Speed Figure calculation and usage
- Thread starter EC1
- Start date
J Alfred Prufrock
At the Start
No-one has asked me why the midpoint is used. Perhaps it is obvious. It is used because the pounds per length/second for the actual time and the standard time will be different, though usually only slightly. As you are trying to quantify the poundage of a time that may start at 3.00 lb/l and end at 2.80 lb/l (as an example) you should really use integration I believe. But a midpoint (2.90 lb/l) will be more than good enough.
If you look at average lengths beaten per rival for handicaps over a sizeable period (I used 3 years) they should be a reflection of the degree to which conditions (distance/going/average speed) string "the same" horses out. There is an inverse relationship between this and pounds per second, though this has all become confused by a length being a variable measure, of course.
I have revisited the subject in the light of Bob Wilkins' excellent book (http://www.highstakes.co.uk/shop/product.php/12888/0/), and made a few amendments, but this is one area in which I believe that observation trumps theory.
Nothing as clever as regression analysis, I'm afraid. I just fiddled around with values until they approximately fitted the curvilinear graph I was trying to describe. Room for improvement.
J Alfred Prufrock
At the Start
I had Canford Cliffs on a tfig of 123, but only by taking the 1m races in isolation (and my ratings are 6 higher than official for 3yos).
I looked into doing standard times properly for Ireland a few years back but gave up on account of so much inaccurate information. It could be done, but it would take a lot of effort to get it right, imo.
A lot of the winners' times themselves are wrong, unfortunately.
I looked into doing standard times properly for Ireland a few years back but gave up on account of so much inaccurate information. It could be done, but it would take a lot of effort to get it right, imo.
A lot of the winners' times themselves are wrong, unfortunately.
EC1
On a break
yes..Ireland times are a nightmare..just about every distance is a different allowance as well..that was a real blessing having 4 mile races over the mile.
you say your ratings are higher than official..what is your scale then?
i get a little mixed up with why all ratings aren't the same if they are on a 0-140 scale..RPR are on that scale..but differ..so what are OHR's?..same scale but more conservatively done? Is Timeform 0-140..but not as conservative as OHR's..OHR's seem to be conservatively done to me....I always look at the top horses and think they are too low
Can you tell me..what lb per second do Timeform use?
Last edited:
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
So let's take the example of the Dewhurst that you use in the linked articles.
Intense Focus ran the 7f in 83.33s. Your 7f Newmarket standard is 85.94s.
The lbs/second for the actual time is 15.26, or 2.54 lbs/l (at 6 lengths per second)
The lbs/second for the standard is 14.79, or 2.47 lbs/l
The lbs/second for the midpoint is 15.02, or 2.50 lbs/l (as used in the article)
There isn't a huge difference there. If you just used the poundage derived from the actual time, what would happen - could certain circumstances, like extremes of going, potentially cause the poundage to be way too big or small?
I think I'll be ordering that...
If it's working as is, you could probably spend ages putting together a regression analysis only to end up with very similar numbers!
EC1
On a break
is there a need for a mid point?..its not as though the actual time is a constant as the horse starts from a standing start anyway so lb per second would be different anyway until the horse gets up to speed anyway
you do realise that Clive will be on in a bit..asking both of you if you get out much
you do realise that Clive will be on in a bit..asking both of you if you get out much
Last edited:
J Alfred Prufrock
At the Start
I use the same ratings scale as Timeform (it's what I have been used to since I was a nipper). Timeform predated BHA and RP by a long time and are not about to alter their level because others have come along since and pitched theirs differently. My older ratings are about 8 > than BHA, 3yos at this time of year about > 6.
Not sure what lb/sec Timeform use for time analysis, and not sure I could say even if I did know. I only work freelance for them these days and have always ploughed my own furrow on this issue anyway.
The averaging of standard time and actual time does not make a huge difference, but it does make a difference. If the Dewhurst had been run in 90 sec the difference between the two approaches would be 1.4 lb (I think). There can be more extreme examples, of course.
I think you will enjoy the book. It's a tremendous read, imo. I just feel that theory has to match observation or there is probably something wrong with one or other of them. As I see it, the theory does not match observation, which is what I have been guided by.
Not sure what lb/sec Timeform use for time analysis, and not sure I could say even if I did know. I only work freelance for them these days and have always ploughed my own furrow on this issue anyway.
The averaging of standard time and actual time does not make a huge difference, but it does make a difference. If the Dewhurst had been run in 90 sec the difference between the two approaches would be 1.4 lb (I think). There can be more extreme examples, of course.
I think you will enjoy the book. It's a tremendous read, imo. I just feel that theory has to match observation or there is probably something wrong with one or other of them. As I see it, the theory does not match observation, which is what I have been guided by.
J Alfred Prufrock
At the Start
The actual time is constant in that it is the time that the horse in question recorded - period - whatever that time might be. That is the basis of analysis of overall race times.
How that time was arrived at is another matter entirely. It can happen in a vast number of ways and is something I am more interested in, and have spent a considerable amount of time investigating, to tell the truth.
Unfortunately, sectional analysis in UK is hamstrung by the absence of information in the post-TurfTrax era and by the graft and inaccuracies involved in compiling your own.
How that time was arrived at is another matter entirely. It can happen in a vast number of ways and is something I am more interested in, and have spent a considerable amount of time investigating, to tell the truth.
Unfortunately, sectional analysis in UK is hamstrung by the absence of information in the post-TurfTrax era and by the graft and inaccuracies involved in compiling your own.
EC1
On a break
Looking at the split times of the leaders in 3yo handicap and the guineas on saturday
49.5 AGHADOE's race
49.0 CANFORD CLIFFS race
both races were run about 36.5 approx mph to halfway..being towed at that speed anyway...whereas in the 2nd half they were travelling on average 35.8 in handicap and 36.7 mph in guineas
how much would it have damaged the final handicap time of the horse that finished 2nd in the 3yo handicap if he had run in the guineas..could he have run the same final time that he did do you think?
49.5 AGHADOE's race
49.0 CANFORD CLIFFS race
both races were run about 36.5 approx mph to halfway..being towed at that speed anyway...whereas in the 2nd half they were travelling on average 35.8 in handicap and 36.7 mph in guineas
how much would it have damaged the final handicap time of the horse that finished 2nd in the 3yo handicap if he had run in the guineas..could he have run the same final time that he did do you think?
Last edited:
J Alfred Prufrock
At the Start
Well, clearly he could have run the same time, by running in precisely the same way.
A horse's pace does not have to be dictated by the pace of others around it, though that is often the case to some degree.
In terms of adjusting overall times in line with sectionals, you would need a great deal more information than this, not least historically and for the individual horses in the race (not just the leaders).
If you get enough information from a course you can establish a) "how to run fast" and b) the degree to which running differently from this affects the overall time.
I thought I had just about cracked all-weather sectionals, by using two and a half years of data from each course, in the very week that TurfTrax pulled the plug in providing electronic sectionals.
Glad to say that the research may not have been wasted, as I am currently tackling US racing, where sectionals are provided as a matter of course (though not always with unerring accuracy).
A horse's pace does not have to be dictated by the pace of others around it, though that is often the case to some degree.
In terms of adjusting overall times in line with sectionals, you would need a great deal more information than this, not least historically and for the individual horses in the race (not just the leaders).
If you get enough information from a course you can establish a) "how to run fast" and b) the degree to which running differently from this affects the overall time.
I thought I had just about cracked all-weather sectionals, by using two and a half years of data from each course, in the very week that TurfTrax pulled the plug in providing electronic sectionals.
Glad to say that the research may not have been wasted, as I am currently tackling US racing, where sectionals are provided as a matter of course (though not always with unerring accuracy).
EC1
On a break
Well, clearly he could have run the same time, by running in precisely the same way.
A horse's pace does not have to be dictated by the pace of others around it, though that is often the case to some degree.
In terms of adjusting overall times in line with sectionals, you would need a great deal more information than this, not least historically and for the individual horses in the race (not just the leaders).
If you get enough information from a course you can establish a) "how to run fast" and b) the degree to which running differently from this affects the overall time.
I thought I had just about cracked all-weather sectionals, by using two and a half years of data from each course, in the very week that TurfTrax pulled the plug in providing electronic sectionals.
Glad to say that the research may not have been wasted, as I am currently tackling US racing, where sectionals are provided as a matter of course (though not always with unerring accuracy).
thats the thing isn't it?..if he ran his own race and just let the field run away from him..but races aren't run like that..jockeys ride to the field they are in..to try and get best place in that field.
take Oasis Dancer..had he run in the handicap he probably would have won..but when asked to go that bit faster earlier in the guineas..lost by 16.
i know the splits aren't reflective..but they do give just a little insight.
EC1
On a break
Pru
I'd be interested to know what you got for the Newmarket meeting 14 May 2010
Particularly One Good Emperor's race.
I'd be interested to know what you got for the Newmarket meeting 14 May 2010
Particularly One Good Emperor's race.
J Alfred Prufrock
At the Start
:blink::blink::blink:
J Alfred Prufrock
At the Start
Errrr, it looks rather good.
In fact it looks uncannily good compared to other races on the day, though I have a similar going allowance for the following day, when the times make more sense.
I would go for 92 on One Good Emperor, when a standard form rating would be something like 85. I seldom differ by that much other than in non-handicaps where there is a wider range of feasible ratings.
I see the second has won since. The winner and third have to be interesting again on the back of this. Everything else has been beaten quite a way.
Thanks.
In fact it looks uncannily good compared to other races on the day, though I have a similar going allowance for the following day, when the times make more sense.
I would go for 92 on One Good Emperor, when a standard form rating would be something like 85. I seldom differ by that much other than in non-handicaps where there is a wider range of feasible ratings.
I see the second has won since. The winner and third have to be interesting again on the back of this. Everything else has been beaten quite a way.
Thanks.
davidjohnson
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,434
Winner declared 2.45 Newmarket on Saturday off 81.
EC1
On a break
aye :blink:
it looks a little gem of a race - made me splutter a bit when I rated it
the next day i got just a bit slower ground..but Vainglory's race ..a 95 race..was run in a very similar time..but is a 20lb better race..and older horses..nice
When I saw Secretive out off just a llb higher I had a decent bet on it..its races like these that make it worth the hassle...i must get out more
I'm just going to wait for Rain On The Wind..4 th horse getting a bit too far away from the winner for me.
it looks a little gem of a race - made me splutter a bit when I rated it
the next day i got just a bit slower ground..but Vainglory's race ..a 95 race..was run in a very similar time..but is a 20lb better race..and older horses..nice
When I saw Secretive out off just a llb higher I had a decent bet on it..its races like these that make it worth the hassle...i must get out more
I'm just going to wait for Rain On The Wind..4 th horse getting a bit too far away from the winner for me.
J Alfred Prufrock
At the Start
Aftertimer.
J Alfred Prufrock
At the Start
EC1
On a break
I'm a bit cynical of winners of these ..are they going to make hay..or hide it..you know what I mean?
When Secretive won..I also noted KING OF REASON..because if Secretive is above his mark..then KOR is well handicapped too..he ran well in S's race because it was a real sprint finish and he was only one coming from off the pace with the 3rd horse 5 len back
EC1
On a break
:lol:
just keeping up tradition of board
i were a bit scared to post it tbh..would have meant egg on face and deathknell to my figures on here...more than they are viewed now
...had it lost..losing money would have been bad enough.some interesting ones to come here imo..those two are at top of my hitlist at the mo
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
I made the race about 11lbs fast David..but I err on side of underating..believe it or not
a direct comparison of times over the two days would have OGE giving 4 lbs to Vainglory and there being little between them...add in OGE is only a 3yo.
Vainglory won off 87 by 2 so it looks good for OGE off 81 + wfa edge
its interesting looking at OGE 2yo runs as well..he gets outpaced over 7f on his 3rd run..so they give another run over 6f ...nice touch...and get a 7 length beating on the board for the handicapper to mull over
Last edited:
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,024
I checked the Irish 2000G last night.
It worked out only 28lbs faster than the 3yo handicap over c&d. Looking at the beaten horses and comments in running of the latter race, I don't see that it could have been anything special so I'd conclude the Guineas' overall time was slow for a G1.
On form ratings, I gave Canford Cliffs 123+. I think I gave Makfi 124+ for our Guineas. Should be interesting if they meet at Ascot.
It worked out only 28lbs faster than the 3yo handicap over c&d. Looking at the beaten horses and comments in running of the latter race, I don't see that it could have been anything special so I'd conclude the Guineas' overall time was slow for a G1.
On form ratings, I gave Canford Cliffs 123+. I think I gave Makfi 124+ for our Guineas. Should be interesting if they meet at Ascot.
EC1
On a break
I've looked at mine again...i get the 3yo handicap 6lb fast..which ties in with the older handicap which as talked about re splits looks right about 9lb slow..which puts CC on 120 without wfa..I add 6 points at this time of year..so I'll stick with the 126. Thats being conservative/realistic..and is 7lb better than our guineas
Topspeed have the Engish guineas faster than the Irish one..which is very puzzling to me..but never mind....just without figures....just looking at both races you can see that the Irish one was run evenly and truly..whereas in ours there are horses pulling in the first two furlongs..no way is the Irish race slower imo. We will see when they meet..I think CC will beat Makfi by a couple of lengths minimum..I had CC on 130 in the Coventry.. so we still haven't seen his best yet imo.
just my opinions of course
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
about 9/1 in betting...like said..with winners you never know intent..I always get more interested in those behind..but stable in pretty good form
the prob is..if it wins tomorrow it will affect the price of the 3rd in the original race when it does run again.
decision to make..is tomorrow a target?..its worth winning just under 8k...and horse isn't entered in anything else so will have to have a dabble i think.
the pace looks to suit..should be run decently..2 or 3 on pacers in it
Last edited:
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,024
I don't think either race was even and true.
I think they went too slow for the first half at Newmarket and too fast for the first half in Ireland. I have Makfi's time rating 6lbs ahead of CC's Irish win. Overall, once you factor in wfa, I'd say Makfi's time was 5lbs slow of what you'd want of an up-to-scratch Guineas time, which really isn't very far away at all when you consider some of the rubbish times posted by horses that ultimately went to prove they were very smart.
Last edited: