Kenwoodall's method

[GameTheory]

Ken,

Steve Davidowitz agrees with you. From his book:

"Generally speaking, a tab of slow works [on a single day over a particular surface] will translate to a holding or stamina-favoring racing surface; a tab of very fast works not only will imply a speed-favoring strip, but a possible inside speed bias because quick clockings are not likely while horses are forced to race on a dead rail or in the middle of the track."

I'm going to incorporate this into my models and see what happens.

How this translates to speed & running styles I understand. What I don't get is this stuff about the favorites you're always saying. Are you just saying that the speed horses are usually favored so you don't need to actually bother checking which horses are the speed?

[kenwoodall]

So does Ainslie.
Results charts can show track betting action on early speed. Churchill does not bet speed. Great overlays!! I hit 7 of 12 derby day, 4 of 7 DM opener on early speed, the Saturday prior to DM opener the works revealed dirt scraped from the crown; crew corrected that the next day!!. SR favs did lousy because of a slower rail obvious on the works.
Do you have info on jockey/post position %?
Equibase does not allow old workouts daily track-by-track distributed. Consider that almost all info now availble to the public was once held only by insiders! Beyer says by the time a lot of bettors realize info is good the payoffs are too lousy! I am always looking for very recenly publicized info as an edge.

[GameTheory]

Yeah, but what do you need the public for?

Why not just look and see who the speed horses are?

[kenwoodall]

The public picks good horses, especially early speed. They are only right 33% because of the track's man-made variables of distance and depth.
The public does not know very well when or how to bet. The consistent winners do!
I think I know a little more than the average bettor (by using my track speed prediction method) when to bet with the public and cash 60% of win bets; By using my w/p/s elimination system when to bet place or show on consistent horses and competent trainers and cash 90% of tickets.

_______________
You have to know which combinations of information to use and how to use those to produce a profit. Most horserace data, writing, and interviews are uneccessary and do not pass the common sense test, especially nowadays about workouts!
The vast majority of workouts at a track nowadays are the best effort a horse can do without being pushed too hard. Without honest workouts a trainer is screwing his horse up for the race and does not know where to place it.
PP's will show you most horses need 2 weeks after a race and 1 week after a good workout to recover including bleeding lungs (bursted veins) and muscle soreness.
Horses are very consistent runners but-- Track cushions (the sandy dirt about 12" thick, above the clay base) on any track will vary. Harrowing(breaking up the dirt) varies at least 3" (2" to 7" on various tracks) in addition to variation of watering, rolling(sealing), pushing the dirt sideways to the crown or to the rail, and of course weather. Knowing ahead of time how the track is runnng works for me!

_______________
I love to research everything from my own genealogy to current events and Everything I can get my hands on about thoroughbreds and betting.

[kenwoodall]

You may want to check a calendar as to which day of the week certain races or workouts took place! You can email me if you want details on my track speed system and improvements as to predicting biases.

[VetScratch]

Game Theory,

I agree that this is a fresh way to get early warnings for bias changes, especially at those tracks with two consecutive dark days per week. After all the horsemen complain about a prevailing and extreme inside/outside or early/late bias, it is usually during the consecutive dark days when track maintenance will undertake serious work to even things out.

A big, otherwise unexplained, variance in work tabs between two consecutive dark days is a sure sign that tons of surface material have been added or reworked.

[betovernetcapper]

Trying to work this out
Tdn Sat 4f
1.) 49
2.) 49.4
3.) 49.6
Sun 4f
1.) 47.6
2.) 48.8
3.) 49.4
Mon 4f
1.) 47.8
2.) 49.4
3.) 49.8
So based on the above, should Tdn Monday be considered the same as Sunday?

[keilan]

-- Studying the weigh of the track is not a new concept, what you do with analyzing morning work-outs is however a new twist for me. I believe if the information gained from this is accurate then you are well ahead of the competition. I have stated before on this board that the weight of the track points the astute player towards winning horses. For example many players are uncertain of which horses to play after a heavy rain or as the track begins to dry out, those that study track weight are advantaged in IMO. To coin a phrase "horses for different courses"

Continued good luck!

[alysheba88]

Any system delving into workouts is due to fail in my opinion.

