Why have race charts always been this way?

[mountainman]

It's obvious that certain callers give themselves extra time by rattling off margins well before the leader hits the appointed point of call. This "cheating," (mainly resorted to when the caller has a poor angle or line of sight to the designated pole) often results in running lines that show implausible gains at the next call.

The half-mile call in 5 1/2 furlong races run on one-mile configurations might best exemplify this.

Conversely, but in similar vein, no caller I know of even atttempts to take the break calls right out of the gate, instead waiting for the field to sort itself, even a bit.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Nitro

No matter which charts you’re using the majority of players don’t really understand the true race dynamics anyway because they’re being misinterpreted. (Like many other subjective aspects of this game).

It seems like your major objections are about accuracy. I'm in that club.

1. One of the reasons I look at pace and final time figures despite the inaccuracies is to have some time based measurement of what occurred in a race despite those inevitable inaccuracies.

2. One of the reasons I look at the charts despite the inaccuracies of lengths behind at various calls is to see how the race actually flowed overall compared to what the fractions suggest should have happened.

3. One of the reasons I watch replays is to shed further light on the start, between call and premature moves, head to head battles, wide moves, how the horses finished etc..

4. One of the reasons I look at how much early speed was in the race and the quality of the horses overall is to get a better feel for why the race may have flowed the way it did and to have a qualitative view.

5. One of the reasons I make track bias notes is to see how races were flowing in general that day compared to average and relative to how I would have expected them to flow given 1-4.

I guess my point (one I always make) is that there are inaccuracies all over the place but each technique can help in different ways to clarify what really happened. It's a matter of how much time and effort you want to put into any given race to understand it better.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It seems like your major objections are about accuracy. I'm in that club.

I guess my point (one I always make) is that there are inaccuracies all over the place but each technique can help in different ways to clarify what really happened. It's a matter of how much time and effort you want to put into any given race to understand it better.

That is the ABSOLUTE truth!
And one of the major reasons I gave up Speed handicapping many years ago.
The sweat equity and return just wasn't worth effort.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Nitro

That is the ABSOLUTE truth!
And one of the major reasons I gave up Speed handicapping many years ago.
The sweat equity and return just wasn't worth effort.

I go back and forth about it.

When I compare high quality figure sources I see a lot of large enough differences to change my view of some races. That makes me skeptical of them. I also know there's not much value in speed figures left to begin with because everyone is using them and has a good source. So that pushes me to a more qualitative approach I've been refining and testing for a very long time. It works as well as time based figures anyway. The thing is, sometimes I don't have adequate information for an qualitative analysis and I also make some subjective mistakes like the figure makers. So I try to combine them and other techniques in ways to get the best of all worlds. At that point the return is not worth the effort.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I go back and forth about it.

When I compare high quality figure sources I see a lot of large enough differences to change my view of some races. That makes me skeptical of them. I also know there's not much value in speed figures left to begin with because everyone is using them and has a good source. So that pushes me to a more qualitative approach I've been refining and testing for a very long time. It works as well as time based figures anyway. The thing is, sometimes I don't have adequate information for an qualitative analysis and I also make some subjective mistakes like the figure makers. So I try to combine them and other techniques in ways to get the best of all worlds. At that point the return is not worth the effort.

For me, trying to handicap without speed figures would be like trying to write without an alphabet. But that doesn't mean they are everything of course and many people assign too much value to them. I look at them more as a starting point.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

For me, trying to handicap without speed figures would be like trying to write without an alphabet. But that doesn't mean they are everything of course and many people assign too much value to them. I look at them more as a starting point.

The major benefit of figures I can see is that you can look at the PPs and have a good feel for the race in a couple of minutes. Then you can continue your analysis from there.

Without them, you have to look at the charts and PPs of a lot of horses to see if certain fields were weak or strong for the class and understand how their performances compare. That takes a lot of time and research. That's why no one does it. It's a lot of work if you want to be good at it. It's basically the same process as making figures yourself.

The major benefit of figures I see is that it's easier to determine the strength of certain types of races using figures. Races for lightly raced horses and some shippers can get tricky. Also, if a horse wins big (or the top 2 blow out the rest of the field) the figure will typically scream if those horses were way better than average for the class or the rest of the field was trash.

There are just times when a figure is disputed and there are huge differences. Other times I know a fast figure was legitimate but earned by a cheap horse in a weak field and very unlikely to be duplicated against tougher. And still other times I know a horse is better than its recent figures based on how it has been finishing. With all the discrepancies and these other complications, I remain skeptical.

My biggest objection though is making comparisons between horses over the decades based on figures. Changing surfaces, training methods, legal/illegal drug use, and worst of all "figure drift" (which is obviously rampant) make those comparison ludicrous. The historical record is a joke.