Speed Figure Methodologies - Presentation Online

[nicely nicely]

Jerry Brown\'s AudioVisual presentation from the 2004 Horseplayers Expo in Las Vegas is now available online in the Archives section of our site.

http://www.thorograph.com/archive/index.php

There are 3 options for viewing:

High Bandwidth (Cable/DSL/T1) - Powerpoint presentation. This is the best quality but you must have Microsoft Powerpoint (a component of Microsoft Office) installed on your system. If you are prompted, OPEN the file from the current location.

High Bandwidth (Cable/DSL/T1) - RealPlayer format
Low Bandwidth (56k dial-up) - RealPlayer format

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Wow,

Impressive presentation. I love the terms \"energy return\", \"compaction\" and \"drop hammer\"...lol On slow days it may behoove the jocks to run the truck path. I\'ll keep my eyes out for that...lol Maybe they already do at Belmont during the dry summer and fall.

I\'ve always known the track changes speed, (If it changes speed by days, it certainly can change speed by hours) but the optimum moisture content information 6-9%, 8-8.5% was very revealing. As was the .5% change by every sprinkle truck pass. The number of truck passes could provide some supporting evidence. I\'m sure you\'re guys are already counting the number of passes. Can they increase the water flow per pass or put more or less water down with valves?

Additionally the anecdotal evidence from the N.Y. Track Supervisor was outstanding. He \"bakes\" the soil to determine moisture content? That can\'t be so, that was the scientists. How does Portocelli measure it?

Of course the issue is what is the figure when the race goes in 1:48 when earlier races on the card have gone in 1:51. Without the moisture content reading to corroborate it boils down to an \"educated guess\", which is better than a steadfast position the track does not change speed, but with the moisture in hand you have supporting evidence.

Outstanding, even better than I thought it was. By the way your voice hasn\'t changed a bit in ten years.



Also, I find it hard to believe that you are doing the figs for all those tracks yourself. I thought thats what I heard. Is that true?

I can see if I ever want to go through the challenge of making figs again I\'m gonna have to count sprinkle passes...lol Especially when trying to fig races like the Florida Derby and Skip Away.

CtC



Post Edited (03-18-04 00:33)

[TGJB]

Amazing how many people remember Post Time. That show was ahead of its time. Unfortunately, for the producers.

I didn\'t use all of Pratt\'s e-mails to me. In another one he raised the issue of lanes of compaction, and that he suspected that some riders (he named Bailey specifically) could figure that out. As a practical matter, for a lot of reasons (the track changing, sample size, changing lanes) we can\'t do anything with this, but that doesn\'t mean it isn\'t happening.

From things Porcelli has said they can adjust the water per pass, one easy way being to speed up or slow down the truck. Yes, he tests moisture content that way himself-- if you use the search engine on this board and put in Porcelli you will find more specifics in the first posts by me mentioning him here.

The evidence makes it clear that the assumption the track stays the same speed is false, but there is no direct correlation that can be used to determine track speed from moisture content because of the interlocking variables (soil content etc.) There might be based directly on drop hammer tests measuring energy return, but I\'m not even sure of that. All you can do is work with the data trying to make sense of the results.

I have averaged about 10 tracks over the years, but I gave up a couple (Northern Cal, Pen), so I\'m now averaging about eight. We now have a very strong staff of figure makers-- Greg, who has been with me since day one, and two deprogrammed ex-Raggie figure makers (Paul and Nick). Between an actual person making variant decisions about every race run in North America (no more figures done purely by using claiming variants) and a very sophisticated computer ground loss program for small tracks where we don\'t get actual ground loss reports (and the ground for each day at those tracks is then reviewed by a person checking the chart comments against the computer\'s ground), we have a really, really tight data base.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

I think some quotes will some it up best, I\'m prone to ramble. As the late Bobby Jones said many years ago when watching Jack Nicklaus play a round at Augusta National:

\"He plays a game with which I am unfamiliar.\"

Isn\'t it interesting that the four mystical elements of antiquity, which made up all things, are the same elements which leave us today with our performance riddle? We have drop hammers and scientists and soil bakers but in the end it all boils down to trying to understand the relationship between Earth, Wind, Rain & Fire...lol

Now RFK:

\"Some men see things that are and ask \"Why\", I see things that never were and ask \"Why not\".\"

Yours are the best by far, its not even debatable.

[BitPlayer]

I\'ve listened to the seminar and it sounds pretty convincing with respect to the points you were trying to make.  My compliments.  To play devil\'s advocate, however, I\'d ask a couple of questions?

If moisture content is kept within a range surrounding optimal levels (I think I saw the range 6% to 9% referred to by one of your experts), how much does it really matter where you are in that range?  Your expert mentioned that there was significant deterioration on either side of the range, but I didn\'t see any data on how much \"energy return\" varies within that range.  This may be one of those questions that is unanswerable unless you can get some moisture content data and try to correlate it with the track variant you calculate.

One thing that your experts kept harping on was the importance of compaction and that the tires of the water truck and tractors produce significant compaction.  I haven\'t seen anything to suggest that you take this into account in making figures, and I\'m not sure how you could.  Does this mean that horses who run in the tire tracks (do you know which path this might be?) consistently earn better figures than they deserve?

[TGJB]

As the quote from the moisture content study shows, there were MEASURABLE DIFFERENCES in energy return in the middle of that 6 to 9 range-- it decreased at 8% moisture and progressively increased starting at 8.5%. It is also worth remembering that a fast track in NY can have anywhere from 4 to 12 % water in it, meaning some FAST tracks fall OUTSIDE the 6 to 9 range. You are right that \"how much\", in our terms (track \"speed\") is currently unanswerable, and may always be, due to the interlocking variables.

The compaction issue is tricky, as I said in a post yesterday. The sample size problem, the fact the horses change lanes, the track changing throughout the day (and presumably the compaction becoming more pronounced)-- all in all there is not a lot we can do about this, even in terms of knowing how significant the issue is.

[Michael]

The tricky part of the enrgy return equation is that it will affect different types of horses differently.  
Within the same race a track may return X amount of energy to Horse A, and a completely different amount of energy to Horse B.  Primarily dependant on the duration of time the horses foot is in actual contact with the ground.
Because the resulting energy return occurs at different times (in relation to the initial impact) a horse whose foot is in contact with the ground for .X seconds may get a low percentage of the energy return, whereas a horse with a different duration of foot to ground contact may be getting the optimal amount of ER.
At some moisture levels, speed horses may (on the average) benefit, on the assumption that generally a horse running a 22 flat 1/4 has foot2surface contact for a shorter duration than a 24 flat 1/4 runner.
Again, this is just a generalization though, as some horses run a 1/4 mile in fewer strides than others.
Bottom line is that it is without a doubt true that the track surface, and it\'s associated variant changes from race to race, and probably from lane to lane, due to moisture content.
But in recognizing this, you must also recognize that the same phenomenon does not have consistent effects from horse to horse.  The science that proves the race to race variation does the same for horse to horse variations.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

I think you are entirely accurate on varying \"energy returns\" with different types of stride. Obviously, there is a base \"energy return\" quotient, but how an individual horse\'s hooves make contact with the track will be a factor. For example a quick action horse vs. a long strider. You don\'t have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. Very good horses may or may like Belmont for instance. To my last day I will always believe Commendable\'s running style allowed him to take advantage of a deep and slow strip that better horses languished over that day. But in hindsight that whole Belmont field was suspect.

CtC

[Dana]

a few questions came to my mind regarding the presentation; on a few slides the frequency of watering was mentioned (i\'m referring specifically to Gulfstream, Hollywood and Santa Anita), but no data regarding the weather on those days was mentioned; i\'d have been interested to know the weather on those specific days, temp., precipitation, wind, humidity, etc; was jerry brown implying that there are arbitrary changes of the watering schedule or were those differences in frequency due to changes in the weather (as the ny track super\'s words would imply)? without knowing the weather on those days that information is meaningless.

