Seems like your outlook is a lot like "Jimmy's" who I mentioned above.

Conley,
I do something very similar, starting at the bottom working up, looking for form cycles and trying to figure out how the horse fits to today's conditions and where his form is today.

↪Conley

Seems like your outlook is a lot like "Jimmy's" who I mentioned above. — Dave Schwartz

Is that a good thing or bad thing?

Conley,
I do something very similar, starting at the bottom working up, looking for form cycles and trying to figure out how the horse fits to today's conditions and where his form is today. — Tom

Cool! Glad we think alike :)

Excellent approach

Is that a good thing or bad thing? — Conley

As I said, I learned a lot from him.

But I suppose the proper answer would be, "That depends upon whether or not it is working for you."

Based upon the picks you've posted it would seem that it is.
(Allowing for small sample, of course.)

Okay, back from the ether.

I found a few items on time decay variables but the most informative was Jeff Pratt's (jCapper Jeff) description of some new jCapper time delay variables. He uses a half life of 120 days so I tried that. Taking the maidens out of the spreadsheet gives us a win percentage at GPX 2021 of 21.9% with an roi of 1.77.

Next question "is 120 days a good half life or is there a better one, 90 days, 75 days?????". I'll get around to answering my own question when I get to sit down in front of the computer for another couple of hours.

Next question "is 120 days a good half life or is there a better one, 90 days, 75 days?????". I'll get around to answering my own question when I get to sit down in front of the computer for another couple of hours. — Steven

That is the standard Benter approach.
I've tried some others a decade ago and it seemed to be better.
Might have shifted out a little further but not by much.

Your post describes a different purpose than what I use it for.

I am using it as a METRIC so that I don't have to BUILD A STORY.

That's why I can completely handicap a race in 3 minutes, giving me time to enjoy the watching of the race.

So many people see each race as a PUZZLE to be figured out.

I see RACING as the PUZZLE!

I would be interested in what you learnt about the Australian approach. Can you share it?

I would be interested in what you learnt about the Australian approach. Can you share it? — John Rosier

A couple of very cool ideas.

First, understand that the AUS PPs are just... lacking. What we take for granted in the depth and quality of data is literally like 50x what the AUS punters have!

When working with the AUS guys I was able to get their data. Would you believe that what we get for (say) $125 per month would cost over $3,000 over there - and would still be like 1/3 of ours!

So, when I say, that I learned some good stuff, I don't mean that it is readily available.

So, here's some cool ideas that I will be adding to our stuff.

RAN WELL
Think of it as sort of like Quirin's "Good Race."
Ran 1st,2nd,3rd
or
Within 2 lengths (3 lengths in a route)

But, instead, they measure it in lengths behind the winner.

EXPECTED TO RUN WELL
Imagine a table that has 2 columns.

• 1st column is ODDS.
• 2nd column is lengths behind

Now imagine that the Lengths Behind column represents the Average Lengths Behind for a horse in each of the given odds ranges.

Thus, one can look at a horse that is 5/2 and say that HE SHOULD RUN WITHIN 2.3 LENGTHS.
(Not the actual number.)

Imagine having that for each odds range.

CORRELATING ODDS TO LENGTHS & BACK
The upshot of this is that a particular performance (i.e. beaten lengths) can now be graded as "He ran like 2/1" or "He ran like 12/1."

Of course, the class levels are another cool thing, but I will leave that for another day.

If you want to see an interesting analysis of Expected Performance Last Start vs Actual Performance This Start see https://www.betfair.com.au/hub/importance-of-previous-starting-prices/
The analysis relates to Australian racing and the article is on Betfair Australia site. Let me know if you can't access it.

If you want to see an interesting analysis of Expected Performance Last Start vs Actual Performance This Start see https://www.betfair.com.au/hub/importance-of-previous-starting-prices/
The analysis relates to Australian racing and the article is on Betfair Australia site. Let me know if you can't access it. — John Rosier

That is an excellent article!
A bit more in-depth than the one I read on Sky Racing.

Thank you.

Dave: are you willing to share what makes Jimmy's work out chart different than the standard work out chart where there is a point scale for the various times at the various distances. Thanks!

Dave: are you willing to share what makes Jimmy's work out chart different than the standard work out chart where there is a point scale for the various times at the various distances. Thanks! — Jim Michalak

Sure.

Do you have the workout chart?

Let me see if I can find a link.

Dave: are you willing to share what makes Jimmy's work out chart different than the standard work out chart where there is a point scale for the various times at the various distances. Thanks! — Jim Michalak

HorseStreet Workout Chart

Take a look at it and see if there is anything that strikes you as meriting discussion.

Take a look at it and see if there is anything that strikes you as meriting discussion. — Dave Schwartz

In the recesses of my mind is something about breezing and handily being different in different regions, east vs. west. This had to have been from at least 15 years ago and maybe much more. Have you ever heard anything like that? I don't know whether it was true back then or whether it would still be true today.

Dave: what is the thinking behind making the horse's time slower for a gate work? Also, are the additions and subtractions for breezing, gate and muddy full seconds or fifths of seconds? Most work out charts I have seen start with 100 points = 46 seconds for 4 furlongs whereas Jimmy's is 46.4. It also goes up to 120 points. And the scoring is different. thank you for posting.

Dave: what is the thinking behind making the horse'stime slower for a gate work? Also, are the additions and subtractions for breezing, gate and muddy full seconds or fifths of seconds? Most work out charts I have seen start with 100 points = 46 seconds for 4 furlongs whereas Jimmy's is 46.4. It also goes up to 120 points. And the scoring is different. thank you for posting. — Jim Michalak

1/5s of a second.
Remember this was built a long time ago. Back then everything was done in 1/5s.

Slower for gate work
Jimmy always said that a horse who needed to work from the gate had a problem with the gate.

I first researched this about 1998 or so. Tried a bunch of different numbers - ranging from +8 to -8 and could not find anything better than -5. (i.e. same as Jimmy.)

In the recesses of my mind is something about breezing and handily being different in different regions, east vs. west. This had to have been from at least 15 years ago and maybe much more. Have you ever heard anything like that? I don't know whether it was true back then or whether it would still be true today. — RanchWest

I did that test as well. The results were that Breezing vs Handily, while inconsistent at some tracks, still enhanced the results.

Building Track Workout Pars
I also tried building track pars for workouts.
Every effort I made with that was a complete failure.

While it seems obvious (to me) that works from AQU should be on a different scale from (say) WYO, I just could find no basis for any adjustment.

It's like daily variants... Sure, I create them in my HorseStree Pars. But I NEVER actually use them.

Every study I have ever done indicates that no variant outperforms any variant.

Not saying that figures made on a race-by-race basis are not an improvement.
A craftsman can work numbers with figs. Or they can be completely inconsistent. Depends on the craftsman.

But even the best numbers are not going to make THAT MUCH difference.
Before you jump all over me for that one... It is the PROPER INTERPRETATION of those numbers that make it work.

Before you jump all over me for that one... — Dave Schwartz

The only way I use variants is as one of many, many factors as to whether to use a line as my pace line. If the variant is too extreme, it may not be a representative line.

Every study I have ever done indicates that no variant outperforms any variant. — Dave Schwartz

So why not just use raw times?

So why not just use raw times? — Biniak

Because they are not as good as ratings produced from pars.

Pars WORK!
AVERAGE Daily variants do not.

Also, generally speaking, the longer the distance, the slower the speed. So, you have to compare to some standard for the distance. And, those standards, pars, can vary by track.

Also, generally speaking, the longer the distance, the slower the speed. So, you have to compare to some standard for the distance. And, those standards, pars, can vary by track. — RanchWest

When I say, PARS I am referring to the track par - how fast the track is - as opposed to what's the par for this race?

When I say, PARS I am referring to the track par - how fast the track is - as opposed to what's the par for this race? — Dave Schwartz

When I think of a par, I think in terms of a speed for a distance at a track. So, I can then look at a past performance line and evaluate how well a horse did when it ran a mile at SA as opposed to 5f at FG or 7f at SAR. Does that seem to conform to your definition and usage of pars?

My main point was that in terms of fps or mph, a mile race is almost always going to be slower than a 5f race, so that is one of the reasons we cannot use raw times.

Of course. This is obvious.

Of course. This is obvious. — Dave Schwartz

Well, the question did arise.

Ah, Biniak's "Why not use raw times?"
Got it.

Ah, that dumbass Biniak. He's the dullest tool in the shed.

Ah, that dumbass Biniak. He's the dullest tool in the shed. — Biniak

Yes, we took a secret poll and that's what we all agreed. LOL
(Couldn't find a roll eyes emoji in there.)