All,

For those that do time analysis how many lengths do you adjust for dead, slow and heavy on average ?

Good Luck.

Hi Wes,

I don't rate races on heavy tracks or distances over 1800m. Here's what I use. Figures below are seconds, not lengths.

Dist	D	S
1000	0.85	1.6
1050	0.925	1.7
1100	1	1.8
1150	1.05	1.88
1200	1.1	1.95
1250	1.175	2.02
1300	1.25	2.1
1350	1.325	2.175
1400	1.4	2.25
1450	1.475	2.32
1500	1.5	2.4
1550	1.575	2.49
1600	1.65	2.58
1650	1.7	2.65
1700	1.75	2.72
1750	1.825	2.81
1800	1.9	2.9

Chinbok,

This is much appreciated.

It is hard finding other people to compare times with as there isn't many sources of informaiton on it. Do you know of any good websites with this sought of info ?

Thanks

Hi Wes,

Don't know of any websites. You could try searching through the ausrace forums. Their archives go back many years.

I put my times together a couple of years ago and can't remember the exact methodology but I used 2-3 years of race results downloaded form unitab. From memeory, I think I only used the metro tracks or the metro and provincial.

Cheers

Wes,

Are you using track variants as well?

Wes.,

It's probably due to the donkeys years of research experience by such
people as the late Don Scott - His findings over many years suggested that,
Time - Pace - Speed ratings would lead one to the poor house because they are worse than useless.

His final sentence is a Gem,
" If you meet such a character, direct him to the nearest psychiatric institution. He certainly needs help."

He did like to call a Spade a Spade when it came to his passion -
Racing Research.

chinbok,

I have not got track variants to its full potential yet. I have noticed a few places produce very quick (or slow) times though and I do a slight adjustment for it but I would not say it is an accurate adjustment.

There are several ways to work out the track variantions and I am still condering the best way to do it. The options I have include:

1. Avg time of winner over a large number of races (500+ races).
2. Avg time of a consistent horse that has run across multiple tracks (this is good but hard to do ).
3. Track records for each distance.

Can I ask which one you prefer to use ? Depending on which one you use you are always going to get those slight differences which could cause different selections. In some races 0.1 secs can be a huge difference to whether a horse is rated as top selection or 5th selection.

Good Luck.

Racer,

I like the research and try and find things which work well.

Its obvious that the horse that runs the fastest time will win and therefore the horse should be rated by the potential times they could run in the race. For example a horse running 1.00 consistently should be a horse that is consistently running 1.10 .

The problem arises when horses do not run to their best times or even their avg times. This is where other form analysis needs to be taken into account to determine the fitness of the horse and whether any improvement can/should be expected.

I think the main reason people don't use it is because it is hard to find and compute yourself.

Good Luck.

Wes,

I used average time of winners over a large numer of races.

I think if you are going to use time ratings you have to do them properly. i.e you need track variants and ideally you would also apply a daily track variant to account for track condition, rail position and wind (I'm not doing this - too hard)

I used track variants and there can be more than 1 sec variation over 1200m from one track to another which makes a big difference.

Chinbok,

I agree there can be huge differences and I have noted several tracks that have unusual times.

I'll get the track variants in there soon but I still have a lot of work to do.

Thanks for your help.