osulldj,

I've just started on your earlier posts and internet site (which you've curiously omitted from your profile). That odyssey will probably take a while, but at first glance your ideas are close to my independent ones about the issues for advanced time and pace rating.

Meanwhile, back to the point of contention.

I claimed that "AVERAGE times don't work". NOT that "times don't work".

Your process does much more than merely average times.

Now, as briefly and simply as possible, here's a technique which does NOT use averages, but I believe is more precise.

A mere 29 comparisons may not seem much, but it's nearly the best available for any track. This one is for same meeting 1200m races at Kembla between Maiden and Open handicaps.

The median data is:

70.85 Maiden
69.63 Open

Difference = 1.22 seconds
Ratio = 1.017521


Call these Opens "standard" and convert these Maidens to "standard" by dividing by 1.017521.

This now allows us a much improved 46 comparisons between Class 2 HCP and Standard.

The median difference for Class 2 is 0.76 seconds slower than Standard.

Continue in this way to build a precise class ladder.

Then once the class factor has been removed select the time (say) 10% away from the fastest one to use as a standard 1200m time for Kembla Opens.

In my reduced example above the times read:

68.18 Record (appears legitimate)
69.33 10% from record
70.31 Median
70.47 Average


The reasoning behind all this is:

[*] Same meeting comparisons mitigate any effect of track conditions. I mistrust "official" track readings


[*] Medians are better than averages for possibly crappy data


[*] The 69.33 is less likely to have the 68.18 possible problems of errors, flukes, freak conditions, unrepeatability


[*] But it's fast enough to suggest a decent track and a reasonable pace


[*] The 70.31 Median is nearly 1 second away, and more than 2 outside the legit record. Suggesting they don't mind having a loaf there. But I want to measure how fast horses can run, not how well they loaf.


[/list]







_________________
jfc
~



[ This Message was edited by: jfc on 2003-06-17 14:05 ]

[ This Message was edited by: jfc on 2003-06-17 14:06 ]