Pace Ratings

[wiretowire68]

I am pretty new at making pace ratings. I was following Dave Schwartz simple example, I do understand FPS, my question in terms of distances and the math in terms of the furlongs when doing Pace Ratings when the distances change, I understand 6F, however, at 6 1/2 is it 2F 1st fraction and still 4F as the EP. My

My general question is does it change at 7F, 1M, etc. ie. 7F/2F=1st Rating 2nd Rating 7F/4F or does it change? and How about the Late Fraction? help or breakdown would be appreciated?

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by wiretowire68

I am pretty new at making pace ratings. I was following Dave Schwartz simple example, I do understand FPS, my question in terms of distances and the math in terms of the furlongs when doing Pace Ratings when the distances change, I understand 6F, however, at 6 1/2 is it 2F 1st fraction and still 4F as the EP. My

My general question is does it change at 7F, 1M, etc. ie. 7F/2F=1st Rating 2nd Rating 7F/4F or does it change? and How about the Late Fraction? help or breakdown would be appreciated?

OFFICIAL POINTS OF CALL (EqB)

But I think what you're looking for is the actual positional calls shown in the data for:

F1 = 1st call
EP = 2nd call
SC = Stretch Call

Let's clear the easiest up first.

SC is ALWAYS 1 furlong from the wire.

Next, let's concentrate on races shorter than 1 1/4 miles because as you get outside that, things change.

F1 is 2f from the gate in sprints and 4f from the gate in routes.

EP is 4f from the gate in sprints and 6f from the gate in routes.


Now, for some confusion...

The POINTS OF CALL do not always match the POINTS OF TIMING. What?

The challenges center on 5.5f races.

I shall leave it to the premier experts on this topic to explain further, but this will get you started.

[Dave Schwartz]

PS: One more thing... The most revolutionary and best way to create pace ratings originated within the confines of well-known genius, Jim Cramer of HDW.

His approach is to take the fractional times and extrapolate them out as if they were final times and award them the speed rating they would earn.


HUH?
________________________
Imagine you have a track where the 6f FT par (for $10k claimers) is 1:10.00 - i.e. 70.00 seconds.

You look at the 1st fraction and you see a time of 22:00.

Since the F1 Distance = 2f, and the entire race is 6f, then if the horse continued to run at the same pace for an entire race, he'd finish in 66.00 seconds.

So, you compute the F1 rating just as you would a FT of 66.00.

Let's assume that you are using a simple 1 pt = 1 len approach.

Thus, the 22:00 multiplies to 66.00, which is 4.00 seconds fast. Translating that to lengths (at 5 lens per second) you'd get 20 lengths fast.

Thus, the F1 would rate a 120.

Feel free to use more esoteric lengths per second, or change them per distance, or whatever else you have.

The 2nd call would, of course, have different multipliers.

[wiretowire68]

Appreciate and thank you very much Dave. Took a break for a couple of weeks off my work. Also, have been doing some old style handicapping with just reading and gut. I was bored today and started fiddling again. P.S. How is the new software coming. As always, just like Mr. Pizzzolla, a gentlemen that teaches..


Thanks

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by wiretowire68

Appreciate and thank you very much Dave. Took a break for a couple of weeks off my work. Also, have been doing some old style handicapping with just reading and gut. I was bored today and started fiddling again. P.S. How is the new software coming. As always, just like Mr. Pizzzolla, a gentlemen that teaches..


Thanks

It's actually quite amazing.

But there's always one more thing.


There's an old coder saying: "Being a programmer means never having to say you're finished."

[Saratoga]

Originally Posted by wiretowire68

I am pretty new at making pace ratings. I was following Dave Schwartz simple example, I do understand FPS, my question in terms of distances and the math in terms of the furlongs when doing Pace Ratings when the distances change, I understand 6F, however, at 6 1/2 is it 2F 1st fraction and still 4F as the EP. My

My general question is does it change at 7F, 1M, etc. ie. 7F/2F=1st Rating 2nd Rating 7F/4F or does it change? and How about the Late Fraction? help or breakdown would be appreciated?

I commend you on doing things like this on your own....

But eventually you will get tired of it.....we all did

[wiretowire68]

It just takes too long... takes the gut feel out of it but?

[wiretowire68]

I have a question regarding spreadsheet work...i.e. I do a post position analysis with Bris Percentage or equibase with winning post for sprint races and when track is off. My question is I have take the amount of the field i.e. 9 horses divided by the %'s of jockey Win percentage Trainer percentage etc. My question, in my spreadsheet is there a function like IF or something else because I do not know the predetermined amount of horses in the field in order to make a fair adjustment for say a jockey/trainer who are at 40% as a combo but that is because they have had 4 mounts together. The question is I have a 16 horse macro already giving me a regular average or a win type percentage. My question what function can I use if the field amounts change from race to race.. I think I explained that right?

[Ted]

I o not understand what you are trying to do. I f you post a spreadsheet showing what you are trying to do maybe someone can help you.

[denniswilliams]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

PS: One more thing... The most revolutionary and best way to create pace ratings originated within the confines of well-known genius, Jim Cramer of HDW.

His approach is to take the fractional times and extrapolate them out as if they were final times and award them the speed rating they would earn.


HUH?
________________________
Imagine you have a track where the 6f FT par (for $10k claimers) is 1:10.00 - i.e. 70.00 seconds.

You look at the 1st fraction and you see a time of 22:00.

Since the F1 Distance = 2f, and the entire race is 6f, then if the horse continued to run at the same pace for an entire race, he'd finish in 66.00 seconds.

So, you compute the F1 rating just as you would a FT of 66.00.

Let's assume that you are using a simple 1 pt = 1 len approach.

Thus, the 22:00 multiplies to 66.00, which is 4.00 seconds fast. Translating that to lengths (at 5 lens per second) you'd get 20 lengths fast.

Thus, the F1 would rate a 120.

Feel free to use more esoteric lengths per second, or change them per distance, or whatever else you have.

The 2nd call would, of course, have different multipliers.

Dave


I image that he's tested this against using par fractional times? How would it compare?

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by denniswilliams

Dave


I image that he's tested this against using par fractional times? How would it compare?

imagine that ** I ** tested it against my own par numbers before settling on using Cramer/HDW's approach.

I use his approach but creating them from my Final Time pars is an improvement.

IOW, you still need a really great SPEED RATING PAR to make it sing.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Saratoga

I commend you on doing things like this on your own....

But eventually you will get tired of it.....we all did

I didn't.

[cj]

One thing regarding Dave's comments below. I actually make pace figures the way he says for TimeformUS, treating each fraction like it's own race within a race.

If I had it to do over again, and maybe someday I will, I'd take the final time value of time each race's distance and surface use it for all pace figures in the race. I think it works better. I could write a few pages on this, but the to keep it short I'll say the reasoning is mostly because horses aren't racing to points of call. They are racing to the wire.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by cj

One thing regarding Dave's comments below. I actually make pace figures the way he says for TimeformUS, treating each fraction like it's own race within a race.

If I had it to do over again, and maybe someday I will, I'd take the final time value of time each race's distance and surface use it for all pace figures in the race. I think it works better. I could write a few pages on this, but the to keep it short I'll say the reasoning is mostly because horses aren't racing to points of call. They are racing to the wire.

Love this.



That was first written about in Scientific Handicapping (1963, Ira Cohen & George Stevens). They called it SIMULATED PACE.

Link to Book on Amazon

I used it for years until I ran into Jim Cramer's idea.

BTW, when I first came onboard with Cramer's pace figs, the BEST EVER (last 10) 1st Fraction was flat-bet profitable by about 2-3%!

Over the years that went away but even in the last couple of years I've seen that in dirt routes on fast tracks the $net for best ever 1st fract rating was a $2.00 net!

It's the only factor I have in my roughly 3,800 factors per horse that is stand alone flat bet profitable.

(There are still some workout ratings for FTS that have solid flat bet profits with the sample size in the thousands range over the past several years.

What I found was that it was BIG-TIME BETTER ON THE TURF - where pace is so non-functional anyway. It would probably also work in foreign racing where, like turf, a blazing pace just rarely happens.

CJ, if you ever want to discuss this, I'd be honored to share with you what I've found. We can do some real-time searches.

[denniswilliams]

Originally Posted by cj

One thing regarding Dave's comments below. I actually make pace figures the way he says for TimeformUS, treating each fraction like it's own race within a race.

If I had it to do over again, and maybe someday I will, I'd take the final time value of time each race's distance and surface use it for all pace figures in the race. I think it works better. I could write a few pages on this, but the to keep it short I'll say the reasoning is mostly because horses aren't racing to points of call. They are racing to the wire.

How would you compare this method to Rowland's sectional ratings? I play Hong Kong and was using his ratings for a while but didn't really find them of value.