Pace Analysis Software

[Cratos]

This thread started with the OP asking other posters to become part of a collaborative effort to help design Pace Analysis Software.

His request either wasn’t received or for a myriad of other reasons the project never got the support to move forward.

Now the Nay Sayers who troll virtually every thread are coming aboard with adverse comments like the thread was “a waste of time” or the thread hasn’t “passed the definitions page.” I am not saying that they shouldn’t be allow to make such comments, but I am saying that they should make them with the conviction of knowledge and not sarcasm.

Yes, there have been disagreement about some ideas and some ideas which were presented were either too vague or too complex to be understood.

Therefore, the statement that gives the best reason for the lack of effort in this thread probably can be found in post #237 by the poster, JJMartin where he writes the following:

“When someone claims, they are successful in a certain area unknown to you, you can either explore it for yourself and arrive at your own conclusions or dismiss their claim as a baseless assertion. That is a decision that is not always easy to make. I think what is happening within these forums is that there is a lot of apprehension when it comes to participation in any proposed endeavor due to lack of knowledge, experience, expertise, qualification, education etc. The other problem is lack of willingness or means to put in the work.”

[Tom]

Now the Nay Sayers who troll virtually every thread are coming aboard with adverse comments like the thread was “a waste of time” or the thread hasn’t “passed the definitions page.” I am not saying that they shouldn’t be allow to make such comments, but I am saying that they should make them with the conviction of knowledge and not sarcasm.

I am saying with conviction of knowledge that the software suggested her already exists and is very effective in the real world of racing, where people bet money on horses and make money in return. You are still arguing definition in recent posts. We are not afraid to make bets with out "data."

The best way to silence your critics is of DO SOMETHING.
Operative word being DO, not talk.

My suggestion was to those who are fed up waiting for "something" and get in the game today.

[JJMartin]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

The issue here is not that Traynor (or any other poster in this thread), puts people or their methods down because of what they are doing; the problem is that something like this cannot happen since nothing from what is described here that can be empirically tested and verified.

No theory in the thread has been presented in a clear and concise way that can become subject to verification, instead all the postings consist of vague and metaphysic claims, requiring a great degree of faith to convince the reader.

No statement containing expressions like "I know", "I have seen", "I have done", "There exists", "I feel", "I believe", "My experience tells me" etc, can be considered convincing arguments that can win a debate and prove a specific case; unfortunately this thread is full of this type of nonsense that have only created dead-end confrontations similar to those can be found in the notorious "Religious" thread.

If you have any theory to present, I will run it through my DB and report the results.

[Cratos]

What am I missing? The answer is clearly nothing because to applaud this existing SW package or that existing SW package does this or that without the saliency of validation or verification is all “smoke and mirrors”.

I will not criticize or validate any SW package without testing it myself or having proof of the testing.

In the horseracing gambling and handicapping arena there exist numerous SW packages claiming success without any proof.

That is neither a sin or a crime because this is America where spurious product claims are readily made via the Internet and television on a frequent basis.

Also, it should not be forgotten that horseracing gambling in America currently is on a downward spiral and you might ask why? It is a conglomeration of many things, but in this technological economic environment nothing revives a market better or faster than good productive SW applications.

Therefore, this was probably a good idea by the OP, but like in the US Patent Office many good ideas never reach the fruition of a market product.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Tom

I am saying with conviction of knowledge that the software suggested her already exists and is very effective in the real world of racing, where people bet money on horses and make money in return. You are still arguing definition in recent posts. We are not afraid to make bets with out "data."

The best way to silence your critics is of DO SOMETHING.
Operative word being DO, not talk.

My suggestion was to those who are fed up waiting for "something" and get in the game today.

I totally agree. I have been looking at the TimeForm Pace Projector since you posted this, and I think it is near-perfect for the original stated purpose of this thread--a readily available software app enabling novices to learn about pace in a relatively fast and painless way. Re-inventing the wheel is not rational behavior, and I have not seen anything posted on this thread to suggest that anyone has any new or innovative ideas in regard to pace that might prove useful to pursue further.

I thank everyone for his or her participation, comments, and suggestions, and wish everyone well. See ya.

[JJMartin]

Sounds like Traynor is retiring from this thread? Not sure. But in light of the discussions here, I am considering possibly starting a thread that just deals with conceptual input centered on Pace without the Software aspect. Just perspectives, ideas and thoughts without any requirements for proof or validation. That part can come later in a testing phase. My main interest is to find a metric that is predictive based on the effects of running style behavior at different distances and stages. What causes any horse to lead is of particular interest.

[Cratos]

Attached is the pace analysis of the 2016 Ky Derby which is not as detailed as I would like because it doesn’t have the “influences” and the reason for that is this analysis was done with Excel and not my handicapping model.

However, it still can be a template for predicting the 2017 Ky Derby pace analysis by using the data from the Ky Derby prep races listed below:

• Florida Derby Gulfstream Park Apr 1, 2017
• Wood Memorial Aqueduct Apr 8, 2017
• Blue Grass Keeneland Apr 8, 2017
• Santa Anita Derby Santa Anita Park Apr 8, 2017
• Arkansas Derby Oaklawn Park Apr 15, 2017

[traynor]

I encourage you to start a new thread with the expressed purpose of pace analysis of specific upcoming major races. Let this thread die out as it already has, without pointless rebooting. The grass was growing greenly and the birds were beginning to sing again. Let it rest in peace. It was a bad idea that I sincerely regret ever having suggested.

[Cratos]

You are probably correct.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by JJMartin

Sounds like Traynor is retiring from this thread? Not sure. But in light of the discussions here, I am considering possibly starting a thread that just deals with conceptual input centered on Pace without the Software aspect. Just perspectives, ideas and thoughts without any requirements for proof or validation. That part can come later in a testing phase. My main interest is to find a metric that is predictive based on the effects of running style behavior at different distances and stages. What causes any horse to lead is of particular interest.

Coming in late to this discussion because I just saw it. It sounds like you have a large database and I really like the speed with which you've demonstrated your data mining abilities.

I think you're on the right track and maybe with some suggestions I can help you since I've faced similar questions. Not saying I've got the definitive answer but so far, it makes sense to me. But realize, I'm always trying to improve my thought processes.

1) I've found that there are pace differences based on whether a track is an A, B, C or D type of track. My track designations are based on my opinion of the "Class" of the horse populations stabled and running at those tracks.

Your post using the E type horse paces which I thought was very good appears to be lumping all the horses and tracks by distance together. Segregate your results by track class mentioned previously and see if there are any differences. Also, instead of including all horses in your database only include the winning horses and maybe those which have finished within 2 beaten lengths. I used only the winning horse's paces because it was all I was saving.

2) I don't use the E type designation because after predicting the pace the horse's running style usually comes out. Besides, I'm uncertain how accurate those designations are.

3) I suggest you prepare a study on beaten lengths because I don't think the BL is 1/5 per second and the more accurate you can make it the better your results.

4) You need to stratify your results by surface, distance, class etc., (there'll be a lot of stratification, IMO).

5) Use ranges since you're using averages.

There are a lot more but hopefully you'll look at your results differently than before. This format of communicating for these kind of ideas I find awkward so, I'll stop here.

Btw, I think the bold portion of your above post is the real end goal of pace handicapping. You'll have to figure that part on your own.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

Coming in late to this discussion because I just saw it. It sounds like you have a large database and I really like the speed with which you've demonstrated your data mining abilities.

I think you're on the right track and maybe with some suggestions I can help you since I've faced similar questions. Not saying I've got the definitive answer but so far, it makes sense to me. But realize, I'm always trying to improve my thought processes.

1) I've found that there are pace differences based on whether a track is an A, B, C or D type of track. My track designations are based on my opinion of the "Class" of the horse populations stabled and running at those tracks.

Your post using the E type horse paces which I thought was very good appears to be lumping all the horses and tracks by distance together. Segregate your results by track class mentioned previously and see if there are any differences. Also, instead of including all horses in your database only include the winning horses and maybe those which have finished within 2 beaten lengths. I used only the winning horse's paces because it was all I was saving.

2) I don't use the E type designation because after predicting the pace the horse's running style usually comes out. Besides, I'm uncertain how accurate those designations are.

3) I suggest you prepare a study on beaten lengths because I don't think the BL is 1/5 per second and the more accurate you can make it the better your results.

4) You need to stratify your results by surface, distance, class etc., (there'll be a lot of stratification, IMO).

5) Use ranges since you're using averages.

There are a lot more but hopefully you'll look at your results differently than before. This format of communicating for these kind of ideas I find awkward so, I'll stop here.

Btw, I think the bold portion of your above post is the real end goal of pace handicapping. You'll have to figure that part on your own.

Whodoyoulike, it is good that you found this thread and decided to become a contributor because different points of view can initiate provoking thought and sometimes change minds or opinions about a subject.

To that end I find the use of concepts such as “E type” when describing a horse’s racing motion as virtually useless. Anecdotal data is not sufficient for rigorous analytics and such spurious concepts and ideas severely weakens the foundation of horseracing handicapping.

There are many references and “Predicting Motion (Physical World)” by Robert Lambourne is good for explaining the fundamentals, but it is calculus intense and it should be, because calculus is the mathematics of change; and pace in horseracing is the change of the horse’s motion during the race and it should be the central tenet of the handicapper’s playbook.

[whodoyoulike]

Btw, in #3 the BL s/h/b 1/5 of a second not per second.

"3) I suggest you prepare a study on beaten lengths because I don't think the BL is 1/5 per second and the more accurate you can make it the better your results."

Cratos, I noticed you mentioned a different BL equivalency value in this thread compared a previous post from another thread. It just so happened that BL value was very similar to mine.

Without repeating the prior value here because I think everyone should figure it out on their own, I'm curious did yours change because of another study performed?

Btw, I think your new one is incorrect.

Thanks,

Also, ignore the few individuals who bashed this thread and wanted it closed. I noticed they didn't contribute to it but are too stupid to realize if they don't like the topic to just move on to another thread of their liking.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

Btw, in #3 the BL s/h/b 1/5 of a second not per second.

"3) I suggest you prepare a study on beaten lengths because I don't think the BL is 1/5 per second and the more accurate you can make it the better your results."

Cratos, I noticed you mentioned a different BL equivalency value in this thread compared a previous post from another thread. It just so happened that BL value was very similar to mine.

Without repeating the prior value here because I think everyone should figure it out on their own, I'm curious did yours change because of another study performed?

Btw, I think your new one is incorrect.

Thanks,

Also, ignore the few individuals who bashed this thread and wanted it closed. I noticed they didn't contribute to it but are too stupid to realize if they don't like the topic to just move on to another thread of their liking.

The beaten length used in the construction of the Ky Derby pace analysis shown earlier in this thread is .17 seconds because the data is from Trakus and that is the general time metric used.

However, I had said earlier in this thread that it should be .14 seconds and from an internal study just completed for the calculation of the horse’s skin friction coefficient the beaten length was found to be 2.40 meters which equals an average of .14 seconds for the horse’s average profile height (including jockey) at 2.13 meters during the race.

Therefore, you asserted that the numbers I gave was incorrect and that could be true, but I would like understand your proof and data source; I not asking for any proprietary information.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by Cratos

The beaten length used in the construction of the Ky Derby pace analysis shown earlier in this thread is .17 seconds because the data is from Trakus and that is the general time metric used.

However, I had said earlier in this thread that it should be .14 seconds and from an internal study just completed for the calculation of the horse’s skin friction coefficient the beaten length was found to be 2.40 meters which equals an average of .14 seconds for the horse’s average profile height (including jockey) at 2.13 meters during the race.

Therefore, you asserted that the numbers I gave was incorrect and that could be true, but I would like understand your proof and data source; I not asking for any proprietary information.

My number was calculated using Trakus data when they first became available in my area around 2010. It was based on hundreds of data points from a couple of available tracks at the time. Del Mar was one and I think the other was Gulfstream Park. I compared it with a couple of different reporting sources (DRF formulator was one, can't recall the other) and mine was close but not exactly the same but, it was good enough for me.

I wasn't aware the Trakus general metric was .17 because I had selected different fractional calls from the two tracks (from dozens if not hundreds of races) and they were very different.

I was just wondering why the change because I thought you're saying the BL adjustment over recent times has gotten faster but I don't think the overall times have gotten faster in general.

[JJMartin]

Originally Posted by whodoyoulike

Coming in late to this discussion because I just saw it. It sounds like you have a large database and I really like the speed with which you've demonstrated your data mining abilities.

I think you're on the right track and maybe with some suggestions I can help you since I've faced similar questions. Not saying I've got the definitive answer but so far, it makes sense to me. But realize, I'm always trying to improve my thought processes.

1) I've found that there are pace differences based on whether a track is an A, B, C or D type of track. My track designations are based on my opinion of the "Class" of the horse populations stabled and running at those tracks.

Your post using the E type horse paces which I thought was very good appears to be lumping all the horses and tracks by distance together. Segregate your results by track class mentioned previously and see if there are any differences. Also, instead of including all horses in your database only include the winning horses and maybe those which have finished within 2 beaten lengths. I used only the winning horse's paces because it was all I was saving.

2) I don't use the E type designation because after predicting the pace the horse's running style usually comes out. Besides, I'm uncertain how accurate those designations are.

3) I suggest you prepare a study on beaten lengths because I don't think the BL is 1/5 per second and the more accurate you can make it the better your results.

4) You need to stratify your results by surface, distance, class etc., (there'll be a lot of stratification, IMO).

5) Use ranges since you're using averages.

There are a lot more but hopefully you'll look at your results differently than before. This format of communicating for these kind of ideas I find awkward so, I'll stop here.

Btw, I think the bold portion of your above post is the real end goal of pace handicapping. You'll have to figure that part on your own.

Hello, sorry I am not able to respond at length right now but I can tell you one thing quickly, too much narrowing down results in very small sample sizes unfortunately. The test I ran was for the 1st call on dirt at any distance. This is because every race has a 1st call and I just wanted to get a general feeling of what to expect before moving on to something more specific.