Help with fractions of a race

[CheckMark]

1/5th
2/5th
3/5th
4/5th

You would hear it all the time but I am just clarifying if:

1/5 would equal .2 so .1 would be .2?
2/5 would equal .4 so .2 would be .4?
3/5 would equal .6 so .3 would be .6?
4/5 would equal .8 so .4 would be .8?

I am trying to create speed figure pars for a few racetracks and just wanted to know if I am doing something right or wrong with the above?

I have also attached a screen shot of what I am bolding in text

Thanks all

[CheckMark]

Here is an attachment of the speed figure pars that I have found to use for all tracks

These are for dirt and not for turf just FYI

[raceman5]

Conley there are 2 things you can do as far as pars go.

1. Dave Schartz sells pars.
2. you stated that u are not using the RDSS Software so the other thing u can do as far as pp's go is Trackmaster in their PP's they give you the par times for each race.
3. now the best PP's, in my opinion, are Timeform because their times are already adjusted you don't have to worry about killing yourself to make pars.


Bob

[Mitch44]

Conley in post #1 your correct that 1/5 would be .20 etc. All that's doing is converting 1/5 of a second to hundreds.


Hundreds tend to give more accuracy to the math in a computer program. Essentially its the same but depending how its applied in a program it can be more accurate.


Mitch44

[CheckMark]

Originally Posted by raceman5

Conley there are 2 things you can do as far as pars go.

1. Dave Schartz sells pars.
2. you stated that u are not using the RDSS Software so the other thing u can do as far as pp's go is Trackmaster in their PP's they give you the par times for each race.
3. now the best PP's, in my opinion, are Timeform because their times are already adjusted you don't have to worry about killing yourself to make pars.


Bob

Thank you for the suggestions but I am really wanting to try and create my own pars for a few racetracks and only tracks that have a dirt surface and no all weather/turf races for now

Dave Schwartz has talked to me about the subject of trying to create your own speed figures and he also suggested taking the hassle of making your own by purchasing his own pars which looks pretty detailed

And for the Brisnet and Trackmaster Pars I do use them sometimes but I later learned you can get try and make your own speed figures to see how well they compare to the big boys (DRF/Brisnet/TimeformUS?/Trackmaster)

[CheckMark]

Originally Posted by Mitch44

Conley in post #1 your correct that 1/5 would be .20 etc. All that's doing is converting 1/5 of a second to hundreds.


Hundreds tend to give more accuracy to the math in a computer program. Essentially its the same but depending how its applied in a program it can be more accurate.


Mitch44

OK that is what I was hoping

Thanks Mitch!

[Mitch44]

With Speed Ratings such as Beyer, Bris, Track Master etc. This is all done already for you. It's doubtful at best you could improve on their numbers. Sure that could be done and I can think of a few things that would make them more accurate, but have they already thought of that and its included?

I don't think you realize the difficulty of collecting all the data required. A full time job in itself. It would be like data base collector's who spend all their time collecting and little time for playing. Even after gathering all this data tracks can change with a new surface such as they had to do because of breakdowns recently at SA.

The thing about SR's is that its similar to Pace Handicapping, understanding concept is the most important thing about it. And your smart enough to do that without all the drudgery to get to the finish line.

Another problem with Pars is their often outdated by the time you get the information.

Once you understood concept the first thing is you would have to do, is write a computer program to gather all the data on a daily basis. For all the tracks in the Us otherwise how does one handle shippers? A good and well written program to extract all that data automatically would save much valuable time collecting all this data, plus provide some immediacy.

Not only that SR aren't the end all as other factors can be or are more effective. Their a better tool than players had previously or nothing at all, even today.

There are many reasons why a horses' SR underperform or even outperform. Hell even the initial concept is wrong because the collection of data does not consider the variant on the date collected to determine these Pars. They consider it later after a race is run to determine a good figure but not in the collecting of the data to determine the Pars. They average final time by class, age, surface and distance to get the Pars but not the variants on that data. Averages are inaccurate as a means to determine accuracy, a true false sense of hope.

Bottom line is a SR is an improvement to nothing. Unless your going to spend years building a better mouse trap after first becoming a computer programmer for-get about it.

Beyer's original concepts were just foreplay and he's never to my knowledge ever improved on the concept. An update or new and improved version could be a better product but an expensive investment in time and money.

Mitch44

[CheckMark]

Originally Posted by Mitch44

With Speed Ratings such as Beyer, Bris, Track Master etc. This is all done already for you. It's doubtful at best you could improve on their numbers. Sure that could be done and I can think of a few things that would make them more accurate, but have they already thought of that and its included?

I don't think you realize the difficulty of collecting all the data required. A full time job in itself. It would be like data base collector's who spend all their time collecting and little time for playing. Even after gathering all this data tracks can change with a new surface such as they had to do because of breakdowns recently at SA.

The thing about SR's is that its similar to Pace Handicapping, understanding concept is the most important thing about it. And your smart enough to do that without all the drudgery to get to the finish line.

Another problem with Pars is their often outdated by the time you get the information.

Once you understood concept the first thing is you would have to do, is write a computer program to gather all the data on a daily basis. For all the tracks in the Us otherwise how does one handle shippers? A good and well written program to extract all that data automatically would save much valuable time collecting all this data, plus provide some immediacy.

Not only that SR aren't the end all as other factors can be or are more effective. Their a better tool than players had previously or nothing at all, even today.

There are many reasons why a horses' SR underperform or even outperform. Hell even the initial concept is wrong because the collection of data does not consider the variant on the date collected to determine these Pars. They consider it later after a race is run to determine a good figure but not in the collecting of the data to determine the Pars. They average final time by class, age, surface and distance to get the Pars but not the variants on that data. Averages are inaccurate as a means to determine accuracy, a true false sense of hope.

Bottom line is a SR is an improvement to nothing. Unless your going to spend years building a better mouse trap after first becoming a computer programmer for-get about it.

Beyer's original concepts were just foreplay and he's never to my knowledge ever improved on the concept. An update or new and improved version could be a better product but an expensive investment in time and money.

Mitch44

So pretty much just don't try is what you're saying?

I know it would take work but I would rather struggle and work my way up to creating my own speed figures vs telling someone there is a lot of work to be done

I guess if I can't handle it then Dave S's book is the way to go then

[Mitch44]

What I'm saying is that concept can give you that understanding and can save much valuable time and expense.

I haven't read Swartz's concept to Pars but I'm sure he got it from Beyer or adapted it from Beyer. I would read both their books to see if their the same or an improvement. I do know Swartz is very good with collection of data and computers where as Beyer not so much. Plus at the time of Beyer, computers weren't that prolific and were in their infancy as compared to Swartz's work.

Gordan Pine has been know for years for his accuracy in Pars. Which is best? I have no idea. Beyers' is selling SR's to the DRF whereas Pine and Swartz are selling Pars. They all have an interest and will swear theirs in the best s-it since slice bread.

I myself think the Bris SP are better than the Beyer numbers because their computer generated where as the Beyer is made by 7 or so other people and that's too many fingers in the pie for good results,inconsistent application of the process.

Before embarking on this journey you should do a study on how any SR, which are derived from Pars hold up against other Factors such as Total Energy, CR BLBL etc. What was its ranking verses a SR such as a Beyer or the TrackMaster SR that's within the program. Personally I don't even look at the TrachMaster SR within the RDSS program.


Pars are one dimensional in that they only consider final time, Pace and the POR has a direct influence on that final time. Even Beyer saw the flaw in just final time after Sartin made him aware of it.

Pars also exist for incremental time as well as final time but to my knowledge aren't incorporated in any SR. SR are based on final time only. Sartin said it best when he said horses don't read Pars or know how fast their suppose to run. The best Pars are made up from the horses within the race or Match Up, they also represent the present, not something earned a year ago.


What I'm saying is that before taking on this task, do some studies and you may find some things more proficient. And even a better mousetrap of those, if found, would be a more worthwhile endeavor.

Mitch44

[tom]

I have had a lot of success using TimeForm ADJUSTED times in Sartin type programs in a spreadsheet.