Do you believe in track variants?

[Tread]

Do you think it's correct to compare the raw times/splits from a race run at the same track and distance that are 6 weeks apart? Would you laugh at someone touting this as one of their main handicapping points? Do you believe in track variants?

This is not a trick question, I know of one person who is going to vote no, but I wanted to see if anyone else would.

[kenwoodallpromos]

DRF track variants cannot be relied on to be an accurate assesment of a horse's potential or actual time in a past race because the general track speed of that day is not assured to be accurate since all runners are not timed. DRF:
"Speed Rating, Track Variant - 81-18. The first number is the speed rating, a comparison of this horse's time with the best time at the distance at that track in the last three years, which is represented by the par value of 100. The second figure (18) is the track variant, which shows how many points below par the times for all races at the distance on the same surface were that day. See the Speed Rating/Track Variant page for detailed explanation."
6F Dirt variant may be more accurate than 1+ miles on turf or 1M 70yd on dirt, but not much more as only 5 horses at most are used.

[Tread]

This question is not about if a specific person/publication's track variant is always correct or not, it's a very basic question. Do you feel that it is stupid to compare the raw times of races run on the exact same track at the exact same surface that are run several weeks apart (Yes vote) or do you feel that a surface's speed never changes week to week, if not day to day, and track vairants do not need to be considered in handicapping (No vote)

[kenwoodallpromos]

This question is not about if a specific person/publication's track variant is always correct or not, it's a very basic question. Do you feel that it is stupid to compare the raw times of races run on the exact same track at the exact same surface that are run several weeks apart (Yes vote) or do you feel that a surface's speed never changes week to week, if not day to day, and track vairants do not need to be considered in handicapping (No vote)
Yes the surface changes=

From Speedfigures.com: "We calculate our par charts for each track by analyzing a large sampling of races at each distance on both turf and dirt. We do not include some types of races in the sample. Cheap claiming races, maiden claiming races, and races restricted to 2-year-olds or 3-year-olds are usually excluded from the sample because they are often weak in quality and the slow times from a weak race can make it difficult to make an accurate par chart. The levels that provide the most accurate times to be used in creating a par chart are the mid-level claiming and allowance races for older males."
Track variant calculating: "All of this assumes that no changes took place in the track surface throughout the entire race card. ****In our final calculations we sometimes have to adjust for significant changes to the speed of the track over the course of the day***."
Each track with either moving rails and/or more moosture in turf means changing times; on any other tracks, which are still mostly sand and dirt, harrowing and/ or track moisture means changing track speed.
IMO a track speed change as much as 1 second per mile is significant.

[fmolf]

i vote yes because so many factors can slow times regardless of quality or amt. of horses timed...a head wind at aqueduct as opposed to a week later on a windless day....on dirt tracks i look at variants only if in the very fast oer very slow range......average variants for nyra dirt tracks are about in my estimation 15 to 23.......anything outside of these numbers i may make a small adjustment to my handicapping....giving a plus to horses who ran big numbers on a slow track and vice a versa.as far as the old method of adding the two numbers together no i do not believe they are that accurate....but beyer and bris and other commercial numbers all incorporate some form of track variant into their methodology for calculating their numbers....Sartin and Brohamer have a unique way of using the racing form variants detailed in modern pace handicapping.....

[kenwoodallpromos]

This question is not about if a specific person/publication's track variant is always correct or not, it's a very basic question. Do you feel that it is stupid to compare the raw times of races run on the exact same track at the exact same surface that are run several weeks apart (Yes vote) or do you feel that a surface's speed never changes week to week, if not day to day, and track vairants do not need to be considered in handicapping (No vote)
"Daily Racing Form's Track Variant takes into consideration all races run on a particular day under the same conditions of distance and track surface. The Speed Ratings of all winners in each type of race are added toget her and an average is computed. This average is deducted from the par of 100 and the difference is the Track Variant. (Example: if the average Speed Rating of winners sprinting on the main track is 86, the Track Variant is 14 (par of 100 minus 86).
****The lower the Track Variant, the faster the track, or**** the better the overall quality of competition that day."
I will bow to DRF's knowledge of handicapping figures in their quote that "The lower the Track Variant, the faster the track, or**** the better the overall quality of competition that day."
On any given day, the competitioin can change, but if you whip out a calendar and consider the Day of the Week, there is not much cometition change. But IMO to use raw numbers when DR admits track speed can change is stupid. A seled track with cheaper horses winning can produce the same variant number as a normally moist track with "classier" horses. I have seen at the same track "good" have a lower variant than "fast". I have timed water truck at GGF and seen the difference in the amount of watering. I have seen horses hugging the rail where truck water does not reach get beat by horses following the harder path.

[cj]

Anyone that thinks you can compare times weeks apart on the same track and at the same distance is kidding himself. Sure, sometimes it might work, but that would be luck more than anything else.

[Tread]

anyone who voted no, please explain?

[HUSKER55]

The way the track variants are compiled lead me to wonder how any useful information could be extrapolated.

Was the track off? yes but that variant won't tell you.
Was the horse in a strong field? variant might be an indicator but a lot of other factors could influece the result.

If push has come to shove and I need to eliminate a horse then I suppose the lowest variant would be my pick because the lower the variant the more accurate the figs. ie, horse is running closer to par

According to Beyer, in his book, a horse can swing 20 points for no reason other than because he does. How do you put that into a variant?

JMHO

:)

[GaryG]

I would be lost without a variant but a bad one could be worse than no variant at all. Either make them yourself or make sure that the one that you use is accurate. BRIS for example can be wildly innacurate. Raw times as a handicapping factor are next to useless.

[jotb]

Do you think it's correct to compare the raw times/splits from a race run at the same track and distance that are 6 weeks apart? Would you laugh at someone touting this as one of their main handicapping points? Do you believe in track variants?

This is not a trick question, I know of one person who is going to vote no, but I wanted to see if anyone else would.

Try asking this question to trainers. I'm sure you will get mixed results.

[Show Me the Wire]

Do you think it's correct to compare the raw times/splits from a race run at the same track and distance that are 6 weeks apart? Would you laugh at someone touting this as one of their main handicapping points? Do you believe in track variants?

This is not a trick question, I know of one person who is going to vote no, but I wanted to see if anyone else would.


Actually, it is possible to vote yes and no and still be correct. I beleive in variants, but it is possible to compare raw splits and final times earned weeks apart.

Why? Racing is all about energy distribution, you just have to compare energy distribution ratios.

[Overlay]

Despite the admitted flaws of track variants, data that I've seen showed a smooth impact value progression from ranking a field (1/2/3/Front Half/Rear Half) according to the average of each horse's SR+TV total from its last three "good" races (as defined by Quirin), without regard to when those races were run. However, that average wasn't as powerful as other widely available statistical measures that also take track condition into account.

[bobphilo]

Almost everyone would agree that track speed can change from day to day, and sometimes during the same day, and the only way to deal with this effectively is with use of accurate variants. However there are some, such as Charles Carroll who do not think that these can be determined with sufficient accuracy, so he doesn’t use them. His software is based on removing all or part of the variant from the speed rating.


I personally don’t agree with this position and think using a variant, especially if you can construct it yourself, will improve the accuracy of your speed ratings. True, not every variant will always improve speed figure accuracy and there are legitimate scientific objections in creating them, such as races within the same par rating varying in quality and small sample size. However these can be reduced by using accurate projections instead of pars and including all horses that ran well rather than just the winner. Of course, not all variants are created equal and the skill of the figure maker makes a big difference.


Bob

[mannyberrios]

:1:I would be a sure winner if it was not for the varient.

[cj]

Anybody that doesn't believe in variant thinks they just saw the best sprinter and router to ever set foot on Gulfstream dirt today...at least since the renovation a few years back.

[BIG49010]

Frankie wouldn't speed up the surface for the derby card.

I think they were using the timer from the turf course. :lol:


Seriously though, the track went 2 full seconds faster by my variant yesterday, so the track was playing very fast going into today.

[thruncy]

. anyone who voted no, please explain?...A numerical "Variant" is dependent on too many variables (pardon the redundancy). Anytime any condition significantly changes you have a problem. "To know the unknowable." ("Vertex" Joe) If you really make an accurate speed chart, you will wind up penalizing fast horses for running too fast on days like Fla. & Kentucky Derby days when GP & CD "soup up" the track surface. This is not a good idea.

[JohnGalt1]

The poll question wasn't specific enough.

I voted yes, but only for dirt racing. I vote no for turf racing because so few turf races are run per day that it's useless.

If only one turf sprint is run the winner is given a drf fig of 100. 91-09 or 85-15 as an example.

[bobphilo]

. ... If you really make an accurate speed chart, you will wind up penalizing fast horses for running too fast on days like Fla. & Kentucky Derby days when GP & CD "soup up" the track surface. This is not a good idea.

What you say is true for variants like the old DRF one where they just look at final times without regard to the class of the horses setting them. If you make good projections, or at least use pars, the days where the track is "souped up" will be obvious and can be adjusted for.

Bob

[GaryG]

What you say is true for variants like the old DRF one where they just look at final times without regard to the class of the horses setting them. If you make good projections, or at least use pars, the days where the track is "souped up" will be obvious and can be adjusted for.

BobI agree. Good variants are at least as much art as they are science. An accurate variant gives you even more information. Some horses run their best races when the track is souped up, hard and fast. Others just the opposite. After you do this for a few meetings you will know who prefers what. I guess you could say no variant at all is better than a bad one.

[thruncy]

I agree. Good variants are at least as much art as they are science. An accurate variant gives you even more information. Some horses run their best races when the track is souped up, hard and fast. Others just the opposite. After you do this for a few meetings you will know who prefers what. I guess you could say no variant at all is better than a bad one.This is true. Ray Taulbot warned Pace Calculator users who intended to use the variant to highlight races run on off surfaces too. The thought being that the user should readily know that a high figure might indicate that the horse just preferred that surface and would probably not run to the number under normal circumstances. Variant making, based in the $10,000 claiming benchmark* is too flawed and subjective. As Mr. Joseph Finley (AKA William Scott..."Investing at the Racetrack," once wrote: "What variant? Whose variant?" He also wrote a book called "The Corrupt Kingdom." But rock on all you true believers--everything works for awhile. *Or any other....

[highnote]

The poll question wasn't specific enough.

I voted yes, but only for dirt racing. I vote no for turf racing because so few turf races are run per day that it's useless.

If only one turf sprint is run the winner is given a drf fig of 100. 91-09 or 85-15 as an example.

I agree -- not specific enough. I don't use variants for quarter horse racing. Track-to-track variants are useful, though.


Charles Carroll makes a good argument against variants in his book, "Handicapping Speed".

[Tread]

I see I used poor wording in the question that has caused confusion. What this poll meant to ask was, do you believe the speed of a surface changes from day to day, even on days where the track is rated "fast" each day?

Yes, you can debate at length as to it is possible to create a meaningful variant that is correct enough of the time to be used, and different people do a better job than others, but the core of this question really was, Does 1:49 for 9 furlongs on a "fast" track not necesarily equal the exact same effort ability that 1:49 for 9 fulongs does a month later over a "fast" track? Do you think you should take the speed of the surface into account in handicapping?

[RichieP]

What this poll meant to ask was, do you believe the speed of a surface changes from day to day, even on days where the track is rated "fast" each day?


Yes

[raybo]

I see I used poor wording in the question that has caused confusion. What this poll meant to ask was, do you believe the speed of a surface changes from day to day, even on days where the track is rated "fast" each day?

Yes, you can debate at length as to it is possible to create a meaningful variant that is correct enough of the time to be used, and different people do a better job than others, but the core of this question really was, Does 1:49 for 9 furlongs on a "fast" track not necesarily equal the exact same effort ability that 1:49 for 9 fulongs does a month later over a "fast" track? Do you think you should take the speed of the surface into account in handicapping?

Absolutely! A 1:49 @ 9f really only equals 1:49 in that particular race, on the surface anyway. If the competition was better, resulting in faster fractions, then the resulting 1:49 was much better than a 1:49 against lesser competition (this better competition can show up in the daily variant). And, of course, if the track was slower (higher daily variant) the 1:49 is better than a 1:49 on a faster track (lower daily variant).

[BeatTheChalk]

:1:I would be a sure winner if it was not for the varient.

:jump: " I fell on the floor and knocked over the Dog's bowl. She is looking at me funny and she said " what is this variant thing ? " :bang:

[Dave Schwartz]

Absolutely! A 1:49 @ 9f really only equals 1:49 in that particular race, on the surface anyway. If the competition was better, resulting in faster fractions, then the resulting 1:49 was much better than a 1:49 against lesser competition (this better competition can show up in the daily variant). And, of course, if the track was slower (higher daily variant) the 1:49 is better than a 1:49 on a faster track (lower daily variant).


Raybo,

I must tell you that I completely disagree with your position. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I would see a 1:49 against "faster fractions" as a weaker race than a 1:49 against "slower fractions."

My reasoning is that faster fractions are supposed to result in faster final times. Thus, a horse that ran in a fast pace but won in an average time ran a weaker race than a horse that was in a slow race and managed to make up the difference lost in those slower early fractions.

Just my opinion.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Robert Fischer]

I must tell you that I completely disagree with your position. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I would see a 1:49 against "faster fractions" as a weaker race than a 1:49 against "slower fractions."

My reasoning is that faster fractions are supposed to result in faster final times. Thus, a horse that ran in a fast pace but won in an average time ran a weaker race than a horse that was in a slow race and managed to make up the difference lost in those slower early fractions.



This is an interesting sub-topic. The "fast early - slow late" 3yo prep that comes to mind is the Rebel. Silver City sets a pace that is "too fast", Old Fashioned seemingly having no one to fear but Silver City joins the fray. On most accounts they set a torrid pace, and it takes a toll. Old Fashioned comes home something like a raw 33 seconds+ for the final 5/16ths, and the world is shocked by Win Willy...

I could see both sides of the debate, and this is a neat case because the pace was IMO soo fast as to justify a collapse. It will be interesting to see how Old Fashioned rebounds.

[Jake]

Raybo,

I must tell you that I completely disagree with your position. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I would see a 1:49 against "faster fractions" as a weaker race than a 1:49 against "slower fractions."

My reasoning is that faster fractions are supposed to result in faster final times. Thus, a horse that ran in a fast pace but won in an average time ran a weaker race than a horse that was in a slow race and managed to make up the difference lost in those slower early fractions.

Just my opinion.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Depends on running style, don't you think?

Jake

[Dave Schwartz]

Depends on running style, don't you think?

Jake,

Good point.

Yes. I would have added that but did not want to complicate my response.


Dave

[Nitro]

Do you think it's correct to compare the raw times/splits from a race run at the same track and distance that are 6 weeks apart? Would you laugh at someone touting this as one of their main handicapping points? Do you believe in track variants?

This is not a trick question, I know of one person who is going to vote no, but I wanted to see if anyone else would.

I see I used poor wording in the question that has caused confusion. What this poll meant to ask was, do you believe the speed of a surface changes from day to day, even on days where the track is rated "fast" each day?

Yes, you can debate at length as to it is possible to create a meaningful variant that is correct enough of the time to be used, and different people do a better job than others, but the core of this question really was, Does 1:49 for 9 furlongs on a "fast" track not necesarily equal the exact same effort ability that 1:49 for 9 fulongs does a month later over a "fast" track? Do you think you should take the speed of the surface into account in handicapping?I certainly would laugh if someone referred to either “raw times” or “track variants” as being their MAIN handicapping points. Yes they both exist, but taken out of context they mean nothing. Those who base their play on Speed and Pace know exactly how relevant these terms are to their numbers for comparison purposes. It’s these “comparisons” that also cause these type of players to draw different conclusions.

In the real world, the “numbers” (when reviewed properly) simply provide a summary of energy distribution for each contestant in a previous racing event. However, drawing any valid conclusions about future events assumes too much about how these energy levels will once again play out. This is because there are a number of unknowns such as the current condition of each contestant, the current track variant (condition) and of course how the current race will be run. The scope of these unknowns as to how they affect each runner can be refined even further. In the end, predicting each and every one of them becomes a subjective assumption that the player must make. Beyond that any unexpected variation or disruption during the race will in all likelihood also produce an unanticipated result.

Everyone generally agrees that its easier (consumes less energy) to run on a beach closer to the water where the sand is wet and compact then further up where the sand is dry and loose. These are of course 2 extreme conditions, but adequately describe what the intentions are for developing a track variant. Measuring the variant effects on the times of each runner then becomes the goal. The problem is that not all track variants are created equal. Those illustrated in many publications are equated based on constants that really don’t reflect the majority of races that are run over a given meet. The biggest anomaly occurs when the variant is only based on the final time. Speed handicapping in the truest sense of the term must consider the variant at each point of call. Otherwise, the computed energy distribution of each runner and the actual pace of the race becomes a complete misnomer. These fractional times can also be affected by wind direction (particularly in ¼ horse racing), and biased sections of the running surface. In effect each runner is directly impacted by the entire race environment, which of course includes its competition for however long the race might take. Unfortunately, the horse only knows how to do one thing: Run. It has no comprehension of how the existing racing environment will affect its running ability. So in many cases the runner becomes its own worst enemy when trying to maintain its preferred stride and running style.

I must tell you that I completely disagree with your position. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I would see a 1:49 against "faster fractions" as a weaker race than a 1:49 against "slower fractions."

My reasoning is that faster fractions are supposed to result in faster final times. Thus, a horse that ran in a fast pace but won in an average time ran a weaker race than a horse that was in a slow race and managed to make up the difference lost in those slower early fractions.How do you like that Dave? We cross paths again! And all I can say is WOW! I sure hope that’s not the generalized logic that’s built into anyone’s softwhere? I believe your statement completely ignores the basic laws energy distribution. In any case, I thought this thread was about track variants? But even if we don’t consider the actual race running environment, you don’t need a PhD to put fast early fractions and final time into proper perspective. All you have to do is accept the racetrack dictum as gospel: “If you run fast early, you can’t run fast late.” In order to develop and sustain a competitor’s energy level, it becomes a matter of the animal’s conditioning, its physical and metal well-being, and its general health. Now try quantifying those attributes into a program! Even a player’s visual pre-race inspection won’t tell the entire story.

This dialogue then might even suggest “What’s Missing” in all those great handicapping tools and who really knows more about these animals at any given time!

[raybo]

Raybo,

I must tell you that I completely disagree with your position. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I would see a 1:49 against "faster fractions" as a weaker race than a 1:49 against "slower fractions."

My reasoning is that faster fractions are supposed to result in faster final times. Thus, a horse that ran in a fast pace but won in an average time ran a weaker race than a horse that was in a slow race and managed to make up the difference lost in those slower early fractions.

Just my opinion.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Huh???

I hope your post was written for the sake of argument, only. Otherwise, you just dropped a few points in credibility.

[Dave Schwartz]

Well, let the points drop.

Try this logic...

Comsider a 6f event. Here are the times:

22, 45, 1:10

So, you are saying that a horse that runs 21, 44, 1:10, coming home in 26 seconds in the stretch is running a better race than a horse that ran 23, 46, 1:10, coming home in 24?


A second example:

Imagine that par for a race is: 22, 45, 1:10.

According to what you have said, you would be more impressed with a horse that ran 21, 43, 1:10 than one that ran 22, 45, 1:10.

See, the problem is that horses do not run faster by running slower early. Just the opposite is true. When a horse runs faster early it should result in faster final times. When they run slower, it should result in slower final times.

Now, I am not discussing "pace profiles" here. The track may have a natural bias that favors the early horse, but that means that you should be impressed by a faster pace, sure. But the slower final time (or not showing an improvement in the final time) should be a draw back.


You know, that whole "for every point you spend early, you lose 2 late" idea, doesn't work. If so, then the way to improve your final time is to go slower early. So, if we have:

45, 1:10 (25 - the final fraction)

and we go 44 + 27 (which is the axiom, +1 early= -2 late) = 1:11

Therefore, going slower early should make you faster.

46 + 23 = 1:09 Sorry, it does not work that way.

Horses do not run faster final times by running slower early. Neither do they run slower final times by running faster early.

A fast early pace means fast final time. If it does, there is something wrong.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Norm]

anyone who voted no, please explain?
I voted "No". The track variant is too mis-leading. Does track condition matter ? ... sure, but you get the wrong answer more often than not. Was it Saturday with mostly high-class races? Was it Thursday with many maiden races? Or was it a day when all the cheap claimers were running? Class is a major operative in establishing a so-called track variant. Part of the definition of class is the ability to "bully" or intimidate the opposition into running respectfully slower behind the leader, it's the rule of the herd. It would be nice if track variants were genuine, but they're not. If you rely on them, you are going to get the wrong answer too many times.

A better track variant could be devised that gives us the measurement, that is a number, that tells us the moisture content and depth of the surface that afternoon. Even that would not be definitive because it would change as the day went along, but it would be better than these useless track variants we are getting now.

[cj]

Horses do not run faster final times by running slower early. Neither do they run slower final times by running faster early.

A fast early pace means fast final time. If it does, there is something wrong.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Hey Dave,

I would have to disagree to an extent. There is a small range where pace and speed have an almost linear effect on individual horses. Every horse is probably a little different. However, if a horse runs in the range and goes a little slower early, final time will be better. If the horses goes faster, final time will be slower.

Outside of this small range, you are almost always going to have a slower final time. If the horse runs slow enough, it might be impossible for him to run fast enough to achieve his best. However, if a horse runs too fast, it will certainly always run slower than the best effort it is capable of on that day.

To keep it simple, running fast leads to fast times for an individual horse to a certain extent. But if a horse runs too fast, that is certainly not true. If we are talking about a group of horses, it will depend on the quality of the closers.

[Dave Schwartz]

CJ,

Cannot disagree with what you said - mostly because it sounded somewhat like, "Horses that run faster early as a general rule produce faster final times."

Of course, the assumption is that they do not quit. We are talking about horses that won or ran close in their respective races.


Dave

[cj]

CJ,

Cannot disagree with what you said - mostly because it sounded somewhat like, "Horses that run faster early as a general rule produce faster final times."

Of course, the assumption is that they do not quit. We are talking about horses that won or ran close in their respective races.


Dave

Well, not really. I didn't realize there was a competitive qualification, but even so, I would say that most horses go too fast to produce their best final clocking. The reason is the jockey doesn't care about final time, but about beating the other horses. It is also true that many horses won't race well from an uncomfortable position, so the jockey does whatever he can to place the horse where it is comfortable.

When track and field organizers want a fast mile, they enter a rabbit to ensure the pace is set at a certain level. The key thing is, the rabbit can't go too fast or too slow. It isn't really any different for horses. Many win on dirt going too fast early because others are discouraged by kickback, or lose ground, or simply aren't any good. This isn't so on synthetics or turf. The horse that distributes his energy the closest to the ideal model is going to win if he is competitive on overall ability.

[raybo]

If I'm looking at 2 contenders, one of them ran actual times of 21 44 1:10 and the other ran 23 46 1:10, call me nuts but I'm convinced the 21 44 1:10 will run the other one in the ground, unless the slower horse ignores the race pace, which, as CJ pointed out depends on both the running style of the horse and the jockey letting him run that far off the pace.

If I'm looking at a horse that ran 23 46 1:10 and was up close at all calls and he's going against a horse today capable of running 21 44 1:10, IMO, the 1st horse has no chance, unless there is more than 1 horse that will be competing at the the faster pace, in which case, the pace will probably be faster than 21 44 which could burn out both of the faster paced horses.

My whole point is that, using good daily fractional variants, in order to obtain more precisely what horses actually ran during races, allows the handicapper to better compare horses and establish the likely pace of the race, as well as the likely final time. Knowing the likely race pace and final time puts one in a position of strength, when decisions are made, concerning which of the horses can wire it or press and finish or overcome the early pace and be close enough down the stretch to out-finish tiring leaders.

[classhandicapper]

I agree with CJ on this.

My basic formula is that the faster a horse runs early, the faster his final time will be up to a certain point. Then it starts operating in the other direction where the faster he runs early, the slower his final time will be.

Run extremely slow early and it's physically impossible to make up the difference at the end (very slow final time).

Run too slow early and you don't save enough energy to make up the difference late (slow final time)

Run at the perfect pace, maximize the final time.

Run too fast, you consume more than an ideal amount of energy and you slow down late by more than you ran fast early. (slow final time)

Run extremely fast and you totally collapse (very slow final time)

The formula is not linear, but there is an area where it's darn close (call it the the sweet spot). At the extremes, running 1/5 second faster or slower has more of an impact on the final time than in the sweet spot area.

The tricky thing is that most races develop with paces that are right around the sweet spot (slightly faster). That's why we occasionally see a horse that gets loose in a moderate pace run a lifetime best.

The trickiest part of all of this is that sweet spot is different for every track, every surface, and sometimes even from day to day at the same track. That's what tends to cause speed/closer biases. The jockeys are pretty sensitive to this kind of thing and adjust their riding and the resultant paces as soon as they figure it out, but it still complicates the figure making process, bias determination, and the measurement of performances.

[Dave Schwartz]

CJ,

I am trying to uncomplicate things.

I still say that faster final times are produced by horses that go faster early.

I am not saying that he cannot over-run his ability... I am simply saying that a horse that produces his best times will generally be when he ran faster early rather than slower early.

Same thing for pars... you don't find a class level where the faster horses (i.e. higher classes) produce their higher pars by going slower.


Of course, anyone can disagree with this if they so believe. I just do not see how anything but this can be true.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[George Sands]

I agree with CJ on this.

My basic formula is that the faster a horse runs early, the faster his final time will be up to a certain point. Then it starts operating in the other direction where the faster he runs early, the slower his final time will be.

Run extremely slow early and it's physically impossible to make up the difference at the end (very slow final time).

Run too slow early and you don't save enough energy to make up the difference late (slow final time)

Run at the perfect pace, maximize the final time.

Run too fast, you consume more than an ideal amount of energy and you slow down late by more than you ran fast early. (slow final time)

Run extremely fast and you totally collapse (very slow final time)

The formula is not linear, but there is an area where it's darn close (call it the the sweet spot). At the extremes, running 1/5 second faster or slower has more of an impact on the final time than in the sweet spot area.

The tricky thing is that most races develop with paces that are right around the sweet spot (slightly faster). That's why we occasionally see a horse that gets loose in a moderate pace run a lifetime best.

The trickiest part of all of this is that sweet spot is different for every track, every surface, and sometimes even from day to day at the same track. That's what tends to cause speed/closer biases. The jockeys are pretty sensitive to this kind of thing and adjust their riding and the resultant paces as soon as they figure it out, but it still complicates the figure making process, bias determination, and the measurement of performances.

Well, you and I have spent years agreeing on this subject, CH, and I see nothing has changed. The only thing I would add is that I think this question is similar to our old agreement about the benefit of clear early leads. Does slowing down early help a frontrunner's final time? As a rule, yes. However, the waters are muddied by the fact that frontrunners in improving condition will tend to express some of that improvement by running faster early on their way to a faster final time. This is correlation, not causation. The faster early fractions reflect improved condition; they don't cause faster final times. These horses would have run faster yet had they slowed down early. In other words, the ideal situation is a frontrunner who, because of his improving condition, has the capability of running faster early today but who, because of the way the race shapes up, does not actually have to do it. He has the best of both worlds: improving condition, but no obligation to show it off early.

[Tom]

So let's see an example of this.

[George Sands]

So let's see an example of this.


A frontrunner debuts by running 22.00 45.00 110.00.

He runs back a month later and goes 21.80 44.60 109.80.

Dave Schwartz would probably call this yet another example of a faster final time being associated with faster early fractions, and I would agree with him, since by definition that is what it is. CJ and CH would (I think) argue that this is an example of a horse who would have run faster final times had he slowed down early, and I would agree with them, too. I think this horse improved in condition between his debut and his second start, and I think this improved condition was reflected in his improved fractions and improved final time, and I think he would have run an even faster final time in his second start had he run the same early fractions he ran in his debut.

[Tom]

No, a REAL example, not theory.

[George Sands]

No, a REAL example, not theory.

Speedski. R8. SA. Wed. Close enough to make the point, I think. Look at the first two races of her career.

[FUGITIVE77]

Do you think it's correct to compare the raw times/splits from a race run at the same track and distance that are 6 weeks apart? Would you laugh at someone touting this as one of their main handicapping points? Do you believe in track variants?

This is not a trick question, I know of one person who is going to vote no, but I wanted to see if anyone else would.

The track variant is the core of a handicappers tool box or should I say an accurate track variant. To get an accurate track variant you either have to make it yourself or subscribed to a good service. Making an accurate variant by computer is an oxymoron. What do you do with false pace races? What do you do when no one want the lead and the plodders race far under their potential? What do you do with mistimings or those that are questionable? Anyone or computer that uses these in some sort of average to get their variant is producing one that is woefully inaccurate, which is why many dismiss variants for figures because one, they are using inaccurate variants and two they don't know how to use them.

[cmoore]

A 1:12 6F race ran on two different days. Say 30 days apart by the same class level of horses usually will give you two different pace and speed figures..Both races will be effected by what style of runners are in race. But surface will play a role also.. It's how fast or slow the track was at that time and then adjusted in the figures..Tsn and brisnet pace and speed figures are fully adjusted for this.

[raybo]

A 1:12 6F race ran on two different days. Say 30 days apart by the same class level of horses usually will give you two different pace and speed figures..Both races will be effected by what style of runners are in race. But surface will play a role also.. It's how fast or slow the track was at that time and then adjusted in the figures..Tsn and brisnet pace and speed figures are fully adjusted for this.

I agree with what you say and I use Bris data, however I am not a huge believer in the accuracy of their track and surface speed adjusted pace and speed figures. I prefer to look at fractional and final times, fully adjusted with a variable BLs multiplier based on the leader's pace and also with fractional variants of my own formulation. Eventually I hope to create my own pace and speed figures from these adjusted times. A PA member, hcap, is currently working on a DB for me that will include these adjusted times. His work will enable me to produce pace and speed figs and pars.

[classhandicapper]

Well, you and I have spent years agreeing on this subject, CH, and I see nothing has changed. The only thing I would add is that I think this question is similar to our old agreement about the benefit of clear early leads. Does slowing down early help a frontrunner's final time? As a rule, yes. However, the waters are muddied by the fact that frontrunners in improving condition will tend to express some of that improvement by running faster early on their way to a faster final time. This is correlation, not causation. The faster early fractions reflect improved condition; they don't cause faster final times. These horses would have run faster yet had they slowed down early. In other words, the ideal situation is a frontrunner who, because of his improving condition, has the capability of running faster early today but who, because of the way the race shapes up, does not actually have to do it. He has the best of both worlds: improving condition, but no obligation to show it off early.

We seem to agree about a lot of things. ;) That may not be always be such a good thing because I had a very mediocre Inner Dirt meet. :lol:

I think in general "getting loose" helps a horse because the dominating position allows it run more evenly and relaxed on the lead. We tend to think in terms of quarterly fractions because that's what we have to work with. However, a 24 is sometimes 6 + 6+ 6 + 6 and sometimes 6 2/5 + 5 3/5 + 5 3/5 + 6 2/5 because of a sharp challenge or move to improve position. That kind of thing also has an impact. It's just more difficult to measure.

I like to call myself a "classhandicapper" :lol: , but I think most of "CLASS" is actually related to the aspects of pace we can measure (the fractions) and these little early and mid race moves for position that we have difficulty measuring (though watching races helps). Sometimes the fractions and final times are similar, but those little early and mid race challenges are more intense and sustained at higher levels of racing. The horses have deeper reserves and talents that can be called upon if required.

I also agree that lots of horses that get loose and run superior figures do so because they improved their condition. IMO you can usually tell the difference between one that improved and one that was helped by being loose by looking at the horse's overall record of fractions and final times vs. the race in question.

[classhandicapper]

No, a REAL example, not theory.

If you use CJ's pace figures (or any other good set of pace figures) there are good examples every day. The problem with this kind of thing is that people tend to interpret data in a way that is consistent with their own exsiting beliefs. Fluctuations in form also tend to complicate the analysis.

IMO, the best way to prove it is to study older consistent high quality horses.

That way development and extreme changes in condition are less frequent.

[classhandicapper]

CJ,

I am trying to uncomplicate things.

I still say that faster final times are produced by horses that go faster early.

I am not saying that he cannot over-run his ability... I am simply saying that a horse that produces his best times will generally be when he ran faster early rather than slower early.

Same thing for pars... you don't find a class level where the faster horses (i.e. higher classes) produce their higher pars by going slower.


Of course, anyone can disagree with this if they so believe. I just do not see how anything but this can be true.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Dave,

What you are talking about is general ability and not the impact of pace on final time among individual horses.

Faster paces correlate with faster final times as you move up the class ladder because the horses are better. So they tend to be faster to every race call.

However, if horses at a specific class run a pace much faster than normal "FOR THEM" it will have a negative impact on their final time. That's what CJ is sayng. One need only watch any extreme duel to see how the pace setters make out.

However, another phenomenon we haven't discussed if what happens to the deep closers when the pace setters are running an extremely fast pace and killing themselves.

IMO, that scenario can and often does produce a faster than usual final time for a deep closer.

IMO, part of the reason is that deep closers tend to NOT run efficient fractions under more normal conditions. They tend to run TOO SLOW early to produce their maximum final time. A much faster than normal pace can sometimes actually draw them into a more efficient distribution of their energy and a faster than usual final time.

Also, typically, when mid pack and deep closers make their move on the turn, they usually run into other fresh horses that are trying to sustain or improve their position too. That's the point where under average conditions they are forced to work real hard and expend a lot of energy. However, if the pace was extremely fast, those closers find the horses in front of them depleted. As a result, they can improve their position and get where they want without taxing themselves to their limit. That allows them to run faster overall.

[Dave Schwartz]

Classic,

Good post.

I can agree with that easily.


Dave

[andicap]

Dave,

However, another phenomenon we haven't discussed if what happens to the deep closers when the pace setters are running an extremely fast pace and killing themselves.

IMO, that scenario can and often does produce a faster than usual final time for a deep closer.

IMO, part of the reason is that deep closers tend to NOT run efficient fractions under more normal conditions. They tend to run TOO SLOW early to produce their maximum final time. A much faster than normal pace can sometimes actually draw them into a more efficient distribution of their energy and a faster than usual final time.

Also, typically, when mid pack and deep closers make their move on the turn, they usually run into other fresh horses that are trying to sustain or improve their position too. That's the point where under average conditions they are forced to work real hard and expend a lot of energy. However, if the pace was extremely fast, those closers find the horses in front of them depleted. As a result, they can improve their position and get where they want without taxing themselves to their limit. That allows them to run faster overall.


Finally!!!
I have asked this question on several boards and never received a satisfactory answer until now. That is, why a faster early pace improves a closers final time. I kind of instinctually knew the answer but you explained it beautifully in terms of energy distribution.

thanks, CH.

[Cratos]

Do you think it's correct to compare the raw times/splits from a race run at the same track and distance that are 6 weeks apart? Would you laugh at someone touting this as one of their main handicapping points? Do you believe in track variants?

This is not a trick question, I know of one person who is going to vote no, but I wanted to see if anyone else would.

My answer to the question: “Do you believe in track variant?” is an
unequivocal yes. But my answer to the current measurement of the track variant is an unequivocal no.

Why? You cannot solve a problem with an exact answer with all variables. Under the present variant measurement systems both the horses’ speed and the track’s surface are varying simultaneously and it is not clear which is the major contributor to the outcome of the race.

[HUSKER55]

Perhaps someone can tell me If I am wrong on this.
When a race starts and the gates opens the horses go for the glory and string themselves out.

Somewhere down the backside they are grouped together and I swear those jocks are standing up and all but doing cartwheeels to get the horse to move.

As they come aroud the bend, one or two seem to wake up and go for the bucks. (unfortunately neither one are my picks):D

I think that is "herd mentality" (for lack of a better term) that says the speed of a horse is determined by the speed of the herd.

At the wire only the class horse or best trained horse is going to win.

If you think any part of my "herd mentality" theory is correct then how would anyone ever make a variant that was worth the effort?

You watch. As you go "up the food chain" those horses do not depend on the herd for anything.

I think the herd mentality for claimers, maidens, fts is way more prevalent than for stakes, higher handicps and upper allowances.


I would appreciate your opinions.

Thank you

:)

[delayjf]

I am not saying that he cannot over-run his ability... I am simply saying that a horse that produces his best times will generally be when he ran faster early rather than slower early.
I think both sides are correct here. A horse will run its “best” race by running faster early within a specific pace range.

I think the reason for this is that because by using more of their energy early, they leave less in the tank (within a pace range), in other words, running faster early allows a horse to run closer to their individual potential than horses who only run their hardest in the later portion of the race.

I think Beyer pointed out that horses use fast fractions as a spring board to their best efforts, that's not to say they were necessarily a front runners but that on any given day a horse might get sucked along into faster fractions that are within his pace abilities and thus run closer to their potential best. Beyer also pointed out that the most efficient manner for a horse to run was to run evenly during the race decelerating slightly at the end. I don't know if that is necessarily true on dirt, but empirical evidence on turf (SoCal) has shown me that front running winners on the turf do tend to run each fraction at about the same pace.

[classhandicapper]

Finally!!!
I have asked this question on several boards and never received a satisfactory answer until now. That is, why a faster early pace improves a closers final time. I kind of instinctually knew the answer but you explained it beautifully in terms of energy distribution.

thanks, CH.

No problem. I pick up tips from you all the time. We are almost even now. :lol:

I could add one other thing that I thought of later. It's possible that closers sometimes benefit a bit from drafting also.

[George Sands]

I
I think Beyer pointed out that horses use fast fractions as a spring board to their best efforts

Wasn't that Davidowitz?

[delayjf]

George,

You very well maybe correct. I thought it was Beyer but I could very easily be wrong.

Sorry to all for being repetitive, had I read classhandicappers post, I would have laid low - his explaination was much better than mine.

[Nitro]

I would have to disagree to an extent. There is a small range where pace and speed have an almost linear effect on individual horses. Every horse is probably a little different. However, if a horse runs in the range and goes a little slower early, final time will be better. If the horses goes faster, final time will be slower.

Outside of this small range, you are almost always going to have a slower final time. If the horse runs slow enough, it might be impossible for him to run fast enough to achieve his best. However, if a horse runs too fast, it will certainly always run slower than the best effort it is capable of on that day.

To keep it simple, running fast leads to fast times for an individual horse to a certain extent. But if a horse runs too fast, that is certainly not true. If we are talking about a group of horses, it will depend on the quality of the closers.Well said….and I particularly agree with the argument about there being ONLY a “small range where pace and speed have only a linear effect on horses”. Because anyone who has generated relatively accurate speed and pace numbers knows that the overall measured effects (of energy distribution) from any race is not linear at all. This is especially true when considering the impact of a track variant (or environment).

Every entry starts its race from rest and must accelerate, no matter what their preferred running style is or where they’re placed in the early stages of a race. Acceleration and deceleration are never considered to be linear in any equation, as constant velocity usually is. Immediately after the initial acceleration takes place (about a ¼ mile out), the deceleration begins and the initial pace takes its toll (energy consumption) particularly on those that have accelerated more rapidly. If the track variant (or running environment) is not speed favoring, these pace setters will likely consume even more energy. If not, they tend to carry their early speed even further. This is because they haven’t expended as much energy, and will be able to sustain it even further, especially if the racing environment continues to favor their running style.

Those racing from behind the early pace, generally rely on one or more of the negative effects to impact the early runners. This might include any number of things; like multiple early pace setters vying for the lead, a strong headwind, a deep running surface or any combination of these. If they haven’t consumed a lot of energy during the early part of the race, they will generally have more left for the stretch drive. One of the justifications for entering a "rabbit" is to insure a solid early pace knowing that it will have some effect on outcome of a race.

All of this is pretty much known and generally accepted by those relying on speed and pace figures. What’s not always recognized and properly quantified is just how much energy was consumed during the early stages of a race (acceleration phase) and how much that affected each entry’s energy output for the remainder of the race. Many assume (and rightfully so) that the classier animal can sustain its running style longer and more effectively because its basically got more energy (and maybe heart) in the tank, even when the racing environment isn’t so favorable. Other then it being totally unfavorable, it’s normally when the anticipated condition (total energy level) of the classier animal is not up to expectations that it falters and looses to another (maybe lower class animal) in better condition. Once again determining any of this before a race is based on pure speculation from a subjective analysis of information from the past. Knowing more about an animal’s overall pre-race condition would certainly help reduce these suppositions. The problem here is that there’s always more then one animal in a race to consider, and the race conditions and racing environments are very rarely identical to previous races.

No one ever said this game would be easy, but with some decent tools and current information, it can become more manageable and even eliminate some of the guesswork.

[jasperson]

I agree -- not specific enough. I don't use variants for quarter horse racing. Track-to-track variants are useful, though.


Charles Carroll makes a good argument against variants in his book, "Handicapping Speed".
I disagree with not using variants with the quarters. When Trinity Meadows was open here I calculated speed ratings and track variants and found them the source of good profits. I think it was caused by the winds here in Texas,because here in the summer time the wind always blows about 20 mph and it just depends on the direction. I didn't use any of the 870 races. I did give up after they started having mixed qh and tb races, because there wasn't enough short races to make a good variant. I quit playing the quarter all together.
Jack

[thelyingthief]

The TV is not a god, hell, it's not even like the isle of capri, which i have never seen but know to exist. hence it is not a matter of belief.

as with any technique, it either works or it does not work.

myself, like others, when i have made them i witnessed so much race to race and per diem variation that i could not trust their accuracy. Selecting a pace line requires some attention to surface, i admit; and i even think, if one had the data, like the specifics of soil density, how it retains water, how heat affects it, drainage figures; and then paid close attention to between race maintenance; AND you could correlate all these into a number, they would be very useful. But that isn't in the cards, now is it.

tlt-

[proximity]

But that isn't in the cards, now is it.

tlt-

yeah but are you still in the cards, or is it just(in) pigskins and ponies for now?

[SPEEDHORSE]

This question is for all posters on this thread. Do you apply variants for races shorter than 6 furlongs?

[raybo]

This question is for all posters on this thread. Do you apply variants for races shorter than 6 furlongs?

Iwould imagine that most players who apply variants apply them no matter the distance. Why wouldn't they? If you're adjusting times or creating figures, etc., and a track variant is used, then unless you don't adjust times for races less than 6f or use figures for those races, then. you must be using track variants for those short races also.

My variants vary based on the pace of the race, so, for shorter races with a faster pace, the variant doesn't carry as much weight as for slower paced races.

[redeye007]

I used to own a publication written by a Dr. Donald Sullivan several years ago explaining how to create your own detailed variants by distance. It worked very well before the addition of the variant in the drf. I use them.

[Robert Goren]

I used to own a publication written by a Dr. Donald Sullivan several years ago explaining how to create your own detailed variants by distance. It worked very well before the addition of the variant in the drf. I use them. Do you have any idea on how I can get this publication?:bang:

[thoroughbred]

Do you think it's correct to compare the raw times/splits from a race run at the same track and distance that are 6 weeks apart? Would you laugh at someone touting this as one of their main handicapping points? Do you believe in track variants?

This is not a trick question, I know of one person who is going to vote no, but I wanted to see if anyone else would.

One of the aspects of this is to consider how accurate the class ratings are.
There is no way, in calculating the track variant, to separate out the condition of the track, from the particular quality of the horses on a particular day, or in a particular race. If,for example, by chance, the horses in a particular race are especially fast, the result of a variant calculation will make it appear that the track itself is fast, regardless of the track condition.

This is not to say that the variant has no value; just saying it has to be used with caution.

[jonnielu]

One of the aspects of this is to consider how accurate the class ratings are.
There is no way, in calculating the track variant, to separate out the condition of the track, from the particular quality of the horses on a particular day, or in a particular race. If,for example, by chance, the horses in a particular race are especially fast, the result of a variant calculation will make it appear that the track itself is fast, regardless of the track condition.

This is not to say that the variant has no value; just saying it has to be used with caution.

The value of the entire concept of track variant is to those deluded to the extent that they believe that horse racing would figure in the way that they would figure it. When the average mutuel paid gets down to $2.40, I'll be won over to the concept of track variant.

jdl

[Sid]

Everyone knows racetracks play faster one day and slower another day. Everyone understands that -- including generations of track maintenance superintendents who, at the behest of generations of track managers, made tracks faster for marquee days.

So what's wrong with someone trying to quantify this sort of thing? I mean, I'm an anti-quantifier myself. But if you're going to quantify, or try to, I can't think of anything more useful and logical than a track variant.

Back in my quantifying days I made my own variant, a la the early, primitive Beyer method before projections and other voodoo crept into the process. I thought pars and variants not only made great sense, but worked splendidly -- as long as all your numbers were for your home track only, you did not try to make numbers bridge different tracks and different surfaces, and you were playing nothing but six furlong dirt races at your home track. Given that this accounted for two-thirds of races in my playable universe at the time, what's wrong with that?

Younger players should keep in mind that although Racing Form speed fig plus Racing Form variant might be, as some claim, "worse than useless" it is also true that it's infinitely better than it used to be. And, at my track at least, the single biggest clunker in the Form variant was not the difference in class between a Wednesday card and a Saturday card, but the difference between a card dominated by sprints and a card dominated by routes. Trivial, but true.

A final piece of trivia . . . in my days as a quantifier I decided that the single greatest favor a speed handicapper could do is accept that some races and some days are simply not quantifiable. They make no sense. There are lots of races out there to be played. You know (at least if you make your own numbers) which figs are solid and which are not. Instead of using voodoo or guesswork just to fill in a number for a race or a day, make it a nice big ????? It is amazing how many players who have no trouble throwing out a particular race by a horse absolutely insist on NOT throwing out a particular fig.

Sorry for the bandwidth. Thinking of quantification is, for me, almost like thinking back into the previous century. Come to think of it, that's exactly what it is.

[bisket]

the only variant i use is the one from drf. they compare races from the same day. i DON'T add and subtract and the horse with the best fig is the one for me :ThmbDown: i look at the variant over the course of a horses racing career. how does the horse stack up on a regular basis. i think you can get somewhat of an idea of the horses ability by doing this. once again the most important point is to use this as an INDICATION of a horses ability. beyer uses drf variant figures as one of the tools in determining his speed figs.

[ryesteve]

beyer uses drf variant figures as one of the tools in determining his speed figs.That, and a Kel-co calculator?

[Steve 'StatMan']

the only variant i use is the one from drf. they compare races from the same day. i DON'T add and subtract and the horse with the best fig is the one for me :ThmbDown: i look at the variant over the course of a horses racing career. how does the horse stack up on a regular basis. i think you can get somewhat of an idea of the horses ability by doing this. once again the most important point is to use this as an INDICATION of a horses ability. beyer uses drf variant figures as one of the tools in determining his speed figs.

Seriously, Beyer doesn't use the variant published in the DRF, his people make their own. Maybe there is some confusion, as Moss uses Beyer's variant to make his pace figures for DRF. Beyer's variant is not published in DRF.

[rokitman]

oooops

[ddog]

I agree with CJ on this.

My basic formula is that the faster a horse runs early, the faster his final time will be up to a certain point. Then it starts operating in the other direction where the faster he runs early, the slower his final time will be.

Run extremely slow early and it's physically impossible to make up the difference at the end (very slow final time).

Run too slow early and you don't save enough energy to make up the difference late (slow final time)

Run at the perfect pace, maximize the final time.

Run too fast, you consume more than an ideal amount of energy and you slow down late by more than you ran fast early. (slow final time)

Run extremely fast and you totally collapse (very slow final time)

The formula is not linear, but there is an area where it's darn close (call it the the sweet spot). At the extremes, running 1/5 second faster or slower has more of an impact on the final time than in the sweet spot area.

The tricky thing is that most races develop with paces that are right around the sweet spot (slightly faster). That's why we occasionally see a horse that gets loose in a moderate pace run a lifetime best.

The trickiest part of all of this is that sweet spot is different for every track, every surface, and sometimes even from day to day at the same track. That's what tends to cause speed/closer biases. The jockeys are pretty sensitive to this kind of thing and adjust their riding and the resultant paces as soon as they figure it out, but it still complicates the figure making process, bias determination, and the measurement of performances.


Very well put and the next trick is to figure out if the too fast took too much out of him last time so that a not normally too fast will in fact be too fast this time. Thus allowing a non-efficient closer to run him down maybe even without a duel.


That's the game right there a lot of times.

[gm10]

ABsolutely yes. There is one caveat, though. Some figure providers adjust the variant to produce numbers that are in line with previous performamces, especially for the big races. This can be misleading sometimes.

[46zilzal]

There are too many courses that just DO NOT transfer with a variant to mollify the differences.

[Tom]

Class differences. :p

[gm10]

Hey Dave,

I would have to disagree to an extent. There is a small range where pace and speed have an almost linear effect on individual horses. Every horse is probably a little different. However, if a horse runs in the range and goes a little slower early, final time will be better. If the horses goes faster, final time will be slower.

Outside of this small range, you are almost always going to have a slower final time. If the horse runs slow enough, it might be impossible for him to run fast enough to achieve his best. However, if a horse runs too fast, it will certainly always run slower than the best effort it is capable of on that day.

To keep it simple, running fast leads to fast times for an individual horse to a certain extent. But if a horse runs too fast, that is certainly not true. If we are talking about a group of horses, it will depend on the quality of the closers.

It's a very nice theory, one that I believe in as well, but I've never been able to prove it. How would you go about it, if I may ask? How would you establish that linear range for example? What variables would be your X and Y?

[Harvhorse]

Fred davis used them, and if you use his method it still holds up. He wrote the pioneering book "Percentages and Probabilities" He was truely a pioneer in handicapping. If anybody has any background on Fredrick Davis please fill me in as i can't come up with anything about him.

[cj]

It's a very nice theory, one that I believe in as well, but I've never been able to prove it. How would you go about it, if I may ask? How would you establish that linear range for example? What variables would be your X and Y?

Sorry I missed this when you first posted it. The linear range was established for me by studying the figures and running styles of thousands and thousands of horses. I don't know of any other way to do it.

I mention running styles because fast paces actually help closers run faster, where they make speed types run slower.

[gm10]

Sorry I missed this when you first posted it. The linear range was established for me by studying the figures and running styles of thousands and thousands of horses. I don't know of any other way to do it.

I mention running styles because fast paces actually help closers run faster, where they make speed types run slower.

thx CJ
had forgotten about this :-)
I will have another look at the data tonight to see if I can find the same signal.

[JPinMaryland]

Classhandicapper mentioned a "sweet spot" within various paces where a horse can probably run a very good time, given his ability. He refers to this as "linear" and to me it means that within this sweet spot, a few fifths faster or a few fifths slower and presumably the horse can still run close to his best time.

Now Im not sure CJ and the others were actually saying this (or even classh. for that matter) because they might be saying that there is a linear relationship where say 2/5 sec faster at a certain call, might result in a 2/5 slower than ideal final time, and 2/5 slower at a certain pace call might be 2/5 slower than his best final time....Someone, may have been CJ referred to this as "linear" and meaning there was a 1:1 correspondence between the faster or slower pace and the final time...

I dont think Classhdcpr meant linear' like that he meant the final time actually stayed the same, so long as the horse was within the sweet spot range. These two notions are not the same, so some clarification would be nice...

Note: there's no question for me that running very fast or very slow will have a huge, '"non linear" effect on the final time. You "hit the wall" burn out or call it whatever, this effect will be non linear. I.e. a pace that is say 1 sec too fast might result in a final time 2 or 3 or 4 seconds off his best. I dont want to argue that and some of the discussion has focused on that aspect at the extreme end of pace; w/out really getting to the real pt of disagreement as I see it.i.e. what I said in para. 3.

But to me there is a still larger question looming which would help to validate this theory of pace, or make us wonder if we are just BS'ing ourselves.

And that is this:

Assume there is this "sweet spot." Classhdcpr says it's linear, others say it is linear but it still affects the final time. The sweet spot is a small area of pace, within the larger realm of all possible paces.

WOuldnt the sweet spot be larger, i.e. a larger window of time for turf and synthetic races? Because it seems to me that on turf; horses have the ability to accelerate almost at will. Similar on synthetic, some synthetics more so than others of course. We often see horses with late, late moves overtake the front runners on turf, it looks quite different from dirt.

So do the data support that idea of a larger sweet spot for turf? If it doesnt then I think we really need to question our theories of pace.

[bisket]

slim; the sweet spot would be a slower fig on poly

[JPinMaryland]

well I could certainly see that the lower end of the sweet spot would very likely be slower than dirt; that makes sense from my observations but I dont have a data set. I am more concerned with what we perceive to be the range of that sweet spot. Shouldnt it be a longer time period?

[delayjf]

It's a very nice theory, one that I believe in as well, but I've never been able to prove it. How would you go about it, if I may ask? How would you establish that linear range for example? What variables would be your X and Y?

I would think you could examine the running styles and winning pace / final times (say 6 furlongs in 1:10), then sorting the pace times by running style would reveal the range that front runners won, pressers, etc.

[Murph]

So let's see an example of this.This may be an example of faster pace making faster FT's on a single day. This variant gets hot in the middle of the card. Some of the faster times for routes this meet. Below are my variant notes for last night at HOO.

HOO 10K Pars
5.5 45.6 105.0
6F 46.60 1:12.60
1M 114.2 141.4

HOO 09/02 CL PC FT VAR
R1 5.5F +4 46.0 105.0 0,+4
R2 8F +2 114.4 138.8 0,+9
R3 6F +2 46.2 110.8 +2,+8
R4 5.5F +2 45.8 105.0 0,+4
R5 6F +4 46.4 112.0 +3,+5
R6 8F -3 112.6 138.4 +6,+14
R7 8F +2 112.4 138.0 +9,+19
R8 6F -1 45.2 109.2 +7,+16
R9 8F -2 112.2 137.4 +8,+18
R10 8F -2 114.4 140.2 -4,+5

NOTE: My variant is listed in 10ths of a second and handicapped.

[markgoldie]

Very sorry that I just picked up on this thread. It originally started when I was not even a forum member. Just read the whole thing and there was a highly interesting and important discussion that went on here. Lots of opinions and many of them seem correct to me:

On the question of the value of track variants. Clearly differing track speeds exist. Concensus agrees.

On the question of the ability to create a perfect variant: Clearly not possible but a flawed variant if intelligently and diligently made is far better than nothing at all. Concensus seems to agree.

On the more interesting question of pace versus final times: Shocked by Dave Schwartz' early post saying that faster paces do not lead to slower final times. This would seem to be settled law going all the way back to Ainsle and Taulbot. Later doubted by Beyer in his earlier work and then recanted by a red-faced Beyer in a later work.

I personally disagree with the unchallenged assertion here that faster paces lead to faster final times for closers. This is true in racing where a "slipstream" effect prevails (such as harness racing and human racing) but not in t-bred racing where it mostly does not occur. The assumption that closers in general are routinely "underpaced" by their jockeys (who tend to be speed crazy in the main) and that a faster-paced race allows them to reach a more favorable energy distribution so as to create a faster final time is wrong in my opinion. (Were this true, all closers should be whipped out of the starting gate for best results.) Without a slipstream effect, there is nothing at all about the speed of the pace far ahead of the closer that can benefit him as to final speed performance. In fact, I believe that a closer in a faster-paced race will tend to be moved out of his personal optimum energy distribution too early by the jockey who sees himself falling impossibly far behind the leaders, thus leading to a slower final time. I believe that faster-paced races will tend to allow closers to finish better positionally relative to the rest of the field but will not improve their final times.

However, with all the data-based players we have here, what really struck me was the amount of unexamined opinion on a subject that would seem to be not only important, but testable. For example, I think we can all agree that final-speed figs (if well done) have a pretty close correlation to the final-speed performance of a horse in a given race. If not, what was the handicapping "revolution" created by Beyer, Ragozin, et. al. about? So if this is agreed, why not test the theory? Look at pace differences from race to race and compare that to the final-speed fig for the horse. Break the pace differentials down into categories of say, 4 points (0-4, 4-8, 8-12, etc.) both on the plus and minus side. Assume that form changes will even themselves out over a large sample. To help in this, we might exclude examples with inexperienced horses such as those making their 2-4th lifetime start. Exclude changes in surface-type and distance. Possibly exclude layoffs of over, say, 45 days if we think this may skew the results. Break out results for running type of the horse, ie. E, E/P, P, and S.
I'm not an automated player but my sense is that this isn't very hard for those that are. Am I wrong? Any takers?

Mark

[cj]

Very sorry that I just picked up on this thread. It originally started when I was not even a forum member. Just read the whole thing and there was a highly interesting and important discussion that went on here. Lots of opinions and many of them seem correct to me:

On the question of the value of track variants. Clearly differing track speeds exist. Concensus agrees.

On the question of the ability to create a perfect variant: Clearly not possible but a flawed variant if intelligently and diligently made is far better than nothing at all. Concensus seems to agree.

On the more interesting question of pace versus final times: Shocked by Dave Schwartz' early post saying that faster paces do not lead to slower final times. This would seem to be settled law going all the way back to Ainsle and Taulbot. Later doubted by Beyer in his earlier work and then recanted by a red-faced Beyer in a later work.

I personally disagree with the unchallenged assertion here that faster paces lead to faster final times for closers. This is true in racing where a "slipstream" effect prevails (such as harness racing and human racing) but not in t-bred racing where it mostly does not occur. The assumption that closers in general are routinely "underpaced" by their jockeys (who tend to be speed crazy in the main) and that a faster-paced race allows them to reach a more favorable energy distribution so as to create a faster final time is wrong in my opinion. (Were this true, all closers should be whipped out of the starting gate for best results.) Without a slipstream effect, there is nothing at all about the speed of the pace far ahead of the closer that can benefit him as to final speed performance. In fact, I believe that a closer in a faster-paced race will tend to be moved out of his personal optimum energy distribution too early by the jockey who sees himself falling impossibly far behind the leaders, thus leading to a slower final time. I believe that faster-paced races will tend to allow closers to finish better positionally relative to the rest of the field but will not improve their final times.

However, with all the data-based players we have here, what really struck me was the amount of unexamined opinion on a subject that would seem to be not only important, but testable. For example, I think we can all agree that final-speed figs (if well done) have a pretty close correlation to the final-speed performance of a horse in a given race. If not, what was the handicapping "revolution" created by Beyer, Ragozin, et. al. about? So if this is agreed, why not test the theory? Look at pace differences from race to race and compare that to the final-speed fig for the horse. Break the pace differentials down into categories of say, 4 points (0-4, 4-8, 8-12, etc.) both on the plus and minus side. Assume that form changes will even themselves out over a large sample. To help in this, we might exclude examples with inexperienced horses such as those making their 2-4th lifetime start. Exclude changes in surface-type and distance. Possibly exclude layoffs of over, say, 45 days if we think this may skew the results. Break out results for running type of the horse, ie. E, E/P, P, and S.
I'm not an automated player but my sense is that this isn't very hard for those that are. Am I wrong? Any takers?

Mark

Most of what I post has been tested extensively against a very large database. It doesn't mean I'm going to post the exact findings here for all to see, take, and use for themselves.

Maybe there is a drafting effect with thoroughbreds, maybe there isn't. But my data shows closers absolutely run faster final times when the pace is honest to fast. However, as with most things, there is a limit. Sometimes the pace is so fast that all horses run slower.

Not only that, but every horse is a little different. Running style does not totally define each horse. That said, it is a great starting point.

[markgoldie]

Most of what I post has been tested extensively against a very large database. It doesn't mean I'm going to post the exact findings here for all to see, take, and use for themselves.

Maybe there is a drafting effect with thoroughbreds, maybe there isn't. But my data shows closers absolutely run faster final times when the pace is honest to fast. However, as with most things, there is a limit. Sometimes the pace is so fast that all horses run slower.

Not only that, but every horse is a little different. Running style does not totally define each horse. That said, it is a great starting point.
I think most experts would tell you that for a slipstream effect to have any force, the trailing horse has to be directly behind the "wind breaker" and within about a length of that horse's behind. How often does this occur in t-bred racing, especially among closing laggards?

As for your research, I don't doubt the integrity of what you say in the least. However, since you have already provided us with the conclusions of the study, why not post it? What's the harm?

[raybo]

I think much like Mark does, on this question. However, I believe form has a significant impact in such a study.

Horses that are at or nearing peak form will often run faster final times when faced with a fast pace.

Horses on the other side of form will do the opposite. Pace kills them.

With slower paces almost anything can happen. Usually slower paces lead to slower final times, but that's not always the case. Much of this scenario depends on running style and the jockey.

[mountainman]

Don't confuse cause and effect. I'd be very hesitant to conclude that slower fractions engender slower finals. In many instances-even within the same class and race conditions-slower splits simply indicate a subpar field rather than sharp horses running well within themselves. Pedestrian fractions might also mean that a race is devoid of pure frontrunners, a type often capable of faster final times than their off-the-pace counterparts.

[raybo]

Don't confuse cause and effect. I'd be very hesitant to conclude that slower fractions engender slower finals. In many instances-even within the same class and race conditions-slower splits simply indicate a subpar field rather than sharp horses running well within themselves. Pedestrian fractions might also mean that a race is devoid of pure frontrunners, a type often capable of faster final times than their off-the-pace counterparts.

We're not talking about horses running their normal final times, with faster or slower paces. We're talking about them running faster or slower than their normal. I agree that it's not unusual to see a slow pace and still see normal final times, for the class of animals running. That's why I said: "Usually slower paces lead to slower final times, ....".

[mountainman]

But my data shows closers absolutely run faster final times when the pace is honest to fast.

I doubt that this is attributable to any 'towing' effect. In fact, it's the pace coming BACK that emboldens late-runners to produce premium efforts. Horses of all running styles perform best when the race flow is favorable. Just as frontrunners gather courage if allowed to coast unchallenged, closers gain confidence when horses they attempt to pass cave quickly instead of fighting back with stored energy. Horseraces are battlefields that involve skirmishes at all points in the pack. The less toll (physical AND mental) extracted from these encounters, the better an animal is likely to sustain and finish. This is why ralliers find it easier to swoop past a cluster of opponents than to pass them one by one.

[Show Me the Wire]

I doubt that this is attributable to any 'towing' effect. In fact, it's the pace coming BACK that emboldens late-runners to produce premium efforts. Horses of all running styles perform best when the race flow is favorable. Just as frontrunners gather courage if allowed to coast unchallenged, closers gain confidence when horses they attempt to pass cave quickly instead of fighting back with stored energy. Horseraces are battlefields that involve skirmishes at all points in the pack. The less toll (physical AND mental) extracted from these encounters, the better an animal is likely to sustain and finish. This is why ralliers find it easier to swoop past a cluster of opponents than to pass them one by one.

Excellent observation. :ThmbUp:

More than likely why cappers don't like AWS and complain about closing biases. On AWS, the horses are certainly bunched up more than on dirt.

[cj]

I doubt that this is attributable to any 'towing' effect. In fact, it's the pace coming BACK that emboldens late-runners to produce premium efforts. Horses of all running styles perform best when the race flow is favorable. Just as frontrunners gather courage if allowed to coast unchallenged, closers gain confidence when horses they attempt to pass cave quickly instead of fighting back with stored energy. Horseraces are battlefields that involve skirmishes at all points in the pack. The less toll (physical AND mental) extracted from these encounters, the better an animal is likely to sustain and finish. This is why ralliers find it easier to swoop past a cluster of opponents than to pass them one by one.

I doubt it too, I was just mentioning it for the other poster. My real point was I don't really care why, just so I know it happens.

[ezrabrooks]

This may be an example of faster pace making faster FT's on a single day. This variant gets hot in the middle of the card. Some of the faster times for routes this meet. Below are my variant notes for last night at HOO.

HOO 10K Pars
5.5 45.6 105.0
6F 46.60 1:12.60
1M 114.2 141.4

HOO 09/02 CL PC FT VAR
R1 5.5F +4 46.0 105.0 0,+4
R2 8F +2 114.4 138.8 0,+9
R3 6F +2 46.2 110.8 +2,+8
R4 5.5F +2 45.8 105.0 0,+4
R5 6F +4 46.4 112.0 +3,+5
R6 8F -3 112.6 138.4 +6,+14
R7 8F +2 112.4 138.0 +9,+19
R8 6F -1 45.2 109.2 +7,+16
R9 8F -2 112.2 137.4 +8,+18
R10 8F -2 114.4 140.2 -4,+5

NOTE: My variant is listed in 10ths of a second and handicapped.

Hey Murph... What % is Steve Manley winning at Hoo? Jezz..where did that come from?

Ez

[markgoldie]

I am not here to ruffle feathers. So let me just say this. We are all pretty much agreed that when speed horses go faster than their normal pace, they will put in a slower final time. (Of course, we are talking about all other factors being equal such as form, trainer, jockey, distance, etc.)

The question then becomes, what about closers? There are at least two very good and understandable reasons why the intuitive answer is that closers will go faster: (1) In other forms of racing such as human, harness, and car racing which involve a slip-stream effect, this is undeniably true; (2) In races where pace is unusually fast, closers tend to finish much better than they normally would. That's because they only need to pass burnt-up speed horses who are collapsing. Hence, the S-type who rarely wins may find himself in the winners' circle in such events.

The question, though, is whether or not his better-than-usual finish is in better-than-usual time. It is easy and intuitive to believe that it is. Why? because the horse who normally finishes fifth or sixth and now wins should have performed better in regard to final speed. This seems to make sense. But is it true?

So we ask ourselves, without a slipstream effect, just what is it about a fast pace, unfolding far in front of the closer that makes him able to run faster than he normally would?

Here, we have conflicting opinions. MM says that maybe passing more horses than usual gets his competitive juices flowing. But the reverse of that could be that maybe he gets discouraged early in the race when the speedballs are so far ahead of him that he feels like he's running in a vacuum. Maybe he likes it when he is able to pass groups of horses at the same time. On the other hand, there's no guarantee that when the speeders quit they quit in packs rather than one-at-a-time.

The reverse opinion (mine) says that closers like to remain relatively near the competition through the early running; that they have a pace comfort zone just like speed types; that falling too far behind will make the jockey force the horse out of that comfort zone because he believes he is falling impossibly far behind the leaders; that this inability to maintain the closer's pace comfort zone will hinder, rather than help his overall performance; and that as such, a fast-paced race tends to become too fast for not only the speed types, but all horses involved in the event.

Again, we understand that horses are different and that running styles and proclivities vary even within certain designated types. We are talking in generalities which hold only over large numbers of races. And yet, this is what we must consider in handicapping all the time. We can say, this is what usually happens when a horse is off over 60 days or when he adds lasix or blinkers, or when he moves into a better or worse barn, or picks up a better or worse rider, etc. etc. We realize that a given instance may be the exact reverse of the general. But ignoring these things isn't very fruitful if we want long-term success.

For the above reasons, I asked if anyone had or would run a large sample from their data base. That and only that will answer the question satisfactorily. Beliefs and opinions (including mine) don't hold much water in scientific handicapping. At least I think we can all agree on that point.

Mark

[Murph]

Hey Murph... What % is Steve Manley winning at Hoo? Jezz..where did that come from?

EzManley is top trainer so far this season. He is showing 60 starts with results of 18 - 11 - 9. He has 5 more wins than Barb McBride. Good for him. Randy Klopp is underperforming so far this meet. Michael Maker shows 6 starts and 4 wins this meeting.

I think the class quality of the fields is improving from top to bottom, including Indiana state bred runners.

[cj]

Manley is top trainer so far this season. He is showing 60 starts with results of 18 - 11 - 9. He has 5 more wins than Barb McBride. Good for him. Randy Klopp is underperforming so far this meet. Michael Maker shows 6 starts and 4 wins this meeting.

I think the class quality of the fields is improving from top to bottom, including Indiana state bred runners.

Hoosier Park and Indiana Downs, home of the single digit winning Beyer!

[classhandicapper]

I think at least 3 things contribute to closers running faster times when the pace is fast.

1. Deep closers typically run fractions that are too slow to maximize their final time. When the pace is very fast, they still take their position towards the back, but sometimes wind up running a somewhat more efficient set of fractions by trying to stay in contact with the field.

2. Typically when deep closers make their move, there are many fresh horses in front of them that resist their bid and force them to go all out (or close) to gain position. That takes a toll on them the same way a fast competitive pace takes a toll on the front runners. It just happens at a different stage of the race. When the pace is very fast, the front runners become exhausted and the closers can gain position without nearly as much short term effort.

3. Some deep closers will remain covered up and get at least some benefit from drafting.

[Murph]

Hoosier Park and Indiana Downs, home of the single digit winning Beyer!An insult to me. That's why we make the figs right?

My point is what the hell happened out there that night? It looks like they took the track down to the limestone again, probably by accident. I don't go out there so much since the casino opened so I'll never know for sure.

I'll see how the NW types run back to help decide what to do with the variant.

[cj]

An insult to me. That's why we make the figs right?

My point is what the hell happened out there that night? It looks like they took the track down to the limestone again, probably by accident. I don't go out there so much since the casino opened so I'll never know for sure.

I'll see how the NW types run back to help decide what to do with the variant.

I didn't mean it as any kind of insult to you, sorry about that.

[Murph]

I didn't mean it as any kind of insult to you, sorry about that.Not you.

Single digit Beyer winner figs - those are the insult. I've never believed a race could be that low in class to merit a winning Beyer of 6. Don't you feel as if you have a better handle on those types of races than the Beyer crew? I know I do.

[cj]

I think the Beyers are generally ok, but they obviously usually run much faster paces and fall apart late.

[Robert Goren]

There is one thing I noticed a long time ago when I did my own variants. When for a period of time, say a week or so, almost any thing that gets lead wins, that when the track goes back to normal the fractional times stay very fast even if the final times are average or slower. This stage last a week to 10 days.

[gm10]

There is one thing I noticed a long time ago when I did my own variants. When for a period of time, say a week or so, almost any thing that gets lead wins, that when the track goes back to normal the fractional times stay very fast even if the final times are average or slower. This stage last a week to 10 days.

maybe the jockey's spot the pace bias and need a few days to adapt once it disappears

[Greyfox]

There is one thing I noticed a long time ago when I did my own variants. When for a period of time, say a week or so, almost any thing that gets lead wins, .

Yes. Then the trainers of the pressers and closers complain. The track is dug up. Then 7 days later the trainers of the speed are complaining and the superintendent cowtows to their beefs. The cycle goes on.

[46zilzal]

One can easily tell when the Aqueduct crew is hard at work

[Robert Fischer]

One can easily tell when the Aqueduct crew is hard at work
:lol:

[Greyfox]

:lol:

I :lol: at 46Zil often.
I don't think he's so far off the mark here. He's got it right.
Maybe more posters should pay attention to what the tractor boys do and what they are doing and when they do it. It can change your betting.

[46zilzal]

I :lol: at 46Zil often.
I don't think he's so far off the mark here. He's got it right.
Maybe more posters should pay attention to what the tractor boys do and what they are doing and when they do it. It can change your betting.

Case in point every Wood Memorial for the last 6 of 7 years: PAVEMENT indicated by a positive shift in energy distribution to early early early on a track that usually is that way anyway (it often is so early that one can usually discount the winner when coming back to Churchill), Fort Erie when it becomes a quagmire, Woodbine when they dig it deeper, Philly when it is really cold...ALL shifts due to the track itself and not the horses suddenly changing and ALL indicated by the early/late balance shifting earlier than usual.

I discovered this at Hastings, The variant shifted dramatically on ONE DAY, I talked to the backstretch crew and asked if they had dug up the track deeply on the previous Wednesday. "How did you know that?" was the response.

EVERY year save the last one, I tracked the Friday Oaks at Churchill to predict how the Derby would run. If it is one way on the Friday (many wire jobs are common) it is usually that way the following afternoon and vice versa. One year an UNDEFEATED sprinter who ran on the lead, crapped out to fourth and the next day the big late movers were king.

[Robert Fischer]

Don't Knock 46Zil for that observatation....

Not a knock at all. Was funny to me because of the truth in what he was saying, and a similar (and somewhat amusing) notion I already had in my head before I read his post.

[bisket]

i handicap the first 3-4 races on a card looking very closely at speed and pace. i scrutinize it very closely. the rest of the races for the afternoon i just try and throwout horses i know won't have a chance, and look for obvious winners or in the money finishers. after the 1st 4 races i handicap the rest of the card keeping how the track is playing in mind. these last few races is when i'm more likely to jump on a longshot, and hit him hard. lots of times a favorable pace along with a bias can push some horses the public overlooks into the winners circle.

[ranchwest]

There's lots of great posts on pace, bias and tractors in this thread, but wasn't this about variants?

It isn't that I find variants inherently good or inherently bad. I just find them inherently useless.

[cj]

There's lots of great posts on pace, bias and tractors in this thread, but wasn't this about variants?

It isn't that I find variants inherently good or inherently bad. I just find them inherently useless.

Is it safe to assume you don't use any of the race times in your handicapping then?

[ranchwest]

Is it safe to assume you don't use any of the race times in your handicapping then?

No.

[cj]

No.

I'd like to hear more then. How are raw times better than variant adjusted times? I've done countless tests over years, and every won shows better win percentages and a better ROI using variant adjusted times.

[raybo]

I'd like to hear more then. How are raw times better than variant adjusted times? I've done countless tests over years, and every won shows better win percentages and a better ROI using variant adjusted times.

I think the reason some players, who don't trust variants, have that opinion because they have heard, over and over, that the variant could measure changes in: surface speed, class of competitors, winds, etc., etc.. Why would you only want to see how fast or slow the surface was?

All the things that a variant measures come into play when adjusting raw times.

IMO, if it didn't measure all those other factors, it wouldn't be worth as much.

[ranchwest]

I'd like to hear more then. How are raw times better than variant adjusted times? I've done countless tests over years, and every won shows better win percentages and a better ROI using variant adjusted times.

I'm more of a form handicapper. I take speed figures into consideration, but I don't quibble over minor variances. Why get excited about variants when I'm having to trust a chart caller for the main figure?

[raybo]

I'm more of a form handicapper. I take speed figures into consideration, but I don't quibble over minor variances. Why get excited about variants when I'm having to trust a chart caller for the main figure?

Every speed figure I've heard of includes a variant.

[ranchwest]

Every speed figure I've heard of includes a variant.

What was the question again? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I was thinking in terms of a separate variant figure.

[raybo]

What was the question again? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I was thinking in terms of a separate variant figure.

I wasn't trying to be argumentative, but, you had said you don't believe in variants. But, if you believe in speed figures, then by default, you believe in variants because speed figures include variants.

[bisket]

I wasn't trying to be argumentative, but, you had said you don't believe in variants. But, if you believe in speed figures, then by default, you believe in variants because speed figures include variants.
not true

[raybo]

not true

I'm not going to argue with you dude.

[bisket]

speed figs from drf don't show a variant. they are based on the 3 year best time for the distance at that track. heres the link for this at drf.com
http://drf.com/misc/3yearbesttimes2009.pdf
so if a race at belmont park on dirt at 1 1/16 miles was run 1:40 4/5 it would recieve a speed fig of 95. the 3 year best time at that distance at belmont is 1:39 4/5. each point below 100 = 1/5 second. a 100 fig means the race matched the three year best at belmont.

[cj]

not true

Not many people consider the old DRF speed rating a speed figure, but I guess technically it is.

[bisket]

the more complicated you get with speed figs the less accurate they are. in my opinion to many try to include lots of subjective type things into their figs thats better off being analyzed seperately by the handicapper. all your really doing is analyzing pace and a how it affects the horse. if the horse has more than 4-5 races you can get a pretty good picture of a horses ability, just by analyzing how the horse likes to run its races, and what pace is a better scenerio for him.

[Tuffmug]

the more complicated you get with speed figs the less accurate they are. in my opinion to many try to include lots of subjective type things into their figs thats better off being analyzed seperately by the handicapper. all your really doing is analyzing pace and a how it affects the horse. if the horse has more than 4-5 races you can get a pretty good picture of a horses ability, just by analyzing how the horse likes to run its races, and what pace is a better scenerio for him.
:ThmbUp: Some of my best bets have been based on exploiting speed figure bettors who don't understand how inaccurate and unreliable those numbers are. Most people praise or curse Beyer for introducing his figure. I love his figures because they are widely considered the "gold standard" and are fiercely touted and defended and bet on. However,that almost religious belief in the accuracy of speed figures often mislead the betting public into stupid bets.

[bisket]

:ThmbUp: Some of my best bets have been based on exploiting speed figure bettors who don't understand how inaccurate and unreliable those numbers are. Most people praise or curse Beyer for introducing his figure. I love his figures because they are widely considered the "gold standard" and are fiercely touted and defended and bet on. However,that almost religious belief in the accuracy of speed figures often mislead the betting public into stupid bets.
its about time somebody else on this board thinks like da bisket :ThmbUp:

[cj]

Exactly how are speed figures inaccurate and unreliable? They predict the winner more than any other single past performance factor of which I am aware.

[bisket]

Exactly how are speed figures inaccurate and unreliable? They predict the winner more than any other single past performance factor of which I am aware.
they predict winners when used correctly, and given the proper place in a handicapping routine. they aren't the be all and end all in handicapping. they are one of the tools, but aren't the only tool. to many handicappers today think they are the keys to the kingdom. this is false. the door has more than one lock.

[cj]

they predict winners when used correctly, and given the proper place in a handicapping routine. they aren't the be all and end all in handicapping. they are one of the tools, but aren't the only tool. to many handicappers today think they are the keys to the kingdom. this is false. the door has more than one lock.

I know that. But that is a far cry from inaccurate and unreliable.

[bisket]

I know that. But that is a far cry from inaccurate and unreliable.
well lots of people try to incorporate every different variable into their speed figure. when they do this the accurracy of the figure suffers. that was essentially the point i was trying to make. you certainly have the choice to think differently, and still pick winning horses. i also think differently than you and WIN

[cj]

well lots of people try to incorporate every different variable into their speed figure. when they do this the accurracy of the figure suffers.

Many would argue it helps accuracy. A good figure maker wouldn't add something if it doesn't help, and there are ways to test the effect.

[classhandicapper]

I know that. But that is a far cry from inaccurate and unreliable.

They are in large part inaccurate and unreliable, they are just less inaccurate and less unreliable than most other tools. :lol:

[bisket]

Many would argue it helps accuracy. A good figure maker wouldn't add something if it doesn't help, and there are ways to test the effect.
unless your going to get into what goes into your speed figs. which i know your not going to. there is absolutely no reason to answer this post.
class handicapper thats on the money, but i would include knowing how the fig is made is pretty important.

[castaway01]

unless your going to get into what goes into your speed figs. which i know your not going to. there is absolutely no reason to answer this post.
class handicapper thats on the money, but i would include knowing how the fig is made is pretty important.

The problem when the conversation goes in this direction is that people---even experienced handicappers who think they know it all---don't seem to be able to differentiate from speed figures being 1) accurate and 2) CERTAIN PREDICTORS of future performance. From what I saw when I checked his site back in the day and from what others have said, CJ's figures are quite accurate. That doesn't mean that a horse is a machine that cranks out the same figure every time though, which is what some people seem to use as evidence that speed figures are inaccurate or useless. I'd say they're an indispensable part of the handicapping process HOWEVER when everyone has them it's hard for them to be profitable on their own (for most of us). That's not the same as being "inaccurate" though.

