Raven's Pass
- Thread starter Euronymous
- Start date
I’m afraid this post is largely for the terminally tragic amongst you. For those who aren’t interested in speed etc (ratings not the drug) look away now.
Having slagged off the odd jockey for behaving like sheep regarding their acquiescence on going descriptions, I’ve now found myself taking up something of a contrary position to everyone else regarding Ravens Pass, and trying to conjure up methods of speeding him up beyond the 92.52++ I awarded him at Sandown, in order that I too might comply with the consensus. Suffice to say, I can do it, but I know I’m bending the rules beyond all reasonable subjectivity to achieve my conformity. So this is my revised take, fwiw, in fact I’m not sure I’ve revised much?
Visually he was most impressive and I was immediately on the phone to someone “did you see that? Bloody hell!!! etc”. I fuller expected him to record a Teofilo rating of 100+, especially as he’d demolished the 2yo track record at Sandown, so I was very surprised to bring him in where I did. My first reaction was an error on the calculation (I’ve made them before) but I couldn’t find one. Mind you I’ve failed to find them before and only spotted them a few weeks later with a fresh pair of eyes etc.
Next explanation, was that he’s been unlucky to have encountered a card of reasonably truly run races. This is possible, but he’s still the fastest performance on the card, it’s just that there’s a crop of others very close to him. But what does this mean in reality? Well in truth it means you’re more likely to have a pretty good fix on him. The fault line that is more likely to exist is elsewhere. That is to say where I’ve drawn a conclusion about another horse whose had a few more dodgy races on his respective card (not run a true pace) and I haven’t quite appreciated it (most likely to occur where the spread of times is narrow and thus much harder to detect and isolate). This can lead to me over estimating other horses (and occurs most frequently in France) but it doesn’t effect the fix I have on Ravens Pass in the slightest. The only impact it has on the Gosden colt is where I place him in the hierarchy. In any event he’s still 8L’s behind Teofilo even if I’m prepared to rip up my French ratings for Minted. Even then Myboycharlies 97.00 was achieved on the Irish Oaks card, and with Peeping Fawn running a massive time, and New Approach as well as couple of useful other yardsticks being amongst the winners the quality looks reasonable. (note to self – recheck this card).
Third attempt to make Ravens Pass speed up; The sprint course? I’d included both 5 furlong races in my variance calculation. Well yes I’d finally made some progress, and by omitting the two sprints, I’d been able to speed him up to 94.11 (a full 1.5L’s). The problem however, is that there was no evidence that the sprint course was riding differently. Quite the opposite in fact. My normal variance calculation came out at +3.54 omitting the last two races, where as the two sprints taken in isolation would be +3.52 (a nose). I’d only speeded him up by virtue of now allowing Indian days time of +1.66 into the variance calculation and hence lowering the threshold. In short I was cheating, and with the RP’s time based ground also suggesting no difference in the going between the two courses, I couldn’t justify it.
Then an inspired moment; “you can only get the right answer, if you’re asking the correct question” – some inspired words drifted back to me from a different context.
What has he beaten? Has he beaten trees?
This sent me off digging out the ratings I’d given the rest of the field (for someone who actually keeps a record, you’d be surprised how rarely I actually use them)
This is how I had them anyway;
City Leader = 77.23 – moderate winner of an Ascot maiden
Gasper Von Wittel = 83.58 – 8L defeat to Winker Watson in the July stakes (a clue in itself?)
Belgrave Square = 78.51 – 0.25L defeat to Latin Lad in Goodwood maiden
Pegasus Again = 87.69 – 0.25L defeat to Maze in the Chesham
Maze = 87.94 – poor winner of the Chesham
Yem Kinn = 82.69 & 79.89 – 1.25L defeat to Yahrab in 2yo conditions race at Newbury, 9.75L defeat to Henrythenavigator in the Coventry
Lindoro = 66.63 – 3.25L defeat to Spanish Bounty in a Newmarket maiden
Yep, there wasn’t a great deal in this race to worry about other than the Chesham. Even then, it threw down with rain after that race, and Maze and Pegasus Again clearly had the best of the ground even if it wasn’t that detrimental to the rest of the card, there was still every chance their respective ratings were flattered a bit.
So if I assume that all the other horses have at least matched their previous standard, all in have to do is add on Ravens Pass’s winning margin of superiority in order to take a tentative stab at producing a projection rating.
City Leader – 7L’s + 77.23 = 84.23
Gasper Von Wittel – 7L’s & a Shd + 83.58 = 90.61
Belgrave Square – 8L’s + 78.51 = 86.51
Pegasus Again – 9L’s + 87.69 = 96.94
Maze – 15L’s + 87.94 = 102.94
Yem Kinn – 15.25L’s + 82.69 & 79.89 = 97.94 & 95.14
Lindoro – +15.5L’s + 66.63 = 82.13
Eight projected ratings based on previous runs = 736.44 / 8 = 92.05
In other words my class par figure of 92.52 is a little less than 0.5L different from a projected rating of 92.05. To beat them by the kind of distances that he has this is the level he’d have to run to in order to do it. There’s a pretty good chance therefore he has beaten trees.
