- This topic has 31 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
There wont be too much that anybody half familiar with betting will find new in this opening post, but the performance of Thistlecrack yesterday intrigued me from a pricing point of view and I haven’t ever read too much on applying context to our assessments when taking a view in the markets on TRF.
I dont know if we’re on the verge of a data revolution in UK Horseracing, but its fair to say there has never been more data available to punters and that this trend will continue.
Crunching evermore large and detailed datasets in more complex ways will of course increase the overall predictivity of horserace outcomes for those who use them, although for a myriad of reasons the largely static oddslines that are a feature of football betting are a long way off in our four legged pursuit imo.
Its fairly easy to arrive at a good fundamental “how good is this horse?” type figure for a runner, calculated by analyzing what this horse has done in the past, and you can make those calculations as simple or as complicated as you like. But does this figure then allow us to bet profitably at even 5-10% profitability in the market over the long term…almost certainly not, because fundamental data is easily captured by the market these days.
So another layer of understanding must be applied on top of the fundamental, how that fundamental is affected by the context of today’s event or the future market we are betting into. I think developing this second layer of understanding “context”, will become even more vital for the astute punter as computers increasingly rule the fundamental.
Thistlecrack a steady 11/10 favorite for yesterdays contest was very strong on fundamentals. 18 pounds clear on Timeform ratings, tipped up by the majority in the selection box (9), still progressive on his chase figures 138-145-149-163-169. The computer liked these numbers and used them to produce a probability of around 11/10.
What the computer couldn’t/didn’t do was put the context of yesterdays race on that fundamental output. Context such as was the horse stronger or weaker since that Timeform 190 was achieved, the horse was returning from a long layoff after injury, the race was only a starting point not a target, how did the fitness of the horse yesterday compare to his big runs last winter, etc. These are the questions that the computer finds much more difficult to answer. Those who applied some of the aforementioned context to Thistlecrack’s price yesterday probably found a very nice lay bet on the back of it.
Unfortunately I dont enjoy seeking context and detail outside of my model output too much, I just dont enjoy it enough. But in the age of big data I think the pen and paper can still flourish going forward.
Would be really interested to get some thoughts on this.
the performance of Thistlecrack yesterday intrigued me from a pricing point of view and I haven’t ever read too much on applying context to our assessments when taking a view in the markets on TRF
When I adjusted for the rail movements and calculated the going allowance there was no soft in the equation, I had the going on the fast side of good, this might have something to do with why several of the top horses under performed.
Newbury 1 Dec 2017
Going allowance +0.29s/f (fast side of good)Race winner distance rating
12:20 Lostintranslation 2m½f 105
12:50 Bigmartre 2m½f 118
01:20 Santini 2m4½f 82
01:50 Willoughby Court 2m4f 98
02:25 Oldgrangewood 2m4f 97
03:00 Beer Goggles 3m 93
03:35 The Organist 3m 89The good new is I got my speed figure database back.
Mike.
James Willoughby made an interesting point on RUK the other week about the need to factor in market confidence, or lack of, into modelling. My own methods would involve ignoring price until comparing it against my own data ‘output’. What Willoughby was suggesting is that some of the ‘big data’ people factor in the market price into the model that generates their own price (simplified description but you get the gist).
The market factors in a lot of ‘stuff’ (context stuff) and knowledge that isn’t available to input directly into a model.Nice post, Cav. Thistlecrack an excellent example too given that even those who are deemed to have inside info cannot reliably benefit from it. When a trainer does not know how fit his horse is that is a pretty damaging blow to those who rely heavily on data plus certain assumptions.
Well, you won’t get very far into profit, Cav, if you don’t use your experience and feel (context) to adjust the fundamental and come up with your human predicted performance ratings for every horse in a race, then apply your betting strategy. If you don’t enjoy getting into the nitty gritty of personal form interpretation are you in the right game?
Glad you got your database back, Mike. No disrespect but one reason I don’t use speed ratings at all is outcomes like yesterday. Sure, the going was better than the official description but at the most extreme it can’t have been firmer than the easy side of good!
