Since Speed is the Long Pole in the Tent

[Capper Al]

Speed is by far the best stand alone factor for picking winners. Maybe it is top speed that should be eliminated rather than false favorites? Top speed and favorites should correlate well to each other. But if you believe in handicapping before you get to the races then you're guessing at the favorite but you know what the top speed is. For me, this would be backwards. I follow the classic order of form, class, speed, and pace. But it does make sense to start with the best factor(speed) and try to improve upon that.

[thaskalos]

What do you mean by "speed"? EARLY speed?

[whodoyoulike]

Speed is by far the best stand alone factor for picking winners. Maybe it is top speed that should be eliminated rather than false favorites? Top speed and favorites should correlate well to each other. But if you believe in handicapping before you get to the races then you're guessing at the favorite but you know what the top speed is. For me, this would be backwards. I follow the classic order of form, class, speed, and pace. But it does make sense to start with the best factor(speed) and try to improve upon that.

I disagree. Pace is by far the best stand alone factor for picking winners.

How do you get form without first considering class, speed, and pace?

[Ocala Mike]

And then there are others who will say CLASS is the long pole.

Who was the famous sportswriter (Grantland Rice maybe?) who said, however (paraphrasing the good book):

"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the stong, but that's the way to bet"!

[whodoyoulike]

If it's true then I interpret that saying as a reference to pace not class or speed.

[DeltaLover]

And then there are others who will say CLASS is the long pole.

Who was the famous sportswriter (Grantland Rice maybe?) who said, however (paraphrasing the good book):

"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the stong, but that's the way to bet"!

The proble with class and pace are that they are subjective while "speed" might be more objective

[Terry Riggs]

And then there are others who will say CLASS is the long pole.

Who was the famous sportswriter (Grantland Rice maybe?) who said, however (paraphrasing the good book):

"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the stong, but that's the way to bet"!

Damon Runyon (1884 – 1946) Guys and Dolls :)

[Cratos]

I disagree. Pace is by far the best stand alone factor for picking winners.

How do you get form without first considering class, speed, and pace?

I agree with you because "pace" is the rate of motion which determines speed and can be objectively and quantitatively measured.

Simply stated, speed is a function of pace.

[pondman]

Speed is by far the best stand alone factor for picking winners.

For a few races. And you can build a profitable method for a few races. But it's as equally true that an early pace # could be central to making a ton of money on a few races. It's also as equally true to say on a few races a closing # will make you money. It's important not to generalize on a card, and be specific as to the surface and the distance.

[Capper Al]

By speed, I mean final speed like Beyer speed.

Those claiming other factors are more predictive better double their figures or enlightened us. Pace or class can have their spots, but I'm not talking about spots here. We are looking at all races.

The question asked another way is since speed is the best factor there isn't a better figure to start with and this should be the factor to modify. Any other factor starts one off with a lower hit rate. Why use any other factor? And you pace user are in denial. You start with speed in fragments and then add the fragments up for a final figure.

[Tom]

You assume you know what we are doing.
Denial my butt.

[thaskalos]

And you pace user are in denial. You start with speed in fragments and then add the fragments up for a final figure.
When you make comments like these, you betray your complete and total ignorance of what competent pace handicapping is all about. You don't add up the pace fragments to total up the final speed figure when you pace-handicap...that's just in your mind. In fact, pace handicapping was born because the highest speed figure horse so often disappointed at times when his "speed figure" towered over the speed figures of his competition.

Listening to your ramblings, one would get the impression that the "speed" handicappers and the "pace" handicappers all end up betting on the same horses...and that assumption couldn't be further from the truth.

IMO....you'd be a lot better off if you stuck to your "angles", Al. Figure handicapping doesn't appear to be your strong-suit.

[DJofSD]

And you pace user are in denial. You start with speed in fragments and then add the fragments up for a final figure.

Do you use pace? Your statements appear to me some one told you about pace and you don't use it yourself.

Pace is not just adding up 3 numbers to get a single number then seeing which horse has the bigger value. That's treating pace as if it is just a variation on a speed figure.

[Capper Al]

You assume you know what we are doing.
Denial my butt.

So you are saying that you have a better factor, or you know better? That's what your butt should answer if this is what you have.

My research and that of many others have shown speed to be the single best factor.

[Capper Al]

Do you use pace? Your statements appear to me some one told you about pace and you don't use it yourself.

Pace is not just adding up 3 numbers to get a single number then seeing which horse has the bigger value. That's treating pace as if it is just a variation on a speed figure.

I currently have my pace module in my code disconnected for the rewrite, but am looking forward to revising it and still use much of what Giles has thought me. And I agree that the best use of pace is figuring if the horse can run his race. But I'm not talking about analysis here as the starting point. The discussion for pace would be on a single pace figure like Equibase offers to compare against speed. Speed should out do most comprehensive figures here.

[DJofSD]

I currently have my pace module in my code disconnected for the rewrite, but am looking forward to revising it and still use much of what Giles has thought me. And I agree that the best use of pace is figuring if the horse can run his race. But I'm not talking about analysis here as the starting point. The discussion for pace would be on a single pace figure like Equibase offers to compare against speed. Speed should out do most comprehensive figures here.
OK, I appreciate the response.

I have a difficult time reducing handicapping to a comparison of numbers especially a single value figure whether it is speed or pace or class. Yes, you have to start the process somewhere but just stopping when you've come up with a single value which is suppose to represent the potential of a horse and then making a wager is just a single step up from betting on the color of the silks IMO.

[pandy]

If you pose the question this way, you can only use one handicapping factor, and the goal isn't to show a profit, it's to pick the highest percentage of winners, then I think speed (figures) would be the number 1 factor.

[pandy]

If you pose the question this way, you can only use one handicapping factor, and the goal isn't to show a profit, it's to pick the highest percentage of winners, then I think speed (figures) would be the number 1 factor.

So going back to Capper Al's original question, if you assume that speed is the number 1 factor, can you work from that? Can you eliminate the best top speed and only look for overlays that have the second or third best speed, for instance?

Aren't there players on this forum who rely predominantly on speed figures? I have known bettors who hardly look at the past performances at all. They only used the Ragozin sheets and some of them were big bettors.


Or can you eliminate speed and use pace only? Do you have to combine all of the factors? Or can a smart bettor get by with one? Or two? Do people over handicap, looking at too many factors?

[thaskalos]

So going back to Capper Al's original question, if you assume that speed is the number 1 factor, can you work from that? Can you eliminate the best top speed and only look for overlays that have the second or third best speed, for instance?

Aren't there players on this forum who rely predominantly on speed figures? I have known bettors who hardly look at the past performances at all. They only used the Ragozin sheets and some of them were big bettors.


Or can you eliminate speed and use pace only? Do you have to combine all of the factors? Or can a smart bettor get by with one? Or two? Do people over handicap, looking at too many factors?
If the handicapper relies on only one handicapping factor...then he does not qualify to be called "smart"...IMO. And if he persists in his foolish ways...then he will soon deserve to be called BROKE.

[pondman]

If you pose the question this way, you can only use one handicapping factor, and the goal isn't to show a profit, it's to pick the highest percentage of winners, then I think speed (figures) would be the number 1 factor.

It's a ridiculous notion to think you are going to handicap a 4 1/2 furlong at Los Alamitos along side a 1/16th race at Charlestown and use only Beyer's speed rating. You'll get crucified doing that. You'll fail at both of these. Nobody should do this. Yet if you know which data to use for which race, you can easily make a profit. And the reason you can make a profit is because people are only using speed ratings.

[thaskalos]

So going back to Capper Al's original question, if you assume that speed is the number 1 factor, can you work from that? Can you eliminate the best top speed and only look for overlays that have the second or third best speed, for instance?



In my opinion...you are still concentrating on "speed" even if you focus on the second or the third-highest speed figure.

I must be getting less observant in my advancing years...because it isn't obvious to me that these top speed-figure horses are always being bet as heavily as some people think. I see plenty of horses who have the top speed figure...but they receive only lukewarm support on the board...while some others are pretty much ignored.

These "movers and shakers" who tilt today's odds boards seem to me to be relying on more than just a set of accurate speed figures.

[Tall One]

If the handicapper relies on only one handicapping factor...then he does not qualify to be called "smart"...IMO. And if he persists in his foolish ways...then he will soon deserve to be called BROKE.


Concur.

You owe it (literally sometimes) to yourself to consider all your main handicapping factors regarding how the horse will run today.

[GaryG]

Speed and pace figures are interrelated. One goes fast early and slow late, next time he goes slow early and wins easy. Trying to say which factor is the most important is a waste of time. Every speed figure is dependent on a pace figure.

[pandy]

If the handicapper relies on only one handicapping factor...then he does not qualify to be called "smart"...IMO. And if he persists in his foolish ways...then he will soon deserve to be called BROKE.

I wouldn't be so sure, and I'll tell you why. Do I look at various handicappers factors, such as speed, pace, class, trips? Yes. But, you can't assume that it's stupid, as you suggest, to only use one factor.

As an example, I have to handicap every race at Belmont because I do picks for a service and a sheet that's sold on track. In this case, it would be difficult to compete with the other public handicappers if I just used one factor.

However, let's forget about handicapping every race in a traditional manner trying to pick the winners. Suppose there is a player who only uses one factor and looks for spot play overlays. This could be different factors. Personally, I think a good pace handicapper can use pace figures alone and show a profit betting pace handicapping longshots. But, to stay on the original factor, speed, say there is player who buys the Ragozin sheets and is an expert at reading them (and there are players like this). And this player, using nothing but the Ragozin speed figures, looks through every maiden or claiming race at several tracks a day and highlights races where he thinks he has found one or two horses in a race that appear to have an edge based on how he interprets the figures.

This player then assigns his own personal odds line to these potential plays and makes his bets on these horses but sets his minimum odds requirement through an ADW that allows him to do that.

Some of you may think that this type of player has no chance, because he is not using anything else but speed. But Iv'e met players who say that they do exactly that, and win. Now, it's possible that they lied to me. But, I don't know where they get their money from then because some of these sheet players are big bettors.

I think the question is, can you specialize? I don't see why you can't. As I said earlier in this post, a good pace handicapper who's patient and only bets longshot overlays can use nothing but pace figures to show a profit, especially in certain types of races.

[ReplayRandall]

I wouldn't be so sure, and I'll tell you why. Do I look at various handicappers factors, such as speed, pace, class, trips? Yes. But, you can't assume that it's stupid, as you suggest, to only use one factor. By not filtering other factors, you're leaving money on the table.


As an example, I have to handicap every race at Belmont because I do picks for a service and a sheet that's sold on track. In this case, it would be difficult to compete with the other public handicappers if I just used one factor. A promotional plug, but that's OK

However, let's forget about handicapping every race in a traditional manner trying to pick the winners. Suppose there is a player who only uses one factor and looks for spot play overlays. This could be different factors. Personally, I think a good pace handicapper can use pace figures alone and show a profit betting pace handicapping longshots. Still leaving money on the table

But, to stay on the original factor, speed, say there is player who buys the Ragozin sheets and is an expert at reading them (and there are players like this). And this player, using nothing but the Ragozin speed figures, looks through every maiden or claiming race at several tracks a day and highlights races where he thinks he has found one or two horses in a race that appear to have an edge based on how he interprets the figures. Sheet players only have a real edge with turf routes, but they'll deny this.

This player then assigns his own personal odds line to these potential plays and makes his bets on these horses but sets his minimum odds requirement through an ADW that allows him to do that. Conditional wagering...the only way to fly

Some of you may think that this type of player has no chance, because he is not using anything else but speed. But Iv'e met players who say that they do exactly that, and win. Now, it's possible that they lied to me. But, I don't know where they get their money from then because some of these sheet players are big bettors. Sheet numbers are a TOTALITY number, not a speed figure.

I think the question is, can you specialize? I don't see why you can't. As I said earlier in this post, a good pace handicapper who's patient and only bets longshot overlays can use nothing but pace figures to show a profit, especially in certain types of races.

Nowhere do you mention the viewing of REPLAYS......Don't have enough time?

[thaskalos]

I wouldn't be so sure, and I'll tell you why. Do I look at various handicappers factors, such as speed, pace, class, trips? Yes. But, you can't assume that it's stupid, as you suggest, to only use one factor.

As an example, I have to handicap every race at Belmont because I do picks for a service and a sheet that's sold on track. In this case, it would be difficult to compete with the other public handicappers if I just used one factor.

However, let's forget about handicapping every race in a traditional manner trying to pick the winners. Suppose there is a player who only uses one factor and looks for spot play overlays. This could be different factors. Personally, I think a good pace handicapper can use pace figures alone and show a profit betting pace handicapping longshots. But, to stay on the original factor, speed, say there is player who buys the Ragozin sheets and is an expert at reading them (and there are players like this). And this player, using nothing but the Ragozin speed figures, looks through every maiden or claiming race at several tracks a day and highlights races where he thinks he has found one or two horses in a race that appear to have an edge based on how he interprets the figures.

This player then assigns his own personal odds line to these potential plays and makes his bets on these horses but sets his minimum odds requirement through an ADW that allows him to do that.

Some of you may think that this type of player has no chance, because he is not using anything else but speed. But Iv'e met players who say that they do exactly that, and win. Now, it's possible that they lied to me. But, I don't know where they get their money from then because some of these sheet players are big bettors.

I think the question is, can you specialize? I don't see why you can't. As I said earlier in this post, a good pace handicapper who's patient and only bets longshot overlays can use nothing but pace figures to show a profit, especially in certain types of races.

I also believe in "specialization"...but I don't consider specialization to mean the employment of a single handicapping factor to form my betting opinions. The speed handicapper who disregards pace is in dire straits, IMO...as is the pace handicapper who disregards class. And the "class" handicapper is also in trouble...if he relies on claiming tags, purse sizes, earnings...or the "A" beat "B", and "B" beat "C", so "A" must beat "C" definition of "class". The trip handicapper too better be versed on the finer points of class and pace...otherwise, I don't envy his survival chances either. Expecting to beat this game by employing only one handicapping factor is akin to expecting to beat Magnus Carlsen in chess, simply by mastering a few cute opening moves.

You don't have to regard all the handicapping factors as "equals"...but you cannot afford to ignore any of them either, IMO. Those who say that they beat this game by just consulting their Ragozin sheets are lying, IMO. The game has gotten much more difficult to beat than that.

[pandy]

Nowhere do you mention the viewing of REPLAYS......Don't have enough time?


I watch some replays but the way I handicap, the trips I'm most concerned with are horses that are used hard against the race shape and/or bias. For instance, horses that are used in a faster-than-par pace.

Rough trips, slow starts, horses that get checked, all that sort of stuff, I'm not that interested because I personally have not had much luck betting rough trip horses back, even when the effort looks visually impressive. I have had a lot of success betting horses back that were used in a fast pace in a race that was dominated by closers. But I don't need replays for that.

[Greyfox]

Those who say that they beat this game by just consulting their Ragozin sheets are lying, IMO.

Agreed. :ThmbUp:
(They won't beat the game just using any single speed figure - Ragozin or whoever.)

[Tom]

So you are saying that you have a better factor, or you know better? That's what your butt should answer if this is what you have.

My research and that of many others have shown speed to be the single best factor.

This is what you said....
And you pace user are in denial. You start with speed in fragments and then add the fragments up for a final figure.

That is not a speed figure or a pace figure.

[pandy]

I also believe in "specialization"...but I don't consider specialization to mean the employment of a single handicapping factor to form my betting opinions. The speed handicapper who disregards pace is in dire straits, IMO...as is the pace handicapper who disregards class. And the "class" handicapper is also in trouble...if he relies on claiming tags, purse sizes, earnings...or the "A" beat "B", and "B" beat "C", so "A" must beat "C" definition of "class". The trip handicapper too better be versed on the finer points of class and pace...otherwise, I don't envy his survival chances either. Expecting to beat this game by employing only one handicapping factor is akin to expecting to beat Magnus Carlsen in chess, simply by mastering a few cute opening moves.

You don't have to regard all the handicapping factors as "equals"...but you cannot afford to ignore any of them either, IMO. Those who say that they beat this game by just consulting their Ragozin sheets are lying, IMO. The game has gotten much more difficult to beat than that.


Again, for spot playing, I disagree. You may not be able to understand this type of approach because you don't agree with it, but it is possible to win with a simple approach.

Another example, let's say that you only bet one type of race, maiden claiming races, and you only bet on horses dropping out of MSW races, and you have a few simple rules that you use to find these spot plays. For instance, I have a method I use to handicap these races that does not look at pace or speed figures at all.

Some of you may not know this, and this is documented, but my two Best Bets at Roosevelt and Yonkers raceways (harness) showed a flat bet profit of 25% on a dollar for a 7 year period back in the good old days when I handicapped for Sports Eye, and the first two years on my own sheet when I went out on my own. The main reason why I was able to accomplish this was because as a young man I had an epiphany when I realized that I knew too much about handicapping for my own good. I was over handicapping, analyzing too many factors, and putting too much emphasis on handicapping factors that were not that important. I found that I needed to place most of the emphasis on the horse's last race. And I had to pick a lot of winning longshots.

Now that was during a time when harness racing was by far the best racing product for a smart handicapper and gambler. It's not as good now because of the speed bias, but that's another story.

[Capper Al]

This is what you said....


That is not a speed figure or a pace figure.

Sorry Tom. I was referring to final pace figures like Equibase publishes.

[Capper Al]

So going back to Capper Al's original question, if you assume that speed is the number 1 factor, can you work from that? Can you eliminate the best top speed and only look for overlays that have the second or third best speed, for instance?

Aren't there players on this forum who rely predominantly on speed figures? I have known bettors who hardly look at the past performances at all. They only used the Ragozin sheets and some of them were big bettors.


Or can you eliminate speed and use pace only? Do you have to combine all of the factors? Or can a smart bettor get by with one? Or two? Do people over handicap, looking at too many factors?

Thanks Pandy for helping out here and getting this thread moving in the right direction again.

There are a lot of players out there who hunt for false favorites. There is some science on how they work. Utilizing similar methods starting with speed might be just as effective. Mathematically, this will make sense since one should want to start with the factor having the highest hit ratio. Any other single factor as a starting point should lower one's hit rate. For example, if one wanted to catch the biggest fish of the day, their chances might be better if they fished in a spot where they had the most hits. I know, not necessarily. That's what I had in mind for discussion here.

[pandy]

I think it was a good discussion. Speed figures can certainly be analyzed and not taken at face value. We do that when we pick a paceline, using a horse's best of last three, for instance. We are not counting the horse's subpar ratings that may have been the result of a slow pace, or rough trip. Some players also discount some high speed figures because it may have been earned under extremely favorable circumstances, such as loose on the lead over a speed favoring track. But I don't think there's any question that as a Win factor speed figures cannot be beat, so to use them as a starting point of a methodology makes a lot of sense.

I noticed that a couple of people said that pace, not speed is the best stand alone factor. If they mean to try to show a profit, I might agree, but if the mean to pick the winner, I don't agree and I think they would have a difficult time proving their theory that pace is more predictive than final time speed (figures).

Let's put it this way, you have a contest, who can pick the most winners, the pace handicapper or the speed handicapper. The pace handicapper can only look at a horse's pace figures, nothing else, no final time, nothing. The speed handicapper can only look at a horse's speed figures, nothing else. I would be shocked if the speed figure handicapper didn't pick more winners than the pace handicapper. Now, it terms of ROI, it's possible that the pace handicapper could come out ahead, but not with picking winners.

[raybo]

I think it was a good discussion. Speed figures can certainly be analyzed and not taken at face value. We do that when we pick a paceline, using a horse's best of last three, for instance. We are not counting the horse's subpar ratings that may have been the result of a slow pace, or rough trip. Some players also discount some high speed figures because it may have been earned under extremely favorable circumstances, such as loose on the lead over a speed favoring track. But I don't think there's any question that as a Win factor speed figures cannot be beat, so to use them as a starting point of a methodology makes a lot of sense.

I noticed that a couple of people said that pace, not speed is the best stand alone factor. If they mean to try to show a profit, I might agree, but if the mean to pick the winner, I don't agree and I think they would have a difficult time proving their theory that pace is more predictive than final time speed (figures).

Let's put it this way, you have a contest, who can pick the most winners, the pace handicapper or the speed handicapper. The pace handicapper can only look at a horse's pace figures, nothing else, no final time, nothing. The speed handicapper can only look at a horse's speed figures, nothing else. I would be shocked if the speed figure handicapper didn't pick more winners than the pace handicapper. Now, it terms of ROI, it's possible that the pace handicapper could come out ahead, but not with picking winners.

Not trying to be argumentative, or demeaning, but what makes you think that pace figures (or fractional velocities) cannot be used to obtain a speed figure (or a total velocity rating)? The problem with using speed figures, in isolation, is that you have no idea of how they were earned. That fact alone should tell you that pace figures (or fractional velocities), in the hands of a knowledgeable user contains much more usable information than a speed figure. Now, if you're talking about the average Joe player only (the one that loses long term), then he/she might be better off using speed figures, because he/she wouldn't know how to combine and manipulate pace figures/fractional velocities properly.

[pandy]

That's a good point. The problem, of course, with velocity style ratings is that they are often off because they're too closely related to the actual fractions of the race. Speed figures are not married to the actual fractions or time.

In other words, a horse can run 6 furlongs in 1:12 and get a Beyer speed figure of 95 if the track is slow. So say that this horse is racing against another horse that ran faster fractions and a final time of 1:09 with a Beyer of 90.

Well, the velocity style ratings I've seen, such as MPH, etc., would rate the horse that went 1:09 much better, even after adjusting for the variant. So basically what I'm saying is that speed figures give a more accurate rating. Beyer has written about this. The more you put into a number, the more room for error. Speed figures are based on a final time that is recorded electronically. The fractions are based on the track man's calls. More room for error.

I don't have anything against velocity ratings, I have my own system I created which is similar, but I use the ratings to get a different look and to help spot potential live longshots. I understand the pitfalls of using any sort of compounded rating that is built off of the internal fractions.

[DJofSD]

That's a good point. The problem, of course, with velocity style ratings is that they are often off because they're too closely related to the actual fractions of the race. Speed figures are not married to the actual fractions or time.

In other words, a horse can run 6 furlongs in 1:12 and get a Beyer speed figure of 95 if the track is slow. So say that this horse is racing against another horse that ran faster fractions and a final time of 1:09 with a Beyer of 90.

Well, the velocity style ratings I've seen, such as MPH, etc., would rate the horse that went 1:09 much better, even after adjusting for the variant. So basically what I'm saying is that speed figures give a more accurate rating. Beyer has written about this. The more you put into a number, the more room for error. Speed figures are based on a final time that is recorded electronically. The fractions are based on the track man's calls. More room for error.
So, if I understand you, speed is superior because it uses accurate electronic timers while pace is inferior because the related split times are created by the track man's call?

[raybo]

That's a good point. The problem, of course, with velocity style ratings is that they are often off because they're too closely related to the actual fractions of the race. Speed figures are not married to the actual fractions or time.

In other words, a horse can run 6 furlongs in 1:12 and get a Beyer speed figure of 95 if the track is slow. So say that this horse is racing against another horse that ran faster fractions and a final time of 1:09 with a Beyer of 90.

Well, the velocity style ratings I've seen, such as MPH, etc., would rate the horse that went 1:09 much better, even after adjusting for the variant. So basically what I'm saying is that speed figures give a more accurate rating. Beyer has written about this. The more you put into a number, the more room for error. Speed figures are based on a final time that is recorded electronically. The fractions are based on the track man's calls. More room for error.

You're talking about a "variant adjusted" speed figure, so you are including a daily variant in that speed figure. It would only be fair, in your hypothetical contest, to allow the use of the variant in the pace figure/fractional velocities as well, and you would then have pace numbers that are not strictly based on raw time. By the way, the variant is available in Brisnet and JCapper/HDW files, so it's only common sense to use it for refinement of fractional figures and velocities.

[pandy]

So, if I understand you, speed is superior because it uses accurate electronic timers while pace is inferior because the related split times are created by the track man's call?


That's one of the reasons, but it's not just that. Because of the math, velocity style ratings are just too biased towards the horses in the race that have the actual fastest recent fractions. It's hard to explain but anyone who has used MPH or any of the Sartin-Brohamer systems know that they are skewed towards fast sufaces and fast fractions, regardless of how the track variant is factored. More room for error.

The most predictive Brohamer rating is supposed to be Average Pace. I've tested Average Pace. If picking the highest percentage of winners is the goal, Average Pace can't come close to a good speed figure. I don't think Total Pace does either. Again, it always picks the horses with faster fractions.

[pandy]

You're talking about a "variant adjusted" speed figure, so you are including a daily variant in that speed figure. It would only be fair, in your hypothetical contest, to allow the use of the variant in the pace figure/fractional velocities as well, and you would then have pace numbers that are not strictly based on raw time. By the way, the variant is available in Brisnet and JCapper/HDW files, so it's only common sense to use it for refinement of fractional figures and velocities.


I know Ray, for instance, MPH automatically adjusts using the variant. But, it still puts the horses with the faster fractions on top. Here is an example.

Horse A goes :22, :44, 1;10 runs a Beyer of 90

on a different day and a slower track...

Horse B goes :24, :45.2, 1:10.4, runs a Beyer of 92.

If you're using Speed Figures, Horse B ran faster. But if you're using MPH or similar, it will show Horse A as faster, probably a lot faster, because even after adjusting for variant the faster splits broke down into feet per second are simply going to be much lower (faster). Everyone who uses velocity ratings and is not biased towards them understands their pitfalls.

I mean, let's be real here. I guess that's why speed figures are published in the pps and Average Pace isn't.

[DJofSD]

That's one of the reasons, but it's not just that. Because of the math, velocity style ratings are just too biased towards the horses in the race that have the actual fastest recent fractions. It's hard to explain but anyone who has used MPH or any of the Sartin-Brohamer systems know that they are skewed towards fast sufaces and fast fractions, regardless of how the track variant is factored. More room for error.

The most predictive Brohamer rating is supposed to be Average Pace. I've tested Average Pace. If picking the highest percentage of winners is the goal, Average Pace can't come close to a good speed figure. I don't think Total Pace does either. Again, it always picks the horses with faster fractions.
I get the impression your familiarity with pace from PIRCO et al is all pre Energy.

And, if the assertion of it being skewed toward fast surfaces is true then pace would not work at all on wet surfaces or on the grass.

[pandy]

If you understand the pitfalls of the ratings you can use them as a handicapping aid with an open mind, but anyone who uses velocity ratings and takes them at face value is fooling themselves.

That's not to say that speed figures are infallible. They are just an educated guess. But, they are much more reliable as a win factor.

[raybo]

That's one of the reasons, but it's not just that. Because of the math, velocity style ratings are just too biased towards the horses in the race that have the actual fastest recent fractions. It's hard to explain but anyone who has used MPH or any of the Sartin-Brohamer systems know that they are skewed towards fast sufaces and fast fractions, regardless of how the track variant is factored. More room for error.

The most predictive Brohamer rating is supposed to be Average Pace. I've tested Average Pace. If picking the highest percentage of winners is the goal, Average Pace can't come close to a good speed figure. I don't think Total Pace does either. Again, it always picks the horses with faster fractions.

"AP" (average pace) pales in comparison with more advanced velocities calculations and combinations/manipulations of those velocities. If you're going to propose a fair contest between speed figures in isolation, and pace figures/fractional velocities in isolation, then you need to come up to current time, and not rely on older methods (Beyers' figures and Sartin/Brohammer's "AP"), that may or may not still be in use by most speed and pace handicappers (especially good/expert handicappers). The last time I even considered "AP" was the year Mine That Bird won the Kentucky Derby (2009) and the last time I used Beyers was before I started using data files many years ago.

[pandy]

My rating (Diamond Rating) is infinitely better than Average Pace. But, because fractions are included, it is skewed towards horses than ran faster fractions. I've seen many velocity style programs and every one I've seen has the same problem.

[raybo]

My rating (Diamond Rating) is infinitely better than Average Pace. But, because fractions are included, it is skewed towards horses than ran faster fractions. I've seen many velocity style programs and every one I've seen has the same problem.

Couldn't that be because of your paceline selection system(s) or your calculations methods, for your field comparisons (last race speed, best of last 2, best of last 3, best 2 of last 3, best 2 of last 4, etc.). Not all of us use anything close to those systems. And, not all "velocities" users combine them in ways that skew them towards faster fractions, (although there is at least some merit in doing so, after all, fast paces do have dramatic affects on final time/figures).

[pandy]

Maybe. Hey, I'm not knocking them as a handicapping aid. I use velocity style ratings every day as part of my handicapping process. But, if we're talking about one factor that can pick the highest percentage of winners, it's hard to beat a speed figure.

[raybo]

But, if we're talking about one factor that can pick the highest percentage of winners, it's hard to beat a speed figure.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. I haven't used speed figures for many years and have done much better since abandoning them completely. IMO, the best use of speed figures would be using them to see what your competitors are looking at in order to make their contributions to the final odds.

[pandy]

Then we will have to agree to disagree. I haven't used speed figures for many years and have done much better since abandoning them completely. IMO, the best use of speed figures would be using them to see what your competitors are looking at in order to make their contributions to the final odds.

Remember, I'm not talking about ROI. Yes, my compounded ratings are very helpful and can pinpoint live longshots. But, for picking the highest percentage of winners, it's hard to fault speed figures.

[Capper Al]

It's an aggregate pace figure that is being compare to speed figures, not pace analysis. Pace analysis might be more profitable, but doesn't outright get more hits than speed. The question becomes if speed is the best single figure, shouldn't that be our starting point? One could still use pace analysis to narrow down the field and even at times eliminate the top speed horse all together.

[DJofSD]

It's an aggregate pace figure that is being compare to speed figures, not pace analysis. Pace analysis might be more profitable, but doesn't outright get more hits than speed. The question becomes if speed is the best single figure, shouldn't that be our starting point? One could still use pace analysis to narrow down the field and even at times eliminate the top speed horse all together.
:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[thaskalos]

My rating (Diamond Rating) is infinitely better than Average Pace. But, because fractions are included, it is skewed towards horses than ran faster fractions. I've seen many velocity style programs and every one I've seen has the same problem.
The pace ratings are used to measure how a horse rationed his speed during the running of a race. The faster an individual fraction is, the more the pace handicapper is impressed...because he knows that the horse really exerted itself during at least a portion of the race. THAT'S why the pace handicapper "skews" his ratings, to favor the horse who are running the faster fractions. In the pace handicapper's point of view...the horse who ran the faster fractions also ran the better race...and DESERVES the higher ratings.

How many times do we see a horse take an easy early lead in a sprint, run fractions of 22.6 - 46.2 - 1:10.4...and impress the Beyer Boys to an extent where they assign an abnormally large speed figure to this horse? The "speed" handicapper may downgrade this performance because of the easy lead...but only the pace handicapper can rate this performance with any level of precision...so he can compare this effort to those of the other horses in the race.

As a pace handicapper...I laugh at stand-alone final-time figures...and I wonder about the sanity of those players who insist on using them without pairing them up with competent pace analysis. To me...it's a lot like the boxer who enters the ring with the intention of using only one arm during the fight.

The pace ratings COMPLEMENT the speed figures...and even point out mistakes that often creep into them. The pace figures and the speed figures provide a better understanding of the performance of these horses, when they are used in tandem...and a better understanding of things must always precede any notions of earning a profit in a game, or in a business venture. A better UNDERSTANDING is the real goal, IMO. The profit is simply the byproduct of a job well and thoughtfully done.

I laugh when I see discussions about eliminating certain important aspects of handicapping...because carrying through with such eliminations takes away from our understanding of the game. We are betting against super-sophisticated competition here...and we cannot hope to survive by getting "dumber". If we eliminate, or downgrade, a handicapping factor because we think this factor is "overused"...then we must invent a NEW factor to take its place...in order to fill the "knowledge gap" which the eliminated factor has created.

We are facing "Superstar" competition here, Pandy...and we need to make the adjustment in order to survive. We can't depend on simplistic systems. This isn't the Yonkers of old...

[pandy]

It's an aggregate pace figure that is being compare to speed figures, not pace analysis. Pace analysis might be more profitable, but doesn't outright get more hits than speed. The question becomes if speed is the best single figure, shouldn't that be our starting point? One could still use pace analysis to narrow down the field and even at times eliminate the top speed horse all together.


Exactly. Pace handicapping is certainly a good approach to finding value, but as a win predictor, hard to beat a speed figure.

[DJofSD]

Exactly. Pace handicapping is certainly a good approach to finding value, but as a win predictor, hard to beat a speed figure.
Is your second best speed figure horse your place horse?

[pandy]

The pace ratings are used to measure how a horse rationed his speed during the running of a race. The faster an individual fraction is, the more the pace handicapper is impressed...because he knows that the horse really exerted itself during at least a portion of the race. THAT'S why the pace handicapper "skews" his ratings, to favor the horse who are running the faster fractions. In the pace handicapper's point of view...the horse who ran the faster fractions also ran the better race...and DESERVES the higher ratings.

How many times do we see a horse take an easy early lead in a sprint, run fractions of 22.6 - 46.2 - 1:10.4...and impress the Beyer Boys to an extent where they assign an abnormally large speed figure to this horse? The "speed" handicapper may downgrade this performance because of the easy lead...but only the pace handicapper can rate this performance with any level of precision...so he can compare this effort to those of the other horses in the race.

As a pace handicapper...I laugh at stand-alone final-time figures...and I wonder about the sanity of those players who insist on using them without pairing them up with competent pace analysis. To me...it's a lot like the boxer who enters the ring with the intention of using only one arm during the fight.

The pace ratings COMPLEMENT the speed figures...and even point out mistakes that often creep into them. The pace figures and the speed figures provide a better understanding of the performance of these horses, when they are used in tandem...and a better understanding of things must always precede any notions of earning a profit in a game, or in a business venture. A better UNDERSTANDING is the real goal, IMO. The profit is simply the byproduct of a job well and thoughtfully done.

I laugh when I see discussions about eliminating certain important aspects of handicapping...because carrying through with such eliminations takes away from our understanding of the game. We are betting against super-sophisticated competition here...and we cannot hope to survive by getting "dumber". If we eliminate, or downgrade, a handicapping factor because we think this factor is "overused"...then we must invent a NEW factor to take its place...in order to fill the "knowledge gap" which the eliminated factor has created.

We are facing "Superstar" competition here, Pandy...and we need to make the adjustment in order to survive. We can't depend on simplistic systems. This isn't the Yonkers of old...


I agree with you about pace handicapping. I wrote a book called Pace Handicapping Longshots that totally ignores speed figures and final times, and I use the methods in that book every day. However, Al's point was that speed figures are the strongest single predictor of who will win the race. And can we create something from that.

[thaskalos]

The question becomes if speed is the best single figure, shouldn't that be our starting point? One could still use pace analysis to narrow down the field and even at times eliminate the top speed horse all together.

What is your point, Al? Let's find the most significant handicapping factors...eliminate the horses that they point to...and then focus on the horses who are left?

[pandy]

Is your second best speed figure horse your place horse?


Sometimes, it depends on the situation. Again, I'm not saying that I'm a speed handicapper. I'm actually more of a pace handicapper. However, I was responding to the subject of this thread.

[Capper Al]

I laugh when I see discussions about eliminating certain important aspects of handicapping...because carrying through with such eliminations takes away from our understanding of the game. We are betting against super-sophisticated competition here...and we cannot hope to survive by getting "dumber". If we eliminate, or downgrade, a handicapping factor because we think this factor is "overused"...then we must invent a NEW factor to take its place...in order to fill the "knowledge gap" which the eliminated factor has created.

I'm not answering for Pandy. But the discussion is where should we start our handicapping not finish it. If not starting with the best single factor(speed) then where else and why? I'm not sure of what you mean by getting dumber here. On the contrary, if one understands how the racing information flows, they will be a smarter handicapper.

[thaskalos]

However, Al's point was that speed figures are the strongest single predictor of who will win the race. And can we create something from that.
No. Al said that speed figures are the single strongest predictor in the game, so, let's find the horse with the highest speed figure...and ELIMINATE it. And when pace ratings were suggested...Al thought of the idea of also finding the horse with the highest pace ratings...and ELIMINATING THAT TOO.

Is this your idea of "working" with the most predictive factors in the game? We find the horses that these factors identify...and then we ELIMINATE them?

[raybo]

It's an aggregate pace figure that is being compare to speed figures, not pace analysis. Pace analysis might be more profitable, but doesn't outright get more hits than speed. The question becomes if speed is the best single figure, shouldn't that be our starting point? One could still use pace analysis to narrow down the field and even at times eliminate the top speed horse all together.

I'm not talking about "pace analysis" either, I'm talking about pace figures (if they are good ones) and/or fractional velocities (if they are good enough) and their combination to obtain a full race figure, versus using only speed figures (and I'm assuming they would be "good" ones also).

I'll take my fractional and total velocities over any speed figure on the planet, any day of the week, as stand alone factors for both hit rate and ROI.

I don't expect many (if any) to agree, but then, I'm me and you are you.

[thaskalos]

I'm not answering for Pandy. But the discussion is where should we start our handicapping not finish it. If not starting with the best single factor(speed) then where else and why? I'm not sure of what you mean by getting dumber here. On the contrary, if one understands how the racing information flows, they will be a smarter handicapper.
You still don't know how to "start your handicapping"? Aren't you the guy who had booked 5 winning years in a row? And you hit a little turbulence in your journey...and you are back at the start of the handicapping process again? Give me a break, Al...

[Capper Al]

What is your point, Al? Let's find the most significant handicapping factors...eliminate the horses that they point to...and then focus on the horses who are left?

I have posted many times here that I'm a comprehensive handicapper taking into account all type of information. I am not a speed only handicapper. Yet, we need to keep an open mind and challenge our premises if we are to be successful.

[Capper Al]

You still don't know how to "start your handicapping"? Aren't you the guy who had booked 5 winning years in a row? And you hit a little turbulence in your journey...and you are back at the start of the handicapping process again? Give me a break, Al...

I am doing a system rewrite and rethinking everything as I go along. I found the idea of where to start an interesting one, so I thought I'd bring it up. I'm not saying that I have the answer or that I'll change my ways, but I will question them.

[thaskalos]

I have posted many times here that I'm a comprehensive handicapper taking into account all type of information. I am not a speed only handicapper. Yet, we need to keep an open mind and challenge our premises if we are to be successful.
And your recommendation is to eliminate the most outstanding horse of each handicapping factor, right?

We first eliminate the "fastest" horse...then we eliminate the highest-rated PACE horse...and then we gravitate to and eliminate the CLASSIEST horse...right?

And that is the more "intelligent" way, you say? Okay...tell us WHY this is the intelligent way?

Not too long ago...you had told us that you were in possession of the "one and only absolute truth to success at the track". And now, THIS?

[Capper Al]

And your recommendation is to eliminate the most outstanding horse of each handicapping factor, right?

We first eliminate the "fastest" horse...then we ELIMINATE the highest-rated PACE horse...and then we gravitate to and eliminate the CLASSIEST horse...right?

And that is the more "intelligent" way, you say? Okay...tell us WHY this is the intelligent way?

Not too long ago...you had told us that you were in possession of the "one and only absolute truth to success at the track". And now, THIS?

I'm not understanding you Gus. What is implied here would be looking through the lens of speed. If the top speed horse also passes pace analysis then it would be hard to eliminate or bet against. If the top speed doesn't pass pace analysis and your second speed horse does, then your second speed might be your horse to consider over the top speed horse. That's all there is to this. And if one is a class handicapper instead of a pace handicapper then they would substitute class where I said pace.

[GaryG]

Al, I suggest that you pick out a sample race and give your analysis. Then others of us could give their analyses and maybe we will all learn something.

[Tom]

Al, I suggest that you pick out a sample race and give your analysis. Then others of us could give their analyses and maybe we will all learn something.

Good idea.

[thaskalos]

I'm not understanding you Gus. What is implied here would be looking through the lens of speed. If the top speed horse also passes pace analysis then it would be hard to eliminate or bet against. If the top speed doesn't pass pace analysis and your second speed horse does, then your second speed might be your horse to consider over the top speed horse. That's all there is to this. And if one is a class handicapper instead of a pace handicapper then they would substitute class where I said pace.

That's what you say NOW. But in post #10...you were saying that all the pace handicappers are in denial...and they are really speed handicappers in disguise. All we supposedly do is add up the individual fractions...to come up with the equivalent of a speed figure.

Your opinion shifts with each individual post...

[Show Me the Wire]

I'm not understanding you Gus. What is implied here would be looking through the lens of speed. If the top speed horse also passes pace analysis then it would be hard to eliminate or bet against. If the top speed doesn't pass pace analysis and your second speed horse does, then your second speed might be your horse to consider over the top speed horse. That's all there is to this. And if one is a class handicapper instead of a pace handicapper then they would substitute class where I said pace.

What thask is saying what is your premise, for the starting point? It seems you you are looking for one primary root factor. Yes, the fastest horse at the distance, theoretically will win the race and it is the primary concept of horse racing.

Now the definition of fastest is subject to interpretation. Does pace define fast? Does raw final time define fast? Does adjusted final time define fast?

Races are not run against the clock they are run over a distance of ground and against other horses. If the distance does not change race to race, the herd the horse runs with and against usually changes.

I've shared the following thought before. Horse racing contains a mixture of factors, like soup recipes. You cannot make every kind of soup with the same recipe, the ingredients change. Even the root of soup, liquid is not necessarily always water.

[Cratos]

I'm not talking about "pace analysis" either, I'm talking about pace figures (if they are good ones) and/or fractional velocities (if they are good enough) and their combination to obtain a full race figure, versus using only speed figures (and I'm assuming they would be "good" ones also).

I'll take my fractional and total velocities over any speed figure on the planet, any day of the week, as stand alone factors for both hit rate and ROI.

I don't expect many (if any) to agree, but then, I'm me and you are you.
In what universe is "pace" and "speed" detached from each other?

By definition within the same motion, pace is correctly defined as the "rate of motion" and speed is the "resultant" of that motion.

Pacefigures and speedfigures are just conceptual metrics.

[Capper Al]

Al, I suggest that you pick out a sample race and give your analysis. Then others of us could give their analyses and maybe we will all learn something.

These are stats over a thousand races before they'll show anything. But I am playing SA tomorrow if you like. My pace module is down, so someone creditable would have to furnish their pace rankings or at least Equibase's which I don't purchase.

