Measuring Class

[Boulder]

Does anyone know of any mechanical method to measure class? Stakes races are obvious, but what about cheap claimers?

[Tom]

What is obvious about stakes?

[46zilzal]

Does anyone know of any mechanical method to measure class? Stakes races are obvious, but what about cheap claimers?
FORGET about MAN-MADE classifications of horses and YOU decide if horse A can run with horse B. Greatest epiphany in my entire 40+ years following the track was to realize that horse's can't read the condition book and simply run versus one another.

[kenwoodallpromos]

IMO ITM= class.

[Dave Schwartz]

Why would anyone need a class on measuring?


:lol:


Sorry. Couldn't help it.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Does anyone know of any mechanical method to measure class? Stakes races are obvious, but what about cheap claimers?
_
I measure mine by HAND! :lol:

[michiken]

Class to me is when a horse repeats his speed and/or pace figures consistently.

For example, a cheap sprinter/claimer may run a speed figure pattern as shown in the past performances something like 70-38-65-95-73-42-30:

a. Looking over this pattern, I would estimate this horse to run in the neighborhood of 65-72. I would also look at the distance(s) ran in this range and assess if it is similar to today's distance. This will point to the horses optimum energy distribution at the distance.

b. The big 95 was probably earned at a very short sprint on a lightning fast track. The BIG FIG horse that is stretching out today is almost always a bet against for me. Ask yourself HOW and WHY did the horse improve over 20 points compared to what he normally runs?

c. Reading between the lines, could the low speed figures have been earned at a route distance where the trainer was using it for a 6 furlong conditioner/tightener?

d. Conversly, a higher class horse would carry a tighter speed rating pattern i.e. 98-103-96-92-101-100

In my mind a numerical class rating could be done by a combination of 2 figs:

a. Calculating an 'average' speed figure rating at a similar distance after throwing out abhorent numbers.

b. Calculating the average %E numbers of the speed figures chosen and comparing them to a track model.

=================== On another note ===================

I also remember seeing a class formula that was based on a horse's earnings:

[2 x (number of starts this year)] / total earnings + [1 x (number of starts prior year)]/ prior year earnings.

(Don't quote me on this formula because it was many years ago at DRC that was taught to me by an ole timer).

[twindouble]

There's an awful lot to be said about class and conditions, personally I'd like to see some standardization including rules through out the industry in writing conditions. It's all a mixed bag, that's for sure.

What do you think?


T.D.

[betovernetcapper]

There are some aberrations, but in general classier races tend to be faster races. I use a PP from HDW that shows the horse's Cramer rating (like a Beyer rating) and the race's Cramer rating.
example
horse A 61-70
horse B 61-64
All things being equal I'd assume A was running in a classier field.

[twindouble]

There are some aberrations, but in general classier races tend to be faster races. I use a PP from HDW that shows the horse's Cramer rating (like a Beyer rating) and the race's Cramer rating.
example
horse A 61-70
horse B 61-64
All things being equal I'd assume A was running in a classier field.

Sure what if horse B move to another track, moves up in class wins and runs a 65-72? Who's the classier horse then?

[46zilzal]

a horse's race cannot be ascribed to a single number if you want ANY logical assessment of it's performance. without intermediate time assessment you'll be fooled.

[betovernetcapper]

Sure what if horse B move to another track, moves up in class wins and runs a 65-72? Who's the classier horse then?

There are two figures, one earned by the horse and one earned by the winner of the race. If horse won the race, it would be 72-72. If horse B won a race and earned a 72, I'd assume the class of that race was a 72. If B earned the 72 under special circumstances like being the lone speed or having a terrible trip,then the 72 is questionable.

[twindouble]

There are two figures, one earned by the horse and one earned by the winner of the race. If horse won the race, it would be 72-72. If horse B won a race and earned a 72, I'd assume the class of that race was a 72. If B earned the 72 under special circumstances like being the lone speed or having a terrible trip,then the 72 is questionable.

Now you know for sure I don't pay any attention to numbers. I understand there's variables in making numbers as a matter of fact there's many in any given race, that's why I don't use the numbers.

An example of what I'm talking about is State Bred horses having 6 or more shots at Alw44000 n1x then allowed to move up to Alw51,000 n1x and not win anything. They aren't Alw horses in my opinion, most are low ranking claimers, they should be forced to drop. To top it off this trash is running for $51,000 purse. Privileged because they are state bred's.

[betovernetcapper]

NW-2 Alw races can vary widely. Some of them consist of hopeless sucker horse types and and maiden winners that have taken 10 or more starts to break their maiden. This type of NW-2 Alw tends to be won in comparatively slow time. Another group of NW-2 can have future stakes winners and tend to be won in fast time. Some NW-2 for 2 year olds can shape up as tough as a baby stakes. They each show up in PP as NW-2 and with the same purse but one type is classier (faster) than the other.

[DrugSalvastore]

The word class means different things to different people.

I dismiss the word from my handicapping vocabulary. Some people, like the guy who posts here under the name Class Handicapper, do the opposite.

I think I go about evaluating the quality of competiton a horse has been facing, in a much different way than people who label themselves as "class" handicappers do.

A need-the-lead type of horse might have a better chance of winning if he catches a tough field lacking in pace, than he does if he catches a soft field over-flowing with stoppers and other need-the-lead types.

A dirt closer might have a better chance of winning if he catches a tough field over-flowing with speed, than he does if he catches a fairly soft field with no pace in it.

It is also a tremendous folly to define class based on the conditions and value of the race. Sometimes there are strong open $12,500 claimers that are as good as your typical $25,000 claiming race. Sometimes there are weak $12,500 claimers that are no better than your typical $6,250 claimer.

I've seen dreadful Grade 1 Stake races that are no better than your typical Grade 3. I've seen strong Grade 3 Stake races that are as good as your typical Grade 1 race.

Basically, each race is it's own entity, and each horse is it own entity.

When I do my trip notes, and evaluate a race, here is what I'm looking for and what I will be writing into my notes.

* Quality of race for level- Was the race better or worse than the typical race at the this class level? And how much better of worse was it? Sometimes I will start off my final evaluation like this "this looked like a real strong race for the level on paper, however, it disappointed...." and sometimes you'll get one of these "This looked like a pretty soft race for the level on paper, however, two horses both jumped up and performed dramatically better than in there previous races. Those two seperated themselves from the field by double digit lengths in tremendously sharp time for the level" However, the majority of the time, when a race looks pretty bad for the level going in, it often grades out bad as well. When the race looks strong for the level going on, if often grades out strong as well.

* An analysis of the pace while trying to identify the strongest and weakest parts of the race- Just like above, I will make note of any pace scenario that looks fast or slow going into the race. Sometime I will end writing something like "this race was loaded with speed on paper, however, all but the pace setters jockey seemed intent on rating there horses back early on in fear of avoiding a destructive pace battle. The early pace was only average for the level. Sometimes I end up writing something like "This looked like a totally paceless race on paper, however, a few horses were very aggressively warmed up in the pre-race, and several jockies hustled there horses away from the gate. The early pace ended up quite honest for the level." I also believe it's very important to identify the fastest and weakest parts of a race for many reasons. One of which is trip related. I tend to upgrade trouble if it occured in a strong part of the race. I will also downgrade trouble that a horse encounters if it occurs in a weak part of the race. The exception to that would be in the case of troubled starts. A horse who has a poor start, and now finds himself well off a fast early pace, might be lucking into an excellent trip. Meanwhile, a horse who breaks uncharacteristicly sharp, might actually pay for it if speed horses come to him quickly and the competitve nature of the horse doesn't allow him to shuffle himself back into a good tactical spot, like a good jockey will try to do in that scenerio. One more thing about pace---I will sometimes downgrade a fast pace if a couple of horses who aren't overly logical survived it and ran quite well. Likewise, if the pace seems very slow, I will still upgrade it if a pair of horses who aren't overly logical come sweeping up and both run well.

* An analysis of the horses trip and the kind of circumstances he faced in the race- I believe pace, circumstances, and trip are all tied together. How good was the effort of the 3rd place finisher? He was the horse who raced at the back of the pack---and made a four wide rally through the turn? Well, if the horse had no pace in-front of him, and made that wide run to finish 3rd beaten by a pair of horses who were 1-2 throughout--that effort of his was excellent. Now, if that horse had a hot pace in front of him, and he made that wide run to finish 3rd by circling a bunch of exhusted stoppers, and finished behind two other off-the-pace types...I'd say that horse ran a pretty mediocre 3rd! What if a speed horse, breaking from a wide post in a route, battles for the lead early and finishes 4th...how was his trip? Well, if he got hung wide on the first turn, while in a pace battle through fast early fractions, that kind of horse has every right to stop late in the race. If his two other pace rivals finished behind him...I'd say this horse ran fantastic. Now, if he was hung wide on the first turn, while being one of three horses sparing for the early lead through soft fractions, and he finishes behind the other two at the wire...he ran mediocre. If a horse encounters serious trouble, and he does it in a slow part of the race, I will ignore it altogher in my notes. If he gets checked sharply while making a move into the swiftest part of the race (from an adjusted fraction standpoint) I will really upgrade the trouble.

