Quirin type numbers for Harness

[Ray2000]

Quirin numbers* in T_bred capping are categories based on lead and/or lens behind at 2nd call.

We all know the importance of early speed in Harness but I wanted to see how good of an indicator the "Change in call position to the half" was by itself, ignoring Times, Pace and Lengths Behind. Also what effect track size had on the relationship. To do so, I used a similar approach for ½ pole calls on 132,000 race lines.

The "Q Number" was constructed by subtracting the starting post from the ½ pole call, adjusting for 2nd tier starters, if necessary, i.e. Post 9T = 1.5 Other adjustments of ± 0.25, were added for really aggressive drivers, really poor drivers, fast or slow half times. The average of all parimutuel starts not older than 90 days was used for each individual horse. The Q number is a measure of position gain or loss, a positive number (gain) is a lower call at half than at the start.

The results are shown in the attachment. There are 3 curves ... Half Mile (top line) 5/8s, and Mile tracks (lower curve). "Win chance" isn't the probability to win a race, that depends on the competition...it's the relational percentage of horses with this gate ability to win. A horse who, on the average, neither gains or loses position, wins no more or less than the average win rate, (the horizontal line ~12%)

There's actually nothing new here and not really that useful but I thought I'd post it anyway. :)
It does demonstrate the advantage of horses who can leave the gate and not surrender ground.


*see DeltaLover's posted link in http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=105404

[mrroyboy]

Huh? Have pity on us old low tech people Ray.

[wiffleball whizz]

Ray is in another planet with his technology....

A few weeks ago ray started a thread on horses breaking which was great except for it was too advanced for me.....and I'm a top level harness player :lol: :lol:

So I posed the question what if the horse off a break drew outside what were the stats........5 minutes later ray came back with the answer!!!!

Everytime I see ray posts graphs I get scared and think I don't know as much as I think I do!!!! :lol: :lol:

[traynor]

Quirin numbers* in T_bred capping are categories based on lead and/or lens behind at 2nd call.

We all know the importance of early speed in Harness ...

At some tracks ES is predictive. At others, not so much. In fact, energy profiles (a la Sartin, using energy distribution and %early) indicate that at some tracks, too much early speed (in a given contender) is almost a tossout.

The question: Have you broken ES down by tracks? And are you using the preceding races (rather than the highly deceptive winning race) to determine the importance of early speed?

Anyone who has ever bet on greyhounds understands that 80+% of all races are won by the leader at the 1/8 position. Impressive numbers, but almost worthless from the standpoint of prediction, because it is based on the winning race, and there is little or no simple way to predict that leader based on prior races. A similar situation occurs with ES in harness--the numbers that exist before the race (and can hopefully be used in predicting the outcome) are often substantially different than the numbers in the winning race

[traynor]

I use the below for modeling:

Dim intSpeedPointsThisEntry As Integer = 0
' First call
'strPrecedingRace(13) is postion at the first call
If strPrecedingRace(13) = "1" Then
intSpeedPointsThisEntry += 3
End If
If strPrecedingRace(13) = "2" Or strPrecedingRace(13) = "3" Then
intSpeedPointsThisEntry += 1
'strPrecedingRace(18) is beaten lengths
If Convert.ToDouble(strPrecedingRace(18)) <= 2.0 Then
intSpeedPointsThisEntry += 1
If Convert.ToDouble(strPrecedingRace(18)) <= 1.0 Then
intSpeedPointsThisEntry += 1
End If
End If
End If

Essentially, it rates an entry that led, or was second or third, with a bonus for the latter if within two lengths of the leader.

I ran models using last race, last two races, last three races, last four races, on and on blah blah blah. I also varied the calls--first AND second, and several other patterns.

What I found is that at many tracks, one of the strongest predictors is a LACK of early speed. Hence, the question of whether you have tried running values for individual tracks to determine the differences in the value of early speed at any given track. It is important, but only at some tracks. Definitely not all tracks all the time across the board.

Again, I built models based on information available before the race, not the winning race.

[Ray2000]

The question: Have you broken ES down by tracks? And are you using the preceding races (rather than the highly deceptive winning race) to determine the importance of early speed?


I did try to break it down by individual tracks and got this relative order but the significance levels were too high to attach any meaning to the tracks in the middle of the list. The early speed ability has the largest impact on the tracks at the top of the list, mostly half-milers. Running Aces is 0.0 and is used as the base on this scale. (I'm using all pplines not older than 40 days, win or lose)

Estimate Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept) -1.832024 <2e-16 ***
RACEAVEPOSCHG 0.278408 <2e-16 ***
PRC 0.193612 0.274
BANG 0.173145 0.355
SCAR 0.096053 0.581
LON 0.081131 0.617
GRVR 0.081055 0.747
RP 0.066194 0.723
RCR 0.045227 0.795
HP 0.027536 0.877
MR 0.013168 0.935
VD 0.009798 0.956
HAR 0.008038 0.962
LEB 0.007785 0.965
CALX 0.005715 0.973
STGA -0.020129 0.902
BR -0.02203 0.892
NFLD -0.05391 0.738
FHLD -0.058785 0.721
YR -0.060521 0.708
NP -0.06119 0.731
FRD -0.062615 0.709
TGDN -0.06604 0.712
FLMD -0.067074 0.681
RIDC -0.068402 0.679
PPK -0.086254 0.598
GEOD -0.097853 0.656
DD -0.098577 0.542
MAY -0.099394 0.547
NOR -0.10991 0.511
PCD -0.134157 0.416
MEA -0.140879 0.382
MOH -0.182451 0.331
BMLP -0.195423 0.234
HOP -0.216271 0.19
M -0.236939 0.15
WDB -0.255636 0.116
SCD -0.256385 0.147

That's why I went with grouping the tracks by size to produce more significant numbers.

Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept) -1.915038 < 2e-16 ***
RACEAVEPOSCHG 0.274292 < 2e-16 ***
SIZEHALF 0.059439 0.00116 **
SIZEMILE -0.108020 6.92e-06 ***
SIZEFIVE 0



The method I'm using here is a logistic regression technique similar to this lecture.
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/class_homepages/geog_4023_s11/Lecture07_LogReg.pdf

The ultimate purpose is to combine several handicapping factors into one "scoring equation" which will take into consideration their relative impacts. CX Wong's approach) Giving the proper weight to factors is always a big challenge.

[traynor]

I don't understand the relationship of post position to the half-mile position, other than that inner posts might tend to have a better shot at taking a lead, or following a fast leaving leader on the rail. That is, the post position may be adjusted to "equalize" it when calculating speed and/or pace, but I don't follow the logic of using it as an actual position. That is not to say you are not quite right in using it that way--I just don't understand why you would use it in that manner. That would seem to be mixing confounding variables into the calculations, which should be relatively straightforward.

A similar situation exists when studying post position "biases" that may exist at some tracks. Other factors may enhance or retard the raw values that seem to exist when mixing all races together as if they are the same.

My understanding is that you were using Quirin-type logic (that horses habitually taking the lead or close up tend to habitually take the lead or run close up). That would seem to require using running positions, rather than the static post postions. Again, it may just be that I misunderstand your use of post positions. Please clarify.

[Ray2000]

In my early robot work, I needed some way to define the race style of the entrants as Puller, Leaver, Stalker, or Closer to do the race modeling, and I settled on average early race position rather than Lengths Behind or Pace fractional times. My thinking was Starting Post, driver aggression and pace numbers should play some part in establishing the Style type. The logic is shaky but it seems a horse should get more "Style Points" for getting the lead from an outside post as opposed to getting the lead from the rail, especially on the half mile oval. I should revisit this because grabbing the lead from an outside post in a race with no other leavers, introduces a large error in the ave ground gain/loss calcs, used in setting the style type.

[pandy]

On this subject, here's a link to a column I wrote. One reader recently told me he uses this and has done very well with it.


http://www.drf.com/news/pandolfo-using-harness-early-speed-rating

[traynor]

On this subject, here's a link to a column I wrote. One reader recently told me he uses this and has done very well with it.


http://www.drf.com/news/pandolfo-using-harness-early-speed-rating

Very strong recommendation--use Pandy's approach for determining racing style. I started using it right after he posted it, and it pretty much solves the "predicted running style" quandary. It works much better--and is much simpler--than any alternative approach I have seen.

In handicapping individual races, I access a dump file that aggregates running styles (for individual horses) using Pandy's approach. That file is created automatically, and uses results to define each horse's "preferred" running style (in winning races). In analyzing individual races, the designations (for each horse) are displayed onscreen.

I would be happy to send the code to anyone who wants/needs it.

[traynor]

In my early robot work, I needed some way to define the race style of the entrants as Puller, Leaver, Stalker, or Closer to do the race modeling, and I settled on average early race position rather than Lengths Behind or Pace fractional times. My thinking was Starting Post, driver aggression and pace numbers should play some part in establishing the Style type. The logic is shaky but it seems a horse should get more "Style Points" for getting the lead from an outside post as opposed to getting the lead from the rail, especially on the half mile oval. I should revisit this because grabbing the lead from an outside post in a race with no other leavers, introduces a large error in the ave ground gain/loss calcs, used in setting the style type.

Exactly. Which horse actually gets (and maintains) an early lead is (as much or more) a factor of the presence or lack of early speed in the other entries as it is a factor of the preferred running style of an individual entry.

[Ray2000]

Very good info, thanks Bob, Traynor

Guess I will incorporate some of those ideas in my next software version.
Now if I can just find the time...

[Longshot6977]

On this subject, here's a link to a column I wrote. One reader recently told me he uses this and has done very well with it.


http://www.drf.com/news/pandolfo-using-harness-early-speed-rating

Very good article Pandy. I just might try this. Thanks.:ThmbUp:

[wiffleball whizz]

On this subject, here's a link to a column I wrote. One reader recently told me he uses this and has done very well with it.


http://www.drf.com/news/pandolfo-using-harness-early-speed-rating

Great article pandy.....I'm sitting here staring into outer space thinking about how this would have played last night...

There was a race at Yonkers before I left my have been china king with lachance there was a horse shipping in from air strip/fake times raceway(Pocono) showing non stop 48 and 49 miles he was the 6....how do you adjust for this kind of shipper.......it was a impossible race to handicap as the 2 drew inside for the first time in a while and wasn't sure if this 6 could make the top.....

I have a lot of trouble trying to figure out horses shipping out of PcD

Again great article you wrote there

[DeltaLover]

Today on all half-mile and five-eighth tracks, the best trip is the front-end trip. The next best trip is the pocket trip. The third best trip is the first-over trip. If you want to win consistently betting horses on half or five-eighth harness tracks, I’ll give you a simple tip: Only bet on horses that you think will be on the lead, in the pocket, or first over. Or, to simplify it even more, you can only bet on horses that you expect to leave the gate. At some tracks over 70 percent of the races are won by a leaver.

I think that although what you say here is probably correct when it comes to the prediction of the winner, is not necessary correct for betting purposes.

If the horse you are describing here (on the lead, pocket or first over) is easily recognized by the public, most likely it will be a poor bet despite the fact that it will win more races that his fare share. Chances are that some other horse with lower tactical speed will be largely ignored by the public becoming a large overlay.

[pandy]

Very good article Pandy. I just might try this. Thanks.:ThmbUp:


Thank you.

[pandy]

I think that although what you say here is probably correct when it comes to the prediction of the winner, is not necessary correct for betting purposes.

If the horse you are describing here (on the lead, pocket or first over) is easily recognized by the public, most likely it will be a poor bet despite the fact that it will win more races that his fare share. Chances are that some other horse with lower tactical speed will be largely ignored by the public becoming a large overlay.

Yes for picking winners, but you could only bet horses that you think are likely to get one of these three trips that appear to be fair value and it will improve your chances. The bottom line is, if you bet horses that race off the pace covered up outside or inside your chances of cashing are not good. When you do bet on closers, you have to be getting excellent value to buck that trend, or have a horse that is a monster.

[LottaKash]

I think that although what you say here is probably correct when it comes to the prediction of the winner, is not necessary correct for betting purposes.

If the horse you are describing here (on the lead, pocket or first over) is easily recognized by the public, most likely it will be a poor bet despite the fact that it will win more races that his fare share. Chances are that some other horse with lower tactical speed will be largely ignored by the public becoming a large overlay.

