Epsom Derby 2012

Bruce_Savage said:
As long as I knew it was lost and related it to lengths with visual evidence I'd of re-adjusted my initial viewpoint and calculations which takes about 5 minutes.

Each to their own though, not knocking your approach but you need to start setting yourself standards and pars to revert away from raw figures which mean nothing.
Click to expand...

i've got pars Bruce

but with this approach you can get match ups..horses that run very similar early splits..which is why i posted the ones i did..i thought they might interest people

i know what par pace is for this class of horse for each of the sections
 
Desert Orchid said:
OK...

2010: Sea The Stars, Fame And Glory, Crowded House, Rip Van Winkle - as strong a field as you could ask for.

2009: New Approach, Tartan Bearer, Frozen Fire (Irish Derby winner), Casual Conquest (six lengths Derrinstown winner) - very strong field.

2008: Authorized, Archipenko, Yellowstone, Strategic Prince - not as strong but probably stronger than this year.
Click to expand...

The 2007 field Authorized etc, also contained Eagle Mountain and Soldier of Fortune and I felt that it was a very strong field.

On the other hand while Tartan Bearer and Casual Conquest were very good horses, I thought that the remainder of the 2008 field wasn't great. Frozen Fire was inconsistent and probably a rogue too.
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
you were very smart imo;)..i didn't think the Derby was that fast by eye i will say...,,but when i calculated them..it made me feel better knowing just how slow or fast they were

i agree..you can guess it..and good guess it with experience like yours..but i need evidence..i must have it :lol:
Click to expand...

I honestly think if I knew to within a pound either way how much I could add to a rating, I could make serious money!

If someone could convince me of the accuracy of sectionals - I can't help thinking it is educagted guesswork - I could be tempted to get involved.

One of the things I find hard to get my head around is this idea of the percentages. Watching the Bislett games this evening reminded me of Kelly Holmes's gold medal performance in the Olympics.

To the naked eye it looked like she finished strongly to edge in front close home but the 'sectionals' - so crucial in athletics - told us she ran exactly even splits, therefore the leaders were weakening. That strikes me as saying the equivalent in horseracing would be final splits of 100% rather than the 104/105 quoted on here. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

Also, I remember reading an article in which Jack Ramsden (ex-trainer and, I think, sire of Emma Spencer) said if he knew a horse could run 2f in 22 seconds, he knew he could win certain races with it and trained it accordingly. So, maybe AOB knows the likes of Camelot can run 2f in less than 22s therefore it doesn't really matter where he's placed in a race.

I don't know.
 
EC1 said:
i thought you meant going into the race DO..i don't see how anyone at this time can say it has no strength in depth without knowing the future form..in past years in some of those years most people say..oh what a poor Derby..because the form going into it doesn't look much
Click to expand...
I did. They were strong races going into them. My lists were taken from my pre-race analyses.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I honestly think if I knew to within a pound either way how much I could add to a rating, I could make serious money!

If someone could convince me of the accuracy of sectionals - I can't help thinking it is educagted guesswork - I could be tempted to get involved.

One of the things I find hard to get my head around is this idea of the percentages. Watching the Bislett games this evening reminded me of Kelly Holmes's gold medal performance in the Olympics.

To the naked eye it looked like she finished strongly to edge in front close home but the 'sectionals' - so crucial in athletics - told us she ran exactly even splits, therefore the leaders were weakening. That strikes me as saying the equivalent in horseracing would be final splits of 100% rather than the 104/105 quoted on here. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

Also, I remember reading an article in which Jack Ramsden (ex-trainer and, I think, sire of Emma Spencer) said if he knew a horse could run 2f in 22 seconds, he knew he could win certain races with it and trained it accordingly. So, maybe AOB knows the likes of Camelot can run 2f in less than 22s therefore it doesn't really matter where he's placed in a race.

I don't know.
Click to expand...

the reason its 106% at Epsom is that when you compare the last 3 furlongs to the overall time you have the first 5 furlongs taking 14 seconds av per furlong

i don't think you could have 100% even on a flat track as you would have the standing start slowing the first furlong down

ie

5f race..flat track..first furlong 13 seconds..next 4 say 12 a piece

total time = 61 seconds

av per furlong = 12.2

expected even pace for last 2 furlongs would be 12.2 x 2 = 24.4

divide that by actual time of last 2 furlongs 24 = 101.66%

so the last 2 are run at even pace but its still not 100%.

you would need a downhill final 2f to get 100%
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
Also, I remember reading an article in which Jack Ramsden (ex-trainer and, I think, sire of Emma Spencer) said if he knew a horse could run 2f in 22 seconds, he knew he could win certain races with it and trained it accordingly. So, maybe AOB knows the likes of Camelot can run 2f in less than 22s therefore it doesn't really matter where he's placed in a race.

I don't know.
Click to expand...

I've tried to make this point regarding Aidan O'Brien and his clever pace with his pacemakers and you're right he does have times for all his horses which makes him such a force to be reckoned with.
 
Desert Orchid said:
Also, I remember reading an article in which Jack Ramsden (ex-trainer and, I think, sire of Emma Spencer) said if he knew a horse could run 2f in 22 seconds, he knew he could win certain races with it and trained it accordingly. So, maybe AOB knows the likes of Camelot can run 2f in less than 22s therefore it doesn't really matter where he's placed in a race.
Click to expand...

AO'B once reported Starspangledbanner had run a furlong in under 9.5 secs on the gallops - still hadn't enough speed to win a Nunthorpe though.:)
 
Bruce_Savage said:
I've tried to make this point regarding Aidan O'Brien and his clever pace with his pacemakers and you're right he does have times for all his horses which makes him such a force to be reckoned with.
Click to expand...

but you said knowing sectional times is pointless..and yet think its useful when AOB uses them???
 
EC1 said:
the reason its 106% at Epsom is that when you compare the last 3 furlongs to the overall time you have the first 5 furlongs taking 14 seconds av per furlong

i don't think you could have 100% even on a flat track as you would have the standing start slowing the first furlong down

ie

5f race..flat track..first furlong 13 seconds..next 4 say 12 a piece

total time = 61 seconds

av per furlong = 12.2

expected even pace for last 2 furlongs would be 12.2 x 2 = 24.4

divide that by actual time of last 2 furlongs 24 = 101.66%

so the last 2 are run at even pace but its still not 100%.

you would need a downhill final 2f to get 100%
Click to expand...


Isn't the fact you're using quite a lot of guess work quite concerning with your approach EC1?

The British racecourses hold more than its fair share of dodgy angles especially when they run down the centre of the track but I do remember Newbury and Newmarket putting yellow stripes on the pole at the furlong markers.

Unless you have professionally timed sectionals like those used throughout the Qipco series then you're treading on thin water.
 
Just to prove how stupid sectionals are why don't you go and find out the last 3f Double Trigger run when winning the Goodwood Cup and compare that with the sprints on the day.

Would have been good enough to win a 5f-6f sprint by sectional standards, of course we know that a two miler wouldn't have a chance over 5 or 6 furlongs but he's run the last 3f in xxx amount so he could of won - in theory of course.
 
I'll just say..many people decry sectionals because they can't be arsed to put the work in

its really that simple

its the same with speed figures..they get belittled because of laziness..Gigilo has burst a few bubbles with his thread..which is based on using the clock..thats why some people refrain from posting on there..because they never have bothered with using the clock and so can't accept that its possible to turn a profit using times

whats the expression.."time only matters when you are in jail"..a comment i've read on this forum and also uttered by 70 year old lifelong punters in betting shops who lose everyday through laziness
 
Last edited:
Bruce_Savage said:
Isn't the fact you're using quite a lot of guess work quite concerning with your approach EC1?

The British racecourses hold more than its fair share of dodgy angles especially when they run down the centre of the track but I do remember Newbury and Newmarket putting yellow stripes on the pole at the furlong markers.

Unless you have professionally timed sectionals like those used throughout the Qipco series then you're treading on thin water.
Click to expand...

Epsom is easy to time
 
Bruce_Savage said:
Just to prove how stupid sectionals are why don't you go and find out the last 3f Double Trigger run when winning the Goodwood Cup and compare that with the sprints on the day.

Would have been good enough to win a 5f-6f sprint by sectional standards, of course we know that a two miler wouldn't have a chance over 5 or 6 furlongs but he's run the last 3f in xxx amount so he could of won - in theory of course.
Click to expand...

what was the time of his last 3 furlongs Bruce?

if you think they are stupid..why bother posting about them?..i think many threads on here are of no interest to me..so guess what..i don't post on them

its this sort of thing thats stifled this forum for years..you get a few like-minded people who want to chew the cud and then you get the clever dicks coming in..normally people who can't pick their nose..but are apparent experts on knowing what is no good at pickin winners.
 
Bruce_Savage said:
So by calculating the last 3 furlongs in relation to the final time you've been able to accurately determine the exact fractions the first 5f were run in?

I give you credit EC1, you're a trier.
Click to expand...


that proves you don't read posts properly

ok..i've wasted enough time now..thats it

heres where i am..if you don't think sectionals are any good..or speed figures...fair play to you..but you are wrong imo

end of subject for me
 
EC1 said:
Epsom is easy to time
Click to expand...

Errmm - IIRC, from a discussion with Simon Rowlands, all his times were done from the path just after Tattenham Corner, as camera angles etc made it impossible to do proper, even sectionals?
 
EC, Desert Orchid, Reet et al, fantastic and most interesting reading. Could read this stuff all day long. Yes there are weaknesses, but all are aware of, and acknowledge them, like SteveM woth dosage. The more different theories and interesting opinions on this place, the more interesting a place it is to lurk! I would love to have the time to post more and put the theories into practice but have to make do with reading them after the fact.
 
I agree Circumspect, I can't do time figures myself but I love reading the posts on them and we are fortunate to have some really good exponents of the art on here.
Likewise with Steve's dosage theory.
 
reet hard said:
Errmm - IIRC, from a discussion with Simon Rowlands, all his times were done from the path just after Tattenham Corner, as camera angles etc made it impossible to do proper, even sectionals?
Click to expand...

whats with the "ermmm" bullshit attitude?

i never said i took sectionals from each furlong ..i said taking sectionals from epsom is easy..which it is using two paths
 
Then it is impossible to do proper, even sectionals at Epsom, which is what Bruce implied - to which you replied it was easy.
 
Sectional analysis in this country isn't about "proper, even sectionals", though, is it? Using a reliable closing sectional enables enough to be extrapolated to make the process worthwhile. And worthwhile analysis isn't to be sniffed at.
 
Agree with Rory. Even without electronic sectionals a lot can clearly be gleaned from approximate closing sectionals. At first glance I thought the Derby was run at a solid enough gallop, with Astrology perhaps deserving to be marked up for setting the tempo and finishing as close as he did. The sectionals show that to be misguided; if anything, he may actually be most effective dropped to 10f.

I find it extremely hard to gauge the pace at certain tracks (both Newmarket courses and York - for some weird reason - in the UK); getting a reasonable sectional time (difficult at the three courses mentioned above!) is invaluable in those instances.

That said, the sectionals have to be reasonably accurate; I find it extremely hard to see how Nick Mordin can get reasonable sectional times for races on the round course at the Curragh (the furlong markers themselves are useless, being miles from the rail). He may have access to alternate camera angles or something. I don't know.
 
trackside528 said:
Agree with Rory. Even without electronic sectionals a lot can clearly be gleaned from approximate closing sectionals. At first glance I thought the Derby was run at a solid enough gallop, with Astrology perhaps deserving to be marked up for setting the tempo and finishing as close as he did. The sectionals show that to be misguided; if anything, he may actually be most effective dropped to 10f.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have that at all, Trackside.
Firstly, I'm convinced that Astrololgy's role was that of pacemaker, an opinion strengthened by the high confidence in Camelot expressed by Derrick Smith before the race.
Second, Astrology set a good, even pace, then visibly quickened fully 4f from home and maintained that impetus until passed by his stablemate, which hardly suggests he'll be better over shorter.
Thirdly, from a stable which usually has myriad entries for all its better horses, Astrology has just one at 10f, yet 3 at the Derby Distance.
Interpret the sectionals as you will, for mine, the form shows all the first 3 will prove better at 12f (or more) than they will at 10,
 
trackside528 said:
I find it extremely hard to gauge the pace at certain tracks
Click to expand...

You and neary every jockey that sits on a horse...


trackside528 said:
I find it extremely hard to see how Nick Mordin can get reasonable sectional times for races on the round course at the Curragh (the furlong markers themselves are useless, being miles from the rail). He may have access to alternate camera angles or something. I don't know.
Click to expand...

I could never take anything he says seriously.
 
Back
Top