* Track bias or Track trends- I'm not a big bias guy...but they certainly do exist. I'm always on the look out for them. Sometimes you will see a post position bias at a certain distance, sometimes you will see an actual track bias.

* Helpful tidbits. - I always look up the pedigree for each debuter in the race and make notes of anything real important. If all five of the horses siblings thrived on turf, or in dirt route races, and he's running five furlongs on the dirt...obviously I need to make note of that. If the horse is debuting for a decent sire, whos offspring win at a 5% clip or less with debuters, from a big enough sample size, I will note that. If a horse sold at a 2-year-old in training sale, I will note his time and sometimes watch his "under-tack" workout looking for any helpful clues. If you have a claiming race, and more than half the field was claimed, I will note that. There are many other things.

Anyway, doing all of this is not the easiest way to attack this game. However, it's the only way I know that I can guarantee will work fantastic for you. This is seriously time consuming stuff here. If you have a wife, kids, parents, or friends...you might want to consider ignoring them and see if you could get by without them in your life for long periods of time.

I turn 25 years-old later this week, and I've really been plagued by burnout over different parts of the last two years. It really brings some drama into your life. I have a lot of money saved up, and I don't have the same "something to prove" mentality like I had when I was young. I'm not so sure I can ever match the same sustained work ethic and intesity I had just a few years ago. I'm really not so sure I want to either.

I love the sport and I love betting...but I may not be all that far away from becoming another washed-up handicapper. It would be awfully nice if I knew an easy way to have a lot of success at this. I don't think I really do.

[garyoz]

IMHO, Class is an antiquated concept circa Tom Ainsle. It is too abstract to be of any use and any measurement would be better represented by speed or performance figure. Earnings are overstated by State breds and racinos. Conditions are far complicated than the purse or simple desciptor (NW2, etc.). Trainer's using "magic" move horses up and down the ladder (in the modern era going back to Shifty Shiek and the infamous Oscar Barerra Jr.--not to mention Dutrow, et al today). Trainer handicapping and form cycle have more to do a specific performance than relative class. There have been many posts on this topic on this board before. I can remember quoting Len Ragozin's thoughts on class you might want to do a search.

[twindouble]

NW-2 Alw races can vary widely. Some of them consist of hopeless sucker horse types and and maiden winners that have taken 10 or more starts to break their maiden. This type of NW-2 Alw tends to be won in comparatively slow time. Another group of NW-2 can have future stakes winners and tend to be won in fast time. Some NW-2 for 2 year olds can shape up as tough as a baby stakes. They each show up in PP as NW-2 and with the same purse but one type is classier (faster) than the other.

I agree but I don't think those horses that took 10 or more starts to break their MD should be allowed to run MdSpWt 9 or more times to begin with, State bred or not. 13 or 14 starts and still no win, kick them out after 5.

[slotterhaus]

without intermediate time assessment you'll be fooled.
And WITH intermediate time assessment, you'll also get fooled if you don't know what you're looking at.

Class, to me, is just short for classification. Race conditions are important only in that they usually limit participation to certain slices of the equine hierarchy. Applying the same traditional, black box pace methodology to lightly raced, 3yo allowance fillies @ OP AND older claimers running for a 5000N1y tag at the same oval is where so many players get in trouble. The older horses, often dropping with impeccable pace credentials, regularly disappoint at low odds. Any unforeseen intrarace difficulty arouses the infirmities inherent in these animals. The vast, vast majority of horses are depreciating assets and judging them solely on past performance is deadly without context.

[twindouble]

IMHO, Class is an antiquated concept circa Tom Ainsle. It is too abstract to be of any use and any measurement would be better represented by speed or performance figure. Earnings are overstated by State breds and racinos. Conditions are far complicated than the purse or simple desciptor (NW2, etc.). Trainer's using "magic" move horses up and down the ladder (in the modern era going back to Shifty Shiek and the infamous Oscar Barerra Jr.--not to mention Dutrow, et al today). Trainer handicapping and form cycle have more to do a specific performance than relative class. There have been many posts on this topic on this board before. I can remember quoting Len Ragozin's thoughts on class you might want to do a search.

It's kind of hard maybe impossible to post a topic that hasn't been discussed here. I agree performace tells the story but one can get there without leaning on numbers. Go ahead and dig up what the experts have to say, then we all can get rich.

[46zilzal]

And WITH intermediate time assessment, you'll also get fooled if you don't know what you're looking at.


that is true, but WITHOUT incremental time, final time is useless.

also those incremental times DESCRIBE form cycles and one can predict when they look "too good."

[slotterhaus]

that is true, but WITHOUT incremental time, final time is useless.

also those incremental times DESCRIBE form cycles and one can predict when they look "too good."Final time AND incremental time are far less predictable in depreciating animals as pace casualties struggle to even finish and the reliability of said form DESCRIPTION curiously wavers in a 7yo with 68 starts @ The Woodlands. As to your talent to divine when they're "too good," my heartiest congratulations.

[46zilzal]

Final time AND incremental time are far less predictable in depreciating animals as pace casualties struggle to even finish and the reliability of said form DESCRIPTION curiously wavers in a 7yo with 68 starts @ The Woodlands. As to your talent to divine when they're "too good," my heartiest congratulations.
I have NO idea what you are trying to say..Can't say I have EVER even looked at past performances from the Woodlands.

[DanG]

I turn 25 years-old later this week, and I've really been plagued by burnout over different parts of the last two years. It really brings some drama into your life.

I love the sport and I love betting...but I may not be all that far away from becoming another washed-up handicapper. It would be awfully nice if I knew an easy way to have a lot of success at this. I don't think I really do.

That’s a frightening statement my friend.

I’ll see that and raise you 21 years. I hear you on the time consumption and the very real hardship it places on your family.

I would need 800 years on this planet to pursue every single handicapping project I have in mind. Working ‘smarter and not longer has become my single greatest challenge since choosing to gamble for a living. Tough, tough game but it never fails to fascinate.

Thanks for you post. Best of luck…

Sorry about the diversion, now back to this ‘classy thread. The “burnout” at 25yo just struck a nerve with me.

[highnote]

I kind of agree with Beyer -- Class is Speed.

But I also think that class can mean whatever you want it to mean. There are lots of different types of class. Some horses look classy, but can't run at all. Some horses don't look classy, but are fast as lightning.

Is a top quality quarterhorse less classy than a Grade 1 winning thoroughbred? Is a horse that can get a classic distance classier than a 400 yard QH champion?

I suppose the key is to try to compare apples to apples. So if a really good sprinter is stretching out to a mile and facing a really good router that is cutting back to a mile will the classier horse win? I suppose it depends on the definition of class you apply. If you think an unfit Grade 1 winning classic distance horse can beat an ultra-fit 6 furlong minor stakes winning horse at a mile then you will bet the unfit horse.

If you think Class is Speed then you might bet the ultra-fit sprinter that is about to stretch out. Especially if the sprinter seems to be lone speed.

If a horse is fit it will usually run its race. So identify when a horse was fit in the past and note its speed figure.

Once you have an idea of which horses are fit and what speed figure they are capable of running today then you can rank them.

The classiest horse is the fittest horse with the highest speed figure that is suited to today's distance, pace and surface, in my opinion.

What makes Class difficult is that it is a moving target because it depends on fitness and circumstances.

My favorite example is a filly name Wild Wings. She was unbeatable on the Aqueduct Inner Dirt. She was small, compact and nimble. She had no trouble negotiating the tight turns. She could zip around the turns, but was really not running that fast. The other horses couldn't keep up around the turns and as a result she had plenty of energy left in the stretch drive.

Now, when she raced at Belmont she was a different animal. She ran too fast around those big turns. But so did the other horses because the turns were easier to navigate. She always got passed in the stretch.

I think she could have beaten Secretariat on Aqueduct's Inner Dirt course. But no way could she beat Secretariat at Belmont.

If all racing was done on tracks like Aqueduct Inner Dirt she would be legendary.

Like any horse she was classy when she was fit and when the circumstances suited her. When she was unfit or raced under bad circumstances she was not as classy.

I also think Class has to do with confidence. Some days humans have more confidence than on other days. A lot depends on how we're feeling on a given day. How we feel depends on our level of fitness. When I was jogging up to 40 miles per week and was in my best physical shape ever, I felt unstoppable some days. It's probably the same with a horse. Some young colt that is at the peak of physical condition probably feels very confident and is probably bouncing around the paddock strutting his stuff. Give the horse three months off in a field and fatten him up and bring him back to the track and he'll probably still feel pretty confident, but will he run to his class? I would bet against him if he was in against other fit horses in a Grade 1 race. He may destroy the same field when he is ultra-fit. But when his belly is hanging down below his knees and he's so unfit that he couldn't beat 11 month 11 day pregnant filly is he still classy?

In summary, I think Class is Speed. And Speed depends on fitness and circumstances.

[slotterhaus]

I have NO idea what you are trying to say..Can't say I have EVER even looked at past performances from the Woodlands.
46, you have NO idea because you choose to view the game through the prism of time and time alone. Form cycle? Just a matter of interpreting patterns of "incremental" times --all spelled out on the blue screen ripe for discovery by the master. Right.

Using time-based approaches to predict the vagaries of cheap, older horses is a fool's game. What if there IS no cycle, just a stairstep descent down the class ladder. I cited Woodlands, but it could have been Canterbury, Will Rogers Downs, Arapahoe, Fonner, Columbus, Fair Meadows, Fargo, Portland Meadows, Rilito, Retama and so on. All are full of older horses who win maybe once, twice a year and regularly confound the numbers crowd who resort to explanations like "bounce" and "bias" to absolve themselves. They're right, of course, these horses have been bouncing south since their debuts. At Canterbury, the 4000n1y races routinely produce the highest aggregate supe prices (followed by bottom level $7500 turfers) and are must plays even if your only opinion is that the pace vanguard is likely overbet.

Got no problem with reductionist approaches in other disciplines and your critical thinking in other threads has always impressed me but in this regard you need to understand the deleterious effects racing has on its particpants and play into it whenever possible. Value comes from contender elimination, not selection.

[classhandicapper]

I don't think there is a numerical way to express class. I can give you some pointers and send in the right direction.

1. Compile the class PARs on your circuit (average winning Beyer would be fine). You need to do this for every class, including having a very good idea of how the quality of MSW/ALW and other races can vary throughout the season, 2YOs and 3YOs develop throughout the year etc... This is the starting point for knowing how various types of horses stack up against each other ON AVERAGE.

2. Get a feel for how many contenders there are in an average race on your circuit. You can use any number of methods, but a very basic one might be to count any horse that just won at the class level one step below todays, any horse that finished in the money at this class last out, and any horse that finished just out of the money (reasonably close up) last out and is dropping one or more classes. I could get a lot more complex than this, but I can't write a book of rules here here. Within this, you simply have to use some subjective judgment.

3. Look at the recently earned speed and pace figures of the contenders from above relative to the PAR for the class.

4. Use the speed and pace figures earned in the race itself (after the fact) to both help interpret the results and measure the performances of the horses relative to the class. Naturally, figures above PAR are a positive and figures below PAR are a negative.

5. Using the tools above, keep track of the strong and weak fields relative to average.

6. Monitor how horses are running when they come out of "suspected" strong and weak fields to verify your initial conclusions. ("key race" type monitoring). That goes double when evaluating races that were rated as fast paced or slow paced. You want to monitor the front runners/closers that may have been helped or hurt by the pace because how they do next out often helps you evaluate the rest of them when they run next out.

These kinds of things will help you identify the pecking order at your track (class designation wise) and the strong and weak fields within the classes.

After that, you are basically looking for horses that have been the most competitive on the most consistent basis inside the strongest fields. These horses will often also have the highest speed and pace figures, but IMO measuring performance is more complex than just speed and pace figures. I don't expect a guy batting .350 in the minors to bat .350 for the Yankees. There are things going on in tougher races that are tough to measure. Plus, the numbers are very prone to error. So having this alternate view is very useful. The numbers and class ratings can either support or contradict each other, but in all cases having both helps clarify the situation.

Obviously I have given you some very basic information and tools to work with. You still need to evaluate trips, bias, form cycle, suspicious drops in class, trainer changes and intent etc.... as part of this. Understanding the strength of fields does not replace handicapping. It just often gives you a MORE comprehensive and occasionally more accurate view of how well horses have been running if done properly. Hope that helps.

[1st time lasix]

* Quality of race for level- Was the race better or worse than the typical race at the this class level? And how much better of worse was it?

* An analysis of the pace while trying to identify the strongest and weakest parts of the race- I will make note of any pace scenario that looks fast or slow going into the race. I also believe it's very important to identify the fastest and weakest parts of a race for many reasons. One of which is trip related. I tend to upgrade trouble if it occured in a strong part of the race. I will also downgrade trouble that a horse encounters if it occurs in a weak part of the race. A horse who has a poor start, and now finds himself well off a fast early pace, might be lucking into an excellent trip. Meanwhile, a horse who breaks uncharacteristicly sharp, might actually pay for it if speed horses come to him quickly and the competitve nature of the horse doesn't allow him to shuffle himself back into a good tactical spot, like a good jockey will try to do in that scenerio. One more thing about pace---I will sometimes downgrade a fast pace if a couple of horses who aren't overly logical survived it and ran quite well. Likewise, if the pace seems very slow, I will still upgrade it if a pair of horses who aren't overly logical come sweeping up and both run well.

* An analysis of the horses trip and the kind of circumstances he faced in the race- I believe pace, circumstances, and trip are all tied together.

* Helpful tidbits. - I always look up the pedigree for each debuter in the race and make notes of anything real important.

Anyway, doing all of this is not the easiest way to attack this game. However, it's the only way I know that I can guarantee will work fantastic for you. This is seriously time consuming stuff here. If you have a wife, kids, parents, or friends...you might want to consider ignoring them and see if you could get by without them in your life for long periods of time.

I turn 25 years-old later this week, and I've really been plagued by burnout over different parts of the last two years. It really brings some drama into your life. I have a lot of money saved up, and I don't have the same "something to prove" mentality like I had when I was young. I'm not so sure I can ever match the same sustained work ethic and intesity I had just a few years ago. I'm really not so sure I want to either.

I love the sport and I love betting...but I may not be all that far away from becoming another washed-up handicapper. It would be awfully nice if I knew an easy way to have a lot of success at this. I don't think I really do.[/QUOTE] Wow....Very honest final assesment of how you are feeling. A a nice piece on your methods. Obviously this game is very very tough because of the takeout hurdle. In order to be very good at it...it takes time, dilligence and focus. You are obviously very thoughtful and intelligent in your approach. Wonder if that same amount of effort in another field will produce a better way of life. Only you can decide. Perhaps you could seperate your time into a season or a couple of particular meets only to avoid a burnout scenario. I personally want to win as much as anyone but I have a 25 year career and a low handicap golf game I that I try to sustain. Therefore I must approach the game as more of a recreation. Good luck to you!

[classhandicapper]

DrugSalvastore,

Great post! :ThmbUp:

We are a lot closer than you think. To me, class (or class handicapping) , is not some vague undefineable thing as presented in the early handicapping books full of techniques that people laugh at today. It is simply the acknowlegement that the quality of races can vary. In higher quality races the competitive conditions are usually tougher. That often makes pure numeric measurement incomplete. I would also just add that the numbers are often prone to significant error. So complimenting them with a subjective qualitative interpretation enhances the ability to measure performance.


The word class means different things to different people.

I dismiss the word from my handicapping vocabulary. Some people, like the guy who posts here under the name Class Handicapper, do the opposite.

I think I go about evaluating the quality of competiton a horse has been facing, in a much different way than people who label themselves as "class" handicappers do.

A need-the-lead type of horse might have a better chance of winning if he catches a tough field lacking in pace, than he does if he catches a soft field over-flowing with stoppers and other need-the-lead types.

A dirt closer might have a better chance of winning if he catches a tough field over-flowing with speed, than he does if he catches a fairly soft field with no pace in it.

It is also a tremendous folly to define class based on the conditions and value of the race. Sometimes there are strong open $12,500 claimers that are as good as your typical $25,000 claiming race. Sometimes there are weak $12,500 claimers that are no better than your typical $6,250 claimer.

I've seen dreadful Grade 1 Stake races that are no better than your typical Grade 3. I've seen strong Grade 3 Stake races that are as good as your typical Grade 1 race.

Basically, each race is it's own entity, and each horse is it own entity.

When I do my trip notes, and evaluate a race, here is what I'm looking for and what I will be writing into my notes.

* Quality of race for level- Was the race better or worse than the typical race at the this class level? And how much better of worse was it? Sometimes I will start off my final evaluation like this "this looked like a real strong race for the level on paper, however, it disappointed...." and sometimes you'll get one of these "This looked like a pretty soft race for the level on paper, however, two horses both jumped up and performed dramatically better than in there previous races. Those two seperated themselves from the field by double digit lengths in tremendously sharp time for the level" However, the majority of the time, when a race looks pretty bad for the level going in, it often grades out bad as well. When the race looks strong for the level going on, if often grades out strong as well.

