Carroll: Handicapping Speed

[cj]

I've read this book and like a lot of what he writes. I know others here do as well. However, the baseline he uses is based on "World Records". I think it kind of falls apart there. He considers the following the best a horse can run, and thus equal on the speed scale:

Distance in furlongs, Time
4.0, 44.2
4.5, 50.4
5.0, 55.2
5.5, 61.4
6.0, 67.2
6.5, 73.6
7.0, 79.4
7.5, 86.6
8.0, 92.2
8.5, 98.4
9.0, 105.0
9.5, 112.4
10.0, 117.8

Why do I say it falls apart? Look at the difference adding an extra half furlong. For example, the first jump is 44.2 to 50.4, or 6.2. Here is the series:

6.2, 4.8, 6.2, 5.8, 6.4, 5.8, 7.2, 5.6, 6.2, 6.6, 7.4, 5.4

There is no way this can be an accurate baseline in my opinion. Horses would go from 9 to 9.5 furlongs in 7.4 seconds, then only take another 5.4 to run another 1/16 to make 10? Most of it doesn't make sense.

Any thoughts?

[Greyfox]

Sorry I haven't read the book. But just looking at the four furlong time I've seen lots of horses at Santa Anita run faster than 44.2 seconds.
I seem to be missing something in what he's saying.

[Robert Goren]

The problem is that some these distances are not run very often and they are run even less by good horses. For instance, the 7 1/2 Furlong distance is almost never run. 4 furlongs is never run by good older horses.

[cj]

Those are smaller problems, because the same inconsistencies exist among the commonly run distances.

[toetoe]

I love this guy and I'm pleasantly surprised that you like him, cj. He moved away from Las Vegas; not sure where he landed.

I say just disregard 9/16, 15/16 and 19/16 for handicapping purposes. That would not eliminate too many races, right ?

[maddog42]

Cj, you are absolutely right in your assessment of the World Record baseline.
But how can this method work at all? And it does work fairly well.

I came across a used copy of Carrolls Speed Handicapper V5 a few years ago.
At some tracks and distances it was Dead on. At others not so good. It was much better on dirt than turf and better on Sprints than routes. The percentage of World Record concept was not bad, so I tried using Percentage of Par. This was a slight improvement. One conclusion I came away with from the book and his program, was that MOST people over adjust their running lines. His program has a place for track to track adjustments and a place for daily variant adjustments.
IMO his method flatly does not work well above 8.5 or 9f. Throw out 4.5 furlong and lower and disregard 9f and above and you can see how things are greatly improved. It also works better on quarter horses than t-breds. I started making a notebook of class pars for every track in North America and was using his method and a 10k par. Thats right. Lotsa work. I was also using a calculator. My computer skills are lacking, or I would have pursued it farther.

[The Judge]

never knew he was in Vegas thought he stayed pretty much in New Mexico. I knew he like the quarter horses a lot.

http://desertsea.com/

[maddog42]

Originally Posted by cj

I've read this book and like a lot of what he writes. I know others here do as well. However, the baseline he uses is based on "World Records". I think it kind of falls apart there. He considers the following the best a horse can run, and thus equal on the speed scale:

Distance in furlongs, Time
4.0, 44.2
4.5, 50.4
5.0, 55.2
5.5, 61.4
6.0, 67.2
6.5, 73.6
7.0, 79.4
7.5, 86.6
8.0, 92.2
8.5, 98.4
9.0, 105.0
9.5, 112.4
10.0, 117.8

Why do I say it falls apart? Look at the difference adding an extra half furlong. For example, the first jump is 44.2 to 50.4, or 5.8. Here is the series:

5.8, 4.8, 6.2, 5.8, 6.4, 5.8, 7.2, 5.6, 6.2, 6.6, 7.4, 5.4

There is no way this can be an accurate baseline in my opinion. Horses would go from 9 to 9.5 furlongs in 7.4 seconds, then only take another 5.4 to run another 1/16 to make 10? Most of it doesn't make sense.

Any thoughts?

This baseline is based on FACTS. I am very critical of it also. A better question would be: Why do the World Records have these weird differences in
half furlong gaps ?

[cj]

Originally Posted by maddog42

This baseline is based on FACTS. I am very critical of it also. A better question would be: Why do the World Records have these weird differences in
half furlong gaps ?

It is probably because they are run on different tracks and surfaces with varying run ups.

[cj]

Originally Posted by maddog42

IMO his method flatly does not work well above 8.5 or 9f. Throw out 4.5 furlong and lower and disregard 9f and above and you can see how things are greatly improved.

Even in that narrow range it looks fishy:

5.5-6.0: 5.8
6.0-6.5: 6.4
6.5-7.0: 5.8

[maddog42]

Originally Posted by cj

Even in that narrow range it looks fishy:

5.5-6.0: 5.8
6.0-6.5: 6.4
6.5-7.0: 5.8

You have me playing the Devils Advocate here. I have problems with this baseline too. My win percentage with this method was 39-40 % (top 2)with a low mutuel. I was unable to get many overlays. My assertion was that it works better than you would think.

[maddog42]

Originally Posted by cj

It is probably because they are run on different tracks and surfaces with varying run ups.

Does that explains the differences? Maybe. I believe the deceleration and turns
might be a big factor. Runup? Certainly. This might be the biggest factor. Aren't you surprised that the World Records vary this much?

[proximity]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Sorry I haven't read the book. But just looking at the four furlong time I've seen lots of horses at Santa Anita run faster than 44.2 seconds.
I seem to be missing something in what he's saying.

the 4f final time baseline would potentially be slower (than some 4f fractions) because the race would generally start closer to a turn and go completely around a turn.

one thing that the book did make me think about was that the closer a horse gets to the true baseline, possibly (?) the larger the gap in 1/5 sec or 1 length would be. for example the difference between 6f in 106:3 and 6f in 106:4 would be greater (and even greater than beyer/ the sheets have it) than the difference between 6f in 113 and 6f in 113:1.

[pondman]

Originally Posted by cj

Why do I say it falls apart? Look at the difference adding an extra half furlong. For example, the first jump is 44.2 to 50.4, or 6.2. Here is the series:

You might want to average the furlongs into seconds:

Furlong, Seconds
4.0: 11.05
4.5: 11.20
5.0: 11.04
5.5: 11.16
6.0: 11.20
6.5: 11.32
7.0: 11.34
7.5: 11.54
8.0: 11.52
8.5: 11.57
9.0: 11.66
9.5: 11.83
10: 11.78

[cj]

Originally Posted by pondman

You might want to average the furlongs into seconds:

Furlong, Seconds
4.0: 11.05
4.5: 11.20
5.0: 11.04
5.5: 11.16
6.0: 11.20
6.5: 11.32
7.0: 11.34
7.5: 11.54
8.0: 11.52
8.5: 11.57
9.0: 11.66
9.5: 11.83
10: 11.78

What does this show? There are still the same discrepancies.