Speed Ratings

[ReasonoverFaith]

Artemis

Thanks for that reply. It’s always interesting to read someone else’s perspective on these things.

[scallywag76]

Unlike Artemis, I do calculate my own time ratings and have some comments that I hope will be useful.

Firstly, whatever opinions are expressed elsewhere about Haydock’s Clerk, Kirkland Tellwright, he is extremely helpful in not only stating when ‘dolling off’ occurs but also in advising of the resultant change in race distance – on this occasion an increase of 21yds. This should be an industry standard but holding your breath whilst waiting for this to happen will probably be an ill-advised option.

Judging by the race times over the afternoon as a whole, the rain that fell early in the afternoon doesn’t seem to have had a noticeable impact upon ground conditions. The wind did nudge towards a south-easterly during the afternoon, making a partial tail wind in the straight but not to such a degree that times should have been affected significantly. Based, then, on my own set of standard times for Haydock, with which I’m perfectly happy, I’d normally classify the going on the day in question as good on the round course, good to firm in the straight. However, I do wonder if the desire to attach pre-defined labels to the ground conditions can in itself be misleading?

We often hear comments to the effect that "it’s soft but they’re going through it" or "it’s tacky". In the case of the former, is it possible that quicker times than might normally be associated with, say, soft ground can be recorded? As a non-expert in turf maintenance, horse physiology and the impact such factors might have upon race times, I don’t have the answer to that.

Finally, I assume that overall responsibility for announcing a change to the going description lies with the Clerk but how is that decision made? Is it purely subjective, is a going stick whipped out and is the opinion of the jockeys taken into account?

[Artemis]

I think race times and computed speed figures tell us more about the ground than the Clerk Of The Course and jockeys’ opinion. Both of these are worth taking into account, but horses’ times are the most reliable indicators of how the ground is affecting their overall speed.

I believe it should be left to Timeform, the Racing Post, and perhaps a couple of independent speed figure compilers to agree on how the going should be recorded in the official form book. A great deal of what is already recorded there as fact for evermore is simply incorrect.

The most important factor to take into account when assessing a horse’s chances? Abilty, no doubt, but next……yes, the going.

[Formath]

Hi Artemis et al,
I have not posted on the Systems board for some time, but I do look in occasionally. About 1978 I began compiling speed figures after reading a letter published in the defunct SCHB entitled ‘Pace Ratings’ in the end I found that the daily time and effort involved numbed the senses. Then in 1984 a Morton Coles wrote a series of letters through to 1986 regarding the success he’d had for many years supporting Split Second (at the time Ken Hussey) invoving comprehensive study. Over time he provided a detailed explanation of his method including a couple of race examples.
IMO he is worth noting as he was endorsed as a successful pro-punter by Ken Hussey, that doyen of Split Second’s (it has been said Coles, method is of greater worth to punters than Van der Wheil; now there’s a thing ).

Here is a quote from Morton Cole’s that could apply to this post today: –

"What then, you might ask, is the object of this article if not to help find winners? Here begins the first lesson and note it well. The only thing that really matters is the odds. Let me repeat……….THE ONLY THING THAT REALLY MATTERS IS THE ODDS!"

And back to me, here are a couple of races chosen more or less at random from Ascot today subjected to a detailed Cole’s analysis using Topspeed as the informed expert. Final ratings priced up to 100% with Massey the same for comparison, in brackets:

3.20 Ascot
1 Kasumi 7/2 (13/8 )
2 Baharah 11/4 (13/1)
3 Barshiba 2/1 (5/4)
4 Candy Mountain 50/1 (22/1) G?
5 non-runner
6 Shaker 11/2 (200/1)

3.55 Ascot
1 Jadalee 17/2 (1000/1) D?
2 Enjoy The Moment 50/1 (13/2)
3 Caracciola 10/3 (7/2)
4 Colloquial 17/2 (11/2)
5 Vinando 5/1 (9/2)
6 Wicked Daze 9/2 (7/1)
7 Greenwich Meantime 9/2 (9/2)

I trust this post is of some interest, and if anyone would like more information they can PM me as I have a precis of the Coles method and example races on file. In fact I have the original SCHB letters I could scan if anyone is really keen

[Artemis]

Hi Formath,

That is certainly worth a look. I’ll PM you and you can let me have a look at it.

Coles’ statement that odds are the most important thing to consider is very true. If you knew how the odds would behave, you wouldn’t need to worry about finding winners.

[ReasonoverFaith]

Very quiet here over the last few months.

I’m interested in how people store their speed figures – assuming they produce their own. I’ve used the RP database but find it thoroughly unreliable. Anybody have other ideas of quick and easy ways to store figures?

Thanks.

[Monster]

Very quiet here over the last few months.

I’m interested in how people store their speed figures – assuming they produce their own. I’ve used the RP database but find it thoroughly unreliable. Anybody have other ideas of quick and easy ways to store figures?

Thanks.

Hi ROF

Probably if its just speed ratings that you want to store then Excel 2007 is the easiest. the cells go onto infinity so there is no problem with running out of space.

You can sort by name, date etc and use the filter facility to retrieve entries using just 3 letters of the runners name.

Load your excel speed rating file, click the data button, highlight the name column (usually columnA) next click the Filter Button and you will see a new button with a down pointer on the right side of column A.

Click the the down pointer and a drop down menue appears. Hold your cursor over the Text Filters and another drop down menue appears. Click Begins With and then enter the first 3 letters of the horse that you are looking for.

If you are collecting lots of data then you may want a data base facilty.

Good Luck

Monster

[ReasonoverFaith]

Monster

Thanks very much for that, much appreciated. I’d never even used that feature of the ‘data’ facility. However, I’ve got the 2003 version so I think some of the facilities are different. No worries, I’ll play about with it.

I’m wondering how you enter your speed figures. Is there a quicker way of doing it other than manually entering every horse’s name, figure, distance, going etc? I fear that requires a fairly sophisticated database…?

Thanks again.

[carlisle]

Hi gang

The two main tools form students need are useful class & speed ratings.
I am very happy to rely on the Racing Post class Ratings, but i am not sure how good the topspeed figures are???????

http://www.racingpost.co.uk/horses/tips … paper_id=3

byefrom
carlisle

[Monster]

Hi Carlisle

Topseed are much better when they are not adjusted for weight and they are from the last 3 outings. Preferably the LTO out being higher than anything else in the race. Double Best figures from the last 3 outings are especially good. The following is an extreme example and it was odds on, but it explains what type of race to look for when using Topspeed

Savarain 110,108,79

The Betchworth Kid 83,71,36

Fuilin 61,90, 93

This week Veracity won 7/4
The nearest figures from the best of the last 3 outings was Sphinx & Tarkheena Prince

Veracity 116,98
Sphinx 76
Tarkheena Prince 76

Good Luck

Monster

[Artemis]

The whole basis of Topspeed( and RPR ratings) is that they are adjusted for weight carried on a predetermined scale which relates times, weight, distances and Weight For Age(WFA). This scale is also used by Timeform, although the speed ratings may be different for various reasons.

If you want speed ratings that are not weight adjusted, you can easily do this for each race by removing the weight adjustment, or you can work out your own using the going allowance awarded by Topspeed.

This question crops up from time to time, to adjust for weight or not to adjust. The majority of compilers make an adjustment, although they do not all use the same scales as Topspeed. It makes things more complicated and the accuracy is always questionable, but logically, it’s the right thing to do.

The effect of weight is variable depending on a number of factors – size of horse, going, distance – are the main ones. The scales used by Topspeed are best regarded as averages and are subject to unknown and unquantifiable errors when applied to specific races. Going allowances are also estimates and cause much disagreement amongst compilers. I’ve had many ‘friendly’ disagreements about the ground with a few fellow forum members over the past few seasons.

It’s an interesting hobby, compiling ratings and can pay dividends for those who do it well.

