EquiSim ROI

[Jingle]

EquiSim ROI is a dynamite software program. I have been using it for 2 months now and can't say enough good things about it.

There are so many features that if I tried to mention all of them I know I would leave something out. I thought it basically was a program that allowed you to watch horses run around the track but believe me it is much more than that.

Some of the features include a database to determine whats winning at your track. A profiler to determine whats winning at a particular class and distance, etc, etc, etc.

Most importantly--it picks winners at all tracks. I mainly play NY and GP but as a test I've tried it on tracks like Suffolk Downs.
The first card I did at Suffolk had 8 of the 10 winners in the top two picks with decent prices ie.$12.60, $16.40. The next card there had 6 out of ten in the top 2--- many favorites but also a couple of longshots.

The support is excellent--best I have ever experienced and I have been playing the horses with many software programs for the past 20 years.

I am in no way connected with the Program except I purchased it.
In fact , I hope he doesn't sell any more copies!!!


Jingle

[tboles]

Jingle

Do you use BRIS or TSN files?

Have you tested both types of files to weigh the differences?

Curious.....

[Jingle]

TBOLES

I have used both files and they seem to work equally well.
I have used TSN the past 3 weeks as I am building a database and as you know they're a little less expensive.

As an aside, today at Gulf., EquiSim, using TSN files had 4 winners on top ie. $10, $14+ and the exacta cold for $114 in the 5th race
and 2 other $5+ horses. The program really amazes me. I have about 12 GP races in my database and it does a good job profiling the winning horses. Two other winners were 2nd picks at decent prices.

Jingle

[tboles]

Jingle how big of a sampling did you use to test the
difference in those cards if you don't mind me asking?

Tony

[Jingle]

TBOLES

Don't mind you asking at all. First of all I have only been using EquiSim for 2 Months and only have about 50 cards in my database. 40 are TSN and the other 10 are BRIS files.

However. I have been using Modern Pace Handicapping (MPH)
software from Ken Massa since 1995. I have used 1200 BRIS cards and a little over 900 TSN cards. I can tell you my Win and Place %s are almost identical. I must add that MPH is a pace and speed program and I eliminate the pretenders before I run the program so I think that has helped zero in on winners. I have won a couple of handicapping contests (small) using both Bris and TSN files. I like them both and I have tried them all including
ITS, DRF-Bris, Trackmaster, and the Cramer figures which by the way are also good, but Cramer does not have comma-delimited files to download.

There was a period when I was downloading both Bris and TSN
for the same tracks to see which would do better. Guess what--Bris had a few winners that TSN numbers ranked 2nd on MPH while TSN had some winners that Bris didn't. Not a large sample as it got too expensive--about 100 races.

Hope I shed some light on your question.

P.S. I also made my own numbers for a time--gave that up as it took too much time and the Beyers, Bris, TSN numbers are just as good.

[tboles]

Thank you Jingle....I wanted to know before I purchased
a huge pkg of BRIS archives.

Since your sampling is small with the BRIS files I am going to
give it a shot.

Tony

[Handle]

I wish that I could weigh in here with a conclusive BRIS or TSN, but I haven't made the investment of getting both cards to say.
Perhaps when I get my ES ROI discussion board up they'll be folks willing to share statistics from both camps -- the software makes it easy enough to find them.

I can say this -- the cards shouldn't matter much, even if you mix them. Here's the reason.

Take a race. EquiSim looks for various factors for each horse IN THAT RACE and rates them. This information gets stuffed into the Profiler Database. While the BRIS and TSN data files do have slightly different numbers, chances are good that the horse with, say, the best speed in one is going to have the best speed in the next. I presume that cases UNlike this are negligible.

So, because the Profiler Database information is almost entirely comparative in nature, you don't have to worry about a BRIS vs. TSN clash of numbers. That is, the software won't look at a speed rating from one card and compare it with a speed rating from another.

I do prefer the BRIS files because of the Trainer Stats, and the Prime Power ratings (and pedigree ratings). I asked TSN if they would consider putting this into their data files and they said "NO". Go figure. I guess they want to sell less of them, or it doesn't matter because its all in the family?. Equisim ROI will simulate first time starters, and one of the things it keys on is the trainer stats given for first time starter, maiden and msw. It's not perfect, but then again, these are first time starters. What's a program to do? Also, if you use BrisBet, they currently offer 20% off of your data file purchases per month.

-Handle

[tboles]

Handle I will let you know. I plan on testing this if I can get
BRIS to correct their problem in their archived data file menu!

Tony

[andicap]

Originally posted by Handle
I asked TSN if they would consider putting this into their data files and they said "NO". Go figure. I guess they want to sell less of them, or it doesn't matter because its all in the family?. -Handle

Maybe it's becasue TSN is only 50 cents and BRIS is $1. You should get more for more money. Why would I ever buy BRIS if it had the exact same features as TSN?

[Handle]

They only added the prime power, trainer stats, and ped stats in 2001. So the files were pretty close before that. You may be right that they wanted to differentiate the files to reflect the difference in content. But, if memory serves, TSN used to sell their "Fast Charts" for more than BRIS did. I don't see the Fast Charts at TSN anymore (maybe I missed them...). (The Instant Charts pretty much replace them).

-Handle

[andicap]

I think they always had the idea of making TSN the "low-end" product and BRIS the "premium" brand. But at 80 cents a card, I think BRIS is a darn good deal. I mean if you follow two tracks closely and they race 5 times a week that's about $33 a month. Not bad.

[Handle]

As far as a good deal, no arguments from me.

But, if you support a software program, as I do, then it would be very nice if two files that shared the same format had the same data fields in them. It's one thing when the numbers are slightly different, it's another when when the data set is. To avoid the honus this puts on customers that use these data files, but keep the "brand" separation, they could have two separate file formats. There are arguments that support what they're doing, but when marketing starts inteferring with the product it bugs me to death. "Keep them confused", I guess. Maybe people will buy both!

-Handle

[rrbauer]

From andicap:
I think they always had the idea of making TSN the "low-end" product and BRIS the "premium" brand. But at 80 cents a card, I think BRIS is a darn good deal. I mean if you follow two tracks closely and they race 5 times a week that's about $33 a month. Not bad.

I don't have an opinion over what's a good deal for data versus what isn't a good deal (although "clean" data would be nice). As to some far-reaching strategy regarding the brand posturing of TSN and BRIS I can assure you that it was a case of "if you throw enough stuff against the wall, some of it will stick" thinking and nothing deeper than that!

[weatherman]

jingles, can you run MPH with bris files, if so how would i do it

[Jingle]

Weatherman

The answer to your question is yes, MPH does use Bris Files.

However, I have to caution you that Ken Massa, the programmer. told me the MPH program would not work on downloads when we went to y2k unless I got a fix to expand the 2 digit year code. I did get a program called Shield 2000 and it fixed the software. It works just as it always did.

In addition to Bris, it will also use TSN and Trackmaster single comma-delimited files. You can also manually put in Beyers or any other speed figures.

Does your version of MPH have the Quirin Module--pace and speed figures? I have been using MPH since 1995 but currently using EquiSim.

Jingle

[weatherman]

i've had MPH since 1997 but haven't used it much, I use mainly Equisim and Watts (had it since 1994), equisim has shown some good results. i do watts because i put in the races that i want it too figure and get some fairly good results on trifectas and pick3's. here's some of the results from both .. Equ & watts results (http://www.bm-dist.com/resultsa.html) Santa Anita

[Jingle]

Weatherman

LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE BEEN DOING FAIRLY WELL WITH EQUISIM.
HAVE YOU USED THE FINE TUNING FEATURE YET AND IF SO HOW MANY RACES CARDS HAVE YOU BEEN USING TO TUNE?

I HAVE USED BETWEEN 5 AND 10 AND OMIT OFF-TRACKS. SEEMS TO WORK FINE. I PLAY MOSTLY NY, GULF., AND KY.

ALSO DO YOU USE BRIS OR TSN? I HAVE USED BOTH BUT HAVE BEEN USING TSN LATELY AS IT IS A LITTLE LESS EXPENSIVE TO BUILD A DATABASE. I THINK BOTH WORK FINE.

GOOD HANDICAPPING

JINGLE

[weatherman]

I use bris files, it works in my other program too, i tune it every week, first with all races, then with a month, when i've ran a week it doesn't pick up enough races at the price or distance, the Simulation Analysis will change selections once you add results on some races and i don't know why, last week at Santa Anita i had 5 of 6 in the pick6 4 days in a row on $16 & $24 tickets combining the 2 programs, about Bris condensed DRF & Equisim using the 3 best speed last race has produced alot of winnners on pick3's

[Jingle]

WEATHERMAN

Thanks alot for the info. I think your 5 winners in the pick 6 is mighty fine handicapping. Keep it up. Will concentrate on Aqueduct today.

Jingle

[tboles]

Well I downloaded archived BRIS single format files and compared results in Equisim to the TSN single files.

In this comparison I used only 75 racing days (cards).
Is more better in this case?

At MY particular track BRIS files improved the Win % by
only 1% while reducing the ROI by a mere 1/2 dollar.

So for ME I will stick to the TSN files.

I never was much on the Prime Power Number from BRIS anyhow!

I might add that TSN files use the Jockey and Trainer in the
Bias settings while BRIS had neither. Nor did it use Power #
or trainer stats as Biases.

Tony

[Jingle]

Tboles

Thanks for the info. I feel the same way re the TSN files. I don't think we lose that much if anything.

I am not interested in Prime Power #s either but I do think Jock and Trainer stats and biases are included with the Bris numbers and used by Equisim.

Jingle

[tboles]

Jingle yes you are correct and my post may have been misleading. Equisim does use Jockey, Trainer, TrainerStats,
Prime Power etc as Biases.


With TSN files, EQ would use JOCK and TRN as biases.

With BRIS it would not even use those as biases let alone the
PP # or the trn stats after tuning the database. All were null and void with BRIS

Tony

[Handle]

With BRIS files, it has the opportunity of using the Trainer Stats and Prime Power numbers for biases. With TSN files it doesn't because they don't have that data.

I think Tony was pointing out that, in the stuff he did, no meaningful bias was shown for trainer biases or Prime Power. Of course, I've definitely seen biases in these categories, but if you push 75 race cards (around 750 races) through the program and see little change, then I would say that provides a good enough answer for me. But, it depends on how you are using the program too.

Thanks for the Stats Tony -- much appreciated.

-Handle

[Bruddah]

I have been reading this thread with interest because, I have been an Equisim user for 1 1/2 years. I helped Handle with some of the initial Beta tests. He used me, not because I was a computer expert, but rather an individual who is always behind the learning curve. You might say my thick head led to some of the User Friendliness of Equism and Equisim ROI.

I would urge any horse racing fan, whether they be expert or "newbie", to give Equisim ROI a try. I am not connected to or receive any compensation for this endorsement. I am simply a satisfied user who has had the pleasure to see this Dynamic program evolve. It has also been an extreme pleasure working with Handle. You will receive no better product support anywhere.

