Class ratings for Stakes races

[Tom]

In his article, "The Basics of Handicapping the Turf," Rich Halvey suggested that to be a Gr1 turf race, at least a third of the horses in it have won or placed in a Gr1 race.

I used that idea for a while and have come up with a simple rating system for stakes races.

Look for a win and give it points as follows:

Gr1 - 1
Gr2 - 2
Gr3 - 3
Open stake - 4
Clf Alw - 5
Nw3/4 Alw - 6
Nw2/1 Alw - 7

Example, the Molly Pitcher at Monmouth today, Race # 7

#1 - rates a 6 of the last race.
#2 - scratched, would have rated a 7
#3 - rates a 4 off three of her races.
#4 - scratched, would have rated a 7
#5 - rates a 4 off his fourth line back
#6 - rates a 7 off her last win
#7 - rates a 6 of the last win
#8 - rates a 4 off the last race
#9 - rates a 4 off the last race

For a 7 horse four of the horses rate a 4, so that is the race rating.
the results - 9-3-6 (4,4,7)

When the 9 runs back, I will know she beat a "Open Stakes" quality filed, not a Gr2 field.

[Exotic1]

In his article, "The Basics of Handicapping the Turf," Rich Halvey suggested that to be a Gr1 turf race, at least a third of the horses in it have won or placed in a Gr1 race.

I used that idea for a while and have come up with a simple rating system for stakes races.

Look for a win and give it points as follows:

Gr1 - 1
Gr2 - 2
Gr3 - 3
Open stake - 4
Clf Alw - 5
Nw3/4 Alw - 6
Nw2/1 Alw - 7

Example, the Molly Pitcher at Monmouth today, Race # 7

#1 - rates a 6 of the last race.
#2 - scratched, would have rated a 7
#3 - rates a 4 off three of her races.
#4 - scratched, would have rated a 7
#5 - rates a 4 off his fourth line back
#6 - rates a 7 off her last win
#7 - rates a 6 of the last win
#8 - rates a 4 off the last race
#9 - rates a 4 off the last race

For a 7 horse four of the horses rate a 4, so that is the race rating.
the results - 9-3-6 (4,4,7)

When the 9 runs back, I will know she beat a "Open Stakes" quality filed, not a Gr2 field.

Good way to determine strength of field. You should be able to apply this method to dirt races as well, no?

[Tom]

Yes, I do all stakes.
I do not use a turf race for a dirt race or vice versa,but I will use poly for dirt and turf for poly.

[SuitedAces]

This idea looks profitable...but I'm slow at the switch here.

Could you explain in more detail, using todays, Mondays, Race 8 at Saratoga, the Honorable Miss H, a Grade 2 event.

Horse 1 last ran in a stakes race which deserves a rating of 4. So the first question is are we only rating the last race?

Thanks

[SuitedAces]

Next I would detail as following:

1-4
2-4
3-4
5-3
6-3
7-2

I'd then average the scores to 3 1/3 and say the field was slightly better than a Grade 3.

If this is right so far, what next? Would I use this for the next time the winner runs or maybe use this to rate the winner of the last stakes race. Looks intriguing to me.

[Tom]

Use all the races, just no turf for a dirt race or vice versa.

Todays race -

1 - 2 (won a Gr2)
2 - 4
3 - 4
4 - Scratched
5 - 3
6 - 7
7 - 2 (won a Gr2)

Since this is a 6 horse filed, 1/3 of the horse are Gr2 winners, so the races is rated Gr2.

That is all there is - it is not a betting method, just a way to classify the races for use later on. When R Free Roll runs back, I will see she won a legitimate Gr2 stake.

[cnollfan]

For the CCA Oaks on 7/20, for example:

Stopchargingmaria Gr 2 = 2
Unbridled Forever Open Stake = 4
The other four horses won either N1X allowance races = 7, or a maiden race.

So even though this is a Grade I race, it qualifies as "open stake" since 1/3 of the horses won an open stake or better. Do I have it right?

[Tom]

Yes, that is it.

[cj]

This is really cool, thanks Tom.

[Tom]

This idea came from both the Turf article and from the "Zenyatta" discussion, about what she really beat in those races at SA and HOL. :D

[classhandicapper]

I like it.

I do something similar. I am always tinkering with ideas along these lines. You can add to it by looking at 1st, 2nd, and 3rd instead of just wins. That way you aren't limited to just the wins.

For example.

A 2nd in Grade 2 race is equal to a 1st in a Grade 3 race.

A 3rd in a Grade 1 race is equal to a 1st in a Grade 2 race.

You can adjust for field size and say a 4th in a 12 horse field is similar to a 3rd in a 9 horse field.

You can adjust for big wins or races where 2 horses crushed the rest of the field.

ex. A 1st in a Grade 2 is equal to a 3rd in a Grade 1, but if the horse won by 5 lengths it's equal to a 2nd.

You can focus on just the top finishers in the race (I look at the top 5) and horses that were competitive in the race (showed speed). That way you aren't counting horses that rated well, but were terrible in today's race.

Here's an article along these lines from TOBA.

http://www.toba.org/graded-stakes/race-page.aspx

http://www.toba.org/graded-stakes/grading-session-workbook.aspx

At one point I contemplated doing the entire class structure along these lines, but the point assignments require that you be very familiar with the PARS for every class. That's a monstrous headache. It works really well for stakes though.

[HUSKER55]

thanks for the link!

[VeryOldMan]

Great thread start - thanks Tom.

Follow up has been interesting too. Really enjoy these threads that help fellow horseplayers think about the sport and that don't start with or devolve into some sort of "measurement" contest.

[SuitedAces]

Very good. I'll follow this idea all year. Thanks for the feedback Tom

[JohnGalt1]

To add, James Quinn rates Grade III's as 2 levels below grade II's, which works for me when I do my Scott's Performance Class Ratings.

[Clocker]

In his article, "The Basics of Handicapping the Turf," Rich Halvey suggested that to be a Gr1 turf race, at least a third of the horses in it have won or placed in a Gr1 race.

Do you have a link to that article? I looked for it and couldn't find it. Want to see what else he may have to say. Thanks.

[reckless]

Halvey has his own web site/blog.

Here is the link:

www.halveyonhorseracing.com/.

Thanks Tom for the heads-up.

[overthehill]

I dont think it makes a lot of sense to me. for one thing there are lots of horse who are graded stakes placed who never actually win a graded stakes. secondly there is a question of recency. a horse who won a graded stakes a year ago might not be graded stakes quality this year.

[raybo]

I dont think it makes a lot of sense to me. for one thing there are lots of horse who are graded stakes placed who never actually win a graded stakes. secondly there is a question of recency. a horse who won a graded stakes a year ago might not be graded stakes quality this year.

Nice Tom, quick and simple, and probably better than a straight "earning" based class rating! Personally I add an overall performance factor to earnings for my class ratings.

IMO, "form" trumps everything else, pretty much, so whether you analyze form first, or last, it should be used to adjust any other ratings you use for ranking or grading the horses. It does not necessarily need to be included in the original calculations of any other factor, but rather to separate closely rated horses, again IMO.

I tend to agree that horses who haven't won a particular class of race, but have been very competitive in that class, should not be significantly penalized for not winning a race in that class. Maybe the addition of a "+" to the final class rating?

[Tom]

I am flexible.
If I see a horse finished 3-nk in a Grade 3 and that is the horse that makes the one third, I may call it a 3 instead of a 4 or 5...this is all just kind of a note taking method, so if I call a race a 3 instead of a 4, so be it. What matters is I don't call it a 1 or a 2.

With HTR, I have every PP for every race for the last year and a half at my fingertips, so it is no big deal to go looking at old races, and there is a filter I can use to just see winning pace lines, so this is very quick and easy for me to do.

[raybo]

I am flexible.
If I see a horse finished 3-nk in a Grade 3 and that is the horse that makes the one third, I may call it a 3 instead of a 4 or 5...this is all just kind of a note taking method, so if I call a race a 3 instead of a 4, so be it. What matters is I don't call it a 1 or a 2.

With HTR, I have every PP for every race for the last year and a half at my fingertips, so it is no big deal to go looking at old races, and there is a filter I can use to just see winning pace lines, so this is very quick and easy for me to do.

Don't know for sure, but if HTR has an export for Excel, couldn't you automate that class rating system? Use some "IF - THEN - ELSE" statements to make the decisions for you?

[classhandicapper]

I dont think it makes a lot of sense to me. for one thing there are lots of horse who are graded stakes placed who never actually win a graded stakes. secondly there is a question of recency. a horse who won a graded stakes a year ago might not be graded stakes quality this year.

These are some of the issues I ran into when trying to devise an "automated approach".

How far back can I go in time?

How many races back?

What if the horse's form has deteriorated recently?

How do you handle surface and distance changes? Suppose a horse is Grade 2 winner on dirt sprinting but today is a turf route?

I think setting a time limit and only going back a certain number of races works best if you want to automate the process. But since we are only talking about stakes races, it's not a lot of races. A manual subjective process that analyzes each horse's PPs works better and is not too demanding.

I don't assign points exactly like Tom, though that's a terrific approach.

I use a rating for each horse based on the PAR for the class of race in his PPs I am using. Then I create a weighted average of the horses in the field today. I look at the top 5 finishers in today's field and any other horse that ran competitively within the race to calculate the rating.

The system I use would work fine for every class of horse everywhere....EXCEPT that you need PARS for every class and that's borderline impossible to accumulate. So I don't bother actually creating ratings for most races. I just think in these terms.

[cj]

The more people deviate from the simple system Tom proposed, the less likely it will have any value in my opinion.

[raybo]

The more people deviate from the simple system Tom proposed, the less likely it will have any value in my opinion.

I agree, for what it is designed to do, calculate the class rating of fields, I think his simpler system is fine, and much better than the man-made class designations the raw data gives us. If you're attempting to create a "class performance" rating then more is needed, IMO.

[Tom]

Ray, there is an export, but getting to the point describe is beyond my pay grade. I guess it could be done, but probably not by me! :blush:

[raybo]

Ray, there is an export, but getting to the point describe is beyond my pay grade. I guess it could be done, but probably not by me! :blush:

Oh come on Tom, I know better than that, you just haven't tried yet - LOL. If you can write down all the steps on paper then you can put it in Excel, with a little thought/work. I know, "work" was a shocking word for Maynard G. Krebs! :lol:

Maynard G. Krebs "Work!" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqzpQPDSr2s)

[Tom]

I don't know the steps to write down! :D

[raybo]

I don't know the steps to write down! :D

Oops! Not good!! Consistency man, consistency.

[thaskalos]

These are some of the issues I ran into when trying to devise an "automated approach".

How far back can I go in time?

How many races back?

What if the horse's form has deteriorated recently?

How do you handle surface and distance changes? Suppose a horse is Grade 2 winner on dirt sprinting but today is a turf route?

I think setting a time limit and only going back a certain number of races works best if you want to automate the process. But since we are only talking about stakes races, it's not a lot of races. A manual subjective process that analyzes each horse's PPs works better and is not too demanding.

I don't assign points exactly like Tom, though that's a terrific approach.

I use a rating for each horse based on the PAR for the class of race in his PPs I am using. Then I create a weighted average of the horses in the field today. I look at the top 5 finishers in today's field and any other horse that ran competitively within the race to calculate the rating.

The system I use would work fine for every class of horse everywhere....EXCEPT that you need PARS for every class and that's borderline impossible to accumulate. So I don't bother actually creating ratings for most races. I just think in these terms.

IMO...the class factor loses "value" when it is closely associated with speed variables. I believe that the different handicapping factors should be contemplated SEPARATELY...not lumped together.

[classhandicapper]

IMO...the class factor loses "value" when it is closely associated with speed variables. I believe that the different handicapping factors should be contemplated SEPARATELY...not lumped together.

I agree.

I am not suggesting that you use speed figures in the rating. I am suggesting you use PARs (where available) to help determine the class pecking order and gaps between classes. Over the long term, higher classifications tend to be run faster.

For example, the simplest pecking order that everyone understands is Grade 1 is best, then Grade 2, and then Grade 3.

But the gap between Grade 1 and Grade 2 tends to be larger than the gap between Grade 2 and Grade 3. So whatever points you assign should probably reflect that.

The gap between class levels in turf stakes tends to be narrower than on dirt. It's easier to jump out of the ALW ranks and move up in stakes on turf.

The gap between males and females tends to be narrower in Grade 1 sprints than routes.

etc...

I learned these things by making PARs and by observing the results when horses made class moves. Some single steps are easier than others.

If you wanted to extend this system down to all classes, you'd have to understand where statebred fits with open, claiming fits with ALW, Starter ALW conditions fit the others, 3yos fit with older throughout the year etc...

It's becomes a monstrous task for more than one circuit. But for stakes, it's pretty easy to put together a systematic approach that reflects field quality and current form WAY better than the official class designations without (as you suggest) using any speed figures. I do use the speed figure PAR scale though.

[classhandicapper]

The more people deviate from the simple system Tom proposed, the less likely it will have any value in my opinion.

The problem is that class handicapping IS complicated. That's why almost no one is a class handicapper anymore.

No one wants to dig through a field and determine whether it was stronger or weaker than the norms for the class designation based on the accomplishments of the horses and their recent form. They'd rather look at whether the race was fast or slow according to the speed figures they use. It's easier and you can buy speed figures.

[Tom]

All I am doing it for is say I hsve the race down to three horse, all ran a 98 last time out.

6-5 ran 98 in 3 stakes.
3-1 ran a 98 in a 3 stakes
6-1 RAN A 98 in a 2 stakes

Who ya gonna call?

[cj]

The problem is that class handicapping IS complicated. That's why almost no one is a class handicapper anymore.

No one wants to dig through a field and determine whether it was stronger or weaker than the norms for the class designation based on the accomplishments of the horses and their recent form. They'd rather look at whether the race was fast or slow according to the speed figures they use. It's easier and you can buy speed figures.

Of course it is...my point was (and I see you agreed) once you start adding in speed, they basically turn into a modified speed figure. We've discussed this before, you know I'm against using any speed figures in class ratings.

I'd take it farther and say even pars and not a good idea. It should be based on money. That can get complicated with slots tracks and statebreds, but it can be done if one really wants to dive in.

[classhandicapper]

IMO...the class factor loses "value" when it is closely associated with speed variables. I believe that the different handicapping factors should be contemplated SEPARATELY...not lumped together.

Here's a simple example of the way I do it.

Below are the top 5 finishers in a race and any other horse that ran very competitively before tiring

Finish Position - Points

1 - Grade 1 winner (111 points)
2 - Grade 1 placed (108 points)
3 - Grade 3 winner (102 points)
4 - Grade 2 placed (102 points)
5 - Grade 3 placed (99 points)
8 - Grade 2 winner (105 points)

I then use those point assignment to create a final rating. I give more weight in the rating to the winner than the 2nd place finisher, the 2nd place finisher than 3rd place finisher and so on down the line. Then I produce a weighted average.

Th tricky part is what I described previously.

What do you do if a horse was a Grade 1 winner 10 races ago but has been getting beaten up in Grade 3 races lately? Does he really deserve to be called a Grade 1 quality horse now?

