Ratings by Margins Help needed?

Cant believe it wont let me copy and paste it unreal



Ratings by margins 1L = 3 points (3 pounds)

What im trying to change is 1L to = 4.4 pounds

But how do i go about changing the rest as if i go 2L = 8.8 pounds its wrong according to the official one BHA use as they have 1L =3 points but 2L = 5 points not 6

The further the horses get beat its would not be right just say 1L = 3 points and 2l is 6 points and 3L = 9 points etc

any maths guys care to help out with this one that is driving me up the wall?

onlooker where are you????

where do is send the cheque ? lol

No one?

Been playing around with Ratings by Margins all day trying to set up my own as i thought the Rule of 1L = 3 points up to 1200m was not enough so i changed it to 1L - 4.4 points (4.4 lbs) so happy with that well i thought anyway.

Problem i have found is now that i am using 4.4L per Length to margin when they are beaten but when adding back 4.4 lbs to a horse that carried say 2kg or 4kg less its not looking right either.

So where its fine to say 3 pounds per 1L is not enough and its should be more but when giving it more you then also have to add more to horses carrying less weight in the race which again looks like its not right.

So after spending all day again trying to figure this where back to where we started which is totally confused again



any advice anyone?

My advice is make an intelligent guess of your own. The official system is just guesswork anyway. No-one can verify what weight diff corresponds to how much distance over whatever trip. It's all about opinions. The going almost certainly has an effect on what the correlation is between weight diff and distance separation, and no-one truly knows what that is. Find your own way - you'll never get ahead just by copying someone else anyway.

ged that's what i have done by changing from BHS which use 1L - 3 lbs where instead i have changed it to 1L = 4.4 lbs but problem is if you don't think the BHA is enough as in 1L =3 when changing like i have to 4.4 lbs per 1L its seem fine when using it for the margins but not fine when giving it back for the horses carrying less weights

Well you need to come up with a calculation method that looks right to you.

As only you know what it is that looks right to you, only you can come up with the method.

But underlying everything, you must understand that whatever calculations you produce, real life results will frequently show you how sh1t your calculations are, no matter how brilliant you might be.

With ged's observation of "real life results will frequently show you how sh1t your calculations are" ringing loudly in my ears, I've just been messing about with a formula I kept a note of several years ago.

The formula is (Distance beaten * 15)/(Race distance in furlongs) = Pounds beaten.

I've re-jigged the formula so as to allow for the race distance to be entered in metres and to display 'Kg beaten' rather than pounds.  The table below shows a few examples.  I'm sure someone will raise the alarm if they look wide of the mark.   

Distance beaten (lengths)	Race distance (metres)	Kg beaten
1	1200	1.1
2	1100	2.5
1.5	1300	1.6
2	1400	2.0

Not even sure if this is what the OP is looking for but just in case, the formula used to generate the 'Kg beaten' figure is shown below.

(Distance beaten * 1371.6 )/(Race distance in metres)

top2rated basically just trying to figure if i set 1L to be 4.4 pounds then 2L is likely 8.8 pounds but imo once they start getting beaten 2L onwards we cant just say 1L = 4.4 so 2 should be double that and 3L should be triple and so on because horses still close enough to the winner will likely be pushed out more to the line while horses beaten further will be eased up since they cant win

Are you trying to do this in a database, a spreadsheet, or on the back of an envelope?

spreadsheet

Basically got 10 different races i copies and pasted to a spreadsheet and just lining them up vs each other

WFA races are fine to work out but Hcp's i still cant work out ffs

I Still have problems trying to work out the basics ffs when it comes to giving a horses who wins but carries say 10 pounds less and has no exposed form Rating

Example the horse that runs 2nd is carrying 58kg and was beaten by the winner who carried 52.5Kg and won by 1.8L  the 2nd horse leading into this race rated 128 128 129

So im assuming we use him as the benchmark? Since he is the only horses with a Ratings in the race to work with?

But how do i know he didn't run 5-6 points below his last start rating? Sure he has been consistent last 3 starts but its has nothing to do with this race even though he ran 2nd he might have run well under his last few starts its like im guessing

i know onlooker and so are going to say he don't get it but its more that i cant justify what im doing things look flawed so seems wrong to do it to start with hence why im asking for advice to prove that what i think are flaws might not be but hmmmm

I don't think I agree with your approach.
Not sure if the below helps, but I adjust my ratings from a standard times table with a Weight factor for each race distance. i.e 3Lb = i length over 5F, but only 1.5Lb over 10F plus. I think this approach was taken from one of Beyer's books.

Distance	DistanceFurlong	WeightF
5F	5	3
6F	6	2.5
6F110Y	6.5	2.2
7F	7	2
1M	8	2
10F	10	1.5
12F	12	1.5
14F	14	1.5
2M	16	1.5
20F	20	1.5
21F159Y	21.7227	1.5

Have to ask why the hell you're working in metric?

Stow_judge i got a cart to go of by now similar to what you have posted but im not sure how to rate  with the example i gave in my previous post care to explain?

Aviboyd what do you mean?

Filante - yds and lbs are the units of measurement in British Horse Racing.  I (like many others I suspect) wouldn't know what a kg is...

here is a example the second horse has rated 128 128 129 last 3 starts two horse race how do you handicap this race foe example?

1st    MID SUMMER MUSIC 53.5   
2nd    BUFFERING      58    1.8L winner won by

Aviboyd I'm from Australia i can use lbs if you find it easier but 1kg = 2.2 pounds

Aah fair dinkum Filante, Australia is light years ahead of the UK in most respects.  Good luck with your project.

Oh - For goodness sake Filante ....

'KNOCK IT ON THE HEAD' - Son

I have given up an enormous amount of my time - over the past 3 days -

Answering - in tremendous  technical detail - a 'million' of your OBTUSE questions on the 3 other threads  - that I should have charged a fortune for....

- and still you are NO NEARER .... and NEVER will be.

RATING RACEHORSES is simply NOT for YOU.

Save yourself a lot of time, and trouble  .... and go back to watching the 'Barrier Trials'  at Flemington ... where YOU will see much more.

Sorry, Son - But, I'm afraid, that is the HARD [TRUTH.

You ain't got it - and you never will have.

You are wasting your precious time.

Well that's fine onlooker but just answer me this question then please

here is what you wrote the other day and here is where i see flaws in Ratings not what you wrote but flaws in overall ratings




onlooker
24 Jun 12 14:07
Joined:
18 Feb 03
| Topic/replies: 9,190 | Blogger: onlooker's blog
Fine - Filante

However - "The Winner" is NOT ALWAYS the BEST horse in the race -
It's all RELATIVE to the weights carried - and this appears to be where you are struggling somewhat.

For Example - The WINNER may carried 54kg and beat the Second - who has carried 58.5kg - by just a length, over 1200 metres.

THUS - The SECOND becomes the BEST horse in the race - Because ...

If you have given the WINNER a 120 Rating - then the SECOND has run to a 127 Rating.

This being made up of ...

The SECOND horse has GIVEN 4.5kg (10 pounds)  to the Winner   - so the Second becomes 130 - BUT, then LESS 3 points, for the One length that it was beaten = 127 for the second .... and so on, for ALL the other runners -
-------------------

To return to my earlier answer. ...

OK - So you are not just taking the TOP-WEIGHT as having run the BEST performance in the race - Good.

BUT - You DO appear to be just accepting that the WINNER has ALWAYS run the BEST performance in the race.... and 'Handicapping/Rating backwards from the Winner EVERY Time.

Again - I have to state - Where are your PRE-Race Ratings for the PREVIOUS performances of the Runners?

Quite often - and in somewhat simplistic terms, too - It will be the 3rd horse home who has 'run to it's pre-Race rating' - and so you would then RE-RATE the Result from that 3rd horse's Rating - and NOT just some arbitrary 'personal opinion' Rating that you decide to award to the WINNER - and then, backwards from the WINNER for all other horses.

You have to determine WHICH of ALL the runners may have replicated a previous PRE-Race Rating in THIS race.... and there could be more than one, given the Weights carried.

For simplicity - If it WAS that 3rd horse home - Then you would Handicap/RATE the RESULT from THAT horse -

Thus putting the Winner AND the 2nd UP, for the DISTANCES that they finished IN FRONT of the 3rd horse - BUT, also, relevant to Weights carried adjustments.

THAT 3rd horse would STAY on it's SAME PRE-RACE Rating - and then those behind would get Lower ratings, comparable to DISTANCES beaten - But, also, adjusted for relevant weights carried - against THAT 3rd (KEY) horse - Either ADDING, or DEDUCTING, the WEIGHT differences carried by EVERY horse, from each other - ASWELL AS the Points differences Deducted for the DISTANCES beaten.





The first flaw is ....your saying rate to the 3rd horse in this example above as he is the horses with a established rating

OK my first question is how do you know this horses run up to his previous 3 ratings even though he run 3rd he might have run many lengths of his best when the field is unknown which is not often but when it is like here ..imo you cant just say he run 128 128 129 his last 3 starts so lets assume he run 128 today and then handicap around him


Also he he might have been racing in his last 3 starts in WFA races and today he carries 58.5kg vs the others who are carrying 53.5 52.5 ...how do you know he runs 128 carrying so much extra weight compared to the others? some horses cant carry weights

I just cant see how anyone can say OK he run 128 last 3 starts so lets call that the benchmark for this race....this is what i cant get my head around re Ratings this is the FLAW is see in them





hope you answer as i respect the effort you have put in onlooker trying to explain it to me but i have also taken you last reply fair and square so would appreciate if you answer this questions where i think Ratings are clearly FLAWED and not avoid it please.

Also he has been beaten 1.8L by the winner so what does that mean he run 128 less the 1.8L?? or he still run 128? This you didn't explain in your above post also ... i mean again you cant just say he is a 128 horse and lets use him as the benchmark when he got beaten by 1.8L or say even more surely he loses ratings there also or do we just say he is a 128 horse so that's what we work around ...this again seems a FLAW.

As he could have been beaten 4L but since the winner is unknown he must have run 128 because that's what he rated his previous 3 starts so LETS ASSUME HE HE RAN 128 and the winner must have run 4L better before we get into deducting or adding weights THIS IS A GUESS IMO but please prove me wrong and i will admit i have no idea then openly

Filante - Thanks for your response

As I have explained in several other answers ...

You do NOT just decide on a SINGLE particular horse in a Race RESULT as having 'run to it's rating'  - and that ALL the other runners have NOT.

Although - In your example, above - given that the RACE DISTANCE{s} and GOING of those 3 previous races, and today's race distance and going, are ALL similar .....

Then I can assure you that by far the vast majority of Handicappers - be they Official or Private - seeing a horse run to 128, 128, and 129 in it's three previous runs - and then run a good close{ish} 3rd today - would see that RESULT as something akin to 'manna from heaven' for/from a RACE Handicapping point of view..... and consequently use that 128/129.

However, if, as you say it has a 4.5kg (10 lb) penalty - then that would most certaiunly be firstly taken into account, too - as, dependant upon the distances beaten by thew First and Second horse - carrying that penalty in a close 3rd place may actually mean that the horse has put in an improved performance from 128.

This, though - to answer your BROADER question - is DETERMINED by taking the PRE-RACE RATINGS of ALL the Runners and comparing them against the Race RESULT AS a WHOLE.

Dependent upon the present Ratings, and the Conditions of the Race - you could get the 2nd, 3rd and 5th horses home ALL running to, or close to, their PRE-RACE Ratings ... BETTER STILL, in that instance - giving even more 'Strength in Depth' to the Result.

ALTERNATIVELY -

A Race Result can easily produce a picture whereby a Strong Favourite wins - against lower opposition IS the best horse, by PERFORMANCE, in this race - So you Rate from him, the WINNER -

As I also showed you on another thread - A 100 Rated Peter Moody trained horse - whom he has dropped into a 6,000 dollar WFA race, against MUCH LOWER opponents - that then saunters home at odds of $1.20 - Could well ONLY need to run to a 70 RATING in that race -
So you RATE THAT Result from his 70 Rating - although he is STILL, and REMAINS,  a 100 horse on your MASTER Ledger.

You HAVE to take the RESULT as a WHOLE -  and feel your way around ALL the POSSIBLE permutations of the performance - to then arrive at an OVERALL LEVEL for THAT Race RESULT...

Then you CAN allocate the RATINGS accordingly to ALL the runners - for a FULL RATED Race Result.

onlooker thank you for responding

btw i don't take much notice of barrier trials at Flemington

OK but my example above i said all the horses were unknown to me coming from different states lets say and i have no pre race ratings to work with bar the 3rd horses who as i said has rated 128 128 129

So when you say since he carried so much extra weight he actually might have run better today then a 128 but how do i know he didn't run below?

Reason is the horses in this race might  be very poor and this we find out in their next few starts but today i don't know this

Similar example in a MDN race only one horses having a pre race rating with most of the field being first starter not all but most but of the ones that have raced they are legless so i cant use them at all.

Se lets say the only horse with a pre race rating runs 2nd beaten 1L and is a 80 Rated horse

So your saying i work around him as the benchmark i understand this but im saying he might have still performed way below his best today 3L and RUN IN A VERY POOR RACE OF LEGLESS HORSES but since we don't know that TODAY we rate around him... this is my query?

Are you saying he is our only guide and we have and must rate around him be he run up to his best or not

onlooker i didnt understand what this meant in your above reply see below firstly i don't know what MASTER Ledger means?

So you RATE THAT Result from his 70 Rating - although he is STILL, and REMAINS,  a 100 horse on your MASTER Ledger.

Filante_     26 Jun 12 20:09 
onlooker i didnt understand what this meant in your above reply see below firstly i don't know what MASTER Ledger means?
--------------------------

As I said in my post at 18-45 Filante.

Do the decent thing, son - for your own sake.

anyone care to explain what MASTER Ledger means as i previously stated English is my 2nd language

onlooker i sent your a private message

Nice Reply sent, son.

onlooker I received your reply thanks


btw Filante was a champion racehorse and yes race callers would use the line "shooting star" especially when he streaked away from his opposition for a easy win

Felatio why divent yoo stick too likin windys?