* An analysis of the pace while trying to identify the strongest and weakest parts of the race- Just like above, I will make note of any pace scenario that looks fast or slow going into the race. Sometime I will end writing something like "this race was loaded with speed on paper, however, all but the pace setters jockey seemed intent on rating there horses back early on in fear of avoiding a destructive pace battle. The early pace was only average for the level. Sometimes I end up writing something like "This looked like a totally paceless race on paper, however, a few horses were very aggressively warmed up in the pre-race, and several jockies hustled there horses away from the gate. The early pace ended up quite honest for the level." I also believe it's very important to identify the fastest and weakest parts of a race for many reasons. One of which is trip related. I tend to upgrade trouble if it occured in a strong part of the race. I will also downgrade trouble that a horse encounters if it occurs in a weak part of the race. The exception to that would be in the case of troubled starts. A horse who has a poor start, and now finds himself well off a fast early pace, might be lucking into an excellent trip. Meanwhile, a horse who breaks uncharacteristicly sharp, might actually pay for it if speed horses come to him quickly and the competitve nature of the horse doesn't allow him to shuffle himself back into a good tactical spot, like a good jockey will try to do in that scenerio. One more thing about pace---I will sometimes downgrade a fast pace if a couple of horses who aren't overly logical survived it and ran quite well. Likewise, if the pace seems very slow, I will still upgrade it if a pair of horses who aren't overly logical come sweeping up and both run well.

* An analysis of the horses trip and the kind of circumstances he faced in the race- I believe pace, circumstances, and trip are all tied together. How good was the effort of the 3rd place finisher? He was the horse who raced at the back of the pack---and made a four wide rally through the turn? Well, if the horse had no pace in-front of him, and made that wide run to finish 3rd beaten by a pair of horses who were 1-2 throughout--that effort of his was excellent. Now, if that horse had a hot pace in front of him, and he made that wide run to finish 3rd by circling a bunch of exhusted stoppers, and finished behind two other off-the-pace types...I'd say that horse ran a pretty mediocre 3rd! What if a speed horse, breaking from a wide post in a route, battles for the lead early and finishes 4th...how was his trip? Well, if he got hung wide on the first turn, while in a pace battle through fast early fractions, that kind of horse has every right to stop late in the race. If his two other pace rivals finished behind him...I'd say this horse ran fantastic. Now, if he was hung wide on the first turn, while being one of three horses sparing for the early lead through soft fractions, and he finishes behind the other two at the wire...he ran mediocre. If a horse encounters serious trouble, and he does it in a slow part of the race, I will ignore it altogher in my notes. If he gets checked sharply while making a move into the swiftest part of the race (from an adjusted fraction standpoint) I will really upgrade the trouble.

* Track bias or Track trends- I'm not a big bias guy...but they certainly do exist. I'm always on the look out for them. Sometimes you will see a post position bias at a certain distance, sometimes you will see an actual track bias.

* Helpful tidbits. - I always look up the pedigree for each debuter in the race and make notes of anything real important. If all five of the horses siblings thrived on turf, or in dirt route races, and he's running five furlongs on the dirt...obviously I need to make note of that. If the horse is debuting for a decent sire, whos offspring win at a 5% clip or less with debuters, from a big enough sample size, I will note that. If a horse sold at a 2-year-old in training sale, I will note his time and sometimes watch his "under-tack" workout looking for any helpful clues. If you have a claiming race, and more than half the field was claimed, I will note that. There are many other things.

Anyway, doing all of this is not the easiest way to attack this game. However, it's the only way I know that I can guarantee will work fantastic for you. This is seriously time consuming stuff here. If you have a wife, kids, parents, or friends...you might want to consider ignoring them and see if you could get by without them in your life for long periods of time.

I turn 25 years-old later this week, and I've really been plagued by burnout over different parts of the last two years. It really brings some drama into your life. I have a lot of money saved up, and I don't have the same "something to prove" mentality like I had when I was young. I'm not so sure I can ever match the same sustained work ethic and intesity I had just a few years ago. I'm really not so sure I want to either.

I love the sport and I love betting...but I may not be all that far away from becoming another washed-up handicapper. It would be awfully nice if I knew an easy way to have a lot of success at this. I don't think I really do.

[shanta]

Thanx very much for another terrific post.

Have YOU ever considered writing a book bout "capping". If you haven't you should. I'd buy it in a heartbeat man.

You are an extremely talented young man.

Richie

[traynor]

I don't think there is a numerical way to express class. I can give you some pointers and send in the right direction.

1. Compile the class PARs on your circuit (average winning Beyer would be fine). You need to do this for every class, including having a very good idea of how the quality of MSW/ALW and other races can vary throughout the season, 2YOs and 3YOs develop throughout the year etc... This is the starting point for knowing how various types of horses stack up against each other ON AVERAGE.

2. Get a feel for how many contenders there are in an average race on your circuit. You can use any number of methods, but a very basic one might be to count any horse that just won at the class level one step below todays, any horse that finished in the money at this class last out, and any horse that finished just out of the money (reasonably close up) last out and is dropping one or more classes. I could get a lot more complex than this, but I can't write a book of rules here here. Within this, you simply have to use some subjective judgment.

3. Look at the recently earned speed and pace figures of the contenders from above relative to the PAR for the class.

4. Use the speed and pace figures earned in the race itself (after the fact) to both help interpret the results and measure the performances of the horses relative to the class. Naturally, figures above PAR are a positive and figures below PAR are a negative.

5. Using the tools above, keep track of the strong and weak fields relative to average.

6. Monitor how horses are running when they come out of "suspected" strong and weak fields to verify your initial conclusions. ("key race" type monitoring). That goes double when evaluating races that were rated as fast paced or slow paced. You want to monitor the front runners/closers that may have been helped or hurt by the pace because how they do next out often helps you evaluate the rest of them when they run next out.

These kinds of things will help you identify the pecking order at your track (class designation wise) and the strong and weak fields within the classes.

After that, you are basically looking for horses that have been the most competitive on the most consistent basis inside the strongest fields. These horses will often also have the highest speed and pace figures, but IMO measuring performance is more complex than just speed and pace figures. I don't expect a guy batting .350 in the minors to bat .350 for the Yankees. There are things going on in tougher races that are tough to measure. Plus, the numbers are very prone to error. So having this alternate view is very useful. The numbers and class ratings can either support or contradict each other, but in all cases having both helps clarify the situation.

Obviously I have given you some very basic information and tools to work with. You still need to evaluate trips, bias, form cycle, suspicious drops in class, trainer changes and intent etc.... as part of this. Understanding the strength of fields does not replace handicapping. It just often gives you a MORE comprehensive and occasionally more accurate view of how well horses have been running if done properly. Hope that helps.

Some great insights, to which I would add:
Look closely at each race finish, with the understanding that competent jockeys will rarely abuse their horses to gain a minor piece of the purse, or to close gaps unnecessarily. If a leader is clear by more than a length, any gaps--and the numbers generated--should be viewed critically. Of particular importance are the gaps from first to second and second to third. An entry in second place, one or more lengths behind in deep stretch, is likely to be more concerned with staying ahead of the third place than trying to close the gap with the winner. The effect of positioning is a strong factor in evaluating class.

Watch the races at Mountaineer for great examples. As soon as a clear winner emerges in deep stretch, the field all seems to ease off at the same time, producing lots of Big Wins that are rarely repeated, and lots of obscured form from second place on back. The key element is critical analysis of the race finish to determine how many entries were actually competing for the win position, and how many were simply trying to maintain a position that gave them a piece of the purse. The advice of trainers to jockeys that, "If you can't win, save it for next time" is more prevalent than you might imagine.
Good Luck

[twindouble]

DrugSalvastore;

For some reason that was depressing to read. Not that I think it was hog wash but I really think some guys carry their handicapping to extremes when it's not necessary.

I think we are going in to many directions on the subject. How anyone can say there's no difference in a grade 1 race than any other conditioned race is beyond me. First off your talking huge purses, not all horses qualify for those races, must have something to with "class". Same applies to stake, handicap or invitational's. Take 3yo and up running in $100,000 claiming races down to $50,000, how many $10,000 claimers would win those races or grade 2 or 3 for that matter? A $20 or $30,000 claimer can produce numbers that are near equivalent to grade 3 or 2 races, that don't make them graded horses so there must be something to how the conditions are structured. Not that I think conditions tell all when it comes to class but you have to start somewhere.

To just ignore the conditions I think is a mistake. You can't tell me a horse that raced competitively on graded races has no shot to win Alw races, I don't care what number you assign the horse, your first thought would be he's the "Class" of the race. In most cases the speed and variant numbers aren't that reliable to begin with. Sure the drop would concern you but tossing the horse would cause you pain making the decision. I think the speed and variant numbers need a lot more work to hang your hat on them. Any mature horse that improves 15 legnths off those numbers surely raises a flag.

No one can argue speed and pace are very important factors in handicapping but to listen to some here the conditions are no longer a factor because the numbers are where it's at. Sure it would be nice if we can all make money letting someone else do the handicapping via numbers but we all know there's more to this game than that alone.

This is what I'm being told here.

1, conditions don't matter.

2, loss of ground don't matter.

3, jocks don't matter.

4, post position don't matter.

5, bias don't exist.

6, wind determines how you bet.

7, going wide don't matter.

8 all that matter's is speed and the trainer.

10, toss the DRF and let the software do the work.

11, Stats on 8,000 races is where it's at.

12, just follow the smart money and your as good as gold.

13, there's no such thing as a speed favoring track, it's all an elusion.

14, closer's are just slow horses.

15, the mix of energy distribution, jock and instructions create the elusion of pace. I think I got that right.

16, different track materials don't make any diffference, no bias can exist.

What an easy game this has turned out to be, where have I been for the last 46 years? :bang:

T.D.

[slotterhaus]

1. Compile the class PARs on your circuit (average winning Beyer would be fine). You need to do this for every class, including having a very good idea of how the quality of MSW/ALW and other races can vary throughout the season, 2YOs and 3YOs develop throughout the year etc... This is the starting point for knowing how various types of horses stack up against each other ON AVERAGE.

3. Look at the recently earned speed and pace figures of the contenders from above relative to the PAR for the class.

4. Use the speed and pace figures earned in the race itself (after the fact) to both help interpret the results and measure the performances of the horses relative to the class. Naturally, figures above PAR are a positive and figures below PAR are a negative.Simple comparison to par will lead you to chalk on a regular basis, both at the pace call and at the finish. No doubt many above par types will win at paltry mutuels but a deeper understanding of the relative worth of par figures can be found by tracking the performance of above par types according to race classification. When older/heavier raced horses relative to the field have above par pace/speed figures in cheaper restricted races (mdn, mcl, clm n2l, clm n3l, clm n1y, clm n2y, alw n1X, etc.) you should put on the class contrarian cap and look for lighter raced types who haven't threatened par. In other words, anticipate the improvement of one subset and expect the continued decline of the other. A 4yo with 18 starts shipping to Canterbury from Arlington to run in a 15K n2l sprint is always vulnerable to a batch of 3yo's with 5-10 starts apiece regadless of pace/speed fig dominance. Variations on this theme are played out at 2nd and 3rd tier ovals across the country every day as trainers and owners become desperate to find easier spots for their depreciating stock.

[betovernetcapper]

Just to throw a little napalm on the fire, the variant number is meaningless. The daily variant is already included in the Beyer-Bris or Cramer rating.

Prior to the Beyer numbers in the form, players who didn't make their own numbers could add the form variant to the form speed rating and then add or subtract a certain number of points and get a crude but workable number. This hasn't been necessary for 20 years. :)

[46zilzal]

I think people are saying that TOO much information clouds judgement. The essence of a contest can be distilled usually to a few factors and that's it.

[jfdinneen]

I think people are saying that TOO much information clouds judgement....

46zilzal,

You are in agreement with Paul Slovic (Professor of Psychology, University of Oregon and collaborator of Daniel Kahneman - 2002 Nobel Laureate in Economics) who carried out research on information overload using expert handicappers in 1973 [Slovic, P., & Corrigan, B. (1973). Behavioral problems of adhering to a decision policy. Presentation at The Institute for Quantitative Research in Finance, May 1, Napa, CA.] and showed that the predictive accuracy (harness racing) of eight expert handicappers did not improve as they received more statistical cues (5 - 40) about the contestants, although their confidence levels climbed steadily over time.

In other words, the more information we have available to us when forecasting uncertain outcomes the greater our confidence in our predictions but with little or no impact on their accuracy (possibly due to information overload)!

Best wishes,

John

[46zilzal]

I am aware of that study

[the_fat_man]

I don't think there is a numerical way to express class. I can give you some pointers and send in the right direction.


Obviously I have given you some very basic information and tools to work with. You still need to evaluate trips, bias, form cycle, suspicious drops in class, trainer changes and intent etc.... as part of this. Understanding the strength of fields does not replace handicapping. It just often gives you a MORE comprehensive and occasionally more accurate view of how well horses have been running if done properly. Hope that helps.

So you begin with a statement that there is no numerical way to express class.

Then you proceed with a very basic way to explore classification by using NUMBER (or speed)

So no numerical way

in the past you've expressed the opinion that numbers are flawed

now, why can't class be expressed as a number: is it because numbers are flawed or is class a concept that transcends (is too complex for representation by) numbers

then again

if numbers are flawed

why should they be my starting (and only) point to the determination of class?

[valueguy]

Its been my experience (20 years plus) that it is very difficult to put a finite
number on class(ability) . i don,t believe it,s a linear equation its more of a fuzzy logic type formula .If you define class or ability as speed plus stamina or
the ability of a horse to carry its speed further than other horses in the race,then you have to find a way to measure how the other horses are going
to affect each other ,s final time in a race .You would have to take into consideration pace types, pace pressure ,condition of each horse , distance etc. etc. I thinks its a lot easier just to get a feel for the class(ability) of a horse by looking at what kind of races it has been competing in ,its finish in these races and does its running style fit the current track profile.You don,t have to be right 100% of the time just enough times to find a couple of bettable overlays in a card of 8-10 races. I like to keep it very simple.

[46zilzal]

I will never understand how the interaction of participants in a race (class level) is supposed to somehow alter the performance of the performer......Horses run and react to challenges but ultimately it is the horse NOT the company they keep.

There is only offense in racing.

[valueguy]

(I will never understand how the interaction of participants in a race (class level) is supposed to somehow alter the performance of the performer......Horses run and react to challenges but ultimately it is the horse NOT the company they keep.

There is only offense in racing.)

I am glad you think that the way as contrasting opinions make better para-mutuals.

[46zilzal]

I agree. There is no singular way to evalutate ANYTHING.

[cj]

Class is ability. You measure it by measuring how fast a horse runs, both fractions and final time. You then put those in context of the trip.

[46zilzal]

Class is ability. You measure it by measuring how fast a horse runs, both fractions and final time. You then put those in context of the trip.
BINGO!

[Tom]

I don't see how trips, jockeys, form cycles, variants, etc, have anything to do with class. Class, to me, is within the horse, not his racing luck.
you see a horse who breaks his maiden in two starts, then his NW1 in two more, then runs close up in a NW2. You have a ggod idea this is developing horse who is going to outperform horses with similar speed figures but 10-15 starts in NE2 company.

At cheap tracks, you can find bonanzas of classier horses in almost every race - even $4000 NW2L!

[twindouble]

Class is ability. You measure it by measuring how fast a horse runs, both fractions and final time. You then put those in context of the trip.

Seems good to have a simple explanation here.

I think those final times are unreliable in determining class or quality of the horse. By unreliable I'm talking about, the speed and variants from track to track along with any bias. When you say in the "context" of the trip, what does that included? Good trip, bad trip, fast pace, slow pace, loss of ground (wide), track condition, weak field and so on?

T.D.

[slotterhaus]

Class is ability. You measure it by measuring how fast a horse runs, both fractions and final time...and hope for replication. If none, measure again and hope again.

[traynor]

46zilzal,

You are in agreement with Paul Slovic (Professor of Psychology, University of Oregon and collaborator of Daniel Kahneman - 2002 Nobel Laureate in Economics) who carried out research on information overload using expert handicappers in 1973 [Slovic, P., & Corrigan, B. (1973). Behavioral problems of adhering to a decision policy. Presentation at The Institute for Quantitative Research in Finance, May 1, Napa, CA.] and showed that the predictive accuracy (harness racing) of eight expert handicappers did not improve as they received more statistical cues (5 - 40) about the contestants, although their confidence levels climbed steadily over time.

In other words, the more information we have available to us when forecasting uncertain outcomes the greater our confidence in our predictions but with little or no impact on their accuracy (possibly due to information overload)!

Best wishes,

John


Same Kahneman who collaborated on papers on "The Law of Small Numbers" (an issue that a number on this forum seem to find threatening) with Amos Tversky. They are both very, very sharp.

[PlanB]

TOO MUCH INFO? Info OverLoad? Or the inability to detect the incoming
decoys? Are you easily distracted? What IS this race about? I would like
to see a program describe the entrants rather than predict the outcome.

[traynor]

An interesting point of the Kahneman study was the deceptive nature of false consensus. When handicappers had more factors to consider, their confidence in their predictions increased, but their accuracy decreased. Think about why software applications have so many readouts, and how easy it is to think, "WOW! Horse A is highest in rating D, highest in rating R, AND highest in rating Z--it must be a lock!" Overly simplistic? Not at all. Unless "increased confidence" directly translates to "increased accuracy" it is no more than a distraction.

[Secretariat]

I'll throw an idea out there, but it relies on some assumptions.

Assumption 1) Overall the crowd sets fair odds for the horses in a race over a period of races.

Assumption 2) The average par of a race is based on the sum of the speed of the winner divided by the number of races.

Assumption 3) One can calculate the median odds to lengths relationship over a signficant period of races.

So say a horse who is 2/1 in a race and the winner runs a Beyer speed rating of say 80. Your table for 2/1 odds is about two lengths back. Two lengths back in Beyer's at about 6 furlongs is about 5 Beyer points. so this horses class rating for the race would be 80 (winner's Beyer) - 5 (crowd's estimate) or a 75 class rating.

Now, the horse may very well have WON the race or finished up the track, but the track estimated the horse's classs at 75 in the race. I find these averages generally stay fairly consistent, although a few horses can cause some problems, but sometimes daily variants can do the same on a day to day basis.

This avoids the need for pars, and allows one to adjust a winner's time if it seems way out of whack. The one difficutly is entry races since the public odds need to be djusted because it accounts for two horses.

[46zilzal]

TOO MUCH INFO? Info OverLoad? Or the inability to detect the incoming
decoys? Are you easily distracted? What IS this race about? I would like
to see a program describe the entrants rather than predict the outcome.
there are several Sartin programs like that

[highnote]

Another method is what a British friend calls a "handicap" method. Basically , start with some benchmark figure that the winner earns at a certain class level. Each horse loses a point for each length behind - or whatever your scale. So say the winner of a claiming $50,000 gets an 80. The second place horse is a length back and gets a 79. And so on.

Do this for all the races and horses on the card for a month or so. Eventually, these horses will face each other and you'll have a rating of who beat who. The best part about it is that it is independent of time. So this is a good method for turf where times can be all over the place.

[cj]

and hope for replication. If none, measure again and hope again.

What do you mean? I think horses replicate ability a whole lot more often than people tend to think, especially if you measure the internal fractions as well as final time.

[46zilzal]

What do you mean? I think horses replicate ability a whole lot more often than people tend to think, especially if you measure the internal fractions as well as final time.
BINGO part two!

[slotterhaus]

What do you mean? I think horses replicate ability a whole lot more often than people tend to think, especially if you measure the internal fractions as well as final time.
I think older horses replicate ability a lot less reliably than people think and is the reason you need go no further than the Fonner $3500 ranks to find Canterbury allowance winners 2 years ago. Why? Age and simple infirmity brought on by the stress of racing mostly on unforgiving dirt tracks. I'm just not seeing too many 6yos who are better than they were at 4 or even better at 5 than 3. If they're running slower at 6, where along the way were their figures downgraded? I'll tell you where: after the fact -- which is why I said "measure again and hope again" after every subsequent disappointment. Improvement cycles are short to non-existent for these horses while decline is certain.

Replication goes to the crucial question of what you are really handicapping: today's race or past performance. They're not always the same thing. I'll always take a pessimistic view when I see an older horse stalled in a condition, cutting back in distance, shipping to a cheaper track, being passed down the trainer hierarchy, etc. especially if it has dominant figures. I'll take the 9-5 beats in these races because I know they're ripe for upset every time they set foot on the track.

If you play young horses in classy races at big time ovals, this stuff is of far less importance but lower purse structure tracks have many struggling owners and some destitute trainers who can only afford the types of horses who may win once or twice a year, if at all. Sorry, but I've learned to trust the flesh over the figure in these circumstances.

[jfdinneen]

Another method is what a British friend calls a "handicap" method.

swetyejohn,

A presentation (http://www.turfclub.com.sg/web/tcracing.nsf/RacingInfo/A+Guide+To+Handicapping+In+Singapore) from the Singapore Turf Club showing a worked example of this process.
It is the internationally recognized (IFHA) method of merit handicapping!

Best wishes,

John

[twindouble]

I think older horses replicate ability a lot less reliably than people think and is the reason you need go no further than the Fonner $3500 ranks to find Canterbury allowance winners 2 years ago. Why? Age and simple infirmity brought on by the stress of racing mostly on unforgiving dirt tracks. I'm just not seeing too many 6yos who are better than they were at 4 or even better at 5 than 3. If they're running slower at 6, where along the way were their figures downgraded? I'll tell you where: after the fact -- which is why I said "measure again and hope again" after every subsequent disappointment. Improvement cycles are short to non-existent for these horses while decline is certain.

Replication goes to the crucial question of what you are really handicapping: today's race or past performance. They're not always the same thing. I'll always take a pessimistic view when I see an older horse stalled in a condition, cutting back in distance, shipping to a cheaper track, being passed down the trainer hierarchy, etc. especially if it has dominant figures. I'll take the 9-5 beats in these races because I know they're ripe for upset every time they set foot on the track.

If you play young horses in classy races at big time ovals, this stuff is of far less importance but lower purse structure tracks have many struggling owners and some destitute trainers who can only afford the types of horses who may win once or twice a year, if at all. Sorry, but I've learned to trust the flesh over the figure in these circumstances.


A lot of what your saying has merit but it's not all inclusive but to some degree nothing is when it comes to racing regardless of what class of horses are involved. For example when your dealing with young maturing, improving horses it's liken to figuring out form cycles with older horses, tough to gage when they will improve and at what distance. I do know one thing, older horses won't improve 10 to 15 lengths off their best. To say form cycles don't exist with older cheap horses I'll have to disagree with that. That's like saying the top trainers never use a race to prep their horses for the big one. In other words your saying the idea of racing into form no longer exists, young or old. So why do we use the words, workouts, conditioning, training, fit, not fit, out of form, in form, freshen, good trainer, bad trainer, trainer intent, none of this applies to older claiming horses? As handicappers we don't have a clue so we should avoid playing cheep horses and ignore the fact we can make money with them?

T.D.

[traynor]

All of which points up the fact that each race needs to be critically analyzed, rather than wagering blindly on some simplistic factor like Average Pace or Best Beyer.

[highnote]

swetyejohn,

A presentation (http://www.turfclub.com.sg/web/tcracing.nsf/RacingInfo/A+Guide+To+Handicapping+In+Singapore) from the Singapore Turf Club showing a worked example of this process.
It is the internationally recognized (IFHA) method of merit handicapping!

Best wishes,

John


Thanks! I will check that out right now!!

[46zilzal]

My software works great at the tracks where it works. There are many where it does not (Fair Grounds is a good example). Given the diversity of racing, there are methods that must work one place and not at others, hence the diveristy of assessments. One size never fits all and that's fine...

[highnote]

Thanks! I will check that out right now!!


I checked it out. Looks very interesting. The power point demo crashed after about 15 slides, but I got the gist of it.

Thanks again.

[slotterhaus]

To say form cycles don't exist with older cheap horses I'll have to disagree with that. That's like saying the top trainers never use a race to prep their horses for the big one. In other words your saying the idea of racing into form no longer exists, young or old. So why do we use the words, workouts, conditioning, training, fit, not fit, out of form, in form, freshen, good trainer, bad trainer, trainer intent, none of this applies to older claiming horses? As handicappers we don't have a clue so we should avoid playing cheep horses and ignore the fact we can make money with them?
Never said form cycles don't exist, just that they're far less predictable and of much shorter duration the older and further down the class ladder you descend. At cheap tracks, most older horses rarely work out formally, they can't take it. They're run into the best form they can muster, pop a number that attracts attention, then fail to deliver any further improvement. Far more often than not, recent figures are a lagging indicator of their ability today while others with mediocre form move up at their expense.

Never said anything about avoiding playing them, either. Quite the contrary, I play them all the time. Beating numbers is what this game is all about and these races offer that opportunity quite reliably. In the tri and supe pools I frequent there are solid underkeys even at the cheapest levels, it's the top holes that are ever revolving. Exotic ticket structure follows accordingly. To repeat, in these races, value comes from contender elimination, not selection.

[twindouble]

Never said form cycles don't exist, just that they're far less predictable and of much shorter duration the older and further down the class ladder you descend. At cheap tracks, most older horses rarely work out formally, they can't take it. They're run into the best form they can muster, pop a number that attracts attention, then fail to deliver any further improvement. Far more often than not, recent figures are a lagging indicator of their ability today while others with mediocre form move up at their expense.

Never said anything about avoiding playing them, either. Quite the contrary, I play them all the time. Beating numbers is what this game is all about and these races offer that opportunity quite reliably. In the tri and supe pools I frequent there are solid underkeys even at the cheapest levels, it's the top holes that are ever revolving. Exotic ticket structure follows accordingly. To repeat, in these races, value comes from contender elimination, not selection.

Well, what your saying is I took everything out of contex. Sorry about that. Doesn't value come from contender elimianation at every class?

[slotterhaus]

Doesn't value come from contender elimianation at every class?
You would think so, although many players seem to need to bet on horses rather than fade them -- just like being long vs short in a market. Also depends on the pool your diving in. I do think the races you choose to play can make contender elimination much easier.

[twindouble]

[QUOTE=twindouble]

You would think so, although many players seem to need to bet on horses rather than fade them. Also depends on the pool your diving in. I do think the races you choose to play can make elimination much easier.

You seem to say things in broad terms. Sure if you elect to play a race one hopes to think they have a handle on it. What's easy for you or me might be tough for someone else, or the other way around.:D I do agree, each race or races requires flexibility when it comes to your wagering strategy in any pool.


T.D.

[classhandicapper]

Simple comparison to par will lead you to chalk on a regular basis, both at the pace call and at the finish. No doubt many above par types will win at paltry mutuels but a deeper understanding of the relative worth of par figures can be found by tracking the performance of above par types according to race classification. When older/heavier raced horses relative to the field have above par pace/speed figures in cheaper restricted races (mdn, mcl, clm n2l, clm n3l, clm n1y, clm n2y, alw n1X, etc.) you should put on the class contrarian cap and look for lighter raced types who haven't threatened par. In other words, anticipate the improvement of one subset and expect the continued decline of the other. A 4yo with 18 starts shipping to Canterbury from Arlington to run in a 15K n2l sprint is always vulnerable to a batch of 3yo's with 5-10 starts apiece regadless of pace/speed fig dominance. Variations on this theme are played out at 2nd and 3rd tier ovals across the country every day as trainers and owners become desperate to find easier spots for their depreciating stock.

I agree totally. There is absolutely no question at all that projecting improvement or decline in form is important. That's especially true when dealing with lightly raced, younger horses, of high quality etc.... But you have to start with where the horse "has been" before you can get to "where he is heading".

[classhandicapper]

So you begin with a statement that there is no numerical way to express class.

Then you proceed with a very basic way to explore classification by using NUMBER (or speed)

So no numerical way

in the past you've expressed the opinion that numbers are flawed

now, why can't class be expressed as a number: is it because numbers are flawed or is class a concept that transcends (is too complex for representation by) numbers

then again

if numbers are flawed

why should they be my starting (and only) point to the determination of class?

After my analysis of any horse, I never have a class rating that I could publish and compare with other horses. However, I constantly use both pace and speed figures to help me classify horses. I see no inconsistency in that. The numbers are a tool, not the answer.

The numbers are not only occasionally flawed (and if you don't agree with this you obviously have never looked at multiple sets of the highest quality figures), IMO they are INCOMPLETE. Two horses could look identical numerically (pace and speed), but be quite different.

One could be quicker out of the gate than the other.

One could have better short burst acceleration than the other.

One could be better on the turns but not as good on the straights.

One could respond favorably to high pressure and the other may not like it.

One could not mind racing inside, between, or outside horses and another might only like one position.

One might only do his best racing one the lead and another might be more adaptable and run his usual figures if he's on the lead or outrun early by faster speeds.

One could run 45 110 and be totally exhausted at the end and another might run 45 110 and come back with a reserve of stamina (even though it couldn't have run faster)

There is more or less an unending list of less tangible qualities that don't always show up in the figures, but IMO these qualities impact races.

It's my view, that in general, as you move up the class ladder, horses tend to have more of these intangibles in greater quantities. You can't measure them with speed and pace figures alone. You can see them sometimes if you have good visual skills. Sometimes you can see the impact as fast cheap horses move up or other horses move down and face weaker, but they are harder to measure than fraction and final times.

That's why I think "classing", as out of fashion and criticized as it has become, is actually a critical part of the measuring performance.

Class is more or less ability, but ability is not limited to fractions and final times. It's more comprehensive and often reflected by how fast you can run against tougher competition.

[twindouble]

Classhandicapper;


Excellent post. I still have my complaints on how the conditions are written and how purses are distributed relative to those conditions, it distorts everything when it comes to determining class.


T.D.

[classhandicapper]

Classhandicapper;


Excellent post. I still have my complaints on how the conditions are written and how purses are distributed relative to those conditions, it distorts everything when it comes to determining class.


T.D.

It's a problem that has been compounded by the fact that some tracks have slots that add money to the purses, many statebred races with inflated purses etc...

Having read many of your posts, I would say not to worry about it. I think (at least hope) we are both sharp enough to see through the purse and condition issues and identify the stronger fields using some of the tools available. Many people that complain about the usefulness of class as a factor don't even know how various horses stack up against each other. That would be like me complaining about speed and pace handicapping while using raw times alone with adjusting for track speed.

The only legitimate complaint about class as a factor is that it's often already built into the odds. That may often be true, but it isn't always true. Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that if you don't really understand how good the horses are relative to each other because you ignore class, you would tend to bet horses that you think are an overlay that really aren't simply because you aren't appeciating the class issue well enough.

[Indulto]

... Two horses could look identical numerically (pace and speed), but be quite different.

One could be quicker out of the gate than the other.

One could have better short burst acceleration than the other.

One could be better on the turns but not as good on the straights.

One could respond favorably to high pressure and the other may not like it.

One could not mind racing inside, between, or outside horses and another might only like one position.CH,
Trakus might provide some data here, especially in determining a horse’s optimal acceleration and where it’s best applied. tfm pointed out in another thread that such data needs to be taken in context with what other horses were doing at the same time. I agree, but I think such data together with visual skills should make it easier to predict what will happen when a specific pair of entrants “look eachother in the eye.”One might only do his best racing one the lead and another might be more adaptable and run his usual figures if he's on the lead or outrun early by faster speeds.

One could run 45 110 and be totally exhausted at the end and another might run 45 110 and come back with a reserve of stamina (even though it couldn't have run faster)

There is more or less an unending list of less tangible qualities that don't always show up in the figures, but IMO these qualities impact races.All good points. IMO track condition has a lot to do with it, but not necessarily in terms of faster or slower. In the ‘70s I routinely noticed instances at GGF and BM where horses took turns beating eachother by varying margins over fast tracks with very similar DRF variants.It's my view, that in general, as you move up the class ladder, horses tend to have more of these intangibles in greater quantities. You can't measure them with speed and pace figures alone. You can see them sometimes if you have good visual skills. Sometimes you can see the impact as fast cheap horses move up or other horses move down and face weaker, but they are harder to measure than fraction and final times.I would paraphrase that to say “as you move up the class ladder, MORE horses tend to have ONE OR MORE of these intangibles.”That's why I think "classing", as out of fashion and criticized as it has become, is actually a critical part of the measuring performance.

Class is more or less ability, but ability is not limited to fractions and final times. It's more comprehensive and often reflected by how fast you can run against tougher competition.We’re almost in synch. "Class" isn't a measure, but a reflection of a horse’s ability AND its consistent willingness to display that ability. “When the going gets tough …,” etc.

I think the ability to determine who is the tougher competitor has assumed even greater importance as pace and/or speed ratings are the focus of most handicappers.

Too bad we won’t have Trakus data available for the much hoped-for meeting of Lava Man and Bernardini in the BC Classic. Wouldn’t you love to know exactly what constituted the moves they each made in their big races?

[the_fat_man]

CH,
Trakus might provide some data here, especially in determining a horse’s optimal acceleration and where it’s best applied. tfm pointed out in another thread that such data needs to be taken in context with what other horses were doing at the same time. I agree, but I think such data together with visual skills should make it easier to predict what will happen when a specific pair of entrants “look eachother in the eye.”All good points. IMO track condition has a lot to do with it, but not necessarily in terms of faster or slower. In the ‘70s I routinely noticed instances at GGF and BM where horses took turns beating eachother by varying margins over fast tracks with very similar DRF variants.I would paraphrase that to say “as you move up the class ladder, MORE horses tend to have ONE OR MORE of these intangibles.”We’re almost in synch. "Class" isn't a measure, but a reflection of a horse’s ability AND its consistent willingness to display that ability. “When the going gets tough …,” etc.

I think the ability to determine who is the tougher competitor has assumed even greater importance as pace and/or speed ratings are the focus of most handicappers.

Too bad we won’t have Trakus data available for the much hoped-for meeting of Lava Man and Bernardini in the BC Classic. Wouldn’t you love to know exactly what constituted the moves they each made in their big races?

A remnant of my days as a fulltime player is the comment 'did all the running', when I trip the occasional race these days. In other words "what horse RAN MORE". As I never trip without noting positions (distance from the rail) around the track, the question certainly has to do with distance covered. Since I'm not obsessed with numbers, and as I watch headons, my assessment as to which horse ran more (in terms of distance) is usually very accurate (though not quantified, it certainly is accurate enough for me).

Now, I am obsessive when it comes to premature moves and I note very carefully when/where a horse moves and how much urging is required from the jockey. (Setting aside the events of the race at the time.)

Needless to say, then, Trakus won't really be of much aid in these areas for me. Especially, since it won't tell me anything about the break or the first 7 seconds or so after the break.

I've digressed.

"running more" goes beyond mere distance. Horses are components in a race. A race can be broken down into its components but the performance of these components needs to be considered in light of the race. I realize that Trakus will allow you guys to be able to establish 'averages' for these horses, so we'll know their top speed, how long they hold it, etc. An interesting question, however, is whether this new, more precise, information will actually lead to better predictions. While more precise than the present system, the difference is one of degree and not of kind. The same issues plaguing speed and pace figures will plague the new numbers/methods.

Whatever the case, these are only starting points.

