How Do You Determine Class?

[traynor]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

The first thing I look at with any race is conditions and class ability of all the entrants with wins and up close finishes and as a thing in itself without any reference to speed or pace figures(at least initially).The location,surface,level,the movement around,it IS how you get to know the personality of the horse and the trainer.

What to do with it.I love outrun lines.It makes a horse shipping in from Hoosier Park to Beulah win at 4-1 or 10-1 because outrun speed competitive in today's race,instead of being in the vacuum of a faster race the horse finds itself in the ideal spot and gets aggressive.I love people who boast of never looking at past performances.It makes a horse that nearly won on OC62/N2X that is competing in an OC32/N1X win at 6-1.It makes layoff horse that nearly won a G3 race as a 2 year old 6 months ago win a N1X at 4-1 because it's speed figure is 6-8 points below the top in the field.Class is always relative to the field,but when comparing competitive speed the horse that earns it vs better is nearly always better than those who earn it vs lesser.I think only a few of us believe in it because it is such a race specific concept.It is only vaguely testable in a database.The latter being the criteria for belief,therefore it is not believed,therefore it is an overlay.

I'm not sure if I completely grasp where you were going with your post but this is the best answer I can give right now.Things like this arouse my interest because it fits neatly into my theory of all races as single factor events.1 factor that dominates a specific race and sits atop the hierarchy and renders secondary all other factors.And it can be so dominant that it can render 4-5 positive factors meaningless and underplayed.A single factor can shatter any theory of what is positive in any handicapping theory,in any database,single race dependant.Class is definitely one of those factors.And the more it is not believed the bigger it will indeed be overlayed.I like to look at it in isolation like I think you are saying you do.

Definitely. I agree wholeheartedly that speed vs better is more significant than speed vs lesser (or equal). That is what makes the study of race conditions and "real" class levels so useful--it generates values and insights that go right over the head of most bettors (including more than a few professionals).

For those who may be unfamiliar with the concept, a horse that is reasonably competive against a "better" field in a recent race (yet was soundly defeated) may actually be superior to a horse that scored a Big Win (or equivalent) against a lesser field. The winner looks great on paper but (as mentioned above) may simply be a one-race wonder that peaked.

[BlueChip@DRF]

Originally Posted by traynor

Gerge Kaywood swore by EPS as a qualifier, especially at "lower class" tracks. Again, I am not so sure that it is as useful now as it was (or may have been) in the past.

I said it was just a good place to start, not the the final say. In general, the better races have higher purses.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by traynor

I thought it was pretty well accepted "wisdom" that the inflated purses of state-bred races and racinos made/make use of the earnings box way less useful than 20-25 years ago. I generate all the standard values (in researching), but none seem really useful. In a limited number of races, it may seem that APV, EPS, win%, etc. are meaningful and significant. In larger collections, that significance seems to diminish.

That "wisdom" about inflated purses was indeed (and apparently still is) "common". In fact, I recall Ainslie in the late '80's categorically saying that anyone who continued to rely on earnings data for class distinctions was "absolutely doomed" in jurisdictions where state-bred races with inflated purses were run. However, hard performance statistics (at least the ones I have seen) since then, plus my own experience over the past 25 years, tell me a different story. I stand by my previous post.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by traynor

I agree that there is probably a good market for class numbers (especially if they are isolated from, and do not depend on, pace and speed figures or conventional "par times").

Free data available through ADWs seems to have killed off a big chunk of the market. While I don't think there's much left in the way of people willing to pay anything 'extra' for this type of info I'd like to be wrong about that. For the caliber of folks on this board I do agree there's probably a market, but then I tend to think the folks on this board are far more serious students than most. I suspect the average person walking into a track has never visted this board even once. What a shame that is as this board opens the window to a rich experience of handicapping factors and different approaches making it clear even to a novice that he or she is now playing a superior gambling game.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

To me class is just one piece of the handicapping puzzle. In my own play...I am not trying to determine which horse qualifies to be called the "class of the race"; I am trying to determine if the horse "belongs" in the field which it is asked to face today.

Long and painful experience has convinced me that "class" cannot be accurately measured by speed and pace figures...nor can it be determined by a horse's earnings.

