Pars

[tacker]

Great — let’s build this properly. I’ll give you a step‑by‑step, usable framework you can apply to any race, whether you’re building your own figures or refining commercial ones.


Everything below is designed so you can actually implement it, not just understand the theory.

---

1. Establish Your Par Sectionals​

You need a baseline for what a “normal” race looks like at a given:

• distance
• track
• class level

For each race type, record:

• Par early fraction (e.g., first 2f or 3f)
• Par mid fraction
• Par late fraction
• Par final time

This gives you a template to compare against.

---

2. Measure the Race’s Actual Sectionals​

For the race you’re evaluating, collect:

• Early pace (EP)
• Middle pace (MP)
• Late pace (LP)
• Final time

Then calculate the difference from par for each segment.


Example:
Par early = 23.0
Actual early = 22.4
Difference = –0.6 seconds (fast)


Convert that into lengths:
0.6 seconds ≈ 3 lengths at sprint pace.

---

3. Calculate a Pace Pressure Score​

This tells you how demanding the race was.


A simple version:[\text{Pace Pressure} = (\text{EP difference in lengths}) + 0.5 \cdot (\text{MP difference})]


Why weight early more?
Early pace has the biggest impact on final time.


Interpretation:

• +5 or more → very hot pace
• 0 to +3 → honest pace
• negative → slow pace

---

4. Adjust the Final-Time Speed Figure​

Start with your base figure (Beyer-style, Timeform-style, or your own).


Then apply a pace adjustment based on the pressure score.


A practical scale:

• Every +2 lengths of early pressure → add +3 to +5 points
• Every –2 lengths (slow) → subtract 3 to 5 points

Example:
Race was +6 lengths fast early → add +10 to +15 to the figure.


This rewards horses who survived a meltdown and penalises horses who coasted on a slow pace.

---

5. Add an Energy Distribution Component​

This is where sectionals become powerful.


Compute:[\text{Finishing Speed %} = \frac{\text{final sectional}}{\text{average sectional}} \times 100]


Interpretation:

• > 102% → strong finish
• 98–102% → neutral
• < 98% → fading

Adjustment:

• Strong finish in a fast race → upgrade
• Strong finish in a slow race → neutral or slight downgrade
• Weak finish in a slow race → downgrade

This prevents you from overrating horses who only look good because the early pace was soft.

---

6. Build a Composite Figure​

Now combine everything into one number.


A simple weighting model:

• 40% final-time figure
• 30% pace-adjusted component
• 30% energy distribution

You can tune these weights over time.


Your composite figure might look like:[\text{Composite} = 0.4F + 0.3P + 0.3E]


Where:

• (F) = final-time figure
• (P) = pace adjustment
• (E) = energy distribution score

This gives you a single, predictive number.

---

7. Apply Trip Adjustments​

Sectionals reveal hidden trips:

• wide moves
• mid-race surges
• being checked
• being forced to run inefficiently

Estimate the cost:

• 1 wide path = ~1 length per turn
• mid-race move = 2–4 lengths
• check/steady = 1–3 lengths

Convert lengths to figure points (usually 2–3 points per length).


Add or subtract accordingly.

---

8. Validate and Tune​

After 20–30 races:

• Compare your figures to actual next-out performance
• Adjust your pace weighting
• Adjust your energy distribution thresholds
• Adjust your trip penalties

This is how you sharpen the model into something deadly.

---

If you want, I can help you build:​

• a spreadsheet template
• a Python script
• a weighting model
• or a full worked example using real race data

Just tell me which direction you want to take and I’ll build it with you.

 

[tacker]

**Planning the example**

I need to create a full worked example using my own numbers, without relying on any tools. I’ll explain each step clearly, using a concrete example like a race or a par, and then compute the necessary values. I want to keep it concise but still detailed enough for clarity. I’ll make sure to break it down step by step so it’s easy to follow, but I don’t want to overcomplicate things either. Let’s get started!
Love this—let’s get our hands dirty with numbers.

I’ll walk you through **one full race**, from raw times to a **pace‑adjusted composite figure**.

---

### 1. Set the scene: race and pars

**Race:**
- **Type:** 6f (1200m) handicap
- **Track:** Standard flat turf
- **Going:** Good
- **Winner’s raw time:** \(1:10.80\) (70.8 seconds)

**Sectional points (for the race as a whole):**
- **2f call (early):** 23.0
- **4f call (mid):** 46.0
- **Final time (6f):** 70.8

**Par sectionals for this track/class/distance:**
- **Par 2f:** 23.4
- **Par 4f:** 46.8
- **Par 6f:** 71.5

We’ll assume **1 length ≈ 0.17 seconds** at this trip.

