Horse B has previous highest weight carried in last three starts of 56.5kg. Today carries 54kg. Drop of 2.5kg. Horse C has previous highest weight carried in last three races of 57kg. Today carries 56kg but has an apprentice's claim of 3kg. Drop of 4kg.

The selection, then, is Horse C, which has a weight drop of 4kg, taking into account the claim by its apprentice rider of 3kg.

You can see that this is an easy system to evaluate. You are looking only ,at horses which finished in the first four at their last start, and then from those you are eliminating any whose last three finish positions total 11 or more (always remember that a '0' in a horse's form figures means it finished 10th or worse).

There are many ways that an informed punter can use weight to determine selections. I do know that many punters use weights as the basis of system selections, and this is not a bad approach, as long as the system rules are rational.

When I was in the U.S.A. a few years ago, and betting on the Californian tracks, a chap I met there told me he always bet the favourite as long as it was carrying a certain weight-the weight being 31b to 51b below the top weight for the race.

He found that well-backed horses in this area invariably performed very well indeed. This is an angle that might bear looking at in Australia. Here, we would convert the 31b to 51b to 1.5kg to 2.5kg.

So, if the top-weighted horse in a race is carrying 57kg, you would be looking for a favourite carrying from 55.5kg to 54.5kg.

Summing up, then, we know that weight is vital. We know that the handicapper's job is to align all the horses according to previous form; in other words, to give every runner a fair chance of winning. He raises the weight of horses that win or are placed in the same class, and reduces the weight of horses that are unplaced in the same class. Broadly speaking, we can assume that he works in the following fashion:

This Start	Next Start Same Class
Winner	+2.5-3kg
2nd Horse	+1-1.5kg
3rd Horse	0.5-1kg
4th Horse	+0
5th Horse	-0.5kg
6th worse	-1-1.5kg

These figures will vary, of course, when a horse is switching class. If a horse is rising in class, it may well get no penalty from the handicapper. For instance, a horse going from a win in Welter class to racing in an Open Handicap is rising in class, and the handicapper may well decide that the rise in class calls for only a 1.5kg to 2kg weight increase, taking into account the stronger class of the Open Handicap.

There are differences measured in kilos between Classes (as so admirably outlined by Don Scott in his book Winning More, and by PPM's Brian Blackwell in his Invader Ratings, which are included in that great publication The Gold Collection, still available now from Equestrian). A study of Class differences is essential for all punters who want to win!

The Invader Ratings tell us that in New South Wales there is an approximate 15kg difference between a city Welter and a top WFA race. Between a city Welter and a city Open Handicap the difference is up to 6kg. Don Scott though, puts it at about 4kg.

By using the Class kilo ratings, you can easily assess how much up or down a horse is switching between classes (in kilo terms), and then accurately assess how well off a horse is at its assigned weight.

For instance, a horse may be dropping, say, 3kg in weight to be on the bottom weight in a certain race, but by looking at the Class tables you will discover it has gone up in Class by 6kg or 7kg. This fact puts the weight drop into more perspective.

So, if you are a keen form student, and you want to ensure you have an 'edge' on the lazier punter, a study of weight and its effect is vital stuff for you. Once you become adept at looking at weight changes, and fully understanding them, you'll be that much more better equipped as a punter.

 IMPACT OF WEIGHT ON A RACE HORSE

 By Ken Blake

The importance of weights as a major form instrument. for the greater part of racing's history, has never been a contentious issue. Weights have long been regarded as the cornerstone of successful ratings and form analysis.

The late Rem Plante's detailed inquiry some 40 years ago into the impact of weight in form evaluation was regarded as groundbreaking. It was this work that propelled his 60s publication, the Australian Horse Racing and Punters Guide still regarded as the first and possibly only punters' bible of Australian racing.

Plante's weight mandates have long held unwavering esteem amongst the nation's form students and have remained virtually unchallenged for decades. However, over recent years there has been a developing trend both here and abroad that not only challenges the merit of weights as a racing tool, but puts forward a well constructed case to completely disregard weights when doing form analysis!

Now, I'm sure that any suggestion to disregard one of racing's most time-honoured core values would be met with utter disdain by weight aficionados. It would seem presently that no other aspect of racing has form students in greater disagreement than the issue of weights and precisely where it sits in racing's pecking order.

In an effort to get some sort of definitive answer, even just for my own needs, I embarked on a passage of research into what has become one of racing's more questionable concerns. With some university assistance I've been able to unearth some thought provoking facts which, hopefully, will enable the reader to be a little more lucid on the issue of racing and weights.

