- This topic has 17 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
If you do, can I ask why?
I’ve never been involved in either but I know there’s a couple of real time buffs on here, so do you think you are getting an ‘edge’ on the market or is it just a hobby/entertainment thing? Maybe something that enables you to better enjoy and understand racing?
It just seems that with so much racing nowadays, it must surely be hugely time-consuming unless you are pretty much automated and/or concentrate in one area (eg all-weather racing).
Do you think there is something inaccurate or untrustworthy with figures in the public domain such as Topspeed?
Mike
I have been interested in compiling speed figures for as long as I can remember.
I can spend up to 5 hours a day working on the speed figures and going allowances.
Does it give me an edge, yes it does, I can spot a false favourite a mile away and this gives me a value edge.
When I started out my objective was to come up with a different way of compiling speed figures, and I came up with my own set of lbs per length figures calculated from the standard times for every racecourse and distance, as well as the majority of the French grade 1, grade 2 and the grade 3 racecourses thrown in for good measure.
Even the problem of assessing what class the maiden races for example in France were, I came up with a set of Racing Post Ratings conversion tables to a BHA equivalent, to help assess the daily going allowances as the majority of time in France they are not even close.
The best of the professionals in my book is Dave Edwards "Top Speed", I have to say that as I am in regular contact with him, and he has been at it for over 30+ years.
There are other professionals in the business who talk about speed figures but know nothing, they just talk the talk.
Mike.
Yes, I do all weather speed ratings
To be honest it has become something of a habit now as I haven’t really concentrated on the all weather for a couple of years…….but I carry on with the ratings because I might go back to it sometime and I’d have all the figures up to date
As for an edge…….I can only say that when I was concentrating on the all weather I had about 3 really good years. Since I stopped I’ve gone back to ‘ordinary’ again !
I’m not sure that it does give you an edge over using, say, Topspeed. I think the main point is not the figures but interpreting the pattern of the figures…..and I’m not sure it matters which set of figures you use as long as they are consistent within themselves from month to month and course to course
There are some things I don’t like about Topspeed such as using age allowances for 2yo. I also don’t allow for weight carried which TS does.
It only takes me about 10 minutes to do an AW card and I have plenty of spare time so I’m carrying on even tho’ I’m currently not using the figures
I do all the UK and Irish races and calculate all the going and speed ratings daily and have done for the last 20 years.
I get a results feed in the morning from the company that supplies the newspapers and a declarations feed early afternoon with the next day`s declarations.
It is pretty much automatic but there were three races yesterday that had no times and I had to go to the Racing Post web site and use (steal!) theirs.
I`ve a 32% win rate this month so far. Not my best, but 65% ROI does for me!TBB, Slowly, Mick
Thanks for the responses, very interesting.
Although I have a reasonably sound knowledge of the fundamentals of ratings assessments, I don’t think I’d have the day-to-day enthusiasm or patience to start compiling my own.
What I like about your three responses is that even in an area dominated by statistical precision, it shows there’s still many ways to skin a cat! As is evidenced by your individual contributions to TBB’s ‘Wolverhampton Tapeta’ thread, you all have your individual ‘twists’ on bringing to life what many will think as a dry-as-dust subject.
Good luck!
Mike
I think it is important to try and think of something a bit different in the way you approach this
If everyone used the same methodology and was pretty competent on a calculator or spreadsheet……well, everyone would end up with the same figures
Some people like to compile their own standard times and hope to be more accurate than others. Some will have their own interpretation of lbs per length for each track and trip (as I believe TBB does). I have a different way of doing going and class allowances
I think you have to look to do something different or we might as well just all use Topspeed, which I’m sure is perfectly fine but it would be a bit boring !
SA you sound like you compile your figures with some similarity to informracing?
I wasn’t aware of informracing ……
just googled it and found the website……not much there as to how they do the ratings. They do say they use the American system but I’m not sure exactly what that means.
the Beyer method presumably…….I’ve read Beyer’s book years ago but can’t remember it now. I read Mordin’s books about 20 years ago along with Beyer and some other US ones
I had a good dozen years away from the sport and when I came back to it 5 or 6 years ago I started a speed rating method from scratch although those books I’d read 15 years earlier were probably still in my mind
They are similar in not allowing for top weight carried as I see you mention.
I analyse using speed figures & with time preferences, there are many intricacies to consider which is the great thing and can bring you to some good conclusions on a horses ability.
My way of analyzing SF is really to ‘lean’ on the better time performances but am equally prepared to back low figures. I suppose times essentially cut out the middle ground.
I just analyse all the variables, the course, distance, going, jockey, trainer, last run, best run, time since last run, max speeds, slowest speeds, pedigree, everything.
All I look for are horses that are capable of winning. They have been fast enough previously, recently, to beat the other horses in a race. No trainer ‘is on form’ crap or ‘some famous race is coming up, oooooh!’ . If they have been quick enough recently, they`ll win again.
I am sufficiently right more times than I am wrong. More than enough to make a good profit.
Two winners out of three today does for me. The third was a second! (mutter… mutter…)I dont compile my own speed/form figures, it would take too long and by the time I’d got enough experience to do it well, I’d be dead. Prefer to just use Timeform. Paying particular attention to good timefigures. They do analysis of wind speed and direction too, which can make an enormous difference. As well as their own race distance and going assessments. Essential imo…
imo Stand alone speed/timefigures need even fractions to be worth the paper it is written on. One sole rating of a "speed figure" based on an overall time seems flawed to me. The "flaw" being, it does not take in to account that when assessing any race that only a few "form" races will have been run in a way conducive to an optimum speed figure; this "optimum speed" is needed to give an accurate assessment of how good a horse is… And this makes a difference because there’s rarely much between the top five rated horses. ie A good speed figure tells you how good the horse is given even fractions, it does not tell you how good a horse is given slow fractions. A race only needs any part of the early fractions to be slightly too slow (or too fast) for the over all race time not to show the punter how good a horse is. For example, the St James’s Palace stakes was not run at an end to end gallop and the over all time not exceptional. But Kingman’s individual furlong speed told you he could’ve been Champion Sprinter let alone Champion miler.
Much prefer Timeform’s analysis, giving both an individual form performance rating of every horse’s overall time (Timeform Timefigure)… and a form rating based on both form analysis AND sectional times. Their sectionals analysis takes in to account how much time was lost by running slowly in a certain section. Based (I belive) on how slow a section was percentage-wise compared to the overall race time. An over all time can be slower than might be expected (by a truly run race) – yet bacause it was run from slow early fractions can mean it is worth (in terms of form) a higher rating than another horse in a truly run race run over the same ground and distance on the same day. ie A horse might have done particularly well to produce that over all time given how much time was lost by slow early fractions.
The best overall speed figure you see in so many newspaper columns are ironically put up by the best stayer (at the trip) able to maintain an even gallop better than its rivals. These figures based on only over all times are at their most worthy when the betting race you’re looking at appears likely to be truly/strongly run (eg big handicaps). When the race you’re looking at betting in is likely to be slowly run, then top rated horses based on only over all times put up in truly/strongly run races – is next to useless imo.
Value Is EverythingGingerT,
Timeform UK are not permitted to use sectionals for their ratings as far as I know. Simon Rowlands seems to be the lone experimental figure allowed to stray from the true path of the ancient Dick Whitford style of beaten length style ratings and even then he does not exactly rate horses, just hand times them to identify hidden ability. Perhaps they think they cannot ever change methods too radically as it would alter the continuity of ratings over the decades. They would also have the huge expense of sectional timing every race meeting by hand. Timeform US do have the sectionals readily provided so can use them.
Others do use sectional data, paths, humidity, wind speeds and directions for their time analysis over the whole track and it give information far different from the traditional.
The worst thing you can do with time is to convert data into to so called "speed" ratings. Such ratings do not measure speed.
Nevertheless, high speed rated horses do win slowly run races which becomes obvious as soon as you start "rating" races.It may not be possible to use sectionals at every racecourse, but it is for a lot, possibly most racecourses.
