Speedratings
Guy Barnes
email? I subscribed to probably the best and most comprehensive ratings
service from Rob at UK Speedratings unfortunately he's calling it a day
because of the time involved.
I have based my own betting around his speedratings and I don't feel I can
bet without them. I am not the biggest fan of the speedratings that are
free at attheraces.co.uk because they are so limited.
Working full time I cannot spend the time myself and I'm prepared to pay a
subscription to the right service.
Any help would be much appreciated.
regards
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.385 / Virus Database: 217 - Release Date: 9/4/02
G-Man
"Guy Barnes" <g...@gbwatches.plus.com> wrote in message
news:KYNe9.4173$571.398290@wards...
> Does anyone here know of anyone online offering quality Speed ratings by
> email? I subscribed to probably the best and most comprehensive ratings
> service from Rob at UK Speedratings unfortunately he's calling it a day
> because of the time involved.
> I have based my own betting around his speedratings and I don't feel I can
> bet without them. I am not the biggest fan of the speedratings that are
> free at attheraces.co.uk because they are so limited.
Hi Guy,
Yes, Rob is top notch and so is Lawrence Taylor who does the speed ratings
on ATR. Unfortunately Lawrence has changed his methods since working for ATR
and he isn't providing the same sort of service as previously, so it isn't
much good to anyone who has previously to his service.
I don't know of anyone else who provides an email service of the magnitude
of either of these. However, if it's raw speed ratings you are after
(without the added info that Rob provides) why not give Martin's site a look
at www.patternform.co.uk . He has speed ratings both with and without weight
adjustments - and they are free.
Cheers,
G-Man
BTW, I have no connection with this site
Lawrence Taylor
> on ATR. Unfortunately Lawrence has changed his methods since working for ATR
> and he isn't providing the same sort of service as previously, so it isn't
> much good to anyone who has previously to his service.
Hi Guy, G-Man,
The speed ratings I supply to ATR are calculated in the same way that they
have always been. The only difference is that now they only show the top
six in Speed six race, and the top four rated in all other races. They also
highlight those who are top on last season's numbers. Since starting with
ATR there has been the addition of 'pace predictions' and 'draw/pace tables'
which I think are giving punters a good insight into race shapes.
The only thing punters aren't getting are the complete speed ratings for
every horse in each race, but in every other respect they are the same
- and free - for the Flat, jumps and all-weather!
If you let me know exactly what it is you (and maybe others) require,
then I'll see if I can make the information available.
Best Regards,
Lawrence.
www.attheraces.co.uk
(register, click on 'tips', click on 'speed ratings')
G-Man
"Lawrence Taylor" <lozt...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:19e0a67f.02090...@posting.google.com...
> > Yes, Rob is top notch and so is Lawrence Taylor who does the speed
ratings
> > on ATR. Unfortunately Lawrence has changed his methods since working for
ATR
> > and he isn't providing the same sort of service as previously, so it
isn't
> > much good to anyone who has previously to his service.
>
> Hi Guy, G-Man,
>
> The speed ratings I supply to ATR are calculated in the same way that they
> have always been. The only difference is that now they only show the top
> six in Speed six race, and the top four rated in all other races. They
also
> highlight those who are top on last season's numbers. Since starting with
> ATR there has been the addition of 'pace predictions' and 'draw/pace
tables'
> which I think are giving punters a good insight into race shapes.
>
> The only thing punters aren't getting are the complete speed ratings for
> every horse in each race, but in every other respect they are the same
> - and free - for the Flat, jumps and all-weather!
Hi Lawrence,
Great to see you back on the NG.
My friend used to subscribe to your service and thought it was brilliant.
Ideally he would like the full ratings as they used to be produced. He has
asked you before and you replied that the attheraces website would develop
and evolve and that people would be adequately served by it. However, he
argues that without the full picture any analysis based upon your figures
can be misleading.
For example, in sprint races there can be 1 point between the top 6 and
often horses further down the lists used to have better figures for the
prevailing conditions i.e. going/distance/course, and even if they couldn't
be backed because they were out of form for example, the fact that they were
capable of winning at their best was enough to say 'no bet' in the race.
Also, in large fields the top rated could be unable to win because they are
drawn badly and the winner could be just outside the top 6. All in all,
without the full picture, the figures cannot be relied upon with the same
degree of confidence.
If it is not possible to show all the runners' figures, would it be possible
to e-mail them from the site to any interested people?
Cheers,
G-Man
Guy Barnes
For Lawrence,
The most important factor imo was all horses last 3 speedratings along with
going and course and distance they were attained. Also the horses best
rating from this or the previous season along with which course distance and
going it was attained.
Regards
"Lawrence Taylor" <lozt...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:19e0a67f.02090...@posting.google.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.385 / Virus Database: 217 - Release Date: 9/5/02
Ian Davies
Timeform or the Racing Post. I went to school (in Hull in the 1970s)
with Chris Wright (we used to play truant to go to Beverley) and,
after we left university, whereas I joined Raceform in London, Chris
became Phil Bull's assistant up at Timeform in Halifax. Chris and I
had already compiled timefigures of our own for years. I gave the
Racing Post (who I worked for at the time) my formula for this, which
helped form the basis for Topspeed figures, while Chris went on to
succeed (the now late) Phil Bull. Timeform's methods are second to
none and I'd recommend them, along with the Racing Post's Topspeed
figures, which are based on the same formula.
Ian Davies
http://www.backandlay.com
Kevin
The return to the old methods which have since been far improved by Topspeed
and Tony Harbridge. I e-mailed the Racing Post 4 months ago about the
serious flaws in Dave Edwards method. I received an e-mail informing me that
Edwards would reply, not surprisingly I am still waiting.
Edwards admits his method is useless by saying that it is only useful for
horses rated in the middle to upper ranks.
Speed ratings under Harbridge were excellent for all races.
They are now only beaten in uselessness by the Raceform and other Mordin
users who ignore weight.
Kevin
Kevin
"Ian Davies" <ian.d...@backandlay.com> wrote in message
news:5f02daf1.02091...@posting.google.com...
G-Man
"Kevin" <party.p...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:alkv23$350$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
> Sadly, Ian, the new owner of Topspeed has made the ratings next to
useless.
> The return to the old methods which have since been far improved by
Topspeed
> and Tony Harbridge. I e-mailed the Racing Post 4 months ago about the
> serious flaws in Dave Edwards method. I received an e-mail informing me
that
> Edwards would reply, not surprisingly I am still waiting.
Actually I find that VERY surprising - it's more likely that the RP haven't
passed the e-mail on. I used to talk to Dave several years ago and he was
very helpful. I also think that his methods were far superior to the
previous incumbent, but I suppose if you get used to a particular way it
obviously causes big problems when the underlying method is changed.
> They are now only beaten in uselessness by the Raceform and other Mordin
> users who ignore weight.
I maintain that you get virtually the same results whether you include, or
exclude weight, all other variables being equal.
Martin Kilgariff's site has speed ratings using both methods and they are
remarkably similar.
Cheers,
G-Man
Count Bertrand
> users who ignore weight.
>
> Kevin
You may not necessarily like Mordin's methods, but he does plenty of
research to back up his methods. He has done this with the effect of weight
and is obviously happy that it is not significant enough. The truth is
probably somewhere between the 'pounds per length' brigade and the 'weight
has no effect' supporters, but to dismiss both Raceform and Mordin's efforts
out of hand because they choose the latter course seems to me rather
shortsighted.
The Count
G-Man
"Count Bertrand" <nor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:joof9.4421$571.432280@wards...
>
> You may not necessarily like Mordin's methods, but he does plenty of
> research to back up his methods. He has done this with the effect of
weight
> and is obviously happy that it is not significant enough. The truth is
> probably somewhere between the 'pounds per length' brigade and the 'weight
> has no effect' supporters, but to dismiss both Raceform and Mordin's
efforts
> out of hand because they choose the latter course seems to me rather
> shortsighted.
Hi Count,
When did Raceform change to "no weight" in their figures?
Cheers,
G-Man
MikeP15920
Probably guilty of ignorantly jumping in here - if weight has no effect on
speed then what the hell is handicapping all about??
however to turn devils adv, when i've used speed figures, yes it often appears
that weight is much less important than i'd thought.
isn't the truth somewhere in between - there are horses and going conditions /
distances where weight is critical - at the obvious end of the spectrum - a
small horse trying to carry big wt in soft conditions - not to say that some
small horses cant be as tough as hell - like College Maid yesterday.
surely enought wt is going to stop any horse - esp dead wt (or is that a
differrent argument?!) - in the meantime improving horses with conditions in
favour - yes - a stone or more can be easily taken on board.
mike
G-Man
"MikeP15920" <mikep...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020910132109...@mb-cd.aol.com...
> These weight arguments .....
>
> Probably guilty of ignorantly jumping in here - if weight has no effect on
> speed then what the hell is handicapping all about??
>
> however to turn devils adv, when i've used speed figures, yes it often
appears
> that weight is much less important than i'd thought.
I've said this before - I don't feel speed ratings need weight adjustments
on fibresand and on dirt. However, on turf, I feel pace ratings are of more
use than speed ratings. Unfortunately we don't have sectional timing over
here.
>
> isn't the truth somewhere in between - there are horses and going
conditions /
> distances where weight is critical - at the obvious end of the spectrum -
a
> small horse trying to carry big wt in soft conditions - not to say that
some
> small horses cant be as tough as hell - like College Maid yesterday.
College Maid also runs better when it runs within 5 days of a previous run.
Cheers,
G-Man
Bigtone53
>Hi Count,
>When did Raceform change to "no weight" in their figures?
>
>Cheers,
>G-Man
>
G-Man,
You want the exact date or what? Raceform SF figures have been weight-free for
a while now.
TonyW
Guy Barnes
You'll also find College Maid seldom if ever wins carrying weight.
If anyone's interested in posting me their speedratings I'll have a look and
if I like I'll pay for them.
regards
"G-Man" <origin...@btclick.com> wrote in message
news:allbp0$1p55pa$1...@ID-53283.news.dfncis.de...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.385 / Virus Database: 217 - Release Date: 9/4/02
G-Man
> Hi again G Man,
>
> You'll also find College Maid seldom if ever wins carrying weight.
Hi Guy,
Yes I actually know that - over 9 stones is a no-no. I layed it for both
negative reasons.
Cheers,
G-Man
G-Man
"Bigtone53" <bigt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020910171135...@mb-fd.aol.com...
> G-Man,
> You want the exact date or what? Raceform SF figures have been
weight-free for
> a while now.
Hi Tony,
I wasn't aware of that - I stopped getting Raceform several years ago.
Cheers,
G-Man
Ian Davies
I used to speak to Dave Edwards occasionally when I worked at The
Sporting Life and Dave Edwards is a very nice guy.
However, his methods, those that were employed by ''Split Second'' at
the Sporting Chronicle and the Sporting Chronicle (then Raceform)
Handicap Book and in the official form-book for years, are IMO not as
sophisticated as those used by Timeform.
Split-Second, whether it was Ken Hussey or Dave Edwards (who later
became Stop Watch in the Weekender) seemed to involve working out a
going allowance, calculating the resulting figures and then fiddling
with the going allowoance until the figures looked roughly right.
Timeform on the other hand, work out raw time figures, compare them
with the offical Timeform form ratings of the horses that ran that
day, then marry them up with a going allowance, also taking wind speed
information from the met office into account.
In any event, I have to say I think the value went out of backing
horses based on the clock some years ago.
I used to make money using timefigures back in the days when not many
people took them seriously and collateral form lines were en vogue.
I remember backing Kala Dancer at 20/1 for the 1984 Dewhurst Stakes
after he had put up a good time in a division of the Westley Maiden
Stakes
over the same course and distance a few weeks earlier.
Now the wheel has come full circle and I recall a couple of years ago
Khulan starting 8/11 (and getting beaten by the 5/2 shot Enthused, the
Princess Margaret Stakes winner!) in the Lowther Stakes at York,
Khulan having won just a Newmarket maiden.
Eddie ''The Shoe'' Fremantle, a professional backer friend of mine,
once remarked that you have to be constantly changing your approach to
ensure you are doing the opposite of what the general public is doing
if you want to keep getting value in this game. I think this is great
advice.
Ian Davies
http://www.backandlay.com/
Michael Brewer
>
> I maintain that you get virtually the same results whether you include, or
> exclude weight, all other variables being equal.
>
>
calculating speed ratings without weight allowance , I wrote several times
hoping for a reasoned reply to my argument , and finally abandoned them
(used to subcribe) . As MikeP says , other factors can affect the
significance of weight , but you do say 'all other variables being equal' ;
as he says , it seems to make a nonsense of handicapping -performance
either is or is not affected by weight .. Two horses meet - one goes faster
than the other ; they meet again at weights favouring (in hcap terms) the
slower ; speed ratings and standard form ratings now inevitably give
different answers - nott very useful (this time speed tells us the tortoise
can never win ; with Zeno it was the hare.) Two horses meet at levels rated
equal on time - is it of no significance that in recording these figures one
carried three stone less than the other ? I ( and probably Kevin and MikeP)
would like to hear the simple logic behind non-wt-adjusted speed ratings .
Mike
Firebeast
> Yes I actually know that - over 9 stones is a no-no. I layed it for both
> negative reasons.
Hmmm....
But, considering she's run 71 times and only won 7 you're gonna get more pay
days laying her than backing her anyway, which would have shown around a £17
level stake loss.
She's not getting any younger either, but she maintains her level of form
pretty well, maintaining her OR around the mid to high 60's.
I have a bit of a soft spot for this mare, as I backed her for all 4 of her
wins during 2000 so she owes me nowt.
Fair enough, 6 of those 7 wins were carrying under 9 stone, which says she
can't carry it, but the same percentage is true of jockeys that have won on
her. 6 of the 7 were called Tony, but you wouldn't use that would you?
You could have used that statistic to get the same result though.
Of the 34 times she's carried 9-0 plus she's won once...
Obviously the other 37 she's carried under and won 6 times.
(Still not stunning win to run ratio, and 3 of those were in 2000 around her
peak)
A poor strike rate for this mare, whatever criteria you want to use, and I'd
suggest you're right to be laying her.
Especially as she's getting older, regardless of, weight, speed figures,
days between runs etc.etc.
(Watch out for under 9st with a Tony riding her though eh? ;oP)
Just for your info.....
--
Widda Lidda Bidda Luuuurv Kummin Atchya
Steve.Beastie.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.385 / Virus Database: 217 - Release Date: 04/09/2002
G-Man
"Firebeast" <fire...@firebeast.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:alm4k1$1rkggv$1...@ID-16785.news.dfncis.de...
> Fair enough, 6 of those 7 wins were carrying under 9 stone, which says she
> can't carry it, but the same percentage is true of jockeys that have won
on
> her. 6 of the 7 were called Tony, but you wouldn't use that would you?
Why not?- he's my favourite jockey. I'll use any sensible (to me anyway)
ideas that will give me a different view to the majority.
Cheers,
G-Man
G-Man
> once remarked that you have to be constantly changing your approach to
> ensure you are doing the opposite of what the general public is doing
> if you want to keep getting value in this game.
That's superb advice - we must not stand still if we want to make money out
of horses.
Cheers,
G-Man
Firebeast
> ideas that will give me a different view to the majority.
Yeah he's one of mine, but it wasn't just Culhane.
G-Man
"Michael Brewer" <puntm...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:allvr6$1rilvh$1...@ID-158638.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "G-Man" <origin...@btclick.com> wrote in message
> news:all0u4$1rrpqi$1...@ID-53283.news.dfncis.de...
I've heard of a Philosopher called Zeno - is that the one?
>When Raceform started
> calculating speed ratings without weight allowance , I wrote several times
> hoping for a reasoned reply to my argument , and finally abandoned them
> (used to subcribe) .
I also subscribed to Computer Raceform, but only to use it as a vehicle to
enter my speed ratings. This meant I could see them automatically when the
decs were downloaded each day and it saved me a great deal of effort.
>As MikeP says , other factors can affect the
> significance of weight , but you do say 'all other variables being equal'
;
> as he says , it seems to make a nonsense of handicapping -performance
> either is or is not affected by weight .. Two horses meet - one goes
faster
> than the other ; they meet again at weights favouring (in hcap terms) the
> slower ; speed ratings and standard form ratings now inevitably give
> different answers - nott very useful (this time speed tells us the
tortoise
> can never win ; with Zeno it was the hare.) Two horses meet at levels
rated
> equal on time - is it of no significance that in recording these figures
one
> carried three stone less than the other ? I ( and probably Kevin and
MikeP)
> would like to hear the simple logic behind non-wt-adjusted speed ratings .
All I can say is try it both ways - it will throw out virtually the same
figures. However, (and I say again) I think Speed Ratings are a waste of
time for the majority of turf races. The sooner we get pace ratings the
better, but then the shift will change and standout selections using that
method will be overbet and we'll have to look for another approach.
Cheers,
G-Man
G-Man
> > Why not?- he's my favourite jockey. I'll use any sensible (to me anyway)
> > ideas that will give me a different view to the majority.
>
> Yeah he's one of mine, but it wasn't just Culhane.
LOL - Have you found a new angle? Back/lay all particular horses that have
been ridden by more than one jockey with same Christian name (or surname),
on the same prevailing going and on the same day of the week. Maybe we
should be checking every horse's biorhythms.
Cheers,
G-Man
Firebeast
> been ridden by more than one jockey with same Christian name (or surname),
> on the same prevailing going and on the same day of the week. Maybe we
> should be checking every horse's biorhythms.
Hehehe...
There was someone on the group who used biorhythms IIRC.
I did check to see if CM had a particular preference for any time of year
though.
G-Man
> > LOL - Have you found a new angle? Back/lay all particular horses that
have
> > been ridden by more than one jockey with same Christian name (or
surname),
> > on the same prevailing going and on the same day of the week. Maybe we
> > should be checking every horse's biorhythms.
>
> Hehehe...
> There was someone on the group who used biorhythms IIRC.
I believe he's now living in the Cayman islands, next door to Peter Savill,
after winning a fortune using this method.
Cheers,
G-Man
mac
Is biorhythms the system where you watch for the one that drops it's hodge
in the parade ring?
mac.
Paul Aitman
<my...@hotmail.com> writes
>Is biorhythms the system where you watch for the one that drops it's hodge
>in the parade ring?
>mac.
>
Sigh, if I'd only backed regular horses, I'd be a rich man now...
Paul...
Ian Davies
is to throw 200 years of handicapping out of the window.
True a horse, which wins in easily half a lengh over say, 7f, may pull
out a bit more and beat the runner-up again on 6lb worse terms but,
generally speaking, weight is a stopper just like the laws of physics
says it is.
Weight-for-age is an interesting one in speed figures. Timeform and
the Racing Post use the weight-for-age-scale when calculating figures
so, say a two-year-old put in a time figure of 100 in the Brocklesby
Stakes at Doncaster in March, by October, it would actually have to
have shown the normal weight-for-age improvement to return the same
figure.
The wfa scale has stood the test of time, but it is only a mean
average - within that average there are enormous fluctuations. I often
think it would be useful to have raw figures. They can be quite
enlightening.
Remember Arazi, scintillating winner of the Breeders' Cup Juvenile at
two but a comparative flop at three? I calculated at the time that his
raw time figures when winning at Churchill Downs at two and when
finishing fifth in the St James's Palace Stakes at three were exactly
the same - ie he was a precocious juvenile who failed to improve at
all from two to three but was consistent in terms of retaining but not
building on that precocious ability.
Ian Davies
http://www.backandlay.com
Michael Brewer
>
> "Michael Brewer" <puntm...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:allvr6$1rilvh$1...@ID-158638.news.dfncis.de...
>
> I've heard of a Philosopher called Zeno - is that the one?
>
admit it , but you remember your most famous paradox was about the tortoise
and the hare - give the tortoise a start and it will always win : hare
starts from scratch (point A) , tortoise from 10 yards on (point B) ; race
on - when hare arrives at point B , tortoise has advanced to point C ; when
hare reaches C , tortoise has gone on to D , etc. ad inf., or at least to
the winning post . Rather like taking two horses that dead-heated at levels
and saying you can pile all the weight you like on one but (all other things
being equal) they'll still dead-heat . Neither is a lot of use as a betting
guide .
> All I can say is try it both ways
>
Double entendres aside , I would , but no-one has time to produce two sets
of ratings himself , and comparing two rival pro sets might not be very
meaningful , after Ian's bit of inside information suggesting they're all
slily adjusted anyway to increase feasibility , with the notoriously
adaptable Going Allowance able to cover any tracks .
>The sooner we get pace ratings the better
>
Agreed ; but where Speed Ratings can be useful , I'll remain convinced that
they need to be weight-adjusted , until I'm given a reason why non-adjusted
ratings should work - obviously we just agree to disagree here .
Mike
G-Man
> >
> Double entendres aside , I would , but no-one has time to produce two sets
> of ratings himself , and comparing two rival pro sets might not be very
> meaningful ,
>after Ian's bit of inside information suggesting they're all
> slily adjusted anyway to increase feasibility , with the notoriously
> adaptable Going Allowance able to cover any tracks .
I think that Martins' are each done correctly.
>
> >The sooner we get pace ratings the better
> >
> Agreed ; but where Speed Ratings can be useful , I'll remain convinced
that
> they need to be weight-adjusted , until I'm given a reason why
non-adjusted
> ratings should work - obviously we just agree to disagree here .
We certainly do. I also think Speed Ratings a total waste of individual
effort on turf - and I know an awful lot of people are going to disagree
with me there.
Cheers,
G-Man