Pace Ratings

[denniswilliams]

Originally Posted by Saratoga

Borrow it.....

Can you read it in an hour...

You can check it as many times as you want - 1 hour each.


Was looking at it yesterday. I found the sections on advanced pace and, frankly, thought that Dave did a better job explaining it. Unless there was more on it later. I didn't stick around.


Too bad Donaldson's book isn't on Archive.

[Dan Montilion]

Originally Posted by cj

Thanks Steve. I'll find some time this week to expand on what I wrote.

Add Dan M to Steve B as one that is hoping you find time to expand on your thoughts.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by steveb

Does it matter what they are called?
If you end up doing it how everybody else does, then you will likely end up like most everybody else does.
Sections/pace are an interesting topic, but I doubt you will find too many people that make money from them.

For me, using pace to identify fast or slow pces is the key. I made some of the biggest wins of my career using CJs Pace Projector when it calls for a fast pace.
Figs aside, just using the method Randy Giles outlined in Extreme Pace Handicapping.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by Tom

For me, using pace to identify fast or slow pces is the key. I made some of the biggest wins of my career using CJs Pace Projector when it calls for a fast pace.
Figs aside, just using the method Randy Giles outlined in Extreme Pace Handicapping.

Yes, but I have already acknowledged CJ.
I should perhaps change my statement......there won't be many people winning, fullstop.
Never heard of Giles, and my only experience with pace(apart from what i do/taught myself) would be MPH, which I was asked to read by a syndicate boss that i was working with a long time ago.
Did not like it personally.

[denniswilliams]

Extreme Pace - if you doddle they will come. What's become of Giles?
Is this tailored for small field, secondary track dirt races?

Was/Is Giles an all weather hater?
Does this method work for 12-14 horse turf races on courses with sharp turns and chaotic cavalry charge finishes?

[Tom]

It works as well as you handicap.
It's not a system, it's a road map You have to put in the handicapping. Using the Vris running stules will lead you tp ruin.

I have used it on turf races, but my experience it is more effective on dirt, any track, any class. He never mentioned all weather to my knowledge.

[cj]

So here is some of my thinking while I have a few minutes on why I think using the final time value of time is better than using seperate values at each call, though I fully admit TimeformUS is doing the latter.

I'll use a made up scale and say one length (time) is equal to 2 points at the finish of a six furlong dirt race. If you use different values at the pace calls, I'll use 6 points after the 1/4 mile and 4 points at the 1/2 mile. These are made up but I'm doing it for simplicity and they aren't too far from what the math would show the differences to be between the methods.

Assume a race is run and the winner Horse A goes wire to wire and runs a 100 at all three calls. Horse B chases him around the track two lengths behind at each point of call. Horse C chases same as B but 5 lengths behind at each call.


Value varies at each call:

Horse A	100	100	100
Horse B	 88	 92	 96
Horse C  70	 80	 90

__________________________________________________ ___________
Now, how does this look when value matches final time at each call:

Horse A	100	100	100
Horse B  96	 96	 96
Horse C	 90	 90	 90

I prefer the latter because to me it shows what is really happening in the race, the horses are running evenly after the 1st call. The first method gives the illusion, at least to me, that Horses B and C are running faster the last 1/4 mile than the winner, when in reality they are running the exact same speed.

The other way I look at it is like this. Horse B had to make up two lengths after the 1st call. Is that better represented as 12 points or 4 points? Twelve seems pretty extreme for me for a horse only two lengths behind. There is plenty to time to make up the gap and that is the difference for me, horses aren't racing to the first call. Pretending they are is simply not how races are run, even in a dirt sprint. As races get longer it becomes more pronounced, and even more so on synthetic and turf.

I have plenty more, but curious to hear what people think so far.

[steveb]

No opinion, thus far, but I am just out of bed, and my brain is befuddled, so trying to unravel your post.

Personally, I have always struggled to settle on a method, where section numbers are concerned
There is umpteen ways to do it, but none of them seem to have a lot of a value when checking how predictive they may be.
By predicitive, I mean as computer model factors.
Which, I guess is my main reason for asking you.

[denniswilliams]

Originally Posted by cj

I prefer the latter because to me it shows what is really happening in the race, the horses are running evenly after the 1st call. The first method gives the illusion, at least to me, that Horses B and C are running faster the last 1/4 mile than the winner, when in reality they are running the exact same speed.

v=d/t
t=d/v
d=v*t


Definitely agree.

If I graph your scenario I get 3 straight lines. IOW constant acceleration. Why would anyone use pace figures that do not 'show what is truly happening in the race'? Shouldn't 'figures' capture the math?

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by cj

...I prefer the latter because to me it shows what is really happening in the race, the horses are running evenly after the 1st call. The first method gives the illusion, at least to me, that Horses B and C are running faster the last 1/4 mile than the winner, when in reality they are running the exact same speed.

The other way I look at it is like this. Horse B had to make up two lengths after the 1st call. Is that better represented as 12 points or 4 points? Twelve seems pretty extreme for me for a horse only two lengths behind. There is plenty to time to make up the gap and that is the difference for me, horses aren't racing to the first call. Pretending they are is simply not how races are run, even in a dirt sprint. As races get longer it becomes more pronounced, and even more so on synthetic and turf.

I have plenty more, but curious to hear what people think so far.

Originally Posted by steveb

No opinion, thus far, but I am just out of bed, and my brain is befuddled, so trying to unravel your post.

Personally, I have always struggled to settle on a method, where section numbers are concerned
There is umpteen ways to do it, but none of them seem to have a lot of a value when checking how predictive they may be.
By predicitive, I mean as computer model factors.
Which, I guess is my main reason for asking you.

I suspect the only way to know which of the two methods is more predictive is to test.

Perform statistical analysis on a clean dataset (meaning outliers have been handled) for both methods. Take the coefficients generated by your statistical analysis package for the likelihood of the event you are modeling (for example winning the race) and create two models.

Both models are identical with one exception:

The first model uses pace figs generated by method A with other factors.

The other model uses pace figs generated by method B with the same other factors.

Test the performance of both models on out of sample races and (hopefully) you'll have a clear answer.

It's possible the difference between the two methods is small enough that there's no statistical significance.

But you won't know unless you test.

Originally Posted by denniswilliams

v=d/t
t=d/v
d=v*t


Definitely agree.

If I graph your scenario I get 3 straight lines. IOW constant acceleration. Why would anyone use pace figures that do not 'show what is truly happening in the race'? Shouldn't 'figures' capture the math?

Personally, I like the idea of looking at numbers that reflect what I see happening in the race.

But that's a very different thing than the 'Is one more predictive than the other and does it have statistical significance?' question Steve is asking.

Imo, that (is it useful in a model) is what really matters.


-jp
.

[denniswilliams]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Personally, I like the idea of looking at numbers that reflect what I see happening in the race.

But that's a very different thing than the 'Is one more predictive than the other and does it have statistical significance?' question Steve is asking.

Imo, that (is it useful in a model) is what really matters.


-jp
.

I'm going for a long walk and will think about my response, so what follows may be nonsense.


It seems to me that a model with numeric variables would be more accurate than one with categorical variables? (At least in classical machine learning.) I understand we can 'covert' numbers to make them more amenable to the model (log, for example) but this can't be one of those cases.



If I fed the data to a neural network would it work with the actual numbers or convert them to abstractions that don't capture what's really happening? Hard to tell since it doesn't know what's really happening.

[steveb]

Nice post above Jeff.
And by doing those checks, none related to the sections(my way) seem to be very significant.
I also programmed all the MPH ones, and they were less significant than my own.
Many related to what I can derive from the overall speeds are valuable though.
For instance how many females are in a race impacts on how fast they run
(I have no idea why, I just know it is so)

[PhantomOnTour]

Thought provoking discussion.

Now, if I could just find time between life and keeping up with the daily work of handicapping & record keeping, I might be able to try some of these ideas.

I need an intern

[cj]

I'll get back to this soon, had a nasty case of food poisoning for a few days. Much better now.

[cj]

The book Dave linked rang a bell and I remembered picking it up at Half Price Books for a few bucks a few years ago, but I never read it. It got me to thinking about another old book I've glanced through but never read in it's entirety. It is old but has some really advanced stuff in it. Though I can't find it in the book, it looks like it was published in 1937 and is by E. W. and Backus Donaldson.

Any information anybody have would be great. Some pics are attached, but even better, I found some interesting things inside, a letter and what look to be some hand written notes. See attached.