Betting Strategy: Simon Rowlands on time analysis, part one

Betting Strategy / Simon Rowlands / 24 March 2009 / 15 Comments

Simon Rowlands is going deep, very deep, into the complex but rewarding world of calculating timefigures in racing. This is part one...

There have been a few requests on betting.betfair.com for guidance on calculating timefigures and going allowances, which, with a new season just around the corner, I provide for turf Flat racing here.

The subject is a complicated one that requires more explanation and examples than are suitable for a one-off weekly blog. As a result, the guidelines will be spread over a few weeks and include spreadsheet examples for those wishing to have a crack at producing their own figures.

First, though, a bit of theory.

Several factors affect the time that a horse records and can be expected to record, including the distance of the race, the course, the weight carried, the slowing effect of the surface and the horse's ability. A standard time, adjusted for these factors and therefore directly comparable between different courses and trips, should be used as a benchmark. One of the chief issues thereafter is to put the difference between this standard time and a horse's actual time into its proper context.

Do not listen to people who maintain that times are best left as "pure". That misses the point entirely and is usually an excuse for leaving out some vital component of information. A time in itself is meaningless: 120 sec would be abysmal for 5f but is usually good for 10f, for instance. Times assume significance only when put into context, and that means adjusting the raw time for the circumstances in which that time was recorded, among other things.

One component that some choose to leave out is the effect of weight, which can be difficult to pin down. "Difficult to pin down" is not the same, however, as saying that weight has no effect. In this, I am with Sir Isaac Newton and the laws of the universe, rather than with those who take the masking effects of other factors in horseracing as evidence that weight is inconsequential.

The effect of weight is also intrinsic to horseracing analysis because it is the means by which differences in ability are offset for handicapping purposes. There are theoretical alternatives - such as starting horses at time intervals or from staggered starts - but, for what I hope are obvious reasons, they remain impractical. We are stuck with weight as a component, whether we like it or not.

The weights that horses carry are measured precisely in pounds, the apparent abilities of horses are also often expressed in pounds (ratings), so if you can express time accurately in pounds you have more or less cracked the problem.

You could, if you were so minded, express your findings in a number of other ways -as time or as lengths, for instance, though both involve a different set of assumptions - but weight itself should not be ignored.

Longer distances, softer going and more demanding tracks lead to slower times; less weight carried and greater ability lead to faster times. A vital part of the following is the effort taken to normalise for these effects, from which an allowance for the apparent effect of external factors like going, wind and precipitation can be deduced.

Some of the information from this example, taken from Dewhurst day at Newmarket in 2008, is self-explanatory. The shaded areas require manual input, while the equations in the non-shaded areas should be copied down for the other cells in that column. These are the calculations and inputs that may be unclear:

* Cell D5 is standard time (my own), of which more at a later date.

* Cell E5 = C5-D5 (time above/below standard time)

* Cell F5 = =E5*(1400-(900/B5))/(AVERAGE(C5, D5)), converts time above/below standard time into pounds. This is a slight simplification of an equation which fits pounds per length to the margins between horses in standardised conditions.

* Cell G5 is the weight the horse carried less than weight-for-age. For example, a fully mature horse carrying 9-0 would be given as +14 (14 lb less than 10-0/wfa). There is an argument for ignoring weight-for-age (though not weight) in time calculations, but ability ratings would have to be adjusted accordingly. If you do use wfa, do not use the official scale, which is hopelessly inaccurate in places.

* Cell H5 is the form assessment of the performance in question, expressed in pounds. Whether you use your own or valid alternatives (Timeform's are shown in this example), you should use the same ratings consistently. Some people use so-called "class pars", often expressed as times, but this way of addressing the influence that ability has on times is crude unless adjusted substantially. If you recognise that ability is an important component then you should recognise that the more accurately you assess ability the better.

* Cell I5 = SUM (F5:H5) normalises for time compared to standard time, weight carried and ability.

* Cell J5 = going allowance. Start with the minimum value of Column I (=MIN(I5:I11), but consider the possibility of higher or lower going allowances which will in turn result in higher or lower timefigures in general. In particular, scrutinise the performances of horses whose resulting timefigures are good and see if they could be/should be higher or lower. The use of the minimum value in Column I as a starting point is based on the likelihood that at least one of the winners on a card will have run in a truly run race and recorded a time in keeping with its ability. This assumption holds true in the majority of cases - sectional analysis supports this - but becomes more questionable the smaller the sample you deal with (such as when using different going allowances on different parts of the course). The going allowance is essentially an expression, in pounds, of the level of ability that a horse would need to show to equal standard time, carrying wfa in a truly run race. The lower the going allowance figure, the quicker are the conditions.

* Cell K5 = H5+J5-I5 is the winner's timefigure deduced from the preceding information.

* Cell L5 = K5-H5 is the amount in pounds by which the timefigure is better or worse than could be expected given the ability of the horse in question.

Next week, I will demonstrate how timefigures for beaten horses can be calculated.

