PDA

View Full Version : Making your own speed figs? It's multi-dimensional now or bust!


Pages : [1] 2

Capper Al
03-02-2015, 06:17 PM
It's always nice to see someone asking about how they should go about making their own speed figures. Usually they are starting their journey of building their own handicapping system. Even if it doesn't pan out, it's an enjoyable venture for those so inclined. But don't think you'll beat Beyer or BRIS speed figures head to head. You don't have the resources to do so. And even if your figures are 1% better, it probably will be hard to break even. Nowadays, one needs an arsenal of many types of speed figures, plus many class figs, and many pace figs, and connections figs. A single fig rarely gets it. Why? I guessing here, but if you look at a graph of speed figs, you'll find it looks more like a scatter graph. What BRIS might have as the fastest, Beyer might show as the slowest. Usually one finds that the top speed horses are in the top half for both, but not in the exact same order. It's amazing that they generally all fall in with a strike rate of about 25 to 30 percent at the end of a test period. So why multiple figures? Does averaging soothe the beast? I think so. With needing a higher degree of certainty because of the low payouts on top speed horses it might help. When your horse doesn't win, it might be easier to stomach if you tell your friends that it had both the best Beyer and BRIS fig. How else could you have picked the winner?

thaskalos
03-02-2015, 06:29 PM
It's always nice to see someone asking about how they should go about making their own speed figures. Usually they are starting their journey of building their own handicapping system. Even if it doesn't pan out, it's an enjoyable venture for those so inclined. But don't think you'll beat Beyer or BRIS speed figures head to head. You don't have the resources to do so. And even if your figures are 1% better, it probably will be hard to break even. Nowadays, one needs an arsenal of many types of speed figures, plus many class figs, and many pace figs, and connections figs. A single fig rarely gets it. Why? I guessing here, but if you look at a graph of speed figs, you'll find it looks more like a scatter graph. What BRIS might have as the fastest, Beyer might show as the slowest. Usually one finds that the top speed horses are in the top half for both, but not in the exact same order. It's amazing that they generally all fall in with a strike rate of about 25 to 30 percent at the end of a test period. So why multiple figures? Does averaging soothe the beast? I think so. With needing a higher degree of certainty because of the low payouts on top speed horses it might help. When your horse doesn't win, it might be easier to stomach if you tell your friends that it had both the best Beyer and BRIS fig. How else could you have picked the winner?

I disagree with you here, Al. It's VERY worthwhile to make your own figures...and you CAN beat the Beyer and the BRIS figures...simply because the Beyer figures exclude pace, and the BRIS pace figures are laughable.

And, no...you don't need an "arsenal of many types of speed figures", nor "many pace figures" to get the job done; one of each will do nicely. The trick is in the INTERPRETATION of these figures.

classhandicapper
03-02-2015, 08:04 PM
As someone that has spent a lot of time looking at multiple sets of figures in the hope of gaining extra confidence in some races and perhaps figuring out who had it right before the fact in other races, IMO that strategy has both upsides and downsides.

It certainly helps point out some controversial races and days. So you may make fewer bets off bad figures. But it can sometimes be paralyzing when you aren't sure what really happened or which figure is correct.

GaryG
03-02-2015, 08:19 PM
I have made my own Quirin-style figs for years. I not only have confidence in them but I know what went into them and that makes it possible to fine tune them after the fact. I look at the speed figure in conjunction with the pace figure rather than trying to modify one with the other. I also make a race shape figure that uses both bias and pace. This is similar to what the Plod Boys do at Racing Flow. As someone said long ago, "I don't intend to lose my money on somebody else's typographical error."

DeltaLover
03-02-2015, 08:24 PM
It's always nice to see someone asking about how they should go about making their own speed figures. Usually they are starting their journey of building their own handicapping system. Even if it doesn't pan out, it's an enjoyable venture for those so inclined. But don't think you'll beat Beyer or BRIS speed figures head to head. You don't have the resources to do so. And even if your figures are 1% better, it probably will be hard to break even. Nowadays, one needs an arsenal of many types of speed figures, plus many class figs, and many pace figs, and connections figs. A single fig rarely gets it. Why? I guessing here, but if you look at a graph of speed figs, you'll find it looks more like a scatter graph. What BRIS might have as the fastest, Beyer might show as the slowest. Usually one finds that the top speed horses are in the top half for both, but not in the exact same order. It's amazing that they generally all fall in with a strike rate of about 25 to 30 percent at the end of a test period. So why multiple figures? Does averaging soothe the beast? I think so. With needing a higher degree of certainty because of the low payouts on top speed horses it might help. When your horse doesn't win, it might be easier to stomach if you tell your friends that it had both the best Beyer and BRIS fig. How else could you have picked the winner?

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Nice post..

I completely agree that we need several other metrics appart from pure speed, pace or performance figs to measure aspects of the race that are not so obvious to the average horse bettors.

As far as your horse does not winning the race, I have to say that this has to nothing to do with the validity of your figures and metrics though

clemkadiddle
03-02-2015, 10:02 PM
BRIS or Beyer are based on the same flawed theory of parallel time. I use them...but only to reverse-engineer the final time of the race where the 100-point score was awarded and compare that to standard parallel time charts to calculate the variant...which I do as a ratio...so it can be used when parsing the segments of the race into pace calculations.

Parallel time is flawed because it assumes the base 10 logarithm of the average feet per second differs by .0064 for each furlong. For each additional turn, add .0040.

The biggest mistake that practically everyone (but me) makes is to add 1/5 of a second for each length to the time at the fraction at the point of call. Many don't realize that the points of call don't necessarily correspond to the fractional times and the lengths need to be pro-rated to synchronize them. So too is the fact that handicappers try to make their calculations from point to point in the race, but fail to see that this method is lost in the averages from the preceding points in the race. The best approach is to cut the race into segments and analyze the speeding up and slowing down of the horse...even then, one fails to see that the average feet per second within each segment are just that...averages. They don't visualize just how fast the horse was going at the beginning of the segment and again at the end.

The only method that has any value is one that can truly estimate the amount of "work" a horse performs during the course of the race. As a horse runs faster, he expends energy exponentially; as he begins to slow down, he is still expending energy but the mode changes into more of a coasting.

After about 8 years of research I do believe I have that model. After all, if Beyer, BRIS, Brohammer, Sartin...or any of these approaches that are available were really worth anything...we would all be rich. That's why I didn't bother with this stuff.

Me: Computer programmer/analyst for over 25 years. Been a race fan for almost 40. It was only about 8 years ago that I really thought that I would take a shot at this in my spare time...and it has been paying off since last June. (However, I really need to spend more time and fine tune some things but basically I am staying ahead of the game.)

HINT: A horse really doesn't start spending racing energy until he crosses the 44 FPS threshold...the "2 minute lick".

thaskalos
03-03-2015, 01:17 AM
BRIS or Beyer are based on the same flawed theory of parallel time. I use them...but only to reverse-engineer the final time of the race where the 100-point score was awarded and compare that to standard parallel time charts to calculate the variant...which I do as a ratio...so it can be used when parsing the segments of the race into pace calculations.

Parallel time is flawed because it assumes the base 10 logarithm of the average feet per second differs by .0064 for each furlong. For each additional turn, add .0040.

The biggest mistake that practically everyone (but me) makes is to add 1/5 of a second for each length to the time at the fraction at the point of call. Many don't realize that the points of call don't necessarily correspond to the fractional times and the lengths need to be pro-rated to synchronize them. So too is the fact that handicappers try to make their calculations from point to point in the race, but fail to see that this method is lost in the averages from the preceding points in the race. The best approach is to cut the race into segments and analyze the speeding up and slowing down of the horse...even then, one fails to see that the average feet per second within each segment are just that...averages. They don't visualize just how fast the horse was going at the beginning of the segment and again at the end.

The only method that has any value is one that can truly estimate the amount of "work" a horse performs during the course of the race. As a horse runs faster, he expends energy exponentially; as he begins to slow down, he is still expending energy but the mode changes into more of a coasting.

After about 8 years of research I do believe I have that model. After all, if Beyer, BRIS, Brohammer, Sartin...or any of these approaches that are available were really worth anything...we would all be rich. That's why I didn't bother with this stuff.

Me: Computer programmer/analyst for over 25 years. Been a race fan for almost 40. It was only about 8 years ago that I really thought that I would take a shot at this in my spare time...and it has been paying off since last June. (However, I really need to spend more time and fine tune some things but basically I am staying ahead of the game.)

HINT: A horse really doesn't start spending racing energy until he crosses the 44 FPS threshold...the "2 minute lick".

Is this a joke? Is there anyone out there who still adds a fifth of a second for a beaten length?

Capper Al
03-03-2015, 06:27 AM
As someone that has spent a lot of time looking at multiple sets of figures in the hope of gaining extra confidence in some races and perhaps figuring out who had it right before the fact in other races, IMO that strategy has both upsides and downsides.

It certainly helps point out some controversial races and days. So you may make fewer bets off bad figures. But it can sometimes be paralyzing when you aren't sure what really happened or which figure is correct.

I hear you. One of the biggest problems with multiple numbers is paralyze from analyze as it is commonly referred to. Ainslie once told a joke of a man that drowned crossing a river when someone on the other side yelled, the average depth is only 4 feet. Averaging numbers can be dangerous also. I know no other solution to this than to run a few hundred races and see what numbers or number combinations works best for you. And then it's won't be the Holy Grail of racing either, just another number.

Capper Al
03-03-2015, 06:32 AM
I have made my own Quirin-style figs for years. I not only have confidence in them but I know what went into them and that makes it possible to fine tune them after the fact. I look at the speed figure in conjunction with the pace figure rather than trying to modify one with the other. I also make a race shape figure that uses both bias and pace. This is similar to what the Plod Boys do at Racing Flow. As someone said long ago, "I don't intend to lose my money on somebody else's typographical error."

I didn't know of Plod Boys at Racing Flow, but running and tweaking Quirin-figs in an age of Beyer style parallel times would be an interesting study. They Quirin-figs might not have a higher win rate, but might have a better ROI since the crowd isn't using them anymore. Might be another number to add to my collection.

Capper Al
03-03-2015, 06:36 AM
:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Nice post..

I completely agree that we need several other metrics appart from pure speed, pace or performance figs to measure aspects of the race that are not so obvious to the average horse bettors.

As far as your horse does not winning the race, I have to say that this has to nothing to do with the validity of your figures and metrics though

I use multiple metrics also, but must say my longest winning streak for this weekend worrier was 13 weekends using Gile style pace figs. Then all of a sudden, the numbers died- fortunately before I bought a Corvette. Nothing else that I ever did came close to this single factor play.

Capper Al
03-03-2015, 07:06 AM
BRIS or Beyer are based on the same flawed theory of parallel time. I use them...but only to reverse-engineer the final time of the race where the 100-point score was awarded and compare that to standard parallel time charts to calculate the variant...which I do as a ratio...so it can be used when parsing the segments of the race into pace calculations.

Parallel time is flawed because it assumes the base 10 logarithm of the average feet per second differs by .0064 for each furlong. For each additional turn, add .0040.

The biggest mistake that practically everyone (but me) makes is to add 1/5 of a second for each length to the time at the fraction at the point of call. Many don't realize that the points of call don't necessarily correspond to the fractional times and the lengths need to be pro-rated to synchronize them. So too is the fact that handicappers try to make their calculations from point to point in the race, but fail to see that this method is lost in the averages from the preceding points in the race. The best approach is to cut the race into segments and analyze the speeding up and slowing down of the horse...even then, one fails to see that the average feet per second within each segment are just that...averages. They don't visualize just how fast the horse was going at the beginning of the segment and again at the end.

The only method that has any value is one that can truly estimate the amount of "work" a horse performs during the course of the race. As a horse runs faster, he expends energy exponentially; as he begins to slow down, he is still expending energy but the mode changes into more of a coasting.

After about 8 years of research I do believe I have that model. After all, if Beyer, BRIS, Brohammer, Sartin...or any of these approaches that are available were really worth anything...we would all be rich. That's why I didn't bother with this stuff.

Me: Computer programmer/analyst for over 25 years. Been a race fan for almost 40. It was only about 8 years ago that I really thought that I would take a shot at this in my spare time...and it has been paying off since last June. (However, I really need to spend more time and fine tune some things but basically I am staying ahead of the game.)

HINT: A horse really doesn't start spending racing energy until he crosses the 44 FPS threshold...the "2 minute lick".

Nice post, my fellow computer programmer/analyst.

Parallel time isn't flawed. Parallel time still is the most published speed and the best single handicapping factor for a win percentage. I'm not disagreeing with making your figs. One might just get a higher ROI with numbers that the crowd doesn't use. My recent figs are feet per second (FTS) based also.

Capper Al
03-03-2015, 07:19 AM
Is this a joke? Is there anyone out there who still adds a fifth of a second for a beaten length?

I do! Why? A length isn't 1/5 of a second. Agree. Because after playing with parallel time it dawn on me that the final unit of displacement doesn't matter as long as it is a CONSTANT! The variability of time should be rolled into the base figure that is adjusted to a focal point of something usually like 100. Once adjusted the whole idea of parallel time is to sync these different speeds to a universal point system. It won't be a universal time if the lengths off are variable. Whatever a displacement a capper uses be it 1/5 point per length or 10 per length, it's a measure off the universal time. Lengths are universal. At that point the unit of measure has been converted from seconds to points. Why not use 1/5 per length? It is more user friendly than any other fraction.

fmolf
03-03-2015, 07:49 AM
I do! Why? A length isn't 1/5 of a second. Agree. Because after playing with parallel time it dawn on me that the final unit of displacement doesn't matter as long as it is a CONSTANT! The variability of time should be rolled into the base figure that is adjusted to a focal point of something usually like 100. Once adjusted the whole idea of parallel time is to sync these different speeds to a universal point system. It won't be a universal time if the lengths off are variable. Whatever a displacement a capper uses be it 1/5 point per length or 10 per length, it's a measure off the universal time. Lengths are universal. At that point the unit of measure has been converted from seconds to points. Why not use 1/5 per length? It is more user friendly than any other fraction.
Very well said.....In this way every horse in every race is judged against the same standard. Simple!...I am a firm believer in K.I.S.S methods.

Capper Al
03-03-2015, 08:31 AM
Very well said.....In this way every horse in every race is judged against the same standard. Simple!...I am a firm believer in K.I.S.S methods.

I just checked my code on this. My constant is 1 point per length, not 1/5. Old age, I can't remember anything anymore. But note,it doesn't vary on the back end of the equation.

thaskalos
03-03-2015, 12:57 PM
I do! Why? A length isn't 1/5 of a second. Agree. Because after playing with parallel time it dawn on me that the final unit of displacement doesn't matter as long as it is a CONSTANT! The variability of time should be rolled into the base figure that is adjusted to a focal point of something usually like 100. Once adjusted the whole idea of parallel time is to sync these different speeds to a universal point system. It won't be a universal time if the lengths off are variable. Whatever a displacement a capper uses be it 1/5 point per length or 10 per length, it's a measure off the universal time. Lengths are universal. At that point the unit of measure has been converted from seconds to points. Why not use 1/5 per length? It is more user friendly than any other fraction.
Clem made the astounding assertion that everyone but him adds a fifth of a second to the horse's time for every length that the horse is behind the leader at the various points of call. That simply isn't true. A great many handicappers have realized that a length isn't worth a fifth of a second...and the pace handicappers have largely abandoned this "convenient" adjustment measure...because inaccurate adjustment measures DO make a difference...even when the measurement is a CONSTANT, and is applied to ALL the horses equally.

In this game...the pace handicapper is comparing speed horses to closers. If a closer gains 5 lengths during the stretch run of a given race, and this closer is credited a full second for his stretch gain...then the stretch runner has gotten an adjustment advantage that he doesn't deserve, relative to the speed horse that he is trying to catch. When a pace handicapper is comparing speed horses to closers...then a fifth of a second "mistake" during a fraction of the race makes a difference.

I have no real argument to make against the notion that simplicity is worth a small measure of inaccuracy...nor can I really argue with the guy who states that precision is an impossibility in this game, since even the employed method for reported lengths behind in this game is fraught with inaccuracies. The horseplayer makes his own adjustment decisions...and he lives with them. But Clem's post seemed to me to be decidedly smug and egotistical. EVERYONE does "this", but Clem does "that"...because he is a 25-year programmer, and a 40-year horseplayer. That's an odd way to talk...especially when you don't really know what everybody else is doing.

GaryG
03-03-2015, 01:08 PM
If a closer gains 5 lengths during the stretch run of a given race, and this closer is credited a full second for his stretch gain...then the stretch runner has gotten an adjustment advantage that he doesn't deserve, relative to the speed horse that he is trying to catch.This is very true....you can see how true by looking at the Trakus times.

Capper Al
03-03-2015, 02:36 PM
thaskalos,

Okay, I wasn't reading all that. But it's there. My focus was more on the side that whatever number one chooses 1/5 or 1/6 second isn't that big of a deal after the times are made parallel for speed not necessarily pace. Matter of fact, after discussing this I'm going to adjust what I'm doing a bit. I can see how the pace boys are concerned about lengths at different stages of the race. There is big difference between first call feet per second and last furlong. Is it significant over a thousand races? I don't know. When I get to pace in my rewrite, I'll be more able to discuss these details. But now for a speed fig, I'm leaning as to not too terribly different what one uses after the times are made parallel.