[Capper Al]

That's what you say NOW. But in post #10...you were saying that all the pace handicappers are in denial...and they are really speed handicappers in disguise. All we supposedly do is add up the individual fractions...to come up with the equivalent of a speed figure.

Your opinion shifts with each individual post...


You're right. I went overboard. Since speed is number one then when pace strikes it will more likely coincide with the speed figures than not coincide with the speed figures. Pace has its own place and value, but in the end it is not that much separate from speed.

[Capper Al]

What thask is saying what is your premise, for the starting point? It seems you you are looking for one primary root factor. Yes, the fastest horse at the distance, theoretically will win the race and it is the primary concept of horse racing.

Now the definition of fastest is subject to interpretation. Does pace define fast? Does raw final time define fast? Does adjusted final time define fast?

Races are not run against the clock they are run over a distance of ground and against other horses. If the distance does not change race to race, the herd the horse runs with and against usually changes.

I've shared the following thought before. Horse racing contains a mixture of factors, like soup recipes. You cannot make every kind of soup with the same recipe, the ingredients change. Even the root of soup, liquid is not necessarily always water.

Good points. I think we're on the same page. I'm going by what figure year after year comes up number one for me, speed. And asking, shouldn't this be my starting point? I also consider other factors like form, class, and pace before making my final selection.

[Capper Al]

In what universe is "pace" and "speed" detached from each other?

By definition within the same motion, pace is correctly defined as the "rate of motion" and speed is the "resultant" of that motion.

Pacefigures and speedfigures are just conceptual metrics.

And since the raw number of speed has the higher hit ratio, I am saying that speed looks like the super-set of pace. The numbers fly in the face of the commonly held thoughts that pace is what determines speed. And pace does determine speed. But when it comes to handicapping, it doesn't.

[Show Me the Wire]

Good points. I think we're on the same page. I'm going by what figure year after year comes up number one for me, speed. And asking, shouldn't this be my starting point? I also consider other factors like form, class, and pace before making my final selection.

My point is the primary factor changes with the type of race and the horses populating the face. One type of race the main factor would be class and so on.

[thaskalos]

And since the raw number of speed has the higher hit ratio, I am saying that speed looks like the super-set of pace. The numbers fly in the face of the commonly held thoughts that pace is what determines speed. And pace does determine speed. But when it comes to handicapping, it doesn't.

This is what you fail to understand:

We can't do a fair comparison between speed figures and pace figures to see which approach has a higher hit race...simply because there is no universally accepted definition of what a "pace figure" really is. EVERYBODY knows what a speed figure is...but how exactly would you define a PACE figure? What is the "pace figure" to YOU? Just the horse's pace rating at the second call? Is that what you think pace handicapping is all about...rating horses at the second call, and betting the highest rating?

A "speed" handicapper rates horses by their speed ratings...but a pace handicapper uses several DIFFERENT ratings in order to rate his horses by pace. There is no nice and neat, single pace figure in pace handicapping...so, you can't compare such a rating with the speed figure...to see which approach gets the most winners.

There is an early pace rating...and a late pace rating. And then, there are pace handicappers like myself...who assign a separate rating to each individual fraction that the horse runs. We don't just add these ratings together to form a single pace rating...so, there is no way for us to come up with a single number which could be universally accepted to the degree that the speed figures are accepted. And if the pace handicapper can't come up with a single universally accepted number...then how can he provide such a number, so a test could be conducted against the Beyer numbers...to see which number gets the most winners?

When people do these comparison tests...they take the win rate of the speed figure...and they compare this to the win rate of the horses' pace rating at the second call...as if the second-call pace rating were as complete a pace rating as the speed rating is in representing pure speed. But the second call rating is NOT a complete pace rating; it's just one of the several ratings that the pace handicapper uses.

There is much more to pace handicapping than just the rating at the second call...regardless of what some speed handicappers may think.

[raybo]

This is what you fail to understand:

We can't do a fair comparison between speed figures and pace figures to see which approach has a higher hit race...simply because there is no universally accepted definition of what a "pace figure" really is. EVERYBODY knows what a speed figure is...but how exactly would you define a PACE figure? What is the "pace figure" to YOU? Just the horse's pace rating at the second call? Is that what you think pace handicapping is all about...rating horses at the second call, and betting the highest rating?

A "speed" handicapper rates horses by their speed ratings...but a pace handicapper uses several DIFFERENT ratings in order to rate his horses by pace. There is no nice and neat, single pace figure in pace handicapping...so, you can't compare such a rating with the speed figure...to see which approach gets the most winners.

There is an early pace rating...and a late pace rating. And then, there are pace handicappers like myself...who assign a separate rating to each individual fraction that the horse runs. We don't just add these ratings together to form a single pace rating...so, there is no way for us to come up with a single number which could be universally accepted to the degree that the speed figures are accepted. And if the pace handicapper can't come up with a single universally accepted number...then how can he provide such a number, so a test could be conducted against the Beyer numbers...to see which number gets the most winners?

When people do these comparison tests...they take the win rate of the speed figure...and they compare this to the win rate of the horses' pace rating at the second call...as if the second-call pace rating were as complete a pace rating as the speed rating is in representing pure speed. But the second call rating is NOT a complete pace rating; it's just one of the several ratings that the pace handicapper uses.

There is much more to pace handicapping than just the rating at the second call...regardless of what some speed handicappers may think.

Well, if the 2nd call pace figure, or start to 2nd call velocity, is what Al has in mind, then he knows nothing about pace. But, I don't think he means just the 2nd call, surely he isn't that dense.

By the way, a single number can be obtained from the various pace/fractional velocities that would be a much better number than Beyers, if done properly. As I said earlier, I don't expect anyone to agree with me on this, but that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

[thaskalos]

Well, if the 2nd call pace figure, or start to 2nd call velocity, is what Al has in mind, then he knows nothing about pace. But, I don't think he means just the 2nd call, surely he isn't that dense.

By the way, a single number can be obtained from the various pace/fractional velocities that would be a much better number than Beyers, if done properly. As I said earlier, I don't expect anyone to agree with me on this, but that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

I believe you, Raybo. I combine my pace ratings into a single rating too...and I too believe that my numbers get more winners than the Beyer number. But these ratings are mine alone...and they are not the universally accepted definition of what a "pace rating" really is.

When Al says that the pace ratings don't get as many winners as the speed ratings...what "pace ratings' do you think he is talking about? My pace ratings and yours?

[pandy]

If you guys have some sort of compounded pace rating that picks more winners than a speed figure, that's great. Ratings I've seen like Average Pace, Total Pace, pace call pace rating, first call pace ratings, late pace ratings, speed points, etc., none of them can match a speed figure for win percentage.

It's funny but back in 1970 no one used pace ratings, but almost everyone used the Daily Racing Form speed figure and track variant. Naturally, good handicappers understood the basics of pace, such as, a fast pace would set up closers, etc. But the favorite won the same percentage (against field size) as it does now.

I wonder if there is anyone on this forum who is a true diehard speed handicapper, using the speed figures as the predominant handicapping factor. I think most of the players who do this purchase either the Ragozin sheets, Thoroughgraph, Predicteform, or something similar.

I remember when Vic Stauffer used to do some work for TVG, he often referred to the sheet numbers and he sounded like the guys that I've met who use the sheet style speed figures and know how to interpret them.

[Cratos]

And since the raw number of speed has the higher hit ratio, I am saying that speed looks like the super-set of pace. The numbers fly in the face of the commonly held thoughts that pace is what determines speed. And pace does determine speed. But when it comes to handicapping, it doesn't.
Your statement "when it comes to handicapping it doesn't" implying that pace doesn't determine speed is the absolutely most outrageous and ridiculous assertion I have ever read in this Forum.

Pace which is the rate of motion of man , animal, and machine determines speed for all of them. Without pace, speed is zero.

Furthermore, if you are correct, all of the handicapping books and posts on this Forum written about pace handicapping is all for naught.

[Show Me the Wire]

If you guys have some sort of compounded pace rating that picks more winners than a speed figure, that's great. Ratings I've seen like Average Pace, Total Pace, pace call pace rating, first call pace ratings, late pace ratings, speed points, etc., none of them can match a speed figure for win percentage.

It's funny but back in 1970 no one used pace ratings, but almost everyone used the Daily Racing Form speed figure and track variant. Naturally, good handicappers understood the basics of pace, such as, a fast pace would set up closers, etc. But the favorite won the same percentage (against field size) as it does now.

I wonder if there is anyone on this forum who is a true diehard speed handicapper, using the speed figures as the predominant handicapping factor. I think most of the players who do this purchase either the Ragozin sheets, Thoroughgraph, Predicteform, or something similar.

I remember when Vic Stauffer used to do some work for TVG, he often referred to the sheet numbers and he sounded like the guys that I've met who use the sheet style speed figures and know how to interpret them.

The strength of sheet style speed figures is using the pattern of the line as a tool to predict today's performance, form cycle. Also, pace and class pars are really baked into the numbers.

A sheet style speed figure user should know the par number for the class of the race. For example a MSW winner needs to run a 10 or lower (illustrative example). Using the line pattern one should be able to determine if the horse can run a 10 or less.

About 10 years ago I started a thread about MSW races at G.P. using T-graph numbers and how to evaluate MSW and MSW droppers using the class pars. It was a good thread.

So yes it is possible to win using only sheet style speed figures.

[Capper Al]

My point is the primary factor changes with the type of race and the horses populating the face. One type of race the main factor would be class and so on.

There's truth to that. I have the global look going here. I'm not looking at race types or spots.

[pandy]

The strength of sheet style speed figures is using the pattern of the line as a tool to predict today's performance, form cycle. Also, pace and class pars are really baked into the numbers.

A sheet style speed figure user should know the par number for the class of the race. For example a MSW winner needs to run a 10 or lower (illustrative example). Using the line pattern one should be able to determine if the horse can run a 10 or less.

About 10 years ago I started a thread about MSW races at G.P. using T-graph numbers and how to evaluate MSW and MSW droppers using the class pars. It was a good thread.

So yes it is possible to win using only sheet style speed figures.

I've met handicappers who rely almost solely on these numbers. In fact I know a professional gambler who does his own sheet style figures for harness racing. When you talk to these speed handicappers, you'll have a hard time convincing them that there are a lot of other important factors. They always come back to the same thing -- it's a race. Races are won by the fastest runners. Period.

[thaskalos]

I've met handicappers who rely almost solely on these numbers. In fact I know a professional gambler who does his own sheet style figures for harness racing. When you talk to these speed handicappers, you'll have a hard time convincing them that there are a lot of other important factors. They always come back to the same thing -- it's a race. Races are won by the fastest runners. Period.

It all sounds so simple...that one wonders why there aren't more winning players out there. Are the "fastest runners" really so hard to identify?

[Tom]

About 10 years ago I started a thread about MSW races at G.P. using T-graph numbers and how to evaluate MSW and MSW droppers using the class pars. It was a good thread.

I would like to re-read that thread knowing what I know now.
HTR has a sheet-style PP option that I find extremely useful. I always check out the patterns on it.

[Show Me the Wire]

I would like to re-read that thread knowing what I know now.
HTR has a sheet-style PP option that I find extremely useful. I always check out the patterns on it.

I believe it was titled Keys to the kingdom and the follow-up Keys to the Kingdom ll.

[pandy]

It all sounds so simple...that one wonders why there aren't more winning players out there. Are the "fastest runners" really so hard to identify?


A lot of bettors use the speed figures incorrectly. For instance, they bet too many top figure favorites, they bet horses that only have one strong figure, which is rarely reliable (horses that have several competitive speed figures have a much better chance of winning than a one fig horse), they overbet the last race speed figure, they put too much emphasis on the top figure when often the second or third best figure is a much better bet, they don't discount phony figs, such as bias-aided figs, loose on the lead figs, etc., they bet horses that are prime bounce prospects, etc.

The good sheet players that I've met don't just bet the horse with the best recent speed figure. They look for horses that are fast enough to win the race, based on the figures, but are going off at attractive prices. They play value, but since they have a strong belief that races are won by one of the fastest horses, that's what they concentrate on.

Another thing that has to be considered, winning bettors don't have to be great handicappers. Ernie Dahlman was a professional horse player for decades. He has posted on this forum. He has said that he's not a great handicapper, but he understands the math. In other words, he knows how to bet. That's the way a lot of these sheet players are. They are not masters of handicapping. They understand two things, speed figures and overlays.

[Show Me the Wire]

I've met handicappers who rely almost solely on these numbers. In fact I know a professional gambler who does his own sheet style figures for harness racing. When you talk to these speed handicappers, you'll have a hard time convincing them that there are a lot of other important factors. They always come back to the same thing -- it's a race. Races are won by the fastest runners. Period.

I don't want ot beat this subject to death, so I will leave you with these thoughts. Did you consider, if your friend that made his own harness figures, developed an innate feel for the par for each class?

I was immersed in the sheet style speed culture. I sat and wagered with the rags reps and when I switched loyalties to T-graph, I sat with their rep (person who collected the input data and responsible for distribution) and the high rollers.

I switched because I liked T-graph's methodology better. I liked the idea of making daily variants and splitting out races, better than using a 3 to 5 day window to calculate the variant, which made their lines smoother. But I digress.

All my many years associating and wagering with the winning pros I know, I never knew of anyone to make a substantial wager based on a horse, with a substantial race history, moving way up in class based on a speed figure. Notice I said a substantial bet.

What horse players tell you what they do is not always the full story.

[pandy]

Yes, that I understand what you're saying. In my prior post, right before your last, I mentioned that these guys know how to interpret the speed figures. And, the ones I've met are not looking to bet on some top figure horse that's going off at 7-5.

[ReplayRandall]

A lot of bettors use the speed figures incorrectly. For instance, they bet too many top figure favorites, they bet horses that only have one strong figure, which is rarely reliable (horses that have several competitive speed figures have a much better chance of winning than a one fig horse), they overbet the last race speed figure, they put too much emphasis on the top figure when often the second or third best figure is a much better bet, they don't discount phony figs, such as bias-aided figs, loose on the lead figs, etc., they bet horses that are prime bounce prospects, etc.

The good sheet players that I've met don't just bet the horse with the best recent speed figure. They look for horses that are fast enough to win the race, based on the figures, but are going off at attractive prices. They play value, but since they have a strong belief that races are won by one of the fastest horses, that's what they concentrate on.

Another thing that has to be considered, winning bettors don't have to be great handicappers. Ernie Dahlman was a professional horse player for decades. He has posted on this forum. He has said that he's not a great handicapper, but he understands the math. In other words, he knows how to bet. That's the way a lot of these sheet players are. They are not masters of handicapping. They understand two things, speed figures and overlays.

On occasion, there are horses who finish 2nd or 3rd in a race and receive a lower sheet number(lower the better) than the winner. The reason for this, as I've stated earlier, sheet numbers are TOTALITY numbers, not speed figures. Many factors are figured and fused into that totality number, not just speed. The sheets are expensive for a reason, they are not just simply a speed figure, they are much more than that.

Pandy, I read your posts and some of them are actually quite good. However, if you don't take the time to read and glean from other responses to your posts, you repeat the same inaccurate statements, as I've now pointed out twice.......Take it for what it's worth to you, my last 2 cents.

[raybo]

I believe you, Raybo. I combine my pace ratings into a single rating too...and I too believe that my numbers get more winners than the Beyer number. But these ratings are mine alone...and they are not the universally accepted definition of what a "pace rating" really is.

When Al says that the pace ratings don't get as many winners as the speed ratings...what "pace ratings' do you think he is talking about? My pace ratings and yours?

I assume he is using Brisnet pace figures, which IMO, are some of the worst in the industry. If he doesn't like doing some work and calculating his own, maybe he ought to be using TFUS? CJ's are renowned for being the best on the planet.

[pandy]

On occasion, there are horses who finish 2nd or 3rd in a race and receive a lower sheet number(lower the better) than the winner. The reason for this, as I've stated earlier, sheet numbers are TOTALITY numbers, not speed figures. Many factors are figured and fused into that totality number, not just speed. The sheets are expensive for a reason, they are not just simply a speed figure, they are much more than that.

Pandy, I read your posts and some of them are actually quite good. However, if you don't take the time to read and glean from other responses to your posts, you repeat the same inaccurate statements, as I've now pointed out twice.......Take it for what it's worth to you, my last 2 cents.

I never said that the speed figures on the sheets were not performance figures. I know that they take into consideration things like wind, or ground loss, depending on which ones you use. What did I say that was incorrect?

[thaskalos]

A lot of bettors use the speed figures incorrectly. For instance, they bet too many top figure favorites, they bet horses that only have one strong figure, which is rarely reliable (horses that have several competitive speed figures have a much better chance of winning than a one fig horse), they overbet the last race speed figure, they put too much emphasis on the top figure when often the second or third best figure is a much better bet, they don't discount phony figs, such as bias-aided figs, loose on the lead figs, etc., they bet horses that are prime bounce prospects, etc.

The good sheet players that I've met don't just bet the horse with the best recent speed figure. They look for horses that are fast enough to win the race, based on the figures, but are going off at attractive prices. They play value, but since they have a strong belief that races are won by one of the fastest horses, that's what they concentrate on.

Another thing that has to be considered, winning bettors don't have to be great handicappers. Ernie Dahlman was a professional horse player for decades. He has posted on this forum. He has said that he's not a great handicapper, but he understands the math. In other words, he knows how to bet. That's the way a lot of these sheet players are. They are not masters of handicapping. They understand two things, speed figures and overlays.
When Dahlman says that he isn't a great handicapper, he is just being modest. Did you honestly expect him, or anyone else for that matter...to stand up and proudly declare that he is a "great handicapper"? Who talks like that?

If Ernie Dahlman isn't a great handicapper...then you can be damned sure that he has hired a great handicapper to work for him. You don't "understand the math" , nor do you "know how to bet"...unless you are a kick-ass handicapper. It takes great handicapping to unearth legitimate overlays on a consistent basis. True overlays don't grow on trees.

[pandy]

I think his point was that being a smart bettor makes a huge difference, and it does. When Ernie used to bet harness I saw him at the track every night that I was there, when I was in my twenties. I was an outstanding harness handicapper and I did win. But I was all over the place, sometimes I'd bet win, sometimes exactas, sometimes trifectas, and overall I didn't maximize my return, especially when compared to my handicapping skills. If I had given my picks to Ernie he would have made way more money with the same horses.

I know one professional bettor who actually analyzes the pools so he can weigh how much he can bet without knocking his odds down too the point where it will wipe out his profit. The average bettor doesn't do things like that.

Here's a mistake I made. Last year in the Belmont stakes I threw out California Chrome and boxed three horses in exactas. The exacta paid good. But I didn't play the trifecta and the same three horses ran 1-2-3, and the trifecta paid something like eight times more than the exacta. These kind of mistakes hurt in the long run. You have to maximize your return when you're right.

[Capper Al]

I assume he is using Brisnet pace figures, which IMO, are some of the worst in the industry. If he doesn't like doing some work and calculating his own, maybe he ought to be using TFUS? CJ's are renowned for being the best on the planet.

I have been quite clear about this. I said that I'm NOT talking about pace analysis. I'm referring to a final pace number like Equibase uses. Generally, the homegrown version of this would be second call plus final time in one form or another. The need for this kind of pace figure is to have it in a form to compare over a sample size of many races, the more the better. When comparing this kind of pace fig to a class fig to a speed fig and where ever fig, speed figs win. And hence, the question: If speed is the long pole in the tent then shouldn't this be our starting point? If not, why not?

[Capper Al]

This is what you fail to understand:

We can't do a fair comparison between speed figures and pace figures to see which approach has a higher hit race...simply because there is no universally accepted definition of what a "pace figure" really is. EVERYBODY knows what a speed figure is...but how exactly would you define a PACE figure? What is the "pace figure" to YOU? Just the horse's pace rating at the second call? Is that what you think pace handicapping is all about...rating horses at the second call, and betting the highest rating?

A "speed" handicapper rates horses by their speed ratings...but a pace handicapper uses several DIFFERENT ratings in order to rate his horses by pace. There is no nice and neat, single pace figure in pace handicapping...so, you can't compare such a rating with the speed figure...to see which approach gets the most winners.

There is an early pace rating...and a late pace rating. And then, there are pace handicappers like myself...who assign a separate rating to each individual fraction that the horse runs. We don't just add these ratings together to form a single pace rating...so, there is no way for us to come up with a single number which could be universally accepted to the degree that the speed figures are accepted. And if the pace handicapper can't come up with a single universally accepted number...then how can he provide such a number, so a test could be conducted against the Beyer numbers...to see which number gets the most winners?

When people do these comparison tests...they take the win rate of the speed figure...and they compare this to the win rate of the horses' pace rating at the second call...as if the second-call pace rating were as complete a pace rating as the speed rating is in representing pure speed. But the second call rating is NOT a complete pace rating; it's just one of the several ratings that the pace handicapper uses.

There is much more to pace handicapping than just the rating at the second call...regardless of what some speed handicappers may think.

You're right. Most of my research is based on my speed figs, BRIS' speed figs, my pace figs, and BRIS' pace. I wrongly assumed that by including BRIS in my study and getting the same results for my figs and BRIS's fig that this universally applied. All I can say is that I've talk with several good handicappers and that their stats where similar. Some of these cappers have even posted in agreement here in this forum that speed has the highest hit ratio for them also.

