Who Does Thier Own Ratings

[Shaun]

I have been doing my own ratings for a long time and have often changed things to make them easier to work with...i don't price the selections just work out top rated and so on but recently i had to make same changes after having good results for months....have you ever wondered what the biggest obsticle is in horse form, CLASS i would have to say this is the down fall of everyone that rates horses how can you totaly estimate the class of a horse....form is easy to decipher win and place percentages are there in front of you, track and distance performances are easy to find but working out how all these things relate from one horse to another is not so easy....some use API some say this is a little unreliable but it is pretty accurate most of the times and can be the difference between finding a winner and not,,,,we could use a weight rating chart like Don Scotts or we could just look at all the race classes that are listed and allocate our own rating for each class.....or we could use the the prize money of the race as a guide, but can this be relied on to be accurate all over the country.....i am interested in how you rate class in a race and how many factors do you consider important in your ratings.....can you rate a race with say 3 factors for example (beaten margins,win%,API ranking) or do you need 10,20 or even 30 factors covering everyhting from what the jockey ate for breakfast to when the horse took it's last dump........and do you think the results are any better using the first example or the second.

[thetout]

Regarding Classes,
When doing classes in racing try to keep them in their right perspectives.Take a class 3 horse coming from a $4500 race say at Moree with 6kgs over a 54 limit [2nd]to a $10,000 Cl3 at Newcastle with 4kgs over on a 53kg limit.If he gets +1kg for the 2nd @ Moree = +7 and say you have the Newcastle race Rated @ 48kgs the horses Rating would be 52kgs[48+4 over at Newcastle].The class difference between Moree> Newcastle = the sum of [Moree +7> Newcastle +4 = -3kgs in class] but the horses rating still = 52kgs.If the horse moved up to Cl5 @ Moree and you had 1.5kgs between CLASSES the limit[same 54kgs] the race = $12,000 and the horse is carrying 56/54 limit then the Cl5 race = the difference between 61/54 limit in Cl3 to 56/54 limit Cl5 [7-2=5kgs up in class] so if the Newcastle Cl3=48kgs and Moree Cl3=45kgs allowing 1.5 between classes the Moree Cl 5 = 45+the 5kg drop in weight from Moree Cl3.This Class 5 is 5kgs stronger = 50kgs not 48kgs if the prizemoney was normal.
Regarding Filters,
Use:
Distance Range
Fitness
Barrier
Weight Over Limit
Jockey
Form
Regards

[KennyVictor]

I do my own ratings and if I believe that knowing the class of the race compared to the class of the previous races a horse has been in is the most important thing of all. I basicaly only include weight carried, margin from the winner and jockey to calculate the horses future rating and am currently running at a profit from the ratings it produces.
I don't think you can blindly use a rating for a race based on anything as simple as the type of race it is. The strength of a race should be worked out from the horses that are running in that race. I've only been working on my system for about 9 months and look forward to many years of fun fine tuning and tinkering with it.
An interesting thing to consider when putting in filters and whatnot is that you don't only have to filter according to what is going to make a horse more likely to win. You have to balance that against what is more likely to bring a horses price down. For example I added a filter based on prizemoney of a horses previous race. I gave it a bonus based on a higher prizemoney race at it's previous start. Not only did that not work but when I did the opposite and gave it a penalty for competing in a higher prizemoney race last start I got a better return. A slightly diminished percentage of winners but a surprising increase in POT. I can only suggest this is because the average punter places more importance on the prizemoney of a horses last start than is warranted.

[gizzard]

I do my own ratings and if I believe that knowing the class of the race compared to the class of the previous races a horse has been in is the most important thing of all.So how do you allow for class in your rating system KV?

[brave chief]

I like to keep my ratings simple. they are based on only class, field strength, limit weight, weight and beaten margin. all the other factors i only consider on race day; i'd rather not manipulate the numerical figure too much.

i'm confident enough in my assessment of field strength (or quality) which is the key to any class ratings. i think i do just like Scott did, but i cant really remember as i havent read Winning More for like 19 yrs :P

when analysing form i place a lot of emphasis on early pace, finishing speed and form improvement.

[KennyVictor]

So how do you allow for class in your rating system KV?

