PDA

View Full Version : Information overload


andicap
04-29-2004, 05:14 PM
I've been thinking with this new Formulator 4.0 and all the trainer info, charts, etc. available on it. Does anyone think it's all (not just the DRF but everywhere) TOO MUCH information.

If this was 1980 and we were all just betting one card a day (OK, except for Karl) it might be great. But since many of us are looking over 2 or 3 cards when we bet (or more), can't all this information get overwhelming. I can't check EVERY trainer for what he did under today's conditions trying to find a pattern or check EVERY chart (or even a lot of them -- that was just for effect.)
Outside of people who are retired, professionals or students cutting classes, who has time, especially if you have a family and other obligations like most of us do.

I'll try Formulator of course because I am interested in those new features and you've got to keep up with the competition, but at what point do you go crazy looking at so many things? i'm thinking about the guy on board who has spent a week capping the Derby and is more confused than ever.
I don't plan to spend more time on this than I do on a normal complex race. That's 15 minutes max. If I do too much I'll second guess myself right out a horse like War Emblem which I did when my figures said, "go," but my brain said "stop."

As Yogi Berra once said, (paraphrasing) you can think too much.

cj
04-29-2004, 05:52 PM
I'm with you, I spend 10 minutes tops looking at a race. I look at overall ability, any notable trainer changes (ie possibility of a big jump up,) and current form. That's about it, and it serves me pretty well. I'm afraid if I dig too deep I'll talk myself out of as many horses that win as I'll find new winners. Main thing I use F4 for is to look at charts for the more detailed comment.

For example, yesterday's 9th at CD the top figure horse had this comment in his PPs:

Forced pace, faltered

In the chart:

CLOUD WALKER maneuvered in soon after the start to press the winner five wide, continued in closest attendance to STRENGTH AND HONOR into the final furlong and faltered.

That's about it for me. Too much is not worth the time for me.

keilan
04-29-2004, 06:33 PM
I tend to agree with you.

I make a point of not reading any information written about any of the Derby horses. Bits of information keep me from thinking clearly and I realize from past Derby's that I tend to consider bits of information that are written by writers not accomplished players.

Matter of fact I almost never look at the morning line in any race. After I have chosen the horses I like, I then try and formulate a wagering strategy to get the most out of the race.

I'll treat this race like any other but I suspect it will take me about 20 minutes to disect the race. I'm going to handicap the Derby from the premise that the pace will be brisk but the winner will be either an E or EP horse. If I'm wrong I'll live with that.

TravisVOX
04-29-2004, 06:40 PM
The Kentucky Derby takes all us horseplayers as victims. "My horse looks super" or "I'm really excited about our chances." Right. I can't go with that, I'm looking at the numbers, trips and the standard operating procedure. Getting set to finalize my selection tonight...stay tuned! hahaha, riiiight. Take care and good luck.

Fastracehorse
04-29-2004, 06:55 PM
<I've been thinking with this new Formulator 4.0 and all the trainer info, charts, etc. available on it. Does anyone think it's all (not just the DRF but everywhere) TOO MUCH information.
================================

I think you nailed that one bang on Andicap.

I get better at handicapping as I continually prove myself wrong. That is, when you learn what doesn't work, you are learning what does.

There is an advantage to filtering the noise ( noise=useless information ). And that advantage is: You can handicap more tracks.

fffastt

SAL
04-29-2004, 09:58 PM
I disagree. The key to coming out ahead in this game is having information that your opponents do not. If you know something about a particular runner, race, or trainer that most people don't, you have an edge.

I have found Formulator 4 to be the most advanced handicapping product I have used yet.

Tom
04-29-2004, 10:56 PM
andicap,
I use either Testor or the exposrt datbase from HTR and then play what is winning there. I used that simple procedure for every rade during KOTH and had very acceptable results. The best I have ever had in many, many years. And the streak continues. I spend a lot less time per race than ever before, In fact, for SA on the last doay of the contest, I did the entire in 7 minutes and hit ver 50% winners. There was a threatening thunderstorm, it got pitch black out at noon, and I was aftraid I would lose power so I had to hurry.
The secret, for me, is to strip out all those extaneous things and focus on what I understand and what works through my records.

jackad
04-29-2004, 11:16 PM
Tom,
What's Testor?

Jack

trying2win
04-29-2004, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by Tom
andicap,
I used that simple procedure for every rade during KOTH and had very acceptable results.


TOM,

I know that "rade" is probably a typo for race, but what does KOTH mean? I'm just curious.

Thanks,

T2W

Tom
04-29-2004, 11:39 PM
KOTH - King of the Hill Contest-was held here on PA's board-see special section. Next one starts Saturday.

Tester- it is a utility in HTR that allows you to look at the WP results and ROI of a multitude of factors. A quick and dirt proile of what wins at certain tracks. Things like velocity (EP, AP, SP F1, F2, F3,) speed ratings, etc,

trying2win
04-29-2004, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by Tom
KOTH - King of the Hill Contest-was held here on PA's board-see special section. Next one starts Saturday.


Thanks Tom,

I'm now more enlightened....

T2W

andicap
04-30-2004, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by Tom
KOTH - King of the Hill Contest-was held here on PA's board-see special section. Next one starts Saturday.

Tester- it is a utility in HTR that allows you to look at the WP results and ROI of a multitude of factors. A quick and dirt proile of what wins at certain tracks. Things like velocity (EP, AP, SP F1, F2, F3,) speed ratings, etc,

Thanks, Tom. You know, I don't run that tester as often as I should -- probably because I'm so skeptical of automatic pacelines, but I will now check it out. :cool:

trying2win
04-30-2004, 04:55 AM
ANDICAP,

Speaking of information overload , I just noticed at the Brisnet site, that they have a bunch of new products for handicappers. Things like

--Daily Clocker Reports,
--Daily Performance Ratings
--Weekly Clocker Reports
--Weekly Trip Notes
--Weekly Fit and Ready Lists
--Extra Workout Reports
--Horses to Watch List

The above list seems like a bunch of extra reports for worry-warts who are afraid they're going to miss some little things in their handicapping. The only thing they might find they're missing, is in their wallets to pay for all this extra info... LOL.

I prefer the KEEP IT SIMPLE, time-saving style of handicapping. Eliminate certain types of races, and short-field races. Then scan the remaining races with the handicapping software I use, looking for possible plays. Apply a few filters and make some decisons. How about you?

Regards,


T2W

bettheoverlay
04-30-2004, 09:14 AM
I have been shedding as much information as possible the last few years. I've learned to trust my instincts after 40 years of this stuff, because I do much better that way. My best scores historically have been when I devoted the least amount of time to the bet.

Or maybe I'm just too dumb to effectively analyze race shapes, feet per second, track bias and all the assorted esoterica others have so much confidence in.

Tom
04-30-2004, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by andicap
Thanks, Tom. You know, I don't run that tester as often as I should -- probably because I'm so skeptical of automatic pacelines, but I will now check it out. :cool:

Andy,
It is easy to use Testor wtih each of the paceline modes. In fact, I find PL 1 superior in Maiden races, PL2 in high class stakes, alw, etc and PL4 in turf races. Testor will tell which is the most predictive at each track rather quickly. And I also can use PL0 to monitor my own paceline selection. GR1 posted some stuff about this a while back.

formula_2002
04-30-2004, 10:53 AM
Andy, with no little data to back it up, in the long run no single published factor or combination of factors can be proven to contunually beat the take out.

Randomness plays a very large part in this game and is so little understood or even considered by a very large portion of the betting public.

I have had more winning days playing craps and 21 then I have ever had in over 30 years playing horses.

Good luck in the derby.

My picks are as follows;

PROGRAM number =ROUND(((# horses in field)/2)+.5)

.and.OR.

PROGRAM number =ROUND(( race number/2)+.5)

Tom
04-30-2004, 11:08 AM
Assuming a take out of 16%, are you saying that no longer term factor can show an ROI of greater than 83%?
And what do you mean by long term? How long is long term?
IS it a year, two years, 6 months?
Not being a wise-guy here...I think this might be an interesting topic to explore.

formula_2002
04-30-2004, 11:23 AM
Tom, it's not so much the time as it is the number of bets.

How many bets? Well ,I have back fitted several thousand races that gave me a nice profit, but if I were to bet the next several thousand races I would have shown a loss.
So, when that no longer happens, I guess it may be time to bet...

I have found the Bris Power rating to be the best single rating out there. It reduces the effect of the take out on short price horses even further then the normal short price biase does.

Joe M

Figman
04-30-2004, 12:25 PM
There has always been an informational overload for BIG races!
And some so-called insignificant factors actually might be important. Witness the following two snippets:

From the 2004 Thoroughbred Times-

The hospitality Dickinson laid out for Tapit’s visit to Churchill includes his regular treat of three eggs and a bottle of Guinness Stout and a tract of sod brought from Tapeta near North East, Maryland, so the colt can graze on his familiar grass each day for about 30 minutes.

From the 1959 NY Times by George Vecsey when writing about the biggest trotting race of the time The International Trot at Roosevelt Raceway on Long Island, NY (Courtesy of Bennett Liebman at the Albany Law School website)-

That summer, when there was an embargo on vegetables from France, Joey Goldstein worried that JAMIN might starve without his standard diet. He took out tiny advertisements on the front pages of The Times and The Tribune, saying ''French Trotter Needs Artichokes. Can You Help?'' and giving the Roosevelt Raceway phone number.

''Papers put reporters on the artichoke beat,'' Goldstein recalled. ''People from the Bronx who grew artichokes in their backyard brought them to the track. United Airlines had just put on jets to California, and they said they would bring in artichokes from Watsonville, the artichoke capital of America, Steinbeck country. They volunteered! 'We'll bring them out in helicopters, with our stewardesses,' they said. Jamin started chomping 'em. He felt invigorated.'' The artichoke-eating trotter won the first International and the attendance was 45,723.

GameTheory
04-30-2004, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by formula_2002
Tom, it's not so much the time as it is the number of bets.

How many bets? Well ,I have back fitted several thousand races that gave me a nice profit, but if I were to bet the next several thousand races I would have shown a loss.
So, when that no longer happens, I guess it may be time to bet...



It will always happen that way because that approach is inherently flawed and will NEVER work. It CAN'T work. Instead of repeatedly doing something that doesn't work, maybe you should ask yourself why do you think it COULD work? Can you justify this approach theoretically? What are the reasons that lead you believe that this is the way to go?

When your new "random number" approach also fails to make a long-term profit will you take that as evidence that the game can't be beaten? Or will you make the more sensible conclusion that it can't be beaten with random numbers?

You have shown that backfitting a bunch of races doesn't help you predict future ones at the same rate. That's all you have shown -- you have not shown any evidence that you can't beat the game because you haven't tried to beat the game with any method that could possibly succeed.

formula_2002
04-30-2004, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by GameTheory
It will always happen that way because that approach is inherently flawed and will NEVER work. It CAN'T work.

Agree

[i]
When your new "random number" approach also fails to make a long-term profit will you take that as evidence that the game can't be beaten? Or will you make the more sensible conclusion that it can't be beaten with random numbers?


You're kidding right?

[i]

You have shown that backfitting a bunch of races doesn't help you predict future ones at the same rate. [/B]

agree

GameTheory
04-30-2004, 01:34 PM
GT said:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When your new "random number" approach also fails to make a long-term profit will you take that as evidence that the game can't be beaten? Or will you make the more sensible conclusion that it can't be beaten with random numbers?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


formula said:
You're kidding right?



If you think betting on random numbers is a good idea, be my guest. I'm happy to have your money in the pools...

thelyingthief
05-06-2004, 10:35 PM
Mr. GameTheory:

what techniques or approaches DO work, pray tell?

hdcper
05-06-2004, 11:18 PM
Game Theory,

Let me say I enjoy your posts, but are you really talking about back-fitting when you said this: “It will always happen that way because that approach is inherently flawed and will NEVER work. It CAN'T work”.

I strongly feel that at sometime in the past speed handicapping and pace handicapping was found to be profitable by back testing prior race results using say Beyer derived speed figures. Thus, back-fitting maybe flawed in many cases, but finding factors that others overlook or don’t have access to through back-fit testing seem a reasonable approach.

Further, if the past doesn’t predict the future, why even look at past performances?

Like always, your ideas are appreciated.

Bill

GameTheory
05-06-2004, 11:52 PM
I am certainly not suggesting you should not look to the past -- I was specifically talking about methods of formula_2002 which he has been using without success for years now (and admits so) but still talks about them like they are the way, the truth, and the light.

These things are often difficult to discuss with precision because terms like "back-fitting" mean different things to different people. I was specifically referring to the case where you take some sample of data then literally fit your method to it.

For instance:

I've got some method and I want to find a way to make money with it. So I test it on some past races. It looks promising (whatever that means), but it doesn't make money. So I look at some of the winners I didn't pick and I tweak my method so I would have gotten those horses (or so it gets higher priced horses), then I re-test. Now it makes more money, but maybe I can tweak it some more if I adjust this part of the method, etc. etc. In other words, you optimize/tune the method to perform well on the data you've got, and then hope it will perform well in the future.

Isn't some version of this process what most of us tried to do when we first got started handicapping? I know I did. Unfortunately, some people never leave this stage, and keep practicing the same failed idea over & over for years convinced that someday they'll find that one great method hiding somewhere in those past races.

But you are really just memorizing the data, and computer methods that search a zillion different combinations of variable weights or something similar are doing the exact same thing.

It won't work, and can't work. It doesn't even matter how big the sample size is. Now every once in a while you may run across something that actually does hold up and make money, but you really just lucked across it by trial and error because you tried so many things. The "backfitting method" certainly can't be given the credit.

The whole focus is in the wrong place -- it should be on the causes of things and not the results. I will leave you to ponder that as I am not prepared just now to write a long-winded treatise about causes vs. results. I realize I'm being very murky and you probably don't know what the hell I'm talking about, but so be it for now. Here's a favorite quote of mine from an old book (I've posted this here before) :

"The theorist thinks the true use of knowledge is to bring about an ideal condition, in order to secure an advantage; when, as a matter of fact, the true use of knowledge is to derive all possible advantage from the condition that exists. This is the great secret which governs the application of knowledge to practical uses."

Hosshead
05-07-2004, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by GameTheory


. Now every once in a while you may run across something that actually does hold up and make money, but you really just lucked across it by trial and error because you tried so many things.


Yes,This can be the light,- at the end of the tunnel. Sometimes the trial and error is based on years of handicapping experience that, leads you to the "luck", "after trying so many things". And you accidentally stumble on it while dodging the backfitting. In which case the things that lead you to "paydirt", were inherent handicapping knowledge, and NEVER GIVING UP until you find that vein of gold. Like prospecting for gold.

GameTheory
05-07-2004, 02:51 AM
Originally posted by Hosshead
Yes,This can be the light,- at the end of the tunnel. Sometimes the trial and error is based on years of handicapping experience that, leads you to the "luck", "after trying so many things". And you accidentally stumble on it while dodging the backfitting. In which case the things that lead you to "paydirt", were inherent handicapping knowledge, and NEVER GIVING UP until you find that vein of gold. Like prospecting for gold.

Lucking out is hardly noble. If you were drilling for oil, you could just drill holes in random spots for years if you wanted. If you actually hit some oil, does that make you a genius? Wouldn't you have a better shot of finding oil a hell of a lot quicker if you had a team of geologists telling you where it was actually likely to find some? The vast majority of people repeatedly using a method doomed to failure will do just that -- fail forever. Just because a few of them get lucky by chance doesn't make it a good idea...

Fastracehorse
05-07-2004, 04:53 AM
He used to call 'lucking out' 3:00 am in the Law library.

fffastt

Hosshead
05-07-2004, 05:50 AM
Game Theory, I was actually agreeing with your statement.
Down boy.

I never said anything about lucky being "noble". I was agreeing with you that once in a while you find success by accident.

I never said anything about finding success making a person a "genius".

I mentioned a person that has "years of handicapping experience".
Obviously that person wouldn't be "drilling for oil in random spots"

I never mentioned a method "doomed to failure".

You said, " just because a few of them get lucky by chance doesn't make it a good idea". You think luck is something you can plan out, and make it a good idea? Luck is something you don't know about beforehand ! And if you want to know if it's a good idea, just ask someone who hit the lottery if it was a good idea to by that ticket. But of course you wouldn't cash the ticket because it's NOT NOBEL right?

For your information some of the great scientific breakthroughs in history, happened by accident in the lab. Not that they were planning on being lucky, but they took it when it happened.
So I guess, according to you that disqualifies them from the status of genius. I guess everyone can't be on your level !

formula_2002
05-07-2004, 06:56 AM
GT
The back fitting is in the tweaking.:rolleyes:

Dont try to describe my methods to anyone. You only get it wrong.

Joe M

kenwoodallpromos
05-07-2004, 11:22 AM
I got your back 2002; I will not try to explain your methods to anyone.

GameTheory
05-07-2004, 03:13 PM
Hosshead --

It sounded like you were saying being persistent and hoping to get lucky was a smart thing to do, even if you knew full well the method you were persisting with had no merit (like drilling for oil in random spots). If you get lucky, all power to you, but I wouldn't encourage others to use "dumb" methods is what I was getting at.

You mentioned a scientist working in the lab, and ffast mentioned F. Lee Bailey in the law library. The difference is those are appropriate things for scientists and lawyers to be doing. I agree with the cliche:

"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity."

Now let's remove preparation. You don't gain "years of handicapping knowledge" by repeating the same dumb method over & over for years without ever stopping to think about what you are doing. You just waste years of time, that's all. I guess I am drawing a distinction between "luck" (which will likely find you if you are prepared and persistent) and "blind stinking luck" (which can find any one at any time, but likely won't).

GameTheory
05-07-2004, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by formula_2002
GT
The back fitting is in the tweaking.:rolleyes:


Is that a statement or a question?

If it is a statement, I agree.

If it is a question, the answer is yes.

Fastracehorse
05-07-2004, 03:21 PM
I can live with that:

I am drawing a distinction between "luck" (which will likely find you if you are prepared and persistent) and "blind stinking luck" (which can find any one at any time, but likely won't).

fffastt

NoDayJob
05-08-2004, 06:55 PM
If you write your own program, you use someone else's program or you use pencil and paper, you are depending on the past performance of thousands of examples of winning horses. In effect you're "back-fitting" aren't you? I suspect that intuition is really your brain searching for past data much like a computer program does.

NDJ

Jeff P
05-08-2004, 08:18 PM
It's really about pattern recognition. As horseplayers we need to understand better the patterns that we attempt to recognize. Are we recognizing and giving undue factor weight to simple noise? (Very easy to do with backfitted data.) Or are we recognizing and giving relevant factor weight to the true cause and effect relationships that exist between the factors being studied?

Fastracehorse
05-08-2004, 09:10 PM
<Or are we recognizing and giving relevant factor weight to the true cause and effect relationships that exist between the factors being studied? [/B][/QUOTE]
=================================

I think the real key is understanding what factors are worth weighting. Some factors just point to a good effort, but trying to weigh them is impossible.

IMO, the fewer weighted factors, the better.

fffastt

thelyingthief
05-09-2004, 06:33 PM
i spent some time investigating genetic algorithms last year, mostly with an eye to creating stock investment formulae. one of the more interesting tidbits i ran across was a comment indicating as the most successful algorithms those which were the very simplest or those which WERE THE MOST COMPLEX. of the two, i tend to complexity, for fewer are apt to stumble upon the magic of my key. more information may mean more confusion, but it also means more oppurtunity for those with the ability to collate and filter it.

Jeff P
05-09-2004, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by Fastracehorse@DRF:
IMO, the fewer weighted factors, the better.

I have heard many people say that. But I think it depends on the factors. I think this is going to get a little long winded, so bear with me.

Look at the process of playing horses from a very high level- say from a mountaintop at 20,000 feet. The process of playing horses can be broken out into two areas: 1. PREDICTING OUTCOMES and
2. WAGERING ON PREDICTED OUTCOMES. I'll focus on predicting an outcome.

All of us, whether we use software, pen and paper, paddock appearance, a tip from a trainer, or whatever, try to glean bits of information that we think helps us to predict one or more possible outcomes. We refer to these bits of information as factors. Some of these factors might be relevant. But the truth is, most are simply useless.

However, relationships exist among them that can be used as building blocks to something better than the snigle factor being looked at once that relationship is understood.

For me, every factor that I can think of can be classified into one of five general areas. They are, without regard to what I think of their significance: 1. PACE, 2. FORM, 3. ABILITY, 4. CLASS, and 5. CONNECTIONS.

That's my simple high level look. Everything fits neatly one of these five categories.

Now, a detailed look at each of the five areas.

PACE
Pace ratings, positional calls, strong early fractions, feet per second calculations from the gate to points A and B- there are many indicators of early speed. All have some relevancy in answering the question: Who gets the lead in here?

