KPMats10

06-03-2016, 08:23 PM

How would you adjust the paceline of fractional times in a sprint to get the fractional times for a route?

View Full Version : Adjusting times

KPMats10

06-03-2016, 08:23 PM

How would you adjust the paceline of fractional times in a sprint to get the fractional times for a route?

classhandicapper

06-04-2016, 10:56 AM

I've never come up with a satisfactory answer to this.

In routes the horses will tend to run a little slower early because of the longer distance. The first turn turn will slow them down. There will be a lower level of aggression on the turn than on a straight. So the fractions can sometimes be way different in a route than for a sprint if even though the potential early speed of the horses may be only marginally different.

In routes the horses will tend to run a little slower early because of the longer distance. The first turn turn will slow them down. There will be a lower level of aggression on the turn than on a straight. So the fractions can sometimes be way different in a route than for a sprint if even though the potential early speed of the horses may be only marginally different.

traynor

06-05-2016, 12:10 AM

That is a really interesting question. Given that just about every "pace" app that exists presumes to make such calculations, I would have expected those who code (or who have coded) such to explain just how their apps "equalize races run at different distances."

The processes are--in general--relatively simple. Problem is, the underlying logic is seriously flawed, and the "adjustments" are not too useful. And that is being generous.

The processes are--in general--relatively simple. Problem is, the underlying logic is seriously flawed, and the "adjustments" are not too useful. And that is being generous.

cj

06-05-2016, 12:48 AM

That is a really interesting question. Given that just about every "pace" app that exists presumes to make such calculations, I would have expected those who code (or who have coded) such to explain just how their apps "equalize races run at different distances."

The processes are--in general--relatively simple. Problem is, the underlying logic is seriously flawed, and the "adjustments" are not too useful. And that is being generous.

I think you can easily equate performances at different distances. What you can't do is assume any individual horse is going to be equally adept at those different distances.

The processes are--in general--relatively simple. Problem is, the underlying logic is seriously flawed, and the "adjustments" are not too useful. And that is being generous.

I think you can easily equate performances at different distances. What you can't do is assume any individual horse is going to be equally adept at those different distances.

traynor

06-05-2016, 03:20 AM

I think you can easily equate performances at different distances. What you can't do is assume any individual horse is going to be equally adept at those different distances.

What then has been equalized? That would seem to be on the order of affixing a label to something, and then saying the label doesn't mean anything. "Equating performances" implies that the end result produces a value as significant at a different distance as the original value was at the original distance.

What then has been equalized? That would seem to be on the order of affixing a label to something, and then saying the label doesn't mean anything. "Equating performances" implies that the end result produces a value as significant at a different distance as the original value was at the original distance.

steveb

06-05-2016, 05:05 AM

That is a really interesting question. Given that just about every "pace" app that exists presumes to make such calculations, I would have expected those who code (or who have coded) such to explain just how their apps "equalize races run at different distances."

The processes are--in general--relatively simple. Problem is, the underlying logic is seriously flawed, and the "adjustments" are not too useful. And that is being generous.

every person i have ever heard of/met that wins money(as you say you do), does not make assumptions.

they shut up listen(read), just in case they learn something useful.

why don't you tell us how to do the 'relatively simple', and let us judge for ourselves?

maybe your 'relatively simple' is nothing like how others may do it, and may indeed be not too useful!

it is indeed very simple to equalise them, but for me(i don't presume to know what others do, or how useful it is) to equalise.... it's not about comparing them at different distances.

The processes are--in general--relatively simple. Problem is, the underlying logic is seriously flawed, and the "adjustments" are not too useful. And that is being generous.

every person i have ever heard of/met that wins money(as you say you do), does not make assumptions.

they shut up listen(read), just in case they learn something useful.

why don't you tell us how to do the 'relatively simple', and let us judge for ourselves?

maybe your 'relatively simple' is nothing like how others may do it, and may indeed be not too useful!

it is indeed very simple to equalise them, but for me(i don't presume to know what others do, or how useful it is) to equalise.... it's not about comparing them at different distances.

JohnGalt1

06-05-2016, 04:39 PM

One way many handicapping authors handle this situation is they only use the second and third fractions of a route race when computing sprint times.

I don't do this since the route race did not end at the six furlong mark.

I use the whole race when switching distances.

I make Hambleton pace figures from the book "Pace Makes the Race."

I use Cynthia's par book to compare track-to-track and distance to distance.

I made a universal par chart to make my job easier. After adjusting for variant, (Cynthia uses average DRF variants,) I rank the times 100 down to 65. An 85 is 57.1, 105.3, 112.0, etc. for sprints and 1:38, 144.2 (1 1/16), 151.1 for 9 furlongs etc. I use the 10K claiming price to equalize tracks

As an example, Santa Anita Sunday 6/5 race 7, a 7f claiming race. A race I will pass.

SA's 7f par rating from my chart is 93.

I'll do 2 horses to show how I handle rout to sprint.

#10 Dustin's passion ran a 6.5f on 5/13. The SA 6.5f rating is 95, so I lower the rating 2 points.

Fractions were 44.3 and 1:15.4. Adjusting for beaten lengths--2 and 4.5-- his total pace figure is 93 81/174.

#1 Misdeed ran a 1 1/16 on 5/8. The figure for SA 1 1/16 is 85, so I add 8 points, 5 to the first fraction, 3 to the final fraction.

Fractions were 1:11.3 and 1:44.1. Adjusting for beaten lengths--0 and 2-- his total pace figure is 92 74/176.

I do this by hand, and I've been doing this so long so it's fairly easy. And I know how my figures were made, since I'm betting real money on my picks.

I hope this helps

I don't do this since the route race did not end at the six furlong mark.

I use the whole race when switching distances.

I make Hambleton pace figures from the book "Pace Makes the Race."

I use Cynthia's par book to compare track-to-track and distance to distance.

I made a universal par chart to make my job easier. After adjusting for variant, (Cynthia uses average DRF variants,) I rank the times 100 down to 65. An 85 is 57.1, 105.3, 112.0, etc. for sprints and 1:38, 144.2 (1 1/16), 151.1 for 9 furlongs etc. I use the 10K claiming price to equalize tracks

As an example, Santa Anita Sunday 6/5 race 7, a 7f claiming race. A race I will pass.

SA's 7f par rating from my chart is 93.

I'll do 2 horses to show how I handle rout to sprint.

#10 Dustin's passion ran a 6.5f on 5/13. The SA 6.5f rating is 95, so I lower the rating 2 points.

Fractions were 44.3 and 1:15.4. Adjusting for beaten lengths--2 and 4.5-- his total pace figure is 93 81/174.

#1 Misdeed ran a 1 1/16 on 5/8. The figure for SA 1 1/16 is 85, so I add 8 points, 5 to the first fraction, 3 to the final fraction.

Fractions were 1:11.3 and 1:44.1. Adjusting for beaten lengths--0 and 2-- his total pace figure is 92 74/176.

I do this by hand, and I've been doing this so long so it's fairly easy. And I know how my figures were made, since I'm betting real money on my picks.

I hope this helps

whodoyoulike

06-05-2016, 06:23 PM

How would you adjust the paceline of fractional times in a sprint to get the fractional times for a route?

This is not a simple question.

I prefer to see a horse's pace lines given the horse has already raced at a route i.e., 8f to 8.5f or 9f. Even going 8f to 9f raises doubts but going 8f to 8.5f not so much. The problem I have is always the question(s) if the horse can even get the distance. Some can't because they're only sprinters and vice versa like routers who can't cover a sprint in a winning time for the class.

I use my own database which provides par values for each fractional call and then I decide whether the horse's projected pace is reasonable for the distance.

This is not a simple question.

I prefer to see a horse's pace lines given the horse has already raced at a route i.e., 8f to 8.5f or 9f. Even going 8f to 9f raises doubts but going 8f to 8.5f not so much. The problem I have is always the question(s) if the horse can even get the distance. Some can't because they're only sprinters and vice versa like routers who can't cover a sprint in a winning time for the class.

I use my own database which provides par values for each fractional call and then I decide whether the horse's projected pace is reasonable for the distance.

cj

06-05-2016, 06:53 PM

What then has been equalized? That would seem to be on the order of affixing a label to something, and then saying the label doesn't mean anything. "Equating performances" implies that the end result produces a value as significant at a different distance as the original value was at the original distance.

Well, for one I have a very good idea of the speed of the track that day.

Well, for one I have a very good idea of the speed of the track that day.

classhandicapper

06-06-2016, 09:27 AM

What then has been equalized? That would seem to be on the order of affixing a label to something, and then saying the label doesn't mean anything. "Equating performances" implies that the end result produces a value as significant at a different distance as the original value was at the original distance.

Some people want to equalize the performances and then subjectively use experience, pedigree, trainer, the horse's PPs, probably race setup etc.. to determine how the horse will run at a new distance.

You seem to be asking to take all that subjective analysis out of it so it can be part of a systematic approach that equalizes them (correct me if I am wrong).

That kind of thing gets way more complex.

I systematically produce a pace report for every race card I am interested in. It does what you are asking for based on my own algorithms. But that's the starting point. It's one of several reports I produce that tells me which races I might want to focus my energy on. The analysis never stops there. I always take a better look at the individual horses because there are an almost infinite number of details that can be slightly different from horse to horse. I can't code for every possible factor that might be significant in a specific case.

Some people want to equalize the performances and then subjectively use experience, pedigree, trainer, the horse's PPs, probably race setup etc.. to determine how the horse will run at a new distance.

You seem to be asking to take all that subjective analysis out of it so it can be part of a systematic approach that equalizes them (correct me if I am wrong).

That kind of thing gets way more complex.

I systematically produce a pace report for every race card I am interested in. It does what you are asking for based on my own algorithms. But that's the starting point. It's one of several reports I produce that tells me which races I might want to focus my energy on. The analysis never stops there. I always take a better look at the individual horses because there are an almost infinite number of details that can be slightly different from horse to horse. I can't code for every possible factor that might be significant in a specific case.

traynor

06-06-2016, 09:59 AM

Some people want to equalize the performances and then subjectively use experience, pedigree, trainer, the horse's PPs, probably race setup etc.. to determine how the horse will run at a new distance.

You seem to be asking to take all that subjective analysis out of it so it can be part of a systematic approach that equalizes them (correct me if I am wrong).

That kind of thing gets way more complex.

I systematically produce a pace report for every race card I am interested in. It does what you are asking for based on my own algorithms. But that's the starting point. It's one of several reports I produce that tells me which races I might want to focus my energy on. The analysis never stops there. I always take a better look at the individual horses because there are an almost infinite number of details that can be slightly different from horse to horse. I can't code for every possible factor that might be significant in a specific case.

Korzybski encapsulated the difficulty in Science and Sanity. In essence, when people affix a label to something--without regard for how accurate, useful, or descriptive that label might be or might not be--subsequent cognitive processing is performed on the label rather than the thing labeled. Hence the admonition, "the map is not the territory."

"Equalizing performances" suggests the end result is something significantly more useful than it is in the real world. Averages, approximations, and comparisons based on those averages and approximations generate interesting sets of values. "Interesting" does not make them worth betting on.

You seem to be asking to take all that subjective analysis out of it so it can be part of a systematic approach that equalizes them (correct me if I am wrong).

That kind of thing gets way more complex.

I systematically produce a pace report for every race card I am interested in. It does what you are asking for based on my own algorithms. But that's the starting point. It's one of several reports I produce that tells me which races I might want to focus my energy on. The analysis never stops there. I always take a better look at the individual horses because there are an almost infinite number of details that can be slightly different from horse to horse. I can't code for every possible factor that might be significant in a specific case.

Korzybski encapsulated the difficulty in Science and Sanity. In essence, when people affix a label to something--without regard for how accurate, useful, or descriptive that label might be or might not be--subsequent cognitive processing is performed on the label rather than the thing labeled. Hence the admonition, "the map is not the territory."

"Equalizing performances" suggests the end result is something significantly more useful than it is in the real world. Averages, approximations, and comparisons based on those averages and approximations generate interesting sets of values. "Interesting" does not make them worth betting on.

pandy

06-06-2016, 10:41 AM

How would you adjust the paceline of fractional times in a sprint to get the fractional times for a route?

I can't remember exactly what we did not to adjust stretch out times for the Diamond System. I know we started with the Brohammer adjustments from his Modern Pace Handicapping and quickly realized that they didn't work. I believe we had to slow it down more otherwise every horse stretching out was ranked 1st.

I've done very well betting horses stretching out this year and handicapping maidens that are stretching out for the first time is something that I've gotten better at over the years.

I don't think that extrapolating a route line off of the horse's sprint line is a really big help. I like to look for horses that are not completely outrun in sprints but finished well in the stretch. It also helps if the horse has a pretty good route pedigree...but, most of the time when a horse stretches out the distance is somewhere between a mile and a mile and a sixteenth...At the major tracks in particular, there aren't that many horses that aren't bred to get at least 8.5 furlongs.

Another thing you can do is watch replays. Most horses I see that tend to improve on the stretch out are horses that have that longer sort of one paced stride. Horses that prefer sprinting tend to have faster, shorter strides, which often doesn't play well going long.

The stride is important. Many solid raceway horses that have long careers and win a lot of races struggled early in their career because they were outrun in sprints. Many nice route horses actually appear to be slow horses in sprints but then they run Beyers in the 90's in routes and end up winning a bunch of races. It's just not comfortable for a long striding horse to try to get those legs going fast in a 6 furlong race so they have a hard time finding their stride. It's soft of like a pitcher who gets in a slump when his mechanics are off.

I can't remember exactly what we did not to adjust stretch out times for the Diamond System. I know we started with the Brohammer adjustments from his Modern Pace Handicapping and quickly realized that they didn't work. I believe we had to slow it down more otherwise every horse stretching out was ranked 1st.

I've done very well betting horses stretching out this year and handicapping maidens that are stretching out for the first time is something that I've gotten better at over the years.

I don't think that extrapolating a route line off of the horse's sprint line is a really big help. I like to look for horses that are not completely outrun in sprints but finished well in the stretch. It also helps if the horse has a pretty good route pedigree...but, most of the time when a horse stretches out the distance is somewhere between a mile and a mile and a sixteenth...At the major tracks in particular, there aren't that many horses that aren't bred to get at least 8.5 furlongs.

Another thing you can do is watch replays. Most horses I see that tend to improve on the stretch out are horses that have that longer sort of one paced stride. Horses that prefer sprinting tend to have faster, shorter strides, which often doesn't play well going long.

The stride is important. Many solid raceway horses that have long careers and win a lot of races struggled early in their career because they were outrun in sprints. Many nice route horses actually appear to be slow horses in sprints but then they run Beyers in the 90's in routes and end up winning a bunch of races. It's just not comfortable for a long striding horse to try to get those legs going fast in a 6 furlong race so they have a hard time finding their stride. It's soft of like a pitcher who gets in a slump when his mechanics are off.

classhandicapper

06-06-2016, 11:40 AM

The stride is important.

On a scale of 1-10, I'm probably a 4. But I am starting to realize how incredibly talented some people are at that kind of thing and definitely want to get better at it.

I was watching some unraced horses work recently and could barely tell anything about them other than how hard they were trying and a very general appreciation of whether it was fast or slow.

The trainer of them was saying things like "This one is going to be a dirt router, but she'll probably handle turf just as well". "This other one is clearly just a turfer". Then he broke off into things he could see in the stride that were clearly a couple of notches above what I could see after just a few workouts. I found it amazing.

On a scale of 1-10, I'm probably a 4. But I am starting to realize how incredibly talented some people are at that kind of thing and definitely want to get better at it.

I was watching some unraced horses work recently and could barely tell anything about them other than how hard they were trying and a very general appreciation of whether it was fast or slow.

The trainer of them was saying things like "This one is going to be a dirt router, but she'll probably handle turf just as well". "This other one is clearly just a turfer". Then he broke off into things he could see in the stride that were clearly a couple of notches above what I could see after just a few workouts. I found it amazing.

traynor

06-06-2016, 03:47 PM

On a scale of 1-10, I'm probably a 4. But I am starting to realize how incredibly talented some people are at that kind of thing and definitely want to get better at it.

I was watching some unraced horses work recently and could barely tell anything about them other than how hard they were trying and a very general appreciation of whether it was fast or slow.

The trainer of them was saying things like "This one is going to be a dirt router, but she'll probably handle turf just as well". "This other one is clearly just a turfer". Then he broke off into things he could see in the stride that were clearly a couple of notches above what I could see after just a few workouts. I found it amazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ_Uziw5nHw

First of 3 parts. Other two are also on YouTube.

If you can find the old Trillis Parker Horses Talk video, it has some very good information on (and examples of) efficient vs inefficient stride.

Same goes for the Paul Mellos Trip Handicapping videos.

I was watching some unraced horses work recently and could barely tell anything about them other than how hard they were trying and a very general appreciation of whether it was fast or slow.

The trainer of them was saying things like "This one is going to be a dirt router, but she'll probably handle turf just as well". "This other one is clearly just a turfer". Then he broke off into things he could see in the stride that were clearly a couple of notches above what I could see after just a few workouts. I found it amazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ_Uziw5nHw

First of 3 parts. Other two are also on YouTube.

If you can find the old Trillis Parker Horses Talk video, it has some very good information on (and examples of) efficient vs inefficient stride.

Same goes for the Paul Mellos Trip Handicapping videos.

pandy

06-06-2016, 03:53 PM

Great video, I never saw that.

classhandicapper

06-07-2016, 09:26 AM

Thanks. I'll take a look at that.

Cratos

06-15-2016, 05:11 AM

How would you adjust the paceline of fractional times in a sprint to get the fractional times for a route?

This is a problem of differentiation which states dx/dy or the change in “x” with the respect to the change in “Y”; essentially we are using the slope of the race curve to be our determining factor.

This is not as hard as it is tedious because of the collecting of the required data.

What we did was construct the race curve for both Belmont and Saratoga using Trakus data for 2014 and 2015 (approximately 2000 races) on dirt.

Equibase data is impractical to use because it is one dimensional with race times measured against fixed distances and this falsely gives a straight line assessment.

The general race curve for all horses regardless of surface, class or distance is nonlinear and downward-sloping.

Example:

Belmont’s average winning dirt 6F = 4000.5 feet in 71.62 seconds or an average speed of 55.85 feet per second.

Belmont’s average winning dirt 1M = 5340 feet in 97.30 seconds or an average speed of 54.17 feet per second.

The data shows that a horse at Belmont running on the dirt surface runs an average of 3% faster at 6F than at the 1M distance.

However the time adjustment from the 6F distance to the 1M distance is not linear; it is nonlinear because of the slope of the curve.

Now to your question:

“How would you adjust the paceline of fractional times in a sprint to get the fractional times for a route?”

You calculate the slope of the race curve at 6F and the slope at 1M beginning at zero (the race start); keep in mind this is a vector analysis and you are using displacement not distance. The difference between the two curves will be the time lost due to energy exertion.

In the aggregate, that is the answer to your question, the loss of time due to exertion of energy as the race distance become longer.

This is a problem of differentiation which states dx/dy or the change in “x” with the respect to the change in “Y”; essentially we are using the slope of the race curve to be our determining factor.

This is not as hard as it is tedious because of the collecting of the required data.

What we did was construct the race curve for both Belmont and Saratoga using Trakus data for 2014 and 2015 (approximately 2000 races) on dirt.

Equibase data is impractical to use because it is one dimensional with race times measured against fixed distances and this falsely gives a straight line assessment.

The general race curve for all horses regardless of surface, class or distance is nonlinear and downward-sloping.

Example:

Belmont’s average winning dirt 6F = 4000.5 feet in 71.62 seconds or an average speed of 55.85 feet per second.

Belmont’s average winning dirt 1M = 5340 feet in 97.30 seconds or an average speed of 54.17 feet per second.

The data shows that a horse at Belmont running on the dirt surface runs an average of 3% faster at 6F than at the 1M distance.

However the time adjustment from the 6F distance to the 1M distance is not linear; it is nonlinear because of the slope of the curve.

Now to your question:

“How would you adjust the paceline of fractional times in a sprint to get the fractional times for a route?”

You calculate the slope of the race curve at 6F and the slope at 1M beginning at zero (the race start); keep in mind this is a vector analysis and you are using displacement not distance. The difference between the two curves will be the time lost due to energy exertion.

In the aggregate, that is the answer to your question, the loss of time due to exertion of energy as the race distance become longer.

EMD4ME

06-15-2016, 06:09 AM

Good stuff Cratos. Just a silly question from this crazy guy....is 6F 4005 feet or 4000 and 1/2 feet?

P.S. This is not all that I extracted from your statement but it is question #1

P.S. This is not all that I extracted from your statement but it is question #1

Cratos

06-15-2016, 09:04 AM

Good stuff Cratos. Just a silly question from this crazy guy....is 6F 4005 feet or 4000 and 1/2 feet?

P.S. This is not all that I extracted from your statement but it is question #1

It is 4000 and 1/2 feet.

P.S. This is not all that I extracted from your statement but it is question #1

It is 4000 and 1/2 feet.

Capper Al

06-15-2016, 09:35 AM

CJ answered it best. It's a function of distance, but is the horse adept to the distance becomes the issue which would validate the conversion.

Tom

06-15-2016, 09:42 AM

Since when is 6 furlongs 4000 feet?

A furlong is 660 feet.

A furlong is 660 feet.

Cratos

06-15-2016, 10:01 AM

CJ answered it best. It's a function of distance, but is the horse adept to the distance becomes the issue which would validate the conversion.

I believe that is exactly what the calculus proves; there is "no best", this is just a simple differentiation and the horse's ability to adjust its speed from distance to distance is a discreet calculation based on the horse in questioned.

I believe that is exactly what the calculus proves; there is "no best", this is just a simple differentiation and the horse's ability to adjust its speed from distance to distance is a discreet calculation based on the horse in questioned.

johnhannibalsmith

06-15-2016, 11:28 AM

Since when is 6 furlongs 4000 feet?

A furlong is 660 feet.

If I read correctly the figure you cited is the average winning distance traveled according to long-term data extracted from Trakus.

A furlong is 660 feet.

If I read correctly the figure you cited is the average winning distance traveled according to long-term data extracted from Trakus.

EMD4ME

06-15-2016, 12:23 PM

It is 4000 and 1/2 feet.

6 X 660.001 is 4000?

A mile is 5280 feet. Where are you getting your numbers, if you don't mind me asking?

Are you factoring in an eighty foot runnup for the mile race and a near 40 foot runnup for the 6F race?

6 X 660.001 is 4000?

A mile is 5280 feet. Where are you getting your numbers, if you don't mind me asking?

Are you factoring in an eighty foot runnup for the mile race and a near 40 foot runnup for the 6F race?

AndyC

06-15-2016, 02:22 PM

6 X 660.001 is 4000?

A mile is 5280 feet. Where are you getting your numbers, if you don't mind me asking?

Are you factoring in an eighty foot runnup for the mile race and a near 40 foot runnup for the 6F race?

It is the average distance run by the winners using Trakus data. Unless a horse gets a rail-hugging trip from gate to wire they would always run more than 3960ft in a six furlong race.

A mile is 5280 feet. Where are you getting your numbers, if you don't mind me asking?

Are you factoring in an eighty foot runnup for the mile race and a near 40 foot runnup for the 6F race?

It is the average distance run by the winners using Trakus data. Unless a horse gets a rail-hugging trip from gate to wire they would always run more than 3960ft in a six furlong race.

traynor

06-15-2016, 02:58 PM

This is a problem of differentiation which states dx/dy or the change in “x” with the respect to the change in “Y”; essentially we are using the slope of the race curve to be our determining factor.

This is not as hard as it is tedious because of the collecting of the required data.

What we did was construct the race curve for both Belmont and Saratoga using Trakus data for 2014 and 2015 (approximately 2000 races) on dirt.

Equibase data is impractical to use because it is one dimensional with race times measured against fixed distances and this falsely gives a straight line assessment.

The general race curve for all horses regardless of surface, class or distance is nonlinear and downward-sloping.

Example:

Belmont’s average winning dirt 6F = 4000.5 feet in 71.62 seconds or an average speed of 55.85 feet per second.

Belmont’s average winning dirt 1M = 5340 feet in 97.30 seconds or an average speed of 54.17 feet per second.

The data shows that a horse at Belmont running on the dirt surface runs an average of 3% faster at 6F than at the 1M distance.

However the time adjustment from the 6F distance to the 1M distance is not linear; it is nonlinear because of the slope of the curve.

Now to your question:

“How would you adjust the paceline of fractional times in a sprint to get the fractional times for a route?”

You calculate the slope of the race curve at 6F and the slope at 1M beginning at zero (the race start); keep in mind this is a vector analysis and you are using displacement not distance. The difference between the two curves will be the time lost due to energy exertion.

In the aggregate, that is the answer to your question, the loss of time due to exertion of energy as the race distance become longer.

That is an interesting process. However, it seems you are doing essentially the same thing as the old-fashioned computations, using a more complex process. That is, assuming the difference between one average and another average (however calculated) can be applied to a race at one distance to make it equivalent (for the purpose of performance comparisons in today's race) to a race at a different distance.

This is not as hard as it is tedious because of the collecting of the required data.

What we did was construct the race curve for both Belmont and Saratoga using Trakus data for 2014 and 2015 (approximately 2000 races) on dirt.

Equibase data is impractical to use because it is one dimensional with race times measured against fixed distances and this falsely gives a straight line assessment.

The general race curve for all horses regardless of surface, class or distance is nonlinear and downward-sloping.

Example:

Belmont’s average winning dirt 6F = 4000.5 feet in 71.62 seconds or an average speed of 55.85 feet per second.

Belmont’s average winning dirt 1M = 5340 feet in 97.30 seconds or an average speed of 54.17 feet per second.

The data shows that a horse at Belmont running on the dirt surface runs an average of 3% faster at 6F than at the 1M distance.

However the time adjustment from the 6F distance to the 1M distance is not linear; it is nonlinear because of the slope of the curve.

Now to your question:

“How would you adjust the paceline of fractional times in a sprint to get the fractional times for a route?”

You calculate the slope of the race curve at 6F and the slope at 1M beginning at zero (the race start); keep in mind this is a vector analysis and you are using displacement not distance. The difference between the two curves will be the time lost due to energy exertion.

In the aggregate, that is the answer to your question, the loss of time due to exertion of energy as the race distance become longer.

That is an interesting process. However, it seems you are doing essentially the same thing as the old-fashioned computations, using a more complex process. That is, assuming the difference between one average and another average (however calculated) can be applied to a race at one distance to make it equivalent (for the purpose of performance comparisons in today's race) to a race at a different distance.

Cratos

06-15-2016, 03:16 PM

If I read correctly the figure you cited is the average winning distance traveled according to long-term data extracted from Trakus.

You are correct sir; Trakus is using vectors to measure the time and displacement of the horse’s travel during the race.

The time is measure at a stated displacement from the start or the last point of measurement.

Simply stated the race curve development by the horse is not a straight line from the start to finish of any race; that is impossible due to a variety of influences impacting the horse’s rate of motion during the race.

Some of these influences are environmental, track configuration, and g-force.

Therefore while running the horse’s movement will deviate from the true distance of the race causing an increase in displacement.

The sum of the deviations with respect to the true race distance become added and hence the longer distance.

This not a Trakus idea, it is a scientific fact for a body (man. Animal, or machine) moving across a surface on earth; the exception is objects in motion in a vacuum.

You are correct sir; Trakus is using vectors to measure the time and displacement of the horse’s travel during the race.

The time is measure at a stated displacement from the start or the last point of measurement.

Simply stated the race curve development by the horse is not a straight line from the start to finish of any race; that is impossible due to a variety of influences impacting the horse’s rate of motion during the race.

Some of these influences are environmental, track configuration, and g-force.

Therefore while running the horse’s movement will deviate from the true distance of the race causing an increase in displacement.

The sum of the deviations with respect to the true race distance become added and hence the longer distance.

This not a Trakus idea, it is a scientific fact for a body (man. Animal, or machine) moving across a surface on earth; the exception is objects in motion in a vacuum.

Tom

06-15-2016, 03:52 PM

So you are limited to doing this for tracks that use Trakus.

Cratos

06-15-2016, 03:54 PM

That is an interesting process. However, it seems you are doing essentially the same thing as the old-fashioned computations, using a more complex process. That is, assuming the difference between one average and another average (however calculated) can be applied to a race at one distance to make it equivalent (for the purpose of performance comparisons in today's race) to a race at a different distance.

Wrong, there aren’t any assumptions made except that the Trakus data is correct.

This is basic physics and applies to any object moving across a surface in space.

What it shows is that you cannot develop relevant speed from Equibase data because by choice Equibase doesn’t publish distance traveled by the horse during the race.

Wrong, there aren’t any assumptions made except that the Trakus data is correct.

This is basic physics and applies to any object moving across a surface in space.

What it shows is that you cannot develop relevant speed from Equibase data because by choice Equibase doesn’t publish distance traveled by the horse during the race.

Cratos

06-15-2016, 04:30 PM

It is the average distance run by the winners using Trakus data. Unless a horse gets a rail-hugging trip from gate to wire they would always run more than 3960ft in a six furlong race.

Even if “a horse gets a rail-hugging trip from gate to wire” as you have stated it will still run longer than the stated distance of the race and this is because of the turns.

However in the straightaways of the race distance, a horse theoretically can run the exact distance, but in the turns of the race distance’ the horse cannot because it will always be traversing the turn in a larger arc than the turn; hence added distance.

For horseplayers who play at Churchill Downs their horses should have less ground loss than most other racetracks at the same distances because Churchill Downs have long straightaways with small turning radii.

Even if “a horse gets a rail-hugging trip from gate to wire” as you have stated it will still run longer than the stated distance of the race and this is because of the turns.

However in the straightaways of the race distance, a horse theoretically can run the exact distance, but in the turns of the race distance’ the horse cannot because it will always be traversing the turn in a larger arc than the turn; hence added distance.

For horseplayers who play at Churchill Downs their horses should have less ground loss than most other racetracks at the same distances because Churchill Downs have long straightaways with small turning radii.

whodoyoulike

06-15-2016, 05:43 PM

...

Example:

Belmont’s average winning dirt 6F = 4000.5 feet in 71.62 seconds or an average speed of 55.85 feet per second.

Belmont’s average winning dirt 1M = 5340 feet in 97.30 seconds or an average speed of 54.17 feet per second.

The data shows that a horse at Belmont running on the dirt surface runs an average of 3% faster at 6F than at the 1M distance. ...

