EC1
On a break
good luck Mr F....i just didn't think it was a big speed figure...what did you get for Retirement Plan?..i only got 80
Another fast race?
- Thread starter Desert Orchid
- Start date
EC1
On a break
108 seems high..topspeed went 88
i think this may depend on what standard time you have i think..11f isn't a greatly used distance..what are your 8f standard and 11f standard times?
i think this may depend on what standard time you have i think..11f isn't a greatly used distance..what are your 8f standard and 11f standard times?
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,037
Retirement Plan got to dictate his own way - a rare excellent tactical ride by Queally - and pretty much stole the race. I reckon he'll struggle to get things to go his way so one-sidedly again and is very vulnerable off his new mark.
As for Ambleside, I don't think his run there was any better than anything he's done before and a pound rise won't help even with a drop in class.
But believe it or not I've been wrong at least once before...
As for Ambleside, I don't think his run there was any better than anything he's done before and a pound rise won't help even with a drop in class.
But believe it or not I've been wrong at least once before...
EC1
On a break
If I used your 11f standard aganst my 8f standard it would be 146.65..whereas its 142.2..which explains the big difference in our ratings of retirement plan
even though its not a 100% check...I would divide your standards by the distance and see what time per furlong you get for 8f 9f 10f & 12f at Goodwood..mine look like this
8f = 12.31
9f = 12.57
10f = 12.76
11f = 12.92
12f = 13.05
on my calculations your 11f standard takes longer to cover per furlong than your 12f one will as if i put your 11f standard against my 11f one i get 146.65 compared with 8f standard..which would make 13.3 per furlong...which means the 12f is being run faster per furlong than the 11f one..which would be unlikely even with undulations at play
even though its not a 100% check...I would divide your standards by the distance and see what time per furlong you get for 8f 9f 10f & 12f at Goodwood..mine look like this
8f = 12.31
9f = 12.57
10f = 12.76
11f = 12.92
12f = 13.05
on my calculations your 11f standard takes longer to cover per furlong than your 12f one will as if i put your 11f standard against my 11f one i get 146.65 compared with 8f standard..which would make 13.3 per furlong...which means the 12f is being run faster per furlong than the 11f one..which would be unlikely even with undulations at play
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
its won for you anyway..well done...strange race..one pulled up..other one ran as though at was in a 6f race..i don't think its lbs in hand of its mark though
EC1
On a break
i wouldn't worry about em Mr F if they keep winning
keep posting your figures ..its good to see what people come up with
keep posting your figures ..its good to see what people come up with
Midnite Angel runs but Amazing Maria doesn't. Dettori keeps the ride on MA with Hughes on another of Hannon's.
Midnite Angel steps up a furlong in trip. On breeding she should just about get it. She's around 7/2 at present which seems fair enough to me.
F
FrogTheBountyMuncher
Guest
Good work frisky,
If u want to take your ratings to the next level as a professional the u should really have standards for each class at every distance:; ie standard for 0-80, 0-85, 0-90 over 5,6,7,8 furlongs etc
If u want to take your ratings to the next level as a professional the u should really have standards for each class at every distance:; ie standard for 0-80, 0-85, 0-90 over 5,6,7,8 furlongs etc
You're right, of course. I'd forgotten who owns Midnite.
trackside528
At the Start
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
Have neither the knowledge nor time to contribute to this thread, but I am very much enjoying this discussion. Very good stuff.
Last edited:
i wouldn't worry about em Mr F if they keep winning
keep posting your figures ..its good to see what people come up with
Quick question EC1, do you take weight into account in your speed ratings? I do, and I think I've mentioned this before earlier in this thread, but my best ratings are on going between +0.10 and -0.10 seconds per furlong as as per the Racing Post going corrections.
I don't really see why.
There's nothing wrong, for me, in one standard time for each distance. Logically, a 90-rated horse should be able to get nearer to it than an 80-rated one.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,037
I've never been able to buy into class/distance 'pars', etc.
The reason is that I experimented with the Beyer/Mordin stuff for long enough and was haemorrhaging money.
The good old standard times work for me.
The reason is that I experimented with the Beyer/Mordin stuff for long enough and was haemorrhaging money.
The good old standard times work for me.
Two more from Retirement Plan's race out tomorrow. BEE JAY KAY in the 5:00 at Salisbury. Upped in trip, but he's by St Leger winner Sixties Icon so could stay. Worth a play at 10/1. The other is SILVER DIXIE in the 4:50 at Newmarket who's dropped back to a mile when he looks a stayer all day long. I'll be leaving him alone but watching with interest.
EC1
On a break
thats confusing DO... using Standard times means you use pars..or how do you know how fast a race should be run to estimate the track speed?...all speed figure compilers use pars of one sort or another
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,037
I interpret 'pars' as artificially manufactured average times in the way that Beyer and Mordin advocated.
Standard times are derived from actual times recorded over course and distance.
There's no point in saying par for 5f is 60 seconds, for example, when we know it can be sub-55s at some tracks and almost impossible to crack 60s at others.
