Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesal57
CINCY...
Off the top of my head....and not looking at your approach
Your right on this giving an ability rating ...but its not giving the early horses ability once you add speed fig and divide by 3...
Why I say...cause horses are creatures of habit...
they will run where they are comfortable and in a position where they win from...also, most important....they will win when the fractions are in their favor.
Too fast , they lose...slow...they win..
I'm trying to figure out how to compare winning situations compared to losing situations using E1 + E2...
Maybe theres not a way but maybe someone can help
Mike
|
Do you remember the "turn-time" concept, that was talked about so much some 20 years ago by some of the "expert" handicapping authors? In case you don't...let me give you a short synopsis:
The fundamental question in pace handicapping is how to compare the horses in a given race when they have differing running styles. Early-speed ratings give a big edge to front-runners, and late-speed ratings give a big edge to closers...and comparing these two running styles remained a mystery that the final-time figures could not really solve. Well...a couple of smart guys decided that the SECOND fraction in a sprint is the one single fraction that could be used to compare these two differing running styles...because BOTH of these types of horses are asked to do some serious running during this portion of a sprint race. The front-runners run strongly during the second fraction of a sprint in order to increase their positional advantage over the rest of the field...whereas the closers run strongly during that part of the sprint so they can get closer to the pace-setters, in order to put their closing kick into effective use. Using the second fraction seemed to be a clever device with which to compare front-runners and closers in a sprint race...and this portion of the race was called "turn-time"...and was the topic of much investigation some years ago. Dick Mitchell also came up with the idea of adding the individual horse's "turn-time" to its half-mile clocking...thus creating the "ability rating" that CincyHorseplayer referenced above.
Why don't you see how Mitchell's "ability time" concept would do in the framework of your own research? You could even try adding the horse's final-time figure to its "ability time"...for a more comprehensive "performance-rating", so to speak.
