Speed Handicapping

[Anonymous]

Speed Handicappers Food for Thought

As things are a little quiet at the moment on the AW front I thought I would throw something in to the mixer for you guys (or gals)
For those of you out there with an interest in compiling your own speed figures, in most cases your preliminary route will be to copy methods outlined in various publications. When you become more practised you will start to question the validity of some of what you have read. If you have read several authors on the subject you will mix and match their theories based upon your personally held values. During this process you will also realise that most of the decisions you have to make have been asked repeatedly by other nascent speed handicappers and deduce that there is no definitive answer. This is the stage where you use free thinking outside the box or simply conform. The latter being the most common. The most frequent topics are the use of weight, standard times and going allowances. I would like to add the infrequently discuss topic of rating adjustment for beaten horses and what I believe to be a fatal flaw in the conventional method of adjustment.

The most commonly used method is arrived at by dividing 15 by the distance.

5 furlongs 3
6 furlongs 2.5
7 furlongs 2.14
8 furlongs 1.88
9 furlongs 1.67
10 furlongs 1.5
12 furlongs 1.25

Most other methods fall in to the same category as the common denominator is always the length of the race.

So where is the flaw?

Using extremes as I appreciate these two horses are never likely to meet.

Let us suppose a horse is beaten 1 length by a horse we rate 90 in a 5f sprint. We give the horse in question a rating of 87.

Our next horse is beaten 1 length by a horse we rate 90 in a 10f race. We give this horse a rating of 88.5

Ask yourself which horse is travelling the fastest, therefore which horse has to make the least effort to make up the deficit and is this being reflected in your ratings?

The reason the above table is so widely respected is simply due to the fact it falls in line with the excepted lbs per length so we have cross pollination of two methods of handicapping.

This has no value in speed handicapping. When adjusting ratings for beaten horses the mathematical relationship lies with the time in which the race was run NOT the distance of the race.

[Gerald]

I met a chap once (at the London Racing Club) who told me to divide 220 seconds by the time of the race to get the number of pounds per length.

This is obviously an improvement, but I’m still not sure how accurate it is.

Ask yourself which horse is travelling the fastest, therefore which horse has to make the least effort to make up the deficit and is this being reflected in your ratings?

I’m not clever enough to understand this bit, and you will have to spell it out for me.

[Anonymous]

Actuary

Just a suggestion: you’d probably get more feedback were you to post this on the main horseracing section. There are a number of clockers who post on there, some who might have no interest at all in ‘systems’ as such..

[Gerald]

I don’t know whether this thread has been prompted by Carroll’s book with the same title.

I left all my books behind in Harlesden, so this might be wrong in places.

First of all you have to get your par or standard times. Carroll bets on Quarter Horses, in Texas and New Mexico, I think. He got his par times by looking at the world record for various distances, and then drawing a line where the world records ought to be for the odd ones out.

He equates this time with 100%.

I think he doesn’t bother with going allowances, which is fair enough in New Mexico.

The time each horse runs is given as a percentage.

So if the world record is 60 seconds, and a horse runs in 61 seconds, this is a rating of 100*60/61 = 98.361

(Personally, my head would get done in by all the 9s and 8s that appear in the ratings of horses, and I would set my pars to 111 instead of 100, in order to reduce the number of them.)

So say you have your set of par times. Now the thing is, for the past few years we have known the times taken by the beaten horses, but at the expense of knowing what the actual distance gap was. This actually is a boon to speed handicappers.

On the Flat (Turf) on Good ground it is 6 lengths per second, according to BHA diktat. So if a horse is beaten by a length, it crossed the line 0.167 seconds after the winner, and this is without knowing how long a length is, and with a length being a different distance according to the speed that the horses are travelling at. So, the actual speed that the horses cross the line gets factored out as well. All we have is 0.167 seconds, and that is all we actually need.

Let us say that the pars for the two distances of 5f and 10f under consideration are 58 seconds, and 121 seconds. Also assume that the winners actually won in par. The horses beaten a length must have run in 58.167 and 121.167 seconds. The two winners both achieve a rating of 100. The horses beaten a length have ratings of 100*58/58.167 and 100*121/121.167, which are 99.713 and 99.862 respectively.

[Gerald]

I suppose a similar thing can be used for going allowances. Instead of being fast by 0.18 seconds per furlong or slow by 0.23 seconds per furlong etc, the going allowance can be expressed by a percentage factor.

[Anonymous]

I don’t know whether this thread has been prompted by Carroll’s book with the same title

Sorry, I have no knowledge of this book but will go find it but rather spooky none the less!!

Are you sure same title, same topic!!

I’m not clever enough to understand this bit, and you will have to spell it out for me

The speed a horse is travelling dictates how far it was behind the winner from a time perspective. Although we have no way of getting pin point precision on how fast a horse is travelling at any given point in a race the most accurate assesment can be drawn from the time a race was run in.

Whether its Carroll!! or The Actuary it is common sense.

