⚖️ WFA Performance Ratings & Analysis

What are WFA Performance Ratings?

WFA Performance Ratings are a numerical measure of a horse's performance, measured by the quality of the race it contested, its beaten margin, and the weight it carried relative to our weight-for-age scale. The higher the number, the better the performance.

TopRate Example: Winners on Cox Plate Day - 28th October 2023

Imperatriz achieved the highest rating of the meeting, a 108, in winning the Group 1 Manikato Stakes over 1200m. Romantic Warrior ran a 105 WFA Performance Rating to win the Group 1 Cox Plate over 2040m. These were clearly the two highest-quality races of the meeting.

Scales and points per length

WFA Performance Ratings are expressed in points on a custom scale. Unlike some other ratings, they do not reflect or directly relate to kilograms or pounds.

At the top end of the scale, the best horses in the country run WFA Performance Ratings of 105 plus, with elite world-class performances rating 108 plus. The champion mare Winx had career peak ratings of 115.5, 115 and 113.5, with numerous performances in the 109 to 111 rating range. At the other end of the quality scale are country-class maiden winners, who will typically rate in the 72 to 79 range, depending on the State.

The number of points per length varies based on certain race factors. One key reason for this is that a one-length gap between horses at 1000m is not the same difference in performance as a one-length gap over 2000m. That said, working on an average of 2 points per length is a good practical guide to help you understand the difference between horses.

What are WFA Performance Ratings based on?

WFA Performance Ratings take a multidimensional view of assessing performance quality, using a sophisticated array of input factors, algorithms, and personal review. The sections below describe this in more detail.

Race Strength

The starting point in creating WFA Performance Ratings is assessing the strength of each race. Most ratings have a simplistic or limited view of this important foundation. Treating each race as a unique event and using a range of key factors to determine its merit is essential.

Our Race Strength figures are not automatically generated by a computer. They are calculated as part of our race review process.

The diagram below represents the factors taken into account.

This image illustrates how WFA Performance Ratings evaluate each race using a nonlinear approach. This means no single factor directly determines a race's overall strength.

Consider this: a fast time alone doesn't always guarantee a strong race, and a slower time doesn't automatically imply an inferior one. A significant margin between runners at the finish might hint at a better-than-average race, but this isn't a steadfast rule. Even a race with weak lead-up form and ratings can surprise with its strength. Each race is a puzzle, evaluated based on the interdependent relationship between factors, resulting in a unique assessment for that event.

Following is a brief description of each factor:

Key Factors Influencing Race Strength

Recent and Past Peak Ratings: Evaluates each horse's recent ratings and best performances in similar past races. Generally, a race featuring many highly rated horses tends to be stronger than one with horses of a lower standard.

Margin Spread: The distance between horses as they finish. A wide margin spread can indicate a strong race relative to the class, whereas a bunched finish might suggest a weaker race. Other factors in this list must also be cross-checked.

Overall Time: The speed of each race compared to set standards, adjusted for conditions on the day. Factors like race pace, ground condition, rainfall, and wind direction are considered. Time ratings are considered with sectional times(below) to create what we call the True Speed Merit of a race. That is compared to similar past races.

Sectional Times: The speed of various race segments, their impact on the overall time and how they may have helped or hindered key runners to maximise their performance. Sectional times are considered with overall times (above) to create what we call the True Speed Merit of a race. That is compared to similar past races.

Market Expectations: How the betting market expected each horse to perform related to their past ratings.

Race Incidents: Any occurrences during the race that might have affected individual horse performances and, consequently, influenced the race's overall merit. For example, a race where key contenders had minimal chances to win due to bad luck in running will see those horses having less impact on the race strength compared to a race where the best-rated horses had every opportunity to perform.

Individual Horse Adjustments

Once the race's strength is determined, the Weight-For-Age (WFA) Performance Rating for each horse can be calculated by adjusting for its beaten margin and the weight carried.

Beaten Margin Adjustment: Traditional methods for adjusting ratings based on beaten margins are outdated and ineffective. WFA Performance Ratings utilise a variable scale that accounts for specific race conditions.

Weight Carried Adjustment: Conventional theories often exaggerate the effect of weight on performance, but it cannot be disregarded. Research shows that weight significantly impacts performance and varies depending on race conditions, such as distance. We compare the weight carried by each horse to our own WFA scale and adjust its rating using an algorithm that more accurately reflects the weight's impact. This approach is distinct from traditional rating systems, which measure weight against an actual or theoretical minimum.

