December 13, 2006 at 17:38 #559
If using Race Standardisation is a good way of measuring a horses abilty wouldn’t it aslo be beneficial to use Class Pars
<br>Thoughts?December 13, 2006 at 17:57 #33577
Class pars are a crude – sometimes very crude – way of addressing the same issue. The only virtue that I can see in them is that they take less time than proper race standardisation.
(Edited by Prufrock at 5:59 pm on Dec. 13, 2006)December 13, 2006 at 18:15 #33578
I think properly calculated class pars are well worth the work required to compile them. When using standard times for lower class races (like the RP standards) there is a large difference between the actual race time and the standard. The bigger this difference the more scope there is for error. A number of the RP standards have not been achieved by any horse within the last five years. Comparing class 4 or lower races against these standards are prone to massive errors.
I prefer to compare a time produced by a mid scale handicapper in a class 4 race with similar animals rather than a 100 rated horse carrying 9:00<br>December 13, 2006 at 18:21 #33579
Crude maybe, but could the method not be refined ?
and as you state they take less time, which would be a great help imo
<br>Cheers Wallace, interesting
(Edited by empty wallet at 6:21 pm on Dec. 13, 2006)December 13, 2006 at 18:27 #33580
Well, if you refine them enough – adjust for field size, margins between horses etc – you end up getting race standardisation!
If you say that a horse winning a certain type of race is worth a certain rating or "should" achieve a certain time, then you are ignoring a great deal of relevant information from the race.
It’s like taking average past TRWs (Timeform Ratings of Winners) as the rating a winner of a race has run to, when other methods are manifestly superior. If you recognise the significance of ability/class in this context you might as well do more than just pay it lip-service.December 13, 2006 at 18:33 #33581
Your probabky right and i have not really thought about this, but i get the feeling there may be some mileage in it
I’ll sit back have a think :o and see if more thoughts are forthcoming from other membersDecember 13, 2006 at 18:54 #33582
Let’s say you have two Class 4 mile open-aged handicaps on the same track in the first week in July. Your class par, in terms of time, is 100.00 sec.
Is the kind of time (or rating) you can truly expect influenced by the fact that one of the races was a 4-runner event won by a short head and the other was a 20-runner event won by 8 lengths? Does it matter what weight the horse carried in relation to the handicap mark it ran off (and more besides)?
You bet it does.
What I’ve read of class pars, their practitioners take the view that it will all come out in the wash. That’s not good enough in my experience.
(Edited by Prufrock at 6:55 pm on Dec. 13, 2006)December 13, 2006 at 19:37 #33583
I’m not saying; "a horse winning a certain type of race is worth a certain rating". What I am saying is, I would rather compare the winner of a Class 4 handicap againist other horses of the same class rather than the 100 rated horse that sets the RP standards.December 13, 2006 at 20:01 #33584
Do you think that gives you a more accurate measure of the horses ability?
Understand where your coming from, i’m still mulling it over
Is the info you’ve read on the subject online?December 13, 2006 at 20:07 #33585
I haven’t read anything specific about it but it’s common sense.
It’s implied in some of what is written about handicapping methods on the Timeform website.December 13, 2006 at 20:12 #33586
I’m looking at this as a start from scratch process, ie: not influenced by others methods, thinking etc
I also think (though i may be wrong) that it could be used across International borders
(Edited by empty wallet at 8:19 pm on Dec. 13, 2006)December 13, 2006 at 20:27 #33587
More i think about it, more i think sectionals would suit well, these should (hopefully) take into account the 20 runner/ 4 runner scenario example you put forward
The weight issue is not such a big problem in these parts and i can live with not taking that factor into account to produce a RAW fig/rating
(Edited by empty wallet at 8:28 pm on Dec. 13, 2006)December 13, 2006 at 20:48 #33588
EW, yes I think using calss based standards are mosre accurate. As to using weight in the calculations, this woulc develop into a very long and heated discussion. Include me out!!! :biggrin:December 13, 2006 at 20:59 #33589
Don’t want to go down that route Wallace, although i do/will take Pru’s and other weight matters Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â views on board should they wish to comment
<br>Cheers Wallace, your posts make me more interested in the process
(Edited by empty wallet at 9:10 pm on Dec. 13, 2006)December 13, 2006 at 21:10 #33590
EW, have a look at the table below. It shows the averages for all races over 5 years split only by class. This is a crude measure but it clearly shows that class matters.
All races flat & AW since 1st Jan 2000<br>5 Furlongs<br>Class 1 59.72<br>Class 2 60.18<br>Class 3 60.30<br>Class 4 60.74<br>Class 5 60.84<br>Class 6 61.03
(Edited by Wallace at 9:11 pm on Dec. 13, 2006)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.