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.

__________________
Good luck and good punting.

And remember a profit a day keeps the Girlfriend/Wife away.

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.)

__________________
Good luck and good punting.

And remember a profit a day keeps the Girlfriend/Wife away.

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.

__________________
Good luck and good punting.

And remember a profit a day keeps the Girlfriend/Wife away.

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.

__________________
Good luck and good punting.

And remember a profit a day keeps the Girlfriend/Wife away.

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"