Comments (15)

1. Charlie | 25 March 2009

   Hi Simon

   Just to let know

   Cell F5 Formula is written as (C5, D5) when it should be (C5:D5)

   
   Look forward to the next article

   Cheers

2. Ian | 25 March 2009

   Hi Simon
   I've enjoyed your introduction to calculating timefigures and look forward to future instalments, however, I do feel a bit disappointed. I understand that the ability of the horses obviously has to be accounted for but surely the results of this method are far too heavily influenced by the "ability ratings" to achieve a true time figure?

3. Simon Rowlands | 25 March 2009

   Hi Charlie.

   Good spot, though you will find that the instruction I gave works for two (rather than more) values, which is the case here.

   Hi Ian.

   Glad you have enjoyed it thus far. Timefigures do not have to be dictated to entirely by ability ratings - I acknowledged this with the comments in describing the J5 Cell - but a horse's ability to run a fast time WILL be limited by its athletic ability: that is a simple fact. Even those who advocate using "class pars" are acknowledging this, albeit in a more basic way.

   If you do not place recorded times in the context of the times that can be expected of horses with those abilities you have no way of establishing a meaningful going allowance. You could over-rate or under-rate an entire card to a sizeable degree, which has indeed happened frequently with people who ignore this vital component in horseracing performance.

   You could, for instance, rate a workmanlike winner of an ordinary handicap at Goodwood the equivalent of a Group performer, as I have seen happen, when the likelihood of that being the case is exceedingly remote.

   There are other instances where time analysis can shed a great deal of light on areas where form analysis may get it wrong.

   The instance I particularly recall is the 2-y-o maiden at Sandown in 2002 won by Rimrod from Oasis Dream. A form handicapper (which is what I was at the time myself) could easily have rated that anywhere between 80 and 100, and was likely to have rated it somewhere near the middle of that range.

   But the time was outstanding and suggested strongly that a positive view - a very positive view - was justified. Events showed that it indeed was: the winner ended up being rated 115 by Timeform and the second was one of the best sprinters of recent years.

   I think there is a greater danger of the level of time ratings being misleadingly dictated by the assumption that at least one of the races has been truly run on a card, a method which many other time analysts use but which I treat with a pinch of salt. It usually holds true, but not always, and I use analysis of overall times in conjunction with analysis of sectionals to guide me wherever possible.

   It is a false dichotomy to regard time analysis and form analysis as two entirely separate disciplines. Time and form are inextricably linked (let's not forget that margins between horses in the UK are a direct conversion of time, besides anything else), and one requires an appreciation of the other in order to work properly.

   Simon

4. Ian | 26 March 2009

   Thanks for the reply Simon. I see what you mean, I prefer to use previous time ratings of the first few finishers in each race in order to factor in ability, while being aware that previous time ratings may not represent the definitive ability of each horse. What is your opinion on second per furlong going allowances?

5. Ian | 27 March 2009

   One further point. I understand your reasoning that time and form are inextricably linked and I know that not every race is truly run, however, when I've looked at Timeform timefigures, which I think use a similar method, there is regularly a disproportionate amount of runners running a timefigure as good as their ability rating, even at the high class meetings.

   As I've acknowledged, I know not all races are truly run, sometimes a whole racecard will contain falsely run races but it can't be right that so many runners, even over their entire career, never run a timefigure to match their ability ratings.

   The example you give of Oasis Dream seems to happen all too rarely, very few horses run Timeform timefigures better than their ability ratings, even by smaller margins. You might not agree but it seems to me that this method of using time ratings is mainly to substantiate the ability ratings, which makes them less valuable in their own right.

6. Simon Rowlands | 27 March 2009

   Hi Ian.

   Sorry for the delay in responding, but I have been away for a while.

   Seconds-per-furlong going allowances achieve the same job as pounds-based going allowances but express the concept in a different way.

   As mentioned above, "...You could, if you were so minded, express your findings in a number of other ways - as time or as lengths, for instance, though both involve a different set of assumptions - but weight itself should not be ignored."

   A time-per-distance going allowance will place the raw time in the context of the apparent slowing effect of the surface and a weight-based going allowance does precisely that as well.

   The choice is yours, in other words. However, at some point you will have to convert the former into a weight measure or ignore weight altogether. The latter is not an option, and you might as well avoid the former by dealing in weight throughout, in my view.

   I am not in a position to comment officially and definitively on how Timeform compile their timefigures. The methodology is not the same as expounded above, but there is, as you would expect, plenty of common ground.

   As we both acknowledge, athletic ability limits the time in which a horse can run a race. But our knowledge of a horse's athletic ability can sometimes best be defined by that very process: by the time in which a horse runs a race.

   I suspect that one reason why Timeform form ratings and time ratings coincide so often is not so much because the time ratings are mimicking the form ratings but because the form ratings are being guided by the time ratings. Rightly so, in my view.

   If, in the instance cited above, I had not bothered to consider the comparative time of the Rimrod/Oasis Dream race and just rated the race on form-handicapping principles, I would have rated it in the 80s on race standards and about 90 on breeding standards. But I rated it higher because of the persuasive evidence of the time. If I had not then the time rating would indeed have exceeded the form rating to a sizeable degree.

