For the last month, I've been working on an upgrade to the Moss Pace Figures. It is more of a statistical fine tuning than an overhaul. But in trying to reconcile database numbers with common-sense handicapping, I again came up against a dilemma that might be of interest to pacefig junkies, whether you prefer my pace numbers or anyone else's.
My usual warning prior to these kinds of blog entries: this is not light reading for the casual horseplayer. This is definitely "inside baseball" stuff, as they say.
First, some background. One of my goals in the creation of Moss Pace Figures was to give horseplayers "true" numbers that maintain integrity over all distances. Most pace figure methods use time charts based on pars for each class and distance, so that if Monmouth $20,000 claiming races for older males at 6 furlongs average fractions of :22.2 and :45.1 and a final time of 1:10.3 (which is exactly what they do average, by the way), the pace line for those clockings could be, say, 88-88-88, signifying that the pace and final time are exactly in line with par. A 93-92-85 pace line would indicate at a glance that the quarter-mile and half-mile pace was faster than par, and the final time slightly slower than par. There is much to be said for this simplicity. But I don't do this. My problem with this style of pace figures is that the accuracy begins to diminish when horses switch distances: a $20,000 claimer who runs at a par pace at 5 furlongs almost always has more speed than a $20,000 claimer who runs at a par pace at 1 mile, yet in the above methodology their pacefigs might be identical. I'll admit Moss Pace Figures aren't as easy to compare against par -- but - and I hope this makes sense - when I'm trying to ascertain if a horse can make an uncontested early lead in a race, I prefer pacefigs that tell me with clarity that a 90 is a faster performance than an 85, regardless of pars and distances.
To get there, I have overloaded Daily Racing Form's system by collecting data from tens of thousands of races at dozens of racetracks at all distances, and based my figures on what the numbers told me.
As I said, I'm preparing to update Moss Pace Figures soon to reflect new numbers. No one will ever accuse me of skimping on data. For example, I recently lumped into Excel spreadsheets 101,844 races from one-mile ovals at Beulah, Calder, Churchill, Emerald, Fair Grounds, Fairmount, Finger Lakes, Hawthorne, Hoosier, Lone Star, Louisiana Downs, Meadowlands, Monmouth, Mountaineer, Oaklawn, Philadelphia Park, Pimlico, Prairie Meadows, Remington, Retama, River Downs, Sam Houston, Suffolk, Sunland, Tampa Bay Downs, Thistledown, Turf Paradise - and even pre-synthetic races from Santa Anita, Del Mar, Turfway, Woodbine and Golden Gate, and pre-renovation races from Gulfstream. That's quite a contrast from the old pre-computer days of Picking Winners, when Andy Beyer came up with his figures by holing up with a poster board, Flair pens and a bottle of Jack Daniels.
From that cross-section of major- and not-so-major racing, here's what the number crunching showed: At 5 1-2 furlongs, races that averaged a final number of 88 on my number scale (slightly more truncated than the Beyer Speed Figure scale we're familiar with) had a paceline like this: 87-88-88. At 6 furlongs, the national average paceline was 85-87-88. At 6 1-2 furlongs, it was 82-86-88, and at 7 furlongs it was 79-83-88-88 with the six-furlong call included.
Of course, it makes sense that as distances get longer, horses are ridden less energetically from the gate, if only slightly. The data shows that, and thus my pace figures reflect it.
But truly accurate pace figures also require one additional and important "tweak." At the average one-mile track with a 990-foot stretch run, the first half-mile of a 6-furlong race is run around 76% of the stretch turn. At 7 furlongs, the first half-mile is run around only 29% of the turn. Running around a turn slows a horse, but how much? I have a formula I've used for 30 years, ever since I first read about this phenomenon in an old Gordon Jones handicapping book. I used that formula to adjust the above pacefigs, but I'd like to hear other opinions.
This tweaking based on turn times also comes into play -- in a big way - when attempting to calculate pace figures for distance races. The spreadsheet shows that at a two-turn 1 mile distance, the national average pacefig line for a race with a final figure of 87 is as follows: 67-76-83-88. The average opening quarter-mile of 67 is a substantial decrease from the first-quarter average of 79 at 7 furlongs. Again, one logical explanation is that jockeys ride less aggressively in two-turn races than one-turn races, but an additional and perhaps more substantial factor is this one: the opening quarter of a 1 mile race is around most of the clubhouse turn, and the first quarter of most sprints is run in a straight line with no turn involved. To a slightly lesser extent, the half-mile fraction is similarly affected. The first half-mile of a 1 mile race includes the entire clubhouse turn, while the opening half of a 6 furlong races covers only 76% of a turn.
