wksc

[Gambler]

I always assumed the wksc was a strong number if the nlay was >=24. If nlay was <24 I always figure the wksc occure before the last race and it wasnt a very strong number. I would like some opinions on what I think? How do you determine the strength of the workscore?
Thanks
ed

[ggpagels]

Gambler-It is my understanding that the wksc rating was a pattern made up of a combo of races and workouts. KM did post this recently:

"Good one Bob. In fact any changes that may have occured since a 28-day or more layoff (bo, bx, jock or trainer switch, gelded) and combined with a strong Wk rating may be indicative that the situation has improved with the horse's attitude or fitness.

The reverse can be interesting, but also tricky. Suppose a horse has been off 38 days and does not show the ( ' ) mark, meaning it has no published workouts since the last start. At major tracks this is an eye opener and probably a negative. At minor tracks this is more common and likely due to the lack of workout reportage or the trainer has been working the horse "unofficially"! The new ( ' ) will help to keep us alert to all these possibilities."
__________________
km

Maybe KM will chime in after he gets back from vacation and elaborate.

[DanG]

Ed,

First, I must admit I was not sold on the workout rating when I first used HTR. Coming from an eastern racing background there is an unwritten rule of skepticism in workouts as a whole. Having said that, it’s now one of my favorite ratings in HTR. An absolute spot play monster.
I agree with the post from ggpagels concerning it’s a combination of workouts and racing activity. To me it’s actual more of a “fitness” rating than a workout rating.

As far as its range of effectiveness and determining how to best use it. These are some of the areas you might try...

• nWKD1 from the HX3 table gives you the # of days back the most recent work took place. Join an 85+ WO and select nWKD1 < nLAY and watch the ROI go tilt.

• 85 is a major threshold in score, but several factors are at work. A horse at DMR and a horse at Charlestown have a completely different ceiling in their ability and activity. Track specific & Age specific can give you ranges of effectiveness. I seem to remember a post by Dehere? (I think) that he was breaking down WO by trainer to see if the trainer ALWAYS works fast or if it was truly a sign of improved condition. As Ken has said many times, a poor workout is not necessarily a negative factor. However, I have found at certain tracks a WO rating of 0 is a big no-no.

• Length of workout may be good clue for distance racing. Ken’s reasoning for using a BOMB in this years Belmont Stakes was the horse had worked 6f before the 1 ½ miles. It’s always the second digit in tWK1 (HX4). Access query criteria… [Like ”?6?”] or whatever distance you want to test.

• The testing is endless. Within tWK1 you also have Workout Grade A-F. (The first character of the string.) Third character is b=breezing, h=handily and g= from gate. All may have an impact depending on your circuit.

I’m only 5-months with the product, so please read all the archives and newsletters you can. There are some major players out there who LOVE this rating.

Best of luck

[Gambler]

Thanks for the replies.

[km]

I'll add a little bit more to the good posts by Dan and Jerry ---

The new items on the KM screen to help pin down the Wk rating. They include the number of days since the horse has a reported workout and the number of works (reported) since the last race. This might help to understand if the works are "stale" or occured too long ago to be trusted. Would seem to work best when the horse has been off long enough, say 28 days or more, that all the workouts have occured since the last start.

However, I have no statistical evidence that these things improve the Wk rating per se. It's the usual trade off. I ran some tests on Wk 85+. The good Wk ratings that appear to be based on sound recent workouts interspaced with races --- do get more winners --- at low prices. The high rated Wk horses that had a more disjointed or even bizaare pattern (such as no workouts in the last 50 days!) won less often but definitely paid a whole lot more when they did win. Wk 90+ should never be ignored when high odds, no matter how screwy the number seems to have been based.

The Wk rating looks at the strength of the workouts only in terms of the pattern between the races and workouts. One area where computers really put us humans to shame is the ability to recognize patterns, gaps and time sequences of activity. The FC rating was developed the same way. The Wk and the FC seem inexplicable at times, but this is because we are thinking with traditional methods that feel comfortable and logical to us, but the computer is able to understand far more complex relationships.

We have really only tapped a small potential of this fanstastic computer ability. Hopefully we can cure disease and save the whales someday with similar models of chaos pattern interpretation. The CBS television program "Numbers" is about this notion.