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 13:29
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