Calculating the Work of the Horse

[Cratos]

There are many calculations put forth in horseracing and many are based on anecdotal data/postulations.

That might benefit some, but not me because I am an empiricist; I need to understand the science behind the calculation. Because before I can learn what a function is, I need to understand how mathematics relates to science.

The scientific method is an orderly and efficient way of analyzing physical situations. Its counterpoint, the trial and error method, is something many are probably more familiar with. Human nature inclines the mind more toward exploration and experimentation rather than systematic analysis. The trial and error method reflects the tangents that human logic takes when curiosity beckons.

The scientific method, on the other hand, provides an orderly path for the mind to follow in its passage from bewilderment to enlightenment. Without following the scientific method, an analysis will remain consistently complex and any theories formed will be too general to explain the phenomena accurately. Therefore an understanding of the scientific method is crucial to your understanding of mathematics and development as a quantitative horseplayer. Here are its main steps.:

• Identify the problem or situation
• Narrow down the problem statement while being as specific as possible.
• Remove external factors to leave behind a few interacting conditions.
• Analyze remaining conditions along with their properties with respect to the entire system.
• Make reasonable assumptions about the controlled situation, such as the horse’s mass and energy, etc.
• Understand how the conditions come together to define the situation.
• Determine a logical relationship among the conditions.

I fully realized that there will be some who will say “I have been betting on horses for x-years and I don’t need any of this stuff”; and you might be correct, but learning is the constant vehicle that carry our imagination forward and without it we are stuck with yesterday’s “woulda and coulda.”

Therefore there are some simple calculations that you can make that might allow you to have a better understanding of your assumptions or some else’s assumptions and they are all done by calculating the “work of the racehorse.”

What is work of the racehorse?

Work is done on by the horse when it moves in the same direction that the force is exerted.

Measuring work of the racehorse

Work = force x distance or W = Fd

And force is just the mass (weight and load) of the horse x its acceleration (unit of distance/unit of time, feet/second)

The force the horse put into the race is the effort force (input) and the force the horse must overcome is the resistance force (output). The resistance force comes primary from the aggregate resistances of the air, surface and the wind.

Yes, you can do this in calculus, but for a first cut, simple math will do just fine.

[Dave Schwartz]

Measuring work of the racehorse

Work = force x distance or W = Fd

And force is just the mass (weight and load) of the horse x its acceleration (unit of distance/unit of time, feet/second)

This has the potential for being an excellent thread.

This would presuppose to me that you have some standard (nonstandard?) weight of horse for different ages. If so, would you be willing to give us a clue?


I have always had a problem with this formula. For example, if I lift a weight up and down, the work is measured by weight times the distance lifted.

However, if I lift the weight to the top of the exercise and hold it for 5 minutes, I did the same amount of work if I only held it for 2 seconds. This, despite the fact that I am dead on my feet at that point in time.

Are you aware of any formula that addresses a time component?

[Cratos]

This has the potential for being an excellent thread.

This would presuppose to me that you have some standard (nonstandard?) weight of horse for different ages. If so, would you be willing to give us a clue?


I have always had a problem with this formula. For example, if I lift a weight up and down, the work is measured by weight times the distance lifted.

However, if I lift the weight to the top of the exercise and hold it for 5 minutes, I did the same amount of work if I only held it for 2 seconds. This, despite the fact that I am dead on my feet at that point in time.

Are you aware of any formula that addresses a time component?
I believe I can derive a formula for time; if not, I have two associates who probably could.
I will post my findings tomorrow.

[hyipro]

You may find this report interesting as it is the basis for the computrak software, and defines "friction" which to me means "workload" as well:

http://www.revelationprofits.com/docs/Engineering%20Analysis.pdf

[Cratos]

You may find this report interesting as it is the basis for the computrak software, and defines "friction" which to me means "workload" as well:

http://www.revelationprofits.com/docs/Engineering%20Analysis.pdf
Thanks for post the PDF, but I have previously read it. The author has done some good very good analysis based on engineering equations , but I found his horseracing knowledge lacking in his postulations.

[thaskalos]

I have a different definition of "Work", as it applies to race horses...and it has nothing to do with the battle that the horses must wage against the atmospheric and the track conditions which they face. To me, "Work" means the level of adversity which the horse is asked to overcome as a result of the race "dynamics" created by the horses involved in the race.

IMO...all horses have a "cruising speed"; a "comfort level", so to speak...within which the horse is capable of delivering its top performance. "Work" then becomes, as far as I am concerned, the degree to which a horse is capable of stepping OUT of this "comfort zone"...and still give a good accounting of itself. I equate it to the human athlete who is asked to run the mile. He can run the mile while keeping within his comfort zone early, while trying to optimally disperse his energy reserves...or, he can REALLY test himself...by trying to run the mile while setting an uncomfortably fast pace, or making an unusually quick burst in the middle of the race. If he chooses option B...then he has done "Work".

[Cratos]

To the poster who believes he have a different definition for "work": he doesn't.

What he claims is different is inherent in the original explanation.

Simply stated, resistance is resistance which the horse must over come.

[thaskalos]

To the poster who believes he have a different definition for "work": he doesn't.

What he claims is different is inherent in the original explanation.

Simply stated, resistance is resistance which the horse must over come.

But in your initial post here, you said that this "resistance" is primarily caused by "the air, the surface and the wind"...and that's not at ALL what I am talking about. So...how am I not talking about a different thing?

[thaskalos]

The force the horse put into the race is the effort force (input) and the force the horse must overcome is the resistance force (output). The resistance force comes primary from the aggregate resistances of the air, surface and the wind.


Here...SEE?

[whodoyoulike]

You may find this report interesting as it is the basis for the computrak software, and defines "friction" which to me means "workload" as well:

http://www.revelationprofits.com/docs/Engineering%20Analysis.pdf

I think I've seen this paper before.

Isn't the author a member on here and has a software program available (which maybe is for sale)?

[Cratos]

Again, I said "primarily"" not exclusive and yes the "battle" as some identity it is work related to a horse's performance, but how do you quantify it?

[thaskalos]

Again, I said "primarily"" not exclusive and yes the "battle" as some identity it is work related to a horse's performance, but how do you quantify it?
If you want me to...I can supply an example by applying my "quantifying" method to one of tomorrow's races.

[JJMartin]

It is a good thing to know how much "work" a horse puts out and if it is consistent from race to race. The other part of the equation that should be emphasized is efficiency as it relates to the race itself. A horse has no concept of what a "horse race" is, it is influenced by herd mentality and running style dynamics. Some horses burn all their energy early and fizzle out. It does not know there is a finish line it needs to cross or any such thing, that should be obvious. A handicapper should determine pace shape and race shape and then apply work to the projected result.

[Cratos]

It is a good thing to know how much "work" a horse puts out and if it is consistent from race to race. The other part of the equation that should be emphasized is efficiency as it relates to the race itself. A horse has no concept of what a "horse race" is, it is influenced by herd mentality and running style dynamics. Some horses burn all their energy early and fizzle out. It does not know there is a finish line it needs to cross or any such thing, that should be obvious. A handicapper should determine pace shape and race shape and then apply work to the projected result.
A very good post; I didn't include the "efficiency equation" because the math start to become hard to simplify.

[Tom]

If you want me to...I can supply an example by applying my "quantifying" method to one of tomorrow's races.

Good idea. Both of you do the same race and we can compare the methods.

[thaskalos]

Good idea. Both of you do the same race and we can compare the methods.
If you can convince Cratos to participate...you are a better man than I am.

He doesn't seem to be too fond of me. :)

[Cratos]

I would be delighted to see how you quantify work; hopefully you will use the joule metric.

[Cratos]

I don't come to this forum to participate in games; the formula I posted is universally and academically recognized. If you disagree and can prove it, you are well on your way to physics immortality.

Horserace handicapping is a methodology which uses the application of science, math, and statistics.

[thaskalos]

I don't come to this forum to participate in games; the formula I posted is universally and the kidsacademically recognized. If you disagree and can prove it, you are well on your way to physics immortality.

Horserace handicapping is a methodology which uses the application of science, math, and statistics.
Would you care to demonstrate your "kidsacademically recognized" formula in one of the races scheduled to be run tomorrow? I like Tom's idea. Let's select one race...and we both analyze it using our respective methods for "quantifying Work".

I am not interested in "physics immortality"; I am just a horseplayer. But I am pretty good.

[Tom]

If you can convince Cratos to participate...you are a better man than I am.

He doesn't seem to be too fond of me. :)

We are both referred to as "the poster."
But you seem more than confident in your methods to illustrate.
I don't see why someone with a superior method is so hesitant.

Unless your method is handicapping races and his is talking about them.

This is the perfect thread for a real world example.

[Tom]

I don't come to this forum to participate in games; the formula I posted is universally and academically recognized. If you disagree and can prove it, you are well on your way to physics immortality.

Horserace handicapping is a methodology which uses the application of science, math, and statistics.

This ain't physics. Your formula is only as good as how useful it is in making money. No no one doubts the formula. But show us HOW it can be sued to handicap a winner. Throwing out a formula is nothing. Show us how the results separate the horses. I assume you have done this before?
You don't even have to have the winner. Just the mechanics of it - what does a fully handicapped race look like before you make the betting decisions. Surely that is within your ability?

[Tom]

Theory vs reality.....Sunday, Sunday, Sunday.....

[AndyC]

Horserace handicapping is a methodology which uses the application of science, math, and statistics.

How do you use the quantification of work to predict the outcome of a race? I believe you can quantify work for races that have been run but how do you predict work for races to be run? And what is the correlation between work and the winner?

[Saratoga_Mike]

I am not interested in "physics immortality"; I am just a horseplayer. But I am pretty good.

There's a book about the stock market titled "Being Right or Making Money." Your focus when it comes to horse racing is "making money." Other posters appear more interested in "being right."

[Tom]

Other posters are interested in how this thread's topic relates to that.
Is that an unfair question?

Gus is not afraid to show an example of his methods.

[elhelmete]

It would be great to have more math and science introduced to our game.

In my opinion, I can't rely on math whose underpinnings are based on conjecture.

If one of the posters here can really explain certain things, I think it would be helpful.

"Friction." Yeah, I know what it is. On a dirt racetrack we have 6-12 races a day spanning 4-5 hours during which the weather changes, the track gets watered and harrowed etc. Please explain how the surface characteristics get measured and if not actually measured, estimated. Anyone playing Del Mar in 2007 knows that a surface can change DRAMATICALLY in a matter of hours. This is not a trivial matter if your subsequent math is based on a COF estimate or average rather than frequent, actual, measurements.

Then inter-track differences. I believe Calder is a slow track and that shippers out of there will run faster overall. I believe it's due to the surface. Measurements should be able to quantify this easily.

Wind and atmospheric conditions. Again...measured daily and hourly? Or just "looking at the flag in the infield"? Or using some average?

Same thing for other factors in resistance, surface (horse and rider) characteristics, frontal area, etc.

To me, and if I'm wrong so be it, unless one uses "good" measurements collected regularly and vetted properly, the data that goes into perfectly correct equations will yield unsatisfactory results.

I'm also drawn back to my days when I dabbled in auto racing. My first instructor at Lime Rock was talking about the "racing line" which is the theoretically perfect track around a course with respect to the course's actual geometry. Where to turn in, where to brake, where to be, basically, on every point on the track in order to run the fastest lap.

Then he said "forget it." Unless you're just doing time trials, you will never have the perfect racing line around a track because all your competitors are clamoring for the same line. Or, more accurately, each competitor is reacting in each moment to how the group as a whole is acting.

[elhelmete]

I guess what I'm saying is if we are able to measure things directly as a starting point for all the subsequent math, we should. To NOT do so degrades the results.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

How do you use the quantification of work to predict the outcome of a race? I believe you can quantify work for races that have been run but how do you predict work for races to be run? And what is the correlation between work and the winner?

These are very good questions. If two horses dead heat for third, carry the same weight, Trakus indicates they both traveled 4000 feet, and one horse weighs 984 pounds and the other weighs 1053, we can assume that the bigger horse did more more work. But how useful is that information?

In addition, what if the smaller horse set the pace in fast fractions, while the larger horse got cover and closed late? Why wouldn't a figure of 95 for the smaller horse and 91 for the larger horse be just as useful as calculating "work" for predicting their next race performances?

[Tom]

Maybe the 1053 horse did more work because it is bigger and can do more work.
But if you estimate the weight of horses, you will never really know that. If you estimate weight, estimate wind, you get an estimate of work down. And so far, no one has shown any correlation between work done and winning races. I know a lot of people who work hard and never get anything accomplished.

We are still waiting for that.
Meanwhile, I bet Gus is cashing tickets this afternoon. And no one got to see his example because it was trivialized as playing games. Why the reluctance to post anything specific about this idea, if it was genuinely effective in picking winners?
A standard formula from other people's work and a scientific buzz word here and there......where' the MEAT?

[raybo]

I think that if you read all of the article on engineering analysis of horse racing, even if you can't perform the math, which most of us cannot do completely, you will find that the author is not suggesting that his approach is infallible, nor the "Holy Grail". Rather it is a method that is more "objective" than a purely "subjective" analysis of past races in projections/predictions for a future race. As Cratos pointed out, subjectivity is dependent on the human brain, and the negative affect of that human's emotions and its tendency to "follow tangents" presented by that subjective data, regarding race analysis.

Both methods, objective and subjective, are not infallible, both will have errors, that is a given. But, the objective approach, statistically (long term), will offer more consistency over a longer period of time. And, as time goes by, and our source data becomes more refined and more accurate, that objective approach will become more consistent, both over the long term (many races) and also over the short term (individual races).

Of course, for the source data to become more refined and more accurate, industry standardization, regarding the availability of more advanced data and measurement technology, will have to occur. Trakus is a step in the right direction (actual rate of travel, actual distance traveled, positions and distance off the rail in different portions of races, and actual times at different portions of races rather than estimations of lengths or distances behind the leader, etc.), as would be published individual horse weights (mass) before each race (so that differences in horse weight as well as weight impounds can be more accurately accounted for in mathematical formulas dealing with work done, differences in percentages of energy expended in relation to total energy availability, degree of improvement/decline from race to race (current form), etc., can be more objectively determined.

Of course, if those data improvements become available in the future, those who rely on non-mathematical/scientific approaches will be unable to use much of that new data, significantly. In short, the more the source data improves, the more advantaged those who implement objective mathematical/scientific approaches will become, if only in the creation of a more accurate fair odds line. But, then a more accurate fair odds line would add tremendous value to any player who seeks value in his/her wagering.

[cj]

How do you use the quantification of work to predict the outcome of a race? I believe you can quantify work for races that have been run but how do you predict work for races to be run? And what is the correlation between work and the winner?

You may be waiting a long time to get a response to this one.

[elhelmete]

pV=nRT

((drops the mic))

[ultracapper]

With the proliferation of accessibility to raw data, I believe it has made it much easier to assess a horse's previous races, and to measure just how well the horse ran, and just how talented a horse is, with greater reliability than ever before. However, I am a firm believer that this does not make it any easier at all in predicting future performance.

I'm not singling any particular number maker, or simulator maker, or model maker, I just don't believe any of them make it any easier to predict future events. Every now and then we hear on here how that $25 horse was at the top of this guy's numbers, or our simulator predicted that result, but if you make numbers for enough races, or run models for enough races, a $25 horse is going to pop up here and there. I watch replays. I see something every now and then in a horse's previous race that excites me, and then when the betting gets going, there he is at 11-1 on the tote. Doesn't happen often, but I'd bet more often than the last highest race BSF goes off and wins at 11-1.

[ReplayRandall]

I know a lot of people who work hard and never get anything accomplished.

At least they're trying, maybe only ONE breakthrough away from accomplishing their goals. Those who don't work hard, need blind luck to accomplish ANYTHING, let alone their stated goals.

[whodoyoulike]

Other posters are interested in how this thread's topic relates to that.
Is that an unfair question?

Gus is not afraid to show an example of his methods.

I must have missed it. He can still show the results of his methods and we can still compare them to the actuals.

What was the reason preventing Gus for not providing an example?

[thaskalos]

I must have missed it. He can still show the results of his methods and we can still compare them to the actuals.

What was the reason preventing Gus for not providing an example?
Cratos started this thread off with a wonderfully detailed post in which he endeavored to distinguish the "scientific method" from the "trial and error" method...as it applies to horse racing. Now...I've heard this "scientific method" mentioned many times here, by more than a few posters...but all I've ever seen it dressed up in is empty rhetoric. Not ONCE have any of the esteemed "scientists" here supplied even a SINGLE concrete handicapping example, taken from "real life"...to explain what they really mean by this "scientific method" reference. These "scientists" have been asked to supply a concrete handicapping example many times...and they've always refused.

Now...my handicapping method is admittedly "trial and error"...the type of method that Cratos looks upon with considerable scorn. But I started a teaching thread here a couple of years ago, and when someone asked me for a "real handicapping example" of what I meant...I was more than happy to comply. I selected a grass race with a full field at Arlington...and I dissected it step by step...the way I do when I handicap these races at home. As I recall, not only was I able to isolate on the $9.60 winner...but I was also able to come up with the $78 cold exacta. The outcome of this isolated race isn't of much significance, of course; I handicap the same way every time...and I tear up my tickets the vast majority of the time. But what IS significant, IMO, is the fact that I actually took the time to provide a concrete handicapping example of what I meant...instead of spinning some mysterious web with my rhetoric...designed to confuse rather than inform.

I know that Cratos would rather not debate me; he refuses to respond to me directly...and that's fine with me. He isn't on my list of "Best PA Posters" either. I initially didn't want to comment on his thread...because I knew that I would get only snide indirect responses as a result. But the topic was of considerable interest to me...and I posted anyway. My initial post here was honest and well-intentioned...and I remained honest and well-intentioned, even after he trivialized my post and referred to me as "the poster".

I offered to supply an example of what I meant...but then Tom came up with an even BETTER idea. Why shouldn't we BOTH handicap a particular race...so we could all see BOTH, the highly-touted "scientific method" AND the despised "trial and error method", at work. One race wouldn't prove anything, of course...but it would at least paint a better picture of what we are both talking about.

You are asking for the reason why I didn't provide an example. What you SHOULD be asking, is why CRATOS isn't agreeing to also provide an example right with me. After all...this is HIS thread...and HE is the one who was quick to declare the "advantages" of this "scientific method" of his. If he was unwilling to provide a concrete example...then what was the point of his opening post here? More empty rhetoric?

There are some "old-fashioned" handicappers out there...of which, I am one. The game is rapidly changing, and the "hi-tech" guys are gaining ground on us...but some of us "old-fashioned" guys haven't lost the race just yet. What we lack in scientific savvy...we make up in experience and guile. And we get a little irritated when we are told that we are operating with a "big disadvantage" in today's game...especially when the "experts" who are telling us this have never provided a concrete example of their OWN expertise.

No matter...I respectfully bow out of this thread...and, perhaps I shouldn't have entered the discussion here in the first place. I just wanted to point out that my intentions here were pure...and that in no way did I enter this thread to mock or attack Cratos in any way.

It's nice when we talk...but they say that a picture is worth a thousand words. And I just wanted the two of us to provide a picture...

[appistappis]

As a fellow old fashioned handicapper I say bravo to this last post.

[ultracapper]

I second that bravo.

[pandy]

I have a different definition of "Work", as it applies to race horses...and it has nothing to do with the battle that the horses must wage against the atmospheric and the track conditions which they face. To me, "Work" means the level of adversity which the horse is asked to overcome as a result of the race "dynamics" created by the horses involved in the race.

IMO...all horses have a "cruising speed"; a "comfort level", so to speak...within which the horse is capable of delivering its top performance. "Work" then becomes, as far as I am concerned, the degree to which a horse is capable of stepping OUT of this "comfort zone"...and still give a good accounting of itself. I equate it to the human athlete who is asked to run the mile. He can run the mile while keeping within his comfort zone early, while trying to optimally disperse his energy reserves...or, he can REALLY test himself...by trying to run the mile while setting an uncomfortably fast pace, or making an unusually quick burst in the middle of the race. If he chooses option B...then he has done "Work".

When I ran winter track for a couple of seasons in high school, this is exactly what I experienced. To me, I did not feel that I was running against the elements, although that can come into play. But more significant, I was running against the other runners....in a weak group I could run in my comfort zone because I could settle in a spot where I could relax into my stride and move freely. In a faster group of runners, I would be put into a more stressful situation where I was running in a tightly bunched pack. This meant that even if I had enough room to move my arms and legs freely, it still felt as if I didn't...I felt restricted. This created pressure. You could call it pace pressure. The end result is that I used more energy against the better runners and my final kick was not as good. And of course, sometimes the pack was so tight that it literally affected my stride, especially if there was physical contact with another runner. Being bumped or brushed by another runner is extremely stressful. When I watch horse races, when I see a horse make contact with another horse, I consider that a strong trip note. Horses do not like making contact with another horse or getting bumped in tight quarters, it is very stressful.

Because of this experience, that's why I understand why so many horses show substantial improvement when they take a key drop in class.

[Capper Al]

There are many calculations put forth in horseracing and many are based on anecdotal data/postulations.

That might benefit some, but not me because I am an empiricist; I need to understand the science behind the calculation. Because before I can learn what a function is, I need to understand how mathematics relates to science.

The scientific method is an orderly and efficient way of analyzing physical situations. Its counterpoint, the trial and error method, is something many are probably more familiar with. Human nature inclines the mind more toward exploration and experimentation rather than systematic analysis. The trial and error method reflects the tangents that human logic takes when curiosity beckons.

Major flaws in the OP premise. Trial and error is not the opposite of the Scientific Method (SM). Matter of fact, the scientific method is a way to organize trial and error for an effective and repeatable outcome. The outcome of SM is always a correlation between input, method, and output. One doesn't necessary get an understanding of the science from SM as is suggested in the OP. For instance, we know that gravity affects an object at 32 feet per second, but we haven't a clue as to what gravity is.

[raybo]

Cratos started this thread off with a wonderfully detailed post in which he endeavored to distinguish the "scientific method" from the "trial and error" method...as it applies to horse racing. Now...I've heard this "scientific method" mentioned many times here, by more than a few posters...but all I've ever seen it dressed up in is empty rhetoric. Not ONCE have any of the esteemed "scientists" here supplied even a SINGLE concrete handicapping example, taken from "real life"...to explain what they really mean by this "scientific method" reference. These "scientists" have been asked to supply a concrete handicapping example many times...and they've always refused.

Now...my handicapping method is admittedly "trial and error"...the type of method that Cratos looks upon with considerable scorn. But I started a teaching thread here a couple of years ago, and when someone asked me for a "real handicapping example" of what I meant...I was more than happy to comply. I selected a grass race with a full field at Arlington...and I dissected it step by step...the way I do when I handicap these races at home. As I recall, not only was I able to isolate on the $9.60 winner...but I was also able to come up with the $78 cold exacta. The outcome of this isolated race isn't of much significance, of course; I handicap the same way every time...and I tear up my tickets the vast majority of the time. But what IS significant, IMO, is the fact that I actually took the time to provide a concrete handicapping example of what I meant...instead of spinning some mysterious web with my rhetoric...designed to confuse rather than inform.

I know that Cratos would rather not debate me; he refuses to respond to me directly...and that's fine with me. He isn't on my list of "Best PA Posters" either. I initially didn't want to comment on his thread...because I knew that I would get only snide indirect responses as a result. But the topic was of considerable interest to me...and I posted anyway. My initial post here was honest and well-intentioned...and I remained honest and well-intentioned, even after he trivialized my post and referred to me as "the poster".

I offered to supply an example of what I meant...but then Tom came up with an even BETTER idea. Why shouldn't we BOTH handicap a particular race...so we could all see BOTH, the highly-touted "scientific method" AND the despised "trial and error method", at work. One race wouldn't prove anything, of course...but it would at least paint a better picture of what we are both talking about.

You are asking for the reason why I didn't provide an example. What you SHOULD be asking, is why CRATOS isn't agreeing to also provide an example right with me. After all...this is HIS thread...and HE is the one who was quick to declare the "advantages" of this "scientific method" of his. If he was unwilling to provide a concrete example...then what was the point of his opening post here? More empty rhetoric?

There are some "old-fashioned" handicappers out there...of which, I am one. The game is rapidly changing, and the "hi-tech" guys are gaining ground on us...but some of us "old-fashioned" guys haven't lost the race just yet. What we lack in scientific savvy...we make up in experience and guile. And we get a little irritated when we are told that we are operating with a "big disadvantage" in today's game...especially when the "experts" who are telling us this have never provided a concrete example of their OWN expertise.

No matter...I respectfully bow out of this thread...and, perhaps I shouldn't have entered the discussion here in the first place. I just wanted to point out that my intentions here were pure...and that in no way did I enter this thread to mock or attack Cratos in any way.

It's nice when we talk...but they say that a picture is worth a thousand words. And I just wanted the two of us to provide a picture...

No disrespect Gus, but Cratos stated that air, surface, and wind are only the primary sources of resistance that every horse in every race has to deal with. Work is work, and running, even without interaction between horses, is still work. If you only focus on the work involved in horse interactions then you are missing the work involved in simply running, on a surface, in air density, and wind force and direction.

Cratos only posted the work formula, he didn't post all the other related formulas that account for trip, position, changes in direction, bursts of speed, energy expenditure during specific portions of the race, etc., etc., etc..

Sure, he could try to explain how he arrives at selections in a particular race, but unless you understand the mathematics/physics behind his data, it is doubtful you would learn anything from such an explanation. In other words, for him to explain what he is doing, you would have to see, and understand all the calculations he is doing, and why he's doing them. That would just result in yet another post full of math and physics that the vast majority of members here, including you Gus, don't want to see or try to understand. In short, Cratos would be spending lots of time and effort, that would mean little or nothing to the members of this forum except for a select few who truly understand what he's doing. He's tried, on numerous occasions, to present mathematical solutions and explanations and has, almost invariably, received nothing but criticism and hateful jokes.

It's unbelievable, in my mind, that all the animosity present in this thread, was the result of one single, very basic, formula for the calculation of work. if you read the article linked in one of the posts, you would quickly realize that a simple work calculation doesn't even touch the mathematical complexities involved in a scientific approach to horse racing. It's much like Trifecta Mike, and others here have done, present something simple and hopefully understandable to the layman, and let those interested in exploring it do more research into the subject. Give them something simple and let them think about it.

IMO, Cratos, and a few others who have mathematical/scientific approaches to the game, has been ridiculed here much more than anyone deserves. This thread is just one example of that.

[Tom]

Probably comes from the veiled and not so veiled insults he continually makes when he takes over other threads. He refuses to accept reality and refuses to provide anything one could consider an example. Even this simple formula, he would not make any efforts to provide an example of how he would use it, not knowing most of the variables.

Gus suggested they both provide examples, and his immediate response was he is here to play games. I submit that is ALL he is here to do. I seriously doubt he has ever done any of the crap he keeps telling us is the only way.
But all he has to do is give an example, but he never has. All he does, as he has done again, is disappear.

[castaway01]

IMO, Cratos, and a few others who have mathematical/scientific approaches to the game, has been ridiculed here much more than anyone deserves. This thread is just one example of that.

They get ridiculed because they continually say everyone else's ideas are wrong but they never explain their own ideas in any concrete way. So they both talk down to other posters and never offer anything of value. That deserves to be ridiculed.

[elhelmete]

And force is just the mass (weight and load) of the horse x its acceleration (unit of distance/unit of time, feet/second)
[/COLOR]


That's velocity, not acceleration.

meters/second = velocity

meters/second*second (second^2) = acceleration.

[Magister Ludi]

No disrespect Gus, but Cratos stated that air, surface, and wind are only the primary sources of resistance that every horse in every race has to deal with. Work is work, and running, even without interaction between horses, is still work. If you only focus on the work involved in horse interactions then you are missing the work involved in simply running, on a surface, in air density, and wind force and direction.

Cratos only posted the work formula, he didn't post all the other related formulas that account for trip, position, changes in direction, bursts of speed, energy expenditure during specific portions of the race, etc., etc., etc..

Sure, he could try to explain how he arrives at selections in a particular race, but unless you understand the mathematics/physics behind his data, it is doubtful you would learn anything from such an explanation. In other words, for him to explain what he is doing, you would have to see, and understand all the calculations he is doing, and why he's doing them. That would just result in yet another post full of math and physics that the vast majority of members here, including you Gus, don't want to see or try to understand. In short, Cratos would be spending lots of time and effort, that would mean little or nothing to the members of this forum except for a select few who truly understand what he's doing. He's tried, on numerous occasions, to present mathematical solutions and explanations and has, almost invariably, received nothing but criticism and hateful jokes.

It's unbelievable, in my mind, that all the animosity present in this thread, was the result of one single, very basic, formula for the calculation of work. if you read the article linked in one of the posts, you would quickly realize that a simple work calculation doesn't even touch the mathematical complexities involved in a scientific approach to horse racing. It's much like Trifecta Mike, and others here have done, present something simple and hopefully understandable to the layman, and let those interested in exploring it do more research into the subject. Give them something simple and let them think about it.

IMO, Cratos, and a few others who have mathematical/scientific approaches to the game, has been ridiculed here much more than anyone deserves. This thread is just one example of that.

Very well stated. I was going to contribute to this thread, but then I came to my senses. I’m not feeling particularly masochistic today.

[cj]

Very well stated. I was going to contribute to this thread, but then I came to my senses. I’m not feeling particularly masochistic today.

Same as it always was, and always will be. Posting without actually saying anything.

[Tom]

Very well stated. I was going to contribute to this thread, but then I came to my senses. I’m not feeling particularly masochistic today.

Post something with substance wand you will certainly get people interested and contributing. Just look at any thread that concerns the silly idea that speed figures or pace figures could possibly work!

Just ignore the off topic comments by a certain poster. :rolleyes:

[thaskalos]

No disrespect Gus, but Cratos stated that air, surface, and wind are only the primary sources of resistance that every horse in every race has to deal with. Work is work, and running, even without interaction between horses, is still work. If you only focus on the work involved in horse interactions then you are missing the work involved in simply running, on a surface, in air density, and wind force and direction.

Cratos only posted the work formula, he didn't post all the other related formulas that account for trip, position, changes in direction, bursts of speed, energy expenditure during specific portions of the race, etc., etc., etc..

Sure, he could try to explain how he arrives at selections in a particular race, but unless you understand the mathematics/physics behind his data, it is doubtful you would learn anything from such an explanation. In other words, for him to explain what he is doing, you would have to see, and understand all the calculations he is doing, and why he's doing them. That would just result in yet another post full of math and physics that the vast majority of members here, including you Gus, don't want to see or try to understand. In short, Cratos would be spending lots of time and effort, that would mean little or nothing to the members of this forum except for a select few who truly understand what he's doing. He's tried, on numerous occasions, to present mathematical solutions and explanations and has, almost invariably, received nothing but criticism and hateful jokes.

It's unbelievable, in my mind, that all the animosity present in this thread, was the result of one single, very basic, formula for the calculation of work. if you read the article linked in one of the posts, you would quickly realize that a simple work calculation doesn't even touch the mathematical complexities involved in a scientific approach to horse racing. It's much like Trifecta Mike, and others here have done, present something simple and hopefully understandable to the layman, and let those interested in exploring it do more research into the subject. Give them something simple and let them think about it.

IMO, Cratos, and a few others who have mathematical/scientific approaches to the game, has been ridiculed here much more than anyone deserves. This thread is just one example of that.

It wasn't the "one single, very basic, formula for the calculation of work", which created "all the animosity present in this thread". Cratos's post wasn't just about this "calculation of Work". In fact...the word WORK doesn't even appear until two/thirds of Cratos's post are exhausted. Cratos used the majority of his post to point out to us the advantages of the scientific method...and how superior this method is to its counterpart, the trial and error method.

He writes:

"The scientific method, on the other hand, provides an orderly path for the mind to follow in its passage from bewilderment to enlightenment. Without following the scientific method, an analysis will remain consistently complex and any theories formed will be too general to explain the phenomena accurately. Therefore an understanding of the scientific method is crucial to your understanding of mathematics and development as a quantitative horseplayer."

This has nothing to do with the "calculation of work" that you are speaking of in your post. Cratos is speaking in broad and general terms here...about the advantages of the "scientific method" over the "trial and error method"...when it comes to handicapping horse races.

And so I ask:

Why should we believe that we are now "bewildered"...and that we need this "scientific method" to take us from this state of "bewilderment", to the state of "ENLIGHTENMENT"? What evidence has Cratos (or any other 'scientist' here) ever presented...to PROVE that he is more "enlightened" than us, the "bewildered" masses? Has Cratos ever provided a REAL-LIFE example...to show us how applicable this scientific method is to our game, as it's played today?

He tells us that this 'Scientific method" is CRUCIAL for our development as players, and that we remain BEWILDERED without it...but he makes no effort at all to explain it to us in a real-life example...so we could see its effects upon the game.

And then you wonder why there is "animosity"?

[Pick 'em Charlie]

Major flaws in the OP premise. Trial and error is not the opposite of the Scientific Method (SM). Matter of fact, the scientific method is a way to organize trial and error for an effective and repeatable outcome. The outcome of SM is always a correlation between input, method, and output. One doesn't necessary get an understanding of the science from SM as is suggested in the OP. For instance, we know that gravity affects an object at 32 feet per second, but we haven't a clue as to what gravity is.

Right on!

[thaskalos]

Same as it always was, and always will be. Posting without actually saying anything.
Magister Ludi just drops by to tell us how much he hates it here.

[raybo]

It wasn't the "one single, very basic, formula for the calculation of work", which created "all the animosity present in this thread". Cratos's post wasn't just about this "calculation of Work". In fact...the word WORK doesn't even appear until two/thirds of Cratos's post are exhausted. Cratos used the majority of his post to point out to us the advantages of the scientific method...and how superior this method is to its counterpart, the trial and error method.

He writes:

"The scientific method, on the other hand, provides an orderly path for the mind to follow in its passage from bewilderment to enlightenment. Without following the scientific method, an analysis will remain consistently complex and any theories formed will be too general to explain the phenomena accurately. Therefore an understanding of the scientific method is crucial to your understanding of mathematics and development as a quantitative horseplayer."

This has nothing to do with the "calculation of work" that you are speaking of in your post. Cratos is speaking in broad and general terms here...about the advantages of the "scientific method" over the "trial and error method"...when it comes to handicapping horse races.

And so I ask:

Why should we believe that we are now "bewildered"...and that we need this "scientific method" to take us from this state of "bewilderment", to the state of "ENLIGHTENMENT"? What evidence has Cratos (or any other 'scientist' here) ever presented...to PROVE that he is more "enlightened" than us, the "bewildered" masses? Has Cratos ever provided a REAL-LIFE example...to show us how applicable this scientific method is to our game, as it's played today?

He tells us that this 'Scientific method" is CRUCIAL for our development as players, and that we remain BEWILDERED without it...but he makes no effort at all to explain it to us in a real-life example...so we could see its effects upon the game.

And then you wonder why there is "animosity"?

Perhaps the problem is with the reader, not the poster? Although I don't come close to understanding, perfectly, all the formulas that he has posted in the past, I have little problem seeing the logic behind them, and their possible applications in horse racing. I only have a high school diploma, and a couple of semesters of college, which only includes college algebra and physics 101, but I find it not necessary to know the math perfectly in order to see the value of the calculations. Also, having a brother-in-law who was an engineer, I know that many of those people live in a world that is extremely hard to relate to the layman. Most of what he says goes right over my head, but that's due to my lack of knowledge of the subjects, it's not his fault that I can't understand, after all, he was not trained t be a teacher of engineering principles, so why should I expect him to be able to teach?

I understand that most players reject the idea that advanced math and science can be used successfully in horse racing, and would have to be dragged kicking and screaming into that approach, and they would fight it every step of the way and get absolutely nothing out of it, simply because they have a severe bias against that approach. That's cool, if they are already making money in horse racing, otherwise it might be smart for them to try something different. We all have our core beliefs, and for some, it is simply fact, for them, that a mathematical/scientific approach makes the most sense, considering the level of complexity in horse racing, and the very physical nature of the game. Some people can't get past their subjective approaches, while some can't imagine why a subjective approach would even be entertained at all under such circumstances. Everyone to his/her own.

[thaskalos]

Perhaps the problem is with the reader, not the poster? Although I don't come close to understanding, perfectly, all the formulas that he has posted in the past, I have little problem seeing the logic behind them, and their possible applications in horse racing. I only have a high school diploma, and a couple of semesters of college, which only includes college algebra and physics 101, but I find it not necessary to know the math perfectly in order to see the value of the calculations. Also, having a brother-in-law who was an engineer, I know that many of those people live in a world that is extremely hard to relate to the layman. Most of what he says goes right over my head, but that's due to my lack of knowledge of the subjects, it's not his fault that I can't understand, after all, he was not trained t be a teacher of engineering principles, so why should I expect him to be able to teach?

