On the DRF's Speed Rating-Track Variant

[VigorsTheGrey]

When the Daily Racing Form shows the speed figure-track variant numbers, for examples 89-08, 93-05, 102-01...

I get that the left figure is the speed rating; and the right figure is the track variant.

Am I correct that the higher the track variant the SLOWER the racing oval was that race...?

My question is: Does it make any sense to subtract the track variant from the speed figure, yes, of course....But what does that tell us...?

Also, what exactly is a 00 track variant...? Is 00 a super-fast surface or just a normally fast surface...?

I see that there are no minus (-04, example) track variants used to indicate a faster than normal surface...

The track variant must be tied to an optimum moisture content value for a 00 rating and yet no figure is used when the dirt is dried back, beyond that optimum rating...and therefore, faster than normal...

[VigorsTheGrey]

Also, does a high speed rating combined with a high track variant indicate that the horse is a mudlark or runs well on soft to yielding turf...? For example, 90-25 for Md Sp Wt 40k, 5 Furlongs turf race for 2 year old filly..?

[Augenj]

My question is: Does it make any sense to subtract the track variant from the speed figure, yes, of course....But what does that tell us...?

The speed figure on a slow track will be lower than a fast track and the variant will be higher. Therefore, subtracting the large variant from the speed figure will add insult to injury. You should add the variant to get a "normalized" speed figure. The problem with both speed figures and variants is that they are based on lengths or fifths of a second which arguably which need adjusting themselves. Now let the arguably begin. :D

[betovernetcapper]

These figures have been known to be deeply flawed for decades. The larger figure on the left represents the number of fifths of a second the horse ran in contrast to the track record. The track records are sometimes created by freakishly fast conditions & on such days you may have two new records set on the same day by ordinary horses. The track record for a mile at a track may have been set by a Grade One winner shipping in to get a check. At the same track the record for a mile and a sixteenth may have been set by a $5000 claimer having a good day. So a horse that runs a second slower at each distance will get a 95. All things being equal the horse that ran the 95 mile ran faster.
All thing are not equal, which brings us to the daily variant figure to the right. This is an average of the number of 5ths in relation to the track record on a given day. This tends to say more about the quality of the horses running that day then the actual daily variant. On a Saturday, typically better horses run & will run faster the horses carded for Monday even if the track conditions are the same. Using this method the Saturday horses figures are downgraded & the Monday horses are upgraded.
Needless to say these figures are not comparable from track to track.

The sane thing to do is ignore these antiquated figures & use the bold faced Beyer on your left.

[DeltaLover]

These figures have been known to be deeply flawed for decades. The larger figure on the left represents the number of fifths of a second the horse ran in contrast to the track record. The track records are sometimes created by freakishly fast conditions & on such days you may have two new records set on the same day by ordinary horses. The track record for a mile at a track may have been set by a Grade One winner shipping in to get a check. At the same track the record for a mile and a sixteenth may have been set by a $5000 claimer having a good day. So a horse that runs a second slower at each distance will get a 95. All things being equal the horse that ran the 95 mile ran faster.
All thing are not equal, which brings us to the daily variant figure to the right. This is an average of the number of 5ths in relation to the track record on a given day. This tends to say more about the quality of the horses running that day then the actual daily variant. On a Saturday, typically better horses run & will run faster the horses carded for Monday even if the track conditions are the same. Using this method the Saturday horses figures are downgraded & the Monday horses are upgraded.
Needless to say these figures are not comparable from track to track.

The sane thing to do is ignore these antiquated figures & use the bold faced Beyer on your left.

Good description although I do not think that the speed rating is using the track record for its calculation but the faster time during the last 3 years.

http://www1.drf.com/help/help_speedrate.html

Surely the DRF track variant and speed rating metrics are very antiquated and contain significant flows but I would not recommend Beyers as a better alternative as they are also inaccurate (especially when it comes to longer distances and turf Beyers are terrible).

[VigorsTheGrey]

These figures have been known to be deeply flawed for decades. The larger figure on the left represents the number of fifths of a second the horse ran in contrast to the track record. The track records are sometimes created by freakishly fast conditions & on such days you may have two new records set on the same day by ordinary horses. The track record for a mile at a track may have been set by a Grade One winner shipping in to get a check. At the same track the record for a mile and a sixteenth may have been set by a $5000 claimer having a good day. So a horse that runs a second slower at each distance will get a 95. All things being equal the horse that ran the 95 mile ran faster.
All thing are not equal, which brings us to the daily variant figure to the right. This is an average of the number of 5ths in relation to the track record on a given day. This tends to say more about the quality of the horses running that day then the actual daily variant. On a Saturday, typically better horses run & will run faster the horses carded for Monday even if the track conditions are the same. Using this method the Saturday horses figures are downgraded & the Monday horses are upgraded.
Needless to say these figures are not comparable from track to track.

The sane thing to do is ignore these antiquated figures & use the bold faced Beyer on your left.

So in the case of the filly above that got a 90-25, this means that her time was 2 seconds slower than the track record run in a race where the surface was estimated to be 2.5 seconds slower than in the race where the record was set....? Do I have that correct...?

[betovernetcapper]

You are right sir. They did update to use the best of the last 3 years.

I disagree with you about the Beyer figs however. Everyone who makes figures thinks there's are the best, but Beyer has stood the test of time. Re turf races,
final time is not really all your looking for in grass races. Many grass races end in a blanket finish with all the horses getting similar numbers. As Beyer has said in grass racing the final fraction is more important then the final time.

[betovernetcapper]

So in the case of the filly above that got a 90-25, this means that her time was 2 seconds slower than the track record run in a race where the surface was estimated to be 2.5 seconds slower than in the race where the record was set....? Do I have that correct...?

As has been pointed out the 90 would be 2 seconds off the best of the last 3 years & with the 25 variant deducted, her adjusted figure would be 70 (90 minus 25). Compared with the Beyer, Cramer or TimeformUS, that 70 is a very weak figure to bet your money on.

[VigorsTheGrey]

As has been pointed out the 90 would be 2 seconds off the best of the last 3 years & with the 25 variant deducted, her adjusted figure would be 70 (90 minus 25). Compared with the Beyer, Cramer or TimeformUS, that 70 is a very weak figure to bet your money on.

90 minus 25 would be 65...So you are deducting the variant while Augenj said that the variant ought to be ADDED so it is still unclear which way is the correct way....

[VigorsTheGrey]

So in the case of the filly above that got a 90-25, this means that her time was 2 seconds slower than the track record run in a race where the surface was estimated to be 2.5 seconds slower than in the race where the record was set....? Do I have that correct...?

Correction, 90-25, surface was 5 seconds slower than track variant high marker for that fillys last race....25=5 seconds...

[DeltaLover]

You are right sir. They did update to use the best of the last 3 years.

I disagree with you about the Beyer figs however. Everyone who makes figures thinks there's are the best, but Beyer has stood the test of time. Re turf races,
final time is not really all your looking for in grass races. Many grass races end in a blanket finish with all the horses getting similar numbers. As Beyer has said in grass racing the final fraction is more important then the final time.

Since you disagree, I would like to know your answer to the following questions in regards to Beyer Speed figure creation ( I can ask many more questions but for now let's start from these)..

(1) What are the parallel time curves that are used?

Obviously what he states in his books are not only completely out of date but also do not cover difficult cases. The examples he provides refer to very soft cases, like for example six to seven furlongs on dirt but there is not a word about how to treat real world cases where we have very few races for a specific surface / distance.

