db standard times and ratings

[AustinDillon75]

Revised table below - just applies to mature horses.

 

[Deleted member 7962]

Just looking back at some figures and have spotted a potential ammonaly. Wolves 24/5 I have Captain Ryan performing performing 24lbs better than his OR before any going allowances. The next 2 best performers were +1 and -1 compared with their OR. Do we all have similar notes for that horse? That's some improvement if all check out.

 

[TheBluesBrother]

Just looking back at some figures and have spotted a potential ammonaly. Wolves 24/5 I have Captain Ryan performing performing 24lbs better than his OR before any going allowances.

I had him at +21lbs prior to the going allowance being applied, he lost a shoe on his next run at Chepstow.






Mike.

 

[Deleted member 7962]

I had him at +21lbs prior to the going allowance being applied, he lost a shoe on his next run at Chepstow.

TheBluesBrother Thanks for confirming. Out of curiosity, and as your method of rating is what I've been using, for the AW racing do you mainly use the minus 8 constant? I see this meeting possibly was minus 12 - Is that normal for you on the AW?

 

[TheBluesBrother]

I see this meeting possibly was minus 12 - Is that normal for you on the AW?

Where possible I start off and try to use the -8lb constant as a guide.

The problem with this meeting, you had a combination of low grade and slow run races, adjusting I used -12lbs using only the 2 fastest races, the handicap average told me that I was somewhere in the ballpark regarding the going allowance,

I do use a combination of the speed figures and handicaps to adjust.

Mike.

 

[AustinDillon75]

@db1 on my sheets if I hadn't made a specific adjustment for the Captain Ryan race he'd have scored a 72 on my cards. However the race was identified as an outlier for my purposes results in a deduction of 20 and a rating for that race of 52, just 4lb above his OR for that race.
Here's how I rated the card, I've found that Diamond Jill and Motawaajed are winners of races that could achieve better ratings in the future.

 

[Deleted member 7962]

Ive been abit quieter on here recently and tbh I think I've hit a wall and lost abit of confidence in my standard times, as a result for the time being I think I best revert back to using the RP standards for now, I assume as its only the AW I'm dealing with they are accurate to some degree? I think I need to do abit more research on the subject and require some more consistency. I believe I have the formula to produce a time converted to a 100 rated 9st horse but using these times via trend lines, equations or percentiles etcs I need some more work on, it's beyond my maths at times!

 

[AustinDillon75]

Rome wasn't built in a day. I'm not naive enough to believe I've got anything workable but its constant trial and error from what I've done so far and I don't feel I can bet in future without some sort of figures to hand.

Good luck and keep going as I've found your figures and times look really good.

 

[SteveT]

Hi @db1
We all have bad days and even on good days we cant get it right all the time, just now i am finding it hard to get any kind of consistancy in my results.
One reason for this i think is because the AW races are few and far between so to speak not like in the winter months when they are racing every day at 2/3 courses just now we are lucky to get 2 meetings a week at 1 course, who knows what changes have occured the last race at chelmsford was 13 days ago.
I find even during the AW season i will have good runs with my figures then all of a sudden everything is turned upside down for a day or two. You just need to over look these runs once you get started, just have confidence in all the hard work you have put in so far, this speed rating game is not an easy task and you will always find yourself trying to improve things.
cheers
SteveT

 

[Deleted member 7962]

My expectations of cracking this code were probably sitting at less than 1% it's a difficult job isn't it! I'll continue on of course, I'm sure this will be my 50th attempt or so at this, but the challenge of it is what keeps me so interested. Alot of work has already gone in, I'm up to date with results from the AW going back to 1/1/2019, I have various sheets within excel workbooks for each AW course, the ground work is there I guess its just still alot more trial and and even more error to get there.

 

[SteveT]

Ah yes the challenge, thats what it's all about and once you get the bug it never ends. I have been doing this a long time now and i am never happy with my ratings all the time, i am always looking at different things to make my figures better.
When i get days like the past few where my bottom or low rated horses are winning more than my top or top 3 i begin to doubt myself and my methods, but it is what it is and i have learned to accept it.
cheers
SteveT

 

[Deleted member 7962]

Update: So I've completely redone my standards for each AW course, removed all outliers and stuck to using the 15th percentile from those remaining. I've found this to be consistent for me and that's what I want my standards to hopefully be, consistent from course to course. Anyway, I'll be posting my winners ratings for the recent AW meetings and anything going forward from now on. When the AW meetings aren't on, I'll be using that time to rate as much as possible previous days/months of racing to hopefully build some form of database for future. How far back I go I've undecided yet. I've started with the recent wolves cards on the 21/6. Here are the winners ratings. On this particular card I used the 2 fastest/best in terms of performance v OR before going allowances.

 

[Deleted member 7962]

Recent lingfield meetings on 17th and 14th June.
Ratings for the winners, I've used the 2 fastest/best performances in relation to their performance v OR.


Same again here. The 2 fastest v OR. Particular note here is the performance of Passion and Glory. A very high speed figure.

 

[Deleted member 7962]

Recent Chelmsford meetings, 17th and 16th June. Winners ratings below, Track running fairly quick on these two meetings.

 

[Deleted member 7962]

Kempton winners Ratings from 23/6 meeting. LANKARAN race has thrown up quite a decent rating for the second place finisher Bonneval who carried 13lb more but beaten a short head. Bonneval scored a rating of 78.

 

[Deleted member 7962]

Yesterday's Newcastle winners. The meeting seemed to be riding standard to slow. No real stand outs form the meeting. Confrontational running a decent race compared with OR.

 

[AustinDillon75]

Yesterday's Newcastle winners. The meeting seemed to be riding standard to slow. No real stand outs form the meeting. Confrontational running a decent race compared with OR. View attachment 102514

Good stuff. We are working to different scales but like you, I didn't give much for Miss Nay Never's performance. The horse it beat into 2nd was Tantastic and it ran again today. In the write up on my own thread I pretty much wrote it off, and sure enough it came 9th despite going off favourite.

I'm with you on Lankaran as well. That looks a good race to me and a few worth keeping an eye on when next turning out.

I'll put my ratings up for those meetings at some point too.

 

[Deleted member 7962]

Newcastle ratings for last night. Seems the going was a complete swing from the previous days meeting? Sharpcliff still lightly raced should still have more left in the tank.

 

[AustinDillon75]

@db1 these were my times for the winners on Thursday. On my scale the figures are more generous, its worth adding that unlike others I have more than one going allowance for each meeting, and if any race is an obvious outlier I afford greater weight to the expected time rather than what it actually achieved, which is where my GA1/GA2 columns come into it, so they tell me whether the rating would go up or down if I actually gave greater weight to the going allowance for the track on the day. Again my scale gives a positive rather than negative allowance for slower going, so I'm anticipating a lower GA when I rate yesterday's performances.

This was an astonishingly slow track as I read it, I've found this to be the slowest going at Newcastle since 2 August 2020, and its the slowest by a good 0.25 seconds per furlong. It'd be no surprise when I do my figures to find it rode a bit quicker yesterday.

Like you I've got Confrontational coming out of that meeting very nicely indeed. Not quite the same magnitudes of difference across the board but you've basically confirmed my take on the performances of Shaykhoon and Miss Nay Never.

 

[Deleted member 7962]

AustinDillon75 I do like to see similar ranking of the performances and it appears we have the majority in the same order on this meeting. In agreement with how slow the track was, I'm in the process of working back on previous meetings in-between and its the slowest I've come across so far. Hopefully when you get round to yesterday's card you'll see abit of a swing in the going, alot faster according to mine. Hopefully you'll have similar opinions.