Originally Posted by wiretowire68 (Post 2933113)

I am pretty new at making pace ratings. I was following Dave Schwartz simple example, I do understand FPS, my question in terms of distances and the math in terms of the furlongs when doing Pace Ratings when the distances change, I understand 6F, however, at 6 1/2 is it 2F 1st fraction and still 4F as the EP. My

My general question is does it change at 7F, 1M, etc. ie. 7F/2F=1st Rating 2nd Rating 7F/4F or does it change? and How about the Late Fraction? help or breakdown would be appreciated?

Originally Posted by wiretowire68 (Post 2933179)

Appreciate and thank you very much Dave. Took a break for a couple of weeks off my work. Also, have been doing some old style handicapping with just reading and gut. I was bored today and started fiddling again. P.S. How is the new software coming. As always, just like Mr. Pizzzolla, a gentlemen that teaches..


Thanks

Originally Posted by wiretowire68 (Post 2933113)

I am pretty new at making pace ratings. I was following Dave Schwartz simple example, I do understand FPS, my question in terms of distances and the math in terms of the furlongs when doing Pace Ratings when the distances change, I understand 6F, however, at 6 1/2 is it 2F 1st fraction and still 4F as the EP. My

My general question is does it change at 7F, 1M, etc. ie. 7F/2F=1st Rating 2nd Rating 7F/4F or does it change? and How about the Late Fraction? help or breakdown would be appreciated?

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz (Post 2933145)

PS: One more thing... The most revolutionary and best way to create pace ratings originated within the confines of well-known genius, Jim Cramer of HDW.

His approach is to take the fractional times and extrapolate them out as if they were final times and award them the speed rating they would earn.


HUH?
________________________
Imagine you have a track where the 6f FT par (for $10k claimers) is 1:10.00 - i.e. 70.00 seconds.

You look at the 1st fraction and you see a time of 22:00.

Since the F1 Distance = 2f, and the entire race is 6f, then if the horse continued to run at the same pace for an entire race, he'd finish in 66.00 seconds.

So, you compute the F1 rating just as you would a FT of 66.00.

Let's assume that you are using a simple 1 pt = 1 len approach.

Thus, the 22:00 multiplies to 66.00, which is 4.00 seconds fast. Translating that to lengths (at 5 lens per second) you'd get 20 lengths fast.

Thus, the F1 would rate a 120.

Feel free to use more esoteric lengths per second, or change them per distance, or whatever else you have.

The 2nd call would, of course, have different multipliers.

Originally Posted by denniswilliams (Post 2934180)

Dave


I image that he's tested this against using par fractional times? How would it compare?

Originally Posted by Saratoga (Post 2933245)

I commend you on doing things like this on your own....

But eventually you will get tired of it.....we all did

Originally Posted by cj (Post 2934185)

One thing regarding Dave's comments below. I actually make pace figures the way he says for TimeformUS, treating each fraction like it's own race within a race.

If I had it to do over again, and maybe someday I will, I'd take the final time value of time each race's distance and surface use it for all pace figures in the race. I think it works better. I could write a few pages on this, but the to keep it short I'll say the reasoning is mostly because horses aren't racing to points of call. They are racing to the wire.

Originally Posted by cj (Post 2934185)

One thing regarding Dave's comments below. I actually make pace figures the way he says for TimeformUS, treating each fraction like it's own race within a race.

If I had it to do over again, and maybe someday I will, I'd take the final time value of time each race's distance and surface use it for all pace figures in the race. I think it works better. I could write a few pages on this, but the to keep it short I'll say the reasoning is mostly because horses aren't racing to points of call. They are racing to the wire.