- This topic has 14 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Each flat season (turf and all-weather), and for my own amusement rather than for betting purposes, I compile a list of horses that have recorded (Raceform) speed ratings clearly superior to the par ones for the races in which the ratings were achieved. The idea is to follow the horses in races under similar conditions (distance, going).
The method made a tidy profit one all-weather season, but has never done so again. During the recent turf season, it selected 95 losers and 10 winners. To £1 stakes, the losses were £95, and the winnings, £74 (there were winners at 25/1 and 14/1).
Artemis’s more sophisticated speed ratings system (see the "Speed Ratings" thread in the Systems area of the forum) also performed poorly. "A pin-sticker would probably have done better," he concluded.
When Topspeed took part in the RP’s National Press Challenge, he could achieve a win rate only in the low teens, while tipsters and Racing Post Ratings were at about 25%.
So: what use are speed ratings?
At first glance when compared to a form rating they can give you an inkling as to the likelihood of the race being truly run and therefore how reliable the form is likely to prove.
Cant see how would ever expect to make a longterm profit backing the top rated selections of ANY publicly available set of ratings, particulalry ratings as widely used as Raceform ratings are.
Its not the ratings per se that are overated, its heavy use that makes them overrated in the context of making money from them.
Your playing people, not horses.
I can see the sense of that, David. But a good many of the horses that entered my list didn’t manage to win again all season.
- Total Posts 17716
I put my life n sould into speed ratings as geeky as it sounds but I consider myself to be in a very advantagous position. I know a select group of people of say 3 or 4 that have used their own Speed Rating system for number of years, let me tell you something they are not short of a few quid.
You must remember that horses who earn good speed figures leave a lot of hard blood sweat and tears on the racetrack, it will take a break and a few easy runs to reach the pinicle level.
Now if you’re backing a horse nto after its left everything on the racetrack you’ll be hitting brick walls. The other important aspect is ground and distance – have you ever walked a furlong? its longer than it looks on TV.
Cant go into much as im in middle of an essay but would like to carry this on further.
Two of the most basic issues that put punters completely onto the wrong track are that despite the name, "speed ratings" do not measure speed nor do they rate horses.
Cavelino Rampante – I wasn’t talking about backing top-rated horses, but about following horses that appeared, according to speed ratings, to have put up good performances. Both Artemis and I found that the ratings were poor guides.
Robert – I think I have a vague idea of what you mean; but could you amplify?
Cavelino Rampante – I wasn’t talking about backing top-rated horses, but about following horses that appeared, according to speed ratings, to have put up good performances. Both Artemis and I found that the ratings were poor guides.
What makes them poor guides? The fact you dont make money using them, which seems to be the issue on your first post. Is that your criteria for judging the speed ratings you use?
If you want to get theoretical about speed ratings then why mention profit and loss?
Whats right and wrong in theory and what the market thinks is right or wrong are completely unrelated.
What makes them poor guides? The fact you dont make money using them, which seems to be the issue on your first post. Is that your criteria for judging the speed ratings you use?
If you want to get theoretical about speed ratings then why mention profit and loss?
Whats right and wrong in theory and what the market thinks is right or wrong are completely unrelated.
Sorry, I’m not trying to argue a point (I don’t know the answer to the question I raised), but to get a better understanding of the subject. In your first reply, you said:
Its not the ratings per se that are overated, its heavy use that makes them overrated in the context of making money from them.
But that wasn’t the problem here. There weren’t enough winners to make the issue of prices relevant; and it was only thanks to underbet horses at 14/1 and 25/1 that the returns got anywhere near the outlay.
As you say, profit and loss isn’t relevant to the argument. More relevant is the wins/losses ratio, which was 10/95. The speed ratings-based systems used by Artemis and me were poor guides to how horses performed.
There was a robust method around that singled out handicappers who returned a timefigure ‘well in excess’ of the mark they were running off as horses to follow off their revised mark nto. In the belief that the ‘out of class’ timefigure meant the horse would still be ahead of the handicapper
Other than that, in general shouldn’t timefigures just be used as an adjunct to form ratings?
Either to reinforce their worth if ‘fast’ or weaken them if ‘slow’…and then the hard work starts – shape pace track draw class etc etc etc
Using ‘top rated’ time/speed blind as a sole-filter betting strategy is as flawed as reliance on third party ‘top rated’ form ratings…unless your name is Phil Bull and have them all to yourself whilst wandering the quiet racecourses of war-torn Britain.
If a sample of form or time/speed top rated approach anywhere near break-even bet blind then rest assured they are pretty darn good
But that wasn’t the problem here. There weren’t enough winners to make the issue of prices relevant; and it was only thanks to underbet horses at 14/1 and 25/1 that the returns got anywhere near the outlay.
So what is your criteria for revelency, Nick?
If your method had selected 35 winners and 75 losers with all the winners priced at evens would that then make your method relevant?
If your 10 winners all returned at 20/1 would that make speed figures relevant?
The speed ratings-based systems used by Artemis and me were poor guides to how horses performed.
Is how your using the ratings the problem rather than an inherent problem with speed ratings themselves. ? With all due respect your method isnt exactly groundbreaking. I’d also imagine the horses thrown up by this would be well to the top of any speed figure rank if running in the same class in subsequent races.
If your method had selected 35 winners and 75 losers with all the winners priced at evens would that then make your method relevant?
Well, it would have shown that the ratings were doing a good job of identifying future winners – which is the issue I’m getting at. (You’re right: the issue of whether speed ratings are profitable is separate.)
With all due respect your method isnt exactly groundbreaking. I’d also imagine the horses thrown up by this would be well to the top of any speed figure rank if running in the same class in subsequent races.
Yes, agreed, my system was unsophisticated. Artemis’s was more thorough – but that didn’t work either. The basic problem may be that these horses’ performances were spotted by the handicapper.
You may remember a forum thread from a few years ago – "Cav Okay – speedy juvenile". The horse posted what appeared to be a very fast performance. But upping him in class exposed his limitations.
Well, it would have shown that the ratings were doing a good job of identifying future winners – which is the issue I’m getting at. (You’re right: the issue of whether speed ratings are profitable is separate.)
If you had followed on its next 2 runs every 2yo who ran a Raceform SF of over 90 on its debut at Newmarket since 2001 you’d have made almost a 77 point profit at BFSP with a strike rate of just over 25%.
As I say maybe its your angle finding that’s at fault here Nick.
You may remember a forum thread from a few years ago – "Cav Okay – speedy juvenile". The horse posted what appeared to be a very fast performance. But upping him in class exposed his limitations.
Cav Okay went on to be placed in the Norfolk at 22/1, so he wasn’t a complete disaster. And as for every big clocker on debut going on be a multiple high class winner down the line…well if only this game was that simple.
white elephants.
not bad at all- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.