Does anyone put any kind of emphasis on analysing times?

I myself use times as one of the most important factors in determining the form , but not the actual race time run.

I take the time run minus the last 600m run divided by the distance minus 600m and then add that number to the last 600m run divided by six then take the first number and divide that with the second number.

I know that doesn't make sense worded like that so here is an example:

Smart Chariots last race was Sunshine Coast Guineas the time was 1:35:08 for 1600m OR expressed better as 9508 , the last 400 was 2402.
Since i like to take 600m as a better guide i take 2402 and divide by 4 and times that by 6 resulting in 3603.

So we take the overall time (9508) and minus it by the last 600m (3603) resulting in 5905 , divide that number by ten (16-6) equalling 590.

Take the 590 number and add the 600m time divided by 6 (3603 divide by 6) = 600 + 590 =1190 , now divide the 590 number into the 1190 and the result equals 49.5 rounded off.

Hence the first part of the race contributed to 50.5% of the total and the last part 49.5% meaning for a 1600m race they went very fast for the first part of the race in a 19 horse field it would have been hard for any horse in the first half of the field to stick on in the straight , looking at smart chariots form it was 7th at 800m and 4th at 400m and it won by a length which is a very very good win considering it came from barrier 15.

Subsequently it won on Saturday even though coming back in distance i made it a special.

Coincidentally Clanger also came from that race being 6th at 800m and 7th at 400m finishing only 2 lengths from Smart Chariot , it then raced in a slightly worst class race and won at 10/1 incredible odds based on its last start run.

I know this might sound pretty complicated but it is a very good way to work out the form.

The only problem is when you first start working out what times are fast and slow on all the different tracks , after doing this for over 2 years i am pretty confident i have very track worked out time wise.

Any comments or suggestions much appreciated.

Are you finding a lot of merit in this Teastarossa?

You may be getting some winners that otherwise may not have been considered.

I suppose it's a good guide but how do you allow for a horse running three wide or hampered or blocked for a run?

Does this form any allowance in your calculations?

Looks like you've got a great handle on it all!
Good luck with it.

:wink:

EI ,

Thanks for the feedback.

I usually watch all the replays on Sky Racing and jot down the unlucky horses in running , i then use the Sunday telegraph for saturdays results and work out the Times as mentioned above for each race and work out which ones were slowly run up front , evenly run up front or quickly run up front and work which horses were advantaged or disadvantaged by the times run in there respective race.

Once i work out that i watch the replays that i taped the night before and watch every horse i have marked , thus working out which horses to watch out for next time.

This however is not the only thing i use in working out the form , i also use barriers , days since last run , distances , my own class ratings for last 4 runs and weights carried in the last 4 runs by each horse.

I use these as a rating for every horse and take the top 4 rated in the race and apply my time analysis (the top 4 rated win about 80% of races.)

Thus on saturday Superfine was rated 2 points higher then any other runner and using the time analysis i figured its last few runs were at a disadvantage for his racing style. I backed it and it duly saluted at 20/1.

Another example was Sovereign Echo in race 7 at Adelaideit was rated a clear third choice behind Jezarich and Serai , both first up i decided to shy away from those 2 and back Sovereign Echo who ran 3rd last start at the same distance and track and on similar conditions to this.It won and paid at ridiculous odds of 33/1 (Jezarich finished a fast finishing 3rd at 12/1).

This rating approach i have only started in the last month or so , but it has served me very well so far.It may not work for other people but it works for me which is the most important thing isn't it EI (RE: your stable system which was shot down by some.)

Do you make allowances for position at 400m?

For example, if a horse was 8th at the 400m, the time in the paper for the last 400m would be slower than the time ran by a horse which made up several lengths.

Also the time you calculated for first 1200m would be slower due to the horse being 8th at that mark.

If you made an allowance of say 0.5 lengths for every position behind the leader would that help your analysis become more accurate?

You could then adjust the times by about 0.15 seconds for every length.

Or is this making it all to complicated??

Manikato ,

I am not completely sure at what you are suggesting but (correct me if i'm wrong)i think you are suggesting giving each horse a time rating of its own.

All i am trying to achieve is to give every race (not every horse) a time rating , and break each race into two parts , the first part of the race and the second part of the race and determine which races were slowly run up front , evenly run up front , or quickly run up front.

E.g A 1200m race run in the time of 1:12:02 (7202) and the last 600m was 34:82 (3482) The time rating for the first part of the race would be 51.6% and the last part being 48.4% meaning the race was very slowly run up front as 51.6% of the race was run in the first part of it , backmarkers would have little or no chance of winning.

So using this we can say a horse that finished 3 lengths from the winner and was last on the turn ran a much better race then a horse which lead into the straight but was beaten 2 lengths.

What i like to look for is a race run fast up front like 49.5% or faster and look at what the first few horses in the running finished , if one of them stuck on at the finish thay are a VERY good bet next run.

The only query with this time analysis at first is working out what percentage of time is quick or slow for each individual distance and each track but having been using this approach for quite some time i am pretty confident i have it all worked out.

Testarossa,

I understand what you're saying. Basically you try and determine the pace of the race and which horses performed well, despite not being suited by the pace.

If the time ran for the last 600m was say 34 secs and the overall time was only average, wouldn't you see from that that the first part of the race was slow, without having to do all the calculations?

Likewise if the last 600m was 36.5 secs and the time was ok, that the first part of the race was fast?

Manikato ,

Thanks for the swift reply.

Yes it is easy to tell sometimes looking at the times but i like working out the exact percentage of the race and putting them in order with every other race in the same meeting.

Also some tracks are hard to tell just by looking at the times , e.g Canterbury , 49.1% or higher is only evenly run or slowly run whereas 49% or lower is only starting to get into the quick region , other tracks with quirks like this are Sandown , Toowoomba and Gold Coast to name a few.

Also it is a bit harder working out say a 1900m race run in 1:59:09 with last 600m being 36:02 just by looking at it.

Testarossa,

I see your point. Often the last 600m at Canterbury is run in 36.5 secs or 37 secs. It seems to be a slow finish. I've never been to Canterbury. Mooney Valley is similar, must be the short straight and turning track.

As a rule of thumb though, would you use less than 49.5% for the first part as fast for other tracks? While at Canterbury and Mooney Valley would you use less than 49%?

So more than 0.5% either side for most tracks, but 1% for Canterbury or Mooney Valley?

Testarossa, I see what you're doing and I do a similar thing. I recently got back into this and did some reading. One of the things I read I really enjoyed. It talked about seeing the race before it was run. There were three types of horses, the sprinters, the closers and the runners. Sprinters thunder out of the gate hungry for the lead. Runners are methodical in their even pace through to the end. Closers hang back waiting for the opening.

One or two sprinters will vault ahead and enjoy a little friendly competition to the finish line. But if there are too many they burn each other out letting the runners through. And if they aren't fast enough those closers come from 8th or further to end up with the win or place.

When I'm paying attention this seems to paint an interesting story that plays out on the track. However, it's easy to miss out on details with all those facts to keep track of. Your more mechanical way of representing the information for analysis is very interesting. I'll try it and add a 'confidence factor' based on the comments and other items such as change in class, weight and distance.

A sincere thanks (since this is close to how I do it already),

Duck

Testarossa,

One thing I wanted to ask you was about Superfine. I looked at its time at Kembla. It was only moderate. The last 600m was not given in the formguide I used. Was it one of these horses which won despite not being suited by the early speed?

Its overall career looked moderate.

Did you see the race and think "Get on next time"

Yes Manikato Superfine was disadvantaged at its last start despite winning at Kembla , also look at its previous 2 starts before that run and it will paint an interesting picture , all the previous 3 runs of Superfine were all at a disadvantage i.e the pace of the race.The distance was also at a disadvantage each start:
1200m race was disadvantaged by speed and distance but finished on well.
1300m race finished very well for 4th even though both disadvantaged by pace and distance.
Then it went to Kembla at a more suitable distance of 1600m , slightly easier class and even though still disadvantaged by pace won well.
Then was at 1800m , harder class but this time in form , right distance and the speed of the race was at a ADVANTAGE and of course it won again.

Thanks for your thoughts Testarossa.
What did you think of Octessa prior to the race. Its win last start was impressive??
Or did you consider its performance was exaggerated by the speed of the race?

Hi Testa,

I enjoyed your post. As someone who have been through all there is about times and pace (and now after a few years of reasearch has settled on a winning approach, more to do with pace), i think I can add something to the discussion.

It sounds like the reading and method you are employing is based on American works more specifically Brohammer who talks about leaders, pressers, closers etc as well as energy distribution etc. Your percentages of 49.5, 50.5 etc are basic energy distribution patterns.

Take it from me when I say that these approaches are not valid or reliable in Australian conditions. There are a whole bunch of reasons ranging from the vastly different shapes and profiles of our tracks (they are all similar in the states, a basic oval shape), the fact they race on dirt and we race on turf, which goes along with the fact that the requirements for success are much different. Dirt racing is about sheer speed, hence the importance they place on early speed. Turf racing is about being able to go along at a moderate pace and produce a kick at the end. Even these authors openly admit that there methods are nowhere near as effective on Turf as dirt.

The other point is that you assertions about a 49.5% last section indicating the pace was fast is not quiet right as it doesn't take into account the standard for that track. Someone else raised the point about Mooney Valley and Canterbury, your figures will alway show above 50% early indicating the pace was fast but thats not the case, its simply to do with the track profile that means last sections will never be as quick as some of the others. MV for example only has a 187m straight so horses can't run as quick around a bend as they often become a little unbalanced. Along with that there is actually a 5m rise from the start to finsih of the straight hence horses are always running slightly up hill.

I also believe you are making an error in methodology by taking 400m sections and deriving them back to 600m times in the way you are. In more than 90% of races the last 200m of the race is always the slowest (excluding the first 200m where horses start from the barrier). It is actually a bit of an illusion that it looks like horses are gaining speed and storming home. What is actually happening is that all the horses are slowing, some are slowing much less than others which means they make alot of ground. The fastest section is most often from the 600m to the 200m mark, it is that part that makes a really quick last 600m. So you see the last (slowest) 200m is actually 50% of a 400m sectional and you are extracting that to 600m which makes it 50% of your final 600m time. This slowest section should only make up 33% of the final 600m the other 67% is the faster 600-200m time. That being the case your method will always severley underestimate the actual final 600m time.

If you want confirmation about my assertion of the slowest part being the last 200m etc. do some research with the individual sectional times Sportscolour provide on their site for free.

In principle what you are trying to do is fantastic and will prove a winning strategy if you can get it right, the trouble is that at this stage your methods are not correct. I am satisfied now that after working through this for five years or so and with the help of some sophisticated programming I have an approach that has delivered profit for the past 2 years. The only reason I say this is not to gloat but to highlight that pace is the most unexploited concept in all of race and if you can find out a way to firstly accurately measure it and then use it with other sensible form analysis techniques then you are well on your way to a winning advantage.

So my final advice would be to definitely stick with what you are trying to do in principle about understanding pace and the relative performance of horses given the pace, but ditch American based methods and complicated maths about energy patterns, %'s etc. Its really not as hard or as complicated as they make out.

Best of luck with your endeavours, I love to see other people interested in this topic.

I hope you have found my points useful.

Manikato

Octessa was not in my top 4 ratings so i did not even consider it.
My top 4 in that race were Senor Skase , Superfine , Barker Boy and Monte Drift.
The reason Octessa was not rated higher was because of its class ratings , it's last start was in a 3yo Fillies 0ly midweek race which i rate at 46 , the race on the weekend was a saturday 3yo Open which i rate at 57.

Osulldj ,

Thanks for your very insightful comments , they made very interesting reading indeed.

First of all i had no idea this sort of thing was based from America or anywhere for that fact , i just happened to create this a couple of years ago , knowing that pace as you said is very underrated and having a keen eye for mathematical things i went about forming it.

Secondly the only time i convert the last 400m into 600m is at the Sunshine Coast because thay don't have a last 600m sectional.

Thirdly , i understand what your getting at about different sort of tracks play differently then others but i am pretty confident after studying each track that i have every track worked out with regards to early pace and the end of a race.

Thank you very much for the points raised and best of luck to you.

Osulldj,

What does your name mean?

Your comments were very interesting. I have read that most Americans who use these types of ratings have had great success on dirt, but have struggled badly on turf.

In Australia, a lot of races tend to be slowly run. Only when you get top notch speed horses, are they truly run. That's why leaders tend to dominate the winners circle.

According to one American I have read, he says horses that run fairly even times - around 50% for both sections tend to do well on turf. Do you agree with this or not????
Your opinion would be much appreciated!

I believe that a lot of Sunline's success is due to her running strong sectionals thru the middle of the race from the 1000m to 200m. Most horses can't keep up with her, however horses like Northerly can match her during these sections and finish stronger.

That being the case, if you looked at what horses can achieve in the 1000m to 200m mark you would be able to identify the winning chances. Does anyone know where this type of info can be obtained? Clockers would have this type of data wouldn't they?

Testarossa,

Laguna Lake also ran a good race last start considering it was a run on type of horse. Was favourite but its previous start was very good under the circumtances.

Manikato ,

Funnily enough Laguna Lake was my selection in the race , but didn't back due to its short price.

In Sydney on Sat i had 4 winners from 7 races:
Pompeii , Laguna Lake , Skiddaw and of course Superfine.