Pace Analysis Software

[traynor]

Anyone interested in developing/working on developing/testing/contributing (time and effort--not money) to a collaborative pace analysis software app (FREE to anyone who wants it, even to clone/copy/steal it, otherwise known as "open source") intended to develop/increase/sharpen the user's pace analysis skills?

NOT a "horse picker" app. An app (or addition to/component of/module of an existing or other app) that creates a deeper level of understanding of pace (and how it affects race outcomes) than (whatever else is available). Something that a new or novice user can "fiddle with" for a relatively short period of time and gain insights into pace analysis that many experienced/"expert"/hardcore pace analysts lack.

Basically, I developed a pace training module some years ago for private use by a blackjack team. I intended to incorporate that module (and the improvements/upgrades/additions to that module) into a race analysis software app designed for professional use. Reality is that the software developed will not be sold. Period. The (current and future) users of that software neither need nor want "pace analysis training functionality."

The training component is based on pattern recognition and some fairly sophisticated training methodologies (used by, tested by, and (sometimes) criticized by mostly graduate students in business analysis and managerial decision making familiar with various high-end "dashboard" type decision support software). It is NOT "technically complex" from a development standpoint. It is technically complex from the standpoint of the training methodologies employed.

There has been MUCH discussion about "helping newbies and novices" that rarely seems to go much beyond the "read everything you can, practice losing for 20 years, and MAYBE you will be able to break even" school of thought. There has been an equivalent amount of discussion bemoaning the "demise" of the racing industry. I think the best way to improve the racing industry is to give the newbies/novices/potential newbies and novices a good shot at making a few bucks right out of the gate--without the endless (and often conflicting) "theories" about "conventional handicapping approaches" that do little more than overwhelm newbies, novices, and most everyone else with that which psychologists refer to as the "principle of maximum confusion" and (perhaps more eloquently) a "crazymaker."

I have a LOT of code, lots of design completed, that was written (over time) for use (not sale). It could (fairly easily) be put into a more concise form and embedded in existing software. I would be happy to help with the further design and development, provided it is ONLY embedded in or developed for FREE, open-source, no strings attached, non-commercial software until fully developed and freely available to anyone who wants it. After that, anyone who wants to embed it in commercial software is free to do so--as long as the user or prospective user realizes that it is available as a standalone app without charge.

[JJMartin]

If there is a place for VBA, I might be able to contribute. In fact, I am pretty sure the whole thing could be written in Excel.

[TexasDolly]

I am interested in it by all means. I am not sure what needs to be done to use it or what data can be used for an input . Further development would be hazy for me probably.
Thank you,
TD

[traynor]

If there is a place for VBA, I might be able to contribute. In fact, I am pretty sure the whole thing could be written in Excel.

Most of the code is Visual Basic. Easy to splice into Excel.

[Hypnotist1]

I would like to be part of the test group


Thank you

Steven

Hypnotist1

[JJMartin]

Most of the code is Visual Basic. Easy to splice into Excel.
Sounds good.

[traynor]

I am interested in it by all means. I am not sure what needs to be done to use it or what data can be used for an input . Further development would be hazy for me probably.
Thank you,
TD

Sample races, that illustrate the hows and whys of pace analysis, are one of the most important "needs.". Things to look for, and why. Much (if not most) existing pace analysis used the Aristotelian "talking heads" model of instruction--give a sample, tell the (witless, mindless, uncritical learner) that such and such happened "because" of such and so--and ignore the fact that a reasonably thoughtful learner can readily find many, many cases where the same (or essentially similar) scenario existed, but with a different outcome. In essence, correlations have been (and still are) presented as cause-and-effect.

[traynor]

I would like to be part of the test group


Thank you

Steven

Hypnotist1

Great!

What does your handle mean? Any experience with Ericksonian?

[traynor]

Clarification.

For anything less than a complete black box software app--that requires ZERO decision-making on the part of the user, especially in regard to which of a plethora of various ratings, rankings, and representations to use in the specific race in question--certain decisions are required. My intent is to enable new or novice users (or even the sharpest tacks in the box) to make better decisions in regard to which races are worth considering for wagers, which horses in that race are likely to "perform in a manner that will have a serious impact on the outcome of the race," and which horses are the most likely to "finish forwardly" in that race, given the probable performance of all the other horses in that specific race.

If a black box software app can do that with sufficient accuracy to generate a decent profit over time, great. Buy/lease/steal/(or develop) that software and get on with your life. Use the additional time you will have available by using the black box app to ponder the various options of how, where, and why you will spend or invest that profit. Until then, I suggest it may be more useful to develop a basic set of pattern recognition skills and depend more on yourself to do a bit of the preliminary work in race analysis. A fringe benefit is that the skills developed are almost guaranteed to improve the performance of any race analysis software app of any flavor or complexity that you are using or considering using.

Not too difficult. Definitely not expensive. Doesn't require much more than a bit of study and a little critical thinking.

[DeltaLover]

I think that my understanding of this project is quite fuzzy and if you can provide some more information it might become easier to decide whether if I am interesting or not.

(1) You are mentioning that you have a lot of code. Is there any repository that we can read it and getting a feeling of it?

(2) Do you have any design documents viewing the project from a high level?

(3) Answering to a poster you said that your code has a lot of VB code, something that probably needs to be changed if you want to attract the interest of the open source community who traditionally is allergic to anything coming out of Microsoft.

(4) This kind of a project needs close communication among the team members and definitely cannot be managed in the way you are suggesting in your PM. You say that you rarely use phones, PMs, or personal email, if this is the case you probably need to forget all about open source development, which is based in frequent scrums, on line messengers, skype sessions, one2ones etc.

[rsetup]

What is this exactly, pace figures or race dynamics?

Is this visual, hence, pattern recognition?

Why in the world is anyone still programming in VB?

[traynor]

I think that my understanding of this project is quite fuzzy and if you can provide some more information it might become easier to decide whether if I am interesting or not.

(1) You are mentioning that you have a lot of code. Is there any repository that we can read it and getting a feeling of it?

(2) Do you have any design documents viewing the project from a high level?

(3) Answering to a poster you said that your code has a lot of VB code, something that probably needs to be changed if you want to attract the interest of the open source community who traditionally is allergic to anything coming out of Microsoft.

(4) This kind of a project needs close communication among the team members and definitely cannot be managed in the way you are suggesting in your PM. You say that you rarely use phones, PMs, or personal email, if this is the case you probably need to forget all about open source development, which is based in frequent scrums, on line messengers, skype sessions, one2ones etc.

(1) Not yet. I am currently stripping the trainer portion from a previous app version, so it can be plugged in almost anywhere. Time is an issue. It was not (originally) intended to be separated from the analysis portion of the app.

(2) No. It was originally a semi-collaborative effort by members of a blackjack team, for their own use. Not intended to be celestial in complexity. Intended to make learning a basic set of schemas simple.

(3) I (partially) disagree. Lots of people use Microsoft. Lots of horse race handicappers use Microsoft, especially Excel (which, in turn, uses a subset of Visual Basic). I think if the open-source community knew much about analyzing horse races, much better stuff would already be freely available. If you know of such, please post a link so everyone can take advantage of it.

(4) I (mostly) disagree. I managed (and still occasionally manage) collocated development teams with little more than (occasional) emails and an ftp dump site. If you are familiar with Jarvenpaa and Leidner, you will have a pretty clear idea of what I think about managing collocated development teams:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1998.tb00080.x/abstract

My interest in developing software is (and has been for quite awhile) in developing software, rather than "close management" or the social aspects of so doing. Good developers are easy to find (and easy to manage). Good managers, MUCH less so.

I could forget about (a conventional approach to the popular notion of) "open-source" software development without much remorse. Perhaps it would be best to operationalize my use of "open-source" as freely available--including code--to pretty much whoever wants it. Nothing more complex than that.

[traynor]

What is this exactly, pace figures or race dynamics?

Is this visual, hence, pattern recognition?

Why in the world is anyone still programming in VB?

Both.

Visual.

Because one can do more in less time with it than anything else?

[traynor]

I would like to be part of the test group


Thank you

Steven

Hypnotist1

In the process of locating previous versions of the software (that still had the training portion reasonably intact) I ran across the (previously declared missing) greyhound apps you asked about. I'll send you the code block for class calculations. If you need anything else, let me know.

[traynor]

For anyone interested:

"This paper explores the challenges of creating and maintaining trust in a global virtual team whose members transcend time, space, and culture. The challenges are highlighted by integrating recent literature on work teams, computer-mediated communication groups, cross-cultural communication, and interpersonal and organizational trust. To explore these challenges empirically, we report on a series of descriptive case studies on global virtual teams whose members were separated by location and culture, were challenged by a common collaborative project, and for whom the only economically and practically viable communication medium was asynchronous and synchronous computer-mediated communication. The results suggest that global virtual teams may experience a form of ‘swift’ trust but such trust appears to be very fragile and temporal. The study raises a number of issues to be explored and debated by future research. Pragmatically, the study describes communication behaviors that might facilitate trust in global virtual teams."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1998.tb00080.x/abstract

Particularly disliked by MBWA enthusiasts, who love to avoid blame with comments like, "You may think that was what I said, but what I REALLY said was (blah blah blah, fill in the blanks with CYA). For those who are not familiar with the acronym, MBWA is "management by walking around." Lots of talky talky, minimal paper trail that could come back to haunt later. Think the "instructions" given to Calley before My Lai.

[traynor]

"Pace analysis" assumes a process of comparing entries. That process assumes that another process exists to determine the probable performance in this particular race by this particular horse. Excluding (for the moment) the other horses, what information is used to determine the probable performance in this particular race by this particular horse? (Also excluded is the trim carpenter's favored response of "good enough for the kind of work we do around here.")

That is the best starting point. Any ideas? Suggestions? Certainties? Beliefs? Knowledge? (That you would be willing to share?)

[JJMartin]

Excluding (for the moment) the other horses, what information is used to determine the probable performance in this particular race by this particular horse? (Also excluded is the trim carpenter's favored response of "good enough for the kind of work we do around here.")

That is the best starting point. Any ideas? Suggestions? Certainties? Beliefs? Knowledge? (That you would be willing to share?)
The horse with the best projected speed figure will do well on average. How it responds in the stretch, whether it is prone to expending too much energy too early or if it is more likely to conserve.

[traynor]

The horse with the best projected speed figure will do well on average. How it responds in the stretch, whether it is prone to expending too much energy too early or if it is more likely to conserve.

Absolutely. As interesting as the many long, convoluted, and often deceptively misleading meanderings into "conventional pace analysis" may seem on the surface, if a horse is unable to reach the wire before the other horses, winning is difficult. Meyer figured that out with his "0-Fin" rating way back, and not much has changed in that regard in the interim.

Expending or conserving energy may contribute to whether or not a particular horse--in a group of horses with roughly equivalent projected speed figures (or average pace, or projected final time, or whatever metric is used as an equivalent)--is likely to be at or near the wire at the finish. Expending or conserving energy is unlikely to make a horse unable to finish six furlongs in the dirt in less than 1:10 able to defeat other entries able to finish in 1:09.

So the most basic question might be: "Is this particular horse fast enough to win this particular race against this particular group of horses?" All other considerations aside, that seems a good place to start in analyzing a given race. BEFORE considering "probable pace scenarios," find the fastest horses in the race.

[JJMartin]

Determining Form and trainer intent are 2 other elements that will affect performance. Race type plays a big role, IMO. When a horse is entered into an Allowance or higher, they are going for a win and speed figures are more reliable. With Claiming races, you never know when a trainer is trying to dump the horse because it has health issues or otherwise.

[traynor]

Determining Form and trainer intent are 2 other elements that will affect performance. Race type plays a big role, IMO. When a horse is entered into an Allowance or higher, they are going for a win and speed figures are more reliable. With Claiming races, you never know when a trainer is trying to dump the horse because it has health issues or otherwise.

As a bettor, I mostly agree. Many seem to be agonizing over trivial differences in race times, while (mostly) ignoring the fact that horses have riders, horses have trainers, horses have owners, and the horse rarely (if ever) gets to do what IT wants to do in a given race. Overlooking (or diminishing the significance of) the human attributes in favor of the (much easier to define as some specific numeric value) horse's past performance record can be costly. Doesn't much matter how sophisticated the mathematical or statistical expertise of the programmer--the tendency is still to look at the world as if it can be clearly defined by a static set of numbers. It isn't that simple.

[traynor]

Time for a long winter break. House hunting in Miami first. Happy holidays to all.

[plainolebill]

Nice thread, Happy Holidays to you as well.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Time for a long winter break. House hunting in Miami first. Happy holidays to all.

You too Traynor!

[Southbaygent]

VB under the MS Visual Studio 2015 (or 2010 or whichever) is actually still pretty attractive...both as legacy for some and easy entry for others.

[DeltaLover]

VB under the MS Visual Studio 2015 (or 2010 or whichever) is actually still pretty attractive...both as legacy for some and easy entry for others.

VB has served its purpose and today is only a poor relative of other more attractive and flexible languages. If you are a programmer (either a pro or a hobbyist) you better move ahead and start using something more modern..

[traynor]

VB has served its purpose and today is only a poor relative of other more attractive and flexible languages. If you are a programmer (either a pro or a hobbyist) you better move ahead and start using something more modern..

I agree to an extent. That extent does not consign Visual Basic (or any other Microsoft technology) to the dustbin of irrelevance based on little more than personal opinion and (possible) anti-Microsoft sentiments. The bottom line is that lots of people use VB, lots of people like Microsoft, and lots of people have extensive code that works perfectly well, has been thoroughly tested, and see absolutely zero advantage in translating/migrating that code into what others may view as a "more modern" language.

I have no difficulty using different languages for different circumstances and situations. As a developer, one of my major activities revolved around fixing the broken work of others, in a variety of languages and formats, that most would declare "impossible to use" because it is more lucrative--and much simpler for them--to discard it and "start over". If I saw some real advantage in migrating the existing code to another language, I would do so. As far as I can tell, NO such advantage exists. Especially given that the current code is VB.

I think anyone interested in using a computer to handicap horse races should learn (at least) basic programming skills. I spent a lot of time and effort locating (possible) resources toward that end on another thread. Many (if not most) of those resources were for Python and Java as starter languages. It think that once one learns the basic concepts, their own personal preferences are the primary determining factor in which language/development platform they select for their own use. I use PyCharm and IntelliJ extensively. I also use Visual Studio on a routine basis. One of the most lucrative projects I have worked on in the past few years required that I learn Delphi (fast) to fix (as usual) someone else's mess. I find such projects both challenging and profitable.

[Hypnotist1]

Orman McGill is closer as I am A stage Hypnotist , but I m also a certified hypnotherapist.

[Cratos]

"Pace analysis" assumes a process of comparing entries. That process assumes that another process exists to determine the probable performance in this particular race by this particular horse. Excluding (for the moment) the other horses, what information is used to determine the probable performance in this particular race by this particular horse? (Also excluded is the trim carpenter's favored response of "good enough for the kind of work we do around here.")

That is the best starting point. Any ideas? Suggestions? Certainties? Beliefs? Knowledge? (That you would be willing to share?)
Hi Traynor,

You have started an excellent thread that can offer some insight into the computation of the race dynamics of the horse in a race.

Pace is a euphemism for the “rate of motion” or race dynamic by the horse during the race and determines how the horse’s motion is distributed over the race distance; a nonlinear downward sloping curve defines the race distance.

In a vacuum a horse in good condition and well-ridden will typically run at a pace equal to its innate ability, but horseraces are not run in a vacuum and there are external environmental factors that affect a horse’s rate of motion during the race that should be considered.

The primary external factors are the resistance of wind, air, and surface plus the geometry of the racetrack turns.

These resistances are nontrivial and complicated to calculate without an understanding of physics, math, and statistics.

However, that level of academic understanding of the fields of study shouldn’t be required because the solutions can be formulated into your product and will be transparent to the end user.

[traynor]

Hi Traynor,

You have started an excellent thread that can offer some insight into the computation of the race dynamics of the horse in a race.

Pace is a euphemism for the “rate of motion” or race dynamic by the horse during the race and determines how the horse’s motion is distributed over the race distance; a nonlinear downward sloping curve defines the race distance.

In a vacuum a horse in good condition and well-ridden will typically run at a pace equal to its innate ability, but horseraces are not run in a vacuum and there are external environmental factors that affect a horse’s rate of motion during the race that should be considered.

The primary external factors are the resistance of wind, air, and surface plus the geometry of the racetrack turns.

These resistances are nontrivial and complicated to calculate without an understanding of physics, math, and statistics.

However, that level of academic understanding of the fields of study shouldn’t be required because the solutions can be formulated into your product and will be transparent to the end user.

The same argument could be advanced for most other things in horse race analysis. There seems to be a prevalent tendency to regard things as "simple" just because they may seem so (to the casual observer--a category into which most bettors, handicappers, and "experts" fit quite nicely).

As you seem to have discovered, it is not so much that the information is "unknowable" as that it takes a bit more effort to discover (and analyze and calculate) than superficial scanning of "past performances" (in whatever format presented). Well worth the effort, though.

[pondman]

If a black box software app can do that with sufficient accuracy to generate a decent profit over time, great. Buy/lease/steal/(or develop) that software and get on with your life. Use the additional time you will have available by using the black box app to ponder the various options of how, where, and why you will spend or invest that profit. Until then, I suggest it may be more useful to develop a basic set of pattern recognition skills and depend more on yourself to do a bit of the preliminary work in race analysis. A fringe benefit is that the skills developed are almost guaranteed to improve the performance of any race analysis software app of any flavor or complexity that you are using or considering using.

Not too difficult. Definitely not expensive. Doesn't require much more than a bit of study and a little critical thinking.

Is this really the best way to solve a problem? Just dive right into software development. Wouldn't it be wiser if you tested multiple screens? Until you can reasonably estimate the order of finish for all the horses, it's going to be a waste to start developing. In other words, does your top horse out finish you second, third, fourth, fifth...consistently throughout? Have you been able to tabulate the results and recognize that you have an edge of some kind? An edge in this game may not be that your top horse runs 1st, but how to play this game when your top horse run 4th, and your exotic pays 5,000 -1. If you've accomplished this already then you are ahead of the majority of player, but you don't need software-- other than to record your decision-- and help the system learn.

[JJMartin]

Is this really the best way to solve a problem? Just dive right into software development. Wouldn't it be wiser if you tested multiple screens? Until you can reasonably estimate the order of finish for all the horses, it's going to be a waste to start developing. In other words, does your top horse out finish you second, third, fourth, fifth...consistently throughout? Have you been able to tabulate the results and recognize that you have an edge of some kind? An edge in this game may not be that your top horse runs 1st, but how to play this game when your top horse run 4th, and your exotic pays 5,000 -1. If you've accomplished this already then you are ahead of the majority of player, but you don't need software-- other than to record your decision-- and help the system learn.

Since this is an open collaboration, it is quite possible to spark some new insights in the development process that could ultimately lead to contributing to an edge or improving roi. You never know.

[traynor]

Is this really the best way to solve a problem? Just dive right into software development. Wouldn't it be wiser if you tested multiple screens? Until you can reasonably estimate the order of finish for all the horses, it's going to be a waste to start developing. In other words, does your top horse out finish you second, third, fourth, fifth...consistently throughout? Have you been able to tabulate the results and recognize that you have an edge of some kind? An edge in this game may not be that your top horse runs 1st, but how to play this game when your top horse run 4th, and your exotic pays 5,000 -1. If you've accomplished this already then you are ahead of the majority of player, but you don't need software-- other than to record your decision-- and help the system learn.

One of the interesting things about horse racing is that there has been enough natural fertilizer written (and spoken) by self-proclaimed "experts" in the past 50 years or so to sink a battleship (to paraphrase a comment attributed to Admiral Halsey to his aide on leaving the Pentagon). What I suggested is that one may be well-advised to bypass the so-called "expert opinion" and find out for himself or herself what works, what doesn't, and possibly even why that is so. Pattern recognition, not software development.

The big advantage in learning basic programming skills for a novice (or anyone else) is that she or he can readily determine how their own (or someone else's) theories are likely to work in the real world.

As I have mentioned a number of times, I think the best approach to race analysis may well be to ask the most basic question of business analysts--"Does this stuff actually mean what I/we/they think it means?" And precisely as in business analysis the most frequent answer is "no".

[CincyHorseplayer]

The big advantage in learning basic programming skills for a novice (or anyone else) is that she or he can readily determine how their own (or someone else's) theories are likely to work in the real world.

As I have mentioned a number of times, I think the best approach to race analysis may well be to ask the most basic question of business analysts--"Does this stuff actually mean what I/we/they think it means?" And precisely as in business analysis the most frequent answer is "no".

:ThmbUp:

This is where I am at. I'm starting to work in pace figure abstractions for lack of a better word. Much like sabermetrics in the baseball world. According to my theories and observations about the way race courses play(turf vs dirt). That and methods of self process and analysis are what fascinate me most at the moment. Much of it really only starts with a few theoretical wrestling matches in your head and a desire to clarify what you are doing=looking for a better, more efficient method in all aspects. It starts with so little but eventually evolves into a realm of it's own. Fun place to be!

[DeltaLover]

Is this really the best way to solve a problem? Just dive right into software development. Wouldn't it be wiser if you tested multiple screens? Until you can reasonably estimate the order of finish for all the horses, it's going to be a waste to start developing. In other words, does your top horse out finish you second, third, fourth, fifth...consistently throughout? Have you been able to tabulate the results and recognize that you have an edge of some kind? An edge in this game may not be that your top horse runs 1st, but how to play this game when your top horse run 4th, and your exotic pays 5,000 -1. If you've accomplished this already then you are ahead of the majority of player, but you don't need software-- other than to record your decision-- and help the system learn.

Unless you are betting from a plain entries sheet you definitely use some kind of software for you handicapping decisions as all kinds of figures, metrics, track variants, handicapping factor stats etc are products of computerized processes. Having access to custom software applied to home grown databases has always the potential to put you ahead of the curve as you can study and understand the game way better from any old fashioned pen and pencil handicapper (who again is also relying on massively used data like Beyer or Moss figures).

[Cratos]

One of the interesting things about horse racing is that there has been enough natural fertilizer written (and spoken) by self-proclaimed "experts" in the past 50 years or so to sink a battleship (to paraphrase a comment attributed to Admiral Halsey to his aide on leaving the Pentagon). What I suggested is that one may be well-advised to bypass the so-called "expert opinion" and find out for himself or herself what works, what doesn't, and possibly even why that is so. Pattern recognition, not software development.

The big advantage in learning basic programming skills for a novice (or anyone else) is that she or he can readily determine how their own (or someone else's) theories are likely to work in the real world.

As I have mentioned a number of times, I think the best approach to race analysis may well be to ask the most basic question of business analysts--"Does this stuff actually mean what I/we/they think it means?" And precisely as in business analysis the most frequent answer is "no".

Traynor,

Since this is a collaborative venture I would like start the development with an understanding of accounting for the “external forces against the horse’s motion effort.”

One of the forces confronted by a horse’s motion and common to most handicappers is “surface resistance force” which is typically and incorrectly labeled “track variant.”

The following example might better explain “surface resistance force.”

Where, Surface Resistance Force = Maximum Stopping Force *Coefficient of Kinetic Friction.

Maximum Stopping Force = 546*9.8 = 5350.8 N

Coefficient of Kinetic Friction = .026

Surface Resistance Force = 5350.8*.026 = 138.50 N is the force “pushing back” against the forward motion of a horse with a mass of 546 kg (body weight + assigned weight) at a velocity of 17.5m/sec in a final time of 69 secs for 1,231m (6F).

This can be programmed into the software for all race distances with a range of final times. Furthermore, the surface resistance force can be converted into time loss due to the force.

Note: These values will change as mass, distance, and velocity changes.

[JJMartin]

Traynor,

Since this is a collaborative venture I would like start the development with an understanding of accounting for the “external forces against the horse’s motion effort.”

One of the forces confronted by a horse’s motion and common to most handicappers is “surface resistance force” which is typically and incorrectly labeled “track variant.”

The following example might better explain “surface resistance force.”

Where, Surface Resistance Force = Maximum Stopping Force *Coefficient of Kinetic Friction.

Maximum Stopping Force = 546*9.8 = 5350.8 N

Coefficient of Kinetic Friction = .026

Surface Resistance Force = 5350.8*.026 = 138.50 N is the force “pushing back” against the forward motion of a horse with a mass of 546 kg (body weight + assigned weight) at a velocity of 17.5m/sec in a final time of 69 secs for 1,231m (6F).

This can be programmed into the software for all race distances with a range of final times. Furthermore, the surface resistance force can be converted into time loss due to the force.

Note: These values will change as mass, distance, and velocity changes.


Interesting. What method would be employed to extract such a figure? Would it be similar to how the current track variant is calculated or some other method?

[traynor]

Traynor,

Since this is a collaborative venture I would like start the development with an understanding of accounting for the “external forces against the horse’s motion effort.”

One of the forces confronted by a horse’s motion and common to most handicappers is “surface resistance force” which is typically and incorrectly labeled “track variant.”

The following example might better explain “surface resistance force.”

Where, Surface Resistance Force = Maximum Stopping Force *Coefficient of Kinetic Friction.

Maximum Stopping Force = 546*9.8 = 5350.8 N

Coefficient of Kinetic Friction = .026

Surface Resistance Force = 5350.8*.026 = 138.50 N is the force “pushing back” against the forward motion of a horse with a mass of 546 kg (body weight + assigned weight) at a velocity of 17.5m/sec in a final time of 69 secs for 1,231m (6F).

This can be programmed into the software for all race distances with a range of final times. Furthermore, the surface resistance force can be converted into time loss due to the force.

Note: These values will change as mass, distance, and velocity changes.


I understand that one may believe that a (very) detailed description of the past may be used as the basis for predicting the future. To what extent do you find this to be useful as a predictor? That is not a spurious or facetious question.

[Cratos]

Interesting. What method would be employed to extract such a figure? Would it be similar to how the current track variant is calculated or some other method?
Different from the current “Track Variant” method and in my opinion easily verifiable by science and statistical data.

A big plus is that the surface resistance force can (and should) be calculated very quickly and accurately on a race by race basis.

[EMD4ME]

Different from the current “Track Variant” method and in my opinion easily verifiable by science and statistical data.

A big plus is that the surface resistance force can (and should) be calculated very quickly and accurately on a race by race basis.

How do you do that?

[Cratos]

I understand that one may believe that a (very) detailed description of the past may be used as the basis for predicting the future. To what extent do you find this to be useful as a predictor? That is not a spurious or facetious question.
Very good question and the answer is the handicapper will have the ability to measure and quantitate surface changes in the track (turf or dirt) in near real time or at the intervals which the current weather reports are given; which is in 5-10 minutes for virtually all locales in North America.

Keep in mind that this is just one aspect of the total resistance metric, but it will readily debunk the “golden rail” theory and other auspicious claims about the track’s surface.

[Cratos]

How do you do that?
Math, science, and technology and I am not being "smart" to you, but MIT taught me well.

[EMD4ME]

Math, science, and technology and I am not being "smart" to you, but MIT taught me well.

I figured the aforementioned 3. Was looking for a bit more detail. ;)

[JJMartin]

Math, science, and technology and I am not being "smart" to you, but MIT taught me well.
So if I understand correctly, the calculation for surface condition is derived from weather reports. Relative humidity? I suppose wind direction and speed are also factored in. What else would contribute to this figure?

[LottaKash]

I am still clueless about where to find any horse's current weight, let alone having to check the wind and the weather every 5 minutes in order to crush the races...

It Makes me wonder how anyone can possibly win at the races without using all of that science...

I must be very, very, lucky at times and seasons..

Still, I find it interesting all the same...

[Cratos]

I am still clueless about where to find any horse's current weight, let alone having to check the wind and the weather every 5 minutes in order to crush the races...

It Makes me wonder how anyone can possibly win at the races without using all of that science...

I must be very, very, lucky at times and seasons..

Still, I find it interesting all the same...
I am not here to argue your beliefs or disbeliefs; enough of that rhetoric goes on in the other forums on this website.

However, a Google search should give you websites for weather.

The horse’s weight is more problematic, but it can be calculated and I think the poster, Magister Ludi have previously addressed that issue.

The poster, “Traynor” requested a collaborative effort to design software for pace analysis in horseracing.

My contribution is to assist in building the algorithms.

[LottaKash]

I am not here to argue your beliefs or disbeliefs; enough of that rhetoric goes on in the other forums on this website.

However, a Google search should give you websites for weather.

The horse’s weight is more problematic, but it can be calculated and I think the poster, Magister Ludi have previously addressed that issue.

The poster, “Traynor” requested a collaborative effort to design software for pace analysis in horseracing.

My contribution is to assist in building the algorithms.

Cratos, with all due respect, I am not trying to argue, but more, I am trying to learn in more detail of what you have accomplished, that's all...

The horses "weight" IS still very problematic to me all the same... I must have missed the part about that when ML explained it at one time or another...

I used to take care of racehorses, and from my own observations, a horses weight wasn't much of a concern to most horsemen unless there seemed to be a health or conditioning concern...So, how does the average Joe get to know about a horse's weight before and after a race? I ask this because it is part and parcel of your very own algorithms, that's all...

As for the weather part, I know that is a very tricky thing to accurately discern...Still, I know from my own observations and experiences thru the years, that the track(s) on many days do change to one degree or another, either all day, or in certain time segments of the day...I believe this, as I have learned to do my own 4-quarter pace analysis in that regard, and have somewhat proven what I have always wanted to prove... I have found my own way a little better since viewing the changes on a quarterly basis rather than an overall time protocol. For me this is much easier in Harness Racing , because of the mostly constant 1-mile distances that the Standardbreds run on a steady and ongoing basis...The symmetry (4-quarters) of the 1-mile races makes this a lot easier to discern on what days and what parts of the race that there seems to be a distinct advantage or disadvantage to any give class or horse or depending on a horses preferred winning-running style... And I have gotten better (without computer aid, sadly) in discerning when and where these distinctions may have occurred...These days my guessing at such things has lessened, and I am getting better at utilizing these long sought after answers of variants, golden rails, and such... I do make notes on weather (temp and humidity), infield flag waves...at least on more extreme days, and extreme changes..

I am a bit jealous of your work, you could say, as sincerely, I believe that you can do what you say you can do...

About variants, and bias' and such, I just think you have another name for them...

[Cratos]

So if I understand correctly, the calculation for surface condition is derived from weather reports. Relative humidity? I suppose wind direction and speed are also factored in. What else would contribute to this figure?
A starting point would a thorough reading of the white paper “Racing Surfaces” written together by Dr. Michael Peterson and others. This will help you understand as it did for me the impact of the surface condition on the motion of the horse during the race.

As the track’s surface becomes relatively softer, the resistance force of friction restricts the horse’s movement caused by surface deformations or by a plowing effect of the horse’s motion.

The causes of the resistive force of friction are molecular adhesion and is best captured in the calculation of the coefficient of kinetic friction.

Also, it is useful to understand that the contemporaneous characterization of the racetrack surface as being “fast’ or “slow” is folly; the track’s surface is a static entity without movement.

[DeltaLover]

A starting point would a thorough reading of the white paper “Racing Surfaces” written together by Dr. Michael Peterson and others. This will help you understand as it did for me the impact of the surface condition on the motion of the horse during the race.

As the track’s surface becomes relatively softer, the resistance force of friction restricts the horse’s movement caused by surface deformations or by a plowing effect of the horse’s motion.

The causes of the resistive force of friction are molecular adhesion and is best captured in the calculation of the coefficient of kinetic friction.

Also, it is useful to understand that the contemporaneous characterization of the racetrack surface as being “fast’ or “slow” is folly; the track’s surface is a static entity without movement.

http://i66.tinypic.com/14957xv.jpg

[Cratos]

Cratos, with all due respect, I am not trying to argue, but more, I am trying to learn in more detail of what you have accomplished, that's all...

The horses "weight" IS still very problematic to me all the same... I must have missed the part about that when ML explained it at one time or another...

I used to take care of racehorses, and from my own observations, a horses weight wasn't much of a concern to most horsemen unless there seemed to be a health or conditioning concern...So, how does the average Joe get to know about a horse's weight before and after a race? I ask this because it is part and parcel of your very own algorithms, that's all...

As for the weather part, I know that is a very tricky thing to accurately discern...Still, I know from my own observations and experiences thru the years, that the track(s) on many days do change to one degree or another, either all day, or in certain time segments of the day...I believe this, as I have learned to do my own 4-quarter pace analysis in that regard, and have somewhat proven what I have always wanted to prove... I have found my own way a little better since viewing the changes on a quarterly basis rather than an overall time protocol. For me this is much easier in Harness Racing , because of the mostly constant 1-mile distances that the Standardbreds run on a steady and ongoing basis...The symmetry (4-quarters) of the 1-mile races makes this a lot easier to discern on what days and what parts of the race that there seems to be a distinct advantage or disadvantage to any give class or horse or depending on a horses preferred winning-running style... And I have gotten better (without computer aid, sadly) in discerning when and where these distinctions may have occurred...These days my guessing at such things has lessened, and I am getting better at utilizing these long sought after answers of variants, golden rails, and such... I do make notes on weather (temp and humidity), infield flag waves...at least on more extreme days, and extreme changes..

I am a bit jealous of your work, you could say, as sincerely, I believe that you can do what you say you can do...

About variants, and bias' and such, I just think you have another name for them...
LottaKash,

I didn’t take your response as an affront and I apologize if I gave you that perception.

Many horseplayers take the assigned weight toted by the horse only as a “concerned metric", but it is should be taken as part of the “work load” which the horse needs to put in motion to achieve a certain velocity.

Rock Hard Ten was a larger horse than Smarty Jones and at level weight during the TC campaign Smarty Jones was the better horse.

The point I am making is that friction is a force that is created whenever the horse’s hooves with its shoes move across the track surface.

This friction always opposes the motion or attempted motion of the horse across the race track surface and is dependent on the texture of the shoes on the horse and the track surface; and the friction is also dependent on the amount of contact force (horse’s weight) pushing the two surfaces together (i.e., the normal force).

[Cratos]

http://i66.tinypic.com/14957xv.jpg
During my many years as an engineering design consultant for nearly 50 companies in 6 major industries I found that contributions best solved problems as opposed to criticisms.

Disagreements are always good and invited, but it is the poster, “Traynor” whom you should direct angst; he is the OP.

[DeltaLover]

During my many years as an engineering design consultant for nearly 50 companies in 6 major industries I found that contributions best solved problems as opposed to criticisms.

Wow! Now yes, I am really impressed!

As a hint, you might find the following site interesting and helpful, give it a shot:

http://cbsg.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/live

[Cratos]

Wow! Now yes, I am really impressed!

As a hint, you might find the following site interesting and helpful, give it a shot:

http://cbsg.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/live
Per your suggestion, I took a courtesy look at the website and then put you on ignore; you can do the same to me.

[DeltaLover]

Per your suggestion, I took a courtesy look at the website and then put you on ignore; you can do the same to me.

Oh no! You have put my on ignore?? What a disaster!

http://i63.tinypic.com/24o3o7p.jpg

[UltimateBetter]

Never a Dull Moment.

[BCOURTNEY]

Anyone interested in developing/working on developing/testing/contributing (time and effort--not money) to a collaborative pace analysis software app (FREE to anyone who wants it, even to clone/copy/steal it, otherwise known as "open source") intended to develop/increase/sharpen the user's pace analysis skills?

NOT a "horse picker" app. An app (or addition to/component of/module of an existing or other app) that creates a deeper level of understanding of pace (and how it affects race outcomes) than (whatever else is available). Something that a new or novice user can "fiddle with" for a relatively short period of time and gain insights into pace analysis that many experienced/"expert"/hardcore pace analysts lack.

Basically, I developed a pace training module some years ago for private use by a blackjack team. I intended to incorporate that module (and the improvements/upgrades/additions to that module) into a race analysis software app designed for professional use. Reality is that the software developed will not be sold. Period. The (current and future) users of that software neither need nor want "pace analysis training functionality."

The training component is based on pattern recognition and some fairly sophisticated training methodologies (used by, tested by, and (sometimes) criticized by mostly graduate students in business analysis and managerial decision making familiar with various high-end "dashboard" type decision support software). It is NOT "technically complex" from a development standpoint. It is technically complex from the standpoint of the training methodologies employed.

There has been MUCH discussion about "helping newbies and novices" that rarely seems to go much beyond the "read everything you can, practice losing for 20 years, and MAYBE you will be able to break even" school of thought. There has been an equivalent amount of discussion bemoaning the "demise" of the racing industry. I think the best way to improve the racing industry is to give the newbies/novices/potential newbies and novices a good shot at making a few bucks right out of the gate--without the endless (and often conflicting) "theories" about "conventional handicapping approaches" that do little more than overwhelm newbies, novices, and most everyone else with that which psychologists refer to as the "principle of maximum confusion" and (perhaps more eloquently) a "crazymaker."

I have a LOT of code, lots of design completed, that was written (over time) for use (not sale). It could (fairly easily) be put into a more concise form and embedded in existing software. I would be happy to help with the further design and development, provided it is ONLY embedded in or developed for FREE, open-source, no strings attached, non-commercial software until fully developed and freely available to anyone who wants it. After that, anyone who wants to embed it in commercial software is free to do so--as long as the user or prospective user realizes that it is available as a standalone app without charge.

Can you provide more detail on the intent of the licensing model would be selected? Open source doesn't typically mean someone cannot use the code for commercial purposes. Open source generally implies the work is available for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. You could probably recruit more help from persons that might want to commercialize the code with an understanding that the open source is available to everyone for non-commercial software as well. Food for thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses


Good software is defined by it's output. Do we have a set of design documents that we are starting with?

[traynor]

Can you provide more detail on the intent of the licensing model would be selected? Open source doesn't typically mean someone cannot use the code for commercial purposes. Open source generally implies the work is available for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. You could probably recruit more help from persons that might want to commercialize the code with an understanding that the open source is available to everyone for non-commercial software as well. Food for thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses


Good software is defined by it's output. Do we have a set of design documents that we are starting with?

I think the most important consideration is being overlooked. In essence, does anyone have any worthwhile (conceptual) knowledge of the factors in pace analysis that can be used (productively) to forecast (and establish the probabilities of) the various data points generally considered relevant to "pace" in upcoming races? And has that information been objectively verified over a sufficient number of instances to determine its validity?

If yes ==> design an algorithm to train the ability to recognize that particular pattern in whatever source data is used. That is the easy part.

If no ==> keep looking.

The point is that it can be relatively easily determined that a great deal of the "conventional wisdom" about pace analysis is mostly wrong or misleading, by quantifying the particulars and applying them to a large sample of races. As long as people tend to remember when something "worked" (for them, in a few non-representative samplings that gave them a warm fuzzy) and to forget all the instances in which it didn't work (because it threatens their highly polished self-perception of being "expert handicappers") subjective experience is not especially useful in such an endeavor.

The training module I developed (with others) essentially modified the software I/we had developed to train blackjack players. The "software development" part is not that complex, nor is it that difficult. The training methodologies used are much more so. It is the content--the stuff that needs to be learned--that is complex. Especially given the caveats above in regard to "conventional wisdom" and "subjective experience."

My intent (and interest) is in enabling the skill of the individual handicapper to both recognize and effectively utilize "pace analysis" in his or her selection methods--whether those methods are by computer, by hand, or by tea leaves--rather than further disabling them by encouraging their reliance on the (in most cases pathetically inadequate) output of yet another piece of software.

[Cratos]

I think the most important consideration is being overlooked. In essence, does anyone have any worthwhile (conceptual) knowledge of the factors in pace analysis that can be used (productively) to forecast (and establish the probabilities of) the various data points generally considered relevant to "pace" in upcoming races? And has that information been objectively verified over a sufficient number of instances to determine its validity?

If yes ==> design an algorithm to train the ability to recognize that particular pattern in whatever source data is used. That is the easy part.

If no ==> keep looking.

The point is that it can be relatively easily determined that a great deal of the "conventional wisdom" about pace analysis is mostly wrong or misleading, by quantifying the particulars and applying them to a large sample of races. As long as people tend to remember when something "worked" (for them, in a few non-representative samplings that gave them a warm fuzzy) and to forget all the instances in which it didn't work (because it threatens their highly polished self-perception of being "expert handicappers") subjective experience is not especially useful in such an endeavor.

The training module I developed (with others) essentially modified the software I/we had developed to train blackjack players. The "software development" part is not that complex, nor is it that difficult. The training methodologies used are much more so. It is the content--the stuff that needs to be learned--that is complex. Especially given the caveats above in regard to "conventional wisdom" and "subjective experience."

My intent (and interest) is in enabling the skill of the individual handicapper to both recognize and effectively utilize "pace analysis" in his or her selection methods--whether those methods are by computer, by hand, or by tea leaves--rather than further disabling them by encouraging their reliance on the (in most cases pathetically inadequate) output of yet another piece of software.
Traynor,

Your response is “spot on,” but many posters (including myself) will probably be skeptical about publicly revealing proprietary information.

Also without someone coordinating this effort (which I thought would be you) there will be little or no progress of your proposed collaborative development effort due to dissent posters submitting innocuous non-related posts to this thread.

I don’t mind the difference of opinions and the challenging of intellectual thought, but the submission of mindless nonsensical posts should be avoided.

Therefore, is the intent by you to continue this effort?

I ask this question because I would like to submit a real life example of what I have advocated and it can be compared against the status quo.

[BCOURTNEY]

Traynor,

Your response is “spot on,” but many posters (including myself) will probably be skeptical about publicly revealing proprietary information.

Also without someone coordinating this effort (which I thought would be you) there will be little or no progress of your proposed collaborative development effort due to dissent posters submitting innocuous non-related posts to this thread.

I don’t mind the difference of opinions and the challenging of intellectual thought, but the submission of mindless nonsensical posts should be avoided.

Therefore, is the intent by you to continue this effort?

I ask this question because I would like to submit a real life example of what I have advocated and it can be compared against the status quo.

I think we need to organize a team and define roles and establish a communication plan - that communication would need to occur outside of a PA thread, reporting could happen to the thread by the project lead. Probably first evaluate if the proposal is viable. I tend to agree with Cratos that a thread without focus and a plan will have tomatoes thrown at it. I also know that there are quite a few knowledgeable persons that desire to share general knowledge to new players to bring interest to the game and avoid the snake oil. Someone (Traynor?) can collect contact info of legitimately interested persons and assemble a potential team, cover our skills matrix, and see what everyone brings to the table and time available, and construct the project plan. Input on design issues can be collected from the PA thread as needed. Some roles would be a project lead, design lead, technical lead, development lead and testing lead, and release manager. These roles can be mutually filled by the same person in some cases, although I would recommend the testing lead remain independent. We would also need to establish up front the objectives of the outcomes, so that any algorithm(s) incorporated into the software / library meets a set of minimum criteria.

The proposal in this thread is a test of how quickly a set of anonymous persons can assemble the team to assess and analyze if this project is even possible and then if probable enough to execute on.

I will provide a skills matrix and contact info to a team lead when established.

[traynor]

Go for it, guys. Organize, develop, sell it if you want. Please post your GitHub link so everyone can check on your progress as the project develops. I wish you the best of success in the endeavor, should anyone decide to pursue it.

It would be nice if you (occasionally) post updates of whatever insights and observations (on pace and pace analysis, and the usefulness--if any--in predicting the outcome of future races) your research has uncovered.

I lack the time (and interest) to become involved in such an endeavor.

[Cratos]

Go for it, guys. Organize, develop, sell it if you want. Please post your GitHub link so everyone can check on your progress as the project develops. I wish you the best of success in the endeavor, should anyone decide to pursue it.

It would be nice if you (occasionally) post updates of whatever insights and observations (on pace and pace analysis, and the usefulness--if any--in predicting the outcome of future races) your research has uncovered.

I lack the time (and interest) to become involved in such an endeavor.
Traynor,

Thanks for being upfront about not being able to participate due to time constraints and lack of interest.

I being part of a development group is restricted somewhat by proprietary agreement from the development a product outside of our group without permission, but I can collaborate (and I will) without violating that agreement.

Again, thanks for being upfront starting the thread.

[BCOURTNEY]

Traynor,

Thanks for being upfront about not being able to participate due to time constraints and lack of interest.

I being part of a development group is restricted somewhat by proprietary agreement from the development a product outside of our group without permission, but I can collaborate (and I will) without violating that agreement.

Again, thanks for being upfront starting the thread.

Cratos - your inbox is full.

[cj]

I figured the aforementioned 3. Was looking for a bit more detail. ;)

You'll never get an answer. He's full of it. He reappeared after taking his usual lengthy sabbatical after getting caught telling tales. I missed him and his story telling. It is at least entertaining.

[EMD4ME]

You'll never get an answer. He's full of it. He reappeared after taking his usual lengthy sabbatical after getting caught telling tales. I missed him and his story telling. It is at least entertaining.


At my advanced age, I am a bit forgetful. Can you remind me of the details of that lie please?

[cj]

At my advanced age, I am a bit forgetful. Can you remind me of the details of that lie please?

I don't remember which one it was this time. This wasn't the first act of this play.

[EMD4ME]

I don't remember which one it was this time. This wasn't the first act of this play.

Honor Code?

$250,000 wager?

Or door #3? :lol:

[Cratos]

Honor Code?

$250,000 wager?

Or door #3? :lol:
In a response to “Saratoga Mike” (I believe) in 2015 I stated that me and my associates came together and wagered $200,000 on Dortmund over American Pharoah in the Kentucky Derby. It was later stated that I make $200,000 wagers which I denied and still deny; although the wager on Dortmund is true and is not a “tale” as your esteemed authoritarian moderator want to claim.

Also, the other falsehood by the moderator is that I took a sabbatical from the Forum which is also not true. I have been on this Forum for 13 years and have slightly less than 1 post per day. I do go away during winter months because I don’t play Aqueduct, but this year I came back around this time hoping to read a lively discussion about the Pegasus World Cup with Chrome and Arrogate.

I came to this thread because the poster, “Traynor” had suggested the idea of a collaborative effort to publicly develop software for pace analysis. I liked idea and wanted to contribute if it didn’t violate any proprietary agreement which I am party too.

Furthermore, I find it mystifying that the moderator delete posts at will and adults come to an online forum (and not just this one) and exhibit dysfunctional behavior in anonymity.

Therefore, believe my posts or not; it is your right and this my last comment on this subject, but if this thread turn into a “Jerry Springer Show” type thread my contributions will stop.

[BCOURTNEY]

I don't remember which one it was this time. This wasn't the first act of this play.
Is this how you intend to participate in this project? These types of statements and associated behavior detract from discussion in the thread and decrease the chance that persons that are actually interested would participate, you are discouraging team building both directly and indirectly from the entire community - regardless of where you are directing some angst. There is already some communication outside this thread to discuss the scope of this project which includes objective testing of any algorithm(s) that are provided by contributors making them verifiable.

[cj]

Is this how you intend to participate in this project? These types of statements and associated behavior detract from discussion in the thread and decrease the chance that persons that are actually interested would participate, you are discouraging team building both directly and indirectly from the entire community - regardless of where you are directing some angst. There is already some communication outside this thread to discuss the scope of this project which includes objective testing of any algorithm(s) that are provided by contributors making them verifiable.

I'm done here, good luck with the project.

[EMD4ME]

In a response to “Saratoga Mike” (I believe) in 2015 I stated that me and my associates came together and wagered $200,000 on Dortmund over American Pharoah in the Kentucky Derby. It was later stated that I make $200,000 wagers which I denied and still deny; although the wager on Dortmund is true and is not a “tale” as your esteemed authoritarian moderator want to claim.

Also, the other falsehood by the moderator is that I took a sabbatical from the Forum which is also not true. I have been on this Forum for 13 years and have slightly less than 1 post per day. I do go away during winter months because I don’t play Aqueduct, but this year I came back around this time hoping to read a lively discussion about the Pegasus World Cup with Chrome and Arrogate.

I came to this thread because the poster, “Traynor” had suggested the idea of a collaborative effort to publicly develop software for pace analysis. I liked idea and wanted to contribute if it didn’t violate any proprietary agreement which I am party too.

Furthermore, I find it mystifying that the moderator delete posts at will and adults come to an online forum (and not just this one) and exhibit dysfunctional behavior in anonymity.

Therefore, believe my posts or not; it is your right and this my last comment on this subject, but if this thread turn into a “Jerry Springer Show” type thread my contributions will stop.

Good luck with your project sir :ThmbUp:

[traynor]

If there is a place for VBA, I might be able to contribute. In fact, I am pretty sure the whole thing could be written in Excel.

Do you use Excel for handicapping, or just for records?

[traynor]

I think that my understanding of this project is quite fuzzy and if you can provide some more information it might become easier to decide whether if I am interesting or not.

(1) You are mentioning that you have a lot of code. Is there any repository that we can read it and getting a feeling of it?

(2) Do you have any design documents viewing the project from a high level?

(3) Answering to a poster you said that your code has a lot of VB code, something that probably needs to be changed if you want to attract the interest of the open source community who traditionally is allergic to anything coming out of Microsoft.

(4) This kind of a project needs close communication among the team members and definitely cannot be managed in the way you are suggesting in your PM. You say that you rarely use phones, PMs, or personal email, if this is the case you probably need to forget all about open source development, which is based in frequent scrums, on line messengers, skype sessions, one2ones etc.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-and-canonical-partner-to-bring-ubuntu-to-windows-10/

"Canonical and Microsoft are doing this because Ubuntu on Windows' target audience is developers, not desktop users. In particular, as Microsoft and Canonical continue to work more closely together on cloud projects, I expect to find tools that will make it easy for programmers to use Ubuntu to write programs for Ubuntu on the Azure cloud.

So is this MS-Linux? No. Is it a major step forward in the integration of Windows and Linux on the developer desktop? Yes, yes it is."

I think it is going to be a whole new world. Soon. Anti-Microsoft sentiment is going to be as outmoded as COBOL.

[bpiets]

Oh no! You have put my on ignore?? What a disaster!

http://i63.tinypic.com/24o3o7p.jpg
...huh ???...you lost even with all this info input ??? !!!!! lol... :bang:

[BCOURTNEY]

If you have not already, and are interested in participating in the project in some capacity and you have a skill set or role in mind to participate in the software development process send me a private message, you will need to provide contact information to facilitate discussions going forward. Thanks.

[Cratos]

If you have not already, and are interested in participating in the project in some capacity and you have a skill set or role in mind to participate in the software development process send me a private message, you will need to provide contact information to facilitate discussions going forward. Thanks.
Are you receiving my PMs?

[JJMartin]

Do you use Excel for handicapping, or just for records? I use it for everything. The program I built, assembles the pp files including results files. I can then run a single file through one of multiples models, or build a database to back test a model against a whole year of data or whatever range I choose to use. Mostly I use it for the latter. I try to automate to the absolute maximum.

[traynor]

I use it for everything. The program I built, assembles the pp files including results files. I can then run a single file through one of multiples models, or build a database to back test a model against a whole year of data or whatever range I choose to use. Mostly I use it for the latter. I try to automate to the absolute maximum.

What kind of data source do you use? From your description, it seems you are downloading PPs and results separately. I assume you create/generate your own track variants on the fly using the above data sources? That was a key issue in my own apps, and it took a bit of work to get right.

When you back test models, do you set filters mainly for accuracy (win%) or (possible) return (ROI)? Most lean toward the ROI side, to their disadvantage. In most cases, ROI (in smaller samples of whatever size) is derived from what are essentially anomalies. Rarely repeat going forward, yet everyone seems obsessed with the "woulda coulda shoulda" type modeling.

You might try parsing for winner attributes (ignoring ROI) and test that on future races. ROIs in the 90s (in past races) with relatively high win rates can be especially productive. My conjecture is that bettors "seeking value wagers" tend to avoid the obvious best choices for win, and those obvious best choices for win may often generate a decent profit going forward (that may be concealed or missing in the sample used to build the model).

The big advantage is that the results of a frequency in the 45% and up is much more likely to be productive than a lower frequency is likely to reproduce a paper ROI from a sample of past races.

[JJMartin]

What kind of data source do you use? From your description, it seems you are downloading PPs and results separately. I assume you create/generate your own track variants on the fly using the above data sources? That was a key issue in my own apps, and it took a bit of work to get right.

When you back test models, do you set filters mainly for accuracy (win%) or (possible) return (ROI)? Most lean toward the ROI side, to their disadvantage. In most cases, ROI (in smaller samples of whatever size) is derived from what are essentially anomalies. Rarely repeat going forward, yet everyone seems obsessed with the "woulda coulda shoulda" type modeling.

You might try parsing for winner attributes (ignoring ROI) and test that on future races. ROIs in the 90s (in past races) with relatively high win rates can be especially productive. My conjecture is that bettors "seeking value wagers" tend to avoid the obvious best choices for win, and those obvious best choices for win may often generate a decent profit going forward (that may be concealed or missing in the sample used to build the model).

The big advantage is that the results of a frequency in the 45% and up is much more likely to be productive than a lower frequency is likely to reproduce a paper ROI from a sample of past races.

The PP's and results are 2 separate files. I don't use track variants or create them but I did write a program for someone who wanted to automate their own manually derived variant formula.

I have done thousands of tests over 12+ years. I look at both value and strike rate. In the beginning I was probably more focused on ROI. Any time I see an outlier I convert it to the win average of the rest of the group. The main thing I have realized is that static testing of the most common or obvious factors such as speed figures, distance, surface and class or any combination of them will generally result in a negative ROI in the long term. For example looking at a long list of past data and just filtering factor "A" with factor "B" then moving on to factor "A" with "C" and so on. Without developing some external formula or calculation that creates a new metric that is not in the raw data per se but is derived from the data (or not), I would say there is no hope of developing anything of any value (unless possibly you are extremely selective with great discipline or are very intuitive with visual cues or something like that). The novice and most handicapping software/services usually end up with a selection in the top 2 or 3 M/L or post time odds. Since this category is over bet, you end up with underlays consistently. I look at the more competitive races that are more confusing to the public and find an edge there. The general public will gravitate towards the easier or obvious choices without fail. So part of what I do is handicap the handicappers and use "outside" factors that can still be derived from the data through their theoretically (hopefully objective) implied meaning. So a big part of the battle is overcoming the majority consensus which dictates a high percentage of the finish order in the results. It is no secret that the post time odds are extremely efficient. When analyzing data, the trick is to distinguish the things that truly have a real effect from the ones that are merely illusions. The problem is that the illusions can be very convincing when looking at patterns. The hardwired human ability to detect patterns can be detrimental in this scope. I would agree about trying to increase the win rate and looking at attributes.

[traynor]

The PP's and results are 2 separate files. I don't use track variants or create them but I did write a program for someone who wanted to automate their own manually derived variant formula.

I have done thousands of tests over 12+ years. I look at both value and strike rate. In the beginning I was probably more focused on ROI. Any time I see an outlier I convert it to the win average of the rest of the group. The main thing I have realized is that static testing of the most common or obvious factors such as speed figures, distance, surface and class or any combination of them will generally result in a negative ROI in the long term. For example looking at a long list of past data and just filtering factor "A" with factor "B" then moving on to factor "A" with "C" and so on. Without developing some external formula or calculation that creates a new metric that is not in the raw data per se but is derived from the data (or not), I would say there is no hope of developing anything of any value (unless possibly you are extremely selective with great discipline or are very intuitive with visual cues or something like that). The novice and most handicapping software/services usually end up with a selection in the top 2 or 3 M/L or post time odds. Since this category is over bet, you end up with underlays consistently. I look at the more competitive races that are more confusing to the public and find an edge there. The general public will gravitate towards the easier or obvious choices without fail. So part of what I do is handicap the handicappers and use "outside" factors that can still be derived from the data through their theoretically (hopefully objective) implied meaning. So a big part of the battle is overcoming the majority consensus which dictates a high percentage of the finish order in the results. It is no secret that the post time odds are extremely efficient. When analyzing data, the trick is to distinguish the things that truly have a real effect from the ones that are merely illusions. The problem is that the illusions can be very convincing when looking at patterns. The hardwired human ability to detect patterns can be detrimental in this scope. I would agree about trying to increase the win rate and looking at attributes.

I agree with the difficulties, primarily because people tend to seek validation in the form of agreement. Every bettor wants the horse with "everything going for it" that wins frequently--but always goes off at long odds. The easy way out is to look for primaries, and diminish the reliance on (and impression with) secondaries. Not as many "sure things" but better returns.

An example would be "cheap speed"--almost always labeled AFTER the race (as an excuse for doing or not doing whatever). Many "speed handicappers" (and more than a few "pace handicappers") believe their area of specialization overcomes something that "class handicappers" consider an obvious deficiency. If speed is viewed as a primary, with secondary attributes of pace and class ignored or diminished in significance, results (and models) tend to vary significantly when compared to scenarios in which the latter are considered equivalent (or near-equivalent) in importance.

The primaries (in any given sample, regardless of size) may NOT be the same as the factors most bettors consider important. They also may exist (in equal or greater measure) in entries considered throw-outs.

[Cratos]

The PP's and results are 2 separate files. I don't use track variants or create them but I did write a program for someone who wanted to automate their own manually derived variant formula.

I have done thousands of tests over 12+ years. I look at both value and strike rate. In the beginning I was probably more focused on ROI. Any time I see an outlier I convert it to the win average of the rest of the group. The main thing I have realized is that static testing of the most common or obvious factors such as speed figures, distance, surface and class or any combination of them will generally result in a negative ROI in the long term. For example looking at a long list of past data and just filtering factor "A" with factor "B" then moving on to factor "A" with "C" and so on. Without developing some external formula or calculation that creates a new metric that is not in the raw data per se but is derived from the data (or not), I would say there is no hope of developing anything of any value (unless possibly you are extremely selective with great discipline or are very intuitive with visual cues or something like that). The novice and most handicapping software/services usually end up with a selection in the top 2 or 3 M/L or post time odds. Since this category is over bet, you end up with underlays consistently. I look at the more competitive races that are more confusing to the public and find an edge there. The general public will gravitate towards the easier or obvious choices without fail. So part of what I do is handicap the handicappers and use "outside" factors that can still be derived from the data through their theoretically (hopefully objective) implied meaning. So a big part of the battle is overcoming the majority consensus which dictates a high percentage of the finish order in the results. It is no secret that the post time odds are extremely efficient. When analyzing data, the trick is to distinguish the things that truly have a real effect from the ones that are merely illusions. The problem is that the illusions can be very convincing when looking at patterns. The hardwired human ability to detect patterns can be detrimental in this scope. I would agree about trying to increase the win rate and looking at attributes.
I will agree with your statement with the following caveat that it can be done (and we are doing it successfully), but it takes a rigorous understanding of force and motion with the mathematical ability to apply the theory into a useful and practical wagering model with profitable results.

[traynor]

I will agree with your statement with the following caveat that it can be done (and we are doing it successfully), but it takes a rigorous understanding of force and motion with the mathematical ability to apply the theory into a useful and practical wagering model with profitable results.

I look forward to seeing how the (apparently) new spin-off project that has been mentioned recently on this thread will integrate and implement your concepts in the (apparently) new project to study the effects of pace on race outcomes. (If that is, in fact, the intent/purpose of the spin-off project.)

One of the major deficiencies of software developers is over-reliance on technology as a solution to every problem. Rather than seeking (and discovering, as you seem to have done) new concepts, new insights, and new understandings, they seem to believe that mindless number crunching of the same old same old everyone else uses will generate "better" results than everyone else is getting--if only they can design/code/build an app slick enough to do their thinking for them.

[BCOURTNEY]

I will encourage anyone posting in this thread to PM contact details if you are interesting in participating.

[traynor]

Anyone interested in developing/working on developing/testing/contributing (time and effort--not money) to a collaborative pace analysis software app (FREE to anyone who wants it, even to clone/copy/steal it, otherwise known as "open source") intended to develop/increase/sharpen the user's pace analysis skills?

NOT a "horse picker" app. An app (or addition to/component of/module of an existing or other app) that creates a deeper level of understanding of pace (and how it affects race outcomes) than (whatever else is available). Something that a new or novice user can "fiddle with" for a relatively short period of time and gain insights into pace analysis that many experienced/"expert"/hardcore pace analysts lack.


I think what got lost in the shuffle was that the intent was to create instructional media--not marketable software--to increase the individual handicapper's skills, rather than promote his or her reliance on yet another silly software app. "Pattern recognition" in pace analysis implies that one can look at readily available PP data for a given race and "recognize" situations in which "pace" may play a strong role in the determination of which horse wins and which horses lose.

Somehow that was transformed into a "software development project"--which is the complete opposite of the original intent (to develop/improve/enhance NON-COMPUTER pattern recognition skills). The main use for the computer is/was assumed to be to present the instructional media--NOT to replace thinking. And to clearly establish that much (if not most) of what is assumed "known" about "pace analysis" varies between misleading and wrong, when reduced to algorithms and applied to the scenarios in a large set of races. (The latter is the easy part.)

I am a very patient person. If the (apparent) spinoff software development project produces something of value--free or otherwise--I applaud their success and strongly encourage anyone interested to use/purchase/lease/whatever the resulting application(s)/product(s). Pace analysis is an area of considerable opportunity for those willing to bypass the superficial nonsense generally accepted as such. Even modest insights into the realities (as opposed to the theories) can provide a LOT of leverage.

If there is still a need for a FREE software (instructional media training) application to develop pace analysis pattern recognition skills at some later date, I'll be back.

[DeltaLover]

I think what got lost in the shuffle was that the intent was to create instructional media--not marketable software--to increase the individual handicapper's skills, rather than promote his or her reliance on yet another silly software app. "Pattern recognition" in pace analysis implies that one can look at readily available PP data for a given race and "recognize" situations in which "pace" may play a strong role in the determination of which horse wins and which horses lose.

Somehow that was transformed into a "software development project"--which is the complete opposite of the original intent (to develop/improve/enhance NON-COMPUTER pattern recognition skills). The main use for the computer is/was assumed to be to present the instructional media--NOT to replace thinking. And to clearly establish that much (if not most) of what is assumed "known" about "pace analysis" varies between misleading and wrong, when reduced to algorithms and applied to the scenarios in a large set of races. (The latter is the easy part.)

I am a very patient person. If the (apparent) spinoff software development project produces something of value--free or otherwise--I applaud their success and strongly encourage anyone interested to use/purchase/lease/whatever the resulting application(s)/product(s). Pace analysis is an area of considerable opportunity for those willing to bypass the superficial nonsense generally accepted as such. Even modest insights into the realities (as opposed to the theories) can provide a LOT of leverage.

If there is still a need for a FREE software (instructional media training) application to develop pace analysis pattern recognition skills at some later date, I'll be back.

I think that was is needed is a comprehensive solution instead of specialized software relying on black boxed data as its input.

The pattern recognition (PR) software interacts with several other layers that need to be implemented in advance; the transformation of raw data to metrics must be capable to evolve based on the results of the higher levels of processing. I believe that is a mistake to think of the PR layer as a closed system; instead a constant interaction between the higher and lower components is required and both need to be able to evolve in parallel.

Having said this, it becomes clear that for this project to succeed it must cover the whole spectrum of the necessary operations, including the raw data collection, storage to database, metrics building and finally the AI layer.

As far as distributing this kind of software I think that FreeBSD or MIT are probably the most applicable licences.

[ebcorde]

yeah we all use the same data pace, speed. etc.

while I worked developing Neural Nets and a few algorithms This was 15 years. I had about 8 yrs exp Neural Nets embedded in firmware so I had a clue at that.

took 1 week to get it running, about 2 months tweaking. I was a novice Horse player.

what I recall
The best way to utilize a NN is to break the problem up in little chunks. separate NN's. class, surface, etc etc. That's a ton of work. so I stopped
A large NN set will result in poor quality.

I would suggest a Data cloud algorithm of vectors. Each vector a dimension multiple dimensions. Back then I knew that was the way to go But as I was a novice back then I had no clue what metrics to utilize as the right vectors.

The idea would have been projecting the best probability of a winner by the closest proximity to a limited learn M-distance.(adjusted to track,class maybe)

and that is a lot of work too. Obviously You would need a proper set of winning races. and a lot of testing to verify your data set works



.

[DeltaLover]

yeah we all use the same data pace, speed. etc.

while I worked developing Neural Nets and a few algorithms This was 15 years. I had about 8 yrs exp Neural Nets embedded in firmware so I had a clue at that.

took 1 week to get it running, about 2 months tweaking. I was a novice Horse player.

what I recall
The best way to utilize a NN is to break the problem up in little chunks. separate NN's. class, surface, etc etc. That's a ton of work. so I stopped
A large NN set will result in poor quality.

I would suggest a Data cloud algorithm of vectors. Each vector a dimension multiple dimensions. Back then I knew that was the way to go But as I was a novice back then I had no clue what metrics to utilize as the right vectors.

The idea would have been projecting the best probability of a winner by the closest proximity to a limited learn M-distance.(adjusted to track,class maybe)

and that is a lot of work too. Obviously You would need a proper set of winning races. and a lot of testing to verify your data set works



.

Good posting :ThmbUp:


The problems I see with NN are the following:

(1) Its input is not straight forward. For example: You have horses with 1, 2, 3, .. N past performances. How do you handle them? Do you train separate nets for each number of pps? Do you pass all the pps for all horses or every one as an individual?

(2) What your output is supposed to be? For example: You can pass an individual horse and ask for the exact speed figure of the next race, whether it will improve or decline, whether of it is a good bet or not etc.

(3) Since your data are stochastic and contain a lot of contradictions, chances are that your network will never learn beyond a simple approximation of the betting crowd.

[JJMartin]

(3) Since your data are stochastic and contain a lot of contradictions, chances are that your network will never learn beyond a simple approximation of the betting crowd.

That seems to be about the results I got when I tested with NN's. The strongest factor in the data, in my case the speed figures, over powered the results and make the most reliant determining factor in the NN. I would suggest anyone testing with NN's to not input any highly win-correlated metrics and use the results in a secondary nature.

[JJMartin]

I think what got lost in the shuffle was that the intent was to create instructional media--not marketable software--to increase the individual handicapper's skills, rather than promote his or her reliance on yet another silly software app. "Pattern recognition" in pace analysis implies that one can look at readily available PP data for a given race and "recognize" situations in which "pace" may play a strong role in the determination of which horse wins and which horses lose.

Somehow that was transformed into a "software development project"--which is the complete opposite of the original intent (to develop/improve/enhance NON-COMPUTER pattern recognition skills). The main use for the computer is/was assumed to be to present the instructional media--NOT to replace thinking. And to clearly establish that much (if not most) of what is assumed "known" about "pace analysis" varies between misleading and wrong, when reduced to algorithms and applied to the scenarios in a large set of races. (The latter is the easy part.)

I am a very patient person. If the (apparent) spinoff software development project produces something of value--free or otherwise--I applaud their success and strongly encourage anyone interested to use/purchase/lease/whatever the resulting application(s)/product(s). Pace analysis is an area of considerable opportunity for those willing to bypass the superficial nonsense generally accepted as such. Even modest insights into the realities (as opposed to the theories) can provide a LOT of leverage.

If there is still a need for a FREE software (instructional media training) application to develop pace analysis pattern recognition skills at some later date, I'll be back.

This is why I think Excel would be at least a good starting point if not the most practical and best choice for this project. If you are able to explain the rules of the algorithm I could make an assessment as to the work involved in generating an output.

[Cratos]

This is why I think Excel would be at least a good starting point if not the most practical and best choice for this project. If you are able to explain the rules of the algorithm I could make an assessment as to the work involved in generating an output.
I am on board as a contributor with you, BCourtney,Traynor, others; just tell me how I can contribute without violating any confidential info.

[ebcorde]

Good posting :ThmbUp:


The problems I see with NN are the following:

(1) Its input is not straight forward. For example: You have horses with 1, 2, 3, .. N past performances. How do you handle them? Do you train separate nets for each number of pps? Do you pass all the pps for all horses or every one as an individual?

(2) What your output is supposed to be? For example: You can pass an individual horse and ask for the exact speed figure of the next race, whether it will improve or decline, whether of it is a good bet or not etc.

(3) Since your data are stochastic and contain a lot of contradictions, chances are that your network will never learn beyond a simple approximation of the betting crowd.

You could be right. I think it would take 2 guys and 6-8 months if work full-time just to start. a real job. it was fun.


I was a Sr. developer in Switzerland working with a team of
Swiss co-workers Pd'd. for 1 year transferring technology to the US. In US we were using area under the curve ,triangle math. Eculid stuff . "STUPID AMERICANS" they would laugh.


just guessing off top
a series of small neural FRONT END nets leading to 1 winner-loser net
the front end you can discriminate class, sex, ????. purse. track



input- a team of people to select agree on 300 ideal winning races for the winning horse. per Net

1 small neural nets 2 outputs. WINNER-LOSER

or you can break it up by running style of Horse. lead, presser closer

the middle layer "s" curve figures out the rest

????? its a real job man!!!!!!



and its best to have a second algorithm to test validity. one I used is simple Mahalanobis. M-distance perfect for horses.


I think you can skip NN and just do Mahalanobis why? because we all have our favorite metrics already, and you can do as many Mahalanobis as you want.

iI'll look into it. I feel like doing it.

[ebcorde]

using matlab shows a graph. yikes all that funny looking math, its basic means standard deviation math just looks hard

https://www.mathworks.com/help/stats/mahal.html?requestedDomain=www.mathworks.com (http://www.mathworks.com/help/stats/mahal.html?requestedDomain=www.mathworks.com)


will it help? YES it will verify the soundness of your handicapping.
it's still how good a handicapper you are. Garbage in = Garbage out. lol.

fun stuff though

[traynor]

I think that was is needed is a comprehensive solution instead of specialized software relying on black boxed data as its input.

The pattern recognition (PR) software interacts with several other layers that need to be implemented in advance; the transformation of raw data to metrics must be capable to evolve based on the results of the higher levels of processing. I believe that is a mistake to think of the PR layer as a closed system; instead a constant interaction between the higher and lower components is required and both need to be able to evolve in parallel.

Having said this, it becomes clear that for this project to succeed it must cover the whole spectrum of the necessary operations, including the raw data collection, storage to database, metrics building and finally the AI layer.

As far as distributing this kind of software I think that FreeBSD or MIT are probably the most applicable licences.

I appreciate your comments, but I think that is the wrong direction. It is relatively easy to train a human to recognize useful patterns. BP (and a LOT of others) have developed such training methodologies to high art. Coding a software application to recognize such patterns is possible (if a bit more complex) but I think the effort would be largely wasted. It is similar to developing software to analyze equine "body language" and physical configuration. Possible--but not necessarily useful, in comparison to enabling people to develop their own skills (rather than relying on a software application) to do it for them.

[traynor]

yeah we all use the same data pace, speed. etc.

while I worked developing Neural Nets and a few algorithms This was 15 years. I had about 8 yrs exp Neural Nets embedded in firmware so I had a clue at that.

took 1 week to get it running, about 2 months tweaking. I was a novice Horse player.

what I recall
The best way to utilize a NN is to break the problem up in little chunks. separate NN's. class, surface, etc etc. That's a ton of work. so I stopped
A large NN set will result in poor quality.

I would suggest a Data cloud algorithm of vectors. Each vector a dimension multiple dimensions. Back then I knew that was the way to go But as I was a novice back then I had no clue what metrics to utilize as the right vectors.

The idea would have been projecting the best probability of a winner by the closest proximity to a limited learn M-distance.(adjusted to track,class maybe)

and that is a lot of work too. Obviously You would need a proper set of winning races. and a lot of testing to verify your data set works



.

I suggest shutting off the computer and spending more time at the track, watching races and watching horses, might be more useful.

[traynor]

Good posting :ThmbUp:


The problems I see with NN are the following:

(1) Its input is not straight forward. For example: You have horses with 1, 2, 3, .. N past performances. How do you handle them? Do you train separate nets for each number of pps? Do you pass all the pps for all horses or every one as an individual?

(2) What your output is supposed to be? For example: You can pass an individual horse and ask for the exact speed figure of the next race, whether it will improve or decline, whether of it is a good bet or not etc.

(3) Since your data are stochastic and contain a lot of contradictions, chances are that your network will never learn beyond a simple approximation of the betting crowd.

I agree. I seem to recall you mentioning a somewhat different approach to race analysis from your younger days. It sounded a lot like the way I learned (from "the Argentinians"). The elderly gentleman who taught me the most (who I don't think had ever worked a day in his life, because it would have interfered with his race watching and horse watching activities) was fond of commenting that any man who would bet on a horse he had not been close enough to make a reasoned judgement about its current condition and demeanor was foolish indeed.

In racing, the money is in seeing (knowing, understanding, whatever) stuff the crowd misses--that works to your advantage more than to your disadvantage. Whether that knowledge is gained through data analysis with a computer, or direct observation, is less important than that it is restricted access knowledge. The more bettors that have it (or are able to get it) the less it is worth. Developing one's own skills seems a reasonable approach.

[traynor]

This is why I think Excel would be at least a good starting point if not the most practical and best choice for this project. If you are able to explain the rules of the algorithm I could make an assessment as to the work involved in generating an output.

Exactly like the determination of the value (or lack of value) in any other scenario. Isolate the components that comprise the scenario (how that specific scenario is recognized). Describe it in code. Apply that code to a large number of races, track how often the results (of similar or identical scenarios) are as predicted, and how often not.

[traynor]

using matlab shows a graph. yikes all that funny looking math, its basic means standard deviation math just looks hard

https://www.mathworks.com/help/stats/mahal.html?requestedDomain=www.mathworks.com (http://www.mathworks.com/help/stats/mahal.html?requestedDomain=www.mathworks.com)


will it help? YES it will verify the soundness of your handicapping.
it's still how good a handicapper you are. Garbage in = Garbage out. lol.

fun stuff though

Actually, that looks really useful. Lots of assumptions are made (in race data) that are seriously out of whack, but hidden in impressive-looking stat calculations. One area that this might be immediately useful (to a lot of bettors) is cleaning a list of mutuels for a given scenario to determine which (if any) are outliers. Probably lots of other uses, but that one is immediately apparent.

[traveler]

Pace analysis, speed analysis, whatever. IMHO if you can't throw the favourite or 2nd choice you have no reason to bet. Unless, the favourite is underbet based on your analysis then it may be playable.

You have to toss probably 25% of the probabilities out of the race and you can't do it by saying the 9-1 s/b 12-1 and the 15-1 s/b 20-1. You/I aren't that smart.

You aren't looking for good horses but good bets.

[traynor]

I (mostly) agree. I think the whole mystique of "value betting" is to give an excuse for losing to those who should do more analysis before the race, and make fewer excuses after.

There are a number of (one might even say "many") situations in which favorites and second favorites are some of the best (and most profitable in overall return) bets around.

[JJMartin]

Exactly like the determination of the value (or lack of value) in any other scenario. Isolate the components that comprise the scenario (how that specific scenario is recognized). Describe it in code. Apply that code to a large number of races, track how often the results (of similar or identical scenarios) are as predicted, and how often not.
Right, but more specifically, what does your code look like and what does it do? The code you speak of in the first post.

[Cratos]

Exactly like the determination of the value (or lack of value) in any other scenario. Isolate the components that comprise the scenario (how that specific scenario is recognized). Describe it in code. Apply that code to a large number of races, track how often the results (of similar or identical scenarios) are as predicted, and how often not.
Do you think “decision-tree” analysis would be appropriate for this action?

[traveler]

"I (mostly) agree. I think the whole mystique of "value betting" is to give an excuse for losing to those who should do more analysis before the race, and make fewer excuses after.

There are a number of (one might even say "many") situations in which favorites and second favorites are some of the best (and most profitable in overall return) bets around."

Absolutely. In fact, that's why I think every race needs to be looked at starting with the 1st, 2nd choices. You need to see if they are the "best" horses in the race and worth a bet.

The 30-1 shots are probably never really the best horse in the race on analysis. Oh you may justify it in your mind if you win but they more likely can be a good bet "only" if the 1st, 2nd choices don't measure up.

[traynor]

Great things found (serendipitously) while looking for useful stuff on the internet (that may provide a moment of amusement in an otherwise serious day):

"Modern neural network projects typically work with a few thousand to a few million neural units and millions of connections, which is still several orders of magnitude less complex than the human brain and closer to the computing power of a worm."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network

[traynor]

"I (mostly) agree. I think the whole mystique of "value betting" is to give an excuse for losing to those who should do more analysis before the race, and make fewer excuses after.

There are a number of (one might even say "many") situations in which favorites and second favorites are some of the best (and most profitable in overall return) bets around."

Absolutely. In fact, that's why I think every race needs to be looked at starting with the 1st, 2nd choices. You need to see if they are the "best" horses in the race and worth a bet.

The 30-1 shots are probably never really the best horse in the race on analysis. Oh you may justify it in your mind if you win but they more likely can be a good bet "only" if the 1st, 2nd choices don't measure up.

If you use data modeling apps (or do the same thing without a computer), the probabilities of horse A winning, given the attributes and probabilities of horses B, C, D, E, F, G etc. in that specific race should be known. If not, it is still a LOT of guesswork that may or may not work out to one's advantage--or seem to for some short period of time.

The upside of data modeling is that one can look at stuff other than the same stuff everyone else is looking at. That less-obvious stuff may in fact occasionally put one on longer priced horses--not because they seem to be the best horses in the race--but rather because the combination of the attributes and probabilities of the entries in this specific race, with this specific combination of entries, favors that horse's particular set of attributes and probabilities.

Which is a rather long and convoluted way of agreeing with what you wrote above: "they more likely can be a good bet "only" if the 1st, 2nd choices don't measure up."

[traynor]

I did not mean my previous post to be dismissive of neural networks. Only to indicate an artful collection of terms used to compare and contrast that I found amusing. I am actually up to my ears in deep learning, after deciding that, as interesting as Microsoft's nlp research and activities may be (among others), I don't think F# is what I want to do. Nice little language, nice conceptual front, nice tools to work with it, but I think I am going in a different direction.

[traynor]

Do you think “decision-tree” analysis would be appropriate for this action?

I think the most important step is to explicitly define what one is looking for. "Isolate the components that comprise the scenario (how that specific scenario is recognized)." Starting off on neural networks and various other fishing expeditions is not really useful until one knows clearly what one is looking for. The alternative, "I don't have a clue what I am looking for, or what it would look like if I found it, but I am going to program this elephant gun software app to not only tell me what I am looking for, but tell me how to find it, tell me what it should look like when and if it is found, and then tell me what (if anything) I should do with it." Sounds very much like another day in the everyday life of business analysts.

If the topic is pace analysis, it should be simple: Define a, b, c, etc. pace scenarios. Using the "accepted wisdom of the pace handicapping gurus/wannabegurus/and flatoutpretenders" is a good starting point. Define it in code. Apply that code to a large number of races to determine how often the result coincides with the prediction. Rinse and repeat.

You may be familiar with Karl Weick's "sensemaking:
"In organization studies, the concept of sensemaking was first used to focus attention on the largely cognitive activity of framing experienced situations as meaningful. It is a collaborative process of creating shared awareness and understanding out of different individuals' perspectives and varied interests. The work of Karl E. Weick in particular has dealt with sensemaking in organizations, providing insight into factors that surface as organizations address either uncertain or ambiguous situations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensemaking

The processes used in organizational communication (and management) processes might be a better starting point than jumping into the neural network programming. A fringe benefit of Weick's approach is that it makes creation of (and implementation of) a Delphi decision model simple.

Decision trees are useful, if used at the right times (which may even be in the absolute beginning, as a brainstorming tool--similar to what we called "fish-bone analysis" in college).

[JJMartin]

If the topic is pace analysis, it should be simple: Define a, b, c, etc. pace scenarios. Using the "accepted wisdom of the pace handicapping gurus/wannabegurus/and flatoutpretenders" is a good starting point. Define it in code. Apply that code to a large number of races to determine how often the result coincides with the prediction. Rinse and repeat.


In Excel ,once the rules are determined, I could literally do that in under 30 minutes, maybe even just 5 minutes (the code part). The running through the database would take less time. I say this only because I already have all the supporting infrastructure in place to code and run any UDM imaginable that derives every reference from the pp data files.
This allows for easy adjustments, or modifications when any alternate but related concept should be tested or something completely different. One caveat is that not every column is in every database or it would be too large and bog down so I have to be selective with the columns I do include.

[traynor]

In Excel ,once the rules are determined, I could literally do that in under 30 minutes, maybe even just 5 minutes (the code part). The running through the database would take less time. I say this only because I already have all the supporting infrastructure in place to code and run any UDM imaginable that derives every reference from the pp data files.
This allows for easy adjustments, or modifications when any alternate but related concept should be tested or something completely different. One caveat is that not every column is in every database or it would be too large and bog down so I have to be selective with the columns I do include.

There is an abundance of material from those who assume the mantel of expertise in "pace analysis" advising others how to recognize (and utilize) "pace" as a factor in pre-race analysis. Reducing that advice to a fairly simple set of rules that can be applied to races other than the "examples" should be easy. (Or, more precisely, is easy. Been there. Done that.)

Specifically, the indicators that such and such a horse is "early speed" or whatever other designation, and how that will affect the "pace" in a given race. I caution you to be aware of disillusion as a possible side-effect of such analysis. How "pace analysis" worked (in theory at least) in some example race is almost irrelevant in comparison to how that same analysis works when the same criteria are applied to other (essentially similar) scenarios in other races.

One should always be wary of the tendency of others to extrapolate from micro to macro--as if their particular little sliver of reality has exposed Great Truths that can be universally applied with similar results. The "small sample" syndrome on steroids.

[JJMartin]

There is an abundance of material from those who assume the mantel of expertise in "pace analysis" advising others how to recognize (and utilize) "pace" as a factor in pre-race analysis. Reducing that advice to a fairly simple set of rules that can be applied to races other than the "examples" should be easy. (Or, more precisely, is easy. Been there. Done that.)

Specifically, the indicators that such and such a horse is "early speed" or whatever other designation, and how that will affect the "pace" in a given race. I caution you to be aware of disillusion as a possible side-effect of such analysis. How "pace analysis" worked (in theory at least) in some example race is almost irrelevant in comparison to how that same analysis works when the same criteria are applied to other (essentially similar) scenarios in other races.

This is an area that I haven't done an extensive amount of work in but am still interested in pursuing but I am well aware of what you mean. In the dabbling I've done so far, I have not been able to identify anything substantially predictive that could be applied universally. The pace scenarios that have been observed (by everyone in general) and that could develop based on any theory are probably too dynamic to expect the discovery of any metric that could deliver any real consistency. Perhaps I am being too demanding but the ability to accurately predict all the runner's positions at 2nd call is at minimum what I am looking for. I am getting pretty close at identifying the leader at the Stretch with regularity, about 27% so far but in a process not wholly related to pace or running style, but I digress, I am curious to see what we find with this collaboration.

[traynor]

This is an area that I haven't done an extensive amount of work in but am still interested in pursuing but I am well aware of what you mean. In the dabbling I've done so far, I have not been able to identify anything substantially predictive that could be applied universally. The pace scenarios that have been observed (by everyone in general) and that could develop based on any theory are probably too dynamic to expect the discovery of any metric that could deliver any real consistency. Perhaps I am being too demanding but the ability to accurately predict all the runner's positions at 2nd call is at minimum what I am looking for. I am getting pretty close at identifying the leader at the Stretch with regularity, about 27% so far but in a process not wholly related to pace or running style, but I digress, I am curious to see what we find with this collaboration.

If races are too dynamic to be analyzed with some consistent approach, what--exactly--is it that the "pace analysts" are doing? Specifically, applying a set of criteria to a specific race implies there exists some set of criteria (of which this specific race is an example of the type of race in which that specific set of criteria should be applied) and the pace analyst "knows" when and when not to apply that set of criteria. "Knowing" (before the race) implies--again--that the pace analyst has yet another set of specific criteria that tells him or her when that specific set of "rules" should and should not be applied. That is where the rubber doesn't even come close to meeting the road.

Making up a new set of rules for each race is more on the side of wishin' and hopin' than on the side of pace analysis. I think the official designation is "scrambling." Great when it works (or at least seems to work) but not so good in the (many more frequent) situations in which it doesn't.

[Cratos]

If races are too dynamic to be analyzed with some consistent approach, what--exactly--is it that the "pace analysts" are doing? Specifically, applying a set of criteria to a specific race implies there exists some set of criteria (of which this specific race is an example of the type of race in which that specific set of criteria should be applied) and the pace analyst "knows" when and when not to apply that set of criteria. "Knowing" (before the race) implies--again--that the pace analyst has yet another set of specific criteria that tells him or her when that specific set of "rules" should and should not be applied. That is where the rubber doesn't even come close to meeting the road.

Making up a new set of rules for each race is more on the side of wishin' and hopin' than on the side of pace analysis. I think the official designation is "scrambling." Great when it works (or at least seems to work) but not so good in the (many more frequent) situations in which it doesn't.
I believe that to understand the “what”, you must first understand the “why”. Another way of saying this and relating it to pace analysis in horseracing is to define “pace” and understand why “what” forces enhanced or retarded a horse’s pace during the race because a horserace is no more than a set of objects in motion moving through space with different constraints.

Therefore, to answer your question: “What--exactly--is it that the "pace analysts" are doing?”; they are attempting to quantitate the constraints and hopefully we can put together a software program that can expeditiously evaluate these constraints and quantitate them better by identifying their impact on each horse’s motion in the race and how the horse’s final time was affected.

If the SW pace analysis work as planned, we then can have win probabilities assigned with respect to the horse’s projected pace.

[thaskalos]

If races are too dynamic to be analyzed with some consistent approach, what--exactly--is it that the "pace analysts" are doing?


I don't pretend to know what other pace handicappers are doing...but I'll gladly tell you what I try to do:

I don't place much credence on the prowess of "pace analysis" to predict the running positions of the horses during the race...nor do I believe that these horses have predetermined running styles which neatly fit the precise categories that the pace handicappers assign them to. IMO...the much-discussed "need-the-lead horses" are exceedingly rare...and the vast majority of the speed horses are easily capable of coming from a few lengths back to win...if given a competent ride.

Instead of embracing pace handicapping for its "predictive" value...I use it in order to better understand the races that these horses have already RUN.

Handicappers talk of "track biases"...where racing over particular parts of the racing strip favors certain runners, while the horses that run over the rest of the racing surface operate at a decided disadvantage. Well...there are "pace biases" in some races as well, where the "pace dynamics" which unfold during the running of the race improve the chances of certain horses...while hampering the chances of other horses in the same race. By studying the pace characteristics of the races already run...I am able to make a more precise determination of the effort that the horses put forth in those races...seeking to gain an information advantage over those bettors who are more "hasty" in their determination of the horses' apparent form.

Of course...I operate under no assurance that my "preferred horse" will find itself in alignment with the pace dynamics of TODAY'S race...just as the replay-watcher who has spotted an obscure development which hindered the trip of a particular horse in its last race is not assured that this horse will not get a bad trip in TODAY'S race as well. This is still "gambling"...and the chaos factor is high. IMO...the most the bettor can do is properly align himself against the odds...and then, roll the dice.

[JJMartin]

Just some observations. It seems the first half of the race is a lot more predictable than the 2nd half. Races with more than one E horse will have the E horse with the fastest average 1st call leading most of the time. A race with just 1 E whose average position at 1st call is higher than the average for the P's and S's still lead for a while and then tire. A slower average turn time than the rest of the field will generally kill the leader regardless of it's running style when entering the stretch. If anyone is interested I could post some race figures from past races that include average times for each horse at calls or just their last race or whatever you guys want but not their positions or names. Then we can discuss reasons for how the race should unfold.

[traynor]

I don't pretend to know what other pace handicappers are doing...but I'll gladly tell you what I try to do:

I don't place much credence on the prowess of "pace analysis" to predict the running positions of the horses during the race...nor do I believe that these horses have predetermined running styles which neatly fit the precise categories that the pace handicappers assign them to. IMO...the much-discussed "need-the-lead horses" are exceedingly rare...and the vast majority of the speed horses are easily capable of coming from a few lengths back to win...if given a competent ride.

I VERY much agree. Much of the "accepted wisdom" in pace handicapping is essentially nonsense. The underlying conceptual flaws (and misdirection) are "overlooked" in exchange for massaged numbers that "seem to make sense" but are little more than pointless abstractions (massaged from) yet other abstractions (the PP or other numerical representations of real-world events) that imperfectly attempt to describe "what actually happened" (the race).


Instead of embracing pace handicapping for its "predictive" value...I use it in order to better understand the races that these horses have already RUN.

Handicappers talk of "track biases"...where racing over particular parts of the racing strip favors certain runners, while the horses that run over the rest of the racing surface operate at a decided disadvantage. Well...there are "pace biases" in some races as well, where the "pace dynamics" which unfold during the running of the race improve the chances of certain horses...while hampering the chances of other horses in the same race. By studying the pace characteristics of the races already run...I am able to make a more precise determination of the effort that the horses put forth in those races...seeking to gain an information advantage over those bettors who are more "hasty" in their determination of the horses' apparent form.

That seems useful, with the caveat that bettors would do well to understand that most races are not comprised of horses all making maximum efforts to win that particular race. Your comments elsewhere on "form cycles" could usefully be applied here, as well.

Of course...I operate under no assurance that my "preferred horse" will find itself in alignment with the pace dynamics of TODAY'S race...just as the replay-watcher who has spotted an obscure development which hindered the trip of a particular horse in its last race is not assured that this horse will not get a bad trip in TODAY'S race as well. This is still "gambling"...and the chaos factor is high. IMO...the most the bettor can do is properly align himself against the odds...and then, roll the dice.

The pace dynamics of today's race can be predicted, to a certain extent, but not with most of the "accepted wisdom" in regard to pace analysis and the use of such analysis in predicting the probable effect--if any--of the specific combination of possible pace scenarios in this specific race, today.

[traynor]

I believe that to understand the “what”, you must first understand the “why”. Another way of saying this and relating it to pace analysis in horseracing is to define “pace” and understand why “what” forces enhanced or retarded a horse’s pace during the race because a horserace is no more than a set of objects in motion moving through space with different constraints.

Therefore, to answer your question: “What--exactly--is it that the "pace analysts" are doing?”; they are attempting to quantitate the constraints and hopefully we can put together a software program that can expeditiously evaluate these constraints and quantitate them better by identifying their impact on each horse’s motion in the race and how the horse’s final time was affected.

If the SW pace analysis work as planned, we then can have win probabilities assigned with respect to the horse’s projected pace.

What you suggest could be an important consideration, (mainly overlooked or ignored), that amounts to a confounding variable. An understanding of, and correct application of, that variable may improve the quality of the past race in predicting the possible or probable outcomes of subsequent races. I don't know--I have not studied it.

[traynor]

Just some observations. It seems the first half of the race is a lot more predictable than the 2nd half. Races with more than one E horse will have the E horse with the fastest average 1st call leading most of the time. A race with just 1 E whose average position at 1st call is higher than the average for the P's and S's still lead for a while and then tire. A slower average turn time than the rest of the field will generally kill the leader regardless of it's running style when entering the stretch. If anyone is interested I could post some race figures from past races that include average times for each horse at calls or just their last race or whatever you guys want but not their positions or names. Then we can discuss reasons for how the race should unfold.

That could be interesting. How are your values derived? Meaning, are they simply arithmetical averages of a set of values, or have they been scrubbed in any way?

[JJMartin]

That could be interesting. How are your values derived? Meaning, are they simply arithmetical averages of a set of values, or have they been scrubbed in any way?

For the 1st call times, all horses not leading:
Leader's time + (lengths back x 0.2)
That is to say every length back equals 1/5th of a second (standard I think).
Example:
1st call leader time (24.09) - another horse is back 4 lengths (24.09) + (4 x 0.2) = 24.89

The above would be calculated for each previous race then we take the average of whatever amount of races back regardless of surface, distance etc.

So this horse above has 24.89 for his last race, the next 2 races back were 24.5 and 24.75. The average would be 24.71.

Say we post a race with all the horse's 1st call and 2nd call times, turn time, their running style designations and average positions at calls for 6f dirt fast.

[traynor]

For the 1st call times, all horses not leading:
Leader's time + (lengths back x 0.2)
That is to say every length back equals 1/5th of a second (standard I think).
Example:
1st call leader time (24.09) - another horse is back 4 lengths (24.09) + (4 x 0.2) = 24.89

The above would be calculated for each previous race then we take the average of whatever amount of races back regardless of surface, distance etc.

So this horse above has 24.89 for his last race, the next 2 races back were 24.5 and 24.75. The average would be 24.71.

Say we post a race with all the horse's 1st call and 2nd call times, turn time, their running style designations and average positions at calls for 6f dirt fast.


Rule One of business analysis: Ask, "Does this stuff actually mean what I/we/they think it means?

Have you applied the concept of averages as indicated above as predictors in a (relatively) large number of races, to determine how often those averages are representative of future performance? And how are running style designations made?

There are a number of very serious people analyzing races with some very sophisticated processes who would argue that the use of averages has more to do with the ease of their creation with a software app than of their actual value. Not just internal times, but everything from "track variants" to "track profiles" to "running styles" to probable mutuels. I defer to their (considerably more advanced than my own) knowledge and expertise, and use averages as little as possible (in my own apps and race analysis), and then only with a great deal of skepticism.

[Cratos]

For the 1st call times, all horses not leading:
Leader's time + (lengths back x 0.2)
That is to say every length back equals 1/5th of a second (standard I think).
Example:
1st call leader time (24.09) - another horse is back 4 lengths (24.09) + (4 x 0.2) = 24.89

The above would be calculated for each previous race then we take the average of whatever amount of races back regardless of surface, distance etc.

So this horse above has 24.89 for his last race, the next 2 races back were 24.5 and 24.75. The average would be 24.71.

Say we post a race with all the horse's 1st call and 2nd call times, turn time, their running style designations and average positions at calls for 6f dirt fast.
I would find that calculation suspect and I would be cautious in using it because the chart/race caller is using an estimated “horse length” as a distance reference and that metric is not equivalent to 1/5 second; it is about .148 seconds.

[JJMartin]

I would find that calculation suspect and I would be cautious in using it because the chart/race caller is using an estimated “horse length” as a distance reference and that metric is not equivalent to 1/5 second; it is about .148 seconds.

We could use .148, whatever you want.

[JJMartin]

Rule One of business analysis: Ask, "Does this stuff actually mean what I/we/they think it means?

Have you applied the concept of averages as indicated above as predictors in a (relatively) large number of races, to determine how often those averages are representative of future performance? And how are running style designations made?

There are a number of very serious people analyzing races with some very sophisticated processes who would argue that the use of averages has more to do with the ease of their creation with a software app than of their actual value. Not just internal times, but everything from "track variants" to "track profiles" to "running styles" to probable mutuels. I defer to their (considerably more advanced than my own) knowledge and expertise, and use averages as little as possible (in my own apps and race analysis), and then only with a great deal of skepticism.
I don't disagree, and I really don't use pace analysis in my methodology that is why I am interested in what we could come up with here. I find that the average positions at 1st call especially when the average is 1 is more predictive than the average times. I don't have any hard numbers but I could generate some later.

[JJMartin]

Rule One of business analysis: Ask, "Does this stuff actually mean what I/we/they think it means?

Have you applied the concept of averages as indicated above as predictors in a (relatively) large number of races, to determine how often those averages are representative of future performance? And how are running style designations made?

There are a number of very serious people analyzing races with some very sophisticated processes who would argue that the use of averages has more to do with the ease of their creation with a software app than of their actual value. Not just internal times, but everything from "track variants" to "track profiles" to "running styles" to probable mutuels. I defer to their (considerably more advanced than my own) knowledge and expertise, and use averages as little as possible (in my own apps and race analysis), and then only with a great deal of skepticism.

With the degree of variables involved, I supposed we have to start off as general as possible and let the process evolve until we get a better picture. Constantly adjusting and modifying as we learn what works and what doesn't. It is no easy task of course. We need as many perspectives as possible. This may take a long time.

[traynor]

With the degree of variables involved, I supposed we have to start off as general as possible and let the process evolve until we get a better picture. Constantly adjusting and modifying as we learn what works and what doesn't. It is no easy task of course. We need as many perspectives as possible. This may take a long time.

I cringe whenever I read the admonition that a user has to "learn to interpret the readout" of a software application. In general, that is a good indication that the developer needs to do a LOT more work on that application. Bluntly, if subjective "interpretation" of the output is needed, why would I need the software at all? Why wouldn't I bypass the software completely, and go straight for the "pattern recognition" skill of interpreting the primary data used as input for the software? Especially for horse racing, in which data is essentially in an information silo that is accessed similarly by whoever accesses it, and exists (in it's "original" form) the same way for whoever accesses it?

The "data" in the information silo is already a second-hand abstraction. The best way to understand pace is also the easiest. Watch a lot of races. And pay attention to what is going on, not whether the horse(s) you bet on is/are doing or not doing what you expected it/them to do. There are a large number of fairly serious bettors in places outside the US and Canada who seem to do quite well wagering without agonizing over the possible meaning (or lack of meaning) of the numbers used to describe the "internal fractions" of a race. And even less over the "interpretation" of those numbers after a software application has massaged them and displayed them in a (slightly) different format.

It can be fairly easily established that the various "pace scenarios" accepted as "common knowledge" are not particularly useful in profitably predicting race outcomes. It is WAY more difficult to establish that "pace analysis"--as generally accepted and generally defined--has real value beyond that which may exist in the eye of the beholder. Possibly more interesting than crossword puzzles or jigsaw puzzles, but not much more profitable.

[JJMartin]

I am currently running a macro with the following parameters:

Average position at 1st call for the horse that has a number 1 rank in the field with at least 3 prior races for the year only (not life). The other ranked horses may not have at least 3 prior races.
Today's race and at least the last race are both dirt (so some races that comprise the average beyond the first race back may not be dirt)
Any distance, any track, any running style.
All tie races are thrown out (only 1 horse can be rank #1).
After 3500 races so far the percentage of #1 ranked horses that were leading at 1st call is 42%.

If this is confusing, I can break it down.

[JJMartin]

I am now running the same macro with the same parameters except with running style designation "E" only (as stated by the data provider).

[JJMartin]

I am now running the same macro with the same parameters except with running style designation "E" only (as stated by the data provider).

After 1200 races the result was 51%.

[traynor]

Of the top ranked horses that were leading at the first call, how many went on to win? You might also consider breaking it down by distance (at least routes/sprints) and surface.

One of the problems encountered in using all races, all track, all whatever is that the distinctions (if any) tend to get buried in the generalizations. That is, lumping a six furlong dirt at TuP with a turf route at almost any eastern track will generate little more than "semantic noise."

The important value (in the case you cited) is the relationship between the percentage of number leading and the percentage of the number that won those particular races. Similarly, what percentage of top ranks won that were NOT leading at the first call?

[traveler]

Maybe you addressed this before, but running analysis on tracks you won't be able to bet will many times lead you down false avenues. If you are running studies on BEL and you'll never bet on BEL you may be getting over/under inflated stats(if that makes sense). The problem with any DB handicapping is finding enough like races to have any confidence in your results.

At a minimum you need to segregate spr/rtes, male/female, size of tracks, etc. - see how your sample size can erode in a hurry????

BTW, SPD Pts. are still useful.

[traynor]

Maybe you addressed this before, but running analysis on tracks you won't be able to bet will many times lead you down false avenues. If you are running studies on BEL and you'll never bet on BEL you may be getting over/under inflated stats(if that makes sense). The problem with any DB handicapping is finding enough like races to have any confidence in your results.

At a minimum you need to segregate spr/rtes, male/female, size of tracks, etc. - see how your sample size can erode in a hurry????

BTW, SPD Pts. are still useful.

Good suggestions.

[ReplayRandall]

After 1200 races the result was 51%.

Now run what would be the average odds of those horses, see what you find......Next, run odds layering and see what zones are profitable.

[ultracapper]

Rule One of business analysis: Ask, "Does this stuff actually mean what I/we/they think it means?

Have you applied the concept of averages as indicated above as predictors in a (relatively) large number of races, to determine how often those averages are representative of future performance? And how are running style designations made?

There are a number of very serious people analyzing races with some very sophisticated processes who would argue that the use of averages has more to do with the ease of their creation with a software app than of their actual value. Not just internal times, but everything from "track variants" to "track profiles" to "running styles" to probable mutuels. I defer to their (considerably more advanced than my own) knowledge and expertise, and use averages as little as possible (in my own apps and race analysis), and then only with a great deal of skepticism.

I think this can be said for a great deal of handicapping efforts.

[Cratos]

Maybe you addressed this before, but running analysis on tracks you won't be able to bet will many times lead you down false avenues. If you are running studies on BEL and you'll never bet on BEL you may be getting over/under inflated stats(if that makes sense). The problem with any DB handicapping is finding enough like races to have any confidence in your results.

At a minimum you need to segregate spr/rtes, male/female, size of tracks, etc. - see how your sample size can erode in a hurry????

BTW, SPD Pts. are still useful.
IMHO, if we are truly speaking of NPD/NPI of a SW product, our Pace Analysis SW should be for all racetracks in North America.

Pace (the horse’s rate of motion), is a function of the following constraints: horse’s acceleration ability, the environment where the race is run, and track geometry.

Therefore, we should validate those constraints by the gathering of empirical data to establish documented evidence which will provides a high degree of assurance that our specific SW will consistently produce results meeting our predetermined specifications and quality attributes.

And once we reach the completion stage we should conduct verification testing of the SW through objective, comprehensive testing to verify all our SW specifications, interface standards, requirements, and diagnostic commands.

I realize that this might seem like an arduous task to some, but I believe the payoff will be greater than the effort.

[traynor]

I think this can be said for a great deal of handicapping efforts.

Yes. It is a basic drive to create the illusion of control by "explaining reality" through a specific (and generally oversimplistic) set of perceptual filters. Basic human nature, as pervasive in horse race analysis as elsewhere. The "handicapper" and his computer (or simplistic system, method, or whatever) is the equivalent of the carpenter and his new hammer. To the "pace handicapper" every race looks like validation of his or here underlying beliefs about the "importance" of pace.

An interesting old book (free pdf online) is worth a look. "How to Lie With Statistics." Basically, an explanation that involves numbers like "56.37 fps" is much more readily accepted (uncritically, without question, and without regard for its accuracy or significance) than a numerical label with fewer digits.

[traynor]

IMHO, if we are truly speaking of NPD/NPI of a SW product, our Pace Analysis SW should be for all racetracks in North America.

Pace (the horse’s rate of motion), is a function of the following constraints: horse’s acceleration ability, the environment where the race is run, and track geometry.

Therefore, we should validate those constraints by the gathering of empirical data to establish documented evidence which will provides a high degree of assurance that our specific SW will consistently produce results meeting our predetermined specifications and quality attributes.

And once we reach the completion stage we should conduct verification testing of the SW through objective, comprehensive testing to verify all our SW specifications, interface standards, requirements, and diagnostic commands.

I realize that this might seem like an arduous task to some, but I believe the payoff will be greater than the effort.

I look forward to seeing the end result of your endeavor and efforts.

[traveler]

IMHO, if we are truly speaking of NPD/NPI of a SW product, our Pace Analysis SW should be for all racetracks in North America.

Pace (the horse’s rate of motion), is a function of the following constraints: horse’s acceleration ability, the environment where the race is run, and track geometry.

Therefore, we should validate those constraints by the gathering of empirical data to establish documented evidence which will provides a high degree of assurance that our specific SW will consistently produce results meeting our predetermined specifications and quality attributes.

And once we reach the completion stage we should conduct verification testing of the SW through objective, comprehensive testing to verify all our SW specifications, interface standards, requirements, and diagnostic commands.

I realize that this might seem like an arduous task to some, but I believe the payoff will be greater than the effort.
I'd agree that the software needs to handle all tracks - pretty obvious. John Meyer said it best years ago that Pace Analysis beats Pace Numbers.

Pace can be analyzed from the start to end of race, 0-Fin in Meyer speak - really just a fancy speed rating. From the start to any other point in the race or for any segment of the race. When you start combining segments, dividing them etc., like Sartins Sustained Pace etc.they really aren't pace numbers but artificial ratings. Not saying they don't have value.

I haven't made a bet in years and have no interest in participating in this endeavour, just find it a bit interesting.

[traynor]

There is a deep and fundamental dichotomy between what most handicappers consider to be "pace analysis" and what I consider to be "pace analysis." Unfortunately, that gap seems to be widening, rather than narrowing.

In order to "explain" the conceptual underpinnings of why I think as I do about pace (and details of the research that preceded and followed that change in thinking), it would require a flood of words equivalent to a book. Even then, I think most would be reluctant to abandon the concepts they have used (and believed in) for years, however dismal the real-world result of that use and belief. Apparently, the pace analysis you know is better than the pace analysis you don't.

The pace analysis approach I (and a number of others) use is so different from what most consider pace analysis to be that it requires a fundamental paradigm shift in how the data is analyzed, validated, and used. That is not to say the way I/we do it is so much more complex than how most everyone else does it. Just different.

I think the easiest way to present the material is all at once, instead of in dribbles. That way, no one can rush to market with his or her spiffy new software app that embeds the processes because it will be--as I stated in the first post as my intent--free to everyone.

Documenting all that is going to take some time, and that is something I find in short supply (mostly because I am migrating all my VB.NET apps to Java and Scala, and substantially re-designing and optimizing the components before migrating them).

[JJMartin]

There is a deep and fundamental dichotomy between what most handicappers consider to be "pace analysis" and what I consider to be "pace analysis." Unfortunately, that gap seems to be widening, rather than narrowing.

In order to "explain" the conceptual underpinnings of why I think as I do about pace (and details of the research that preceded and followed that change in thinking), it would require a flood of words equivalent to a book. Even then, I think most would be reluctant to abandon the concepts they have used (and believed in) for years, however dismal the real-world result of that use and belief. Apparently, the pace analysis you know is better than the pace analysis you don't.

The pace analysis approach I (and a number of others) use is so different from what most consider pace analysis to be that it requires a fundamental paradigm shift in how the data is analyzed, validated, and used. That is not to say the way I/we do it is so much more complex than how most everyone else does it. Just different.

I think the easiest way to present the material is all at once, instead of in dribbles. That way, no one can rush to market with his or her spiffy new software app that embeds the processes because it will be--as I stated in the first post as my intent--free to everyone.

Documenting all that is going to take some time, and that is something I find in short supply (mostly because I am migrating all my VB.NET apps to Java and Scala, and substantially re-designing and optimizing the components before migrating them).
Can you provide a general explanation of your approach?

[JJMartin]

Leader at 1st call based on the following conditions:
#1 Rank (no ties) for Avg position (lowest), based on last 3 (minimum) consecutive races+
Tested against "today's race" (any race type except Maiden)
Today's surface: Dirt
Distance - no preference
Running Style "E" only

All other runners must have at least 1 record for ranking
Ascending from Jan-Dec.


HITS 1320 ALL 2600 % 0.507686 AVG Pos 2.095


All the conditions above in addition to #1 rank for turn time (no ties):


HITS 518 ALL 869 % 0.596087 AVG Pos 1.83


The percentage gained slightly towards then end of the year (2014).

[Cratos]

I look forward to seeing the end result of your endeavor and efforts.
I hope that I will have the opportunity to contribute here, but so far the posts that I have read, have focused on the “effect” of pace and only periphery on the “cause.”

I am an “algorithmist”; I try to understand “cause” first and then apply a hypothesis to see if “what” happened is understood/explained by an algorithm.

I don’t know of any predictive application(s) that didn’t first have a “predictive curve” as it its foundation.

[traynor]

Can you provide a general explanation of your approach?
Find a sample race in which you believe the outcome to be strongly influenced (or even dictated by) the "pace of the race." Write a code block of sufficient detail to locate similar/identical/nearly identical scenarios in other races. Parse a large number of races to test your assumption(s). Rinse and repeat. Meaning, if it works, dig deeper. If it doesn't, keep looking.

Pretty simple stuff. Not rocket science. In short, the complete opposite of the neural network/AI/machine learning approach of a grand fishing expedition looking for things that are mainly smoke and mirrors.

[ReplayRandall]

Find a sample race in which you believe the outcome to be strongly influenced (or even dictated by) the "pace of the race." Write a code block of sufficient detail to locate similar/identical/nearly identical scenarios in other races. Parse a large number of races to test your assumption(s). Rinse and repeat. Meaning, if it works, dig deeper. If it doesn't, keep looking.

Pretty simple stuff. Not rocket science. In short, the complete opposite of the neural network/AI/machine learning approach of a grand fishing expedition looking for things that are mainly smoke and mirrors.
You could have just said, "Look for pattern recognition" and be done with any further explanation......If anyone is going to continue reading this thread, you must come up with out-of-the-box concepts that others will engage with. Are you willing to do that, or are you waiting on others to step forward?.....If so, it's not going to happen.

[JJMartin]

I hope that I will have the opportunity to contribute here, but so far the posts that I have read, have focused on the “effect” of pace and only periphery on the “cause.”

I am an “algorithmist”; I try to understand “cause” first and then apply a hypothesis to see if “what” happened is understood/explained by an algorithm.

I don’t know of any predictive application(s) that didn’t first have a “predictive curve” as it its foundation.

How do you first come to an understanding of cause?
I am in agreement with that school of thought. I am thinking that this may require multiple programs or multiple stages of algorithms to produce the most comprehensive result. I believe I have demonstrated with the use of an algorithm, an example of where to start (possibly) when trying to piece together an accurate picture of the configuration at 1st call. First I laid the ground work by setting some conditions that I felt would be sufficiently supportive to accuracy in the general sense (for example using a minimum of 3 back races) then I applied the "E" horse as the test subject.
Why start with the "E" horse? Because based on empirical evidence/experience, they tend to set the rate of pace and as indicated by the percentages above, do in fact lead most of the time in the beginning stages of a race. Now that the test was run, we see how the data backs the notion. So perhaps one of the components of this project going forward could be a think-tank of proposed ideas based on theory or thought experiment that could be assessed and tested when it merits some degree of plausibility.

[JJMartin]

You could have just said, "Look for pattern recognition" and be done with any further explanation......If anyone is going to continue reading this thread, you must come up with out-of-the-box concepts that others will engage with. Are you willing to do that, or are you waiting on others to step forward?.....If so, it's not going to happen.
Pattern recognition can be a crap shoot. I have done hundreds of tests on that over years and I still do. But what about a different approach; test on assumption based on some line of reasoning?

[ReplayRandall]

Why start with the "E" horse? Because based on empirical evidence/experience, they tend to set the rate of pace and as indicated by the percentages above, do in fact lead most of the time in the beginning stages of a race. Now that the test was run, we see how the data backs the notion. So perhaps one of the components of this project going forward could be a think-tank of proposed ideas based on theory or thought experiment that could be assessed and tested when it merits some degree of plausibility.
How simple is a horse race? The horses break out of the starting gate, with a horse in front, the rest of the race is seeing who will catch and pass that leader, without being passed by others before the finish line.....Who has the best chance to do this?----->At the 2nd call, any horse who is less than 8 lengths back, and has shown the ability to close at least 2 lengths at the wire in one of it's last two races, from the 2nd call, are the horses to focus on......

[traynor]

You could have just said, "Look for pattern recognition" and be done with any further explanation......If anyone is going to continue reading this thread, you must come up with out-of-the-box concepts that others will engage with. Are you willing to do that, or are you waiting on others to step forward?.....If so, it's not going to happen.

Initial post:
"Anyone interested in developing/working on developing/testing/contributing (time and effort--not money) to a collaborative pace analysis software app (FREE to anyone who wants it, even to clone/copy/steal it, otherwise known as "open source") intended to develop/increase/sharpen the user's pace analysis skills?

NOT a "horse picker" app. An app (or addition to/component of/module of an existing or other app) that creates a deeper level of understanding of pace (and how it affects race outcomes) than (whatever else is available). Something that a new or novice user can "fiddle with" for a relatively short period of time and gain insights into pace analysis that many experienced/"expert"/hardcore pace analysts lack."

I think I made it quite clear from the start that my interest/intent was an app to facilitate/train "pattern recognition" skills related to pace analysis and it's possible/probable/suspected influence on the outcome of future races. That interest/intent has been essentially dusted in favor of searching for minor tweaks to the same old same old--to find validation and support for existing beliefs and assumptions, rather than discovering something that might actually work in the real world, and not just in theory and in retrospect.

[Cratos]

I'd agree that the software needs to handle all tracks - pretty obvious. John Meyer said it best years ago that Pace Analysis beats Pace Numbers.

Pace can be analyzed from the start to end of race, 0-Fin in Meyer speak - really just a fancy speed rating. From the start to any other point in the race or for any segment of the race. When you start combining segments, dividing them etc., like Sartins Sustained Pace etc.they really aren't pace numbers but artificial ratings. Not saying they don't have value.

I haven't made a bet in years and have no interest in participating in this endeavour, just find it a bit interesting.
I believe in the construction of a solid predictive pace curve for determining horserace predictive pace handicapping; math and science are the infallible “tools” to use to get the work done.

I don’t use speed figures, Sartins Sustained Pace, or any of the popular methodologies typically used in today’s horserace handicapping.

[traynor]

I hope that I will have the opportunity to contribute here, but so far the posts that I have read, have focused on the “effect” of pace and only periphery on the “cause.”

I am an “algorithmist”; I try to understand “cause” first and then apply a hypothesis to see if “what” happened is understood/explained by an algorithm.

I don’t know of any predictive application(s) that didn’t first have a “predictive curve” as it its foundation.

That is reasonable.

[JJMartin]

Initial post:
"Anyone interested in developing/working on developing/testing/contributing (time and effort--not money) to a collaborative pace analysis software app (FREE to anyone who wants it, even to clone/copy/steal it, otherwise known as "open source") intended to develop/increase/sharpen the user's pace analysis skills?

NOT a "horse picker" app. An app (or addition to/component of/module of an existing or other app) that creates a deeper level of understanding of pace (and how it affects race outcomes) than (whatever else is available). Something that a new or novice user can "fiddle with" for a relatively short period of time and gain insights into pace analysis that many experienced/"expert"/hardcore pace analysts lack."

I think I made it quite clear from the start that my interest/intent was an app to facilitate/train "pattern recognition" skills related to pace analysis and it's possible/probable/suspected influence on the outcome of future races. That interest/intent has been essentially dusted in favor of searching for minor tweaks to the same old same old--to find validation and support for existing beliefs and assumptions, rather than discovering something that might actually work in the real world, and not just in theory and in retrospect.
I apologize if I may have contributed to that impression. On further contemplation to your proposal, it seems that what you are describing is a type of system that would mirror or be similar to a neural network. From what you have explained, a user would start off with some perceived scenario and then the algorithm in the software would have to look for patterns that fit the scenario? Then a system of measure that after reaching a certain level of confidence (which would have to be determined somehow) provides validation.

[Cratos]

How do you first come to an understanding of cause?
I am in agreement with that school of thought. I am thinking that this may require multiple programs or multiple stages of algorithms to produce the most comprehensive result. I believe I have demonstrated with the use of an algorithm, an example of where to start (possibly) when trying to piece together an accurate picture of the configuration at 1st call. First I laid the ground work by setting some conditions that I felt would be sufficiently supportive to accuracy in the general sense (for example using a minimum of 3 back races) then I applied the "E" horse as the test subject.
Why start with the "E" horse? Because based on empirical evidence/experience, they tend to set the rate of pace and as indicated by the percentages above, do in fact lead most of the time in the beginning stages of a race. Now that the test was run, we see how the data backs the notion. So perhaps one of the components of this project going forward could be a think-tank of proposed ideas based on theory or thought experiment that could be assessed and tested when it merits some degree of plausibility.
Your findings about the” E” horse is probably correct, but the answer lies in the “cause.” We need to know/understand with a quantitative confidence value why your findings are correct.

Example: Why does the “E” horse have the lead at the 1/4M of the race regardless of race class, race distance, track surface, or track geometry? The answer could be acceleration and therefore the Pace Analysis Program would determine and rank the horses with the highest acceleration value with a subsequence confidence value.

Now that we have ascertained the determinant of the “E” horse’s impact on pace we can move to the next challenge.

[JJMartin]

I believe in the construction of a solid predictive pace curve for determining horserace predictive pace handicapping; math and science are the infallible “tools” to use to get the work done.

I don’t use speed figures, Sartins Sustained Pace, or any of the popular methodologies typically used in today’s horserace handicapping.
I take it that the intentional exclusion of any aspect of commonly used systems is in part for the sake of acquiring an edge over the majority?

[JJMartin]

Your findings about the” E” horse is probably correct, but the answer lies in the “cause.” We need to know/understand with a quantitative confidence value why your findings are correct.

Example: Why does the “E” horse have the lead at the 1/4M of the race regardless of race class, race distance, track surface, or track geometry? The answer could be acceleration and therefore the Pace Analysis Program would determine and rank the horses with the highest acceleration value with a subsequence confidence value.

Now that we have ascertained the determinant of the “E” horse’s impact on pace we can move to the next challenge.

I think understanding horse psychology/herd mentality is a fundamental aspect to the big picture. The pack always has a leader, that has been established. Perhaps the next challenge is how the other running styles behave when being led.

[ReplayRandall]

I think understanding horse psychology/herd mentality is a fundamental aspect to the big picture. The pack always has a leader, that has been established. Perhaps the next challenge is how the other running styles behave when being led.
Re-read post #142......You'll see the agreement, we're on the same frequency.

[JJMartin]

Re-read post #142......You'll see the agreement, we're on the same frequency.

Right, so we have races where the running style is an "E" type horse and at first thought, the analysis for those races should be separate from those whose runners do not include an "E". Just some throwing out some thoughts on what would have to be considered. Another area is the rate of pace which after being determined would affect the group's individual energy expenditure. How the energy expenditure is managed by the individual would be important relative to the distance of the race. So I think it is reasonable to suggest that pace analysis is interdependent on many other areas that have to be assessed for the impact of their correlation.

If it is the consensus that my approach is not close enough to what Traynor's intent is, I could possibly change the approach or just stay out of it altogether. And I mean that in a positive tone of course. I think we all have our own perspectives and there is something to be gained from everyone's input but perhaps something of this magnitude will require some leadership and executive decisions or else too much difference of opinion could derail the effort.

[Cratos]

I take it that the intentional exclusion of any aspect of commonly used systems is in part for the sake of acquiring an edge over the majority?
I am not being pompous, but if it is a law in science and applicable to horserace handicapping I will defer to it, but if it is conjecture used to sell a book or a software program I will avoid it like the plague.

[Cratos]

Right, so we have races where the running style is an "E" type horse and at first thought, the analysis for those races should be separate from those whose runners do not include an "E". Just some throwing out some thoughts on what would have to be considered. Another area is the rate of pace which after being determined would affect the group's individual energy expenditure. How the energy expenditure is managed by the individual would be important relative to the distance of the race. So I think it is reasonable to suggest that pace analysis is interdependent on many other areas that have to be assessed for the impact of their correlation.

If it is the consensus that my approach is not close enough to what Traynor's intent is, I could possibly change the approach or just stay out of it altogether. And I mean that in a positive tone of course. I think we all have our own perspectives and there is something to be gained from everyone's input but perhaps something of this magnitude will require some leadership and executive decisions or else too much difference of opinion could derail the effort.
This is a very good understanding, but I would look at "work" as opposed to "energy"; they are both measured with the same metic, joules.

[JJMartin]

This is a very good understanding, but I would look at "work" as opposed to "energy"; they are both measured with the same metic, joules.
Ok, I will be away for a while, thanks.

[LottaKash]

This is a very good understanding, but I would look at "work" as opposed to "energy"; they are both measured with the same metic, joules.

I voted for a horse the other day, and he was Jouless...(Is that a word?).. :D

[Cratos]

It might not look like it, but the group of possible participants (based on their post inquiry to this thread) is growing with the following posters:

• Traynor (the OP; we will urge him to stay)
• BCourtney
• Hypnotist1
• TexasDolly
• Rsetup (maybe)
• Cratos
• JJMartin
• Plainolebill
• Cincyhorseplayer
• DeltaLover
• Southbaygent
• Pondman
• LottaKash
• UltimateBetter
• ebcorde
• traveler
• ultracapper

If I left any poster off who might want to participate or if I included a poster who do not want to participate, I apologize.

[traynor]

I apologize if I may have contributed to that impression. On further contemplation to your proposal, it seems that what you are describing is a type of system that would mirror or be similar to a neural network. From what you have explained, a user would start off with some perceived scenario and then the algorithm in the software would have to look for patterns that fit the scenario? Then a system of measure that after reaching a certain level of confidence (which would have to be determined somehow) provides validation.

Not so. The initial steps are to find scenarios that can be used in training. That presupposes the scenario is a) repeated in future races, and b) usefully predictive of the outcome of those future races. "Pace analysis" on the order of, "Why, just the other day at Aqueduct, blah blah blah happened, which proves yada yada" although prevalent, pervasive, and (apparently) uncritically accepted as meaningful by many, I have never found to be profitable. YMMV.

There is no algorithm in the software to look for patterns. The intent of the software would be to train the bettor to find his or her own patterns. That presupposes whoever designs the training software has a better grasp of "pace" and its effect (or irrelevance) in specific races than the "common knowledge" regarding pace and its effect (or irrelevance).

[traynor]

Right, so we have races where the running style is an "E" type horse and at first thought, the analysis for those races should be separate from those whose runners do not include an "E". Just some throwing out some thoughts on what would have to be considered. Another area is the rate of pace which after being determined would affect the group's individual energy expenditure. How the energy expenditure is managed by the individual would be important relative to the distance of the race. So I think it is reasonable to suggest that pace analysis is interdependent on many other areas that have to be assessed for the impact of their correlation.

If it is the consensus that my approach is not close enough to what Traynor's intent is, I could possibly change the approach or just stay out of it altogether. And I mean that in a positive tone of course. I think we all have our own perspectives and there is something to be gained from everyone's input but perhaps something of this magnitude will require some leadership and executive decisions or else too much difference of opinion could derail the effort.

That is simple. My intent is to migrate an almost hopelessly complex and interrelated cluster of software apps that are currently highly "visual" (written, extended, and expanded in Visual Basic over a period of years) into a succinct, elegant, set of scalable Scala apps that accomplish the same thing (or better). Designed from the outset, rather than cobbled together and used mostly because they work. Very well. While so doing, I hope to learn enough about Scala and Spark to embed the latter in the new apps, and essentially automate the machine learning and neural network aspects of Spark (normally referred to as deep learning) as intrinsic components of the apps.

I think the direction this thread has taken may prove useful, and I look forward to seeing the results of the endeavor.

[traynor]

I did not intend that to seem obscure. More directly stated, at the time I started this thread (way before Christmas, almost two months ago) I had some free time. With the racing season rapidly approaching, that free time no longer exists. I have a lot to learn, and a lot to do. And little or none of it is of a nature that I can google it and cut and paste someone else's code as a quickie solution. Nothing personal, but I lack the time to participate in whatever it is that is going to be done. Or not done.

[Cratos]

Regrettably and with sincere apology I cannot continue to be an active participant in the collaborative pace analysis SW effort because I was informed that I am needed to perform work elsewhere.

Therefore, given the input by many bright minds thus far in this thread, this should be a successful project and a rewarding experience; I will try and stay inform by reading various posts within this thread.

[JJMartin]

Regrettably and with sincere apology I cannot continue to be an active participant in the collaborative pace analysis SW effort because I was informed that I am needed to perform work elsewhere.

Therefore, given the input by many bright minds thus far in this thread, this should be a successful project and a rewarding experience; I will try and stay inform by reading various posts within this thread.
You don't have to write it off 100%, you could still have some input here and there.

[JJMartin]

Continuing along the work I've been doing, we see that the "E" horse has a very high percentage of accuracy of being the leader at 1st call (at least in the general sense to begin with). Would anyone be interested in how the "P" horse does when there is no "E" in the race?

[traynor]

Continuing along the work I've been doing, we see that the "E" horse has a very high percentage of accuracy of being the leader at 1st call (at least in the general sense to begin with). Would anyone be interested in how the "P" horse does when there is no "E" in the race?

Serious questions. What do you think this means? Especially given that the averages/values are generated by mixing (many) different types of races together.

Of what value do you believe this type of research (and the resulting figures/values/percentages/whatever) to be in predicting the outcome of future races?

What correlations are there in the output you post to horses that lead at the first call winning/losing when and when not those horses are the top rank in whatever ranking system you are using?

Do you have clear insight into the parameters used to categorize the horses (by whatever rating system you are using) so that you know a horse designated "E" (or whatever) is actually what most would consider an "E" (or whatever) type horse, and not some spurious, computer-generated nonsense "calculated" by silly "algorithms" designed for convenience in labeling and the appearance of being meaningful, rather than actually defining something useful (and intrinsic) about a horse. And are you confident enough in the accuracy of the designations to believe they truly represent the "preferred running style(s)" (if such a thing actually exists other than in very broad, very general terms) of the horse(s) in question?

[barn32]

http://cbsg.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/liveI'm sure this is something that was written by Professor Irwin Corey.

[JJMartin]

Serious questions. What do you think this means?

I will start by saying I am offering an opinion, an interpretation based on my personal conceptual understanding (or lack of) of the various things involved with analysis. And during the process itself, the understanding of the various factors involved and their interrelations may change with new developments.

Especially given that the averages/values are generated by mixing (many) different types of races together.

Since we are only dealing with 1st call analysis at the moment, I have the following reasoning. The horses per se do not have any concept of what a race is, that they are in one, what the distance is, that there is a finish line etc. They may be aware of the differences in surfaces and other things of course. When the gate opens and the race starts, the herd mentality kicks in and for the most part they will try to run together as close as possible as a group. If there is a strong leader type, that horse will try to get to the lead as early as possible. Judging by the 52% I got by testing the "E", I would say that is a fair assessment. The 1st call is reached roughly 23 seconds from the moment they start running. Most horses are not going to be completely out of energy by that short distance. Based on this we can speculate with reason that a slower top speed horse will exert more effort while he still has energy to keep up with the rest. Therefore distance, race type, jockeys, trainers and other such factors are mostly irrelevant in this sense and will have minimal impact if any on what should be expected at 1st call. Of course as I have stated before, this is subject to change if new evidence suggests otherwise. What I have found is that the average percentage tends to gain as the macro ascends through the year. For example at 1/3 through it may be 51% and at midpoint 52%. The likely reason is that the number of races that the averages are comprised of have increased and contributed to a higher degree of accuracy.

Of what value do you believe this type of research (and the resulting figures/values/percentages/whatever) to be in predicting the outcome of future races?

The idea is to tackle one stage of the race at a time and once that stage is sufficiently predictable, move on to the next segment. You can't predict the end without knowing what happens before. The value of predicting future races is self-evident if they produce positive results when applied.

What correlations are there in the output you post to horses that lead at the first call winning/losing when and when not those horses are the top rank in whatever ranking system you are using?

Actually I am not concerned with that particular thing at the moment. I believe there is too much going on in between to attempt to find a usable correlation from whatever is determined at 1st call to finishing first. As we all know, the leader at 1st call does not always equal winning the race or any expectation of acquiring a positive roi. That being said, when I ran the #1 "E" horse with the condition of being rank 1 for turn time, it would lead at first call with 61% and went on to win for 39% but with an roi five times worse than blindly betting the favorite on every race. So in this example we see how knowing what rate a horse achieves 1st place at 1st call contributes to a higher win percentage and if that was solely the goal, we would have success. But this type of horse is so transparent in it's recorded history that it will be invariably over bet with a terrible roi. However this information may be used to pass a race if we believe we have a contender that shows value but will likely lose to this super "E" horse. So we continue to look deeper into the more elusive correlations within pace analysis until we find a horse that should win at a better price.

Do you have clear insight into the parameters used to categorize the horses (by whatever rating system you are using) so that you know a horse designated "E" (or whatever) is actually what most would consider an "E" (or whatever) type horse, and not some spurious, computer-generated nonsense "calculated" by silly "algorithms" designed for convenience in labeling and the appearance of being meaningful, rather than actually defining something useful (and intrinsic) about a horse. And are you confident enough in the accuracy of the designations to believe they truly represent the "preferred running style(s)" (if such a thing actually exists other than in very broad, very general terms) of the horse(s) in question?

That is the more difficult questions to answer. The whole idea of running styles is a bit vague in my opinion. There are really only 2 running styles. There is the leader, and there is everyone else. When we see an E horse in a race, he will generally be the leader more often than any other designation, I think we can agree on that. But when there is no E horse and just P's and S's. Somebody has to lead. They don't all just decide not to run because an E horse didn't show up for the race. Therefore whoever that leader is, say one of the P horses, what is he? Is he a P or is he an E? When I ran races with the #1 rank that did not contain any E's, I got 42%. That is 10% less than the E had. This indicates that the P's generally prefer to follow than to lead. And that sometimes the same P who led before in a previous race will submit with a higher degree (to not leading) when another non "E" horse leads and when there is no E present. The P horse therefore is more difficult to assess than the E. This is the type of area that if better understood could contribute to a higher roi if a successful method of determination can be developed. I have seen the same horse change its designation 3 times before settling. It is not always an easy thing to determine, therefore the more prior races we have in an individual's history, the better we can make a positive assessment. In other words, more information is better than not that is obvious. Since I am still at the beginning stages of this research I can't really provide any solid answers and my premises could be off, I just don't know yet.

[JJMartin]

JJ, I would like to focus on this part of your post. This looks like a great place to find possible overlays almost 76% of the time,(.61x.39= 23.79%-E horse wins) just by throwing out this "E" horse with the horrendous ROI. Bottom-line, the game is about finding value, and this is the best place to start for drilling down in the data to see if we find consistent value, or is it conditioned to what track, distance and surface we find with the "E" horse throw-out......Looks like you'll have many subsets here, as well as odds layering analysis that might prove very productive.
can discuss later, i will be away until later tonight, thanks.

[ReplayRandall]

When I ran the #1 "E" horse with the condition of being rank 1 for turn time, it would lead at first call with 61% and went on to win for 39% but with an roi five times worse than blindly betting the favorite on every race.
JJ, I would like to focus on this part of your post. This looks like a great place to find possible overlays over 76% of the time,(.61x.39= 23.79%-E horse wins) just by throwing out this "E" horse with the horrendous ROI. Bottom-line, the game is about finding value, and this is the best place to start for drilling down in the data to see if we find consistent value, or is it conditioned to what track, distance and surface we find with the "E" horse throw-out......Looks like you'll have many subsets here, as well as odds layering analysis that might prove very productive.

[Cratos]

You don't have to write it off 100%, you could still have some input here and there.
I will drop in from time to time because I enjoy the exercise of problem-solving, especially when it comes to horseracing.

Therefore, I will suggest the following:

• Use data from a racetrack with a “balance geometry configuration.” The two racetracks that comes to mind are either Santa Anita or Del Mar because they are the classic “1-mile” configured racetracks. Santa Anita would be the better choice even if its 1-1/8M run to the first turn is “short.”

• Use Belmont and Churchill downs as outlier configurations. Belmont because it has the largest turn radii of any major racetrack and Churchill Downs has the smallest.

• Use Trakus data only because there is less conversion; all the mentioned racetracks data are recorded by Trakus and the Trakus charts can easily be put into an Excel format (see attached time corrected PWC chart).
• Use ambient weather environmental data converted into a “resistance metric” for each racetrack at the time the race went off.

From this point, we could apply analysis to evaluate our hypotheses.

Also, we could/should use standard proven math/science equations to support our conclusions.

[traynor]

Serious questions. What do you think this means?

I will start by saying I am offering an opinion, an interpretation based on my personal conceptual understanding (or lack of) of the various things involved with analysis. And during the process itself, the understanding of the various factors involved and their interrelations may change with new developments.

Especially given that the averages/values are generated by mixing (many) different types of races together.

Since we are only dealing with 1st call analysis at the moment, I have the following reasoning. The horses per se do not have any concept of what a race is, that they are in one, what the distance is, that there is a finish line etc. They may be aware of the differences in surfaces and other things of course. When the gate opens and the race starts, the herd mentality kicks in and for the most part they will try to run together as close as possible as a group. If there is a strong leader type, that horse will try to get to the lead as early as possible. Judging by the 52% I got by testing the "E", I would say that is a fair assessment. The 1st call is reached roughly 23 seconds from the moment they start running. Most horses are not going to be completely out of energy by that short distance. Based on this we can speculate with reason that a slower top speed horse will exert more effort while he still has energy to keep up with the rest. Therefore distance, race type, jockeys, trainers and other such factors are mostly irrelevant in this sense and will have minimal impact if any on what should be expected at 1st call. Of course as I have stated before, this is subject to change if new evidence suggests otherwise. What I have found is that the average percentage tends to gain as the macro ascends through the year. For example at 1/3 through it may be 51% and at midpoint 52%. The likely reason is that the number of races that the averages are comprised of have increased and contributed to a higher degree of accuracy.

Of what value do you believe this type of research (and the resulting figures/values/percentages/whatever) to be in predicting the outcome of future races?

The idea is to tackle one stage of the race at a time and once that stage is sufficiently predictable, move on to the next segment. You can't predict the end without knowing what happens before. The value of predicting future races is self-evident if they produce positive results when applied.

What correlations are there in the output you post to horses that lead at the first call winning/losing when and when not those horses are the top rank in whatever ranking system you are using?

Actually I am not concerned with that particular thing at the moment. I believe there is too much going on in between to attempt to find a usable correlation from whatever is determined at 1st call to finishing first. As we all know, the leader at 1st call does not always equal winning the race or any expectation of acquiring a positive roi. That being said, when I ran the #1 "E" horse with the condition of being rank 1 for turn time, it would lead at first call with 61% and went on to win for 39% but with an roi five times worse than blindly betting the favorite on every race. So in this example we see how knowing what rate a horse achieves 1st place at 1st call contributes to a higher win percentage and if that was solely the goal, we would have success. But this type of horse is so transparent in it's recorded history that it will be invariably over bet with a terrible roi. However this information may be used to pass a race if we believe we have a contender that shows value but will likely lose to this super "E" horse. So we continue to look deeper into the more elusive correlations within pace analysis until we find a horse that should win at a better price.

Do you have clear insight into the parameters used to categorize the horses (by whatever rating system you are using) so that you know a horse designated "E" (or whatever) is actually what most would consider an "E" (or whatever) type horse, and not some spurious, computer-generated nonsense "calculated" by silly "algorithms" designed for convenience in labeling and the appearance of being meaningful, rather than actually defining something useful (and intrinsic) about a horse. And are you confident enough in the accuracy of the designations to believe they truly represent the "preferred running style(s)" (if such a thing actually exists other than in very broad, very general terms) of the horse(s) in question?

That is the more difficult questions to answer. The whole idea of running styles is a bit vague in my opinion. There are really only 2 running styles. There is the leader, and there is everyone else. When we see an E horse in a race, he will generally be the leader more often than any other designation, I think we can agree on that. But when there is no E horse and just P's and S's. Somebody has to lead. They don't all just decide not to run because an E horse didn't show up for the race. Therefore whoever that leader is, say one of the P horses, what is he? Is he a P or is he an E? When I ran races with the #1 rank that did not contain any E's, I got 42%. That is 10% less than the E had. This indicates that the P's generally prefer to follow than to lead. And that sometimes the same P who led before in a previous race will submit with a higher degree (to not leading) when another non "E" horse leads and when there is no E present. The P horse therefore is more difficult to assess than the E. This is the type of area that if better understood could contribute to a higher roi if a successful method of determination can be developed. I have seen the same horse change its designation 3 times before settling. It is not always an easy thing to determine, therefore the more prior races we have in an individual's history, the better we can make a positive assessment. In other words, more information is better than not that is obvious. Since I am still at the beginning stages of this research I can't really provide any solid answers and my premises could be off, I just don't know yet.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond in such detail. While I may disagree (occasionally strongly) with some of your premises, it sounds like you are pursuing some very interesting areas without being overloaded with preconceptions. I look forward to seeing how this develops. New ideas and different viewpoints are always good.

[traveler]

I'm sure this is something that was written by Professor Irwin Corey.
Not in the last couple of days ;)

[Cratos]

It is unfortunate that this thread started by the esteemed poster, “Traynor” to develop a collaborative Pace Analysis SW haven’t gotten the participation it deserves because it probably would debunk much of the long-held rhetoric about “pace” in a horserace.

The importance and effect of the pace figure concept which is the rate and direction of the change in the position of the horse during the race would probably been examined to understand that pace is just the velocity of the horse and in calculus terms this is the first derivative of position with respect to time.

What I am saying is that speed is a function of velocity or in horseracing terms final time is a function of pace.

Many horseplayers are confusing the dependent variable, speed with the independent variable, pace and this has led them to a false premise from which they are attempting to draw a true conclusion.

Let me be clear, many of the traditional quantitative “tools” used today by the vast number of horseplayers in their handicapping are arithmetical with general statistics applications.

However, I believe this anticipated collaborative Pace Analysis SW effort would’ve developed a tool to help its users avoid confusion and apply more sophisticated statistical concepts.

[thaskalos]

It is unfortunate that this thread started by the esteemed poster, “Traynor” to develop a collaborative Pace Analysis SW haven’t gotten the participation it deserves because it probably would debunk much of the long-held rhetoric about “pace” in a horserace.

The importance and effect of the pace figure concept which is the rate and direction of the change in the position of the horse during the race would probably been examined to understand that pace is just the velocity of the horse and in calculus terms this is the first derivative of position with respect to time.

What I am saying is that speed is a function of velocity or in horseracing terms final time is a function of pace.

Many horseplayers are confusing the dependent variable, speed with the independent variable, pace and this has led them to a false premise from which they are attempting to draw a true conclusion.

Let me be clear, many of the traditional quantitative “tools” used today by the vast number of horseplayers in their handicapping are arithmetical with general statistics applications.

However, I believe this anticipated collaborative Pace Analysis SW effort would’ve developed a tool to help its users avoid confusion and apply more sophisticated statistical concepts.

Thank you for clearing everything up for us. :ThmbUp:

[JJMartin]

It is unfortunate that this thread started by the esteemed poster, “Traynor” to develop a collaborative Pace Analysis SW haven’t gotten the participation it deserves...

Yes, not very motivating to see.

[rsetup]

Unfortunate? Perhaps.

Predictable? Absolutely

Handicapping races is a lot harder than handicapping posters.

[Cratos]

Unfortunate? Perhaps.

Predictable? Absolutely

Handicapping races is a lot harder than handicapping posters.
You would have thought that with the number of posters here with 20k+ posts and are allegedly the quintessential “textsperts” on the subject of pace handicapping, this collaborative effort would have been a dream come true for some of them to express quantitatively their ideas and concepts without violating the confidentiality of their methodologies.

[PaceAdvantage]

You would have thought that with the number of posters here with 20k+ posts and are allegedly the quintessential “textsperts” on the subject of pace handicapping, this collaborative effort would have been a dream come true for some of them to express quantitatively their ideas and concepts without violating the confidentiality of their methodologies.And yet YOU'RE the one walking away from it...the QUINTESSENTIAL of QUINTESSENTIAL experts on the subject...

Talk about disappointing.

[Cratos]

And yet YOU'RE the one walking away from it...the QUINTESSENTIAL of QUINTESSENTIAL experts on the subject...

Talk about disappointing.
Typical of you not to have a comprehension of what was being said. I didn’t “walk away” from anything.

At the outset, I stated to the thread’s OP, “Traynor” that I would contribute and did because I believe (and still do) the fundamental quantitative understanding of how “pace” (the rate of motion) of a racehorse is best understood is with the application of the principles of physics and math because they will collectively explain the “why” what happened during the race with respect to pace.

However, when I was given some unplanned tasks that took away some of my free time that affected my contribution effort, I apologetically stated that I couldn’t keep my original commitment with the caveat that I would still contribute when time permitted; and again, I did. (please read post #160 and #168 of this thread)

Your post probably will take this thread down the nonsensical “rabbit hole” that follows your typical absurd comments. (please read post #54 of this thread)

Also, why aren’t you contributing? You are the headmaster here; your quantitative acumen about pace hopefully would be enlightening.

It would seem to me that you as an administrator without bias or malice aforethought would be urging participation in all threads on the forum that are for the betterment of horserace handicapping.

[cj]

And yet YOU'RE the one walking away from it...the QUINTESSENTIAL of QUINTESSENTIAL experts on the subject...

Talk about disappointing.

I made a big bet in the pools. Got to collect even sooner than I would have guessed, but alas just a $2.10 mutuel. As Andy would say, "they knew".

[ReplayRandall]

I made a big bet in the pools. Got to collect even sooner than I would have guessed, but alas just a $2.10 mutuel. As Andy would say, "they knew".
:lol::lol::lol:

[AltonKelsey]

I made a big bet in the pools. Got to collect even sooner than I would have guessed, but alas just a $2.10 mutuel. As Andy would say, "they knew".

2.10 might have been an overlay of epic proportions . :jump:

[traynor]

I very strongly encourage anyone studying pace, and in particular, anyone using a computer in that studying process, to thoroughly explore the concepts presented on the following link (and subsequent searches spinning off that link):

A more detailed explanation:
http://www.horsedata.com/?q=content/history-rspos-tm

Not exactly rocket science, and a long way from optimal use of the information available, but WAY ahead of most "pace concepts accepted as common knowledge."

Of particular value is the ability to test the concepts over large groups of races with minimal fuss and bother other than a few lines of code. And, as always, it is as important to discover things that don't work as it is to discover things that do work.

Digging a bit very quickly clarifies the value of always asking, "Does this stuff really mean what I/we/they think it means?"

For example, to what extent is the "running style" of a horse set by the jockey? And the "preferred riding style" of the jockey set by the "preferred running style" of the group of horses that jockey has ridden? And both of the above determined by the realities of the "running styles" of the OTHER horses in each race, and the "preferred riding style" of the OTHER jockeys in each race?

The "hacker's curse" of massaging large sets of numbers, "averaging" them in some simplistic fashion, and then believing those averages represent some kind of "statistical pressure" that will enable both the (relatively) accurate prediction of future events and the alteration of those future events to coincide with the "statistical pressure" is rarely seen with such clarity as it is in "pace analysis."

Much of value can be learned about pace by mindfully studying such things.

[Cratos]

Maybe there will not be any posters who will collaborate on the earlier request in this thread to develop Pace Analysis SW, but the attached PDF show in a static manner how pace affects the race and it is quite revealing.

The pace calculations were made by using simple arithmetical formulas in Excel to manipulate Trakus data and by linking the cells; the output cells can be populated quickly and efficiently.

Can Equibase/DRF data be used? Yes, it can, but the lengths conversions would need to be made for the time interval between horses.

Remember, this is an analysis, not a prediction.

[Cratos]

What might be interesting would be to conduct a pace analysis for the five major 2017 Ky Derby prep races at 1-1/8M with a 1-1/4M prediction of pace and final time of the 2017 Ky Derby at Churchill Downs.

Remember that the pace of a horserace is the horse’s velocity over distance and the final time is just the value of the velocity in time with respect to distance.

• Florida Derby Gulfstream Park Apr 1, 2017
• Wood Memorial Aqueduct Apr 8, 2017
• Blue Grass Keeneland Apr 8, 2017
• Santa Anita Derby Santa Anita Park Apr 8, 2017
• Arkansas Derby Oaklawn Park Apr 15, 2017

[UltimateBetter]

How bout trackmaster

[Cratos]

How bout trackmaster

Trackmaster or any other data source can be used. The objective of my suggestion is to analyze and predict the pace of the 2017 Ky Derby from the 5 prep races given.

[traynor]

What might be interesting would be to conduct a pace analysis for the five major 2017 Ky Derby prep races at 1-1/8M with a 1-1/4M prediction of pace and final time of the 2017 Ky Derby at Churchill Downs.

Remember that the pace of a horserace is the horse’s velocity over distance and the final time is just the value of the velocity in time with respect to distance.

• Florida Derby Gulfstream Park Apr 1, 2017
• Wood Memorial Aqueduct Apr 8, 2017
• Blue Grass Keeneland Apr 8, 2017
• Santa Anita Derby Santa Anita Park Apr 8, 2017
• Arkansas Derby Oaklawn Park Apr 15, 2017

It might be more accurate to define the bolded portion above as your particular spin on what constitutes the pace of a horserace. Assuming that your use of "velocity" is both correct and intentional, how--exactly--do you (accurately) determine "velocity" at every point in the race?

[AltonKelsey]

Where did weight / height come from in the Pegasus data?

[Cratos]

It might be more accurate to define the bolded portion above as your particular spin on what constitutes the pace of a horserace. Assuming that your use of "velocity" is both correct and intentional, how--exactly--do you (accurately) determine "velocity" at every point in the race?

This thread has had many viewers, but few contributors and now a simple suggestion is being challenged.

I suppose that is good, but I don’t have a “particular spin” on what constitutes the “pace” of a race and keeping my response very simple, pace is no more than “the rate of motion” of a racehorse during the race and the horse is moving (pace) because of its acceleration which is a vector quantity that is defined as the rate at which the horse changes its velocity or more precisely acceleration is a squared velocity.

The accuracy of the horse’s velocity at points during the race is from the accuracy of the publicly published data.

Therefore, I would hope this is the clarity which you are seeking because it is not necessary to derail this suggested “pace exercise” with physics (although I would enjoy the exercise)

[Cratos]

Where did weight / height come from in the Pegasus data?

From a predictive proprietary model owned by me and my associates.

[traynor]

It would seem you are making (or attempting to make) excruciatingly detailed "calculations" based on a number of rough approximations and guesswork--proprietary or otherwise.

There is a substantial difference (outside the boundaries of lala land, where "osmosis of the cosmosis" explanations grow and thrive) between a "velocity" and a "rate of speed." It seems a bit cavalier an approach in the use of terms.

QUOTATION: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
ATTRIBUTION: LEWIS CARROLL (Charles L. Dodgson), Through the Looking-Glass, chapter 6, p. 205 (1934). First published in 1872.
http://www.bartleby.com/73/2019.html

In your statement, "the pace of a horserace is the horse’s velocity over distance" did you mean "horse's" (as stated, indicating an attribute of a single horse, or "horses'" indicating an attribute of multiple horses?

I am even more curious about your statement, "The accuracy of the horse’s velocity at points during the race is from the accuracy of the publicly published data." What publicly published data provides or enables you to (accurately) calculate a horse's "velocity"? (NOT a rough estimate of the "rate of speed" at some point.)

[UltimateBetter]

Do u plan to make this software public

[Cratos]

It would seem you are making (or attempting to make) excruciatingly detailed "calculations" based on a number of rough approximations and guesswork--proprietary or otherwise.

There is a substantial difference (outside the boundaries of lala land, where "osmosis of the cosmosis" explanations grow and thrive) between a "velocity" and a "rate of speed." It seems a bit cavalier an approach in the use of terms.

QUOTATION: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
ATTRIBUTION: LEWIS CARROLL (Charles L. Dodgson), Through the Looking-Glass, chapter 6, p. 205 (1934). First published in 1872.
http://www.bartleby.com/73/2019.html

In your statement, "the pace of a horserace is the horse’s velocity over distance" did you mean "horse's" (as stated, indicating an attribute of a single horse, or "horses'" indicating an attribute of multiple horses?

I am even more curious about your statement, "The accuracy of the horse’s velocity at points during the race is from the accuracy of the publicly published data." What publicly published data provides or enables you to (accurately) calculate a horse's "velocity"? (NOT a rough estimate of the "rate of speed" at some point.)

Your statements are entertaining and going away from the focus of my suggestion, but they are acceptable as long as the power on this website will allow them.

“excruciatingly detailed "calculations" based on a number of rough approximations and guesswork”

This statement supports many design projects which I have contributed to and they were successful.

Additionally, I have yet to see any quantitative proofs of contradictions from you either by physics or math; just rhetoric.

“What publicly published data provides or enables you to (accurately) calculate a horse's "velocity"? (NOT a rough estimate of the "rate of speed" at some point”

Please understand that speed is the magnitude of velocity and with its RFID technology, Trakus captures the displacement of the horse’s motion in 3 dimensions at certain points doing the race and by any contrived definition that is velocity with speed being its magnitude.

[Cratos]

Do u plan to make this software public
No, because it is not solely up to me

[traynor]

Your statements are entertaining and going away from the focus of my suggestion, but they are acceptable as long as the power on this website will allow them.

“excruciatingly detailed "calculations" based on a number of rough approximations and guesswork”

This statement supports many design projects which I have contributed to and they were successful.

Additionally, I have yet to see any quantitative proofs of contradictions from you either by physics or math; just rhetoric.

“What publicly published data provides or enables you to (accurately) calculate a horse's "velocity"? (NOT a rough estimate of the "rate of speed" at some point”

Please understand that speed is the magnitude of velocity and with its RFID technology, Trakus captures the displacement of the horse’s motion in 3 dimensions at certain points doing the race and by any contrived definition that is velocity with speed being its magnitude.

Do you have realtime access to Trakus output? Or are you making approximations based on "certain points doing (during?) the race". Contrived definitions are unnecessary. The definitions are quite clear.

I am quite familiar with RFID technology, including its deficiencies. If you were hooked directly into a feed from all of Trakus' equipment and sensors in realtime, during the race, I might be less skeptical. That does not seem to be the case.

I am more than a little curious, because I know a group that has been working on a similar approach. It still seems, from your own descriptions, that you are only doing after-the-fact approximations of rates of speed, rather than true velocities.

[JJMartin]

This thread has had many viewers, but few contributors and now a simple suggestion is being challenged.

I suppose that is good, but I don’t have a “particular spin” on what constitutes the “pace” of a race and keeping my response very simple, pace is no more than “the rate of motion” of a racehorse during the race and the horse is moving (pace) because of its acceleration which is a vector quantity that is defined as the rate at which the horse changes its velocity or more precisely acceleration is a squared velocity.

The accuracy of the horse’s velocity at points during the race is from the accuracy of the publicly published data.

Therefore, I would hope this is the clarity which you are seeking because it is not necessary to derail this suggested “pace exercise” with physics (although I would enjoy the exercise)

How does your method of calculating velocity compare to FPS?

[Cratos]

How does your method of calculating velocity compare to FPS?

In your question “velocity is the “what” and “FPS” is its measurement. Also, you can measure speed in “FPS”, but realize that the speed measurement will tell you “how fast” and it is a scalar measurement. Velocity measurement is a vector with both magnitude and direction.

I am not attempting to confuse, but to give clarity. Therefore, there must be a force or there isn’t any motion and for a horse to have motion in a race it must first overcome the “velocity biases” it is confronted with. This is Newtons first law and it is called “the law of inertia.”

The first velocity bias that every horse confronts is the one of “static force” which is the g-force.

The horse must overcome the g-force with its “applied force” to put its self into motion; this motion is “velocity”.

Again, speed and velocity are both measured using the same units of distance/time, i.e., FPS, MPH, etc.

The difference between the two is speed tells you how fast. Velocity tells you how fast and in what direction.

[traveler]

In your question “velocity is the “what” and “FPS” is its measurement. Also, you can measure speed in “FPS”, but realize that the speed measurement will tell you “how fast” and it is a scalar measurement. Velocity measurement is a vector with both magnitude and direction.

I am not attempting to confuse, but to give clarity. Therefore, there must be a force or there isn’t any motion and for a horse to have motion in a race it must first overcome the “velocity biases” it is confronted with. This is Newtons first law and it is called “the law of inertia.”

The first velocity bias that every horse confronts is the one of “static force” which is the g-force.

The horse must overcome the g-force with its “applied force” to put its self into motion; this motion is “velocity”.

Again, speed and velocity are both measured using the same units of distance/time, i.e., FPS, MPH, etc.

The difference between the two is speed tells you how fast. Velocity tells you how fast and in what direction.

Not attempting to confuse, but give clarity? You've got to be kidding - the fellow asks a question and we get horse doo doo. Velocity - speed same damn thing unless you wanna get highbrow or some of the horses are running in a different direction than the others.

15 pages and nothing.

I'd suggest to the OP he look at some of Dave Schwartz 'FREE" videos on where horses need to be at the early calls in order to win. Some of that along with RS-POS (I printed some of that stuff out years ago and still have it) and a few thousand "similar" races to study and a full pot of coffee and a sharp #2 pencil and you'll be miles ahead of most - good luck.

[traveler]

traynor - I apologize - I forgot you started this thread. Somebody was gonna do a bunch of research in excel and I thought it might save them some work, sounded like a lot of what they wanted to do was out there already in the public.

[traynor]

traynor - I apologize - I forgot you started this thread. Somebody was gonna do a bunch of research in excel and I thought it might save them some work, sounded like a lot of what they wanted to do was out there already in the public.

Fortunately, I realized that was probably the case in time to delete it. No apologies needed, but appreciated anyway.

[Cratos]

Not attempting to confuse, but give clarity? You've got to be kidding - the fellow asks a question and we get horse doo doo. Velocity - speed same damn thing unless you wanna get highbrow or some of the horses are running in a different direction than the others.

15 pages and nothing.

I'd suggest to the OP he look at some of Dave Schwartz 'FREE" videos on where horses need to be at the early calls in order to win. Some of that along with RS-POS (I printed some of that stuff out years ago and still have it) and a few thousand "similar" races to study and a full pot of coffee and a sharp #2 pencil and you'll be miles ahead of most - good luck.

Read the question and you are correct, I could have written that FPS simply is the measurement of velocity as well as speed.

I didn’t do that because I wanted to inform the the poster a lot more such that he would go farther in understanding the physics of horse racing.

However, your cynicism points to what the critic does on this forum, criticizes without contributing and theses threads remain circular.

What is strange to me is that at first it was asked to become part of a collaborative effort to develop Pace Analysis SW.

When that fizzled, it was suggested to use Excel or whatever method you choose and the 5 major Ky Derby prep races to predict the pace of the 2017 Derby.

It will be interesting to see whether you contribute and if "some of the horses are running in a different direction than the others." it is still FPS.

[traynor]

Read the question and you are correct, I could have written that FPS simply is the measurement of velocity as well as speed.

I didn’t do that because I wanted to inform the the poster a lot more such that he would go farther in understanding the physics of horse racing.

However, your cynicism points to what the critic does on this forum, criticizes without contributing and theses threads remain circular.

What is strange to me is that at first it was asked to become part of a collaborative effort to develop Pace Analysis SW.

When that fizzled, it was suggested to use Excel or whatever method you choose and the 5 major Ky Derby prep races to predict the pace of the 2017 Derby.

It will be interesting to see whether you contribute and if "some of the horses are running in a different direction than the others." it is still FPS.

That idea seems to have fizzled as well. I suggest you do something a bit more persuasive to demonstrate the usefulness of your "velocities." You use Trakus. How about predicting the winner of the next month of races on the Hong Kong circuit? That would be far more interesting than "I've got a secret and I won't tell" postings.

[traynor]

A worthwhile read for anyone who presumes to assume the mantle of "expert."

"Unskilled and Unaware of it: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments."

http://psych.colorado.edu/~vanboven/teaching/p7536_heurbias/p7536_readings/kruger_dunning.pdf

[traynor]

A good article (and VERY good advice) from the business analysis side of the fence:

"Correlation is not causation.

All numbers are random numbers drawn from a known or possibly unknown population. If you don't know the population statistics your assessment of the numbers is different than if you do.
All random numbers need variance, standard deviation, and higher order moments to be considered credible as sources of any analysis.

Drawing a picture of the average of anything is very sporty without the proper statistical analysis.
Read Huff, reread it, read it all the time. Also go buy a good statistics and analysis book. Start with Advanced Statistics Demystified.

If there is an academic paper that is being used for public policy has not been peer reviewed, and then throw it away. The Reinhard and Rogoff paper is the basis of Paul Ryan's economic plan. He may have really good points, but it built on sand.

Same advice from self-proclaimed experts in anything, especially project management. If there is a PhD thesis that has ZERO references in CITESEER, ignore it.

Read more in the linked references below to see how bad statistics can go even more bad.
Download R, download the free books, learn how to think and act with credible statistics. Learn how many sample you need, learn how to assess the needed population statistics confidence levels, learn how to make decisions based on confidence levels not absolute numbers. We have a 70% confidence of completing on or before a date, or we have a 70% confidence or completing at or below of specific cost must be the answers when management asks about cost and schedule performance."

http://herdingcats.typepad.com/my_weblog/2013/04/averages-without-variances-are-meaningless.html

The "Huff" reference above is:
"Everyone claiming to forecast the future or make correlations between random processes must have on their shelf and have demonstrated to have read How to Lie with Statistics, Darrell Huff."

[elhelmete]

It will be interesting to see whether you contribute and if "some of the horses are running in a different direction than the others." it is still FPS.

Well, yes, you've defined speed and velocity which use the same units.

Running at 40MPH does no good if 29MPH of it is vectoring (due to surface, wind, poor action) in a direction contrary to an efficient path around the track.

[ReplayRandall]

"Everyone claiming to forecast the future or make correlations between random processes must have on their shelf and have demonstrated to have read How to Lie with Statistics, Darrell Huff."

It's as simple as mode, mean and median.....Plus you can add "Weasel" words to any post, it'll always give the imposter away.

[Cratos]

Well, yes, you've defined speed and velocity which use the same units.

Running at 40MPH does no good if 29MPH of it is vectoring (due to surface, wind, poor action) in a direction contrary to an efficient path around the track.

That is what our model, "Merlin" does with added outputs of the horse size and its work expenditure during the race (see Excel chart in post 168 within this thread)

[AltonKelsey]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/images/buttons/green/viewpost.gif (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2124320#post2124320)
Where did weight / height come from in the Pegasus data?


From a predictive proprietary model owned by me and my associates.


My worst fears have been realized.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/images/buttons/green/viewpost.gif (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2124320#post2124320)
Where did weight / height come from in the Pegasus data?





My worst fears have been realized.

Wait. It gets worse.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/images/buttons/green/viewpost.gif (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2124320#post2124320)
Where did weight / height come from in the Pegasus data?





My worst fears have been realized.

Have no fear; I don’t have any intention of posting a rudimentary understanding of how the calculations were made. Also, it is perplexing to me why it is the same posters with the same comments when intricate concepts as opposed to percepts are presented to this forum.

This is the “Handicapping SW” segment of this forum?

[AltonKelsey]

Old tech.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/474x/33/f2/0f/33f20f5c6216243f2a8a4bdf2487a380.jpg

[elhelmete]

Old tech.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/474x/33/f2/0f/33f20f5c6216243f2a8a4bdf2487a380.jpg

LOL, but it does illustrate an important point to this topic.

Formulas will always be right, in the sense that you put numbers in, the operands happen, and a result pops out.

My general beef with systems and software is that we tend to then assume that precision=accuracy, in the sens that as long as the formula spits out a number and doesn't error out, the number means something.

But then...garbage in, garbage out.

We've seen how race timing has been proven suspect many, many times, not to mention run-ups etc. This includes Trakus.

Then there's using data based on little-to-no actual measurement. Like wind speed and direction taken from miles away. Like horse weight. Even like track surface conditions. To the extent that these are based on projection, conjecture, extrapolation, averages, etc., the number(s) spit out at the bottom of the page are suspect. Frankly, all of what I just detailed above COULD be measured directly and accurately so I think that's a double shame that they aren't.

[Cratos]

LOL, but it does illustrate an important point to this topic.

Formulas will always be right, in the sense that you put numbers in, the operands happen, and a result pops out.

My general beef with systems and software is that we tend to then assume that precision=accuracy, in the sens that as long as the formula spits out a number and doesn't error out, the number means something.

But then...garbage in, garbage out.

We've seen how race timing has been proven suspect many, many times, not to mention run-ups etc. This includes Trakus.

Then there's using data based on little-to-no actual measurement. Like wind speed and direction taken from miles away. Like horse weight. Even like track surface conditions. To the extent that these are based on projection, conjecture, extrapolation, averages, etc., the number(s) spit out at the bottom of the page are suspect. Frankly, all of what I just detailed above COULD be measured directly and accurately so I think that's a double shame that they aren't.

Accuracy and Precision
The following should give some clarification:

“In the fields of engineering, industry and statistics, the accuracy of a measurement system is the degree of closeness of measurements of a quantity to its actual (true) value. The precision of a measurement system, also called reproducibility or repeatability, is the degree to which repeated measurements under unchanged conditions show the same results. Although the two words can be synonymous in colloquial use, they are deliberately contrasted in the context of the scientific method.”

Therefore, in handicapping a horserace for winning wagers is to have a system/method determining the ACCURACY of a horse’s performance effort not the PRECISION of the horse’s performance effort.

[JJMartin]

From a predictive proprietary model owned by me and my associates.

Does your model account for the effects of centripetal force on the turns and have you observed conclusively that there is a direct correlation to height and weight? In other words, are larger/heavier/taller horses slower around the turns on average than not, otherwise have you observed some discernible pattern that can be attributed to weight/height specifically around turns?

[elhelmete]

Yes, I know.

My graduate stats professor said it more colloquially as:

Precision is clustering your arrows around a single point.
Accuracy is clustering them around the bullseye.

My assertion stands though about GIGO.

Pushing iffy data into proven formulas could yield a bunch of clustered results that look promising...but are weak.

Let's imagine you're about to vacation on a hypothetical island where the nights are routinely 40 degrees and the days are routinely 90 degrees. BUT...your travel agent can only tell you the average temperature is 65 degrees. You're going to pack wrong!

[thaskalos]

Let's imagine you're about to vacation on a hypothetical island where the nights are routinely 40 degrees and the days are routinely 90 degrees. BUT...your travel agent can only tell you the average temperature is 65 degrees. You're going to pack wrong!

Or...Bill Gates, and 1,000 homeless people, were all invited to an exclusive investment conference given by a major financial institution...because it was discovered that the invitees had an average net worth of about $70,000,000.

[traynor]

Accuracy and Precision
The following should give some clarification:

“In the fields of engineering, industry and statistics, the accuracy of a measurement system is the degree of closeness of measurements of a quantity to its actual (true) value. The precision of a measurement system, also called reproducibility or repeatability, is the degree to which repeated measurements under unchanged conditions show the same results. Although the two words can be synonymous in colloquial use, they are deliberately contrasted in the context of the scientific method.”

Therefore, in handicapping a horserace for winning wagers is to have a system/method determining the ACCURACY of a horse’s performance effort not the PRECISION of the horse’s performance effort.

And you really, truly believe that your estimates equate to "accuracy"?

[traynor]

Yes, I know.

My graduate stats professor said it more colloquially as:

Precision is clustering your arrows around a single point.
Accuracy is clustering them around the bullseye.

My assertion stands though about GIGO.

Pushing iffy data into proven formulas could yield a bunch of clustered results that look promising...but are weak.

Let's imagine you're about to vacation on a hypothetical island where the nights are routinely 40 degrees and the days are routinely 90 degrees. BUT...your travel agent can only tell you the average temperature is 65 degrees. You're going to pack wrong!

What was it Beyer said (I think in relation to Ray Taulbot or some other "system" developer) about "mixing in the kitchen sink" (or something to that effect)?

[steveb]

not for me to stick up for cratos, or anybody else, but punting is the ultimate test of your methods.

does it matter if it's not spot on, if it wins you more money with it, than without it, warts and all?

for instance, somebody might tell you averages are very average!!!!:lol:
and hark on about it endlessly.
in fact, i reckon his propensity to do that is very average!!

but, but, but, you plug your average averages in, and your profits suddenly increase by a magnitude of whatever.
who gives a damn if their averages are average!

i once had a factor that i thought i had all figured out.
plugged it in, and it was a goer, and then, and then, and then, i discovered coding errors in the formula!
what did i do?

it always amuses me when people can the methods of others, without actually having any idea of what they are doing.

i can remember alan woods posting to a forum in australia, and he used to cop it relentlessly, from the experts who said it could not be done, what he was doing.
when they learned a little about who he was(generally unknown at the time) then the biggest naysayers were suddenly the biggest grovellors!

[Cratos]

Does your model account for the effects of centripetal force on the turns and have you observed conclusively that there is a direct correlation to height and weight? In other words, are larger/heavier/taller horses slower around the turns on average than not, otherwise have you observed some discernible pattern that can be attributed to weight/height specifically around turns?

There were three questions being asked and I try and answer them.

Accuracy of the Estimate

Yes, our estimates equate to “accuracy” because they indicate the proximity of our estimate to the actual value performed or will be performed by the horse.

For those of you who are engineers understand the concept of the “tolerance zone” which is the margin of error that the design can be in and still be acceptable; we work with the same condition with the caveat that our estimate is only as good as the collected data and it doesn’t make any difference if it is Equibase or Trakus data.

Centripetal Force

For the centripetal force question the answer is yes (see the attachment)

Weight/Height Impact in the Turns

The question about weight/height impact in the turns is more about the law of inertia (commonly called centrifugal force) than the centripetal force; and thermodynamics which is all about the horse’s energy and how it used. If we work backwards we can approximate the amount of work (energy) of the horse in the turn measured in MJs and therefore we should find more MJs expended by the larger horse; particularly in the turns.

[JJMartin]

There were three questions being asked and I try and answer them.

Accuracy of the Estimate

Yes, our estimates equate to “accuracy” because they indicate the proximity of our estimate to the actual value performed or will be performed by the horse.

For those of you who are engineers understand the concept of the “tolerance zone” which is the margin of error that the design can be in and still be acceptable; we work with the same condition with the caveat that our estimate is only as good as the collected data and it doesn’t make any difference if it is Equibase or Trakus data.

Centripetal Force

For the centripetal force question the answer is yes (see the attachment)

Weight/Height Impact in the Turns

The question about weight/height impact in the turns is more about the law of inertia (commonly called centrifugal force) than the centripetal force; and thermodynamics which is all about the horse’s energy and how it used. If we work backwards we can approximate the amount of work (energy) of the horse in the turn measured in MJs and therefore we should find more MJs expended by the larger horse; particularly in the turns.

How are you obtaining the weight and the height for each horse?

[Cratos]

How are you obtaining the weight and the height for each horse?

By using the principles of kinematics from Mechanics in physics. I started my study over 10 years ago, but I could not finalize the algorithms until I received better data from Trakus.

The algorithms are proprietary with all rights shared with my associates.

[traynor]

How are you obtaining the weight and the height for each horse?

That seems the key element. Unless precise (as in NOT based on "estimates" or "approximations" or "projected with algorithms developed through backfitting a handful of results" or some similar "osmosis of the cosmosis" explanations) the entire premise is seriously flawed.

I have been asking essentially the same question, both in postings and PMs, with very little of substance in response. Usually a diversion to some other topic. Or an "I can't tell you because it's a secret."

[elhelmete]

That seems the key element. Unless precise (as in NOT based on "estimates" or "approximations" or "projected with algorithms developed through backfitting a handful of results" or some similar "osmosis of the cosmosis" explanations) the entire premise is seriously flawed.

I have been asking essentially the same question, both in postings and PMs, with very little of substance in response. Usually a diversion to some other topic. Or an "I can't tell you because it's a secret."

I would ask this question with respect to weight.

Which scenario would you rely on more:

1) weight estimated via algorithm
2) weight via scale, published publicly on day of entry

In the case of #1, I'm not sure how one would document swings in weight from race to race.

[traynor]

I would ask this question with respect to weight.

Which scenario would you rely on more:

1) weight estimated via algorithm
2) weight via scale, published publicly on day of entry

In the case of #1, I'm not sure how one would document swings in weight from race to race.

I did not intend my questions to be insulting in any way. My intent was to encourage cratos to explain--hopefully in sufficient detail to clarify the issue--how approximations are combined with detailed factors without creating what is essentially nonsense.

I should probably add that I have more than a casual interest in analyzing pace, due to the fact that most of my wagering in based on the results of that analysis.

[JJMartin]

By using the principles of kinematics from Mechanics in physics. I started my study over 10 years ago, but I could not finalize the algorithms until I received better data from Trakus.

The algorithms are proprietary with all rights shared with my associates.

I take it that means you are approximating these figures by way of deduction based on this Kinematics?

[Cratos]

I take it that means you are approximating these figures by way of deduction based on this Kinematics?

It means that we are not using a set of scales to weigh each horse in the race and we believe in the findings of C.R. Taylor (1970) who showed that the energy cost of running in all animals from a mouse to an elephant is directly related to the running speed. He also showed that larger animals have a lower energy cost on a per pound basis.

[JJMartin]

It means that we are not using a set of scales to weigh each horse in the race and we believe in the findings of C.R. Taylor (1970) who showed that the energy cost of running in all animals from a mouse to an elephant is directly related to the running speed. He also showed that larger animals have a lower energy cost on a per pound basis.
Do you have any measurement system and/or conclusions about stride length?

[Cratos]

Do you have any measurement system and/or conclusions about stride length?

Somewhere on this forum there is a good post by the poster, Magister Ludi on this subject.

[elhelmete]

I did not intend my questions to be insulting in any way. My intent was to encourage cratos to explain--hopefully in sufficient detail to clarify the issue--how approximations are combined with detailed factors without creating what is essentially nonsense.

I should probably add that I have more than a casual interest in analyzing pace, due to the fact that most of my wagering in based on the results of that analysis.

I didn't find it insulting at all, I'm just adding my own take on it which is basically questioning the predictive value of a projection based on a 40+ year old study. Especially when the thing being measured could be directly and 99% accurately measured in a moment. And when I personally believe that it's a change of weight between races or a series of races that would be a serious indicator of something important.

Let me put it this way. Which series of weight measurement over four races would give you something to chew on:

Estimation: 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000

Scale-weighed: 1100, 1070, 1055, 1045

[traynor]

I didn't find it insulting at all, I'm just adding my own take on it which is basically questioning the predictive value of a projection based on a 40+ year old study. Especially when the thing being measured could be directly and 99% accurately measured in a moment. And when I personally believe that it's a change of weight between races or a series of races that would be a serious indicator of something important.

Let me put it this way. Which series of weight measurement over four races would give you something to chew on:

Estimation: 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000

Scale-weighed: 1100, 1070, 1055, 1045

I think the weight of a horse may be significant, but not in a simplistic way. For one thing, mice and elephants do not always have jockeys on their backs encouraging them to disperse their available energy in human-directed fashion. For another, the weight of a race horse (in most cases) is directly related to the training regimen of that horse and indirectly to feed. (Anyone who has seen the first few weeks of the meet at a northern track when the horses are being "raced into shape" after doing little or no focused training beforehand should have learned a lot about horses, trainers, and (especially) what to look for at the start of a meet.

Without intimate knowledge of the horse, the training regimen, the current physical condition of the horse, and the optimal weight range for that specific horse in regard to its performance in a race, calculations that involve that weight seem "less than useful."

[ReplayRandall]

Let's see, we have 231 posts and over 12K views of a mindless thread that has devolved into a "biggest loser" diatribe of what a horse's weight may or may not be......What a total waste of time and a big JOKE...:sleeping::sleeping::

[Cratos]

It is amusing to read posts that vehemently criticize without offering one iota of evidence to support their claim.

What is equally amusing is earlier in this thread when there was a call several times asking for other posters to join and contribute; it didn't happen.

Now faced with a subject they apparently don't understand, their outcry is it was a "waste of time"".

Wow, what a woeful intellectual environment this will be with that type of sentiment.

[ReplayRandall]

Quick word of praise to PA Mike, site upgrade is A+, everything looks great with much quicker response times. Best of all, the IGNORE function works perfectly.....:ThmbUp:

[Cratos]

I didn't find it insulting at all, I'm just adding my own take on it which is basically questioning the predictive value of a projection based on a 40+ year old study. Especially when the thing being measured could be directly and 99% accurately measured in a moment. And when I personally believe that it's a change of weight between races or a series of races that would be a serious indicator of something important.

Let me put it this way. Which series of weight measurement over four races would give you something to chew on:

Estimation: 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000

Scale-are weighed: 1100, 1070, 1055, 1045
Please explain because I thought it was the analytical value not the predictive value, but I suppose if it didn't happen a nanosecond ago its scientific value is nebulous.

[JJMartin]

It means that we are not using a set of scales to weigh each horse in the race and we believe in the findings of C.R. Taylor (1970) who showed that the energy cost of running in all animals from a mouse to an elephant is directly related to the running speed. He also showed that larger animals have a lower energy cost on a per pound basis.

So the larger animals may have more endurance then? I would presume that a longer stride should be beneficial to speed and endurance. Since you are not weighing the horses, you must be extracting the approximate measurements some other way. I am not sure how you would do that except through some form of deduction that would give you a rough estimate. I don't really care how you are doing it but I do find it interesting and I am wondering, how much of an impact does this part of the algorithm/method have on your end results on average?

[traynor]

It is amusing to read posts that vehemently criticize without offering one iota of evidence to support their claim.

What is equally amusing is earlier in this thread when there was a call several times asking for other posters to join and contribute; it didn't happen.

Now faced with a subject they apparently don't understand, their outcry is it was a "waste of time"".

Wow, what a woeful intellectual environment this will be with that type of sentiment.

I think this whole thing would be more interesting if you provided some evidence of your claims. That seems to be conspicuous by its absence.

You may be on to something. Demonstrate what your math and physics can tell you about what is going to happen in races that have not been run.

[JJMartin]

In the short tests I've performed within the scope of pace as I see it, I did not find anything that would rival Speed handicapping when both are compared without any interrelation. That may be due in part to lack of experience in solely pace handicapping and lack of sufficient study/comprehension or it may be enough to indicate that the Speed factor is simply the most superior indicator of a horse's chance of winning. In my own method, speed is without a doubt the most impactful aspect of the whole. Needless to say, speed alone is not enough and without the contribution of the supporting factors, the method fails, but it certainly is the centerpiece. Removing any other single factor may weaken the results but removing speed altogether or even dropping speed to 2nd rank completely destroys it. I am not intending to promote Speed over other forms of handicapping with this commentary, it is just my experience.

The idea of exploring pace, specifically how the apparent running styles behave together is an area that I was hoping could lead to a process that would enhance my results if even by the smallest increment. I found that the leader at the 1st call could be rather predictable under certain conditions. I was not able to obtain the same results in the later stages of the race. There are so many unknown influences occurring simultaneously that the resulting complexity requires the input of data from many other areas of which I either do not have or even necessarily know what they should be or if they are even able to be extrapolated from commercially available data.

There is a valid concern of inadvertently following a path that only after years you realize is a dead end. Therefore it is important to gain as much insight as possible from others' perspectives and be exposed to new unexplored areas from their contributions. When someone claims they are successful in a certain area unknown to you, you can either explore it for yourself and arrive at your own conclusions or dismiss their claim as a baseless assertion. That is a decision that is not always easy to make. I think what is happening within these forums is that there is a lot of apprehension when it comes to participation in any proposed endeavor due to lack of knowledge, experience, expertise, qualification, education etc. The other problem is lack of willingness or means to put in the work. It took me about 10 years to arrive at my conclusions within the context of my own methods. It is rather selective, mechanical and boring but it works (so far). I want to make it better especially if I can expand the amount of qualifying races. I cannot stress enough that achieving any method that results in a long term positive roi consistently without dependence on anomalies is a very elusive undertaking. If you never get there, it is ok. I gave up many times along the way myself and there is no guarantee of continued success. I don't really care either way because I enjoy the process (usually). Sorry to digress but I felt that I had some points to make to address this constant issue of dissent that seems to be so pervasive on this forum. There is too much debating and not enough "collaboration". It only reinforces my belief that for the most part this type of work was destined to be carried out in isolation.

[traynor]

In the short tests I've performed within the scope of pace as I see it, I did not find anything that would rival Speed handicapping when both are compared without any interrelation. That may be due in part to lack of experience in solely pace handicapping and lack of sufficient study/comprehension or it may be enough to indicate that the Speed factor is simply the most superior indicator of a horse's chance of winning. In my own method, speed is without a doubt the most impactful aspect of the whole. Needless to say, speed alone is not enough and without the contribution of the supporting factors, the method fails, but it certainly is the centerpiece. Removing any other single factor may weaken the results but removing speed altogether or even dropping speed to 2nd rank completely destroys it. I am not intending to promote Speed over other forms of handicapping with this commentary, it is just my experience.

The idea of exploring pace, specifically how the apparent running styles behave together is an area that I was hoping could lead to a process that would enhance my results if even by the smallest increment. I found that the leader at the 1st call could be rather predictable under certain conditions. I was not able to obtain the same results in the later stages of the race. There are so many unknown influences occurring simultaneously that the resulting complexity requires the input of data from many other areas of which I either do not have or even necessarily know what they should be or if they are even able to be extrapolated from commercially available data.

There is a valid concern of inadvertently following a path that only after years you realize is a dead end. Therefore it is important to gain as much insight as possible from others' perspectives and be exposed to new unexplored areas from their contributions. When someone claims they are successful in a certain area unknown to you, you can either explore it for yourself and arrive at your own conclusions or dismiss their claim as a baseless assertion. That is a decision that is not always easy to make. I think what is happening within these forums is that there is a lot of apprehension when it comes to participation in any proposed endeavor due to lack of knowledge, experience, expertise, qualification, education etc. The other problem is lack of willingness or means to put in the work. It took me about 10 years to arrive at my conclusions within the context of my own methods. It is rather selective, mechanical and boring but it works (so far). I want to make it better especially if I can expand the amount of qualifying races. I cannot stress enough that achieving any method that results in a long term positive roi consistently without dependence on anomalies is a very elusive undertaking. If you never get there, it is ok. I gave up many times along the way myself and there is no guarantee of continued success. I don't really care either way because I enjoy the process (usually). Sorry to digress but I felt that I had some points to make to address this constant issue of dissent that seems to be so pervasive on this forum. There is too much debating and not enough "collaboration". It only reinforces my belief that for the most part this type of work was destined to be carried out in isolation.

I think a BIG issue in pace analysis is that someone says (or writes) something, and it is uncritically accepted as some kind of immutable truth. Bluntly, it doesn't take a whole lot of objective research to conclude that most of what most think they "know" about pace is nonsense. It works sometimes, and they remember the sometimes (flatters the ego). It doesn't work most of the time, and those times are ignored or "overlooked" (to do otherwise would threaten the ego, and invoke cognitive dissonance on the self-perception of being the sharpest tack in the box). That is why early on I suggested that various scenarios be objectively tested over a decent size block of races. Not difficult.

[JJMartin]

I think a BIG issue in pace analysis is that someone says (or writes) something, and it is uncritically accepted as some kind of immutable truth. Bluntly, it doesn't take a whole lot of objective research to conclude that most of what most think they "know" about pace is nonsense. It works sometimes, and they remember the sometimes (flatters the ego). It doesn't work most of the time, and those times are ignored or "overlooked" (to do otherwise would threaten the ego, and invoke cognitive dissonance on the self-perception of being the sharpest tack in the box). That is why early on I suggested that various scenarios be objectively tested over a decent size block of races. Not difficult.

That makes me think of when software developers promote their software with examples of races that won because they choose the ones where it works in their favor. Then when you buy it and try the same method/technique they demonstrated, it fails.

Well I tried to do some stuff and I posted the results. I don't really see anyone else attempting any objective testing with large samples and posting anything yet.

[traynor]

This is a current pace profile for pace races at Yonkers (it could be any harness or thoroughbred track for the purpose).

E=271|P=136|M=15|L=92|F=485

The values indicate the portion of the race in which the eventual winner challenged for and/or took the lead, and went on to win. Yes, a lot of horses that were in the lead (or seriously contending for the lead) at the quarter mile won. But way more trundled along at their own rate while the other entries "contested the pace." Especially dismal is the third value--from the half-mile to the three-quarter mile--often considered a "big move" by trip handicappers.

Well, so what? That "big move" is often a training strategy. It is not intended to enable the horse to win the current race, but to build up its condition for a subsequent race. In thoroughbred tracks in the desert southwest and Florida, this is one of the most lucrative pieces of "pace handicapping" available for those who understand what they are looking at.

[Cratos]

So the larger animals may have more endurance then? I would presume that a longer stride should be beneficial to speed and endurance. Since you are not weighing the horses, you must be extracting the approximate measurements some other way. I am not sure how you would do that except through some form of deduction that would give you a rough estimate. I don't really care how you are doing it but I do find it interesting and I am wondering, how much of an impact does this part of the algorithm/method have on your end results on average?

As stated to you earlier in this thread; I would continue if I had time and if what was asked of me wouldn’t violated the conditions of my ND agreement with my associates.

Also, this thread has gone away from my suggestion of using MS Excel to calculate a Ky Derby pace analysis and back to the original intent of SW development which would come from algorithm development and that is the part where I cannot go.

Pace in a horse race (as well as any moving object) is motion and is the independent variable. Speed/velocity is the dependent variable and that is irrefutable from the “Laws of Motion” in physics. Motion occurs because of acceleration; and this involves the square of velocity. What I am saying is that the laws of physics tell us that velocity matters twice as much in acceleration and in horseracing the first effect of that is larger the velocity, the larger the change in velocity for a given stride angle and the second effect is that the faster the horse moves around the racetrack.

Your question: “the larger animals may have more endurance then?” Moves the discussion into thermodynamics and the energy calculation of the racehorse.

However, I don’t have the time or permission to become that extensive involved, but I will participate in the Ky derby pace exercise.

I wish you much success.

[traynor]

Charlie Whittingham was noted for his use of rabbits. He would enter the "early speed" stable mate of the primary contender (both of which were in top condition) to "keep the pace honest." Meaning, unless the other jockeys "contested the pace" of the rabbit, it would slow enough to conserve its energy for a stretch drive and a wire to wire win. The primary contender would enjoy a nice romp and save it for another day.

Conversely, if the other jockeys took the bait of the rabbit, it would go all out--never intending to win, but intending to burn out the other horses and set up for a win by the primary contender.

Simple stuff. Happens every day. Two points to consider. First, you should not mix scenarios. Charlie Whittingham's use of rabbits does NOT mean that "a hot early pace" wears out all the early speed types and "sets up the race for closers." That is utter nonsense. Second, the only reason it (sometimes) seems to be so is that most jockeys are not really "strategic riders." They go as far as they can, as fast as they can, and hope they make it to the wire before the others. If there is a fast early speed type in the race, the jockeys will almost invariably chase it, because the myth that an early speed type that routinely wilts in the stretch will somehow be given additional energy if "allowed to maintain an easy lead" is as prevalent among jockeys as among "pace handicappers."

That, too, can be proven fairly easily to be utter nonsense with a few lines of code and a block of races. However, like a whole cluster of similar "pace truisms" and bits of "horsey knowledge," no one really wants to do that, because it would make explicit that a lot of their "understanding" about pace in particular and racing in general is seriously flawed.

[traynor]

Six furlong dirt. Two races.
22 45 1:10
21.3 44 1:10

The "pace" of those races is not necessarily the raw fractional times. the actual "pace" of the race is the fractional times and positions of the primary contenders--NOT simply the fractional times of whichever horse was in the lead at that moment. Having the nose in front only counts at the wire--not at the other points of call.

Note the use of the plural "contenders." New definition. The pace of a race is based on the interrelationship of the fractional times and positions of the primary contenders in that race. Who said that? I did, just now.

[traynor]

In the two six furlong races used for illustration purposes, if the fast early fractions were set by a horse that went wire to wire, great. It might mean something. If the fast early fractions were set by a horse that flopped in the stretch (as it habitually does), and gave the race to another horse with a jockey smart enough not to burn out his horse chasing the horse that routinely sets fast early fractions and flops in the stretch, it might mean something completely different. The actual "pace" of that race is more usefully calculated relative to the movement of the primary contenders (including the eventual winner), rather than as "a hot early pace" that somehow imbues the whole thing with some sort of mystical significance that someone pulled out of his or her (theoretical) hat.

[steveb]

Charlie Whittingham was noted for his use of rabbits. He would enter the "early speed" stable mate of the primary contender (both of which were in top condition) to "keep the pace honest." Meaning, unless the other jockeys "contested the pace" of the rabbit, it would slow enough to conserve its energy for a stretch drive and a wire to wire win. The primary contender would enjoy a nice romp and save it for another day.

Conversely, if the other jockeys took the bait of the rabbit, it would go all out--never intending to win, but intending to burn out the other horses and set up for a win by the primary contender.

Simple stuff. Happens every day. Two points to consider. First, you should not mix scenarios. Charlie Whittingham's use of rabbits does NOT mean that "a hot early pace" wears out all the early speed types and "sets up the race for closers." That is utter nonsense. Second, the only reason it (sometimes) seems to be so is that most jockeys are not really "strategic riders." They go as far as they can, as fast as they can, and hope they make it to the wire before the others. If there is a fast early speed type in the race, the jockeys will almost invariably chase it, because the myth that an early speed type that routinely wilts in the stretch will somehow be given additional energy if "allowed to maintain an easy lead" is as prevalent among jockeys as among "pace handicappers."

That, too, can be proven fairly easily to be utter nonsense with a few lines of code and a block of races. However, like a whole cluster of similar "pace truisms" and bits of "horsey knowledge," no one really wants to do that, because it would make explicit that a lot of their "understanding" about pace in particular and racing in general is seriously flawed.


ok i have the data, AND the code
i don't have any doubt that often times a horse can set a fast pace but have no pressure on it, and win in very fast time.
same horse with pressure, even if slower pace, will probably yield.
I KNOW it happens, the problem is knowing BEFORE it happens, but that is neither here nor there.

[traynor]

Again, well, so what? Don't give up on pace. There is a world of information that can be garnered with a computer, a bit of insight, and a willingness to abandon the old time ideas and theories in favor of stuff that actually works in the real world.

Having a young lady who develops and maintains data modeling and data analysis software apps for a major Hong Kong wagering syndicate as a bowhunting companion helps, too.

[traynor]

ok i have the data, AND the code
i don't have any doubt that often times a horse can set a fast pace but have no pressure on it, and win in very fast time.
same horse with pressure, even if slower pace, will probably yield.
I KNOW it happens, the problem is knowing BEFORE it happens, but that is neither here nor there.

There is a direct causal relationship between the preferred riding style of the jockey and the (sometimes accurate, sometimes not) "preferred running style" of the horse. Viewing either in isolation can be misleading. In the scenarios you provide, what the horse does is not determined by the "preferences" of the horse as much as it is by the preferred riding style of the jockey.

I am only suggesting that there is often more to "stuff that happens" in a race than a superficial view will expose. Especially in regard to pace. In the latter scenario you cited, it might be argued that the jockey failed to respond competently to the pressure presented by the other horses exerting that pressure, and burned out his horse early. In the former scenario, it might be argued that the jockey didn't panic and burn out his (or her) horse early. Nothing more complex than that. In one case the jockey panicked, in the other she (or he) did not.

That is as plausible an explanation of events as that the horse "wilted under pressure" or "ran faster because it wasn't pressured." What happens in a race depends on a lot of different factors. The horse is only one of them.

[steveb]

Again, well, so what? Don't give up on pace. There is a world of information that can be garnered with a computer, a bit of insight, and a willingness to abandon the old time ideas and theories in favor of stuff that actually works in the real world.

Having a young lady who develops and maintains data modeling and data analysis software apps for a major Hong Kong wagering syndicate as a bowhunting companion helps, too.


i have finally figured what it is with you, that pisses me off so much.
you don't purposely put people or their methods down, you just automatically assume that whatever anybody else does is not as good as YOU do.

i have no idea what your last paragraph is supposed to infer?
is her name ciara?
does she work for victoria?
is it meant to impress??

[FakeNameChanged]

That makes me think of when software developers promote their software with examples of races that won because they choose the ones where it works in their favor. Then when you buy it and try the same method/technique they demonstrated, it fails.

Well I tried to do some stuff and I posted the results. I don't really see anyone else attempting any objective testing with large samples and posting anything yet.

JJ, as you were very helpful to me analyzing some data a while back, I would be very interested in looking at the above "stuff and results." Can you point me in the direction of your work? Your comments about speed being more predictive(another post) than pace also mirrors a lot of my analysis. I know that flies in the face of most PA sentiment. I give you credit for attempting to help with the OP's question on software.

[DeltaLover]

i have finally figured what it is with you, that pisses me off so much.
you don't purposely put people or their methods down, you just automatically assume that whatever anybody else does is not as good as YOU do.

i have no idea what your last paragraph is supposed to infer?
is her name ciara?
does she work for victoria?
is it meant to impress??

The issue here is not that Traynor (or any other poster in this thread), puts people or their methods down because of what they are doing; the problem is that something like this cannot happen since nothing from what is described here that can be empirically tested and verified.

No theory in the thread has been presented in a clear and concise way that can become subject to verification, instead all the postings consist of vague and metaphysic claims, requiring a great degree of faith to convince the reader.

No statement containing expressions like "I know", "I have seen", "I have done", "There exists", "I feel", "I believe", "My experience tells me" etc, can be considered convincing arguments that can win a debate and prove a specific case; unfortunately this thread is full of this type of nonsense that have only created dead-end confrontations similar to those can be found in the notorious "Religious" thread.