Subjective Rating Adjustments

To maintain objectivity in the rating process, subjective judgments such as those for bad luck in running, pace, or track bias disadvantage are not factored into each horse's individual rating.

They are considered in as much as any horse's performance that is negatively affected might detract from overall race strength, but no specifics are added back to the individual horse. This approach ensures transparency, empowering you with the knowledge of what factors are included and excluded in a particular rating.

If subjective factors were applied to each horse, it would obscure how much of a horse's rating is based on fundamental factors and how much is estimated based on other variables and added via an adjustment, compromising the integrity of the rating process. It is also impossible to do this accurately and consistently for over 150,000 individual horse runs that we rate each year. By leaving these subjective factors out, you can judge individual allowances for bad luck or unsuitable conditions and gain a winning edge.

Personal Reviews

In addition to the processes in our race meeting reviews that create the WFA Performance Ratings, Daniel and our other handicappers oversee the ratings daily. They implement numerous checks and balances to validate the figures. As a result, the WFA Performance Ratings provide the most comprehensive and accurate measure of horse performance available today.

Normalising to Weight For Age

The treatment we apply to weight carried effectively normalises all ratings to Weight For Age (WFA). The WFA scale varies in racing jurisdictions across the world, but in principle, it stipulates either the weight to be carried or the weight allowance to be given so that horses of different ages and sexes would meet on theoretically equal terms.

It reflects the notion that younger horses are not as physically mature as older horses and, therefore, need compensation in the form of weight so that they can compete equally with older horses. This is a crucial rating concept, as weights cannot be uniformly compared across all horses. For example, an early 3-year-old carrying 58kg should not be viewed the same way as a 5-year-old carrying 58kg. The early 3-year-old may be carrying 7kg more than WFA, while the 5-year-old might be carrying 1kg below WFA. To reliably compare their performances, we must account for the differences in weight relative to their physical maturity.

The extent of the weight difference between older and younger horses varies over distances and at different times of the year. In Australia and New Zealand, this is based on the racing season that runs from 1 August, when all horses have their age increased by one year, to 31 July of the following year. At a given time of the season, the further the distance of the race, the greater the weight allowance given to younger horses. As the season progresses towards the end of 31st July, the weight allowance for younger horses reduces.

For Example:

Over 1200m in October, a male horse aged four or older has a weight-for-age figure of 58.5kg, while a three-year-old is just 53.5kg. In May of the following year, with two months remaining in the season, a horse aged four or older still has a weight-for-age figure of 58.5kg, while the three-year-old has increased to 57kg. A two-year-old at the same time of the season has a weight-for-age figure of just 49kg, which reflects its lack of physical strength and maturity compared to older horses.
Over 2000m in October, a four-year-old has a weight-for-age figure of 58kg, a horse aged five or older 59kg, while a three-year-old is 50kg. In May of the following year, horses aged four years and older are at 59kg, while three-year-olds have increased to 56.5kg.

Note: Fillies & Mares receive an extra 2kg weight allowance on the standard weight-for-age figures in Australia and New Zealand.

The TopRate WFA Scale

Our weight-for-age scale has several variations from the official scale, primarily for younger horses, to reflect what our research indicates is a more accurate representation of the gap to older horses at different times of the year.

Normalising performance to weight-for-age allows for direct comparison of horse ratings regardless of age, sex, distance, weight carried or time of the year. It allows us to understand the true difference in quality between horses on equal terms.

WFA Performance Ratings, therefore, identify the best horses in the country who can compete at Group 1 WFA level, compared to those who need the benefit of carrying less than weight-for-age under handicap conditions to win at Group 1 level. They provide a reliable guide for comparing three-year-olds to older horses, especially when they may be looking to compete against those older horses at the weight-for-age level.

If a horse makes the same level of physical improvement as it matures, as expressed by the WFA scale, then its best WFA Performance Ratings should remain relatively consistent across its career. Of course, horses are individuals, and very few perfectly follow the WFA scale for any number of reasons. Some are early maturers and may run their best ratings as a two and three-year-old, with the slowing pace of their physical development making it harder to repeat the same ratings as an older horse. Others are slower to develop to their full physical potential, and these are the horses we often see significantly improve their ratings after a more moderate start to their career.

Pre-Race Form Analysis - Performance at the Weights

In the above section, we discussed the concept of normalising ratings to weight for age so that we can directly compare horses on equal terms. This serves an important purpose in horse racing. However, when horses come together to race, they carry different weights, rarely equal to their weight-for-age.

