Track Variants - Bogus or real?

[sjk]

By and large they seem reasonably well grouped (std dev 11-13) the great majority of the time.

No great precision is expected from these variants. I throw a lot more information into making the figure usable when the horse runs again. The variant is just the starting point but I wouldn't know where else to start.

[SPEEDHORSE]

Bro Raybo,

What I mean when I posted Projected Track Variant is that it should really be called the Daily Track Variant. This daily variant was derived, as a result of the Projection Method in calculating variants, based on projected speed figures.

I hope I had corrected myself from the confusion I have made in my earlier post.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by SPEEDHORSE

Bro Raybo,

What I mean when I posted Projected Track Variant is that it should really be called the Daily Track Variant. This daily variant was derived, as a result of the Projection Method in calculating variants, based on projected speed figures.

I hope I had corrected myself from the confusion I have made in my earlier post.

Still a little confused about "projecting" variants. I get the part about projecting speed figures, but the daily variant projections seem strange to me, just don't see how it is possible. Are we assuming that today's variant will be the same as some day in the past?

"Projecting" to me means "predicting", by the way, maybe that's the confusion?

[sjk]

We use other races today's horses have run to project times and then the difference between the projected times and actual times are used to compute a variant.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by sjk

We use other races today's horses have run to project times and then the difference between the projected times and actual times are used to compute a variant.

Ok, so I assume the "standard deviation" you mentioned earlier, helps correct accumulated errors from the last, regarding those past daily variants? It appears to me that one relatively large miscalculation, from the past, could accumulate, along with lesser miscalculations, to add up to quite a problem, thus the need for the use of some sort of acceptable deviation as corrections in future variant calculations.

[sjk]

I look at the standard deviation to see if there was a mis-time or to see if I should consider splitting the races (one vs two turn or first part of the card vs the rest).

In practice I rarely split the variant. As I mentioned earlier I am going to make further adjustments to the individual speed figures before I use them.

Contrary to what you might think it becomes a very stable process. I started with a handful of speed figures to get the process started in 1993 and they are working fine today.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

When there is a semblance of order, and all the variants fall into some sort of line, then I understand. But what happens when the variants are all over the place?

I understand that some variant is better than no variant at all...but we are playing a game where a fifth of a second can easily mean the difference between a win and a loss...so some kind of precision in still a must.

The dirty little secret is that if you were to take the speed figures of all the leading figure makers and line them up (adjusted for methodology issues like weight and ground loss) there would be a ton of small differences, a lot of large differences, but very little difference in results.

They all make mistakes. So it comes down to methodology preferences. What do you want in your figures?

In addition, speed figures are not all inclusive in measuring ability.

IMO the primary use of figures is to answer questions about races/horses when there's a lack of other information to go by.

In other words, despite my own mistakes, I think I can evaluate horses/performances more accurately using classing techniques when we are talking about consistent seasoned stakes caliber older horses because I have a lot of information to work with.

However, if we are talking about a maiden claimer with several dropdowns, first time starters, 2nd time starters, blinker changes etc... the range of possibilities becomes so wide, my errors will often be a lot bigger than the errors in the figures. So I really want to know whether the race was fast or slow.

IMO, where handicappers get into silly territory is when they start arguing that one horse is clearly better than another because of a small difference in figures.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

IMO, where handicappers get into silly territory is when they start arguing that one horse is clearly better than another because of a small difference in figures.

Followed by that most profound of passive voice observations, "It can be statistically proven that the 7 should have won that race. The fact that it finished dead last is statistically irrelevant."

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The dirty little secret is that if you were to take the speed figures of all the leading figure makers and line them up (adjusted for methodology issues like weight and ground loss) there would be a ton of small differences, a lot of large differences, but very little difference in results.

They all make mistakes. So it comes down to methodology preferences. What do you want in your figures?

In addition, speed figures are not all inclusive in measuring ability.

IMO the primary use of figures is to answer questions about races/horses when there's a lack of other information to go by.

In other words, despite my own mistakes, I think I can evaluate horses/performances more accurately using classing techniques when we are talking about consistent seasoned stakes caliber older horses because I have a lot of information to work with.

However, if we are talking about a maiden claimer with several dropdowns, first time starters, 2nd time starters, blinker changes etc... the range of possibilities becomes so wide, my errors will often be a lot bigger than the errors in the figures. So I really want to know whether the race was fast or slow.

IMO, where handicappers get into silly territory is when they start arguing that one horse is clearly better than another because of a small difference in figures.

I consider speed and pace figures to be a vital component of the handicapping process...and I would be lost without them. This doesn't mean that I rely on figures alone in my handicapping...but accurate figures help me in a big way.

The problem with the "methodologies" of some of the figure makers out there is that we don't always know what else is included in their figures other than what they widely report.

Beyer claims that his figures are "pure" speed ratings...and yet, my own opinion is that there is a class and a pace component involved.

The Sheets supposedly account for pace in some way...but we don't know how exactly they go about it.

Give us the accurate "pure" speed figures, I say...and we can make the rest of the adjustments ourselves.

[eurocapper]

Is not every speed figure a product of the pace scenario in the given race? Maybe pace is really what matters in horse racing (except the shorter QH where there isn't much pace).

[raybo]

Originally Posted by eurocapper

Is not every speed figure a product of the pace scenario in the given race? Maybe pace is really what matters in horse racing (except the shorter QH where there isn't much pace).

IMO, a pure speed figure incorporates a representation of the final time, adjusted by a daily variant, and, ideally, a good track to track adjustment, so that it is equalized over different tracks.

So, IMO, if you incorporate pace, it is no longer a pure speed figure, it becomes a "performance" figure.

And, again IMO, pace is indeed, really what matters. Class enters the picture there too, of course.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Give us the accurate "pure" speed figures, I say...and we can make the rest of the adjustments ourselves.

That's the way I feel also, but that's probably because we are very experienced handicappers.

Sometimes a figure maker has the dilemma of knowing that a race came up really slow because of an extreme pace or other trip issue. If he gives customers the slow figure, many will not understand the pace and trip issues and think his figures just suck. So he'll make the adjustment for them knowing full well guys like us would prefer to make judgments like that on our own.

That's why I have always preferred CJ's method. He creates a performance figure that includes pace, but he also gives the customer the actual speed figure.

I don't think Beyer includes "Class", but he does break races out. So if a race comes up too fast or slow compared the horses' typical performances, he'll make arbitrary adjustments to make the figure fit.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by eurocapper

Is not every speed figure a product of the pace scenario in the given race? Maybe pace is really what matters in horse racing (except the shorter QH where there isn't much pace).

Go to the head of the class, you get an "A"