- This topic has 380 replies, 46 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Ginge- for a self-professed advocate of the august Halifax organisation, you appear to have missed the crucial difference between their master rating and their timefigure.
These are two totally separate things.
GT, and please don’t take this the wrong way because I don’t consider myself any better (or worse) than anyone else, I started compiling time figures 40 years ago.
It was different then, and I initially used the Sporting Chronicle going allowance model.
A school friend, Chris, got interested in what I was doing, we both went to uni in the midlands, went racing together loads and after Uni I initially joined Raceform in London while he got a job as assistant to Phil Bull doing the time figures at Timeform.
In subsequent conversations Chris opened my eyes as to how infinitely more scientific the Timeform time figure methods were and my own evolved accordingly.
That was a long time ago and there have been many advances – sectional times being a key area – but for all I’ve said nothing Timeform do is impossible to emulate independently.
I look at their numbers but they’re not on a pedestal for me.
Plus if you do your own private numbers when you are right and they are wrong it will be at value odds as their numbers are publicly accessible and yours are not.
Anyone who does their own numbers and makes as much as a penny annual profit betting based on them is no amateur in my book, you, me and everyone else here included.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Cork. Workforce sprang to my mind too but i recall that it wasn’t the intended route to the derby one reason or another (ground?)
“Don’t take this the wrong way”
When you said:
“for the amateur”
And this, in a nutshell, is why GT just can’t help himself and will always attract flak here for being the undisputed TRF King of the patronising and condescending remark”.Tell me, How am I supposed to see it?
————————————————-
What I actually said was:
“Time being much more accurate than the old way of choosing which horse has run at or near its best and working ratings of the other horses out from there… That said, for the amateur there is little alternative as the main basis to handicapping than the old way”.—————————-
You don’t regard yourself as an amateur, fair enough.
You’ve got “40 years experience”, fair enough.
The quote you found so appalling did not apply to you then did it.
I regard myself as an amateur handicapper.Value Is Everything“I regard myself as an amateur handicapper.”
Well I think you’re doing yourself a disservice.
We disagree about loads of things, but I’ve got you down as a good judge overall who knows his stuff and my money would be on you making your betting pay long term.
No one’s paying you an actual salary to handicap horses but if you’re making your betting pay you’re employing yourself.
A long-term winner is no amateur.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Ginge- for a self-professed advocate of the august Halifax organisation, you appear to have missed the crucial difference between their master rating and their timefigure.
These are two totally separate things.
————————————–
Yes Glad’, Master Ratings and Timefigures are two separate things.
However, even with pure Ratings when assessing the difference in pounds between first, second and third etc… If I was starting my amateur handicapping from scratch now (or if my brain wasn’t so muddled) I’d love to get into using the new way of pounds per second instead of lengths, heads etc.Value Is Everything“Ginge- I know you’re Timeform’s number one fan but I’d love to see even one single piece of form that entitled Sea The Stars to a 140 rating”.
—————————————
Ah found it!. Knew I’d done a piece before on that subject:
This is something I wrote on TRF in a thread called “Was Sea The Stars Robbed Of Glory” way back in 2010.
Haven’t checked it yet so apologies if have got anything wrong.
Are you sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin…I’ve looked at Timeform ratings given in Racehorses 09 and tried to work out the individual ratings of Sea The Stars. To give a possible explanation of ratings. Apologies if I’ve got one or two ratings slightly wrong, but here is how I see it:
Sea The Stars Timeform rating of 140 is based on other races, not the Arc performance. The rating produced to win the Arc by two lengths from Youmzain, with heads back to Cavalrymen and Conduit. Youmzain’s rating goes back to his 2008 Arc Timeform rating 131. Unless you think Jabber’s six year old improved; just about possible blinkers made a difference; but I very much doubt it. Cavalryman (trained by Fabre) improved to a rating of 130 and Conduit ran to form on 130. Dar Re Mi a further length behind on 124 and length to a below form Fame And Glory. The six year old 136/1 shot La Boum just half a length behind, only beaten a total of around 5 lengths. Seemingly showing quite a bit of improvement.
Sea The Stars performance probably a little below form, worth a rating (imo) of around 135 adding a pound for ease of victory136+
.
In 2008 Zarkava carried 3lbs less (sex allowance). Adding those 3lbs to Zarkava’s 133 is a performance of 136, meaning she and Sea The Stars Arcs are of equal merit. Seems only right because the Aga’s girl also beat Youmzain two lengths, but she was at her best. 133 may not sound that much, but I believe it’s the highest rating Timeform have ever given a 3 year old filly. This was Zarkava’s first and only race against colts. It’s possible she would have been able to show further improvement given the opportunity of more races against males. Sadly she did not race again, that’s not Timeform’s fault. Obviously, top class three year old fillies could improve again if they’re raced at four or five. Goldicova was rated 129 at three, improving to 133 at four.
Sea The Stars’s “below form” rating should be put in to perspective. It’s still possible he’s better at ten furlongs. But I prefer to put it down to pulling early on, hampered more than once and not being in the best position. Oxx’s super Stars turn of foot was electric and a tremendous performance.
