Racehorse TALK

Rosehill has always been a great Speed Track: Race 6 Result  [  4  10  9  1  7  3  ] F4 paid $244.00.


Mainly for the new starter at computerised Race Analysis using UNITAB Data feeds for Fields and Form, where with the absolute minimal extra  keying in of data is required for Base Analysis and respectable outcomes, but also a lot of excitement.

Although the time tested rule about First up over any distance equal to or over 1400 metres with greater than 25 days to the previous  race, has been getting a battering lately; as the carnival heats up the Old Rule needs to be adhered to at least for the Winner. Sure they can still place but Rothesay' s last race was about 89 days ago was asking too much. Should be interesting at their next match.  

To me that is as clear as mud! not even sure if it was english??
Not real computer literate admittedly, but what does it mean?
That rule re the 1400 is a load of statistical bunkum, it includes things like hurdlers resuming, take the stats say on Michael Kent or the Williams horses first up over 1400 or further?? then there are horses like Rundle yesterday who resumed in a race he had no chance in!!
You can take a lot of deadwood out and get a totally different picture, not saying it is a betting proposition but to use it a reason for Rothesay's defeat is drawing a long bow, my worry is that Rothesay is a known bleeder, one more attack and he is finished in Australia, the actual bleeding doesn't worry me , what does is will Ryan pour the pressure on him until he at least gets to a Group One Handicap, his best chance of winning a group One and where he would be down near the minimum??   he wouldn't beat MJ with a Start unless she had something go wrong or there was a repeat of her Silver Slipper run, fitness wasn't the only thing between them, Black Piranha was resuming too, giving him a lot of weight and finished up close to him, how would he beat him at WFA?

Just backed Tanby @ $12 first up over 1700m what does your stats say about that??

Thats okay Jim I was thinking of giving up anyway; but do not write off the analytical ability of computers. I just like to get it down to a one liner that saves me regurgitating numerous pieces of data and in this race I came up with a one-liner that looked like this:

AIANRC12 RH61109W * F4 4LINES=4/3*[  7  5  4  1  10  ]*. SMKY={ 7} * F4 5/CNT [ 1  4 ]. $VRUF$[ 1  9 ] $6.

Not even sure where TANBY was running. Adieu.

I am not rubishing it, quite the contrary, I know it works, I have friends who swear by the computer ratings, etc, I just might be to old to change now, you have to do what works for you,
Don't let me turn you away, not my intention at all, I just don't know how to read it, there are probably plenty of younger people here who would appreciate your input,
My point with statistics was just that you can make them read whatever you want them to say, they can be misleading and open to interpretation unless you know what went into them(I learn't that from Sir Humphrey Appleby)

As I always say you cannot have to much knowlege!! Gee keep it up and I might even learn something new (eventually)

No problem Jim.  I download the form of a race, from the UNITAB site, into a spreadsheet and a program converts  this file  for use by the various analysing programs and during this conversion  calculates Speeds for each of the entrants, now this only covers the last three runs as that is all the Unitab  provides, but without having to key in any data I can produce SPEED ratings, Weight Modified SPEED ratings and these look like this.
Race 6 Rosehill on 11th September 2010
                  TABNO    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11
                SPEED  104  82  81  98  94  97  89  94  94 101  82
              WMSPD  100  81  83 102  91 100  89  99  92 103  85

The selections are then displayed in descending order as follows.

 * SPD ORD TABNO [RH61109F]*[    1  10   4   6   5   8   9   7   2  11   3 ]*
 * WMSPD ORD TAB [RH61109F]*[   10   4   1   6   8   9   5   7  11   3   2 ]*
 
The beauty of this is that straight away as we collect data we see the best Speed chances  IE  [  1  10  4  ]  and  [  10  4   1   ]. Now at a track that favours SPEED and Finishing SPEED, it is as well for the new novice at race analysis to take heed of this information.  Now of course  No 4 was the eventual winner, No 10 came second and No 1 came fourth.

I do have to manually key in missing data for the calculations of Simulated Pace and Finishing Speed and you can interpret something similar fom calculations for SIMULATED PACE [  10  4  1  9  In this case the first four selections was the BOX F4 Bet Winner 4  10  9  1 ] and FINISHING SPEED  [  4  1  7  2   ]  . And this is all received in the few microseconds after the  download of the Race Form.

All calculations bringing each back to a Rating similar to all other ratings, with a BASE of 100 for best, are based on Race Record Times for each track and calculations as set out in the Book Scientific Racegoing.

Now as I am only interested in the First Four Bet this is great for me, but anyone who did not believe that at least 10  4  and   1 would feature in the placings is gambling rather than analysing.

Courtesy of the publishers of the Book "Scientific Racegoing" 1963  so is a bit dated, Jacaranda Press Brisbane and the Professors Cohen and Stephens. The book, no longer in print,  was prepared for the Australian scene by a Courier Mail journalist, who told me that while using the methods from this book he had an unbroken set of winning years, until he brought his own racehorse. 

That is almost understandable, went from mud to opaque, I can understand what you see in it and how to read most of it, what does WMSPD stand for as it changes from "Speed"
I only bet  win or place, unless there is a standout race with only 3 or 4 chances and there are at least 8 or 9 runners, I do have the odd quinella though, if I think there is good value in it, not necessarily a big payout, if a race looks a race in 2 or 3 with nothing else a chance, these opportunities are rare though, had one on Sat, Trim and Montana Flyer, paid $27 and Montana Flyer only deadheated for second, basically I don't bet the exotics, picking the winner is hard enough for me, I also find that 90% of punters (me included) pick far more losers than we do winners, so often if I have 3 picks in a race the price will dictate my bet, ie, if my top pick is $5 second pick is $4 and 3rd pick is $12, I would most likely back the 3rd selection unless I was very confident in the top selection,(like More Joyous on Saturday) I may save on the others again depending on price and if I concede there are other  chances, for the most part I don't know what I am going to back until close to race time, even a good thing is not backable if it comes up too short, I don't have any computer ratings to assess what price a horse should be just my own opinion