Compiling Speed figures.
- Thread starter TheBluesBrother
- Start date
TheBluesBrother
Dam
2:45 Doncaster:
BOLDMERE, 10lb higher than when winning over 2m4f at Leicester, found plenty when getting into the lead and won comfortably, seeing the new trip out really well. His mark is clearly going to creep up again, but he's young and unexposed as a stayer, so may handle the rise. Perhaps the Listed chase over C&D in late January can be an ideal target.
QUOTES: Sean [Bowen] jumped off and said we could have another Crosspark. That would be lovely but BOLDMERE is only a novice. He's progressing and has a wonderful temperament, and going left-handed suits him better - Caroline Bailey, trainer.
Yesterday's top NH speed figures:
Yesterday's top AW speed figures:
Mike.
BOLDMERE, 10lb higher than when winning over 2m4f at Leicester, found plenty when getting into the lead and won comfortably, seeing the new trip out really well. His mark is clearly going to creep up again, but he's young and unexposed as a stayer, so may handle the rise. Perhaps the Listed chase over C&D in late January can be an ideal target.
QUOTES: Sean [Bowen] jumped off and said we could have another Crosspark. That would be lovely but BOLDMERE is only a novice. He's progressing and has a wonderful temperament, and going left-handed suits him better - Caroline Bailey, trainer.
Yesterday's top NH speed figures:
Yesterday's top AW speed figures:
Mike.
TheBluesBrother
Dam
3:45 Haydock.
It's very rare a bumper horse tops the NH speed figures, so fast was the time I had to double-check it with my stopwatch.
ASK A HONEY BEE won at Southwell after a 240-day break the previous month. He clearly progressed from that return to follow up in fine style under his 7lb penalty. The 5yo has plenty of potential when switched to obstacles.
QUOTES: ASK A HONEY BEE is a very nice horse, who has come on a lot for his first run. He has a beautiful way of going - Liam Harrison, rider.
Today's top NH speed figures:
Today's top AW speed figures:
Mike.
It's very rare a bumper horse tops the NH speed figures, so fast was the time I had to double-check it with my stopwatch.
ASK A HONEY BEE won at Southwell after a 240-day break the previous month. He clearly progressed from that return to follow up in fine style under his 7lb penalty. The 5yo has plenty of potential when switched to obstacles.
QUOTES: ASK A HONEY BEE is a very nice horse, who has come on a lot for his first run. He has a beautiful way of going - Liam Harrison, rider.
Today's top NH speed figures:
Today's top AW speed figures:
Mike.
Stevet1859
Yearling
Hi
TheBluesBrother, I've only joined the forum part way through this year, however, I'd like to thank you for this excellent thread and the figures you compile. It's the first thing I read each day. A bonus is you post up early, so I can read it going in to work on the train. I've been using your figures to start a modest ante post portfolio for Cheltenham. Even factoring in usual concerns of whether they even turn up, or run in a different race, one winner could see me in front. Managed to get on Fakir Doudaires & Notepad at some nice prices (so to avoid sounding completely like after-timing) I've just had a little on Ask A Honey Bee e/w at 50/1 for the Bumper. And to keep the record straight I'm also on Fusil Raffles, who has drifted out, although hopefully all is not lost there. Hope you have a prosperous New Year, and wish there was a thread like this 40 odd years ago.
TheBluesBrother, I've only joined the forum part way through this year, however, I'd like to thank you for this excellent thread and the figures you compile. It's the first thing I read each day. A bonus is you post up early, so I can read it going in to work on the train. I've been using your figures to start a modest ante post portfolio for Cheltenham. Even factoring in usual concerns of whether they even turn up, or run in a different race, one winner could see me in front. Managed to get on Fakir Doudaires & Notepad at some nice prices (so to avoid sounding completely like after-timing) I've just had a little on Ask A Honey Bee e/w at 50/1 for the Bumper. And to keep the record straight I'm also on Fusil Raffles, who has drifted out, although hopefully all is not lost there. Hope you have a prosperous New Year, and wish there was a thread like this 40 odd years ago.
TheBluesBrother
Dam
SALSARETTA was content to sit off the good clip set by the leader, eased through to challenge after two out and got a really good jump at the last when Townend asked her to seal the victory. She probably wasn't doing a huge amount in front but more than enough. She travels well and jumps enthusiastically, it will take a good mare to beat her.
QUOTES: SALSARETTA is a very slick jumper. This was a nice jump up in class for her and we'll try to get her back in novice company if we can - Willie Mullins, trainer.
Yesterday's top NH speed figures:
Yesterday's top AW speed figures:
drive.google.com
drive.google.com
Mike.
QUOTES: SALSARETTA is a very slick jumper. This was a nice jump up in class for her and we'll try to get her back in novice company if we can - Willie Mullins, trainer.
Yesterday's top NH speed figures:
Yesterday's top AW speed figures:
AW2018_2019.xlsx
drive.google.com
NH2018_2019.xlsx
drive.google.com
Mike.
Last edited:
TheBluesBrother
Dam
davejb
Dam
Argh!
Just watched the race again, just to double check I hadn't somehow luckily already caught this one.... also checked the original scraper racetimes file, where Timeform had it right and RP wrong. My fault for not noticing the two were 18s adrift, I usually pick things like that up and go check the video, but probably got so bogged down doing the Boxing day returns that it slipped by me.
Thanks for the info, I've redone the meeting...I got -0.78 allowance
Dave
Just watched the race again, just to double check I hadn't somehow luckily already caught this one.... also checked the original scraper racetimes file, where Timeform had it right and RP wrong. My fault for not noticing the two were 18s adrift, I usually pick things like that up and go check the video, but probably got so bogged down doing the Boxing day returns that it slipped by me.
Thanks for the info, I've redone the meeting...I got -0.78 allowance
Dave
rpjd99
Colt
Hi
davejb ,For what it's worth, when I've finished scraping the P-T data, which outputs three text files, an error-checking macro is launched automatically that imports the three files and then checks them all for contradictory, anomalous, incorrect, missing or badly-scraped data. If the errors found cannot be corrected automatically, they are written to the Errors sheet with hyperlinks to the actual errors in the relevant sheets so I can locate each error and correct it manually. It's a great time saver.
Ray
davejb
Dam
Hi Ray
rpjd99
I have a scraper that downloads Timeform, Racing Post times into an Excel sheet, which I then paste the HRB times into as my program processes the races, this gives me the three times for each race, a comparison between TF and RP, and I then do an HRB v RP comparison also. Normally I check the HRB v RP column to check the times match (basically a simple deduct column x time in seconds from column y time in seconds, check the answer is zero) - having done that I look down the RP v TF comparison to check these are within acceptable limits.... over jumps you'll often find the odd fraction of difference, up to a second or two, anything more than that I flag up to double check against the video.
However, being fallible, and probably due to the large number of results I was scanning, I didn't spot the '-18' for that race, hence I didn't check it. (annoying, as I had checked others). If I spot errors I tell the guy running HRB about it, and usually email Racing Post also. If I find this happening too often I'd resort to uploading into a macro enabled sheet with colour coding on the RP v TF column to highlight the more outrageous errors, but generally I spot them during the first part of the data check.... as data checking occupies most of the time I spend processing results (once the data is okay the processing to produce ratings is usually pretty quick, unless there are lots of runners minus handicap ratings) I'll avoid adding macro stuff unless I find this occurring a bit more often.
Dave
rpjd99I have a scraper that downloads Timeform, Racing Post times into an Excel sheet, which I then paste the HRB times into as my program processes the races, this gives me the three times for each race, a comparison between TF and RP, and I then do an HRB v RP comparison also. Normally I check the HRB v RP column to check the times match (basically a simple deduct column x time in seconds from column y time in seconds, check the answer is zero) - having done that I look down the RP v TF comparison to check these are within acceptable limits.... over jumps you'll often find the odd fraction of difference, up to a second or two, anything more than that I flag up to double check against the video.
However, being fallible, and probably due to the large number of results I was scanning, I didn't spot the '-18' for that race, hence I didn't check it. (annoying, as I had checked others). If I spot errors I tell the guy running HRB about it, and usually email Racing Post also. If I find this happening too often I'd resort to uploading into a macro enabled sheet with colour coding on the RP v TF column to highlight the more outrageous errors, but generally I spot them during the first part of the data check.... as data checking occupies most of the time I spend processing results (once the data is okay the processing to produce ratings is usually pretty quick, unless there are lots of runners minus handicap ratings) I'll avoid adding macro stuff unless I find this occurring a bit more often.
Dave
rpjd99
Colt
Hi Dave,
I used to check all the data manually (Sundays and French public holidays could take hours), but when I found that the same errors kept recurring I had a stiff talking to myself to make the effort to code as much error-checking as I could. Never regretted it so, go on, award yourself a New Year present! Yes? That's the spirit!
Ray
TheBluesBrother
Dam
4 for the notebook...
3:00 Exeter - Sir Psycho
SIR PSYCHO, back in novice company, collared the favourite at the third-last and came well clear. This won't help his handicap mark, but he was getting a lot of weight from his rival, who can't have been himself. The 4yo liked the ground and is clearly a useful juvenile.
2:15 Musselburgh - Sir Chauvelin
SIR CHAUVELIN, not seen over hurdles since finishing down the field in the 2018 Scottish Champion Hurdle, won this race two years previously. Dropped right out, he moved stealthily through the field throughout the final circuit and got on top close to the line. It was a great ride from Callum Bewley.
Yesterday's top NH speed figures:
2:30 Southwell - Oblate
OBLATE, who again missed the break, was held up towards the back, but the top two in the market were taking each other on up front and she picked up well from off the pace to come through and run out a clear winner. She has the potential to improve further.
3:05 Southwell - Angel Lane
ANGEL LANE got first run on her main market rival turning in and, despite edging over to the stands' rail in the straight, was never in much danger of being caught. She's shown a liking for this place and is coming along nicely.
Yesterday's top AW speed figures:
Mike.
3:00 Exeter - Sir Psycho
SIR PSYCHO, back in novice company, collared the favourite at the third-last and came well clear. This won't help his handicap mark, but he was getting a lot of weight from his rival, who can't have been himself. The 4yo liked the ground and is clearly a useful juvenile.
2:15 Musselburgh - Sir Chauvelin
SIR CHAUVELIN, not seen over hurdles since finishing down the field in the 2018 Scottish Champion Hurdle, won this race two years previously. Dropped right out, he moved stealthily through the field throughout the final circuit and got on top close to the line. It was a great ride from Callum Bewley.
Yesterday's top NH speed figures:
2:30 Southwell - Oblate
OBLATE, who again missed the break, was held up towards the back, but the top two in the market were taking each other on up front and she picked up well from off the pace to come through and run out a clear winner. She has the potential to improve further.
3:05 Southwell - Angel Lane
ANGEL LANE got first run on her main market rival turning in and, despite edging over to the stands' rail in the straight, was never in much danger of being caught. She's shown a liking for this place and is coming along nicely.
Yesterday's top AW speed figures:
Mike.
Well like you i sometimes talk to myself but i can honestly say i've never had much of a result from doing so.
davejb
Dam
rpjd99 I have a whole series of programs already thanks - 17 for processing results and stats from those results - the point is that you can't automate a process that compares three different data sources and decides which one is correct, that final point you have to decide for yourself (usually by watching the video) - for example accepting that if two agree it's the third that is incorrect will probably result in a significant number of errors daily when looking at NH times, as can be seen on days when TF and RP, or RP and HRB/TF and HRB decide to agree on a silly time that is clearly wrong (60 mph runners over 3m etc). My programs dump to Excel with the time comparison already filled in - it is up to me to see the dodgy ones, and that is a judgement call, not one to delegate to my PC.
TheBluesBrother where did you get the time for that Exeter 1.50 race won by Daytime Ahead? RP/TF/HRB are all showing zero for the time, and the video is of an impenetrable mist with no horses visible for most of each circuit? Trying to figure it from video I 'timed' 4m 49s for the race (from the 'they're off' call to seeing the winner pass the post) which is +32s (std 4m 17s used) with a 20 yd rail move that ends up 30.67s slow? Just wondering how you;d got that time - being only 2s different to my guesstimate?Dave
TheBluesBrother
Dam
When Simon said they were off I clicked the stopwatch, the winning time and speed figure looked OK.
Good luck with Tramore...
Mike.
davejb
Dam
Cheers Mike
TheBluesBrother
Same as me then.
Tramore - obviously there's a big error in distances measured there, they've got 16f races and 21f races basically and the latter are all coming up about 6 stone worse than the former! Bloody silly, you'd imagine in any sane world this would make them scratch their heads a bit and wonder if they'd been measuring things right.
I notice that although our allowances are pretty close to each others on most courses, Fakenham is quite different - I have -0.15 to your -0.5, and looking at the comparison column it looks like this is down to the last two 16f hurdle races which you have at +18.35 and +20.13 as per the Racing Post, which makes me wonder if you have the 113 yd rail movement for those two races? My HRB download today had a different set of figures for Fakenham to those on the BHA site today, by the looks of things there might well have been an original set of values put up that got out of synch, as the set I've used (the current BHA set as of time of typing this) were all displaced by one race from where the HRB data had them - ir rail move for race 4 in HRB was rail move for race 5 on BHA.
For that last pair of races I have comaprison figures of 11.85 and 13.63, being the RP figures minus the 7.53s correction for the rails.
Dave
TheBluesBrother Same as me then.
Tramore - obviously there's a big error in distances measured there, they've got 16f races and 21f races basically and the latter are all coming up about 6 stone worse than the former! Bloody silly, you'd imagine in any sane world this would make them scratch their heads a bit and wonder if they'd been measuring things right.
I notice that although our allowances are pretty close to each others on most courses, Fakenham is quite different - I have -0.15 to your -0.5, and looking at the comparison column it looks like this is down to the last two 16f hurdle races which you have at +18.35 and +20.13 as per the Racing Post, which makes me wonder if you have the 113 yd rail movement for those two races? My HRB download today had a different set of figures for Fakenham to those on the BHA site today, by the looks of things there might well have been an original set of values put up that got out of synch, as the set I've used (the current BHA set as of time of typing this) were all displaced by one race from where the HRB data had them - ir rail move for race 4 in HRB was rail move for race 5 on BHA.
For that last pair of races I have comaprison figures of 11.85 and 13.63, being the RP figures minus the 7.53s correction for the rails.
Dave
TheBluesBrother
Dam
I am always making changes, for example, I just altered the Cheltenham standard time for the 1m6f NHF.
A few changes at Fakenham.
Mike.
Yes I know my first reaction is always to say the reason it looks all wrong is because of the standard times but in the case of Fakenham this is not in any doubt , the RP standards there are absolutely crazy and Tramore just laughable againCheers Mike
Same as me then.
Tramore - obviously there's a big error in distances measured there, they've got 16f races and 21f races basically and the latter are all coming up about 6 stone worse than the former! Bloody silly, you'd imagine in any sane world this would make them scratch their heads a bit and wonder if they'd been measuring things right.
I notice that although our allowances are pretty close to each others on most courses, Fakenham is quite different - I have -0.15 to your -0.5, and looking at the comparison column it looks like this is down to the last two 16f hurdle races which you have at +18.35 and +20.13 as per the Racing Post, which makes me wonder if you have the 113 yd rail movement for those two races? My HRB download today had a different set of figures for Fakenham to those on the BHA site today, by the looks of things there might well have been an original set of values put up that got out of synch, as the set I've used (the current BHA set as of time of typing this) were all displaced by one race from where the HRB data had them - ir rail move for race 4 in HRB was rail move for race 5 on BHA.
For that last pair of races I have comaprison figures of 11.85 and 13.63, being the RP figures minus the 7.53s correction for the rails.
Dave
16f chase 233 seconds 21f 100yd chase 296 seconds
so that means they run the 5.45 furlong difference in 63 seconds
so that's 11.56 sec/fur standard for the extra distance, come on it cant get more ridiculous than that oh wait yes it can If the
TheBluesBrother standard sheet I have is correct RP has a standard for 2m 6f chase at 312 secondsso it takes 11.56s/f to run 5.45 fur, but takes 16 seconds to run an extra 120yds, yeah of course that looks perfectly sane.
You guys put lots of effort and skill into your ratings but it must be annoying fiddling around with going allowances attempting to make sense of meetings with standards like this.
davejb
Dam
It varies, most days are fairly straightforward, as are some Irish meetings, it's often the same tracks causing the problems which means you have a chance to get used to applying the same fix....
Fakenham
The above are the current RP standards (plus an extra for the NHF) from the website, broken down into yds per second (using actual race distances, as given in the race results pages). It's got the odd bit in it I'd quibble over.
16f hurdle is run 2.5s/f faster than any other hurdle race, and whilst this ought to be faster than the rest (other than the NHF) it's a big difference, other tracks have far smaller differences between their 2m and 2m 4f paces. The rest of the figures I'd say aren't overly odd when compared to other courses - either the 16f really ought to have a few seconds added to the standard time to bring it down to say 15.5 yds/s or less, which would put the standard time at about 5m 10s.... a big change. Alternately the rest of the times need to reduce to speed everything up! (Not, in my view, the sensible option).
Tramore
This is a subset - the RP site has several versions of a number of the courses to deal with distance variations.... I'm using the above as a guide to the figures used. The 2m 5f 100yd race is running at almost an extra yard per second compared to the 2m 6f, which is a bit unlikely, while the 2m chase time is a bit pedestrian and really ought to be the fastest of the lot. Same for the 2m hurdles v the 2m 5f hurdles - the 2m ought to be running faster than the 2m 5f, not slower. Over both hurdles and chases the standards are either too generous at 2m or too quick at 2m 5f+.... you have to understand that horses aren't machines and there's going to be a less than perfect graph fit for this sort of thing, but Tramore definitely has a problem with 2m v 2m 5f. Left to my own interpretation of Tramore I'd say that they are measuring both sets of distances incorrectly, and the fix is to shave a few seconds off the 2m times whilst adding a few to the 2m 5f ones.
Dave
Fakenham
The above are the current RP standards (plus an extra for the NHF) from the website, broken down into yds per second (using actual race distances, as given in the race results pages). It's got the odd bit in it I'd quibble over.
16f hurdle is run 2.5s/f faster than any other hurdle race, and whilst this ought to be faster than the rest (other than the NHF) it's a big difference, other tracks have far smaller differences between their 2m and 2m 4f paces. The rest of the figures I'd say aren't overly odd when compared to other courses - either the 16f really ought to have a few seconds added to the standard time to bring it down to say 15.5 yds/s or less, which would put the standard time at about 5m 10s.... a big change. Alternately the rest of the times need to reduce to speed everything up! (Not, in my view, the sensible option).
Tramore
This is a subset - the RP site has several versions of a number of the courses to deal with distance variations.... I'm using the above as a guide to the figures used. The 2m 5f 100yd race is running at almost an extra yard per second compared to the 2m 6f, which is a bit unlikely, while the 2m chase time is a bit pedestrian and really ought to be the fastest of the lot. Same for the 2m hurdles v the 2m 5f hurdles - the 2m ought to be running faster than the 2m 5f, not slower. Over both hurdles and chases the standards are either too generous at 2m or too quick at 2m 5f+.... you have to understand that horses aren't machines and there's going to be a less than perfect graph fit for this sort of thing, but Tramore definitely has a problem with 2m v 2m 5f. Left to my own interpretation of Tramore I'd say that they are measuring both sets of distances incorrectly, and the fix is to shave a few seconds off the 2m times whilst adding a few to the 2m 5f ones.
Dave
TheBluesBrother
Dam
Low grade fayre from yesterday's meetings, the standout from Ayr was Stuart Coltherd's lightly raced Ard Chros.
ARD CHROS, a faller on his two most recent starts, including in a first-time hood most recently, turned in a much improved display ridden from the front this time, although his jumping was hardly impressive. Still, he had enough ability to overcome it and really did see out his race well, as one would expect for a horse dropping around a mile in trip. He has more to offer if his jumping can be sorted out.
Yesterday's top NH speed figures:
Yesterday's top AW speed figures:
Mike.
ARD CHROS, a faller on his two most recent starts, including in a first-time hood most recently, turned in a much improved display ridden from the front this time, although his jumping was hardly impressive. Still, he had enough ability to overcome it and really did see out his race well, as one would expect for a horse dropping around a mile in trip. He has more to offer if his jumping can be sorted out.
Yesterday's top NH speed figures:
Yesterday's top AW speed figures:
Mike.