TAKACH ON TURF

[delayjf]

Anybody care to chime in on Joe Takach's take on turf pace and speed figures? If you haven't read the article yet, you can find it on the home page.
To an extent I agree with him, movement of the rail makes speed / pace handicapping tough, but I don't think it is impossible.
As far as varients go, IMO once you account for the rail movement, you can make varients based on a number of days of grass racing as opposed to just one single day. Unless it rains, the track speed is not going to change much from day to day especailly in SoCal. Grass doesn't grow that fast and I think the hardness of the ground has more to do with the turf track speed than the length of grass (within reason).

[hurrikane]

I've never seen any numbers that work well over the turf. Well, maybe Quinns late speed but I can't say for sure. Seems overbet anyway.

One problem I can see with carrying the variant over many days is it doesn't take into account the stregth of the field. Surely the fields on Sun will be stronger than the fields on Thur.
Maybe there are some numbers someone is using with success..I've just never seen them.

Only thing I have seen that really works is Class, ability(previous races) and trainer/jockey.

I do have one early speed play that hits about 15% and pays a nice 1.55 roi. Only averages 1-2 plays a day though over all tracks.

[so.cal.fan]

I agree with Hurrikane,
I have never seen any type of numbers work on turf courses, at least not here in So. Calif.
I know many people who use good figures, and none of them use any on the turf.
Maybe they exist, but who ever has them, ain't sharin';)

[cj]

I've been pretty successful making turf figs based mainly, but not solely, on late speed. It can be done in my opinion. That said, I have no illusions they are as accurate as admittedly inexact dirt figures.

CJ

[Lindsay]

Hurrikane wrote: "One problem I can see with carrying the variant over many days is it doesn't take into account the stregth of the field. Surely the fields on Sun will be stronger than the fields on Thur."

Hurrikane: This makes no sense to me. Will you please explain? Why can't it take into account the strength of the fields?

[hurrikane]

Lindsay,
maybe I'm misunderstanding what delay is saying but seems to me if you figure the variant over serveral days you are diluting the things the variant is suppose to pick up...ie strength of field and changes in the daily errant behavior of the track.
so your variant isnt Oct 23 +4... it then becomes..the week of Oct 23 -2. In the winter this is even more compounded by the lack of turf races.

However..if you are making a projected time variant you could do this every day based on the time you believe the race should have been run. IMHO this is the only true variant.

I've just never seen a turf fig that works consistantly. I believe they are out there..but like so cal says...no one is sharing.

[Lindsay]

Hurrikane,

Thanks. Whether you make variants using par times or projections, the strength of the various fields is immaterial because it's accounted for in the par times and projections. The problem with making one variant for several days is that you're making an assumption that the track speed--grass speed in this case--has not changed. This may or may not be a correct assumption. It depends on the situation.

As for the value of figures on grass, most of my friends use either Thoro-Graph or The Sheets, and I can honestly say that I cannot recall ever hearing a complaint about the general quality of figures for grass races. In fact, I believe that most sheets players prefer turf races. Sheets take ground loss into consideration, and it's difficult to overestimate the importance of this for turf races.

[cj]

Originally posted by Lindsay
Hurrikane,

... Sheets take ground loss into consideration, and it's difficult to overestimate the importance of this for turf races.

I agree that ground loss is important in turf races, but only if its caused by a bad post position or a bad ride, not by an inherent running style. Closers who lag back and rally wide will always lose ground.

CJ

[Lindsay]

CJ wrote: "I agree that ground loss is important in turf races, but only if its caused by a bad post position or a bad ride, not by an inherent running style. Closers who lag back and rally wide will always lose ground."

Please let me give you an example where I believe this is incorrect. This is a closer who almost always has to circle the field on the second turn. 2yo line: 12 10 11 12 10.

He comes back as a 3yo and runs a 9.75, a small move through his 2yo top, making him "explosive" in the vernacular.

Now even closers can often save ground on the first turn. As a 2yo, this horse was on the rail on some turns, most often the first turn, two wide on some turns, five wide on others, etc., and this ground loss is accounted for in his figures.