[twindouble]

Having read many of your posts, I would say not to worry about it. I think (at least hope) we are both sharp enough to see through the purse and condition issues and identify the stronger fields using some of the tools available. Many people that complain about the usefulness of class as a factor don't even know how various horses stack up against each other. That would be like me complaining about speed and pace handicapping while using raw times alone with adjusting for track speed. Quote Classhandicapper

Yes, I can read in between the lines.

In general terms, I was thinking it would be a good idea to come up with a standardized condition book through out the industry, maybe with the exception of invitational's. I think it's possible even taking into consideration the needs of various tracks and their purse structure.

I've got in my mind forcing horses out of one condition after so many starts at that level if they don't win. To me in claiming races that would create a bonaza in claims and open the market up to new people. Even in graded races, for example if a young horse is climbing the ranks, Alw to grade 1, give him so many shots to win then kick him back to grade 2, if still no wins, back to grade 3 and so on. I don't like seening horses with 10 or 15 starts in one grade and not winning, it shouldn't matter how many seconds or thirds they muster up, if you can't win you doin't belong there. That should apply to all conditions. What do you think? Just food for thought.



T.D.

[classhandicapper]

I've got in my mind forcing horses out of one condition after so many starts at that level if they don't win. To me in claiming races that would create a bonaza in claims and open the market up to new people. Even in graded races, for example if a young horse is climbing the ranks, Alw to grade 1, give him so many shots to win then kick him back to grade 2, if still no wins, back to grade 3 and so on. I don't like seening horses with 10 or 15 starts in one grade and not winning, it shouldn't matter how many seconds or thirds they muster up, if you can't win you doin't belong there. That should apply to all conditions. What do you think? Just food for thought. T.D.

I'd have to think about that a little.

If I recall from my harness days (many moons ago), the class moves are handled in a similar fashion. I think it's similar in dog racing also, but I'm not sure.

I think in general, the classing structure is at least somewhat efficient for older claimers and stake shorses, but it can be impoved. It's the ALW and maiden races (especially for younger horses) that are all over the place because they are a mix of lightly raced future tigers and total losers that desperately need a drop in class. Sometimes all the losers are in one race and sometimes a bunch of tigers are in the same race. When I was collecting PAR data (before most of it was public), I did some studies on the figure range around PAR for each class. Some classes are clearly more stable than others.

[classhandicapper]

Too bad we won’t have Trakus data available for the much hoped-for meeting of Lava Man and Bernardini in the BC Classic. Wouldn’t you love to know exactly what constituted the moves they each made in their big races?

Yes I would.

Right now I think Bernardini is the better horse, but I'm not as "ga-ga" over him as some are "yet". I think he's had mostly easy trips against the 3YOs. He'll get tested better by Invasor. I think we'll find out if he's VERY VERY good or potentially great that day if Invasor fires a good one.

Lava Man has run some very big races, but I think his typical recent effort will not get in done at CD unless the field comes up weaker than it looks right now. Plus he's a bit of an extra small risk outside of CA.

[twindouble]

I'd have to think about that a little.

If I recall from my harness days (many moons ago), the class moves are handled in a similar fashion. I think it's similar in dog racing also, but I'm not sure.

I think in general, the classing structure is at least somewhat efficient for older claimers and stake shorses, but it can be impoved. It's the ALW and maiden races (especially for younger horses) that are all over the place because they are a mix of lightly raced future tigers and total losers that desperately need a drop in class. Sometimes all the losers are in one race and sometimes a bunch of tigers are in the same race. When I was collecting PAR data (before most of it was public), I did some studies on the figure range around PAR for each class. Some classes are clearly more stable than others.

I'm in the dark on the harness and dogs also. I agree on what's in bold, that's what sparked the idea.

Heck in most sports if you can't make it in the majors they send you back to the minors. If a horse gets kicked back and win in that grade he can move up again. Have that dropping rule will give us a better idea of their class level, in other words the will be where they belong. That don't mean a trainer can't drop them further win and have to move up again or stay and get more weight. I think I would also put limits as to how far they can drop in one move without getting added weight. I have no opposition to a $20,000 claimer or more shipping to another track for a higher purse as long he's running against $20,000 horses but making it an Alw race is stretch to far.

T.D.

[the_fat_man]

Yes I would.

Right now I think Bernardini is the better horse, but I'm not as "ga-ga" over him as some are "yet". I think he's had mostly easy trips against the 3YOs. He'll get tested better by Invasor. I think we'll find out if he's VERY VERY good or potentially great that day if Invasor fires a good one.

Lava Man has run some very big races, but I think his typical recent effort will not get in done at CD unless the field comes up weaker than it looks right now. Plus he's a bit of an extra small risk outside of CA.

When you watch a competitive race, there's a very brief period when 2 horses are dueling or one is leading and the other is threatening, etc. where it appears that IT CAN GO EITHER WAY. Whether it's merely appearance or not is something I can't answer, however, one certainly appears vulnerable for however brief a period of time this may be. Then, either the threatened horse brushes off the attempt or it succumbs to it.

Bernardini had such a moment in the Preakness. This was understandable.
He also had such a moment, however brief, in the Travers. BGC, certainly not in the caliber of horse that some of us believe Bernardini is, made a number of runs at him and for the briefest of moments entering the stretch I got the sense that Bernardini was vulnerable. (Going from memory here, I am not watching that race again :bang:bang:.
Of course, he just brushed BGC off like a fly and went about his business.

Unlike many here, I don't believe that Invasor will be much of a challenge for Bernardini. He was exposed, IMO, against some hard knocking but certainly not exceptional horses in the Whitney. It can be argued that both Sun King and Premium Tap both 'ran more' than Invasor.

[classhandicapper]

Unlike many here, I don't believe that Invasor will be much of a challenge for Bernardini. He was exposed, IMO, against some hard knocking but certainly not exceptional horses in the Whitney. It can be argued that both Sun King and Premium Tap both 'ran more' than Invasor.

I think Bernardini will be the deserving favorite, but I think Invasor will be more of a challenge than BGC was after Bernardini skipped along at a moderate pace in front of him.

[Bill Cullen]

Does anyone know of any mechanical method to measure class? Stakes races are obvious, but what about cheap claimers?

The Race Rating of a past race that comes with the Brisnet Ultimate pp's can be quite useful when used with the odds. I subtract the odds from the RR for a particular race to get a rough measure of how well the horse was expected to perform against the particular class level of that race.

As a matter of fact, if you restrict play to races where every horse has at least three races in it's past performances AND you play the horse with the top rating for the third race back (Race Rating minus odds) AND you can get 4/1 or higher odds, I suspect that this method might well prove to be of some value.

Bill C

[the_fat_man]

I think Bernardini will be the deserving favorite, but I think Invasor will be more of a challenge than BGC was after Bernardini skipped along at a moderate pace in front of him.

I was intrigued when I read in DrugS website that he thought Invasor got the worst of it in terms of trips in the Whitney.


You're not really telling me much, Class

By default, Invasor is supposed to be more of a challenge for Bernardini. Reading the posts about him, most seem to think he's either the 2nd best or best older horse out there. BGC, on the other hand, happened to be the 2nd best 3 year old at the time he faced B.

So, how will Invasor be more of a challenge? Let's consider the possibilities:

1) There's a lively pace in the race, B sits just off it, Invasor a bit behind him, they turn for home and B dusts him (while Invasor is looking for Sun King -- sort of like waiting for the local and having the express go by). Here, B gets a perfect trip; Invasor has an excuse.

2) B does all the pace setting, moderately, and dusts him. Here, B gets a perfect trip; Invasor has an excuse.

3) UNLIKELY: B sets a blistering pace and dusts them all. Here, B is supposed to be this good and the effort was expected.

4) HIGHLY UNLIKEY: B duels with a couple and Invasor sucks up and wins. Here, B is a fraud and Invasor is a very good horse.

Seems to me, B can't 'win'.

I could be wrong here and if so I'll own up to it. But, I'm just flat out frustrated that people actually think that Invasor is that good.

He can win but he needs a perfect trip in combination with a poor trip for. B. Problem is, B's running style is better suited to a better trip.

After what happened in Louisiana with Weak Contender, hell, anything is possible.

[classhandicapper]

I can't exactly predict the trip, but I think Invasor will be a bigger challenge because he's simply the best horse that Bernardini has faced so far. Whether the challenge comes early, middle, or late, Bernardini will have a better horse putting the heat on him.

I don't rate Invasor as good as St Liam last year or even as a well above average Grade 1 winner, but he's pretty solid. However, he's a late foal and lightly raced. So even though he's considered an older horse, IMO he's more likely to improve than the typical older horse. I think that's a possible reason to think we could see better before the end of the year.

I rate Invasor's recent form as similar to Lava Man's recent form in CA. (I think Lava Man may have been a tad better at his peak last year than he has been this year so far, but his season has been spectactular anyway)

[grahors]

Great thread!
In no way trying to over-simplify things, but does anyone use Wm Scott's PCR ratings (preformance-class-ratings)? I have with good success..gave me Bernadini...
Nice simple way to quantify things.....
Again, just a question.
Cec