Some Thoughts on Handicapping Horses

I was asked, recently, how I go about handicapping horses.  So, I decided to write an article on the subject which explains some of my thoughts, theories and methods.

Some quip once said ‘It ain’t what’s so and it ain’t what ain’t so.  It’s what so what ain’t so that causes the problems in this world.’  or some such.

Essentially, what the statement is getting at is this:

If we really do know something – fine.  If we really don’t know something – that’s fine too.  The problems start when we think that we know something but we don’t.

So, based upon this, let’s start with what we can prove that we know and move on from there.

Where a horse finished in its last race is a fact.  It’s a matter of public record.  Therefore, this would be a good point to start out from.

Should we take the race result as is?

In my opinion, no.

The reason is that not all races run trouble-free.  Sometimes, there are incidents in a race.  In some cases, they are so minor that they can be ignored since they do not materially affect the outcome of a race.  In other cases, they can’t be ignored due to the seriousness of their nature.  For example, a horse may swerve in front of another causing the following horses to change speed and/or direction.  A horse may even come into contact with another horse.  If there is an incident in a race which, I feel, affected the outcome of a race, I make changes to the final placings of the horses in the race to allow for the incidents.  What do I use to make the necessary adjustments?  Common sense and experience.  In some cases, it is obvious that, for example, had the ‘first past the post’ not impeded the ‘second past the post’, then the ‘second past the post’ would have won the race.  Some cases are not as obvious nor as easy to determine the outcome of.  However, because it isn’t easy doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try.

Now, in most cases, the Course Stewards will have reviewed the pertinent incidents that took place in a race that, in their view, had a material effect on the outcome.  However, there are times when I have not agreed with the Stewards opinion.  That isn’t to imply that they were wrong and that I was right.  They have their opinion and I respect it.  However, so do I.

Where can one find details of such race incidents?

Some horse racing web sites now show videos of the race and provide race reports.

We now have an adjusted actual result of the race which more fairly reflects the outcome of the race.

Is this enough to handicap a horse in its next race?

No.

So, what else do we know?

Well, we know what weight each horse carried during its previous race.  We know this because it is a matter of public record.  It was published in the race card and in the national and racing press.  We also know, from the laws of physics, that the more weight that a horse carries in a race, the slower that it will run.   We could then make the assumption (our first) that all horses in the race are of exactly the same ability. Therefore, we can construct a ‘theoretical’ finishing position for each horse in the race based upon the assumption that the abilities of the horses in the race are exactly equal and the weight carried by each horse.

We can now compare the adjusted actual result of the race with the theoretical result of the race.

Let’s take the following fictitious example of a 2.5 mile hurdle race:

Actual adjusted result                Posn.  Weight         Dist.          Theoretical result

Mind The Gap                                 1      10st. 0lbs.                        Mind The Gap

Gift Horse                                         2      10st. 7lbs.     1L               Purple Patch

Purple Patch                                     3      10st. 1lbs.     2L               Down The Pub

Arbit                                                  4      10st. 8lbs.     2L               Lame Duck

Watchit                                             8      10st. 5lbs.     4L               Watchit

Blue Murder                                      6      11st. 1lbs.     3L               Gift Horse

Down The Pub                                  7      10st. 2lbs.     1L               Arbit

Broken Arrow                                  9      10st. 10lbs.   5L               Broken Arrow

Red Gin                                            5       11st. 0lbs.     1L               Red Gin

Lame Duck                                     10       10st. 3lbs.     2L               Blue Murder

On the left hand side of the above table is the adjusted actual finishing position of each horse in the race.  This is followed by the weight carried, in stones and pounds, by each horse in the race and the winning distance, in lengths over the next horse.  On the right hand side of the table is each horse’s theoretical finishing position in the race based solely upon the weight it carried.

From the above table, we can see that there are three horses which have been highlighted.  They are Mind The Gap, Watchit and Broken Arrow.  The reason for these three horses being highlighted is because their actual and theoretical finishing positions in the race were identical.  I allocate the term ‘Bench-Mark’ to such horses.  I make the assumption (our second) that these horses ran up to their supposed ability.  They are used to determine how well each of the other horses ran compared with their assumed ability.  The other seven horses either ran above or below their assumed ability.

Now, let’s us take each horse in turn and analyse its performance based upon the assumption that, at this race distance, 1lb. less in weight gives a horse 1 length advantage:

Mind the Gap.

This horse carried the lightest weight (10st.) in the race.  It should have finished first on this basis.  It actually finished first in the race and it is therefore assumed to have run up to its supposed ability, exactly.

Gift Horse.

This horse carried 10st. 7lbs., 7lbs. more than Mind the Gap, the first bench-mark horse.  On that basis, it should have finished 7 lengths behind Mind The Gap.  In fact, it finished only 1 length behind.  It therefore performed 7 – 1 = 6 lengths better than expected with respect to Mind The Gap.

This horse also carried 2lbs. more than Watchit, the second bench-mark horse.  On that basis, it should have finished 2 lengths behind Watchit.  In fact, it finished 8 lengths ahead.  It therefore performed 8 + 2 = 10 lengths better than expected with respect to Watchit.     

This horse also carried 3lbs. less than Broken Arrow, the third bench-mark horse.  On that basis, it should have finished 3 lengths ahead of Broken Arrow.  In fact, it finished 17 lengths ahead.  It therefore performed 17 – 3 = 14 lengths better than expected with respect to Broken Arrow.

In total, the horse finished 6 + 10 + 14 = 30 lengths ahead of the three bench-mark horses.  Therefore, on average Gift Horses performed 30/3 = 10 lengths above expectation.

Purple Patch.

This horse carried 10st. 1lbs., 1lb. more than Mind the Gap, the first bench-mark horse.  On that basis, it should have finished 1 length behind Mind The Gap.  In fact, it finished 3 lengths behind.  It therefore performed 3 – 1 = 2 lengths worse than expected with respect to Mind The Gap.

This horse also carried 4lbs. less than Watchit, the second bench-mark horse.  On that basis, it should have finished 4 lengths ahead of Watchit.  In fact, it finished 6 lengths ahead.  It therefore performed 6 – 4 = 2 lengths better than expected with respect to Watchit.     

This horse also carried 9lbs. less than Broken Arrow, the third bench-mark horse.  On that basis, it should have finished 9 lengths ahead of Broken Arrow.  In fact, it finished 15 lengths ahead.  It therefore performed 15 – 9 = 6 lengths better than expected with respect to Broken Arrow.

In total, the horse finished -2 + 2 + 6 lengths ahead of the three bench-mark horses.  Therefore, on average Purple Patch performed 6/3 = 2 lengths above expectation.

Arbit.

This horse carried 10st. 8lbs., 8lbs. more than Mind the Gap, the first bench-mark horse.  On that basis, it should have finished 8 lengths behind Mind The Gap.  In fact, it finished only 5 lengths behind.  It therefore performed 8 – 5 = 3 lengths better than expected with respect to Mind The Gap.

This horse also carried 3lbs. more than Watchit, the second bench-mark horse.  On that basis, it should have finished 3 lengths behind Watchit.  In fact, it finished 4 lengths ahead.  It therefore performed 3 + 4 = 7 lengths better than expected with respect to Watchit.     

This horse also carried 2lbs. less than Broken Arrow, the third bench-mark horse.  On that basis, it should have finished 2 lengths ahead of Broken Arrow.  In fact, it finished 13 lengths ahead.  It therefore performed 13 – 2 = 11 lengths better than expected with respect to Broken Arrow.

In total, the horse finished 3 + 7 + 11 lengths ahead of the three bench-mark horses.  Therefore, on average Arbit performed 21/3 = 7 lengths above expectation.

Watchit.

This horse carried the 5th lightest weight (10st. 5lbs.) in the race.  It should have therefore finished fifth on this basis.  It actually finished fifth in the race and it is therefore assumed to have run up to its supposed ability.

Blue Murder.

This horse carried 11st. 1lb., 15lbs. more than Mind the Gap, the first bench-mark horse.  On that basis, it should have finished 15 lengths behind Mind The Gap.  In fact, it finished only 12 lengths behind.  It therefore performed 15 – 12 = 3 lengths better than expected with respect to Mind The Gap.

This horse also carried 10lbs. more than Watchit, the second bench-mark horse.  On that basis, it should have finished 10 lengths behind Watchit.  In fact, it finished only 3 lengths behind.  It therefore performed 10 – 3 = 7 lengths better than expected with respect to Watchit.     

This horse also carried 5lbs. more than Broken Arrow, the third bench-mark horse.  On that basis, it should have finished 5 lengths behind of Broken Arrow.  In fact, it finished 6 lengths ahead.  It therefore performed 5 + 6 = 11 lengths better than expected with respect to Broken Arrow.

In total, the horse finished 3 + 7 + 11 lengths ahead of the three bench-mark horses.  Therefore, on average Blue Murder performed 21/3 = 7 lengths above expectation.

Down The Pub.

This horse carried 10st. 2lbs., 2lbs. more than Mind the Gap, the first bench-mark horse.  On that basis, it should have finished 2 lengths behind Mind The Gap.  In fact, it finished 13 lengths behind.  It therefore performed 13 – 2 = 11 lengths worse than expected with respect to Mind The Gap.

This horse also carried 3lbs. less than Watchit, the second bench-mark horse.  On that basis, it should have finished 3 lengths ahead of Watchit.  In fact, it finished 4 lengths behind.  It therefore performed 4 + 3 = 7 lengths worse than expected with respect to Watchit.     

This horse also carried 8lbs. less than Broken Arrow, the third bench-mark horse.  On that basis, it should have finished 8 lengths ahead of Broken Arrow.  In fact, it finished 5 lengths ahead.  It therefore performed 8 – 5 = 3 lengths better than expected with respect to Broken Arrow.

In total, the horse finished -11 – 7 + 3 lengths ahead of the three bench-mark horses.  Therefore, on average Down The Pub performed 15/3 = 5 lengths below expectation.

Broken Arrow.

This horse carried the 8th. lightest weight (10st. 10lbs.) in the race.  It should have finished eighth on this basis.  It actually finished eighth in the race and it is therefore assumed to have run up to its supposed ability.

Red Gin.

This horse carried 11st. 0lbs., 14lbs. more than Mind the Gap, the first bench-mark horse.  On that basis, it should have finished 14 lengths behind Mind The Gap.  In fact, it finished 19 lengths behind.  It therefore performed 19 – 14 = 5 lengths worse than expected with respect to Mind The Gap.

This horse also carried 9lbs. more than Watchit, the second bench-mark horse.  On that basis, it should have finished 9 lengths behind Watchit.  In fact, it finished 10 lengths behind.  It therefore performed 10 – 1 = 9 lengths worse than expected with respect to Watchit.     

This horse also carried 4lbs. more than Broken Arrow, the third bench-mark horse.  On that basis, it should have finished 4 lengths behind Broken Arrow.  In fact, it finished only 1 length behind.  It therefore performed 4 – 1 = 3 lengths better than expected with respect to Broken Arrow.

In total, the horse finished -5 – 1 + 3 lengths ahead of the three bench-mark horses.  Therefore, on average Red Gin performed 3/3 = 1 length below expectation.

Lame Duck.

This horse carried 10st. 3lbs., 3lbs. more than Mind the Gap, the first bench-mark horse.  On that basis, it should have finished 3 lengths behind Mind The Gap.  In fact, it finished 21 lengths behind.  It therefore performed 21 – 3 = 18 lengths worse than expected with respect to Mind The Gap.

This horse also carried 2lbs. less than Watchit, the second bench-mark horse.  On that basis, it should have finished 2 lengths ahead of Watchit.  In fact, it finished 12 lengths behind.  It therefore performed 2 + 12 = 14 lengths worse than expected with respect to Watchit.     

This horse also carried 7lbs. less than Broken Arrow, the third bench-mark horse.  On that basis, it should have finished 7 lengths ahead of Broken Arrow.  In fact, it finished 3 lengths behind.  It therefore performed 7 3 1 = 10 lengths worse than expected with respect to Broken Arrow.

In total, the horse finished -18 – 14 + 10 lengths ahead of the three bench-mark horses.  Therefore, on average Lame Duck performed 42/3 = 14 lengths below expectation.

From the above information, we are now able to construct the following table:

Horse                                             Performance (Lbs.)

Mind The Gap                                           0

Gift Horse                                             +10

Purple Patch                                         +  2

Arbit                                                      +  7

Watchit                                                     0                                                

Blue Murder                                           + 7

Down The Pub                                       -  5

Broken Arrow                                            0

Red Gin                                                  – 1

Lame Duck                                            -14

What the above table tells us is how much better, or worse, that expected, each horse performed.  Basically, it indicates how far ahead of the handicapper each horse may be in terms of weight carried.  The more positive the performance, the further ahead of the handicapper the horse is.  A negative performance indicates that the handicapper must reduce the weight carried by the horse before it will become competitive again.

The best performance was that of Gift Horse.  It finished 10 lengths/10lbs. ahead of expectation.

The worse performance was that of Lame Duck.  It finished 14 lengths/14lbs. below expectation.

Now, in Gift Horse’s next race, provided that it is running in a handicap hurdle race over a similar distance on similar ground, and provided that the handicapper isn’t too severe when the horse is re-handicapped, I will probably back the horse to at least place.  I will also consider taking similar action with Arbit  and Blue Murder since they both performed 7 lbs./lengths ahead of expectation.

In the case of Lame Duck, only sizeable odds will prevent me from laying the horse in its next race since it is performing way below expectation.

We can now see how a horse’s current ability may be determined relative to its current handicap mark and how the information may be used in subsequent races to identify potential winning and losing horses.

Now, although in the above example I have used 1lb. to slow a horse down by one length over distances of over 2miles, the official handicapper, as far as I’m aware, uses 2lbs. to slow a horse down by one length up to distances of 1.25 miles and 3lbs. to slow a horse down by one length at 5 furlong distances.

Psycho

www.laythepsychicway.com

www.psycholaysdogs.com

www.psychosshortlays.com