• 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.
  • 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

Experimental form ratings

Outlander

Gelding
Rated last 4 years jump races using my own formulas attempting to create a form/performance rating for each horse, only took me a day so might be a load of rubbish, yesterday was the first day and was encouraging.Thought I would post these up for a while unless they prove useless.
OFR is the master form rating for each horse in today’s race, delete non-runners and the rank column will re-calculate.
Only horse that have ran under NH rules since 2016/17 season will have a rating.
Nothing to do with times or speed, so see how it goes.
Attached
 

Attachments

  • jumps1401.xlsx
    28.2 KB · Views: 41

Outlander

Gelding
Ratings were rubbish today, made a few errors with my formulas but it still wasn’t great when I corrected them.
Gonna give it a proper trial at least until Cheltenham to see if has any potential as a guide.
Haven‘t really been betting on the jumps much since became disillusioned with speed ratings due to distances and times being full of errors.
Was just hoping if I put in a bit of work in it would rekindle my interest.
There has been some superb stuff on this forum over the last week or so, many posters in great form with their picks.
Im still trying to pull something together myself so I can make a better contribution.
 

mlmrob

Sire
Form is cyclical so therefore ratings based on form will mirror that. Expect loads of troughs but also loads of rewards too.

Establishing an understanding of the official rating will help. NH horses for some reason can stay in form for longer than their flat counterparts.
The OR is king in my book and I'm not going to argue against people who also hold it high regard.

Good luck O Outlander look forward to your workings.
 

tacker

Mare
Hi O Outlander , Let me wish you well with this "ratings" idea but in truth i have my doubts.

The official ratings are a fact, everybody within racing works on that reality from the first time their horse sets foot on a racecourse the most likely outcome will be that the horse will be running in handicaps. The problem with trying to rate horses with all the complexities involved is it is just about impossible but there is no alternative but to try and do your best, none of this is meant to suggest that handicappers aren't good at what they do, they are very good imo but they are up against a lack of information too often on horses too young or inexperienced, many other factors we all know and understand including connections seeking to protect their marks.
In trying to come up with our own ratings we need to ask ourselves what for ?
Well they obviously need to be different and therefore better represent a horses real ability as opposed to what full time experienced handicappers arrive at, possible i suppose but a hard task, even if we can manage to improve on what the OR have it doesn't necessarily mean success in my opinion because there are too many other factors involved.

O Outlander you say that you have become "disallusioned with speed ratings" for the reasons you outline, davejb davejb said something similar the other week , while i agree that they are somewhat flawed they still have obvious merit, indeed handicappers use them but with a limited usefulness in a mountain of confusing evidence.

Racehorses are inconsistent in the main, often when you read the form on a particular horse you see all manner of contradictions that for me at least leads me to give up on that horse/race, it's true to say that i'm struggling to find much worth saying about the chances of any horse recently and it feels like unpaid work at times or worse but what can you do but keep trying to do what you think you know best.
 

mick

Sire
Years ago becoming disillusioned with paying for commercially available ratings i decided to create my own what used to be called " Private Hcap" . Imo the BHA handicappers are some of the best judges in the game so i set mine up to mirror there MO with the expectation that occasionally i would be able to correctly disagree with there thinking.

Over time i have come to feel confident on balance Re betting off what my ratings maybe attempting to tell me, but there lays the rub because the bottom line remains how we interpret and use what we have. I absolutely agree mlmrob mlmrob contention that the OR is the straighter, the negative involved is that its now an easy find for us all so to get the best from it we need to be viewing it in a different way ( s ) to the majority.

O Outlander i wish you well with your journey and whatever the outcome i suspect that you will not find it time wasted. :)
 

Outlander

Gelding
Hi O Outlander , Let me wish you well with this "ratings" idea but in truth i have my doubts.

The official ratings are a fact, everybody within racing works on that reality from the first time their horse sets foot on a racecourse the most likely outcome will be that the horse will be running in handicaps. The problem with trying to rate horses with all the complexities involved is it is just about impossible but there is no alternative but to try and do your best, none of this is meant to suggest that handicappers aren't good at what they do, they are very good imo but they are up against a lack of information too often on horses too young or inexperienced, many other factors we all know and understand including connections seeking to protect their marks.
In trying to come up with our own ratings we need to ask ourselves what for ?
Well they obviously need to be different and therefore better represent a horses real ability as opposed to what full time experienced handicappers arrive at, possible i suppose but a hard task, even if we can manage to improve on what the OR have it doesn't necessarily mean success in my opinion because there are too many other factors involved.

