davidjohnson
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,434
Is this the guy that now handicaps the 2m hurdlers for the BHA or the one that used to host Bargain Hunt?
rorydelargy
At the Start
Aren't they the same person?
Colin Phillips
At the Start
Nowt cheap about Chepstow, boyo.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,034
I thought he was the eponymous hero of a programme on rhyming slang.
T
TheActuary
Guest
Nick Mordins Reply
For those interested here is Nick Mordins reply to my question regarding figs for beaten horses.
Shouldn't the lengths beaten by formula be relative to the time the race was run opposed to the distance of the race?
For some reason beyond my comprehension there appears to be an unwritten rule that dictates we conform to the lbs per length applied by the official handicapper or a closely linked permutation.
What I feel most uncomfortable about with this formula is the results appear to be upside down. e.g. the penalty applied to a horse beaten 1 length in a sprint is greater than the penalty applied to the horse beaten 1 length in a middle distance race but from a speed perspective the horse in the sprint is obviously travelling faster than the middle distance horse.
Dear Mark,
You are of course right. But actually in Britain this is exactly what happens nowadays because lengths are now measured by time rather than distance. The photo finish drum spins at a set speed, so it's easy to tell exactly how far behind the winner a horse finished. On the flat a length is now counted as a fifth of a second (as measured off on the photo finish drum). Over jumps 0.25 of a second is used. What this means is that in a mile race run in 1m 40 a length is longer than it is in a mile race run in 1m 35.
Beaten lengths are a vexing issue though. I am still wrestling with how to cope with the massive increase in beaten lengths caused by a very slow surface compared to a very fast one. For example times on Germany's sand track at Neuss are only about 10% slower than they are on Lingfield's Polytrack. But the average beaten lengths are three times as much.
The trouble is if you adjust your speed ratings to take account of this you can end up giving a bigger speed rating to a horse that gets beat ten lengths in a mile race run in 1.40 (and therefore runs around 1m 42) than you do to a horse that won another mile race on the same card in 1m 41.
I plan on doing some research on this. I once took part in a discussion with a couple of Aussie handicappers and they called this phenomena 'drag' but I can't find any reference to this on the internet. However it's clearly real. For example, the only way I could make sense of the beaten lengths on Irish 1000 Guineas day at the Curragh was to count them as double what they should have been. The going was really slow that day and seemed to massively amplify the beaten lengths. Perhaps it also amplifies the difference in times between races. I need to look at this to try and understand it. It's not easy. It's probably related to pace more than final time. Sectional times show that jockeys go off pretty much the same speed in the early stages whatever the going. So if it's really slow and testing the horses tire more and the beaten lengths get amplified. That's my best current theory.
Regards
Nick
Although Nick's reply is less than conclusive after posting a length explanation of my theory to racing forums I am yet to find anyone who can argue their case for why they apply their variations on the example I posted. In fact I received several more variation along the same lines with a length in a 5f sprint given a numerical value of 2.5 at the lowest to a high of 4.2.
Paul Mostert Ph.D. of Equix Biomechanics found in extensive research that the approximate length of a mature thoroughbred is 9ft
1) There are 660ft in a furlong or 73.33 lengths (660 divided by 9)
In a 5 furlong race run in 60 seconds 1 length therefore equals 0.1636
60 seconds divided by 366.67 (number of lengths in 5 furlongs) = 0.1636
2) There are 660ft in a furlong or 73.33 lengths (660 divided by 9)
In a 1 mile race run in 1minute 40 seconds 1 length therefore equals 0.1705
100 seconds divided by 586.67 (number of lengths in 1 mile) = 0.1705
The above two examples are as close to fact as you can get! There is no personal interpretation or corruption. Purely based on time, IMO isn't this what speed figures should be based upon?
Referring back to Nick's reply it is interesting to note that even with his years of experience he is looking to adjust and improve his ratings and I am mindful of the fact that as I strive for perfection with my speed figures it is a labour of love which is never likely to reach a definitive conclusion.
For those interested here is Nick Mordins reply to my question regarding figs for beaten horses.
Shouldn't the lengths beaten by formula be relative to the time the race was run opposed to the distance of the race?
For some reason beyond my comprehension there appears to be an unwritten rule that dictates we conform to the lbs per length applied by the official handicapper or a closely linked permutation.
What I feel most uncomfortable about with this formula is the results appear to be upside down. e.g. the penalty applied to a horse beaten 1 length in a sprint is greater than the penalty applied to the horse beaten 1 length in a middle distance race but from a speed perspective the horse in the sprint is obviously travelling faster than the middle distance horse.
Dear Mark,
You are of course right. But actually in Britain this is exactly what happens nowadays because lengths are now measured by time rather than distance. The photo finish drum spins at a set speed, so it's easy to tell exactly how far behind the winner a horse finished. On the flat a length is now counted as a fifth of a second (as measured off on the photo finish drum). Over jumps 0.25 of a second is used. What this means is that in a mile race run in 1m 40 a length is longer than it is in a mile race run in 1m 35.
Beaten lengths are a vexing issue though. I am still wrestling with how to cope with the massive increase in beaten lengths caused by a very slow surface compared to a very fast one. For example times on Germany's sand track at Neuss are only about 10% slower than they are on Lingfield's Polytrack. But the average beaten lengths are three times as much.
The trouble is if you adjust your speed ratings to take account of this you can end up giving a bigger speed rating to a horse that gets beat ten lengths in a mile race run in 1.40 (and therefore runs around 1m 42) than you do to a horse that won another mile race on the same card in 1m 41.
I plan on doing some research on this. I once took part in a discussion with a couple of Aussie handicappers and they called this phenomena 'drag' but I can't find any reference to this on the internet. However it's clearly real. For example, the only way I could make sense of the beaten lengths on Irish 1000 Guineas day at the Curragh was to count them as double what they should have been. The going was really slow that day and seemed to massively amplify the beaten lengths. Perhaps it also amplifies the difference in times between races. I need to look at this to try and understand it. It's not easy. It's probably related to pace more than final time. Sectional times show that jockeys go off pretty much the same speed in the early stages whatever the going. So if it's really slow and testing the horses tire more and the beaten lengths get amplified. That's my best current theory.
Regards
Nick
Although Nick's reply is less than conclusive after posting a length explanation of my theory to racing forums I am yet to find anyone who can argue their case for why they apply their variations on the example I posted. In fact I received several more variation along the same lines with a length in a 5f sprint given a numerical value of 2.5 at the lowest to a high of 4.2.
Paul Mostert Ph.D. of Equix Biomechanics found in extensive research that the approximate length of a mature thoroughbred is 9ft
1) There are 660ft in a furlong or 73.33 lengths (660 divided by 9)
In a 5 furlong race run in 60 seconds 1 length therefore equals 0.1636
60 seconds divided by 366.67 (number of lengths in 5 furlongs) = 0.1636
2) There are 660ft in a furlong or 73.33 lengths (660 divided by 9)
In a 1 mile race run in 1minute 40 seconds 1 length therefore equals 0.1705
100 seconds divided by 586.67 (number of lengths in 1 mile) = 0.1705
The above two examples are as close to fact as you can get! There is no personal interpretation or corruption. Purely based on time, IMO isn't this what speed figures should be based upon?
Referring back to Nick's reply it is interesting to note that even with his years of experience he is looking to adjust and improve his ratings and I am mindful of the fact that as I strive for perfection with my speed figures it is a labour of love which is never likely to reach a definitive conclusion.
Last edited:
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,034
Those figures take me back.
I once had a card on which I had typed every distance at every GB racecourse and marked beside each how many seconds a length worked out at, based on exactly the same arithmetic.
I once had a card on which I had typed every distance at every GB racecourse and marked beside each how many seconds a length worked out at, based on exactly the same arithmetic.
EC1
On a break
I don't believe you can actually do this.
In NM's example he says that two ..mile races ..would give different ratings due to lengths beaten..because we have no definate answer..its correct
the reason you can't compare beaten horses to any degree of accuracy is because each race has different pace scenarios
you could have a 1000 races over the same distance and not be able to give accurate ratings to beaten horses...simply because the pace would be different in every race..and therefore affect how far a horse is beaten which you cannot reflect just by measuring how far back a horse finished.
this could and does surely affect form ratings in the same way does it not?
In NM's example he says that two ..mile races ..would give different ratings due to lengths beaten..because we have no definate answer..its correct
the reason you can't compare beaten horses to any degree of accuracy is because each race has different pace scenarios
you could have a 1000 races over the same distance and not be able to give accurate ratings to beaten horses...simply because the pace would be different in every race..and therefore affect how far a horse is beaten which you cannot reflect just by measuring how far back a horse finished.
this could and does surely affect form ratings in the same way does it not?
T
TheActuary
Guest
C'mon, you need to ellaborate on this!
What where your findings and why no longer?
What where your findings and why no longer?
