Forum Replies Created
- Posts
God knows what happened to the grid. It looked all right when I posted it.
I must give up drinking…
What you end up with is a sort of grid which looks like this:-
<br> 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85
Intellibet One (no OR) 72 76 80 84 88 92<br>Ellen Mooney (OR 78) 64 68 72 76 80 84<br>Zucchero (OR 91) 70 74 78 82 86 90<br>Falcon Hill (OR 108) 98 102 106 110 114 118<br>Lady of Gdansk (OR 55) 73 77 81 85 89 93<br>Lingo (OR 60) 68 72 76 80 84 88
<br>So, if the going allowance is 0.60 seconds per furlong it would produce the timeratings in the first column. If it was 0.65 it would give those in the second column etc.
Bear in mind that there’s a difference of 14lbs between the two scales (see earlier on this thread) so if, for example, the Lincoln was truly-run Zucchero could be expected to record a timerating of about 105. The going allowance would need to be about 1.04 seconds per furlong to produce that timerating for Zucchero. The problem is that that sort of going allowance would produce timeratings for Falcon Hill of about 133 – champion sprinter class – and for Lingo of about 103 and that’s not feasible. It would mean that Lingo had recorded a timerating 29lbs in excess of his handicap mark. Lingo is very probably improving but if you accept as I do that at seven furlongs there are two pounds to a length this would mean that all horses that finished within fourteen and a half lengths of Lingo had shown improved form relative to their handicap marks. Exactly half the field finished within that distance of Lingo – eleven out of twenty two. It’s too many. Conclusion: the Lincoln wasn’t truly-run nor was Ellen Mooney’s race.
Lingo’s race might have been truly-run and so might Lady of Gdansk’s. The latter was a 33/1 shot and was probably showing improved form. Lingo won by two lengths with the third horse a further three and a half lengths away in a big field, distances which often indicate a truly-run race.
It’s impossible to seize on any one race or any one horse through which to "timerate" this Doncaster card. The "best fit" I can come up with is a going allowance of 0.75 seconds per furlong. This allows for both Lingo and Northern Nymph (the first two in the last) having put up performances on time in advance of their handicap marks and it credits Lady of Gdansk with 16lbs improvement on her handicap mark. The timeratings for these two races could in theory have been a little higher but that would have resulted in a corresponding increase in the timeratings of the juveniles in the first race which was, after all, an early season maiden auction event in which many horses finished quite close up.
The problem is that the handicap marks of Lady of Gdansk, Lingo and Northern Nymph are likely to shoot up when the new marks are published tomorrow. I’ll report back then.
Paul101…it’s going to take me too long to retype everything I typed all those years ago so I’ll change tack by analysing Saturday’s Doncaster card from a time viewpoint.
It’s actually quite a good example as there was no rain during the meeting and six of the seven races were over the straight course and we’ll concentrate on those.
In race order, the winners, their ages, weights carried, official ratings and times relative to standard were as follows:-
1.50 (5f) Intellibet One 2 7-13 (no OR) 6.49 secs slow<br>2.20 (8f) Ellen Mooney 3 8-6 (OR 78) 10.59 secs slow<br>3.35 (8f) Zucchero 6 8-13 (OR 91) 8.94 secs slow<br>4.10 (6f) Falcon Hill 3 8-6 (OR 108) 5.26 secs slow<br>4.40 (6f) Lady of Gdansk 3 8-9 (OR 55) 7.24 secs slow<br>5.15 (7f) Lingo 3 7-11 (OR 60) 8.02 secs slow
Do the calculations set out previously (i.e. with no allowance for the going) and the basic timeratings are IO 21, EM 14, Z 20, FH 47, LoG 23, L 18.
These are obviously far too slow and we know the ground was soft anyway and so some adjustment by way of a going allowance is clearly needed.
Assume that the horses were slowed down by the conditions to the tune of 0.70 seconds per furlong and re-do the calculations. In other words, treat Intellibet One as having run 2.99 seconds slower than standard (i.e. 6.49 minus [5 x 0.70] seconds), Ellen Mooney as having run 4.99 seconds slower (i.e. 10.59 minus [8 x 0.70] seconds) etc. The adjusted timeratings are IO 80, EM 72, Z 78, FH 106, LoG 81 and L 76. Is 0.70 the correct going allowance?
My view is that it isn’t and that the correct going allowance is a bit higher than that. Again, I’m a bit short of time and I’ll have to go into my reasons a bit later on in the week. I’ll also explain the use that can be made of the ratings once they’re finalised.
Rainbow High drifted alarmingly in the market on Saturday and – surprise, surprise – was never put in the race at any stage. It’s all very well the stable stating that his main target is the Chester Cup once again but I thought that he still had to be ridden to obtain the best possible placing in any races he takes in on the way.
Once in a while a race goes exactly as you envisaged it and today’s Gold Cup was one such race. I can’t think why I particularly wanted to resurrect this thread but page 5 might have something to do with it. Congratulations to Best Mate and all who kept the faith. I can’t stand people who say told you so but…told you so.
To paul101…the following is an extract from something I wrote a few years ago explaining how I calculate a going allowance:
"How is the going allowance calculated for any particular day’s racing at any particular track? The first step is to sub-divide the returns into individual ‘courses’ at the track e.g. the straight course and the round course at Doncaster, the sprint course and the round course at Sandown etc. Don’t assume that the going allowance on each of these ‘courses’ will be the same on any given day. Next, carry out the calculations previously set out. This leaves you with a ‘raw’ timerating based on a theoretical ‘nil’ going allowance.
As an example on 16th July 1994 there were five races on the straight course at Newmarket ( July course). A ‘nil’ allowance would produce the following timeratings: Jawaal (official rating 73) 129, Lion’s Mane (no official rating) 100, Bintalshaati (official rating 88) 129, Princess Oberon (official rating 70) 96 and Loyalize (no official rating) 120. Remember that there is a 14lb difference between the two scales so normally Jawaal could be expected to produce in a truly-run race a timerating in the region of 87. A timerating of 129 would represent improvement of 42 lbs! Although Jawaal was certainly a lightly-raced and improving colt at that time that degree of improvement is just not feasible and so we can clearly see that conditions on that day were fast and a ‘minus’ going allowance is indicated but to what degree?
Esentially what is involved at this point is exercising a degree of judgement based on experience, looking at the timeratings which would be produced by various going allowances and reaching a ‘best fit’ decision i.e. which going allowance best fits what we know about the horses which raced on this particular day? Anyone who remembers slide-rules will understand what I mean when I say that I am in effect sliding a cursor along the range of possible options to come up with as accurate an allowance as possible."
[to be continued]
To paul101…here goes. Calculating a "raw" timerating is relatively simple. You need a set of standard times and a weight-for-age scale in addition to a calculator. Standard times appear in the Post, Weekender and Raceform Update. Each set of times is different. In my view, the thing to do is to choose one set and stick to it. There is an official wfa scale which came in a few years back. I don’t use it. I use the one that preceded it. It’s up to you.
When I say a "raw" rating, I mean one before any adjustment is made for the prevailing conditions on the day. Assume for calculation purposes that a fully mature horse carrying eight stone and equalling the standard time would record a rating of 100. Multiply the amount by which the time is faster or slower than the standard time x (1000 divided by the relevant standard time expressed in seconds) which converts the amount by which the time is fast or slow into pounds rather than seconds. Adjust this figure to reflect the actual weight carried (i.e. whether the horse in fact carried more or less than eight stone) and, in the case of a two or three year old, add on the appropriate figure from the wfa scale. The figure you are left with is the basic timerating.
By way of an example, take a look at the spectacular win of Queen’s Logic in the Cheveley Park last October. Her time for the six furlongs was 1m12.34secs. My standard time for the Newmarket six furlongs is 1m11.7secs. She was therefore 0.64secs "slow". To convert this into pounds multiply by 1000 and divide by 71.7 (the standard time expressed in seconds) giving a figure of 8.9 lbs "slow". Round it up to 9 lbs. Deduct this from the 100 she would have achieved if she’d exactly matched the standard making 91. She carried 11 lbs more than eight stone. Add this to the 91, making 102. The wfa scale I use says that a two-year-old running over 6f in October is 21 lbs from full maturity. Add this to the 102 giving a final figure of 123.
Do the same arithmetic for all the races run at Newmarket that day. So, for example, High Pitched, a three-year-old carrying 8-13 recorded a time of 2m32.78secs for the 12f handicap against a standard, on my figures, of 2m31.00secs. Multiply the 1.78 "slow" by a thousand and divide by 151 to give a figure of 11.78 lbs "slow". Round it up to 12, deduct from 100 to give 88, add back the 13 lbs carried above 8st and add the 8lbs the wfa scale says a three-year-old should get over that trip at that time of year to give a final figure of 109.
My timeratings for the winners on that particular card were as follows: Bon Marche 74, Sir George Turner 95, Queen’s Logic 123, Kylkenny 60, Hathaal 94 and High Pitched 109. You then have to decide how the prevailing conditions (i.e. ground and wind, if any) affected the times. I’ll come on to how that’s calculated another time – I’m a bit pushed for time at the minute – but I’ve chosen that particular day at Newmarket on purpose because it was a day when in my opinion the ground and wind had no bearing on the racetimes and so the "going allowance" was nil, leaving the timeratings above to stand without further adjustment.
I find that the timeratings produced by my method differ from the official BHB handicap ratings by 14lbs. That is to say, a BHB rating of, say, 80 equates to a timerating of 94. Thus, if a horse with an official mark of 80 records a timerating of 100 he has run a time 6lbs faster than his handicap mark. Of the winners on Cheveley Park day, the following had handicap marks: Bon Marche was officially rated 67, Sir George Turner 93, Kylkenny 53 and High Pitched 94. It is easy to see, therefore, that of these four only the last-named put up a significant performance on the clock, recording a time just ahead of his official mark. As it turned out, this information proved of little benefit because the horse stepped up in class next time and won a Group Three and identifying him as an improving handicapper didn’t give me the confidence to back him there. The main significance of this particular day’s racetimes was to confirm that Queen’s Logic’s race was truly-run, that there was no fluke about her performance and that she’s a worthy challenger for next year’s One Thousand.
The next step – calculating the going allowance – is the tricky bit and I’ll go into it in more detail in a day or two when I’ve a bit more time.
I hope the above is of assistance.
It’s definitely worth the time and effort. I do my own timeratings for the turf Flat season and I wouldn’t be without them despite the time and effort involved. I’ve read Mordin’s book and I’m not a fan of his method of calculation. I’ve developed my own method over many years adapted from the Split Second/Stop Watch approach. In my view it’s important to be able to compare the timeratings with the official handicap marks as in my experience the best bets identified by these figures involve horses going into handicaps for the first time on favourable marks.
It’s highly unlikely that whatever ailed Bacchanal at Newbury had any effect at all during the race when he was running on adrenaline. Anyone who’s suffered a knock while playing football will know what I mean – it hurts when you stop.
Regarding Best Mate, I accept that to some extent the horse has been hyped and to that degree is indeed a "talking horse" but that’s not the horse’s fault and I think that people are allowing this to blind them to the horse’s merits. No, he hasn’t won under rules over three miles but he’s only had one stab at the trip after all and his narrow defeat by Florida Pearl at Kempton clearly represents high-class form at the distance (and, incidentally, he was going away from Bacchanal at the finish). If you ignore the hype, a lightly-raced seven-year-old with improvement in him and high-class form already in the book fits the Gold Cup bill. Of course, he might not stay but then again he might. If it comes down to jumping between him and Bacchanal, I know which one I’d prefer.
You might be right, Esc, although I think it’s very hard to measure exactly what Looks Like Trouble achieved at Wincanton whether you look at it in form terms or time terms or both. It’s just a gut feeling I suppose. I’d rather back an up and coming horse for the Gold Cup than one who’s upped and come if you’ll pardon the expression. I know a lot of people on this forum disagree but Best Mate fits the bill for me.
Anyone who backs Bacchanal for the Gold Cup is in effect saying that the race can be won by a horse who is not a natural steeplechaser. I don’t believe that it can. Gloria Victis was a much more fluent jumper than Bacchanal but he shared Bacchanal’s tendency to jump out to the right and the cumulative effect of this was clear to see in the 2000 Gold Cup. Gloria Victis lost a little ground at every fence and was clearly getting the worst of the argument when he fell – fatally – at the second last. The form of Bacchanal’s Newbury race isn’t that special either – Supreme Glory, rated 142, finished much too close over a trip far too short for him.
As for Looks Like Trouble, he’s ten years of age and coming back from a very serious injury. I love the horse – I backed him at 25/1 two years ago and had already backed him at 10/1 for last year’s Gold Cup before he was injured – but is he really likely to be capable of turning in the same level of performance as in 2000? The odds have to be against it.
In answer to the question, I was not impressed at all. For the bookies to cut his Gold Cup odds is an insult to the intelligence. Bacchanal didn’t show improved form at all and his tendency to jump slowly and to the right will be an insurmountable burden if he repeats it at Cheltenham. He’s no Gold Cup winner as far as I’m concerned.