So true Delta, but if the speed is holding, which it does on most days, one is then definitely up against it when trying to find those overlays...

In most cases, when that premise is in play (speed holding strong), I generally look for a "Back Classer", that has been saddled with bad luck as of late, and/or has or is been coming back to good form recently, and in the past he had possessed those very attributes , the ones that it takes to win these days, and I take the shot....Those are my best shots at overlays these days....

That is where digging a little deeper pays off...Knowing how to assess "True Class" is key here, imo....And fortunately, and often enough, many average players are still clueless about "True Class".....That is only one of a few edges that I still have left in this game...

[DeltaLover]

So true Delta, but if the speed is holding, which it does on most days, one is then definitely up against it when trying to find those overlays...

The hidden speed horse, the one that the crowd dismisses as cheap speed or does not estimate its speed potential is among the best bets. Of course this includes a good amount of risk as we will be wrong most of the times. The few good ones should be enough though....

We should be ready to take our chances...

[LottaKash]

The hidden speed horse, the one that the crowd dismisses as cheap speed or does not estimate its speed potential is among the best bets. Of course this includes a good amount of risk as we will be wrong most of the times. The few good ones should be enough though....

We should be ready to take our chances...

But then come the whales who don't miss too much at some harness tracks.....In cases such as these (whales being clued in on hidden speed), I tend to gloat a bit when I catch a nice score with that paradigm....It keeps me interested in this game, because on most days I am bored to death with the game as it has evolved...I need that pick me up, to remain as focused as we should be, looking and waiting for the next "loophole" to emerge....:jump:

[traynor]

I think that although what you say here is probably correct when it comes to the prediction of the winner, is not necessary correct for betting purposes.

If the horse you are describing here (on the lead, pocket or first over) is easily recognized by the public, most likely it will be a poor bet despite the fact that it will win more races that his fare share. Chances are that some other horse with lower tactical speed will be largely ignored by the public becoming a large overlay.

The current research I am doing on the relationship of odds to finish position very much supports your assertions above. For example:

In 659 Pace Races Average Odds for First were 3.63
In 659 Pace Races 68.13 % Lower 10.02 % Equal 21.85 % Higher
57.21 % Over 2-1 This Race
21.70 % Under 1-1 This Race

Translated, it means that the myth of "poor mutuels" in harness races is simply not true--only 21.7% of the winners were odds-on, while 57.21% of the winners paid better than 2-1. If anyone can't make money betting on harness races, it is most likely because they are (over)betting the same indicators everyone else is betting.

In the real world, even after correcting for outliers, the average odds of winners was 3.63-1. (A small sample, since I only recently began tracking it.) The perfectly shaped odds distribution that reflects the public's betting may be a strong indicator of probable finishes in thoroughbred races, but it seems the public is a bit less astute when it comes to betting harness races.

This may strongly correlate with the "dominance of early speed" (false) impressions.

[pandy]

Predicating early speed winners in harness is complicated by the fact that there are different types of what I would call speed winners: front runners and stalkers. Stalkers would be pocket horse or first over. So even if you identify these three trip horses in a race, you still have to figure out which one out of the three is going to win, or, which one is the better bet. And this applies mostly to half mile tracks and some five eighth tracks.

One of the reasons why the favorites do so well on half mile tracks is because one of these three win most of the races and in many cases it's obvious which one should get the trip. For instance, say the race is a one mile race at Yonkers. You have three in shape horses, the 6 is sharp and the main speed, the four is sharp and has good gate speed and the 2 is sharp but the one horse has some speed so the 2 is going to go first over. In this case, the 6 is most likely not going to win because with that short run at Yonkers and the 4 leaving hard the 6 may cut the mile but it will tire. The 4 could get shuffled, but could win out of the pocket if the 6 gives way late. But, the 2 is in the best spot because the 4 will soften up the 6 early and when the 2 goes first over it will get the jump on the 4, even if the 4 doesn't get shuffled. By the time the 4 finds room up the passing lane or to the outside he 2 horse will have already over taken the 6 and that's the winner.