I understand that most players reject the idea that advanced math and science can be used successfully in horse racing, and would have to be dragged kicking and screaming into that approach, and they would fight it every step of the way and get absolutely nothing out of it, simply because they have a severe bias against that approach. That's cool, if they are already making money in horse racing, otherwise it might be smart for them to try something different. We all have our core beliefs, and for some, it is simply fact, for them, that a mathematical/scientific approach makes the most sense, considering the level of complexity in horse racing, and the very physical nature of the game. Some people can't get past their subjective approaches, while some can't imagine why a subjective approach would even be entertained at all under such circumstances. Everyone to his/her own.

If a poster has no inclination to expand on his initial thoughts, or to answer questions of those who read his opinions...then why is he even bothering to start a thread on a public forum such as this? To boast that he is "enlightened"...while his readers are "bewildered"?

If answering the occasional question from the readers of your thread is so bothersome...then, why not just start your own blog...so you can write what you want, and ignore whatever questions you want to ignore?

When you start a thread such as this one here...shouldn't a little "explaining" come with the territory? Is that too much to assume?

[cj]

If a poster has no inclination to expand on his initial thoughts, or to answer questions of those who read his opinions...then why is he even bothering to start a thread on a public forum such as this? To boast that he is "enlightened"...while his readers are "bewildered"?

If answering the occasional question from the readers of your thread is so bothersome...then, why not just start your own blog...so you can write what you want, and ignore whatever questions you want to ignore?

When you start a thread such as this one here...shouldn't a little "explaining" come with the territory? Is that too much to assume?

Winner winner chicken dinner.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Indeed.

[raybo]

If a poster has no inclination to expand on his initial thoughts, or to answer questions of those who read his opinions...then why is he even bothering to start a thread on a public forum such as this? To boast that he is "enlightened"...while his readers are "bewildered"?

If answering the occasional question from the readers of your thread is so bothersome...then, why not just start your own blog...so you can write what you want, and ignore whatever questions you want to ignore?

When you start a thread such as this one here...shouldn't a little "explaining" come with the territory? Is that too much to assume?

I can't remember ever having asked Cratos a question that he didn't take the time to answer, often expanding much further on the subject than my admittedly uneducated question. But, I have not attempted to degrade him or his statements first.

And, regarding the "enlightened" and "bewildered" reference, with in the neighborhood of 98% of all horse players being losing players, the word "bewildered" probably applies to them much more than the word "enlightened" - wouldn't you say?

[Saratoga_Mike]

I can't remember ever having asked Cratos a question that he didn't take the time to answer, often expanding much further on the subject than my admittedly uneducated question.


Perhaps you could ask him for a real-world example, i.e., an actual race that hasn't been run yet.

[Cratos]

How do you use the quantification of work to predict the outcome of a race? I believe you can quantify work for races that have been run but how do you predict work for races to be run? And what is the correlation between work and the winner?
AndyC, the title of this thread which I started is “Calculating the Work of the Horse”; not “How do you use the quantification of work to predict the outcome of a race?”

However your question is a good one and I will attempt to address it.

Before I do, I will respond to some of the nonsense introduced by the posters who by their prior posts lack the math and science backgrounds to support their claims.

I don’t have a problem with any poster challenging any assertion(s) I make on this forum because when you make a public assertion you should understand that not everyone will agree with you even though you are correct and there will always be a minority who will respond with rhetoric for reasons beyond rational comprehension.

Therefore early in the thread the following two explanations were given:

“Work is done on by the horse when it moves in the same direction that the force is exerted”

“Work = force x distance or W = Fd”

That should have been sufficient for most to have an elementary understanding of “work of the horse.”

Apparently it wasn’t and by the way to the poster, Tom” who stated “This ain't physics,” please understand that horserace handicap quantification is all about physics, but it is obvious for you to make such statement, you don’t have a good math and science background.

Also to the poster who stated: “In my opinion, I can't rely on math whose underpinnings are based on conjecture.” You need to rethink your statement because math underpinnings are not based on conjecture; math is the only exact science and is based absolutely on fact.

Thaskalos, in all due respect what you defined as “work” is effort a nonparametric. Also my thesis statement “There are many calculations put forth in horseracing and many are based on anecdotal data/postulations” give credence to my subsequent presentation of the work equation; and if you are “bewildered” I have nothing else to say.

Therefore what to use in the quantification of work to predict the outcome of a race. I would do the following:

• Determine the impact of the environmental influences on each horse in the race at the time the race was run.
• Determine any track configuration (centrifugal force) impact
• Using Trakus or similar data, I would determine the race distance of each horse past 4 races (I use the past 4 races, but more or less races could be used.

Now that I have my two unknowns identified for the aforementioned work equation I would normalized the results to today’s distance.

I can calculate the following for each horse:

• Power, which is how much work is done per unit of time
• The measurement of energy expenditure

Each of those components are given a rating value between zero and one; and when summed together becomes a percent between zero and one and all horses in the race are ranked with an efficiency rating (based on the summation) for today’s race and distance.

Efficiency compares the output work of the horse to the input work.

• Expressed as a percent
• In the horse’s performance some work is wasted due to friction

The most efficient rated horse(s) should be considered as winning contender(s) for today’s race at today’s distance.
However it should be clearly understood that the work calculation is only part of your winning horse selection.

[Cratos]

That's velocity, not acceleration.

meters/second = velocity

meters/second*second (second^2) = acceleration.
I hope that you understand the following:

Meters are a unit of distance
Seconds are a unit of time

Also when velocity is constant it has constant acceleration and both are equal

[cj]

Before I do, I will respond to some of the nonsense introduced by the posters who by their prior posts lack the math and science backgrounds to support their claims.



You have no idea about the math backgrounds of other posters.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Before I do, I will respond to some of the nonsense introduced by the posters who by their prior posts lack the math and science backgrounds to support their claims.



I don't think Thask was trying to disprove your approach or knock your claims. He simply wanted an example using a race that has yet to be run. A real-world example would interest many, I believe.

[cj]

I don't think Thask was trying to disprove your approach. He simply wanted an example using a race that has yet to be run. A real-world example would interest many, I believe.

Yes, it would be of interest for sure.

[elhelmete]

Also to the poster who stated: “In my opinion, I can't rely on math whose underpinnings are based on conjecture.” You need to rethink your statement because math underpinnings are not based on conjecture; math is the only exact science and is based absolutely on fact.



That would be me.

Math is indeed an exact science, but what I mean is this:

2+2=4. True.

But one must know where '2' came from.

We're talking about an industry that told us to use ONE value for a beaten length. That beaten lengths in general are equal across the board irrespective of the chart caller, position (i.e., also-rans), etc.

We still often time in 1/5 sec increments.

Trakus is only recently getting a decent foothold.

And so on.

So if an equation fed with garbage data, the math might check out but the answer is useless.

If someone told me friction coefficients for Del Mar's atmosphere and track surface are applicable to Indiana Grand's...I'm skeptical. Now if I see research that the overall differences in CoEs across North American tracks have been shown to be negligible I'll change my mind. I doubt that's going to happen. In either case, the equation still holds...just not the data quality that feeds it.

[elhelmete]

I hope that you understand the following:

Meters are a unit of distance
Seconds are a unit of time

Also when velocity is constant it has constant acceleration and both are equal

yes I do.

A body at constant velocity is not accelerating nor decelerating.

[Cratos]

Major flaws in the OP premise. Trial and error is not the opposite of the Scientific Method (SM). Matter of fact, the scientific method is a way to organize trial and error for an effective and repeatable outcome. The outcome of SM is always a correlation between input, method, and output. One doesn't necessary get an understanding of the science from SM as is suggested in the OP. For instance, we know that gravity affects an object at 32 feet per second, but we haven't a clue as to what gravity is.
There aren’t any flaws and they weren’t presented as opposite “premises”, but as different approaches to problem-solving which are widely used in the engineering community.

If you don’t understand gravity you need to take a course in Newtonian physics.

[Cratos]

That would be me.

Math is indeed an exact science, but what I mean is this:

2+2=4. True.

But one must know where '2' came from.

We're talking about an industry that told us to use ONE value for a beaten length. That beaten lengths in general are equal across the board irrespective of the chart caller, position (i.e., also-rans), etc.

We still often time in 1/5 sec increments.

Trakus is only recently getting a decent foothold.

And so on.

So if an equation fed with garbage data, the math might check out but the answer is useless.

If someone told me friction coefficients for Del Mar's atmosphere and track surface are applicable to Indiana Grand's...I'm skeptical. Now if I see research that the overall differences in CoEs across North American tracks have been shown to be negligible I'll change my mind. I doubt that's going to happen. In either case, the equation still holds...just not the data quality that feeds it.
In all honesty I am not understanding your post and that is okay, I don't understand everything which is posted.

[Cratos]

yes I do.

A body at constant velocity is not accelerating nor decelerating.
Again, you are being redundant.

[Cratos]

You have no idea about the math backgrounds of other posters.

You are correct, so stop being cynical and protective; I am only responding in kind.

If you want to be impartial then do so completely. I am not taken back by criticisms made toward me; each poster have the right I suppose to criticize.

[cj]

You are correct, so stop being cynical and protective; I am only responding in kind.

If you want to be impartial then do so completely. I am not taken back by criticisms made toward me; each poster have the right I suppose to criticize.


I'm not being cynical or protective. I was just stating a fact. Many people underestimate their competition in this game. We can't afford to do that facing 20% takeouts.

I'm looking forward to you providing an example of an upcoming race. I'm always willing to learn. I read everything I can possibly get my hands on when it comes to horse racing.

[Cratos]

I'm not being cynical or protective. I was just stating a fact. Many people underestimate their competition in this game. We can't afford to do that facing 20% takeouts.

I'm looking forward to you providing an example of an upcoming race. I'm always willing to learn. I read everything I can possibly get my hands on when it comes to horse racing.
I will not be able to give an example of a current race because as I’ve stated on this forum, we shut down our handicapping after the Breeders’ Cup races because we are primarily NYRA bettors exclusive of Aqueduct.

However I have an example of the 2015 Travers that I am attempting to put into an Excel format that will give a good example of efficient work because I believe that American Pharoah was an extremely efficient racehorse with his work performance and the Travers demonstrated that ability.

[whodoyoulike]

It wasn't the "one single, very basic, formula for the calculation of work", which created "all the animosity present in this thread". Cratos's post wasn't just about this "calculation of Work". In fact...the word WORK doesn't even appear until two/thirds of Cratos's post are exhausted. Cratos used the majority of his post to point out to us the advantages of the scientific method...and how superior this method is to its counterpart, the trial and error method.

He writes:

"The scientific method, on the other hand, provides an orderly path for the mind to follow in its passage from bewilderment to enlightenment. Without following the scientific method, an analysis will remain consistently complex and any theories formed will be too general to explain the phenomena accurately. Therefore an understanding of the scientific method is crucial to your understanding of mathematics and development as a quantitative horseplayer."

This has nothing to do with the "calculation of work" that you are speaking of in your post. Cratos is speaking in broad and general terms here...about the advantages of the "scientific method" over the "trial and error method"...when it comes to handicapping horse races.

And so I ask:

Why should we believe that we are now "bewildered"...and that we need this "scientific method" to take us from this state of "bewilderment", to the state of "ENLIGHTENMENT"? What evidence has Cratos (or any other 'scientist' here) ever presented...to PROVE that he is more "enlightened" than us, the "bewildered" masses? Has Cratos ever provided a REAL-LIFE example...to show us how applicable this scientific method is to our game, as it's played today?

He tells us that this 'Scientific method" is CRUCIAL for our development as players, and that we remain BEWILDERED without it...but he makes no effort at all to explain it to us in a real-life example...so we could see its effects upon the game.

And then you wonder why there is "animosity"?


I know we may have had at least one disagreement in the past but, my suggestion that you should still provide an example of your method for reference was not my attempt to bust your balls (well maybe just a little). If you still feel I'm picking on you then pin the BLAME on Tom since he can be like a sharp stick in one's side. The guy reminds me of an angry bull(dog??) a lot of times.

If you want me to...I can supply an example by applying my "quantifying" method to one of tomorrow's races.

I made my post because I noticed you basically made a challenge which Cratos has declined but, that shouldn't prevent you from providing your interpretation and how it compares to the actual result. And, please show us what to look for so we won't misinterpret your example because this has been a very long and involved thread and now uncertain exactly what I should be expecting.

I'm uncertain if you were stating your method was completely opposite of Cratos' but we hopefully can follow along with your method and determine it's validity and we can agree maybe you also have a valid method.

But, I'm not saying Cratos' method is invalid. It's just different.

Probably only one example wouldn't be sufficient convincing most on here but, it's a start. There was a recent thread about an adequate sample size requirement and I recall the majority voted for over 100 examples would be necessary (btw, I don't agree with the poll or it's premise but it is after all as we say another thread's topic and discussion).

[Hoofless_Wonder]

...Efficiency compares the output work of the horse to the input work.

• Expressed as a percent
• In the horse’s performance some work is wasted due to friction

The most efficient rated horse(s) should be considered as winning contender(s) for today’s race at today’s distance.
However it should be clearly understood that the work calculation is only part of your winning horse selection.

Thanks for the clarification, Cratos. This makes sense to me, though I do see some limitations.

While your approach may be more valid from a "physics" point of view versus the qualitative methods of others, it's the practical application of each approach (picking winners) that really matters. You use efficiency, and others call that class.

[elhelmete]

Again, you are being redundant.

But it's not redundant.

feet/second is a velocity
feet/second^2 describes acceleration

Earlier, you said feet/second describes acceleration. It doesn't. Acceleration is rate of chnage of velocity and is described as above.

Now if you're positing that all the factors you say make up "friction," have an effect on how efficiently a horse can accelerate, we'd be in agreement.

[elhelmete]

In all honesty I am not understanding your post and that is okay, I don't understand everything which is posted.

It's pretty simple.

Either you have good or bad data feeding the equations that determine friction factors that determine the efficiency of the work.

It's like the equations for compounded interest are accurate...plug in amounts and rates and timeline and you will get a mathematically correct answer every time. But if I tell you something throws off a 25% return and don't back that up with hard facts about why that is legit, I'm just BS'ing you.

So related to horseracing, what drives me nuts sometimes is when people talk about track bias changing race by race by race "just because" it looks that way, based on times and projected times, etc.

I'm like, no...tell me about moisture changes, harrowing, atmospheric changes actually measured. Then I'll believe the track actually changed.

[elhelmete]

Hopefully this isn't too much of a thread drift and hopefully it it seen in the light I intend it.

I think it would be useful for Equibase or some other non-jurisdictional body (i.e., some national body or organization) to do something like the following:

1) Weather station collecting this info a few times each race day: wind speed and direction, RH, temp.

2) some version of a Stimpmeter** measuring track surface characteristics at a few points on the track, and maybe 2-3 times per race day. Maybe a weighted ball dropped from a known height and the depth of its impact is measured.

So now let's say you have actual data showing that a horse ran 2 weeks ago against a headwind (not just "looking at a flag nearby") on a track where the ball sunk in 5 inches and is now running on a calm, dry day on a track where the ball sinks 2 inches. Useful info for your downstream calculations, or not?

**Look up "stimpmeter" and how they are used in Wikipedia and tell me something like this wouldn't be a good thing for our game?

[Capper Al]

There aren’t any flaws and they weren’t presented as opposite “premises”, but as different approaches to problem-solving which are widely used in the engineering community.

If you don’t understand gravity you need to take a course in Newtonian physics.

You didn't refute the argument.

[Cratos]

You didn't refute the argument.
Al,
If you want to say that no one can prove that there is force at 9.8m/sec pulling everything to the center of the earth that is okay with me; I chose to accept the findings of Newton.

I enjoy discussing engineering and the effect that science has on it; but not now.

[ReplayRandall]

However I have an example of the 2015 Travers that I am attempting to put into an Excel format that will give a good example of efficient work because I believe that American Pharoah was an extremely efficient racehorse with his work performance and the Travers demonstrated that ability.

AP demonstrated that he finished 2nd to Keen Ice. How is that "extremely efficient"?

[Cratos]

It's pretty simple.

Either you have good or bad data feeding the equations that determine friction factors that determine the efficiency of the work.

It's like the equations for compounded interest are accurate...plug in amounts and rates and timeline and you will get a mathematically correct answer every time. But if I tell you something throws off a 25% return and don't back that up with hard facts about why that is legit, I'm just BS'ing you.

So related to horseracing, what drives me nuts sometimes is when people talk about track bias changing race by race by race "just because" it looks that way, based on times and projected times, etc.

I'm like, no...tell me about moisture changes, harrowing, atmospheric changes actually measured. Then I'll believe the track actually changed.
OK, I get it, but I am victimized with data integrity just like you by the data providers.

For air resistance, surface resistance, and wind resistance data I have a special provider that provide data for temperature, dew point, humidity, and wind speed at the time each race is off; that is the best that I can do.

[Capper Al]

Al,
If you want to say that no one can prove that there is force at 9.8m/sec pulling everything to the center of the earth that is okay with me; I chose to accept the findings of Newton.

I enjoy discussing engineering and the effect that science has on it; but not now.

I don't dispute Newton's math. Newton might have been able to measure gravity, but he didn't know what it was that he was measuring. Same applies to horses.

[Tom]

Apparently it wasn’t and by the way to the poster, Tom” who stated “This ain't physics,” please understand that horserace handicap quantification is all about physics, but it is obvious for you to make such statement, you don’t have a good math and science background.

And THAT is BS.

[Cratos]

AP demonstrated that he finished 2nd to Keen Ice. How is that "extremely efficient"?
Apparently you are not getting the thesis of the thread's argument which is calculating the horse's work.

In doing so, and along with other salient factors you might have a probable winner.

Now to your question about American Pharoah. He finished second to Keen Ice by 3/4 length after a prolonged battle with the third place finisher and his work expenditure when measured in MJ was less than the other two horses for the distance; I posted on this forum that was one of his best races.

Also I didn't believe that there was any horse in the BCC that could beat him.

If you track horses with good work performances and along with other strong attributes they will always be tough to beat.

[Tom]

Hey, this math-challenged "poster" picked him here, too.
No work involved, no physics, just speed figures. I predicted a "GhostZapper like performance. Which he delivered.

How did you spend your $.040? :lol:

[ReplayRandall]

Apparently you are not getting the thesis of the thread's argument which is calculating the horse's work.

In doing so, and along with other salient factors you might have a probable winner.

Now to your question about American Pharoah. He finished second to Keen Ice by 3/4 length after a prolonged battle with the third place finisher and his work expenditure when measured in MJ was less than the other two horses for the distance; I posted on this forum that was one of his best races.

Also I didn't believe that there was any horse in the BCC that could beat him.

If you track horses with good work performances and along with other strong attributes they will always be tough to beat.

Cratos, I'm going to speak straight forward to you. I've stated in the past that I believe you're a stand-up guy and that we see eye to eye as peers.

However, in this thread, you've been asked by numerous posters to "show your work", that you've stated as being superior to the old "pen and paper" methods, using math and physics as your foundation. IMO, you've been avoiding to produce results, for whatever reason, and it comes off as you being not authentic.

I can say, for the first time, I now have my doubts about your successes, as there's literally no verifiable proof of what you claim.

In conclusion, it is now time for you to either show us proof or simply stop posting........As Thask and others have said many times, "You can pretend to be anyone or anything on the internet".

[JJMartin]

Hopefully this isn't too much of a thread drift and hopefully it it seen in the light I intend it.

I think it would be useful for Equibase or some other non-jurisdictional body (i.e., some national body or organization) to do something like the following:

1) Weather station collecting this info a few times each race day: wind speed and direction, RH, temp.

2) some version of a Stimpmeter** measuring track surface characteristics at a few points on the track, and maybe 2-3 times per race day. Maybe a weighted ball dropped from a known height and the depth of its impact is measured.

So now let's say you have actual data showing that a horse ran 2 weeks ago against a headwind (not just "looking at a flag nearby") on a track where the ball sunk in 5 inches and is now running on a calm, dry day on a track where the ball sinks 2 inches. Useful info for your downstream calculations, or not?

**Look up "stimpmeter" and how they are used in Wikipedia and tell me something like this wouldn't be a good thing for our game?

Sounds like something that would be equivalent to a track variant. You know what would be even better is if Equibase would stop using PDF's for their free chart info and change to an Excel friendly format instead.

[Cratos]

Cratos, I'm going to speak straight forward to you. I've stated in the past that I believe you're a stand-up guy and that we see eye to eye as peers.

However, in this thread, you've been asked by numerous posters to "show your work", that you've stated as being superior to the old "pen and paper" methods, using math and physics as your foundation. IMO, you've been avoiding to produce results, for whatever reason, and it comes off as you being not authentic.

I can say, for the first time, I now have my doubts about your successes, as there's literally no verifiable proof of what you claim.

In conclusion, it is now time for you to either show us proof or simply stop posting........As Thask and others have said many times, "You can pretend to be anyone or anything on the internet".
Let me be very clear with what you are asking and it is tell us publicly what you are going to bet before you make your wager; is that what you are asking?

If so, it not going to happen for several reasons and the most important of whiich is that I wager with a group and what you are asking would be a violation of a commitment that each associate has made to each other.

Next, I make about 60 wagers a year and finding a wager that is worthwhile betting is difficult and your asking to make it public would increase that difficulty.

I have been on this forum nearly 11 years and I don't know of anyone who makes large wagers and announces them before they make them.

In the recent past and you can check it, I have posted some choices, particularly on the TC races and the reason being is that the pool size is to large to be influenced. For recent bet that I have made and announced them publicly on this forum were Tonalist Belmont (check it, my choices ran 1st and 3rd), Dortmund last year, and Orb's Ky Derby win which at the time I was ridiculed for making that choice.

However this is not about posting wagers, it is more about convincing you and a few others that my handicapping ideas are good because they can be verified by winning results.

That sort of conclusion is very wrong for many reasons and the first of which is that I come to this forum because it allows one to offer opinions unconditionally and I most all of the time speak of concepts with respect to quantitative analysis which you the reader have the right to accept or reject.

Lastly, I make less than one post per day and very seldom about selecting a winner.

If you feel that I have not answered your request satisfactorily, be my guest and add me to your IGNORE list. I will not be disappointed and I will understand.

[JJMartin]

Let me be very clear with what you are asking and it is tell us publicly what you are going to bet before you make your wager; is that what you are asking?

If so, it not going to happen for several reasons and the most important of whiich is that I wager with a group and what you are asking would be a violation of a commitment that each associate has made to each other.

Next, I make about 60 wagers a year and finding a wager that is worthwhile betting is difficult and your asking to make it public would increase that difficulty.

I have been on this forum nearly 11 years and I don't know of anyone who makes large wagers and announces them before they make them.

In the recent past and you can check it, I have posted some choices, particularly on the TC races and the reason being is that the pool size is to large to be influenced. For recent bet that I have made and announced them publicly on this forum were Tonalist Belmont (check it, my choices ran 1st and 3rd), Dortmund last year, and Orb's Ky Derby win which at the time I was ridiculed for making that choice.

However this is not about posting wagers, it is more about convincing you and a few others that my handicapping ideas are good because they can be verified by winning results.

That sort of conclusion is very wrong for many reasons and the first of which is that I come to this forum because it allows one to offer opinions unconditionally and I, most all of the time speak of concepts with respect to quantitative analysis which you the reader gave the right to accept or reject.

Lastly, I make less than one post per day and very seldom about selecting a winner.

If you feel that I have not answered your request satisfactorily, be my guest and add me to your IGNORE list. I will not be disappointed and I will understand.
Does your group analyze replays or do you work strictly with data from pp's or some other source of numerical data?

[Cratos]

Does your group analyze replays or do you work strictly with data from pp's or some other source of numerical data?
Yes, we analyze videos. Because we are NYRA bettors we over the last 2 years have leaned heavily on Trakus data and we subscribe to both Equibase and the DRF.

[raybo]

Cratos, I'm going to speak straight forward to you. I've stated in the past that I believe you're a stand-up guy and that we see eye to eye as peers.

However, in this thread, you've been asked by numerous posters to "show your work", that you've stated as being superior to the old "pen and paper" methods, using math and physics as your foundation. IMO, you've been avoiding to produce results, for whatever reason, and it comes off as you being not authentic.

I can say, for the first time, I now have my doubts about your successes, as there's literally no verifiable proof of what you claim.

In conclusion, it is now time for you to either show us proof or simply stop posting........As Thask and others have said many times, "You can pretend to be anyone or anything on the internet".

How exactly would you have him prove his success? How would you prove your success, if you indeed are successful? The only thing that has been "proven" on this very forum, or any other to my knowledge, is that, when presented, by anyone, it is disbelieved and then ridiculed. To my knowledge, on any forum, nobody has ever proven success, not you, not Tom, not Gus, not anyone.

Cratos has presented many examples of the types of calculations that he, and his partners, make regarding race analysis. He has made predictions also. In short he has done what others here have done, and yet nothing has been "proven", by anyone, except that sometimes you pick a winner and sometimes you don't.

I submit that neither you, nor any of the others in this thread, demanding "proof", can or will themselves produce that same proof. Do you really think that anyone making profit in this game is going to tell you exactly how they do it? And believe me, anything short of "exactly" will never suffice, on this forum or any other.

I fail to see that Cratos has ever stated that his way is superior, or the only way to be successful. What he has stated is that, between trial and error and mathematical/scientific protocol, mathematical/scientific protocol is a more efficient method of defining the problem area and consistently arriving at valid solutions. Common sense alone, when you consider the subjective (based on individual beliefs, philosophies, intuition, canned figures, canned class assignments, etc.), versus the objective (based on long proven mathematical and physical processes), would suggest that the latter would certainly be more consistent long term. No "exact" proof is needed, IMO. It is the extremely rare individual who can produce that kind of consistency over a lengthy period of time, with a less than semi-mechanical mathematical and/or scientific approach, regardless of what they say they do.

Many here seem to think that Cratos should be shunned and disregarded and made the butt of jokes, and some even have the audacity to tell him to "stop posting". And yet, a few popular posters here are more guilty of disrespect and single mindedness, in a single day, than Cratos has ever offered, in totality.

I find many of his posts very informative and "enlightening".

[Capper Al]

Cratos' tone is I'm okay and the rest of us are not okay. He doesn't understand reality outside of his numbers. His premise is seriously flawed in the OP. And when pointing out his possible error, he doesn't refute but belittles as a reply.

Of course, I believe a properly made daily variant should include his wind theory and that possibly the wind at times isn't properly accounted for in the NYRA track variants. He might have a niche play that he is extrapolating upon incorrectly. But as the old saying goes, if it works for him then good. His theories don't explain horse racing.

[castaway01]

How exactly would you have him prove his success? How would you prove your success, if you indeed are successful? The only thing that has been "proven" on this very forum, or any other to my knowledge, is that, when presented, by anyone, it is disbelieved and then ridiculed. To my knowledge, on any forum, nobody has ever proven success, not you, not Tom, not Gus, not anyone.

Cratos has presented many examples of the types of calculations that he, and his partners, make regarding race analysis. He has made predictions also. In short he has done what others here have done, and yet nothing has been "proven", by anyone, except that sometimes you pick a winner and sometimes you don't.

I submit that neither you, nor any of the others in this thread, demanding "proof", can or will themselves produce that same proof. Do you really think that anyone making profit in this game is going to tell you exactly how they do it? And believe me, anything short of "exactly" will never suffice, on this forum or any other.

I fail to see that Cratos has ever stated that his way is superior, or the only way to be successful. What he has stated is that, between trial and error and mathematical/scientific protocol, mathematical/scientific protocol is a more efficient method of defining the problem area and consistently arriving at valid solutions. Common sense alone, when you consider the subjective (based on individual beliefs, philosophies, intuition, canned figures, canned class assignments, etc.), versus the objective (based on long proven mathematical and physical processes), would suggest that the latter would certainly be more consistent long term. No "exact" proof is needed, IMO. It is the extremely rare individual who can produce that kind of consistency over a lengthy period of time, with a less than semi-mechanical mathematical and/or scientific approach, regardless of what they say they do.

Many here seem to think that Cratos should be shunned and disregarded and made the butt of jokes, and some even have the audacity to tell him to "stop posting". And yet, a few popular posters here are more guilty of disrespect and single mindedness, in a single day, than Cratos has ever offered, in totality.

I find many of his posts very informative and "enlightening".

Again, for the millionth time, we don't want proof. We wanted one example of how any of this is used to HANDICAP, so we had something concrete to check out other than "my method is better than yours but I can't tell you what it is or show you how I use it or even handicap a race with it". Then the one hint of an example is "American Pharoah was fast", which is patronizing and comically dodging the question.

As far as disrespect, I've made a ton of disrespectful posts. It's fun tearing up the arguments of ill-informed people or out-and-out liars. I enjoy that. However, never once have I or Gus or Tom or some of the other people taking issue with Cratos ever posted "I've got a super-secret way to win using physics/magic/throwing darts at a board but I refuse to tell you, and you're too stupid to understand it anyway". Because all of his posts are some variation of that, and that's why he takes crap on here.

[raybo]

Again, for the millionth time, we don't want proof. We wanted one example of how any of this is used to HANDICAP, so we had something concrete to check out other than "my method is better than yours but I can't tell you what it is or show you how I use it or even handicap a race with it". Then the one hint of an example is "American Pharoah was fast", which is patronizing and comically dodging the question.

As far as disrespect, I've made a ton of disrespectful posts. It's fun tearing up the arguments of ill-informed people or out-and-out liars. I enjoy that. However, never once have I or Gus or Tom or some of the other people taking issue with Cratos ever posted "I've got a super-secret way to win using physics/magic/throwing darts at a board but I refuse to tell you, and you're too stupid to understand it anyway". Because all of his posts are some variation of that, and that's why he takes crap on here.

It seems rather obvious that Cratos and his partners use the math to refine their various performance and energy numbers, as accurately as possible, given the data they have. Many people refine numbers, but most don't go to the extremes that his group does. Most people don't know the math, or the physics, to go to that extreme, so their refined numbers are probably not as accurate as his. But, in the end, he uses his final numbers just like many others do, to compare the horses in the field and arrive at their betting selections.

It's not that he does anything different, in his final analysis leading up to final selections, than anyone else, it's his process of getting to that point that differs. He uses factors/variables that many others do not use, because they don't know how to numerically define those factors/variables. And the fact that he includes those factors/variables means that his calculations can go further towards fully explaining the problem area. In other words, most players ignore things that he does not.

Math is math, you can only calculate things that have the proper variables included in the math. So, if you are missing some of the math, then the math is not correct and/or not complete. That, I believe, is the basis of his statements that his math is better than others. Math, like computers, does not lie, it either contains all the necessary data or it doesn't, but it can only compute/calculate the answer according to the data/math that is available to the calculations/computations. It's like the old saying: garbage in, garbage out.

IMO, no "examples" are needed from Cratos, because in the end he is doing the same thing that many others do in arriving at his final selections, he just has a more complete expression of the problem area than others.

You've heard the term "nit-picker", well Cratos is a "nit-picker", but because of the complexity and competition level of the game, for good reason.

Regarding American Pharoah's performance in the Travers and the BCC, Cratos deduced that AP, in the Travers, expended less energy than Frosted or Keen Ice, despite the extended pace battle with Frosted. I disagreed with that, I was, and am, of the belief that AP simply wasn't at 100% that day. Whatever! What matters is that we both arrived at the same conclusion, AP would run a very good BCC, even very good for him, but for different reasons obviously. Mine was based on more generic data than his, while his was grounded in the energy math. So, in that particular example, the two methods resulted in the same outcome. But, in other examples, that surely will not be the case.

[cj]

Regarding American Pharoah's performance in the Travers and the BCC, Cratos deduced that AP, in the Travers, expended less energy than Frosted or Keen Ice, despite the extended pace battle with Frosted. I disagreed with that, I was, and am, of the belief that AP simply wasn't at 100% that day. Whatever! What matters is that we both arrived at the same conclusion, AP would run a very good BCC, even very good for him, but for different reasons obviously. Mine was based on more generic data than his, while his was grounded in the energy math. So, in that particular example, the two methods resulted in the same outcome. But, in other examples, that surely will not be the case.

Probably 99% of examples known to man "came up with" American Pharoah in the Classic. I wrote after the Belmont he was a virtual cinch to win the Classic because he was already faster than the older horses.

I do agree with you that he wasn't 100% ready for the Travers, but he still ran very well.

[cj]

Did these work calculations come up with this gem:

If Honor Code stays healthy he will win the Derby with a shot at taking the Triple Crown; his biggest threats will be his stable mate, Top Billing and Strong Mandate with D. Wayne in charge. This horse is an awesome specimen to see and the best stride that I have seen since the late Ruffian.

[Kash$]

Did these work calculations come up with this gem:

Best stride since Ruffian... :confused:

[Nitro]

From many of my previous posts some of you already know my sentiments about trying to use any exact science like Math (at any level) to provide consistent answers to the varying performances of race horses. I know there are many who would love to just look at some numbers for comparison purposes and come up with legitimate contenders. I know I do, but my numbers are based solely on the movement of money, and not the movement of the horses.

Beyond that I just wanted to add my thoughts about what Cratos is trying to present here and why I believe it’s entirely an exercise in futility. I have a fairly good background in Math and Science and because one of my hobbies in the past was race cars, I am very familiar with engine Dyno tuning. I mention this only because I’d like to make a basic correlation between the dynamics of a race engine and a race horse.

Most importantly lets first all agree that an engine is a piece of machinery built to produce X-amount of HP and Torque. I know this might seem like an awakening to some, but a horse may very well be bred to race but it’s a living and breathing animal composed of flesh and blood with psychological attributes.

Without going into a lot of detail I can say unequivocally that every aspect of a race engine’s build and output can be measured based on the final tuning. Of course in operation it will be affected by air temperature, humidity and air density based on the elevation. Knowing this information along with all of the other details of the car’s combination will eventually lead to understanding how and why the car performs as it does. I call attention to the engine because it’s the motive force in the car.

On the other hand, the motive force (energy output level) in a horse is completely unknown. It’s related to the rate of absorption of oxygen through its breathing apparatus into the bloodstream through the entire muscle system. Unfortunately, for purposes of diagnostics none of this can be measured accurately in an accommodating way. Even if this information could be measured, on any given day it could vary considerably based upon things like the recent diet or something as insignificant as stepping on a needle in hay stack.

So, as far as I’m concerned trying to evaluate the actual “Work” a horse performs on any given race day will lead to nothing more than a lot of unintelligible gibberish. This of course just results more subjective conclusions.
.
.

[Cratos]

Did these work calculations come up with this gem:
I have no idea what you are attempting to prove, but I think I submitted that post either when HC was a 2yo or a young 3yo.

Did I believe my analysis? The answer is an emphatic yes; and HC had an awesome stride, but for whatever reasons he was distance challenged beyond 1-1/8m which is still somewhat puzzling given his bloodlines.

Far as the analytics; I believe for this industry to expand to the millennia it must embrace quantitative technology on the fly along with some other structure deficiencies that need to be corrected.

[ultracapper]

It seems rather obvious that Cratos and his partners use the math to refine their various performance and energy numbers, as accurately as possible, given the data they have. Many people refine numbers, but most don't go to the extremes that his group does. Most people don't know the math, or the physics, to go to that extreme, so their refined numbers are probably not as accurate as his. But, in the end, he uses his final numbers just like many others do, to compare the horses in the field and arrive at their betting selections.

It's not that he does anything different, in his final analysis leading up to final selections, than anyone else, it's his process of getting to that point that differs. He uses factors/variables that many others do not use, because they don't know how to numerically define those factors/variables. And the fact that he includes those factors/variables means that his calculations can go further towards fully explaining the problem area. In other words, most players ignore things that he does not.

Math is math, you can only calculate things that have the proper variables included in the math. So, if you are missing some of the math, then the math is not correct and/or not complete. That, I believe, is the basis of his statements that his math is better than others. Math, like computers, does not lie, it either contains all the necessary data or it doesn't, but it can only compute/calculate the answer according to the data/math that is available to the calculations/computations. It's like the old saying: garbage in, garbage out.

IMO, no "examples" are needed from Cratos, because in the end he is doing the same thing that many others do in arriving at his final selections, he just has a more complete expression of the problem area than others.

You've heard the term "nit-picker", well Cratos is a "nit-picker", but because of the complexity and competition level of the game, for good reason.

Regarding American Pharoah's performance in the Travers and the BCC, Cratos deduced that AP, in the Travers, expended less energy than Frosted or Keen Ice, despite the extended pace battle with Frosted. I disagreed with that, I was, and am, of the belief that AP simply wasn't at 100% that day. Whatever! What matters is that we both arrived at the same conclusion, AP would run a very good BCC, even very good for him, but for different reasons obviously. Mine was based on more generic data than his, while his was grounded in the energy math. So, in that particular example, the two methods resulted in the same outcome. But, in other examples, that surely will not be the case.

I may be mistaken, but I don't think Cratos and his group come up with any rating or speed type numbers. From reading his posts, I believe they've devised a simulator type model. What the final product output looks like is probably a series of numbers, but it doesn't sound, to me anyway, like the numbers you'd see in, say, CJ's reports.

And then again, I could be way off base. I still have to make sure I'm using the correct end of a pencil when I handicap.

[Secondbest]

I will not be able to give an example of a current race because as I’ve stated on this forum, we shut down our handicapping after the Breeders’ Cup races because we are primarily NYRA bettors exclusive of Aqueduct.

However I have an example of the 2015 Travers that I am attempting to put into an Excel format that will give a good example of efficient work because I believe that American Pharoah was an extremely efficient racehorse with his work performance and the Travers demonstrated that ability.
I like your posts and am looking forward to your example

[thaskalos]

When a poster makes outlandish statements, then he is going to receive some reader feedback that's going to challenge his position...that's how online forums work. This doesn't just apply to Cratos; it would apply to ANYONE who posts the kinds of things that Cratos proposes here. "Horse racing is just a math and physics problem", he asserts...giving the impression that this game is just a math problem waiting to be solved. When you say something like that...people are going to challenge your position, and ask you for an example of what you are talking about. And when you reply to them that a horse is just a "body in motion", and that handicapping is just a matter of figuring out how the track and the different atmospheric conditions affect this "body" as it travels towards its destination...then you will be asked to supply answers to ADDITIONAL questions. The people who are asking you these questions are not doing it with the intent to mock or disrespect you. They are doing it so they can better understand what you are trying to tell them. It doesn't matter if you are a distinguished college professor with a PhD, or a struggling high school dropout with a prison record...people are going to challenge your position when they think that your assertions are questionable.

Question: "Cratos...you say that this game is nothing but a math and physics problem waiting to be solved. Aren't these living and breathing creatures, driven by instincts which could hardly be expected to be measured with mathematical precision?"

Cratos: "Your question reveals a distinct mathematical deficiency. We have a body which is in motion, and it is affected by certain forces which react upon it in predictable and quantifiable ways."

Question: "Cratos...you say that the wind plays a major role in your handicapping. How do you determine the prevailing wind current at the precise time of the race?"

Cratos: "My associates and I employ a service which supplies us with this information. We know the direction and the velocity of the wind at the time of the race...and we account for it in our calculations."

Question: "But don't the winds sometimes gust and swirl? Aren't the wind currents different at ground level than they are when measured from higher above? How is this information applied in actual practice? Can you offer us a concrete example, without "giving away the store"? We don't want you to give us any of your "secrets". Just give us a glimpse of how you would approach a race scheduled to be run tomorrow."

Cratos: "I can't provide an actual example of what I am talking about, because my associates and I have already completed our play for the year. I also feel that such an example might be a betrayal of the trust that my associates have placed upon me in our business venture. But I will say this: I have complete confidence in our methods...and we just completed another very profitable year at the betting windows. We made 60 wagers in 2015...and we posted a 41% winning percentage, at an average mutuel price of $13.00".

This is how the typical conversation with Cratos evolves here. And if I answered questions in such a manner, I would get criticized too...and so would anybody else.

[Cratos]

From many of my previous posts some of you already know my sentiments about trying to use any exact science like Math (at any level) to provide consistent answers to the varying performances of race horses. I know there are many who would love to just look at some numbers for comparison purposes and come up with legitimate contenders. I know I do, but my numbers are based solely on the movement of money, and not the movement of the horses.

Beyond that I just wanted to add my thoughts about what Cratos is trying to present here and why I believe it’s entirely an exercise in futility. I have a fairly good background in Math and Science and because one of my hobbies in the past was race cars, I am very familiar with engine Dyno tuning. I mention this only because I’d like to make a basic correlation between the dynamics of a race engine and a race horse.

Most importantly lets first all agree that an engine is a piece of machinery built to produce X-amount of HP and Torque. I know this might seem like an awakening to some, but a horse may very well be bred to race but it’s a living and breathing animal composed of flesh and blood with psychological attributes.

Without going into a lot of detail I can say unequivocally that every aspect of a race engine’s build and output can be measured based on the final tuning. Of course in operation it will be affected by air temperature, humidity and air density based on the elevation. Knowing this information along with all of the other details of the car’s combination will eventually lead to understanding how and why the car performs as it does. I call attention to the engine because it’s the motive force in the car.

On the other hand, the motive force (energy output level) in a horse is completely unknown. It’s related to the rate of absorption of oxygen through its breathing apparatus into the bloodstream through the entire muscle system. Unfortunately, for purposes of diagnostics none of this can be measured accurately in an accommodating way. Even if this information could be measured, on any given day it could vary considerably based upon things like the recent diet or something as insignificant as stepping on a needle in hay stack.

So, as far as I’m concerned trying to evaluate the actual “Work” a horse performs on any given race day will lead to nothing more than a lot of unintelligible gibberish. This of course just results more subjective conclusions.
.
.
I appreciate your post, but me and two of my associates (both are engineers w/PhD's)
disagree with your conclusions.

However what I find most interesting is that posters who come to this forum with a quantitative approach based on science are immediately characterized as being arrogant, pompous, and not personable.

This can be witness by the treatment of posters or former posters like "TtrifecaMike", "Sapio," and "Masgtri Ludi" among others and I ask why?

[Tom]

Why?
Because THEY ARE!

[ultracapper]

When a poster makes outlandish statements, then he is going to receive some reader feedback that's going to challenge his position...that's how online forums work. This doesn't just apply to Cratos; it would apply to ANYONE who posts the kinds of things that Cratos proposes here. "Horse racing is just a math and physics problem", he asserts...giving the impression that this game is just a math problem waiting to be solved. When you say something like that...people are going to challenge your position, and ask you for an example of what you are talking about. And when you reply to them that a horse is just a "body in motion", and that handicapping is just a matter of figuring out how the track and the different atmospheric conditions affect this "body" as it travels towards its destination...then you will be asked to supply answers to ADDITIONAL questions. The people who are asking you these questions are not doing it with the intent to mock or disrespect you. They are doing it so they can better understand what you are trying to tell them. It doesn't matter if you are a distinguished college professor with a PhD, or a struggling high school dropout with a prison record...people are going to challenge your position when they think that your assertions are questionable.

Question: "Cratos...you say that this game is nothing but a math and physics problem waiting to be solved. Aren't these living and breathing creatures, driven by instincts which could hardly be expected to be measured with mathematical precision?"

Cratos: "Your question reveals a distinct mathematical deficiency. We have a body which is in motion, and it is affected by certain forces which react upon it in predictable and quantifiable ways."

Question: "Cratos...you say that the wind plays a major role in your handicapping. How do you determine the prevailing wind current at the precise time of the race?"

Cratos: "My associates and I employ a service which supplies us with this information. We know the direction and the velocity of the wind at the time of the race...and we account for it in our calculations."

Question: "But don't the winds sometimes gust and swirl? Aren't the wind currents different at ground level than they are when measured from higher above? How is this information applied in actual practice? Can you offer us a concrete example, without "giving away the store"? We don't want you to give us any of your "secrets". Just give us a glimpse of how you would approach a race scheduled to be run tomorrow."

Cratos: "I can't provide an actual example of what I am talking about, because my associates and I have already completed our play for the year. I also feel that such an example might be a betrayal of the trust that my associates have placed upon me in our business venture. But I will say this: I have complete confidence in our methods...and we just completed another very profitable year at the betting windows. We made 60 wagers in 2015...and we posted a 41% winning percentage, at an average mutuel price of $13.00".

This is how the typical conversation with Cratos evolves here. And if I answered questions in such a manner, I would get criticized too...and so would anybody else.

24/60 is 40%, 25/60 is 41.66666%. I would have rounded to 42%. I think I learned that in, like, 5th grade math class.

[Cratos]

I may be mistaken, but I don't think Cratos and his group come up with any rating or speed type numbers. From reading his posts, I believe they've devised a simulator type model. What the final product output looks like is probably a series of numbers, but it doesn't sound, to me anyway, like the numbers you'd see in, say, CJ's reports.

And then again, I could be way off base. I still have to make sure I'm using the correct end of a pencil when I handicap.
You are very near correct and I am glad you submitted your post because it give me the opportunity to explain why it is far more difficult to give an example of a simulation than of a single point estimate.

In simulation, the postulation is "design intent"; what is the intent of various inputs added to the model? A single point estimate define the answer upfront and attempt to verify it with evidence.

The simulation model requires a lot more time and academic training to use.

This doesn't mean that everyone who uses simulation went to RPI or similar schools, but it does say that if you don't have the time, the training, and the money investment simulation might not be your handicapping tool.

[ultracapper]

I appreciate your post, but me and two of my associates (both are engineers w/PhD's)
disagree with your conclusions.

However what I find most interesting is that posters who come to this forum with a quantitative approach based on science are immediately characterized as being arrogant, pompous, and not personable.

This can be witness by the treatment of posters or former posters like "TtrifecaMike", "Sapio," and "Masgtri Ludi" among others and I ask why?

I think you once posted that any new member of the board should read everything that these 3 posters have posted, ignore the rest, and then delete PA from your history. The first word that came to mind when I read that is above. Actually, there were 2 words that came to mind, that was the adjective, the 2nd word was a noun. I think that was 5th grade English that I learned adjectives and nouns and such.

I'm just goofin' with you now. I've found this whole thread to be damn entertaining, and kind of humerous at times. Even though, Thask has made some pretty good points. If he ever gives up handicapping, he might consider research as a next career.

[raybo]

24/60 is 40%, 25/60 is 41.66666%. I would have rounded to 42%. I think I learned that in, like, 5th grade math class.

Perhaps he didn't "round" at all, perhaps he "truncated". They more than likely don't cover truncation in 5th grade math. Your post is assumptive, it appears, and suggests that Cratos lacks low level mathematical skills, and yet people here want him to explain his math, as if it is elevated beyond theirs. Maybe because it is(?) Or, maybe because they are biased against his methodology(?) Or, they just simply don't like him and think he deserves to be denigrated(?)

[raybo]

I think you once posted that any new member of the board should read everything that these 3 posters have posted, ignore the rest, and then delete PA from your history. The first word that came to mind when I read that is above. Actually, there were 2 words that came to mind, that was the adjective, the 2nd word was a noun. I think that was 5th grade English that I learned adjectives and nouns and such.

I'm just goofin' with you now. I've found this whole thread to be damn entertaining, and kind of humerous at times. Even though, Thask has made some pretty good points. If he ever gives up handicapping, he might consider research as a next career.

I believe that Magister Ludi was the guilty one who posted that remark, not Cratos. (And, a few have suggested that Trifecta Mike and Magister Ludi are one and the same person.)

[thaskalos]

I believe that Magister Ludi was the guilty one who posted that remark, not Cratos.
Yes...it WAS Magister Ludi who made that comment.

But wasn't it Cratos who asked why Magister Ludi is roundly criticized here (post #100)? Shouldn't the answer to that question be obvious?

[classhandicapper]

I'm not sure what to think of this thread.

I just spent the last 12 months building a database, creating some ratings that approximate my own thinking, and writing queries so I could enhance my information retrieval and study the game. As a result, I recently answered several handicapping questions that have been plaguing me for decades. I had all the pieces of the puzzle all along, but now I am fitting them together better. Not a single bit of it involves anything other than fairly basic handicapping concepts and arithmetic.

I'm not sure greater complexity in data or math is the answer to any of this.

Sometimes just knowing where the value is (and is not) and knowing how to combine factors in an optimal way leads to huge progress.

[Saratoga_Mike]

If Cratos and his associates are done playing for the year (I believe he stated this...perhaps I'm mistaken), why can't he handicap a race for us using his approach at a track on 12/26? Why not race 4 at AQU? It's NYRA and the field size is very manageable. He and his partners have no plans to play the race, so what's the downside? I'd love to see an example of his approach in the real world. I look forward to his analysis, if he decides to indulge us.

[ultracapper]

I believe that Magister Ludi was the guilty one who posted that remark, not Cratos. (And, a few have suggested that Trifecta Mike and Magister Ludi are one and the same person.)

Thank you for the correction, and my sincere apology to Cratos. I was in a playful mood, and saw that one come together. I should have been more diligent before accusing wrongly. That was poor form on my part.

I don't know if PA would ever consider an additional board for those that are practicing handicapping the way Cratos approaches it, as it seems they are in the minority and they do get broadsided quite a bit. The fact is, when Cratos posted his initial post a couple days ago, I knew he was asking for it. There was no way this thread wasn't going to evolve into what it has become.

Maybe a section for "Advanced Math Handicapping" or "Physics Handicapping" or something like that. Without a place for those inclined to that to congregate, there will never be many of them as members, and they will continually get swamped in the general handicapping and racing sections. I'm sure they'd like to share among like minded handicappers, and the gap in method is so great, at least it seems to me, that there is little common ground.

[raybo]

Yes...it WAS Magister Ludi who made that comment.

But wasn't it Cratos who asked why Magister Ludi is roundly criticized here (post #100)? Shouldn't the answer to that question be obvious?

Perhaps it isn't to Cratos(?) But, doesn't that have more to do with the advanced technical methodology mindset of all three of those guys, rather than their "apparent" lack of forum decorum. I learned long ago that challenging an engineer about engineering principles, by anyone not in the engineering/scientific realm, almost invariably invokes untasteful responses, sometimes severely untasteful. In short, if you don't have the technical training and occupational experience to discuss things technical, on their level, their responses will probably not be to your liking or understanding. It can become quite frustrating/aggravating, because they simply don't have the ability to "dumb-down" to our technical level. At least that is my experience with my engineer brother-in-law. But, that doesn't mean that I don't respect him for his technical knowledge and expertise, because I am usually astounded, albeit still tremendously confused most of the time. :bang:

[ultracapper]

Perhaps he didn't "round" at all, perhaps he "truncated". They more than likely don't cover truncation in 5th grade math. Your post is assumptive, it appears, and suggests that Cratos lacks low level mathematical skills, and yet people here want him to explain his math, as if it is elevated beyond theirs. Maybe because it is(?) Or, maybe because they are biased against his methodology(?) Or, they just simply don't like him and think he deserves to be denigrated(?)

No, I was just goofing around. I'm feeling good today. Lighthearted if you will.

Honestly, understanding what Cratos does as well as I possibly can, I at least think I have the concept down, knowing damn well I don't have any of the nuts and bolts down at all, I think it would be very difficult for him to give a working example that would be understandable to the general population of members here. Pushing him to do that seems a bit unreasonable to me. He's playing on a different playground that most of us. Same game, different playground.

[raybo]

Thank you for the correction, and my sincere apology to Cratos. I was in a playful mood, and saw that one come together. I should have been more diligent before accusing wrongly. That was poor form on my part.

I don't know if PA would ever consider an additional board for those that are practicing handicapping the way Cratos approaches it, as it seems they are in the minority and they do get broadsided quite a bit. The fact is, when Cratos posted his initial post a couple days ago, I knew he was asking for it. There was no way this thread wasn't going to evolve into what it has become.

Maybe a section for "Advanced Math Handicapping" or "Physics Handicapping" or something like that. Without a place for those inclined to that to congregate, there will never be many of them as members, and they will continually get swamped in the general handicapping and racing sections. I'm sure they'd like to share among like minded handicappers, and the gap in method is so great, at least it seems to me, that there is little common ground.

Funny you mentioned that, I stated something very similar quite a while back, before I came to my senses regarding those so "technically educated and trained". At that time I was one of the protagonists of criticism towards posters with such an advanced level of mathematical/scientific education and related work in the field. It took me a while to finally determine the common sense behind the math, and even though the math was above my head, the reason for the math wasn't.

[raybo]

No, I was just goofing around. I'm feeling good today. Lighthearted if you will.

Honestly, understanding what Cratos does as well as I possibly can, I at least think I have the concept down, knowing damn well I don't have any of the nuts and bolts down at all, I think it would be very difficult for him to give a working example that would be understandable to the general population of members here. Pushing him to do that seems a bit unreasonable to me. He's playing on a different playground that most of us. Same game, different playground.

Fully agree! :ThmbUp:

Personally, I find it somewhat demeaning when someone in that higher realm of technicality "holds class" when they don't have the ability or training, to teach. That was my big problem with Traynor, and the reason he, for quite a while, was the only one on my ignore list - LOL. That list has grown lately!

[ultracapper]

Funny you mentioned that, I stated something very similar quite a while back, before I came to my senses regarding those so "technically educated and trained". At that time I was one of the protagonists of criticism towards posters with such an advanced level of mathematical/scientific education and related work in the field. It took me a while to finally determine the common sense behind the math, and even though the math was above my head, the reason for the math wasn't.

I myself, never imagined somebody could approach handicapping in this fashion. The old, 'what you don't know, you don't know" maxim. Having been subjected to it here on this board, it makes me wonder just how many handicappers are there out there, people I'm playing against, applying this methodology, for no other reason than you should always know your competition. I'm not intimidated in any way, I'm very confident I can hold my own, so I'm not threatened, just curious.

[raybo]

If Cratos and his associates are done playing for the year (I believe he stated this...perhaps I'm mistaken), why can't he handicap a race for us using his approach at a track on 12/26? Why not race 4 at AQU? It's NYRA and the field size is very manageable. He and his partners have no plans to play the race, so what's the downside? I'd love to see an example of his approach in the real world. I look forward to his analysis, if he decides to indulge us.

From what I gather from his posts, all of the members of his group participate, in different areas of the data and the analysis. Perhaps he, alone, can not perform the whole job? Only he can explain the real reason(s).

[raybo]

I myself, never imagined somebody could approach handicapping in this fashion. The old, 'what you don't know, you don't know" maxim. Having been subjected to it here on this board, it makes me wonder just how many handicappers are there out there, people I'm playing against, applying this methodology, for no other reason than you should always know your competition. I'm not intimidated in any way, I'm very confident I can hold my own, so I'm not threatened, just curious.

I'm no longer intimidated either, but I was in the past, because I was trying to turn all the nuts and bolts, without the proper wrench. I learned that I could apply my common sense (and what limited math/physics/technical skills I have) and actually get something out of what they were saying. Some people, present things, not for precision's sake, but rather to present ideas and hopefully promote critical thinking and experimentation by the reader (after all it is natural for people to wish for an expansion of like mindedness). That's fine with me, if I want to go further, based on new ideas and ways of thinking, that's on me, not them.

[steveb]

From what I gather from his posts, all of the members of his group participate, in different areas of the data and the analysis. Perhaps he, alone, can not perform the whole job? Only he can explain the real reason(s).

having a bit of experience in that, then indeed there would be different people bringing different talents to the table.
there would be no point having a syndicate where all were specialists in the same thing!

i am having problems coming to terms with how a group could survive having maybe 60 bets a year.
crikey, in the old days i would have thousands in a single day, nearly every day of the year.

but what i find idiotic, and it IS idiotic, is how a certain person that won't speak to me!!:lol: , is demanding answers from cratos.
i personally doubt cratos is winning long term, although i don't actually care if he is or not, but never would i be so stupid as to demand answers from him.
it's nobodies business but his own.

