Comparing Different Tracks
 

Just want some opinions on the best way to compare how fast one track is to another. Would you just look at final times or would you factor in other variables?

Well, have to consider the class of horses too as I'm sure you know.

There are also things like how many turns are involved, and how tight or sweeping they are. Run up matters a lot too. Pimlico can be faster than Churchill but you'd never know it by looking at the 6f race times.

Not sure how accurate this is but it might be close.

https://www.americanturf.com/equaliz...fm?showchart=1

I agree here, too many other factors involved. Even if you could equalize the times, the class factor is involved. A horse that is running for $5000 claiming with a 8000 purse at track A is not the same kind of horse as a horse running for $5000 claiming at track B with a $23000 purse.

Compare track variants.

that's a great answer.
it's also true,....but it must assume that all tracks are equally fast, and that is not the case.
how do you overcome that?
can you expand?

I can expand somewhat. My track variants incorporate everything one associates with variants (via par system).
I then convert variants to time and 'proportionately' adjust pace. Basically all factors used to create the variants are accounted for and you're left with nothing but 'speed in track'. If your variants account for turns and track configuration, then they are already accounted for as well.
I like to compare variants along the pace times as well as finals because it helps to ensure no timing errors have gotten by me and tainted the data. Variants are in play at all stages of the race and kind of add-up to the final variant value.Don't think I can expand anymore without getting into creating the variants. I use a universal par system that accounts for everything.In theory, a self-establishing race field par system should be the best system but I've never been able to get that to be true. Probably just me.

so if you are just measuring horse speed and not track then that is going to insinuate that .......

a track that averages variants of maybe 20, would be 10 weaker than one that averages 10, insofar as the standard of horse running on it?

i am not really asking you to expand as such, as i can already do it myself.
i was just wondering if you have found a way to equalise tracks in a non subjective manner.
i don't know anybody that can do that,.....well apart from me!
thus your comment piqued my interest.

of course it is very fluid, as things never stay the same.

and i see you mention universal pars.......we would go separate ways here.
i don't believe in them, although a simple formula could get you the starting point to figure track equalising, and i guess you could call them universal.

are the horses weaker or is it a track with a slower surface?

well if you do it properly, you have equalised tracks(not perfect as nothing in racing is perfect, but close) , and what you have left is horse.
of course it is very fluid though, as things never stay the same.

as a rough idea, if you knew for certain that the standard of horse at track 'a' was identical to track 'b' then any difference in the variant, must be track.
mustn't it?
and the opposite applies, if the tracks are identical but the variant differs, then the horses are weaker(or stronger) on average.

the problem is how to do the equalising, and i am confident i can.

in usa, apparently the tracks generally don't have the huge variation in topography and layout that other countries like england and aust have, thus it would probably be easier to figue in usa than those other places.

I'm sure many people can.

i would be positive that very few people can do that.

it's unlikely that knowing the difference between belmont in usa and belmont in australia is going to win you any money.

places that are fairly close together so that they regularly ship, but are different standard, people would more than likely know instinctively anyway, even if not as accurately.

but there are other reasons that makes it important to understand that difference, especially where there is much movement between them.
if there is no movement, then it matters not at all if one knows or not.

I am getting ready for Keeneland this spring. Trying to understand the difference between Fairgrounds, Ellis, Turfway, Gulfstream and a few others is what my project is right now. Some really good ideas hee, keep them coming.

I will go even further and say there are people that can measure a horse's action, max burst and stamina, and can project how a horse will likely fare on a new/different surface. My first encounter with this was the 1993 Breeders' Cup Sprint at Santa Anita, when BIRDNTHEWIRE shipped from the east coast as the favorite (or heavy co-fav). While his speed figures dominated, one could determine he did not have the action to take advantage of the speed surface at Santa Anita. He finished 11th with Mike Smith.
I'm no genius, and if I could start doing this back in the day of Windows 3.1 ..... then there are many people doing it today.
Burst and stamina are subject to fatigue via track surface/distance/pace, naturally, but also drugs used.

I think the professor gave a very good answer to the initial question. There is only comment...... usually the proportionate adjustment to pace will work well, but when there are strong winds that type of adjustment can be quite inaccurate. Therefore, establishing pace pars can be as or more important than final time/speed pars. When you see race after race go 23 1/5 47 2/5 112 there was likely a significant head wind on the backstretch.