PDA

View Full Version : Pandy's Par Time article


mrroyboy
10-22-2014, 06:03 PM
Thank you for writing a track speed adjustment chart. I did ask you about it a while back and you came through.
Some of your numbers seem a little off but as you explain it's hard to have a scientific approach. Good work Pandy.

pandy
10-22-2014, 06:22 PM
Thanks.

http://www.drf.com/news/pandolfo-harness-par-times

Sea Biscuit
10-22-2014, 09:47 PM
In harness racing the best and only way to adjust final times is to analyze the internal fractions of the race. The slower the half mile and 3/4 times of the race the slower will be the final times and vice versa.

As proof positive I am providing the print screen of 8 of JK Shesalady's races as they appeared in the program on Oct 17 at Woodbine.

http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/g387/secretariat3/JKShesalady_zps1d6ccfb8.png (http://s1099.photobucket.com/user/secretariat3/media/JKShesalady_zps1d6ccfb8.png.html)


She has won 9 out of 9 races and she came off the pace in all those 9 starts. A perfect example for the topic at hand. On July 5 at The BigM is started her career with her first win off a slow paced mile in 53.1.( When I say slow paced I mean in relation to the final time). On July 19 at the same track she registered a 52 flat mile. What happened here? Did she improve or was it something else. She is only a 2 year old and she could possibly improve but not likely in this particular case. She got a slightly faster pace than what she encountered on July 5. 6/5th secs faster at the half mile call and 2/5th seconds at the 3/4 mile call to be exact.

Let move on to her next race at Tioga Downs on Aug 3. At Tioga she encountered the slowest pace of her career and she registered the slowest mile of her young career. A 58.4 at the half and a 1:26:4 at the 3/4 mile post and a posted 1:54 final time. Not for the faint of heart to come from off the pace in those fractions and win.

Then in her next race In the Eternal Camnation she moves to Mohawk on Aug 16. Again a slow paced mile and a 53.4 final time. In her next start at Mohawk in the Shes A Great lady elims on Aug 23 she threw a 51.1 mile. Wow!!! Same track a week later a much improved final time. The only difference on Aug 23 was a much faster pace than she encountered on Aug 16. 8/5th at the half and 7/5th secs faster. On Aug 30 in the final of the Shes a Great lady she threw a fastest mile of her career. A 50.1 mile. Also I might add she encountered the fastest pace in her career in that race. 55 to the half and 1:22:1 to the ¾ mile.

Next she moves to Hoosier Park on Sept 20. A slow paced mile with a 53.4 final time even though it was an off track listed as good.

Her next start was at The Red Mile. A fairly fast pace and a 50.2 final time. From what I hear The Red Mile was a fairly fast track. I cannot comment on that because I just don’t know whether it is or not.

Her next start was at Woodbine on Oct 17 in the Three Diamonds Elims. There were only 6 entries in the race and a disastrously slow paced mile. I say disastrously because it is a disaster for off the pace types to encounter such a slow pace 58.3 to the half and 126.3 to the ¾ but still she wins off the pace in 53.3. Such is her greatness. With a full field in the Three Diamonds final watch her win in a much faster final time with a expected faster pace.

So you see Roy it is not not the number of turns of a race track that screws up the final times but simply the pace of the race. The fluctuations in the final times of JK Shesalady is directly related to the pace of the race.

Analyze the internal fractions of a race and you’ll see and understand harness racing in a completely different light.

pandy
10-22-2014, 11:17 PM
What you're saying is true for thoroughbreds, too. However, if you use final time, or speed figures, to get more of an overall evaluation of a horse, rather than focusing in on one race, the slow pace and fast pace races equal out, and final time is still the best indicator of who will win the race. This is statistically proven. To me, where internal fractions are the most helpful is trying to separate two horses with similar final times.

One thing is for certain. A horse with consistently faster final times will win a very high percentage. I have done tests with horses that were "double" and "triple figs," meaning that they had two or three recent speed figures that were faster than any other horse in the race. These horses are almost unbeatable, especially in harness racing. I once bet 17 of them over a course of a couple of weeks and 14 won.

That being said, I am working on a new harness book that puts the focus more on pace and energy distribution. But I'll show how to avoid betting against those double and triple figs.

mrroyboy
10-23-2014, 02:02 PM
Thank you Sea and Pandy
That was a good lesson in using pace in Harness Racing and all of it is true.

thaskalos
10-23-2014, 02:13 PM
What you're saying is true for thoroughbreds, too. However, if you use final time, or speed figures, to get more of an overall evaluation of a horse, rather than focusing in on one race, the slow pace and fast pace races equal out, and final time is still the best indicator of who will win the race. This is statistically proven. To me, where internal fractions are the most helpful is trying to separate two horses with similar final times.

One thing is for certain. A horse with consistently faster final times will win a very high percentage. I have done tests with horses that were "double" and "triple figs," meaning that they had two or three recent speed figures that were faster than any other horse in the race. These horses are almost unbeatable, especially in harness racing. I once bet 17 of them over a course of a couple of weeks and 14 won.

That being said, I am working on a new harness book that puts the focus more on pace and energy distribution. But I'll show how to avoid betting against those double and triple figs.
What about those horses who record higher-than-normal final times while sticking to the rail throughout...without finishing close to the winner at the end? Should those final times be trusted?

mrroyboy
10-23-2014, 02:44 PM
I can answer that even tho I am far from being an expert. But no those times can't be trusted. Those are suck along times. A concept kind of unique in harness racing. Usually it's when a horse finishes far back in a stakes race or whatever. When that horse drops in class everyone thinks it will produce those times but often it doesn't.
Times where the horse was competitive are much more reliable.

pandy
10-23-2014, 02:51 PM
Yes, in my book, Trotpicks: Modern Harness Handicapping, I do write about suck along times, which are generally pretty easy to spot. Personally, I think suck along times come into play in thoroughbred racing as well.

cj
10-23-2014, 03:20 PM
Yes, in my book, Trotpicks: Modern Harness Handicapping, I do write about suck along times, which are generally pretty easy to spot. Personally, I think suck along times come into play in thoroughbred racing as well.

I do as well, not as prevalent as harness but they do exist.

pandy
10-23-2014, 03:33 PM
I do as well, not as prevalent as harness but they do exist.

I'm glad you said that, now I know I'm not nuts.

Stillriledup
10-23-2014, 07:27 PM
I'm glad you said that, now I know I'm not nuts.

The "suck along" concept is more visible in harness racing because all the harness races are all essentially "route races" and in route races, the paces are generally slower than in sprint races and when horses are allowed to settle into a "Rated" pace, especially while saving ground, they can just keep up to the pack without having to be asked to compete for the win.

In harness racing, the only horse who is really "taking air" is the horse who is first up. The horse on the engine is not considered as taking air and everyone else is covered up for the most part.

Some of the worst bets in harness racing are horses who save ground on both turns and are "blocked while raging". Those horses are given more of a shot by the driver in their next start because they don't want to get boxed in again, but when the horse loses ground and or takes air, the kick isn't nearly the same. Quite often its a fake kick that only happened because the horse saved ground while covered up.

Sea Biscuit
10-25-2014, 09:54 AM
What you're saying is true for thoroughbreds, too. However, if you use final time, or speed figures, to get more of an overall evaluation of a horse, rather than focusing in on one race, the slow pace and fast pace races equal out, and final time is still the best indicator of who will win the race. This is statistically proven. To me, where internal fractions are the most helpful is trying to separate two horses with similar final times.

One thing is for certain. A horse with consistently faster final times will win a very high percentage. I have done tests with horses that were "double" and "triple figs," meaning that they had two or three recent speed figures that were faster than any other horse in the race. These horses are almost unbeatable, especially in harness racing. I once bet 17 of them over a course of a couple of weeks and 14 won.

That being said, I am working on a new harness book that puts the focus more on pace and energy distribution. But I'll show how to avoid betting against those double and triple figs.

Those double and triple fig horses are the horses which most fans look at and they usually go off at unbettable odds.

Tonight (Oct 25) they will be contesting the Three Diamonds Final for 2 year old fillies at Woodbine. On Oct 17 they had the 2 eliminations. Here are the elims results with with the internal fractions, the final time and the Pazer SR they each recieved for their efforts.

Elim-1 JK Shesalady: 28.4-58.3-1:26:3-1:53:3---Pazer 74 (1:52:1)

Elim-2 The Show Returns 27.2-56.1-1:25-1:53:1 Pazer 69 (1:53:1)

If you are just looking at the final times The Show Returns paced her race 2/5th secs faster than JK Shesalady. However the Pazers (Pace adjusted speed rating system) tells you a completely different story. JK was faster by one whole second.

Barring a miscue or a mishap watch JK win the race and destroy the competition at probably 2/5 odds tonight.

traynor
10-25-2014, 12:50 PM
Those double and triple fig horses are the horses which most fans look at and they usually go off at unbettable odds.

Tonight (Oct 25) they will be contesting the Three Diamonds Final for 2 year old fillies at Woodbine. On Oct 17 they had the 2 eliminations. Here are the elims results with with the internal fractions, the final time and the Pazer SR they each recieved for their efforts.

Elim-1 JK Shesalady: 28.4-58.3-1:26:3-1:53:3---Pazer 74 (1:52:1)

Elim-2 The Show Returns 27.2-56.1-1:25-1:53:1 Pazer 69 (1:53:1)

If you are just looking at the final times The Show Returns paced her race 2/5th secs faster than JK Shesalady. However the Pazers (Pace adjusted speed rating system) tells you a completely different story. JK was faster by one whole second.

Barring a miscue or a mishap watch JK win the race and destroy the competition at probably 2/5 odds tonight.

I have no idea what a Pazer is, but I agree 100% that raw values (final times or split times) are pretty much meaningless. "Pace handicapping" is WAY more complex than massaging a few "pace lines" and "projecting how the race will unfold." "Speed handicapping" is even more suspect.

Everything in an evaluation of pace and speed should be taken in context. That means not only comparing the various ratings and values, but evaluating each of those ratings and values in the context in which they were generated. And on and on backwards, evaluating the context(s) in which THOSE ratings and values were generated. Not easy, not simple, but very rewarding.

Ray2000
10-25-2014, 02:18 PM
.... the final time and the Pazer SR they each recieved for their efforts.


Misspelling Sea?...Pasers not Pazers

OMG .......PIPS redux



Google "Pace adjusted speed rating system", to see what I'm talking about

Fellow says he could 'right a book' on pace and final times, ....don't think I'd buy it... :)

pandy
10-25-2014, 02:57 PM
Those double and triple fig horses are the horses which most fans look at and they usually go off at unbettable odds.

Tonight (Oct 25) they will be contesting the Three Diamonds Final for 2 year old fillies at Woodbine. On Oct 17 they had the 2 eliminations. Here are the elims results with with the internal fractions, the final time and the Pazer SR they each recieved for their efforts.

Elim-1 JK Shesalady: 28.4-58.3-1:26:3-1:53:3---Pazer 74 (1:52:1)

Elim-2 The Show Returns 27.2-56.1-1:25-1:53:1 Pazer 69 (1:53:1)

If you are just looking at the final times The Show Returns paced her race 2/5th secs faster than JK Shesalady. However the Pazers (Pace adjusted speed rating system) tells you a completely different story. JK was faster by one whole second.

Barring a miscue or a mishap watch JK win the race and destroy the competition at probably 2/5 odds tonight.

Yeah, but if you use each horse's best times, JK Shesalady has the best times, which is important. In my opinion, yes, internal fractions are certainly good handicapping factors, but final time trumps all. Final time is such a powerful handicapping factor that you could virtually use nothing else except final time and show a profit, if you use final time and only bet overlays.

Sea Biscuit
10-25-2014, 03:19 PM
Misspelling Sea?...Pasers not Pazers

OMG .......PIPS redux



Google "Pace adjusted speed rating system", to see what I'm talking about

Fellow says he could 'right a book' on pace and final times, ....don't think I'd buy it... :)

Somehow it sounded better with a Z :D

Sea Biscuit
10-26-2014, 05:56 AM
Those double and triple fig horses are the horses which most fans look at and they usually go off at unbettable odds.

Tonight (Oct 25) they will be contesting the Three Diamonds Final for 2 year old fillies at Woodbine. On Oct 17 they had the 2 eliminations. Here are the elims results with with the internal fractions, the final time and the Pazer SR they each recieved for their efforts.

Elim-1 JK Shesalady: 28.4-58.3-1:26:3-1:53:3---Pazer 74 (1:52:1)

Elim-2 The Show Returns 27.2-56.1-1:25-1:53:1 Pazer 69 (1:53:1)

If you are just looking at the final times The Show Returns paced her race 2/5th secs faster than JK Shesalady. However the Pazers (Pace adjusted speed rating system) tells you a completely different story. JK was faster by one whole second.

Barring a miscue or a mishap watch JK win the race and destroy the competition at probably 2/5 odds tonight.