Maybe I'm using the term class 'wrongly' here. To me the terms 'class' and 'strength of the field' are interchangable. If horses A B C D and E run against each other for a prize of $5000 midweek at Bunbury or for a $100000 feature event at Ascot I see no difference in the 'class' of the race. I consider the class of the race is determined by the horses running in it and therefore I work out my opinion of the class of the race from the horses expected rating in that race.

KV

[KennyVictor]

when analysing form i place a lot of emphasis on early pace, finishing speed and form improvement.

Early pace and finishing speed are things I should like to look in to. Do you judge these things from observing the races or do you base them on 'figures' from somewhere after the races? If so where do you get the figures.

KV

[brave chief]

Kenny, i've been playing with a spreadsheet that converts the sportscolour sectionals into readable figures. i find the presented format hard to read.

I come up with a race average for the 600m, 400m and 200m. the race average is given a rating of 100 and all individual ratings are assessed from this base.

i'll post more later if you want. now i'm going to go over the previous months meetings and also apply a pace figure based on (final time minus last 600m). its now clear to me that the finishing speed must be reconcilled to early pace.

eg, did a horse produce a stunning sprint off a fast pace? or a slow pace? did a leader in a fast pace stick on well? etc

[KennyVictor]

Thanks for that Brave Chief. That last paragraph is educational in itself. It sets the mind working along new (for me anyway) lines. Any time you want to expand on your speed ratings etc. I for one will be eager to read it.

KV

[Chuck]

where do you get your info from guys? I'm trying to get info to import into excel for research - i know Shaun will be of help

thanks

Chuck

[brave chief]

It doesnt always work out :(

Today i backed Mister Unique in the first in Sydney based on him winning after setting a very fast pace last start. I expected him to lead on his ear today with no pressure. Instead Shinzig, who i expected to be near the tail led him clearly and outclassed him.

Still these figures are quite interesting and allow you to compile a Horses to Follow list.

[shoto]

The problem with sectionals to my way of thinking is that they measure the time of the leading horse at the 600 (or whatever) to the time the winner crosses the finish. For this information to be useful you would need to know the lengths a particular runner was from the leading horse at the 600.

A horse that was 12 lengths back at the 600 and finished close up would have run a faster sectional than a horse leading or close up at the 600, but in both cases you're using the same sectional time in your calculations.

[Shaun]

Chuck explain what you are looking for....if you are after back data for testing i can't help there as i don't have or keep any....if you are after current form for putting in to excel to work out your own rating cool i can help in that department....but you will need to have some idea of the ratings you want to use if they are weight ratings or speed rating or form ratings....how they are structured and there values...if you can work with in a horses last three starts it can be done for free...if you need to use form involving more starts you will have to subscribe to cyber horse

[KennyVictor]

The problem with sectionals to my way of thinking is that they measure the time of the leading horse at the 600 (or whatever) to the time the winner crosses the finish. For this information to be useful you would need to know the lengths a particular runner was from the leading horse at the 600.

I think you'll find the sectionals at sportscolour are derived from sensors in the saddles of all the horses timed as they pass certain points giving true times for all the horses. This is only on a few selected courses of course.

[Duritz]

Hey guys I know this thread has been dead for a little bit but I have something valuable to add re sectionals:

Brave Chief (nice nick btw a great kind of horse to back, front runner in fast pace) you're looking into using indiv. secs to rate, etc, I have researched that a LOT and I have ABANDONED it, for MANY reasons, but one of which was this (I call this the Lonhro vs Mummify example)

Lonhro beat Mummify in the Underwood at Caulfield in a slow pace in which Mummify led. Lonhro sat off, out sprinted him, had him beat turning. Shortly afterwards Mummify set a new track record leading all the way in the Caulfield Cup.

Had Lonhro been in that Caulfield Cup (even if it had been over 1800m), he would NOT have run Mummify down, yet two (?) weeks or so earlier he brained him in a sit and sprint.

To further emphasise this - put Lohro against Might and Power at Caul over say 2000m when M&P leads fast. Lonhro flattens turning and M&P keeps on to beat him a couple of lengths. If it's sit and sprint with Lonhro still the same dist from M&P prior to turning, Lonhro outsprints him.

Definitely.

Point (if not gathered) is this - horses have different "cruising" speeds and different sprints. given a different race pace different results prevail. This makes using secs as a UNIVERSAL measure pointless.

Duritz.

