- This topic has 101 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Could those who calculate the going from racetimes give me their going descriptions for the times below for York 7f
83.42<br>84.1<br>84.36<br>85.42<br>86.44<br>87.7
thank you
Several factors affect an overall race time, in addition to the precise course and distance the race is being run over (covered above).
If we ignore stuff like wind for these purposes, we still need to know the weights the horses carried, their ages their apparent ability, deduced from a proper study of the result itself (or, if you want to be simplistic about it, from class pars), and whether the race seems to have been truly-run enough to give rise to a going allowance on its own (deduced from applying all the above to all the races on a card).
We need a lot more information, in other words.
For what it’s worth, if all the above times were recorded by 100 rated horses (on Timeform scale) carrying 10-0 or wfa equivalent in truly-run races they would respectively point to going allowances of: 77 (g/f); 89 (gd); 93 (gd); 112 (gd); 129 (g/s); 150 (just about soft).
I often wonder whether we would be better off dismissing the ‘traditional’ method of describing the going (Good, Good To Firm, etc) and looking for a new descriptor.
Perhaps %’s based on race times where 100% = some sort of agreed standard (e.g. the ground condition a 100 rated horse would manage a certain time or other). <br> <br>Just a passing thought.
Thanks Pru
Interesting Corm
If you could obtain a large enough sample to work from,it would make some interesting research
Just to add
<br>My research is in it’s infancy for a going standard etc,but so far i have manage to establish a race  standard of 84.88 for york 7f
(Edited by empty wallet at 11:43 pm on June 23, 2005)
I have 84.74.
It’s not the standard itself but how it relates to all the other standards at the course, not to mention those at other courses as well, that matters…..
I am currently researching the other distances,but i have made provisional ones for 5 and 8f so far and they look right
<br>With the going standard,the problem is sample size,this is why i’ve asked for some input to compare my research against
edited to add
provisional standards
5f 59.29<br>6f 72.25<br>8f 98.54<br>
<br>
(Edited by empty wallet at 12:33 am on June 24, 2005)
i’ve used all times, handicaps only and 4yo+ hcps only in the research,and there is only a couple of length deviation between the times i’ve studied so far at several racecourses
Although wind has an affect on racetimes,trying to factor this in with any accuracy, unless you know the exact windspeed,direction and how much it speeds up or slows down a horse is IMHO, impossible
The sample racetimes for extremes of going are only small,(like firm) the racetimes that fall into the Good going range IMO too large,and as stated elsewhere,more going descriptions may need to be applied either side of Good
From the York 7f samples,
83.42 GF <br>84.1  GOOD to FAST<br>84.36 GOOD<br>85.42  YEILDING<br>86.44  GOOD to SOFT<br>87.7   SOFT
(Edited by empty wallet at 8:58 am on June 24, 2005)
A method already exists for expressing the going in terms of how it compares to the standard(RPR rating 100, weight 9st, going good).
It is to express the going correction factor in lbs so that 0 is equivalent to good, (+) is faster and (-) is slower.
For example, if the going allowance comes out at +10, it means that on average horses are able to run to a rating 10lbs higher than they would on good ground.
This is a fairly rough measure, but it is more informative than the present method and probably more easily understood than the seconds per furlong figure used in the Racing Post.
Quote: from Artemis on 10:08 am on June 24, 2005[br]<br>This is a fairly rough measure, . ÂÂÂ
<br>And that’s the problem,
<br>Do you have an explanation how going correction is applied,btw
<br>
The production of speed ratings and the going allowance necessary to be able to calculate the ratings is a matter of some debate, so I am always loathe to claim that they are in any way exact.
My own method(If I was still using it) is very similar to that used by Topspeed, although a simplified version.
Basically, I look at a race and assign it a value based on the RPRs(Racing Post Ratings) of the best horses or top-rated horses corrected to 9st. I repeat this for every race on the card.
After the racing has taken place, I use the race times to assign a value to each race in terms of lbs (+) or (-) the RP standard time using a table of weight/time/distance.
Providing races have been run at a fair pace, comparing the actual value with the expected value produces a difference that is due to the going either speeding horses up or slowing them down. <br> <br>
Under my new and experimental analysis,PARADISE ISLE has just put in a pattern class performance
Mordin move over :biggrin:
Surely that should be "a truly top-notch Group-class performance"?
Unless it actually is, in which case you say "has yet to truly impress on the clock and looks over-rated to me".
Quote: from Prufrock on 9:05 pm on June 24, 2005[br] "has yet to truly impress on the clock and looks over-rated to me".
<br>Is that handicapper speak,for she could be well capable of winning a Listed+ event,but just in case i’m wrong, i’ll cover my a*rse
UN
Only time will tell whether my analysis is correct or not
the analysis i’ve come up with, says that PARADISE ISLE put in a Listed winning performance tonight,i have her a fair bit better than my standard for the track
Now my analysis could be completely wrong,but i can compare the results against Split Seconds figure for the race when available<br>     ÂÂÂ
If she has similar conditions as tonight,in a Fillies only Listed event,i don’t think she will be out of her depth and with possible more improvement to come, could prove profitable
<br>
(Edited by empty wallet at 5:06 am on June 25, 2005)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.