Smartgambler
Pro-Punter

Go Back   OZmium Sports Betting and Horse Racing Forums > Public Forums > Horse Race Betting Systems
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark all topics as read

To advertise on these
forums, e-mail us.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 24th June 2003, 09:43 AM
La Mer La Mer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 578
Default

[quote]
And such figures seem to mock the concept of sustained pace. Consistently going slower hardly appears "sustained".
*******************************

La Mer: You make some good points jfc, but just a few comments about sustained pace.

Basically I agree with your observations about that the slower sectionals (other than the first as you mentioned) tend to come later in the race, with the last 200m sectional usually being the second slowest of any race.

But in regard to ‘sustainability’ then it is all relative – relative to the amount of energy usage –so that if high amounts of energy is used early, i.e. the pace is on, then the amount of sustainability later in the race are relative to the level of the early pace and energy usage, so that if high amounts of energy is used early and a horse maintains a run, then its sustainability can be judged by the amount of slowing down it does in the latter parts of the race.

As an example of what I mean, the following is an extract of an email I wrote to a few punting friends back on 14 Oct 2002 re Choisir:

“After the running of the Caulfield Guineas on Saturday, all the talk/discussion has been about how Bel Esprit was probably a good thing beaten. Well, it didn't get the best of runs from the turn to half way down the straight and Oliver suffered what often occurs with get-back horses but IMHO it wasn't one of his best rides.

But was it a good thing beaten?? Maybe, but I also think that there was another horse in that race that definitely was a good thing beaten - Choisir. I have little doubt that had Glen Boss ridden a more patient ride then neither the winner (Helenus) nor Bel Esprit would have got close and Choisir would have won by two to three lengths.


These are the early sectionals that Choisir cut out: 9.67s (first 170m) then followed by 10.70s (suicidal so early in a race over 1600m); 11.57s; 11.91s. Credit to the horse that Choisir was still able to run the last 400m in two sub 12-second sectionals - 11.61s and 11.99s.

Should have won - but when a horse cuts out a 10.70 second sectional over a mile, it makes the task not only hard but just about impossible.

By comparison, (at the same meeting) given that Lonhro/Sunline ran within 1/5th of the track record in the Caulfield Stakes - Sunline ran the first 170m in 12.32s with her fastest 200m sectional being 11.35s (three lengths slower than Choisir's) and her's came much later in the race between the 1000m and the 800m marks with her last two 200m sectionals run in 11.65s and 12.15s, both slower than Choisir's last two respective 200m sectionals. Lonhro's fastest sectional was run in 11.34s, again half a second slower than the big colts.

To get into spectrum just how fast a 200m sectional is, Spinning Hill who from dead set last in the 1000m race, ran a last 200m sectional 10.74s, a mere 4/100ths of a second faster than what Choisir did between the 1400m to 1200m mark. Outside of the shorter sprint races of 1200m/1000m, Choisir ran the fastest 200m sectional at the meeting and the only one (other than for Great Glen's in the same race over the same 200m sectional), under 11 seconds.

When you consider that Saturday's Caulfield Guineas was the fastest ever run in its 100 year plus history and the time run was as a result of the early sectionals carved out by Choisir, it was it a good thing beaten and IMO is a future multiple Group 1 winner.”

Chosir’s sectionals got slower later in the race, but also demonstrated sustainability by being able to run his last 400m in 23.6s, more so given his 10.70s early 200m sectional.

So when the sectionals are observed, they also have to be interpreted and to merely state that the slower late times ‘mock the concept of sustained pace’ somewhat misses the point.




[ This Message was edited by: La Mer on 2003-06-24 15:17 ]
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 24th June 2003, 12:37 PM
osulldj osulldj is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 166
Default

I concur totally La Mer. The assessment of sections and in particular how fast or slow they go late, must be made relative to the how fast or slow they went early.

At the simplest level there is a clear relationship between the speed of the first section and speed of the last section, hence overall time. This is something that also changes over various distance ranges due to the balance of early & late distance.

As an example, following is an extract of information from my own database. It shows the average first section at difference pace intervals according to my classificaions, and the corresponding average final section and overal time. The numbers are my rating numbers...the higher the faster.

For races up to 1250m...within a defined class range (data over last 6 years).
















































Avg S1

Avg S2

Avg RR

69

120

95

80

114

98

90

109

100

100

103

101

110

98

104

120

89

104

130

82

105



The pattern couldn't be much clearer. On average the faster the early speed, the slower the final section and faster the overall time.

Understanding these relationships and having the data automatically appear as part my form for every run where a sectional was recorded is very powerful.



[ This Message was edited by: osulldj on 2003-06-24 13:41 ]

[ This Message was edited by: osulldj on 2003-06-24 13:42 ]
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 24th June 2003, 01:44 PM
jfc jfc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Sydney
Posts: 402
Default

Lucky I stipulated "sprints".

And that the race in question was NOT September since my records don't go back that far.

But at first glance for this October 12 event:

Despite nearly leading throughout Choisir's section rankings read: ~ 1, 1, 5, 16, 16, 16, 5, 8

Running last in 3 sections surely must complicate the decision as to whether Choisir deserves a sustained pace credit.

I also wonder whether Choisir should run (or be backed at) >1200m.

As an aside Great Glen's figures seem around as impressive as Choisir's, but he hasn't raced since.


I also stand by my earlier observation (for SPRINTS). If you ignore distractions such as hills, bends and losers who don't pace themselves properly, then:

Tppically each running section is slower than its predecessor.

Anyone can freely check this for themselves with Sportscolour winner figures for a few straight sprints.


Of course it may not look that way if you include the "3 second start up tax" and only have a 600m sectional reading.


Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 24th June 2003, 02:43 PM
La Mer La Mer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 578
Default

[quote]
jfc: Despite nearly leading throughout Choisir's section rankings read: ~ 1, 1, 5, 16, 16, 16, 5, 8

Running last in 3 sections surely must complicate the decision as to whether Choisir deserves a sustained pace credit.

I also wonder whether Choisir should run (or be backed at) >1200m.
****************************

La Mer: The sectional position rankings enhance my views on sustainability, as despite Chosir going a sub 11s early sectional, he still managed to cut out the following sectionasl throughout the race (excluding the first 200m);

10.70s; 11.57s; 11.91s; 12.12; 12.18; 11.61s and 11.99s,

clearly demonstrating his ability to sustain his run, as his last two sectionals were faster than the preceding two, with his sectional between the 400m to the 200m being his third fastest of the race,being a mere 0.04s (4/100ths) of a second than what he achieved between the 1200m and 1000m marks.

The fact that he was able to quicken up again in the latter stages of the race surely indicates his sustained run, while the fact other runners having had an easier run in transit dropped off their speed as Chosir between the 400m to the 200m marks ranked 5th in this particular secitonal positional ranking.


Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 24th June 2003, 06:43 PM
Lucky Lucky is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 3
Default

DO you guys take into account the type of track when assessing your times ie the times won at esk or ipswich horse most be sometimes below a Sunshine coast effort due to track dimensions.

I have a friend who is a full time pro and makes about $30k p.a profit from turnover over between 80-100k using standard times.He has only been doing it about 2 years but does very well from it

Is there some where i can buy the standard or average times from on tracks rated good and fast??
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 25th June 2003, 07:58 AM
osulldj osulldj is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 166
Default

Hi lucky,

Yes, times have to always be considered relative to the track in question and this is done through establishing standards, in my case for each track and distance in Australia.

It's not only important to understand the difference in tracks within your standard, but also he difference in the average class of race there. Your standards need to be adjusted to reflect that.

It's only through doing this that you can rightfully and directly compare one time to another at different tracks.

I'm not aware that you can buy data that represents what I have described above. If your friend makes an income from such an approach why don't you just get / buy his standards?


Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 25th June 2003, 08:11 PM
DR RON DR RON is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: victoria
Posts: 562
Default

It has become quite obvious from all your discussions that to gain anything at all from times, a lot of records need to be kept, something that l just dont have the time to do. Too busy making a living!
Back to the drawing board l suppose!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 26th June 2003, 11:24 AM
osulldj osulldj is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 166
Default

Dr Ron,

It's a catch 22 situation. The information is necessary to win...but having the information involves a cost....which I need to be winning to provide for.

To save time you need to spend the money. I spend absolutely no time to maintain my spped information and form for every meeting in Australia. It's all done through programming, form providers etc.

However it requires an upfront investment and significant cost to maintain, which is provided for out of winnings. The catch is the leap of faith to start...to make the investment to set up the right systems and processes with the confidence that it will be repaid when you are betting and winning the right amounts.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 26th June 2003, 08:12 PM
Lucky Lucky is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 3
Default

Thanks

The chat won't sell the times he uses .
Big O -- u mentioned about the large up front cost, Where do i start if i have the cash. I believ times are a very big part however don't want 2 subsribe to a service without doing my own work

ANY HELP???
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 27th June 2003, 07:48 AM
osulldj osulldj is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 166
Default

Hi Lucky,

Before even worrying about where to go...you need to know what you want to do? The principles and process for developing / maintaining your information.

If this is something that really interests you, I am happy to help and answer any questions you may have. Go to http://www.form-pro.com.au (non commercial site) and email me privately from there.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump



All times are GMT +10. The time now is 09:29 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2008 OZmium Pty. Ltd. All rights reserved . ACN 091184655