In this Discussion
- carey December 2013
- DamienWyer December 2013
- Darkhorse December 2013
- darkshines December 2013
- DarkTarget December 2013
- JayJay December 2013
- MailmanV2.0 December 2013
- RIO December 2013
- Rodent December 2013
- SPUDLEY December 2013
- TheDiva December 2013
- therealkramer December 2013
- trojanhorse December 2013
Who's Online
0 Members & 80 Non Members
the difference between moderate & slow
West Australian Racing
carey
6,424 posts
i thought i would check all to 2200m races i have times wise.
the stewards deemed that the pace was 'moderate' for race 2 yesterday =))
race 3 was crap too, but let us concentrate on r2.
by definition 'moderate' means average.
yesterday race 2 was run in the 'moderate' time of an official 145.26 , or, according to me, a 'walk in the park' time of 144.82
before yesterday the slowest 2200 metre time at ascot post september 2008 was 141.64 my way, or an official 141.99
that means r2 yesterday is an official 3.27 seconds slower than the previous slowest race for the previous 6 years odd.
but the pace was 'MODERATE', meaning average. =))
it is interesting that the 10 fastest times over 2200 at ascot, are generally a lot older than the 10 slowest times.
let's hypothethise why this could be so.
could the track be prepared differently now to day past?......according to my records that would be true, because my going figure is usually slower these days than it once was.
could the distance be different now to then?.......possible,because currently there is SO MUCH BULLSHIT going on with distance at some tracks as to be feasible.
could the riders be worse as a group, than they used to be??........don't know that answer.
could the riders now get away with much more than they once could??.....it's obvious that lots of things go unsaid & unpunished, but if it's actually worse i don't know, so that's a maybe.
could integrity have no knowledge of pace thus incapable of policing it??.......as they have continuously been found wanting there, that must be a yes.
i personally don't think stewards have any business saying how fast a leader should go if he can get away with it, and does not slam brakes on, but what they could and should do, is question those that are giving their mounts NO CHANCE, by being too far off that pace.
the stewards deemed that the pace was 'moderate' for race 2 yesterday =))
race 3 was crap too, but let us concentrate on r2.
by definition 'moderate' means average.
yesterday race 2 was run in the 'moderate' time of an official 145.26 , or, according to me, a 'walk in the park' time of 144.82
before yesterday the slowest 2200 metre time at ascot post september 2008 was 141.64 my way, or an official 141.99
that means r2 yesterday is an official 3.27 seconds slower than the previous slowest race for the previous 6 years odd.
but the pace was 'MODERATE', meaning average. =))
it is interesting that the 10 fastest times over 2200 at ascot, are generally a lot older than the 10 slowest times.
let's hypothethise why this could be so.
could the track be prepared differently now to day past?......according to my records that would be true, because my going figure is usually slower these days than it once was.
could the distance be different now to then?.......possible,because currently there is SO MUCH BULLSHIT going on with distance at some tracks as to be feasible.
could the riders be worse as a group, than they used to be??........don't know that answer.
could the riders now get away with much more than they once could??.....it's obvious that lots of things go unsaid & unpunished, but if it's actually worse i don't know, so that's a maybe.
could integrity have no knowledge of pace thus incapable of policing it??.......as they have continuously been found wanting there, that must be a yes.
i personally don't think stewards have any business saying how fast a leader should go if he can get away with it, and does not slam brakes on, but what they could and should do, is question those that are giving their mounts NO CHANCE, by being too far off that pace.
Comments
maybe i would make a good rider =))
SPUDLEY, carey, RIO likes this post.
as long as stewards say and do nothing, then it will continue, even if not so blatant.
meanwhile wa racing sinks further and further into the mire.
SPUDLEY likes this post.
SPUDLEY likes this post.