Equisim ROI is not a BLACK BOX program. It is a sophisticated handicapping tool which allows you to build a data base at the same time you handicap your favorite tracks. From this data base it will allow you to profile races to find what's winning. These different profiles also identify different bias. If this weren't enough, Equisim ROI gives you a visual race simulation and outcome based on the running lines you select or the programs selection. Change running lines for a horse and see the predicted impact, if any, on the outcome of the race. Scratch a horse and see the predicted impact of the running of the race. No other program, I am aware of, can or will deliver as much information to the handicapper, as Equisim ROI.

The Best is yet to come because Handle is dedicated to making this program the finest in the industry. Do yourself a favor and try it.

Bruddah

[Jingle]

Bruddah

Thanks for sharing the information. You must have done a damn good job getting Equisim user-friendly because I find it very easy to work with and I can be thick-headed also.

I second your vote re Handle being very supportive. When I had questions in the early going I would get an answer many times within the hour!!! Thats Support!!

Any other tips you can offer re Equisim will be greatly appreciated.

I find the program is excellent even without using the added features of fine tuning and simulation biases.

Good Handicapping,

Jingle

[tboles]

Bruddah....
Saying Equisim is not a Black Box is correct as well as it
is for ANY program on the market. Anyone using a computer
handicapping program should 1st handicap the race themselves....
then turn to the PC.

EQ has been reliable in my style of handicapping.

Well written, program navigation flows seamlessly,
Great support thus far, many different ways to
handicap a race rather than relying on a basic output,
new version thus far has been flawless.....

Alot of thought has gone into this program and HARD
LABOR as well. Thank You handle for your efforts and
in my opinion, thanks for sharing!


Tony

[andicap]

How paceline sensitive is this program?


ag

[Handle]

Andicap,

How pace line sensitive is the program?

It depends on how you want to use the program.

The simulations themselves are very pace line sensitive.
The program has a couple of algorithms for selecting which pace line for each horse, or you can select your own. Future versions will include the ability to define your own selection algorithms as well.

But the Profiler Feature is less pace line sensitive. In a nut shell, Profiler is a database driven approach to defining statistics for various "abilities" of each contestant specific to the type of race being handicapped. For example, it can tell you how often the horse with the "Best E1" pace rating wins, places, and shows, plus the ROI for flat betting to win on this ability. It can tell you this based on the particular type of race being handicapped. Meaning, if you have a 6 furlong, maiden claiming race from AQU, on the dirt, for a 10,000 purse, with a horse that has dominant late speed, etc., etc., it will derive its statistics only from similar races.

The Profiler Feature itself is somewhat pace line sensitive. After all, the comparitive analysis done on most of the "abilities" is derived from comparison of the pace lines selected for each horse. However, the end result in this case is not a "pick this winner because of the pace line selection". It is the generation of statistics from many races specific to the one you are handicapping.

I believe that allowing the computer to select each pace line, or even using the last pace line of each horse, is the best method of generating these statistics. While this sort of pace line selection may not always yield the "best" pace line to choose from, it selects the pace lines in a consistent fashion. This is important since the value is in the statistics that are gathered over many races, all handicapped the same way by the system. Therefore, if the system says that the horse with the Best E1 pace figure wins 37% of the time in a given Race Profile, it is saying that this occurs given the historic way in which the pace lines have been selected.

Is there a fallacy in this method? Well, perhaps someone else's method of selecting pace lines would have resulted in a different win %. That's true. Still, the % is going to change based on the particular races that are in the database irregardless of pace line selection. No matter how you cut it, you are dealing with a dynamic data model. The question then is in efficacy. It would prove nothing to say that the system is effective because that best E1 stat produces 37% winners. That is what is in argument -- is that figure reliable, or has it been made unreliable by its dependency on the pace lines used to determine it? Further -- there is nothing that insures the next Best E1 horse in this race type has a 37% chance of winning the race -- that saying about past performance not guaranteeing future performance. It can only be used as a reference point.

Here I can only say that, in my usage of the system and the feedback I have gotten from others, the Profiler statistics have proven themselves invaluable in spotting horses at good prices. This is the same thing as saying that past performances don't guarantee future success, but it is best not to ignore them.


-Handle

[andicap]

In my handicapping, I don't look at best of last 3 etc., but best in last 45 days, or last 3 months, etc. I don't use categories in isolation but combine them, and include final time in my calucations.
Right now I use a program that calcuates all of my figures, but I have to do the rest by hand.
I'd love to find software that would not only calcuate my formulas, but tell give me the top figures for past 45 days, etc.

[Handle]

Andicap,

Allowing you to input an algorithm for selecting the pace lines seems like it would accomplish what you want to do re: best in last 45 days. This is something I'm looking to do in later releases.

I'm not sure exactly what sort of combinations you use. ES has an E2+Late "ability" that it tracks. The Profiler also gives back statistics on combinations of "abilities". For example, perhaps the Best E1 wins 19% in a given profile, and the Best Speed figure wins 22% in the same profile. But what if the horse has both the best E1 and the Best Speed figure? Profiler has these sorts of statistics, but I think that what you mean by combinations is probably a much different concept.

-Handle

[JustRalph]

I have been using Equisim for about a year now. I am lucky enough that I can play at work. I have played as many as five days a week sometimes. For me that is a bunch of races. I am very busy at home with some family obligations and I really haven't had the time to use and learn all the features. I can perform the basics pretty well though. I think the the new profiler feature is pretty awesome though. I am just learning to build the databases etc. But with great help from the Equisim staff (all those secretaries and administrative types, just joking) its coming along. The one very nice thing that I like about the program is, it will turn you on to a horse that you may have missed. Or lets say I discount a horse for one reason and Equisim makes me take a second look. Over the last few weeks at Sam Houston I have picked up on a horse that had a so called hidden talent pointed out by Eq. probably 5 times. I have scored some big exacta dollars (maybe not so big around here, but they are for me) by looking back at the horse I missed. I love it when a horse shows an even approach throughout a race or certain distance and is consistent. The problem is I have a hard time seeing that horse sometimes. I know we all see the big beyer number or extra fast pace in a pp line. But Eq will point out the horse that runs consistently even races and doesn't look like a standout, but when he catches the right field, goes off 10 or 20 to One. Last week at Sam one of these horses went 30-1 and I tied him up with a horse that I loved at 8-1. The exacta was very nice when you have it ten times you cannot discount the effectiveness of Eq. I can tell you that my own personal handicapping without the program is much better and I run Eq after handicapping a race myself. But without Eq. I wouldn't go back and take a second look at some horses. This is the real value in the application. I have one example of a horse that Eq pointed out to me. He is an older horse that runs MTR and Thistle. Eq pointed him out to me, but even more than that Eq pointed out to me that the trainer has a few in her stable that run consistent, but apparently she waits for the right fields and she loves to pull high odds and set the horse up with longer races and then pulls em back to a mile or 7F for the wins. If she gets a tough field that she cannot snooker, she scratches the horse. I have made some good bucks in last 6 months on one horse by using virtual stable and watching the training pattern. BTW I rarely bet over $20 across on these horses but am starting to reconsider now that the pattern is continuing. I did drop $50 across on one and made $2000 back when he won at 24-1. Eq will tell me if the horse has a shot in a field and I already know the distance so I can layoff or bet the farm. I can tell you that if I have the time to handicap and do my job right I usually can pick them better than Eq on a percentage basis. But the ones I miss are where I make the money. Eq is the tool that fills that gap.

On another note, anybody have a suggestion on where to play now that Sam has closed? send me a message.

[Larry Hamilton]

I have short-term current comprehensive dbs on 10 tracks including: Aqu, Ct, GG, GP, MNR, OP, Pen, Philly, Tam TUP and long term scattered data on perhaps 50 tracks. I have yet to find one track better than another using EquiSim..pick the track you like, your tool will work as well there as it did at Sam Houston.

[Handle]

Well, I'm going to be in mourning for a little while myself now that HOU is dark. There are definitely other tracks out there that EquiSim's "black box" aspect (the default simulation) is doing well at, but it's awfully hard to beat what ES did at Houston this last meet -- but, then again, you guys aren't relying on the Simulations anyway (!!!)

Now that the meets for my Winter tracks are over with, here's a link to how EquiSim's simulations performed. Folks that are familiar with this board know that I've raged against the idea of "genii in a bottle" software, and this doesn't change my take (but I can't wait until HOU opens again either...).


EquiSim Stats (http://www.golganooza.com/equisim/stats.html)

-Handle

[GR1@HTR]

Nice Stats. What variables within your program does your simulator look at?

[anotherdave]

Impressive stats. Excuse this question -it probably has an obvious answer to everyone else - but I don't know a lot about databases, etc.

Can you tell me if the stats are compiled as the meet goes on -the simulations are done as the meet progressed before each race - or if the simulation was done afterwards. In other words are those the horses I would pick at the time of each race or is it a matter of using the simulation to set up the next meet?

Either way it looks very promising! I am more and more thinking that I should have bought it before the price went up. Still might.

Also does Equisim ROI have an odds line feature?


AD

[Vinnie]

Beautiful Stats!

As an ESROI user myself, I love to see statistics like these! Thanks for placing them on the board. I too am excited about the prospect of Sam Houston opening up again in the future. Maybe by that time I will have a better hold of the Profiler and Tuning Features of the ESROI program.

I think that you can expect results such as these virtually anywhere you may wish to play if you become familiar enough with this program.

[GR1@HTR]

As a word of caution...I'm coming up on my 3rd year of dB'ing...What happens in one year at a track is very likely not to happen the next year...Unfortunately, only time will tell.

[anotherdave]

GR1 wrote

"As a word of caution...I'm coming up on my 3rd year of dB'ing...What happens in one year at a track is very likely not to happen the next year...Unfortunately, only time will tell."

Thank for the warning, GR1. Even as a non-databaser, I would guess that is true. That's why I was asking if the data was from "retrofitting" (that's probably the wrong word) or not. I'm trying to figure out whether it is worth my while to get into data bases. I making money now, but don't want to mess up a good thing. But maybe it might get better .....????

AD

[Handle]

Thanks for checking out the stats.

Summary:
* Retrofitted - No. Capability to "retrofit", yes.
* Odds Line - Yes, but it's a recent addition and I've yet to analyze how satisfactory it is.

There are actually 2 issues here. The stats in question actually have practically nothing to do with EquiSim's database capabilities. These are statistics for the Simulation Winner. They are made available from EquiSim's database, but the Profiler feature is a different animal all together.

So, the answer is that there is no "retrofitting". These stats would be the same whether you ran each card one day at a time, or generated the statistics using one of ES's facilities to create databases from files "all at once". It really blows my mind that the statistics for this "black box" are this good -- and they are not this good for every single track, but I have seen the equivalent at a few others.

Now, there is a feature in EquiSim that will allow you to use past race results to tune simulations. This is called the "Simulation Tuning Wizard." Essentially, you tell it which card files to Tune with and it runs through 100's of simulations for each race. In the process, it finds the best settings, called "biases", and then allows you to apply these biases automatically to upcoming races. I believe the concept here is a good one, but this is a new feature bound to be improved on in the future -- note, there were NO biases applied to the simulations for the statistics I've posted.

