Pars

[wiretowire68]

I know these get sold and do not have the money to purchase but does anybody or is anybody willing to give a copy of their 2023 pars.. Would appreciate.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by wiretowire68

I know these get sold and do not have the money to purchase but does anybody or is anybody willing to give a copy of their 2023 pars.. Would appreciate.

having pars(standards) is no big deal.
and 2023 should be no different to 2022 or 2020, provided the track has not undergone any changes.
it's how you use them that is probably more important.
anyway, i don't do USA, but i have HK, and you can have them gratis if you want.
i think they have the world's best racing over there, and they give the public heaps of info for free.

[Bullet Plane]

Make your own. There is a piece on how to do it in Betting Thoroughbreds by Steve Davidowitz on page 168.

[shout1966]

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?t=124334

[denniswilliams]

Originally Posted by steveb

having pars(standards) is no big deal.
and 2023 should be no different to 2022 or 2020, provided the track has not undergone any changes.
it's how you use them that is probably more important.
anyway, i don't do USA, but i have HK, and you can have them gratis if you want.
i think they have the world's best racing over there, and they give the public heaps of info for free.

Question: I'm assuming that you're using your own pars, rather than those on the HKG site. Do you break them down by class, as well, or are they based on the standards for Group races only?

[steveb]

Originally Posted by denniswilliams

Question: I'm assuming that you're using your own pars, rather than those on the HKG site. Do you break them down by class, as well, or are they based on the standards for Group races only?

the ones on the HK are all over the place imo.
i don't think the standard time itself is important, just that they all relate to each other

mine are not broken down by class.....ie there is only 1 standard for track & distance.
my standard would equal 100
of course you have to have an expectation of how fast any one race is going to be run.
i might expect a 40 for one race and maybe 110 for another.
i need baselines(expectation) to help figure the actual speed.


i don't use the official race types, i have method of classifying the race by the official rating of the horses in the race.
there is too big a variation in the official types, especially as you climb up the class ladder.

[denniswilliams]

Originally Posted by steveb

the ones on the HK are all over the place imo.
i don't think the standard time itself is important, just that they all relate to each other

mine are not broken down by class.....ie there is only 1 standard for track & distance.
my standard would equal 100
of course you have to have an expectation of how fast any one race is going to be run.
i might expect a 40 for one race and maybe 110 for another.
i need baselines(expectation) to help figure the actual speed.


i don't use the official race types, i have method of classifying the race by the official rating of the horses in the race.
there is too big a variation in the official types, especially as you climb up the class ladder.

I'm not a 'figure' person but much of what you write makes sense.




What I've noticed about HKG in my couple of years playing there is the 'complexity' of the races: half the field could be 'gaining' the last 400M or, even, last 200M. Or the difference between the first 4 or 5 or 6 finishers could be less than 1 length. Who ran the best? The same pool of horses runs against each other repeatedly. Eventually, most end up winning at least 1 race (or certainly placing).



Obviously, your figures must capture these nuances (more so at ST than HV, from what you've written). But the large fields, the seemingly closely matched horses, and all the race incidents makes this seem like a very difficult task.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by denniswilliams

I'm not a 'figure' person but much of what you write makes sense.




What I've noticed about HKG in my couple of years playing there is the 'complexity' of the races: half the field could be 'gaining' the last 400M or, even, last 200M. Or the difference between the first 4 or 5 or 6 finishers could be less than 1 length. Who ran the best? The same pool of horses runs against each other repeatedly. Eventually, most end up winning at least 1 race (or certainly placing).



Obviously, your figures must capture these nuances (more so at ST than HV, from what you've written). But the large fields, the seemingly closely matched horses, and all the race incidents makes this seem like a very difficult task.

for HK my times are only part of it, and for HV, not much at all.

currently(it varies), the most important thing in my models are rider, and last start public probability.
the most important thing though is todays probs, but i purposely don't consider them, for reason i would rather not get into.

then i think time/section stuff in various ways is next best
someplace else the rider may not be much of a factor at all, but HK, is for me at least.
i guess it depends on the riders whereever, and the difference between best and worst

i don't take much notice, as i rarely bet(if they had betfair i would).
my computer does all the work, with factors, i figured out years ago, so the coefficients are probably way out of date.
there will be factors for running style and whatever, but it's a while since i checked which is which.

@blume_steve
that's my twitter handle, and sometimes i will post what probs my computer comes up with for all the nags in the race.
but keep in mind, they are not selections as such.
if i was betting, i would back any(and all) horses where the publc gives less chance than me(up to a certain cutoff point).

[denniswilliams]

Originally Posted by steveb

for HK my times are only part of it, and for HV, not much at all.

currently(it varies), the most important thing in my models are rider, and last start public probability.
the most important thing though is todays probs, but i purposely don't consider them, for reason i would rather not get into.

then i think time/section stuff in various ways is next best
someplace else the rider may not be much of a factor at all, but HK, is for me at least.
i guess it depends on the riders whereever, and the difference between best and worst

i don't take much notice, as i rarely bet(if they had betfair i would).
my computer does all the work, with factors, i figured out years ago, so the coefficients are probably way out of date.
there will be factors for running style and whatever, but it's a while since i checked which is which.

@blume_steve
that's my twitter handle, and sometimes i will post what probs my computer comes up with for all the nags in the race.
but keep in mind, they are not selections as such.
if i was betting, i would back any(and all) horses where the publc gives less chance than me(up to a certain cutoff point).

Thanks. I'll take a look at them.


Can I see your pars?

[steveb]

sure.
Pars(standards) are no big deal.
Have never understood, why people are secretive about them.
Maybe if I was still having a decent go, it would matter, but i'm not.
It's how you use them(and what you can derive from them), that matters, not so much what they are.
Give me an email addy and I will send them to you.

[denniswilliams]

Originally Posted by steveb

sure.
Pars(standards) are no big deal.
Have never understood, why people are secretive about them.
Maybe if I was still having a decent go, it would matter, but i'm not.
It's how you use them(and what you can derive from them), that matters, not so much what they are.
Give me an email addy and I will send them to you.

Appreciate it.


dennisfranklynwilliams@outlook.com