- This topic has 47 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Fascinating!?!
Where the race from 28/04/05 which was run in 62.46 on good ground?
Or has that now been changed to GS even though "The ground was described by the jockeys as "goodish" and "quick enough""?
Who says it was good-to-soft?
Steve
My pennyworth is that so-called "collateral form" is accorded too much significance by some—besides anything else it is impossible to tie every piece of form in collaterally, and therefore some judgement needs to be exercised as to when it is "relevant"—-but that it can still be a factor.
I hope we all understand the difference between collateral form—which tends to be simplistic to a fault—and wider analysis based on form. The latter is under-used I reckon.
I also think it is unhelpful to draw battle lines between  form analysis and time analysis. Both have their part to play in making sense of results and predicting future events.
Right, I’m off down the pub.
(Edited by Prufrock at 5:18 pm on May 4, 2005)
Steve
The "official" description is given as GOOD/Good to Firm in places,the going allowance given for every race that day(29/04/05) was 0.2 seconds per furlong Good to Soft
I hope this info is of help
(Edited by empty wallet at 5:57 pm on May 4, 2005)
Do you walk ALL the courses each day that they are racing? at
No. However, they do employ people to do it.
I’m not saying that going reports can be out, many are.
However, those who use the clock to determine the speed of the track without bothering to employ some common sense (like "are the horses kicking up divets" or "it was GF at the last meeting 2 weeks ago and has hardly rained since, can it really be GS today?" ) are the ones who are convinced the going reports are generally rubbish. ÂÂÂ
I wasn’t at Musselburgh last week, I’d be curious to heear from anyone who was (Grassy?). Was it really GS? Or was it just bloody windy?
(it certainly was in Edinburgh the day before).
Ask me another one Steve..it’s like school exams
Same course, 14f, all age 0-70 hcap. 3m7.82s.
Pru
Good post.
Personally, I think the "in a line throught horse x" method makes no sense.
If horse A beat B and B beat C and then, with an adjustment for the difference weights, can we say that horse A will beat C?
The 3 races (AvB, BvC & AvC) were probably under different conditions.
It could be different distances, courses, going. The draw may have been a significant factor. One of the losers may have needed the race.
I prefer to look at RPR ratings as a sign of absolute ability and then try to figure out how it will run in relation to its own ability today.
I’m also on the lookout for races where I don’t expect the form to "work out" and for winners who had everything work out to their advantage.
These can provide good opportunities for laying or opposing horses.
A lot of these races are run in slow times and could be identified by the clock.
However, they can also often be identified by simply looking down the field and seeing 2 or 3 horses pulling double.
Steve
(Edited by stevedvg at 6:41 pm on May 4, 2005)
i don’t speed rate races above 12f and on most days the first race isn’t a 14f race..
That’s handy
If you have a meeting with:
5f 2yo maiden and 5f hcap on the straight course plus<br>7f hcap, 8f all age maiden, 13F hcap & 16F hcap on the round course, you’ve not got a lot to work with when it comes to calculating going adjustments.
Particularly if it seems like there could be different going on the round course than the straight course.
You are soooooo wrong about timing being no good for assessing the going but
I didn’t say it was "no good".
What I said was that oftentimes speed figure compilers say that the going assessment must be wrong because it doesn’t tally with their going adjustments.
While, I believe that there are another 2 good reasons why the 2 don’t tally:
(1) the effect of wind<br>(2) mistakes in calculating going variation
without using all the tools though you are missing parts of the jigsaw..no one can afford to miss pieces..because even with ALL of them it’s still hard..with pieces missing.. very bloody hard.
I don’t agree with this at all.
If you can take one piece and factor it into prices far better than the market, you can make a profit.
I know of one person who drives around the country going to the gaff tracks with his mobile and backing and laying based on paddock judgement alone.
He once asked me if I had seen a horse that he missed in the paddock and I replied along the lines of "it looked fit enough but she needs softer ground than this".
He had no idea about the horse’s going requirements even though he must have seen her run at least half a dozen times.
Yet this guy’s turning a profit.
Just one piece.
Steve
Fluctuating STRONG winds can have an effect and throw the compiler a few lengths off track "occasionaly".<br>Note, winds usually die down late afternoon / dusk, depending on time of year and can often do a slight turn around about that time aswell. I’ve been down this road before however, and it did my nut in, though it made sense at times, when nothing else did.
