• The issue has been fixed and hopefully you can post screen shots again
  • 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

ELO Ratings - Something New that I have been working on.....

The little bit i can understand of this conversation got me thinking about improving horses whether that be 3 & 4yr olds in hdc or whatever.
If a horse wins from the front you can make a judgement of how much it had in hand from the manner or distance it won by but imo there is a more complicated area of a horse held up and produced to win, maybe at the furlong marker and ridden out to perhaps a length.
My thought process if there is one believes that a horse held up against inferior opposition is likely being forced to travel at a pace that doesn't truly reflect it's ability & superiority and is very often hiding it's real worth.
Every chance i won't be able to explain what i mean with this but imo we regularly see horses that appear to run beyond their capabilities because they are comfortable with the stronger pace, conversely a horse can't show it's best because the pace isn't strong enough and means it has to rely more on the final furlong or so to demonstrate the difference in that ability.
Another factor regarding reading the form is ( distance a horse is beaten ), quite simply care has to be taken not to be too trusting when say a horse is headed or dropping out of contention late on because very often the jockey will ease off and distort any true measure when it comes to pounds and lengths etc, handicapping horses is what we have but does the basics make real sense ?.....Difficult question.
I often think it’s the lower class horses that go a stronger pace ( RELATIVE TO THEIR ABILITY), the better class horses more tactical speed, they adapt better to quickening pace or slackening pace better than lower class horses. Most of the lower class horses struggle with more variable pace even if they have done well with strong pace. I understand this is nor well written , just struggling to explain fully what I mean.

most races horses are slowing down at the end of the race, if they go faster earlier in the race they slow down even more, this suits lower class horses would be my observation.

thinking on it further this is probably why some speed ratings can’t be trusted no matter how accurately they are compiled, if i look at TBB U.K. ratings or my own HK ratings often the lower class races perform best v expectation and they very often fail to reproduce if they are required up race up in class In a less eyeballs out race.
 
Last edited:
I often think it’s the lower class horses that go a stronger pace ( RELATIVE TO THEIR ABILITY), the better class horses more tactical speed, they adapt better to quickening pace or slackening pace better than lower class horses. Most of the lower class horses struggle with more variable pace even if they have done well with strong pace. I understand this is nor well written , just struggling to explain fully what I mean.

most races horses are slowing down at the end of the race, if they go faster earlier in the race they slow down even more, this suits lower class horses would be my observation.

thinking on it further this is probably why some speed ratings can’t be trusted no matter how accurately they are compiled, if i look at TBB U.K. ratings or my own HK ratings often the lower class races perform best v expectation and they very often fail to reproduce if they are required up race up in class In a less eyeballs out race.
Spot on O Outlander Don't want to take this off topic but we have many discussions on the HK thread about the first or first 2 races of the meetings in HK. There are usually 8-11 races on a card and they start with the lowestt level and there are many time sover the season where these are so much faster than anything else on the card, not always. They tend to go maximum oace from start to finish THe winner steps up in class and as Mike says struggle in the higher grade.

I also wonder the lbs/length values to use. Have tried many ways. I mean HK is excellent as races are very similat in 10-14 runner handicaps for most Using the average beaten times of the horses there is little difference between the 5f and 8f beaten distances and then they tend to increase but only a few Group races at 12f and nothing above. I am looking at comparing the time of a horse in consecutive outings over the same trip and course to see if that comes up with anything.
 
I often think it’s the lower class horses that go a stronger pace ( RELATIVE TO THEIR ABILITY), the better class horses more tactical speed, they adapt better to quickening pace or slackening pace better than lower class horses. Most of the lower class horses struggle with more variable pace even if they have done well with strong pace. I understand this is nor well written , just struggling to explain fully what I mean.

most races horses are slowing down at the end of the race, if they go faster earlier in the race they slow down even more, this suits lower class horses would be my observation.

thinking on it further this is probably why some speed ratings can’t be trusted no matter how accurately they are compiled, if i look at TBB U.K. ratings or my own HK ratings often the lower class races perform best v expectation and they very often fail to reproduce if they are required up race up in class In a less eyeballs out race.
I asked copilot to explain to me O Outlander because i'm easily confused as you know.

No, not really, at least not directly.
Tacker's main point seems to be:
  • Winning margins and beaten distances can be misleading.
  • Pace heavily influences how much of a horse's ability is revealed.
  • A horse can be "hidden" by an unsuitable pace, or appear better than it is because the pace setup suited it.
  • Therefore simple handicapping based on pounds-per-length and finishing distances has limitations.
Outlander's reply takes the discussion in a different direction:
  • He argues that lower-class horses often run at a stronger pace relative to their ability.
  • Better-class horses are more tactically versatile and cope better with changes in pace.
  • This may explain why some speed ratings don't translate when horses move up in class.
There is a connection because both are discussing the effect of pace on performance. However, Outlander doesn't really address Tacker's central concern about whether finishing distances and margins are a reliable measure of ability when race pace can distort them.
Instead, Outlander seems to respond to the broader theme of pace by saying:
"The pace characteristics of races differ by class, and that's one reason ratings can mislead."
That's an interesting extension of Tacker's point, but it's not an answer to the specific issue Tacker raised about horses being held up, eased late, flattered by pace, or failing to reveal their true superiority.
So I'd say:
  • Related to the topic: Yes.
  • Directly answers Tacker's point: No.
  • Builds on the discussion by introducing class-related pace effects: Yes.
 
I think you really should be looking at Trueskill for this task, it is better suited for multi contested events
A starter, some Python code perhaps each horse would start with its initial allotted handicap mark

import trueskill

# 1. Initialize the TrueSkill environment
# By default, mu=25, sigma=8.333, beta=4.166, tau=0.083
env = trueskill.TrueSkill(draw_probability=0.0) # Set draws to 0% since horses rarely tie

print("--- INITIAL HORSE RATINGS ---")
# 2. Define our 5 horses
# We will give them names and standard starting ratings
horses = {
"Thunderbolt": env.Rating(), # New horse
"Storm Dancer": env.Rating(), # New horse
"Silver Bullet": env.Rating(), # New horse
"Midnight Run": env.Rating(), # New horse
"Pegasus": env.Rating() # New horse
}

def display_ratings(horse_dict):
"""Helper function to print current mu, sigma, and the displayed score (mu - 3*sigma)"""
print(f"{'Horse Name':<15} | {'Mu (μ)':<10} | {'Sigma (σ)':<10} | {'Displayed Score':<15}")
print("-" * 60)
for name, rating in horse_dict.items():
# TrueSkill conservative score formula: mu - 3 * sigma
score = rating.mu - (3 * rating.sigma)
print(f"{name:<15} | {rating.mu:<10.3f} | {rating.sigma:<10.3f} | {score:<15.3f}")
print("\n")

display_ratings(horses)

# 3. Define the Race Outcome
# Let's say the final finishing positions are:
# 1st: Pegasus
# 2nd: Thunderbolt
# 3rd: Storm Dancer
# 4th: Midnight Run
# 5th: Silver Bullet

print("--- RACE FINISH POSITION ---")
print("1st: Pegasus | 2nd: Thunderbolt | 3rd: Storm Dancer | 4th: Midnight Run | 5th: Silver Bullet\n")

# TrueSkill expects groups of teams. Because it's a Free-For-All,
# each horse is placed inside its own single-element tuple.
rating_groups = [
(horses["Pegasus"],),
(horses["Thunderbolt"],),
(horses["Storm Dancer"],),
(horses["Midnight Run"],),
(horses["Silver Bullet"],)
]

# Ranks correspond to the order of the rating_groups above.
# Since we already ordered our list from 1st to 5th, the ranks are simply 0, 1, 2, 3, 4.
# (0 means 1st place, 1 means 2nd place, etc.)
ranks = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]

# 4. Calculate the new ratings
new_rating_groups = env.rate(rating_groups, ranks=ranks)

# 5. Assign the updated ratings back to our horses
horses["Pegasus"] = new_rating_groups[0][0]
horses["Thunderbolt"] = new_rating_groups[1][0]
horses["Storm Dancer"] = new_rating_groups[2][0]
horses["Midnight Run"] = new_rating_groups[3][0]
horses["Silver Bullet"] = new_rating_groups[4][0]

print("--- UPDATED RATINGS AFTER RACE 1 ---")
display_ratings(horses)
 
