Thorostats Par Times

[shanta]

I have been spending some time on the website milling around a bit checking out their program. They also have a complete set of both par times and class levels built for almost every track running. Has anyone checked out their data? Good? Ok? Bad?

Btw it is all FREE
http://thorostats.com/

Regards
Richie

[traveler]

I registered on their site yesterday. I downloaded a card today and thought I would download a Bris condesed PP(which are free this month ) and compare some of the numbers for the fun of it. Does anyone(Murph?)know the reason for offering a sophisticated, well laid-out site for free, with some great info?
Guess I should be asking on their forum, but I am here right now and lazy. :sleeping:

[Murph]

Our web site is currently undergoing intense development. What you see on the site today has been online since FEB 2004. Our present site is like the tip of an iceberg of possibilities that we are exploring.

Tony and I have combined our lifetimes handicapping rescources and personal networks and published our work for all to see and use. We are very proud of our baby and we want to make certain that everyone notices her fine features.

As many of you know, babies grow up quickly and Dad becomes more protective. Everyone, please use and enjoy the website at your pleasure during this stage in our progress. Take the opportunity to help us during our development and we will strive to present a better online handicapping solution for our users.

We have a lot to do and learn as we grow and we have been very fortunate in cultivating relationships with some very talented people who are commited to this project. For an example of our work, we have published some documentation off of the main site here.
http://www.xanga.com/thorostats

I'd like to thank everyone at PA for their interest. It's very gratifying.

Murph

[andicap]

On the site Mike Powers wrote

"this project has been a labour of love for the game."

Is Mr. Powers British? Or just an Anglophile?

;)

[traveler]

If he drinks Molson and eats lots of donuts - Tim Horton brand, I'm betting Canadian, eh! :) By the way so as not insult anyone, we vacation in Canada
and even had a lawyer steal thousands from us there, just like the good old USA!

[RXB]

My first suggestion, Murph: modify the class pars, which are presently based only on nominal purse levels. Woodbine is not the classiest track in North America.

[cj]

Maybe he needs to convert Candian dollars to American for purse levels?

[andicap]

are they also adjusted for inflated purse levels of state-bred horses and racinos like Charles Town/MNR, etc.?

[Light]

Murph

The most interesting area of your site is the "program performance" with instant ROI for any set of criteria. But I believe there is a major error in the program. I found that the criteria of playing 6f races at GG and or BM 3yo&up,males only on the dirt boxing 4 horses from the "class" selections was producing an ROI you could retire on. What I just discovered was the program was correct in it's cost to the user based on a $1 exacta box,but the payout is for a $2 based exacta. I just checked it for March 16 for that criteria and it correctly states that there were 4 qualifying races with an investment of $48. The error is the return was $16,not the $32 it reports.

[RXB]

Maybe he needs to convert Candian dollars to American for purse levels?

Yeah, that might be part of it. Andicap mentioned what I think is the biggest factor: the quality of competition at the racinos does not match up to the purse structures.

On another matter, a typical Kee MSW is not as nearly as tough as a standard Clf Alw at Arlington, especially during AP's peak period from mid-July through August. Yet they get the same class ratings by this method.

I'm not a fan of using purse structures to determine class levels, at least not as the sole determinant. Too many inconsistencies.

[michiken]

Pardon my bad but the fixed css background makes this page hard to read as shown in the attached photo.

[tboles]

RXB stated:My first suggestion, Murph: modify the class pars, which are presently based only on nominal purse levels. Woodbine is not the classiest track in North America
Cj replied:Maybe he needs to convert Candian dollars to American for purse levels?

I do believe you guys have found the problem. I had never noticed this before and when I called Murph the first thing he said "Currency exchange rate could be causing the problem".

THANKS Rxb and CJ for your pointing this out to us!!! That's one of the reasons our reports are free. We have depended on users helping us smooth out the edges of the program. I personally have been spending countless hours making sure everything looks and operates well but there will be things I miss.

[tboles]

Andicap asks:are they also adjusted for inflated purse levels of state-bred horses and racinos like Charles Town/MNR, etc.?

We are constantly tweaking both class pars and track pars. There will always be work to be done in this area. Never ending battle...

Andicap, what do you feel should be the average purse level for tracks like Charlestown and Mountaineer at MSW levels?


RXB:I'm not a fan of using purse structures to determine class levels, at least not as the sole determinant.

RXB do you feel there could be a better way to handle determining class levels at tracks? I am always up to new challenges if I have direction :)

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment and help us improve the reports!

[tboles]

Light reports:I believe there is a major error in the program. I found that the criteria of playing 6f races at GG and or BM 3yo&up,males only on the dirt boxing 4 horses from the "class" selections was producing an ROI you could retire on. What I just discovered was the program was correct in it's cost to the user based on a $1 exacta box,but the payout is for a $2 based exacta. I just checked it for March 16 for that criteria and it correctly states that there were 4 qualifying races with an investment of $48. The error is the return was $16,not the $32 it reports.
Light, this bums me out!!! I was thinking the same as you...I can retire now!
I looked at the "Program Performance" reports earlier in the year and was astounded that ALL races, without having to use the Prog Perf to narrow selections, was making a HUGE profit.

What we have discovered since you reported this...
Sometime this year a certain track went to reporting their exactas as a 1.00 exacta. Once this happened, somehow, someway, it caused our Program Performance tool to go haywire when reporting the exactas. For instance,
I noticed that one track was calculating the exacta as a 2.00 box and another track was calculating as a 1.00 box. Same with the payouts.

This is one item that will get "immediate" attention! I have already reported this to our programming dept and they assured me this was priority over our new release!!!

Light says:The most interesting area of your site is the "program performance" with instant ROI for any set of criteria.

Thanks Light. I have searched for the Holy Grail in horse racing for years. To date, I have not found a program that is consistent in ALL races on every card, including Thorostats. However with the Program Performance tool I have been able to find which types of races are performing well at my track.
We post our results all year long, good or bad! You cannot win if you don't know where you are losing.

Although I am in tears now :) I APPRECIATE you taking the time to post your findings and report this bug!!! It will be squashed asap!

[tboles]

Last but not least....
Michiken reports:Pardon my bad but the fixed css background makes this page hard to read as shown in the attached photo.

Ok now I must confess...I am a ROOKIE at Html and CSS. This was just a Blog I was trying to create for the first time which is entirely separate from our main site. Just a diversion or hobby for now.

I have visited a couple of friends today and viewed this from their machines and all is fine when viewing this page. I do not see what you see. It's obvious you had a problem though. What browser do you use if I may ask? Is this problem specific to having an attached photo with css programming inside of it? Help!

Again, thanks to everyone giving us input on your findings. As you get to know us you will find that we try to take care of any issues our members point out. Those of you who know me can testify to that.

MAN what I busy day I'm having :)

[michiken]

+tboles+

I am using Mozilla Firefox 1.5 running on Fedora Linux. The links below will help make the pages work better across all platforms.

1. I am not an expert on css (cascading style sheet). I know just enough to get by. I use this page to help me identify css errors: WC3 CSS Validator (http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator-uri.html)

2. Before you check the css, you need to check the html code: WC3 HTML Validator (http://validator.w3.org/)

3. You might want to write the style sheet as a separate file and link it to all pages. This will allow you fix the css or change the whole look of the site in a modular fashion. (Make sure to edit the css file in notepad or text editor only).

4. Assuming that you have a style sheet named xanga.css, you would place the following code in all of the head sections of your html documents:

<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="xanga.css">

5. I have found that I start with the base html without the above style sheet linked, I can verify and get that correct first. I then add the css link and go from there.

6. You can also use 2 css styles; one for the SCREEN display and one for PRINTING as shown here (http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/css/style-html.html). This can allow you to hide buttons, forms, etc while printing.


<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="xanga-screen.css" media=screen>
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="xanga-print.css" media=print>

7. When specifying fonts, I suggest that you add more than Verdana and call out font sizes in percent. This can help in older browsers:

font-family: arial, verdana, serif; sans-serif, helvetica;
font-size: 100%;

[RXB]

We are constantly tweaking both class pars and track pars. There will always be work to be done in this area. Never ending battle...

RXB do you feel there could be a better way to handle determining class levels at tracks? I am always up to new challenges if I have direction :)

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment and help us improve the reports!

I can only tell you how I learned to handle it: I watched a gazillion races all across the continent, and studied the PP's, and it all sank in. :faint:

Here are my comments about your chart:

1. The problem re: slots-- and other forms of gaming subsidy-- has already been noted. State-bred money is another fly in the ointment. Also, be aware that a southern winter track (most notably Gulfstream) can get away with paying lower purses than a northern winter track of comparable quality. Those are some of the reasons why using purses to construct class charts is an unreliable method.

2. Your claiming class values are adjusted by one point per level. However, your MSW/allowance class values are also adjusted by one point per level, when in fact the jump from one non-claiming condition to the next is frequently tougher than a single level rise in claiming value. Having looked over the chart, I think you need to lower most of your MSW and (perhaps to a lesser extent) N1X ratings.

3. If you really want to do it right, you need to create separate ratings for turf and dirt. One of the first things that I discovered when I first started handicapping grass races is that it's significantly tougher for claimers to win allowance races on the turf compared to dirt.

4. An accurate speed figure chart helps with class determinations (especially on the dirt).

5. You also need to adjust for age. A 50k claimer for older horses has the same purse as a 50k claimer for 3YO's, but the quality of competition is much stronger in the older race-- and the earlier in the year, the bigger the difference.

Good luck with your site. Be aware of the competition-- with a guy like cj out there, selling top quality figures at a reasonable price, a pretty high standard has been set. Your stuff is a long way from being at that level.

[Tom]

tboles, I likw your site, and I really like your positive response to "customer" feedback.


Good luck with your project (you too, murph!)

[andicap]

Andicap asks:

We are constantly tweaking both class pars and track pars. There will always be work to be done in this area. Never ending battle...

Andicap, what do you feel should be the average purse level for tracks like Charlestown and Mountaineer at MSW levels?


RXB:

RXB do you feel there could be a better way to handle determining class levels at tracks? I am always up to new challenges if I have direction :)

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment and help us improve the reports!

IMHO, the best way is not to rely soley on par times, etc., but also eyeball races themselves. How do CT MSW horses do when shipped to another track. Are the MSW winners competitive at NW1 at Philly? If so, that doesn't prove the MSW classes are the same, but it's a strong hint.

Here's an example a horse who had been running at LRL MCL 10K -- not very competiitively but not badly, went to CT Saturday nite and finished a good 3rd for M16K. That suggests (although doesn't prove) that the 10K MCL at LRL would destroy the CT 16K MCL. Of course the 4.5f distances at CT make it extra tricky because you're not how much the distance effects the result. Once you position the CT 16K in relation to the LRL mcl10, you can figure out how the LRL 10K race fits in at other tracks and get some idea on how the classes match up.

As RXB pointed out times of the year are also critical, both for age of the horse and quality of the track itself. And some tracks have claimers confined to just 4 yr olds! How do these stack up vs. the older claimers?
Aqueduct's winter meet is certainly not on the level of Class B tracks' summer meets. I used to hear that the Kee fall meet wasn't as strong as the spring meet although I don't know if that's really the case.

[tboles]

RXB stated:Good luck with your site. Be aware of the competition-- with a guy like cj out there, selling top quality figures at a reasonable price, a pretty high standard has been set

Rxb, thank you for your constructive criticism! Its posts like this that drive us to improving our online tools. I also thank you for wishing us well.

Given the things you have suggested…all those are items that we will constantly be improving on! Cj himself is most likely striving to improve on his base product. I would like to comment on Cj’s pp’s and give him his props due. I like the layout of his pp’s, very nicely done http://www.pacefigures.com/explanation.html (http://www.pacefigures.com/explanation.html)

Cj’s site is limited to a certain number of members and that membership was closed when I tried to login. We opted not to limit our member base. This is a personal preference of site owners and I “do not” fault Cj nor anyone who wishes to operate that way.

I DO accept competition and I truly believe that competition drives all site owners to “improve” on their current tools, software or various other forms of information made available to the public. This type of atmosphere also helps promote the industry and better educates the novice just learning the sport! It tends to inspire newcomers to the game, and to help them understand some of the mysteries of handicapping. Let’s promote the sport, and hopefully one day it will become as popular as the WPT.

In your response to higher standards and quality figs….
I randomly chose gp 03/18/06 races at Cj’s site and compared those to our numbers. Albeit, what I see on Cj’s side is not his complete package, it does show his Speed Figs. Posted below are our results. I’m happy with how our ratings performed on this day. In seeing these results we’ll strive to bring those horse’s ranked 2nd to the top and with our new release, this maybe possible. Who knows?

http://static.flickr.com/42/115063878_3c8c101d19_o.jpg



I would like to use an example below after looking at Cj's speed ratings (http://www.pacefigures.com/gp_060318C.htm)
For GP 3/18/06 In this race the horse did not run in 196 days however his only race rating dominated this field and so did his connections. Long layoff for a young horse after only “one” race does not shy me away. Nice tri to boot!

http://static.flickr.com/55/115063877_5443396388_o.jpg


Here in this example GP 03/17/06…The 2 listed on top is a horse I believe is keeping his edge and comparable with the others. With the 3 and the 4 horse’s declining speed I am suspect of those horses. On Cj’s figs I seen the #2 declining in speed last race.

http://static.flickr.com/38/115063876_d970cfcd0f_o.jpg


Again this may only be a couple of races to compare but I am happy with our reports!! Murph posted our results for all tracks a couple days ago.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26491

I want you to note that Speed Figs for “me” only point to the horses' current form. Not in all cases but it’s the foundation that I use for my handicapping. We have other factors that play an important role in the handicapping process. I believe that ALL sheets, Speed Figs, software have the potential to produce winners “IF” a user finds one and learns how to use it to his advantage. Murph is working hard to educate our members who have questions about how to use our tools.

We post our results 24/7 for all to see and think everyone should do this so the user gets a better understanding of a product. I want my members knowing which tracks to stay away from. These results also help us to improve our tools!

Lastly Rxb…I am happy that you and many others have found what works for you be it with Cj or other vendors. I would never try to sway you to the other side. However currently, for the price of nothing, you are welcome to view our site and who knows maybe you may find something to add to your arsenal of what you already use. What if our ratings and Cj’s agree and you are able to increase your roi?

We do have some ideas for future programming that would include possible alliances with other handicapping sites to help promote this great sport and industry. It’s important for “US” to keep a good line of communication open with both members and other vendors in the industry.

I would like to briefly introduce some of our staff …


Dr. Stan Liachev...Lead programmer and a good friend of mine. We worked on other handicapping software projects back in the late 90’s. I have the utmost respect and admiration for Stan.


Mike Powers…………Support and development and friend for 30 yrs. Murph
came onboard after launch. Uses the sheets better than those who developed them. Went to NHC VII using our reports.


Sergey................Our Java guru and master developer!
Galena................Site design!
Georgy…………………Marketing tiger!
Tony...………………….Support and development

All are owners of the site, dedicated to the member and to the promotion of Horse Racing!

Again, Thanks for your comments to help us improve our tools!!
Sorry so long but I had to defend what we do! Cj, keep doing what you’re doing and I’m sorry if you think I may have picked on you. That is not the case! I respect you!

[tboles]

To Shanta, Light and Tom, thank you for your kind words. If you need anything please do not hesitate to contact us. We work hard to bring users what they want and DO listen to any ideas they may have. If you log into our site you will see from our survey created at www.keysurvey.com (http://www.keysurvey.com/) what plans we are working on. We built the basic structure and content, now its time for the members to take over.

[RXB]

Tboles, sorry for the delay in replying. (On vacation last week.)

I should have been more specific when I said that "your stuff is a long way from being at (cj's) level." I was referring particularly to the class pars; I haven't read your reports or selections.

P.S., I don't use cj's numbers, but I remember being impressed by his reasoning back in the days when the derivation of the numbers was more fully explained on his web site. And his customers sure seem to be satisfied.

[tboles]

Hope you had a great vacation!

I guess we will have to work harder :)