BRIS vs. TimeformUS speed figures

[letswastemoney]

After using BRIS and TimeformUS for over a year, while not touching DRF, I find BRIS numbers useless.

I used to believe in BRIS numbers. Or maybe I was just influenced by the fact that BRIS is free for the most part at this link (http://horseracing.about.com/od/racedayinfo/a/aafree-pps.htm). I'll still use BRIS sometimes though, just to glance at a few races and see if buying the TimeformUS PPs for the card might be worth it (which are also technically free with the TVG reimbursement). Plus, I don't really care about speed figures for turf racing.

For dirt racing though, TimeformUS is the most accurate between the two (I'm not comparing to DRF in this post, but you are welcome to comment on that).

[BettinBilly]

I agree, LWM. Without slamming Bris or DRF (I have used both), I happen to prefer Timeform. To each their own, as Dean Martin used to sing. If something is working for you, great. For me, I am in the TimeformUS camp since the pursuit of the Triple Crown this year and I'm loving it. Like your free BRIS link, I use TVG ADW and Timeform is free with wagering via TVG as most know. That probably does not hurt my perception of Timeform.

I don't find Bris useless, just not as useFUL as TimeForm. I suppose it's what you get used to and what you can Cap from conveniently.

Back in the 80's, I thought DRF was the bomb. Pens, highlighters, and a DRF, I thought I was king of the track. Even when I lost. Repeatedly. :)

[letswastemoney]

I agree, LWM. Without slamming Bris or DRF (I have used both), I happen to prefer Timeform. To each their own, as Dean Martin used to sing. If something is working for you, great. For me, I am in the TimeformUS camp since the pursuit of the Triple Crown this year and I'm loving it. Like your free BRIS link, I use TVG ADW and Timeform is free with wagering via TVG as most know. That probably does not hurt my perception of Timeform.

I don't find Bris useless, just not as useFUL as TimeForm. I suppose it's what you get used to and what you can Cap from conveniently.

Back in the 80's, I thought DRF was the bomb. Pens, highlighters, and a DRF, I thought I was king of the track. Even when I lost. Repeatedly. :)Well I still find the running lines, class information, breeding info, connections, and the workouts, etc. helpful in any PPs, even if someone gave me DRF PPs to read.

I just don't think the speed figures are as accurate in BRIS.

[ReplayRandall]

Well I still find the running lines, class information, breeding info, connections, and the workouts, etc. helpful in any PPs, even if someone gave me DRF PPs to read.

I just don't think the speed figures are as accurate in BRIS.


LWM, I'm in total agreement with you concerning BRIS being an inferior(a bit harsh) product to the others mentioned. I'll add my perspective of Timeform, and it is this: For me, the 2 strongest tracks where Timeform has the competition beat HANDS DOWN, is Oaklawn Park and the Gulfstream meet which starts in Dec.......BTW, I did not receive comps from CJ for posting this.......he might even think this is a put-down....:D

[cj]

Here is an article about us:

https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/pressing-pace-handicapping-evolution-timeformus

I have sent a correction, I was never an Air Force Academy student, I am retired enlisted man.

[Spiderman]

Here is an article about us:

https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/pressing-pace-handicapping-evolution-timeformus

I have sent a correction, I was never an Air Force Academy student, I am retired enlisted man.

TimeForm looks to be a good resource. I've used it on occasion and read Mike Beer at the nyra website. However, it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks as I've been using BRIS for 16 years.

Off-topic - my son served two tours in USAF, at Hickum and Meade.

[jettroofer]

Great article. I am a BRIS Ultimate PP convert. I am exactly the demo that is described. When I do make it to Lonestar, I get a few looks as I set up my iPad at the carrel with my scratch paper for tallying recent form figs. I sometimes use my laptop. The amount of information you can get in a short period of time is invaluable. Big fan of the interface and I'm not sure im using all the functions just yet.

[JJMartin]

Now if we could just get those timeform guys to make a comma delimited file so we could run it through software, that would be interesting:ThmbUp:

[cj]

Now if we could just get those timeform guys to make a comma delimited file so we could run it through software, that would be interesting:ThmbUp:

It will happen, just not sure when. I want it as much as anyone!

[cutchemist42]

Maybe a mnor complaint for Timeform whenever I check out the free PPs but I really like knowing a race is 5000n3l or 5000n1y at a glance. The product is good though.

Also not sure if Im missing it, but does Timeform set up and update Pars for us to see?

[cj]

Maybe a mnor complaint for Timeform whenever I check out the free PPs but I really like knowing a race is 5000n3l or 5000n1y at a glance. The product is good though.

Also not sure if Im missing it, but does Timeform set up and update Pars for us to see?

No, we use individual Race Ratings for both past and today's race. I was skeptical at first, but I think they are better than pars based on a class designation.

[cj]

Pace Projector for the BC Classic:

[Tom]

Those of you who use the older Sartin stuff, try inputing the adjusted times fro the TFUS PPs - it will be worth your time.

[cutchemist42]

No, we use individual Race Ratings for both past and today's race. I was skeptical at first, but I think they are better than pars based on a class designation.

True, I just thinking the distinctions between n3Ls, n1xs, OC25k/n1x at a quick glance helps tell the story of the horse a little better.

[TrifectaMike]

After using BRIS and TimeformUS for over a year, while not touching DRF, I find BRIS numbers useless.

I used to believe in BRIS numbers. Or maybe I was just influenced by the fact that BRIS is free for the most part at this link (http://horseracing.about.com/od/racedayinfo/a/aafree-pps.htm). I'll still use BRIS sometimes though, just to glance at a few races and see if buying the TimeformUS PPs for the card might be worth it (which are also technically free with the TVG reimbursement). Plus, I don't really care about speed figures for turf racing.

For dirt racing though, TimeformUS is the most accurate between the two (I'm not comparing to DRF in this post, but you are welcome to comment on that).

I am curious to know your criteria for accuracy.

Mike

[letswastemoney]

I am curious to know your criteria for accuracy.

MikeJust trial and error. Watching which horses win the race after looking at both PPs for the same race.

BRIS overrates some of the bad horses in a lot of races. The competition looks too close together. I realize a scientific study would be better than just stating this with no statistics, and also realize the BRIS scale is different.

[raybo]

Those of you who use the older Sartin stuff, try inputing the adjusted times fro the TFUS PPs - it will be worth your time.

If those adjusted times are going to be included in the csv files, that will be the very first thing I do, you can take that to the bank! I just can't operate without my fractional and total velocities. Having more accurate adjusted times from which to derive them, has to be better. :ThmbUp:

[banacek]

Is there some sort of track variant that Timeformus gives in the printouts (likely the one used in their speed figures). Something like the DRF-TV (only more accurate) - like 10 is 5 lengths fast?

[cj]

Is there some sort of track variant that Timeformus gives in the printouts (likely the one used in their speed figures). Something like the DRF-TV (only more accurate) - like 10 is 5 lengths fast?

No, we do not print the variant, it is built into the figures and the adjusted times.

[banacek]

No, we do not print the variant, it is built into the figures and the adjusted times.

Is there some way of back calculating them? I currently make my own variants, but if the Timeformus ones are as good as everyone says it would be nice to just use them in my homegrown software.

Oh I guess if the times are adjusted I could just come the Timeformus times with the published times to figure them out?

[cj]

Is there some way of back calculating them? I currently make my own variants, but if the Timeformus ones are as good as everyone says it would be nice to just use them in my homegrown software.

Oh I guess if the times are adjusted I could just come the Timeformus times with the published times to figure them out?

Yes, you could do that I think...but the adjusted times are not only adjusted by the variant, but also for surface and distance. It can be done, but a pretty big task I would think. Further, there are pace variants and a final time variant.

[Cratos]

I am curious to know your criteria for accuracy.

Mike

What data are you referring to as being accurate? The source data will only be as accurate as the devices and humans used to collect it.

The so-called “adjusted data” has very little to with accuracy, but more to do with correctness based on the interpretation of the variables (air resistance, surface resistance, etc.) and the skill sets of those algorithmically making the adjustments.

[gptx]

Yes, you could do that I think...but the adjusted times are not only adjusted by the variant, but also for surface and distance. It can be done, but a pretty big task I would think. Further, there are pace variants and a final time variant.


Hi CJ,

Do the adjusted times also include track to track adjustments as the pace and speed figures are?

I have avoided using the adjusted times because I thought I read somewhere that they were not track/track adjusted so have just been using the adjusted pace/speed figs instead.

Thanks!

[PaceAdvantage]

What data are you referring to as being accurate? The source data will only be as accurate as the devices and humans used to collect it.

The so-called “adjusted data” has very little to with accuracy, but more to do with correctness based on the interpretation of the variables (air resistance, surface resistance, etc.) and the skill sets of those algorithmically making the adjustments.Wouldn't this be the case with every single provider of every single form of data you can conceive of? Everything you state above is a given.

[cj]

Hi CJ,

Do the adjusted times also include track to track adjustments as the pace and speed figures are?

I have avoided using the adjusted times because I thought I read somewhere that they were not track/track adjusted so have just been using the adjusted pace/speed figs instead.

Thanks!

Yes, they are absolutely adjusted track to track. A 23 1/4 is a 23 1/4 on any track, any distance, and any surface.

[cj]

Wouldn't this be the case with every single provider of every single form of data you can conceive of? Everything you state above is a given.

You know why he is posting that here.

[Cratos]

Wouldn't this be the case with every single provider of every single form of data you can conceive of? Everything you state above is a given.

You are correct, but I didn't ask the question, I only inquired about it.

However the word “accuracy” is thrown around on this forum without much if any definition.

Therefore let’s see if the following make sense when I say “accuracy indicates proximity of measurement results to the true value” or “accuracy is the degree of veracity.”

[gptx]

Yes, they are absolutely adjusted track to track. A 23 1/4 is a 23 1/4 on any track, any distance, and any surface.

Great, Thanks!

Can't wait to get my revenge on OP when they race again!

[Cratos]

You know why he is posting that here.

There is no hidden agenda on my part; I asked the question as a follow-up to post #15.

Is this not how discourse works in an open forum?

[raybo]

There is no hidden agenda on my part; I asked the question as a follow-up to post #15.

Is this not how discourse works in an open forum?

TM was asking the same question in post 15, and the poster he referred to responded with "trial and error" in comparing Brisnet numbers to TFUS numbers. "Predictive value" is what he was talking about, IMO, not the accuracy of the numbers.

[letswastemoney]

TM was asking the same question in post 15, and the poster he referred to responded with "trial and error" in comparing Brisnet numbers to TFUS numbers. "Predictive value" is what he was talking about, IMO, not the accuracy of the numbers.I guess I used the wrong words when writing this topic. Yes, that's more likely what I meant to convey.

In Race 1 at Mountaineer today, #3 Stringtown (currently 21/1) has one start.

He lost by 32 lengths in an open maiden race at Mountaineer. BRIS gives him a 34. TimeformUS gives him a 1.

If I'm looking at the BRIS PPs, and see that Stringtown has a 34, I might not think that's so terrible, especially for a first time start.

#6 Super Charmer has a 51 BRIS figure for his debut. On Timeform it's a 14. The 51 is fairly close to what the favorite in this race on the rail has been running. The 14 is about 30 points away from the favorite on the TimeformUS scale.

Of course, these are maidens that can jump up significantly at any time, so perhaps a bad example.

I can't see the differences as clearly with BRIS. For turf racing, I don't use speed figures so it's fine, but for dirt racing I don't trust their numbers. Some do, and that's fine. As I wrote in the first post, the price is right for most BRIS PPs.

[Cratos]

TM was asking the same question in post 15, and the poster he referred to responded with "trial and error" in comparing Brisnet numbers to TFUS numbers. "Predictive value" is what he was talking about, IMO, not the accuracy of the numbers.

Wrong; post #1 clearly directs the discussion toward the accuracy of “numbers” and it doesn’t matter about the genesis because TM follow-up from my understanding is how that accuracy of “numbers” is being determined or defined.

Also I don’t believe an exiguous definition is being asked for in the context of this discussion.

[raybo]

Wrong; post #1 clearly directs the discussion toward the accuracy of “numbers” and it doesn’t matter about the genesis because TM follow-up from my understanding is how that accuracy of “numbers” is being determined or defined.

Also I don’t believe an exiguous definition is being asked for in the context of this discussion.

See post #31.

[PaceAdvantage]

You are correct, but I didn't ask the question, I only inquired about it.

However the word “accuracy” is thrown around on this forum without much if any definition.

Therefore let’s see if the following make sense when I say “accuracy indicates proximity of measurement results to the true value” or “accuracy is the degree of veracity.”More often than not, you take away from a discussion rather than add to it...all the while constantly throwing in fancy words to make yourself sound really, really smart...everybody needs an image I guess...

[Cratos]

More often than not, you take away from a discussion rather than add to it...all the while constantly throwing in fancy words to make yourself sound really, really smart...everybody needs an image I guess...
Stop being ridiculous, what I responded too was consistent with the post.which I noted.

I find it beyond comprehension that someone who is an administrator would make personal attacks without foundation.

I don't think I use any words that are not understandable.

Also I don't comment for self-elation: I comment because of self-interest in a particular topic or subject.

By the way what self-image am I attempting to attain? I have the alphabets behind my name in academic achievement and schools.

[raybo]

Exiguous: skanty, inadequate, small, insufficient, etc., etc., etc..

I had to Google "definition of exiguous", rather than "exiguous" in order to get anything except links to the word, or non-word, "Dexiguous", so the word "exiguous" is obviously not a word commonly used. In other words, it's a "fancy word" that could have been much more simply stated, and more widely understood outside a lab or classroom. Those kinds of words are fine when you're talking to fellow academics, but probably would best be left at the lab or classrooom, rather than flaunted on a horse racing forum. Just saying.....

Now, since you used that word, how does ""predictive value" is what he was talking about, IMO, not the accuracy of the numbers" meet that description? The OP originally used the term "accurate" but later said that he wasn't really talking about the accuracy of the numbers, but rather the numbers' predictive value, regarding the TFUS figures versus the Brisnet figures. Which, in my mind, leads one to believe that he thinks the TFUS figures are more consistent, and indicative of performance measurement, than the Brisnet figures. Both sets of figures could, in anyone's mind, be inaccurate, but one or both could still hold predictive value regarding future races, because of their consistency.

[PaceAdvantage]

Stop being ridiculous, what I responded too was consistent with the post.which I noted.

I find it beyond comprehension that someone who is an administrator would make personal attacks without foundation.

I don't think I use any words that are not understandable.

Also I don't comment for self-elation: I comment because of self-interest in a particular topic or subject.

By the way what self-image am I attempting to attain? I have the alphabets behind my name in academic achievement and schools.Ridiculous? Not in the least. Personal attack? Hardly. Precisely BECAUSE I am administrator, part of my job description at times is to offer evaluations of the kind of contributions users make here. Are they here to contribute? Are they here simply to argue? Are they here for other reasons?

I offered up an honest evaluation of you based on my experience and duties here. Calling that a personal attack is hogwash.

And I never stated that you used words that are not understandable, now did I?

[cj]

I'm very proud of this. No, I didn't bet them all, but I had a good day. 7 of the 13 Breeders' Cup races were won by the top "4 rules" horse with TimeformUS Speed Figures, which is basically the last speed figure on today's surface and excludes horses that haven't raced in 180 days.

The winners:

Hootenanny 14.40
Goldencents 3.40
Dayatthespa 13.00
Judy the Beauty 8.40 (tied with Leigh Court)
Bobby's Kitten 16.40
Texas Red 29.80
Bayern 14.20

The 4th rule is bet the horse with the highest odds, which was Leigh Court in the FM Sprint, so that is a loser. Still, ROI for betting these this weekend was nice: 13 races = $26 in, $91.20 out.

[DRIVEWAY]

I'm very proud of this. No, I didn't bet them all, but I had a good day. 7 of the 13 Breeders' Cup races were won by the top "4 rules" horse with TimeformUS Speed Figures, which is basically the last speed figure on today's surface and excludes horses that haven't raced in 180 days.

The winners:

Hootenanny 14.40
Goldencents 3.40
Dayatthespa 13.00
Judy the Beauty 8.40 (tied with Leigh Court)
Bobby's Kitten 16.40
Texas Red 29.80
Bayern 14.20

The 4th rule is bet the horse with the highest odds, which was Leigh Court in the FM Sprint, so that is a loser. Still, ROI for betting these this weekend was nice: 13 races = $26 in, $91.20 out.

Nice result.

Can only wonder what this rule(4) would have produced substituting beyer# or bris(sr)#.

Thanks for sharing.

[cj]

Nice result.

Can only wonder what this rule(4) would have produced substituting beyer# or bris(sr)#.

Thanks for sharing.

I really don't know, but I'm sure someone could give it a whirl. Pretty simple to do...

1) Eliminate any horses off 180 or more days
2) Find the last race on today's surface (dirt, turf, synth)
3) Highest is the bet
4) Tiebreaker is bet highest odds

[Grits]

Wow, my review three hours ago was more detailed than your's.

I know. Who read it? Doesn't have the draw you have.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=118091&page=2

[cj]

Wow, my review three hours ago was more detailed than your's.

I know. Who read it? Doesn't have the draw you have.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=118091&page=2

I saw, and I really appreciate it, I just didn't want to take away from Mike's thread.

[cj]

I posted this earlier on Twitter, wonder what others think:

[PhantomOnTour]

CJ - where did Work All Week rank with his last two on a dirt fast track?
I have his Phoenix at Kee and his Hot Springs at OP races being very fast, esp the pace of the Phoenix.

My Phoenix numbers (modified Quirin style scale) are 112-113-109
Hot Springs figs were 104-109-110

Basically, I bet him off that Kee race, and the fact that he is a 6f specialist & a road warrior.

[cj]

CJ - where did Work All Week rank with his last two on a dirt fast track?
I have his Phoenix at Kee and his Hot Springs at OP races being very fast, esp the pace of the Phoenix.

My Phoenix numbers (modified Quirin style scale) are 112-113-109
Hot Springs figs were 104-109-110

Basically, I bet him off that Kee race, and the fact that he is a 6f specialist & a road warrior.

He was just a few point below the top, maybe 4. He is one I actually bet that wasn't ranked first, but I also didn't bet a few that were and won. (Bayern, for one) I've been talking up Work All Week since January and got to see him in person in Iowa, where he wasn't even favored!

[PhantomOnTour]

He was just a few point below the top, maybe 4. He is one I actually bet that wasn't ranked first, but I also didn't bet a few that were and won. (Bayern, for one) I've been talking up Work All Week since January and got to see him in person in Iowa, where he wasn't even favored!
Thx for the response.
I had never even heard of him until I got my pp's for BrCup :eek:

[Grits]

Craig, I didn't take away from Mike's thread. I know better. What I did... was post the results of a product both, he and myself, use. Along with others here.

This is the main part of TFUS I concentrate on as I'm a past subscriber to your figures. I've looked at these numbers for days.

FYI, there is no tie with Judy The Beauty in the 6th race. The tie is listed below.

Judy The Beauty 5/2 -- 113
Artemis Agrotera 3/1 -- 111
Stonestastic 8/1 and Leigh Court 4/1 -- 110

The real price horse was the one I bet, the 8, the LSP that ran second to the winner paying $16.40, making a nice exacta. Different surface, this horse didn't factor in the 4R grouping.

My mistake was stating the layoff was 90 days as I thought you'd dropped it from 180 days. Glad you appreciate the post though. ... Anyway, I'm sorry, I'll back out of the TFUS thread now. Thanks.

[cj]

Craig, I didn't take away from Mike's thread. I know better. What I did... was post the results of a product both, he and myself, use. Along with others here.

This is the main part of TFUS I concentrate on as I'm a past subscriber to your figures. I've looked at these numbers for days.

FYI, there is no tie with Judy The Beauty in the 6th race. The tie is listed below.

Judy The Beauty 5/2 -- 113
Artemis Agrotera 3/1 -- 111
Stonestastic 8/1 and Leigh Court 4/1 -- 110

The real price horse was the one I bet, the 8, the LSP that ran second to the winner paying $16.40, making a nice exacta. Different surface, this horse didn't factor in the 4R grouping.

My mistake was stating the layoff was 90 days as I thought you'd dropped it from 180 days. Glad you appreciate the post though. ... Anyway, I'm sorry, I'll back out of the TFUS thread now. Thanks.

All good DG. A couple things, I didn't think you were taking away from the thread, but it would appear that way if I do it, and I did want to mention this in the speed figure thread...self serving I admit, but as I said, I'm proud of it on these the biggest days in racing.

As for the ties, we're doing something a little different. Judy the Beauty last ran on dirt two back and got a 110, as did Leigh Court. No other horse ran a faster last dirt race.

[Grits]

Its fine, but its over. Honestly speaking, though, TFUS would be better rewarded by my post than your own. It includes all the horses that won and placed based on the figures. ;)

On Judy The Beauty, maybe we are doing something different, or maybe I just don't understand. I thought I did.

Anyway, two back on the dirt, yes, she ran a 110. If you go four races back, her figure is 113 on the dirt. So, why is this not the top figure, on dirt, the 4R horse?

[raybo]

Its fine, but its over. Honestly speaking, though, TFUS would be better rewarded by my post than your own. It includes all the horses that won and placed based on the figures. ;)

On Judy The Beauty, maybe we are doing something different, or maybe I just don't understand. I thought I did.

Anyway, two back on the dirt, yes, she ran a 110. If you go four races back, her figure is 113 on the dirt. So, why is this not the top figure, on dirt, the 4R horse?

Didn't CJ say that you use the most recent race on the surface? That would be the 2 back race, not the 4 back race. He didn't say the highest figure on the same surface, but the "last" on the surface ("last" meaning most recent).

[Grits]

Raybo, you're correct. My mistake. I'm going from my habits...which involve looking a bit further back. I do it all the time. ITS where I've found price horses so many times, and have told Craig so. Again, I'm sorry for my questioning, gentlemen. Thank you both.

[thaskalos]

I really don't know, but I'm sure someone could give it a whirl. Pretty simple to do...

1) Eliminate any horses off 180 or more days
2) Find the last race on today's surface (dirt, turf, synth)
3) Highest is the bet
4) Tiebreaker is bet highest odds

No distance or class considerations? I'm not optimistic... :)

[cj]

No distance or class considerations? I'm not optimistic... :)

Nope...I've always said it is the starting point of my handicapping. As I mentioned, I didn't bet then all.

[Grits]

One more question. Indulge me.
And don't laugh, or I'll make you sorry. :lol:

Race 7. I had this race as OUT. You had Bobby's Kitten, the winner, with his last figure at 110, while Undrafted's is 121 two back? Bobby's Kitten is the 4R. I thought Undrafted. Same surface. Again, what have I missed? I've seen you go back, time and again, marking a 4R horse, races back, surface changes, etc.

****Excuse me, room, I don't question or debate him usually but I'll keep on 'til I realize any/all mistakes in my post earlier today. So far, of course, he's right about Judy The Beauty. ;)

Should I be embarrassed asking questions? No. Screw that, I don't care about such things.

[cj]

One more question. Indulge me.
And don't laugh, or I'll make you sorry. :lol:

Race 7. I had this race as OUT. You had Bobby's Kitten, the winner, with his last figure at 110, while Undrafted's is 121 two back? Bobby's Kitten is the 4R. I thought Undrafted. Same surface. Again, what have I missed? I've seen you go back, time and again, marking a 4R horse, races back, surface changes, etc.

****Excuse me, room, I don't question or debate him usually but I'll keep on 'til I realize any/all mistakes in my post earlier today. So far, of course, he's right about Judy The Beauty. ;)

Should I be embarrassed asking questions? No. Screw that, I don't care about such things.

Undrafted had a more recent turf race, so that is his 4r figure.

[Grits]

Undrafted had a more recent turf race, so that is his 4r figure.

OK Thank you for your time.

[MJC922]

You beat my numbers handily using those rules, +7% ROI for me over the same set of races, though I don't have figs coming from the UK which may have changed one or two for better or worse.

[banacek]

CJ,

Is there a way of getting a few back files from TIMEFORMUS for my local track (Hastings) which is done for the year? I couldn't find them on the website. I would be interested in looking at the ratings to compare with mine.

[cj]

CJ,

Is there a way of getting a few back files from TIMEFORMUS for my local track (Hastings) which is done for the year? I couldn't find them on the website. I would be interested in looking at the ratings to compare with mine.

Sending PM...