[raybo]

If I were to create my own speed figures, I would want, not just another way of showing final time. I would want the figure to encompass how the figure was attained (surface speed and condition, winds, pace (class), etc., etc.)

So, what I would really be after would be a "performance" figure, measuring a particular performance vs all the obstacles he/she faced in that race.

If a speed figure just measures a horse's final time in comparison to a track record, etc., then it's pretty much worthless.

A really good speed/performance figure, should chronicle a horse's progression/regression, in actual performance, from race to race. That's what I want to know.

[bisket]

If I were to create my own speed figures, I would want, not just another way of showing final time. I would want the figure to encompass how the figure was attained (surface speed and condition, winds, pace (class), etc., etc.)

So, what I would really be after would be a "performance" figure, measuring a particular performance vs all the obstacles he/she faced in that race.

If a speed figure just measures a horse's final time in comparison to a track record, etc., then it's pretty much worthless.

A really good speed/performance figure, should chronicle a horse's progression/regression, in actual performance, from race to race. That's what I want to know.
you can get this from beyers. if you watch a horses line alot of times you'll see a progression or regression in form. lots of times there will be a pattern. when beyer assigns a figure he uses it as a basis for the horses other figures. so in essence you are getting a "performance" fig. if your looking at a speed fig that rates pace, alot of times these are assigned a letter or number. it is important to know how this number or letter is arrived at. also looking at races in this manner won't show you race shape properly. if you get accustomed to looking at times you can judge race shape alot easier and accurately. there are types of horses that you can count on to run a time in a certain situation. speed and pace figs can't account for this.

[cj]

You can get this from beyers. If you watch a horses line alot of times you'll see a progression or regression in form. Lots of times there will be a pattern. When beyer assigns a figure he uses it as a basis for the horses other figures, so in essence you are getting a "performance" fig.

If your looking at a speed fig that rates pace, alot of times these are assigned a letter or number. It is important to know how this number or letter is arrived at. Also, looking at races in this manner won't show you race shape properly. If you get accustomed to looking at times you can judge race shape alot easier and accurately.

There are types of horses that you can count on to run a time in a certain situation. Speed and pace figs can't account for this.

You really need to learn how to use capital letters and paragraph breaks. Your posts are very hard to read. Having read it, I can say with certainty you don't know much about making Beyer figures, or if you do you don't convey it very well.

What in the world are you talking about with letters for pace figures? Where exactly have you seen these?

[Greyfox]

You really need to learn how to use capital letters and paragraph breaks. Your posts are very hard to read.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: I'll second that. Unfortunately more and more posters here are going that route. The failure to use capitals represents laziness to me or teenage thumb texting.
By the way, to keep on topic, I use track variants to adjust pace as well.
Unfortunately, I do not make my own.

[bisket]

i'll admit laziness is the reason. didn't have typing in school. trust me its more frustrating for me than you. although you may find that hard to believe.

[ranchwest]

i'll admit laziness is the reason. didn't have typing in school. trust me its more frustrating for me than you. although you may find that hard to believe.

On each side of the keyboard is a key marked "shift". Try having an Oreo for an energy burst.

[raybo]

i'll admit laziness is the reason. didn't have typing in school. trust me its more frustrating for me than you. although you may find that hard to believe.

Nah, it's called too much Instant Messenger and chat room.

[bisket]

Nah, it's called too much Instant Messenger and chat room.
don't do either of these.
answering the other post. to hit shift and another key simultaniously would mean i can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.

[raybo]

you can get this from beyers. if you watch a horses line alot of times you'll see a progression or regression in form. lots of times there will be a pattern. when beyer assigns a figure he uses it as a basis for the horses other figures. so in essence you are getting a "performance" fig. if your looking at a speed fig that rates pace, alot of times these are assigned a letter or number. it is important to know how this number or letter is arrived at. also looking at races in this manner won't show you race shape properly. if you get accustomed to looking at times you can judge race shape alot easier and accurately. there are types of horses that you can count on to run a time in a certain situation. speed and pace figs can't account for this.

I been through the Beyer thing years ago, no thanks. I'll stick with my adjusted pace ratings and my own "performance" grading system, and my form analysis method, etc..

I was just saying "if" I were to create my own "speed" figure, it wouldn't just measure final time in a different format.

I don't use speed figures.

[bisket]

I been through the Beyer thing years ago, no thanks. I'll stick with my adjusted pace ratings and my own "performance" grading system, and my form analysis method, etc..

I was just saying "if" I were to create my own "speed" figure, it wouldn't just measure final time in a different format.

I don't use speed figures.
i agree with the performance analysis though. i just simply believe all the variables to capture an accurate time analysis just can't be put in a mathematical formula, and the bettor actually get a positive roi by basing their picks on it. although looking at times and pace ratings can give a bettor a good idea of a horses performance though. adding and subtracting for variant, and attempting to adjust race times based on this doesn't give bettors an edge anymore. spotting patterns in performance, and improving performance can be very profitable though. knowing when performance will decline can also be helpful. crossing out a favorite can give the bettor a significant boost above the public.

[cj]

i agree with the performance analysis though. i just simply believe all the variables to capture an accurate time analysis just can't be put in a mathematical formula, and the bettor actually get a positive roi by basing their picks on it. although looking at times and pace ratings can give a bettor a good idea of a horses performance though. adding and subtracting for variant, and attempting to adjust race times based on this doesn't give bettors an edge anymore. spotting patterns in performance, and improving performance can be very profitable though. knowing when performance will decline can also be helpful. crossing out a favorite can give the bettor a significant boost above the public.

It is too bad, because I like you and I think you have a lot to offer, but you are going on ignore. Unreadable.

[jasperson]

It is too bad, because I like you and I think you have a lot to offer, but you are going on ignore. Unreadable.
This is forum is about handicapping not on the use of the english langauge. Give him a break. One of the best engineers that I ever knew had a poor command of english and spelling, but does that mean I should read his reports?

[bisket]

the problem is more that you don't want to understand what i'm saying; not that you can't understand what i'm saying.

[ranchwest]

This is forum is about handicapping not on the use of the english langauge. Give him a break. One of the best engineers that I ever knew had a poor command of english and spelling, but does that mean I should read his reports?

What does a command of the English language have to do with a refusal to press the SHIFT key?

[Greyfox]

It is too bad, because I like you and I think you have a lot to offer, but you are going on ignore. Unreadable.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:
A poster among many who can't take multple hints.

[Greyfox]

the problem is more that you don't want to understand what i'm saying; not that you can't understand what i'm saying.

????

[bisket]

????
i was posting in response to cj

[raybo]

i agree with the performance analysis though. i just simply believe all the variables to capture an accurate time analysis just can't be put in a mathematical formula, and the bettor actually get a positive roi by basing their picks on it. although looking at times and pace ratings can give a bettor a good idea of a horses performance though. adding and subtracting for variant, and attempting to adjust race times based on this doesn't give bettors an edge anymore. spotting patterns in performance, and improving performance can be very profitable though. knowing when performance will decline can also be helpful. crossing out a favorite can give the bettor a significant boost above the public.

Well, if you think that adjusting times isn't profitable anymore, you might want to check the "Black Box Challenge" results. AllData PPs Black Box version doesn't do anything except adjust times, no form analysis, no running style analysis, no pattern analysis, just adjusted times.

I realize the "Challenge" is not a long term test but, I've been adjusting times for quite a while and I'm not a losing player.

[bisket]

Well, if you think that adjusting times isn't profitable anymore, you might want to check the "Black Box Challenge" results. AllData PPs Black Box version doesn't do anything except adjust times, no form analysis, no running style analysis, no pattern analysis, just adjusted times.

I realize the "Challenge" is not a long term test but, I've been adjusting times for quite a while and I'm not a losing player.
does the black box challenge analysis include rebates?

[cj]

This is forum is about handicapping not on the use of the english langauge. Give him a break. One of the best engineers that I ever knew had a poor command of english and spelling, but does that mean I should read his reports?

I've never said a word about his spelling or English or grammar. He refuses to use paragraphs or capital letters and they make his posts very hard on the eyes. There is nothing more to it. I don't come here to strain my eyes.

[Greyfox]

i was posting in response to cj

Yes. You were posting in response to cj. I think that we get that.
What you don't get is that there are several thousand of us who also are on this board. We read and respond to those messages as well.
The complaint is not about your English, as one poster who can't read would imply.
It's about the presentation of your writing without capitals.
Unfortunately, there are several like you on the board who (eg. lamboguy for one) refuse to use the "shift" key.
You can say that you never had typing in "High School" - so what. Many of us here didn't either. To paraphrase what you could write:

"we're thick and tired of small types."

[Tom]

"we're thick and tired of small types."

Yeth, I agree!

[raybo]

does the black box challenge analysis include rebates?

No, and, I've never received a rebate anyway. What does this have to do with the Challenge?

If you need a rebate to be profitable, that doesn't say much for your handicapping ability or your wagering skill.

[cj]

No, and, I've never received a rebate anyway. What does this have to do with the Challenge?

If you need a rebate to be profitable, that doesn't say much for your handicapping ability or your wagering skill.

That is a whole different story. What if you cater your wagers to exploit rebates because you know you are getting them? Anyway, that is for another thread I guess.

[Trotman]

I have to agree with all with regards to bisket's posts,they all appear to be a mish mash of words with no thought. I just skip over and go on to the next post.

[raybo]

What if you cater your wagers to exploit rebates because you know you are getting them? Anyway, that is for another thread I guess.

Within that scenario, rebates would have a totally different impact. He stated no such scenario, as a matter of fact, he stated nothing, regarding rebates, thus my, "What does this have to do with the Challenge?".

[cj]

Within that scenario, rebates would have a totally different impact. He stated no such scenario, as a matter of fact, he stated nothing, regarding rebates, thus my, "What does this have to do with the Challenge?".

Agreed, it has nothing to do with it, topic for another thread sometime. I prefer your method of betting to win and the rebates are just a bonus, but others don't agree.

[bisket]

well if your including rebates in your roi than bettors who don't play in that manner are behind the 8 ball. thats my point. where can i get info for this "black box challenge".

[jasperson]

I've never said a word about his spelling or English or grammar. He refuses to use paragraphs or capital letters and they make his posts very hard on the eyes. There is nothing more to it. I don't come here to strain my eyes.
Like a group of computer engineers discoussing artificial intelligence in computers and my friend summed it up like this he would he would accept any intelligence artificial or otherwise. I feel the same way about handicapping.

[raybo]

well if your including rebates in your roi than bettors who don't play in that manner are behind the 8 ball. thats my point. where can i get info for this "black box challenge".

Look in the software forum.

Again, I get nor have I ever gotten rebates. I could care less.

[Greyfox]

Like a group of computer engineers discoussing artificial intelligence in computers and my friend summed it up like this he would he would accept any intelligence artificial or otherwise. I feel the same way about handicapping.

Who wouldn't? Intelligence, being the operative word.

[jasperson]

I[QUOTE=Greyfox]Who wouldn't? Intelligence, being the operative word[/QUOTE
Sorry about that I had one too many glasses of wine with my dinner.

[Greyfox]

I[QUOTE=Greyfox]Who wouldn't? Intelligence, being the operative word[/QUOTE
Sorry about that I had one too many glasses of wine with my dinner.

:ThmbUp: I've been there myself. All the best. GF