[Capper Al]

Your statement "when it comes to handicapping it doesn't" implying that pace doesn't determine speed is the absolutely most outrageous and ridiculous assertion I have ever read in this Forum.

Pace which is the rate of motion of man , animal, and machine determines speed for all of them. Without pace, speed is zero.

Furthermore, if you are correct, all of the handicapping books and posts on this Forum written about pace handicapping is all for naught.

I don't disagree with the fact that pace determines speed. What I'm saying is that speed out performs pace as a statistic.

[Capper Al]

I've met handicappers who rely almost solely on these numbers. In fact I know a professional gambler who does his own sheet style figures for harness racing. When you talk to these speed handicappers, you'll have a hard time convincing them that there are a lot of other important factors. They always come back to the same thing -- it's a race. Races are won by the fastest runners. Period.

I'm kind of starting to lean that way myself after being a comprehensive handicapper for a long time.

[Capper Al]

Another thing that has to be considered, winning bettors don't have to be great handicappers. Ernie Dahlman was a professional horse player for decades. He has posted on this forum. He has said that he's not a great handicapper, but he understands the math. In other words, he knows how to bet. That's the way a lot of these sheet players are. They are not masters of handicapping. They understand two things, speed figures and overlays.

After five years of being profitable, I have been in about a year and a half losing streak. My solution was to rewrite my app and get back in touch with my winning self. (Beside I have learned a lot in five years and have lots more good things to add to my system.) Meanwhile what I'm finding out, it wasn't so much from my handicapping that caused my loses but more losing my sight on how to wager. (There is no app for wagering.) It seems that one thing lead to another. First just a plain old losing streak like everyone experiences, next trying to modify my system to get me out of the losing streak, and the final blow that did me in, was to lose sight on how to wager.

My system is currently firing on only three cylinders. Yet, I'm leading in a small pay to play contest against about a dozen very good handicappers. I was amazed. How can this be during a losing streak? I think the key to understanding this was from making a major mistake when I radically increased my average wager size after winning for five years. Unwittingly, I changed my winning ways. I'm getting it back on how to wager. It's not so much of a mechanical process as a mind set.

[pandy]

I'm kind of starting to lean that way myself after being a comprehensive handicapper for a long time.


I've always found it interesting that there are so many handicapping factors that can be considered, but some are dubious and we have to question their validity. For example, since I like to bet on longshots, I've always looked for longshot angles.

Years ago I would often bet on a horse making its first start on turf that hadn't shown much on dirt but had a good turf pedigree. I had some nice hits. I remember one in particular because I was in Atlantic City for a convention and I looked over the Form and found one horse that had a turf pedigree I liked. I bet less than $40 and walked out with almost $500 profit and I was only in the place for 15 minutes. Gee I felt smart.

We feel so smart when it works. But, a few years later I came to the realization that for me, pedigree plays on turf were not good bets in the long run. For the occasional longshot winner, there are scores of horses with good turf pedigrees that are just ordinary turf horses and fail miserably in their first start on turf. There are much better ways to spot good longshot bets on horses that not only have a realistic chance of winning, but we know for sure that they can run.

[pandy]

After five years of being profitable, I have been in about a year and a half losing streak. My solution was to rewrite my app and get back in touch with my winning self. (Beside I have learned a lot in five years and have lots more good things to add to my system.) Meanwhile what I'm finding out, it wasn't so much from my handicapping that caused my loses but more losing my sight on how to wager. (There is no app for wagering.) It seems that one thing lead to another. First just a plain old losing streak like everyone experiences, next trying to modify my system to get me out of the losing streak, and the final blow that did me in, was to lose sight on how to wager.

My system is currently firing on only three cylinders. Yet, I'm leading in a small pay to play contest against about a dozen very good handicappers. I was amazed. How can this be during a losing streak? I think the key to understanding this was from making a major mistake when I radically increased my average wager size after winning for five years. Unwittingly, I changed my winning ways. I'm getting it back on how to wager. It's not so much of a mechanical process as a mind set.

Very interesting part about the wager size. It's amazing on how money can affect or alter our intuitive thinking process. Years ago one spring I decided to make some baseball bets, pretty much just for fun. I bet nothing but $25 or $50 two or three game parlays, most $25 parlays. I literally hit over 90% of my bets. After being up about $3,000, I started betting $100 parlays. I lost eight in a row. Was it just coincidence? Or did I inadvertently change the way I handicapped the games because of the higher stakes?

[Capper Al]

Pandy,

I go through cycles. I get all complicated with my handicapping and approach E = MC^2 then back off and realize that I'm not winning anymore because of the more complexity in my handicapping. Then I purge and simplify (keeping a little of the new stuff) and start the process all over again toward complexity. It's been this way for years, and it looks like it will be this way forever.

[pandy]

We can sometimes muddle the picture with too much info.

[whodoyoulike]

Very interesting part about the wager size. It's amazing on how money can affect or alter our intuitive thinking process. Years ago one spring I decided to make some baseball bets, pretty much just for fun. I bet nothing but $25 or $50 two or three game parlays, most $25 parlays. I literally hit over 90% of my bets. After being up about $3,000, I started betting $100 parlays. I lost eight in a row. Was it just coincidence? Or did I inadvertently change the way I handicapped the games because of the higher stakes?


I found out a long time ago for me as you're alluding too, it was because of the higher stakes. But, one has to figure out what their comfort level is before it becomes necessary in order to enjoy wagering. As, you've probably concluded that you will think differently when you're out of your comfort zone.

[raybo]

Very interesting part about the wager size. It's amazing on how money can affect or alter our intuitive thinking process. Years ago one spring I decided to make some baseball bets, pretty much just for fun. I bet nothing but $25 or $50 two or three game parlays, most $25 parlays. I literally hit over 90% of my bets. After being up about $3,000, I started betting $100 parlays. I lost eight in a row. Was it just coincidence? Or did I inadvertently change the way I handicapped the games because of the higher stakes?

Only you can answer that question, by reassessing what you were thinking at the time, and whether you stepped out of your normal handicapping routine at some point in that streak, or if you handicapped exactly the way you were before and you just happened to lose 8 bets in a row. I would tend to think that it was a little of both, you lost a couple of bets early and then changed something in your handicapping process that extended those couple of losses into 8.

Record keeping (and notes) come in handy under such circumstances.

[thaskalos]

Very interesting part about the wager size. It's amazing on how money can affect or alter our intuitive thinking process. Years ago one spring I decided to make some baseball bets, pretty much just for fun. I bet nothing but $25 or $50 two or three game parlays, most $25 parlays. I literally hit over 90% of my bets. After being up about $3,000, I started betting $100 parlays. I lost eight in a row. Was it just coincidence? Or did I inadvertently change the way I handicapped the games because of the higher stakes?
It was a coincidence, Pandy. When you are hitting 90% of your baseball parlays, then you are catching lightning in a bottle...and things are sure to revert back to normal somewhere down the line. Good luck and bad luck often come in streaks...and without any advance warning. It was unfortunate for you that you increased your wagers at the wrong time. What you experienced is the main reason why people stick with flat bets...even though they are well-aware that there are more "profitable" wagering methods out there. The "raise-your-bet-as you-win" wagering method often leaves us with a bad taste in our mouths...because our losing bets also seem to always be the largest.

I don't have a mathematical leg to stand on when I say this...but I have always felt that the worst time to increase the size of my betting unit is right after I've experienced a prolonged winning streak.

[pandy]

That's true, streaks come and go. I was talking to Michael Kipness (The Wizard) once and he said that he also feels that he subconsciously handicaps differently if he knows he's going to raise his bets, but it's tough to tell if that really makes a difference.

One good thing, I took the $2,000 that was left, withdrew it, and never bet on another baseball game, so I am probably one of the few who could ever say that they bet baseball and showed a profit.

[ReplayRandall]

One good thing, I took the $2,000 that was left, withdrew it, and never bet on another baseball game, so I am probably one of the few who could ever say that they bet baseball and showed a profit.

Congrats that you stopped betting baseball after showing a profit. However, out of all sports betting, baseball is by far the easier MAJOR sport to beat consistently.......There are many more than just a FEW who beat the game, and that's not an opinion, that's a fact. Go ask any Sportsbook manager in Vegas which sport they have the toughest time holding a decent percentage drop, they'll tell you baseball without a doubt.......They book it solely for the tourist action, to keep the casino patrons happy.

[pandy]

I didn't know that, but it did seem much easier than anything else I've ever bet on. I do pretty well with NFL but it takes a lot more handicapping.

[pandy]

We discussed "performance figures," just wanted to say, although I brought up the "sheets" style figures, I'm not advocating use of these figures. I'm not a fan of performance figures. I prefer a raw speed figure based solely on final time. As for wind adjustments, I'd rather see a note that it was windy and the wind direction and speed.

My problem with performance figures is that they give credit for wide trips. Today at Belmont, for instance, all of the winners except one raced anywhere from three to six wide and I certainly wouldn't give any extra bonus points for those wide trips, since the outside paths looked like the place to be, which is not uncommon for Belmont. If the jockeys are riding wide, then that's where they want to be, and to reward a horse for that seems questionable. And of course there are horses, such as California Chrome, that prefer wide trips because they simply don't run as well in confined spaces.

I'm sure there are people who swear by them.

[ReplayRandall]

We discussed "performance figures," just wanted to say, although I brought up the "sheets" style figures, I'm not advocating use of these figures. I'm not a fan of performance figures. I prefer a raw speed figure based solely on final time. As for wind adjustments, I'd rather see a note that it was windy and the wind direction and speed.

My problem with performance figures is that they give credit for wide trips. Today at Belmont, for instance, all of the winners except one raced anywhere from three to six wide and I certainly wouldn't give any extra bonus points for those wide trips, since the outside paths looked like the place to be, which is not uncommon for Belmont. If the jockeys are riding wide, then that's where they want to be, and to reward a horse for that seems questionable. And of course there are horses, such as California Chrome, that prefer wide trips because they simply don't run as well in confined spaces.

I'm sure there are people who swear by them.

Interesting point.....I'll keep that in mind.

[Stillriledup]

We discussed "performance figures," just wanted to say, although I brought up the "sheets" style figures, I'm not advocating use of these figures. I'm not a fan of performance figures. I prefer a raw speed figure based solely on final time. As for wind adjustments, I'd rather see a note that it was windy and the wind direction and speed.

My problem with performance figures is that they give credit for wide trips. Today at Belmont, for instance, all of the winners except one raced anywhere from three to six wide and I certainly wouldn't give any extra bonus points for those wide trips, since the outside paths looked like the place to be, which is not uncommon for Belmont. If the jockeys are riding wide, then that's where they want to be, and to reward a horse for that seems questionable. And of course there are horses, such as California Chrome, that prefer wide trips because they simply don't run as well in confined spaces.

I'm sure there are people who swear by them.

Love this post, great stuff Pandy.

Another factor is that if the perf fig is giving extra credit (with a faster number) to a wide trip, you only benefit if the runner somehow saves ground next time. The key would be to try and figure out thru careful video study if the wide runner is the type that's specifically ridden wide (like chrome) or its a horse who just got caught wide but normally saves ground or tries to save ground.

Also, sheet readers who swear by that stuff aren't necessarily giving credit to ground loss because they're basing their opinions on a series of numbers that show speed as well as a soundness/development patterns, they're looking at the pattern to try and determine if the horse is getting better or worse, if he's peaked or not.

[pandy]

Yes, many of the sheet players use the numbers to try to predict whether a horse is likely to digress, improve, or repeat one of his good numbers today.

Yesterday in the 4th at Belmont a first time starter named Loose On The Town raced three wide stalking the pace then fanned four and five wide on the final turn while rallying, took the lead at the quarter pole and drew clear to a fairly easy win despite running greenly and on his wrong lead with his head turned down the stretch. Now if you use Trakus to adjust this colt's figure, he should look like a future stakes winner. I did put him on my watch list, mainly because he won rather easily considering that his stride in the stretch was awkward. Once he learns how to run properly and change leads maybe he'll be a nice horse. But, because the wide trips were preferred at Belmont the past two days, his performance may not be as good as it looked.

[mickey_arnold]

... However, out of all sports betting, baseball is by far the easier MAJOR sport to beat consistently...There are many more than just a FEW who beat the game, and that's not an opinion, that's a fact. Go ask any Sportsbook manager in Vegas which sport they have the toughest time holding a decent percentage drop, they'll tell you baseball without a doubt...

My personal experience is that from a bookmakers perspective, you are 100% correct. After graduating college with a degree in a non-financial major area, a friend of mine becomes determined to turn his unprofitable penchant for sports wagering into a profitable one. Because all of his contemporaries displayed the same lack of skill at wagering, he decides to take bets instead of making them. Being as immortal as he, I let him know that for a modest fee, I would come off the bench as a substitute whenever he needed me.

So he started booking bets on a part-time basis for all sports,including horse racing. His hopeless clientele were predominantly fellow graduates and currently enrolled students.

I assisted him on occasion, coming off the bench, when he felt like taking a short or long vacation (and pleasing the little woman), by using the profits derived from his little venture... One of of his clients got the royal treatment, for he was renowned for betting 4 or 5 entrants in a race, just so it seemed, that he could get the satisfaction and bragging rights that can accrue from picking winners. Same nonsensical behavior betting other sports also.

In retrospect, we should have been more diligent in finding creative ways to "comp" him, for blessing us with the opportunity to empty his wallet.

Anyway, the little enterprise was achieving uniform, though modest success (due to the low amount of individual wagers capable of being expended by the clientele and bookable by the business).. This went on for several years until one fine spring ,things started to become not so fine.

It was the start of, you guessed it, baseball season. And the bookmaking gods suddenly manifested signs of being hearing impaired and, finally, deaf. In one weekend, the working capital and bank reserves were completely wiped out by the confluence of a incredible set of pitching performances (pitchers being the key factor in determining the outcome of games and wagers ).

In that era, characterized by the complete absence of computerized data available to a sports bettor, for a bookie who just followed the Vegas line for most sports and took the uninformed wagers of "players' in almost all sports, including, horse racing, resulted in easy pickings...But not baseball...

As for that "walking cash machine' who alone could account for a weekends bookmaking profits...He made a killing that weekend and, proceeded, of course, to broadcast his "genius" to all who would listen.

Sometimes, it seemed that for even a novice client, if they thought to themselves "I like this pitcher in this game, regardless of the line, because, the other team just can't touch this guy.", they could experience success in wagers on that game and a significant series of games And, if there was a coincidental occurrence of perhaps 10 or so starting pitchers having totally unbeatable days, regardless of the comparative difficulties of their teammates at the plate, the collective performance of those pitchers, could be devastating to a bookmaking operation, legal or otherwise..

My experience has been that you don't have to be a sports handicapping genius to come close to beating baseball or beating the game, even over the long term...As a bettor, know the pitchers and know them well, be somewhat knowledgeable of the reasons for variability of team performance (outside of the influence of pitchers) ,have a modest understanding of the betting lines and show common sense and restraint in wagering (ignore those crazy special "teaser' types of bets) and, for a non-professional, you then have an excellent chance of showing small but regular profitability in wagers, and numerous opportunities to have a great day,week or month, without inordinate, exhausting data analysis of an incredible multiplicity and connectivity of factors influencing event outcomes.

Horse race handicapping and wagering should only be that cut and dried...

Lesson learned by my friend and his partners, including myself.

[Luckycreed]

You don't automatically give a horse credit for a wide trip it's not that primitive.You give horses credit when they do things that most horses on the day couldn't do.

For example if horses sitting wide and winning is the pattern for the day you start digging deeper.It may be that most of the races had very gentle pace, sitting wide even without cover is no big deal if the pace is soft.in a slowly run sit and sprint kind of race I would rather be wide and near the lead than back in the field on the fence

If however horses are sitting wide and winning in fast paced races (especially with no cover, sitting wide with cover is not as bigger deal as people think) and especially if long shots are doing it chances are the rail is off and a skilled video analyst is looking to bonus horses who stuck to the rail and were good enough to break the pattern for the day and figure at the business end of the race.

Nothing that works as a general principle (sitting wide being a disadvantage for eg,) works enough to make you money as there are too many exceptions to the rule and it's our job to find them and take home the money of those who stick to generics.

[Capper Al]

That's true, streaks come and go. I was talking to Michael Kipness (The Wizard) once and he said that he also feels that he subconsciously handicaps differently if he knows he's going to raise his bets, but it's tough to tell if that really makes a difference.

One good thing, I took the $2,000 that was left, withdrew it, and never bet on another baseball game, so I am probably one of the few who could ever say that they bet baseball and showed a profit.

And that's why I went back to square one and started the rewrite.

[pandy]

You don't automatically give a horse credit for a wide trip it's not that primitive.You give horses credit when they do things that most horses on the day couldn't do.

For example if horses sitting wide and winning is the pattern for the day you start digging deeper.It may be that most of the races had very gentle pace, sitting wide even without cover is no big deal if the pace is soft.in a slowly run sit and sprint kind of race I would rather be wide and near the lead than back in the field on the fence

If however horses are sitting wide and winning in fast paced races (especially with no cover, sitting wide with cover is not as bigger deal as people think) and especially if long shots are doing it chances are the rail is off and a skilled video analyst is looking to bonus horses who stuck to the rail and were good enough to break the pattern for the day and figure at the business end of the race.

Nothing that works as a general principle (sitting wide being a disadvantage for eg,) works enough to make you money as there are too many exceptions to the rule and it's our job to find them and take home the money of those who stick to generics.


I agree, that's why I prefer a raw speed figure. I'll make my own adjustments if I want to. And, besides, I've never seen any speed figures that are worth $25 to $35 a day. You can find speed figures that you disagree with with every service, it's not an exact science. And I still think the Beyers are as good as it gets. He has a team, the figures are done by hand, they're very good.

[jasperson]

[QUOTE=pandy]If you guys have some sort of compounded pace rating that picks more winners than a speed figure, that's great. Ratings I've seen like Average Pace, Total Pace, pace call pace rating, first call pace ratings, late pace ratings, speed points, etc., none of them can match a speed figure for win percentage.

It's funny but back in 1970 no one used pace ratings, but almost everyone used the Daily Racing Form speed figure and track variant. Naturally, good handicappers understood the basics of pace, such as, a fast pace would set up closers, etc. But the favorite won the same percentage (against field size) as it does now.

QUOTE]

Look at a copy of "SCIENTIFIC HANDICAPPING" puplished 1963. They not only used early pace and explained how to calculate a pace rating. It was crude but they didi have as much to work with back then

[Capper Al]

Pace is a secondary factor not a primary like class and speed. It appears that many might be using pace the wrong way.

[DeltaLover]

Pace is a secondary factor not a primary like class and speed. It appears that many might be using pace the wrong way.

What you say is correct when it comes to predictability

Still, when it comes to betting, speed and class are so well known to the majority of the bettors, that tend to bet overbet creating underlays that can be exploited by secondary factors as you call them..

[Tom]

Pace is the key factor - every race is decided by a pace match up.
When a class horse wins, it wind by setting or overcoming a pace.
When a form horse wins, it does by setting or overcoming the pace.
When a speed horse wins, it does by setting or overcoming the pace.

You can see it in the charts, but before the race, it is not always easy.
Especially if you play where jockeys like to grab.

[pandy]

He is talking about predictability. That was the original idea for the thread, using the top predictor as a starting point and improving on it.

[DJofSD]

I think the main intent of the thread is to find the one ring which rules them all.

[classhandicapper]

IMO good class figures outperform good speed figures mildly in win percentage and ROI. Most likely the difference in ROI is that good speed figures are easily purchased and good class figure require a lot of initial research and work that very few people are willing to do.

[DJofSD]

IMO good class figures outperform good speed figures mildly in win percentage and ROI. Most likely the difference in ROI is that good speed figures are easily purchased and good class figure require a lot of initial research and work that very few people are willing to do.
Are you saying class figures perform better in both win percentage AND ROI?

It seems there is always a trade off between those two metrics. You can either have a higher win percentage but with a lower ROI, or, a lower win percentage but at a higher ROI.

[classhandicapper]

Are you saying class figures perform better in both win percentage AND ROI?

It seems there is always a trade off between those two metrics. You can either have a higher win percentage but with a lower ROI, or, a lower win percentage but at a higher ROI.

Yes.

I'm testing my own systematically generated class figures, but only where I have good classing information. So you might say the test is biased towards what I already know I am pretty good at. I doubt the figures would do as well at tracks or at class levels I am less familiar with or where classing horses is more difficult.

They are outperforming speed figures in BOTH win% and ROI on both dirt and turf so far, but the samples are not large yet.

I'm not using any subjective judgment in creating the figures like I do in my gambling. It's all pre programmed and generated by rules. My goal was simply to answer some questions about class/speed and their relationship once and for all.

[cj]

IMO good class figures outperform good speed figures mildly in win percentage and ROI. Most likely the difference in ROI is that good speed figures are easily purchased and good class figure require a lot of initial research and work that very few people are willing to do.

If they are kept private, sure. But if they are shared like speed figures are these days, the same thing will happen.

Do you have an example of publicly available "good class figures"?

[classhandicapper]

If they are kept private, sure. But if they are shared like speed figures are these days, the same thing will happen.

Do you have an example of publicly available "good class figures"?

I'm not sure there are any "good" class figures available to the public. I've read some of the documentation on the Bris class figures and I like what I've read, but I never analyzed or tested them. So I'm not qualified. They aren't anything like what I am doing now.

[cj]

I'm not sure there are any "good" class figures available to the public. I've read some of the documentation on the Bris class figures and I like what I've read, but I never analyzed or tested them. So I'm not qualified. They aren't anything like what I am doing now.

That is my point though on the ROI side. You can't really compare something that everyone has to something very few have and say it is better...it is just not in public use so it isn't reflected on the tote.

The same goes with the win percentage. You are picking spots. There are plenty of situations where speed trumps class if I want to cherry pick.

[classhandicapper]

That is my point though on the ROI side. You can't really compare something that everyone has to something very few have and say it is better...it is just not in public use so it isn't reflected on the tote.

The same goes with the win percentage. You are picking spots. There are plenty of situations where speed trumps class if I want to cherry pick.

No doubt, speed figures are at a disadvantage in ROI. Whatever everyone is doing is at a disadvantage.

Here's what I am doing in the test.

I'm not looking at surface changes, layoffs, off tracks, distance changes, or anything else. I look at last race and that's it.

One reason I am being selective is that to duplicate what I am doing right now on a national basis would take years. I don't have the time to look at all tracks. I consider that irrelevant.

Another reason is that I don't see the point of trying to class maiden races with loads of FTS or turf races with loads of first time turfers. So I exclude some race types. Speed figures would have similar issues in those races.

I'm only comparing speed figures and class figures in the exact same sample of races. They are races where speed figures do very well also. So there should be no inherent advantage to class over speed in my sample that I can think of.

Here are the results so far.

If the top class figure goes off the favorite, the loss is a little better than the track take.

If the top class figure does not go off the favorite, there are huge ROI profits.

Dirt is better than turf, but turf is also profitable (barely).

Overall, the figures are mildly profitable as of last week's results.

I was hoping to find greater value at a slightly lower win percentage than speed figures. I assumed that any chance of competing with speed figures would require a more detailed subjective analysis. But I'm generating both greater value and a higher win percentage on automated class ratings. That makes me enthusiastic.

I coded the system rules at the start and froze them there. I just keep adding to the sample. I haven't even gotten to the point where I start tweaking the rules to try to improve the results for turf vs. dirt, sprint vs, route etc..

Maybe as the sample gets bigger the results will deteriorate a bit, but it's hard to not be encouraged.

[Capper Al]

He is talking about predictability. That was the original idea for the thread, using the top predictor as a starting point and improving on it.

You got it.

[Capper Al]

Pace is the key factor - every race is decided by a pace match up.
When a class horse wins, it wind by setting or overcoming a pace.
When a form horse wins, it does by setting or overcoming the pace.
When a speed horse wins, it does by setting or overcoming the pace.

You can see it in the charts, but before the race, it is not always easy.
Especially if you play where jockeys like to grab.

For me, pace has made a better elimination than a predictor. Primary factors, again for me, work better as predictors. Secondary factors work best in eliminations. The horse set the best pace because of his class vs the horse isn't a contender because he's an E type and can't get within 5 lengths at the quarter pole.

[Capper Al]

I think the main intent of the thread is to find the one ring which rules them all.

Not so, but I can see how one could think this. The starting point could be seen as the most valuable ring.

[Capper Al]

I'm not sure there are any "good" class figures available to the public. I've read some of the documentation on the Bris class figures and I like what I've read, but I never analyzed or tested them. So I'm not qualified. They aren't anything like what I am doing now.

Using BRIS RR and CR has worked well for me. Yet speed is still my most predictive factor. The class figs just pay better.

[appistappis]

years ago speed was somebodies main pole and pace was probably someone else's main pole but in today's game you better have a multi faceted tent.

[Capper Al]

years ago speed was somebodies main pole and pace was probably someone else's main pole but in today's game you better have a multi faceted tent.

The jury is still out for me on this one. Multi faceted. or what I call comprehensive handicapping using more than a couple of factors, is more predictable. Yet, my best ROI streak did come from using just Giles' pace. I'm waiting to finish my rewriting my app before testing this again.

[classhandicapper]

The jury is still out for me on this one. Multi faceted. or what I call comprehensive handicapping using more than a couple of factors, is more predictable. Yet, my best ROI streak did come from using just Giles' pace. I'm waiting to finish my rewriting my app before testing this again.

My experience is that a multi faceted approach works best for predictability.

If you are a strict line maker I think you want to take a multi-faceted approach.

If you are more selection oriented, meaning you look for horses that are underrated or that possess certain characteristics that tend to be undervalued by the public, then adding more factors has a tendency to improve the win%, but lower the ROI.

That's even what I am finding in my own tests on class. When I added speed figures to the formula just to see what would happen, I was able to find a weighting between class and speed that improved the win% over either of the factors as a stand alone. But the ROI plummeted because speed figures are so built into the odds.

[pandy]

Evaluating which single handicapping factor is the best win predictor is one thing, and speed figures rule there, in my opinion.

Once you get into ROI, yes, that may shift the paradigm to pace.

However, as I pointed out in previous posts on this thread, speed figures can be used intelligently to show a profit. The assumption that speed figures are good for predicting winners but bad overall because they are over bet, is simplistic.

There are a lot of races each day. Someone who is good at interpreting speed figures, could conceivably sit in front of his computer all day and simply bet on overlays based on horses that appear to either have a speed figure advantage or are prime speed figure contenders in a field where several horses can be eliminated (due to low speed figures).

The efficiency of speed figures as a win or ROI predictor drops in contentious races where too many of the horses have similar figures. But just like in any type of handicapping, patience can pay off.

Now, if you combine other potent handicapping factors, such as class and pace, along with the speed figures, then I would agree that your chances improve. I break these three factors down in my Speed and Class Handicapping book.

A key question is, how significant are the other factors, such as trainers, riders, trips, pedigree, workouts, weight, bias, etc. I'm not opposed to using such factors, but I'm aware that they could cloud the picture and in the wrong hands cause more harm than good.

The bottom line is, if you bet on a horses that are overlays and fit these rules: they have the best speed figure or are strongly ranked contenders on speed figures, they fit on class, and they have enough early speed (pace) to stay close to the action, you are probably going to do a lot better than most bettors, including many handicappers who probably know a lot more about handicapping than you do but are over estimating the value of the other less-significant factors.

[Cratos]

Evaluating which single handicapping factor is the best win predictor is one thing, and speed figures rule there, in my opinion.

Once you get into ROI, yes, that may shift the paradigm to pace.

However, as I pointed out in previous posts on this thread, speed figures can be used intelligently to show a profit. The assumption that speed figures are good for predicting winners but bad overall because they are over bet, is simplistic.

There are a lot of races each day. Someone who is good at interpreting speed figures, could conceivably sit in front of his computer all day and simply bet on overlays based on horses that appear to either have a speed figure advantage or are prime speed figure contenders in a field where several horses can be eliminated (due to low speed figures).

The efficiency of speed figures as a win or ROI predictor drops in contentious races where too many of the horses have similar figures. But just like in any type of handicapping, patience can pay off.

Now, if you combine other potent handicapping factors, such as class and pace, along with the speed figures, then I would agree that your chances improve. I break these three factors down in my Speed and Class Handicapping book.

A key question is, how significant are the other factors, such as trainers, riders, trips, pedigree, workouts, weight, bias, etc. I'm not opposed to using such factors, but I'm aware that they could cloud the picture and in the wrong hands cause more harm than good.

The bottom line is, if you bet on a horses that are overlays and fit these rules: they have the best speed figure or are strongly ranked contenders on speed figures, they fit on class, and they have enough early speed (pace) to stay close to the action, you are probably going to do a lot better than most bettors, including many handicappers who probably know a lot more about handicapping than you do but are over estimating the value of the other less-significant factors.
You might be correct with your assertion, but what is missing from your claim is a definition for "speed figure". This term is used prolifically in posts as though the term is scripture.

It is a no-brainer that speed is the common denominator in a horse's winning effort of a race, but without an understanding of the speed figure concept; it is just another ambiguous term.

[pandy]

My definition of a speed figure is a speed figure, like a Beyer Speed Figure that puts a number on a horse's final time. I don't see that as ambiguous.

[thaskalos]

However, as I pointed out in previous posts on this thread, speed figures can be used intelligently to show a profit. The assumption that speed figures are good for predicting winners but bad overall because they are over bet, is simplistic.


Pandy...with all due respect...comments like these cannot be believed unless they are backed up by proof. Just because you mentioned in a previous post that speed figures all by themselves can lead to profits does not make that comment of yours believable. Nor is it convincing when you tell us that you have "successful horseplayer friends", who tell you that they win at the track just by analyzing speed figures. MY horseplayer friends tell me many things too...but I'm not in the habit of believing them blindly.

The game has gotten super-competitive...and the speed figures by themselves do not tell us enough about the "true" quality of a horse's performance...so, they cannot be depended upon to lead us to profit all by themselves.

It isn't just the speed handicappers who claim to beat this game with only their myopic view of the game as a weapon; other types of horseplayers make the same unsubstantiated claim. Class handicappers, "Form" handicappers, pace handicappers, trip handicappers, trainer handicappers, tote-board watchers, angle players...they ALL claim that their "specialized" sort of handicapping is profitable all by itself. Do we blindly believe ALL of them?

[Cratos]

My definition of a speed figure is a speed figure, like a Beyer Speed Figure that puts a number on a horse's final time. I don't see that as ambiguous.
Thanks for the response .

[pandy]

Pandy...with all due respect...comments like these cannot be believed unless they are backed up by proof. Just because you mentioned in a previous post that speed figures all by themselves can lead to profits does not make that comment of yours believable. Nor is it convincing when you tell us that you have "successful horseplayer friends", who tell you that they win at the track just by analyzing speed figures. MY horseplayer friends tell me many things too...but I'm not in the habit of believing them blindly.

The game has gotten super-competitive...and the speed figures by themselves do not tell us enough about the "true" quality of a horse's performance...so, they cannot be depended upon to lead us to profit all by themselves.

It isn't just the speed handicappers who claim to beat this game with only their myopic view of the game as a weapon; other types of horseplayers make the same unsubstantiated claim. Class handicappers, "Form" handicappers, pace handicappers, trip handicappers, trainer handicappers, tote-board watchers, angle players...they ALL claim that their "specialized" sort of handicapping is profitable all by itself. Do we blindly believe ALL of them?



You left out this part of my post --

Now, if you combine other potent handicapping factors, such as class and pace, along with the speed figures, then I would agree that your chances improve.

In my earlier posts, I did say that there are players who rely mainly on speed figures and nothing else. I do think that combining pace and class with the figure is a better approach, but, I wouldn't necessarily think that someone who only uses speed figures and says they win is lying.

As I said in a recent post here, a lot of these other factors, pedigrees, trainer angles, jockeys, trips, etc., it's difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of all of these factors, and I doubt that they're necessary. Now, that doesn't mean that they aren't necessary for you, or others. I'm sure there are people who feel they can win with pedigree handicapping, etc.

But the primary handicapping factors are, which horses are the fastest in the race, which of those "fastest" horses have the type of tactical speed that wins most races, and which of those fastest horses are suited to the class of the race. After that analysis is done, it's just a matter of evaluating the prime contenders chances vs their odds.

[ReplayRandall]

But the primary handicapping factors are, which horses are the fastest in the race, which of those "fastest" horses have the type of tactical speed that wins most races, and which of those fastest horses are suited to the class of the race. After that analysis is done, it's just a matter of evaluating the prime contenders chances vs their odds.

Pandy, what you've said here is foundationally accurate, but it is too conventional, too accessible and too mainstream to be profitable in 2015......Fifteen years ago this may have been +ROI, but in today's game, IMO only the courageous unconventional player gets the money, using advanced data driven layering/filtering techniques, including replays....

[thaskalos]

You left out this part of my post --

Now, if you combine other potent handicapping factors, such as class and pace, along with the speed figures, then I would agree that your chances improve.

In my earlier posts, I did say that there are players who rely mainly on speed figures and nothing else. I do think that combining pace and class with the figure is a better approach, but, I wouldn't necessarily think that someone who only uses speed figures and says they win is lying.

As I said in a recent post here, a lot of these other factors, pedigrees, trainer angles, jockeys, trips, etc., it's difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of all of these factors, and I doubt that they're necessary. Now, that doesn't mean that they aren't necessary for you, or others. I'm sure there are people who feel they can win with pedigree handicapping, etc.

But the primary handicapping factors are, which horses are the fastest in the race, which of those "fastest" horses have the type of tactical speed that wins most races, and which of those fastest horses are suited to the class of the race. After that analysis is done, it's just a matter of evaluating the prime contenders chances vs their odds.
There is no denying that the "fastest" horse is the one who will most likely win the race...but it's HIGHLY debatable that a review of the speed figures alone will point us to enough of those "fastest horses" to secure us a profit.

You are not willing to say it...but I will. Those players who say that they can win simply by using speed figures...are LYING! Even the KING of speed figures himself, Andy Beyer, has said that the over-reliance on speed figures is a road to ruin.

[raybo]

I agree, in order to make profit, especially on win bets and keying a horse in the exotics, one needs to be able to gauge a horse's "performance" in races, not just his final time figure. One needs a "performance" figure, or performance method, in order to rank horses accurately enough to be significantly predictive. After predictive, price comes into play on the wagering side, in order to bet confidently, with the expectancy of positive ROI.

[pandy]

The pros who heavily lean on speed figures are very good at analyzing the figures. One professional harness bettor that I know does his own Ragozin style figures. But, he also watches a ton of replays, something that is common among successful bettors.

But the reason why he watches the replays is to analyze subpar figures. For instance, on his figures, the lower the better. Say a horse's best is a 7 and his last five figures look like this 10, 11, 8, 8, 7.

Now let's say that if he runs an 8 or better he has an excellence chance of winning today's race. My friend will look at the replays of the horse's last two races to see if there was a reason why he didn't run one of his better figures. Did he raced into a stiff wind? Was the horse on a dead rail, or did it get a wide trip from a tough post?

If it turns out that these two higher numbers were the result of bad trips, he could build the odds and this is the type of horse he is looking to bet.

Now, I know this goes beyond simple speed handicapping, but it is still speed handicapping. He's still heavily relying on the horse's speed figures. And he strongly believes that horse races are won by the fastest horses.

Now, this idea that everyone has speed figures so they aren't that good anymore has some truth to it but we have to remember that there are hundreds of races every day and there are still legitimate overlays that win. The beauty of simplifying the handicapping process, a player who handicaps this way can scan all of the races running that day and just look for these overlays wherever they may pop up.

[pandy]

Let me say that I use pace handicapping a lot but my comments on speed handicapping are responding to the subject of this thread.

The thing about pace handicapping, speed figures are not important in maiden races and even in some NW1 races. The reason for this is that horses that have only raced a few times have not matured so we have no idea what there top speed is. In these races, speed figures are overbet and pace figures are much more useful. That's one of the reasons why I love races with young, lightly raced horses. In these races a handicapper can find great bets on horses that are likely to make a forward move (improve) and their pace figures often tip that off.

But in races with older horses that have established their best speed, you need to rely heavily on the final time speed. If you bet on a horse that is not fast enough to reach the par of the field, you will lose. Some of these pace handicappers who claim that you don't need speed figures are being disingenuous because they are using so-called pace ratings that actually do more than just use the second call.

The Sartin/Brohamer "Average Pace" number, for instance, uses all three fractions, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, to rate a sprint. Some of these velocity ratings disciples insist that number is a pace figure, but it is essentially incorporating the final time into the rating.

With older, established horses, too heavily of a reliance on pure pace figures will have a bettor betting horses that run fast early and get tired and passed by faster horses in the stretch.

[GaryG]

Somebody (wish it was me) said: It is not how fast they run but how they run fast. That about sums it up.

[DJofSD]

Somebody (wish it was me) said: It is not how fast they run but how they run fast. That about sums it up.

Maybe.

The discussion about which figure is better assumes that speed, class and pace are all independent variables. I don't believe they are independent.

[pandy]

One of the biggest knocks that pure speed handicappers get is when a horse runs a huge speed figure against a weak field, such as a restricted claiming race or a maiden claiming race, then steps up into an allowance field where that figure is par or above. Yet you know that the horse is NOT going to repeat that number against the tougher horses.

But, the speed handicappers who really know how to use the numbers don't put too much weight on one number anyway. They'relooking for horses that have proven that they can repeat their best numbers.

[DJofSD]

They're looking for horses that have proven that they can repeat their best numbers.

Dare we call that class?

[pandy]

Dare we call that class?

Speed handicappers don't like that word. :)

[classhandicapper]

The biggest knock I have historically had on speed figures is accuracy. If you look at 5 sets of figures you'll often get 5 different answers. All else being equal, that makes it hard to know whether that fast horse you are betting is actually fast and a good value or the figure you are looking at is simply wrong. So I spent a lot of time trying to verify figures. That helped at times, but it's also confusing and paralyzing.

My knock now is coming from recent database study.

Every time I find an angle that outperforms the track take marginally, when I combine it with speed figures hoping to weed out the bad ones, the win% goes up and the ROI goes down.

[pandy]

The biggest knock I have historically had on speed figures is accuracy. If you look at 5 sets of figures you'll often get 5 different answers. All else being equal, that makes it hard to know whether that fast horse you are betting is actually fast and a good value or the figure you are looking at is simply wrong. So I spent a lot of time trying to verify figures. That helped at times, but it's also confusing and paralyzing.

My knock now is coming from recent database study.

Every time I find an angle that outperforms the track take marginally, when I combine it with speed figures hoping to weed out the bad ones, the win% goes up and the ROI goes down.


There's a classic example of this in the first race at Belmont today.

The number on the left is the Bris Speed Figures for each of these horse's last race, the number on the right is Timeform's last race figure. You can see that according to Bris, What's Up Big Guy has a decisive advantage if you believe his last race figure. The other four horses are all about the same. But on Timeform, Bert Stone and Four Directions appear to hold a decisive edge over the others and three horses have better figures than What's Up Big Guy. I loved What's Up Big Guy in his last race, when he broke his maiden easily at 5.80-1 and those of you who have my book Pace Handicapping Longshots know why if you look at his Bris pps. But today he is stepping up into a N2L $16,000 claiming race, going from a mile to 6 furlongs, and last start was over a sloppy track. The move up from a 20K maiden claimer to this level is not a massive move up but...

I picked What's Up Big Guy but after cashing on him at a good price last time I won't be betting this race today. I picked it 2-5-1.

1 Bert Stone 66/80
2 What's Up Big Guy 82/70
3 Sunrise Lover 66/72
5 Four Directions 70/78
7 Sounds Of Saratoga 69/65

If anyone has the Beyers for these horses I'd appreciate it if you post them here.

[raybo]

There's a classic example of this in the first race at Belmont today.

The number on the left is the Bris Speed Figures for each of these horse's last race, the number on the right is Timeform's last race figure. You can see that according to Bris, What's Up Big Guy has a decisive advantage if you believe his last race figure. The other four horses are all about the same. But on Timeform, Bert Stone and Four Directions appear to hold a decisive edge over the others and three horses have better figures than What's Up Big Guy. I loved What's Up Big Guy in his last race, when he broke his maiden easily at 5.80-1 and those of you who have my book Pace Handicapping Longshots know why if you look at his Bris pps. But today he is stepping up into a N2L $16,000 claiming race, going from a mile to 6 furlongs, and last start was over a sloppy track. The move up from a 20K maiden claimer to this level is not a massive move up but...

I picked What's Up Big Guy but after cashing on him at a good price last time I won't be betting this race today. I picked it 2-5-1.

1 Bert Stone 66/80
2 What's Up Big Guy 82/70
3 Sunrise Lover 66/72
5 Four Directions 70/78
7 Sounds Of Saratoga 69/65

If anyone has the Beyers for these horses I'd appreciate it if you post them here.

I don't have Beyer's but I have HDW's (last race for each):

# - Horse - Speed - (1st,2nd,late pace figs) - - days off, track, distance, condition, variant
1 Bert Stone ---------- 62 ---------- (132, 111, 10) --- 71 days, Bel, 6f, FT, 24 var
2 What's Up Big Guy - 83 ---------- (130, 110, 44) --- 19 days, Bel, 8f, SY, 31 var
3 Sunrise Lover ------ 53 ---------- (94, 92, 7) --------- 9 days, Bel, 7f, MY, 29 var
5 Four Directions ---- 70 ---------- (108, 82, 28) ------ 90 days, Aqu, 8f, FT, 22 var
7 Sounds Of Saratoga 67 ---------- (78, 88, 52) ----- 153 days, Aqu6f, FT, 10 var

Based on all that last race data I'd say the 2 looks better than these.

[DJofSD]

Old Happy Valley saying: man with one speed figure know how fast a horse is but man with more than one speed figure never has a winner -- or something like that. :)

[Show Me the Wire]

I don't have Beyer's but I have HDW's (last race for each):

# - Horse - Speed - (1st,2nd,late pace figs) - - days off, track, distance, condition, variant
1 Bert Stone ---------- 62 ---------- (132, 111, 10) --- 71 days, Bel, 6f, FT, 24 var
2 What's Up Big Guy - 83 ---------- (130, 110, 44) --- 19 days, Bel, 8f, SY, 31 var
3 Sunrise Lover ------ 53 ---------- (94, 92, 7) --------- 9 days, Bel, 7f, MY, 29 var
5 Four Directions ---- 70 ---------- (108, 82, 28) ------ 90 days, Aqu, 8f, FT, 22 var
7 Sounds Of Saratoga 67 ---------- (78, 88, 52) ----- 153 days, Aqu6f, FT, 10 var

Based on all that last race data I'd say the 2 looks better than these.

