Any Stats on Ability Times?

[Capper Al]

Ability Time, in general, is the time to the second call (which includes the first call) plus the time of the second call- In BRIS terms, E2 + (E2 - E1). The late Dick Mitchell suggested for turf races to use the time to the first call plus the late pace- in BRIS terms, E1 + LP. Has anyone made a study this?

[thruncy]

Pace(2nd) call minus first call + or - btn. lgths. between the 2.

[thruncy]

2nd call minus 1st call. Result plus 2nd call plus or minus beaten lengths. It's all U need; but for synthetic and turf U can carry it out to the end of the race by using 8ths times 2, 2.5, 3, or 3.5.

[Tom]

That was Factor "S", I think, in Sartin's Contender Scan program.
I use it as a presser rating. Early is E1+E2, Presser is E2=(E2-E1) and Late is LP+(E2-E1). I model what is winning - Early, presser, or late, when I use BRIS PPs. No db on it, but it would be interesting to see how it does long term. I use it mainly as a short term model. I sue LP + turn time because I want my closers starting early enough to be in contention, and this sometime deducts points from a huge LP number.

[Capper Al]

2nd call minus 1st call. Result plus 2nd call plus or minus beaten lengths. It's all U need; but for synthetic and turf U can carry it out to the end of the race by using 8ths times 2, 2.5, 3, or 3.5.

I don't understand why the 8th times 2, 2.5, 3, or 3.5? It sounds like you use the standard ability (2nd call - 1st call + 2nd Call). I have good experience with this also. I am wondering if you or anyone has tried what Mitchell suggested for turf (1st Call + late pace)?

[Capper Al]

That was Factor "S", I think, in Sartin's Contender Scan program.
I use it as a presser rating. Early is E1+E2, Presser is E2=(E2-E1) and Late is LP+(E2-E1). I model what is winning - Early, presser, or late, when I use BRIS PPs. No db on it, but it would be interesting to see how it does long term. I use it mainly as a short term model. I sue LP + turn time because I want my closers starting early enough to be in contention, and this sometime deducts points from a huge LP number.

Good reply with lots of info. Thanks. I take it you are equating the Factor "S" with Mitchell's turf ability time (1st call + Late Pace), or is the Factor "S" the hidden fraction (2nd call - 1st call)? Interesting formulas for running styles. Does your late differ from Mitchell's turf formula (1st call + late pace)? LP + TT is an interesting approach for closers. So many formulas, so many ideas, not enough time to run studies on all their impacts.

[Tom]

"S" was TT + 2nd call.
Late was LP + TT, LP right out of BRIS.

A 87 90 88

S = 90=3 = 93
TT = +3
Late = 88+3 = 91

B 90 87 88

S = 87 -3 = 84
TT = -3
Late = 88 - 3 = 85 LP was equally or both, but the second is penalized for not starting his move early enough.

[thruncy]

This is what I call a complete* ability time. (Using eighths divided into 2, 2.5, 3 or 3.5 furlongs times TWO. Therefore, a 9 fur. race with splits of 23.0; 46.0; 70.0; 106.0, would be expressed: 70.0 minus 46.0 = 24.0. 70.0 + 24.0 = 94.0. 106.0 minus 70.0 = 36.0, divided by 3 = 12.0 (One Eighth) times 2 = 24.0. Now, 94.0 + 24.0 = 118.0, which is a single, clear, vibrant image through which you will be able to see the effect distance has on speed sans the torture--ala Brohamer--of converting time TO speed. Gordon Pine's 1998 Par Time Book states that the most predictable "Ability Time" is the one derived from subtracting the 1st call from the second call, then adding it (+ or - beaten lgths.) to the 2nd--pace--call. Turf and synthetic track racing now make it imperative (to me) to carry out these ability times to the wire. Especially with expensive horses. *Not quite: You could subtract the 23.0 qtr. time from the 46.0 half; add the 23.0 result to 46.0 = 69.0 + 118.0 = 187.0. Comprende' senor?... Distance divided by speed or time = time or speed. Why putz around with "velocity," hundredths of seconds, and all the other "paridigms" that create ILLUSIONS of accuracy. Draw a line in the sand. CLEAR, VIBRANT, IMAGES. If Obama loses--REVOLT. Use your head(s) Joe 6 Pack.

[Capper Al]

This is what I call a complete* ability time. (Using eighths divided into 2, 2.5, 3 or 3.5 furlongs times TWO. Therefore, a 9 fur. race with splits of 23.0; 46.0; 70.0; 106.0, would be expressed: 70.0 minus 46.0 = 24.0. 70.0 + 24.0 = 94.0. 106.0 minus 70.0 = 36.0, divided by 3 = 12.0 (One Eighth) times 2 = 24.0. Now, 94.0 + 24.0 = 118.0, which is a single, clear, vibrant image through which you will be able to see the effect distance has on speed sans the torture--ala Brohamer--of converting time TO speed. Gordon Pine's 1998 Par Time Book states that the most predictable "Ability Time" is the one derived from subtracting the 1st call from the second call, then adding it (+ or - beaten lgths.) to the 2nd--pace--call. Turf and synthetic track racing now make it imperative (to me) to carry out these ability times to the wire. Especially with expensive horses. *Not quite: You could subtract the 23.0 qtr. time from the 46.0 half; add the 23.0 result to 46.0 = 69.0 + 118.0 = 187.0. Comprende' senor?... Distance divided by speed or time = time or speed. Why putz around with "velocity," hundredths of seconds, and all the other "paridigms" that create ILLUSIONS of accuracy. Draw a line in the sand. CLEAR, VIBRANT, IMAGES. If Obama loses--REVOLT. Use your head(s) Joe 6 Pack.

I fine BRIS pace ratings work well. I believe the BRIS methods Tom posted previously get one to the same place as dealing with seconds as you do, but BRIS numbers are just easier to manipulate. My question still is should I use E1 + LP(1st call + late pace) for turf or, the true and trusted, E2 + TT(2nd call - 1st call +2nd call)?

[thruncy]

The Gordon Pine (Cynthia Pub) book recommended using the 2nd (pace) call and adding the finishing ( late pace) split--plus or minus beaten lgths.--to it. EX: @ 8F, 23.8, 46.0, 70.0, 94.0 would be expressed as 70.0 + 24.0 = 94.0 secs.= TURF ABILTY. As you get into the higher--EXPENSIVE--animals, you might consider my previously stated way sans the politcal rant. By doing it this way you will also be alerted to anything quirky in the race; such as phony pace, extreme rail movement, etc. Also, you will readily see that the 9 furlong example is a superior race if conditions were similar. This is THE problem with numbers. You have to be CERTAIN WHAT you are expressing with them.

[Capper Al]

The Gordon Pine (Cynthia Pub) book recommended using the 2nd (pace) call and adding the finishing ( late pace) split--plus or minus beaten lgths.--to it. EX: @ 8F, 23.8, 46.0, 70.0, 94.0 would be expressed as 70.0 + 24.0 = 94.0 secs.= TURF ABILTY. As you get into the higher--EXPENSIVE--animals, you might consider my previously stated way sans the politcal rant. By doing it this way you will also be alerted to anything quirky in the race; such as phony pace, extreme rail movement, etc. Also, you will readily see that the 9 furlong example is a superior race if conditions were similar. This is THE problem with numbers. You have to be CERTAIN WHAT you are expressing with them.

Not a standard formula. In your example above, the standard AT would be 46 - 23.8 + 46 or 68.2. I don't work with raw time (seconds), so I'll have to leave it at that.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I think the ability time numbers have to be used in accordance to a track profile and/or an indivual race pace-bias(ala Davidowitz).

I'm pretty sure most of us agree that 2nd call is a universal measuring stick(unless you are a conceptually burnt out on the idea or are a philosophical rebel!!!)but what point of call you apply it to depending on the track or race can mean a lot.The basic ability time concept gives a pretty accurate account of,basic ability,but if a race looks devoid of speed or a track is heavily favoring E/P horses I have found that applying the second call to the 1st fraction(2nd call+1f) points out who is likely to theft the front end,unless they are stone cold quitters.Conversely if a track or a race looks to be playing closers the second call needs to be applied to a later part of the race.What I have found to be most accurate in my experience is to add second call to both the 2nd and 3rd fractions(2nd call+2f+3f) to get an idea of sutained pace horses.

Using the traditional Sartin display rankings led me to tinker with these numbers and being in Cincinnati and relatively new to computer technology AND pace literature I don't know if this is old news or not.I found it easy to see looking at fractional displays who might steal a lead but those same horses might have looked average in the A-E-S rankings.And for whatever reason I wasn't satisfied with just adding 2nd call to the 3rd fraction/2 for S pace.The above formula for late pace is just something I trust.

[Tom]

C+2F+3F.....I like that. Protects you from either early or late extremes. Kind of like a Factor X geared to pressers. I'll add that my read outs and check it out. Thanks for the idea. And welcome to the forum.

[CincyHorseplayer]

C+2F+3F.....I like that. Protects you from either early or late extremes. Kind of like a Factor X geared to pressers. I'll add that my read outs and check it out. Thanks for the idea. And welcome to the forum.

Thanks Tom.I'm new but add my thoughts occasionally but they often get lost in the battles on here!

As to the above,how I arrived at that was that in using the Sartin ratings I came up with a spread sheet with 1st call-2nd call times,internal fractions,followed by BSF,ability time,and 2f+3f times,then the A-E-S display.This allowed me to at least sort through ALL those numbers at the same time to see if I noticed any discrepancies.

I simply added the 2nd/3rd fractions to see who was going to dominate the second half of the race.It gave me a great visual idea of that.Because so much has transpired in a race by the 2nd call I felt that in judging off-pace horses I wanted to know how fast they got to the 2nd call in addition to that actual number,plus how fast they could sustain their run.In sprints many horses run faster than strong closers at the 1st call but get away with leisurely turn-time fractions and run again late.Those type of horses can look deceivingly stronger than they are in sustained pace(2nd call+3f) and if they get too close to a hot pace will really be toasted.But then again horses 8 to 10 fifths of a second off the 1st call can look deceivingly fast in both turn time and closing fractions.Using the 2nd call+turn time+3rd fraction incorporates the turn time twice(one internally)which means more for a closer getting into a winning position than the last half mile totaled.Anyway if my thinking sounds flawed maybe I didn't elaborate well enough but try adding 2nd call and the last half mile to get a sutained pace idea.It has worked well for me.

[Capper Al]

Some very interesting comments here, but I still like to know does anyone change their AT for Turf vs Dirt? Thanks.

[Tom]

I only use late for turf.

[thruncy]

Turf racing winners usually do have the best turn of foot--late speed--but on truly yeilding or soft or even sometimes good turf those big one run horses don't or can't generate that kick....Beware then, of "late for turf." My theory is that the reason you haven't seen Big Brown's connections clamoring for a matchup with Curlin is that they (Iavarone mainly) believe that he runs best on very firm ground. This is why they were so particular about examining the MTH surface before the turf race there. Also, the only time Big Brown ever had dirt kicked in his face he quit. Big Brown is a very talented--not very great--horse with a BIG turn of foot. The media's always trying to crown somebody king....Remember Dennis Green? "We knew what they were."

[Capper Al]

Turf racing winners usually do have the best turn of foot--late speed--but on truly yeilding or soft or even sometimes good turf those big one run horses don't or can't generate that kick....Beware then, of "late for turf." My theory is that the reason you haven't seen Big Brown's connections clamoring for a matchup with Curlin is that they (Iavarone mainly) believe that he runs best on very firm ground. This is why they were so particular about examining the MTH surface before the turf race there. Also, the only time Big Brown ever had dirt kicked in his face he quit. Big Brown is a very talented--not very great--horse with a BIG turn of foot. The media's always trying to crown somebody king....Remember Dennis Green? "We knew what they were."

This allows me to get to the point. I have scanned thousands of charts and figures like most of you too. We all recognize that LP is a dominate figure in Turf. One can see this by just observing most turf races. The question is does the dominant observation have any significance for handicapping? Is the battle before the last call and, therefore, should we really concern ourselves with E2 and Final Time instead of some combination using Late Pace?

[Tom]

...... therefore, should we really concern ourselves with E2 and Final Time instead of some combination using Late Pace?

I think you are better off combining LP with class rather than another pace segment which may only dilute the power of LP. I use the best LP at the highest class from the last 6 or 7 turf races. Once you get it down to two or three horses, you can see where they will make their LP from and compare that to your track profile.

Oh, and I do not use races with a high LP unless the horse actually passed some horses, or at least held his position late.

Given LP = 104 6-7, 7-9, 7-8, 6-9 NW2
and LP = 102 6-5, 5-7, 4-4, 3-1 NW1

I'll take the 102

[thruncy]

Turf Late Speed

[thruncy]

Late speed is the most important factor on FIRM TURF. Because the rail is moved in and out, the pace can vary significantly, BUT with older horses LATE SPEED IS the most predictable. Also different turf courses produce varying late speed(s). GP is probably the fastest turf course in the U.S.

[Capper Al]

I think you are better off combining LP with class rather than another pace segment which may only dilute the power of LP. I use the best LP at the highest class from the last 6 or 7 turf races. Once you get it down to two or three horses, you can see where they will make their LP from and compare that to your track profile.

Oh, and I do not use races with a high LP unless the horse actually passed some horses, or at least held his position late.

Given LP = 104 6-7, 7-9, 7-8, 6-9 NW2
and LP = 102 6-5, 5-7, 4-4, 3-1 NW1

I'll take the 102

I'll be watching LP and Class. It sounds like a good one from what I know about turf races.

[thruncy]

It is important; but if you trust your analysis of running lines you can hit some big prices. Ugotta zig when they zag.

[shoelessjoe]

Read Quinn's book Figure Handicapping he has a chapter on figure handicapping on the turf.I have been using it for years and it works very well.