Comparing Different Tracks

[jay68802]

Just want some opinions on the best way to compare how fast one track is to another. Would you just look at final times or would you factor in other variables?

[cj]

Just want some opinions on the best way to compare how fast one track is to another. Would you just look at final times or would you factor in other variables?

Well, have to consider the class of horses too as I'm sure you know.

There are also things like how many turns are involved, and how tight or sweeping they are. Run up matters a lot too. Pimlico can be faster than Churchill but you'd never know it by looking at the 6f race times.

[xtb]

Not sure how accurate this is but it might be close.

https://www.americanturf.com/equalization/index.cfm?showchart=1

[green80]

Well, have to consider the class of horses too as I'm sure you know.

There are also things like how many turns are involved, and how tight or sweeping they are. Run up matters a lot too. Pimlico can be faster than Churchill but you'd never know it by looking at the 6f race times.

I agree here, too many other factors involved. Even if you could equalize the times, the class factor is involved. A horse that is running for $5000 claiming with a 8000 purse at track A is not the same kind of horse as a horse running for $5000 claiming at track B with a $23000 purse.

[Prof.Factor]

Compare track variants.

[steveb]

Compare track variants.

that's a great answer.
it's also true,....but it must assume that all tracks are equally fast, and that is not the case.
how do you overcome that?
can you expand?

[Prof.Factor]

that's a great answer.
it's also true,....but it must assume that all tracks are equally fast, and that is not the case.
how do you overcome that?
can you expand?

I can expand somewhat. My track variants incorporate everything one associates with variants (via par system).
I then convert variants to time and 'proportionately' adjust pace. Basically all factors used to create the variants are accounted for and you're left with nothing but 'speed in track'. If your variants account for turns and track configuration, then they are already accounted for as well.
I like to compare variants along the pace times as well as finals because it helps to ensure no timing errors have gotten by me and tainted the data. Variants are in play at all stages of the race and kind of add-up to the final variant value.Don't think I can expand anymore without getting into creating the variants. I use a universal par system that accounts for everything.In theory, a self-establishing race field par system should be the best system but I've never been able to get that to be true. Probably just me.

[steveb]

I can expand somewhat. My track variants incorporate everything one associates with variants (via par system).
I then convert variants to time and 'proportionately' adjust pace. Basically all factors used to create the variants are accounted for and you're left with nothing but 'speed in track'. If your variants account for turns and track configuration, then they are already accounted for as well.
I like to compare variants along the pace times as well as finals because it helps to ensure no timing errors have gotten by me and tainted the data. Variants are in play at all stages of the race and kind of add-up to the final variant value.Don't think I can expand anymore without getting into creating the variants. I use a universal par system that accounts for everything.In theory, a self-establishing race field par system should be the best system but I've never been able to get that to be true. Probably just me.

so if you are just measuring horse speed and not track then that is going to insinuate that .......

a track that averages variants of maybe 20, would be 10 weaker than one that averages 10, insofar as the standard of horse running on it?

i am not really asking you to expand as such, as i can already do it myself.
i was just wondering if you have found a way to equalise tracks in a non subjective manner.
i don't know anybody that can do that,.....well apart from me!
thus your comment piqued my interest.

of course it is very fluid, as things never stay the same.

and i see you mention universal pars.......we would go separate ways here.
i don't believe in them, although a simple formula could get you the starting point to figure track equalising, and i guess you could call them universal.

[green80]

so if you are just measuring horse speed and not track then that is going to insinuate that .......

a track that averages variants of maybe 20, would be 10 weaker than one that averages 10, insofar as the standard of horse running on it?

i am not really asking you to expand as such, as i can already do it myself.
i was just wondering if you have found a way to equalise tracks in a non subjective manner.
i don't know anybody that can do that,.....well apart from me!
thus your comment piqued my interest.

of course it is very fluid, as things never stay the same.

and i see you mention universal pars.......we would go separate ways here.
i don't believe in them, although a simple formula could get you the starting point to figure track equalising, and i guess you could call them universal.


are the horses weaker or is it a track with a slower surface?

[steveb]

are the horses weaker or is it a track with a slower surface?

well if you do it properly, you have equalised tracks(not perfect as nothing in racing is perfect, but close) , and what you have left is horse.
of course it is very fluid though, as things never stay the same.

as a rough idea, if you knew for certain that the standard of horse at track 'a' was identical to track 'b' then any difference in the variant, must be track.
mustn't it?
and the opposite applies, if the tracks are identical but the variant differs, then the horses are weaker(or stronger) on average.

the problem is how to do the equalising, and i am confident i can.

in usa, apparently the tracks generally don't have the huge variation in topography and layout that other countries like england and aust have, thus it would probably be easier to figue in usa than those other places.

[Prof.Factor]

...

the problem is how to do the equalising, and i am confident i can.

...


I'm sure many people can.

[steveb]

I'm sure many people can.

i would be positive that very few people can do that.

it's unlikely that knowing the difference between belmont in usa and belmont in australia is going to win you any money.

places that are fairly close together so that they regularly ship, but are different standard, people would more than likely know instinctively anyway, even if not as accurately.

but there are other reasons that makes it important to understand that difference, especially where there is much movement between them.
if there is no movement, then it matters not at all if one knows or not.

[jay68802]

i would be positive that very few people can do that.

it's unlikely that knowing the difference between belmont in usa and belmont in australia is going to win you any money.

places that are fairly close together so that they regularly ship, but are different standard, people would more than likely know instinctively anyway, even if not as accurately.

but there are other reasons that makes it important to understand that difference, especially where there is much movement between them.
if there is no movement, then it matters not at all if one knows or not.

I am getting ready for Keeneland this spring. Trying to understand the difference between Fairgrounds, Ellis, Turfway, Gulfstream and a few others is what my project is right now. Some really good ideas hee, keep them coming.

[Prof.Factor]

...
i would be positive that very few people can do that.
...


I will go even further and say there are people that can measure a horse's action, max burst and stamina, and can project how a horse will likely fare on a new/different surface. My first encounter with this was the 1993 Breeders' Cup Sprint at Santa Anita, when BIRDNTHEWIRE shipped from the east coast as the favorite (or heavy co-fav). While his speed figures dominated, one could determine he did not have the action to take advantage of the speed surface at Santa Anita. He finished 11th with Mike Smith.
I'm no genius, and if I could start doing this back in the day of Windows 3.1 ..... then there are many people doing it today.
Burst and stamina are subject to fatigue via track surface/distance/pace, naturally, but also drugs used.

[Elliott Sidewater]

I think the professor gave a very good answer to the initial question. There is only comment...... usually the proportionate adjustment to pace will work well, but when there are strong winds that type of adjustment can be quite inaccurate. Therefore, establishing pace pars can be as or more important than final time/speed pars. When you see race after race go 23 1/5 47 2/5 112 there was likely a significant head wind on the backstretch.

[RunForTheRoses]

I know in Beyer's books he wrote you compare horses that travel between different circuits. You would try to aggregate those horses that ship between Oaklawn and Churchill for instance.

[headhawg]

And then it rains, the track gets sealed. Or track maintenance crew gets lazy or decides to have fun with the inside lanes. Seriously? Do people really think getting more "precision" out of their numbers is the answer? The adjustments probably introduce more error into the mix and is overall not worth the effort. And what if the horse that looks like a lock because you added two point to its figs because of the track adjustment just isn't feeling it today? And, of course, we are making our bets...today.

There might be better ways to handicap races than what most of us are doing, but trying to eek out (very) slightly more accurate numbers seems like a waste of time. Threads like these -- while great for discussion -- seem more academic than practical. When I read them I always recall what Dick Schmidt wrote in the Goodenough Numbers chapter in Pace Makes the Race. It's truly a must read.

And honestly, the whole "i can do this and you can't" mentality is not very becoming.

[Thomas Roulston]

I agree here, too many other factors involved. Even if you could equalize the times, the class factor is involved. A horse that is running for $5000 claiming with a 8000 purse at track A is not the same kind of horse as a horse running for $5000 claiming at track B with a $23000 purse.


But of course the latter couldn't happen at NYRA because of its dumb rule capping purses at twice the claiming price. I remember when $7,500 claimers at AQU had $30,000 purses in 2012 and the fields were large and the races competitive.

[steveb]

And honestly, the whole "i can do this and you can't" mentality is not very becoming.

you can't expect peole that have done all the work to just offload.
by saying that it can be done should be sufficient.
not to mention there was info given that if one applies oneself to, then they would likely get somewhere, if they were interested enough.

[steveb]

I will go even further and say there are people that can measure a horse's action, max burst and stamina, and can project how a horse will likely fare on a new/different surface. My first encounter with this was the 1993 Breeders' Cup Sprint at Santa Anita, when BIRDNTHEWIRE shipped from the east coast as the favorite (or heavy co-fav). While his speed figures dominated, one could determine he did not have the action to take advantage of the speed surface at Santa Anita. He finished 11th with Mike Smith.
I'm no genius, and if I could start doing this back in the day of Windows 3.1 ..... then there are many people doing it today.
Burst and stamina are subject to fatigue via track surface/distance/pace, naturally, but also drugs used.

you are probably correct in what you are saying, but i think we are talking different things.

all i am saying is that it is possible to line all the places up.
if you know that track 'a' and 'b' are the same standard, it does not necessarily translate to any horse handling both tracks equally.
that's a different subject entirely.
they could be the same standard, but one is turf and the other dirt, and that alone is enough to know that the same horses won't run the same on both.

[green80]

you are probably correct in what you are saying, but i think we are talking different things.

all i am saying is that it is possible to line all the places up.
if you know that track 'a' and 'b' are the same standard, it does not necessarily translate to any horse handling both tracks equally.
that's a different subject entirely.
they could be the same standard, but one is turf and the other dirt, and that alone is enough to know that the same horses won't run the same on both.

Good point, some horses won't handle 2 dirt tracks the same. I have seen as much as 1 or 2 seconds difference in time at the same distance by the same horse at different tracks.

[ultracapper]

And then it rains, the track gets sealed. Or track maintenance crew gets lazy or decides to have fun with the inside lanes. Seriously? Do people really think getting more "precision" out of their numbers is the answer? The adjustments probably introduce more error into the mix and is overall not worth the effort. And what if the horse that looks like a lock because you added two point to its figs because of the track adjustment just isn't feeling it today? And, of course, we are making our bets...today.

There might be better ways to handicap races than what most of us are doing, but trying to eek out (very) slightly more accurate numbers seems like a waste of time. Threads like these -- while great for discussion -- seem more academic than practical. When I read them I always recall what Dick Schmidt wrote in the Goodenough Numbers chapter in Pace Makes the Race. It's truly a must read.

And honestly, the whole "i can do this and you can't" mentality is not very becoming.

An interesting post that I never thought I would see on this forum.

[Tom]

Some horse don't handle the same track all the time.
When FL used to open in March, we had DRF TVs of 25+ for sprints and 40+ for routes. Pace times were 49, 115

Later in the summer, the TVs were 10,12, and 20, 22. Pace times were 46, 113.

You can adjust anything - I can adjust my uncle to make him equal my aunt. But the horses can't be adjusted. One of our better trainers used to run his horse in the spring and fall, giving them the summer off.

The number one rule of mine in racing is I am betting on living creatures who have moods, feel pain, joy, have minds and think with them, NOT mathematical equation results.

No one knows everything and half of we do know was probably mis-calculated. Our only hope is there are enough mistakes made to cancel each other out in the long run. :D

[cj]

Some horse don't handle the same track all the time.
When FL used to open in March, we had DRF TVs of 25+ for sprints and 40+ for routes. Pace times were 49, 115

Later in the summer, the TVs were 10,12, and 20, 22. Pace times were 46, 113.

You can adjust anything - I can adjust my uncle to make him equal my aunt. But the horses can't be adjusted. One of our better trainers used to run his horse in the spring and fall, giving them the summer off.

The number one rule of mine in racing is I am betting on living creatures who have moods, feel pain, joy, have minds and think with them, NOT mathematical equation results.

No one knows everything and half of we do know was probably mis-calculated. Our only hope is there are enough mistakes made to cancel each other out in the long run. :D

I think we are going to see a lot of this when Aqueduct goes back to the normal track. The "new" winterized main track was very different than anything we saw before on the inner in my opinion.

[classhandicapper]

Some horse don't handle the same track all the time.
When FL used to open in March, we had DRF TVs of 25+ for sprints and 40+ for routes. Pace times were 49, 115

Later in the summer, the TVs were 10,12, and 20, 22. Pace times were 46, 113.



Some of those kinds of variations are jockeys adjusting to track conditions.

If they know a track is carrying speed well, they will get more aggressive and vice versa. That can cause the relationships between fractions and final times to change over and above how fast the track is playing.

You have to ask whether the fractions were fast relative to the final time because the track was faster than usual, because the jockeys were more aggressive than usual, or a little of both. (and vice versa)

Then you have to ask, given the fractions they ran, did they have as much impact on the horses as usual or was the track carrying speed better or worse than usual.

It can really make your head explode if you are numbers guy.

That partially why I also like to make comparisons between horses within the same race without looking at times at all. If I more or less know how good the horses are in any race, I can compare horses with similar trips and see how they ran relative to each other and then compare them to horses that had the opposite trip. That will usually give me a good picture of how they all ran relative to each other and which trip was best.

[ultracapper]

Some horse don't handle the same track all the time.
When FL used to open in March, we had DRF TVs of 25+ for sprints and 40+ for routes. Pace times were 49, 115

Later in the summer, the TVs were 10,12, and 20, 22. Pace times were 46, 113.

You can adjust anything - I can adjust my uncle to make him equal my aunt. But the horses can't be adjusted. One of our better trainers used to run his horse in the spring and fall, giving them the summer off.

The number one rule of mine in racing is I am betting on living creatures who have moods, feel pain, joy, have minds and think with them, NOT mathematical equation results.

No one knows everything and half of we do know was probably mis-calculated. Our only hope is there are enough mistakes made to cancel each other out in the long run. :D

True all that

[steveb]

[/COLOR][/B]

True all that

well if you asked somebody like arkansasman then he would probably disagree with you.

as do i.

it might not be a mathematical equation as such, but it's no accident that all the BIG winners are academically inclined, and half of them probably know(nor care) sweet nothing about racing.

i would not even know the names of the horses when I was doing it.
just an ID number to stop any inherent biases showing.
then just use statisitics.

[Tom]

I think we are going to see a lot of this when Aqueduct goes back to the normal track. The "new" winterized main track was very different than anything we saw before on the inner in my opinion.

I changed the designation from I for inner to W for winter in my dbs so I can keep the races separate. I wish EB would do this too, for the career box.

[classhandicapper]

I changed the designation from I for inner to W for winter in my dbs so I can keep the races separate. I wish EB would do this too, for the career box.

Good idea.

I do stuff like this sometimes, but I hate having to run weekly update jobs to keep my database the way I want when in some cases the data should be organized in a logical way to begin with.

[mountainman]

And then it rains, the track gets sealed. Or track maintenance crew gets lazy or decides to have fun with the inside lanes. Seriously? Do people really think getting more "precision" out of their numbers is the answer? The adjustments probably introduce more error into the mix and is overall not worth the effort. And what if the horse that looks like a lock because you added two point to its figs because of the track adjustment just isn't feeling it today? And, of course, we are making our bets...today.

There might be better ways to handicap races than what most of us are doing, but trying to eek out (very) slightly more accurate numbers seems like a waste of time. Threads like these -- while great for discussion -- seem more academic than practical. When I read them I always recall what Dick Schmidt wrote in the Goodenough Numbers chapter in Pace Makes the Race. It's truly a must read.

And honestly, the whole "i can do this and you can't" mentality is not very becoming.

If you're making numbers, why not be accurate? But accuracy on a scale not involving extreme minutiae is both good enough and more useful for me. I prefer numbers that are a tad obtuse, and I intentionally round all times and fractions to fifths as a constant reminder that more abstract and intuitive considerations are more important to me. And that time is just one component in assessing t-bred performance.

Or, to put it another way, if an intrepid hiker seeking the best way through rocky terrain obsesses with measuring alternative routes-right down to feet and inches- he has probably ignored other relevant considerations. Like poison ivy, challenging inclines, and those hillbillies from Deliverance.

[jay68802]

Those darn hillbillies pop up everywhere.:D When starting this project, like most projects, I figured at first it should be fairly easy. And part of it is, and that part is getting the raw numbers. The goal is to compare different tracks to establish the speed of each track.

My plan is:

All races to be used are for 4 yr olds and up and on a fast track.

I am only using certain races. If different run-ups are used only the "standard" run-up will be used. Grade 1 and 2, and Maiden Claiming races are not used. Next I looked at each day and eliminated any day that had less than 2 and more than 5 wire to wire winners. Of the remaining races, only races that the winner was within .5 lengths of the lead for the whole race will be used.

Keeneland 6f......22.65......46.00......70.59 (2014 to 2017) 49 races

Pick the method apart.:)

[LongShot_Louie]

Let me say, I am new to these forums. Actually, Ive been away from them for a number of years. While I tend to agree with the poster who wrote:

There might be better ways to handicap races than what most of us are doing, but trying to eek out (very) slightly more accurate numbers seems like a waste of time.

I do find these discussions of academic interest. Besides you never know when you might learn something. But to my questions.

First, could you explain this line in your post?

Keeneland 6f......22.65......46.00......70.59 (2014 to 2017) 49 races

Are these the average call times for 6f races at Keenland? Is 49 the sample size you have for Keenland 6f races? If so, how many tracks are you trying to model and what are their corresponding sample sizes? I ask because this segues directly into my second question. How large is your database? More specifically, how many races in your DB fit the sampling criteria you have laid out?

Thanks

[jay68802]

My data base for Keeneland includes all turf races from 2014 to 2017, and all dirt races from the fall of 2014 to 2017. The numbers you see are the average fractions for 49 6f races that meet the conditions in the above post. This is not the average for all 6f races. 22.58.....46.11.....70.96 is the average for all races.

I also have data bases for all major and some other tracks, that range from only 2017 to as far back as 2010. The data also includes the last 3 running lines for the winner. I am doing this on this forum because there are a lot of people on here that are A: smarter than I am and B: because they might get a good laugh at how i am doing this and C: learn something along the way.

If you handicap Keeneland every horse you deal with is a shipper. I am trying to set a base to compare the horses from different tracks.

[LongShot_Louie]

...trying to eek out (very) slightly more accurate numbers seems like a waste of time. Threads like these -- while great for discussion -- seem more academic than practical......

You are truly wise. Measuring data with a micrometer makes little sense considering it was collected with a fish net in the first place. But I do like the academic side of these discussions.

[LongShot_Louie]

If you dont mind a little conversation, what kind of data files are you working with? There are several meanings to this question. First, I have a few data source questions. Are they BRIS files, ITS files or some other kind of data files? Second are these complete files or partial files? By this I mean do the files contain both past performance and results data for the same race? I ask because I know complete files would not be necessary for your project.

Additionally, could you explain your proposed statistical and/or methodological process for making cross track comparisons in a bit greater detail.

Thanks

[FakeNameChanged]

Those darn hillbillies pop up everywhere.:D When starting this project, like most projects, I figured at first it should be fairly easy. And part of it is, and that part is getting the raw numbers. The goal is to compare different tracks to establish the speed of each track.

My plan is:

All races to be used are for 4 yr olds and up and on a fast track.

I am only using certain races. If different run-ups are used only the "standard" run-up will be used. Grade 1 and 2, and Maiden Claiming races are not used. Next I looked at each day and eliminated any day that had less than 2 and more than 5 wire to wire winners. Of the remaining races, only races that the winner was within .5 lengths of the lead for the whole race will be used.

Keeneland 6f......22.65......46.00......70.59 (2014 to 2017) 49 races

Pick the method apart.:)

I've done a similar exercise for Parx over the last year year(2017) with absolutely no restrictions. Of course there are few if any Gr I & II 6f races at Parx, usually >1M.

Parx 6f.......22.47......46.09.......71.89 (2017) 180 races

Other than class, I found that the month of the year, assuming weather/track conditions affected these times the most. I gave up using fast track designations since very fast times often show up on off tracks. I still prefer a track variant somewhat in the normal range for fast, whatever that means. If I were to remove all the MSW and Maiden claimers from the data, my guess is the final times would be very close. Looking at your TT's and final fractions compared to Parx we have:

Kee TT 23.35 ......FF 24.39
Prx TT 23.62 ......FF 25.80

The quicker FF's at Kee, most likely due to class adv. over Parx and usually better weather, but I'm not as familiar with either at Kee.

[CheckMark]

Maybe this could help. These are the record times for Parx. For example. You might have to go through and search each track and sub out PRX in the link and maybe put SA for Santa Anita and GP for Gulfstream Park. :headbanger:

https://www.equibase.com/premium/eqbTrackRecords.cfm?trk=PRX&cy=USA

[jay68802]

If you dont mind a little conversation, what kind of data files are you working with? There are several meanings to this question. First, I have a few data source questions. Are they BRIS files, ITS files or some other kind of data files? Second are these complete files or partial files? By this I mean do the files contain both past performance and results data for the same race? I ask because I know complete files would not be necessary for your project.

Additionally, could you explain your proposed statistical and/or methodological process for making cross track comparisons in a bit greater detail.

Thanks

All information is from result charts. I can get most of the information i want from there. I also have the BRIS speed and pace figures for of the winner for most races.

I do want to point out that I tend to agree with people when they say that "exact" or fine numbers is stretching or dreaming. With the way races are timed , it can not be done. I think I ended up with 134 different separations for age, class, sex, run up, distance, and conditions at Delta Downs for a 5 yr period. Add in Fairgrounds and Evd and it got to the point I said "this is not the way to go".

I will also say that in a couple areas, that includes comparing tracks to each other. It is worth the effort to be as accurate as possible.

As far as the method, KISS.

[headhawg]

You are truly wise. Measuring data with a micrometer makes little sense considering it was collected with a fish net in the first place. But I do like the academic side of these discussions.Thanks LL. I've been called lots of things here but you're the first to say wise. :D

My point was really asking, where does the attempt at more precision stop? Let's take calculating figures to the extreme. What are the factors involved? Well horses' times, of course. To that I say, how accurate is the timing? Are the people looking for precision hand-timing the races? How are beaten lengths being determined? From charts? From watching videos and doing it yourself? What about wind? Did you account for the variability in wind speed? Surely it's not constant. How was it measured? I know this is a harness term, but what about cover? There has to be some effect on time/speed running behind other horses versus running "uncovered".

What about track surface? Banking/radius of the turns? Adjusting for differences in sea level. The exact path of the horse's trip. The alpha horse. The herding instinct...Stop me when I reach the "number of ridiculous factors" level. Measuring all of this stuff is simply fraught with error, so imo, just use the goodenough numbers.

[steveb]

Thanks LL. I've been called lots of things here but you're the first to say wise. :D

My point was really asking, where does the attempt at more precision stop? Let's take calculating figures to the extreme. What are the factors involved? Well horses' times, of course. To that I say, how accurate is the timing? Are the people looking for precision hand-timing the races? How are beaten lengths being determined? From charts? From watching videos and doing it yourself? What about wind? Did you account for the variability in wind speed? Surely it's not constant. How was it measured? I know this is a harness term, but what about cover? There has to be some effect on time/speed running behind other horses versus running "uncovered".

What about track surface? Banking/radius of the turns? Adjusting for differences in sea level. The exact path of the horse's trip. The alpha horse. The herding instinct...Stop me when I reach the "number of ridiculous factors" level. Measuring all of this stuff is simply fraught with error, so imo, just use the goodenough numbers.


al that stuff is correct, but you are missing one very important point.
the only thing that really matters is thet you are less wrong than your opponents(others betting into the pools on the races your are)

being the modest person i am, one of the very biggest fishes, once told me that i was probably the best times guy in the world(past tense...too old and disintersted these days), but i know my stuff has lots of less than perfect stuff in it.

but it's just less wrong than most others and that's all that matters.

if more precision, even if still wrong, but wins more money than it costs to implement, then why not?

[Boulder]

Would anybody post the 10k pars for Gulfstream Park about 7.5 turf.

Thanks

[mistergee]

Does anyone happen to have a copy of the "Normative Time Table ". I believe it helps in comparing track to track ratings. I originally saw it in the book " Winning at the Track" by Mr. Christopher. I lost mine. Thanks