Weight may stop a train but it’s rare that it will stop a horse.
Sure, there are plenty of examples of lighter weighted horses who have gotten the better of their more heavily weighted rivals, but on the whole, topweights are a very good bet and in a lot of cases do not carry enough weight.
If you care to cast your mind back to some of our topline horses from recent times, like Hay List and Black Caviar, they successfully carried heavy weights. Yet in the lead-up to races, most of the talk was about “the weight” and more value was on offer in the price they started.
Put simply, weight is one of the clearest indicators of class. The weight allocated by the handicapper is a response to the horse’s record – those carrying more weight have more ability.
I had a mate of mine in the game run a few numbers for me, which revealed some interesting results. He took a sample of 50,000 topweights, which produced a strike rate of 19 per cent winners. However, tweaking the sample slightly to just those allocated at least 3kgs more than the second-highest-weighted runner, increased the strike rate to 22 per cent.
A professional punter put it into perspective for me. The group of ‘all topweights’ returned 75 per cent at level stakes starting price, whereas the group allocated at least 3kgs more than their rivals returned 78 per cent.
Clearly, both groups are a long way from breaking even, but you’re always going to apply other form factors and filter rules to determine your selections.
There’s also a direct correlation between TAB numbers and strike rates. From a sample of half a million runners, TAB number 1 produced 15.6 per cent winners, and this gradually declined for each TAB number, down to a 5.4 per cent strike rate for those runners with TAB number 10 or above.
From a return on investment point of view, the number 1 TAB numbers in the sample returned 72 per cent at level stakes starting price, right down to the number 10 and above group, which only returned 55 per cent.
I’m not suggesting you simply back all topweights or all TAB number 1s, you still need to take into account the other prevailing form factors.
But the next time you are put off by a big weight, think twice.
michael steel
Guest
I once heard Ian Craig say and I'm paraphrasing that "weights are overrated" and I can be sure to say he made this comment when a top weight who had been winning went out and won again although he was meeting a similar field and he met them worse off. I think this especially the case with good horses, they are good horses regardless of an extra kilo or two. When you are talking non metropolitan or meetings or just lesser ratings that's when I feel weights do come into calculations. I was very happy to back Boban yesterday each way at $15.00 and $5.75 the place Fixed. Over the years in Group 1 races there have been some great top weight victories, Super Impose Doncaster and Epsom Shaftesbury Avenue Honda Testa Rossa Honda Rough Habit Stradbroke Northerly Caulfield Cup. Makybe Diva Melbourne Cup Black Caviar Newmarket I know these are bonafide champions but that's the partlly the point
andrew
Guest
im confused. if the take from win pool is 14.5% (or thereabouts) from the tote, then a return of 77%, means you are performing 'below par' if you just backed No.1. isn't this case. it seems that the content of this article contradict its title.
DD
Guest
Ralph, I suppose simply wearing the number 1 saddle cloth means that the horse has rated highest on the handicappers criteria. Therefore (not saying that Handicappers are form experts or that this is based on form) the horses at the top of the weights are better performed and so should win more often. I have heard all sorts of theory's over the years on weight eg I knew a pro once called Puneet "The Pea" (called this because no one likes Peas) he reckoned that 1kg = 2 lengths. I agree that this is not exact science as many factors are in play and many good horses can carry weight. It all depends and the fitness the horse, its physique etc....however it is a factor and it does at a point stop a horse from winning, work out that point and you are on the way to punters nirvana where we all want to be.
Glenn Innes
Guest
Pretty crude analysis, the only reason top weights return more is they tend to be shorter in the betting and long shots are overbet. Top weights paying 2-1 lose the same % on turnover as horses on the minimum paying 2-1 and so on. I think your "pro punter" mate might be trying to lead you up the garden path believe me there is no future in this angle Last start winners win 13.4% of races at their next start last start fifths 7.2% so what? The reason the returns are so low is because he is including horses starting at all prices and longer priced horses are shockingly overbet.Market support trumps every other variable (which is why winning long term is so difficult) !The figure for handicaps run on metropolitan tracks on a Saturday are TAB no 1 winning 14.4% of races for a return of 77.9%The average sp is $11.57 and all horses sp of $12 return 77.6% If you take tab no1 out of the sample of all horses.who ran at sp $12 the return is 76.9% really not much going on here. .As for the question of weight in WFA and SW races Saturday metro TAB no 1 wins 19.8% of races as against 14.4% for handicaps so yes it does matter.
Nick
Guest
I tend to disagree, hay list and black caviar were special horses. I don't mind a toppy but when it is carrying 60+ I'm happy to give it a miss
Aransan
Guest
I am puzzled about the low rates of return given, typically betting markets add up to 120% or less which should give average returns of 83% or more with random betting, but not at level stakes -- the stakes should be set to give a fixed return, say $100.