• 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.
 
Very often i think it's fair to say that when two people have a reasoned argument/debate on what is a complexed matter like FS% i feel myself swayed by both, want to side with Dave Dave but can't ignore the points made by O Outlander who is the member that persuaded me in the first place.
Both seem to have settled on " context" and i feel that's the correct analysis but still leaves room for disagreement, so i've picked a horse off the list I'M THE ONE

At the time i felt the pace was slow and turned into a bit of a sprint, looking at the sectionals and colour coding i feel there's evidence to suggest that's what occured.

If the race was run faster that " par " then yes there is something to take out of the race but to be honest i have my doubts.

Then we need to consider the FS% ....109.15 ?

My judgement is that this high number was a result of a slow early pace and not to be taken too seriously within the context of this discussion.

Also i would say I'M THE ONE is better than she looked there and hopefully gets back from injury to prove it.

ps...will now try and find a horse that i can agree with from the list.
 
Last edited:
tacker said:
Very often i think it's fair to say that when two people have a reasoned argument/debate on what is a complexed matter like FS% i feel myself swayed by both, want to side with Dave Dave but can't ignore the points made by O Outlander who is the member that persuaded me in the first place.
Both seem to have settled on " context" and i feel that's the correct analysis but still leaves room for disagreement, so i've picked a horse off the list I'M THE ONE

At the time i felt the pace was slow and turned into a bit of a sprint, looking at the sectionals and colour coding i feel there's evidence to suggest that's what occured.

If the race was run faster that " par " then yes there is something to take out of the race but to be honest i have my doubts.

Then we need to consider the FS% ....109.15 ?

My judgement is that this high number was a result of a slow early pace and not to be taken too seriously within the context of this discussion.

Also i would say I'M THE ONE is better than she looked there and hopefully gets back from injury to prove it.

ps...will now try and find a horse that i can agree with from the list.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty busy at the moment but I will come back to this when I have the time to respond.
 
T tacker (My judgement is that this high number was a result of a slow early pace and not to be taken too seriously within the context of this discussion.

Also I would say I'M THE ONE is better than she looked there and hopefully gets back from injury to prove it.)

This race provides an unusually clean illustration of the FSP% contextualisation argument because the field was small, the race shape was simple, and the positional data is unambiguous.

The three horses with the highest FSP% (108.11%, 107.87%, 107.81%) were held up in last, second-last and third-last for eight of eleven furlongs. The two horses with the lowest FSP% (105.63%, 105.25%) led or tracked the pace for the full eleven furlongs. Your Judgement was correct

The FSP% gap between first and last in this race is 2.86 percentage points. In a race context, that is a modest difference — certainly not the gulf it might appear if read as a raw number. More importantly, the two horses with lower FSP% were running genuinely for three furlongs more than the horses above them in the FSP% ranking. If you equalised for the energy expenditure — asked the hold-up horses to run three extra furlongs at the same pace before measuring the closing sectionals — the FSP% hierarchy would likely look very different.

FSP% is at its most useful as a comparative tool when horses in a race have been under comparable pressure for comparable durations. In large-field sprint handicaps over 5f, that is broadly true — everyone is racing hard from the outset and the closing FSP% reflects genuine finishing quality. In small-field, strongly-run middle-distance races with a clear divide between front-runners and hold-up horses, FSP% is measuring different things for different horses, and comparing the figures without accounting for that is analytically incomplete.

I personally really like the FSP% metric in sprint races and in true run races. I have detailed the finishing strength in my book which was aim at the AW sprints. Newcastle Sprints in particular the FSP% is an important metrics. Sprints in general are rarely run at a dawdle so you are more likely to get a true run race and the FSP% then is a genuine gauge of the finishing quality.

The FSP% metric is not wrong, it is simply a tool that requires the same contextual intelligence as any other piece of data. A hammer is not a poor tool. It is a poor tool for a screw.

I'm certainly not trying to say any race where a horse records a really high FSP% is a horse that should be followed. We have to look at the sectional data to establish if the race was a true run race or they simply sprinted the final few furlongs as they had run slow in the first half of the race conserving energy ready for the dash to the finishing line.
 

I backed the winner of this race Dave Dave but then having studied the replay, sectionals and considering your FS% points came to the conclusion DRYBURGH might be worth a place on your list.

To be honest i might be misunderstanding the basics of this conversation and being over reliant on the form reading aspect rather than spirit of your debate with O Outlander , i say this because having gone through the list i couldn't find a real and solid example.
 
I'm The One (Hidden Forgiveness Upgrade):


As the 6/5 favorite, she was visually beaten by 2 lengths, but the math proves she ran a massive race. She stumbled at the start (conceding +0.50s immediately) and was forced to run wide on the home turn—death at Chester. Despite giving away ground and navigating the worst of the track, she still fired an elite 11.42s final furlong. On a more conventional, galloping track like Ascot (for the Ribblesdale) or Epsom, where she won't be penalized as heavily for early greenness, she is a massive danger.

Was in my Pedigree Rising Stars Thread


Chesham [IMG alt="Chesham"]https://www.theukbettingforum.co.uk/XenForo/data/avatars/m/0/54.jpg?1378942032[/IMG]

Chesham Chesham​

Sire​

I'm The One (GB) is a 3-year-old filly possessing a flawless, stamina-drenched European pedigree. Sired by the generational titan Sea The Stars and out of a Group 1-winning Camelot mare, she hails from the legendary German "S" family of Gestüt Fährhof. She is genetically engineered for elite 1m 4f+ (12 furlongs and beyond) middle-distance turf tests. Given her late-maturing, staying bloodlines, it is entirely expected that she remained unraced at two, and she profiles as a high-class prospect for the major summer and autumn fillies' Stakes races.

Sire Profile: Sea The Stars (IRE)​

Sea The Stars is an absolute pillar of the European stud book.

  • Progeny Traits: He consistently stamps his stock with immense physical scope, cardiovascular capacity, and a devastatingly long, galloping stride. His elite progeny (Baaeed, Stradivarius, Harzand) are renowned for their toughness and their ability to sustain high cruising speeds over middle and staying distances.
  • Conditions: Highly versatile, his stock are elite on turf and handle varied ground conditions beautifully, though they generally appreciate a galloping track where they can fully unfurl their massive strides.

Female Line (Dam & Broodmare Sire)​

The maternal side of this pedigree represents pure, unadulterated German stamina and elite international class.

  • The Broodmare Sire (Camelot): A Derby winner who carries the Sadler's Wells/Montjeu bloodline, Camelot is a supreme source of turf class, stamina, and durability as a broodmare sire.
  • The Dam (Sunny Queen): She was a top-class racehorse in her own right, winning the Group 1 Grosser Preis von Bayern in Germany over 1m 4f. This proves the immediate dam possessed elite, grinding stamina.
  • The Deep Family (The German "S" Line): The third dam, Suivez, is the foundation of one of the most potent families in global racing. This immediate bloodline has produced an astonishing number of international Group 1 winners, including Stacelita (French Oaks, Beverly D. Stakes), Soul Stirring (Japanese Champion), Stars On Earth (Japanese Oaks), and recent French sensation Sparkling Plenty (Prix de Diane).

The Cross/Nick​

Sea The Stars (Green Desert line) x Camelot (Sadler's Wells/Montjeu line) This is a highly deliberate, top-tier middle-distance mating.

  • The Blend: It layers the brilliant, rhythmic galloping power of Sea The Stars over the deep, grinding German/Montjeu stamina of Camelot.
  • Result: It creates a physically imposing horse with bottomless stamina reserves. This filly will likely find 1m 2f too sharp and will only reach her absolute peak when pushed out to 1m 4f and beyond. She is bred to outstay her rivals in truly run, attritional tests.

Conditions Suitability​

Based strictly on her elite genetic blueprint:

  • Distance: 1m 4f (12 furlongs) and further. The pedigree screams extreme stamina. She is a prototypical Oaks or St. Leger type on paper.
  • Ground/Going: Versatile (Soft ground is a major plus). Both Sea The Stars and the German maternal line suggest she will handle, and likely relish, heavy cut in the ground. Heavy stamina tests on soft turf are where this family traditionally dominates.
  • Track Type: Galloping tracks. A long, sweeping straight is required for her to balance up and utilize her grinding, galloping stride.

Form & Tracker Data​

As an unraced filly, she does not yet possess the historical tracking metrics required for the pre-race evaluation. The locked-in summary chart structure is prepared below and will be populated once she commences her racing career.

IMG_0138.jpeg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top