|
I like the idea of using Class PARs (where available) as a quality check against projections. I think it helps with quality control because the classing system is generally efficient. So if some figure is WAY out of line with the Class PAR, it's a red flag to at least take a better look at the race and make sure the figure makes sense. Granted, there are so many whacky classes it's hard to have a lot of good PARs, but the idea here is just to use them when available as a double check.
Also, Pars help prevent figure drift in case you have any small biases in your methodology or thinking that would cause your figures to slowly shrink or rise when they shouldn't be.
Some might argue that using PARs prevents you from drifting faster or slower if the horses are actually getting faster or slower over time, but I wouldn't worry much about that. With all the drugs (legal and legal), changes in care, changes in surfaces etc... it's close to impossible to compare horses from different time periods on figures anyway.
If I were to make my own figures again, it could only be for 1 track (maybe 2) because I'd incorporate Class Pars, run ups, some element of ground loss, my own bias notes, my own trip notes, and my own pace figures to make the projections. That's a huge job. It would have to be limited.
I think wind is a significant element to this, but I would only incorporate it when I had hard evidence of wind direction and force. Even then, I wouldn't use a formula. It would just be part of thinking if I also noticed that the fractional relationships looked way different than usual. I would then project the impact based on the results.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
Last edited by classhandicapper; 02-24-2015 at 03:37 PM.
|
