5th August 2009 Kempton
6.05 WEATHERBYS BLOODSTOCK INSURANCE APPRENTICE HANDICAP (ROUND 8) (CLASS 4)(4yo+ 0-85) Winner £4,727 10 runners 1m3f
95 Majehar
91 Dance The Star
88 King Supreme
6.35 KEMPTON FOR WEDDINGS HANDICAP (CLASS 6)(3yo+ 0-65) Winner £2,047 14 runners 1m
91 Sovereignty
90 Feasible
90 One Oi
7.05 DIGIBET MEDIAN AUCTION MAIDEN STAKES (CLASS 5)(2yo) Winner £2,590 11 runners 7f
70 First Cat
7.35 DIGIBET.COM NURSERY (CLASS 4)(2yo) Winner £3,886 9 runners 6f
74 Zinjbar
Tuesday 4 August 2009
5th August 2009 Kempton (Cont'd)
8.05 DIGIBET CASINO MAIDEN STAKES (CLASS 5)(3yo+) Winner £2,590 14 runners 1m
88 Makaam
86 Silverglas
82 Expressive
8.35 THAMES MATERIALS LONDON MILE HANDICAP (LONDON MILE QUALIFIER) (CLASS 4)(3yo 0-85) Winner £4,727 12 runners 1m
92 Assail
91 Cool Hand Jake
86 Cut And Thrust
86 Satwa Gold
9.05 THAMES MATERIALS HANDICAP (CLASS 5)(3yo 0-75) Winner £2,590 13 runners 1m3f
88 Madison Park
87 Haafhd Time
85 Demeanour
85 Bagber
88 Makaam
86 Silverglas
82 Expressive
8.35 THAMES MATERIALS LONDON MILE HANDICAP (LONDON MILE QUALIFIER) (CLASS 4)(3yo 0-85) Winner £4,727 12 runners 1m
92 Assail
91 Cool Hand Jake
86 Cut And Thrust
86 Satwa Gold
9.05 THAMES MATERIALS HANDICAP (CLASS 5)(3yo 0-75) Winner £2,590 13 runners 1m3f
88 Madison Park
87 Haafhd Time
85 Demeanour
85 Bagber
Speed Handicappers Food for Thought
As things are a little quiet at the moment on the AW front I thought I would throw something in to the mixer for you guys (or gals)
For those of you out there with an interest in compiling your own speed figures, in most cases your preliminary route will be to copy methods outlined in various publications. When you become more practised you will start to question the validity of some of what you have read. If you have read several authors on the subject you will mix and match their theories based upon your personally held values. During this process you will also realise that most of the decisions you have to make have been asked repeatedly by other nascent speed handicappers and deduce that there is no definitive answer. This is the stage where you use free thinking outside the box or simply conform. The latter being the most common. The most frequent topics are the use of weight, standard times and going allowances. I would like to add the infrequently discuss topic of rating adjustment for beaten horses and what I believe to be a fatal flaw in the conventional method of adjustment.
The most commonly used method is arrived at by dividing 15 by the distance.
5 furlongs 3
6 furlongs 2.5
7 furlongs 2.14
8 furlongs 1.88
9 furlongs 1.67
10 furlongs 1.5
12 furlongs 1.25
Most other methods fall in to the same category as the common denominator is always the length of the race. So where is the flaw?
Using extremes as these two horses are never likely to meet
Let us suppose a horse is beaten 1 length by a horse we rate 90 in a 5f sprint. We give the horse in question a rating of 87.
Our next horse is beaten 1 length by a horse we rate 90 in a 10f race. We give this horse a rating of 88.5
Ask yourself which horse is travelling the fastest, therefore which horse has to make the least effort to make up the deficit and is this being reflected in your ratings?
The reason the above table is so widely respected is simply due to the fact it falls in line with the excepted lbs per length so we have cross pollination of two methods of handicapping. This has no value in speed handicapping. When adjusting ratings for beaten horses the mathematical relationship lies with the time in which the race was run NOT the distance of the race.
For those of you out there with an interest in compiling your own speed figures, in most cases your preliminary route will be to copy methods outlined in various publications. When you become more practised you will start to question the validity of some of what you have read. If you have read several authors on the subject you will mix and match their theories based upon your personally held values. During this process you will also realise that most of the decisions you have to make have been asked repeatedly by other nascent speed handicappers and deduce that there is no definitive answer. This is the stage where you use free thinking outside the box or simply conform. The latter being the most common. The most frequent topics are the use of weight, standard times and going allowances. I would like to add the infrequently discuss topic of rating adjustment for beaten horses and what I believe to be a fatal flaw in the conventional method of adjustment.
The most commonly used method is arrived at by dividing 15 by the distance.
5 furlongs 3
6 furlongs 2.5
7 furlongs 2.14
8 furlongs 1.88
9 furlongs 1.67
10 furlongs 1.5
12 furlongs 1.25
Most other methods fall in to the same category as the common denominator is always the length of the race. So where is the flaw?
Using extremes as these two horses are never likely to meet
Let us suppose a horse is beaten 1 length by a horse we rate 90 in a 5f sprint. We give the horse in question a rating of 87.
Our next horse is beaten 1 length by a horse we rate 90 in a 10f race. We give this horse a rating of 88.5
Ask yourself which horse is travelling the fastest, therefore which horse has to make the least effort to make up the deficit and is this being reflected in your ratings?
The reason the above table is so widely respected is simply due to the fact it falls in line with the excepted lbs per length so we have cross pollination of two methods of handicapping. This has no value in speed handicapping. When adjusting ratings for beaten horses the mathematical relationship lies with the time in which the race was run NOT the distance of the race.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