The power of the Pazers. Predicted a 1:52:1 mile for JK Shesalady and a 1:52:1 it was in her winning effort in The Three Diamonds Final.

traynor
10-26-2014, 08:02 AM
Yeah, but if you use each horse's best times, JK Shesalady has the best times, which is important. In my opinion, yes, internal fractions are certainly good handicapping factors, but final time trumps all. Final time is such a powerful handicapping factor that you could virtually use nothing else except final time and show a profit, if you use final time and only bet overlays.

Therein lies the tale. What--exactly--is a "horse's best times"? The best raw time? The best raw time massaged by some arcane variant? The best raw time in the last three races? Last 10 races? Last year? Last ever? Lifetime best? Lifetime best massaged? Or the best time "adjusted" for post position changes, and various other factors that may or may not be important?

And how is a distinction made between "real" times and "suckalong" times?

Unless "each horse's best times" are calculated in exactly the same way for every entry in every race, it is a meaningless designation. It might be more appropriate to operationalize the term and specify exactly what you mean by a "horse's best times." In a manner that would enable a number of different observers to look at the same set of data and to all conclude that one specific horse in fact had the "best times."

Ray2000
10-26-2014, 10:01 AM
The best way I've found to evaluate the time (speed) factor is to add the horse's final time and 4th Q time together.
This sum contains information on speed and pace, so a
1:55-0 + 26-4 = 115.0 + 26.8 = 141.8 is better than a
1:54-3 + 27-2 = 114.6 + 27.4 = 142.0

You can try most recent pp line, best of last 3 pp lines or average of last 3 lines and see what works best for you.

My robot uses trend prediction of last 4 (no line older than 40 days).

One other point,... for more refinement
All times have to adjusted for Track Speed par rating, DTV, racing wides, battling, and any Break Neck 1st Q times must be tossed out.

mrroyboy
10-26-2014, 01:08 PM
Tray has a good point. All figures speed pace etc must be used with common sense.

traynor
10-26-2014, 04:52 PM
The best way I've found to evaluate the time (speed) factor is to add the horse's final time and 4th Q time together.
This sum contains information on speed and pace, so a
1:55-0 + 26-4 = 115.0 + 26.8 = 141.8 is better than a
1:54-3 + 27-2 = 114.6 + 27.4 = 142.0

You can try most recent pp line, best of last 3 pp lines or average of last 3 lines and see what works best for you.

My robot uses trend prediction of last 4 (no line older than 40 days).

One other point,... for more refinement
All times have to adjusted for Track Speed par rating, DTV, racing wides, battling, and any Break Neck 1st Q times must be tossed out.

That is exactly what I am referring to. An ambiguous premise that horse's with the best times can be standalone profitable is a bit of a leap--unless each and every "best time" in calculated in precisely the same way. And even then the "profitable" part is pretty much impossible to determine retroactively, because many of the horses that would be "selections" in retrospect would be tossouts in the betting part of life.

It would be interesting to have a precise description of how the "best times" are calculated, and how those best times (from past races) can be profitably applied to future races. It is an interesting premise, but I think it may be way too simplistic to be useful in the real world.

traynor
10-26-2014, 05:01 PM
The best way I've found to evaluate the time (speed) factor is to add the horse's final time and 4th Q time together.
This sum contains information on speed and pace, so a
1:55-0 + 26-4 = 115.0 + 26.8 = 141.8 is better than a
1:54-3 + 27-2 = 114.6 + 27.4 = 142.0

You can try most recent pp line, best of last 3 pp lines or average of last 3 lines and see what works best for you.

My robot uses trend prediction of last 4 (no line older than 40 days).

One other point,... for more refinement
All times have to adjusted for Track Speed par rating, DTV, racing wides, battling, and any Break Neck 1st Q times must be tossed out.

I used that (final time averaged with last quarter) for awhile. Then I got curious (not a new thing for me) and started assigning different weights to the pace segments, rather than simple compounding. AP + LP is good at a number of tracks. At others, AP + EP works better (the essential caveat being that EP without AP is pretty much worthless for cashing tickets--it may give one a warm fuzzy feeling of omniscience to "predict the early speed" but I find it much more profitable to concentrate on which horse is going to last to the wire, not which horse is going to burn itself out before the stretch).

traynor
10-26-2014, 05:21 PM
Tray has a good point. All figures speed pace etc must be used with common sense.

It is in the application of common sense that the problems arise. Specifically, unless the process used to determine a given value is applied precisely the same way in each and every instance, the "results" are pretty much meaningless. Faster horses win more races. That is obvious. Only betting on fast horses that are overlays implies a degree of precision in pre-race analysis that goes way beyond "horse's with the best times."