What Track Has The Most Honestly Run Races

[Horseplayersbet.com]

When I say honestly run, I'm not talking crooks and cheaters here, what I'm saying is honest paces where the best horse that day usually wins.

[thaskalos]

When I say honestly run, I'm not talking crooks and cheaters here, what I'm saying is honest paces where the best horse that day usually wins. I was thinking the very same thing a little while ago. The races are more chaotic now than they have ever been IMO. I can't even come up with one track to offer as an answer to your question...

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I was thinking the very same thing a little while ago. The races are more chaotic now than they have ever been IMO. I can't even come up with one track to offer as an answer to your question...
I was thinking Hawthorne when I posed the question, and definitely not a track with an artificial surface.

[thaskalos]

I was thinking Hawthorne when I posed the question, and definitely not a track with an artificial surface. Hawthorne and Arlington Park are my home tracks. Since Arlington went synthetic, the inter-action between the two tracks has created havoc, as far as consistency is concerned.

[andymays]

I "honestly" don't know. ;)

I've gotten the big banana just about everywhere! :D

[tzipi]

Honestly, most of the tracks play even I think but for this fun question I'll just say Belmont. Speed can hold up there and with the big sweeping turns, closers also do well.

[Deepsix]

"honestly" this is just silly.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

what I'm saying is honest paces where the best horse that day usually wins.

Beulah would be very close to the top of the list

[Horseplayersbet.com]

"honestly" this is just silly.
I don't think so.

There are races that could be run the very same day, the very same track, with the very same horses and post positions, where the race could have many different winners depending on the pace or trips.

What I'm trying to say, is if the same horses ran the race 100 times, there could be a horse that wins the race that would have won it 90 times, some where the winner would have won it only 10 times. What tracks would have the most races where the highest percentage of winners who won would have won most of the time regardless?

[Deepsix]

Still a silly question, from what I can decern. Do you mean "consistent" rather than honest? Do you mean differences in form cycle, or "trainer intent"? "Honest" obviously implys that something 'dishonest' would impact the results.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I don't think so.

There are races that could be run the very same day, the very same track, with the very same horses and post positions, where the race could have many different winners depending on the pace or trips.

What I'm trying to say, is if the same horses ran the race 100 times, there could be a horse that wins the race that would have won it 90 times, some where the winner would have won it only 10 times. What tracks would have the most races where the highest percentage of winners who won would have won most of the time regardless?

I think you've now framed your question somewhat differently. MTH would fit this definition (I assume they're running back at MTH every time under this scenario), but it would not meet the definition of what you were looking for in your first post (where the best horse wins).

[Tom]

I think the only indicator you can use is winning favorites. Maybe wining and placing favorites.
Anyone got any stats?

[thaskalos]

I think the only indicator you can use is winning favorites. Maybe wining and placing favorites.
Anyone got any stats? The percentage of winning favorites is not accurate enough. What if the favorites win 33% of the races, but the rest of the races are dominated by longshots? I think the price of the average winning horse is more telling, assuming we take into account the size of the fields.

[Tom]

You can compare finish position to odds and get a very accurate result.
each odds ranks has a statistical expectation that can be the indicator.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The percentage of winning favorites is not accurate enough. What if the favorites win 33% of the races, but the rest of the races are dominated by longshots? I think the price of the average winning horse is more telling, assuming we take into account the size of the fields.

Theoretically possible, but not likely.

[thaskalos]

Theoretically possible, but not likely. True...my point is that when it comes to formful racing, the favorites can win their share of races, and the results can still be chaotic.

[Igeteven]

When I say honestly run, I'm not talking crooks and cheaters here, what I'm saying is honest paces where the best horse that day usually wins.

Great Post

Of all the track around there is only one, I understand the post, these is clear as a bell to any players who bets.

As to the most honest track, it's Monticello Harness Racing, There one has a real good chance to win.

Try it some day on paper before you lay down real money.

[Deepsix]

That must be real exciting to see the same $3 jughead win day-in and day-out. Whoo-hoo.

(If that's what they pay at Mont.--- I've never, in 35-40 years, ever bet a harness race.)

[Ejmenz]

Del Mar.











Couldn't resist.

[Igeteven]

That must be real exciting to see the same $3 jughead win day-in and day-out. Whoo-hoo.

(If that's what they pay at Mont.--- I've never, in 35-40 years, ever bet a harness race.)

Never bet a harness horse hah, Now what do you bet.

please explain what you bet and where you bet and what type of bet.

[Charli125]

This is a very interesting question. Here are a few pieces of data from my database that I think help shed some light on the situation.

The percentage is the morning line favorite win percentage. The last number is the ROI. I only looked at tracks that had more than 400 races.

Whole Database: .3249 - .8259
LSX: .4171 - .9516
SUF: .3997 - .9057
LAX: .3915 - .8465
CBY: .3838 - .9112
ASD: .3832 - .8826
TDN: .3676 - .9322
AQU: .3578 - .8733
BEL: .3537 - .8989

I'm having computer issues but I'll try to paste the whole thing tomorrow. I would say from this that Lonestar is pretty damn honest at least the way I look at it. I was pretty surprised by this, and it explains why I don't play most of these tracks. I automatically exclude the ml favorite when looking at races to bet, and at these tracks at least the favorite only looses 60% of the time!

[Charli125]

On the other side of things, here are the tracks with the lowest favorite win percentages.

WRD: .2314 - .6297
FEX: .25 - .6941
APX: .2733 - .7333
WOX: .2767 - .7477
PHA: .2775 - .7204

[WinterTriangle]

I would say from this that Lonestar is pretty damn honest

I know a lot of people who used to play LS. It became so chalky they stopped.

