Spring Racing

[Jugada]

They're a tool. Worked out correctly they're a very good tool, but still more is needed over and above, ie form.

Example: on my ratings The Cleaner's recent wins were 3L inferior to Fawkner's Turnbull win, and same to Adelaide's, about 2.5L inferior to Sacred Falls figure, ditto Criterion, Royal Descent. Therefore, he really wasn't much chance. Beaten 3.5L I think? Pretty accurate measurement, IMO.

On "My ratings" means they could be different from other people's ratings which = opinion

King me

 

[Main Man]

And if a horse is three or four deep without cover but is beaten by 4 or 5 lengths in the same race as one who blitzes the **** when having a gun run?

Time ratings can be flawed. A race pattern/shape can suit one horse one week but another the next. Using speed ratings as a be all and end all or saying 'run to Black Caviar standard' is insane. How often was Black Caviar extended to the line for one?

Sometimes it can be just as simple as using your peepers.

Im not saying Chatauqua can't or won't win, but I sure won't be diving into a short price on a horse based on times run against inferior opposition to what he will meet at his next start.

Again it is a starting point, I never said they are the be all and end all of race analysis but they are an accurate indication of a horses ability.

Factoring things such as how lucky a horse was in running is fraught with danger as that is opinion based, how can you definitively say that it cost a horse 2 lengths? You cannot, so I'd rather leave that out of my ratings then take it into account when assessing the horses chances next time.

I said he ran into Black Caviar territory, she ran to that mark or better every time she ran, he has run that level of rating once, so no he is not Black Caviar but that performance is approaching her consistent level.

Does that mean he will run to that level again, maybe not, does it say he is a horse of exceptional ability, yes, do I want to back him next start on the back of such a performance, yes I do, his first up win was indicative of his ability, the 2nd win confirmed it with me.

And by the way how do you know that Black Caviar would have run faster if she was pushed out? You don't.

There were a lot of people saying that Lanakn Rupee wouldn't win the Newmarket this year because he hadn't proved himself against the top horses like Samaready yet who was a proven WFA performer, based on my ratings he was already better than them, as a result of people taking him on because in their "opinion" he hadn't proven himself against the best I got a ridiculous price about him on the day.

 

[rideclutch]

There were a lot of people saying that Lanakn Rupee wouldn't win the Newmarket this year because he hadn't proved himself against the top horses like Samaready yet who was a proven WFA performer, based on my ratings he was already better than them, as a result of people taking him on because in their "opinion" he hadn't proven himself against the best I got a ridiculous price about him on the day.

There. That bolded bit. Your ratings.

Clearly lots of other people who do Speed ratings did not agree with you otherwise LR would've started a lot shorter. Now if speed ratings are a measurement and not opinion, how come you all couldn't arrive at the same numerical figure with LR?

 

[Duritz]

Of course different people will arrive at different ratings, different measurements. You could say that in the opinion of person A then horse X did rating Y, yes. In that respect it is an "opinion", but that's a clumsy term. It's more that ratings are a subjective measurement because they require subjective input of trackspeed, wind, etc, etc.

However, they're still a measurement, and the original point was that they are "no more valid than Joe Blow in the TAB". And that's where it's wrong. A good rating (none are perfect, of course) of a horse's performance is a massive headstart.

 

[Main Man]

There. That bolded bit. Your ratings.

Clearly lots of other people who do Speed ratings did not agree with you otherwise LR would've started a lot shorter. Now if speed ratings are a measurement and not opinion, how come you all couldn't arrive at the same numerical figure with LR?

What are you talking about, not everyone does speed ratings, those that do use them were very keen on him that day, it was other forms of ratings & opinion that gave us the price.

http://trb.com.au/blog/?p=347

An article on Chataqua's performance written by professional punter Daniel O'Sullivan who uses his speed ratings as the basis of his analysis.

 

[rideclutch]

What are you talking about, not everyone does speed ratings, those that do use them were very keen on him that day, it was other forms of and ratings that gave us the price.

http://trb.com.au/blog/?p=347

An article on Chataqua's performance written by professional punter Daniel O'Sullivan who uses his speed ratings as the basis of his analysis.

Yes but as Duritz has conceded above, they are subjective measurements, which is all I was arguing.

I have seen what you've posted in regards to LR and based on that (and my own judgement) I will be following you into Chatauqua. No problem with speed ratings whatsoever.

 

[rideclutch]

Of course different people will arrive at different ratings, different measurements. You could say that in the opinion of person A then horse X did rating Y, yes. In that respect it is an "opinion", but that's a clumsy term. It's more that ratings are a subjective measurement because they require subjective input of trackspeed, wind, etc, etc

This whole debate is kinda semantics, but ultimately if what YOU come up with as a raw figure based on sectionals, trackspeed etc. is different to Dan O'Sullivan or Main Man or anyone else, then to me that's a difference of opinion.

However, they're still a measurement, and the original point was that they are "no more valid than Joe Blow in the TAB". And that's where it's wrong. A good rating (none are perfect, of course) of a horse's performance is a massive headstart.

Totally fine with that.

 

[Main Man]

Yes but as Duritz has conceded above, they are subjective measurements, which is all I was arguing.

I have seen what you've posted in regards to LR and based on that (and my own judgement) I will be following you into Chatauqua. No problem with speed ratings whatsoever.

Not saying everyone is going to end up on the exact same number every time with speed ratings but more often than not they will be within a length of each other.

I use the same principles as Daniel O'Sullivan but I end up with more or less the same rating but with a different number as he allows 2 rating points per length, I allow 1 rating point per length.

I had Lankan Rupee running 106 in the Newmarket & 106.5 in the TJ, slightly different to Daniels but more or less the same mark, I had Chataqua running to 106.5 with his win last time.

Black Caviar had a career peak of 109.3 and generally ran between 106 and that peak mark.

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

Not saying everyone is going to end up on the exact same number every time with speed ratings but more often than not they will be within a length of each other.

I use the same principles as Daniel O'Sullivan but I end up with more or less the same rating but with a different number as he allows 2 rating points per length, I allow 1 rating point per length.

I had Lankan Rupee running 106 in the Newmarket & 106.5 in the TJ, slightly different to Daniels but more or less the same mark, I had Chataqua running to 106.5 with his win last time.

Black Caviar had a career peak of 109.3 and generally ran between 106 and that peak mark.

What about variance?

Such as a horse running better at another track? i.e.: LR is a much better horse away from MV. Or VA's sectional and benchmark splits/standards?

How do you factor in such things? Or is it just as simplistic as overall times no matter the course or race pattern/sectional splits?

Now i am actually enjoying this discussion, MM, i welcome your opinion, just as i hope you aren't as quick to dismiss others who have theirs, which was my initial problem with your original post.

 

[Main Man]

I don't factor that into my ratings but I will factor that in when assessing whether I will be having a bet on a particular horse at a particular track.

Speed ratings are based on bench marking a horses performance against historical standards, I don't factor in anything other than the accurate data that is put in front of me.

There was a school of thought that Lankan Rupee doesn't handle the Valley, well yes it is probably not his best track and his peak ratings have come at different tracks but I said on here before the race on Friday night that he had actually rated on a similar level to what he did in his last campaign, so in reality he was going okay and does handle the Valley, he just got beaten by some average rides by Newitt, Newitt rode him correctly on Friday night and he wins, albeit by a small margin.

Haven't done my figures from Friday night but looking at the raw data I don't think it is a particularly high rating race for a G1 sprint, I was expecting him to find 1 or 2 lengths on what he had done this time in but it appears as though he has run to a similar level, maybe that is because he is just not as good at the Valley or maybe it is because he is just 2 lengths below his best.

Will he peak at Flemington, maybe he will, I have two strong ratings for him there but if Chataqua runs to the level he did 3 weeks ago then Lanakn Rupee will have to run to his career peak to be winning, so do I want to back the horse that I'm hoping will find the improvement required or back to horse that has run to that level already this campaign? I want to be on Chataqua.

This campaign I have Chataqua running to 103 and 106.5, Lankan Rupee 102.9 & 102.2, as I said I was expecting improvement from him on Friday & not sure he has done that.

The way I do my analysis I want to be on Chataqua.

 

[terminators]

I don't factor that into my ratings but I will factor that in when assessing whether I will be having a bet on a particular horse at a particular track.

Speed ratings are based on bench marking a horses performance against historical standards, I don't factor in anything other than the accurate data that is put in front of me.

There was a school of thought that Lankan Rupee doesn't handle the Valley, well yes it is probably not his best track and his peak ratings have come at different tracks but I said on here before the race on Friday night that he had actually rated on a similar level to what he did in his last campaign, so in reality he was going okay and does handle the Valley, he just got beaten by some average rides by Newitt, Newitt rode him correctly on Friday night and he wins, albeit by a small margin.

Haven't done my figures from Friday night but looking at the raw data I don't think it is a particularly high rating race for a G1 sprint, I was expecting him to find 1 or 2 lengths on what he had done this time in but it appears as though he has run to a similar level, maybe that is because he is just not as good at the Valley or maybe it is because he is just 2 lengths below his best.

Time was slower than 2 restricted races on the night and last 400 was north of 24. So it will probably rate poorly. That said he did it in a Gp 1 at both ends and still held on which is rare.

Purely eyeball test he doesnt seem to be going as well but back at Flemington I think he'll stretch the grey

 

[yaco55]

3 lengths is a long way and ratings are still just a fancy opinion

I support Main Main in this argument. When we say within 3 lengths of a peak run, that always give you a chance in a race, when you take into account, bad luck, better runs in a race, racing pattern, horse having off day, and the fact that horses don't often run to their peak rating,

 

[Main Man]

Time was slower than 2 restricted races on the night and last 400 was north of 24. So it will probably rate poorly. That said he did it in a Gp 1 at both ends and still held on which is rare.

Purely eyeball test he doesnt seem to be going as well but back at Flemington I think he'll stretch the grey

On raw data he ran a length slower than Tawteen on the night and ran it 2 lengths quicker to the 600M, as I said I think it will rate very moderately with me for a G1 sprint, the blanket finish suggests as much.

He will likely improve at Flemington but I'm far from convinced he is capable of finding 3 lengths, there is every chance Chataqua could improve again given he was arguably in the worst part of the track last time and was eased down late.

Love the way he travels into it, they were running along at a reasonable pace last time and he cruised up to & then past them under a strangle hold, I'm expecting him to do much the same in the Darley sprint.

His jump out at Flemington on Friday was impressive.

 

[yaco55]

On raw data he ran a length slower than Tawteen on the night and ran it 2 lengths quicker to the 600M, as I said I think it will rate very moderately with me for a G1 sprint, the blanket finish suggests as much.

He will likely improve at Flemington but I'm far from convinced he is capable of finding 3 lengths, there is every chance Chataqua could improve again given he was arguably in the worst part of the track last time and was eased down late.

Love the way he travels into it, they were running along at a reasonable pace last time and he cruised up to & then past them under a strangle hold, I'm expecting him to do much the same in the Darley sprint.

His jump out at Flemington on Friday was impressive.

My only query about Chataqua is that it gets back in its races - Always the chance it will run into bad luck.

 

[Main Man]

My only query about Chataqua is that it gets back in its races - Always the chance it will run into bad luck.

Agree, exactly why I wouldn't have backed him on Friday night if he went there, however I don't share these concerns about him at Flemington down the straight, yes you can run into trouble but Dunn should be smart enough to sit and steer a clear path for it, if its going well enough then luck in running should not be an issue.

 

[year of the cat]

Interested to hear the early thoughts on the Coolmore from the learned ones on here. Looks like it will be cracking field if Sportsbet's early market is any guide.

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

Interested to hear the early thoughts on the Coolmore from the learned ones on here. Looks like it will be cracking field if Sportsbet's early market is any guide.

The obvious is Rich Enuff, but i dont like backing horses set for one race then going to the well again. Kuro the fresh one on the scene for me but won't be taking the poison $5, will get plenty better than that on Saturday if this field holds up.

 

[Viva la Mattner]

Interested to hear the early thoughts on the Coolmore from the learned ones on here. Looks like it will be cracking field if Sportsbet's early market is any guide.

purely for the fact I have been following it I will be on Earthquake

 

[year of the cat]

The obvious is Rich Enuff, but i dont like backing horses set for one race then going to the well again. Kuro the fresh one on the scene for me but won't be taking the poison $5, will get plenty better than that on Saturday if this field holds up.

The drop from 1600 back to 1200 a concern with Rich Enuff as well? What about Earthquake? Tough race....

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

The drop from 1600 back to 1200 a concern with Rich Enuff as well? What about Earthquake? Tough race....

1200 suits Rich Enuff much more than the 1600, dropping back wouldn't worry me, plenty of speed here though.

Earthquake is really struggling to get back to the top level again or maybe just isn't any better as a 3yo as some have mentioned. Taking a line through some form that we have seen, just beat Tawteen last start who prior to that was absolutely flogged by Eloping. Couldn't possibly entertain at the $7 on offer when Eloping is $13.

 

[Duritz]

FWIW I have Chautauqua going about 4L lower than BC's peak. She did her figure twice, on mine, and he's 4L below it. Still, that's pretty fast.

Oh, and that's a better figure than Lankan Rupee has ever done, on mine, by about 1.5L. And prior to Friday I have LR's figures this prep 2.5L below his best, and I don't expect him to have improved that on Friday.

 

[year of the cat]

1200 suits Rich Enuff much more than the 1600, dropping back wouldn't worry me, plenty of speed here though.

Earthquake is really struggling to get back to the top level again or maybe just isn't any better as a 3yo as some have mentioned. Taking a line through some form that we have seen, just beat Tawteen last start who prior to that was absolutely flogged by Eloping. Couldn't possibly entertain at the $7 on offer when Eloping is $13.

Cheers. Nice explanation.

 

[rideclutch]

FWIW I have Chautauqua going about 4L lower than BC's peak. She did her figure twice, on mine, and he's 4L below it. Still, that's pretty fast.

Oh, and that's a better figure than Lankan Rupee has ever done, on mine, by about 1.5L. And prior to Friday I have LR's figures this prep 2.5L below his best, and I don't expect him to have improved that on Friday.

Chatauqua could potentially go even faster too, hasn't exactly been flogged to the line previous 2.

 

[KardiniaPark]

Chatauqua could potentially go even faster too, hasn't exactly been flogged to the line previous 2.

A horse with that much momentum really isnt going to go any faster ridden out. (Not that it needs to!)

 

[rideclutch]

A horse with that much momentum really isnt going to go any faster ridden out. (Not that it needs to!)

Just watched a few of his replays and that turn of foot is just absurd. If there's one thing we can do, it's sprinters.