If reading the Timeform essay on Sea The Stars, you’d see all things considered… Without being headstrong and trouble in running Sea The Stars may well have put up a 140 performance. But to rate the performance 140 would be pure conjecture. An organisation that rates horses for punters to study and bet from, must surely rate them on performance alone. Not letting sentiment come in to it.If Sea The Stars did run to his best rating of 140 in the Arc, you’d have to rate all the other horses around 4lbs better. That means Youmzain 135, which is 2lbs better than Zarcava and 3lbs better than Dylan Thomas who’d beaten him previous years. Better than any Arc winner this century other than Sakhee 136 (who won by six lengths). Rating Cavalryman and Conduit 134 would be the equal of Sinndar and Hurricane Run.
So to Sea The Stars other races:
Won the Guineas, but improved afterwards. His rating probably worth129p
. Beat Delegator 125 and Gan Amhras 122 by an easy 1½ and ¾ length, with Rip Van Winkle and Mastercraftsman fourth and fifth. O’Brien was out of form at the time and Rip had a late injury scare; both his colts improved later on. Delegator went on to finish a close neck second to Mastercraftsman at Royal Ascot, who also won the Irish Guineas easily by 4½ lengths. Gan Amhras was probably injured afterwards, despite his mile speed never going at any stage in the Derby.
Lord Shanakill 121, beaten 1½ lengths by Mastercraftsman and Delegator at Ascot, won the Group 1 Prix Jean Prat next time out. Also won the 2010 Group 2 Betfair Cup at Goodwood.
In the Derby Sea The Stars beat Fame And Glory 1¾ lengths, with Masterofthehorse 122, Rip Van Winkle and Golden Sword 122 a neck, nose and short head further behind. With Masterofthehorse and Golden Sword close up, keeping the form down; it is impossible to rate the form that highly, even with 6 lengths back to the rest. The Irish Derby did not have strength in depth, but it rarely does. Seperating English Derby dreamers who don’t re-oppose. Nothing wrong with the form of the principles. In what was not the quag-mire some people think. Officially good to yieilding. Golden Sword finishing second; seems right to believe a Derby second at least ran to form. Fame And Glory 133 beat Golden Sword 122 easing down (worth an extra pound or three) by 5 lengths, at least double the distance Sea The Stars did. Third Mourayan 121 another length away had already been twice well beaten by Fame And Glory. The Aga’s colt probably showed some improvement anyway, in first time blinkers. Mourayan next time out was beaten 1¼ lengths by the filly Profound Beauty. Then, would have gone close but for repeated traffic problems in the St Leger. So he upheld the form. Golden Sword ran poorly afterwards but already had a busy season. His runs before, in the Derby and against Masterofthehorse at Chester uphold the form. Masterofthehorse ran poorly at the Curragh and subsequantly sold. On performance Fame And Glory’s Derby is better than Sea The Stars Derby, With the 122 rating of Fame And Glory’s less illustrious stable companions, I’d imagine F&G himself ran to around 123 in the English Derby and Sea The Stars 126. Latter won idling and with something in hand, adding three or four pounds to that for ease of victory
130p
. Oxx’s Star improved afterwards anyway.
Not until the Eclipse did we see the true talents of Sea The Stars. Beat the improved Rip Van Winkle (last year’s rating of 134) for the third time by a length, idling. Conduit (best rating 130), 4½ lengths behind, running a little below best over an inadequate trip, racing to around 125. Ran to roughly the same mark as in the Brigadier Gerrard over the same trip. Beat Cima De Triomphe 115 by 5 lengths in the Eclipse, got beaten a nose trying to give the Cumani horse 7lbs on reappearance. Darley Stakes (Group 3) and Cambridgeshire winner Steele Tango 114 another 4¼ away. Racing Post second and subsequent Group 1 winner Jukebox Jury beaten a total of 14 ¾ lengths; with Champion Stakes and subsequent 2010 Eclipse winner Twice Over 17¼; not able to land a blow (well below their best) in rear.
But it is what Rip Van Winkle achieved in his subsequent start that is impressive. Beat Paco Boy 129 by 2½ lengths with 4 back to a below par Ghanaati. Paco had won the Queen Anne with ease and recognised as one of the best older brigade. Went on to win the Lockinge and finish a close second to Goldicova in this years Queen Anne. Ghanaati was a good winner of the 1000 Guineas and Coronation Stakes. I would think Sea The Stars Eclipse performance with a pound or two added for idling would be rated at137p
.
Sea The Stars not at his best to beat (effectively sole rival) Mastercraftsman a length in the International, a course record none the less. There was absolutely no doubt Mastercraftsman 129 (improving a little), stayed the trip well. Sea The Stars performance 131+ plus a bit for ease of victory, around
133+
.
When they met again in the Irish Champion, Kinane’s Star came out comfortably on top by a total of 5 lengths, with the Irish Derby winner half that distance between them. The rest nowhere. Suppose you could think Fame And Glory was not as good at 10 furlongs as 12. But without Sea The Stars he would’ve been a fine winner. Fame And Glory beat the International Stakes second by 2½ lengths; 2½ times the amount Sea The Stars beat Mastercraftsman at York. Seems right to attribute at least the same rating to this run as the Curragh Derby 133. Beat his stable companion (who was hampered slightly but made little difference) by the distance you’d expect from their earlier ratings and unlikely they both ran the same amount below form.
