1: Time of the race.

2:  Distance.

3:  Going.

4:  Class of race (Group 2, Class 4 etc.).

5:  Course configuration.

6:  Horse type (small, close coupled, sharp, long striding galloper etc).

For the time of the race, we take the Racing Post Standard times. But instead of just using them as a basis of time run over distance on any given track, we assess them to gain insight into the speed configuration of each distance on a course rather than into the general configuration of the whole course. For example, everyone would agree that Goodwood is a sharp track suited to the sharp, handy type of horse. And everyone would agree that Ascot is a demanding track that is suited to the long striding galloper. Yet the standard time for Goodwood’s round 7f course is virtually the same as Ascot’s straight 7f. I also think everyone would agreethat while the sharp, handy type is capable of running to form on Ascot’s straight 7f, it would be more difficult for a long striding galloper to handle the gradients of Goodwood. The main reason the times are so similar on two dissimilar tracks is that Ascot’s straight 7f is downhill for the first furlong or so. The configuration of each 7f course is very different.

As an aside, one little known quirk of Ascot is the fact thataccording to standard times, horses run faster per furlong in 2m races than they do in 1m2f races. And a quirk of Goodwood standard times is that horses run faster per furlong over 2m than they do over 1m4f.  These are speed figure errors-in-waiting for all except the most adept speed raters. The quirks are not only down to the configurations of the distances but also are down to the classes of horse that generally run over those distances.

An important point to make about assessing the final race time is that we do it differently from most speed raters. Many discard the fastest and the slowest race of the day (with reference to standard times) then work out each race on the average of the remaining races. This discounts the possibility of three or more slowly paced races. In very general terms,, we take the fastest time of the day on both the straight and round courses, calculate the speed figures expected of the race class  and adjust to get a final figure.It is from this final figure that we calculate the remaining races.

Like the handicaps the race contested on the day is the one we are interested in assessing. Unlike the handicaps, the speed figure takes no account of a horse’s rivals in the race.The figures take account only of time with reference to the track, the going,the course configuration, the distance, the horse type and the class of race.The finalised figure is the one that includes all these factors.

Naturally, with horses that have little form in the book – 2-Y-O, maidens, Novice hurdlers and chasers etc.– the assessment will unavoidably be an educated guess until a horse has run three or four times. For those switching codes from hurdles to chases and vice versa, they will have a speed figure assessed as if they were running in the same race code.

There is no database because, like the handicaps, we take into account only the race being run on the day at the track, on the going and over the distance. Past figures thus have no relevance to the today’s race.

Relationship to handicaps 

The handicaps are always and will always be the focus of TowerForm. We have added the speed ratings because many subscribers have emailed us about including them in the service. We did not want to add them if they were a long way inferior to the handicaps. Over the past few month’s we have managed to produce speed ratings of sufficient quality to supplement the handicaps.

As many of you know, we consider speed when compiling the handicaps. But this is a general approach.The speed ratings are more detailed and specific than the speed taken into account for the handicaps and thus bear no real relationship to the handicaps.

We have added the speed ratings simply as a supplement to show the relative speed capabilities of ahorse. The handicaps will always outperform the speed ratings. TowerForm handicaps always outperform any known speed ratings. The handicaps gain an average 50% top two strike rate and a regular 60% plus of the top three ratings. The pure speed ratings we have seen only come within 5% or 10% of these figures. So the assumption that speed ratings are more accurate than handicap ratings is a fallacy. Nonetheless, speed ratings can give a valuable insight into any horse’s chance.

Combining the ratings.

Because both the handicaps and the speed ratings are assessed on different levels, the combining of the two figures is not recommended. No doubt, it will succeed in some cases, but not enough cases for us to be comfortable having subscribers do this. If we discover an accurate way to bring the speed ratings figures in line with the handicaps, then it may one day be feasible to combine. But until then we recommend you do not base your betting on combining the two sets of ratings.

Scale of speed rating versus scale of handicaps.

We are working on a way toget the speed rating figures to relate as closely as possible to the handicapratings to offer a direct comparison. But this is not currently an important issue to us because the speed ratings are not intended to be a comparable service to the handicaps. As said earlier the speed ratings are simply intended to be a guide to the relative speed of a horse.

However, it does not follow that we regard the speed ratings as a useless addition to the handicaps. As with the handicaps, we are constantly working to improve the speed ratings.Currently we estimate that the strike rate of the top three is easily capable of improvement. We aim to get at least a regular 60% strike rate for the top three.

As I have said in my emails to people, I will never claim winners from both sets of ratings as if they were from a single service (except to point out the combined percentages of the top three of each set of ratings). I will quote winners from each service – with the handicaps expected always to be the premier and best service.

The best way to use the speed ratings.

or

When would it be best to use the speed ratings.

It may be too early to answer this question. But it is always worth seriously considering all horses that are top three in both sets of ratings – as evidenced below. But a good area for large priced each way bets are the speed ratings top rated that are low in the handicap ratings. To mention just two recent examples, there was Run For Ede’s which was top rated on speed but lowly rated in the handicap and which won at 40/1, and Meglala which won at 12/1.

Another thing you might like to note are the sprinters (5f & 6f) that are in the top four in the speed ratings and are subject to a gamble. In fact, any speed rated top four subject to a gamble should be very seriously considered.

Sometimes a horse is top rated both on the handicap and on the speed ratings. We aim to achieve a 50% strike rate for these horses and a workable profit over time. In the meantime, you might mainly prefer to consider non-handicaps when both are top rated. But remember, it is early days and we are constantly moving to improve both the handicaps and the speed ratings.

We intend both services to produce a regular combined percentage of 65% to 75% in the top three rated of both services. That may sound a bold aim, but it is achievable (it was achieved with ease on Monday May 4 (76%) and Tuesday May 5 (70% - 83% afternoon) thisweek). We will not achieve that standard every day because the nature of racing just will not allow it.  But it will hopefully be achievable on most days of the week (i.e. at least three four days a week on average – a figure we intend to improve upon over time).

By adding speed to form, we are now in direct competition with the likes of the Racing Post (Racing PostRatings and Topspeed ), and Timeform. While we cannot offer the full services of those two organisations, we do intend to have the best combination of formand speed ratings available – better than both the above-mentioned organisations. We think we are already there with the handicaps, but we intend to get there soon with the speed ratings.

If you have other specific questions to ask about either the handicaps, the speed ratings, or the format of both sets of ratings, please email us and we will add answers to the emails we have received so far.

---