Introduction and a rookie question

[Mulerider]

Hello all, first post. I've been lurking for a few months and have been awed by the depth of knowledge here. I'm a fairly new handicapper. My betting being somewhat restricted living in Texas, I make the hour drive to LAD once a week to play, mainly the simulcast races. My method is to download the Brisnet pp's for two or perhaps three tracks the night before, go through them and pick the races I want to handicap, and then handicap them. Those are the only races I'll wager on the next day. (And regarding my screen name, my other hobby is trail riding, and, though I own horses as well, I usually saddle Claire the Wonder Mule!)

I'm slowly absorbing the concept of pace handicapping. In the meantime, what I use is a homebuilt Excel spreadsheet. I have several categories to assign points, each category weighted according to the importance I've assigned it. One of those categories is the "best speed at distance." This particular metric only accounts for 5% of a horse's total overall points when I'm done. If that career best has occurred very recently, I do keep that in mind.

I have been passing races in which more than one horse has never run the distance of today's race. If it's just one horse, then I use the best speed figure shown on the pp's for a previous race the horse has run that's closest to today's distance. But since I'm uncomfortable with this method to start with, if there's more than one horse I just pass the race. And that's a lot of races.

I'd be grateful for any advice on how to handle this issue, or if I'm just placing too much importance on "best speed at distance." Thanks!

[egreen]

No suggestions but I'm curious how you decided upon the 5% figure? Do you have a weighted formula or are you assigning the same value to all factors?

[Mulerider]

I'm sorry, I hate to start off by misstating something right off the bat, but I did. The actual number is 15%, not 5, and I apply the same % to the "best speed on surface type" category as well. I have two other speed categories which are assigned 25% weights: last race speed and average speed last four races. So speed is comprising 80% of my point totals. The remaining 20% is divided fairly equally between jockey and trainer win %, the horse's average earnings per start for current year, and the horse's in-the-money % for the current year.

It's a rudimentary system, for sure, and my top points horse is almost always the crowd favorite. It does seem to work pretty well for narrowing down contenders, though. That's why I really need to learn and understand pace.

[Stillriledup]

You say you give extra points to jock and trainer successes but that is stuff already factored into the price. If you are giving a horse extra credit for having a top trainer your program might lead you to bet on more top connections rather than steer you away from that.

You want to stay away from horses with 'overbet humans' and try and gravitate towards horses with competent humans who don't cause the horse you're betting to be overbet.

[thaskalos]

Mulerider, welcome to our board.

In my opinion, any method which depends on one solitary handicapping factor for 80% of the end result is doomed from the very start. Your objective at this stage of the horseplaying journey should be to acquire as much understanding as you can about these horses, and what makes them perform as they do. These speed figures are the result of other "race dynamics" which, although easily ignored, determine to a large extent if these speed figures will be repeated today or not.

When I hear you say that you are planning to tackle the concept of pace next, I am asking myself if the concept of "class" should be ignored by you for as long as you seem to be overlooking it. In my own research into this game, it has become apparent to me that horses seldom perform up to their speed and pace potential when they are asked to race above their class level.

These different handicapping factors interact with each other so often that you are, in my opinion, stymieing your education by studying and applying them separately.

[Mulerider]

SRU and thaskalos, thanks for your helpful replies. SRU, that makes sense. I guess I'd assumed that all my metrics, since there's nothing special about any of them, would be baked in the cake. Do you mean that the public puts an inordinate weighting on the human element?

thaskalos, class is another blurry element to me. Serious question: does average earnings per start relate in any way to a horse's class?

As an aside, I just finished handicapping Monmouth 3 for tomorrow. My rankings, in order of point totals, was 2-5-4-6-7-3-1. The Brisnet Prime Power rankings are 2-5-7-4-6-1-3. As usual, my top pick is the M/L favorite at 5/2. The 5 is 3/1 and the 4 and 7 are 7/2.

My style of play, for better or worse, is to hedge. In the race above, my instinct tells me to wager a $2WP on the 6 at 10/1. He's very close in my point totals to the 4, and was sharp in his last race. Then I'd probably play a $1 Exacta with 2,5/2,4,5. Yes, I realize that at least one bet is a loser.

I warned you I was new at this!

Thanks again!

[thaskalos]

SRU and thaskalos, thanks for your helpful replies. SRU, that makes sense. I guess I'd assumed that all my metrics, since there's nothing special about any of them, would be baked in the cake. Do you mean that the public puts an inordinate weighting on the human element?

thaskalos, class is another blurry element to me. Serious question: does average earnings per start relate in any way to a horse's class?

