Duritz, i would like to know if you get these ratings yourself or are done by "professionals" and everyone can access them.

Everyone can access them. They charge about 40 a month including GST for access to them. Unlike Ozeform who said the reason they took off the ratings was because people were using them to bet with IAS with (therefore conflict of interest), expert form aren't bookies so don't have that concern. What they want is for the ********** ratings to become like Timeform are in England, ie the point of reference that all racing refer to when they want to know what a horse can rate. They have undertaken the massive task of organinsing all tracks etc etc so that they can rate them ALL (including Yea, Alexandra, Esperance, Birdsville, every track there is racing at), so that they can be reliably used as a point of reference. I don't "get" the ratings as such, I use them on their site and use my own pricing programs to do the form.

I am personally not a HUGE supporter of ratings, but definitely understand and respect their usefulness. Legitimate ratings, like these seem to be, can save a handicapper lots of time if they choose to use them. They are basically a consensus of a horses abilities in any particular race. The Beyer ratings here in the US had to gain credibility before becoming a standard part of the Daily RAcing Form's PP's. I remember the time when I wouldn't even look at the Beyer's and they were only available for certain tracks. It seems like these ratings in AUS are just going through the same kind of growing pains.

Yeah Andy Beyer is an interesting guy, read a fair bit about him and read his books. I used to be a huge fan of time ratings. When I was younger I built up bases and standards and rated them on time and did the form and loved it.... and lost.

Andy himself came out to Australia with the intention of conquering the races here using time ratings. He tried, but lost badly and went home having done a serious amount of cash.

Times work in the States, but they don't work here. There are many reasons why this is the case, I don't have the time to outline it all here now but trust me, they don't work overall. In SOME cases, time can be a guide, but that's all. Two important exceptions are - early 2yo's (like blue diamond preludes for colts / fillies at Caulfield) and when assessing the ability of a maiden. If a maiden runs much faster time than other races over that trip (see Rewaaya recently), it could be a good horse, especially if it wins by many lengths. However, maidens who run a slow time may still be very good horses.

Here's an example of the unreliability of time:

July 29 this year, Preakness and Shovoluck both won maidens at Tamworth over 1000m. That's basically the shortest trip in Australia for maidens. Sprinters trip. Times, if anywhere to be reliable, should be reliable there. This day, with the same weight, Preakness ran 0.36 seconds faster than Shovoluck. You'd think, all being equal, that Preakness' run was better, on times it was 2 lengths better after all. On the expert-form ratings however, Shovoluck rated 95 and Preakness 93, which is roughly 1 length superior, with a slower time.

Next start, they raced against each other. Perfect time to test the theory. It was 1 week later, at Gunnedah over 1000m. They both had to carry 54.5 kilos. If you're a time fan, you'd expect Preakness to beat Shovoluck by 2 lengths. Let me tell you, I watched this race with GREAT INTEREST.

In the run, they both got their chance. Preakness box seated, 3rd on the fence, Shovoluck sat just on his outside. In the straight, the run came for Preakness and Shovoluck switched out to the middle to make his run. The result?

This is it, with the expert form ratings included:

finpos Horse Weight Margin rating
1 GAHELA BEAU 54 0.4 95
2 SHOVOLUCK 54.5 0.4 95
3 STRAWBERRY BAR 56 1.4 95
4 CABBAGE 51 1.6 91
5 PREAKNESS 54.5 1.9 93
6 MAGIC JAZZ BAND 54 2.7 91
7 BROAD SPECTRUM 56 3.7 91
8 ITSNOSECRET 54.5 5 88
9 DUE WEST 54 8.5 83
10 LITTLE RASCAL 55 10.3 81
11 SUNGARI 52 11.5 77
12 RONS RACQUET 54 16 71



I've done a heap of work on times, and here they just don't stack up. I know in the States they do and I wish they did here, because it'd make it so much easier, but they don't. What works is comparing horse against horse, weight against weight.

Cheers.

Duritz, Time ratings have a distinctive edge for future performances.
Beyer had US experience but not Oz experience.
Your Tamworth example opens up the murky sub-heading in time ratings called sectionals.
Your Rewaaya example is spot on. The same logic applies to El Segundo's win in a maiden at Cranbourne on the 20th March. Always nice to know an up and comer so early in the peace.
The even money on offer about El Segundo was a little too short for a percentage player like me. However the 40's on offer at his WFA run previous to that was very tasteful for First Four standout players. Must say that Makybe's run in that race was a bottler.

Patezza I've done as much work on secs as I have on times, and I agree, it is a murky subheading underneath times. Too murky for mine. I have so, so much I could say on this subject but I don't have the time to write it all down right now, but sectionals too are a flawed method when used on their own. (that's part of the key, none of these methods are any good ON THEIR OWN). Things can effect a sectional, from when they take off (sometimes still crawling past the 400m pole), to rain during the day etc etc. When they pulled the stand down at Caulfied everything changed because a wind hitherto unfelt blew through the gap.

I have tried to come up with the perfect way of rating using times and secs. Part of me still believes it can be done. That's the part of me that's purely logical and believes in maths over horses. That part of me doesn't know a thing nor care a damn abuot missing stands and rain during the day. That part wants to be able to get a horse's time, his lead, his final, and know what he has done. That part of me thinks there is a perfect way of rating them based on this, but that part of me is wrong.

Couple of years ago, in the Yalumba I think it was, 1800 Caulfield, Mummify led, Lonhro sat on his back. They walked in front, and Lonhro cruised past Mummify like he was not there. Kicked his brains in. Mummify looked ordinary - 1 paced and slow.

Week later, Mummify breaks MIGHT AND POWER's track record (the best horse in the last 15 years AT LEAST) Caulfield track record, leading in a fast pace. Had Lonhro sat on Mummify's back that day, he'd have been burn't off. Mummify is a strong 1 pacer, Lonhro was a sit and accelrate horse. They are two examples of the two different types. A more distinct example of a 1 pacer is Plastered. He has not got an accelerating particle (one for the physicists) in his body. Between Lonhro and Plastered on the scale of accleration - 1 pacedness fall all other horses. This alone renders sectionals used purely useless, because certain horse's like it run certain ways. Mummify was left flat footed in a sit and sprint by Lonhro, however he would burn Lonhro off in a strong pace.

Anyway, when all's said and done, and trust me I've been to both sides of this, CLASS and WEIGHT are the two most important factors there are.

Patezza I've done as much work on secs as I have on times, and I agree, it is a murky subheading underneath times. Too murky for mine. I have so, so much I could say on this subject but I don't have the time to write it all down right now, but sectionals too are a flawed method when used on their own. (that's part of the key, none of these methods are any good ON THEIR OWN). Things can effect a sectional, from when they take off (sometimes still crawling past the 400m pole), to rain during the day etc etc. When they pulled the stand down at Caulfied everything changed because a wind hitherto unfelt blew through the gap.

I have tried to come up with the perfect way of rating using times and secs. Part of me still believes it can be done. That's the part of me that's purely logical and believes in maths over horses. That part of me doesn't know a thing nor care a damn abuot missing stands and rain during the day. That part wants to be able to get a horse's time, his lead, his final, and know what he has done. That part of me thinks there is a perfect way of rating them based on this, but that part of me is wrong.

Couple of years ago, in the Yalumba I think it was, 1800 Caulfield, Mummify led, Lonhro sat on his back. They walked in front, and Lonhro cruised past Mummify like he was not there. Kicked his brains in. Mummify looked ordinary - 1 paced and slow.

Week later, Mummify breaks MIGHT AND POWER's track record (the best horse in the last 15 years AT LEAST) Caulfield track record, leading in a fast pace. Had Lonhro sat on Mummify's back that day, he'd have been burn't off. Mummify is a strong 1 pacer, Lonhro was a sit and accelrate horse. They are two examples of the two different types. A more distinct example of a 1 pacer is Plastered. He has not got an accelerating particle (one for the physicists) in his body. Between Lonhro and Plastered on the scale of accleration - 1 pacedness fall all other horses. This alone renders sectionals used purely useless, because certain horse's like it run certain ways. Mummify was left flat footed in a sit and sprint by Lonhro, however he would burn Lonhro off in a strong pace.

Anyway, when all's said and done, and trust me I've been to both sides of this, CLASS and WEIGHT are the two most important factors there are. What a horse did, in what class, against who, with what weight. That's what counts. The rest is looking for certainty in clouds of smoke, and, again, trust me, I know this.

I forgot to mention - I didn't take the secs of those 1000m Tamworth maidens, but as I said in the earlier thread - over 1000m it is supposed to be all pace. If there are slowly run 1000m races out there (and there are!!) then that is further evidence against times. HEAPS of Aus races are slowly run, and the moment they are their time is meaningless. As you said, that's when we need secs :) , however, as I said, it's very difficult to apply a standard rule to a time and sectional to come out with a rating.