One factor is that some horses don't do well next to the rail, especially lightly raced horses. When it comes to turn time, I get concerned about horses too slow at the turn time. I have to have some reason to believe those horses can effectively close a lot of ground.

Yes, Harbour will handle Clipper code with extremely few if any changes. And it runs on today's machines as compiled C code. It also can incorporate a GUI interface and other features from Windows and other modern requirements. It can handle the dBase/Clipper files (Clipper handles more fields than dBase) as well as other database engines. i forgot to mention that my output i mentioned was using input from a Clipper file.

In my opinion, speed is not an issue with Harbour. My output is to HTML files and today I wrote 109 files (all of the races in NA), 49 megabytes, in 2 minutes. That's with 17 sections (bloodlines, jockeys, past performances, special calculations, etc.) for each race, including much of it being color coded. And with many, many complex calculations.

Looking forward to it, Dave.

But on a FoxPro note. My software, which I do not share or sell, is written in Harbour, another dBase offshoot that had Clipper as the in-between. Any half-way decent language can make horse race calculations. While I don't claim to be the greatest handicapper around, I do well enough to post my selections online nearly every day. The cool part is that I can make any modification I want at any time I want.

Tony, spring cleaning can be such an adventure. lol

For us that wager, I've found that the most effective way to predict the finals odds is to utilize the 'will pays' — Tony Kofalt

Good point, Tony. I think in many instances, it not only points to the off odds, but may actually drive the off odds from people tracking this info on computer.

I did awful on Friday, but here's my Saturday results, posted on another board:

Recap of top 4 on 12 races:

1: 3.40 10.60 24.60
2: 8.40
3: 14.40
4: 5.00
Out: 10.20 7.60 7.00 6.20 101.80 19.00

Tony, that was a good call on including CeCe.

Thanks, guys! Very insightful analysis and fun conversation. I don't have an opportunity to have this type of live discussion very often, so I found it particularly enjoyable. You guys were very polite, which helped a lot.

My first time at the track was nearly 50 years ago. I feel quite fortunate that my clueless ways back then are not in my memory today.

I do remember a time when my girlfriend at the time asked why I bet a horse. I said because Estaban Medina was the jockey. Next race, we headed to the windows separately and on return she asked which horse I bet. She got upset because Medina was not on that horse. I told her of course not... he won last race. She was not amused. lol

I would like to participate if I possibly can. I'd be especially interested in differing opinions on the foreign horses.

Tom, I agree with Dave.

Those are pretty good numbers towards a contenders list, but it takes a lot more data plus value toward making final decisions.

Dave, I think there is a right answer to the wrong question in here somewhere.

Tony, I agree on time decay. Many of today's trainers have solid intent first off a long layoff, as evidenced by their high win percentages. And, I, too, am willing to go well back into the running lines to find a race that might correspond to today's race. For instance, turf route lines tell me little about what will happen in today's dirt sprint. In fact, I've come to consider selecting a "pace line" as one of the most important aspects of handicapping. And that certainly is contrary to time decay.

Did you read my book from 2012, Percentages & Probabilities?

In that book, I did a whole chapter on building STRENGTH RATINGS. They are far better than par times. — Dave Schwartz

Could you tell me which specific chapter you are referencing? I did purchase the book. I can't say that I ever dove into it full bore.

Also in all of this we have to consider the races that are a mixed bag. A state-bred filly 10,000 claimer for non-winners of a race in a year is not the same as an open 10,000 claimer.

IOW, not all $16,000 claiming races are populated with $16,000 horses. — Dave Schwartz

That's true. But horses dropping to their lowest claiming price and horses first time in for a tag have increased chances of winning, as a group. Of course, extreme claiming price drops can raise suspicion. So, I do think claiming prices are generally one means of measuring class.

I can't recite the numbers, but studies I have seen suggest that 3 yo's progress through their 3 yo campaign and continue to progress, on average, into their 4 yo and somewhat into their 5 yo years. So, my assertion, or at least my hypothesis, is that a 3 yo who beats older horses has completed an accomplishment that suggests class.

Another class indicator that comes to my mind is stretch duel wins... the horses that want it more.

My goal in this thread has not been to establish the class level of a race, but rather to establish the class level of a horse.

Good point, Dave. There's also state-bred vs non-state-bred, distaffers against males, changes in age restrictions, etc. Remember how easily Easy Goer won against 3 yo after beating older two weeks prior?

Total Energy, Scott's PCR, Races where a speed rating was earned higher than today's par, races where the par was higher than today's par, races above BRIS CR or RR, Quirin "good races" at above today's par, wins at above today's par, APV, EPS, consecutive wins, claiming prices, Talbot box. There's a lot of ways to measure class.