Where can I find?

[Huguenot]

I had long thought the PER rating was synonamous with the AP, but now I can see it's not.

Where can I find explanations of all this? Is PER more of a final figure than AP?

[km]

PER is similar to the A/P type calculation, but they have a different purpose and therefore a different algorithm and adjustment scale. Neither use final time. Both use 2nd call + Final Fraction to compute the number. Here are the key differences ==>

1) The PER is designed to be comparable for all racing thoroughbreds and it is scaled to be congruent with Quirin style figures; the PACe rating and the EPR and SOR (formerly pars).

2) The A/P rating and all velocity numbers are computed for comparison for a specific field of horses and have adjustments that align the 4 key fps segments. There is no concern for scaling the numbers to a certain benchmark (such as the EPR) only to each other for that race.

There is greater complexity when the need arises to 'scale' the figures as HTR does with PAC, PER, PScan, SOR and EPR. This accounts for the key difference from the velocity numbers. Through the years Beyer, T'Graph and Ragozin have all promised a 'pace figure'. They problem with their implementation was probably the ability to scale the pace figure in alignment with the final time speed figure. Very difficult task, most services don't try and just have separate pace and final time pars or charts. HTR doesn't use final time for the computation. The PAC and PER are therefore in sync - like a teeter-totter - they rely on each other to keep balance.

[Huguenot]

KM,thanks for the answer.
I was referring to something else.

What I meant was the if the field lined up in this order for AP
8, 7, 2, 5, 1

it should be in the same rank as PER (except when PER has ties because it is not as precise as velocity figs going out the hundreths)
And most of the time it does work out that way.

But check out April 17, Race 4 at AQU, PL-5.

The 5 and the 2 both have a 97 PER, but the 5 has a much larger AP 56.09 to 55.22, not so close that they would share a PER. The 2 has PAC of 101, the 5 has a PAC of 89. The 5 has a huge FF 54.13 to 51.52 for the 2. The 2 has a better EP, 57.60 to 57.08.

I'm wondering why that happens if they both measure 2nd call + FF.

I can understand why 5's AP would be so much bigger with that FF advantage, but why are the PER tiied when the final APs are .87 apart??

and which figure should I give greater credence to? Both are supposed to represent an average pace figure for the entire race.

:confused:

[km]

Hug - try not to force a perfect match between these numbers, while similar in basic structure, they are different measurements and never intended to be compared exactly to one another. Your example shows a AQi paceline for one horse and a AQU main for the other. The scale for the overall efforts matched to a 097 PER in both cases even though the A/P was different. That's ok.

I used to get this question alot with users looking at the PER vs. Cramer speed fig == why don't they match? Aren't both ratings supposed to tell us who ran the fastest overall race? Yes, they are supposed to measure that, but they are different measurements and sometimes they come to different conclusions about the same running line; just as the A/P and PER came to a different conclusion in this case.

Why would Cramer, Beyer, T'Graph and Ragozin figs be in conflict? They are all final time ratings and the final time of the race is not in dispute. In fact sometimes their figures are far apart. The answer is the adjustments they use are different. Same is true of A/P and PER.

More often than not, the Cramer Fig, PER and A/P will agree. But not always and that's acceptable because they give us a different perspective of the same event which helps us think more about the race and the rating. Just as you did in this post.

[tbrown]

So this leads me to ask, when selecting pace lines for the velocity screen, what method would be better? I use the Fig2 numbers, but it sounds like maybe I would be better off using the fps screen and using AP as my criteria?

[km]

Yeah, T' if you are picking PL's with the velocity comparison in mind, use the FPS. But by and large, the line selection will be the same in any screen because it is primarily based on picking a solid recent effort that has some similarity to today's d/s; one line usually sticks out in the pp's wiith or without looking at the overall ratings.