• 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

RaceIQ Horses to Follow — May 2026 Turf Flat Analysis

Dave

Dave

Gelding
May's turf season has thrown up some fascinating sectional angles, and I've just finished analysing the complete RaceIQ dataset to identify horses that look primed to win in the coming weeks.

Rather than relying on finishing positions alone, I filtered races that were run faster than par and focused on horses that produced the strongest finishing speed percentages, top-speed figures and overall efficiency ratings. The results were revealing.

Among the standouts were Quisana, who was beaten just a head at Windsor despite finishing strongest of all, Sahara King, whose Newbury effort suggests a win is imminent, and Pietro, who posted one of the most eye-catching sprint performances of the month at Chester.

A recurring theme was that hold-up horses from genuinely-run races continue to offer some of the best betting opportunities, particularly those emerging from the Chester May Festival and Windsor meetings.

The full report includes:
• 18 High Priority horses to follow
• Medium Priority trackers with strong sectional profiles
• Pace and running-style trends for June
• Trainer angles from Haggas, Gosden, Burke, Hannon, Fanshawe and others
• Analysis of the strongest races of the month

If you're interested in using sectional data to find winners before the market catches up, the full breakdown is available here:

substack.com

Horses to Follow — May 2026 Turf Flat Analysis

RaceIQ Metrics and Sectionals spotlight the Hidden Performers that the Market Missed
substack.com substack.com


I'd be interested to hear which horses others have marked down from May's turf action.
 
Fascinating post Dave Dave and look forward to scrutinise it further when i have the time but we discussed FINISHING SPEED % recently and i was persuaded by others that it's of little worth, i'm easily led at the best of times so how can you convince me they were wrong ?
 
Dave said:
May's turf season has thrown up some fascinating sectional angles, and I've just finished analysing the complete RaceIQ dataset to identify horses that look primed to win in the coming weeks.

Rather than relying on finishing positions alone, I filtered races that were run faster than par and focused on horses that produced the strongest finishing speed percentages, top-speed figures and overall efficiency ratings. The results were revealing.

Among the standouts were Quisana, who was beaten just a head at Windsor despite finishing strongest of all, Sahara King, whose Newbury effort suggests a win is imminent, and Pietro, who posted one of the most eye-catching sprint performances of the month at Chester.

A recurring theme was that hold-up horses from genuinely-run races continue to offer some of the best betting opportunities, particularly those emerging from the Chester May Festival and Windsor meetings.

The full report includes:
• 18 High Priority horses to follow
• Medium Priority trackers with strong sectional profiles
• Pace and running-style trends for June
• Trainer angles from Haggas, Gosden, Burke, Hannon, Fanshawe and others
• Analysis of the strongest races of the month

If you're interested in using sectional data to find winners before the market catches up, the full breakdown is available here:

substack.com

Horses to Follow — May 2026 Turf Flat Analysis

RaceIQ Metrics and Sectionals spotlight the Hidden Performers that the Market Missed
substack.com substack.com


I'd be interested to hear which horses others have marked down from May's turf action.
Click to expand...
This is really good information Dave. Thanks for sharing.
 
Sullybomb said:
Excellent write up and work Dave Dave

Bookmarked this for sure. :text-goodpost:
Click to expand...
Thanks Sullybomb Sullybomb much appreciated.

Two winners at Epsom this afternoon from my top 10 in the May Horses To Follow.

SPARKS FLY 1st @ 7/2

BAY CITY ROLLER 1st @ 17/2

Were you on them? I was, especially with the recent rain at Epsom.

If you have already then check out the full list on my Substack. Simply click the link below and subscribe if you don’t want to miss articles.

substack.com

Horses to Follow — May 2026 Turf Flat Analysis

RaceIQ Metrics and Sectionals spotlight the Hidden Performers that the Market Missed
substack.com substack.com
 
tacker said:
Fascinating post Dave Dave and look forward to scrutinise it further when i have the time but we discussed FINISHING SPEED % recently and i was persuaded by others that it's of little worth, i'm easily led at the best of times so how can you convince me they were wrong ?
Click to expand...
T tacker
I think the mistake is dismissing Finishing Speed % altogether rather than understanding what it’s actually telling us.

FSP% is a very useful metric, but only when viewed in the context of how the race was run.

A slowly run race will often produce very high FSP figures because the field has conserved energy before sprinting late. In those circumstances, a horse posting 105%+ FSP may simply be benefiting from the race shape rather than demonstrating exceptional ability. Taken in isolation, the figure can be misleading.

Where I find FSP% most valuable is when it occurs alongside evidence that the race was genuinely run at a strong pace. If the race records a negative Vs Par figure, indicating a faster-than-par overall performance, has a better-than-average time index for the meeting, and shows strong sectional strength, then a high FSP becomes far more meaningful. The horse is not just sprinting off a crawl; it’s sustaining a strong finishing effort after a properly run race.

To me, FSP% is not a standalone rating. It’s a diagnostic tool. It helps identify how a performance was achieved. The key is combining it with pace, overall time, Vs Par, time index and sectional data. When all those factors point in the same direction, FSP can highlight performances that are genuinely above average and potentially worth following.

So I’d argue that FSP% isn’t of little worth at all. The problem comes when people use it without considering the race context.
 
Dave said:
T tacker
I think the mistake is dismissing Finishing Speed % altogether rather than understanding what it’s actually telling us.

FSP% is a very useful metric, but only when viewed in the context of how the race was run.

A slowly run race will often produce very high FSP figures because the field has conserved energy before sprinting late. In those circumstances, a horse posting 105%+ FSP may simply be benefiting from the race shape rather than demonstrating exceptional ability. Taken in isolation, the figure can be misleading.

Where I find FSP% most valuable is when it occurs alongside evidence that the race was genuinely run at a strong pace. If the race records a negative Vs Par figure, indicating a faster-than-par overall performance, has a better-than-average time index for the meeting, and shows strong sectional strength, then a high FSP becomes far more meaningful. The horse is not just sprinting off a crawl; it’s sustaining a strong finishing effort after a properly run race.

To me, FSP% is not a standalone rating. It’s a diagnostic tool. It helps identify how a performance was achieved. The key is combining it with pace, overall time, Vs Par, time index and sectional data. When all those factors point in the same direction, FSP can highlight performances that are genuinely above average and potentially worth following.

So I’d argue that FSP% isn’t of little worth at all. The problem comes when people use it without considering the race context.
Click to expand...
All these data points like sectional times, FSP% , fastest stride, longest stride , top speed , average speed finish speed etc etc all need to be contextualised, all these metrics are influenced by others, you would need years of data and research to understand how one affects another, how each are effected by course and distance and going and pace and what happened in previous sections and what happened at the start and everything. Some geeks with maths degrees working for syndicates with years of data at their fingertips might have some chance of balancing it all out and turning them all into useful metric, you, me and anyone just looking at the numbers for one race will just see numbers imo, nothing more.
 
Outlander said:
All these data points like sectional times, FSP% , fastest stride, longest stride , top speed , average speed finish speed etc etc all need to be contextualised, all these metrics are influenced by others, you would need years of data and research to understand how one affects another, how each are effected by course and distance and going and pace and what happened in previous sections and what happened at the start and everything. Some geeks with maths degrees working for syndicates with years of data at their fingertips might have some chance of balancing it all out and turning them all into useful metric, you, me and anyone just looking at the numbers for one race will just see numbers imo, nothing more.
Click to expand...
O Outlander

I agree that context is critical. No serious analyst would look at a single metric from a single race and assume it tells the whole story. I certainly don’t.

But the same argument applies to almost every piece of racing data. A finishing time, an RPR, a speed figure, a handicap mark or even a visual impression all need to be interpreted in the context of course, distance, going, pace and race shape.

The question isn’t whether sectional times, stride data or FSP% need context as they clearly do. The question is whether they provide additional information once that context is considered.

What RaceiQ is doing is giving us access to data that wasn’t previously available. We don’t need to fully model every interaction between every variable for the data to have value. If a horse repeatedly records exceptional finishing speeds, unusual stride characteristics or strong sectionals relative to comparable races, that can be informative even if it’s not a complete predictive model.

The large syndicates and data teams may well extract more value because they have bigger datasets and more sophisticated modelling. But that doesn’t automatically make the information useless for everyone else. Most punters already use imperfect indicators and try to combine them with experience, form study and race reading.

For me, RaceiQ isn’t about replacing traditional analysis. It’s another piece of evidence that can help explain what happened in a race and sometimes highlight horses whose performance was better or worse than the bare result suggests.

I still watch loads of races, use Speed Ratings/Figures, pace and draw and look for reasons why a horse won’t or shouldn’t win. I personally have embraced the RaceIQ data as I feel it enhances what I already use when analysing races and it’s free. I’m a firm believer that the clock doesn’t lie.

Cheers Dave
 
Dave said:
O Outlander

I agree that context is critical. No serious analyst would look at a single metric from a single race and assume it tells the whole story. I certainly don’t.

But the same argument applies to almost every piece of racing data. A finishing time, an RPR, a speed figure, a handicap mark or even a visual impression all need to be interpreted in the context of course, distance, going, pace and race shape.

The question isn’t whether sectional times, stride data or FSP% need context as they clearly do. The question is whether they provide additional information once that context is considered.

What RaceiQ is doing is giving us access to data that wasn’t previously available. We don’t need to fully model every interaction between every variable for the data to have value. If a horse repeatedly records exceptional finishing speeds, unusual stride characteristics or strong sectionals relative to comparable races, that can be informative even if it’s not a complete predictive model.

The large syndicates and data teams may well extract more value because they have bigger datasets and more sophisticated modelling. But that doesn’t automatically make the information useless for everyone else. Most punters already use imperfect indicators and try to combine them with experience, form study and race reading.

For me, RaceiQ isn’t about replacing traditional analysis. It’s another piece of evidence that can help explain what happened in a race and sometimes highlight horses whose performance was better or worse than the bare result suggests.

I still watch loads of races, use Speed Ratings/Figures, pace and draw and look for reasons why a horse won’t or shouldn’t win. I personally have embraced the RaceIQ data as I feel it enhances what I already use when analysing races and it’s free. I’m a firm believer that the clock doesn’t lie.

Cheers Dave
Click to expand...
Agree basically good points, well written, I think my generally point is they are presented in a way that can’t be easily collected , so a horse has a FSP% 105 another FSP% 99 without checking many other factors we can’t be sure 105 is faster finisher than 99, therefore looking at this figure and others like it are not that useful without all the past data.
 
Another winner from the Horses To Follow

Doncaster 3:05
Any Which Way 1st @ 9/4

Any Which Way (M L W Bell) — Windsor, 18 May, 1m3f, Class 5, 2nd, 1.25L, FSP% 109.98, Vs.Par −1.41. Outstanding FSP% for a Class 5 staying contest. Strong-rated race. Bell’s stayer looks seriously good value in similar or stronger company.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top