[mr forecast]

ADJ
TS RPR HORSE/WGT LAST 6 RATINGS BEST TOPSPEED
LAST YR GOING DIST COURSE

106 119 Corum 12-5 44 2 29 35 106 — 106 106 91 —
104 118 Deadline 10-9 111 44 92 37 89 104 116 116 111 —
104 118 Dreams Jewel 10-7 — 115 114 45 95 104 115 115 115 99
87 117 Weather Front 11-9 87 84 — — 72 71 87 90 87 —
87 116 Sweet World 11-3 83 100 86 69 87 — 100 100 100 100
85 110 Blacktoft 11-6 — — — 85 — 72 85 85 — —
38 112 The Flying Phenom 10-0 71 50 70 109 — 45 45 109 71 70
— 105 Classic Fly 11-2 — — — — — — — — — —

you all seem much more clued up on this subject than me,but wouldnt it be nice if it was layed out like the american speed ratings,i am having to open several pages to get all the info

above is the first race at newton

how i am reading this is that corum has ran the fastest in the last three races but deadline is the fastest horse

as a 1,2,3 i would have
deadline……..dreams jewel and flying phenomen

but could not exclude corum but not happy with its win yesterday,10 ran TIME 4m 42.30s (slow by 22.30s)

using this method at carlise yesterday saw diggerratt,inheritor,captain macarry and its a mans world

i do have excellent strike rates on the aw but do try other tracks aswell as you can get some hidden gems in there as well

i am going to try the pace angles with the speed ratings

[tbracing]

I think speed figures a good form of interpreting performance but even then it needs further exploration, speed figures should never be solely relied on but used as part of the jigsaw don’t you think?

[mr forecast]

I think speed figures a good form of interpreting performance but even then it needs further exploration, speed figures should never be solely relied on but used as part of the jigsaw don’t you think?

i would say that its the best place to start and then move on to your other areas,

the basis being the same in all sports,how long does it take from a – b

if you have a spare 10mins a day then collect the results for yesterday and see how many top rated finished 1,2 and 3rd……..i already know the answer and you will be surprised,

[tbracing]

I agree mr forecast, it isn’t a bad place to start. I use speed figures myself and trust the figures I use but I find it’s important they coincide with others factors is my point.

Getting from a-b quickly is all nice in theory in horse racing but you have to consider pace, race position, race manouvers etc etc.

[mr forecast]

ADJ
TS RPR HORSE/WGT LAST 6 RATINGS BEST TOPSPEED
LAST YR GOING DIST COURSE

66 72 Tribal Myth 9-3 — — — — 49 66 66 66 66 —
65 71 Bustard Bay 9-3 — — — — 24 65 65 65 65 —
62 65 Pleasant Day 9-3 — — — — — 62 62 62 62 —
53 89 Bonfire Knight 9-3 — — — — 60 53 60 60 60 —
44 50 William Arnold 9-3 — — — 44 43 33 44 44 33 33
— — Decimus Meridius 9-3 — — — — — — — — — —
— — Greyfriarschorista 9-3 — — — — — — — — — —
— — Lady Pacha 8-12 — — — —

william arnold had the only on course speed rating and placed at 50/1

[mr forecast]

ADJ
TS RPR HORSE/WGT LAST 6 RATINGS BEST TOPSPEED
LAST YR GOING DIST COURSE

103 108 Tanmeya 11-9 — 50 55 93 15 103 103 103 — —
100 105 Quil Est Beau 11-5 — — — 85 100 90 100 100 90 90
98 102 Outside Investor 11-5 54 — — 98 89 — 98 102 102 102
93 97 Howdy Cloud 11-5 15 — — — 93 — 93 93 — —
84 105 Present Oriented 11-5 56 — 52 — 84 47 84 108 108 —
— — Charlottes Webb 11-2 105 — — 52 — 57 57 105 89 —
— 107 Lilac 11-2 67 67 93 73 23 56 93 111 90 90

my betfair account reflects that im doing something right

outside investor won 28/1 had the highest course speed

would any one agree??????

[Anonymous]

I am watching with interest!

You have had other decent price winners. What I am unsure of is what constitutes a bet for you?

I would be interested to see you weaving your magic on the card for Kempton tomorrow evening.

I am just about to post my top rated on my blog. Be good to see where we agree and disagree (not in a competitive way)

[tbracing]

Regards William Arnold, If you’re going to use figures for comparison I don’t see in 1000 years how you could of competively made his figures comparable in that race. He was rated 46 and on the evidence it looked about right. His course form figure was completely and utterly worthless.

I think you’ve after timed this one a bit and found something that is not there

[mr forecast]

Regards William Arnold, If you’re going to use figures for comparison I don’t see in 1000 years how you could of competively made his figures comparable in that race. He was rated 46 and on the evidence it looked about right. His course form figure was completely and utterly worthless.

I think you’ve after timed this one a bit and found something that is not there

i get this alot so dont worry, your not the first and you wont be the last

dont let form get in the way,or jockeys,or women dont win bla bla

[mr forecast]

you will have to wait till around 11pm as missus goes to bed at 10 and then im free

ill post my selections up ante post and see what you think and if yours differ slightly

tbracing
i did not bet on william to win at 250/1 it would of been nice but im not stupid,but you cant deny the only on course speed figure was achieved by william its not backfitting,

if you go back to the begining i gave you a 1,2,3 for today how comes this one doesnt get the same treatment ??

anyway ill be back later with me magic wond

[tbracing]

It’s not a case of letting form get in the way forecast, sorry i’m not trying to shoot you down here or anything but he possibly ran the worst race of his life at catterick before today and basing a decision because he had the best (and only) course figure doesn’t seem logical at all

[Author]

Posts