January 10, 2007 at 19:42 #678
as to why Trouble at Bay and Buena Vista are both rated 140+
Don’t get me wrong, both are potentially useful in this sphere, and put in nice performances on their Chasing debuts, but beating ODC, Ursis etc and Tora Bora, Borrora etc, surely don’t warrant these marksJanuary 10, 2007 at 20:02 #35668
I thought you had made a mistake ew. Agree the RPR’s for both look excessive. What makes it even stranger is that according to RPR’s, both are already better over fences than hurdles.January 10, 2007 at 20:13 #35669
Quote: from davidjohnson on 8:02 pm on Jan. 10, 2007[br]I thought you had made a mistake ew. Agree the RPR’s for both look excessive. What makes it even stranger is that according to RPR’s, both are already better over fences than hurdles.
<br>I’m stumped DJ tbh, ratings are saying these two have put in G2 Novice Chase performances like Turko, Fair Along, Boychuck etc, which they clearly have not
(Edited by empty wallet at 8:13 pm on Jan. 10, 2007)January 10, 2007 at 20:34 #35670
I must be missing summat
free Timeform card
01/12/06 EXETER (Chase) <br>19 furlongs, 110 yards. Soft 1 of 6 13/8 tfig rat 140+ A. P. McCoy
<br>23/12/06 HEREFORD (Chase) <br>16 furlongs. Gd/Sft 1 of 7 3/1 tfig rat 145 J. A. McCarthy
:o :oJanuary 10, 2007 at 23:11 #35671
Are the timeform ratings you have weight adjusted for the horses entries? The reason I ask is because Buena Vista is rated 133p and Trouble At Bay is 132p,January 11, 2007 at 00:35 #35672
Dunno tbh DJ, i just lifted those off website and presumed those were the ratings awarded for each race
Like i say, i’m missing summat<br>Timeform racecard:
<br>RACE 3 HEREFORD 11/01/07 TRW ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“
——————————————————————————–<br> <br>2.00 THE HEREFORD TRUCK SHOW NOVICES’ CHASE (3) 2m <br> <br> Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£9,800 5yo+ <br>
——————————————————————————–<br> <br>1 BUENA VISTA (IRE) 6 b.g 11-12 D. E. PIPE A. P. McCoy 142 p <br> <br>2 TROUBLE AT BAY (IRE) 7 b.g 11-08 A. KING Robert Thornton 145 p <br> <br>3 CHIEF YEOMAN 7 b.g 11-02 MISS VENETIA WILLIAMS Sam Thomas
4 GENGHIS (IRE) 8 br.g 11-02 P. BOWEN T. J. O’Brien 121 <br> <br>5 KILLING ME SOFTLY 6 b.g 11-02 J. GALLAGHER Tom Scudamore (b) ?
BV 140 rating (i presume) has been adjusted to 12 stone = 142, so TaB 145 should be 151 and Genghis 121should be 133
Your more realistic ratings, BV should be 135, TaB 138, if adjusting to 12 stone
empty = mystified by by high race ratings and TF race card ratings
RPR adjusted to 12 stone are correct – BV 142 (ajd 144) Tab 146 (ajd 152,) Genghis 112 (ajd 124) Killing me softly 38 (ajd 50)
empty = mystified by the high race ratings of Buena Vista and Trouble at Bay
(Edited by empty wallet at 3:06 am on Jan. 11, 2007)January 11, 2007 at 08:57 #35673
Tf jump ratings are adjusted to 12st7lb. Their flat ratings adjusted to 10st.January 11, 2007 at 10:11 #35674
Quote: from davidjohnson on 8:57 am on Jan. 11, 2007[br]Tf jump ratings are adjusted to 12st7lb. Their flat ratings adjusted to 10st.
<br>:cool: no longer mystified by TF ratings, any explanation why that is so anywhere DJ?
(Edited by empty wallet at 10:17 am on Jan. 11, 2007)January 11, 2007 at 11:20 #35675
Off the top of my head I don’t know EW, other than at the time Timeform began producing Black Book jumps ratings in the 60’s, the majority of the big handicaps I think had a top-weight of 12-7, (see Arkle etc).January 11, 2007 at 11:43 #35676doyleyParticipant
- Total Posts 567
Hello,<br>I haven’t got race stats. on hand at present, so please correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Trouble at Bay attain his lofty perch for the beating of OPERA DE COUER ?? [Timeform Rating at start of season: 126p]
Although ODC was selected by Timeform 50 to Follow, another dismal display yesterday demonstrates Trouble’s inaccurate rating.
doyleyJanuary 11, 2007 at 12:01 #35677
What do you have Trouble At Bay rated?January 11, 2007 at 12:08 #35678
I think you’ve got to treat that race and the rating with caution due to the subsequent running of ODC tbh
Not sure how TF work, but if more evidence was forthcoming, like Genghis running poorly again then maybe the rating may be reviewed
<br>January 11, 2007 at 12:46 #35679
Ofcourse the publsihed rating for Trouble At Bay was produced before Opera de la Cour ran yesterday. However, I didn’t think you were a fan of yardstick handicapped ew, that being the case, why would Opera de la cours run yesterday worry you too much.January 11, 2007 at 13:04 #35680
subsequent runs tell you how strong or weak a race is ( which i’m sure you know) and one horse running poorly from a race means nothing tbh, but i’m applying caution to it, as i would to any race where a horse does not seem to have gone on, thats all
As more evidence comes to light of horses running well or poorly from a race, i think you need to go back and review your ratings, and if need be, raising em slightly or lowering em
(Edited by empty wallet at 1:08 pm on Jan. 11, 2007)January 11, 2007 at 13:14 #35681
As i stated earlier with the ratings you posted
"a more realistic rating"
Subsequent form may say that was right, a bit low or to high – hindsight is a wonderful thing, TF don’t have that luxury, but i have in most cases
(Edited by empty wallet at 1:16 pm on Jan. 11, 2007)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.