How do you cap harness races?

[harnesslover]

I was curious for our harness cappers out there, do you do it the old fashion way, use commercial software, use your own software or use other people's picks..

[headhawg]

I chose "Commercial software" but I really 'cap with Pandy's figs, Simubet sheets, and the Trackmaster PPs.

I'm in the early stages of coding my own program, so a year from now my answer may well be different.

[cstraub11]

I cap from the program generally but I use PP's from Trackmaster which give a bit more data.

[JoeG]

I use my own program that combines result charts with simubet numbers.

[harnesslover]

I have heard a few simubet references.. Have seen the site, but never looked at the #'s. How are they derived?

[mrharness]

I enter data from the track program into my custom software. I use factors and do not use pace figs.

[trying2win]

I use the past performance programs available for a charge at TRACKMASTER, or free ones available at HORSEPLAYER INTERACTIVE. Then I look for certain spot play angles derived from studying the works of harness handicapping authors AL STANLEY and RON ROBLIN.

I prefer just betting the FRIDAY and SATURDAY harness cards on the WOODBINE/MOHAWK circuit and the MEADOWLANDS.


T2W

[harnesslover]

I had someone put together an Excel spreadsheet for me that 'automated' all of the macros I had in place and made it a one touch process for me.. The end result is not where I want it to be and I need to make some adjustments along the way.. However, the nice part is that I can default to best line of last 30 days and have the raw fractions for every race within a minute.

I can also choose pacelines, which is a little more time consuming, but obviously more accurate.

I know a couple of people had asked about it and I THINK I can share the spreadsheet (the programmer went AWOL on me and I cannot find them).. I can at least provide some output for some tracks/racedates when I have the time..

I am actually looking for some suggestions on features that could be added and information that might be beneficial that I could add.. I always like the input of a new set of eyes..

If you are interested, let me know and I will explain the process..

[headhawg]

I have heard a few simubet references.. Have seen the site, but never looked at the #'s. How are they derived?From their home page:

How Does Simubet Make Race Selections?

We have determined a number of key factors in the outcome of races.

Here is list of some of the biases that determine our picks:

* post positions
* last quarter
* if some horses are rated same, better last quarter determines standing
* date last raced
* finished in money
* up or down in class
* coming from other tracks
* long lay offs
* breaking stride last out
* driver biases
* parked out factor

I don't know specifically how they get their numbers. It could be one big ol' database that they've run a regression analysis on to get weights for their variables. Then they assign the top-weighted horse (by their factors) a "100" and take off points from there.

Still, the trick is knowing how to use the numbers. I don't want to sound like Warrant, but they are a great deal. Cheap, actually.

And in the right hands (like melman, JoeG, and me every now-and-then) they are dynamite.

[harnesslover]

From their home page:

How Does Simubet Make Race Selections?

We have determined a number of key factors in the outcome of races.

Here is list of some of the biases that determine our picks:

* post positions
* last quarter
* if some horses are rated same, better last quarter determines standing
* date last raced
* finished in money
* up or down in class
* coming from other tracks
* long lay offs
* breaking stride last out
* driver biases
* parked out factor

I don't know specifically how they get their numbers. It could be one big ol' database that they've run a regression analysis on to get weights for their variables. Then they assign the top-weighted horse (by their factors) a "100" and take off points from there.

Still, the trick is knowing how to use the numbers. I don't want to sound like Warrant, but they are a great deal. Cheap, actually.

And in the right hands (like melman, JoeG, and me every now-and-then) they are dynamite.

Interesting, I'll have to take a look sometime.. Glad they are working well for some people..

[FlyinLate]

For harness I've never used anything more than a past performance program.
After this thread, however, I did take a look at simubet. Has anyone been using this for awhile? What does your ROI look like? It says it hits about 41% winners, is that from their top selection alone? Seems pretty good. Also, it says tracks vary alot on there, what tracks have you noticed they've capped better.

[eastie]

I bet the 1 horse, who's usually 6-5......isn't that how evryone does it ?:cool:

[Charlie]

I use Trackmaster Past Performances, the Basic ones which cost $1.50 per race card. I also analyze thier result charts for the tracks I am interested in. I note each day things that interest me. For instance first overs, how many won that day, 2nd and 3rd overs that appeared to have problems. For example, a 3rd over horse that ran well despite the 2nd over horse completely gapping the horse in front of him. When handicapping a day's card, I apply my daily notes when applicable. But no matter what you do and how much you know, you still need good old LADY LUCK.

[rrbauer]

I call Melman!

[mrharness]

Are these the same people that handicap right off the DRF too?
Or is it something unique to Harness Racing?

I am puzzled by the way the vote went.

[Tom]

I call Melman!

I do too, but it is getting harder and harder climbing to the top of that damn mountain every week! :D

[FlyinLate]

Are these the same people that handicap right off the DRF too?
Or is it something unique to Harness Racing?

I am puzzled by the way the vote went.

I am puzzled by your comment. Elaborate.

[harnesslover]

Are these the same people that handicap right off the DRF too?
Or is it something unique to Harness Racing?

I am puzzled by the way the vote went.

I don;t understand why you are puzzled.

[mrharness]

Maybe I have been using a computer too long? I absolutely took for granted that most people used a computer. I wouldn't even think of handicapping by just looking at the program. Unless maybe they are just out for entertainment?

[wilderness]

Maybe I have been using a computer too long? I absolutely took for granted that most people used a computer. I wouldn't even think of handicapping by just looking at the program. Unless maybe they are just out for entertainment?

