Harry, I didn't ignore your posts yesterday I did read them. I normally discuss the speed figures just because I like to see how my figures compare to others and whether they used the same allowance for each race and whatever.

Obviously your figures are arrived at using different methods and it is interesting but not surprising maybe that you have Kingston Hill top.

My 107 does seem low and I do think KH is better than that and when I put the figures in my odds program I did make him 112 instead. However I did want to ask you how confident you were about your own rating and do you feel perhaps the exaggerated distances on the soft ground and perhaps many horses not handling conditions that day led to the big rating? it looked a tricky race to rate using collateral methods and also that Dolce and Karama in 4th. It was 2yo races like this that put me off doing collateral ratings because I found it very hard to work out which horses ran up to form and I'm not keen on race standardisation either.

apologies yesterday didn't mean to be a bit off with anyone and no offence meant... I just dislike it when people are digging at each other and i come on the forum for good debate, whether i agree with someone or don't...bit old now and get a tad grumpy, so take me with a pinch of salt...its hard enough, for me, having to deal with me

stevie fair comments

as with most i have spoken to, most will always have a low speed rating for a lot of horses on soft ground...i really cannot see how anyone can have really solid ratings for soft ground races...how can we with horses racing all over the track...like you say very hard to work out

I tend to find because of the large proportion of decent horses who would prefer better ground, this will always give an edge to a mud lark and obviously lead to a rating that is above what you actually believe there ability is, because of the exaggerated distances...

on the subject of kingston i actually have a similar rating to you, in regard how good i actually think he is 110+ do i think he could even run to that on fast ground i would have serious reservations... but am still guessing at what i think he could run to, on better ground (i wouldn't touch him) till i know and even then, i will want to see him back it up...but have to upgrade him on soft as he is clearly many lbs better in his optimum conditions, when others will be inconvenienced...this seems to always lead to an elevated rating of that said horse

I will say, i tend to just put soft ground horses in there own bracket, rating wise (bit ignorant really) and then just work on them. When i believe they can run to the rating i think they are capable of running to (optimum) bet accordingly, because a lot won't handle it, obviously no good when they all like it...a lot of the stuff i do is adjusted to my own ignorance really, this works for me and has its upsides, like i had the first 2 home in the mile at ascot as for me they were the only genuine grade 1 horses on soft ground, bar the french horse who was very exposed, this race at ascot really is a good learning race, in regards times, as olympic glory who loved the ground then, was asked to go and run 11 seconds faster on fast ground in america...he wouldn't go a yard on it and never strode out at all, but i don't hold it against him, just know he will never win at the top level on decent ground, but as a bettor he was 5-1 at santa anita and an edge was there if you believed in it 

it has its downsides though as i have also found, as have over bet willie the whipper, ann duffield horse, I had him down as grade 2/3 horse on soft, the horse didn't really improve, maybe the run at york killed him when i was praying spencer would be easy on him on the ground , he wasn't, but was very disappointed he couldn't win at ayr (spencer maybe or difficult ride i don't know) on the back of it though i thought maybe he needed the run and the pace was slow so then over bet him again at longchamp...was i fooled by the french derby i don't know...wish they had just shot it tbh

its like the kingston race, i am not sure, what he beat? and he was supplemented so connections saw the angle... I didn't like the race, pre-race, in regards no stand outs and the unexposed o'brien runners were very weak, betting wise...a lot of them were floundering in the ground at the 2 pole but he loved it and for me deserves his rating on the back of it, he also had only made his debut just over a month before...like a lot of 2 year old soft ground horses, a definitive rating is always tough for me anyway and judging soft ground juveniles even tougher, but i think he is a rapid improver since debut and is just likeable in his conditions, so am happy with what i have him at...I will just need to see him run at 3 to form a solid opinion class wise...but angles may appear with him, as can see him being an over bet horse

i would hope, he would be an arc trained horse (ground) but he will probably be trained hard over here for our classics...so from a betting point of view, he may never be on my betting radar, am mercionary in this regard...my own ratings are one thing, how i interpret them betting wise, is a totally different thing all together...which may seem contradictory but they are just a tool after all   

year    horse name    trainer name    sp    position
2005    Motivator    Michael Bell    3/1    1
2005    Walk In The Park    J E Hammond    11/1    2

2007    Authorized    Peter Chapple-Hyam    5/4    1
2009    Fame And Glory    A P O'Brien    9/4    2

2010    Jan Vermeer    A P O'Brien    9/4    4

2011    Pour Moi    A Fabre    4/1    1
2011    Recital    A P O'Brien    5/1    6

2012    Camelot    A P O'Brien    8/13    1

many thanks pedro

very interesting and after removing the horses i believed had no chance, his record reads very well
could never understand how papal bull was 11-1 at the time, even though he proved himself in the end, i never liked him, a rat

brig each to there own on how folk bet, agree if it works for you then great...

i actually like speed ratings, just don't use them, doesn't suit me, but they are a good tool in regards spotting poor/slow horses...that is when they are helpful and would help me i just haven't the time...video form for me, then my own angle...doesn't mean i get it right as much as i would like but that then comes down to confidence and staking

figgis and others talk a lot of sense and is why he is so ardent against the derby winner in the faarh race in regards how he rates it, something i do understand/agree with... as slowly run races can make a slow horse look a better rated horse than is actual fact...i just make my own interpretation...i actually backed the derby winner in that race and basically he didn't have the pace to win, if they had of gone faster i have no doubt at all he would of been beaten further...went off faarh pre race because of the ground

i have to say i haven't had a bet in the guineas and not sure i actually will, to many iffs, and ands, pots and pans for me and has never been a big betting race for me...i still hurt now on a 14k potential when thulliuez decided the way to win the guineas (1000) was to box six perfections on the rail, then circle the big field...i still remember it now as after taking the 7's ante post in an acca i then decided to really smash it ew at the 5's a pleasure...i watched it at the 3 pole and my azz fell out when the frenchman put it through the running rail...i didn't think she would place but she was an exceptional filly and was just happy she picked up from the county she started from...it still hurts

anyway just love the debate keeps me honest and will help me when i do see a bet later in the season...

one thing with faldo he had to change the swing, in order to take the pressure down the stretch, in the end it payed off.

for what it is worth i think aiden will run them both in the guineas but who knows with that crew

i had a wager with myself you would say that brig...

For what it is worth, i think he may have run better if he hadn't run in the arc the week before, took the edge off him...moore threw the sink at it so i didn't feel hard done by... he just wasn't in the class or fast as the other 2 horses, i understand why you think it would of been a different story in a fast run race. Having backed it, i thought he was struggling to keep up off the slow fractions...anyway he is 1m4f horse so really i made a bad bet imo against speedier/faster horses but was influenced greatly by the conditions...i live a learn but was getting a good price to find out

Do you not think that is where he is going wrong Pedro. Can't remember DH ever needing a watch.

.... may your pockets always be deep

*world

And yet again another post trying to impose somebody's own methods over what works for other people.

If you have no handicapping reason to project an improvement in your horse's beyer figure for todays race, you're probably looking at a loser."

For my money, this holds true most of the time.

that's interesting stuff, Sandown. I suspect I don't follow that principle nearly enough and will consider that lot more in future.

But do you really think that applies "most of the time"? Just looking at the last at Dundalk just now and the first four home ran to pretty much their pre race figures for me, they've all had plenty of racing now and would suspect they have not improved, just ran to their previous best.

Does this not also apply to plenty of the cannon-fodder handicaps we see on the AW during the winter, certainly the claimers and sellers which are generally won by handicappers on the downgrade and not progressive or improving types?

The Yanks only prove, for me, that time is very much a bit part player. I'm not saying it doesn't matter at all but I just think it is a mathematical calculation that gives succour to lazy, indecisive people or fodder for studious types who have nothing better to do.  When I look at a race as a betting medium I need look at nothing more than the prices available if it appeals to me. I look at a race and within seconds I know if it is a betting medium, then I look at the prices. You can always find bets if you look for them, you can find something in almost every race. The important thing is that they select themselves otherwise no bet. That doesn't mean they all win because circumstances do dictate but it works for me.

Brigut, I don't agree with you but if it works for you, then fine.

Brig, there are obviously a number of wide margin 2yo maiden winners during the season. How do you go about working out which are Group class when they are stepped into that grade?

As mentioned the other day, Golan won a Chepstow maiden at 2 by half a length from a horse who had already been beaten in a maiden. Golan went onto win a Guineas and Clearing was touched off in a French version. Golan never ran again before Newmarket. Would you have expected this pair to achieve what they did in classic company off the back of just being to watch a Chepstow video and access to no other tools?

Sandown, 4 to 1 sounds excessive to me, though I haven't worked out any stats so can't argue with that. Do you think it is that much? Maybe it is different for US and British racing?

Figgis, my selection process pretty much same as yours, if I have a horse well clear on timefigures, it takes some hard persuasion for me to back one to turn it over even if the formbook says otherwise. If I have an edge at all, that's it...... (I hope Brig didn't just choke on his cornflakes if he read that )

pedrobob

if I have a horse well clear on timefigures, it takes some hard persuasion for me to back one to turn it over even if the formbook says otherwise. If I have an edge at all, that's it...... (I hope Brig didn't just choke on his cornflakes if he read that

You can check that startegy out using the Adrian massey site and looking at the sub-set of horses which are well clear on ratings. You will see that whilst it works better than not being well ahead, you will see that all price levels you will be lucky to just break-even at BF odds.


Maybe it is different for US and British racing?

I believe that around 80% of british winners are given a higher handicap rating. You can check that out for yourself on the BHA site.

brigust, they input loads of different factors into programs to work out what the true price for each horse should be. You have massive pools over there and a load of mug money in it.

im backing BE READY as an outsider bet, you have been doing your ratings for a long time and betting in the guineas alot longer than myself, you think there is a good chance this horse could improve past the others to win the guineas, making sure, got that angle covered. the horse be ready beat, did run well in france, and the pedigree is an improving bloodline IMO. usually read the form and
go for the horse that has achieved a standard thats capable of winning the race, for me so far, toormore and war command are those horses, that fit the bill. cant go any previous years experience of betting in the guineas. have seen you solve a few group races this
year, no harm throwing few pounds on your top rated, foolish not to really. gl all

I believe that around 80% of british winners are given a higher handicap rating. You can check that out for yourself on the BHA site.

It wouldn't surprise me if that figure was much higher, Sandown. And to me, one of the worst aspects of the British handicapping system that nearly all winners (and many placed horses) get a rise.

There are plenty of shocking handicaps around and I would argue that even the winners should be dropped a few lbs, let alone the beaten horses.

You only have to look at the record of flat horses who dare to win in the winter. They get punished for basically winning weak or poor races and by the time the turf season comes around,  are seriously badly handicapped and have no chance of winning.

Take Venetia Williams policy. She refuses to run horses over jumps in the summer as she knows her winners will get a rise for winning bad races.... leaving them with no chance of winning in the winter.

Pedro the 2 year old scenario you inferred would never be a bet for me. I need to know the best horses in the race then rely on them running to form or not being unlucky. Guessing isn't my bag.
No two Pedro. Bet 1) Grandouet converts his hurdle rating to fences so you bet him to win and lay him to fall (place lay).
Bet 2) You bet all of the horses that would win in any event. With only the 3 horse unlikely to win then no bet.

Sandown I am not saying these syndicates don't operate I am sure they do. There are margins to be made in Bf ffs. My point was that they bet a number of horses in the same way a bookie lays a number of horses. That is a completely different system to what I believed you mean't.

Roadrunner, as a pedigree man do you have a view on No Nay Never?

pedro that would be guessing and Brigust doesn't guess. so it will only be races where horses have run against each other or against the same horses.