GingerT,
Timeform UK are not permitted to use sectionals for their ratings as far as I know.
Robert99,
Frankel’s Timeform Rating after he’d won the 2000 Guineas was upped I believe it was 4 lbs from what the basic form value had it as; purely because of "sectionals". ie Frankel ran the 8 furlongs in a way not conducive to a fast over all time. In other words, he ran the first 6 furlongs too fast, at top class sprinting pace and therefore inevitable had to tire in the final 2 furlongs. Had he run the 8 furlongs in even fractions the winning margin would have been greater. Therefore his performance was worth (ie it was obvious he was capable of) a rating better than the form suggested.Sometimes sectionals tell you a horse is capable of better than its basic (length by length) form suggests and it would be stupid not to allow for such things in its rating next time out. ie The form rating MUST portray what it is actually CAPABLE of; otherwise ratings would be inacurate.
Value Is EverythingWhere do you get information for ‘sectionals’?
Someone must record the time at each furlong marker but who publishes it?It may not be possible to use sectionals at every racecourse, but it is for a lot, possibly most racecourses.
GingerT,
Timeform UK are not permitted to use sectionals for their ratings as far as I know.
Robert99,
Frankel’s Timeform Rating after he’d won the 2000 Guineas was upped I believe it was 4 lbs from what the basic form value had it as; purely because of "sectionals". ie Frankel ran the 8 furlongs in a way not conducive to a fast over all time. In other words, he ran the first 6 furlongs too fast, at top class sprinting pace and therefore inevitable had to tire in the final 2 furlongs. Had he run the 8 furlongs in even fractions the winning margin would have been greater. Therefore his performance was worth (ie it was obvious he was capable of) a rating better than the form suggested.Sometimes sectionals tell you a horse is capable of better than its basic (length by length) form suggests and it would be stupid not to allow for such things in its rating next time out. ie The form rating MUST portray what it is actually CAPABLE of; otherwise ratings would be inacurate.
GT,
You have changed the argument.
If there are Turftrax sectionals available for the few races they cover then Timeform may or may not use them. If Simon Rowlands does not do his hand timing, Timeform do not have any other sectional data to use. This is not the general use of sectionals for rating by Timeform you claimed. Any rating organisation must rate consistently using a commom method. The data that is consistently available governs.
There are quite large errors built into Timeform or any other rating. They know that, but if they said Dobbin is estimated to be around 97 plus or minus 9 pounds (88 to 106) then people would not buy or even be able to use the ratings.If you look at the sectionals of Frankel or any other horse you will immediately see that no race is ever run in even time. It is yet another complete myth that you are parroting. The first furlong and last furlongs are slower, bends are slower, uphill is slower, patches of soft ground are slower, going wide is slower and so on. A horse does not have an even output of energy to run an even time even if the jockey knew what that was to even attempt an optimum time. A horse runs its fastest time when it races at its own particular pace limits for each and every furlong.
Where do you get information for ‘sectionals’?
Someone must record the time at each furlong marker but who publishes it?Mick,
The only published full blown UK sectionals are supplied by Turftrax and for a very few of the major turf and some AW meetings. We may or may not get a few more meetings in 2015.
See tracking data:
http://www.turftrax.co.uk/going_maps.htmlSimon Rowlands does some hand timed sectionals for his regular Timeform articles – mostly AW.
Most professionals record their own private sectional data.
I have been doing sectionals since race videos were first available and have developed my own software to automate most of the donkey work and analysis.It may not be possible to use sectionals at every racecourse, but it is for a lot, possibly most racecourses.
GingerT,
Timeform UK are not permitted to use sectionals for their ratings as far as I know.
