Track Constants or Track-to-Track Variants

[DarkDream]

I have a database of all the races in 2003, West Coast 2004 season and currently all races so far for the 2005 season.

I create my own pace and speed figures using the method outlined in Charles Carroll's "Handicapping Speed." One of the difficulties of this method is coming up with "track constants" or more familiarly known as track-to-track variants to equalize horses shipping from one track to another.

In Carroll's book, he recommends going ahead and deriving track constants for tracks that are slower if you are handicapping a fast track. As my main track is Emerald Downs (fastest track in North America), this is a necessity.

His recommendation of averaging times for distances over a couple of seasons at different tracks to get a track constant simply does not work. This rather naive approach has fatal flaws to it. Namely, it does not take into account the fact that different tracks on average have better or worse horses as a whole.

Adding the "track constants" this way actually lowered my win% on picking winners for both my pace and speed figures.

I did this over a year ago.

Since then, I've gone ahead and tried a projection method where I would simply look at some commercial par times (from Cythnia Publishing) at the 10,000 Claimer level (or 5,000 Claimer for minor tracks) for the tracks I wanted to compare. Subtracting the difference in time from the points of call, I used these time differences as a starting point. After doing so, I would go ahead and run my program using the new track constants to see if the win percentage changed for the better. I would then iterate manually via judgement calls, changing the times and testing the results.

This seemed to work ok, but it was vastly time consuming as one could imagine. I have since automated this process, yet the times are sometimes rather dubious (no automation can capture subtle judgements involved in this) and I fear that I am simply making track constants that simply fit the data I have thus far, instead of making a definitive track constant that will work for the future for a large sample of races.

My last approach of coming up with track constants may be the most promising so far. Instead of trying to worry about class at different tracks and so on, I taken the approach of simply seeing how faster or slower a shipper runs from the same distance from one track to another. I would thus track all the horses that ran a distance at one track (averaged the times) then would average all the times the horse ran at the same distance at another track. I would then take the difference between the averaged times and averaged this difference with all other horses who ran between the two tracks.

I understand that I am making some assumptions on doing this, namely:

1) Assuming horses run as well on their home track as a track shipped to
2) Horses are fairly consistent in the times they post
3) Horses are competing generally in the same class levels
4) The track variant on fast tracks does not deviate wildly

When calculating this, I only used male horses 3 year old and older. Also races on fast tracks were only used.

There are generally five tracks where shippers come from at Emerald Downs. The tracks are: Hastings, Golden Gate, Bay Meadows, Turf Paradise and Portland Meadows.

I have listed below the results of my research. Please note that the the "numRaces" is a misnomer. The "numRaces" denotes the number of horses that have shipped from EMD to any of the following tracks and ran at the designated distance below. Also not the the "avg=" is the time you add to the foreign track to make the time comparable to an Emerald Downs (EMD) race. For example, when comparing the 1st fraction GG time to an EMD time, add -0.12 to the first call time; if the first call time for a GG horse is 21.45, adding -0.12 you get 21.33.

I would ignore all my results where the "numRaces" is below 30 or so.

First Call Times (1st Fraction for both Sprints and Routes):

GG
Distance: 8f --numRaces=49, avg=0.5495910088312703]
Distance: 5.5f --numRaces=18, avg=0.10509711495259941]
Distance: 6f --numRaces=101, avg=-0.12846369603686575]
Distance: 8.5f --numRaces=13, avg=0.1689554721910809]

BM
Distance: 8f --numRaces=43, avg=0.14599613542381024]
Distance: 6f --numRaces=80, avg=-0.5752669919382571]
Distance: 5.5f -- numRaces=12, avg=-0.13006170539663398]
Distance: 8.5f -- numRaces=11, avg=0.43640219326093704]

TUP
Distance: 8f --numRaces=65, avg=0.08927274124759618]
Distance: 5.5f --numRaces=29, avg=-0.28056484284195754]
Distance: 6f --numRaces=83, avg=-0.21565520115702516]
Distance: 8.5f --numRaces=9, avg=-0.474596827817177]
Distance: 6.5f --numRaces=60, avg=-0.2191047351432448]

HST
Distance: 9f --numRaces=3, avg=0.01124688716657237]
Distance: 6f --numRaces=5, avg=-0.5244005415269826]
Distance: 8.5f --numRaces=3, avg=0.0335960108154166]
Distance: 6.5f --numRaces=27, avg=-0.013980735975257796]

PM
Distance: 9f --numRaces=2, avg=-0.5718418958656706]
Distance: 8f --numRaces=65, avg=-0.4629106730887801]
Distance: 5.5f --numRaces=58, avg=-1.0000118762822825]
Distance: 6f --numRaces=150, avg=-0.8319599547160648]
Distance: 8.5f --numRaces=19, avg=-0.34909640343000387]
Distance: 5f --numRaces=9, avg=-0.7237272655292794]

Here is for the second fraction (4f) for both sprints and routes:

GG
Distance: 8f --numRaces=49, avg=0.1958146441785118]
Distance: 5.5f --numRaces=18, avg=-0.24850721029463252]
Distance: 6f -- numRaces=101, avg=-0.09780908966856136]
Distance: 8.5f --numRaces=13, avg=-0.18430434669386989]

BM
Distance: 8f --numRaces=43, avg=-0.47423222106221447]
Distance: 6f --numRaces=80, avg=-0.5551420246407437]
Distance: 5.5f --numRaces=12, avg=-0.27537988353262816]
Distance: 8.5f --numRaces=11, avg=0.3036215323328639]

TUP
Distance: 8f --numRaces=65, avg=0.07001591358082034]
Distance: 5.5f --numRaces=29, avg=-0.02687397009179879]
Distance: 6f --numRaces=83, avg=-0.03446399151231054]
Distance: 8.5f --numRaces=9, avg=-0.520729236756486]
Distance: 5f --numRaces=1, avg=0.10318055540142979]
Distance: 6.5f --numRaces=60, avg=-0.15287023976928016]

HST
Distance: 9f --numRaces=3, avg=-0.014023159784559406]
Distance: 6f --numRaces=5, avg=-1.1447979384745977]
Distance: 8.5f --numRaces=3, avg=-0.2694785419768664]
Distance: 6.5f --numRaces=27, avg=-0.733275364033052]

PM
Distance: 9f --numRaces=2, avg=-1.305811595396559]
Distance: 8f --numRaces=65, avg=-1.29581240417243]
Distance: 5.5f --numRaces=58, avg=-1.5425400542279366]
Distance: 6f --numRaces=150, avg=-1.3206012793071449]
Distance: 8.5f --numRaces=19, avg=-1.300105716540547]
Distance: 5f --numRaces=9, avg=-1.6537818752704918]

Here is for the third fraction (6f only for route races):

GG
Distance: 8f -- numRaces=49, avg=-0.07094162331651026]
Distance: 8.5f -- numRaces=13, avg=-0.5463010442791723]

BM
Distance: 8f --numRaces=43, avg=-0.6932972501104998]
Distance: 8.5f --numRaces=11, avg=0.05000329434008289]

TUP

Distance: 8f --numRaces=65, avg=-0.13992718023404768]
Distance: 8.5f --numRaces=9, avg=-0.4927765533198425]

HST
Distance: 9f --numRaces=3, avg=-0.8438685613124856]
Distance: 8.5f --numRaces=3, avg=-0.5391901536615838]

PM
Distance: 9f --numRaces=2, avg=-1.757025496583033]
Distance: 8f --numRaces=65, avg=-2.1625006639027875]
Distance: 8.5f --numRaces=19, avg=-2.168117565102347]

Finally here is the final call for both sprints and routes:

GG
Distance: 8f --numRaces=49, avg=-0.6004568486300509]
Distance: 5.5f --numRaces=18, avg=-0.3736336674689136]
Distance: 6f --numRaces=101, avg=-0.3456089674526923]
Distance: 8.5f --numRaces=13, avg=-0.9920512954071632]

BM
Distance: 8f --numRaces=43, avg=-0.9937558488222237]
Distance: 6f --numRaces=80, avg=-0.9587026090651879]
Distance: 5.5f --numRaces=12, avg=-0.7686714291715612]
Distance: 8.5f --numRaces=11, avg=-0.6540655510843734]