Errors in calculating the going variation on different parts of the course doesent happen as often as one would think. I would also say that variations dont occur as often as one would think either (particually on firmer ground).<br> A quantity surveyor from Wimpy mining and dear friend of mine ( sadly no longer with us) once told me to think of the racecourse as a field and not a track/ring type area. Everything seemed to fit nicely into place when I started to think along those lines(usually when the going was soft). The weather may change, but the courses dont!<br> You get a feel for them and know that x back straight is often a bit slower than the straight course when its on the slow side etc. In essence, that is what compiling SF’s is all about, coupled with form study and viewing the meeting. Once you’re happy with your adjusted (with good reason) GA’s, you’ve got the meeting nailed to the degree of your confidence. Compiling your own figures ensures that you know how accurate the ratings are from that meeting.
I dont see anything wrong with having ?’s next to plenty of GA’s and ultimately SF’s. It is the meetings where you’re 99% sure you’ve got em nailed that make them invaluable. Be them low or high figures ;)
Published SF compilers dont tell you when they’re over the moon with their assesment, aswell as their GA’s coming across as being somewhat automated, and with due respect, make them next to worthless in my book.<br>
As EC pointed out, its just another piece in the jigsaw, with some pieces being bigger than others (depending on circumstances), but if you have enough pieces put together you can get a clear idea of the picture.
<br>Steve, this guy thats traveling around with his mobile is putting the hours in, and good luck to him. I dont really think it matters too much in what area you focus, as long as you put the work in. Can you get him to start going to decent meetings and to give me a bell 15 mins before the off:biggrin: . I would say thats a great piece of the jigsaw to have. I’ve got the corners and most of the edge, but the middle somtimes looks a bit ****** up.:biggrin:
CP
Can you get him to start going to decent meetings and to give me a bell 15 mins before the off
I don’t go racing much these days, so I’ve not seen him for ages. In fact, I think the last time I saw this him was on TV.
Sheikh Mo was being interviewed in the paddock somewhere (York? Donny?) and this guy was standing about 10 yards behind him, watching the horses going round.
So, he’s obviously keeping better company these days!
I think he targets the small meetings for a couple of reasons:
Firstly, he doesn’t like the big crowds as it cramps his style (unless he can got into the paddock itself).
Secondly, if you go to the Derby or Royal Ascot, pretty much all the horses are fit and primed.
Not the same in low class racing.
There are always horses who aren’t in any fit state to do themselves justice. And it’s those horses and those that have been trained to be ready today that are his money makers.
Paddock watching is a huge piece of the puzzle, IMO.
For example, I went racing 4 times in Paris in May 2003 (3 flat, 1 jumps).
Despite the large PMU takeout and knowing nothing about the French horses, I made a paper profit at each meeting just by waiting for the races where one of the principals looked a lot better or a lot worse than the others and selecting accordingly.
My skills then weren’t as good as they are now and my skills now aren’t a patch on the guy with the mobile.
So, you can imagine how valuable this can be.
The one piece I’m missing is being able to predict the pace of a race. If I could do that consistently, I reckon I’d make a ton.
Steve
Do any of the speed figure advocates seriously suggest they know the distance of any of the races at Chester today?
John Gosden said of Day Flight’s race: "with the rail out, you’re going 1m6, not 1m5 & a half".
Just another example of race distances not being as advertised.
Steve
The answer is "no", and we won’t know the precise distance of any race for sure unless it is measured publicly at the start of every meeting.
However, given that Chester is nearly a circle and nearly a mile in circumference it is possible to make educated guesses as to what difference the dolling out had on the two days. I asked for help on this over on Betfair, and the estimates I came up with, based on the information I was given, were 8.36 yards extra on day two and  24.75 yards extra on day three. Approximately.
Obviously, you would need to adjust various race distances according to how much of the altered course the race in question was run over.
On day two I adjusted my timefigures by between 5 and 10 lbs according to the above guidelines. On day three it was between 14 and 24.
I would certainly welcome much more openness from the authorities on this matter.
Don’t know if this will help with calculations
RF Fire up the Band’s race 5f 16yds
In-focus: The rail was moved out about four yards between the four-furlong and one-furlong markers and this would have had an effect on race times.<br>
(Edited by empty wallet at 6:15 pm on May 8, 2005)
Timeform’s course representative said 6 yards and that the dolling out started 6f out (which it indeed did). It was certainly about double what it had been on the previous day (when it was between roughly 4f out and 1.5f out). On that day it was reported as being between 3 yards and 4 yards.
I’ve used 3.5 yards and 7 yards respectively.
FWIW.
(Edited by Prufrock at 6:25 pm on May 8, 2005)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.