In handicaps, weights are allotted to each runner with the aim to make the racing more even. Better performed horses are asked to carry heavier imposts than their under performing rivals, the theory being that the heavier weights will have some degree of a slowing effect, thus enhancing the winning chances of lower weighted animals.

Race club handicappers allot weight to the respective racerunners with the assumption that all runners through the weight frame have an equitable chance of winning. Ideally, with a perfect handicap (!), all runners would finish in a dead heat. The practicality of the situation is somewhat different. Statistically the heavier weighted horses win a highly disproportionate share of the races.

This is a constant that encompasses racing not only in this country but also worldwide. What should we derive from this? Maybe handicappers are too lenient on the better-performed horses or perhaps the problem lies at the other end of the scale?

If some horses were truly weighted to their ability the allotted weight would fall well below bottom limitations. What is conclusive is that weight does not bring horses together nor is it a significant factor in the defeat of the best horses. Now I can hear the weight proponents voicing "But weight will stop a train" and, yes, weight will stop a train, but it must be questionable whether the taxing effect of added weight within the normal parameters of racing handicapping is truly detrimental to a horse's ability to win.

A horse race, like any other race, is a contest of speed. Therefore, the most important attribute a racehorse can have is speed. Slow horses do not win races, nor do slow athletes, nor do slow cars. Speed is the dominant factor in horse racing. It is relative speeds that determine placings.

To determine the relevance of weights in racing, it is necessary to ascertain what weight carried does to actual speed. Many hours of net surfing in search of answers led me to the Truman State University in Minnesota USA. Who were kind enough to furnish me with over 80 pages of specific information on the relationship of weight and speed particular to racehorses.

As punters, what we would all like to know is whether weight is a significant factor in both the ability of a horse to perform and the duration of such a performance.

The first point is that the relationship of any weight-carrying ability correlates to the body weight of the horse. For the benefit of this inquiry it is the assumption we are not dealing with animals abnormally small in stature.

Whilst speed is the dominant factor in racing it must be considered in relation to its co-factors of Distance, Weight, Age and Sex. We are dealing predominantly with the weight/ speed relationship here.

The following points gleaned are the result of research that covered every official race run in the USA over a 25 year period, furnishing over 200,000 records. It has been established that the point at which weight carried starts to impact on a horse's speed is 1131b or 51.4kg, which is around the limit weight for most races in this country.

The impact on speed at this point is only slight, then, with greater added weight, there is greater speed reduction, but examination of weight speed charts reveals the impact between one horse carrying 54kg and another carrying 57kg is minimal. Again, this adds credence as to why statistically the higher weighted horses win more races.

One of Rem Plante's initial theories was that the weight effect was more pronounced over the concluding stages of a race, producing a decelerating effect, whilst weight off a horse produced an accelerating effect.

The first part can be challenged statistically whilst the university research has revealed an interesting phenomenon in regards to weight off a horse known as the "switch back effect".

It is the reverse assumption to standard weight ideas in that the more weight you take off a horse the faster they will run. Analysis of 200,000 races shows this has firm limitations to the point where weight reduction could easily be dismissed as only a very minor consideration in form.

If we use 52kg as racing's minimum, seldom do we see horses weighted above 60kg. The whole scope of weight and related issues in essence is encompassed in only an 8kg framework.

Weight shifts between horses within this framework also means the shift of hundreds of thousands of dollars in wagers. If horse A defeats horse B by a head, then under similar conditions horse B has a 2kg turnaround in the weights, and weight pundits will assuredly back horse B to reverse the placings.

Let's try to examine what the 2kg rise will do to horse A in the above situation from a different perspective. In the animal world horses are not small beasts; the average weight of a thoroughbred is around 550kg.

Two kilograms represents 0.36 per cent of the horse's body weight. Let's translate this illustration to human terms. Two 90kg athletes compete, with athlete A narrowly victorious over athlete B over 200m. Same conditions a week later and this time athlete A must carry 0.36 per cent of his body weight strapped to his back as a penalty.

This equates to 330 grams or about the size of a family block of chocolate. Which begs the question: Will the 330g penalty stop a powerful, finely tuned athlete from repeating the win? And will a 2kg weight turn around impede the winning chances of a 550kg thoroughbred?

It seems somewhat incongruous to me that so much emphasis in racing and punting is placed on such frugal weight shifts. One of the biggest indictments against the value of weights is the history of the set weight 3yo events.

What we have here is a "double action" where under performers who would carry minimum weight in a handicap are obliged to carry an extra 3.5kg whilst strong performers can enjoy a similar drop in weight. Class gallopers under this weight regime can meet their lesser performing rivals on up to 7kg better weight terms.