[whodoyoulike]

I think you once posted that any new member of the board should read everything that these 3 posters have posted, ignore the rest, and then delete PA from your history. ...

I don't recall Cratos making this or a similar post to read everything regarding TrifectaMike, Sapio and Magister Ludi. Instead I recall Magister Ludi and Sapio posting several times that everyone should read and assimilate every post made by TrifectaMike on this site.

But, someone else has made a very good observation that these three handles could very well be one and the same individual. After all, three does become a TRIFECTA of sorts.

And, I agree with Tom's earlier post.

[Saratoga_Mike]

From what I gather from his posts, all of the members of his group participate, in different areas of the data and the analysis. Perhaps he, alone, can not perform the whole job? Only he can explain the real reason(s).

That could explain it.

[Saratoga_Mike]

but never would i be so stupid as to demand answers from him.
it's nobodies business but his own.

True IF this wasn't a PUBLIC message board where there's an exchange of ideas.

[raybo]

That could explain it.

Yeah, many people have trouble explaining things, in text. Heck some people have trouble explaining things vocally! I do know, that once I started automating my handicapping, it became more and more difficult to remember all the things that were included in the various processes. Out of sight, out of mind, I suppose. :lol:

[raybo]

True IF this wasn't a PUBLIC message board where there's an exchange of ideas.

LOL- unfortunately, these public forum threads tend to evolve, very quickly, from an exchange of ideas to an exchange of egos, personality, and bias. ;)

[thaskalos]

Perhaps it isn't to Cratos(?) But, doesn't that have more to do with the advanced technical methodology mindset of all three of those guys, rather than their "apparent" lack of forum decorum. I learned long ago that challenging an engineer about engineering principles, by anyone not in the engineering/scientific realm, almost invariably invokes untasteful responses, sometimes severely untasteful. In short, if you don't have the technical training and occupational experience to discuss things technical, on their level, their responses will probably not be to your liking or understanding. It can become quite frustrating/aggravating, because they simply don't have the ability to "dumb-down" to our technical level. At least that is my experience with my engineer brother-in-law. But, that doesn't mean that I don't respect him for his technical knowledge and expertise, because I am usually astounded, albeit still tremendously confused most of the time. :bang:

You have every right to voice your support for Cratos and his posting style...and no one could tell you that you are wrong. You find the guy interesting, and you enjoy reading his opinions...and that's all well and good. :ThmbUp:

But not all of us see things the same way. To me...Cratos is just a show-off. He starts threads even though he knows that they will never amount to anything...and he supplies personal information about himself which he knows can never be verified for authenticity's sake.

He has made it his business to tell us that he holds advanced academic degrees from renowned teaching institutions, and he has revealed to us that he always bets $1,000+ on his selections. He has claimed that his winning percentage as a horseplayer is amazing...and that his ROI in the game is ASTRONOMICAL. All the personal information that is impossible for us to verify, Cratos has provided for us. But he has withheld from us all of the proof that his handicapping opinions should be respected in the arena of our game as it is played today. Every single handicapping reference that Cratos has ever posted on this board reads as if it has been lifted right off a physics book.

You have claimed that you earn a high ROI in this game...and I have made the declaration that I have earned my living from this game for the last 10 years. These are unsubstantiated declarations too...but they are made in the context of our conversation. And this conversation includes concrete opinions of what our methods revolve around. I am not going to tell you that I hold a PhD in an advanced science, or that my smallest bet is $1,000...because that's none of your business...and it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. But I WILL handicap a race from tomorrow's card if you ask me to...and I WILL offer you a clear and concrete opinion on practically any horse racing topic under the sun. That's what I come to this forum for...to share opinions with other like-minded individuals. I won't reveal the crux of my method to you, because this is -- after all -- a COMPETITION...but I will let you look over my shoulder as I am handicapping a race.

I would do my pace and speed calculations quietly, and would probably tell you:

"Ray...my pace figures indicate that the 5-horse has run much more impressively than his final-figures in his last two races indicate...and I think this horse will run a big race today. I also feel that the favorite will run a subpar race...because his pace figures reveal that the high speed figure of his last victory was strongly enhanced by the leisurely manner in which he ran during the early part of the race."

What "damage" have I done to myself if I tell you this? Have I really told you anything that you could use against me in the subsequent race? And if you ask me an additional question or two about my handicapping process...don't you think that I could give you a satisfactory answer, without "giving away the store"? WHO CARES if my prognosis proves correct in this particular race. I have shown you that I possess a usable handicapping method...and that it points me to some sort of reasonable conclusion.

That's all that Cratos has been asked to provide here. We don't care what school he went to, or what advanced degree he has earned...and his bet size and his ROI is his business alone. We are only asking to see how he approaches a future race while employing the "scientific method" that he holds in such high regard. How do these atmospheric conditions that he depends on fit in his overall handicapping scheme...and how do they impact the final prediction?

Now...Cratos may say that he is totally unwilling to share with us ANY part of his handicapping process. But, in that case...why bother to go to the trouble of starting a thread like this one on an open online forum? The guy who starts a thread like this one must have something to share...NO?

[whodoyoulike]

I'm not sure what to think of this thread.

I just spent the last 12 months building a database, creating some ratings that approximate my own thinking, and writing queries so I could enhance my information retrieval and study the game. As a result, I recently answered several handicapping questions that have been plaguing me for decades. I had all the pieces of the puzzle all along, but now I am fitting them together better. Not a single bit of it involves anything other than fairly basic handicapping concepts and arithmetic.

I'm not sure greater complexity in data or math is the answer to any of this.

Sometimes just knowing where the value is (and is not) and knowing how to combine factors in an optimal way leads to huge progress.

And, you're correct in your post. And, not attempting to make a profound statement here but, you have to use what works for you.

I think Raybo also has stated similar sentiments in post #91 of this thread ....

It seems rather obvious that Cratos and his partners use the math to refine their various performance and energy numbers, as accurately as possible, given the data they have. Many people refine numbers, but most don't go to the extremes that his group does. Most people don't know the math, or the physics, to go to that extreme, so their refined numbers are probably not as accurate as his. But, in the end, he uses his final numbers just like many others do, to compare the horses in the field and arrive at their betting selections.

It's not that he does anything different, in his final analysis leading up to final selections, than anyone else, it's his process of getting to that point that differs. He uses factors/variables that many others do not use, because they don't know how to numerically define those factors/variables. And the fact that he includes those factors/variables means that his calculations can go further towards fully explaining the problem area. In other words, most players ignore things that he does not.

Math is math, you can only calculate things that have the proper variables included in the math. So, if you are missing some of the math, then the math is not correct and/or not complete. That, I believe, is the basis of his statements that his math is better than others. Math, like computers, does not lie, it either contains all the necessary data or it doesn't, but it can only compute/calculate the answer according to the data/math that is available to the calculations/computations. It's like the old saying: garbage in, garbage out. ...

[cj]

i am having problems coming to terms with how a group could survive having maybe 60 bets a year.
crikey, in the old days i would have thousands in a single day, nearly every day of the year.



Somebody asked me if I believed this, and this was the first point I brought up. There isn't that much in our win pools, even NYRA. Of course it is possible to bet in the exact and trifecta pools also, even super. I just seems curious that a method could be so good it only leads to 60 plays a year. If you are getting that kind of return, surely you could get less return but much more volume (i.e. profit) playing more races.

But who knows, could just be playing a limited group of races, like graded stakes or something. But in the end I just don't care. He will either share or he won't. Either way is ok by me. This is his thread start and he can do as he pleases. It is the threads where he butts in with the same kind of posts and derails the threads others start that I step in.

[ultracapper]

One good thing about this thread....No SRU.

HA!!! I'm killin' myself today.

[raybo]

One good thing about this thread....No SRU.

HA!!! I'm killin' myself today.

Maybe he is ill? Nah, that wouldn't stop him. :lol:

[cj]

Maybe he is ill? Nah, that wouldn't stop him. :lol:

Clippers loss last night probably has him feeling blue...OKC blue.

[ultracapper]

Somebody asked me if I believed this, and this was the first point I brought up. There isn't that much in our win pools, even NYRA. Of course it is possible to bet in the exact and trifecta pools also, even super. I just seems curious that a method could be so good it only leads to 60 plays a year. If you are getting that kind of return, surely you could get less return but much more volume (i.e. profit) playing more races.

I thought about this also, but not knowing how much work goes into each analysis, it's impossible to calculate how many races can be handicapped. I know, just myself, watching replays over and over becomes tiring, and working more than 10-12 races a week starts really effecting my quality of work. 10-12 races may generate 3 or 4 bets. I'm not making much more than 180 bets per year. And I'm putting zero time into any kind of computer inputting. Cratos has commented on exportability of data, and it sounds like a lot of the data he collects is of the rawest form, so, there could be a time effeciency issue in what they do.

Hell, I don't know. Maybe they're the guys that plunked $200,000 on Tonalist in the last minute of the Belmont. Or was it $2,000,000? Who knows.

[Cratos]

From what I gather from his posts, all of the members of his group participate, in different areas of the data and the analysis. Perhaps he, alone, can not perform the whole job? Only he can explain the real reason(s).
You are absolutely correct; we all have different levels of technical expertise and experience (both in horseracing and in the corporate world), but it is the culture that we have developed that keeps up together and focused on the common objective of realizing a substantial annual profit year over year from betting on racehorses.

We are put together in a legal entity as a limited partnership and believe me without that legal structure I don’t think it would work as a functioning group because the old adage: “WHEN IT COME TO MONEY, PEOPLE GET FUNNY” is very true.

[Cratos]

I thought about this also, but not knowing how much work goes into each analysis, it's impossible to calculate how many races can be handicapped. I know, just myself, watching replays over and over becomes tiring, and working more than 10-12 races a week starts really effecting my quality of work. 10-12 races may generate 3 or 4 bets. I'm not making much more than 180 bets per year. And I'm putting zero time into any kind of computer inputting. Cratos has commented on exportability of data, and it sounds like a lot of the data he collects is of the rawest form, so, there could be a time effeciency issue in what they do.

Hell, I don't know. Maybe they're the guys that plunked $200,000 on Tonalist in the last minute of the Belmont. Or was it $2,000,000? Who knows.
No, we didn’t have no more than $20K on Tonalist when he won the Belmont Stakes. The only time we wagered $200k was on Dortmund in this year’s Derby and American Pharoah took us to the woodshed.

However we bounced back with wins from Curalina and HC at unexpected payoffs on Belmont Day.

[thaskalos]

No, we didn’t have no more than $20K on Tonalist when he won the Belmont Stakes. The only time we wagered $200k was on Dortmund in this year’s Derby and American Pharoah took us to the woodshed.

However we bounced back with wins from Curalina and HC at unexpected payoffs on Belmont Day.

Even if you keep your wagers down to the $20,000 level, with the ROI that you claim to have earned this year...I calculate your group's winnings for the year to stand at a little over $2 million...which comes out to about $667,000 for each associate. Not bad for only betting 60 races a year. :ThmbUp:

[thaskalos]

but what i find idiotic, and it IS idiotic, is how a certain person that won't speak to me!!:lol: , is demanding answers from cratos.
i personally doubt cratos is winning long term, although i don't actually care if he is or not, but never would i be so stupid as to demand answers from him.
it's nobodies business but his own.
Let me understand you here:

You should be allowed to come to this forum here and tell us that you have this highly "scientific method", which allows you to cash 41% of your wagers at an average mutuel of $13.00...but it is "stupid" for any of us to ask you any questions about it?

Is THAT what you mean?

[davew]

This thread kind of reminds me of an old system I bought from ? Dan Pope ?

He had a book full of numbers that he said was the 'energy expended' or something like that. Different distances, times to first call, and gain or loss in the stretch.

Like all systems, it picked some winners and the 'standouts' were the favorites, because most other handicapping methods had them on highly rankd as well.

[Cratos]

This thread kind of reminds me of an old system I bought from ? Dan Pope ?

He had a book full of numbers that he said was the 'energy expended' or something like that. Different distances, times to first call, and gain or loss in the stretch.

Like all systems, it picked some winners and the 'standouts' were the favorites, because most other handicapping methods had them on highly rankd as well.
If this thread with all of its "turns and twists" and misinterpretations reminds you of a "system," then I believe you are reading the wrong thread.

[Tom]

I don't know if PA would ever consider an additional board for those that are practicing handicapping the way Cratos approaches it, as it seems they are in the minority and they do get broadsided quite a bit. The fact is, when Cratos posted his initial post a couple days ago, I knew he was asking for it. There was no way this thread wasn't going to evolve into what it has become.

Why would they need it? They never really do anything other than an initial post and then clam up or disappear, or insult anyone who tries to ask a question of them, or even have the audacity that Gus did, to ask then actually provide a real life example! I seriously doubt any other them have even even made a real life bet myself.

I doubt any of could hold a candle to Monty Banks. :lol:

Look,the real handicappers here have posted selections, examples, even "how to stuff" of their own, here and on their own boards. We all know who the real
deal guys here are.

You decide....fluff or stuff?

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Completely coming out of the blue in this thread, but I still can't believe those that try to take mathematical equations, put them together, and try to predict outcomes of horse races.

I did that effort for a long time in the '90s and those efforts were rough.

We are talking about "stupid" flesh and blood animals with an attitude in and of themselves, running around a track and bumping into other animals with Jockeys on board trying to get them forwarded enough to win at a particular distance set for that particular race.

When does "class" matter? Trainer change? Jockey change? Blinkers on/off? Layoff, quick turnaround? Recent works? Track? Track conditions?

I'm a numbers guy, and I crunch numbers in my head, but it is the outside the numbers factors that make the difference between winning and losing.

Give me a guy like Thaskalos that has read forms for over 40 some years against any computer, and I'm taking Thaskalos' opinion. (And I'll quietly take mine over his when it really matters. :))

[steveb]

Let me understand you here:

You should be allowed to come to this forum here and tell us that you have this highly "scientific method", which allows you to cash 41% of your wagers at an average mutuel of $13.00...but it is "stupid" for any of us to ask you any questions about it?

Is THAT what you mean?


well, you can call it pure bs, it matters not.
you can also ask all the questions you want, but it is purely up to cratos, if he answers or not.
i personally think he is full of it, but i also KNOW that there are some that win more than most people can imagine.
i also know that they have infinitely more than 60 bets in a season/year.
but then i am also assuming that is his living, and i may be completely wrong as far as that is concerned.

but at the end of the day, does it matter to YOU if he wins or not, and if he is all talk or not?
ask all you want, i don't give a fig, and i also don't give a fig if he answers or not.
if i still had that life it would make NO difference to what i do, so TO ME it is irrelevant, if he is full of it or not.
i simply don't care either way.
do you?

[NorCalGreg]

Why start the thread then disappear when questioned? Then return with more mumbo jumbo-no one asked you to play games--or give away your methods, just show your work, the same way you were required to do at MIT........ Honestly, I didn't learn anything from this entire thread, except maybe thask isn't one to be trifled with---but this post was hilarious:

pV=nRT

((drops the mic))


you were the saving grace of what would have been a waste of a thread, elhelmete :ThmbUp:

[elhelmete]

Why start the thread then disappear when questioned? Then return with more mumbo jumbo-no one asked you to play games--or give away your methods, just show your work, the same way you were required to do at MIT........ Honestly, I didn't learn anything from this entire thread, except maybe thask isn't one to be trifled with---but this post was hilarious:




you were the saving grace of what would have been a waste of a thread, elhelmete :ThmbUp:

I'm changing my username to Avogadro.

[classhandicapper]

60 bets per year is way too small a sample to know what your win% or ROI is long term. At that rate, you might not know for 10-15 years. By the time that many years pass, you still won't know because the game would have been changing along the way.

[Tom]

Most of my horses "work" for minimum wage. :rolleyes:

[Capper Al]

This thread gets crazier and crazier. If Cratos has a niche, it's better kept to himself. Makes me wonder why he would share it? The only conclusion is that he is talk, out for his only glory.

[Southbaygent]

lol, silly me. I was looking forward to a thread/discussion on information re: "calculating the workOUT..." of the horse :)

[whodoyoulike]

Why would they need it? They never really do anything other than an initial post and then clam up or disappear, or insult anyone who tries to ask a question of them, or even have the audacity that Gus did, to ask then actually provide a real life example! I seriously doubt any other them have even even made a real life bet myself.

I doubt any of could hold a candle to Monty Banks. :lol:

Look,the real handicappers here have posted selections, examples, even "how to stuff" of their own, here and on their own boards. We all know who the real
deal guys here are.

You decide....fluff or stuff?

I've asked Thaskalos in an earlier post to provide an example of his version since he made a challenge and stated he was also willing to illustrate his method on a future race. But, I haven't seen anything unless I've missed it. I just would like to see WTH they're arguing over. I also mentioned earlier that you're like a sharp stick jabbing into someone. You're acting like a shill for Thaskalos to place pressure on Cratos to act.

Tom, are you a shill?

But, I still don't see what's preventing Thaskalos from presenting his calculation(s).

[cj]

I've asked Thaskalos in an earlier post to provide an example of his version since he made a challenge and stated he was also willing to illustrate his method on a future race. But, I haven't seen anything unless I've missed it. I just would like to see WTH they're arguing over. I also mentioned earlier that you're like a sharp stick jabbing into someone. You're acting like a shill for Thaskalos to place pressure on Cratos to act.

Tom, are you a shill?

But, I still don't see what's preventing Thaskalos from presenting his calculation(s).

He's already done this in the past in detail...search function. Why should he do it again when the other guy won't do it even once?

[Tom]

Tom, are you a shill?

Yes, and I have an opening.
Would you like me the shill for you?
I'll build you up so high you'll think I'm talking about someone esle.

PM me for rates.








:rolleyes:

[whodoyoulike]

He's already done this in the past in detail...search function. Why should he do it again when the other guy won't do it even once?


I take it, his illustration was from another thread which most likely was a different context situation. And, it must have been years ago because I've never seen it although based on what's being discussed I'm uncertain what I should have been considering.

He should do it again because he stated he was willing to compare his method against Cratos' before a race in an earlier post within this very thread. The fact Cratos has declined shouldn't prevent him from showing his method. As I've previously stated, I'm curious what this argument is all about and is this method useful and how should it be utilized.

Others on here have indicated an interest in what this fuss is all about so, I'm guessing they also are uncertain what useful information this method will provide for them. Again, I'm guessing that this method results in some measurement which is the reason I've asked Thaskalos to also show how exactly he is using it. I'm not asking him to show his calculations. If it's useful we can try and figure it out ourselves. It sounded to me as if Thaskalos and Cratos are both calculating this measurement for every race but in different ways. So, it doesn't really mean one way is better than the other way. Since, we would be unable to do a side by side comparison, they're just different.

