- This topic has 40 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 18 years ago by
.
- Posts
Any comments on these, compared to Timeform?
I got a free sample of the racecard for Warwick last Saturday and found it quite good, although more work to use than Timeform racecard. I wonder though is there is so much information that you could take the winner of many races and "see" how the ratings should have pointed it out to you.
Anyone use these regularly?
Yes.
They are excellent, but need to be interpreted in a sensible way and aren’t for those who just want a single rating to tell them how good a horse is.
If you have the time to study racing properly, I would recommend them very strongly.
Agreed.
Where there is a lot of data eg sprint handicaps they are by some way the most accurate indication of a horse’s ability that there is. Used properly they will also give a better idea of going and other preferences.
Where there is less data (eg two year olds) caution in intrepetation is required.
There are some quirks, amateur and apprentice races being examples, where it is best to take a higher rating with a pinch of salt.
Used regularly, particularly in parallel with your own ratings and notes, you will learn things about racehorse performance that a lifetime of studying Timeform or Raceform wouldn’t give you.
However you have to be prepared to plough through data which isn’t everybody’s cup of tea. I don’t bother with NH so these comments apply to flat racing.
I’m sure Whitely is/was way ahead of his time and has based his work on sound research. It’s a pity his output presentation has not progressed and it takes me back about 20 years when using 4 day decs cards and scoring out the non runners.
If he reworked the presentation and produced it as an online service driven by a modern SQL based system it would probably beat all other ratings services by a mile. Similar thing can also be said about the RSB ratings, good but poorly presented.
So many organizations with very useful data fail to grasp some of the basics of good presentation and user friendly delivery.
Agree to an extent, Wallace – although I think that their "user-unfriendliness" has probably helped them not become that popular, which is of course in all subscribers interests
Ratings are useless when the Official going is heavy, at it was at Warwick – your looking for a differerent animal.
Even more missleading when the Going was actually the on the G/S side of Soft with Heavy in places – giving Soft times. In short, BOLLOX.
Paddy Power knocked back my £0.37 bet.
I first met John many years ago when he was with Timeform, working on their computer time figures and can vouch for the integrity of his approach, via Racing Research. The methodology used to derive the ratings for horses and jockeys, in comparison with other readily-available sources, remains innovative.
Wallace, your comments about seemingly outdated presentation may have some validity but I suspect that John is happy with the way things are.
I’m sure Whitely is/was way ahead of his time and has based his work on sound research. It’s a pity his output presentation has not progressed and it takes me back about 20 years when using 4 day decs cards and scoring out the non runners.
If he reworked the presentation and produced it as an online service driven by a modern SQL based system it would probably beat all other ratings services by a mile. Similar thing can also be said about the RSB ratings, good but poorly presented.
So many organizations with very useful data fail to grasp some of the basics of good presentation and user friendly delivery.
Yes valid criticisms. From what I know of him and talking to John Whitley he seems to be a computer man through and through. Marketing and presentation are basic, advertising non existent. As the resulting data is indigestible to most punters this can also be seen as an advantage as thedarkknight says. Most people don’t seem to see the extent of the advantage gained by continuingly recalculated ratings.
On quadrilla’s point one of the purposes of the raw data approach is to identify horses that go particularly well in certain conditions eg going, distance, tracks, ridden by apprentices(claim a bonus), strong jockey etc etc. If you identify horses that do best on very soft going following them in the right conditions can be very profitable. Timeform may say about such horses "acts on good or softer", but in truth for some the softer it gets the better their chance. Timeform’s basic one rating approach is a weakness in this respect, as is their reticence to acknowledge the importance of the going sometimes.
Timeform’s basic one rating approach is a weakness
Just for a point of clarity, Timeform has a master rating but it has also had performance ratings available on Briefings, Racecards and the Computer Form Book, among others, for a very long time now for those who wish to drill down further.
"Blackheath wrote: Timeform may say about such horses "acts on good or softer", but in truth for some the softer it gets the better their chance.
That isn’t strictly true. Timeform never say a horse acts on good ground, there is an assumption that all horses act on good ground. More likely is that a comment may say ‘raced on good or softer’ and then qualify it with an ‘(acts on soft)’ or ‘(acts on heavy)’ where appropriate.
Regarding the point you develop, is that because certain horses run to a higher rating the softer the ground is, or is it that the horses chance of winning increases in softer ground because he handles conditions better than a number of it’s opponents. If it’s the latter, which I would say it is 9 times out of 10, armed with the information of other horses ground preferences from their comments, and I still think you have all the pieces of the jigsaw.
Timeform may have a master rating and performance combo but they cannot or will not accept that a more sophisticated approach is easily achievable. Technology has moved on but just like Raceform they are stuck in the dark ages.
DJ, yes its a case of which horses handle extreme the best that dictates the outcome of many races. A horse may very well appear to put up a better performance on heavy ground but probably the others failed in the conditions. To spot this type of subtle difference is way beyond the scope of most people.
for those who wish to drill down further.
Ain’t "drilling down" the key to using all ratings?
Surely, If you don’t investigate under what conditions the rating was achieved, you may as well be using a pin
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.