Yes, that makes sense.
Yes, it will be later today Simon just going to play Golf
I'll put them up S simon boardman if T tony spencer does not mind although the effects of weight in handicaps have been done numerous times on this forum by various members including myself. The effect of weight within Handicaps are shown to be perfectly linear when measured over a relative enough sample size and that the metrics used in measuring are stable and also contain an element of granularity. The much used "rate" statistic of "Win%" takes time to stabilise and if it was for example First Season Sires we were trying to project then we would need something stronger than plain old "Win%" - we know from looking at past seasons that a sire's strike rate tends to start to stabilise around the 600 run mark and regress to around 11.5% so a better way to project how First Season Sires will perform into the future would be ((First Season Sire Runs*First Season Win%))+(600*11.50%)/(First Season Sire Runs + 600) - so a current FSS with say 95 runs and 22 wins for a SR of 23.16% would be "smoothed" out to 13.09%. These kind of techniques tend to make better projections than using the current low sample volatile win strike rate. The measurement process which has now become "xWin%" where the small x = "Expected" should be stepped and involve "time-series" so it would be an ongoing process with results and performance updated within pre-set intervals of time and the confidence in the projection increasing within that time - that sire may indeed be well above average and be the new Galileo but right now it's highly unlikely he will continue to win at the current rate.
Yes I I am finding these grids useful when used with other data asked on last 3 Runs. All the rest of the runner are in the same format and listed one after the other in the same format. Save ages trying to do the same going through each horses last 3 runsThanksChesham mate, great to see your still utilising RaceIQ's tracking data
Are you sure that it came from Raceform's Ken Hussey ? - a man who along with Roger Coates his assistant went under the byline as "Split Second-Britains Master Clocker" but used a scale where at 16 furlongs, 1 length =1 point and 1 point =1/10 second therefore a length = 0.10sec from which a trivial deduction must be then that a length must be around 5.4 feet and there are 10 lengths per second at around 2 miles on the flat ?????? I'm pretty sure that "Britains Master Clocker" had this wrong as using this scale would mean a horse running 16f in a time of 220sec and being beaten 20 lengths would record a speed figure 20 points better than if it has actually WON the race in a time of 220sec."at 5f it should be ~4 to 4.5 lbs per length"
Just to be certain I understand,ARAZI91, is that the relationship that your understanding of the data supports? I ask because that was what I use, based on VDW's work which in that regard seems to have come from a sf expert of his day, Ken Hussey.
Rob, great to see you post.Are you sure that it came from Raceform's Ken Hussey ? - a man who along with Roger Coates his assistant went under the byline as "Split Second-Britains Master Clocker" but used a scale where at 16 furlongs, 1 length =1 point and 1 point =1/10 second therefore a length = 0.10sec from which a trivial deduction must be then that a length must be around 5.4 feet and there are 10 lengths per second at around 2 miles on the flat ?????? I'm pretty sure that "Britains Master Clocker" had this wrong as using this scale would mean a horse running 16f in a time of 220sec and being beaten 20 lengths would record a speed figure 20 points better than if it has actually WON the race in a time of 220sec.
Another flaw from Hussey's method was that his going allowances were only given in multiples of 0.05sec per furlong so in say a 14f race 0.05 sec amounts to around 0.70 sec or 7 points on his scale. So if a horse wins at this distance carrying 9.00 (his "master" weight) in 2 seconds above standard of the RF Std.Time and Hussey chooses a nil going allowance then this horse gets a figure of 80. But since he only uses "multiples" of 0.05 sec in his going allowances then whatever going allowance Hussey chooses the final figure can only make this differ from a figure of 80 in "multiples" of seven...so the only possible figures that horse can obtain are 45, 52, 59, 66, 73, 80, 87, 94, 101, 107 etc etc - ALL figures inbetween are mathematically eliminated by the flawed use of the restrictive 0.05 sec "unit"
Most of the research done into handicapping scales started with John Whitely, the ex-Timeform Timefigure Manager who worked under Phil Bull but left the restraints of Halifax House to venture into the world of Computer Handicapping as personal computers boomed and he started his own company Racing Research. The horseracing mad physics professor Bob Wilkens has also contributed to this research and published some of his findings in the book "Bioenergetics & Racehorse Ratings" - privately i know James Willoughby has also done some work in this area which was submitted to the BHA when he was employed (albeit short termed) as their data analyst. All three have used data from Hong Kong, South Africa and Japan where physical body weight data is actually published to confirm that the average body weight of a mature thoroughbred sprinter + most common maximum jockey impost + handicap scale amount to around 1550 to 1600 lbs in total which would then used as a constant (i'll use 1575 pounds) give the following example scale using the actual final racetimes of example races over a range of distances - note that the scale is then "variable" by actual racetime with more truly run races being worth more than softer run races. For simplicity i have used the standard 6 lengths per second that the BHA specify on good or faster ground.
