Forum Replies Created
- Posts
The whole basis of Topspeed( and RPR ratings) is that they are adjusted for weight carried on a predetermined scale which relates times, weight, distances and Weight For Age(WFA). This scale is also used by Timeform, although the speed ratings may be different for various reasons.
If you want speed ratings that are not weight adjusted, you can easily do this for each race by removing the weight adjustment, or you can work out your own using the going allowance awarded by Topspeed.
This question crops up from time to time, to adjust for weight or not to adjust. The majority of compilers make an adjustment, although they do not all use the same scales as Topspeed. It makes things more complicated and the accuracy is always questionable, but logically, it’s the right thing to do.
The effect of weight is variable depending on a number of factors – size of horse, going, distance – are the main ones. The scales used by Topspeed are best regarded as averages and are subject to unknown and unquantifiable errors when applied to specific races. Going allowances are also estimates and cause much disagreement amongst compilers. I’ve had many ‘friendly’ disagreements about the ground with a few fellow forum members over the past few seasons.
It’s an interesting hobby, compiling ratings and can pay dividends for those who do it well.
I think a recession will hit racing very hard as a business. Bloodstock, breeding, training and racecourses will almost certainly suffer as the wealthy, who support the business, reduce their spending.
On the betting side, the racecourses, exchanges and internet will probably struggle to hold present turnover. Betting offices will actually benefit, as they provide entertainment and diversion for the increasing number of unemployed people. The only price that doesn’t increase is the price of a bet.
Blackheath,
I think most of the stuff has now disappeared, but there may be some old books still published in the States. I’ve read about it in various places, although I cannot give you a definite reference at the moment. I’ll have a dig about and see if I can uncover anything. I’ll get back to you.
A dip into the past for any newish forum members.
This thread is well worth another read through for anyone who is just setting out on the road to devising a new system. In fact, it’s almost a mini-book.
It’s rather quiet on this part of the forum at the moment, so I’ve been looking back through some old threads, and this one was particularly interesting and thought provoking.
Howard Wright’s biography of Phil Bull is an excellent read for anyone interested in the development of the current system of rating horses, handicapping and compiling speed figures.
My own interest in the above goes back to the time of Dick Whitford(a co-founder of Timeform) and his form ratings in the Sporting Life. He was the ‘form’ man and Phil was the ‘time’ man. They were well ahead of the field in developing a sustainable business out of their ideas, although there were many others, here and in the States, who had similar ideas and were successful punters.
It isn’t always about backbone, Grasshopper. If only it was that simple. Many of the addictions, including gambling are more than just character defects; they are mental illnesses and need to be treated as such. There. but for fortune, go you or I.
But, you do have a point. There are also those who know what they are doing and think that gambling is a possible route to easy money. They are the feckless and have little regard for the effects their selfish and foolish behaviour might have on those around them.
Identifying real addicts is a job for specialists and we cannot help them by assuming that they are all tossers or weak characters.
It’s like comparing the clinically depressed with people who are having a bad day.
These machines are not called ‘one-armed bandits’ without good reason.
I have had experience of their profitabilty in pubs, clubs and casinos, and in each case they were the main source of profit for the organisation.
Needless to say, they are toxic to addicted gamblers, although they do provide entertainment and amusement to those who can control their betting.
At present, there is no legal method of preventing gambling addicts from self destructing. Perhaps, they should be sectioned(for their own protection) under The Mental Health Act and given appropriate treatment. It would need doctors to get involved, so friends and family would need to get in touch with the addict’s GP. The addict can do this voluntarily, if they wish.
Gingertipster,
The only point I would make is that if a system is fairly simple in concept, many people will have tried it and if successful, it would have become known to quite a few people. I must have looked at hundreds of simple systems, many of which can be profitable over short periods, even for a few seasons. Eventually, they have all been shown to be unprofitable when tried for much longer periods.
Form study is different. A person who spends or invests a lot of time studying aspects of form and who is prepared to adapt to changing conditions, can make a profit. Certainly you can have a few ‘rules’ to guide you along, but they cannot be the rigid rules that nearly all systems have.
I have never been a believer in rigid systems, but I’m a great fan of a systematic approach. Maybe what you have is the latter. I’ve read a lot of your posts on the forum and I think you probably operate on those lines. It would be useful if you could give your general approach without compromising your exact method.
Gingertipster,
I take your point about people stealing ideas. There are now literally hundreds of spamming tipsters about and they might steal your system and try to pass it off as their own, or give out your selections by email.
I may be naive, but I do not believe many people bother using any of these unsolicited services.As I said previously, in my experience(40years) there is nothing new under the sun in racing and betting systems, but if you have an angle on form study that you find profitable, you are probably wise to keep it to yourself.
When it eventually goes wrong, perhaps you might tell us what it is.In the meantime, I wish you the best of luck with it.
Gingertipster,
I think you are right here. I suppose fast in this context means relatively fast and it would be hard to argue that course records in sprint races could be broken if the pace was not relatively fast throughout. I was thinking of a descriptive device to describe the pace of races rather than the objectivity of sectional times.
