On the DRF's Speed Rating-Track Variant

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The methods for measuring how times at different distances compare and for measuring how fast the track was playing have improved since the DRF Speed Rating and Track Variant were invented. As I understand it, they only remain in the paper because a subset of customers would get very upset if they were removed. But internally, no one I know considers it especially useful info.

What about the "subset" of customers who are very upset because of the absence of a decent track variant from an $11 daily newspaper?

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

...As for the Speed Ratings being antiquated, I don't see that, because they are only time comparisons to a known value for each track and distance...so what is to become antiquated about that except for the timing is done in 5th's instead of decimals...

Try to rethink what you are saying here and realize why this methodology is indeed is antiquated. If you gather some data and work out the creation of the variant you will (might) understand. Measuring is 5ths instead of decimals has nothing to about..

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Try to rethink what you are saying here and realize why this methodology is indeed is antiquated. If you gather some data and work out the creation of the variant you will (might) understand. Measuring is 5ths instead of decimals has nothing to about..

Maybe you can just list 5 of the most glaring reasons why the DRF Speed Rating / Variant is antiquated...I could go round in circles and scratch the hair off my head just speculating on all to no avail....I will thank you in advance for the cerebral short-cuts here, Delta...where better minds prevail, one must remain silent..

[cj]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Maybe you can just list 5 of the most glaring reasons why the DRF Speed Rating / Variant is antiquated...I could go round in circles and scratch the hair off my head just speculating on all to no avail....I will thank you in advance for the cerebral short-cuts here, Delta...where better minds prevail, one must remain silent..

• Treats 1/5 of a second as equal regardless of distance and surface
• Variant dependent on quality of animals running on a particular day at a particular track
• Variant dependent on the distances run at a track on a given day. If all races at 6f, variant will be lower than if all races run at 1 1/16m.
• Baselines at different tracks considered equal...is best time in three years at Fairmont really equal to best time at Del Mar?
• Baselines aren't static, can change as horses run faster times. One horse running a freak race can throw off the ratings of all other horses.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Maybe you can just list 5 of the most glaring reasons why the DRF Speed Rating / Variant is antiquated...I could go round in circles and scratch the hair off my head just speculating on all to no avail....I will thank you in advance for the cerebral short-cuts here, Delta...where better minds prevail, one must remain silent..

The are a few reasons why DRF is a very misleading metric.

The most important flow that is also very easy to realize, lies in the fact that all the races of the day are compared against a specific number. Regardless of whether a race is a Grade 1 or a Maiden claiming for three year old fillies, they both will be used in exactly the same fashion, resulting in very wrong conclusions.

It is trivial to verify this theory if you simply calculate the average variant based on the day of the week; doing so, you will discover that Saturdays, when the best quality horses are running always result to significant lower variant than any other day of the week.

An immediate remedy to this distortion, would be to use more specific targets, for example the average final time based on the conditions of the race or something similar.

Another very naive mistake has to do with the way beaten lengths are used across distances, as it is known since the mid 70s when Beyer published his first book, the value of length decreases as distance grows.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

[LIST][*]Variant dependent on the distances run at a track on a given day. If all races at 6f, variant will be lower than if all races run at 1 1/16m.

And if there is only one grass race on a particular day, that race alone will be used as the "standard" for that day's turf variant...regardless of the quality of that race. If the 3-year turf record at a mile is 1:35, and a field of $15,000 claimers ran the race in 1:40...then the turf track variant for the day is set at 25.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Thanks guys...this thread is really helping to understand what's up with these various ratings...just knowing HOW the DRF compiles the Speed Number and Variant is really interesting, stuff I never realized, you see I'm still quite the novice at "Metrics" , despite the fact that I have been playing the ponies for several decades...

Here is an example of frustration between using Beyer number and DRF speed rating at Today's 4th race Kentucky Downs

Horse #12 Have At It. 5/2
Tyler Gaff aboard.
Last race MdSpWt83 SAR 1 1/16 turf affair.

TimeformUS 46-85
Beyer 63
DRF Speed/ Var 61-23
---------------------------------------
Horse #10 Fred'stwirlingcandy 11-1
Brian Hernandez up.
Last race MdSpWt40k EIP 1 mile turf affair.

TimeformUS 88-50
Beyer 54
DRF Speed/Var 82-13
-------------------------------------------
Now if you go by the Beyer, clearly the #12 is best by many lengths, and the race at SAR was higher class as well. Based on the Beyer, 12 seems like a more probable winner.
But go by DRF Speed and #10 is clearly better

But #10 beats #12 by 1 length
and pay's $24 to win...!

What a wasted opportunity, all because I weighted the Beyer number over the DRF Speed Rating....

[AstrosFan]

A last out Equibase speed figure:

75
65

I cant stand the Beyer figs! They have cost me a lot of money in the past when I first started playing due to the lack of detailed attention the middle/lower class tracks receive in the BSF figure making process

HOWEVER I also don't care for turf racing b/c of inaccuracies that happens with timing mistakes or b/s run up distances OR "rail out X feet"

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Horse #12 Have At It. 5/2
Tyler Gaff aboard.
Last race MdSpWt83 SAR 1 1/16 turf affair.

TimeformUS 46-85
Beyer 63
DRF Speed/ Var 61-23
---------------------------------------
Horse #10 Fred'stwirlingcandy 11-1
Brian Hernandez up.
Last race MdSpWt40k EIP 1 mile turf affair.

TimeformUS 88-50
Beyer 54
DRF Speed/Var 82-13
-------------------------------------------
Now if you go by the Beyer, clearly the #12 is best by many lengths, and the race at SAR was higher class as well. Based on the Beyer, 12 seems like a more probable winner.
But go by DRF Speed and #10 is clearly better

But #10 beats #12 by 1 length
and pay's $24 to win...!

What a wasted opportunity, all because I weighted the Beyer number over the DRF Speed Rating....

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

I keep hearing about this subset, but surely most of them are no longer with us!

If you want, I can ask. But last time the issue was brought up (because everyone at the paper would like to have that extra space) it was still a non starter.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

What about the "subset" of customers who are very upset because of the absence of a decent track variant from an $11 daily newspaper?

Speaking as a customer, I don't know the answer to your question. I've been asking for information like that from figure makers for years but they seem reluctant to publish it. I guess it gives away more of the special sauce and exposes which races are broken out, which days were split etc... I guess it's a kind of can of worms when it comes to process that people are reluctant to open.

[classhandicapper]

Personally, I don't see this as any kind of issue other than the extra space that could be used for something better if that info was removed. It's like any other piece of information in the PPs. If you consider significant, use it. If you don't, ignore it. Most DRF customers that use speed figures look at the Beyer figures and just ignore the Speed Rating and Track Variant because the Beyer figures are much better.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

If you want, I can ask. But last time the issue was brought up (because everyone at the paper would like to have that extra space) it was still a non starter.

Honestly doesn't matter to me. I'm just amazed this is still a thing.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Personally, I don't see this as any kind of issue other than the extra space that could be used for something better if that info was removed. It's like any other piece of information in the PPs. If you consider significant, use it. If you don't, ignore it. Most DRF customers that use speed figures look at the Beyer figures and just ignore the Speed Rating and Track Variant because the Beyer figures are much better.

Here's the problem, in a nutshell:

It's a well-known fact that there is a pretty large segment of the DRF customers who insist on buying the printed edition. We must assume that the DRF acknowledges this...by the mere fact that the printed edition is still profitably produced. It's also a well-known fact that there are no PACE figures to be found in the printed edition...even though the pace figures have been proven to be a major component of the handicapping process. So...if the DRF printed-edition customer wants pace figures...he must create them HIMSELF. But, in order to do that...he needs a reliable track-variant. And he can't get a reliable track variant from the DRF...even at the cost of $11 a copy. And when he complains...he keeps hearing about that "subset of customers" who insist on using totally WORTHLESS data for their handicapping. And my question is...why doesn't the DRF give the worthless speed figures and variants to those who insist on using them, while giving the REST of the customers something more useful? Is there any doubt in the minds of the DRF employees about the worthlessness of the track variant that they currently provide to their customers? Why are they depriving the customers of something better?

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Here's the problem, in a nutshell:

It's a well-known fact that there is a pretty large segment of the DRF customers who insist on buying the printed edition. We must assume that the DRF acknowledges this...by the mere fact that the printed edition is still profitably produced. It's also a well-known fact that there are no PACE figures to be found in the printed edition...even though the pace figures have been proven to be a major component of the handicapping process. So...if the DRF printed-edition customer wants pace figures...he must create them HIMSELF. But, in order to do that...he needs a reliable track-variant. And he can't get a reliable track variant from the DRF...even at the cost of $11 a copy. And when he complains...he keeps hearing about that "subset of customers" who insist on using totally WORTHLESS data for their handicapping. And my question is...why doesn't the DRF give the worthless speed figures and variants to those who insist on using them, while giving the REST of the customers something more useful? Is there any doubt in the minds of the DRF employees about the worthlessness of the track variant that they currently provide to their customers? Why are they depriving the customers of something better?

Going to have to investigate, unless someone else already knows the answer. What does it cost to print a race card with the information you want (i.e. pace figures) at home?

I found an article that says it costs about two cents a page with a black and white laser printer. How many pages average for a card, maybe 30? Seems like a much easier and cheaper alternative to me. I know Formulator is undergoing upgrades. Hopefully more options for customized printing are available.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

Going to have to investigate, unless someone else already knows the answer. What does it cost to print a race card with the information you want (i.e. pace figures) at home?

I found an article that says it costs about two cents a page with a black and white laser printer. How many pages average for a card, maybe 30? Seems like a much easier and cheaper alternative to me. I know Formulator is undergoing upgrades. Hopefully more options for customized printing are available.

Another thing:

The DRF has added the new "pace-flow" indicators...to show us that they want to bring a certain "precision" to their handicapping product. But then they introduce YOUR figures in the printed edition, in a manner which makes them WORTHLESS for the discriminating player. Instead of giving their customers "TimeformUS" ratings for each individual race, they offer a mysterious SINGLE entry for every horse...which supposedly "averages" what the horse is capable of. What good is a figure "average"...when the races are already listed separately, for INDIVIDUAL study? Don't these people even know what an "upgrade" is?

I'm not asking for myself, mind you. After buying the DRF religiously for over 30 years...I've switched to something better. And I am wondering if the DRF wants the REST of their customers to do likewise...