Tracks with Greater Race Consistency.

[thoroughbred]

Clearly, races that have many horses in them that have never raced on the same surface as today's race, or close to the distance of today's race, are more difficult to handicap.

An ideal situation would be where all the horses in the race have raced on the same surface, and close to today's distance. Such an ideal may be rare in practice.

But here is my quetion. From your experience, which tracks come closest to that ideal, i.e. tracks where more races are run in which every horse in the race met the ideal situation of surface and distance?

I guess, I should include, as a related second question, which tracks have fewer first time starters and/or foreign shippers.

Thanks.

[raybo]

Man, that's a good question. I wish I'd thought to ask that long ago. Might have made things a little easier. Personally I don't know of any track, in the mid-west or south, at least that fits that bill. I'm sure some are closer to it than others but today there seems to be tremendous "movement" in those areas, more so than in the past, anyway. It takes a really good set of "figures" to translate one race to another, for sure. But then, if everything was "cut and dried" everybody would be doing it better, right?

[Hosshead]

It might be easier to meet those conditions if there aren't many horses in the race. ie.- GG, BM

[raybo]

That's true Hosshead. Smaller fields are many times easier to deal with but they also don't pay as well, as a whole. I play Houston a lot and some days are better than others in that respect, but many of their smaller fields ( 6-8 horses ) can be dealt with easily and still pay well also, especially in the exotics with the favorite graded as a non-winner.

[Hosshead]

Yes I was talking about meeting the conditions that Thoroughbred was talking about. Now the ramifacations of betting short fields is another subject. You're lucky at Hou to consider 6-8 horses a small field. The racing in N. Calif. is such that 6-8 horses is HUGE ! (4 horses is considered a small field)

[raybo]

RE:<You're lucky at Hou to consider 6-8 horses a small field. The racing in N. Calif. is such that 6-8 horses is HUGE ! (4 horses is considered a small field)>

Are you serious? I am not familiar with Ca. tracks except Santa Anita from in the past, as a footnote: I can't deal with Santa Anita for the most part, too many good horses running there. I haven't even checked the entries on a Ca. track in many months. I thought Houston's fields were pitiful because I am a superfecta player and short fields a supers don't mix very well. I like 10 horse fields best, not too hard to put in good order and they pay really well most of the time.

[Hosshead]

Yes Raybo the racing in N. Calif is pityfull. Someone else on this board probably has the stat on avg. field size, but I would guess it's around 6 ! However I am wary of Hou after seeing a horse rear up and fall on his back while entering the gate. The jockey's leg was injured (horse fell on it) and couldn't ride. Who knows if anything was injured on the horse, yet Hou was going to run the horse ANYWAY !! They announced that the horse was being taken back to get another rider, and after a long delay the horse was finally scratched. Couldn't get another rider? Anyway that horse should have been scratched right away. Which makes me wonder how many injured horses Hou is letting run,(that we don't know about), just to fill fields. Can you see a guy explaining to his wife, "I know he ran out of the money honey, but after all, he was lying on his back 2 minutes before the race, he did good to get up to be 9th ! Brings new meaning to the words "Got up to be............."

[socantra]

But here is my quetion. From your experience, which tracks come closest to that ideal, i.e. tracks where more races are run in which every horse in the race met the ideal situation of surface and distance?
...............
I guess, I should include, as a related second question, which tracks have fewer first time starters and/or foreign shippers.
...............


You might try:
http://www.homebased2.com/km/longshotchart.htm

I suspect the tracks with the least longshots are probably the most consistent, but I strongly question how 'ideal' that situation would be. Everyone could pick the winners, and $3.60 would probably be a good mutuel.

socantra....

[Speed Figure]

I love those short fields in No Cal! I played a lil pick 4 last thursday. $2 ticket $24 total.

# ML
5 2-1
6 2-1
7 3-1
8 6-1

$2 payoff $978.60 for a very easy ticket.

[BillW]

Originally posted by thoroughbred
Clearly, races that have many horses in them that have never raced on the same surface as today's race, or close to the distance of today's race, are more difficult to handicap.

An ideal situation would be where all the horses in the race have raced on the same surface, and close to today's distance. Such an ideal may be rare in practice.

But here is my quetion. From your experience, which tracks come closest to that ideal, i.e. tracks where more races are run in which every horse in the race met the ideal situation of surface and distance?

I guess, I should include, as a related second question, which tracks have fewer first time starters and/or foreign shippers.

Thanks.

Thoroughbred,

I'm not sure this is the answer you were looking for but sounds like you're describing Penn National. Those low end claimers just keep hammering at it. They certainly qualify on the foreign shippers question also.

Bill

[JimL]

Thoroughbred,a really good question however one I believe that has no answer. I enjoy playing MNR, BEU, RD, TDN, and Hoosier, and it is so aggravating to me when they card 4.5, and 5 furlong races. Or an old back class horse that is dropping to the bottom but will win if all his legs work. You just take what you can get. JimL

[Brian Flewwelling]

I don't get it (i seem to have started many posts with that phrase)

The bull rings of western Canada would meet you criteria. HST, STP, NP. Same old horses taking turns winning. I think jockies have to apologize in the room after the race if they won 2 in a row, and gosh knows what happens if they are so careless to do it 3 times ...

I don't like that aspect of those tracks (my 'home' tracks) i prefer to see some changing since it easier to beat the public then.

Brian

[Zaf]

I think FL, FE, TUP , EMD , SUF would meet your criteria. Not many horses shipping in and out of these places.

ZAFONIC

[raybo]

RE:<Which makes me wonder how many injured horses Hou is letting run,(that we don't know about), just to fill fields.>

Hmmmmm-

I have never considered the possibility that Houston vets are allowing unsound horses to run in order to fill fields. I know that the average field size at Houston has decreased considerably in the recent past due, in large part, to Louisiana's legalization of casino gambling, (adding to the attendance and purse sizes at places like Delta Downs), and the subsequent drop in attendance and purse sizes at Houston. However, I have noticed no appreciable change in the effectiveness of my handicapping program's ability to select good horses there recently. There may be something to your suggestion, but I am unable to corroborate or deny it. It's an interesting assertion though. I'll give it some thought.

[Exactaman]

Meadowlands harness and Balmoral fit the bill :D no shortage of longshots either

[Dave Schwartz]

This is a very interesting question, one I just recently asked myself.

I find that I am doing the best (by far) in New York. I also do well in Kentucky, yet struggle at Turfway. I do horribly in NoCal and just okay in SoCal.

My question parallels yours in many ways: "Why?"

Ultimately I redefined the question: "What tracks/circuits are more likely to see horses win for justifiable reasons?"

And the next logical question, "How do I measure this?"

I do not think that price is a good measurement because price can be so dependant upon field size.

The measurement question really led to a great answer.

Dr. Frederick Davis wrote in his 1973 paper, Percentages and Probabilities, that in claiming sprint races the top 3 ranks for best-of-last-2 speed ratings combined for 62% of all winners.

I first proved this to be precisely true many years ago (1985) when I tested an entire year of SoCal races (by hand). Interestingly, this did not seem to change at all when the average field size dropped by over 1 horse per race! It also remained relatively constant even when I changed from the old Quirin Pars (from Woodside and Associates, remember?) to my own pars. (BTW, Davis was referring to using just the DRF speed rating at the time.)

Of course, I am more interested in the benchmark of IV than total wins because today, with field sizes so different, the top two might approach 62%. <G>

The ultimate output reflects how consistent the tracks are in terms of the predictability of final time.

As for "Why?" that could be because there are a great many off tracks that make the speed ratings less reliable, or it could be that the horses do not hold their form as long, or any of several other reasons I could dream up but not prove. The important thing is that these tracks ARE WHAT THEY ARE... more or less rleiable.

BTW, I ultimately settled for looking only at the top 2 horses.

I am re-running this now and will post the results when I have them.


Dave Schwartz

[Dave Schwartz]

Had a tough time formatting this so put it on a link...

http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/2003-FT02.htm


Here is some other interesting stuff:


140- DOW
Win Bets
Starts Wins Pct $Net Opt IV PIV AvPay AvOdds AvPCh ExWins PExWins
Sun 2,928 564 19.3% $1.71 -4.2% 1.55 1.03 $8.89 3.45 3.3 363.83 545.53
Mon 1,398 271 19.4% $1.54 -7.7% 1.53 0.99 $7.94 3.22 3.2 176.75 274.96
Tue 1,258 220 17.5% $1.63 -5.0% 1.41 0.91 $9.33 3.32 3.2 156.36 241.55
Wed 1,864 377 20.2% $1.58 -7.3% 1.61 1.05 $7.79 3.31 3.2 234.52 359.36
Thu 2,283 448 19.6% $1.62 -6.1% 1.53 1.00 $8.28 3.24 3.2 292.89 446.79
Fri 2,875 537 18.7% $1.67 -4.7% 1.50 0.98 $8.95 3.37 3.3 358.95 546.40
Sat 3,290 618 18.8% $1.65 -5.2% 1.53 0.99 $8.76 3.37 3.2 403.34 624.56