Mastercraftsman went on to win his Breeders Cup trial with a minimum of fuss before disappointing in USA. Two subsequent poor runs of Fame And Glory in 09 seemed by some to knock the form; but as the cliché tells us, “they are not machines”, I would think Sea The Stars Irish Champion could be rated 138+ with a couple of pounds added for ease of victory making…140
Value Is EverythingInteresting- if far fetched.
And Timeform’s ratings are supposed to accurately reflect the actual form shown on the racecourse. The +, p and P are used to denote varying levels of improvement, ie a horse has won with more available under the bonnet. The master rating should never factor in ease of victory, or it becomes subjective and not objective.
There’s an essay on one horse- I can’t remember which one, as I’ve read thousands over the years, but I’ll try to find it later- where Timeform explicitly state that they do not rate around arbitrary other horses and collateral form, which kind of debunks your hypothesis.
Good read, though. 👍
It’s how I’d justify the ratings Glad’, which was what you asked for – not necessarily how Timeform would justify it.
If “far fetched” then how is it far fetched?
Love to see and look forward to seeing your ratings of Sea The Stars races and your justification / reasoning.
Value Is EverythingI have a highest rating of 134, obtained in the Eclipse, for Sea The Stars, Ginge.
He beat rubbish in the Guineas (people say the time was exceptional but the Palace House Stakes on the same day was faster f/f); a load of boats in the Derby; Mastercraftsman was a decent horse but not exactly a superstar; Fame And Glory (over an even more inadequate trip for him) again in the Irish Champion and then the good-but-not-great Youmzain in the Arc.
STS was a top class horse, and may well have produced a higher figure if he’d had to do so, but on the bare form not a great.
If ease of victory is ignored in ratings then they are no use to anyone.. there’s a world of difference between one winning a length with the jockey motionless and hard ridden of course
StS was not ridden to gallop away so margin was always smaller than it might have been
“If ease of victory is ignored in ratings then they are no use to anyone.”
The trouble is you are then guessing, Clive.
Did an eased-down winner have five pounds in hand? Ten? A stone? Two stone?
You can only rate the actual form objectively and denote that it won easily.
Yes but one has to be rated over the other. That’s all I’m saying.
i think two stone might be a bit Ott though
I personally rate horses on the bare form but if one wins easily it gets a plus in terms of noting it might have won with plenty in hand.
But we’ve all seen horses find less than perhaps expected when eventually let down.
Unless the odds are generous – and they rarely are for horses who won on the bit last time out – I prefer to back horses based on what I know they can do not on what they look like they can do if ridden out
Baaeed is only 5lb clear on OR for the Queen Anne yet he’s 1/3 – it’s because the market assumes he’s better then his OR of 125.
He probably is, but at 1/3 he can win without my money on him.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Sea the stars had already found plenty off the bridle in the eclipse so ging rating his ability to have done more is correct
“The trouble is you are then guessing, Clive.
Did an eased-down winner have five pounds in hand? Ten? A stone? Two stone?
You can only rate the actual form objectively and denote that it won easily”.————————————-
Depends what is meant by “adding for ease of victory”.
Am not talking about 29, 10 or even 5 lbs.
In my opinion Timeform probably don’t add a pound or two often enough.
What you’re after is a rating that gives as accurate a rating as possible, because that gives the punter more idea of the horse’s worth on its next / future starts.As a general rule I think of the “p” as meaning the horse is capable of around 5 to 9 lbs improvement, the big “P” 10+ lbs. So neither is appropriate in this type of case. The “+” gives no indication of how much better the horse may be. I also don’t want to see too many symbols, if there were a symbol for a pound or two then why not just add a pound or two to the rating instead of using the symbol?
It is for me about probability and yes there will be occasions when the pound or two is proved wrong and can be taken off at a later date. As long as you’re right a majority of times then imo there’s no problem. However, there are safeguards that can be used for not adding too much for any individual’s performance. It is true that some horses find more for pressure than others, but we can look at the individual’s history. One that doesn’t find much for pressure would not have anything added for ease of victory. But (as Clive rightly says) what if a horse is known to have found plenty for pressure in the past? Then if winning comfortably – the probability is he’d have found something for pressure had there been a need to… And if believing he’d have found “something” then that means a pound or two. So imo in that situation a pound or two can be added with greater confidence. Indeed, not doing so is imo not rating the horse “objectively” because you’re deliberately rating less than you believe it is capable of and (as you put it earlier) not rating the “actual form”. I do agree 5 lbs would be too much, that would be what the “p” is for.
Also when a horse is five lengths clear in the final half furlong (and if there is no reason to believe the distance would’ve naturally decreased)… I think it is perfectly reasonable to rate the horse as a 5 lengths winner and not the 2 lengths it actually won by eased down.
Each to his own.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.