Would love to see the stats on Mountaineer, Penn, and Delta.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I don't know if looking how chalk performs is what I was really looking for with my question. Though I guess it can't be discounted.

For example, when watching a turf race with horses getting in trouble, the best horse in the race, which is usually not the favorite, doesn't have to win at a high percentage.

But this question pertains to main tracks. We see on many artificial surface tracks that races turn into jockey races, and it boils down to who has the best fitness in the last half, as well as a clean trip running with the bias many times.

[Dave Schwartz]

In the HorseStreet Pars we publish something called The Speed Reliability Index, which is a measurement of how well tracks perform to a particular benchmark that I have been using for years. That benchmark is the percentage of total wins in the top three ranks for speed rating, best-of-last-2 races (sprints) and best-2-of-last-3 in routes.

The "correct" percentage is 62%. It has been highly consistent going back over the 20+ years I have been using it. EVERY YEAR, plus or minus 1%.

If you guys think this pertains to the discussion in this thread I will be happy to post some of the highlights of this list.



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[LottaKash]

In the HorseStreet Pars we publish something called The Speed Reliability Index, which is a measurement of how well tracks perform to a particular benchmark that I have been using for years. That benchmark is the percentage of total wins in the top three ranks for speed rating, best-of-last-2 races (sprints) and best-2-of-last-3 in routes.

The "correct" percentage is 62%. It has been highly consistent going back over the 20+ years I have been using it. EVERY YEAR, plus or minus 1%.

If you guys think this pertains to the discussion in this thread I will be happy to post some of the highlights of this list.



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Hi Dave, count me in for some more "knowledge"...I am all ears and waiting ....:jump:

best,

[thaskalos]

In the HorseStreet Pars we publish something called The Speed Reliability Index, which is a measurement of how well tracks perform to a particular benchmark that I have been using for years. That benchmark is the percentage of total wins in the top three ranks for speed rating, best-of-last-2 races (sprints) and best-2-of-last-3 in routes.

The "correct" percentage is 62%. It has been highly consistent going back over the 20+ years I have been using it. EVERY YEAR, plus or minus 1%.

If you guys think this pertains to the discussion in this thread I will be happy to post some of the highlights of this list.



Regards,
Dave Schwartz Very interesting index. Would you please include some minor tracks too?

[Dave Schwartz]

Okay, here goes...

http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/2010_SRI_Summary.png


100 is average. Normal range is 93-107.

[LottaKash]

Okay, here goes...

http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/2010_SRI_Summary.png


100 is average. Normal range is 93-107.

Thx Dave, I knew you would come thru....Velly intlllesting...

best,

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Amazing that Hawthorne was the lowest rated dirt surface. I think at Hawthorne horses get in less trouble and pace seems most honest. The first three favorites are generally the best horses on paper going into the race, but not the best horse that day, though I'm sure there is a major correlation.

Of course, many turf races produces more random outcomes because of trip and jockey strategy.

[Dave Schwartz]

HP Bet,

Perhaps the interesting thing is that HAW's low score has been going on for years. I have worked my butt off to improve those pars and nothing helps much. The last three years have been 91, 88 and 90, respectively.

I think the issue of fav's hit rate is a bad idea, unless you cross-ref that to speed ratings. After all, the idea is that the winners are supposed to correlate to the speed ratings.

Personally, I would like to avoid the situation where the favorite does not rank high for speed because that creates a "public knows something we don't" scenario.


The consistently weak turf ratings are probably because dirt speed ratings do not work so well on turf and this study is based upon using ALL of the last 3 races whether on dirt or turf.


I do not think it is a coincidence that the there are two synthetic tracks listed in the bottom 15. Neither do I believe that it is coincidental that LA, the track that runs only a single distance, is the most consistent.

Another none-coincidence is that TIM (119), with its high small-track rating, timeshares Maryland racing with other high-scoring tracks. LRL has been 112 and 109 over the last 2 years. PIM has been 119 and 98. The next closest track geographically, DEL, has been 112-108 the last 2 years.

Remember that 98 is still within 1 standard deviation while 119 is +2 std. (The first number is 2009.)


And what of the long-meet tracks?

PHA (101-99) - Can't get much more consistent than that.
MNR (102-95)
CT (106-102)
TUP (99-105)
EVD (103-95)
Tom's beloved FL (109-110) always scores well.
PEN (96-104)


The Three-Rivers tracks:
BEU (99-100)
TDN (108-105)
RD (114-109)

WO (98-96)


New York
AQU-I (99-97)
AQU (108-94) - I cannot explain this. Maybe pars were inaccurate?
BEL (109-107)
SAR (93-94)

The California Fairs are very consistent.
PLN 103-105
FNO (91-101)
SAC (108-112)
SOL (115-111)
SR (94-104)
STK (108-111)

NoCal
GG (112-112)
BM (115-106) Too bad we lost this one.



I think specialty meets like DMR, KEE, and SAR (and to a lesser degree OP) are difficult because there are just so many shippers AND their are trainers who point to those meets. Their preparation often overcomes the importance of recent speed.


Across the board, small tracks simply do better. BTW, tracks with a small number of races are scaled back towards 100 as an automatic adjustment for their small sample size. In other words, these small-track high scores are actually MUCH HIGHER. I recall one track - not sure which one -that had 15 races with 14 winners in the top 3.



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Charli125]

I know a lot of people who used to play LS. It became so chalky they stopped.

Would love to see the stats on Mountaineer, Penn, and Delta.

While Dave and HPBet have shown that there is much more to it than just favorite win percentage, Here are the numbers for those 3 tracks.

MNR: .3249 - .8082
PEN: .286 - .762
DED: .2787 - .7462