First of all you dont get a fair sample size most of the time.

Secondly, there is no way to account for intent. What is the purpose of the work? Slow breeze? Some trainers are notorious for working their horses slow and some fast.

Thirdly, what is the class of horses working that day?

Fourthly and most importantly, work out data is historically UNRELIABLE. There is chicanery involved sometimes (misreporting works) or sometimes just "user error". Its a very difficult job and they are not infallible. Basing any kind of # system on the accuracy of these #'s is a waste of time in my opinion.

[Fastracehorse]

Your idea was glorified on Belmont Stakes day - Funny Cide went too quick - and Frankel said it was the work.

fffastt

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by alysheba88 (MW)
Any system delving into workouts is due to fail in my opinion.

First of all you dont get a fair sample size most of the time.

Secondly, there is no way to account for intent. What is the purpose of the work? Slow breeze? Some trainers are notorious for working their horses slow and some fast.

Thirdly, what is the class of horses working that day?

Fourthly and most importantly, work out data is historically UNRELIABLE. There is chicanery involved sometimes (misreporting works) or sometimes just "user error". Its a very difficult job and they are not infallible. Basing any kind of # system on the accuracy of these #'s is a waste of time in my opinion.

All of that is true when you're looking at individual horses. But there are dozens of recorded works every morning. You're just trying to get a general idea of whether they are faster or slower than usual for the same surface.

I don't think class has all that much to do with speed of works. Works are only 4f or so, and pretty much any horse on the grounds can burn it up for 4f (or less) if they want to -- works are fast or slow because that's what the trainer wanted (how much effort). But the average speed of ALL the works in the morning has got to affected by the weight of the track.

The question is whether the weight of the track in the morning is strongly correlated with the way it will be later in the afternoon.

[kenwoodall]

Thanks Vetscratch! / Aly- OK! /
Belmont- So Why did FC AND Scrimshaw Both fade like crazy on the rail if it was not slow?? EM might have won anyway but Bailey squeezed Santos to the rail.
In all tracks' replays watch ALL the horses to see who is fading on which paths including also-rans.
TDN- 49.8 all 3 days, normal-slow. 49.2 to 49.8 is normal. On Sunday splits show about 23.0 final turn and 13+ stretch! Del Mar works were fast but had a slow rail.
Use 4f works median times. That is 5/10; 10/20; 20/40 etc. Watch for several horses with same times and gaps.
I began in Nov. 2002 discovering full works (new public info) on Equibase. Many others may figure out how to utilize this info later.

[kenwoodall]

I am interested in names of trainers who work horses consistently slow on fast workout days (could be taking them wide), especially if in company with much slower, cheaper horses. Also trainers who consistently run closers on weekends at CA, NY, and TX, especially if dropping in class!

[delayjf]

Kenwoodall,

Interesting stuff, along the same line, (predicting track bias) Davidowitz pointed out that Delmars bias could change day to day due to the amount of sunshine that the track was exposed to that morning. As all Californians know, sometimes the marine layer hangs around most of the day or at least until around noon, which does not allow the Delmar track to dry out throughly, leading to a outside closers bias.

[Fastracehorse]

I was listening to the Hastings Park track handicapper analyze a race.

It was mostly based on works. It caught me a bit off guard because, while I think workouts are important for identifying horses that are going to give it a big try, I don't handicap my selections solely based on works.

Mike Heads is a good handicapper and a knowledgeable horseman - not a great handicapper. His wife is a trainer at Hastings Park.

There are so many ways to look at works - that I find it difficult to say things like: "This horse worked fast therefore he will run big."

The confidence level I have of a horse running well just because of a fast work-out is low - some do - some don't.

I like to look at works as presenting a story.

Many horses run very well without a work in 3 weeks. Why is that?? That wasn't a rhetorical question but there is alot more too this game than being presumptuous based on morning trials.

I actually believe for the most part analyzing work-outs is a complex process. But you should not be thrown off a horse because the works are ambiguous or seem poor - and vice versa.

The analysis should lead you to the occasional: "I really like this horse."