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
But as Nick points out, in Britain lengths are units of time, not distance. So the physical length of a horse is irrelevant, and a length is a length is a length whether it's over 5f or 12f.
The BHA currently consider 1 length to be 1/6th of a second on Good or faster ground.
So, in a 5f race run in 60 seconds, there are effectively 360 lengths - not 366.67.
In an 8f race run in 100 seconds, there are effectively 600 lengths - not 586.67.
Let's take another approach to your examples above:
Assume that the average weight of our horse is 1100lbs, and it is carrying 9st (126lbs). This gives us a total weight of 1226lbs.
Over your example 5f race:
Pounds per length = 1226 lbs / 360 lengths = 3.4 lbs/length
Over the 8f race:
Pounds per length = 1226 lbs / 600 lengths = 2.0 lbs/length
The BHA currently consider 1 length to be 1/6th of a second on Good or faster ground.
So, in a 5f race run in 60 seconds, there are effectively 360 lengths - not 366.67.
In an 8f race run in 100 seconds, there are effectively 600 lengths - not 586.67.
Let's take another approach to your examples above:
Assume that the average weight of our horse is 1100lbs, and it is carrying 9st (126lbs). This gives us a total weight of 1226lbs.
Over your example 5f race:
Pounds per length = 1226 lbs / 360 lengths = 3.4 lbs/length
Over the 8f race:
Pounds per length = 1226 lbs / 600 lengths = 2.0 lbs/length
T
TheActuary
Guest
But the BHA calculation is based upon 0.20s per length regardless of distance. Are these horses in your hypothetical 5f and 12f travelling at the same speed?
EC1
On a break
the whole point is..pace affects where a horse finishes..unless you can measure that effect you can't give exact figures for beaten horses..just measuring how far back they are at the finish isn't accurate
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
What difference does it make? Lengths are a unit of time (it's now most often 1/6th of a second btw). The actual speed they're running at is always going to be related to the distance of the race.
Which is more meritorious: getting within 5s of the 100m world record, or getting within 5s of the 10,000m world record, bearing in mind that you'll be going faster over 100m?
Which is more meritorious: getting within 5s of the 100m world record, or getting within 5s of the 10,000m world record, bearing in mind that you'll be going faster over 100m?
Harbinger
At the Start
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 11,282
What difference does it make? Lengths are a unit of time (it's now most often 1/6th of a second btw). The actual speed they're running at is always going to be related to the distance of the race.
Which is more meritorious: getting within 5s of the 100m world record, or getting within 5s of the 10,000m world record, bearing in mind that you'll be going faster over 100m?
Which is more meritorious: getting within 5s of the 100m world record, or getting within 5s of the 10,000m world record, bearing in mind that you'll be going faster over 100m?
EC1
On a break
I don't really understand much of this threads concerns tbh..beaten horses are beaten horses..many factors are involved in why they were beaten ..which you cannot measure just from looking at the bare result in the RP
T
TheActuary
Guest
Beaten Horses
Sorry for the late reply, just back from hols.
Its so good to be back
In relations to the race a beaten horse came from indeed it is just another beaten horses.
When it comes to compiling speed ratings accuracy is paramount when the entries may be coming from runs over various distances, various courses, beaten by various distances. What I believe to be a tendancy to over penalised beaten horses when compiling speed figures leaves a compiler continually looking at horses that previously won or were beaten less than 1/2a length.
Sorry for the late reply, just back from hols.
Its so good to be back
In relations to the race a beaten horse came from indeed it is just another beaten horses.
When it comes to compiling speed ratings accuracy is paramount when the entries may be coming from runs over various distances, various courses, beaten by various distances. What I believe to be a tendancy to over penalised beaten horses when compiling speed figures leaves a compiler continually looking at horses that previously won or were beaten less than 1/2a length.
T
TheActuary
Guest
All Weather Horse Racing
As most Speed Figures are retrospective thought I would list a few to note for todays meetings at Lingfield and Kempton. These horses are NOT neccessarily my top rated but horses that I feel will show an much improved performance based upon a projection rating. Whether that puts them in the frame at a big price I am about to find out.
6.50 K MOOJEH
8.50 K NAMU
9.20 K KINGS RANSOM
4.50 L BOLD RING
As this form of rating is in its infancy for me I am not expecting great things more a marker in the sand but dont want to after-time.
As most Speed Figures are retrospective thought I would list a few to note for todays meetings at Lingfield and Kempton. These horses are NOT neccessarily my top rated but horses that I feel will show an much improved performance based upon a projection rating. Whether that puts them in the frame at a big price I am about to find out.
6.50 K MOOJEH
8.50 K NAMU
9.20 K KINGS RANSOM
4.50 L BOLD RING
As this form of rating is in its infancy for me I am not expecting great things more a marker in the sand but dont want to after-time.
I
ItalianStallion
Guest
TheActuary,
Very nice indeed, keep this up you might find your self on tv
Very nice indeed, keep this up you might find your self on tv
T
TheActuary
Guest
All Weather Horse Racing
Bitter sweet day and disappointed for all those that backed all four or came in late after seeing the success of the first two.
Still a very positive outcome and given that I can recognised the later 2 as weaker opportunities at first glance it may be a simple case of raising the bar slightly see below the points allocated to each pre race
32 MOOJEH
14 NAMU
14 KINGS RANSOM
25 BOLD RING
The results from other AW races yesterday leave me still a little cautious that conditions may have played a greater part than would be ideal. The plus being winter is around the corner and I have had success with big priced winners using this method throughout August.
Cutting to the chase and assuming 14 is to low here are those rated higher for Wolverhampton today.
6.50 W CHIEF RED CLOUD 21
6.50 W PUNCHING 15
6.50 W KINGSMAITE 15
7.50 W CRUISE CONTROL 16
Nothing as exciting as yesterday and a dilemma with 3 high projection figures in the same race.
Bitter sweet day and disappointed for all those that backed all four or came in late after seeing the success of the first two.
Still a very positive outcome and given that I can recognised the later 2 as weaker opportunities at first glance it may be a simple case of raising the bar slightly see below the points allocated to each pre race
32 MOOJEH
14 NAMU
14 KINGS RANSOM
25 BOLD RING
The results from other AW races yesterday leave me still a little cautious that conditions may have played a greater part than would be ideal. The plus being winter is around the corner and I have had success with big priced winners using this method throughout August.
Cutting to the chase and assuming 14 is to low here are those rated higher for Wolverhampton today.
6.50 W CHIEF RED CLOUD 21
6.50 W PUNCHING 15
6.50 W KINGSMAITE 15
7.50 W CRUISE CONTROL 16
Nothing as exciting as yesterday and a dilemma with 3 high projection figures in the same race.
T
TheActuary
Guest
All Weather Horse Racing
Based on the limited results to date a pattern appears to be emerging with those rated in the 30's winning, in the 20's making the frame, less than this out with the washing!!
Ironic that my top SF won the Chief Red Cloud race!!
No horse fits the bill at either Lingfield or Kempton tomorrow but I will continue to post any subsequent horses that meet the new criteria.
Based on the limited results to date a pattern appears to be emerging with those rated in the 30's winning, in the 20's making the frame, less than this out with the washing!!
Ironic that my top SF won the Chief Red Cloud race!!
No horse fits the bill at either Lingfield or Kempton tomorrow but I will continue to post any subsequent horses that meet the new criteria.
T
TheActuary
Guest
All Weather Horse Racing
Remembering my earlier comments that this form of rating for me is in its infancy and no doubt will need refining as I collate more data.
My figures point to Flirty 7.20 Wolverhampton currently around 50-1!!
Remembering my earlier comments that this form of rating for me is in its infancy and no doubt will need refining as I collate more data.
My figures point to Flirty 7.20 Wolverhampton currently around 50-1!!
T
TheActuary
Guest
All Weather Horse Racing
Being aware of the potential conflict between England v Croatia and racing from Kempton I was hoping not to find anything that would draw my attention away from the game but did!!
Island Legend 6.50 Looks a good E.W. prospect if the tissue of 12-1 is available.
Lutine Charlie 7.20 may be to short for serious interest.
Ottoman Empire 8.50 grabs my attention and the step up in trip holds no worries given his LTO performance at a far more testing Southwell.
Not my top rated and not a big enough price on the tissue but will be keeping an eye on Final Son (Could be a Flirty or a Moojeh) with a projection rating of 21 after Leelu made the frame at 20-1 today.
Being aware of the potential conflict between England v Croatia and racing from Kempton I was hoping not to find anything that would draw my attention away from the game but did!!
Island Legend 6.50 Looks a good E.W. prospect if the tissue of 12-1 is available.
Lutine Charlie 7.20 may be to short for serious interest.
Ottoman Empire 8.50 grabs my attention and the step up in trip holds no worries given his LTO performance at a far more testing Southwell.
Not my top rated and not a big enough price on the tissue but will be keeping an eye on Final Son (Could be a Flirty or a Moojeh) with a projection rating of 21 after Leelu made the frame at 20-1 today.