[Monster]

Hi Artemis

The problem with Top Speed ratings is that they are adjusted again when applied to the race in question. to a cerain extent extra weight may or not slow down a class horse, but taking weight off does make an inferior horse any faster.

If you look at the ten yearr stats for handicaps starting with the highest weight to the lowest. Top weight 13.1% strike rate and gradualy reduces as you go down the weight position in the handicap. Clearly weight is not doing what it should do as the pattern would be more random.

"13.1"
"11.5"
"11.0"
"10.1"
"9.0"
"8.8"
"7.9"
"7.2"
"6.6"
"6.2"
"5.3"
"5.1"
"4.8"
"4.6"
"4.1"
"4.0"
"4.4"
"3.6"
"2.7"
"4.2"
"3.7"
"2.8"
"1.3"
"0.8"
"1.0"
"1.7"
"2.0"
"0.0"
"3.4"
"3.4"
"0.0"
"0.0"
"0.0"
"0.0"
"0.0"

For those that use lbs per length consider the following. With the old method 5 lengths = 1second and lbs per length. (Now change by the BHA to 6 lengths = 1second)

5f = 3lbs per length or 3ft per pound which would make the length of a race horse in stride 9ft long.

From a Time perspective under the old sysytem, the standard horse covered 55f in one second. (5l =1sec or .20 seconds per length)

Now divide 55 by 5 (Lengths ) and your race horse in stride now = 11ft. Which is a major contradiction as your race horse is 9ft long in stride according to lbs per length and 11ft long in stride when using feet per second.

Good Luck

Monster

[Artemis]

Hi Artemis

The problem with Top Speed ratings is that they are adjusted again when applied to the race in question. to a cerain extent extra weight may or not slow down a class horse, but taking weight off does make an inferior horse any faster.

Agreed. You have to be careful with horses going up in grade and hence carrying less weight in the higher grade. This has long been recognised as a weakness with weight adjusted speed ratings.[/color:1e0fdppv]
For those that use lbs per length consider the following. With the old method 5 lengths = 1second and lbs per length. (Now change by the BHA to 6 lengths = 1second)

5f = 3lbs per length or 3ft per pound which would make the length of a race horse in stride 9ft long.

From a Time perspective under the old sysytem, the standard horse covered 55f in one second. (5l =1sec or .20 seconds per length)

Now divide 55 by 5 (Lengths ) and your race horse in stride now = 11ft. Which is a major contradiction as your race horse is 9ft long in stride according to lbs per length and 11ft long in stride when using feet per second.

The Topspeed scale uses:

at 5f, 1 second = 22lbs, 1 length = 3.6lbs.

This equates to 1 sec = slightly over 6 lengths, which is similar to the BHA scale[/color:1e0fdppv]
quote]

[Monster]

Hi Artemis

RE . You have to be careful with horses going up in grade and hence carrying less weight in the higher grade. This has long been recognised as a weakness with weight adjusted speed ratings.

It does not matter if you are racing in the same, dropping or going up in class from lTO. The strike rate drops the further you move away from top weight.

The research criteria 3yr Old and Older Handicaps, Last Time Out Ran in a handicap (Includes all handicap types)

Going Up In Class

Weight Postion & %Wins

"1" "17.0"
"2" "15.0"
"3" "13.2"
"4" "12.6"
"5" "10.4"
"6" "10.1"
"7" "9.4"
"8" "7.8"
"9" "8.0"
"10" "7.0"
"11" "6.1"
"12" "6.2"
"13" "5.2"
"14" "5.3"
"15" "4.3"
"16" "4.6"
"17" "4.7"
"18" "4.1"
"19" "2.5"
"20" "3.8"
"21" "3.9"
"22" "3.3"
"23" "1.6"
"24" "0.8"
"25" "1.2"
"26" "1.1"
"27" "2.5"
"28" "0.0"
"29" "2.5"
"30" "3.3"
"31" "0.0"
"32" "0.0"
"33" "0.0"
"34" "0.0"

Down In Class
"1" "12.2"
"2" "9.8"
"3" "10.2"
"4" "9.2"
"5" "7.8"
"6" "9.1"
"7" "6.9"
"8" "7.2"
"9" "6.3"
"10" "6.0"
"11" "5.5"
"12" "4.1"
"13" "5.0"
"14" "3.8"
"15" "5.0"
"16" "4.2"
"17" "4.9"
"18" "3.6"
"19" "3.3"
"20" "7.7"
"21" "0.0"
"22" "3.6"
"23" "0.0"
"24" "0.0"
"25" "0.0"
"26" "0.0"
"27" "0.0"
"28" "0.0"

Same Class
"1" "14.4"
"2" "12.5"
"3" "11.5"
"4" "10.4"
"5" "9.5"
"6" "8.9"
"7" "7.6"
"8" "7.6"
"9" "7.2"
"10" "6.6"
"11" "5.0"
"12" "5.3"
"13" "4.9"
"14" "4.9"
"15" "4.0"
"16" "5.0"
"17" "4.6"
"18" "3.8"
"19" "3.8"
"20" "4.7"
"21" "2.5"
"22" "0.8"
"23" "1.0"
"24" "1.4"
"25" "0.0"
"26" "2.2"
"27" "2.6"
"28" "2.4"
"29" "8.3"
"30" "4.8"

Good Luck

Monster

[Artemis]

Monster

Interesting stats. Do you know if they are adjusted somehow to take account of the number of runners in each race? I think they probably are,otherwise they would be skewed in favour of the top weights.

[Monster]

Hi Artemis

I can alter the search to cover the exact number of runners

The following is for fields of 12 runners in handicaps racing in the same class as LTO

"1" "17.9"
"2" "15.1"
"3" "14.2"
"4" "12.3"
"5" "11.6"
"6" "10.5"
"7" "9.0"
"8" "8.5"
"9" "8.0"
"10" "7.6"
"11" "4.2"
"12" "4.9"

The AW Picture is very much the same

"1" "17.1"
"2" "14.7"
"3" "14.3"
"4" "12.5"
"5" "11.7"
"6" "9.8"
"7" "9.1"
"8" "8.8"
"9" "6.6"
"10" "5.1"
"11" "5.8"
"12" "5.1"

The strike rate reduces the further down the weights you go.

On the AW, Colts Improve the picture for TOP weights

"1" "20.9"
"2" "22.1"
"3" "16.6"
"4" "17.1"
"5" "17.2"
"6" "15.2"
"7" "11.2"
"8" "12.2"
"9" "8.7"
"10" "6.2"
"11" "6.5"
"12" "3.8"

So on the AW look to back Colts racing in the same class as LTO, who have displayed decent speed figures and are also near the Top of the handicap.

Good Luck

Monster

[Artemis]

Monster,

These figures do seem to prove that horses near the top of the handicap win more races and that some allowance should be made for this when assessing a race using ratings. The last peice of research in this area would be to see whether it is more profitable to support the higher weighted horses. The higher strike rates could be offset by lower odds.

I’ve always had a preference for horses near the top of the handicap, even though their chances are not obvious from the ratings. If a horse is near the top and is highly rated, it certainly gives me more confidence when having a bet.

One way to exploit this would be to add an amount to the rating according to a horses position in the handicap. This is something I might well experiment with in the future.

In terms of the ‘composite ratings’ I use, my initial thoughts would be to add points as follows

Weight Band Extra points

Top weight, -1,-2 +3[/color:y6ewpgh2]

-3, -4, -5 +2[/color:y6ewpgh2]

-6, -7 -8 [b:y6ewpgh2]+1[/color:y6ewpgh2][/b:y6ewpgh2]

-9 -10, -11 0[/color:y6ewpgh2]

-12, -13, -14 -1[/color:y6ewpgh2]

Below -14 -2[/color:y6ewpgh2]

I’m not doing very much at the moment with the racing(busy with other things), so I’ll come back to this at a later date. Thanks for the info, Monster.

[Author]

Posts