Unadjusted speed figs

[erict23]

So lately I’ve been starting to use figures derived from track pars that I do not adjust with a daily track variant. Now I understand that generally speaking track variant is going to make the figures more accurate/predictive. However I think it’s reasonable to assume that there are times when the figures may be adjusted when they don’t need to be or over adjusted and taking a look at the raw figs may have some value. This seems to be my experience of late I’ve definitely noticed it gives a different perspective than the majority of the public using the adjusted figures and a chance to spot some value horses that majority of people might not be betting. This is a subject that first interest me years ago after I read carrols book handicapping speed. I’ve definitely noticed this seems to work much better in sprints. My question is is anyone else have much success looking at races From this perspective and if so are there certain tracks/regions or distances/types of races that you believe might be better suited to looking at unadjusted figures? So there…that’s my first thread started. I’m new..Thanks erict

[proximity]

kinda.

going back 25+ years i would use dick mitchell's gordon pine pars to make raw second call figures for most of the sprints in a drf (and sometimes 2 drfs!!) in an effort to find potential early speed plays. any potential plays i found i would enter by hand in his easy capper software, which at the time would extract and apply the beyer variant. if easy capper gave the horse a betting line, i would use that line to determine my bet size. if no line was given i would pass.

eventually a week of extreme (fast) pace variants at the meadowlands sent me down the pace variant making rabbit hole, which was followed by the next rabbit hole, and the next, and the next..... probably everyone still on here more than a half dozen years and a few thousand posts has a similar story!

thanks for the memories and good luck!!

[Dave Schwartz]

I've done study after study of this over the last 25 years.

Every single study I have done indicates that the concept of SR+TV does not work.

Using pars is a good thing - but the results are much improved without the Average Daily Variant.

If you can do the work to produce a race-by-race variant then more power to you. Too much work for me.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I've done study after study of this over the last 25 years.

Every single study I have done indicates that the concept of SR+TV does not work.

Using pars is a good thing - but the results are much improved without the Average Daily Variant.

If you can do the work to produce a race-by-race variant then more power to you. Too much work for me.

That is because the old style TV has always been flawed due to the methods used to create it, and the "improvement" made to consider distance didn't really help and may have actually hurt by limiting sample size. But, I don't think that is what the thread starter was talking about. I think he was talking about speed figures like Beyer, TimeformUS, Thorograph, etc.

Making a daily track variant is obviously the key part to speed figure making. Speed figures drive a substantial amount of the betting. There are races and days that are tougher than others for making figures for sure. That is good info to know and we do provide that at TimeformUS. Nobody else does that I'm aware of. So discounting or weighting speed figures differently makes sense in some cases.

That said, I don't see how not using a track variant is going to help. Sure, you can use raw times and get a few winners now and then, just like you can play birthdays or favorite colors. But you'll get buried long term IMO.

[sharkey11]

there was a method of adjusting the tv one would use a range of say 13 to 16 and give a 0 adjustment and any number outside of this range on either the + or _ side add 1 point up to a 10 was the cap .

[headhawg]

Originally Posted by sharkey11

there was a method of adjusting the tv one would use a range of say 13 to 16 and give a 0 adjustment and any number outside of this range on either the + or _ side add 1 point up to a 10 was the cap .

This method doesn't really work but thanks for playing.

[sharkey11]

i never said it would work little piggy learn to read pinhead

[headhawg]

Some things never change, like your useless posts. Learn to think, sharkface.

[classhandicapper]

I have one observation to add.

I think final time has multiple components to it.

1. Track speed. How fast were the horses capable of running that day for between 2F and 4F if they were pushed hard?

2. How tiring is the surface? A tiring surface will naturally lead to slower final times, but imo is a bit different than #1 even if related.

3. How are the riders adjusting to the track that day. When the riders sense the track is very tiring (or vice versa), they often adjust their level of aggression. The fractions they set will be impacted by their level of aggression and the final time will be impacted by the fractions they set.

It all gets fairly tricky, but I think that's sometimes why you see days where the track variant for the pace figures doesn't seem to match the track variant for the final times, where sprints are different than routes etc...

So basically, the problem is when you adjust fractions and final time using a track variant, you can't always be sure if you are just adjusting for track speed.

In the end, IMO adjusting times using a track variant is WAY more accurate than just using raw times, but on extreme days there are probably more inaccuracies where the raw times (especially the fractions) are telling you something.

[sharkey11]

tell me where it says that i have to give you any information or post something that is useful and who are you to say that its useful or not if its not the prove it to everyone show a workout of it not working . and you are right somethings do not change like your childish remarks . well simple comments from simple people i guess enough said little piggy

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by cj

That is because the old style TV has always been flawed due to the methods used to create it, and the "improvement" made to consider distance didn't really help and may have actually hurt by limiting sample size. But, I don't think that is what the thread starter was talking about. I think he was talking about speed figures like Beyer, TimeformUS, Thorograph, etc.

Making a daily track variant is obviously the key part to speed figure making. Speed figures drive a substantial amount of the betting. There are races and days that are tougher than others for making figures for sure. That is good info to know and we do provide that at TimeformUS. Nobody else does that I'm aware of. So discounting or weighting speed figures differently makes sense in some cases.

That said, I don't see how not using a track variant is going to help. Sure, you can use raw times and get a few winners now and then, just like you can play birthdays or favorite colors. But you'll get buried long term IMO.

CJ,

Perhaps I was unclear.

I am saying that, in order of best-to-worst are these methods:

1. Track Par-Based Numbers with Hand-crafted race-by-race variants. (Assuming the hands are very competent.)
2. Par-Based Numbers without ADV.
3. Par-Base numbers with ADV.
4. Raw times

Are we on the same page now?
Have I left anything out of that list?

[headhawg]

Originally Posted by sharkey11

tell me where it says that i have to give you any information or post something that is useful and who are you to say that its useful or not if its not the prove it to everyone show a workout of it not working . and you are right somethings do not change like your childish remarks . well simple comments from simple people i guess enough said little piggy

Seriously?? The Inadvertently Comedic (and Clueless) Post of the Year!

[erict23]

CJ-
I See you have the timeform US stamp in your header…. Safe to assume you work for them or are associated? I’m a big fan of the pps. The formatting is a little tough to use on a phone but when I’m at my laptop I enjoy using them. The pace projecter is excellent and the turf figures are one of the few that I trust. Beyers, bris, and trackmaster turf figs all make me a little uneasy to use. They seem to be a bit inflated especially in non-competitive performances. Timeform us put out quality pps and the “all tracks” price for the day is good deal. Eric

[cj]

Originally Posted by erict23

CJ-
I See you have the timeform US stamp in your header…. Safe to assume you work for them or are associated? I’m a big fan of the pps. The formatting is a little tough to use on a phone but when I’m at my laptop I enjoy using them. The pace projecter is excellent and the turf figures are one of the few that I trust. Beyers, bris, and trackmaster turf figs all make me a little uneasy to use. They seem to be a bit inflated especially in non-competitive performances. Timeform us put out quality pps and the “all tracks” price for the day is good deal. Eric

Thanks for the nice words. Yes, I'm the TimeformUS figure guy, that is why I said "we" when I referred to the company. The good news is the site is being rebuilt and will be much more phone friendly. I actually bought a Fold and it is great, but the upgrade should make that unnecessary.

[pandy]

Speed Figures are better than raw times but it's good to be aware of raw times in certain situations. For instance, if I see a horse ran 1:09 breaking its maiden over a fast track at Belmont and has a 90 speed figure racing against a horse that broke its maiden in 1:11 over a fast track at Belmont but also has a 90 speed figure, I'm going to lean towards the horse that ran two seconds faster. The bottom line is, at that point in their careers, we have no idea if the 1:11 horse will ever be capable of running 6 furlongs in 1:09.