This is why the money is being bet on 7/8 and 1 mile tracks, because the race is more of a race, not a game of position. The tracks with the highest handle, Meadowlands, Mohawk/Woodbine, Balmoral, Cal Expo. Not one half mile or five eighth track in the top tier.

[traynor]

Predicating early speed winners in harness is complicated by the fact that there are different types of what I would call speed winners: front runners and stalkers. Stalkers would be pocket horse or first over. So even if you identify these three trip horses in a race, you still have to figure out which one out of the three is going to win, or, which one is the better bet. And this applies mostly to half mile tracks and some five eighth tracks.

One of the reasons why the favorites do so well on half mile tracks is because one of these three win most of the races and in many cases it's obvious which one should get the trip. For instance, say the race is a one mile race at Yonkers. You have three in shape horses, the 6 is sharp and the main speed, the four is sharp and has good gate speed and the 2 is sharp but the one horse has some speed so the 2 is going to go first over. In this case, the 6 is most likely not going to win because with that short run at Yonkers and the 4 leaving hard the 6 may cut the mile but it will tire. The 4 could get shuffled, but could win out of the pocket if the 6 gives way late. But, the 2 is in the best spot because the 4 will soften up the 6 early and when the 2 goes first over it will get the jump on the 4, even if the 4 doesn't get shuffled. By the time the 4 finds room up the passing lane or to the outside he 2 horse will have already over taken the 6 and that's the winner.

This is why the money is being bet on 7/8 and 1 mile tracks, because the race is more of a race, not a game of position. The tracks with the highest handle, Meadowlands, Mohawk/Woodbine, Balmoral, Cal Expo. Not one half mile or five eighth track in the top tier.

While the most money is being bet on 7/8 and milers, it is not necessarily true that those offer the best opportunities for bettors--only that they take less effort to "handicap" because speed plays such an important role in the outcome of a race. Unfortunately, almost everyone knows that--and bets accordingly. That is doubly true of those using software apps to handicap races. The allure of the top rated speed in races on the big ovals is hard to overcome.

[imofe]

Traynor

There is a 1/2 mile track or even 5/8 mile track that has a better average price per win rate than something like Mohawk?

[imofe]

I am not saying this to be argumentative. I just think the prices are better on the bigger tracks. Not just for win bettors. At a half mile track your gimmick may be dead at the 3q pole. For people that like to play tri's and supers, the underneath horses are usually within some kind of striking range turning for home.

[traynor]

Traynor

There is a 1/2 mile track or even 5/8 mile track that has a better average price per win rate than something like Mohawk?

I dunno. I don't keep track of what win rates or payoffs are on races I don't bet. Or at least I didn't up until a month or so ago. A lot depends on the day of the week, and individual cards. When lots of races are carded for non-winners of $81 per start this year (or similar), mutuels tend to be higher because the races are less "predictable." If the criteria were average price per win, that would make tracks like HoP, HP, ScD, and most smaller Canadian tracks seem more profitable (than the larger mile tracks).

[pandy]

I think a big factor for bettors is that on a two turn track, if you think you know who the best horse is, and particularly if that horse is good value, then you can bet the horse regardless of post or the style of the horse and you don't have to worry about the trip. If the horse is the best it can win from anywhere and from on or off the pace. This is not true on 3 and 4 turn tracks.

[imofe]

I believe the better the drivers, the lower the prices. I think Chester goes through this when all the top drivers are there. Let's say we have a track with three Gingras', three Sears' , and three Tetrick's. They drive in 9 horse fields. Fill in another driver if you want. It is my desire to debate drivers. Every race you have a guy on the lead who can rate a horse nicely. If they don't have horse, they look for cover or wait as long as possible to pull first up. Now take the same track, with the same horses, and put nine 5% drivers up. You have guys leaving with little chance. You have horses coming out of perfect trips. You just have a lot of chaos that you can not predict. What happens is more prices come in. I think Balmoral has a little of this. If you do not have a bet on one of the top three drivers, you are a little nervous about what the guy might actually do.

[imofe]

I think you are spot on about this Pandy.


I think a big factor for bettors is that on a two turn track, if you think you know who the best horse is, and particularly if that horse is good value, then you can bet the horse regardless of post or the style of the horse and you don't have to worry about the trip. If the horse is the best it can win from anywhere and from on or off the pace. This is not true on 3 and 4 turn tracks.

