Average pace times by surface

[cj]

This is just a little something I compiled over the last two years. It is the average pace time of the winner at each distance, combining every track in North America that records pace times. The final times were all equalized to the equivalent of an 80 on the Beyer scale:

Dist Turf All-W Dirt
5.0 46.86 46.59 46.38
5.5 47.21 46.64 46.39
6.0 47.65 46.76 46.40
6.5 48.02 46.84 46.55
7.0 47.99 47.29 46.83
8.0 74.59 73.63 73.31
8.5 75.13 74.35 73.86
9.0 75.84 75.19 74.31

[kenwoodallpromos]

Do you have the breakdown by track of the Plubber (A/W) surfaces?

[Robert Fischer]

Cool data. Tell me If I am correct in my hypothesis.

And if not, be so kind as to teach me when you have a chance.

= at the 9Furlong distance, The turf group's raw pace fraction time at 6F was actually faster than the dirt group, but after times were equalized to the beyer equivalent of 80, the Dirt winner's pace time (74.31) was then faster than the Turf Group (75.84).

am i right ?


This is just a little something I compiled over the last two years. It is the average pace time of the winner at each distance, combining every track in North America that records pace times. The final times were all equalized to the equivalent of an 80 on the Beyer scale:

Dist Turf All-W Dirt
5.0 46.86 46.59 46.38
5.5 47.21 46.64 46.39
6.0 47.65 46.76 46.40
6.5 48.02 46.84 46.55
7.0 47.99 47.29 46.83
8.0 74.59 73.63 73.31
8.5 75.13 74.35 73.86
9.0 75.84 75.19 74.31

[cj]

Do you have the breakdown by track of the Plubber (A/W) surfaces?

Sure, but the pattern is the same. Of course some are more extreme than others.

[cj]

Cool data. Tell me If I am correct in my hypothesis.

And if not, be so kind as to teach me when you have a chance.

= at the 9Furlong distance, The turf group's raw pace fraction time at 6F was actually faster than the dirt group, but after times were equalized to the beyer equivalent of 80, the Dirt winner's pace time (74.31) was then faster than the Turf Group (75.84).

am i right ?

I would have to look it up, but my guess (somewhat educated) would be the dirt times are probably still a little faster. Overall turf times are probably faster, but I don't know if the difference is large enough to make up the gap of more than a second and a half.

[098poi]

CJ when making numbers do you always use averages or do you ever use medians? I don't know if there would be a big difference but in a small sample let's say 10 or 20 numbers an extreme could throw off an average. In a large sample I would imagine there is not much difference. Just seeking your professional opinion. Thanks.

[cj]

CJ when making numbers do you always use averages or do you ever use medians? I don't know if there would be a big difference but in a small sample let's say 10 or 20 numbers an extreme could throw off an average. In a large sample I would imagine there is not much difference. Just seeking your professional opinion. Thanks.

It depends on the number, but the distances I listed have a very large sample size so there is very little difference either way.

[098poi]

That's what I thought. I sometimes play around with times, ratings etc. but don't always trust an average in a smaller sample.

[PhantomOnTour]

Now if you would just break them down by track for us, and throw in some final times....

[Robert Fischer]

I would have to look it up, but my guess (somewhat educated) would be the dirt times are probably still a little faster. Overall turf times are probably faster, but I don't know if the difference is large enough to make up the gap of more than a second and a half.
makes a lot of sense :ThmbUp:

[gm10]

This is just a little something I compiled over the last two years. It is the average pace time of the winner at each distance, combining every track in North America that records pace times. The final times were all equalized to the equivalent of an 80 on the Beyer scale:

Dist Turf All-W Dirt
5.0 46.86 46.59 46.38
5.5 47.21 46.64 46.39
6.0 47.65 46.76 46.40
6.5 48.02 46.84 46.55
7.0 47.99 47.29 46.83
8.0 74.59 73.63 73.31
8.5 75.13 74.35 73.86
9.0 75.84 75.19 74.31


Can you clarify a few things for me please?

What do you mean by "pace time"?
How do you "equalize" to a BSF of 80?

[cj]

I use the final time of a Beyer rating of 80.

For example at 6f, his time is 1:11.92. So if a race goes 45 and 1:10, I divide 45 by 70 to get the percentage, in this case 64.29%. I then multiply the 1:11.92 by that and get 46.23. That is how I equalize.

As for what is pace time, it is the time of the winner at the pace call, nothing complicated.

[Robert Goren]

The time of the winner at pace call, Huh. Do you have some secret way of getting an accurate time for a horse who come out of the pack to win.

[gm10]

I use the final time of a Beyer rating of 80.

For example at 6f, his time is 1:11.92. So if a race goes 45 and 1:10, I divide 45 by 70 to get the percentage, in this case 64.29%. I then multiply the 1:11.92 by that and get 46.23. That is how I equalize.

As for what is pace time, it is the time of the winner at the pace call, nothing complicated.

OK, thx.

What if you divide the data into two groups, BSF above 80 and below 80.

I'd be interested to know what your average % look like. The > 80 group will probably have a higher %.

The numbers are surprising to me. I have found significantly different results but I must add that I adjust for DTV and age.

[cj]

These are raw times, I use them to make variants, so they aren't adjusted.

I find that the class of the race has a very small effect on the percentage, and that equates to breaking down by Beyers I would guess.

[46zilzal]

Averages dissolve and hide specificity. I have seen 3200 claimers run 22.2 44.3 and tip a race to the early side along with the bias. Same exact field, almost to the horse, comes back two weeks later WITHOUT that cheapy, and they go 23 46.

Average? malarkey

[cj]

Averages dissolve and hide specificity. I have seen 3200 claimers run 22.2 44.3 and tip a race to the early side along with the bias. Same exact field, almost to the horse, comes back two weeks later WITHOUT that cheapy, and they go 23 46.

Average? malarkey

This is why I use the winner, not the leader. Reading is fundamental.

[Cratos]

Averages dissolve and hide specificity. I have seen 3200 claimers run 22.2 44.3 and tip a race to the early side along with the bias. Same exact field, almost to the horse, comes back two weeks later WITHOUT that cheapy, and they go 23 46.

Average? malarkey

For you to say that averages are malarkey you should review and understand the Central Limit Theorem. By definition averages or the central tendency of a distribution is a measure of the "middle" or "expected" value of the distribution.

The following definition from the Internet explains this very well. It says there are two major types of statistical distributions. The first type has a discrete random variable. This means that every term has a precise, isolated numerical value. An example of a distribution with a discrete random variable is the set of results for a test taken by a class in school.

The second major type of distribution has a continuous random variable. In this situation, a term can acquire any value within an unbroken interval or span. Such a distribution is called a probability density function. This is the sort of function that might, for example, be used by a computer in an attempt to forecast the path of a weather system.

Now that the concept of “averages” is understood or at least explained please explain what is wrong with CJ’s post and don’t use malarkey.

[46zilzal]

The RACE, today, depends upon the state of horses TODAY and no average of the horses are running TODAY.

[cj]

The RACE, today, depends upon the state of horses TODAY and no average of the horses are running TODAY.

You shouldn't get involved in things you don't understand.

[Cratos]

The RACE, today, depends upon the state of horses TODAY and no average of the horses are running TODAY.

I am not questioning your intelligence, but there come a time when you are absolutely disagreeable and this is one of those times.

[cj]

I am not questioning your intelligence, but there come a time when you are absolutely disagreeable and this is one of those times.

Right, who said those times had anything to do with today's race?

The really hilarious thing is he is a big Sartin guy. What does he think those %E ranges and %M ranges and other "acceptable" values are?

[bisket]

I use the final time of a Beyer rating of 80.

For example at 6f, his time is 1:11.92. So if a race goes 45 and 1:10, I divide 45 by 70 to get the percentage, in this case 64.29%. I then multiply the 1:11.92 by that and get 46.23. That is how I equalize.

As for what is pace time, it is the time of the winner at the pace call, nothing complicated.
to make sure some might not be confused. this is the average of the WINNER of the races. in your pps the pace time that is listed is for the LEADER of the race at that point of the race. a big thing to analyze in my opinion is how a horse in the pps reacts or is affected by the pace of the leader. sometimes you will see a consistant parallels in good performances from a horse and a particular pace time of the leader. i group horses in three different styles. a horse that is always among the leaders (fast early). a horse that runs consistant times throughout a race (evenly). or a horse that runs evenly early (slow early) and has some acceleration late. now i look at the styles of the horses and look at a probable pace scenerio, and a horses style that may favor this likely scenerio is a good longshot over what may be a more probable winner. the odds have to be worth risk with this type of play though because its tough to predict pace. although sometimes if your right on the money as far as a pace time BINGO$$$

[KingChas]

You shouldn't get involved in things you don't understand.

Don't lose people money!
There is no such thing as universal pars.............unless you don't allow for....I will never tell ?
The Secret............. :eek: :D

[cj]

Don't lose people money!
There is no such thing as universal pars.............unless you don't allow for....I will never tell ?
The Secret............. :eek: :D

I don't use universal pars. I break them down by individual track. What is interesting to me is that the relationship between the surfaces is very orderly, as is the relationship between the distances on each surface.

[illinoisbred]

I don't use universal pars. I break them down by individual track. What is interesting to me is that the relationship between the surfaces is very orderly, as is the relationship between the distances on each surface.
I too, don't use universal pars.I also don't use any standard adjustments for age,sex,or state-breds.I only make figures for 3 tracks but do find some deviations that are greater and less than the "standards" would dictate.

[headhawg]

The RACE, today, depends upon the state of horses TODAY and no average of the horses are running TODAY.If you can figure out how to do this without looking at any past data please explain. It appears to me that you are saying that kind of examination is verboten because it's all about TODAY and not anything YESTERDAY or last week or last month. So what's your secret? Crystal ball? Ouija board? Are you Dr. Doolittle in disguise? I thought that you were a pace guy. Are you now all about physicality because that is all about TODAY?

Perhaps you need to write a book about "Handicapping in the NOW". I know the title is a bit 70s retro but that kind of stuff is hot now.

[Cratos]

If you can figure out how to do this without looking at any past data please explain. It appears to me that you are saying that kind of examination is verboten because it's all about TODAY and not anything YESTERDAY or last week or last month. So what's your secret? Crystal ball? Ouija board? Are you Dr. Doolittle in disguise? I thought that you were a pace guy. Are you now all about physicality because that is all about TODAY?

Perhaps you need to write a book about "Handicapping in the NOW". I know the title is a bit 70s retro but that kind of stuff is hot now.

Very well stated

[Cratos]

Don't lose people money!
There is no such thing as universal pars.............unless you don't allow for....I will never tell ?
The Secret............. :eek: :D

There is a universal par value of the universal finite set of pars. The subset or par values by class or track is just subsets of the universal set. With sigma and confidence intervals you can establish the closeness of subset par value to subset par value and to the universal par value.

[proximity]

The final times were all equalized to the equivalent of an 80 on the Beyer scale:


these "80s" would be based on the times in the figure charts in the appendix of beyer on speed??

[cj]

Well they are based on what is an 80 now. I'm not sure they match up to the charts, I haven't checked in a while.