Clearly, pace figure points need to be added to the first two calls in route races to bring them in line with sprints and give us an apples-to-apples comparison, but exactly how much does a turn at a one-mile track slow progress?
I have great respect for the intellect of horseplayers, and I'm certain there are mathematicians and computer programmers among you. If you care to, please pass along your thoughts on this - they might even put more money in your pocket someday.
My usual warning prior to these kinds of blog entries: this is not light reading for the casual horseplayer. This is definitely "inside baseball" stuff, as they say.
First, some background. One of my goals in the creation of Moss Pace Figures was to give horseplayers "true" numbers that maintain integrity over all distances. Most pace figure methods use time charts based on pars for each class and distance, so that if Monmouth $20,000 claiming races for older males at 6 furlongs average fractions of :22.2 and :45.1 and a final time of 1:10.3 (which is exactly what they do average, by the way), the pace line for those clockings could be, say, 88-88-88, signifying that the pace and final time are exactly in line with par. A 93-92-85 pace line would indicate at a glance that the quarter-mile and half-mile pace was faster than par, and the final time slightly slower than par. There is much to be said for this simplicity. But I don't do this. My problem with this style of pace figures is that the accuracy begins to diminish when horses switch distances: a $20,000 claimer who runs at a par pace at 5 furlongs almost always has more speed than a $20,000 claimer who runs at a par pace at 1 mile, yet in the above methodology their pacefigs might be identical. I'll admit Moss Pace Figures aren't as easy to compare against par -- but - and I hope this makes sense - when I'm trying to ascertain if a horse can make an uncontested early lead in a race, I prefer pacefigs that tell me with clarity that a 90 is a faster performance than an 85, regardless of pars and distances.
To get there, I have overloaded Daily Racing Form's system by collecting data from tens of thousands of races at dozens of racetracks at all distances, and based my figures on what the numbers told me.
As I said, I'm preparing to update Moss Pace Figures soon to reflect new numbers. No one will ever accuse me of skimping on data. For example, I recently lumped into Excel spreadsheets 101,844 races from one-mile ovals at Beulah, Calder, Churchill, Emerald, Fair Grounds, Fairmount, Finger Lakes, Hawthorne, Hoosier, Lone Star, Louisiana Downs, Meadowlands, Monmouth, Mountaineer, Oaklawn, Philadelphia Park, Pimlico, Prairie Meadows, Remington, Retama, River Downs, Sam Houston, Suffolk, Sunland, Tampa Bay Downs, Thistledown, Turf Paradise - and even pre-synthetic races from Santa Anita, Del Mar, Turfway, Woodbine and Golden Gate, and pre-renovation races from Gulfstream. That's quite a contrast from the old pre-computer days of Picking Winners, when Andy Beyer came up with his figures by holing up with a poster board, Flair pens and a bottle of Jack Daniels.
From that cross-section of major- and not-so-major racing, here's what the number crunching showed: At 5 1-2 furlongs, races that averaged a final number of 88 on my number scale (slightly more truncated than the Beyer Speed Figure scale we're familiar with) had a paceline like this: 87-88-88. At 6 furlongs, the national average paceline was 85-87-88. At 6 1-2 furlongs, it was 82-86-88, and at 7 furlongs it was 79-83-88-88 with the six-furlong call included.
Of course, it makes sense that as distances get longer, horses are ridden less energetically from the gate, if only slightly. The data shows that, and thus my pace figures reflect it.
But truly accurate pace figures also require one additional and important "tweak." At the average one-mile track with a 990-foot stretch run, the first half-mile of a 6-furlong race is run around 76% of the stretch turn. At 7 furlongs, the first half-mile is run around only 29% of the turn. Running around a turn slows a horse, but how much? I have a formula I've used for 30 years, ever since I first read about this phenomenon in an old Gordon Jones handicapping book. I used that formula to adjust the above pacefigs, but I'd like to hear other opinions.
