Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Handicapping Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 12-06-2017, 03:55 PM   #1
JohnGalt1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 984
Rep Power: 15 JohnGalt1 is on a distinguished road
I Did Aqueduct Fall Meet Ratings

Whenever there is a new track or new track surface, I write down every race's time and average them to get a figure I can use to compare with the pars from other tracks when I handicap.

I buy the Cynthia par books which don't ship till about March so I want to get preliminary ratings to use until then.

I did this when California went from dirt to poly and pro-ride, and back again, and Arlington when they went from dirt to poly, since I bet there and bet on horses from there.

My ratings were surprisingly close to the figures when I receive the par book.

I looked at all races from 11/3 to 12/3/17. I ignored all off track dirt and turf races, and all maiden claimers.

I use the $10k open claiming pars for all tracks. This has worked for me. I think it was Quinn who suggested doing this.

I use an average of 2016 and 2015 pars and give more weight to the most recent year. Example 2016 par is 1:10 and 2015 par is 1:11, I rate that rack 1:10.2

I made a universal comparison chart for easy track to track comparison.

A 90 is 58.1 @5f, 104.3 @5.5, 1:11.0 @6, 1:37.0 @mile, 1:43.2 @ 1 1/16, and 1:50.1 @1 1/8. I've left off some of the distances. The 6.2 furlong differences are from Satin's Chart.

********

I used the charts from the DRF website. They also post the track variants, for what they are worth, since it's two new tracks

For what they are worth, the dirt variant averaged 17 and route averaged 21. I do not use variants on turf races unless an off turf for tack that move the rails in and out, which does effect these ratings.

The raw speeds for 33 6f races was 112.1 an 84 on my chart.

Twenty two 6 1/2 f races averaged 1:19.0 an 83.

Ten 7f races averaged 1:25.1 an 84.

Twenty 6 mile races averaged 1:38.1 an 84.

Four 1 1/18 were 1:53.0 a 76.

The one 1 3/16 race was 200.1 a 76

TURF----

The DRF charts don't specify inner or outer turf course, so 21 6f averaged 1:09.0 a 100.

Twenty six mile races averaged 1:37.4 or 86.

Twenty six 1 1/16 races averaged 1:43.3 an 89.

Four 1/18 races averaged 1:51.0 an 86.

++++++

To compare--
Fall sprints-----------------84
Old outer track I rated----88
Old inner track-------------85

Fall routes------------8/86 78, adding two ticks from 21 variant.
Old outer track-------8/85 79
Old inner track----------79 8/81

Turf sprints---------------100
Belmont turf sprints-----100
Saratoga turf sprints------98

Turf routes-----------------86 8.5/89
Old turf routes-------------82

########

In summary, the new dirt sprints are similar to old inner track sprints.

The new routes are similar to the old outer track routes.

The turf sprints are comparable to Belmont and Saratoga.

The new turf routes are faster

I'm curious to see how close these are the par book next year.

I hope you find this helpful.

Last edited by JohnGalt1; 12-06-2017 at 04:09 PM.
JohnGalt1 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-06-2017, 04:24 PM   #2
Tom
Registered User
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 81,300
Rep Power: 102 Tom is a glorious beacon of lightTom is a glorious beacon of lightTom is a glorious beacon of lightTom is a glorious beacon of lightTom is a glorious beacon of light
Thanks for sharing.

The BRIS charts just say Turf for the original turf course, the now "inner" turf, and specify OUTER for the new course.

Hope that helps.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
Tom is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-07-2017, 12:42 AM   #3
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 39,745
Rep Power: 58 cj is a jewel in the roughcj is a jewel in the roughcj is a jewel in the roughcj is a jewel in the rough
I'd be careful with anything from the new "outer" turf course. They didn't run many races, and those they did run were done on with four different rail settings (0, 12, 24, 36).

The turf sprints are all on the new course. They can't run 6f on the old one. The 9.5 furlong races were run on the new course.

The other distances (8, 8.5, and 9f) were run on both courses.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-07-2017, 07:47 AM   #4
Whosonfirst
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 702
Rep Power: 9 Whosonfirst will become famous soon enoughWhosonfirst will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnGalt1 View Post
Whenever there is a new track or new track surface, I write down every race's time and average them to get a figure I can use to compare with the pars from other tracks when I handicap.

I buy the Cynthia par books which don't ship till about March so I want to get preliminary ratings to use until then.

I did this when California went from dirt to poly and pro-ride, and back again, and Arlington when they went from dirt to poly, since I bet there and bet on horses from there.

My ratings were surprisingly close to the figures when I receive the par book.

I looked at all races from 11/3 to 12/3/17. I ignored all off track dirt and turf races, and all maiden claimers.

I use the $10k open claiming pars for all tracks. This has worked for me. I think it was Quinn who suggested doing this.

I use an average of 2016 and 2015 pars and give more weight to the most recent year. Example 2016 par is 1:10 and 2015 par is 1:11, I rate that rack 1:10.2

I made a universal comparison chart for easy track to track comparison.

A 90 is 58.1 @5f, 104.3 @5.5, 1:11.0 @6, 1:37.0 @mile, 1:43.2 @ 1 1/16, and 1:50.1 @1 1/8. I've left off some of the distances. The 6.2 furlong differences are from Satin's Chart.

********

I used the charts from the DRF website. They also post the track variants, for what they are worth, since it's two new tracks

For what they are worth, the dirt variant averaged 17 and route averaged 21. I do not use variants on turf races unless an off turf for tack that move the rails in and out, which does effect these ratings.

The raw speeds for 33 6f races was 112.1 an 84 on my chart.

Twenty two 6 1/2 f races averaged 1:19.0 an 83.

Ten 7f races averaged 1:25.1 an 84.

Twenty 6 mile races averaged 1:38.1 an 84.

Four 1 1/18 were 1:53.0 a 76.

The one 1 3/16 race was 200.1 a 76

TURF----

The DRF charts don't specify inner or outer turf course, so 21 6f averaged 1:09.0 a 100.

Twenty six mile races averaged 1:37.4 or 86.

Twenty six 1 1/16 races averaged 1:43.3 an 89.

Four 1/18 races averaged 1:51.0 an 86.

++++++

To compare--
Fall sprints-----------------84
Old outer track I rated----88
Old inner track-------------85

Fall routes------------8/86 78, adding two ticks from 21 variant.
Old outer track-------8/85 79
Old inner track----------79 8/81

Turf sprints---------------100
Belmont turf sprints-----100
Saratoga turf sprints------98

Turf routes-----------------86 8.5/89
Old turf routes-------------82

########

In summary, the new dirt sprints are similar to old inner track sprints.

The new routes are similar to the old outer track routes.

The turf sprints are comparable to Belmont and Saratoga.

The new turf routes are faster

I'm curious to see how close these are the par book next year.

I hope you find this helpful.
John, thanks for sharing. Are the speed ratings your own, or Beyers?
__________________
Predicting the outcome of a horse race is an activity that exerts continuing appeal to the extraordinarily opulent. It is intellectually lucrative albeit fiscally ruinous.-Richard Epstein
Whosonfirst is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-07-2017, 04:06 PM   #5
JohnGalt1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 984
Rep Power: 15 JohnGalt1 is on a distinguished road
They are my own, and used only for track to track comparison.

I printed charts to make track to track, distance to distance comparisons easier.

I make Hambleton pace figures from Sartin's book with pen and paper.

As an example-----

Belmont I have routes 88, Fairgrounds 76.

It's quick and easy for me to convert from one to the other.

A race a Belmont of 1:11 and 1:35.

The Hambleton figs I make would look like 90/95/185.

If that Belmont horse went to Fairgrounds it would be 83/90/173.

Gulfstream's mile is 88, 1 1/16 is 82 and 9f is 85.

So that Belmont race would be equal to GP's mile, 6 ticks slower at 8.5f (87/92/179) and 3 ticks slower at 9f (88/94/182).

Quick and easy.

And since no rating is perfect I allow a 5 tick difference in routes and 3 ticks in sprints as being close.
JohnGalt1 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
» Current Polls
Who Would Win?
Winx - 66.07%
37 Votes
Enable - 33.93%
19 Votes
Total Votes: 56
Non-members may not vote on this poll.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2017 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved -- Best Viewed in a modern browser @ 1280x720 Resolution Or Higher
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.