How Do You Determine Class?

[raybo]

Originally Posted by traynor

Back in the 1980s, Michael Pizzola did a presentation at a Sartin seminar in New Orleans. Pizzola described a strategy used by a New York betting syndicate that combined class evaluations (using a proprietary process that was unrelated to the Sartin apps) with a specific money management strategy. The crux of the matter was that the class evaluations that formed the basis of the strategy selected enough winners at high enough prices to shift the focus from "just winning" to optimizing return. It was a fascinating presentation.

Even more fascinating was the number of people who shifted their focus in race analysis from the (generally accepted as The Way and The Light) emphasis on pace and speed to class. That emphasis was especially evident in the Sartin users, in particular when James Quinn "became associated" with the Sartin group, and in-depth understanding of The Handicapper's Condition Book, class levels, and the overall effect of class on race outcomes was considered entry-level expertise.

That was like 25-30 years ago. And now--all those many years later--people still believe that massaging earnings, purse levels, and pars are going to give them some kind of "edge" that no one else has. Been there. Done that. Along with many, many others. I think it takes a bit more to gain an edge in effectively using class than massaging a few readily available (to everyone) numbers and declaring that one has discovered the greatest thing since sliced bread.

That is not intended in any way to criticize anyone's definitions or strategies for analyzing class. It is only intended to state that a lot of highly motivated people have been working on those strategies for many years, and most have discarded the use of earnings, purse levels, and pars as insufficient to be of real value for serious bettors. Of course, that is only my own (highly subjective) opinion. YMMV.

Pizzola has always emphasized value over picking winners. The fact that he presented a "class" example, was probably here nor there. The same principal would apply to any other method; pace, speed, etc.. The reason why many switched from pace and speed to class, subsequently, was probably because they didn't "get" the primary point of the demonstration, that being choosing value, rather than just picking winners.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I determine class by measuring the quality of the "fields" a horse has been competing in and then comparing how that horse did within those fields given the trips (pace, bias, ground, trouble etc...).

You measure the quality of the fields by developing an understanding of the pecking order at your track (circuit) and examining exactly who was in the race and how well they ran.

And how do you determine the "pecking order"; class, wins, pace/speed, etc.? That still doesn't express how you define class.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by traynor

Because you are happy with them does not indicate that anyone else would be willing to pay for them. Of course, that is easy to determine. Offer them for sale and see how many takers you get.

You won't let that know it all attitude go, will you. I didn't say they were for sale. My top two class figs will produce the winner over 50%, and they are as imdependent from speed as EPS are. That is something to be happy about.

[RaceBookJoe]

When I first started handicapping, I used class ratings, but the problem I always had was that class wasn't static. Class is pace and speed, but its also a level where a trainer might feel the horse is competitive, and its also current form, it can even be a change of track maneuver etc etc. So with all of that, I just did my best both trying to assess where the horse was form-wise and what was going on inside the trainers mind for the race I was handicapping. Very complicated subject to say the least.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by raybo

And how do you determine the "pecking order"; class, wins, pace/speed, etc.? That still doesn't express how you define class.

I believe the race conditions are "generally" efficient. That is, a 50K claiming field in NY will generally be superior to a 25K claimer overall etc.... However, there will be some overlap, weak fields, strong fields at each level.

For example, an extremely impressive winner at the 25K level may be better than the typical 50K horse and some 50K fields will be made up a bunch of horses that have been getting buried at that level and are actually much weaker etc... So you have to dig into the fields.

You can get a general gauge on the pecking order by looking at how horses do when they move up and down the scale and what moves produce winners and what moves produce failures.

You can look at race PARs to get a feel for how fast certain levels are "on average" and then look at the makeup of a specific field to determine if it is above or below average.

You can follow horses out of races to see how they do next out.

You can look for common opponents.

etc....

The more of this you do, the better you will understand the pecking order.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I determine class by measuring the quality of the "fields" a horse has been competing in and then comparing how that horse did within those fields compared to other horses given their trips (pace, bias, ground, trouble etc...).

You measure the quality of the fields by developing an understanding of the pecking order at your track (circuit) and examining exactly who was in the race and how well they ran. It also helps if you know the common shipper tracks.

That is very much like what I am doing currently (and have been working on for the last year or so). I am finding numerous cases in which a given "class" of race (based on specific race conditions) can be associated with the relative strength of the field in that race to create what is essentially a "class projection" for the race. Where it gets interesting is the situations in which a horse is entered (and competes in) a race at one class level that is "weaker" than races at a "lower" class level, or the reverse. Most bettors seem to wager according to relatively simplistic notions of class level and the competition a horse faces at those class levels. Lots of opportunities for anyone willing to do a bit of work and serious study.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

I have thought about selling class figures like CJ sells speed figurers here. I'm happy with what I have and they actually outperform my speed figs, but my speed figs are under revision. Mine are based on BRIS' RR and CR ratings. The RR is used for rating class in the traditional sense as most cappers would think of it. The CR is used for that mixed relationship with form. As to what to do with the class/speed relationship, I believe those authors (like Ainslie and Quirin) give good examples of how to do this.

There are two main beliefs about class and, therefore, two fundamental methods of measuring class. The oldest approach, my choice, is based on race performance within race type. And yes, earnings is at the heart of this measure. The other, the modern, is speed which is measured via par times for race type. I prefer the race performance method because it gets around speed figs which won't explain how the speed was made.

My mistake. I thought it was a sales pitch.

[Ocala Mike]

Back in the day, I seem to recall reading a handicapping book where the author gave a very simple answer to the original question. Of course, this would only work for claiming races, which I guess were more plentiful then than they are now.

Take the HIGHEST claiming price that the horse has WON FOR in the PP's plus the LOWEST claiming price that the horse has RUN FOR in the PP's and divide by 2. Voila, you have a class value!

P.S., I never found this very successful or profitable.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by traynor

That is very much like what I am doing currently (and have been working on for the last year or so). I am finding numerous cases in which a given "class" of race (based on specific race conditions) can be associated with the relative strength of the field in that race to create what is essentially a "class projection" for the race. Where it gets interesting is the situations in which a horse is entered (and competes in) a race at one class level that is "weaker" than races at a "lower" class level, or the reverse. Most bettors seem to wager according to relatively simplistic notions of class level and the competition a horse faces at those class levels. Lots of opportunities for anyone willing to do a bit of work and serious study.

In my opinion you and classhandicapper are going about it the right way, it's about digging deeper into the field makeup. Labels, claiming prices, one dimensonal stuff like that all shows up on the board. FWIW, the class ratings that I generate are around for those that happen to stuble upon them. Since I'm using them myself if I were to market them to 'professional bettor's' well that would probably not be in my best interest anyway. Even though time is not part of the calculations, nor are earnings, or pars or any of that downstream stuff I have to suspect they still aren't far superior to any good solid speed figures. With that being said I also doubt they're inferior in measuring a horse's effort in any given race either, and far less distributed. To be clear to the board admin, I appreciate the exchange of ideas on the board and that's as far as it goes. In the end my ratings are just another tool, I need a way to classify and quantify efforts, but the key to making any money in the game is who is going to run a peak race today, unfortunately class has very little to do with who feels like running their eyeballs out, the latter is a better bet than the class of the field every time.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by traynor

That is very much like what I am doing currently (and have been working on for the last year or so). I am finding numerous cases in which a given "class" of race (based on specific race conditions) can be associated with the relative strength of the field in that race to create what is essentially a "class projection" for the race. Where it gets interesting is the situations in which a horse is entered (and competes in) a race at one class level that is "weaker" than races at a "lower" class level, or the reverse. Most bettors seem to wager according to relatively simplistic notions of class level and the competition a horse faces at those class levels. Lots of opportunities for anyone willing to do a bit of work and serious study.

This is a big part of my game. It takes a lot of work and is not easily packaged into a number. That's why there is value in it when done well.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

This is a big part of my game. It takes a lot of work and is not easily packaged into a number. That's why there is value in it when done well.

If it was easy, every kid on the block would be doing it, and it would have no value. The further I go, the more I realize how much an advantage it is that a lot of handicappers are stuck back in the old days of speed numbers, simplistic pace analysis, and recycled strategies that have not changed much since the days of Ainslie, Beyer, Quirin, Sartin, et al. Or making great discoveries based on samples of a few hundred races.

It makes the work more rewarding for those willing to do it.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Originally Posted by traynor

Back in the 1980s, Michael Pizzola did a presentation at a Sartin seminar in New Orleans. Pizzola described a strategy used by a New York betting syndicate that combined class evaluations (using a proprietary process that was unrelated to the Sartin apps) with a specific money management strategy. The crux of the matter was that the class evaluations that formed the basis of the strategy selected enough winners at high enough prices to shift the focus from "just winning" to optimizing return. It was a fascinating presentation.

Even more fascinating was the number of people who shifted their focus in race analysis from the (generally accepted as The Way and The Light) emphasis on pace and speed to class. That emphasis was especially evident in the Sartin users, in particular when James Quinn "became associated" with the Sartin group, and in-depth understanding of The Handicapper's Condition Book, class levels, and the overall effect of class on race outcomes was considered entry-level expertise.

That was like 25-30 years ago. And now--all those many years later--people still believe that massaging earnings, purse levels, and pars are going to give them some kind of "edge" that no one else has. Been there. Done that. Along with many, many others. I think it takes a bit more to gain an edge in effectively using class than massaging a few readily available (to everyone) numbers and declaring that one has discovered the greatest thing since sliced bread.

That is not intended in any way to criticize anyone's definitions or strategies for analyzing class. It is only intended to state that a lot of highly motivated people have been working on those strategies for many years, and most have discarded the use of earnings, purse levels, and pars as insufficient to be of real value for serious bettors. Of course, that is only my own (highly subjective) opinion. YMMV.

This is a great post.The only way to get to know a horse(outside of total visual accessibility) is to look at running lines in relation to class levels,with every up and down tendency of form cycle you know throw in as a possibility,to actually get a genuine feel for the personality of the horse,what the connections infer about him or her based on their movement,and only then can a class assessment be made about the horse.Then all the objeective work be done in relating that to the field.As you and others have mentioned, over time scanning PP's bottom to top to get this feel is not burdensome and tedious.For me it instills the feeling of confidence in my assessment of horses.It determines the big or little of my bets.And the further we get into the computer age the bigger the overlay it becomes as past performances are proudly thrown out as yesterday's tools.It amazes me at times.I look at horses ,uch the same way as I look at boxers.There is no technological advancement that renders useless a jab,left hook,right hand,or in boxer's terms for class=ring generalship and the ability to take a punch.As much as I have become specific in my playing forte my approach is always meant to be universally applicable,and mainly because I like to play different tracks on a regular basis.Taking things like class assessment and looking at running lines and an array of pace figures(not compound rankings),these things make me feel as close as humanly possible to seeing into the raw reality of this game.Sorry for the long winded post,but this conversation stimulates me in so many ways.Awesome.

[Maximillion]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

This is a great post.The only way to get to know a horse(outside of total visual accessibility) is to look at running lines in relation to class levels,with every up and down tendency of form cycle you know throw in as a possibility,to actually get a genuine feel for the personality of the horse,what the connections infer about him or her based on their movement,and only then can a class assessment be made about the horse.Then all the objeective work be done in relating that to the field.As you and others have mentioned, over time scanning PP's bottom to top to get this feel is not burdensome and tedious.For me it instills the feeling of confidence in my assessment of horses.It determines the big or little of my bets.And the further we get into the computer age the bigger the overlay it becomes as past performances are proudly thrown out as yesterday's tools.It amazes me at times.I look at horses ,uch the same way as I look at boxers.There is no technological advancement that renders useless a jab,left hook,right hand,or in boxer's terms for class=ring generalship and the ability to take a punch.As much as I have become specific in my playing forte my approach is always meant to be universally applicable,and mainly because I like to play different tracks on a regular basis.Taking things like class assessment and looking at running lines and an array of pace figures(not compound rankings),these things make me feel as close as humanly possible to seeing into the raw reality of this game.Sorry for the long winded post,but this conversation stimulates me in so many ways.Awesome.

This is what I used to do,but now I like to look at last 3, or last "good" race as a starting point.It saves some time without (hopefully) compromising getting a feel for what the horse can do.

[JohnGalt1]

I believe that a numerical rating can be given for class as well as pace/speed. Because I make one and it works for me, especially in route and turf races.

When I handicap I use a variation of the Performance Class Rating (PRC) from William L. Scott's "Total Victory at the track.)

To make the task simpler I created a comparison chart of class levels, though nothing is set in stone.

Class levels are in 20% increments higher and lower.

A $6,250 Stakes race is equivalent to a $8k Alw and a $10k starter Alw or OpClm and $16k open claiming and a $25k Md Spc and a $80k mdn Clm.

My chart runs from 1==Grade 1 races to 30 $1k claiming and $3200 Mdn clm.

I adjust one level down for NW3L, and two levels down for state bred and NW2L. Example a 50k state bred NW2L would be equivalent to an open $20k claiming race or a 32k mdn special race.

And I might adjust for track to track. A track with 25k claimers running for $30k as against a $25 claimer running at a different track for $13k might have an adjustment.

Then I make my pace/class figures and if a horse is one of the top horses in both categories and is in form, then I have a strong contender.

I don't have rules when I handicap. I have guidelines.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

This is a great post.The only way to get to know a horse(outside of total visual accessibility) is to look at running lines in relation to class levels,with every up and down tendency of form cycle you know throw in as a possibility,to actually get a genuine feel for the personality of the horse,what the connections infer about him or her based on their movement,and only then can a class assessment be made about the horse.Then all the objeective work be done in relating that to the field.As you and others have mentioned, over time scanning PP's bottom to top to get this feel is not burdensome and tedious.For me it instills the feeling of confidence in my assessment of horses.It determines the big or little of my bets.And the further we get into the computer age the bigger the overlay it becomes as past performances are proudly thrown out as yesterday's tools.It amazes me at times.I look at horses ,uch the same way as I look at boxers.There is no technological advancement that renders useless a jab,left hook,right hand,or in boxer's terms for class=ring generalship and the ability to take a punch.As much as I have become specific in my playing forte my approach is always meant to be universally applicable,and mainly because I like to play different tracks on a regular basis.Taking things like class assessment and looking at running lines and an array of pace figures(not compound rankings),these things make me feel as close as humanly possible to seeing into the raw reality of this game.Sorry for the long winded post,but this conversation stimulates me in so many ways.Awesome.

There is an advantage in such study that many may not be aware of, especially if you are looking at races from a favorite track. It doesn't take long to realize that what superficially looks like a "move in class" is really not, or that a race in what superficially looks like another race in the same class is really a move up or down.

When I was playing Tup steadily (and seriously) I found six distinct levels of class in the "bottom" claiming layer, that were often more difficult to move up in than it was to jump from that level to the next "recognized" level. Most people just glance at the claiming price and label it as whatever, not realizing that variations in race conditions can create very specific divisions within (what seems on the surface to be) the same class.

Any effort expended in that direction can only increase one's knowledge of racing in general, and class levels in particular. Combining that with an understanding of why a trainer enters a specific horse in a specific race at a specific time makes racing a lot more sensible (and a lot more predictable).