Will EquiSim's simulations perform this well at HOU, or FG, next meet? I agree, things change. That's one reason why the program has the ability to report on its performance built into it. What I can say is that ES was strong at HOU all meet, with a bad week here and there. So, for whatever reason, it seems that if it is doing well it continues to do well (and vice versa....)

OK, what I've described above is "just" the Simulation side of things. The Profiler Database is something I'm even more excited about. Rather than blather on here for the moment, I recommend folks interested check out the demo and read the User's Guide. There's a blurb on the Web Site, but this needs to be updated badly and will be in the next day or so. One thing that needs inclusion -- The Profiler View now creates an Impact Value (Profiler Value) for each horse based on the statistics for all of its "abilities" taken from the database. From this value an Odds Line is created. This addition was added in the 12th hour, so to speak. It will eventually be tied back into the database so the numbers can be verified mechanically. Just from using the program, I can say that these values, and the odds line, are very useful, but I can't tell you any statistics about their accuracy.

-Handle

[Handle]

Originally posted by GR1
Nice Stats. What variables within your program does your simulator look at?

The program looks at a number of different things. Pace Figures are penultimate, but the program also considers:
* Trainer Stats when available (BRIS files only)
* Trainer/Jockey records
* Prime Power when available
* Running style
* Post position and the influence of each horses position going around the turns. (The simulations themselves are actually to scale, and horses going wide on the turns have more ground to cover. This is true even if you run the simulations without watching them).
* Likely fractional times of the race

The program's simulations also "correct" the pace figures and running for each horse by mathematically adjusting how many lengths each pace figure should be worth. Also, there are a couple of algorithms the program uses to select which pace line to use for each horse in a simulation -- this can be overridden (you can select your own), but the default pace line selection is what was used in stats I've posted.

-Handle

[smf]

GR1 has a strong point here that db's stats will change year to year and HOU will *definitely* change next year. A lot of those HOU horsemen will move to Delta b/c their purses w/b about double, likely more soon, of what Sam will offer. Many will stay but the HOU fields w/b much smaller and the "value" will likely be lost when Delta opens.

Delta being the bullring it is will possibly knock the trainer angles down too. Pace and position on the turns w/b most important.

FG w/b less affected from here on, but look at what happened to their fields this season w/ Delta offering high purses for cheap claimers. FG was hurt somewhat by Delta's good fortune. It w/ have a larger affect on SAM H next season.

[Tom]

Originally posted by GR1
As a word of caution...I'm coming up on my 3rd year of dB'ing...What happens in one year at a track is very likely not to happen the next year...Unfortunately, only time will tell.

Not trying to be smart, but I have seen this comment in other places. If your database statistics apparently will not repeat in the future, what value do you get from using them?

:confused:

[GR1@HTR]

Good question Tom. There are probably 3 schools of thought:

1) Short term models win
2) Long term models win
3) Models don’t win

I believe in running data on all tracks to create general profiles of what is strong…A mix of #1 and #2. And then trying to play those profiles at the tracks that are performing well over the short term. As long as there are no crazy conditions (weather related) the track should run consistent for the meet. Just my 1.98 cents…


BTW, nice homer avatar. I've been trying to find Simpson avatars from the horse racing episode but so far have been unsuccessful.

[Handle]

Horse racing is a very dynamic sport -- things change. Whenever you handicap a race you're typically relying on historic information to predict the future -- how reliable is it, how much will it change when the horse runs again?

While this dynamic aspect of the sport is certain, it is also certain that the way races are run at different tracks, and in different types of races at those tracks, favor particular "abilities" over others -- and this tends to remain somewhat constant. Trainer patterns and angles differ more widely.

Here's an example.

At Sam Houston, there are 81 Dirt Sprints in a particular database of mine.

Here are the stats for a few abilities in all 81 sprints. They read:
Abilitiy races appearing / starts appearing / win %/ ROI on betting to win.

Best E1 81/89/25.84/8.99
Best E2 81/85/27.47/-1.87
Best Late 81/85/17.65/-24.35
Best E2+Late 91/90/31.11/14
Simulation Winner: 81/81/32.10/20.49

If you halve this set and take only the most recent 40 examples of dirt sprints at sam houston:

Best E1 40/44/25%/-5.68
Best E2 40/46/21.74/-14.78
Best Late 40/41/17.07/-35.85
Best E2+Late 40/44/34%/28.18
Simulation Winner: 40/40/35%/35


The Best E2 rating changed the most (6%) in this small example set, but, for the most part, the trends continued.

What to do with large databases? EquiSim allows you to specify date ranges from which to pull your data. This enables to you verify whether a specific angle persists over a period of time and also allows you to identify the most recent trends from within a large set of data.

-Handle

[Vinnie]

I am fairly new to databases and their application in the handicapping process, but, when you are handicapping if you have a tool at your disposal that can minimize the tolerances down to such a degree that it gives you as informed a decision as possible as a handicapper, isn't that what it is all about? I mean, biases can change from day to day let alone from meet to meet or from one year to the next. I think that if you were allowed to use a handicapping tool that will help you to pick up on even the most subtle of tendencies or ongoing changes at your track, (thus making you very informed as a player), it could only be of benefit. Equisim is a tool that will keep you headed in the right direction in this regard.

In horse racing success is or never will be guaranteed. Just because I have "tore it up" for one day, one week, or a full meet, it doesn't mean that I will be exactly "setting the oval on fire" the very next time the same track opens up.

May your horses run true to form!

[andicap]

Originally posted by GR1
Good question Tom. There are probably 3 schools of thought:

1) Short term models win
2) Long term models win
3) Models don’t win

I believe in running data on all tracks to create general profiles of what is strong…A mix of #1 and #2. And then trying to play those profiles at the tracks that are performing well over the short term. As long as there are no crazy conditions (weather related) the track should run consistent for the meet. Just my 1.98 cents…



GR1, do you choose your own pacelines for your model or let HTR's default go through?
I would definitely experiment with models more if it wasn't so time consuming to change pacelines -- yes I know the consistency argument about PLs, but I don't agree with it. A bad paceline is a bad paceline, even if its always a bad paceline.
I believe I'm smarter than a computer.

[GR1@HTR]

AC,

I agree...A very good handicapper can select PL's better than a computer...IMHO, most are better off leaving it up to the computer. For testing purposes, I let the computer do it for the same reasons you stated above. Manual PL is very time conusming. Takes me about 10 minutes a race.

I currently utilize 2 handicapping methodologies..

1) If I am betting...
I will manually go through and handicap a race. ie the conventional way, looking at PP, pace, trainer data and all that rubbish

2) If I am in a tourney where I need to make quick decisions on multiple tracks..
I will utilize factor handicapping...ie looking at certain factors that might have shown to be significant within the current meet within certain odd ranges.

Two very extreme and opposite methods that have worked well for me in the past.

[Larry Hamilton]

I may have to look at this simulation sstuff again. So far this afternoon, it hit 2 for 3 at Tampa including a $15 dd and 1 for 3 at Philly paying $31. I never used them before as I was letting my ego tell me where to go instead of my nose for profit.

[Vinnie]

Larry,

When you are talking about simulations, do you mean that you are using software that utilizes race simulations? I wasn't quite sure what you meant when I read your post.

Thanks!

[Larry Hamilton]

EquiSim ROI... email me at larry@hambowl.com..in about 5 minutes I can tell you everything I know about it!

[Lefty]

Larry, what criteria are you using to pick and choose which races to trust the simulation or races to play?
In non-mdns at Tup hit a $10+ and a $20 + in top 2 picks.

[Jingle]

Lefty

In the 9th at Gulf on Friday. EQ picked the #1 horse on top and it paid $44 and change. I'm still trying to figure how how EQ did it as I could have never come up with the horse. Had several other lower priced horses also. ITS AN AMAZING PROGRAM!!

Jingle

[Bruddah]

I have found if the race simulation , using the computer selected pace lines, picks a longshot to run Ist or 2nd, put it in your exotics. Especially, allowance, listed and graded stakes races. This part of the program can amaze you with longshot predictions. Horses, I would have eliminated, now get a long second look with new found respect.

:D

[Vinnie]

Bruddah,

That is a very good point that you have made with reference to the Allowance and Graded Stakes races. I have also found some very good prices, and missed a 48 to 1 shot that smoked the field at Evangeline Downs about a month ago at 6.5f on the dirt because I failed to look at the Race Summary screen where he was virtually on top of every category E1, E2, E2 & Late, and Late Speed for that same exact distance.(What was I doing? Well, at that time, I was looking at another software program to boot, and I missed the boat):>( He was third on the sim chart behind the favorite who came in Second and the third horse who actually came in third for what eventually resulted in a monster trifecta payout. This horse "Forever Buck" went by the fave like he was sitting still coming down the stretch. (He gave him a "wind burn" for cry'in out loud). hee! hee!

[JustRalph]

You guys who are thinking about using Equisim, check out the default picks without tweaking a thing, today at Gulfstream.

I think it more than paid for itself today.

Equisim at Gulfstream today 04_03_02

Race 2 at Gulfstream #4 Higher Gear
17.00 9.20 6.40
Race 6 at Gulfstream #2 Swift Replica
24.20 11.40 7.80
Race 9 at Gulfstream: #1 Bazargan
12.00 6.00 3.40

I liked the horses a bunch when I handicapped them. When the sim put them up front I decided to run with them. It paid off pretty well. It also gave me the info to tie a couple other horses up with my favs for a couple of other races. Cashed a Tri for a couple hundred and had a bunch of fun. I think Equisim and Gulfstream like each other. This was the first time I ever tried Gulfstream by the way.:D :D :D :D :D

[Clinktone]

Folks! I just joined this forum and read with interest all the comments about Equisim. I found it accidentally one day in a search and have been using it ever since. I did a lot of database work of my own at Sam Houston, attempting to isolate different biases, but this outdoes anything I ever could have imagined. If you haven't tried it, do so. Read about the profiling and tuning and apply your own handicapping skills and you'll be rewarded. I use BRIS, and in the end, for a dollar per card, you couldn't get any more information from software.

[Vinnie]

JustRalph, Clinktone,


How are you guys doing?! I just wanted to throw in my 2c about Equisim. I only wish that ESROI and the Excellent program that it is and has become would have been around a long time ago because it would have saved me a "ton of money" that I have used on purchasing other software systems that could never come close even on their finest day to what ES consistently produces. ES allows me to regularly look at and find horses that I know I would have never seen without it. Right out of the box, it is an exceptional product, even without the Self Tuning and the Profiler. The new additions only help the player to discover even greater potential plays by noting the continuing changes and biases of your favorite track or any other number of changing elements at whichever track you should chose to play.

I have no stake in ES or ESROI as a product, I am simply a very satisfied user of a wonderful handicapping tool!

[Clinktone]

I ditto everything you said. I have a bunch of lousy software that doesn't hold a candle to Equisim. Easy to use and well worth the low cost.

[Handle]

Say what you will about LoneStar, but ES's default Sim winner went 6/10 and had the second longest shot of the night (18.40 in the 2nd). Not bad for opening day but the bar is set pretty high now <g>.

Maybe I should add a "crappy service" ability to the Profiler database and see how the sim winner compares?

-Handle

[Larry Hamilton]

Race3 Mtn Loveable Manner, right out of the simulation 18:1

[Lefty]

Today Equisim and Fast Fred Pro combined for a $14.60 and $22 winners at OP.

[tboles]

Larry had #10 Lovable Manner in tuned sim on top.

In my Profiler the ranking was ....
1st #9
2nd #7
3rd #10

[Handle]

Damn, that's only a 774$ tri - box. Must have been Larry killin' the odds....

[Larry Hamilton]

The whole day looks like this..some days you get the bear, somedays he gets you. If you had played every track, you would have playered approx 110 races, at a cost of approxiamtely 220 and a return of 260. And, it took 2 $30 horses to get to black ink. The lesson here is again, you cant bet on every race with the same technique.

Kee
1. 5.40
2. 0
3. 19.80
4. 3.20
5. 0
6. 5.60
7. 7.40
8. 0
9. 0

AQU
1. 4.5
2. 4.2
3. 5.7
4.
5.
6. 3.6
7.
8.
9. 4.1

BM
1.
2. 2.6
3.
4. 6.2
5.
6. 6.6
7.
8.
9.

CT
1. 5.4
2.
3. 5.4
4.
5. 8.2
6. 31.0
7.
8.
9.
10. 13.2

GP
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. 3.4
8. 3.4
9. 3.6

Mnr
1.
2.
3. 39.6
4.
5.
6.
7. 5.8
8.
9.
10.

OP
1.
2. 4.2
3.
4. 5.8
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Pen
1.
2. 7.8
3.
4.
5. 4.00
6.
7.
8.
9.

SA
1.
2. 2.6
3. 3.4
4.
5.
6.
7.4.0
8.

TUP
1.
2.
3. 3.8
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

WOB
1.
2. 9.6
3.
4.
5.
6. 2.7
7.
8.
9.
10.

[tboles]

Would have been nice to have the TRI. I only bet exactas.
I swore off the tri bet yrs ago.......

Larry,
To DATE I have not had any luck with TUP!!!!!

[Larry Hamilton]

I know it shows only one win, but in the same card the simulation pick finished second 6 times one of them paying 17 bucks to place. Take advantage of profit where it is ...

[Larry Hamilton]

one more note on TUP, then back to my hole

yesterday, you would have bought 10 place tickets if you had played every race. The 3 you would have cased payed 3.20, 5.20 and 6.20. SO not only would you not had a good cash percentage, you would have lost 25% on the dollar. Think you had the right idea, I'll leave TUP alone as there are more more attractive fish in this sea....

[Larry Hamilton]

I have received several email lately asking me the same question so I decided to post the response. For those who want to know a little more about EquiSim and how does it do at differing tracks, distances and surfaces see

www.hambowl.com/myforum/

[Tom]

Larry,

Did you use the default settings for your test?

[Larry Hamilton]

nope, I bought as many downloads as I could afford (in most cases all the way back to 1 Jan 02. I wanted to be prepared to answer the question: does it work the same now as it did 10 days ago, 30 days ago, last year? In other cases, there was no current data (keeneland and bay meadows) so I used data from 99 and 00...Anyways, it cost several hundred dollars to assemble the data to get these numbers. On the other hand, Nathan tells me that the default setting for Keeneland is awesome...go figure

[Handle]

Correction Larry -- I said that the first two days at KEE have been very good - 4/9 first day, equivalent the next day, yet to look today.

[Handle]

Default Simulation winner had seconditis at KEE today -- 1/9 winners after scratches (2/9 before) -- but the sim winner Placed 6/9 times w/ + 32% ROI on place bets.

[at the wire]

anyone have any profiles on whats winning at aq, i am testing eq rt now.


see you at the windows

at the wire

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Larry Hamilton
Race3 Mtn Loveable Manner, right out of the simulation 18:1

I have tried ES at Mountaineer and for the life of me I cannot figure out that track. ES is better at the short races at MTR but I cannot seem to get any help with ES at MTR. I used to kill MTR a year or so back. But anymore the shippers and all have really crossed that track up. I can name at least three trainers down there that I think like to "darken the program" and then come back and win at long odds. Lately I have had more luck just following them, and not the horses. Handicapping the trainers can be much more difficult though. I see some odd winners down there. Reminds me of when I used to play Penn National. They do some weird stuff over there too. Now the trainers from Penn National are starting to make the trip to MTR. They are bringing their own riders too. Makes me wonder sometimes.

[JustRalph]

Hey Guys and Gals. I was pretty distracted last week and only played a couple of days at Gulfstream (Death in the family) But jumping in when I could find time and playing with Equisim I did manage to play about 70 Bets in 3.5 days. I did learn something interesting tonight when using the new audit features implemented on my account by the service I use. In 70 bets I had a nice return when measuring every bet. I made about $700 profit and only really played about 20 races. 22% winners. But when I cut out the exotics, man did it improve. An audit of just Win-pl-show bets came up big. I am starting to think about throwing away the exotics. Check out the numbers here. I think I need to read up on my betting strategy. Any suggestions from the experts here. I would be glad to hear them. By the way. The profits from below are really all from one day that I actually played almost a whole card. The other days I was tossing in some action exotic bets, with only a couple of win bets. The Exotics seem to be killing my ROI so I am re-thinking my strategy.
I seem to be tossing away some money on the fancy exotics. I can tell you that ES was a big help considering I didn't have a bunch of time to handicap the races (as much time as usual, maybe I should spend less time handicapping and more with ES)

Bets: 16
Win % 82
ROI +0.96
Wagered: $960.00
Return: $1877.00
Profit+Loss:$+917.00

[andicap]

Ralph,
what service do you use that you can audit your bets???

Sounds like MNR is grist for trainer handicapping about now since form is all jumped with the shippers.

[PaceAdvantage]

I believe BRISbet allows you to look at your account history with filters, etc...


==PA

[andicap]

When building your profiles, do you use default pacelines or your own?

[Jingle]

Andicap

I use the default pacelines for two reasons. The first is I hate spending time trying to determine if I should use the last line on a sloppy track or the previous line at a different distance. My biases get in the way. The second reason I use the default is it is a consistent approach; no emotions, no biases, etc.

However, I do a cursory check and if I think the paceline is out of whack I change it. Some friends of mine just use the last line if it is ratable and do quite well despite it being the line the crowd probably uses.

Jingle

[Bruddah]

Jingle said it perfectly for me, as well. That way I am assured of consistancey when I use my profiler. I have found, while I might choose a better running line from time to time, I was always finding it after the fact.

Bruddah

[Handle]

Jingle and Bruddah sum up my thoughts on the subject of pace line selection ala the Profiler.

In the future you can expect the ability to have the program select pace lines using an algorithm that you enter. For (a whacky) example:

First try to find the pace line where the horse ran with 175 pounds. Can't find it, then try finding one on the same surface as today's race where the horse ran with 119 pounds, and had a jockey named Fred.

I expect that you'll be able to tell the program when to use these pace lines (only use the one above for races on the Moon at 6 furlongs, low gravity and all).

And you'll be able to use the Tuner to find out which pace line selection method works the best.

Also note -- there's going to be some very cool improvements to the Fractions view coming along thanks to a great suggestion I recently received.


-Handle

[at the wire]

again, has anybody done any profiles on aq to see whats winning i 'm just trying out the eq sample rt now, any help would be apreciated

[gjostad]

This may be a stupid question but I don't know the answer so I am going to ask it. Why do I see a different ROI when my tuning completes than I do when I check the database performance analysis for the same race dates. I load the settings into the database after the tuning is complete so in my mind I am expecting to see similar results but the database performance analysis always show a lower ROI. Excuse me in advance if I am missing the obvious.

[Larry Hamilton]

The simulation tuning process adjusts variables used in predicting the simulation outcome.

The profile, developed from the data base, includes the simulation outcome, but only if you choose it.

The two are as different as you wish to make them, so that, you should expect the resulting ROI to be different UNLESS you somehow force the simulation variables to be identical to the data base variables. As we are not privvy to the variables or their weight, I have no idea how you would do that.

There are actually 3 pieces to your program and you should probably choose the one with whcih you are most comfortable.

One is a simulation, (another expression for a "black box")

Another is a lookalike of the Ultimate sheet sold by BRIS and TSN

The third is a data base with which you can dink with the variables.

You can mix and match to your hearts content, just be aware you are playing with apples and oranges.

[Larry Hamilton]

IN response to how is AQU doing

www.hambowl.com/myforum/

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by andicap
Ralph,
what service do you use that you can audit your bets???

Sounds like MNR is grist for trainer handicapping about now since form is all jumped with the shippers.

www.winticket.com (front end on the BrisBet system I believe)

Ralph

[Handle]

gjostad,

Nope, not a stupid question. What Larry said is accurate (although you are privvy to the variables -- they are in the Simulation Settings Dialog under the Simulation menu -- you're just not privvy to how the program actually uses them <g>. You could edit them and do trial and error to find out exactly what the difference is, but the Simulation Settings Dialog is really an advanced feature more for viewing, and perhaps tweaking, simulation settings derived using the Tuning Wizard).

But, the difference you see has to do with the legacy of the application. The Tuning Wizard gives you statistics for:

Route or Sprint
Turf or Dirt
Track

Whereas the S.P.A.T. gives you analysis for:
All Races
or
Exact distance of race
or
Category of race as Super Sprint/Sprint/LongSprint/Route/LongRoute/Super Route

plus all of the other filters in the S.P.A.T.

So, this might account for the difference you are seeing.

-Handle

[zieglerjw]

Jingle: just what area of the reports were you referring to when you said (from the top 2)?? thanks ..jwzieg3@msn.com

[Kentucky Bred]

Hi All:

This is my first post. I registered to this site in order to tell everyone the incredible level of service that Handle (Nathan), the software developer of EquiSim, offered to me.

I purchased the beta version of Equisim a bit ago ( for an incredibly reasonable price) when many of you on this site had fine words to say about the program and the developer. I was also touched by the way that Handle comported himself in his postings on this site. I Thank all of you for your recommendation.

However, as someone who is not natural with software programs, I got frustrated one evening and fired off an email to Nathan basically telling him I was giving up because I could not learn to realize the ability of this amazing software, so why devote the time...right? (I think I was having an "Always" frustration flashback)

Instead of dismissing me as a nut, (like he should have) Nathan scheduled a time for me to speak with him by phone tonight.

Folks, he spent over 2 HOURS with me on the telephone painstakingly locating my download routing errors and correcting my mistakes. Then we spent time going through the Specific Performance Analysis feature and then the Tuning Wizard. It was great to see what this software can do.

What made this gesture so much more is when I learned that he was packing for a trip with his family! I could hear them in the background asking him for help. I felt bad--but what a gesture of sincere care and concern for his customers.

Anyway, I know there are a lot of great programs that many of you have found and I respect anyone who can design software. However, as a business man for many years, I am always inspired to do a better job at my job when I experience someone who is so devoted and attentive to theirs.

It makes me want to be a better person--and that is the spiral of positive good will that seems so lacking is this crazy world today.