- This topic has 101 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Table= SF’s for 6f at Newmarket,Frizzante being top on 116
According to RF a listed race at Ayr or a G3 at York is her next target
Titian Saga 91 Hornpipe 100
(Edited by empty wallet at 12:30 am on June 28, 2005)
No-one is doubting that Paradise Isle is a useful filly. What they are doubting is whether she put up a time commensurate with that ability when winning the other day.
If she did I’ll eat my hat.
Newmarket(July) pattern class median standard (6F)
72.83
Paradise Isle 71.87 0.96 better than standard
eat yer hat:biggrin:
(Edited by empty wallet at 12:29 pm on June 28, 2005)
EC
After compiling the 5/7 and 8f standards,my 6f standard looks too be  low at 74.43,it should be around the 73secs mark,however PI was still 1.48 better than the RF standard
Hornpipe only 0.03 better than my standard 0.37 better than RF standard
<br>
(Edited by empty wallet at 6:20 pm on June 28, 2005)
ahhh,i used all times,doh!
using 3yo+hcps on good,if i narrow it down anymore there is not enough sample data
5f 58.97 6f 72.82 7f 86.02
they look better
<br>
The above are from a sample set of 30-40 races,i can remember Prufrock(i think) stating he needed about 20 sets of data for a standard at Wolver,so i would not want to go below that number for the sample size
They’re for all 3yo+hcps
For Rowley 5f 61.07,that looks too slow
using class C 3yo+hcps 60.15,looks about right,but unsure about which way is best to produce the standards now
Any suggestions
We don’t wish to go into the fundamentals of speed ratings here. Suffice to say that it is an uphill struggle trying to compile them on British turf courses due to the differences in track layout, directions, speeds etc. Only the all weather offers the best chance of mastering them. What is clear is that increasing weight on a horse is not a disadvantage – it won’t slow a horse down, and decreasing a horses weight won’t speed it up. Weight risers will mostly beat weight fallers.
full article
http://www.flatstats.co.uk/articles/weight_in_horse_racing.html
<br>
Quote: from EC on 11:33 pm on June 28, 2005[br]there’s a little voice whispering to me that you know how to do all that is required EW but you like to drag what you can from others :
I like to get input from those who have more experience than me in these important issues
<br>
<br>you taking the mick?
<br>just a bit,but not much :biggrin: ,but it also makes for interesting debate
There is a possibility that someone ignoring weight carried as a factor could still be profitable, weight carried and it’s relation to form and time being one of the most scrutinised factors determining a horses ability and therefore being one of the factors used widely to determine a horses chance. Ignoring weight and focusing on some other factors may indeed lead one down an untrodden path which may, if you’ve chosen those factors wisely and understand them thoroughly, lead to an ‘edge’.
However, to suggest that increasing the weight on a horse won’t slow it down is one of the more ridiculous comments I’ve read on here.
However, to suggest that increasing the weight on a horse won’t slow it down is one of the more ridiculous comments
It’s a bit like someone stating ignore horses drawn 10+ :biggrin:
Regarding weight increase,I think the class aspect does creep into it, to a degree. More relevent is that weight WILL slow a horse down from its MAXIMUM performance, all other things being equal. I also think that a decrease in weight can enable a horse to achieve a faster time, up to its MAXIMUM.
EW, all you have to do is factor in your knowledge of the course, allowing x amount for slowing down around bends or going uphill (your interpretation). So its a combo of distance, hills and corners, against a perfectly level, straight course on good ground( I think it best to use GDFM on the UK’s undulating courses imho, but I’m not going into that here, basically due to pockets of softer ground).
The standards must be representative of the distance, ie a 1m4f runner wont be covering a furlong in the same time as a sprinter.<br> Once you’re happy you’ve got it as near as you think you can, you can now start knocking up some going allowances and produce some speed figures. After only a few meetings (even the first, after veiwing the races) your speed figures should rub off your standards and vice versa, until you become more and more content with them. You’ll never get them spot on, as theres no such thing, but you will quickly get a standard time that is very workable imho, quicker than waiting for the next 50 meetings and taking an average.<br> Though you will be tweaking them for a while, only to less and less slight degrees though, which shouldnt affect your interpreptation of your SF’s. Whats a pound here or there in the meantime, basically.
I would also rate to 9 stone, not 10. Some say it doesent matter, I’m of the firm opinion that it does.<br>Horses tend to carry weight nearer to 9 stone than 10, on average.<br>As an extreme example. Take a horse carrying 8-10 over Beverleys 5F on soft ground, that then goes and runs over Epsoms 5F on Firm ground. Why have all that extra "guess work". Up and down 4lbs on two extremes of course and going, or up and down 18lbs.
To suggest its all relevent on a set lbs per length, or lbs per 0.2 second scale, is nonesense. They’re all different and the less guess work the better. Going all the way up to 10 stone is doing nothing more than exagerating things, when there is no need in the first place.
I think you know all this already though EW and are infact (as someone has already said), just taking the p**s
. Its been disscussed on here time and time again. Its got a bit boring to be honest. What is value, effect of weight, time vs form, the odd moan about running rails, Mordin sucks, blah blah blah.Happy to become an occasional guest.<br>Good Luck all:biggrin:
Nice to see this debate is still rattling along. I think EC’s approach is quite close to the one I would use if I was still compiling figures.
I calculated my version of ratings(very similar to Topspeed, only simpler) for Windsor’ evening meeting on Monday.
I came up with a going allowance of -14.i.e horses were being slowed on average by 14lbs from trheir true ability due to the ground.
Ratings for the winners:
6.40 Nivelle 75(after adding back WFA)<br>7.10 Spinning Coin 71<br>7.40 Bailey’s Gate 99(after adding back WFA)<br>- might be a bit high as straight course a bit quicker than round course)<br>8.10 The Prince 62- an oddly run race<br>8.40 The Fun Merchant 76<br>9.10 Premier Rouge 67
Anywhere near your figures, EC.
I will be interested to see the Topspeed figures for the meeting as soon as they are available.<br>They were: 68, 62, 92, 57, 70, 59.
(Edited by Artemis at 9:43 am on July 2, 2005)
EC,
That should saveyou a lot of work.
I only bet these days in races where the RPR top-rated is 90+( Topspeed about 80+), so although I’m mainly focused on the better tracks, I often find myself looking at races at some of the’gaffs’.
I selected Windsor because I was working out an example for Wallace, a forum member who is interested in this area. It just happened to be the best meeting of the day on Monday.
Perhaps I could do Saturday’s card at Sandown, which would be much more interesting. It’s fun but time consuming, which is why I don’t do it very often.
Thanks for taking an interest.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.