Speed Pars

[upthecreek]

I got into today via Twitter and mentioned on air with/by Rich Perloff today He misspoke about how the DRF computes their speed rating He wrongly said it was based on the track record which I quickly pointed out he was wrong, that it was based on the best time in last 3 years at each distance, which in turn he said he had no use for a 3 year old speed fig, he prefers figs based on pars Which got me thinking, how often is the Beyer, or Bris, or Timeform info updated ? Are the Beyer pars, speed fig/variants based on 5 yo , 10 yo data? Is Beyer still making figs for Saratoga on info he gathered in 1975? When the old/news Garden State open in 85, I made my own speed figs a la Quirin If they were still running today , I'm sure I would need new data

[cj]

Originally Posted by upthecreek

I got into today via Twitter and mentioned on air with/by Rich Perloff today He misspoke about how the DRF computes their speed rating He wrongly said it was based on the track record which I quickly pointed out he was wrong, that it was based on the best time in last 3 years at each distance, which in turn he said he had no use for a 3 year old speed fig, he prefers figs based on pars Which got me thinking, how often is the Beyer, or Bris, or Timeform info updated ? Are the Beyer pars, speed fig/variants based on 5 yo , 10 yo data? Is Beyer still making figs for Saratoga on info he gathered in 1975? When the old/news Garden State open in 85, I made my own speed figs a la Quirin If they were still running today , I'm sure I would need new data

I can only speak for TimeformUS, but I don't use pars at all. I think the value is very limited given the vast assortment of race conditions there are today.

[upthecreek]

Thanks CJ I Tweeted that to Perloff,i like rattling his cage
Your right about the conditions It was much easier 30 years ago to keep pars for different classes I did well with my #'s in part because beside the raw drf speed rating ,I think the only other #'s were the Equibase #:s in the track program

[AltonKelsey]

Pars were always a crude method vs projection. I never used it, even back in the 70's

[sjk]

I use about 90% projection and 10% pars with the role of pars being to mitigate the effect of outliers.

The main need for me to have pars is to create par times; I don't know how else to make them. It does take some effort. I see that I have over 15,000 pars from Alb C1000 to Zia Str8000 (although I don't think I have ever made a bet at either of those tracks).

It would be a daunting challenge to create 15,000 pars all at once but when something builds over 20+ years it can get large unnoticed.

I too still have pars for GS but don't think they will ever be of use.

[NorCalGreg]

"Par" is just another term for "Baseline"...is it not?

How would anyone determine if any rating is poor, avg, or good without something to compare it with/against?

[sjk]

If it helps you make money it must be on balance good

[pandy]

Originally Posted by upthecreek

I got into today via Twitter and mentioned on air with/by Rich Perloff today He misspoke about how the DRF computes their speed rating He wrongly said it was based on the track record which I quickly pointed out he was wrong, that it was based on the best time in last 3 years at each distance, which in turn he said he had no use for a 3 year old speed fig, he prefers figs based on pars Which got me thinking, how often is the Beyer, or Bris, or Timeform info updated ? Are the Beyer pars, speed fig/variants based on 5 yo , 10 yo data? Is Beyer still making figs for Saratoga on info he gathered in 1975? When the old/news Garden State open in 85, I made my own speed figs a la Quirin If they were still running today , I'm sure I would need new data

The tables that Beyer uses have been updated often. Speed figure making is not just about the par times, or projections. The parallel time charts are extremely important and it can take years of tweaking to get them to the point where they produce accurate ratings.

[RonTiller]

Jim Cramer does not use pars in his speed ratings, either for variants or track to track.

In the mid 90s, when we were relatively new in the business, we put a 3 year best speed rating in our files (still do), not because its a good number (it is not) but because some people wanted it.

We regularly got calls that our 3yb speed rating was wrong, because it did not match the one printed in the DRF. In paticular, this happened in Jan & Feb and Mar. The reason they didn't match was the DRF did not move up a year on Jan 1st - they still used the table of values they used the previous year. This got quite exasperating, defending our correct version of the 3yb speed rating against the "gold standard" incorrect 3yb number printed by the DRF.

The matter got even worse when, in mid summer, the numbers started mismatching again, after apparently the DRF did recalculate the 3 year best times for the previous 3 years. After wasting hours researching it, it became obvious that in mid summer, they had reverted back to the times they had used the previous years, after having used the correct 3 year best times for several months. Somebody probably had to restore a backup from somewhere and restored the previous year's values. So, the calls started all over again about how WE (AKA HDW) had the incorrect 3yb speed ratings in our files. Sigh...

The ultimate irony is that it probably made no difference whatsoever, as the number is not good to begin with.

Ron Tiller
HDW

[upthecreek]

Originally Posted by RonTiller

Jim Cramer does not use pars in his speed ratings, either for variants or track to track.

In the mid 90s, when we were relatively new in the business, we put a 3 year best speed rating in our files (still do), not because its a good number (it is not) but because some people wanted it.

We regularly got calls that our 3yb speed rating was wrong, because it did not match the one printed in the DRF. In paticular, this happened in Jan & Feb and Mar. The reason they didn't match was the DRF did not move up a year on Jan 1st - they still used the table of values they used the previous year. This got quite exasperating, defending our correct version of the 3yb speed rating against the "gold standard" incorrect 3yb number printed by the DRF.

The matter got even worse when, in mid summer, the numbers started mismatching again, after apparently the DRF did recalculate the 3 year best times for the previous 3 years. After wasting hours researching it, it became obvious that in mid summer, they had reverted back to the times they had used the previous years, after having used the correct 3 year best times for several months. Somebody probably had to restore a backup from somewhere and restored the previous year's values. So, the calls started all over again about how WE (AKA HDW) had the incorrect 3yb speed ratings in our files. Sigh...

The ultimate irony is that it probably made no difference whatsoever, as the number is not good to begin with.

Ron Tiller
HDW

If you know how to use the drf #, it can be as godd as any other I use a variation of Quirin method, but I only make the #'s for Tam & Mth And I don't use 1 length = 1/5 of a second

[cj]

Originally Posted by pandy

The tables that Beyer uses have been updated often. Speed figure making is not just about the par times, or projections. The parallel time charts are extremely important and it can take years of tweaking to get them to the point where they produce accurate ratings.

They were updated in the last year or so, but I certainly wouldn't say they have been updated often. He did tweak the tables for synthetics eventually and also tweaked the beaten lengths chart for turf, but for dirt they went basically unchanged for decades.

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

"Par" is just another term for "Baseline"...is it not?

How would anyone determine if any rating is poor, avg, or good without something to compare it with/against?

For purposes of betting, you only need accurate relative figures. If you're writing for the DRF and you're going for hyperbole, then you need pars.


Though I found it a little odd, Jerry Brown seemed to be saying he didn't care what the actual time of the Pegasus was, since he went off the other horses. Not sure I'm happy with that , but I believe that's what was said.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

Though I found it a little odd, Jerry Brown seemed to be saying he didn't care what the actual time of the Pegasus was, since he went off the other horses. Not sure I'm happy with that , but I believe that's what was said.

That's what he said.

He believes that tracks change speed multiple times a day due to the surface drying out, having water added, having maintenance done etc..

This is how I understand his thinking based on his comments over the year.

He tries to create a separate variant for every race. However, other races on the card help inform what he thinks about any individual race and stakes races with very consistent horses are easier to break out like that than horses with a less to go on. So for a race like Pegasus, the final time was almost irrelevant. He made a figure based on the horses' prior figures and the margins between horses, weight carried, and ground loss in the Pegasus.

[classhandicapper]

I don't check many tracks other than NYRA, but Beyer has done some tweaks to his published parallel time charts in NY.

[Tom]

6.5 furlongs at Aqu looks like it was changed a couple of ticks.