Going allowance – (Speed ratings)

Home Forums Horse Racing Going allowance – (Speed ratings)

This topic contains 14 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  Bobbyfunguy2014 4 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #25179

    Bobbyfunguy2014
    Participant
    • Total Posts 5

    Hi,

    I have seen several useful posts on here about speed ratings, now I create my own but the one question I had was regrading going allowance.

    This obviously plays a huge factor in terms of the final figures. I’ve seen some take the fastest times etc, others take an average.

    But the question I have is do people include maidens? I know 2yo races are usually discarded but a truly run 3yo maiden treated differently?

    Thanks,

    BFG

    #460496
    Gingertipster
    Gingertipster
    Participant
    • Total Posts 24494

    Hi,

    I have seen several useful posts on here about speed ratings, now I create my own but the one question I had was regrading going allowance.

    This obviously plays a huge factor in terms of the final figures. I’ve seen some take the fastest times etc, others take an average.

    But the question I have is do people include maidens? I know 2yo races are usually discarded but a truly run 3yo maiden treated differently?

    Thanks,

    BFG

    As you know BFG, not all races are truly run, therefore it is best to judge going allowances on "fastest times" rather than "average". Latter take in to account slowly run races whose times should have nothing to do with judging ground conditions. Though often (like Newbury yesterday) the hurdle course rides differently to chases.

    I see no reason why maidens should not be included in forming a going allowance if those races are truly run. However, maidens are probably the least likely to be truly run, connections of most debutants wanting a lead, teaching horses to race.

    IMO going conditions can fairly well be judged by looking at how the fastest races compare with Racing Post Standard Times. As I understand it also remembering race distance makes a difference to how much an overall time will be faster or slower than standard. ie When times are described as "fast" it will take a better performance to achieve a "fast by 2 seconds" in a 2m chase than a 3m2f chase. Opposite being the case with a "slow by" time.

    It is a bit tricky these days with rails moving from one meeting to the next. As our resident speed ratings expert The Blues Brother has said in the past – be very careful with Haydock! Their distance and going descriptions are works of fiction.

    Something that IMO plays havoc with speed ratings/going allowances BFG is wind speed and direction. Fridays Newbury meeting had a headwind in the home straight which needs to be allowed for in any speed ratings/going allowance. With no headwind on Saturday race times were significantly faster despite the going being only marginally "gooder".

    You may like to search out what Timeform/Betfair speed analyst Simon Rowlands has to say on this subject and how ratings can be marked up when also considering sectional times compared to overall times.

    Good luck with your going allowance/speed ratings BFG.

    value is everything
    #460500
    TheBluesBrother
    TheBluesBrother
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1048

    Where possible I will take the average of the 3 fastest times as starting point when assessing the going allowance for any meeting, and this will include maidens etc.

    Some days this will not be possible, especially when you end up with 2 going allowances, like I had for

    Newbury

    yesterday.

    Looking at the speed figures for

    Newbury

    yesterday, it was obvious to me that the chase course was riding about

    +0.20s/f

    faster that the hurdles course, so 3 of the four chases would have ended up in the equation, you then have to work out how much the hurdles course was slowing up the hurdlers.

    I still have to fine tune the going allowances for the past week, due to the security problem at the

    Racing Post

    , but you can download and view my figures here http://tinyurl.com/lad34ps

    In column "H" you will see the going allowance, and if you unhide column "N" you will see the raw ratings prior to being adjusted to 9-0 for the flat and 11-0 for the jumps.

    In the notepad file you will find my going allowance tables which I work to.

    #460505

    Bobbyfunguy2014
    Participant
    • Total Posts 5

    I can totally understand your points on the jumps cards, hence why I only focus on the AW. Flat is my game but the AW and Saturday jumps keeps me going.

    Haydock has been a joke for years in regards with their going description. Clerks in general are guessers at best and supply nothing useful for the avid speed ratings punter.

    Ratings are an art form but science and maths can narrow down the true figure.

    The Blues Brother work, is some of the best I have seen.

    I’ll take a look at the 3 fastest to see how that works out.

    #460509

    Bobbyfunguy2014
    Participant
    • Total Posts 5

    Where possible I will take the average of the 3 fastest times as starting point when assessing the going allowance for any meeting, and this will include maidens etc.

    Some days this will not be possible, especially when you end up with 2 going allowances, like I had for

    Newbury

    yesterday.

    Looking at the speed figures for

    Newbury

    yesterday, it was obvious to me that the chase course was riding about

    +0.20s/f

    faster that the hurdles course, so 3 of the four chases would have ended up in the equation, you then have to work out how much the hurdles course was slowing up the hurdlers.

    I still have to fine tune the going allowances for the past week, due to the security problem at the

    Racing Post

    , but you can download and view my figures here http://tinyurl.com/lad34ps

    In column "H" you will see the going allowance, and if you unhide column "N" you will see the raw ratings prior to being adjusted to 9-0 for the flat and 11-0 for the jumps.

    In the notepad file you will find my going allowance tables which I work to.

    Looking at your allowances for the 27th, I got a similar number at Kempton but very different for Lingfield.

