Weird race for me at Penn tonight

[cutchemist42]

http://www.brisnet.com/php/bw_pdf_viewer.php?track=PEN&race=9&param1=6210&param2=138&param3=1450080

I might give it away with this, but thss horse wired the field and he might have been one of the last horses i would have predicted to do so. Not a longshot I would have seen coming.

[thaskalos]

You may not believe this...but the only reason I missed the superfecta in that race was because I didn't have the 3-horse in the second slot.

[cutchemist42]

You may not believe this...but the only reason I missed the superfecta in that race was because I didn't have the 3-horse in the second slot.

Wow, I actually had the 3 as my third deep in Win consideration. The winner though....some longshots I understand and some I even hit, but this is one my way of capping just wont land on.

[raybo]

The 9, a "P2" horse, had the 2nd best early velocities in the race, the top velocity horse was 2, a "S4" horse. There were no E or E/P horses in the race, so the battle for the lead was between the 9 (P2), the 7 (P1), and the 2 (S4). The 9 had almost a 1 1/2 foot per second edge in early velocity over the 7, and was only 0.02 feet per second less than the 2 horse (S4). Pretty much no contest for the early lead, regarding the combination of running styles and early velocities, and that allowed the 9 to have it his own way early. As it turned out, he had no less than 2 lengths pressure the whole race.

Not saying that I had the horse, didn't even look at Penn today, but the wire to wire performance of the 9 was certainly in the realm of probability.

The 3 (S0) was the 2nd ranked late velocities horse, not too surprising that he got 2nd.

[Fort Erie Fanatic]

I had the #2 as my longshot. While the #9 horse was probably one of the weakest of the bunch, his front running style automatically gave him a better chance than expected.

A wise man once told me it's easier to pick a winner when you know it will be leading at some point in the race.

[raybo]

A wise man once told me it's easier to pick a winner when you know it will be leading at some point in the race.

Ain't that the truth!!

[cutchemist42]

The 9, a "P2" horse, had the 2nd best early velocities in the race, the top velocity horse was 2, a "S4" horse. There were no E or E/P horses in the race, so the battle for the lead was between the 9 (P2), the 7 (P1), and the 2 (S4). The 9 had almost a 1 1/2 foot per second edge in early velocity over the 7, and was only 0.02 feet per second less than the 2 horse (S4). Pretty much no contest for the early lead, regarding the combination of running styles and early velocities, and that allowed the 9 to have it his own way early. As it turned out, he had no less than 2 lengths pressure the whole race.

Not saying that I had the horse, didn't even look at Penn today, but the wire to wire performance of the 9 was certainly in the realm of probability.

The 3 (S0) was the 2nd ranked late velocities horse, not too surprising that he got 2nd.

You have your own personal way of coming up with running styles right? Brisnet had a couple of EPs in the race.

[raybo]

You have your own personal way of coming up with running styles right? Brisnet had a couple of EPs in the race.

I am using JCapper running styles (which uses only a horse's "good" races for their calculations), because of their unlimited data file downloads plan. I tried to create my own running styles, to mirror Brisnet's, but could never accomplish that to my satisfaction. I think JCapper's styles are actually better than Brisnet's, but they don't work as well with my running styles versus pace pressure method.

[Exotic1]

I didn't catch any vertical exotic in the 9th and I played a whole bunch. In retrospect the exotic play should have been the double. Retrospect is so much easier.

[OverlayHunter]

Originally Posted by raybo

The 9, a "P2" horse, had the 2nd best early velocities in the race, the top velocity horse was 2, a "S4" horse. There were no E or E/P horses in the race, so the battle for the lead was between the 9 (P2), the 7 (P1), and the 2 (S4). The 9 had almost a 1 1/2 foot per second edge in early velocity over the 7, and was only 0.02 feet per second less than the 2 horse (S4). Pretty much no contest for the early lead, regarding the combination of running styles and early velocities, and that allowed the 9 to have it his own way early. As it turned out, he had no less than 2 lengths pressure the whole race.


I finally got a chance to look at this race.

Raybo, I understand that the running style designations you use are based on JCapper's methodology but I'm confused about the digits following the running styles. For example, regarding "P2", "S4", and "P1" my first thought was that the digits 2, 4, and 1 were meant to denote speed points. However, those digits don't match BRIS's speed points or my own independent calculations. Could you please explain what those digits represent?

[raybo]

I finally got a chance to look at this race.

Raybo, I understand that the running style designations you use are based on JCapper's methodology but I'm confused about the digits following the running styles. For example, regarding "P2", "S4", and "P1" my first thought was that the digits 2, 4, and 1 were meant to denote speed points. However, those digits don't match BRIS's speed points or my own independent calculations. Could you please explain what those digits represent?

I used JCapper's running styles and their early speed points for that race, as that is the data that I use now. Both running styles and ESPs are different between Brisnet and JCapper, and very likely different if you calculate them yourself (my own attempts to mirror Brisnet's running styles have resulted in deviations, sometimes slight and sometimes large). ESPs are a little closer, as they are all interpretations of Quirin's calculations, however there can still be discrepancies in the interpretations.

Basically Jeff at JCapper is "interpreting" Quirin's calculations for ESPs, and Brisnet is also "interpreting" Quirin's calculations. So, while based on the same body of work, interpretations can be slightly different, and sometimes drastically different, due to the way those Quirin rules are applied to each horse and each race type.

You will see the largest discrepancies between Brisnet and JCapper running styles. Brisnet's running styles attempt to find how a horse "usually" runs (the most frequent style the horse has displayed, regardless of effort or success). JCapper uses only races that are rated as "good" races (Jeff defines "good" races as: finished in the top 4 or less than 4 lengths back at the finish).

JCapper running styles work, if you assume that all runners in the race will run "good" races, and this seems to work pretty well for higher class horses. But, if you are attempting to predict how all races will be run early (which is what I do in my databases for individual tracks), they are less effective than Brisnet's styles, because the vast majority of horses do not run only "good" races.

Back to your question. Early speed points, whether Quirin's, or Brisnet's, or JCapper's, ARE NOT speed measurements. They are representations of how likely horses are to fight for the lead early, to the 1st call only. So, if they are overmatched in actual 1st call speed or velocity, their ESP means little regarding whether they will get the lead or not. An E3 horse that has significantly more actual early velocity/speed than an E7 or 8 is more likely to get the early lead, if it, and its jockey/trainer, want the lead in that race.

In short, I have never seen any 2 people who agree 100% with all horses' running styles or ESPs. It's all a matter of interpretation of similar rules.

[OverlayHunter]

Thanks, Raybo, very helpful explanation.

[cj]

In short, I have never seen any 2 people who agree 100% with all horses' running styles or ESPs. It's all a matter of interpretation of similar rules.

I agree about running styles, but if you are talking Quirin Speed Points, the rules are pretty cut and dried. They should match if coded according to his rules. Now, if someone tweaks them with their own ideas, that doesn't apply.

[raybo]

I agree about running styles, but if you are talking Quirin Speed Points, the rules are pretty cut and dried. They should match if coded according to his rules. Now, if someone tweaks them with their own ideas, that doesn't apply.

Yeah, I tried coding/calculating Quirin's ESP rules in Excel, and when comparing them to Brisnet's, they didn't always match. So, I don't know if I didn't get all the rules exactly right, or if Brisnet didn't, or if they "tweaked" theirs. Generally, mine are usually close to Brisnet's but there are times when they are off. The same can be said between JCapper's and Brisnet's.