Nor do I understand how you can get different pars for different classes over the same distance at the same track. The standard time is for a 126 horse on genuinely good ground. Failure to get close to that in a true-run race will dictate how far off 126 the other classes of beast are.
Standard times are derived from actual times recorded over course and distance.
There's no point in saying par for 5f is 60 seconds, for example, when we know it can be sub-55s at some tracks and almost impossible to crack 60s at others.
Nor do I understand how you can get different pars for different classes over the same distance at the same track. The standard time is for a 126 horse on genuinely good ground. Failure to get close to that in a true-run race will dictate how far off 126 the other classes of beast are.
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
in which case you are using your standard time as a 126 par..and will expect a 110 horse to run 16lbs slower than that par...so you are then using a 110 "par"..which in itself is "artificial"
Mordin doesn't do anything different to anyone else..Topspeed us a 100 ..9 stone "par" as their standard..so would expect a 90 horse to run a time 10lbs slower..so there expected time for the 90 horse is 10lb slower..and is a "par" for that level
everyone that makes speed figures uses pars..as expected times are based on an original par..in your case 126 horse is the standard..its still a par time
Last edited:
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,037
I do see where you're coming from, EC1. For me the difference seems to be - and maybe I'm wrong - that standard times are based on actual race times. I get the impression Beyer/Mordin start at a high level and then extrapolate down the classes, or start at a low level and extrapolate upwards.
I can see how it can work for Beyer given that US races tend to be over sharp left-handed ovals but Mordin seems to have taken Beyer's stuff and modified it according to his own assumptions.
As I've said before, the proof of the pudding, for me, is in the eating. Doing the Beyer-Mordin approach was as disastrous as following Timeform's ratings a few years earlier. As soon as I went back to my own ratings and/or time ratings the profits started flowing back.
I can see how it can work for Beyer given that US races tend to be over sharp left-handed ovals but Mordin seems to have taken Beyer's stuff and modified it according to his own assumptions.
As I've said before, the proof of the pudding, for me, is in the eating. Doing the Beyer-Mordin approach was as disastrous as following Timeform's ratings a few years earlier. As soon as I went back to my own ratings and/or time ratings the profits started flowing back.
EC1
On a break
Mordin makes his standards same as anyone else...Topspeed for instance takes all race classes run at a certain distance then apes what that time would be by a 100 horse..by using poundage speed difference..so he uses par times...and so do you..how are your standards calculated to a 126 horse?...you don't just record times a 126 horse runs..you use many classes to create standards
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,037
I'm pretty sure the standard times I use (the old Raceform Standards) were arrived at by recording the times achieved by the best horses at each course over years and years. In fact, I've just found the paragraph (which, now that I read it, I'm sure I copied here some time back):
"Raceform Standard and record times were originally compiled from times recorded on good to firm going after adjustments had been made for weights carried above or below a norm of 9st."
Times recorded. I think Mordin (the book's up the loft) assumed something like 1m36s for a mile (ie, an average of 12s per furlong) and started making adjustments from there and, in my opinion, ended up with par times that bore little resemblance to reality as his extrapolations make little or no allowance for track conformation or nature of difficulty.
It isn't unusual for record race times at minor tracks to be slower than the standard so i accept that the standards for those tracks must be artificially calculated. On the other hand, I'm never happy to rely on race times - even the standards - from the minor tracks.
I have no time for Topspeed. I find he doesn't regularly top rate winners the way the old Sporting Chronicle/Handicap Book/Update Speed Figures used to. Logic dictates that if races are largely true run - as is claimed by the likes of Mordin - then the fastest horse should win its fair share. I'd like to know Topspeed's strike rate. I imagine it must fall miles short of that fair share.
"Raceform Standard and record times were originally compiled from times recorded on good to firm going after adjustments had been made for weights carried above or below a norm of 9st."
Times recorded. I think Mordin (the book's up the loft) assumed something like 1m36s for a mile (ie, an average of 12s per furlong) and started making adjustments from there and, in my opinion, ended up with par times that bore little resemblance to reality as his extrapolations make little or no allowance for track conformation or nature of difficulty.
It isn't unusual for record race times at minor tracks to be slower than the standard so i accept that the standards for those tracks must be artificially calculated. On the other hand, I'm never happy to rely on race times - even the standards - from the minor tracks.
I have no time for Topspeed. I find he doesn't regularly top rate winners the way the old Sporting Chronicle/Handicap Book/Update Speed Figures used to. Logic dictates that if races are largely true run - as is claimed by the likes of Mordin - then the fastest horse should win its fair share. I'd like to know Topspeed's strike rate. I imagine it must fall miles short of that fair share.
I use Mordin's standard times for my ratings. Over the years I've reduced the amount of courses I use to rate races, this is down to my experience of using the ratings and the reliability of the standard times. The only courses I bother with are Ascot, Doncaster, Epsom, Goodwood, Newbury, Newmarket, Sandown and York.