Hi KV!
I may be way off here, but I think I did the same as Woof, Looked at all the races where the sectionals were available, and created a table where the relationship of finishing positions to sectional positions were written as a percentage of occurance, like how many pos. 5 at 800m and at pos. 3 at 400 m finished first, sec. etc. etc.

Then I did the same including the class of race as well.
I examined the results, but sadly they led nowhere.
Then I gave it away.
As they say, if you don't succed for a couple times give it a rest! No use flogging a dead horse.
Cheers

Hi
When modelling how the Public wager, one WOULD use the Classification of each race, this is something the Public sees, but in Handicapping you need to use a Statistical description, in the example provided I would classify the race by the average Standard deviation of all runners.

The other important part as you mentioned is the accumulated physical Track bias which is present as we get closer to the finish...in my opinion i would be looking at little closer to the start if i was using going to use performance percentiles

American terminology for sectional markers. Their calls would equate to our positions in running at the 800m, 400m etc.

I am a little confused here as I remember Woof warning against averaging 'in running' data for greyhound racing because it was 'ordinal data' yet as far as I can see this is a similar exercise for horse racing. No doubt he will explain the differences in due course.

I agree.
Good luck

HI!
There a no monkeys on the dogs backs anymore! (no jocks!)

No, most of them are in the betting ring ripping up tickets.

I dont know if any of he other guys really covered this but another flaw in getting a rating based on the finishing is the pace at which a race is run, a slow pace obvioulsy isnt going to favour the back markers and a fast pace is not going to suit a front runner. Also another thing that cant be factored in is whether a horse is blocked for a run coming down the straight or if the track has any bias in it or for that matter the length of the straight and how tight the last bend is, for example the difference between Doomben & Eagle Farm. I think there is to many factors to take into account before you could before you could confidently come up with a mathematical rating to represent a horses finish.

Technically yes it is, the major reason not to use the Calls in greyhound racing was an is because of the bias in the person recording the "official" calls, especially the "jump" call, calls in greyhound racing if used need to be corrected track by track

But back to your original question in horse racing they might just be discrete? Or maybe even poorly sampled (or poorly measured!) continuous data? If you throw calls in the discrete category, then it's perfectly fine to do averaging. And the same would go for poorly measured continuous data.

Hi!
Tell me about it,
Today Gosford race 3,
My selections were: Buzzy Henry, Anextra, Master Magic, Son of Kintyre.
Put 2*20.00 on Anextra and had a quinella with it for the other three.
What happens? major interference in the straight, maybe it would not have won,
but it definitely would have ran second.
OK I got my place divi of $4.10, after protest, but I missed out on the quinella???
Is there justice in racing??
Yes we get it in our favour as often as not!
Good luck.

Thanks for that.
Cheers.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 420,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 30/06/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg