- This topic has 70 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote: from Grasshopper on 11:02 am on Sep. 24, 2006[br]Aye, fair enough EC – we are going round in circles (again!) on this one. :cool: <br>
Aye….and at the end of the day…its whatever works (or fails least) for ya.
SHL
Quote: from Maxilon 5 on 12:28 am on Sep. 24, 2006[br]<br>Don’t forget, Bulwark, that SP is related to High Accolade who finished a good second in the Leger. We don’t know how far this horse can truly stay.<br>
Only through his sire Mark of Esteem, sire also of Reverence.
That’s true, DJ. I haven’t got stats to hand, but I’m sure Mark of Esteem’s stock outstay the sire, on average.
Red Clubs. Good run from Assertive, (trip too short). These 3-y-o’s look as good as any for a while. I’m even more sure now that SP has been officially underrated after this weekend’s events.
An interesting exchange between GH, EC and EW
FWIW, in the case of steeplechases I regard speed/time performances as being someway subordinate to jumping ability/technique and course form. It matters little if a horse is ‘fast’ if it can’t jump or , at least, isn’t so adept as others in the race in question; I would almost always prefer a ‘slow’ proficient jumper to a ‘fast’ fence-belter. That’s not saying that I don’t give greater credence to a race that was ‘truly run’ as a likely source of more reliable form – I do – but quantifying those ‘truly run’ performances as timefigures has never seemed necessary, but quantifying jumping ability and ‘horses for courses’ has, and form a major part of my armoury.
However I’m not dismissing NH timefigures as a waste of time – daresay many compile and use them to good effect – just that I haven’t found it necessary to employ them personally; whereas in my days of ‘serious’ Flat punting I found them invaluable.
I regard the analysis of Flat and NH races as separate and distinct arts: Flat analysis being more concerned with shape-and-pace race profiling but NH analysis being more concerned with individual horse profiling. A gross generalisation of course.
As SHL points out – whatever works for you.
Why does every topic degenerate into arguments over speed ratings?
God yes
Its gone from The derby to novice hurdles at cartmel….
I think just watching the way so many NH races start (and its not a criticism) is enough to simply forget about overall time in this context<br>
Grass
<br>I know yer not daft, so use yer common sense and ask yerself why do TF pay people (good wages so i’m told) to compile standard times for the jumps and pay em to produce timefigures for jumps
It’s because the fella’s at sleepy hollow know that TIME and form are intertwinned, the same way they are intertwinned on the flat.
That 118 TF awarded to Grasshopper at some gaff LTO includes TIME analysis, that 118 form and TIME figure means that this 50-1 outsider has a shot of going close when meeting War of Attrition (120TF) at Chelters
Phil Bull was no mug, he was a HANDICAPPER ;) hence the name TIMEform
Quote: from empty wallet on 11:45 am on Sep. 25, 2006[br]Grass
<br>I know yer not daft, so use yer common sense and ask yerself why do TF pay people (good wages so i’m told) to compile standard times for the jumps and pay em to produce timefigures for jumps
It’s because the fella’s at sleepy hollow know that TIME and form are intertwinned, the same way they are intertwinned on the flat.
That 118 TF awarded to Grasshopper at some gaff LTO includes TIME analysis, that 118 form and TIME figure means that this 50-1 outsider has a shot of going close when meeting War of Attrition (120TF) at Chelters
Phil Bull was no mug, he was a HANDICAPPER ;) hence the name TIMEform
But surely this all boils down to the telling factor…………are there people making money off National Hunt betting by applying examples similar to what EC gave above. That is, namely based on time??? And if not…why not?? If time can be utilised in a similar way with National Hunt racing as with Flat racing , then there must be time junkies out ther as well spending all day studying sectionals etc
SHL
Quote: from empty wallet on 11:45 am on Sep. 25, 2006[br]
why do TF pay people (good wages so i’m told) to compile standard times for the jumps and pay em to produce timefigures for jumps
They don’t produce timefigures for NH.
Don’t they?
"computerised assessment of the ‘difference at the weights’ is made, based on the distance of the race, the time the race takes to be run the weight carried by the participants and their age, the margins separating the runners and a few other factors. The poundage allowance for margin beaten will vary according to the distance of the race as well as the time the race takes to be run. A five-furlong race run in a fast time (e.g. 55 secs or less) will result in a poundage allowance of over 4 per length. For two mile races on the Flat the allowance will usually be only a little over 1.0, while a race like the Grand National, run over four and a half miles and jumps, will result in an allowance significantly less than 1.0
Now if i understand that correctly the 161 awarded to Fondmort includes TIME analysis, the !07 for Foly Pleasant includes TIME analysis, therfore it’s a time/form figure
(Edited by empty wallet at 1:35 pm on Sep. 25, 2006)
Drone is correct. Timeform don’t produce Timefigures over jumps like they do on the Flat. The piece you have copied from an article on their website refers to the poundage allowance used for the difference at the weights between horses in any given race.
This brings me on to another matter. Should handicappers have the same scale for poundage allowance on fibresand as on polytrack? In my opinion it is rather daft as horses always get more strung out on fibresand than polytrack. Does anyone have any cumulative distance beaten figures for field in handicaps over the polytrack tracks and on fibresand. Might make an interesting article when the turf season finishes.
Apoligies to Drone then, but now i’m confused, if they don’t use overall time or sectional analysis then those ratings ain’t worth a CARROT imhaho
Quote: from empty wallet on 1:52 pm on Sep. 25, 2006[br] if they don’t use overall time or sectional analysis then those ratings ain’t worth a CARROT imhaho
Their NH ratings are essentially form ratings derived in the same way as RPR but using their own methods developed over time (no pun intended) of determining ‘pounds per length’ etc, as the article you quote part explains, plus of course their handicappers’ subjective assessment of the ‘true’ rating taking into account how the horse ran and the ease or otherwise of how it performed/won in relation to the rest of the field.
They do use their own standard times but to the best of my knowledge these are not available for public consumption,
Their interpretation of the going is frequently at odds with the ‘official’ one as, like EC, they are on the ball when it comes to analysing the time pars to going, as well as -as another poster pointed out – having their own bloke on track prodding about and to ascertain the all important wind speed/direction.
Unlike their Flat timefigures which tend to differ markedly from Topspeed, their form ratings, both Flat and NH, tend to correlate more coherently with RPR.
Anyone who uses Timeform solely for their form ratings is in all likelihood wasting their money as they would be better off saving the not inconsiderable sum it costs to subscribe to their services and use the free-to-access RPR’s instead.
Edit: they have their own wfa scale too
(Edited by Drone at 3:00 pm on Sep. 25, 2006)<br>
(Edited by Drone at 3:17 pm on Sep. 25, 2006)
Nobody wants to knock a Derby or Arc winner on the day, but I was under the impression it was generally considered that Hala Bek was very unlucky, and would have won had he not swerved across the track.
If so, why are you all discussing Sir Percy (withdrawn from the Arc today, I believe), instead of Hala Bek? <br>What chance might Hala Bek have had in the Arc? Is he going to be up there with the likes of Hurricane Run and Shirocco. Even that seems to me to be optimistic, though obviously not impossible with improvement.
DJ,
I compared Lingfield Polytrack with Southwell Fibresand for my studies, as Wolverhampton hadn’t bedded down at the time (it was two or three years ago) and uses "odd" distances in any case.
All figures are average cumulative lengths beaten (stop-loss operated) per rival for handicaps from 2002 to 2004.
5 furlongs<br>Lingfield 0.422<br>Southwell 0.473*
6 furlongs<br>Lingfield 0.456<br>Southwell 0.647
7 furlongs <br>Lingfield 0.462<br>Southwell 0.744
8 furlongs<br>Lingfield 0.582<br>Southwell 0.941
* There is convincing evidence to suggest that 5f races at Southwell are, at least some of the time, run over about 4f 205 yds.
I have long used a factor of 0.8 for poundage on fibresand compared to polytrack (i.e. 10 lb on polytrack is 8 lb on fibresand), and the above figures, plus others I have, suggest this is not too far out for practical purposes.
One consequence from all this is that you come to the realisation that you should really have different poundage allowances not just for different distances, different times and different surfaces, but for different tracks as well!
Besides anything else, the finishing margins returned between horses are a function of their finishing speeds, which are influenced by….the tracks themselves.
Good question: I feel the old place is in good hands…
Empty, I researched standard times and timefigures over jumps for Timeform a couple of years back but left just before completing my work. Timeform now take the view – which they are entitled to – that the widespread publication of jumps timefigures is not a worthwhile enterprise.
That still has not stopped the majority (all?) of their jumps handicappers in living memory from using time comparisons when they have seemed valid as a tool in their calculations.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.