Pars 2023

[wiretowire68]

Any one giving away Pars for the New Year...and not the DRF

[46zilzal]

Unless there is a new surfacing or re-alignment of the oval, are there really too many differences year to year?

I could see maybe over 5 years

[deelo]

Buy Dave's pars, good price.

[lefty359]

Originally Posted by deelo

Buy Dave's pars, good price.

I agree

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

Unless there is a new surfacing or re-alignment of the oval, are there really too many differences year to year?

I could see maybe over 5 years

Some tracks will be very consistent for several years in a row, while others will change quite a bit almost every year.

The pace times seem to change the most, especially if a particular distance saw more closers than usual.

If you were to pick 10 tracks, and compare one year to the previous year, my guess would be that 3 or 4 will have changed by more than 2 or 3 lengths.

Every once in a while I work privately with an HSH user who has forgotten to update his pars for a year or two.

Inevitably the user will wonder why we get such drastically different picks. As a general rule, my picks work out better than his.

Older information is almost never as good as newer information.

The idea of using pars that were more than 2 years old would be ludicrous to me.

(HSH pars are free to all users forever.)
(But don't get too excited, W2W. You can't actually see them or print them. They just work inside the program.)

[46zilzal]

thanks...was not aware of such a flux..

[steveb]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Some tracks will be very consistent for several years in a row, while others will change quite a bit almost every year.

The pace times seem to change the most, especially if a particular distance saw more closers than usual.

If you were to pick 10 tracks, and compare one year to the previous year, my guess would be that 3 or 4 will have changed by more than 2 or 3 lengths.

Every once in a while I work privately with an HSH user who has forgotten to update his pars for a year or two.

Inevitably the user will wonder why we get such drastically different picks. As a general rule, my picks work out better than his.

Older information is almost never as good as newer information.

The idea of using pars that were more than 2 years old would be ludicrous to me.

(HSH pars are free to all users forever.)
(But don't get too excited, W2W. You can't actually see them or print them. They just work inside the program.)

If the track itself, has not gone through any changes, then the inherent speed of the track would stay the same year by year.

I upgrade my standards after each race day, but it's probably overkill.

The difference between jan 20 and feb 23 is about 1 metre per 1000 metres, but relatively, the difference is basically nothing.


RELATIONSHIP is measuring the difference between the jan 20 and feb 23.
If jan 20 times equal 100 then feb 23 has most of them 101+
percentage wise about .13


It works out exactly the same no matter which country I have studied.

anybody that is looking for perfection where time is concerned, is going to be disappointed.

the way races are paced should not have any effect on the pars.....it would and should, affect the individual speeds of the horses, but not the track.

pace is a different topic, and should have nothing to do with pars, or standards, or whatever else people call them/

[steveb]

Shatin all weather track (dirt), is even less.
The horse speeds would generally be the same.
The slight difference, would be absorbed in the track variant(track speed)
Instead of a variant of maybe zero, it would be about .4 fast.
Or ~ .4 metres per 1000 metres faster.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by steveb

the way races are paced should not have any effect on the pars.....it would and should, affect the individual speeds of the horses, but not the track.

pace is a different topic, and should have nothing to do with pars, or standards, or whatever else people call them/

Such is the impact of very slow-paced AUS racing.

Pace really does not impact speed THERE.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Such is the impact of very slow-paced AUS racing.

Pace really does not impact speed THERE.

They are Hong Kong, and nothing to do with Australia.
Although it is wrong to say that pace is slow in Australia.
It will have the same problems as anywhere else, where it may be slow one race, suicidal the next, and fair the next.

Not to mention, pace has nothing to do with pars(or standards or whatever)

So long as the track has not been changed in any way, then the standards should be basically constant over time

Pars should be a measure of the inherent speed of the track, not governed by the speeds of the horses running on that track.

For instance, if you had two tracks with identical topography and depth, then the pars(standards) should be identical too.
But those identical tracks may run completely different race types.
Track 'A' might only run low class events, while track 'B' could be mainly high class races
Once you know the inherent speeds of the tracks, then you can figure the speeds of the horses.

[steveb]

The main reason that turf appears slowly paced, compared to dirt, is simply because, dirt is generally more tiring than turf.

Which obviously means, that turf will generally run faster late, compared to early, than what happens on dirt.

You will find that margins between the competitors will be generally be greater on dirt, than turf, for the very same reasons.

Pace itself, is not a function of time, pace is mainly a function of rider/trainer intent/ability.

I will concede that PAR is poor terminology.
Standard time would be a far better term.

[Dave Schwartz]

Turf routes are, by their nature, slower-paced.

Not the case with turf sprints in the US.

[steveb]

you seem to infer, that your country does it different to all the others.

While I admit to never studying US, I have done plenty in Asia, some Europe, and of course Australia.
Depending mostly, on which teams wanted their data analysed, for where their interests may lie at any particular time.

The same factors as far as time goes, work in all those jurisdictions, and while, as I said, I have not done US; Beyer was the beginning(inspiration) of my way, so it would be highly unlikely, US is any different to all the others.

The aim is identical in them all...to win the race, with them preferably not being gut busters.

Hence why pace is important, but still, pace has nothing to do with pars or standards, it's another topic.

[Dave Schwartz]

you seem to infer, that your country does it different to all the others.

That would be correct.

[romankoz]

In OZ we have several times analysts on the TV media and to be quite honest I think a fair of gibberish is spoken though in all fairness I believe they are trying their best to select winners for the viewers.
Obviously top class horses can run terrific sectionals as it is their ability to quicken when it counts that defines their status but past times do not always equate to todays track or track condition as the way the race is run is the major determinent for success.
As I look at a race being run I am more interested in sectionals early in a race. If the pace is a tad too fast for an early sectional ( a sub 11sec for 200 is a guide for me) I expect the leader/s to weaken so the winner may have had a cart into the race coming from way back. However if I see a particular runner being involved in an early speed split and it is still having a go at the 100m I am impressed.
Basically I don't have time for times!