Harness app

[traynor]

Code for a BASIC pace app is posted on the software forum. I am going to translate it for harness. Any suggestions on values for the adjustments for park outs and post position changes?

What program information do you use, and what kind of track variants (if any)?

[Ray2000]

A much need program if you can do away with the manual inputs.

For instance, looking at these 2 pp lines, who should get a higher speed rating?

Flamboro Apr 20 Race 7

Horse PP 1/4 1/2 3/4 Stretch Finish Time
Yankeelicious 1 4/4T 3@/2 3@@/1 1/T 1/T 1:58.4
Dianes Place 9 6/7T 6/4T 5/3 4/4Q 2/T 1:59

Next Start
Yankeelicious Flamboro Apr 27 Race 12 .....TM Speed Rating for Apr 20 74
Dianes Place Western Fair Apr 26 Race 11 ..TM Speed Rating for Apr 20 75


I've never trusted TM speed ratings, I don't think they account for 2nd tier starts.
and I assume the Pace numbers are a derivative.

For park outs (if out full 180 degree turn) I used 3 lengths or 0.6 seconds

Here's my most recent Speed Ratings. The magnitude doesn't mean much, it's the difference between tracks that's important.

Track Speed Rating (trim_mean 20%)
M 113.1
MOH 113.3
WDB 114.2
PCD 114.4
CNL 115.0
DD 115.1
INDY 115.4
PPK 115.8
BMLP 115.9
TGDN 116.0
YR 116.0
MEA 116.0
HOP 116.1
LEX 116.3
GEOD 116.5
VD 116.5
HAR 116.5
SCD 116.7
HP 116.7
PRC 117.3
FRD 117.5
ACES 117.5
WR 117.6
MAY 117.7
STGA 118.1
RIDC 118.3
OD 118.4
CALX 118.4
NFLD 118.4
BTVA 118.7
GRVR 118.7
FLMD 118.9
RCR 118.9
FHLD 118.9
RP 119.3
NP 119.4
BANG 119.5
BR 119.8
SCAR 119.8
LEB 120.0
MR 120.2
LON 120.6
NOR 120.7
SPCK 121.3

[am1947]

IMO
I think 1st up park outs are 3 lengths for the full turn
If dueling (less then 1/4 length off lead) then more ie 5-6 lengths.
2nd and 3rd over are less ie 1.5-2 lengths
3 wide 1st up would be more then the 3 lengths ie 5 lengths
3 wide with cover would be 4 lengths
also think 3 wide on a 1/2 miler is a tad tougher then the bigger tracks


Did not see Chester /Philly on the track times?

AM

[Ray2000]

AM


Oops, :blush: my table maker was using PHL and the times were under CHST in the data. I didn't update for 2012, these races were in 2011.

Chester 113.8

[traynor]

Great! Both PP and park outs are more significant at half-milers, less so at 5/8, and can be almost ignored at milers. Three lengths (or more) seem a bit much for racing wide. Do your results support this much of an adjustment?

I am asking for opinions and input--the values can be set to whatever is agreed on as the most appropriate adjustments. Similarly, my question about track variants--I don't use Trackmaster speed ratings (or class ratings either). Canadian racing programs (most) don't give variants, and Trakus is a topic I have no opinion about one way or the other. Any opinions on DTVs?

The manual entry--in general--is more advantage than disadvantage (unless someone is selling ratings and doing every track every day). Many harness bettors only play their local track(s), or only play occasionally. Automated processes require data downloads--the relentless cost of which keeps a LOT of people from using computers to handicap harness races (or thoroughbred races).

I think it would be great to put together a simple app that recreational harness bettors could use to win enough to fund further exploration of wagering as more than a hobby. (As opposed to signing up for data download subscriptions and working through a months-long "learning curve" of more sophisticated software applications.)

[Ray2000]

The 3 length adjustment for racing wide in a 180 turn is strickly based on geometry not on any empirical results. It seems strange but the radius of the turn doesn't matter, just how "far over" the outside horse is from the rail horse is what counts. If 8 feet over then extra distance around the turn is 8 x pi = 25.1 feet or ~3 Lengths

Your correct on the cost of data downloads, perhaps for Canadian pdf programs a Copy/Paste text option could be included. I know the parsing routine would be a pain in the butt.

