Predicting Speed Rating from Past Ratings

[cj]

Here's a better idea.

Use your database to evaluate some horses with just final time figures and then do the same thing using final time figures plus an adjustment for significant moves up or down the class ladder. Then see if tweaking the figures for sharp class moves can help explain some of the figure volatility. Try to control for form issues by avoiding very lightly raced improving horses, claimers that are clearly dropping because they have problems, and stuff like that.

If done properly, that should give you a large sample that demonstrates that class moves matter.

It should then be reasonable to assume that if you can find some hidden class moves, strong and weak fields for a class, or moves that are larger or smaller than generally perceived by the public, some horses might be under/over rated even if class is part of the general public thinking.

I've heard Mike Beer talk about looking at the "horses that were in the race" instead of figures on occasion while on the NYRA show. That's basically what I do. It's comparative handicapping. What level were the horses in the race and how did they run relative to each other given the pace, bias, etc...

I have a tough enough time finding class plays as it is now. I have no desire to make a handful of picks that could easily run like crap or do this endlessly just to validate it and give it away.

I've done those things, but not with final time only, I included pace. What I was suggesting is a few examples of plays where figures don't matter, and inferior "speed figure" horses win on class.

Anyone can find examples after the fact and attribute it to class. It is convenient. I find those are usually horses that haven't been given an opportunity to show how fast they are rather than calling it class. I think it is more a trip handicapping thing.

[classhandicapper]

I've done those things, but not with final time only, I included pace. What I was suggesting is a few examples of plays where figures don't matter, and inferior "speed figure" horses win on class.

Anyone can find examples after the fact and attribute it to class. It is convenient. I find those are usually horses that haven't been given an opportunity to show how fast they are rather than calling it class. I think it is more a trip handicapping thing.

To a large extent it is a trip and/or pace thing. When you are outclassed you often get outrun or used up chasing better horses and get buried while running a slower figure than you are capable of. A softer spot will help you get a softer trip and run a faster time.

You can try to understand that using pace and final time figures. Then you have to deal with the complications, limitations, and inaccuracies inherent in the numbers and trying to combine them.

You can look at the class level the horses have beaten and been competitive against recently and compare how they ran relative to each other in a race given their trips etc.. But first you have to figure out the class structure and then still deal with the subjective pitfalls of those comparisons.

If you want examples of where figures sometimes don't matter look at virtually any Derby and most Breeder's Cup fields. You will find loads of fairly consistent horses that got buried and ran well below their normal figures or where the formulas to evaluate them broke down badly. The same phenomenon is occurring every day at all levels of racing. You have to try to find the races like that where everyone isn't aware how strong the field was, like they would be with the Derby. That's where you can find the slow looking horses that will jump up in a softer spot. You can also occasionally exploit the errors inherent in figures while trying to keep your own subjective mistakes down by learning where the pitfalls are.

IMO, it's 2 paths to the same answer. Neither is perfect.

[thaskalos]

"Class" has proven to be too elusive for me to figure out...but, no matter how you define it, I find that it needs a little "help" to get the job done. The "class horse" better have something else going for it as well, if it expects to have its picture taken. But this could also be said for all the other handicapping factors as well, I guess...

PS:
I wish I understood what Pittsburgh Phil meant when he suggested that "class" was everything.

[classhandicapper]

I wish I understood what Pittsburgh Phil meant when he suggested that "class" was everything.

I have no idea what he meant, but I'd guess he meant that "class" encompasses more than just how fast the horse ran recently. So when you find a horse that is clearly the "class" of the race, it's more likely to win than the "final time figures" will indicate.

[Show Me the Wire]

I've done those things, but not with final time only, I included pace. What I was suggesting is a few examples of plays where figures don't matter, and inferior "speed figure" horses win on class.

Anyone can find examples after the fact and attribute it to class. It is convenient. I find those are usually horses that haven't been given an opportunity to show how fast they are rather than calling it class. I think it is more a trip handicapping thing.

Actually, we did the class analysis exercise prior to the race in one of Capper Al's threads several months ago. Capper Al became upset at us saying the point of the thread was not to pick winners, but the class of the race. It just so happened the class horse won, go figure.

[raybo]

Since this thread has turned towards the elusive topic of "class", I'll challenge the advocates to point out a few plays (and why) before the races. The results don't matter, just want to see how class is applied. No retro fits.

Well, I'm certainly not an "advocate" of class, as I believe that class is determined by pace and overall speed abilities, and the herding effect (preferred running styles), along with the role of dominance and intimidation prevalent in the animal world. So, I am a pace/running style/field dynamics player, not a "class" player. My use of traditional "class" is based solely on money earned at distance ranges and surface classification plus a power/performance value, but the use of that "class" rating is restricted to only very high "class" races. I'm a "numbers" guy, because being anything else is just too ambiguous, to my way of thinking.

[Cratos]

"Class" has proven to be too elusive for me to figure out...but, no matter how you define it, I find that it needs a little "help" to get the job done. The "class horse" better have something else going for it as well, if it expects to have its picture taken. But this could also be said for all the other handicapping factors as well, I guess...

PS:
I wish I understood what Pittsburgh Phil meant when he suggested that "class" was everything.

I believe the reason that Pittsburg Phil stated that class is everything is because “class” embodies a little of everything and to the degree the racehorse class includes the more salient determinants of performance is the degree of the racehorse’s class.

Andy Beyer in one of his books made the following assertion: “there is class within class.”

[MJC922]

Class primarily manifests itself in pace, I'm quite convinced of that. I'm also quite convinced measuring class through limited inputs like the fractional times in the charts is hit and miss for a lot of reasons, too much info is missing. The contention points within a race that sort the class horse from the lesser probably occur within a matter of strides.

Anyone out there who is a runner will understand that once a certain amount of fatigue sets in, it really only takes a slight increase in pace over a relatively short duration to completely empty reserves to the point where you'll be lucky to even finish. This increased pace is not apt to be evident in the split times if the split times are taken at such large intervals.

Take a 4-minute miler for instance, two minutes into it the runner goes into a full sprint for 8 seconds; a full sprint when some fatigue has already set in is (1) not close to a full sprint at the start so it's not so fast anyway and (2) might not even result in a faster third quarter because there's such a dramatic slowdown afterward (like to a walk) that nothing good will be evident in the third quarter split by then anyway.

Trip handicappers (good ones) probably still have the best chance to pick up on class earlier than anyone else does.

[thaskalos]

Class primarily manifests itself in pace, I'm quite convinced of that. I'm also quite convinced measuring class through limited inputs like the fractional times in the charts is hit and miss for a lot of reasons, too much info is missing. The contention points within a race that sort the class horse from the lesser probably occur within a matter of strides.

Anyone out there who is a runner will understand that once a certain amount of fatigue sets in, it really only takes a slight increase in pace over a relatively short duration to completely empty reserves to the point where you'll be lucky to even finish. This increased pace is not apt to be evident in the split times if the split times are taken at such large intervals.

Take a 4-minute miler for instance, two minutes into it the runner goes into a full sprint for 8 seconds; a full sprint when some fatigue has already set in is (1) not close to a full sprint at the start so it's not so fast anyway and (2) might not even result in a faster third quarter because there's such a dramatic slowdown afterward (like to a walk) that nothing good will be evident in the third quarter split by then anyway.

Trip handicappers (good ones) probably still have the best chance to pick up on class earlier than anyone else does.

I have seen this argument several times before...but I am not convinced of its validity. This might explain why a horse loses a race in slower time than it usually runs, when it goes up drastically in class...but it doesn't explain why a $4,000 claimer gets trounced every time it races in a $5,000 claiming race, but runs sharp races when it's entered again for $4,000. Is there really a measurable difference between a $4,000 and a $5,000 race?

[pandy]

Class primarily manifests itself in pace, I'm quite convinced of that. I'm also quite convinced measuring class through limited inputs like the fractional times in the charts is hit and miss for a lot of reasons, too much info is missing. The contention points within a race that sort the class horse from the lesser probably occur within a matter of strides.

Anyone out there who is a runner will understand that once a certain amount of fatigue sets in, it really only takes a slight increase in pace over a relatively short duration to completely empty reserves to the point where you'll be lucky to even finish. This increased pace is not apt to be evident in the split times if the split times are taken at such large intervals.

Take a 4-minute miler for instance, two minutes into it the runner goes into a full sprint for 8 seconds; a full sprint when some fatigue has already set in is (1) not close to a full sprint at the start so it's not so fast anyway and (2) might not even result in a faster third quarter because there's such a dramatic slowdown afterward (like to a walk) that nothing good will be evident in the third quarter split by then anyway.

Trip handicappers (good ones) probably still have the best chance to pick up on class earlier than anyone else does.

I've written about my high school track experiences. I basically agree with you, sometimes the increased pace doesn't actually show. In other words, a horse moves up in class and runs a slower final time, even though the fractional splits appear similar to the lower class race it comes out of. But the difference is the way the horses are bunched. This bunching creates a lot more pressure.

If you watch your typical $12,500 maiden claiming race at, say, Tampa Bay, in many of those cheap races, more than half of the horses are out of contention. So if a horse drops, from say a $25,000 maiden claiming race, depending on its trip, it may be able to relax more into a comfortable stride.

In the higher class races, not only is the pace likely to be quicker, but the horses are bunched closer together (less lengths separating the contenders). In this type of situation, it is much tougher to run your best. I know from running track. It's easier to run your peak race against a weaker field. You can relax into your most comfortable stride.

Of course, this is applicable to all sports. In baseball, you're going to hit for a higher average against a weak pitching team than one that has the best pitching staff. Even though your bat speed will automatically increase against
faster pitches, you will still struggle to get the bat in the right spot.

[classhandicapper]

I'm not really sure why people find the topic of class so perplexing other than they read a bunch of books written by final time handicappers that say it's perplexing. ;)

There are multiple aspects to this.

1. Part 1 is what is Class Handicapping

Instead of using final times to measure performances, you can use who beat who. That generally means looking at the performances of horses in relation to the class level they occurred to do determine who is better.

For example, if a horse has been racing competitively at a the Grade 1 level, you can usually assume it's better than a horse racing unsuccessfully at that level or lower. The key to doing this well is understanding where each class level fits relative to others and how performances at different levels compare.

What is better, winning a Grade 3 race or finishing 2nd by 3 lengths in a Grade 2 race?

What if the Grade 3 race was a 12 horse field and the Grade 2 race was a 5 horse field?

What if the Grade 2 race had a few Grade 1 horses in it?

These questions and answers can become very complex and difficult to answer. That's why Class Handicapping fell out of favor. It's easier to look at a speed figure. :lol: But if you can answer them, you have an approach that will sometimes find horses that are better or worse than they look on speed figures.

2. Part 2 is why Class matters.

This is where my conversation with CJ from earlier in the day comes in.

As you move and down the class ladder, the pace, pace battles, and trips in general get correspondingly more or less difficult. Some of it is so subtle, you can't see it or measure it well. So if you are just looking at final time figures, you will often be mislead by seemingly fast horses that beat much cheaper or seemingly slow horses that were torched and outrun chasing much better horses. Moves up and down the class ladder can lead to changes in final time figures because the competition is different.

3. Part 3 is the vague and elusive aspect of class that can be tough to determine until after the fact. These are the qualities that horses that otherwise appear similar in ability can have in different quantities.

These are things like acceleration, versatility in running style, raw speed, heart/determination/competitiveness, reserve stamina to overcome bad trips and biases, ability to handle fast or slow paces, etc...

Lots of horses have put up huge speed figures, but almost none of them could make the move Secretariat made in the Preakness and still win (most couldn't even make the move).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV89InWOENc

Lots of horses could have beaten the field that Seattle Slew beat in the Derby, but very few could do it after the start he had and the pace he set.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw-QYkEjVBM

Lots of horses could have beaten Honest Pleasure, but very few would have caught him like Forego did in the Marboro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMJjiWXCM3s

Whether it's Zenyatta, Wise Dan, or whoever your all time favorite is, some horse have and eventually reveal reserves of ability that allow them to do things and win races that other horses could not. They overcome unsuitable paces, track biases, bad trips etc... and still usually win. It's no accident that they seem to win most of the tight finishes and do amazing things when needed. They are running against the other horses (not the clock) and doing what is needed to win.

These kinds of qualities also vary at the very low levels.

It's why one horse can be 0 for 25 with a bunch of 2nd and 3rds as an often beaten favorite and another always seems to fire and win even when their speed figures are similar. One has the reserves to continue the fight against other similar horses and still get the job done. The other is quickly exhausted when actually asked to win and hangs like a rat.

These are the less tangible things that get revealed as time passes and horses move up and down the ladder to get tested. They also get revealed in the consistency box over time. Good horses fire their A race and win often. They sometimes run lifetime speed figure tops when that's all that will get the job done. Bad horses find ways to hang, disappoint, and lose in spots where they look good enough to win.

[pandy]

Those of who you used my Pro Simulcast Method, know that in my research, I was surprised to find that horses taking key drops often improve dramatically even if they don't have good pace figures, or they come out of slow paced races. Naturally, it's better if they come out of fast-paced races, but many horses win dropping out of races with average to slow paces. Class is a powerful factor in racing.

[MJC922]

I have seen this argument several times before...but I am not convinced of its validity. This might explain why a horse loses a race in slower time than it usually runs, when it goes up drastically in class...but it doesn't explain why a $4,000 claimer gets trounced every time it races in a $5,000 claiming race, but runs sharp races when it's entered again for $4,000. Is there really a measurable difference between a $4,000 and a $5,000 race?

Bring up a horse and we can do a deeper dive. I see many that jump up a peg and win. From $4000 open to $5000 open isn't typically anything more than a peg on the ladder. When it's a severe regression for a specific horse to step up one level I would agree more is going on there, however I don't think it's herd instinct and flick of the ears stuff, it's probably either (1) the horse puts out an effort at $4,000 and wins, then naturally steps up but has trouble pairing up i.e. back to back efforts. We might expect such a horse would lose even if it didn't step up because it isn't physically robust. (2) Some trainers of cheap claimers notoriously are nowhere after a win just to darken form, nobody calls them on it, the excuse is well he stepped up in class -- and the reversal on the drop-down off of a garbage line when the horse wasn't 'treated' anyway is just as easily explained away as 'class'. With that said I like it when people (CH) bring consistency into the class discussion because I agree that should be part of the all encompassing definition although there might not be much wager value in it.

[clemkadiddle]

Charles Carrol pointed out in his book "Handicapping Speed" found that if you do regression analysis on the world record times at various distances you will find that the correlation coefficient is nearly perfect.

So I did regression analysis at various distances at many racetracks and found the correlation also to be linear. However, there were some interesting anomalies. So in order to do parallel time charts for a given track you need to account for those anomalies. You could probably use a standard parallel time methodology to make decent speed figures, but if you factor in some of the little nuances a track might have the extra effort should produce good results.

Also, by noting the differences in the slope and intercept you should be able to get an idea of the relationship between speed and fatigue as the distances change.

I do know the relationship between speed and fatigue. It can be described in a logarithmic formula I stumbled upon in my research.

Though I won't divulge it, I will tell you how to derive it and perhaps your version might exceed mine. Being a programmer/analyst, this is how I derived what I am currently using:

Ask yourself if there is a threshold where the average horse begins tapping into "racing energy". (There is. Think about what trainers do when they are only trying to give the horse a certain degree of stamina; there is a specific type of workout they use to accomplish this. The speed of this workout is where you start.)

From this point, the horse consumes "racing energy" exponentially.

Calculations must be based upon the effort exerted in each race segment and summed. One must be able to parse a race into specific segments. This is important. Do not run your analysis from point to point like everyone else. Each segment is important by itself. Do not look at the entire half-mile and then look at the entire 3/4 mark; the calculations will then be lost in averages where the preceding segments get folded in. Trust me on this. The calculation occurring at the half-mile has already been influenced by the initial quarter mile; so too has the 3/4 mile point been influenced by the preceding segments.

When you derive the mathematical expression that describes this dispensing of energy, you will know you are on the right track (no pun intended) when you calculate it separately for each segment and then multiply it by the length of the segment and then sum the calculations for all of the segments. You will see how consistent a horse really is...repeating this sum (within a surprisingly close margin of error) for a variety of distances when in the current form cycle...regardless of differences in the speed rating even if it varies by as much as 6 points.

I am not kidding...but I am also not divulging something it took me 8 years of research to develop. It is out there if you look hard enough.

[Poindexter]

I've written about my high school track experiences. I basically agree with you, sometimes the increased pace doesn't actually show. In other words, a horse moves up in class and runs a slower final time, even though the fractional splits appear similar to the lower class race it comes out of. But the difference is the way the horses are bunched. This bunching creates a lot more pressure.

If you watch your typical $12,500 maiden claiming race at, say, Tampa Bay, in many of those cheap races, more than half of the horses are out of contention. So if a horse drops, from say a $25,000 maiden claiming race, depending on its trip, it may be able to relax more into a comfortable stride.

In the higher class races, not only is the pace likely to be quicker, but the horses are bunched closer together (less lengths separating the contenders). In this type of situation, it is much tougher to run your best. I know from running track. It's easier to run your peak race against a weaker field. You can relax into your most comfortable stride.

Of course, this is applicable to all sports. In baseball, you're going to hit for a higher average against a weak pitching team than one that has the best pitching staff. Even though your bat speed will automatically increase against
faster pitches, you will still struggle to get the bat in the right spot.

I think this is an excellent post in what has become a very good discussion. It seems to me that with horses, comfort is a huge part of whether they win or lose. If they can relax, run at the pace that is most comfortable to them, not struggle to keep up with someone ahead of them or feel an opponent breathing down their neck they have a much better chance of winning. Obviously the better the competition the less likely they get this "ideal" trip.

I think one problem with "class" these days is that with a dwindling horse popluation and a lot of trainers who like to run horses below their actual ability, class can be a bit misleading. Years ago, typically a 16 claimer was better then a 12.5 claimer.....these days you can have a 16 claimer that in actuality is more like a 10 claimer, and a 12.5 claimer that is more like a 20 claimer. With 6 and 7 horse fields there are not enough participants in each race to bring the competition to it's true "class" level. So class handicapping takes a little more work. Something like the Bris RR in theory should account for this.

Like everything else, class is a piece of the puzzle. If a horse is struggling for 32 and drops to 20, he will do better. Win? But to say that he has little to no chance because his figures are 3 or 4 lengths slower than this cheaper field is a dangerous assumption.

I really think the best form of class handicapping is knowing the pecking order of horses. Takes a lot of time and energy(especially if you are taking on multiple tracks), but it goes hand in hand with watching replays to attain your best edge. Things become clearer and the supposedly slow figure horse may not be as bad as the public thinks he is or better yet the way over bet 2/5 shot may not be nearly as good as the public thinks he is.

[pandy]

To take this a step further, horses often get caught in tight quarters, either because the jockey tries to squeeze through a tight spot, or because the field is competitive and bunched. To many horses, this is not an ideal situation. Even if there is enough room for the horse to stride fully, the horse may feel anxious knowing that it could collide with another horse, and it may tighten or tense its stride some. This depletes energy and causes mental stress. Again, from my experience, running in a tight pack is very stressful and exhausting as compared to running free. This is especially difficult with runners both in front and in back of you. With horses, you not only have the stress from being locked in tight quarters, but you have the kickback factor of dirt or mud smashing into the horse's face.

I recall Sarge on TVG telling a Julie Krone story. When he was a trainer, he put Krone on a horse and the horse rode the rail and did nothing. After the race, Sarge said that Julie told him that she wanted to ride the horse next time, and that she'd win with it, because the horse did not like racing inside of horses. In its next start, she raced wide and blew by the field for an easy win.

We've seen the same thing with California Chrome. He obviously does not like being inside, he only races his best in the clear on the outside.

[classhandicapper]

We've seen the same thing with California Chrome. He obviously does not like being inside, he only races his best in the clear on the outside.

This is a good example. I like CA Chrome a lot, but it IS a knock on his class that he does seem to do his best running on the outside. Maybe he'll improve on that.

To me, this falls under the category of versatility. Horses are eventually going to be asked to run under a variety of conditions. Some will reveal they can and others will reveal they can't. The ones that can will get the job done more often.

Someone with excellent visual skills might be able to pick up on some of this stuff early, buy typically you learn these things "after the fact". They also eventually show up in the consistency box. The consistency box is a backdoor way at getting at talents and abilities that are sometimes tougher to measure or see.

[classhandicapper]

I have seen this argument several times before...but I am not convinced of its validity. This might explain why a horse loses a race in slower time than it usually runs, when it goes up drastically in class...but it doesn't explain why a $4,000 claimer gets trounced every time it races in a $5,000 claiming race, but runs sharp races when it's entered again for $4,000. Is there really a measurable difference between a $4,000 and a $5,000 race?

Without seeing the specifics, I can tell you what's happening SOME of the time.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, look at the Derby or some of the strongest BC races. These are Grade 1 races, but they are WAY WAY DEEPER than the typical Grade 1 race. When you put 10 or more very good horses into the same race, some horses that have been competitive at the Grade 1 level are going to get killed. They won't finish 10 across the track. A move from Grade 2 into a race like that can sometimes be a huge leap.

The same thing happens among 4K and 5K claimers.

Sometimes there are fields of 5K claimers that are very deep in very sharp horses that have recently won for 4K, been competitive in the strongest 5K races, been competitive for 6K etc... It's only a 5K race, but it's a killer 5K race. So some horse that just won an average or weak 4K race that looks like he's making a small move up in class will actually be facing a field of tigers. "Someone" has to finish up the track in a race like that.

I've been looking at, thinking about, and betting on these class issues for multiple decades. You can trust me on this subject. ;)

[traynor]

Without seeing the specifics, I can tell you what's happening SOME of the time.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, look at the Derby or some of the strongest BC races. These are Grade 1 races, but they are WAY WAY DEEPER than the typical Grade 1 race. When you put 10 or more very good horses into the same race, some horses that have been competitive at the Grade 1 level are going to get killed. They won't finish 10 across the track. A move from Grade 2 into a race like that can sometimes be a huge leap.

The same thing happens among 4K and 5K claimers.

Sometimes there are fields of 5K claimers that are very deep in very sharp horses that have recently won for 4K, been competitive in the strongest 5K races, been competitive for 6K etc... It's only a 5K race, but it's a killer 5K race. So some horse that just won an average or weak 4K race that looks like he's making a small move up in class will actually be facing a field of tigers. "Someone" has to finish up the track in a race like that.

I've been looking at, thinking about, and betting on these class issues for multiple decades. You can trust me on this subject. ;)

I think a lot of confusion is introduced by selective memory, working in conjunction with preconceptions and entrenched belief systems. Specifically, there is a world of difference between studying something to extract good bets from that information, and a cursory skimming to locate "exceptions" that can be used to argue against something that is contrary to one's beliefs. It takes a lot less thought to declare something "unworkable" than it does to find things that work.

The reverse situation exists in speed "analysis" and pace "analysis." They seem to work just often enough to keep people sucked in to keep flailing at them. Why? Because computer apps are able to spew out neat looking "ratings" that seem to work, sometimes. If one is able to ignore the situations in which the speed and pace ratings do NOT work as expected, and avoid critical analysis of the premises routinely accepted as dogma by "pace" handicappers and "speed" handicappers, life is made more comfortable by the illusion of consistency where little of that consistency actually exists.

Speed analysis works sometimes. Pace analysis works sometimes. "Class" analysis (money box or race condition variety) works sometimes. All suffer the same deficiencies--because they are based on descriptions of past events, they are only predictive to the extent that the future replicates the past.

The real trick is to determine what will happen in the future--not to immerse in microscopic dissections of what (one believes) happened two weeks ago or a month ago, convinced that if only could squeeze out another digit of "accuracy" from the same numbers everyone else is crunching, huge profits will follow.

The more one is able to view past results as indicators (typical of class and trip handicappers) rather than as absolutes (typical of pace and speed handicappers), the easier it becomes to cash winning tickets.

[classhandicapper]

The real trick is to determine what will happen in the future--not to immerse in microscopic dissections of what (one believes) happened two weeks ago or a month ago, convinced that if only could squeeze out another digit of "accuracy" from the same numbers everyone else is crunching, huge profits will follow.

The more one is able to view past results as indicators (typical of class and trip handicappers) rather than as absolutes (typical of pace and speed handicappers), the easier it becomes to cash winning tickets.

I agree with you.

I am very guilty of trying to "squeeze out another digit of accuracy". It's almost embarrassing how much energy I put into that and how long it has taken me to realize I probably wasted a lot of time.

It's not that greater accuracy should not be pursued where possible. It's just that when you look at the data closely, compare various sources, start understanding how complex the game, etc... a simple "is this horse fast enough to win" is probably sufficient. The profits are elsewhere.

[traynor]

I agree with you.

I am very guilty of trying to "squeeze out another digit of accuracy". It's almost embarrassing how much energy I put into that and how long it has taken me to realize I probably wasted a lot of time.

It's not that greater accuracy should not be pursued where possible. It's just that when you look at the data closely, compare various sources, start understanding how complex the game, etc... a simple "is this horse fast enough to win" is probably sufficient. The profits are elsewhere.

One of the best learning experiences of my life was explicitly defining various "pace scenarios" and developing algorithms to detect when those scenarios were likely to occur. The short form is that it was an eye opener that enabled me to look elsewhere for opportunities, after realizing that most pace scenarios are defined as such after the race. If the outcome agrees with the preconception, it is remembered. If not, it is forgotten. Pace (and speed) handicappers seem to have endless examples of how things worked out "exactly as predicted." The examples (far more numerous) of how things didn't work out are ignored, forgotten, or blamed on other intervening circumstances. Unlike handicappers, computers have no ego to defend with selective memory.

[raybo]

One of the best learning experiences of my life was explicitly defining various "pace scenarios" and developing algorithms to detect when those scenarios were likely to occur. The short form is that it was an eye opener that enabled me to look elsewhere for opportunities, after realizing that most pace scenarios are defined as such after the race. If the outcome agrees with the preconception, it is remembered. If not, it is forgotten. Pace (and speed) handicappers seem to have endless examples of how things worked out "exactly as predicted." The examples (far more numerous) of how things didn't work out are ignored, forgotten, or blamed on other intervening circumstances. Unlike handicappers, computers have no ego to defend with selective memory.

You could say the very same things about any other type of handicapping. The bottom line is, over time, how often you are correct with your analysis, regardless of what that entails, and how much those horses paid.

[thaskalos]

One of the best learning experiences of my life was explicitly defining various "pace scenarios" and developing algorithms to detect when those scenarios were likely to occur. The short form is that it was an eye opener that enabled me to look elsewhere for opportunities, after realizing that most pace scenarios are defined as such after the race. If the outcome agrees with the preconception, it is remembered. If not, it is forgotten. Pace (and speed) handicappers seem to have endless examples of how things worked out "exactly as predicted." The examples (far more numerous) of how things didn't work out are ignored, forgotten, or blamed on other intervening circumstances. Unlike handicappers, computers have no ego to defend with selective memory.

I must not be the typical speed/pace handicapper. For some reason, the disappointments linger with me a lot longer than the triumphs.

[steveb]

Is there really a measurable difference between a $4,000 and a $5,000 race?

yes

[thaskalos]

yes
Can you show me?

[steveb]

Can you show me?

no, but i know that it is true.

enough data, and the know how, then yes it is easily calculated, and there would be a measurable difference between one class and another, no matter how close together they may me.
if one got no difference, then there would in fact be no difference.

i will give you a clue though.
if you accepted that class(as in race class) = time, then you are half way home.

although i have never tried to do it for states.
but australia, hong kong, singapore, japan, south africa, and several other european countries have all shown me that it will work anywhere.

entropy summed it up well when he once told me,.. "it's easier to do something if you know it has been done before, even if you don't know how."
he was referring to this very thing.

[Greyfox]

hong kong,
.

Do they ever race $4000 and $5000 claimers in Hong Kong?

[steveb]

Do they ever race $4000 and $5000 claimers in Hong Kong?

no, but they have different class races and that's all that matters.


in australia for instance, you would find that class 'a' in melbourne, is very diferent to class 'a' in brisbane or sydney.
same class in name and theory, but the reality is very different.

i guess that means that a $4k race in one place, will be different to a 4k race in another state, or jurisdiction.
and it will change over time for various reasons.
but it's easy enough to track.

[thaskalos]

no, but i know that it is true.

enough data, and the know how, then yes it is easily calculated, and there would be a measurable difference between one class and another, no matter how close together they may me.
if one got no difference, then there would in fact be no difference.

i will give you a clue though.
if you accepted that class(as in race class) = time, then you are half way home.

although i have never tried to do it for states.
but australia, hong kong, singapore, japan, south africa, and several other european countries have all shown me that it will work anywhere.

entropy summed it up well when he once told me,.. "it's easier to do something if you know it has been done before, even if you don't know how."
he was referring to this very thing.

I am not sure that I understand what you are saying here...and I don't want to speculate. But I do know that I disagree with the Entropy quote that you've supplied above. I know for a fact that winning the lotto has been done many times before...but knowing this doesn't seem to help me when I try to do it.

[steveb]

I am not sure that I understand what you are saying here...and I don't want to speculate. But I do know that I disagree with the Entropy quote that you've supplied above. I know for a fact that winning the lotto has been done many times before...but knowing this doesn't seem to help me when I try to do it.


not a very good or relevant example.
you are referring to probability, rather than anything tangible.

[raybo]

no, but they have different class races and that's all that matters.


in australia for instance, you would find that class 'a' in melbourne, is very diferent to class 'a' in brisbane or sydney.
same class in name and theory, but the reality is very different.

i guess that means that a $4k race in one place, will be different to a 4k race in another state, or jurisdiction.
and it will change over time for various reasons.
but it's easy enough to track.

I know next to nothing about non-US racing but, I find it hard to believe that they have anything near as many classes, anywhere else in the world, as we have here, and I suspect that the classes they do have are much further apart. If you consider maiden, claiming, allowance, handicaps, and stakes, with separations by age, sex, prices and purses, non-winners of x in or at x, state bred, etc., the numbers here are huge, and that doesn't even take in any of the more esoteric conditions that are common every day, on almost every card.

[Greyfox]

no, but they have different class races and that's all that matters.


.

Thask's question was "Is there really a measurable difference between a $4,000 and a $5,000 race?"

You gave Hong Kong as one of your examples, a track where those cheapos don't even race.
Of course they have different class level races there as we do in North America.
But to be honest, I don't think it's wise to start trying to put class on cheap claimers, far less saying there is a difference between a $4 K claimer and a $5 K claimer.

[thaskalos]

not a very good or relevant example.
you are referring to probability, rather than anything tangible.

Whenever I see a horse get trounced in a race when going up one level in class, even though the horse's pace and speed numbers indicate that it was the fastest horse in the race...then I don't believe that the horse lost because it was victimized by those lightening-quick mini-fractions that horses supposedly throw at one another during the "classier" races. Nor do I suspect that the horse lost because it was intimidated at a glance by the supposedly classier competition that it faced. I think the defeat is explained by the fact that the horse was not WELL MEANT in the supposedly classier race.

The pace and the speed figures may indeed say that a horse is the fastest in a given race...but those figures won't be of any help if the horse's trainer thinks that the horse doesn't belong there...and is using the race as a conditioner for a future endeavor.

[steveb]

I know next to nothing about non-US racing but, I find it hard to believe that they have anything near as many classes, anywhere else in the world, as we have here, and I suspect that the classes they do have are much further apart. If you consider maiden, claiming, allowance, handicaps, and stakes, with separations by age, sex, prices and purses, non-winners of x in or at x, state bred, etc., the numbers here are huge, and that doesn't even take in any of the more esoteric conditions that are common every day, on almost every card.

you may just get a surprise when australia is concerned, as far as how many class types and variations of.
not only that, but variation of the same class depending on where it is run.
and the differences that occur when officialdom starts meddling, as they like to do often.
certainly in the hundreds.

so long as your data is plentiful and accurate(or close to) then it matters not how many classes.
where the data is inaccurate then it won't work perfectly, because the data is not telling the truth.

in any case it is mostly an academic exercise, because most horses tend to stay in a defined area, unless they are the cream seeking big prizes away from home

i am not interesting in trying to prove anything anyway, i was just answering a question in the first instance.

[steveb]

Whenever I see a horse get trounced in a race when going up one level in class, even though the horse's pace and speed numbers indicate that it was the fastest horse in the race...then I don't believe that the horse lost because it was victimized by those lightening-quick mini-fractions that horses supposedly throw at one another during the "classier" races. Nor do I suspect that the horse lost because it was intimidated at a glance by the supposedly classier competition that it faced. I think the defeat is explained by the fact that the horse was not WELL MEANT in the supposedly classier race.



yes, but you are being specific.
there would be many instances of a 4k horse/race being better than a 5k one.
but with enough data the 4k as a group, will be inferior to the 5k as a group.
once you have that figured, then you have the building blocks, rather than the answer.

[raybo]

you may just get a surprise when australia is concerned, as far as how many class types and variations of.
not only that, but variation of the same class depending on where it is run.
and the differences that occur when officialdom starts meddling, as they like to do often.
certainly in the hundreds.

so long as your data is plentiful and accurate(or close to) then it matters not how many classes.
where the data is inaccurate then it won't work perfectly, because the data is not telling the truth.

in any case it is mostly an academic exercise, because most horses tend to stay in a defined area, unless they are the cream seeking big prizes away from home

i am not interesting in trying to prove anything anyway, i was just answering a question in the first instance.

Ask, Dave S. or some of the others who track classes here and try to put them in some kind of logical hierarchy. You'll find that we have thousands of classes.

[cj]

Whenever I see a horse get trounced in a race when going up one level in class, even though the horse's pace and speed numbers indicate that it was the fastest horse in the race...then I don't believe that the horse lost because it was victimized by those lightening-quick mini-fractions that horses supposedly throw at one another during the "classier" races. Nor do I suspect that the horse lost because it was intimidated at a glance by the supposedly classier competition that it faced. I think the defeat is explained by the fact that the horse was not WELL MEANT in the supposedly classier race.

The pace and the speed figures may indeed say that a horse is the fastest in a given race...but those figures won't be of any help if the horse's trainer thinks that the horse doesn't belong there...and is using the race as a conditioner for a future endeavor.

How much do you think trainer intent plays in? I think that is at least some of it. It is a very complex game as you well know and have stated many times.

I obviously don't have all the answers or I'd be on a tropical island somewhere by now.

[thaskalos]

yes, but you are being specific.
there would be many instances of a 4k horse/race being better than a 5k one.
but with enough data the 4k as a group, will be inferior to the 5k as a group.
once you have that figured, then you have the building blocks, rather than the answer.
I don't believe those par charts that I see...which have speed and class peacefully coexisting all the way from the top to the bottom of the class ladder. I honestly believe that these par charts have been massaged, in order to give the impression that the equine world is much more orderly than it really is.

[cj]

I don't believe those par charts that I see...which have speed and class peacefully coexisting all the way from the top to the bottom of the class ladder. I honestly believe that these par charts have been massaged, in order to give the impression that the equine world is much more orderly than it really is.

They would have to be. How can you use average times when the races are run on tracks that differ in speed most days?

If track speed is applied to attempts to make pars, things would probably be a lot more orderly than they appear without that adjustment. But then there is the chicken and egg type thing, you need pars to measure track speed (at least initially), but you need track speed to make pars.

[steveb]

I don't believe those par charts that I see...which have speed and class peacefully coexisting all the way from the top to the bottom of the class ladder. I honestly believe that these par charts have been massaged, in order to give the impression that the equine world is much more orderly than it really is.

well, i don't believe them either, so that makes two of us!
maybe they have to massage because their methodology is lacking????
no way do i massage.

the only times when things do not work logically is when there is insufficient data.
in that respect i guess i am wrong saying i can do it perfectly, but with sufficient data then it will always work.

i guess the only test that matters, is how well the racing game has treated you over a prolonged period.

[thaskalos]

How much do you think trainer intent plays in? I think that is at least some of it. It is a very complex game as you well know and have stated many times.

I obviously don't have all the answers or I'd be on a tropical island somewhere by now.
IMO, trainer intent plays a big part in the performances of these horses. That's why I find myself shaking my head whenever we start talking about using intricate mathematical calculations to predict energy expenditure, and other things of that nature. This game is not a mathematical problem waiting to be solved, like the theory of gravity, which was always sitting there, waiting for Newton to discover it. These are living, breathing creatures of habit...and the horses have their own idiosyncrasies as well. :)

If this were really a mathematical equation waiting to be solved...then the mathematicians would own their OWN tropical islands.

[steveb]

you need pars to measure track speed (at least initially), but you need track speed to make pars.

you can start with an assumption, then proceed by trial and error.
the end result is that you will have pars that match class.
in other words you will have class the same as time.

the track speed as such is irrelevant in my methodology.
well not really irrelevant, because once you remove the influence of track, region, topography and the rest of it from the equation, then the 'trackspeed' will tell you the difference in strength form one jurisdiction to another.

[steveb]

IMO, trainer intent plays a big part in the performances of these horses. That's why I find myself shaking my head whenever we start talking about using intricate mathematical calculations to predict energy expenditure, and other things of that nature. This game is not a mathematical problem waiting to be solved, like the theory of gravity, which was always sitting there, waiting for Newton to discover it. These are living, breathing creatures of habit...and the horses have their own idiosyncrasies as well. :)

If this were really a mathematical equation waiting to be solved...then the mathematicians would own their OWN tropical islands.

imo you are making the mistake of thinking that just because one can do something, then they have all the answers.
it does not work that way.
just because i know this class is better than that class overall, does not mean that i know it is today.
all you have is a means to do something, not an answer as such.
but once you have the means, then it becomes possible to do some things you could not do without those means.

your other mistake imo is thinking of horses as individuals.
the data, the math, the stats, will take care of the fact that they are indeed individuals.
but they all run in races, and the objective is the same.....to win.

trainers and riders and whatever will be treated in their own way.
there is no need to link them to time and class? is there?

[Cratos]

IMO, trainer intent plays a big part in the performances of these horses. That's why I find myself shaking my head whenever we start talking about using intricate mathematical calculations to predict energy expenditure, and other things of that nature. This game is not a mathematical problem waiting to be solved, like the theory of gravity, which was always sitting there, waiting for Newton to discover it. These are living, breathing creatures of habit...and the horses have their own idiosyncrasies as well. :)

If this were really a mathematical equation waiting to be solved...then the mathematicians would own their OWN tropical islands.
I agree that horserace handicapping is not a strict mathematical formulation, but handicapping is an quantitative endeavor and if you believe what you wrote in your post you clearly don't understand the difference between the scientific findings of Newton and Galileo.

[thaskalos]

I agree that horserace handicapping is not a strict mathematical formulation, but handicapping is an quantitative endeavor and if you believe what you wrote in your post you clearly don't understand the difference between the scientific findings of Newton and Galileo.
Luckily...I don't need to understand the findings of Newton and Galileo in order to play this game.

[Greyfox]

-Luckily...I don't need to understand the findings of Newton and Galileo in order to play this game.

As an aside here, I'm currently reading a book on Anti-gravity.
I can't put it down. ;)

[Tom]

Luckily...I don't need to understand the findings of Newton and Galileo in order to play this game.

When I play this game, I eat Fig Newtons and Drink Gallo wine.
Does that count?

[Cratos]

Luckily...I don't need to understand the findings of Newton and Galileo in order to play this game.
I don't want to take away from the current thesis of this thread which is "class", but what you wrote leaves a lot to be desired and maybe it was "tongue and cheek" on your part.

Now back to the "class" discussion.

[thaskalos]

I don't want to take away from the current thesis of this thread which is "class", but what you wrote leaves a lot to be desired and maybe it was "tongue and cheek" on your part.

Now back to the "class" discussion.
What was tongue-in-cheek...what I said about this game not being a mathematical problem waiting to be solved? I was dead serious. I have seen you post repeatedly about your belief that this game is nothing but a matter of physics, and I've disagreed with this opinion of yours...but you are entitled to it, so I've never stated to you that this opinion "leaves a lot to be desired". And when you finally decide to grace us with a concrete example of what you really mean, I might even embrace this opinion of yours myself.

I may be often wrong...but I am not stubborn...

[Tom]

Lots of windows into this game.
Some people use math, some use none.
Neither way is the only way.

[Cratos]

What was tongue-in-cheek...what I said about this game not being a mathematical problem waiting to be solved? I was dead serious. I have seen you post repeatedly about your belief that this game is nothing but a matter of physics, and I've disagreed with this opinion of yours...but you are entitled to it, so I've never stated to you that this opinion "leaves a lot to be desired". And when you finally decide to grace us with a concrete example of what you really mean, I might even embrace this opinion of yours myself.

I may be often wrong...but I am not stubborn...

I don't believe you are 'stubborn" and I enjoy your posts, but for you to say that many believe this. game is a mathematical problem waiting to be solved when the most popular handicapping tool in TB handicapping today, the speedfigures methodology is derived from a mathematical formulation is puzzling.

Yes, animal racing (horseracing), human racing, and machine racing is all supported in analysis and prediction from mechanics, a branch of physics.

[Tom]

Yes, and the races are numbered 1,2,3.....numbers.
But no one needs to use math to win.

[thaskalos]

I don't believe you are 'stubborn" and I enjoy your posts, but for you to say that many believe this. game is a mathematical problem waiting to be solved when the most popular handicapping tool in TB handicapping today, the speedfigures methodology is derived from a mathematical formulation is puzzling.

Yes, animal racing (horseracing), human racing, and machine racing is all supported in analysis and prediction from mechanics, a branch of physics.

I don't know what other players think about speed figures...but I consider them to be only one piece of the handicapping puzzle. And, as Beyer himself has stated, I believe that the over-reliance on the speed figures is a sure pathway to the poorhouse.

[Cratos]

I don't know what other players think about speed figures...but I consider them to be only one piece of the handicapping puzzle. And, as Beyer himself has stated, I believe that the over-reliance on the speed figures is a sure pathway to the poorhouse.

For clarity I wasn't speaking of "player reliance", but "player populaiity" . However the pusillanimous player might disagree with me.

[whodoyoulike]

For clarity I wasn't speaking of "player reliance", but "player populaiity" . However the pusillanimous player might disagree with me.


Did you just call him a ...?

[HUSKER55]

did I ever tell you guys and gals about the merchant who couldn't sell lemons 3 for $0.26?





Made a new sign that said Lemons $0.10 per pience and sold out in an hour.


that is a class act. :eek: :D

[TrifectaMike]

IMO, trainer intent plays a big part in the performances of these horses. That's why I find myself shaking my head whenever we start talking about using intricate mathematical calculations to predict energy expenditure, and other things of that nature. This game is not a mathematical problem waiting to be solved, like the theory of gravity, which was always sitting there, waiting for Newton to discover it. These are living, breathing creatures of habit...and the horses have their own idiosyncrasies as well. :)

If this were really a mathematical equation waiting to be solved...then the mathematicians would own their OWN tropical islands.

Thask, you've made some good points, but not entirely accurate.

The game is a mathematical problem waiting to be solved, "unlike the theory of gravity".

When one, as yourself, speaks of a mathematical solution or equation, you imply what is referred to as a physical theory.

Physical theories allow us to make predictions: given a complete description of a physical system, we can predict the outcome of some measurements. This problem of predicting the result of measurements is called the modelization problem, the simulation problem, or the forward problem. ( "findings of Newton and Galileo...")

Horse racing as a mathematical problem is "viewed" as an inverse problem.

The inverse problem consists of using the actual result of some
measurements to infer the values of the parameters that characterize the system.

While the forward problem has (like in deterministic physics) a unique solution, the inverse problem does not. The inverse problem has multiple solutions (in fact, an infinite number).

Precious Mike

[classhandicapper]

Whenever I see a horse get trounced in a race when going up one level in class, even though the horse's pace and speed numbers indicate that it was the fastest horse in the race...then I don't believe that the horse lost because it was victimized by those lightening-quick mini-fractions that horses supposedly throw at one another during the "classier" races. Nor do I suspect that the horse lost because it was intimidated at a glance by the supposedly classier competition that it faced. I think the defeat is explained by the fact that the horse was not WELL MEANT in the supposedly classier race.

The pace and the speed figures may indeed say that a horse is the fastest in a given race...but those figures won't be of any help if the horse's trainer thinks that the horse doesn't belong there...and is using the race as a conditioner for a future endeavor.

Your latter point (trainer intent) is relevant, but let's leave that one aside because I am not a mind reader.

What if the data shows that horses that otherwise look equal disappoint way more often on the class rise than they do if they stay in the same class?

What if the data shows that horses that were well beaten improve their figures on the class drop more often than horses that stayed in the same class?

Then, when you looked at the average paces, final times, and other qualitative measures you determined that there were differences between those class levels?

Wouldn't that convince you to consider class moves no matter what the cause?

If you want to remove trainer intent, then I would say you should focus on class moves at the Graded Stakes level. Most of those horses are trying because it costs money to enter, ship etc.. IMO, if anything, the significance of class is even easier to appreciate at the stakes level. Horses that don't look much slower than the best horses in the race get crushed in major Grade 1 races all the time.

[JohnGalt1]

Since this thread has turned towards the elusive topic of "class", I'll challenge the advocates to point out a few plays (and why) before the races. The results don't matter, just want to see how class is applied. No retro fits.


I use a numerical measurement of class that was created by William L. Scott in the book "Total Victory at the Races." He called it Performance Class Ratings.

It measures how a horse competed or performed at the various classes and against the number of opponents it faced, (a horse beating a field of 12 is more impressive than if he beat fields of 5 or 6.)

I have modified his method and more structured class rankings for todays racing climate. I developed a chart for easy comparison.

It is just after 8 AM CT.

I will post my class ratings for Saturday 12/13 GP race 8 7.5 f turf 100k open Stakes. Ranked in their running styles with abbreviated names.

E
none

EP
1-Excaper-----------283(-3) ratio of higher class races in past
3-Asset--------------373
5-Tiger---------------187
10-Howe-------------215(-3)
11-Fredericks--------223

P
2-Vinny--------------230
4-Breitling-----------187
6-Bad Debt----------224
7-Mshwish----------(230) 3 American races
8-Midnight-----------167
9-Strong-------------184

The winner will be among the top 3 PCR horses about 67% of the time.

In this race there are 2 standout ratings but third place is a tie between the 2,6,7,10, and 11. 10% is roughly the separating factor.

PCR is only about 1/3 of what I do. Condition and speed/pace is just as important depending on the race. Turf and dirt routes PCR is slightly more important and speed/pace can be more important in sprints.

In this race I will bet the :1: to win and play :3: :6: :7: over the :1: in an exacta. Other bets will depend on scratches or odds.

Race 9 1 1/16 dirt $100k Stake

E
1-Sr Quis------------142

EP
2-Csaba-------------200
3-Rose---------------225 (if male the rating would be 274)
4-Parks--------------340
6-Schivarelli---------320
7-Valid---------------349
8-Liam's-------------(383) 3 races

P
9-Hy-----------------283

S
5-Hampstead--------one/dirt race

PCR's can only be computed if 3 or more races and if 3or 4 races I put in parentheses to be used as advisory ratings.

The Filly is rated lower because races against males I rate higher than against females. I rate equal a female open 50k claiming race to a male 32K open claiming race.

In the above race the 6,7 and 8 are the top 3, but because the 8 is based on only 3 races I would also consider the 6.

I am passing this race because most horses are too close in pace/speed ratings.

I've posted this because CJ asked if class could be quantified, and to me it does, and it works for me.

The above 2 races are meant to show what these numbers look like.

You can consider them when you handicap these races with your form and speed figures.

THESE ARE NOT STAND ALONE FIGURES, and must be used with other factors.

Obviously they are not computed in races where no one has at least 3 races, or even when most don't have 3 races.

I only rate dirt races if the race is on dirt and turf races for a turf race.

The numbers look like a baseball batting average. Who do you want to bat clean up (or bet your money on) the .305 with some pop in his bat (speed) or the .212 hitter who "might" drive in the winning run (win the race?)

The absolute best performance of these rating is traditional starter allowance races--raced for claiming price of x since y.

They do best on Claiming Crown, since they are just starter allowances with huge purses.

[classhandicapper]

I don't believe those par charts that I see...which have speed and class peacefully coexisting all the way from the top to the bottom of the class ladder. I honestly believe that these par charts have been massaged, in order to give the impression that the equine world is much more orderly than it really is.


They are definitely massaged because the samples are way too small in many cases and the differences between some classes are small enough that even large samples won't produce a nice neat chart. That doesn't mean an informed massaging won't yield very useful results.

I consider that more of an indictment on speed figures than class handicapping.

Speed figures are a function of those charts. Class handicapping is an attempt to bypass issues like parallel time charts, run ups, rails up or down, timer malfunctions, wind, changes in track speed during the day, track maintenance during the day etc...

[Greyfox]

I use a numerical measurement of class that was created by William L. Scott in the book "Total Victory at the Races." He called it Performance Class Ratings.



Years ago I developed a methodology and program based on that book of Scott's.
It worked very well but was very tedious to do.
I really respected this late author's work.
However, when I was in The Gambler's Bookstore in Las Vegas, I noticed that there were several copies of it that buyers had turned back to them.
I guess the amount of work his ideas required wasn't very popular with horse players.
I ultimately gave up using the model I had developed because of the tediousness of it.
Yet the one thing it demonstrated to me was it is quite possible to win at the races without using Pace and Speed figures.

[Tom]

Yet the one thing it demonstrated to me was it is quite possible to win at the races without using Pace and Speed figures.

One of the options in HTR is what pace line method to use. I frequently turn it off so that no speed or pace at all is used, so I am only looking at stuff not mainstream.

I call it the No Math Method!

[classhandicapper]

CJ asked that a "class handicapper" review a "class play". Rather than do that, I'm going to illustrate an example of where "class handicapping" can get exceedingly complex and confusing.

The 9th race at GP today is the 100K Harlan's Holiday stakes. It's ungraded, but there are a few horses in the race that have been competitive in graded stakes company and others that may have their best days ahead of them. So IMO, it's a solid field for this level.

For me, the key horse is Liam's Map because he's the horse that is tough for me to classify. He beat a NW1 ALW field by 10 lengths while being loose on the lead on a track, that, if anything, was tilted towards speed. He appeared to win with something in reserve. It was a very good effort, but he didn't beat much and it wasn't a tough trip.

A move from NW1 to this level is not massive, but it's certainly large enough that most horses that try it will fail miserably. The difference of course is that we know this is no ordinary NW1 winner. He crushed back to back fields. Even in his loss as a maiden he was well clear of the 3rd horse and the winner came back to win again.

Generally, I will try to beat horses like these. They will come in with flashy figures, take a lot of money, but not be up to the challenge against better horses and the tougher trip (at least yet). There are exceptions though. Some horses like this are simply exceptional horses that haven't revealed what's in the tank yet (Graydar and Cross Traffic are 2 recent examples from Pletcher).

This is an example where raw class handicapping is telling me to play against this horse if he gets bet heavily, but practical experience is telling me I shouldn't be so anxious. This is a lightly raced, dominant, well bred horse, from the Pletcher barn. He might actually be the class of the race.

This may seem like a very unsatisfactory analysis because I'm expressing no real opinion on the horse or the outcome. But it shouldn't be. I'm illustrating one of the complexities of handicapping a race without figures and an awareness that sometimes you CAN'T know how classy a horse is until after the fact. For figure handicappers, the analysis is probably as simple as does he have the top number and will he duplicate it or improve.

There's no way I'm going to bet on Liam's Map. But it going to take a bias or some other advantage to get me to pull the trigger against him.

[cj]

CJ asked that a "class handicapper" review a "class play". Rather than do that, I'm going to illustrate an example of where "class handicapping" can get exceedingly complex and confusing.

The 9th race at GP today is the 100K Harlan's Holiday stakes. It's ungraded, but there are a few horses in the race that have been competitive in graded stakes company and others that may have their best days ahead of them. So IMO, it's a solid field for this level.

For me, the key horse is Liam's Map because he's the horse that is tough for me to classify. He beat a NW1 ALW field by 10 lengths while being loose on the lead on a track, that, if anything, was tilted towards speed. He appeared to win with something in reserve. It was a very good effort, but he didn't beat much and it wasn't a tough trip.

A move from NW1 to this level is not massive, but it's certainly large enough that most horses that try it will fail miserably. The difference of course is that we know this is no ordinary NW1 winner. He crushed back to back fields. Even in his loss as a maiden he was well clear of the 3rd horse and the winner came back to win again.

Generally, I will try to beat horses like these. They will come in with flashy figures, take a lot of money, but not be up to the challenge against better horses and the tougher trip (at least yet). There are exceptions though. Some horses like this are simply exceptional horses that haven't revealed what's in the tank yet (Graydar and Cross Traffic are 2 recent examples from Pletcher).

This is an example where raw class handicapping is telling me to play against this horse if he gets bet heavily, but practical experience is telling me I shouldn't be so anxious. This is a lightly raced, dominant, well bred horse, from the Pletcher barn. He might actually be the class of the race.

This may seem like a very unsatisfactory analysis because I'm expressing no real opinion on the horse or the outcome. But it shouldn't be. I'm illustrating one of the complexities of handicapping a race without figures and an awareness that sometimes you CAN'T know how classy a horse is until after the fact. For figure handicappers, the analysis is probably as simple as does he have the top number and will he duplicate it or improve.

There's no way I'm going to bet on Liam's Map. But it going to take a bias or some other advantage to get me to pull the trigger against him.

All that for the usual "passhandicapper"? :)

[cj]

I use a numerical measurement of class that was created by William L. Scott in the book "Total Victory at the Races." He called it Performance Class Ratings.

It measures how a horse competed or performed at the various classes and against the number of opponents it faced, (a horse beating a field of 12 is more impressive than if he beat fields of 5 or 6.)



I have no doubt it can be measured. I like that you are using it as just part of the equation. That is how any handicapping factor should be used. The toughest part of handicapping is knowing which factor is most important in each race. Actually, I should say which factor offers the best value in each race.

[MJC922]

CJ asked that a "class handicapper" review a "class play". Rather than do that, I'm going to illustrate an example of where "class handicapping" can get exceedingly complex and confusing.

The 9th race at GP today is the 100K Harlan's Holiday stakes. It's ungraded, but there are a few horses in the race that have been competitive in graded stakes company and others that may have their best days ahead of them. So IMO, it's a solid field for this level.

For me, the key horse is Liam's Map because he's the horse that is tough for me to classify. He beat a NW1 ALW field by 10 lengths while being loose on the lead on a track, that, if anything, was tilted towards speed. He appeared to win with something in reserve. It was a very good effort, but he didn't beat much and it wasn't a tough trip.

A move from NW1 to this level is not massive, but it's certainly large enough that most horses that try it will fail miserably. The difference of course is that we know this is no ordinary NW1 winner. He crushed back to back fields. Even in his loss as a maiden he was well clear of the 3rd horse and the winner came back to win again.

Generally, I will try to beat horses like these. They will come in with flashy figures, take a lot of money, but not be up to the challenge against better horses and the tougher trip (at least yet). There are exceptions though. Some horses like this are simply exceptional horses that haven't revealed what's in the tank yet (Graydar and Cross Traffic are 2 recent examples from Pletcher).

This is an example where raw class handicapping is telling me to play against this horse if he gets bet heavily, but practical experience is telling me I shouldn't be so anxious. This is a lightly raced, dominant, well bred horse, from the Pletcher barn. He might actually be the class of the race.

This may seem like a very unsatisfactory analysis because I'm expressing no real opinion on the horse or the outcome. But it shouldn't be. I'm illustrating one of the complexities of handicapping a race without figures and an awareness that sometimes you CAN'T know how classy a horse is until after the fact. For figure handicappers, the analysis is probably as simple as does he have the top number and will he duplicate it or improve.

There's no way I'm going to bet on Liam's Map. But it going to take a bias or some other advantage to get me to pull the trigger against him.

I agree in the sense that when you're dealing with lightly raced forward moving horses it's a guess as to their classification -- you're working with a moving target. The horse 'fits' on class, at least on my class ratings he ran 7.25 last time and class par for GP ungraded is 8, so he bettered par last time. However consider several other horses e.g. Valid' where three out of his last four are 7's and 8's. Or Pants on Fire, 7,8,9. I think the best way to deal with Liam's Map is to put a line through him today. The reason being, he's first time two turns and projects for a wide trip early, there's some adversity here which he didn't face last time. I don't see him rating kindly either with his head carried high. Unless one expects that he will make the lead in here or is going to move forward again in a tougher spot, I can't see it.

[classhandicapper]

All that for the usual "passhandicapper"? :)

;)

Believe me, I'm dying to play against this horse for multiple reasons. I've just been burned a few times playing against horses like this from Pletcher.

[cj]

;)

Believe me, I'm dying to play against this horse for multiple reasons. I've just been burned a few times playing against horses like this from Pletcher.

This is where you have to know the percentages...does playing against horses like Liam's Map offer long term value or not? If not, does playing them?

These are answers that aren't very difficult to find once you establish your own parameters to define "horses like him."

[thaskalos]

Your latter point (trainer intent) is relevant, but let's leave that one aside because I am not a mind reader.

What if the data shows that horses that otherwise look equal disappoint way more often on the class rise than they do if they stay in the same class?

What if the data shows that horses that were well beaten improve their figures on the class drop more often than horses that stayed in the same class?

Then, when you looked at the average paces, final times, and other qualitative measures you determined that there were differences between those class levels?

Wouldn't that convince you to consider class moves no matter what the cause?

If you want to remove trainer intent, then I would say you should focus on class moves at the Graded Stakes level. Most of those horses are trying because it costs money to enter, ship etc.. IMO, if anything, the significance of class is even easier to appreciate at the stakes level. Horses that don't look much slower than the best horses in the race get crushed in major Grade 1 races all the time.
I don't want to "remove trainer intent". It's an inescapable part of the game...and it has to be dealt with. And even if I wanted to remove trainer intent from the equation, I would never restrict my play to the Graded stakes races; they are too rare for my taste. If I don't bet on about a third of the races that I handicap, then I am miserable. I don't consider being a "winning player" to be the ultimate goal in this game; a "winning player" could mean anything we want it to mean. To me...the skillful player must find enough bets to make the endeavor worthwhile.

At this stage of my life, I don't consider horse racing to be my favorite hobby. I would much rather go to basketball and hockey games with my son...while he still wants to hang out with me. If I can't find enough bets in this game to suit my needs...then I won't bother with it anymore.

[thaskalos]

I brought up the topic of trainer intent because of Cratos' repeated posts about "energy expenditure"...and how to calculate it mathematically. Sometimes we forget that this is really a game run by HUMANS...who often enter these horses under precise riding instructions. Not everything really is as it seems.

[thaskalos]

They are definitely massaged because the samples are way too small in many cases and the differences between some classes are small enough that even large samples won't produce a nice neat chart. That doesn't mean an informed massaging won't yield very useful results.

I consider that more of an indictment on speed figures than class handicapping.

Speed figures are a function of those charts. Class handicapping is an attempt to bypass issues like parallel time charts, run ups, rails up or down, timer malfunctions, wind, changes in track speed during the day, track maintenance during the day etc...

But the real job of a par chart isn't to present itself as a "nice neat chart". Who the hell wants a "nice neat chart"...except for the guy who is trying to sell it to the gullible public? Is that what real research is all about...coming up with a "nice neat chart"?

When a physicist enters his laboratory to conduct his experiments, he leaves his preconceptions at the door...and lets his opinions be formed by the actual evidence that he witnesses, THAT'S what real research is all about. But these guys who have come up with these "nice and neat" par charts have put the cart before the horse. They are not interested in "real research"...nor are they willing to let go of their preconceptions. They are looking to create a "nice and neat" par chart...where every higher class level registers a better running time than the one underneath it. The $4,000 claimer runs the 6 furlongs in 1:12...the 5,000 claimer runs it in 1:11.4...the $6,500 in 1:11.3...the $7,500 in 1:11.2...and so on, all the way up the ladder. Nice and neat. Why deal with the complexity and the illogic sometimes present in the game...when you really don't need to. Just put together a nice neat chart in spite of the evidence that you see in your research...and you have no further explaining to do. :)

That's what I mean by massaging the data.

[classhandicapper]

This is where you have to know the percentages...does playing against horses like Liam's Map offer long term value or not? If not, does playing them?

These are answers that aren't very difficult to find once you establish your own parameters to define "horses like him."

I hear you. But it's not as simple as looking at a group of horses like this and seeing how they did. There is a subgroup of those horses that has deeper reserves than they've needed to show so far. It's almost impossible to know which ones they are from the PPs. But there are backdoor clues and if you have very keen visual skills you might be able to see it.

The probability is different if it's a Pletcher/Baffert/McLaughlin etc.. horse than if it's a horse handled by trainer "X".

The probability is different if it's a 800K Unbridled horse than one from an obscure sire that went for 50K.

The probability is different if it's a horse that has been extremely impressive in the mornings all along than if not.

When you get into the specifics, you wind up where I ended up.

As a group, these types of horses are great to bet against if they take a ton of money. But this specific one is coming from a barn that handles a lot of top notch horses, he was highly regarded, he was well bet right from the start, the trainer wins with this kind of move. So I know there's a better chance he could be really good than the typical horse in the group. But it's such a small subgroup, I can't put a good enough value on it to take a strong stand.

[cj]

I hear you. But it's not as simple as looking at a group of horses like this and seeing how they did. There is a subgroup of those horses that has deeper reserves than they've needed to show so far. It's almost impossible to know which ones they are from the PPs. But there are backdoor clues and if you have very keen visual skills you might be able to see it.

The probability is different if it's a Pletcher/Baffert/McLaughlin etc.. horse than if it's a horse handled by trainer "X".

The probability is different if it's a 800K Unbridled horse than one from an obscure sire that went for 50K.

The probability is different if it's a horse that has been extremely impressive in the mornings all along than if not.

When you get into the specifics, you wind up where I ended up.

As a group, these types of horses are great to bet against if they take a ton of money. But this specific one is coming from a barn that handles a lot of top notch horses, he was highly regarded, he was well bet right from the start, the trainer wins with this kind of move. So I know there's a better chance he could be really good than the typical horse in the group. But it's such a small subgroup, I can't put a good enough value on it to take a strong stand.

That is all part of defining "horses like St Liam".

[classhandicapper]

I don't want to "remove trainer intent". It's an inescapable part of the game...and it has to be dealt with.

I was not suggesting you remove trainer intent from your game. I agree that it's critical. I was suggesting that if you think trainer intent explains most of the variations that some people attribute to class, just looking at stakes will help you control for trainer intent. In graded stakes, everyone is trying almost every time. So if you see the same variations, it must be related to class changes. Once you are convinced that class matters, then you can handle class and trainer intent any way you see fit.

[thaskalos]

I was not suggesting you remove trainer intent from your game. I agree that it's critical. I was suggesting that if you think trainer intent explains most of the variations that some people attribute to class, just looking at stakes will help you control for trainer intent. In graded stakes, everyone is trying almost every time. So if you see the same variations, it must be related to class changes. Once you are convinced that class matters, then you can handle class and trainer intent any way you see fit.

I already am CONVINCED that class matters. It matters even if it only exists in the trainer's MIND. If the trainer doesn't think that his horse can win, then the horse WON'T win...no matter WHAT the speed and the pace figures say. THAT'S what "class handicapping" means to me.

[classhandicapper]

That is all part of defining "horses like St Liam".

Getting down the that level of specificity with variations of pedigree, workouts, trainer etc... is too small a sample. I've seen Pletcher and other handlers of top stock win with horse's like this enough to know I shouldn't take a strong stand against him, but he's also unlikely to provide value.

For me, the only course of action is finding value somewhere else in the race because I have some other unique insight. Then I can key on that other horse and safely use Liam's Map to save in case he's a top notch horse and still have some value.

[classhandicapper]

I already am CONVINCED that class matters. It matters even if it only exists in the trainer's MIND. If the trainer doesn't think that his horse can win, then the horse WON'T win...no matter WHAT the speed and the pace figures say. THAT'S what "class handicapping" means to me.

That's all well and good. I understand you.

I'm suggesting that class exists and matters independent of what the trainer thinks. To either prove or disprove the point you would have to control for what the trainer thinks. If they are all entering taking their best shot, then what happens after that is not trainer intent.

[thaskalos]

That's all well and good. I understand you.

I'm suggesting that class exists and matters independent of what the trainer thinks. To either prove or disprove the point you would have to control for what the trainer thinks. If they are all entering taking their best shot, then what happens after that is not trainer intent.
It may...but proving this is another matter. Class is something that is a lot easier to see, than it is to define or measure.

[classhandicapper]

But the real job of a par chart isn't to present itself as a "nice neat chart". Who the hell wants a "nice neat chart"...except for the guy who is trying to sell it to the gullible public? Is that what real research is all about...coming up with a "nice neat chart"?



I agree with everything you said, but the lack of neatness is easily explained. In many cases the samples are too small and in others the differences between single class jumps are too narrow to produce "neat" results even when the samples are fairly large.

If you look at larger differences in class and larger samples you will get neat.

You can sell the data as is and allow handicappers to sift through the mess or you can manually massage the data to produce charts that will have some practical value for figure makers and class handicappers. Most people don't want to sift through the mess and believe the classing system is at least reasonable efficient. So they pay someone they trust to create charts that will have some practical use even if they don't reflect what actually happened on the track in that sample.

[cj]

I agree with everything you said, but the lack of neatness is easily explained. In many cases the samples are too small and in others the differences between single class jumps are too narrow to produce "neat" results even when the samples are fairly large.

If you look at larger differences in class and larger samples you will get neat.

You can sell the data as is and allow handicappers to sift through the mess or you can manually massage the data to produce charts that will have some practical value for figure makers and class handicappers. Most people don't want to sift through the mess and believe the classing system is at least reasonable efficient. So they pay someone they trust to create charts that will have some practical use even if they don't reflect what actually happened on the track in that sample.

As I've said earlier, races also are run on decidedly different racetracks speed wise and with varying pace scenarios, so just using raw times is an exercise in futility.

[Tom]

I brought up the topic of trainer intent because of Cratos' repeated posts about "energy expenditure"...and how to calculate it mathematically. Sometimes we forget that this is really a game run by HUMANS...who often enter these horses under precise riding instructions. Not everything really is as it seems.

So an example to demonstrate those two points - Itsmyluckyday.

How does Cratos explain the Kelso, and doesn't trainer intent really explain it well?

[classhandicapper]

As I've said earlier, races also are run on decidedly different racetracks speed wise and with varying pace scenarios, so just using raw times is an exercise in futility.

I agree.

That's why I've tended to use speed figure pars instead of raw time pars for classing purposes. The assumption being that some effort has already been made to account for track speed and is built into the speed figures.

Even though someone can say the parallel time charts used to create the speed figures came from the raw times, there has at least been an extra layer of analysis to improve on raw times.

[Cratos]

So an example to demonstrate those two points - Itsmyluckyday.

How does Cratos explain the Kelso, and doesn't trainer intent really explain it well?
Cratos doesn't explain the "Kelso" because from reading your posts you would inexplicably consider any explanation bovarism.

[classhandicapper]

In the mean time, Liam's Map is 1-2. That's crazy.

[classhandicapper]

Well, there's your answer.

Used wide early to get into position, used chasing, repulsed a serious bid from a Grade 2 winner, dug in and came again. I'd say he had something in reserve relative to what he had shown to date.

[thaskalos]

Thask, you've made some good points, but not entirely accurate.

The game is a mathematical problem waiting to be solved, "unlike the theory of gravity".

When one, as yourself, speaks of a mathematical solution or equation, you imply what is referred to as a physical theory.

Physical theories allow us to make predictions: given a complete description of a physical system, we can predict the outcome of some measurements. This problem of predicting the result of measurements is called the modelization problem, the simulation problem, or the forward problem. ( "findings of Newton and Galileo...")

Horse racing as a mathematical problem is "viewed" as an inverse problem.

The inverse problem consists of using the actual result of some
measurements to infer the values of the parameters that characterize the system.

While the forward problem has (like in deterministic physics) a unique solution, the inverse problem does not. The inverse problem has multiple solutions (in fact, an infinite number).

Precious Mike





I don't believe everything that I read, Mike, so, consequently, I don't expect others to believe everything that I write. What I state here is strictly my OPINION, based on what i've experienced first-hand during my long horse-playing career. I don't claim to know everything there is to know about this game...and I may not even know as much as I THINK I do.

The good thing about me is that I am not set in my beliefs. Whenever I am presented with proof that I am wrong...I readily change my mind.

[cj]

Well, there's your answer.

Used wide early to get into position, used chasing, repulsed a serious bid from a Grade 2 winner, dug in and came again. I'd say he had something in reserve relative to what he had shown to date.

Of course it was Pletcher at Gulfstream, which is an automatic no go when it comes to playing against!

[steveb]

Thask's question was "Is there really a measurable difference between a $4,000 and a $5,000 race?"

You gave Hong Kong as one of your examples, a track where those cheapos don't even race.
Of course they have different class level races there as we do in North America.
But to be honest, I don't think it's wise to start trying to put class on cheap claimers, far less saying there is a difference between a $4 K claimer and a $5 K claimer.

i did not see this post previously.
if you think 'cheapos' don't race in hk then you are sadly mistaken.
admittedly they are better than they used to be, but there are some very slow horses over there.
that they may earn lots of money is another topic altogether.

i guess, everybody has different opinions, but one thing i learned a long time ago.
don't dismiss something as unwise, just because you can't do it yourself or don't think it can be done.

i guess the value of knowing the difference between the average 4k and 5k claimers is debatable, but it does not make it 'unwise'

[steveb]

I don't believe everything that I read, Mike, so, consequently, I don't expect others to believe everything that I write. What I state here is strictly my OPINION, based on what i've experienced first-hand during my long horse-playing career. I don't claim to know everything there is to know about this game...and I may not even know as much as I THINK I do.

The good thing about me is that I am not set in my beliefs. Whenever I am presented with proof that I am wrong...I readily change my mind.

those that may know you are wrong, may not care that you are?
once somebody offers 'proof' of something, then the value of that 'proof' is diminished once it is in the public arena.

[thaskalos]

those that may know you are wrong, may not care that you are?
once somebody offers 'proof' of something, then the value of that 'proof' is diminished once it is in the public arena.
That's all well and good. But am I supposed to accept that I am wrong about a handicapping issue, when I am not presented with any proof that backs up that assertion?

If we say that the opinions of others are inaccurate, without explaining what our OWN opinion is...then we are not interested in an honest debate. We are just being argumentative for argument's sake. And that's not a productive thing to do...IMO.

If we are really paranoid about the "diminished" value of any information that we reveal here...then why bother posting here in the first place?

[steveb]

That's all well and good. But am I supposed to accept that I am wrong about a handicapping issue, when I am not presented with any proof that backs up that assertion?

If we say that the opinions of others are inaccurate, without explaining what our OWN opinion is...then we are not interested in an honest debate. We are just being argumentative for argument's sake. And that's not a productive thing to do...IMO.

If we are really paranoid about the "diminished" value of any information that we reveal here...then why bother posting here in the first place?

well, all i did was say 'yes' to a question in the first place.

it just flowed on from there.

on this board there is is probably a huge variation as to what involvement or expertise they have as far as horse racing goes.

you can't expect people to just offer up their hard earned knowledge, especially if that knowledge is their livelihood.

places like this board are gold, for even those that already are well advanced, because they give you pause for thought, and many ideas to pursue.

but i don't think anybody should be offering proof of anything if they don't desire.
that you may get something to think about is enough i think.

those that dismiss, are the real losers in my opinion, because they are closing their eyes to the possibility they may have something to pursue, even if that something is not spelled out for them.

[thaskalos]

well, all i did was say 'yes' to a question in the first place.

it just flowed on from there.

on this board there is is probably a huge variation as to what involvement or expertise they have as far as horse racing goes.

you can't expect people to just offer up their hard earned knowledge, especially if that knowledge is their livelihood.

places like this board are gold, for even those that already are well advanced, because they give you pause for thought, and many ideas to pursue.

but i don't think anybody should be offering proof of anything if they don't desire.
that you may get something to think about is enough i think.

those that dismiss, are the real losers in my opinion, because they are closing their eyes to the possibility they may have something to pursue, even if that something is not spelled out for them.

I asked if there is a measurable difference between a $4,000 and a $5,000 claimer...and you answered with just a "Yes".

I then asked you if you could show me the difference...and your answer was..."No, but I know that it is true".

IMO, replies of this sort cannot be taken seriously...even if this knowledge is our "livelihood". This is the internet...and we can all pretend to be whatever we want to be. It takes more than yes and no answers to make our point.

[steveb]

I asked if there is a measurable difference between a $4,000 and a $5,000 claimer...and you answered with just a "Yes".

I then asked you if you could show me the difference...and your answer was..."No, but I know that it is true".

IMO, replies of this sort cannot be taken seriously...even if this knowledge is our "livelihood". This is the internet...and we can all pretend to be whatever we want to be. It takes more than yes and no answers to make our point.

and goodnight to to you too sir.
that was an abrasive answer, so i will take your advice and canter off.
i will leave it to the experts, that don't 'pretend'

[thaskalos]

and goodnight to to you too sir.
that was an abrasive answer, so i will take your advice and canter off.
i will leave it to the experts, that don't 'pretend'
I might be abrasive...but am I wrong? Do you think that yes and no answers lead to productive discussions? And if we are not interested in productive discussions...then what are we doing here? Trying to impress with our supposed credentials?

[steveb]

I might be abrasive...but am I wrong? Do you think that yes and no answers lead to productive discussions? And if we are not interested in productive discussions...then what are we doing here? Trying to impress with our supposed credentials?

you have got to be joking?
i am not trying to impress anybody.
i simply answered a question; that you may not agree with the answer is neither here nor there.
i don't cast aspersions on people, especially those that i know nothing about.
may i suggest you do the same.

and yes you are wrong, but you can think what you like it is of no concern to me.

goodnight sir, well it's morning here, so good morning sir, the 'pretender' is off again!

[Greyfox]

Thask - You earned two "Good Nights" and one "Good Morning" and a Sir. :D

[thaskalos]

Thask - You earned two "Good Nights" and one "Good Morning" and a Sir. :D
And all in the process of getting chewed out. :)

[Greyfox]

And all in the process of getting chewed out. :)

By the way, I just looked up Sunday's race card for Hong Kong.
Ten races there and no sign of any $4000 or $5000 claimers.

http://racing.hkjc.com/racing/Info/Meeting/RaceCard/English/Local/20141214/ST/1

[steveb]

By the way, I just looked up Sunday's race card for Hong Kong.
Ten races there and no sign of any $4000 or $5000 claimers.

http://racing.hkjc.com/racing/Info/Meeting/RaceCard/English/Local/20141214/ST/1


jesus, how ridiculous is that?
today is international day, it's their showcase meeting of the year.
of course there is not going to be any signs of them!
when you want to show how clever you are try doing some research first.

[Greyfox]

Give us a heads up the next time cheap 4k and 5k claimers are running there.

[steveb]

Give us a heads up the next time cheap 4k and 5k claimers are running there.

why would i bother, when it seems the purpose of some is to atagonise and alienate?
my mother used to suggest to me that there is a reason we have two ears and one mouth.

[Secondbest]

I have a question.How does math account for a jockey going inside checking on the turn and Then get blocked and having to bull through to get Room only to fall short (see vyjack).No I did not bet him. It can't.I'm not knocking it.Never Argue with success.If you win with it great. But Sometimes the guy on the horse means moré than all the charts, formulas and fígs.

[thaskalos]

why would i bother, when it seems the purpose of some is to atagonise and alienate?
my mother used to suggest to me that there is a reason we have two ears and one mouth.
Steve...you got me all wrong. I am not here to antagonize and alienate. And it bothers me to have enemies even in another hemisphere. Please accept my apologies if I offended you in any way...it was not my intention. It's just that I enjoy lively debates...and I find that the debates seldom get lively when we all play it too close to the vest. I don't know how many posters here rely on this game for their livelihood...but even those of us who do can share a few details about their operation without getting overly paranoid about the "diminishing value" of the information that they give out. This is the best site of its kind on the internet...and it has become what it is because of the information that we share.

[Greyfox]

--why would i bother, when it seems the purpose of some is to atagonise and alienate?
my mother used to suggest to me that there is a reason we have two ears and one mouth.

The purpose was not to antagonise or alienate.
I merely pointed out that Thask had asked a very specific question, to which you claimed to know the answer.
But one of the example tracks that you provided in your response didn't seem to match his question in any way.
If you had simply said "Sorry, I didn't mean to include Hong Kong." I'd have been content.
But instead you took offense that anyone would point out that part of your response was lacking and your nose still seems out of joint about it.
I don't play Hong Kong on a routine basis.
But whenever I have, I've never seen any cheap $4K or $5K claimers there.
Surprise me and send me a heads up as to when they are running.

G' day.

[Tom]

Cratos doesn't explain the "Kelso" because from reading your posts you would inexplicably consider any explanation bovarism.

Still enjoying your new pocket dictionary between races I see.

[Cratos]

Still enjoying your new pocket dictionary between races I see.
Yes

[Some_One]

jesus, how ridiculous is that?
today is international day, it's their showcase meeting of the year.
of course there is not going to be any signs of them!
when you want to show how clever you are try doing some research first.

A Class 5 would be close to the level of 20K claimer in the US from my experience. The really bad 5's would of course be 10k claimers

[steveb]

A Class 5 would be close to the level of 20K claimer in the US from my experience. The really bad 5's would of course be 10k claimers

to say that you must have a method of comparison?

you may well be correct for all i know, but those class 5 races in hong kong are for crap horses.
i don't follow states racing so don't know how they would compare.

they are still 'cheapos' as far as i am concerned, because a class 5 is about 80lbs inferior to a class 1 in hong kong.
that's official, the reality may even be more.
80lbs is a lot in my opinion.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

C5s in HK are generally made up of terrible horses. I have no problem likening them to 4K or 5K claimers in USA racing

[JohnGalt1]

My class comparisons use 20% as class differences, like California. That is $5k, 6250, 8, 10, etc..

So to answer the question Thaskalos asked, "is $5k any different than 4k?"

Yes, but minor.

When I handicap I will make pace figures from the most recent line, but if there are reasons to go further back, like trouble, wrong distance, oror two or more higher class designations for example I would also make a pace line for an older race.

On my sheet I would list it as--- 87 70 157 most recent race, say $10k
(86 83 169) 4 races ago a $4k race

If in handicapping for a $4k race and the most recent line is from a $5k I consider it as very close to a 4k race, and will not use another line without another good reason. In the above example, if the most recent race was for $5k the horse would be stuck with the low 157 figure, and I would not go deeper.

And when I make my PCR figures, if a horse has all but one $4k races that being one 5k race I would make no adjustments.

[Greyfox]

My class comparisons use 20% as class differences, like California. That is $5k, 6250, 8, 10, etc..

So to answer the question Thaskalos asked, "is $5k any different than 4k?"

Yes, but minor.

When I handicap I will make pace figures from the most recent line, but if there are reasons to go further back, like trouble, wrong distance, oror two or more higher class designations for example I would also make a pace line for an older race.

On my sheet I would list it as--- 87 70 157 most recent race, say $10k
(86 83 169) 4 races ago a $4k race

If in handicapping for a $4k race and the most recent line is from a $5k I consider it as very close to a 4k race, and will not use another line without another good reason. In the above example, if the most recent race was for $5k the horse would be stuck with the low 157 figure, and I would not go deeper.

And when I make my PCR figures, if a horse has all but one $4k races that being one 5k race I would make no adjustments.

Thank you for sharing that JohnGalt1. :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

You have to consider the purse value.
Remember that meet at Monmouth where half of every field was claimed?
If the 5K purse is $12,000 and the 4K purse is 10,000, why would anyone hesitate dropping for the purse and screw the claim price?

[Greyfox]

It may be very difficult to compare NA cheap claimers to Hong Kong's slower plugs.
Nearly every race there is a "handicap race."
If 4K or 5 K claimer equivalents are there they would probably be in the Class 6 category, but then they all receive different weight ratings.

http://www.sha-tin.com/raceclass_hk.htm

Horse racing in Hong Kong is quite neat and orderly as horses are rated on a sliding scale. In other words every horse that races in Hong Kong has a number rating associated with it. The lower the rating the less quality is associated with that animal, a high rating means a high quality racehorse. An example would be that a horse with a 39 rating would have much less ability than a runner rated 81.


Every race in Hong Kong is rated by class. Class 1 & premier class races are the highest. With class 6 being the lowest quality animals. A class 3 event would be somewhere in the middle.
Nearly every race in Hong Kong is a handicap event which means that horses are weighted according to their ability. This means that the horse with the highest rating in the race will carry the most weight. With the lowest rated runner carrying the least amount of weight. The amount of weight is set by the track handicapper who keeps tabs on all horses and continues to rate them on each performance they turn in.
This makes racing in Hong Kong very competitive and therefore entertaining. The weights carried can be much more significant than in the United States. Top horses can often be weighted around 130 +, while lower quality horses in the same race may only have to carry around 115. The exception to the handicap weights are in stakes races where the runners all carry the same amount of weight.
There is one more class of races in Hong Kong. They are the Griffin events, a Griffin race is basically equivalent to a maiden race in the United States. They are for horses who have never won a race before. A Griffin is defined in Hong Kong as a horse that is imported to Hong Kong unraced.

[classhandicapper]

I don't know much about 4K and 5K claimers, but I'm going to bet that:

1. Horses than win for 4K tend to move up to 5K more often than horses winning for 5K go down to 4K.

2. Horses that fail for 5K tend to move down to 4K instead of up to 6.25K.

etc...

The entire classing system is designed to slowly push horses towards where they are competitive and where their true value lies by making the purses larger as you move up the scale and putting some risk into running below that value (the claim). The incentive is to earn as much money as you can without risking the horse for too much less than he is worth. There are also sometimes conditions written to force it.

There can be some individual fields of 4K horses or impressive winners that are better than 5K horses, but in general the classing system will be efficient because it's designed to be efficient.

That the system generally works is reveled by looking at speed figure PARs. Again, we get into issues of sample sizes and small class differences, but it is generally efficient.

The real question is how much better will the typical 5K horse be than the typical 4K horse and does it mean much if anything when horses move up or down?

That you learn by monitoring those class moves on your circuit and possibly looking at the difference between the speed figure PARs for the 2 levels.

[DeltaLover]

I cannot detect any measurable difference when it comes to so close claiming price gaps. Reading some of the postings though, I can see that the opposite view seems to prevail among many and I would like to know if those who believe so, have some data to backup their opinion or it is just something they base on their intuition?

[traynor]

I cannot detect any measurable difference when it comes to so close claiming price gaps. Reading some of the postings though, I can see that the opposite view seems to prevail among many and I would like to know if those who believe so, have some data to backup their opinion or it is just something they base on their intuition?

Two suggestions. Read Davidowitz. And consider that races at a given claiming level have numerous conditions that differentiate various "class within class" levels at each level.

A $5K claimer for NW last two years, or a $5K claimer for NW of $201 per start this year, or whatever other set of conditions exist, are way different than a straight $5K claimer.

It is only when such races are schmoozed together for convenient number crunching that they appear not to have measurable differences.

[Tom]

I don't know of anyone who would combine the various levels at the same claiming price for convenience. That is just too ridiculous for anyone who knows squat about racing to ever do.

[raybo]

I don't know of anyone who would combine the various levels at the same claiming price for convenience. That is just too ridiculous for anyone who knows squat about racing to ever do.

Of course, you're referring to players who actually know that it would be ridiculous, as you stated. However, there are many out there who would do exactly that, and that is probably one of the reasons that players who "knows squat about racing" have the ability to obtain an edge.

Regarding the $4k to $5k move, IF one had large enough samples of each, which in itself presents a problem as I believe there are probably not nearly as many 4k races as 5k races, depending on the track, one would probably find that there are indeed small differences between the 2 "classes". But, as was mentioned, the number of both 4k and 5k races, without additional conditions, would make the sample sizes too small to yield any measurable differences in performance (to say nothing of all the individual "further conditioned races"). :bang:

[DeltaLover]

Two suggestions. Read Davidowitz. And consider that races at a given claiming level have numerous conditions that differentiate various "class within class" levels at each level.

A $5K claimer for NW last two years, or a $5K claimer for NW of $201 per start this year, or whatever other set of conditions exist, are way different than a straight $5K claimer.

It is only when such races are schmoozed together for convenient number crunching that they appear not to have measurable differences.

Of course I have read Davidowitz and I have to say that I find most of his writtings to be primitive and unsophisticated, at least for my taste. I try shape my views of handicapping factors on cold data as they are mined from my databases and following this approach, I cannot find any kind of a difference on claiming moves from $4 to $5K.

[traynor]

Of course I have read Davidowitz and I have to say that I find most of his writtings to be primitive and unsophisticated, at least for my taste. I try shape my views of handicapping factors on cold data as they are mined from my databases and following this approach, I cannot find any kind of a difference on claiming moves from $4 to $5K.

That may be the result of process, rather than intrinsic to the data. Distinctions are at the track level, not the generic level.

Have you ever tried to construct your own par times for an individual track? It is a bit of work, but a great learning experience. One of Sartin's most useful admonitions was "know thy track."

[raybo]

That may be the result of process, rather than intrinsic to the data. Distinctions are at the track level, not the generic level.

Have you ever tried to construct your own par times for an individual track? It is a bit of work, but a great learning experience. One of Sartin's most useful admonitions was "know thy track."

I am wondering how many tracks actually card 4k races. I know that most low to medium sized tracks card 5k races, but only the very smallest tracks would card 4k or lower races, making that sample size much smaller. So, IMO, Traynor is right, in order to have viable differences between 4k and 5k classes one would need to database all tracks together, and that would be largely unusable/unprofitable data, regarding handicapping at individual tracks.

[raybo]

IMO, if one uses "class" as the overriding decision point in their analysis, and they believe that there is a significant difference between such small "class" differentials, that is probably a big reason that they are not profitable long term.

Applying "class" as a factor, is fine, but like all other factors, the proper application of that factor is a necessity for long term profitable play.

[whodoyoulike]

I don't know much about 4K and 5K claimers, but I'm going to bet that:

1. Horses than win for 4K tend to move up to 5K more often than horses winning for 5K go down to 4K.

2. Horses that fail for 5K tend to move down to 4K instead of up to 6.25K.

etc...

The entire classing system is designed to slowly push horses towards where they are competitive and where their true value lies by making the purses larger as you move up the scale and putting some risk into running below that value (the claim). The incentive is to earn as much money as you can without risking the horse for too much less than he is worth. There are also sometimes conditions written to force it.

There can be some individual fields of 4K horses or impressive winners that are better than 5K horses, but in general the classing system will be efficient because it's designed to be efficient.

That the system generally works is reveled by looking at speed figure PARs. Again, we get into issues of sample sizes and small class differences, but it is generally efficient.

The real question is how much better will the typical 5K horse be than the typical 4K horse and does it mean much if anything when horses move up or down?

That you learn by monitoring those class moves on your circuit and possibly looking at the difference between the speed figure PARs for the 2 levels.


In general, I agree with your post and thoughts regarding the "classing system". I think it shows some very good insight towards racing.

But, are they your thoughts or did you read it it somewhere?

The following is addressed to anyone.

For horses running in 4k and 5k claiming (or whatever) races are there even horses which can be considered "classy" (at least for any length of time)? Are they consistent in their running form?

[Tom]

Looking at a year's worth of data, summer 2013 - 2014, very few races of open 4K and open 5K and any track. Maybe 4-5 races off each at best.

[Tom]

For horses running in 4k and 5k claiming (or whatever) races are there even horses which can be considered "classy" (at least for any length of time)? Are they consistent in their running form?

As classy as the crap that runs for 30,000 nw2l or 50,000 nw2l. Or in SB races.
Maybe more classy in some cases.

[raybo]

In general, I agree with your post and thoughts regarding the "classing system". I think it shows some very good insight towards racing.

But, are they your thoughts or did you read it it somewhere?

The following is addressed to anyone.

For horses running in 4k and 5k claiming (or whatever) races are there even horses which can be considered "classy" (at least for any length of time)? Are they consistent in their running form?

I believe that "classy" is much harder to achieve at the lower levels of racing, unless a horse is just moving through those levels on the way to higher levels.

IMO, form (conditioning) is probably more important, to players, at lower levels than at higher ones (not to say that it isn't important at higher levels as well), so some attempt at current form determination is required in order to be successful playing those lower class levels. "Class" is certainly one of the factors that should be analyzed in order to analyze current form. But, it is just one of those factors, as is trainer intent, among many others.

[Greyfox]

For horses running in 4k and 5k claiming (or whatever) races are there even horses which can be considered "classy" (at least for any length of time)?

In my mind they are at that level due to a "lack of class."
So class level is probably the wrong term to use when referring to these slugs.
Many are past their best due date and are or have been infirmed in one way or another. Many are also very inconsistent. I don't play that level and most of the tracks that I play don't offer those races.

[DeltaLover]

Have you ever tried to construct your own par times for an individual track?

What do u think?

[Tom]

In my mind they are at that level due to a "lack of class."
So class level is probably the wrong term to use when referring to these slugs.
Many are past their best due date and are or have been infirmed in one way or another. Many are also very inconsistent. I don't play that level and most of the tracks that I play don't offer those races.

I'll those 5,000 nw1,6 over anything NYRA has for state bred, or starters, or low level claimers.

[raybo]

I'll those 5,000 nw1,6 over anything NYRA has for state bred, or starters, or low level claimers.

??

[traynor]

What do u think?

I think that anyone who spends some time analyzing the individual races at one or more tracks will learn there are distinctions between groups of horses that are not neatly delineated by claiming price alone. That applies all across the spectrum of race "classes." One of the reasons I don't use "par times" or "variants" created by others.

[DeltaLover]

I think that anyone who spends some time analyzing the individual races at one or more tracks will learn there are distinctions between groups of horses that are not neatly delineated by claiming price alone.

Hmmm... Not exactly breaking news here Mr Traynor...

[traynor]

Hmmm... Not exactly breaking news here Mr Traynor...

Microsoft is a major funder of the IPython Notebook project. Strange, isn't it?

[TrifectaMike]

I cannot detect any measurable difference when it comes to so close claiming price gaps. Reading some of the postings though, I can see that the opposite view seems to prevail among many and I would like to know if those who believe so, have some data to backup their opinion or it is just something they base on their intuition?

DL, even if there is a measurable difference, what would you do with it?

Mike

[JohnGalt1]

You have to consider the purse value.
Remember that meet at Monmouth where half of every field was claimed?
If the 5K purse is $12,000 and the 4K purse is 10,000, why would anyone hesitate dropping for the purse and screw the claim price?


I, like many, have used the average earnings per start number, but it doesn't work now for me, if it ever did, for the reasons you mention.

A horse winning an ungraded $400k race gets a higher number than a win in a Grade 2 $250k purse.

In lower level claiming races at racinos, purses are larger than some tracks without purse enhancements.

Which is why I now make and use Performance Class Ratings. Finish position, amount of horses faced and class adjusted.

I like to think it is objective as I adjust the final rating, but much of it is my subjective decisions.

[JohnGalt1]

Thank you for sharing that JohnGalt1. :ThmbUp:


Just like I stole and modified my PCR ratings from Scott, my pace line selection reasons for having reasons to go back, are reasons from Pizzolla's book.

I think I stole everything I do, from books, articles and forums. Though I changed things to fit the times or my way of handicapping

An addendum is if a horse is off a lay off I will use the best/fastest/most representative line. and will put in parentheses as advisory. If a layoff's horse's best race isn't better than a horse with a current race that is faster, the lay off horse is a bad proposition.

[JohnGalt1]

For those hung up on the $4k to 5K differences--a 20% spread.

A $40k is on level lower than a $50k open claimer, also a 20% spread.

In fact when I do my performance class ratings I rank a $40k state bred NW2 as 4 levels below 40k open or equal to a $16k open claiming race.

So when I see a Louisiana bred from a $40k state bred Fair Grounds race racing at Tampa in an open $25k race, some who don't read the conditions will think it is dropping, where I rate it as being about equal.

[traynor]

For those hung up on the $4k to 5K differences--a 20% spread.

A $40k is on level lower than a $50k open claimer, also a 20% spread.

In fact when I do my performance class ratings I rank a $40k state bred NW2 as 4 levels below 40k open or equal to a $16k open claiming race.

So when I see a Louisiana bred from a $40k state bred Fair Grounds race racing at Tampa in an open $25k race, some who don't read the conditions will think it is dropping, where I rate it as being about equal.

Sounds like you understand horse racing.

[DeltaLover]

DL, even if there is a measurable difference, what would you do with it?

Mike

This is another topic TM.. Someone could have use the timings to derive more specialized pars and track variants for instance.. What is important though is, that for this kind of purse increase there is no real reflection in the final timing.

[DeltaLover]

Microsoft is a major funder of the IPython Notebook project. Strange, isn't it?

yes it is a bit.. Still I find it interestung that now we can exchange bitcoins to buy apps, games and more for Windows, Windows Phone and Xbox.... Maybe this is a safer way to profitability than trying to build a par times table?

[steveb]

DL, even if there is a measurable difference, what would you do with it?

Mike


once you have the average differences, then you have a great measuring stick.
you then can compare expected with actual, and much more
i have logit model with about 60 factors, and easily the 6 most important ones i have, are all derived from knowing these differences.
that is for australia though, but doubt where would make much difference.

[raybo]

once you have the average differences, then you have a great measuring stick.
you then can compare expected with actual, and much more
i have logit model with about 60 factors, and easily the 6 most important ones i have, are all derived from knowing these differences.
that is for australia though, but doubt where would make much difference.

Not wanting to sound, or appear, pompous or defensive, but do you really know the way classes in the US are carded? Do you really know the differences between the way classes are carded in your country and in other non-US countries, compared to the way they are carded in the US?

[steveb]

Not wanting to sound, or appear, pompous or defensive, but do you really know the way classes in the US are carded? Do you really know the differences between the way classes are carded in your country and in other non-US countries, compared to the way they are carded in the US?

if one studies racing, then I guess where it is held is no big deal.
i am pretty sure i would have no problems coming to terms with how it may be done in the states, if that is what i wanted.
australia has 6 states and several territories, and each of those places has many different standards of racing.
if i can do that, i don't imagine it would be too much harder in the states.
queensland may have 6 or more meetings of wildly varying standard on any saturday.
for all i know australia may be more variable than the states?

places like hk, singapore, japan and korea and others are all relatively easy because they don't have the same difficulties that there is in australia.

anyway, you can appear as pompous or as defensive as you like, because it will not make any difference either way.
i am pretty sure i know where i stand in this caper, especially where time is concerned.
hope i did not sound pompous there! :)

[raybo]

if one studies racing, then I guess where it is held is no big deal.
i am pretty sure i would have no problems coming to terms with how it may be done in the states, if that is what i wanted.
australia has 6 states and several territories, and each of those places has many different standards of racing.
if i can do that, i don't imagine it would be too much harder in the states.
queensland may have 6 or more meetings of wildly varying standard on any saturday.
for all i know australia may be more variable than the states?

places like hk, singapore, japan and korea and others are all relatively easy because they don't have the same difficulties that there is in australia.

anyway, you can appear as pompous or as defensive as you like, because it will not make any difference either way.
i am pretty sure i know where i stand in this caper, especially where time is concerned.
hope i did not sound pompous there! :)

Well stated, and pretty close to what I thought. Thank you for your admission of not being familiar with the "class" system here in the US, sometimes (many times?) that degree of honesty is rare here! :)

[sjk]

I cannot detect any measurable difference when it comes to so close claiming price gaps. Reading some of the postings though, I can see that the opposite view seems to prevail among many and I would like to know if those who believe so, have some data to backup their opinion or it is just something they base on their intuition?

I calculate the difference at around 3.5 points. More than 10k races at each level.

[sjk]

[QUOTE=TrifectaMike]DL, even if there is a measurable difference, what would you do with it?

Mike[/QUOTE

Having a set of pars is one of the ingredients needed to make figures; at least it is for me.

[Tom]

I calculate the difference at around 3.5 points. More than 10k races at each level.

You have 10,000 4,000 and 10,000 5,000 races - open races????

[TrifectaMike]

once you have the average differences, then you have a great measuring stick.
you then can compare expected with actual, and much more
i have logit model with about 60 factors, and easily the 6 most important ones i have, are all derived from knowing these differences.
that is for australia though, but doubt where would make much difference.

Here , in the states, as useless as balls on a chick. That "info" and a stolen metro card "may" get you on a train.

Mike

[sjk]

You have 10,000 4,000 and 10,000 5,000 races - open races????

I tried to select all races other than lifetime conditions. There are lots of subconditions (R4000NW16M, etc) but the mix should be similar at the two prices.

[TrifectaMike]

10 squared or said differently "10 to the 2nd power" is 100.

The base 10 logarithm of 10 = 2 (=1). That's how logarithms work.

In getting back to my explanation, the "100 point score" for a 6 furlong race on a "standard parallel time chart" occurs at 70.32 seconds (1:10.32) which is 56.31 FPS.

The logarithm of 56.31 is 1.7506.

Subtract .0064 from 1.7506 to obtain 1.7442. Calculate 10 to the power of 1.7442 to obtain 55.49 FPS. This translates to 83.26 seconds (1:23.26) at 7 furlongs.

The theory of parallel time would state that a 6 furlong race in 70.32 seconds is equivalent to a 7 furlong race in 83.26 seconds.

If you want to see the equivalent at a 1-turn mile, subtract .0064 from 1.7442 to obtain 1.7378. Raise 10 to the 1.7378 power to obtain 54.68 FPS. This translates to 8 furlongs in 96.57 seconds (1:36.57).

To equate races around additional turns, subtract .0040 from each logarithm for each ADDITIONAL turn. For instance, a mile ran on a bull ring would negotiate 3 turns so subtract .0080.

This is my gift to you guys. The actual formula for the "work coefficient" is still going to be my secret.

I agree a power law is better as you suggested, if you want to work with point estimates.

Mike

[DeltaLover]

I calculate the difference at around 3.5 points. More than 10k races at each level.


Not a sufficient answer IMHO! Some things that might clarify what you are saying here are the following:

What exactly do you mean by points?

How you compare? You just use averages or you do something else?

How clear are the conditions you are using? For example how you handle state breds, male vs females, age restrictions? How do you handle weight changes?

Do you only use winner's time or you add in the mix runner ups (or more starters)?

Can you provide some data proving your methodology?

Again my NULL hypothesis, is that there is NO measurable difference between the 4K and 5K claiming races, please explain how you can prove it wrong?

[sjk]

By winning money from people who believe in your null hypothesis

[Tom]

That would do'er! :D

[classhandicapper]

DL, even if there is a measurable difference, what would you do with it?

Mike

This issue is style of handicapping.

Assume all else is equal.

If one horse ran a 60 final time number and another ran a 59 final time number, the pure final time handicapper will say the 60 ran a better race.

If one horse won a 4K race and another won a 5K race the class handicapper will say the latter ran the better race.

If the horse that ran a 59 did it in a 5K race and the horse that ran the 60 did it in a 4K race, a hybrid handicapper might say the 59 is better because it was earned against slightly better competition.

If the horse that ran against 4k ran a 63 and the horse that ran against 5k ran a 57, the hyrbrid handicapper might prefer the the 4k 63 because even though it was accomplished against cheaper, the larger gap in speed overwhelms the small gap in quality of competition.

Naturally, odds come into these things. But the thinking changes based on the philosophy of the handicapper. The philosophy on how to handicap varies because there are errors in final time figures and inefficiencies in the classing system. Neither method is perfect, but both have easy to identify strengths and weaknesses that I could elaborate on if you'd like. You pick your poison or try to combine them (which is a different brew of poison).

[classhandicapper]

Which is why I now make and use Performance Class Ratings. Finish position, amount of horses faced and class adjusted.

I like to think it is objective as I adjust the final rating, but much of it is my subjective decisions.


From reading all your comments on class handicapping, it's obvious you "get it".

[classhandicapper]

If anyone has a track in mind where they run 4K and 5K open races, I can probably get the Beyer PAR for each covering well over a decade of races (no guarantee).

[thaskalos]

This issue is style of handicapping.

Assume all else is equal.

If one horse ran a 60 final time number and another ran a 59 final time number, the pure final time handicapper will say the 60 ran a better race.

If one horse won a 4K race and another won a 5K race the class handicapper will say the latter ran the better race.

If the horse that ran a 59 did it in a 5K race and the horse that ran the 60 did it in a 4K race, a hybrid handicapper might say the 59 is better because it was earned against slightly better competition.

If the horse that ran against 4k ran a 63 and the horse that ran against 5k ran a 57, the hyrbrid handicapper might prefer the the 4k 63 because even though it was accomplished against cheaper, the larger gap in speed overwhelms the small gap in quality of competition.

Naturally, odds come into these things. But the thinking changes based on the philosophy of the handicapper. The philosophy on how to handicap varies because there are errors in final time figures and inefficiencies in the classing system. Neither method is perfect, but both have easy to identify strengths and weaknesses that I could elaborate on if you'd like. You pick your poison or try to combine them (which is a different brew of poison).
IMO...the handicapper had better take the pace pressure of the race into consideration when assessing these speed figures...otherwise he faces extinction.

[classhandicapper]

IMO...the handicapper had better take the pace pressure of the race into consideration when assessing these speed figures...otherwise he faces extinction.

I agree. He better be taking track bias, pace, ground loss, etc... into consideration also. That's why I said all else being equal. ;)

[traynor]

IMO...the handicapper had better take the pace pressure of the race into consideration when assessing these speed figures...otherwise he faces extinction.

One of the advantages of handicapping "lower class races" (or "minor tracks" or harness races, or almost anything other than a handful of races at a handful of tracks) is the knowledge that "final time" is only one of a number of ways to express what happened in a race, and--in practice--may be one of the least useful. That is especially true when analyzing multiple "class within class" levels at a particular track. All 1:10.2 six furlong races are NOT equal, and that simple insight will make all the various explanations of "slower class trumps cheap speed" and similar creative excuses more understandable.

[TrifectaMike]

One of the advantages of handicapping "lower class races" (or "minor tracks" or harness races, or almost anything other than a handful of races at a handful of tracks) is the knowledge that "final time" is only one of a number of ways to express what happened in a race, and--in practice--may be one of the least useful. That is especially true when analyzing multiple "class within class" levels at a particular track. All 1:10.2 six furlong races are NOT equal, and that simple insight will make all the various explanations of "slower class trumps cheap speed" and similar creative excuses more understandable.

A major reason is that there is an infinite number of ways to achieve that 1:10.2

Mike

[classhandicapper]

One of the advantages of handicapping "lower class races" (or "minor tracks" or harness races, or almost anything other than a handful of races at a handful of tracks) is the knowledge that "final time" is only one of a number of ways to express what happened in a race, and--in practice--may be one of the least useful. That is especially true when analyzing multiple "class within class" levels at a particular track. All 1:10.2 six furlong races are NOT equal, and that simple insight will make all the various explanations of "slower class trumps cheap speed" and similar creative excuses more understandable.