As an aside, I just finished handicapping Monmouth 3 for tomorrow. My rankings, in order of point totals, was 2-5-4-6-7-3-1. The Brisnet Prime Power rankings are 2-5-7-4-6-1-3. As usual, my top pick is the M/L favorite at 5/2. The 5 is 3/1 and the 4 and 7 are 7/2.

My style of play, for better or worse, is to hedge. In the race above, my instinct tells me to wager a $2WP on the 6 at 10/1. He's very close in my point totals to the 4, and was sharp in his last race. Then I'd probably play a $1 Exacta with 2,5/2,4,5. Yes, I realize that at least one bet is a loser.

I warned you I was new at this!

Thanks again!

No, the horse's earnings cannot be expected to tell us enough about the horse's current level of class...no matter how we choose to calculate them.

[raybo]

I agree with Thaskalos, you're way too heavy on "speed". There are many other factors that must be considered, if you want to make money, rather than just picking some winners. As Michael Pizzola states, you should wait for horses that YOU like, that the public shouldn't. That means that speed is not going to be your main factor, although it must be considered of course. Speed is in most of the public's mind, and they bet it.

"Class" is a good place to start, as well as current form/condition. But, as you stated "class" is a tough one to figure, and most can't even determine the definition of class. Mine is: a horse that can set or handle the pace and still finish strongly. In other words, a horse that can handle whatever is thrown at it, and still be there at the wire.

Current form/condition is another big equalizer, as it can determine current class, current pace ability, current speed ability, current distance ability, etc., etc., etc.. But, current form is just as hard to figure as current class, if not harder, and is very difficult to "calculate", because it doesn't lend itself easily to being numerically defined.

My suggestion, after class and form, is to analyze "field dynamics", which horses, and how many horses, in the race will be on or vying for the early lead and subsequently which horses will be advantaged and disadvantaged by that "projected" early running of the race. In similar "class" and "form" scenarios, pace (and field dynamics) really does make the race.

And then, you have the wagering portion, which is a totally different game, and must be considered separately from the handicapping portion. Of course, the primary objective, if you are interested in profit solely, is to receive more than you have wagered. Which also means that, although you can bet some low priced horses, you must bet enough higher priced horses, that are true contenders, to increase your average return over the long run. You have to leverage your money effectively, by requiring a good "risk versus potential reward" ratio. Exotics can help with that, but I don't suggest too much of that be done by someone who is just starting their horse racing career. Get the win (and maybe exacta) stuff figured out first.

[whodoyoulike]

... The remaining 20% is divided fairly equally between jockey and trainer win %, the horse's average earnings per start for current year, and the horse's in-the-money % for the current year.

It's a rudimentary system, for sure, and my top points horse is almost always the crowd favorite. It does seem to work pretty well for narrowing down contenders, though. That's why I really need to learn and understand pace.


I also consider J/T but ITM%.

Are you familiar with the Equibase website which provides stats on Jockey, Trainer, Owner and Horse stats for the current year and prior years?

It's especially helpful at the beginning of a meet when stats are limited.

http://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/index.html

... Current form/condition is another big equalizer, as it can determine current class, current pace ability, current speed ability, current distance ability, etc., etc., etc.. But, current form is just as hard to figure as current class, if not harder, and is very difficult to "calculate", because it doesn't lend itself easily to being numerically defined.

My suggestion, after class and form, is to analyze "field dynamics", which horses, and how many horses, in the race will be on or vying for the early lead and subsequently which horses will be advantaged and disadvantaged by that "projected" early running of the race. In similar "class" and "form" scenarios, pace (and field dynamics) really does make the race.

And then, you have the wagering portion, which is a totally different game, and must be considered separately from the handicapping portion. Of course, the primary objective, if you are interested in profit solely, is to receive more than you have wagered. Which also means that, although you can bet some low priced horses, you must bet enough higher priced horses, that are true contenders, to increase your average return over the long run. You have to leverage your money effectively, by requiring a good "risk versus potential reward" ratio. Exotics can help with that, but I don't suggest too much of that be done by someone who is just starting their horse racing career. Get the win (and maybe exacta) stuff figured out first..

I don't know who Raybo is but, I've noticed he's usually a straight shooter. This is some very good advice.

Good luck.

[Stillriledup]

SRU and thaskalos, thanks for your helpful replies. SRU, that makes sense. I guess I'd assumed that all my metrics, since there's nothing special about any of them, would be baked in the cake. Do you mean that the public puts an inordinate weighting on the human element?

thaskalos, class is another blurry element to me. Serious question: does average earnings per start relate in any way to a horse's class?

As an aside, I just finished handicapping Monmouth 3 for tomorrow. My rankings, in order of point totals, was 2-5-4-6-7-3-1. The Brisnet Prime Power rankings are 2-5-7-4-6-1-3. As usual, my top pick is the M/L favorite at 5/2. The 5 is 3/1 and the 4 and 7 are 7/2.