I’ve been a regular at Newbury and analysed times a fair amount, not to the extent of TBB – just using Racing Post standard times. Might be wrong, but I agree with GM. Ground conditions were firmer than the official, but as is often the case hurdles course had more juice in it than chase. Personally, I’d describe the going yesterday as:
Hurdles: Good-soft, just on the easy side of good rather than just on the good side of soft.
Chase: Good, right in the middle of good.Today could well be:
Hurdles: Good (on the good-soft side of good)
Chase: Good (if anything on the good-firm side of good)Today, it would not surprise me if some of the Chase Racing Post standard times are “fast by…”
I just hope the clerk of the course changes the going, he’s putting punters away and more importantly trainers too. If American is as fragile and needing soft as much as the trainer believes then he should not be running. That’s not to say he won’t win today, just they’re taking a bigger chance with his future by running.
Value Is EverythingI’m growing increasingly confused by the differences in speed ratings. Timeform’s retrospective going for hurdle and chase track yesterday was good to soft and I know they base much of that on time.
I tipped Sir Ivan on my blog in the upcoming race at Newbury. One of the reasons being that he’d achieved notably higher Topspeed ratings than the fav. Then a twitter time man (who does work for Betfair) told me that in his last race Black Corton put up one of the best times for a novice he had ever clocked.
ATR’s time expert often differs with the others…I just don’t know what to make of what, for me, is an important element of punting. Mike has been doing this successfully for an awful long time and I’d never ignore his views. I just wish more light could be cast on this whole area.
Sorry to go off topic. Might be one for a separate thread.
I’m glad you got your database back BB. We were all rooting for you on that one.
Interesting you made it fast side of good. Topspeed has it Good for the two races he’s done so far. Timeform have it Good to Soft and officially it was Soft. The British horseracing data revolution continues apace.
All respects to James Willoughby of course, but as ever he rarely brings hard data to the table. Its almost always anecdotal.
As I understand it Benter in his Hong Kong heyday used a two step conditional logit model procedure, to combine his own fundamental model with a market model from their tote, the market data being obtained close to off time, maybe a minute or so beforehand. I can see the merit of this approach in Hong Kong where a large amount of relatively “unsophisticated” money has formed an extremely liquid pool of money just waiting to be picked off by bettors who probably only need a better fundamental figure to win big.
This is not the case in British and Irish racing though, where the near off market has been formed by much more “sophisticated” money. Its my firm belief that even the best fundamental models when combined in a two step logit procedure with lets say Betfair 1 minute prices would be far less profitable than a similar setup in Hong Kong. My own model which is pretty good even if I do say so myself, produces about 11.5% ROI when combined with an 11am market, but barely 3% when joined to a one minute market. My own experience with combining fundamental models with market models, is that the probabilities they throw out need to played into the market at that time. For example calculating probabilities with a 9am model and playing with it five minutes before the off at value prices usually means backing drifters.
The British markets are of course most unsophisticated in terms of fundamentals in the evening and morning before the race, which is why most shrewd players want to play at that time. The bookmakers of course know this and eventually restrict these players who then go onto the exchanges and take all the money off the less sophisticated early players, until there are almost no early players left, and the market drys up.
So your left playing with either hyper efficiency or zero liquidity, the choice is yours.
Wouldn’t disagree with you Golden Miller, I’ve managed to grind a few percent most years using fundamentals, however with more sophisticated fundamentals being factored into the market, that last few percent will soon be dust as well imo. My issue with the human adjusted way of working is the time it takes and the subsequent reduction in turnover. I just wouldn’t be comfortable with the increase in volume required (if it was even available) to justify the decrease in turnover. More liquidity in the early markets would be a boon, otherwise I can soon see myself combining my own decent fundamental skills with those of a context and detail man or woman.
There wont be too much that anybody half familiar with betting will find new in this opening post, but the performance of Thistlecrack yesterday intrigued me from a pricing point of view and I haven’t ever read too much on applying context to our assessments when taking a view in the markets on TRF.
I dont know if we’re on the verge of a data revolution in UK Horseracing, but its fair to say there has never been more data available to punters and that this trend will continue.
Crunching evermore large and detailed datasets in more complex ways will of course increase the overall predictivity of horserace outcomes for those who use them, although for a myriad of reasons the largely static oddslines that are a feature of football betting are a long way off in our four legged pursuit imo.
Its fairly easy to arrive at a good fundamental “how good is this horse?” type figure for a runner, calculated by analyzing what this horse has done in the past, and you can make those calculations as simple or as complicated as you like. But does this figure then allow us to bet profitably at even 5-10% profitability in the market over the long term…almost certainly not, because fundamental data is easily captured by the market these days.
So another layer of understanding must be applied on top of the fundamental, how that fundamental is affected by the context of today’s event or the future market we are betting into. I think developing this second layer of understanding “context”, will become even more vital for the astute punter as computers increasingly rule the fundamental.
Thistlecrack a steady 11/10 favorite for yesterdays contest was very strong on fundamentals. 18 pounds clear on Timeform ratings, tipped up by the majority in the selection box (9), still progressive on his chase figures 138-145-149-163-169. The computer liked these numbers and used them to produce a probability of around 11/10.
What the computer couldn’t/didn’t do was put the context of yesterdays race on that fundamental output. Context such as was the horse stronger or weaker since that Timeform 190 was achieved, the horse was returning from a long layoff after injury, the race was only a starting point not a target, how did the fitness of the horse yesterday compare to his big runs last winter, etc. These are the questions that the computer finds much more difficult to answer. Those who applied some of the aforementioned context to Thistlecrack’s price yesterday probably found a very nice lay bet on the back of it.
Unfortunately I dont enjoy seeking context and detail outside of my model output too much, I just dont enjoy it enough. But in the age of big data I think the pen and paper can still flourish going forward.
Would be really interested to get some thoughts on this.
Personally, I don’t see how “context” and “data” can be separated. Successful gamblers must do both. Computers will struggle to come up with a rightful market because “context”/instinct has to come in to it. When analysing a horse’s chance I am sometimes asked, how much of that chance is based on going, how much is it distance, pace, temperament, trainer etc etc. But the fact is every horse will be different, sometimes going will be a major factor and sometimes it won’t, sometimes temperament is the bulk of the reason why I’ve rated a horse’s chance low, sometimes it won’t matter at all. How much notice I give to each aspect of form depends on that particular horse’s strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, although using Timeform to give me relevent “data”, to tell me an awful lot about the horse, what chance I actually give the horse comes down to subjectivity and instinct – how much to allow for each aspect of form for each particular racehorse… And that’s without the type of “context” which has very little or nothing to do with normal “data”.
If we take Thistlecrack’s reappearance, I knew on form he should walk it… And he could even run well below form and still win. However, I disagree – it is not true that “The computer liked these numbers and used them to produce a probability of around 11/10”. It was subjectivity of the odds compilers and market fluctuations that made those odds, not a computer. They tried to allow for “context”; it tried to allow for Thistlecrack’s injury, time off and chance of running poorly. If it had not tried to do so Thistlecrack’s odds would have been 2/5, mot 11/10… What’s true is it did not allow enough for context.
Trainers quotes can be useful to punters in telling them which horse is fully fit. However, imo punters generally take too much notice of trainers when horses are coming back from injury and/or a long break… If we take injury out of it for now, I find data/history better at predicting how good a horse will be after a break. Horses that have run well fresh in the past usually do well when fresh in the present. eg Today’s winner Gold Present. My Timeform told me he’d been a good 2 lengths second to Frodon in the Pendil after a 61 day break and won on last year’s reappearance after 217 days off. So in that respect data can be effective.
