PIM Surface change on Preakness day

[john del riccio]

I beleive that between the 6th & 8th races on the card, where there was a turf race sandwiched in between, the surface qucikened by about 3 lengths.
Once again, between the 9th and 11th race, with another turf race sandwiched in between, the track quickened again by about 3 lengths. Between the Schaeffer and the Preakness, the track sped up one more time by about two lengths.

There was some intermintent rain but I beleive the track maintenance, and the time between races had more to do with the changing track speed.

John

[cj]

I believe the track changed between the 6th and 8th dirt races, but not much thereafter. If the track did indeed speed up as much as you say, the last race on the card was a total donkey race.

[Murph]

Hello John and CJ,

You were posting this as I put my variant question in. I had all of the routes at more than a second faster than par, with the last 3 dirt routes really pushing it up. Thanks for your insights.

Murph

[john del riccio]

I believe the track changed between the 6th and 8th dirt races, but not much thereafter. If the track did indeed speed up as much as you say, the last race on the card was a total donkey race.

CJ,

I cut the last race loose, it made no sense what so ever. When you look at the horses that competed in that race, there wasn't alot of quality except for the winner and the 6.

John

[classhandicapper]

These are the kinds of things that IMO continue to make "class handicapping relevant".

Just look at the issues here.

There may been either 1, 2, or 3 track speed changes because of a combination of track maintenance and light rain.

You have to remember though, that track speed changes also impact fractional times and those fractional times then impact final time.

So in order to get at the correct track variant for each race you not only have to judge the speed of the track, you have to judge the exact impact of the pace on the final time. It's a very complicated combination analysis without perfectly accurate formulas.

Now I'm not saying it can't be done or that the effort is a waste of time. I try to do it all the time myself.

But even without numbers isn't it quite obvious that these are very solid Grade 1 3YOs and yesterday's pace was fast given what we know about these horses records, what we could see, and how the pace setters faired.

IMO this kind of comparative analysis sometimes makes it easier to evaluate performances than assigning numbers. It's also fairly easy to compare how these horses ran relative to each. You know what kind of horse it's going to take to beat these if one tries to move up from a lower level.

IMO, both perspectives have advantages and disadvatages. Using both is best.

[cj]

IMO, both perspectives have advantages and disadvatages. Using both is best.

I think using both creates too many conflicts, and takes too much time.

[bobphilo]

IMO, both perspectives have advantages and disadvatages. Using both is best.

I agree. My handicapping is based on figures but I believe one has to consider the factors, such as pace and trip that influence them. Figures can be very misleading if looked at in isolation of the conditions in which they were earned.
Time is a factor as to how much detail one can get into but doesn't change the importance of comprehensive analysis.

Bob

[Tom]

That's were all those $17, $25, $40 winners come from-using good numbers.

[classhandicapper]

I think using both creates too many conflicts, and takes too much time.

It takes a lot of time. It's not suitable for someone playing a real lot of races at many tracks. However, it's very easy for anyone to apply to stakes races because most of us handicap and watch all the big races out of sporting interest even when we aren't betting.

It does also cause conflict, but I actually consider that the strength. When both approaches agree (and they usually do when you are experienced and competent at classing), you absolutely know you are evaluating the horses properly.

When they disagree, it raises a red flag telling you that maybe you should dig a little deeper into the numbers to see if they are actually right and/or revisit your subjective opinion.

I think this dual approach constantly keeps me off bad bets based on incorrect figures and bad subjective bets because what I saw and the way I intepreted it wasn't supported by an accurate measurement by the clock.

[john del riccio]

It takes a lot of time. It's not suitable for someone playing a real lot of races at many tracks. However, it's very easy for anyone to apply to stakes races because most of us handicap and watch all the big races out of sporting interest even when we aren't betting.

It does also cause conflict, but I actually consider that the strength. When both approaches agree (and they usually do when you are experienced and competent at classing), you absolutely know you are evaluating the horses properly.

When they disagree, it raises a red flag telling you that maybe you should dig a little deeper into the numbers to see if they are actually right and/or revisit your subjective opinion.

I think this dual approach constantly keeps me off bad bets based on incorrect figures and bad subjective bets because what I saw and the way I intepreted it wasn't supported by an accurate measurement by the clock.

It does take alot of time, and I think its fair to say that if you are going to make figs, accuracy is paramount, or why bother. When you identify a track that has changed speed in one way or another, the difference in the ratings your arrive at as opposed to what others who simply "average" wind up calculating is really no comparison. With that said, clearing my head after these daily exercises prior to applying them in actuall handicapping can sometimes be a challenge.

John

[classhandicapper]

I agree. My handicapping is based on figures but I believe one has to consider the factors, such as pace and trip that influence them. Figures can be very misleading if looked at in isolation of the conditions in which they were earned.
Time is a factor as to how much detail one can get into but doesn't change the importance of comprehensive analysis.Bob

I think accuracy is also an issue. That's why I put my view in a thread about a difficult day to make figures.

Anyone that has ever made figures knows there are many days that are quite complex. All you have to do is compare sets of figures to see how often even the best figure makers disagree, sometimes quite significantly.

Comparing TG and RAG is practically a sport on it's own. :lol:

The problem is that quite often, it's the INCORRECT figures that are going to look like big overlays and attract money because the odds are based on a consensus of figures and other types of information - not just the figures you are using. The only ways I can think of to avoid the errors are to either have multiple sources of figures that signal you to dig deeper when there is a dispute or to use some other subjective evaluation of the performances.

Tons of my horses fail to live up to my expectations, but I really think I rarely make a bet based on faulty information anymore. That helps my returns.

Granted, I still see people cashing bets on what I felt sure was faulty information (they just didn't know it). But that's because sometimes a horse selected to win based on inaccurate information wins despite not being as good as the bettor thought. Over the long haul, there can't be value in inaccurate information though.

[cj]

The problem is that quite often, it's the INCORRECT figures that are going to look like big overlays and attract money because the odds are based on a consensus of figures and other types of information

But when you are right, cha ching. When I face a tough day or race, I do my best to get the most accurate number. If it comes down to a toss up, I'm going to side with the number that goes against conventional wisdom.

I do agree with what you are saying, I just use a different method as you know.

[kenwoodallpromos]

For the week, the turf course has been running under 12 seconds per furlong.

[john del riccio]

I think accuracy is also an issue. That's why I put my view in a thread about a difficult day to make figures.

Anyone that has ever made figures knows there are many days that are quite complex. All you have to do is compare sets of figures to see how often even the best figure makers disagree, sometimes quite significantly.

Comparing TG and RAG is practically a sport on it's own. :lol:

The problem is that quite often, it's the INCORRECT figures that are going to look like big overlays and attract money because the odds are based on a consensus of figures and other types of information - not just the figures you are using. The only ways I can think of to avoid the errors are to either have multiple sources of figures that signal you to dig deeper when there is a dispute or to use some other subjective evaluation of the performances.

Tons of my horses fail to live up to my expectations, but I really think I rarely make a bet based on faulty information anymore. That helps my returns.

Granted, I still see people cashing bets on what I felt sure was faulty information (they just didn't know it). But that's because sometimes a horse selected to win based on inaccurate information wins despite not being as good as the bettor thought. Over the long haul, there can't be value in inaccurate information though.

Class,

great post. if anyone is interested (CJ, Bob, Murph, or anyone else that makes figs), we could identify days where the chaos is particlary nasty and discuss them.

John

[DanG]

I do agree with multiple variants on many race days. I use HTR which does apply race by race variants to internal fractions in addition to HDW’s final time variants.

I made my own figures for many years, but the most telling exercise was making figs for greyhounds. Good greyhound figures in schooling races were a big edge over the crowd. They would rarely drag the track and the surface looked like another planet by the last event. (Often 20 or more races) The variant would absolutely and often predictably change every race.

BTW: The first guy or gal to the finish line connecting the dots involving artificial surfaces and weather conditions can have a nice advantage IMHO.:jump:

[cj]

Class,

great post. if anyone is interested (CJ, Bob, Murph, or anyone else that makes figs), we could identify days where the chaos is particlary nasty and discuss them.

John

Sure, any time. I assume we'll stick to the major tracks? I don't really want to give much away at Will Rogers Downs, or bore anyone reading about it to death. :)

[BeatTheChalk]

I think using both creates too many conflicts, and takes too much time.

I agree. I tried it once. I will say this. Bob Selvin in So Cal .. makes some
pretty good variants. Or at least he used to.. some years ago. I congratulate
any person who can do it. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: