- This topic has 10 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I read in on the Racing Post website at the start of this AW season that Wolverhampton would be publishing sectional times for all their races. Does anyone know where these are published?
I would be interested if anyone out there is actually using Sectional times to their advantage. I have read in American handicapping literature before about formulas involving the sectional times for the closing furlongs, but it does seem to me a lot of work for very little benefit.
Sectional times can be confusing, our filly ran the fastest quarter of her debut race at Kempton on the AW in a 6f maiden. She was slowly away and finished last – still had the fastest quarter mind
The winner has since done well in Juvenile Hurdles with a listed win to her credit so the forms taken a boost too
I’ve started using sectionals again recently. I find them of most use in interpreting the run of the race and strength of the form, but it is indeed possible to come up with sectional ratings from them as well.
Sectional times can be confusing
I agree.
Over the past few weeks I have been having a serious look at using sectional times. When I used to spend lots of effort on time/speed handicapping I would often think that it would be great to have access to sectional times in order to derive better going corrections etc. Now that the sectional times are available I am finding that things are not quite as straightforward as I had thought.
It is likely that much of the N American literature that make use of sectional times/fractional splits are mostly non-applicable in the UK. Why? Well, in N America most of the tracks are flat ovals and there seems to be very little sign of the ‘false’ pace that is characteristic of European racing, these factors make it relatively easy to identify ‘norms’. However, in the UK, for example, the tracks come in all shapes, sizes and degrees of undulation. All of this implies that each course/distance combination in the UK will have a different ‘norm’ energy profile and that makes it difficult to draw generally applicable conclusions from the data. But it is not all bad news, it is just more complicated than might first be thought.
My main point though is that you can draw next to nothing in terms of meaningful conclusions from looking at isolated sectional times, at an absolute minimum you need to compare to the ‘norm’ for the particular course/distance combination.
currently reading Beyer on Speed which was why I was interested in sectional times. He makes some interesting comments about how to make the most of them but also discusses how inaccurate they tend to be in the US for all but the leading horse as the rest are done ‘by eye’ by a race reader. I assume that the sectionals in this country are produced in this country using Turftrax’s ‘chip in the saddle’ technology?
The one thing that I shall be looking out for are AW sprinters that run fast first quarters
I assume that the sectionals in this country are produced in this country using Turftrax’s ‘chip in the saddle’ technology?
Correct.
You can do your own by eye, and it’s not as inaccurate as it might sound, but all the all-weather tracks in UK are covered at present (though not every time they race).
If you are interested in US texts on the subject then you may wish to check out Tom Brohamer’s "Modern Pace Handicapping", though the stuff Graeme North, for one, has written on the subject in this country (Weekender and Raceform Handicap Book) is better, imo.
Let’s send him over to the below zero States, perched up on the roof to call and write down the trailing distances for each of 12 + runners, moving at 40 MPH, at every quarter mile. A few weeks of that and he will learn the error of his ways.
So why didn’t it work today then Pru?
If you tip "true" 15/8, 7/2 and 4/1 shots then there’s a greater than 40% likelihood that none of the three will win, so it’s hardly a big surprise when that is what happens. Obviously, I believed that the horses concerned had better chances than the market would suggest, though both Marcus and Van Ruymbeke were shorter than I had anticipated.
Marcus ran like a drain. Coleorton Dancer probably isn’t well enough handicapped to win, even when he gets things in his favour, despite what I thought. But I do still expect the somewhat enigmatic Van Ruymbeke to be winning again before long.
Patience is required.
And winners.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.