Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Cheers For Thea
13 Apr 10 14:29
Joined:
Date Joined: 11 Jan 09
| Topic/replies: 303 | Blogger: Cheers For Thea's blog
Any thoughts on how its riding?
Pause Switch to Standard View Pontefract Ground
Show More
Loading...
Report ratpack April 13, 2010 2:30 PM BST
Time 1.18.04 Slow by 2.84 or +0.47 per furlong.
Report Cheers For Thea April 13, 2010 2:32 PM BST
Sorry Rat - what does that translate to?
Report Muqbil April 13, 2010 2:34 PM BST
I would guestimate just on the slower side of good.
Report Cheers For Thea April 13, 2010 2:35 PM BST
Perfick thanks lads...
Report grendel April 13, 2010 2:49 PM BST
for a 0-70 handicap thats not a slow time
Report Muqbil April 13, 2010 2:52 PM BST
08/06/2009 =77.04 (official going = good)
09/06/2008 = 76.74 (official going = good)

It certainly isn't a quick one?
Report ratpack April 13, 2010 2:57 PM BST
Race 2 (not truly run) 2.18.02 vs std 2.11.40 = 6.62 slow =-0.66 pf,
Report grendel April 13, 2010 3:12 PM BST
going by the first race the next should be run in something like 1m 46.4
Report Cheers For Thea April 13, 2010 3:12 PM BST
So are we talking good ground? No jar innit?
Report grendel April 13, 2010 3:21 PM BST
i would say its ever so slightly on the faster side of good - you can't go by official going descriptions
Report ratpack April 13, 2010 3:26 PM BST
Race 3 - 1.44.51 vs 1.43.60 standard so +0.91 = +0.11 per furlong

Decent standard of horse for track but winner significantly faster than the rest.
Report grendel April 13, 2010 3:28 PM BST
first race was 1m 17.35 according to sporting life website
Report grendel April 13, 2010 3:29 PM BST
and 2m 17.09 for the second, where are you getting your winning times from ratpack?
Report ratpack April 13, 2010 3:30 PM BST
From the track pa
Report ratpack April 13, 2010 3:34 PM BST
Which are the same as the POst website. Take care of those SL times then because they are not in line with the official ones.
Report Ricky Santini April 13, 2010 3:35 PM BST
Official description about right, ever-so-slightly on the slower side of good but no more.
Report Muqbil April 13, 2010 3:36 PM BST
Sporting life have been wrong on several times recently.

Should carry a wealth warning.
Report Muqbil April 13, 2010 3:39 PM BST
I was quoting SL times, someone else using rp (unknown to both of us) I was suggesting a totally different going. Official formbook carried the rp times, so why SL use different ones is unclear?
Report ratpack April 13, 2010 3:57 PM BST
Race 4 4.03.97 std 3.52.00 Slow 11.97 =+0.66 per furlong
Report Roger De Bris April 13, 2010 4:07 PM BST
depends what standards you use. The ones I use give:

Race
1: + 9L/m
2: + 18L/m
3: + 1L/m
4: + 4L/

Dropping the first two looking at just on the slow side of Good (+0.06 s/f).
Report Billy Jay April 13, 2010 4:11 PM BST
Roger

It doesn't matter what standard times you use, you need to compare them with the actual time of the race: it's a bit disconcerting that two sources have different race times
Report Roger De Bris April 13, 2010 4:16 PM BST
of course it f*** matters what standards you use. Every organisations standard times are different.
Report ratpack April 13, 2010 4:27 PM BST
Race 5 - 2.13.22 Strd 2.11.40 Slow 2.82 =+0.28pf

Faster than maiden by 4.80 secs.
Report Roger De Bris April 13, 2010 4:30 PM BST
so now I've got
1: +9L/m
2: +18L/m
3: +1L/m
4: +4L/m
5: 0

Its bang on Good ground imo.
Report ratpack April 13, 2010 4:31 PM BST
Sorry should be +1.82 so +0.18 pf
Report ratpack April 13, 2010 4:56 PM BST
Race 6 1.18.89 Std 1.15.20 +3.69 =+0.61 per furlong
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com