I’m no expert on sectionals, although I would expect them to fit loosely into Willoughby’s four categories. Perhaps someone with more knowledge might verify(or refute) that in sprints, a sectional pattern of a very fast 2f, followed by another very fast 2f, can only be followed by a slower 2f, which might still be quick enough to break the track record. Does this make sense?
Gingertipster,
As far as I know, horses cannot run flat out for more than about 2 furlongs without ‘blowing up’ or running out of available oxygen, so even a fast pace means horses are not running the whole race with the choke out. I can see your point, though, and would have to concede that many top sprints are characterised by horses running just within their physical limits for longer distances than 2 furlongs. The description, ‘fast, fast, fast’ almost applies here, but not quite because no horse could do it. Such races are usually fast,fast, slow when sectionals are examined, even though course records are broken.
Gingertipster,
If you check out the number of visits to this part of the forum, you will find that there are only a few dozen people interested in looking at your system and how it fares. It is highly unlikely that any of these will lump on the selections and cause the price to collapse, even if you hit a purple patch straight away.
In this quiet corner, unless you have chanced upon something very new and profound, there is hardly any risk of your idea being stolen and used for profit by someone else.
The idea is to post up your system rules and allow others in the forum to debate whether the system has any merit. You might get some helpful and constructive advice from those who might have trodden the same pathways. There are very few original ideas in the field of horse racing and betting systems and there are a few wise heads who have helped me on this forum. Posting your system here could help you to learn something that you did not know.
There is a very interesting chapter by James Willoughby in "the definitive guide to BETTING ON HORSES"(Racing Post/Raceform publications) that covers ‘pace’. It is well worth a read for anyone interested in analysing pace, even though it is fairly brief.
He suggests that races can be divided into three sections – a beginning, a middle and an end. From this, he argues that there are four basic shapes of the tempo of races.
Fast-fast-slow.
Fast -slow-fast.
Slow-slow-fast.
Slow-fast-slow.
From my own observations, this classification of pace is broadly true and could be used as a means of labelling races for pace purposes. Obviously, it is only a very broad measure, but it is more informative than the bare race time or a statement or comment that the pace was steady or slow.
A race can never be fast-fast-fast, steady-steady-steady, or slow-slow-slow, which tells us that all races are subject to variations in pace and this must be taken into account when assessing the form.Have a look at relayline.com.
They monitor the performance of many tipping services, keeping records of profit and loss over a long period.
The average tipster loses around 10 percent of stakes to SP over a period, although there are a few who have made a decent profit over the years IF you can get your money on at the prices they claimed to have got.
carlisle,
I think you are definitely on the right track. I’m using the composite rating as a means to produce a short list of horses with the proven ability to compete at this level. Considerations of going(vital), course, distance and other factors are then weighed against available odds to decide on which horse(if any) to back.
Among the things I look at are:
Spotlight’s comments
RP analysis of last race
Horse’s career record regarding going, distance and track preferences
Jockey’s knowledge of the horse
Timeform Perspective on last race – available free on BetfairIf most of these are positive and the price isn’t too skinny for the race in question, I will have a bet.
Many of the eventual winners are, as you might expect, not even on the short list because they do not have the necessary ratings to qualify. I use a cut-off point of within 5lbs of the top-rated.
In yesterday’s Portland H’cap at Doncaster, I had a short-list of no less than 16 out of 21 runners.
I reduced this to 7 based mainly on Spotlight’s comments.
They were: Oldjoesaid, River Falcon, Northern Fling, Hogmanheigh, Fullandby, Hoh Hoh Hoh, and Tamagin.
Eventually, after further study and consideration of the odds, I backed )Oldjoesaid at 16/1.(finished 4th at 10/1)
The winner, 2nd and 4th were on the reduced short list of 7.
In the Next race, the Group 1 sprint, the initial short list was 7 out of 15, which I narrowed down to only one on Spotlight’s comments, the eventual winner African Rose. I didn’t have a bet because the price looked too short for such a race and opposition.
My St Leger was easy, a short list of two, both with favourable comments and credentials, Frozen Fire and Look Here.
The market had already taken account of this and neither was an attractive wager.I ended up having three further bets using the same strategy
3.45 Laa Rayb unplaced, the winner was not on the short-list.
4.15 Moonquake,unplaced, the winner not on the short-list
5.25 Mia’s Boy, unplaced but rather unlucky in running, the winner not on the short-list.
So, a losing day, but a one where bets were methodically considered and a feeling I gave it my best shot and wasn’t in any way guessing.
whichedge,
A good read on the subject is an appendix in Nick Mordin’s book, "Winning Without Thinking". It concerns the Hong Kong betting syndicate who used a multiple regression form analysis model to beat the Pari Mutuel. The maths are complex, but the reasoning behind the model makes very interesting reading. I’m sorry I cannot give you more detail, but there are plenty of published academic papers on the internet on this interesting topic.
