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 10-29-2018, 09:12 AM   #16
bobphilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveb View Post
not sure this is of any interest.

i can find no evidence that as the distances increase so do the margins.
that's more pace issue than a distance issue.

dunno if has relevance to usa but the awt in hong kong is dirt
shtn & hpvy turf.

the graphic is just mean and median for speed points(relative to winner....all winners would be zero)finish possies 2 to 10 and grouped by track and distance.

forgive my arrogance but i have always thought beyer was wrong.
he may have changed but the beyer ones are how it was explained in his early books are nonsensical.

in other words the beyer way the numbers smaller over short trips and larger over longer that's because he reckons beaten 1 length over a long trip is better than being beaten a length over shorter trip.

done the correct way, then it's pretty obvious that distance is only a very minor factor.
You have a point there. Beyer uses what seems to be a common sensical explanation in his books where he compares beaten lengths in horse racing to losing margins in human track and field. He points out that someone running the 100 meter dash by one second slower than an Olympic champion would barely win a high school meet while someone running the Marathon 1 second slower than an Olympic champion would be considered one of the world's best runners. The only problem is he cites the difference between 100 meter dashes and the Marathon, where the longer distance is thousands of times longer, compared to horse races where route races are less than twice as long as sprints. We do see much larger margins in 12 furlong races, like the Belmont Stakes, than in 6 furlong sprints but that is mainly because American horses are not bred for stamina and the also-rans quit long before the finish.

Pace and the way the race is run seems to be more of a factor in beaten lengths and Beyer seems to have realized this to some extent since he now applies the same value to beaten lengths to grass route races as dirt sprints since grass races are typically run like sprints in the last 2 or 3 furlongs.

This has been a very informative thread.

Last edited by bobphilo; 10-29-2018 at 09:16 AM.
bobphilo is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 09:33 AM   #17
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveb View Post
using time margin as an alternative....
for example AWT 1200 seventh averages .845 seconds slower than winner
and the median for same is .8


but again it should demonstrate that as distance increase then margins don't necessarily.
well it does show it a little more over longer trips and not so good finish possie, where they are probably compounding/weakening when they can't get the trip.
Pretty sure we've had this discussion in the past, just not finding it. I found the same. There is an increase, but not near as much as most think. And in the US, turf racing is more compressed than dirt racing, with all weather in the middle of the two. Off tracks on both turf and dirt increase the amount as well.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 09:55 AM   #18
ARAZI91
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveb View Post
using time margin as an alternative....
for example AWT 1200 seventh averages .845 seconds slower than winner
and the median for same is .8


but again it should demonstrate that as distance increase then margins don't necessarily.
well it does show it a little more over longer trips and not so good finish possie, where they are probably compounding/weakening when they can't get the trip.


Interesting Steve , had a quick shifty at my data for the UK and looked at all UK Flat Turf tracks. I limited it to Handicaps (tighter range of ability) and bucketed them by distance ranges eg 5f & less than 6f (we have some odd distances at some tracks - eg Newbury 5f 34yards)- I also limited it to >= 8 runner races and used 3yo and upwards.

These are average time margins of 2nd place finishers , medians would be lower due to frequency of tighter finishes but seems to show margins increase(at least here) as distances increase , possibly due to the relatively slower early pace. Obviously this covers a wide range of different type tracks (galloping to sharp/tight) and goings (firm to heavy)
The Official BHA Handicappers here use a lengths per second scale ranging from 6 per second on Firm to Good , 5.5 Good To Soft and 5 Soft or Heavy although having studied their published times online i have found them to vary , sometimes considerably in the scheme of things from as low as 0.14 to 0.25.

Attached Images
File Type: jpg uk margins hcaps.JPG (23.1 KB, 18 views)
ARAZI91 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 02:57 PM   #19
Nitro
Registered User
 
Nitro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 18,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARAZI91 View Post
Man, that is a retro-dumb question from someone who apparently has forgotten more than most know about figure making. The relevancy of such a study is that it provides a benchmark (mean , median , percentiles or whatever) and context to figure makers in up/downgrading performances once the external conditions of the race and the internal condition of the horse are normalised. There is much value in determining how races "should" be run at varying trips over various surfaces and within that where horses "should" finish behind each other in lengths (the old universal metric of racing) which are effectively time margins(or should be in theory)
Well Arazi91 thank you for taking the time for explaining why the overall average position of the Placer is so important!