This tweaking based on turn times also comes into play -- in a big way - when attempting to calculate pace figures for distance races. The spreadsheet shows that at a two-turn 1 mile distance, the national average pacefig line for a race with a final figure of 87 is as follows: 67-76-83-88. The average opening quarter-mile of 67 is a substantial decrease from the first-quarter average of 79 at 7 furlongs. Again, one logical explanation is that jockeys ride less aggressively in two-turn races than one-turn races, but an additional and perhaps more substantial factor is this one: the opening quarter of a 1 mile race is around most of the clubhouse turn, and the first quarter of most sprints is run in a straight line with no turn involved. To a slightly lesser extent, the half-mile fraction is similarly affected. The first half-mile of a 1 mile race includes the entire clubhouse turn, while the opening half of a 6 furlong races covers only 76% of a turn.
Clearly, pace figure points need to be added to the first two calls in route races to bring them in line with sprints and give us an apples-to-apples comparison, but exactly how much does a turn at a one-mile track slow progress?
I have great respect for the intellect of horseplayers, and I'm certain there are mathematicians and computer programmers among you. If you care to, please pass along your thoughts on this - they might even put more money in your pocket someday.
I am beginning to understand why Andy Beyer had the Jack Daniels bottle. I am no mathematician or computer programmer, so I will leave the "turn" issue to others to figure out. But I would like to raise a related issue. Let's say two horses complete the first 1/2 mile of a 6 furlong race in the same 44 flat. But one horse had the rail and the other was 3 wide. Shouldn't the wide horse get the better pace figure when ground loss is taken into account? (Not to mention the bias issue of a "dead rail") Do you account for ground loss in formulating your pace figures?
Posted by: Mitch Schuman | June 29, 2010 at 04:29 PM
I was going to try to do a rundown of how to calculate this using the centripetal force and angular velocity but then I got a headache and realized its been too long. Im sure there are plenty of people that can help with that though.
Since the ultimate goal is to have true apples to apples comparability with MPF, wouldnt you then have to account for how wide of a turn the horse takes as well? Because any small tweak that you would make for a horse slowing for a turn could easily be smaller than the effect of a horse taking a turn 5 wide. If you could find and use the centripetal force to make the necessary velocity calculation you could then account for the issue of taking the turn wide because that would just change the radius variable in the equation.
Overall, I think that a mathematical approach is necessary as it removes the variable of how the jockey will choose to ride the horse through the turn for a particular length race as you referred to. So this should give you some kind of standard speed a horse should lose through a turn which can be converted to lengths and pace figures accordingly.
Posted by: Ryan | June 29, 2010 at 04:52 PM
The whole concept of pars has always bothered me. What good is a measure of central tendency without a measure of variance?
Posted by: GregB | June 29, 2010 at 05:08 PM
I used to be just an avid, but educated fan. But after getting beat up one afternoon at Thistledown I was bound and determined to develop a tool. What I have now took me about 3 years to develop.
One mistake that most everyone makes is the perception that the horse that finishes 1 length from the winner will cross the line in 1/5th of a second following the winning time (or something similar). This is not the case. The horse could theoretically drop dead at that point 1 length from the winner and therefore did not cross the wire. What this horse did do is finish 8 feet short of the winner in the same amount of time.
This mentality goes hand in hand with this next statement: The key to derving useful pace figures (either Beyer speed figures or those published by BRIS) is to determine the final time at which the 100 point score was awarded. The actual pace figure is actually a percentage of where the horse was projected to finish in a span where the 0 score starts at 1/10th of the total distance. For example, a mile race (regardless of the number of turns) is 5280 feet. The relative 0 point begins at 4752 feet.
One can then calculate the feet per second for the distance to equate this 100 point score with being able to parse the race. (Jockeys do ride differently at different distances. The speed rating is supposed to be a measure of energy expended.)
Using Excel (with Visual Basic) and knowing how the points of call may be different with the fractional times allows one to prorate how much feet the horse has traveled through each segment of the race.
I personally break every race into 4 equal segments. Everyone should know that you can't equate a 6 furlong race with a mile, but you can interpolate quite a bit.
Actually, my calculations go quite further. I use a parallel time chart and natural logarithms to "squish" my races into a standard 5 furlong sprint. My calculations also are able to derive a variant as a ratio of speed.
As far as picking winners, the race is still more of a matter of "who is up versus who is down" in form cycle. But one can easily see who, and how many, will be fighting for the early lead, possibly setting up another entrant capabale of passing tired horses.
I have an algorithm for both Beyer and BRIS figures. If you have the 100 point as part of your information, this step isn't necessary and probably even more accurate. Also adding to accuracy is getting fractional times in hundredths rather than fifths of a second.
A review of the figures and how the animal performs in their next start is quite interesting. Horses with huge gaps in pace figures are generally poor choices, even though they may score some of the highest figures.
Enough said. You can email me at the address I provided if you want to elaborate any more on this subject.
Sincerely,
Chuck Sakach
Sr. Programmer/Analyst
Steel Industries, Inc.
Posted by: Chuck Sakach | June 29, 2010 at 05:54 PM
By the way, I read both of Beyer's books and clearly he has paved the way for my calculations. However, I think the best book I have ever read is "Fast and Fit Horses" by Bob Heyburn. Whenever I get stumped, I pull this one off of the shelf one more time...
Posted by: Chuck Sakach | June 29, 2010 at 06:03 PM
Hi Randy, I think your attemp to cover this subject is noble. However, I think the first thing tracks should address is the way races are timed. A race for say 8F & 70 yds, should be timed as follows, the first 70yds should be times first and then the rest of the race in 2F.
Posted by: Michael Griffiths | June 30, 2010 at 02:18 AM
Randy, I've followed the development of your pace figs pretty closely since they were released, and have toyed with numbers a bit myself, both before and after your figs went public.
My take on the turn-time issue: I have no idea. But if I were making the figs, I don't know that I'd care that much about it one way or another.
Because for me the use of pace figs has two purposes: 1) who is faster than whom? If two need-the-lead horses are matched against each other, knowing that one routinely runs the first half mile 0.60 seconds faster (in variant-adjusted terms) is crucial information; so is knowing that they're equally fast, and that they'll be eyeballing each other during the early running, likely cooking them both.
The other factor that I think pace figs are useful for is (and I say this at the risk of looking foolish for stating the obvious) using pace to compare final times. We all know that a horse who ran a final figure of 90 while running fast early fractions is overwhelmingly superior to a horse who ran a 90 while running slow fractions (Zenyatta notwithstanding).
So as a proponent and fan of pace figs, I would be wary of the factors involving turn-time. I say this not thinking that it will lead to inaccuracies, but because the differences here are relatively small, and what I want to see in pace figs are significant discrepancies. If the difference between the pace figs of Horse A and Horse B is going to be that Horse A ran 77% of a half mile around a turn, while Horse B ran only 56%, then I'm not going to be betting significant money. I want to see significant differences when comparing pace figs, and I can't see how this is going to help that.
But who knows? Maybe getting this involved with the numbers, and with different running factors, has me doubtful because it sounds too much like the Sheet methodology, and I've always had the same Moonie-like regard for Sheet wackos that Andy's had (can one really accurately account for wind when compiling a speed figure? I doubt it, but the sheet people say one can). Despite my aversion to digging this deep into the data -- I prefer to keep things simple -- you might be on to something here. Cheers.
Posted by: Chris Garrity | June 30, 2010 at 06:06 AM
I am a beginner in handicapping, but what is important in my option is an average pace figure for the race at a particular track, not an average over different tracks. A few years ago Equibase had a program that gave the normal pace figure for that class of race at the top of the form, then each horse's past performance was evaluated and assigned a pace figure for beginning of race, middle and end of race. I found this very helpful and paid for their program often. The last time I downloaded their program, it was different and more confusing. Randy, yours too was confusing for me and seemed to require some studying. I was glad to learn 88-88-88 is optimum. I know your questions were directed to the pros, but how about us newcomers? I will try your form again the next time I order drf. I do admire your handicapping and I love drf, and I particularly like to know the variance of each race. I would also like to know "key races" and clocker comments.
Posted by: Eve | June 30, 2010 at 06:08 AM
" Running around a turn slows a horse, but how much? I have a formula I've used for 30 years, ever since I first read about this phenomenon in an old Gordon Jones handicapping book. I used that formula to adjust the above pacefigs,"
Does this mean that you use a formula from the Gordon Jones book, or that the Jones book prompted you to come up with your own formula?
