Repost from 11/17/01: Changing Track Speeds

[goofything]

Here is a repost of the original entire thread:

Changing Track Speeds

Posted by TGJB on November 17, 2001 at 20:52:56:

One of the few reasonable questions posted amid all the recent noise was, in effect, what would cause a track to change speeds during the day?

Track speed is to a large degree a function of moisture. The variables include: composition of track relative to holding water, amount of water added, when the water is added (before the races, between the races, between some of the races), proximity to large bodies of water (Bay Meadows and Monmouth are examples of tracks where tracks change speed regulary, presumably because of the tides), temperature (in terms of freeze, thaws, and general drying out on hot days), and wind (evaporation).

Even if water is added each race, in equal amounts, the track can change speed. If x is added, it may be cancelled out by evaporation, At 3x, it gets a lot wetter throughout the day. At 1/2x, it gets dryer. At track A, it may get faster as it gets wetter, while at track B it may get slower. At track C, it may get faster until it reaches a certain degree of wetness, and then gets slower.

If a lot of water is added before the races, but not between them, you get a gradual drying, perhaps with the track speed getting faster or slower, but then leveling off at some point when the water has evaporated. Unless the temperature is below freezing, in which case you get a gradual freeze, and the track gets faster; except, for example, at Turfway, where the chemicals in the track keep it from freezing, so it just gets thick and slow.

Keep in mind how small a change in speed we\'re talking about. One fifth of a second equals one point. Lets say a race goes in 1:10, or 350 fifths of a second. A 1% change change in track speed means a difference of 3.5 fifths, or 3.5 points and that was, in fact, about the amount the track changed on Breeders Cup day.

Again, I refer anyone who wants to know more to my post of 5/2/00.

TGJB



Posted by The New Kid on November 18, 2001 at 07:14:05:

Thanks for a reasoned response to the many times I asked that fundamental question. 3.5 points is a significant amount to add/subtract because of the speed change of a track (I would still hold the difference should be below one point).

Determining the answer to the second fundamental question (is it a slow track or a slow horse(s)

that cause \'speed\' differences during the day?) involves more expertise to provide answers/final numbers for particular horses (the track judgement that you discussed on your 02May00 post). Making as few assumptions as possible (assumptions could mean utilizing past mythical handicapping ideas into \'that final number\') is the wise way to go, and as you inferred, experienced judgement is the way to go. I find whenever my past handicapping \'expertise\' involves itself into my numbers, the numbers suffer and my ROI suffers, so I ignore subjectiveness from my numbers development (perhaps I ignore important \'real\' factors, but more often enough those I discard are worthy of their new home).

My experienced judgement tells me to avoid the imposition of my handicapping prejudices; your experience tells you to utilize judgement that has been aquired for several years (notice I did not say \'prejedices\' for you...).

I don\'t ask the question, what number would each horse run today, but I instead ask the question which horses can/will run well today (relative to the cycle shown in the last four races juxtaposed

to the horse\'s best number--usually a number found by NOT looking further back than 18 months ago, but sometimes farther back depending on the age of the horse). Everyone here knows my betting strategy so I won\'t go into that......

The third fundamental question: by using TG sheets or RAG sheets HOW can a person know what a horse is going to do today when his last five numbers are virtually the same, and those horses that are the other contenders have straight line duplicate past numbers? How can one with clarity determine which horse or horses to choose?

The Ron Smith is a good example of how confusing your \'straight line\' numbers are; please provide an idea why Pleasantfer (Shrek is right, with your numers this horse was between 2 and 5 points slower than the rest of the group) won. Lets see, Elawassul ran a 5 last race out and had one early in the year at FG, so because he reacted to the FG 5, did you believe he would react negatively (I would argue that the most recent 5 could/should lead to a new top--and if that happened, EVERYONE would agree with this second idea). Regal Dynasty had a pair of 5\'s in his most recent, so a reaction was \'inevitable?\'

Mr. Pleasentfar had a last race top 7.1. In your system one is lead to believe that horses will react negatively to last ract tops (except for Spain last year): in my system last race top most often means BETTER is on the way.

Lodge Hill (your analysist liked) had a pair of 5\'s and then the last race 7. Like the 02X did the 7 indicate a rest race and made your analysist believe that the horse could circle back to its previous 5\'s or exceed them? My top horse was Williams (sent off at 7/2 helped me pass him and bet odds/patterns on a few others). Williams like Lodge (though faster) had a pair of 4\'s before his last race 6, AND had a 2 to improve towards. Would you suggest that the 2 and the 4\'s was the best the horse could offer this year and would therefore tail off?

Cetewayo had virtually the same pattern as Lodge, yet your analysist ignored him. What made Lodge better than Cetewayo from a pattern perspective--OR did the time off between races lead you to believe that this one could not do well today--I ignored the horse because of price, not because of numbers though I said that Lodge was better than Cete.

Gritty was my second choice who had four 4\'s in a row and then a 5--ran too well without improvement, therefore regression would be expected? Man from Wick was your analysist\'s second choice: WHY? He had two most recent 5\'s with a 6 in between and then two previous 5\'s; why, except for age, could your analysist expect more from this horse?

You know that I\'m not asking these questions for myself, but as I suggested, in addition to every other tool that you\'ve offered your customers (unlike RAG), perhaps adding more information to your introduction site--ALL of your PATTERNS listed with races that demonstrate your patterns and their effectiveness would help keep your present customers (they could utilize your sheets to win more often--therefore guaranteed repeat business), and help your new customers \'grow\' into excellence.

One reason why you probably DON\'T do this, and probably the reason why RAG doesn\'t even offer as much as you do, is because BOTH sites wager on horses too, and the better informed public would mean less juicy odds for you....just a guess.

Still like my numbers and their patterns better...

though I owe it all to TG for pointing me in the right direction years ago (as TG owes it ALL to RAG for the same help several, several years ago...).



Posted by OPM on November 18, 2001 at 02:16:11:

Jerry with such minor changes leading to such a great difference in results, it\'s a miracle that the #\'s hold up as well as they do over time. A few pts that I like to make. I have always thought that the path of each horse is not as accurate as can be(did it run 3w or 2.7w), any thoughts on how to improve this(give each horse a GPS reciever). I also would like to have wt. and path equivalent for each distance(i.e. 5 lbs equal 1 pt at 6f? but how many pt at 1 1/2m, 3w equals 3 pt at 6f but less the longer the race is) Also, what improvements will help to generate better figures over the few years(i.e. how can we get drugs out of the system). In addition, which types of races (if any) does your figures offer the best chance(I feel it\'s turf and 3 yr old racing)?



Posted by TGJB on November 18, 2001 at 14:29:21:

1)The path we print is rounded off because of space limitations. Typically a trackman will give us 1-2 0r 223 0n a turn.

2) 5 pounds=1 point at race distance, and 1 path=1 length(NOT a point)per turn.

3) Roughly, 1 point=1 length at 5F, gradually increasing to be worth about 2 lengths at 10F.

4) If I knew how to stop drugs I would have told someone. A nice start would be to stop horses from training on Clenbuterol between races, but that means testing them between races.

5) Everyone has their own favorite types of races to bet. I like 3 yo stakes, myself.

TGJB