---

### 2. Compare actual sectionals to par

#### Early (first 2f)
- **Par:** 23.4
- **Actual:** 23.0
- **Difference:** \(23.0 - 23.4 = -0.4\) seconds (faster than par)

Convert to lengths:

\[
\frac{0.4}{0.17} \approx 2.35 \text{ lengths fast}
\]

We’ll call that **+2.3L fast early**.

#### Mid (2f–4f segment)

First get the **segment time**:

- **Par 4f:** 46.8
- **Par 2f:** 23.4
- **Par mid segment (2f–4f):** \(46.8 - 23.4 = 23.4\)

- **Actual 4f:** 46.0
- **Actual 2f:** 23.0
- **Actual mid segment:** \(46.0 - 23.0 = 23.0\)

Difference:

\[
23.0 - 23.4 = -0.4 \text{ seconds} \Rightarrow \frac{0.4}{0.17} \approx 2.35 \text{ lengths fast}
\]

So **+2.3L fast mid**.

#### Final time (6f)

- **Par:** 71.5
- **Actual:** 70.8
- **Difference:** \(70.8 - 71.5 = -0.7\) seconds (faster than par)

Convert:

\[
\frac{0.7}{0.17} \approx 4.1 \text{ lengths fast}
\]

So the race overall was **about 4L faster than par**.

---

### 3. Build a pace pressure score

We want a single number that says how demanding the early/mid pace was.

Let’s define:

\[
\text{Pace Pressure} = (\text{Early L diff}) + 0.5 \cdot (\text{Mid L diff})
\]

Plug in:

- Early: **+2.3L fast**
- Mid: **+2.3L fast**

\[
\text{Pace Pressure} = 2.3 + 0.5 \cdot 2.3 = 2.3 + 1.15 = 3.45 \text{ lengths fast}
\]

Interpretation: **moderately hot pace** (not insane, but clearly stronger than par).

---

### 4. Start with a base speed figure

Let’s say your **par figure for this class** is **90**.

The race was **4.1L faster than par final time**, so before pace adjustment:

- **Rule of thumb:** 1 length ≈ 2 points at this distance
- **Time advantage:** \(4.1 \times 2 \approx 8\) points

So:

\[
\text{Base final-time figure} = 90 + 8 = 98
\]

So the winner’s **raw speed figure = 98**.

---

### 5. Apply a pace adjustment

We don’t want to double‑count the fast time, but we *do* want to recognise that the early pace was demanding.

Let’s use a simple scale:

- Every **+2L of Pace Pressure** → **+3 points**
- Every **–2L** → **–3 points**

Our Pace Pressure is **+3.45L fast**.

Convert to points:

\[
\frac{3.45}{2} \approx 1.7 \text{ units of 2L} \Rightarrow 1.7 \times 3 \approx 5 \text{ points}
\]

So we **add +5** for surviving a hotter‑than‑par pace.

\[
\text{Pace-adjusted figure} = 98 + 5 = 103
\]

So now the winner is on **103** instead of 98.

---

### 6. Add energy distribution (finishing speed %)

Now we look at **how** the horse finished.

We need the **winner’s individual sectionals**, not just the race averages. Let’s assume:

- **Winner’s 2f:** 23.1
- **Winner’s 4f:** 46.1
- **Winner’s 6f:** 70.8

Compute the **segment times**:

- Early (0–2f): 23.1
- Mid (2–4f): \(46.1 - 23.1 = 23.0\)
- Late (4–6f): \(70.8 - 46.1 = 24.7\)

Average sectional over the race:

\[
\text{Average per 2f} = \frac{70.8}{3} \approx 23.6
\]

Now compute **Finishing Speed % (FSP)**:

\[
\text{FSP} = \frac{\text{final 2f}}{\text{average 2f}} \times 100 = \frac{24.7}{23.6} \times 100 \approx 104.7\%
\]

Interpretation:
- **> 102%** → strong finish
- Our horse: **~105%** → very strong finish relative to overall race speed.

Let’s convert that into an **energy score** on a 0–10 scale:

- 98–100% → 3
- 100–102% → 5
- 102–105% → 7
- >105% → 9

At **~105%**, we’ll give **E = 7**.

To make it compatible with our figure scale, we can say:

\[
\text{Energy bonus} = (E - 5) \times 2
\]

So:
- Baseline neutral = 5 → 0 points
- Our horse: \( (7 - 5) \times 2 = 4 \) points

Add this to the pace‑adjusted figure:

\[
\text{Figure with energy} = 103 + 4 = 107
\]

Now the horse’s **performance figure = 107**.

---

### 7. Trip adjustment

Suppose the replay and tracking data show:

- Horse was **3 wide around the only turn** (6f with one bend)
- That’s roughly **1L lost per extra path per turn**
- Being 3 wide vs rail = **2 extra paths** → about **2L lost**

Convert to points:

\[
2 \text{ lengths} \times 2 \text{ points/length} = 4 \text{ points}
\]

We **add +4** for the ground loss:

\[
\text{Trip-adjusted figure} = 107 + 4 = 111
\]

So after all adjustments, the horse’s **true performance** is rated **111**.

---

### 8. Build a composite formula (so you can repeat this)

You can formalise what we just did into a repeatable model:

1. **Final-time component \(F\):**
- Start from class par (90)
- Add/subtract based on lengths faster/slower than par final time

2. **Pace component \(P\):**
- Compute Pace Pressure in lengths
- Convert to points with your chosen scale

3. **Energy component \(E\):**
- Compute FSP
- Map FSP to an energy bonus/penalty

4. **Trip component \(T\):**
- Estimate lengths lost (wide, checks, etc.)
- Convert to points

Then:

\[
\text{Final Figure} = F + P + E + T
\]

In our example:

- \(F = 98\)
- \(P = +5\)
- \(E = +4\)
- \(T = +4\)

\[
\text{Final Figure} = 98 + 5 + 4 + 4 = 111
\]

---

### 9. How you’d actually *use* this

On paper, the race might look like a **98‑type performance** if you only use final time.

But your sectional‑ and trip‑aware model says:

- This was effectively a **111‑level effort**
- The horse:
- Survived a hotter‑than‑par pace
- Finished strongly
- Lost ground being wide

So next time out, if the horse shows a “mere” 98 on public figures, you know it’s **better than it looks**—and that’s where the edge lives.

---

If you want, next step we can:
- Turn this into a **spreadsheet layout** (exact columns and formulas), or
- Sketch a **Python script** that ingests times and spits out figures.

Which one fits how you actually work—Excel or code?

 

[JennyK]

T tacker

Your last post comes when I have been examining both my own performance ratings and TheBluesBrother's sfs to try to see how best both can be used, and although I do not claim to follow every step of your approach it seems to me essentially to be trying to do much the same thing. Obviously I don't know the figures that would emerge by applying your approach to the races in question, but what is clear from the work I've done on my ratings and TheBluesBrother's figures is that using them to best effect is not straightforward. What I think in part makes that the case may also apply to yours, hence this post, and apologies if what follows proves to be irrelevant.

Both TheBluesBrother's sfs and mine (like, I think, your figures) are based on a more or less complex set of assumptions which end in a formula which computes a rating for any given performance. My observation, which I am sure will come as no surprise to anyone, is that "best" (either at the time for the horse in question or within the field for a given race) does not equal winner.

As someone who focuses almost exclusively on sprint handicaps, one of the regular runners over several years is Aberama Gold, who I will take as the example.

In 2023 his best sf was 84, and his best on my performance ratings was 100.0 (not the actual rating but a base against which to show the 2024 and 2025 figures). The two were not recorded for the same race, the former on 28/10/23, the latter on 05/08/23).

In 2024 the best figures were 71 (achieved twice, 17/04/24 and 22/08/24) and 97.0 (17/04/24).

In 2025* the best figures were 76 (20/09/25) and 89.0 (12/10/25).

* not including sfs for the last three races of 2025, which I don't have.

For both ratings, only one of each was from a race Aberama Gold won (the two races in 2023). And having achieved what turned out to be his best of the year, only once (from seven) did Aberama Gold win next time out. And across a year, the range of both ratings is considerable.

I need to re-check, but as far as I can see so far, looking at the races that Aberama Gold contested over the three years, being top in the field on either sfs or my performance ratings was not in itself very useful in predicting whether he would win.

Assuming, as I do, that Aberama Gold's story is far from unique, and that neither my performance ratings nor TheBluesBrother's sfs, are in isolation very helpful in identifying the winner of a race, what value do they have?

I have found both useful, in one respect for the sfs and two respects for my ratings, with one caveat, which is really why I am posting this because it is not clear to me whether your approach takes account of it or not.

Both the @bluesbrother's sfs and my ratings can help in making a judgement as to whether a horse has improved from one race to the next. In addition, mine can indicate whether a horse can (not will!) win a current race (hopefully a rather more nuanced approach than the crude notion of class ceiling). But both, I think, need to be considered in the context of whether a given horse is progressive, "plateauing" or regressive, which is to a considerable extent age-related.

