- This topic has 27 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 23 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Paul101…it’s going to take me too long to retype everything I typed all those years ago so I’ll change tack by analysing Saturday’s Doncaster card from a time viewpoint.
It’s actually quite a good example as there was no rain during the meeting and six of the seven races were over the straight course and we’ll concentrate on those.
In race order, the winners, their ages, weights carried, official ratings and times relative to standard were as follows:-
1.50 (5f) Intellibet One 2 7-13 (no OR) 6.49 secs slow<br>2.20 (8f) Ellen Mooney 3 8-6 (OR 78) 10.59 secs slow<br>3.35 (8f) Zucchero 6 8-13 (OR 91) 8.94 secs slow<br>4.10 (6f) Falcon Hill 3 8-6 (OR 108) 5.26 secs slow<br>4.40 (6f) Lady of Gdansk 3 8-9 (OR 55) 7.24 secs slow<br>5.15 (7f) Lingo 3 7-11 (OR 60) 8.02 secs slow
Do the calculations set out previously (i.e. with no allowance for the going) and the basic timeratings are IO 21, EM 14, Z 20, FH 47, LoG 23, L 18.
These are obviously far too slow and we know the ground was soft anyway and so some adjustment by way of a going allowance is clearly needed.
Assume that the horses were slowed down by the conditions to the tune of 0.70 seconds per furlong and re-do the calculations. In other words, treat Intellibet One as having run 2.99 seconds slower than standard (i.e. 6.49 minus [5 x 0.70] seconds), Ellen Mooney as having run 4.99 seconds slower (i.e. 10.59 minus [8 x 0.70] seconds) etc. The adjusted timeratings are IO 80, EM 72, Z 78, FH 106, LoG 81 and L 76. Is 0.70 the correct going allowance?
My view is that it isn’t and that the correct going allowance is a bit higher than that. Again, I’m a bit short of time and I’ll have to go into my reasons a bit later on in the week. I’ll also explain the use that can be made of the ratings once they’re finalised.
Hi Guskennedy, thanks for all the input, its really interesting, how I would love to be able to calculate time ratings myself, my hobby is reading form, I can spend 20hours or more a week just looking at form,time and pace, and digging deep, allthough I only show a small profit on my punting, I enjoy the time I put in reading, but Iam afraid to make my own time figures would be way way above me, I will be looking forward to your next post.
cheers Paul
Gus / Paul
Very interesting thread – I’ve just checked my going allowance for Doncaster on Saturday, and it came out at 0.69 seconds/furlong.
A good bit of reading GUS wanted to do my own speed ratings for a long time and will now have a go<br>hope everybody is fine been away for a while good to be back
What you end up with is a sort of grid which looks like this:-
<br> 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85
Intellibet One (no OR) 72 76 80 84 88 92<br>Ellen Mooney (OR 78) 64 68 72 76 80 84<br>Zucchero (OR 91) 70 74 78 82 86 90<br>Falcon Hill (OR 108) 98 102 106 110 114 118<br>Lady of Gdansk (OR 55) 73 77 81 85 89 93<br>Lingo (OR 60) 68 72 76 80 84 88
<br>So, if the going allowance is 0.60 seconds per furlong it would produce the timeratings in the first column. If it was 0.65 it would give those in the second column etc.
Bear in mind that there’s a difference of 14lbs between the two scales (see earlier on this thread) so if, for example, the Lincoln was truly-run Zucchero could be expected to record a timerating of about 105. The going allowance would need to be about 1.04 seconds per furlong to produce that timerating for Zucchero. The problem is that that sort of going allowance would produce timeratings for Falcon Hill of about 133 – champion sprinter class – and for Lingo of about 103 and that’s not feasible. It would mean that Lingo had recorded a timerating 29lbs in excess of his handicap mark. Lingo is very probably improving but if you accept as I do that at seven furlongs there are two pounds to a length this would mean that all horses that finished within fourteen and a half lengths of Lingo had shown improved form relative to their handicap marks. Exactly half the field finished within that distance of Lingo – eleven out of twenty two. It’s too many. Conclusion: the Lincoln wasn’t truly-run nor was Ellen Mooney’s race.
Lingo’s race might have been truly-run and so might Lady of Gdansk’s. The latter was a 33/1 shot and was probably showing improved form. Lingo won by two lengths with the third horse a further three and a half lengths away in a big field, distances which often indicate a truly-run race.
It’s impossible to seize on any one race or any one horse through which to "timerate" this Doncaster card. The "best fit" I can come up with is a going allowance of 0.75 seconds per furlong. This allows for both Lingo and Northern Nymph (the first two in the last) having put up performances on time in advance of their handicap marks and it credits Lady of Gdansk with 16lbs improvement on her handicap mark. The timeratings for these two races could in theory have been a little higher but that would have resulted in a corresponding increase in the timeratings of the juveniles in the first race which was, after all, an early season maiden auction event in which many horses finished quite close up.
The problem is that the handicap marks of Lady of Gdansk, Lingo and Northern Nymph are likely to shoot up when the new marks are published tomorrow. I’ll report back then.
God knows what happened to the grid. It looked all right when I posted it.
I must give up drinking…
buggy…in answer to your question, it’s simply a case of adjusting the rating according to how far the other horses were beaten and what weight they carried relative to the winner. I allow 3lbs per length at sprint distances, 2lbs between 7f and 10f, 1.5 lbs from 11f-14f and 1lb a length 15f and above. In Lingo’s race, for example, Northern Nymph carried 19lbs more than the winner and was beaten two lengths which equals 4lbs at 7f. Eagles High carried 10lbs more than Lingo and was beaten a total of five and a half lengths (equals 11lbs). Lingo’s timerating was 80, so NN’s was 95 (80+19-4) and EH’s 79 (80+10-11). You have to remember to allow for weight-for-age where the horses are different ages.
The new handicap ratings were published today and Lingo goes up to 69, Northern Nymph to 83 and Lady of Gdansk to 70. From a pure time perspective, Lady of Gdansk is the most interesting as this new rating means that she will be attractively weighted in future handicaps and, as she comes from an unfashionable yard, she is likely to be a decent price. She would also be of interest in any 0-70 rated stakes as she would receive the fillies’ allowance.
In case anybody is interested, the fastest timerating of the Flat season so far is the 122 recorded by Kyllachy at Newbury on 19th April. I see he’s entered for the Palace House at Newmarket on Saturday.
The official handicapper has underestimated the six-furlong maiden for three-year-olds run at the Craven Meeting. The speedratings for the first four were Indian Country 108, Greenslades 103, Green Line 100 and Faiza 92. Indian Country has been given an official rating of 83. He’s entered in a 7f handicap at HQ on Friday although I’m not sure he’ll be suited by that trip. The second and third haven’t been given a handicap mark yet but Faiza has been left on 69 and she’ll be interesting in ratings-related races as well as handicaps.
The handicapper often gets this race wrong and in the past couple of years San Salvador and Polar Kingdom have got into handicaps on winning marks after running in this race.
Blowing your own trumpet isn’t the done thing but nobody else is going to do it so here goes…
Of the five horses mentioned above, four have now run. Green Line won a maiden at odds-on last Friday. Kyllachy was backed from 4/1 and won the Palace House and today Faiza won a Brighton handicap at 5/1 (from 7/1), having been beaten in a similar race at Bath last week. She did so from a bad draw and will not go up too much in the handicap. Indian Country is the only non-winner of the four. He was very heavily-backed in a Haydock handicap twelve days ago but flopped. The ground was soft and it had been soft also when he was beaten first time out at odds-on. By contrast, his Newmarket win was on fast ground and I think that’s the key to this horse.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.