• Hi Guest, The forum will be moving hosts on 26 July and as such will be closed from Midday until the move has completed.
    As we will be with new hosts it may take a while before DNS get updated so it could take while before you can get back on the forum.
    I think it will take at least 4 hours but could easily be 48!
    Ark Royal
  • There seems to be a problem with some alerts not being emailed to members. I have told the hosts and they are investigating.
  • Hi Guest Just in case you were not aware I wanted to highlight that you can now get a 20% discount on Inform Racing.
    Simply enter the coupon code ukbettingform when subscribing here.
    We have a lot of members who are existing users of Inform Racing so help is always available if needed.
    Best Wishes
    AR
  • Sorry for the ongoing issues that you may have been experiencing whilst using the forum lately

    It really is frustrating when the forum slows down or Server Error 500 pops up.

    Apparently the hosts acknowledge there is a problem.
    Thank you for using our services and sorry for the experienced delay!
    Unfortunately, these errors are due to a higher server load. Our senior department knows about the issue and they are working towards a permanent resolution of the issue, however, I'd advise you to consider using our new cPanel cloud solutions: https://www.tsohost.com/web-hosting


    I will have to investigate what the differences are with what We have know compared to the alternative service they want us to migrate to.
    Keep safe.
    AR

Standard Times

This thread Approaching speed figures took an unexpected turn so having read some of the posts and in particular, some observations over Dubai Warrior and Bangkok's respective merits, I've decided to have another look at standard times for Lingfield.

The table below converts all winning times from 2019 into a 100 rating. The top time is 117.98 by a horse called Affluence, a fairly muddling horse who had some success in Class 5/6 across both flat and all weather.

He won the race on 8 March off a rating of 50. He was carrying 9st 5.
Winning time was a very respectable 2 mins 03.65 seconds (123.65).

If a 100 horse he'd have assumedly run 55lb better (100 - 50 + 5).
200 / 123.3 = 1.62 (lb per length)
55lb / 1.62 = 34.00
34 / 6 (6 seconds per length) = 5.67 seconds

So 123.3 - 5.67 = 117.98. That tops the table of 35 wins over that distance by horses in 2019 below, but with a -1.94 Z-Score, I've discarded it.

1620546470333.png
So only runs 4-32 are included, as I've omitted 33-35 (+1.5 Z-score).
The percentile ranges for 4-32 are below:

1620547075564.png
The 121.20 time right in the middle looks pretty good to me. My previous times were based on a 6th percentile of ALL runners, it might be giving too much to speculation when considering some will not have run to form whereas winners are likely to have done and the outliers can still be discounted. I think I'm going to re-think the standard times around this premise.
 
Last edited:
Revised set for Lingfield. Don't ask me why the 121.20 is now 121.05 - I haven't a clue. However it does align with most distances having a larger standard time to the tune of 0.07 seconds per furlong. At 10 furlongs that might not seem much but it results in 0.7 seconds per furlong which is 4.2 lengths at 6 secs/ furlong.

1620548740805.png
 

db1

Yearling
Revised set for Lingfield. Don't ask me why the 121.20 is now 121.05 - I haven't a clue. However it does align with most distances having a larger standard time to the tune of 0.07 seconds per furlong. At 10 furlongs that might not seem much but it results in 0.7 seconds per furlong which is 4.2 lengths at 6 secs/ furlong.

View attachment 100122
AustinDillon75 AustinDillon75

I'm a complete novice at the moment in compiling speed figures and I'm currently using RP standard times but I'm interested in knowing when creating your standard times like the above are you using purely the fastest 'X' amount of times? Or is that some filter involved like no 2yo or 3yo times, times only count on standard going etc?
 

Larry

Mare
AustinDillon75 AustinDillon75

This week's racing was a pure nightmare, including the Irish meetings there were a total of 45 meetings with no punters allowed, this has to be a record?
Working on yesterday's 9 meetings took me 5 hours, it's a bloody nightmare.

View attachment 100123

Mike.
I honestly admire you TheBluesBrother TheBluesBrother & all the other speed guru's I have neither the time or the patience or intelligence to do what you do but when I've picked my horses yours is 1 of the reference points I put a lot of faith in, thank you TheBluesBrother TheBluesBrother O Outlander davejb davejb & many others who are a great part of this forum
 
AustinDillon75 AustinDillon75

I'm a complete novice at the moment in compiling speed figures and I'm currently using RP standard times but I'm interested in knowing when creating your standard times like the above are you using purely the fastest 'X' amount of times? Or is that some filter involved like no 2yo or 3yo times, times only count on standard going etc?
The ones I posted previously are the 6th percentile of all 2019 runners adjusted to 100 rating but only counting 4yos and horses finishing within 5 lengths of the winner at 5f, 6 lengths at 6f, and so on. I take all going on board but could easily get rid of anything not standard given 95% of meetings seem to have that going quoted.

The latest Lingfield ones were just the 2019 winners adjusted to 100 but taking the middle performer after getting rid of outliers. I am likely given the former takes more performances into account to adjust from the 6th percentile to a slightly lower one going forward. I'm pleased with the order of performances but just not how they equate from track to track at present.
 

Outlander

Gelding
The ones I posted previously are the 6th percentile of all 2019 runners adjusted to 100 rating but only counting 4yos and horses finishing within 5 lengths of the winner at 5f, 6 lengths at 6f, and so on. I take all going on board but could easily get rid of anything not standard given 95% of meetings seem to have that going quoted.

The latest Lingfield ones were just the 2019 winners adjusted to 100 but taking the middle performer after getting rid of outliers. I am likely given the former takes more performances into account to adjust from the 6th percentile to a slightly lower one going forward. I'm pleased with the order of performances but just not how they equate from track to track at present.
AustinDillon75 AustinDillon75 One thing I don’t understand, why are you reluctant to use times recorded after the season you are rating ?
You need as much data as possible so even if I was starting rating 2020 I would include 2020 and 2021 times in my data for calculating standards , its not cheating you are using everything available to get the most data you can to establish your standards then you can use them to go back and retrospectively rate past races.
When you start rating turf races lack of data will be more of a problem, no point in going back past 2017 when courses were remeasured and not 100s of meetings a year at the turf tracks , so you will need all the useable data you can get.
 
AustinDillon75 AustinDillon75 One thing I don’t understand, why are you reluctant to use times recorded after the season you are rating ?
You need as much data as possible so even if I was starting rating 2020 I would include 2020 and 2021 times in my data for calculating standards , its not cheating you are using everything available to get the most data you can to establish your standards then you can use them to go back and retrospectively rate past races.
When you start rating turf races lack of data will be more of a problem, no point in going back past 2017 when courses were remeasured and not 100s of meetings a year at the turf tracks , so you will need all the useable data you can get.
I don't really have a problem doing it that way at all. What you suggest sounds a bit like two for the price of one, as standard times change ratings change with them so I can actually do that quite easily. I could grab everything for instance from Dundalk since the track was relaid last year and everything since Newcastle started.
 

Outlander

Gelding
I don't really have a problem doing it that way at all. What you suggest sounds a bit like two for the price of one, as standard times change ratings change with them so I can actually do that quite easily. I could grab everything for instance from Dundalk since the track was relaid last year and everything since Newcastle started.
I wouldn’t worry about using only time since Dundalk was relaid, tits the same track, same surface.
A re-laid track under these circumstances might ride differently for a couple of meetings and then settle down.
Looking at my going allowances using the exact same standards for each meeting I can’t really detect any change at the course worth worrying about, I would use all data since 2017 if I were calculating standards.

attached Dundalk going allowances since 2017
 

Attachments

  • dundalk ga.xlsx
    13 KB · Views: 0

Outlander

Gelding
AustinDillon75 AustinDillon75 You can see from my attachment Dundalk rode really slow the first 2 meetings after lockdown, my guess track was re-laid during lockdown, then reverted to the type of numbers you would expect.
 

The Hare

Filly
@ AustinDillon75 AustinDillon75
Great work by you all. Not being picky - just think this might be incorrect:

He won the race on 8 March off a rating of 50. He was carrying 9st 5.
Winning time was a very respectable 2 mins 03.65 seconds (123.65).

If a 100 horse he'd have assumedly run 55lb better (100 - 50 + 5).

I am assuming you are calculating these weights to a horse carrying 126lbs (9stone). In this case the +5 should be a -5, a 50 horse carrying (-05 would be the equivalent of a 55 horse at 9-00.

Hope this helps, won't make much difference but could for low weights.

Good work

Kevin
 

Outlander

Gelding
@ AustinDillon75 AustinDillon75
Great work by you all. Not being picky - just think this might be incorrect:



I am assuming you are calculating these weights to a horse carrying 126lbs (9stone). In this case the +5 should be a -5, a 50 horse carrying (-05 would be the equivalent of a 55 horse at 9-00.

Hope this helps, won't make much difference but could for low weights.

Good work

Kevin
Can’t get my head around this I agree with 55lb faster that AustinDillon75 AustinDillon75 suggests.
if the horse carried 9st 5lb we could assume he would run the race faster by equivalent of 5lb if he only carried 9st , also if he was 100 horse he would run the race 50lb faster than if he were a 50 horse.
So if he were a 100 carrying 9st i would say he would run 55lb faster than if he were a 50 horse with 9st 5lb ?
 

markfinn

Sire
How do speed figs / pace / sectionals deal with tactical racing. I would guess that races where multiple runners from same stables in the higher classes would be best to research.
 
I am assuming you are calculating these weights to a horse carrying 126lbs (9stone). In this case the +5 should be a -5, a 50 horse carrying (-05 would be the equivalent of a 55 horse at 9-00.
I have been trying to get my head around some of these posts' confusion rules.

Regarding the issue of a horse carrying 9-5 working from the flat base rate of 9-0, then it is +5lbs, only people like Dave Bellingham (Raceform) would use -5lbs, mind you if you see his class pars you would understand where I am coming from.

pars.png

Attached are my class totals.

Mike.
 

Attachments

  • ClassTotals.xlsx
    13.8 KB · Views: 24

The Hare

Filly
Can’t get my head around this I agree with 55lb faster that @
AustinDillon75
AustinDillon75 suggests.
if the horse carried 9st 5lb we could assume he would run the race faster by equivalent of 5lb if he only carried 9st , also if he was 100 horse he would run the race 50lb faster than if he were a 50 horse.
So if he were a 100 carrying 9st i would say he would run 55lb faster than if he were a 50 horse with 9st 5lb ?
Sorry you are totally correct ! My error, apologies.
 

davejb

Mare
It's very easily done when you are working out what to add and subtract for various differences from the 'standard horse', I invariably end up saying to myself 'if he carried more weight than 9-0 then he would have run faster at 9-0# and so so forth, just to make sure I don't lose sight of what I'm trying to find out.

Otherwise you start seeing 150 rated horses winning sellers....that is, in my experience, often a sign that something in your calculation went amiss.

Dave
 

tacker

Mare
This thread Approaching speed figures took an unexpected turn so having read some of the posts and in particular, some observations over Dubai Warrior and Bangkok's respective merits, I've decided to have another look at standard times for Lingfield.

The table below converts all winning times from 2019 into a 100 rating. The top time is 117.98 by a horse called Affluence, a fairly muddling horse who had some success in Class 5/6 across both flat and all weather.

He won the race on 8 March off a rating of 50. He was carrying 9st 5.
Winning time was a very respectable 2 mins 03.65 seconds (123.65).

If a 100 horse he'd have assumedly run 55lb better (100 - 50 + 5).
200 / 123.3 = 1.62 (lb per length)
55lb / 1.62 = 34.00
34 / 6 (6 seconds per length) = 5.67 seconds

So 123.3 - 5.67 = 117.98. That tops the table of 35 wins over that distance by horses in 2019 below, but with a -1.94 Z-Score, I've discarded it.

View attachment 100118
So only runs 4-32 are included, as I've omitted 33-35 (+1.5 Z-score).
The percentile ranges for 4-32 are below:

View attachment 100120
The 121.20 time right in the middle looks pretty good to me. My previous times were based on a 6th percentile of ALL runners, it might be giving too much to speculation when considering some will not have run to form whereas winners are likely to have done and the outliers can still be discounted. I think I'm going to re-think the standard times around this premise.
I remember this horse AFFLUENCE and just looking back at the form , his next race was 2m hdl huntingdon, if this time was so good you wonder why they never tried the horse over the 10f ling aw again.
So rated 50 and carrying 9.5 running in a class6 , if this is considered to be the top time it makes me wonder about "weight carried", i mean what if he had a stone less on his back, or 2 stone , there must surely be a point that a horse can't run any faster regardless of what weight he is carrying ? The logic of all this started to get me thinking about 5f epsom and a horse without a jockey, how fast could it run and what speed figure could it achieve in theory ?
 
I remember this horse AFFLUENCE and just looking back at the form , his next race was 2m hdl huntingdon, if this time was so good you wonder why they never tried the horse over the 10f ling aw again.
So rated 50 and carrying 9.5 running in a class6 , if this is considered to be the top time it makes me wonder about "weight carried", i mean what if he had a stone less on his back, or 2 stone , there must surely be a point that a horse can't run any faster regardless of what weight he is carrying ? The logic of all this started to get me thinking about 5f epsom and a horse without a jockey, how fast could it run and what speed figure could it achieve in theory ?
This is an exercise just for the purpose of equating everything to the theoretical 100 rated horse to establish some sort of standard time, so if a 50 rated horse is carrying 7 stone, it suggests that his time might be 78lb better than he actually achieved to get a 100 rating, so if its 3.9lb/length to keep it simple, he would have completed 20 lengths sooner and his time would be 4 seconds quicker (20 * 0.2).

Likewise the same horse carrying 10st would have 36lb removed from his actual time to achieve the 100 time so he's nearer to 10 lengths and probably the 100 horse will be around 2 seconds quicker.

If the resulting time proves absurd one way or another then it gets classed as an outlier as per the above method so can be dismissed.
 

tacker

Mare
This is an exercise just for the purpose of equating everything to the theoretical 100 rated horse to establish some sort of standard time, so if a 50 rated horse is carrying 7 stone, it suggests that his time might be 78lb better than he actually achieved to get a 100 rating, so if its 3.9lb/length to keep it simple, he would have completed 20 lengths sooner and his time would be 4 seconds quicker (20 * 0.2).

Likewise the same horse carrying 10st would have 36lb removed from his actual time to achieve the 100 time so he's nearer to 10 lengths and probably the 100 horse will be around 2 seconds quicker.

If the resulting time proves absurd one way or another then it gets classed as an outlier as per the above method so can be dismissed.
"outlier" ?
There is plenty of controversy regarding ARKLE rated 212 by timeform, i recall Ruby Walsh saying " there is no way any horse could have given 16lbs to KOUTO STAR, i think he was wrong but the problem for anyone who believes the figuers are correct is when we consider that ARKLE gave horses anywhere between 2 or 3 stone, these horses weren't mugs and would also give 2 stone away pro rata, so the problem arrives when handicapping horses to finish together is that ARKLE would need to give more that 6 stone away in theory.......
We know what the figures are telling us but something is not quite right, all academic but over to you AustinDillon75 AustinDillon75 .
 
Last edited:
"outlier" ?
There is plenty of controversy regarding ARKLE rated 212 by timeform, i recall Ruby Walsh saying " there is no way any horse could have given 16lbs to KOUTO STAR, i think he was wrong but the problem for anyone who believes the figuers are correct is when we consider that ARKLE gave horses anywhere between 2 or 3 stone, these horses weren't mugs and would also give 2 stone away pro rata, so the problem arrives when handicapping horses to finish together is that ARKLE would need to give more that 6 stone away in theory.......
We know what the figures are telling us but something is quite right, all academic but over to you AustinDillon75 AustinDillon75 .
The point of speed ratings as I understand it is we are working on what the clock tells us, and trying to produce standard times and going adjustments to quantify performances.
 
Top