Yesterday, on 2.30 at Thurles the horse Whatucaller was mentioned by Timeform that its handicap debut mark was stiff. I've read a few times that looking at the last RPR and comparing it to today's OR would give a good clue if the horse was well-handicapped or not. The horse's last rpr was +7 points higher than the OR. So, I'm really confused: Timeform says one thing but rpr says another. Was he really undone by its handicap mark?
How to determine if first handicap debut mark is good?
- Thread starter moody
- Start date
TheBluesBrother
Dam
You have to understand that the OR and RPR are produced using different criteria, they are not produced on the same scale.
Attached is my RPR conversion table, for example a 3yo with a RPR of 100 converts to a OR of 90.
Mike.
TheBluesBrother
Dam
M
moody
Using the RPR+OR to produce a "OR" performance rating.
Looking at the 6:10 at Southwell tonight the top LTO of my speed figures "MR" is Wadacre Galoubet, to produce a "OR" performance rating from his last run I add the OR (63) + RPR (70) together = 133, then check the figure of 133 against my Class Par Totals table.
Reading across, the 133 totals figures equate to a BHA OR performance figure of 62 today he is running off a mark of 68.
Mike.
Using the RPR+OR to produce a "OR" performance rating.
Looking at the 6:10 at Southwell tonight the top LTO of my speed figures "MR" is Wadacre Galoubet, to produce a "OR" performance rating from his last run I add the OR (63) + RPR (70) together = 133, then check the figure of 133 against my Class Par Totals table.
Reading across, the 133 totals figures equate to a BHA OR performance figure of 62 today he is running off a mark of 68.
Mike.
TheBluesBrother
Dam
arkle55
Sire
TheBluesBrother, would it be possible to post charts for Alll Weather and National Hunt, Chasing and Hurdles.Thank you
Arkle
TheBluesBrother
Dam
mick
Sire
A lot of private handicaps such as the RP one tend to over estimate in comparison with the BHA numbers, which providing its consistent across the board should not affect the accuracy but does increase the confusion. The intention of private ratings is to sometimes facilitate disagreeing with the official ones so imo it makes sense to formulate your own in a way which mirror's the BHA ones. ?
arkle55
Sire
Thank you
TheBluesBrother.If AW and the flat are the same, does that mean Chase and Hurdles are treated the same.
Arkle
TheBluesBrother
Dam
Certainly not, there is a 12.0s difference between the hurdles and chases over the same trip.
Mike.
arkle55
Sire
Hi there
I've been trying to find a topic that I thought I may be able to contribute something of value to, to avoid being demoted to a Lurker.
I've been busy volunteering to my community allotment scheme for last 2 years, learning to do hot composting from scratch. But by simple design of experiments and reading and testing others research I evolved a method that produces compost (saves co2 escaping and cools the planet in our own miniscule way) for the growers to use. New potatoes double size of ones that didn't get compost feed and all that. New cu mtr piles reach 74C in about 4 days and shortened their composting time from 12 months to 5 or 6. Unfortunately they now love me and don't want me to leave. I was taught at Unilever to just solve their problems, train them in the new methods and move on. But I've negotiated (used the data - as we all do) 4 months off each year Dec to Apr 1st when they don't give me green waste to compost. Just shows what careful simple stats can do from knowing nothing?
So, I've recently got my adjusted RI data and own speed ratings uptodate and thought I'd run the simplest model of contrarian thinking. Good run, bad run, bet next time out. Market likes good form lto, so at least these qualifiers should be at 'good' odds. Equations sorted in excel, exported last 2 years (2yo and 3yo) data from access db into excel and ran it. 62234 records (about the last 2 years races - limit on number of rows in excel) produced 1638 qualifiers which at level stakes ISP odds produced a loss of 14 pts. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. Cheered myself up by showing profit using tote dividends (mainly on longshots 50/1 etc).