All too often bookmakers and punters rely too much on trainers quotes, it all depends whether they’re naturally pessimistic or optimistic. Or whether they want a bet themeslves or are told by an owner how much to reveal. Sometimes I get the impression they just say what’s expected or are optimistic if it’s a favourite and pessimistic if an outsider. It could also be a sub-conscious effort to convince themselves everything is fine…
Getting back to Thistlecrack’s reappearance. Injury obviously makes it more difficult to know how he’ll figure than a normal reappearance. There is one way to save money. In those circumstances avoid backing/bet against those the “public” love. Thistlecrack has a large public following who want to believe their horse is fit and well. You say Thistlecrack was “steady in the market”, Cav. He wasn’t really. I remember him shortening up the evening before – after positive Tizzard quotes – and then moving out again in the morning once realisation hit. Unowhatimeanharry’s price mirroring that by doing the opposite. When thinking it’s a two horse race and question marks of one, then if there’s a negative market move for it the other is often backed… (or rather “shortened up”). Whether it was actually backed or just shortened by bookies because of a negative move for its main rival, is questionable.
Early on the positive words from Colin Tizzard shortened the horse, should it have done? Tizzard is an optimist. We heard how Cue Card had never been fitter for this season’s Charlie Hall. But he said the same thing the previous year and bullish about his chances in the Betfair too. The thing that was odds-on was we’d get a positive report from the yard in the lead up. Negativie market move in the morning probably told the real story of how he’d been going at home. We also need to allow for this not being a target race, it was being used primarily as a prep for the King George. Connections would not have minded if he was some way below his best hurdles mark. So although “at his best” Thistlecrack was 18 lbs clear, there’s practically no chance of running to that level. The rating itself should only be used in telling the reader how far below form he could be and still win… And this was said to be a minor injury; since when is a tendon injury minor? Horse racing is littered with horses who’ve had tendon injuries and never come back. Data shows they’re often 20+ lbs below form after a tendon injury… And suspect even fewer run well after being easy to back in the morning.
Other than fitness there were other related considerations too. Truly run races tend to result in form working out, but they also bring fitness in to it more. Connections would’ve wanted as easy a race as possible because of Boxing day, so they’d be happy to see a slow pace… And all the other runners were hold up horses bar one – and that had the best front-running jockey around on board. When a horse is able to dictate it’s able to run to its own advantage and to the other runner’s disadvantage. That said, Beer Goggless may not prove as flattered as some believe.
There will be plenty who will think Timeform data didn’t make a good job of that race because of the 18 lbs difference. But I actually backed Beer Goggles at 74/1 because of that data/how I analysed Timeform Race Passes. Also backed Colin’s Sister and Wholestone as bigger bets, so wasn’t as good a result for me as that sounds. I find Punters often don’t take enough notice of weight concession in Graded races. Not only was Thistlecrack imo a poor price because of the likelihood of running poorly, but imo Unowhatimeanharry also did not have the chance markets suggested. If memory serves, at the weights all the other runners had a Timeform rating within 8 or 9 lbs, of Unowhatimeanharry and some around half that. And the three I backed all showed improved form last time out (likely to progress). Albeit Unowhatimeanharry had positives too, consistency and will to win. However, sometimes it’s harder for a Grade 1 winning horse to win a Grade 2 race because of that weight concession.
This was my 100% book Thursday night:
Thistlecrack 43% midway between a fair 11/8 and 5/4
Unowhatimeanharry 26% fair 11/4
Colin’s Sister 12.5% fair 7/1
Wholestone 12.5% fair 7/1
Beer Goggles 3% 33/1
Taquin Du Suel 3% 33/1ie Had Thistlecrack been available @ 6/4 (3% bigger than my price) Thursday night, I’d have taken it. Because imo that price would’ve been worth taking the risk at that time. Although with a cloud hanging over him I’ll only back horses coming back from injury as saver bets, not as a main bet.
However, nowadays that does not mean I’d have taken 6/4 at all. I know he didn’t, but if he’d drifted out from say 11/10 to in theory a backable price of 6/4 in the morning or afternoon of race. Although I’d consider all the relevent information to have a good idea of the prices am willing to take once markets open; my assessment is not set in stone. ie Horses that drift often do so for a reason and in this case a drift could’ve been heavily hinting of Thistlecrack lacking fitness. Information that has to be taken in to consideration. Don’t like backing bad drifters at the best of times, let alone one coming back from injury. Market often tells if such horses are fit.
Getting away from the subject again… Strangely enough, might sound daft for a “value” seeker. But if there’s a horse who’s out of form… I might think that had it been “in form” would’ve been willing to take say 7/2 but because it’s out of form I’d take only 17/2+ the evening before – because of the increased risk involved and less chance of showing its form. So if opening @ 7/1 it’s too short to back. However, if it were to shorten from 7/1 to 11/2, I’d be much more willing to have a saver on it @ 11/2. Because the market move could (not is but “could”) be hinting of a return to form and that in itself means the horse is more likely to run well. 11/2 after a market move being more likely to be value than the 7/1 before a market move. Bookmakers would’ve put the horse in at 7/1 as a precaution, if no money for it (much nore likely) they’d be thinking it’s not going to run well and push it out. If shortening it’s more likely to run to form, more likely to have that fair 7/2 chance and therefore value @ 11/2. Again, such horses would only be a saver.
I took 12/1 ew Colin’s Sister and 12/1 ew Wholestone fairly early Thursday evening for Friday’s race.
As Beer Goggles was 66/1 in a few places with bookmakers and usually outsiders are better on Betfair as liquidity gets better… Put up a bet @ 84/1 overnight and hoped someone would take it. They didn’t and when I looked in the morning it was only 50/1, so I waited. Took 74/1 about 10 minutes before the off.Value Is EverythingI’ve been a regular at Newbury and analysed times a fair amount, not to the extent of TBB – just using Racing Post standard times. Might be wrong, but I agree with GM. Ground conditions were firmer than the official, but as is often the case hurdles course had more juice in it than chase. Personally, I’d describe the going yesterday as:
Hurdles: Good-soft, just on the easy side of good rather than just on the good side of soft.
Chase: Good, right in the middle of good.Today could well be:
Hurdles: Good (on the good-soft side of good)
Chase: Good (if anything on the good-firm side of good)Today, it would not surprise me if some of the Chase Racing Post standard times are “fast by…”
I just hope the clerk of the course changes the going, he’s putting punters away and more importantly trainers too. If American is as fragile and needing soft as much as the trainer believes then he should not be running. That’s not to say he won’t win today, just they’re taking a bigger chance with his future by running.
“Today, it would not surprise me if some of the Chase Racing Post standard times are “fast by…””
Ladbrokes Trophy winning time 1.4 seconds faster than Racing Post Standard.
“I just hope the clerk of the course changes the going, he’s putting punters away and more importantly trainers too. If American is as fragile and needing soft as much as the trainer believes then he should not be running. That’s not to say he won’t win today, just they’re taking a bigger chance with his future by running”.
American reportedly finished lame.
The way they were talking yesterday I thought the distances were going to be less, “bringing the rail in“.
I found this on the BHA site for yesterday’s movements:
“Rails: Rail has been moved in overnight to give fresh ground on the inside of both courses. Extra distances will be published later. Race 1 plus 58yds Race2 plus 64yds Race3 plus 64yds Race4 plus 76yds Race5 plus 58yds Race6 plus 64yds Race7 plus 42yds”.
If rails were “moved in overnight to give fresh ground on the inside of both courses”, then why were distances longer than previosly?
Value Is EverythingLadbrokes Trophy winning time 1.4 seconds faster than Racing Post Standard.
As the race was run over an extra 64yds (4.26s), Total Recall’s winning time was impressive to say the least, on going I had at +0.17s/f (good).
Speed figures:
Total Recall – 127
Whisper – 141
Regal Encore – 125With regards to Whisper his speed figure of 141 is his best to date.
Mike.
What was Thistlecrack’s Timeform rating going into the race on Friday?
I know that the official Handicapper had dropped him from 174 to 170 in a new rating dated 28th November. That new figure left him just 3 lbs ahead of Unowhatimeanharry who had a mark of 167 on official ratings.
The Racing Post had Thistlecrack on an all time best of 178 and Unowhatimeanharry on 168, which with the 6 lbs concession, suggested the Fry horse had plenty on his hands. Of course, balancing that was the injury and time off the racecourse disadvantages that the Tizzard horse had to contend with.