   Both form and time can help in identifying the ability a horse possesses, and it is wrong therefore to favour one to the exclusion of the other.

   The spreadsheet example above was, by necessity, somewhat simplified. I recommend a more nuanced approach to deciding upon a going allowance than one which assumes at least one race has been truly run, and I allow time ratings to exceed form ratings more often than do some others.

   But I allow time ratings to exceed form ratings to what I consider to be a realistic degree rather than to ignore form altogether and risk having time ratings that are divorced from reality.

   Simon Rowlands

7. Ian | 27 March 2009

   Ok, thanks very much for explaining all that. I'll leave you in peace now, until the next instalment!

8. Charlie | 27 March 2009

   
   You should be on racing tv explaining this subject Simon in my opinion

   
   

9. Simon Rowlands | 28 March 2009

   I didn't think it was quite THAT bad, Charlie!

   More seriously, I have never really seen myself as a natural for tv work, and anyone who witnessed my few attempts on RUK a couple of years back is likely to agree. I am also not sure that time analysis in this detail would translate to the screen at all well.

   Broadcasting is a very different discipline to writing, which is what I am comfortable with. In particular, you need to have instant recall and facts and figures on the tip of your tongue, as well as to be able to present those facts and figures both coherently and informatively/entertainingly.

   Too much Stella over the years and the more recent habit of looking most things up on a computer rather than carting it around in my noggin seems to have dulled my ability in this area.

   Radio is similar, but you can at least refer to copious notes on air (the rustling sound you may hear in the background is not always just another packet of crisps being devoured).

   I had a lot of respect for many of the people on racing tv before I had a go at it, and I have even more respect for them now. The likes of Nick Luck, Graham Cunningham, Richard Hoiles, Gary O'Brien and Lydia Hislop (to name but a few) are tremendous assets to broadcasting on the sport in my view.

   Unfortunately, people seem to regard such individuals as "fair game" when they go on telly - as distant and as unlikely to be aware of hurtful remarks as a Piers Morgan or a Jade Goody - rather than as people closely connected to the sport who are trying to present it (and themselves, admittedly) in as good a light as possible.

   A thick skin seems to be nearly as much of a requirement of broadcasting as an in-depth knowledge of the subject matter and articulacy. That, as much as questionable editorial values, is why we have some of the second-raters (fill your own names in here...) on our tellies that we do.

   Still, if your comment was meant to be a compliment, rather than an invitation for me to relive my personal hell in front of the cameras, then thank you very much!

   Simon

10. Charlie | 28 March 2009

    Hi Simon

    It was both a compliment and a suggestion

    Something like this does not have to be done live, so you should probably be able to refer to all the notes you need

    US handicapper/owner Jeff Siegel did a very good series called Handicapping 101 and you could be the next Jeff Siegel :)

    Cheers

11. Simon Rowlands | 28 March 2009

    As it happens, RUK have just stated that they intend doing a "guide to handicapping" on Monday. So perhaps I was wrong, and doing that station a disservice, to suggest that discussion of matters like these may not translate to television.

    I just hope that they acknowledge that handicapping (in the UK sense of the word) needs to be a lot more sophisticated than guessing which horse "ran to form" and then basing the assessment of the whole race around that assumption.

    Believe it or not, that is what a prominent pundit on the channel once claimed!

    Simon

12. Charlie | 29 March 2009

    Simon

    I listen to pundits all time on tv, i have read and read articles by them all time

    
    Only a small percent offer anything of value, the rest imo, would receive their P45's

13. Clement | 05 February 2010

    I was trying to learn your analysis technique in Part One & Part Two. However I was unable to read the pictures under Joeyboy.jpg and Joey_Dizzeye.jpg due to unknown reason. Could you kindly please email the two pictures to me? Best regards.

14. James | 17 June 2010

    Hi Simon

    I have really enjoyed this article and found it very enlightening. Saying that i am a little confused as to how you come to the figure in cell G5 11. I can see Stimulation was in receipt of 2lbs that day against older horses but can't seem to get my head around why you have adjusted his time by 11lbs.

    Sorry that i'm being a bit of a dullard but i'd really appreciate it if you could walk me through how you came to that number.

    Thanks in advance,

    James

15. Simon Rowlands | 17 June 2010

    Hi James.

    Thanks for the kind words, and I am pleased to find that this series is still provoking comment more than a year on!

    I probably did not explain myself very well in the above on the issue of weight adjustment compared to weight for age. In the case of Stimulation, he carried 13 lb less than 10-00, so the adjustment would be 13 if he was a fully mature horse. However, as a 3-y-o I allow him 2 lb for weight for age, and the adjustment is therefore only 11.

    Put it another way, Stimulation carried 11 lb less than 9-12, which is what I use for wfa for a 3-y-o running at 7f in October. If he had been a fully mature horse - a 4-y-o or older - he would have been carrying 13 lb less than the wfa of 10-00 for mature horses.

    Hope that is clearer.

    Simon