I am primarily a pace/speed handicapper...and I have found that most horses do not reproduce their lofty speed/pace figures when they are raised in class...even if this rise in class appears insignificant to the naked eye.

Consequently...I refuse to rate horses off of races which are lower "class-wise" than the races that they find themselves in today.

I agree wholeheartedly that attempts to define "class" using earnings or pace and speed figures are not very useful. I have been doing this so long that I can remember when both John Meyers and Sartin advocated "adjusting" pace figures by 1/5 second for class moves up or down. That is, a horse was assumed to be somehow automatically capable of running a fifth of a second faster (at six furlongs)--if dropped one class level--based on a "pace line" from a "higher class" race. And a horse "moving up" in class was "penalized" a fifth of a second for each class level up.

It was a grand theory that--like many grand (and cherished) theories--was a complete flop in the real world.

I think many of the "moving up" horses that are defeated at the higher class are defeated because they are off-form, rather than that are uncompetitive at the higher class level. Some of the best bets one can encounter in "lower class" races are derived from tossing out the looks-good-on-paper-and-on-computer favorites that everyone seems to want to bet on.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Overlay

That "wisdom" about inflated purses was indeed (and apparently still is) "common". In fact, I recall Ainslie in the late '80's categorically saying that anyone who continued to rely on earnings data for class distinctions was "absolutely doomed" in jurisdictions where state-bred races with inflated purses were run. However, hard performance statistics (at least the ones I have seen) since then, plus my own experience over the past 25 years, tell me a different story. I stand by my previous post.

I am asking a question, rather than trying to dispute the validity of anyone else's view. The stats I have seen (and generated) seem to indicate that evaluations based on earnings or conventional class levels are less than stellar in performance as predictive indicators of performance. YMMV.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by MJC922

Free data available through ADWs seems to have killed off a big chunk of the market. While I don't think there's much left in the way of people willing to pay anything 'extra' for this type of info I'd like to be wrong about that. For the caliber of folks on this board I do agree there's probably a market, but then I tend to think the folks on this board are far more serious students than most. I suspect the average person walking into a track has never visted this board even once. What a shame that is as this board opens the window to a rich experience of handicapping factors and different approaches making it clear even to a novice that he or she is now playing a superior gambling game.

I don't know about the average bettor, or about trying to market class ratings for a couple of dollars to anyone willing to buy them. I do think there is a definite market for such ratings for professional bettors, if the ratings are superior to (and more predictive than) currenlty available alternatives.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by BlueChip@DRF

I said it was just a good place to start, not the the final say. In general, the better races have higher purses.

I should have qualified that. I have been (fairly steadily) monitoring all the "conventional" approaches to quantifying "class" for a number of years, including a number of proprietary (from other sources) algorithms derived from earnings in isolation and in combination with other factors. None--including EPS, APV, and a variety of others--have been particularly useful. I monitor them, research them, on and on--but for all practical purposes I would probably be better off to compelely ignore them.

The only class factors that I have found useful are those based on the relative probabilities of horses in good form being able to compete at other class levels, and then to use that information to build an alternative class level structure for a given track. Lots of work. I would really like to find an easier, simpler, less time-consuming way to quantify class that is as accurate (or more accurate) than what I am using now. That was my motivation to start this thread. I am open to any and all ideas, opinions, insights, conjectures, or whatever, and I have no desire to dispute anyone else's experience or findings.

However, earnings per start is one of the "conventional" approaches that I have found pretty much worthless for anything more than a number to look at on a computer screen or printout. Perhaps I am missing something, and there is some way to apply it or factor it in to the handicapping process that I am overlooking. I actually hope so, since it is one of a number of such figures that my app(s) generate for every entry in every race.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by traynor

I understand, but what exactly are you saying?

That's asking for more than I'm willing to spell out, for the sake of stimulating discussion.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by traynor

''

I understand, but what exactly are you saying? I have read (and heard) endless explanations of why "cheap speed folds under pressure." The vast majority of the situations in which that appears to be the case are an illusion. The entry was (often) a one-race wonder that peaked and tailed off after a "good" race. The situation looks entirely different if studied closely, considering the probabilities of improved or declining performance regardless of the class level at which entered.

I have also read (and heard) endless explanations of how "class" manifests itself within a race to enable "higher class" horses to defeat "lower class" horses--while running slower than the "lower class" horses. It is nice in theory, but the reality seems to be based on a very limited sample of remembered events, rather than something that can be defined and quantified. It is like Janus' definition of groupthink--it can only be applied in retrospect.

I have heard many explanations too...where people try to make sense of the inconsistency in the performance of claiming horses...as they go up and down the claiming ladder.

A $7,500 wins wire-to-wire while setting a fast pace. Three weeks later, this horse is entered in a $10,000 race, and it figures to be best again. No horse in this seemingly classier race looks capable of preventing our "cheaper" horse from repeating his impressive last-race victory. But our horse loses badly for $10,000...without even taking a clear lead. And it loses to a winner who ran slower than the cheaper horse ran in its previous, winning race.

What happened?

Did our horse lose because its form tailed off in its last race?

Doubtfull...because the horse often improves dramatically when it drops to its normal level next time.

Was the horse "intimidated" in its last race...by horses who threw super-quick mini-fractions at it...which could not be noticed by a casual glance at the pps?

I don't think that's what happened either. After all...how much difference could there be ability-wise between a razor-sharp $7,500 claimer...and its duller-looking $10,000 counterparts?

No...I think the difference between the two performances can be attributed to "trainer intent". The trainer is of the opinion that his $7,500 is "outclassed" in the higher race...and enters it strictly as preparation for the upcoming $7,500 claiming race...a couple of weeks down the line. You've seen a baseball batter swing a weighted bat as he is waiting his turn at the plate, right? Well...it's the same philosophy at work here.

That's why I feel sorry for those speed/pace handicappers who are of the opinion that class is a "non-factor" in handicapping.

Class is alive and well...even when it exists only in the trainer's mind.

[speculus]

My definition of CLASS in a horse is that ability in him which enables him to establish his superiority over rivals despite having a less than perfect trip.

Having said that, mathematically it is possible to get a grip on the elusive concept of CLASS if you have done some research about how a horse strides.

Though I do not wish to disclose too much, I don't mind giving a hint.

The whole world is obsessed with speed and pace, and hence they focus only on the distance (D) and time (t) to work out speed (S) which is nothing but distance divided by time.

S = D/t

But there is another way of looking at speed when you break it down to its basic components, which are to speed as atoms and molecules are to a physical object. These components are the basic constituents of speed.

These components of a horse's stride are his REACH and the TIME he takes to complete one stride.

REACH is the length of ground that a horse covers in one stride (the linear distance between two successive hoof marks made by the same leg of a galloping horse).

Let's denote REACH as R and the time taken for the stride as T.

Therefore, if a horse takes N strides to cover distance D in time t, then

R=D/N and T= t/N.

Thus you can see that speed can also be expressed as

S = R/T

Now, a hint: If one mathematical combination of R & T (ratio of R to T) gives us SPEED, one of the most important components of the racing puzzle, then can't some other combination of the same pair give us a clue to the horse's class?

How about R multiplied by T (R*T), or R squared divided by T (R^2/T) or R divided by T squared (R/T^2)? Or some other combination your creativity can think of? At this stage, it becomes a matter of research.

All I can say is that the key to mathematical assessment of the CLASS factor lies in this direction.

Go figure.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

That's asking for more than I'm willing to spell out, for the sake of stimulating discussion.

I am not asking for anyone to give away the candy store--only for general information. I have seen (and helped develop) a number of algorithms that attempt to quantify "competitiveness" as a primary, with "class" as a secondary. Steve Chaplin, in the old Bettor's Guide for standardbreds, made an attempt at such quantification, and a number of people have continued along that line (and related lines). For many years.

One of the major issues in quantifying class is (as in many other aspects of racing) the "confounding variables." Meaning, the phenomena or factor observed may be contingent on, or the direct result of, some other (unknown or unobserved) variable factor. The classic example is a driving finish to the wire. One horse seems to thrive under the pressure and comes back stronger. The other "bounces." The "why" in many cases is the direct result of one or more confounding variables.

[Tom]

That's why I feel sorry for those speed/pace handicappers who are of the opinion that class is a "non-factor" in handicapping.

Class is alive and well...even when it exists only in the trainer's mind.

I think class is something you cannot put a number on for a horse. The pace and speed figures give you clues, and they can tell you what the operational class of the horse might be now, but class itself is more than that. You want to see class in action, watch Zenyatta in the last strides, refusing to lose. Put a number on that. Class was Affirmed not giving in to Alydara in the Belmont. It was Forego beating Honest Pleasure at the wire.

But I agree that what the trainer thinks class is is very playable every day.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I have heard many explanations too...where people try to make sense of the inconsistency in the performance of claiming horses...as they go up and down the claiming ladder.

A $7,500 wins wire-to-wire while setting a fast pace. Three weeks later, this horse is entered in a $10,000 race, and it figures to be best again. No horse in this seemingly classier race looks capable of preventing our "cheaper" horse from repeating his impressive last-race victory. But our horse loses badly for $10,000...without even taking a clear lead. And it loses to a winner who ran slower than the cheaper horse ran in its previous, winning race.

What happened?

Did our horse lose because its form tailed off in its last race?

Doubtfull...because the horse often improves dramatically when it drops to its normal level next time.

Was the horse "intimidated" in its last race...by horses who threw super-quick mini-fractions at it...which could not be noticed by a casual glance at the pps?

I don't think that's what happened either. After all...how much difference could there be ability-wise between a razor-sharp $7,500 claimer...and its duller-looking $10,000 counterparts?

No...I think the difference between the two performances can be attributed to "trainer intent". The trainer is of the opinion that his $7,500 is "outclassed" in the higher race...and enters it strictly as preparation for the upcoming $7,500 claiming race...a couple of weeks down the line. You've seen a baseball batter swing a weighted bat as he is waiting his turn at the plate, right? Well...it's the same philosophy at work here.

That's why I feel sorry for those speed/pace handicappers who are of the opinion that class is a "non-factor" in handicapping.

Class is alive and well...even when it exists only in the trainer's mind.

I have watched a lot of trainers use similar maneuvers, with varying degrees of success. Trainers often throw in a cooler race between serious races, using it as an extended workout. For claimers, it is normal to enter the horse at a higher claiming price to reap a bonus if claimed, or to avoid claims and obscure the form of a horse in good condition.

I agree that trainer intent is a major factor to consider. I have mentioned previously that (to me) one of the most useful techniques for understanding the realities of racing was one advocated by Bob Purdy, of the Sartin PIRCO group. That is to start with the oldest race in the PPs, and work up to the last race, with the sole thought in mind of trying to understand why the trainer entered the horse in each and every one of the races shown. Time consuming initially, but a good exercise to develop understanding.

In the scenario you describe, an even more interesting situation might develop if the entry wins when dropped back to $7500--and then is entered again at $10000--when everyone believes it has no chance to win.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by traynor

I have watched a lot of trainers use similar maneuvers, with varying degrees of success. Trainers often throw in a cooler race between serious races, using it as an extended workout. For claimers, it is normal to enter the horse at a higher claiming price to reap a bonus if claimed, or to avoid claims and obscure the form of a horse in good condition.

I agree that trainer intent is a major factor to consider. I have mentioned previously that (to me) one of the most useful techniques for understanding the realities of racing was one advocated by Bob Purdy, of the Sartin PIRCO group. That is to start with the oldest race in the PPs, and work up to the last race, with the sole thought in mind of trying to understand why the trainer entered the horse in each and every one of the races shown. Time consuming initially, but a good exercise to develop understanding.

In the scenario you describe, an even more interesting situation might develop if the entry wins when dropped back to $7500--and then is entered again at $10000--when everyone believes it has no chance to win.

The method of starting with the oldest race and working forward is something I have done, and advocated on this forum, for years. By doing this you gain insight into class, distance capability, form cycles and current form, and trainer intent. And, there is great value in doing this, as very few players are willing to take the time, or to put forth the effort to accomplish it. It's one of many "value" approaches available to the player who isn't afraid of a little work.