A starter, some Python code perhaps each horse would start with its initial allotted handicap mark

import trueskill

# 1. Initialize the TrueSkill environment
# By default, mu=25, sigma=8.333, beta=4.166, tau=0.083
env = trueskill.TrueSkill(draw_probability=0.0) # Set draws to 0% since horses rarely tie

print("--- INITIAL HORSE RATINGS ---")
# 2. Define our 5 horses
# We will give them names and standard starting ratings
horses = {
"Thunderbolt": env.Rating(), # New horse
"Storm Dancer": env.Rating(), # New horse
"Silver Bullet": env.Rating(), # New horse
"Midnight Run": env.Rating(), # New horse
"Pegasus": env.Rating() # New horse
}

def display_ratings(horse_dict):
"""Helper function to print current mu, sigma, and the displayed score (mu - 3*sigma)"""
print(f"{'Horse Name':<15} | {'Mu (μ)':<10} | {'Sigma (σ)':<10} | {'Displayed Score':<15}")
print("-" * 60)
for name, rating in horse_dict.items():
# TrueSkill conservative score formula: mu - 3 * sigma
score = rating.mu - (3 * rating.sigma)
print(f"{name:<15} | {rating.mu:<10.3f} | {rating.sigma:<10.3f} | {score:<15.3f}")
print("\n")

display_ratings(horses)

# 3. Define the Race Outcome
# Let's say the final finishing positions are:
# 1st: Pegasus
# 2nd: Thunderbolt
# 3rd: Storm Dancer
# 4th: Midnight Run
# 5th: Silver Bullet

print("--- RACE FINISH POSITION ---")
print("1st: Pegasus | 2nd: Thunderbolt | 3rd: Storm Dancer | 4th: Midnight Run | 5th: Silver Bullet\n")

# TrueSkill expects groups of teams. Because it's a Free-For-All,
# each horse is placed inside its own single-element tuple.
rating_groups = [
(horses["Pegasus"],),
(horses["Thunderbolt"],),
(horses["Storm Dancer"],),
(horses["Midnight Run"],),
(horses["Silver Bullet"],)
]

# Ranks correspond to the order of the rating_groups above.
# Since we already ordered our list from 1st to 5th, the ranks are simply 0, 1, 2, 3, 4.
# (0 means 1st place, 1 means 2nd place, etc.)
ranks = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]

# 4. Calculate the new ratings
new_rating_groups = env.rate(rating_groups, ranks=ranks)

# 5. Assign the updated ratings back to our horses
horses["Pegasus"] = new_rating_groups[0][0]
horses["Thunderbolt"] = new_rating_groups[1][0]
horses["Storm Dancer"] = new_rating_groups[2][0]
horses["Midnight Run"] = new_rating_groups[3][0]
horses["Silver Bullet"] = new_rating_groups[4][0]

print("--- UPDATED RATINGS AFTER RACE 1 ---")
display_ratings(horses)
Of course this is too simplistic as it stands we need to account for how far they are beaten and then the real juice if there is any will be the tweaks to this that make it clever eg accounting for slow pace races and more compact distances beaten, soft ground and its effect etc etc
 
Of course this is too simplistic as it stands we need to account for how far they are beaten and then the real juice if there is any will be the tweaks to this that make it clever eg accounting for slow pace races and more compact distances beaten, soft ground and its effect etc etc
This "truncated" beaten lengths distribution i developed might be useful for these kind of ratings such as ELO, Glicko or Trueskill. I have it running through all my data as found it has lots of utility when comparing stuff like average beaten margins by course or racetype but i originally designed the method for use within a Beyer type speed rating for someone.