TUP
Distance: 8f --numRaces=65, avg=-0.5929288746897783]
Distance: 5.5f --numRaces=29, avg=-0.10165330109897557]
Distance: 6f --numRaces=83, avg=-0.022548251285014993]
Distance: 8.5f --numRaces=9, avg=-0.6578239998410204]
Distance: 5f --numRaces=1, avg=-0.23513832018303304]
Distance: 6.5f --numRaces=60, avg=-0.4367673781946396]

HST
Distance: 9f --numRaces=3, avg=-2.1938767821584926]
Distance: 6f --numRaces=5, avg=-2.7164174377369137]
Distance: 8.5f --numRaces=3, avg=-1.2209141597415822]
Distance: 6.5f --numRaces=27, avg=-1.995260458705693]

PM
Distance: 9f --numRaces=2, avg=-2.6583250895798827]
Distance: 8f --numRaces=65, avg=-3.9796263664841973]
Distance: 5.5f --numRaces=58, avg=-2.547515051304541]
Distance: 6f --numRaces=150, avg=-2.6678946683051987]
Distance: 8.5f --numRaces=19, avg=-3.5501268888160205]
Distance: 5f --numRaces=9, avg=-1.936127423093346]

Does any of these values seem to be on target? Is this a valid approach?

I was wondering if anyone else has tackled this thorny problem. It seems to me that only with accurate track-to-track variants can one assess shippers appropriately.

Maybe Mr. Dave Schwartz could lend some insight into this, and anyone else. Any suggestions, advice and/or ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

DarkDream

[sjk]

Didn't look at too hard but something you can compare with:

TRACK DISTANCE 1st call 2nd call final time
BM 1 1/16 MILES 0.08 -0.04 -0.80
BM 1 1/8 MILES -0.30 -1.04 -1.11
BM 1 MILE 0.35 -0.23 -0.49
BM 5 1/2 FURLONGS -0.09 -0.27 -0.64
BM 5 FURLONGS -0.32 -0.72 -1.19
BM 6 FURLONGS -0.59 -0.71 -1.19
GG 1 1/16 MILES 0.11 -0.17 -1.20
GG 1 1/8 MILES 0.10 -0.38 -1.47
GG 1 MILE 0.35 -0.10 -0.70
GG 5 1/2 FURLONGS 0.25 0.03 -0.32
GG 5 FURLONGS 0.15 -0.31 -0.70
GG 6 FURLONGS -0.08 -0.24 -0.86
HST 1 1/16 MILES -0.59 -1.00 -2.32
HST 1 1/8 MILES 0.05 -0.55 -2.02
HST 6 1/2 FURLONGS -0.16 -0.82 -1.78
HST 6 FURLONGS -0.66 -0.27 0.23
PM 1 1/16 MILES -0.39 -1.05 -3.40
PM 1 1/8 MILES -0.03 -0.71 -4.50
PM 1 MILE -0.67 -1.26 -2.70
PM 5 1/2 FURLONGS -0.86 -1.51 -2.56
PM 5 FURLONGS -1.01 -1.91 -2.23
PM 6 FURLONGS -0.73 -1.13 -2.37
TUP 1 1/16 MILES -0.46 -0.57 -0.98
TUP 1 1/8 MILES -0.35 -0.73 -0.95
TUP 1 MILE -0.01 -0.13 -0.30
TUP 5 1/2 FURLONGS -0.22 -0.10 -0.35
TUP 5 FURLONGS -0.14 -0.24 -0.59
TUP 6 1/2 FURLONGS -0.27 -0.21 -0.42
TUP 6 FURLONGS -0.25 -0.17 -0.44

[thoroughbred]

You might want to look into this for comparisons.

The BrisNet (BRIS) data files, such as their single file, comma delimited drf file, contains a speed rating in one of its fields. BRIS normalizes this speed rating over all the tracks.

By using the method described by Beyer, in one of his books, where he derives a variant from his speed rating, you can obtain a variant from the Bris Speed Rating.

End result, is that the variant is also normalized from track to track.

[kingfin66]

Hey Dark,

I just recently "discovered" Charles Carroll. I actually posted a shout out for info and got some good help from Karlskorner (thanks Karl!). I read the book and thought it was great. It is a little out of date now with the last reprint being in 1996. I started making basic numbers in a spreadsheet and they showed me enough to investigate further.

I ordered the softwar, Speed Handicapper v4.5, this weekend and let me tell you, I am very impressed. Keep in mind that I am delving into its use very slowly as this methodology and program is very new to me. The advantage of the program for you is that (a) it's cheap at $140, (b) it uses several types of data (ITS, DRF, BRIS, etc) and (c) it is normalized for all tracks. In fact, it is so normalized that it reasonably matches the 6.5f downhill turf course at Santa Anita with 6f dirt courses. It is easy to use and even has a betting component to it.

I don't want to sound like a schill for Carroll, but I am truly impressed with the program so far and it sounds like it can spare you a lot of time and trouble.

Regarding the issue of variants, Carroll is clearly against them. In fact, he states in the manual that the variants are included only because some user requested it but believes that they have less than -0- value or something to that effect. You can get more info from him by e-mailing him at info@desertsea.com. He is very quick to respond to e-mails although his answers are brief to say the least.

Good luck.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"2) Horses are fairly consistent in the times they post
3) Horses are competing generally in the same class levels"

I have no advice for you on constants, but on 2) and 3); at Emerald do you find certain races, ages, distances in particular where these hold up best?
How do you deal with off tracks and constants?

[DarkDream]

I don't want to sound like a schill for Carroll, but I am truly impressed with the program so far and it sounds like it can spare you a lot of time and trouble.


Kingfin,

Thanks for your response. I have noticed Carroll's speed figure program.

I'm more of a "do it yourself" type of guy. I believe from research and statistical analysis, I've been able to improve fairly significantly on Carroll's "Thoroughbred Base Points" chart that lists the world record times at various distances (with a few alterations in them due to the non-linear portion of the thoroughbred baseline).

One point Carroll, in my opinion erred on, is using the 1 mile world record time. This record was set by Dr. Fager in a one turn run. For races at a mile at one turn, this figure is fine. For many tracks that have two turns, the time is too low, causing too low speed figures for a mile.

Also the 5.5f time on the chart needed to be lowered. Speed figures were just too high for this time. This also needed to be done at 6.5f as well to a lesser degree.

I would love to know how he normalized the times between tracks. That way I could do it myself with my database and not speed money buying commercial results files.


Regarding the issue of variants, Carroll is clearly against them. In fact, he states in the manual that the variants are included only because some user requested it but believes that they have less than -0- value or something to that effect.


I have read that Carroll does not use variants in his handicapping. I do think you have a point here. However, I believe he is not so much against the idea of variants (even though he clearly points out the mystic dubious quality of them), but rather he believes that many a time a variant is overused and over applied. I agree with him completely.

However, I've come up with my own way of coming up with a variant in an automated fashion (I'm a programmer so I program everything). From my research, I've been able to improve the win% by around 2%.

My particular method only starts applying a variant where the overall figures are deviating by a significant amount from normal so as to not over apply the variants and only use them when there is a good chance that the track is really running fast or slow.


You can get more info from him by e-mailing him at info@desertsea.com. He is very quick to respond to e-mails although his answers are brief to say the least.


I might send him an e-mail and provide him with some of my thoughts on the subject.

Thanks,

DarkDream

[DarkDream]

You might want to look into this for comparisons.

The BrisNet (BRIS) data files, such as their single file, comma delimited drf file, contains a speed rating in one of its fields. BRIS normalizes this speed rating over all the tracks.

By using the method described by Beyer, in one of his books, where he derives a variant from his speed rating, you can obtain a variant from the Bris Speed Rating.

End result, is that the variant is also normalized from track to track.

Thanks for your input.

I understand the BRIS figures are normalized to begin with, thus eliminating the problem I now am facing. However, I'm more into figuring out how the normalization is done. This is so I can go ahead and do it myself.

I'm of the opinion that you can always improve on one's methods. Without doing knowing the method, I can't improve on it.

On a side note, I've read your paper on your engineering analysis of thoroughbred racing. From reading various training manuals and studying basic horse biochemistry dealing with anaerobic and aerobic metabolisms, I'm convinced that a horse's ability is directly related to their ability to sprint/accelerate and the stamina or the ability to maintain speed over a long period of time (to resist steep changes in speed).

I recommend you to go ahead and go to www.chef-de-race.com (http://www.chef-de-race.com/) and read the article on "The Relationship Between Time, Distance, and Fatigue."

The author uses an equation expressing a power-law relationship very similar to the equation you use: s(t) = Se^-Ft. I'm sure by looking at this, you can see how one can come up with a similar figure to your Boxer figure.

--DarkDream

[Light]

DD

I think Carroll has you in a corner. Like King says,Carroll doesn't believe in variants. Yet you are asking to compare tracks. How to do this and still be a Carroll follower is beyond me(and I think Carroll).That's why as you pointed out,Carroll's method of comparing tracks is weak.If you want to do this,you must realize that your Carroll system is now a Carroll hybrid. But I think that would be an improvement.

If you decide to hybridize,I have 2 suggestions. Simple one is track equalization as described by Brohamer in Modern Pace Handicapping.Best easy method I've found.

More accurate but lots of work and a form of heresy in the Carroll world is to make track pars using the home track. Then create daily variants at the shipper tracks based on pars from the home track not the shippers track.Otherwise you are still comparing apples and oranges.This is far more accurate than any other form of track comparison when a horse ships into your track because now you have a horse to horse relationship(more relevant) rather than a track to track relationship(less relavant).

[DarkDream]

Didn't look at too hard but something you can compare with:

TRACK DISTANCE 1st call 2nd call final time
BM 1 1/16 MILES 0.08 -0.04 -0.80
BM 1 1/8 MILES -0.30 -1.04 -1.11
BM 1 MILE 0.35 -0.23 -0.49
BM 5 1/2 FURLONGS -0.09 -0.27 -0.64
BM 5 FURLONGS -0.32 -0.72 -1.19
BM 6 FURLONGS -0.59 -0.71 -1.19
GG 1 1/16 MILES 0.11 -0.17 -1.20
GG 1 1/8 MILES 0.10 -0.38 -1.47
GG 1 MILE 0.35 -0.10 -0.70
GG 5 1/2 FURLONGS 0.25 0.03 -0.32
GG 5 FURLONGS 0.15 -0.31 -0.70
GG 6 FURLONGS -0.08 -0.24 -0.86
HST 1 1/16 MILES -0.59 -1.00 -2.32
HST 1 1/8 MILES 0.05 -0.55 -2.02
HST 6 1/2 FURLONGS -0.16 -0.82 -1.78
HST 6 FURLONGS -0.66 -0.27 0.23
PM 1 1/16 MILES -0.39 -1.05 -3.40
PM 1 1/8 MILES -0.03 -0.71 -4.50
PM 1 MILE -0.67 -1.26 -2.70
PM 5 1/2 FURLONGS -0.86 -1.51 -2.56
PM 5 FURLONGS -1.01 -1.91 -2.23
PM 6 FURLONGS -0.73 -1.13 -2.37
TUP 1 1/16 MILES -0.46 -0.57 -0.98
TUP 1 1/8 MILES -0.35 -0.73 -0.95
TUP 1 MILE -0.01 -0.13 -0.30
TUP 5 1/2 FURLONGS -0.22 -0.10 -0.35
TUP 5 FURLONGS -0.14 -0.24 -0.59
TUP 6 1/2 FURLONGS -0.27 -0.21 -0.42
TUP 6 FURLONGS -0.25 -0.17 -0.44

Sjk,

Thanks a lot for your times. If you don't mind me asking, where did you come by these times? Did you make them yourself? If so, how did you do so?

I went ahead and compared my times to yours. I noticed that the first fraction times were remarkably close no more that tenth of a second from your times.

My second fraction and second call times faired a little worse. Finally, some of my final times were simply off (my final time for PM 8f and GG 6f).

I went ahead and tested some of your times, against what I came up with, and yours are quite good -- better than what I came up with in some definite instances.

The problem I think is averaging simply the 2nd call and final call times. From my research, the 1st fraction times can be averaged from around 7 recent races (little deviation in times for horses). When it comes to pace call and final times this does not work.

I'm going to try some more tweaks.

Thanks again. Any input on where and how you got your times would be great!

--DarkDream

[kingfin66]

Dark,

I believe that sjk has a large database which he used to compile the times.

[DarkDream]

DD

I think Carroll has you in a corner. Like King says,Carroll doesn't believe in variants. Yet you are asking to compare tracks. How to do this and still be a Carroll follower is beyond me(and I think Carroll).That's why as you pointed out,Carroll's method of comparing tracks is weak.If you want to do this,you must realize that your Carroll system is now a Carroll hybrid. But I think that would be an improvement.

Light,

You are right Carroll does not believe in variants, but he does believe in what he terms "track constants." To quote from his book:



The running distance of the Thoroughbred flying start has considerable effect upon first-quarter times and final times at different distances on the same track. . . . These are one form of "track constants."

A more obvious track constant, . . ., is the layout of the race -- for example, one-turn miles at physically larger tracks like Hollywood Park . . .

Less apparent constants can be seen when comparing times between similar, large-oval tracks and at different distances on the same track, when for example, five-furlong races are started on the curve . . .


From "Handicapping Speed: The Thoroughbred and Quarter Horse Sprinters", Carroll.

I hope you can see that Carroll sees track constants a function of the actual physical reality of the track, the length of the flying start, how for a particular race distance the starters and placed in relation to the curve and so on.


If you decide to hybridize,I have 2 suggestions. Simple one is track equalization as described by Brohamer in Modern Pace Handicapping.Best easy method I've found.


I've read that part of the book on Modern Pace Handicapping. The only problem with this method is the need to construct par times and the assumption that a 10,000 claimer from one track is similar in ability to other 10,000 claimers at another track. Beyer, in "Beyer in Speed", flatly states that, "I had once erred in basing figures on the premise that all $10,000 claimers are pretty much the same."


More accurate but lots of work and a form of heresy in the Carroll world is to make track pars using the home track. Then create daily variants at the shipper tracks based on pars from the home track not the shippers track.Otherwise you are still comparing apples and oranges.This is far more accurate than any other form of track comparison when a horse ships into your track because now you have a horse to horse relationship(more relevant) rather than a track to track relationship(less relavant).

This to me is *way* too much work. The whole beauty of Carroll's approach is to avoid having to make pars.

Anyway, thanks for your input.

--DarkDream

[kingfin66]

I don't intend to get into a big pissing match here, but I do need to make a couple of points. First, when I say that Carroll doesn't believe in variants, it's not as though he is just randomly stating this. He is making his argument has on science and what is and isn't testable. I would post his argument from the software user manual, but I believe that I may be violating copyright laws.

Also, a lot of what you know of Carroll's track-to-track comparison method is from what was published in his book. He spent 2+ years developing a different way to do it. This is programmed into the software. He doesn't tell how he does it now, noting that it is proprietary.

You mentioned Modern Pace Handicapping. It's been a really long time since I've read that book. If memory serves me correctly Brohamer pointed out some weaknesses with using track variants. Of course, I could be confusing my books. After you read a lot, stuff kind of starts blurring together.

[sjk]

DD,

I keep pars and make variants for all the tracks and I have just subtracted the par times at each track from the corresponding par times at EMD. I have never bet a dime at EMD, PM or HST and only rarely at the other western tracks and only have these times for the rare occasion when one of your horses shows up at an eastern track.

To make the pars I do the usual sort of thing where I make pars for each class of race and average the adjusted times to make the par times. I can't say that I have taken much care with the pars at the tracks in your area. In particular Hst runs a lot of really unusual looking conditons.

If anyone knows what R8000NW2LX means, I have always wondered.

[cnollfan]

Knowing nothing about Hastings, it looks like an $8000 claiming race for horses that have not won two races lifetime; however, races below $8000 claiming are not considered, so a horse may have won several cheaper races and still be eligible.

[sjk]

Seems logical. Thanks for the answer.

[Light]

This to me is *way* too much work.

--DarkDream


Before the internet changed horseracing,I would only play Cal tracks which meant invaders from North to South and vice-versa. I used to make my own variants for both tracks so shippers were no problem. I mean how many shippers do you have to be concerned with on a card? Half of them had no form to worry about and you had maybe 3 or 4 on a weekend card you had to check out. Took about 10 minutes. Not trying to tell you what to do,but if someone only plays one track,I can't buy that excuse.

[karlskorner]

Mike;

In you PM, a suggestion as to how Carroll might have done track to track adjustments.

[Dave Schwartz]

Dark Dream,

Perhaps this document will help.

http://www.horsestreet.com/products/pars/2005Pars/index.html

Dave

[DarkDream]

I mean how many shippers do you have to be concerned with on a card? Half of them had no form to worry about and you had maybe 3 or 4 on a weekend card you had to check out. Took about 10 minutes. Not trying to tell you what to do,but if someone only plays one track,I can't buy that excuse.

In general, the only shippers to Emerald Downs are from Hastings, Bay Meadows, Golden Gate, Turf Paradise and Portland Meadows.

Just glancing at the past performances of horses racing at Emerald Downs, I would easily say more than half the horses have races from the tracks I mentioned above.

In my computer handicapping, I sometimes look at a horse's most recent 10 past performances. As this is the case, I must deal on a regular basis, in developing my figures, the time adjustments associated with other tracks.

What I was referring to as to taking a lot of time, is incorporating in my programming functionality that would try to build par times for the various class levels for the four tracks.

Maybe if I took a more manual approach, I agree, maybe it would not be such a big deal.

As for my own personal handicapping, I don't handicap. I have my own program that picks the winners (some of the time at least;)) for me.

--DarkDream

[DarkDream]

DD,

I keep pars and make variants for all the tracks and I have just subtracted the par times at each track from the corresponding par times at EMD. I have never bet a dime at EMD, PM or HST and only rarely at the other western tracks and only have these times for the rare occasion when one of your horses shows up at an eastern track.


Sjk,

Thanks for the explaination.

One quick question, did you average all the differences between the par times for each of the corresponding class levels?

I'm assuming you did this instead of arbritrarily picking, let's say, the 10,000 Claimer time at GG and subtracting it from the EMD 10,000 time to get your track constant.

Thanks again,

--DD

[sjk]

The "par times" are the times that would correspond to an 80 figure. According to my pars a 10000 claimer at Emd has a par of 77 while the 10000 at GG has a par of 84.8.

[DarkDream]

Dark Dream,

Perhaps this document will help.

http://www.horsestreet.com/products/pars/2005Pars/index.html

Dave

Dave,

Thanks for responding to my post. I did go ahead and had a good look at the link you presented above.

Having studied the material, I am not clear on some issues.

I am not fully clear the difference between the "Track Pars" and the "Class Pars." The class pars, as I understand, list all the par times for various classes at pretty much all minor and major tracks in North America.

The "Track Pars", on the otherhand, lists all the tracks together with a representative time for each distance. This is so to compare relative track speeds. Is this correct?

Are these times based on a theoretical $10,000 claiming level for each track?

In otherwords, if one were to use the "Track Pars" for one track to compare the time to another track at the same distance, would this equate to the "track constant" or track-to-track variant?

If so, how did you come up with these track-to-track variants? How do you know, for example, a $10,000 claimer is equal in ability to another $10,000 claimer at another track?

Thanks,

--DarkDream

[JackS]

DD- I think you can use the average track Variant to adjust between tracks. If you are comparing two tracks with horses of equal calibre and the average TV were 15 for one and 20 for the other but otherwise all times were equal, the track with the 20 TV should be slightly preffered. The difference of 5pts would be equal to 2.5 lengths. If you are adjusting for the class of the track itself, you'll have to come to a reasonable opinion on your own or purchase this information from someone. Many use 20-25% going from high class to mid class to low class.