I understand.

I've seen lots of formulas that try to combine pace and speed figures. I tinkered with a few for a couple of years but don't bother anymore. Some average the pace and speed figure. Others have some other type of adjustment. I could never get anything to work right because I think the horses are very individual.

I don't try to count the pennies anymore.

If my figures look like this:

A. 92P - 80F Par 80
B. 80P - 80F Par 80

I know that in most cases "A" ran the better race. However, I don't bother converting his race to an 86 or something like that.

If "A" consistently puts up final figures of 80 regardless of whether the pace figure is 100 or 80, I know he's probably a super quick horse that isn't strained by running slightly faster than usual early. It might take a pace of 110 to have a negative impact.

If my figures look like this:

A. 92P - 80F
B. 84P - 84F

I know the horses are similar. I'm not paid to determine which one is a hair better than the other. All these figures are just ballpark. If the horses are bet similarly, there's probably no value. If they aren't I'll take the longer horse.

If my figures look like this:

A's last race: 70P - 95F
A's prior race: 103P - 103P
A's 2 prior race: 100P - 102P

I know that the really slow pace in A's last race probably impacted his final time negatively and he's really a low 100 horse.

If my figures look like this:

A's last race: 70P - 102F
A's prior race: 103P - 103P
A's 2 prior race: 100P - 102P

I would look at the rest of A's record. If he has a history of extreme late brilliance I won't give him extra credit for that extremely slow pace. He might be one of those rare horses that has enough late speed brilliance to overcome the slow pace and still record his normal final figure. Most horses are more even paced though and would be impacted. If the pace was a 50 and his final figure 90, then I probably would adjust upward.

So I would say that what I doing is using the pace figures in an artful way as opposed to a formulized way.



Post Edited (02-06-05 15:44)