Adjusting times

[KPMats10]

How would you adjust the paceline of fractional times in a sprint to get the fractional times for a route?

[classhandicapper]

I've never come up with a satisfactory answer to this.

In routes the horses will tend to run a little slower early because of the longer distance. The first turn turn will slow them down. There will be a lower level of aggression on the turn than on a straight. So the fractions can sometimes be way different in a route than for a sprint if even though the potential early speed of the horses may be only marginally different.

[traynor]

That is a really interesting question. Given that just about every "pace" app that exists presumes to make such calculations, I would have expected those who code (or who have coded) such to explain just how their apps "equalize races run at different distances."

The processes are--in general--relatively simple. Problem is, the underlying logic is seriously flawed, and the "adjustments" are not too useful. And that is being generous.

[cj]

Originally Posted by traynor

That is a really interesting question. Given that just about every "pace" app that exists presumes to make such calculations, I would have expected those who code (or who have coded) such to explain just how their apps "equalize races run at different distances."

The processes are--in general--relatively simple. Problem is, the underlying logic is seriously flawed, and the "adjustments" are not too useful. And that is being generous.

I think you can easily equate performances at different distances. What you can't do is assume any individual horse is going to be equally adept at those different distances.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by cj

I think you can easily equate performances at different distances. What you can't do is assume any individual horse is going to be equally adept at those different distances.

What then has been equalized? That would seem to be on the order of affixing a label to something, and then saying the label doesn't mean anything. "Equating performances" implies that the end result produces a value as significant at a different distance as the original value was at the original distance.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by traynor

That is a really interesting question. Given that just about every "pace" app that exists presumes to make such calculations, I would have expected those who code (or who have coded) such to explain just how their apps "equalize races run at different distances."

The processes are--in general--relatively simple. Problem is, the underlying logic is seriously flawed, and the "adjustments" are not too useful. And that is being generous.

every person i have ever heard of/met that wins money(as you say you do), does not make assumptions.
they shut up listen(read), just in case they learn something useful.

why don't you tell us how to do the 'relatively simple', and let us judge for ourselves?
maybe your 'relatively simple' is nothing like how others may do it, and may indeed be not too useful!

it is indeed very simple to equalise them, but for me(i don't presume to know what others do, or how useful it is) to equalise.... it's not about comparing them at different distances.

[JohnGalt1]

One way many handicapping authors handle this situation is they only use the second and third fractions of a route race when computing sprint times.

I don't do this since the route race did not end at the six furlong mark.

I use the whole race when switching distances.

I make Hambleton pace figures from the book "Pace Makes the Race."

I use Cynthia's par book to compare track-to-track and distance to distance.
I made a universal par chart to make my job easier. After adjusting for variant, (Cynthia uses average DRF variants,) I rank the times 100 down to 65. An 85 is 57.1, 105.3, 112.0, etc. for sprints and 1:38, 144.2 (1 1/16), 151.1 for 9 furlongs etc. I use the 10K claiming price to equalize tracks

As an example, Santa Anita Sunday 6/5 race 7, a 7f claiming race. A race I will pass.

SA's 7f par rating from my chart is 93.

I'll do 2 horses to show how I handle rout to sprint.

#10 Dustin's passion ran a 6.5f on 5/13. The SA 6.5f rating is 95, so I lower the rating 2 points.

Fractions were 44.3 and 1:15.4. Adjusting for beaten lengths--2 and 4.5-- his total pace figure is 93 81/174.

#1 Misdeed ran a 1 1/16 on 5/8. The figure for SA 1 1/16 is 85, so I add 8 points, 5 to the first fraction, 3 to the final fraction.

Fractions were 1:11.3 and 1:44.1. Adjusting for beaten lengths--0 and 2-- his total pace figure is 92 74/176.

I do this by hand, and I've been doing this so long so it's fairly easy. And I know how my figures were made, since I'm betting real money on my picks.

I hope this helps

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by KPMats10

How would you adjust the paceline of fractional times in a sprint to get the fractional times for a route?

This is not a simple question.

I prefer to see a horse's pace lines given the horse has already raced at a route i.e., 8f to 8.5f or 9f. Even going 8f to 9f raises doubts but going 8f to 8.5f not so much. The problem I have is always the question(s) if the horse can even get the distance. Some can't because they're only sprinters and vice versa like routers who can't cover a sprint in a winning time for the class.

I use my own database which provides par values for each fractional call and then I decide whether the horse's projected pace is reasonable for the distance.

[cj]

Originally Posted by traynor

What then has been equalized? That would seem to be on the order of affixing a label to something, and then saying the label doesn't mean anything. "Equating performances" implies that the end result produces a value as significant at a different distance as the original value was at the original distance.

Well, for one I have a very good idea of the speed of the track that day.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by traynor

What then has been equalized? That would seem to be on the order of affixing a label to something, and then saying the label doesn't mean anything. "Equating performances" implies that the end result produces a value as significant at a different distance as the original value was at the original distance.

Some people want to equalize the performances and then subjectively use experience, pedigree, trainer, the horse's PPs, probably race setup etc.. to determine how the horse will run at a new distance.

You seem to be asking to take all that subjective analysis out of it so it can be part of a systematic approach that equalizes them (correct me if I am wrong).

That kind of thing gets way more complex.

I systematically produce a pace report for every race card I am interested in. It does what you are asking for based on my own algorithms. But that's the starting point. It's one of several reports I produce that tells me which races I might want to focus my energy on. The analysis never stops there. I always take a better look at the individual horses because there are an almost infinite number of details that can be slightly different from horse to horse. I can't code for every possible factor that might be significant in a specific case.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Some people want to equalize the performances and then subjectively use experience, pedigree, trainer, the horse's PPs, probably race setup etc.. to determine how the horse will run at a new distance.

You seem to be asking to take all that subjective analysis out of it so it can be part of a systematic approach that equalizes them (correct me if I am wrong).

That kind of thing gets way more complex.

I systematically produce a pace report for every race card I am interested in. It does what you are asking for based on my own algorithms. But that's the starting point. It's one of several reports I produce that tells me which races I might want to focus my energy on. The analysis never stops there. I always take a better look at the individual horses because there are an almost infinite number of details that can be slightly different from horse to horse. I can't code for every possible factor that might be significant in a specific case.

Korzybski encapsulated the difficulty in Science and Sanity. In essence, when people affix a label to something--without regard for how accurate, useful, or descriptive that label might be or might not be--subsequent cognitive processing is performed on the label rather than the thing labeled. Hence the admonition, "the map is not the territory."

"Equalizing performances" suggests the end result is something significantly more useful than it is in the real world. Averages, approximations, and comparisons based on those averages and approximations generate interesting sets of values. "Interesting" does not make them worth betting on.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by KPMats10

How would you adjust the paceline of fractional times in a sprint to get the fractional times for a route?

I can't remember exactly what we did not to adjust stretch out times for the Diamond System. I know we started with the Brohammer adjustments from his Modern Pace Handicapping and quickly realized that they didn't work. I believe we had to slow it down more otherwise every horse stretching out was ranked 1st.

I've done very well betting horses stretching out this year and handicapping maidens that are stretching out for the first time is something that I've gotten better at over the years.

I don't think that extrapolating a route line off of the horse's sprint line is a really big help. I like to look for horses that are not completely outrun in sprints but finished well in the stretch. It also helps if the horse has a pretty good route pedigree...but, most of the time when a horse stretches out the distance is somewhere between a mile and a mile and a sixteenth...At the major tracks in particular, there aren't that many horses that aren't bred to get at least 8.5 furlongs.

Another thing you can do is watch replays. Most horses I see that tend to improve on the stretch out are horses that have that longer sort of one paced stride. Horses that prefer sprinting tend to have faster, shorter strides, which often doesn't play well going long.

The stride is important. Many solid raceway horses that have long careers and win a lot of races struggled early in their career because they were outrun in sprints. Many nice route horses actually appear to be slow horses in sprints but then they run Beyers in the 90's in routes and end up winning a bunch of races. It's just not comfortable for a long striding horse to try to get those legs going fast in a 6 furlong race so they have a hard time finding their stride. It's soft of like a pitcher who gets in a slump when his mechanics are off.

[classhandicapper]

The stride is important.

On a scale of 1-10, I'm probably a 4. But I am starting to realize how incredibly talented some people are at that kind of thing and definitely want to get better at it.

I was watching some unraced horses work recently and could barely tell anything about them other than how hard they were trying and a very general appreciation of whether it was fast or slow.

The trainer of them was saying things like "This one is going to be a dirt router, but she'll probably handle turf just as well". "This other one is clearly just a turfer". Then he broke off into things he could see in the stride that were clearly a couple of notches above what I could see after just a few workouts. I found it amazing.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

On a scale of 1-10, I'm probably a 4. But I am starting to realize how incredibly talented some people are at that kind of thing and definitely want to get better at it.

I was watching some unraced horses work recently and could barely tell anything about them other than how hard they were trying and a very general appreciation of whether it was fast or slow.

The trainer of them was saying things like "This one is going to be a dirt router, but she'll probably handle turf just as well". "This other one is clearly just a turfer". Then he broke off into things he could see in the stride that were clearly a couple of notches above what I could see after just a few workouts. I found it amazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ_Uziw5nHw
First of 3 parts. Other two are also on YouTube.

If you can find the old Trillis Parker Horses Talk video, it has some very good information on (and examples of) efficient vs inefficient stride.

Same goes for the Paul Mellos Trip Handicapping videos.

[pandy]

Great video, I never saw that.