Brisnet speed ratings

[horseplayer]

Anyone know how to calculate the winners' Brisnet speed rating ??

eg: horse finished 4 lengths behind the winner and has a Brisnet speed rating of 76 - what was the Brisnet speed rating of the winner.

I called Brisnet and asked to speak with tech staff and told them my question and the person answering said hold on a minute and came back and said it was a ''very complicated process involves pace , variant , the track etc. etc.'' and that was it.

I know this can be done for Beyers - there is a difference for sprint and route calculations.

Thanx for answering - Bob

[NorCalGreg]

Anyone know how to calculate the winners' Brisnet speed rating ??

eg: horse finished 4 lengths behind the winner and has a Brisnet speed rating of 76 - what was the Brisnet speed rating of the winner.

I called Brisnet and asked to speak with tech staff and told them my question and the person answering said hold on a minute and came back and said it was a ''very complicated process involves pace , variant , the track etc. etc.'' and that was it.

I know this can be done for Beyers - there is a difference for sprint and route calculations.

Thanx for answering - Bob

The reason that techie couldn't/wouldn't answer your simple question, Bob is because he didn't know. He could have just directed you to their website's library. Bris is a good friend to the horseplayer, just don't bother calling.
This is from their site:

"BRIS uses an objective, computer precise method to make the final time projections rather than using the subjective opinion of one handicapper."

At TimeFormUS, they've got some guy, heard he's a cab driver or something, actually makes the final speed figs himself. Not Bris....ooohhh no. The Bris F.A.Q goes on to say:

"The past performances of every horse competing in a given field is examined with the painstaking detail only a computer can do. The projections generated by Bloodstock Research's computer system are based on proprietary techniques and algorithms which have been rigorously tested and long proven over hundreds of thousands of races."

So there ya go.

I better quit clowning--chief figure maker for Time Form US is one of the Moderators here--CJ, as if you didn't already know.

Here's the Bris library link for the Speed Rating info:

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/static.cgi?page=speed

have a good day☮

[thaskalos]

The guy whom you talked to was a moron...the calculation is as easy as it could get. One length in a sprint is 1.5 points...and one length in a route is 1 point.

Ooops...sorry Greg. Didn't see your post.

[NorCalGreg]

The guy whom you talked to was a moron...the calculation is as easy as it could get. One length in a sprint is 1.5 points...and one length in a route is 1 point.

Ooops...sorry Greg. Didn't see your post.

You and I posted simutaneously. :)

[Lemon Drop Husker]

The guy whom you talked to was a moron...the calculation is as easy as it could get. One length in a sprint is 1.5 points...and one length in a route is 1 point.

Ooops...sorry Greg. Didn't see your post.

I've always had them at 3/2 and even, depending upon distance.

If you are going to take Bris numbers to task, you are behind the curve already. Maybe even more behind the curve than Beyers numbers guys.

The reason to get BRIS forms is for the pace with the E1/E2 and Late pace numbers.

[NorCalGreg]

I've always had them at 3/2 and even, depending upon distance.

If you are going to take Bris numbers to task, you are behind the curve already. Maybe even more behind the curve than Beyers numbers guys.

The reason to get BRIS forms is for the pace with the E1/E2 and Late pace numbers.

1 pt = 1 length in routes IS fairly old school....they have that down to finite equations now---I DON'T.... I get my pace figs ready-made...but pace fig makers do

[NorCalGreg]

I find their E1/E2 and Late numbers to be totally inaccurate and utterly USELESS. And their speed ratings are garbage as well. The only thing I admire about these figures is their consistency.

Well that's it, thask.....if you stay with the same figures....all you can ask is that they remain consistant

[thaskalos]

I've always had them at 3/2 and even, depending upon distance.

If you are going to take Bris numbers to task, you are behind the curve already. Maybe even more behind the curve than Beyers numbers guys.

The reason to get BRIS forms is for the pace with the E1/E2 and Late pace numbers.

I find their E1/E2 and late pace numbers to be totally inaccurate and utterly USELESS...and their speed ratings are garbage as well. The numbers are consistent, though...so I guess THAT'S something...

[thaskalos]

Well that's it, thask.....if you stay with the same figures....all you can ask is that they remain consistant
You should have given me a little time to fix up my post, Greg. :)

[no breathalyzer]

I find their E1/E2 and late pace numbers to be totally inaccurate and utterly USELESS...and their speed ratings are garbage as well. The numbers are consistent, though...so I guess THAT'S something...
a bit harsh there

[Speed Figure]

Points Per Length

4.0 = 2.50
4.5 = 2.22
5.0 = 2.00
5.5 = 1.81
6.0 = 1.66
6.5 = 1.54
7.0 = 1.42
7.5 = 1.33
8.0 = 1.25
8.5 = 1.18
9.0 = 1.11
9.5 = 1.05
10 = 1.00
11 = 0.91
12 = 0.83

[Tom]

Correct.
10/distance in furlongs

Search for Secretariat - he posted some BRIS info a couple of moths ago.

[raybo]

Points Per Length

4.0 = 2.50
4.5 = 2.22
5.0 = 2.00
5.5 = 1.81
6.0 = 1.66
6.5 = 1.54
7.0 = 1.42
7.5 = 1.33
8.0 = 1.25
8.5 = 1.18
9.0 = 1.11
9.5 = 1.05
10 = 1.00
11 = 0.91
12 = 0.83


This is correct! 1 pt per length in routes and 1 1/2 pts in sprints is incorrect. Their speed figures' points per length vary with each distance.

However, their pace figures are not variable for each distance:

Unlike the BRIS Speed Ratings which employ a differing points-per-length scale depending on the race distance, the BRIS Pace Ratings use a fixed scale of 2-points-per-length for all pace calls (2f,4f, etc.) - regardless of the race distance. The fixed 2-points-per-length scale is based on the fact that, regardless of the entire race's distance, the ground covered for any given pace call (2f,4f,etc.) is the same - that is, a 1/4 mile call is equal to two furlongs regardless of whether the entire race is six furlongs or ten furlongs (1 1/4 miles). Since the pace calls being measured are equivalent across differing distances ( a 1/2 mile call in a sprint is the same distance as a 1/2 mile call in a route), the BRIS Pace Ratings use the same 2-points-per-length scaling for all pace calls across all distances.

This of course, brings much controversy into the conversation. To say that a 1st call of 22 seconds in a short race is the same as 22 seconds in a longer distance, is just --- crazy. Plus, the 1st call is not the same distance in all sprints, nor the same in all routes, because the run-up differs, which should be reflected in the pace figure for E1, as well as for E2, and of course, for the speed figure. the difference in 1st call distance affects not just E1, but also E2, because E2 includes E1, and the total distance is also affected, meaning that the speed figure should also reflect the run-up differences. And, as we all know, the run-up distance can vary greatly, up to 90 feet, or more (90 feet could equal 8-9 lengths!!), at the same track, at the same race distance, on the same day. Of course, Brisnet doesn't even publish the run-up distances in their data files or PDFs (as of the last time I looked at their data files), so it's obvious that they either; don't care at all, or they don't think the user needs to have that data. Thankfully, the JCapper/HDW data files do include that run-up data.

[ebcorde]

I find their E1/E2 and late pace numbers to be totally inaccurate and utterly USELESS...and their speed ratings are garbage as well. The numbers are consistent, though...so I guess THAT'S something...


you are partially correct, you have to use the Quirin as well.

with a recent change in my own program I can take their numbers and produce an output almost .. I say almost the same as Thorograph. The last 3 weeks I've compared my numbers with Thorograph so far, so good. I'm hopeful.

[ebcorde]

a bit harsh there


:lol:

what's useless is THEIR own rules. They impose what they think matters.
something I learned from watching races across the pond.

They stretch Horses out over there all the time. Melbourne cup is 2 miles, they throw a 1-1/4 horse in there.

Horse never on turf, never ran the distance, win a lot. early speed is key because slow is always slow no matter the distance. Horse can learn when to use that speed.

[Robert Goren]

BRIS rating whether they are E1, E2, LP or the speed rating are not worth much when comparing races if the races are at different distances. The E1 numbers are pretty good if the distance is the same. If todays race is 6F, then any number for race other than 6F is useless. The E1 number for the same distance will predict the front runner after the first quarter a lot more often than the Quirin number for 6F races in my experience. The longer the race the less likely BRIS's E1 will predict the front runner. Remember Quirin numbers try to predict what a horse wants to do, not what it can actually do. BRIS's E1 tries to predict what a horse actually can do. In 6F races, at least, it does a reasonable job if you use only 6F races from the past performances. As a general rule, I average the 2 ratings that are closest together out of the last 3 races to get the number I use.

[cbp]

:lol:


Horse never on turf, never ran the distance, win a lot. early speed is key because slow is always slow no matter the distance. Horse can learn when to use that speed.
Not the way it works in the states. Rare to find horses that are equally adept on dirt and turf. And, most sprinters can't stretch out; and most routers can't really sprint.

Must be the training methods or horses are slow here.

[ebcorde]

Not the way it works in the states. Rare to find horses that are equally adept on dirt and turf. And, most sprinters can't stretch out; and most routers can't really sprint.