(2) How cross - track adjustments are estimated?

He writes on "Beyer On Speed":


"I analyzed southern and northern California and saw that the average shipper was running two points higher than north...."


Does this mean that all southern Cal tracks are averaging to the same figure?
Does the same apply for northern? How shippers from other tracks are to be considered? How you handle shippers from a track who has very few or no shippers at all?

(3) Although Bayer claims that "class" represents a fictitious quality, he still uses it as the starting point for his figure creation, taking a specific classification as the base for his scale (He assigns the arbitrary number of 80 to the average 10K claimer). Is not this a contradiction to the "speed" approach?

(4) The value of a length in the Beyer methodology reflects the percentage worth of a fifth (moved by two decimal places) in comparison to the base (parallel) time of the race in fifths (converted to fifths, or in other words the figure is given by the following algorithm:

value_of_point = 1000. / (base_time * 5)
time_delta_in_fifths = base_time - time
points_delta = time_delta_in_fifths * value_of_point
figure = int(round(80. + points_delta))

How does he arrive in this formula and more precisely why he needs to use the full time of the race instead of a fraction of it (for example the last half of the race or something similar)? What is the impact of this approach as the distance becomes larger?

Let me make it clear that at no point I have the intention of downgrade the greatness of Beyer's work whom I consider the most influential handicapper ever and the patriarch of the American handicappers. I am just tring to make the case that his figures (that probably worked fine before they became part of the DRF) are antiquated and there is a lot of room for improvement for those who have the required knowledge and time to work on them.

[cj]

Here is the thing, if people would stop talking about these ridiculous ratings and they went the way of the dinosaur, there would be more room for things like...wait for it...purse values!!! :)

[cj]

As Beyer has said in grass racing the final fraction is more important then the final time.

I thought I'd read everything he ever wrote but I don't remember that. Do you remember where he wrote it?

[thaskalos]

As Beyer has said in grass racing the final fraction is more important then the final time.

If Beyer has said that...then I've missed it. I've seen him use the final fraction and the Beyer figure in combination...but I haven't seen him comment on the importance of the final fraction alone. In fact, in his latest book, he suggested that the last HALF-MILE might be a better alternative.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Sensitive, running today at KD's 6th in twenty minutes, ran a 105-01 on 2july17 and won....does this mean she bested the top speed marker by 1 second on a day when the turf played only 1 length slow...?

If so, I'm going to bet her today with Flo up WP at 3-1...

[citygoat]

good call just couldnt get to 7

[betovernetcapper]

I thought I'd read everything he ever wrote but I don't remember that. Do you remember where he wrote it?

He wrote it in a book where he described living in Australia for a year. He was making figures & doing OK but recognized the difference. He also made a reference to the importance of the final fraction in one of his last 2 or 3 Webinars.

[betovernetcapper]

Since you disagree, I would like to know your answer to the following questions in regards to Beyer Speed figure creation ( I can ask many more questions but for now let's start from these)..

(1) What are the parallel time curves that are used?

Obviously what he states in his books are not only completely out of date but also do not cover difficult cases. The examples he provides refer to very soft cases, like for example six to seven furlongs on dirt but there is not a word about how to treat real world cases where we have very few races for a specific surface / distance.

(2) How cross - track adjustments are estimated?

He writes on "Beyer On Speed":



Does this mean that all southern Cal tracks are averaging to the same figure?
Does the same apply for northern? How shippers from other tracks are to be considered? How you handle shippers from a track who has very few or no shippers at all?

(3) Although Bayer claims that "class" represents a fictitious quality, he still uses it as the starting point for his figure creation, taking a specific classification as the base for his scale (He assigns the arbitrary number of 80 to the average 10K claimer). Is not this a contradiction to the "speed" approach?

(4) The value of a length in the Beyer methodology reflects the percentage worth of a fifth (moved by two decimal places) in comparison to the base (parallel) time of the race in fifths (converted to fifths, or in other words the figure is given by the following algorithm:

value_of_point = 1000. / (base_time * 5)
time_delta_in_fifths = base_time - time
points_delta = time_delta_in_fifths * value_of_point
figure = int(round(80. + points_delta))

How does he arrive in this formula and more precisely why he needs to use the full time of the race instead of a fraction of it (for example the last half of the race or something similar)? What is the impact of this approach as the distance becomes larger?

Let me make it clear that at no point I have the intention of downgrade the greatness of Beyer's work whom I consider the most influential handicapper ever and the patriarch of the American handicappers. I am just tring to make the case that his figures (that probably worked fine before they became part of the DRF) are antiquated and there is a lot of room for improvement for those who have the required knowledge and time to work on them.

As far as using par charts, he moved on to projected time a long time ago. Tracks change & he no doubt has made adjustments as needed. He uses the final time, because that is what his procedure is about. Other people make figures that include weight, ground lost, early or late speed but he doesn't. He makes a figure to reflect the final time. As far as using a different measure for beaten lengths, it make perfect sense. If a horse is beaten a length at 5 furlongs it's more significant then getting beat a length at a mile & a half.
If you have additional questions, I'd advise you contact Beyer directly
http://www.drf.com/news/andrew-beyer

[steveb]

If Beyer has said that...then I've missed it. I've seen him use the final fraction and the Beyer figure in combination...but I haven't seen him comment on the importance of the final fraction alone. In fact, in his latest book, he suggested that the last HALF-MILE might be a better alternative.

if he did say it he was wrong.
sections(fractions) very important, but they should be used in tandem, one is not much good without the other.
the time is the speed, the fraction is the how.

as for the value of one fraction over another, then your data should tell you that answer, for each track, surface, and distance

[steveb]

When the Daily Racing Form shows the speed figure-track variant numbers, for examples 89-08, 93-05, 102-01...

I get that the left figure is the speed rating; and the right figure is the track variant.

Am I correct that the higher the track variant the SLOWER the racing oval was that race...?

My question is: Does it make any sense to subtract the track variant from the speed figure, yes, of course....But what does that tell us...?

Also, what exactly is a 00 track variant...? Is 00 a super-fast surface or just a normally fast surface...?

I see that there are no minus (-04, example) track variants used to indicate a faster than normal surface...

The track variant must be tied to an optimum moisture content value for a 00 rating and yet no figure is used when the dirt is dried back, beyond that optimum rating...and therefore, faster than normal...

no idea of how others would do it.
for me.....
positive numbers are slow
negative numbers fast
zero is neutral


and no it makes no sense to subtract(nor add) variant from speed......to me

[VigorsTheGrey]

no idea of how others would do it.
for me.....
positive numbers are slow
negative numbers fast
zero is neutral


and no it makes no sense to subtract(nor add) variant from speed......to me

I still don't really understand it myself, adding or subtracting the variant with the speed number...right now I'm going with what Augenj said to ADD them together to get an adjusted number...

...but a number of posters have remarked the these figures are antiquated and/or deeply flawed values and should not be used...which make me question why the are taking up space in the DRF form line if that is the case...

...still I have friends that base the whole handicapping regime around these figures with the Beyer number as well and are satisfied with them...

...but I think the track variant is already "built in" resulting in a slower or faster run time (with increased moisture levels slowing down the runners naturally) so in a way I can see your point about neither adding NOR subtracting the track variant...