my next question is regarding the differences in sprint/route variants -- when they compute a speed figure, do they take account the fact that there are many more races run at 6 furlongs, for example, than any other distance in america, and does that frequency mean that numbers for 6 furlong races are automatically more accurate than say route races? how do they adjust for this variable? i know from making my own numbers that the amount of races run at a particular distance has a great effect on the overall accuracy of the speed figure when comparing different distances -- this question is a bit more involved than just the idea of sprint/route variants and maybe not appropriate for this topic, but i know this is a huge problem -- if i\'m doing mile and a half turf faces or less than five furlong dirt races, i automatically put a lot less meaning on the figure, as opposed to a six furlong race --

one thing that i had a problem with is the idea put forth that future numbers are based on past numbers -- so there\'s this estimation going from what we have in the past carrying over to the latest numbers; i find that to be the main \"flaw\" or problem with t-gs and rags (but much more so with t\'gs); and any professional gambler will tell you this is more of a problem with t-gs; I mean you\'ll look at lines and see 4,4,4,4,4,4 and anyone on earth knows the horse isn\'t running 4\'s six races in a row (maybe i\'m exaggerating a bit but not much) and i conclude that they are either lazy or as i heard basing current numbers on past numbers? this is really a huge error from my pov -- as i\'ve said i make my own numbers and usually compare with t-g\'s (i\'m more looking for patterns) and i see much wider variations from race to race, with my figs, i\'ll see a horse run the same number twice or sometimes three times, but the patterns are vastly different -- so i never understood that principle. what\'s the point of just standardizing the numbers so they make sense?


as far as the overall presentation it is hard for me to imagine people say the variant would stay the same for a given day; anyone who plays del mar seriously (for example) is well aware of changes throughout the day -- and that\'s a track where it almost never rains and the weather is fairly consistent; well, perhaps more consistent than any other track in america, yet the track changes drastically (often throughout the day) at that meet -- how much more changes will there be in places where the weather chnages much more drastically? the observation seems quite obvious, the real question is how much does it matter?

[TGJB]

Are you or have you ever been Alydar from California, or do you know him?

 On a couple of points:

1-- The watering may or may not be arbitrary. My guess is that it is not, at least in the view of the one making the decision, but that it is a seat-of-the-pants decision, not one based on science, or on as many elements as Porcelli bases his on-- I base this in part on a conversation I had with a track superintendent at a MAJOR track who, when I said I noticed his track had been getting faster throughout some days, said times get faster because better horses run later on the card. Seriously. For the most part, these guys don\'t approach things the way Porcelli does.

But while the weather may have been a factor in the decision of when to water, my point about the watering still stands. If a track is not watered for two hours and then is watered, it will be wetter than it was before, even if the relationship varies with differing humidities, etc. And even if given one specific set of variables that was somehow not true, it would be wrong to ASSUME the track was the same failing information proving it was. As I said in several earlier posts, those variables (along with the moisture content at the start of the day, soil content on that day, etc.) make for an almost infinite number of variables and combinations, and make it impossible to draw straight line correlation between the info we do get and track speed. Erego no use by us of that data in formulaic terms, a point that a couple of guys on the Rag board failed (one intentionally) to grasp-- the point of the presentation was simply that Ragozin\'s assumption of track speed staying the same was a false premise, and that each day (and race) has to be looked at that with that in mind.

Which means that

2-- Even if is true that a smaller sampling makes it more difficult to be accurate, IT IS WRONG to combine disparate elements JUST to increase sample size. There are a lot of examples I could give you, but I\'ll use one I\'ve used here before-- if you wanted to come up with a par figure for nw1x races at SA, you would be making a big mistake in combining similar races from all tracks around the country just to increase sample size.

ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL (which is to say, not \"automatically\"), more sample size is better. But just to give you an example, the horses that run 1 1/2 miles are almost always solid horses with extensive figure histories. It is easier to make figures for one race like that than two 6f maiden 2yo races filled with first and secound outers, barring other info.

3-- When you make your own figures, it is unlikely you are working with anywhere near the level of data we are-- meaning ground, wind, accurate figures for horses shipping in, etc. You would find that things fit together much easier (which is not to say it\'s easy) if you were, and that horses would repeat figures more often. And if you did you would know that those repeaters you refer to are signs of accuracy.

This is something I thought Friedman was going to bring up in Vegas (\"Jerry gives them the numbers he wants to\"), but I guess he was too smart to try that in a forum where I could respond. If you have made figures, you know the relationships between horses in a race are fixed-- you can\'t add to one without adding to the others. Which means you can\'t pair up more than one horse unless they actually do so, and since the whole PREMISE of making (and using) figures is that horses run back to previous figures, the more that do, the better. This is something I addressed in several posts a couple of years ago.