Therefore, in pre-race form analysis, a horse's historical WFA Performance Ratings must be adjusted to account for the difference between its weight-for-age and the weight to be carried in the upcoming race.

For example: If an older male horse racing over 1600m has a last start WFA Performance Rating of 95, it implies that with 59kg on his back (i.e. weight-for-age), he can produce a 95 level of performance. However, if he is lining up in a race with only 54kg (5kg less than WFA), then we need to adjust that 95 rating to show what level of performance he can achieve with 54kg on his back.

In the TopRate form guide, the performance ratings are adjusted to the weight to be carried in the upcoming race so you can directly compare them with other horses. You don't need to make any more weight adjustments.

In the example above, the horse in question was handicapped with 53kg, six kilograms under weight-for-age. The ratings in the WPR column indicate the level of performance the horse has achieved in its past runs, adjusted to the 53kg it is set to carry in the upcoming race. If we were to show those same ratings at its weight-for-age figure of 59kg, they would naturally be lower to reflect the impact of the extra weight.

WPR Base Ratings and Assessment

To help assess races, TopRate allocates an automated base rating to each horse, which you can see in the form for each horse in the top right-hand section, as below.

You can change this rating to adjust the assessment for each horse in one of three ways:

The spinner arrows can be used to move the rating up or down.
Click to highlight the rating value and type a new value over it.
By clicking on a specific rating value in the horse form, you will change the WPR base to that value.

You can also influence the Nett rating of the horse by adding an adjustment (positive or negative) to the base rating in the "Adj" box, as shown above. You may choose a base rating for each horse and then apply adjustments to reflect other factors that influence its winning chance, such as the suitability of the map, race shape, track pattern, jockey, expected improvement, consistency, and so on.

Making rating adjustments

TopRate uses numerous rules to assign a base rating for each horse in a race. The overall performance of the ratings shows that this process does a very good job. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't individual races where some analysis and adjustment could deliver better results.

The nature of racing and individual horse form means you can never have an automatic rule covering every possible scenario. There will sometimes be scenarios that present an anomaly where a glance at the horse's form suggests it is logical that a different base rating would provide a better assessment. This is especially true for first-up horses, which can be difficult to rate.

Regarding first starters, we recommend allocating a base rating that results in an assessment for the horse a little longer than the market price, accounting for the fact that markets are usually at least 120%. In a 100% market such as your WPR assessment, the true winning chance is likely longer than the current market price.

The nett rating for each horse results in a ranking within the field and price assessment, as shown in the example below.

Post Race Ratings - WFA vs Performance At the Weights (ATW)

When a race is run and the ratings are calculated, TopRate reports both the WFA Performance Rating (WPR) and At the Weights Rating (ATW) of each horse in the results section.

Below is an example of the result of the 2024 Group 1 Stradbroke Handicap run over 1400m at Eagle Farm:

Performance at the weights (ATW) shows the rating a horse ran to at the weight it carried in the race.

Stefi Magnetica (a three-year-old filly) won the race carrying 50kg ahead of Billa Nipotina (a six-year-old mare), who carried 56kg. Stefi Magnetica ran a 104.8 rating at the weights (ATW), and Bella Nipotina ran a 104.2 rating at her weight of 56kg. The winner of the race will always have the highest rating at the weights (ATW) because it finished in front of all of the other horses. The runner-up will always have the second-highest rating at the weights (ATW) because it finished in front of all other runners behind it.

However, that's not necessarily the case when we adjust each horse's rating to weight-for-age to create the WFA Performance Rating. In this race, Stefi Magnetica carried 5.3kg less than her weight-for-age on the TopRate WFA scale, while Bella Nipotina carried just 1kg less. When we adjusted their ratings at the weights to account for the difference between weight-for-age and the weight carried, Bella Nipotina achieved the highest rating in the race with 103.4 WFA Performance Rating, while Stefi Magnetica ran 100.5, approximately 1.5 lengths lower.

In other words, Bella Nipotina performed better when measured on equal terms, but Stefi Magnetica won the race due to her handicap advantage at the weights. That's the nature of handicap racing, where the weights allocated aim to provide a more even contest between horses of different talent levels than if they met on equal terms. If Bella Nipotina and Stefi Magnetica were to meet in a WFA race carrying their respective weight-for-age, Bella Nipotina would be strongly favoured to win based on performances in this race.