"I can't find is the rationale for assigning weights... What it does is make the poorer horse have more chance to win over the better horse. But there must have been some rationale I can't think of."
it's about wagering, E. essentially, pari-mutuel wagering.
let's look at the definition of pari-mutuel:
"a betting pool in which those who bet on competitors finishing in the first three places share the total amount bet minus a percentage for the management."
but first it might be better for you to look at the concept of handicapping in horse racing:
"a race or contest in which an artificial advantage is given or disadvantage imposed on a contestant to equalize chances of winning"
quite simply, if the horses were not handicapped, the favorites would be so popular that no one would wager on any of the competitors. following that logic (to the extreme, for purposes of illustration), a wager requires someone on each side, otherwise it's not a bet, right?
so there has to be an inducement to play. thus the weights, or handicap.
and if you want a fuller understanding of this, because it really is a bit complex, spend some time getting to understand pari-mutuel wagering. perhaps you already do.
briefly, it's important for this discussion to know that there are three pools of money (actually there are more but those are considered 'exotic' wagers and we won't delve into that at the moment), and they are WIN, PLACE and SHOW. as you may know...
WIN= 1st place
PLACE= 1st or 2nd place
SHOW= 1st, 2nd or 3rd place
so there is a win pool, a place pool and a show pool.
all the money bet to win on any horse in a race goes into the win pool, and it is divided up at the end of the race among the win bettors who correctly picked the winner.
same thing for the other two pools.
but stay with win pool for a second.
if $10,000 total dollars are wagered on horses to win in a given race, and the horse that wins had 100 people bet on it, then each bettor would get back $100.
on a favorite, or really good horse, with the same win pool, there could easily be 2000 bettors. the payoff quickly drops to $5.
btw, my figures are not precise because, as the above 'pari-mutuel' definition denotes, the amount shared is "minus a percentage for the management".
so perhaps now you'll begin to recognize assigning weights as an attempt by 'management' to attract wagers on all animals running in the race. if this system was not in place, again, there would be little or no return, because no one would have an incentive to bet on a lesser horse.
hope this all makes (horse) sense.
:)
mark |
