Could it be All About Class?

[Capper Al]

Could it be All About Class? I'm begining to think so. It's like the old timers say, to handicap one must start with Form followed by Class, Speed, Pace, and Connections and whatever else. Brad Free keeps making this point through out his book, Handicapping 101, and many others have said this before he was on the scene. Form only justifies that the Class will work in today's race. Speed is the spark from Class not the substance of the horse. That's why speed figures can and do vary so much. But Class is the real thing. It is the substance. It is what the horse does. All else is imaginary. The pace may be there. The speed figure might be a good indication of ability but it isn't what makes the horse.

[cj]

To me, class is nothing but another way of trying to express a horse's ability. It is just a lot more vague and an easy out when trying to explain results. I don't think it is some inherent trait horses have that they know which others they are better than.

[CincyHorseplayer]

The attempts to depersonalize a horse and reduce it to a mathematical concept will always exist.But to reduce it to a dumb animal that doesn't contain virtues that can be described in human terms and label it as obscure and unquantifiable only shows a lack of insight and imagination.The class factor is real.Most just don't have time for it in the world of mass handicapping.Mark Cramer noted that speed figures increase or decline in relation to class drops and rises as a whole.It's no illusion.For myself when the class factor lines up with competitive speed and a favorable pace scenario it's prime bet time.If it was pure numbers I'd make no distinction.

[cj]

I've been around enough bad horses that think they are good around the barn, and the opposite, to justify my view. All horses are individuals. Some will fight to win more than others. Is that class? I don't know, i just don't think the vague term class really does much for a handicapper.

[Valuist]

So called "class handicappers" love to throw around unadjusted times and love to compare actual times between different days or different tracks. And when you do see a lesser race at the same distance/same day/same surface run with a faster time than a higher quality race, usually the internals will explain the final time

[Cratos]

Could it be All About Class? I'm begining to think so. It's like the old timers say, to handicap one must start with Form followed by Class, Speed, Pace, and Connections and whatever else. Brad Free keeps making this point through out his book, Handicapping 101, and many others have said this before he was on the scene. Form only justifies that the Class will work in today's race. Speed is the spark from Class not the substance of the horse. That's why speed figures can and do vary so much. But Class is the real thing. It is the substance. It is what the horse does. All else is imaginary. The pace may be there. The speed figure might be a good indication of ability but it isn't what makes the horse.

I agree that it is class and to paraphrase the legendary Pittsburgh Phil, “when you find class, bet it” and another good one on class is “speed makes the pace, but class wins the race.”

I have always defined class as “a horse’s inherent ability to consistently win at a given level regardless of conditions.”

[CincyHorseplayer]

I refer all definitions to James Quinn.He captures all the essentials and can word it better than I can.Class is not "vague" as much as it is defined more by situation than as an all encompassing thing in itself concept.It's not for the reductionist,cliff notes guide to life at the track type.If you can win without it,ignore all my comments.Personally I like horses,love to handicap,read through the race histories in the PP's,and recognize class when I see it.It's a tangible concept for an analytical mind that can grasp that some things need more than 50 words to explain.It exists,regardless of perceived utility(or lack of) and perceived futility of definition.

[Robert Goren]

The class vrs speed rating arguement has been around for a long time. Since Beyer's numbers became readly available, the speed rating people have pretty much won it. Not very many people are going to bet a horse with a Beyer's rating 10 points off the top rating these days.

[Cratos]

The class vrs speed rating arguement has been around for a long time. Since Beyer's numbers became readly available, the speed rating people have pretty much won it. Not very many people are going to bet a horse with a Beyer's rating 10 points off the top rating these days.

Did not Andy Beyer say something to the effect in one of his books that “there is class within class?” Also don’t the best (or highest) class horses establish the best (or highest) speed for any given race?

[pandy]

Sure it's great to find a good value bet on a horse with a class edge, but there are many races where there is no class edge. Some of these tough claimers in NY or the starter allowance fields at various tracks, where the field is full of horses that have 10 or more career wins, these are tough, proven racehorses that know what they're doing out there and they all have class to some extent. If class is your main way of determining a bet, you're going to pass a lot of races. In starter allowance fields, it's usually about which horse or horses are in peak form right now.

[fmolf]

A horses class is measured by what level he can win at at this point in time.Nothing more and nothing less.Some of my best scores have been on horses rising in class while on an improving form cycle.I have found that three yr olds will climb the class ladder,establish new tops, and are harder to gaug,class wise than older horses.Whose level of competition has peaked and they have a tougher time winning at a higher level than they already have.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Not very many people are going to bet a horse with a Beyer's rating 10 points off the top rating these days.

I don't knock speed ratings or those that are using them to make wagers, but for the most part - what you describe is exactly how I try (tried?) to make my plays. I'm not inclined to lay down big money for returns on the margins at the tracks I tend to play, so my value is found by trying to use "class" and form "cycles" (however one cares to define the two) to determine which entrants with subpar bold fonted numbers may be competitive today compared to in its previous few.

Is it better than 'capping by the numbers? No, probably not for most people - but I'm still hooked on the "challenge" aspect of the game moreso than anything else and today, finding value at Craptrack Downs where I tend to play, is the challenge delucks.

[ManeMediaMogul]

To me, class is nothing but another way of trying to express a horse's ability. It is just a lot more vague and an easy out when trying to explain results. I don't think it is some inherent trait horses have that they know which others they are better than.

With over 50 years of race going and over 30 years of being with horses every day, I can tell you that without a doubt, there is an inherent trait horses have to know which ones they are superior to.

[Stillriledup]

I think class meant more back in the day. Now, you have a ton of horses with poor conformation that are not as consistent. Its sort of like sports today, if you go back to the 1970s in the NFL, the worst team in the league was never going to beat a top team. Now, it happens all the time. The worst team in any sport can beat the best team on any given day....just because the sports are 'watered down' more than they used to be.

I think this is the same with racing, its more watered down and class means less. You can have a horse swell up on the front end and run a 110 Beyer Fig and then when he's tested, he has no class. I'm thinking of that fast Baffert horse who wired the field a few years ago in the Bluegrass and ran some bizarre Beyer fig and then when he was asked to duplicate that performance, he fell apart and wasn't even competitive thereafter.

Where you see class is if a horse moves up to a race without his 'friends' and he's not able to duplicate his speed fig in that higher class. A 4k claimer might win and run a 75 Beyer and then goes up to a 5k claimer and runs a 58 and is nowhere to be found. I guess this would be the definition of 'class' in today's game.

[jfdinneen]

Horses are herd animals and class is just another name for dominance.

On the racetrack, it is best measured by a combination of high cruising speed (never outpaced), acceleration ("gears" according to John Oxx), and heart to fight to the wire (when required). Watch Sea The Stars (Yellow Silks) win the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe (http://www.seathestars.co.uk/). He was "pulling hard" throughout the race because he had such a high natural cruising speed and, though he appeared to have traffic problems on the rail as they turned into the stretch, he accelerated immediately (when asked) from a difficult position and navigated the openings to score easily at the wire with almost no whip action (see Irish Champion Stakes) - that is class and you know it when you see it!

John

[Capper Al]

To me, class is nothing but another way of trying to express a horse's ability. It is just a lot more vague and an easy out when trying to explain results. I don't think it is some inherent trait horses have that they know which others they are better than.

Basically I agree. I disagree with the lot more vague part. We are inundated with how to make and use speed figures. Yet, BRIS and other data providers publish class ratings also.

Speed is still the best single factor for picking winners on its own. This focuses us on time, and supports what appears to be a reasonable argument that the fastest horse wins the race. But maybe there's more to it? That barring bad racing luck and poor form, it is the classiest horse that will have the best time to win the race in.

With distance, handicappers will question can a horse go the distance using a boolean outcome. Yes, he can go the distance. Or no he can't. Maybe all we need to know about speed is can he go the par time or can he not. That's it. Not that a speed figure of 101 is better than 98. Rather can he do the speed to win? And when we determine a horse can do the speed, we look at where he has done the speed. Was it in a $10,000 claimer, or a $50,000 allowance race, or a stakes race etc. We can't say if class is inherent or not. We can compare his ability by the company he keeps and beats or loses to.

[Capper Al]

The class vrs speed rating arguement has been around for a long time. Since Beyer's numbers became readly available, the speed rating people have pretty much won it. Not very many people are going to bet a horse with a Beyer's rating 10 points off the top rating these days.

My previous post suggests a different way to look at this. Yes, speed is the best single fasctor. It might not be the only way to figure a horse.

[cj]

With over 50 years of race going and over 30 years of being with horses every day, I can tell you that without a doubt, there is an inherent trait horses have to know which ones they are superior to.

If only it played out that way on the track...

[Robert Goren]

I think you can run into trouble trying to attribute human qualities to horses. That be being said there is such a thing as cheap speed. It occurs at all levels of competition at the race track. You see at some at bottom or near bottom claimers, but the real place you see it a lot is in first out 3 yo md winners at major tracks. It is like they hit a wall when they try NW of 2 alws. I know I am going to flack for saying this. Quality Road was a prime example of it at top level of "handicap" horses. He could beat good horses in a very fast times(or Beyers if you prefer), but would lose to a better horse who never posted anything really close to his times(or Beyers). He and his ilk are the things things that drive speed handicappers nuts. Fortunately they are fairly uncommon.

[Fastracehorse]

I agree that it is class and to paraphrase the legendary Pittsburgh Phil, “when you find class, bet it” and another good one on class is “speed makes the pace, but class wins the race.”

I have always defined class as “a horse’s inherent ability to consistently win at a given level regardless of conditions.”

......Class=Speed=Pace.

fffastt

[Dave Schwartz]

I think JF Dinneen came close when he addressed the herd instinct. Consider the feral horse.

I have been taught that in the wild, a horse's individual dominance over another is demonstrated in one of two ways - either in combat (which is relatively rare) or via speed dominance.

What happens with speed dominance is that two horses square off and race. The don't race 6 furlongs or a mile. They race until the race is clearly won; until one combatant knows he is beaten. This battle never has to be fought again. Forever the two horses will know which one is the better.

I think a good parallel can be found in our memories of the playgrounds of our youth. Did we not experience the same things? Think back to your early days in elementary school. Were there not physical conflicts decided once and for all? We knew who the best athletes and the toughest kids were.

Unlike animals, some of us may have developed the guts to rearrange the known pecking order as we grew to adolescence.


Okay, in application to horses there is a problem. The problem is that the race ends before there is a clear victor to the participants, not to mention the fact that not all horses persevere without "urging."

IMHO, the notion of "class" as a concept described in any terms containing the phrase "the horses know" may well be real, but our ability to measure this is severely limited. That is why we use the metrics and technologies that we have today.

If we used no jockeys and simply let them run until all but one quits then we would have, I believe, a new and valuable metric. We'd also probably watch as horse A always beat horse B.

Meanwhile, it is all an anecdotal exercise unless it can be measured. And measurement is done with numbers. The concept that "A beat B because he simply outclassed him" sounds fine until B beats A the next time they meet. Then the purveyors of an esoteric, yet undefinable definition (?) will search for other ways to describe it.

Without a definition, it is all smoke and mirrors, IMHO.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Capper Al]

Meanwhile, it is all an anecdotal exercise unless it can be measured. And measurement is done with numbers. The concept that "A beat B because he simply outclassed him" sounds fine until B beats A the next time they meet. Then the purveyors of an esoteric, yet undefinable definition (?) will search for other ways to describe it.

Without a definition, it is all smoke and mirrors, IMHO.



Dave,

Why don't we ask the same question of speed or pace? If 'A' beats 'B' because 'A' simply has more speed sounds fine until 'B' beats 'A' the next time they meet. Doesn't this trash speed as well? Yet popular opinion doesn't seem to doubt speed as a measure. How can this logic apply to class but not speed?

[turfbar]

Class is money always is and always was

just like it is here with mortals money is class

[Cratos]

Speed is still the best single factor for picking winners on its own. This focuses us on time, and supports what appears to be a reasonable argument that the fastest horse wins the race. But maybe there's more to it? That barring bad racing luck and poor form, it is the classiest horse that will have the best time to win the race in.

With distance, handicappers will question can a horse go the distance using a boolean outcome. Yes, he can go the distance. Or no he can't. Maybe all we need to know about speed is can he go the par time or can he not. That's it. Not that a speed figure of 101 is better than 98. Rather can he do the speed to win? And when we determine a horse can do the speed, we look at where he has done the speed. Was it in a $10,000 claimer, or a $50,000 allowance race, or a stakes race etc. We can't say if class is inherent or not. We can compare his ability by the company he keeps and beats or loses to.

In all due respect, you have your distinction between speed and distance wrong; speed is the function of the ratio distance to time.

Succinctly stated speed is the magnitude of the movement of any object with respect to time and distance.

What I believe you are attempting to compare is speed to stamina and that would make sense since both variables are innate to the racehorse and can be measured by the horse’s performance.

[Cratos]

I think JF Dinneen came close when he addressed the herd instinct. Consider the feral horse.

I have been taught that in the wild, a horse's individual dominance over another is demonstrated in one of two ways - either in combat (which is relatively rare) or via speed dominance.

What happens with speed dominance is that two horses square off and race. The don't race 6 furlongs or a mile. They race until the race is clearly won; until one combatant knows he is beaten. This battle never has to be fought again. Forever the two horses will know which one is the better.

I think a good parallel can be found in our memories of the playgrounds of our youth. Did we not experience the same things? Think back to your early days in elementary school. Were there not physical conflicts decided once and for all? We knew who the best athletes and the toughest kids were.

Unlike animals, some of us may have developed the guts to rearrange the known pecking order as we grew to adolescence.


Okay, in application to horses there is a problem. The problem is that the race ends before there is a clear victor to the participants, not to mention the fact that not all horses persevere without "urging."

IMHO, the notion of "class" as a concept described in any terms containing the phrase "the horses know" may well be real, but our ability to measure this is severely limited. That is why we use the metrics and technologies that we have today.

If we used no jockeys and simply let them run until all but one quits then we would have, I believe, a new and valuable metric. We'd also probably watch as horse A always beat horse B.

Meanwhile, it is all an anecdotal exercise unless it can be measured. And measurement is done with numbers. The concept that "A beat B because he simply outclassed him" sounds fine until B beats A the next time they meet. Then the purveyors of an esoteric, yet undefinable definition (?) will search for other ways to describe it.

Without a definition, it is all smoke and mirrors, IMHO.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Dave, class is ability and is the same for humans as for horses. Each is born with ability and to the extent that ability is exhibited by performance is to the extent class is measured.

That is why I have stated earlier in this thread that class is a horse’s innate ability to consistently win at a given level regardless of conditions. Winning is the only measurement of class in horseracing. A horse can race at given level and invariably run second and third, but if it can’t win at that level, it is of not that class

[classhandicapper]

The idea is to measure performance and ability to the best of your ability.

There are two major ways to do that.

You can look at fractions and final times of races or you can look at the quality of the horses in a race based on the class designations they have won at, been competitive at, and been consistent at recently and in the past.

The problem with using fractions and final times is that measuring them accurately and also understanding all the interrelationships between pace and final time across various distances, at various tracks, on different surfaces, on different days, with various run ups, wind, track conditions, weather changes, track maintenace issues etc... are GIGANTIC. They also don't account for all the between call action that impacts time.

The problem with using Class designations is that there are strong/weak fields within the same class designations, strong and weak crops, strong and weak groups in various locations around the country etc... and it's not always that easy to objectively or subjectively evaluate the quality of a field based on the class designation because of limited information.

IMHO, class handicapping is vastly more accurate when used by an experienced practitioner that understands the pecking order on his circuit really well and how other circuits compare to his own when the handicapper watches races, looks at comparative trips/race shapes/dynamics in the charts etc...

The downside is that it's a lot more work and takes a lot more knowledge than looking at a number on a piece of paper that someone else calculated for you.

IMO, because important information needed to accurately assess the quality of a field is sometimes not available, using fractions and final times to supplement the class analysis is actually the best possible approach.

IMO the idea is not take take any numbers too literally because they aren't accurate. But just knowing that a particular race was especially fast or slow relative to the norms for the class can sometimes be an important supplement to the analysis where information is sketchy.

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave,

Why don't we ask the same question of speed or pace? If 'A' beats 'B' because 'A' simply has more speed sounds fine until 'B' beats 'A' the next time they meet. Doesn't this trash speed as well? Yet popular opinion doesn't seem to doubt speed as a measure. How can this logic apply to class but not speed?

Al,

I do not doubt class at all. In fact, you have made my point: It must be measurable.

So, how do you measure it? What is the metric?


Dave

[Robert Goren]

Class is money always is and always was

just like it is here with mortals money is class Truth for the ages.

[JohnGalt1]

Al,

I do not doubt class at all. In fact, you have made my point: It must be measurable.

So, how do you measure it? What is the metric?


Dave


Some handicappers have attempted to measure class with a number.

William L. Scott in his book "Total Victory at the Track" created the Performance Class Rating (PCR) by using 2nd call, finish call and the amount of horses run for all races in the pp's addjusted by the class of past races.

He looked at the horses with the 3 top PCR's and the horses with the top 3 pace ratings, and if a horse was in both columns it would be the play if it had no form defects and it's running style fit the race track.

I create PCR's in my handicapping, but make Hambleton Pace figs instead of using his.

Dave, by the way. I like your website. Your 4 videos are thought provoking. Thanks for creating it.

[Capper Al]

In all due respect, you have your distinction between speed and distance wrong; speed is the function of the ratio distance to time.

Succinctly stated speed is the magnitude of the movement of any object with respect to time and distance.

What I believe you are attempting to compare is speed to stamina and that would make sense since both variables are innate to the racehorse and can be measured by the horse’s performance.

I must not have been clear. The only reason I brought up distance was as an example of how most of us handicap it. We come to a boolean outcome. Can the horse go the distance or not. A yes or no answer. What I'm suggesting is that maybe we should be doing the same thing with speed. Can the horse do the par time? Yes or No. Not compare figures, a 105 is better than a 101. It's a paradigm change.

[Capper Al]

Al,

I do not doubt class at all. In fact, you have made my point: It must be measurable.

So, how do you measure it? What is the metric?


Dave

Good, we are on the same page. I'm not claiming to have the answer. I have read and re-read several of Quinn's books several times hoping to have something click. At times I think the Brits might have a better idea with TimeForm instead of speed. Quinn delves down into characteristics with his BlueBoy system in his book Class of the Field. But that seems too subjective and too much work.

[Capper Al]

Some handicappers have attempted to measure class with a number.

William L. Scott in his book "Total Victory at the Track" created the Performance Class Rating (PCR) by using 2nd call, finish call and the amount of horses run for all races in the pp's addjusted by the class of past races.

He looked at the horses with the 3 top PCR's and the horses with the top 3 pace ratings, and if a horse was in both columns it would be the play if it had no form defects and it's running style fit the race track.

I create PCR's in my handicapping, but make Hambleton Pace figs instead of using his.

Dave, by the way. I like your website. Your 4 videos are thought provoking. Thanks for creating it.

Exactly! Another way to pick the winner, not 104 is better than 99. And yes, I enjoyed Dave's new website also.

[BIG49010]

One point about class, is that trainers and owners look at them, and use it as a guide on race placement. The owner wants to run in class where he doesn't belong, the trainer doesn't do the proper preparation of the horse, horse looses.... the trainer then drops horse where he belongs and wins.

Some trainers use speed figures, or talk about them, but most believe that the only time "time" matters is when your in jail.

[jasperson]

Al,
Who ever said,"I don't know how to figure class,but I know it when I see it." was right on. My father had a trotter that never knew he was beaten even when he was. I think he thought if the race was just longer I would have beaten that horse. Several times I saw him beaten from behind half way down the stretch and still come on to win. That's is what I call class or toughness. In handicapping I always look at class after speed. I can't ignore class and I hate races where there are horses dropping down in class and horses coming up in class after a win. Most of the time I pass these races.

[GaryG]

Some time back Mark Cramer did a study of how speed figures changed with horses dropping from MSW into their first maiden claimer. As I remember, it was a rather dramatic increase. This can be seen in maiden races every day at all except the cheapest tracks. I almost always prefer maiden claimers that have not been beaten at today's level. However, those with dominant pace figures are generally solid if not facing a dropper who has shown some life against straight maidens.

[classhandicapper]

Al,

I do not doubt class at all. In fact, you have made my point: It must be measurable. So, how do you measure it? What is the metric?
Dave

This is why Class handicapping remains lucrative for people with a lot of experience analyzing races that way.

Modern handicappers are so used to looking at NUMBERS they buy or calculate for themselves to measure pace and final time, they don't know how to class handicap.

If I told you that horse "A" beat a solid Grade 1 field by 4 lengths with no special advantage because of bias, trip, pace etc... and horse "B" just beat an average Grade 2 field by a 1 1/2 lengths, could you tell me who was more likely to be the better horse even if you had no numbers?

My guess is anyone could.

Horse "A" got into a torrid duel with a very speedy Grade 1 horse until deep stretch, weakened very late, and finished 5th beaten 3 lengths. Several other classy pace chasers stopped badly and horse "A" finished right together several recent Grade 2 winners that were off the pace.

Horse "B" was a recent Grade 2 winner in an average field with a moderate trip.

Could you tell me who was more likely to be the better horse even if you had no numbers?

My guess is anyone could.

The trick is that it's not always that easy.

Sometimes you are comparing horses that ran in strong and weak fields for the class, across categories like claimers vs. ALW, open vs. Statebred, with different trips, that finished close or far back, etc...

To make these comparisons you have to know the pecking order at the track very well, know the horses in the races fairly well, either watch races/analyze charts or both, see how horses come back out so specific races etc.. and when you are done you won't have a number.

Sometimes it will be obvious who has been running best and sometimes it will be sketchy, but you won't to worry about all the accuracy issues with numbers either. The better you get at understanding and measuring these things, the more likely you are to find horses that are under bet because they don't have the top figs that everyone else is looking at.

[BlueShoe]

Not very many people are going to bet a horse with a Beyer's rating 10 points off the top rating these days.
Good handicappers routinely do this. An example is speed dropping, an angle that all of us are aware of and use. A runner has been setting or pressing the early pace against tougher, fading in the late stages, earning poor final figures. Today it drops in class into a field with a much softer pace scenario, goes wire to wire for the win, and earns its best final figure in months. We see this all the time. The problem is that these types usually get heavily bet.

[Light]

My 2 cents is that when I have checked class numerically,horses can easily gain 5 lengths or more from their previous outing with a legitimate drop. On the other hand you have to subtract lengths (amount unknown) from a horse going into its next condition (assuming its not sharp,just going through its conditions). The problem is there have not been any studies on this and the variables are staggering. However if your software puts out a spreadsheet as mine does,you can easily see the improve and decline of speed numbers in relation to class.

An example to confirm what I just said: Claiming "B" races are superior than nw2L races for the same tag according to my speed numbers. I had an interesting one at TP about a week ago. A 7.5Kn2l race. Everyone in the field was coming out of one except the last horse (full field). He came out of a 5KB race. His speed number from that race was below the rest of the major contenders in the field, but he had finished 2nd in that "B" race. This was a hidden class drop. He destroyed the field at 35-1. This is how little handicappers understand class in relation to speed.

[Valuist]

I think the problem with so-called "class handicapping" is that it is based on a flawed assumption; that all 10,000 non-restricted open claiming races are the same, that all 7500 nw of 2 lifetime are the same, all Grade 3s are the same, etc, etc, when in reality there are some Grade 1s that aren't even worthy of Grade 2s, some Grade 3s stronger than Grade 2s, some ultra high priced maiden claimers better than some Mdn specials.

Handicapping is about specifics; not generalities.

[Fastracehorse]

I think the problem with so-called "class handicapping" is that it is based on a flawed assumption; that all 10,000 non-restricted open claiming races are the same, that all 7500 nw of 2 lifetime are the same, all Grade 3s are the same, etc, etc, when in reality there are some Grade 1s that aren't even worthy of Grade 2s, some Grade 3s stronger than Grade 2s, some ultra high priced maiden claimers better than some Mdn specials.

Handicapping is about specifics; not generalities.

this is a good post

this is what Class is as a measuring tool: a generalization

not that a generalization is always bad but is rare to see 'Class' in the idealogical ( perfect ) race

there are alot of levels and there are superior horses at these individual levels - and a horse is trying to find where it belongs in a Class sense

Class is a tangible handicapping factor, but notsomuchas you can avoid more specific measures such as pace and speed figs; the latter of which only tells you Class of the past, but can b predictive

fffastt

[Dave Schwartz]

ClassHandicapper,

I like your post.

The problem I see with your approach is that, while everyone has an opinion about the big races, 98% of racing is the small races. It is a little more difficult to apply what you are speaking about to (say) 30 or 40 run of the mill races per day, filled with no-name horses. These would be horses that have no front-page history to follow without actually watching a lot of races.

I'm not saying it can't be done - I am certainly smart enough to avoid that trap. I am saying that if you have such a gift, then good for you - but I doubt that there are very many people winning big time dollars doing it.


Just my opinion.


Dave

[Capper Al]

Classhandicapper,

What you are actually talking about is a handicapper's experience. The more experienced the handicapper the more they use class and the less they use the numbers. Trust the force, Luke!

[Capper Al]

Good handicappers routinely do this. An example is speed dropping, an angle that all of us are aware of and use. A runner has been setting or pressing the early pace against tougher, fading in the late stages, earning poor final figures. Today it drops in class into a field with a much softer pace scenario, goes wire to wire for the win, and earns its best final figure in months. We see this all the time. The problem is that these types usually get heavily bet.

I agree. Especially with Maidens, the winner may jump up by 40 speed points or more.

[Capper Al]

Al,
Who ever said,"I don't know how to figure class,but I know it when I see it." was right on. My father had a trotter that never knew he was beaten even when he was. I think he thought if the race was just longer I would have beaten that horse. Several times I saw him beaten from behind half way down the stretch and still come on to win. That's is what I call class or toughness. In handicapping I always look at class after speed. I can't ignore class and I hate races where there are horses dropping down in class and horses coming up in class after a win. Most of the time I pass these races.

"I don't know how to figure class,but I know it when I see it." Is this also class handicapping? And doesn't our ability to "see it" grow as our experience as handicappers grows?

[Capper Al]

I think the problem with so-called "class handicapping" is that it is based on a flawed assumption; that all 10,000 non-restricted open claiming races are the same, that all 7500 nw of 2 lifetime are the same, all Grade 3s are the same, etc, etc, when in reality there are some Grade 1s that aren't even worthy of Grade 2s, some Grade 3s stronger than Grade 2s, some ultra high priced maiden claimers better than some Mdn specials.

Handicapping is about specifics; not generalities.

Trackmaster and others are publishing specific class figures. What you say about how a race is tagged (G1 or G2 etc) may not accurately reflect the level of competion, is true.

The best handicappers are more about generalities. They understand the racing game like a good trainer who places his horse in the right race or a jockey's agents who finds his client a good mount.

[Valuist]

The best handicappers are more about generalities. They understand the racing game like a good trainer who places his horse in the right race or a jockey's agents who finds his client a good mount.

IMO, lazy handicappers make generalizations:

"Inside speed is always good on the inner dirt".
"The inside post is always bad"
"Speed is always good in the slop"
"3 year olds can't beat older horses when they match up".

There's countless others but handicappers who think in too general terms are looking for trouble.

[JohnGalt1]

I'd like to add that Scott's PCR is secondary to pace and final time in sprints, but is more powerful in routes and turf races.

In turf races, top PCR and final fractions are a deadly combination.

I make PCR's for 2 and early 3 year olds ( with 3 or more races), but they are advisory at best as these horses are just establishing themselves. I mostly ignore them.

[RXB]

I think the problem with so-called "class handicapping" is that it is based on a flawed assumption; that all 10,000 non-restricted open claiming races are the same, that all 7500 nw of 2 lifetime are the same, all Grade 3s are the same, etc, etc, when in reality there are some Grade 1s that aren't even worthy of Grade 2s, some Grade 3s stronger than Grade 2s, some ultra high priced maiden claimers better than some Mdn specials.

Handicapping is about specifics; not generalities.

No more flawed than assuming that equivalent speed figures and/or equivalent pace figures are necessarily indicative of equivalent performances. But intelligent crafting and analysis of those figures is legitimate; why would it be any different with class handicapping?

[pandy]

Some time back Mark Cramer did a study of how speed figures changed with horses dropping from MSW into their first maiden claimer. As I remember, it was a rather dramatic increase. This can be seen in maiden races every day at all except the cheapest tracks. I almost always prefer maiden claimers that have not been beaten at today's level. However, those with dominant pace figures are generally solid if not facing a dropper who has shown some life against straight maidens.

When I did my own speed figs for Racing Action, I also noticed that when horses broke their maiden for a tag, they rarely reproduced that figure in their next start, usually the speed figure dropped by at least 5 points, and much more if they ran a big speed figure breaking their maiden. The only exception was when the trainer moved the horse into a soft spot, like a n2l claiming race.

[Capper Al]

When I did my own speed figs for Racing Action, I also noticed that when horses broke their maiden for a tag, they rarely reproduced that figure in their next start, usually the speed figure dropped by at least 5 points, and much more if they ran a big speed figure breaking their maiden. The only exception was when the trainer moved the horse into a soft spot, like a n2l claiming race.

This is the type of reasoning one can only find from experience. The best any numeric rating can do for us being it a Speed rating, Pace rating etc. is guide us toward understanding. The numbers aren't a substitute for understanding telling us that a 101 figure horse is better than the 98 figure horse.

[joeprunes]

Class "the best of the best",,,,,,jmo

[pondman]

Not very many people are going to bet a horse with a Beyer's rating 10 points off the top rating these days.

Be carefull with this one. I play shippers. I loved to see a horse with a -0 beyers smoke the field. The crowd looks at me as if I'm a kook (who would play such a horse?). It's all class!

[pondman]

When I did my own speed figs for Racing Action, I also noticed that when horses broke their maiden for a tag, they rarely reproduced that figure in their next start, usually the speed figure dropped by at least 5 points, and much more if they ran a big speed figure breaking their maiden.

I'll also disagree with this one. I look for horses which break their maidens (in lower maiden claiming races) and have the potential to improve their times in the next outing. This is my second favorite play behind shippers. It's a big money earner for me. If a horse is in the lead easy, the jockey doesn't ask the horse to give a 100%.

[pondman]

There's countless others but handicappers who think in too general terms are looking for trouble.

But there is truth in keeping it simple-- and then assessing the unknowns with some type of future reward. In today's racing, the business hides the truth. Horses, which for unknown reasons haven't been running well, pop and win impressively. However you won't know this until after the fact. And like myself, most handicappers with come up with some gimmicky philosophy to explain it.

I personally would rather generalize about the placement of the horse in a race (it's class), than by some other quantifying methods. I put it near the top.

[classhandicapper]

I think the problem with so-called "class handicapping" is that it is based on a flawed assumption; that all 10,000 non-restricted open claiming races are the same, that all 7500 nw of 2 lifetime are the same, all Grade 3s are the same, etc, etc, when in reality there are some Grade 1s that aren't even worthy of Grade 2s, some Grade 3s stronger than Grade 2s, some ultra high priced maiden claimers better than some Mdn specials.

Handicapping is about specifics; not generalities.

That's like saying speed handicapping is flawed because the speed of the track changes from day to day and horses run different distances etc... Handicappers try to address those issues with speed charts and track variants to equalize eveything.

The problem with classing you are talking about is also easily addressed, but it takes work and experience to look up fields and evaluate them properly so you know which were strong or weak. That's something you can't easily package and sell to the masses.

[classhandicapper]

ClassHandicapper,

I like your post.

The problem I see with your approach is that, while everyone has an opinion about the big races, 98% of racing is the small races. It is a little more difficult to apply what you are speaking about to (say) 30 or 40 run of the mill races per day, filled with no-name horses. These would be horses that have no front-page history to follow without actually watching a lot of races.

I'm not saying it can't be done - I am certainly smart enough to avoid that trap. I am saying that if you have such a gift, then good for you - but I doubt that there are very many people winning big time dollars doing it.


Just my opinion.


Dave


I agree.

IMO high level class handicapping is not possible at more than a couple of tracks because it takes more work.

[CincyHorseplayer]

There is truth in everybody's statements.Quinn covered all sides of it in two chapters from "Class Of The Field",it's worth a read or reread;

Chapter 2-The Conceptual Problem;Defintions

Chapter 3-The Historical Problem:Methods

Excerpt;"The conceptual problem dogging the practice of class handicapping practically from it's onset has been inadequate definition of one kind or another.Polar positions which the leading authorities have staked out have meant that whatever directions class handicappers choose to pursue they are being misled.By subscribing to the more practical positions,handicappers have suffered the consequences of partial definition(Dowst,Pace,Speed,Earnings).By subscribing to the more abstract positions,they have suffered the consequences of global definitions.Partial definitions are not sufficiently accurate.Global definitions are not sufficiently useful.The class of the field therefore is not sufficiently understood.The solution is a definition of class that embraces both the practical and the abstract elements of the concept.At the same time we wish to avoid becoming cumbersome or verbose.That itself is problematic.The practitioner becomes confused".


I don't have a link.But the book is worth the read and is not outdated.In fact,as has been pointed out somewhat,in this world of so many restrictions to race conditions,there are many hidden class advantages.I know in the world of mass handicapping stopping to think about class concepts is not always an option and that is the root of class being so broadly dismissed,in conjunction with reductionist and numerical modes of thought.While class in itself might have broad definitions overall,when looked at in a more specific way,the way say probable pace is looked at,where each race is an individualistic,probably not duplicated twice the same way event,class finds it's foothold.Every field is different.Some have no class distinctions.But usually there are at the very least,subtle but important class distinctions.

[Valuist]

But there is truth in keeping it simple-- and then assessing the unknowns with some type of future reward. In today's racing, the business hides the truth. Horses, which for unknown reasons haven't been running well, pop and win impressively. However you won't know this until after the fact. And like myself, most handicappers with come up with some gimmicky philosophy to explain it.

I personally would rather generalize about the placement of the horse in a race (it's class), than by some other quantifying methods. I put it near the top.

I was not referring to the "placement of the horse" but in terms of evaluating the past fields the horse faced. Its easy to say a horse just won a 25K open claimer and say the horse is worth 25K. But upon closer look you see it was a 6 horse field made up of 3 horses still eligible for NW3 and a couple others out of form. In this case, the $25,000 field may have been no stronger than a $14,000 field.

[Light]

Bris ultimate pp's do give a numerical race rating of every race denoting the strength of the class.This is individual race quality specific not a general number for a certain class.

Going back to my example on 3/12 8th TP,the 35-1 winner was tied with 2 others for the highest RR in the field (based on the PL's I selected). The second place finisher, (6-1) was also tied for the highest RR in the field. A whopping $417 return for the $2 exacta boxing the 3 highest RR's (class) of the field.

But I don't always agree with Bris RR's . My records show that a 5kb race should be denoted 1 point higher than a 7.5kn2l in RR's although Bris was smarter than the public in giving the 5Kb race the same RR as the current 7.5kn2L race,effectively saying the horse is NOT moving up in class (on a competitive level) which was a big reason for its high odds.

[pondman]

I was not referring to the "placement of the horse" but in terms of evaluating the past fields the horse faced. Its easy to say a horse just won a 25K open claimer and say the horse is worth 25K. But upon closer look you see it was a 6 horse field made up of 3 horses still eligible for NW3 and a couple others out of form. In this case, the $25,000 field may have been no stronger than a $14,000 field.

I think it's important to understand the business side of the class. You'll see expensive horses trying to break their maidens at Hollywood run as a msw28000 at Zia. On paper they don't have the form to be a favorite, and the crowd doesn't bet them, but as a cluster this group performs well (plus there isn't much risk.)

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think this is what you are expressing.

This lends itself to what I want to say. Class shouldn't be quantified across races or tracks. I think most handicappers will agree that as a cluster maidens claimers running for $10,000 at Aqueduct have an advantage over $10,000 maiden claimers running at Finger lakes. But that trail leads to many easy wins (sometimes back to back wins) at good prices because most people quantify past performances and don't jump on the class bandwagon, and instead look at numbers as if there are no unknowns.

[classhandicapper]

Cincy,

IMO Quinn's book is far and away the best book I have ever read on the subject of what "class is" and all the issues facing both speed and class handicappers.

I have one problem with the methodology.

I like some aspects of his methodology a lot, but I think it fails to look at actual fields of horses to determine quality. Instead he tries to incorporate speed figures relative to PAR to determine strong and weak fields. IMO a subjective analysis is superior in some cases. Slow races that turn out to become KEY races are not that uncommon and they are often quite predictable by a pre race analysis of the depth and quality of field.