Posted by: Halle | June 30, 2010 at 06:56 AM
Another consideration is QUALITY of the competition. Speed figures are important, but if the field is lacking any serious rivals, then that speed figure is deceiving.
My suggestion is outside the number reflecting the number of horses in the race, a figure should be inserted for the quality of that group, i.e. 4-C, or 12-A, etc. Whereas a horse receiving a 107 in a 4 horse field with a C rating would be competitive with a 98 with 12 horse with an A rating. If not competitive, then informative to the drf reader.
Posted by: Eve | June 30, 2010 at 07:36 AM
Interesting thought. Maybe a rating based on the Beyers of the second- through fourth-place finishers in a race? Or something like that? Of course, class is supposed to tell us the quality level, but as we all know, the field strength can vary greatly within any class, especially with all the short fields we see today.
Posted by: Randy Moss | June 30, 2010 at 09:19 AM
Just to add what I mentioned in earlier posts...
Isn't it kind of silly to try to apply pace figures to pars at different segments of the race? With the differences in the number of turns, track layouts, turf to dirt to synthetic surface, etc. this can be too cumbersome to be useful.
Pace calculation is not an exact science, nor should it be. Those of us that make these calculations take great strides in reducing the margin of error but we are still subject to the arbitrary nature of chart calling. We don't know how far away the horse is from the rail or the circumference of the turn, but I don't think any of that is necessary.
It would be nice if the horses had transponders in their bridles (rather than the saddle) and that every inch of the racing strip was wired for detection to record every piece of data that could possibly be generated. Even if this were possible, we would all be bogged down by detail. This would surely render the task not worth pursuing.
We need to accept that the normal progression of a race where it is faster in the beginning and gets gradually slower*. Trying to compare each segment to a published par in order to punch up the value of the rating at that segment is pointless. Using raw figures identify who really are the most steady types and these can be profitable propositions.
(*I realize synthetic strips and turf routes could be the exception rather than the rule. Sidney's Candy's Santa Anita Derby went much faster in the last segment as compared to the first 3 which were practically equal. The reason that Sidney choked in the Kentucky Derby was that his running style of taking the lead in conjunction with his outside post and a speedy contender inside forced him to use up his energy in the early stages. Had he been the only "speed" in the race, he could have faired much better.)
Posted by: Chuck Sakach | June 30, 2010 at 09:24 AM
Back in the mid 70s, an old friend gave me a signed copy of "Gordon Jones to Win," which along with "Picking Winners" and Tom Ainslie was quickly worn to a frazzle. Jones was the first one I read that did pace figures and adjusted half-mile fractions based on how much of the turn was negotiated. I used his adjustments for a while, then switched to my own that I've been using ever since, which differ slightly based on circumference of the oval. However, sometimes I think I'm "over-adjusting," and it's challenging to pinpoint exactly how to gauge the effect of a turn. That's why I threw the topic open for ideas.
Posted by: Randy Moss | June 30, 2010 at 09:25 AM
I wonder if the impact of the first turn can be estimated by comparing the par pace figures of one turn miles with two turn miles.The comparision would nuetralize the impact of jockey based deceleration ( which hypothetically is the same in both cases) and leave the impact of the extra turn. Since tracks that rn one turn miles dont run two turn miles, the comparision would be between tracks of comparable class and similar circuits. This could lead to a rough estimate
Posted by: mark | June 30, 2010 at 10:13 AM
As a percentage of turn impact on speed, the first turn in a two turn race is probably more important, by the second turn the horses are already decelerating. It's also more important to avoid going wide on the first turn. Going wide on the first turn is the place where more energy is lost, or in the case of horses with speed, who are drawn outside, they either have to ration that speed to find a decent position, or use it. In either case they are deviating from the norm. Variability in first turn times may be the key. to understanding the problem. Variance is a function of the mean, which implies the inverse, if the standard scores tend to skew, you might want need to adjust your mean.
Posted by: dave reutter | June 30, 2010 at 10:31 AM
I've been toying with the concept of "Discretionary Pace".
That is to say that no jock forces the horse to run full out start to finish. Therefore the internal fractions are a product of the pace "matchup". With each race being run in a unique fashion the pace will vary according to the circumstances. In sprints the "window" of discretion is obviously much less than at routes. Turf racing at distance has the largest factor. I try to allow an average window of about 1 second in sprint up to almost 2 seconds in turf routes. These I feel take into account the style and strategies involved in the race. Similar to Quinn's turf average 6f "window". Any fractions above or below the set window are a cause for further examination.
Posted by: BeBo | June 30, 2010 at 10:46 AM
Randy: Thank you. Two things:
1: Since you're trying to isolate and remove the effect of rating, you might get some distance toward your goal by looking only at horses who went sprint-to-route while refusing to rate to any real degree: in other words, runoffs, horses who opened up large early leads in their route attempts. What was the difference in their pace figures as they went sprint (minimal rating) to run-off route (minimal rating)?
2: This one is a bit of a separate matter. I've been using your pace figures since the beginning, and I think you do an excellent job. I don't believe that isolating the effect of rating is all that important. You end up taking a separate route to the same destination. What I would love to see, however, is a breakdown of the pace figures earned at different distances and tracks by the SAME HORSE. In other words, have your computers follow individual horses (preferably frontrunners) as they change distances and ship, and see how the predictive power of the pace figures holds up in these circumstances. I think this might reveal all sorts of interesting information--even some information that will assist in what you are doing right now.
Posted by: Halle | June 30, 2010 at 11:04 AM
I think that it might be nearly impossible to gauge the effect of the turn with any type of pace or speed figure...there are too many variables such as the path the horse takes(what if a horse runs the 1st half in 45 while going 4 wide around the clubhouse turn?)...pace figs cannot measure this and relies only on the clock...this is something you learn to gauge track by track by experience, not every track is a 1 mile oval and some tracks have tighter turns than others...
Posted by: andrew | June 30, 2010 at 12:27 PM
I was wondering what the adjustments are for the differing distances that tracks (and even different distances at the same track) have for the "phantom" ground between the gate and the beginning of the electronic timing. I know that it varies from several yards to almost 50 yards.
Also, how do you take the positioning of dogs on the turf into account as these can vary day to day even.
As someone else mentioned, there is also the wind variable.
It just seems that there are far too many variables that would have to be taken into account to make all of these adjustments be of any practical value. Sometimes you have to be satisfied with "good enough".
Posted by: Jeff Z | June 30, 2010 at 01:18 PM
Thanks for all the comments.
I completely agree that ground loss is vitally important. When I was in the newspaper biz and had the luxury of focusing intently on one track at a time (OP, LaD or LS), I was an obsessive trip handicapper and modified final and pace figures for paths taken. Nowadays I do pacefigs for dozens of tracks - plus I'm blessed with a couple of day jobs - so I unfortunately don't have time to provide trip info, but I strongly encourage the incorporation of ground loss into your various methodologies. For the record, one length at a half-mile equals 1.28 points on the Moss Pace Figure scale. And in studying Trakus results, I've come to the conclusion that each extra path around a turn actually costs closer to 1 1/2 lengths than the widely-accepted one path=one length standard.
I also concur that in the big picture, the effect of turns on pace figures isn't earth-shattering. The margin of error in chartcalling (even the best trackmen occasionally struggle with the awkward vantage point at the top-of-the-stretch half-mile call in sprints) can sometimes be measured in lengths and makes minor adjustments like this seem like a meaningless exercise.
Having said that, I do try to fine-tune the pace figures in the areas I can control, and I've spent enough time on this specific area that I thought I'd bring in the masses for assistance.
Mark....your idea is *exactly* what I've done this week. Unless I'm overlooking something, Churchill Downs is the only one-mile oval that runs a true one-turn dirt mile. The runups at one mile and 1 1-16 miles are identical, and although the one-mile chute is slightly angled, I don't consider that an issue. So I took data from Jan. 1, 2000, to present and compared average running times at each classification. For example, during that time frame Churchill carded 62 races for older male $10,000 claimers - 31 at one mile and 31 at 1 1-16 miles. The average 1 1-16 mile time was 1:45.85, for a Beyer figure of 80, and the average mile time was 1:37.32, for a 98 Beyer. Looking at 846 older male races and weighing the results for sample size, the average raw-figure difference between the two distances was 16.5 Beyer points. So that's my "new" best guess at the impact of a turn... I had been using 20 points slowdown for a mile-oval turn, but I'll probably adjust that downward a bit.