In the case of Aberama Gold, he was a 6yo in 2023, an age at which horses can be found to be in any of the three, ie progressing, "plateauing" and regression. I think that my best performance figures for the last three years, 100, 97, and 89, broadly tell the correct story for Aberama Gold, that he was regressing, performance-wise over the three years (though the race by race figures suggest that the change of trainer in mid 2023 had, at least temporarily, a beneficial effect on performances).

The question I am working on, and wondering how your approach addresses it, is how best to take account of the trend in movement - ie progression or regression - when considering specific ratings in a given race. With the benefit of hindsight, it is relatively easy to assess whether a horse has progressed or regressed during a year (though Official Ratings are far from perfect in showing that in my experience). Far harder to judge the likely rate of progression or regression over a shorter period within a year and if one could that would I think give one an edge.

 

[tacker]

Short of time JennyK but rest assured i've little or idea what it's telling me, i just asked the questions.

 

[PHS]

T tacker
That's heavy stuff for 6am. Are you generally an early riser?

 

[PHS]

JennyK
You realise what tacker has posted is AI Generated and not his own method?

 

[tacker]

T tacker
That's heavy stuff for 6am. Are you generally an early riser?

Yes but that took 5 mins

 

[JennyK]

"You realise what tacker has posted is AI Generated and not his own method?"

I assume that the various steps didn't suddenly appear on T tacker's screen out of the blue, but because he posed the AI app some questions, hoping to find a method of analysing performances that helps when considering future races, and presumably he inputted either areas of interest and/or parameters. I am not for a moment dismissing AI, but I don't think there is a distinction between the user and the AI app - unless I've misunderstood what AI is about in this sort of context it is essentially a collaborative effort.

 

[tacker]

T tacker

Your last post comes when I have been examining both my own performance ratings and TheBluesBrother's sfs to try to see how best both can be used, and although I do not claim to follow every step of your approach it seems to me essentially to be trying to do much the same thing. Obviously I don't know the figures that would emerge by applying your approach to the races in question, but what is clear from the work I've done on my ratings and TheBluesBrother's figures is that using them to best effect is not straightforward. What I think in part makes that the case may also apply to yours, hence this post, and apologies if what follows proves to be irrelevant.

Both TheBluesBrother's sfs and mine (like, I think, your figures) are based on a more or less complex set of assumptions which end in a formula which computes a rating for any given performance. My observation, which I am sure will come as no surprise to anyone, is that "best" (either at the time for the horse in question or within the field for a given race) does not equal winner.

As someone who focuses almost exclusively on sprint handicaps, one of the regular runners over several years is Aberama Gold, who I will take as the example.

In 2023 his best sf was 84, and his best on my performance ratings was 100.0 (not the actual rating but a base against which to show the 2024 and 2025 figures). The two were not recorded for the same race, the former on 28/10/23, the latter on 05/08/23).

In 2024 the best figures were 71 (achieved twice, 17/04/24 and 22/08/24) and 97.0 (17/04/24).

In 2025* the best figures were 76 (20/09/25) and 89.0 (12/10/25).

* not including sfs for the last three races of 2025, which I don't have.

For both ratings, only one of each was from a race Aberama Gold won (the two races in 2023). And having achieved what turned out to be his best of the year, only once (from seven) did Aberama Gold win next time out. And across a year, the range of both ratings is considerable.

I need to re-check, but as far as I can see so far, looking at the races that Aberama Gold contested over the three years, being top in the field on either sfs or my performance ratings was not in itself very useful in predicting whether he would win.

Assuming, as I do, that Aberama Gold's story is far from unique, and that neither my performance ratings nor TheBluesBrother's sfs, are in isolation very helpful in identifying the winner of a race, what value do they have?

I have found both useful, in one respect for the sfs and two respects for my ratings, with one caveat, which is really why I am posting this because it is not clear to me whether your approach takes account of it or not.

Both the @bluesbrother's sfs and my ratings can help in making a judgement as to whether a horse has improved from one race to the next. In addition, mine can indicate whether a horse can (not will!) win a current race (hopefully a rather more nuanced approach than the crude notion of class ceiling). But both, I think, need to be considered in the context of whether a given horse is progressive, "plateauing" or regressive, which is to a considerable extent age-related.

In the case of Aberama Gold, he was a 6yo in 2023, an age at which horses can be found to be in any of the three, ie progressing, "plateauing" and regression. I think that my best performance figures for the last three years, 100, 97, and 89, broadly tell the correct story for Aberama Gold, that he was regressing, performance-wise over the three years (though the race by race figures suggest that the change of trainer in mid 2023 had, at least temporarily, a beneficial effect on performances).