Apparently, you’ve also answered the question as to why my figures that were based on ACTUAL time splits, final time, beaten lengths and track variants were so flawed and misguided. You see, I never considered the fictional concept of the using numbers based on HYPOTHETICAL theories such as “how the race should be run” or where the horses “should finish behind each other”.

Gee, I always thought that analyzing the running and of each race was based on REALITY. Thank goodness I gave all that up!

By all means - Carry on!
Nitro is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 03:26 PM   #20
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
This is what I get for average beaten lengths at the finish.

Code:
Surf	Dist	Races	Avg BL
1-Dirt	1-Spt	106333	2.55
1-Dirt	2-Rte	43351	2.89
1-Dirt	3-Mar	61	2.73
2-Turf	1-Spt	9132	1.54
2-Turf	2-Rte	15829	1.49
2-Turf	3-Mar	191	1.50
3-Poly	1-Spt	10752	2.05
3-Poly	2-Rte	6191	2.21
Sprint is < 1 mile, Route is > 1 mile and < 1 1/4 miles, Marathon (LOL) is > 1 1/4 miles.

This definitely argues for the popular beaten length adjustments changing too much as distance changes as steveb suggested.

What is interesting is that the value of time seems to need two measures IMO. You need one to rate horses behind the winner, and another to rate the winners and be able to compare races run at different distances.

You could easily assign a value of one point to, for example, 0.15 seconds and apply that for all distances on dirt as a "beaten lengths" value. A horse beaten 0.60 seconds is rated 4 points below the winner.

What you can't do is use that same 0.15 seconds and apply it to winning times. If you have calculated a baseline of 1:10 for 6f and 1:22 for 7f, both equal to 100, you'll get in trouble if you try to use that same 0.15 at both distances for the winners. For example, if a 6f race goes in 1:12.50 and a 7f race goes in 1:23.50, both are 1.50 slower than the baseline. If you use that same 0.15 both races would be docked 10 points and be rated as 90, but in reality the 7f races should be higher rated, all other things being equal.

Last edited by cj; 10-29-2018 at 05:02 PM.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 03:27 PM   #21
bobphilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro View Post
Well Arazi91 thank you for taking the time for explaining why the overall average position of the Placer is so important!

Apparently, you’ve also answered the question as to why my figures that were based on ACTUAL time splits, final time, beaten lengths and track variants were so flawed and misguided. You see, I never considered the fictional concept of the using numbers based on HYPOTHETICAL theories such as “how the race should be run” or where the horses “should finish behind each other”.

Gee, I always thought that analyzing the running and of each race was based on REALITY. Thank goodness I gave all that up!

By all means - Carry on!
Apparently, you don't understand what Arazi means by how a "race should
be run" because you don't seem to understand the Physics of how even pace is most efficient. His "should" is not some unproven opinion but based on the universal laws of Physics and Bioenergetics. Something you would do well to study before misinterpreting someone's post.

Sorry, but you cannot claim you base your analysis on reality when you ignore the reality that track speed can vary tremendously and it behooves the handicapper to try to take this into consideration. Are track variants perfect - no. But you cannot ignore the reality of their existence and call yourself reality based when you "give that all up". Your analysis is only partially based on reality because it ignores another important very real factor.
bobphilo is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 03:36 PM   #22
bobphilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
This is what I get for average beaten lengths at the finish.

Code:
Surf	Dist	Races	Avg BL
1-Dirt	1-Spt	106333	2.55
1-Dirt	2-Rte	43351	2.89
1-Dirt	3-Mar	61	2.73
2-Turf	1-Spt	9132	1.54
2-Turf	2-Rte	15829	1.49
2-Turf	3-Mar	191	1.50
3-Poly	1-Spt	10752	2.05
3-Poly	2-Rte	6191	2.21
Sprint is < 1 mile, Route is > 1 mile and < 1 1/4 miles, Marathon (LOL) is > 1 1/4 miles.
Yep, distance is a factor but nowhere near what one would assume it to be if it were directly proportional to beaten lengths, as I myself have been guilty of doing, as well as Beyer.