[traynor]

I think a big factor for bettors is that on a two turn track, if you think you know who the best horse is, and particularly if that horse is good value, then you can bet the horse regardless of post or the style of the horse and you don't have to worry about the trip. If the horse is the best it can win from anywhere and from on or off the pace. This is not true on 3 and 4 turn tracks.

It is a given that post position is of lesser importance at two turn tracks than at 1/2 or 5/8 tracks. I don't understand why that makes difficulties--it is all part of race analysis. That is, I don't think there is a "best horse." I think there is a best horse under the specific realities of this field in this race at this track today. Post position, probable pace scenarios, trips, driver strategies, and on and on--are all part of that evaluation.

For the peculiar type of wagering I do, and the types of races I prefer, I don't see 1/2 or 5/8 tracks as problematic. On the contrary, I find many more situations at those tracks in which in-depth analysis (especially of drivers and trainers) offers generous earning opportunites than (may be available) at two turn tracks. YMMV.

[imofe]

I believe the better the drivers, the lower the prices. I think Chester goes through this when all the top drivers are there. Let's say we have a track with three Gingras', three Sears' , and three Tetrick's. They drive in 9 horse fields. Fill in another driver if you want. It is my desire to debate drivers. Every race you have a guy on the lead who can rate a horse nicely. If they don't have horse, they look for cover or wait as long as possible to pull first up. Now take the same track, with the same horses, and put nine 5% drivers up. You have guys leaving with little chance. You have horses coming out of perfect trips. You just have a lot of chaos that you can not predict. What happens is more prices come in. I think Balmoral has a little of this. If you do not have a bet on one of the top three drivers, you are a little nervous about what the guy might actually do.

Sorry. Meant to say it is not my desire to debate drivers.

[Ray2000]

There is a 1/2 mile track or even 5/8 mile track that has a better average price per win rate than something like Mohawk?

This is from some stuff I was doing in July
I was looking for tracks with good Trifecta to Win ratios

Ave Mutuel payouts from Jan 1-Jul 7 '13
but too there are few races for Mohawk to be that significant
Does not adjust for Field Size or use Inner Quartile



Races AveWin AveEx AveTri
M 761 13.61 102.26 725.7
HOP 854 13.32 94.60 712.3
WDB 881 12.61 84.63 543.3
BML 832 12.35 86.45 601.0
FLM 784 12.05 85.99 504.9
MEA 1567 11.93 77.64 443.2
MAY 676 11.84 72.58 479.1
BR 1148 11.67 77.54 429.5
PCD 901 11.54 76.21 426.9
CAL 613 11.46 72.09 426.4
STG 937 11.30 70.28 445.3
NFL 1444 11.29 68.69 465.0
CHS 977 11.15 67.99 424.2
HAR 553 10.95 64.78 358.3
RID 636 10.93 88.59 745.4
DD 1105 10.85 59.92 404.3
YR 1356 10.60 61.78 323.6
PPK 814 10.20 62.65 365.1
MR 1244 10.06 56.52 363.5
FHL 672 9.94 56.08 290.6
not enough races
NP 207 13.58 91.3 476.3
SCD 437 13.57 102.71 768.2
GRV 168 13.43 108.94 787.8
ACE 202 12.81 95.56 477.2
MOH 329 12.31 89.91 626.9
NOR 420 11.84 78.16 419.2
HP 327 11.76 71.47 412.2
TGD 332 11.63 94.86 492.4
FRD 433 11.47 62.57 430.2
RP 240 11.47 85.46 394.7
VD 363 11.07 73.74 403.3
OD 118 10.7 66.03 294.4
GEO 156 10.6 88.92 535.1
PRC 320 10.21 56.3 295.8
RCR 295 9.63 59.66 369.3

all 23102 11.51 74.80 467.2

[raybo]

Quirin numbers* in T_bred capping are categories based on lead and/or lens behind at 2nd call.


Ray,

Shouldn't the "2nd call" be "1st call", or have I been wrong all these years? :confused:

My understanding is that running styles are based on 1st and 2nd calls, while Quirin points are based on only the 1st call (at least that's what I read about Quirin's early speed points work).