What if he was a Grade 1 winner last year, but his first 2 races off the layoff were terrible.

What if he was Grade 1 winner on dirt, but today's race was on turf?

You need rules to cover all the situations where your own subjective thinking tends to take over if you want to automate it all.

[classhandicapper]

Of course it is...my point was (and I see you agreed) once you start adding in speed, they basically turn into a modified speed figure. We've discussed this before, you know I'm against using any speed figures in class ratings.

I'd take it farther and say even pars and not a good idea. It should be based on money. That can get complicated with slots tracks and statebreds, but it can be done if one really wants to dive in.

I've looked at money. If anything I came away with the conclusion that purses often have no relationship to the actual ability of the horses even at the same circuit, let alone others (even when controlling for slots and statebreds).

IMO you'll wind up with a lot of really bad ratings using just purses.

The most obvious example I found is that 2yo and 3yos will be slower than older horses (especially in claimers), but races limited to them tend to have similar purses to those for 3+ or 4+.

The other complication is that purses for the exact same quality of horse can be different at different tracks, but you can't make adjustments based on purses alone because costs are also different. I tried to locate cost information for various circuits, but the info is sketchy.

The only reasonable way to do it is with PARs and by monitoring how horses do when they cross circuits and various classes. With just stakes though, it's a walk in the park. It's very easy.

[cj]

I've looked at money. If anything I came away with the conclusion that purses often have no relationship to the actual ability of the horses even at the same circuit, let alone others (even when controlling for slots and statebreds).

IMO you'll wind up with a lot of really bad ratings using just purses.

The most obvious example I found is that 2yo and 3yos will be slower than older horses (especially in claimers), but races limited to them tend to have similar purses to those for 3+ or 4+.

The other complication is that purses for the exact same quality of horse can be different at different tracks, but you can't make adjustments based on purses alone because costs are also different. I tried to locate cost information for various circuits, but the info is sketchy.

The only reasonable way to do it is with PARs and by monitoring how horses do when they cross circuits and various classes. With just stakes though, it's a walk in the park. It's very easy.

I obviously wasn't talking only money. You consider sex, age, surface, distance, conditions, claiming levels, etc....just NO speed.

[classhandicapper]

I obviously wasn't talking only money. You consider sex, age, surface, distance, conditions, claiming levels, etc....just NO speed.

I've been looking at this for years, every approach is a minefield. :bang:

[Clocker]

I've been looking at this for years, every approach is a minefield.

Of all the classic handicapping factors (speed, pace, form, etc.), class is the most subjective. Perhaps the minefield is trying to objectively quantify a subjective, qualitative factor.

Tom's class rating here is more qualitative than quantitative. Any attempts in this thread to make it more quantitative have been ambiguous if not unsuccessful. Perhaps the answer is to use that and similar metrics as filters to identify contenders rather than as "figures" in the same sense as used for speed or pace.

Quinn's Condition Book is the standard on the subject. Neither there nor in his Figure book does he attempt to come up with an objective, computed class figure.

[raybo]

Of course it is...my point was (and I see you agreed) once you start adding in speed, they basically turn into a modified speed figure. We've discussed this before, you know I'm against using any speed figures in class ratings.

I'd take it farther and say even pars and not a good idea. It should be based on money. That can get complicated with slots tracks and statebreds, but it can be done if one really wants to dive in.

I agree, a class "assessment" or "classification" should include money earned, and pace/speed etc, should be separate.

That being said, if one is going to use a class "figure" to rank, grade, or compare horses, then one almost has to include factors other than money earned. I personally calculate a class figure which includes money earned, an overall performance figure, and a form cycle component. I also have another ranking that combines class with a distance component, so I get money, performance, form, and distance, all put together in a single ranking method. Of course, all my class and distance ratings are further defined by surface, so surface is a big part of it all, too.

Many times when I just can't figure out how a horse did well in a race, the only thing that explains it is my class stuff. "Class" can, and often does, take pace and speed to school.

[classhandicapper]

IMO the idea behind class handicapping is to have an alternative approach to measuring performance because the accuracy and complexity issues of pace/speed figures can occasionally lead you astray. Over and above that, IMO there are more subtle things going in races that aren't measured well with time.

The flip side is that race and performance quality measurement can get tricky without an objective measurement like "time", especially when we are talking about lightly raced or inconsistent horses that haven't sorted themselves out yet. Maiden and limited ALW race quality is all over the map and difficult to get at without time.

IMO class and time analysis should be done separately, but the ultimate answer to how strong a field was or how well a horse ran can and IMO should often be a blend of both. They are independent pieces of evidence to draw upon to reach a conclusion.

I think what Tom is trying to accomplish (and what I've been trying to add to) is how to go about getting at field quality in the non speed/pace figure way. To that I have been adding some of the problems that come up much the same way figure makers have to deal with wind, run up, rails, track maintenance etc.. There is a different set of issues for qualitative analysis of field strength that have to be addressed to improve accuracy.

Purses often don't reflect quality. There are issues with statebreds, 2yo and 3yo development, costs structures are different at different circuits, there are constantly evolving claiming and other conditions etc....

In the end though, I look at both.

[cj]

In the end though, I look at both.

Agree, but this is also why I think it is important the two not be related to each other.

[raybo]

IMO the idea behind class handicapping is to have an alternative approach to measuring performance because the accuracy and complexity issues of pace/speed figures can occasionally lead you astray. Over and above that, IMO there are more subtle things going in races that aren't measured well with time.

The flip side is that race and performance quality measurement can get tricky without an objective measurement like "time", especially when we are talking about lightly raced or inconsistent horses that haven't sorted themselves out yet. Maiden and limited ALW race quality is all over the map and difficult to get at without time.

IMO class and time analysis should be done separately, but the ultimate answer to how strong a field was or how well a horse ran can and IMO should often be a blend of both. They are independent pieces of evidence to draw upon to reach a conclusion.

I think what Tom is trying to accomplish (and what I've been trying to add to) is how to go about getting at field quality in the non speed/pace figure way. To that I have been adding some of the problems that come up much the same way figure makers have to deal with wind, run up, rails, track maintenance etc.. There is a different set of issues for qualitative analysis of field strength that have to be addressed to improve accuracy.

Purses often don't reflect quality. There are issues with statebreds, 2yo and 3yo development, costs structures are different at different circuits, there are constantly evolving claiming and other conditions etc....

In the end though, I look at both.

Good post! I agree that purse alone is a poor strategy, but when combined with a good performance rating, a current form rating, a distance capability rating, and a surface rating, then the inconsistency in purse values is leveled out pretty well. But, if you're just trying to get at logical contender classifications, regarding the field, Tom's class method is probably pretty good. Then the tough part starts, you have to separate those contenders, and that is where other factors have to be included in the overall method, IMO.

[classhandicapper]

Agree, but this is also why I think it is important the two not be related to each other.

Agree.

I don't have a problem using PARs for this because even though they are derived from figures, they are an average that's just being used to come up with the general pecking order of the class strcuture, not to rate a specific race on class.

They give you a numeric scale to work with that lets you say for example a Grade 1 race for older males = X on average and so on down the line.

If the class rating is on the same scale as the speed figures, it makes it easy to say whether the race was faster or slower than average for the class in addition to saying it was of higher/lower quality than average in non figures terms.

It just always made the process easy for me to think about.

The Test looked like a high quality race on paper, but it came up slower than average. So my thinking might be it was probably not as good as it looked on paper, but perhaps of higher quality than the time indicates. That's not saying that the speed figure is wrong, just that perhaps something in the development made it come up a little slow while perhaps those 3yo sprint fillies are not a great crop. My guess would be that reality is somewhere in between.

[Billnewman]

If I were going to incorporate Tom's rating system into my sheets I would use 3 numbers.

#1 the raw number as it stands

#2 the raw number multiplied by a competitiveness number 1,2,3,4,or 5. 5 being the best and than divide by 4. So if the class number is 4 and the competitiveness number is 3 than 4x3=12 divided by 4= 3

#3 multiply the second number by average pace in feet/second and than divide by 30 So 3x55.6=166.8 divided by 30= 5.5

So my finial numbers are 4 - 3 and 5.5

[PressThePace]

There's way too much "good" information in this thread.....I'm hoping two of you can piss each other off and start throwing around insults, then PA can boot the thread. One can only hope...

[classhandicapper]

Tom,


Have you continue with this project at all?

[Tom]

I uses it every stakes race I handicap.
When I get a race down to being a 3 or 4, I am willing to use Allowance races in the mix. For G2, I don't.

It helps me pick my contenders, knowing what kind of race I am dealing with.

I tried getting more definitive, but decided the quick mental check ( of the race, not ME!) is all I really need. KISS.

[classhandicapper]

bump

I think this was such a good thread on the subject it deserved a bump.

[Tom]

Working on my list for the BC races this weekend.

[Capper Al]

In alpha testing my class figs just the opposite seems to be happening. I do better in claimers than graded.

[classhandicapper]

In alpha testing my class figs just the opposite seems to be happening. I do better in claimers than graded.


You are blowing my mind. :eek:

The biggest problem I've had in claiming races is that if you find a horse dropping it's sometimes a negative sign. It gets tricky (at least for me) to figure out if the horse is going to run his "A" race or is damaged goods. Sometimes, even when they are damaged goods they still have enough left in the tank to win. So even though the class ratings for claimers may be very accurate, you have to really dig to find a good play using them.

I think in all cases what you are really looking for is class within a class. You want to find the fields that are mislabeled in the official class designation because they were especially weak or strong.


Al,

I bought the CXWONG book "Precision - Statistical and Mathematical Methods in Horse Racing". Was it you that talked about that book? I'm enjoying it. I don't think I'll ever build a handicapping model, but I can see myself using some of those techniques to learn.

[Capper Al]

You are blowing my mind. :eek:

The biggest problem I've had in claiming races is that if you find a horse dropping it's sometimes a negative sign. It gets tricky (at least for me) to figure out if the horse is going to run his "A" race or is damaged goods. Sometimes, even when they are damaged goods they still have enough left in the tank to win. So even though the class ratings for claimers may be very accurate, you have to really dig to find a good play using them.

I think in all cases what you are really looking for is class within a class. You want to find the fields that are mislabeled in the official class designation because they were especially weak or strong.


Al,

I bought the CXWONG book "Precision - Statistical and Mathematical Methods in Horse Racing". Was it you that talked about that book? I'm enjoying it. I don't think I'll ever build a handicapping model, but I can see myself using some of those techniques to learn.

Yeah, it blows my mind also about the claimers. I'm comparing my class figs against BRIS. BRIS so far is blowing me away at the top half of the class hierarchy. I'm do the same to them on the lower end. I can't explain it.

Yes, I talked about CXWONG's book earlier. I liked it also. If a capper likes numbers, Wong's their man.

[classhandicapper]

Yeah, it blows my mind also about the claimers. I'm comparing my class figs against BRIS. BRIS so far is blowing me away at the top half of the class hierarchy. I'm do the same to them on the lower end. I can't explain it.



Without giving away too much of your special sauce could you share some of what you are doing?

Maybe I can help. This has only been an obsession of mine for a few decades. :lol:

[Capper Al]

Without giving away too much of your special sauce could you share some of what you are doing?

Maybe I can help. This has only been an obsession of mine for a few decades. :lol:

A couple of new series of ratings. One is a method that uses a scale derived from purse value, and I know purse value is not suppose to work. The second is using my speed pars. And, for comparison, I'm using BRIS race rating and class rating , and a fourth is purse value unadulterated(the one commonly proven not to work). These are being compared using a method similar to BRIS' average competitive level (ACL). Just started testing these. I'm mainly a weekend warrior, so it goes slow.

[classhandicapper]

Al,

I'm really starting to love that CXWONG book. It keeps getting better. I have a lot of ideas for testing class ratings. The biggest problem is getting the data in a usable format for the tests. I'm way too lazy to calculate 1000s of ratings manually and then manually type them in into a spreadsheet, but importing race data into a spreadsheet and then manipulating it is no picnic for me either. I haven't even tried that before even though I have access to it via Formulator.

If I had good data I might finally be able to answer some questions that have been nagging me for a lot of years.

[Capper Al]

Class,

I bought $450 of result files from BRIS. When one digs into the details of this sport, it seems to never end. I thought that my whole rewrite would have been completed by now, yet I'm stuck at the beginning just digging my way through class. Miles and miles to go before I sleep.

[classhandicapper]

Class,

I bought $450 of result files from BRIS. When one digs into the details of this sport, it seems to never end. I thought that my whole rewrite would have been completed by now, yet I'm stuck at the beginning just digging my way through class. Miles and miles to go before I sleep.

My idea is to create a Class Table and a set of consistency rules.

I want to be able to automatically go through a series of races that assigns each horse in a race both class and consistency rating based on my table and rules.

Then I want to be able to just tinker with the rules and ratings until I am maximizing the results.

I'd be happy to just do that for Graded Stakes initially.

Then I'd like to see if there was any way to add in a speed figure that could improve on those results.

I can download tons of data from the DRF, but the information is in different files and there's tons of data in each file I don't need. It just feels like a massive project to just get started.

[whodoyoulike]

A couple of new series of ratings. One is a method that uses a scale derived from purse value, and I know purse value is not suppose to work. The second is using my speed pars. And, for comparison, I'm using BRIS race rating and class rating , and a fourth is purse value unadulterated(the one commonly proven not to work). These are being compared using a method similar to BRIS' average competitive level (ACL). Just started testing these. I'm mainly a weekend warrior, so it goes slow.

I've found purse value does indeed work but, it was difficult to gather. Also, it's not that clear cut when the values are close which horse is classier. It seems to be a good indicator in claiming races but, it's not a stand alone variable.

Al,

I'm really starting to love that CXWONG book. It keeps getting better. I have a lot of ideas for testing class ratings. ...

So, is Wong right?

[Capper Al]

I've found purse value does indeed work but, it was difficult to gather. Also, it's not that clear cut when the values are close which horse is classier. It seems to be a good indicator in claiming races but, it's not a stand alone variable.

My first card at GPW yesterday found dollar based did do the best. Another surprise was with only 3 maiden races. Class did better in Maidens than with non-maidens (7 races).

So, is Wong right?

I found Wong pretty good.

[Capper Al]

My idea is to create a Class Table and a set of consistency rules.

I want to be able to automatically go through a series of races that assigns each horse in a race both class and consistency rating based on my table and rules.

Then I want to be able to just tinker with the rules and ratings until I am maximizing the results.

I'd be happy to just do that for Graded Stakes initially.

Then I'd like to see if there was any way to add in a speed figure that could improve on those results.

I can download tons of data from the DRF, but the information is in different files and there's tons of data in each file I don't need. It just feels like a massive project to just get started.

With testing my first card, my class charts struggled. BRIS does a pretty good job with their class RR and CR figs and sets the standard to beat.

[classhandicapper]

So, is Wong right?

I think he lays out a pretty good template for learning and studying the game. I was also happy that he flat out said that manual analysis will outperform statistics and models in some areas. He didn't come off as too rigid in his thinking.