Interesting, we've researched and calculated using different methods and from different time periods and come up with similar results.

Average winning dirt 6F = 3960 feet in 70.89 seconds or an average speed of 55.86 feet per second.

Average winning dirt 1M = 5280 feet in 97.76 seconds or an average speed of 54.01 feet per second.

Btw, I calculate your 1M = 5340 feet in 97.30 seconds or an average speed of 54.88 feet per second.

This is one of the things I look for on this forum which is comparisons to my methods as a sanity check.

Example:

Belmont’s average winning dirt 6F = 4000.5 feet in 71.62 seconds or an average speed of 55.85 feet per second.

Belmont’s average winning dirt 1M = 5340 feet in 97.30 seconds or an average speed of 54.17 feet per second.

The data shows that a horse at Belmont running on the dirt surface runs an average of 3% faster at 6F than at the 1M distance. ...

Interesting, we've researched and calculated using different methods and from different time periods and come up with similar results.

Average winning dirt 6F = 3960 feet in 70.89 seconds or an average speed of 55.86 feet per second.

Average winning dirt 1M = 5280 feet in 97.76 seconds or an average speed of 54.01 feet per second.

Btw, I calculate your 1M = 5340 feet in 97.30 seconds or an average speed of 54.88 feet per second.

This is one of the things I look for on this forum which is comparisons to my methods as a sanity check.

AndyC

06-15-2016, 06:14 PM

....This is one of the things I look for on this forum which is comparisons to my methods as a sanity check.

If you are doing sanity checks based on things that happen on this forum it might be time to check yourself in. ;)

If you are doing sanity checks based on things that happen on this forum it might be time to check yourself in. ;)

steveb

06-15-2016, 06:31 PM

Interesting, we've researched and calculated using different methods and from different time periods and come up with similar results.

Average winning dirt 6F = 3960 feet in 70.89 seconds or an average speed of 55.86 feet per second.

Average winning dirt 1M = 5280 feet in 97.76 seconds or an average speed of 54.01 feet per second.

Btw, I calculate your 1M = 5340 feet in 97.30 seconds or an average speed of 54.88 feet per second.

This is one of the things I look for on this forum which is comparisons to my methods as a sanity check.

forgive me if i have misinterpreted, but i can't see what you have figured?

they just look like answers that everybody that knows basic math would get?

Average winning dirt 6F = 3960 feet in 70.89 seconds or an average speed of 55.86 feet per second.

Average winning dirt 1M = 5280 feet in 97.76 seconds or an average speed of 54.01 feet per second.

Btw, I calculate your 1M = 5340 feet in 97.30 seconds or an average speed of 54.88 feet per second.

This is one of the things I look for on this forum which is comparisons to my methods as a sanity check.

forgive me if i have misinterpreted, but i can't see what you have figured?

they just look like answers that everybody that knows basic math would get?

traynor

06-15-2016, 06:31 PM

Wrong, there aren’t any assumptions made except that the Trakus data is correct.

This is basic physics and applies to any object moving across a surface in space.

What it shows is that you cannot develop relevant speed from Equibase data because by choice Equibase doesn’t publish distance traveled by the horse during the race.

Great! I thought you might be saying the values generated had some significance other than being the averaged result of a number of instances. Thank you for clarifying.

This is basic physics and applies to any object moving across a surface in space.

What it shows is that you cannot develop relevant speed from Equibase data because by choice Equibase doesn’t publish distance traveled by the horse during the race.

Great! I thought you might be saying the values generated had some significance other than being the averaged result of a number of instances. Thank you for clarifying.

whodoyoulike

06-15-2016, 06:59 PM

forgive me if i have misinterpreted, but i can't see what you have figured?

they just look like answers that everybody that knows basic math would get?

I wasn't referring to the math but, rather despite using different methods and time periods we've both derived similar racing times for the two different distances which is a sanity check at least for me.

they just look like answers that everybody that knows basic math would get?

I wasn't referring to the math but, rather despite using different methods and time periods we've both derived similar racing times for the two different distances which is a sanity check at least for me.

steveb

06-15-2016, 07:37 PM

I wasn't referring to the math but, rather despite using different methods and time periods we've both derived similar racing times for the two different distances which is a sanity check at least for me.

thanks for reply.

different people, different thoughts i guess, but yours and cratos's times are not relatively very close, as far as i can tell.

assuming cratos figures equated to 100, then yours equate to 110 and 95 respectively.

that is a big difference to me.

if 71.62 is to 70.89 then 97.3 is to 96.3(not 97.76)

i don't think the actual times matter, just the relationships.

but to me there is a huge difference between you and cratos, although i would have no idea, which, if either, are correct.

thanks for reply.

different people, different thoughts i guess, but yours and cratos's times are not relatively very close, as far as i can tell.

assuming cratos figures equated to 100, then yours equate to 110 and 95 respectively.

that is a big difference to me.

if 71.62 is to 70.89 then 97.3 is to 96.3(not 97.76)

i don't think the actual times matter, just the relationships.

but to me there is a huge difference between you and cratos, although i would have no idea, which, if either, are correct.

whodoyoulike

06-15-2016, 07:44 PM

If you are doing sanity checks based on things that happen on this forum it might be time to check yourself in. ;)

I know what you're getting at but, when I came up with my data and methods I really didn't have any supporting data other than that it worked most of the time. Hell, after all these years I'm still wanting to verify my results and methods with others without giving out my algorithms. When I used to get paid for analyzing problems I always built in check figures to ensure I wasn't on the wrong track (not a pun).

I know what you're getting at but, when I came up with my data and methods I really didn't have any supporting data other than that it worked most of the time. Hell, after all these years I'm still wanting to verify my results and methods with others without giving out my algorithms. When I used to get paid for analyzing problems I always built in check figures to ensure I wasn't on the wrong track (not a pun).

whodoyoulike

06-15-2016, 07:51 PM

thanks for reply.

different people, different thoughts i guess, but yours and cratos's times are not relatively very close, as far as i can tell.

assuming cratos figures equated to 100, then yours equate to 110 and 95 respectively.

that is a big difference to me.

if 71.62 is to 70.89 then 97.3 is to 96.3(not 97.76)

i don't think the actual times matter, just the relationships.

but to me there is a huge difference between you and cratos, although i would have no idea, which, if either, are correct.

I use ranges in my estimations so to me his numbers are in an acceptable ballpark range with mine. I've never estimated a horse to run a 8f in 95 seconds to actually expect him to run a 95 because the race's fractional paces usually determines final times.

different people, different thoughts i guess, but yours and cratos's times are not relatively very close, as far as i can tell.

assuming cratos figures equated to 100, then yours equate to 110 and 95 respectively.

that is a big difference to me.

if 71.62 is to 70.89 then 97.3 is to 96.3(not 97.76)

i don't think the actual times matter, just the relationships.

but to me there is a huge difference between you and cratos, although i would have no idea, which, if either, are correct.

I use ranges in my estimations so to me his numbers are in an acceptable ballpark range with mine. I've never estimated a horse to run a 8f in 95 seconds to actually expect him to run a 95 because the race's fractional paces usually determines final times.

steveb

06-15-2016, 07:58 PM

I use ranges in my estimations so to me his numbers are in an acceptable ballpark range with mine. I've never estimated a horse to run a 8f in 95 seconds to actually expect him to run a 95 because the race's fractional paces usually determines final times.

yes, but that is neither here nor there.

it has nothing to do with what you would expect, it is simply about relationships, nothing more.

i can cop that they are fine and in an acceptable range to you.

to me(and accepting cratos was right) then i would be investigating what to me is huge disparity.

yes, but that is neither here nor there.

it has nothing to do with what you would expect, it is simply about relationships, nothing more.

i can cop that they are fine and in an acceptable range to you.

to me(and accepting cratos was right) then i would be investigating what to me is huge disparity.

whodoyoulike

06-15-2016, 08:18 PM

... it is simply about relationships, nothing more.

...

I think I'm in agreement with you if we are discussing the thread's topic. The time adjustments of horses changing different distances is all relative to their prior paces in the different distances.

...

I think I'm in agreement with you if we are discussing the thread's topic. The time adjustments of horses changing different distances is all relative to their prior paces in the different distances.

ebcorde

06-15-2016, 08:39 PM

The solutions I;ve read are measuring the Horse against the avg time by other Horses at the Track.

why not calculate the Horse's slope from his longest race(s)?

was that too easy for ya? :lol:

why not calculate the Horse's slope from his longest race(s)?

was that too easy for ya? :lol:

steveb

06-15-2016, 08:42 PM

I think I'm in agreement with you if we are discussing the thread's topic. The time adjustments of horses changing different distances is all relative to their prior paces in the different distances.

i think i should have kept my thoughts to myself about you and cratos's time similarity!

as far as the thread topic is concerned, although it is very very easy to equate times/fractions at different distances, it is not very smart to think that a horse can do the same at either distance.

all i would be doing is trying to find the optimal way to pace a race over this distance at this track.

optimal for ME, is when the horse runs the same number for every fraction and overall race.

but just because a horse can run 6 furlongs optimally, it's unlikely that it could do the same over 7 or 8 furlongs.

if i had numbers of 60, 60, 60, 60(or whatever the same) for fractions and final time over 6 furlongs, then there is no way i would expect the horse to run those same numbers over any other distance.

despite the fact that 60,60,60,60 would mean the same thing regardless of the distance.

and of course optimal rarely happens.

i think i should have kept my thoughts to myself about you and cratos's time similarity!

as far as the thread topic is concerned, although it is very very easy to equate times/fractions at different distances, it is not very smart to think that a horse can do the same at either distance.

all i would be doing is trying to find the optimal way to pace a race over this distance at this track.

optimal for ME, is when the horse runs the same number for every fraction and overall race.

but just because a horse can run 6 furlongs optimally, it's unlikely that it could do the same over 7 or 8 furlongs.

if i had numbers of 60, 60, 60, 60(or whatever the same) for fractions and final time over 6 furlongs, then there is no way i would expect the horse to run those same numbers over any other distance.

despite the fact that 60,60,60,60 would mean the same thing regardless of the distance.

and of course optimal rarely happens.

whodoyoulike

06-15-2016, 08:59 PM

...

but just because a horse can run 6 furlongs optimally, it's unlikely that it could do the same over 7 or 8 furlongs.

if i had numbers of 60, 60, 60, 60(or whatever the same) for fractions and final time over 6 furlongs, then there is no way i would expect the horse to run those same numbers over any other distance.

despite the fact that 60,60,60,60 would mean the same thing regardless of the distance.

and of course optimal rarely happens.

Again, I think I'm stating something similar to yours. I didn't mean that just because a horse ran 6f in 70.89, he would or should run 8f in 97.76 seconds.

Which is the reason I wrote:

... The time adjustments of horses changing different distances is all relative to their prior paces in the different distances.

but just because a horse can run 6 furlongs optimally, it's unlikely that it could do the same over 7 or 8 furlongs.

if i had numbers of 60, 60, 60, 60(or whatever the same) for fractions and final time over 6 furlongs, then there is no way i would expect the horse to run those same numbers over any other distance.

despite the fact that 60,60,60,60 would mean the same thing regardless of the distance.

and of course optimal rarely happens.

Again, I think I'm stating something similar to yours. I didn't mean that just because a horse ran 6f in 70.89, he would or should run 8f in 97.76 seconds.

Which is the reason I wrote:

... The time adjustments of horses changing different distances is all relative to their prior paces in the different distances.

Cratos

06-15-2016, 10:01 PM

The solutions I;ve read are measuring the Horse against the avg time by other Horses at the Track.

why not calculate the Horse's slope from his longest race(s)?

was that too easy for ya? :lol:

You are correct when you speak of an individual horse, but in the aggregate it is time relationships.

why not calculate the Horse's slope from his longest race(s)?

was that too easy for ya? :lol:

You are correct when you speak of an individual horse, but in the aggregate it is time relationships.

Cratos

06-15-2016, 10:06 PM

Interesting, we've researched and calculated using different methods and from different time periods and come up with similar results.

Average winning dirt 6F = 3960 feet in 70.89 seconds or an average speed of 55.86 feet per second.

Average winning dirt 1M = 5280 feet in 97.76 seconds or an average speed of 54.01 feet per second.

Btw, I calculate your 1M = 5340 feet in 97.30 seconds or an average speed of 54.88 feet per second.

