UK All Weather

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheActuary
  • Start date Start date
T

TheActuary

Guest
Unlikely that I will have little financial interest in either AW races at Lingfield.

In summary

7.55 it looks doubtful that an E.W. price will be available for PICCADILLY FILLY 87 as the field has already been reduced to 8. A rating that is better than average for a 2yo but not unbeatable in a relatively unexposed field.

8.25 It is rare to see such a modest bunch for a large field at Lingfield. OUR KES is not my top rated but appears to be the only one with the right credentials of my top three to belong in the race and is currently 20-1.

I will watch with interest but wont be playing.
 
Speed Handicappers Food for Thought

As things are a little quiet at the moment on the AW front I thought I would throw something in to the mixer for you guys (or gals)
For those of you out there with an interest in compiling your own speed figures, in most cases your preliminary route will be to copy methods outlined in various publications. When you become more practised you will start to question the validity of some of what you have read. If you have read several authors on the subject you will mix and match their theories based upon your personally held values. During this process you will also realise that most of the decisions you have to make have been asked repeatedly by other nascent speed handicappers and deduce that there is no definitive answer. This is the stage where you use free thinking outside the box or simply conform. The latter being the most common. The most frequent topics are the use of weight, standard times and going allowances. I would like to add the infrequently discuss topic of rating adjustment for beaten horses and what I believe to be a fatal flaw in the conventional method of adjustment.

The most commonly used method is arrived at by dividing 15 by the distance.

5 furlongs 3
6 furlongs 2.5
7 furlongs 2.14
8 furlongs 1.88
9 furlongs 1.67
10 furlongs 1.5
12 furlongs 1.25

Most other methods fall in to the same category as the common denominator is always the length of the race.

So where is the flaw?

Using extremes as I appreciate these two horses are never likely to meet.

Let us suppose a horse is beaten 1 length by a horse we rate 90 in a 5f sprint. We give the horse in question a rating of 87.

Our next horse is beaten 1 length by a horse we rate 90 in a 10f race. We give this horse a rating of 88.5

Ask yourself which horse is travelling the fastest, therefore which horse has to make the least effort to make up the deficit and is this being reflected in your ratings?

The reason the above table is so widely respected is simply due to the fact it falls in line with the excepted lbs per length so we have cross pollination of two methods of handicapping.

This has no value in speed handicapping. When adjusting ratings for beaten horses the mathematical relationship lies with the time in which the race was run NOT the distance of the race.
 
5th August 2009 - Kempton

Not the most inspiring card at Kempton tomorrow. The only top rated that looks like it will go off at an E.W. price is Majehar in the 6.05 currently 14-1 but beware this is an Apprentice Handicap and the lad is one of the least experienced in the race.

It will be worth watching the prices on my top rated in the later races as a few are borderline E.W. bets
 
Wouldn't bother with AW personally but good luck in your ventures and I hope you make a profit despite the low probability.
 
I would say the most commonly used methods vary between:

15 / distance in furlongs

and

18 / distance in furlongs

and anything in between, with adjustments made depending on the going and how fast/slow the race has been won.
 
QUOTE]According to whom, and why?[[/QUOTE]

From what I have read in various publications on the topic of Speed Handicapping both UK and US and the why, because this falls very closely in line with the BHA guidelines

The complete guide is available from the BHA website but here is a quote

How do Handicappers calculate the merit of the performances?

Every time that a horse runs we try to work out the merit of that performance. We do it by looking at our previous assessments of the opposition. We then make calculations based on the weights that the horses carried and their relative finishing positions in this race.

In Flat races one length is typically reckoned to be worth three pounds in sprint races, two pounds in mile races and one pound in staying races. Over Jumps one pound per length is typical but it might be less in long distance races or on very tiring ground
Click to expand...
 
On the BHA site, the handicappers blog makes mention of using 1.5lbs per length for the King George over 1m4f on Good ground - which is 18 / distance in furlongs:

http://www.britishhorseracing.com/goracing/blogs/viewarchive.asp?item=004298

Using 1.5lb per length, as is usual practice with 1m4f races on good or good-to-firm ground, Conduit thus comes out 3lb better than Tartan Bearer and Ask.
Click to expand...

They also mention using 1lb per length for the Goodwood Cup, which is 16 / distance in furlongs (as is the 2lbs per length over a mile in the quote above).

http://www.britishhorseracing.com/goracing/blogs/handicappers.asp

(using the customary 1lb per length for a good-ground race over two miles)
Click to expand...
 
7th August 2009 - Lingfield

No interest at all in the first 2 AW

If the tissue price of 10-1 Kingsgate Castlev1 is available must be a solid E.W. A couple of non-runners to his inside wouldn't go a miss as 9 is a bit to wide over 6f. Dynamo Dave still isnt sure if he is a sprinter or middle distance horse. LTO on the AW was running over 10f!!

Baby Josr 12-1 looks the pick of a modest bunch in the last. The trip would be questionable in better company but solid E.W. claims
 
Not sure whether that was good or bad!!!

Brambleberry 1st 10-1 not after timing advertised on my blog but never expected it to be an E.W. price.

Then the fun begins with Kingsgate Castle backed from 10-1 down to 7-2 gets badly hampered and out with the washing after 2f.

Baby Josr drifts from 10-1 out to 16-1 gets badly hampered by Miss Tikitiboo and finishes like an express train to grab second.

