Has BRIS Prime Power Lost its Value?

[Wizard of Odds]

I'm seeing more data that shows that top BRIS Prime Power returning less and less on the dollar...almost same ROI as just betting favorite.

Is BRIS Prime Power now baked into the cake?

[deathandgravity]

From my database for Best Prime Power number:

........ WIN% ROI%
2016: 27.71 -22.54
2015: 26.26 -21.83
2014: 29.43 -16.97
2013: 30.14 -12.38
2012: 30.35 -14.40

No means a conclusive sample. Most of my data is NYRA, So CAL & Keeneland. About 2500 races a year in my db.

[Wizard of Odds]

Thanks!

This confirms what I am seeing. I can understand the decreasing ROI as more bettors latch on to the highest BRIS PP Rating. Especially with ever decreasing field size, I cannot understand the generally decreasing win rate? Has BRIS altered its proprietary formula for the worse?

[JustRalph]

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=129439


Icymi

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=130455

[Wizard of Odds]

Thank you...I had seen those threads and it was useful to review them again.

[ebcorde]

From my database for Best Prime Power number:

........ WIN% ROI%
2016: 27.71 -22.54
2015: 26.26 -21.83
2014: 29.43 -16.97
2013: 30.14 -12.38
2012: 30.35 -14.40

No means a conclusive sample. Most of my data is NYRA, So CAL & Keeneland. About 2500 races a year in my db.

I have actually been to Ouagadougou via the road from Abidjan
win% should be about the same . ROI more people use Bris lowering the odds

[deathandgravity]

I have actually been to Ouagadougou via the road from Abidjan
win% should be about the same . ROI more people use Bris lowering the odds

Passed through on the road to Niamey :ThmbDown: .

Pulled a few more stats:

My DB goes back to about 2009 & approx 20,000 races

Best Prime power for all races:
WIN% ROI%
29.51 -16.14

Best ROI for Prime power was AQU sprint:
34.91 -4.90

[Parkview_Pirate]

I'm seeing more data that shows that top BRIS Prime Power returning less and less on the dollar...almost same ROI as just betting favorite.

Is BRIS Prime Power now baked into the cake?

I would hazard a guess that rather than seeing changes related to the use of the Prime Power number, you're seeing:

1. More use of the various components that go into the Prime Power calculation in computer-assisted programs - speed, class, pace, form, weight, etc. In turn, this automated handicapping is used more often by the "whales", and representing an increasing percentage of handle.

2. More trainers, when seeing their horse as a top figure pick, choosing to "not try" and darken the horse's form for a later race at better odds.

I don't know many handicappers that would use a single public figure to be the dominant factor in their selections.

[Wizard of Odds]

Passed through on the road to Niamey :ThmbDown: .

Pulled a few more stats:

My DB goes back to about 2009 & approx 20,000 races

Best Prime power for all races:
WIN% ROI%
29.51 -16.14

Best ROI for Prime power was AQU sprint:
34.91 -4.90

Having left Yamoussoukro, I note that:

It would be interesting to view your data by year to see if it confirms the decline in Best Prime Power Rating ROI from 2009 through (first 10 months) 2016.

[green80]

I would hazard a guess that rather than seeing changes related to the use of the Prime Power number, you're seeing:

1. More use of the various components that go into the Prime Power calculation in computer-assisted programs - speed, class, pace, form, weight, etc. In turn, this automated handicapping is used more often by the "whales", and representing an increasing percentage of handle.

2. More trainers, when seeing their horse as a top figure pick, choosing to "not try" and darken the horse's form for a later race at better odds.

I don't know many handicappers that would use a single public figure to be the dominant factor in their selections.

#1, May be somewhat true but I don't think whales have as much of an influence as given credit for. The automated handicapping is used by many of the average players now.

#2 Not true, not that it has never happens but it would be very rare, not anywhere close to what the average player thinks.

[Elliott Sidewater]

I'm seeing more data that shows that top BRIS Prime Power returning less and less on the dollar...almost same ROI as just betting favorite.

Is BRIS Prime Power now baked into the cake?
Not necessarily - I don't play the big circuit tracks and Prime Power is still a weapon at lesser ovals. Prime Power, in my experience, did not work nearly as well in turf races as on dirt. The NYRA runs more and more turf races, and in particular turf sprints, than ever. I don't remember BRISNET ever addressing this or modifying/upgrading the Prime Power formula for turf races.

Second, I think the stats shown, while interesting, are incomplete. What are the win rates and ROI on the second highest Prime Power horse? Did they go up while the stats on the top horse declined?

[FakeNameChanged]

Passed through on the road to Niamey :ThmbDown: .

Pulled a few more stats:

My DB goes back to about 2009 & approx 20,000 races

Best Prime power for all races:
WIN% ROI%
29.51 -16.14

Best ROI for Prime power was AQU sprint:
34.91 -4.90
d&g, For the all races ROI, is that a $1.68 or $2.32 return on a $2 bet? Wasn't sure about the sign being minus or just a dash to separate two numbers. TIA

[upthecreek]

Anybody check out these stats?(From Brisnet Site)

Win up to 55% of the Time!
So, just how good is Prime Power? Take a gander at these results: based on a lengthy study of tens of thousands of races, Prime Power hits 31% top winners! That's sounds great, but when the study is broken down further and we focus strictly on dirt races, the results get even more interesting:

Top Prime Power horses by three full points (3.0+) or better score 39% of the time!
Top Prime Power horses by six full points (6.0+) or better score 46% of the time!
Top Prime Power horses by ten full points (10.0+) or better score 55% of the time!

[Wizard of Odds]

Anybody check out these stats?(From Brisnet Site)

Win up to 55% of the Time!
So, just how good is Prime Power? Take a gander at these results: based on a lengthy study of tens of thousands of races, Prime Power hits 31% top winners! That's sounds great, but when the study is broken down further and we focus strictly on dirt races, the results get even more interesting:

Top Prime Power horses by three full points (3.0+) or better score 39% of the time!
Top Prime Power horses by six full points (6.0+) or better score 46% of the time!
Top Prime Power horses by ten full points (10.0+) or better score 55% of the time!

..but the ROI's are all negative. If you simply took all horses with 4/5, or lower, Morning Line Odds, you will find a greater than 55% win rate...but you will also lose money.

[upthecreek]

I ran it thru my limited DB 2385 races there was 105 bets
Top bris pow +10
All Dist Dirt
Sprints were a little better .94 ROI

[Wizard of Odds]

Similar results would be obtained by betting all horses with ML <= 4/5

[upthecreek]

Top BPP +6
One of the Top 3 E2 last out
One of the Top 3 SR last out
Claiming sprints

[Wizard of Odds]

Top BPP +6
One of the Top 3 E2 last out
One of the Top 3 SR last out
Claiming sprints

Exactly +6 or greater than or equal to +6?

Across all tracks? How many races in sample size? What time period?

Thanks

[Parkview_Pirate]

#1, May be somewhat true but I don't think whales have as much of an influence as given credit for. The automated handicapping is used by many of the average players now.

#2 Not true, not that it has never happens but it would be very rare, not anywhere close to what the average player thinks.

What I meant by whales are the late and larger bettors. The odds jumping around on the last flash certainly happens at many tracks, and more often than not those are players using computer-based tools.

As for connections betting their horses and seeking out a higher price, I would hardly describe this as "very rare", at least on the smaller circuits. The phrase "very rare" could be used to describe those barns that run for purse money only. One of the first things I look at when seeing a horse with numbers well above the rest of the field are whether or not the connections are trying. Often the horse is dropping and unhealthy, but I've seen too many boat rides at 6/5 followed up by easy wins at 5-1 a race or two down the road to believe the horse was putting out a top effort when the chalk. This is also based on inside info, not just handicapping PPs and result charts.

Does it happen all the time? Of course not, but often enough it makes heavy chalk on the smaller circuits some of the worst bets in racing.

[ebcorde]

I ran it thru my limited DB 2385 races there was 105 bets
Top bris pow +10
All Dist Dirt
Sprints were a little better .94 ROI


nice. all under 2-5 shots. does that include Maiden races?

[ebcorde]

Exactly +6 or greater than or equal to +6?

Across all tracks? How many races in sample size? What time period?

Thanks

geez dude Not accurate enough for ya? :lol:

[upthecreek]

geez dude Not accurate enough for ya? :lol:
Last time I try to be helpful I was hoping guys with bigger databases would take the info I presented and run it OH Well

[pandy]

What I meant by whales are the late and larger bettors. The odds jumping around on the last flash certainly happens at many tracks, and more often than not those are players using computer-based tools.

As for connections betting their horses and seeking out a higher price, I would hardly describe this as "very rare", at least on the smaller circuits. The phrase "very rare" could be used to describe those barns that run for purse money only. One of the first things I look at when seeing a horse with numbers well above the rest of the field are whether or not the connections are trying. Often the horse is dropping and unhealthy, but I've seen too many boat rides at 6/5 followed up by easy wins at 5-1 a race or two down the road to believe the horse was putting out a top effort when the chalk. This is also based on inside info, not just handicapping PPs and result charts.

Does it happen all the time? Of course not, but often enough it makes heavy chalk on the smaller circuits some of the worst bets in racing.


If trainers are telling the jockeys to stiff a horse because of the odds, which I doubt happens often if at all, then it would have nothing to do with the horse being the top bris prime power. I've found that heavy chalk is often more reliable on the smaller circuits simply because the fields are less competitive so the favorite often has little to beat. The favorites that don
t win aren't stiffed, they just don't have it that day. At Finger Lakes the favorites are winning at 44%. Most tests I've done confirm this, favorites are trying.

I know there are people that still believe that horses are stiffed, but this isn't the old days. It's very expensive to race horses. It doesn't make sense to hold a horse back and not try to earn some purse money. Plus, the jockeys are out there to make a living. They need to win races.

[big frank]

I would hazard a guess that rather than seeing changes related to the use of the Prime Power number, you're seeing:

1. More use of the various components that go into the Prime Power calculation in computer-assisted programs - speed, class, pace, form, weight, etc. In turn, this automated handicapping is used more often by the "whales", and representing an increasing percentage of handle.

2. More trainers, when seeing their horse as a top figure pick, choosing to "not try" and darken the horse's form for a later race at better odds.

I don't know many handicappers that would use a single public figure to be the dominant factor in their selections.
GIVE ME A BREAK ! DOES ANYONE REALLY THINK MOST TRAINERS EVEN KNOW HOW THEY ARE RANKED BY BRIS ????? I HAVE HEARD SOME CRAZY THINGS------------BUT THIS IS RIGHT UP THERE ! LET ME STIFF NY HORSE BECAUSE HE IS RANKED 1ST ON BRIS---------------C'MON MAN !

[big frank]

If trainers are telling the jockeys to stiff a horse because of the odds, which I doubt happens often if at all, then it would have nothing to do with the horse being the top bris prime power. I've found that heavy chalk is often more reliable on the smaller circuits simply because the fields are less competitive so the favorite often has little to beat. The favorites that don
t win aren't stiffed, they just don't have it that day. At Finger Lakes the favorites are winning at 44%. Most tests I've done confirm this, favorites are trying.

I know there are people that still believe that horses are stiffed, but this isn't the old days. It's very expensive to race horses. It doesn't make sense to hold a horse back and not try to earn some purse money. Plus, the jockeys are out there to make a living. They need to win races.
100 percent on the money !

[FakeNameChanged]

GIVE ME A BREAK ! DOES ANYONE REALLY THINK MOST TRAINERS EVEN KNOW HOW THEY ARE RANKED BY BRIS ????? I HAVE HEARD SOME CRAZY THINGS------------BUT THIS IS RIGHT UP THERE ! LET ME STIFF NY HORSE BECAUSE HE IS RANKED 1ST ON BRIS---------------C'MON MAN !

So you're jumping on a post in ALL CAPS that was four years ago?

[fastfasterfastest]

So you're jumping on a post in ALL CAPS that was four years ago?

Isolation and cabin fever set in strong with Frank :D

[big frank]

So you're jumping on a post in ALL CAPS that was four years ago?
IDIOTIC THEORIES HAVE NO EXPIRATION DATE ! IT'S THAT SIMPLE PAL !

[Actor]

I'm seeing more data that shows that top BRIS Prime Power returning less and less on the dollar...almost same ROI as just betting favorite.Wasn't it always that way?

[Nitro]

IDIOTIC THEORIES HAVE NO EXPIRATION DATE ! IT'S THAT SIMPLE PAL !

Yes, but the level of fitness of any race-horse at any given time does have an expiration. That should also be VERY obvious if you believe that they're really flesh and blood, and not machines.

If you really believe that EVERY horse in EVERY race is entered in an attempt to win it you’ve really missed the boat when it comes to better understanding how this game operates!

Some handicappers also seem to be under impression that the only rewards available to the connections are in the form of purse monies. Well I’ve got some news for those of you who may think that way: There’s a lot more money available in the betting pools. And they’ve known it for decades!

[NorCalGreg]

Yes, but the level of fitness of any race-horse at any given time does have an expiration. That should also be VERY obvious if you believe that they're really flesh and blood, and not machines.

If you really believe that EVERY horse in EVERY race is entered in an attempt to win it you’ve really missed the boat when it comes to better understanding how this game operates!

Some handicappers also seem to be under impression that the only rewards available to the connections are in the form of purse monies. Well I’ve got some news for those of you who may think that way: There’s a lot more money available in the betting pools. And they’ve known it for decades!

I agree 100% with Nitro's comment.

-NCG

[castaway01]

I agree 100% with Nitro's comment.

-NCG

Does anyone who actually bets on horse racing really think every horse is going all out every race? The whole comment is a strawman argument for a fictional opinion no one has.

[Nitro]

Does anyone who actually bets on horse racing really think every horse is going all out every race? The whole comment is a strawman argument for a fictional opinion no one has.

Well good for you!
You may be naive enough to think that it’s a “fictional opinion”.
But next time you’re at the track (or OTB) do a little survey of your own. Ask and see how many players (at different ages and playing skills) believe that Every horse in any particular race is trying to win it. You might be surprised.

[Tom]

Does anyone who actually bets on horse racing really think every horse is going all out every race? The whole comment is a strawman argument for a fictional opinion no one has.

Are you saying every horse is trying every time?

[pandy]

Personally, at the A and B tracks, I think most horses are trying. At the low level tracks it's hard to tell because the horses are so slow and the purses so low.


But if you assume that a horse isn't trying, you're assuming that the jockey is actually holding the horse and trying to stiff it, which I do think is a rarity these days, mainly because the horses don't run that often. It's rare that I bet a horse and at no point in the race does the jockey not ask the horse for run.

Naturally, if a horse isn't feeling great that day it may not try that hard. And, some horses that aren't very good never try that hard.

As we all know, many horseplayers like to blame the jockey for their losses, when, in fact, they just aren't that good at picking winners.

[thaskalos]

Personally, at the A and B tracks, I think most horses are trying. At the low level tracks it's hard to tell because the horses are so slow and the purses so low.


But if you assume that a horse isn't trying, you're assuming that the jockey is actually holding the horse and trying to stiff it, which I do think is a rarity these days, mainly because the horses don't run that often. It's rare that I bet a horse and at no point in the race does the jockey not ask the horse for run.

Naturally, if a horse isn't feeling great that day it may not try that hard. And, some horses that aren't very good never try that hard.

As we all know, many horseplayers like to blame the jockey for their losses, when, in fact, they just aren't that good at picking winners.
This sort of comment hardly aspires confidence, IMO. Is it okay if, let's say, 4 of the 7 horses in a race are "trying"? Why can't ALL the horses "try" to win the race...and then have stiff fines and long suspensions levied against those who fail to comply with this rule? How else do we repair the game's already tarnished reputation?

[Nitro]

I’ll tell ya, The realization and not being able to come to grips with the fact that ALL entries in every race are NOT there in an attempt to Win it is really a sad observation and commentary!

I could list a half-a-dozen reasons that perhaps the insiders know but the outsiders don’t have clue. Of course later on the old adage “the horse bounced” very often comes into play after the race as a common excuse for not running well.

But don’t take that reality statement from just me.
Perhaps you’ve never read some of Bill Benter’s comments on the subject:
Additionally, there will always be a significant amount of 'inside information' in horse racing that cannot be readily included in a statistical model. Trainer's and jockey's intentions, secret workouts, whether the horse ate its breakfast, and the like, will be available to certain parties who will no doubt take advantage of it. Their betting will be reflected in the odds. This presents an obstacle to the model developer with access to published information only. For a statistical model to compete in this environment, it must make full use of the advantages of computer modeling, namely, the ability to make complex calculations on large data sets.

The odds set by the public betting yield a sophisticated estimate of the horses' win probabilities.

How you deal with these facts is one of the many keys to unlocking the answers to this game.

[pandy]

This sort of comment hardly aspires confidence, IMO. Is it okay if, let's say, 4 of the 7 horses in a race are "trying"? Why can't ALL the horses "try" to win the race...and then have stiff fines and long suspensions levied against those who fail to comply with this rule? How else do we repair the game's already tarnished reputation?

What I meant was that if there were 80 horses racing that day, 78 would be trying. I honestly don't think that there are many horses that aren't trying. Horses themselves are bred to race, so inherently, they're trying, so a jockey would actually have to try to hold a horse, which I personally don't think happens much at most tracks. I don't see it. I see the jockeys whipping and slashing.

I know some people think of the old stories of trainers and jockeys trying to set up betting coups, but that's a lot harder than people think. I know one gentleman who paid top jockeys and trainers in NY for info and lost $400,000.

[classhandicapper]

I think we need to define "trying".

There's going into a race knowing your horse is a little short off a layoff or because he missed a work and giving him a prep race.

There's knowing your horses is badly overmatched and instructing the rider to take him back and make one run hoping to pick up a minor piece after the contenders knock each other out or hoping there's a total meltdown.

There's running a horse in a less than ideal spot because there were no ideal races in the book for him.

There's taking a shot on a turf because he's been disappointing on dirt and you are praying he takes to it.

There's giving a first time starter or lightly raced horse an education race trying to teach him to rate, take dirt etc..

Then there's actually stiffing a horse trying to hide its good form.

Personally, I don't think there's much all out stiffing going on. It's so hard to break even on purses that if you take a reasonably sharp horse, stiff him, and waste a perfectly good chance to earn part of the purse (or maybe even win), I'm not so sure you are going to be able recover that potential purse money gambling at a later date. You may get an inflated price and overlay, but that's not going to guarantee a win or that your edge will be large enough to recover blown purse money long term.

[TonyK@HSH]

I think we need to define "trying".

Then there's actually stiffing a horse trying to hide its good form.

Personally, I don't think there's much all out stiffing going on. It's so hard to break even on purses that if you take a reasonably sharp horse, stiff him, and waste a perfectly good chance to earn part of the purse (or maybe even win), I'm not so sure you are going to be able recover that potential purse money gambling at a later date. You may get an inflated price and overlay, but that's not going to guarantee a win or that your edge will be large enough to recover blown purse money long term.

Totally agree Class. I believe there is very little stiffing going on today.

[pandy]

It's not easy to try to set up a betting coup. Even if you got the jockey to stiff a horse that's perfectly capable of winning the race, how the heck would you know if the horse is going to be sharp enough to win the next time out? You may have just lost your best chance of getting the top share of the purse.

[jk3521]

I wouldn't call it "stiffing", but sometimes what I see is a horse that maybe has been placed in a race where the trainer might believe his horse doesn't belong, maybe because he sees that the horse is at a pace disadvantage. He might be waiting for a race that comes up where his horse may more likely fit,pace wise. That's what I call a maneuver.

[thaskalos]

Totally agree Class. I believe there is very little stiffing going on today.

It isn't the "stiffings" that bother me. It's the "sudden awakenings".

[Robert Fischer]

It isn't the "stiffings" that bother me. It's the "sudden awakenings".
:ThmbUp:

The 'rabbit hole' in this game is deep. Can turn you off to the game. Can make you a bit crazy. Can pose some problems which if solved can occasionally reveal some odd insight or factor that isn't accounted for in the odds.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3e/47/0b/3e470b58af6252045bb85ca6e5d9540b.jpg

[pandy]

I wouldn't call it "stiffing", but sometimes what I see is a horse that maybe has been placed in a race where the trainer might believe his horse doesn't belong, maybe because he sees that the horse is at a pace disadvantage. He might be waiting for a race that comes up where his horse may more likely fit,pace wise. That's what I call a maneuver.

It's amazing how many trainers put horses in races where they don't belong, especially low percentage trainers. Maybe the trainer isn't that smart, or can't find a spot for his horse and just wants to get it a race. Sometimes I do wonder if some trainers know anything about pedigree and even stride length. You see the biggest mistakes with maidens, trainers who put horses that are bred to run long in sprints and keep them there, then someone picks up the horse in a maiden claiming race, starts running the horse in route races and the horse turns into a reliable and winning racehorse. Then I see many horses with very nice turf pedigrees get put in a maiden claiming race before the trainer ever tried turf, someone claims the horse, and the horse starts winning races on the turf. Some of these trainers seem pretty clueless.

You also see one-paced horses racing in sprints when they obviously should be routing. There was a trainer in NY years ago, Gasper Moschera, who would claim horses out of sprint races that he thought should be running in route races and he made some of the smartest claimes I've ever seen.

[pandy]

It isn't the "stiffings" that bother me. It's the "sudden awakenings".

Saturday (4/11) at Gulfstream, the first three races the winners paid $148.40, $70.00, $75.20. However, looking over the pps, each horse had longshot angles and handicappers who are good at picking out potential bombs away longshots could have used these horses. But, I agree that some of the longshots are sudden awakenings but my guess is that the trainer is probably more surprised that the horse won than anyone.

[BSniff]

It isn't the "stiffings" that bother me. It's the "sudden awakenings".

There are many reasons for these "sudden awakenings".

Its our job to find them. They don't bother me at all.

[thaskalos]

There are many reasons for these "sudden awakenings".

Its our job to find them.

Thanks. I'll try harder. :ThmbUp:

[Clocker]

Thanks. I'll try harder. :ThmbUp:
A word to the wise is sufficient. :p

[BSniff]

Thanks. I'll try harder. :ThmbUp:


Its better than complaining about it

[thaskalos]

Its better than complaining about it

I know. Perhaps I should go back and reread William Scott's "How Will Your Horse Run Today".

[BSniff]

I know. Perhaps I should go back and reread William Scott's "How Will Your Horse Run Today".

I doubt you read it once

You're just one of those miserable losing players, I get it. Sarcasm won't help you cash tickets.

[thaskalos]

I doubt you read it once

You're just one of those miserable losing players, I get it. Sarcasm won't help you cash tickets.

You figured me out in no-time. :ThmbUp:

[mikesal57]

Tampa'a 7th Race yesterday produced a $178 winner......

The trainers record from Jan 2019 to yesterday was 3 - 49

The winners paid 12 - 68 -21 dollars...ROI was a +4%

Picture #1 was yesterdays

Picture #2 was the $68 winner...

Would you say that a horse tries every race?

Would you say its a "sudden awakening" ?

[rispa]

Tampa'a 7th Race yesterday produced a $178 winner......

The trainers record from Jan 2019 to yesterday was 3 - 49

The winners paid 12 - 68 -21 dollars...ROI was a +4%

Picture #1 was yesterdays

Picture #2 was the $68 winner...

Would you say that a horse tries every race?

Would you say its a "sudden awakening" ?



Take a minute and count the number of changes.

1 Turf-to dirt.
2 Two turns to one.
3 Class drop.
4 Jockey Change
5 Moves off the rail.


In addition, the only other win the horse had came with a jockey change and a surface switch. I'm not saying you could have bet him off these changes, but in my opinion, it is something to look at when trying to rationalize his 'sudden awakening'. I played this race; but NOT this horse.

[Tom]

Thanks. I'll try harder. :ThmbUp:

Oh, like when you won the PAIHL contest here two years in a row?
I don't think your credentials here need defending....:ThmbUp:

[mikesal57]

Take a minute and count the number of changes.

1 Turf-to dirt.
2 Two turns to one.
3 Class drop.
4 Jockey Change
5 Moves off the rail.


In addition, the only other win the horse had came with a jockey change and a surface switch. I'm not saying you could have bet him off these changes, but in my opinion, it is something to look at when trying to rationalize his 'sudden awakening'. I played this race; but NOT this horse.

Agree.....But for people to say that trainers dont have a clue is incorrect...

They have to be smart in what they do ,with what they have....
unless they wont have a job....
Think about yesterdays owners that walked away with maybe a 100 grand on this horse...

[NorCalGreg]

.
If anyone had 100 grand on that horse--he wouldn't have paid any where near $178.00

[Nitro]

I know. Perhaps I should go back and reread William Scott's "How Will Your Horse Run Today".

I’m not sure if that book would be of any value to Outsiders. What is the “Your” referring to?
Sounds like it might be something the connections should read.;)

[mikesal57]

.
If anyone had 100 grand on that horse--he wouldn't have paid any where near $178.00

No Greg...

I'm assuming people bet maybe a $1000 or 2...on their horses....

[cj]

I know. Perhaps I should go back and reread William Scott's "How Will Your Horse Run Today".

His ratings were bad, very bad, that was apparent to me the first time I read it 30 years ago or so. But his form analysis was pretty solid. The game has changed too much though so it is of little value now.

[thaskalos]

His ratings were bad, very bad, that was apparent to me the first time I read it 30 years ago or so. But his form analysis was pretty solid. The game has changed too much though so it is of little value now.

Careful, or you'll be called a "miserable loser"...like I was. :)

[mikesal57]

Careful, or you'll be called a "miserable loser"...like I was. :)

we all are :pout:

[cj]

Careful, or you'll be called a "miserable loser"...like I was. :)

Its funny, I glance at a lot of old handicapping books. I keep them near the toilet, which is probably where they belong. :)

I'm not knocking the authors at all. They are still fun to read and many had some merit at the time. The game has changed a lot. It is also easy to explore data yourself with a computer now on a very large scale, something that wasn't available back then. I always have "great" ideas that I'm convinced are sound and will help my game. Then I go test the idea, and if I'm lucky 5% hold water.

I would venture a guess that the very fact people can research virtually anything in racing now is what pretty much killed the once booming handicapping literature era.

[BSniff]

His ratings were bad, very bad, that was apparent to me the first time I read it 30 years ago or so. But his form analysis was pretty solid. The game has changed too much though so it is of little value now.

I was just referring to the form analysis.

Thaskalos is everyone here thin skinned or just you??

[cj]

I was just referring to the form analysis.

Thaskalos is everyone here thin skinned or just you??

He's not thin skinned, think he was just having fun with you.

[BSniff]

He's not thin skinned, think he was just having fun with you.

Ok I'll lighten up then

[thaskalos]

Its funny, I glance at a lot of old handicapping books. I keep them near the toilet, which is probably where they belong. :)

I'm not knocking the authors at all. They are still fun to read and many had some merit at the time. The game has changed a lot. It is also easy to explore data yourself with a computer now on a very large scale, something that wasn't available back then. I always have "great" ideas that I'm convinced are sound and will help my game. Then I go test the idea, and if I'm lucky 5% hold water.

I would venture a guess that the very fact people can research virtually anything in racing now is what pretty much killed the once booming handicapping literature era.

IMO...the reason the "booming handicapping literature era" is over is because the overly optimistic view portrayed in the old handicapping books just doesn't cut it anymore. Mitchell and Quinn used to make the +25% ROI seem readily attainable...whereas Ainslie, in his inimitable style, used to call it "thin porridge" :). You can't bullshit people like that anymore. Full-card simulcasting has allowed us to bet a ton of races in a relatively short time...and we've all found out rather quickly how difficult this game really is to beat. In the old days, when we only had a handful of races a day available to us...it was easy for us to fool ourselves into believing that the game was "not too hard to beat". But when you have 100+ races available to you on a daily basis...reality slaps you in the face pretty quickly.

The old books sold us the "pie-in-the-sky"...but now we all know that there isn't any "bakery" up there. And those who DON'T know find out soon enough. And that put an end to the "booming handicapping literature era". If an honest book were written today about the real work and bankroll requirements that go into "expert horseplay"...the book would die in obscurity. The "truth" doesn't sell well...:)

[thaskalos]

Thaskalos is everyone here thin skinned or just you??

You reminded me of a much-younger Thaskalos...that's why I tried having a little fun with you. If I were really thin-skinned...then our conversation would go down a different path.

[castaway01]

IMO...the reason the "booming handicapping literature era" is over is because the overly optimistic view portrayed in the old handicapping books just doesn't cut it anymore. Mitchell and Quinn used to make the +25% ROI seem readily attainable...whereas Ainslie, in his inimitable style, used to call it "thin porridge" :). You can't bullshit people like that anymore. Full-card simulcasting has allowed us to bet a ton of races in a relatively short time...and we've all found out rather quickly how difficult this game really is to beat. In the old days, when we only had a handful of races a day available to us...it was easy for us to fool ourselves into believing that the game was "not too hard to beat". But when you have 100+ races available to you on a daily basis...reality slaps you in the face pretty quickly.

The old books sold us the "pie-in-the-sky"...but now we all know that there isn't any "bakery" up there. And those who DON'T know find out soon enough. And that put an end to the "booming handicapping literature era". If an honest book were written today about the real work and bankroll requirements that go into "expert horseplay"...the book would die in obscurity. The "truth" doesn't sell well...:)

I so want to point out that this was the same thing CJ said in only one sentence, but I'm afraid I'll get called a thin-skinned miserable loser. :lol:

But seriously, the fact these things can all be run through a database and not hold up has largely destroyed the fantasy bakery of our youth. That and it's hard to eat a Boston crème through a mask (Karlskorner reference for you old-timers).

[thaskalos]

I so want to point out that this was the same thing CJ said in only one sentence, but I'm afraid I'll get called a thin-skinned miserable loser. :lol:

But seriously, the fact these things can all be run through a database and not hold up has largely destroyed the fantasy bakery of our youth. That and it's hard to eat a Boston crème through a mask (Karlskorner reference for you old-timers).

Cj is much nicer than me...I name NAMES! :)

[Jeff P]

I bought and read all of the Bill Finley Sr. (under the pen name William L. Scott) books when they came out.

Of his books, the one that impressed me the most was Total Victory At The Track. (The copyright date on the title page in my copy of the book is 1988.)

Imo, the lone drawback in the author's work was that the entire basis upon which the selection methods in Total Victory At The Track are based were gleaned from a 200 race sample from Laurel and Pimlico during of 1987.

I recall thinking at the time that 200 races was enough.

But the school of hard knocks has long since taught me otherwise. :D

Still --

To me, the book was pretty impressive for its day.

While reading the book I set about coding out my own versions of PCR, Ability Times, and a numeric value for Form Rating into a GW Basic program I was working on at the time.

From there I began forward testing the ratings I'd created on live data from Turf Paradise, Hawthorne, Bay Meadows, Golden Gate, and Santa Anita.

Of course I made incremental improvements to the ratings and developed my own set of selection criteria as I began making observations from a larger dataset.

The ratings actually worked for a few years.

But here's the thing though:

The book was published at a time when the pools weren't nearly as efficient as they are today.

The book contains a section towards the back where the author applies his selection criteria to a set of example race cards from Aqueduct, Santa Anita, and Bay Meadows.

If you work through the past performances shown in that section of the book... If you take a pen and simply circle the highest DRF speed rating for each horse... And if you simply circle the name of the horse with the highest circled speed fig in each race... And from there record a mythical $2.00 win bet on the horse with the highest speed fig in each race:

You could have made a paper profit on your mythical win bets using the three example race cards in the back of the book.

And of course you could have made a larger paper profit if you employed a few play or pass selection rules on the horses that you circled (min odds, run style for bias, etc.)

My point?

Imo, there once was a time when the game wasn't terribly difficult to beat.

But if you want to achieve profitable play in today's game you'll need much better insights than the stuff presented in handicapping books.

Still --

Bill Finley Sr's books were pretty impressive for their day.


-jp

.

[thaskalos]

I bought and read all of the Bill Finley Sr. (under the pen name William L. Scott) books when they came out.

Of his books, the one that impressed me the most was Total Victory At The Track. (The copyright date on the title page in my copy of the book is 1988.)

Imo, the lone drawback in the author's work was that the entire basis upon which the selection methods in Total Victory At The Track are based were gleaned from a 200 race sample from Laurel and Pimlico during of 1987.

I recall thinking at the time that 200 races was enough.

But the school of hard knocks has long since taught me otherwise. :D

Still --

To me, the book was pretty impressive for its day.

While reading the book I set about coding out my own versions of PCR, Ability Times, and a numeric value for Form Rating into a GW Basic program I was working on at the time.

From there I began forward testing the ratings I'd created on live data from Turf Paradise, Hawthorne, Bay Meadows, Golden Gate, and Santa Anita.

Of course I made incremental improvements to the ratings and developed my own set of selection criteria as I began making observations from a larger dataset.

The ratings actually worked for a few years.

But here's the thing though:

The book was published at a time when the pools weren't nearly as efficient as they are today.

The book contains a section towards the back where the author applies his selection criteria to a set of example race cards from Aqueduct, Santa Anita, and Bay Meadows.

If you work through the past performances shown in that section of the book... If you take a pen and simply circle the highest DRF speed rating for each horse... And if you simply circle the name of the horse with the highest circled speed fig in each race... And from there record a mythical $2.00 win bet for each horse that you circled using the methodology spelled out above:

You could have made a paper profit on your mythical win bets on the race cards in the book.

And of course you could have made a larger paper profit if you employed a few play or pass selection rules on the horses that you circled (min odds, run style for bias, etc.)

Imo, there once was a time when the game wasn't terribly difficult to beat.

But if you want to achieve profitable play in today's game you'll need much better insights than the stuff presented in handicapping books.

Still --

Bill Finley Sr's books were pretty impressive for their day.


-jp

.

Refresh my memory, Jeff...was that the book where Bill Finley Sr. unveiled that sure-fire handicapping system that he called, "Social Security"?

[Jeff P]

Refresh my memory, Jeff...was that the book where Bill Finley Sr. unveiled that sure-fire handicapping system that he called, "Social Security"?

Yes. I'm looking at the table of contents right now.

Chapter 13 (catchy name no?) is titled: Advantages Across the Lines: Social Security.


-jp

.

[thaskalos]

Yes. I'm looking at the table of contents right now.

Chapter 13 (catchy name no?) is titled: Advantages Across the Lines: Social Security.


-jp

.

If my memory serves me right...Bill Finley Sr. was so good a lawyer that he even argued cases before the Supreme Court! He had a way with words...no doubt about that. It's just that I always had a doubt about whether his books should be housed in the nonfiction section of the bookstore. :)

[thaskalos]

But seriously, the fact these things can all be run through a database and not hold up has largely destroyed the fantasy bakery of our youth. That and it's hard to eat a Boston crème through a mask (Karlskorner reference for you old-timers) .

This was in the pre-coronavirus days, no doubt...

[Tom]

Scott was a guest speaker at a Sartin seminar in Baltimore, 1994-95?
for anyone who was there, it the seminar with the fire alarms and all the trucks pulling up outside, air conditioning broke down during the evening session, people fainting,.........seminar from HELL! :eek:

He gave us a simple contender method for Sartin users. It actually worked pretty good, and I even used it or a variation of it, for a few years.

For what it's worth.....
You look at each horse's last two races and circle the highest Beyer of the two.
Now look at other races below the top two and do the same.

You contenders are the 6 highest circled Beyers. You will have from 3 to 6.

Now you did the Sartin stuff to separate them.

Got to talk with him briefly at the bar, really nice guy, loved talking horses.

Funny this book came up today - for something to do with racing on vacation, I have been working to try to update the form guidelines to day's racing. Maybe even add something. I really like the NN+0 format he had, and used it at FL for many years as the basis of my 'capping.

[mikesal57]

Scott was a guest speaker at a Sartin seminar in Baltimore, 1994-95?
for anyone who was there, it the seminar with the fire alarms and all the trucks pulling up outside, air conditioning broke down during the evening session, people fainting,.........seminar from HELL! :eek:

He gave us a simple contender method for Sartin users. It actually worked pretty good, and I even used it or a variation of it, for a few years.

For what it's worth.....
You look at each horse's last two races and circle the highest Beyer of the two.
Now look at other races below the top two and do the same.