Must be the training methods or horses are slow here.

They win ENOUGH such that it's not a AUTOMATIC THROW OUT. I see 6f horses with tons of speed stretch out to a new longer distance and win ALL THE TIME. And at a good price because you RULES guys throw them out.

I see first time on Turf they win all the time at a great price.

you abide by the RULES and yes you will get plenty of 2-1 wins.


Take the 11f race AT AQU. the first 5-6 furlongs was a jog. Speed not used. so in essence it's a 6f race. Happens all the time in America.

[delayjf]

This of course, brings much controversy into the conversation. To say that a 1st call of 22 seconds in a short race is the same as 22 seconds in a longer distance, is just --- crazy. Plus,

I see your point, but at the same time, you stay away from possible errors that can be injected into the figures that are adjusted by distance. Not to say differences in run ups are not important, just that attempting to cook those adjustments into the figures can get complicated.

[ebcorde]

have Backclass by Track, and level.

Bris makes class errors example GP race 2 #3 horse ran a G3 race, stakes races and 2 at Saratoga but given a low class rating

Class, Trainer are more important than a few pace points

[jasperson]

BRIS rating whether they are E1, E2, LP or the speed rating are not worth much when comparing races if the races are at different distances. The E1 numbers are pretty good if the distance is the same. If todays race is 6F, then any number for race other than 6F is useless. The E1 number for the same distance will predict the front runner after the first quarter a lot more often than the Quirin number for 6F races in my experience. The longer the race the less likely BRIS's E1 will predict the front runner. Remember Quirin numbers try to predict what a horse wants to do, not what it can actually do. BRIS's E1 tries to predict what a horse actually can do. In 6F races, at least, it does a reasonable job if you use only 6F races from the past performances. As a general rule, I average the 2 ratings that are closest together out of the last 3 races to get the number I use.

I agree with this. I look at Quirin's speed points and running style to predict what the horse wants to do. Then I look at my pace figures to see if I think he can do it against today's field.

[ebcorde]

Not the way it works in the states. Rare to find horses that are equally adept on dirt and turf. And, most sprinters can't stretch out; and most routers can't really sprint.

Must be the training methods or horses are slow here.

Yes I agree up to a point. A long horse distance that runs E1 in 95 dropping to 6f can win , whereas one who runs E1 in 78 won't.

same as a 6f sprinter who can run E2 in 95 , why cant he run a 8f/8.5 race? If the trainer puts endurance in him, check the workout distances .

not crapping on your thinking, Track runner thinking, I ran 1/2 , 1, 3, 5 mile races in college and XC. The speed is always there for you. Need endurance training for longer. ** so why not the same for a Horse?

** Reference American Pharoah

[raybo]

I see your point, but at the same time, you stay away from possible errors that can be injected into the figures that are adjusted by distance. Not to say differences in run ups are not important, just that attempting to cook those adjustments into the figures can get complicated.

Removing the run-up distance from the E1 time, E2 time, and finish time is easily done. Anyone who now calculates fractional velocities, in feet per second, can produce the adjusted times, then it's just like all traditional pace and speed figures are done. The only thing different is that you're changing the fractional and final times to reflect the run-up distance reduction, the rest of the figure making process is the same.

[cj]

Removing the run-up distance from the E1 time, E2 time, and finish time is easily done. Anyone who now calculates fractional velocities, in feet per second, can produce the adjusted times, then it's just like all traditional pace and speed figures are done. The only thing different is that you're changing the fractional and final times to reflect the run-up distance reduction, the rest of the figure making process is the same.

I'd be interested to hear how your remove the run up time. You have to be able to time the run up. You can do it via video, roughly, but you won't be that accurate. Also, the reported distance of run ups is not very accurate for the most part. It is also a rough estimate.

[raybo]

I'd be interested to hear how your remove the run up time. You have to be able to time the run up. You can do it via video, roughly, but you won't be that accurate. Also, the reported distance of run ups is not very accurate for the most part. It is also a rough estimate.

I have my own way of doing it, but I'd rather not reveal it. Of course it's not exact, but nothing we do, involving distance and time, in racing is. You're welcome to post your way though :cool: , but I would assume that info would not be something you, nor TFUS, would want revealed. What we have regarding raw data is not entirely accurate, to say the least, so the things that we can do to more accurately define that raw data, is worth something (maybe a lot), IMO. By the time the horses reach the timing mark they are running at a certain rate of speed. If the run-up is 0 feet, then the rate of speed at the timing mark is close to zero. If the run-up is 90 feet (or more) then the rate of speed has increased dramatically. A standing start results in a slower time than a running start, over the same distance, all other things being similar (as you well know).

[cj]

I have my own way of doing it, but I'd rather not reveal it. Of course it's not exact, but nothing we do, involving distance and time, in racing is. You're welcome to post your way though :cool: , but I would assume that info would not be something you, nor TFUS, would want revealed. What we have regarding raw data is not entirely accurate, to say the least, so the things that we can do to more accurately define that raw data, is worth something (maybe a lot), IMO. By the time the horses reach the timing mark they are running at a certain rate of speed. If the run-up is 0 feet, then the rate of speed at the timing mark is close to zero. If the run-up is 90 feet (or more) then the rate of speed has increased dramatically. A standing start results in a slower time than a running start, over the same distance, all other things being similar (as you well know).


I understand this as I'm sure you know. But one thing I've learned with the data I have is that the run up doesn't work out nearly as neat in real life as it does on paper. I'd only trust accounting for run up if I know the time and distance of it. As it is now, I know neither with much confidence.

The extent I use run up is pretty limited for this reason. What I do is note the run up of each race and if there are extreme differences, I know that could be a factor if the variants look out of line for those races and I'll do more research.

[cbp]

I understand this as I'm sure you know. But one thing I've learned with the data I have is that the run up doesn't work out nearly as neat in real life as it does on paper. I'd only trust accounting for run up if I know the time and distance of it. As it is now, I know neither with much confidence.

The extent I use run up is pretty limited for this reason. What I do is note the run up of each race and if there are extreme differences, I know that could be a factor if the variants look out of line for those races and I'll do more research.

Wouldn't some code that 'reads' video get this done? I was looking into this the other day and I came across some interesting Python modules. My understanding is that if you can see it, you should be able to analyze it.

[no breathalyzer]

run up times isn't the difference between wining and losing in this game trust me....its a very minor piece of the puzzle .. 5 second replay can tell you if the stated run up time is correct

[ebcorde]

run up times isn't the difference between wining and losing in this game trust me....its a very minor piece of the puzzle .. 5 second replay can tell you if the stated run up time is correct

Glad you said that :lol:

[cbp]

run up times isn't the difference between wining and losing in this game trust me....its a very minor piece of the puzzle .. 5 second replay can tell you if the stated run up time is correct

Just in case you weren't aware, 99.99% of the players out there approach the game pseudo analytically. I write 'pseudo' because it's someone else's analytics. They need numbers. Then, we have the constant whining about lack of value in the game. There is value if you're not fixated on the same abstractions as everyone else.

[no breathalyzer]

analytics is only a piece of the puzzle.. its the rules you apply to them.. also them so called analytics are not all ways how they seem in black and white.

[cj]

run up times isn't the difference between wining and losing in this game trust me....its a very minor piece of the puzzle .. 5 second replay can tell you if the stated run up time is correct

What stated run up time?

In a game with a 20% takeout, I'm always amazed how easily some.dismiss a possible edge.

[cj]

Wouldn't some code that 'reads' video get this done? I was looking into this the other day and I came across some interesting Python modules. My understanding is that if you can see it, you should be able to analyze it.


I'm not going to say it isn't possible, but it would be quite the undertaking for many reasons. Here are a few off the top of my head:

Official start of race isn't clearly marked.

Camera angles vary even for races at the same track and distance.

Many tracks don't allow easily downloadable replays.

Temp rails.

About distances.

Distance of run up isn't truly known

Etc, etc.

[no breathalyzer]

What stated run up time?

In a game with a 20% takeout, I'm always amazed how easily some.dismiss a possible edge.


http://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=AQU&raceDate=11/12/2015&cy=USA&rn=1

equibase charts list run up times

[ReplayRandall]

I'm not going to say it isn't possible, but it would be quite the undertaking for many reasons. Here are a few off the top of my head:

Official start of race isn't clearly marked.

Camera angles vary even for races at the same track and distance.

Many tracks don't allow easily downloadable replays.

Temp rails.

About distances.

Distance of run up isn't truly known

Etc, etc.

CJ, I want to ask you a straight-forward question, because I truly don't know the answer. My question, What is the purpose of a run-up?

[cj]

http://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=AQU&raceDate=11/12/2015&cy=USA&rn=1

equibase charts list run up times

No, they list run up distance, not times. Those listed distances are only fairly reliable at best.

[cj]

CJ, I want to ask you a straight-forward question, because I truly don't know the answer. My question, What is the purpose of a run-up?

There is a good article on the web by Pat Cummings which delved into the history a bit of memory serves.

[NorCalGreg]

There is a good article on the web by Pat Cummings which delved into the history a bit of memory serves.

https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/time-change-why-north-america-must-stop-perpetually-mistiming-races

[ReplayRandall]

There is a good article on the web by Pat Cummings which delved into the history a bit of memory serves.

Thanks CJ and Greg for the article and link. Well, it looks likes it's a tradition started before starting gates were used, and then just kind of stuck around.....Still don't know definitively why they exist.

[ebcorde]

https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/time-change-why-north-america-must-stop-perpetually-mistiming-races


holy sheet 185 feet run up????? I thought the run up was like 30-40 feet something small. variable run up at the same distance, same track
I feel like a fool. Glad I've never been a stickler for a couple 2f pace points


no wonder Horse racing is dying, this country is crooked.

[NorCalGreg]

holy sheet 185 feet run up????? I thought the run up was like 30-40 feet something small. variable run up at the same distance, same track
I feel like a fool. Glad I've never been a stickler for a couple 2f pace points


no wonder Horse racing is dying, this country is crooked.

"variable run up at the same distance, same track" ....you forgot:
"same day"

It's not just the "clothes-line em" starters, blind stewards, druggie trainers, big bettors, clown jockeys, sticky-fingered administrators....it's now the ENTIRE COUNTRY that's to blame :lol:

[ebcorde]

compared to you guys.
I have never heard any one at the race track talk about
"run up". I used laugh at the guys who "never used the book", relied on movement of the line. hell I may give that a try now.

[no breathalyzer]

No, they list run up distance, not times. Those listed distances are only fairly reliable at best.

lol sorry i had a couple too many last night

[Capper Al]

The reason that techie couldn't/wouldn't answer your simple question, Bob is because he didn't know. He could have just directed you to their website's library. Bris is a good friend to the horseplayer, just don't bother calling.
This is from their site:

"BRIS uses an objective, computer precise method to make the final time projections rather than using the subjective opinion of one handicapper."

At TimeFormUS, they've got some guy, heard he's a cab driver or something, actually makes the final speed figs himself. Not Bris....ooohhh no. The Bris F.A.Q goes on to say:

"The past performances of every horse competing in a given field is examined with the painstaking detail only a computer can do. The projections generated by Bloodstock Research's computer system are based on proprietary techniques and algorithms which have been rigorously tested and long proven over hundreds of thousands of races."

So there ya go.

I better quit clowning--chief figure maker for Time Form US is one of the Moderators here--CJ, as if you didn't already know.

Here's the Bris library link for the Speed Rating info:

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/static.cgi?page=speed

have a good day☮

Hey this link doesn't work for me. I get access denied.

[cj]

Hey this link doesn't work for me. I get access denied.

Link worked fine for me.

[johnhannibalsmith]

At a now defunct track I spent a lot of time at in various capacities the run-up for every distance was listed as the same good round sounding number, twenty feet I think. I would watch the races, watch gallopers, stand at the gate in the morning at the three-quarter chute. Everywhere I'd see these start points and then see that distance in the program and just knew someone had dreamed this number up out of thin air. I brought a tape with me when I was out marking spots on the rail for another little project and marked the start point for the distance and ran the tape to the start sensor and took a few samples from common distances that didn't require me to walk a full mile in the sun. Not only were none of them remotely the same but none of them were the reported distance. It occurred to me that I had better know damn well just how accurate these numbers are if I'm going to pay them any attention.

[cj]

At a now defunct track I spent a lot of time at in various capacities the run-up for every distance was listed as the same good round sounding number, twenty feet I think. I would watch the races, watch gallopers, stand at the gate in the morning at the three-quarter chute. Everywhere I'd see these start points and then see that distance in the program and just knew someone had dreamed this number up out of thin air. I brought a tape with me when I was out marking spots on the rail for another little project and marked the start point for the distance and ran the tape to the start sensor and took a few samples from common distances that didn't require me to walk a full mile in the sun. Not only were none of them remotely the same but none of them were the reported distance. It occurred to me that I had better know damn well just how accurate these numbers are if I'm going to pay them any attention.

This is what I've been saying all along. The Equibase chart caller isn't eyeballing the run up and reporting it. He is just passing along the info given to him by the track. This information is sketchy at best.

[johnhannibalsmith]

This is what I've been saying all along. The Equibase chart caller isn't eyeballing the run up and reporting it. He is just passing along the info given to him by the track. This information is sketchy at best.

Yeah I was trying to give you a real life anecdote to support your claim. I would like to think that tracks which are run better than this one was, which would probably be nearly all of them, have a little higher standard in 2015 when it comes to even this trivial seeming stuff to execs. But, I wouldn't bet on it.

[raybo]

holy sheet 185 feet run up????? I thought the run up was like 30-40 feet something small. variable run up at the same distance, same track
I feel like a fool. Glad I've never been a stickler for a couple 2f pace points


no wonder Horse racing is dying, this country is crooked.

That's what I've been trying to say. The run-ups, even at the same track, same day, same distance can vary wildly. Anyone that thinks that run-up distances are a minor piece of the puzzle just don't understand the nature of racing where the timing starts after the horses have achieved some rate of travel, a running start. The longer the run-up distance, the faster the horses are running when the timing of the race starts.

Horse A wires a 6f race with a run-up of 0 feet, and is assigned a Bris speed figure of 90.

Horse B wires a 6f race, same track, same day, same surface, with a run-up of 120 feet, and is assigned a Bris speed of 95.

Which horse ran the better race? Horse A of course. Horse A started the timing of the race while running at very nearly 0 mph. Horse B started the race timing while running at nearly full bore, 30+ mph.

Is that information significant, or not?

[cj]

Yeah I was trying to give you a real life anecdote to support your claim. I would like to think that tracks which are run better than this one was, which would probably be nearly all of them, have a little higher standard in 2015 when it comes to even this trivial seeming stuff to execs. But, I wouldn't bet on it.

You would be correct not to bet on it. Bigger tracks have plenty wrong run ups listed. I personally think Equibase should ensure the information is correct. How hard is it to look out the window and note if the gate is where the track says it will be? I'm sure it isn't easy to put the gate right on cue every time.

[no breathalyzer]

In the overall picture its still just a piece of the puzzle when it comes to being a winner.. i under stand how run up works... and i don't put a lot of weight in the reported run ups given. its just a starting point to compare for feature reference.. same thing for speed figs. i just need any one of a couple different ones out there to get a good starting point . The brisnet figs are fine. I bet one track seriously and i watch replays.. my eye can tell me if the opening quarter was aided by run up or not.

[cj]

That's what I've been trying to say. The run-ups, even at the same track, same day, same distance can vary wildly. Anyone that thinks that run-up distances are a minor piece of the puzzle just don't understand the nature of racing where the timing starts after the horses have achieved some rate of travel, a running start. The longer the run-up distance, the faster the horses are running when the timing of the race starts.

Horse A wires a 6f race with a run-up of 0 feet, and is assigned a Bris speed figure of 90.

Horse B wires a 6f race, same track, same day, same surface, with a run-up of 120 feet, and is assigned a Bris speed of 95.

Which horse ran the better race? Horse A of course. Horse A started the timing of the race while running at very nearly 0 mph. Horse B started the race timing while running at nearly full bore, 30+ mph.

Is that information significant, or not?

This is what I was talking about when I said theory doesn't always match reality, though. If there are no early speed horses or the jockeys slow the pace, the long run up won't matter much. Every race is different as I'm sure you know. You could have a short run up where the horses are going faster when the beam trips depending on tactics.

Here is my definition of run up: An un-timed segment of the race.

Is it better to try and include it? Absolutely in my opinion. But it isn't easy with the information given and the video available. Measuring the effect is also not easy, like a lot of things in this game.

[raybo]

In the overall picture its still just a piece of the puzzle when it comes to being a winner.. i under stand how run up works... and i don't put a lot of weight in the reported run ups given. its just a starting point to compare for feature reference.. same thing for speed figs. i just need any one of a couple different ones out there to get a good starting point . The brisnet figs are fine. I bet one track seriously and i watch replays.. my eye can tell me if the opening quarter was aided by run up or not.

Well, unless you watch every race, every day, and make notes on the run-ups, then in future races where those horses are running again, you are in no better position than people who ignore run-ups completely.

Yes, run-ups are only one portion of the analysis, but it is far from a minor piece of the puzzle. It should be included, as at least an important factor, in your pace, speed, and energy analysis, unless you don't care about pace, speed, and energy expenditure. And even if you are strictly a class or form 'capper, you should know that a long run-up means that the horses in that race are running further and longer, and expending energy before they even reach the timing mark. That can have huge influences in the late stretch, and that also has significant implications when looking back at that race in the PPs while analyzing a future race.

[raybo]

This is what I was talking about when I said theory doesn't always match reality, though. If there are no early speed horses or the jockeys slow the pace, the long run up won't matter much. Every race is different as I'm sure you know. You could have a short run up where the horses are going faster when the beam trips depending on tactics.

Here is my definition of run up: An un-timed segment of the race.

Is it better to try and include it? Absolutely in my opinion. But it isn't easy with the information given and the video available. Measuring the effect is also not easy, like a lot of things in this game.

I agree, pace must be analyzed with regard to run-up importance. And even if the run-up distances are not entirely accurate, you're better off, long term, including them than ignoring them. Of course, I'm talking from a long term perspective, not an individual race perspective. I know most players are "individual race" minded, but if making profit, over time, is also important to them, then they probably should put some of that long term perspective into their methods. Just my 2 cents worth!

[Capper Al]

Link worked fine for me.

It works now. Thanks

[NorCalGreg]

I agree, pace must be analyzed with regard to run-up importance. And even if the run-up distances are not entirely accurate, you're better off, long term, including them than ignoring them. Of course, I'm talking from a long term perspective, not an individual race perspective. I know most players are "individual race" minded, but if making profit, over time, is also important to them, then they probably should put some of that long term perspective into their methods. Just my 2 cents worth!

Okay....that's one (or a couple) opinions. Still remaining friendly, and not bashing anyone, how has this total run-up mind-job done anyone, except maybe the chief figure-maker, done anyone any good at the windows?
Yeah it sounds all sounds all intelligent, but everyone isn't a programmer---everyone isn't hung up on the tiniest perceived edge they may find.
And most importantly----everyone isn't a loser.

Raybo, Bris mass-markets it's pace figs to a wider customer base--not a smaller niche market of folks like your self who demand more from their
figs.
The subject of the same 2F call,--getting the same pace scale rating, no matter if it's a 6F or 10F race, isn't a big mystery. In the route race, the figs are naturally going to be lower, sprints much higher depending on class. I don't really know why that would be a point of contention.

That's really a non-issue. I'm guessing it's the programmer in you that has the beef. The handicapper in me has not a problem with Bris' pace figs.

later dudes
-NCG☮

[raybo]

Okay....that's one (or a couple) opinions. Still remaining friendly, and not bashing anyone, how has this total run-up mind-job done anyone, except maybe the chief figure-maker, done anyone any good at the windows?
Yeah it sounds all sounds all intelligent, but everyone isn't a programmer---everyone isn't hung up on the tiniest perceived edge they may find.
And most importantly----everyone isn't a loser.

Raybo, Bris mass-markets it's pace figs to a wider customer base--not a smaller niche market of folks like your self who demand more from their
figs.
The subject of the same 2F call,--getting the same pace scale rating, no matter if it's a 6F or 10F race, isn't a big mystery. In the route race, the figs are naturally going to be lower, sprints much higher depending on class. I don't really know why that would be a point of contention.

That's really a non-issue. I'm guessing it's the programmer in you that has the beef. The handicapper in me has not a problem with Bris' pace figs.

later dudes
-NCG☮

First of all, I'm not a "programmer". Yes, I record and occasionally write some macros, but those macros are for automation purposes, not analysis purposes. All of my calculations and comparisons, etc., are accomplished via formulas in Excel. Yeah, good old algebra and step by step decision trees. This is "old-school" computer handicapping via a computer, rather than pen and paper/calculator and intuition. The beauty of this type of old-school capping is that my personal philosophies are built into the program, for all time, unless I change something to reflect changes in the game.

Regardless, my opinion is that, if you're going to go to the trouble to work with numbers and values, then you should at least do everything in your power to include everything possible to make the numbers and values as accurate as possible. That is why I quit using Brisnet pace and speed figures long ago, because they are not doing everything possible to make their figures as accurate as possible. Things like assigning the same time per length to all races of the same distance, regardless of the actual rate of travel, in their speed figures, is not as accurate as it could be. They also say that their speed figures are equalized and transferable from distance to distance. So an 85 sprint race speed figure is supposed to be comparable to an 85 speed rating in a route. What you have said about that, is just the opposite, you say the route speed figures will be lower than the sprint figures. Generally that might be true, but "generally" does not portend accuracy, does it?

And their pace figures are not even based on a sliding scale for beaten length times to pace points, like in their speed figures (at least they attempt to differentiate between distances somewhat in their speed figures). Nope, a length is worth the same number of pace points (2), regardless of the race distance. How can that be accurate? It can't.

But, if you are profitable in racing, using Brisnet pace/speed figures, more power to you, keep doing what you're doing! :ThmbUp:

[classhandicapper]

Right now I'm finding that a lot of the tweaks I make to my numbers have very little impact on the win% or ROI. Some of the winners change, but the bottom line change is so minimal I often can't even tell for sure if a change is right.

I'm coming to the conclusion that in many/most races there is a clear cut "most likely" and in the rest of the races the probabilities are so similar being more accurate barely moves the needle.

That might explain why for decades when I've switched back and forth between primarily class, primarily speed, and a hybrid method there was no noticeable difference in my results. Just my opinions and the horses I played varied.

[ebcorde]

Right now I'm finding that a lot of the tweaks I make to my numbers have very little impact on the win% or ROI. Some of the winners change, but the bottom line change is so minimal I often can't even tell for sure if a change is right.

I'm coming to the conclusion that in many/most races there is a clear cut "most likely" and in the rest of the races the probabilities are so similar being more accurate barely moves the needle.

That might explain why for decades when I've switched back and forth between primarily class, primarily speed, and a hybrid method there was no noticeable difference in my results. Just my opinions and the horses I played varied.
that's it. same with me. I come up with the same likely winner various ways class, jockey, trainers, win% etc etc

[Tom]

Yeah I was trying to give you a real life anecdote to support your claim. I would like to think that tracks which are run better than this one was, which would probably be nearly all of them, have a little higher standard in 2015 when it comes to even this trivial seeming stuff to execs. But, I wouldn't bet on it.

Years ago, I was at FL sitting on a bench on the grandstand flats, directly even with the gate for a mile race. Two races later was another mile race. Same bench, this time , the gate 3 or 4 rail poles to my right. The last race of the day, also a mile, this time the gate was 3 or 4 rail poles to my left.

Mt first reaction was, some jerk was moving my bench when I went to the bar.

[Capper Al]

Good to see the monkey avatar back. It's your trademark.

[jeebus1083]

Another way...

(8 / (DISTANCE IN FEET / 8)) X 10

That is probably more "accurate".

Points Per Length

4.0 = 2.50
4.5 = 2.22
5.0 = 2.00
5.5 = 1.81
6.0 = 1.66
6.5 = 1.54
7.0 = 1.42
7.5 = 1.33
8.0 = 1.25
8.5 = 1.18
9.0 = 1.11
9.5 = 1.05
10 = 1.00
11 = 0.91
12 = 0.83

[jeebus1083]

I understand this as I'm sure you know. But one thing I've learned with the data I have is that the run up doesn't work out nearly as neat in real life as it does on paper. I'd only trust accounting for run up if I know the time and distance of it. As it is now, I know neither with much confidence.

The extent I use run up is pretty limited for this reason. What I do is note the run up of each race and if there are extreme differences, I know that could be a factor if the variants look out of line for those races and I'll do more research.

A way to get a ballpark run-up time... Let's say that we're dealing with a 35-foot run-up (4.375 lengths if you subscribe to 8 feet = 1 length)... Using the first 1/4 mile (1,320 feet) and adding 35 feet, the run-up makes up approximately 2.58% of the first portion of the race. If the first 1/4 mile run (beam-to-beam) is 22.22 seconds, the run-up is (theoretically) going to make the first 1/4 run 2.58% faster than a start right at the beam. 22.22 X 1.0258 = 22.79 seconds. The extra 35 feet = .57 seconds run-up.

[Capper Al]

Another way...

(8 / (DISTANCE IN FEET / 8)) X 10

That is probably more "accurate".

Are these BRIS' speed points or yours? They look like what I have. I'm assuming the left hand column represents furlongs.

[jeebus1083]

Are these BRIS' speed points or yours? They look like what I have. I'm assuming the left hand column represents furlongs.

Not mine. Speed Figure calculates doing 10/Distance in furlongs. I use a different formula, but I'm sure that either way is close enough.

[jeebus1083]

A way to get a ballpark run-up time... Let's say that we're dealing with a 35-foot run-up (4.375 lengths if you subscribe to 8 feet = 1 length)... Using the first 1/4 mile (1,320 feet) and adding 35 feet, the run-up makes up approximately 2.58% of the first portion of the race. If the first 1/4 mile run (beam-to-beam) is 22.22 seconds, the run-up is (theoretically) going to make the first 1/4 run 2.58% faster than a start right at the beam. 22.22 X 1.0258 = 22.79 seconds. The extra 35 feet = .57 seconds run-up.

Adding 35 feet to the distance of the race and performing similar calculations may work too. It won't ever be accurate no matter what, but better than nothing I suppose.

[cj]

A way to get a ballpark run-up time... Let's say that we're dealing with a 35-foot run-up (4.375 lengths if you subscribe to 8 feet = 1 length)... Using the first 1/4 mile (1,320 feet) and adding 35 feet, the run-up makes up approximately 2.58% of the first portion of the race. If the first 1/4 mile run (beam-to-beam) is 22.22 seconds, the run-up is (theoretically) going to make the first 1/4 run 2.58% faster than a start right at the beam. 22.22 X 1.0258 = 22.79 seconds. The extra 35 feet = .57 seconds run-up.

I understand...the time of the run up is really easy to get from video too. The problem is we don't really know the distance. The reported run up distances aren't precise by any means.