Another fast race?

DO

If you read Mordin on time he shows how he creates his standards..and its the same way anyone would if they want the same "Standard" to apply to every course

lets say you get 20 times recorded on Good to firm for 8f at Ascot..if you do not adjust those to a set class level..in your case 126..then you are only using a standard that equates to that course..so how would you compare different courses??

I'm really not following what you are seeing here...when you compile standard times you have to adjust to bring them to your standard class of horse

so you always have to start with actual times..the idea you have that Mordin guesses is incorrect.


a simple hypothetical example

Ascot...5f standard taking the median of top 20 times recorded on Good to firm = 60.0

Catterick..same again = 60.0

so..you seem to suggest you don't need to adjust these times..but if you don't then you will get the Ascot times representing lets say a 100 horse..but at Catterick it will be say a 70 horse

those are not standard times..they just represent the times the average class of horse runs at that course...so you would not be able to compare ratings between the courses using those times without knowing what level of horse they represent

the way most people get a standard time is to adjust the times to a set class level..yours is 126 for instance..you do that with every time in your top 20 list..take a median of those times and you have a useful standard time.
 
MrFrisk said:
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.
Click to expand...

This makes sense. They are the top courses attracting genuinely top performers from whom accurate standards can be gleaned. The rest are sh1te, making Mordin's 'pars' sh1te.
 
EC1 said:
DO

If you read Mordin on time he shows how he creates his standards..and its the same way anyone would if they want the same "Standard" to apply to every course

lets say you get 20 times recorded on Good to firm for 8f at Ascot..if you do not adjust those to a set class level..in your case 126..then you are only using a standard that equates to that course..so how would you compare different courses??

I'm really not following what you are seeing here...when you compile standard times you have to adjust to bring them to your standard class of horse

so you always have to start with actual times..the idea you have that Mordin guesses is incorrect.


a simple hypothetical example

Ascot...5f standard taking the median of top 20 times recorded on Good to firm = 60.0

Catterick..same again = 60.0

so..you seem to suggest you don't need to adjust these times..but if you don't then you will get the Ascot times representing lets say a 100 horse..but at Catterick it will be say a 70 horse

those are not standard times..they just represent the times the average class of horse runs at that course...so you would not be able to compare ratings between the courses using those times without knowing what level of horse they represent

the way most people get a standard time is to adjust the times to a set class level..yours is 126 for instance..you do that with every time in your top 20 list..take a median of those times and you have a useful standard time.
Click to expand...

I admit I haven't looked at Mordin's book for years. I assume you're right about how he does things.

I know I remember reading the book avidly and thinking the guy has done his homework. It was only once I started using his methods and found myself hitting unusually long losing runs that I concluded there was some basic - for me, fatal - flaw somewhere and I stand by that.

I don't do my own standard times. I accept the old Raceform ones because they work for me.

You really only need to read Mordin's weekly items in the Weekender to know he's hopeless. He regularly promotes Listed class animals as world-beaters. He would know an egg-beater if he tripped over one.
 
It's strange how we're compiling standard times. Everyone is doing it a little differently. We also read Mordins book a little differently as well.

DO, you've got your interpretation of what he was saying in the book a bit muddled up imo.

EC, you jumped the gun and omitted the bit which has lead DO to confusion with Mordins method for producing standard times.

What he says regarding a hypothetical horse rated X running over a straight, level CD, on GD ground (0.0GA) with no wind, is how he does a cross reference. he then goes onto to say that before he does the cross reference he factors in bends and undulations.

After fine tuning this method (cross referencing as Mordin advocates), I produced my standards like this and used the actual times as the cross reference instead (going considered). So I did it back to front. I personally found this to be beneficial as it gives you a good solid understanding of the courses and their possible quirks. Number crunching alone won't do this.

This is why my polytrack going allowances are always in the minus (fast) for example. It shows the surface for what it is (riding faster than good). It doesn't make any difference as such, if a going allowance is applied.

At the end of the day, we should all have very very similar standard times once a suitable GA has been applied to bring them into line. Yet they're not! I'm talking very similar (within a 0.2 second variance).

I find Mordins book logical at times, but lacking in many areas.

Regarding using the old raceform standards. I'm sure they work fine for the top venues. The reason they don't work as well for lesser tracks isn't just because the racing is less genuine (more hoodwinking going on), though that does come into it. The main reason though, imo, is hypothetical times, which is also what Mordin advocated doing. There aren't any GP1 races at Catterick for example. I believe standards should be produced for the average class of runner at the course. It makes cross referencing between assumed standards and actual race times more down to earth and in-keeping with what is really happening at the course. Rather than assuming Pegasus might turn up one day and trying to factor that scenario.

A few years ago, I actually compiled some standards for the Tapeta course at Dubai while the course was still under significant construction. I compiled them for someone else, and it was up to them to fine tune once the track was open and times started coming in. I set the standards for a 105 rated runner, as that looked the best place to lay the foundations for them. He told me he found a few winners using them, including one at a tasty price. I'm not sure if he took them any further, or how they would compare to the actual times being produced now. My point being he was able to start compiling figures from the very first race run there, and while probably not perfect (fluctuations in areas of courses dictate they never can be 100%), they would have put him right in the ball park from the off.

"fluctuations in areas of courses dictate they never can be 100%"

What I mean by that is mainly water retention/evaporation. I tend to compensate via the GA at certain distances, rather than having varying standards for the same CD.

It is a deep subject, but thats my tuppence worth for the time being. Hope you see my interpretation of what Mordin was saying.
 
CPGagie said:
DO, you've got your interpretation of what he was saying in the book a bit muddled up imo.
Click to expand...

That's entirely possible.

I do have the utmost contempt for Mordin so it's possible that I'm taking a very negative interpretation of what he wrote. I'd like to think that's understandable given what he cost me in losing bets!

I remember going back over his stuff to see if I was interpreting it wrong and at that point seeing what I considered to be flaws and failings.

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to go and dig the book up and highlight them again as I'm back in semi-employment again.
 
Chris

The chapter telling you to allow for bends in his book was just for padding imo. His Universal standards is a fair idea..but to try and use it to make standards would be impossible on our tracks. He still tells you to list so many fastest times..he then adusts each one for class...that can be to whatever level you yourself want..80..100 horse etc. His standards are based on real times...the bends chat is just fanciful imo.

His standards were set to something like a 150 horse..this was so his way of calculating the figures was easier to show with all his figures starting from 100. It doesn't affect ratings really where you set the standard imo...as long as they start at that figure when you calulate the final rating

I agree that you could set standards for the median class of horse at a a track..then use that as a standard..as long as you always use that rating to start from i can't see a problem..but i can't see a problem having a rating set at 100 either

going back to example

lets say you calc the standard for Ascot 5f is 60.00...the median horse is a 100 horse...Catterick its 60.00 with a 70 horse

as long as you calculate the figures using both those figures as starting points you can't go wrong...but if decided that 100 horse was going to be your standard on all courses you would just adjust the Catterick time to 60.00 minus 1.25 sec = 58.75. By doing that you haven't changed anything except you have the same base figure for each course..which i personally prefer.
 
Last edited:
Here's what I have in total secs from Maiden to Gr.1

.29 - Brighton
.60 - Bath
.65 Thirsk
.76 Musselburgh
1.10 Ripon
1.28 Warwick
1.33 Ascot
1.45 Leicester
1.48 Beverley
1.58 Chester
1.56 Newbury
1.56 Wolves
1.61 Windsor
1.62 Salisbury
1.62 Yarmouth
1.70 Kempton
1.76 Redcar
1.82 York
2.00 Curragh
2.03 Epsom
2.31 Haydock
2.35 Newmarket
2.74 Doncaster
2.99 Sandown
3.24 Nottingham
3.36 Goodwood
3.68 Newcastle
3.77 Pontefract
3.93 Catterick
 
gus said:
Yes, I've done the figures and the overall time of the nursery was strikingly good considering that several were keen, the winner made all despite pulling and it seemed to pay to race reasonably prominently. I've got Art Official down as running a time 11lbs in front of his handicap mark and he won't go up by anything like that much. The first five home in the race should be well enough treated based on their times on Saturday and I haven't given up yet on the sixth, Munjally, who remains reasonably handicapped on some of his earlier form and probably has some improvement to come.
Click to expand...

Shot In The Sun up 4 lb but still looks well in to me. Declared for the 1.50 at Newmarket on Saturday, and the 8/1 generally available looks pretty fair.
 
"The chapter telling you to allow for bends in his book was just for padding imo. His Universal standards is a fair idea..but to try and use it to make standards would be impossible on our tracks."

As I say, thats what I've done, though the figures he puts forward need to be altered. I then looked at times and ran tests with them. Yes, they did need fine tuning, but that the way I did it, and found many things that I wouldn't have by simply looking at times.

"as long as you calculate the figures using both those figures as starting points you can't go wrong...but if decided that 100 horse was going to be your standard on all courses you would just adjust the Catterick time to 60.00 minus 1.25 sec = 58.75. By doing that you haven't changed anything except you have the same base figure for each course..which i personally prefer."

I disagree, as you're saying the time per lb is universal on all CD's, which it isn't. The time difference between 100 and 70 rated runners is greater at Pontefracts 5F than Goodwoods 5F for example.

I just tend to think the less assumptions you have to make, the better. Thats why compiling to the average for the course works best imo.
 
davidjohnson said:
Shot In The Sun up 4 lb but still looks well in to me. Declared for the 1.50 at Newmarket on Saturday, and the 8/1 generally available looks pretty fair.
Click to expand...

I'll certainly be having a go. A striking thing about the Goodwood run when you watch it again is how tiny she looked compared to the winner. It's fillies only today so the lack of size doesn't particularly concern me but it was noteworthy all the same.

I find Clive Brittain horses unfathomable but Dancealot is an interesting rival this afternoon. She was four lengths third of fifteen behind the first two in that valuable nursery won by J Wonder a couple of weeks back but they were clearly a long way ahead of the handicapper and it seems very surprising to me that she's actually been dropped 2lbs as a result.

Of other horses featured on this thread, Secretinthepark runs at Newmarket and should go well in the sprint handicap there while Peter Chapple-Hyam must be regretting running Buckstay from 9lbs out of the handicap at Goodwood last time out. He ran respectably, eighth of thirteen but not beaten far. The handicapper has taken due note, however, and put the horse up 7lbs for that which is very much on the top side of what it might have been reasonable to expect. He goes at Newbury today and still has a fair chance but it would have been much easier to fancy him if he'd been carrying 8-12 instead of 9-5.
 
I was, Col, at 10.5 on Betfair but, entirely predictably, I had more on Shot In The Sun in the same race.

Secretinthepark ran well but not quite well enough and I don't think there's much doubt that Buckstay would have won with 7lbs less to carry.

Such is life.
 
Last edited:
well done Gus..was out all day and missed putting a bet on it...then again would have jinxed it

Chris

you are right about the class differences at each course depending on the track stiffness

what would be the difference between a 100 horse and 70 horse at Ascot compared with Epsom over 5f be in time do you think?
 
Anyone know a good platform to store your ratings on, signed up to pro form by the facility does not support it.
 
gus said:
...and that Midnite Angel takes up her engagement in the big sales race on Thursday.
Click to expand...

She's not been declared. She has an entry in a 7f Group 3 on Saturday at Goodwood and presumably they're going for that. If she was mine I'd definitely have gone to York and not just on prize money grounds. I didn't think the extra furlong suited her last time. A strongly-run six would have been perfect.

I'll put the wheelbarrow away.
 
gus said:
I like the look of Sound Reflection, winner of the 7f fillies' maiden at Newmarket yesterday on her debut. Visually impressive, a decent time and a very good pedigree to back it up. The runner-up, Night Party looks promising too.
Click to expand...

Night Party runs in the first at Newmarket this afternoon. As you'd expect in a Newmarket maiden at this time of year there are plenty of well-bred and promising types in opposition but I'm having a go.
 
I don't think the following race has been discussed so far...

Race 4642 - Sandown 24 July 8.05pm, 8f+ h'cap won by Short Squeeze

Only eight runners but strung out like washing on fast ground, much further apart than the closing 14f handicap which got high TS figures. Time ratings arrived at via that last race puts Short Squeeze over the 100 mark but just sets alarm bells ringing with me.

Next, I compared it with the opening 10f h'cap, which also got high TS marks. This gave much more acceptable figures but they're still high for a Class 4. I then checked out the form of the next few home and the race comments. In my opinion, it all points to this having been a very competitive little heat. Runner-up Related (Cox-Kirby) was/is on a curve, the third Lutine Bell was in decent form and well handicapped on older form, and the fourth, Estifzaaz (Sheikh Hamdan-Hanagan), also looked a horse of some potential, while the next home was the 5/2 fav for Noseda-Buick. It was a race of four 3yos against four older horses and four of these first five were the juniors, all arguably on upward curves.

I'm putting my money where my mouth is today and going in heavily on Short Squeeze. I don't think a 7lbs rise will stop him.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I don't think the following race has been discussed so far...

Race 4642 - Sandown 24 July 8.05pm, 8f+ h'cap won by Short Squeeze

Only eight runners but strung out like washing on fast ground, much further apart than the closing 14f handicap which got high TS figures. Time ratings arrived at via that last race puts Short Squeeze over the 100 mark but just sets alarm bells ringing with me.

Next, I compared it with the opening 10f h'cap, which also got high TS marks. This gave much more acceptable figures but they're still high for a Class 4. I then checked out the form of the next few home and the race comments. In my opinion, it all points to this having been a very competitive little heat. Runner-up Related (Cox-Kirby) was/is on a curve, the third Lutine Bell was in decent form and well handicapped on older form, and the fourth, Estifzaaz (Sheikh Hamdan-Hanagan), also looked a horse of some potential, while the next home was the 5/2 fav for Noseda-Buick. It was a race of four 3yos against four older horses and four of these first five were the juniors, all arguably on upward curves.

I'm putting my money where my mouth is today and going in heavily on Short Squeeze. I don't think a 7lbs rise will stop him.
Click to expand...

;)
 
Back
Top