But wait a minute. Am I not always espousing how a 2yo improves about 2.5L’s to 3.5L’s between runs? Guilty? I am. Is it not therefore unfair to assume that the rest of the field have improved 3L’s on the ratings I’ve projected off? It’s half fair. In truth I’ve always said that’s the case in pattern races, where as maiden runners can improve by 12L’s when stepping into pattern company. A crude way of legislating for this would be to add 3L’s to the projections and this brings Ravens Pass out at 95.52+.
However there’s grounds to believe that I’ve flattered a few already (most notably the Chesham runners). Using the 92.52 figure that the class par suggested Ravens Pass had run lets see how much the respective horses had improved by back calculating their losing distances against this figure, and comparing it to their previous rounding to the nearest quarter? (Sweet Solerio first – previous second)
City Leader, 85.55 – 77.23 = +8.25L’s
Gaspar Von Wittel, 85.52 – 83.58 = +1.94L’s
Belgrave Square, 84.52 – 78.51 = +6.01L’s
Pegasus Again, 83.52 – 87.69 = -4.17L’s
Maze, 77.52 – 87.94 = -10.42
Yem Kinn, had improved 2.80 from the Coventry to Newbury but regressed on his Newbury performance by 77.27 – 82.69 = -5.42L’s
Lindoro, 77.02 – 66.63 = +10.39
The average improvement is now +0.94L’s, suggesting that the field has indeed run below expectation. This is largely attributable to the two Chesham runners, but to some extent, they cancel out those that have come out of maidens where improvement is often even more violent than their apparent deterioration. I’d be prepared to give Ravens Pass at least 0.94L’s to his rating of 92.52 for 93.46.
The horse that appears to have run his race is the third home Gaspar Van Wittel. He’s improved pretty well 2L’s since his 8L defeat at the hands of Winker Watson. Then again, he was a group performer moving within pattern company where the level of improvement is much more predictable (I have no explanation for the Chesham, other than the one alluded to earlier, and the old age adage – this is horse racing, and horses aren’t machines).
If Van Wittel is the most reliable yardstick in the chasing pack? Then it’s surely worth reflecting on the fact that he lost by 8L’s (a fraction further) to Winker Watson, than he has to Ravens Pass (7L’s and a shorthead). Advocates of the Raven will point to the fact that he never saw the stick? True. But you’re probably talking about 1L to 1.5L’s, he wasn’t eased after all, just wasn’t asked for maximum extension,
The last rating I had for Winker Watson was 91.58 in the July Stakes, and it’s not as if he exactly had the run of the race either. I’d expect him to be capable of another 3L’s if on the normal 2yo improvement schedule of a top pattern horse. So 94.58 projected. If we accept that Winker Watson is about 1L faster than Ravens Pass through Van Witel that would make Ravens Pass as follows through Winker’s rating
91.58 – 1 = 90.58 (the difference in distance beaten through Van Witel)
+ 3L’s improvement = 93.58. Again this brings him out more or less within a neck of the 93.46 I was prepared to award him through the field’s improvement at Sandown
In summary
Try as I might I can’t make him go any faster and if the lone wolf belongs to the wilderness, then I think I’m destined to howl at the moon, until May 2008. Every line I try is bringing him out in the low to mid nineties at the best (and I have to bend the rules to achieve the latter ratings).
The only way I can make him go faster in the hierarchy is to find ways of ‘skipping’ those ahead of him. I can’t speed him up otherwise. I think he’s good, sure don’t get me wrong, but I’m yet to be convinced he’s the Guineas lock. The race is a veritable graveyard for fancied horses. Mind you, we have a Dewhurst to put my theory to the test yet. Depending on what turns up, I’ll take him on.
The only line I can find that suggests he’s brilliant involves Belgrave Square through Latin Lad to Sharp Nephew, but that’s a blind leap of faith, and requires more belief than what I’ve put up in support of the prosecution.
Having slagged off the odd jockey for behaving like sheep regarding their acquiescence on going descriptions, I’ve now found myself taking up something of a contrary position to everyone else regarding Ravens Pass, and trying to conjure up methods of speeding him up beyond the 92.52++ I awarded him at Sandown, in order that I too might comply with the consensus. Suffice to say, I can do it, but I know I’m bending the rules beyond all reasonable subjectivity to achieve my conformity. So this is my revised take, fwiw, in fact I’m not sure I’ve revised much?
Visually he was most impressive and I was immediately on the phone to someone “did you see that? Bloody hell!!! etc”. I fuller expected him to record a Teofilo rating of 100+, especially as he’d demolished the 2yo track record at Sandown, so I was very surprised to bring him in where I did. My first reaction was an error on the calculation (I’ve made them before) but I couldn’t find one. Mind you I’ve failed to find them before and only spotted them a few weeks later with a fresh pair of eyes etc.
Next explanation, was that he’s been unlucky to have encountered a card of reasonably truly run races. This is possible, but he’s still the fastest performance on the card, it’s just that there’s a crop of others very close to him. But what does this mean in reality? Well in truth it means you’re more likely to have a pretty good fix on him. The fault line that is more likely to exist is elsewhere. That is to say where I’ve drawn a conclusion about another horse whose had a few more dodgy races on his respective card (not run a true pace) and I haven’t quite appreciated it (most likely to occur where the spread of times is narrow and thus much harder to detect and isolate). This can lead to me over estimating other horses (and occurs most frequently in France) but it doesn’t effect the fix I have on Ravens Pass in the slightest. The only impact it has on the Gosden colt is where I place him in the hierarchy. In any event he’s still 8L’s behind Teofilo even if I’m prepared to rip up my French ratings for Minted. Even then Myboycharlies 97.00 was achieved on the Irish Oaks card, and with Peeping Fawn running a massive time, and New Approach as well as couple of useful other yardsticks being amongst the winners the quality looks reasonable. (note to self – recheck this card).
Third attempt to make Ravens Pass speed up; The sprint course? I’d included both 5 furlong races in my variance calculation. Well yes I’d finally made some progress, and by omitting the two sprints, I’d been able to speed him up to 94.11 (a full 1.5L’s). The problem however, is that there was no evidence that the sprint course was riding differently. Quite the opposite in fact. My normal variance calculation came out at +3.54 omitting the last two races, where as the two sprints taken in isolation would be +3.52 (a nose). I’d only speeded him up by virtue of now allowing Indian days time of +1.66 into the variance calculation and hence lowering the threshold. In short I was cheating, and with the RP’s time based ground also suggesting no difference in the going between the two courses, I couldn’t justify it.
Then an inspired moment; “you can only get the right answer, if you’re asking the correct question” – some inspired words drifted back to me from a different context.
What has he beaten? Has he beaten trees?
This sent me off digging out the ratings I’d given the rest of the field (for someone who actually keeps a record, you’d be surprised how rarely I actually use them)
This is how I had them anyway;
City Leader = 77.23 – moderate winner of an Ascot maiden
Gasper Von Wittel = 83.58 – 8L defeat to Winker Watson in the July stakes (a clue in itself?)
Belgrave Square = 78.51 – 0.25L defeat to Latin Lad in Goodwood maiden
Pegasus Again = 87.69 – 0.25L defeat to Maze in the Chesham
Maze = 87.94 – poor winner of the Chesham
Yem Kinn = 82.69 & 79.89 – 1.25L defeat to Yahrab in 2yo conditions race at Newbury, 9.75L defeat to Henrythenavigator in the Coventry
Lindoro = 66.63 – 3.25L defeat to Spanish Bounty in a Newmarket maiden
Yep, there wasn’t a great deal in this race to worry about other than the Chesham. Even then, it threw down with rain after that race, and Maze and Pegasus Again clearly had the best of the ground even if it wasn’t that detrimental to the rest of the card, there was still every chance their respective ratings were flattered a bit.
So if I assume that all the other horses have at least matched their previous standard, all in have to do is add on Ravens Pass’s winning margin of superiority in order to take a tentative stab at producing a projection rating.
City Leader – 7L’s + 77.23 = 84.23
Gasper Von Wittel – 7L’s & a Shd + 83.58 = 90.61
Belgrave Square – 8L’s + 78.51 = 86.51
Pegasus Again – 9L’s + 87.69 = 96.94
Maze – 15L’s + 87.94 = 102.94
Yem Kinn – 15.25L’s + 82.69 & 79.89 = 97.94 & 95.14
Lindoro – +15.5L’s + 66.63 = 82.13
Eight projected ratings based on previous runs = 736.44 / 8 = 92.05
In other words my class par figure of 92.52 is a little less than 0.5L different from a projected rating of 92.05. To beat them by the kind of distances that he has this is the level he’d have to run to in order to do it. There’s a pretty good chance therefore he has beaten trees.
But wait a minute. Am I not always espousing how a 2yo improves about 2.5L’s to 3.5L’s between runs? Guilty? I am. Is it not therefore unfair to assume that the rest of the field have improved 3L’s on the ratings I’ve projected off? It’s half fair. In truth I’ve always said that’s the case in pattern races, where as maiden runners can improve by 12L’s when stepping into pattern company. A crude way of legislating for this would be to add 3L’s to the projections and this brings Ravens Pass out at 95.52+.
However there’s grounds to believe that I’ve flattered a few already (most notably the Chesham runners). Using the 92.52 figure that the class par suggested Ravens Pass had run lets see how much the respective horses had improved by back calculating their losing distances against this figure, and comparing it to their previous rounding to the nearest quarter? (Sweet Solerio first – previous second)
City Leader, 85.55 – 77.23 = +8.25L’s
Gaspar Von Wittel, 85.52 – 83.58 = +1.94L’s
Belgrave Square, 84.52 – 78.51 = +6.01L’s
Pegasus Again, 83.52 – 87.69 = -4.17L’s
Maze, 77.52 – 87.94 = -10.42
Yem Kinn, had improved 2.80 from the Coventry to Newbury but regressed on his Newbury performance by 77.27 – 82.69 = -5.42L’s
Lindoro, 77.02 – 66.63 = +10.39
The average improvement is now +0.94L’s, suggesting that the field has indeed run below expectation. This is largely attributable to the two Chesham runners, but to some extent, they cancel out those that have come out of maidens where improvement is often even more violent than their apparent deterioration. I’d be prepared to give Ravens Pass at least 0.94L’s to his rating of 92.52 for 93.46.