Lastly, I have to get better in this area but there are some works or work-out patterns that obviously point to contenders - somewhat rare - but still, there are probably others that I'm missing and hence, - the study is worth the effort if I can find another good angle, and I probably will.

fffastt

[alysheba88]

Good post Fastracehorse,

I agree with all of what you said.

I think the big thing is to look at any difference between the trainer norm. For example Zito takes his time with younger horses. Usually waits till third or fourth time out before letting them loose. Works his horse slower than most in general and his first timers are no different. However, if you saw one working fast that might be something to look at. Because its different from the norm. His win % first out is awful but occasionally he will pop one. A fast work out pattern could send the signal. Thats just one real basic example.

I do agree there are patterns of works and when looking at maiden races with a bunch of first time starters. Workouts are more important in maiden races, especially first timers, then any other race type in my opinion. Some of this is already captured in the trainer's ability with first time starters or maidens, and all the resulting data illustrating it. But they can separate contenders for sure.

With older horses I like to see a maintenance work after a big effort to address the bounce possibility. You can also get some insight into trainer intention with works and realize that today is not the real objective. Ie, working the horse for stamina and today is a six furlong race, or working on turf for todays dirt race. All generalizations I know.

[kenwoodall]

I am a simpleton so before we get off track and onto inividual works let me say that I only use individual works as patterns to tell if a horse has gaps in works.
_________
Arabian-heritage thoroughbreds are very consistent horses so anything like weight or drugs or equiptment to disquise works are negative to the horse if they vary too much from the way a horse races. Disquising by making a horse run too fast is unacceptable too. The only ways a competent trainer should disquise workouts are ways like:
________

Running a horse very wide / Running a horse on an outer post position of a gate work / Running a classy horse in company with cheap, slow horses / Running a horse at a private track / Running a horse at Calder!!
_________
If trainers disquising works are the exception then you can use a days' worth of works at a track as reliable. If trainers disquising works are the rule then relative workout times compared as a group day-to-day are still useful. If you believe that enough clockers at a track are disquising works then you should be willing to believe that track crews at the same track are manipulating the biases and depth to insure enough unpredictability so favorites winning 33% are the benchmark in racing!!
___________

My succes rate is 60% on faster than normal tracks. I started in Nov. 2002 after discovering full works on Equibase. Eventually the favorites will be winning over 40% on faster tracks and the crews will have to dig them deeper!!
__________
I am beginning to believe that the racing industry aims for only 33% predictability so as to insure horses are bet as evenly as practical. Do any of you disagree that too much predictability will affect betting payoffs and possibly interest in betting? After everone began using Beyers figures why is 33-35% still the norm? Seems like fav win % should be about 80% if there were standard track size, distance, depth, fewer purse classes, field size.
_________
That still leaves pace and speed (influenced greatly by track speed), horse condition, and trainer competence. Actually, that is what handicap mostly!!!

[kenwoodall]

I assume the horses Zito sends 1st time out are the more fractious ones. Horses win about 10% when leading at 1st call, then mostly wire-to-wire on faster than normal tracks. / Surprise! Brisnet at-a-glance shows Calder's winners are not early lead!! They harrow 7" down all the time, very slow track.
_________
I you want to let anyone know a track speed, just tell them "faster" if 49 or under; "normal" if 49.2 to 49.8; and "slow" if 50 or over instead of actual workout times!!!!
________
If you run accross (minor) tracks where horses run a workout range much slower, like 50 to 51 as normal, please let us know! This may be the case at Fingerlakes. Maybe others like Utah where winner's share of purses are as little as $300.00 to $400.00!!

[VetScratch]

While any keeper of a large database can screen for conditions that are exceptions, two general circumstances have repeated themselves for many years:
(1) When ALL races are considered, favorites win ABOUT 33% of the time.
(2) When ALL horses are considered, horses TEND to win as predicted by the true probabilities expressed by their odds.

A few well documented footnote observations have been published, but there is no solid evidence that racing is veering sharply away from these statistical tendencies.

You might examine a recent HOL meet, where short fields are the rule, and find that favorites won 35%, producing a $1.60 net. At another track, where larger fields are the rule, you might find favorites won 31%, producing a $1.80 net. However, when all of North America is considered, favorites have been winning ABOUT 33% of the time for many years.