Imagine if we focused all this energy on health care solutions or alternative energy sources.
Posted by: Randy Moss | June 30, 2010 at 02:57 PM
Jeff Z says, "I was wondering what the adjustments are for the differing distances that tracks (and even different distances at the same track) have for the "phantom" ground between the gate and the beginning of the electronic timing. I know that it varies from several yards to almost 50 yards." Answer: pace figures at all tracks are modified by adjustments that bring them into line with national averages. Suppose the national par at 6 furlongs for a particular class level is 85-87-88, with Belmont Park averaging 80-84-88 and Calder averaging 92-90-88. Assuming the other class levels fell into line accordingly, the Belmont 6-furlong pacefigs would be adjusted by +5 for the quarter and +3 for the half, while Calder's would be -7 and -3. This takes into account runup distances (although, yes, runups can fluctuate at times at certain tracks) and also the important effect surface depth has on pace figures. Because my pace figures use the Beyer Speed Figure final-time variant, a slow and sandy surface such as Calder's needs such an adjustment, since the deceleration effects of the deeper surface are more pronounced at the finish line than after a quarter-mile.
Posted by: Randy Moss | June 30, 2010 at 04:45 PM
The equalizer in all of this is the variant. That is why a tight accurate variant is the most important thing in handicapping. To me through the years that has been the drawback of the Beyer figure. Pars established don't work. As long as this is used you will be debating this issue.
An accurate variant used properly throughout the race will give you proper pace. It doesn't matter if you are talking about Santa Anita or Delta Downs. ratio and proportionately the variant will adjust the fractions accordingly. A track surface such as Santa Anita generally produces a small variant because it routinely produces fast times. Delta Downs on the other hand produces a large variant because race fractions are slower. However based on this the variant can produce pace figures that may actually have a horse running faster at Delta than Santa Anita.
One key factor is that using all fractions is the proper way to use pace.You can for instance use in a 8.5f the 1/2mi, 3/4mi and Fin to establish a pace and it can work well however do you want the paperback version of pace or the novel? The best way is to use the 1/4mi, 1/2mi, 3/4mi, 1mi, Fin. The main problem is the Daily Racing Form and BRIS do not give you all the fractions in the running (Past Performances) which in the day and age should be published. Instead if you want to use fraction you have to resort to the charts.
Without giving any secrets away of how I obtain pace here is a simple formula to use the variant the proper way in establishing class pace.
HRF X Var / Fin Tx = % of variant to use for that fraction.
(Horses Race Fraction X Variant divided by the Finishing time).
Posted by: Mike L | June 30, 2010 at 07:03 PM
to put some dosage spin on this, recall that the various categories define the distance the horse is likely to win at, not necessarily the likelihood of early speed, per se. horses with more stamina are able to carry their speed for longer distances. in ideal form, at an ideal distance, that horse will show a pace advantage. hence pace and class are correlated. a group of ultra-low class races at any given track will often show much higher final times, and ordinary pace times, because the horses don't have the class to finish. these horses bring their own track bias with them. i did some studies at a cheap track in the southwest, and found that claiming levels with different conditions, and the same purse were often often separated by finish times. like fancy turf horses they all ran pretty much the same to the half, and what happened then made the difference.
Posted by: dave reutter | June 30, 2010 at 08:28 PM
Randy with regards to pace figs and accurately quantifying them ask 3 of the best Jockeys how much a turn slows their rides down versus running in a straight line 2 lengths 3 etc
Posted by: tom muldoon | July 01, 2010 at 08:00 AM
One final comment before I leave this one alone: I have been observing a phenomenon I call "pack density". I can only describe this as the resistance to speed when a group of animals are bunched together as they travel through the race.
For instance, a horse running second that is 2 lengths behind the leader faces much less resistance than a horse that is fifth and possibly 3 lengths from the lead. There is no way to quantify it so that it can be applied to pace figures and yet I swear that the phenomenon exists.
Posted by: Chuck Sakach | July 01, 2010 at 09:28 AM