Obviously I have made money on the day but still feel I have been robbed of a 16-1 winner.

Perhaps focusing on tomorrow's Lingfield meeting will quiet this uneasy feeling I have inside!!
 
8th August 2009 - Lingfield

Two reasonable E.W. bets in my top rated on the AW today but neither are likely to be E.W. prices currently showing at 5-1 & 7-1 so I will bow out gracefully today and just watch with interest.

All ratings are on my blog for those interested.

Two meetings to get my teeth in to on Monday with Southwell and Wolverhampton.
 
10th August 2009 - Southwell

2.15 Southwell Favours Brave 89 16-1 looks a good EW bet if it can reproduce its LTO Polytrack form on the Fibresand. The furlong shorter should assist in coping with the more testing surface.

3.15 Southwell My top rated Crimson Mitre 91 12-1 lively EW chance and only C&D in the race.

3.45 Southwell Swiss Art 92 a Southwell specialist marginally top rated but would take 10-1 EW if available. Rarely out of the frame here.

4.15 Southwell Luscivious 95 is likely to go off to short to interest me.

4.45 Southwell My top rated First Blade seems to have a new lease of life with blinkers but at the current price of 5-1 to short for me.
 
10th August 2009 - Wolverhampton

3.00 Wolverhampton New England 90 is more appealing with Luke Morris aboard but to short for me.

3.30 Wolverhampton top rated Dixie Bright 88 Silver Symphony 87 appear awell ahead of those thar have run on AW. Would need 10-1 to play with 4 unknown quantities in the race.

4.00 Wolverhampton not a happy hunting ground for mty top rated Ugenius 91 but a very generous EW price and the trip is more to his liking.

4.30 Wolverhampton Silcan Meydan 87 is well exposed at a short priced and I would be suprised if someone isnt going there with the knowledge they have the beating.

5.00 Wolverhampton Lytham 88 Questionable history at this track C&D was 5 years ago but good EW claims in an out of form field Lytham appears to be the exception.

5.30 Wolverhampton Snowberry Hill 88 looks well ahead on ratings but is unlikely to be at an attractive enough price to warrrant an EW bet.
 
Desert Orchid said:
According to whom, and why?
Click to expand...

To The Actuary and Gareth:

I asked the questions because I have for years understood that Raceform divide 90 by the distance and then by 5 to get the weight per length.

So:
At 5f: 90/5=18, 18/5=3.6
At 6f: 90/6=15, 15/5=3
At 12f: 90/12=7.5, 7.5/5=1.5
At 16f: 90/16=5.625, 5.625/5=1.125
At 18f: 90/18=5, 5/5=1

So at 18f one length equals one pound, etc etc.

I remember (20 years ago?) reading the explanation of why the figure 90 was used but have mislaid the booklet in which I read it. No doubt someone else will have the explanation and enlighten us. I've used this calculation ever since and found it to be very accurate, or as accurate as an inexact science like quantifying equine performance can be.
 
90 / distance in furlongs / 5

being the same as the

18 / distance in furlongs

formula that I mentioned.
 
90

there was an explanation originally re the figure 90
Click to expand...

Sorry, cany help you on this one. 90 just doesnt trigger anything at all. I will have a search around for you so if you find the answer before let me know.

As I see this formula as a corruption and not related to speed but pounds I am trying to get a retrospective view of how successsful my new formula would be and after todays results the sooner the better. :o
 
Desert Orchid said:
Yes, but there was an explanation originally re the figure 90.
Click to expand...

Gareth, I didn't mean that reply to be abrupt. The doorbell rang just as I started and I thought I'd fire off what I'd written so far.

How did you arrive at your figure of 18? I remember good old Phil Waters started with 70 (which would tie in with the figure of 15) but he couldn't remember how that figure was arrived at.

It's in my mind that it was explained along the lines that, in terms of speed figures, it was deemed to be constant. Therefore a horse that beats another horse by a length at five furlongs would beat it by two lengths at ten furlongs, and eventually they spanned it out to 90 somewhere along the line. This was in the days of the old Raceform SFs and not the new ones.
 
I think it's something along the lines of:

An average time for 5f is around 60s. At 5 lengths per second, that makes 300 lengths. The average weight of a horse and jockey is 1100 lbs.

So, over 5f, 300 lengths = 1100 lbs => 1 length = 3.67 lbs

And from there, the shorthand of 18 / distance in furlongs

Fiddle with the variables (e.g. 58 seconds for 5f, 6 lengths per second), and you can see how the final number would vary.
 
I certainly wrote something along those lines all those years ago, Gareth. I typed it all out using a Canon Starwriter (remember those?) and saved it all to (4½"?) disc, only to be told it wasn't compatible with the software Raceform Update was using. Credit to them, they typed it all out again and the series ran for six of the eight scheduled weeks. I reckon - I was never given an explanation other than "for editorial reasons" - it was then pulled because what I was writing was a bit too close to what David Dickinson was preparing for publication as a Raceform book. DD was kind enough to write to me to tell me I was thinking very much along the same lines as Raceform as far as analysing form (rather than time) was concerned. I still have the originals of the series in a plastic wallet!
 
Last edited:
I think I have that David Dickinson book! I'll dig it out tonight and check what the rationale given was.
 
I'm not sure the speed figures explanation was in the book, Gareth. I think it might have been in the Update.
 
Back
Top