Speed Figure calculation and usage

EC1

EC1

On a break
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
17,679
Location
late 1960's early 70's
I'll start this off with the method I believe is used by Topspeed to calculate his figures...it may differ now..but its a method many figure makers will also use..but there are also other ways of getting figures.

I'm not sure where I got this from..I've had it ages so apologies if I have taken it from another forum or site

1.Identify the standard (on a scale of 0-140) of each race at a particular meeting. This can be done by taking the RPR top-rating and subtracting 14- the resulting figure is the standard of the race adjusted to 9st. (The RPR ratings are adjusted to 10st ).
This is the EXPECTED standard of form and time for a race run at a fair pace on good ground.



For 2yo and 3yo races, an adjustment must be made for weight for age using the agreed scale, preferably the one recommended by the Racing Post and published in the paper from time to time. The adjustment involves reducing the standard by the weight for age allowance to recognise the fact that an immature horse will not be able to run as fast as a mature horse even though they have the same RPR or Topspeed rating.
The RPR and Topspeed ratings as they appear in the Racing Post are already adjusted upwards for weight for age in races for 2yo and 3yo only. In all aged races including handicaps, the WFA allowances (BHB or official version) are included in the allotted weights.


2. Note the ACTUAL time of each race and whether or not it is above or below the standard time. The standard time has been calculated from a large sample of races and is defined as:


'the time expected from a mature horse (4.5 year old), rated 100, carrying 9st on good going'.


A mature horse rated 100 is a top handicapper or listed class.


The ACTUAL race time can be converted into a rating using the following table of distance/time/weight, used in conjunction with the weight for age allowance.


Distance(f) 1 second = (lbs)
5 22
618.4
715.8
8 13.7
912.3
1010.9
1110.1
12 9.2
138.5
147.8
157.3
166.9
176.5
18 6.1


For example, at 5f, 1.5 seconds slower than standard time is (22 x 1.5 = 33lbs) below the standard of 100, i.e. 67.


Provided a race is run at a fair pace, the difference between the EXPECTED time and the ACTUAL time is due to the going unless there are any other factors which are not apparent. These might include the effect of the wind, incorrect distances due to unannounced track changes or faulty timing(unlikely).


The average difference or variation for races reportedly run at a fair pace is the going correction which needs to be applied in order to calculate speed ratings. The going correction might be different on the straight part of the course to the round course and might also change during the racing if there is rain, a drying wind or the ground cuts up due to usage.


The GOING CORRECTION is expressed as a figure in lbs which recognises that horses’ times, on average, are being affected by the going.
If the average variation is negative, it means horses are being slowed and if it is positive it means they are going quicker than the standard.
A negative variation requires a POSITIVE correction; a positive variation warrants a NEGATIVE correction. This often causes confusion, but I prefer to express the going correction as negative when it is slowing horses and positive when it is making them go faster than standard, even though the adjustment to the basic race rating needs to be in the opposite direction.


3.The going correction is then applied to the ACTUAL race times which were earlier converted into ratings using the table of distance/time/weight. For example, if the going correction is -10, then 10lbs needs to be added to the rating for each race to obtain a rating which has been adjusted for the going.


4. The rating for the WINNER needs to be adjusted for weight carried (above or below 9st), WFA and any rider’s allowance.
Rating from (3) above
ADD weight carried above 9st
ADD back any WFA allowance
ADD back any rider’s allowance
DEDUCT weight carried below 9st


5. For The rest of the runners:
Rating from (3) above
ADD weight carried above 9st
ADD back any WFA allowance
ADD back any rider’s allowance
DEDUCT weight carried below 9st
DEDUCT distance beaten using the following table:
At 5f 1 length = 3.6lbs
6f 1 length = 3.0lbs
7f 1 length = 2.6lbs
8f 1length = 2.3 lbs
9/10f 1 length = 2.0 lbs
11/12f 1 length = 1.6 lbs
13/14f 1 length = 1.4 lbs
15/16f 1 length = 1.2 lbs
17/18f 1 length = 1.1 lbs


The calculations can be somewhat cumbersome, but a lot of the sub-rotines can be programmed on to a spread sheet<o>></o>>
<o>> </o>>
<o>> </o>>
Beaten lengths X 22/ race distance (furlongs)<o>></o>>


Do any figure makers base their calcs around this idea?
 
Last edited:
to be fair..reading that it looks like a lot of work..but once everthing is on a spreadsheet it takes me about 3 minutes to input all the data..then another 5/10 minutes checking out marker races to confirm or otherwise which races to rely on as being evenly run.

I don't use the above method..mines way simpler:)
 
Thanks for that EC1.

I use a variation of the old Split Second method using the old Standard Times (which I still believe are more accurate markers than the ones being used these days). The down side for me is that I'm stuck with these times, which may lose their reliability in the longer term but I'll be dead in the longer term anyway.
 
EC1 said:
Provided a race is run at a fair pace, the difference between the EXPECTED time and the ACTUAL time is due to the going unless there are any other factors which are not apparent. These might include the effect of the wind, incorrect distances due to unannounced track changes or faulty timing(unlikely).
Click to expand...

How do you differentiate between the time being slow due to the ground or the time being slow due to the race not being run at a "fair pace" though?

As I've said before, this is a subject I know very little about, but one in which I am very interested in learning more.
 
trackside528 said:
How do you differentiate between the time being slow due to the ground or the time being slow due to the race not being run at a "fair pace" though?

As I've said before, this is a subject I know very little about, but one in which I am very interested in learning more.
Click to expand...

I don't Track

thats why sometimes I will ask if there was a tailwind..not to alter anything..just to assess/explain the times

when calculating figures..I don't worry about what is influencing the race times..just find the constant allowance..the only time wind comes into it is if you have timed the first two races..and want to know what the going is during the days meeting..live time.

lets say we have a perfect card..every race is 1 second per mile slower than it should be..then that is the allowance..something is slowing times down 1 sec per mile...calc figures then you are done..you could check RP and see if they mention tailwind or headwind...most times the ground is what is affecting the times

its not a massive issue..yes we have days when wind is strong against or whatever..but on a round course that works both ways doesn't it?

there is no way on earth you could know the wind speed for every minute of each meeting.
 
Are six races on a card a large enough sample to prove any trend that would cause you to make an allowance for the going (or otherwise). Presuming that it isn't, how can you reliably tell the difference between performance and allowance to give an accurate rating?
 
EC1 said:
lets say we have a perfect card..every race is 1 second per mile slower than it should be..then that is the allowance..
Click to expand...

But what happens when the times are varying between 6.18 outside standard and 0.14 under standard (as they were at the Curragh on Saturday)? How do you go about establishing a going allowance given the disparity in times? Think Betsmate may be asking a broadly similar question as well.
 
Hi Betsmate

good question

I would really like other figure makers to answer and discuss here as well..its not just a question/answer thread for me :)there is more than me does time calcs on here..come on guys..Pru you ask me to start a thread on this and you not posted owt :). there is no need to keep secrets surely..thers books on this ffs :)

Yes 6 races isn't a lot..but I personally use 4 horses per race..which gives you 24 bits of info.

On top of doing the calcs..you can watch the replays....you can read the comments of races..there are "tells" when a race is slowly run for instance.

Check out the guineas meeting on ATR for Saturday..you have a nice example of a slow run race..Shamwari . You can also see from your calcsn that the races run standside need keeping separate from those nearside..I wonder if Topspeed will do that :)

Some days its possible that every race is run slowly..yes...not often but it happens..its up to you to use your judgement a little bit..but most days its easy to spot races you throw out.
 
trackside528 said:
But what happens when the times are varying between 6.18 outside standard and 0.14 under standard (as they were at the Curragh on Saturday)? How do you go about establishing a going allowance given the disparity in times? Think Betsmate may be asking a broadly similar question as well.
Click to expand...


I've not done that card Track..but just off top of my head..Jan's race was slow early on just glancing at the times...same distance maiden race was one second slower

Ireland is quite difficult re calcs..I can't pretend otherwise..others will tell you same..the best scenario was Saturday where 4 one mile races took place.

They have too many samey distances races taking place on different bits of the course..for instance...yesterday F&G runs a different 10f to Jan..why can't they can't just use one 10f track i don't know :confused:

If you rated that card yesterday..you would be buggered to be honest.

the main crux is...speed rating depends on how you are going to use them.

Some people want a figure for every horse running..I personally don't..so I don't worry about cards like yesterday.

I use the cards I rate for pace analysis..I also like knowing what the big race ratings are obviously but I like to know which races where faster than they should have been..for spotting future winners..thats how I use it..others will want to do different things

if anyone else deems to reveal owt:)..you might find out how others go about using them
 
Last edited:
Fine; here's my view, clearly laid out:

If two horses of the same age carry the same weight and record the same time on the same day over the same course and distance, they should be accorded the same time rating and those time ratings should be realistic given the level of form they have shown in their races.

I would treat any time handicapping methodology which doesn't follow this logic at a minimum with scepticism.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled 2000 Guineas thread :o
user_online.gif



I have no problem with that..yes they will have the same figure..ie STP = FM..on the day....but they aren't the same performance as they have been earned in different ways and its for that reason you can't slot Start The Party into the guineas and rate the guineas off it in a form manner..as you suggested earlier..I think this is what you can't comprehend...why... I don't know.

its this that you aren't getting..the speed figure for both horses is the same..yes...but you can't shove STP into guineas as a form tool..for a simple reason..

if STP had run in guineas he would have been asked to run a lot faster than his ability allowed...particularly in the last 4 furlongs..where the guineas took 2 seconds out of the handicap....he would have lost ground late in the race similar to the front runner in his own handicap..obviously not as exhaggerated ..but he would have finished further back than FM..because he would meet pace pressure that would empty him pretty quickly..he would not have recorded the same time he did when he is able to run his own speed as in the handicap..energy used too early..tells more late on..its the definition of being outclassed

thats why you cannot pick a horse out of one pace scenario and put in another and expect it to run the same ..particularly when one race has a crushing pace scenario the horse didn't meet in its own race.
 
Desert Orchid said:
I'd suggest it might depend on your definition of 'use'.

I usually check the official handicapper's take on a race when considering my own so I do check the future ratings.
Click to expand...

well the term use here I think is that Gareth is suggesting using the new OHR when you calculate you figures..which you are saying you don't do by looks of it...even though the future handicap mark may never be met by the winner..in fact they will probably run it 4 times to get it back down:)

its swings and roundabouts and is a non issue to me..its a negative due to reasons given for me..I wouldn't do it if I was using individual OHR's..I want to see the improvers clearly compared with their current OHR..not some arbitary figure thrown at them in future

neither way is wrong..its personal choice
 
Last edited:
Thanks EC1. That's interesting, I'd never considered using horses rather than the actual races to increase the sample - I need to get my head around that one.

Oh and I agree - some help for EC1 on this post please!
 
I remember texting BrianH after we backed Lindop to win a handicap hurdle. The message being - Two years but worth waiting for. He was Hawk Wing a second slower in all but name...
 
Have a look at the times for Hawk Wings lockinge and the race won by Lindop on the same card.
 
I wouldn't worry about the wfa too much..Lindop is about 63 lbs inferior on time..with wfa taken into account about 51 lbs inferior

i must be missing the point here..you said a second..you totally lost me
 
Sorry, had major unplanned outage which BT took an age to sort.

I wrote some guidelines to time analysis on Betfair some time ago which were similar to those used in the short-lived (and not greatly missed) The Sportsman and which have been adopted by a major form service abroad. The series had to cut a few corners due to the platform on which it was appearing and limitations on space and presentation.

http://betting.betfair.com/horse-ra...-rowlands-on-time-analysis-part-o-240309.html
http://betting.betfair.com/horse-racing/betting-strategy/post-182-010409.html
http://betting.betfair.ie/irish-rac...lands-on-time-analysis-part-three-080409.html

The essence is that if you convert the difference between standard time and actual time into a poundage then it becomes a question of normalising for other factors - which include ability shown and weight carried, both already expressed in the same manner - and identifying a going allowance from that. I do not actually use the "minimum value" approach suggested but a variation on that.

There are a few pertinent issues, among them that any standard times based on averages or medians are likely to be unreliable due to the skewed distribution of times; standard times over jumps estimated from race distances are hopeless due to the imprecision of race distances over jumps; pounds per length differ at the same distance under different circumstances; that individual horse times should be engineered from the result where possible; and that class pars are imprecise compared with an accurate assessment of a horse's performance after the event.
 
They're a great read Prufrock.

For probably obvious reasons given the debate in the 2000 Guineas thread, I was most interested in the "pounds per second" value, which was calculated using:

1400 - ( 900 / distance(f) ))

all divided by the midpoint between the actual time and the standard time.

You mention that this is "slight simplification of an equation which fits pounds per length to the margins between horses in standardised conditions."

I was wondering where the constants 1400 and 900 came from? Are they from some kind of regression test that you were able to do?
 
Back
Top