WDB copy/paste
3
1:30
3
2:01
3 7
1

Flammy copy/paste
:28 :574 1:264 1:58

As for the DTV here's an old thread

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47914

[David Siegel]

Folks, as part of the team that does speed rating development, I am happy to address questions and react to intelligent comments about ratings. Feel free to post or email as I do occasionally check this site (which I think is a terrific one). Regarding TrackMaster Speed Ratings, we calculate a post position adjustment for every track and every year (in case things change). So a trailing position is accurately reflected in the adjustment. For example, if a track goes 8 across and the 9 post trails, and say the 9, on average, goes 2/5 seconds (2 points) slower than the 1, on average during the year, then we will "speed up" the 9 posts rating by 2 points. As an aside, we do not use CLAIMING HANDICAP races or other HANDICAP races when we do the annual calculation (something I bet you folks did not think of) as in theory, they can throw off the calculation as the better horses are in the outer posts.

We also do a bunch of computer modelling for changing conditions, so a 1:57 time could get a higher rating than an earlier race that was 1:57.2 if the model showed that the track slowed down through the evening.

There is a ton of science that goes into our numbers, and some art as well. Of course, any computer-based rating methodology has some flaws (e.g. it cannot see a track being rolled hard for one race, then harrowed the next), but overall, a good one will trump nearly all human-based methodologies over the long run.

[Ray2000]

David

Thx for the explanation and kudos :ThmbUp: on your driving stats at CALX

Win% 18% and ROI% +14% on 277 starts is a great beginning.

I still think Yankeelicious should be rated higher in the given example but that's just MHO.

[LottaKash]

[QUOTE=David Siegel
There is a ton of science that goes into our numbers, and some art as well. Of course, any computer-based rating methodology has some flaws (e.g. it cannot see a track being rolled hard for one race, then harrowed the next), but overall, a good one will trump nearly all human-based methodologies over the long run.[/QUOTE]

Dave, thanks so much for setting your record(s) straight....I really appreciate that...:ThmbUp:

I have been using TM programs for many, many moons now....Too many is more like it...

I use the "Pace" Past Performances as my program-version of choice...For the numbers, you know....I would be lost without them...Keep on Dave, "Great Product"...:jump:

[Charlie]

David .. I have been a TM user for many years. I also want to thank you for your informative posting.

[traynor]

I think the occasional bettor does not really mind manual entry, and the simple app posted is intended for that audience. I also think that many occasional bettors (especially Canadians) get their programs directly from the track via download, or ontrack purchase. It is those occasional bettors that the simple app posted is intended--someone with program in hand, interested primarily in comparing the past performances of Horse A and Horse B in a specific race.

I understand that a lot of work goes into Trackmaster ratings. I cannot comment on their effectiveness, because I don't use them. If others believe they are effective, it would not be rocket science to code algorithms to incorporate them in the race analysis application.

[traynor]

The 3 length adjustment for racing wide in a 180 turn is strickly based on geometry not on any empirical results. It seems strange but the radius of the turn doesn't matter, just how "far over" the outside horse is from the rail horse is what counts. If 8 feet over then extra distance around the turn is 8 x pi = 25.1 feet or ~3 Lengths

Your correct on the cost of data downloads, perhaps for Canadian pdf programs a Copy/Paste text option could be included. I know the parsing routine would be a pain in the butt.

WDB copy/paste
3
1:30
3
2:01
3 7
1

Flammy copy/paste
:28 :574 1:264 1:58

As for the DTV here's an old thread

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47914

I don't know about the geometry involved, but it seems misleading to assume (for comparison purposes) that a horse parked wide is three lengths better than a horse on the rail. If the actual effect were such, drivers would rarely consider racing wide as anything but a guaranteed losing effort.

I am a very pragmatic person (a polite way of saying I bet on my opinions) and I am interested in "stuff that works" rather than "stuff that can be mathematically proven." You may be absolutely correct--that is why I asked if you have any empirical validation for park outs having that much of an impact on a horse's performance.