...I just want to be clear about what I am looking at when I see a figure like 100-01, or 105-02...How high does the speed rating go...? I seldom see ones higher than 103...

I do like to use these figures along with the Beyer number but I'm not so clear about what to do with them...

[steveb]

Since you disagree, I would like to know your answer to the following questions in regards to Beyer Speed figure creation ( I can ask many more questions but for now let's start from these)..

(1) What are the parallel time curves that are used?

Obviously what he states in his books are not only completely out of date but also do not cover difficult cases. The examples he provides refer to very soft cases, like for example six to seven furlongs on dirt but there is not a word about how to treat real world cases where we have very few races for a specific surface / distance.

(2) How cross - track adjustments are estimated?

He writes on "Beyer On Speed":



Does this mean that all southern Cal tracks are averaging to the same figure?
Does the same apply for northern? How shippers from other tracks are to be considered? How you handle shippers from a track who has very few or no shippers at all?

(3) Although Bayer claims that "class" represents a fictitious quality, he still uses it as the starting point for his figure creation, taking a specific classification as the base for his scale (He assigns the arbitrary number of 80 to the average 10K claimer). Is not this a contradiction to the "speed" approach?

(4) The value of a length in the Beyer methodology reflects the percentage worth of a fifth (moved by two decimal places) in comparison to the base (parallel) time of the race in fifths (converted to fifths, or in other words the figure is given by the following algorithm:

value_of_point = 1000. / (base_time * 5)
time_delta_in_fifths = base_time - time
points_delta = time_delta_in_fifths * value_of_point
figure = int(round(80. + points_delta))

How does he arrive in this formula and more precisely why he needs to use the full time of the race instead of a fraction of it (for example the last half of the race or something similar)? What is the impact of this approach as the distance becomes larger?

Let me make it clear that at no point I have the intention of downgrade the greatness of Beyer's work whom I consider the most influential handicapper ever and the patriarch of the American handicappers. I am just tring to make the case that his figures (that probably worked fine before they became part of the DRF) are antiquated and there is a lot of room for improvement for those who have the required knowledge and time to work on them.

1....parralel time curves?????
would you not just need data to figure each track and distance?

2.....
the way to figure different jurisdicational strangths, is to use what you people refer to as the variant.
you just need to stat with the same baseline figures for each place of interest. the difference will be the difference in the variant.
i know that unless you know what i am talking about that this may be hard to grasp.
nevertheless i have been doing it for 30 or more years and it works fine, not that it's that important to know the difference between melbourne australia and hong kong for example.
but it's important to know the difference between sydney and melbourne or melbourne and provincial areas in the same state, or the difference between different jurisdictions that have high cross over points

3....the way to figure class is to make them ALL equal and then iterate and adjust.
trial and error
but class is just the collective race speed for that type, whereas the race speed is just the individual

4....there should be NO constant value for a length, because beaten 1 second on a heavy track is not the same as being beaten 1 second on a fast one.
beaten 1 second on turf here is not the same as beaten 1 second on turf there.
ditto dirt.
beaten 1 second in a fast time race is not the same as beaten 1 second in a slow time race.
it all about relativities.


but beyer was my inspiration in the long ago.
but i was probably different to most people that read his books.
i was not interested in the actual numbers, i wanted to know HOW he arrived at them.
once one understands the how, it is easy to see what errors are in his books.
but pretty sure the guy has earned the respect most people have for him though.

[steveb]

As far as using par charts, he moved on to projected time a long time ago. Tracks change & he no doubt has made adjustments as needed. He uses the final time, because that is what his procedure is about. Other people make figures that include weight, ground lost, early or late speed but he doesn't. He makes a figure to reflect the final time. As far as using a different measure for beaten lengths, it make perfect sense. If a horse is beaten a length at 5 furlongs it's more significant then getting beat a length at a mile & a half.
If you have additional questions, I'd advise you contact Beyer directly
http://www.drf.com/news/andrew-beyer

why does it make sense?

a horse beaten a length over 5 furlongs, could very well be a better effort than one beaten 1 length over 1 and half miles.
what if they dawdled over the longer trip and were busting guts over the 5f?

your thinking is the same as post people on this subject, but i am confident it's wrong to think that way.

races are for the most part, dependent on what the leaders do.
how races are run is far more important than the distance of the race in this respect.

races are very rarely run as a race for the entire distance.
your 1.5 mile races may not be a race until they turn for home?
if they are not working then horses are very energy efficient apparently.

[Augenj]

I still don't really understand it myself, adding or subtracting the variant with the speed number...right now I'm going with what Augenj said to ADD them together to get an adjusted number...

Here's why I do that for the speed component of my ratings. It's just one of eight components.

Let's say a horse has 2 races, one of them on a very slow track and the other on a very fast track. Both races are equal in class, distance, and surface. He finishes 1st in both of them.

Slow track - 50 speed + 50 variant = 100 adjusted speed
Fast track - 95 speed + 5 variant = 100 adjusted speed

It's obvious that he performs equally well on both slow and fast tracks. This is a gross simplification but can be used to get a slightly better (2 percent) win per cent if you average his adjusted speed figures over just averaging the speed figures without the variants.

The 2 percent comes from thousands of races at eleven major tracks over one year. That 2 percent value will vary by track and it's been a long time since I visited the stats behind it since speed is only a small piece of the THA ratings.

I also adjust the variant by multiplying it by 0.75 before combining it with the speed figure. This is an optimized figure from thousands of race calculations and is obvious when seen at the peak of a Bell Curve.

[DeltaLover]

1....parralel time curves?????
would you not just need data to figure each track and distance?

2.....
the way to figure different jurisdicational strangths, is to use what you people refer to as the variant.
you just need to stat with the same baseline figures for each place of interest. the difference will be the difference in the variant.
i know that unless you know what i am talking about that this may be hard to grasp.
nevertheless i have been doing it for 30 or more years and it works fine, not that it's that important to know the difference between melbourne australia and hong kong for example.
but it's important to know the difference between sydney and melbourne or melbourne and provincial areas in the same state, or the difference between different jurisdictions that have high cross over points

3....the way to figure class is to make them ALL equal and then iterate and adjust.
trial and error
but class is just the collective race speed for that type, whereas the race speed is just the individual

4....there should be NO constant value for a length, because beaten 1 second on a heavy track is not the same as being beaten 1 second on a fast one.
beaten 1 second on turf here is not the same as beaten 1 second on turf there.
ditto dirt.
beaten 1 second in a fast time race is not the same as beaten 1 second in a slow time race.
it all about relativities.


but beyer was my inspiration in the long ago.
but i was probably different to most people that read his books.
i was not interested in the actual numbers, i wanted to know HOW he arrived at them.
once one understands the how, it is easy to see what errors are in his books.
but pretty sure the guy has earned the respect most people have for him though.

A few points to clarify my original question:

1. The problem with the parallel time creation lies in the fact that there exist many distances with rather unbalanced composition in race classifications; if all distances were containing the same mix of the various classifications (MSW – MCL – CLM- ALW – STK) the problem whould not exist, in the real world though this is not the case and needs a good solution to assure the accurateness of the produced figures. I believe that this issue is causing to large extend the problem of Beyer speed figures when it comes to turf and longer distances.

Here you can see a notebook where I show this problem using Saratoga turf:

https://github.com/deltalover/hoplato/blob/master/hoplato/pp/normalize_figures/speed_figure_analysis.ipynb

Note how unbalanced the breakdown is as we move from distance to distance. The legent of each piechart prints the average (raw) Beyer style figures having 100 as the base (instead of 80). The parallel time curve is created using Least Squares of the claiming times.


2. The intra-track variant is by no means a simple process as you write here. In this picture you can see a group of five different tracks, where x1, x2, .. x5 represent the cross -track adjustments while the average differences from track to track are represented with the deltas. The objective is to discover the best vector of x that minimizes the delta when applied to them. Considering that the real graph consists of over hundred of tracks and surfaces you understand that this is at least a complicated problem to solve.

http://i65.tinypic.com/15q3mm1.jpg

[cj]

Some good stuff in this thread, amazing it started in a thread about a rating that is seriously flawed.

[betovernetcapper]

As long as this thread is exploring a number of things, did Beyer initially do speed figures for grass? I've been looking for my copy of My $50,000 year at the Races and can't find it. Quirin used to sell par charts every year & I think they were only for dirt.

[DeltaLover]

As long as this thread is exploring a number of things, did Beyer initially do speed figures for grass? I've been looking for my copy of My $50,000 year at the Races and can't find it. Quirin used to sell par charts every year & I think they were only for dirt.

You might be right. I have heard Bayer (more than once) saying that he does not have much confidence to his figures on the grass. The reality is that if you do not have accurate turf figures in today's game you are going to pass way too much races which I see as as significant disadvantage.

[cj]

As long as this thread is exploring a number of things, did Beyer initially do speed figures for grass? I've been looking for my copy of My $50,000 year at the Races and can't find it. Quirin used to sell par charts every year & I think they were only for dirt.

I think grass ratings came along later on. He didn't do them initially. Back when that book was written few tracks ran more than one race a day on turf.

[steveb]

You might be right. I have heard Bayer (more than once) saying that he does not have much confidence to his figures on the grass. The reality is that if you do not have accurate turf figures in today's game you are going to pass way too much races which I see as as significant disadvantage.

is there a difference.
they are both figured the same for me.
the relativities are different for sure, and the way they tire may be different, but so too are the relationships between races on heavy turf and fast turf.

thanks too, for your previous reply, but it's obvious to me we approach things in different ways.
who is right?
maybe both of us?

to me everything i need is figured by iteration and trial and error.
so that once the error can't be reduced, then it must be as accurate as it can be?

[VigorsTheGrey]

In the DRF for 9Sep Kentucky Downs Race 3
Horse "Sekondi" shows 4 PPs ran at 1 mile at Santa Anita
All run on fast track, his Speed/ Variants were
72-23
77-17
62-27
63-30

Why is the track variant so high on surfaces listed as "fast"....?

Is there a variant Baseline that all the dirt tracks are measured against even before any moisture further slows the surface....?

[Augenj]

In the DRF for 9Sep Kentucky Downs Race 3
Horse "Sekondi" shows 4 PPs ran at 1 mile at Santa Anita
All run on fast track, his Speed/ Variants were
72-23
77-17
62-27
63-30

Why is the track variant so high on surfaces listed as "fast"....?

Is there a variant Baseline that all the dirt tracks are measured against even before any moisture further slows the surface....?
From the DRF Tutorial here -
http://www1.drf.com/flash/drf_pp_tutorial.html

[FakeNameChanged]

Here's why I do that for the speed component of my ratings. It's just one of eight components.

Let's say a horse has 2 races, one of them on a very slow track and the other on a very fast track. Both races are equal in class, distance, and surface. He finishes 1st in both of them.

Slow track - 50 speed + 50 variant = 100 adjusted speed
Fast track - 95 speed + 5 variant = 100 adjusted speed

It's obvious that he performs equally well on both slow and fast tracks. This is a gross simplification but can be used to get a slightly better (2 percent) win per cent if you average his adjusted speed figures over just averaging the speed figures without the variants.

The 2 percent comes from thousands of races at eleven major tracks over one year. That 2 percent value will vary by track and it's been a long time since I visited the stats behind it since speed is only a small piece of the THA ratings.

I also adjust the variant by multiplying it by 0.75 before combining it with the speed figure. This is an optimized figure from thousands of race calculations and is obvious when seen at the peak of a Bell Curve.
Not doubting your figures. Did you plot your calculations and bell curve against another speed figure such as Beyer, Bris or Equibase or a par value that you established? It jives with some work I've done a long time ago, but only for track variants near the middle of the bell, for instance, var's. from 13 to 27.

[Augenj]

Not doubting your figures. Did you plot your calculations and bell curve against another speed figure such as Beyer, Bris or Equibase or a par value that you established? It jives with some work I've done a long time ago, but only for track variants near the middle of the bell, for instance, var's. from 13 to 27.
It was with my calculations for the speed base factor.
I bias the Equibase speed figures with a percentage of variant (0.75), square root of purse, same surface as today, and same distance as today.
Each of these produces a small improvement in speed win percent.
Like I said earlier, speed is only one of 8 factors that I use to calculate an overall rating.

[cj]

In the DRF for 9Sep Kentucky Downs Race 3
Horse "Sekondi" shows 4 PPs ran at 1 mile at Santa Anita
All run on fast track, his Speed/ Variants were
72-23
77-17
62-27
63-30

Why is the track variant so high on surfaces listed as "fast"....?

Is there a variant Baseline that all the dirt tracks are measured against even before any moisture further slows the surface....?

Have you not read the thread you started? It was detailed how the variant is created, even debated some.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Have you not read the thread you started? It was detailed how the variant is created, even debated some.

So are the points that are shown as the track variant for a runner "accumulated" or "averaged" from all races run that day at that distance on that surface...?

It must be averaged, because there is no way the example runner could get an 03 variant from one race alone, since he was 4/5ths off par to begin with, and adding the points of all races would lead to a Variant higher than 03...

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20702&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1504946978

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20702&d=1504946978

[cj]

So are the points that are shown as the track variant for a runner "accumulated" or "averaged" from all races run that day at that distance on that surface...?

It must be averaged, because there is no way the example runner could get an 03 variant from one race alone, since he was 4/5ths off par to begin with, and adding the points of all races would lead to a Variant higher than 03...

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20702&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1504946978

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20702&d=1504946978

Averaged.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Sometimes there is no variant next to the Speed Rating, or just a dash/ blank space...any thoughts on why this may be...?

Also, it is not that uncommon to see a speed rating over 100, so does this mean that the runner ran faster that race than the best time in the last 3 years....?

...And then does the 100 baseline speed rating adjust higher automatically and become a new baseline...?

Also, I see speed ratings that are above 100 but the Beyer number for the runner is pretty low...One would think that the horse would get a relatively high Beyer if it bested the fastest time in 3 years....but no...what gives..?

[DeltaLover]

Sometimes there is no variant next to the Speed Rating, or just a dash/ blank space...any thoughts on why this may be...?

Also, it is not that uncommon to see a speed rating over 100, so does this mean that the runner ran faster that race than the best time in the last 3 years....?

...And then does the 100 baseline speed rating adjust higher automatically and become a new baseline...?

Also, I see speed ratings that are above 100 but the Beyer number for the runner is pretty low...One would think that the horse would get a relatively high Beyer if it bested the fastest time in 3 years....but no...what gives..?

As discussed in the previous posts and in many others in the board, DRF track variant / speed rating consists of an antiquated approach, so I do not think is a good idea for anyone to spend time trying to analyze it. If you are a recreational handicapper you can use a commercial approach (CJ's figures is probably your best choice) and if you are more serious about the game your best option is to build your own historical database and learn how to derive your custom figures directly from raw data.

[VigorsTheGrey]

As discussed in the previous posts and in many others in the board, DRF track variant / speed rating consists of an antiquated approach, so I do not think is a good idea for anyone to spend time trying to analyze it. If you are a recreational handicapper you can use a commercial approach (CJ's figures is probably your best choice) and if you are more serious about the game your best option is to build your own historical database and learn how to derive your custom figures directly from raw data.

Silly me, I thought that is exactly what I was paying the folks down at the Daily Racing Form $11 a copy to do...to build a historical database and derive custom figures from raw data, that is...:confused:

But I understand what you mean...I suppose every serious player eventually arrives at that same conclusion..It's just that some act on it and change their pattern, while most do not...

[Tom]

Custom figures.....you want Cher or Mama Cass?
DRF offers both.

[PaceAdvantage]

Silly me, Yes

[VigorsTheGrey]

Sometimes there is no variant next to the Speed Rating, or just a dash/ blank space...any thoughts on why this may be...?

Also, it is not that uncommon to see a speed rating over 100, so does this mean that the runner ran faster that race than the best time in the last 3 years....?

...And then does the 100 baseline speed rating adjust higher automatically and become a new baseline...?

Also, I see speed ratings that are above 100 but the Beyer number for the runner is pretty low...One would think that the horse would get a relatively high Beyer if it bested the fastest time in 3 years....but no...what gives..?

Unfortunatley, I'm not in a position at the moment to begin to change my pattern of buying the hard copy Daily Racing Form...maybe some day in the future I can devote the time and energy and knowledge to built my own custom database...

For the time being, I prefer to struggle with what is in the Form like the Speed Ratings / Variant, Beyer Numbers, and Pace Flow Icons, and now the TimeformUS Pace Ratings...

My main struggle is trying to determine if these (4) indications are mutually exclusive or if they can be combined in some fashion...

...As for the Speed Ratings being antiquated, I don't see that, because they are only time comparisons to a known value for each track and distance...so what is to become antiquated about that except for the timing is done in 5th's instead of decimals...

[classhandicapper]

...As for the Speed Ratings being antiquated, I don't see that, because they are only time comparisons to a known value for each track and distance...so what is to become antiquated about that except for the timing is done in 5th's instead of decimals...

The methods for measuring how times at different distances compare and for measuring how fast the track was playing have improved since the DRF Speed Rating and Track Variant were invented. As I understand it, they only remain in the paper because a subset of customers would get very upset if they were removed. But internally, no one I know considers it especially useful info.

[cj]

The methods for measuring how times at different distances compare and for measuring how fast the track was playing have improved since the DRF Speed Rating and Track Variant were invented. As I understand it, they only remain in the paper because a subset of customers would get very upset if they were removed. But internally, no one I know considers it especially useful info.

I keep hearing about this subset, but surely most of them are no longer with us! :) :rip:

[thaskalos]

The methods for measuring how times at different distances compare and for measuring how fast the track was playing have improved since the DRF Speed Rating and Track Variant were invented. As I understand it, they only remain in the paper because a subset of customers would get very upset if they were removed. But internally, no one I know considers it especially useful info.

What about the "subset" of customers who are very upset because of the absence of a decent track variant from an $11 daily newspaper?

[DeltaLover]

...As for the Speed Ratings being antiquated, I don't see that, because they are only time comparisons to a known value for each track and distance...so what is to become antiquated about that except for the timing is done in 5th's instead of decimals...


Try to rethink what you are saying here and realize why this methodology is indeed is antiquated. If you gather some data and work out the creation of the variant you will (might) understand. Measuring is 5ths instead of decimals has nothing to about..

[VigorsTheGrey]

Try to rethink what you are saying here and realize why this methodology is indeed is antiquated. If you gather some data and work out the creation of the variant you will (might) understand. Measuring is 5ths instead of decimals has nothing to about..

Maybe you can just list 5 of the most glaring reasons why the DRF Speed Rating / Variant is antiquated...I could go round in circles and scratch the hair off my head just speculating on all to no avail....I will thank you in advance for the cerebral short-cuts here, Delta...where better minds prevail, one must remain silent..:coffee:

[cj]

Maybe you can just list 5 of the most glaring reasons why the DRF Speed Rating / Variant is antiquated...I could go round in circles and scratch the hair off my head just speculating on all to no avail....I will thank you in advance for the cerebral short-cuts here, Delta...where better minds prevail, one must remain silent..:coffee:


Treats 1/5 of a second as equal regardless of distance and surface
Variant dependent on quality of animals running on a particular day at a particular track
Variant dependent on the distances run at a track on a given day. If all races at 6f, variant will be lower than if all races run at 1 1/16m.
Baselines at different tracks considered equal...is best time in three years at Fairmont really equal to best time at Del Mar?
Baselines aren't static, can change as horses run faster times. One horse running a freak race can throw off the ratings of all other horses.

[DeltaLover]

Maybe you can just list 5 of the most glaring reasons why the DRF Speed Rating / Variant is antiquated...I could go round in circles and scratch the hair off my head just speculating on all to no avail....I will thank you in advance for the cerebral short-cuts here, Delta...where better minds prevail, one must remain silent..:coffee:

The are a few reasons why DRF is a very misleading metric.

The most important flow that is also very easy to realize, lies in the fact that all the races of the day are compared against a specific number. Regardless of whether a race is a Grade 1 or a Maiden claiming for three year old fillies, they both will be used in exactly the same fashion, resulting in very wrong conclusions.

It is trivial to verify this theory if you simply calculate the average variant based on the day of the week; doing so, you will discover that Saturdays, when the best quality horses are running always result to significant lower variant than any other day of the week.

An immediate remedy to this distortion, would be to use more specific targets, for example the average final time based on the conditions of the race or something similar.

Another very naive mistake has to do with the way beaten lengths are used across distances, as it is known since the mid 70s when Beyer published his first book, the value of length decreases as distance grows.

[thaskalos]

[LIST]
Variant dependent on the distances run at a track on a given day. If all races at 6f, variant will be lower than if all races run at 1 1/16m.


And if there is only one grass race on a particular day, that race alone will be used as the "standard" for that day's turf variant...regardless of the quality of that race. If the 3-year turf record at a mile is 1:35, and a field of $15,000 claimers ran the race in 1:40...then the turf track variant for the day is set at 25. :ThmbUp:

[VigorsTheGrey]

Thanks guys...this thread is really helping to understand what's up with these various ratings...just knowing HOW the DRF compiles the Speed Number and Variant is really interesting, stuff I never realized, you see I'm still quite the novice at "Metrics" , despite the fact that I have been playing the ponies for several decades...

Here is an example of frustration between using Beyer number and DRF speed rating at Today's 4th race Kentucky Downs

Horse #12 Have At It. 5/2
Tyler Gaff aboard.
Last race MdSpWt83 SAR 1 1/16 turf affair.

TimeformUS 46-85
Beyer 63
DRF Speed/ Var 61-23
---------------------------------------
Horse #10 Fred'stwirlingcandy 11-1
Brian Hernandez up.
Last race MdSpWt40k EIP 1 mile turf affair.

TimeformUS 88-50
Beyer 54
DRF Speed/Var 82-13
-------------------------------------------
Now if you go by the Beyer, clearly the #12 is best by many lengths, and the race at SAR was higher class as well. Based on the Beyer, 12 seems like a more probable winner.
But go by DRF Speed and #10 is clearly better

But #10 beats #12 by 1 length
and pay's $24 to win...!

What a wasted opportunity, all because I weighted the Beyer number over the DRF Speed Rating....:bang:

[AstrosFan]

A last out Equibase speed figure:

:10: 75
:12: 65

I cant stand the Beyer figs! They have cost me a lot of money in the past when I first started playing due to the lack of detailed attention the middle/lower class tracks receive in the BSF figure making process

HOWEVER I also don't care for turf racing b/c of inaccuracies that happens with timing mistakes or b/s run up distances OR "rail out X feet"





Horse #12 Have At It. 5/2
Tyler Gaff aboard.
Last race MdSpWt83 SAR 1 1/16 turf affair.

TimeformUS 46-85
Beyer 63
DRF Speed/ Var 61-23
---------------------------------------
Horse #10 Fred'stwirlingcandy 11-1
Brian Hernandez up.
Last race MdSpWt40k EIP 1 mile turf affair.

TimeformUS 88-50
Beyer 54
DRF Speed/Var 82-13
-------------------------------------------
Now if you go by the Beyer, clearly the #12 is best by many lengths, and the race at SAR was higher class as well. Based on the Beyer, 12 seems like a more probable winner.
But go by DRF Speed and #10 is clearly better

But #10 beats #12 by 1 length
and pay's $24 to win...!

What a wasted opportunity, all because I weighted the Beyer number over the DRF Speed Rating....:bang:

[classhandicapper]

I keep hearing about this subset, but surely most of them are no longer with us! :) :rip:

If you want, I can ask. But last time the issue was brought up (because everyone at the paper would like to have that extra space) it was still a non starter.

[classhandicapper]

What about the "subset" of customers who are very upset because of the absence of a decent track variant from an $11 daily newspaper?

Speaking as a customer, I don't know the answer to your question. I've been asking for information like that from figure makers for years but they seem reluctant to publish it. I guess it gives away more of the special sauce and exposes which races are broken out, which days were split etc... I guess it's a kind of can of worms when it comes to process that people are reluctant to open.

[classhandicapper]

Personally, I don't see this as any kind of issue other than the extra space that could be used for something better if that info was removed. It's like any other piece of information in the PPs. If you consider significant, use it. If you don't, ignore it. Most DRF customers that use speed figures look at the Beyer figures and just ignore the Speed Rating and Track Variant because the Beyer figures are much better.

[cj]

If you want, I can ask. But last time the issue was brought up (because everyone at the paper would like to have that extra space) it was still a non starter.

Honestly doesn't matter to me. I'm just amazed this is still a thing.

[thaskalos]

Personally, I don't see this as any kind of issue other than the extra space that could be used for something better if that info was removed. It's like any other piece of information in the PPs. If you consider significant, use it. If you don't, ignore it. Most DRF customers that use speed figures look at the Beyer figures and just ignore the Speed Rating and Track Variant because the Beyer figures are much better.

Here's the problem, in a nutshell:

It's a well-known fact that there is a pretty large segment of the DRF customers who insist on buying the printed edition. We must assume that the DRF acknowledges this...by the mere fact that the printed edition is still profitably produced. It's also a well-known fact that there are no PACE figures to be found in the printed edition...even though the pace figures have been proven to be a major component of the handicapping process. So...if the DRF printed-edition customer wants pace figures...he must create them HIMSELF. But, in order to do that...he needs a reliable track-variant. And he can't get a reliable track variant from the DRF...even at the cost of $11 a copy. And when he complains...he keeps hearing about that "subset of customers" who insist on using totally WORTHLESS data for their handicapping. And my question is...why doesn't the DRF give the worthless speed figures and variants to those who insist on using them, while giving the REST of the customers something more useful? Is there any doubt in the minds of the DRF employees about the worthlessness of the track variant that they currently provide to their customers? Why are they depriving the customers of something better?

[cj]

Here's the problem, in a nutshell:

It's a well-known fact that there is a pretty large segment of the DRF customers who insist on buying the printed edition. We must assume that the DRF acknowledges this...by the mere fact that the printed edition is still profitably produced. It's also a well-known fact that there are no PACE figures to be found in the printed edition...even though the pace figures have been proven to be a major component of the handicapping process. So...if the DRF printed-edition customer wants pace figures...he must create them HIMSELF. But, in order to do that...he needs a reliable track-variant. And he can't get a reliable track variant from the DRF...even at the cost of $11 a copy. And when he complains...he keeps hearing about that "subset of customers" who insist on using totally WORTHLESS data for their handicapping. And my question is...why doesn't the DRF give the worthless speed figures and variants to those who insist on using them, while giving the REST of the customers something more useful? Is there any doubt in the minds of the DRF employees about the worthlessness of the track variant that they currently provide to their customers? Why are they depriving the customers of something better?

Going to have to investigate, unless someone else already knows the answer. What does it cost to print a race card with the information you want (i.e. pace figures) at home?

I found an article that says it costs about two cents a page with a black and white laser printer. How many pages average for a card, maybe 30? Seems like a much easier and cheaper alternative to me. I know Formulator is undergoing upgrades. Hopefully more options for customized printing are available.

[thaskalos]

Going to have to investigate, unless someone else already knows the answer. What does it cost to print a race card with the information you want (i.e. pace figures) at home?

I found an article that says it costs about two cents a page with a black and white laser printer. How many pages average for a card, maybe 30? Seems like a much easier and cheaper alternative to me. I know Formulator is undergoing upgrades. Hopefully more options for customized printing are available.

Another thing:

The DRF has added the new "pace-flow" indicators...to show us that they want to bring a certain "precision" to their handicapping product. But then they introduce YOUR figures in the printed edition, in a manner which makes them WORTHLESS for the discriminating player. Instead of giving their customers "TimeformUS" ratings for each individual race, they offer a mysterious SINGLE entry for every horse...which supposedly "averages" what the horse is capable of. What good is a figure "average"...when the races are already listed separately, for INDIVIDUAL study? Don't these people even know what an "upgrade" is?

I'm not asking for myself, mind you. After buying the DRF religiously for over 30 years...I've switched to something better. And I am wondering if the DRF wants the REST of their customers to do likewise...

[DeltaLover]

Another thing:

The DRF has added the new "pace-flow" indicators...to show us that they want to bring a certain "precision" to their handicapping product. But then they introduce YOUR figures in the printed edition, in a manner which makes them WORTHLESS for the discriminating player. Instead of giving their customers "TimeformUS" ratings for each individual race, they offer a mysterious SINGLE entry for every horse...which supposedly "averages" what the horse is capable of. What good is a figure "average"...when the races are already listed separately, for INDIVIDUAL study? Don't these people even know what an "upgrade" is?

I'm not asking for myself, mind you. After buying the DRF religiously for over 30 years...I've switched to something better. And I am wondering if the DRF wants the REST of their customers to do likewise...

If anything, I think you should be happy (and keep quite) for DRF to omit pace figures or any other handicapping tool you believe it adds value to your methodology.

