- This topic has 861 replies, 151 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote: from cormack15 on 11:05 am on Sep. 30, 2006[br]Timeform’s comments on horses are every bit as important as their rating, if not more so.
Spot on Cormack. Their race-readers are top notch IMO, not that I always agree with them by any means.
Personally ‘predictive’ third-party ratings adjusted to the myriad variables of the race wouldn’t interest me as it would eliminate (in part or totally) the personal interpretation/input into the race.
Too idle/dim to compile my own base ratings but the tweaking of Timeform’s to produce personal adjusted day-of-race ‘ratings’ is why I bother with betting in the first place: the intellectual challenge of unravelling a race and assigning odds. If that stimulation was denied betting the gee-gees wouldn’t interest me.
Thanks to Prufrock for clarifying that it’s the Timeform top-two rated that win 50% of races.
Quote: from cormack15 on 11:45 am on Sep. 30, 2006[br]Here’s an idea for raters – Perhaps horses could be rated according to the going with three ratings for each horse a bit like this –
George Washington
Soft/Heavy 114<br>Good to Soft/Good 128<br>Good to Firm/Firm 132p
Or perhaps by distance –
Chief Singer
5-6F – 125<br>7-8F – 128<br>9-10F – 120
Does anyone already do that? If not perhaps an opening for someone?
(I just made these ratings up for illustrative purposes btw so please no posts ripping them apart!)<br>
Yup did do a rating for every one H S GS G GF F Hd KPT WPT LPT SFS :) still losing, but one day!
That is exactly what I would actually like to see Cormack, ratings for all different conditions – but look imagine GW’s rating after the Celebration Mile.
Would it be fair to penalise his rating because he didn’t take to the course?
If he was given a rating of around 120 or so for his Celebration Mile 3rd (I have no idea of what figure he was given so don’t slate me for that!), then people that do back blindly will have lost money on the QE2, looked back through the ratings and form, seen that GW was just incredibly fresh that day, as well as not taking to the course and missing the break, they’ll understandably feel pretty annoyed.
For reasons like these, ratings are just too inaccurate.
P.s. ratings do have some effect on the betting market, but not a massive influence. Look at today’s racing – I’ve got the Daily Telegraph sport in front of me, using figures by Raceform Limited.
2.35 Norse Dancer has a rating of 139, yet he’s 14/1 – and why is that? Because he has been running below standard recently and age is getting to him.
My selection is Road To Love, a typical tough Mark Johnston runner, as well as progressive. He’s rated 10 below Norse Dancer, yet is almost a third of Norse Dancer’s price.
3.10 Same example – Soviet Song toprated at 136, but is 11/2 – on soft ground which suits, why is she not favourite? Same reasons as above
I’m going for Peeress, rated 2 behind Soviet Song.
3.45 And that Cambridgeshire, Blue Spinnaker is toprated at 126, but what price is he???
My selection – Charlie Cool, rated 119.
Granted some people will back the top rated, but compare the numbers who back Smart Enough (117) to Blue Spinnaker (126), and which is likely to have more support?
Quote: from jackane24 on 1:11 pm on Sep. 30, 2006[br]That is exactly what I would actually like to see Cormack, ratings for all different conditions – but look imagine GW’s rating after the Celebration Mile.
Would it be fair to penalise his rating because he didn’t take to the course?
Definately, it highlights an important flaw from a punting point of view.
Quote: from jackane24 on 1:11 pm on Sep. 30, 2006[br]<br>2.35 Norse Dancer has a rating of 139, yet he’s 14/1 – and why is that? Because he has been running below standard recently and age is getting to him.<br>
How do you know that Norse Dancer has been running below standard without using ratings?
How many 139 horses do you know of DJ whose form reads 0004?
I can see he has not been running to form by just looking at his results – it doesn’t take a genius to work out that Norse Dancer, a multiple-Group 1 placed horse, should be winning a Group 3 Arc trial.
Jackane
Sportsmanmongers:
Norse Daner 118 – Satchem Top 129 (2nd fav)
Soviet Song 126 – Alexander Goldrun Top 134 (2nd Fav)
Blue Spinnaker 110 – Charlie Cool Top 117 (14-1) Spectatiat, Smart Enough (fav) joint 2nd 115
<br>Use them in your research imo<br>
Quote from Jackane – "Would it be fair to penalise his rating because he didn’t take to the course?"
The answer is an unequivocal yes. The rating should reflect the performance. The factors underpinning the performance are a separate matter.
No I have to disagree Cormack.
