AustinDillon75
Colt
After an educational few days reading and posting a few times the speed figures thread I've decided to have a go at producing some standard times for AW tracks. The way I've got these times is this:
1. I have found load of old HRB results downloaded but based this particular set on the 2019 times. I have most of the 2020 times too so its as simple as loading some more and my eventual idea was to perhaps take the previous season and adjust as the current season is ongoing.
2. The finishing time of each horse is converted to what it would likely have achieved carrying 9st and if it had an OR of 100.
3. Only horses aged 4 and over are included (as such it will include 4yo performances in 3yo+ races).
4. If the number of lengths beaten exceeds the number of furlongs in the race, the performance is discounted, so a horse beaten 7 lengths in a 5 furlong race is ignored, and horse beaten 20 lengths in a 12 furlong race are also ignored.
5. The 20th percentile of all runs is settled on - there are arguments for 10th, 20th, even the 50th percentile and I'm open to adjusting.
6. For each track, 10,000 sample random runs have been generated at each distance. Where the R-squared (which is always incredibly close to 1 either way) between the distances is better for observed races I've stuck with the observed races, where it appears more advantageous to use the random sample runs I've gone with those but typically, its only making differences of around +/- 0.1 seconds per furlong either way maximum.
I don't subscribe to RP, so it would be laborious to go through the race times and add their standards for comparison though from the ones I've seen they come quite close to around the 50th-65th percentile. Here's what happens to Wolverhampton when I run it from there. Lb/length barely actually changes, in truth, even when the longer 2 mile and a bit distance is 3 seconds slower.
I'm attaching my final times sheet. I can easily recalculate to different percentiles as per the above, and can answer any questions and provide tweaked calculations to suit. I'd have happily attached the actual working spreadsheet itself, but its 12MB and too big despite my efforts to reduce it.
I'd appreciate any views on these attempts and for seasoned speed compilers, will be interested in maybe how they compare with your own standards or way of working. I have become convinced that the investment in producing accurate standard times is well worth it and can offer something else over and above the average punter's armoury. The next step will be getting figures to work off the back of them. AW first, then flat, then NH. No quadrilateral exchanges or reliance on power trendlines at this stage.
1. I have found load of old HRB results downloaded but based this particular set on the 2019 times. I have most of the 2020 times too so its as simple as loading some more and my eventual idea was to perhaps take the previous season and adjust as the current season is ongoing.
2. The finishing time of each horse is converted to what it would likely have achieved carrying 9st and if it had an OR of 100.
3. Only horses aged 4 and over are included (as such it will include 4yo performances in 3yo+ races).
4. If the number of lengths beaten exceeds the number of furlongs in the race, the performance is discounted, so a horse beaten 7 lengths in a 5 furlong race is ignored, and horse beaten 20 lengths in a 12 furlong race are also ignored.
5. The 20th percentile of all runs is settled on - there are arguments for 10th, 20th, even the 50th percentile and I'm open to adjusting.
6. For each track, 10,000 sample random runs have been generated at each distance. Where the R-squared (which is always incredibly close to 1 either way) between the distances is better for observed races I've stuck with the observed races, where it appears more advantageous to use the random sample runs I've gone with those but typically, its only making differences of around +/- 0.1 seconds per furlong either way maximum.
I don't subscribe to RP, so it would be laborious to go through the race times and add their standards for comparison though from the ones I've seen they come quite close to around the 50th-65th percentile. Here's what happens to Wolverhampton when I run it from there. Lb/length barely actually changes, in truth, even when the longer 2 mile and a bit distance is 3 seconds slower.
I'm attaching my final times sheet. I can easily recalculate to different percentiles as per the above, and can answer any questions and provide tweaked calculations to suit. I'd have happily attached the actual working spreadsheet itself, but its 12MB and too big despite my efforts to reduce it.
I'd appreciate any views on these attempts and for seasoned speed compilers, will be interested in maybe how they compare with your own standards or way of working. I have become convinced that the investment in producing accurate standard times is well worth it and can offer something else over and above the average punter's armoury. The next step will be getting figures to work off the back of them. AW first, then flat, then NH. No quadrilateral exchanges or reliance on power trendlines at this stage.
