mikesal57

07-27-2017, 11:37 AM

Hi ..

Can someone give me a quick outline on how his figs are calculated?

Thxs

Can someone give me a quick outline on how his figs are calculated?

Thxs

View Full Version : Carrol Speed Figs

mikesal57

07-27-2017, 11:37 AM

Hi ..

Can someone give me a quick outline on how his figs are calculated?

Thxs

Can someone give me a quick outline on how his figs are calculated?

Thxs

RunForTheRoses

07-29-2017, 03:10 PM

If you search this site there are a few threads about this. I'm not myself familiar.

Tom

07-29-2017, 04:22 PM

Book is a good read.

Tom

07-29-2017, 04:39 PM

Some articles by him....

http://www.handicapping.com/library/carroll/

http://www.handicapping.com/library/carroll/

thaskalos

07-29-2017, 04:49 PM

Here is the best Charles Carroll article...IMO. I thank Tom for reminding me of it.

http://www.handicapping.com/library/carroll/variance.htm

http://www.handicapping.com/library/carroll/variance.htm

cj

07-30-2017, 03:38 PM

The actual ratings from his book are percentages. Like a horse rated 974 is 97.4% of something...just have to remember what the percentage is.

mikesal57

07-30-2017, 07:02 PM

Thx guys...

I did do some research on the subject but didn't find much...

CJ you came close to what I was looking for... Need to look more into those figs

Mike

I did do some research on the subject but didn't find much...

CJ you came close to what I was looking for... Need to look more into those figs

Mike

PhantomOnTour

07-30-2017, 07:10 PM

The actual ratings from his book are percentages. Like a horse rated 974 is 97.4% of something...just have to remember what the percentage is.

Didn't he use the world record times for each distance on each surface as his baseline?

He then derived his figs from that somehow, but I'm not sure. Used to have his book but lost it.

I believe he meant that a horse ran 97.4% as fast as the world record, if that makes sense.

Didn't he use the world record times for each distance on each surface as his baseline?

He then derived his figs from that somehow, but I'm not sure. Used to have his book but lost it.

I believe he meant that a horse ran 97.4% as fast as the world record, if that makes sense.

Tom

07-30-2017, 07:28 PM

Yes, the world records were used.

Not really sure how.

Got to read that one again.

There were some other decent ideas in the book, too.

Software to do the work for you

http://www.desertsea.com/

Another website with Joe Takach articles - more good reading

http://www.icapper.com/

Not really sure how.

Got to read that one again.

There were some other decent ideas in the book, too.

Software to do the work for you

http://www.desertsea.com/

Another website with Joe Takach articles - more good reading

http://www.icapper.com/

cj

07-30-2017, 07:33 PM

Didn't he use the world record times for each distance on each surface as his baseline?

He then derived his figs from that somehow, but I'm not sure. Used to have his book but lost it.

I believe he meant that a horse ran 97.4% as fast as the world record, if that makes sense.

I think he converted the world records to lengths per second (LPS) for each distance, then divided that by the horse's LPS.

He then derived his figs from that somehow, but I'm not sure. Used to have his book but lost it.

I believe he meant that a horse ran 97.4% as fast as the world record, if that makes sense.

I think he converted the world records to lengths per second (LPS) for each distance, then divided that by the horse's LPS.

Handiman

07-30-2017, 09:07 PM

He changes the distance of lengths behind as the distance expands to get base points. For example a length behind at 6 furlongs might be 20 feet. And a length behind at a mile might be 22 feet. These aren't the actual numbers, just used them for illustration purposes.

cj

07-31-2017, 12:03 AM

Here is an example per his book. Numbers are made up but this is the method. Say the baseline time for 6f is 1:06.20. There are 3960 feet in 6f. He uses 8 feet per length, so there are 495 lengths covered in a race. 66.20 ÷ 495 = 0.1337 seconds per length.

Next, we take the time of the horse in question. He recommends methods on how to calculate the horse's time from the winner's time using beaten lengths. I'm not getting into that part today. Use whatever methods you like, but hopefully not the ridiculous one that came up with Paid Up Subscriber's 32.5 length margin today that is not accurate. We'll assume the horse won in 1:11.0.

We take 71 ÷ 495 to get the horse's seconds per length. It is 0.1434. His speed rating is then calculated as 0.1337 ÷ 0.1434 = 0.932 × 1000 = 932.

Next, we take the time of the horse in question. He recommends methods on how to calculate the horse's time from the winner's time using beaten lengths. I'm not getting into that part today. Use whatever methods you like, but hopefully not the ridiculous one that came up with Paid Up Subscriber's 32.5 length margin today that is not accurate. We'll assume the horse won in 1:11.0.

We take 71 ÷ 495 to get the horse's seconds per length. It is 0.1434. His speed rating is then calculated as 0.1337 ÷ 0.1434 = 0.932 × 1000 = 932.

cj

07-31-2017, 12:37 AM

I should add the only number I made up was the 1:06.20. I don't remember what he actually used.

mikesal57

07-31-2017, 08:38 AM

EXCELLENT CJ!!!

Appreciate it...:ThmbUp:

Mike

Appreciate it...:ThmbUp:

Mike

steveb

08-02-2017, 09:49 PM

EXCELLENT CJ!!!

Appreciate it...:ThmbUp:

Mike

or......

66.2 / 71 * 1000 = 932

which means they're more or less on the same scale as beyers(or were).

both are % basically and they're both wrong, because .........

say we went to twice the time & much longer trip, and had hypo times of 132.4 and 142

132.4 / 142 * 1000 = 932.

so that is basically saying that being beaten 9.6 seconds at that distance is as good as being beaten by 4.8 seconds at the shorter distance, and that is plainly nonsensical isn't it?

beyers would be......

(66.2 / 71 -.9) *100 = 32

(132.4 / 142 -.9) *100 =32

well it's actually correct if measuring a winning time against a standard time, but it's wrong to use the same for beaten margins

Appreciate it...:ThmbUp:

Mike

or......

66.2 / 71 * 1000 = 932

which means they're more or less on the same scale as beyers(or were).

both are % basically and they're both wrong, because .........

say we went to twice the time & much longer trip, and had hypo times of 132.4 and 142

132.4 / 142 * 1000 = 932.

so that is basically saying that being beaten 9.6 seconds at that distance is as good as being beaten by 4.8 seconds at the shorter distance, and that is plainly nonsensical isn't it?

beyers would be......

(66.2 / 71 -.9) *100 = 32

(132.4 / 142 -.9) *100 =32

well it's actually correct if measuring a winning time against a standard time, but it's wrong to use the same for beaten margins

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