Turn-time

[delayjf]

Has anybody considered measuring turn-time from the second call to the 8th pole? The main obstacle to this approach is that the 1/8 pole split is listed in the results charts only(or so I think) regardless of the logistics, it seems reasonable to assume that using the 1/8 pole time might enhance the effectiveness of the turn-time rating. Ken, I would be most interested in your comments.

[Glen]

I could be wrong..but isn't that what Massa uses in his Attack rating? I dunno...

[delayjf]

From what I've read, I think he does for the longer distances, but I'm wondering if timing turn time to the 1/8 pole wouldn't be more effective for the most common of distances 6 furlongs. At this distance It's my understanding that the turn-time is still the second fraction only, extending the distance 1/8 of a mile might improve it's predictability.

[Glen]

Here is an article about Attack rating in impact.

http://www.homebased2.com/km/pdf/HTRMonthlyReport-JUL2000.pdf

[Donnie]

The turn time is calculated differently for the different distances and in nearly all cases (there are very few exceptions) it consists of the actual turn for the track computed against. One of the unique features of HTR over others.

[Ken Massa]

ATTACK rating in Impact is measured from the call closest to the turn, to the 1/8 pole at all distances. This ensures that the 'turn' is always computed in the turn time in Impact.

Turn time is simply the second fraction in Sartin methodology and all other velocity methods including HTR screen(1) or PRAT(3). In some routes, this means the entire turn time is run on the backstretch. I showed an example of that with a map of the Ky Derby at our 2000 seminar. No portion of the Derby "turn time" is run on the turn. Impact corrects that with the 1/8 pole logic.

Regardless of the calculation for the 2nd fraction or turn time, exhaustive tests of millions of horses show no comparison to the powerful results obtained with HTR's fraction one. Combination formulas for the Fr1 and turn time (essentially E/P) do not improve the ROI over Fr1 under any circumstances in dirt races. As a stand alone factor Fr2 (turn time, Attack rating) is the least positive of all velocity handicapping factors. This is a complete contradiction to those who believed that Brohamer was preaching the merits of turn time over fraction one in his book. This is not the case, and as early as 1993 Brohamer and I discussed the phenomena of Fr1 over all other ratings for profit and understood that a strong turn time was a baramoter of impending class, and not a money maker on its face.

[delayjf]

Ken,
Thanks for the reply. With turn time in mind I'd like to run this by you.
A while back, when I first started using the Sartin program Synergetic Match-up II, I was most impressed with the predictability of Sustained Pace on the turf. I was amazed at how it was able to predict the winner time after time and at good prices to boot. I recall that Andy Beyer mentioning in one of his books how some of his friends were also having outstanding results with sustained pace on the turf. After years of use I determined that the sustained pace rating was successful on turf for basically two reasons.

1. Sustained pace put the emphasis on that portion of the race that was the most important or dominant in turf racing, the final fraction.

2. That sustained pace does not ignore the rest of the race. Final fractions don't occur in a vaccuum, horses don't, as Trevor would say, "jump in at the quarter pole". Early pace does effect late pace. I also believe that this same logic applies to Average pace as well.

It has occured to me that perhaps there might be a rating simular to sustained pace that would apply to other races (dirt sprints for example); one that took into account the race in its entirety but emphasised the dominant fraction for that type of race. After reviewing Brohamers book I thought that might be the second fraction, with that in mind I preceived the following rating might be the answer in sprints (using the sustained pace templant)
: FX + turn time / 2 or put another way ((1call +3call/2) + 2call)/2 *all variables are fps velocity numbers.

Ken, after reviewing your response it seems I might need to put the emphasis on the first fraction, not the second. Have you already tried something like this, any thoughts?

[Ken Massa]

delayjf, thanks for the dialog.

S/P continues to yield fair results on grass. Overall tests in grass routes find S/P winning about 22% with a 0.88 ROI. None of the other velocity ratings are any better except FR1 for the ROI. Fr1 on grass is the only source to uncover horses 50/1 and up, but the win rate is about than 10% so the volatility high. ROI w/ Fr1 on grass = 0.90+

While it would seem late speed velocity factors would serve us well when handicapping turf races, the results are not there. If you watch turf racing enough you can understand why. The fields are more closely matched classwise and the positiional characteristics of the race as it unfolds will determine the winner rather than raw running power. Problematic pace and trips are the norm on turf in North America where the courses are narrow the turns tight. Methods that calculate time and pace numbers are far more innacurate than the dirt - there just aren't enough races to make a accurate variant. Temporary rail and timer relocation are common, so our fractional data is distorted even more.

Handicapping with class ratings doesn't produce profits on grass either. We have tried and tested everything, including combinations of class and late speed velocity to make money. The public knows who the monsters are and bet them heavily. Top trainers and jockeys tend to monopolize with the best grass runners as well and everyone knows who they are.

So what is the answer? Be more specific with the testing on grass. Races at 1mile on turf at Bay Meadows have nothing in common with 12 furlong marathons at BEL. Each course must be independently researched to uncover profitable nuances.

The formula (F/X + Turn Time) / 2 would yield approximately the same results as A/P but because the formula is weighted with turn time, the results, according to my experience with testing similar formulas, would be weaker than S/P on grass. But you can always test yourself with HTR4MSA and VBA in Access, as the velocity f/p/s numbers are in there and if you know how to program a bit, combining the various fractions in test formulas is a cinch.

[delayjf]

Ken,
I could talk about this all day. I could not agree with you more about the nature of turf racing. Turf racing is very trip oriented and as far a varients are concerned, to be honest with you in Southern Calf with the weather the way it is, I don't think "daily varients" are even necessary. In the short run, not much is done maintense wise to the California turf tracks that will affect it's speed. True, over time and use, turf track speed can change, but not nearly to the degree that it does on dirt. As far as adjustments for rail position, I have no clue. Obviously, sustained pace is at its best when you are comparing horses that have run over the course.
The east coast is a different story all together with the changing weather and the numerous horses shipping in from any one of 20 some odd tracks. My experience (and success) is mainly in Southern Cal where I have not had to deal with the east coast variables. Also, my success has come mainly in the clm and alw races, not the big stakes.
Thanks for the tip on the compound ratings that you have tried. If they are successful, I would think they would be very track dependant with their success depending on the prevailing bias. It will be fun to see how they pan out. After reading your column, I plan to also use the F1 version as well. More to follow, great talking to you. When is the next seminar?
Jeff

[Ken Massa]

Amen to all your comments about grass racing Jeff - thanks for the intelligent commentary. Lucky for us we don't live in Europe where the racing is almost all wet turf! Our annual seminar was held in Las Vegas at the Stardust in June as it has been for the last 6 years. We'll do it again, God willing, in 2002 and hope to meet you there and discuss more velocity handicapping -- in person. A summary of the last event can be found in the July newsletter found on this site.