- This topic has 67 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
if you think Magical ran her race in the fillies mile, that is the line of form to say that septemeber is better than Masar,on lines of form
Others may think she did not run her race, so lets get on the roundabout again, for me OR, Timeform and RPR are just a guide and after years of race watching(Or if you are cleverer than me less time) you can tinker with these. Sometimes getting it wrong I might add, but these ratings should not be set in stone as gospelEh?
Have you looked what that would actually mean, nwalton?
If thinking “Magical ran her race in the fillies mile” then those form lines would mean:
Laurens and September put up performances around 4 lengths (around 12 lbs) better than Happily and Magical did in the Moyglare. Magic Lily 3 lengths (around 9 lbs) better. Seems extremely unlikely to me on its own, but just about possible I suppose.
However, for that to be true it would also need to mean Ellthea would’ve been less than a length (around 2 lbs) behind Happily and Magical in that Moyglare; Lubinka less than two behind (only around 5 lbs). No way.
Value Is Everythingthat is why I used the word IF GT,i don’t think she ran up to her best but she still got stuffed,for that reason I would have September in front of masar/happily and magical as I don’t think September is suited by cut(although winning on yielding on debut)
Only my guess but that’s how I would have them,i can see others arguments that they have the other two in front of her,but not for me,I rated Fillies Mile form better than Moyglaretbf though GT even you must have thought Christ that rating is plain silly.
No, nwalton. tbf I innitially thought Time Test worth rating at least within a couple of pounds of Timeform’s assessment. Judged more by what appeared an absolutely exceptional time and ease of victory than “form”. Time in the Group 3 Tercentenary better than any of the Group 1’s that meeting. Where I think both Timeform and myself fell down was allowing too much for ease of victory. ie As things went on it became clear Time Test is one that travelled particularly well without finding an awful lot off the bridle. However, they were right that he was a “Group 1” horse (125+ being Group 1 class) albeit originally 5 lbs out. Interesting in subsequent UK starts Timeform brought Time Test down 5 lb, the official handicapper put him up 5 lbs. Not easy to get a performance like the Tercentenary right.
That said, it was the only race Time Test had his absolute optimum (very fast) conditions, so it’s still possible (although unlikely) he was better that day than any other. May be he needed very firm to produce his very best? Officially only good-firm but many times at the meeting prove it was actually genuine firm and Timeform have always described it as “firm”.
Value Is Everythingthat is why I used the word IF GT,i don’t think she ran up to her best but she still got stuffed,for that reason I would have September in front of masar/happily and magical as I don’t think September is suited by cut(although winning on yielding on debut)
Only my guess but that’s how I would have them,i can see others arguments that they have the other two in front of her,but not for me,I rated Fillies Mile form better than MoyglareI am sure September did not run to form in her two runs on a softish surface, nwalton. I just wouldn’t rate the Fillies Mile better than the Lagadere, but yes it is possible to do that… What confuses me is MOM doesn’t rate September better than Happily, yet rates September far better than Masar.
P.S. Congratulations on your 1000th post.
Value Is EverythingI think Timeform, more so than others, gets carried away by wide margin winners, without taking into account extreme conditions suiting winner vs placed horses, luck in running, and that placed horses can actually underperform on the day.
I think Timeform, more so than others, get carried away by wide margin winners, without taking into account extreme conditions suiting winner vs placed horses, luck in running, and that placed horses can actually underperform on the day.
I think it’s the opposite tbh Sunspangled, eg Bristol De Mai.
It’s others that insist on rating every race by the same length per second measure no matter how slowly they finish, which is stupid. Timeform don’t. ie They don’t often “get carried away with wide margin winners in extreme conditions”.What I believe is often misunderstood is where punters wrongly see a horse failing to reproduce a heavy ground rating when racing on good or good-soft. It’s different conditions. Just because a horse has not shown the same form on good-soft as it did on heavy, does not mean they “got carried away” with its heavy ground form – just that it needs heavy ground (or a greater stamina test) to reproduce that heavy ground form. Master Ratings are what each horse is thought capable of in its optimum conditions, if not having optimum conditions it won’t reproduce that rating.
Timeform imo get it right more often than others, sometimes it’s right to give the horse full credit for wide margin wins, sometimes it’s not – depending on sectionals, other horses effectiveness on the surface/stamina test etc.
