Track Variants - Bogus or real?

[TrifectaMike]

Except for extreme cases, do speed handicappers really believe they are measuring surface anomalies for the day?

Is a variant based on reality or simply number crunching without merit and most likely wrong.

I personally believe track variants deter not aid speed handicappers.

Make your case... convince that I am wrong in my belief.

Mike (Dr Beav)

[HUSKER55]

FWIW, I think the track variant is mored indicative of the quality of horses and has very little, if anything, to do with the speed of the track.

The DRF takes the average par time of the day and compares it to the par time of today's entrants.

Any jump between races can be explained by class of the animals. How else could you get two different beyers for the same time-of-race in a given day at the same track?

[cj]

Originally Posted by TrifectaMike

I personally believe track variants deter not aid speed handicappers.

Make your case... convince that I am wrong in my belief.

Make your case first. Why do you believe that?

[cj]

Originally Posted by HUSKER55

FWIW, I think the track variant is mored indicative of the quality of horses and has very little, if anything, to do with the speed of the track.

The DRF takes the average par time of the day and compares it to the par time of today's entrants.

Any jump between races can be explained by class of the animals. How else could you get two different beyers for the same time-of-race in a given day at the same track?

First, you are talking about two different variants and trying to relate them. The DRF variant has nothing to do with Beyer figures.

How two different Beyer figures are given for the the same time is covered below:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=99477

I'd sure like to see some examples of this happening. I'm not saying it never happens, but it is a rare occurrence indeed. It was stated in the thread linked above and now by you like this happens every day, and I can assure you it does not.

[jorcus99]

Originally Posted by TrifectaMike

Except for extreme cases, do speed handicappers really believe they are measuring surface anomalies for the day?


Is a variant based on reality or simply number crunching without merit and most likely wrong.

I personally believe track variants deter not aid speed handicappers.

Make your case... convince that I am wrong in my belief.

Mike (Dr Beav)

I guess it depends on what you consider extreme. Were the slow times at Hollywood park last weekend extreme enough to create a vairant? Most would say yes. If that is he case where do you draw the line? You pretty much have to accept it exists at some point.

[therussmeister]

Except for extreme cases, using or not using variants would not likely impact a handicappers success rate, therefore, whilst they don't help, neither would they deter. But if you apply variants every day, instead of just extreme days, you don't have to define what constitutes extreme.

[Magister Ludi]

Originally Posted by TrifectaMike

Is a variant based on reality or simply number crunching without merit and most likely wrong.

It's a moot point. Track variants are so widely used that if there is any useful information added by them to a forecast, it is already reflected in the public odds.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by Magister Ludi

It's a moot point. Track variants are so widely used that if there is any useful information added by them to a forecast, it is already reflected in the public odds.

But if you don't use them, then you are at a disadvantage to the public unless you use the odds as part of making your picks. I suppose a case could be made that they over bet and you could bet against them. Good luck with that.

[Magister Ludi]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

But if you don't use them, then you are at a disadvantage to the public unless you use the odds as part of making your picks.

Bingo!

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by therussmeister

Except for extreme cases, using or not using variants would not likely impact a handicappers success rate, therefore, whilst they don't help, neither would they deter. But if you apply variants every day, instead of just extreme days, you don't have to define what constitutes extreme.

It has been my experence that if you have an extreme variant for the day, the horses don't run back to that race unless today races also have similar extreme variant. For instance a horse ran on day when the variant was 20 point slower normal. That race is useless unless today's races are running about 20 points slower than normal. Some horse only run on extremely slow or extremely fast tracks. Some horses won't run a lick on an extreme variant day. That is why you should always know the variant for the day. This is something that variant makers never tell anyone.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

It has been my experence that if you have an extreme variant for the day, the horses don't run back to that race unless today races also have similar extreme variant. For instance a horse ran on day when the variant was 20 point slower normal. That race is useless unless today's races are running about 20 points slower than normal. Some horse only run on extremely slow or extremely fast tracks. Some horses won't run a lick on an extreme variant day. That is why you should always know the variant for the day. This is something that variant makers never tell anyone.

Of course there are some horses that like a very deep track, and some a very hard one. But those horses are in the vast minority. As an example, Mountaineer winterizes its track every year, but most horses are still able to repeat figures on the non-winterized track, a markedly different surface.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by cj

Make your case first. Why do you believe that?

I'll second that notion. My guess is that we'll either wait a long time or never get a direct answer.

[RonTiller]

This question has nothing to do with anybody's beliefs or theories - it is an empirical question, pure and simple. To that end, I think it is a good question that speed figure makers should be able to answer with facts.

To rephrase the original question: How do speed numbers measure up made a) without variants, b) with variants (using whatever methodology you use)?

Jim Cramer recently measured the performance of his speed numbers for every race run in 2012 - that's EVERY RACE, 47,365, from Prineville Rodeo Roundup to Belmont. This includes all races, no filtering out 1st time starter races, 2 year old races, off tracks, races we don't like, etc. Here's the result:

NO Variant     47,365 races   26.5% winners #1 last race speed rating .84 ROI
WITH Variant   47,365 races   30.0% winners #1 last race speed rating .92 ROI

What does this mean? Using raw speed numbers, with no variant (but with track to track built in), the #1 last race Cramer speed rating horse won 26.5% of the all races run in 2012. (Note that races with all 1st time starters are included, but they automatically count as a loss in this tally).

Taking the same 47,365 races, but this time using the speed numbers with Jim's variant included in the number, the #1 last race Cramer speed rating horse won 30.0% of the all races run in 2012. In other words, the track variant that Jim produces ups the win% by 3.5%.

This is really simple engineering. Make both sets of numbers, with and without variant, measure them both over a large sample (however you choose to measure them), and compare results.

That is how you optimize a specific methodology of making variants as well - measure numbers made using different variants (and different methodlogies, weightings and go with the best performing.

If you don't measure the speed ratings in an empirical manner (however you choose to measure them), you have no firm basis to answer TrifectaMike's excellent question.

So my answer to TrifectaMike's question, philosophical beliefs, opinions, theories and anecdotal evidence aside, is that Cramer speed numbers perform significantly better (as demonstrated through large empical studies) with his variant incorporated into the number than with no variant applied.

Please note that this data is using Cramer speed numbers with and without his variants, which are projected variants, based on projections of how fast each horse in the race will run in that race. Your mileage may vary with other speed ratings and variant methodologies.

Ron Tiller
HDW

[sjk]

Many would agree that a good first step towards analyzing today's race is to assign numerical grades (adjusted speed ratings if you will) to each horse's past performance lines.

How would you begin to do this without a track variant?

[TexasDolly]

Originally Posted by RonTiller

This question has nothing to do with anybody's beliefs or theories - it is an empirical question, pure and simple. To that end, I think it is a good question that speed figure makers should be able to answer with facts.

To rephrase the original question: How do speed numbers measure up made a) without variants, b) with variants (using whatever methodology you use)?

Jim Cramer recently measured the performance of his speed numbers for every race run in 2012 - that's EVERY RACE, 47,365, from Prineville Rodeo Roundup to Belmont. This includes all races, no filtering out 1st time starter races, 2 year old races, off tracks, races we don't like, etc. Here's the result:

  NO Variant     47,365 races   26.5% winners #1 last race speed rating .84 ROI
  WITH Variant   47,365 races   30.0% winners #1 last race speed rating .92 ROI

What does this mean? Using raw speed numbers, with no variant (but with track to track built in), the #1 last race Cramer speed rating horse won 26.5% of the all races run in 2012. (Note that races with all 1st time starters are included, but they automatically count as a loss in this tally).

Taking the same 47,365 races, but this time using the speed numbers with Jim's variant included in the number, the #1 last race Cramer speed rating horse won 30.0% of the all races run in 2012. In other words, the track variant that Jim produces ups the win% by 3.5%.

This is really simple engineering. Make both sets of numbers, with and without variant, measure them both over a large sample (however you choose to measure them), and compare results.

That is how you optimize a specific methodology of making variants as well - measure numbers made using different variants (and different methodlogies, weightings and go with the best performing.

If you don't measure the speed ratings in an empirical manner (however you choose to measure them), you have no firm basis to answer TrifectaMike's excellent question.

So my answer to TrifectaMike's question, philosophical beliefs, opinions, theories and anecdotal evidence aside, is that Cramer speed numbers perform significantly better (as demonstrated through large empical studies) with his variant incorporated into the number than with no variant applied.

Please note that this data is using Cramer speed numbers with and without his variants, which are projected variants, based on projections of how fast each horse in the race will run in that race. Your mileage may vary with other speed ratings and variant methodologies.

Ron Tiller
HDW

It may be that the variant produces more winners but it seems to me that the ROI is really what's important ,not win percentage as a gauge.
I had also read that Cramer assigns a number to a horse and then as the horse runs more races goes back and adjusts the original(or previous numbers) based on subsequent races. I don't know if this a fact so I would appreciate your comment on this as well. If so, how does that affect the variant etc.?
Thank you,
TD