    #460516

    Slowly Away
    Participant
    • Total Posts 405

    I use the average of ‘fastest 3’ as a general rule but if the fastest 2 are close together and the 3rd fastest is a lot slower I’ll just use the fastest 2

    I work out my ratings and going allowance a bit differently to most speed figure compilers and I only do the All Weather tracks

    For my going allowance I work out the speed rating and adjust that figure to 10 stone

    I then compare those figures to the winners’ official ratings

    So when I say ‘the 3 fastest’ I mean the 3 fastest relative to the winners ability

    So for example if we have 2 races on the same card over 6 furlongs…….in one a 60 rated horse scores a SF of 50 I would say that is 10 slow. In the next race a 100 rated horse scores 84 that wold be 16 slow………the 10 and 16 would be the figures I use for the going allowance.

    if I was just using those 2 races I would average 10 and 16 and get 13…….then ad 13 to the base rating. So the 60 rated horse would get 63 and the 100 rated horse would get 97

    So hopefully what I am measuring is the effect of anything that is slowing the horses down (or speeding them up) relative to their ability…….that would include ground, wind, rail movements etc all in one figure

    #488138

    Slowhand
    Participant
    • Total Posts 121

    I think using the fastest three will give over inflated figures over a period of time. I also think that maiden races shouldn’t be part of the allowance calculations because you don’t know what level the winner is capable of.

    Sometimes there is only one truly run race on a card, using the 3 fastest figures from that card will give speed figures totally unrepresentative of ability.

    As a test for anyone interested, whoever makes speed figures would you post up your figures for Newmarket 11 July 2014. An interesting card.

    #488149
    TheBluesBrother
    TheBluesBrother
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1048

    As a test for anyone interested, whoever makes speed figures would you post up your figures for Newmarket 11 July 2014. An interesting card.

    Newmarket (July)
    11-Jul-14

    Going allowance

    -0.43s/f

    (good to soft)

    RACE WINNER DIST RATING
    01:40 Nakuti 7f

    58

    02:10 Arabian Queen 6f

    65

    02:40 Integral 1m

    81

    03:15 Deeds Not Words 6f

    85

    03:50 Lexington Times 7f

    56

    04:25 Astronereus 1m2f

    82

    05:00 Glorious Empire 1m

    68

    #488564

    Slowly Away
    Participant
    • Total Posts 405

    On the topic of standard times…..

    I notice that the Post haven’t referenced last night’s Wolverhampton times to any standard

    For the first meeting on the new surface last week they just used the old standard times

    I guess someone must have pointed out that the old standards might not be relevant and they’ll have to do some new ones for the new track

    #488571
    TheBluesBrother
    TheBluesBrother
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1048

    On the topic of standard times…..
    I notice that the Post haven’t referenced last night’s Wolverhampton times to any standard
    For the first meeting on the new surface last week they just used the old standard times
    I guess someone must have pointed out that the old standards might not be relevant and they’ll have to do some new ones for the new track

    I have found that the original standard times for the polytrack are spot on for the tapeta,
    I had the going allowance for the first meeting at -0.16s/f and last night I had it at +0.02s/f.

    The ironic thing concerning the standard times for Wolverhampton, when the Reuben brothers added fibresand into the polytrack to hopefully stop the kick back which we all know didn’t work, Dave Edwards continued using the polytrack standard times, come the tapeta surface he stops, and now has one less meeting to rate.

    When the going is heavy on the turf you don’t stop compiling speed figures, you adjust the figures using the going allowance, you can use the same principle and apply it to the tapeta surface.

    #488859
    TheBluesBrother
    TheBluesBrother
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1048

    The going on the

    tapeta

    at

    Wolverhampton

    is continuing to speed up.

    1st meeting =

    -0.16s/f

    (standard)
    2nd meeting =

    +0.02s/f

    (standard)
    3nd Meeting =

    +0.09s/f

    (standard)

    AW going allowance table:

    Fast +0.50s/f
    Stand/Fast +0.18s/f to +0.40s/f
    Standard -0.15s/f to +0.15s/f
    Stand/Slow -0.48s/f to -0.18s/f
    Slow -0.70s/f to -0.50s/f

    #488900

    Slowly Away
    Participant
    • Total Posts 405

    Yep, I’ve got it speeding up as well……..the 3 meetings so far

    slow 64
    slow 40
    slow 21

    #489261
    TheBluesBrother
    TheBluesBrother
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1048

    The new

    Tapeta

    surface at

    Wolverhamton

    last night’s meeting, speeded up considerably from the previous 3 meetings, no doubt due to all the rain we have had in the past week, I had the going for last night at

    +0.18s/f

    (standard to fast) 8)

    1st meeting =

    -0.16s/f

    (standard)
    2nd meeting =

    +0.02s/f

    (standard)
    3nd meeting =

    +0.09s/f

    (standard)
    4th Meeting =

    +0.18s/f

    (standard to fast)

    AW going allowance table:

    Fast +0.50s/f
    Stand/Fast +0.18s/f to +0.40s/f
    Standard -0.15s/f to +0.15s/f
    Stand/Slow -0.48s/f to -0.18s/f
    Slow -0.70s/f to -0.50s/f

    #489909
    TheBluesBrother
    TheBluesBrother
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1048

    Update on the speed of the Tapeta surface at Wolverhampton.

    1st meeting =

    -0.16s/f

    (standard)
    2nd meeting =

    +0.02s/f

    (standard)
    3nd meeting =

    +0.09s/f

    (standard)
    4th Meeting =

    +0.18s/f

    (standard to fast)
    5th Metting =

    +0.13s/f

    (standard)
    6th Meeting =

    +0.13s/

    f (standard)
    7th Meeting =

    +0.17s/f

    (standard to fast)

    AW going allowance table:

    Fast +0.50s/f
    Stand/Fast +0.18s/f to +0.40s/f
    Standard -0.15s/f to +0.15s/f
    Stand/Slow -0.48s/f to -0.18s/f
    Slow -0.70s/f to -0.50s/f

    As you can see, the surface is now riding very consistent 8)

    #489928

    Slowly Away
    Participant
    • Total Posts 405

    Yes, that ties in with my figures

    slow 64
    slow 40
    slow 21
    slow 19
    slow 22
    slow 22
    slow 16

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.