Capper Al
03-03-2015, 02:39 PM
Very well said.....In this way every horse in every race is judged against the same standard. Simple!...I am a firm believer in K.I.S.S methods.

I believe in K.I.S.S also, but with handicapping I find it difficult not to complicate matters. As some say around here, there are just too many confounded variables.

Dave Schwartz
03-03-2015, 03:23 PM
Al,

What do you mean by "multidimensional" ratings?

Capper Al
03-03-2015, 04:22 PM
Al,

What do you mean by "multidimensional" ratings?

How I use the term for handicapping is that I have many ways to look at factors like speed, class, pace, connections etc. I formulate one common thread for each factor and build a comprehensive view with a final weighted score. Yes, if I used my time flipping hamburgers at McDonald's I would make more money.

whodoyoulike
03-03-2015, 05:19 PM
How I use the term for handicapping is that I have many ways to look at factors like speed, class, pace, connections etc. I formulate one common thread for each factor and build a comprehensive view with a final weighted score. Yes, if I used my time flipping hamburgers at McDonald's I would make more money.

It would have been clearer if you used "comprehensive" ratings rather than "multidimensional".

Have you been able to develop a comprehensive rating based on speed, class, pace, connections etc.?

If you have, I think you need to remember it is just one rating which needs to be considered in relationship with your other ratings.

Dave Schwartz
03-03-2015, 07:45 PM
Thank you for the explanation.

At what point do these ratings (multidimensional, composite, comprehensive, etc.) no longer become "speed ratings?"

As WhoDo, said, ...

It would have been clearer if you used "comprehensive" ratings rather than "multidimensional".


In the HDW system, Jim Cramer has a very powerful rating called "Projected Speed Rating." However, in truth, it is not really a speed rating at all. Kind of like BRIS' Prime Power rating.

So, my question to you Al (meaning no disrespect whatsoever) is:

"Are you trying to create a more accurate speed rating for each past race, for each horse, or are you trying to take speed ratings as well as other ratings/metrics/facts and integrate them into a hit rate?"

clemkadiddle
03-03-2015, 08:04 PM
Clem made the astounding assertion that everyone but him adds a fifth of a second to the horse's time for every length that the horse is behind the leader at the various points of call. That simply isn't true. A great many handicappers have realized that a length isn't worth a fifth of a second...and the pace handicappers have largely abandoned this "convenient" adjustment measure...because inaccurate adjustment measures DO make a difference...even when the measurement is a CONSTANT, and is applied to ALL the horses equally.

In this game...the pace handicapper is comparing speed horses to closers. If a closer gains 5 lengths during the stretch run of a given race, and this closer is credited a full second for his stretch gain...then the stretch runner has gotten an adjustment advantage that he doesn't deserve, relative to the speed horse that he is trying to catch. When a pace handicapper is comparing speed horses to closers...then a fifth of a second "mistake" during a fraction of the race makes a difference.

I have no real argument to make against the notion that simplicity is worth a small measure of inaccuracy...nor can I really argue with the guy who states that precision is an impossibility in this game, since even the employed method for reported lengths behind in this game is fraught with inaccuracies. The horseplayer makes his own adjustment decisions...and he lives with them. But Clem's post seemed to me to be decidedly smug and egotistical. EVERYONE does "this", but Clem does "that"...because he is a 25-year programmer, and a 40-year horseplayer. That's an odd way to talk...especially when you don't really know what everybody else is doing.

Correct...I don't know what everyone else is doing. My library consists of books at least 30 years old...and this is the basis of a lot of work in it. Even Beyer's Speed Figures are based on 1/5 of a second per length combined with parallel time. Beyer's "Picking Winners" divulges the formula. The Beyer figure is based on a segment consisting of 1/10th of the overall distance and the projected percent that the horse's final average speed intersects this segment. (Trust me on this one.)

Greyfox
03-03-2015, 08:16 PM
.because inaccurate adjustment measures DO make a difference...even when the measurement is a CONSTANT, and is applied to ALL the horses equally.

.

Sorry Thask.
But if you are adding or subtracting a CONSTANT for a length to every horse, depending on their beaten lengths, you'll get the same rank order and that will be accurate.
The math dictates that is so.
If you're working with raw numbers, of course they won't reflect reality, but the rankings will come out the same.

clemkadiddle
03-03-2015, 08:31 PM
The overall objective of my work was to equate efforts at different distances...even over different surfaces...where parallel time fails.

Parallel time has been accepted as the standard for all speed handicapping. However, what I have seen in my calculations is that horses are more consistent than one might have guessed. Even with 5 to 7 point fluctuations in speed ratings, summing up the results of each segment for the races in question have produced almost identical totals when horses are in form. That is why I am of the opinion that the concept of parallel time has become obsolete.

Basically, the method:

1. Reverse-engineer the final time where the 100 point score was awarded. The only problem with this I have is BRIS tends to classify routes from 1 mile and longer. In a card where there is a mile race and perhaps a couple of longer races, BRIS will say that the routes are playing 2 seconds slower. When they incorporate this into the speed rating for the mile race, the variant becomes skewed.

2. Once having the 100 point time, compare this to a standard parallel time chart. Use the average FPS for both the actual race as compared to that on the chart and derive a ratio that can be used in the pace calculations.

3. Parse the race into individual segments. Use 8 feet for 1 length. Calculate distance traveled, making sure to include 8 feet for each length closed...or lost. This will reveal the FPS for the segment; multiply times the variant ratio to get an adjusted FPS.

4. Plug this FPS into the mathematical model and multiply by the number of furlongs for the segment.

5. The mathematical model is an exponential expression involving the degree to which the horse exceeds 44 FPS...that's all I am going to say at this point because this is the basis of 8 years of research that involved throwing a whole lot of mathematical darts at this subject. It wasn't until I had this idea...and started pursuing it...I was amazed with the results.

thaskalos
03-03-2015, 08:42 PM
Sorry Thask.
But if you are adding or subtracting a CONSTANT for a length to every horse, depending on their beaten lengths, you'll get the same rank order and that will be accurate.
The math dictates that is so.
If you're working with raw numbers, of course they won't reflect reality, but the rankings will come out the same.

So...you are saying that it makes no difference if a length is really a fifth of a second or a TENTH of a second. As long as we apply the same "constant" to all the horses across the board, then we are fine...right?

Greyfox
03-03-2015, 09:16 PM
So...you are saying that it makes no difference if a length is really a fifth of a second or a TENTH of a second. As long as we apply the same "constant" to all the horses across the board, then we are fine...right?

If you are looking for a bulls eye accurate representation in raw figures, it will make a difference.
If you are looking at rankings the horses will come out in the same order.
In my own instance, all of my numbers in my private program are converted to percentages.
Using tenths or fifths will give different percentages, but not different rankings.
But the top horse will be the top horse and the bottom one the bottom one.
The rankings will be the same - as long as you use the same "constant."
Obviously, it's nice to be close to what is really happening, but if you are using a constant, for ranking purposes it won't change the outcomes.

thaskalos
03-03-2015, 09:29 PM
If you are looking for a bulls eye accurate representation in raw figures, it will make a difference.
If you are looking at rankings the horses will come out in the same order.
In my own instance, all of my numbers in my private program are converted to percentages.
Using tenths or fifths will give different percentages, but not different rankings.
But the top horse will be the top horse and the bottom one the bottom one.
The rankings will be the same - as long as you use the same "constant."
Obviously, it's nice to be close to what is really happening, but if you are using a constant, for ranking purposes it won't change the outcomes.

All I can say, Greyfox...is that I don't agree. And neither would any pace handicapper that I have ever come across. Pace handicappers don't just look at horse "rankings"; they also look at running styles and race shapes. They break down individual fractions...and they demand a certain level of precision. Even in an imprecise game.

classhandicapper
03-03-2015, 09:46 PM
clem,

One problem I have with looking at segments is that IMO it tends to overrate "the chances" of horses that use their energy inefficiently relative to those that don't even if it's measuring their performances properly. Horses will tend to run the same way in future starts.

What I think you want to look for is extremes because then there's a good chance the horse will use it's energy more efficiently in its future starts and improve the end result.

Greyfox
03-03-2015, 09:47 PM
All I can say, Greyfox...is that I don't agree. And neither would any pace handicapper that I have ever come across. Pace handicappers don't just look at horse "rankings"; they also look at running styles and race shapes. They break down individual fractions...and they demand a certain level of precision. Even in an imprecise game.

I can't disagree with what you are saying here.
(P.S. I also look at running styles and race shapes.)

DeltaLover
03-03-2015, 09:55 PM
clem,

What I think you want to look for is extremes because then there's a good chance the horse will use it's energy more efficiently in its future starts and improve the end result.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Words of wisdom!!

Capper Al
03-04-2015, 05:42 AM
Thank you for the explanation.

At what point do these ratings (multidimensional, composite, comprehensive, etc.) no longer become "speed ratings?"

As WhoDo, said, ...




In the HDW system, Jim Cramer has a very powerful rating called "Projected Speed Rating." However, in truth, it is not really a speed rating at all. Kind of like BRIS' Prime Power rating.

So, my question to you Al (meaning no disrespect whatsoever) is:

"Are you trying to create a more accurate speed rating for each past race, for each horse, or are you trying to take speed ratings as well as other ratings/metrics/facts and integrate them into a hit rate?"

I always use BRIS numbers as the base for whatever I do. I make some alternative figures to BRIS and compare them to BRIS' numbers. For example, I make FPS and compare it to BRIS speed. Then I look at it by race type and figure someway to optimize a hit ratio. Sometimes, like with Euros, an alternative speed figure is needed because there isn't a BRIS speed number. In the end, all my different speed approaches go into one final speed number, and all class numbers will be processed into one class number, etc... Once the final figures are calculated for each factor then they are added up with their weighted averages for a prime number to rate the field. After this, elimination rules are applied. The elimination just might be the most important part of the process. Need to test this using BRIS Prime and elimination rules. There's always more to test.

clemkadiddle
03-04-2015, 04:05 PM
clem,

One problem I have with looking at segments is that IMO it tends to overrate "the chances" of horses that use their energy inefficiently relative to those that don't even if it's measuring their performances properly. Horses will tend to run the same way in future starts.

What I think you want to look for is extremes because then there's a good chance the horse will use it's energy more efficiently in its future starts and improve the end result.

You have to have a way of understanding that the calculations in the latter part of the race are a result of the calculations in the earlier segments. Pace makes the race and always will.

Always...the final time is the result of the pace...so too are the calculations in the latter segments the results of what occurred earlier. The model will tell you this and amaze when the total "energy" calculated is practically the same among several races for the same horse, regardless of distance, surface, or track condition.

cj
03-04-2015, 05:40 PM
So...you are saying that it makes no difference if a length is really a fifth of a second or a TENTH of a second. As long as we apply the same "constant" to all the horses across the board, then we are fine...right?

Of course it makes a difference. I recently had PRK so I'm not seeing very well these days, finally able to make out some posts. This thread is a great start, pure comedy gold in a lot of these posts.

Just to keep it simple, the more the value I use is off for beaten lengths, the harder it is to compare races.

Race A, winner gets a 70.
Race B, winner gets an 80, horse Q is beaten five lengths.

How does horse Q compare to the winner of race A if a length counts as 1 point? 2 points? 3 points?

whodoyoulike
03-04-2015, 06:40 PM
... The best approach is to cut the race into segments and analyze the speeding up and slowing down of the horse...even then, one fails to see that the average feet per second within each segment are just that...averages. They don't visualize just how fast the horse was going at the beginning of the segment and again at the end.

The only method that has any value is one that can truly estimate the amount of "work" a horse performs during the course of the race. As a horse runs faster, he expends energy exponentially; as he begins to slow down, he is still expending energy but the mode changes into more of a coasting.

After about 8 years of research I do believe I have that model. After all, if Beyer, BRIS, Brohammer, Sartin...or any of these approaches that are available were really worth anything...we would all be rich. That's why I didn't bother with this stuff.

Me: Computer programmer/analyst for over 25 years. Been a race fan for almost 40. It was only about 8 years ago that I really thought that I would take a shot at this in my spare time...and it has been paying off since last June. (However, I really need to spend more time and fine tune some things but basically I am staying ahead of the game.)

HINT: A horse really doesn't start spending racing energy until he crosses the 44 FPS threshold...the "2 minute lick".


I'd like to ask about the bold portion.

Aren't most races over by the "2 minute lick" unless the race is greater than 10f?

clemkadiddle
03-04-2015, 09:45 PM
44 FPS is the standard in which I base my formulas. The reason: A "2 minute lick" is an old training method that trainers use. It means the horse is galloped a mile in 2 minutes.

Horses that are in shape can jog at this rate for quite a ways. I don't know exactly how much, but my opinion is that the horse is not tapping into racing energy.

The problem that pace handicappers face is that they need a tool that works well for all distances. The tool needs to be able to calculate that a faster a horse runs, the rate at which energy is expended occurs "exponentially". A horse running all out in a sprint can still spend the same amount of energy ran in longer distance races because the pace will be softer...but the animal will be expended over a further distance.

For example, a horse running 56.2 FPS will expend twice the energy as a horse running 51.2 FPS over the same distance. Algebraically one may think that this is not an accurate assessment, but it is. My model will show this consistently.

I spent years in my spare time throwing mathematical darts at this. As I continued to pursue this, I don't know how I came up with this idea. Perhaps it was Divine Intervention because I have found through my life that God works in mysterious ways. Let's put it this way: I had a very similar version of what I am using now and it allowed me to toss California Chrome all the way out of the money in last year's Belmont. I told everyone that he figured no better than 4th; most thought I was nuts. But after I had Tonalist to win, the 11-8 exacta ($1 paid $175)...which I also told a lot of other folks about...and the 11-8-1 trifecta which paid $3505 for a buck...and then for the next several weeks I went on a tear...I had Mr. Espresso at Belmont for 15-1, another 14-1 at Delaware but I don't remember the name, and the winner of the Ohio Derby (plus the exacta, trifecta, and superfecta)...

Let's just say I have had plenty of success...even telling everyone I knew that Bayern would win the Breeder's Cup Classic.

I am not rolling in dough though...I am only a $20 bettor...and my wife gets the money so that there aren't any problems when I want to play the ponies.


That's why to equate races over various distances and be able to parse these races into segments, it is essential the pace handicapper devise a tool that doesn't care what distance is being ran with the understanding that when all the parts are added up the sum will tell what really happened...much more so than any assessment made with parallel time.

Folks think I am crazy...but I don't care. I just know it works and I am winning...that's all I care about.

So...here's a hint:

The mathematical calculation involves an exponential expression of the FPS for the segment in relationship to 44 FPS. It works for me...and it is out there.

traynor
03-04-2015, 09:54 PM
Yes. Like exponential growth or decay, with each segment rated differently. The exact values by which a given pace figure is multiplied vary--both by distance and by track. Sartin folks have been doing this for years.

clemkadiddle
03-04-2015, 09:56 PM
Yes. Like exponential growth or decay, with each segment rated differently. The exact values by which a given pace figure is multiplied vary--both by distance and by track. Sartin folks have been doing this for years.

Never read anything by Sartin...or Brohammer...or Cramer...

Just me and my abstract thought processes and a whole lot of time...

clemkadiddle
03-04-2015, 10:00 PM
Of course it makes a difference. I recently had PRK so I'm not seeing very well these days, finally able to make out some posts. This thread is a great start, pure comedy gold in a lot of these posts.

Just to keep it simple, the more the value I use is off for beaten lengths, the harder it is to compare races.

Race A, winner gets a 70.
Race B, winner gets an 80, horse Q is beaten five lengths.

How does horse Q compare to the winner of race A if a length counts as 1 point? 2 points? 3 points?

Here's the problem to your hypothetical: What if horse A was coming off the bench and ran a sparkling half-mile on the lead and then shut down? This is precisely the problem using speed ratings based on final time and parallel time.

Then there is no way to compare A with Q. Me...I would take A in a heartbeat because:

1. A was involved in the famous "pace race" theory described in Bob Heyburn's "Fast and Fit" horses.

2. A horse making his 2nd start off the bench...especially involved in a "pace race"...is a dangerous animal.

raybo
03-05-2015, 12:40 AM
A beaten length multiplier, like 1/5 second per beaten length, is a measurement of how long it takes a horse to run a length. If all horses are running at the same speed then it matters not what the multiplier is. But, if they are not running at the same speed it makes all the difference in the world, because you are comparing races run at different distances, in different classes, different surfaces, different tracks, etc.. 1/5 second, or any other static time per length, is only usable when the races you are comparing were run under exactly the same conditions, with exactly the distance covered the same time per fractional segment, otherwise you are simply wrong with your calculations.

Beaten length time multipliers are dependent on the speed at which the horses are running. A horse running 35 miles per hour will cover the distance of a length faster than a horse running 34 miles per hour, that's a fact and cannot be disputed, by anyone. If you are still using 1/5 second per length, or any other constant multiplier, you are living in the dark ages, come out and see the light.

Greyfox
03-05-2015, 01:57 AM
A horse running 35 miles per hour will cover the distance of a length faster than a horse running 34 miles per hour, that's a fact and cannot be disputed, by anyone. If you are still using 1/5 second per length, or any other constant multiplier, you are living in the dark ages, come out and see the light.

So we have two races A and B.
A The horses were averaging 35 mph.
B The horses were averaging 34 mph.

