Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It isn’t 5F, it is 4.96F, which should be reflected in your standard times, as Robert has pointed out.
I’ve never noticed them pushing the stalls any further forward than normal, but what probably happens is the straight isn’t harrowed as often or as deeply as the round course, hence it is often awarded a faster GA, but never a slower one. A tail wind in the straight would also contribute at times.
Your stats will probably go back further than mine Stav. <br>I went back to 1998 inclusive, 14 runners or less.
With all races there were 18 courses with a lower SR, two with the same, and 17 with a higher SR.
With HCP’s only my stats came out at 17 courses with a lower SR, 1 the same, and 19 higher.
It just didnt appear to be that bad to me. Maybe the recent stats mean more, just asuming that punters are better informed these days.
I get what you’re saying about the unknown draw bias not affecting the SP and therefore not creating as many winning favs as it possibly should. I think that will certainly be be a contributing factor.
The only other thing that I can think of, off hand, is that due to Redcar being wide, perhaps horses get a bit freaked by that fact. They are herd animals, and being spread right across the track might just put some of them off their game a touch. Maybe its a bit of both.
I cant remember who said it, but there is a draw bias there, and I agree that its more than likely due to the fact that the outside horses are stuck on the outside, so waste time getting into the herd or run on their own (to a degree). Which would tie in with what I’ve just said nicley.
I’m going to have a look at SR’s at wide courses now:biggrin:
I like to look at draw stats, and like someone else mentioned on this thread, there needs to be a logical explanation behind it. Then they can become quite meaningful. Also like EC (I think) pointed out, its not to say the others cant win. Its just a case of it being a few pounds tougher to win.
Stav, as I was so tempted to look into fav stats at banded courses, (due to us discussing it ‘elsewhere’), I think your wrong about Redcar fav stats. The reason is, that Redcar is a wide course and therefore has more runners, so the favs wont win as often as at narrower courses. If you restrict the field size in your fav test, I’m sure it will show the course to be pretty fair, in comparison to others.
Regarding weight increase,I think the class aspect does creep into it, to a degree. More relevent is that weight WILL slow a horse down from its MAXIMUM performance, all other things being equal. I also think that a decrease in weight can enable a horse to achieve a faster time, up to its MAXIMUM.
EW, all you have to do is factor in your knowledge of the course, allowing x amount for slowing down around bends or going uphill (your interpretation). So its a combo of distance, hills and corners, against a perfectly level, straight course on good ground( I think it best to use GDFM on the UK’s undulating courses imho, but I’m not going into that here, basically due to pockets of softer ground).
The standards must be representative of the distance, ie a 1m4f runner wont be covering a furlong in the same time as a sprinter.<br> Once you’re happy you’ve got it as near as you think you can, you can now start knocking up some going allowances and produce some speed figures. After only a few meetings (even the first, after veiwing the races) your speed figures should rub off your standards and vice versa, until you become more and more content with them. You’ll never get them spot on, as theres no such thing, but you will quickly get a standard time that is very workable imho, quicker than waiting for the next 50 meetings and taking an average.<br> Though you will be tweaking them for a while, only to less and less slight degrees though, which shouldnt affect your interpreptation of your SF’s. Whats a pound here or there in the meantime, basically.
I would also rate to 9 stone, not 10. Some say it doesent matter, I’m of the firm opinion that it does.<br>Horses tend to carry weight nearer to 9 stone than 10, on average.<br>As an extreme example. Take a horse carrying 8-10 over Beverleys 5F on soft ground, that then goes and runs over Epsoms 5F on Firm ground. Why have all that extra "guess work". Up and down 4lbs on two extremes of course and going, or up and down 18lbs.
To suggest its all relevent on a set lbs per length, or lbs per 0.2 second scale, is nonesense. They’re all different and the less guess work the better. Going all the way up to 10 stone is doing nothing more than exagerating things, when there is no need in the first place.
I think you know all this already though EW and are infact (as someone has already said), just taking the p**s
. Its been disscussed on here time and time again. Its got a bit boring to be honest. What is value, effect of weight, time vs form, the odd moan about running rails, Mordin sucks, blah blah blah.Happy to become an occasional guest.<br>Good Luck all:biggrin:
Fluctuating STRONG winds can have an effect and throw the compiler a few lengths off track "occasionaly".<br>Note, winds usually die down late afternoon / dusk, depending on time of year and can often do a slight turn around about that time aswell. I’ve been down this road before however, and it did my nut in, though it made sense at times, when nothing else did.
