Another fast race?

Ahh, we differ with something, EC. I take it you work with actual weight carried, while I add claims back on.

I don't suppose it matters if you're consistent. I'll accept the claim as a true reflection of their ability. Obviously, with overly strong run races (where their claim is more likely to tell) I have to compensate/consider it, and also if they're worth their claim, then the whole race can be rated down x LBS.

I guess you'll do the opposite. If they're crap, or the claim is a true reflection of ability, you'll be adding some back on?

Interesting to know for when we compare.
 
NEWBURY 18th

REMOTE 105
Dare To Achieve is entered in a maiden at Sandown on Thursday, back over this trip.

WILLING FOE 108

HALLELUJAH 103
Seeking Magic looks to be still progressing.

FARHH 124
Aljamaaheer looks progressive, and can pick up a GP3 during the summer.

ANNECDOTE 89
The 2nd is entered in a 0-95 on the 25th, is seemingly going the right way, and should come on from this run.
 
Has anyone rated the meeting at Newmarket on Saturday 18th May? If so, what do you make of TIGER CLIFF's race? I've got him still very well handicapped even after his 5 lbs hike in the weights. The first 7 in the race look worth following.
 
Hi,

This thread has really inspired me to sign up with fellow fans who work in the same principles as me, I just love hearing everyone's views and times and the knowledge about the colts eating up faster really could make a change to the way I view betting in the future.

Can't wait to get involved in this thread thanks.
 
gus said:
Fast-run races on my figures in the past few days where the form is likely to stand up are those won by Llaregyb, Auction, Prairie Ranger, Annecdote and Beldale Memory.
Click to expand...

Prairie Ranger is up from 77 to 89 and Annecdote up from 83 to 90, about right in my view.

Llaregyb (72 to 82) and Auction (73 to 83) still have several pounds in hand off their new marks. Auction has the option of running at Goodwood on Friday under a 6lb penalty.

My figure for Farhh at Newbury was 121.
 
FrogTheBountyMuncher said:
Hi,

This thread has really inspired me to sign up with fellow fans who work in the same principles as me, I just love hearing everyone's views and times and the knowledge about the colts eating up faster really could make a change to the way I view betting in the future.

Can't wait to get involved in this thread thanks.
Click to expand...

Hi Bruce
 
Desert Orchid said:
It's always in my mind that sometimes it takes longer to recover from a very fast race. Look at yesterday's race won last year by Mince. The ones that finished second to sixth, Bartolomeu, Top Cop, Rafeej and Accession, all proved subsequently disappointing while Tioman Legend was beaten over 40 lengths after a 4-week break. Mince herself disappointed twice before going on to frank the form by winning in Listed and Group company. Sometimes these fast races bottom horses. (Maybe that's what happened to Toronado in the Craven.)

It's hard to accept that the form is poor to begin with. It was a valuable race so you expect the better stables to put their better horses in it. Robot Boy, well beaten, wasn't beaten as far next time.

It's a sobering reminder for me that I shouldn't allow myself to get carried away by fast times and outstanding form. maybe I should wait for racecourse evidence that the horse(s) has/have recovered.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's particularly to do with recovery times after fast-run races. There are all sorts of reasons why horses don't perform as we expect. With handicappers I think we as punters have a mental picture of how we expect horses to develop. If it was represented in a graph it would basically show a steady upward curve, the horse showing a gradual improvement in form and over time rising in the handicap. The reality is often very different and horses often progress, plateau or even regress at various stages of their careers. If plotted as a graph, it would be a jagged line and often very jagged. How many times have you backed a horse to win off a new higher mark, been disappointed, written the horse off as not being up to the new rating only to watch it win a race or two later and often at generous odds?
 
gus said:
If plotted as a graph, it would be a jagged line and often very jagged. How many times have you backed a horse to win off a new higher mark, been disappointed, written the horse off as not being up to the new rating only to watch it win a race or two later and often at generous odds?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's to do with development, though. Isn't that just whether the horse is in or out of form or running under (un)favourable conditions?

Back on topic, I think I've spotted another fast race. Again, it may be just the fastest on a day of slow times but I have Esteaming (Race 2432, 5.00 York, 17 May, 12f 3yo h'cap) clocking by far the fastest comparative time of the day. The next nine home had either won or been placed the time before and they were pretty strung out at the end.
 
Last edited:
gus said:
Prairie Ranger is up from 77 to 89 and Annecdote up from 83 to 90, about right in my view.
Click to expand...
I have Annecdote running to 95, so the OR of 90 looks right to me too. Future prospects will depend upon her physical progress.
 
I've lost confidence in my standard times for the round course at York after years of the published distances constantly changing and it not being made clear whether this was as a result simply of re-measuring the distances or whether the actual distances the races were run over were being changed.

It would be helpful if Timeform or John Whitley would publish their standard times to assist all of us but I don't suppose it will ever happen. I'd kill for a set. Or pay a substantial sum of money.
 
gus said:
My figure for Farhh at Newbury was 121.
Click to expand...

With the main rivals failing abysmally to run their race, I'm inclined to rate the race through the second and third, who were separated by a neck, which in turn would reflect their respective ORs. This puts Farhh on 120+. My time rating for Farhh is only 112.
 
gus said:
I've lost confidence in my standard times for the round course at York after years of the published distances constantly changing and it not being made clear whether this was as a result simply of re-measuring the distances or whether the actual distances the races were run over were being changed.

It would be helpful if Timeform or John Whitley would publish their standard times to assist all of us but I don't suppose it will ever happen. I'd kill for a set. Or pay a substantial sum of money.
Click to expand...

yes agree Gus..when they held "ascot" there they rounded up the distances..i adjusted my standards to reflect that...but now i don't know whether they are using the full distances or the old ones which were a few yards short of each major distance..i have assumed they have kept the full distances..perhaps Rory or DJ could find out for us i wonder

thats a very low speed figure for Farrh DO
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
thats a very low speed figure for Farrh DO
Click to expand...

Not that low, really. It's pretty normal for a top race to be run 10+lbs slower on the clock than the form. After all, how often are the really top races true run? They tend to be small-field tactical affairs.

At the risk of opening up old wounds, Hawk Wing's Lockinge was slow on the clock too.
 
even without looking at traditional figure making ...Farrh has run pretty fast there..as fast at a mile as a 100 horse at 6f..Hallelujah

11.9 HALLELUJAH
11.9 FARRH
12.6 PRINCE OF ARABIA
12.5 CZECH IT OUT
12.2 ANNECDOTE
12.7 REMOTE
13.0 HIGH TROJA

Have you seen visually how fast the race was run?..most were under pressure with 3 to go..it wasn't a slow run race..just looking at it you can see that
 
Last edited:
from sectional perspective

the first 4f were run in 48.2 by the leader...from a standing start..that means first furlong would be about 14 sec...so from the 7f to the 4 marker they ran at approx 11.4 sec per furlong...the last 4 furlongs were 47.2..were run at 11.8 sec per furlong..pretty even pace when you consider the leader was 2 or 3 lengths ahead of the field

thats not a slow pace

Farrh was probably 5 lengths behind the leader at the 4 pole..his sectionals will be something like

1f = 14
7f-4f = 11.7 for those 3
4f to finish = 11.6 for last 4

even pace to perfection
 
Last edited:
Conditions were very conducive to nett fast times.

Hawk Wing had everything off the bit after two furlongs in his Lockinge and ran a slow time. Frankel in the Guineas - slow time.
 
Hi,

Here's how I've rated the card.

72 - Remote
101 - Willing Foe
104 - Hallelujah
113 - High Troja
122 -Farhh
91 -Prince of Arabia
81 - Czech it Out
91 - Annecodte

and

77 - Championship
112 - Winsili
73 - Emman Bee
106 - Alutiq
104 - Zanetto
90 - Prairie Ranger
74 - Semeen
83 - Gabrial's King



Are there any faults or do you believe it's around about ok?
 
Last edited:
Hi guys,

Can I get your opinions on Smoothtalkinrascal's win at York last week?

I'm really not sure how to take the 116 I gave him for winning which makes him Group 1 class in theory.

I think my problem is giving these "conditions" "Tattersalls" races a standard of 100, maybe it's too high.
 
FrogTheBountyMuncher said:
Hi guys,

Can I get your opinions on Smoothtalkinrascal's win at York last week?

I'm really not sure how to take the 116 I gave him for winning which makes him Group 1 class in theory.

I think my problem is giving these "conditions" "Tattersalls" races a standard of 100, maybe it's too high.
Click to expand...

If you gave him 116, you must have given the second and third the same?

They went into the race rated 99, 100 and 99 and were separated by a nose and a head at levels. Looks like the handicapper has them sussed.
 
Hi Orchid,

Thanks for the reply.

I used the RP tool to assess the others at 3.7 lb per length (You press click and it calculates it all for you), they come through at;

116 - Smoothtalkinrascal
116 - Lucky Beggar
115 - Cosmic Chatter
105 - Polski Max
93 - Mary's Daughter

I'm trying to find some Group form in the front three to justify the rating, I might just have to record it as a rogue time.

What do your calculations say?
 
Desert Orchid said:
Conditions were very conducive to nett fast times.

Hawk Wing had everything off the bit after two furlongs in his Lockinge and ran a slow time. Frankel in the Guineas - slow time.
Click to expand...

but you said Farrh's race was a slow early pace?..which it wasn't judged on him running each furlong near on the same...thats why i think the overall speed figure is well up to G1 standard..so do TF...and you would have to say that if Farrh has run even pace and only run a 112 then he isn't very good at all...which i doubt
 
EC1 said:
but you said Farrh's race was a slow early pace?..which it wasn't judged on him running each furlong near on the same...thats why i think the overall speed figure is well up to G1 standard..so do TF...and you would have to say that if Farrh has run even pace and only run a 112 then he isn't very good at all...which i doubt
Click to expand...

Not quite what I said, though I see how you could think it:

Not that low, really. It's pretty normal for a top race to be run 10+lbs slower on the clock than the form. After all, how often are the really top races true run? They tend to be small-field tactical affairs.

At the risk of opening up old wounds, Hawk Wing's Lockinge was slow on the clock too.
Click to expand...

The comments weren't intended to refer to the Lockinge, which was why I mentioned Hawk Wing - he'd gone off fast and looked to keep going, yet ended up posting a slow overall time (for the class of race).

I have a g/a of -0.35spf for Newbury on Saturday. That would add over a second per 3f split for Farhh and 1.4s for a 4f split. Would that affect your findings?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top