RP Members Club kaput; welcome to RP+

More details at
https://www.racingpost.com/news/introducing-racing-post-the-new-name-for-our-digital-subscriptions-aIrF57G4GouN/

Note they want your details even if you do not pay.

For free users, there are a few changes. Most notably, we're introducing a login barrier in front of some parts of the website and app. It's quick and free to create an account by heading to the Racing Post site and app, so once created your journey around our free content can resume in a snap.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/introducing-racing-post-the-new-name-for-our-digital-subscriptions-aIrF57G4GouN/

road to nowhere

Only five lines of form, entries blocked, stats blocked.
Unless you register/login.
How pathetic.
One more nail in the coffin for the sport.

If all you have to do is register,what’s the harm,every site wants your details.

There's no reason for them having my details.
For me the fewer sites that have my details the better. Old fashioned like that.
Doesn't help a sport that wants my money to put barriers in the way.

It’s like adverts,all content costs,so your details for marketing reasons seems ok

Just create a free email address merely for the purpose of creating a RP account to access the free info.
You can use a false name if you like.
Don't use your 'regular' eamil addy if you don't want to be spammed/tracked/paranoid.


simples.

ok thanks comingupthehill, leif, I'll see how I get on. Will give irishracing a go although it looks a bit fussy to me.

About 66p per day or 55p per day if taking out a yearly subscription. I simply couldn't go about my daily work without the RP website. Even what they offer for free is far superior than what other Racing websites offer. They won't spam your email account... I just typed in Racing Post into my email search and they sent me a grand total of 6 emails in 2024!

Ideally, imo, you need the RP and an interactive DB such as HRB or GGs.

I can't say that I really understand what 'ineractive' implies, but Alan the Beard has been propunting with Raceform Interactive for decades now.As I said, I have no idea what it does, but I do know that it uses the Racing Post database, and the reams of A4 he prints out and takes with him have loads of numbers on them, so it does look impressive.

The thing is though, that those rows and columns of printed out numbers are scribbled over with his additional comments and analysis, and I think it's the latter which determine whether you price up a race correctly.

Something that allows the user to manipulate data and tailor reports to their specific requiements.

I see. This thread from 2019 suggests that it does do that, but not to the extent you'd want:

https://community.betfair.com/horse_racing/go/thread/view/94102/31516293/raceform-interactive

Ultimately I think it's the volume of scribbling you do which determines your success. Whether you use the free online form, then buy the paper and scribble on that, or do it on printouts from interactive databases, isn't important. Just as long as you've crawled all over the form enough to get thoroughly confused and find yourself scribbling over everything. Then you know you've done all you can to price the race up correctly.

Each to their own and as far as I'm aware, you've been a successful punter for many years.

Flying, mate. I went to Chepstow yesterday and ended the afternoon £17.95 up, minus £11.50 for a day return to Temple Meads, £7.50 for the bus to Chepstow and back, and £4.90 for the Post.

Funnily enough during the racing I had a text conversation with Eddie Fremantle about form study (he'd spotted me standing alone and forlorn by the paddock on the telly, and wanted to know whether any other punter had turned up; I did spot one - Neill was at his usual spot by the paddock exit, but that was all; my word, it was bleak otherwise). But Eddie and I got conversing about the way traditional form study - working out pounds and lengths - has become a rarity with the decline in mental arithmetic. People now rely instead on computer-generated black and white numbers, whether that's sectional times, statistics or whatever. As well as that, another skill - the ability to embrace and appraise uncertainty, the willingness to trust your gut rather than the stat, if you have a good reason - that's vanishing too. So, if you can still see things and do things the traditional, longhand ways, that has actually become an edge.

As Eddie said, when he first started doing media work, he was struck by how shallow the studying done by some of his colleagues was (some, not all). Just 'I fancy this' or 'I fancy that'.

I'm not a studier of the Jumps but Heaadofthevalley went off at 5.66 but was available at 38 on here around midday.  I don't know why it was backed but maybe the fact that its sire shows a profit on soft/heavy was a factor.  When this happens, i guess there might be value to be gained elsewhere.

I'm not a studier of the Jumps but Heaadofthevalley went off at 5.66 but was available at 38 on here around midday.  I don't know why it was backed but maybe the fact that its sire shows a profit on soft/heavy was a factor.  When this happens, i guess there might be value to be gained elsewhere.

