Track variant question...

[thaskalos]

In Aqueduct's 6th race tomorrow, the #7 horse (Gatto Nero) and the #8 horse (Amply Rewarded) both raced last out on February 5th...but in different races; the 1st and the 6th race respectively.

Both these races were run in exactly the same final time (1:13.6)...and both the #7 and the #8 finished in 3rd place -- beaten by 3.75 lengths.

And yet...the Beyer figures for their respective races are markedly different. The 7 has been given a Beyer of 52...while the 8's performance has been downgraded to a Beyer of 43...a difference of almost 4 lengths.

I don't calculate variants for Aqueduct's winter meet, so I am wondering; is this a case of the track getting much faster as the day went on...or are the Beyer figures off the mark on this one?

[ntheiroff]

Andy uses the "projection method" which aligns the horses performance to a previous performance. And yes he could also have split the variant.

My guess is the first option.

[gm10]

Originally Posted by ntheiroff

Andy uses the "projection method" which aligns the horses performance to a previous performance. And yes he could also have split the variant.

My guess is the first option.

Even if he uses a projection method, it should still be a DAILY track variant, an average of (projected - actual) for that day. It must either a split DTV, or he's adjusting the numbers on a per race basis so that there's consistency in them.

[cj]

Originally Posted by gm10

Even if he uses a projection method, it should still be a DAILY track variant, an average of (projected - actual) for that day. It must either a split DTV, or he's adjusting the numbers on a per race basis so that there's consistency in them.

Most likely it is a split variant. He doesn't adjust races on a per race basis unless the time of a race is just totally out of line with all the others. This does happen often enough, especially at smaller tracks, but no so much at NYRA tracks. Trust published times at your own peril.

[PhantomOnTour]

I didn't split my variant on 5Feb at Aqu. They ran 8 sprints that day and 1 route. My final time sprint deviations from par were:

R1: s5 (23.7-47.9-113.6)
R2: s2
R3: s6
R4: f6
R5: f5
R6: s2 (23.0-47.8-113.7)
R7: f3
R8: s2

Yes, the first 3 sprints were a bit slower than the last 5 sprints but not a big enough difference for me to split my variant. The races in question (R1 and R6) both got basically the same pace and final time fig from me.

[BIG49010]

Bris has them one point apart, I didn't split my variant either. It will be interesting to see the results.

[sjk]

I've got the 7 four points faster than the 8 that day.

[Big Bill]

Originally Posted by BIG49010

Bris has them one point apart, I didn't split my variant either. It will be interesting to see the results.

Which BRIS product provides a track variant?

Big Bill

[BIG49010]

Originally Posted by Big Bill

Which BRIS product provides a track variant?

Big Bill

BRIS doesn't provide variant, I do my own variant, just commenting that it didn't appear BRIS made any adjustment.

[cj]

Originally Posted by BIG49010

BRIS doesn't provide variant, I do my own variant, just commenting that it didn't appear BRIS made any adjustment.

BRIS never splits variants.

[mistergee]

would you trust a days variants when there is a fast 5 and 6 race and a slow 5 and 6 race anyway?

[The Hawk]

Originally Posted by cj

BRIS never splits variants.

A big reason why their figures aren't worth much.

[Mr Saratoga]

Beyer, and Bris figs are only a tool. Most people put way too much faith, and cash into them.

[Robert Goren]

If you ever try to figure these thing yourself, you will find they vary greatly from race to race. Some time you think you see a pattern head in one direction as you get deeper the card, but it still could be random. if you split a card, you should have reason other than just numbers tell you to do it like a drying track. Somebody wrote a whole book on being fooled by randomness. If going to make your own numbers you should probably read it. I am not not much of a believer in changing variants unless there is some reason to. That includes from day to day as well. If it is hot and dry every day all week, the variant for all the whole week should be the same. If you get a goofball number in the middle of that kind of week, it is in all likelihood an outlier. The day in question is a strange day. I would not put any faith in any number I got from that day. The nice thing about doing your own numbers is that you know which days have numbers you can trust and which days they are not worth the paper they written on.

[Elliott Sidewater]

good post Robert - I think you hit the high points. Personally, I would not have split the variant on the day in question unless I knew something more; about a change in weather, that the track was rolled or harrowed heavily between races, it started raining - something other than just running more races over the surface. Sometimes at Philadelphia Park in the past, when I was doing my own figures, I found that the first race of the day, particularly on weekdays, had suspect timings. It's as if their teletiming system hadn't been set or calibrated properly, and you'd see weird stuff like a maiden claimer running 21 flat for the first quarter mile. One time, strong wind gusts came up while a field was walking to post and that one race got a 9 tick adjustment from me at six and a half furlongs. Real world events held outdoors don't conform to anyone's preconceived idea of order. There is an element of randomness there that defies rational explanation some of the time, but if it's small enough, chaos won't matter that much. If you're good enough to make the right adjustments for the right reasons, there's money there. If you're doing this three times a week at one track, it's way too much. To my way of thinking, constructing a great set of figures is part art and part science.