• 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

Speed figure query

AustinDillon75

AustinDillon75

Colt
I am still, still experimenting with various attempts at ratings and have gone back to looking at speed figures, starting on all weather, where in theory the variances should be less. Bear with me a bit on this.

I have tried to rate the Lingfield meeting of January 30th. The results would imply at first glance slower going as the meeting went on, on the other hand, it might suggest some very slowly run tactical affairs. After weight is factored in, I got the following figures for each race.

1400
Sparring 35
Monaleen 51
Russian Blue 31
This race was a maiden over 1 mile 2 furlongs and no horses had an OR. The winning time was some 7 seconds slower than the standard.

1435
The Wee Chief 85 (OR 52)
Encapsulated 72 (OR 52)
Waterloo Dock 77 (OR 51)
This was a six furlong Class 6 sprint and rightly or wrongly I would have expected horses of this poor standard to complete this race in around 73 seconds, standard time 69.6 but actual time 71.37s.

1510
Prince of Paris 24 (OR 82)
Steady Major 18 (OR 78)
Offshore 11 (OR 72)
This race was also over 1 mile 2 furlongs and was some 10.5 seconds slower than standard.

If you take the two outer races it would be leading to the conclusion of a slow track but I don't think its borne out by the 1435 which was run quickly. In the midst of this I am trying to afford a going allowance that reflects a tracks changing nature of the course of the meeting and not a standard correction.

So my questions are these...

1 if we are using speed ratings do we just have to accept that the figures for these races are useless in some respects, because the differences in time cannot be the going, just the speed of the races.

2 is there any other form of correction one might use to make these more realistic, for example its inconceivable that The Wee Chief is really 35lb better than his rating, and his figure must be inflated by how slow other races were on the card. Prince of Paris would not be a 24 rated horse either.

Any thoughts welcome...
 
AustinDillon75 Faxy Fowler

Lingfield (AW)
30-Jan-15
01:00 Elusive Ellen 7f 34
01:30 Feb Thirtyfirst 2m 38
02:00 Sparring 1m2f 15
02:35 The Wee Chief 6f 63
03:10 Prince Of Paris 1m2f 2
03:45 Le Rouquin 1m 52
04:15 Estibdaad 1m4f 43

I had the going that day on the day at +0.22s/f (standard to fast), and as you said, several of the races were slowly run.
Looking at the 2.35 I had The Wee Chief improving his official mark on the day by 11lbs with a speed figure of 63, if I didn't
factor in the going allowance, his speed figure on the day would have been 82, similar to your figure of 85.
I have read more than once that on the AW there is no need for a going allowance, as the going stays the same, if you look at
my AW going allowance table you will see that this is an incorrect statement.

AW going allowance table:
Fast +0.50s/f
Stand/Fast +0.18s/f to +0.40s/f
Standard -0.15s/f to +0.15s/f
Stand/Slow -0.48s/f to -0.18s/f
Slow -0.70s/f to -0.50s/f

If you look at the link below, you will find every going allowance and speed rating I have awarded on every race going back to Jan 2013,
unhide column "N" to see the raw speed figure before they are adjusted to 9-0 and a base rate of 100 on the flat, and 11-0 and
a base rate of 130 over the jumps, the going allowance adjustment is column "H".

http://tinyurl.com/lad34ps

Looking at Dave Edwards speed figure for The Wee Chief he awarded him a figure of 59.

Mike.
 
Last edited:
TheBluesBrother TheBluesBrother

Big thanks for that.
I see you had a going calc of 0.22s per furlong, how have you come to that conclusion, would you have just excluded those two slowly run races?

In addition, I am trying to figure out a variable going calculation based on the possibility that it could be bone dry at 2pm and a quagmire 2 hours later, is this something you would look at when compiling your figures?
 
Faxy Fowler said:
TheBluesBrother TheBluesBrother
Big thanks for that.
I see you had a going calc of 0.22s per furlong, how have you come to that conclusion, would you have just excluded those two slowly run races?
In addition, I am trying to figure out a variable going calculation based on the possibility that it could be bone dry at 2pm and a quagmire 2 hours later, is this something you would look at when compiling your figures?
Click to expand...

When I calculate the going allowance, I normally take the average between the 3 fastest times and their official handicap marks where possible.

Most books on speed figures never mention that the majority of time, racecourses like Newbury will have 2 going allowances, one for the straight course and another for on round course.

I look for trends during the meeting, especially when it has been raining, by looking at the comparison per furlong figures, to see if the going is slowing the horses down, once at Chester
I had 4 going allowances to adjust the speed figures due to torrential rain throughout the meeting.

Over the years I have developed a few tools I use, like the pounds per length figures which takes into account the different course configuration using the standard times, I have a RPR/OR conversion
table which I use for the French and Irish racing, going allowance tables, a set of class pars and a host of other variables in my tool box.

To explain in detail in what I do would take a book, every day you face new challenges, especially in Ireland when you have a combination of slow run races and bottomless ground, I have even spent
up to an hour calculating the going allowance just on one meeting.

Mike.
 
Last edited:
AustinDillon75 Faxy Fowler

In the above post I mentioned that you can have problems regarding Irish going, at Limerick yesterday was a classic.

The ground was said to be on the slow side of good by Colm O´Donoghue and Billy Lee and slower in the home straight
than anywhere else. An ordinary 3yo maiden to kickstart the card and the winner made all under a good ride from Wayne Lordan.
The first three pulled nicely clear in the closing stages.

When I worked out the going allowance I am looking at a figure of +0.50s/f (firm), So there is an issue here 1) the standard times need looking at 2) the
advertised race distances are incorrect or 3) the jockeys going description is incorrect.

Looking at the speed figures for the meeting and after my going allowance adjustment of +0.50s/f, they look correct to me...

Mike.
 
Last edited:
TheBluesBrother TheBluesBrother

Many thanks again. You've given me some really good ideas there. I will have another look at that meeting and see what figures come about once I've had another play.

For that meeting I also had the following:

Elusive Ellen 54
Febthirtyfirst 57
Le Rouquin 75
Estibdaad 69

I am intending on doing a spreadsheet tab for each course on which I paste the results and it crunches the numbers but I want to concentrate on mastering a single track first and it just happens to be this one. For three or four meetings at Lingfield I was getting plausible results but this meeting threw it all a bit so I am going to keep perservering.
 
TheBluesBrother TheBluesBrother
Thanks again. I've decided on a couple of adjustments to my figures.

1. I've decided a second is equal to 5.5 lengths, rather than 5. Just my own opinion on lengths/second!

2. I've used the Racing Post WFA, it occurred to me that the two slowly run races were by 3yos over 10f in January and getting close to standard cannot be reasonably expected. Those two winners would receive 19lb at this time of year so logically, if working to around 1.5lb/length its going to be 19/1.5 = 12.66 lengths, and therefore 12.66/5.5 = 2.30 seconds. In the case of Prince of Paris, his rating of 83 would drop to 64 and as he is carrying 133lb, he might be expected to complete the course in the speed of a horse rated 57, so the going adjustment reflects a 57 rated rather than 83 rated winner.

3. I've come out with a -0.20s/f going rating based on your principle of taking the three fastest races but I have put a line through all the races and it suggests on balance that the going slightly quickened if anything throughout the day despite the slow run 10f races to the point where the early races achieve -0.10s/f and later in the day it would have been around -0.19s/f.

4. I've put the Racing Post WFA for younger horses back on at the end so all ratings relate to a mature horse at that scale.

The winning ratings now look like this.

1300 Elusive Ellen 41
1330 Feb Thirtyfirst 41
1400 Sparring 34
1435 The Wee Chief 65 (still 13lb well in)
1510 Prince of Paris 16
1545 Le Rouquin 66 (7lb above OR)
1615 Estibdaad 47

To me these seem more realistic now. Le Rouqoin would be rated 51 at this stage if his weight allowance was not taken on board so maybe something I will give further thought to as it places first five all above their rating in a race that has not panned out at all.
 
Keep thinking of new logic here...

I am toying with producing two separate ratings, one which is pure speed, based on time and going adjustment, and a figure resembling the official rating which moves on taking class, weight carried and WFA into account. I imagine this would go some way to giving me two sets of figures which will identify horses that do their best in truly run races and others who prefer a slower pace. Appreciate that going and race conditions can have impact but that is something that needs to be judged seperately.

So I have figures for this meeting as follows (ordered by way of speed rating, official rating and my own OR):

1300 Elusive Ellen Speed 70 OR 62 My Rating 76
1330 Feb Thirtyfirst Speed 59 OR 46 My Rating 58
1400 Sparring Speed 45 OR 50 My Rating 61
1435 The Wee Chief Speed 73 OR 52 My Rating 63
1510 Prince of Paris Speed 16 OR 83 My Rating 85
1545 Le Rouquin Speed 65 OR 62 My Rating 65
1615 Estibdaad Speed 42 OR 60 My Rating 66

For speed ratings no horse that's first past the post can have a lower rating than any of its rivals.
My own ratings will have some general consistency with the ORs and are likely to be more constant.

I am going to do this same exercise now for the recent AW Championship day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top