Bearing this in mind one would expect an overwhelming history of favourites in such events. I researched the results of the Victoria Derby and Oaks, Caulfield Guineas, Australian Guineas and Bill Stutt in Victoria and the AJC Derby and Oaks, Rosehill and Canterbury Guineas in Sydney over the past 25 years. Outright favourites in these events had a strike rate of less than 44 per cent.

Another interesting point unearthed during research, was that during a 10 year span in recent British racing,topweights were more successful over longer distances.

Sprint races and middle distance races returned a 24 per cent win rate whilst staying events yielded a 29 per cent win rate.

This again seemingly defies standard weight rationale. Logically, the further the weight is carried, the greater the taxing effect.

This would again add further credibility to the earlier suggestion that within the normal parameters of weight handicapping of racehorses, weights have only a minimal effect. Weight is essentially a function of recent form and class, a figure of external acknowledgment of racecourse deeds.

Perhaps there have been a few seeds of doubt sewn amongst the most hardcore weight adherents. Maybe it's time to look beyond the implication of weights and focus more on aspects that deal directly with a horse's ability.

Personally, I'm truly converted. No more examination of allotted weights or weight shifts, which after 30 years of doing form is really a weight off my mind.

WHEN WEIGHT COUNTS

By Philip Roy

As the results of handicap races invariably prove, large-weight concessions rarely make winners of outclassed or unfit horses. The principle stands up in all kinds of races, from the lower class upwards. Experts turn their attention to weight only after deciding which horses are in decent form, are not outclassed and are suited to the distance of the race. These horses are the key contenders. It's at this point of the judgement process that weight can be taken into account.

The following ideas might prove useful in the weight assessment process:

(1) Weight usually is not a factor in 2yo races run at less than 1200m. If the fastest horse gets in with as much as 2.5kg less than its leading rivals, and has a good jockey, the bet does become attractive, but weight spreads large enough to neutralise superior speed are unusual in these sprints.

(2) Short sprint races up to 1100m for older horses are not so important so far as the weight factor is concerned. Weight carried for a short distance is vastly different to weight carried over a longer trip. It's like carrying a suitcase; the longer the distance you walk, the heavier it gets. So, from 1200m onwards the weight starts to matter.

(3) Three-year-olds, and older horses, and 2yo's entered at distances of 1200m and further, vary in their weight-carrying ability. If well-placed as to class, distance, condition and pace, and if assigned a weight no higher than carried in previous STRONG performances, a horse can be backed confidently, regardless of any weight concessions to race rivals.

But if the horse has never run well at today's distance when carrying as much weight as it's assigned, it's probably a bad bet, or at least one with some risk. This is particularly true of front-running horses with a tendency to weaken in the run to the post.

It's almost equally true of one-paced horses that win only by coming from a long way off the pace.

(4) If the weight assigned is higher than the horse has carried in the past, but it's below 55kg, you should check to see how the horse has fared with 1.5kg or 2kg less.

Is it the type of horse that seems comfortable only with, say, 54kg or less? Does it 'die' in the final stages whenever it carries more than 53kg or 54kg? If it seems a fairly courageous horse, and qualifies on other counts, it usually can be conceded ability to carry 2kg or 2.5kg more than it has ever won with in the past, provided that today's race is a sprint.

At longer trips, 1.5kg is an equally safe assumption.

(5) For most horses, 55kg is the beginning of difficulty at any distance. Except for young and sharp gallopers, no horse should be granted the ability to carry 55kg or more unless (a) it has already done so with aplomb in a race at today's trip or longer, and (b) it has run a very strong, reasonably recent race at the distance or longer with 53.5kg or more.

(6) In races at 1600m and longer, weights in excess of 55kg become a worry. A horse entered in a race of this kind under such a weight impost can be backed with confidence ONLY if (a) it has demonstrated its ability to carry such a weight, (b) it is in great form and does not come to the race after a recent though losing effort under a similar impost, and (c) no other fit runner of equal class has a weight advantage of 2.5kg or more.

(7) In races at 1600m and longer, it pays to keep a close watch for weight shifts. Assuming that Horse A had a 2.5kg advantage when it beat Horse B by a nose last start, then B deserves consideration if the advantage is cancelled out or reversed in the current race.

I hope these thoughts on the issue of weight prove helpful to you. It always pays to give consideration to this aspect of the selection process.

Always remember this advice: Condition, class, distance, barrier and jockey are factors of such fundamental importance that weight differences seldom obscure them.

Of the many races run every week at city tracks, the outcome of one or two may be attributable to the effects of weight. In the others, weight is one factor among many, and not decisive.