Errors in calculating the going variation on different parts of the course doesent happen as often as one would think. I would also say that variations dont occur as often as one would think either (particually on firmer ground).<br> A quantity surveyor from Wimpy mining and dear friend of mine ( sadly no longer with us) once told me to think of the racecourse as a field and not a track/ring type area. Everything seemed to fit nicely into place when I started to think along those lines(usually when the going was soft). The weather may change, but the courses dont!<br> You get a feel for them and know that x back straight is often a bit slower than the straight course when its on the slow side etc. In essence, that is what compiling SF’s is all about, coupled with form study and viewing the meeting. Once you’re happy with your adjusted (with good reason) GA’s, you’ve got the meeting nailed to the degree of your confidence. Compiling your own figures ensures that you know how accurate the ratings are from that meeting.
I dont see anything wrong with having ?’s next to plenty of GA’s and ultimately SF’s. It is the meetings where you’re 99% sure you’ve got em nailed that make them invaluable. Be them low or high figures ;)
Published SF compilers dont tell you when they’re over the moon with their assesment, aswell as their GA’s coming across as being somewhat automated, and with due respect, make them next to worthless in my book.<br>
As EC pointed out, its just another piece in the jigsaw, with some pieces being bigger than others (depending on circumstances), but if you have enough pieces put together you can get a clear idea of the picture.
<br>Steve, this guy thats traveling around with his mobile is putting the hours in, and good luck to him. I dont really think it matters too much in what area you focus, as long as you put the work in. Can you get him to start going to decent meetings and to give me a bell 15 mins before the off:biggrin: . I would say thats a great piece of the jigsaw to have. I’ve got the corners and most of the edge, but the middle somtimes looks a bit ****** up.:biggrin:
EC, would you know of a website that gives the race time pretty quick after the race. Since I cant see live racing I’ve hunted high and low, and the best I could find was The Sporting Life, averaging around 30 – 40 mins later.
As you can imagine, its a bit of a p**s
er for me if I strongly fancy somthing, and want to look at the time from the race before for ground confirmation. Really, its only of any use to me if any previous race was a large HCP or Group race, and preferably over a short(ish) trip. Would still be nice to have at times though.Cheers<br>
ACR1, is that not just showing that the placed horses RO and often had more left, 3-6 less often, but including unlucky horses (ties in nice with the punting perspective you put up), and 7+ have given their all and exposed themselves.
I have GP1 as my highest level EC, and the difference between average and exceptional (or what I call world class) is all of 2 lengths on my scale. I think the 2yo race isnt that useful to be honest, as it was only April, the fav weakend after leading, so maybe the youngsters went too fast early. Dont know, the race has been and gone now, and there isnt weather reports etc, was it a sunny day / windy day?<br> I know the Kyllachy race was only an hour later, but the ground may have got a little faster, maybe a strong tail wind happend. I really dont know, but theres no way I’d award it a GP1 time and would be using that HCP as my main guide to the GA, even if I was somewhat reluctant to downgrade everything else to avoid getting carried away, I’d find an excuse for them somehow:biggrin:
I’d put the Kyllachy race at around listed and work my SF’s around that. I would recognise Kyllachy as being a good horse, as it won readily in a listed time. Thats what I think happened anyway. Looking at how the other races have turned out , I’d say I’m not too far off the mark. Each to their own, but I cant have a horse being shaken up inside the last to win readily and yet still record a GP1 time.
The best example I can think of regarding SF’s against collateral form is the maiden that Ramruma won. Went off my scale. The clock watchers new the score, when everyone else was saying "what did she beat"?
It wasnt a group 1 time in the first place imo. I cant recall the race from memory, but reading the race comments it seems pretty obvious to me that it simply quickened away from some handicapers inside the last, and won "readily". Which would suggest to me that it had plenty left in the tank, so it couldnt have produced a GP1 time.
