Track Speed Ratings

[Ray2000]

This might be of interest to some.

I'll start it on a new thread because it about Track Speed Ratings rather than Trackmaster horse speed ratings, but it was Stick's post that got me to update my own track ratings.

The table below was generated by averaging all races in 2007, for each track, for races with a class rating between 80 and 90. The winners Final Race Time was adjusted for the track variance for that day/date.

For those new to harness handicapping, Some sites would have you believe all tracks with the same number of turns should get the same speed rating. Duh!

As an example, if your program shows a shipper coming to Freehold from Monticello and has been putting up some 1:59.0 final times at Mr, you can adjust those times to 1:57.6 had those races been raced at Freehold . Chart shows Freehold faster by 1.4 seconds vs. Mr.

The experienced cappers here probably do this in their head automatically.


Oval Track #Races .......Speed Rating
1 Meadowlands 1149 .....114.9
1 Balmoral 1019 ........115.0
1 Hawthorne 234 ........115.3
1 Indiana 545 ..........116.7
1 Cal Expo 1302 ........116.7
1 Red Mile 230 .........116.9
1 Rockingham 339 .......117.0
1 1/4 Colonial 234 .....115.2

7/8 Mohawk 1016 ........115.3
7/8 Woodbine 1381 ......115.5
7/8 Hoosier 461 ........117.0
7/8 Vernon 382 .........117.3
7/8 Montreal 525 .......118.2

5/8 Dover 1400 .........115.6
5/8 Chester 814 ........115.8
5/8 Pocono 1212 ........116.4
5/8 Rosecroft 581 ......116.7
5/8 Pompano 1174 .......116.9
5/8 Fraser 638. ........116.9
5/8 Tioga 356 ..........117.0
5/8 Northlands 496 .....117.4
5/8 Windsor 489 ........117.4
5/8 Scioto 344 .........117.6
5/8 Plainridge 314 .....117.6
5/8 Meadows 1406 .......117.6
5/8 Georgian 656 .......118.1
5/8 Hazel Park 601 .....118.4
5/8 Kawartha 423 .......118.5
5/8 Rideau-C 943 .......119.1
5/8 Raceway 252 ........119.5

1/2 Maywood 499 ........116.1
1/2 Harrington 1245 ....117.4
1/2 Freehold 1299 ......118.1
1/2 Northfield 941 .....118.2
1/2 Ocean 148 ..........118.6
1/2 Flamboro 1016 ......118.7
1/2 Yonkers 1694 .......118.8
1/2 Saratoga 1371 ......118.8
1/2 Batavia 461 ........118.9
1/2 Buffalo 385 ........119.1
1/2 Grand River 451 ....119.4
1/2 Monticello 1395 ....119.5
1/2 Bangor 212 .........119.6
1/2 WesternFair 697 ....119.9
1/2 Scarborough 320 ....120.3
1/2 Northville 279 .....120.6
1/2 Lebanon 140 ........121.1



If anyone sees any outrageous errors please let me know.

[Charlie]

That's truly nice of you to share your speed rating chart. I have often wondered what would be the best way to accomplish such a chart. Authors like Al Stanley for example make it sound so easy to construct par times and it isn't. It would be, if all tracks used the same class rating system, but they don't. I find your analysis of using classes between 80 and 90 for all tracks somewhat interesting. Are you using the trackmaster class ratings listed at the top of each race page? Well anyway, thanks for the info.

I actually use a rating system for the final fraction. Although I realize my method is ROUGH, it still gives me an idea of how fast some tracks come home times are in comparison to others. I simply for pacers on a fast track use about 30 races. Simply add them up and divide by 30 to get the average. I have Balmoral at a 91, Meadowlands 98, Freehold 89, Dover, 95, YR 90, May 90 and Stg 91 just to name a few. Naturally the higher the # the faster the come home time. Maybe, when I have time, I'll use your idea and utilize only approximately equal classes.

[Ray2000]

Charlie

Yes, I used the TrackMaster class rating to select the comparable races for these race times, and the range 80 - 90 was used to try to include most tracks.

I used Mar 1 to Dec 1 for most tracks to try and stay away from winter conditions but some tracks like Leb and Nor had to be year round.

Does your Come Home Ratings include the length of the stretch? That's something I ignore but always thought I shouldn't when comparing 4th quarter times.

Ray

[Tom]

Thanks Ray, for sharing.....that looks very usefull the way you did it.

[LottaKash]

Marvelous Ray,.....Thx for you insights and leg-work......what was the formula you used to arrive at these conclusions.....?

In essence, are you saying that m1 is rated @ 1:54.9 ?

These may prove fruitful to me after pondering on them a bit.......

But, imho, for the most part, TM-SR's are pretty accurate, and they do a fairly good (not always tho) assesment in track to track adjustments, I do think they could be tweaked a bit more......For me, basically I use the TM-SR's to get a feel of how well, a horse reacts to each and every SR that is different to his other SR's, and how it affected his Form Cycle.....

To put it another way, I am always on the prowl, for a horse that has just put in a new "Recent Top SR", and how he adjusts to his new SR.......Will he Bounce or Go On and Improve......I think this is KEY, and if one is able to grasp this concept, he may just understand how the clock ticks.....

.fwiw, TM-SR's are an illusion on off-tracks, they need to get a better handle on their variants/ adjustment.......

It has taken a goodly amount of agony and frustration, as well as a lottakash down the toilet, in learning, how to better utilize the TM=SR's, but after awhile, I got pretty good in assesing, MOST horse reactions to their Top SR's

I have built my whole (almost) handicapping viewpoint around this premise (new top SR)...I believe this concept lends a great amount of predictability to the race in question, and helps me leaps, in understanding why horses win and lose....

Good Stuff Ray, I am a fan of yours, and thx for sharing....

humbly,

[Ray2000]

Johnny U

Yes, I'm saying M1 is rated at 1:54.9 for horses in the 80-90 class range. Had I used a higher range 90-100 the ratings would be higher for all tracks but the track to track difference should be about the same, but some tracks would not have enough races to be meaningful.

The formula was rather straight forward. It was the winners final time (in seconds), added to the track variance on that day. The variance is listed in programs as a whole number in fifths of a second, positive for a slow track and negative for a fast track, and is calculated by Equibase using some reference to par times for that track. For instance, the first PP line for the 1st horse in the 1st race at the Big M tonight lists a variance of -5 meaning even though the track was off, (Condition gd, good) the track was 1 sec faster than usual on Apr 6th.

If I'm wrong on this variance, please somebody let me know, because I've seen Harness Eye side bar explanations that have to be wrong (saying +3 means faster than normal).

My computer looked at all the pp lines for all horses for each track for all 80-90 class races, deleted any lines if there was no TM speed rating or races at distances other than 1 mile, then deleted all duplicate lines, (a pp line shows up for all horses in the race so there's many dupes) then averaged the winner's final (adjusted) times.

Ray

[Stick]

The only thing I would be careful about is the use of the TM class ratings. I have mentioned this before about Balmoral/Maywood and in my opinion Balmoral horses are roughly 1.5 classes better than Maywood.In other words, a $10K claimer running consistantly at Balmoral that now ships into a race in a $10K claimer ay Maywood has a distinct class edge that the public and TM may not be aware of. This is meant in a general sense because of course it is hard to determine how tough a field is by just looking at the purse or the claiming price. Also, TM SR are suppose to incorporate trip and post into the equation somehow.Not sure exactly how they adjust for that.

[headhawg]

Thanks for sharing Ray. I use Pandy's software and I'm pretty sure he includes his own pars. But one of these days I am going to write my own program and your chart is a very nice starting point.

[LottaKash]

Originally Posted by Stick

The only thing I would be careful about is the use of the TM class ratings. I have mentioned this before about Balmoral/Maywood and in my opinion Balmoral horses are roughly 1.5 classes better than Maywood.In other words, a $10K claimer running consistantly at Balmoral that now ships into a race in a $10K claimer ay Maywood has a distinct class edge that the public and TM may not be aware of. This is meant in a general sense because of course it is hard to determine how tough a field is by just looking at the purse or the claiming price. Also, TM SR are suppose to incorporate trip and post into the equation somehow.Not sure exactly how they adjust for that.

His Stick, I don't even look at the class-ratings, I may notice them, but they are never a factor in my cappin.....

I just use the SR, but only as a guide.........a starting point.

best,

[LottaKash]

Ray, again, good goin........I understand........good stuff.......Thx again......


best,

[LottaKash]

Originally Posted by headhawg

Thanks for sharing Ray. I use Pandy's software and I'm pretty sure he includes his own pars. But one of these days I am going to write my own program and your chart is a very nice starting point.

Hey headhawg....I just received Pandy's Diamond software today...........I have been meaning to look into it, for a long time.....I haven't used it yet tho...having problems with some saved EXE files.......I believe I will get it to work right soon...It's a liitle dated and somewhat clunky to use......but the numbers it makes, is well worth the effort.....YES ?

I have always subsribed to Bob's view of fractions.......and I will give it a test drive for a lotta- bit...and team it up with what I learned in my lifetime.......perhaps it will be deadly........I don not believe any software, cold, to be as good as good thinking and using more subjective ideas.....Yet, the numbers that it generates, make sense , and I feel, It will, given the learning curve over time, increase my bottom line.........Stay Tuned......

Like a kid at christmas.....love new toys......fun

best,

[Ray2000]

Thanks everyone for the kind words.

While checking out some of the remarks I've learned something new.
I only have one old copy (2005) of Harness Eye but it does appear that the variances published in their track programs does have the sign reversed so their explanation is true for them.

I then looked at some free Canadian Track Programs and they use yet a third system for the variance.
I used to wonder why Simubet numbers are always negative, apparently only off track variances or slower than usual nights are given.

http://www.simubet.com/simuvar_files/simuvar.htm

In any case the Trackmaster variances I used should be correct.

Ray

[LottaKash]

Originally Posted by Ray2000

Thanks everyone for the kind words.

While checking out some of the remarks I've learned something new.
I only have one old copy (2005) of Harness Eye but it does appear that the variances published in their track programs does have the sign reversed so their explanation is true for them.

I then looked at some free Canadian Track Programs and they use yet a third system for the variance.
I used to wonder why Simubet numbers are always negative, apparently only off track variances or slower than usual nights are given.

http://www.simubet.com/simuvar_files/simuvar.htm

In any case the Trackmaster variances I used should be correct.

Ray

Ray, you will probably get the "Philanthropist of the Year" award for giving out so many goodies this week.....

My thx again, I don't have too much use for them, but, it's nice to know they are there......hey, you never know.....

best,