View attachment 172052
Bob Wilkens published work used a mathematical running model invo;ving differential equations and calculus adapted to throughbreds with power parameters for anerobic/aerobic energy and cost of running and reckoned that the scale should be even higher when fitted to a decent set of standard times which account for the skewed distribution that it is easier to run faster at 5 furlongs than it is to run faster at 16 furlongs.
The Wilkens scale
View attachment 172050
And Wilkens scale curve fitted to Timeform's use of the scale constant of 1500lbs per 60 sec or equiv. 25lbs per second per 60 seconds
View attachment 172051
Yes great to see you back Arazi what you been up toArazi, have you looked at how course shape affects the scale—for example, the downhill 5f at Epsom compared with an uphill finish at Pontefract? Would you use the same pounds-per-length figure at both, or adjust it for the course and how the race is run?Are you sure that it came from Raceform's Ken Hussey ? - a man who along with Roger Coates his assistant went under the byline as "Split Second-Britains Master Clocker" but used a scale where at 16 furlongs, 1 length =1 point and 1 point =1/10 second therefore a length = 0.10sec from which a trivial deduction must be then that a length must be around 5.4 feet and there are 10 lengths per second at around 2 miles on the flat ?????? I'm pretty sure that "Britains Master Clocker" had this wrong as using this scale would mean a horse running 16f in a time of 220sec and being beaten 20 lengths would record a speed figure 20 points better than if it has actually WON the race in a time of 220sec.
Another flaw from Hussey's method was that his going allowances were only given in multiples of 0.05sec per furlong so in say a 14f race 0.05 sec amounts to around 0.70 sec or 7 points on his scale. So if a horse wins at this distance carrying 9.00 (his "master" weight) in 2 seconds above standard of the RF Std.Time and Hussey chooses a nil going allowance then this horse gets a figure of 80. But since he only uses "multiples" of 0.05 sec in his going allowances then whatever going allowance Hussey chooses the final figure can only make this differ from a figure of 80 in "multiples" of seven...so the only possible figures that horse can obtain are 45, 52, 59, 66, 73, 80, 87, 94, 101, 107 etc etc - ALL figures inbetween are mathematically eliminated by the flawed use of the restrictive 0.05 sec "unit"
Most of the research done into handicapping scales started with John Whitely, the ex-Timeform Timefigure Manager who worked under Phil Bull but left the restraints of Halifax House to venture into the world of Computer Handicapping as personal computers boomed and he started his own company Racing Research. The horseracing mad physics professor Bob Wilkens has also contributed to this research and published some of his findings in the book "Bioenergetics & Racehorse Ratings" - privately i know James Willoughby has also done some work in this area which was submitted to the BHA when he was employed (albeit short termed) as their data analyst. All three have used data from Hong Kong, South Africa and Japan where physical body weight data is actually published to confirm that the average body weight of a mature thoroughbred sprinter + most common maximum jockey impost + handicap scale amount to around 1550 to 1600 lbs in total which would then used as a constant (i'll use 1575 pounds) give the following example scale using the actual final racetimes of example races over a range of distances - note that the scale is then "variable" by actual racetime with more truly run races being worth more than softer run races. For simplicity i have used the standard 6 lengths per second that the BHA specify on good or faster ground.
View attachment 172052
Bob Wilkens published work used a mathematical running model involving differential equations and calculus adapted to throughbreds with power parameters for anerobic/aerobic energy and cost of running and reckoned that the scale should be even higher when fitted to a decent set of standard times which account for the skewed distribution that it is easier to run faster at 5 furlongs than it is to run faster at 16 furlongs.
The Wilkens scale
View attachment 172050
And Wilkens scale curve fitted to Timeform's use of the scale constant of 1500lbs per 60 sec or equiv. 25lbs per second per 60 seconds
View attachment 172051
Thanks
Great post
A little bit of .... this .... and a little bit of .....that
Thank you. Built a really detailed Trainer Behaviour Module based on some of the ideas you gave me.A little bit of .... this .... and a little bit of .....that
And thanks Tony - caught your excellent video with Simon ....great job mate
