Are you guys seeing this issue with your data?
At some point Gulfstream changed races originally scheduled for Turf to be moved to the Tapeta instead of the main track. Because there has always been one symbol for "off the turf" that historically means "moved to dirt", my incoming data is showing off the turf races as ran on dirt, when they were actually moved to tapeta. — Dustin Korth

What is your data source?

Ranch- I have never seen a rule prohibiting this practice. I have seen trainers requiring some sorts of kickbacks from riders but nothing like this story. Illegal no- unethical yes — Tony Kofalt

Exactly.

Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. :)
I got them from Benter. ;)

Here are the time decay factors in HSH.


Here are the Composite Factors.


Take a look at Time-Decay Stretch Run and the like.

Dave has a product entitled "Understanding Early Speed".... In one of the later chapters he defines four distinct race shapes based upon "pace pressure" (using Quirin Early Speed Points).... If there is "no discernable pace pressure" or in other words, pace pressure is not predictable, then you have a "chaos" race.... This "process" has served me well and I'll leave it to Dave to elaborate if he so chooses....

Or, I'm sure he'd be pleased if you purchased this excellent product!

BTW, I'm not a shill for Dave and I must admit I've purchased most all of his products.... I've both used and discarded many of his ideas; but without exception, I've found handicapping "nuggets" in all of them! — Jack Price

Just awesome.

I just happen to have a link right here.
Understanding Early Speed

I'm not sure if I have much to offer because, to me, "Chaos Race" means something very different than it seems to mean to you guys.

Not saying you're wrong, but to me it indicates... well, chaos. LOL

Now, I understand that in the mathematical sense, "chaos" really means that order exists where there seems to be no order.

But, my opinion is that when you find a CHAOS RACE, you (essentially) don't handicap it because the handicapping won't select the winner.

My belief being what it is, CHAOS could easily mean HANIDCAPPING WILL FAIL.

I find TWO INSTANCES that consistently produce CHAOS RACES:

• Very Low Odds Horse Loses
• Early Speed Fails

What language are you using, Dave? — RanchWest

I use a language called Clarion.
http://www.softvelocity.com/

I am on probably my fourth or fifth version (hopefully a final version) of my software. — Steven

There is an old saying... "Being a programmer means never having to say you are finished."

I don't get away with zero documentation/notation but I am pretty much to minimum documentation/notation. I had to abandon hundreds of hours of code in order to write better code. — Steven

I feel your pain.
I had to abandon over 10,000 hours worth of working code from HSH!
(That's 2/3s of all the coding I did in of 20 years on HSH!)

I've built a strict rule:
"All new code will fit my personal 10-x Coding Standards."

I am sure you know how difficult this is - to take the CODING HIGH ROAD for everything new.

Like, I was writing a simple set of list-up/down buttons.
Imagine, you have an alpha list but you want it sorted in a LOGICAL ORDER way.
Further, you don't want the user to have to ever type in a logical order number.

In HSH, I actually used numbers, but I vowed to do better code in the Studio and going forward.

So, I bit the bullet and spent about 15 hours writing a set of functions to manage this, instead of maybe 1 hour to get it working the old way.
(If you want to know how it works, I'd be happy to show you.)

But there was a payoff.
I've now used it in about 10 different browses, and have begun to reap the returns, because it now takes about 15 minutes to facilitate adding those buttons and making them functional in any browse!

Not EVEN yet, but getting there.

WONDERFUL POST!

Have you been reading this book?
Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship

Thank you!
I just downloaded @Jack Price's work.

I will take a look.

I can't speak for Tony, but as someone who has built ABC tickets, I suspect it would benefit Tony to have multiple calculators.

AB/ABC/ABC
A/ABC/C
C/AB/ABC

That sort of thing. — RanchWest

Actually building that in The Studio part today.

Please, tell me what can be improved because I want to build a ticket writer into the new software

I cannot seem to download as a exe (I changed the file to exe) but it says I cannot open due to being a Microsoft file on a Apple — Conley

That's correct.
It is a Windows app.

Scroll up a couple of posts.

@RanchWest was kind enough to post it.

Thank you.
I actually have this program.
It works quite well.

I'd love to see what you've done.

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.

What if the allocation was based on an odds line instead of the tote board?

And, how do you know when the odds don't support what you need to make? — RanchWest

That's precisely what I do now: Create an aML (artificial morning line) and bet into it, but only considering my contenders. It is the contender process that makes it work.

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.

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.