My take. If the 31 variant is correct, I would be very leery of the :2:'s last seed figure.

[Show Me the Wire]

My take. If the 31 variant is correct, I would be very leery of the :2:'s last seed figure.

:lol: :lol: :lol: I see I posted after the race was run. Had the T.V. on pause and forgot to go live. :eek:

[raybo]

My take. If the 31 variant is correct, I would be very leery of the :2:'s last seed figure.

Looked dull in the paddock, and in the warm-up he looked like he wanted no part of running today. I was a bit surprised he broke as well as he did, figured he would come out slow. 1 had good early numbers and came out of a 6f race in which he was up front the whole race. The 71 days off appears to have been what was needed and 2nd time over the track should have been better than his first. Not a surprise.

This race just displays why I don't use speed figures. Now if I had data files from TFUS that might change. :eek:

[thaskalos]

Let me say that I use pace handicapping a lot but my comments on speed handicapping are responding to the subject of this thread.

The thing about pace handicapping, speed figures are not important in maiden races and even in some NW1 races. The reason for this is that horses that have only raced a few times have not matured so we have no idea what there top speed is. In these races, speed figures are overbet and pace figures are much more useful. That's one of the reasons why I love races with young, lightly raced horses. In these races a handicapper can find great bets on horses that are likely to make a forward move (improve) and their pace figures often tip that off.

But in races with older horses that have established their best speed, you need to rely heavily on the final time speed. If you bet on a horse that is not fast enough to reach the par of the field, you will lose. Some of these pace handicappers who claim that you don't need speed figures are being disingenuous because they are using so-called pace ratings that actually do more than just use the second call.

The Sartin/Brohamer "Average Pace" number, for instance, uses all three fractions, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, to rate a sprint. Some of these velocity ratings disciples insist that number is a pace figure, but it is essentially incorporating the final time into the rating.

With older, established horses, too heavily of a reliance on pure pace figures will have a bettor betting horses that run fast early and get tired and passed by faster horses in the stretch.

I know that you write books about "pace handicapping"...but seeing you make comments like these makes me wonder if you know what REAL "pace handicapping" even is. Why do you consider the "pace handicapping" which involves more than the second call to be "disingenuous"? Is THAT what "pace handicapping" is to you" An obsession with the "second call"?

The REAL "pace handicapper" doesn't have to go to Beyer for a speed figure, Pandy...because he already has the adjusted velocity ratings of the individual fractions of the race. If he wants a "speed figure"...then all he has to do is add these separate fractions up. He has become a "pace handicapper"...because he has seen that the "speed figures", by themselves, are not good enough. The competent pace handicapper deals with the individual fractions of the ENTIRE race...so, there is no chance that he will end up on the "slow" horses that you mention in your above post.

I am far from the only "pace handicapper" who thinks that the speed figures are not good enough all by themselves; Tom Brohamer has said the same thing. Look it up if you don't believe me.

[pandy]

I don't have Beyer's but I have HDW's (last race for each):

# - Horse - Speed - (1st,2nd,late pace figs) - - days off, track, distance, condition, variant
1 Bert Stone ---------- 62 ---------- (132, 111, 10) --- 71 days, Bel, 6f, FT, 24 var
2 What's Up Big Guy - 83 ---------- (130, 110, 44) --- 19 days, Bel, 8f, SY, 31 var
3 Sunrise Lover ------ 53 ---------- (94, 92, 7) --------- 9 days, Bel, 7f, MY, 29 var
5 Four Directions ---- 70 ---------- (108, 82, 28) ------ 90 days, Aqu, 8f, FT, 22 var
7 Sounds Of Saratoga 67 ---------- (78, 88, 52) ----- 153 days, Aqu6f, FT, 10 var

Based on all that last race data I'd say the 2 looks better than these.



Thanks for posting. CJ's Timeform figures had this race better because not only did it have the winner with the top figure but it also had the 1 horse with the best early pace figure and there wasn't a lot of speed in the race in the first place. Good race by Cancel. I'd still like to see the Beyers.

[pandy]

I know that you write books about "pace handicapping"...but seeing you make comments like these makes me wonder if you know what REAL "pace handicapping" even is. Why do you consider the "pace handicapping" which involves more than the second call to be "disingenuous"? Is THAT what "pace handicapping" is to you" An obsession with the "second call"?

The REAL "pace handicapper" doesn't have to go to Beyer for a speed figure, Pandy...because he already has the adjusted velocity ratings of the individual fractions of the race. If he wants a "speed figure"...then all he has to do is add these separate fractions up. He has become a "pace handicapper"...because he has seen that the "speed figures", by themselves, are not good enough. The competent pace handicapper deals with the individual fractions of the ENTIRE race...so, there is no chance that he will end up on the "slow" horses that you mention in your above post.

I am far from the only "pace handicapper" who thinks that the speed figures are not good enough all by themselves; Tom Brohamer has said the same thing. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Isn't that what I just said?

I created my own velocity style ratings based in 1975 and I put them into a computer program in the late 90's, The Diamond System. The Diamond System creates several ratings including a pace balanced rating (which is much better than any of the Brohamer ratings, by the way, but similar in theory). I'm just saying exactly what you are, those velocity style ratings do take final time into consideration because they are using all of the fractions. Therefore if you use those ratings, you shouldn't be knocking final time speed figures, because you are actually using final time but in a different way.

I went beyond the second call a long time ago. In fact, I created an early speed rating that incorporates first and second call time and position. In sprints in particular, first call speed is just as important, or more important if you want a higher ROI, than second call speed.

And by the way, the fault in the various Brohamer style velocity ratings is that the final quarter (3rd fraction) is not factored into the ratings. You get a much better rating if you combine both early and late pace ratings.

Again, though, we go back to one of my original posts in this thread -- when you use fractions instead of final time to create a single number there is much more room for error. The horse's internal fractions are based on a guy who is wearing binoculars. The final time is electronically recorded. Beyer pointed this out in one of his books, but of course it's obvious. There is much less room for error in a simple final time based speed figure. The Sartinistas out there don't want to admit this, but it's true. We have to remember, ratings like Average Pace, Factor X, etc., are often quite misleading, especially when the fractions are fast.

[raybo]

I know that you write books about "pace handicapping"...but seeing you make comments like these makes me wonder if you know what REAL "pace handicapping" even is. Why do you consider the "pace handicapping" which involves more than the second call to be "disingenuous"? Is THAT what "pace handicapping" is to you" An obsession with the "second call"?

The REAL "pace handicapper" doesn't have to go to Beyer for a speed figure, Pandy...because he already has the adjusted velocity ratings of the individual fractions of the race. If he wants a "speed figure"...then all he has to do is add these separate fractions up. He has become a "pace handicapper"...because he has seen that the "speed figures", by themselves, are not good enough. The competent pace handicapper deals with the individual fractions of the ENTIRE race...so, there is no chance that he will end up on the "slow" horses that you mention in your above post.

I am far from the only "pace handicapper" who thinks that the speed figures are not good enough all by themselves; Tom Brohamer has said the same thing. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Exactly! :ThmbUp:

[raybo]

Isn't that what I just said?



Again, though, we go back to one of my original posts in this thread -- when you use fractions instead of final time to create a single number there is much more room for error. The horse's internal fractions are based on a guy who is wearing binoculars. The final time is electronically recorded. Beyer pointed this out in one of his books, but of course it's obvious. There is much less room for error in a simple final time based speed figure. The Sartinistas out there don't want to admit this, but it's true. We have to remember, ratings like Average Pace, Factor X, etc., are often quite misleading, especially when the fractions are fast.

The problem with speed ratings is that they only measure final time, not how it was earned. And, as we saw in this race, speed figures vary widely among the providers. So, who are you going to trust? Brisnet, Beyer, HDW? Are you kidding? Even as good as CJ's TFUS speed figures are, he will be the first one to tell you not to use them in isolation. Give me a good "performance" figure/rating anytime!

People who calculate segmental velocities will not come up with the same thing as a speed figure when they combine those velocities, because the final rating they create is developed from the segmental velocities, traditional speed figures don't include the pace numbers at all, they only measure final time.

And, anyone who is still using "Average Pace", Factor X", etc., needs to join the 21st century. Those ratings simply aren't good enough.

[Tom]

And, anyone who is still using "Average Pace", Factor X", etc., needs to join the 21st century. Those ratings simply aren't good enough.

Not according to my models in HTR - AP is a very potent factor in many situations. It outperforms SR in many situations. In a lot of turf races, AP in concert with other non-velocity factors is all I need.

[Tom]

Cold triple for CJ! :ThmbUp:

[pandy]

I used pretty both speed figures and complex pace figures, and both have weaknesses and strengths.

But if you have a handicapper who uses speed figures and then uses pace figures to see if his horse is going to be where most winners are (not that far from the lead), that and some simple class measuring may be all that a person who understands how to use speed figures needs.

I know that you guys who use these compounded ratings want to believe that you have found the holy grail and everyone else is in the dark ages, but I don't think so. If that works for you, great. My Diamond System can help me spot live longshots and that's why I use it. But for win predictability, hard to beat a speed figure, which is what this thread was about.

[Tom]

An obsession with the "second call"?

If you are going to have an obsession, that is the one to have. Most winners are there or pretty danged close to there.

And what is a real pace handicapper?

[pandy]

If you are going to have an obsession, that is the one to have. Most winners are there or pretty danged close to there.

And what is a real pace handicapper?

Tom, I've heard this stuff before from a couple of the guys in the RDSS group. They insist that if you use pace figures that is not pace handicapping. They're wrong, of course, there are different ways of analyzing pace but certainly using simple pace figures is pace handicapping.

[Tom]

I use the full velocity stuff in HTR, but sometimes I only use pace figs.
I use your ideas on the pace play for a spot play all the time - it hits nice prices and is damn easy to look for. Lots of ways to skin that cat.

[pandy]

I use the full velocity stuff in HTR, but sometimes I only use pace figs.
I use your ideas on the pace play for a spot play all the time - it hits nice prices and is damn easy to look for. Lots of ways to skin that cat.


Absolutely. One thing about my work, I don't tell people that it's my way or the highway. I offer methods that I've developed from research and study that I use myself, but I've never said, this is the only way to handicap. And I'm open to other opinions and ideas, which is why I like this forum.

[classhandicapper]

IMO the trick to all this stuff is to find something that is measuring real ability in a different way than other people.

I'm working on a new "late" rating for turf. It has elements of what other people commonly do to produce late ratings, but the rankings it produces will be different because the method is different.

I have no idea how well it will work. I'm still accumulating the data I need to test it. It could turn out to be a dead end, but this is what you want to do. You want to have something that's theoretically sound but different.

[thaskalos]

Tom, I've heard this stuff before from a couple of the guys in the RDSS group. They insist that if you use pace figures that is not pace handicapping. They're wrong, of course, there are different ways of analyzing pace but certainly using simple pace figures is pace handicapping.

ANYTHING could be called "pace handicapping"...but, when we are called upon to compare speed horses, pressers, and closers, all in the same race...then a certain pace ANALYSIS has to take place...and we need more than the "pace figure" at the second call, and the "late pace" figure, in order to get the job done, in my opinion. Horses sometimes make moves during the MIDDLE part of the race...and neither the "second-call" ratings, NOR the "late ratings", pick those middle-moves up. When you are obsessed with the second call, as Tom suggests...then you won't end up betting on any horses who like to come from a few lengths off the pace, because their "pace ratings" will be inferior to the speedsters in the race.

I don't know about YOU guys...but I don't see only front-running winners out there.

[Tom]

Remember the Met Mile?
Too many horse needing to be in front there is part of looking at that call.

[thaskalos]

IMO the trick to all this stuff is to find something that is measuring real ability in a different way than other people.

I'm working on a new "late" rating for turf. It has elements of what other people commonly do to produce late ratings, but the rankings it produces will be different because the method is different.

I have no idea how well it will work. I'm still accumulating the data I need to test it. It could turn out to be a dead end, but this is what you want to do. You want to have something that's theoretically sound but different.
Here is MY approach:

I try to grade the quality of the horses' past performances...just as a teacher grades the homework assignments of his students. Speed figure analysis alone won't get the job done...nor will pace analysis alone...or class analysis alone...or replay analysis alone. I want to understand as much as I can about the current condition of these horses...and I am convinced that the only way I can accomplish this is by using every tool that I have at my disposal. The task is complicated, because, the horse who was "fastest" three weeks ago may not be fastest given the conditions present in today's race.

One particular handicapping factor may be considered of higher importance in a particular race because of that race's particular characteristics...but no significant handicapping factor can be ignored in ANY race...IMO. The handicapper who relies on isolated handicapping factors in his work is -- for lack of a better word -- HANDICAPPED.

[LottaKash]

ANYTHING could be called "pace handicapping"...but, when we are called upon to compare speed horses, pressers, and closers, all in the same race...then a certain pace ANALYSIS has to take place...and we need more than the "pace figure" at the second call, and the "late pace" figure, in order to get the job done, in my opinion. Horses sometimes make moves during the MIDDLE part of the race...and neither the "second-call" ratings, NOR the "late ratings", pick those middle-moves up.

I agree about rating the Pace of the Full-Race, and not just a portion of it...I think if one is good at recoginizing the true pace of a race, generally it might also the speediest one as well...But not always, unless you find another way, as I have..

I use all the calls of any given race, and then convert the fractions to whole numbers, and then measure the horses's running line and his reaction or the lack of it, to each of those individual pace numbers...All the while adjusting the work/non work to the whole numbers...Adding or subtracting to the original whole numbers based on lengths gain or lost or wide or trapped..

By doing Speed/Pace this way, I get a better picture of how a horse "really" performed vs. his rivals in his past races....

After awhile, by using these "whole numbers", one will begin to see "patterns of pace" begin to emerge, and then after a time, once becoming more familiar or acquainted with those patterns, it then becomes much easier to see, based on horse's previous form-lines, of how he may stack up pace-wise to today's rivals, and where he may be in his particular "form cycle"...

It takes awhile to be able to see a potentially "winning pace pattern", but when you get good with recognizing them, then you gain the confidence needed to put up or shut up...

I believe that my way is the best way to interpret the speed and/or pace of any race...The pace patterns reveal the sleepers and the possible overlay horse (the ones that have a right to beat the fave)...I will never change it...

Regardless, I believe that if one wants to win in the long run, be it via Speed or Pace, or as in my case a hybrid, he has to study it and view if from all angles in order to be good at winning something...

[Capper Al]

The pros who heavily lean on speed figures are very good at analyzing the figures. One professional harness bettor that I know does his own Ragozin style figures. But, he also watches a ton of replays, something that is common among successful bettors.

But the reason why he watches the replays is to analyze subpar figures. For instance, on his figures, the lower the better. Say a horse's best is a 7 and his last five figures look like this 10, 11, 8, 8, 7.

Now let's say that if he runs an 8 or better he has an excellence chance of winning today's race. My friend will look at the replays of the horse's last two races to see if there was a reason why he didn't run one of his better figures. Did he raced into a stiff wind? Was the horse on a dead rail, or did it get a wide trip from a tough post?

If it turns out that these two higher numbers were the result of bad trips, he could build the odds and this is the type of horse he is looking to bet.

Now, I know this goes beyond simple speed handicapping, but it is still speed handicapping. He's still heavily relying on the horse's speed figures. And he strongly believes that horse races are won by the fastest horses.

Now, this idea that everyone has speed figures so they aren't that good anymore has some truth to it but we have to remember that there are hundreds of races every day and there are still legitimate overlays that win. The beauty of simplifying the handicapping process, a player who handicaps this way can scan all of the races running that day and just look for these overlays wherever they may pop up.

That's the longest pole in the tent concept exactly.

[Capper Al]

Let me say that I use pace handicapping a lot but my comments on speed handicapping are responding to the subject of this thread.

The thing about pace handicapping, speed figures are not important in maiden races and even in some NW1 races. The reason for this is that horses that have only raced a few times have not matured so we have no idea what there top speed is. In these races, speed figures are overbet and pace figures are much more useful. That's one of the reasons why I love races with young, lightly raced horses. In these races a handicapper can find great bets on horses that are likely to make a forward move (improve) and their pace figures often tip that off.

But in races with older horses that have established their best speed, you need to rely heavily on the final time speed. If you bet on a horse that is not fast enough to reach the par of the field, you will lose. Some of these pace handicappers who claim that you don't need speed figures are being disingenuous because they are using so-called pace ratings that actually do more than just use the second call.

The Sartin/Brohamer "Average Pace" number, for instance, uses all three fractions, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, to rate a sprint. Some of these velocity ratings disciples insist that number is a pace figure, but it is essentially incorporating the final time into the rating.

With older, established horses, too heavily of a reliance on pure pace figures will have a bettor betting horses that run fast early and get tired and passed by faster horses in the stretch.

Getting close to speed here.

[classhandicapper]

Here is MY approach:

I try to grade the quality of the horses' past performances...just as a teacher grades the homework assignments of his students. Speed figure analysis alone won't get the job done...nor will pace analysis alone...or class analysis alone...or replay analysis alone. I want to understand as much as I can about the current condition of these horses...and I am convinced that the only way I can accomplish this is by using every tool that I have at my disposal. The task is complicated, because, the horse who was "fastest" three weeks ago may not be fastest given the conditions present in today's race.

One particular handicapping factor may be considered of higher importance in a particular race because of that race's particular characteristics...but no significant handicapping factor can be ignored in ANY race...IMO. The handicapper who relies on isolated handicapping factors in his work is -- for lack of a better word -- HANDICAPPED.

That's my approach also. The downside of it is that it's very time consuming.

[traynor]

Here is MY approach:

I try to grade the quality of the horses' past performances...just as a teacher grades the homework assignments of his students. Speed figure analysis alone won't get the job done...nor will pace analysis alone...or class analysis alone...or replay analysis alone. I want to understand as much as I can about the current condition of these horses...and I am convinced that the only way I can accomplish this is by using every tool that I have at my disposal. The task is complicated, because, the horse who was "fastest" three weeks ago may not be fastest given the conditions present in today's race.

One particular handicapping factor may be considered of higher importance in a particular race because of that race's particular characteristics...but no significant handicapping factor can be ignored in ANY race...IMO. The handicapper who relies on isolated handicapping factors in his work is -- for lack of a better word -- HANDICAPPED.

Relying on simplistic, one-dimensional approaches--regardless of how "complex" those approaches may seem to the user (most notably "speed," "pace," and "class") is not useful. The emphasis on one approach necessarily excludes (and encourages one to ignore or dismiss) relevant information contained in other approaches.

The difficulty is that few can actually pull off a "full analysis" (or anything even close to it)--especially novices, part-timers, or recreational bettors. For that group, attempts to do such invoke the "principle of maximum confusion" in which cognitive functions shut down from information overload.

The short form is, "Yeah, it works, but few can make it work for them."

[raybo]

Relying on simplistic, one-dimensional approaches--regardless of how "complex" those approaches may seem to the user (most notably "speed," "pace," and "class") is not useful. The emphasis on one approach necessarily excludes (and encourages one to ignore or dismiss) relevant information contained in other approaches.

The difficulty is that few can actually pull off a "full analysis" (or anything even close to it)--especially novices, part-timers, or recreational bettors. For that group, attempts to do such invoke the "principle of maximum confusion" in which cognitive functions shut down from information overload.

The short form is, "Yeah, it works, but few can make it work for them."

I agree, doing a good job of "total analysis" is of course the best way to make informed decisions, but few have the needed continual focus required, if doing this "old school", which leads to occasional loss, or lack, of focus and produces poor performances often enough to ruin any chance of being successful long term. Automation helps!!

[Tom]

Sheet players might disagree.

[raybo]

Sheet players might disagree.

Are you a sheet player?

[traynor]

Sheet players might disagree.
Disagreement is good. It fattens the mutuel pools.

[Cratos]

Relying on simplistic, one-dimensional approaches--regardless of how "complex" those approaches may seem to the user (most notably "speed," "pace," and "class") is not useful. The emphasis on one approach necessarily excludes (and encourages one to ignore or dismiss) relevant information contained in other approaches.

The difficulty is that few can actually pull off a "full analysis" (or anything even close to it)--especially novices, part-timers, or recreational bettors. For that group, attempts to do such invoke the "principle of maximum confusion" in which cognitive functions shut down from information overload.

The short form is, "Yeah, it works, but few can make it work for them."
I agree with you and I would suggest that statistical modeling is one way to go, but the assumptions have to be correct and the data inputs should be realistic.

[Tom]

Are you a sheet player?

No, but I use a lot of the ideas from them with other services.
My point being that there is no one way to win, regardless of what some poster here seem to think.

They seem to know it all but never post a pick before post time.

[raybo]

No, but I use a lot of the ideas from them with other services.
My point being that there is no one way to win, regardless of what some poster here seem to think.

They seem to know it all but never post a pick before post time.

Who said there was?

[Cratos]

Who said there was?
Herein lies the problem on this forum and in many other online horseracing forums and it is out of context responses.

However I want to be clear with my response by saying that I am in full support of the freedom of speech unless it is derogatory or offensive to anyone or the forum as a whole.

