Track Variants - Bogus or real?

[DeltaLover]

Although I am a firm believer that speed figures and track variant are overvalued I have to disagree with the following statement:

Originally Posted by Cratos

To calculate a surface variant there will be a need for some sophisticated devices and operated by very well train technicians. I say this because the most influential change to the race track static surface comes from the environment in terms of thermal, wind, and moisture. This cannot and is not being done by taking racing times of the horses.

I agree that the analytical calculation of a TV is not possible due to the very large number of parameters affecting it. In other words it is a chaotic environment and as such it is impossible to be described by a closed function.

This is exactly where the need for a model arises.

A model is not a precise description or reality. Quite the contrary. It represents an abstraction based in data reduction up to a point that it generates acceptable signals.

It is quite possible to implement such a model and many have already accomplished it. We can easily prove the validity of such a model using elementary statistics.

The point of debate should be not the possibility of generating a valid track variant and speed figures but the approach to filter the best methodology something that requires the answer to how speed figures should be used.

[Tom]

CJ does this everyday, every track, every race.
And people are making money off of his efforts.
Why don't you theorists start posting a better product, ie variant that produce figures that predict winners?

Since this thread started, how many variants have you guys calculated, how many races have you bet and won off of your efforts?
How many people line up to PAY you for your output?

Like I said before, this the real world.

[cj]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

The point of debate should be not the possibility of generating a valid track variant and speed figures but the approach to filter the best methodology something that requires the answer to how speed figures should be used.

Of course, that is the big question, isn't it? I always say those that knock speed figures the most are the ones that don't know how to use them. Nobody I know that is successful thinks speed figures should be used in isolation. However, for some reason, those that are "against" speed figures seem to attribute that to all the so-called speed guys.

Anyone can read the analysis I've given for the last several Breeder's Cups and see that I don't just pick the best last speed figure. I use them as one of many tools, nothing more, nothing less.

[ronsmac]

The reality is, unless you know the wind for every single race, whether or not the track was watered and graded between races,the runup from the gate, unless you time from the gate itself, and the differences in temperature from race 1 to race 10, there really isn't one accurate variant for a race day. Of course the more accurate you try to be, you get caught up in a slew of numbers and it's much more work than it's worth. You're final variant or variants are still only going to be a semi educated guess anyway. Speed figures are so 1970's and 1980s that they offer nothing of value today, IMHO, or maybe not so humble opinion.

[Tom]

Opinions vary.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Tom

Opinions vary.

Correction. Opinions vary greatly!!

[Dan Montilion]

Track Variants - Bogus or real? Yes!

[Tom]

Well, that certainly answers the question.

[SPEEDHORSE]

This question is addressed to all projected variants figure makers.

I would like to know if projected speed figures should be based only on horses that delivers consistent speed figures in order that the projected track variants to have a semblance of accuracy as opposed to a projected speed figure from a horse who earn the figure only in its last race?

[cj]

Originally Posted by SPEEDHORSE

This question is addressed to all projected variants figure makers.

I would like to know if projected speed figures should be based only on horses that delivers consistent speed figures in order that the projected track variants to have a semblance of accuracy as opposed to a projected speed figure from a horse who earn the figure only in its last race?

I include as many horses as possible at first (all but 1sters), but I eliminate the top and bottom 20% from any final calculations.

[raybo]

Shouldn't the "projected" portion of that post be "calculated". Does anyone really "project" variants? Not trying to be flip here, just a little confused by that post.

[sjk]

I project for horses who run in the top 3 or within 8 lengths of the winner and project from any race within 60 days (before or after) in which that horse was top 3 or within 8 lenghts of the winner.

I don't use races for 2YOs or 3YOs (except for a few days when CD and Crc insist on nothing else).

[raybo]

Originally Posted by sjk

I project for horses who run in the top 3 or within 8 lengths of the winner and project from any race within 60 days (before or after) in which that horse was top 3 or within 8 lenghts of the winner.

I don't use races for 2YOs or 3YOs (except for a few days when CD and Crc insist on nothing else).

Are you projecting speed figures, or variants? How can you project a daily variant?

[sjk]

I get a line for each horse as in the previous post; use his speed rating in the last race in relation to his time in today's race to get a variant. When you look at all the variants for the day they usually have a std dev that is pretty consistent so I would take a look at it if things seemed unusual. Average all.

It is a little more complicated than that but you get the idea.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by sjk

I get a line for each horse as in the previous post; use his speed rating in the last race in relation to his time in today's race to get a variant. When you look at all the variants for the day they usually have a std dev that is pretty consistent so I would take a look at it if things seemed unusual. Average all.

It is a little more complicated than that but you get the idea.

When there is a semblance of order, and all the variants fall into some sort of line, then I understand. But what happens when the variants are all over the place?

I find it hard to believe that the horses all improve or decline at approximately the same level. Horses improve and decline for a variety of reasons...not just because the track surface has changed. How do the projected variants account for all these things?

I understand that some variant is better than no variant at all...but we are playing a game where a fifth of a second can easily mean the difference between a win and a loss...so some kind of precision in still a must.