Newmarket and Ascot are fairly similar in the fact that they are galloping courses. Goodwood’s tight turns and undulations can make it a tough course for horses to settle on.
So why should a Goodwood rating affect a punter’s reckoning on a completely different course?
You’re saying that Court Masterpiece should have gone into the QE2 as favourite because he put up a great performance in the Sussex?
Surely it was obvious that CM just loves Goodwood, just as GW doesn’t.
EDIT – another thing ratings don’t take into account. Where the horse likes to run.
A 126 front-runner, or a 128 horse that comes from behind. I’d take the front runner almost certainly – trouble in-running could make such a difference to any race, not to mention the front-runner may be very difficult to get past.
(Edited by jackane24 at 3:30 pm on Sep. 30, 2006)
Quote: from jackane24 on 3:17 pm on Sep. 30, 2006[br]<br>A 126 front-runner, or a 128 horse that comes from behind. I’d take the front runner almost certainly – trouble in-running could make such a difference to any race, not to mention the front-runner may be very difficult to get past.
A lone front runner may well be at an advantage, whereas several likely front runners may leave the hold up horse with an advantage. Such are the vagaries of weighing up likely race-shape necessitating the adjustment/questioning of a horse’s bare form rating in the context of the race it finds itself in.<br>
Talking of ratings if you take things litterally pounds per length based on the overall form of Soviet Song and Alexander Goldrun it is possible to give Spinning Queen a rating of 140 for her win today lol.
Just an extreme example of how you can’t take everything litterally in racing. When you do things like that you end up with uterly stupid ratings like Timeforms 140 Dubai Millennium and 138 Celtic Swing. Celtic Swings 138 would make him around a nine lengths better horse than Teofilo. :o :biggrin: Noooooooooooooooooooooo!!
Form ratings never work out any newbie can work that out, speed ratings merely give what a horse has achieved, I know which i prefer. GW on a raw figure would have finished behind Caldra at goodwood on what they ran on the same track over CD. To me if a horse runs quicker than the other has ever run consistantly i know which i would want to be on. <br>I am not interested in breeding or group races with their mickey mouse pace. The cambridgeshire today is far more spectacular than the previous non event.
you end up with uterly stupid ratings like Timeforms 140 Dubai Millennium
As the person who gave Dubai Millennium that rating I would like to know what you base your comments upon. Have you ever run a handicap yourself?
Race standardisation gave two separate ratings for the horse in excess of 136.
I think it’s more valid to ask why Timeform rated seven separate Flat horses in excess of 140 between 1947 and 1973 and not a single one above that mark in the 33 years since.
Quote: from Prufrock on 5:08 pm on Sep. 30, 2006[br]
you end up with uterly stupid ratings like Timeforms 140 Dubai Millennium
As the person who gave Dubai Millennium that rating I would like to know what you base your comments upon. Have you ever run a handicap yourself?
Race standardisation gave two separate ratings for the horse in excess of 136.
I think it’s more valid to ask why Timeform rated seven separate Flat horses in excess of 140 between 1947 and 1973 and not a single one above that mark in the 33 years since.
<br>I compile my own ratings. I got Dubai Millennium to 133. Admittedly I completely ignore anything on the dirt I only do turf. On turf I can find nothing to suggest he was a horse in excess of 133. Wide margain wins against the likes of Sumitas (119) and Beat All (119) (on ground that probably wasn’t their ideal) horses with ratings no better than a decent two year old don’t convince me he was worth any more than 133.
Correct me if I’m wrong but on turf the only horses he beat that earned a rating of 120 or more were Almushtarak (120) (6 lengths in heavy ground) and Sendawar who neither stayed or fired at Ascot.
I accept Dubai Millennium was a very good horse but his turf wins were against poor opposition in small field races. I can’t give him any more than 133. 140 is a complete mystery to me unless you’re talking dirt form which I know nothing about whatsoever, to repeat I concentrate solely on the turf.
Your second point regarding Timeforms ratings of seven horses between 1947 and 1973 as 140 or above and none for thirty odd years since is a valid point in my opinion, I don’t have an answer to that.
There was quite a discussion about whether Dubai Millennium should have a split turf and all-weather rating, with the latter higher.
I was one of those who felt that almost any other horse in these circumstances would get one overall rating, and that held sway. I seem to recall that the reasoning was explained in the essay.
I am a big fan of people considering a horse’s various performance ratings and not just its master rating, however, which I sense you are as well. The latter is, necessarily, a simplification of the situation. ÂÂÂ
Is your 133t for Dubai Millennium on the same scale as Timeform’s ratings?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.