Inform Racing has been providing Speed Ratings online since 2003 and it has grown over time more than I ever expected it too. But how to believe in speed ratings and to know they are accurate is something I did wonder myself from the outset.
When I began compiling my speed ratings, initially for myself, it was a laborious task and took hours to calculate and add results to my early database.
Quite often I considered packing it all in due to the intensity and demand of the work involved, however one thing kept me going and that was that I started finding and backing winners by simply using my speed ratings.
Not too long after this I had a piece of software developed that automatically worked out the rest of the fields speed ratings, once I had calculated the winners rating and this saved a huge amount of time.
With the ratings still compiled manually by me every day, it is still a task to ensure the ratings are as accurate as can be, but one that is now second nature and very enjoyable too, given the feedback I have receive on a regular basis.
Proving their accuracy.
Quite often I get asked if the speed ratings really do work and how they can be proven to be accurate. People want to know they can believe in speed ratings and I can understand this.
One way I think of showing this is to point people towards the ratings and the M+A column in particular. The M+A column shows the addition of the Master rating (best rating from the last 12 months) and the Avg rating, (the average of the last three ratings).
This provides an excellent all round, long term and recent calculated rating. One that many of the Inform Racing systems are based on and that gets a lot of feedback from subscribers.
Going by the starting price.
If you look at a race, more so a non handicap race, and see an odds on or short priced favourite, it is very likely that this horse will be top rated, or very often clear top rated, in the M+A column.
This doesn’t mean we only highlight short priced favourite horses, but when a horse is thought to have a far better chance of winning a race due to the short price, we are in alignment with the best of the form and to me, this is a good an indication of how accurate the ratings are.
If the majority of short priced horses had poor speed ratings, I think you would ask questions and wonder why. Would you agree?
With handicap races, there is much more form to puzzle over regarding weight carried and handicap mark etc.. and so the M+A column will not highlight so many favourites in these races.
Don’t forget however, that this column does produce a consistent strike rate for both handicaps and non handicaps, of better than 50% for the top 3 rated.
Example results from the last 5 days.
Here are the results from all non handicap races from the last five days, showing the top 3 ratings from the M+A column, the finishing position and starting price.
Some races only paid on two places but I have shown horses that came third to show the number that ran close as well as those that won.
As you will see, the majority of horses that are top rated and well clear of the second best rated horse, started at odds on.
Wednesday
Carlisle:
1.50 – 151 Lost 5/4, 150 Won 7/4, 137 Lost 25/1
2.50 – 159 Won 2/1, 153 2nd 11/10, 142 Lost 11/4
Chelmsford:
2.30 – 132 Won 4/5, 126 3rd 10/1, 116 Lost 66/1
3.30 – 174 Won 11/4, 169 Lost 9/2, 166 3rd 11/8
Kempton:
6.50 – 148 Lost 33/1, 146 2nd 7/2, 142 Won 4/7
Ludlow:
140 – 157 Won 1/4, 130 Lost 66/1, 125 Lost 14/1
2.10 – 177 Won 1/3, 156 Lost 4/1, 152 Lost 25/1
3.40 – 169 Won 2/5, 136 2nd 7/2, 134 3rd 20/1
4.40 – 158 3rd 5/1, 136 Won 11/4, 129 Lost 33/1
Tuesday
Newcastle:
4.10 – 137 Won 2/1, 124 Lost 7/2, 122 Lost 66/1
Hereford:
3.15 – 157 2nd 4/5, 155 Won 7/2, 140 Lost 6/1
4.50 – 145 Lost 11/2, 144 Won 5/6
Market Rasen:
1.50 – 151 Won 1/4, 131 Lost 20/1, 126, 2nd 7/2
2.20 – 145 Won 2/5, 133 Lost 9/2, 107 Lost 28/1
2.50 – 170 3rd 7/2, 162 Won 9/4, 154 PU 5/2
Monday
Wolverhampton:
3.20 – 141 Lost 6/5, 139 2nd 11/1, 137 Won 5/2
Sedgefield:
3.05 – 143 Won 2/13, 104 2nd 5/1, 69 PU 20/1
Sunday
Musselburgh:
1.40 – 164 2nd 10/3, 161 Won 5/1, 142 3rd 6/1
2.10 – 156 2nd 4/1, 141 Won 4/9, 138 3rd 9/2
2.40 – 170 2nd 10/11, 165 Won 7/4, 164 3rd 13/2
3.40 – 164 Lost 5/6, 154 Won 10/3, 152 2nd 5/2
4.40 – 154 Lost 22/1, 144 2nd 4/6, 134 Won 10/1
Taunton:
1.50 – 172 Won 4/7, 152 2nd 13/8, 142 Lost 50/1
Saturday
Lingfield:
2.00 – 179 Lost 8/1, 176 Lost 8/1, 175 3rd 16/1
3.05 – 185 Lost 3/1, 175 2nd 5/2, 172 Won 9/2
4.15 – 156 Lost 9/2, 152 2nd 7/4, 125 Won 11/2
Newcastle:
7.15 – 150 Lost 3/1, 136 3rd 16/1, 132 2nd 11/4 (Winner was un-raced so had no M+A rating).
Wetherby:
1.05 – 147 3rd 6/4, 138 Lost 5/1, 116 2nd 16/1 (Winner was un-raced so had no M+A rating).
2.15 – 158 Lost 4/9, 147 Won 3/1, 146 Lost 5/1
2.45 – 173 Fell 6/1, 168 Fell 11/2, 166 2nd 11/4
4.25 – 157 2nd 11/4, 132 Lost 14/1 (Winner was un-raced so had no M+A rating).
Sandown:
12.40 – 169 Won 4/7, 167 2nd 5/4, 146 3rd 11/2
1.50 – 185 Won 1/4, 161 2nd 12/1, 141 3rd 9/2
2.25 – 184 Lost 13/8, 179 2nd 7/1, 178 Won 11/4
Musselburgh:
12.25 – 163 Lost 11/2, 158 Won 1/2, 138 3rd 8/1
1.30 – 182 Won 9/1, 179 2nd 13/2, 170 3rd 6/4
Summary
So from 36 non handicap races these provided 31 winners and an 86% strike rate, including winners at:
10/1, 9/1, 11/2, 5/1, 9/2, 7/2, 10/3, 3/1, 11/4, 11/4, 11/4, 5/2, 9/4, 2/1, 2/1, 7/4, 7/4
There were also 39 2nd’s and 3rd’s including prices of:
20/1, 16/1, 16/1, 16/1, 12/1, 11/1, 10/1, 8/1, 7/1, 13/2, 13/2, 6/1, 11/2, 5/1, 5/1, 9/2, 4/1, 7/2, 7/2, 10/3, 11/4, 11/4, 11/4, 5/2, 5/2, 7/4, 13/8, 6/4, 11/8, 5/4, 11/10
As well as this there were 7 races where the 1st, 2nd and 3rd came from the top 3 rated.
Incidentally, in the 68 handicap races over the last 5 days, there were also 38 winners found from the top 3 in the M+A column, so a smidge short of a 56% win rate for these overall.
Hopefully this confirms that the M+A column provides a great place to start when looking for speed ratings winners and whilst in non handicap races you may be looking at some unexciting prices much of the time, it offers evidence for you to believe in speed ratings and trust them to be accurate.
This is nice to know!
However, based on that information, if backing all those selections (obviously no one would recommend this) the outcome would produce a negative result.
Thank you though because I have been gathering some data from informracing based on the top rated horses… hopefully I’ll get it done by the end of the month.