But I always fall back on sound science, and realised that simple exercise was breaking Ashby's Law; only variety can aborb variety. E.g. soccer teams start the games with equal number of players. My simple play only used 2 variables; good run followed by bad run. (I've only been interested for the last 7 years or so, in finding cases where a horse is being gamed against the OH. As an intellectual exercise to keep my old brain from slowing up, I'm only interested in grade 5 and 6 2 & 3yo hcps).
So, I needed to pump more variety into my model to cope with the variety of stuff in horses running races. I've been testing some additional variables in that simple model.
The nearest I can get to the title of this thread is the sequence of stakes race, stakes race, hcp race; so thats good stks run, bad stks run, bet if hcp nto. That produced 50.65 pts profit. Most of these cases will be first time hcps but not all cases. Having started out specialising in 2yo races, that rang a rusty old bell; good deb run with bags of indicators for future improvement (like Frankel), drop in distance (instead of rise as pedigree suggests - so already evidence of gaming going on in only 2nd run of the horse?), switch from turf to aw on third run, get a hcp mark and then it improves many lbs then, or a few hcp runs later on turf depending on what the OH has given it.
A few other factors that make horse sense (energy. recovery time between races, etc via bioenergetics) have got the paper profits up to 400+. But biggest payoff of this playing has been to pick up more excel functions like AND/OR and simple baby steps in calcs to get exactly what I want to do. Last night I realised that I can now automate a lot more of my full predictive modelling method to the point where I may be able to run that in the time that composting, mole trapping, woodland management, fault finding in the treasury GDP effects of brexit - Mike's point in this stream about not mixing apples and oranges - we are going to be OK; allows.
The nearest books to my full 'predictive potential' method of handicapping are by Len Ragozin and Howard Sartin.
Apologies as usual for length of posting. Best wishes to all for 2020.
I've been trying to find a topic that I thought I may be able to contribute something of value to, to avoid being demoted to a Lurker.
I've been busy volunteering to my community allotment scheme for last 2 years, learning to do hot composting from scratch. But by simple design of experiments and reading and testing others research I evolved a method that produces compost (saves co2 escaping and cools the planet in our own miniscule way) for the growers to use. New potatoes double size of ones that didn't get compost feed and all that. New cu mtr piles reach 74C in about 4 days and shortened their composting time from 12 months to 5 or 6. Unfortunately they now love me and don't want me to leave. I was taught at Unilever to just solve their problems, train them in the new methods and move on. But I've negotiated (used the data - as we all do) 4 months off each year Dec to Apr 1st when they don't give me green waste to compost. Just shows what careful simple stats can do from knowing nothing?
So, I've recently got my adjusted RI data and own speed ratings uptodate and thought I'd run the simplest model of contrarian thinking. Good run, bad run, bet next time out. Market likes good form lto, so at least these qualifiers should be at 'good' odds. Equations sorted in excel, exported last 2 years (2yo and 3yo) data from access db into excel and ran it. 62234 records (about the last 2 years races - limit on number of rows in excel) produced 1638 qualifiers which at level stakes ISP odds produced a loss of 14 pts. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. Cheered myself up by showing profit using tote dividends (mainly on longshots 50/1 etc).
But I always fall back on sound science, and realised that simple exercise was breaking Ashby's Law; only variety can aborb variety. E.g. soccer teams start the games with equal number of players. My simple play only used 2 variables; good run followed by bad run. (I've only been interested for the last 7 years or so, in finding cases where a horse is being gamed against the OH. As an intellectual exercise to keep my old brain from slowing up, I'm only interested in grade 5 and 6 2 & 3yo hcps).
So, I needed to pump more variety into my model to cope with the variety of stuff in horses running races. I've been testing some additional variables in that simple model.
The nearest I can get to the title of this thread is the sequence of stakes race, stakes race, hcp race; so thats good stks run, bad stks run, bet if hcp nto. That produced 50.65 pts profit. Most of these cases will be first time hcps but not all cases. Having started out specialising in 2yo races, that rang a rusty old bell; good deb run with bags of indicators for future improvement (like Frankel), drop in distance (instead of rise as pedigree suggests - so already evidence of gaming going on in only 2nd run of the horse?), switch from turf to aw on third run, get a hcp mark and then it improves many lbs then, or a few hcp runs later on turf depending on what the OH has given it.
A few other factors that make horse sense (energy. recovery time between races, etc via bioenergetics) have got the paper profits up to 400+. But biggest payoff of this playing has been to pick up more excel functions like AND/OR and simple baby steps in calcs to get exactly what I want to do. Last night I realised that I can now automate a lot more of my full predictive modelling method to the point where I may be able to run that in the time that composting, mole trapping, woodland management, fault finding in the treasury GDP effects of brexit - Mike's point in this stream about not mixing apples and oranges - we are going to be OK; allows.
The nearest books to my full 'predictive potential' method of handicapping are by Len Ragozin and Howard Sartin.
Apologies as usual for length of posting. Best wishes to all for 2020.
mick
Sire
Good morning
S
student Re demoted to lurker i would say quality outs indeed i note your promotion to Green which enables inner sanctum access. Re your experiment there will generally be four reasons for the poor lto run ? A) Placed to lose. B) Prevented from winning. C ) An innocent unexpected occurrence during the race. D) Genuine regression.
When i am profiling a horse of interest off ratings then attempting to tell A from D is frequently the straightener. The biggest problem often being that while you can see A) as the probable cause and evidence it, you are still left feeling that while the animal should not have been involved in the finish it should perhaps have run better than it did.
However many of my bets do have that lto perfect 0 obtained via A) which normally ensures increased value. I show below my bet for today which i posted on another part of this forum yesterday afternoon, perhaps not the best example but it does contain elements of the above.......PS well done the good life, do your spuds make the chips taste better.?
Tue 31st Ling 12.0 : Fareeq @ 10/1
A 5fur 0-60 10 run ( four of whom are wrong at the weights). Lto Fareeq was a possible bet for myself but i decided to swerve which proved a good call although hopefully for the wrong reasons because slow away he blew his chance at the start. At an all-in 4-42 he is not a winsome animal but emulating 0-60 runs over this CD shows 1-3 and the two losing runs where that Lto one and a good 1len 2nd giving 3lbs to the winner in this race last year. He contests this time under a 3lb lower OR and a handy 4lbs less physical weight which should enable going one better this time around.
Excluding Lto all of his runs since his last win have been in higher grade contests and now 3lbs below his most recent winning mark he has the looks of one placed to win. The jockey change to Kingscote who was on top for the most recent win might also be a tell that they are running with serious intentions. The 5-10 draw shows positive for same size fields. The small stable do appear out of sorts at present and this could prove the straightener, but they do work with limited ammunition and a couple of recent placings suggest there is nothing seriously amiss.
Roundabout Magic is the likely Fav and he contested that Lto race, he was smashed in the market starting 9/4 fav and considered unlucky in 3rd. On a recovery mission his chance has to be respected but deploying my usual MO in these circumstances I have concluded that if my pick was a N/r i would still not be interested in backing Magic. Fareeq is my only possible in the race and with a case of sorts to be made as ever it will be down to the price. I recall Terry Ramsden saying he preferred the flat because it gave a quicker death, well with a 12pm start and over 5 fur this at least is a given.!
When i am profiling a horse of interest off ratings then attempting to tell A from D is frequently the straightener. The biggest problem often being that while you can see A) as the probable cause and evidence it, you are still left feeling that while the animal should not have been involved in the finish it should perhaps have run better than it did.
However many of my bets do have that lto perfect 0 obtained via A) which normally ensures increased value. I show below my bet for today which i posted on another part of this forum yesterday afternoon, perhaps not the best example but it does contain elements of the above.......PS well done the good life, do your spuds make the chips taste better.?
Tue 31st Ling 12.0 : Fareeq @ 10/1
A 5fur 0-60 10 run ( four of whom are wrong at the weights). Lto Fareeq was a possible bet for myself but i decided to swerve which proved a good call although hopefully for the wrong reasons because slow away he blew his chance at the start. At an all-in 4-42 he is not a winsome animal but emulating 0-60 runs over this CD shows 1-3 and the two losing runs where that Lto one and a good 1len 2nd giving 3lbs to the winner in this race last year. He contests this time under a 3lb lower OR and a handy 4lbs less physical weight which should enable going one better this time around.
Excluding Lto all of his runs since his last win have been in higher grade contests and now 3lbs below his most recent winning mark he has the looks of one placed to win. The jockey change to Kingscote who was on top for the most recent win might also be a tell that they are running with serious intentions. The 5-10 draw shows positive for same size fields. The small stable do appear out of sorts at present and this could prove the straightener, but they do work with limited ammunition and a couple of recent placings suggest there is nothing seriously amiss.
Roundabout Magic is the likely Fav and he contested that Lto race, he was smashed in the market starting 9/4 fav and considered unlucky in 3rd. On a recovery mission his chance has to be respected but deploying my usual MO in these circumstances I have concluded that if my pick was a N/r i would still not be interested in backing Magic. Fareeq is my only possible in the race and with a case of sorts to be made as ever it will be down to the price. I recall Terry Ramsden saying he preferred the flat because it gave a quicker death, well with a 12pm start and over 5 fur this at least is a given.!
Last edited:
And a very good morning to you, Mick. Hope all is well with you and yours.
Many thanks for sharing your workings. I've really missed reading your reasonings of real cases. You certainly obey Ashby's Law having a very large number of potential interpretations of the data.
I'm now focusing mostly on your type A reasons for a below 'par' run with data that can be obtaimed before the race. With 2yo and 3yos I have fewer dilemmas about type D regression, although a horse can pick up mental and/or physical injury at any age that prevents return to best. Our own experience with showjumpers and latterly with young competition horses for the grandchildren reveals a host of things that prevents better performance. But we do notice above all what they do and don't like, including places (courses in our case?), weather (fillies seem to feel the rain/wind more than colts/geldings?) etc.
Not sure if my retrospective view (in PMs after the race - interpretation of how race was run) of pace used by jockey may be in your type B. A horse that over-races early and uses up a disproportionate amount of energy (too fast too soon) will hit its exhaustion point much sooner than otherwise. Lactic acid build up will decelerate the horse far more than it gained in position earlier. Level pace is a fine line that jocks must stay the right side of - hence so many 'slow' run races. In some of my PMs I'm seeing a horse that was 'wrongly' up in distance but also set a fast pace from the gate, ensuring a very early collapse to make sure it was seen to be trying but gave no clue as to its accurate current ability.
A horse that's very slowly away and is then quickly rushed up to join the back of the bunch (sometimes reported in RI comments in running) can also fit this pattern of too fast too early and explain a sub-par run.
Henry Cecil's work riders and race jockeys knew that over-racing early was one of his pet hates. The 2019 book tells of Shane Fetherstonehaugh mentioning to Henry that Frankel was getting keener to go past its lead horse before time and then relaxing too much as soon as he was past. Henry realised the risk of the horse developing a bad habit that could be carried into his races, and that the horse had never led early in a race and perhaps he should be allowed to go on in the Guineas. I was concerned with the pace to halfway in that race and not surprised that the field closed a bit on him. But I was more upset when his next race was announced. IMO too short a recovery time for a horse that must have been racing on lactic acid for so long lto? Not surprised by that run. My reading of early pace and recovery times for some of Frankel's 3yo races was that trainer and jock were struggling to get to know the horse. It was only after a few more races that Henry mentioned pace and spacing out his runs in post race interviews. I cried.
Many thanks for sharing your workings. I've really missed reading your reasonings of real cases. You certainly obey Ashby's Law having a very large number of potential interpretations of the data.
I'm now focusing mostly on your type A reasons for a below 'par' run with data that can be obtaimed before the race. With 2yo and 3yos I have fewer dilemmas about type D regression, although a horse can pick up mental and/or physical injury at any age that prevents return to best. Our own experience with showjumpers and latterly with young competition horses for the grandchildren reveals a host of things that prevents better performance. But we do notice above all what they do and don't like, including places (courses in our case?), weather (fillies seem to feel the rain/wind more than colts/geldings?) etc.
Not sure if my retrospective view (in PMs after the race - interpretation of how race was run) of pace used by jockey may be in your type B. A horse that over-races early and uses up a disproportionate amount of energy (too fast too soon) will hit its exhaustion point much sooner than otherwise. Lactic acid build up will decelerate the horse far more than it gained in position earlier. Level pace is a fine line that jocks must stay the right side of - hence so many 'slow' run races. In some of my PMs I'm seeing a horse that was 'wrongly' up in distance but also set a fast pace from the gate, ensuring a very early collapse to make sure it was seen to be trying but gave no clue as to its accurate current ability.
A horse that's very slowly away and is then quickly rushed up to join the back of the bunch (sometimes reported in RI comments in running) can also fit this pattern of too fast too early and explain a sub-par run.
Henry Cecil's work riders and race jockeys knew that over-racing early was one of his pet hates. The 2019 book tells of Shane Fetherstonehaugh mentioning to Henry that Frankel was getting keener to go past its lead horse before time and then relaxing too much as soon as he was past. Henry realised the risk of the horse developing a bad habit that could be carried into his races, and that the horse had never led early in a race and perhaps he should be allowed to go on in the Guineas. I was concerned with the pace to halfway in that race and not surprised that the field closed a bit on him. But I was more upset when his next race was announced. IMO too short a recovery time for a horse that must have been racing on lactic acid for so long lto? Not surprised by that run. My reading of early pace and recovery times for some of Frankel's 3yo races was that trainer and jock were struggling to get to know the horse. It was only after a few more races that Henry mentioned pace and spacing out his runs in post race interviews. I cried.
mick
Sire
Cheers
S
student and likewise. I do not understand why you feel the need to apologize for your long posts as these are always preferable to one liners. Type A) do at least enable the chance to bring some method to the madness i call them VEs Valid Excuses and there are many. I recall long ago listing them and i stopped at 35 not because i had run out but rather down to frightening myself. !
You make a good point Re lower risk of Type D) from the younger age group you work with but one hard race or unhappy experience can still sour a previously reliable animal.? ..............Take no notice as i am always seeking to drag you into the dark side of the 4yo + Hcap.
Anyway great to hear from you and all the best for 2020.
You make a good point Re lower risk of Type D) from the younger age group you work with but one hard race or unhappy experience can still sour a previously reliable animal.? ..............Take no notice as i am always seeking to drag you into the dark side of the 4yo + Hcap.
Anyway great to hear from you and all the best for 2020.
ArkRoyal
Administrator
Have you thought about upgrading ? Since Excel 2007 you can have 1,048,576 rows.
M moody This strikes me as a fundamental question given most racehorses end up in handicaps, in most circumstances the handicapper will have little evidence too come up with a mark that is a true reflection of the horses ability. The trainers job is to get his horse to a lower mark than than it's true ability via running over the wrong distance, ground etc... but there are numerous ways connections have to try and fool the handicapper but the biggest factor for me is that most horses are improving at a rate from 2yr old to 3 and further, i personally don't see the point in concentrating on any rating's other that the official rating's and from there on it whether or not those numbers are correct or not. Logic suggests does it not that the vast majority of rating's are merely a guide and many other factors will determine the result but reminding ourselves that they are assesed to dead heat we know before the off that there will be many lengths between them at the finish.
There's no short cut to understanding all the complexities other than doing the hard work neccesary and at the end of the day it is all about opinions and money.