[pandy]

This is from some stuff I was doing in July
I was looking for tracks with good Trifecta to Win ratios

Ave Mutuel payouts from Jan 1-Jul 7 '13
but too there are few races for Mohawk to be that significant
Does not adjust for Field Size or use Inner Quartile



Races AveWin AveEx AveTri
M 761 13.61 102.26 725.7
HOP 854 13.32 94.60 712.3
WDB 881 12.61 84.63 543.3
BML 832 12.35 86.45 601.0
FLM 784 12.05 85.99 504.9
MEA 1567 11.93 77.64 443.2
MAY 676 11.84 72.58 479.1
BR 1148 11.67 77.54 429.5
PCD 901 11.54 76.21 426.9
CAL 613 11.46 72.09 426.4
STG 937 11.30 70.28 445.3
NFL 1444 11.29 68.69 465.0
CHS 977 11.15 67.99 424.2
HAR 553 10.95 64.78 358.3
RID 636 10.93 88.59 745.4
DD 1105 10.85 59.92 404.3
YR 1356 10.60 61.78 323.6
PPK 814 10.20 62.65 365.1
MR 1244 10.06 56.52 363.5
FHL 672 9.94 56.08 290.6
not enough races
NP 207 13.58 91.3 476.3
SCD 437 13.57 102.71 768.2
GRV 168 13.43 108.94 787.8
ACE 202 12.81 95.56 477.2
MOH 329 12.31 89.91 626.9
NOR 420 11.84 78.16 419.2
HP 327 11.76 71.47 412.2
TGD 332 11.63 94.86 492.4
FRD 433 11.47 62.57 430.2
RP 240 11.47 85.46 394.7
VD 363 11.07 73.74 403.3
OD 118 10.7 66.03 294.4
GEO 156 10.6 88.92 535.1
PRC 320 10.21 56.3 295.8
RCR 295 9.63 59.66 369.3

all 23102 11.51 74.80 467.2


Good information as usual, thanks for posting. There are two ways to look at this. One is that there is better value at the top of the list. The other is that it is much easier to hit a trifecta at the bottom of the list. I have a profit on my trifecta bets at Monticello this year, but not because they pay well, they don't, but because my hit percentage is very high and I can hit the tri without playing too many combinations.

[Ray2000]

Pandy

thx, ...the point you make is what I was looking for when I pulled these numbers in July. Asking myself the question, "Where are the sharks ignoring the trifecta?". With today's rebates, the exorbitant take outs are not as bad.


Raybo
You're right, I'm not a TBred player at all. When I was reading the info you and others posted in the Software Forum thread
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=105404

I looked up "Quirin numbers"

http://www.brisnet.com/library/software/allnews/favoriteArticles/Final%20Quirin%20Speed%20Points-Race%20Shapes-Impact%20Values.pdf


and realized that was what my harness programs have been doing all along using 1/2 pole calls.

"2nd call" kinda stuck in my mind in the OP.

[pandy]

I believe the better the drivers, the lower the prices. I think Chester goes through this when all the top drivers are there. Let's say we have a track with three Gingras', three Sears' , and three Tetrick's. They drive in 9 horse fields. Fill in another driver if you want. It is my desire to debate drivers. Every race you have a guy on the lead who can rate a horse nicely. If they don't have horse, they look for cover or wait as long as possible to pull first up. Now take the same track, with the same horses, and put nine 5% drivers up. You have guys leaving with little chance. You have horses coming out of perfect trips. You just have a lot of chaos that you can not predict. What happens is more prices come in. I think Balmoral has a little of this. If you do not have a bet on one of the top three drivers, you are a little nervous about what the guy might actually do.


Northfield is a track where the drivers cause a lot of chaos, as you say. Many times drivers at Northfield go to the lead with longshots that are guaranteed to stop and this does cause some chaos, particularly the favorite getting shuffled out. I think part of this is because the track management has always wanted the drivers to be aggressive at the home of the flying turns.

At Monticello, even though it doesn't have an A list team of drivers, the drivers drive smart and the races go pretty much as expected in terms of who leaves and who goes first over, etc.