Moving on, the horseplayer of the future will come the millennias if this sport is to thrive and grow; and they will be better educated with tools from the digital technology world that is a pipedream for many of today's players.

[thaskalos]

Playing this game is both an art AND a science, so, it's only natural that both 'artists" AND "scientists" would be attracted to this endeavor. And, as the game gets more and more competitive...the scientists will have to become more artistic...while the artists will have to become more scientific.

It's called "survival".

[Capper Al]

Speed was suggested as a starting point because it is the most predictable factor. The end game end is not handicapping the horse, but handicapping the game the horse is in. In this, other factors play.

[thaskalos]

Speed was suggested as a starting point because it is the most predictable factor. The end game end is not handicapping the horse, but handicapping the game the horse is in. In this, other factors play.
Your original suggestion was to start the handicapping process by eliminating the horse with the fastest speed figures in the race. Is that how we should deal with the game's "most predictive factor"?

[Dave Schwartz]

This thread has gone on for a while now. I am not even sure if I said this but perhaps a better topic would be "How to Handicap Without Your Pole."

No, wait. I mean, "How to Leave Your Long Pole..."

No, wait. Uh...

Okay, seriously... The question would be "How to Handicap Without Speed?"


Dave

PS: LOL - This reminds me Benny Hill's "What is this thing called, Love?"

[Cratos]

Speed was suggested as a starting point because it is the most predictable factor. The end game end is not handicapping the horse, but handicapping the game the horse is in. In this, other factors play.
Al,
I don't want to distract from the thesis of the thread you started, but speed is not the most predictable factor in the handicapping of horseracing.

Speed is a resultant which is dependent on PACE (the rate of motion) which is dependent on "work" which is the real predictable factor.

I realize that some on this forum will say that this is an abstraction and to that I say
"abstractions" typically occur through lack of understanding.

[Tom]

Herein lies the problem on this forum and in many other online horseracing forums and it is out of context responses.

Post 187 seems to be the only one out of context in this thread so far.

[Cratos]

The poster whom I believe can't understand "out of context" is the one who is in dire need of remedial reading comprehension.

Additionally, it interesting that a poster who has written over 60k of posts with content equivalent to one over a nanonumber have the audacity to be critical of any post.

However it would be hypercritical of me to not want this poster to not keep posting because I believe in freedom of speech and I truly hope I am here to see this poster reach his one-hundred thousandth innocuous post.

[raybo]

The poster whom I believe can't understand "out of context" is the one who is in dire need of remedial reading comprehension.

Additionally, it interesting that a poster who has written over 60k of posts with content equivalent to one over a nanonumber have the audacity to be critical of any post.

However it would be hypercritical of me to not want this poster to not keep posting because I believe in freedom of speech and I truly hope I am here to see this poster reach his one-hundred thousandth innocuous post.

Whew - can't wait to see the response(s) to this one!! :lol:

[pandy]

Al,
I don't want to distract from the thesis of the thread you started, but speed is not the most predictable factor in the handicapping of horseracing.

Speed is a resultant which is dependent on PACE (the rate of motion) which is dependent on "work" which is the real predictable factor.

I realize that some on this forum will say that this is an abstraction and to that I say
"abstractions" typically occur through lack of understanding.


Hey smartypants, Al is using speed figures as the basis of this thread, how to take a speed figure, which is the most predictive single handicapping factor, and improve on it. This, of course, is a smart objective because knowing how to interpret speed figures is just as important as the speed figure.

As for your statement that speed is not the most predictable factor, I believe that your wrong. I've known some of the best handicappers in the business including professional bettors. The best handicapper I ever met for picking winners used to own a tout sheet that was sold at the track in NY and on newsstands. He did his own sheet-style speed figures. He picked more winners than any person or computer I've ever seen. And he made a ton of money selling and betting his picks.

When you can handicap the NYRA races and pick 7 and 8 winners on top in 9 races as often as he did then I'll believe that you know what you're talking about. Feel free to post those picks on this forum so we can see how brilliant your really are.

And, remember, this thread was not about ROI. It was about the most predictive single factor, which is final time speed.

[Cratos]

Whew - can't wait to see the response(s) to this one!! :lol:
Ray,
I cannot either because the reason that I responded the way that I did stems from the historical invariable personal affronts to my posts by this poster with the same rhetoric.

Personally, I do not care when a poster(s) disagrees with me because valid arguments typically produces substantive and constructive value to legitimate forum topics of concern; innocuous responses do not.

[Cratos]

Hey smartypants, Al is using speed figures as the basis of this thread, how to take a speed figure, which is the most predictive single handicapping factor, and improve on it. This, of course, is a smart objective because knowing how to interpret speed figures is just as important as the speed figure.

As for your statement that speed is not the most predictable factor, I believe that your wrong. I've known some of the best handicappers in the business including professional bettors. The best handicapper I ever met for picking winners used to own a tout sheet that was sold at the track in NY and on newsstands. He did his own sheet-style speed figures. He picked more winners than any person or computer I've ever seen. And he made a ton of money selling and betting his picks.

When you can handicap the NYRA races and pick 7 and 8 winners on top in 9 races as often as he did then I'll believe that you know what you're talking about. Feel free to post those picks on this forum so we can see how brilliant your really are.

And, remember, this thread was not about ROI. It was about the most predictive single factor, which is final time speed.

"Smartypants" please re-read my post. I never said nor did I imply that you couldn't win at horseracing by using speed speedfigures.

What I stated and still stand by is that pace is more predictable and work is even more predictable than speed because speed is a resultant. This is not even arguable because there are volumes of science to substantiate that proof in horseracing.

However I am open-minded and will welcome your proof otherwise.

For as posting winners to validate my contention; that will never happen because that was and is not the essence of my contention.

[pandy]

"Smartypants" please re-read my post. I never said nor did I imply that you couldn't win at horseracing by using speed speedfigures.

What I stated and still stand by is that pace is more predictable and work is even more predictable than speed because speed is a resultant. This is not even arguable because there are volumes of science to substantiate that proof in horseracing.

However I am open-minded and will welcome your proof otherwise.

For as posting winners to validate my contention; that will never happen because that was and is not the essence of my contention.


Where are these "volumes" of science? Why do I have to show proof, but you don't?

Hey, I had a mentor who picked more winners than any handicapper or computer handicapping system I've ever seen. He said that "the number," as he called it (speed figure) was the single most important factor. I haven't seen anyone who can pick winners like him so I have no reason to believe otherwise.

[Tom]

Whew - can't wait to see the response(s) to this one!! :lol:

Cratos is not worth responding to.
I wouldn't want to make him late to check wind speeds that affect races 20 mile away.

I wasn't even referring to him originally, but he thinks my pointing out his post was out of context was an attack, I guess maybe he is a tad paranoid.

Where are these "volumes" of science? Why do I have to show proof, but you don't? Me, and many others would say have proved yourself over the years with substance, not theory. :ThmbUp:

[Flysofree]

"I drove a Lincoln, long before anybody paid me to. I didn't do it to be cool..I didn't do it to make a statement. I just liked it" :)

[Capper Al]

Your original suggestion was to start the handicapping process by eliminating the horse with the fastest speed figures in the race. Is that how we should deal with the game's "most predictive factor"?


NO It was just the opposite to start with the horses with the best speed figures.

[pandy]

NO It was just the opposite to start with the horses with the best speed figures.


I mentioned the best handicapper I've ever seen for picking winners, a guy who was a mentor of mine many years ago, he had a tip sheet in NY and between his betting and that sheet he made a very good living...although he used trips and looked at class drops, he did his own sheet style speed figures and he always said that "the number," as he called it, is the most important single factor in picking winners. And no computer system and no handicapper I've ever seen could pick winners the way he could. At the NYRA tracks he would often have 6 to or 7 winners on top and he picked 8 winners on top quite a few times, and that's unheard of.

Of course, he knew how to interpret the numbers.

[Capper Al]

Speed was suggested as a starting point because it is the most predictable factor. The end game end is not handicapping the horse, but handicapping the game the horse is in. In this, other factors play.

This is what newbies should make their goal to figure out. How to figure from start to finish. --- Would a racing secretary put a horse a second faster than the field in today's race if he wants to make competitive fields? Or why would this top trainer put this slow horse in this race? Why did this top jockey move off the top speed horse to another? Here the other factors play. This is the game the horse is in.

[Capper Al]

I mentioned the best handicapper I've ever seen for picking winners, a guy who was a mentor of mine many years ago, he had a tip sheet in NY and between his betting and that sheet he made a very good living...although he used trips and looked at class drops, he did his own sheet style speed figures and he always said that "the number," as he called it, is the most important single factor in picking winners. And no computer system and no handicapper I've ever seen could pick winners the way he could. At the NYRA tracks he would often have 6 to or 7 winners on top and he picked 8 winners on top quite a few times, and that's unheard of.

I believe it. While doing my system rewrite, what I'm finding out is that I lost sight on how to put these other factors together and wager accordingly. It's not a simple game that adds up in a linear way.

[pandy]

This is what newbies should make their goal to figure out. How to figure from start to finish. --- Would a racing secretary put a horse a second faster than the field in today's race if he wants to make competitive fields? Or why would this top trainer put this slow horse in this race? Why did this top jockey move off the top speed horse to another? Here the other factors play. This is the game the horse is in.


Regarding class, you mention the top trainers, I often take that view, especially regarding claiming races. If all of the trainers in the race are good at training claimers, I assume that the horses in the race all have the class to win at that level. I believe this is the case in most claiming races for multiple winners. Trying to figure out which horse has a class edge is a waste of time. The goal here is to find the horse or horses that are ready to run one of their best races and have the winning style for that distance at that track (for instance a stalker or a horse that has tactical speed in Santa Anita sprints).

[pandy]

I believe it. While doing my system rewrite, what I'm finding out is that I lost sight on how to put these other factors together and wager accordingly. It's not a simple game that adds up in a linear way.


Another professional handicapper who picked a lot of winners was Russ Harris, who handicapped the NY tracks for the NY Daily News. Harris retired in 2009. Bill Finley, John Pricci, and others have articles about Harris that are still on the internet. Pricci mentioned that he turned from a "trip" handicapper to more of a "speed figure and trends analysis" handicapper due to his association with Harris.

Harris believed in speed figures and he was very difficult to beat if you were trying to pick more winners than him. The guy I wrote about, who had the Only Turfs Best tip sheet in NY, would get furious if he picked 6 winners on top at Aqueduct on a day when Harris picked 7. He had a lot of respect for Harris.

On May 8, 1981, Russ Harris picked all 9 winners on top in 9 races at Belmont, the only public handicapper I've ever known that swept the card.

So, you see, there are legitimate reasons why I believe that speed figures are the single most predictive handicapper factor, if picking winners is the goal.

[traynor]

Another professional handicapper who picked a lot of winners was Russ Harris, who handicapped the NY tracks for the NY Daily News. Harris retired in 2009. Bill Finley, John Pricci, and others have articles about Harris that are still on the internet. Pricci mentioned that he turned from a "trip" handicapper to more of a "speed figure and trends analysis" handicapper due to his association with Harris.

Harris believed in speed figures and he was very difficult to beat if you were trying to pick more winners than him. The guy I wrote about, who had the Only Turfs Best tip sheet in NY, would get furious if he picked 6 winners on top at Aqueduct on a day when Harris picked 7. He had a lot of respect for Harris.

On May 8, 1981, Russ Harris picked all 9 winners on top in 9 races at Belmont, the only public handicapper I've ever known that swept the card.

So, you see, there are legitimate reasons why I believe that speed figures are the single most predictive handicapper factor, if picking winners is the goal.


It is a curious way to argue a point. I think more than a few readers have had good days, occasionally very good days, and yet it is the overall record that is significant--not the results of occasional days. Similarly, "public handicappers"--especially those who sell tout sheets--always raise the question of, "If he (or she) is so good, why do they have to write/sell tout sheets to make a living?"

Benevolence, or a desire to help those less fortunate at picking winners than they are, has a bit of the hollow ring to it. I have yet to encounter a "professional-level bettor" (and I know more than a few) who would consider writing about/publishing/selling their strategies to others.

[pandy]

It is a curious way to argue a point. I think more than a few readers have had good days, occasionally very good days, and yet it is the overall record that is significant--not the results of occasional days. Similarly, "public handicappers"--especially those who sell tout sheets--always raise the question of, "If he (or she) is so good, why do they have to write/sell tout sheets to make a living?"

Benevolence, or a desire to help those less fortunate at picking winners than they are, has a bit of the hollow ring to it. I have yet to encounter a "professional-level bettor" (and I know more than a few) who would consider writing about/publishing/selling their strategies to others.

That's not the point of this thread. Remember, the thread is about taking the most predictive handicapping factor (for picking winners) and improving on it. The reason why I brought up these public handicappers is because some people said that speed is not the most predictive factor. As I've said, and I've studied handicapping for over 40 years, the handicappers I've known who picked the most winners said that speed figures were the most predictive single handicapper factor. Now, they knew how to interpret those numbers, but they did rely heavily on speed figures.

And believe me, these guys didn't have an occasional good day of picking winners. They had more good days than anyone, that's why, when it came to picking winners, they were the best. Now, whether or not that makes any difference, some would say that picking a higher percentage of winners than everyone else is meaningless, that's a moot point. If the guy who picks the most winners relies heavily on speed figures, then speed figures are the most predictive single handicapping factor for picking the highest percentage of winners. And someone is going to have to show me some pretty powerful evidence to convince me otherwise.

[cj]

Interesting note, we are doing some studying of pace/final time combination figures that we use at TimeformUS as our speed figures. We are specifically testing how horses perform as the overall combo figure varies from the final time figure.

What we have found on the first pass (no surface or distance groupings) is that the win percentage remains steady for horses with the best last out speed figure (the pace/final time combo), but the ROI increases as the amount of pace influence increases. It would indicate initially that there is more value in pace than in speed.

I still believe final time figures will point to the most winners. Much more to come on this I'm sure, probably opening my mouth too soon!

[pandy]

I've always felt that pace points to more value than speed, and based on many of the comments on this board, many here agree. Of course, analyzing pace is more complex than simply looking at a speed figure. And although there are a lot of pretty good handicappers out there, there are also a lot of people who put too much emphasis on the last race speed figure.

[Show Me the Wire]

cj;

I am assuming you are alluding to instances where the pace influence has a negative impact on final time. I am correct in this assumption?

[raybo]

I understand the OP's topic for this thread, the most predictable single factor, without regard to price/value. But, speed figures are not a single factor. They include raw final time, beaten lengths and some sort of distance to time conversion, and the daily variant which is a whole other set of problems and not just some number that is published in the commercial data. So, he's not talking about a single factor at all, he's talking about a composite factor.

As such, I believe that most would agree that the most predictive commercially available composite factor, is, and has been for quite a while, the Brisnet Prime Power figure (with a close second being the HDW PSR figure) not a traditional speed figure, especially the best last figure, or even the best of last 2,3, or best 2 of last 3,4. There is no "guessing" with the BPP, no pacelines to guess about. Pandy mentioned the guy who "interprets" his speed figures and hits almost every race on the card occasionally. If he's so good at "interpreting" speed figures, then he would probably hit more winners by "interpreting" the BPP.

"Interpreting", if you are a good interpreter (although it is not commercially available), is the single most predictive factor, not the numbers in the PPs. I don't care how "predictive" the number is, it is worth nothing if you can't interpret it. And, isn't that what the OP's next step is all about, using that figure and trying to improve on it? Otherwise, what is the purpose of the discussion? We can use the last speed figure, or the the best of last 3 figures, or the pace call figure, or the BPP, or best class, or any number of such factors, but we will always lose long term regardless of the figure or factor we use.

So, wouldn't we be much better off determining how to interpret, whatever, or are we only concerned about cashing tickets? Or, shouldn't we be working on composite factors that better measure actual performances rather than just who had the best final time figure? Personally, I think this thread is going nowhere, regarding making us a better player. It's just a pissing match between players' favorite factors. Who cares?

[pandy]

I thought it was a good thread. Things that you can do to improve your interpretation of speed figures were discussed.

[cj]

cj;

I am assuming you are alluding to instances where the pace influence has a negative impact on final time. I am correct in this assumption?

Yes, though it can be in both directions. There are penalties on dirt when the pace is slow, particularly for the horses in front in those races.

[Capper Al]

Regarding class, you mention the top trainers, I often take that view, especially regarding claiming races. If all of the trainers in the race are good at training claimers, I assume that the horses in the race all have the class to win at that level. I believe this is the case in most claiming races for multiple winners. Trying to figure out which horse has a class edge is a waste of time. The goal here is to find the horse or horses that are ready to run one of their best races and have the winning style for that distance at that track (for instance a stalker or a horse that has tactical speed in Santa Anita sprints).

Agree. Once starting with speed-- race categories by classification, surface, distance etc. changes what other factors are used and how these other factors are used. A grade turf route will be handicapped different than a claiming sprint, but should start with speed.

[Capper Al]

It is a curious way to argue a point. I think more than a few readers have had good days, occasionally very good days, and yet it is the overall record that is significant--not the results of occasional days. Similarly, "public handicappers"--especially those who sell tout sheets--always raise the question of, "If he (or she) is so good, why do they have to write/sell tout sheets to make a living?"

Benevolence, or a desire to help those less fortunate at picking winners than they are, has a bit of the hollow ring to it. I have yet to encounter a "professional-level bettor" (and I know more than a few) who would consider writing about/publishing/selling their strategies to others.

If it has a hollow ring to it then why do you even post at all? There's a joy in handicapping that we can all share in. We don't have to give away the farm to do so.

[Capper Al]

That's not the point of this thread. Remember, the thread is about taking the most predictive handicapping factor (for picking winners) and improving on it. The reason why I brought up these public handicappers is because some people said that speed is not the most predictive factor. As I've said, and I've studied handicapping for over 40 years, the handicappers I've known who picked the most winners said that speed figures were the most predictive single handicapper factor. Now, they knew how to interpret those numbers, but they did rely heavily on speed figures.

And believe me, these guys didn't have an occasional good day of picking winners. They had more good days than anyone, that's why, when it came to picking winners, they were the best. Now, whether or not that makes any difference, some would say that picking a higher percentage of winners than everyone else is meaningless, that's a moot point. If the guy who picks the most winners relies heavily on speed figures, then speed figures are the most predictive single handicapping factor for picking the highest percentage of winners. And someone is going to have to show me some pretty powerful evidence to convince me otherwise.

Any argument made not to use speed will have to justify using a less predictable factor. Would that make sense? And by factor, I don't mean comprehensive picks like BRIS PRIME. This is not a factor.

[Capper Al]

Interesting note, we are doing some studying of pace/final time combination figures that we use at TimeformUS as our speed figures. We are specifically testing how horses perform as the overall combo figure varies from the final time figure.

What we have found on the first pass (no surface or distance groupings) is that the win percentage remains steady for horses with the best last out speed figure (the pace/final time combo), but the ROI increases as the amount of pace influence increases. It would indicate initially that there is more value in pace than in speed.

I still believe final time figures will point to the most winners. Much more to come on this I'm sure, probably opening my mouth too soon!

No one is arguing that pace holds more value, but I'm guessing that you might not mean it that way. Are you saying that speed figures effectiveness is better with looking at pace figures together? I would agree. Good study. Please keep us informed. My studies have always point to speed as the most predictive factor.

[classhandicapper]

Any argument made not to use speed will have to justify using a less predictable factor. Would that make sense? And by factor, I don't mean comprehensive picks like BRIS PRIME. This is not a factor.

People keep saying that but it's not necessarily true.

Just because the best publicly available alternatives can't outperform the predictiveness of speed figures does not mean the best privately held figures can't outperform the predictiveness of speed figures.

[Capper Al]

I understand the OP's topic for this thread, the most predictable single factor, without regard to price/value. But, speed figures are not a single factor. They include raw final time, beaten lengths and some sort of distance to time conversion, and the daily variant which is a whole other set of problems and not just some number that is published in the commercial data. So, he's not talking about a single factor at all, he's talking about a composite factor.

As such, I believe that most would agree that the most predictive commercially available composite factor, is, and has been for quite a while, the Brisnet Prime Power figure (with a close second being the HDW PSR figure) not a traditional speed figure, especially the best last figure, or even the best of last 2,3, or best 2 of last 3,4. There is no "guessing" with the BPP, no pacelines to guess about. Pandy mentioned the guy who "interprets" his speed figures and hits almost every race on the card occasionally. If he's so good at "interpreting" speed figures, then he would probably hit more winners by "interpreting" the BPP.

"Interpreting", if you are a good interpreter (although it is not commercially available), is the single most predictive factor, not the numbers in the PPs. I don't care how "predictive" the number is, it is worth nothing if you can't interpret it. And, isn't that what the OP's next step is all about, using that figure and trying to improve on it? Otherwise, what is the purpose of the discussion? We can use the last speed figure, or the the best of last 3 figures, or the pace call figure, or the BPP, or best class, or any number of such factors, but we will always lose long term regardless of the figure or factor we use.

So, wouldn't we be much better off determining how to interpret, whatever, or are we only concerned about cashing tickets? Or, shouldn't we be working on composite factors that better measure actual performances rather than just who had the best final time figure? Personally, I think this thread is going nowhere, regarding making us a better player. It's just a pissing match between players' favorite factors. Who cares?

No, BPP or any other selection factor does not apply to this thread. And yes, speed is a composite figure. Big deal. As if pace or class or anything else in this business isn't. The diff between BPP or a class fig, for example, is that BPP is a composite of a horse's attributes with some sort of weighted average pointing to a potential winner. Where as something like class is determine to be an attribute of the horse.

[Capper Al]

People keep saying that but it's not necessarily true.

Just because the best publicly available alternatives can't outperform the predictiveness of speed figures does not mean the best privately held figures can't outperform the predictiveness of speed figures.

Class,

It has not been suggested that speed is the alpha and omega of handicapping factors. All that has been suggested is that it looks like a good place to start.

[classhandicapper]

Class,

It has not been suggested that speed is the alpha and omega of handicapping factors. All that has been suggested is that it looks like a good place to start.

It's a very predictive factor, but it dominates the board to such a large extent I'm beginning to wonder whether one of the keys to success at his stage of the game is ignoring speed figures entirely or only weighting them enough so that you never bet on horses that look much slower than the competition.

I don't know Paul Corman, but I remember reading something he said many years ago along the lines of "he initially lost a lot of money betting on trip horses that were too slow". My guess (and I don't know) is that speed figures play the kind of role in his thinking I am suggesting. Most people use them to separate the contenders. A better use may be to identify the contenders.

[thaskalos]

It's a very predictive factor, but it dominates the board to such a large extent I'm beginning to wonder whether one of the keys to success at his stage of the game is ignoring speed figures entirely or only weighting them enough so that you never bet on horses that look much slower than the competition.

I don't know Paul Corman, but I remember reading something he said many years ago along the lines of "he initially lost a lot of money betting on trip horses that were too slow". My guess (and I don't know) is that speed figures play the kind of role in his thinking I am suggesting. Most people use them to separate the contenders. A better use may be to identify the contenders.
The speed figures are not overbet to the extent that some people think. Every day I see cases where the high-figured horses are IGNORED in the betting...mostly because of class or pace concerns. I say, instead of throwing the speed figures out altogether...what if we augmented these figures to include some of the elements that we know the speed figures are missing? What if we infuse the effects of pace into these figures...while also introducing class into the equation?

I have done something similar with sprint races over the last couple of years, and I have come up with an adjustment to the Beyer speed figures...which has me excited to the point where I now wager only on sprints...with an unusual amount of success. I have been trying to combine pace and speed figures for many years now, with varying degrees of success, and I don't usually get overly excited about things...but I honestly feel that I am making my biggest strides as a horseplayer NOW...in my ADVANCED years.

We are never too old to learn.

[Flysofree]

The speed figures are not overbet to the extent that some people think. Every day I see cases where the high-figured horses are IGNORED in the betting...mostly because of class or pace concerns. I say, instead of throwing the speed figures out altogether...what if we augmented these figures to include some of the elements that we know the speed figures are missing? What if we infuse the effects of pace into these figures...while also introducing class into the equation?

I have done something similar with sprint races over the last couple of years, and I have come up with an adjustment to the Beyer speed figures...which has me excited to the point where I now wager only on sprints...with an unusual amount of success. I have been trying to combine pace and speed figures for many years now, with varying degrees of success, and I don't usually get overly excited about things...but I honestly feel that I am making my biggest strides as a horseplayer NOW...in my ADVANCED years.

We are never too old to learn.

You simply must tell us more about this finding....

[Capper Al]

The speed figures are not overbet to the extent that some people think. Every day I see cases where the high-figured horses are IGNORED in the betting...mostly because of class or pace concerns. I say, instead of throwing the speed figures out altogether...what if we augmented these figures to include some of the elements that we know the speed figures are missing? What if we infuse the effects of pace into these figures...while also introducing class into the equation?

I have done something similar with sprint races over the last couple of years, and I have come up with an adjustment to the Beyer speed figures...which has me excited to the point where I now wager only on sprints...with an unusual amount of success. I have been trying to combine pace and speed figures for many years now, with varying degrees of success, and I don't usually get overly excited about things...but I honestly feel that I am making my biggest strides as a horseplayer NOW...in my ADVANCED years.

We are never too old to learn.

Good for you.

[Capper Al]

It's a very predictive factor, but it dominates the board to such a large extent I'm beginning to wonder whether one of the keys to success at his stage of the game is ignoring speed figures entirely or only weighting them enough so that you never bet on horses that look much slower than the competition.

I don't know Paul Corman, but I remember reading something he said many years ago along the lines of "he initially lost a lot of money betting on trip horses that were too slow". My guess (and I don't know) is that speed figures play the kind of role in his thinking I am suggesting. Most people use them to separate the contenders. A better use may be to identify the contenders.

There is no suggestion here to blindly pick the top speed. But if a horse is in the bottom half of the speed and a full two seconds or more slower than the top, I'm thinking this horse is unlikely unless you have another reason to include it with the exception of maiden races. Speed is pretty for making a contender list.

[Dave Schwartz]

There is no suggestion here to blindly pick the top speed.

Just curious... What is your definition of "Top Speed?"

[raybo]

Just curious... What is your definition of "Top Speed?"

LOL - I think that's where the interpreting starts, immediately after opening the PPs. :lol:

[whodoyoulike]

... I say, instead of throwing the speed figures out altogether...what if we augmented these figures to include some of the elements that we know the speed figures are missing? What if we infuse the effects of pace into these figures...while also introducing class into the equation?

...

You simply must tell us more about this finding....

I think he has. Note the bold part of his post.

[Capper Al]

Just curious... What is your definition of "Top Speed?"

My study and others show that most commercial speed figs end up about 25% plus hit ratio for last race. I now combine my figs like you do in P&P 2012. As for the speed figs themselves I use a modified BRIS and my own speed fig. The modified BRIS are the better ones.

[pandy]

Raybo suggested that Bris Prime Power may be a stronger win predictor than a speed figure. I think that's been tested, for instance last race Beyer vs BPP. Of course, the best way to use speed figures is not just using the last race.

[Capper Al]

LOL - I think that's where the interpreting starts, immediately after opening the PPs. :lol:

We all interpret everything we do in handicapping and, if we use off the shelf commercial numbers, all we are doing is letting the commercial vendor interpret them for us. I have been studying BRIS and my own figures for a while and have read other studies besides. When I make my modification to BRIS' speed figs or make my own speed figs, I see how well they do for a couple of hundred races. What else would you expect me to do? These are all researched with my limited resources.

[Capper Al]

Raybo suggested that Bris Prime Power may be a stronger win predictor than a speed figure. I think that's been tested, for instance last race Beyer vs BPP. Of course, the best way to use speed figures is not just using the last race.

Pandy,

BPP and speed figures are two different type of measures. Speed figures are an attribute of a horse. BPP is BRIS' comprehensive selection number which includes speed. The does here is about coming up your own comprehensive fig or selection that includes speed figs like BRIS. Raybo is mixing these up.

[pandy]

I see your point, and although you can start with speed figures and interpret or even adjust speed figures, that's tough to do with Prime Power, which is not shown for all the pp lines.

[classhandicapper]

The speed figures are not overbet to the extent that some people think. Every day I see cases where the high-figured horses are IGNORED in the betting...mostly because of class or pace concerns. I say, instead of throwing the speed figures out altogether...what if we augmented these figures to include some of the elements that we know the speed figures are missing? What if we infuse the effects of pace into these figures...while also introducing class into the equation?



I've experimented with that kind of stuff endlessly.

My experience is that when you start introducing more factors into a number it can sometimes cause just as much damage as good in terms of accuracy.
That's why I decided to finally test all this stuff with live data and answer some of these questions definitively instead of by trial and error betting experience.

The evidence so far suggests to me that I am better off using my methods of classing horses as the primary driver and using speed and pace figures as a minor component instead of the primary components.

[Cratos]

I've experimented with that kind of stuff endlessly.

My experience is that when you start introducing more factors into a number it can sometimes cause just as much damage as good in terms of accuracy.
That's why I decided to finally test all this stuff with live data and answer some of these questions definitively instead of by trial and error betting experience.

The evidence so far suggests to me that I am better off using my methods of classing horses as the primary driver and using speed and pace figures as a minor component instead of the primary components.
I am curious; what statistical test(s) did you use and did you use the Bayesian methodology?

[Cratos]

I think he has. Note the bold part of his post.
The poster "Thaskalos" is suggesting the right approach and I will add that Trakus data would be better than Equibase/DRF data for this analysis; and Bayesian statistics would be the "engine" to drive this analysis.

[classhandicapper]

I am curious; what statistical test(s) did you use and did you use the Bayesian methodology?

I'm not well versed enough in advanced statistics. I am using a different form of trial and error.

I have a database of races covering NY, CA, FL and KY racing with some other major race cards from around the country mixed in for the last 9 months. I have speed figures for all the horses in every race except foreign imports and I have the ability to calculate class figures systematically for any races I want.

For the class ratings, I have a series of tables where I can adjust the values of each component of the class rating to what I think will work best. By components I mean the actual class designation, adjustments for age and time of the year, adjustments for sex, adjustment for statebred races by state, adjustments for finish position, adjustment for beaten lengths etc... I can also make adjustments to those factors by surface and distance.

So what I can do is set the values in my tables to whatever I want them to be and run a test that compares speed figures vs class ratings and see which does better overall, in sprints, in routes, on dirt, on turf, in stakes, in stakes routes races on turf..... I get back the win% and ROI.

I can quickly change the class parameter values and keep rerunning the test to see what works best.

I can also create a combination of the speed figures + class ratings a weighted ratio to see if I can find a combination that works better than either does alone.

Right now I am only checking certain race types and I am not changing the parameters at all. I am locked in on what I intuitively think the class values should be based on years of experience. I am trying to mimic my own thinking on class the best I can in an automated way.

The only thing I am experimenting with the combination rating of class and speed.

In real life I do a lot of subjective comparative analysis by looking at the charts and the PPs of the horses within the race. I can't mimic that systematically. But what I am doing is fine for learning.

[Cratos]

I'm not well versed enough in advanced statistics. I am using a different form of trial and error.

I have a database of races covering NY, CA, FL and KY racing with some other major race cards from around the country mixed in for the last 9 months. I have speed figures for all the horses in every race except foreign imports and I have the ability to calculate class figures systematically for any races I want.

For the class ratings, I have a series of tables where I can adjust the values of each component of the class rating to what I think will work best. By components I mean the actual class designation, adjustments for age and time of the year, adjustments for sex, adjustment for statebred races by state, adjustments for finish position, adjustment for beaten lengths etc... I can also make adjustments to those factors by surface and distance.

So what I can do is set the values in my tables to whatever I want them to be and run a test that compares speed figures vs class ratings and see which does better overall, in sprints, in routes, on dirt, on turf, in stakes, in stakes routes races on turf..... I get back the win% and ROI.

I can quickly change the class parameter values and keep rerunning the test to see what works best.

I can also create a combination of the speed figures + class ratings a weighted ratio to see if I can find a combination that works better than either does alone.

Right now I am only checking certain race types and I am not changing the parameters at all. I am locked in on what I intuitively think the class values should be based on years of experience. I am trying to mimic my own thinking on class the best I can in an automated way.

The only thing I am experimenting with the combination rating of class and speed.

In real life I do a lot of subjective comparative analysis by looking at the charts and the PPs of the horses within the race. I can't mimic that systematically. But what I am doing is fine for learning.
Thanks for the explanation

[Capper Al]

I've experimented with that kind of stuff endlessly.

My experience is that when you start introducing more factors into a number it can sometimes cause just as much damage as good in terms of accuracy.
That's why I decided to finally test all this stuff with live data and answer some of these questions definitively instead of by trial and error betting experience.

The evidence so far suggests to me that I am better off using my methods of classing horses as the primary driver and using speed and pace figures as a minor component instead of the primary components.

And because of introducing more factors is why I'm doing a rewrite.

[Capper Al]

Bayesian isn't that advanced. It's stats 101.

[raybo]

The speed figures are not overbet to the extent that some people think. Every day I see cases where the high-figured horses are IGNORED in the betting...mostly because of class or pace concerns. I say, instead of throwing the speed figures out altogether...what if we augmented these figures to include some of the elements that we know the speed figures are missing? What if we infuse the effects of pace into these figures...while also introducing class into the equation?

I have done something similar with sprint races over the last couple of years, and I have come up with an adjustment to the Beyer speed figures...which has me excited to the point where I now wager only on sprints...with an unusual amount of success. I have been trying to combine pace and speed figures for many years now, with varying degrees of success, and I don't usually get overly excited about things...but I honestly feel that I am making my biggest strides as a horseplayer NOW...in my ADVANCED years.

We are never too old to learn.

Thaskalos, since many of us realize that speed figures are not single factors, but rather are composites of raw final time, beaten lengths converted to time, and daily variant which includes bias and perceived surface speed, etc., should we be looking at speed figures as a starting point in handicapping? I think not. Shouldn't we be starting with something that is physically measured (at least all of us who use published data)? Speed figures at not physically measured, raw final time is, speed figures are "interpreted" by the creator(s) of that figure. Shouldn't we be using raw time, first? Or, are we so inadequate that we must trust someone else to do our interpreting for us?

These are some of the questions I asked myself years ago, and came to the realization that I should totally ignore all published figures, and go my own way instead. At least then, any failures I suffered were faults of my own, not blind trust in someone else. My reasoning is that, if I'm not good enough to beat the game using my own stuff, then I shouldn't be in the game in the first place.

If I'm going to use someone else's "composite" figure(s), then I might as well create my own composites that better explain what actually happened in races, what the total performance of each horse was, not just what some contrived speed figure said it was. If I'm good enough at interpreting what actually happened in races, I will be far ahead of those who are dependent on the perceived skill of some figure maker. (CJ not withstanding of course, as I believe that he probably does a better job, long term, of interpreting individual performances than I do, and most others I've heard of or observed.)

[pandy]

Thaskalos, since many of us realize that speed figures are not single factors, but rather are composites of raw final time, beaten lengths converted to time, and daily variant which includes bias and perceived surface speed, etc., should we be looking at speed figures as a starting point in handicapping? I think not. Shouldn't we be starting with something that is physically measured (at least all of us who use published data)? Speed figures at not physically measured, raw final time is, speed figures are "interpreted" by the creator(s) of that figure. Shouldn't we be using raw time, first? Or, are we so inadequate that we must trust someone else to do our interpreting for us?

These are some of the questions I asked myself years ago, and came to the realization that I should totally ignore all published figures, and go my own way instead. At least then, any failures I suffered were faults of my own, not blind trust in someone else. My reasoning is that, if I'm not good enough to beat the game using my own stuff, then I shouldn't be in the game in the first place.

If I'm going to use someone else's "composite" figure(s), then I might as well create my own composites that better explain what actually happened in races, what the total performance of each horse was, not just what some contrived speed figure said it was. If I'm good enough at interpreting what actually happened in races, I will be far ahead of those who are dependent on the perceived skill of some figure maker. (CJ not withstanding of course, as I believe that he probably does a better job, long term, of interpreting individual performances than I do, and most others I've heard of or observed.)

Well, of course, the question then becomes, is it worth your time? Almost all horseplayers are casual bettors who play horses as a form of entertainment. They certainly aren't going to spend several hours a day making up their own performance or speed figures. I did it for years and although it was a good learning experience, it also kind of sucks the fun out of playing the horses.

And, if you do spend a lot of time creating your own performance rating, it had better be a lot more proficient than the best published speed figures or Bris Prime Power, etc., otherwise you're wasting time.

Of course you may have it all computerized and it doesn't take much time, but one thing that makes figures like CJ's or Beyer's valuable is that they do most of the work manually, so they can make decisions regarding track variants, for instance (such as splitting variants because of weather changes), that a computerized program can't.

[raybo]

Well, of course, the question then becomes, is it worth your time? Almost all horseplayers are casual bettors who play horses as a form of entertainment. They certainly aren't going to spend several hours a day making up their own performance or speed figures. I did it for years and although it was a good learning experience, it also kind of sucks the fun out of playing the horses.

And, if you do spend a lot of time creating your own performance rating, it had better be a lot more proficient than the best published speed figures or Bris Prime Power, etc., otherwise you're wasting time.

Of course you may have it all computerized and it doesn't take much time, but one thing that makes figures like CJ's or Beyer's valuable is that they do most of the work manually, so they can make decisions regarding track variants, for instance (such as splitting variants because of weather changes), that a computerized program can't.

Of course my methods are computerized, and the "effort" was expended years ago, costing me only some time and data. For all except high class races, the win contenders are produced in less than a second (if the race is even playable in the first place). I test individual tracks in an automated system, usually using a year or more of past results from each track versus my automated rankings methods. Hit percentage is only half of the equation, average price being the other half. My reasoning? The long term is the only thing that counts, so individual results are not of prime importance to me (even though they help determine the results, I do not focus on them except in the case of dealing with outliers). As I stated, I believe that CJ is a bit better at interpreting race performances than I am, but in the long term, my method produces profit, so evidently my method does well enough at interpreting individual performances to produce net profit, and that's all that counts, IMO.

[Cratos]

Bayesian isn't that advanced. It's stats 101.
There are some very good busiiness/engineering schools at CMU, U of R, MIT and many others that would differ with you, but you are entitled to your opinion

[Cratos]

[QUOTE=raybo]Thaskalos, since many of us realize that speed figures are not single factors, but rather are composites of raw final time, beaten lengths converted to time, and daily variant which includes bias and perceived surface speed, etc., should we be looking at speed figures as a starting point in handicapping? I think not. Shouldn't we be starting with something that is physically measured (at least all of us who use published data)? Speed figures at not physically measured, raw final time is, speed figures are "interpreted" by the creator(s) of that figure. Shouldn't we be using raw time, first? Or, are we so inadequate that we must trust someone else to do our interpreting for us?

These are some of the questions I asked myself years ago, and came to the realization that I should totally ignore all published figures, and go my own way instead. At least then, any failures I suffered were faults of my own, not blind trust in someone else. My reasoning is that, if I'm not good enough to beat the game using my own stuff, then I shouldn't be in the game in the first place.

If I'm going to use someone else's "composite" figure(s), then I might as well create my own composites that better explain what actually happened in races, what the total performance of each horse was, not just what some contrived speed figure said it was. If I'm good enough at interpreting what actually happened in races, I will be far ahead of those who are dependent on the perceived skill of some figure maker. (CJ not withstanding of course, as I believe that he probably does a better job, long term, of interpreting individual performances than I do, and most others I've heard of or observed.)[/QUOTE
Raybo, you have written an excellent retort.

[classhandicapper]

Bayesian isn't that advanced. It's stats 101.


I took a couple of stats classes in college, but I can't remember any of it. To me, anything beyond average, median, and standard deviation is advanced stats. :lol:

I recently read a book that had an entire chapter on the subject, but I wouldn't know how apply it to what I am doing. What I am doing is sort of a backdoor regression using trial and error but with decades of handicapping experience guiding the research and parameter values. I'm already a better horse payer from the effort because now I know the right approach for me even if I don't have all the correct weights yet. For years I kept going back and forth experimenting with hybrids. Now that much is settled.

[Show Me the Wire]

How about this novel, ok not so novel idea about composite factors. Answer this question first: Why is the horse in this race?

[thaskalos]

Thaskalos, since many of us realize that speed figures are not single factors, but rather are composites of raw final time, beaten lengths converted to time, and daily variant which includes bias and perceived surface speed, etc., should we be looking at speed figures as a starting point in handicapping? I think not. Shouldn't we be starting with something that is physically measured (at least all of us who use published data)? Speed figures at not physically measured, raw final time is, speed figures are "interpreted" by the creator(s) of that figure. Shouldn't we be using raw time, first? Or, are we so inadequate that we must trust someone else to do our interpreting for us?

These are some of the questions I asked myself years ago, and came to the realization that I should totally ignore all published figures, and go my own way instead. At least then, any failures I suffered were faults of my own, not blind trust in someone else. My reasoning is that, if I'm not good enough to beat the game using my own stuff, then I shouldn't be in the game in the first place.

If I'm going to use someone else's "composite" figure(s), then I might as well create my own composites that better explain what actually happened in races, what the total performance of each horse was, not just what some contrived speed figure said it was. If I'm good enough at interpreting what actually happened in races, I will be far ahead of those who are dependent on the perceived skill of some figure maker. (CJ not withstanding of course, as I believe that he probably does a better job, long term, of interpreting individual performances than I do, and most others I've heard of or observed.)
Even a hardcore gambler like myself likes to live a semblance of what could be called a "normal existence"...and making my own figures from scratch would take away from some other things that I also need to do at this time. So...I decided to thoroughly study an easily accessible "pure-speed" commercial figure...figuring that, in time, I would form some sort of opinion about its inherent "weaknesses", and maybe come up with a useful "additive"...which would make these figures more "complete". I initially chose the Equibase figures, and was very happy with them, until someone decided to "recalibrate" them. I now think that the Equibase figures are a joke...especially on the turf.

I admire the dedication of the player who insists on making his own figures from scratch, but, with so many tracks running, I just can't cope with this sort of workload at the present time. It's much easier for me to take the base figure from Beyer...and add my own pace and class adjustments to it.

I am leery about using someone else's "combined" figures...because I am not sure if the figuremaker's pace handicapping philosophy agrees with my own. I have found that, whereas the speed figure philosophy is pretty universal in interpretation...the PACE handicapping philosophies of the individual players vary greatly.