Variant Making, final time vs using pace also

[cj]

A little late on this but I've been meaning to post about it. The Breeder's Cup Saturday card was as good an example as you will ever find of the benefits of doing variants by including the effects of pace. There were three routes on dirt, the Dirt Mile, the Juvenile, and the Classic.

The problem is two of the three were run with extreme pace scenarios and that made the final time slow, while the Classic was run with an even pace. The result would look something like this on the Beyer scale:

Race Speed Project Variant
D Mile 119 101 18 Fast
Juvenile 94 94 0
Classic 131 110 21 Fast

If it were me, I would eliminate the Juvenile because it was obviously a very fast pace and use the 18 Fast, kind of a middle ground. Beyer sort of did this, though for some reason he projected both the D Mile and Classic winners to run substantial lifetime tops as older horses. That is a different argument for a different day.

Race Beyer MyBeyer
D Mile 104 101
Juvenile 82 76
Classic 117 113


He also gave the Juvenile two "bonus" points for some reason, but also another argument for another day.

Here is how the races would look with pace figures and using the combination of pace and speed into one Performance Figure (PF) to make variants:

Race Pace Speed PF Project Variant
D Mile 110 119 122 101 21 Fast
Juvenile 123 94 102 94 12 Fast
Classic 133 131 131 110 21 Fast


Notice the gap has narrowed considerably with the Juvenile. However, I would still eliminate it and use the 21 Fast, which is three more points than the speed figure only method. Three points might not seem like much, but that is something that can easily determine whether we bet on or against a horse. Using the 21 Fast, this is how the PF of the winner's looks next to the other figures:


Race Beyer MySpeed PF
D Mile 104 98 101
Juvenile 82 73 81
Classic 117 110 110


I think Beyer overestimated the Classic for two reasons.

First, his projections were too high. Fort Larned is given a 7 point lifetime top, Mucho Macho Man an 8 point lifetime top, and Tapizar in the Dirt Mile a three point lifetime top.

Second, the final time of the Dirt Mile and the Juvenile were slower because of pace scenarios, not actual track speed. Those using final time only will factor this into the speed of the track calculations and overrate those races run with an even pace, like the Classic.

[EJXD2]

Interesting stuff, Craig.

As for Brisnet.com's speed ratings, Fort Larned paired his lifetime best in the Classic (and ThoroGraph saw it this way as well), yet Beyer has him as running a seven-point top.

Both can't be right.

[raybo]

I freely admit that I don't know much about what has been stated in this thread. However, I do know that Fort Larned, in the Classic, had close to a full foot per second advantage in my total velocity ratings.

Avg FV & IV Rankings
54.92 4 - Fort Larned
54.07 12 - To Honor And Serve
54.05 2 - Flat Out
53.72 11 - Mucho Macho Man
53.63 10 - Ron The Greek
53.62 8 - Nonios

Note the absence of Game On Dude.

[maddog42]

I think Beyer overestimated the Classic for two reasons.

First, his projections were too high. Fort Larned is given a 7 point lifetime top, Mucho Macho Man an 8 point lifetime top, and Tapizar in the Dirt Mile a three point lifetime top.




When I have tried my hand at projecting speed figures, I haven't exactly been successful. That's why I usually use a par time, and figure points above (or below)par.
7 and 8 point lifetime tops certainly does sound excessive.

[classhandicapper]

Great discussion on one of the biggest advantages to making pace figures. It helps you get your speed figures right! :ThmbUp:

[cj]

I freely admit that I don't know much about what has been stated in this thread. However, I do know that Fort Larned, in the Classic, had close to a full foot per second advantage in my total velocity ratings.


I certainly wasn't debating that he was best in the Classic.

[Robert Goren]

If you have the best of the best facing other you will often get out of sync numbers. That is why I always take numbers earned on breeders cup day with a grain of salt. There are other types of races that should give figure maker fits too. Starter Handicaps for older horses is a prime example. At they did me when I tried to make my own numbers.

[raybo]

I certainly wasn't debating that he was best in the Classic.

Nor did I think that you were doing that. I respect your figures as I've read hundreds of your posts over the years and decided long ago that you knew what you were doing. What you do just further validates my mistrust of the accuracy of the figures most players use. Since I don't know how to create accurate figures, I have opted to go a different direction to accomplish the same thing, smart bets.

If I were a figure user, and was allowed to become one of your members/users, you can bet yours would be the ones I would be using.

[raybo]

If you have the best of the best facing other you will often get out of sync numbers. That is why I always take numbers earned on breeders cup day with a grain of salt. There are other types of races that should give figure maker fits too. Starter Handicaps for older horses is a prime example. At they did me when I tried to make my own numbers.

You're so right, at least in my opinion! Different grades of races, different age requirements, different distances, surfaces, and tracks, require different approaches.

[PhantomOnTour]

CJ - i am interested in your take on the Beyers given to the Damascus Stks winner (on the Sat undercard) and the F&M Sprint winner. They were run about an hour apart, had pace time (half mile) difference of 0.30 secs and final time difference of 0.14 secs but the Beyer figs were 108 for the F&M Sprint and 99 for the Damascus.
Both races were run at 7f

[cj]

CJ - i am interested in your take on the Beyers given to the Damascus Stks winner (on the Sat undercard) and the F&M Sprint winner. They were run about an hour apart, had pace time (half mile) difference of 0.30 secs and final time difference of 0.14 secs but the Beyer figs were 108 for the F&M Sprint and 99 for the Damascus.
Both races were run at 7f

The Damascus was a very tough call. I sided with using the same variants as I did for the other races on the card, but I can also see the Beyer side in this particular instance because, if I remember correctly, that gives the entire field a new or near new top.

I won't be surprised a bit if I have to revise that number, but I tend to be more aggressive in these spots.

[CincyHorseplayer]

The Damascus was a very tough call. I sided with using the same variants as I did for the other races on the card, but I can also see the Beyer side in this particular instance because, if I remember correctly, that gives the entire field a new or near new top.

I won't be surprised a bit if I have to revise that number, but I tend to be more aggressive in these spots.

CJ looking at the 2nd place finisher in the Damascus,coming into that race had a huge pace figure to set up a fast pace and if I remember right the winner was only making a 2nd start in a sprint after many routes.IMO both had room to improve.Looking back at that day that was probably the easiest $40 exacta,glad I decided to eat lunch right then!

[Robert Fischer]

I had Fort Larned(and probably Mucho Macho Man*) running the best race of his life.

*i don't feel like going through MMMs races.

That doesn't mean that the figure is ever going to be repeated, or that it is transferable to other conditions.

That day and those conditions, he(and MMM*) ran as well as you can run.

There's only so much you can penalize for the track when horses run away from the group and don't weaken significantly(within the scope of the race, not whether there last furlong was slower than the penultimate etc...). These type of races are basically a unique event and are easily distorted.

You can throw the race out when handicapping. You could throw it out when figuremaking(but usually that isn't popular), you could say the horse ran his lifetime top+ (100+ or whatever).

I haven't rewatched the classic a million times but I know the winners ran their best race and they couldn't have done much better.

I think this is why some handicappers are saying that(in hindsight) Wise Dan had an easier spot in the Mile. There wasn't a lot of room for improvement in the classic.

[bisket]

beyers haven't been all that good of a tool if you're comparing figures earned in california to figures earned in new york. they are just as accurate as ever for races between runners that have raced together at each respective track. i actually don't trust figures earned in california at any other location either. as a matter of fact i have found them to be low compared to races in other states. i noticed a difference this past summer. for some reason some races in california started to get higher figs than he would normally alot. i'm guessing he changed something in his projections....?