We basically have two parties with one willing and the other unwilling to illustrate something.

Why shouldn't the one willing to illustrate if he was sincere in his offer just go ahead and do it?

[whodoyoulike]

Yes, and I have an opening.
Would you like me the shill for you?
I'll build you up so high you'll think I'm talking about someone esle.

PM me for rates.








:rolleyes:

I don't think I'll take you up on your offer because good shills aren't so obvious.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I don't think I'll take you up on your offer because good shills aren't so obvious.

You really need to read the O/T boards. I don't see Tom shilling for Thask.

[thaskalos]

You really need to read the O/T boards. I don't see Tom shilling for Thask.
You took the words out of my mouth. :)

[DeltaLover]

You took the words out of my mouth. :)


Hey Thask, just a reminder to not forget your New Year's resolutions...

[cj]

He should do it again because he stated he was willing to compare his method against Cratos' before a race in an earlier post within this very thread. The fact Cratos has declined shouldn't prevent him from showing his method.

...

We basically have two parties with one willing and the other unwilling to illustrate something.

Why shouldn't the one willing to illustrate if he was sincere in his offer just go ahead and do it?

How can you compare anything if one of the people doesn't participate. And like I said he's already done it. I'm heading out to dinner or I'd search for the thread myself. I'll get to it later. I suspect Thask was only "willing" if Cratos was also.

[Tom]

Thask has earned his credibility here.
More than once.
Repeat contest winner with his partner.....Thask walk, Cratos talk.

And, what happens in OT stays in OT. ;)

[whodoyoulike]

Hey Thask, just a reminder to not forget your New Year's resolutions...

I'm surprised someone hasn't asked you to stay on topic.

[Tom]

I'm surprised someone hasn't asked you to stay on topic.

Please stay on topic.


:D

[whodoyoulike]

Thask has earned his credibility here.
More than once.
Repeat contest winner with his partner.....Thask walk, Cratos talk.

And, what happens in OT stays in OT. ;)

I still don't see why he can't do the walk here.

At this point of the thread, I don't care who illustrates the point using a current future race which we can compare with actual results.

If you understand it, hell go for it but, explain how it can be useful for the uninformed.

If CJ reads this, unless the past reference post he will be searching if it doesn't allow us to make a comparison with actual results then he shouldn't bother searching for it.

[thaskalos]

I still don't see why he can't do the walk here.

At this point of the thread, I don't care who illustrates the point using a current future race which we can compare with actual results.

If you understand it, hell go for it but, explain how it can be useful for the uninformed.

If CJ reads this, unless the past reference post he will be searching if it doesn't allow us to make a comparison with actual results then he shouldn't bother searching for it.
You are calling Tom a shill...when the reality is that YOU are the one who is single-handedly trying to keep this thread alive. If the original poster has abandoned his own thread...then, why don't you just let it die off?

[Cratos]

I still don't see why he can't do the walk here.

At this point of the thread, I don't care who illustrates the point using a current future race which we can compare with actual results.

If you understand it, hell go for it but, explain how it can be useful for the uninformed.

If CJ reads this, unless the past reference post he will be searching if it doesn't allow us to make a comparison with actual results then he shouldn't bother searching for it.
You are wasting your time because at the beginning of this thread all of the explanation required was given by the work equation which is not my equation; it was created by some brilliant people long before anyone on this forum was born.

However Dave Schwartz, the first responder on this thread got it and asked if it could be put into a "time component" metric and after conferring with two of my colleagues I believe that a time component can be derived for application.

The major problem throughout this thread has been a mixing of applied math and theoretical math by some without a distinction.

I would like to see an inverse mathematical equation to the existing work equation, but I don't believe it can happen and if you read through the response posts presented in this thread you will find the one presented by the poster, Raybo why what is being talked about is no more than "effort"; not work. Effort is both physical and mental and cannot be uniquely quantitated like work.

I am now leaving for Christmas vacation.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL

[thaskalos]

You are wasting your time because at the beginning of this thread all of the explanation required was given by the work equation which is not my equation; it was created by some brilliant people long before anyone on this forum was born.

However Dave Schwartz, the first responder on this thread got it and asked if it could be put into a "time component" metric and after conferring with two of my colleagues I believe that a time component can be derived for application.

The major problem throughout this thread has been a mixing of applied math and theoretical math by some without a distinction.

I would like to see an inverse mathematical equation to the existing work equation, but I don't believe it can happen and if you read through the response posts presented in this thread you will find the one presented by the poster, Raybo why what is being talked about is no more than "effort"; not work. Effort is both physical and mental and cannot be uniquely quantitated like work.

I now leaving for Christmas vacation.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL

Thanks for pointing out to us that there is a distinct difference between "effort" and "work". This thread served a useful purpose after all. :ThmbUp:

[raybo]

Thanks for pointing out to us that there is a distinct difference between "effort" and "work". This thread served a useful purpose after all. :ThmbUp:

I believe he also stated earlier that the work formula, and its extended derivative family of formulas, are only a portion of what his group uses in their analysis. Although he didn't specify all of those other factors, I assume some of them are exactly the same ones that you, and I, and others here use. The work formula was, as he said in the OP, a decent 1st cut.

[Tom]

Cut 2 will be out in 2017.

[raybo]

Maybe "cut 2" should come from the reader? The internet is a wonderful learning tool, if you're interested in the subject. But, if you're not, then maybe you're just satisfied with posting snide remarks?

[AndyC]

Maybe "cut 2" should come from the reader? The internet is a wonderful learning tool, if you're interested in the subject. But, if you're not, then maybe you're just satisfied with posting snide remarks?

I am confused, what exactly is the subject? How to calculate work and use the scientific method? Will I be getting 1 or 2 units of credit upon the completion of this thread?

What hasn't been discussed is how this calculation improves our ability to determine the winner of any future race. I am not seeking any proprietary information just an explanation of how improvement would result. It seems that all handicapping is done by quantifying the past in hopes of predicting the future.

[thaskalos]

I am confused, what exactly is the subject? How to calculate work and use the scientific method? Will I be getting 1 or 2 units of credit upon the completion of this thread?

What hasn't been discussed is how this calculation improves our ability to determine the winner of any future race. I am not seeking any proprietary information just an explanation of how improvement would result. It seems that all handicapping is done by quantifying the past in hopes of predicting the future.
Cratos, and the other "scientific handicappers" of this forum, have never been too concerned with the process of eventually "determining the winner of any future race". They don't deal in "practice"...they deal in THEORY. They are the ones who supply the IDEAS...and it is left up to the REST of us to determine if, and how, these ideas are to be implemented in actual play. Once he has presented his general idea here...the scientific poster's job here is DONE. If this idea is obtuse or unsatisfying...then it's the READER'S fault.

[ReplayRandall]

I am confused, what exactly is the subject? How to calculate work and use the scientific method? Will I be getting 1 or 2 units of credit upon the completion of this thread?

What hasn't been discussed is how this calculation improves our ability to determine the winner of any future race. I am not seeking any proprietary information just an explanation of how improvement would result. It seems that all handicapping is done by quantifying the past in hopes of predicting the future.

Not ALL handicapping, just the majority. Let me give a scenario, where 2 handicappers were sent to a foreign track with no knowledge of the horse, trainer or jockeys. All you both have at your disposal is watching the post parade/warm-ups and the tote-board. Who would be the better horseplayer, given this scenario?.....Obviously this should be a no-brainer, but you'd be surprised how many horseplayers have never mastered these 2 most important factors.

[raybo]

I am confused, what exactly is the subject? How to calculate work and use the scientific method? Will I be getting 1 or 2 units of credit upon the completion of this thread?

What hasn't been discussed is how this calculation improves our ability to determine the winner of any future race. I am not seeking any proprietary information just an explanation of how improvement would result. It seems that all handicapping is done by quantifying the past in hopes of predicting the future.

Through the use of these types of calculations, one could get a "baseline", for each horse who has run enough races, for ability to do work, over different distances, and different surface conditions, etc.. So, from that baseline, couldn't one compare individual races to that baseline, along with other relevant factors, and get a good idea of form cycle? Isn't form analysis important to the handicapper?

[thaskalos]

Not ALL handicapping, just the majority. Let me give a scenario, where 2 handicappers were sent to a foreign track with no knowledge of the horse, trainer or jockeys. All you both have at your deposal is watching the post parade/warm-ups and the tote-board. Who would be the better horseplayer, given this scenario?.....Obviously this should be a no-brainer, but you'd be surprised how many horseplayers have never mastered these 2 most important factors.
I find this as confusing as what Cratos had to say here. These 2 handicappers visiting the foreign track...they have no past performances at their disposal? Do they expect to survive in the game just by "physicality" handicapping, and tote board watching?

[ReplayRandall]

I find this as confusing as what Cratos had to say here. These 2 handicappers visiting the foreign track...they have no past performances at their disposal? Do they expect to survive in the game just by "physicality" handicapping, and tote board watching?

Thask, it was a theoretical example. All I've done is strip away any past informational biases and made those handicappers live in the "foundational live moment" of the game. If anyone has not mastered these 2 primary factors, which all else is built upon, what chance do they really have at being profitable long-term, and are they really the best they can be?.....

[thaskalos]

Thask, it was a theoretical example. All I've done is strip away any past informational biases and made those handicappers live in the "foundational live moment" of the game. If anyone has not mastered these 2 primary factors, which all else is built upon, what chance do they really have at being profitable long-term, and are they really the best they can be?.....
Randall...what point are you trying to make, exactly? That the handicapper can't win long-term without "physicality handicapping" and tote board watching? Or that he "can't really be all that he can be", without mastering these two facets of the game? These two things aren't the same. What does "be all that you can be" mean ANYWAY? Is that even possible?

If you mean to say that we can't win without paddock inspections, warm ups and tote board analysis...then I disagree with you. But if you mean to say that the players would be better off if he mastered EVERY facet of the handicapping process, then I would hesitatingly agree with you...but I would doubt that such a thing was possible. "Be the best that you can be", is an advertising slogan. It isn't reality, IMO.

[NorCalGreg]

I am confused, what exactly is the subject? How to calculate work and use the scientific method? Will I be getting 1 or 2 units of credit upon the completion of this thread?

What hasn't been discussed is how this calculation improves our ability to determine the winner of any future race. I am not seeking any proprietary information just an explanation of how improvement would result. It seems that all handicapping is done by quantifying the past in hopes of predicting the future.

While "cut 1" is ever forthcoming, we'll have get back to you Andy. So far, all we have are snide remarks to keep ourselves amused, while we wait.
Sounds like Raybo has impatiently given up on that ever happening- and decided it is us, the very readers who wait- who should carry on the mantle of knowledge and complete this task.
Since Cratos has shut it down, and left for vacation....all I can do is try to interpret, or make sense of, what little he did say.
Now to the 1 or 2 of you.....this applies to: You are familiar with the expression "DAZZLE THEM WITH YOUR BRILLIANCE--OR BAFFLE THEM WITH YOUR BULLSHIT"?? I'm amazed at how easily "dazzled" you are...at the expense of actually thinking about the gibbirish being uttered.
Anyway, this is my opinion---I'm entitled to it, have been looking for an opening to say this. Go ahead and rebut this, call me names, I'm a big boy. I also had plenty of offers from Yale, MIT, Harvard,etc......just decided at the time, cook school @ FT Hood US ARMY offered more opportunities---besides, it kept me from going to jail.
Have a good Christmas

-NCG

[cj]

If CJ reads this, unless the past reference post he will be searching if it doesn't allow us to make a comparison with actual results then he shouldn't bother searching for it.

Trying to figure out what this means...the results of any races he posted are availabe at Equibase I'm sure.

[ReplayRandall]

Randall...what point are you trying to make, exactly? That the handicapper can't win long-term without "physicality handicapping" and tote board watching? Or that he "can't really be all that he can be", without mastering these two facets of the game? These two things aren't the same. What does "be all that you can be" mean ANYWAY? Is that even possible?

If you mean to say that we can't win without paddock inspections, warm ups and tote board analysis...then I disagree with you. But if you mean to say that the players would be better off if he mastered EVERY facet of the handicapping process, then I would hesitatingly agree with you...but I would doubt that such a thing was possible. "Be the best that you can be", is an advertising slogan. It isn't reality, IMO.

I'm taking the beginning of the entire process of handicapping, from it's foundational pillars, to then accumulating and filtering information, step by step, to the nth degree where we finally arrive at where Cratos claims to be. I'm giving Cratos a lot of subjective leeway, as he claims he is an empiricist, having very select information of post-time wind speed, barometric pressure, etal. Here is the process he laid out:

• Determine the impact of the environmental influences on each horse in the race at the time the race was run.
• Determine any track configuration (centrifugal force) impact
• Using Trakus or similar data, I would determine the race distance of each horse past 4 races (I use the past 4 races, but more or less races could be used.

Now that I have my two unknowns identified for the aforementioned work equation I would normalized the results to today’s distance.

I can calculate the following for each horse:

• Power, which is how much work is done per unit of time
• The measurement of energy expenditure

Each of those components are given a rating value between zero and one; and when summed together becomes a percent between zero and one and all horses in the race are ranked with an efficiency rating (based on the summation) for today’s race and distance.

Efficiency compares the output work of the horse to the input work.

• Expressed as a percent
• In the horse’s performance some work is wasted due to friction

The most efficient rated horse(s) should be considered as winning contender(s) for today’s race at today’s distance.
However it should be clearly understood that the work calculation is only part of your winning horse selection.

So now we come to the actual play by Cratos/Associates, betting anywhere from $20K to $200K. All sytems are a go, they're ready to pull the trigger, but still 2 important factors must still come into play. How many times do you think they've not made a bet because the horse simply looked like crap in the warm-ups? How many times do you think that price-wise, they couldn't quite make the bet, due to not getting 3-1 minimum?

Bottom-line, it all comes down to the foundational reality of the horse's physical appearance and getting, at the very least, the correct minimal profitable price, which is always the FIRST and LAST of all successful methodologies. When I state, "are you the best you can be", I'm giving my opinion as to what it really takes to "optimally" win at this game, with little or no money being left on the table. In closing, I'm always seeking to acquire more weapons to use in my handicapping toolbox.....I just don't like being strung along from those who try to impart possible cutting edge concepts, but really end up teaching nothing at all.......

[AndyC]

Through the use of these types of calculations, one could get a "baseline", for each horse who has run enough races, for ability to do work, over different distances, and different surface conditions, etc.. So, from that baseline, couldn't one compare individual races to that baseline, along with other relevant factors, and get a good idea of form cycle? Isn't form analysis important to the handicapper?

Is a "work" baseline a significantly better way than a speed figure or pace figure baseline? Perhaps using "work" is a better mousetrap but I doubt we will ever resolve that in this thread.

[whodoyoulike]

I am confused, what exactly is the subject? How to calculate work and use the scientific method? Will I be getting 1 or 2 units of credit upon the completion of this thread?

What hasn't been discussed is how this calculation improves our ability to determine the winner of any future race. I am not seeking any proprietary information just an explanation of how improvement would result. It seems that all handicapping is done by quantifying the past in hopes of predicting the future.

Why didn't you join in the last couple of days?

This is exactly what I've been asking myself and out loud several times.

[whodoyoulike]

Trying to figure out what this means...the results of any races he posted are availabe at Equibase I'm sure.

I was just trying to save you some time since the probability that Thaskalos actually and specifically addressed this topic would've been low. Your search results IMO wouldn't have been in the same context as what is being discussed in this thread and which would also provide some answers to my previous questions.

Unless you're implying Thaskalos is a present day version of a Nostradamus or Edgar Cayce then I'll be very much interested in his previous example(s).

[thaskalos]

I was just trying to save you some time since the probability that Thaskalos actually and specifically addressed this topic would've been low. Your search results IMO wouldn't have been in the same context as what is being discussed in this thread and which would also provide some answers to my previous questions.

Unless you're implying Thaskalos is a present day version of a Nostradamus or Edgar Cayce then I'll be very much interested in his previous example(s).

If you re-read Cratos's initial post here, you will see that the bulk of it had to do with proving the superiority of his "scientific" method over the "trial and error" method that the rest of us "unenlightened" horseplayers use. This stuff about measuring a horse's "Work" only revealed itself at the bottom third of his post. The REAL "topic" of his post was his assertion that this "scientific method" is a crucial component of handicapping...if the horseplayer wants to thoroughly understand the game.

Now...as far as I am concerned, it makes no difference at all if we say that we are measuring a horse's "effort", or if we are measuring the horse's level of "Work". The entire point of the handicapping process is to come to the kind of definitive conclusion which allows us to step up to the betting window and make the types of bets which will keep us in the black. It doesn't matter if you are an "enlightened scientist", or a "bewildered pencil-and-paper player". In this game...they pay us for the BETTING...and the only thing that counts is our long-term result.

My handicapping method is admittedly "trial and error"...but I like the results that it gets me. And I have used my method to handicap races here in the past. I haven't gone to great lengths to explain every single aspect of my work...but I have shown a lot more than what you or Cratos have shown.

All these different categories that people use to label themselves...like "computer handicapper"..."pencil-and-paper handicapper"..."pace handicapper"..."speed handicapper"..."class handicapper"..."trip handicapper"...they all BULLSHIT, IMO. There are only TWO categories that matter in a gambling game...and these two categories are spacious enough to include all the gamblers in existence. These two categories are "WINNER", and "LOSER".

If you are a "winner", then you've gotten the job done...and you needn't apologize for the methods that you use. And if you are a "loser", then you have to try harder...no matter how many "advanced degrees" are hanging on your wall...or how "enlightened" you think you are.

Gambling is pretty unambiguous in that regard...and we all know who we are. We may be able to deceive others...but we can't deceive ourselves.

[raybo]

Is a "work" baseline a significantly better way than a speed figure or pace figure baseline? Perhaps using "work" is a better mousetrap but I doubt we will ever resolve that in this thread.

I never saw any reference in any of Cratos' posts that his group was not also using a speed figure or pace figure baseline. They well may be for all I know. He did say that the work formula is not all they use. He did say that each member of his group offers different degrees of expertise in different aspects of their overall methodology.

I will say this, and you can take it as defending Cratos or not, I really don't care, but if I had the math/physics knowledge that Cratos and his group obviously do, I highly suspect that I would be using the work formula, and all the several related extensions of that basic formula in my own approach to the game. So, it's on me, as to whether or not I pursue this idea further. If I was not already doing well in racing I might well have already contacted Cratos, or Trifecta Mike, or Magister Ludi, or any of the other more technically advanced posters here, current or former, and inquired further into more specifics. I might have been denied, but maybe not, who knows?

Would I take the time to go through all the the formulas here, and explain exactly how I use them all, for whatever aspect of my methodology they apply to? Absolutely not. I've revealed much of what I do here, more than once, but I reveal only enough to give anyone interested in a similar approach, the basics of getting started in developing their own approach. They of course, are free to PM me or email me with any specific questions they have, but the decision to completely answer those questions is totally mine.

[whodoyoulike]

If you re-read Cratos's initial post here, you will see that the bulk of it had to do with proving the superiority of his "scientific" method over the "trial and error" method that the rest of us "unenlightened" horseplayers use. This stuff about measuring a horse's "Work" only revealed itself at the bottom third of his post. The REAL "topic" of his post was his assertion that this "scientific method" is a crucial component of handicapping...if the horseplayer wants to thoroughly understand the game. ...

Well, my focus in my questions was from the thread title "Calculating the Work of a Horse". I don't know how to do it or what it even means which is the reason I would've preferred to view some examples. I figured we probably are doing something similar but we don't refer to it in the same way as you two. I got the "scientific" vs "non-scientific" debate but in the end both of you claimed similar results which is the reason I kept emphasizing your results are just different not one is correct and therefore the other would be wrong.

But, if one of you were wrong compared to actual results as a famous human behaviorist used to state ----- "I'd pity the fool".

[classhandicapper]

Sometimes I think we all spend too much time trying to create better numbers and not enough time trying to measure value. That's one of the things I've learned from running database tests. The difference win WIN% between various ratings I've tested is minimal, but the values can vary enough to matter.

[JJMartin]

All these different categories that people use to label themselves...like "computer handicapper"..."pencil-and-paper handicapper"..."pace handicapper"..."speed handicapper"..."class handicapper"..."trip handicapper"...they all BULLSHIT, IMO. There are only TWO categories that matter in a gambling game...and these two categories are spacious enough to include all the gamblers in existence. These two categories are "WINNER", and "LOSER".

If you are a "winner", then you've gotten the job done...and you needn't apologize for the methods that you use. And if you are a "loser", then you have to try harder...no matter how many "advanced degrees" are hanging on your wall...or how "enlightened" you think you are.

Gambling is pretty unambiguous in that regard...and we all know who we are. We may be able to deceive others...but we can't deceive ourselves.
LOL - I'm going to have to agree with that assessment; the only method that matters is the one that produces positive results consistently.

In regards to "work", I would assert that the trick is to know when a particular horse's level of output is suited to the pace match-up or RS match-up for the race in question. In one race his output may be found to be inefficient and counter-productive where as in another, it may be just what is needed to win. If you look at 1/4 times for the entrants in a race, you could usually predict pretty easily who the top 3 leaders will be at the quarter. But how will the energy flow into the 2nd and 3rd fraction? Every race should be looked at in this context, imo.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

....What hasn't been discussed is how this calculation improves our ability to determine the winner of any future race. I am not seeking any proprietary information just an explanation of how improvement would result. It seems that all handicapping is done by quantifying the past in hopes of predicting the future.

Cratos answered this in post #57. See post #71 for the snippet I understood to be the key point.

[AndyC]

Cratos answered this in post #57. See post #71 for the snippet I understood to be the key point.

Thanks, I missed a couple of days and obviously didn't thoroughly peruse the postings.

[AndyC]

AndyC, the title of this thread which I started is “Calculating the Work of the Horse”; not “How do you use the quantification of work to predict the outcome of a race?”

However your question is a good one and I will attempt to address it.

Before I do, I will respond to some of the nonsense introduced by the posters who by their prior posts lack the math and science backgrounds to support their claims.

I don’t have a problem with any poster challenging any assertion(s) I make on this forum because when you make a public assertion you should understand that not everyone will agree with you even though you are correct and there will always be a minority who will respond with rhetoric for reasons beyond rational comprehension.

Therefore early in the thread the following two explanations were given:

“Work is done on by the horse when it moves in the same direction that the force is exerted”

“Work = force x distance or W = Fd”

That should have been sufficient for most to have an elementary understanding of “work of the horse.”

Apparently it wasn’t and by the way to the poster, Tom” who stated “This ain't physics,” please understand that horserace handicap quantification is all about physics, but it is obvious for you to make such statement, you don’t have a good math and science background.

Also to the poster who stated: “In my opinion, I can't rely on math whose underpinnings are based on conjecture.” You need to rethink your statement because math underpinnings are not based on conjecture; math is the only exact science and is based absolutely on fact.

Thaskalos, in all due respect what you defined as “work” is effort a nonparametric. Also my thesis statement “There are many calculations put forth in horseracing and many are based on anecdotal data/postulations” give credence to my subsequent presentation of the work equation; and if you are “bewildered” I have nothing else to say.

Therefore what to use in the quantification of work to predict the outcome of a race. I would do the following:

• Determine the impact of the environmental influences on each horse in the race at the time the race was run.
• Determine any track configuration (centrifugal force) impact
• Using Trakus or similar data, I would determine the race distance of each horse past 4 races (I use the past 4 races, but more or less races could be used.

Now that I have my two unknowns identified for the aforementioned work equation I would normalized the results to today’s distance.

I can calculate the following for each horse:

• Power, which is how much work is done per unit of time
• The measurement of energy expenditure

Each of those components are given a rating value between zero and one; and when summed together becomes a percent between zero and one and all horses in the race are ranked with an efficiency rating (based on the summation) for today’s race and distance.

Efficiency compares the output work of the horse to the input work.

• Expressed as a percent
• In the horse’s performance some work is wasted due to friction

The most efficient rated horse(s) should be considered as winning contender(s) for today’s race at today’s distance.
However it should be clearly understood that the work calculation is only part of your winning horse selection.

Sorry I missed your response earlier. Thanks for answering my question even though it may not have been on point to your original post.

[cj]

Here was the race where Thaskalos handicaps a race in detail.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1313399&postcount=675

[Capper Al]

Here was the race where Thaskalos handicaps a race in detail.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1313399&postcount=675

Thanks. I'm not able to find the thread. Would you provide a link?

Thanks

[Tom]

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=92893

Long thread, but lots of good stuff in it.
Merry Christmas, Al!

[thaskalos]

Here was the race where Thaskalos handicaps a race in detail.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1313399&postcount=675
And for those interested in the outcome of this race...it went as I had anticipated. The :7: RATATAT controlled the pace comfortably...and was able to hold off the :9: WHERE'S THE BABY at the wire. I believe the :7: paid $9.60 to win...and the exacta returned about $78.

Was my analysis necessarily "scientific"? Admittedly...no. But I think it shows that I have a decent grasp of the overall complexity of the game...even if my method seems easy enough for anybody to use. Whether your method is "scientific" or "trial and error", the money that they pay you is just as green either way...and it spends just the same.

The skill is not in the handicapping methods that we employ. The REAL skill resides in the player who uses them.

[Capper Al]

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=92893

Long thread, but lots of good stuff in it.
Merry Christmas, Al!

Thanks

[Tom]

Was my analysis necessarily "scientific"?

It is the results that matter, not the method.

[AndyC]

It is the results that matter, not the method.

Without a good method or methodology how would someone be a consistent winner?

[whodoyoulike]

And for those interested in the outcome of this race...it went as I had anticipated. The :7: RATATAT controlled the pace comfortably...and was able to hold off the :9: WHERE'S THE BABY at the wire. I believe the :7: paid $9.60 to win...and the exacta returned about $78.

Was my analysis necessarily "scientific"? Admittedly...no. But I think it shows that I have a decent grasp of the overall complexity of the game...even if my method seems easy enough for anybody to use. Whether your method is "scientific" or "trial and error", the money that they pay you is just as green either way...and it spends just the same.

The skill is not in the handicapping methods that we employ. The REAL skill resides in the player who uses them.

I'm not attempting to minimize your efforts in that thread but did your post address calculating the WORK of the horse(s) in that race?

I was expecting some type of measurement or rating for each horse. After all what is being described in your post is usually what most (at least on here) do in handicapping a race. The definition being used in post #1, I would think would've resulted in some type of foot per pound per second measurement. Again, I'm uncertain what or how one would calculate it.

[cj]

I'm not attempting to minimize your efforts in that thread but did your post address calculating the WORK of the horse(s) in that race?

I was expecting some type of measurement or rating for each horse. After all what is being described in your post is usually what most (at least on here) do in handicapping a race. The definition being used in post #1, I would think would've resulted in some type of foot per pound per second measurement. Again, I'm uncertain what or how one would calculate it.

You have to be trolling at this point. Just stop.

[thaskalos]

Without a good method or methodology how would someone be a consistent winner?
How would you define "good method" and "bad method"? When a horseplayer loses...is it the METHOD, or the PLAYER, that is usually at fault?

In one of his books, Andy Beyer made a comment that sounded something like this:

"If I hear a horseplayer say that he likes a particular horse because the horse is dropping in class while moving to a better jockey, I might not be able to argue with his opinion...but I'll know for sure that this player isn't a winner. He CAN'T be". The assumption being, of course, that our game is much too complex to be beaten by "simplistic" handicapping methods such as this.

Well...this is a decidedly elitist attitude, IMO...and I have never been able to understand it. Just because a player uses "simplistic" thinking in his assessment of ONE race, does not mean that he lacks the required knowledge to properly attack the NEXT, more COMPLICATED race. The gambler is measured by the level of "success" that he has attained in the game...not by the complexity of the method that he employs.

[Tom]

Without a good method or methodology how would someone be a consistent winner?
There are many ways to handicap successfully.
Whichever way you get the winners is not important, only that you get them.
No matter what some wind bag will try to tell you.

[thaskalos]

I'm not attempting to minimize your efforts in that thread but did your post address calculating the WORK of the horse(s) in that race?

I was expecting some type of measurement or rating for each horse. After all what is being described in your post is usually what most (at least on here) do in handicapping a race. The definition being used in post #1, I would think would've resulted in some type of foot per pound per second measurement. Again, I'm uncertain what or how one would calculate it.
If you want an explanation of post #1...then find Cratos and ask him. Post #1 is HIS...not mine. I have no interest in Cratos's "work" calculations. I am much more interested in his post #1 opinion that his "scientific" method takes us to "enlightenment"...whereas the "trial-and-error" method, a version of which I happen to employ, keeps us in "confusion".

Can he use his "scientific method" in a future race...the way I used my "trial-and-error method" in the race above?

[whodoyoulike]

If you want an explanation of post #1...then find Cratos and ask him. Post #1 is HIS...not mine. I have no interest in Cratos's "work" calculations. I am much more interested in his post #1 opinion that his "scientific" method takes us to "enlightenment"...whereas the "trial-and-error" method, a version of which I happen to employ, keeps us in "confusion".

Can he use his "scientific method" in a future race...the way I used my "trial-and-error method" in the race above?

Several people seem to just like to argue but, you were the one who made a challenge that you would show your "paper and pencil" method which I thought was going to be regarding calculating the WORK of horses before a race since that is what the thread was addressing.

As I've posted, we all know how to handicap a race and we all use different methods. Your method is not superior to his ----- JUST DIFFERENT!!

[cj]

...you were the one who made a challenge that you would show your "paper and pencil" method which I thought was going to be regarding calculating the WORK of horses...


Why would you think that? It makes no sense. I'm trying to be nice here and not just delete your post since it is Christmas.

[thaskalos]

Several people seem to just like to argue but, you were the one who made a challenge that you would show your "paper and pencil" method which I thought was going to be regarding calculating the WORK of horses before a race since that is what the thread was addressing.

As I've posted, we all know how to handicap a race and we all use different methods. Your method is not superior to his ----- JUST DIFFERENT!!

When you are handicapping a race, are you trying to "calculate the Work" of the horses in the race...or are you looking for a suitable bet?

And, since you say that you know how to handicap but you use a different method...why don't you SHOW us your method, on a future race? Don't be shy...go ahead and try it. Pick a race from tomorrow's card...and analyze it for us here...so we could get a look of this method of yours. Don't tell me that you know how to handicap a race...SHOW me.

I did it. Why can't you?

[whodoyoulike]

Why would you think that? It makes no sense. I'm trying to be nice here and not just delete your post since it is Christmas.

I've noticed some of my posts have been deleted over the last few months when all I'm doing is just responding to others.

Post #6

I have a different definition of "Work", as it applies to race horses...and it has nothing to do with the battle that the horses must wage against the atmospheric and the track conditions which they face. To me, "Work" means the level of adversity which the horse is asked to overcome as a result of the race "dynamics" created by the horses involved in the race". ...

Post #12

If you want me to...I can supply an example by applying my "quantifying" method to one of tomorrow's races.

So, what exactly is your problem with my responses in this thread?

[cj]

I've noticed some of my posts have been deleted over the last few months when all I'm doing is just responding to others.

Post #6



Post #12



So, what exactly is your problem with my responses in this thread?

I thought it was clear he handicaps totally differently. Post 6 clearly says what he calls "work". Post 12 he put "" around quantifying...to me that means it isn't the normal definition. His post that I linked clearly showed exactly what he said in #6.

As for deleting posts, I don't remember deleting any of yours. I'm not saying I haven't, but I don't have you on radar or anything like can happen with "problem posters". There are several other moderators here.

[thaskalos]

I've noticed some of my posts have been deleted over the last few months when all I'm doing is just responding to others.

Post #6



Post #12



So, what exactly is your problem with my responses in this thread?

You asked me this before...and I answered you in detail in post #36. You replied to me in post #70...and you told me that you are "trying to bust my balls...a little bit". Now...I don't mind having people try to bust my balls, but, in order for me to play along, I have to have a favorable opinion of them as posters. You and I have a history here...and it shouldn't come as a surprise to you to find out that I hold you in low regard as a poster here. I don't like you...and you don't like me. So...what makes you think that I have an inclination to continue this conversation any longer with you here?

You have nothing of interest to share with anybody here, and you have been reduced to the role of a troll...that's why you are having your posts deleted. You pretend that you are looking for "explanations"...when the explanation was already given to you in post #36. Now...will you please go and bust somebody ELSE'S balls? Go and play around with one of your FRIENDS here...if you can find one. :rolleyes:

[cj]

You asked me this before...and I answered you in detail in post #36. You replied to me in post #70...and you told me that you are "trying to bust my balls...a little bit". Now...I don't mind having people try to bust my balls, but, in order for me to play along, I have to have a favorable opinion of them as posters. You and I have a history here...and it shouldn't come as a surprise to you to find out that I hold you in low regard as a poster here. I don't like you...and you don't like me. So...what makes you think that I have an inclination to continue this conversation any longer with you here?

You have nothing of interest to share with anybody here, and you have been reduced to the role of a troll...that's why you are having your posts deleted. You pretend that you are looking for "explanations"...when the explanation was already given to you in post #36. Now...will you please go and bust somebody ELSE'S balls? Go and play around with one of your FRIENDS here...if you can find one. :rolleyes:

Thanks for the enlightenment. I try to keep up, not always easy.

Nobody comes here any more, it is too crowded.

[Capper Al]

How would you define "good method" and "bad method"? When a horseplayer loses...is it the METHOD, or the PLAYER, that is usually at fault?

In one of his books, Andy Beyer made a comment that sounded something like this:

"If I hear a horseplayer say that he likes a particular horse because the horse is dropping in class while moving to a better jockey, I might not be able to argue with his opinion...but I'll know for sure that this player isn't a winner. He CAN'T be". The assumption being, of course, that our game is much too complex to be beaten by "simplistic" handicapping methods such as this.

Well...this is a decidedly elitist attitude, IMO...and I have never been able to understand it. Just because a player uses "simplistic" thinking in his assessment of ONE race, does not mean that he lacks the required knowledge to properly attack the NEXT, more COMPLICATED race. The gambler is measured by the level of "success" that he has attained in the game...not by the complexity of the method that he employs.

Overall agree. But most cappers are working their way towards winning. Therefore, how they lose is important. If I call a race A-B-C and it comes in Z-A-C-B and pays $40 to win and one can't the pick Z after the race, then I believe that I had capped that race well. And yes, I'll keep studying the Z horse. There's always more to learn.

[Capper Al]

In response to this thread's OP, I still stand that the premise is incorrect. The scientific method is the preferred method for using trial and error to be able to reproduce the outcome.

He's also wrong on what it is that he understands. Like I pointed out earlier, the scientific method proves that an object falls at 32 feet per second squared that we can prove, but what gravity is we haven't a clue. And similarly when your horse wins, you really don't if was your method or that you got lucky. Only over the long run can one prove or disprove their methods.

[Capper Al]

So why does Cratos generated such a buzz? I believe it's because most can instantly detect the errors in his reasoning and that he could possibly have a niche system that works. Maybe he just might reveal his niche? I doubt it. But some of the stuff that morph out in this thread have been enjoyable even if they weren't related to the OP.

[thaskalos]

Overall agree. But most cappers are working their way towards winning. Therefore, how they lose is important. If I call a race A-B-C and it comes in Z-A-C-B and pays $40 to win and one can't the pick Z after the race, then I believe that I had capped that race well. And yes, I'll keep studying the Z horse. There's always more to learn.
If I have handicapped the race to come A-B-C, and it comes H-F-D...I still don't have enough of a reason to conclude that I handicapped the race badly, in my opinion. Anything can happen in any one race...or even in a group of races. The majority of the horseplayers find comfort when they lose the race narrowly...but torture themselves and drift into self-doubt when they are dead-wrong about a race.

This is a very difficult game, and the improbable -- and even the IMPOSSIBLE -- makes regular appearances. If the long-term result is acceptable...then the horseplayer shouldn't be overly concerned with what the short-term may bring. A loss is just a loss...and, no matter how hard we try...we will NEVER fully understand this game. That's why we remain life-long students.

[Tom]

30% of the winners will never be believable.
Another 30% will be very hard to believe.
Another 30% will be bet so low you would never bet them.
And you will get shut out on the last 10%.

[whodoyoulike]

When you are handicapping a race, are you trying to "calculate the Work" of the horses in the race...or are you looking for a suitable bet?

And, since you say that you know how to handicap but you use a different method...why don't you SHOW us your method, on a future race? Don't be shy...go ahead and try it. Pick a race from tomorrow's card...and analyze it for us here...so we could get a look of this method of yours. Don't tell me that you know how to handicap a race...SHOW me.

I did it. Why can't you?

I never saw CJ's referenced link of your post in 2012. But, I've posted a number of races over a period of several months in the past not for bragging rights but as a learning exercise for myself and that hopefully others would learn from their own participation in the exercises. I will give credit to Letswastemoney for the idea and I liked it so much I also ran with it. The threads which I initiated I also monitored and don't recall you ever participating. You could have learned something. Here's a link to one of the thread's post #20 and #21 .....

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=111166&page=2&pp=15&highlight=handicap+race

And, here are a number of other threads which I've participated but not all of the threads I've participated.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/search.php?searchid=5353234&pp=25&page=1