SKY RATINGS - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK harm-plan harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



SKY RATINGS - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: SKY RATINGS  (Read 387 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2888
O.P. « 2021-Jun-04, 01:53 PM »
I find the Sky Ratings (with a bit of modification) quite useful for the TAB meetings

Anybody know,if and where Sky Ratings can be found for non-TAB's?

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 28398
« 2021-Jun-04, 08:23 PM Reply #1 »
Arthur what do you mean by a bit of modification?

Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2888
« 2021-Jun-05, 08:53 AM Reply #2 »
I convert the ratings to a market . . I got the method from this site I think; so far from my idea

The assumption is that the 100 pointer is the best horse in the race, and thus should be the top weight

So equate 100 = 60kg and let 80 = 50kg . . . . making every rating point = 0.5kg . . So 88 would equate to 54kg etc

Compare these conversions to the handicap-weight to find the weight advantage/ disadvantage

Use Don Scotts table of 'advantages to odds' to arrive at your market . .

Any suggestions/ improvements welcome . .


The maths needs a bit of a tune-up as the method tends to favour the lower weighted horses

Comes up with a few good priced winners . .



As regards Sky Ratings for non-TABS; I have contacted Sky and will post when I receive  reply
« Last Edit: 2021-Jun-05, 08:56 AM by arthur »

Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 7868
« 2021-Jun-05, 09:00 AM Reply #3 »
arthur,

Readiness on the day should make a difference as should signs of intent that todays performance day.... or not.

Fours

Offline wily ole dog

  • Group 1
  • User 218
  • Posts: 28398
« 2021-Jun-05, 09:08 AM Reply #4 »
Thanks Arthur.  :beer:
A lot of work but thatís why youíre successful

Offline nemisis

  • Group 2
  • User 2461
  • Posts: 1629
« 2021-Jun-05, 09:33 AM Reply #5 »
It's funny how different we interpret things.

I don't watch Sky but I always assumed the ratings were done on some crude computer work around speed and weight.
Track conditions could not have been fed into it.

Little story re my greyhound days.
I did notice my extremely fast greyhound sat on top of "sky ratings" by quite some distance one day.
Little did the computer know the enormous battle I was having with my dog's blood and kidneys after being "returned" to me by a top trainer. :what: :tears:

Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2888
« 2021-Jun-05, 11:09 AM Reply #6 »
arthur,

Readiness on the day should make a difference as should signs of intent that todays performance day.... or not.

Fours

'Banjo Paterson's Rule' = There is no better tip than to see the commission go on

When you go to the races at the non-Metro's and know most of the connections, it is not hard to be aware of stable confidence or lack thereof

It is amazing the number of favourites which stay solid or even shorten with the corps, while the poor old on course bookie is tearing his hair out because there is no money at all . . His only recourse is to lay them on Betfair

Such favourites of course seldom perform to 'market expectations' . .


Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7490
« 2021-Jun-05, 01:09 PM Reply #7 »
I convert the ratings to a market . . I got the method from this site I think; so far from my idea

The assumption is that the 100 pointer is the best horse in the race, and thus should be the top weight

So equate 100 = 60kg and let 80 = 50kg . . . . making every rating point = 0.5kg . . So 88 would equate to 54kg etc

Compare these conversions to the handicap-weight to find the weight advantage/ disadvantage

Use Don Scotts table of 'advantages to odds' to arrive at your market . .

Any suggestions/ improvements welcome . .

Be careful what you wish for!

Scott's table of Advantages to Odds is such a hideous mathematical obscenity that it deserves to be a centrepiece at MONA.

Not that I've bothered perfecting this on horses or dogs, but the correct way is to historically transform a rating into a performance distribution.

Then use a Monte Carlo simulation to determine the probabilities for a race.

While my bet is Arthur won't suddenly abandon his way which has served him well for millennia, if anyone's interested in pursuing this then start up a new thread, and I'll respond when I'm able.


Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2888
« 2021-Jun-05, 01:46 PM Reply #8 »
Well your last sentence is certainly the case . .

Will watch for the 'new thread' . .

Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2888
« 2021-Jun-07, 11:07 AM Reply #9 »
Sky inform that they only do ratings for meetings covered by Sky . .

Hardly a surprise

Anybody know of other source for non-TAB ratings?

Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 7868
« 2021-Jun-07, 11:39 AM Reply #10 »
Arthur,

Racing and Sports cover some of them.

Click on the More blue button.

Fours

Offline arthur

  • Group 2
  • User 446
  • Posts: 2888
« 2021-Jun-07, 06:25 PM Reply #11 »
 Thx 4's

R&S cover all the ones I need

Offline bascoe

  • Open
  • User 2568
  • Posts: 152
« 2021-Jun-08, 03:56 PM Reply #12 »
JFC - I am very interested in pursuing your views on transforming ratings into a performance distribution

Happy to work though some examples.

As an aside our company business - SPick - provided Greyhound ratings to SKY for about 15 years, before they wanted to consolidate their data supply from one source.
Our predictions for early speed were a very blunt tool due to the format supply request from Sky: F(ast), M(edium), S(low)

bascoe


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap