Time

[Perrault Robbed]

From a Blogger's post a few years ago:

"I learned the game from my Dad and his brother, two of the most conscientious handicappers the game has ever produced. Each was doing his own speed figures back in the late 60’s when few folks even knew what the term meant. I distinctly remember sitting in the box at Jefferson Downs one night listening to my Dad and Uncle debate a certain horse’s running times. I was in grade school at the time. Out of the blue, a guy in a neighboring box opined, “What difference does time make; it only counts if you’re in prison,” after which he and his buddies had a good laugh.
On the way home I asked my Dad what it meant.
“What it meant, son” said my Dad, “is that the guy who made that statement is a flaming ******.”
Years ago, my Dad put together a system for identifying improving horses based on this very premise that is as cogent today as it was then, and is so simple anyone use do. The system is based purely on internal race fractions, rather than final times. For example, a sprinter who runs 3 lengths behind a :45.4 half mile pace who ran 4 lengths behind a :46.2 half-mile pace last time out, by my Dad’s system, improved by 4 lengths – regardless of where he finished in that “improving” race! Likewise, a router who runs 2 lengths behind a 1:12.2 three-quarter mile fraction who was on the lead last time out in 1:14 flat, by this system, improved by 6 lengths -- regardless of where he finished in that “improving” race!
In order to apply this system, one thing you must do is completely ignore BSF, which by and large are based on final times +/- variants, and completely ignore internal fractions. And because they do, you’ll be astounded how often an “improving” horse, by my Dad’s system, gets a lower BSF in his “improving” race than in his previous race. And, of course, horses that appear to be regressing per the BSF almost always are ignored by the betting public, which often makes for juicy payouts."

Someone quoting Charlie Whittingham: "Time only matters when you're catching a bus or sitting in jail."

What might be inferred here is that Dad, one of the most conscientious handicappers the game has ever seen, would have considered the Bald Eagle a "flaming ******."
Are Charlie and Dad both somewhat wise and somewhat "retarded" as it comes to the relevance of that most human of dimensions, Time, to handicapping which four-legged equine beast will get to the wire first?
I am listening to Thoroughbed L.A. as I type this post, and the first thing to come out of the host's mouth was the disparity between BM's final Time vs Alternation's.
My friends, we are in the midst of an era of clock-Time crazed handicapping. Dad was in the vanguard. What a man he is/must have been.
I ask you now, how much credence should we apply to the numbers clock-Time produces after races when we are placing down cash money on these beasts?

Like many on this board, I often become consumed with DRF PPs, reviewing numbers while the majority of the world is in REM mode.
Personally, however, I rarely even give Beyers a look when I handicap, but I am for the most part a very localised handicapper who knows almost all the races from which a horse has competed as well as the day particular races took place. On the other hand, I believe that in a race like the Derby these clock-Time figures play a more vital role because the beasts are coming from all over the country, sometimes even the globe.

Yet, from my earliest days as a handicapper (somewhere around the age of 13) up until present Time, the words of the Bald Eagle have always surfaced as a constant reminder, a la Socrates' daemon, to consider and reconsider where your thinking is taking you.

How important a role do figs like Beyers, the Rags, etc., play into your handicapping and betting? As there are so many astute views on this board, your educated opinion would be highly valued. Thank you for your patience and your view of the thoroughbred horse racing world. I look forward to reading your contributions.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Perrault Robbed

From a Blogger's post a few years ago:

"I learned the game from my Dad and his brother, two of the most conscientious handicappers the game has ever produced. Each was doing his own speed figures back in the late 60’s when few folks even knew what the term meant. I distinctly remember sitting in the box at Jefferson Downs one night listening to my Dad and Uncle debate a certain horse’s running times. I was in grade school at the time. Out of the blue, a guy in a neighboring box opined, “What difference does time make; it only counts if you’re in prison,” after which he and his buddies had a good laugh.
On the way home I asked my Dad what it meant.
“What it meant, son” said my Dad, “is that the guy who made that statement is a flaming ******.”
Years ago, my Dad put together a system for identifying improving horses based on this very premise that is as cogent today as it was then, and is so simple anyone use do. The system is based purely on internal race fractions, rather than final times. For example, a sprinter who runs 3 lengths behind a :45.4 half mile pace who ran 4 lengths behind a :46.2 half-mile pace last time out, by my Dad’s system, improved by 4 lengths – regardless of where he finished in that “improving” race! Likewise, a router who runs 2 lengths behind a 1:12.2 three-quarter mile fraction who was on the lead last time out in 1:14 flat, by this system, improved by 6 lengths -- regardless of where he finished in that “improving” race!
In order to apply this system, one thing you must do is completely ignore BSF, which by and large are based on final times +/- variants, and completely ignore internal fractions. And because they do, you’ll be astounded how often an “improving” horse, by my Dad’s system, gets a lower BSF in his “improving” race than in his previous race. And, of course, horses that appear to be regressing per the BSF almost always are ignored by the betting public, which often makes for juicy payouts."