[cj]

Another thing:

The DRF has added the new "pace-flow" indicators...to show us that they want to bring a certain "precision" to their handicapping product. But then they introduce YOUR figures in the printed edition, in a manner which makes them WORTHLESS for the discriminating player. Instead of giving their customers "TimeformUS" ratings for each individual race, they offer a mysterious SINGLE entry for every horse...which supposedly "averages" what the horse is capable of. What good is a figure "average"...when the races are already listed separately, for INDIVIDUAL study? Don't these people even know what an "upgrade" is?

I'm not asking for myself, mind you. After buying the DRF religiously for over 30 years...I've switched to something better. And I am wondering if the DRF wants the REST of their customers to do likewise...

The figures from TimeformUS that are in the DRF are exactly as they appear in the regular product. They are the overall early/late speed ratings for each horse that are used to generate the Pace Projector. They are not an average but they are based on a group of races. I'm going to work on an article to better explain them this week.

[thaskalos]

If anything, I think you should be happy (and keep quite) for DRF to omit pace figures or any other handicapping tool you believe it adds value to your methodology.

I can't think just about myself. When I see GROSS INCOMPETENCE, it's my nature to vent my frustration...even if doing so potentially hurts my "bottom line".

[DeltaLover]

I can't think just about myself. When I see GROSS INCOMPETENCE, it's my nature to vent my frustration...even if doing so potentially hurts my "bottom line".

I agree with your comment about incompetence.

I also think that one of the most fundamental problems of horse racing in Northern America lies in the lack of free historical data.

Obviously, DRF is going to face a major survival problem If raw historical data were become freely available; in parallel, the industry will become attractive to the new generations and possibly be revived and reach new highs in terms of publicity and handle sizes.

Still, I am not sure that as a bettor I would like to see something like this as chances are that the game will become much tougher and difficult to beat. Maybe it is better the way it is now!

[classhandicapper]

Here's the problem, in a nutshell:

It's a well-known fact that there is a pretty large segment of the DRF customers who insist on buying the printed edition. We must assume that the DRF acknowledges this...by the mere fact that the printed edition is still profitably produced. It's also a well-known fact that there are no PACE figures to be found in the printed edition...even though the pace figures have been proven to be a major component of the handicapping process. So...if the DRF printed-edition customer wants pace figures...he must create them HIMSELF. But, in order to do that...he needs a reliable track-variant. And he can't get a reliable track variant from the DRF...even at the cost of $11 a copy. And when he complains...he keeps hearing about that "subset of customers" who insist on using totally WORTHLESS data for their handicapping. And my question is...why doesn't the DRF give the worthless speed figures and variants to those who insist on using them, while giving the REST of the customers something more useful? Is there any doubt in the minds of the DRF employees about the worthlessness of the track variant that they currently provide to their customers? Why are they depriving the customers of something better?


1. The Timeform Early and Late pace figures were recently added to the paper. Other major improvements are on the way. You probably don't know that because you don't buy it. You just complain about it.

2. None of the major figure services provides track variants for reasons I tried to explain to you. In large part, it would be like giving away the recipe to a popular food item. It would also open a can of worms about individual figures.

3. If you buy a Formulator subscription, you can get pace figures, print out a customized hard copy of the PPs, save money, and not have to look at the DRF Speed Rating or Track Variant. They aren't in Formulator.

I'm not customer service. I try to be helpful here because I can be, because some people here have been very helpful to me, and because I like almost everyone here. You can contact customer service and ask them for more information if I'm not helpful enough.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Speaking as a customer, I don't know the answer to your question. I've been asking for information like that from figure makers for years but they seem reluctant to publish it. I guess it gives away more of the special sauce and exposes which races are broken out, which days were split etc... I guess it's a kind of can of worms when it comes to process that people are reluctant to open.

What do you mean when you say it gives away more of the special sauce....? What is the special sauce....?

What is a "broken out race".....?

I think that I understand what a "split day" is but I can't find the words easily...to explain it...

[betovernetcapper]

For what it's worth, I tweeted Mike Hogan of the DRF & he prefers Beyers. :)

[cj]

For what it's worth, I tweeted Mike Hogan of the DRF & he prefers Beyers. :)

Just to be accurate, Mike isn't with DRF any longer, been gone at least a few months now.

[JohnGalt1]

And if there is only one grass race on a particular day, that race alone will be used as the "standard" for that day's turf variant...regardless of the quality of that race. If the 3-year turf record at a mile is 1:35, and a field of $15,000 claimers ran the race in 1:40...then the turf track variant for the day is set at 25. :ThmbUp:

Which is why I do not use drf or any variant when handicapping turf races. Even at Kentucky Downs where all races are on grass, they card races at so many distances that even those variants should be treated as estimates, if used, which I don't.

For dirt, variants that vary far from the average, 16-17-18, I also be treat skeptically. If the variant is over 30, the pace rating is almost garbage.

The problem is with horses with one or two races with extreme variants. Any pace figure I use I place in parentheses and treat the races as glorified workouts.

[DeltaLover]

Which is why I do not use drf or any variant when handicapping turf races. Even at Kentucky Downs where all races are on grass, they card races at so many distances that even those variants should be treated as estimates, if used, which I don't.

For dirt, variants that vary far from the average, 16-17-18, I also be treat skeptically. If the variant is over 30, the pace rating is almost garbage.

The problem is with horses with one or two races with extreme variants. Any pace figure I use I place in parentheses and treat the races as glorified workouts.

The problems you describe here consist the core of the the speed figure maker and from what I can realize reading this board very few have a deep understanding of the related complexities and their potential solutions.

[thaskalos]

1. The Timeform Early and Late pace figures were recently added to the paper. Other major improvements are on the way. You probably don't know that because you don't buy it. You just complain about it.

2. None of the major figure services provides track variants for reasons I tried to explain to you. In large part, it would be like giving away the recipe to a popular food item. It would also open a can of worms about individual figures.

3. If you buy a Formulator subscription, you can get pace figures, print out a customized hard copy of the PPs, save money, and not have to look at the DRF Speed Rating or Track Variant. They aren't in Formulator.

I'm not customer service. I try to be helpful here because I can be, because some people here have been very helpful to me, and because I like almost everyone here. You can contact customer service and ask them for more information if I'm not helpful enough.

1. Of course I know about the recent Timeform Early-Late pace-figure addition. I even commented about that in a prior post. As presented...they are totally inadequate for serious pace-handicapping use.

2. The other major figure services don't provide variants...but the DRF elects to provide a FAULTY one. Why a major figure provider insists on offering faulty information to their customers in today's ultra-competitive day and age is beyond me. Plus...the other major figure services provide pace figures for individual races, which the online customers can access for FREE. I guess $11 isn't a high-enough price to charge if pace figures are to be included in the current product. :rolleyes:

3. Again...I was talking about that "subset of customers" who insist on buying the DRF printed edition. Why should they have to buy FORMULATOR in order to get some quality pace figures? Aren't they currently paying enough for the printed edition? Is there a valid reason why there are no decent pace ratings included in today's DRF printed edition?

I wasn't attacking you personally...I commented towards you because of your post #56...where you said that the inclusion of the faulty DRF variant presented no "real issue"...because it could easily be IGNORED. I don't ask you the questions that I do because I think that you are the DRF "customer service"; I ask you these questions because you always imply that you know more about the DRF than the REST of us do. Like your above assertion that "other major improvements are on the way" at the DRF. WHERE has the DRF publicized that "other major improvements are on the way"? Are you the ONLY person here who knows that?