My style of play, for better or worse, is to hedge. In the race above, my instinct tells me to wager a $2WP on the 6 at 10/1. He's very close in my point totals to the 4, and was sharp in his last race. Then I'd probably play a $1 Exacta with 2,5/2,4,5. Yes, I realize that at least one bet is a loser.

I warned you I was new at this!

Thanks again!

Yes, I believe high profile humans get overbet, there's enough players who don't know the horses who just defer to Pletcher or Baffert or the leading rider. The key to any chance at true success lies with knowing the talent, strengths, weaknesses and style of the equine athlete so well that when you get your horse in a great situation, you actually hope it's trained by Joe Blow and ridden by John Doe.

In reality though you're never really betting on horses OR humans, you're betting on bets. The odds are all that really matters, the rest if the stuff is just distractions from your main goal and that is betting on overlays.

[Mulerider]

I also consider J/T but ITM%.

Are you familiar with the Equibase website which provides stats on Jockey, Trainer, Owner and Horse stats for the current year and prior years?

It's especially helpful at the beginning of a meet when stats are limited.



Thanks. Yes, on the jockeys and trainers I use the ITM%. Actually, on the jockey I use the ITM% for the type horse he's on (E, E/P, etc.). With the trainer I tend to just use the overall ITM%, mainly because I don't know which of the listed subsets might be more important than another.

Appreciate the Equibase info; I had that issue at the beginning of a couple of meets, and just used the 2014 stats until enough current year stats became available to use.

[whodoyoulike]

...
thaskalos, class is another blurry element to me. Serious question: does average earnings per start relate in any way to a horse's class?...


I'm uncertain about average e/p/s relating to a horse's current class but, I do use total earnings to gauge the horse's class. But, it's use depends on a number of conditions i.e., age, # races last year, # races so far this year, types of races run, etc. I've been using it for so long, I probably subconsciously do a number of other things which I'm unaware I'm doing.

I think a better reply would be ----- what info does the ave. e/p/s provide to you?

[Mulerider]

I think a better reply would be ----- what info does the ave. e/p/s provide to you?

I could be totally off base, but I'm thinking that it would provide an insight to the quality of the competition the horse had faced, assuming that the higher purse races attract higher quality entries. Or even if all the horses in a given race had consistently run in $10k purse races, it seems to me that the horse with the highest e/p/s would indicate a certain superiority over his peers.

And like the horse's ITM%, I try when possible to use current year e/ps, on the theory that old numbers, even if outstanding, may not reflect the horse's current condition.

My theories, of course, could well be worthless. I'm certainly willing to change and adapt.

whodoyoulike, when handicapping a race in which one or more horses had never run today's distance, how do you account for that?

[Mulerider]

Yes, I believe high profile humans get overbet, there's enough players who don't know the horses who just defer to Pletcher or Baffert or the leading rider. The key to any chance at true success lies with knowing the talent, strengths, weaknesses and style of the equine athlete so well that when you get your horse in a great situation, you actually hope it's trained by Joe Blow and ridden by John Doe.

In reality though you're never really betting on horses OR humans, you're betting on bets. The odds are all that really matters, the rest if the stuff is just distractions from your main goal and that is betting on overlays.

Thank you. I understand on the overlays. Admittedly, I have no clue how to make my own odds line. In my limited experience, what I'm calling an overlay is when one of my high-scoring horses --if it's close in total points to my top pick -- goes off at 4/1 or higher.

[whodoyoulike]

... whodoyoulike, when handicapping a race in which one or more horses had never run today's distance, how do you account for that?


I've learned over the years that I don't understand and can't handicap every type of race. And, I don't which now saves me a lot of time. I don't handicap 2yo races or 3yo's early in the year which makes the TC races very difficult for me because I have to over rely on replays. I try to evaluate the horse's ability or fitness to the distance being run e.g., a horse with several races run at 6f or less trying 8f is usually a pass on that horse. I've been beaten a few times but, I just can't bet them. Quite a few horses have a distance limitation. I guess I need to see how they adapt to the different distance pace. Now, one who has raced 8f or 8.5f trying 8.5f or 9f is a different situation.

Btw, I consider myself a pace handicapper.

[raybo]

I don't know who Raybo is but, I've noticed he's usually a straight shooter. This is some very good advice.

Good luck.

Just another horse player! :)

[whodoyoulike]

Who has figured it out. Not trying to blow smoke, either.

[Poindexter]

You say you give extra points to jock and trainer successes but that is stuff already factored into the price. If you are giving a horse extra credit for having a top trainer your program might lead you to bet on more top connections rather than steer you away from that.

You want to stay away from horses with 'overbet humans' and try and gravitate towards horses with competent humans who don't cause the horse you're betting to be overbet.

While I understand your point of trying to stay away form connections that will be bet no matter what horse is running.......you cannot ignore the fact that who the trainer is and who the jockey is both are paramount to determining how much chance each horse has. When I assign a line to a horse, if I see Prat or Bejerano (same goes for your top guns at other circuits) up I might make a horse 15-1 or even 12-1 while I might make the same horse 30-1 if I see guys like Quinonez or David Flores up. For one they ride that much better, also why are they riding to begin with? Same with trainers, you cannot give the same respect to a 4% trainer as you do a 20% trainer. Your goal as a player is to estimate how much chance a horse has(whether making an odds line or using whatever grading system you use) and not giving extra credit to top connections makes this job impossible. If you underestimate the connections you are going to underestimate how much chance their horse has and thus overestimate how much chance every other horse has.

By the way every factor is factored into the price (some more than others), as a player you have to do a better job than the betting public of weighing those handicapping factors and finding value.

[whodoyoulike]

I could be totally off base, but I'm thinking that it would provide an insight to the quality of the competition the horse had faced, assuming that the higher purse races attract higher quality entries. Or even if all the horses in a given race had consistently run in $10k purse races, it seems to me that the horse with the highest e/p/s would indicate a certain superiority over his peers. ...

As long as you understand what info your factor is providing and it makes sense to you, it should be fine to use. Also, you need to be careful about using factors in handicapping in a rote manner because there are always exceptions in case you haven't noticed.

Btw, I used to use e/p/s for some of the same reasons you mention but I felt it was misleading which is the reason I switched to total earnings.

Just so I'm clear on my responses re: J/T ITM% and earnings usage reflecting the class of a horse, I don't use them to identify my contenders but I use them as part of my decision process after my contenders are determined.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

A lot of good stuff in here.

I'll add my 2 cents.

With all the data, and handicapping information that is available in today's day and age, you have to find your "style". And when you find that style, stick to it and be it.

And of all things, there is no crime in passing a race. Don't like a race, and don't have a firm opinion? They'll run another one in 20 minutes or so.

[Track Collector]

One more piece of advice I would offer is to keep records.

Doing so will help to identify your strengths and weaknesses. Are you good at maiden races, horses 4 years old and up, 6-furlong races on the dirt, races at Louisiana Downs, etc.? Not so good at Allowance races on the Turf, at Delta Downs, muddy tracks, etc.? One's "perception" of where you stand is often a bit different than what will be shown via the actual records that you keep. And just because your records might indicate a weakness in one area does not mean you can not work on it to get better, but DO stop wagering on those types of races until you show significant improvement.

Do "keep score" by your ROI (Return on Investment) rather than the percentage of races you win. Winning a lot of races but still ending up in the negative is not so much fun when the goal is to make money. On the other hand, having a high win percentage is more than ok if one is just looking to have an enjoyable day at the races, in which case one will have some winning days, and some losing days where the total loses in one given day will not be too great.

One warning about using your records.........don't put too much emphasis in them until you build up a sufficient number of races. Records which show you winning 4 out of 10 races with an overall profit of 20% in a particular category might have a completely different result after 40 or 50 races in that category. Also be sure to consider "outliers", that is, high payouts which will show an overall profitable ROI at a certain point in time but are unlikely to repeat in a future sequence of plays. Having a 25-1 winner when the average win payout is something like 4-1 is an example of this. You can still calculate your ROI, but leave the 25-1 winner out of your calculations and see what the "modified" ROI comes out at. Don't be surprised if the ROI is now negative!

Final comments regarding Record Keeping:
--- It involves work to do and review
--- It can be inconvenient because it reveals things to us we DON'T want to know.
--- Is an attribute associated to WINNING HORSEPLAYERS

Hopefully my response does not sound like a lecture. It was meant as a general response to all newer handicappers wishing to improve. From what I have read of your posts already Mulerider, you sound detail-oriented and may already be doing some type of Record Keeping.

Best wishes in your handicapping journey!

[Mulerider]

One more piece of advice I would offer is to keep records.


Hopefully my response does not sound like a lecture. It was meant as a general response to all newer handicappers wishing to improve. From what I have read of your posts already Mulerider, you sound detail-oriented and may already be doing some type of Record Keeping.



Thanks. I didn't take your response as lecturing.

I'm a semi-retired small businessman with just enough accounting knowledge to make me dangerous. I do keep good records of my trips to the track; to do otherwise would be like operating a business without producing regular income statements. That said, I have no background at all in statistics and probabilities, but still recognize that I will need a much larger sample size of completed races to come to any sort of conclusion as to the effectiveness of my handicapping.

Until I semi-retired last year, I went to the track maybe once or twice a year. I can remember when, two or three decades ago, LAD was a really crowded track. Then the slots came to town and the lottery came to Texas. Long story short, back then I never really expected to make money; I was there for the excitement and the roar of the crowd (and back then LAD had impressive crowds). Now, however, since I've been lurking here for a long while, I still don't have a positive ROI but I can make a $100 voucher last a good long while before re-feeding the machine.

I have a decent basic working knowledge of Excel, having used spreadsheets since the first Lotus 1-2-3. But my knowledge of it is nowhere near that of someone like Raybo. I would have to hit the books to reach that level, but I'm willing to do it.

My problem, in a nutshell, is narrowing down my contenders. The system I built seems to be very effective in spotting them; I can feel pretty confident that in a 10-horse field one of my top 3 or 4 picks will win the race a good part of the time. Of course, that's no better than the public's batting average. It seems to me I somehow have to learn to look at those 3 or 4 top picks and accurately (so far as is possible) predict how the race will unfold, and how my picks will respond.

Thanks again!

[Mulerider]

A lot of good stuff in here.

I'll add my 2 cents.

With all the data, and handicapping information that is available in today's day and age, you have to find your "style". And when you find that style, stick to it and be it.

And of all things, there is no crime in passing a race. Don't like a race, and don't have a firm opinion? They'll run another one in 20 minutes or so.

Thanks LDH. My positive attributes are few, but fortunately patience and discipline are among them. I pass on a lot more races than I play. As I mentioned in my first post, I get spooked if I look at a race and find that one or more horses have never before run today's distance. And since best speed at distance is one of the metrics I use, I generally pass on those races. It could very well be that I'm skipping those races unnecessarily; a horse's best speed at distance could have occurred two years ago and is pretty much irrelevant now. I can confidently say that I have passed on every race that has a sprint horse going to a route for the first time. It throws a monkey wrench in my homebuilt system.

[cnollfan]

Average earnings per start is not as effective a tool as it used to be for two reasons. There are more state-bred races than before. These races have inflated purses relative to the horses' talents. And there are more racinos than before, also offering inflated purses.

[raybo]

Average earnings per start is not as effective a tool as it used to be for two reasons. There are more state-bred races than before. These races have inflated purses relative to the horses' talents. And there are more racinos than before, also offering inflated purses.

Yes, but aren't there purse increases across the board at tracks that are increasing purses? Sure there are some tracks that have lower purses, without the added money from external sources, but isn't it the player's responsibility to know what tracks don't have those external sources, and adjust their average earnings calculations accordingly. And isn't it also true that as more and more tracks increase their purses by adding external revenue sources, these average earnings calculations will become a more accurate estimation of class? Higher purses attract better horses. I happen to use average earnings as a portion of my "class" rating in my program, and it works quite well for some types of races, although many of those top ranked class horses are also the low priced favorites. But, often enough, the way I use the earnings often puts me on horses that pay very big, because most others are looking at speed or pace or form, or other ways of determining class. Sometimes earnings based class just beats everything else, and at high odds.

[Overlay]

Average earnings per start is not as effective a tool as it used to be for two reasons. There are more state-bred races than before. These races have inflated purses relative to the horses' talents. And there are more racinos than before, also offering inflated purses.
The concern about higher race purses for factors not directly related to the class of the horses themselves (such as the considerations that you mentioned) has been around for a long time. (As long ago as the third (and last) edition of Ainslie's Complete Guide to Thoroughbred Racing (published in 1988), the late Tom Ainslie went so far as to say that those who continued to rely on earnings data to make class distinctions were "positively doomed" at tracks or circuits where state-bred races were run.)

However, as borne out since then (at least to my satisfaction) by multiple statistical studies that I have seen and continue to see, average earnings-per-start also measures and reflects consistency as well as class in a way that still allows it to be an effective metric as a comparison or ranking tool when given its proper weight in the overall handicapping picture.

[thaskalos]

The concern about higher race purses for factors not directly related to the class of the horses themselves (such as the considerations that you mentioned) has been around for a long time. (As long ago as the third (and last) edition of Ainslie's Complete Guide to Thoroughbred Racing (published in 1988), the late Tom Ainslie went so far as to say that those who continued to rely on earnings data to make class distinctions were "positively doomed" at tracks or circuits where state-bred races were run.)

However, as borne out since then (at least to my satisfaction) by multiple statistical studies that I have seen and continue to see, average earnings-per-start also measures and reflects consistency as well as class in a way that still allows it to be an effective metric as a comparison or ranking tool when given its proper weight in the overall handicapping picture.

Would you mind presenting one such "statistical study" to us...so we could see for ourselves this proof that average earnings-per-start is indeed an effective class/consistency metric?

[raybo]

The concern about higher race purses for factors not directly related to the class of the horses themselves (such as the considerations that you mentioned) has been around for a long time. (As long ago as the third (and last) edition of Ainslie's Complete Guide to Thoroughbred Racing (published in 1988), the late Tom Ainslie went so far as to say that those who continued to rely on earnings data to make class distinctions were "positively doomed" at tracks or circuits where state-bred races were run.)

However, as borne out since then (at least to my satisfaction) by multiple statistical studies that I have seen and continue to see, average earnings-per-start also measures and reflects consistency as well as class in a way that still allows it to be an effective metric as a comparison or ranking tool when given its proper weight in the overall handicapping picture.

I agree, it's how you calculate average earnings that matters, just taking the total earnings and dividing it by number of starts won't get you there. Other things have to be considered in the calculation.

[Tom]

Would you mind presenting one such "statistical study" to us...so we could see for ourselves this proof that average earnings-per-start is indeed an effective class/consistency metric?

Have you looked at Dave's P&P?

[thaskalos]

Have you looked at Dave's P&P?

Yes...but I didn't see earnings-per-start to be an effective class barometer. Did I miss something?

[Stillriledup]

While I understand your point of trying to stay away form connections that will be bet no matter what horse is running.......you cannot ignore the fact that who the trainer is and who the jockey is both are paramount to determining how much chance each horse has. When I assign a line to a horse, if I see Prat or Bejerano (same goes for your top guns at other circuits) up I might make a horse 15-1 or even 12-1 while I might make the same horse 30-1 if I see guys like Quinonez or David Flores up. For one they ride that much better, also why are they riding to begin with? Same with trainers, you cannot give the same respect to a 4% trainer as you do a 20% trainer. Your goal as a player is to estimate how much chance a horse has(whether making an odds line or using whatever grading system you use) and not giving extra credit to top connections makes this job impossible. If you underestimate the connections you are going to underestimate how much chance their horse has and thus overestimate how much chance every other horse has.

By the way every factor is factored into the price (some more than others), as a player you have to do a better job than the betting public of weighing those handicapping factors and finding value.

Good thoughts. Your Flores vs bejarano example, to me, when I see Flores I automatically question if the horse is even live. Flores might be a bad example for what I was saying because he's SO bad that he's hard to bet even if you figure out that the horse is somehow live, I was generally talking about someone fully competent like the 6th or 7th leading jock vs the top jock and how you can get a much better price with them.

Another factor for me is that certain jocks 'fit' certain styles of horses so I may upgrade a horse on that factor.

I was just giving general thoughts to try n avoid betting on top humans since there are plenty of live horses to bet on that aren't trained by top connections.

[whodoyoulike]

Average earnings per start is not as effective a tool as it used to be for two reasons. There are more state-bred races than before. These races have inflated purses relative to the horses' talents. And there are more racinos than before, also offering inflated purses.

The responses I've seen here makes some sense but, the reason I switched from average to evaluating total earnings is because I'm a big believer of the cycles of things. There are seasonal cycles (winter, summer etc.), business cycles (financial sectors go up and down) and in horse racing the owners, jockeys, trainers and horses will also go thru cycles.

An example I can think of is Bob Baffert. He has been winning for as long as I can remember (since the 90's). He just may be on a 20 year winning streak of a 30 year winning cycle.

Getting back to the average earnings per start (e/p/s) of a horse becomes misleading when the horse is on a downward or improving cycle which will report a higher or lower trending amount. So, switching to total earnings I can make a better evaluation of this trend.

[Tom]

Yes...but I didn't see earnings-per-start to be an effective class barometer. Did I miss something?

I don't know - I remember it was tested so I suggested it.
But do you want it to be a class barometer or a win barometer.

At NYRA tracks for the last few months, all races, #1 EPS is in 41% of all exactas, and by itself, it shows 25% winners and and ,91 roi, out-performing the top speed figure.

I'll run a larger study tomorrow, but time for my ice cream and bed. :kiss:

[Mulerider]

At NYRA tracks for the last few months, all races, #1 EPS is in 41% of all exactas, and by itself, it shows 25% winners and and ,91 roi, out-performing the top speed figure.



Tom, is that NYRA e/p/s stat lifetime or current year? I've been using current year when given a decent number of races, thinking that it might give a better picture of current class. As a part of my process I also consider Brisnet's Current Class numbers, though not as a specific spreadsheet category in my system. I have considered doing that, but I have no idea how Brisnet comes up with their class ratings. If EPS is part of their formula, then I'd be dealing with a redundancy since I'm using it already.

[Tom]

Lifetime.

[Red Knave]

Yes...but I didn't see earnings-per-start to be an effective class barometer. Did I miss something?
What is your 'barometer' for Class?
The highest ranked APV horse does have an Impact Value over twice as high as the horses in the Rear Half of the field. Does that show Class?
P&P has a couple of paragraphs about what Dave calls Earnings Box Class Rank. It is a composite of EPS, APV and Quirin's MRCT. This factor has higher highs and lower lows than APV alone but seems to say the same thing.
Of course, neither factor has a positive ROI but I think you already knew that. ;)

[thaskalos]

What is your 'barometer' for Class?
The highest ranked APV horse does have an Impact Value over twice as high as the horses in the Rear Half of the field. Does that show Class?
P&P has a couple of paragraphs about what Dave calls Earnings Box Class Rank. It is a composite of EPS, APV and Quirin's MRCT. This factor has higher highs and lower lows than APV alone but seems to say the same thing.
Of course, neither factor has a positive ROI but I think you already knew that. ;)

To me...class is the level at which the horse figures to perform best TODAY. Yes...people talk about the concept of "back class", and point to horses who are able to ascend to their former glory after recovering from their physical ailments...but these are the rare exceptions, not the rule. A big race for a fat purse can distort a horse's "average earnings-per-start" for the entirety of the horse's racing career...and that's an imprecision that I can't tolerate.

You look at the bottom of his past performances, and you see that the horse had been beating allowance horses a year ago. Now, he seems slower than the bottom claimers that he is asked to face today...but his average earnings-per-start TOWER over those of the rest of the field. Is this the "class of the race"? I think not...

[raybo]

Whew! Here again we're in a discussion about a single factor, EPS. Like the single factor "SR", alone it means very little regarding an individual race. It's in the "combining" with other factors and ratings that it has merit, and in how you filter past performances regarding that EPS calculation.

And finally, it is about, or should be about, long term results, not individual race results. Any factor or rating under the sun can be terribly wrong in individual races.

[thaskalos]

Whew! Here again we're in a discussion about a single factor, EPS. Like the single factor "SR", alone it means very little regarding an individual race. It's in the "combining" with other factors and ratings that it has merit, and in how you filter past performances regarding that EPS calculation.

And finally, it is about, or should be about, long term results, not individual race results. Any factor or rating under the sun can be terribly wrong in individual races.

I am not telling you not to use the EPS in your own calculations, Raybo...you are free to do whatever you want. Red Knave asked me a question, and I am telling him why I don't use that metric.

I use speed ratings because they provide a clue to the puzzle that I can't get by another means. Whatever the EPS can provide, I can find in a more accurate form someplace else. But, as I said, this is strictly my OWN opinion...and I wouldn't presume to enforce it on someone else.

[raybo]

I am not telling you not to use the EPS in your own calculations, Raybo...you are free to do whatever you want. Red Knave asked me a question, and I am telling him why I don't use that metric.

I use speed ratings because they provide a clue to the puzzle that I can't get by another means. Whatever the EPS can provide, I can find in a more accurate form someplace else. But, as I said, this is strictly my OWN opinion...and I wouldn't presume to enforce it on someone else.

I never said anything about you telling anyone not to use EPS. That would be very presumptive indeed. My post was meant for a general audience. You, of all people, know that single factors, in isolation, mean almost nothing in the long term. EPS is a single factor calculation, and as was stated, could be very misleading if calculated generically, like lifetime earnings divided by lifetime starts, or even recent earnings divided by recent starts. For example, the big hit that was mentioned, that race type/distance/surface/date, etc., could very well not apply to today's race at all, and would certainly skew the final rating. So, some degree of filtering would be a good start, in obtaining something legitimately significant. I won't go further, than to say that, the filtering and occasional adjustments to the mean of past race results data, just like with outliers in the calculation of ROI, is extremely important if you are looking for long term positive results.

[thaskalos]

I never said anything about you telling anyone not to use EPS. That would be very presumptive indeed. My post was meant for a general audience. You, of all people, know that single factors, in isolation, mean almost nothing in the long term. EPS is a single factor calculation, and as was stated, could be very misleading if calculated generically, like lifetime earnings divided by lifetime starts, or even recent earnings divided by recent starts. For example, the big hit that was mentioned, that race type/distance/surface/date, etc., could very well not apply to today's race at all, and would certainly skew the final rating. So, some degree of filtering would be a good start, in obtaining something legitimately significant. I won't go further, than to say that, the filtering and occasional adjustments to the mean of past race results data, just like with outliers in the calculation of ROI, is extremely important if you are looking for long term positive results.

"Earnings-per-start" is a well-known handicapping metric which has been defined in a variety of handicapping publications. It's what we end up with when we divide the horse's earnings by the number of races that the horse has run, either lifetime...or more recently. When you add in the "filtering" and the "occasional adjustments" that you are talking about here, then you are indeed refining the numbers...but you are no longer talking about "earnings-per-start".

When Mulerider, Cnollfan, Tom, Overlay, Red Knave, and I, talk about "earnings-per-start"...we mean the metric in its more widely known definition. You are talking about something else entirely. Yours is a better metric, no doubt...but it needs a different name. The name "earnings-per-start" is already taken. :)

[raybo]

"Earnings-per-start" is a well-known handicapping metric which has been defined in a variety of handicapping publications. It's what we end up with when we divide the horse's earnings by the number of races that the horse has run, either lifetime...or more recently. When you add in the "filtering" and the "occasional adjustments" that you are talking about here, then you are indeed refining the numbers...but you are no longer talking about "earnings-per-start".

When Mulerider, Cnollfan, Tom, Overlay, Red Knave, and I, talk about "earnings-per-start"...we mean the metric in its more widely known definition. You are talking about something else entirely. Yours is a better metric, no doubt...but it needs a different name. The name "earnings-per-start" is already taken. :)

No, I'm not talking about typical earnings per start. I'm talking about filtered and adjusted earnings per start. Generic earning per start are no better than using raw times to categorize/rank horses' performances.

[whodoyoulike]

No, I'm not talking about typical earnings per start. I'm talking about filtered and adjusted earnings per start. Generic earning per start are no better than using raw times to categorize/rank horses' performances.

What does filtered and adjusted eps mean?

[raybo]

What does filtered and adjusted eps mean?

I filter by route, sprint, dirt, and turf (dependent on what today's race is), and I only go back 10 races or 1 year, whichever comes first (I don't use the raw earnings/starts boxes at all). I also occasionally reduce large individual earnings when it is apparent that they will adversely skew the calculations to the point that they are obviously inaccurate.

[whodoyoulike]

I filter by route, sprint, dirt, and turf (dependent on what today's race is), and I only go back 10 races or 1 year, whichever comes first (I don't use the raw earnings/starts boxes at all). I also occasionally reduce large individual earnings when it is apparent that they will adversely skew the calculations to the point that they are obviously inaccurate.

Thanks, I guess I was using the BRIS earnings summary of the breakdown of earnings (fst, off etc.) without realizing it until you just pointed it out.

[Overlay]

I filter by route, sprint, dirt, and turf (dependent on what today's race is), and I only go back 10 races or 1 year, whichever comes first (I don't use the raw earnings/starts boxes at all). I also occasionally reduce large individual earnings when it is apparent that they will adversely skew the calculations to the point that they are obviously inaccurate.

In calculating average earnings-per start, I don't consider only the races run by each horse at the same distance or on the same surface as today's race. However, I do assign different weights to the overall earnings-per-start average for each horse, based on the distance and surface of the race that the horse is running in today.

I also use only the current year in my calculations, unless the horse has started less than six times in the current year, in which case I use starts and earnings from the current year and the previous year combined.

[raybo]

In calculating average earnings-per start, I don't consider only the races run by each horse at the same distance or on the same surface as today's race. However, I do assign different weights to the overall earnings-per-start average for each horse, based on the distance and surface of the race that the horse is running in today.

I also use only the current year in my calculations, unless the horse has started less than six times in the current year, in which case I use starts and earnings from the current year and the previous year combined.

I understand, but I don't try to add incomparable races to the calculation, or added time differentials. If I can't get a good idea of average earnings, according to my criteria, then I pass the race.

[no breathalyzer]

wait people still figure out class by average earnings-per start :confused:

[Aerocraft67]

I have been passing races in which more than one horse has never run the distance of today's race. If it's just one horse, then I use the best speed figure shown on the pp's for a previous race the horse has run that's closest to today's distance. But since I'm uncomfortable with this method to start with, if there's more than one horse I just pass the race. And that's a lot of races.

I'd be grateful for any advice on how to handle this issue, or if I'm just placing too much importance on "best speed at distance." Thanks!

I know the thread has evolved since your initial specific question, but it's been lingering in the back of my mind.

What if a trainer of a horse that hasn't run at today's distance has a profitable move switching from a previous distance to today's distance? Passing races that have runners without previous data at this distance would throw you off a viable, identifiable opportunity.

A related fundamental to keep in mind is that you're ultimately trying to predict how the runners will perform today. Scoring the runners' past performance is a means to that end. Barriers to scoring past performance are worth overcoming if you can form a prediction for today, and may even land you on better values. Sounds a bit obvious perhaps but that's how I thought about your question.

Of course you're entitled to any "playability" criteria you're comfortable with, but sounds like you weren't comfortable with the conservative results of this criteria, and I think you can definitely make a case to overcome it.