It’s Timeform that allow for real luck in running, there’s often a load of xxxxxxxx written about some luck in running and not enough on how sectional times/pace alters a result. ie Horses should sometimes be rated higher due to doing better than distances suggest given how the race was run… And often “unlucky” horses continue to look unlucky because of temperament – ie not worth rating any better.
tbh If Timeform were not good at rating horses then I would not be able to make such a healthy profit. It’s not that Timeform get it wrong so often, it’s punters assessing it wrongly.
Value Is EverythingAnd I use their ratings in the opposite sense, and take advantage of cases where a horse has been obviously (to me) over-rated. Just going back to the subject of this thread, Verbal Dexterity owes his high rating to heavy ground, he couldn’t even place on good to soft in the Racing Post Trophy.
that is why I used the word IF GT,i don’t think she ran up to her best but she still got stuffed,for that reason I would have September in front of masar/happily and magical as I don’t think September is suited by cut(although winning on yielding on debut)
Only my guess but that’s how I would have them,i can see others arguments that they have the other two in front of her,but not for me,I rated Fillies Mile form better than MoyglareI am sure September did not run to form in her two runs on a softish surface, nwalton. I just wouldn’t rate the Fillies Mile better than the Lagadere, but yes it is possible to do that… What confuses me is MOM doesn’t rate September better than Happily, yet rates September far better than Masar.
P.S. Congratulations on your 1000th post.
On the form shown, I completely understand why Happily has been rated higher than September.
I believe that September will prove a better horse but on the form shown so far, i agree with that.
But I don’t agree Masar should get a higher rating than September in the slightest. Masar is too high.
Not that I take any notice to them ratings anyway. But it was an observation.
And I use their ratings in the opposite sense, and take advantage of cases where a horse has been obviously (to me) over-rated. Just going back to the subject of this thread, Verbal Dexterity owes his high rating to heavy ground, he couldn’t even place on good to soft in the Racing Post Trophy.
What did I say about a horse’s Timeform Master Rating only being something to expect in “optimum” conditions?
Of course VD couldn’t place on vastly different ground.
What’s more, he’d also missed the Dewhurst due to an injury and unable to lead at Donny.
Doesn’t mean the horse is not capable of running to the rating given similar conditions when able to lead… That in turn obviously also means he won’t run to his Master Rating very often.The horse has to be given a rating of what it is capable of given optimum conditions. If not, then when its optimum conditions are replicated the rating will be wrong. It’s up to the punter/subscriber to look at whether conditions (which include ground, speed/stamina and how the race will be run) suit the horse.
Value Is EverythingThe going was still soft, not vastly different. And Jim Bolger wasn’t making excuses before the race. Aside from soft ground vs good ground deciding races on the basis of preferred surface, it changes the emphasis on stamina. Very soft ground changes a test of speed into a test of stamina, so an average staying horse can beat a field of better but speedier horses, and the horse doesn’t deserve his higher rating over that distance.
It won’t happen of course, but if we can have a ‘p’ alongside the rating, why not also an ‘s’ if the rating was achieved on soft or worse going. In theory, we could also have an ‘f’ for firm as well, but for flat racing designed for proper summer ground, a rating achieved on firm ground reads a lot better than a rating on heavy.
Cracksman is a similar case to Verbal Dexterity, though it’s possible his connections will keep him to 12f and/or soft going next year.
The going was still soft, not vastly different. And Jim Bolger wasn’t making excuses before the race. Aside from soft ground vs good ground deciding races on the basis of preferred surface, it changes the emphasis on stamina. Very soft ground changes a test of speed into a test of stamina, so an average staying horse can beat a field of better but speedier horses, and the horse doesn’t deserve his higher rating over that distance.
It won’t happen of course, but if we can have a ‘p’ alongside the rating, why not also an ‘s’ if the rating was achieved on soft or worse going. In theory, we could also have an ‘f’ for firm as well, but for flat racing designed for proper summer ground, a rating achieved on firm ground reads a lot better than a rating on heavy.
Cracksman is a similar case to Verbal Dexterity, though it’s possible his connections will keep him to 12f and/or soft going next year.
It can matter massively for some horses whether the going is “soft/heavy” (the official going in the National Stakes) or good-soft in the Racing Post. Some horses need bottomless ground to produce their best. Surely not surprising Verbal Dexterity was around 7 lbs below his best?
