Can anybody help me? I am working on a speed ratings system and need the track records from as many tracks as l can get, not just the metropolitans. Does anyone have these or is there a website that might be able to help me?

Hi DR RON, Try some of these:


http://www.warrnamboolracing.com.au...rackRecords.htm

http://www.racenet.com.au/canberra/html/TrackInfo.asp

http://www.racingvictoria.net.au/vc...igo/history.htm

http://www.horsedirectory.com.au/ra...acerecords.html


http://www.theraces.com.au/racing/RaceCourseRecords.asp

http://www.melbourneracingclub.net....rackrecords.htm

Thanks Betty, much appreciated.

Or try my attempt at all Australian courses:

http://www.jfc.asxnews.com/tkrec.htm

Not official records, but 8+ year minima should be close enough.

Any errors are not my problem. I didn't time all these myself.

Thanks jfc, it's exactly what l was after.
How on earth did you come across these?

Dr Ron

Maybe able to help - if e-mail @ billivet@byronit.com can discuss

Dr Ron,

I was afraid you'd ask me that. At first I thought I'd seen your requirement met somewhere on the Internet, but after vainly checking sites (some as provided by Ms Boop) I was fed up. So I ran a 1 line SQL statement to generate the "records" from one of the racing results services on sale.

Onto a change of pace:

What you appear to be tring to do will NOT work. Ratings based on Track Records have been around for over 50 years, have consistently failed, and have been rightly mocked.

Partly because:

It would be quite easy to ensure times are accurate but the providers don't bother. So even now the data is plagued with wrongly timed races, wrong or approximate distances or key entry transposition errors which are never fixed. Errors like to go to extremes, so apparently record times are particularly likely to be errors instead.

Some genuine records are due to fluke conditions (e.g. weird winds). And no one can come within seconds of that time ever again.

It is not uncommon for record breaking breaking horses to never recover from that exertion. Therefore fail miserably at short prices before prematurely retiring.


So some Track Records might be unrealistic by a number of seconds. Whereas others might be attainable, because they aren't that big a deal. From records alone you can't figure which is which so it's an exercise in futility.


If it's any consolation average times don't work either.

jfc,

You non believer :smile:

I once read somehwere a statement that went something like....."Just because I cannot build a house, does that mean that a house cannot be built?"

The point is that people will say something doesn't work, but in many instances it's simply a case that they haven't been able to make it work.

I can't agree when you say working with average times doesn't work. What do you mean doesn't work? If you mean that they won't generate a set of numbers that can produce big profits without any other form of analysis then I would have to agree. The fact is that I'm yet to see, read or hear of any set of ratings that does...despite what others will try and make you believe (usually when they want to sell it to you).

But if you mean you can't make a profit using speed analysis based on average times then I wholeheartedly disagree. How does >30% POT for the last 4 years seem? To me it works.

My software maintains form, as well as my own brand of speed and pace figures for every track and every distance in Australia. They ARE based on trimmed averages (as outlined in another topic), with the appropriate adjustments made to reflect the difference in class that races at each track around the country.

The ratings when combine with sensible form analysis are extremely profitable...primarily because they are not mainstream and the betting public/market does sometimes make slight errors in judgement when assessing the ability of individual horses.

So we should never forget that our opinions about the worth of an approach are based on our own experiences. In some cases they are right, there are somethings that just don't work. But in many other cases those opinions are more reflective of the inability of the individual person to make them work.

I only make this point to balance the argument that method based on average times DON'T work according to you. That may be your experience, but in my experience they have been very profitable for a number of years. Personally I am happy for people like yourself to keep peddling the message...it's comfort that my edge can still be maintained for some years to come :smile:

TO jfc, after some investigation as far as using track records as a basis for a system, I would have to agree with your reasons as to why it would not work. I still think however that there may be some instances where times can help establish the field strength of a particular grade of race. For example, a horse wins a race by ten lengths, is it the next Phar Lap or has it come up against a bunch of camels? I take it your methods of form study are more class/weight related! What factors would you use to determine whether a ten length win is a sign of things to come? some ratings I have seen on websites seem to vary quite a bit as far as giving a class figure for each race is concerned. e.g after allowing for weight and beaten margin adjustments even class 2 events at the same track can vary by up to 5 kilos. Would these figures be very accurate? I would be interested to hear other peoples thoughts on this matter.

[quote]
On 2003-06-18 15:22, DR RON wrote:
I still think however that there may be some instances where times can help establish the field strength of a particular grade of race. For example, a horse wins a race by ten lengths, is it the next Phar Lap or has it come up against a bunch of camels? I take it your methods of form study are more class/weight related! What factors would you use to determine whether a ten length win is a sign of things to come?
******************************

La Mer: Dr. Ron, it would depend on how the horse won the race -did it do so withstanding any presssure or was an all-the-way win - was the time fast, slow or ordinary - did it get all the favours, barrier, track bias, jockey ability etc.

Many of these speedy squibs when stepped up in class at their next start are found wanting, mainly because of the class factor, which means the extra stress and pressure of running against a better type of opposition.

What you also have to consider is the value on offer - ten lengths winners usually go out at very short odds next time, remember Murphy's Blu Boy at Caulfield a few months ago when it won one race by seven lengths then went out as a 1/3 fav at its next start and flopped.

What to look for? Good time for one; a fighting effort for another; what other form has come out of the race; other evidence to support the performance are some, but there are others.
*************************
Dr. Ron: some ratings I have seen on websites seem to vary quite a bit as far as giving a class figure for each race is concerned. e.g after allowing for weight and beaten margin adjustments even class 2 events at the same track can vary by up to 5 kilos. Would these figures be very accurate?
**************************
La Mer: Quite likely as now more than ever before there is a lot of blurring within the classes, particularly those down the bottom end of the scale.

Have a look at the Belmont meeting today and you will see all bar one race is supposedly a Class 6. In reality, there is arguably not one genuine C6 race on the program - they are somewhere between C2's and C5's, but this is how they do things with their midweek metro races in the west - they are nearly always classified as C6's irrespective of what the real class of the race should be.

So variances in the real class of a race even when they are officially classified as the same type can vary greatly - Don Scott thought so thirty years ago and the racing scene has got a lot more blurred since then.

[ This Message was edited by: La Mer on 2003-06-18 16:45 ]

[ This Message was edited by: La Mer on 2003-06-18 16:46 ]