Finally, it seems, time handicapping has become fashionable. Form guides such as Sportsman, now include times to two decimal places in their form and sectional times are another feature. The Wizard includes in it’s selections horses whose times indicate a winning chance. Both Rem Plante in his book Australian Horse Racing and Don Scott in his books, ridicule those of us who dare to take note of times as a factor in the handicapping of horses.
There are some fair arguments against using time as a factor. There is the fact that at different times of the year the texture and coverage of grass on the different tracks will vary. There is the factor of wind and it’s direction and to be honest you will never know exactly when any of these factors are affecting your selections unless you can actually be there as each race is run and this, of course, is impossible.
In using time as a factor I am not totally relying on just this one factor of the many factors that affect the accurate handicapping of racehorses. It is, however, the main factor. What we look for when we review the form of any particular horse is the ability to run at a fast pace. Once we have established that animal’s greatest ability (i.e. fastest time) we can then look at the probability that it is now capable of repeating that ability in the current race after taking into account all the other factors in the race.
Compare this to the more common method of handicapping, the weight and class method. In this method each Class of race is given a certain assessment.
Class/weight handicapping doesn’t end these. Each horse is assessed for the Class of race it has contested and then that form is adjusted against the Class of the current race. Say for example the class weight factor for the last race was 53kgs. It is possible that today’s race is also the same class of race yet it is clear from the list of acceptors that this race is an above average field. You then have to assess the Class of this race in order to accurately handicap the field. This method constantly introduces subjective decisions that have to be made. I might assess a particular race as being 2kgs. above the normal grading. You, on the other hand, may assess the race as being 1kg. under the Class norm. Who is right? According to the legendary Pittsburg Phil the man who can correctly assess Class can have all the money he wants and he only needs a dollar to start.
What he is saying is that the ability to correctly assess the Class of racehorses is extremely rare. If I said to you Let’s Elope was a Class hose in the middle of 1991 then that would be my opinion and I would be welcome to it. If I made the same statement after Let’s Elope had won the Caulfield Cup, The McKinnon, The Melbourne Cup and then gone on to win the Australian Cup against the best horses in the land without getting much out of a working gallop, you would be able to retort "Well that’s obvious."
You can see my point. The Class / Weight handicapping method falls down because everybody’s opinions about the same horses at a certain point of time will differ. When we use set factors, however, the only time we will differ is when we disagree about whether or not our selection is suited in today’s race. In other words, will our selection handle the distance of today’s race. Or perhaps the horse failed last start and we differ on the reasons.
By using all the factors in this book, all of which are tested and proven over years of actual betting and winning, not only be me, but by the thousand of punter who now use my method, you will find yourself consistently standing in the payout queue. Now isn’t that something to look forward to?
The actual time the average racehorse takes to run his own length is well accepting as being .15 of a second. Whilst this would be the ideal time to allot when making our assessments of racetimes, it doesn’t take into account the factors that exist in a race, especially at the finish. If we applied the time factor quite strictly we would still be right a lot of the time, particularly in the case of a race where none of the assessments were based on any of the horses actually winning their race. In a lot of the races won, the winner deserves a bonus.
You will invariably note, that in spite of stewards warnings, most jockeys will stop riding their mounts just as soon as they have the race won. This applies equally to horses who are leading and horses who have finished on and hit the front. The best method I have found to reward winning horses is to use .2 seconds as the time factor. I emphasize that pint.
.2 seconds = 1 length
It is not so common for hoses to be eased down amongst horse who have failed to win, unless they are well back and have no chance to improve their position sufficiently to win prizemoney. The horses who finish amongst the placing are generally trying their heart out and either can’t catch up or are starting to plod or paddle as the commentators now like to say.
I think you would agree that if the method works you should use it. The method works. Let’s look at the downside of the argument using our tow sample horses. We will assume that Lord Chris has been beaten two lengths and Royal Liege has been beaten three lengths. The difference between the tow at .15 secs = 1 length is
.45 secs - .30 secs = .15 secs.
Whilst .60 secs - .40 secs = .20 secs.
is the result of using .2 = 1 length. When we re-evaluate the formula we still arrive at the same conclusion i.e. that Lord Chris finished 1 length in front of Royal Liege. The real difference will show up much later when we start pricing our selections and we will always arrive at the result that rewards those horses that finished in front of, or ran faster than, the other horses.
So how does it all work out in practice? I’ll make these examples as simple as possible before we get in to the real stuff later on when all the various factors are taken into account. If the original Racing Pays received any criticism at all it was that some of the examples were too complex even though they were actual case studies. I realise that most previous readers already know how to do this so feel free to skip to the next chapter.
In a 1200 metre race Lord Chris is beaten 2.5’ lengths in a time of 1.11.2, whilst in another race over 1200 metres Royal Liege won his race in 1.11.6. Assuming both horses are now in the same race with the same weight, what are their adjusted times?
Royal Liege 1.11.6 No adjustment.
Lord Chris 1.11.2 + 2.5 X .20 = 5.0 = 1.11.2 + 5 =
1.11.7
Clearly, Royal Liege should win by ½ a length.
Now let’s look at the same example to see how the formula rewards winners.
Royal Liege 1.11.6 No adjustment
Lord Chris 1.11.2 + 2.5 X .15 = .375 = 1.11.2 + .375 =
1.11.575 lets say 1.11.6
In this example I have used the actual finishing times of both horses and arrived at the conclusion that Lord Chris would maybe just beat Royal Liege in a tight finish. No account has been taken of the fact that Royal Liege’s performance was almost certainly better.
The Race Club’s official handicapper would almost certainly have penalised Royal Liege’s winning effort and made no adjustment to Lord Chris. Horses who have won their last start win a substantially greater number of races than horses who were placed last start. This one statistic on it’s own reveals the need to add a bonus to winning horses. The .2 seconds = 1 length is the one to use.
Let’s look at another example. Lord Chris wins his 1400 metre race in 1.24.30. Royal Liege is bean by ½ a length in 1.23.80. The adjusted times will now be..
Lord Chris 1.24.30 No adjustment
Royal Liege 1.23.80 + ½ X .20 = .10 = 1.23.80 + .10 =
1.23.90
Clearly Royal Liege should win by two lengths as
1.24.30 –
1.23.90
= .40 and .40 / .20 = 2
I’ll cover more examples later, but first let’s look at the different tracks and how times vary between them.
In Racing Pays I declared that Melbourne was a difficult city for time ratings because of the uniquely different track layouts of the major metropolitan tracks. Attempts have been made over the years to inter-relate the four tracks but with few positive results.
By 1990 I believed I had enough information from my own observations to publish my own track variants and a substantial profit from the past year’s ratings proved most of my variants to be accurate. I first published the Melbourne variants in Race Winning Strategy in January 1991. This current publication supercedes that one, of course, even though there is no change to the variants.
Once again, I used the form of consistent horses to look for and relate the various tracks to one another. From time to time I recheck the Time Factors for all tracks although it is not always so easy to find those ultra-consistent horses one needs.
The different track layouts mean that jockeys have to adopt different riding tactics for each course. At Moonee Valley, for example, the rider that holds up his mount waiting for a run will rarely be rewarded. More often that not he will be forced to race very wide and cover lots of extra ground. The pace is always on from the outset and consequently the times run here are not indicative of the times most horses can run elsewhere. It is not uncommon for a horse to be known as a Moonee Valley specialist. They may have a very high consistency rate at the Valley but mostly fail elsewhere. Good horses are generally not disadvantaged by Moonee Valley, and it is my experience that if your horse has a good record at other tracks and can hold it’s position on the pace, there is no reason why it cannot match it’s best performances.
Sandown is another story. There are a great number of Sandown specialists. The majority of these, however, are horses that race well back in the field and storm home up the hill in the testing Sandown straight. Few hoses have the ability to lead all the way home at Sandown. Of the horses that were headed in the straight and yet still managed to kick on I have only seen the odd one or two that managed to win.. Caution is always warranted at Sandown, but in contrast to Moonee Valley, you will find that a Sandown winner will often repeat at other Melbourne tracks.
Flemington is a track that suits the racing style of most horses. A good from runner can win here as will a good finisher. The times run at Flemington are nearly always indicative of the times that can be run elsewhere. That good consistent galloper Blue Boss is a good example. His times at Flemington relate almost perfectly with his time in the 1992 Newcastle Newmarket which he won after overcoming difficulties.
One Flemington distance, the straight six, does produce specialists. I recall Grandiose, past his prime now of course, who had a near perfect record down the Flemington straight course yet could win nowhere else. Over the years there have been many other. By and large though, you will find that Flemington will not stop good horses from winning. A rider can place his horse to advantage here no matter what his racing style.
Caulfield is an interesting track. Most of the distances produce comparable track times, although the 1600 metre journey is sometimes run slowly the introduction of a track variant is unjustified by the results. Fortunately, there is only a small number of races run at this distance.
The 2000 metre course is different again. There is no track variant here as the times reproduced at other tracks indicate that the fast times recorded at this distance are often repeated elsewhere. The difficulty is that no form guide that I know of publishes the exact distance run.. The only time that 2000 metres is run is when the false rail is out 9 metres. When the false rail is not in use the exact distance is 1984 metres. The variance is just over 1 second between the two distances so I suggest that you keep a record of the actual distance raced to overcome the about 200 metres that is listed in your form guide.
For the record. The correct distances are.
False Rail Normal 1984 metres
3.0 metres out 1989 metres
4.5 metres out 1992 metres
6.0 metres out 1995 metres
9.0 metres out 2000 metres
There are a number of country tracks where no time variants can be worked out. Time handicappers are often deceived by times that appear sensational, yet are regularly produced even in maiden class. I list here some of the tracks (by no means complete) where you can ignore times as a guide. Fortunately, you won’t be caught very often with horses from these tracks in the Metropolitan fields.
Yarra Glen, Gawler, Nowra, Queanbeyan, Quirindi, and Beaudesert, Yeppoon and other are renowned for producing fast times that cannot be duplicated elsewhere. The time handicapper concentrates on races which are not clouded by horse whose times cannot be related to the remainder of the field.