The table below shows what sort of values the method produces at 5 , 8 , 12 & 16 furlongs

TruncBtnLghtsHypBol.png

And this is how they compare to the curve of raw beaten lengths when graphed
Screenshot 2026-11-10 080422.png
Truncated Beaten Lengths minimizes the variance within Raw Beaten Length Values by using a hyperbolic function (TanH) - it makes the raw beaten lengths distribution a lot smoother and retains the highest signal whilst normalizing the outliers.
This technique is essentially data-led curve fitting and truncation is used a lot when a variable is high variance and non-linear.
"RAW" Beaten Lengths are normalized to values between zero to 15 Lengths. That 15 lengths value was found by regression and is around the mark where the signal of information starts to lessen in beaten lengths. The signal actually starts to detoriorate around 10 lengths with jockeys easing up on their mounts once they know they are beaten and we all know that trainers use actual races as a function of condition and fitness but because beaten lengths are non linear (they congest around the area and stack up behind the winner and then the gaps widen) i've allowed for some of the standard deviation at 15 lengths.
Of course a Length is not an equal measurement where distance is concerned as a length over 5f should be worth more than a length
at 16f as lengths are a function of time as intervals and we know that time increases with distance so it uses a distance adjustment multiplier that again normalizes the 5f truncated beaten lengths values to the other distance increments.

TruncBLDistMultip.png

If anybody's interested in implementing something like this through a ratings set or even as a data input let me know and i can help setting it up.
I also have developed a version of this that uses actual racetimes.

Rob
 
Last edited:
It would be
This "truncated" beaten lengths distribution i developed might be useful for these kind of ratings such as ELO, Glicko or Trueskill. I have it running through all my data as found it has lots of utility when comparing stuff like average beaten margins by course or racetype but i originally designed the method for use within a Beyer type speed rating for someone.

The table below shows what sort of values the method produces at 5 , 8 , 12 & 16 furlongs

View attachment 173300

And this is how they compare to the curve of raw beaten lengths when graphed
View attachment 173299
Truncated Beaten Lengths minimizes the variance within Raw Beaten Length Values by using a hyperbolic function (TanH) - it makes the raw beaten lengths distribution a lot smoother and retains the highest signal whilst normalizing the outliers.
This technique is essentially data-led curve fitting and truncation is used a lot when a variable is high variance and non-linear.
"RAW" Beaten Lengths are normalized to values between zero to 15 Lengths. That 15 lengths value was found by regression and is around the mark where the signal of information starts to lessen in beaten lengths. The signal actually starts to detoriorate around 10 lengths with jockeys easing up on their mounts once they know they are beaten and we all know that trainers use actual races as a function of condition and fitness but because beaten lengths are non linear (they congest around the area and stack up behind the winner and then the gaps widen) i've allowed for some of the standard deviation at 15 lengths.
Of course a Length is not an equal measurement where distance is concerned as a length over 5f should be worth more than a length
at 16f as lengths are a function of time as intervals and we know that time increases with distance so it uses a distance adjustment multiplier that again normalizes the 5f truncated beaten lengths values to the other distance increments.

View attachment 173301

If anybody's interested in implementing something like this through a ratings set or even as a data input let me know and i can help setting it up.
I also have developed a version of this that uses actual racetimes.

Rob
It would be interesting to see how that tapering off behaves by track on the AW, I would estimate that Lingfield tolerates a longer range before losing predictability
 
Thanks everyone for the replies. There's a lot of good thinking in here, and I'm sorry I haven't had time to answer each post individually, so here's one reply to try and cover them all or most.

On pace and class (Outlander, The Hare, tacker): agreed that pace distorts both raw times and beaten distances, and that it doesn't affect every class level in the same way. That's the main reason my version is pace-adjusted rather than a straight finishing-order Elo, and why I've added a field strength figure alongside the rating.

On TrueSkill (MySportsAI): it's a fair point that it was designed for multi-competitor events, and the uncertainty measure is attractive for lightly raced horses 2yaer olds etc. As you say, though, the basic version only uses finishing order, so margins, slow-run races and ground would all have to be built in before it competes with what I'm running now. It's on my list to test against the current model at some point.

On truncated beaten lengths (Rob/ARAZI91): the tanh cap with a distance multiplier is a neat way of dealing with eased-down horses, and it would plug into any of the rating methods. I'd be interested to see how the cap holds up on the AW tracks, as MySportsAI suggests, given how differently Lingfield, Southwell and the rest play.

For now, though, I'm leaving the model as it is. It has only been live for a short time, and I want a decent sample of live results before I change anything, otherwise I'd just be chasing noise. Once there's enough data I'll review it properly, try some of the ideas from this thread against it, and report back.

Thanks to all, it's really appreciated.
 
On truncated beaten lengths (Rob/ARAZI91): the tanh cap with a distance multiplier is a neat way of dealing with eased-down horses, and it would plug into any of the rating methods. I'd be interested to see how the cap holds up on the AW tracks, as MySportsAI suggests, given how differently Lingfield, Southwell and the rest play.


It would be interesting to see how that tapering off behaves by track on the AW, I would estimate that Lingfield tolerates a longer range before losing predictability
don't need to "estimate" it - the actual racetimes will inform

Forget about the Tanh conversion just now and think of raw median beaten lengths by track
You two do know that "Beaten lengths" are a function of the actual racetimes themselves ???- both will have a distribution -times & beaten lengths
the physical value of a length will change depending on how fast or how slow a race is run

So if we only sampled say 8 - 12 runner handicap races, and we actually stuck a "cap" of say 10 or 15 or 20 on the beaten lengths to remove outliers
or better we only sampled the first half of the field
and if Kempton's median racetime over 8f was 99.61
and if Lingfield's median racetime over 8f1yd was 97.53

guess what track will have the lower median or average beaten lengths
??????
that 2.08 sec difference (or 0.26 sec per furlong) between the two will manifest right through the beaten lengths distribution at the winning line
At Lingfield their finishing relatively faster than at Kempton
Beaten lengths (and then pounds) WILL ALWAYS be a function of racetimes

In the Tanh conversion can assure both of you that the cap of 15 captures ALL tracks medians or averages providing those tracks are sampled properly - ie using handicaps, field sizes controlled and outliers removed
would need changing for National Hunt mind you but was designed originally for Flat/AW and specifically speed figures.
 
Last edited:
Forget about the Tanh conversion just now and think of raw median beaten lengths by track
You two do know that "Beaten lengths" are a function of the actual racetimes themselves ???- both will have a distribution -times & beaten lengths
the physical value of a length will change depending on how fast or how slow a race is run

So if we only sampled handicap races, and we actually stuck a "cap" of say 20 on the beaten lengths to remove outliers
or better we only sampled the first half of the field
and if Kempton's median racetime over 8f was 99.61
and if Lingfield's median racetime over 8f1yd was 97.53

guess what track will have the lower median or average beaten lengths
??????
that 2.08 sec difference (or 0.26 sec per furlong) between the two will manifest right through the beaten lengths distribution at the winning line
At Lingfield their finishing relatively faster than at Kempton
Beaten lengths (and then pounds) WILL ALWAYS be a function of racetimes

In the Tanh conversion can assure both of you that the cap of 15 captures ALL tracks medians or averages providing those tracks are sampled properly - ie using handicaps, field sizes controlled and outliers removed
would need changing for National Hunt mind you but was designed originally for Flat/AW and specifically speed figures.
Should add to this that if your going to measure average margins by track there is no need to even go near "lengths"
Nowadays the finishing times are published for every finisher so deal directly in seconds
Best way is to account for field size, use handicap races only and then measure the actual time gaps between finpos 2nd to 8th
and then compare the averages/medians at each finpos by track
that way your comparing a distribution and not just one measure of central tendency
 
Last edited:
I asked copilot to explain to me O Outlander because i'm easily confused as you know.

No, not really, at least not directly.
Tacker's main point seems to be:
  • Winning margins and beaten distances can be misleading.
  • Pace heavily influences how much of a horse's ability is revealed.
  • A horse can be "hidden" by an unsuitable pace, or appear better than it is because the pace setup suited it.
  • Therefore simple handicapping based on pounds-per-length and finishing distances has limitations.
Outlander's reply takes the discussion in a different direction:
  • He argues that lower-class horses often run at a stronger pace relative to their ability.
  • Better-class horses are more tactically versatile and cope better with changes in pace.
  • This may explain why some speed ratings don't translate when horses move up in class.
There is a connection because both are discussing the effect of pace on performance. However, Outlander doesn't really address Tacker's central concern about whether finishing distances and margins are a reliable measure of ability when race pace can distort them.
Instead, Outlander seems to respond to the broader theme of pace by saying:

That's an interesting extension of Tacker's point, but it's not an answer to the specific issue Tacker raised about horses being held up, eased late, flattered by pace, or failing to reveal their true superiority.
So I'd say:
  • Related to the topic: Yes.
  • Directly answers Tacker's point: No.
  • Builds on the discussion by introducing class-related pace effects: Yes.
yourself and Mike O Outlander both brought up some great points
Generally ratings have limitations and there are situations (usually some construct of pace) where they can fall short
What i can say having worked for the last few years on trying to improve handicapping procedures that a sectional time model can be fitted to a a private handicap model where the outputs are "form" and "time" ratings.
The idea is to account for the variance in race "pace"
Below shows how we fit "pounds" to a set of sectional pars (as ratios) and what those pound values are worth over different distances depending on how far a horse finishes from a normalized "par" - here i've used increments of 0.02 related to par values - although in reality these values go to 5 decimal places for "precision"
You can see that the distribution is "parabolic" and either side of the centre represent shades of "too fast" or "too slow"
How you deal with each side of those values is vital when applying them to ratings and although looks "linear" ...it's not as much depends on the final time ....sectionals are only units of that final time and should be modeled as such - also should be added that in such a model both "form" and "time" ratings work in hand in hand - within the process the "form" rating acts as a type of "bound" to the time figure - so if a horse runs a 93 on form ....it's around 99.6% that he runs no greater than that 93 on "time" - in effect the "form" ratings (or what a horse runs to in a race) becomes a "par" in time analysis and both are on the same exact scale - this moves us away from the old "class-par" nonsense of the 1990's

Screenshot 2026-11-09 211937.png
These pound values become upgrades or downgrades and are added/subtracted to form and time ratings
Does it work ? - yes
How do you know it works ? - we have tested it on large samples back to the days of when sectional coverage started
WITHOUT the "sectional" pound adjustments the form/handicap ratings by rank had this win distribution in ALL handicaps
top rated - win % - 24.43
2nd top rated - win % - 17.11
3rd top rated - win % - 14.28

WITH the sectional pound adjustments added the form/handicap ratings had this win distribution in ALL handicaps
top rated - win % - 26.51
2nd top rated - win % - 18.33
3rd top rated - win % - 13.75

there were slight improvements in positions 4 - 6 as well so the adjustments seem to push horses previously not rated good enough up the rankings , ie - a fair % of horses who were rated previously either 3rd to 6th best ...now are pushed up towards the top
This was also confirmed in a live test
Handicaps are usually won by fine margins so anything that can add even a small % gain must be worth looking at
Also has to be said sectionals are not a "silver bullet"
Further improvements have occurred by modeling the "run out" or "gallop out" speeds and actually go hand in hand with a certain cohort of horses that could be labelled "fast" or "fastest finisher"
 
Last edited:
yourself and Mike O Outlander both brought up some great points
Generally ratings have limitations and there are situations (usually some construct of pace) where they can fall short
What i can say having worked for the last few years on trying to improve handicapping procedures that a sectional time model can be fitted to a a private handicap model where the outputs are "form" and "time" ratings.
The idea is to account for the variance in race "pace"
Below shows how we fit "pounds" to a set of sectional pars (as ratios) and what those pound values are worth over different distances depending on how far a horse finishes from a normalized "par" - here i've used increments of 0.02 related to par values - although in reality these values go to 5 decimal places for "precision"
You can see that the distribution is "parabolic" and either side of the centre represent shades of "too fast" or "too slow"
How you deal with each side of those values is vital when applying them to ratings and although looks "linear" ...it's not as much depends on the final time ....sectionals are only units of that final time and should be modeled as such
View attachment 173332
These pound values become upgrades or downgrades and are added/subtracted to form and time ratings
Does it work ? - yes
How do you know it works ? - we have tested it on large samples back to the days of when sectional coverage started
WITHOUT the "sectional" pound adjustments the form/handicap ratings by rank had this win distribution in ALL handicaps
top rated - win % - 24.43
2nd top rated - win % - 17.11
3rd top rated - win % - 14.28

WITH the sectional pound adjustments added the form/handicap ratings had this win distribution in ALL handicaps
top rated - win % - 26.51
2nd top rated - win % - 18.33
3rd top rated - win % - 13.75

there were slight improvements in positions 4 - 6 as well so the adjustments seem to push horses previously not rated good enough up the rankings , ie - a fair % of horses who were rated previously either 3rd to 6th best ...now are pushed up towards the top
This was also confirmed in a live test
Handicaps are usually won by fine margins so anything that can add even a small % gain must be worth looking at
Also has to be said sectionals are not a "silver bullet"
Further improvements have occurred by modeling the "run out" or "gallop out" speeds and actually go hand in hand with a certain cohort of horses that could be labelled "fast" or "fastest finisher"
my spidey senses are telling me you are giving away something very useful here Rob , will probably have to ask AI how it works with real data to fully understand it, but from what I do understand it might counteract some of the unexplained behaviour I have experienced experimenting with sections.
 
don't need to "estimate" it - the actual racetimes will inform

Forget about the Tanh conversion just now and think of raw median beaten lengths by track
You two do know that "Beaten lengths" are a function of the actual racetimes themselves ???- both will have a distribution -times & beaten lengths
the physical value of a length will change depending on how fast or how slow a race is run

So if we only sampled say 8 - 12 runner handicap races, and we actually stuck a "cap" of say 10 or 15 or 20 on the beaten lengths to remove outliers
or better we only sampled the first half of the field
and if Kempton's median racetime over 8f was 99.61
and if Lingfield's median racetime over 8f1yd was 97.53

guess what track will have the lower median or average beaten lengths
??????
that 2.08 sec difference (or 0.26 sec per furlong) between the two will manifest right through the beaten lengths distribution at the winning line
At Lingfield their finishing relatively faster than at Kempton
Beaten lengths (and then pounds) WILL ALWAYS be a function of racetimes

In the Tanh conversion can assure both of you that the cap of 15 captures ALL tracks medians or averages providing those tracks are sampled properly - ie using handicaps, field sizes controlled and outliers removed
would need changing for National Hunt mind you but was designed originally for Flat/AW and specifically speed figures.
Yes but those median race times are a function of the track, thats the point I making
 
Yes but those median race times are a function of the track, thats the point I making
and those properties of a track manifest in "racetime"
thats the point i'm making

so we are essentially saying the exact same thing Mark but it's important to know if your modelling stuff like "beaten lengths"
lengths are a function of time
it's amazing how many "experts" still don't know this
or they do know that but resort back to the "man-made" construct for conveniance

I still don't see where "predictability" fits (from one of your prev messages) in just because one track has a larger average beaten lengths than another - there could be 7 lbs between both tracks on another measurement
the cap i used captures all tracks medians or averages as said providing they have been sampled properly which is another issue
 
Last edited:
and those properties of a track manifest in "racetime"
thats the point i'm making

so we are essentially saying the exact same thing Mark but it's important to know if your modelling stuff like "beaten lengths"
lengths are a function of time
it's amazing how many "experts" still don't know this
or they do know that but resort back to the "man-made" construct for conveniance
why anyone even looks at lengths is a mystery to me , converting to pounds is bad enough, lengths what the hell are lengths
 
and those properties of a track manifest in "racetime"
thats the point i'm making

so we are essentially saying the exact same thing Mark but it's important to know if your modelling stuff like "beaten lengths"
lengths are a function of time
it's amazing how many "experts" still don't know this
or they do know that but resort back to the "man-made" construct for conveniance

I still don't see where "predictability" fits (from one of your prev messages) in just because one track has a larger average beaten lengths than another - there could be 7 lbs between both tracks on another measurement
the cap i used captures all tracks medians or averages as said providing they have been sampled properly which is another issue

why anyone even looks at lengths is a mystery to me , converting to pounds is bad enough, lengths what the hell are lengths
Converting to pounds accounts for the race distance
 
why anyone even looks at lengths is a mystery to me , converting to pounds is bad enough, lengths what the hell are lengths
I suppose that's true O Outlander but maybe we still use this old fashion term because it's more of a visual thing.

The wider point is possibly summed up by seperating how fast was the time to how was the final time achieved ?

Still need time to try and get my head around all of the information on offer tbh.
 
Back
Top