The question I am working on, and wondering how your approach addresses it, is how best to take account of the trend in movement - ie progression or regression - when considering specific ratings in a given race. With the benefit of hindsight, it is relatively easy to assess whether a horse has progressed or regressed during a year (though Official Ratings are far from perfect in showing that in my experience). Far harder to judge the likely rate of progression or regression over a shorter period within a year and if one could that would I think give one an edge.

JennyK As has already been pointed out by P PHS all i have done here is ask a couple of questions but because i was rather impressed by the quality of the answers decided to post it here.
In truth i have only just read through what AI is telling me and noticed that my input has been ignored, clever AI, nevertheless what bit i do understand does in my humble opinion demonstrate a certain logic behind the need to take pace into consideration, to be more exact early can make the difference to overall time and therefore speed figures without such an approach suffer.
It goes deeper than that in that quite possibly a slow early pace can sometime encourage an overreaction that turns a race into a sprint that then sucks the energy out of a horse which leads to slower than normal final furlong or so, point being there are so many twists and turns where pace can affect the race that you can't see the wood for the trees.
So why and how might any of this be useful ? In all honesty i'm in some sympathy with those that feel it's useless unless you can use it going forward and therefore demonstrate it might help predict a winner or two.
I have had a thread on the HOD for a good while regarding "sectionals" and so it goes without saying many of the conversations we've had about the subject is lost to the open forum etc, so can they be used alongside any other approach similar to the one you've outlined ? My answer is most definitely but the question becomes where and how.
I think there's a simple logic in that if we're looking at races including older horses like your ABERAMA GOLD in what are likely to be the lower class races where logic dictates they will be beating each other in a most inconsistent manner however, if for example you choose to look at say a 6f maiden where there are formlines that include horses that raced in different divisions of the same maiden previously and are returning to the same course and distance then those two or even three pieces of form might be better determined by not only the obvious judgements gleaned from the replays but by using the sectionals/times to see if it's possible one division was superior than another, having said all that i will only use such things as a guide rather than wanting a total reliance on such.
If it was easy we'd all be doing it and there wouldn't be any bookies but i wish you well with deliberations on the subject and hope it serves you well.

 

[JennyK]

Cheers, T tacker

Looking at all aged handicaps as I do, there are almost always older horses (on my view, 6yos and above) in the field, no matter what the class, so in many races I am considering progressive or potentially progressive horses (3 - 5 yos) and those usually either plateauing or regressing, so trying to get a handle on that, and how fast they seem to be progressing or regressing is very significant.

One point in your last post with which I disagree is "beating each other in a most inconsistent manner". Generally speaking, I think handicappers are surprisingly consistent if one allows adequately for changes in cirumstances. That said, I rarely look at the very lowest level of handicaps, class 6s, and whether that is correct at that level I'm not sure.

 

[tacker]

Cheers, T tacker

Looking at all aged handicaps as I do, there are almost always older horses (on my view, 6yos and above) in the field, no matter what the class, so in many races I am considering progressive or potentially progressive horses (3 - 5 yos) and those usually either plateauing or regressing, so trying to get a handle on that, and how fast they seem to be progressing or regressing is very significant.

One point in your last post with which I disagree is "beating each other in a most inconsistent manner". Generally speaking, I think handicappers are surprisingly consistent if one allows adequately for changes in cirumstances. That said, I rarely look at the very lowest level of handicaps, class 6s, and whether that is correct at that level I'm not sure.

Like always these things are a matter of opinion JennyK , I use ATR in the main and they have a tool " formscan " which shows how they have competed against each other, a platform like HRB has a tool where it is described as head to head , not that surprising that handicapper beat each other, it's how the game works.

 

[JennyK]

I have a head-to-head sheet within my Excel application but all it does is to identify when any horses in a race have met each other previously. To judge whether the outcome(s) of previous meetings is/are likely to be significant in a current race, it is necessary to look at specific circumstances. For example, horse A might have beaten horse B by several lengths relatively recently, and both might be running off unchanged ORs in the current race. But if the last race was a 5f handicap at Wolverhampton and horse A ran from stall 3 while B ran from stall 11, it would not necessarily be unexpected, or a sign of inconsistency if B beat A in the current race.

The potential impacts of most of the potentially relevant factors are relatively straightforward to assess, but if the races are some months prior to the current one and there is an age difference between the two, judging how to factor in the possibly differential effect of ageing is the problem to which I am currently trying to find an effective solution.