[traynor]

Before anyone jumps up and accuses me of Trackmaster bashing, I want to make clear that I am referring--very specifically--to the fact that I do not incorporate the Trackmaster speed rating into my own handicapping. That has absolutely nothing to do with Trackmaster or the Trackmaster speed rating--which I am sure is probably great. It only has to do with the fact that I do not use it in my own race analysis.

[Ray2000]

Never meant to imply the horse was "three lengths better" only that the outside horse traveled 3 lengths further for speed/pace calcs.

GL with your Basic Program conversion

[traynor]

Never meant to imply the horse was "three lengths better" only that the outside horse traveled 3 lengths further for speed/pace calcs.

GL with your Basic Program conversion

If Horse A is on the rail, and Horse B is parked wide and finishes two lengths back at the wire, if I compare those performances, I would be faced with the supposition that Horse B would have won by a length if it had been on the rail. As true as that might be in that particular race, it is comparing the performances when applied to the analysis of a subsequent race that is important.

[mrroyboy]

Can't wait to try it Tray. Feel free to use me a a guiana pig.

[Longshot6977]

Traynor, manual entry is fine with me. I'm looking forward to your posting of it as soon as you're finished. Thanks.

[traynor]

Traynor, manual entry is fine with me. I'm looking forward to your posting of it as soon as you're finished. Thanks.

Before I can do much conversion, I need some idea of what kind of adjustments are considered reasonable for PP changes, park outs, and daily variants (if any). One of the advantages of manual entry is that it (usually) eliminates "over-adjusting"--massaging numbers based on variant changes, track-to-track "equalization figures" and other similar things. That is, most races analyzed manually would tend to be a specific track, with few shippers. Because T2T values might need to be entered manually, it makes the results of the comparisons suspect. That is a good thing. That is, the app does not make a bunch of weird (and highly suspect) "adjustments" based on questionable criteria and even more questionable logic.

I think three lengths is way too much adjustment for park outs for comparison purposes (basic pace analysis). Does anyone else have an opinion on this? It is not "my" app. It is "your" app. If you were handicapping a race by hand, what kind of value (if any) would you put on an entry that had been parked one quarter? Two quarters? Three quarters? And what kind of "automatic adjustments" (if any) would you like a manual app to make for you?

If that seems vague, it is not. If a horse is "credited" with doing something better if parked wide than if running on the rail, or, conversely, a horse on the rail is penalized because it travelled less distance than the horse parked wide, the values used for "adjustments" are often critical in the pace numbers generated that (in theory at least) compare one horse to another. "Raw times" as opposed to "adjusted times" is a big issue.

[Longshot6977]

I think three lengths is way too much adjustment for park outs for comparison purposes (basic pace analysis). Does anyone else have an opinion on this? It is not "my" app. It is "your" app. If you were handicapping a race by hand, what kind of value (if any) would you put on an entry that had been parked one quarter? Two quarters? Three quarters? And what kind of "automatic adjustments" (if any) would you like a manual app to make for you?

For me, personally, I would adj 2 lengths(2 fifth seconds) for each quarter parked out at a 7/8 or 1 mile track. If a 3 or 4 turn track, maybe 3 lengths (3 fifths seconds) for each quarter.

Regarding post position, I would credit 2 lengths for a post greater than post 7 on a 1/2 mile track. I don't worry too much about posts on a 1 mile track. (unless he's in the 2nd tier behind a slower horse).

Would it be possible for you to allow the user to modify the adjustment as needed? Thanks.

[traynor]

For me, personally, I would adj 2 lengths(2 fifth seconds) for each quarter parked out at a 7/8 or 1 mile track. If a 3 or 4 turn track, maybe 3 lengths (3 fifths seconds) for each quarter.

Regarding post position, I would credit 2 lengths for a post greater than post 7 on a 1/2 mile track. I don't worry too much about posts on a 1 mile track. (unless he's in the 2nd tier behind a slower horse).

Would it be possible for you to allow the user to modify the adjustment as needed? Thanks.

Great idea. I will look into it.

[traynor]

Updated version for harness is posted in Software thread.