The horse that appears to have run his race is the third home Gaspar Van Wittel. He’s improved pretty well 2L’s since his 8L defeat at the hands of Winker Watson. Then again, he was a group performer moving within pattern company where the level of improvement is much more predictable (I have no explanation for the Chesham, other than the one alluded to earlier, and the old age adage – this is horse racing, and horses aren’t machines).
If Van Wittel is the most reliable yardstick in the chasing pack? Then it’s surely worth reflecting on the fact that he lost by 8L’s (a fraction further) to Winker Watson, than he has to Ravens Pass (7L’s and a shorthead). Advocates of the Raven will point to the fact that he never saw the stick? True. But you’re probably talking about 1L to 1.5L’s, he wasn’t eased after all, just wasn’t asked for maximum extension,
The last rating I had for Winker Watson was 91.58 in the July Stakes, and it’s not as if he exactly had the run of the race either. I’d expect him to be capable of another 3L’s if on the normal 2yo improvement schedule of a top pattern horse. So 94.58 projected. If we accept that Winker Watson is about 1L faster than Ravens Pass through Van Witel that would make Ravens Pass as follows through Winker’s rating
91.58 – 1 = 90.58 (the difference in distance beaten through Van Witel)
+ 3L’s improvement = 93.58. Again this brings him out more or less within a neck of the 93.46 I was prepared to award him through the field’s improvement at Sandown
In summary
Try as I might I can’t make him go any faster and if the lone wolf belongs to the wilderness, then I think I’m destined to howl at the moon, until May 2008. Every line I try is bringing him out in the low to mid nineties at the best (and I have to bend the rules to achieve the latter ratings).
The only way I can make him go faster in the hierarchy is to find ways of ‘skipping’ those ahead of him. I can’t speed him up otherwise. I think he’s good, sure don’t get me wrong, but I’m yet to be convinced he’s the Guineas lock. The race is a veritable graveyard for fancied horses. Mind you, we have a Dewhurst to put my theory to the test yet. Depending on what turns up, I’ll take him on.
The only line I can find that suggests he’s brilliant involves Belgrave Square through Latin Lad to Sharp Nephew, but that’s a blind leap of faith, and requires more belief than what I’ve put up in support of the prosecution.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
German Guineas maybe.
EC1
On a break
norty
EC1
On a break
another solution may be easy Warbler
what standard time do you have for the 8f & 7f distances..once I know those two I may have the answer
what standard time do you have for the 8f & 7f distances..once I know those two I may have the answer
Neither here nor there to me that the race has been a "graveyard" for guineas hopes. Unless theres a very good reason for it, then its just a stat...
Analysing and comparing performances where the winner has won so easily is a pointless exercise. So he would be a more worthy guineas favourite if he had been pushed out more or made his move earlier and thus added a few lengths to the margin? (probably)
I havent backed him for the gunieas but wouldnt back against him at this stage either. I think tahts where its best left for now...until the autumn group ones
Analysing and comparing performances where the winner has won so easily is a pointless exercise. So he would be a more worthy guineas favourite if he had been pushed out more or made his move earlier and thus added a few lengths to the margin? (probably)
I havent backed him for the gunieas but wouldnt back against him at this stage either. I think tahts where its best left for now...until the autumn group ones
EC1
On a break
Maze wouldn't be a good marker Warbler, he pulled his chance away in the first half of the race..not shown his best form..dropped back quick once the early exertions had taken their toll
Quickly:
I use RP standards, otherwise I'm not sure what you're asking?
Maze is a poor benchmark I admit. If you project of him alone, you make the Raven fly faster, which is the only way I can bring him out at 100+. If you take him out of the equation in terms of how the field improved, you'll enhance the field by 2.83L's on average, which is pretty well within the 2.5 to 3.5 zone I speculated that 2yo's improve. This gives the Raven a max rating of 95.35.
If I was loooking for a 2006 comparator it would be Dutch Art
I use RP standards, otherwise I'm not sure what you're asking?
Maze is a poor benchmark I admit. If you project of him alone, you make the Raven fly faster, which is the only way I can bring him out at 100+. If you take him out of the equation in terms of how the field improved, you'll enhance the field by 2.83L's on average, which is pretty well within the 2.5 to 3.5 zone I speculated that 2yo's improve. This gives the Raven a max rating of 95.35.
If I was loooking for a 2006 comparator it would be Dutch Art
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 24,803
First things first: a huge vote of appreciation to Warbler for getting on to this race so quickly and so thoroughly and also for sharing his findings with us.
I ended up with decent time ratings for the Chesham but the worry was how many were so close to each other at the end and the form subsequently hasn't really worked out. I concluded the Chesham was the only properly run race on the card that day and that the times on the whole were close to meaningless.
The reverse side of my coin says you don't have to run fast times to be a fast horse and I know that's a view with which you have some sympathy, Warbler. Even if those he beat were very ordinary types for the class of race, he's given them a seven length beating, looking to have a fair bit in reserve.
Let's say it was only another length. It's still eight lengths and at the trip that works out at about 20lbs. The Solario isn't always a great race but it would be unusual for an average winner to end up with an OR of less than 100. Had Raven's Pass not run, we'd have witnessed a close-run affair with the principals performing pretty close to expectations relative to each other and we'd ahve said the form was probably sound, if nothing too strong. We'd probably say the winner was worth a rating of about 100. But RP was 20lbs too good for them.
It will be next weekend before I get the chance to analyse the race in detail for myself but I reckon we saw an exceptional horse yesterday.
I ended up with decent time ratings for the Chesham but the worry was how many were so close to each other at the end and the form subsequently hasn't really worked out. I concluded the Chesham was the only properly run race on the card that day and that the times on the whole were close to meaningless.
The reverse side of my coin says you don't have to run fast times to be a fast horse and I know that's a view with which you have some sympathy, Warbler. Even if those he beat were very ordinary types for the class of race, he's given them a seven length beating, looking to have a fair bit in reserve.
Let's say it was only another length. It's still eight lengths and at the trip that works out at about 20lbs. The Solario isn't always a great race but it would be unusual for an average winner to end up with an OR of less than 100. Had Raven's Pass not run, we'd have witnessed a close-run affair with the principals performing pretty close to expectations relative to each other and we'd ahve said the form was probably sound, if nothing too strong. We'd probably say the winner was worth a rating of about 100. But RP was 20lbs too good for them.
It will be next weekend before I get the chance to analyse the race in detail for myself but I reckon we saw an exceptional horse yesterday.
K
Kathy
Guest
Poetry in motion. A fantastic photo.
You can almost see his every muscle and sinnew straining in the last photo especially in the rump, shoulders and chest.
When you look at the overall size of the horse's body mass, and then look at the thin, spindly legs, it's no wonder so many horses break down with leg injuries.
You can almost see his every muscle and sinnew straining in the last photo especially in the rump, shoulders and chest.
When you look at the overall size of the horse's body mass, and then look at the thin, spindly legs, it's no wonder so many horses break down with leg injuries.
uncle goober
At the Start
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2005
- Messages
- 1,277
have you been drinking ?
K
Kathy
Guest
That was one hell of a puddle on the straight. I bet I know one trainer that wouldn't pay for such a photo - far too grainy!
uncle goober
At the Start
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2005
- Messages
- 1,277
Hope he's not voting on Bet Idol Kathy !!
I think you'll find you've seen a very good one?
As you know, I'm not the greatest exponent of the projection method by a long chalk, and only invoked some of it's theory in this case, in an attempt to contradict my class par line of investigation. When it came out as being 0.5L slower at worst or 2.75L's faster at best, I was a bit disappointed (well no I wasn't, I already backed Charlie at 33's).
I find the line to Winker through Van Witel the most compelling and again that's pointing to him being lower to mid (at a push) 90's. He's well behind Teofilo, HRE, Eagle Mountain, Dutch Art and Authorized on my 2yo figures from last year. Minted holds an entry for the Dewhurst :brows: we'll see
EC1
On a break
In simple terms Warbler he ran 2.27 seconds per mile faster than the 0-90 nursery over the same trip. As we are comparing the same age group there is no wfa. A straight comparison to that race makes him a 123/124 horse depending on whether you think that nursery was run to par or not. I took the view that the nursery was about 4 or 5lbs faster than par..hence my view of the potential 129 for Ravens.
The very best figure I got for Teofilo was in last years Dewhurst where I gave a figure of 121 ..which would have meant a potential mature figure of 135..a massive figure but I believe genuine..unless he was a really mature 2yo of course.
So at the moment Ravens is 9lbs below Teofilo 2yo best..but Ravens was recorded 1 month earlier. Theoretically if both improved the average amount between 2 & 3yo I would have Teofilo just 6lbs superior as mature horses.
I'm struggling to see how you don't get a decent figure for Ravens but can only assume you are working your figures out in a completely different way to most figure makers.
If you are happy with your figures I wouldn't worry about it...in this game it's possible for many to be wrong and just a few to be right.
We all have to be happy with the way we make these calcs and we all may have different ways..depends what your mind tells you. You seem to want to make your figure bigger to match the majority view...when in fact you could be right..and not the others.
The very best figure I got for Teofilo was in last years Dewhurst where I gave a figure of 121 ..which would have meant a potential mature figure of 135..a massive figure but I believe genuine..unless he was a really mature 2yo of course.
So at the moment Ravens is 9lbs below Teofilo 2yo best..but Ravens was recorded 1 month earlier. Theoretically if both improved the average amount between 2 & 3yo I would have Teofilo just 6lbs superior as mature horses.
I'm struggling to see how you don't get a decent figure for Ravens but can only assume you are working your figures out in a completely different way to most figure makers.
If you are happy with your figures I wouldn't worry about it...in this game it's possible for many to be wrong and just a few to be right.
We all have to be happy with the way we make these calcs and we all may have different ways..depends what your mind tells you. You seem to want to make your figure bigger to match the majority view...when in fact you could be right..and not the others.
I've tended to adopt (and corrupt) the American method I believe? That is to say I trade in time and express superiority in distances rather than weight. I struggle to visualise what a 5Ib difference means at 1 mile, I have less problem converting that to 2.75L's. My ratings as I understand them shrug:: aren't articulated in terms of weight, but rather calibrated to distance and aggregated to a set par, which in theory should allow me to cross horses over against each other, at ease. The only thing I need to adjust is the precise weight they ran at to achieve a rating, and what I would project them to do with any revisions to that weight. Even then though, I don't express that as a superiority in terms of weight, but rather in terms of distance.
Am I wrong?
Well I'm certainly not brave enough to say I'm right, but i do know that in order to win money in the long term, you need to find an alternative angle that gives you the edge. In truth I don't do badly - I win, but I don't make a fortune, but a large part of that I'm increasingly realising is because i don't know how to bet!!! (hence starting a thread on the subject not so long ago) - I've lost tens of thousands through badly placed bets when I has the information available and failed to deploy it
Ultimately the American industry is newer than ours, and with developemnt comes progress. We might very well be marooned in traditional ways of thinking, and those handed down from Admiral Rous et al. I keep an open mind, and am prepared to explore and think about other ways of establishing a horses level fo superiority. The fact that they seem to deal in a different currency probably owes something to the fact they don't have a jumps programme? Much as though I prefer jumps as a spectacle, I find it much harder to make money on outside of the major festivals, as the methodology just doesn't seem to work.
Am I wrong?
Well I'm certainly not brave enough to say I'm right, but i do know that in order to win money in the long term, you need to find an alternative angle that gives you the edge. In truth I don't do badly - I win, but I don't make a fortune, but a large part of that I'm increasingly realising is because i don't know how to bet!!! (hence starting a thread on the subject not so long ago) - I've lost tens of thousands through badly placed bets when I has the information available and failed to deploy it
Ultimately the American industry is newer than ours, and with developemnt comes progress. We might very well be marooned in traditional ways of thinking, and those handed down from Admiral Rous et al. I keep an open mind, and am prepared to explore and think about other ways of establishing a horses level fo superiority. The fact that they seem to deal in a different currency probably owes something to the fact they don't have a jumps programme? Much as though I prefer jumps as a spectacle, I find it much harder to make money on outside of the major festivals, as the methodology just doesn't seem to work.
EC1
On a break
I don't like the expression of weight and OHR's in speed figures either and have tried to formulate my own scale..but never really mastered it yet.
It is easier to try and work alongside the OHR scale though if possible for ease of use I have found.
I think you are on the right track myself and if that means you get different conclusions to that of the majority..and it gives you an edge..then job done imho.
I'm no where near that, I don't make it pay..mainly due to poor staking and general stupidity norty
In fact, there was only me and Dave Jay on the TRF board that didn't make it pay, 99.9% of those that post on there are winners from what they used to say :nuts:
I've got a lot to learn
h34r:
It is easier to try and work alongside the OHR scale though if possible for ease of use I have found.
I think you are on the right track myself and if that means you get different conclusions to that of the majority..and it gives you an edge..then job done imho.
I'm no where near that, I don't make it pay..mainly due to poor staking and general stupidity norty
In fact, there was only me and Dave Jay on the TRF board that didn't make it pay, 99.9% of those that post on there are winners from what they used to say :nuts:
I've got a lot to learn
h34r:I'd agree with all that DO said [esp the thanks to Warbler for a fascinating rundown on this race and indeed how he's arrived at a rating for so many of the season's interesting juveniles]
As regards Raven's Pass, it wasn't just the number of lengths by which he beat the field, but the ease with which he did it. The photos are wonderful - and revealing: he exhibits such exuberance. I was very struck on the day with his action - very fast and economical, and I was amazed in the 3rd photo above, which is breathtaking, how far off the ground he was as his leg action looked so very neat
As regards Raven's Pass, it wasn't just the number of lengths by which he beat the field, but the ease with which he did it. The photos are wonderful - and revealing: he exhibits such exuberance. I was very struck on the day with his action - very fast and economical, and I was amazed in the 3rd photo above, which is breathtaking, how far off the ground he was as his leg action looked so very neat
Only a very good horse can win a race in a very fast time but it seems opportune to perhaps pick up on this point here, as I believe I know what his friend is saying, and in this context?. You need to be able to visualise how a race is likely to be run, and whether the race conditions are going suit a certain horse. Few races are run in really fast times, (although there are certain ones in the calender which are run quickly more times than not). This being the case you need to realise that you might very well be deploying the wrong analytical tool for the job at hand. Knowing who the fastest horse is, is only really useful if you believe that the race is going to be run under circumstances that are similar and hence bring this advantage to the fore. Most races aren't, and so what Chris's friend is saying is that the percentage call lies elsewhere. It's tantamount to finding the most appropriate tool to do the job, based on what you think the assignment is likely to involve and bring to a premium. I'm trying to think of an analogy to illustrate the principal but can't really. You wouldn't use a hedge strimmer to cut someones hair, even though you know it cuts faster (bad example).
Knowing who the fastest horse is, is only likely to be of paramount importance if you believe the race is going to be run in fast time. In a lot cases most races aren't, so somehting like acceleration might present the more appropriate key. It's bit like comparing apples with pears, or trying to make a square peg go into a round hole. You can only get the right answer if you're asking the correct question etc. The line of enquiry is only relevant if the same conditions are likely to apply.
You wouldn't back a horse that's won all it's races on heavy ground if it came up firm. To some extent I think your friend is alluding to a similar theory. You're backing a horse based on a it running fast time, when it's unlikely to be required to do so. As an analytical tool it's not necessarily fit for purpose. That the form from such races doesn't often work out therefore, probably isn't that surprising so infrequently is it that horses are being asked to reproduce their performance.
I think one area that is useful concerns novice and juvenile hurdlers. Those that head the market often do so on the strength of 'jog and sprint' races often on heavy ground in Ireland. Come Cheltenham they'll be going into the unknown and asked to win races that bear little resemblence to anything they've previosuly encountered given that a strong pace is almost certainly guranteed. Some can step up and run a fast time, tape to post, but it's veritable graveyard for fancied runners with lofty reputations, earned as a result of winning races there bear no resemblence to what they'll be asked to now. To a large extent it's the inverse of the same thing.
Why would you back a horse to win a fast run race, when they've only previosuly shown they can win a slow run race?
What Chris's friend is saying I believe, is why would you back a horse that has proven it can win a fast race, when it's likely to be confronted with a slower race? (admittedly I'd prefer to do it that way round of the two) but the form is only likely to be reproduced if the horse in question is encountering similar conditions. As fast run races account for about 5% of races, I can certainly see your friends logic in that the form appears to be unreliable, or though less relevant would be how I would view it.
I might expand on my Supreme Novice hurdle theory for you if you're unlucky :laughing: but we need to do some research first.
uncle goober
At the Start
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2005
- Messages
- 1,277
Related to your post Warbler, it drives me up the wall to read RP 'analysts' saying that ' there was no pace , so the form is worthless ' or something along those lines of the form should be ignored. They even go as far as to say the race was spoilt.
Its far from worthless or spoiled.
More than one way to skin a cat, and all that.
Its far from worthless or spoiled.
More than one way to skin a cat, and all that.
EC1
On a break
I thinks it's about mindset Goober.
People that make speed figures ideally would like to see every race truly run which would then give them very accurate figures re every horse that runs. The "spoilt" comes in at this point IF you have that mindset. My take is that the race isn't spoiled if it is a jog and sprint..but ...it certainly takes some shine off it for me personally..as part of my mindset is in the true run race bracket.
Every race that is run has some value to the future no matter if jog and sprint or truly run...you just need to think what strengths a horse needs for each type of race and utilise it in future.
I like to speed rate big meetings as it has lots of advantages to me..I have a good idea about the ground conditions...I can see..allied with race comments... basically how the race was run which in turn tells me horses that have run well against pace biases..always a handy by product.
Having good speed figures can back up the visual impression of a race..some people don't need speed figures as they have the skill to spot good horses no matter what the pace is..I don't have that skill and neither do many others if my experience of reading threads on messageboards for 8 years is anything to go by. The countless number of times I've read threads by people judging horse X to be the next pegasus just on the visual impression..and being wrong..tellls me that the ability to analyse by eye is indeed a great skill.
Apart from making figures post race... having a good set of standard times created by yourself is also a great help in real time..as at the Curragh on Sunday..you know pretty much the going after a couple of races..this alone can be worth the effort of creating those standards..if 90% of punters believe it's fast ground when it's not..you can then be backing horses under their ideal conditions that other punters will not bet...instant value....the Eclipse was a good example..Dylan was a good price because people believed the going was Good to Soft when in fact it was perfect in the straight for him...just a couple of recent examples.
Once you have rated a meeting you have so much more insight into those races..knowledge is power..if I don't rate a meeting I do not see those races in the same light..detail is missing.
The problem I have had sometimes on boards though is that some people seem to think your making of speed figures is some kind of mental disorder or trainspotting affliction..most folk like that do not have the application or diligence themselves to analyse races and seem to be annoyed that others do so..I'm glad to see on here that Warbler gets no such ridicule.
All I can see from having really good standard times and making speed figures..is having a greater knowledge of the subject...plusses all the way.
