York Day 4

Not York, but Sixty Roses may well be the bet of the day. She runs in 15 minutes at Salisbury, in a nursery off a mark of 72. She has a progressive profile, but what makes her such a stand out bet is the horse she just finished ahead of last time out, Timothy T, has since been placed in the Acomb here on Tuesday. Whilst that horse has obviously progressed, the Dunlop horse must have every chance at 8.4 on the machine.
 
He gets slagged off plenty (including by me), but someone pointed out that Nick Mordin wrote an article in May suggesting the winner was a Group 1 sprinter in the making. Fair play.
 
rorydelargy said:
He gets slagged off plenty (including by me), but someone pointed out that Nick Mordin wrote an article in May suggesting the winner was a Group 1 sprinter in the making. Fair play.
Click to expand...

He did indeed..but over a complete season his "Group 1 winners" list is so big he is bound to net one

His G1 benchmark is in reality about G3..hence he thinks he sees lots of fast horse [G1] races.
 
EC1 said:
He did indeed..but over a complete season his "Group 1 winners" list is so big he is bound to net one

His G1 benchmark is in reality about G3..hence he thinks he sees lots of fast horse [G1] races.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't argue with that as a rule EC1, but thought it worth mentioning.:D
 
rorydelargy said:
Wouldn't argue with that as a rule EC1, but thought it worth mentioning.:D
Click to expand...

it was interesting - i checked the race out it won - not great from a form perspective

I been trying to work his scale out

in his book Mordin on time a G1 horse was an 82 horse - his scale now seems about half of that

I think he works on such a low scale to make calculating a going allowance seem easier..it looks like each race only has 1 or two points differeng from expected..the problem being that each of those points represents about 2 lengths..i am not sure where the advantage lies with a scale that low tbh.

his old scale of 82 was representing an average G1 winner..probably about a 118/120 horse..so on his new scale that would be about a 41
 
EC1 said:
I think he works on such a low scale to make calculating a going allowance seem easier..it looks like each race only has 1 or two points differeng from expected..the problem being that each of those points represents about 2 lengths..i am not sure where the advantage lies with a scale that low tbh.

his old scale of 82 was representing an average G1 winner..probably about a 118/120 horse..so on his new scale that would be about a 41
Click to expand...

I thought the old method was bad enough, you'd see horses getting 88s in Class 4 handicaps quite regularly which is why I switched to the Beyer method of ratings whilst still keeping Mordin's class pars to calculate going allowance.
 
Possibly a question for another thread, but how (in broad terms) do you go about calculating the going allowance, Gamla Stan (and anyone else that cares to chip in)?

Always seems that so much of the final speed figure rests on the going allowance.
 
Last edited:
That's right, Shadz - had the pleasure of his company working very smartly alongside Luke Harvey (ATR) at our last Brighton meeting. He's now freelance and I see is doing spots for The Sporting Life and says he's very happy to be a gun for hire, as he's expecting to double his income within a year or two that way. Of course, he's been in to the courses I've been working at lots of times, but it was really a treat to have him for the afternoon. Very bright, articulate, had done plenty of homework beforehand (to his credit, so had Luke), and with a great sense of humour.

The reason he was on hand so much is because ATR has to put its cameras on charge in my winners' suite, and the staff camp out in it most of the day, clearing out when winning connections come in, but staying put if they don't. Hence a chance for a good natter. Very impressed by him.
 
trackside528 said:
Possibly a question for another thread, but how (in broad terms) do you go about calculating the going allowance, Gamla Stan (and anyone else that cares to chip in)?

Always seems that so much of the final speed figure rests on the going allowance.
Click to expand...

It certainly does, basically it's no use knowing that Starspangledbanner covered the 5f at York in 58 seconds and a two year old maiden covered the same 5f on the same day in 60.7 seconds. You need to know what the two times mean when appearing on the same card together.

I use something called Class Pars which you essentially subtract from the time to calculate the raw time. I calculate all my speed ratings to a benchmark of a Beyer rating of 108 which is basically what an average Group One animal should comfortably be hitting. For example, over a mile, a Class 4 (BHA rating in the 80s) four year old would be about 2.70 seconds slower than a Group One horse. I've got tables for all the classes of races as well as for fillies, two year olds and three year olds for each distance and I subtract these values from the true racetime to tell me what the raw figure would be. You then see across the card what the average rating is (should be 108 on my figures) and you can see whether it's lower or higher than this to get a grip on the true going.

Whilst he has some very (sometimes fair, sometimes unfair) critics on here, I can't emphasise how good Mordin On Time is for understanding this. It certainly got me into speed ratings and I'll try and dig out some extracts from it as I'm not the best at explaining things like this. On the train at the moment but I'll try and dig out some examples too, Warbler was the best at explaining these things but in his absence, I'll have a go at an essay with examples this week at some point. EC1 and Gareth should also be able to help with this.
 
by comparing an expected time with the actual..as explained by Stan ..you get for each race a figure that is faster or slower than expected

rather than rely on the winners time only I use the first 4 home in each race

from those say 24/28 figures i make an initial allowance..I ignore the fastest time in my calcs.

once i have a prelim allowance I check the fastest races ..by race comments ..or visually ..or on spesh occasions..the KG..use Pru's magic formula:)...and decide if the fastest race was actually not a dawdle..then check the 2nd fastest..and the 3rd etc

doing that final check eliminates the Topspeed mentality of having to have one race at least ..as fast..its quite possible there are no fast races on the card.

thats about it really

if anyone wants an example i can post one up
 
Last edited:
Thanks to both of you for that.

To be honest I would appreciate any further discussion of time analysis (perhaps ideally on the "Speed Figure calculation and usage" thread). That said, I can understand completely why anyone wouldn't put in the effort of posting as it seems particularly time-consuming to explain at such a basic level to the likes of myself, and often seems as if it goes under-appreciated due to the paucity of responses it often generates (though I don't believe this to be the case).
 
trackside528 said:
Thanks to both of you for that.

To be honest I would appreciate any further discussion of time analysis (perhaps ideally on the "Speed Figure calculation and usage" thread). That said, I can understand completely why anyone wouldn't put in the effort of posting as it seems particularly time-consuming to explain at such a basic level to the likes of myself, and often seems as if it goes under-appreciated due to the paucity of responses it often generates (though I don't believe this to be the case).
Click to expand...

thats what that thread is for Track - we'll look at a few meetings..see what happens
 
Back
Top