I consider myself a class handicapper (in case you couldn't tell by the name :lol:). I use pace and speed figures, trips, trainers, bias etc... also. But my use of numbers is more limited to situations where I think they do a better job than I can with a subjective analysis. Typically that's when there are a lot of first time starters and other lightly raced horses (maidens and limited ALW winners), shippers from a circuit I don't know well etc... In those situations I really have no idea what the quality is and the range can be extremely broad. So I trust the numbers to get me in the ballpark.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Cincy,

IMO Quinn's book is far and away the best book I have ever read on the subject of what "class is" and all the issues facing both speed and class handicappers.

I have one problem with the methodology.

I like some aspects of his methodology a lot, but I think it fails to look at actual fields of horses to determine quality. Instead he tries to incorporate speed figures relative to PAR to determine strong and weak fields. IMO a subjective analysis is superior in some cases. Slow races that turn out to become KEY races are not that uncommon and they are often quite predictable by a pre race analysis of the depth and quality of field.

I consider myself a class handicapper (in case you couldn't tell by the name :lol:). I use pace and speed figures, trips, trainers, bias etc... also. But my use of numbers is more limited to situations where I think they do a better job than I can with a subjective analysis. Typically that's when there are a lot of first time starters and other lightly raced horses (maidens and limited ALW winners), shippers from a circuit I don't know well etc... In those situations I really have no idea what the quality is and the range can be extremely broad. So I trust the numbers to get me in the ballpark.

My guess is that Quinn agrees with you too!But when he wrote the book he wanted to come up with a methodology that didn't need to access the PP's of every race in today's PP's.But I agree with everything you said.When luxury affords me the time I like to subjectively rate all the races at the tracks I'm following.I've done it for a long while,started to just to grade races to give myself an idea of what I should and shouldn't bet.But high graded races tended to turn out to be key races later.

From that point I started to notice certain class conditions that gave me fits.This was before I had found Quinn's Handicapper's Condition Book.After I discovered that book and having an Ohio racing background where nearly every race is restricted,I made class profiles for all the restrictions of race conditions,mimicking Quinn.Long story short,I consider myself a class handicapper too,among other things.And that is where Quinn is coming from IMO.Class is a totality of varying factors and in isolation those factors leave out the big picture.I read his stuff repeatedly every winter.He has a great vision into this game.And he deals with the class subject very thoroughly.

[Capper Al]

There is truth in everybody's statements.Quinn covered all sides of it in two chapters from "Class Of The Field",it's worth a read or reread;

Chapter 2-The Conceptual Problem;Defintions

Chapter 3-The Historical Problem:Methods

Excerpt;"The conceptual problem dogging the practice of class handicapping practically from it's onset has been inadequate definition of one kind or another.Polar positions which the leading authorities have staked out have meant that whatever directions class handicappers choose to pursue they are being misled.By subscribing to the more practical positions,handicappers have suffered the consequences of partial definition(Dowst,Pace,Speed,Earnings).By subscribing to the more abstract positions,they have suffered the consequences of global definitions.Partial definitions are not sufficiently accurate.Global definitions are not sufficiently useful.The class of the field therefore is not sufficiently understood.The solution is a definition of class that embraces both the practical and the abstract elements of the concept.At the same time we wish to avoid becoming cumbersome or verbose.That itself is problematic.The practitioner becomes confused".


I don't have a link.But the book is worth the read and is not outdated.In fact,as has been pointed out somewhat,in this world of so many restrictions to race conditions,there are many hidden class advantages.I know in the world of mass handicapping stopping to think about class concepts is not always an option and that is the root of class being so broadly dismissed,in conjunction with reductionist and numerical modes of thought.While class in itself might have broad definitions overall,when looked at in a more specific way,the way say probable pace is looked at,where each race is an individualistic,probably not duplicated twice the same way event,class finds it's foothold.Every field is different.Some have no class distinctions.But usually there are at the very least,subtle but important class distinctions.

I just finished re-reading Class of the Field for the third time hoping to find a way to program his BlueBoy method. I concluded that I needed to find another way, but I do agree with what he is saying. It's just too complex to program.

[Capper Al]

I was not referring to the "placement of the horse" but in terms of evaluating the past fields the horse faced. Its easy to say a horse just won a 25K open claimer and say the horse is worth 25K. But upon closer look you see it was a 6 horse field made up of 3 horses still eligible for NW3 and a couple others out of form. In this case, the $25,000 field may have been no stronger than a $14,000 field.

There's a way to handle this in code or a spreadsheet. It is difficult, but can lead to some nice payoffs.

[Capper Al]

Bris ultimate pp's do give a numerical race rating of every race denoting the strength of the class.This is individual race quality specific not a general number for a certain class.

Going back to my example on 3/12 8th TP,the 35-1 winner was tied with 2 others for the highest RR in the field (based on the PL's I selected). The second place finisher, (6-1) was also tied for the highest RR in the field. A whopping $417 return for the $2 exacta boxing the 3 highest RR's (class) of the field.

But I don't always agree with Bris RR's . My records show that a 5kb race should be denoted 1 point higher than a 7.5kn2l in RR's although Bris was smarter than the public in giving the 5Kb race the same RR as the current 7.5kn2L race,effectively saying the horse is NOT moving up in class (on a competitive level) which was a big reason for its high odds.

Amen about BRIS RR. It works.

[Capper Al]

I think it's important to understand the business side of the class. You'll see expensive horses trying to break their maidens at Hollywood run as a msw28000 at Zia. On paper they don't have the form to be a favorite, and the crowd doesn't bet them, but as a cluster this group performs well (plus there isn't much risk.)

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think this is what you are expressing.

This lends itself to what I want to say. Class shouldn't be quantified across races or tracks. I think most handicappers will agree that as a cluster maidens claimers running for $10,000 at Aqueduct have an advantage over $10,000 maiden claimers running at Finger lakes. But that trail leads to many easy wins (sometimes back to back wins) at good prices because most people quantify past performances and don't jump on the class bandwagon, and instead look at numbers as if there are no unknowns.

Right!

[Capper Al]

My guess is that Quinn agrees with you too!But when he wrote the book he wanted to come up with a methodology that didn't need to access the PP's of every race in today's PP's.But I agree with everything you said.When luxury affords me the time I like to subjectively rate all the races at the tracks I'm following.I've done it for a long while,started to just to grade races to give myself an idea of what I should and shouldn't bet.But high graded races tended to turn out to be key races later.

From that point I started to notice certain class conditions that gave me fits.This was before I had found Quinn's Handicapper's Condition Book.After I discovered that book and having an Ohio racing background where nearly every race is restricted,I made class profiles for all the restrictions of race conditions,mimicking Quinn.Long story short,I consider myself a class handicapper too,among other things.And that is where Quinn is coming from IMO.Class is a totality of varying factors and in isolation those factors leave out the big picture.I read his stuff repeatedly every winter.He has a great vision into this game.And he deals with the class subject very thoroughly.

What can I say? This must be a class handicapper's reunion of which I'm one. Ainslie started me on this path with his Harness book.

[raybo]

I've no doubt that "form" and "class" are the 2 most important, and probably the 2 least understood and/or properly used factors in handicapping.

Both are highly subjective, in nature, and therefore require more user input than the other, more popular, factors., and subsequently, most users are unwilling to put forth a thorough analysis for either.

Trash in, trash out.

[fmolf]

class is the level at which a horse can compete effectively.Nothing more and nothing less.Horses rise and fall up and down the class ladder everyday day at every track in the country.there are many intertwined characteristics that help define current class.....recent speed and pace figures...quality of fields faced bris rr and cr are excellent in regards to strength of field(rr) and whether the horse was competitive in the race(cr)I just wish they gave each race a par rating, so we could easily compare past races of the same class with todays field.I believe trackmaster gives a class rating for each race in the pp's as well as a rating for todays race.

[Dave Schwartz]

Molfie,

I think you nailed it.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:


Dave

[Cratos]

Class is nonparametric and cannot be quantified, but can be determined by the horse’s post-race results.

When metrics (e.g., speedfigures, pacefigures, etc) are used to determined class, they fall apart similar to SATs fall apart in determining the student’s ability to be successful in college.

These metrics might serve the purpose of the conversationist in a post-race debate, but does nothing as determinants.

[raybo]

class is the level at which a horse can compete effectively.

True, but what do you mean by "level"? It would depend on one's definition of class "level", would it not?

I believe Bris' RR rating is an average of all the competitors in that race. Nobody knows what Bris' algorithm for calculating each horse's "class" is, so nobody knows what to average, except Bris. In order for Bris to calculate the RR for today's race they would have to pick a paceline or more than 1 paceline, for each horse, then do the calculation for each horse, then finally, average all those calculations, to get today's projected RR. I doubt that rating would be worth much.

[Capper Al]

class is the level at which a horse can compete effectively.Nothing more and nothing less.Horses rise and fall up and down the class ladder everyday day at every track in the country.there are many intertwined characteristics that help define current class.....recent speed and pace figures...quality of fields faced bris rr and cr are excellent in regards to strength of field(rr) and whether the horse was competitive in the race(cr)I just wish they gave each race a par rating, so we could easily compare past races of the same class with todays field.I believe trackmaster gives a class rating for each race in the pp's as well as a rating for todays race.

Agree. class is the level at which a horse can compete effectively. It may or may not be intrinsic, but it doesn't matter either way to the handicapper. BRIS does a good job with their RR and CR ratings.