I'm not a studier of the Jumps but Heaadofthevalley went off at 5.66 but was available at 38 on here around midday.  I don't know why it was backed but maybe the fact that its sire shows a profit on soft/heavy was a factor.  When this happens, i guess there might be value to be gained elsewhere.

It was unraced, but had cost 68,000 euros as a 4yo, from the family of Gold Cup winner Minella Indo. The Evan Williams horses are flying and landing gambles. I don't think the sire stats on the going would have been necessary to know that the price was too big, as long as it were fit and looked the part in the paddock. It did look fit, if a little hairy, as a lot of Williams horses are at this time of year. And it was quite compact and athletic.

It was just unfortunate to run into two horses who looked something special (and had winning form).

But I take your point. The sire stat would not have put anyone off the horse.

Well, on that basis, I'm astonished that it was ever available at that price.

That was a bad example but my point is that there will be people seeking out these stats backing these horses blindly.

38 was a mad price. Maybe it was price manipulation. Did the books follow the price out?

On the other hand, the Post's Spotlight comment quoted another stat: "stable 0-15 in bumpers this season". Stats, eh?!

If a horse I like gets a comment like that from something as influential as Spotlight then I'm looking for a good reason to dismiss it (the comment) which is partly how I could spend five hours looking at one race.

Btw, did you notice that advert for Gamble Aware (or similar)?  Filmed in Slough High St!

All this chatter just points to one thing that is as true today as it ever was and ever will be - find something that the market is under rating. What is on the radar today won't be tomorrow, and vice versa. You just need to be aware of the turn.

On the original topic, The 199 RP package is all I would really want, (alongside another formbook). I don't want tips or interviews, and struggle to understand why anyone would.

Has a fatwa been declared on the betting shops then?

Didn't they declare one on us?

I have used Raceform interactive for 17 years, since the sad demise of superform. Its okay and the query function is adequate if very slow. Trouble is although rodney is great at support the database is old and there is zero development money put in. Its strength is for anyone who wants to generate and save their own collateral or speed ratings. Excellent for that. Also you can use the query function to search for key words in the comments, e.g keep on side, gambled, led to use in strategies.

HRB is excellent for a purely a stats based approach. Being online the database is faster than baatash. Give it a go on a trial basis. Superb support from chris aswell

On the free side, if you download the racing post appon your phone you can access all tge postvrace analysis for free, which is part of members club on the main site.

The sharia courts don't need to, steerforth. The Gambling Commission has done it for them.

Steer does the 199 give access to MY RATINGS?

Celtic - note the point on speed figures, and apologise if I'm going off track a bit here, but there is something I've never really grasped about speed figures that maybe you could shed light on. Given that the times of races, and their sectionals, are absolute, what are the variables that make producing one's own speed figures of value? As far as I can make out the variables are restricted to a handful of underlying factors, ground and weather, standard times, class adjustments, weight allowances and maybe a few others. Accepting that these might include some subjectivity, the scope for improvement must surely be somewhat limited. And more so with the availability of technology that by now should have squeezed out all the inefficiencies to come up with something approaching empirical. And yet there can be wild differences in speed figures between any given published sets, (and they can't all be right), let alone the slog that comes with compiling personal ones. I just don't get it.

Jan 29, 2025 -- 7:37PM, Celtic warrior wrote:

Steer does the 199 give access to MY RATINGS?

I can't actially answer that at the moment Celtic as I've asked for clarity on my account. I'm currently paying the 29.95 per month on the old subs but the package is listed in my details as "insights" with the next due payment in February being 29.95. Insights is the 199 or 19.95 per month. At th emomet I can get My Ratings although I don't use that feature.

Speed figures depend entirely on how the person compiling them assesses the form of the race he deems the fastest (compared to its class) of the day.

For instance, Boxing Day at Kempton (we'll use the Racing Post standard times): if you assessed the Christmas Hurdle through the last race on the card, and said that the winner, East India Express, ran to its mark of 123 (the mark off which it had also won at Ascot the time before), then Constitution Hill gets yet another astonishing speed figure, of 174. But that would give the thired, Burdett Road, a speed figure of 165, and Burdett Road was rated only 142 going into the race. Is it possible that Burdett Road is improving that fast? Personally I think he is. But, if you don't agree, and reckon that Burdett Road is still a 142 horse, then Constitution Hill's speed figure falls to 151, and East India Express's race becomes a slow one, with the winner running to a speed figure of only 100.

