• Hi Guest, The forum will be moving hosts on 26 July and as such will be closed from Midday until the move has completed.
    As we will be with new hosts it may take a while before DNS get updated so it could take while before you can get back on the forum.
    I think it will take at least 4 hours but could easily be 48!
    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 Just in case you were not aware I wanted to highlight that you can now get a 20% discount on Inform Racing.
    Simply enter the coupon code ukbettingform when subscribing here.
    We have a lot of members who are existing users of Inform Racing so help is always available if needed.
    Best Wishes
    AR
  • Sorry for the ongoing issues that you may have been experiencing whilst using the forum lately

    It really is frustrating when the forum slows down or Server Error 500 pops up.

    Apparently the hosts acknowledge there is a problem.
    Thank you for using our services and sorry for the experienced delay!
    Unfortunately, these errors are due to a higher server load. Our senior department knows about the issue and they are working towards a permanent resolution of the issue, however, I'd advise you to consider using our new cPanel cloud solutions: https://www.tsohost.com/web-hosting


    I will have to investigate what the differences are with what We have know compared to the alternative service they want us to migrate to.
    Keep safe.
    AR

db standard times and ratings

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
 

db1

Yearling
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
 
D 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
 
  • Like
Reactions: db1

db1

Yearling
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
 
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
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).
 

db1

Yearling
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.
 
how do you rate the beaten horses?
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.
 
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.

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.
 

db1

Yearling
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.
 

db1

Yearling
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.
 
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.
I've got the track running faster for the final race, but not by much, perhaps 0.15s/f. Actually, that is a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: db1

db1

Yearling
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
 
Top