I've said quite a bit about time and this follows the same thread. I have hopefully shown to everyone that my figures are better than the official speed figures and from the results shown this year that a horse that is top of my figures - but not in the top few of the official figures - are quite often a bigger price than they should be. This is what my figures are trying to exploit!
I am confident that any horse that is top of my figures is the fastest horse in the race under the conditions of the race. Obviously that doesn't mean they will all win mainly because they are animals and not machines. However, if you're selecting the fastest horse in the race -every race - then it is sensible to believe that it will find a fair percentage of winners.
I have shown that it has been profitable 37% of the time so far. I can see no reason why it should change.
The times at a grade one course are more likely to be reliable than those recorded at grade four and it's quite simply because better horses have run regularly at the better grade courses so the times are more robust. But what about a grade four course where the general standard is lower, surely the times would be lowered if the good class horses ran there? Clearly some allowance must be used at the lower-grade courses.
Courses are generally put into four grades. To be honest, I think the grade one courses do have a good spread of talented horses running over most distances. When it comes to the other three grades the times are not proven. I have not completed a whole season of study of each course to see if the class of the horses is equal to the grade of the course. It could quite easily be that a course does have a fair proportion of good horses running there regularly. But are those good horses spread evenly over all distances? If not you could have a course that is graded as two and for longer races it deserves its grade [two rating] but for sprints I may well be a lower grade and another angle of attack that isn't covered in general by most speed ratings.
It has taken a long time to get to the point where I've actually regraded courses using only sprints and I have altered about a third of the courses [some over both sprint distances and others just over one of the sprint distances].
To summarise, I have done away with the useless idea of working with Median times [average times at each course] because blatantly it doesn't work. I have a sliding scale which shows what any class of horse should run to time-wise.
The problem of going allowance is still to be resolved. For this reason I only analyse races where the going in good or firmer and doing all-weather racing. I've looked to solve the chasm between the discrepancies between grade one courses and grade four. In addition, I've amended some courses that were in the wrong grade when it comes to sprint racing.
This post should give you an idea of how I work. Yes a lot of maths and statistics but so far its shown to be quite successful. A strike rate of 37% with both wins and places but I have not used the place side of things when I have profits of £3334 to £10 level stakes after forty-five weeks.
This is the last thread based around my figures and I hope they show just how deeply I have studied sprint racing to achieve a much better ratings method. There is a lot more I could write but as you will hopefully accept I cannot reveal exactly how I arrive at my figures but “touch wood” so far they have been quite successful.
Good luck in whatever you do and I do hope you have enjoyed reading my ramblings.