TRACK VARIANT QUESTION

[jotb]

TO ALL:

I have devised a full set of condition pars for the whole NY circuit. I am working with pace and final time pars for each condition. The problem is, when I take the results from the previous days races and compare the times for each point of call to see how the track was playing for the day and then proceed to average each point of call but noticed that each point of call average is higher than the next. Example as follows for 6F: 1/4 avg. .40 slow, 1/2 .50 slow, 5/8 .60 slow and final time .80 slow. My question is, would I be better off averaging the 4 points of call or take each call seperately and then adjust? Is it possible for the track to be 2 lengths slow the 1st 1/4 and 4 lengths slow for the final time? I feel that my pars are accurate but before I go any further into this, I want to make the right decision. Keep in mind that I only started this after Thursday's results in NY. Tonight I plan on taking yesterday's results to see if there are differences from the previous days. I was thinking it might be possible that on Thursday there was a wind factor involved. All I know is one thing, and that is I started this project and did not know what the hell I was getting into. There is a ton of work that needs to be done each day and there has to be a better way because this is extremly time consuming. It took me close to 5 hours to incorporate each horse from Thursday into the database including date, age, type race, condition, gender, distance, par times, and adjusted time for beaten lengths. An average card has about 100 horses and to do this for each horse is a pain in the neck. If anyone wants to stop loving this game, my suggestion is to try what I am doing. Believe me, I am at the point of taking this computer and throw it through the window. Sorry but I had to vent!

Best regards to all,

[Dave Schwartz]

Jotb,

Not sure if I understand your question correctly, but I think you asked about adjusting each call realtive to the final time.

The easy way to do this is simply to dirstibute the adjustment based upon relative distance.

For example, if you have a 2-tick adjustment (i.e. 4/10 or 0.40) on final time at 6furlongs, then it is logical to put .13 on the 1st fraction and .27 on the 2nd call. Reasoning is that the 1st fraction is 2f/6f or .33 of the total race and .33 x .40 = .13.

Thus, if the same race were at 7f, the adjustment would be 0.11 because:

2f/7f= 0.286 x .40 = .11

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

PS: If I have misunderstood your question, please forgive my ignorance and try again.

[jotb]

Hello Dave:

That makes sense to me Dave. If I have a 8F race and the final time is a 6 tick adjustment then the 1st call would be 15, the 2nd call 30. third call 45 and final call is 60. So if the track is slow 60 ticks then the 1st call needs to be adjusted 15 ticks and so forth. I like this! Funny thing is my par times for each call per condition were coming out like this. They seem to increase each call.

Would I be better off averaging the 1st call for all 9 dirt races on a particuliar day. Then proceed the same way for the other 3 calls? I was also wondering if I should seperate the routes from sprints. Do I consider routes only 2 turn races or are routes considered as 8.0F and higher.

If in the event that I run into a race on a particuliar day that seems to out of whack should I discard this race from the average but adjust after an average is calculated. Say final times for a given day range from -25 to -85 but 1 race is -265 ticks. Do I include that -265 into the average?

Under seperate cover, I am sending you a document that I would like you to view.

Thank you
Joe

[Dave Schwartz]

Joe,

In theory, it would seem that you could use the 1st call from all sprint races. After all, each sprint race DOES have a 1st call that is 2f from the start.

Unfortunately, that does not work well for a couple of reasons. The reasons become more obvious when you look at the 2nd (or EP) call. Consider where that call is at most tracks... In a 6f race it is 2f from the wire, placing it on the turn, while at 7f it is a full furlong earlier, likely just entering the turn. In other words, the EP call at 7f at (say) Bel is all straight away while the 4f call at 6f is not!

The second reason mixing distances is not good is the run-up times which may differ from one distance to another at a given track.

I received your doc and will try to look at it later today or tomorrow.


Best regards,
Dave Schwartz

[cj]

Making pace variants as a fraction of the final variant is a BAD road to go down! Ever heard of wind? Aqueduct is one of the absolute worse tracks at which to try this.

CJ

[jotb]

To Dave:

It is difficult to take each distance seperately to calculate how the track is playing because you do not have enough of races on a given day. You may have as many as 6 different distances in one racing card. I fully understand what you tried to explain about the turns but the bottom line is, when you are trying to calculate whether the track is fast or slow compared to par times, there are just not enough races to work with. Sometimes you need to keep things simple otherwise you outsmart yourself.

To find out how a track is playing for the day, I would think that each call should be calculated seperately. The gentleman that replied and spoke about wind velocity is 100% on the money especially on the inner dirt at Aqueduct. Pace calls will vary on certain days because of the headwinds down the backside. This will make for slower than normal pace times. However, coming home is another story because of the tailwind. Track final times will still be slower but not as much as the first part of the day.

My guess is to take each day differently to piece the puzzle together until it makes sense. In calculating the variant is more of an art rather than science. There is no rule of thumb for track variants. The problem is, there is no room for error. If you apply the wrong variant it can be assumed that each horses adjusted figs will be affected.

Joe

[ridersup]

I suppose everybody does things differently. I have been making variants for many years at Tampa Bay Downs and for the last few years at Churchill Downs.

I personally like to keep track of all calls to see how fast according to par the runners were running on a particular day.
As CJ says on windy days its a pain in the butt but I take the contrary view.

At Tampa Bay if the wind is coming from the south sprint races running with the wind show unusually high 1st and 2d call pace figures. If you didn't know they were wind assisted when you are evaluating a horse that ran on that day you might think he had a pace advantage. Conversly if the with the wind horse is facing a horse that ran into the wind his pace times would appear slow.

Isn't this the advantage we are looking for when going to the trouble of makiing variants?

[jotb]

To CJMILKOWSKI:

I totally agree with you about the wind at Aqueduct. However, I believe pace variants can be calculated if and only if you have accurate pace pars. So far I have not had a problem with the 1st and 2nd calls. If I take the results for a given day and compared them to my pace pars per condition, I noticed that they have been on the money. When I run through the 1st call for all races on the card it comes back like this: -24, -7, -46, -27, -29, -2, -18, -14, +13. It's oblivous that the track is slow for the day and the race that is + stands out especially after the adjustment is made. What I'm not sure about is whether I take all 9 races and average or use just the -24, -27, -29, and -18 and average the four races. It only amounts to 7 ticks slower just using those 4 races as opposed to all the races but which way is the fair way?

Joe

[jotb]

To RIDERSUP:

Wind is not going to effect just 1 race on the card. I believe if your pace pars per condition are accurate then wind does not become an issue. Who cares if there is 50MPH headwind down the backside or a 50MPH tailwind. The track is either playing slow or fast. Can the track play different early on as opposed to later in the race? Certainly! But again, if your pars are accurate then the visualization becomes evident. I think the problem for most speed figure makers is not so much calculating a variant but more in the way of condition pars. If condition pars are not properly devised then the job of calculating a true variant is near to impossible. I spent months devising my pars. I tinkered with them until I felt comfortable with them. Honestly, I broke my condition pars apart about 7 times because I felt they were off. That is why I laugh when I see the Beyer Pars in Simo weekly each week. They leave out so many conditions! There are age groups, gender, statebreds, and many different distances that make up condition pars. I firmly believe that incorporating conditions into conditions is a no-no. Each condition and distance must be handled seperately. Like you said, everyone approaches this in a different way. When I started this I knew there was tons of work to be done but I felt if I put my heart and soul into this project the rewards would be great.

Best regards,
Joe

[hurrikane]

Jesus...I"m getting nightmare just reading this. I remeber the days of toiling over pars and variants. Makes me shudder.
One thing is certain..if you make your own you will have numbers no one else has and that is an advantage. Have fun.

As for the input of all the data...you can download charts in text and then import or cut and paste into excel and save yourself a whole lot of doctor bills for carpol tunnel syndrom. :D

[Jaguar]

As any old Aqueduct handicapper knows, Jamaica bay is right close by, creating a high water table. Furthermore, Aqueduct's track drainage system has never been optimized, in spite of the efforts of Aqueduct's very competent track maintenance crews.

Consequently, any measurable precipitation during high tide creates what is commonly known in these parts as a condition known as the "Aqueduct rail jinx", resulting in a deep rail- which means tough going for any jock who keeps his mount inside.

When a bettor's horse is crowded to the inside, on a day like that, or if the rider chooses an inside path on such a day, the wailing from the frustrated ticket buyer's in the grandstand makes the cries and screams heard at Genghis Khan's funeral sound like the applause for the visiting speaker at a Rotary Club luncheon.

Some guys I know have carefully calculated this "inside rail" phenomenon -in relation to the distance measured outward from the rail- and even though they guard these figures like the Turkish Brigade guarding Attaturk's Tomb- perhaps one of them would let his guard down and share the equation and its related variables with us.

One guy has had this data in his Texas Instruments hand-held for 15 years, he's made enough money with it, how about sharing the info with us mortals?

All the best,

Jaguar

[Lindsay]

Jotb,

What you have described is to be expected. There is a telescoping effect between fractions and final times. Here's an example: 6f races: If the track is .20 slower one day than the next for the final time, it's likely to be about .03 slower to the first quarter and .10 slower to the half. It is a mistake to chop the race into thirds and apply 33 percent of the final-time variant to each quarter of a 3/4 mile race.

[Dave Schwartz]

CJ,

You'll noutice from my post that I said, "The easy way." There are certainly better ways but, without a LOT of work (even more than he is putting in already and he's not thrilled with the current workload) it just isn;t possible.

Limping distances together just does not work because the calls can be so much different. Looking at CD sprints, as an example. the 7fur 1st fraction is more than a full second slower than the 1st fraction at 6f.

The wind example is a great one, and real too. And that means not just noting the direction of the wind but also the speed. And remember it is the speed at the time of the race, not just the wind speed on that day.

And what about the mix of horses in the race? Races with multiple front runners are likely to have faster early paces that those with a single front runner.

All in all, it will take a heroic effort to produce variants that take nearly everything into consideration.

And I question that the humongous effort will be returned in proportional profit.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[cj]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
CJ,

...

And I question that the humongous effort will be returned in proportional profit.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

I can tell you from experience, the profit is very good. The effort isn't as bad as you may think thanks to downloadable charts and modern computers. Just 5 years ago, I spent around 20 hours a week doing pace variants for @ 10 circuits. Now, it only takes about 3-4 :).

I know many will disagree, but what has really helped me is basing my pace pars and constructing pace variants from the fractional times of the Winner, not the leader.

CJ

[jotb]

To Dave:

When you found out that the 1st call in a 7F race at CD is about 1 full second slower then a 6F race, did you notice if the 2nd call at 7F was faster than the 2nd call at 6F? In NY for example, I found the higher classes generally would run a slower 1st 1/4 than some of the lower classes. I guess the reason for that is because the classier foes seem to have the ability to rate early on.

Joe

[Dave Schwartz]

Jotb,

I see that the CD-7f second FRACTION is faster than at 6f, but the second CALL is still slower. I am sure this is what you meant, but did not wish any reader to misunderstand.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Dave Schwartz]

CJ,

The humongous work I was referring to is making 3 variants per race, adjusting for wind and weather, etc. for a local circuit and a few feeder tracks.

At least I consider it to be too much work relative to the compensation.

I am sure it does improve the result. Just not enough to suit me.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Tom]

Originally posted by jotb
To CJMILKOWSKI:

When I run through the 1st call for all races on the card it comes back like this: -24, -7, -46, -27, -29, -2, -18, -14, +13. It's oblivous that the track is slow for the day and the race that is + stands out especially after the adjustment is made. What I'm not sure about is whether I take all 9 races and average or use just the -24, -27, -29, and -18 and average the four races. It only amounts to 7 ticks slower just using those 4 races as opposed to all the races but which way is the fair way?

Joe

Joe,
If you average all the races, you get -17.1 If you throw out the high and low, you get -17.3. If you look at the median of all the races, you get -18 and if you look at the medina after excluding the two extreme value, you get -18. The center of this small smaple seems to be betwen -17 and -18. I would go no further-you have pretty much duplicated the results several different ways and you only to conside two races as being maybe unusual.
If you throw out more that the -46 and the +13, now you have to consder why. You shouldn't throw out a race for no good reason or suspicion. This is where your work pay off - if you can identify those two races as abberent. Now you habe information that no one else but CJ has (<G>.
Seriously, I used to make three call variant s and figs for FL before the Beyers and I sometimes cleaned up on speed or pace stickouts. I really loved it when I saw fit to split the variant for a day - it really confused everyone not looking at figs at all, or looking at the DRF SR+TV. It was not uncommon to get 4-1, 6-1, 8-1 on superior horses. Sometimes I wish Beyer had become a cab driver.
Note_ I have seen days that the wind suddenly stops or doesn't start up until into the card. Beware.

[MarylandPaul@HSH]

My approach to making varients was to start with a simple comparison to par for each call, then look to projections to attempt to explain any anomolies. Some days become clear as crystal, others will have a race or two that will make you nuts. Actually, knowing which races defy explanation, and noting them with a big "?", was a big help. It would tell me to rate horses coming from that race from other efforts, at least until a couple ran back.

When adjusting the 1st and 2nd calls, I'd tread lightly. I don't believe the effect of a slower surface is linear; the effects will be seen more in the third fraction as the field tires. Projecting the pace from the PP's, then seeing how it played out, is probably the best approach.

Making a good varient is a ton of work, and probably impossible if you have a family :). Although the numbers you get are very good, I think the greatest benefit of all that sweat is that you begin to know the horses on your circuit on a "first name basis". You look at the PP's, and you remember seeing the chart. The race replays itself in your head. You just know which horses can win at which level. It's a nice fuzzy feeling.

MP

[anotherdave]

Do any of the data providers do a real track variant with their numbers. By real I mean using par times, etc. The whole bit. There are so many problems with the DRF variant, but sometimes it is better than nothing. Lately, however, I'm not so sure, so I've been using nothing and doing manual variants and trying to adjust manually.Or a software program that let's you put your own homemade track variants into the program?

AD