Are you suggesting that we should change multipliers for lengths for each of those races?

raybo
03-05-2015, 02:14 AM
So we have two races A and B.
A The horses were averaging 35 mph.
B The horses were averaging 34 mph.

Are you suggesting that we should change multipliers for lengths for each of those races?

Of course. In race A the horses ran the distance of a length faster than the horses in race B. So, a length in race A took less time to run than a length in race B. But, I was more talking about the fractional segments, independently. It's common sense, not rocket science.

Cratos
03-05-2015, 03:16 AM
So we have two races A and B.
A The horses were averaging 35 mph.
B The horses were averaging 34 mph.

Are you suggesting that we should change multipliers for lengths for each of those races?
Raybo is correct, but the conversion formula is very straight forward and can be seen as:

[lengths behind* 8/leader's rate (feet/one-fifth sec.)] *.2

EXAMPLE

3 3/4 lengths behind
leader's rate xxxx ft per 1/5 sec

A - 30/11.22 * .2 = .53 (faster)

B - 30/10.95 * .2 = .55 (slower)

Capper Al
03-05-2015, 06:44 AM
This length stuff just might be on what side of the equation your on. I set a race standard on the parallel charts. The race standard is similar to what the winner ran verse to what he should of ran. If the horse is beaten by 10 lengths, he's 10 units off the standard. The ranking remains the same. After discussing this I am going to adjust this with a variable factor, but not based on the time of a length.

traynor
03-05-2015, 10:23 AM
Never read anything by Sartin...or Brohammer...or Cramer...

Just me and my abstract thought processes and a whole lot of time...

That works best. At least it has for me. Fortunately, I am not corrupted by what I read and do not feel compelled to emulate the author(s). So I can read everyone's ideas, try them, and if they work, use them. If not, I can freely (and without regret) dismiss them as irrelevant to my goals. That saved me from many years of turmoil and losing that others seem to have suffered trying to emulate the portions of Beyer's writings they want to believe, while ignoring or rejecting those they do not want to believe.

Greyfox
03-05-2015, 10:28 AM
Of course. In race A the horses ran the distance of a length faster than the horses in race B. So, a length in race A took less time to run than a length in race B. But, I was more talking about the fractional segments, independently. It's common sense, not rocket science.


I realize that both you and Cratos are theoretically quite right.
But adjusting a length time by 1/34* 1/5 sec * X lengths in the example given might not make much difference at the windows.
And yes, one could do it for fractional times where horses are running faster at the start of a race than the end. But once again I suspect it won't make your wallet much thicker.

traynor
03-05-2015, 10:30 AM
The use of pace for wagering purposes requires that the values be predictive, not simply descriptive. The most excruciatingly detailed description of a past race is only useful for a bettor to the extent that it is predictive of what will happen in the future.

traynor
03-05-2015, 10:42 AM
I realize that both you and Cratos are theoretically quite right.
But adjusting a length time by 1/34* 1/5 sec * X lengths in the example given might not make much difference at the windows.
And yes, one could do it for fractional times where horses are running faster at the start of a race than the end. But once again I suspect it won't make your wallet much thicker.

A key point is not just a value describing how fast a certain horse was moving in a given segment of a given race, but rather the ability to make meaningful comparisons between rates of speeds in different length races, and of overall performance considering the rates of speed in differing segments of each race.

Those distinctions will definitely thicken your wallet. The proliferation of computer-assisted pace calculations has made it easier--not tougher--for anyone willing to devoid a bit of thought and analysis to the scenarios to stay ahead of the crowd, most of whom fail to grasp the difference between descriptions and prescriptions.

Magister Ludi
03-05-2015, 11:53 AM
The tool needs to be able to calculate that a faster a horse runs, the rate at which energy is expended occurs "exponentially".

For example, a horse running 56.2 FPS will expend twice the energy as a horse running 51.2 FPS over the same distance. Algebraically one may think that this is not an accurate assessment, but it is. My model will show this consistently.

Over the same distance, a horse running 56.2 f/s expends approximately 4% more energy than a horse running 51.2 f/s, not 100% more.

DeltaLover
03-05-2015, 12:10 PM
Over the same distance, a horse running 56.2 f/s expends approximately 4% more energy than a horse running 51.2 f/s, not 100% more.

So you say that energy relates to speed? My understanding is that the amount of energy needed to move between two points is not relative to the speed. Can you explain?

classhandicapper
03-05-2015, 12:14 PM
I think worrying about beaten lengths calculations that will typically have virtually very little impact on your opinion is kind of like missing the forest for the trees.

If you compare speed figure sources there are sometimes differences of close to a full second for the same horses. That's HUGE. There are many differences of a couple of fifths. On top of that, it's common for beaten horses to be eased late or at least not persevered with fully to the finish.

So if you are worried about accuracy, IMO, you'd be way better off putting your extra energy into ensuring you have accurate track variants and have watched the races than worrying too much about minescule beaten length calculations, especially since other than Trakus tracks, it's all an estimate anyway (and even Trakus is not perfect). That doesn't mean you should working with the outdated and inaccurate 1/5 = 1 length, but if you are close to accurate that's good enough.

cj
03-05-2015, 12:17 PM
Here's the problem to your hypothetical: What if horse A was coming off the bench and ran a sparkling half-mile on the lead and then shut down? This is precisely the problem using speed ratings based on final time and parallel time.

Then there is no way to compare A with Q. Me...I would take A in a heartbeat because:

1. A was involved in the famous "pace race" theory described in Bob Heyburn's "Fast and Fit" horses.

2. A horse making his 2nd start off the bench...especially involved in a "pace race"...is a dangerous animal.


Of course there are a lot of reasons horses with lower figures win, but it doesn't excuse being sloppy with beaten lengths adjustments. My example was just showing how an error could schew comparisons.

classhandicapper
03-05-2015, 12:21 PM
The use of pace for wagering purposes requires that the values be predictive, not simply descriptive. The most excruciatingly detailed description of a past race is only useful for a bettor to the extent that it is predictive of what will happen in the future.

This is kind of what I was getting at earlier with Clem.

Horse A goes 22.8 22.8 24.4 for a total of 1:10

Horse B goes 22 22.6 25.4 for a total of 1:10

Everyone on earth knows that horse B ran the superior race because it ran a much faster pace. But in many cases they will run very similar fractions again next time and finish very close again.

It's not enough to measure past fractions and create a rating. You also have to know when those fractions deviated significantly from the horse's norm so that a change back might lead to an improved result.

raybo
03-05-2015, 01:06 PM
I realize that both you and Cratos are theoretically quite right.
But adjusting a length time by 1/34* 1/5 sec * X lengths in the example given might not make much difference at the windows.
And yes, one could do it for fractional times where horses are running faster at the start of a race than the end. But once again I suspect it won't make your wallet much thicker.

That's not the way I do it, but, whatever.

My point is: If you're going to go to the trouble to adjust times by beaten lengths, you should do it as accurately as possible. It costs you no more to do it better, unless you are doing it with pen and pencil (which I would not recommend for obvious reasons). In an app you only create the formulas once, then it's done forever.

There is no need to include 1/5 second in any of your calculations, as Cratos did. You just need distance traveled in feet, the average length of a horse in feet (8', 9', 10', doesn't matter as long as you use the same value every time), and the leader's time in seconds. Of course, it is important to have the daily variant, and I suggest breaking that down into fractional variants. Then, if you wish, convert those fps calculations to a traditional speed/pace figure scale.

Traynor is correct, the accuracy of the adjustments is very important, and definitely affects the thickness of your wallet, depending on how you are using the adjusted times. If your method is flawed, more accurate times will not matter, you will still lose money.

Dave Schwartz
03-05-2015, 01:18 PM
Horse A goes 22.8 22.8 24.4 for a total of 1:10

Horse B goes 22 22.6 25.4 for a total of 1:10

Everyone on earth knows that horse B ran the superior race because it ran a much faster pace. But in many cases they will run very similar fractions again next time and finish very close again.

Actually, I disagree. I believe A ran the better race.

My reasoning is that horses who run faster early times are supposed to run faster final times. The fact that horse A ran 4 ticks slower means he should have wound up with a slower final time.

Cratos
03-05-2015, 01:26 PM
So you say that energy relates to speed? My understanding is that the amount of energy needed to move between two points is not relative to the speed. Can you explain?
The main productive function of the racehorse is work.

Therefore the conversion of chemically bound energy (energy from food/medications) is by work (speed) into mechanical energy for the horse's muscular movement.

However the effect of the horse's speed on the horse's energy use does not appear to be linear.

cj
03-05-2015, 01:27 PM
Actually, I disagree. I believe A ran the better race.

My reasoning is that horses who run faster early times are supposed to run faster final times. The fact that horse A ran 4 ticks slower means he should have wound up with a slower final time.

For me it depends on how the horse ran fast earthly, pressured or alone.

Capper Al
03-05-2015, 01:32 PM
That works best. At least it has for me. Fortunately, I am not corrupted by what I read and do not feel compelled to emulate the author(s). So I can read everyone's ideas, try them, and if they work, use them. If not, I can freely (and without regret) dismiss them as irrelevant to my goals. That saved me from many years of turmoil and losing that others seem to have suffered trying to emulate the portions of Beyer's writings they want to believe, while ignoring or rejecting those they do not want to believe.

It's game of what works for you.

raybo
03-05-2015, 01:35 PM
Actually, I disagree. I believe A ran the better race.

My reasoning is that horses who run faster early times are supposed to run faster final times. The fact that horse A ran 4 ticks slower means he should have wound up with a slower final time.

I agree, for the most part. The final times were equal, so if no other factors entered into the running of the race (traffic, etc.) the horses had equal performances, they both hit the wire at the same time. A lot of this hinges on what the race means, regarding future races, with different field dynamics. That is where accurate calculations means something.

Cratos
03-05-2015, 01:41 PM
That's not the way I do it, but, whatever.

My point is: If you're going to go to the trouble to adjust times by beaten lengths, you should do it as accurately as possible. It costs you no more to do it better, unless you are doing it with pen and pencil (which I would not recommend for obvious reasons). In an app you only create the formulas once, then it's done forever.

There is no need to include 1/5 second in any of your calculations, as Cratos did. You just :cool: need distance traveled in feet, the average length of a horse in feet (8', 9', 10', doesn't matter as long as you use the same value every time), and the leader's time in seconds. Of course, it is important to have the daily variant, and I suggest breaking that down into fractional variants. Then, if you wish, convert those fps calculations to a traditional speed/pace figure scale.

Traynor is correct, the accuracy of the adjustments is very important, and definitely affects the thickness of your wallet, depending on how you are using the adjusted times. If your method is flawed, more accurate times will not matter, you will still lose money.
Ii used the 1/5 second metric because that what was under discussion. In the thread; in our model we use one-hundredth of a second and when we use Equibase/DRF data we always use 8 feet/length because that is the metric on their website.

However all of this is for naught because we do parametric modeling and not discrete calculations.

classhandicapper
03-05-2015, 01:42 PM
Actually, I disagree. I believe A ran the better race.

My reasoning is that horses who run faster early times are supposed to run faster final times. The fact that horse A ran 4 ticks slower means he should have wound up with a slower final time.

We could add endless complications as to how the race developed, how the track was playing, how many horses were battling etc... It misses the point I was making.

Horse A might be the typical mid pack closer. (I don't think the example pace I used was so slow as to impact his time negatively, but it doesn't matter).

Horse B might be the typical front runner. (I think that pace was fast enough that it wasn't the most efficient set of fractions and took a little out of him, but it doesn't matter).

The point is that ANY TIME you adjust a rating up for pace, you are assuming the horse will run more efficiently next time. But a lot of inefficient sets of fractions are running style related. So you could be upgrading a horse that's going to do the same exact thing next time. If so, that won't help you pick winners.

That's always been my problem with using segment analysis of the type that Clem is recommending. IMO, in theory, he is correct. You should look at each segment individually and have a formula that adjusts the rating in a way that he is recommending (I have no idea what his formula is or what the correct formula should be). In practice, there are problems with that approach.

thaskalos
03-05-2015, 01:45 PM
Actually, I disagree. I believe A ran the better race.

My reasoning is that horses who run faster early times are supposed to run faster final times. The fact that horse A ran 4 ticks slower means he should have wound up with a slower final time.
A horse who runs faster early expends energy reserves at a faster rate than the horse who is running slower early...and this rapid depletion of energy reserves always takes its toll during the latter parts of the race. The faster early the horse goes, the slower it will run in the end. And if it runs TOO fast...it may not even finish the race.

DeltaLover
03-05-2015, 01:54 PM
The main productive function of the racehorse is work.

Therefore the conversion of chemically bound energy (energy from food/medications) is by work (speed) into mechanical energy for the horse's muscular movement.

However the effect of the horse's speed on the horse's energy use does not appear to be linear.


Sorry, but I need some clarifications..
What do you mean by: work (speed) ? Are you referring to the kinetic energy of the horse? The way you are use the parenthesis is confusing as it implies that speed is another name for work..

What do you mean by However the effect of the horse's speed on the horse's energy use does not appear to be linear. ??

Obviously the horse's speed is not linear to the kinetic energy (E = (1/2) m v**2)

but how you define the horse's energy ??? This is not clear to me... Αt any point during the race a horse has a specific kinetic energy and the total energy consumed during a race depends on the maze of the horse, the distance or the race, the various frictions applied... None of these though represent the energy of the horse... The energy spent by any horse completing a race, will be very close (minor differences might occur due to differences on distance or friction), so I cannot really see how this info can be used for handicapping purposes.

Cratos
03-05-2015, 02:13 PM
Sorry, but I need some clarifications..
What do you mean by: work (speed) ? Are you referring to the kinetic energy of the horse? The way you are use the parenthesis is confusing as it implies that speed is another name for work..

What do you mean by However the effect of the horse's speed on the horse's energy use does not appear to be linear. ??

Obviously the horse's speed is not linear to the kinetic energy (E = (1/2) m v**2)

but how you define the horse's energy ??? This is not clear to me... Αt any point during the race a horse has a specific kinetic energy and the total energy consumed during a race depends on the maze of the horse, the distance or the race, the various frictions applied... None of these though represent the energy of the horse... The energy spent by any horse I completing a race, will be very close (minor differences might occur due to differences on distance or friction), so I cannot really see how this info can be used for handicapping purposes.
I meant that when speed is exerted by the horse it is by its work. Obviously work and speed is not the same definitionally, but work is needed to obtain speed.

thaskalos
03-05-2015, 02:16 PM
We could add endless complications as to how the race developed, how the track was playing, how many horses were battling etc... It misses the point I was making.

Horse A might be the typical mid pack closer. (I don't think the example pace I used was so slow as to impact his time negatively, but it doesn't matter).

Horse B might be the typical front runner. (I think that pace was fast enough that it wasn't the most efficient set of fractions and took a little out of him, but it doesn't matter).

The point is that ANY TIME you adjust a rating up for pace, you are assuming the horse will run more efficiently next time. But a lot of inefficient sets of fractions are running style related. So you could be upgrading a horse that's going to do the same exact thing next time. If so, that won't help you pick winners.

That's always been my problem with using segment analysis of the type that Clem is recommending. IMO, in theory, he is correct. You should look at each segment individually and have a formula that adjusts the rating in a way that he is recommending (I have no idea what his formula is or what the correct formula should be). In practice, there are problems with that approach.
Let's assume that both horses that you describe have run their last race in accordance with their true racing potential, and let's visualize those perfomances...while assuming that they both competed in the same last race:

Horse B takes the lead out of the gate, and, not only increases his lead to 4 lengths after the first quarter...but EXTENDS the lead to 5 lengths at the half. Horse A closes 5 lengths down the stretch...and they dead-heat for the win.

The two horses meet again next week. Whom do we bet?

To me...horse B holds a pace advantage, not during one, but during TWO of the race fractions...and that's huge to me. All things being equal, I would bet on horse B next time. The only two things that would dissuade me would be an abundance of early speed in the subsequent race...or a racetrack favorable to closers next time, rare though this might be.

DeltaLover
03-05-2015, 02:21 PM
but work is needed to obtain speed.

Correct, if you mean to overcome the energy loss due to friction... Still, I do not understand how energy can be used for handicapping reasons...

traynor
03-05-2015, 02:32 PM
It's game of what works for you.

Exactly. There are a lot of nine-dollar-words describing it (I am particularly fond of Weick's term, "sensemaking") but your description works every bit as well.

Magister Ludi
03-05-2015, 02:34 PM
Obviously the horse's speed is not linear to the kinetic energy (E = (1/2) m v**2)

The energy spent by any horse completing a race, will be very close (minor differences might occur due to differences on distance or friction), so I cannot really see how this info can be used for handicapping purposes.

Because equine conversion efficiency of metabolic energy to kinetic energy is about 25%, E = 2mv^2.

It is possible to create a profitable model from an in-depth bioenergetic input-output analysis of thoroughbred racehorses. The dearth of information on the subject is rife with error. An accurate trading model of the aforementioned type would add new information to the pari-mutuel odds.

However, though I've created an accurate model of this type, I don't incorporate the information in my trading algo. I've found that it's far more profitable to handicap handicappers than it is to handicap horses.

Greyfox
03-05-2015, 02:39 PM
I've found that it's far more profitable to handicap handicappers than it is to handicap horses.

Are you charting tote board changes?

traynor
03-05-2015, 02:39 PM
Because equine conversion efficiency of metabolic energy to kinetic energy is about 25%, E = 2mv^2.

It is possible to create a profitable model from an in-depth bioenergetic input-output analysis of thoroughbred racehorses. The dearth of information on the subject is rife with error. An accurate trading model of the aforementioned type would add new information to the pari-mutuel odds.

However, though I've created an accurate model of this type, I don't incorporate the information in my trading algo. I've found that it's far more profitable to handicap handicappers than it is to handicap horses.

Well said.

DeltaLover
03-05-2015, 02:48 PM
Because equine conversion efficiency of metabolic energy to kinetic energy is about 25%, E = 2mv^2.

References??

Magister Ludi
03-05-2015, 02:53 PM
References??

I believe that I read it in a paper co-authored by P.E. diPrampero. I don't remember which one.

Cratos
03-05-2015, 03:00 PM
Correct, if you mean to overcome the energy loss due to friction... Still, I do not understand how energy can be used for handicapping reasons...
There are many studies and position papers about energy costs/horse's stride which understanding would probably be useful for handicapping, but getting into that would move the discussion away from the thesis of this thread.

Capper Al
03-05-2015, 03:03 PM
Exactly. There are a lot of nine-dollar-words describing it (I am particularly fond of Weick's term, "sensemaking") but your description works every bit as well.

Yep, whatever we do must pass in testing or it's no good no matter what the theory is. We are touching on a similar argument here with the pace boys. I agree with the concepts of energy spent. Yet this discussion was about speed, and final speed still ranks my number one factor for hit rate. So where does that leave pace?

clemkadiddle
03-05-2015, 03:04 PM
Over the same distance, a horse running 56.2 f/s expends approximately 4% more energy than a horse running 51.2 f/s, not 100% more.

Using "simple" algebra...but you won't win any races with that calculation.

clemkadiddle
03-05-2015, 03:09 PM
Actually, I disagree. I believe A ran the better race.

My reasoning is that horses who run faster early times are supposed to run faster final times. The fact that horse A ran 4 ticks slower means he should have wound up with a slower final time.


I'm with you on this one Dave. The fact that A ran a constant pace for 4 furlongs without showing the fluctuation of coasting...with quite a bit left in the tank for the last quarter.

This is the type of horse that when pressed can call upon that reserve and run a horse like B into the ground...

Cratos
03-05-2015, 03:28 PM
Using "simple" algebra...but you won't win any races with that calculation.
I agree with ML; show me algebraically why I should agree with you.

Capper Al
03-05-2015, 03:35 PM
kinetic energy (E = (1/2) m v**2)

This formula a joke? I can't see how it would work in horse racing. Assuming m stands for mass, there isn't a reference to distance carried. I might have this all wrong since it's not my formula.

Cratos
03-05-2015, 03:58 PM
kinetic energy (E = (1/2) m v**2)

This formula a joke? I can't see how it would work in horse racing. Assuming m stands for mass, there isn't a reference to distance carried. I might have this all wrong since it's not my formula.
The use of energy calculations in racehorse handicapping is not a joke.

Its use is just another measurement of the horse's performance efficiency.

Is it useful for every handicapper? Probably not, but it is useful for some.

DeltaLover
03-05-2015, 04:03 PM
The use of energy calculations in racehorse handicapping is not a joke.

Its use is just another measurement of the horse's performance efficiency.

Is it useful for every handicapper? Probably not, but it is useful for some.

Can you give a concrete example (not general theories and undocumented axioms) illustrating the following:

(1) How much the 'energy' differs from horse to horse?

(2) Based on what factors you end up with your energy figure and how you evaluate them?

(3) How this "energy" is transformed to a handicapping factor?

classhandicapper
03-05-2015, 06:42 PM
Let's assume that both horses that you describe have run their last race in accordance with their true racing potential, and let's visualize those perfomances...while assuming that they both competed in the same last race:

Horse B takes the lead out of the gate, and, not only increases his lead to 4 lengths after the first quarter...but EXTENDS the lead to 5 lengths at the half. Horse A closes 5 lengths down the stretch...and they dead-heat for the win.

The two horses meet again next week. Whom do we bet?

To me...horse B holds a pace advantage, not during one, but during TWO of the race fractions...and that's huge to me. All things being equal, I would bet on horse B next time. The only two things that would dissuade me would be an abundance of early speed in the subsequent race...or a racetrack favorable to closers next time, rare though this might be.

I also think B is the better horse.

In your scenario it sounds like he "ran off" a bit. If that was an unusual thing for that horse, I'd expect him to rate better on the lead next time and beat A.

If last time he was stalking the pace and he stalks a similar pace next time, I may still think he's the better horse, but I'd expect another tight finish.

Rather than drive myself crazy like I used to, I look for extreme fractions and extreme deviations from a horse's norm.

Capper Al
03-05-2015, 06:53 PM
The use of energy calculations in racehorse handicapping is not a joke.

Its use is just another measurement of the horse's performance efficiency.

Is it useful for every handicapper? Probably not, but it is useful for some.

Okay, use the formula in an example. I'm assuming m is for mass and v is for velocity and, of course, E is for energy. I don't see how it differentiates a 6f race from a 12f if I have the variables right.

clemkadiddle
03-05-2015, 07:05 PM
I agree with ML; show me algebraically why I should agree with you.

It doesn't matter in using basic division to dispute my assessment. It only matters to the horse...

In my calculations 56.2 FPS drains the horse's racing energy twice as fast as covering the same distance in 52.2 FPS.

Not going to prove anything mathematically; get yourself an Algebra book and study exponents and logarithms. If you didn't pay attention in math class, now's your chance...and if you don't do it, you will never win consistently.

I am not going to prove anything to you or anyone else because it will release my formulas for free. Unlike any of the guys selling books, tip sheets, and figures...if they were worth the paper they were written on the authors would be using them for their own investments. My calculations are worth something; I prove it each time I cash a ticket...and that happens a lot more than merely buying them.

It took me 8 years of working on it along with my skills as a systems analyst. Would you let something go for "free" if you put that much effort into it? Especially when the payoffs will go down because now everyone knows what you know?

Didn't think so...now go out and do your own work and put the time in...like I did.

Greyfox
03-05-2015, 07:11 PM
In my calculations 56.2 FPS drains the horse's racing energy twice as fast as covering the same distance in 52.2 FPS.

.

That's interesting if true, and presumably you've found out that it is.

At the human level, a man walking a mile expends just slightly less than a man who runs a mile - from a calorie perspective.

MJC922
03-05-2015, 07:33 PM
We could add endless complications as to how the race developed, how the track was playing, how many horses were battling etc... It misses the point I was making.

Horse A might be the typical mid pack closer. (I don't think the example pace I used was so slow as to impact his time negatively, but it doesn't matter).

Horse B might be the typical front runner. (I think that pace was fast enough that it wasn't the most efficient set of fractions and took a little out of him, but it doesn't matter).

The point is that ANY TIME you adjust a rating up for pace, you are assuming the horse will run more efficiently next time. But a lot of inefficient sets of fractions are running style related. So you could be upgrading a horse that's going to do the same exact thing next time. If so, that won't help you pick winners.

That's always been my problem with using segment analysis of the type that Clem is recommending. IMO, in theory, he is correct. You should look at each segment individually and have a formula that adjusts the rating in a way that he is recommending (I have no idea what his formula is or what the correct formula should be). In practice, there are problems with that approach.


Not to pile on, I totally agree with your example of the superior horse, however, I do think if we have a way to adjust the final times for segment pace which has been rigorously tested then all that really matters in the long term is that it makes the numbers more predictive overall. It's true there are rank horses that will not rate kindly and they'll more often than not tend to go off free-running into the badlands but again I think the bottom line (more predictive) should be what really matters. If it helps overall then it's probably best to use it, even though (to your point) clearly it wouldn't be the best choice for some types of horses. It's also not out of the realm these outlier horses could be 'detected' e.g. if they're repeatedly inefficient race after race and in these cases we might want to punt and just use the final time.

Magister Ludi
03-05-2015, 07:56 PM
Okay, use the formula in an example. I'm assuming m is for mass and v is for velocity and, of course, E is for energy. I don't see how it differentiates a 6f race from a 12f if I have the variables right.

v = d/t

where

v = velocity
d = distance
t = time

Cratos
03-05-2015, 08:00 PM
It doesn't matter in using basic division to dispute my assessment. It only matters to the horse...

In my calculations 56.2 FPS drains the horse's racing energy twice as fast as covering the same distance in 52.2 FPS.

Not going to prove anything mathematically; get yourself an Algebra book and study exponents and logarithms. If you didn't pay attention in math class, now's your chance...and if you don't do it, you will never win consistently.

I am not going to prove anything to you or anyone else because it will release my formulas for free. Unlike any of the guys selling books, tip sheets, and figures...if they were worth the paper they were written on the authors would be using them for their own investments. My calculations are worth something; I prove it each time I cash a ticket...and that happens a lot more than merely buying them.

It took me 8 years of working on it along with my skills as a systems analyst. Would you let something go for "free" if you put that much effort into it? Especially when the payoffs will go down because now everyone knows what you know?

Didn't think so...now go out and do your own work and put the time in...like I did.
I am very sorry that I offended you. My request was a follow up to your assertion in a prior post on this subject.

No, I. don't agree with you, but that should not be important because as you stated, you are cashing tickets.

Also if I find logarithms/exponents or any math difficult at this point in my life; then you are correct I must have been asleep in my math classes which I were not.

clemkadiddle
03-05-2015, 08:38 PM
I am very sorry that I offended you. My request was a follow up to your assertion in a prior post on this subject.

No, I. don't agree with you, but that should not be important because as you stated, you are cashing tickets.

Also if I find logarithms/exponents or any math difficult at this point in my life; then you are correct I must have been asleep in my math classes which I were not.

Apology accepted. Let's beat this game...

I might have some selections for this Saturday's 3YO Stakes...Not saying these are betting races, but we'll see what happens...

classhandicapper
03-06-2015, 08:47 AM
Not to pile on, I totally agree with your example of the superior horse, however, I do think if we have a way to adjust the final times for segment pace which has been rigorously tested then all that really matters in the long term is that it makes the numbers more predictive overall. It's true there are rank horses that will not rate kindly and they'll more often than not tend to go off free-running into the badlands but again I think the bottom line (more predictive) should be what really matters. If it helps overall then it's probably best to use it, even though (to your point) clearly it wouldn't be the best choice for some types of horses. It's also not out of the realm these outlier horses could be 'detected' e.g. if they're repeatedly inefficient race after race and in these cases we might want to punt and just use the final time.

I agree with what you are saying.

I look at pace figures to each call to see the race development and adjust my thinking. I also try to verify and measure the impact by looking at the chart and replay (race development) to see how horses with similar trips were impacted. I also look at what's normal for the horse.

I suspect quarter by quarter segment evaluation has value, I just haven't been able to make it work right in a formula. There are too many horses for which it is very normal to run WAY too slow early and then hot in the middle or late. There are horses that are always running too fast early for their innate ability and then there are other oddball other cases.

Capper Al
03-06-2015, 09:16 AM
That's interesting if true, and presumably you've found out that it is.

At the human level, a man walking a mile expends just slightly less than a man who runs a mile - from a calorie perspective.

This is interesting, a bit unbelievable. What's your source?

Capper Al
03-06-2015, 09:21 AM
v = d/t

where

v = velocity
d = distance
t = time


My physics teacher isn't happy with me not recognizing d/t. That explains the distance part. Not sure if a linear relationship works here. So the m doesn't matter since it is assumed the horse weighs about the same every race?

Thanks

Magister Ludi
03-06-2015, 11:41 AM
My physics teacher isn't happy with me not recognizing d/t. That explains the distance part. Not sure if a linear relationship works here. So the m doesn't matter since it is assumed the horse weighs about the same every race?

Thanks

m = horse weight + jockey weight + impost

Tom
03-06-2015, 12:05 PM
Two out of three ain't bad.

cj
03-06-2015, 02:44 PM
Can you give a concrete example (not general theories and undocumented axioms) illustrating the following:

(1) How much the 'energy' differs from horse to horse?

(2) Based on what factors you end up with your energy figure and how you evaluate them?

(3) How this "energy" is transformed to a handicapping factor?

Crickets.

cj
03-06-2015, 02:45 PM
This is interesting, a bit unbelievable. What's your source?

This is a myth, been proven false.

cj
03-06-2015, 02:46 PM
Okay, use the formula in an example. I'm assuming m is for mass and v is for velocity and, of course, E is for energy. I don't see how it differentiates a 6f race from a 12f if I have the variables right.

Crickets.

Greyfox
03-06-2015, 04:05 PM
This is a myth, been proven false.

You are correct.
For years we used to be told that walking a mile = 100 cals (depending on your weight)
Running a mile = 108-115.

More sophisticated research shows:

In "Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," published last December in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, a group of Syracuse University researchers measured the actual calorie burn of 12 men and 12 women while running and walking 1,600 meters (roughly a mile) on a treadmill. Result: The men burned an average of 124 calories while running, and just 88 while walking; the women burned 105 and 74. (The men burned more than the women because they weighed more.)

But walking faster reduces the gap between running and walking.

One-Mile Walk

The calories you burn walking divided by the number of miles you walk equals the calories you burn walking one mile. For example, the 150-lb. person who burned 190 calories per hour walking 2 mph walked two miles and, thus, burned 95 calories per mile. Walking faster burns more calories per hour, but doesn’t necessarily burn more calories per mile. The 150-lb. person burns 86 calories per mile walking 3 mph, 88 calories per mile walking 3.5 mph, 94 calories per mile walking 4 mph and 117 calories per mile walking 5 mph.

As reported in:

http://getfit.jillianmichaels.com/calories-burned-onemile-walk-1998.html

DeltaLover
03-06-2015, 04:57 PM
Crickets.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Cratos
03-06-2015, 05:23 PM
Can you give a concrete example (not general theories and undocumented axioms) illustrating the following:

(1) How much the 'energy' differs from horse to horse?

(2) Based on what factors you end up with your energy figure and how you evaluate them?

(3) How this "energy" is transformed to a handicapping factor?

Thanks very much for your questions, but it appear that the answers will be "Crickets" to you and even I am quite studious in physics I don't understand the application of "Crickets".

cj
03-06-2015, 05:28 PM
All hat, no saddle.

thaskalos
03-06-2015, 06:54 PM
Maybe we could each analyze an upcoming race...so we could show our contrasting handicapping styles. I'll gladly demonstrate the "pencil-and-paper" method...if one of the physicists of this board agrees to demonstrate the "intellectual" method.

No "secrets" need to be divulged.

Tom
03-06-2015, 10:14 PM
I will happy if someone posts the actual weights of the horses in that race, Gus.

DeltaLover
03-07-2015, 12:10 AM
I do not understand why somobedy might start a topic, making some bold statements like using nuclear physics and quantitative analysis for (... ) speed figure calculations and then refuse to provide any concrete example to prove his case...

DeltaLover
03-07-2015, 12:14 AM
Maybe we could each analyze an upcoming race...so we could show our contrasting handicapping styles. I'll gladly demonstrate the "pencil-and-paper" method...if one of the physicists of this board agrees to demonstrate the "intellectual" method.

No "secrets" need to be divulged.


I think this is the very best can do.. Instead of throwing around endless theories and axioms, we should focus on some realistic handicapping about upcoming races... The weekend seems to be full of racing so let's pick some races and present our handicapping views..

Cratos
03-07-2015, 02:47 AM
I do not understand why somobedy might start a topic, making some bold statements like using nuclear physics and quantitative analysis for (... ) speed figure calculations and then refuse to provide any concrete example to prove his case...
I hope you will not take my retort to your post personal because it is not; it is just me giving an opinion and I will address your post by saying that there is a difference between Newtonian physics (the mechanics branch) and nuclear physics (the atomic branch) in the science of physics.

However it is not understandable to me when there are many position papers on applied physics (mechanics) in horseracing and because one doesn't like the subject or don't understand it; it becomes "crickets".

If I don't like.a thread I stay out of it and that is why I average less than 1 post/day during my tenure on this forum.

You raised some good questions in your earlier post about energy of the racehorse and how to apply the findings to horserace handicapping.

On that topic N.C. Heglund and C.R. Taylor of Harvard has developed some allometric equations dealing with the horse's energy and stride rate which appears to me to be what your inquiry in part in your earlier post was about.

However it should be noted that no one post/thread fits all because of lack of interest or something else.

But this is the Internet where impetuous claims are readily made without verification or validation.

Capper Al
03-07-2015, 06:43 AM
Two out of three ain't bad.

Over 60, I'll take two out of three.

Capper Al
03-07-2015, 06:48 AM
Where are we with this topic? What's the topic? Apparently, it changed from using many different kind of speed figures to something to do with pace. But what to do with pace? And how does this fit back to the original multiple speeds? Does anyone have understanding of where we are at?

Cratos
03-07-2015, 09:28 AM
Where are we with this topic? What's the topic? Apparently, it changed from using many different kind of speed figures to something to do with pace. But what to do with pace? And how does this fit back to the original multiple speeds? Does anyone have understanding of where we are at?
I believe you have in mind with your " multi-dimensional' speed figure concept something that you want to introduce about figure-making and. by you explaining it further what you want to or intend to do, it will probably redirect the topic back to where you wanted the thread to go.

HUSKER55
03-07-2015, 10:02 AM
over time I have come to the conclusion that speed figures by themselves don't accomplish much. There are days I wonder if they accomplish anything.

Reason1: I maybe wrong but pace determines speed. I am sure there are those that think speed determnes pace. Fine, that is just the flip side of the same coin in my opinion. Heads or tails, ying or yang, "0" or "1". Same thing but different approach.

Reason2: The numbers are not nearly important as the pattern that got the horse to where it is today. There are not a lot of horses out there that have the "will to win" that run consistent 95+ speed rates.

Reason3: I am finding that I was very wrong about the impact of trainers and jockeys in relation to performance. Consider your dog or cat. What happens when you are forced to show it who is in charge. They walk away, pretend to sleep sounder, run off to the neighbors house and etc. How long does it take before they come back and "play". Get my drift...Horses are not any different, IMO.

I am beginning to think a race horse is way more tempormental and they are way more fragile than I thought.

3 weeks ago a horse ran 7 furlongs in 80 and and was claimed. Today it runs 6 furlongs in 75. Could there be a bunch of legitimate reasons for this,...of course. But how about that perhaps the horse that does not like the new trainer and/or jockey.

Do you need good figures. How else do you know where the stake in the ground is. If the figures are yours then when you win the success is yours alone. Then there is the upside that you know how those figures were made.


Good Luck to All Today!

Tom
03-07-2015, 10:18 AM
I do not understand why somobedy might start a topic, making some bold statements like using nuclear physics and quantitative analysis for (... ) speed figure calculations and then refuse to provide any concrete example to prove his case...

Too many good handicappers here that DO offer proof to bother with those who are probably lying to begin with.

DeltaLover
03-07-2015, 10:18 AM
Then there is the upside that you know how those figures were made.

I can only see one valid reason for knowing how a figure is created and this is to just verify that there are no changes in the algorithm and they remain consistent.

GaryG
03-07-2015, 10:24 AM
Do you need good figures. How else do you know where the stake in the ground is. If the figures are yours then when you win the success is yours alone. Then there is the upside that you know how those figures were made.This is my point exactly. At this point in my life I can only do figures for one track at a time, Santa Anita. With figs from here and there it seems like it breeds confusion. Which one do I go by today? I will win or lose with my own. I would like this thread better if we took a certain race and analyzed it in terms of pace and speed.

Tom
03-07-2015, 10:51 AM
I can only see one valid reason for knowing how a figure is created and this is to just verify that there are no changes in the algorithm and they remain consistent.
It is good to know if a certain fig was a problem, ir, the Derby Beyer last year.
When you make your own, or can recreate the process, you can have an edge knowing how the number came to be what it is reported to be.

DeltaLover
03-07-2015, 10:52 AM
This is my point exactly. At this point in my life I can only do figures for one track at a time, Santa Anita. With figs from here and there it seems like it breeds confusion. Which one do I go by today? I will win or lose with my own. I would like this thread better if we took a certain race and analyzed it in terms of pace and speed.

Maybe you should rethink your figure making approach?

In my case I have a set of purely mechanical figs that are calculated automatically every time a new race is inserted in the system... In the past, I was using a laborious procedure, requiring my input in a per race basis, something that required watching replays and several subjective calls, like for example detecting track biases or quantifing the cost of a slow break... I have found out that the automated process works at least as good as the manual, without adding any work, something that makes me capable to easily handicap several race tracks per day...

Lemon Drop Husker
03-07-2015, 11:04 AM
I think this is the very best can do.. Instead of throwing around endless theories and axioms, we should focus on some realistic handicapping about upcoming races... The weekend seems to be full of racing so let's pick some races and present our handicapping views..

The San Felipe is an outstanding race to look at from a pace/handicapping perspective. I see it as receiving a number of differing results from a numbers and opinion scenario.

DeltaLover
03-07-2015, 11:07 AM
It is good to know if a certain fig was a problem, ir, the Derby Beyer last year.
When you make your own, or can recreate the process, you can have an edge knowing how the number came to be what it is reported to be.

A single race, especially one that is conducted in a rare distance like the Derby, cannot be used as an indicator of the quality of a specific figure... Of course, I agree that having your own of figures is the way to go for several reasons, but still I think that using a third party set, is usefull, even if you do not know the algorithm behind it...

As I said before in this thread, the value of a figure is not necessary proportional to how well it models finishing times but how well it behaves when it largely contradicts the figures used by the wide betting public (like Beyer or bris)...

Tom
03-07-2015, 11:33 AM
A single race, especially one that is conducted in a rare distance like the Derby, cannot be used as an indicator of the quality of a specific figure...

10 furlongs is hardly rare.
What I am talking about is Beyer broke it out......that is what I want to know.

DeltaLover
03-07-2015, 11:58 AM
10 furlongs is hardly rare.
What I am talking about is Beyer broke it out......that is what I want to know.

How many 10f you have in your db for the last year in CD? (Compare it with 6f or 1m)..

cj
03-07-2015, 03:07 PM
I think this is the very best can do.. Instead of throwing around endless theories and axioms, we should focus on some realistic handicapping about upcoming races... The weekend seems to be full of racing so let's pick some races and present our handicapping views..

Sure scattered some of the guys in this thread like roaches when the light comes on.

Tom
03-07-2015, 03:29 PM
How many 10f you have in your db for the last year in CD? (Compare it with 6f or 1m)..

Not the point.

whodoyoulike
03-07-2015, 03:30 PM
over time I have come to the conclusion that speed figures by themselves don't accomplish much. There are days I wonder if they accomplish anything...

Reason2: The numbers are not nearly important as the pattern that got the horse to where it is today. There are not a lot of horses out there that have the "will to win" that run consistent 95+ speed rates...

Do you need good figures. How else do you know where the stake in the ground is. If the figures are yours then when you win the success is yours alone. Then there is the upside that you know how those figures were made.


Good Luck to All Today!

I like #2, it's the relationship of one horse to the other horses.

The second part, I interpret as using it as a benchmark for the horse then you can determine whether the horse has met your expectations or has regressed or improved.

Good points to consider when handicapping.

whodoyoulike
03-07-2015, 03:38 PM
A single race, especially one that is conducted in a rare distance like the Derby, cannot be used as an indicator of the quality of a specific figure... Of course, I agree that having your own of figures is the way to go for several reasons, but still I think that using a third party set, is usefull, even if you do not know the algorithm behind it...

As I said before in this thread, the value of a figure is not necessary proportional to how well it models finishing times but how well it behaves when it largely contradicts the figures used by the wide betting public (like Beyer or bris)...

I thought what made the Derby difficult is that it's the first time 3yo's run a 10f distance which is considered very taxing even for older horses. The distance in and of itself isn't the rare part.

cj
03-07-2015, 03:59 PM
How many 10f you have in your db for the last year in CD? (Compare it with 6f or 1m)..

If you understand the track and the runups, it really shouldn't be a big issue.

DeltaLover
03-07-2015, 04:12 PM
If you understand the track and the runups, it really shouldn't be a big issue.

I agree that it is quite possible to measure it, although the point I am trying to make is that a single 'correct' figure does not mean much (if anything)...

cj
03-07-2015, 06:00 PM
I agree that it is quite possible to measure it, although the point I am trying to make is that a single 'correct' figure does not mean much (if anything)...

Tough to say that for me, I've made a lot of cash on one figure horses because people took the contrarian view. I've also bet against a lot of one figure horses, just depends which way the public goes.

DeltaLover
03-07-2015, 07:21 PM
Tough to say that for me, I've made a lot of cash on one figure horses because people took the contrarian view. I've also bet against a lot of one figure horses, just depends which way the public goes.

Same here..

Tom
03-07-2015, 07:34 PM
One number can mean a lot.
Did the horse pair up a top, bounce off it, or forge ahead.
When you look at pattern, a single race can lead you the wrong way.

With 3yos, the number can mean the horse made the expected big move.

cj
03-07-2015, 09:53 PM
One number can mean a lot.
Did the horse pair up a top, bounce off it, or forge ahead.
When you look at pattern, a single race can lead you the wrong way.

With 3yos, the number can mean the horse made the expected big move.

It took me a lot of years to realize past figs are not the way to bet young, lightly raced horses...it is anticipating the jumps. Luckily, I started young.

classhandicapper
03-08-2015, 11:15 AM
It is good to know if a certain fig was a problem, ir, the Derby Beyer last year.
When you make your own, or can recreate the process, you can have an edge knowing how the number came to be what it is reported to be.

I am currently tracking the variant Beyer used for every figure in NY and can spot check other tracks. I can quickly spit out a report of all suspect figures/dates. The core my play is to find horses that are better than their final time figures, not to find horses to play off their final time figures. I'm not sure if it's worth the effort yet, but since it's related to some other research I'm doing, I'm going to do it for awhile.

Capper Al
03-08-2015, 12:42 PM
Just jumping in here while I am out and about for the couple of weeks. I have adjusted how my figs are made several times and use BRIS as my yardstick to measure how I'm doing. BRIS figs have been kicking my butt recently. I'm about to test another update in a couple of weeks. At that time I will through out BRIS rankings and mine. Anyone else who would like to through in theirs or Beyers will be welcome to do so.

Capper Al
03-08-2015, 12:49 PM
I buy the agrument that pace influences speed. But I haven't heard or seen one (including myself) one study showing that their top pace fig out performed speed figs when it comes to hitting winners. So pace figs must under perform to speed, but they might be a value play.

classhandicapper
03-08-2015, 01:08 PM
I buy the agrument that pace influences speed. But I haven't heard or seen one (including myself) one study showing that their top pace fig out performed speed figs when it comes to hitting winners. So pace figs must under perform to speed, but they might be a value play.

IMO, the primary use of pace figures is as a component of trip. They help you figure out how well a horse actually ran.

thaskalos
03-08-2015, 01:18 PM
I buy the agrument that pace influences speed. But I haven't heard or seen one (including myself) one study showing that their top pace fig out performed speed figs when it comes to hitting winners. So pace figs must under perform to speed, but they might be a value play.
There are several "reliable" speed figure suppliers out there...but the pace figure suppliers haven't been as reliable. In order to conduct the study that you mention...reliable pace figures would have to be more commercially available.

IMO...handicapping without reliable pace figures is like boxing with one hand tied behind your back.

thaskalos
03-08-2015, 01:35 PM
I buy the agrument that pace influences speed. But I haven't heard or seen one (including myself) one study showing that their top pace fig out performed speed figs when it comes to hitting winners. So pace figs must under perform to speed, but they might be a value play.
And another thing:

Pace figures cannot be used in the same manner as speed figures are used...where highest figure is always best. When 4 horses with high speed figures face one another, their high speed ratings do not negatively affect the subsequent performance of these horses on the track. They can still run back to their previously recorded figures.

But when 4 horses with high PACE ratings square off against one another, their high ratings directly affect, and sabotage, one another's on-track performance.

It isn't easy to be a competent pace handicapper...because pace figures need to be ANALYZED -- not just looked at.

Capper Al
03-08-2015, 02:07 PM
There are several "reliable" speed figure suppliers out there...but the pace figure suppliers haven't been as reliable. In order to conduct the study that you mention...reliable pace figures would have to be more commercially available.

IMO...handicapping without reliable pace figures is like boxing with one hand tied behind your back.

No doubt that pace is important. The question still is why then isn't pace statistically superior to speed?

Posted this before your second reply.

Sapio
03-08-2015, 02:20 PM
And another thing:

Pace figures cannot be used in the same manner as speed figures are used...where highest figure is always best. When 4 horses with high speed figures face one another, their high speed ratings do not negatively affect the subsequent performance of these horses on the track. They can still run back to their previously recorded figures.

But when 4 horses with high PACE ratings square off against one another, their high ratings directly affect, and sabotage, one another's on-track performance.

It isn't easy to be a competent pace handicapper...because pace figures need to be ANALYZED -- not just looked at.

Hi thaskalos,

Isn't that also true of speed ratings?

Thomas Sapio

thaskalos
03-08-2015, 02:33 PM
Hi thaskalos,

Isn't that also true of speed ratings?

Thomas Sapio
No. How does one horse's speed figure adversely affect the performance of another?

Capper Al
03-08-2015, 02:57 PM
Hi thaskalos,

Isn't that also true of speed ratings?

Thomas Sapio

Why not? Why can pace get away with this claim and not speed? It's simple: the fastest horse ran the others to the ground and the others dropped back to save themselves for another race. Makes sense.

classhandicapper
03-08-2015, 03:13 PM
No doubt that pace is important. The question still is why then isn't pace statistically superior to speed?

Posted this before your second reply.

Because there are a lot of terrible horses that can run really fast for short portions of a race and a lot a lot of very good horses without as much natural speed but enough speed and stamina in combination to catch them. Pace figures are an attempt to capture the former. Final times are an attempt to capture the latter.

thaskalos
03-08-2015, 03:15 PM
Why not? Why can pace get away with this claim and not speed? It's simple: the fastest horse ran the others to the ground and the others dropped back to save themselves for another race. Makes sense.
Al...with thinking of this caliber...I don't think you'll realize your goal of winning the NHC. :)

classhandicapper
03-08-2015, 03:19 PM
No. How does one horse's speed figure adversely affect the performance of another?

You could probably argue that several horses with similar ability will tend to hook up, knocks heads, move earlier, or have to repulse each other through the last 3/16ths, but if that has a negative impact, it's marginal compared to the damage that can be done if speed horses hook up early.

thaskalos
03-08-2015, 03:28 PM
An argument can be made about practically anything in this game...but that doesn't change the facts. 3-4 horses with identically high speed figures can manage just fine while competing in the same race...provided they have differing running styles.

But if we have 3-4 horses with identically high PACE figures in the same race...then their survival chances are severely compromised.

classhandicapper
03-08-2015, 03:35 PM
An argument can be made about practically anything in this game...but that doesn't change the facts. 3-4 horses with identically high speed figures can manage just fine while competing in the same race...provided they have differing running styles.

But if we have 3-4 horses with identically high PACE figures in the same race...then their survival chances are severely compromised.

I don't disagree with you. I was playing devil's advocate. ;)

Sapio
03-08-2015, 03:43 PM
An argument can be made about practically anything in this game...but that doesn't change the facts. 3-4 horses with identically high speed figures can manage just fine while competing in the same race...provided they have differing running styles.

But if we have 3-4 horses with identically high PACE figures in the same race...then their survival chances are severely compromised.

And you know that to be true based on studies, hearsay or by personal experience?

Thomas Sapio

thaskalos
03-08-2015, 03:45 PM
And you know that to be true based on studies, hearsay or by personal experience?

Thomas Sapio
I believe I read it in a Trifecta Mike post somewhere. I am surprised you missed it. :)

classhandicapper
03-08-2015, 04:13 PM
And you know that to be true based on studies, hearsay or by personal experience?

Thomas Sapio

It's demonstrable via study, but the level of predictability is probably lower than perceptions. A LOT of races develop differently than they look on paper before the race because of the randomness of the start, changes in form, and quite possibly because jockeys, owners, and trainers also read PPs. For all I know, the value may be in going AGAINST what everyone else is betting will happen or at least being flexible enough to realize a duel is not certain.

thaskalos
03-08-2015, 04:32 PM
It's demonstrable via study, but the level of predictability is probably lower than perceptions. A LOT of races develop differently than they look on paper before the race because of the randomness of the start, changes in form, and quite possibly because jockeys, owners, and trainers also read PPs. For all I know, the value may be in going AGAINST what everyone else is betting will happen or at least being flexible enough to realize a duel is not certain.

I keep hearing, and reading, that we "shouldn't be doing what everybody else is doing"...because, if "everybody else" is doing it...then there must be no value left in that particular method.

Well...the truth is that we NEVER KNOW what everybody else is doing...and we shouldn't pretend that we do. There is great diversity within the different "handicapping schools"...and the students of a particular handicapping philosophy seldom agree on the application of the "tools" that they use to do their work. I know that Brohamer and I both call ourselves "pace handicappers"...but our "pace handicapping" bears no resemblance to one another's.

Yes...all the figure handicappers basically use the same figures...but those figures are just the TOOLS...and they don't really determine the quality of the finished work.

Two carpenters may use the same kind of saw and hammer...but that doesn't mean that their finished work will be the same.

Cratos
03-08-2015, 04:52 PM
The argument continues; therefore definitions are in order.

Pace – the rate of the horse’s movement (slow or fast)

Speed – The rapidity in the horse’s movement or,in the language of calculus speed is the first derivative of distance with respect to time.

By the simplest of all definitions, speed is the function of pace whether we speaking of animals, humans, or machines because they all are just objects moving through space and that was proven centuries ago.

Tom
03-08-2015, 05:21 PM
No. How does one horse's speed figure adversely affect the performance of another?
If one runs a faster one, the other one loses! :D

raybo
03-08-2015, 05:55 PM
I get the feeling that some here think that pace analysis is all about early speed. It is not. A true pace analysis examines early, middle, and late pace, as well as preferred running styles, and how all those factors interact with each other to affect final time/speed/speed figures.

Speed figures mean nothing more than final times plus variant plus track to track adjustment, and are usually determined by overall pace abilities and preferred running styles of the field, and how they happen to display themselves during the running of races. If the top speed figure horse has the race to it's liking, and it is in form, and none of the others in the field improve their form, then that top figure horse is likely the winner. But, how often does that happen, and in which races? Those are the questions that pace analysis tries to answer, and that determination varies with the ability of the individual pace analyst. Some of them are excellent, some are average, and some suck. From what I can see, speed figure analysis is much more standardized than is pace analysis, so there will necessarily be less statistical proof of the superiority of pace analysis versus speed figure analysis. Until pace analysis evolves to similar standardization as is speed figure analysis, speed figures will continue to show statistical superiority over pace analysis. But, that doesn't prove that it is truly superior.

cj
03-08-2015, 06:07 PM
You could probably argue that several horses with similar ability will tend to hook up, knocks heads, move earlier, or have to repulse each other through the last 3/16ths, but if that has a negative impact, it's marginal compared to the damage that can be done if speed horses hook up early.


My experience ids that evenly matched horses hooking up late leads to the best times.

Cratos
03-08-2015, 06:09 PM
A speed figure is just a single point estimate and pace is the determination of that estimate.

Capper Al
03-09-2015, 09:54 AM
Because there are a lot of terrible horses that can run really fast for short portions of a race and a lot a lot of very good horses without as much natural speed but enough speed and stamina in combination to catch them. Pace figures are an attempt to capture the former. Final times are an attempt to capture the latter.

Agree. Pace to me has more value in eliminating horses while speed has more value for including horses.

Capper Al
03-09-2015, 09:55 AM
Al...with thinking of this caliber...I don't think you'll realize your goal of winning the NHC. :)

Right now, I'm just hoping to have my rewrite finished by 2020.

dasch
03-09-2015, 11:10 AM
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier with Clem.

Horse A goes 22.8 22.8 24.4 for a total of 1:10

Horse B goes 22 22.6 25.4 for a total of 1:10

Everyone on earth knows that horse B ran the superior race because it ran a much faster pace. But in many cases they will run very similar fractions again next time and finish very close again.

It's not enough to measure past fractions and create a rating. You also have to know when those fractions deviated significantly from the horse's norm so that a change back might lead to an improved result.

The responses(and lack of by the "scientific" posters) to this specific scenario have been very interesting.

I am assuming in the example that all other things were equal or close(trip, weight, etc.) In a match race horse B would crush horse A and its not even close(7-9 lengths). However, there are full field race scenarios that horse A can prevail but it will NEVER be the better horse.

classhandicapper
03-09-2015, 12:52 PM
My experience ids that evenly matched horses hooking up late leads to the best times.

I see that scenario sometimes in major stakes and among lightly raced quality horses on that path to becoming stakes horses. Horses that have been winning fairly consistently often have a little extra in the tank. When you throw them all together, you get the pace and driving finish that calls on those reserves and leads to a better number. Of course, if it's a major stake you also may have a few horses that were pointed to that race for a peak effort.

Among cheaper horses, I don't think you'll see it as often. You might see the opposite.

raybo
03-09-2015, 01:18 PM
The responses(and lack of by the "scientific" posters) to this specific scenario have been very interesting.

I am assuming in the example that all other things were equal or close(trip, weight, etc.) In a match race horse B would crush horse A and its not even close(7-9 lengths). However, there are full field race scenarios that horse A can prevail but it will NEVER be the better horse.

There is not enough info in that scenario to draw any viable conclusions. No 2 races are ever exactly the same so those fractions mean very little, and lead to simple opinions. To say one horse is superior to another, based on a single race/scenario, is not worth the effort. The only thing we know for sure is that both of those horses have the capability to run a 6f race in the same time.

cj
03-09-2015, 01:29 PM
There is not enough info in that scenario to draw any viable conclusions. No 2 races are ever exactly the same so those fractions mean very little, and lead to simple opinions. To say one horse is superior to another, based on a single race/scenario, is not worth the effort. The only thing we know for sure is that both of those horses have the capability to run a 6f race in the same time.

The difference is that the horse running the faster fractions can almost assuredly run a faster final time if allowed to run slower early, to a point. Of course that changes if the horses go too slow and even a fast finish can't make up for the lost time.

Example:

22, 45, 112

might equal

23 46, 111

but then you get this:

24, 47, 111

The other extreme is going way to fast, where you might get:

21, 44, 115.

dasch
03-09-2015, 01:35 PM
There is not enough info in that scenario to draw any viable conclusions. No 2 races are ever exactly the same so those fractions mean very little, and lead to simple opinions. To say one horse is superior to another, based on a single race/scenario, is not worth the effort.

The pace and finish times are the MOST IMPORTANT factor needed to gain an accurate measure of 1 horse vs another. Everything else(weight, ground loss, etc) only adds or subtracts from those numbers. In the example only the fractions of the horses were provided, so we can assume everything else was similar or insignificant for both horses, that the track was honest, and that both horses ran their best effort.

You give me *1-5 in a match race everyday(even@*1-9 but im greedy lol) horse vs horse and I could buy an island and retire on Horse B.

Capper Al
03-09-2015, 01:52 PM
Huey Mahl in his book 'The Race is Pace' made a guesstimate that one length early might equal two lengths late on final time. But in general, I agree with CJ's post. There seems to be a certain randomness to it as to how the race unfolds. Therefore, time has little to do with it in either pace or speed. Go figure that! Matter of Fact, Ainslie was late coming on board with pace stating earlier that the horse would be run as the barn sees it best to fit the race for their plans. They could burn the horse early, or they could burn the horse late. Only a few of the great horses could burn twice in a race.

dasch
03-09-2015, 02:20 PM
The difference is that the horse running the faster fractions can almost assuredly run a faster final time if allowed to run slower early, to a point. Of course that changes if the horses go too slow and even a fast finish can't make up for the lost time.

Example:

22, 45, 112

might equal

23 46, 111

but then you get this:

24, 47, 111

The other extreme is going way to fast, where you might get:

21, 44, 115.

I call this the "breaking point". The optimum speed EACH horse can run to finish the best possible without slowing themselves down.

The randomness for the most part only occurs in the extremes which are sometimes difficult to predict. For example I would have your 2 extremes finishing in about 110 3/5 & 114 2/5

classhandicapper
03-10-2015, 09:33 AM
I agree with what CJ is saying on the relationships.

The only thing I can add is that in my experience there are general pace relationship that are applicable to most horses. However, since even horses with generally similar overall ability have varying degrees of natural speed vs. stamina and tracks play differently from day to day, it's hard to pin down the exact impact of pace at the individual horse and race level. I think the best you can do is estimate it in a general way and then try to understand the individual horse.

Cratos
03-10-2015, 10:10 AM
I agree with what CJ is saying on the relationships.

The only thing I can add is that in my experience there are general pace relationship that are applicable to most horses. However, since even horses with generally similar overall ability have varying degrees of natural speed vs. stamina and tracks play differently from day to day, it's hard to pin down the exact impact of pace at the individual horse and race level. I think the best you can do is estimate it in a general way and then try to understand the individual horse.
Pace is an independent variable in horseracing and speed is a dependent variable.

No, you cannot exactly "pin" pace down at the horse level unless you are using some type of external measuring technology, but if you are estimating speed then your estimation of pace should be in sync with your speed estimate or you will have nothing but glibbish as an output.

The running curve of a horse or any moving object is continuous until it stops. The points which make up the curve are pace points and the end point is speed.

At any one pace point speed can be determined.

Cratos
03-10-2015, 10:21 AM
The pace and finish times are the MOST IMPORTANT factor needed to gain an accurate measure of 1 horse vs another. Everything else(weight, ground loss, etc) only adds or subtracts from those numbers. In the example only the fractions of the horses were provided, so we can assume everything else was similar or insignificant for both horses, that the track was honest, and that both horses ran their best effort.

You give me *1-5 in a match race everyday(even@*1-9 but im greedy lol) horse vs horse and I could buy an island and retire on Horse B.
Accuracy measurement must taken a different definition because without expunging the extraneous influences on your data, you will never have an "accurate" measurement; just a global guesstimate.

classhandicapper
03-10-2015, 11:26 AM
At any one pace point speed can be determined.

I am only saying that the relationships between pace and final time are not 100% consistent from horse to horse, surface to surface, and day to day. So when you go beyond final time and try to build pace into your assessment of performance, you will find "general" relationships that don't work all the time.

dasch
03-10-2015, 11:59 AM
Accuracy measurement must taken a different definition because without expunging the extraneous influences on your data, you will never have an "accurate" measurement; just a global guesstimate.

All I personally need(aside from the fractional times) to get an accurate measure of 1 horse vs another are ground loss, trip notes, and track bias observation. Any influences outside of this is not important to me because I "break out" every race so it stands on its own 1st. Of course many times the numbers will match other races but this is not important because there are many influences that can cause each race to be very different.

Cratos
03-10-2015, 12:20 PM
All I personally need(aside from the fractional times) to get an accurate measure of 1 horse vs another are ground loss, trip notes, and track bias observation. Any influences outside of this is not important to me because I "break out" every race so it stands on its own 1st. Of course many times the numbers will match other races but this is not important because there are many influences that can cause each race to be very different.
I understand, but as Magstri Ludi has echoed on this forum several times is that the major influence to a horse's speed is aerodynamic drag.

Many horseplayers rely on the so-called 'track variant" or surface variant and whatever it is as a contributor, it pales in comparison to AD and surface wind influences..

Capper Al
03-10-2015, 12:42 PM
I am only saying that the relationships between pace and final time are not 100% consistent from horse to horse, surface to surface, and day to day. So when you go beyond final time and try to build pace into your assessment of performance, you will find "general" relationships that don't work all the time.

Since pace determines speed then "general" relationships don't work here also. It looks that way to me.

Greyfox
03-10-2015, 12:43 PM
I understand, but as Magstri Ludi has echoed on this forum several times is that the major influence to a horse's speed is aerodynamic drag.

Many horseplayers rely on the so-called 'track variant" or surface variant and whatever it is as a contributor, it pales in comparison to AD and surface wind influences..

Yes aerodynamic drag has an influence on racing as it does on cycling (for drafting purposes) .
But I'm not so convinced how much a horse player has to take that into account.
Take a track like Santa Anita.
Year round the winds are averaging between 4 to 6 mph from the west.
So when I look at a past performance line from that track last month,
I can be pretty certain that similar style horses will be facing the similar wind conditions today and most days.
I suspect they will draft similar today as they did last month if their styles are reasonably established.
Why would I make any adjustments to my speed figures for wind unless I knew that some were from very atypical day?
Well the truth is, I don't make those adjustments and seem to do reasonably well ignoring them.
(Perhaps if I played Chicago which gets stronger winds, I'd have to consider taking them into account.)

Capper Al
03-10-2015, 12:44 PM
I understand, but as Magstri Ludi has echoed on this forum several times is that the major influence to a horse's speed is aerodynamic drag.

Many horseplayers rely on the so-called 'track variant" or surface variant and whatever it is as a contributor, it pales in comparison to AD and surface wind influences..

I leave the variants to the commercial speed figures. They do a good job.

classhandicapper
03-10-2015, 12:54 PM
Since pace determines speed then "general" relationships don't work here also. It looks that way to me.

By general relationship I mean if you look at 1000 horses of similar ability you might see that if they run faster than a certain pace, it starts to impact their final time negatively. That would be one relationship that most people would agree on.

However, within that group you may find some horses that handle the extra pace with little or no consequence and others that collapse badly.

Within that group you will find days where the track carried the horses despite the pace being too fast.

Within that group you will find days where they all collapsed way worse than expected.

These are the exceptions to the general rule.

DeltaLover
03-10-2015, 01:27 PM
I leave the variants to the commercial speed figures. They do a good job.

I agree with Al.. TV estimation is not rocket science and more than this is not the most critical tool for successful handicapping (at least not since it became a mature and well known aspect of the game)..

dasch
03-10-2015, 01:41 PM
I leave the variants to the commercial speed figures. They do a good job.

The problem with the commercial numbers is that they are all incomplete. Some don't count for pace while others dont factor in ground loss. I was never satisfied with the consistency which is why I started doing my own.

And as I said before I don't create a TRACK variant but rather a RACE variant. I have experienced 2 races back to back at the exact same distance with the exact same run-up with no apparent weather change and have the numbers line up perfectly in both races yet the variants were VERY different. Do I know what caused this? Most of the time no. Was it AD? Possibly, but it doesn't matter what the exact cause was only that I didn't try to average the races into a common variant causing BOTH race variants to be grossly inaccurate.

Cratos
03-10-2015, 01:59 PM
I leave the variants to the commercial speed figures. They do a good job.
I firmly believe you can and should wager your money any way. you see fit and you should use any and all handicapping factors that you feel comfortable with.

If the "track variant" meets your needs then by all means you should be satisfied and move on, but this is pari-mutuel wagering where we disagree on betting choices and presumably we will disagree on the factors that help determine our betting choices.

Tom
03-10-2015, 02:21 PM
A variant is a variant is a variant.
If a horse should run 1.10 and he runs 1.12, the variant is 2 seconds.
I don't care if was the surface, the wind, or what.

thaskalos
03-10-2015, 02:28 PM
I believe that most players wouldn't know what to do with a "world-class" set of speed and pace figures...even if they had one in their possession.

The biggest mistakes aren't made in the CREATION of these figures. They are made in their INTERPRETATION.

classhandicapper
03-10-2015, 02:34 PM
The biggest mistakes aren't made in the CREATION of these figures. They are made in their INTERPRETATION.

I think it's a 1 and 1A entry. ;)

Cratos
03-10-2015, 02:34 PM
Yes aerodynamic drag has an influence on racing as it does on cycling (for drafting purposes) .
But I'm not so convinced how much a horse player has to take that into account.
Take a track like Santa Anita.
Year round the winds are averaging between 4 to 6 mph from the west.
So when I look at a past performance line from that track last month,
I can be pretty certain that similar style horses will be facing the similar wind conditions today and most days.
I suspect they will draft similar today as they did last month if their styles are reasonably established. y
Why would I make any adjustments to my speed figures for wind unless I knew that some were from very atypical day?q
Well the truth is, I don't make those adjustments and seem to do reasonably well ignoring them.
(Perhaps if I played Chicago which gets stronger winds, I'd have to consider taking them into account.)

Aerodynamic drag is not just about the wind; it is about the mechanical force exerted on an object as it moves through a gas (fluid or air).

Santa Anita is not immune to those forces and under certain atmospheric conditions Santa Anita can be worse than Arlington Park.

However I am not going to lay out the proof because I have sometime ago submitted a position paper to this forum which was very explanatory about aerodynamic drag in horseracing.

thaskalos
03-10-2015, 02:38 PM
Aerodynamic drag is not just about the wind; it is about the mechanical force exerted on an object as it moves through a gas (fluid or air).

Santa Anita is not immune to those forces and under certain atmospheric conditions Santa Anita can be worse than Arlington Park.

However I am not going to lay out the proof because I have some ago submitted a position paper to this forum which was very explanatory about aerodynamic drag in horseracing.

Is this mechanical force exerted differently on the different traveling objects?

Greyfox
03-10-2015, 02:49 PM
Aerodynamic drag is not just about the wind; it is about the mechanical force exerted on an object as it moves through a gas (fluid or air).



Yes. We agree on that. Of course it involves mechanical force.
But if a pressing horse profits from aerodynamic drag one race, and it likely will be in the same position in the next race for similar drag , I don't see the advantage gained by calculating that force, not that I could calculate it anyways.

Cratos
03-10-2015, 03:12 PM
Yes. We agree on that. Of course it involves mechanical force.
But if a pressing horse profits from aerodynamic drag one race, and it likely will be in the same position in the next race for similar drag , I don't see the advantage gained by calculating that force, not that I could calculate it anyways.
A racehorse in terms of AD is cylindrical shaped and a cylinder is thought to have an AD coefficient of .82; my calculation for a racehorse (right or wrong) is .78.

However it is worthwhile noting that according to the Jockey Club a racehorse stride is about 25 feet which gives the horse about 160 strides per 6F and the tangency of the horse's hooves to the surface according to latest position paper on race tracks is about 1-1/2° to 3° and from that with the COF you can estimate the surface variant and verify it with acceleration calculated on a per unit basis

Greyfox
03-10-2015, 03:33 PM
A racehorse in terms of AD is cylindrical shaped and a cylinder is thought to have an AD coefficient of .82; my calculation for a racehorse (right or wrong) is .78.

However it is worthwhile noting that according to the Jockey Club a racehorse stride is about 25 feet which gives the horse about 160 strides per 6F and the tangency of the horse's hooves to the surface according to latest position paper on race tracks is about 1-1/2° to 3° and from that with the COF you can estimate the surface variant and verify it with acceleration calculated on a per unit basis

I don't doubt that what you say is so.
But you seem to have created a smoke screen here that doesn't deal with my concern.
1. A horse on the lead will not profit from aerodynamic drag or drafting.

2. A horse that pressed the last time out who presses again this time out will not appreciate or depreciate signficantly due to the forces you are talking about.

Your answer raises more questions.
The Coefficient of Friction of a sand and clay surface may be one thing when it's packed.
But after the plowboys harrow the track, how do you have any idea how much resistance that surface is offering?

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that when one calculates a track variant using time, that variant will inherently take into account the various forces you are talking about without calculating each of them specifically.

Cratos
03-10-2015, 03:40 PM
I don't doubt that what you say is so.
But you seem to have created a smoke screen here that doesn't deal with my concern.
1. A horse on the lead will not profit from aerodynamic drag or drafting.

2. A horse that pressed the last time out who presses again this time out will not appreciate or depreciate signficantly due to the forces you are talking about.

Your answer raises more questions.
The Coefficient of Friction of a sand and clay surface may be one thing when it's packed.
But after the plowboys harrow the track, how do you have any idea how much resistance that surface is offering?

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that when one calculates a track variant using time, that variant will inherently take into account the various forces you are talking about without calculating each of them specifically.

Greyfox
I can assure you that I not being evasive or creating a "smoke screen" as you have depicted by response; I am just limiting my retorts.

Greyfox
03-10-2015, 03:47 PM
Greyfox
I can assure you that I not being evasive or creating a "smoke screen" as you have depicted by response; I am just limiting my retorts.

Okay. I accept that.
But I still don't see how your "retort" came anywhere near answering my question.
(It sort of reminded me of a cab driver who was asked to take a passenger to the airport and in doing so gave him a grand tour of the city.)

Capper Al
03-10-2015, 04:02 PM
I believe that most players wouldn't know what to do with a "world-class" set of speed and pace figures...even if they had one in their possession.

The biggest mistakes aren't made in the CREATION of these figures. They are made in their INTERPRETATION.

A good and interesting point. Being a developer of systems, developing all this logic to create something or express some idea; I find it amazing that after all this I actually have to use the outcome or the formula and gain experience playing what I just developed. A lot of ideas fail that seemed so logical.

Cratos
03-10-2015, 04:04 PM
Okay. I accept that.
But I still don't see how your "retort" came anywhere near answering my question.
(It sort of reminded me of a cab driver who was asked to take a passenger to the airport and in doing so gave him a grand tour of the city.)
I always enjoy an exchange with you and hopefully we can do it again in a harmonious manner; and I apologize for not giving you more clarity.

Greyfox
03-10-2015, 04:09 PM
I always enjoy an exchange with you and hopefully we can do it again in a harmonious manner; and I apologize for not giving you more clarity.

Thank you.
I have no doubts that you know more about the physics side of this than I do and respect your opinions.
It's just that I'm more inclined to ride the gondola up the mountain, and you are delving more deeply along that paths up it.
All the best,

Greyfox

Capper Al
03-10-2015, 04:11 PM
D Day to come in two weeks for actually look at some speed figs. Sorry, I'm out and about for the next couple of weeks. I'll post my testing of my new speed figs and bris'. The test is to find the winner from the top three speed figs. Others are invited to add their speed figs or add another commercial vendor's numbers like Beyer for the test. We'll do 30 non-maiden races on fast or firm surfaces.

dasch
03-10-2015, 04:26 PM
D Day to come in two weeks for actually look at some speed figs. Sorry, I'm out and about for the next couple of weeks. I'll post my testing of my new speed figs and bris'. The test is to find the winner from the top three speed figs. Others are invited to add their speed figs or add another commercial vendor's numbers like Beyer for the test. We'll do 30 non-maiden races on fast or firm surfaces.


My primary focus is So Cal so any races you include from Santa Anita I will be happy to join in on.

Capper Al
03-10-2015, 06:26 PM
My primary focus is So Cal so any races you include from Santa Anita I will be happy to join in on.

Great! Let's see if we can get more to sign up. Does your data source have other commercial speed figs than bris?

jasperson
03-10-2015, 09:43 PM
Yep, whatever we do must pass in testing or it's no good no matter what the theory is. We are touching on a similar argument here with the pace boys. I agree with the concepts of energy spent. Yet this discussion was about speed, and final speed still ranks my number one factor for hit rate. So where does that leave pace?

I have to agree with Al. In my studies speed is the best predictor of the number of winners over any other factor. Quirin's data showed it my data of 10,000 races showed it and I am sure Al's data shows the same thing. Just except the fact that as a single factor the speed rating is the best predictor of winners. Pace figures are good,but not as good as speed figures. You can say that speed rating modified by pace figures are better but that is not the issue. If a speed rating is modified by any other factor it is no longer a speed rating it is a composite rating and does not count anymore as a speed rating.

thaskalos
03-10-2015, 09:53 PM
I have to agree with Al. In my studies speed is the best predictor of the number of winners over any other factor. Quirin's data showed it my data of 10,000 races showed it and I am sure Al's data shows the same thing. Just except the fact that as a single factor the speed rating is the best predictor of winners. Pace figures are good,but not as good as speed figures. You can say that speed rating modified by pace figures are better but that is not the issue. If a speed rating is modified by any other factor it is no longer a speed rating it is a composite rating and does not count anymore as a speed rating.

If the speed rating is IMPROVED by being modified by another factor...then who cares if it counts as a speed rating, or as a composite rating? It's a BETTER rating...and that's all that counts.

Capper Al
03-11-2015, 07:31 AM
I have to agree with Al. In my studies speed is the best predictor of the number of winners over any other factor. Quirin's data showed it my data of 10,000 races showed it and I am sure Al's data shows the same thing. Just except the fact that as a single factor the speed rating is the best predictor of winners. Pace figures are good,but not as good as speed figures. You can say that speed rating modified by pace figures are better but that is not the issue. If a speed rating is modified by any other factor it is no longer a speed rating it is a composite rating and does not count anymore as a speed rating.

Starting out I had to separate speed figures from speed ratings. A speed fig is just that a figure for rating a horse's particular speed in a race. A speed rating is something that is based on the speed figure but modified somehow. It could be modified by pace, or it could be just the average of the last three speed figures. In the end, the speed rating should surpass the speed figure and be the final deciding number when used in handicapping or when one discusses a horse's speed.

Capper Al
03-11-2015, 07:35 AM
Speed rating is more what I had in mind when I started this thread. Although, we can't discuss speed rating without discussing speed figs and even pace for that matter.

raybo
03-11-2015, 12:56 PM
Speed rating is more what I had in mind when I started this thread. Although, we can't discuss speed rating without discussing speed figs and even pace for that matter.

I suspect, had you stated such in the first post, this thread would have taken a much different path, but that obviously isn't what you meant in the first post, as you specifically mentioned Beyer and Bris speed figures. It's kinda late now to state that you really meant speed ratings, don't you think?

Capper Al
03-11-2015, 02:00 PM
I suspect, had you stated such in the first post, this thread would have taken a much different path, but that obviously isn't what you meant in the first post, as you specifically mentioned Beyer and Bris speed figures. It's kinda late now to state that you really meant speed ratings, don't you think?

When it comes to racing, I'm okay with open discussion. I have no regrets on how this thread progressed. ? Multi-dementional speed figures are just another way of creating a speed rating. And I enjoyed your posts on the topic.

Inner Dirt
03-11-2015, 05:43 PM
I make my own pace figures but I use the Beyer figure to get the variant and my numbers are basically 1/4 mile, 1/2 mile and 3/4 mile Beyers adjusted for track difference like adding 20 points to the 1/2 mile at Aqueduct and subtracting 11 points for the half mile at Monmouth. My claim to fame is usually being able to pick a front runner no matter what the circumstances. Of course I love speed biases. I also have an Excel program I made for turf races that I thought was genius in theory it gives higher numbers to horse that finish well and discredits a front runner who won despite crawling the last 1/4.
Unfortunately the "Turfolater" takes an hour of data input for a 12 horse field and never puts a horse on top that is more than 7-2.

whodoyoulike
03-11-2015, 06:06 PM
A racehorse in terms of AD is cylindrical shaped and a cylinder is thought to have an AD coefficient of .82; my calculation for a racehorse (right or wrong) is .78.

However it is worthwhile noting that according to the Jockey Club a racehorse stride is about 25 feet which gives the horse about 160 strides per 6F and the tangency of the horse's hooves to the surface according to latest position paper on race tracks is about 1-1/2° to 3° and from that with the COF you can estimate the surface variant and verify it with acceleration calculated on a per unit basis

I don't incorporate aerodynamic drag (AD) in my handicapping but, can you provide an example of your adjustment(s) on an actual pp's?

http://www.brisnet.com/php/bw_pdf_viewer.php?track=HAW&race=3&param1=435240&param2=585&param3=845

This is a race for this Friday.

Using LETHAL's 2/15/15 and 12/18/14 races, can you show the AD adjustment to recorded fractional times?

Also, for a comparison LIMESTONE's 2/21/15 and 1/15/15 races, I'd like to see how it turns out.

Maybe, you can provide your opinion of which horse will perform better (in relation to the other) given the AD adjustment?

If you feel it will give out too much of your handicapping insight, you don't need to provide info. I'm just trying to understand the value of incorporating AD in handicapping when you don't know what the AD will be for the upcoming race.

Thanks,

Cratos
03-11-2015, 07:40 PM
I don't incorporate aerodynamic drag (AD) in my handicapping but, can you provide an example of your adjustment(s) on an actual pp's?

http://www.brisnet.com/php/bw_pdf_viewer.php?track=HAW&race=3&param1=435240&param2=585&param3=845

This is a race for this Friday.

Using LETHAL's 2/15/15 and 12/18/14 races, can you show the AD adjustment to recorded fractional times?

Also, for a comparison LIMESTONE's 2/21/15 and 1/15/15 races, I'd like to see how it turns out.

Maybe, you can provide your opinion of which horse will perform better (in relation to the other) given the AD adjustment?

If you feel it will give out too much of your handicapping insight, you don't need to provide info. I'm just trying to understand the value of incorporating AD in handicapping when you don't know what the AD will be for the upcoming race.

Thanks,
I think that can be done and I will keep it simple as possible (and that is not reference to anyone's intelligence) for all to understand.

Capper Al
03-12-2015, 07:13 AM
I make my own pace figures but I use the Beyer figure to get the variant and my numbers are basically 1/4 mile, 1/2 mile and 3/4 mile Beyers adjusted for track difference like adding 20 points to the 1/2 mile at Aqueduct and subtracting 11 points for the half mile at Monmouth. My claim to fame is usually being able to pick a front runner no matter what the circumstances. Of course I love speed biases. I also have an Excel program I made for turf races that I thought was genius in theory it gives higher numbers to horse that finish well and discredits a front runner who won despite crawling the last 1/4.
Unfortunately the "Turfolater" takes an hour of data input for a 12 horse field and never puts a horse on top that is more than 7-2.

Sounds like the handicapping bug bit you. Next thing that might happen is that you'll automate the process so you won't have manually input. Being able to predict the early speed is a good place to be. I can't tell how many times running styles haven't panned out.

Capper Al
03-12-2015, 07:17 AM
I don't incorporate aerodynamic drag (AD) in my handicapping but, can you provide an example of your adjustment(s) on an actual pp's?

http://www.brisnet.com/php/bw_pdf_viewer.php?track=HAW&race=3&param1=435240&param2=585&param3=845

This is a race for this Friday.

Using LETHAL's 2/15/15 and 12/18/14 races, can you show the AD adjustment to recorded fractional times?

Also, for a comparison LIMESTONE's 2/21/15 and 1/15/15 races, I'd like to see how it turns out.

Maybe, you can provide your opinion of which horse will perform better (in relation to the other) given the AD adjustment?

If you feel it will give out too much of your handicapping insight, you don't need to provide info. I'm just trying to understand the value of incorporating AD in handicapping when you don't know what the AD will be for the upcoming race.

Thanks,

Give it up on wind.

Capper Al
03-12-2015, 07:24 AM
I think that can be done and I will keep it simple as possible (and that is not reference to anyone's intelligence) for all to understand.

Where are you going to get a wind figure from? And how much would you deduct for a wind of 5 mph verse 10 mph? And if the wind blows in their face on the south side of the track then won't it equalize out when the horses makes the turn and have the wind pushing them from their back? Or are you just figuring if a lead horse made a pocket for the horse behind him? I don't know about this?

Cratos
03-12-2015, 12:53 PM
Where are you going to get a wind figure from? And how much would you deduct for a wind of 5 mph verse 10 mph? And if the wind blows in their face on the south side of the track then won't it equalize out when the horses makes the turn and have the wind pushing them from their back? Or are you just figuring if a lead horse made a pocket for the horse behind him? I don't know about this?
The problem is here is that you are correct; "you don't know about this."

However the larger problem is you apparently don't want to learn. I have a major difference with those who impede or attempt to stop the learning process whether in horseracing or any other endeavor.

As I have stated previously, the handicapping of horseracing is more about physics than most other sports and the reason is because a horse race is just an object moving through space over a surface.

Given that understanding you have retardants to a horse's motion (speed) like AD, surface wind, surface resistance, and others.

Therefore each handicapper should be "allowed" by you to include any and all variables they choose and if not; why not?

Incidentally, AD is not about wind imposition, but the mechanical force imposted on the horse which it has to overcome primarily from density and speed.

Greyfox
03-12-2015, 01:04 PM
And if the wind blows in their face on the south side of the track then won't it equalize out when the horses makes the turn and have the wind pushing them from their back?

Theoretically the wind "equalizes" out, but it will serve to advantage some horses more than others.
Front runners running into a stiff wind early in a race will be disadvantaged by that force.
Runners who've been drafting will benefit more from a tailwind when turning for home.
I'm sure Cratos knows that, so let's hear what he has to say about the example he's going to work on.

Capper Al
03-12-2015, 01:29 PM
I'm not limiting anyone. I just don't even know where to get the wind data, not that I want to. I'm not a believer in being able to interpret small details into handicapping. I don't even figure a variant anymore. So I'm coming from the other end of the spectrum believing that speed figures are not a detailed formula. Join me in a couple of weeks when we post our numbers, if you like.

Capper Al
03-12-2015, 01:30 PM
Theoretically the wind "equalizes" out, but it will serve to advantage some horses more than others.
Front runners running into a stiff wind early in a race will be disadvantaged by that force.
Runners who've been drafting will benefit more from a tailwind when turning for home.
I'm sure Cratos knows that, so let's hear what he has to say about the example he's going to work on.

This seems right but has it been tested?

Greyfox
03-12-2015, 01:36 PM
This seems right but has it been tested?

That's why I want to hear Cratos research and conclusions on this topic.

Capper Al
03-12-2015, 03:50 PM
Cratos,

You're the man with the facts.

whodoyoulike
03-12-2015, 05:51 PM
I think that can be done and I will keep it simple as possible (and that is not reference to anyone's intelligence) for all to understand.

Cratos,

Since, this is an inconsequential race at a "C" track, would you mind if some of these other "ladies" (and I'm using the term loosely) on here who seem to think their method(s) are better be allowed to add their two cents?

What I'm curious about is (1) whether Lethal will finish before Limestone and (2) how one thinks the race will play out?

How do you know or estimate the AD for an upcoming race?

Btw, I've never wagered at Haw and I'm uncertain where it is even located.

Cratos
03-12-2015, 07:43 PM
Cratos,

Since, this is an inconsequential race at a "C" track, would you mind if some of these other "ladies" (and I'm using the term loosely) on here who seem to think their method(s) are better be allowed to add their two cents?

What I'm curious about is (1) whether Lethal will finish before Limestone and (2) how one thinks the race will play out?

How do you know or estimate the AD for an upcoming race?

Btw, I've never wagered at Haw and I'm uncertain where it is even located.
Whodoyoulike,

A contrarian point of view is always welcome.

However comments like: “Give it up on wind” by the OP is baffling to me when he doesn’t know how to make the calculation.

It would seem to me that a gambler would want to learn something different that might improve his/her chance of winning.

whodoyoulike
03-12-2015, 08:59 PM
I agree which was my original intention of my post. It's turned into something else which is the reason for my subsequent post. I recall some recent posts where the individuals indicated they can do better. Well, I'm curious or maybe it's all puffery.

I'm always interested in improving my handicapping which has always been one of the reasons for reading and participating in this forum.

Again, if you feel you have an advantage I don't think there is a need to provide details for others to copy.

If others are willing to provide their comments related to this race, I'm willing to share my thoughts since I've now handicapped the race.

raybo
03-12-2015, 09:30 PM
Whodoyoulike,

A contrarian point of view is always welcome.

However comments like: “Give it up on wind” by the OP is baffling to me when he doesn’t know how to make the calculation.

It would seem to me that a gambler would want to learn something different that might improve his/her chance of winning.

I agree. While some things are obvious to the very experienced player, other things can only be classified as viable or not viable, significant or not significant, if one has done thorough studies. The effect of wind is one of those things that can't just be dismissed via experience alone.

However, anyone who has competed as a runner will definitely have some insight into the effect of wind on their performances (simply by experiencing it and relating it to their elapsed times), and it definitely has a significant effect. And, no, it doesn't "even out" around a track. If one fights the wind early, excess energy is expended early, resulting in less energy availability late, and even if the wind is aiding late that excess early expenditure is not likely to be made up late.

Tom
03-12-2015, 10:23 PM
The 800 lb. gorilla in the room is that accurate wind data is not publicly available for the time the race is run and where it is run.

raybo
03-12-2015, 10:29 PM
The 800 lb. gorilla in the room is that accurate wind data is not publicly available for the time the race is run and where it is run.

Yeah, I didn't say I could do it, only that wind has a definite effect on the running of races.

Cratos
03-13-2015, 12:50 AM
Yeah, I didn't say I could do it, only that wind has a definite effect on the running of races.
I always try to keep a discussion on an even basis. and to that point there are weather providers who can be subscribed too that will sell weather data in 1 minute or less time increments and there are FREE providers on the Internet that gives out weather information within 2-3 minutes before or after most races in North America.

However once you have the weather information, do you (the universal you) know the science of applying it to a horse race?

I have my doubts when comments about AD continue to be about the wind. AD is about density which is influenced by pressure and temperature. Somewhere on this thread I believe that Maguire i Ludi published a density metric for horseracing.

To put this discussion into perspective it is about FORCE and in my research there are 4 primary forces which impedes the horse's motion and tax its energy in doing so.

They are AD, Surface Wind, Surface Resistance (COF), and lateral g-force due to track turn geometry.

They all act together, but their contribution is not equal and to attempt to make an end point calculation by hand would be ridiculous; it should be done with computer simulations.

However an illustration of any one of the variables can be shown by hand calcs, but it will not tell the whole story.

Greyfox
03-13-2015, 02:09 AM
Cratos - In post 198 a poster asked about a specific race that goes tomorrow.
In 199 you indicated that you might do something about that one.
Are you going to address that post more specifically before it is run?

Cratos
03-13-2015, 05:53 AM
Cratos - In post 198 a poster asked about a specific race that goes tomorrow.
In 199 you indicated that you might do something about that one.
Are you going to address that post more specifically before it is run?
I am up early this morning to complete that task and I am looking forward to your critical feedback😄

Capper Al
03-13-2015, 08:35 AM
It will be good to see the proof about on all these AD adjustments. It will also be good to understand what the value of the wind is. For example, what's the difference between running into a 10 mph wind verse a 15 mph wind? Respectfully, I doubt that this line of handcapping using AD factors could be statistically verified.

illinoisbred
03-13-2015, 09:01 AM
Currently, the wind at Hawthorne (measured at nearby Midway Airport) is out of the due south at 5 mph. Expected wind today not to exceed 10 mph out of due south. Temperature expected to reach the low 60's. The Hawthorne oval lies almost due west to east..with the backstretch run going due east.

Capper Al
03-13-2015, 09:31 AM
Speed for most is their single best handicapping factor. The urge to improve upon the best is big. And most do improve on it by many different ways. But in general, these improvements aren't significant. I believe the old variant thing started back in the day when the old timers observed their circuit times and realised that horses from one track ran so and so faster or slower than their current track. Then many made this reasoning written in stone with books like Andy Beyers, Picking Winners, formalizing this observation. So the march goes on for a better variant unquestioned instead of looking for another way to look at time.

GaryG
03-13-2015, 09:44 AM
There can be no speed figures without variants. I believe that we all agree that raw times are worthless. An additional use for the variant is that some horse prefer a hard fast track and others do not. You gain additional insight by noting the variant of a horse's best races.

ReplayRandall
03-13-2015, 11:04 AM
AD is about density which is influenced by pressure and temperature. Somewhere on this thread I believe that Maguire i Ludi published a density metric for horseracing.

To put this discussion into perspective it is about FORCE and in my research there are 4 primary forces which impedes the horse's motion and tax its energy in doing so.

They are AD, Surface Wind, Surface Resistance (COF), and lateral g-force due to track turn geometry. They all act together......
Bottom-line, when reviewing past posts by Trifecta Mike, Magister Ludi, Cratos and others, I have concluded that they are of a new calculated opinion which leads to an advanced theory, using the combined effects of AD, Surface Wind, Surface Resistance (COF), and lateral g-force due to track turn geometry, that I will call "Horse Bias", thus making track bias obsolete..... I will look forward, with an open mind, to their subsequent posts on their findings and implementations, should they choose to reveal them.

Capper Al
03-13-2015, 12:58 PM
Bottom-line, when reviewing past posts by Trifecta Mike, Magister Ludi, Cratos and others, I have concluded that they are of a new calculated opinion which leads to an advanced theory, using the combined effects of AD, Surface Wind, Surface Resistance (COF), and lateral g-force due to track turn geometry, that I will call "Horse Bias", thus making track bias obsolete..... I will look forward, with an open mind, to their subsequent posts on their findings and implementations, should they choose to reveal them.

I hope some of these cappers will join me in a couple or so weeks when we post speed fig rankings. I'll do mine and BRIS. Hopefully, we can get a couple more commercial speed figs ranking also.

Capper Al
03-13-2015, 01:04 PM
There can be no speed figures without variants. I believe that we all agree that raw times are worthless. An additional use for the variant is that some horse prefer a hard fast track and others do not. You gain additional insight by noting the variant of a horse's best races.

It's a paradigm shift.

DeltaLover
03-13-2015, 01:09 PM
There can be no speed figures without variants. I believe that we all agree that raw times are worthless.

Not necessary...

thaskalos
03-13-2015, 01:14 PM
... I will look forward, with an open mind, to their subsequent posts on their findings and implementations, should they choose to reveal them.

I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you.

Capper Al
03-13-2015, 01:23 PM
The problem with variants is that one has to figure them out. That puts one in the position of having to know all those confounded variables, and know their value precisely. After a while people start talking about wind, etc. It's all too much.

Capper Al
03-13-2015, 01:25 PM
I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you.

You are right. There is a line between talking about handicapping and sharing secrets. I'm amazed how much Dave Schwartz shares. He must have a lot more secrets hidden in his products that he is not talking about.

thaskalos
03-13-2015, 01:27 PM
Speed for most is their single best handicapping factor. The urge to improve upon the best is big. And most do improve on it by many different ways. But in general, these improvements aren't significant. I believe the old variant thing started back in the day when the old timers observed their circuit times and realised that horses from one track ran so and so faster or slower than their current track. Then many made this reasoning written in stone with books like Andy Beyers, Picking Winners, formalizing this observation. So the march goes on for a better variant unquestioned instead of looking for another way to look at time.
IMO...the most important "improvement" of the speed figure is to adjust it for the effects of pace. Such an adjustment isn't insignificant...it's of HUGE importance. But the job can't be properly done by employing a "cut-and-dried" method. This procedure calls for the entirety of the player's handicapping skill.

Capper Al
03-13-2015, 01:30 PM
IMO...the most important "improvement" of the speed figure is to adjust it for the effects of pace. Such an adjustment isn't insignificant...it's of HUGE importance. But the job can't be properly done by employing a "cut-and-dried" method. This procedure calls for the entirety of the player's handicapping skill.

I call players who have that skill readers. For the can read the facts and visualize an answer or pick in this case. I am not one of them, although I have friends that are. I need my numbers.

thaskalos
03-13-2015, 01:49 PM
You are right. There is a line between talking about handicapping and sharing secrets. I'm amazed how much Dave Schwartz shares. He must have a lot more secrets hidden in his products that he is not talking about.
You can't blame people for not sharing "secrets". After all...this is a competition. But when we start talking about handicapping concepts, and someone from the audience asks for an illustrative example...it occurs to me that we can't, in good faith, ignore the request.

Take a field of horses, and analyse it the way you would if you were actually handicapping it for betting purposes. Don't tell us the esoteric parts of your reasoning, but show us the results of this esoteric part...so we could see its effectiveness. If you show me a mathematical problem, and then provide me with its answer without showing me the procedure by which you solved it, then I see that you know what you are talking about...without really stealing any knowledge from you.

All of us who talk endlessly about handicapping here have been asked to provide an example of our handicapping "style", so people can see more clearly what we are talking about. Several of us have provided such an example, without really revealing any earth-shattering handicapping secrets; but some of us haven't. They continue to talk about esoteric handicapping principles...without showing us how these esoteric principles relate to the handicapping puzzle that we all have to face.

Don't just tell us, SHOW US...I say. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Tom
03-13-2015, 01:57 PM
Do yourself a favor.
Sign up with TFUS - it is free.
Look at the two free races every day.
Try the figures - both race figs and horse figs, whatever you use now, just use these instead. See if in a week you are not looking at race with more confidence that you do today.

I will tell you I love the adjusted times. I'm an old Sartin guy and those adjusted numbers plugged into MPH or Energy are pretty darn good. Just doing the old eye-ball scan match up with the adjusted times is eye opening.

DeltaLover
03-13-2015, 02:01 PM
Don't tell us the esoteric parts of your reasoning, but show us the results of this esoteric part...so we could see its effectiveness.

Judging from the lack of illustrative examples, these esoteric' parts of handicapping are good just for academic discussions and not much of real world applications...

thaskalos
03-13-2015, 02:06 PM
Judging from the lack of illustrative examples, these esoteric' parts of handicapping are good just for academic discussions and not much of real world applications...
Yes, that's how it looks...and yet, the conversation persists. The "academicians" insist that their theories are a useful part of the handicapping process...without providing any proof. And then they get mad when the rest of us disbelieve them.

DeltaLover
03-13-2015, 02:10 PM
and yet, the conversation persists.

I really find it strange!

Capper Al
03-13-2015, 02:17 PM
I have posted many times on my concepts here. We went through a similar one with class. In a couple of weeks, I should have my speed figures updated and will be publicly testing these. I hope others will join in with both their numbers and other commercial numbers. It will be a short test of 30 non-maiden races on dry and firm surfaces. After what Tom posted, we might include the free sample races also.

MJC922
03-13-2015, 05:27 PM
I hope some of these cappers will join me in a couple or so weeks when we post speed fig rankings. I'll do mine and BRIS. Hopefully, we can get a couple more commercial speed figs ranking also.

My numbers are there for all to see after the races each day at Trackmaster. Feel free to bring them into any study you want to conduct. The only issue I see is your sample size of 30 races is meaningless. How about 2000 races top fig last start, we can put some money up too, winner take all. And don't leave TimeformUS out of it, let's clear the air and find out just how good, bring in Beyer, Ragozin and Brown, let's go with any performance number that's commercially available.

Capper Al
03-13-2015, 07:54 PM
My numbers are there for all to see after the races each day at Trackmaster. Feel free to bring them into any study you want to conduct. The only issue I see is your sample size of 30 races is meaningless. How about 2000 races top fig last start, we can put some money up too, winner take all. And don't leave TimeformUS out of it, let's clear the air and find out just how good, bring in Beyer, Ragozin and Brown, let's go with any performance number that's commercially available.

I'm not set up for large studies and am only a mini roller to boot. I hope you join us for our small sampling. It will be best speed fig last race and speed rating only. It's all about speed. Wagering on it would bring in handicapping and other factors defeating our purpose.

Besides my numbers are being tested and not ready for wagering.

Tom
03-13-2015, 11:38 PM
Cratos - In post 198 a poster asked about a specific race that goes tomorrow.
In 199 you indicated that you might do something about that one.
Are you going to address that post more specifically before it is run?

Apparently not.

thaskalos
03-13-2015, 11:54 PM
Apparently not.
It might be the sort of calculation that can only be made AFTER the race is run.

DeltaLover
03-14-2015, 01:19 AM
It might be the sort of calculation that can only be made AFTER the race is run.

Makes sense Thask..

Greyfox
03-14-2015, 01:45 AM
Apparently not.

Yes. Apparently not.

Capper Al
03-14-2015, 07:30 AM
It might be the sort of calculation that can only be made AFTER the race is run.

That would be too bad.

There are some races that can't be picked after the race. Maybe that's the problem.

classhandicapper
03-14-2015, 11:19 AM
The major problem with handicapping races on a forum is that I think you have to go "all in" or nothing.

You could do a brilliant job of handicapping 100 races, but if you are showing flat bet losses at the end of it (which is conceivable), no one is going to respond positively to what you are saying. That's a huge investment of time and energy for nothing. You may have to do 500 races or more to make the point.

On the flip side, if you pick a 15-1 that only won because the favorite got hurt the race, the second and third choice speed horses got left at the start, and the 15-1 inherited a soft lead, everyone will think you are a superhero even though the horse ran exactly as expected and lucked into the win.

IMO the best thing you can do is provide stats to back up a theory. Then you don't have to be concerned with the nonsense that's often associated with picks. However, if do have access to some powerful stats to support a theory, it may not be in your best interests to publish them. ;)

Tom
03-14-2015, 11:36 AM
I disagree - anyone with a human size ego would understand this is a demonstration of a method or idea, not a performance to win an award.

But the crickets are here.

Capper Al
03-14-2015, 12:26 PM
Only hope that my speed figs hang in with BRIS. Let's say both BRIS and i hit the top speed last race 8 out of 30 and that 6 of these were the same horses, but 2 weren't. I would consider this a success.

GaryG
03-14-2015, 12:56 PM
I disagree - anyone with a human size ego would understand this is a demonstration of a method or idea, not a performance to win an award.

But the crickets are here.How many time has testosterone been an issue in these "contests"? Some have been quite nasty. Women would probably do better.

thaskalos
03-14-2015, 12:57 PM
The major problem with handicapping races on a forum is that I think you have to go "all in" or nothing.

You could do a brilliant job of handicapping 100 races, but if you are showing flat bet losses at the end of it (which is conceivable), no one is going to respond positively to what you are saying. That's a huge investment of time and energy for nothing. You may have to do 500 races or more to make the point.

On the flip side, if you pick a 15-1 that only won because the favorite got hurt the race, the second and third choice speed horses got left at the start, and the 15-1 inherited a soft lead, everyone will think you are a superhero even though the horse ran exactly as expected and lucked into the win.

IMO the best thing you can do is provide stats to back up a theory. Then you don't have to be concerned with the nonsense that's often associated with picks. However, if do have access to some powerful stats to support a theory, it may not be in your best interests to publish them. ;)
It needn't be the arduous task of handicapping a hundred races; ONE RACE, that's all it takes to show someone what it is that you are talking about. And no "secret" needs to be revealed...nor will the outcome of the example race be held against anyone. One example...to show how your theory applies to the pragmatic task of handicapping a field of horses.

We had another thread in this forum some time ago...where the process of handicapping was being widely discussed...and the question was asked if we "wise handicappers" could handicap an example race for the viewing audience...so the beginning players among the lurkers could see the thinking process behind the handicapping of some of the more experienced players. Some of us complied with this request...and handicapped an example race. No real "secrets" were dished out, nor were the losing outcomes held against any of the handicappers who predicted them. It was the PROCESS that the audience was interested in. Everybody understood that the outcome of a single race can never mean anything.

But there were certain "intellectuals" among us who refused to provide a handicapping example...while citing a variety of excuses. "They didn't need to provide a practical example", they told us. "Theorizing about a variety of esoteric concepts was good enough".

And so, the "theorizing" continues...with nary a practical example in sight. And then these theorists wonder why they aren't taken seriously by the more practical among us...

Greyfox
03-14-2015, 01:15 PM
Some of us complied with this request...and handicapped an example race..

Yes. I remember that, and if memory serves me correctly the race was a turf route and you were the only one among us who nailed it.

Cratos
03-14-2015, 05:09 PM
I don't incorporate aerodynamic drag (AD) in my handicapping but, can you provide an example of your adjustment(s) on an actual pp's?

http://www.brisnet.com/php/bw_pdf_viewer.php?track=HAW&race=3&param1=435240&param2=585&param3=845

This is a race for this Friday.

Using LETHAL's 2/15/15 and 12/18/14 races, can you show the AD adjustment to recorded fractional times?

Also, for a comparison LIMESTONE's 2/21/15 and 1/15/15 races, I'd like to see how it turns out.

Maybe, you can provide your opinion of which horse will perform better (in relation to the other) given the AD adjustment?

If you feel it will give out too much of your handicapping insight, you don't need to provide info. I'm just trying to understand the value of incorporating AD in handicapping when you don't know what the AD will be for the upcoming race.

Thanks,
Hi Whodoyoulike,

I would like to apologize for this belated submission, but some unscheduled issues came up and I had to put this analysis aside.

However I did get it finish based on your request and the findings are:

Race Date - December 18, 2014
Distance – 1-1/16m
Race Time off – 4:20p
Winner – Lethal in 1:46.28
Temperature: 30 Degrees
Pressure: 30.2
Density: 1.31
Wind – 5 mph
Drag Force =132.3 N
Time Impact - .364 sec
Adjusted Time Due To DF = 1:46.28-.364 =1:45.92

Race Date – January 1, 2015
Distance – 1m-70yds
Race Time off – 3:55p
Winner – Limestone in 1:40.23
Temperature: 35 Degrees
Pressure: 30.0
Density: 1.29
Wind – 13.5 mph
Drag Force (DF) =129.74 N
Time Impact - .364 sec
Adjusted Time Due To DF = 1:40.23 -.364 =1:39.87

Race Date – February 21, 2015
Distance – 1m-70yds
Race Time off – 2:53p
Winner – Limestone in 1:43.23
Temperature: 33 Degrees
Pressure: 30.0
Density: 1.29
Wind – 4.8 mph
Drag Force (DF) =129.74 N
Time Impact - .364 sec
Adjusted Time Due To DF = 1:43.23 -.364 =1:42.87

Race Date – February 21, 2015
Distance – 1m-70yds
Race Time off – 2:53p
Lethal Finished 3rd in 1:44.25 (Winner – Limestone in 1:43.23)
Temperature: 33 Degrees
Pressure: 30.0
Density: 1.29
Wind – 4.8 mph
Drag Force (DF) =129.74 N
Time Impact - .364 sec
Adjusted Time Due To DF = 1:44.25 -.364 =1:43.89

SUMMARY

It should be clear that doing this analysis before yesterday’s race or after that race the findings would be the same because they are environmental driven.

What is meant by that is the contributing factors are:
• Horse’s speed
• Surface speed resistance (not included in this analysis)
• Density and temperature
• Flow is laminar

A major recognition should be that the surface resistance (the so-called “track variant”) will not have the impact of AD because of the air pressure against the reference plane (the horse’s cross-section)

Finally, it should be noted that this analysis only addressed AD and not Surface Wind (which was insignificant for these races), Surface Resistance (COF), and Side-force Impact due the track’s turns.