This is one of the things I look for on this forum which is comparisons to my methods as a sanity check.

There is a quite argument in physics that deceleration doesn’t exist; it states that objects in motion are always in acceleration relative to their stating point, just at a slower rate of motion.

I don’t know if that assertion is true or false, but what I do know and understand is that an object slowing down would’ve gone faster at its previous point of travel than its current point.

Therefore given the 6F example of 4000.5 feet traveled in 71.62 seconds at 55.85 FT/sec, it will adjust back up the race curve to 70.15 seconds at 3960 feet, the exact 6F length.

Consequently, the 1M example of 5340 feet traveled in 97.30 seconds at 54.17 FT/sec, it will adjust back up the race curve to 96.38 seconds at 5280 feet, the exact 1M length.

The value of these adjustments is to bring all of the horse’s past races under consideration for today’s race to the same time distance which should be the distance of today’s race; this should be done before any other adjustments are applied.

Average winning dirt 6F = 3960 feet in 70.89 seconds or an average speed of 55.86 feet per second.

Average winning dirt 1M = 5280 feet in 97.76 seconds or an average speed of 54.01 feet per second.

Btw, I calculate your 1M = 5340 feet in 97.30 seconds or an average speed of 54.88 feet per second.

This is one of the things I look for on this forum which is comparisons to my methods as a sanity check.

There is a quite argument in physics that deceleration doesn’t exist; it states that objects in motion are always in acceleration relative to their stating point, just at a slower rate of motion.

I don’t know if that assertion is true or false, but what I do know and understand is that an object slowing down would’ve gone faster at its previous point of travel than its current point.

Therefore given the 6F example of 4000.5 feet traveled in 71.62 seconds at 55.85 FT/sec, it will adjust back up the race curve to 70.15 seconds at 3960 feet, the exact 6F length.

Consequently, the 1M example of 5340 feet traveled in 97.30 seconds at 54.17 FT/sec, it will adjust back up the race curve to 96.38 seconds at 5280 feet, the exact 1M length.

The value of these adjustments is to bring all of the horse’s past races under consideration for today’s race to the same time distance which should be the distance of today’s race; this should be done before any other adjustments are applied.

whodoyoulike

06-16-2016, 12:52 AM

... Therefore given the 6F example of 4000.5 feet traveled in 71.62 seconds at 55.85 FT/sec, it will adjust back up the race curve to 70.15 seconds at 3960 feet, the exact 6F length.

Consequently, the 1M example of 5340 feet traveled in 97.30 seconds at 54.17 FT/sec, it will adjust back up the race curve to 96.38 seconds at 5280 feet, the exact 1M length. ...

Again, I just found the similarities interesting. When I did my study I didn't know about the average 6f race is really about 4000.5 ft. or 8f s/b about 5340 ft. instead of 5280 ft. since I was just gathering data years ago for 6f and 8f. And, you've noted yours is based on Bel whereas mine was mostly SoCal and other "A" tracks around the country.

This is the second time our research comes up with similar findings. The other being your b/l adjustment calculation which was a lot closer to mine than those mentioned previously by steveb and CJ but I think they truncated their number.

Consequently, the 1M example of 5340 feet traveled in 97.30 seconds at 54.17 FT/sec, it will adjust back up the race curve to 96.38 seconds at 5280 feet, the exact 1M length. ...

Again, I just found the similarities interesting. When I did my study I didn't know about the average 6f race is really about 4000.5 ft. or 8f s/b about 5340 ft. instead of 5280 ft. since I was just gathering data years ago for 6f and 8f. And, you've noted yours is based on Bel whereas mine was mostly SoCal and other "A" tracks around the country.

This is the second time our research comes up with similar findings. The other being your b/l adjustment calculation which was a lot closer to mine than those mentioned previously by steveb and CJ but I think they truncated their number.

ebcorde

06-16-2016, 10:04 AM

You are correct when you speak of an individual horse, but in the aggregate it is time relationships.

That's how I do it , in addition I look at the total distance the horse has run in past races to the length of his next race and the workout distances of his last 2-3 recent works is less than 1 month.

for Longer races , if he has not run the race distance within 1 furlong I like to see a work of 5-6f. if I see 3f works I'm off him.

so I use these 3 metrics to determine if he can win the longer distance race. it's Not perfect

The thing most reliable is total distance of races run in stakes races, non maiden claiming races. Example On Dirt G1/G2 if a race 1-1/8 (9.00) and a Horse averages 7.50. Not good.

That's how I do it , in addition I look at the total distance the horse has run in past races to the length of his next race and the workout distances of his last 2-3 recent works is less than 1 month.

for Longer races , if he has not run the race distance within 1 furlong I like to see a work of 5-6f. if I see 3f works I'm off him.

so I use these 3 metrics to determine if he can win the longer distance race. it's Not perfect

The thing most reliable is total distance of races run in stakes races, non maiden claiming races. Example On Dirt G1/G2 if a race 1-1/8 (9.00) and a Horse averages 7.50. Not good.

Cratos

06-16-2016, 10:31 AM

That's how I do it , in addition I look at the total distance the horse has run in past races to the length of his next race and the workout distances of his last 2-3 recent works is less than 1 month.

for Longer races , if he has not run the race distance within 1 furlong I like to see a work of 5-6f. if I see 3f works I'm off him.

so I use these 3 metrics to determine if he can win the longer distance race. it's Not perfect

The thing most reliable is total distance of races run in stakes races, non maiden claiming races. Example On Dirt G1/G2 if a race 1-1/8 (9.00) and a Horse averages 7.50. Not good.

Your method is good; essentially you are using a quasi-work calculation

for Longer races , if he has not run the race distance within 1 furlong I like to see a work of 5-6f. if I see 3f works I'm off him.

so I use these 3 metrics to determine if he can win the longer distance race. it's Not perfect

The thing most reliable is total distance of races run in stakes races, non maiden claiming races. Example On Dirt G1/G2 if a race 1-1/8 (9.00) and a Horse averages 7.50. Not good.

Your method is good; essentially you are using a quasi-work calculation

johnhannibalsmith

06-18-2016, 12:39 AM

I forgot about this thread but just want to say that it is interesting and helpful to see some of the principles previously alluded to being used in a practical example so that someone like me can have some appreciation for your application of your ideas. Thanks.

vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.