I think that we need some sort of consistency in the ratings before we need be concerned about context. If we are going to a approach a race with figures of 170, 178 and 190 for one of the runners, we are already facing a major dilemma.
Another thing to consider is how good a chaser Thistlecrack was last season? For me, we learned very little about him until he was in the King George. Plenty people thought he proved a lot in winning the race but the race was a virtual match and I thought Cue Card was poor on the day and we have just watched him running like a drain recently. I also believe that a lot of Thistlecrack’s defeat was overshadowed by the death of his conqueror Many Clouds. The Racing Post awarded the stricken horse 174, the highest mark of his entire career, so there is dubiety for me in that rating.
I notice Thistlecrack is rated 174 with Timeform as a Chaser. How does that compare to his hurdle rating with the same firm? If we are talking 190 over hurdles as 174 as a chaser, then he is miles below what he was over the smaller obstacles.
The Racing Post gave Thistlecrack 149 for his latest race, with winner Beergoggles raised to 162, having been rated 118 back in February. Connections had said Thistlecrack was ready to win and a poll on the Racing Post website had seen 78% state that Thistlecrack would win his comeback race, some saying he would win on the bridle and that Evens was the biggest gift in racing history.
It is odd how the same old bullish comments quickly turn to hastily cobbled together excuses from connections and punters alike. Suddenly it is clear that the horse badly needed the race and will improve massively by Boxing Day.
The context I would put to this situation is that punters in general have no concept of value and they tend to overrate the horses they like. The words have not yet been created to cover how much the great one is going to walk/hose/piss up in their next race, as fans clamour to be the one who suggested the biggest/mostest/easiest/pissy-up-ed-est margin of victory. In the end the only thing pissed was good money down the drain. (I had a small bet on Colin’s Sister by the way)
I just don’t listen to Colin Tizzard because I think he lives outwith reality. Going from “Ready to win” it’s now “Can improve massively by Boxing Day”
That last race looked little more than training in public to me and I believe Thistlecrack may end up not appearing at Kempton. He could even bounce in theory, even though he was at best “Considerately handled” on his comeback.
I would like to see more consistent ratings across the board. Of course some of it is difficult to assess but it just seems wildly out of kilter, to the extent of being worthless as an accurate guide for the bettor at times.
Colin Tizzard is probably seeing Brexit as a great thing for the country right now.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
Ladbrokes Trophy winning time 1.4 seconds faster than Racing Post Standard.
As the race was run over an extra 64yds (4.26s), Total Recall’s winning time was impressive to say the least, on going I had at +0.17s/f (good).
Speed figures:
Total Recall – 127
Whisper – 141
Regal Encore – 125With regards to Whisper his speed figure of 141 is his best to date.
Mike.
Can you help me Mike or anybody? In compiling my Grand National website, foolhardily trying to compare performances over the years, I am working on the basis that 1 length = 8 feet and a staying chaser covers about 5 lengths per second. Am I a long way out? I’m finding that roughly 3 lengths per second makes more sense.
What was Thistlecrack’s Timeform rating going into the race on Friday?
I know that the official Handicapper had dropped him from 174 to 170 in a new rating dated 28th November. That new figure left him just 3 lbs ahead of Unowhatimeanharry who had a mark of 167 on official ratings.
The Racing Post had Thistlecrack on an all time best of 178 and Unowhatimeanharry on 168, which with the 6 lbs concession, suggested the Fry horse had plenty on his hands. Of course, balancing that was the injury and time off the racecourse disadvantages that the Tizzard horse had to contend with.
I think that we need some sort of consistency in the ratings before we need be concerned about context. If we are going to a approach a race with figures of 170, 178 and 190 for one of the runners, we are already facing a major dilemma.
Another thing to consider is how good a chaser Thistlecrack was last season? For me, we learned very little about him until he was in the King George. Plenty people thought he proved a lot in winning the race but the race was a virtual match and I thought Cue Card was poor on the day and we have just watched him running like a drain recently. I also believe that a lot of Thistlecrack’s defeat was overshadowed by the death of his conqueror Many Clouds. The Racing Post awarded the stricken horse 174, the highest mark of his entire career, so there is dubiety for me in that rating.