I use my Grandmother's Hat Pin and an Ouija Board ;)

[DeanT]

Maybe I have been using a computer too long? I absolutely took for granted that most people used a computer. I wouldn't even think of handicapping by just looking at the program. Unless maybe they are just out for entertainment?

No way.

Case in point. Thoroughbred runs a 70. Good chance he can run a 70 next time.

Harness horse, off a pocket trip on a half mile track paces 153.3.

Next week, he has the eight post. He goes to the back. The half goes in 59.1. He paces 157.3.

He is still the same horse, but the computer says his last line sucks. Almost like he pulled William the Refrigierator Perry around the track, while carrying Oprah on his back.

I think that is the major factor why computer handicapping has never taken off in harness racing. It would take a ton of work to make it worthwhile.

[headhawg]

How about comparing apples to apples, Dean. The t-bred that ran a 70 was the lone speed. He's now in a race with three other front runners. Do you really expect it to run another 70, 'cuz that's what the 'puter says? If you do then I'm glad that your money is in the pools.

Any good handicapper will review the previous races in context. It's not just static numbers on a screen. Is the s-bred really the same horse? You can't just tell from two figs, but no one said that the computer output is the only info we can look at. (In fact I stated that I look at three different sources of info.)

Computer programs are tools, not some black box pick 'em, bet 'em. I'm glad you and others don't use them; I get information that you don't have. That's what makes good programs invaluable for harness.

[Robert Goren]

I throw darts. IF the dart lands on a 15 plus to 1, I throw again.

[DeanT]

How about comparing apples to apples, Dean. The t-bred that ran a 70 was the lone speed. He's now in a race with three other front runners. Do you really expect it to run another 70, 'cuz that's what the 'puter says? If you do then I'm glad that your money is in the pools.

Any good handicapper will review the previous races in context. It's not just static numbers on a screen. Is the s-bred really the same horse? You can't just tell from two figs, but no one said that the computer output is the only info we can look at. (In fact I stated that I look at three different sources of info.)

Computer programs are tools, not some black box pick 'em, bet 'em. I'm glad you and others don't use them; I get information that you don't have. That's what makes good programs invaluable for harness.

Sure, you can use it as a tool, but the final numbers a standardbred runs are completely different many, many times.

Handicap a race at Yonkers with a 4-5 shot from the rail, then stick him in the 8 post. He will be 20-1. There is no such variance in the same class in thoroughbreds. Not even close. A lone speed one week might be 4-5 and he jogs. Three weeks later he might be one of three speed, but his pace numbers are close, and he may be 3-1 fair odds.

And that does not even account for the human element. T-breds have racing styles, so you can cap the race that way. In harness, the trainer/driver may decide to give a horse an easy one, and a speed horse gets off 7th and is dead.

Imo, the number one way to handicap in harness is to read the program and try to find out who is trying. It is those times you can get some prices. For example, tonight on the other thread I mentioned Goodell in race 5 at the M. She is not the best mare in the race, but I thought the driver would try. He did. Came up short, but he was 12-1 or so. The fastest horse often does not win a standardbred race. That's where you get prices, and that is why it is difficult to handicap with figures.

I guess as simple as I can put my opinon: In tbreds the fastest horse is 75% of your handicapping decision. 25% is situation. In harness I would say (esp on 5/8's and 1/2 mile tracks) that is reversed: 25% talent and 75% situation. Computer numbers or figs are not overly great at dealing with situation, so the poll numbers above are not the least bit surprising to me.

[headhawg]

I guess as simple as I can put my opinon: In tbreds the fastest horse is 75% of your handicapping decision.Huh? So distance preference, pace, race shape, trainer intent, jockey strengths, surface, and track bias have way less effect than looking for the biggest Beyer or CJ or Kuck fig? If you now reply that those factors determine which horse is the "fastest" then you are using circular logic. I am arguing that situational factors affect both t-and s- breds but that I don't discount the importance of pace/speed numbers in s-bred races generated by hand or computer. Do you not look at times?

And if you can tell from whatever PPs you are using which drivers are going to "try" in a harness race then you, my friend, have a gift that few of us will ever have.

[DeanT]

Hey Head,

I guess your question of time is a good one to illustrate. We know a 30 claimer at the M can pop a 149 mile. Heck 15 claimers have popped a 149 mile. The very same night (Pandy did an article on this once talking about class) the Meadowlands Pace or North America Cup can go in 150. Flip that to thorughbred racing. How often will you see a 15 claimer go faster than Curlin in a mile and a quarter race? Time is what it is in harness racing and it is different.

Races like the first race last night at the M are all too common. Devonshire Hanover was 100% situation. I bet is figs were 8th or 9th in that race. Why was he 9-2? Why did he jog?

I checked the trackmaster speed and pace figs last night in race 5. I almost fell off my chair. Stylish Solution was not ranked in the top three in figures. She was, on paper just using the program, even money and had won 9 in a row, including jogging in the same class last week, from a worst post. How can I have faith in those figures when an obvious horse like that is not ranked in the top three?

They are horses pulling buggies and they line up like Nascar. Where they line up, and what traffic they have are more important to their final time - in fact the trip they tend to get is directly proportional to that. Would you not agree? If we put Tell All in the 8th spot in a 58 half behind dead cover would he not run a poor figure? If we parked him 3 wide all around the track would he not run a poor figure? He might pace 155 (if he is lucky), which a 6 claimer I own paces. Now put Street Sense in the same spot - say the three path all the way around the track. His figure would only be marginally different. He might run a 100 instead of a 110. He would not go six or seven seconds slower like Tell All would.