[La Mer]

Point (if not gathered) is this - horses have different "cruising" speeds and different sprints. given a different race pace different results prevail. This makes using secs as a UNIVERSAL measure pointless.

You make some good points Duritz, but disagree with your last statement re sectionals as a measure being pointless.

It's knowing how to use them that's important as in predicting the likely pace in the upcoming race and which horses will be suited by that pace. There is someone (a commercial rival to Pro-Punt) who uses this technique to devastating effect 6 from 7 winners from his recommended bets a week ago and he builds his whole process around pace and the use of sectional times.

Your comments about Lonhro are interesting as analysis on his career performances indicate that he was at his best when he could sit and sprint in races with slowly or even early pace. Only on one or two occasions did he perform well when the pace was on early, one of those being when he beat Sunline in the Caulfield Stakes in near track record time - a race in which he stalked the mare to the turn and then sprinted down the stretch to outgun her.

[brave chief]

hey Duritz.

I only use the figures to pinpoint potential improvers. That is, mark down a horse that ran the last 600m say, 4 lengths faster than the race average. I certainly don't bet the figures blindly. I'm a ratings man, but i've never accepted any ratings figures as gospel.

I like to try to predict pace, potential leaders etc even before i look at the form and go from there.

I'll probably abandon the whole thing soon anyway as i'm sick and tired of the amount of time it takes to maintain the db in Access. Not my cup of tea :(

Your point about Lonhro is well taken; he was the perfect sit & sprint WFA horse but was vulnerable when pressure was applied.

btw, the Chief was my all-time favourite animal, won a stack of races with me on board, capped off with his 25/1 win in the Sandown Cup :) This game would be easy if they were all as genuine as he was.

[Duritz]

Yeah. La mer your point re their use is how they can best be used - in conjunction with anticipated pace or lack thereof. Problem is when one of those dole queuers in waiting takes off and "ruins the race" as a journo said once in Best Bets. That's the worry -- first to get the pace right, THEN to pick the right one based on that is an extra step. I look upon jockeys that if they were one foot taller they'd all be unemployed, and at any given time any one of the cretins could be about to stuff me up, so predicting what's going on in their tiny little minds is like predicting the weather here in Melbourne - futile.

Duritz.

PS - Chief I'm the same way with my ratings - best as a great tool, not as the be all, end all.

[zorro]

Duritz,
Your point about raw sectional times being unreliable (because of the differing pace of races) is valid. However it is possible to make adjustments e.g. If you determine the normal (standard, par ,whatever you call it) percentage of the final 600 sectional to the total race time for each track and distance you can then compare this standard with the actual race in question. i.e. if the final 600 proportion in a race is lower than standard (i.e. a sit-and- sprint) you can penalise the sectional times of all horses in that race.
The trick of course is coming up with accurate standards for both 600 times and the percentage of total race time. This is a pain - particularly with new tracks such as Hillside.

[woof43]

I primarily use Speed/Pace as the backbone of my handicapping.
To my way of thinking the Race is over when the winner crosses the finish line, drawing a line thru this, I compute the actual/approx. distance each runner has covered when the winner crosses the line.

I use two crosshairs to pinpoint each runners pace, the first is based on converting the beaten margin by winners speed and secondly using a speed based on Best Times to 99%.

Furthermore when analysising futures races instead of looking at the Distance of todays race its more about looking at each ontenders ability to race over set distances.

I'd love to add more to the above, but this is my substantial edge.

The more ppl turned off using times the better is my way of thinking.

But its food for thought.

[Duritz]

Zorro yeah I've looked pretty deeply into all of that, have formulated standard sectionals for each track where i can get records of them, and have built methods to adjust for the lack of pace compared to the expected pace for that class, (that is, of course, after you adjust their time and final sectional time for the track speed on the day), and rated them accordingly, and have encountered nothing but headaches. From things like the wind blowing through and between the stands at Caulfield one race and not blowing the next, to rain during the day, to getting out to the centre of the track, to "muddling" run races which are neither quick nor slow but produce anomylous results, to races being slowly run all the way to the 400m pole making 600s meaningless, I have found it to be a case of looking for exactitude in a place where no exactitude exists, and that you're better off rting them on their ability and what they can do, and training your NOUSE to be better at judging horses, the way they run and the way they have been running, then using ratings to separate the wheat from the chaff, framing a market and betting the overs to still - boring as it may be - be the best way.

Duritz.