Sorry but that sounds like traditional handicapping to me. A time is a time.

funny how we have different ways of assessing a race ...i'm quite primitive . trust my eyes mainly . so think lossiemouth will give the hill something to think about on a stiffer track in march . i suppose its what works ( hopefully ) for you .

It IS traditional handicapping, but with the bonus of being able to use the clock to assess whether your traditional handicapping is likely to work out correctly or not. It tells us that Burdett Road is definitely worth its rating of 142, and it might be worth as much as 165. And also, if Burdett Road didn't improve, then it tells us that the East India Express race might be a slow time and the form iffy. (As it happens, the second and third in the East India Express race have both been stuffed since, though there are excuses for both.)

If you're complaining that speed figures don't give you a definitive number, then you're complaining about horse racing being an uncertain sport. The fact that they're open to argument is just one more aspect of what makes it possible to beat the odds at horse racing. It's a question of giving appropriate weight to each possible argument. Pricing up the race better than the other punters, in other words.

Speed ratings are dynamite on all weather as most races are truly run.

I am not convinced though over longer nh distances. Most run at a dordle first couple of furlongs

Speed ratings are rubbish on the all weather, as most races are run at a dawdle the first couple of furlongs. Plus, they go over the surface with rakes and rollers before and after every race. How can you allocate a going allowance?

I use the progression method. For those races that are run fast, usually older handicaps i base the ga on the past speed figures of the leading finishers.

Eg if the 2nd has had recents of 107 106 102 110 and was beaten 2l over a mile i would say the race was worth 109 to 112. Then adjust my ga to come back to this. Easy on excel

Agree with the sentiments of undecided. At the time didn't realise what was behind it, but as I said on the other thread you can find the basic information elsewhere without having to sign in. It seems a bit pathetic. If it was attracting enough paying customers surely they wouldn't need to take this step?

Jan 29, 2025 -- 8:48PM, screaming from beneaththewaves wrote:

It IS traditional handicapping, but with the bonus of being able to use the clock to assess whether your traditional handicapping is likely to work out correctly or not. It tells us that Burdett Road is definitely worth its rating of 142, and it might be worth as much as 165. And also, if Burdett Road didn't improve, then it tells us that the East India Express race might be a slow time and the form iffy. (As it happens, the second and third in the East India Express race have both been stuffed since, though there are excuses for both.)If you're complaining that speed figures don't give you a definitive number, then you're complaining about horse racing being an uncertain sport. The fact that they're open to argument is just one more aspect of what makes it possible to beat the odds at horse racing. It's a question of giving appropriate weight to each possible argument. Pricing up the race better than the other punters, in other words.

I'm not complaining at all Screaming. I'm trying to understand something that isn't making sense to me. I'm really about the definitive sense of a speed rating  (as a seperate stand alone entity to a form rating and therefore a definitive number, calculated using time as a the sole basis for the rating itself - something every manual Iv'e read on claculating speed ratings purports to do, Beyer and Mordin being the gold standard. What you are describing seems to be using the time (and pace) of a race as a means of confirming or questioning the accuracy of a form rating. And i'm not saying either that there is anything wrong in doing that, its just not what I understand a pure speed rating to be.

Celtic, that's not true about post race analysis being free on the phone app, It was at one time a few Months ago but it is now behind a £49 pay wall.

Because on-line racing form has been free for so long people object to ever paying.  But actually paying to access form doesn't seem fundamentally unreasonable.

The subscription model isn't the problem, the Racing Post's stubborn refusal to innovate is.

Glasgow, on my phone app i press the analysis button at the top of the result pagecand it comes up. Not on a tablet though. Weird

Steerforth: What Mordin and Beyer do only applies to racing on the Moon, where gravity is minimal and weight carried has little effect. However, the times a horse puts up on Planet Earth are affected by the weight the horse carries. A horse will run a mile faster carrying 8-0 than it will carrying 10-0 (about 2.8 secs faster). So, you have to take that weight carried into account when calculating speed figures, and you do that by calculating the traditional form rating (which does take weight into account) for the horse you reckon ran the fastest on the card taking into account its traditional form rating and the weight it carried on the day. And then you work back from that number to calculate the speed figure for each individual race.

