• Hi Guest, The software has been updated but I have not had a chance to tweak anything yet.
    It took longer than I had hoped, so I just turned it on and hope everything is OK
    If you spot anything that does not look rigfhyt then please let me know.
    Ark Royal
  • There seems to be a problem with some alerts not being emailed to members. I have told the hosts and they are investigating.
  • Hi Guest, If you are seeing that Lurker has appeared under your name then please take a look here to see why. AR

Compiling Speed figures.

these are the only races i've identified as being run on the new 1m course in Curragh since 2017
race_dateracetimetrackrace_namerace_restrictions_agerace_classmajorrace_distanceprize_moneygoing_descriptionnumber_of_runnersplacedistbthorse_name
01/07/2017​
15:10:00​
CurraghDubai Duty Free Millennium Millionaire Celebration Stakes (Listed)3yo+IrishListed Race1m
25214​
Good
9​
1stTrue Valour (IRE)
30/06/2018​
15:25:00​
CurraghDubai Duty Free Millennium Millionaire Celebration Stakes (Listed)3yo+IrishListed Race1m
26106​
Good To Firm
6​
1stIm So Fancy (IRE)
29/06/2019​
14:55:00​
CurraghDubai Duty Free Finest Surprise Celebration Stakes (Listed)3yo+IrishListed Race1m
39159​
Good
9​
1stInsignia Of Rank (IRE)
29/09/2019​
16:00:00​
CurraghBeresford Stakes (Group 2)2yoIrishGroup 21m
58406​
Heavy
5​
1stInnisfree (IRE)
13/10/2019​
14:40:00​
CurraghStaffordstown Stud Stakes (Listed) (Fillies)2yoIrishListed Race1m
26549​
Soft To Heavy
7​
1stFancy Blue (IRE)
 

davejb

Mare
A look over the seconds fast/slow per furlong figures at a meeting can help spot occasions where two or more going allowances are needed.
Dave
 
After analysing Monday's meeting at Naas to determine whether or not there should be 2 going allowances becuse the times on the round course were slower than the straight course I ended up with only 1.

Naas2.PNG

I calculated the going allowance for all 7 races at -0.93s/f (heavy), "Top Speed" had 2 going allowance.

Naas.PNG

Just because the times on the round course were slower than the straight this does not mean you have to have 2 going allowance, the races might have been run at a slower pace, you have to assess this.

To show a major faux pas from "Top Speed", take a look at the 7f race with the 2nd place horse Camachita, earning a top speed figure of 93 which is 1lb higher than her OR and 24lb up on her best speed figure, my speed figure for Camachita was 56.

You make the assessment...

Camachita.PNG
Mike.
 

davejb

Mare
This is what I had -
1585433220112.png

This gave Camachita a rating of 54.

If you look at the 'seconds per furlong' comparison figures the 3.00 is pretty fast, about 0.2s/f faster than the rest of the card, while the final race is about 0.3s/f slow compared to the rest - the other races are all pretty similar to each other, that alone tells me that there's no real justification for having a split allowance.

Dave
 

Bertie123

Yearling
NAAS Monday 23rd. I have CAMACHITA at (93) on my speed/form ratings but I don’t calculate them anything like Topspeed and rarely are they the same . I have the winner IN FROM THE COLD on (82) TS is 83. Usually I am fairly close to Official Ratings. I am intrigued as to the OR rating columns on Mikes post particularly for RUSSIAN EMPEROR (76) as I put him in my Ones To Watch Post. I was looking forward to see what the OR would be as I suggested that my figure of (65) plus WFA (17lbs) would take it into the 80’s. (I don’t use WFA but used this example to illustrate) I cannot find an OR in the horses RP record or on the BHA site. The same goes for POETIC FLARE (79) My Rating. I think I read somewhere that Mike has a calculation whereby he can transpose the RPR to the OR?
 
I am intrigued as to the OR rating columns on Mikes post particularly for RUSSIAN EMPEROR (76) as I put him in my Ones To Watch Post. I was looking forward to see what the OR would be as I suggested that my figure of (65) plus WFA (17lbs) would take it into the 80’s.
To obtain Russian Emperor's OR I use my RPR conv table.

Mike.
 

Attachments

Jamie_E

Yearling
Converting my ground allowances for the Naas card to s/f I started with 1.08 on the straight track at 2:00 and finished at 1.42 on the round track at 5:00. My times and ratings came into line much better that way. I am more than happy to have the ground changing for the better or worse throughout the day.

Mick Kinane says of Naas in his course guide on ATR, "It’s known as the 'Punter’s Graveyard', but I don’t see why it plays out like that, as it is a fair track by all accounts. On the round track, the ground before the chute for the mile start back up to the mile-and-a-quarter start tends to get softer than the rest of it. I’d always prefer a low draw in the mile-and-a-quarter races. The seven furlong and mile tracks are very fair." Whether you listen to that sort of thing is up to you but I find the course guides on there quite good.

Regarding TS's 93 rating, am I right in saying the My Ratings tab on the RP site doesn't take into account an apprentice jockey's claim when calculating its weight adjusted figures?
 

Jamie_E

Yearling
Ffos Las as you know one of the newest courses in the country and one of the latest to be remeasured , I looked through my sheet and never found anything that looked out of line at this distance or any other , always seemed a reliable course regarding distances, do we just believe the time then and accept it was a quality performance, my sheet has the going as speeding up by 0.16s/f for the whole card with Trueshan at 14lb better versus expectation than any other winner on the card as a very clear standout , my sheet rates it a 95 performance, I don’t think the RP standards are a big problem on this course either. Should be interesting to follow the horses progress but I suspect the BHA handicapper will rate it over 90 for handicaps.
I thought I'd have a closer look and do a bit of research into Catterick, Ffos Las and Wetherby as some of the lesser used courses. Has anyone had any further thoughts regarding the times at Ffos Las?

I think the RP standard times are questionable - possibly both the 1m2f and 1m3f207y starts are too generous. 28 seconds between the 1m and 1m2f standard times and then another 28 seconds between the 1m2f and 1m3f207y standards seems too much to me by eye.

I went back and rated the last couple of seasons held at the track and there is a tendency for races to be quite slowly run there. I found I was upgrading staying races quite often using a sectional upgrade, which was then rating those races quite highly and downgrading those being run over 7f and 1m (leaving the straight track alone for now). Then obviously that culminated in a pretty firm ground allowance on each occasion as well.

As impressive as Trueshan's performance was last season, I think it was evidence things may need to be looked at. Not often a 100 rated stayer will rock up at Ffos Las and when it did happen and he managed to run a time at a true pace, it threw the whole meeting up in the air.

I'm doing this without some of the statistical analysis a few of you have knowledge of so it's possible I'm barking up the wrong tree, but changing the standards quite considerably worked for me. Will be interesting to see how it fares when they manage to resume racing - it's one I will be keeping an eye on.

I don't rate races 1m6f and above (or jump racing) as I chose to draw a line somewhere to allow me to keep up with it all, but it could apply for their extreme distances too, not sure.
 
I thought I'd have a closer look and do a bit of research into Catterick, Ffos Las and Wetherby as some of the lesser used courses. Has anyone had any further thoughts regarding the times at Ffos Las?
If I have any queries about the standard times at Ffos Las, I would use SPSS to calculate the linear curve estimation, using the furlongs as the independent variable and the standard times as the dependent variable.

Ffos Las.PNG

Therefore if the race distances are correct as they should be, because they were measured by the BHA, I wouldn't have a problem with the standard times for Ffos Las.

When Trueshan ran at Ffos Las on the 29aug2019 it was one of the major WTF moments for me, if I accepted that the official race distance was correct for this class 5 handicap his speed figure went through the roof, on the day he must have been a total steering job as he is fancied for this years Ebor.

On the day I had the going allowance at 0.41s/f (good to firm).

Ffos Las2.png

Trueshan.PNG

Mike.
 
Last edited:

Jamie_E

Yearling
That's fair enough, cheers Mike. Tigerskin was another on the 13th August that threw up a massive figure on my ratings over the 1m3f207y start. If you took his OR of 60 literally, there's no way he should have been able to run within three seconds of the standard on good to soft going. How he went off odds against 10 days later running under a penalty is beyond me!
 
Tigerskin was another on the 13th August that threw up a massive figure on my ratings over the 1m3f207y start.
On the 23Aug2019 Tigerskin was impressive on the day, and was put up 8lb to a mark of 74, now 72, the RPR assessed his performance with an RPR of 78 (RPR conversion OR of 70).


Tigerskin3.PNG
So on the day. Tigerskin class was OR 66 + RPR = 144, checking against my class total sheet (attached below) made it a class 5 performance.

Tigerskin2.PNG

Tigerskin.PNG
Mike.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Earthlight continues to impress me on the clock, even though he is still being campaigned over an inadequate trip, the shock of the Middle park was Summer Sands 3rd place finish earning a speed figure of 72 beating his previous best of 49, he is entered in next Saturday in the listed Redcar 2yo Trophy carrying only 8-3, the problem is will he get in, there are 101 entries.
With regards to Redcar 2yo Trophy race, if Roger Varian's Pierre Lapin runs he will be very hard to beat, this is a serious horse.

View attachment 77743

View attachment 77744

Mike.
Hello
Earthlight Deauville JUL 2nd
Can you tell me wich going allowance you took in account ?
 
Top