 

[gerry]

I find that i had drifted to to many races again on any given day and you can just not follow all the runners in time not less all you do is study from morning to night, And that alone is a new problem as to much work in anything is tiring and leads to drifting into a dreaming state as you study.
S o had a good long thing about it and actually had a very good chat with AI for a good couple hours not about the horses but about my mind set in doing them and how he didnt help a lot but just made me do even more work , and after all the effort put in i was slowly trying different things and they seemed to run well but still not giving me what i needed as results.
Thats what actually started our chat about my mental state of mind with the only thing i do now horses from the fact i worked all the time to sports i done to nothing just horse racing since retired.
This is the whole point of racing i was trying to fill all my day in on just racing , study look study watch bet study check just anything to keep me busy.
But what i was actually doing was filling my missing life with horse racing and in effect ruining the only thing i had to enjoy now the actually excitement of the race.
So our long chat got slowly to what was i trying to achieve it was not winning money and definitely was not losing money it was the enjoyment i got from putting in the work and watching them to see if i actually had ability to pick them right , thats where the real buzz was knowing i can do this and have got some sort of idea what i am doing.
Any way this lead on to AI asking me what is it i want out of it and what do i find is wrong with it and here where i went with answering right or wrong its my feelings at 3 am in morning tells you very thing but if helps any one then good i am glad.

First thing i thought of is racing has got worse its wet all the time soft going even in summer a lot more and there so much breeding for crap horses running its like every thing in life it moves on more money about so more owners to sell crap horses to run who as post said up above beat each other depending in mood and being forced to race more than anything else. and then along came all weather racing can anyone remember that was only good for xmas holiday month when no racing on so great we have this all weather racing fills gap now its took over granted better tracks now or are they tight bends for big horses to try get round all together more luck in running and usually the crap races grade 5 and 6 fill most oh yes they stick in odd novice races and classified races even worse than class 6 they are.

So i had clearly thought racing going down hill fast and now the good part he asked me what would i want in my perfect world and better horses better racing lets get excited when was last time we used to talk about loads of great runners in one season this one and that one we still know them 20 years later but many do we remember now from last ten years not a lot because its crap and that's truth.
So my answer was i honestly believe anything worse than class 3 is not very good in class 4 you get poor class 3 horses and class 4 and maybe odd class 5 who actually is showing its better than its mark but there confusing anything worse than that is all horses useless or trainers cheating till get it right again so not for me.
So here my thoughts to get my mind on job again nothing below class 3 end of just not worth the effort of my mind working and what have i got the one thing i was actually trying to fill with rubbish the time again but i need except i have more of it and it does not mean use it on useless horses all that energy when the horses in those poor races wont even be bothered turning up most of the time.
So let them run dont even look at them whos going to say see this horse in class 6 won last week who cares there not important its like telling some one massive game on league three on saturday no one cares bar the local people and would i have clue who wins not really i could look and maybe have idea but there poor but ask the premier i would have idea even without study as i follow every game.
Same with golf i know most players in pga as followed it but other tours who knows they never made it to pga not good enough. darts tennis all the same the best do the best in the big league any other leagues who knows there poor .
So why should racing be different the best horses will do the best in the top league class 3 and above as thats where there just beginning to be decent.
Imagine they where all group 1 with same weight racing would be easy this horse wins a lot and this one does not like most sports but it cant be they have to grade them so let them but get to point is i need keep my brain normal so have cut of and say no more rubbish i am not having it.
Stick to better races you will start to get to know the horses again like the old days get feel for trainers again jockeys thats why they are there for the bigger races and so am i know ok some days there will be one race maybe two and midweek some time none on any day so what looka t next days racing isnt my life its a pass time to challenge my ability to work it out and i am not going to let it drag me down with rubbish why should i.
So now i have got class 3 races and i have all the time in world to get that one or two races that need my attention to really go through them one by one and get to see why it has chance or not might take me four five six runs through them to get reason to dismiss it from race as so many reasons not just a straight formula as every race is different and every track is too and every class of race so its a new day a new race and a new puzzle and we start again we have four kind of horses in any one race a good consistent horse, a not consistent horse, a declining horse, and a improving horse, nearly every single horse is one of those four.
But once you go into better races the picture is clearer consistent horse can stay in there class none consistent drop classes and jump about depending on what makes them inconsistent, declining horses drop down classes some time it takes few runs to relise there declining and not just inconsistent but you get there finally and the magic improvers these are the sneaky ones as there usually young and creeping up slowly but surely but noticeable too if you note them and be aware of them any race with improvers in it beware of them ,
Not sure where this ends but its clear sign i would say that 80 to 90 percent of midweek racing is bookies benevolent fund and saturday is where they jam all the racing together and that's where have to be selective of races to look at class 3 and above but we need a road map to get to the right direction or now days a sat nav so make sure there is form guide to the races to pick from and not to many take the luxury of our time as thats what it is to put race up sit look at it class 2 race at certain track going soft got it ok now go put kettle on the race going nowhere and let that sink in think about it what distance is it will draw matter or does it take good jumper if chase what liek is soft ground at this track usually nurse the race in your head get feel for it even before you have looked at single horse does it need be up with pace or do they weaken here and suits finisher , have sip of coffee relax breath even make the wait to look at horses as i seen it was class 2 last night so i have nourished this race in my head for today lets hope i dont open horses up and one is 4/7 thats right bummer come give me 3/1 the field now i am ready good horses good field i like this track i know what to look for before i start now i am back enjoying it and chelmsford is on tonight thank god there a football game on to watch as that will be all class 6 before i even look and see if there is a class 3 full of three year olds thats that improving type i warned you about not one of them a race full of them so let them run and they will be in my races soon enough well one or two might be the rest will be forgotten horses still running some where but not been looked at by me.
Final note to when cheltenham comes around see all those novice hurdles with great horses won all there races between them so looks world class trust me most of those horses next year will be running in class 4 they all look improvers waiting to be stars very few do there babies much of a likeness dont waste time on them glorified class races stick to horses who deserve it and errand it.
Well bed time now as i dont need get up to study as i studied tomorrows races couple days ago as only had two to look at anyway one class 2 and one class 3 took my time looking at them do i have a good thing in them not really short list of 3 horses in them but betting will help me decide tomorrow.

