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 Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average.
Old 01-07-2015, 11:49 AM   #16
PhantomOnTour
C'est Tout
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cajunland
Posts: 13,253
Final time figures for turf races are not part of my arsenal....just too much variation with multiple turf courses and rail settings at many tracks.
I prefer to do more of a fractional analysis (esp the 3fr) and therefore adjust lengths gained or lost during certain segments of the race (1/4m, 3/16m).
__________________
How do I work this?
-David Byrne
PhantomOnTour is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-07-2015, 12:05 PM   #17
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour
Final time figures for turf races are not part of my arsenal....just too much variation with multiple turf courses and rail settings at many tracks.
I prefer to do more of a fractional analysis (esp the 3fr) and therefore adjust lengths gained or lost during certain segments of the race (1/4m, 3/16m).
This is along the lines of what I'm thinking, final time doesn't tell the story in a lot of turf races, and even on dirt as well at times. There are better ways to measure races and they can still be measured numerically.

It can get tricky with slow paces. For example, a race at 9f with a crawling pace won't really tell us how a horse will do in a race at a similar distance with a fast pace. The pace is effectively changing the distance of the race many times.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-07-2015, 12:08 PM   #18
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatetoWire
Good post CJ.
I think this illustrates how important linking Speed Figures, Pace Figures and Trip Handicapping is when it comes to evaluating races.
This is especially the case in turf races. The slightest bit for difficulty (wide trip, waiting for a hole, not ideal pace setup etc) can virtually eliminate a horse from hitting the board in a turf race.

Figures are fantastic tools but they only tell a piece of what happened and they need to be used with good trip notes and charts to get the full picture.
Yep, definitely true. I always laugh when people label guys on this board as "figure guys", like we are blindly betting numbers. I'd be living under a bridge by now if I did that.

Hopefully the latest chart I posted adds some value too. There is always new stuff to learn in this game, and old "truths" that can be challenged.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-07-2015, 12:11 PM   #19
PhantomOnTour
C'est Tout
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cajunland
Posts: 13,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour
Final time figures for turf races are not part of my arsenal....just too much variation with multiple turf courses and rail settings at many tracks.
I prefer to do more of a fractional analysis (esp the 3fr) and therefore adjust lengths gained or lost during certain segments of the race (1/4m, 3/16m).
Conversely, I use final times and traditional pace-n-speed figs for turf sprints under 6f.

Now, what to do with those 6f and 7f turf races at Bel is a thing that has eluded me for years. I tend to treat the 6f races as sprints and the 7f ones as routes, but I will admit that my numbers at these two specific distances need some tweaking, to say the least.

CJ - how do you treat 7f turf races?
__________________
How do I work this?
-David Byrne
PhantomOnTour is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-07-2015, 12:17 PM   #20
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour
Conversely, I use final times and traditional pace-n-speed figs for turf sprints under 6f.

Now, what to do with those 6f and 7f turf races at Bel is a thing that has eluded me for years. I tend to treat the 6f races as sprints and the 7f ones as routes, but I will admit that my numbers at these two specific distances need some tweaking, to say the least.

CJ - how do you treat 7f turf races?
That is what I'm trying to figure out!

I don't think the 7f races play as routes though based on the data I've seen. Even 7.5f races, which in the US are all two turn races on turf, play more like sprints that routes, probably in large part because of the proximity of the first turn.

However, even in sprints, as I noted, there is still a noticable difference in the value of beaten lengths on dirt and turf. That surprised me.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-07-2015, 12:39 PM   #21
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,523
Good stuff.

Are you looking at just winning margins or margins between all horses?

They could produce mildly different results.

Many big winners are good horses that got loose on the lead in a relatively slow pace and drew off from the rest of the field and others are dominant speeds that torched the rest of the field in an average pace for them that was too fast for the others. Those are kind of unique situations relative to the typical race that could distort something.