O Outlander you say that you have become "disallusioned with speed ratings" for the reasons you outline, davejb davejb said something similar the other week , while i agree that they are somewhat flawed they still have obvious merit, indeed handicappers use them but with a limited usefulness in a mountain of confusing evidence.

Racehorses are inconsistent in the main, often when you read the form on a particular horse you see all manner of contradictions that for me at least leads me to give up on that horse/race, it's true to say that i'm struggling to find much worth saying about the chances of any horse recently and it feels like unpaid work at times or worse but what can you do but keep trying to do what you think you know best.
To me there are 2 ways of beating this game if you are not an insider with privileged information, you either predict the market more accurately than the market itself, or rate horses more accurately than the official handicap, more than that you have to beat both the market and the handicap. I’ve been trying to do both and failed in anything other than treading water and roughly breaking even for nearly 2 years.
But that’s the puzzle to solve, we all have different ways of trying to solve the puzzle, most of us fail in the long term if we are honest with ourselves to make significant gains.
Some people however can do it , it is possible, so it’s worth trying if you have an idea on how to profit. Most ideas will fail.
When I go to bed some nights spend a few minutes before I go to sleep thinking of little ideas or tweaks to ideas that I can implement, I try them in the hope I hit on a betting edge. I get closer because I go from a pre-race loser to roughly breaking even. This is progress , just need to progress that little bit more .
Ratings to me are the starting point you need some kind of reliable guide to put runners in order before you dig deeper and compare with the market, I’m just trying to get to the point where I have compiled a set of ratings that makes the rest of the process easier.
 

Outlander

Gelding
On a given day what are there 200-300 runners all possible winners, who has the time to go through each one in depth looking for a gem...no one does.
So we can just pick one race or two to look at ,but we might miss something in a race we don’t have time to look at.
Putting horses in order via ratings for every race surely has to be a good starting point so we can quickly see which horses are most worthy of further investigation.
But we need to get the ratings as accurate as possible so we are focusing on the right horses.
 

mick

Sire
On a given day what are there 200-300 runners all possible winners, who has the time to go through each one in depth looking for a gem...no one does.
So we can just pick one race or two to look at ,but we might miss something in a race we don’t have time to look at.
I see this as a different problem but with an easy solution, establish some type of preferred specialization. My own being flat all aged and 4yo + Hcaps over 5 - 10 fur. I have unlimited time for form study and use it, but even allowing for the fact that i start working the races of interest at the 4 day dec stage i could not contemplate looking at all races. I suspect that any backer using there available time attempting to learn more about less would gain from this.

One of the best forum posts on ratings i read was from a bloke who claimed ( although never proved ) great success from his ratings via what i felt was some unique thinking. He used several sets and had historical evidence to support which set proved the most accurate for each different race type. Not something i would care to attempt but i could appreciate the thinking. :)
 

davejb

Mare
O Outlander
To me this is the preferred solution - use the ratings to identify possible bets, but then look in more detail at the ones that have popped up. As an example, I use my 'selections' as the basis of my efforts, because they are all runners that managed their fastest rating (for the past several months) on their latest run, and they passed additional checks - a form check that requires they have placed recently, and a betting check that checks they are in the top of the market, both of these checks are based on the simple fact that most races are won by these runners and I think you need to be a lot better at studying form to select a likely winner from the outsiders in most fields! The third check is that the stable has not got a string of zeroes from its other runners in the past fortnight, which to me is an important check to make as even the best trainers send out runners when they have a health problem with their horses - they tend to realise all their runners are underperforming rather slowly, which is no consolation to the punter who has backed them.

Some of those additional filters, by cross checking with my top rated runners, turn out to be less important depending on type of race - so I have different filters for different race types Flat/Jumps handicap/non handicap. This is, at least currently, as far as I feel I can take the process of automating runner selection.

Before deciding a selection is a good enough prospect I then have to do a more hands on look at form and other factors - has the horse run recently (today's single selection, Mosala Dundalk 5.15) was a head second a month ago), has it ever won? To me this is quite important, horses aren't machines and how they behave once they get to the front varies - being herd animals I simply put this down to a few being 'leaders', out on the plains (or whatever) these guys would be at the front of the herd, deciding which way to go, while most are happier following. I am quite sure that some horses, having been persuaded by the animated chap on their back, get to the front and think 'crap! What the hell am I doing all the way up here at the front?' ... and then go on to ease off a bit no matter how busy the jockey gets.

I look at the opposition, what I'm hoping to find is that there's nothing looking very dangerous in there, if there are a couple of runners that look to be significant opposition then I start to wind my level of confidence a bit lower. Mosala has run a couple of decent seconds, only beaten a head last time out when headed towards the end - significantly Mosala rallied and made an effort to get back in front, and is now going over an extra quarter mile. To me that's positive, while the opposition doesn't look that tough. I think the biggest danger is likely to be from one of the less fancied runners, one of those with only the odd run under their belt - there are a few in there that have run very little, and a few stable changes - to me that looks more like a problem horse, perhaps some unsoundness that keeps them off the track, but that doesn't mean they can't be got ready for a once a year big effort, especially for a new stable.

I'm not tipping Mosala here, I'm just showing the kind of thought process I put into looking at what my program chucks out - I don't look at my ratings and think they're good or bad based on the overall win rate (that sort of info I put on my thread, it's so people can judge things for themselves, I don't consider it to be a make or break metric) - to my way of thinking the ratings will produce a few winners almost every day, all I need to do is find them! Instead of looking at 400 horses a day in 40 races, I'm looking at 40 horses that my added filters reduce to 0-5, and that I then need to look over to decide if they are worth betting on or not.

I dislike the poor data from NH racing, whilst at the same time I can't help but admit that my ratings seem to do at least as well for NH as flat. I'm not at all disillusioned with the ratings, I am disillusioned perhaps with the industry and regulators who don't think it's important to ensure data is as accurate as it can be.

There are lots of other ways to look at this - one that I do not do (I spend enough time on this already), but have sometimes wondered about is simply looking for races where the top 2 or 3 are decently ahead on points, then work through that top 3 to decide which of them is the most likely to live up to their rating on the day - clearly in most races the top rated isn't winning, so is there a pointer in there somewhere that will let me pick something lower down the ratings that has a better chance than the ratings initially suggest? Maybe it's possible to calculate a probability figure for each runner to suggest how likely they are to reproduce their best figure?

Dave
 

mick

Sire
My own ratings will prefix every horse with a + pounds well in : an = the correct OR so no advantage : or a - minus fig. I am only interested in progressing the process when a + rated is found. In > 60% of the races i rate there will be no + rates but this is OK as making these a minority find should improve the significance.
 

Outlander

Gelding
O Outlander
To me this is the preferred solution - use the ratings to identify possible bets, but then look in more detail at the ones that have popped up. As an example, I use my 'selections' as the basis of my efforts, because they are all runners that managed their fastest rating (for the past several months) on their latest run, and they passed additional checks - a form check that requires they have placed recently, and a betting check that checks they are in the top of the market, both of these checks are based on the simple fact that most races are won by these runners and I think you need to be a lot better at studying form to select a likely winner from the outsiders in most fields! The third check is that the stable has not got a string of zeroes from its other runners in the past fortnight, which to me is an important check to make as even the best trainers send out runners when they have a health problem with their horses - they tend to realise all their runners are underperforming rather slowly, which is no consolation to the punter who has backed them.

Some of those additional filters, by cross checking with my top rated runners, turn out to be less important depending on type of race - so I have different filters for different race types Flat/Jumps handicap/non handicap. This is, at least currently, as far as I feel I can take the process of automating runner selection.

Before deciding a selection is a good enough prospect I then have to do a more hands on look at form and other factors - has the horse run recently (today's single selection, Mosala Dundalk 5.15) was a head second a month ago), has it ever won? To me this is quite important, horses aren't machines and how they behave once they get to the front varies - being herd animals I simply put this down to a few being 'leaders', out on the plains (or whatever) these guys would be at the front of the herd, deciding which way to go, while most are happier following. I am quite sure that some horses, having been persuaded by the animated chap on their back, get to the front and think 'crap! What the hell am I doing all the way up here at the front?' ... and then go on to ease off a bit no matter how busy the jockey gets.

I look at the opposition, what I'm hoping to find is that there's nothing looking very dangerous in there, if there are a couple of runners that look to be significant opposition then I start to wind my level of confidence a bit lower. Mosala has run a couple of decent seconds, only beaten a head last time out when headed towards the end - significantly Mosala rallied and made an effort to get back in front, and is now going over an extra quarter mile. To me that's positive, while the opposition doesn't look that tough. I think the biggest danger is likely to be from one of the less fancied runners, one of those with only the odd run under their belt - there are a few in there that have run very little, and a few stable changes - to me that looks more like a problem horse, perhaps some unsoundness that keeps them off the track, but that doesn't mean they can't be got ready for a once a year big effort, especially for a new stable.

I'm not tipping Mosala here, I'm just showing the kind of thought process I put into looking at what my program chucks out - I don't look at my ratings and think they're good or bad based on the overall win rate (that sort of info I put on my thread, it's so people can judge things for themselves, I don't consider it to be a make or break metric) - to my way of thinking the ratings will produce a few winners almost every day, all I need to do is find them! Instead of looking at 400 horses a day in 40 races, I'm looking at 40 horses that my added filters reduce to 0-5, and that I then need to look over to decide if they are worth betting on or not.

I dislike the poor data from NH racing, whilst at the same time I can't help but admit that my ratings seem to do at least as well for NH as flat. I'm not at all disillusioned with the ratings, I am disillusioned perhaps with the industry and regulators who don't think it's important to ensure data is as accurate as it can be.

There are lots of other ways to look at this - one that I do not do (I spend enough time on this already), but have sometimes wondered about is simply looking for races where the top 2 or 3 are decently ahead on points, then work through that top 3 to decide which of them is the most likely to live up to their rating on the day - clearly in most races the top rated isn't winning, so is there a pointer in there somewhere that will let me pick something lower down the ratings that has a better chance than the ratings initially suggest? Maybe it's possible to calculate a probability figure for each runner to suggest how likely they are to reproduce their best figure?

Dave
Superb post davejb davejb
that is the issue for me when you describe getting the wheat from the chaff, my flat rating have made a modest profit on all selections(on days when I have compiled them) to BSP, but that's probably not viable to rely on that and back dozens of horses each day. I very often chose the wrong ones.
I agree some kind of filtering must take place, effectively I would say by price has to be a leading factor, just not worked it out yet what is the best strategy in regards to this for my ratings.
 

pete

Dam
establish some type of preferred specialization.

I have concluded that this must be the way forward for me too. Watching all races just seems too daunting right now, I am trying to build up the will to get back to watching replays daily, and 3yo+ hcaps class 3-6 will be the way forward for my replays and note taking with a mind to back in class 4-6 only going forward.

I feel like I need a good old kick up the arse though, I gotta get out of this funk.
 

pete

Dam
one day soon you will wake up feeling the buzz and that will be the time to return.

Yep, this is normally my most productive time of the year though.
As an anti-social recluse I think the covid/weather combo has subconsciously got me thinking "why bother"
I suspect I need a trip home to see my family, I had one booked last year just before lockdown kicked in. Looks like the wife and I will have the vaccine available to us around mid March at current rates. Hopefully i'll be able to get over there early May this year, I'm craving a steak and kidney pudding. That'll fix me right up.
 

markfinn

Sire
Yep, this is normally my most productive time of the year though.
As an anti-social recluse I think the covid/weather combo has subconsciously got me thinking "why bother"
I suspect I need a trip home to see my family, I had one booked last year just before lockdown kicked in. Looks like the wife and I will have the vaccine available to us around mid March at current rates. Hopefully i'll be able to get over there early May this year, I'm craving a steak and kidney pudding. That'll fix me right up.
Hi Pete hope all is well - do you have to pay for the vaccine over there and if so will that prevent many US citizens from taking it up
 

pete

Dam
do you have to pay for the vaccine over there

I think it will be covered as "preventetive" which was part of Obamacare. So as part of your $5-700 per month premium they should "cover it". ;)

The flu shot is covered each year, so I suspect this is the same.

Many small rural areas are reporting slow uptake of vaccine. That is mainly down to a combination of heavy pro-trump support who don't think covid exists, and anti-vaccine people who think bill gates would rather track you by injecting a microchip rather than via tracking your phone and all of your online activity.
 
Top