Harness Racing Impact Values

[tamaharbor]

SHIP=shipper
QUAL=qualifier in last
<=10 - last race <= 10 days ago
11-17 - last race >11 and <= 17 days ago

IMPACT VALUES 6/1/2014-6/1/2016
TRACK SHIP QUAL <=10 10-17

ACE 1.01 0.81 1.01 0.78
BAN 1.15 0.23 0.96 0.84
BGD 1.20 0.89 0.96 1.13
BML 0.87 0.77 1.02 0.83
BR 1.10 0.73 1.04 0.85
BTV 1.02 0.66 1.05 0.84
CAL 0.97 0.73 0.97 1.02
CHS 1.12 0.91 1.02 0.90
CNL 0.98 0.64 0.96 0.95
DD 1.04 0.92 1.06 0.92
DTN 1.05 0.87 1.08 0.87
FHL 1.09 0.72 1.04 0.82
HAR 1.12 0.78 1.03 0.89
HAW 1.07 0.79 0.99 1.07
HOP 0.68 0.79 0.99 0.87
LEX 1.03 0.93 0.95 0.90
M 0.67 0.85 0.98 0.80
MAY 1.39 0.59 1.04 0.85
MEA 1.35 0.83 1.01 0.92
MR 1.16 0.70 1.04 0.80
MVR 0.98 0.88 1.06 0.89
NFL 1.30 0.78 1.05 0.81
NOR 1.06 0.80 0.95 0.85
OAK 0.99 0.56 0.97 1.59
OD 1.11 0.73 1.05 0.79
PCD 0.99 0.87 1.01 0.88
PPK 1.00 0.79 1.02 0.83
PRC 1.40 0.87 1.01 0.90
RCR 1.11 0.86 1.04 0.76
SCA 1.13 0.62 1.02 0.85
SCD 1.05 0.94 1.01 0.92
SPC 0.93 0.94 1.04 0.90
STG 1.07 0.75 1.04 0.84
TGD 0.96 0.68 1.02 0.85
VD 1.03 0.78 0.97 0.87
YR 0.96 0.69 1.06 0.92

[Ray2000]

Am I reading this right?

Shippers coming into the Big M only win 67% of the races you'd expect them to win by their so called 'fair share'?

If so, eliminate them.. :D

but watch out for them at The Meadows?

[pandy]

The Meadows is a closed track, not that many shippers, except for the Burke horses, which is probably why the number is so high.

[traynor]

I have calculated (and used) impact values extensively. I think it might be useful to explain to readers how this information can be applied to specific instances.

Impact values suffer the same deficiencies as other types of "averages"--especially those designated for use in "pace ratings" and "track profiles"--in that generic averages have little or no relevance when applied to specific instances.

For example, Horse A is shipping in to Meadowlands. What--if any--significance should be attached to the impact values of shippers to the Meadowlands when applied to this specific horse in this specific race?

"Pace" handicappers (of which there are more than a few on this forum) tend to overemphasize averages and apply them as if they were relevant to specific instances. They tend to ignore (or overlook, or completely bypass) the fact that the averages were compiled from a population of values--some up, some down, some roughly even--that INCLUDES pretty much every possible value.

So the basic question is, what does this stuff really mean, and how can it be used for specific horses entered in specific races?

[Fox]

I think it might be useful to explain to readers how this information can be applied to specific instances.
................................................
So the basic question is, what does this stuff really mean, and how can it be used for specific horses entered in specific races?

Please continue to explain how it can be applied in specific instances. Thanks.

[traynor]

Please continue to explain how it can be applied in specific instances. Thanks.

I was actually encouraging the OP (or anyone else who uses such values) to explain how to use them. Or--perhaps even more importantly--to explain what they believe the values actually represent.

There is a strong tendency among those who make "calculations" concerning horse races to act as if they are producing values that may be used to predict the future. In most cases, that is not even close. The values generated--from track variants, to track profiles, to "distance adjustments" that "equalize" performances of various entries, to "where a horse has to be (at some pre-finish position) to win" are more interesting than useful.

An average is a descriptor, not a predictor. If you have a value that represents the average height of people passing a specific point at a specific time, it is nothing more than an average. It has little or no predictive value applied to forecasting the height of the very next person who will pass that point.

Some become so enamored of their generated values they attribute almost mystical significance to them. Listen to a hardcore Sartinista explain how this horse won or lost because it fit (or did not fit) the "track profile" for a deeper insight on the (pervasive) confusion between descriptive and predictive.

[pandy]

The predictive reliability of each race varies and is dependent upon how competitive the race is. In harness racing at some of these tracks where the favorites are winning at 45 to 50%, the statistical information predicts the future pretty damn well.

At Monticello, the % of winning favorites this year is 52%. When I first started betting harness races, or any type of horseracing, it you would have told me that I could pick the winner 52% of the time betting every race I would have said you were out of your mind, because races are too difficult to predict. But that was then and this is now.

[traynor]

The predictive reliability of each race varies and is dependent upon how competitive the race is. In harness racing at some of these tracks where the favorites are winning at 45 to 50%, the statistical information predicts the future pretty damn well.

At Monticello, the % of winning favorites this year is 52%. When I first started betting harness races, or any type of horseracing, it you would have told me that I could pick the winner 52% of the time betting every race I would have said you were out of your mind, because races are too difficult to predict. But that was then and this is now.

I am not one of those who enjoy losing as "entertainment." From the standpoint of profit, I can think of few things more worthless than "percentage of winning favorites." Interesting in some abstract way, perhaps. But worthless (or VERY close to it) to anyone who fails to derive pleasure from agonizing over trivia, followed by losing money.

Fortunately, I have never been, nor I have ever been interested in being, a "recreational bettor."

If one can pick 52% winners betting every race and one's only goal is picking a lot of winners (for whatever obscure purpose or reward one gains from so doing), why bother with all the "handicapping" nonsense?

[pandy]

My point is, if the favorite is winning 52%, then the data is predicting the future with a great degree of accuracy.

[traynor]

My point is, if the favorite is winning 52%, then the data is predicting the future with a great degree of accuracy.

Your statement is a perfect example of how confused most people are about "statistics" (especially when those "statistics" are based on broad brush averages of other instances).

There is no such thing as "statistical pressure." Horse A does not run faster or slower because the favorite has lost three in a row, five in a row, or has won all of the last ten. It doesn't matter. The average derived from a clump of races (even if the data points are "normally distributed in the base population") tells you (or me or anyone else) little or nothing about what this horse in this race is going to do or not do.

As I said, interesting, but not especially useful. And certainly not "predictive" of specific outcomes. Lots of people lose lots of money betting on races because they believe short term event outcomes are "predicted" by long term "averages." Even more lose money in casinos chasing that same statistical rainbow.

[pandy]

What does your comment have to do with my statement? I'm just saying, it isn't that difficult to pick winners at most harness tracks, and the horse's most recent performances are quite reliable, and good predictors. They always have been. The key to showing a profit is to find horses that are in better form than the public realizes. That's always been the key.

[traynor]

What does your comment have to do with my statement? I'm just saying, it isn't that difficult to pick winners at most harness tracks, and the horse's most recent performances are quite reliable, and good predictors. They always have been. The key to showing a profit is to find horses that are in better form than the public realizes. That's always been the key.

I agree, it is not that difficult to pick winners at most harness tracks. However, if one's only goal is picking a lot of winners (for whatever obscure purpose or reward one gains from so doing) it is often in direct conflict with an intent to make a profit.

Perhaps we have different perspectives on "making a profit." I don't think the mindset of recreational or casual bettors, however many winners they do or do not select, today, yesterday, or way back in the distant fog of memory, is necessarily useful in such an endeavor. In fact, the complete opposite seems much more likely--the more intent one is on picking a lot of winners and "having fun betting" the less likely one is to be able to "make a profit from betting."

Operationalizing, I consider "making a profit from betting" as winning consistently enough, and in sufficient amount, that one is able to use wagering as their primary source of income. I don't think that is an especially difficult task for anyone of average intelligence willing to expend a bit of thought and effort in the endeavor. However, I freely admit to a severe bias--shared by most who wager professionally--that taking the advice of recreational-only bettors may be hazardous to one's bankroll.

In the pursuit of making a profit wagering, I have seen little or no value in winning favorite statistics, simplistic arithmetic averages viewed as predictors of individual race outcomes, and most "impact values."

If you could explain how one applies the winning favorite statistics or impact values to turn a consistent profit (rather than picking chalk winners that provide abundant opportunity to afflict one's assets with exponential decay), I think most would find such information useful.

[pandy]

I agree with most of what you're saying, Traynor. But, I'm not sure what you mean when you say, for instance, that pace handicapping "averages" aren't relevant. You say, "how can they be used for specific horses entered in specific races." Well, they can, pretty easily. If a horse has superior average pace ratings, for instance, in a field where all of the other horses lack early speed, that's specific and the horse has an potent advantage and will probably win the race. The only question then becomes, what is a fair price on the horse?

[traynor]

I agree with most of what you're saying, Traynor. But, I'm not sure what you mean when you say, for instance, that pace handicapping "averages" aren't relevant. You say, "how can they be used for specific horses entered in specific races." Well, they can, pretty easily. If a horse has superior average pace ratings, for instance, in a field where all of the other horses lack early speed, that's specific and the horse has an potent advantage and will probably win the race. The only question then becomes, what is a fair price on the horse?

Average pace (or "speed" or whatever) may be perfectly valid measures of a horse's potential in a given race. Not what it will do, but what it might do. The "meaningless, nonsensical" averages I am referring to in pace handicapping are those such as "track profiles" that (in theory) use an average of winners' positions at a given point in the race to create a "profile" that (again, only in theory, not in reality) one can supposedly use to determine how well a particular horse's "running style" matches the "requirements" of that track. The only requirement for winning is getting to the wire ahead of the other horses--and how that is done varies from horse to horse, race to race. Lump them all together, average them, and pull a number out of the hat that seems meaningful, but is not.

It is like percentages of winning favorites at a given track. The values created (the "averages" to which I referred previously) are interesting, but have little or no bearing on how a specific horse will run in a specific race. It is the myth of "statistical pressure" that so often leads bettors to make losing wagers. ("Losing wagers" are defined as "more going out (over time) than is coming in"--unrelated except secondarily to number of winners.)

The point that eludes many is that the averages are only descriptors of the centerpoints of ranges of values--each of which, regardless of how far from that centerpoint--were perfectly valid components of that average.

In many cases, a substantial number, if not the majority of the values used would not "fit the profile" supposedly created.