I’ve just posted the below on one of the other articles and I’ll repeat it here as I think it’s relevant to this blog post. This is nothing to do with how accurate Ian’s ratings are by the way, merely a factor you have to consider when placing a bet. Simply backing or laying the top rated, be it LTO, Master, M+A etc will result in a loss;
The reason why it appears no one seems to be able to find a system that works with the ratings is because systems don’t work in isolation, or specifically, betting on sports doesn’t work without an appreciation of the odds on offer versus the probability of the outcome you are betting on. What that means in plain English is that if you keep backing 4/1 shots that in reality have a 6/1 chance of winning you will lose money. The flip side to that is if you back 4/1 shots at 6/1 you will find a route to profit. The difficult part and one that takes months if not years of perfecting is to accurately assess the probability chance of that outcome, be it football, racing, whatever. It is not enough to find a winner, you have to make sure you are getting the right price, this is known as value. Not to be confused with bar stool preachers who claim backing a 14/1 shot is a bit of value and backing a 10/11 shot is a waste of money. Either of those bets could be good value. This site is littered with people getting excited with new system discoveries only for a few days, weeks or months to pass and they find that same system is no longer working as it once did. The simple reason why things “work” and then don’t “work” is unless you take into consideration the price you are taking, relative to the chance of the outcome occurring, then nothing will ever “work” no matter how many winners it picks. Sorry to be the bearer of such news, most people just want “the answer” but this is the reality of sports betting. You need a mathematical edge. Some people may have a system that they have used for years and won regularly with it and don’t ever take into account the price, they just back them regardless and if this is the case then their system inadvertently picks value priced horses without them even realising it. I’d say these people are few and far between.
I hope this helps.
Ian
Based on your information above had you have placed a dutch bet of £10 stake spread over the top 2 M+A ratings to generate an equal profit you would have generated a profit of £91.14 at 5% commission on winnings or an average of £17.30 per day or £2.53 per bet which equates to ver 25% ROi.
This shows me that your ratings are accurate and i will have no hesitation in renewing my subscription once due
Regards
Peter
Thanks Peter.
As a follow up there were 6 winners from 9 non handicaps yesterday including Won 8/1 and Won 5/1. Two of the losing races were won by previously un raced horses, so no chance of the ratings getting those ones.
I wonder if a RFC would work based on this.
Hi Ian. Why don’t you incorporate speed ratings into the in-running software. This would really add value to that particular software.
Peter B
I have used this information as the basis for my placepot system. I use the top rated horse in non handicap races and take the top three rated in handicap races. With three of each per meeting this requires 27 bets. A winning bet at Doncaster today and 5/6 at Lingfield with the first race having unrated place horses.
I can vouch for the Inform ratings from my own experience of use.Taking the M+A top rated handicaps only 3pts or more clear rated one per race only for the 2016 flat 19th May to 14th Oct all bets placed the night before BOG 111 days Profit £416.22 no odds on.
Then decided to continue the same with N.Hunt only this time stake to odds to return £10.00 on every winner started 7th Nov to date 8th Feb 73 days £188.06 profit.I did monitor A.W but found to be not so good so stick to turf only.Will be renewing when the time comes
Sounds like a simple system that has promise Trevor, thanks.
Keep us informed of your progress.
hi trevor c your method sounds good the flat part of the method was that 400+ £1 per bet many thanks steven
I have posted a number of times before and for me the ratings are excellent and come into their own when they back up other factors, I just cannot see how you can just systemize them trust me I have tried. For example you could just follow the Lto out ratings but it makes sense to delve a little deeper as there could be reasons why a horse has recorded lower ratings of late ie running over the wrong trip wrong going etc all as a way of bringing the horses handicap mark down which is why I find it important to use the advance tool (priceless for matching conditions) as this could highlight a horse that had not rated well recently but has superior ratings further back and is now handicapped to win. On the other hand a horse in the top 3 Lto which is still thereabouts when the advance tool is checked is also worth a closer look. Inform Ratings for me are the best around not everyone has lots of time on there hands but I find spending a few hours putting in a bit of work delving the form and then back it up with positive ratings can turn a profit