That's how Timeform speed figures are calculated, along with Topspeed in the Post, and, back in the day, Split Second, when it was done by the late Ken Hussey (the guv'nor imo).

As I said, what Mordin does, or did, would only work on the Moon, which is fair enough, because he appeared to be wired to it sometimes. (Unfair really - I did meet the guy once or twice, and there's no doubt he did do the work; I remember sharing a carriage with him back from the Craven meeting once, and he spent the journey frantically updating his chase speed figures; it's just that all that work was based on a false premise - that horse racing is like athletics, and the jockeys and weight cloths are irrelevant.)

Matthew Taylor
@WestTip1986
I've always assumed that everyone knows about the form services we offer to racing fans on
@AtTheRaces,
However, I think now might be good time to highlight some extra tools that we provide free to all users that are more than just lists of runners and riders

https://x.com/WestTip1986/status/1884552732754800934

i have paid for a few years in order to access some features such as statistics and bloodstock info. I have no interest in tips etc. The most irritating thing is the fact that even by paying the lower fee, you can't read many of the articles in "News". I think I will be stopping payment and using whatever other sites I can find. Sporting Life has quite a lot.

Screaming. I get what you're saying, and was aware of Mordin's tenuous relationship with reality when it comes to weight carried, but I hadn't realised that RP and TF were using a funamentally different approach, although I didn't think that weight was ignored in those calculations, since Ive never seen evidence that anyone held faith in the Mordin theory. But you can still arrive at an empirical rating based on time as a starting point using the same methodology as Mordin AND take weight into account. So I'm still reading that it's time SUPPORTING traditional form based ratings. If thats the case, then its fine by me, but it's not what I thought I understood by the term "speed rating". At least its good to have some clarity on what we're actually talking about.

Screaming, i can confirm from my own comparisons ref all weather racing that the RP speed figures DO NOT INCLUDE weight adjustments whatsoever. This is because over at least ten years of comparison my own non weight adjusted figures are consistently 3 points below those of Racing post over all trackscall class all distance.

Mordin and Beyer both proved scientifically that weight doesnt matter ref speed. I can saisfy myself with this for my own betting by the fact that most all weather handicaps contain extremely tight weight ranges, usually 4 to 5 pounds. I.e weight diffs are irrelevant.

All this could confuse a stupid person.

"I can saisfy myself with this for my own betting by the fact that most all weather handicaps contain extremely tight weight ranges, usually 4 to 5 pounds. I.e weight diffs are irrelevant. " Celtic - That is NOT the same as saying weight doesn't matter at all.

The RP basic sub is all I need...oh and I need Timeform (excellent for writing lifetime notes for each horse) That's all I need, RP basic & Timeform...I don't need anything else...wait I need a website that I can quickly cross check some statistics, so I need the Adrian Massey website. I just need RP basic, Timeform & the Adrian Massey website....that's all I need, I don't need anything else.

A bit of backfiring on the sarcasm. This thread was about the RP choices, not about what else anybody might need. Its about what you might not need. And that includes paying for more than basic on the RP offers. I'd rather have RP basic plus TF than RP tips and aricles for a couple of hundred a year more. And by the way, Massey trainer and jockey ratings are unique so yeah I'd have a look at them as well - for free.

Weight seems to be irrelevant in human athletics but of course their natural weight is not likely to vary that much so there is no element of handicapping involved. But the world record for 100 metres is recognised if you are 7 feet tall and 15 stone or 5 feet tall and 7 stone. I know it is not that relevant to racing but I just thought I would mention it. The weight of a horse is not taken into account when rating it of course.

Just answer this - would Frankel have been unbeaten if he'd been asked to carry 15 stone in every race. If you think yes, what about 20 stone.. and if yes... well hopefully you get the point. At smaller ranges of weight difference, weight carries less relevance to performance, especially when mixed in with other variables. But to reach the conclusion that it doesn't matter at all is ludicrous. So why ignore it? It's one of the variables so include it.

Handicap form does seem to work really well but there is a difference between a reaction to different weights and the basic ability. If horses could be relied upon to race without riders, would we be recognising different horses as being the best? There is basic speed, stamina and resolution to take into account but over sprint distances, each horse will have a limit to how fast it can run 5 furlongs, regardless of how much weight they carry. I go back to human athletes where over 100 metres, each athlete strives to go faster by training but basic ability (fast twitch muscles) is still the most important factor.

Do you think that if you put a belt on the 100 mtr runner weighing 2 lb it would slow him down?

There IS a limit to how fast a horse can run, I accept that, but adding weight on its back will reduce that limit ok, it might be fine margins in sprints, but not irrelevant. Its really that simple. I can't see any reason anyone can argue that ground conditions MUST be accounted for in calculating speed ratings, (because softer ground slows them down), and yet weight can be ignored, the logical conclusion that is that weight does NOT slow them down. It makes no sense.

Now that this has got me going, there is another consideration, and that is the enigmatic effect of class. It's quite hard to come up with a logical explanation but from observation, as a general rule, horses have difficulty when faced with a rise in class. If a horse wins a 0-60 easily then goes into a 0-80 receiving plenty of weight from higher rated horses, then even on collateral lines of form that give them an equal chance at the weights, they would struggle to win more often than not.
For that reason I concede that weight carried might not be linear when calculating ratings. Perhaps the argument for ignoring weight might have more to do with this than just saying "weight can be ignored full stop". I would always favour the higher rated horse over the lower one after a speed ratings has been adjusted for weight, (all other things being equal).

On Racing Post Topspeed and weight, aiui each horse's master rating is adjusted for its allotted weight when it is printed in the cards.

Trouble is, I also think they are not above also adjusting for other factors.

This is based on something Paul Kealy said rather than my rigorously auditing their speed figures.

Should stick to your guns steerforth, anybody ignoring weight should not be allowed near a betting site, stating that weights have no bearing on times a prime example.

An old saying in racing " Weight can stop a train "!!

Yeah it's been a bit frustrating this thread. And my original point hasn't been answered, ie "why has technology not eliminated inefficiency from speed rating calculations since there are not enough variables to leave room for much variability between sources in a methodology founded on facts not opinions?".

The replies suggest:
a)RP and TF speed ratings are not really speed ratings, (as advocated in, for example Mordin On Time and Beyer On Speed), but rather they are form ratings adjusted or tweaked for the evidence of the clock. No idea if that is true, but some say it is and I can't argue.
b) RP speed ratings take no account of weight carried, but conversely, they are weight adjusted on the day. No idea what that means, but if they are form ratings to start with then they would have to be adjusted, would they not.
c) there are some who  believe weight carried doesn't matter. wtaf?

And all that still leaves the question, "what can you gain from calculating your own speed ratings? Its a huge effort and the only advantage I can imagine, given that first input is an actual time, is if your own variables, class allowances, standard times, and assessing the true ground conditions, are better than anyone elses, including the main publishers emmploying experts. - Seems unlikely.

None of that suggests I know best, I just can't see what I'm missing.

@steerforth -- probably most of the benefit from spending hours making your own speed ratings is that you spend hours looking at how horses ran in their races. Sorry if that sounds cynical.

As to your point (a) I am not sure I follow your distinction. One thing I would point out is that neither Beyer nor Mordin invented speed figures, which had been around for decades before they came along. They *might* have been among the first to publish easy-to-follow recipes telling readers how to create their own. Incidentally, the idea of class allowances in speed figures comes from them. Alternatives include using a horse's form rating, either going in or coming out of the race.

One problem with Racing Post TopSpeed, at least in the past, is that every time they changed personnel, so the whole methodology was changed to suit the new man. There was no continuity between Tony Harbidge, James Willoughby and Dave Edwards.

And all that still leaves the question, "what can you gain from calculating your own speed ratings? Its a huge effort and the only advantage I can imagine, given that first input is an actual time, is if your own variables, class allowances, standard times, and assessing the true ground conditions, are better than anyone elses, including the main publishers emmploying experts. - Seems unlikely.

You don't necessarily have to be better than the published speed ratings. Just being able to spot the occasions when the published ratings are dubious gives you that edge. But you can only do that by doing the calculations yourself. Remember that published speed ratings suffer from the same problems as published collateral form ratings (and published tipsters): they have to conform to public expectations, or the public won't pay for them.

Back in the 90s hardly anyone understood how Timeform timefigures, Topspeed or Split-Second (Ken Hussey) were calculated. I only worked it out by 'back-engineering' the numbers. The methodology was never published, so even a lot of propunters could do no more than follow the published numbers blind, or (more usually) just claim that times don't matter. But if you did understand them, you could see where the errors were creeping in. The 2m 6f hurdles at Cartmel and Wincanton and the 2m 4f hurdles at Hereford, for instance always, for every published compiler, offered an apparently slowly run race. The race distances were clearly wrong, and so were the speed figures. It was always good to buy the Racing and Football Outllook Guides before each season, where Ken Hussey would publish his revised standard times, to see where his thinking was aligning with yours (or not). The great thing was that it showed the care with which Hussey approached the task. You could see how he never just went through the motions.

The edge came from spotting these revisions during the preceding season, and not having to wait for the 'expert' compilers to catch up with reality. It meant, for instance, that I knew that the 2 mile hurdle track at Wincanton was nowhere near 2 miles (it turned out to be nearly a furlong short when they finally measured the tracks). At the sharpest, flattest track in the country this was a huge deal.

So, believe me, it's worth it. But it's not easy. If it were, it wouldn't be worth it.

Re point a) refer to SFBTW's post 29th Jan 8:48 and my reply 10:13 same date.
Your cynicism is fair enough, but to be fair that applies to producing any sort of rating and should apply anyway if you're just making bets using any input. My query still stands. If ratings are using time, all ratings should converge as tech improves, so what makes one man's ratings better than another when it comes to basing on a factual start point.
I would like to see the methodology explained in full if anyone from the RP is reading and inclined to explain.

Screaming - Last post crossed yours. Good point re the errors. That makes sense. A lot of work if you don't find many, and, not to labour the point, with modern tech I would have thought the room for error would be squeezed to point where there were very few, as they should be based on factual times and converging, (rubbish in rubbish out excepted, although again tech should be catering for that and removing things like inaccurate distances.

You are absolutely right, steerforth, that additional tech and info has made the published figures more reliable, to the extent that I no longer compile comprehensive speed figures on a daily basis. The edge isn't there any longer.

On the other hand, as long as you accept my explanation that weight-based speed figures are compiled by reference to the collateral form ratings of the fastest comparative time at a meeting, then not having your speed figures set in stone in a master list is actually a good thing. As more information on the form value of individual races comes to light, you can go back and adjust all the speed figures for a meeting in light of that new information. Commercial operators can't do that (if they did, punters would complain and sneer that you can't alter speed figures, cos the times of the races haven't changed have they, you muppet, ha ha).

And there's still massive scope for using the knowledge of how speed figures are compiled to take into account the effects of rain during a meeting, for instance. The 'tech' is never going to give anyone an objective answer to that one. And I just like to be able to look at something like Constitution Hill's run at Kempton on Boxing Day and not have to wait for someone else's opinion on the time of the race. And I like to be aware of what to look out for to change my assessment of the value of the time as more evidence comes in (as I outlined in my post on Constitution Hill above).

But in general, you're right. The glory days of 35 years ago, when Chatam, on heavy ground at Newbury, recorded the highest speed figures I've ever given both to a hurdler and a chaser, and I was rewarded at 10/1 in the Hennessy, have gone for ever. When I see Fremantle at the track, he no longer asks for my speed figures before each race, and I don't get the benefit of his opinion on them (it was a wonderful system, which benefited both of us, but it's no longer 1991, worse luck).

steerforth -- in a sense you are right that they should converge, as should handicap ratings and prices.

As everyone knows, speed figures are not raw speed in miles an hour but are adjusted for conditions on the day -- course layout and distance, going, wind speed and direction, draw, weight carried, jockey, tactics and so on.

In practice, that is hard to do and some factors are ignored, and others are lumped together as the going allowance.

And that is why different compilers produce different numbers, and why there is scope for the gifted amateur to do better than the professionals.

But 90 per cent of the time, it is a lot easier and just as profitable to make a note that Flying Dancer got stuck in the stalls so his last win was better than the numbers say.

I remember being in a meeting once where everybody was getting extremely excited over a new forecasting methodology which forecast growth to two decimal places, rather than the usual one.  Of course, it proved no more accurate than any other forecast - it just offered the illusion of accuracy.

Which it has in common with the topic of weight in racing.  If you step back and consider the statement that a horse weighing 1000lbs who was beaten 1/2 a length over a mile last time should now finish level with the other horse because it is carrying one pound less it is patently ludicrous.  Albeit a nonetheless clean and convenient solution to a far more complex problem.  It's a calculation that doesn't consider the weight of the horse, the strength of the horse,  whether it's deadweight or jockey weight (and if this question matters anyway), the topography of the racecourse, the going, the pace of the race, the sectionals of the race at various points of topography, the age of the horses, the sex of the horses, the significance of apprentice weight concessions where for the majority of the race all the jockey does is steer at slower than top speeds, is a one-paced horse less vulnerable to extra weight than a horse than can quicken etc.  Despite a hundred or more years of racing we are no closer to getting any answers to any of those questions. 

The truth is we understand little about the effect of weight in individual circumstances.  What we do know is that we have a race system that is based on weights where weight is assigned according to perceived ability.  This means as a horse improves it is often asked to carry less weight in better races where the pace is likely to be quicker.  Eventually the horse stops winning because its rise in handicap mark forces it to race against horses that can perform better, but we still don't understand the role that respective weights carried has played.

Personally, I acknowledge weight must have some sort of effect but also that we are unable to accurately measure it.  The way a handicap mark impacts a horse's racing opportunities is of major importance, but I can't get excited with all this detailed fiddling over a pound or two this way or that.  As for speed ratings - I list the rating next to the horse's weight carried rather than combine the two.  They are two separate contributing factors to a horse's performance which help you flesh out the overall picture - similarly I wouldn't include an adjustment to the speed rating for a horse being blocked in a race.
One of the underrated advantages of speed figures is that producing a going allowance enables a far better understanding of sectionals and therefore how the race has been run and how this race shape has impacted a runner’s final placing.

Why do your own?  If you were trust someone else to do them properly, why don’t you just outsource the whole damn experience and employ a tipster?   Someone once sent me the sandform speed ratings and the going allowances calculated were an obvious abomination.

That is a lot of type just to question what is simply physics and physiology Davros combined with the energy a horse uses making it possible to calculate effect of weight carried.

CagliariG

In that case, using physics and physiology, answer the following:

1)  A 3 year old, 950lb filly front runs over 1 mile on heavy ground into a strong headwind on a straight, undulating track in January at 0 degrees Centigrade where the first half of the race is run at a crawl and they quicken from 2 out. She carries 9st, with the jockey weighing 7st 7lbs. How much less weight should she carry to improve her finishing position by half a length?

2)  A 6 year old 1050lb gelding is held up off a fast, but even, pace over 1m with a strong tailwind, in 30C weather on a tight, flat left-handed all-weather when the track is riding 0.3 sec / furlong fast.  He carries 8lbs which is the jockey plus saddle with no added weight cloth.  How much less weight should he carry to improve his finishing position by half a length?

I will make it even simpler without complex calculations of your hypothetical which in reality never happens. Go out and run 500 metres and time yourself, have a rest and do it again carrying a kilo bag of sugar and tell us the difference in time?

I presume you are being deliberately obtuse.

I am being accurate rather than stupid Davros, complicating the issue with silly nonsensical hypotheticals is a case of Bullshit Baffles Brains!!

You fail btw!!

I'm just back from my 500m test.  I was 1.5 seconds quicker with the sugar.

Surprising, but think the extra weight helped on the downhills.

How did you get on with the 2 year old running on heavy ground in January?

Davros: "If you step back and consider the statement that a horse weighing 1000lbs who was beaten 1/2 a length over a mile last time should now finish level with the other horse because it is carrying one pound less it is patently ludicrous."
Well exactly. I think a couple of people are slightly missing my point here. Yes I'm advocating that weight makes a difference, but I'm not suggesting for a second that any selection should be made based on a slavish calculation involving pounds for lengths between two horses.
In my own analysis I like to have an idea of a horse being "at the margins", reading the formbook to assess where a horse's ranking in the handicap and trying to assess where it will, or has already, reach a point, either by virtue of its rating or its class barrier, from which it will struggle to win. That analysis is independent of any theoretical pounds for lengths direct or collateral form lines. In fact I can't remember the last time I even carried out that calculation to compare runners. It serves me well, but very definitley recognises that weight does make a difference.

"How did you get on with the 2 year old running on heavy ground in January?"

You might want to read that again.

Agreed Steerforth.

Ok a 3 year old Davros, does it make any difference?