Last edited by bobphilo; 10-29-2018 at 03:37 PM.
bobphilo is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 04:48 PM   #23
PaceAdvantage
PA Steward
 
PaceAdvantage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Del Boca Vista
Posts: 88,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro View Post
Well Arazi91 thank you for taking the time for explaining why the overall average position of the Placer is so important!

Apparently, you’ve also answered the question as to why my figures that were based on ACTUAL time splits, final time, beaten lengths and track variants were so flawed and misguided. You see, I never considered the fictional concept of the using numbers based on HYPOTHETICAL theories such as “how the race should be run” or where the horses “should finish behind each other”.

Gee, I always thought that analyzing the running and of each race was based on REALITY. Thank goodness I gave all that up!

By all means - Carry on!
We'll red card you into civility yet...
__________________
@paceadvantage | Support the site and become a today!
PaceAdvantage is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 04:59 PM   #24
ReplayRandall
Buckle Up
 
ReplayRandall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage View Post
We'll red card you into civility yet...
What did Nitro do now?....Did he invade another handicapping thread to bash handicappers, while never handicapping himself?...
ReplayRandall is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 05:25 PM   #25
steveb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARAZI91 View Post
Interesting Steve , had a quick shifty at my data for the UK and looked at all UK Flat Turf tracks. I limited it to Handicaps (tighter range of ability) and bucketed them by distance ranges eg 5f & less than 6f (we have some odd distances at some tracks - eg Newbury 5f 34yards)- I also limited it to >= 8 runner races and used 3yo and upwards.

These are average time margins of 2nd place finishers , medians would be lower due to frequency of tighter finishes but seems to show margins increase(at least here) as distances increase , possibly due to the relatively slower early pace. Obviously this covers a wide range of different type tracks (galloping to sharp/tight) and goings (firm to heavy)
The Official BHA Handicappers here use a lengths per second scale ranging from 6 per second on Firm to Good , 5.5 Good To Soft and 5 Soft or Heavy although having studied their published times online i have found them to vary , sometimes considerably in the scheme of things from as low as 0.14 to 0.25.

that surprises me immensely.
are the times official from the lynx system or whatever they use over there?

or have you converted back from the margins?
i have done a zillion countires(not uk or usa though!)and it is always the same.



as far as the conversions go they all suffer the same disease.
take a perfectly accurate time and convert it into an inaccurate margin.
sydney does a constant .17
hong kong does a constant .16
adelaide can be anything that i have not been able to figure.....varies .15 to .19....probably depends on how many cans the judge drunk!
other joints, especially other parts of australia, can be any bloody where.
thus it is obvious that a margin of 6 lengths here, may mean one of 5 or 7 there.


anywhere where times and margins are supplied, then you can just use regression to figure the conversion factor, and although it is never exact you can see what it is.
and the fact that it is never exact demonstrates how they turn accurate into inaccurate!
i do that whenever i add data because it's a great way of finding errors.
steveb is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 05:30 PM   #26
Nitro
Registered User
 
Nitro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 18,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage View Post
We'll red card you into civility yet...
Just telling it like is my friend! (Without any personal bashing BTW)

It’s truly unfortunate how many are duped into believing that they can use an exact science like math to analyze a game loaded with continually changing variables. Now we’re moving on to Physics no less! That’s interesting because I’m sure many talking about it couldn’t tell you the difference between Velocity and Acceleration. Or even explain the basic formula F=ma and how that might pertain to a moving object.

But as I mentioned, Carry On
I'll leave this thread in peace!
Nitro is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 05:47 PM   #27
AltonKelsey
Veteran
 
AltonKelsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,831
Listing 50% of the field , including mostly chalk and mid priced runners, tossing 50-1 shots, then claiming to have 60% winners in the mix .


Now thats handicapping .



No one can compete with that!
AltonKelsey is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 06:03 PM   #28
steveb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro View Post
Just telling it like is my friend! (Without any personal bashing BTW)

It’s truly unfortunate how many are duped into believing that they can use an exact science like math to analyze a game loaded with continually changing variables. Now we’re moving on to Physics no less! That’s interesting because I’m sure many talking about it couldn’t tell you the difference between Velocity and Acceleration. Or even explain the basic formula F=ma and how that might pertain to a moving object.

But as I mentioned, Carry On
I'll leave this thread in peace!

you should leave it too, although your previous post did make very valid points.
one should never use constants, just let the values find themselves as best you can.



nevertheless, i was one of those dills that spent a life time making do with methods that were not 100% correct because of imponderable variables.
go figure.


the game is about probabilty nothing more nothing less.
the better your probs then the more chance you have, but nobody is going to be exact.....not even the tasmanians that are worlds' biggest and best.
steveb is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 06:22 PM   #29
ARAZI91
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 89
Hi Steve

Yes the times are official taken from the PF (Racetech is the operator) and already converted by the lengths per second scale as stated used by the BHA based on the official going (usually done by readings from the Turftrax Going Stick) - https://www.turftrax.co.uk/goingstick.html

I have attached the Lengths Per Second scale used here , although as i said previously through my own studies i have noticed inconsistencies from what they have stated they "should" be using to what they have actually used.
On Flat Turf the scale should be 6 lengths per second (0.166) on Firm ground to Good ground , 5.5 lengths per second (0.181) on Good To Soft and 5 lengths per second (0.20) on Soft / Heavy. They have separate scales for All Weather Racing and National Hunt Racing.
I basically replicate these conversions so that my figures are in line with the BHA's Official Handicap ratings , as these are a big part of my method of rating.

Attached Images
File Type: jpg LPS.JPG (107.4 KB, 16 views)
ARAZI91 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 06:46 PM   #30
steveb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
This is what I get for average beaten lengths at the finish.

Code:
Surf    Dist    Races    Avg BL
1-Dirt    1-Spt    106333    2.55
1-Dirt    2-Rte    43351    2.89
1-Dirt    3-Mar    61    2.73
2-Turf    1-Spt    9132    1.54
2-Turf    2-Rte    15829    1.49
2-Turf    3-Mar    191    1.50
3-Poly    1-Spt    10752    2.05
3-Poly    2-Rte    6191    2.21
Sprint is < 1 mile, Route is > 1 mile and < 1 1/4 miles, Marathon (LOL) is > 1 1/4 miles.

This definitely argues for the popular beaten length adjustments changing too much as distance changes as steveb suggested.

What is interesting is that the value of time seems to need two measures IMO. You need one to rate horses behind the winner, and another to rate the winners and be able to compare races run at different distances.

You could easily assign a value of one point to, for example, 0.15 seconds and apply that for all distances on dirt as a "beaten lengths" value. A horse beaten 0.60 seconds is rated 4 points below the winner.

What you can't do is use that same 0.15 seconds and apply it to winning times. If you have calculated a baseline of 1:10 for 6f and 1:22 for 7f, both equal to 100, you'll get in trouble if you try to use that same 0.15 at both distances for the winners. For example, if a 6f race goes in 1:12.50 and a 7f race goes in 1:23.50, both are 1.50 slower than the baseline. If you use that same 0.15 both races would be docked 10 points and be rated as 90, but in reality the 7f races should be higher rated, all other things being equal.

bold bit is correct, but in effect all that is happening using two different ways, is that you will be less wrong than what beyer was.
there is no strictly correct way.....not that i have ever been able to figure anyway.


beyer is(was?) proportional and i am lucky in that regard, because my country is metric and metrics make it much more obvious what is happening in so far as beyer numbers go.
it's just math, and not reality.
with his way, being beaten 1 second in a 5f race would be worth twice as many points as one beaten 1 second in a 10f race.
beaten 1 second in a 6f race would be twice as many points as a 12f race.

it is just a constant divergence, and is obviously nonsensical.
a 40f race !! would be worth 8 times less than a 5f race would for the beaten brigade.



the ONLY time beyers' would be closest to correct, is over 1000 metres, and as the distances increase then the more wrong they become.
steveb 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 03:04 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.