Incremental Splits

[JeremyJet]

Does anyone have an opinion on how much impact track variants have on incremental split times?

[sjk]

Not as much as you might think. Sectional influences to include wind and varied track maintenance are much more significant.

If possible you want to evaluate sectional times in the context of other race segments run in the same space.

[classhandicapper]

Unless the track is extremely fast or slow relative to the norm, the impact on 2F won't be particularly large. A very windy day is more likely to have an impact because parts of the race may be with the wind and other parts against it.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by JeremyJet

Does anyone have an opinion on how much impact track variants have on incremental split times?

The same impact they have on final times. That's why you can apply the same variant to both as Moss does. The only possible exceptions are when you are dealing with high winds which you are running into in different directions in different race segments.

[cj]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

The same impact they have on final times. That's why you can apply the same variant to both as Moss does. The only possible exceptions are when you are dealing with high winds which you are running into in different directions in different race segments.

Wind isn't always the only factor. The sun can play a big role, for example the backstretch is bright and sunny and the stretch is shaded by the grandstand.

If you are making a time variant, the time has to be proportionally split up. If you are using points, it should be the same, except in the cases of things like mentioned above.

[Tom]

Do you find a variation at Aqu, 9 furlongs, where the first part of the race is run over a section of the track that is seldom used? I sometimes get rather high four furlong variants that seem out of wack with the rest of the race.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Tom

Do you find a variation at Aqu, 9 furlongs, where the first part of the race is run over a section of the track that is seldom used? I sometimes get rather high four furlong variants that seem out of wack with the rest of the race.

Yes, definitely.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by cj

Wind isn't always the only factor. The sun can play a big role, for example the backstretch is bright and sunny and the stretch is shaded by the grandstand.

If you are making a time variant, the time has to be proportionally split up. If you are using points, it should be the same, except in the cases of things like mentioned above.

There is also the risk when making a separate pace variant that during early segments of a race pace times can be greatly influenced by rating tactics whereas in the final time the horses are going as fast as they can.

[cj]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

There is also the risk when making a separate pace variant that during early segments of a race pace times can be greatly influenced by rating tactics whereas in the final time the horses are going as fast as they can.

To an extent, yes, and especially if you only use the leader. I do it a bit differently that what was written in the old books.

[delayjf]

I'm not sure if the below addresses your inquiry or not. Its from 2003, but I always found that discussion interesting. The poster was MV McKee, who know longer post here.

Over the past few years I have attempted to use a couple of methods to try and extrapolate pace variants from my final time variant.

1) Use a fraction of the final time variant that represented the proportion of race distance that the fractional time represents.
Example: 6f 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 = .33, .33, .33

2) Use a fraction of the final time variant that represented the proportion of race time that the fractional time represents.
Example: 6f 22 46 72 = .306, .333, .361

I have never achieved my desired results when using ratings and variants derived from these formulas in practice.

In my opinion, this is because in using either of the methods mentioned above (in particular method 1) you are utilizing the final time variant as an expression of the speed of the track (and possibly the wind) only. I feel that a final time variant is a product of not only the effect of a racing surface on a horse's speed, but also upon his stamina.

I actually came to the conclusion that it was best practice to calculate the individual fractional variants on a day by day, track by track basis, but extrapolating these variants from the final time variant is generally quite accurate, and in cases where I cannot get a high confidence level for a given day using the former method, I will use the final variant(s) as the basis for their fractional counterparts.

However, I have found that the following proportions are far more accurate for doing this.
In the case of 6 Furlong races:
1/4 (1) .20
1/4 (2) .32
1/4 (3) .48
1/2 (1) .52
1/2 (2) .80

In other words, if I had a final variant that made the track 1 second fast, I would (on average) have the 1st 1/4 of a 6 furlong race adjusted .20 seconds fast. Of course this varies slightly from track to track and day to day, but from my research and practical use, this is a very solid average.

To me, the reason for this distribution became obvious (after about 3 years of having no clue). Like pace, a track variant (be it fast or slow) has a cumulative effect. When I am saying that the final 1/4 of a 6 furlong race is (.48 X Final variant) seconds fast/slow, I am not saying that the section of the track surface from the quarter pole to the wire is that fast/slow. Rather I am stating that the track speed/energy returned have a cumulative effect of X on the final 1/4. In the case of the First 1/4, there is no cumulative effect (unless you want to make a very fine-line distinction and argue that the first 1/8th affects the 2nd 1/8th, etc.)

Did any of this make sense?

[classhandicapper]

I feel that a final time variant is a product of not only the effect of a racing surface on a horse's speed, but also upon his stamina.

I think this is one of the insights missing from virtually every book on making pace/peed figures.

There may be a relationship between how fast/slow the track is and how tiring it is, but I don't think it's a perfect 1 to 1 relationship.

When handicappers create their time charts for different distances, they look at long term averages. But IMO, those relationship can be subtly or even significantly different on some days. I believe that's one of the reasons sprints and routes sometimes have to be broken out with different variants. You might not notice the change when looking at 6F and 7F races, but the difference between sprints and routes would stick out.

Maybe 6F in 113 is equal to 9F in 154 on average, but equal to 153 or 155 on other days.

The same would apply to fractions.

So if you use the final time variant to create the fractional variants you will occasionally make inaccurate adjustments.

Here's another one.

Jockeys notice when a track is especially tiring or not and adjust their level of aggressiveness. If they get more or less aggressive than average early on a particular day it will impact the paces relative to the final times. That's not a track speed or variant issue. The horses will actually be running faster or slower than usual early. If you use a separate pace variant you risk misunderstanding how fast the horses were actually running early. You'll be adjusting for aggressiveness instead of track speed.

[Tom]

IMHO, making a separate pace variant is essential. Using a portion of the final time variant will not be as accurate most of the time.

That said, I can't always do that.
When Aqu has one 9 furlong race, Ia am lost. I am not able to use the method CJ does because I am not really set up to be able to. So I have to use a portion.
I mark those races so I am not THAT dependant on those figs.

But I do see a lot of wide swings in pace variants many days. So mark those races a well.

At the worst, I have a nice set of figures not to trust!

[delayjf]

Tom,

Do you still make your own variants?

[Tom]

For a few tracks.
NYRA, Tam, OP, FG, GP (as needed for shippers)

I use the Beyer variant (or an adjusted one).
I use Dave Schwartz's pars, and turn the Beyer into a Quirin and the raw times into Quirin's from Dave's pars.

If I had a blue shirt, I would make a video.

[Tom]

Nice thing about doing this is I get to see how the Beyers for a certain day were made. FG, for example, to me, the either fig maker for FG is terrible or the track has no clue how to time races. Some days the Beyers are ridiculous. By huge margins.

Myself, I have 0 confidence in any Beyers at FG and will not use them. The track is dead to me. Knowing the S-hole tracks up front is worth the effort of making figs that will never be used.