There was slowly run races at that meeting, which has obviously led to the SF compilers getting carried away with the GA in order to make the slow races fit in nicely. I noticed that split second (or whatever they’re called now) got a bit carried away again the other day. Nice;)
Its a whole different ball game up there EW, your going against hype, pure and simple imo.<br>Mid range types usually run on merit, although the odd bit of an attempt to hoodwink the handicapper occurs.<br>The low grade stuff needs to be looked at differently again as its made up of plans, plots, whatever you want to call them. I enjoy all three. Though have found out through my wallet over the years that the low grade stuff takes the same if not more patience, despite many more races.
Prufrock, I wasnt directing anything at anybody. As you know, I compile my own SF’s. How many times do you use your ratings and say to yourself, what are they playing at, and then again you find yourself saying somthing along the lines of , "they’ve done it again, imo this horse needs a drop in trip or a stiffer course, or different going, or needs to come from behind off a strong pace not trailblaze". Isnt it nice after the wait to feel confident that everythings in place and they’re going for it, and get a nice price early before the gamble takes place if there is one, I know I like it, it makes all the work and patience / discipline seem worthwhile. I dont know if you can call this cheating. Perhaps you’ve worked out what the horse needs before the trainer, due to his/her other daily commitments and we have all day to study form. I dont know for sure, but I suspect they are aware of the situation.:o
What I’m trying to say is I’m happy the way things are. For me, I’d be going against hype in top class stuff.<br>Expecting form to work out quite well in class C+, maybe class D if the prize money is half decent.<br>Trying to work out if they’re going for it today in the low grade stuff.
So no, I dont understand why everyone wants the sport to be a prescise science. For the same reasons I dont understand why you want sectional times to be available off the shelf Prufrock, you compile your own which must take a bit of time and no doubt you cash in from time to time, by having knowledge unavailable to the public. Yet you seem to really want sectionals to be readily available for all couses. Believe me, the snotty nosed kid will work out how to utilise them in a very short space of time. I’d be making hay while the sun shines, not out doing a rain dance :biggrin:
I’m not trying to be argumentative Prufrock. I’m sure if we were sat in a pub chatting you’d see my expressions and mannerisms and not take offence at all;) Then again, maybe you’d glass me:biggrin:
<br>
Racing analysis has (I believe) always been to a certain degree, about balancing factual horse form with trainer / owner intentions. Half of the "art" of weighing up a race is trying to get inside the trainers / owners head.<br> I feel this becomes less important when you get into higher grades, as the prestige starts to overide any petty(or not so) gambles that may seem aluring to some lower down the scale. <br>If you are to play in these lower grade events, why do people want everything out in the open, its a bit like cutting your own throat. I envisage a day when betting on anything under a 100 rated to be foolish, not because of the coups etc, going on. No, more because of this insistency to clean up all the low grade stuff has gone to far, and we might aswell just hand over a small percentage of our income to bookmakers and exchange operators. The books will be just soooo perfect, they’ll be no bones left to pick on.
Its heading that way already, you can see the difference in just the last 5 years say. Anyone that makes a few quid at this the hard way will have noticed just how much harder it is to keep ahead, yet people moan on about a clean up. Makes no sense to me.
I mentioned this a few weeks ago, about how I’m unsure if computers are really a benefit. I could sit up all night with the form book and put a good 12 – 14 hours a day in. That used to put me well ahead in the game, as the average punter would have given up long before, now some snotty nosed school kid or casual punter can have almost all the info I have instantly, unless I dig extra deep, and that might put me JUST ahead of them, not well clear as before. Yes lets clean up the game, have a comp program written thats superb at predicting the true prices, shouldnt be too hard to compile one, if the races are as straight as a die.
I like to read between the lines. Yet all we seem to hear is people whinging because their ratings arent working out.
I must now apologise for my whinge, I’m just in a bit of a grouchy mood, and any old subject would have sufficed I suppose:biggrin:
Much better:)
Hi Cubone, if there is anything going on regarding laying, it may be wise to ignore the fav, as it attract’s too much attention. Maybe how many "unlucky" or "Slow start" comments in relation to number of horses ran, might be a better route. Just a thought.:)
Same here, thanks to all involved. I dont have any interest in NH racing as a rule, but I got a lovely little adrenaline rush towards the end of the Wincanton 4:05.<br>Have also browsed the link NV, and will also read it in detail later.
Again, many thanks<br>Chris