I notice Thistlecrack is rated 174 with Timeform as a Chaser. How does that compare to his hurdle rating with the same firm? If we are talking 190 over hurdles as 174 as a chaser, then he is miles below what he was over the smaller obstacles.
The Racing Post gave Thistlecrack 149 for his latest race, with winner Beergoggles raised to 162, having been rated 118 back in February. Connections had said Thistlecrack was ready to win and a poll on the Racing Post website had seen 78% state that Thistlecrack would win his comeback race, some saying he would win on the bridle and that Evens was the biggest gift in racing history.
It is odd how the same old bullish comments quickly turn to hastily cobbled together excuses from connections and punters alike. Suddenly it is clear that the horse badly needed the race and will improve massively by Boxing Day.
The context I would put to this situation is that punters in general have no concept of value and they tend to overrate the horses they like. The words have not yet been created to cover how much the great one is going to walk/hose/piss up in their next race, as fans clamour to be the one who suggested the biggest/mostest/easiest/pissy-up-ed-est margin of victory. In the end the only thing pissed was good money down the drain. (I had a small bet on Colin’s Sister by the way)
I just don’t listen to Colin Tizzard because I think he lives outwith reality. Going from “Ready to win” it’s now “Can improve massively by Boxing Day”
That last race looked little more than training in public to me and I believe Thistlecrack may end up not appearing at Kempton. He could even bounce in theory, even though he was at best “Considerately handled” on his comeback.
I would like to see more consistent ratings across the board. Of course some of it is difficult to assess but it just seems wildly out of kilter, to the extent of being worthless as an accurate guide for the bettor at times.
Colin Tizzard is probably seeing Brexit as a great thing for the country right now.
I think you’ve got a bit confused about Timeform’s Thistlecrack rating, Steve.
In Timeform Chasers And Hurdlers 2015/2016 season – They rated Thistlecrack 174p over hurdles.
In Timeform Chasers And Hurdlers 2016/2017 season – They rated Thistlecrack 174 over fences.They’ve since brought that hurdles rating down to 169.
In the race on Saturday Thistlecrack was racing off 11 stone.
In order to evaluate the different ratings of all runners carrying different weights all the ratings of 5 years old or more is compared to 12 stone 7 lbs. So because Thistlecrack carried 11 stone 0 lbs it’s 21 lbs less than 12 st 7 lbs. Therefore 21 is added to 169 = 190 for the race.So it’s only a race rating of 190, his Timeform Master Rating is 169.
Unowhatimeanharry has a Timeform Master rating of 165, but he was carrying 11 stone 6 pounds, 15 lbs less than 12 st 7 lbs. So 165 + 15 = 180. His race rating is 180, Master Rating is 165.
Value Is EverythingPersonally, I just take whatever the rating is and adjust it myself for the weight difference if there is one.
The Racing Post add to the rating to reflect the weight carried, so if they have 9st on the flat, they add 14 lbs to the rating to take into account that it isn’t 10 stone they are carrying and that they should be capable of a stone higher performance. I think it’s cack handed and confusing, especially when the entire field is often carrying 9st, rendering any adjustment of the figures utterly irrelevant.
I have seen users on this forum, and other forums, get confused regarding ratings that they are not aware have been adjusted for weight. I recall someone crediting one of Willie Mullin’s novices last season with a huge rating because they had used the day of the race adjusted rating. Ultimately, for me anyway, it is easier to just compare that Thistlecrack is 4 lbs higher than the other horse and then allow for the 6 lbs, to get the theoretical 10 lb advantage, rather than ending up calling it 190 and 180
Anyway, I believe Colin Tizzard is full of magic and that is why I opposed Thistlecrack, once I added in my lack of confidence in the horse as a chaser, which posed the question as to whether he was actually up to his best last season, even before the injury.
Each to their own with the figures they choose to work with. I believe in keeping it as simple as possible and that means using a master rating and making my own adjustments for the relative weights if there is any difference to take into account.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.