[tennoel]

Another thing:



I'm not asking for myself, mind you. After buying the DRF religiously for over 30 years...I've switched to something better. And I am wondering if the DRF wants the REST of their customers to do likewise...



And after religiously buying the DRF for over 40 years they no longer include my local tracks, Prx and Del. No reason to buy any longer.

[betovernetcapper]

Just to be accurate, Mike isn't with DRF any longer, been gone at least a few months now.

Didn't know. Thought he was a more or less permeant DRF resident.

[classhandicapper]

1. Of course I know about the recent Timeform Early-Late pace-figure addition. I even commented about that in a prior post. As presented...they are totally inadequate for serious pace-handicapping use.

2. The other major figure services don't provide variants...but the DRF elects to provide a FAULTY one. Why a major figure provider insists on offering faulty information to their customers in today's ultra-competitive day and age is beyond me. Plus...the other major figure services provide pace figures for individual races, which the online customers can access for FREE. I guess $11 isn't a high-enough price to charge if pace figures are to be included in the current product. :rolleyes:

3. Again...I was talking about that "subset of customers" who insist on buying the DRF printed edition. Why should they have to buy FORMULATOR in order to get some quality pace figures? Aren't they currently paying enough for the printed edition? Is there a valid reason why there are no decent pace ratings included in today's DRF printed edition?

I wasn't attacking you personally...I commented towards you because of your post #56...where you said that the inclusion of the faulty DRF variant presented no "real issue"...because it could easily be IGNORED. I don't ask you the questions that I do because I think that you are the DRF "customer service"; I ask you these questions because you always imply that you know more about the DRF than the REST of us do. Like your above assertion that "other major improvements are on the way" at the DRF. WHERE has the DRF publicized that "other major improvements are on the way"? Are you the ONLY person here who knows that?

I thought I explained the reason the variant is still in the print edition. It's still there because some people don't agree with conventional wisdom. They think it's important information, use it, and WANT it there. How hard is that to understand? I don't use it. I ignore it.

You don't have to buy both Formulator and the print edition. You have a choice. But as I explained, if you buy just Formulator, you get pace figures (among other things), can print customized PPs, and save money.

As to putting pace figures in the print edition, it's a total non starter. To display pace figures at the race and horse level (which is the requirement) would mean almost doubling the size of each horse's PPs. You need an extra line for each line already in the PPs. To understand what I am saying, you can look at Timeform PPs. There are 2 lines for each race. For an online product like Timeform or Formulator, that's perfect. For a print product it would increase the cost of production significantly and also make the paper cumbersome to handle if the same number of tracks were included.

A large number of improvements have been made across the DRF product line and new ones have been added in the last few years. If you used our products you'd know that. That's not going to stop.

You do realize I have been going out of my way to help explain these things to you even though it's not my job and you are not even a customer? And all I get back is more whining.

[thaskalos]

I thought I explained the reason the variant is still in the print edition. It's still there because some people don't agree with conventional wisdom. They think it's important information, use it, and WANT it there. How hard is that to understand? I don't use it. I ignore it.

You don't have to buy both Formulator and the print edition. You have a choice. But as I explained, if you buy just Formulator, you get pace figures (among other things), can print customized PPs, and save money.

As to putting pace figures in the print edition, it's a total non starter. To display pace figures at the race and horse level (which is the requirement) would mean almost doubling the size of each horse's PPs. You need an extra line for each line already in the PPs. To understand what I am saying, you can look at Timeform PPs. There are 2 lines for each race. For an online product like Timeform or Formulator, that's perfect. For a print product it would increase the cost of production significantly and also make the paper cumbersome to handle if the same number of tracks were included.

A large number of improvements have been made across the DRF product line and new ones have been added in the last few years. If you used our products you'd know that. That's not going to stop.

You do realize I have been going out of my way to help explain these things to you even though it's not my job and you are not even a customer? And all I get back is more whining.

As a prior faithful DRF customer for over 30 years...I feel that I have every right to complain about the shoddy service that they continue to provide to their customers. The fact that I have stopped patronizing their inferior product doesn't mean that I can no longer complain about them. And it isn't "whining"...because I am not "crying" to you for some sort of "solution". It's YOU who have presented yourself as some sort of DRF-expert here. I would continue to complain about the DRF...even if you ignored every single one of my "whines" here. When I see incompetence in this game...then I complain. I don't do it to infuriate "company-men" such as yourself; I do it because I feel that giving honest opinions about things is what this site is all about.

You say that you've "gone out of your way to help explain things to me"...when all you've ever done is offer excuse after excuse to explain your employer's incompetence when it comes to "customer service". And for this...you want me to THANK you? :rolleyes:

[classhandicapper]

You say that you've "gone out of your way to help explain things to me"...when all you've ever done is offer excuse after excuse to explain your employer's incompetence when it comes to "customer service". And for this...you want me to THANK you? :rolleyes:


I tried to help you get the information you desire, in the format you want it, AND save money, but you obviously have no interest in that. So I have no interest in continuing this conversation.

[thaskalos]

I tried to help you get the information you desire, in the format you want it, AND save money, but you obviously have no interest in that. So I have no interest in continuing this conversation.

You misunderstood me entirely. I didn't need you to tell me that Formulator existed...nor did I reach out to you so you could "save me money". I pointed out from the very beginning of my conversation here that I was speaking strictly for those misguided souls who persist in buying the DRF printed edition...since I was one of them for over 30 years. But now, I have put the DRF entirely BEHIND me...and I want nothing more to do with that company...no matter WHAT "improvements" they plan for the future. There are much better service providers out there for the discriminating player...and I'm glad to have finally found one of them.

PS...

I don't know if you've noticed this...but I don't much enjoy conversing with you either.

[FakeNameChanged]

And after religiously buying the DRF for over 40 years they no longer include my local tracks, Prx and Del. No reason to buy any longer.
Looks like the subset is shrinking.

[thaskalos]

Looks like the subset is shrinking.

Understandably.

[classhandicapper]

PS...

I don't know if you've noticed this...but I don't much enjoy conversing with you either.

Best of luck and please don't.

One of us is trying to contribute something positive and the other is not. That much should be clear to everyone now.

[thaskalos]

Best of luck and please don't.

One of us is trying to contribute something positive and the other is not. That much should be clear to everyone now.

:lol::lol:

OK...I'm sure you are right.

[VigorsTheGrey]

There is an old saying to be
"careful what you wish...
for you may get it"

I sought an understanding
of the DRF's Speed Rating
and Track Variant, hoping
if I understood exactly
HOW they are compiled
I could USE THEM instead
of being confused about
what they really mean...

....But, and thanks
to Class, CJ, Delta, and Thask,
who together reveal and spritz
the unvarnished serum,
truth avails itself, in kind

NOW....whenever I gaze
at the Daily Racing Form
and scan the various "Metrics" there
all jumbled up in secret sauce,
half-baked, half-understood forms
writhing, worming through my understanding....

Instead of elucidating
the Sport of Kings,
then...THEN I wonder...
shall I stray NOW to join some more,
even more, private subset,
like Thask, like CJ, and Class, and Delta...?

[thaskalos]

Instead of elucidating
the Sport of Kings,
then...THEN I wonder...
shall I stray NOW to join some more,
even more, private subset,
like Thask, like CJ, and Class, and Delta...?

Turn your back on the DRF...and march forth into the 21st century. You'll thank me. :ThmbUp: