DISTANCE BETWEEN WINNER & PLACE HORSE

[cj]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

To be more precise he is using beaten lengths in conjunction to the distance of the race; this is the assumption that is invalidated by the data presented here.

Sure, but I'm saying that was never the intention. He is using time correlated to the distance of the race, not beaten lengths. Time for every horse is being calculated and assigned a rating regardless of whether on not the horse is the winner or the horse is 10 lengths back.

What the data seems to be showing is that the winning time and the times of those not winning should be treated separately. With Beyer figures, I horse that runs 1:11 will get a faster figure than a horse running 1:11.20 every time (assuming same variant is used) whether the horse finishes first or is 10th beaten 15 lengths. What is being discussed here is that a winning 1:11 might be different than a losing 1:11. Beyer makes no provisions for that.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by cj

Sure, but I'm saying that was never the intention. He is using time correlated to the distance of the race, not beaten lengths. Time for every horse is being calculated and assigned a rating regardless of whether on not the horse is the winner or the horse is 10 lengths back.

What the data seems to be showing is that the winning time and the times of those not winning should be treated separately. With Beyer figures, I horse that runs 1:11 will get a faster figure than a horse running 1:11.20 every time (assuming same variant is used) whether the horse finishes first or is 10th beaten 15 lengths. What is being discussed here is that a winning 1:11 might be different than a losing 1:11. Beyer makes no provisions for that.

Absolutely correct.

This is why associating the horse's speed figure with the winner's results to measurable improvements to a prediction model; by this I mean that instead of expressing a figure as a mere 78 it is more meaningful to use something like 78 - 82 assuming that 78 is the figure of the horse in question and 82 the winner's of the race.

[ReplayRandall]

Agree CJ, and when using the Sheets or Thorograph, many times the runner-up will have a better performance number than the winner, due to racing traffic or other factors which hampered the runner-up's trip....

[cj]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Agree CJ, and when using the Sheets or Thorograph, many times the runner-up will have a better performance number than the winner, due to racing traffic or other factors which hampered the runner-up's trip....

Yep, same as us, though our adjustments are for pace. Someday I hope to have both incorporated but until ground loss is measured and reported consistently it isn't practical. I use both extensively in my handicapping, and I differentiate ground loss by when it occurs and what the pace was. Not all ground loss is equal in my opinion.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

If you want my honest opinion, I think the speed figure model of handicapping is simply wrong assuming your goal is to understand what's actually going on at the track.

It's more about the quality of the field, how the race develops, and how the track is playing. The fractions and final times reflect the interaction between those 3 things, but they don't necessarily reflect how well the horses ran even if you had perfectly accurate pace and final time numbers (which you often won't). How competitively the race is run, the horse's positions, the moves, how tiring the track is etc.. matter a lot and can cause wide variations in numbers.

The reason speed figures pick so many winners is that better horses tend to produce a "faster outcomes" and horses that finish near the front are typically the better horses. So better horses tend to have faster figures.

But IMHO, if you want to create the "correct" model of evaluating horses it has more to do with an analysis of the field going into a race (how fast they generally are, what their running styles are, what quality of horses they've been running against), watching the race develop, and analyzing the result chart and race flow to determine how that track and development impacted the outcome.

You can create metrics that measure these things that can be used as tools in the analysis (including pace and speed figures), but in the end it's better to subjectively analyze a race using those tools and NOT let the numbers and theories dictate to you what you think happened. The results on the track speak for themselves and sometimes they reflect reality better than the numbers. It's a matter of getting better at understanding it all in a comprehensive way. No easy task.

My contention has always been that what happens on the track ALWAYS reflects reality more than ANY numbers. What happens on the track IS REALITY, it's not a reflection at all. The closest any number can get is to articulate accurately that reality that happened on the track.

The best numbers aren't creating a thing. They are expressing as accurately as possible a past occurrence and attempting to lend some predictability to an upcoming occurrence. Any number maker that goes beyond that has lost focus, and become counter-productive, IMO. When they believe they are expressing reality more accurately than the actual event, they've now lost credibility, again, IMO.

[cj]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

My contention has always been that what happens on the track ALWAYS reflects reality more than ANY numbers. What happens on the track IS REALITY, it's not a reflection at all. The closest any number can get is to articulate accurately that reality that happened on the track.

The best numbers aren't creating a thing. They are expressing as accurately as possible a past occurrence and attempting to lend some predictability to an upcoming occurrence. Any number maker that goes beyond that has lost focus, and become counter-productive, IMO. When they believe they are expressing reality more accurately than the actual event, they've now lost credibility, again, IMO.

Numbers put what I'm seeing into perspective. Your eyes can full you every bit as much as figures can, probably more. I like to use both.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by cj

Numbers put what I'm seeing into perspective. Your eyes can fool you every bit as much as figures can, probably more. I like to use both.

Figures fool more players than any other metric....For the severity, it just depends who's figures your using, of course....But the EYES are the long-term winner, IMHO...

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by cj

Numbers put what I'm seeing into perspective. Your eyes can full you every bit as much as figures can, probably more. I like to use both.

Exactly. Many performances that are "visualy impressive" are not as good as they appear. It is useful to have a quantitative evaluation like speed and pace figures and then incorporate qualitative factors like trip, etc, to properly evaluate a performance.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by cj

To be fair, Beyer is merely using beaten lengths as a way to calculate the time of the also rans. Every horse is rated on the time it ran. I think this thread shows there could be some evolving to a better way, that is all.

it's not really evolving.
i only bought 'picking winners' because i just happened to be in a book shop looking for a book on birds(the tweet tweet kind!) and noticed it.
had no idea who beyer was at the time.

had never taken any notice of time, until reading it, and was engrossed.
being the person i am, it was not enough to read it, i had to figure out the whys.
thus, before i even knew too much about time, it was obvious that there was some errors in the book.
that's way back in late 70's or early 80's

there are similar errors in brohamer too, but that's not meant to disrespect them.
as they give you things to think about, and it's up to the reader as to what they take, and where it may lead them on their journey.

by the way i never bothered trying to figure it before, but beyer must have been working on about 1 second equalling about 5.75 lengths in his beaten margin charts in 'picking winners'.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Exactly. Many performances that are "visualy impressive" are not as good as they appear. It is useful to have a quantitative evaluation like speed and pace figures and then incorporate qualitative factors like trip, etc, to properly evaluate a performance.

The fact your statement reads "useful" rather than "necessary" makes me feel like we're not getting into a pissing match, which is definitely something I didn't want to get started with my initial post. I'd be a liar if I said I didn't peek at speed and pace numbers while advancing through the handicapping of a race. At the same time, any experienced replay watcher will more often than not know when the performance isn't as impressive as it may look. Being fooled by a "visually impressive" performance is really a rookie replay watcher mistake. There are many ways to evaluate a performance by taking-in the entire scenario as it unfolds around the turn or down the stretch.

Getting to the topic of the thread, seeing the stretch run will disclose a great deal to explain the beaten lengths to the place horse. There are many reasons a horse may finish 2nd by 4 lengths, and what that reason may be is very important in evaluating how that horse may perform in it's next race. I feel it's a very important question to ask, why/how this horse finished 2nd in it's last race. Very important.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

The fact your statement reads "useful" rather than "necessary" makes me feel like we're not getting into a pissing match, which is definitely something I didn't want to get started with my initial post. I'd be a liar if I said I didn't peek at speed and pace numbers while advancing through the handicapping of a race. At the same time, any experienced replay watcher will more often than not know when the performance isn't as impressive as it may look. Being fooled by a "visually impressive" performance is really a rookie replay watcher mistake. There are many ways to evaluate a performance by taking-in the entire scenario as it unfolds around the turn or down the stretch.

Getting to the topic of the thread, seeing the stretch run will disclose a great deal to explain the beaten lengths to the place horse. There are many reasons a horse may finish 2nd by 4 lengths, and what that reason may be is very important in evaluating how that horse may perform in it's next race. I feel it's a very important question to ask, why/how this horse finished 2nd in it's last race. Very important.

Bullseye post, Ultra...

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Bullseye post, Ultra...

This really is a great topic, if for no other reason, a horse finishing 2nd is going to get attention at the windows in it's next start. And even though I find the process of finding an exact measurement between the winner and the 2nd place finisher an academic question, I can appreciate, and respect, that depending on how you may handicap a race, addressing that horse's performance is an important requirement. Whatever process you find that helps you assess that horse's performance as accurately as possible, the more power to you.

[cj]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

The fact your statement reads "useful" rather than "necessary" makes me feel like we're not getting into a pissing match, which is definitely something I didn't want to get started with my initial post. I'd be a liar if I said I didn't peek at speed and pace numbers while advancing through the handicapping of a race. At the same time, any experienced replay watcher will more often than not know when the performance isn't as impressive as it may look. Being fooled by a "visually impressive" performance is really a rookie replay watcher mistake. There are many ways to evaluate a performance by taking-in the entire scenario as it unfolds around the turn or down the stretch.

Getting to the topic of the thread, seeing the stretch run will disclose a great deal to explain the beaten lengths to the place horse. There are many reasons a horse may finish 2nd by 4 lengths, and what that reason may be is very important in evaluating how that horse may perform in it's next race. I feel it's a very important question to ask, why/how this horse finished 2nd in it's last race. Very important.

An experienced replay watcher certainly knows when a performance may not be as good as it looks, I guess, but then again if you know it by watching did it really look that good?

I can watch two races and know that a loser of the 1st may have run better than his figure will show, and the winner of the second had a great trip and will probably get a figure he is unlikely to repeat. But if they match up next time and the first race horse got an 80 and the second race winner a 100, is that too big for to overcome? This is my point. I need to know some kind of reasonable rating to put some perspective on the trip. One racetrack maxim I've learned to trust is "there are no trips in slow races".

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

I am not sure what you mean here.

What I am saying is that the idea that whoever ran the fastest race ran the best is sometimes WRONG. On some level speed handicappers understand that. They study fractions and make trip notes trying to adjust their figures to reflect things that might have impacted a horse's time.

I'm saying that all horses are individuals with varying degrees of speed, stamina, and positional preferences. So the impact of these various trips is different with every horse. That makes it very complex.

I'm saying the surface (which can change from race to race) plays a major role on the impacts and times. That makes it very complex.

I'm saying there's more to race development than fractions. That makes it very complex.

Given that it's all so complex, sometimes you are better off just looking at who was in the race, how it developed, who beat who, and noting what actually happened instead of what the fractions and final time are saying happened or should have happened.

[classhandicapper]

Back to the original premise.

1. We have 2 horses running 6F.

Horse A has the lead at the top of the stretch by 1 length over horse B. They both go into a drive and horse B draws off and wins by 5 lengths.

2. Same 2 horses, this time at 12F.

The theory says that horse B should win by 10 lengths this time because the race is twice as long.

What happens?

Most likely horse B will time his move at approximately the same point in the race as last time. He may win by more than 5 lengths this time depending on the exact timing, but he won't win by 10 because he's using the other horse as a target for when to make his move. He won't have a 5 length lead after 6F like his did in the 6F race and he won't draw off by 10 in just the length of the stretch.

Let's just say he won by 7 lengths instead of 10.

Let's say the winner ran 100 in both races.

In the 6F race the runner up gets about an 88.

In the 12F race the runner up gets about a 92.

Same horses, same performances, but the figures change.

I may be off by a point or so because I don't have the latest charts, but that's the problem and why it occurs. Race are not sprints with horses trying to optimize their final time. They are using each other as positional prompters and making moves at the appropriate time. The margin of victory and final time depends on what happened before.