8.50 newbury

EC1 said:
i wouldn't disregard EP in future..he didn't get his ground here.....it wasn't good/soft..a time of 62.98 points to Good ground..my standard for Class 3 is 62.2 on proper Good going..this was class 5..so par would be about 63.25....was achieved comfy.
Click to expand...

EC1,

do you have a spreadsheet of your class pars for all tracks? Would be good to see.
 
gigilo said:
It's run better than that at windsor on fast ground when taurus twins won,can't see soft ground making that much difference that ground wouldv'e been perfect for it.Wasn't pressurized free role infront really should be sluicing up in a race like that,will be a false price nto.
Click to expand...
Worth mentioning that John Spearing has gone through 29 bottles of blended scotch since he last saddled a winner.
 
rorydelargy said:
EC1,

do you have a spreadsheet of your class pars for all tracks? Would be good to see.
Click to expand...

i do...i'll bet it would ;)

i would rather not just hand them to someone though Rory..even though i am very fond of your radio presenting style

there is nowt special about them..but they took me a long time to put together

and they are mine...all mine :lol:



plus..you might laugh at them ;)
 
EC1 said:
i do...i'll bet it would ;)

i would rather not just hand them to someone though Rory..even though i am very fond of your radio presenting style

there is nowt special about them..but they took me a long time to put together

and they are mine...all mine :lol:



plus..you might laugh at them ;)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't show them to prufrock :blink:

I understand your reticence though, and apologise for the cheek.
 
Gearoid said:
Have they been any use in your pursuit for profitability?
Click to expand...

they are a massive help..just regarding knowing the ground.

like tonight..the mile handicap won by snow trooper..in 99.47..told me the ground couldn't have much juice in it because it beat my par for good ground for that level of horse..that helped re the sprint
 
Very interesting EC1. Is there any courses in particular where you would swear by your standard times?
 
rorydelargy said:
I wouldn't show them to prufrock :blink:

I understand your reticence though, and apologise for the cheek.
Click to expand...

now..he would laugh at em ;)

no need to apologise..you don't get owt if you don't ask.

if they hadn't been such a ball-ache putting them together you could have gladly had the sheet

i feel all mean and selfish now
 
You could easily use the RP times Rory if you wanted to do an assessment when you are broadcasting

i believe they are calculated at a mature 100 horse carrying 9-0 on Good ground

for instance

Newbury 8f7y standard = 97.00

that handicap tonight was a 3yo handicap where a 9.00 horse would be rated 63

37lbs shy of 100 ...37 x 0.07sec = 2.59 seconds

add that to 97.00 = 99.59

add about 0.4 for immaturity and you get about 100 seconds ...is what that race should have been run in on perfect good ground
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if that is the basis of RP standards - I'd appreciate clarification. Certainly the TF view is that the methodology used by the RP is fundamentally flawed, and that anyone who quotes RP standards on air will be disembowelled with immediate effect. I'm hoping to avoid that fate. :whistle:
 
1) Are there RP standards for the Irish Tracks EC1?
2) What is the time difference allowed per furlong between each particular ground condition?
3) Where do you start to build a model like this and how long does it take before you can rely on it?

Failing all three above - have you got the sheets for the Irish Tracks and if so how much would it cost for a copy?:whistle:

PS. Do you sneer at us guessers all the time or just chuckle in a slightly benevolent way at us from time to time??:o
 
Thanks Trackside, my problem is more with official going descriptions at Irish Meetings -Limerick last two meetings for instance - two weeks ago the ground was like Flint - officially Good - last Friday like a bog - first race officially Good changed to Soft, Yielding to Soft in places. I will peruse the link with interest.
 
OTB - be careful when using standard times at The Curragh particularly on the sprint course, according to my figures every winner over the 6f track is Dayjur.
 
On The Bridle said:
1)
PS. Do you sneer at us guessers all the time or just chuckle in a slightly benevolent way at us from time to time??:o
Click to expand...

think you will find i've posted to try and aid people with ground conditions on many occasions..even started threads on the ground for big meetings..and updated it..so not sure why that could be construed as sneering
 
The RP standards are indeed calibrated to a 100-rated horse carrying 9st on 'perfect' ground (i.e. going allowance = 0). Never been quite sure if they meant an OR of 100 or an RPR of 100, or whether those two things are supposed to be the same thing anyway.
 
I think that in principle RPRs and ORs are meant to be the same but in practice the RPR is nearly always higher. For NH horses the average difference is maybe about 8 lbs, I reckon.

On the flat, the RPRs are based on horses carrying 10st, and the RPRs on the race cards are adjusted upwards for each lb below that weight that a horse is carrying. By the way RPRs have to be mistrusted because sometimes they are adjusted not only for the weight being carried but also for more subjective factors. For example, Frankel's adjusted RPR was topped up by a few lbs extra on the Ascot race card compared with the RPR awarded for his Newmarket performance.

I haven't noticed them doing this yet for jumps performers and I hope they don't start, because the RPR should be about previous achievement rather than future potential.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
The RP standards are indeed calibrated to a 100-rated horse carrying 9st on 'perfect' ground (i.e. going allowance = 0). Never been quite sure if they meant an OR of 100 or an RPR of 100, or whether those two things are supposed to be the same thing anyway.
Click to expand...

i've got a word doc with what is supposed to be Topspeeds calcs and that shows its RPR 100 horse

as Grey says..some of those are samey with OHR's ..some are higher

one of the main issues..which i think Rory is alluding to..with the RP standards is that they seem to be too quick at some courses..so the point they say its middle Good..its actually into Good to firm.

on top of that some of their times seem illogical..i seem to remember the Haydock 5f and 6f one..the 6f one has the extra furlong being 13.7 or something like that..when its about a second less on everyone else's standards.
 
Back
Top