Today's Horse Racing

[Atho55]

Derek, you are entitled to your opinion as I am. I have put forward a methodology to x check selections, nothing more nothing less that I believe might give an indication how the current form over 4 races compares to the current form of other runners in the same race. I have concentrated on short races so pace / front runners do not really influence that much BUT, 1st race 0.7 seconds difference from what was predicted I would consider to be Speed 1- 0 Derek and yes I agree a lot more samples are required.

Glyn

[Derek27]

Derek, you are entitled to your opinion as I am. I have put forward a methodology to x check selections, nothing more nothing less that I believe might give an indication how the current form over 4 races compares to the current form of other runners in the same race. I have concentrated on short races so pace / front runners do not really influence that much BUT, 1st race 0.7 seconds difference from what was predicted I would consider to be Speed 1- 0 Derek and yes I agree a lot more samples are required.

Glyn

All I'm saying is that there is no need to test a methodology that is obviously flawed. I can assure you that pace/front runners do influence races, even in sprints. And are you concentrating on races run on the same going or taking into account that two horses achieve the same time, one was running uphill and the other downhill ?

I don't understand why you think a 0.7 second difference is positive - for a 5 furlong race that's quite significant. So it's not Speed 1 - 0 Derek, it's match abandoned due to lack of referee, and also lack of rules for the game.

[Derek27]

The first two races at Southwell on Sunday, both over 7 furlongs 14 yards, were run within 0.1 seconds of each other.

You don't need to do much research to conclude that races run over the same distance will produce similar times.

[Atho55]

I`m not looking to determine the time for a distance at a certain course, I`m suggesting that instead of looking at the race through a microscope where every detail is compared we look through a telescope and make some generalisations from information based on the Timeform website rather than spend eons compiling a database, setting it up then constantly updating it. Ratings are available from people/sites whose job this is and probably do this far better than I could.

What I am suggesting is (and yes I know it`s flawed) is that we look at the recent races of our selections and simply calculate how fast it ran over that distance, then take that speed and apply it to the race it has to run to give us a time then averaged over 4 races. So the course, weight, going, jockey etc that should be considered are rolled up into an average figure. We apply the same to all the selections and compare the averages.

If I am backing a horse in a race I am looking for a selection that looks like it has a chance of winning or will be there or thereabouts at the end and I`m suggesting that this methodology may give an indication. I was choosing selections made by SHR because he has done a lot of the spadework already and x checking his selections seemed like a good exercise.

However, I picked a race from today and carried out the data collection on it. It`s a 5 horse race so did them all. Based on what`s shown what horse do you think stands the best chance of winning.

City Gent.png

[Halliday]

I have been looking at the SHR selections and wonder if a x check will be useful to anyone. By taking the actual race times achieved over the distance run you can calculate the speed of the horse in that race then apply the same speed to the distance to be run to give you an estimate of the race time.


For example, taking Oneroa v Snaffled
Snaffled.png

Now tomorrows selections
Olaudah.png

I`ve not done enough tests yet to decide if individual runs or the average will be better so can`t offer any advice on the likely winner.

I'm not sure what you are doing with the the above , race times / speed figures / speed ratings etc, can be useful tools if used in context with form etc .
Are you adjusting your times to weight carried, going allowance , WFA etc, and are your standard times accurate .otherwise race times can be pretty meaningless. What criteria are you using for lengths /sec and going adjustments etc

Pace and draw over shorter distances do influence the outcome of races over sprint distances contrary to what you may think.
Class is also an important factor to.

I'm not sure how you expect to use a race time achieved at say Chester , when the horse is now running at say Hamilton , or horses having achieved that figure round bends now running on a straight course.Or the time was achieved with a favourable draw and the horse now has an unfavourable one .. the list is endless

And if you don't take the horses form, stable form, class of race and other variables into account .. then it's useless.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what your trying to achieve ?

What are you wanting to use your figures for? And what knowledge of horse racing do you have ?

[Atho55]

This is the race

Ling 1310 6f Hcap.png

[Halliday]

I`m not looking to determine the time for a distance at a certain course, I`m suggesting that instead of looking at the race through a microscope where every detail is compared we look through a telescope and make some generalisations from information based on the Timeform website rather than spend eons compiling a database, setting it up then constantly updating it. Ratings are available from people/sites whose job this is and probably do this far better than I could.

What I am suggesting is (and yes I know it`s flawed) is that we look at the recent races of our selections and simply calculate how fast it ran over that distance, then take that speed and apply it to the race it has to run to give us a time then averaged over 4 races. So the course, weight, going, jockey etc that should be considered are rolled up into an average figure. We apply the same to all the selections and compare the averages.

If I am backing a horse in a race I am looking for a selection that looks like it has a chance of winning or will be there or thereabouts at the end and I`m suggesting that this methodology may give an indication. I was choosing selections made by SHR because he has done a lot of the spadework already and x checking his selections seemed like a good exercise.

However, I picked a race from today and carried out the data collection on it. It`s a 5 horse race so did them all. Based on what`s shown what horse do you think stands the best chance of winning.
City Gent.png

Just out of interest why did you pick this race ... and is this a race that feel offers you an opportunity ? Surely a race to avoid

City Gent comprehensively beaten by Count Otto at Kempton and meets him on same terms

Helveltian a horse having his first run on the AW but lost his way during his turf campaign ( incidently ran very green behind City Gent on his Debut , has ran in much better races

City Gent since won easily in blinkers having looked far from straight forward in previous races but raised 10lb
The Mums has some decent back firm and running well since visor fitted
And how can you use previous race times to asses The outcome of this race when City Gents last 4 runs were on the AW and Helvetians were on the turf on going ranging from good to heavy !!!

[SeaHorseRacing]

This is the race
Ling 1310 6f Hcap.png

I have a go on my opinon for you.

Bernies Boy- Been running over 6f alot lately. However there is nothing in the form book to suggest this horse is being laid for this horse to win today. In turns of form it has very solid claims. It will most likely make the running and the pace today looks slow. I would suggest this horse is most likely going to go close however It wouldnt be a bet for me.

Toolatetodelagate- A horse can generally only peak fitness for around 6 weeks and he has been running constistantly well for some time now. The fact Frankie is on board will make the price very short. Again could win this but not a bet for me. In fact this is a very bad bet imo. So much suggest a poor running could be in store here today.

Tawaafoq- This is a runner I would back if I had to play. Move to Mick Quin not so long ago. Hasnt ridden at imo its optimum trip for a while and I think 5f is perfect. This horse has disguised form where he has been running on turf lately and no AW form to go on. 120 day break from a trainer running him regularly. If there was a gamble in the know in this race it would be this runner. Always forgive one poor run. If you did that with this horse It would be shorter then it is.

Aegean Beauty- No form worth conisidering.


Tawaafoq I would back but Bernies boy has the best form. Not a betting race for me personally.



just noticed I did the wrong race. OMFG so dim sometimes.

1.10. City Gent- Clear of the rest imo. Not a betting race for me though.

[Halliday]

This is the race
Ling 1310 6f Hcap.png

I have a go on my opinon for you.

Bernies Boy- Been running over 6f alot lately. However there is nothing in the form book to suggest this horse is being laid for this horse to win today. In turns of form it has very solid claims. It will most likely make the running and the pace today looks slow. I would suggest this horse is most likely going to go close however It wouldnt be a bet for me.

Toolatetodelagate- A horse can generally only peak fitness for around 6 weeks and he has been running constistantly well for some time now. The fact Frankie is on board will make the price very short. Again could win this but not a bet for me. In fact this is a very bad bet imo. So much suggest a poor running could be in store here today.

Tawaafoq- This is a runner I would back if I had to play. Move to Mick Quin not so long ago. Hasnt ridden at imo its optimum trip for a while and I think 5f is perfect. This horse has disguised form where he has been running on turf lately and no AW form to go on. 120 day break from a trainer running him regularly. If there was a gamble in the know in this race it would be this runner. Always forgive one poor run. If you did that with this horse It would be shorter then it is.

Aegean Beauty- No form worth conisidering.


Tawaafoq I would back but Bernies boy has the best form. Not a betting race for me personally.



just noticed I did the wrong race. OMFG so dim sometimes.