The decision that he has become explosive is based on a tiny move (1/4 of a point in this case) through his 2yo top. If we were to ignore ground loss because of an assumption that closers usually lag back and lose ground, we might well miss the distinction between an explosive horse and a horse who hasn't gotten back to his 2yo top.

As for the importance of projecting today's ground loss, I agree with you. Post position and running style must be taken into consideration, and skepticism is certainly in order in regard to a closer's chances of saving ground.

[Chico]

I don't believe any set of numbers will ever work on turf due to the nature of the way turf races are run. Trainers (and jockeys, by extension) relax their horses through the first two calls of the race, only asking their mounts for full effort for the last 2 or 3 furlongs. As a result, second call pace times for 1 mile to 1 1/8 mile races can vary anywhere from 1:10 up to 1:16+. In a 12 horse field it generally winds up with a "quarter horse race" with 8 or 10 horses spread out across the track in a "cavalry charge" to the finish. (Something which is common in turf races but extremely rare on the dirt.) Takach is correct in his final observation, but in my opinion for the wrong reasons. It has little to do with the placement of the rail, but everything to do the way in which the races are run.
Regards,
Chico

[Lindsay]

Chico wrote: "I don't believe any set of numbers will ever work on turf due to the nature of the way turf races are run."

Chico,

A theory that it is aerodynamically impossible for bumblebees to fly is trumped by flying bumblebees. Many sheet players use turf figures with great success. I guess one could claim that there is a grand conspiracy at work, that sheet players are lying about this in order to create more sheet players and hurt their odds, but it's a tough sell.

"As a result, second call pace times for 1 mile to 1 1/8 mile races can vary anywhere from 1:10 up to 1:16+."

In cases where the pace is extremely slow, the person making the figures will cut the race loose from the other turf races that day, making the final time of the race demonstrably meaningless.

[Rick]

It is possible to win at most tracks on the turf using class ratings and early (2nd call) and late pace ratings weighted equally.

[rrbauer]

First, I presume that this thread is about turf "routes". Because, my dirt sprint/turf sprint figs go back and forth like a duck over the pond.

My reference is SoCal and since Del Mar changed its turf course, all of the SoCal tracks now have a hybrid bermuda grass that grows tight and can be mowed short. Not unlike a putting green. From that I have stopped trying to make adjustments for course changes among the three (3) major SoCal tracks. And about 90% of the turf races here are run on "firm" ground. That, combined with the small number of turf races run on any given day, says to me that trying to fine-tune a daily turf variant is like crystal-ball gazing!

I think that with all other things being equal (and of course they're not!) that the placement of the rail, the post position and the jockey are the most important handicapping factors in a turf route in SoCal. When the rail is out ten feet or more, it moves the E- and EP-types up big time, and I remove my "push" that I normally give to the LP fig in turf routes. When the rail is normal, then the P- and S-types move up, and I give the LP fig a push. Generally, I subscribe to the idea that the early part of a turf route is a pacing contest followed by a sprint from about the 3/8th pole to the wire; hence, the push to LP.

Generally, post positions from the 8-hole out at 1 mile or 1 1/16 are very bad. Not always, of course, because if the rail is out and an E- or EP-type can get out and over before the CHT then they are in a position to press their advantage.

Finally, I will not back a jock that hasn't shown good turf route ability. You can't be a tactical moron and be a good turf rider. A "busy" jock in a turf route is a loser (Pedroza, for example, who does very well on the dirt and in turf sprints is about 4% in turf routes--that's a guess--it's bad, whatever it is!). You may need to ride a different race when the rails are out because it "rounds out" the course, and it takes away the inside move at the head of the lane from the closers, so jocks that save ground on the far turn, find themselves in a box turning for home (unless they're in front). And, in this same context, I will use a horse because of the jock, that I might not otherwise use. G. Gomez being the prime example recently.

Enough already!

[GameTheory]

I've always done pretty well with turf races, and I've always used pretty simple numbers to handicap them (basically early & late together as Rick noted), along with the jockey which seems to be a huge factor on turf. I was in the black betting turf races long before I figured out how to win on dirt.

It's funny -- people seem most afraid of turf races & maiden races, which I've always found to be the easiest to beat. I think it is much tougher to make money on dirt claiming races.

[delayjf]

Although not a "figure", I have personally had great success using the Sartin sustained pace rating. When I moved to So Cal, I was stunned at how predictable it was in turf races and classic distances. Ken Massa talks about these and other simular ratings that emphasis the late / dominant portions of turf racing. These ratings are just as effective on turf as others are on grass.

What convinced me that a turf varient is not as indesiperable as Joes has proclaimed is the way the Sartin program handled the varient with great success. To be blunt, it didn't use one. The program did some kind of energy adjustments, but it did not use a varient. As long as I didn't try to compare SA to HOL or DEL, it picked winners consistantly. I'm not saying it's the prefered way, but in So Cal I believe you can get away with not using a varient considering. (handicapping magic doesn't use one)
a) Unlike dirt tracks, there is very little or no maintinance to affect the track speed on a day to day basis. Yes, turf tracks speed up and slow down, but at a much more gradual rate than dirt. You won't see great swings in turf speed overnight, assuming no rain.

b) Racing and training on the Turf is minimal when compared to dirt. Which leaves the track unaffected on a day to day basis.

c) The wx is almost constant in SoCal except for the winter months at Santa Anita.

The East coast is another matter, lots of wx and lots of shippers to compare and contrasts. You have to be very familiar with several tracks.
I think some (not all) handicappers have trouble on turf because they have trouble shifting gears from betting spreed types that dominate dirt racing to closers that dominate the turf.
I would agree that pace handicapping (especially early pace) is less affective on turf.

RRBAUER,
Interesting comments, I could not agree with you more, speed Jockeys like Pedroza have a hard time on the turf. I felt the same way about Desormeaux up until the last few years, he has learned to relax horses in turf races and in routes. I think Real Quiet taught him the value of patience.

[Lindsay]

rrbauer wrote: "And about 90% of the turf races here are run on "firm" ground. That, combined with the small number of turf races run on any given day, says to me that trying to fine-tune a daily turf variant is like crystal-ball gazing!"

Why does good weather make it harder to make good variants?

"Enough already!"

Why? Have you located something that deserves to be the last word on this subject?

[Tom]

I use raw third fractions, converted to pace numbers ala Quinn usually, but sometimes just plain raw as is numbers. I look at distances clos to today's, within 1/2 furlong and I will use any of the last 6 if it is not really obviously abberent. I pay attention to class ore in Turf races than dirt, and I pay close attention to jockeys who do better than average on the turf. Trainer and breeding are about all I use on MSW and NW1 truf routres.
After a vcouple of losses on the turf, I call the horse a proven loser and move on.
If you use Formulator, you can looks at the individual horses' fractions, which save a lot of time. My basic 100 rating times for F3 are :24, :30, and :36 for 1mi-1m8 and :37 for 11 furlongs and :25 for 10 furlongs.

[cj]

Originally posted by Rick
It is possible to win at most tracks on the turf using class ratings and early (2nd call) and late pace ratings weighted equally.

Rick,

This is exactly what I was talking about. I rate horses in this manner. For example, in a 1m race the last fraction is only 25% of the race, but accounts for 50% of the final figure. I think we are on the same page.

RRBauer,

I agree about Post Position in that I feel it is the single most overlooked important factor in turf routes. Ask the connections of "The Rock!"

CJ

[hurrikane]

I agree late foot is the number in turf but a bit over played..a good jock and a early horse in a full field with proven class is money to be made.

Lindsay,

I'm not sure I understand your post.
1. Variants based on projected times are completely different from variants based on pars.

2. Strength of field is not considered in par times. By strength I mean that every field of CLM50K horses is not the same. That is the reason for projected times. I don't think you can make a projected time over the course of a week or even a day..it is race by race. That is why it is called projected.

3. When you talk of sheets I figure you are talking more about form than just pace/speed figs. That to me is completely different.

That being said..I have always loved the weeds. But I don't give a lot of stregth to the pace/speed figs. I will however use a sheet to look at form.

[Lindsay]

Hurrikane wrote:

"I'm not sure I understand your post.
1. Variants based on projected times are completely different from variants based on pars."

Not really. The principle is the same. With both methods you're comparing how fast horses ran to how fast they were expected to run. Projections are usually more accurate because they are more likely to catch the disparities within a particular class, as you point out below.

"I don't think you can make a projected time over the course of a week or even a day..it is race by race. That is why it is called projected."

Sure you can. Beyer, for one, explains how to do it over the course of a day in three of his books. Quirin explains how to do it over a week in one of his books. Here's an example. Let's say there's one turf race a day over five days. Compare the final times to your projected times. Then take the average of the five differences as your variant--just as you would if there were five turf races on one day. Whether this is wise is a different matter, but there is no question that it can be done with the projection method. It is quite easy.

"3. When you talk of sheets I figure you are talking more about form than just pace/speed figs. That to me is completely different."

Analyzing form cycles with inaccurate numbers is a futile pursuit. It does not work. Analyzing form cycles with sheet numbers works.

[cj]

Originally posted by Lindsay


... Analyzing form cycles with inaccurate numbers is a futile pursuit. It does not work. Analyzing form cycles with sheet numbers works.

How accurate can "sheets" be when they fail to acknowledge pace has any effect on final time? I'm assuming we are talking Ragozin or Thoro-graph sheets, correct me if I'm wrong.


CJ

[Lindsay]

CJ wrote: "How accurate can "sheets" be when they fail to acknowledge pace has any effect on final time? I'm assuming we are talking Ragozin or Thoro-graph sheets, correct me if I'm wrong."

CJ,

Yes, I'm talking about The Sheets and Thoro-Graph. What you wrote here is simply not true. Ragozin has a "pace" symbol that he uses when he thinks the pace might have affected the final time. He also gives "quit" numbers to horses when the pace was very fast. Ragozin's right-hand man, Len Friedman, has written about the effects of pace on final time. Thoro-Graph also adjusts the manner in which it makes variants when the pace warrants it.

[cj]

Thanks Lindsay,

This is a definite change in the right direction. In the past, I know for a fact pace was completely ignored.

Not that they were alone. I have the original version of "Picking Winners" by Andy Beyer, and he also did not feel pace affected final time. He obviously has changed his tune as well as he even describes making pace figures in one of his later works. Also, in newer releases of Picking Winners, that part has been deleted.

CJ

[rrbauer]

From Lindsay:
rrbauer wrote: "And about 90% of the turf races here are run on "firm" ground. That, combined with the small number of turf races run on any given day, says to me that trying to fine-tune a daily turf variant is like crystal-ball gazing!"

Why does good weather make it harder to make good variants?
Comment to Lindsay:
Good weather should provide a consistent surface absent any deep watering of the course. But one turf race a day gives you very little to work with. And, moving the rails around adds to the problem. But, everyone likes to do what they like to do, and if you like to make turf variants, make 'em.

And regarding my use of
"Enough already!"

And your comment without a smiley face:
Why? Have you located something that deserves to be the last word on this subject?

And my reply:
That's my way of ending a long-winded post. I'm just stating opinions here like everyone else. If you don't like my posts then don't read them.

[hurrikane]

Lindsay,

you are correct.

Whether this is wise is a different matter, but there is no question that it can be done with the projection method.


variants can be made over a period of time..a day, a week, a month, or a year. There is no question you can do it. My position is I think it is unwise.

you are correct.

Analyzing form cycles with inaccurate numbers is a futile pursuit. It does not work. Analyzing form cycles with sheet numbers works.


Sheet numbers are a generic term. There are many sheets, some good, some bad. I thought the discussion was what was the general opinion of the numbers we assume to be good and how they work on turf. I think we can all agree on what we think of the sheet that are bad.

[Lindsay]

rrbauer: Quite the contrary. I like your posts and wish they were longer. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I still don't understand why good weather makes it harder to make good variants, as you suggested, but we don't need to revist this if you don't want to.

CJ: You're welcome, and more important, welcome home. The "sheet people" have been coming around on this.

Hurrikane wrote: "Sheet numbers are a generic term."

I believe a lawsuit was threatened over this very question.

"variants can be made over a period of time..a day, a week, a month, or a year. There is no question you can do it. My position is I think it is unwise."

That is also my position. This started when you wrote that stronger weekend fields make it unwise to lump several days together when making variants. I still don't understand this. There are other reasons why it's a bad idea. This is not one of them.

Anyone who doesn't believe that sheet numbers are very effective on grass should go to: www.thorograph.com. The day after each day's races, their Red Board Room has all the previous day's sheets up. They are free. Please look them over for a few weeks. I am certain you will eventually conclude that their turf numbers are superb.

[rrbauer]

lindsay

re: I still don't understand why good weather makes it harder to make good variants, as you suggested, but we don't need to revist this if you don't want to.

Comment:
Good weather contributes to a consistent condition of the turf courses in SoCal. Hence, whatever variant exists due to day-to-day differences in the course condition are minimal. What contributes more to variants, IMO, are the changes in course symmetry by moving the rails around. When they move the rails around it changes the course dimensions. So, if I were really wanting to get precise with my figs I would build some standards around times when the rail was out 1-notch; or, 2-notches; or, 3-notches; or, whatever. And, if they ran more turf races I think that would be possible to do. But they don't, so I don't!

Finally, in the same vein, there have been arguments that the gate placement vis-a-vis the finish line produces faulty teletimer results. That makes sense to me, but I don't know how to quantify it, or get mileage from it, without getting mired down in a whole new chapter of time adjustments. I understand that Rags and JB hand-time a lot of races, particularly turf races, to compensate for the "runup" differences and the gate/rail/pole issues on turf. I'm just not sure what value that has beyond the marketing rhetoric that they gain from referring to it. (That sentence should get me a few roasts!)

When I look at figs for turf horses I see a great deal of race-to-race consistency after I set aside factors such as young horses still improving, etc. That's why in match-ups that look fairly even (say 1 to 2 Rag points), I look to other factors, as mentioned in a previous post, for my separators.

[Rick]

That's why class ratings are WAY better than speed ratings on the turf.

[Lindsay]

rrbauer wrote: "Good weather contributes to a consistent condition of the turf courses in SoCal. Hence, whatever variant exists due to day-to-day differences in the course condition are minimal."

Agreed. That's why it's easier, not harder, to make variants in good weather.

"What contributes more to variants, IMO, are the changes in course symmetry by moving the rails around. When they move the rails around it changes the course dimensions."

Agreed. I've done quite a bit of research on this. Moving the rails can knock 3/5 of a second off some fractions at some distances. Thoro-Graph and The Sheets check the rails and measure the run-ups. They are well aware of their importance. They also adjust for wind, which is hugely important in many situations.

"I understand that Rags and JB hand-time a lot of races, particularly turf races, to compensate for the "runup" differences and the gate/rail/pole issues on turf. I'm just not sure what value that has beyond the marketing rhetoric that they gain from referring to it. (That sentence should get me a few roasts!)"

A big reason they hand-time the races is that there are clockings that are just plain wrong. At Gulfstream a few years back, the authorities actually requested Ragozin's help to clean up the mess created by all their timing errors. Thoro-Graph makes a note on the sheet when it's necessary to correct the official time.

"When I look at figs for turf horses I see a great deal of race-to-race consistency after I set aside factors such as young horses still improving, etc. That's why in match-ups that look fairly even (say 1 to 2 Rag points), I look to other factors, as mentioned in a previous post, for my separators."

So do I. I think this is an advantage of using good figures on turf: There is less bouncing, less wear and tear. The ability of the horses--as indicated by figures and other factors--is even more important. In this regard turf races remind me a little of harness races: The horses are more consistent, but trips are even more important--hence the importance of measuring ground loss.

[Tom]

Good thing they let us bet on our convictions. Sounds like no two of us will be betting the same turf horses <G>

[delayjf]

While I have not used them, unlike other "sheets" equiform uses pace numbers along with its sheet style figures.

Another departure from the other "sheets" figure is they DO NOT account for ground loss. Equiform founder Cary Fotias feels that ground loss is overstated somewhat because it does not address the physics of running wide vs running on the rail. Basically, he states that it takes less energy to run wide than to run on the rail. This is especially true on tracks with less bank.

An illustration of this might be a baseball player who after hitting a two base hit, attempted to run a ground saving distance by running a straight line from first to second base. To do so he would have to slow down to make the turn. In reality nobody does this but instead runs wide so as not to have to slow down. Perhaps not the best illustration but I think this is what he is refering to. I'd say there is some validity to what he is saying when you consider that horses win going wide every day at every track. I know a lot of circumstances determine a horse race, but how many horses are able to spot rivals of simular ability several lengths by going wide and still win. Yet you see it everyday.
No doubt, the rail movement is a real bitch. May explain why some handicappers have success with using raw final fractions to rate turf runners. Rail movement and differing run up distances may affect final time and early fractions, but not final fractions.

[hurrikane]

I don't want to get into a big thing on making numbers. I burned out on that a long time ago.

One of the big assumptions in making a variant is that nothing changed for the 4-5 hours that the horses were running.
This is not always the case but 80-85% of the time it holds for making a variant.

you add in a change of field stength(field defined by horses, trainer and jockies), weather, track maintenance, and who else knows what and making a variant over more than a day becomes senseless.

I'll say right now..I use numbers..some one elses...they are close enough for the information I need to help clear up the other pieces of my handicapping.
If the numbers were gone tomorrow..I would still make money.
Don't get me wrong..I was bred on speed figs and lived on Beyers for years...before they became public. Now I don't get much value out of them except for form..and I don't use Beyers.

Make figures any way you want..I don't care. Just win..be happy..and enjoy.

[delayjf]

HURRIKANE,
seems there are two types of speed / pace handicappers today, those who seek the perfect number and those who have given up the chase and accept the imperfections that exist and stop the pursuit. Not sure wihich camp I fall into. Still, I like to hear how other people address these problems, makes for interesting conversation. Like you said, just win.

I have the utmost respect for Joe Takach and think his service is first class. His paddock inspections give him the edge he needs. I also know he is very opinionated, and I don't think he has a monopoly on how to win at horse racing. Just because he thinks it can't be done, doesn't make it fact.

I would agree that speed /pace figures are not the best tools to evaluate turf performance unless you creat from them compound ratings like sartins sustained pace. Ken Massa has shown us that. Interestingly, as I recall sustained pace was more predictive of turf races at 11/8 than at 1mile. Perhaps because at 11/8 miles the final fraction represents a great portion of the race. But thats another subject. anybody got the answer to distance equalization???

[hurrikane]

Quinn wrote that he feels the 1 mi turf is a creature all it's own. Horses have to have proven they can run that specific distance.

I've never checked it out with data..not sure I can.

[hurrikane]

Massa also backs fr1 on turf as I do. They hit some bombs. Can't figure out any rhyme or reason..they just come in and no one bets rF1 on turf.

I have one strong rf1 play on turf that turns 1.5 and a 14% hit rate.
Oh...that should go in the thread on ROI.

Lets see..it turned a bankroll 7 times in the last 12 months. Is that better? :D

[delayjf]

HURRIKANNE,
Agreed, you can make money with speed on the turf, I've hit some bombs betting "sustained" front runners. Keeping in mind that sustained pace is 1/2 early. I've hit my front running bombs on horses with competitive sustained pace ratings that were front runners. A softer pace today and they don't get caught Especailly at Hol in the spring. I would think that these same front running sustained horses would do very well on the dirt, where the emphasis is more on speed. Perhaps Ken has looked into that.
I could see how the turf mile would be problematic. I noticed one day at DeLmar that the turf mile races actually started at about the 1/16 pole. Thats a pretty good run up. Here is where hand timing from the gate would be beneficial. I wonder if you can get acurate times by watching a video of the race. Anybody out there tried that???

[delayjf]

do you have a theory as to why speed moves up on the turf when the rails are out??