[mountainman]

Infirmity and current form make class a very transient and difficult to define concept. The trick is knowing when a horse's slump is temporary-and when the animal has permanently deteriorated. Form fluctuations are usually about soundness-easily the most neglected factor in handicapping.

And what about the trainer angle? Has a mediocre horse that ascends the ladder when switched to some super-trainer suddenly aquired "class?" Or does chemistry get credit for the turnaround? Few handicapping concepts these days can be examined independent of the trainer factor.

[thaskalos]

class is the level at which a horse can compete effectively.Nothing more and nothing less.
Yes...but there is a slight problem, as Raybo already pointed out. What exactly do we mean by "level"?

We say that a horse's class is the $10,000 claiming "level", because that's where the horse competes successfully...but are all $10,000 claiming races the same? Some $10,000 claiming races are won by Beyer figures in the 60's...while some others require a Beyer in the 80s in order to "compete successfully".

The "class" handicapper laughs at the "speed" guys because of their immersion in generalities...without realizing that HE is mired in generalities himself...

[Gallop58]

I think this section of the British Handicapping System Guide makes some interesting parallel comments. To me, in Britain, where there is less emphasis on speed and pace handicapping by the numbers, the general class calculation is more in play.

http://www.britishhorseracing.com/inside_horseracing/about/whatwedo/HandicappingDetailedGuide2.doc
How do Handicappers calculate the merit of the performances?

Every time that a horse runs we try to work out the merit of that performance. We do it by looking at our previous assessments of the opposition. We then make calculations based on the weights that the horses carried and their relative finishing positions in this race.

In Flat races one length is typically reckoned to be worth three pounds in sprint races, two pounds in mile races and one pound in staying races. Over Jumps one pound per length is typical but it might be less in long distance races or on very tiring ground.

As an example, suppose that the winner of a mile race is considered to have run to 90. A horse that finished five lengths behind it at level weights might be considered to have run to 80.

Even the simplest calculations of each performance will take into account the distance of the race, the going, the weight carried, the immaturity of the horses, any apprentice allowances, the distance the horse won by or was beaten by and the quality of the opposition.

In reality, calculations are never even that simple for two reasons.

Firstly, in every race there is a wide variation in the possible level for the ratings. The form of one opponent might suggest that your horse has run to 100, the form of another horse might suggest 80. It all depends on which of the opponents (if any) we believe has reproduced their previous form, which have improved and which have disappointed. Every race throws up a range of possible interpretations.

Secondly, the data from each race is never “clean”. There are so many factors to be taken into account. Horses are slowly away, unsuited by the draw, raced too keenly, hampered or get unbalanced in the race. Things might not have been to the horse’s liking – the going, the track, the distance, the pace of the race and so on.

The job of the Handicapper is to consider all these variables. The skill of the Handicapper is the interpretation of form. To help him he will go through the recordings of every one of his races again and again. The Handicappers maintain a database with every run of every horse, the level of performance decided by the Handicapper together with notes on every race and every performance.

[windoor]

[QUOTE=thaskalos]Yes...but there is a slight problem, as Raybo already pointed out. What exactly do we mean by "level"?

We say that a horse's class is the $10,000 claiming "level", because that's where the horse competes successfully...but are all $10,000 claiming races the same? Some $10,000 claiming races are won by Beyer figures in the 60's...while some others require a Beyer in the 80s in order to "compete successfully".



I agree with this statement, and I know that not all claiming tags are equal across the many tracks that are out there. Conditions set forth by the racing secretary, and the quality of competition of the race in question also must be taken into consideration.

However, I do think you can make a pretty good guess if you make a par number for the average track, then adjust the class number up or down for superior tracks and inferior tracks and "type" of race. Case studies can reveal enough to get you in the ballpark here.

I have been working on a table in Excel, that “attempts” to put a value on class based on the track, “type” of race, and claiming price/purse of the race in question. All done on a Par system for what I consider to be an average track.

I presently have 36 tracks listed. (A work in progress) All of which have 13 designations for the type of race and 26 levels based on claiming price and or purse.

So if a shipper comes into the track I’m handicapping today, I find the track and type of race in the column and then look across the row until I find the claiming price or purse that comes closes to a match. In the cell is a value number (This number has been adjusted on a per track basis) that can be compared to either today’s race level or ranked to others in the race.

There is much work to be done, but I am confident that when I’m finished with it, I will have a pretty good idea were this horse fits today.

As long as present form and or form cycle tells me he/she is ready to fire, I let these numbers tell me if it's a play or no-play.

Regards,

Windoor

[raybo]

I think this section of the British Handicapping System Guide makes some interesting parallel comments. To me, in Britain, where there is less emphasis on speed and pace handicapping by the numbers, the general class calculation is more in play.

http://www.britishhorseracing.com/inside_horseracing/about/whatwedo/HandicappingDetailedGuide2.doc
How do Handicappers calculate the merit of the performances?

Every time that a horse runs we try to work out the merit of that performance. We do it by looking at our previous assessments of the opposition. We then make calculations based on the weights that the horses carried and their relative finishing positions in this race.

In Flat races one length is typically reckoned to be worth three pounds in sprint races, two pounds in mile races and one pound in staying races. Over Jumps one pound per length is typical but it might be less in long distance races or on very tiring ground.

As an example, suppose that the winner of a mile race is considered to have run to 90. A horse that finished five lengths behind it at level weights might be considered to have run to 80.

Even the simplest calculations of each performance will take into account the distance of the race, the going, the weight carried, the immaturity of the horses, any apprentice allowances, the distance the horse won by or was beaten by and the quality of the opposition.

In reality, calculations are never even that simple for two reasons.

Firstly, in every race there is a wide variation in the possible level for the ratings. The form of one opponent might suggest that your horse has run to 100, the form of another horse might suggest 80. It all depends on which of the opponents (if any) we believe has reproduced their previous form, which have improved and which have disappointed. Every race throws up a range of possible interpretations.

Secondly, the data from each race is never “clean”. There are so many factors to be taken into account. Horses are slowly away, unsuited by the draw, raced too keenly, hampered or get unbalanced in the race. Things might not have been to the horse’s liking – the going, the track, the distance, the pace of the race and so on.

The job of the Handicapper is to consider all these variables. The skill of the Handicapper is the interpretation of form. To help him he will go through the recordings of every one of his races again and again. The Handicappers maintain a database with every run of every horse, the level of performance decided by the Handicapper together with notes on every race and every performance.

Great post!!

I think you pretty much covered what the handicapper's real job is.
:ThmbUp:

[Cratos]

[QUOTE=I have been working on a table in Excel, that “attempts” to put a value on class based on the track, “type” of race, and claiming price/purse of the race in question. All done on a Par system for what I consider to be an average track.

I presently have 36 tracks listed. (A work in progress) All of which have 13 designations for the type of race and 26 levels based on claiming price and or purse.

So if a shipper comes into the track I’m handicapping today, I find the track and type of race in the column and then look across the row until I find the claiming price or purse that comes closes to a match. In the cell is a value number (This number has been adjusted on a per track basis) that can be compared to either today’s race level or ranked to others in the race.

There is much work to be done, but I am confident that when I’m finished with it, I will have a pretty good idea were this horse fits today.

As long as present form and or form cycle tells me he/she is ready to fire, I let these numbers tell me if it's a play or no-play.

Regards,

Windoor


From my point of view, you are on the right track and I have done a similar exercise where I took the Purse Value Index (PVI) as listed by the DRF and broke the 82 listed tracks into tiers by PVI.

What I came up with was 5 tiers and in Tier I there are only 11 tracks which consist of the tracks with the highest PVI.

I update the tiers each year as DRF update its PVI chart. Also I look at the number of graded stakes per racetrack and what I found was the number of graded stakes was consistent with the PVI ranking

[thelyingthief]

To me, class is nothing but another way of trying to express a horse's ability. It is just a lot more vague and an easy out when trying to explain results. I don't think it is some inherent trait horses have that they know which others they are better than.


This is so wrong-headed, it hurts to read it.

tlt-

[PaceAdvantage]

This is so wrong-headed, it hurts to read it.

tlt-So easy to take worthless pot shots....so hard to actually contribute something constructive and useful instead..... :rolleyes:

[CincyHorseplayer]

[QUOTE=windoor]


From my point of view, you are on the right track and I have done a similar exercise where I took the Purse Value Index (PVI) as listed by the DRF and broke the 82 listed tracks into tiers by PVI.

What I came up with was 5 tiers and in Tier I there are only 11 tracks which consist of the tracks with the highest PVI.

I update the tiers each year as DRF update its PVI chart. Also I look at the number of graded stakes per racetrack and what I found was the number of graded stakes was consistent with the PVI ranking

When I started to go back in old charts from the beginning of meets to measure which shippers had the most success I ended up with similar PVI brackets,much like claiming price brackets.They are very indicative of likely winners,even ones that seem slightly off form and 2nd tier on speed-pace numbers.

[pondman]

[QUOTE=thaskalos]

So if a shipper comes into the track I’m handicapping today, I find the track and type of race in the column and then look across the row until I find the claiming price or purse that comes closes to a match. In the cell is a value number (This number has been adjusted on a per track basis) that can be compared to either today’s race level or ranked to others in the race.


Windoor:

Of all the members, your reasoning is the closest to mine...So I want to give you a little pointer.

I married into a 3rd generation horse racing families. My inlaws are all shifty eyed trainers and jockeys up and down the West Coast. It wasn't until my wife (she's a little shifty herself) shipped a horse about 15 years ago that I began to master shippers. She created a new stable name. Her uncle passed the horse to an unknown trainer with the instruction "find the worse jockey you can, and tell her to lean foward and hang on." Her horse won at 24-1.

Here is the key:

Placement. You must absolutely understand this business and why a horse is placed in a race. It's vital. On the West Coast (from Southern to Northern California) 72% of the horses bomb on their first race. The remainders run well but not all win. You'll have to also contend with horses ridden by the top jocks (such as Baze or Gryder), which are pushes (at under 4-1.) You can throw them in to protect a pick 6 but you'll break even over time on the nose of most of these. So far this year I've bet Baze on 2 shippers, one paid $12.4 and the other paid $15.8. That's the best it's going to get on Baze. The last shipper I bet at golden gate was Gary Broad's Thunderclad Newman (paid $21.60 on 3/12.) So you've got to be patient, as you've suggested in other posts.

The good news: Shippers are a goldmine!

[cj]

This is so wrong-headed, it hurts to read it.

tlt-

By all means, place me on ignore. I don't want to injure anyone.

[thelyingthief]

So easy to take worthless pot shots....so hard to actually contribute something constructive and useful instead..... :rolleyes:

Are you saying my posts do not contribute? If so, I beg to differ. If, on the other hand, you think this specific post is inappropriate, then say it. Don't generalize, please, it's nonsense.

tlt-

[thelyingthief]

In Flat races one length is typically reckoned to be worth three pounds in sprint races, two pounds in mile races and one pound in staying races. Over Jumps one pound per length is typical but it might be less in long distance races or on very tiring ground.

....

The job of the Handicapper is to consider all these variables. The skill of the Handicapper is the interpretation of form. To help him he will go through the recordings of every one of his races again and again. The Handicappers maintain a database with every run of every horse, the level of performance decided by the Handicapper together with notes on every race and every performance.

Re. the first part of this quote: weight does not serve much purpose in the US because a) the range of the assignments are so compressed; and b) the distances here are limited as to length so only the class quality of brilliance is tested. While it is true that there is a wide spectrum of variation within the distance framework here, these variations test less for characteristics which we associate with "class" than they do quirks of a physical nature. NA racing reflects the socio-political climate, in a way, because here the differences in persons we emphasize largely ignore his quality of character and focus on his raw ability. I speak a fact when I say that a man's ability may possess a qualitative dimension, yet in the US it is not only ignored but suppressed and denied--his i.q. is noted, but not his judgment, for instance--and I think this replicated in the tests our racing applies to the horse. Many of those qualities traditionally associated with a horse's class simply can't be tested in a sprint, especially a dirt sprint, although we do sometimes see animals with blistering pace fall apart when pressured. When this occurs we put blinkers on 'em, if you can imagine! Quinn's "class laughs at pace in classic distances" is proven in European racing over and over again, largely because of the very long distances run there, and the elaboration of the various 'goes' of ground they must negotiate. Stamina and proof of durability and equine athleticism are tested, as well as speed. These are qualities that US racing has reduced to non-factors--much as the class differences among men are eliminated through the reduction of means to express it. In Britain/HK etc., the poundage has, therefore, a far greater importance, which the much broader latitude of assessments capitalizes.


That said, I would address the second part of this quote in a contrarian voice: the British players whose works I have read--those who claim any success at any rate--use a par based speed/final time based approach, even though they admit the difficulty of establishing useful pars. They are less concerned with the poundage factor, except as it is counter-indicative: the tool that measures speed will high-light opportunities underestimated by the crowds, who overlook the ability factor somewhat. Additional factors these writers mention as important, and which they may or may not apply include particularly those for post position and horse-for-course relationships; in NA racing, the tracks are comparatively uniform in dimension and layout, and everything is done to further this uniformity along, whereas those in England and Europe in general vary profoundly, as I have indicated, and they are appreciated for being so. Still, even given the efforts of American racing--and isn't it a metaphor of some wit that it is done in the dirt and mud?--to eliminate the class factor from racing, this only makes class the more important to assess, in my opinion. Class is hard to grasp in six furlongs, and nigh on impossible to detect in two, but it is there, and provides means, again in my opinion, to bring profits speed cannot, by itself, provide.

tlt-

[PaceAdvantage]

Are you saying my posts do not contribute? If so, I beg to differ. If, on the other hand, you think this specific post is inappropriate, then say it. Don't generalize, please, it's nonsense.

tlt-Surely I don't have to explain the obvious to you...yes, I think that particular post was useless. If you're going to criticize someone's opinion as dead-wrong, the least you should do is explain why.

[windoor]

[QUOTE=windoor]

Windoor:

Of all the members, your reasoning is the closest to mine...So I want to give you a little pointer.

I married into a 3rd generation horse racing families. My inlaws are all shifty eyed trainers and jockeys up and down the West Coast. It wasn't until my wife (she's a little shifty herself) shipped a horse about 15 years ago that I began to master shippers. She created a new stable name. Her uncle passed the horse to an unknown trainer with the instruction "find the worse jockey you can, and tell her to lean foward and hang on." Her horse won at 24-1.

Here is the key:

Placement. You must absolutely understand this business and why a horse is placed in a race. It's vital. On the West Coast (from Southern to Northern California) 72% of the horses bomb on their first race. The remainders run well but not all win. You'll have to also contend with horses ridden by the top jocks (such as Baze or Gryder), which are pushes (at under 4-1.) You can throw them in to protect a pick 6 but you'll break even over time on the nose of most of these. So far this year I've bet Baze on 2 shippers, one paid $12.4 and the other paid $15.8. That's the best it's going to get on Baze. The last shipper I bet at golden gate was Gary Broad's Thunderclad Newman (paid $21.60 on 3/12.) So you've got to be patient, as you've suggested in other posts.

The good news: Shippers are a goldmine!

I am very sure that every horse that is entered in a race is not done so because the owner/trainer expects a winning effort. I believe many times the race is used to bring the horse into form or expose the horse to "better" company as to make them more competitive when facing lesser.

I agree, knowing the "Why" the horse is entered is very important, but it can be sometimes very difficult to ascertain.

Here's my take on Class. A bit wordy, as I tend to be :)

I have always considered class in horse racing as a horse that wanted the lead; especially in the stretch run if the Jockey held him back early in the race. Some horses, especially males will “sulk” if not allowed to run. As a herding animal the one with more class wants to lead the others. A lower class animal may not pass an animal with superior class even though he/she has the ability and speed to do so. I have seen this many times on the track and on the farm to know this is true, not just with horses, but also with many animals.

All horses are tiring when coming down the stretch. The horse that feels outclassed will be the first to give up. The horse with the most will never give up. Only current form and ability will keep this horse from winning.

I also believe class is a moving target, as I think some horses can acquire more as they age and get experience. Others can lose it, by loss of ability, be it out of form or from an injury. Again, in the animal kingdom, the young lion will occasionally challenge the leader of the pride for dominance, especially if he senses a weakness in the other.

Even my dog, when he was younger, would try to hump (A sign of dominating) a family member if they did not show dominant behavior towards the dog.

Class and current form for the distance and surface go together. This is one reason why you see a horse “A” get defeated in a race by horse “B”, then return to face “B” again at a different distance, surface, or pace and defeat horse “B” this time.

The other reason could be based on class alone. Horse “A” might very well have felt outclassed by horse “C” or any other horse in the race and quit trying because of it, were horse B had felt no inferiority to that other horse. If that particular horse that bothered horse A is not running in today’s race, horse “A” will runs a better race and wins the re-match.

Humans too. I can beat John who can beat Steve. Though I never competed with Steve, it only seems logical that I can beat Steve. Steve shows me no respect at all, as he has never lost to me before, so when we compete, Steve beats me. Will Steve beat John next time they compete, because his confidence level went up when he beat me, or he learns that I beat John were he previously failed? If all three of us compete at the same time who will win?

If I had the resources I would assign a class value on every horse there is, based on good form, track, distance, surface and level of competition for every race. Then re-evaluate the number every time the horse raced, taking note of current form, distance, surface and which horses defeated him/her and why. A monstrous task.

If all things are equal when it comes to class, then the horse with the best trip, good current form and ability will win. If only it were that simple.

The best any of us can hope to achieve is to be right enough times with the proper average odd to be profitable over time.


Regards,

Windoor

[raybo]

[QUOTE=pondman]

I am very sure that every horse that is entered in a race is not done so because the owner/trainer expects a winning effort. I believe many times the race is used to bring the horse into form or expose the horse to "better" company as to make them more competitive when facing lesser.

I agree, knowing the "Why" the horse is entered is very important, but it can be sometimes very difficult to ascertain.

Here's my take on Class. A bit wordy, as I tend to be :)

I have always considered class in horse racing as a horse that wanted the lead; especially in the stretch run if the Jockey held him back early in the race. Some horses, especially males will “sulk” if not allowed to run. As a herding animal the one with more class wants to lead the others. A lower class animal may not pass an animal with superior class even though he/she has the ability and speed to do so. I have seen this many times on the track and on the farm to know this is true, not just with horses, but also with many animals.

All horses are tiring when coming down the stretch. The horse that feels outclassed will be the first to give up. The horse with the most will never give up. Only current form and ability will keep this horse from winning.

I also believe class is a moving target, as I think some horses can acquire more as they age and get experience. Others can lose it, by loss of ability, be it out of form or from an injury. Again, in the animal kingdom, the young lion will occasionally challenge the leader of the pride for dominance, especially if he senses a weakness in the other.

Even my dog, when he was younger, would try to hump (A sign of dominating) a family member if they did not show dominant behavior towards the dog.

Class and current form for the distance and surface go together. This is one reason why you see a horse “A” get defeated in a race by horse “B”, then return to face “B” again at a different distance, surface, or pace and defeat horse “B” this time.

The other reason could be based on class alone. Horse “A” might very well have felt outclassed by horse “C” or any other horse in the race and quit trying because of it, were horse B had felt no inferiority to that other horse. If that particular horse that bothered horse A is not running in today’s race, horse “A” will runs a better race and wins the re-match.

Humans too. I can beat John who can beat Steve. Though I never competed with Steve, it only seems logical that I can beat Steve. Steve shows me no respect at all, as he has never lost to me before, so when we compete, Steve beats me. Will Steve beat John next time they compete, because his confidence level went up when he beat me, or he learns that I beat John were he previously failed? If all three of us compete at the same time who will win?

If I had the resources I would assign a class value on every horse there is, based on good form, track, distance, surface and level of competition for every race. Then re-evaluate the number every time the horse raced, taking note of current form, distance, surface and which horses defeated him/her and why. A monstrous task.

If all things are equal when it comes to class, then the horse with the best trip, good current form and ability will win. If only it were that simple.

The best any of us can hope to achieve is to be right enough times with the proper average odd to be profitable over time.


Regards,

Windoor

I agree with your explanation of the "herding" instinct in horses. IMO, it is a fact, although it sometimes gets depressed by training, jockey actions, trips, etc.. This herding phenomena is quite evident in some horses, not as evident in others. Much of what is attributed to someone's definition of "class" has nothing to do with inborn, or otherwise attained "dominance" regarding herd instinct, but rather to my definition of class, which is solely pace generated. Whether or not a horse is "dominant", regarding "herd" instinct, if the early pace is too hot for him, or too slow for him, he may not display his "dominance". So, again, IMO, current "class" is not just defined by "herding" instinct, or form, or distance, etc., but also by race shape and pace.

A truly high class horse sets, or, "handles" whatever pace he faces, and is able to go on to win.

[Light]

Take a look at this race. #7, the $24 winner had both aspects of what I talked about. Note his Bris RR is the highest and he is the only "B" horse in a NW3L race.Double advantage in class.He actually stalked and won.Not a wire job.

[windoor]

Take a look at this race. #7, the $24 winner had both aspects of what I talked about. Note his Bris RR is the highest and he is the only "B" horse in a NW3L race.Double advantage in class.He actually stalked and won.Not a wire job.



Nice catch, if you played it.

My first go through picked the 1, 7, and 10 as preliminary contenders. None of those past my second test, so it would have been a passed race for me.

Still, a pretty clear example of a horse with superior class, given the competition, can win even though coming off some terrible races.

Coming from Aqu. (A superior track?) 2nd try at the distance after two failed attempts at sprints, with good early speed in last, along with a drop in company, are all good signs. Can't say I like the finish positions much in recent races. Maybe just outclassed at Aqu?

Much easier to see with hindsight though :)

Regards,

Windoor

[classhandicapper]

Class is nonparametric and cannot be quantified, but can be determined by the horse’s post-race results.

When metrics (e.g., speedfigures, pacefigures, etc) are used to determined class, they fall apart similar to SATs fall apart in determining the student’s ability to be successful in college.

These metrics might serve the purpose of the conversationist in a post-race debate, but does nothing as determinants.

IMO there's no question that cheap horses that run very fast fractions and final times against weak opposition often collapse against superior opposition in a very predictable fashion.

IMO the intensity of between call challenges, the accleration and stamina of the horses at various points of call, their competitiveness etc... tend to be of a higher grade as you move up the ladder. The cheaper horses can't sustain the challenge because it saps them of their lower reserve levels that weren't exposed against cheaper.

It's like you siad. It's not until horses run against each other and sort each other out that you can tell what they have in reserve (their real class) and how good they actually are.

Of course it's also complicted by changing form, injury etc..., but in general pace and speed figures alone do not accurately measure class/ability. They are an estimate of how fast a horse ran under specific conditions and against specific opponents.

I liken it to other professional sports.

A guy that bats .350 in AAA baseball is not likely to bat .350 against professional level pitching and defense. He may eventually develop into a .350 pro and he may be better than a guy batting .250 in the pros now, but he's not a .350 hitter now.

A horse that runs a 100 Beyer against 35K claimers is typically not going to be able to run 100 Beyer against Grade 1 horses because at some point he's going to be challenged or asked to keep up with better horses. That challenge is likely to be way tougher than what he faced for 35k. He may eventually develop into a better horse, but he's not the equal of a horse running 100 against much better horses.

[RXB]

Class is nonparametric and cannot be quantified, but can be determined by the horse’s post-race results.

When metrics (e.g., speedfigures, pacefigures, etc) are used to determined class, they fall apart similar to SATs fall apart in determining the student’s ability to be successful in college.

These metrics might serve the purpose of the conversationist in a post-race debate, but does nothing as determinants.

Five months ago, you didn't even know that the penultimate call is at the 1/8th pole for all races. Hard to imagine that you'd be the credible source regarding what speed and pace figures can or can't do, unless there's been one mighty upwards swoop of the learning curve.

[llegend39]

Take a look at this race. #7, the $24 winner had both aspects of what I talked about. Note his Bris RR is the highest and he is the only "B" horse in a NW3L race.Double advantage in class.He actually stalked and won.Not a wire job.


He was also one of my favorite Tom Worth Tips-Owner-Trainer and never so low(lowest level shown in the pp's)

[Capper Al]

IMO there's no question that cheap horses that run very fast fractions and final times against weak opposition often collapse against superior opposition in a very predictable fashion.

IMO the intensity of between call challenges, the accleration and stamina of the horses at various points of call, their competitiveness etc... tend to be of a higher grade as you move up the ladder. The cheaper horses can't sustain the challenge because it saps them of their lower reserve levels that weren't exposed against cheaper.

It's like you siad. It's not until horses run against each other and sort each other out that you can tell what they have in reserve (their real class) and how good they actually are.

Of course it's also complicted by changing form, injury etc..., but in general pace and speed figures alone do not accurately measure class/ability. They are an estimate of how fast a horse ran under specific conditions and against specific opponents.

I liken it to other professional sports.

A guy that bats .350 in AAA baseball is not likely to bat .350 against professional level pitching and defense. He may eventually develop into a .350 pro and he may be better than a guy batting .250 in the pros now, but he's not a .350 hitter now.

A horse that runs a 100 Beyer against 35K claimers is typically not going to be able to run 100 Beyer against Grade 1 horses because at some point he's going to be challenged or asked to keep up with better horses. That challenge is likely to be way tougher than what he faced for 35k. He may eventually develop into a better horse, but he's not the equal of a horse running 100 against much better horses.

Good Stuff. It is now official. The board has determined that it is all about class.

[raybo]

Good Stuff. It is now official. The board has determined that it is all about class.

Well, basically, it is. But, only if your definition of class makes it so. My definition has nothing to do with man made class levels. The ability to set or handle the early pace (including races within races as the horses contend against each other at various stages of the race), and have enough left in the tank to be there at the finish line, pretty much sums up class for me..

So, although pace figures (or adjusted fractional times, or fractional velocities), and speed figures (or adjusted final times or total/average/median velocities,etc.), in isolation, don't tell the whole story, when combined and analyzed, along with form cycle analysis and running styles/pace pressure, they can accurately measure a horse's ability.

[Capper Al]

Well, basically, it is. But, only if your definition of class makes it so. My definition has nothing to do with man made class levels. The ability to set or handle the early pace (including races within races as the horses contend against each other at various stages of the race), and have enough left in the tank to be there at the finish line, pretty much sums up class for me..

So, although pace figures (or adjusted fractional times, or fractional velocities), and speed figures (or adjusted final times or total/average/median velocities,etc.), in isolation, don't tell the whole story, when combined and analyzed, along with form cycle analysis and running styles/pace pressure, they can accurately measure a horse's ability.

It's all man made if it's speed figures or pace or class levels. The speed, pace, or angle (such as a race within a race) are all extrapolations for what happened. The most certain and measurable fact still remains how the horse ran verse others in the race itself.

[shouldacoulda]

When I started playing again after a long hiatus a few years ago I was always primarily a speed handicapper. Needless to say I lost my a$$, hence the long hiatus. Knowing I was "missing something" I would pour over my losing races and look at the horses that beat me and more times than not class history was the difference.

I found this forum (thank God) and heard about James Quinns book the handicappers condition book. It forever changed my outlook on handicapping. While I have found class history important it is not the end all be all either. IMO a horse that drops in class needs to have been somewhat competitive at those higher levels. Same thing with horses that get raised a couple of levels for a race or two and drop back down. The big factor for me is did he / she rise to the level of the better competition? For me it's class, speed and pace and shape of the race. Then connections and odds and post parade. I can't mechanically handicap anymore for it hasn't worked for me (ever) long term and there are too many variables involved in a race. I'm not saying anyone is wrong with their methodology, I'm just saying what works best for me.

But then there is no substitute for dumb luck either like a few weeks ago when I hit a small superfecta. I played it on the wrong track. :lol: