I think everyone struggles to make times pay at one point or another.
To be candid, the other product has a newer way of calculating pars which has seen somewhere in the vicinity of a 4% to 6% improvement.

I'm not convinced they are doing it the right way though.
A tell tale is in the odds generated for their pp market.

I don't want to go into this much more, as I'm not a product knocker.
I personally have it and it suits a purpose, but in my opinion there are a number of shortcomings I'll keep to myself.

Onto other things.

The trots are a very good learning place about the impact time.

Two horses can run a mile in 1:59.90, one can be a champion, the other a battler from the bush. The key is in knowing how to rate the same exact times differently.
If one used 1:59.90, you'd have them rated equally, one will be well unders, the other well overs.
One will continue to win races, the other may win one more race in it's career.
Given that the trots are run a little differently, the main principles are the same.
Running time tells you the race was a competitive race, but it doesn't tell you if the horse won running away or won by a lip under the persuader.
It doesn't account for position in running, if it swooped from the back or was taken on up front, or left alone up front and dictated the whole race.

Of the two 1:59.90 horses, it is crucial to know how fast they did their early splits in and how fast they came home.

They could have jogged early and flew home for a sizzling final quarter adding to an overalll quick time.

OR they could have gone hard early, took a breather mid race and sizzled home.

OR they could have sizzled early and plodded home

All having the same race time.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 429,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/12/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

Hi Iomaca

I would love to see the par times you have. I have tried looking for your email but cannot access it. mine is adie @ emeraldideas . net

I will try a few different methods and systems with them to see what i can come up with.

it would be fantastic if there was a software that had a database of all horse racing results over the last 10 year in australia with all the data (barrier no, weight, jockey,track, etc) for each horse in the race with All the times the races were run in. That way if you come up with a new system you can test it on the old races to see what selections would have been chosen and you could see what S/R would have been achieved.

cheers

Have you looked at this site ? Daniel has his own speed ratings and website and couldn't reccommend him more highly. His own database and ratings system was built and constructed over a long period of time. I have no connection to the site except for being a customer / his ratings have suggested good and bad betting races and has completly changed my betting losses into profits. Actually i think he used to post on here as O'SULLDJ. Very smart cookie but only does metropolitan meetings, i have emailed him and asked him about provincial races and he responded with a maybe in the future.

If the worst thing you do is join for free and read his art**********************:-)

Hi

I am new to this forum. I am fiddling around with time ratings and found the different points of view on this thread interesting. I am slowly putting together a set of my own par times and will probably be restricting my use of these par times to races of 1600 metres or less, as I feel time ratings for distances any greater than 1600 metres are subject to too much variation.

A problem I see though is that a race over 1600 metres could still have horses in it that have recently raced over 1800 or 2000 metres and knowing the value of these runs can be important. The problem with calculating a time rating for a distance race is that there can be great variations in the winning times (due to lack of pace, etc.) which leads to great variations in the time rating (when compared to the variations in ratings for shorter distances).

At the other end of the distance scale, I have also noticed that winning times for 1000 metre races seem to be bunched quite a bit closer together than the winning times for races over 1200 and 1400 metres, meaning ratings for 1000 metre races may end up being greater than they should be (when comparing them to ratings for 1200 and 1400 metre races).

What I am wondering is: do people that have developed and used their own time ratings make allowances in their calculations for the distance the time rating has been run over (apart from the fact that there is a small difference in the time per length as the distance increases or decreases) ?

I hope I have explained myself well enough here