Standard Times

[Ron]

We all know that times aren't always relevant, there are numerous other factors to take into account, and there are many explanations to account for slow/fast times

However I still believe that a horse who has won impressively in a fast time has actually proven more than one who wins impressively in a slow time (all other things being as equal as one can ascertain). Without mentioning any names (would rather talk in general terms), some horses after spread-eagling the opposition in very slow times are hyped up to be the best thing since xxxxx but when they come up against horses that can run faster times, they come unstuck

A starting point for me therefore is to have a quick look at the times of races relative to standard times at the same course on the same day and same conditions

However, one thing I find difficult is gauging the relative values of standard times at different tracks. For example it is obvious that standard times at Grade 1 tracks are bound to be faster than at lesser tracks, simply because better horses run at Grade 1 tracks. It would be interesting to have some way of comparing the value of standard times at different tracks. So, for example, If a horse ran 2 seconds faster than standard at Ascot, how much faster than standard would a horse have to run at (let's say) Plumpton for it to be considered a relatively similar performance?

Obviously times are much less important in NH than on the flat but even so the principal is the same in that if one horse has consistently run faster than another it could indicate something, or at least lead one to look more closely at the relative performances, especially with the aid of videos

 

[NassauBoard]

Morning Ron,

I think we've discussed this subject quite a few times on here, and I think my answer has to be split into the different forms of the sport -

NH Racing - I don't think standard times are particularly important, given how varied the going, rail placements, fences/hurdle placements, and many other variables are. However what I do think is important is the likely pace of the race that you are looking at. Take the Cheltenham festival, which we are very likely to see races being run at a good pace, over all trips, and I think we the punters often overlook horses who have been running (placed/unplaced) in slowly run races in the winter for those with the 1s beside their names. Perhaps those horses who didn't win are better suited to an end to end gallop, and can reverse places in the bigger races that have more competitive fields and a faster pace?

How do we pick out these horses? That is a really tough question, I often look for form in races that have had contested pace, and in my book the best way of doing that is by watching the races back and noting if the pace looked honest throughout. ATR have started doing sectionals for jumps racing, and this could be used to see if races have been run at a good pace or not (not something I've looked at in detail).

Flat racing - I think the pace of the race is more important than in NH. I do think comparing times here can give you an edge, but again I think its more complicated than looking at standard times. If you think a race is going to be run at no pace, I'd be looking for horses who can run the final 3 furlongs at quick times, and that might be horses who have been running in fast run races and not getting home in recent runs. Again I think watching races and using judgement (and times) to see if races were run to suit the horses and the likely pace of the race you are looking at.

All Weather - I think this is the easiest for looking at sectionals. The US racing scene has shown us that sectionals are an important factor when considering races on the same surface or same track. Here I think is where punters can get most value out of timings and its something that ATR are doing a lot of good work on. Again for me its also about the pace of the race as much as pure times.

In summary, I think Standard Times are an outdated thing that punters are probably correct at ignoring, they provide a very basic comparison for a race, but everyone can do more analysis themselves by either timing the races themselves for furlong splits, or use the great work of ATR and the like to get speed differences for the races considered.

 

[Bustino74]

With the now universal usage of walk in starts for NH their times worry me. Some races races must be nearly 50 yards longer.

 

[stick]

With the now universal usage of walk in starts for NH their times worry me. Some races races must be nearly 50 yards longer.

Factor in moving the rails to save better ground and it really does become a nonsense.
It can only really ever be viewed as a "plus point" when reviewing form.

 

[Ron]

Thanks for the comments. All very valid points. I'm wondering though if, being aware of these factors, and if after making some generous allowances, it still doesn't account for the difference in times, there could still be an element of worth in the standard times (or maybe record the times of selected races and use our own "standard times" for various conditions)

As regards the overlooking of horses who haven't won in slowly run races but might be better suited by an end to end gallop, I think I would be looking to see if they had any form at all in strongly run races

If you know a race will be slowly run, then the fast final sectionals are invaluable as mentioned by Nass. However, I wouldn't be too keen on relying on how a race was going to be run; but it does sound like a very good idea to bet in running when you can see it is being slowly run. I like that idea

Personally, putting aside in race betting, I would rather bet on races where there is good prize money and decent size field where there is likely to be a good gallop because that eliminates to a large extent horses that can only produce a fast finish in slowly run races. I would rather trust a horse that can find another gear in a fast run race than one who has only proved it can find another gear in a slowly run race

I agree that the AW is the easiest because the tracks are very similar. Whereas on turf you get flat galloping tracks that suit some more than others, likewise sharp tracks and undulating tracks; although that can sometimes give you an advantage, knowing which form lines to ignore for example

I also think that if a horse is full of running in heavy ground and produces a notably fast time compared to other races at the same meeting, there is a horse that can't be ignored in similar conditions, particularly if it has some poor form on faster ground to get/keep its handicap down