160- MOY
Win Bets
Starts Wins Pct $Net Opt IV PIV AvPay AvOdds AvPCh ExWins PExWins
Jan 1,280 212 16.6% $1.52 -6.7% 1.42 0.93 $9.19 3.68 3.4 149.67 226.80
Feb 907 171 18.9% $1.59 -6.3% 1.50 1.00 $8.46 3.40 3.2 114.03 171.10
Mar 1,301 258 19.8% $1.59 -6.8% 1.54 1.02 $8.01 3.28 3.2 167.15 252.31
Apr 1,273 240 18.9% $1.65 -5.2% 1.51 0.94 $8.77 3.16 3.1 158.83 254.21
May 1,345 267 19.9% $1.50 -9.0% 1.53 0.99 $7.58 3.15 3.1 174.21 269.24
Jun 1,336 273 20.4% $1.68 -5.1% 1.61 1.05 $8.24 3.28 3.1 169.73 258.97
Jul 1,565 310 19.8% $1.76 -3.5% 1.56 1.00 $8.91 3.21 3.1 198.16 308.84
Aug 1,619 331 20.4% $1.80 -2.9% 1.59 1.05 $8.78 3.27 3.2 207.72 314.60
Sep 1,406 281 20.0% $1.59 -6.9% 1.56 1.03 $7.97 3.29 3.2 180.52 271.75
Oct 1,610 292 18.1% $1.48 -8.4% 1.45 0.95 $8.18 3.33 3.3 201.80 308.29
Nov 1,246 227 18.2% $1.79 -2.7% 1.53 1.01 $9.82 3.58 3.4 147.97 225.68
Dec 1,008 173 17.2% $1.71 -3.7% 1.48 0.98 $9.94 3.72 3.5 116.83 177.37




230- Sex
Win Bets
Starts Wins Pct $Net Opt IV PIV AvPay AvOdds AvPCh ExWins PExWins
Males 9,527 1,787 18.8% $1.65 -5.1% 1.53 1.00 $8.81 3.44 3.3 1,168.57 1,780.87
Females 6,369 1,248 19.6% $1.62 -6.1% 1.53 0.99 $8.28 3.20 3.1 818.06 1,258.27

[raybo]

RE:<Dr. Frederick Davis wrote in his 1973 paper, Percentages and Probabilities, that in claiming sprint races the top 3 ranks for best-of-last-2 speed ratings combined for 62% of all winners.>

This statement just about says it all, at least for sprint races. I "suspect" that for the majority of tracks, recent speed is still and probably will continue to be consistent. I also think that part of the problem with perceived "inconsistent race tracks" may be just a function of class, as in quality of the animals as a whole, appearing at these tracks. It appears to me that as you go downhill concerning the quality of competitors you also go downhill concerning one's ability to depend on solid handicapping factors, like speed and recency in sprints and strong stretch runs in routes.

Just my observation, I'm sure you have many more resources to prove or disprove this "suspicion" than I do.

I respect your views highly, by the way.

[raybo]

Interesting link. I don't seem to find any corrolation between speed (perceived speed) of a particular surface or track to win %. LS is up there but SA and HOL aren't. Are those 2 tracks not considered fast surfaces?

[kenwoodallpromos]

Seems you may want to look for circuits whose tracks are most consistent and reliable rather than individual tracks since your qualifying point seems to be horses' familiarity with the track surfaces. I would say the So Cal and KY circuits on weekdays.

[nomadpat]

Nice to see someone else play BEU, TDN, RD and MNR. Other tracks that fit this bill are SUN and TUP. I looked at HOO some last year. I especially like BEU-there is enough handle to make bets yet still inefficient (read: less skilled) money floating in the pools. And anytime your picks disagree with the Twins analysis, you have even more value

Planning on taking a look at FL this year. Any other cheap claiming circuits worth considering? :cool:

[raybo]

<Planning on taking a look at FL this year. Any other cheap claiming circuits worth considering?>

Opx and Hou and Lad have plenty of "dumb"money floating around, at least in my opinion. Still fairly consistent and pools are large enough to take some heat.

[Speed Figure]

Emerald Downs is a nice speed track! Dave, can you tell me how to read that chart?

[raybo]

Someone else mentioned Emd to me and said there was profit to be made there. I intend to check it out this spring, along with LS and LaD.

[Dave Schwartz]

Speed Figure,

Starts - Total starts of the top 2-ranked horses.

Wins - Winners of those starts

Pct - Wins / starts

$Net - Avergae return for each $2.00 wagered.

Opt - Optimum bet (negative means bad bet)

IV - Impact Value - wins \ Expected wins

PIV - wins \ PoolExpected Wins

AvPay - Average payoff of the winners

AvOdds - Average odds of all horses

Avg AvPCh - Average Pub Choice rank (i.e. 2.3 means the average horse was the 2nd public choice

ExWins - Expected Wins - sum of 1 \ field

PExWins - Pool Expected Wins - Theory is that a horse with 20% of the pool should get 20% of a win. This is the sum of the pool percentages

[Speed Figure]

Dave,

Thanks for taking the time.;)