BRIS PACE RATINGS?

[daylami]

hi, my friend asked me today whether he should buy the hsh pars, for a program he is writing fo pace. i said why bother.

why not use the bris E1 E2 LP ratings that are adjusted across tracks and times.

in other words use the 101 93 102 numbers instead of the 22 4 109 for 6 furlongs etc.

what does anyone out there think?

[Jake]

Buy the HSH pars. They will prove far superior. If your friend then compares them with either the Bris or TSN par ratings, he'll catch some of the problems with how Bris and TSN assigns their pars numbers across class levels, as well as types of sprints and types of routes. There's a strong edge in knowing the difference.

[Handle]

Can you elaborate on what some of these differences are that make one set of pace figures better than the other? What are the problems? How would one arrive at the existence of the problem?

What's the criteria you would use to "prove" one set of pars superior over the others? What "edge" are you looking for?

How do you measure accuracy? To me, it would seem, "accuracy" and "superiority" would have to be determined in how the piece of information was put to use. What percentage of winners does the horse with the best last out "E2" pace figure yield would be one way of looking at things (but would not be conclusive as their are many other ways to put pace figures to use).

[bettheoverlay]

There was a day a couple of weeks ago where the top Bris E2 pace number won almost 30 % of the races at the 6 tracks I cover, many at big prices. I am sure there are many pace figures that are better, but that E2 # is a good longshot indicator.

[BillW]

It seems to me that uniqueness of the information is critical. Beyer figs are a prime example of saturation in the pools.

Bill

[Jake]

Originally posted by Handle
Can you elaborate on what some of these differences are that make one set of pace figures better than the other? What are the problems? How would one arrive at the existence of the problem?

What's the criteria you would use to "prove" one set of pars superior over the others? What "edge" are you looking for?

How do you measure accuracy? To me, it would seem, "accuracy" and "superiority" would have to be determined in how the piece of information was put to use. What percentage of winners does the horse with the best last out "E2" pace figure yield would be one way of looking at things (but would not be conclusive as their are many other ways to put pace figures to use).

Handle,

There's a bit of apples and oranges going on here, which is why my comments to the original question may be confusing. If the question is whether someone looking to use "pars" should bother with with HSH time pars or use Bris fig "pars", my answer was that the HSH time pars are more accurate, based on a strict class level approach than the Bris fig pars. When I last checked Bris, they tended to blend their class levels together to get their par numbers; likewise they grouped certain sprints/routes distances together. I won't argue "superiority" one way or another here, but if your purpose to make adjustments by class level or to determine a contender's ability to run to a class level par, then I have a real problem with Bris/Tsn's bin choices.

Re your best last out "E2" pace figure comment, that's an orange: whether or not their pace figs are accurate or superior is a very different discusssion from discussing the utility of their pace fig "pars". Handle, given that you have done extensive modeling on pace figures in your own database, and have generously shared many of those findings here and your own board, my guess is that you have far more insight into the "win yield" of these pace figures than I ever will. However, I just didn't read the original post as asking about the efficacy of the Bris/TSN pace figures.