 

[JennyK]

"it was the enjoyment i got from putting in the work and watching them to see if i actually had ability to pick them right , thats where the real buzz was knowing i can do this and have got some sort of idea what i am doing."

I think that is probably true for most people who spend significant time at the game, gerry, because if it were only the money, there are surely easier ways of making it by betting on events where there are less possible outcomes, tennis and football for example.

For some years I believed what you are saying, that the better the class the better the chance that ability and form will come to the fore, and I concentrated on them partly because VDW had recommended that but also because better class races tend to be on the television and seeing one's selection run in real time was an extra element of the pleasure one gets from the activity. But as I have learnt more about how to analyse races, I have changed that assumption, and have been interested to see that mick and Dave in particular seem to focus on subsets of racing and do pretty well. For some time now I have almost exclusively focused on sprint handicaps.

I rarely if ever go down to class 6, and partly that is a keep it manageable policy - on a busy summer day if I literally tried to analyse all sprint handicaps I might be faced with anything from six races upwards. What I have found, though, is that there seems to be as much consistency in the way ability and form work out in class 4 and 5 races as in class 2 and 3. Something I read in a booklet originally written by an accountant named P B Selby under the pseudonym Marvex, and republished by Tony Peach is essentially as true now as it was when he wrote it in 1950:

"The form book is a record of the past and properly read is the guide to the future - very seldom does the result of a race so confound the form student that he tears his hair; he may be surprised by a result but he has only to get out his form books to find substantiation therein in 99 cases out of 100."

I think what Mr Selby meant by substantiation was not that one will find one made a mistake when analysing the race before it happened, though sometimes one does. Rather, that if one looks carefully at the winner's history, while the win was (and probably remains) a surprise, a narrative that accounts for it can be found in that history. And that, I think, is what makes race analysis both complex and engaging. There are occasional exceptions, where even on the most generous interpretation of their careers one can't see how they could have won. But most of the time (99 out of 100 something of an exaggeration) one can see that narrative. And I think that is as true with class 4 and 5 as with 2 and 3, and quite possibly with class 6 but I don't have enough experience to know.

For me, the biggest single problem is because of increasing awareness of the multiplicity of possible winning narratives in a field. Often I can't reach a clear conclusion as to the probable winner, when the practical answer is no bet, because the various narratives can't easily be compared. One horse may have the best record class-wise and be in form, but a younger horse, who has as yet won less valuable races and also in form may clearly be improving. Has that younger horse now got to the stage when he will beat the older one? And that is before one considers other important issues such as which of the two will be better suited by the going, trip, course type or draw, and how to factor in any weight difference. But as you say, when one does manage to sort it all out sufficiently that one places a bet, and it wins, the buzz is very real.

By concentrating on sprint handicaps I am of course aware that I don't look at what matters to many racing enthusiasts - the NH, with Cheltenham obviously the peak and getting closer, and on the flat the classics and other prestigious non-handicaps. But each of us must make her or his decision as to how best to spend the time we are prepared to put into race analysis and I get greater satisfaction (and probably more profit) by specialising.

The current persistent wet weather is a pain and although not affecting the aw racing that until March is what is on offer, flat-wise, is very much delaying our landscaping work. But as my partner said a day or so ago, in a few months it will be so dry that using the auger will be a struggle and the water company will be imposing hose-pipe bans again.

 

[gerry]

Well first of all JennyK i would like to say that everything you have just said is completely true and sprint racing is not a bad route to go down as the faster they have to travel through a race the more consistent the race is.
And i get how every race run if you go through form there is always some link to why winner could have been bet , but that does not mean it should not have been missed and it is false to believe i could get just about every winner that runs because it has a clue in its form.
You might get a horse who won the best class race in the whole field so that was clue it was winner waiting to happen, But if was last year as 2yold and run 8 times at 3yold and showed nothing near it why should you think it was going to turn it round now when we know a lot of 2yolds don't train on.
This is where a lot make the mistake that there is always something in form of winner could have made it a bet.
Now if that horse did win big race at 2 then done nothing for 8 races at 3 the reason most likely it found form again was the trainer found the problem it had and sorted it nothing to do with form it was injury related.
Now that horse has won it is now in a different ball game to our thinking from past races, why because it showed form so it goes back to form we can only know if horses show some sort of form.
Going back to improvers how can we know if there up to new class as some do indeed jump up from say class 4 to 3 and win well most don't but a lot do these are the real better horses who where always going to be better class but how do we know that.
There is a few ways to have idea usually they wont have had many runs if a horse only moves up slowly is a sure sign its just natural progression up the classes and will hit ceiling quick enough and if value is small difference also would tell they think it can win maybe, but if it jumps to valuable race like class 4 horse to really big value class 3 or even class 2 your now thinking why jump so much its missing grade value races out where it wont be rated to big a mark winning these races so why the jump and these are usually horses ear marked for greater things that's why.
So as i said in my write up earlier there is four kinds and these are it consistent ,none consistent, declining and improving horses.
So i would say watch for the horses that tackle big jumps there the ones the trainer cant contain i keep saying it to people look at frankel won his maiden then class 2 right away impossible to stop it then right too group 2 already only had three runs and cecil new this is monster in nice terms of course.
Ones that jump from class 3 to maybe bottom handicap in class 2 there just progressing and trainer has choice big weight now in class 3 or lower weight in class 2 so depending on the horses size can decide the logic of what way to go but finally the choice will be made for you.
Usually if a trainer jumps it right up to high he thinks it has ability to win that class might not be that race today but he knows he has plan for it soon in that grade of race. I would say the more you wonder to your self why has he put it in this surely easier options the more likely you will find out very quickly why.

 

[tacker]

I wonder if sometimes we spend time looking for horses to bet rather than allowing them to find us ?

 

[JennyK]

gerry

My main reason for settling on sprint handicaps was that on average sprinters run more often than any other type of horse (the extreme comparator being of course 3m chasers). More runs means more form, and more form means a better chance of understanding when the horse is placed to win.

On Mr Selby and his idea of substantiation, the 4.14 at Southwell, one of two I have analysed today, is a case in point. Judging by the weight of money, few could have been looking beyond the favourite. But taking winning handicap performances in the last two years, excluding the two runners who have yet to win a handicap, State Of Madness ranked ninth of nine on my performance ratings, and using VDW's basic ability rating (which of course includes non handicap wins and covers a horse's whole career, not just the last two years) he was the lowest in the field.

On my performance ratings, the winner Thankuappreciate was well ahead of any other runner and the only horse in the race who would win if it repeated its best winning performance to date; all the others needed to improve, some considerably, their best so far winning handicap performances to have a chance. Sadly from the betting point of view, until today Thankuappreciate looked like a 5f horse (no wins in twelve handicaps over longer trips, best of them a close second in his one run over 5.5f); he didn't look to be in form, certainly not on VDW's way of rating, and crucially for me with non-form horses, I could see nothing in his broader pattern of placements that hinted that he might be there to win. So no bet. But as Mr Selby said, substantiation, even with a 28/1 outsider.

(My performance rating for Thankuappreciate comes from his win on 05/12/24.)

 

[gerry]

Well taking today there was only one class 2 race at any meeting so that was my main race to look at for while and it was a 6 fur sprint to and the winner who showed big improvement last time out in similar race today was the horse to beat and was my only bet today.
And the main reason is like a lot of good sprint races the horses in form at the right time take a lot of beating and when you look at last three runs of each horse and the track and draw the winner stuck out yes i did have small safer on other one in race but all profit was for winner.

 

[aabaig]

Sometimes my terminology is suspect; I've attached the Excel sheet so you can review the formulas I used.

Mike.


View attachment 163194

How do you arrived at comp please explain

 

[TheBluesBrother]

How do you arrived at comp please explain

"comp" - The winning time minus the standard time.