TimeformUS

[ElKabong]

Thanks Tom & Ray

[cj]

Originally Posted by highnote

Why are the ppls higher on turf/syn?

The answer is twofold. First, the gaps between horses at the finish are tighter on average on turf/synthetic than dirt. Second, the average times between classes are more tightly bunched. Those two things show that time has more value on those surfaces. In other words, losing by a length is a more decisive on turf than on dirt at equal distances.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by cj

The answer is twofold. First, the gaps between horses at the finish are tighter on average on turf/synthetic than dirt. Second, the average times between classes are more tightly bunched. Those two things show that time has more value on those surfaces. In other words, losing by a length is a more decisive on turf than on dirt at equal distances.

Totally true, they say that a 3 length turf loss is sort of equivalent to a 10 length loss on dirt. Probably a lot of has to do with the kickback on the dirt/sand/plastic or whatever they're running on...not as much kickback on turf, if any at all.

[cj]

I was on Steve Byk's At the Races show today on Sirius/XM, and will be on again tomorrow morning.

http://www.thoroughbredracingradione...y=01&Itemid=35

I haven't listened yes, more nervous about hearing myself than I was about doing the segment!

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

I was on Steve Byk's At the Races show today on Sirius/XM, and will be on again tomorrow morning.

http://www.thoroughbredracingradione...y=01&Itemid=35

I haven't listened yes, more nervous about hearing myself than I was about doing the segment!

Chris and I listened. You did a great job.

[RXB]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Totally true, they say that a 3 length turf loss is sort of equivalent to a 10 length loss on dirt.

Baloney. 3 grass ~ 4 dirt.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by cj

I was on Steve Byk's At the Races show today on Sirius/XM, and will be on again tomorrow morning.

http://www.thoroughbredracingradione...y=01&Itemid=35

I haven't listened yes, more nervous about hearing myself than I was about doing the segment!

Enjoyed the interview CJ. Well done!

[VeryOldMan]

Originally Posted by raybo

Enjoyed the interview CJ. Well done!

+1. No reason for cj to cringe about that!

[cj]

Pace Projector nailed the top early, and did not predict a hot pace that many others did. Spotlight figures picked the winner, though I went with Successful Dan.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by cj

Pace Projector nailed the top early, and did not predict a hot pace that many others did. Spotlight figures picked the winner, though I went with Successful Dan.

Very good! I also had the race running fairly average fractions, even though I had both Fort Larned and Cross Traffic being close at the front early. My bets were on Cross Traffic and Mucho Macho Man.

[Big Sal]

The TimeformUS pp's definitely have a cleaner and more modernized look to them.

I am CJ's assistant and one of the tracks I make figures for is Emerald Downs. Emerald Downs (a track I've never stepped within 500 miles of in my life) started a free handicapping contest before the 2013 meet.

The rules called for players to make one selection in each race, for the final 6 races of the day. All selections had to be made 30 minutes before first post. If your selection scratches, you get moved to the post time favorite.

They offered $1,500 to the winner of "the challenge" and pay down, but I was more interested because the contest website (http://www.emerald123.com/) keeps stats.

So far, 50 days of the contest are complete. I've made a mythical $2 Win/Place/Show selection on 300 different races ($1,800) and have returned $1,894.40 in mutuels. Good enough for 2nd place.

I have been basing my selection on 3 things: Speed figures, The Pace Projector, and the morning-line price. I have literally spent only seconds handicapping each race. If it's a race with a bunch of first time starters, and no pace projector data is available, I now take the standout pedigree rating.

Anyway, I realize Emerald Downs isn't a relevant track...but 300 races is a big sample size, and I've put almost no time and no handicapping effort into those 300 races.

It's really been as simple and mindless as looking at the pace projector for 3 seconds, finding a couple of horses who project a nice trip, comparing their speed figures and morning line prices, and taking the one who looks like the smarter option.

Obviously I'm biased, but the pace projector is a very neat and useful tool, and I enjoy it. It certainly works just as well on cheaper class racing. A 300 race sample size so far at Emerald proves it.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by cj

The answer is twofold. First, the gaps between horses at the finish are tighter on average on turf/synthetic than dirt. Second, the average times between classes are more tightly bunched. Those two things show that time has more value on those surfaces. In other words, losing by a length is a more decisive on turf than on dirt at equal distances.

This is not true: “that time has more value on those surfaces.” Time is constant. What is going on between dirt surfaces and turf surfaces is “true footing” and this was proven in an analysis conducted by a MIT professor over 25 years ago.

Horse’s hooves slide when they come in contact with a dirt surface and on the turf the contact of the horse’s hooves are truer and hence the horses can perform in a better time.

Given this, horses will run faster and closer together on turf.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Cratos

This is not true: “that time has more value on those surfaces.” Time is constant. What is going on between dirt surfaces and turf surfaces is “true footing” and this was proven in an analysis conducted by a MIT professor over 25 years ago.

Horse’s hooves slide when they come in contact with a dirt surface and on the turf the contact of the horse’s hooves are truer and hence the horses can perform in a better time.

Given this, horses will run faster and closer together on turf.

I can see why the "truer" contact on the turf should result in faster times...but why should the horses be closer together?

Don't all the horses' hooves slide equally on the dirt?

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I can see why the "truer" contact on the turf should result in faster times...but why should the horses be closer together?

Don't all the horses' hooves slide equally on the dirt?

I am not sure about why they run closer together, but my suspicion is that the natural times for racehorses are not that far apart and on dirt which is not their natural surface, adaptability causes more of a separation between horses.

[raybo]

You're approaching the question from a different point of view than CJ, IMO. He was not explaining why horses run faster on turf/syn than on the dirt, we all know why that is, because the footing is better.

What he was explaining was that since it takes less time to run a static beaten length on turf/syn than on dirt, then each individual unit of time, per beaten length, is worth more on turf/syn than on dirt. That is because when you have fewer individual units of time involved, then each individual unit of time has more value, than if there were more individual units of time involved.

So, CJ is correct, 1 beaten length, on turf/syn, is worth more than 1 beaten length on dirt, therefore the individual units of time are worth more on turf/syn than on dirt, assuming all 3 surfaces were run in the same exact total time.

All other things being equal, a horse beating another horse by 1 length on the turf/syn, would beat the other horse by more than 1 length on the dirt, because he's running more distance per unit of time on turf/syn than on dirt.

Time is constant, you are correct, but the "value, or worth" of that time is "dynamic", not constant. The "value" of time depends on the speed the horses are running, which is faster on turf/syn, slower on dirt.