- This topic has 20 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
- Posts
Fakenham / Sun 20 Dec
Both courses on fresh ground the whole way around.
Race 1 plus 213 yards
Race 2 plus 136 yards
Race 3 plus 258 yards
Race 4 plus 136 yards
Race 5 plus 221 yards
Race 6 plus 170 yardsHere is an example of how I would approach Fakenham on Sunday.
Looking at the first race which is 2m7f95y Hurdle, the distance has been increased by 213yds.
1. divide 213yds by 220yds = 0.96f
2. add 0.96 to 23.4f (2m7f95y = 24.36f (adjusted distance)The standard time for 2m7f95y(H) is 339.0s (5m 39.00s)
As thoroughbred racing is linear, I apply a formula I devised to the 213yds distance increase, and I have to add 14.2s (14.0s rounded up) to the standard time.
339.0s + 14.2s = 353.2s (353.0s rounded up)
As my speed figures are unique to me, I now have to a alter my lbs per length standard time figure of 0.59
353.0s / 0.2s = 1765
1 / 1765*1000 = 0.57 (1000 sorts the decimal places)So for the first race I will use an adjusted distance of 24.36f, an adjusted standard time of 353.0s and an adjusted lbs per length figure of 0.57
Whether or not anybody agrees with the example I have just given doesn’t really matter to me, all I know is it works for me.
Mike.
Last edited: A moment ago
Why not explain how you would approach this?
Mike.
A couple of observations, you have not read my post, and so have not comprehended what i have asked you. No one seems remotely interested either way as you get no responses or interest on this thread for me to be bothered to go into the subject with any degree of depth. In fact any post I make on this forum, not you personally, is completely ignored or met with a kind of defensive paranoia i’ve no time for.
I’ll leave you with it to be honest, you clearly don’t want questions or input of any kind, you just seem to want to show how smart you think you are. Thats no problem for me, but anyone who thinks this forum is the best is way out with the assessment, its leagues behind unfortunatley, i’m sorry to say.
Sorry, I think I have now got the jist of your question.
The problem you would have in using 2 variable’s (time and distance) is the data would be skewed.
In the form books the races will be recorded by there advertised race distances and not by the rail movements on the day, For example at Uttoxeter today, the 4th race is a 2m7f70y(H) and +106yds, in the results it will only show 2m7f70y.
If I was to compile a set of standard times from scratch, I would convert the +106yds into seconds (7.0s), and subtract it from the winning time.
I get over this problem to some degree by recording the times of every meeting, and then comparing them against the standard times list.
Times list (5 years of data):
https://web.cloud.virginmedia.com/?shareObject=2f9a879f-16f2-30fb-bedb-caf50feed80cStandard times:
https://web.cloud.virginmedia.com/?shareObject=194f4b16-0ff1-8753-2530-079536e8cd56Mike.
Ascot SAT 23 JAN 2016
GOING: SOFT (Heavy in places) (GoingStick: Chase 6.5, Hurdle 6.0) (Race distances increased as follows; R1 28y, R2 & 5 41y, R3 & 7 45y, R4 37y & R6 49y). (Partly cloudy)
How accurate are these distances now ? Considering that they were 220 yards incorrect in the first place !
Increases are not very data base friendly
But that’s to be EXPECTED, ALWAYS.
But that’s to be EXPECTED, ALWAYS.- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.