Someone quoting Charlie Whittingham: "Time only matters when you're catching a bus or sitting in jail."

What might be inferred here is that Dad, one of the most conscientious handicappers the game has ever seen, would have considered the Bald Eagle a "flaming ******."
Are Charlie and Dad both somewhat wise and somewhat "retarded" as it comes to the relevance of that most human of dimensions, Time, to handicapping which four-legged equine beast will get to the wire first?
I am listening to Thoroughbed L.A. as I type this post, and the first thing to come out of the host's mouth was the disparity between BM's final Time vs Alternation's.
My friends, we are in the midst of an era of clock-Time crazed handicapping. Dad was in the vanguard. What a man he is/must have been.
I ask you now, how much credence should we apply to the numbers clock-Time produces after races when we are placing down cash money on these beasts?

Like many on this board, I often become consumed with DRF PPs, reviewing numbers while the majority of the world is in REM mode.
Personally, however, I rarely even give Beyers a look when I handicap, but I am for the most part a very localised handicapper who knows almost all the races from which a horse has competed as well as the day particular races took place. On the other hand, I believe that in a race like the Derby these clock-Time figures play a more vital role because the beasts are coming from all over the country, sometimes even the globe.

Yet, from my earliest days as a handicapper (somewhere around the age of 13) up until present Time, the words of the Bald Eagle have always surfaced as a constant reminder, a la Socrates' daemon, to consider and reconsider where your thinking is taking you.

How important a role do figs like Beyers, the Rags, etc., play into your handicapping and betting? As there are so many astute views on this board, your educated opinion would be highly valued. Thank you for your patience and your view of the thoroughbred horse racing world. I look forward to reading your contributions.

I think they are sometimes overrated, and biased.

I think most people on here will agree.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

I think they are sometimes overrated, and biased.

I think most people on here will agree.

If you're trying to analyze a race and a performance...you're going to do a pretty piss poor job over the long run if you can't gauge how fast the race was run.

It's central to everything in handicapping...and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

All of the angles, skills, stats, trip work, and clever betting you can do isn't going to get you far enough if you can't consistantly gauge fractions and final time VS track speed.

The commerical figures tend to do a very good job of that in situations where making a figure is easy.

In other situations...like Wood Memorial day when you have a strong head-wind down the backstretch and only one two-turn route carded all day and it's for young lightly raced horses ... accuracy becomes a lot tougher to achieve.

Some commerical figs try to bake stuff like weight and ground loss in - others don't. None of them are regionally biased or have some agenda.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

If you're trying to analyze a race and a performance...you're going to do a pretty piss poor job over the long run if you can't gauge how fast the race was run.

It's central to everything in handicapping...and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

All of the angles, skills, stats, trip work, and clever betting you can do isn't going to get you far enough if you can't consistantly gauge fractions and final time VS track speed.

The commerical figures tend to do a very good job of that in situations where making a figure is easy.

In other situations...like Wood Memorial day when you have a strong head-wind down the backstretch and only one two-turn route carded all day and it's for young lightly raced horses ... accuracy becomes a lot tougher to achieve.

Some commerical figs try to bake stuff like weight and ground loss in - others don't. None of them are regionally biased or have some agenda.

Yeah, well, why don't figure makers leave their numbers alone? I mean, why fudge numbers that you aren't comfortable with just because you aren't comfortable with them?

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Yeah, well, why don't figure makers leave their numbers alone? I mean, why fudge numbers that you aren't comfortable with just because you aren't comfortable with them?

Every commerical figure maker has their own habits and tendencies for dealing with situations. You hope that they're at least consistant in method and can put you in the ballpark when tricky situations arise.

[Perrault Robbed]

Out of the commercial figures, who does the best job in terms of consistency?

Secondly, when you have a track like Santa Anita this meet that is just closing, how well can you gauge the times of the races? It leveled off a tad in terms of insane clockings as the meet wore on, but, all in all fractional and final times bordered on the absurdly fast to the point that I didnt even give them a look until maybe the last month of the meet or so. Does a track get so fast that it makes gauging fractional and final times vs track speed nearly impossible?