TimeformUS

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Do you supply the class ratings?

Sent you a note.

[PhantomOnTour]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Do you supply the class ratings?

TimeformUS has class ratings?

[highnote]

Originally Posted by cj

Regardless of the reason, time still has more value on turf than on dirt, just as it has more value at 6f than it does at 10f.

Here is my understanding of the problem:

Turf routes produce more blanket finishes than dirt routes because the pace of turf routes is slower than dirt routes. James Quinn explains this in his excellent book, "Figure Handicapping". Horses tend to jockey for position at a slow pace in turf routes and then sprint to the wire.

Horses tend to decelerate in the stretch of dirt routes because the pace is much faster. It may look like the winner of the Kentucky Derby is accelerating in the stretch because he is passing other horses, but in reality he is decelerating the least.

See Sartin's writing for more about deceleration and energy expended.

Turf sprints and dirt sprints are likely very similar because the pace is fast in both types.

David Edelman addresses the problem in his outstanding book, "The Compleat Horseplayer". He suggests using the term "Time" ratings rather than "Speed" ratings.

It is much less difficult for a horse to maintain an average velocity of 60.0 kph over a 1000m sprint (60.0 seconds) than over a 2000, distance race. In fact, Statistical Analysis has shown that horses of similar Class (to those who would average 60.0 kph over 1000m) would tend to average 56.0 kph over 2000m. While people like Andy Beyer have produced tables for converting runs to, say, Mile equivalents, they may be shown to be equivalent to the function give below: .... {various formulations are shown}

For grass or "turf" racing, it has been observed that the exponent of 0.1 should actually be reduced, as perhaps horses tire a little less.

The Sartin people have also written extensively about this.

Sometimes in turf races the pace can be so slow that the final time they run is slow because they don't have enough distance remaining to make up for the lost time even though the final fraction may be faster than some of the internal fractions. (I'm writing from memory, not looking at an actual chart. So you may want to verify this.)

Edelman also suggested a method for adjusting Beyer turf figures by raising the figures to an exponent because on turf the horses tend to bunched close together at the finish and on dirt the horses are more strung out. So by raising the Beyer turf figures to an exponent more separation could be seen in the final time figures. I never found that to be useful, but I understand the concept.

Beyer has also written that he tries a lot of different methods to make better turf figures. So I don't like adjusting his figures because he may already have adjusted them.

James Quinn has published the best method of making turf figures, in my opinion.

Cary Fotias' turf figures were the best, but his methods were proprietary and based on velocity.

Nick Mordin has an unpublished method of making "Handicap" ratings for turf routes. His ratings do not incorporate time -- only beaten lengths (and maybe class?). The handicap ratings don't work as well on dirt races because final time is more significant on dirt than turf. That sounds like it contradicts what cj wrote above, but I think cj is correct in the context to which he was referring.

[cj]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

TimeformUS has class ratings?

More like overall race ratings.

[highnote]

I have to mention one more thing. In my opinion, it's not that final time is more important or has more value on one surface compared to another; what is important is the RELATIONSHIP between final time and sectional times on dirt and turf.

Final time as a standalone figure is only part of the story. Determining how the final time was achieved in relation to pace is important to consider.

Originally Posted by highnote

Here is my understanding of the problem:

Turf routes produce more blanket finishes than dirt routes because the pace of turf routes is slower than dirt routes. James Quinn explains this in his excellent book, "Figure Handicapping". Horses tend to jockey for position at a slow pace in turf routes and then sprint to the wire.

Horses tend to decelerate in the stretch of dirt routes because the pace is much faster. It may look like the winner of the Kentucky Derby is accelerating in the stretch because he is passing other horses, but in reality he is decelerating the least.

See Sartin's writing for more about deceleration and energy expended.

Turf sprints and dirt sprints are likely very similar because the pace is fast in both types.

David Edelman addresses the problem in his outstanding book, "The Compleat Horseplayer". He suggests using the term "Time" ratings rather than "Speed" ratings.



The Sartin people have also written extensively about this.

Sometimes in turf races the pace can be so slow that the final time they run is slow because they don't have enough distance remaining to make up for the lost time even though the final fraction may be faster than some of the internal fractions. (I'm writing from memory, not looking at an actual chart. So you may want to verify this.)

Edelman also suggested a method for adjusting Beyer turf figures by raising the figures to an exponent because on turf the horses tend to bunched close together at the finish and on dirt the horses are more strung out. So by raising the Beyer turf figures to an exponent more separation could be seen in the final time figures. I never found that to be useful, but I understand the concept.

Beyer has also written that he tries a lot of different methods to make better turf figures. So I don't like adjusting his figures because he may already have adjusted them.

James Quinn has published the best method of making turf figures, in my opinion.

Cary Fotias' turf figures were the best, but his methods were proprietary and based on velocity.

Nick Mordin has an unpublished method of making "Handicap" ratings for turf routes. His ratings do not incorporate time -- only beaten lengths (and maybe class?). The handicap ratings don't work as well on dirt races because final time is more significant on dirt than turf. That sounds like it contradicts what cj wrote above, but I think cj is correct in the context to which he was referring.

[cj]

Originally Posted by highnote

Final time as a standalone figure is only part of the story. Determining how the final time was achieved in relation to pace is important to consider.

Don't really disagree with anything you wrote in your last two posts. I've read pretty much everything there is to read, including all the sources you mention. I'm implemented lots of the stuff into the figures for sure.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by cj

Don't really disagree with anything you wrote in your last two posts. I've read pretty much everything there is to read, including all the sources you mention. I'm implemented lots of the stuff into the figures for sure.

I figured you know all this stuff. I was just writing for newcomers who may not be familiar with the concepts in order to give them another way of looking at the challenge as well as introducing them to good sources of material.

All else being equal, final time in a 5 furlong turf or dirt sprint is usually more predictive than the final time in a 12 furlong turf or dirt route, but not always; and that is why we handicap.

It is probably the case that the longer the race, the more noise that is introduced into the way the final time was achieved.

Also, you need to factor in the tight turns of US turf courses. This slows down the pace and hence the final times suffer. However, some nimble horses can negotiate these tight turns better than others, so could end up with a very fast time. Lots to consider.

[DeanT]

In case you didn't see it on the other section of the board, we did an interview with CJ for the HANA Handicapping Monthly. We made sure to ask some Pacefigures questions I loved his figs, and am just getting used to the switch, like a lot of you.

I am liking the layout and information more and more as I use it. What can I say, I am a horseplayer and a creature of habit. It takes time

Enjoy and thanks CJ for partaking.

Here's a link:

http://horseplayersassociation.org/hanamonthly.html

>

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

TimeformUS has class ratings?

I am the person that put together the formulas for generating the class ratings with help from Justin Finch (one of our handicappers).

They are a work in progress.

Here's where we are now.

Most of the people at TimeformUS are very speed figure/performance figure oriented.

What Marc wanted was a way to evaluate field strength that would cut through all the crazy complicated class conditions that are common in today's game and give people a better understanding of the strength of a field without looking at the official class designations.

After months of research, we came up with some formulas for using CJ's PFs that measure field quality well on a consistent basis.

The ones in the headers describing today's race are calculated by looking at the recent figures of the best horses in today's race. I can't give you the exact rules, but I can promise you that I did a ton of research to get them as good as I could. I may be able to improve them over time, but IMHO they are already pretty good now.

The ones in the PP lines are calculated by looking at the figures the top horses in the race ran on THAT DAY with additional input from the previous races of all the horses that ran competitively that day that can cause the race to be either upgraded or downgraded based on the depth of the field and how strong/weak the horses looked going into the race.

For example, assume 2 races got a base rating of 100 based on the figures for the race.

If one contained 10 solid horses capable of running in that range and another only 3, the first would be rated higher than the latter because of its greater depth.

If one contained horses that typically run in the mid 90s and the other horses that typically run in mid 100s, the latter would be rated higher even if they had similar figures today.

I am currently working on a next phase that will improve them further along those lines. That should be implemented within weeks.

Long term we may incorporate class pars and other data because IMO the class/race ratings should be a somewhat independent view of the quality of the races from the figures, but some of the rules do a good job of that right now by looking at more than one figure and by looking at field depth and other things.

Down the line, we'll examine the figures of the horses as they come out of the race (kind of like key races) and incorporate that information into either the figure or as a separate note.

Hope that helps,

CH

[RXB]

Not a fan of the race ratings in their current figures-only derivation.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by RXB

Not a fan of the race ratings in their current figures-only derivation.

For handicappers that still want a more traditional view of class, you are free to click on the race ovals to see the detailed race conditions of each race. When Deluxe PPs become available, you will also be able to look at the specific horses in each race via the charts to make your own judgments on field strength.

The idea behind the race ratings is to make it easier for the average player to evaluate field strength than trying to learn how the multitude of new claiming conditions, statebred races, open races, races limited to 3yos, races for older, etc... fit against each other, how seasonal changes impact their quality, how they all fit against other tracks (some of which have purses inflated by casino money), how the races on different surfaces compare etc...

While I have more of a traditional view, IMO, the variations have become so numerous, samples at many classes so small, and standard deviation at many classes so large, it's almost impossible to make quality class evaluations without some dependence on quality speed and performance figures.

To the extent that non figure information can enhance the figures it will be added.

[RXB]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

For handicappers that still want a more traditional view of class, you are free to click on the race ovals to see the detailed race conditions of each race.

That would take forever.

[cj]

Originally Posted by RXB

That would take forever.

How so? I mean, yes, you would have to click on every running line, but it isn't like others provide that information in PPs either, is it? All the basics are there like any other provider gives unless I'm misunderstanding something.

[RXB]

Originally Posted by cj

How so? I mean, yes, you would have to click on every running line, but it isn't like others provide that information in PPs either, is it? All the basics are there like any other provider gives unless I'm misunderstanding something.

Formulator provides an abbreviation in the running line that makes it fairly clear to me what the race condition was, in most circumstances.

[sammy the sage]

Originally Posted by raybo

I was just defending CJ's statement that time has more value on turf/syn than on dirt. You said he is incorrect..

What you stated was merely a given; generally turf/syn surfaces are faster than dirt, due to better footing on turf/syn than on dirt. We already knew that. You offered no proof that CJ's statement is incorrect. If you are going to assert that he is incorrect, then you need to prove it, to him, and to the rest of us, because if you are correct then some of us would have to recalculate the dynamic time values of a beaten length, at different rates of travel.

I'm 100% certain that I will not have to recalculate those time values.

Well I'll disagree here w/you & CJ....

Esp on big money races...there are MANY cards you can go back to and re-inspect final times....where claimer or allowance race on turf went considerably FASTER than the big money stakes race...(and the winner would have been 30/1 in the stakes race and not sniffed the board)....WHY?...jockey(s) in turf stakes races are afraid of making a mistake and ride more cautiously...hence time NOT as valuable..

you VERY rarely find that on dirt by the way...final times being slower...that is...