The "Guiding Hand" for these statistics resides far above the heads of track owners (and their maintenance crews).

The national population of horseplayers begins each day with a national bankroll. Each wager is taxed by takeout and all payoffs are rounded down to a breakage plateau. This form of "negative interest" is charged and compounded throughout the day, race after race.

What each track takes away from horseplayers is determined by handle and payoff magnitudes.

Handle increases and breakage revenues increase on days when chalk rules. These are the days that slowly bleed the players to death.

When a longshot wins, breakage revenue suffers, and an unusually high number of longshots will hurt handle because the tiny minority of windfall benefactors do not re-invest their winnings at the same rate as a multitude of chalk players vainly trying to get even for the day. Of the two variables, however, breakage will have the most impact on track revenues when many dates are considered (i.e., longshot winners usually come back to return what they have borrowed).

From a purely empirical perspective, tracks should want favorites to win all day! However, at some point, greed should run afoul of a psychological barrier that has not been widely studied (to my knowledge). There should exist some threshold ceiling of predictability where players lose interest and acknowledge that they can't beat the system. If favorites won 50% of the time, I would predict that player interest would substantially diminish.

We have the horses to thank, and not the track owners, for stabilizing results at a level that sustains our interest and keeps us coming back. Until the national average for field size undergoes dramatic change, favorites should win ABOUT 33% of the time because that's how horses are. I think this is a remarkable accomplishment in view of mankind's relentless machinations and schemes aimed at making horses perform like motorcycles!

[GameTheory]

I believe the horsemen play a role in this. Trainers will often want to win at high odds. In order to do this, they must make sure they lose at low odds. They don't want performance to be predictable -- remember they are playing poker with the other trainers & owners and don't want everyone to know just what condition their horse is in (so they don't lose it when they don't want to, or to make it more likely they will lose it when they do want to). Plus they want to cash a good bet now & again. Because of this, "favoritism" can actually lower the chances that a horse will win (by design).

So, the trainers stay one step ahead of the public, and therefore the public is always one step behind. Favorites win about 33% of the time, but favorites generally win more often than that in non-claiming races (or maiden claiming, because maidens very rarely get claimed) and less than that in claimers. Not an accident. If trainers & owners didn't bet, and there was no claiming, favorites would undoubtably win more often.

[VetScratch]

Game Theory,

Your post, which I am inclined to agree with, opens the Pandora's Box of endless debate where some on this board insist that most trainers are imbeciles (i.e., and therefore incapable of shrewd "play") while many others see trainer influence and intent as extremely important performance variables.

Accepting that trainers can tie their own shoelaces, I think their influence on maiden races has to be qualified by the recognition that a broad spectrum of horse-ability is more likely than maiden claiming or claiming races which are designed to produce graduated horse-ability levels. Many of the "extra favorites" among maiden winners face a smaller percentage of "qualified" competitors.

Plenty of owners refuse to let trainers enter maiden claiming races until their youngsters shatter their dreams by getting trounced in maiden races.

[GameTheory]

I think many are imbeciles when it comes to getting the full potential from their horses. But anyone can say to the jockey, "If the win won't be easy, don't use him too much -- we'll get it next time when the odds are higher."

[VetScratch]

Game Theory,

What you say "goes without saying," quite literally. When owners insist on running horses-short-on-ability in maiden races, nothing even has to be said. The trainer already knows he is going through the motions, and in almost all cases, the jockey and his agent have no illusions, based on knowledge gained during mornings on the backside.

All good agents (and many jockeys) know every exercise rider that works for any barn. They mine this information resource all the time. No excercise rider should have to buy his own coffee and snacks during breaks!

[alysheba88]

Saying favorites should win 80% of the time is like saying 80% of the public should be right every time. The public is never right about anything that often:)

Seriously, this isn't an exact science. So often the difference between the favorite and the second choice is a miniscule amount anyway. If three main contenders are 5-2, 5-2 and 3-1 why should the most favored 5-2 shot win 80% of the time?

Each race has its own circumstances and parameters.

As another poster said its very hard to argue with the historical rate that favorites come in.

[VetScratch]

Compared to public perception, very few stiffs have any relationship to mutual agreements between trainers and jockeys.

In almost all respects, the public greatly overestimates the degree of candor that exists between trainers and jockeys (or their agents).

Trainers and jockeys view each other as necessary evils and poor security risks. Media coverage would have you believe otherwise, but what is spun to the public is a pure public-relations illusion.

Cagey trainers conceal the maximum amount of both good and bad information from everyone associated with the jockey room.

Jockeys and their agents likewise conceal as much as they can get away with from members of the training colony at any track.

Anyone who is not playing by the rules of "Last Man Standing" soon becomes everyone's patsy!

[GameTheory]

The trainers must tell the jockeys *something* in terms of instruction. In any case, a db query of the performance of trainers in relation to the odds and you'll find some that predictably & consistently underperform at low odds and then overperform at higher odds a race or two later.

[VetScratch]

Game Theory,
I'm on your wavelength now. When trainers and jockeys share a common goal (to simply do their best), information flow is merely restricted by the common security rule of "absolute need to know."

[GameTheory]

Of course, that is a pattern that could also be attributed to the use of drugs. We don't hear much about them, but there are also drugs given to slow horses down as well as speed them up, right?

[delayjf]

While I don't deny that some trainers may give horses drugs to slow them down, it's really not necessary. If you want a horse to perform badly something as simple as feeding the horse prior to the race will probably do the trick, or don't give him any water for a day or that morning. Dehydration will surely slow a horse down. Another example maybe a trainer who gives a horse creatine when he's trying and stops using it when he's not.

[VetScratch]

Game Theory,

Sure, but unless someone is stiffing a standout horse, there are many ways to succeed without risking detection of tranquilizers.

Lest anyone form the wrong opinion, my definition of stiffing includes simple neglect to accentuate all known positive factors. This often occurs when a trainer doesn't like his chances (i.e., when his horse is in tough company).

I've known horses that would burn off all of the energy required to win if you merely took away their goat or chicken the night before a race.

[GameTheory]

I know I'm a total mess when someone takes away my goat...

[superfecta]

Originally posted by GameTheory
I know I'm a total mess when someone takes away my goat... Well, when someone gets your goat GT,try a sheep,its not BAAAAAd:rolleyes:
anyhow,I don't see alot of merit in trying to decipher all these moves,simply because I can't decide if the trainer is cagey or an Idiot.Those that can be close enough to the source may have an advantage but its one I can 't quantify from a tv screen 500 miles away.But it does open up a world that should be remembered but not nessarily the basis on making a wager.

[kenwoodall]

Since jocks may ride for a trainer's rival next race, i see the point of "Need to know" in most racing relationships.
80% is hypothetical, a point illustrated by looking at the unvaried conditions of human track runners for comparison of predictability.
Individual works could be a stronger clue as to future race performance if there were a lot less variables for the horse to overcome. I believe consistent predictability of any major racing factors puts one well ahead of the game, especially on a blanketing bases. That is why I just conclude that a fast set of workouts 1 or 2 hours prior to a race card is a good indicator, and why I use 10% wins as an indicater of a competent trainer. Does Vetscratch agree with 10%?

[Fastracehorse]

<Because of this, "favoritism" can actually lower the chances that a horse will win (by design).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

True! At least I believe it is.

Further, a better than expected effort last-out is overbet this out.
What I mean is, once the connections get their score it is dangerous to think they'll come right back with another ( same horse ) at lower odds.

Bright trainers are good at darkening form.

Doug O'Neill is so talented - if his horses show trainer intent they deserve recognition even if they appear to be the fly-and-die type.

Sid Attard is my man at Woodbine - he won with a fly-and-die type on Sunday that paid $50. The angle is speed then stop - cutback and drop.

I must point out I didn't have the Attard horse - and I've caught him with a few nice ones this year. Where was I??

:confused: :eek: :mad: :rolleyes: :cool: :p ;)

fffastt

[VetScratch]

Kenwoodall,
I believe consistent predictability of any major racing factors puts one well ahead of the game, especially on a blanketing bases. That is why I just conclude that a fast set of workouts 1 or 2 hours prior to a race card is a good indicator, and why I use 10% wins as an indicater of a competent trainer.You have either cloaked a major typing error or warped into a galaxy that's not on our charts!

[kenwoodall]

I use lots of workouts and good trainers to help my betting. If they win a lot they win a lot!!!

[VetScratch]

Kenwoodall,
The part that had me puzzled was a "fast set works 1 or 2 hours before a racecard." From your reply, I take it that you are using averages from today's work tabs (earlier in the day) to gain insights about today's racing surface. If so, where do you get today's works since they may be only a few hours old? TSN?

[GameTheory]

Yes, VS, that's what this thread is all about -- looking at the ALL the works on the same morning. That's what I was talking about in the very first message of the thread, because that is what Ken does -- judge the afternoon speed of the track from that morning's workouts. He has taken some abuse for it, but it sounds like a reasonable and interesting idea.

Equibase has the works free on their site everyday. You can even use my ChartGet program to quickly download them all into a .csv file. (Click "website" link below.) Can't beat that!

[VetScratch]

I did get the point about comparing day-to-day workout tabs. what I missed was Ken's original method statement (another thread?). The availability of today's works makes this even more interesting than what I said originally, which agreed with the basic concept.

Was that workout link just www.equibase.com?

What about a download link for Chartget?

[GameTheory]

Please pay attention. Click the "website" button at the bottom of this post for ChartGet.

On Equibase, look for the "Free Information" pull-down.

[gino]

WoodMan, GT, Vettie, et al:

congrats on a thought provoking and intriguing thread.
ken, would u care to expound further on your betting scheme?
i'm guessing that win/place show/ is determined by the horse's predicted/preferred running style vs. the predicted track bias?
i love this kind of mad science.
gino
show parlays rule!

[kenwoodall]

W/p/s is a seperate (private) system I have.
_________
Track speed prediction is my workout/racecard system. Use median 4f workout, 48.6 to 50.4 on a 1-10 numbering system.
________
1, 2, or 3 is faster than normal ( I call fast, hard, or shallow; early speed/pace leader to 2 lengths back carries, winner often has good speed or beyer figures, speed-favoring track); / 4, 5, 6, or 7 is normal (leader to 6 lengths back can win, early speed/pace or pressor, winner often is best overall horse); 8, 9, or 10 is slower than normal (I call soft, slow, or deep; 2+ lengths back can win, pressor or closer, winner often is class dropper, holding track).
___________
I consider a bias to be only rail bias as to depth/speed of track; either positive (all or part of rail is faster than center of track (crown), or negative (all or last 0 to 3f of rail slower than crown).

[kenwoodall]

I am interested in developing a list of trainers who consider track speed when entering horses (Hollendorfer, Lage west coast); and jockeys who recognize biases early (Rollins and Solis west coast, and Jerry Bailey)

[Brian Flewwelling]

Very interesting concept, now that i have started to understand it.

On the matter of jockies recogizing bias early: Isn't that one of the main factors making an effective jockey? So your list should be the top jockeys at the track. By that i mean top in terms of winning vs probability of winning (0.83/(1+odds)).

Do you think trainers can make such a decision given they must have their entries in at least 48 hours before the race? Those that can, do move horses around to take advantage of tracks overall speed, but we only see trainers scratching horses based on mud or slop conditions ... I haven't heard of a trainer that scratched a horse because the track was playing too fast. IMO

I want to test out your ideas for a couple of Canadian tracks. Have you compared Average Times with Median Times? Is the difference major?

Brian

[kenwoodall]

I do not use average as extremes would have to be included. Some biases last for days!
8-1-03 Woodbine was 50.2- very slow. no early lead winners, even winners faded last 2f.
Hastings was interesting on 8-1-03. 4f works had a big gap from 49.0 to 49.8, 3f works were faster than normal. A positive rail bias could have been in play, but several horses won off the rail. Several wire-to-wire winners indicating a faster than normal track, at least on certain paths!

I checked results charts for both tracks; Both tracks the favorites did not do too well and closers won routes late in the day. Most favorites seemed today to have early speed at Woodbine.
_________
a 1 day snapshot is not a test of course. I checked Hastings before and it may not be suitable for my system. I think my system will work fine at Woodbine and as I said the faster the track, the more predictable. You should study Woodbine to see how it is on faster than normal days.
_________

[delayjf]

Kenwoodall,

I understand the basic concept, but how do you calculate what's a fast / normal / slow workout. And then how do you apply your 1-10 scale. I've reviewed other treads that you've posted, but can't find the answer. Did I miss something.

Also, in one post, you mentioned the "crown" on the race track. As far as I know, most if not all tracks are slanted towards the rail to some degree even on the stretches, I've never seen one with a crown (like a football field). Are you refering to a specific track or did I mis-interpret your comment?

[Brian Flewwelling]

I manually determined the Median 4f workout times for the races run this year at NP. The track is much slower than those you talk about, so the fastest Median was 50.0 and the slowest 53.3 sec. I arbiratily made 4 classes: 1 for 50.0 to 50.9, 2 for 51.0-51.9 and so on

I found there was a positive correlation of these with my Track Variants, so the concept of checking these to determine a working track variant during the race day is reasonable, and for some, may be quite useful.

I then looked at the first and second call position for all 6-6.5f sprints. I could see no correlation to the variant at all. I was expecting that more winners would be close to the front on fast days, and more closers would be winners on slow days. No such luck.

Brian

[karlskorner]

To the best of my knolwedge all day time tracks close down morning workouts at 10AM. Then the Tractors go around and around and around for 2 hours, they change the contour, clockwise, counter clockwise, they seal the track if necessary, they move sand from left to right, right to left, they may roll it, they do 100 and 1 things to the track to prepare for the days races. What you are building your variants and times on was yesterdays track after the last race. On top of that after each race, mostly for cosmetics, they harrow, but at times, at the whim of the Super, they can change the entire track after the 3rd race, if he doesn't like what he sees.

[VetScratch]

Kenwoodall,

What Karlskorner said is absolutely true.

Maybe correlations between morning works and how the track will run in the afternoon hold up at some tracks during the best months of steady weather. However, the consequences of the activities that Karl mentioned should become PRONOUNCED in the winter and spring. Track crews really have their work cut out for them in the bad weather months. The worse the track is in the morning, the more it will be worked and altered before the first race.

Even if you work around stormy weather, when temperatures get below freezing, that alone will accelerate maintenance before the first race, especially when anti-freeze chemicals are added or the morning temperature is rising after a freeze.

[Show Me the Wire]

If it matters, I third Karl and Vet's opinions about comparing the morning track to the afternoon track.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Pace Cap'n]

What, if anything, would have been done to the track between the time of the last race of the day and the first workout of the following morning?

[Tom]

Originally posted by Pace Cap'n
What, if anything, would have been done to the track between the time of the last race of the day and the first workout of the following morning?

Depending on the track, they can do a lot. I have driven by FL at night and seen the tractors out there with lights on working the dirt. Over the years, the FL track crew has "lost control" of the track several times and it was not unusual to see riders going 10-15 lengths wide turning for home to aviod not only the rail, but eastern NY as well! Time variations of 2- 3 seconds from one day to the next were not uncommon. Once you screw up a track, it takes a while to get it back.

[delayjf]

While all your points are well taken, indeed that maint crews could alter the track in between the morning works and the afternoon races, However, that doesn't mean that they absolutely will.

Kenwoodall may have a valid point and yes his theory maybe track dependant. It would be interesting to see some of his data from some of the tracks he's been modeling.

Personally, I've seen them roll the track right after the last race. Looks like it pays to not only know your track but your maint crew as well.

Karlskorner,
How does harrowing the track in the opposite direction affect the bias? I've heard you state that before but I was never sure just how this would work.

[azibuck]

Karl, what you describe seems to me to be overkill. To what end would they do all that manicuring?

Furthermore, Tom, you've been to FL a million times more than me I'm sure, but I've never seen much work done. Certainly not of the track-changing variety. Just cosmetics, to get rid of the hoof marks.

My question is why? Why would any tracks do any of this, except to, hopefully, insure a uniform and safe surface?

To that end, I think they'll do whatever is cheapest. Take the path of least resistance. Why pay a large crew to perform any or all of these machinations? Just pay one of the illegals on the backstretch some extra dough to drive the truck around a time or two without crashing through the rail.

There are exceptions, but I'd wager $2 that most days the surface doesn't change much from last work to first race. One day to the next? Sure. But from 10am to 12:50pm (FL first post), my amateur guess is not much.

[Brian Flewwelling]

This post is an effort to see this thread continue on it's original theme and not go wandering off ... and annoying folks ... like is too common lately!!

I would like to make a few points:

1, Ken is sharing his method with us, NOT trying to sell it It seems to make him happy and he claims a positive ROI. Perhaps we should be asking him if we understand, not telling him he is wrong. If his ROI is positive and he is comfortable with it, it is good. If you don't understand the method, you are with me, and we have more to learn from Ken.

2. Ken never mentioned track variant, i did. When i was digging through my data, i looked at my track variant for the race days i had the Median 4f work. I observed a positive correlation, but by no means a perfect one. Therefore all the arguments about what maintenance is done, and how the weather may change, etc may be valid in causing the relation between the DTV and Median Work to be less perfect than it might be. But that is NOT Ken's stated theory, and he has not responded to my post.

3. Now i will dash in with my irrelevant speculation! Yes they work the track, but they seldom rebuild it, between 10am and race time!

Brian

[VetScratch]

I don't sense that anyone has tried to totally refute Ken's work.

Track maintenance activity is simply a big caution flag!

When they really have to work on a track, the track is often closed after the mid-morning break, which gives the crew a couple of extra hours.

[kenwoodall]

You can use 49.5 4f workout as exactly average at all major tracks. Then assume with faster workout times, early speed has a relatively better chance to carry, and the slower the time the more chance of early speed to fade.
____________
Northlands Park on August 4 had 49.4 4f work overall (its horses are capable of running decent times), all winners were within 6 lenghts, most within 2, mostly favorites. The other days of the week winners were mostly 4th place or farther back at some point and closed on the straightaways. Jockeys Welch and Wilson wired many times even on good overlays. Hardly anyone else did. They know the paths to take! A lot of horses won going wide in the stretch.
On July 3 there was a 4f workout gap of 1 2/5 seconds, most likely a very slow rail. No racing that day. The problem was corrected by the next day so the track crew must be good!
_______________
It looks like it takes a good jockey and a horse that is very willing to duel all the way to win there. A stamina horse that consistently finishes well is probably a big plus there!

[kenwoodall]

I'm beginning to wonder how many of you have tested my system on paper at various tracks in addition to discussing the theory? Please check Ky tracks for early speed overlay winners in relation to workout speed!!

[Brian Flewwelling]

Ken:


Northlands Park on August 4 had 49.4 4f work overall (its horses are capable of running decent times), all winners were within 6 lenghts, most within 2, mostly favorites. The other days of the week winners were mostly 4th place or farther back at some point and closed on the straightaways. Jockeys Welch and Wilson wired many times even on good overlays. Hardly anyone else did. They know the paths to take! A lot of horses won going wide in the stretch.
On July 3 there was a 4f workout gap of 1 2/5 seconds, most likely a very slow rail. No racing that day. The problem was corrected by the next day so the track crew must be good!


As i said in my earlier post, before Aug 4th data was available, the fastest Median was 50.0 sec. Then along came the 4th with this 'average' Median. (average for major tracks, record for NP this year)

On the 4th 5 of 8 winners were on the rail, one sorta wired, most were in good position. Favourites won 3 of 8, and another winner was not the favourite, but was under 2-1.

But how can i use all this on Wed? I can download the workouts and calculate the Median, then what? Suppose it is 50.9 sec, what do i make of that?

Brian

[Brian Flewwelling]

To All:

I had to do it ... i have a routine to calculate the Median 4f Workout time for any track, on most dates since last Sept.

If you want to look at some for your track, or any other, just drop me a personal email and i will run the program and send you the medians in HTML format, or another if you have a better idea.

This should save enough work that more folks will attempt to study this method.

Brian

[delayjf]

Kenwoodall,

How do you apply your numbering system? Might it be more accurate to avg the median workouts at a track to better hone in the process.

Jeff