I agree with you (especially because final time handicappers dominant these day), but we are back to where we started. What I might attribute to class differences someone else might say was actually randomness that I am attributing to class because of my preconceived views.

[traynor]

A major reason is that there is an infinite number of ways to achieve that 1:10.2

Mike

Yes. And avoiding that insight is what enables proponents of specific approaches to find enough instances that appear (at least superficially) to be explained by their particular approach to keep them convinced of its validity.

[traynor]

I agree with you (especially because final time handicappers dominant these day), but we are back to where we started. What I might attribute to class differences someone else might say was actually randomness that I am attributing to class because of my preconceived views.

I am more pragmatic than theory-oriented. I don't think it matters as much what attributions are made as it is that the process is predictive. For example, you may recall Wilford Brimley's oatmeal commercials, "It's the right thing to do." Later research concluded that the "effect" was not due to what one did (eat oatmeal) but to what one did not do (eat sausage and eggs instead). If you attribute a focus on class as the reason for winning, it may as easily be that the focus on class enabled you to win because it bypassed being overly impressed by final times (or fast pace in a previous race, or trainer change, or whatever else).

What Castaneda referred to as "the shadow of a thing" containing more information than the thing itself.

[classhandicapper]

I am more pragmatic than theory-oriented. I don't think it matters as much what attributions are made as it is that the process is predictive. For example, you may recall Wilford Brimley's oatmeal commercials, "It's the right thing to do." Later research concluded that the "effect" was not due to what one did (eat oatmeal) but to what one did not do (eat sausage and eggs instead). If you attribute a focus on class as the reason for winning, it may as easily be that the focus on class enabled you to win because it bypassed being overly impressed by final times (or fast pace in a previous race, or trainer change, or whatever else).

What Castaneda referred to as "the shadow of a thing" containing more information than the thing itself.

I like it.

Along these lines I'd love to a discussion about turf racing, fractions, final times, and running styles because there are a lot theoretical questions I can't answer about turf in way that is consistent with my theories about dirt racing. However, as someone else also pointed out to me, just do what works. ;)

[classhandicapper]

Yes. And avoiding that insight is what enables proponents of specific approaches to find enough instances that appear (at least superficially) to be explained by their particular approach to keep them convinced of its validity.

The interesting thing about class (at least the way I view it) is that there are dozens of ways to run a race and dozens of ways to screw up measuring the fractions, final times, and relationships between the two properly. The "class of a race" is the "class of the race" to the extent that the class structure is efficient.

[traynor]

The interesting thing about class (at least the way I view it) is that there are dozens of ways to run a race and dozens of ways to screw up measuring the fractions, final times, and relationships between the two properly. The "class of a race" is the "class of the race" to the extent that the class structure is efficient.

Have you ever tried to create "projected class" (similar to what Beyer did in "projecting speed")? That is, each entry in a given race is assigned some sort of value, and outcome of each race "rated" as a composite of the ratings (usually, if a contested race, with many exceptions) of the first three finishers? It takes a bit of thought initially, but once implemented, the "values" of each entry in subsequent races are adjusted by the "race value" of those subsequent races rather than "class designation."

It may sound weird, but after a couple of months, one is using a unique method of rating entries that others lack. If the basic rating system developed is relatively accurate, it can produce some very good results with minimal effort. All the real work is in the initial design.

The strongest point of the approach is that the "rating value" of a given race is a factor of reality (a weighted composite of the "value" of the actual top race finishers) rather than "what the computer output says should have happened."

The same situation applies to speed ratings--it is often more useful to consider a race as being a competition between the top finishers (again, with many caveats) rather than using an arbitrary designation of final time (considering only the race winner) as the most representative value.

[steveb]

Here , in the states, as useless as balls on a chick. That "info" and a stolen metro card "may" get you on a train.

Mike

one of the things that always amuses me, is those that think they know what somebody else has is 'useless as.....'. :)

what you really meant to say is, that you don't know what i do, how i do it, nor how useful it is.

there i fixed it for you mike!

anyway, i already know it used in the states, by people that make much money.
just not by me.
of course it is just one part of what they do,and i don't know what the other parts are.

[JohnGalt1]

Sounds like you understand horse racing.

Thanks.

But I'm still learning, like all of us.

Especially what NOT to do.

[classhandicapper]

Have you ever tried to create "projected class" (similar to what Beyer did in "projecting speed")? That is, each entry in a given race is assigned some sort of value, and outcome of each race "rated" as a composite of the ratings (usually, if a contested race, with many exceptions) of the first three finishers? It takes a bit of thought initially, but once implemented, the "values" of each entry in subsequent races are adjusted by the "race value" of those subsequent races rather than "class designation."



That's pretty much exactly what I do, but with some personal twists.

Before a race is run I get a general feel for the quality of the race relative to the official class designation by looking at the major contenders. For example, I thought the Harlan's Holiday was a Grade 3 quality or slightly better race even though it was officially ungraded.

After a card is run, I look through the charts and watch replays where necessary. I determine which races had hot/soft paces and whether I think there was track bias at work.

Then I try to interpret the results of individual races based on the class of the horses coming into the race (kind of like you are suggesting) and their "relative trips". I especially try to compare horses with similar trips to see how they did relative to each other.

At the end I have a general feel for the overall quality of the race and the horses' performances within it. Sometimes I am way more confident in my assessment than at other times. I will also look at pace and final time figures, but I try to use them as evidence of what happened instead of dictating to me what happened like most figure handicappers.

I haven't finished Saturday at GP, but I can already tell you that my post race analysis is that the top 2 horses ran way better than a Grade 3 quality race. They put on quite a competitive show through the stretch (especially the winner who was also used early) and finished well clear of Pants on Fire (who is at least a Grade 3 horse). Shivarelli (who is not bad) was way back.

I don't have time for this level of analysis for every race, but I do it where I'm interested. For other races I'll have a bias note, a pace note where needed, and I'll do a quick look the chart and PPs of the horses (via Formulator) when the horses come back just to see who was in the race.

I constantly tinker with putting exact numbers on the class of the race and the individual performances within it, but I find so many odd ball exceptions where formulas break down that I never quite get there. I am building a database now that may help me.

[Tom]

Class, ever try the Quinn method, Class of the Field?

[Cratos]

This thread and the original thread started by TrifectaMike with the same thread name, "Predicting Speed Ratings From Past Ratings" solution can be founded in my opinion in Magistri Ludi's post #197 in the thread "Putting An End To Beyer Type Speed Ratings."

The nice part is that you can express the solution using either differential calculus or simple arithmetic.

[DeltaLover]

That's pretty much exactly what I do, but with some personal twists.

Before a race is run I get a general feel for the quality of the race relative to the official class designation by looking at the major contenders. For example, I thought the Harlan's Holiday was a Grade 3 quality or slightly better race even though it was officially ungraded.

After a card is run, I look through the charts and watch replays where necessary. I determine which races had hot/soft paces and whether I think there was track bias at work.

Then I try to interpret the results of individual races based on the class of the horses coming into the race (kind of like you are suggesting) and their "relative trips". I especially try to compare horses with similar trips to see how they did relative to each other.

At the end I have a general feel for the overall quality of the race and the horses' performances within it. Sometimes I am way more confident in my assessment than at other times. I will also look at pace and final time figures, but I try to use them as evidence of what happened instead of dictating to me what happened like most figure handicappers.

I haven't finished Saturday at GP, but I can already tell you that my post race analysis is that the top 2 horses ran way better than a Grade 3 quality race. They put on quite a competitive show through the stretch (especially the winner who was also used early) and finished well clear of Pants on Fire (who is at least a Grade 3 horse). Shivarelli (who is not bad) was way back.

I don't have time for this level of analysis for every race, but I do it where I'm interested. For other races I'll have a bias note, a pace note where needed, and I'll do a quick look the chart and PPs of the horses (via Formulator) when the horses come back just to see who was in the race.

I constantly tinker with putting exact numbers on the class of the race and the individual performances within it, but I find so many odd ball exceptions where formulas break down that I never quite get there. I am building a database now that may help me.

Excellent post :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Some_One]

That's pretty much exactly what I do, but with some personal twists.

Before a race is run I get a general feel for the quality of the race relative to the official class designation by looking at the major contenders. For example, I thought the Harlan's Holiday was a Grade 3 quality or slightly better race even though it was officially ungraded.

After a card is run, I look through the charts and watch replays where necessary. I determine which races had hot/soft paces and whether I think there was track bias at work.

Then I try to interpret the results of individual races based on the class of the horses coming into the race (kind of like you are suggesting) and their "relative trips". I especially try to compare horses with similar trips to see how they did relative to each other.

At the end I have a general feel for the overall quality of the race and the horses' performances within it. Sometimes I am way more confident in my assessment than at other times. I will also look at pace and final time figures, but I try to use them as evidence of what happened instead of dictating to me what happened like most figure handicappers.

I haven't finished Saturday at GP, but I can already tell you that my post race analysis is that the top 2 horses ran way better than a Grade 3 quality race. They put on quite a competitive show through the stretch (especially the winner who was also used early) and finished well clear of Pants on Fire (who is at least a Grade 3 horse). Shivarelli (who is not bad) was way back.

I don't have time for this level of analysis for every race, but I do it where I'm interested. For other races I'll have a bias note, a pace note where needed, and I'll do a quick look the chart and PPs of the horses (via Formulator) when the horses come back just to see who was in the race.

I constantly tinker with putting exact numbers on the class of the race and the individual performances within it, but I find so many odd ball exceptions where formulas break down that I never quite get there. I am building a database now that may help me.

I hope you factor in all this time you spent in determining your ROI. Something like this is certainly not scaleable. I rather find something more systematic which I can apply to US/UK/Aussie racing.

[steveb]

I hope you factor in all this time you spent in determining your ROI. Something like this is certainly not scaleable. I rather find something more systematic which I can apply to US/UK/Aussie racing.

Yes, I think you are spot one.
If one could find an isolated pool of horses, then maybe this would be feasible.
Hong Kong or Singapore or Korea maybe, but places that have 3547 races per week, would make it just a little too hard.

Two teams that I know of don't even use video info for places that have a lot of racing, it's much more generic, and yet they still make lots of money.

My own stuff, is ALL non-subjective and completely automated, because it has to be when you want to cover the whole gamut.

[classhandicapper]

Class, ever try the Quinn method, Class of the Field?

Yes. I love that book. I never tested the method he promotes on paper, but I think it defines the issues and a way of thinking about the solutions very well.

[classhandicapper]

I hope you factor in all this time you spent in determining your ROI. Something like this is certainly not scaleable. I rather find something more systematic which I can apply to US/UK/Aussie racing.

I understand what you are saying.

If I ever find a systematic way of playing that wins money in the US I'll abandon what I am doing now and switch to that. I've been playing this game for close to 40 years now. The only way I've ever made money was to understand more about an individual race, horse, or trainer than most people and only betting when I think that insight is not reflected on the board. That takes work.

[snickster]

Predicting Speed Rating from Past Ratings

The original thread asked the question about how to assign weights to a horse's last four speed ratings in order to predict the speed rating for an upcoming race.

(Please stay on topic. If you are going to make negative comments about this topic being discussed again, please do not make them here. Make them in this thread http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1740576#post1740576)

So here are the key points of the first post of the closed thread:



I don't know if I answered this in the original thread, but I would find a set of races for which you have 4 past speed ratings for each horse and then do a standard regression. So you'd have four columns of independent variables:

SR1Back, SR2back, SR3back and SR4back.

You would have one column with the final speed rating for "today's" race. Call it something like SRTodayRace.

Next, you will perform standard regression and will get coefficients for each past speed rating that you can use to plug into a regression equation that will give you the speed rating of an upcoming race for which you have 4 past speed ratings.

Your data file would look something like this:

SR1Back, SR2Back, SR3Back, SR4Back, SRTodayRace
84,83,80,59,88
79,84,29,88,80
etc.

Speed rating analysis is meaningless unless all horses of the analysis are of exactly the same class level. There is an anomaly in horse racing that is if a horse extremely outmatches his rivals in class he will win by double digit lengths in very fast speed like 6F in 1:09 flat. However if a horse is running way over his head after just running a 1:09 flat in lower class then he will not be able to run even a 1:11 flat. So just going by speed rating is meaningless unless you consider the absolute class of the races that the horse ran in to achieve those speed ratings.

[Some_One]

Speed rating analysis is meaningless unless all horses of the analysis are of exactly the same class level. There is an anomaly in horse racing that is if a horse extremely outmatches his rivals in class he will win by double digit lengths in very fast speed like 6F in 1:09 flat. However if a horse is running way over his head after just running a 1:09 flat in lower class then he will not be able to run even a 1:11 flat. So just going by speed rating is meaningless unless you consider the absolute class of the races that the horse ran in to achieve those speed ratings.

If SR's were meaningless, then the ROI's of horses with bottom half SR's should be equal or if not better than the top half horses and that is simply not true

[thaskalos]

If SR's were meaningless, then the ROI's of horses with bottom half SR's should be equal or if not better than the top half horses and that is simply not true

Have those stats ever been publicized?

[Some_One]

Have those stats ever been publicized?

See Percentage and Probabilities that DS published a couple of years ago.

[cj]

Have those stats ever been publicized?


Absolutely, not even a debate.

[Some_One]

Absolutely, not even a debate.

And actually my statement was incorrect, it is the win rates that should tell the story, however you get the same results pattern as if you looked at ROI. Sorry for the error.

[HUSKER55]

Speed rating analysis is meaningless unless all horses of the analysis are of exactly the same class level. There is an anomaly in horse racing that is if a horse extremely outmatches his rivals in class he will win by double digit lengths in very fast speed like 6F in 1:09 flat. However if a horse is running way over his head after just running a 1:09 flat in lower class then he will not be able to run even a 1:11 flat. So just going by speed rating is meaningless unless you consider the absolute class of the races that the horse ran in to achieve those speed ratings.


can you define how you determine the absolute class of a horse, ..please?

[classhandicapper]

IMO, Dortmund was a very similar situation to Liam's Map. He looked over bet, but it was fairly obvious he probably had more in the tank. Not a good horse to key against, but not a good play.

[raybo]

IMO, Dortmund was a very similar situation to Liam's Map. He looked over bet, but it was fairly obvious he probably had more in the tank. Not a good horse to key against, but not a good play.

I thought Dortmund was the best horse, on paper for sure. Don't know about everyone else, but IMO, his odds were way too low to wager on. I did think there would be a bit of a meltdown between the 2 early speed horses, but that didn't happen and Dortmund just barely made it as a result. The field was just too short to bet into for me.

[Exotic1]

Talking about predicting speed ratings ...

Able Baker Charlie (PRX 8th Race) is a producer of consistent speed ratings across distances and surfaces. I'll predict he earns an 85 TimeformUS rating for today's race which goes off in two minutes. He'll earn a 76 Beyer and an 8 1/2 on Thorograph which I have no way of verifying - but if someone has the sheet son this horse I suspect he'll look like an 8 1/2 horse.