Robert99,
Frankel’s Timeform Rating after he’d won the 2000 Guineas was upped I believe it was 4 lbs from what the basic form value had it as; purely because of "sectionals". ie Frankel ran the 8 furlongs in a way not conducive to a fast over all time. In other words, he ran the first 6 furlongs too fast, at top class sprinting pace and therefore inevitable had to tire in the final 2 furlongs. Had he run the 8 furlongs in even fractions the winning margin would have been greater. Therefore his performance was worth (ie it was obvious he was capable of) a rating better than the form suggested.Sometimes sectionals tell you a horse is capable of better than its basic (length by length) form suggests and it would be stupid not to allow for such things in its rating next time out. ie The form rating MUST portray what it is actually CAPABLE of; otherwise ratings would be inacurate.
GT,
You have changed the argument.
If there are Turftrax sectionals available for the few races they cover then Timeform may or may not use them. If Simon Rowlands does not do his hand timing, Timeform do not have any other sectional data to use. This is not the general use of sectionals for rating by Timeform you claimed. Any rating organisation must rate consistently using a commom method. The data that is consistently available governs.
There are quite large errors built into Timeform or any other rating. They know that, but if they said Dobbin is estimated to be around 97 plus or minus 9 pounds (88 to 106) then people would not buy or even be able to use the ratings.If you look at the sectionals of Frankel or any other horse you will immediately see that no race is ever run in even time. It is yet another complete myth that you are parroting.
The first furlong and last furlongs are slower, bends are slower, uphill is slower, patches of soft ground are slower, going wide is slower and so on
. A horse does not have an even output of energy to run an even time even if the jockey knew what that was to even attempt an optimum time. A horse runs its fastest time when it races at its own particular pace limits for each and every furlong.
I’ll ignore your anti-Timeform retoric Robert and concentrate on the subject of speed ratings.
Am not "changing the arguement" or "parroting" anything. Of course those "even fractions" need to allow for things like a standing start and uphill/downhill sections etc. If I’d said so certain people would’ve no doubt accused me as being "patronising". I’d expect most TRFers to understand that and why I did not say so.Once it’s got up to speed from a standing start… The quickest way to get to the finish is to go an even pace. If going
too slow
early – it means the horse can go at a comparabley faster pace in the latter part, but
not
fast enough to get back the time lost earlier-on in the race. If going
too fast
early – it
also
means a slower over all time; with runners having nothing left for the closing stages. Therefore, an
even
pace is conducive to a
fast time/good speed figure
.
You say "A horse runs its fastest time when it races at its own particular pace limits for each and every furlong"… Wrong…
…Although you may or may not be confusing "fastest time" with "advantaged". Which is the whole point of my earlier posts. ie
Sometimes the way a race is run is not conducive to running a "fastest time" (good speed rating) but can still advantage the horse’s chance of winning (ie) compared to its rivals
…
If the early fractions are
slow
a
hold up
horse can not do its "fastest time" whatever happens… And its chance of winning is compromised unless it has absolute tremendous speed at the trip. Under this slow pace a prominent horse also will not be able to do its quote: "fastest time". However, a
prominent
runners chance of winning a slowly run race will generally be
advantaged
. Unless of course, a prominemt runner is a stayer at that particular trip; then it won’t have the
speed
to quicken at the end of a slowly run race even with a prominent position. Swallowed up by other (usually) prominent runners who do have speed at the trip.
NB: Slowly run races are also a test of how a horse settles and quicken.
If by being
held up
, its own
particular
fractions are
"even"
then it can do its "fastest time".
If by being
prominent
, its own
particular
fractions are
"even"
then it can do its "fastest time". Prominent runners who are
stayers
rather than quickeners at the trip are advantaged.
If the fractions are
overly strong
, then no horse produces its "fastest time", but with
prominent
runners (because they’ve gone faster than those in behind) particularly
disadvantaged
.
Although thoseheld up
will
not
do their "fastest time" off an
overly strong pace
, they will still be
advantaged
because (although themselves going too fast early to produce a fast over all time) they’ve gone slower than those racing prominently. However, under such circumstances you do need a horse with stamina rather than speed at the trip.
It’s this difference between what advantages a racehorse and "fastest times" (a la speed ratings) – that makes how a race is run so important…
Speed ratings based on over all times are far more accurate if the race you’re studying for is likely to be truly run.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.