- This topic has 32 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
When assessing ratings given to three year olds in open handicaps don’t forget they’re assessed against a lower weight than older horses. Under Timeform’s weight for age scale for 1m1f at the end of September 9-8 compared to 10-0 for older horses.
Value Is EverythingBeat the Bank was suppose to be the next big group 1 horse going by the clock late last season
Timeform never said he was, Nathan.
He still has yet to win a group 1 despite his speed figures and quickest furlongs, timeform rating etc
…And there you go again,
totally exaggerating what Timeform said about BTB, to make yourself look better and to falsely make Timeform look bad.The original Timeform rating, their speed figures etc etc was NEVER going to be good enough to win an average British Group 1.
Value Is EverythingWhen assessing ratings given to three year olds in open handicaps don’t forget they’re assessed against a lower weight than older horses. Under Timeform’s weight for age scale for 1m1f at the end of September 9-8 compared to 10-0 for older horses.
Very similar to the new BHA WFA scale where the allowance for a 3yo is 4lbs at the beginning of October, so between the two scales there is a 2lb difference.
I have a copy of the Timeform WFA scale which I do believe was compiled by the late Dick Whitford back in the days of yor, no matter what scale you use Beat the Bank is not a 120 rated horse.
Mike.
Timeform never said he was, Nathan.
There you go again
I never said that Timeform said he was. I don’t read timeform so wouldn’t know what they said. I used Beat the Bank as an example that those with very good times in non group 1 races don’t necessary produce it in group 1’s.Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Don’t give me that rubbish.
He still has yet to win a group 1 despite his speed figures and quickest furlongs, timeform rating etc
You say “despite his speed figures and quickest furlongs, timeform rating etc”, Nathan.
Despite what Timeform rating?
Which Timeform rating has ever suggested BTB should win a Group 1?There was no Timeform rating that suggested BTB should win a Group 1.
Value Is EverythingI’m going off you and what you say, I wouldn’t have a clue what timeform have rated him as I do not follow them. People on here last year were banging on about BTB’s speed figure and fractions. He beat nothing of sorts in the Joel Stakes like I told you before the QE11 but you had him down as being a length or whatever behind Ribchester
He’s not progressed according to timeform 120, 121, 120, 121 which is what I said he wouldn’t progress.
I haven’t read back the QE11 Thread from last year but think it was you and The Young Fella that were all over BTB as the next coming and good value for the QE11 so you thought he had a 2nd favourites chance of winning the race which equates to being good enough to win a group 1 in your opinion otherwise you wouldn’t have backed him for it and as you preach the timeform bible I would guess it was them who put you onto him, we all get it wrong from time to time, I get it wrong most of the time but was right enough about Beat the Bank.Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Thanks for telling me what my opinion must have been. Wrong again.
After all these years, you still don’t understand how I bet, Nathan; for me betting is all about probabilities and whether I believe the odds make it worth backing. I myself (and I believe The Young Fella also) backed BTB @ 8/1. At that price I’d only need to believe he had a better than 11% chance of winning (89% chance of losing) for it to be value. ie For me to talk a horse’s chance up it does not need to be the “second coming”; LOL. I also do not need to believe a horse anything like “good enough to win a group 1” in order to back/tip it. Value is everything.
By day of race BTB’s SP was indeed second favourite @ 4/1, at that price I would not have backed him. But fair enough let’s assume that 4/1 SP was an accurate assessment of his day of race chance… Those odds include a bookies mark up, take the mark up off and it means the horse had an 18% chance of winning. ie An 82% chance of losing. Still nowhere near a probable Group 1 winner.
Value Is EverythingIt’s not rocket science
1 horse has to win the race
unless a horse is odds on then they all have more chance of losing then winning
the second favourite at 4/1 has more chance than all those behind it in the market so they are all still nowhere near probable group 1 winners other than the favourite then yet the fav has more chance of losing than winning….Gaelic Warrior Gold Cup Winner 2026
Ginge, what’s your view on Wissahickon….i see he’s rated the same as Masar as well now, obviously completely different distance, course etc etc.
It was a great performance in the Cambridgeshire, is it just my stubborness that still makes me think it was only a big field handicap and he’s probably acheived nothing similar to Masar etc at least formwise?
At the end of the day, very fast times can be clocked at all levels?
Twitter: Jackh1092
Hindsight is 20/20 so make the most of it!Mike won’t necessarily agree, Jack, but from my experience in rating all Grand National finishers 1836-2018 where the distances are known I would say that time is merely one, relatively unreliable, component of assessing the numerical merit of a horse’s performance.
No two going surfaces are ever exactly identical and, wherever the winning and placed horses are positioned in the field for the bulk of the race, the pace has a massive effect on the time.
So whilst I wouldn’t expect a Class 5 horse to be able to run as fast as a Class 1 horse I reckon when the difference in class is only, for example, top handicapper vs Graded horse then in certain circumstances, yes, they could run equally fast times.
I know nothing about it but in comparing the Cambridgeshire to Masar, therefore, yes you would have to view the Cambridgeshire time in the context of previous collateral form, etc because collateral form carries more weight and is more of a foundation for assessing a performance than the odd very quick time.
Again, I don’t follow the Flat but if Wissahickon is now rated highly based on one time then ‘at the weights’ calculations based on his performance rating must have caused the ratings of the horses in behind him to also go up? If so, you must ask yourself how do the new ratings of all these horses fit in with previous collateral form? Likely the whole race has been overrated.
GoldenMiller34- Mike won’t necessarily agree, Jack, but from my experience in rating all Grand National finishers 1836-2018 where the distances are known I would say that time is merely one, relatively unreliable, component of assessing the numerical merit of a horse’s performance.
Thoroughbred racing is linear, so can be mathematically proven.
With regards to the Grand National, when the distance was shortened in 2016, using linear curve regression I knocked 9.0s off the standard time.
Mike.
I can buy that for 2013, Mike. However, in 2016 the distance didn’t change it was merely remeasured along a line 2 yards off the inner running rail instead of along the mid-point of the course. Regards, Chris.
Again, I don’t follow the Flat but if Wissahickon is now rated highly based on one time then ‘at the weights’ calculations based on his performance rating must have caused the ratings of the horses in behind him to also go up? If so, you must ask yourself how do the new ratings of all these horses fit in with previous collateral form? Likely the whole race has been overrated.
Not so, GM.
May surprise you to know that in the 33 runner Cambridgeshire – other than the winner – Timeform did not rate any other horse as improving on their previous bests?Value Is EverythingIn that case I suppose that could indicate one of two things, Ginger.
1. Timeform reckons some of the other 32 horses have matched their previous bests and using pounds/lengths/ages that has placed the winner at his new lofty rating, one which his sparkling time would be considered good supporting evidence for. So he is worthy of the rating.
2. Timeform has calculated the winner’s rating from the time and from that, applying pounds/lengths/ages, has worked out the inferiority of the other 32 on the day. Such was the winner’s superiority this has led to very few or none of the other horses matching their previous best let alone improving on it. What are the chances that not one of these 32 horses targeted at a big race managed to achieve a personal best (i.e. not fit in with previous collateral form)? Therefore, if anything the winner (and some others) may have been underrated!
Second and fourth in the Cambridgeshire were rated as running 8 and 6 lbs worse than their last time out performances. Third is 1 lb better than his last time out (still 1 lb worse than his career best). Fifth exactly the same as his last time out performance (which is 3 lbs worse than his Master rating). No other horse near their best.
With the difference in three year old and older horses in the weight for age scale; 9-8 compared to 10-0… Wissahickon carrying a big weight (9-5) for a three year old and beating the rest 3 3/4 lengths +… and with some ease too… All adds up. Adding the relevet pounds (how much better Wiss’ is compared to the other runners) means it was at least imo a 122 and yes probably 125.
122 would mean Wissahickon is capable of at least holding his own in Group 1 company. 125 is higher than Saxon Warrior and the same as Masar… with possibly more to come. However – like all horses – must be a proviso he may need very similar conditions regarding trip, going and pace in order to show that level of ability .
Value Is Everything
totally exaggerating what Timeform said about BTB, to make yourself look better and to falsely make Timeform look bad.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.