In my own software, one of the factors that I use is a comprehensive pace rating. I call it CPace. This is not a single factor even though I use it as such. It's actually the result of an
algorithm that takes E1, E2, and Turn Time from selected pacelines along with running style and speed from recent workouts and arrives at a single number. I've been using it for years and I'm well satisfied with the results it produces. It's far stronger than any of the single factors needed for its calculation. It wouldn't have been possible to create the algorithm without first understanding the relationships that exist between the factors used to create it. By itself it doesn't produce a profit any longer. However it does bring me VERY close to break even. BTW- It did produce a profit on its own in dirt sprints as recently as 2001. The proliferation of players using BRIS and other pace numbers keeps growing dramatically. The game is changing constantly.

FORM
Strong recent speed figures, in the money finishes, bullet works, switches in surface and distance, days off - There are many indicators of current form. In my own software I have developed an algorithm that calculates a form rating. Again, my form rating is the result af several factors conbined in a unique way. The end result is stronger than any of the single factors used to arrive at the form rating itself. No, it won't produce a profit on its own and never has. But my top ranked form horses win significantly more races than the population of horses as a whole and lose significantly less money. Also, the lower ranked form rating horses lose significantly more races than the population of horses as a whole and lose significantly more money. Definitely a good thing to know.

ABILITY
I like to use speed figures to get an idea as to a horse's ability. Unfortunately, everybody else does too. I found it very worthwhile to create a speed figure entirely different from the speed figure everybody else uses. My software creates its own speed figures- something I call a Weighted Figure. I wanted to create a speed figure more in tune with the way races are run. My figure creation algorithm gives weight to E1, E2, Late, and Final Time figures separately and then combines them into a single number- my Weighted Figure. Different tracks and different distances play differently. My software has the ability to model these weights based on the way races are being won for the given racing surface and distance. Now, my figure is no more predictive than other speed figures. My horse with the best last race Weighted Figure wins about 26 percent of its races- about the same as a Bris figure. But the key difference is that the horse with the top Weighted Figure loses less than 5 cents on every win dollar wagered. The horse with the top last race Bris speed figure loses about 18 cents on each win dollar wagered. I suppose this is the result of me having a unique number. There are not thousands of other players using it.

Again, the number produced is stronger than each of its parts. But it would not be possible without first having a clear understanding of the real relationships that exist between those parts.

CLASSS
It has been said that class is speed and that speed is class. I didn't understand this statement at first. I laughed at it for years. But I believe I understand the truth of it now.

That said I still use an algorithm that creates a class rating. I use things like race pars, field size, finish position, and the listed conditions to arrive at a number- my own Class Rating. It is comparable in effectivenes to my own form rating. It won't produce a profit on its own and never has. But my top ranked class horses do win significantly more races than the population of horses as a whole and lose significantly less money. Also, the lower ranked Class rating horses lose significantly more races than the general population of horses as a whole and lose significantly more money. Again, definitely more good stuff to know.

CONNECTIONS
I have heard a lot about the effect of a horse's connections. Some trainers seem to have some magic ability that enables their charges to win. Others simply have no clue- and yet they seem to
have plenty of horses in their care. And then there are riders to consider. Some excel at certain distances when they are on horses with certain running styles. Some try very hard every time they have a live mount. Others seldom ask a horse for everything it has.

Suffice to say that the human connections behind the horse very often have a strong influence on the outcome of a race. Humans are creatures of habit. They have certain tendencies. They have
strengths and weaknesses.

One of the things I am currently coding into my software is a Connections Module. The idea is to have the software automatically store the trainer's name, rider's name, and owner's name in a table along with information about the horse- how it ranked against its competition in various categories as well as information about the race it ran in- class, distance, track, odds, payoffs, etc. From this I want to be able to generate a comprehensive set of reports that can tell me the true strengths and weaknesses of the connections involved.

This is quite an undertaking. I have about 60 hours of my own design and coding time invested so far. I think I'll have a working prototype if I can somehow squeeze another 30 or so hours of my free time towards this project.

My software already has the ability to model any trainer pattern that I can conceive of. However, I currently have to find the trainer patterns myself. I have identified and created models for a
small handful of very trainer moves. They don't occur that often. But they do win a very high percentage of races at some very good odds whenever they do come up. I would like to have more of them. Having the ability to run trainer reports would be a real time saver and would be a very good way to help me better understand where a trainer is strong and where a trainer is weak. Being able to do this for riders and owners could prove very interesting as well.

If you stayed with me this far- thanks. Now you have both a high level view and a somewhat detailed view of how I see the pieces needed for PREDICTING OUTCOMES.

I'm going to conclude by going back to the mountaintop and take another high level look.

PREDICTING OUTCOMES- Putting the Pieces Together
So far I have talked about PACE, FORM, ABILITY, CLASS, and CONNECTIONS separately. In four of the five areas, through careful research, and only once an understanding of the relationships between the factors involved has been reached, I have been able to create a mathematical expression that, despite its shortcomings and limitations, somewhat accurately gives a representation of that category. In the fifth area, Connections, my research is still underway.

For years I often wondered if there might be some way to give proper weight to each of the five categories PACE, FORM, ABILITY, CLASS, and CONNECTIONS and express the result as a single number. Earlier this year I came up with something that I call the J Rating. (My first name is Jeff- what else would I call it?) This J Rating combines PACE, FORM, ABILITY, and CLASS into a single
number.

My own results are very encouraging so far. First off, it's very predictive in nature. The top J Rating horse wins about 30 percent of its races in dirt sprints. I know, I can already hear the
first skeptic saying that the top Bris prime power number wins 31 percent of its races. The trouble with that is the top Bris prime power horse loses 12 cents for every win dollar wagered.

By contrast, the top J Rating horse actually turns a small profit (3 cents per dollar wagered) in the win pool. This is with no handicapping whatsoever. When combined with the top Form Rating, the top J Rating horse turns a very healthy profit while winning almost 40 percent of its races.

And no, they're not all odds on favorites either.

By taking the time to research the relationships between individual factors I have been able to use them as building blocks. At each step along the way I have been able to create something
that is not only unique but is also something a little bit stronger than the individual blocks it was made of.

sjk
05-09-2004, 08:28 PM
Interesting post. Good of you to be so forthcoming as to what you have done.

I would suggest that you think more in terms of an odds line and how to develop probablilities of winning than developing individual ratings.

Jeff P
05-09-2004, 08:40 PM
Ahh, an odds line.

That falls under the topic of WAGERING ON PREDICTED OUTCOMES.

I'll try and post some of my thoughts on that a bit later .

Fastracehorse
05-10-2004, 04:54 AM
<By taking the time to research the relationships between individual factors I have been able to use them as building blocks.

================================

Building blocks for what?? What insight do you get from these realtionships.


It's interesting that you used some powerful factors that point towards horses running good races.

=================================

At each step along the way I have been able to create something
that is not only unique but is also something a little bit stronger than the individual blocks it was made of.

No doubt it is unique and any insight gained would be valuable.


=====================================

My point being Jeff that in any discipline, a concise and clear explanation of any phenomena is the reward of true understanding - a 'distilled essence' if you will.

You work hard, very hard, and hopefully you will come to some powerful discoveries.

I have found that people get distracted by unimportant variables, or are unwilling to see past them.

Good luck,

fffastt

LOU M.
05-10-2004, 08:02 AM
Would you be able to use data mining software to uncover trainer patterns. Don't know how it works but I remember someone talking about it on another thread. Something like "Daisy".I'd also be interested if anyone has experience with data mining software.

andicap
05-10-2004, 10:46 AM
Does anyone here successfully use Tom Hambleton's Form Points in their handicapping?

Fastracehorse
05-10-2004, 02:39 PM
<Does anyone here successfully use Tom Hambleton's Form Points in their handicapping?
=================================
For me their isn't a need to give from points. I just need to recognize a horse primed for a good effort.

I could see several factors that lead to a biig effort or just one, it's all the same. Horses can run only so fast.

For ex., most would agree that 'off the claim' is a powerful factor for intent. Why do horses improve so quickly?? I would suggest cardio-vascular stimulants. And horses can only improve so much on these.

So if you have a favorite coming off 2 top efforts and a longshot off the claim - then maybe you have a value bet.

I have a speed figure that helps me predict the above - but most races aren't so easily handicapped.

fffastt

JustRalph
05-10-2004, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by LOU M.
Would you be able to use data mining software to uncover trainer patterns. Don't know how it works but I remember someone talking about it on another thread. Something like "Daisy".I'd also be interested if anyone has experience with data mining software.

I can do these ....... and more........

http://www.justralph.com/trainer.jpg

Jeff P
05-10-2004, 04:30 PM
Lou M., JustRalph,

My own software currently does exactly the same thing as shown in the Equisim screenshot. Doing that can quickly eat a lot of free time. What I want to get past is having to run single queries for single trainers.

Let's say we are looking at a card for the first time at a new track. There's probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 plus trainers whose patterns we might have an interest in checking out. Who are they and what are their strengths and weaknesses? What I am in the process of creating is a set of reports that will provide answers at a glance for every trainer out there.

Jeff P
05-10-2004, 05:20 PM
Building blocks for what?? What insight do you get from these realtionships.

Fastracehorse@DRF,

What I am really doing is using knowledge gleaned from research into the effects of isolated factors to construct composite ratings involving two or more factors. The relationship that exists between the factors used in the making of a composite number can have a significant effect on the effectiveness of the composite number being created.

I'll try to use my own CPace number to illustrate this point. My CPace number is made up of E1, E2, and Turn Time from selected pacelines, with running style, and Speed from selected recent workouts.

I'm able to measure the effectiveness of the CPace number by comparing the top CPace horse against the general population of horses as a whole. When I do this I can calculate an impact value for win percent as well as an impact value for ROI.

I'm also able to do this for each of the components (E1, E2, Turn Time, Running Style, and Workout Speed) used in the making of the CPace number. The thing that is very satisfying is seeing that the resulting CPace number has always been stronger in terms of win percentage and ROI than any of the single factors that are needed for its creation. This kind of told me that I was on the right track.

Now, I'll try to answer your question a little more directly.

By looking at the impact values for win percent and ROI of the individual factors (E1, E2, Turn Time, Running Style, and Workout Speed) I could see that each had a relationship to the other.

Example: You seldom have strong turn time without strong E2. But not all strong E2s are good indicators. A horse that habitually breaks poorly will often rush up to the field and end up with a really strong E2 before fading. In such a cases, you end up with a really strong Turn Time as well. CPace works best for me when E1 and E2 are not out of whack with each other. To properly construct something like what I was attempting to create you first have to have an idea of just what whack is. After studying the impact values of the single factors and the relationships they have on each other I was in a better position to know how to weight them when constructing the CPace rating.

GameTheory
05-10-2004, 05:35 PM
Jeff is on the right track, and just what I was referring to earlier in this thread about causes vs. results. Handicapping is more about prioritizing then it is about weighting. One factor can be the key to everything in one race and irrelevant in another depending on the context. It is the ability to determine which factors are important in what context and why that will put you ahead of the pack...

JustRalph
05-10-2004, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Jeff P
Lou M., JustRalph,

My own software currently does exactly the same thing as shown in the Equisim screenshot. Doing that can quickly eat a lot of free time. What I want to get past is having to run single queries for single trainers.

Let's say we are looking at a card for the first time at a new track. There's probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 plus trainers whose patterns we might have an interest in checking out. Who are they and what are their strengths and weaknesses? What I am in the process of creating is a set of reports that will provide answers at a glance for every trainer out there.

I can write macros that will run multiple queries
but I don't personally use them. But that is just me. Some of the guys on the ES board are really into the database stuff.......

sjk
05-10-2004, 05:57 PM
I'm not sure why I persist in commenting since I don't get much reaction.


The reason why I suggested focusing on an odds line rather than a composite rating relates to the ability to run lots of queries and to combine the results in non-linear and multi-step ways.


The macro I use to create my odds line uses about 200 queries.
It combines factors in a variety of ways. It seems to me that filtering everything through a composite rating would tie my hands to a considerable degree.

GameTheory
05-10-2004, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by sjk
I'm not sure why I persist in commenting since I don't get much reaction.


The reason why I suggested focusing on an odds line rather than a composite rating relates to the ability to run lots of queries and to combine the results in non-linear and multi-step ways.


The macro I use to create my odds line uses about 200 queries.
It combines factors in a variety of ways. It seems to me that filtering everything through a composite rating would tie my hands to a considerable degree.

Isn't your assigned probability for each horse in your line then essentially a composite rating made up of those 200 queries?

On the lowest level, you've got the raw data. That is distilled into 200 factors via your queries (more or less, right?). Those 200 factors are then distilled into a single probability. The probabilities for each horse are then normalized over the race.

Something like that?

The above is basically what I do, anyway...

sjk
05-10-2004, 06:25 PM
GT,

Not at all how I do things.

I can't think of more than a dozen or so factors. Numerous queries (and carefully computed tables of constants) are involved in calculating these factors as relates to each PP line for some factors and as relates to today's circumstances as relate to others.

Odds are derived from probability distributions. If everything comes from a single composite rating, I would expect that the distributions would have to be derived in a fairly straightforward way from the rating. I am sure that there is more than one way to skin a cat, but the distributions I use could not be derived in this way.

LOU M.
05-10-2004, 07:57 PM
My software,HTR, does the same. Multiple queries, reports,etc.I have over 170 factors in my DB. Like Jeff said, you could spend a lifetime trying different queries looking for the right combo for the right situation. What I'm looking for is software that will take my DB factors and create its' own queries looking for positve combos and then alerting me to when these favorable situations are present in todays races.Is there such a product? Anyone?

Lou M.

JustRalph
05-10-2004, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by LOU M.
My software,HTR, does the same. Multiple queries, reports,etc.I have over 170 factors in my DB. Like Jeff said, you could spend a lifetime trying different queries looking for the right combo for the right situation. What I'm looking for is software that will take my DB factors and create its' own queries looking for positve combos and then alerting me to when these favorable situations are present in todays races.Is there such a product? Anyone?Lou M.

Not that I know of..........yet.........but I agree it would be awesome to find.

Fastracehorse
05-10-2004, 09:51 PM
<The relationship that exists between the factors used in the making of a composite number can have a significant effect on the effectiveness of the composite number being created.
===============================
In itself, the above doesn't make sense. If you are trying to say that certain factors or combination of factors should be weighted differently, then that is interesting. Especially so if you are attempting to do this.



<The thing that is very satisfying is seeing that the resulting CPace number has always been stronger in terms of win percentage and ROI than any of the single factors that are needed for its creation.

===========================

That shouldn't be too surprising Jeff. For eg., E1 and E2 factors without any semblance of pace or times/speed per se, is very limiting.




Your Cpace # - although it is your own, sounds like fairly basic handicapping to me. Most players are speed players (E1, E2, and, running style), like horses in contention mid-race ( turn times ) and like fast works.

I'm sure you have found st interesting in your intensive work. What is that??

fffastt

Jeff P
05-10-2004, 11:00 PM
SJK,

I don't use an odds line per se. But I do very strongly believe in making play or pass decisions based on expected value.

My whole process is probably a little different than what you may have seen in the past. But it serves me well and I'll be happy to share what I do.

Instead of an odds line I use something that I call an odds divisor. This odds divisor is simply a number that I divide the size of the field by to arrive at the minimum required odds for placing a bet. Let's say that I am trying to make a play or pass decision for a play type that has a divisor associated with it of 1.5. In a six horse field I need 4-1 before placing a bet. In a ten horse field I want 6-1. And in a twelve horse field I want 8-1. I assign different odds divisors to different play types.

One of the things I have created in my own software is a Profile Marker module. Let's say that in my research I have identified a simple profitable play type (or Profile) that calls for a win bet whenever my top ranked CPace horse also happens to be ranked 1,2,or 3 in Form. Let's further say that this play type also requires an odds Divisor of 1.5. The values describing the play type (or Profile) are stored (semi permanently- I can edit them any time I choose) in a Profile Table. Each time my Profile Marker module looks at a new race it pulls the values stored in the Profile Table. Logic in the Profile Marker module then compares the values for each horse against the values pulled from the table. Any horse that qualifies as a play according to the Profile stored in the table is then "Marked" so that it becomes highly visible as a play on any screen or report that I have. I also have a betting instructions field in the profile table. Here, I store text that tells me how to bet this play type. This will just about always include my odds divisor.

Sample output from one of my reports taken from yesterday's card at Churchill looks exactly like this:

CD R3 7F D C
#4 TRADITIONAL/VELASQUEZ CORNELIO DS_WeightedFig 4.00 [999/min 3-2]
#4 TRADITIONAL/VELASQUEZ CORNELIO DS_Form 4.00 [2.5]

CD R5 8F D C
#2 BIRTHDAY SONG/VELASQUEZ CORNELIO DR_Overlaid_J 2.50 [1.5]
#3 PARIS LEGEND/D'AMICO A J(-+T) DR_RiderPlay 15.00 [1.5/.007]

CD R7 8F T A
#6 PUGET SOUND/DAY P(+-) TR_NiceHorses 1.20 [999/.02]

CD R10 6.5F D S
#1 KIPPER VILLE/ALBARADO R J(--T) DS_Overlaid_J 10.00 [1.5]


The top line for each race has the track, race number, distance, surface, and class code. Then I have one line for each qualifying play type. This has the post position, horse's name, rider's name and rating if there is one, followed by the name of the play type, morning line, and then the text inside the brackets comes from the betting instructions field in the Profile Table.

After running this report all I need do is compare my own betting instructions against the tote board. Everything else (as much as possible) has been previously done by my software. I try as hard as I can not to pay attention to anything else. After all, the name of this thread is Information Overload.

Jeff P
05-10-2004, 11:21 PM
<The relationship that exists between the factors used in the making of a composite number can have a significant effect on the effectiveness of the composite number being created.

In itself, the above doesn't make sense. If you are trying to say that certain factors or combination of factors should be weighted differently, then that is interesting. Especially so if you are attempting to do this.

Fast,

I am saying that certain factors should be weighted differently.

In the research I did during the construction phase of my CPace number I found that the factors I used to build it (E1, E2, Turn Time, Running Style, and Speed from Recent Works) all had different impact values with respect to win percent and ROI.

When experimenting with different factor weights I found that weighting them in accordance with their impact values worked better than anything else.

After doing this I did further research and looked at races where it just flat didn't work. One of the things I discovered was that whenever a horse broke slowly and then rushed up to take the lead at the second call before fading this always resulted in a paceline that had strong E2 and strong Turn Time and therefore a strong CPace. Yet these turned out to be the horses that never seemed to compete in subsequent races. After I began downgrading this "Artificial Turn Time" associated with this phenomenon by lowering the E2 and Turn Time factor weights my results improved rather dramatically.

hdcper
05-10-2004, 11:32 PM
Hi Jeff,

Glad to see you sharing some of your great ideas!!! Believe me everybody, I know Jeff personally from his days at Tup and his approach to the game is second to none.

By the way Jeff, I sent you an email or two in the private message section and look forward to hearing from you. Maybe we can chat soon if you have time.

His Cpace ratings give a good picture of the pace scenerio and several of your new ideas you have suggested just add strength to identifying solid profitable plays.

Look forward to hearing from you,

Bill (hdcper)

Jeff P
05-10-2004, 11:52 PM
Your Cpace # - although it is your own, sounds like fairly basic handicapping to me. Most players are speed players (E1, E2, and, running style), like horses in contention mid-race ( turn times ) and like fast works.

What I was shooting for was one number that really expressed early speed. I didn't want to have to spend precious time while at the track handicapping to find it. I started out simply averaging the Bris E2 numbers and using those as a benchmark. The rest kind of snowballed from there.

It's not enough for me to know that horse A and B both have early speed. To me it makes a real difference to know which one is faster and by how much. The first question I try to answer when looking at a new race is "Who gets the lead in here?" When watching races being run, I often see lesser ranked CPace horses get in front of the top ranked horse, but they almost always expend too much energy to do so.


I'm sure you have found st interesting in your intensive work. What is that??

What I found really interesting was the number of longshot winners I was getting using early speed compared to anything else. From 1996 when I started using it to as recently as 2001 it seemed like $100.00 early speed winners were not all that uncommon. In recent years I haven't had one. I think this can be attributed to the growing number of players using Bris and other pace ratings in their handicapping. The game changes constantly. Early speed doesn't pay as much as it used to. But believe me, it still pays pretty well.

Another thing I find very interesting is how this one number helps me identify track biases. At some tracks, for days at a time, it seems like the only horses able to win are those highly rated in CPace. At other tracks, and at other times, the opposite is quite true. I think this can be very crucial information to have when making a play or pass decisions on a horse.

Fastracehorse
05-11-2004, 01:42 AM
Interesting conversation.


<Fast,

I am saying that certain factors should be weighted differently.


I know you said that. And I said, I weight very few factors - actually I weight only 1: A speed figure.

I'm doing an intensive study as well. Right now I use factors that: 'Only point to good efforts.' They are not part of a composite #.

================================

<One of the things I discovered was that whenever a horse broke slowly and then rushed up to take the lead at the second call before fading this always resulted in a paceline that had strong E2 and strong Turn Time and therefore a strong CPace. Yet these turned out to be the horses that never seemed to compete in subsequent races.


I have to disagree with the above Jeff. I have found that horses use so much energy after recovering from a poor break, that they offer good value next time they run.


======================================

<It's not enough for me to know that horse A and B both have early speed. To me it makes a real difference to know which one is faster and by how much.


That's not important to me. I can pretty much tell who will have the lead based on a quick glance of the PP's. If you have 2 fast horses that both want the front, the inside post will most often get it.

=======================================

Talk to ya' later Jeff.

fffastt

sjk
05-11-2004, 07:32 AM
Jeff P,

Thanks for taking the time to explain your process.

I bet Birthday Song and Kipper Ville myself; ran 1-3 in the exacta both times. Too bad Kipper Ville couldn't stay up for 2nd; the exacta was paying well.

JustMissed
05-11-2004, 09:06 AM
When you use the term "turn time", are you talking about actual time or some sort of velocity fig?

JustMissed

Jeff P
05-11-2004, 06:11 PM
When you use the term "turn time", are you talking about actual time or some sort of velocity fig?

I use Bris E1 and E2 pace figures to create my own Turn Time figure. I experimented with using raw time (fractions) but decided against it. There were too many track to track and distance to distance conversions required.

Tom
05-11-2004, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Jeff P
When you use the term "turn time", are you talking about actual time or some sort of velocity fig?

I use Bris E1 and E2 pace figures to create my own Turn Time figure. I experimented with using raw time (fractions) but decided against it. There were too many track to track and distance to distance conversions required.

Do you get TT by subtracting E1 for E2?

karlskorner
05-11-2004, 07:56 PM
Go to BRIS, Library, look for BRIS Pace Ratings, explains the use of their "turn times". As good as anybodys.

JustMissed
05-11-2004, 08:08 PM
Thanks Jeff P., That's what I thought you meant.

I calculate it just as Bris states:
"HOW CAN I CALCULATE "TURN TIME" USING THE BRIS PACE RATINGS ?
It's easy! Simply subtract the 1st call Pace Rating (2f Pace Rating for sprints, 4f Pace Rating for most routes) from the 2nd call Pace Rating (4f Pace Rating for sprints, 6f for most routes):

BRIS Turn Time = E2 Pace Rating - E1 Pace Rating
or
BRIS Turn Time (sprint) = 4f Pace Rating - 2f Pace Rating
or
BRIS Turn Time (route) = 6f Pace Rating - 4f Pace Rating


For example:
BRIS PACE TURN
E1 E2 ( E2 - E1 ) TIME
HORSE "A" 90 96 ( 96 - 90) = +6
HORSE "B" 92 96 ( 96 - 92) = +4
HORSE "C" 96 96 ( 96 - 96) = +0
HORSE "D" 100 100 (100 - 100) = +0

Horse "A" has the fastest turn time (+6) which is one length (2 points) faster than Horse "B" (+4).
Also, note that HORSE "C" & "D" have the same turn time (+0). Horse "D" (E1=100) ran 2 lengths (4 points) faster up to the 1st call than Horse "C" (E1= 96) but Horse "D" (E2=100) was still 2 lengths faster up to the 2nd call than than Horse "C" (E2= 96). Therefore, Horse "C" and Horse "D" ran the same speed between the first two calls.[END QUOTE]

Jeff, What I also do it calculate the "turn time" change from last race to next to last race or even third back looking for form improvement.

For example, if horse A is 6 last race, 3 second back and -2 third back, I would consider his form to be improving and he might be ready to pop today.

Just wanted to pass this on to you since you are already making the calulation.

JustMissed

Fastracehorse
05-12-2004, 01:54 AM
Especailly if you don't know what you are measureing.

Do some people think that turn times are important in and of themselves??

The reason why some players effectively use turn data is because they know hot to calcualte the lengths lost while being caught wide.

If Bris doesn't do this - what is the point?? Does Bris factor in ground lost?? I know Beyers don't.

fffastt

Jeff P
05-12-2004, 01:54 AM
Try it this way.

I don't calculate my Turn Time the standard way as shown on the Bris site. If you do it that way you sometimes end up giving high Turn Time credit to slow horses.

Consider this example involving pacelines from two mythical horses: Horse A has a paceline with a 94 E1 and a 93 E2. A standard turn time calculation would result in a -1. Horse B has a paceline with a 70 E1 and a 72 E2. A standard turn time calculation would result in a +2.

Which of these two horses do you really think is faster?

Very obviously the E1 and E2 between Horse A and Horse B are out of Whack with each other. Like I said before, you need to know just what Whack is.

I do it this way: Turn Time = (E2 X 2) - E1

Using the above example my Turn Time looks like this:

Horse A
Turn Time = 93 X 2 = 186 - 94 = 92

Horse B
Turn Time = 72 X 2 = 144 - 70 = 74

Fastracehorse
05-12-2004, 02:00 AM
I don't see the logic in deriveing a turn time from E1 and E2.

E1 and E2 are just pace ratings - like times for 2 different quarters of a mile - in a race.

Turn times are just that: The time taken to cover the distance of the turn.

fffastt

Jeff P
05-12-2004, 02:02 AM
I don't see the logic in deriving a turn time from E1 and E2.

I measure them because my research shows that the horse with the highest turn time significantly outperforms the general population of horses as a whole both in terms of win rate and money returned. Or put another way- by filtering out horses with weak turn times my software tells me to make fewer bad bets than the guy sitting next to me at the track or otb.

Fastracehorse
05-12-2004, 02:06 AM
I mean I don't see how you get turn time derivation from using E1 and E2.

It doesn't make sense. Re-read my previous post.

fffastt

GameTheory
05-12-2004, 02:32 AM
Jeff P --

What you are calculating is normally known as the "ability time", which is Turn Time + 2nd Call, mathematically equivalent to (2nd Call x 2) - 1st Call.

Jeff P
05-12-2004, 03:27 AM
Game Theory,

Ability Time Huh? I wasn't aware of that. Been calling it Turn time forever. LOL...


Fast,

No. I don't think Bris takes wide trips into account. It really doesn't matter to me if they do or not. I make the calculation and use it the way I do for only one reason: because it helps my bottom line.

Back to something you posted about one of my posts last night. You said you found that horses use so much energy after recovering from a poor break, that they offer good value next time they run. This makes sense to me in the context that you use final time speed figures. Such a horse would end up with a paceline showing a final time speed figure much lower than its others. Other players using final time based speed figures will tend to overlook this horse and therefore it may offer value.

But, in the context of my CPace calculation, such a horse can end up with a paceline CPace rating out of whack with the others, but erring on the high side. My research tells me that when such a horse has the highest CPace rating in the race, it seldom competes for the lead the next time out.

This tells me is that I am looking at an artificially inflated E2 number that, in turn, is causing my CPace number to be artificially inflated. I know from my own research the historical win rate of not only the top CPace horse, but the second ranked horse, third ranked horse, fourth ranked horse, etc. on down the line. In such cases my research tells me that the top CPace horse wins lower than what is normally expected while the others win slightly more than expected. So I simply have my software downgrade the rating in such cases.

Fastracehorse
05-12-2004, 04:18 AM
Hi Jeff,

You said this:<But, in the context of my CPace calculation, such a horse can end up with a paceline CPace rating out of whack with the others, but erring on the high side.

The above is Re: poor breakers.


Isn't the E2 rating fundamentally a time rating from the 1st call to 2nd call??

If it is, I don't know how a poor breaker should err on the high side - he would most likely tire sooner than most other horses and hence, have one of the lower ratings.

Back to turn times,

How do you know you are getting a rating for the turn??

fffastt

Jeff P
05-12-2004, 04:46 AM
Isn't the E2 rating fundamentally a time rating from the 1st call to 2nd call??

No. The way I understand it Bris E1 in sprint races represents speed from the gate to the end of the first quarter mile. Bris E2 represents speed from the gate to the end of the half. Turn time, the speed between the quarter and the half, could theoretically be measured by examining the difference between the two.

JustMissed
05-12-2004, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by GameTheory
Jeff P --

What you are calculating is normally known as the "ability time", which is Turn Time + 2nd Call, mathematically equivalent to (2nd Call x 2) - 1st Call.

GT, your dead right.

I have to wonder if we're not dealing with to much data sometimes and would be better off just to take a look at the pp's and try to figure out which horse is the better horse.

In Jeff's example, he compared two horses running 92 & 73. In my mind the 70 something horse would be tossed as soon as the printer quit running.

I still think turn time is better utilized when comparing a horse with its previous performance rathter than against other horses.

Just my take on turn time.

JustMissed
;)

Jeff P
05-12-2004, 01:08 PM
In Jeff's example, he compared two horses running 92 & 73. In my mind the 70 something horse would be tossed as soon as the printer quit running.

That's exactly my point. You're using your brain to make decisions. For those that have them (brains) - it's a no decision.

But as for the rest of us...

I'm trying to write code so that my software can make the same no brainer decision for me. In the example I gave a computer calculating turn time the way it is shown on the Bris site makes the wrong decision every time.

Computer software is only as good as the human brain behind it.


And GT,

I thought Ability Time was a phrase coined by William Scott in his book Total Victory at the Track. <G> Where did you first run across that phrase?

Fastracehorse
05-12-2004, 03:21 PM
"Ability time" = turn time + 2nd call ( equiv't to 2nd call x 2 ).




Jeff, this is why I asked you what E2 was.

The above defintion doesn't make E2 the time from the gate to the 2nd call.

(2nd call x 2) is the same thing as (turn time x 2) because according to "ability time" - turn time and 2nd call are equivalent variables.

We have to get our defintions straight or we are never going to understand one another

fffastt

GameTheory
05-12-2004, 03:56 PM
Jeff --

Dick Mitchell used ability times as a major rating in his books. Don't know if it was his idea or not. Scott's ability times were different.

Fast --

E1 = gate to 1st call, or just "1st call"
E2 = gate to 2nd call, or just "2nd call"
TT = 2nd call - 1st call, or E2 - E1

Turn Time & 2nd call are not the same.
Turn Time & E2 are not the same

Turn Time is the middle fraction, leaving out the gate to first call portion.

Ability Time =

2nd Call + Turn Time

or

E2 + TT

or

(2nd Call * 2) - 1st call

or

(E2 * 2) - E1

Fastracehorse
05-12-2004, 04:02 PM
I'll get back later.

fffastt

hdcper
05-12-2004, 05:37 PM
Hi Everyone,

We have been over turn time before and it seems everyone’s idea of how to use Bris pace figures to derive turn time is somewhat flawed (if I am understanding each of you correctly).

Just Missed, I agree with Jeff that the + and – turn time method just isn’t correct, even if you are looking at say a specific horse’s last 3 races.

You said, “For example, if horse A is 6 last race, 3 second back and -2 third back, I would consider his form to be improving and he might be ready to pop today.”

Consider these for the horse’s last three races (top being the most recent out)

E1 E2 TT
86 92 +6
93 96 +3
100 98 -2

Is this horse ready to pop or is he actually declining??? Obviously, we must consider other information from the past performances to be sure.


Jeff, overall your method of calculating turn time or ability time or whatever we want to call it, also seems to have a possible flaw. Lets take four horses from the Kentucky Derby that came out of the Bluegrass on April 10th.

Lion Heart – Ran fractions of 46.6 and 111.1 (.1 represents 1/10 of a second, not 1/5) on the lead at both calls, thus raw turn time of 24.5.

Your method of calculation gives TT of 132 (2X120) – 108


Limehouse – Ran adjusted fractions of 46.8 (1 length back) and 111.6 (2.5 lengths back), thus raw turn time of 24.8.

Your method of calculation gives TT of 124 (2X115) – 106


The Cliff’s Edge – Ran adjusted fractions of 49.2 (13 length back) and 112.5 (7 length back), thus raw turn time of 23.3.

Your method of calculation gives TT of 129 (2X105) – 81


Action of the Day – Ran adjusted fractions of 48.8 (11 length back) and 112.6 (7.5 length back), thus raw turn time of 23.8.

Your method of calculation gives TT of 122 (2X104) – 86


Thus, looking at raw TT fractions from the same race from fastest to slowest respectively, we have: The Cliff’s edge, Action of the Day, Lion Heart and Limehouse. But yet looking at the calculated TT for each we have the following order: Lion Heart (132), The Cliff’s edge (129), Limehouse (124) and Action of the Day (122).

It seems clear that some adjustments could be made to improve the TT number. The problem seems two-fold, horses with similar E1 and E2 are penalized and horses with weak E1 and large E2 figures must be linked to the late pace figure to determine the meaningfulness of their TT number.

Hdcper

BillW
05-12-2004, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by hdcper


It seems clear that some adjustments could be made to improve the TT number. The problem seems two-fold, horses with similar E1 and E2 are penalized and horses with weak E1 and large E2 figures must be linked to the late pace figure to determine the meaningfulness of their TT number.

Hdcper

Hdcpr,

Another problem occurs in the way Bris calculates the figures. (At least the way I believe they calculate them ... someone more familiar please correct me). I remember that they use a "Quirin style" of calculating their figs. This involves using the $10,000 claiming par as a value of 100. If the times of the 2 calls are not in proportion, say the 2f par at 6f is 22 secs and the 4f par is 45, the E1 and E2 figs. will not be based on the same unit (i.e. 1 E1 point does not equal 1 E2 point). Combining the 2 figs. to calculate a derived fig. assumes that they are equal. The difference may be academic but will cause inconsistant results.

We had another discussion of this 6 Mos. to a year ago here on the PA site.

Bill

JustMissed
05-13-2004, 09:32 AM
Nice discussion fellows. Good input from all.

Don't forget to factor in running style when you consider turn time.

The early runners by nature are going to have slower TT than the late runners. If you don't factor this in somehow when comparing horses you are looking for trouble.

One of the ALL-WAYS newsletters(about Pace I think) has an interesting discussion which includes TT. You might want to check it out.

JustMissed

karlskorner
05-13-2004, 09:36 PM
To quote from BRIS library

"What are the fundamental difference between the BRIS pace ratings and "Quirin" style pace ratings ?
Quirin style pace ratings are based around $10,000 3up Open male Claiming pace setters being equal to 100 across all distances, the BRIS Pace Ratings "ARE NOT". Sprinters run faster than route horses in the early going of the race and the BRIS Pace Ratings reflect that reality?