British 2yo Racing - Issues with 'Race Standardisation' and 2yo Race Ratings

BRITISH 2YO RACING

Discussion 05_001_1

Desperate Measures - 'Race Standardisation' and Rating 2yo Maiden Races

Page Index :

INTRODUCTION
PROBLEMS WITH 2yo RACING RATINGS
AVAILABLE IMPROVEMENTS TO ASSESSING RATINGS

1. INTRODUCTION

2yo racing, of necessity, involves a high percentage of races involving horses who are unraced or lightly raced. This presents a problem for the Official and other handicappers because they depend on form analysis, assessing interlocking racecourse performances and counting lengths and pounds. The handicappers have two main rating relationships that they need to address :-

'Relative 2yo handicap' = trying to place each 2yo in an individual season on the correct handicap mark relative to the other 2yos in that season.
'Absolute 2yo handicap' = placing the relative 2yo handicap for the season on the performance scale for all 2yos that have ever run. This is glorified 'pinning the tail on the donkey' with the Official Handicapper taking the 'relative handicap' concocted for each season and pinning it somewhere on the 'absolute' scale. The Official Handicapper has to do the first part of this placement when the Nursery races start in July. Initially the Nurseries will start without the Official Ratings (OR) being made public, so that the absolute handicap placement is hidden until some of the handicap racing has taken place. The second part of the process is allocating the ratings given to the small number high class runners in each season as part of the International Ratings after the 2yo turf season close.

So, if you are used to using a body of existing form to rate horses how can you approach 2yo races? The main approach uses some form of 'race standardisation'. This assumes that races of particular types, at particular courses, will attract runners of the same standard year in and year out.

This approach is a very blunt tool for assessing individual races and leads to many races being over-rated. Most races are over-rated, rather than under-rated, because the 'race standard' makes the assumption that the race in question will be average or slightly better than normal. Most individual race performances will be below this average because of inferior horses, slowly run races, inexperience, etc. but will be rated at the expected standard. Only rarely will superior runners (of which there are only a small percentage anyway) exceed the 'standard' with an actual performance.

This over-rating of races leads to a large number of horses with the wrong relative and absolute ratings and causes a variety of problems for people interested in accurately assessing 2yo performances. A number of these problems are highlighted in the next section.

It is not though, all 'bad news', of course. If there are a large number of 2yos with the wrong relative and absolute ratings then there are plenty of opportunities to use this information to get an edge in betting on 2yo races.

Back to Top of Page

2. PROBLEMS WITH 2yo RACING RATINGS

The issues described in the previous section lead to a variety of problems for those interested in accurately assessing 2yo performances, whether for betting or for other interests. The problems include :-

Over-rating horses on debut, then note on each subsequent run that they performed better on debut. For example, XxxxxFxrm (sic), have been giving ludicrously high ratings to first time out runners for more than 20 years, then do not appear to correct the ratings in hindsight. Instead using the "has not produced the form of his debut" type formula in later runner summaries.
Over-rating slowly run races. During a season you can find many examples where because the winner has to be rated 80+ by race standardisation the midfield runners who finish close-up get rated too highly. Examples will show up where whole fields in maidens end up rated 65+ or 70+ and this outcome is tremendously unlikely in a real field of mixed ability and experience.
The ratings given make it impossible to do sensible investigations into how much 2yos improve from their debut to second, and later, runs. Also, if you want to compare different trainer's methods you will get the wrong impressions using standard ratings.
The official handicapper's role can seem to be ensuring that no horse gets in on a low weighting in their relative handicap. The collateral damage of ludicrously over-rated horses presumably is not their problem as such. If hundreds of horses get over-rated to ensure a few 'blots' on the handicap do not occur then the worst that can happen is that trainers will moan at them - and they must be impervious to that to be able to do the job!
The official handicapper's ratings become a standard that other public handicapper's tend to work towards, whether right or wrong. For example, B2yoR has respect for the Racing Post 2yo runners handicapper who is one of the best at trying to assign ratings based on actual performance rather than expected standards. Later in the season his ratings will tend to close up towards the official ratings because they have a privileged position in racing (because they set the relative handicap) and therefore set the 'expectations'. Some 2yo runner handicappers set out to try to match the official ratings from the outset.
The use of race standardisation shows up in another prevalent problem, over-rating performances in Black-Type races. The assumption is that Group 1 to 3 and Listed races ought to attract runners of a certain calibre each year and so always produce the same level of performance. This leads to two problems:

The top rank of horses often over-rated and it is not possible to directly relate their 2yo rating to how they may compete at in similar races at 3yo. A 2yo 'Group 1 winner' actually represents a wide variety of abilities over different seasons. They are not all rateable between 118-123 and rank everything else downwards from there (this is pinning the relative handicap in the wrong place on the absolute handicap on many occasions).
Horses consistently gain their highest rating(s) in a season when they run in Black-Type races. In many cases the 'improved' form is not backed up by an improved time rating. Look through any form listing of a 2yos performances and you will have no difficulty finding this pattern. In short, the ratings are wrong and those horses did not suddenly improve but are being given inflated ratings because of the race they ran in. Many handicappers use some form of symbol to note 'suspect form, be wary of this rating' when a runner seems to have improved notably in a major race. It is as if they know that the rating they have given to the race is wrong but would prefer a bodge to actually giving the race a realistic, true value. This habit is perpetuated by pundits who use phrases such as "appeared to show improved form when 5th in Listed race last time, ought to win this maiden comfortably on that". After the horse has finished 3rd in the maiden as would be expected by his overall level of form they will then say "disappointing, did not show his form..." when the horse has shown the same level of form in both the Listed race and the subsequent maiden. The problem is with the perception of what performance is required to win many black-type 2yo races.

The ratings muddy the waters when trying to assess whether the racing ability of the 2yo population is changing over a period. If the underlying assumption is that you place the top horses in each season at ratings you think a winner of Group races should have, then you will obscure any real, overall changes of the ability of the population of 2yos.

So, there are a wide range of problems with trying to assess and use existing available ratings. The next section suggests how to use other information and ratings to improve your knowledge of 2yos performances.

Back to Top of Page

3. AVAILABLE IMPROVEMENTS TO ASSESSING RATINGS

Experience gained as B2yoR has worked with different publicly available 2yo ratings has led to the view that different approaches were needed to analyse 2yo races and performances. The use of two other information sources are suggested as the key to analysing 2yo races :

Time figures, i.e. using ratings based on the times of the races, as adjusted for the prevailing conditions;
Paddock Review, the use of ratings of fields of 2yos as physical specimens with descriptions of the expected aptitudes of those horses.

There are problems with producing time figures which are outside the scope of this short article but a good set of timefigures are of far more use with 2yo races than plain form ratings. One problem with time figures is that they will under-rate some 2yo races which are slowly run. This problem is lessened in many 2yo races because they are run over sprint distances, often on straight tracks and often with a solid pace.

However the use of the second information source (Paddock Review) in combination with time figures can reduce even further any problem with the use of time figures underrating 2yos. Paddock Review information, where it is available, tends not to be that detailed. This issue is covered at greater length in the section of this site dedicated to Paddock Review.

B2yoR produces its own Paddock Review ratings wherever possible and will make this information available in the 2005 Season section of this site. B2yoR uses paddock review ratings, marker horses and time figures to produce its own 2yo ratings for use on this site.

Back to Top of Page