Horse time factors
 

Hi guys

Im just trying to do some calculations to see if i can more accurately predict the winners....i know horse racing is not a science...its more difficult than that :) however, if you can shed any light on the following questions i would be obliged.

• How many lengths on average is a horse handicapped by per extra kilo? so say 2 horses were carrying 55kg for a 1000m and both ran it in .59s. if we put and extra kilo on horse A before the start...what would we expect his time to be then or how many lenghts behind horse B?

• How much slower on average would horse carrying the same weight run a 1000 in different conditions. So say the average time for 1000m on a dead 4 track for horse X is 59.5. What time could we expect on a good 4 track, a slow 4 and a heavy 4?

I understand that some horses prefer different conditions but is it right to assume that most horses will run faster on a dead track and slower on the heavier?

would be great to hear your opinions and analysis on this.

cheers

Why use Time ratings at all.
If the best time rating bloke in the world - Andy Beyer) couldn,t make them work on Australian tracks and the Official race club handicapper disregards them in favor of class and weight it seems to me a total waste of your time.

Cheers.
darky

Hi again Cheekyshiraz,

For what its worth, I use the basis of 1 length = 1 1/2 kgs. And there is 6 lengths to one second. So in your first example horse B would beat horse A by .6 of a length. So I calculate horse A would run that 1000m in around 59.1

As to your second example,....not sure of formulas to differentiate good from heavy etc. My formulas are very general.

Good luck, Paul

Can't shed too much light on this, but I'm working (slowly) on a time ratings method to incorporate into my database. I'm extremely dissatisfied with the way in which time ratings are worked out by most places. I'm taking a different approach to calculations.

For example par times don't handicap (either way) enough.
Beyer failed because our pace and surface is different to the USA.
If he had bothered to put in some effort, he'd have realised adjustments need to be made, but the principles are sound.

USA races tend to be run at a faster clip than here, they tend to go all out and it's survival of the fittest and fastest, whereas here it tends to be a calculated pace and the horse with the fastest final burst often wins or goes close.
In the UK it tends to be even worse, the pace is even slower and final bursts are faster.
It's quite a culture shock.

Time "ratings" is a science, a fairly precise science, which is why a lot of people get it wrong. I'm not saying I'll get it right either, as missing information kills a lot of what I had intended, but I think I'm closer than I thought I'd be.

To answer the latter part of your post, it will all be different.
Times vary track to track, distance to distance and going to going.
Each is a subset of the other.
I've found it's dangerous to take a blanket approach.
Good to Dead 1000m at one track is not the same as Good to Dead at another.
Apart from the best time ever recorded under those conditions, the slowing down effect will also vary.
It might be 1 second at one track, and 2 seconds at another.
Then there's rail position which can impact the time dramatically and pace.

A lot to chew over, but what started out as fun has become an arduos task.

Thanks for that insight Chrome. I always find your posts fascinating and interesting reading. Looking forward to whenever you come up with some time ratings strategy in your database.

I still find the only way I can win money over a period of time is to mess with the sectional times. I used to do melbourne and sydney, gave melbourne away to just concentrate on sydney only, and what happens,.......now you cant get rosehill anymore, what a pain.

Paul

According to Paul Segar a general approximation of different track condition and distances:


1200 M Good 1.11 Dead 1.13 Slow 1.15 Heavy 1.17


1400 M Good 1.24 Dead 1.26 Slow 1.28 Heavy 1.30


1600 M Good 1.37 Dead 1.39 Slow 1.41 Heavy 1.45


2000 M Good 2.03 Dead 2.05 Slow 2.08 Heavy 2.12


(that's minutes)

It's not really a plug for my database, because I don't know how it will actually turn out, whether it will work out or not.
But I still believe that using specifically tailored data is better than benchmark data.

As an example, par times do not really account for pace.
Par times tell you averages, but don't tell you how good a run was.
Using track records over every distance in every track condition is more useful in showing class, and how far off that time a horse ran.
I am a firm believer in sectionals, although race sectionals are not anywhere near as good as horse sectionals.

A poster posted this in another forum to do with time ratings:



With all due respect to the poster and the product, allowing 2 to 3 lengths off a track record is in my opinion doomed. 2 to 3 lengths is the difference between an average horse and a great horse, I don't see making allowances as doing the ratings, the horses nor the punters any favours.
A fast race time is not the only benchmark to class either, it must be a portion of an overall picture.

Some of the fastest race times over distance are won by the most ordinary gallopers, it's the time run after a certain pace that tells the story.

As I say, it's a bit of a riddle, but I think you must start with exact parameters, for there to be any chance of success. One second difference is too major a factor to ignore in my opinion.

I'll make some illustrations to demonstrate the point when my database is sewn back together.

Thanks guys for your thoughts and info. ya i ve seen as chrome pointed out that the par times differ also from trace to track so a 1200 par time will differ from rosehill to caulfield to moe. So i guess its best to try and concentrate a method on one or two tracks and see how the results turn out.

is there any handicapping software on the market that already has all the par times per track and allows the user to input variables such as weight, barrier No. etc? Ive heard of bet selector but have nt really looked into it.

cheers

Yes, that product has par times inbuilt now.
Not sure how accurate they are, as I actually have that software myself and have only seen a small improvement over a significant number of races.
I'm currently working on a different approach myself to times, but not sure where it will lead.
I do know that their par times are approximate estimates and this correlates to the results.

cheekyshiraz

On the face of it time rating should be the bee's knees in racing,
after all the fastest horse wins the race.

I have persevered for years with time rating. Have my own par time tables for every race track in OZ, worked out of actual race times ran on the track, for every distance under all conditions.

I must have been doing something wrong because I never could make time rating pay. I sure picked up a lot of good prized winners but not enough for a profit.

My combined class, weight and other ratings on the other hand, kept me in style for years now.

Betselector is basically time rating.
Tried it for a while early on but I was doing far better without it.
I don't know how it performs lately, maybe improved?

If you want my par times give me an email addy and I shoot them off to you.