DISTANCE BETWEEN WINNER & PLACE HORSE

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Tom

Time only matters if you are in jail.

That quote goes back to the days long before we had modern speed figures and no longer applies.

[Tom]

It does at Gulfstream.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I was explaining WHY the theory is wrong even though we already know from the data that the theory is wrong.

For the record, I don't have a better way of measuring these things using time.

I think what typically happens is that speed figure makers eventually move away from using the clock because of all the problems and start making performance figures instead by changing the value of beaten lengths, changing the value of a 1/5th of a second, breaking races out because of extreme paces, breaking figures out on the assumption the speed of the track changed because a figure doesn't make sense, etc..

I have no problem with that because the goal is to produce figures that reflect how good these horses are. I would just say they aren't speed figures.

i can't speak for others, but my numbers are simply based on times, nothing else.
using the same basics for 35 years plus, just that the same things have evolved over that time frame.
there are NO constants involved, they all figure themselves.


pace and the rest of it does not nullify my times figure, those things just explain why they are what they are.
i'm certainly not figure blind.



i don't and have never believed you can encompass a run in one single number....well i do actually but it's somewhere between 0 and 1 and is just my opinion of probability.
others may be able to but not me.



thus there will be other numbers handling pace and all the other factors that i can account for non-subjectively.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by steveb

i can't speak for others, but my numbers are simply based on times, nothing else.
using the same basics for 35 years plus, just that the same things have evolved over that time frame.
there are NO constants involved, they all figure themselves.


pace and the rest of it does not nullify my times figure, those things just explain why they are what they are.
i'm certainly not figure blind.



i don't and have never believed you can encompass a run in one single number....well i do actually but it's somewhere between 0 and 1 and is just my opinion of probability.
others may be able to but not me.



thus there will be other numbers handling pace and all the other factors that i can account for non-subjectively.

Do you mean you don't adjust the raw times for a variant?

I guess you can get away with that in Australia if the grass surfaces are pretty uniform from track to track and day to day. Even then, the track speed can change dramatically after it rains. With US dirt tracks in particular, where each track has its own composition and there is an army of maintenance equipment working on the tracks several times daily the track speed can vary from tremendously from track to track, day to day and even race to race.
Before the advent of modern speed figures incorporating a track variant, unadjusted times were nearly useless. That's when the expression that "time is only important if you're in jail" came about, and without variants, then it was.

[cj]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Do you mean you don't adjust the raw times for a variant?

I guess you can get away with that in Australia if the grass surfaces are pretty uniform from track to track and day to day. Even then, the track speed can change dramatically after it rains. With US dirt tracks in particular, where each track has its own composition and there is an army of maintenance equipment working on the tracks several times daily the track speed can vary from tremendously from track to track, day to day and even race to race.
Before the advent of modern speed figures incorporating a track variant, unadjusted times were nearly useless. That's when the expression that "time is only important if you're in jail" came about, and without variants, then it was.

I don't think that is what he means, but we'll see what Steve says. The grass surfaces in Australia are probably more varied than here IMO.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Do you mean you don't adjust the raw times for a variant?

I guess you can get away with that in Australia if the grass surfaces are pretty uniform from track to track and day to day. Even then, the track speed can change dramatically after it rains. With US dirt tracks in particular, where each track has its own composition and there is an army of maintenance equipment working on the tracks several times daily the track speed can vary from tremendously from track to track, day to day and even race to race.
Before the advent of modern speed figures incorporating a track variant, unadjusted times were nearly useless. That's when the expression that "time is only important if you're in jail" came about, and without variants, then it was.

the 'variant' is just part of the process for me, it's simply what is left over after the calcs are done.
basically it's just the difference between expected and what you got.
that's the simplified version.



your post though is a good example of why it's not smart to assume.
that's not aimed at you be the way, just a general observation from reading fora such as this,

[steveb]

Originally Posted by cj

I don't think that is what he means, but we'll see what Steve says. The grass surfaces in Australia are probably more varied than here IMO.

although most of my gambling life was on australian racing, i have not bet there since before the new millenium.
won't even have a go at the melbourne cup today.
you are correct though, in that they are very very variable, but it's just the same basic process wherever i have done it.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by steveb

the 'variant' is just part of the process for me, it's simply what is left over after the calcs are done.
basically it's just the difference between expected and what you got.
that's the simplified version.



your post though is a good example of why it's not smart to assume.
that's not aimed at you be the way, just a general observation from reading fora such as this,

Glad to hear that you do include a variant.

BTW, I had started to say assume but changed it to guess for the reason stated earlier and I would only have guessed it IF you were to were using unadjusted times.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Glad to hear that you do include a variant.

BTW, I had started to say assume but changed it to guess for the reason stated earlier and I would only have guessed it IF you were to were using unadjusted times.

pedantic i know, but i never adjust times.


just say i expected an 80(which in reality is 98%) for this race over 1200m(~6f)


time of race was 70s, the standard(the time that equals 100) is 67s
then 67/70= 95.7%
thus i expected an 80 and got a 57, so in this case i am 23 points slow which would be your variant.
do that for every race on the card,and if things are normal, then the average difference expected/actual is your variant.
of course it is much more detailed than that, it's just the simplified version.
not an adjusted time in sight.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by steveb

pedantic i know, but i never adjust times.


just say i expected an 80(which in reality is 98%) for this race over 1200m(~6f)


time of race was 70s, the standard(the time that equals 100) is 67s
then 67/70= 95.7%
thus i expected an 80 and got a 57, so in this case i am 23 points slow which would be your variant.
do that for every race on the card,and if things are normal, then the average difference expected/actual is your variant.
of course it is much more detailed than that, it's just the simplified version.
not an adjusted time in sight.

Got it. Your not adjustinting the actual time but the rating you derive from the time with a variant. I think the confusion stemmed from the fact that here in the U.S. when one says that they use unadjusted times, they mean they just go with the unadjusted rating from the time. Believe it or not, one of the posters here claims that's how he handicaps but I was incredulous that you would do that as you appear to be sane. Notice I said "appear" and not assume.

They say that Americans and the English are 2 countries separated by a common language. I guess it applies to you Aussies too.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by cj

I don't think that is what he means, but we'll see what Steve says. The grass surfaces in Australia are probably more varied than here IMO.

We got that straightened out. I would agree that the grass surfaces in Australia are likely more varied than here, which is why I was so surprised when I thought he was saying he makes no adjustment for variants. He does, but not with the time but with the final rating.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by steveb

although most of my gambling life was on australian racing, i have not bet there since before the new millenium.
won't even have a go at the melbourne cup today.
you are correct though, in that they are very very variable, but it's just the same basic process wherever i have done it.

Off topic.

Have you quit betting just Aussie racing, or have you quit betting entirely?

If so, why?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by steveb

pace and the rest of it does not nullify my times figure, those things just explain why they are what they are.
i'm certainly not figure blind.

This gets into a different debate we've had many times.

Is the goal to make figures that reflect the time of the race as accurately as possible or is the goal to make figures that reflect the abilities of the horses as accurately as possible when the figures don't make sense and you either know or don't know the explanation?

Both are worthy goals, but the figure maker has to decide which way to go.

Most public figure makers start making adjustments of some sort because they want their figures to pick more winners.

My point in all this is that once you start understanding the complexities involved with using time to try to measure which horses ran better, you start realizing the "speed figure" model of handicapping is flawed. That does not mean time doesn't matter. It just means that sometimes the time does not tell you how good the horse is or how well he ran.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Please don't make this personal by accusing me of contorting the data. I am not contorting anything. Do not imply that you are the only one who uses data and results. What I am doing, and you are not, is critically examining certain beliefs to see if they stand up to scientific scrutiny to better understand the data and results.

I've been discussing these issues with you for many years.

I'd be the first to admit that even now I find some aspects of turf racing a bit perplexing. I was initially wrong about the nature of turf surfaces. I had a bad theory to explain real data. Now I know better.

You still think all the hall of fame turf trainers and jockeys are morons for trying to get their horses to relax off moderate paces and finish strongly.

When I sense a conversation is not going to be productive for either of us, it's best to not have it.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I've been discussing these issues with you for many years.

I'd be the first to admit that even now I find some aspects of turf racing a bit perplexing. I was initially wrong about the nature of turf surfaces. I had a bad theory to explain real data. Now I know better.

You still think all the hall of fame turf trainers and jockeys are morons for trying to get their horses to relax off moderate paces and finish strongly.

When I sense a conversation is not going to be productive for either of us, it's best to not have it.

Class, Yes we've known each other for years and you have always been a gentleman even when we disagree, so please don't get upset over a difference in handicapping theory. I will admit that on further review, I misunderstood your post on how the beaten lengths margin does not change that much with distance. Yes the way the race is run is part of the explanation as I also had stated. What is also true is that the margins actually due change but not in direct proportion with the distance but only slightly and there is not that much difference in distances in horse racing as there is in track and field so that this effect is minimal.

I never said turf trainers and riders were morons. There are greats in every sport from bygone eras that had incorrect beliefs. They could get away with it and still do great things in part because they also got a lot of things right and also because the competition made the same mistakes. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. This is still true today in horse racing. As the sport advances these things are corrected along with advances in science and exercise physiology. The science eventually triumphs over tradition. Unfortunately racing along with boxing are the 2 sports less willing to change and adapt. Track and field is probably the best because the best coaches are at top universities with faculty doing research in exercise physiology which the coaches base their methods on. The result has been an incredible increase in performances and world records.