Since i have not looked at updating my ratings ideas in a few years and getting some mixed results i have decided to try a few changes and thought i would post my ideas for others to look at and maybe adjust for their own use.

Below you will see each category i use along with a brief explanation, i am using either a 10,8,6,4,2,0 or a 5,4,3,2,1,0 points ranking system, this is just a basic idea and would need further improvement.

API

Rank each runner based on the API value and assign the 10 point system.

Win%

Rank each runner from highest to lowest using 5 point system.

Place%

Rank each runner from highest to lowest using 5 point system.

Distance/Track

I was going to use percentage but found this to hard for example a runner with 1 start 1 win as opposed to a runner with 7 starts 5 wins so i decided to to use the number of wins and places so a runner with more wins and places would get a higher rating than one with less.

I decided to give a weighting to those runners that had won over those that had placed so i allocated points like this.

Double the number of wins so a runner that had 10:4-0-2 would get a score of 10 and a runner with 10:2-0-4 would get 8 i did the same for the track once i added all the figures i then ranked them in order highest to lowest and use the 5 point system.

Track Condition

If the track is rated slow or heavy i used the above method with a 5 point system.

Fitness

I calculated the days between the last run and second last run then added this together and ranked them lowest to highest then used the 10 point system.

Class

Class is always a difficult assignment with lots of different classes in each state so i decided to use the race prize money value as a guide, this not ideal but will do the job for now.

I looked at the last race prize value and compared it with today's value if the value is more today than the class is higher and if it is less then it is lower.

I then ranked them in order of the runner with the highest drop in class first using the 10 point system.

Form

I used the last 3 runs beaten margins and added them together to give me i final lengths beaten then i ranked them lowest to highest using the 10 point system.

Qtab Rating

I decided to use this as a final test just because i like them, these are ranked highest to lowest using the 10 point system.


That's it the max score is 70 if track conditions are soft otherwise 65 is the highest possible score.

I then used a calculation to get a price for each runner but because of the limited scores and the likely hood runners could be close in score i can't say the price will be accurate i will still need to work on that.

Here are a couple races for today that i ran this over.

Hi Shaun,

Very interesting approach - good luck with your ratings.

One aspect that always "worries me" is horses that have had no starts at track or distance. You can not really penalise them as they have not had any starts at the track or distance, so they have no history. Compare this with a horse that has had 5 starts at distance for zero placings - do they score that same rating?

Your comments?

Shaun,

re your pricing thoughts, if you can get your head round this it could be of interest for your style of ratings.

http://www.racebase.co.nz/market.htm

Yes i agree, seeing as this is a mathematical and automated approach i would need to come up with a better option, maybe i could look at the starts and work something out using that.

Yes have seen that and although it never suited my old ratings it may suit this type, will check it out and compare the prices.

Looks pretty good, but I've always found that using the median field career prizemoney, a better guide than race prizemoney.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 413,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/01/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

Agree, this is where a lot fall down.
Tend to rate horses with good track or distance too highly, because 0 starts also means 0 failures.
A horse should be penalised for failures, rather than rated because of success when it comes to track and distance.

In fact I find more success, doing reverse ratings.
i.e. all horses start with a rating and deduct points for various failures.
Also gets around the pricing issue, as bolters truely become bolters and favoured horses come up shorter than the other way.

...imho

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 413,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/01/2025
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

Can you give me an example of this please.

I agree that horses with no form at the track or distance should not have zero rating. It would be better to use say a 5 point scale and give these horses 3 points and have 4 points for horses that have performed reasonably well and 5 points for those that score extremely at the distance. Give 1 point for a horse that has many failures and 2 points for at least one failure.

I assume you would have had no bets on winners as your prices were above those on offer.

Prices were not accurate today as i was still working on that part.