4-- No one is \"standardizing\" numbers, but ALL of us who make numbers do so by using the past figure histories of the horses. If you are not, I would love to know how-- that\'s the question I was trying to get Friedman to answer in Vegas about the Kee baby races.

Let me say this clearly and simply-- I look at the surrounding races, and all other information I can get my hands on, when making figures. But I know enough not to make the false ASSUMPTION that the track stays the same speed, or that the relationships between distances is fixed. And I knew it 15 years before I had scientific backup-- it is a simplistic position that is silly, if you think about it at all, and obviously false when you work seriously with figures, UNLESS YOU START WITH A DOGMATIC POSITION THAT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR ANY OTHER POSSIBILITY. Friedman gave a glib (of course) response to Beau\'s (Horsegoer\'s) question on the other board, but I think we would all benefit by his response to the science in my presentation.

[Dana]

No, I\'m not Alydar. The only Alydar I know is when I was a kid my dad took me to see those triple crown races, and I was always rooting  for Alydar -- the start of a life long obession! I could give you my full name if you need it.

First of all, thanks for such a detailed response. I appreciate the time you took to write that. One thing I\'ve always found about thorograph folks is that you all are EXTREMELY generous in so many ways.

On point 1: Every super should be as professional and dilligent as Porcelli. The track Biases in So. Cal. regularly give me fits though that\'s the main circuit I play --they could take a lesson from Porcelli. I\'m not saying their job is easy b/c they have their own unique problems to deal with, but the 2003 Del Mar season was an absolute nightmare regarding the ARBITRARY changes in the track condition, and anyone who played it seriously knows that. So I\'m in total agreement with you on your main point.

On point 2: I\'m concerned only with Southern California racing, and I again agree with you -- my formula that I\'ve come up with after many years of tweaking is designed with Hollywood, Del Mar, and Santa Anita in mind & I know it doesn\'t work combining supposedly similar races from different tracks. Interestingly, my numbers with maiden races are highly accurate -- those and European races are my specialties. On many days, I\'ll use my figs. in maiden races and use t-graphs for the other races on the card, and I\'ve hit many pick sixes that way. I\'m smart enough to know where I\'m good and where I need  help.

On point 3: Well, of course, you guys do this for a living. For Del Mar I watch every race, but during the rest of the year, I\'m lucky to go two or three times a week, and there\'s no substitute for one\'s own perception.  Even in the examples you mention, the human element always comes into play. What if the guy you\'ve got observing water trucks or whatever has a few too many beers one afternoon or has to go to bathroom and the truck goes by when he\'s inside -- I\'m not trying to be funny but I\'m always surprised that people can watch the same race or the same day\'s racing and come up with so many different conclusions. Again, this isn\'t a knock but t-g\'s and rags, for example, always discriminate against horses who run on the rail and inflate figs for horses that run wide -- well in So. Cal. the rail is more than likely never the place to be -- there are far more biases than you guys seem to notice -- maybe there\'ll be an X next to a horse a couple times a meet, but I could tell you many many more days than that when the rail is not the place to be --I factor biases into my variants -- I\'m not aware that anyone else does that. As far as all those other factors, like wind for example, are you out there measuring the wind for that minute or so the race is going off or are you relying on weather forcasts or some guy in the grandstand saying it was really windy against runners in the backstretch -- I think you are trying to make it more scientific than it actually is. I think I have as much information as anyone.

on point 4: well, I guess I would love to know how you use past figure histories because I don\'t -- certainly I will wind up questioning a number or not even making a number for a race or two here and there if the number I come up with seems very unlikely given the past history (you all can\'t really do that - I suppose people would go crazy, but I\'m not selling these to anyone), that I understand, but all I go by is the data for each race, and I view each race as unique with a thousand or more variables that will never be repeated.

[Michael D.]

dana,
do you agree that the breeders cup should never again be run at one of the current california tracks?

[Dana]

I\'m not sure what your point is.

I think the California venues are fantastic for the Breeder\'s Cup. The weather\'s usually great, their courses are very fair for Europeans, and California has a great fan base and tracks that can really handle big days. What\'s not to like?

I\'ll admit I also like Belmont Park a lot for the Breeder\'s Cup -- despite the often erratic weather one might find that time of year, Belmont really puts on a great show on Breeder\'s Cup, and it\'s another track that\'s very fair and everyone has a shot, so the weather is usually the only caveat there. If it were up to me, I\'d go back and forth between Belmont Park and Hollywood/Santa Anita every other year -- I know that\'s going to piss off some people!

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Re: California and Florida Breeders Cup Sites, for years the European horses faired poorly and they attributed it to the warm weather. I don\'t know what the temperature was at Arcadia last year but I\'m guessing not too unseasonably warm because the European horses did well.

The previous Breeders Cup held at Santa Anita was 1993. It was horribly hot and fires threatened the running. Horses missed training is what I recollect, due to the smoke. The Euro Horses didn\'t fair well that year.

I think Santa Anita is an important track in American Racing History, but I don\'t think its an ideal Breeders Cup track. The warm weather for one, the generally extra firm turf and general speed bias of the dirt track as well. I don\'t know if Del Mar can handle the crowd, but that is the California Track I\'d most like to see get the Cup. Once every ten years combined for Hollywood and Santa Anita is plenty.

Other venues with deserving fans:

Arlington (finally)
Saratoga
Pimlico
Oaklawn
Suffolk/Rockingham
Fair Grounds
Keeneland

There should be no permanent site nor permanent rotation and no track should get an inordinate number of events. Its a race fan\'s day and it needs to move around to where the fans are, provided the track is safe and fair to all horses.

This got me to thinking about the Breeders Cup and the strange streaks that emerge in horseracing. Does anyone remember Patrick Byrne? He has saddled six Breeders Cup starters and won three times. He swept the juvenile races in 1997 and the next year took the Classic, now he\'s an afterthought. How does that happen? Just pure luck or fate? Remember Burt Bacharach (sic?) He gets Soul of the Matter and Afternoon Delights in two consecutive years and then what? Bev and Bob Lewis had lightning strike twice with Silver Charm and Charismatic but the Phipps people can\'t win the Derby. Isn\'t it odd?

And to revisit another subject, Dosage.

Here are the prospects for the Derby that exceed the limit:

WIMBLEDON (Wild Rush)   5.00   1.08
THE CLIFF\'SEDGE(Gulch)  4.00   1.00
THAT\'S AN OUTRAGE       5.67   0.97
SARATOGA COUNTY         5.00   1.11
PURGE                   4.14   1.00
MINISTER ERIC           4.14   1.11
FIRE SLAM               4.60   1.21
MR. JESTER              4.78   1.00

Purge and Minister Eric are grandsons of A.p. Indy and horses by Crafty Prospector, Boundary and Belong to Me are well qualified. Theres a few on this list that have a chance if they continue to move forward. The Dosage vampire is already dead but it sure would be fun to drive a couple more stakes into its rotting corpse.

I remember when horses had dosage with 7 and 8, now they are ALL borderline 4 and 5\'s..lol

One last time for Romans...\"you can\'t calculate accurate dosage without true distance races being run any longer.\"



Post Edited (03-24-04 21:05)

[Dana]

Actually, last year, 2003 -- it was interesting that the Santa Anita ground crew purposely made the turf course play fairly so Europens would have a shot -- they actually over-compensated in my mind, but this was a conscious, focused effort -- the turf changed dramatically from just a few weeks before the cup -- it had been a pool table like surface and then they worked to deepen it up. I just like the downhill course with the right and left turns there -- it\'s more like a European track.

Of course, I have my biases of tracks I like, but I also like your idea of spreading the wealth around -- sometime it would be fun to see smaller tracks get a chance. I\'ll have to say I didn\'t like Arlington only because of the mile turf start and the longer juvenille races, but that\'s history now I guess.

While we\'re at it, I wouldn\'t mind a cup at a European venue -- the Curragh in Ireland is probably as close to racing nirvana as anything on earth -- nothing but green everywhere -- so beautiful, though I don\'t know what the weather\'s like the end of Oct. there.