• Hi Guest Just in case you were not aware I wanted to highlight that you can now get a free 7 day trial of Horseracebase here.
    We have a lot of members who are existing users of Horseracebase so help is always available if needed, as well as dedicated section of the fourm here.
    Best Wishes
    AR

db standard times and ratings

  • Thread starter Deleted member 7962
  • Start date
t@dB1 here are my numbers for Friday, and I've added a "DIFF" column. As expected, the track was running a bit quicker, and There's hardly any real difference between us.

The exception was the Sharpcliff race, where my calculations had everything in the race running well better than would have been expected on the clock, and this was despite the horse winning by 5.5 lengths. This led to a corrected going allowance for that race of 0.02.

Caspian Prince was lauded for his win at 12 in that handicap, but in reality it's shapes as a pretty poor race according to my figures.

1624790251837.png

Some slight adjustments for Saturday's figures but over the two days, generally the track was roughly 0.2s/f slower than my standards. For completeness these were the figures in total for the race won by Sharpcliff. Wonder if they'll try and get him out quickly before he's reassessed.

1624790729787.png
 
AustinDillon75 AustinDillon75 my figures for yesterday, I have the going over the 3 days from slow side of standard, fast side of standard and standard. 4 horses running 80+ and spirit dancer topping the performance v OR - lightly raced for his age he could still have more left to come. Ejtilaab best rating on the day. Screenshot_20210627-122656_Office.jpg
 
@db1 here's how I rated the winners. The third race seems to have been slowly run. I think Safra is potentially a very good staying horse, may prove a fair bit better than my rating of 66. It managed a 48 on debut but was identified to have potential for a 69 (Before Dawn was seen as a possible 70 but ran to 65 on Wednesday.

1625294796999.png
 
Chelmsford ratings from 4/7/21, still working back on previous months of meetings. Taking my time with them, it helps the database is slowly increasing means I can look at some of the previous winners and their ratings to see how they compare today. If I see a 8yo winner dramatically improve 20lb it makes me have a second look. All part of the learning curve. Screenshot_20210706-205018_Office.jpg
 
db1 said:
Chelmsford ratings from 4/7/21, still working back on previous months of meetings. Taking my time with them, it helps the database is slowly increasing means I can look at some of the previous winners and their ratings to see how they compare today. If I see a 8yo winner dramatically improve 20lb it makes me have a second look. All part of the learning curve. View attachment 103043
Click to expand...
I posted my figures for this meeting in my own thread. All my winners are within 16-19 lb better than yours which reflects the fact I have scaled mind up towards actual ORs. The fact we are getting consistency between each other is really encouraging and as you build up figures you should start seeing patterns leading to the identification of either winners or horses who are very likely to give a good account of themselves.

My write up yesterday suggested a 20/1 winner of the second at Wolves (it returned 17/2 but any odds checker will tell you how the price nosedived just before the race).
 
AustinDillon75 AustinDillon75 yes I do always have a quick reference once both our figures are up, ranking of winners is generally the same which is good to see. Out of curiosity, how do you rate the beaten horses? I've tried using just the winners completion time for all runners and going from there but felt the beaten horses were at times getting an inflated ratings so I've converted the distance beaten into time beaten add that onto the official winning time and gone from there. I feel the ratings for the beaten horse looks a little more in line using this way. I'll keep an eye on it. Fairly straight forward to revert back if needed.
 
db1 said:
how do you rate the beaten horses?
Click to expand...
Just multiply the beaten lengths by the lbs per length for the race distance and subtract from the winner's rating.

You can also use the same method when assessing a race, if a horse has gone up 6lbs for a previous win, just multiply the poundage increase by the lbs per length for the meeting/race distance they are running over and subtract from your top speed figure, personally I don't bother, it is useful if you are handicapping a race.

Mike.
 
db1 said:
AustinDillon75 AustinDillon75 yes I do always have a quick reference once both our figures are up, ranking of winners is generally the same which is good to see. Out of curiosity, how do you rate the beaten horses? I've tried using just the winners completion time for all runners and going from there but felt the beaten horses were at times getting an inflated ratings so I've converted the distance beaten into time beaten add that onto the official winning time and gone from there. I feel the ratings for the beaten horse looks a little more in line using this way. I'll keep an eye on it. Fairly straight forward to revert back if needed.
Click to expand...

I have found that the distance beaten is officially calculated at Wolverhampton to be 6 lengths per second, which is the initial basis for getting the correct times, but personally, I like to just use 5 lengths per second as a constant as it was used to compile my standard times in the first place, so given I have a figure of 2.32 lb/length for the track at 7 furlongs (200/standard time) then its a case of distance beaten in lengths multiplied by that, so if a horse loses by 3 lengths over that distance it would be 3 x 2.32 = 7lb after rounding.

So at level weights if a horse wins with a 61, a horse beaten by 3 lengths over 7 furlongs would achieve a 54.
If a 61 wins by 3 lengths over 5 furlongs, it makes sense that its a better win, and as my figure is 3.35, the runner up gets a 51 instead.

Rinse and repeat.
 
TheBluesBrother TheBluesBrother AustinDillon75 AustinDillon75 appreciate that, thank you. The formula sounds like what I was using originally, maybe my inexperienced eye not looking correctly. All part of the learning process I guess. The more my database of ratings increases the more spot checks I can do. That said, yesterday's Wolverhampton results will be posted later.
 
Meeting at Lingfield on 25/5 did anyone get 2 going allowances? By my standards the run by Shamson at 5f seems quick compared with his OR, I have him with a rating of 73 off a Mark of 68 without going allowance included. The rest of the card were slower compared with their OR. Is this a case of the rest of the card running slow on a quick surface? Was the 5f strip at Lingfield on the day absolutely lightning?

My 5f time for Lingfield is 56.3, adjusting for the RP standard of 56.9 would increase his performance from 73 to 84. Mind boggles.
 
db1 said:
Meeting at Lingfield on 25/5 did anyone get 2 going allowances? By my standards the run by Shamson at 5f seems quick compared with his OR, I have him with a rating of 73 off a Mark of 68 without going allowance included. The rest of the card were slower compared with their OR. Is this a case of the rest of the card running slow on a quick surface? Was the 5f strip at Lingfield on the day absolutely lightning?

My 5f time for Lingfield is 56.3, adjusting for the RP standard of 56.9 would increase his performance from 73 to 84. Mind boggles.
Click to expand...
I've got the track running faster for the final race, but not by much, perhaps 0.15s/f. Actually, that is a lot.
 
Wolves ratings from 6/7 not much too shout about, raise the roof looks potentially decent, 2 from 3 now on the AW defying a penalty after a break, be interesting to see what mark he starts with, earned a RPR of 90 after this run.

Screenshot_20210708-211200_Office.jpg
 
Hi All,

Sorry I've been abit quiet on here truth be told I haven't had any time whatsoever over the last month or so to contribute. New work commitments meaning I've no time to contribute as I'd wish. Horse racing daily means there's alot I need to catch up on but don't think I can feasibly do it and get the time to do it. Unfortunately I think I'll put an end to this thread for now and try and recommence at some point if I can. There is some great work on here and will continue to keep an eye on progress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top