Forgot your password?

New
You can now create, edit and view horse profiles to keep track of your favorite horses. Veiw_horses
Close

RP Standard Times List

General discussion about Uk, Irish and International horse racing
User avatar
Posts: 588
Joined: 26 May 2009, 19:28
Location: Swindon
Classic Winner
 

TheBluesBrother

Postby TheBluesBrother on 11 Feb 2011, 17:49

I just spent several hours putting together a list of Racing Post standard times for all British racecourses, might be of use to somebody (Excel.xls).

http://tinyurl.com/69fol76

Posts: 154
Joined: 05 Oct 2009, 01:36
Group 1 Winner
 

Kopwas

Postby Kopwas on 11 Feb 2011, 21:19

Thank you, much appreciated. :D

User avatar
Posts: 588
Joined: 26 May 2009, 19:28
Location: Swindon
Classic Winner
 

TheBluesBrother

Postby TheBluesBrother on 20 Feb 2011, 16:15

Using a simple formula I have added a LBS per length column to the Racing Post standard times Excel.xls sheet.

http://tinyurl.com/69fol76

*The standard time for Haydock Park's 1m 2f distance is correct, before anybody says it isn't :D

User avatar
Posts: 588
Joined: 26 May 2009, 19:28
Location: Swindon
Classic Winner
 

TheBluesBrother

Postby TheBluesBrother on 10 Mar 2011, 17:13

I have just received a PDF file from Dave Edwards "Top Speed" listing all the standards times for the British/Irish National hunt. :D

http://tinyurl.com/62hcbq2

He hasn't finished the Flat yet :(

 

Anonymous

Postby Anonymous on 10 Mar 2011, 19:30

Blues brother, very interesting indeed.
By standard time you mean track variant = 0, I presume.

A horse that interests me right now is Shearman (Elusive City - Champion Tipster).
Raced at W'ton AW (won) with 1.14.26 slow by 1.26 (that makes it 1.13.00 ?)

The standard W'ton time for 6f is also 1.13.00 in your chart.
If with the same weight he goes on to Ascot where you say standard time is 1.13.50 then the W'ton time is equivalent to (73.5/73) x 73 = 73.5 = 1.13.00.

Correct ?

Shearman seems to have flopped at Ascot but that does n't matter. Maybe it was an unlucky ride.

To work out standard times for a new racecourse we have to compare horses that ran on both. Correct ?

I can't judge the accuracy of your results and the lbs per length (kg per sec in my units) but one thing you need for sure is conversion formulas from one distance to another, to make sense of it all.
If you need any help pls write.

I have done all this work before.

Now with Shearman doing 1.13.00 (= 1.14.26 - 1.26) I can't really tell what this means. I have n't looked at the card featuring Shearman in all detail but it seems the press thinks as firm favourite Sharp Eclipse (Exceed and Excel - Helen Sharp) and Shearman is an also run.

User avatar
Posts: 588
Joined: 26 May 2009, 19:28
Location: Swindon
Classic Winner
 

TheBluesBrother

Postby TheBluesBrother on 11 Mar 2011, 10:46

@Froddo
I will explain what I am attempting to achieve with my lbs. per length calculations.
I am a big admirer of Dave Edwards “Top Speed” but I noticed a flaw in the way the Racing Post used their lbs. per length calculations.

When they rate a 5f 2yo race at Epsom they use 3.54 lbs. per length and .16 seconds equals one length and they use the 3.54 lbs. as a constant for all 5f races.

OK you are thinking what is wrong with that?

Take the 2yo 5f furlong track at Epsom it is run downhill so how can you have the same calculation 3.54 lbs. for the 2yo 5f race at Pontefract which is run uphill.

RP Epsom 5f = 3.54 lbs.
RP Pontefract = 3.54 lbs.

I would use Epsom 5f = 3.61 lbs.
I would use Pontefract = 3.23 lbs.

Every course must have its own set of lbs. per figures, which is why when looking at the last 3 top speed figures of any horse you see no consistency as they are using the same constant for the race distances instead of the individual track configurations.

I was looking at a race at Wolverhampton recently run over 5f 20yds and the race time was 1.69 slow and Top Speed gave the winner a rating of 61, remember they use 3.54 lbs. per length at the Racing post and .16 sec per length.
So using my calculator and my lbs. per length for Wolverhampton’s 5f 20yds which is 3.32 lbs. I roughly arrive at a figure for the winner of 63.8 and that was using their .16 sec per length calculation and if I used my .20 sec per length calculation the figure comes out at 70.9

Do track variants matter? I think so…

 

Anonymous

Postby Anonymous on 11 Mar 2011, 11:16

You have many race courses.
We have only one.
I had to do track to track conversion only once, in 2004 because of the new race course.

Regarding weight I use the following standard figures:

5f - 0.03 kg/sec
6f - 0.05 kg/sec
7f - 0.06 kg/sec
8f - 0.06 kg/sec
9f - 0.08 kg/sec
12f - 0.08 kg/sec
15f - 0.20 kg/sec

That means if for ex. a horse raced 6f at 1.13.00 with 58 kg and is racing again 6f with 60 kg, the 1.13.00 becomes 1.13.10.

I showed them to an American trainer once who more or less agreed.
I also have a periodical here which says 0.20 kg/sec for all distances. That looks awfully wrong to me.

One question is how does one derive those.
I don't like using the least squares method.
Maybe weighted least squares.
My 2005 statistics based on least squares were crappy (I had to make statistics on that year because of the new race course).
Then in 2007 I used some other method based on probability theory with better results.

You say the 0.06 kg/sec if uphill becomes 0.08 and if downhill perhaps 0.05 ?

I don't know what you can do to overcome the limitations of leat squares but you have to work out distance to distance conversion formulas.
Why this ?
If your horse has made a debut over 8f and now runs 7f what are you going to say ? Nothing ?
If your hourse runs 7f and the last outings are 8f-5f-5f-7f you go to the -4 race to get clue ? Bad idea I should think.

Perhaps you can help me make a UK to Greece chart.
I used to have the beginnings of a table somewhere but I lost it.
It's not diffcult though to reconstruct one.

see this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression

User avatar
Posts: 588
Joined: 26 May 2009, 19:28
Location: Swindon
Classic Winner
 

TheBluesBrother

Postby TheBluesBrother on 20 Mar 2011, 17:30

I was reading an old post of Simon Rowlands, when he mentioned that the BHA official WFA chart was a bit out, so I asked Dave Edwards "Top Speed" about this an he emailed me the Racing Post's WFA chart.
Simon was right, it's miles out, just compare the two...

http://tinyurl.com/6ypkofh

User avatar
Posts: 372
Joined: 26 Feb 2011, 00:03
Location: Stroud
Classic Winner
 

itsawar

Postby itsawar on 21 Mar 2011, 20:42

dont get me wrong i love the racing post but their standard times are just too standard. If you want to getinto standard times you need to make a whole set of figs on your own only to realise what little use figs are on the turf and uk in general. However whilst building my figures i understood how figs are achieved. And that was more important that having a set of perfect figs/times to hand. sorry.
"It's not how fast they run, it's how they run fast"

Posts: 320
Joined: 09 May 2001, 11:34
Location: Hertfordshire
Classic Winner
 

alan1

Postby alan1 on 21 Mar 2011, 23:29

Hi Thebluesbrother

Unless I am misunderstanding you i think your statement below is incorrect, due to you thinking about the time and lengths beaten equation the wrong way round.

"Take the 2yo 5f furlong track at Epsom it is run downhill so how can you have the same calculation 3.54 lbs. for the 2yo 5f race at Pontefract which is run uphill."

In actual fact the Official Lengths beaten that you will see in the result of a race has nothing whatsoever to do with distance. It is in actual fact just a representation of time e.g. On good or better ground on the flat for every second a horse beats another this is represented in the result by 6 lengths and for soft ground this represents 5 lengths.

So in your example a horse beaten a length at Pontefract on good ground finished .16 seconds behind the winner. A horse beaten a length on good ground at Epsom also finished .16 seconds behind the winner. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to value that length the same in your speed figure calcs.

Of course in reality the horse beaten a length at Pontefract would have been closer to the winner when the winner past the post, than would be the case for the Epsom horse however this is irrelevant for what you are trying to do.

I hope this makes sense!!

User avatar
Posts: 588
Joined: 26 May 2009, 19:28
Location: Swindon
Classic Winner
 

TheBluesBrother

Postby TheBluesBrother on 22 Mar 2011, 09:27

@ Alan1

I was just reading an article written by B.J.Healey a professional handicapper in 1989 and edited by Tony Peach.

When I got to his pounds per length tables he had already produced a similar format to what I had been working on.

An Example from his table:
Epsom 5f = 4.04
Pontrefact 5f = 3.62

Variant = 0.42 lbs.

The Racing Post says:
Epsom 5f = 3.54
Pontrefact 5f = 3.54

Variant = 0 lbs.

I say:
Epsom 5f = 3.61
Pontrefact 5f = 3.23

Variant = 0.38 lbs. (Very similar to B.J.Healey)

In his article he states that he spent a long time trying to come up with the holy grail formula to work out each track's variants and achieved this by accident when doodling one day.
I had already worked this out by myself, it took me 5 minutes to come up with a simple formula.

What I am trying to achieve is to get tighter speed figures for every race run on different tracks, i.e. "Go Maggie Go" which was the first of my trials, her last two ratings came out at 64 & 62 so I can see a true reflection of a horse's ability no matter what track they run on.

I had better go and finish off the Irish tracks :D
Last edited by TheBluesBrother on 22 Mar 2011, 16:05, edited 6 times in total.

Posts: 168
Joined: 16 Jul 2010, 12:39
Group 1 Winner
 

360 degrees

Postby 360 degrees on 22 Mar 2011, 09:49

alan1 wrote:Of course in reality the horse beaten a length at Pontefract would have been closer to the winner when the winner past the post, than would be the case for the Epsom horse



Is this really the case?

User avatar
Posts: 588
Joined: 26 May 2009, 19:28
Location: Swindon
Classic Winner
 

TheBluesBrother

Postby TheBluesBrother on 22 Mar 2011, 18:25

Just finished the RP Standard Times for all the Irish courses on both the flat and Jumps.

Now I know why I have never seen a list of standard times for the Irish flat, as they keep on moving the starts i.e. Wexford 1m100y & 1m110y etc.

I had to pick through my excel data list of 150,000 races to check the distances and dates. :shock:

http://tinyurl.com/69fol76

Next

Return to Horse Racing

Share This Topic

Facebook Fans

Find us on Facebook
Facebook

Sponsors

Forum Topics
by: Bachelors Hall read post
 
by: robnorth read post
 
by: robnorth read post
 
by: TheBluesBrother
 
 

Latest Offers

Horses
 
by: Kautoluke1992view horse
 
by: Kautoluke1992view horse
 
 
by: cormack15view horse
 
by: cormack15view horse
 
by: cormack15view horse
 
by: cormack15view horse
 
by: cormack15view horse
 
Adverts

Tweets

Who is online

In total there are 4 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests
based on users active over the past 5 minutes
Most users ever online was 356 on 04 Feb 2010, 15:46

Users browsing this forum: phil walker and 3 guests

Statistics

Total Posts:
459442
Total Members:
52649
Newest Member:
ltmmihgxl