Forum Replies Created
- Posts
EC,
It had to be said and you have said it well.<br>Those who don’t know they don’t know could learn a lot from this Forum. Not many ever ask how to go about it even when what is important is handed out on a plate. Deference rules for some and if a trainer or commentator has not said it, then it can’t be true.
Averages are for losers as winning is the exception not the rule. Jockey and Trainer tables give the average strike rates and that is it – nice and easy and totally useless. That an average has peaks and troughs in the data that goes to make it up is something many seem to miss out on completely. Exploiting those peaks and troughs, as you have pointed out, alone could turn some of the 99% of losers into winners. How many will ever do anything about it?
Commentators are always "right" even if they contradict what they said 10 minutes ago. They comment "after the event" and hindsight is 20-20. Any predictions take them into dangerous areas where their fallibility is exposed, so are mostly the blindingly obvious or just follow the herd. Horses don’t talk, so they have to talk to the trainers and jockeys. Trainers look after horses, jockeys ride them, but their opinions when it comes to forecasting a horse’s chance in a race is woeful considering they spend their working lives at it. A whole language of excuses has been generated to cover that up.
Quote: from Artemis on 7:37 pm on June 19, 2006[br]Ken 1,
Very broadly speaking, yes. Provided the conditions were similar and with all the usual caveats, I would expect a decent show. I would add that it would be difficult for a horse to record an exceptional speed figure if the race wasn’t run to suit. However, a horse could be denied a clear run and still record a decent figure relative to the race class, but I think if there was any false pace(too fast or too slow early or mid race) it virtually scuppers the chances of a high speed rating. I did a survey some time ago and found that only around 40% of flat races returned speed ratings commensurate with the class of race. The figure was even lower over the jumps.<br>
It is an interesting phrase "race not run to suit". A losing jockey’s excuse which is challenged by why did you not then ride the horse at the pace that did suit? No answer.
My view is that a horse runs its own pace unless hard restrained. It does not matter what the rest do.
Any slowly run race is no more than an exercise gallop in my book and is totally ignored formwise, save alone that the horse may be fitter next time. Any winner of a slowly run race will invariably lose against the winner of a recent fast run race in similar conditions.
Your figures for true run race percentages are actually even worse because the going allowance to produce the traditional speed figures uses the fastest run races on the day. So usually at least one race per meeting qualifieds as fast but this is often not the reality.
If the pace is not fully testing for the whole race then the result is a lottery and the carried weight has not made its full effect felt. Collateral form uses weight carried and beaten lengths so almost by definition is very misleading for any future prediction.
trackside,
I have never known an Arc to be run at anything but a strong pace throughout. French Group I winners that have raced succesfully in UK have previously scored very high speed figures in France. If you have a superior horse you do not risk losing a Gr1 race by giving all the other horses a chance. You use that horse’s ability to the full. If Clive could produce any evidence of his statements, as Stav has, then he could be taken more seriously.
Your points about speed figures are red herrings. The time figure just records the time a horse took to cross the line. It is then adjusted for the average going. If you want to make adjustments for fitness, getting blocked in, hard luck etc there is nothing at all to stop you making those adjustments. That is no different from any other type of rating.
What is more to the point is collateral rating a Gr1 winner in the region of 115+ when that race was ran slower than a selling race or 2yo maiden race on the same card.
EC (and Stav), You lasted well against the abysmal level of replies. I just don’t know how you can keep your cool so well with the nonsensical comments from the pair of slackjaws on this thread. I don’t hold out much hope for any thoughts of SP’s connections either as the atching trainer didn’t even know that SP had won the race.
Last point from me is that there was actually a French Group 2 winner in the race and it was 2/1 favourite after winning at 1/5 in 10f GR2 race at StC. (RPR 117, TS 115). It did last 10f. Certainly UK bookmakers were impressed by that French "form", if no one else was. If it had won a GR1 it would have been unbackable odds on.
Pru,
I use 3 other independent methods for confirming what the going will be as well as race times. The physical ground was a good-firm crust of topsoil with the chalk sodden below after 10 days previous rain. The horse’s two ton impact force on the turf deflects soil down to about 14 inches depth so anything a puny human sees, feels, pokes with a stick at the surface can be very misleading.
Stav using his standard times may quite correctly get a going allowance of say minus 0.10 and calls that good-firm. Someone else with a different ST set but same times and methods gets a GC of 0 and calls it Good.
The trick is to keep the same set and ensure that each race distance standard on the same course is in proportion "relatively". Other courses must have the same balance of times which must be relateable to the course in question and all other UK courses you might use that data on. This is what Raceform, Racing Post, N Mordin etc do not do.
If things are balanced than your 0 GC is, or can be, true zero on all courses. What many figures have is an apparent calculated zero ranging from a reality of -0.3 to +0.3 and are quite unware of that – just using the times of that day and coming out with zero.
Where SP is rated at 121 instead of about 107 because "it was the Derby" and he achieved 121 on a totally different course, going and distance is another source of huge errors. Hawk Wing in the Lockinge was another glaring example of why you have to do your own ratings to have any confidence in using the data in earnest.
On proportional sectional times or pace shape your advice is good as far as it goes and gives a clarifying picture to an otherwise confusing mass of data, but IMHO it is only a start. The Derby is stiff uphill, helter skelter downhill + bend, cambered straight. Those near the 8 yard far rail preserved strip are running on different going to those further out. So you really need gold standards for each sectional at Epsom to get a fuller "relative" picture that you could apply at another totally different course such as Ascot, York or Newmarket.
Once you have those standards you can then go on and estimate the variation in going around the course, which then changes your overall GC, which may change your Standard Times, ad-infinitum.
So the winner was?
Scented Present from Draw 1, broke fast and continued up centre of track. Obviously, Frankie reads TRF the night before racing. ;)
There is a strip which averages about a length and half advantage over the top 3 stalls when the ground is good. The 2 draw is right over it! :) Ask jockey to walk course to check it out and make sure that he gets a good start, pushes on downhill, and keeps straight.
If you want the best prices that is the name of the game. Or if you are really clever – before the race has been run.
Still the greatest race in the World to test the breed for me and the one every jockey and trainer wants to win. Race is in the doldrums at present and the fact that 2yos run later and later in that season, if at all, now makes early June come around too soon for as many of the stars to take part, as happened in the past.
People may be commenting from two different angles.[1] how does that particular 2000g compare with the best in the past or [2] how good was that particular 2000g as a race in 2006.
For the first I would say "average". For the second I would say "very good" bearing in mind the cold, late spring circumstances and the number of good competitors in the race (for 6 furlongs at least ). Undoubtly these are amongst the very best of their generation and will win future high class races amongst their generation. The real test is when they get older horse competition and higher class overseas competitors. My gut feeling is that GW will race once more and in the Irish 2000g. Only now being raced for future breeding fee enhancement.
Rumple came into season the night before.<br>Newmarket would need to be under a foot of water to be "soft", but many gallopers with daisy c actions slip on the actual loose, good-soft. Winner put up a brave performance from the front and kept on very well. Daft of trainer not to run her on RH tracks as the rail or other horses to the left will keep S in check for a very minor hanging (the horse).
A top class 3 year old in a group where the rest (except one) were trained to a peak. Slowish early pace and no horse willing to pass OO. Slow overall time for the going and winning from coming from behind with that pace is always a warning sign not to over rate. At no stage did GW accelerate, cruised for 4 furlongs and really slowed over last 2 furlongs. GW appeared hard trained for this race and AOB did not seem to have future plans decided. None of the field looked to have the stamina, compactness or speed for an Epsom Derby but many will win again at 7-8 furlongs on similar galloping courses.
Quote: from Cavelino Rampante on 11:01 pm on May 4, 2006[br]Hi Stav
The main reason I signed up to this board was to discuss the subject of speed and how it relates to UK horseracing.
Any good method is generally the development of other peoples ideas as I’m sure yours is and there is certainly no one size fits all solution to the eternal search for winners.
Cheers
CR,
So what do you want to discuss on speed, or do you mean time? Why cannot people have original ideas? My methods are certainly original. How do you search for winners?
Quote: from Cavelino Rampante on 3:12 pm on April 30, 2006[br]Just finished reading this, some good ideas but a bit vague at times
His LPF formula which seems to be a lynchpin of his method makes no allowances for fields of less than 6 runners, Also no allowance is made for non handicaps where fields finish strung out further or different track configurations  that make demands on stamina that naturally effect the finishing distances.  He explains away big fields by allowing more horses within LPF "8 or nine depending" again with no definition of a large field. ÂÂÂ
All too generalised and convenient.
Would be interested in any comments from anybody who’s read the book.<br>
Racing is like that. There is no simple formula that covers every angle you just have to use your own judgement sometimes. The book gives enough examples for a wide range of courses, race type distances and goings to show that LPF can be an effective empirical guide to arriving at a decision, but is not a set rule. There are also many other ways of doing this selection process to use as a decision check. More to the point, what have you actually applied of the book and how did that turn out?
m,
MC went solo after leaving RP and lost heavily, and between the lines went to pieces. Knowing what to do in theory is a world away from actually putting it into practice for real. He re-emerged with a column in Raceform on Saturday that did the opposite of his Pricewise baby and went for the shortest favourites on the day. After RoS finished it was the last I have heard of him which is a shame as his ideas helped many at the time.