You contenders are the 6 highest circled Beyers. You will have from 3 to 6.

Now you did the Sartin stuff to separate them.

Got to talk with him briefly at the bar, really nice guy, loved talking horses.

Funny this book came up today - for something to do with racing on vacation, I have been working to try to update the form guidelines to day's racing. Maybe even add something. I really like the NN+0 format he had, and used it at FL for many years as the basis of my 'capping.

Dam Tom...How old are you ?

[xtb]

Dam Tom...How old are you ?

Whoa, what's happening to Tom in that picture?

[mikesal57]

Whoa, what's happening to Tom in that picture?

On top or bottom?

Doesnt look good either way...:lol::lol::lol::lol:


hes actually looking at the PC head upside down
while
taking a dump...

[classhandicapper]

The old books sold us the "pie-in-the-sky"...but now we all know that there isn't any "bakery" up there. And those who DON'T know find out soon enough. And that put an end to the "booming handicapping literature era". If an honest book were written today about the real work and bankroll requirements that go into "expert horseplay"...the book would die in obscurity. The "truth" doesn't sell well...:)

Handicapping books were self defeating in the same way poker books were.

If you played Hold'm poker without ever reading a book, several years later you'd probably have a good starting hand methodology worked out from trial and error and from keeping some records. Now you can read a few books and you'll be past the first phase of the learning curve in a few weeks.

Years ago, few people had information beyond fairly basic PPs.

Now loads of people have high quality speed and pace figures, trainer pattern data, replays, trip notes, bias notes, studies on surface switches and pedigree data etc..

Books described the significance of these things and how to use them and then data services blossomed to provide the information.

At a certain point, there's less and less to write about and whatever value there was in those insights at the time has be dramatically reduced or eliminated.

I don't blame people for writing books or selling information. It's an easier way to make money than gambling and probably more lucrative for most than what they could earn from gambling - assuming they even had an edge to begin with. But if you do come up with a better mousetrap, you are better off not discussing it if the goal is to win money.

[Actor]

Handicapping books were self defeating in the same way poker books were.

If you played Hold'm poker without ever reading a book, several years later you'd probably have a good starting hand methodology worked out from trial and error and from keeping some records. Now you can read a few books and you'll be past the first phase of the learning curve in a few weeks.

Years ago, few people had information beyond fairly basic PPs.

Now loads of people have high quality speed and pace figures, trainer pattern data, replays, trip notes, bias notes, studies on surface switches and pedigree data etc..

Books described the significance of these things and how to use them and then data services blossomed to provide the information.

At a certain point, there's less and less to write about and whatever value there was in those insights at the time has be dramatically reduced or eliminated.

I don't blame people for writing books or selling information. It's an easier way to make money than gambling and probably more lucrative for most than what they could earn from gambling - assuming they even had an edge to begin with. But if you do come up with a better mousetrap, you are better off not discussing it if the goal is to win money.There are two ways to make money. You can use your better mousetrap to win it yourself, or you can sell a lot of mousetraps. Classic example: Beyer came up with his speed figures and then he sold them to the Daily Racing Form. Now everybody has them. No one has the advantage.

[mikesal57]

There are two ways to make money. You can use your better mousetrap to win it yourself, or you can sell a lot of mousetraps. Classic example: Beyer came up with his speed figures and then he sold them to the Daily Racing Form. Now everybody has them. No one has the advantage.

Knowing a few of the developers here ...they all have made a living and enjoyed doing both

all but one of them....

[NorCalGreg]

No Greg...

I'm assuming people bet maybe a $1000 or 2...on their horses....

I just re-read that...blame my poor reading comprehension for that 100 grand comment.

Or I could have been drinking that day...

[mikesal57]

I just re-read that...blame my poor reading comprehension for that 100 grand comment.

Or I could have been drinking that day...

I figured you hit the bottle that day...NP

[mikesal57]

And to answer the opening posters question....


Bris Prime has ran its course to say 7-8 years ago..

The stats for 2020 shows that

from rank 1 to rank 6...there is a .10 difference between them....

[PressThePace]

And to answer the opening posters question....


Bris Prime has ran its course to say 7-8 years ago..

The stats for 2020 shows that

from rank 1 to rank 6...there is a .10 difference between them....

I respectfully disagree. I think it comes back to how you use it. It's still a good baseline for weeding non-contenders. And, there are certain tells within the ultimate summaries that can eliminate some of the top Prime Power contenders as well.

[mikesal57]

I respectfully disagree. I think it comes back to how you use it. It's still a good baseline for weeding non-contenders. And, there are certain tells within the ultimate summaries that can eliminate some of the top Prime Power contenders as well.

Non-Contenders like ranks 7 and higher?

[PressThePace]

Non-Contenders like ranks 7 and higher?

I look at non-contenders (with regard to Prime Power)as anything greater than 6 points behind the top rated horse, as long as that horse doesn't have any red flags. The only exceptions would be horses who have improved dramatically with regard to BRIS race ratings. When looking at turf races, I'll also consider horses who rank high with regard to the class ratings.

[mikesal57]

I look at non-contenders (with regard to Prime Power)as anything greater than 6 points behind the top rated horse, as long as that horse doesn't have any red flags. The only exceptions would be horses who have improved dramatically with regard to BRIS race ratings. When looking at turf races, I'll also consider horses who rank high with regard to the class ratings.

Aaaaa.......theres the caveat.....RED FLAGS

Would you like to expand?

[Tom]

And to answer the opening posters question....


Bris Prime has ran its course to say 7-8 years ago..

The stats for 2020 shows that

from rank 1 to rank 6...there is a .10 difference between them....

What do you mean 1-6?
In a single race?
Or in results from some study

[PressThePace]

Aaaaa.......theres the caveat.....RED FLAGS

Would you like to expand?

I don't really want to wade too far from shore on this, but there are horses who rank high in Prime Power who show a high Average Competitive Level that just doesn't fit with the rest of the field. Does today represent a negative drop? Has the horse been on a long layoff? Is the horse trained by someone like Broberg or Diodoro? Did the horse run a huge figure against a very soft field recently? Those are all questions that come into play. Obviously, you have to test to see what constitutes value as it pertains to your strike rate. Prime Power enables me to sort contenders because I've made it part of my process. It's just a tool.

[mikesal57]

What do you mean 1-6?
In a single race?
Or in results from some study

Results from beginning of year..Tom

[mikesal57]

I don't really want to wade too far from shore on this, but there are horses who rank high in Prime Power who show a high Average Competitive Level that just doesn't fit with the rest of the field. Does today represent a negative drop? Has the horse been on a long layoff? Is the horse trained by someone like Broberg or Diodoro? Did the horse run a huge figure against a very soft field recently? Those are all questions that come into play. Obviously, you have to test to see what constitutes value as it pertains to your strike rate. Prime Power enables me to sort contenders because I've made it part of my process. It's just a tool.

PTP....

thank you for the explanation....

Can you do the same with say Morning Line?

Mike

[PressThePace]

PTP....

thank you for the explanation....

Can you do the same with say Morning Line?

Mike

For me? No. I get more value this way.

[thaskalos]

This rating seems very inconsistent to me. It ranks some horses in the 7th and 8th slots when the horses' accomplishments belie such a low standing. I look at it only because I can't avoid it.

[PressThePace]

This rating seems very inconsistent to me. It ranks some horses in the 7th and 8th slots when the horses' accomplishments belie such a low standing. I look at it only because I can't avoid it.

This is exactly why I love this game. I know you are a good player, but yet we can look at something in a completely different way. I couldn't tell you how many times that I thought horses merited more consideration than the rating was giving them (as well as the toteboard). Exceptions happen, but most of the time, the rating had it right, especially when combined with other factors that lie within the summaries.

[mikesal57]

This is exactly why I love this game. I know you are a good player, but yet we can look at something in a completely different way. I couldn't tell you how many times that I thought horses merited more consideration than the rating was giving them (as well as the toteboard). Exceptions happen, but most of the time, the rating had it right, especially when combined with other factors that lie within the summaries.

It all depends on the persons persistence to understand and learn ..

You PTP had the persistence.....Thask, maybe you didnt give it your all by learning and understanding it

[PressThePace]

It all depends on the persons persistence to understand and learn ..

You PTP had the persistence.....Thask, maybe you didnt give it your all by learning and understanding it

For the record, I think he is a proven player. My post isn't a knock at all. He's one of a handful of people at PA that I pay attention to.

[mikesal57]

For the record, I think he is a proven player. My post isn't a knock at all. He's one of a handful of people at PA that I pay attention to.

O yeah me too.....

I just assumed that his comment on Bris Prime was an observation he made not knowing how deep he actually went...

[thaskalos]

This is exactly why I love this game. I know you are a good player, but yet we can look at something in a completely different way. I couldn't tell you how many times that I thought horses merited more consideration than the rating was giving them (as well as the toteboard). Exceptions happen, but most of the time, the rating had it right, especially when combined with other factors that lie within the summaries.

In the 10th at Churchill...how does the :2: deserve the 12th-highest Prime Power Rating among this group? It doesn't matter in the least that the horse finished 2nd in the race. Even if it finished LAST...this ranking is simply unacceptable. As I said before...there is something fundamentally wrong with this rating...IMO.

[mikesal57]

In the 10th at Churchill...how does the :2: deserve the 12th-highest Prime Power Rating among this group? It doesn't matter in the least that the horse finished 2nd in the race. Even if it finished LAST...this ranking is simply unacceptable. As I said before...there is something fundamentally wrong with this rating...IMO.

Actually , my power numbers had him first....

the winner #4 was 3rd....

Who would you say deserves to be higher than the #2?

Its obvious that BPP used that big turf rating he got...

[mikesal57]

wait a second.....HSH says BPP is 1st rank

I believe DRF made a mistake?

[thaskalos]

Actually , my power numbers had him first....

the winner #4 was 3rd....

Who would you say deserves to be higher than the #2?

Its obvious that BPP used that big turf rating he got...

I bet the :2: to win...and boxed him in the exacta with the :12:

I had the :12: rated highest in the race...but the outside post kept me off the horse.

[thaskalos]

Actually , my power numbers had him first....

the winner #4 was 3rd....

Who would you say deserves to be higher than the #2?

Its obvious that BPP used that big turf rating he got...

You've lost me. What "big turf rating"?

[cj]

wait a second.....HSH says BPP is 1st rank

I believe DRF made a mistake?

I don't know a lot of things, but I know DRF has nothing to do with BRIS Prime Power.

[PressThePace]

In the 10th at Churchill...how does the :2: deserve the 12th-highest Prime Power Rating among this group? It doesn't matter in the least that the horse finished 2nd in the race. Even if it finished LAST...this ranking is simply unacceptable. As I said before...there is something fundamentally wrong with this rating...IMO.

I NEVER use Prime Power in Maiden events and very seldom in NW2L races. It's great for older horses on the dirt.

[mikesal57]

You've lost me. What "big turf rating"?

My mistake....

I thought you were questioning why he was so high in rank....


Then I saw how low he was....

This is still puzzling....

[mikesal57]

I don't know a lot of things, but I know DRF has nothing to do with BRIS Prime Power.

Who does create that fig?

[PressThePace]

Churchill Downs carded one race for older horses on the dirt:

5th Race Race: The :1: Heavens Whisper was the top rated horse. But, I eliminated the horse as a win contender for a couple of reasons. First, it looked like a suspicious move for a horse coming off of a race vs. much better. I'm a believer in negative allowance drops in some instances. This was one. Second, I knew the price would be short. The next ranked horse was the eventual winner :12: Crazy Sexy Munny...definitely a player. My ultimate decision was a win bet on the :6: and boxed the :12::6:. In any event, PP was pretty accurate.

[mikesal57]

I NEVER use Prime Power in Maiden events and very seldom in NW2L races. It's great for older horses on the dirt.

how about after 6-7 races ?

by then it should be a little reasonable...

[PressThePace]

how about after 6-7 races ?

by then it should be a little reasonable...

Nope, not even then. Younger, inexperienced horses are just less predictable.

[mikesal57]

:ThmbUp:

Nope, not even then. Younger, inexperienced horses are just less predictable.

[cj]

Who does create that fig?

Well certainly not anyone at DRF since they are BRIS PPs, a competitor.