Anyhow, I dont mean to sound like there is no value. I believe there is for contender selection. And I work at coming up with something of value. I always have. I use jcapper for t-breds and have tried to get a database going for harness, I have also looked and thought about some sort of proprietary figure generation. There is value for sure. But speed figures will, imo, never correlate to win percentage like Beyer figs did and do. There are just far too many situational intangibles in harness compared to the runners, imo.

For this:

And if you can tell from whatever PPs you are using which drivers are going to "try" in a harness race then you, my friend, have a gift that few of us will ever have.

That is what I have worked on every day since the mid 1990's. It is tough, but is the single most important part of my ROI for the last ten or so years. Owning horses over the years has helped me tremendously with this task. A few others things as well that I look for. One situational angle gives me a nice intent based ROI of close to 2.0. It is my bread and butter.

[melman]

DeanT----I sent you a PM with some info. I tend to agree more with Hawg on this matter but also see your points which you do well in explaining. However I think you should consider that harness betting is really TWO different games. On the smaller tracks one must consider the post position bias much much more that on the larger tracks and adjust the "figs" accordingly. However Dean since your also a t-bred player how about KEE before poly?? was there not a LARGE need to adjust the "figs" according to who was going to get to the rail and the lead first?? I also believe many t-bred players attempt to determine "who is going to try" based on many factors involving other items than "figs". Interesting

[DeanT]

Hey Mel,

And I just replied to you!

Absolutely. As I said above I do not think it does not have merit. I am only trying to explain why the leader in the poll is "off the program". I do bet both, and have a nice time, but my approach is different. And post position et al is a huge factor, as is weekly racing. My stable for example currently has horses racing three or four times a month. Since it is a speed driven game, you have to be somewhat selective on how bad you torch your horse given race circumstance, and that is why I believe you have to be selective looking at talent as well. If we raced three times every two months things would be different, imo.

I think it is why harness gets such a bad rap for "stiffing" too. Well my horse got torched two weeks ago, had the seven last week and got torched again. Now I have the eight. What do you expect the plan is, torch him again? No go to the back and try to get a good slice because of fractions.

Anyway, fun chat regardless. As I said before, software interests me in harness. There is not enough of it, imo.

[melman]

Very much agree on your last statement. I do not own Pandy's software but do here many good things about it. That is about the only one out there that I would not consider "junk" however so we agree on that for sure. Of course I would have no knowledge of "homegrown" software. Except for that JoeG version. :jump: BTW you being an s-bred player I just know your a HUGE fan of PTC. :)

[Sinner369]

I have to agree with both DeanT and Melman. I use the Diamond harness program for big tracks like Mohawk and Meadowlands........but only as indicators. And only if under ideal (fast surfaces and weather) conditions.

For my own home track (Northlands) I agree with DeanT......form, trip, driver
dominate. Also track bias is very important.


sinner

[melman]

If your a "figs based" guy like me or tend to use other factors more it's still a "risk vs reward" deal for all involved IMHO> One horse may have the "best figs" but by how much and what are the odds being offered. Dean loved the result of the 1st at Freehold today. :)

[JoeG]

I'm on the same wavelength as melman. There are two kinds of games out there based on the track. Both are solid with figures but in different ways. I try to account for track/post bias in my own software, but Pandy is a great substitute along with simubet. Just consider post bias and keep track of shippers doing well from certain tracks.

BTW, I was just about to put out an APB looking for melman. I had a few pm's looking for him this past week. I was hoping he ran off with the lawnmower lady, but knew that few men could handle that very long. :jump: :cool:

[melman]

It's her older sister that is taking up much time right now Joe. :) No APB needed. :jump: Will try and post some figs based pic's on your site in the near future. BTW Joe please try and stay out of trouble with your local sheriff. :jump:

[JoeG]

Shhhhhhhhhh. Mel I'm on the lam. Trying to avoid any snow ball fights with him. :bang:

I'll also try and post a few home made figs sheets for everyone. I'll do a simple last race fig (my own not to step on anyone's heals) to see how accurate it is.....usually a near break even bet. It not a complete race fig but a fraction of the race. The key is which fraction.

[JoeG]

And BTW.....her older sister :eek: :kiss: .........you two-timer :lol:

[DeanT]

Hey Joe,

That'd be super! Id like to see what you do.

On my "homemade figures" I was discussing with Mel I would have had So Lucky Hanover as a high fig last night in race 8 at the M - off getting torched the week before in a race in which he should have suffered massively, but he finished ok. Any chance you can share your figs with that race?

[JoeG]

Sure Dean....may take me a bit as I'm three days behind updating my database. It should take about two hours to get caught up as its currently semi-automatic right now. My kids may keep me from getting everything updated quickly though.

[harnesslover]

No way.

Case in point. Thoroughbred runs a 70. Good chance he can run a 70 next time.

Harness horse, off a pocket trip on a half mile track paces 153.3.

Next week, he has the eight post. He goes to the back. The half goes in 59.1. He paces 157.3.

He is still the same horse, but the computer says his last line sucks. Almost like he pulled William the Refrigierator Perry around the track, while carrying Oprah on his back.

I think that is the major factor why computer handicapping has never taken off in harness racing. It would take a ton of work to make it worthwhile.

I think you are wrong.. Any good harness program/software/spreadsheet would consider selective pacelines.. If a harness horse goes 152, 153, 153, 158, you have to see why the 158 popped up. Uusally a reason. Horses don't go that far off form..

[harnesslover]

Sure, you can use it as a tool, but the final numbers a standardbred runs are completely different many, many times.

Handicap a race at Yonkers with a 4-5 shot from the rail, then stick him in the 8 post. He will be 20-1. There is no such variance in the same class in thoroughbreds. Not even close. A lone speed one week might be 4-5 and he jogs. Three weeks later he might be one of three speed, but his pace numbers are close, and he may be 3-1 fair odds.

And that does not even account for the human element. T-breds have racing styles, so you can cap the race that way. In harness, the trainer/driver may decide to give a horse an easy one, and a speed horse gets off 7th and is dead.

Imo, the number one way to handicap in harness is to read the program and try to find out who is trying. It is those times you can get some prices. For example, tonight on the other thread I mentioned Goodell in race 5 at the M. She is not the best mare in the race, but I thought the driver would try. He did. Came up short, but he was 12-1 or so. The fastest horse often does not win a standardbred race. That's where you get prices, and that is why it is difficult to handicap with figures.

I guess as simple as I can put my opinon: In tbreds the fastest horse is 75% of your handicapping decision. 25% is situation. In harness I would say (esp on 5/8's and 1/2 mile tracks) that is reversed: 25% talent and 75% situation. Computer numbers or figs are not overly great at dealing with situation, so the poll numbers above are not the least bit surprising to me.

You are talking about 2 different things.. Form is one thing, post position on a 1/2 mile track is another..

Try using your example with the same horse in the same class with the same post and you are WAY off..

Post position on a 1/2 mile track is HUGE..

I've encountered many people that cannot profit wagering harness races, most of them sound like you, either it's cheating or too hard to do.. We thank you :-)

[DeanT]

Sure Dean....may take me a bit as I'm three days behind updating my database. It should take about two hours to get caught up as its currently semi-automatic right now. My kids may keep me from getting everything updated quickly though.

Thanks Joe, that'd be great! Thoughts are appreciated.

[DeanT]

I have always been interested in databases et al, and this discussion spurred that, so I asked this question on my blog for harness racing.

This is a good response that came up today. I dont know who it is from, but they make some solid points:

Reprinted here:

Better, or more available, handicapping software in harness might indeed be a good idea. Programs I've seen, used or developed in the past often seem to have some foundation based on the preachings of Ainslee. While such programs can still provide you some valuable info, they haven't evolved with some of the changing factors ( or weight that can be applied to them) in today's game.

Ainslee didn't put a huge value onto trainer changes. How has that changed in today's game. Numbers don't lie, and there are certain auto "upgrades" that can be expected off changes today. How do we properly account for that in a software based program?

Also, what is the impact of today's seemingly poor charting practices on evaluating the factors of Ainslee? Charts today showing a horse parked at a quarter pole doesn't mean they were parked out for the entire quarter, but rather they have their snout on the outside as they passed the pole, even if only for a millisecond. Conversely, you could be parked 4 wide the entire quarter but if you hit that rail before the pole, you show up on the line as not parked.

What about the impact of horses moving around on various sized tracks? The USTA speed ratings of tracks are practically useless imo.

One thing for sure, with the amount of info available through Pathway and Track It type databases, some erstwhile handicapper with time on their hands could sure take a good crack at something more modern for today's challenges you would think.

With such data available to you, is there an opportunity to run software which can provide overall guidance but also take into account horse specific or trainer specific alerts??

[JoeG]

Sorry for getting back late, I'll give a few stats from my database to give an idea of using one last race figure (a composite fraction from last race):

Horse has top last race figure 1 (LR1):
26% winners, +1% ROI (returns $0.01 for every $1.00 bet)

Excluding all $100 winners the ROI drops to -5%, still respectable

Filter #1: Positive post position (Post):
34% winners, +23% ROI

Filter #2: Positive Post and also top last race figure 2 (LR2):
42% winners, +64% ROI

Filter #3: Same as #2 with Outside source top pick:
48% winners, +90% ROI

Races start to be real restrictive as the filter are applied, for example:

LR1: 100 races
Filter #1: 45
Filter #2: 22
Filter #3: 12

Using something like filter #3 drops the playable races down to around 1 per card, making a real spot play. I'll post a link to some data for today in another post.

[JoeG]

Race 5 at BigM #4 Wynnfield Flash the only filter #2 remaining on the card

[DeanT]

Great work Joe. How big is your race sample?

[JoeG]

4 months all tracks....just a few days missing here and there because I need entries files which I don't always download.

[JoeG]

Here's the filter #2 selections the rest of the night:


Track Race Horse
CAL 4 5
GEO 8 1
GEO 12 1
LON 7 1
MXX 5 4 $0.00
NOR 10 6
PPK 6 1
WDB 9 6
WDB 11 6
YRX 7 4
YRX 8 4
YRX 10 4

[DeanT]

You caught a couple it looks like eh Joe?

The two bets at Woodbine were good, and seemingly good value.

Kicked my butt, regardless. I made four bets tonight. Three were lame and one was flat. I hope they get them some shelter from the storm tonight because I think they are still at the half mile pole.