Subscribers have the write up that says “acts on heavy” or whatever; and a quick look at performance ratings on the prevailing ground often (more or less) tells how far below the Master Rating to expect the horse to run – don’t need an “s” or “f” nor can there be because it’s all variables. If the horse puts up a performance just 2 lbs worse on good-soft than it did on heavy – what then? What if it’s 4 lb different? Or 7 lbs? Where do you draw the line? And how does the symbol explain whether it’s relevent? Reading the whole Race Passes package gives excellent clues as to how a horse will run.
Judging by ratings alone is not a good idea. Judging from the free Timeform material is not a good idea. Why do you think I subscribe?
Special Christmas offer on Timeform Race Passes starts Friday for anyone interested. 
Value Is Everythingagree with you GT that ratings alone betting is plain daft.As I have said before I was a subscriber to timeform but have a few issues with them and how watered down it now seems. Not just the time test rating but I remember saying on here before the race, a timeform ‘expert’ was on atthraces and put up a horse even though it did not/would not act on the ground, just because it was 20s,now how does that make sense?
It works for you but for me Timeform has had its day, although I do like reading bits from the site and must admit always get the last flat black book to get me through the winter.
btw thank you for congrats on my 1000th post,one day I will post something that makes senseI remember saying on here before the race, a timeform ‘expert’ was on atthraces and put up a horse even though it did not/would not act on the ground, just because it was 20s,now how does that make sense?
TRFer Softie can vouch for this as he was there at the time, nwalton; details are a bit blurred in the memory but it’s a true story:
In my Goodwood membership days a racing pal of mine asked me “what do you think of X”? (wish I could remember the name of it so that I can demonstrate). If memory serves the horse had run two particularly good races on good-firm, ran ok on good but two poor races on a soft surface. Around 6/1 in the morning and at that exact time of conversation around 15/2 in the betting ring. I told him “If this were firm ground I’d fancy him strongly at that price but on soft ground – not for me”. I then left them talking and went around to the paddock. Horse X looked well but most Godolphin horses do. Anyway, coming back to the stands a few minutes before the off I looked at the Tote screen to see if any horse was over-priced compared to my Tissue. Horse X was 20/1 !!!! Yes, he’s one that I’d happily describe as “did not/would not act on the ground”, but as with anytning whether it is stamina, ground etc we’re only talking probabilities. At the morning 6/1 or betting ring 15/2 he was imo a poor bet due to the surface. In my tissue I had him around a 12/1 shot. At 20/1 he was worth taking a chance on the ground even though he’d probably run poorly again – so I backed it… We watched as the horse won.
Trouble is I’d put my mate off backing it! 
Needless to say, drinks were on me that day.So it makes perfect sense to me a pundit would tip a horse @ 20/1 when believing it will not act on the ground. You should also remember that pundit was not giving Timeform’s view anyway, every Timeform employee and every subscriber can look through the form and come to different conclusions what the value is.
Every horse has a price.
Value is everything.Value Is Everythingsorry GT (cant have that) not your story but if a horse has shown(not just the once ) he don’t go on the ground how on earth can you back him at any price?
I conclude and you’ll like this, you got lucky and punted like a bloke who backs a horse because of its name/colour.
sorry GT (cant have that) not your story but if a horse has shown(not just the once ) he don’t go on the ground how on earth can you back him at any price?
I conclude and you’ll like this, you got lucky and punted like a bloke who backs a horse because of its name/colour.
So in your opinion a horse that’s disappointed twice on soft ground should be 999/1, nwalton; despite having everything else in his favour? Wish you were my bookie.
When a horse has run poorly two or three times on soft ground it probably does not act on it, there are still other possibile reasons it did not run to its best. Betting is all about whether a horse is value (probabilities).
But you’re right I was lucky to back the winner. Because although the Tote price was 20/1 when I backed it a few minutes before the off… By start time he’d shortened to 11/1… A price shorter than my tissue price – ie Had he been 11/1 when looking at Tote odds I would not have backed it.
Value Is Everythingif i had enough info that a horse don’t act on the going, i could not back it at any price.
Just the way I work(I think the going is at the top of the list in working a race out) well done on getting lucky on that occasion, any idea how may times it has worked against you, when you have knowingly backed a horse that don’t act on the going?
Trouble is I’d put my mate off backing it! 
Needless to say, drinks were on me that day.- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.