- This topic has 26 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by
.
- Posts
"The Timeform Top Two win 55% of all races" so they say.
They would be the first to tell you when they made a profit, I can’t remember them ever stating facts & figures. I suspect a loss would be the case backed the top two.GOBRO,WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THE SELLECTION ARE VERY MUCH IN LINE WITH THE RATINGS THAT THEY SELL, BUT NOT ALWAYS IN THE CORRECT ORDER, AND THERE IS SO MUCH MORE WHEN YOU PAY FOR THE SERVICE,HOPE THAT HELPS
Welcome to the forum Gobro.
A few words on etiquette:
There are a few things that just aren’t done. Asking a woman her age, for instance, or openly questioning Sleepy Hollow about their performance.
They’re the best around. They’ve been around since 1948, so they’re obviously very good. We can leave exact statistics to our imagination.
I doubt very much there is a stat for this as im sure it would show a massive loss for them.
I would imagine that far more of their 2/3 star ratings win far more than their 4/5 star ratings.
If there is a stat for this however I would certainly like to see it!!
I don’t have any statistics but I’m certain any Timeform ratings would over a period of time be very consistent in terms of strike rate per top rated, second rated, third rated etc…, therefore if they make a loss at level stakes its because their overbet, if their overbet their popular, if their popular their good, if their good their a complement to the people who produce them.
Denigrating the quality of a highly consistent set of ratings because they don’t make a profit is more a misunderstanding of how racing markets work than anything else.
Spot on CR, hence Phil Bull’s well-known remark following his decision to ‘go public’ with his and Dick Whitford’s Timefigures – "I’ve soiled my own nest" – though admittedly he did soil himself all the way to the bank
All Timeform continue to tell us about their top two – or is it three – rated are is they win 50-something% of races which is all but meaningless without LSP/L
Perhaps the reason they don’t divulge LSP/L is because the majority of punters would think – say a 10% loss – at SP betting them blind equates necessarily to ‘no good’ whereas infact it may, given the exposure you mention, actually be quite-to-very good
How the loss at SP compares with the likely loss too from such as RPR and RI, who knows? I don’t
Deltaman, it would be interesting if flatstats did beat Time Form.
Time Form are what I would call full information handicappers, who take into account every factor they can think of that might affect a chance of winning. Flatstats are partial information handicappers who largely ignore conventional form. So theoretically TimeForm should have an advantage. Now, in practice, flatstats might work better, but only if Timeform is misinterpreting information, for example by overweighting the influence of past form on the probability of winning.
However, having looked at the flatstats website, I don’t see any obvious boasting about superior performance so I am not convinced they add value.
Deltaman, you are right that I don’t subscribe to flatstats. I was merely suggesting that if their value selections were profitable they would say so. Instead they market themselves as a useful source of data/probabilities, which is fair enough.
Flatstats top rated and second rated in the 7.50 Kempton
Kames Park and Lishane Bog
Finished 1st and 2nd at 20/1
The full list of Top rated Flatstats horses are on the ‘Racing Chat’ now, anyone have the top Timeform horses please.
p.s. I am not a payed up member but think the guy who asked first question deserves an accurate answer, I am almost the same age as Timeform and only bet on Maidens & Bumpers.Please – don’t post links to commercial sites without permission from TRF.
The point about TF Top ratings has been made, I don’t know why Flatstats has been singled out (repeatedly) as comparison but if we can have the TF debate (re absence of profit/loss figs for top/2nd top rated) without repeatedly drawing attention to Flatstats please. Further references will be treated as spam and removed.
On the original point, there’s much more to Timeform than ratings and I think they stress that their ratings should be used in conjunction with their commentaries on each horse. I don’t think they advocate betting them (top/2nd top) blind and use the figure simply to show that a race can be narrowed down quite effectively using the ratings as a starting point.
This is taken from copy on their site (use of bold is mine) –
‘Getting on for half of all races on the Flat (the percentage is a little higher over the jumps) are won by horses in Timeform’s two top-rated, so the first essential for anyone using the Timeform Race Card is to study the ratings. These are already adjusted to the weights allocated in the race, and the horses most favourably treated can be readily identified. For a fuller picture a ratings summary is provided for each runner showing the Timeform rating achieved in up to the last six outings.
No horse can be expected to run to its best if conditions are against it, and horses of established ability often come up against lightly-raced, improving types.
So, clearly, the ratings cannot tell the whole story.
‘
Apologies to anyone from Timeform if I’ve got this wrong. One or two of you look in so feel free to post/email and correct if I’m misrepresenting anything.
why dont Timeform publish their 1-2-3 stats..profits and loss…thats all we want to know.i can name other services apart from timeform that do..more than 1 have built in analysers to breakdown their results in almost anyway you wish
On the original point, there’s much more to Timeform than ratings and I think they stress that their ratings should be used in conjunction with their commentaries on each horse. I don’t think they advocate betting them (top/2nd top) blind and use the figure simply to show that a race can be narrowed down quite effectively using the ratings as a starting point.
This is taken from copy on their site (use of bold is mine) –
‘Getting on for half of all races on the Flat (the percentage is a little higher over the jumps) are won by horses in Timeform’s two top-rated, so the first essential for anyone using the Timeform Race Card is to study the ratings. These are already adjusted to the weights allocated in the race, and the horses most favourably treated can be readily identified. For a fuller picture a ratings summary is provided for each runner showing the Timeform rating achieved in up to the last six outings.
No horse can be expected to run to its best if conditions are against it, and horses of established ability often come up against lightly-raced, improving types.
So, clearly, the ratings cannot tell the whole story.
‘
Apologies to anyone from Timeform if I’ve got this wrong. One or two of you look in so feel free to post/email and correct if I’m misrepresenting anything.
Why are you now spamming the commercial company Timeform and not allowing legitimate comparison with Flatstats?
Why do you publish such drivel from Timeform when "’Getting on for half of all races on the Flat (the percentage is a little higher over the jumps) are won by horses in the betting forecast’s two top-rated, so the first essential for anyone not using the Timeform Race Card is to study the betting forecast."
Even the simple Fineform formula used to get 60% of winners in its top two and at far better odds.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.