You also might want to remove maiden races from the data to see how that impacts the results. I think my data in maiden sprints (at least on dirt) showed that there are more dominant "big" winners in maiden races than in the typical race because you run into some real killers at that level that will eventually move way up. That's more of a class issue than a race development and average beaten length issue.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"

Last edited by classhandicapper; 01-07-2015 at 12:47 PM.
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-07-2015, 12:49 PM   #22
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
Good stuff.

Are you looking at just winning margins or margins between all horses?

They could produce mildly different results.

Many big winners are good horses that got loose on the lead in a relatively slow pace and drew off from the rest of the field and others are dominant speeds that torched the rest of the field in an average pace for them that was too fast for the others. Those are kind of unique situations relative to the typical race that could distort something.

You also might want to remove maiden races from the data to see how that impacts the results. I think my data in maiden sprints showed that there are more dominant "big" winners in maiden races than in the typical race because you run into some real killers at that level that will eventually move way up. That's more of a class issue than a race development and average beaten length issue.
Just winning margins. I think that is a more stable set to use than including other margins.

I've been doing this a long time, I know about all the distortions. I am greater than 99% certain that those things aren't changing the results with sample sizes as large as I'm using.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-07-2015, 12:50 PM   #23
Cratos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 4,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour
Final time figures for turf races are not part of my arsenal....just too much variation with multiple turf courses and rail settings at many tracks.
I prefer to do more of a fractional analysis (esp the 3fr) and therefore adjust lengths gained or lost during certain segments of the race (1/4m, 3/16m).
Yes the rail settings will make a difference in turf racing, but in comparing dirt racing to turf racing there are much more to consider.
The time of all races whether dirt or turf are primarily affected by the following 4 resistances: 1) Aerodynamic Drag, 2) Surface Winds, 3) Surface COF, and 4) Track Geometry/Turn Impact.
The fist two will affect the horse's dirt and turf speed performance similarly, but the last two have very different impacts on the the horse' s speed performance.
__________________
Independent thinking, emotional stability, and a keen understanding of both human and institutional behavior are vital to long-term investment success – My hero, Warren Edward Buffett

"Science is correct; even if you don't believe it" - Neil deGrasse Tyson
Cratos is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-07-2015, 12:59 PM   #24
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
I've been doing this a long time, I know about all the distortions. I am greater than 99% certain that those things aren't changing the results with sample sizes as large as I'm using.
I know. We've discussed this some.

I just suspect that slow paces producing larger margins is probably the result of fresh faster horses already on the lead drawing off from the rest of field into the stretch as opposed to something related to times.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"

Last edited by classhandicapper; 01-07-2015 at 01:03 PM.
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-07-2015, 01:35 PM   #25
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
I know. We've discussed this some.

I just suspect that slow paces producing larger margins is probably the result of fresh faster horses already on the lead drawing off from the rest of field into the stretch as opposed to something related to times.
It is all related, including field size. Smaller races are less competitive gate to wire, thus larger margins, less contested pace, etc. When you look at the factors individually, the big picture starts to make a lot more sense.

I've discovered a few things along the way. For example, at TimeformUS, we should probably not have "Favors Horses On / Near the Early Lead" for races where field size is high, because the pace is rarely slow in those races no matter how it looks on paper.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-07-2015, 01:43 PM   #26
raybo
EXCEL with SUPERFECTAS
 
raybo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
This is along the lines of what I'm thinking, final time doesn't tell the story in a lot of turf races, and even on dirt as well at times. There are better ways to measure races and they can still be measured numerically.

It can get tricky with slow paces. For example, a race at 9f with a crawling pace won't really tell us how a horse will do in a race at a similar distance with a fast pace. The pace is effectively changing the distance of the race many times.
This is one of the reasons I use velocities (average rate of speed in fps) instead of pace or speed figures. I also use variable beaten lengths based on the leader's speed. That way the value of a beaten length varies according to how fast the pace for that segment was run. Once the segmental velocities are calculated I use my own total velocity formula for calculating the whole race's velocity. It's all based on Sartin's work but with my own modifications. I decided to do it my way so that I don't end up doing exactly what a lot of others who uses velocities are doing.
__________________
Ray
Horseracing's like the stock market except you don't have to wait as long to go broke.

Excel Spreadsheet Handicapping Forum

Charter Member: Horseplayers Association of North America

Last edited by raybo; 01-07-2015 at 01:52 PM.
raybo is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-07-2015, 01:55 PM   #27
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Here was a good example from Race 2 today at Gulfstream. I'll give last turf race TimeformUS Final Time Figures, then what they would have been if I were counting beaten lengths more. I'm excluding horses that didn't match up with the best figures:

1 (5-1) Race 97, Horse 89, doubling beaten length factor (was 5 lengths back) would have given 81

2 (7-2) Race 96, Horse 89, adjusted to 82
4 (5-1) Race 94, Horse 84, adjusted to 74
5(11-1) Race 94, Horse 86, adjusted to 78
6(25-1) Race 99, Horse 90, adjusted 85 (race was a sprint, so adjustment not same)
7 (5-1) Race 94, Horse 92, adjusted to 90
8 (2-1) Race 86, Horse 86, adjusted to 86

The 7 had the highest figure going in anyway, but others looked close, his 92 was followed by a 90 and two 89s. But when the adjustment I've been talking about was made, the horse goes from a two point edge and three horses within three points to a four point edge over two other horses. He won easily at 5-1.

This is exactly what I was talking about in the beginning, overrating horses that weren't really competitive in turf races.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-07-2015, 02:30 PM   #28
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by raybo
I decided to do it my way so that I don't end up doing exactly what a lot of others who uses velocities are doing.

That advice is definitely worth the price of admission.

That's where I am heading. There's no escaping the fundamental factors, but if you are doing what everyone else is doing, it's not going to be easy to find value no matter how good you are and how valid the ideas. If you use something that's measuring the same things in a new and equally valid way or find holes in generally accepted thinking, you have a better chance of finding value. I want a different model of thinking about reality. I have ideas, but testing them is a b$tch.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"

Last edited by classhandicapper; 01-07-2015 at 02:32 PM.
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-07-2015, 04:26 PM   #29
steveb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
Of course, the races are run differently in general, though obviously there are numerous exceptions on all surfaces.

Here is why it matters in regards to speed figures which is what I was discussing. Imagine a speed figure scale where a beaten length counts as 2 points on dirt and turf. Horse A and Horse B both exit 9f races on turf.

Horse A exits a race won with a 100, was beaten 2 lengths. He gets a speed figure of 96

Horse B exits a race won with a 94, and he won the race. His speed figure is a 94.

In this scenario, horse A appears a length faster. But is he? What I am finding is that Horse A actually should have gotten a 92 if you double the value of a beaten length. He is now rated a length slower.

I'm not advocating that this is a better way to do things in every situation, but I think in the majority of the scenarios, it is. More to come in the next few days...
there is an obvious difference between surfaces, that is easy to prove.
but i don't believe anybody should say this many points equals that many lengths, regardless of surface.
you would obviously have different time standards for those different surfaces.
maybe you need to work in proportions rather than this many points equals that many lengths.?
running 69 seconds seconds when the winner ran 68(and the standard) on turf is nowhere near as good as perhaps running 70 when the race is won in 71(and time standard) on dirt.

proportionate tends to take care of most things that vary like surface, going, and other things.
maybe not perfectly but far better than using points equal lengths.
steveb is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-07-2015, 04:53 PM   #30
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,523
One other thing to toss around (related to what I said previously about large margins and loose front runners in slow paced races) is that closers tend to have their moves timed to the horses in front of them rather that blowing fields away. So if a surface is tilted towards closers, you might get smaller average winning margins for that reason.

CJ's data is suggesting that rather than pace being the dominant factor in smaller margins on turf, it might be running style. And if I am correct, the wider margins in slow paced dirt races might be the more frequent loose leaders blowing fields away. That happens less often on turf.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"

Last edited by classhandicapper; 01-07-2015 at 04:55 PM.
classhandicapper 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
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
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.