But it's not the be all and end all for everyone as this game is a massive challenge that allows many different angles to be employed.
I would never underestimate a figuremaker though..because that is definately a mistake....it's all about soaking in knowledge imho.
People that make speed figures ideally would like to see every race truly run which would then give them very accurate figures re every horse that runs. The "spoilt" comes in at this point IF you have that mindset. My take is that the race isn't spoiled if it is a jog and sprint..but ...it certainly takes some shine off it for me personally..as part of my mindset is in the true run race bracket.
Every race that is run has some value to the future no matter if jog and sprint or truly run...you just need to think what strengths a horse needs for each type of race and utilise it in future.
I like to speed rate big meetings as it has lots of advantages to me..I have a good idea about the ground conditions...I can see..allied with race comments... basically how the race was run which in turn tells me horses that have run well against pace biases..always a handy by product.
Having good speed figures can back up the visual impression of a race..some people don't need speed figures as they have the skill to spot good horses no matter what the pace is..I don't have that skill and neither do many others if my experience of reading threads on messageboards for 8 years is anything to go by. The countless number of times I've read threads by people judging horse X to be the next pegasus just on the visual impression..and being wrong..tellls me that the ability to analyse by eye is indeed a great skill.
Apart from making figures post race... having a good set of standard times created by yourself is also a great help in real time..as at the Curragh on Sunday..you know pretty much the going after a couple of races..this alone can be worth the effort of creating those standards..if 90% of punters believe it's fast ground when it's not..you can then be backing horses under their ideal conditions that other punters will not bet...instant value....the Eclipse was a good example..Dylan was a good price because people believed the going was Good to Soft when in fact it was perfect in the straight for him...just a couple of recent examples.
Once you have rated a meeting you have so much more insight into those races..knowledge is power..if I don't rate a meeting I do not see those races in the same light..detail is missing.
The problem I have had sometimes on boards though is that some people seem to think your making of speed figures is some kind of mental disorder or trainspotting affliction..most folk like that do not have the application or diligence themselves to analyse races and seem to be annoyed that others do so..I'm glad to see on here that Warbler gets no such ridicule.
All I can see from having really good standard times and making speed figures..is having a greater knowledge of the subject...plusses all the way.
But it's not the be all and end all for everyone as this game is a massive challenge that allows many different angles to be employed.
I would never underestimate a figuremaker though..because that is definately a mistake....it's all about soaking in knowledge imho.
Not that I'm trying to bring any undue influence to your synopsis Dessie, nor is it that I'm a tad nervous about being quite so isolated on this one, but surely you'd be twitchy if you agreed with this mans assessment
RAVEN'S PASS RUNS FREAKISHLY FAST
"The speed rating I awarded RAVEN'S PASS (40) for his win in the Solario Stakes is very likely to be the biggest of the season. It was a huge performance.
Held up off the fast pace set by Maze (23) Raven's Pass came through smoothly to lead two furlongs out. From there he was ridden right out all the way till just before the line and proceeded to go well clear of the field. He was tiring visibly in the last 100 yards, his stride shortening dramatically. But it was so late and he was so far clear his jockey was actually able to start easing him down in the last four or five strides.
Raven's Pass is a very mature, good-bodied colt who has already run as fast as most 2000 Guineas winners. I do however have a few concerns about him.
The first and most immediate concern I have about Raven's Pass is that he had a very hard race here. I know that two year olds can recover more quickly than older horses. But I'd still like to see a break of at least five weeks between this race and his next outing. If he's brought back for the Champagne Stakes or Royal Lodge later this month I'd be inclined to bet that he'd 'bounce' (i.e. regress in form due to the effects of a hard and fast recent race).
If he were mine I'd keep him fresh for the Dewhurst Stakes in October and then put him away for the season.
The second concern I have about Raven's Pass involves those three letters in brackets after his name 'USA'.
I produced research a few months ago which showed that the strike rate of American bred horses drops markedly with age when they're racing against runners bred elsewhere. I am convinced this is because steroids are legal in America. I believe that the import of American bred horses should be stopped until the US authorities prohibit the use of steroids because it gives their two year olds and early three year olds a huge edge over those bred elsewhere. The relative performance of US bred horses indicate that they mature earlier than those bred elsewhere, and nobody is ever going to convince me this is due to anything other than steroids.
In my experience the fastest American bred two year olds don't tend to make much, if any improvement from two to three.
The final concern I have about Raven's Pass is stamina. The way he tired in the last furlong over seven furlongs here makes me concerned about his ability to go a mile. His sire was more of a seven furlong horse than a miler, scoring three of his four stakes wins at the distance and breaking the seven furlong track record at Gulfstream Park. Raven's Pass very nearly broke the all-aged track record over seven furlongs at Sandown and did lower the juvenile standard. I'm worried that he may take after his sire in regards to his distance preference.
Having said all that I have to concede this was a sensational run from a two year old. If he's kept fresh for the Dewhurst I'd be very wary of betting against him".
- Taken from the Weekly report of the Nick Mordin web site