How would you rate and or compare each track?

[tbwinner]

I owned from 2009-2012 and had horses in the summer and fall months at AP/HAW where I lived and some at Penn. I had better financial results from my Penn horses but focused on Illinois because I lived there. So yes I agree with the assessment that claiming owners outside of major Leaguers that are at multiple circuits (thinking like a Mike Maker owner) are racing where they live. Training costs in IL were same or slightly higher than Penn but Penn had higher purses(and honestly lesser competition).

One thing I'll say about training costs / day rate is only one part of the equation. Some trainers may charge a seemingly lower than market rate but charge supplements or extra charges. Some trainers rely heavy on vet work, others maybe use more old school methods and rely less on Nsaids/joint injections etc.. And yes higher % barns generally command a higher rate. Workers comp insurance etc will affect rates in certain states (NY example). Most trainers don't make money on their day rate but their commission...lots of variables, do they charge same rate for 1st-5th purse $$ or different rates for win etc... I don't know if you can tie purse money to training costs accurately enough to classify tracks as suggested.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I must disagree with your assessment.

Owners like to be at the track when their horses race - and especially when they win.

True, that owners of expensive horses have the luxury of making those decisions. After all, if you own a $100,000 horse you probably can fly to wherever your horse races.

But life is different for owners of lower grade horses (which make up the majority of races).

Lower grade Claiming owners stable near where they live and simply pay the local charges. Or, they stop owning horses.

Having never owned a race horse, I could certainly be wrong. Would you own a $6k claimer and stable it (say) 1,500 miles away because the day rate was less?

Good point about horses on the cheap end. My brain tends to think about stakes prospects working their way through the ALW and stakes ranks.

How far away the alternative options are probably matters also. If several tracks are within X miles, there might be options for where to stable that also give you the option to ship for certain opportunities and drive to watch the race.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by tbwinner

I owned from 2009-2012 and had horses in the summer and fall months at AP/HAW where I lived and some at Penn. I had better financial results from my Penn horses but focused on Illinois because I lived there. So yes I agree with the assessment that claiming owners outside of major Leaguers that are at multiple circuits (thinking like a Mike Maker owner) are racing where they live. Training costs in IL were same or slightly higher than Penn but Penn had higher purses(and honestly lesser competition).

One thing I'll say about training costs / day rate is only one part of the equation. Some trainers may charge a seemingly lower than market rate but charge supplements or extra charges. Some trainers rely heavy on vet work, others maybe use more old school methods and rely less on Nsaids/joint injections etc.. And yes higher % barns generally command a higher rate. Workers comp insurance etc will affect rates in certain states (NY example). Most trainers don't make money on their day rate but their commission...lots of variables, do they charge same rate for 1st-5th purse $$ or different rates for win etc... I don't know if you can tie purse money to training costs accurately enough to classify tracks as suggested.

To do what I was trying to do, you would need all those costs. That's part of what made it impossible for me to figure out. But I think it's likely from a purely business perspective that some tracks have better economics for ownership than others. So "IF" you were willing to own horses anywhere, there are probably some places that make more sense than others.

[AutumnLotus]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I'd like to help in answering this question.

But first, a comment about using purse values.

The issue with using purse values is that it is a function of more than the quality of horses.

It is mostly a function of ATTRACTING HORSES within the scope of those available in the surrounding area at a given time of year.

To make this point easily, just look at CBY on a map that is to scale.

CBY is literally WAY OUT THERE.

In order to attract horses, the purse values are unnaturally high considering the level of races and horses.

_______________
My belief is that what matters most is the degree of reliability in the handicapping.

That is, how often does handicapping lead to the winner?

At the bottom of this post you will find a link to download the entire report that will be described here.

____________
I am the builder of The HorseStreet Par Times.

Included with those pars is a document known as The Speed Reliability Index.

This metric is based upon how well horses run back to their speed ratings in today's race.

The scale looks like this:


90-109 is considered average, with 100 being dead center average. That would represent 62% of all winners ranking in the top 3.

For those who are statistically minded, originally, this represented one standard deviation from average, and each of the upward or downward steps represented 2 and 3 Std Devs, respectively.

Over time, as most tracks have improved, I did not change the StdDev. Instead, I kept the same rating system.

Here's a quick look at the best SRIs.


This began as a project back around 2012 to improve my par times. This document just highlights the two best groups.

There are extenuating conditions to these, with the biggest one being TRAINER. This is why the EXCELLENT group is mostly small tracks: At those tracks a tiny handful of trainers tend to dominate.

BTW, a logical conclusion would be that this is a function of field size. Surprisingly, that does not hold up.

IOW, the top 3 win almost exactly the same percentage in a 6-horse field as opposed to a 10-horse field.

I have theories about that (and statistics to support), but that's for another day.

_____________

The Alphabetical List shows a quick lookup of the the tracks over the years.

I've only shown 3 years of the last 7 but I do have all the years.

Generally, tracks show improvement year over year because the Pars have been in a significant state of improvement for over a decade.

When tracks turn for the worse there is generally a reason.

Here's the link to download the full PDF.
HorseStreet Par Times 2023 Speed Reliability Index.




.

Dave thank you for posting this and allowing us to print it. This is very valuable information. Regarding the Tracks that are of smaller size that you have commented that these are usually dominated by a handful of trainers, I tend to stick with Penn National and Charles Town, of course I also do aqueduct and such but for the most part my research and focus is mainly with Penn National and I have been studying charlestown. Is Penn National and for charlestown on this list? I apologize if that seems like a silly question but I don't see an abbreviation for Penn National and I'm not sure if Charles Town is up there.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by AutumnLotus

Dave thank you for posting this and allowing us to print it. This is very valuable information. Regarding the Tracks that are of smaller size that you have commented that these are usually dominated by a handful of trainers, I tend to stick with Penn National and Charles Town, of course I also do aqueduct and such but for the most part my research and focus is mainly with Penn National and I have been studying charlestown. Is Penn National and for charlestown on this list? I apologize if that seems like a silly question but I don't see an abbreviation for Penn National and I'm not sure if Charles Town is up there.

I'm not Dave but wouldn't Charles Town be the CT on the list? I don't see why Penn National wouldn't be included if you looked at the full list (it's in alphabetical order).

[zerosky]

James Willoughby explored a novel technique for tracks in the UK
His articles are always worth a read.

https://www.johnston.racing/wp-conte...Willoughby.pdf

https://www.johnston.racing/klarion/main-stories/

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by castaway01

I'm not Dave but wouldn't Charles Town be the CT on the list? I don't see why Penn National wouldn't be included if you looked at the full list (it's in alphabetical order).

But you nailed it anyway.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Wow. If I'm reading Dave's post correctly, Chippewa Downs comes in at the top of the heap in terms of reliability?

Maybe so, but my first thought is that a track that runs four weekends a year for minimal purse values is tougher to exploit than your average circuit. That being said, I did attend the closing Sunday last year at Cpw since I lived nearby. Had a good time and made about $30 on the day, based more on the CLOSE paddock inspections than anything else. It's not Tillamook or Grant's Pass, but it was fun.

My second thought is that while speed numbers are one way to compare tracks, to answer the OP's question I would reply with - "the best tracks are the ones where I win consistently...." Back in the 1980s and 1990s this would have been NYRA, Ellis, Fairmount, Birmingham and Southern California. Today it's Sha Tin, Australia, New Zealand, Saratoga and Oaklawn.

It's one of the great mysteries for me as to why handicapping changes from track to track, and why some seem rather easy to figure out both winning and losing races, while others don't make any sense. Obviously it helps to know a circuit track more thoroughly, but over time the constant I've observed is...change. I believe Dave has some tools with his products that model factors in depth for each track, which allows him to bet across the country with confidence. My approach is just to steer for where I win, and avoid the money burners.

So, I wager almost all my handle at NYRA, GP, Kee, SA, Dmr, OP, Sha Tin, certain Aussie and NZ tracks, and Japan. I may as well take my bankroll of singles out of my pocket and use them to light cigars and campfires rather than place a wager at FG, CD, Tam or WO. The rest of the tracks are somewhere in between those extremes, but I rarely play them - even if I do cash in the Preakness once per decade.

[Dave Schwartz]

Just love this post.

Spoken like a true winner.

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

Wow. If I'm reading Dave's post correctly, Chippewa Downs comes in at the top of the heap in terms of reliability?

Maybe so, but my first thought is that a track that runs four weekends a year for minimal purse values is tougher to exploit than your average circuit. That being said, I did attend the closing Sunday last year at Cpw since I lived nearby. Had a good time and made about $30 on the day, based more on the CLOSE paddock inspections than anything else. It's not Tillamook or Grant's Pass, but it was fun.

My second thought is that while speed numbers are one way to compare tracks, to answer the OP's question I would reply with - "the best tracks are the ones where I win consistently...." Back in the 1980s and 1990s this would have been NYRA, Ellis, Fairmount, Birmingham and Southern California. Today it's Sha Tin, Australia, New Zealand, Saratoga and Oaklawn.

It's one of the great mysteries for me as to why handicapping changes from track to track, and why some seem rather easy to figure out both winning and losing races, while others don't make any sense. Obviously it helps to know a circuit track more thoroughly, but over time the constant I've observed is...change. I believe Dave has some tools with his products that model factors in depth for each track, which allows him to bet across the country with confidence. My approach is just to steer for where I win, and avoid the money burners.

So, I wager almost all my handle at NYRA, GP, Kee, SA, Dmr, OP, Sha Tin, certain Aussie and NZ tracks, and Japan. I may as well take my bankroll of singles out of my pocket and use them to light cigars and campfires rather than place a wager at FG, CD, Tam or WO. The rest of the tracks are somewhere in between those extremes, but I rarely play them - even if I do cash in the Preakness once per decade.

[DanBoals]

Originally Posted by AutumnLotus

I'd ask how each of you would rate each track and how would you compare them to each other... meaning for instance, list the tracks that you feel are top tier tracks and go right down to what you feel is the bottom tier tracks

Here is Howard Sartin's track class evaluation from 1995 in the attachment:


Howard used 3 year best drf speeds to adjust from track to track in the version of Synthesis I worked on. He originally used a modification based on track class, but it was less effective than the 3 year best. Neither was that great for a mechanical adjustment so he ended up just saying use your knowledge of your track to mentally adjust.


Followup 52 has the latest stuff Howard wrote on track class and it can be found on Ted's website at: https://paceandcap.com/forums/showth...?t=4288&page=6


ATM used to have a track equalization chart, but it was last updated about a decade ago, you can find it here: https://www.americanturf.com/equaliz...fm?showchart=1


To me it seems like asking which tracks are the best is like asking which NCAA conference is the best or which NFL division is best... not really going to put much money in your pocket, just more of a mental masturbation exercise.

[classhandicapper]

It's one of the great mysteries for me as to why handicapping changes from track to track, and why some seem rather easy to figure out both winning and losing races, while others don't make any sense.

Aside from each of us being more or less familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the the local trainer/jockey colony and track biases, I think the surface itself (both dirt and turf surfaces can vary from track to track) and the quality of the horses change which factors are more or less important. We get used to handicapping at a certain track and build a mental model for what works best. Then when we handicap somewhere else, it doesn't work quite the same.