1.10. City Gent- Clear of the rest imo. Not a betting race for me though.

Still not convinced by City Gent and now poor value at 3.00... much prefer to have a little bit on Helveltian and Count Otto.. 6.4 and 4.4 respectively

But not a race I'd have a back to win in

[spreadbetting]

Still not convinced by City Gent and now poor value at 3.00... much prefer to have a little bit on Helveltian and Count Otto.. 6.4 and 4.4 respectively

But not a race I'd have a back to win in

Well that's 60% of the runners covered so far, maybe someone else can chip in to cover the other two so at least we'll get the winner

[Halliday]

Still not convinced by City Gent and now poor value at 3.00... much prefer to have a little bit on Helveltian and Count Otto.. 6.4 and 4.4 respectively

But not a race I'd have a back to win in

Well that's 60% of the runners covered so far, maybe someone else can chip in to cover the other two so at least we'll get the winner

Often back two/three runners in a race where there's value .. which is not the case in the 13.10 !!

Good look if your tempted to wager rather than trade !'

[Derek27]

I`m not looking to determine the time for a distance at a certain course, I`m suggesting that instead of looking at the race through a microscope where every detail is compared we look through a telescope and make some generalisations from information based on the Timeform website rather than spend eons compiling a database, setting it up then constantly updating it. Ratings are available from people/sites whose job this is and probably do this far better than I could.

What I am suggesting is (and yes I know it`s flawed) is that we look at the recent races of our selections and simply calculate how fast it ran over that distance, then take that speed and apply it to the race it has to run to give us a time then averaged over 4 races. So the course, weight, going, jockey etc that should be considered are rolled up into an average figure. We apply the same to all the selections and compare the averages.

If I am backing a horse in a race I am looking for a selection that looks like it has a chance of winning or will be there or thereabouts at the end and I`m suggesting that this methodology may give an indication. I was choosing selections made by SHR because he has done a lot of the spadework already and x checking his selections seemed like a good exercise.

However, I picked a race from today and carried out the data collection on it. It`s a 5 horse race so did them all. Based on what`s shown what horse do you think stands the best chance of winning.
City Gent.png

The point I was making was that you were pleased with yourself that a horse ran to 0.7 seconds to your prediction (which isn't very close for a five furlong race) but two horses at Southwell came closer. So it's Speed 1 - 1 Randomness.

[Halliday]

I`m not looking to determine the time for a distance at a certain course, I`m suggesting that instead of looking at the race through a microscope where every detail is compared we look through a telescope and make some generalisations from information based on the Timeform website rather than spend eons compiling a database, setting it up then constantly updating it. Ratings are available from people/sites whose job this is and probably do this far better than I could.

What I am suggesting is (and yes I know it`s flawed) is that we look at the recent races of our selections and simply calculate how fast it ran over that distance, then take that speed and apply it to the race it has to run to give us a time then averaged over 4 races. So the course, weight, going, jockey etc that should be considered are rolled up into an average figure. We apply the same to all the selections and compare the averages.

If I am backing a horse in a race I am looking for a selection that looks like it has a chance of winning or will be there or thereabouts at the end and I`m suggesting that this methodology may give an indication. I was choosing selections made by SHR because he has done a lot of the spadework already and x checking his selections seemed like a good exercise.

However, I picked a race from today and carried out the data collection on it. It`s a 5 horse race so did them all. Based on what`s shown what horse do you think stands the best chance of winning.
City Gent.png

The point I was making was that you were pleased with yourself that a horse ran to 0.7 seconds to your prediction (which isn't very close for a five furlong race) but two horses at Southwell came closer. So it's Speed 1 - 1 Randomness.

0.7 seconds is around 3.5 lengths over 5f ( roughly !!) and how many sprints are won by 3 plus lengths .. so it's way out

But the 13.10 race he highlighted just shows how ridiculous using race times is, without factoring in weight going distance etc

[SeaHorseRacing]

Dont be so harsh on the guy... Stay more constructive rather then forcelful. I think its interesting that hes using a different angle to look at racing.

0.7 seconds can be as much as 8-10 lenghts over 5f on an aw track.

[Atho55]

I thought I had been clear what the object of the exercise was, to look for a quick n dirty way to find runners that would be there or therabouts at the end and I dont believe I made any selection choices. Perhaps not the best choice of race but I can take the result on the chin this time. SHR, keep up the good work, Derek, yes 1-1, Halliday good analysis. Inclusion of other factors in build 2 is probably in order.