Cookie Policy: This web site uses cookies. By using this site you agree to our cookie policy.
Disclaimer: By posting on this web site it is accepted that you have agreed to the T&C. This is an information forum, and it is just that information, all views are of the individual poster and not that of the site owner. Please DO NOT publish copyrighted material without the owners permission. If you copy news or articles include a link back to the original site. Threads/Posts may be deleted on request. No other links without permission.
BEFORE POSTING A QUESTION: Your question has probably been asked before, so please use the
SEARCH FUNCTION, as we grow tired of answering the same question again and again.
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Betting Strategy: Simon Rowlands on time analysis, part three (subtitled: When the go

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    22,861
    Rep Power
    124

    Post Betting Strategy: Simon Rowlands on time analysis, part three (subtitled: When the go

    In the third of his series of articles on time and going analysis, Simon Rowlands explains a complex process to get you on the road to value.

    The following article is a continuation of those about time and going analysis from the previous two weeks and should be viewed in conjunction with them.

    The importance of standard times must be obvious from what has come previously. Unfortunately, deriving accurate standard times is a complex process, not easily explained, though there are possible shortcuts.

    What you need is a sizeable body of past results for winners' times at various courses and distances, which should then be adjusted in reverse for the various factors - such as age, weight, ability and going - that will have affected those times. Provided you have a big enough sample of these normalised times, you should be able to derive meaningful standard times from them.

    At this juncture one crucial characteristic of times should be pointed out, namely that they cannot be expected to be normally distributed. It is far easier to run slowly than to run fast, and races are a test of which horse gets from A to B first rather than which horse records the fastest possible time.

    The upshot is nearly always a skewed distribution, and your methodology should allow for this. For instance, average times and record times are inappropriate for calculating standard times, and there is plenty of evidence of the folly of using them.

    Sounds difficult? Well, one of the shortcuts possible is to take a set of existing standard times - Timeform's are the best I know of and can be back-engineered from their timefigures with a little effort, though others are more openly available - and to apply them to past results. Anomalies, if they exist, soon become apparent, though it is again a lengthy process.

    The importance of the going allowance must also be obvious from what has come previously. To a degree, this is necessarily a subjective matter on account of the small samples (usually only six or seven races) available. Having at least one winner running a time in line with its form is a convention that is likely to be right more often than it is wrong (due to the proportion of truly run races). But sectionals can help to identify when exceptions have occurred.

    It is important when choosing a going allowance to consider the possibility of there having been different types of going on different parts of the course. Unfortunately, different going on the straight course than the round course will mean even smaller samples and more subjectivity in deciding going allowances and timefigures than would otherwise have been the case.

    It may also be unclear where precisely the different goings apply, though guidance can be sought from going maps as provided by TurfTrax and from going stick readings.

    If the divide seems to be clear, such as between the straight course and the round course, then that should be reflected in the going allowances chosen. In particular, the going allowance for races started on the round course should factor in what proportion of the race took place on the straight course.

    For instance, if the correct going allowance for the straight course appears to be 80, and that for the round course 120, then the going allowance for a 10f race started on the round course in which the final 4f takes place in the straight is: ((120*6)+(80*4))/10, which is 104.

    For a 16f race under the same circumstances the calculation is ((120*12) + (80*4))/16, which is 110.

    This may all seem complicated and, in places, suspiciously subjective. But with the help of spreadsheets and with practice it becomes both easy to grasp and quite intuitive. Practice may not make perfect in this case, but it does move things in the right direction.

    As I mentioned, when writing this series of articles on time analysis was first put to me, interacting with results in a structured and methodical way has benefits over and above the immediate figures that are produced. I know of no better way to get on top of horseracing results than to rate times, or form, or ideally both.

    It is time to go forth and multiply (and divide, subtract, add, sum, average, and the rest of it...).

    * * *

    Readers with long memories may recall I took an interest in Betfair's First Season Sire market (found under "Horseracing", "Breeding & Bloodstock") this time last year. I proved right to oppose One Cool Cat, but wrong to side with Exceed And Excel, though the latter came up not all that far short.

    I am going to stick with my reasoning from 12 months ago and throw my lot in with a couple of freshmen who have got plenty of named two-year-olds already and a certain amount of speed, precocity, or arguably both. This year's fancies are Avonbridge (two placed runners already) and Footstepsinthesand.

    If nothing else, it should be a fairly cheap way of taking an interest in the action on a daily basis over the next seven months or so!



    More...



  2. #2

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Somersetshire
    Posts
    4,275
    Rep Power
    51
    Quality post - tavm!

    PS: GS can now be followed on Twitter as @themastarata


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Poker Analysis part 10 (turbo 10 pays 5 STT - 3rd)
    By mathare in forum Horse Racing Discussion, Daily Waffle, Q&A
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 20th July 2008, 21:44
  2. Poker Analysis part 8 (turbo 10 pays 5 STT - 3rd)
    By mathare in forum Horse Racing Discussion, Daily Waffle, Q&A
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 19th July 2008, 20:25
  3. Poker Analysis part 7 (turbo 10 pays 5 STT - 9th)
    By mathare in forum Horse Racing Discussion, Daily Waffle, Q&A
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 19th July 2008, 19:20
  4. Poker Analysis part 6 (turbo 10 pays 5 STT - 7th)
    By mathare in forum Horse Racing Discussion, Daily Waffle, Q&A
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18th July 2008, 23:05
  5. Poker Analysis part 5 (turbo 10 pays 5 STT - 6th)
    By mathare in forum Horse Racing Discussion, Daily Waffle, Q&A
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18th July 2008, 22:07

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Free Tips | Betting Advice | UK Horse Racing Tips | Free Bets | Staking Advice | Horse Racing Systems | Horse Racing Lays | Laying System | UK Horse Racing Tips | lay betting