- This topic has 101 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Topspeed is different from Split Second,i presume Timeform’s method is different from Topspeed,Mordin’s method different from Timeform and other commercial SF different to all those
If one commercial compiler had it sussed we would all be subscribing to their service,and the price setters would have the betting market cornered
But thankfully they don’t,which leaves room for the man (or woman) like EC,Prufrock and all the others who compile their own figures  to assess the FORM in more minute detail<br>And by putting in that extra time and hard work it will more than likely  reap dividends for them
(Edited by empty wallet at 10:18 am on July 9, 2005)
I don’t think there is much variance between different methods of assessing racing form in terms of lbs, distance and time.
I don’t agree. In the realms of "form" handicapping there is a huge difference between the approach of so-called collateral and yardstick handicapping and the approach of race standardisation, between falling back on class pars and assessing a race exhaustively, between contextual handicapping and master ratings based simply on a horse’s best effort, between computerised handicapping and intuitive handicapping and so on. There is clearly a huge difference between time analysis that allows for the apparent effect of weight and time analysis that doesn’t, and a lesser one between time analysis that allows a fixed poundage per length at a distance and one that varies according to the specific circumstances, between time analysis that ignores sectionals and one that doesn’t, and so on.
Most of the work in this field has already been done and is generally agreed.
And I definitely don’t think the latter’s true.
Pru,
A good reply. I should have known that my’full toss’ would have been quickly hit into the crowd.
Wherever I have looked for methods of analysing racing form, I’ve found the majority of people employing a very similar method to handicap horses. This method, often referred to as collateral form is the one used by the BHB handicappers and doesn’t allow too much leeway for what actually happened in the race in the way of hard luck stories or denial of a clear run. It is this method that I was really referring to, but my language was a bit loose and implied that this method is accepted by everyone as a standard method.
As you point out, this is clearly not the case. Although the method I refer to above is the one you would be expected to use should you be employed as a BHB handicapper, it is only one of many possible approaches to rating horses by ability.
I confess(again!)that I have probably committed the same error with ways of compiling speed ratings, suggesting that there is an agreed method which the majority follow. This approach involves the following stages:<br> 1. Identify the standard<br> 2. Measure the difference between actual and <br> standard<br> 3. Determine going correction <br> 4. Adjust actual for going differences<br> 5. Make adjustments for weight and wfa(optional)<br> 6. Final ratings
I have looked at only about four compilers and they all use this method, although there is often disagreement(as this thread has shown) about standards. All compilers I looked at allow for weight, but in varying degrees.
So, I have contradicted myself by saying in my earlier post that there is general agreement. I stand corrected.
Sectionals are in my future, and I look forward to it. Maybe they will provide the evidence that I would require to delve further into contextual handicapping.<br>I cannot see every race, so I rely at present on the eyes and experience of others, which isn’t really satisfactory.
EC,
The whole process of doing as you advise, although extremely interesting in itself and very commendable, is very very time consuming. With the vast numbers of horses in training and expanding fixture lists, I would have to employ staff to keep abreast of it all. Even if you are quite selective and concentrate on one area (e.g 2yo), it is still a lot of work. In any event, I like to try and cover the whole programme, although I seldom go below what is now class4 in my betting.
Why not employ other people whose methods you trust to do all the donkey-work? Timeform is too expensive (I think?), so that leaves the Racing Post, who despite the knockers have a very well structured private handicapping system for form and speed. Granted, everyone else uses it, but I’m not a blind backer of top-rated horses. I’ve been using the RP for about 15 years or so, and I’ve followed all the developments with RPR and Topspeed. I respect and trust the service, which is quite high praise from me because I’m no novice in the field.
I’m sure your advice is quite sound and well intended, but it’s quite a task for the non-professional.
EC,
If truth were told, not very many(a tiny percentage) make serious money from any form of betting. A lot of punters try to fool themselves, but if they kept proper accounts they would soon find out who really wins.
I worked in the betting business for twenty years and saw only a handful of people who made it pay out of the thousands I came across. The percentages working against the punter are relentless.
I’m happy if I manage to break even, and I spend a lot of time working at ratings. It’s a diversion, really. Just something to occupy my mind. It’s fun.
Although the method I refer to above is the one you would be expected to use should you be employed as a BHB handicapper
I’ve worked with a few people who have gone on to be BHB handicappers. I have it on good authority that the BHB 2-y-o handicapper, for one, does not employ a simplistic collaterally based method of analysis. How could he? There are no such things as individual "yardsticks" where lightly raced and immature horses are concerned. Indeed, as I have stated previously, it is extremely questionable to assume that any horse, however exposed and mature it might be, is a yardstick in the first place.
Standardisation (primarily race standardisation, but also breeding and training standardisation) is the preferred method of dealing with two-year-olds for both the BHB and Timeform. It also applies perfectly well to other types of racing, though many handicappers seem to choose to ignore it in favour of more intuitive methods.
Prufrock
When compiling the Standard for handicaps, there will be a above average winner,say like IMPERIAL STRIDE every now and then,would it be advisable to throw these lighly raced, potential Group horses out as you would an outliner<br>
(Edited by empty wallet at 5:47 pm on July 10, 2005)
Pru,
I’m unfamiliar with the terms, ‘breeding standardisation’ and ‘trainer standardisation’. Would you care to enlighten?
Artemis
This may help
Handicapping Two-Year-Olds
There is a common misconception that handicapping involves little more than guessing which horse has “run to formâ€ÂÂ
It’s all averages really
P Cole’s average debutante will be rated around 50,Barathea will produce 2yo’s with an average rating of 55<br>A Bailey will produce a debutante around 40,Hector Protector 45 and so on
Using the above in combination with race standard will give the handicapper an idea of the merit of performance of say a 2yo winner at Newmarket, trained by P Cole,Sired by Barathea
Medians, not averages, actually.
You shouldn’t throw a horse like Imperial Stride out as an outlier. In handicaps you are comparing the performance of a horse with the handicap mark it ran off (either the BHB’s or your own adjusted one). Once allowance has been made for time of year, distance of race, field size, grade of race (which makes only a small difference as it happens), margins between horses etc you will still get a meaningful figure.
Imperial Stride didn’t just win a handicap, he won a Grade 1 (listed) handicap with 20 runners by 1.75 lengths, 5 lengths, 3 lengths and 2 lengths. Perhaps most significantly, he won that handicap from a mark of 100.
In the usual run of things a winner of a handicap proves itself superior to its handicap mark simply by virtue of winning. By winning such a competitive race by such wide cumulative margins it’s likely to be proving itself considerably superior to its mark (in this case 100, judged on BHB figures).
The reason i asked is because it is a Listed Hcp and the only one i can find run at York,so i used the John Smiths Cup to compile the average 114 and as you state it was an impressive performance, plus the quickest time for that distance breaking the track record set by Far Lane
The average for the race at Ascot is 120
(Edited by empty wallet at 9:45 am on July 11, 2005)
ew,
Timeform’s piece on race standardisation is excellent and it makes good sense. In fact, it underpins my own thoughts on rating races.
good form + fast time(allowing for going) = proof positive of solid form.
The bit you added on trainer and pedigree standardisation has some logic being based on historical data, but is much less reliable IMO than race standardisation. I suppose when all three are used in conjunction, the result might be marginally better than using race standardisation plus form going into the race(if available). I would need to see a lot of data on this to be persuaded of its significance.
Empty Wallets Mordinesque comments on page 1 are being tested  today in the Fillies Listed race at Ayr(3.15)
Although i think she may be better over 6f she will not be out of the shake up
<br>Go Paradise go :biggrin:
(Edited by empty wallet at 5:42 am on July 18, 2005)
Just in case it gets lost in all this:
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.
<br>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.