Pace Number Types

[Brian Flewwelling]

After reading a lot of what is on this site, and elsewhere, I am still confused about the proper type of Pace Number.


Some pace numbers (TSN, BRIS) base their Pace numbers on fixed times for a track (& surface). They use spit times that are normal for short routes. This makes the pace numbers for sprinters really hi, but consistently so. It also allows me to compare distances that are close... like 6 and 6.5 furlongs.

Other pace numbers (CJ's ???) use times for splits that vary with distance, which allows one to compare the Pace numbers with the Speed numbers and to be able to see the shape of the race more clearly. But a 90 in a 6f race is not the same as a 90 in a 7f race.

I would appreciate general comments on this distinction, but NOT comments from those who want to knock Speed and Pace Numbers.

[sjk]

I do them a third way. It seems to me that the most important use of pace figures is to determine who will make the lead and how hard they will have to work to do so. Good figures should predict the relative positions of the horses in today's race.

I evaluate a horse's pace in past races in the context of the distance that he was running that day but then make an adjustment for distance changes due to the fact that horses going a route of ground are generally rated to a greater degree than horses in sprints. They can generally go faster on a turnback because there is less need to conserve energy.

I probably end up somewhere between your two alternatives although closer to the second.

[delayjf]

Some pace numbers (TSN, BRIS) base their Pace numbers on fixed times for a track (& surface). They use spit times that are normal for short routes. This makes the pace numbers for sprinters really hi, but consistently so. It also allows me to compare distances that are close... like 6 and 6.5 furlongs.

Not sure what you mean here.

but another use of pace figures is to interpet form cycles ala Cary Fotis "Blinkers Off" Interesting that he does not normalize his pace figures, by that I mean he does not equate a pace time to a par. For example, a 10,000 claimer 4 furlong pace par for might be 45 flat at six furlongs and 45.6 at seven furlongs. Quinn would normalize these two times by given them both say a rating of 80, Fotis does not, rather he gives the higher rating to the faster time perhaps an 83 to the 45 flat and a 80 to the 45.6. Not sure how he handles the distance equalization between sprints and routes. I could be wrong, but from what I've seen he does some kind of distance adjustments between sprints and routes.

[Brian Flewwelling]

using your terms, my question is: To Normalize, or not to Normalize!

different times for different tracks, yes!
but different times for different distances? Well probably becuz the turns are at different distances ... specially for bull-rings. So problems for the BRIS type, but they are easier to handicap with.


Bruddah suggested a conversion factor that adjusted the pace in PPs to today's distance by comparing the corresponding times... perhaps this is the answer???

[DJofSD]

I do them a third way. It seems to me that the most important use of pace figures is to determine who will make the lead and how hard they will have to work to do so. Good figures should predict the relative positions of the horses in today's race.

I very much agree with this approach.

I, for the life of me, can not understand how pace can be reduced to a single number and at the same time have it convey how the race is to unfold.

Or maybe I'm just stupid!

DJofSD

[Brian Flewwelling]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

I do them a third way. It seems to me that the most important use of pace figures is to determine who will make the lead and how hard they will have to work to do so. Good figures should predict the relative positions of the horses in today's race.

I very much agree with this approach.

I, for the life of me, can not understand how pace can be reduced to a single number and at the same time have it convey how the race is to unfold.

Or maybe I'm just stupid!

DJofSD

I started this thread to discuss making Pace Figs, not handicapping with them

but since it was started, let me make a point about Figs, Speed or Pace.

Figs are to represent the PAST,,, they maybe be USED to predict the Future, they do NOT predict the future.

So now the question is Which type of Pace Figs are the best for making predictions?

and i expect there is no answer to this question!

[DJofSD]

Where in the hell is Steve Martin when you need him.

DJofSD

[skate]

the answer is, there is no type of pace figure that is best.

you input variations

an exaction is not available, due to variations.


it says so in my book.

[Vegas711]

First I tried using other peoples figs like bris i was unconfortable using numbers that I had no way of knowing how they where created. The best advice is to create your own pace numbers.

I first would start with reading 2 books " Pace makes the Race" and " Modern Pace Handicapping". From these books i would next recommend testing their numbers and see if I could come up with a better way of handling distances and track changes. Once I have done this then I would get a hold of a programer to code my program per my instructions. ( $ 200.00 is what I pay for a customized program) I have done this and I will never go back to using anyone elses numbers.
throw 1 more book in their Handicapping Magic.

[Tom]

I find pace figs to very useful in predicting winners - as good as speed figs, better than many other factors. As good as any predictors out there.