GP Race 3
 

CJ, in race 3 the #1’s last race, on Timeformus pp’s the pace figures looked off to me considering the official fractions, so I pulled up the chart and compared the official to the adjusted fractions. The final times of both sets of fractions are similar but the 2nd and 3rd quarters are drastically different. I know the adjusted fractions represent the pace figures assigned, but what caused the 2nd and 3rd quarters to be adjusted so drastically?

Thank You

Adjusted fractions are not meant to be compared to official fractions, only to other adjusted fractions. They are adjusted track to track, distance to distance, even surface to surface, and also adjust for the speed of the track. Comparing to the raw fractions serves no purpose.

The official fractions have the race slowing down. The pace figures of the leader from the 3/4 home are 91-88 while losing 6 lengths. Official fractions have the pace leader closing in 27 seconds, a slow time but the pace figures reflect something else. Just wondering what causes these changes?

Thanks

I don't have the specifics for that day in front of me, but dirt races almost always slow down. It is very possible, for example, that a 22, 45, 1:10 would all be rated the same at some tracks even though the incremental shows a deceleration. The pace figures are based on the norm for the track and distance and surface.

This is the baseline for a mile on dirt at GP based on 1920 races...

So the incremental fractions look like this:

All of those would have the same rating even though they are "slowing down" as you say. They are slowing at the expected rate.

When they slow less fast, the figs would rise as the race went on even if the horses are technically slowing down.

There is also a pace variant involved which open up a whole different can of worms. Looking at those figures I would guess horses were going faster on the backstretch and slower in the stretch than normal, so the ratings are adjusted to reflect that. Something as simple as a moderate wind can cause that to happen. So can things like the sun shining on one side of the track and the other side being in the shadow of the grandstand.

There is a lot too it, but I try to take that all into account when making figures. Isn't that the whole point of displaying time as speed and pace figures, to make comparisons easier?

I am poor at explaining myself even after making figures for 30 years.lol
At first I thought you were might be using the winner’s pace line, but he sat just off the pace. I was comparing the race fractions to the pace figures is all. To me the pace leaders lack of any great deceleration through the final quarter when looking at the pace figures made no sense when he came home in 27.

I like that you’re methodology is different. Just trying to understand it a bit better. If I am asking anything you wish not to share, please say so.

Thank You

No, you are fine, if I don't want to answer I won't.

I think in this case you have to look at the other races on the day as well. I'll try to dig it up later, but don't have time right now. But I think all the races were coming home slower than normal, so an adjustment was made.

I do, by the way, use the winner's running line to make the pace variants.

I could tell you use other than the leader to make pace variants. Perhaps that day was very windy, which can explain the fast early/ slow late fractions. Didn’t check the entire day, should have first.

Thanks

What would happen with the variants if a race ended in a dead heat? Suppose one of the winners was leading and the other was 8 lengths behind at the pace call and the pace almost, or it could be argued, did collapse. Or as would happen much more often, the first and second place horses are many lengths apart at the pace call but only by a small fraction of a length at the finish?

I don't want to get into this too deep. The winner is the biggest part, but I use other horses too. It is weighted. The better the finish, the more it counts.

Dead heats are easy, just add the weighting for the positions of the dead heat and divide them up by the number of horses involved. If I ever get a four horse dead heat my program will probably blow up, only have it programmed for 2 or 3.

:faint: The distance is about 7 1/2 f, the fractions and run up are not correct either. All 13 were first time starters. Good Luck.

Thanks for the explanation.

Shut up and bet!

Breaking news of a small explosion in Oklahoma.