Carey I am new here I have a question how do u make any sense of time if u don't even know if the distances are correct I have always wondered about this?
but yes if it's called 1300 one week 1285 the next and then 1325 the next, it poses problems, if those distances were all the same in fact.
if the race is say 1300 normally but then it becomes 1310 because the rail is out maybe 3 metres, and the gates not moved forward to compensate then that too is ok, because it only requires a simple formula to adjust it back(and it's not time/1310*1300, that's too simplistic).
at the moment in wa there is nonsense happening, and so yes it does give problems.
all one can do is figure it best one can.
it annoys me that in wa you can't trust anything to be correct, and those members of the boy's club, don't give a stuff apparently.
that means everything has to be checked, but it's not always possible to figure it a exact as one would like.
time yes, distance no
for me though, i don't actually do time to worry about any one race, it's about time collectively, but the more inaccurate the time or distance then the more inaccurate things become.
but the odd one one now and again just gets smothered because of how much data i have.
and tracks are not uniform, so that will stuff it too
anyway, here are some times for distances at bunbury.
try your regression on them and see if it's any better.
they give an r2 of almost 1 so there is near prefect correlation.
i should also say regression played no part in finding those standard times.
it was an iterative process, using trial and error.
that race was so slow they actually ran backwards to the 600!
the average 3+ maiden will be run in a speed of 68(number does not matter only relationship with other numbers matter)
the average prime meeting 72+ will be run in a speed 82
that means there is 14 metres per 1000 metres difference in how fast they run on average.
race 2 last saturday was run in an overall speed of 40, thus 28 metres per 1000 slower than an average maiden is.
but when you break it down to the race before the 600 and after the 600 it becomes this in my terms.....
it was 3 until 600 when the average is 82
it was 81 for the last 600 when the average is 82, so it was about norm for the last 600.
that tells you that the field was crap at the distance, those that were back at the 600 would all have had to run last 600's that they would never have been able to run in their entire previous careers.
in other words they were given no chance.
i just did a quick check of jim'n'jim.
it actually ran the fastest 600 of its career in r2 on saturday, and was well beaten.
reale fury had never run faster either, except for 30/05/2102 but it was over 1200 not 2200!
it demonstrates two things, a few in that race had NO CHANCE the way they were ridden.
stewards need help where pace is concerned because they are in over their heads.
'moderate' indeed!
JayJay likes this post.
:-?
carey, Rodent, Thoroly_Bread likes this post.
zaheed = mailman.
as soon as you asked i knew.
i had already given you times(you can thank chooky raco for that!!)
why should you have expectation of getting for free, what others have paid many tens of thousands for?
ignoring that, i don't actually mind helping people, but on my terms only.
once somebody asks for things and offers nothing in return, then the switch is flicked to the off position.
maybe i would have just put them all on here one day, just because i can, but now that is not going to happen.
i actually quite like helping people, it must be my lower class upbringing!
but the people i help for free, don't actually ask for things for free, so i may be forthcoming to them.
ask and ye shall not receive!!!
TheFunkster likes this post.
it could be mother therasa for all i care.
it's the asking for things worth much money and offering nothing back, and it's not the first time it's happened.
especially from one who has accused me previously of dining on my own excrement! :-?
also i could give him all those times, and it would make not one iota of difference to his success or otherwise.
racing is much much more than just a set of standard times.
loco, RIO, TheFunkster likes this post.
So let me get this straight:
TheDiva, RIO likes this post.
racing is much much more than just a set of standard times.
not that it matters, because it's not sensible to use regression for times that way.
tracks are up and down and irregular, so one cant figure one distance from another with any degree of certainty.
if one wanted to go down that track you could just use some simple formula to find any time you liked.
for instance assuming you had a time for the bunbury track record at 1000.
i just found it.....58.09 and it's from 1989 which will mean it's somewhat dubious!.....
time = 58.09 * (distance/1000) ^ 1.095
....gives a time for any distance.
might be fine if everything is nice and regular.
it is a handy little formula for other things though......
all you need is data.....the more the better.
where can i send the invoice!
As for regression being a waste of time your words not mine used in the way u have put it thats rubbish y simple if a 1400m record breaks down to being run faster each 200m then the 1200m.And they are your track records then u cant use them simple regression will tell u that..If u want to go a step further u get years of data.Most of the time were they are out regression will show that up.just as fast to be very close to mark.
why didn't you just ask as mailman?
rather sneaky.
this was just taking the piss i take it....
"Funny enough they do look pretty good Carey i be interested to see what u had for belmont ascot and pinjarra and northam."
....you have got it all sussed, and you come on screaming every saturday because you're modest and don't want everybody knowing that you have the time conundrum figured. :^o
RIO likes this post.
so how about you putting all your regression found times up then!
you didn't mind asking me, so let's see how generous YOU ARE
Darkhorse, RIO likes this post.