[JoeG]

Overall not a great list of picks for me. Too many horses finished second. Hopefully better luck tomorrow. 3 wins, 5 seconds, 2 thirds, 2 run outs.

12 bets, $16.90 returned, loss of $7.10. Ouch :bang:


Track Race Horse
CAL 4 5 3rd
GEO 8 1 2nd
GEO 12 1 $4.90
LON 7 1 3rd
MXX 5 4 2nd
NOR 10 6 Out
PPK 6 1 $3.20
WDB 9 6 $8.80
WDB 11 6 2nd
YRX 7 4 Out
YRX 8 4 2nd
YRX 10 4 2nd

[arno]

In TBreds I look for a horse's pattern in the last 6 to 10 races.
When will the horse go foward, bounce, explode, etc.
So I handicap like a sheets player but use CJ's figures.

In harness racing I weigh the last race much heavier than in TBreds.
I use Harness Eye as it gives me better charts, comments and internal fractions than the regular program.

[jeebus1083]

The internal fractions in Harness Eye would be much more accurate if they published times in hundredths instead of fifths and followed the formula of 6 lengths = 1 second.

[harnesslover]

The internal fractions in Harness Eye would be much more accurate if they published times in hundredths instead of fifths and followed the formula of 6 lengths = 1 second.

6 lengths?

[Charlie]

I know 5 lengths being equal to 1 second is used for math convenience, but what is the true relationship. I have read somewhere that 6.25 lengths should be equal to 1 length. Also, I have read where author William L Scott equates 5 lengths with 4/5 ths of a second. What's the most reliable?

[harnesslover]

I always used 5 lengths = 1 second.. Not sure where the 6 lengths came into play

[RaceBookJoe]

I always used 5 lengths = 1 second.. Not sure where the 6 lengths came into play

6 lengths came from a book and I cant remember which one. I have tried both ways and found the difference negligible. So, like you , I still use the 5 lengths/second since for me and my ways it is easier and quicker. I have used the same basic speed rating method for 30 years. I am sure there is a better way like the feet/second method but I honestly dont have the time to research much.

[harnesslover]

6 lengths came from a book and I cant remember which one. I have tried both ways and found the difference negligible. So, like you , I still use the 5 lengths/second since for me and my ways it is easier and quicker. I have used the same basic speed rating method for 30 years. I am sure there is a better way like the feet/second method but I honestly dont have the time to research much.

Feet per second is ok, I did once put a spreadsheet together to produce FPS figs and it did ok on 1/2 mile tracks, but I couldn't find the edge for bigger tracks.

[njcurveball]

6 lengths came from a book and I cant remember which one. I have tried both ways and found the difference negligible. So, like you , I still use the 5 lengths/second since for me and my ways it is easier and quicker. I have used the same basic speed rating method for 30 years. I am sure there is a better way like the feet/second method but I honestly dont have the time to research much.

The only accurate way to calculate time is using feet per second. A length for a horse running a quarter in 25 seconds is going to be a different calculation than one running a quarter in 30 seconds.

That was one of the "built in" edges to the Sartin stuff. Harness is a much different game at the finish, since many horses are full of energy.

If you consider a quarter in 30 seconds, it is a simple calculation of 44 fps. If you judge a horse to be 11 feet long, than that is 4 lengths per second.

6 lengths per second is due to a thoroughbred going a quarter in 22 fps. That equates to 60 fps. A normal length for a thoroughbred is 10 feet.

Many who do Harness, find 11 feet or more to be more accurate due to the spacing needed for the bikes.

[Tom]

What do the chart callers use?
That's the important thing.

[Charlie]

njcurveball... Thanks for the info. For Harness, I agree that 4 lengths per second is the more accurate way to go. But like I said before, 5 lengths per second is mostly used for its mathematical convenience, but I am sure you knew that. Once again, thanks...

[DeanT]

If you consider a quarter in 30 seconds, it is a simple calculation of 44 fps. If you judge a horse to be 11 feet long, than that is 4 lengths per second.

6 lengths per second is due to a thoroughbred going a quarter in 22 fps. That equates to 60 fps. A normal length for a thoroughbred is 10 feet.

Many who do Harness, find 11 feet or more to be more accurate due to the spacing needed for the bikes.

Hey NJ,

A length in harness is the length of the horse, without the bike. I have read, and would use about 9 feet for a horse. With a little quicker times nowdays, with most quarters in 28 or so, I would say the traditional 5 lengths per second is not too far off (jmo)

[njcurveball]

Hey NJ,

A length in harness is the length of the horse, without the bike. I have read, and would use about 9 feet for a horse. With a little quicker times nowdays, with most quarters in 28 or so, I would say the traditional 5 lengths per second is not too far off (jmo)

I think it depends on the chart callers on the accuracy, but I agree the length should be computed WITHOUT the bike. My point was that it added another layer of judgement since the bike can be inside or outside the next horse.

I haven't done Harness seriously in a while, but when I did I was using the dynamic formula of calculating a length by the fps of the time for that quarter.

The key part of extra feet for the bike takes into account you cannot steer a harness horse like a thoroughbred so any horse gaining lengths should get extra credit for the added distance it travels by going sideways to get room.

Jim

[Sea Biscuit]

The notion that every harness horse races 1 length in 1/5th of a second, in my humble opinion, is totally wrong. All harness programs adjust the the final time by the beaten lengths as if all horses run one length in 1/5th of a second. This is a fallacy of enormous proportions. You don’t have to be a mathematical genius to figure this out. To say that a cheap $3000 claiming trotter who trots a mile in 2:05 at Dresden (with all due respects to Dresdon Raceway) would trot 1 length just as fast as a Meadowlands pacer who paces the mile in 1:48 simply cant be right.

The technology is there but the harness tracks don’t make much use of it. Each horse in the race should be individually timed to 1/5th of a second if not 100th of a second.

At the Olympics in track and field races the races are timed to 100th of a second for every individual runner so why not at a harness or thoroughbred track.

[Teach]

I'm the "new kid" on the block, but I use the old fashioned way of handicapping harness races --- I study the program lines. I try to analyze how the race will be run. The first thing I'll do is assign a letter to each horse. Those letters are either: "F," "E," or "C". The letter F stands for front runner. A horse with early speed who's likely going to contend for the lead. The letter E stands for runs evenly. The letter C stands for closer. After I've assigned the letters, I then look to see how many "F's," "E's and "C's" there are in the race. If, for example, there's only one "F". I will look closely to see if this horse, uncontested for the lead, can go wire to wire. As far as E's, I look to see if an even-running horse is moving inside, say from position six to position one or two. I will then consider that horse. Finally, if there are a lot of F's, but there are only one or two C's (closers), I'll study the closers more carefully.

Bottom line: Each race is different; it takes on its own characteristics. That's what makes it so challenging.

Of course, there are other factors; yet this is the approach I use.

By the way, you can get all my picks, with comments and explanations, for Wed., Dec. 26 cards at both Freehold and Monticello at www.harnessmaven.com (http://www.harnessmaven.com)

[thespaah]

I always used 5 lengths = 1 second.. Not sure where the 6 lengths came into play20 years ago when a 2.00 mile was a big deal on half miler and a 1.57 on a mile oval that may have applied.
Typically at the Meadowlands for example every race on a fast track card will go under 1.53. And on Saturday cards especially during warmer weather when horses go faster miles, the top two or three class races go under 1.50.
Heck they go 1.52 at Dover....Since the races are goping much quicker it only makes sense to take a look at adjusting the formula.

[thespaah]

I was curious for our harness cappers out there, do you do it the old fashion way, use commercial software, use your own software or use other people's picks..
I use trips, class jump/drop and driver changes.
If I see a significant positive driver change I take a good look. Especially if the odds aren't crushed too badly.
Trips are a good tool for me. If I see a bad trip and the horse comes back in roughly the same conditions in the next start, I will again give it serious consideration.

[Sea Biscuit]

Hey NJ,

A length in harness is the length of the horse, without the bike. I have read, and would use about 9 feet for a horse. With a little quicker times nowdays, with most quarters in 28 or so, I would say the traditional 5 lengths per second is not too far off (jmo)

You are probaly right about the 5 lengths per second if the beaten lengths are from say 1 to 3 or 4 lengths.

But when the beaten lengths grow to 15 or 20 lengths then the final times really get screwed.

[pandy]

Successful harness handicapping is much more time consuming than people think but harness racing has always been the best bet out there. I study charts and replays and compile a list of horses to watch for all major tracks. I use my own software handicapping system to analyze acceleration and speed (I look at early and late speed velocity type ratings), I check out driver changes carefully. Trips and internal fractions are analyzed and I also look for horses that have exceeded pars both internally and from a final time perspective.

[Sea Biscuit]

Successful harness handicapping is much more time consuming than people think but harness racing has always been the best bet out there. I study charts and replays and compile a list of horses to watch for all major tracks. I use my own software handicapping system to analyze acceleration and speed (I look at early and late speed velocity type ratings), I check out driver changes carefully. Trips and internal fractions are analyzed and I also look for horses that have exceeded pars both internally and from a final time perspective.

Pandy: How do you make the par times for each class of horses?

[pandy]

It's not sophisticated. I just have a base par for each type of track. For instance, at Monticello, it's a slow track. Any individual quarter below :29 is smokin at every level except the stakes or Open caliber. I also look for the fastest indidividual quarters on each card.

[Stick]

Pandy What would be your base par for Balmoral?

[pandy]

Anything :28 or below.

[Charlie]

Pandy... just wondering about the fractions at Balmoral and using anything under 28.0 as smoking fast. My query is this. If the pars for fractions 1, 2, 3 and 4 were 28.3, 28.2, 29.0 and 29.0 respectively, would you still use 28.0 as very fast for each call or maybe use 28.0 at calls 1 and 2 and 28.2 at calls 3
and 4? I'd certainly appreciate your advice on this matter.

[46zilzal]

There should be a category for stable information. That has been the most reliable for me being a complete rookie to this slow motion racing.

[pandy]

Pandy... just wondering about the fractions at Balmoral and using anything under 28.0 as smoking fast. My query is this. If the pars for fractions 1, 2, 3 and 4 were 28.3, 28.2, 29.0 and 29.0 respectively, would you still use 28.0 as very fast for each call or maybe use 28.0 at calls 1 and 2 and 28.2 at calls 3
and 4? I'd certainly appreciate your advice on this matter.

I'd still use :28, but of course it gets tricky on cold windy nights or off tracks, then you have to make adjustments.

[Teach]

There are so many things to look for when you're handicapping harness races -- it's just incredible. Let me share with you in 50 years of doing this. I'll list what I look for. I'll number them, in no particular order of importance:

1. How Will The Race Be Run. I posted earlier that I assign one of three letters to each of the horses entered in each race: E = even; C = close; F = front speed. Based on my assigned letter, I try to see how the race will play out.

2. Look For the Bubbles. What I mean by "bubbles" are the little circles used by the race charters that showed that a horse has raced on the outside for at least a quarter of a mile. That kind of a race is a tightener for a horse. You could call it an endurance contest. When I see that on a horse's recent line, I make a careful note of it.

3. The Driver. Drivers are very much a part of winning harness races. That seems like an obvious point. Harness racing is a sport of making instantaneous decisions --- winning decisions. The good ones know from experience that exact moment when to make that winning move. It's like they have a memory bank that triggers a reaction as certain things are developing on the racetrack. Conversely, the less experienced driver or less capable driver gets into trouble on the racetrack more frequently.

4. Driver Changes. Speaking of drivers, I pay close attention to driver changes. Sometimes a trainer will drive his own horse and then turn it over to a more experienced driver. That's a wake-up call for me. I take notice.

5. Post position. They say position in life is everything. I think it can be true in harness racing. A horse has been racing outside and doing little. Now the horse has moved inside. That development should be noted and heeded.

6. Prone to Breaking. If a trotter or pacer has been breaking, it obviously indicates a problem. What caused that problem? Many factors: equipment, speed break, injury, etc. It's something you have to look at and consider.

7. Watching the Post Parade and Warm-Ups (Scores). Years ago, that was easy because most people attended live cards. Today, with simulcasting, it's not as easy to use this technique. Horses do have body language. If you've watched enough horses over the years you can pick up "tells". Trotters, in particular, can sometimes telegraph a proabable break.

8. Weather Conditions. I tend to be most cautious on "off" tracks. Personally, I don't like playing muddy or sloppy racing surfaces. It adds one more dimension to the handicapping dynamics. When I do play off tracks, I try to see if any of the horses have run on sloppy conditions in previous races. How did they handle the wet surface? Again, I very much prefer fast tracks.

9. Qualifiers. Qualifiers can be a big tool in handicapping races. This time of year, there are more and more horses coming out of qualifiers. These are fresh horses. They've not been worn down by tough winter conditions. Even if the horse's time is nothing to right home about, you've got to give that horse consideration. I figure they'll knock one, two, or even three seconds off their qualifying time.

10. Recent Starts. I like horses with recent starts. I always ask: "Why has a horse been off one, two or three weeks?" Have they been sick? Is there any injury? Why has the trainer broken the pattern of approximately one start every week to ten days? I make a note when handicapping if a horse has had any kind of layoff.

[thespaah]

There are so many things to look for when you're handicapping harness races -- it's just incredible. Let me share with you in 50 years of doing this. I'll list what I look for. I'll number them, in no particular order of importance:

1. How Will The Race Be Run. I posted earlier that I assign one of three letters to each of the horses entered in each race: E = even; C = close; F = front speed. Based on my assigned letter, I try to see how the race will play out.

2. Look For the Bubbles. What I mean by "bubbles" are the little circles used by the race charters that showed that a horse has raced on the outside for at least a quarter of a mile. That kind of a race is a tightener for a horse. You could call it an endurance contest. When I see that on a horse's recent line, I make a careful note of it.

3. The Driver. Drivers are very much a part of winning harness races. That seems like an obvious point. Harness racing is a sport of making instantaneous decisions --- winning decisions. The good ones know from experience that exact moment when to make that winning move. It's like they have a memory bank that triggers a reaction as certain things are developing on the racetrack. Conversely, the less experienced driver or less capable driver gets into trouble on the racetrack more frequently.

4. Driver Changes. Speaking of drivers, I pay close attention to driver changes. Sometimes a trainer will drive his own horse and then turn it over to a more experienced driver. That's a wake-up call for me. I take notice.

5. Post position. They say position in life is everything. I think it can be true in harness racing. A horse has been racing outside and doing little. Now the horse has moved inside. That development should be noted and heeded.

6. Prone to Breaking. If a trotter or pacer has been breaking, it obviously indicates a problem. What caused that problem? Many factors: equipment, speed break, injury, etc. It's something you have to look at and consider.

7. Watching the Post Parade and Warm-Ups (Scores). Years ago, that was easy because most people attended live cards. Today, with simulcasting, it's not as easy to use this technique. Horses do have body language. If you've watched enough horses over the years you can pick up "tells". Trotters, in particular, can sometimes telegraph a proabable break.

8. Weather Conditions. I tend to be most cautious on "off" tracks. Personally, I don't like playing muddy or sloppy racing surfaces. It adds one more dimension to the handicapping dynamics. When I do play off tracks, I try to see if any of the horses have run on sloppy conditions in previous races. How did they handle the wet surface? Again, I very much prefer fast tracks.

9. Qualifiers. Qualifiers can be a big tool in handicapping races. This time of year, there are more and more horses coming out of qualifiers. These are fresh horses. They've not been worn down by tough winter conditions. Even if the horse's time is nothing to right home about, you've got to give that horse consideration. I figure they'll knock one, two, or even three seconds off their qualifying time.

10. Recent Starts. I like horses with recent starts. I always ask: "Why has a horse been off one, two or three weeks?" Have they been sick? Is there any injury? Why has the trainer broken the pattern of approximately one start every week to ten days? I make a note when handicapping if a horse has had any kind of layoff.
looking at #10..What bugs me is in most programs, the scratch reason is not listed in the PP's...In other words Scratched Sick, judges or lame on the comment line. Having that info would be valuable indeed.
Another angle I like to use is driver switch from one race to this weeks.
Say for example the leading driver at the meet had been behiond a particular horse for the last few starts. That driver tonight is behind another in the same race. And that starter is a horse the top driver had not driven before. I figure there's a good reason for the switch and usually take that horse in my exotics.
Post parades. Yeah I look at those and wartch the horses score. I look to see if a horse is leaning or lugging in or out. that's a sign of lameness, injury or irritation. A horse with his mind on pain is not on is business. One thing though, some horses are rough gaited in warm ups so I don't use this factor as auto throw out.
Fresh horses. Those coming off layoffs are in two categories IMO. Ones who have qualified well get my attention. BUT...BIG BUT.....Often those horses need a tightener so the first start back is usually a seat squirmer for me. The second off the layoff especially those that had outside trips in the middle quarters, I will include in my wagers.

[Stick]

Pandy
You seem to have a lot of success on half mile tracks.Can you explain what you are looking for that is different from the bigger tracks? Also, would you use a :29 at Maywood for par time or something else?

[pandy]

Pandy
You seem to have a lot of success on half mile tracks.Can you explain what you are looking for that is different from the bigger tracks? Also, would you use a :29 at Maywood for par time or something else?

Maywood is the fastest half mile track in North America, so on a warm night 60 degrees or warmer I want to see around :28 flat, although for the opening quarter, under :28. Even on cold nights they go :27.3 to the quarter.

I really handicap the same for all tracks because I concentrate on velocity and current form, so I'm just looking for super sharp horses, sometimes with hidden form because of tough trips, that are in their peak form cycle. Naturally there are times when I don't bet a horse because it has an outside post on a half, or I make a smaller bet, but they often win as longshots anyway. Sharp horses win, period.

[Sea Biscuit]

looking at #10..What bugs me is in most programs, the scratch reason is not listed in the PP's...In other words Scratched Sick, judges or lame on the comment line. Having that info would be valuable indeed.


At Woodbine and Mohawk they give reasons for the scratch in the program.

If they are sick they would write sick or tranportation probelms or medicated in error. Once I read scratched due to Error by racing office.

[camfella]

I am new to this Forum,and was spurred to join by this thread. I have been following Harness racing for a long time. I realize that the responders to this thread were answering the question posed,and did not intend their answers to be inclusive of all methods of capping the races. I have changed over the years,initially using many of the methods and software mentioned. The capping puzzle is not complete by analyzing numbers,this many times leads you to the favorite in the race.which is very good to know,but may not make you a winner at the track. If I was explaining the process to a new person,the first thing I would tell him/her is that it takes time consuming work,to be prepared to make informed choices at any track you choose,so here is my shorthand new person guide.
1) learn to read the program and determine why each bit of information is included.
2) watch every race available,and it may make sense to pick one or two tracks,to focus on,we need to know how races are run.
3) attempt to pick the top 5 horses in each race,and attempt to discard 2-3 horses each race,tracking your success at both. If you find that you are not consistent in doing so,trial and error is needed.
More advanced,ready to wager:
these elements are the most important things to focus on:
1) Human element,trainers and drivers,and even owners and their tendencies as related to who wins races,and their usual methods ,focus on the top 10 drivers and the top 25 trainers,mostly,but do not ignore the 10 or so small stables,with high winning percentages.Driver changes and barn changes ,can be good,just because they are changes to the routine.
2) Horse- this is where the past performance programs,various software,and most importantly ,observation,replay watching comes in. If every horse has an intrinsic value,determine who has this value,sometimes called class. Because horses are animals and like humans in this way,they have bad days and good days,bad luck and good luck. Most importantly.do not give the last race more weight than the other races in the Past Performances. The horse also has abilities,how much early and late speed,stamina,can he "take air"?Move within the race and still finish well.
3) Motivation- Connections will make racing decisions more advantageous,when they too believe that they have a better chance or an opportunity to win. ie- drop in class,effort in last that showed them a return to form,equipment change found in training sessions. Clues ? driver change,switch in the type of race entered.
Over all I would simplify our methods,and put the work in to it.
Watch replays,read program and compare, learn about the humans involved,track your success and that of each method,determine your strength,and weakness. Determine the reason for each. Eliminate "rules" that have no basis in fact,use rules that do have basis in fact. Have an open mind,do not get emotionally involved with your choices and be willing to change.
In conclusion,I believe that numbers in handicapping give us some sort of comfort,a formula yields one number which we depend on,but what is most important is judgement,informed decisions,awareness of trends and reality.To me numbers are 50% of the equation of picking horses,the other 50% is judgement based on observation,and not hunch. We often do not believe or trust what we actually see,we must trust this and adjust.
Picking horses is the one aspect of winning at the races,the successful people are those who have mastered wagering and it's implied discipline in managing money.
I would wager most of my money to win,and cover and equal amount to place. I would use the exacta as my first possible exotic wager. Then with the smallest part of my money,I would delve into the other exotics only if I could prove a positive track record. My most important rule in wagering is consistency,the same amount of money spent on each race,type of wager used to our strengths. I believe that we should set aside and wagering bankroll,and of that no more than 4% of that bankroll should be wagered on each race.
Thanks, any comment or reaction or adendums would be welcomed. I recognize the membership here of many well informed people that could add to these comments,and fill in the gaps. Happy Handicapping to all! Camfella:)