The Boxer Number; An Overall Horse Capability Rating.

[thoroughbred]

I plan, when time permits, to write up explanations of some of the research I have done over the years, in a more terse way than in the original papers.

I've done the first one. It deals with what I call the "Boxer Number", which is an overall horse capability rating.

You can view it at:

http://www.revelationprofits.com/articles/hidden_doors2.htm

[e_r]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[kenwoodallpromos]

I'm making my own figures with my own "standard".

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm making my own figures with my own "standard".

Unless you plan to share like Thoroughbred is....I say "so what."

If you guys have nothing nice to write, don't write anything at all to people who are willing to share something. It's a major turn off.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I thought the poster was inviting to check out his commercial website for comments instead of just trying to sell something- I was just trying to let him know I looked at the site.
Don't worry- this won't happen again.

[NoDayJob]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


:lol: Ah, the sounds heard in a driver's education class---what does that have to do with handicapping, "Sleepy"? :lol:

NDJ

[Hosshead]

I plan, when time permits, to write up explanations of some of the research I have done over the years, in a more terse way than in the original papers.

I've done the first one. It deals with what I call the "Boxer Number", which is an overall horse capability rating.

You can view it at:

http://www.revelationprofits.com/articles/hidden_doors2.htmI read the link and it deals with a horse's Last Race. Why would it be an OVERALL Horse Capability Rating when it only deals with a horse's last race? Or do you mean "Overall", as in comparing the last race of ALL the other horses in a race. I know the last race is important BUT:

There are many programs that will give you a good comparison of which horse ran the best last race, and some (like HTR PL-5) that will do more than the last race.

[keilan]

I’m not familiar with your work, though I read something a few years ago that was very similar to this, could have been your site?

Your “box number” for me defines class to a large extent; horses that have equal or greater early speed with lower friction numbers are the classer animals. That seems like a reasonably good starting point, what other variables are factored into your “box number”?

[Kreed]

I respect any academic approach. Its cool to take concepts like friction
and define it to capping. But Hoss' question is fair (if its accurate) because
if only it were that easy. Like Keilan I have a question: Is Class = Time/Pace
in your mind, or do you measure it in more ways?

[thoroughbred]

[QUOTE=Hosshead]I read the link and it deals with a horse's Last Race. Why would it be an OVERALL Horse Capability Rating when it only deals with a horse's last race? Or do you mean "Overall", as in comparing the last race of ALL the other horses in a race. I know the last race is important BUT:

There are many programs that will give you a good comparison of which horse ran the best last race, and some (like HTR PL-5) that will do more than the last race.[/QUOTE

Hosshead,
Good question. Thanks for asking so I can clarify.

It's not the last race that is being used. Rather, as stated at the end of the article, it is the comparison of horses for whatever paceline is chosed for each horse. You can use the last race if you wish, or any other race to obtain the "Boxer" number of that particular paceline. The term "Overall" means that the "Boxer" number takes into account, what I believe are, the two more important measures of horse capability, namely, Early Speed, and ability to last (Friction).

[thoroughbred]

I’m not familiar with your work, though I read something a few years ago that was very similar to this, could have been your site?

Your “box number” for me defines class to a large extent; horses that have equal or greater early speed with lower friction numbers are the classer animals. That seems like a reasonably good starting point, what other variables are factored into your “box number”?

Keilan,
Yes, as you can see from the graph in the article, for the "Boxer" Number the FINAL step in getting in getting its numerical value is the distance away from the standard horse graph of Early Speed and Friction.

However, as you probably can infer, to obtain the Early Speed and Friction, other variables are used. What I take into account includes the values of internal call and finish time and position, track variant, and weight carried.

[thoroughbred]

I respect any academic approach. Its cool to take concepts like friction
and define it to capping. But Hoss' question is fair (if its accurate) because
if only it were that easy. Like Keilan I have a question: Is Class = Time/Pace
in your mind, or do you measure it in more ways?

Kreed,

Thanks for your gracious comment.

I think my reply to Hoss answers your question also. Please let me know if there is more that you had in mind.

[Kreed]

I see what you value and I'm never gonna argue with anyone who actually
measures a concept. Are you Personally Pleased with your system? What
(if any) things would you like to do further? Do you know what areas you
treat poorly? a lot of questions, but you know what I'm asking I'm sure.

[thoroughbred]

I see what you value and I'm never gonna argue with anyone who actually
measures a concept. Are you Personally Pleased with your system? What
(if any) things would you like to do further? Do you know what areas you
treat poorly? a lot of questions, but you know what I'm asking I'm sure.

Kreed,
Yes, I am personally pleased.
As to your other questions: From the Introduction to the "Boxer Number" article you can see that I hope to write other simplified articles about other aspects of the handicapping research. In the meantime, if you like, you can explore the documentation at: www.revelationprofits.com where you will find many of the additional "further" items that may interest you. As to areas that I treat "poorly" I suffer, as all of us do, from the lack of important information that are usually never known to us. An example, among many, would be, the trainers instructions to the jockey.

[rastajenk]

Or midnight trips to Hyperbaric Chambers! :eek:

[hurrikane]

I"ve read your site. It seem to me that things like this have been done ad nauseum. BUT, some I have found actually added value so I am skeptically interested. The truth is most seem to be making numbers based on erroneous information, pace lines, etc. Or are too generic to be of any use.
Without sounding too down I dont see the revelation and where are the profits.
What I don't see is what value, if any, your number adds.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you.
You say you will do this at some time but it sounds like you already created this number and have this number in use.

so what are the results, if I may be so bold.

[thoroughbred]

I"ve read your site. It seem to me that things like this have been done ad nauseum. BUT, some I have found actually added value so I am skeptically interested. The truth is most seem to be making numbers based on erroneous information, pace lines, etc. Or are too generic to be of any use.
Without sounding too down I dont see the revelation and where are the profits.
What I don't see is what value, if any, your number adds.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you.
You say you will do this at some time but it sounds like you already created this number and have this number in use.

so what are the results, if I may be so bold.


Hurrikane,

Yes, you are correct, the "Boxer Number" has been available for quite some time as part of the CompuTrak output.

I can see that I didn't provide enough background information here.

Over time, some users of the program have asked that I provide a "simpler" explanation of some of the derivations that lead to CompuTrak outputs. So I decided to try to write such. This article was the first. The "at some time" refers to future articles I may write trying to simplify the explanation of other derivations.

To answer your other question. The "Boxer Number" is one of a number of handicapping values that are calculated for each and every paceline of every horse. Since, in the sense that the article discusses, it represents a measure of horse capability, it is used as part of the process of analyzing the horses for deciding on which one to choose. It is generally useful, except in the few rare cases where, for some reason, a horse hardly "tried" to win. It's possible to know when such is the case through the use of a different value, also the result of research, that is part of the program's output. That could be the subject of another future "simplified" article. In the program, this other value is given as a "Speed Rating", not to be confused with the more standard items with the same name, with which you may be more familiar.

Thanks for your comments. It caused me to realize I needed to amplify my discussion here.

[hurrikane]

actually tb...you don't need to amplify anything for me.

I'd just appreciate it if you would answer my question.

What are the results of the number?

[thoroughbred]

actually tb...you don't need to amplify anything for me.

I'd just appreciate it if you would answer my question.

What are the results of the number?

Hurrikane,
Sorry about that. I thought I was being clear that the number is used normally together with the set of the other program outputs for handicapping. I wish I had separate statistics for the number, if used by itself, to give you but I don't.

[First_Place]

"If you guys have nothing nice to write, don't write anything at all to people who are willing to share something. It's a major turn off."

My sentiments exactly, PA. A major turn off.

FP

[hurrikane]

well, I hope I'm not misunderstood.

I was just wondering if all of this suppositionreturned anything valuable.

[chickenhead]

ask Formula to run a test for you.......

[hurrikane]

oh man.....let's not go there. :D

[Rick]

I've already corresponded with this "Boxer Number" guy and, believe me, he doesn't want to give you any information about how his idea has done based on any objective standards. He gets really angry if you ask for anything objective. You're just supposed to believe that if you pick the right pace line and apply his formula everything will be fine. That sounds like another huckster (and a herd of sycophants) that we've all heard of. He's just not lucky enough to have become that popular.

[thoroughbred]

I've already corresponded with this "Boxer Number" guy and, believe me, he doesn't want to give you any information about how his idea has done based on any objective standards. He gets really angry if you ask for anything objective. You're just supposed to believe that if you pick the right pace line and apply his formula everything will be fine. That sounds like another huckster (and a herd of sycophants) that we've all heard of. He's just not lucky enough to have become that popular.

Rick,

I'm surprised by your post and somewhat disappointed. Why do you say I get angry? I believe all of our interaction has been here. Where is there an example of my "anger?"

If, for some reason, I have come across to you as being "angry", I am sorry. But I do try to answer all questions as best as I can. All I tried to do with this original post was respond to those who asked me to give them a better explanation of the Boxer number. I believe I have done just that. When asked for statistics on the Boxer number by itself, I have openly stated that I don't have that. The Boxer number is part and parcel of the full CompuTrak package, and becomes part of the overall handicapping process.

Where have I ever said that all you have to do is pick the right paceline and everything will be fine? I think you made that statement up. If you read the documentation that goes with the program you will see that I spend much time discussing how handicapping has to take many factors into account. Did you read any of that before writing this post?

So because I don't have what you happen to want, why do you call that being angry?

I have to admit your post which is quoted here saddened me. Its sad that when I try to explain a concept, which may be new, there are attacks. Why? Is there anything that you can find wrong with the derivation in my article?

As to being a "huckster" we have hundreds of satisfied customers for CompuTrak, and the testimonials on our web site should speak for themselves.

[Rick]

Why would a person who has developed a concept that he says works also say that he has no data to show that it works? Either he has tested and it didn't work as well as expected or he's never bothered to find out. In eiither case he shouldn't be claiming that it works. I've worked with hundreds of scientists and engineers over the years and none of them would have considered that approach to be acceptable proof of their ideas. Physics and engineering concepts don't work very well in horse racing when adequately tested even though people who have been trained in those fields always try that as their first approach. Statistical analysis works to a limited extent but, again, not as well as people trained in statistics expect.

So,why cover up the real bottom line by saying you've never tested the concept or that you have to apply some subjective or artistic approach to make it work?

[Kreed]

You nailed it head on: This engineer "sounds" good, but never posts and I
think it should be a "rule" here that when you get lots of free advertising
you must give something back to the forum. At least twice a year, Mr Boxer,
for example, should post his analyses of a card. Maybe BREEDERS' CUP and
let's say the KENTUCKY DERBY DAY card. Is that too much to ask in return
for those freebies?

[Rick]

Kreed,

This guy asked for my opinion a couple of years ago and I asked him how it performed using the last race only, so that I could easily compare it with other measures such as speed ratings. He wrote back with some insulting comments about how stupid I was to even ask for something like that. I tried to explain that, while I was aware that using the last race may not be the best way to use any rating, it was a good starting point for comparing it with other techniques. He went on the familiar rant about how everyone would pick a different pace line and you couldn't test the rating objectively according to a set of rules anyway. Well, that's the standard ploy used by others to avoid having anyone test their method for its effectiveness.

A good example of how reasonable theories are sometimes completely wrong when tested is in Nick Mordin's book "Winning Without Thinking" in a chapter on how weight affects performance. That's a guy who really checks his facts and, even though he's from the UK, he has a lot of valuable things to say that apply to US racing as well.

[socantra]

I hate to interrupt while you guys are having such a wonderful time bashing Ruben, his program and his ideas, but I feel I should point out a few things to his credit.

A good bit of your problem seens to be that he won't provide you with proof that YOU can win using his program. I don't know anyone who can provide you with that kind of proof. At most, he might be able to provide you with proof that HE can win with his program, or that some other particular person can win using his program.

Some people can win using just about anything, and others couldn't win with a time machine that lets them see the outcome of the race before it is run.

What he does provide you with is:

1. Extensive documentation, with a tutorial, a users manual and a couple of papers explaining his concepts, and in some cases even the formulas he is using in the program. They are a bit of an intensive read, but leave little doubt about how he looks at the races.

2. A demo program so you can try it for yourself.

With those tools and a little effort, you should be able to determine if the program will work for you, or is not what you are looking for.

I don't know Ruben and don't use his program. I have corresponded with him a time or two and found that he was quite reasonable, friendly and forthcoming in his replies. I think some of his concepts show a lot of potential. Others I find somewhat questionable.

I tried his demo and decided not to buy because I did not feel it met ALL of my needs. I have no doubt that I could win a reasonable number of races and turn a profit using his program. I think it is a reasonable tool and might consider buying it in the future.

Read the documentation and try it for yourself.

socantra...

[freeneasy]

and i havent been to the web site but from the little bit of info that ive gathered from the posts it sounds like your basings are on finding the horse that demonstrates the early speed and the closing speed of a race, which to me is a stone cold frontrunner thats going to have nothing surrounding it today, something like a soviet problem . hard to beat a horse with those two powerful combinations all wrapped up in the last race but whats so new about that?

[socantra]

No, that's not what he's doing.

socantra...

[Rick]

Well, maybe my experience with him isn't typical. Everybody has a bad day or jumps to conclusions about what people are saying sometimes. But, that's no excuse for avoiding doing any testing using fixed rules. This whole idea of horse racing as a philosophy rather than attempting some kind of scientific testing is irritating to me. And, it's even more irritating when someone is using scientific terminology in an unscientific way.

For a good example of how to scientifically research horse racing, read some of Ken Massa's reports at his HTR site. He's not afraid to report negative ROI's when they turn out that way. And, factors that lose less than the average can be combined to create a very effective method. I would be impressed be a single factor that lost less than 10%. If the Boxer rating fell into that category I might consider it useful. There are a few people out there that would gladly do the testing if it's too much trouble for the creator to do it. It would greatly increase the credibility of the product if it were independently tested by an unbiased source (no, Phillips doesn't count, we already know the story with them).

[Rick]

I should have also mentioned CJ's ratings as another good example of how to demonstate the relative value of a method. The results using a fixed set of rules are very impressive and should result in very profitable play after eliminating underlays. See, it's not hard at all to show that your ratings are better than speed ratings or some other performance rating. All you have to do is look at the results and make the comparison. If your method doesn't have a better ROI than straight speed figures it probably won't be too useful.

[socantra]

I greatly admire Ken's work at HTR. I've learned a lot from him, but I don't necessarily agree that fixed rule, so called scientific testing is the only way to evaluate a handicapping program. I've never been anle to find that track that runs those fixed rule races. I also think that if you do go too far down that road you wind up like our friend Formula 2002, and prove that no one can beat the races.

I'm not sure what you mean by horse racing as a philosophy, but I'm sorry it irritates you. I don't believe in no 'haints', and follow no gurus, but prefer to evaluate handicapping programs by learning the rationale behind them and trying those principles for myself. If that's handicapping as 'philosophy', I guess I'm guilty.

While using the demo of Ruben's program I found it reasonably effective at pointing out horses that had a viable chance of winning the race at reasonably good odds. Since he provided me with the concepts behind the numbers, I will be researching them on my own and keeping an eye on what he does with the program in the future.

He has provided me with something I consider much more valuable than 'scientific' testing, the basic rationale behind what might be a good handicapping direction. That might not be a great marketing idea, but its his choice and I appreciate his sharing, just as I appreciate Ken Massa, Dave Schwartz and C.J. Milkowski sharing their ideas and procedures.

Nothing is to prevent you or anyone else from picking up the program and doing all the research you please. It would be much more independent and unbiased if the program were purchased by rather than given to the tester. I can certainly understand not being willing to do that, and there is no reason you should.

I just feel that Ruben has laid out his ideas, explained at some length why he thinks they work, and invited you to try them for yourself. Maybe not what you prefer, but I don't think it warrants his being called a 'huckster'.

socantra...

[Rick]

socantra,

When I used the term "huckster", I was referring to another guy who made similar excuses for why you couldn't possibly test his method objectively. I apologize if it sounded like I was calling Ruben that. That was not my intent.

I don't understand why you wouldn't want to use some kind of testing as a way of selecting a method for further study. Having done that kind of thing myself many times, I can say that it eliminates a huge amount of effort trying things that have virtually no chance of succeeding. I did look at a small sample of Boxer Ratings myself and wasn't at all impressed by the results, but I'm sure a larger sample would be more meaningful. I'm not really interested in spending a lot of money to find out whether his method works though. I've got a method of my own that I'm happy with. What I'm saying is that IF he has a method that works as well as he claims, then he should be happy to provide some sort of credible proof. That's what I'd expect from anyone selling a product. I wouldn't play my own method without knowing what the ROI is over a large sample. Why would I trust someone's opinion ("philosophy") who didn't bother to tally up their results?

[JustMissed]

I should have also mentioned CJ's ratings as another good example of how to demonstate the relative value of a method. The results using a fixed set of rules are very impressive and should result in very profitable play after eliminating underlays. See, it's not hard at all to show that your ratings are better than speed ratings or some other performance rating. All you have to do is look at the results and make the comparison. If your method doesn't have a better ROI than straight speed figures it probably won't be too useful.

Excellant Post Rick, I think you hit the nail on the head.

You should be able to isolate any factor and determine its win percentage and ROI.

At one time I tested BRIS/TSN Prime Power number as a basis for contender selection.

I could very easily do the same test with Beyer figs, CJ's numbers or whatever.

There are lots of ways to skin a cat but for me, if you can find some numbers that work and you can use those as a starting point, it makes it a heck of a lot easier to to eliminate contenders, line 'em up, make value and bet assessments and hopefully go stand in the "pay me" line.

I think any number produced from a set of pp's can be tested at least to the extent of win % and ROI.

JM

[RonTiller]

I myself have never met Mr. Boxer nor have I even seen or tested his program, so I have no personal asides to offer (huckster or brilliant engineer?). I did read his Engineering Analysis piece years ago and recently reread it. I have never thought that treating a horse's performance as a FRICTION problem makes much sense.

Of course, this is beside the point. Many things that seem silly to me actually work (think of Wayne Newton, Paris Hilton, NPR's Car Talk). I can think of numerous methodologies that Jim Cramer uses that seemed silly at the time but becuase they demonstrably improved the numbers involved (over several hundred thousand races), the methodologies were incorporated. As a retired engineer, the first base he covers when developing any number is how to measure its performance. Measuring performance is NOT an afterthought.

For instance, in evaluating the best way to make track to track adjustments for speed ratings, how does one measure whether method B is better than method A? Well, make 100,000 speed ratings using A and the same 100,000 using B. Now what? Do we put 10 people in an isolation booth for 2 years and have them pick pacelines, handicap the races, chart overlays and report the data on a spreadsheet for analysis? Lets be clear: sometimes improvements are measured in a few hundredths of a pecent, so doing a couple hundred (or a couple thousand) races is really a meaninglesss test.

Well, I, for one, don't think this scenario is practical. One needs an objective way to test one's numbers in order to measure whether a change is an improvement or not. As Rick has pointed out, using last race numbers is ONE way to measure the relative values, even though nobody slavishly bets JUST based on last race values. If method A gives 25.23% #1 last race winners and method B gives 25.61% #1 last race winners, over 100,000 races, I'm inexorably drawn to the conclusion that method A is better than method B. A second 100,000 race sample yielding similar results seals it for me. And I would NEVER dream of recommending simply betting #1 last race speed ratings.

Well, suppose I never attempt to improve my numbers? I have no need to objectively measure them, right? Sigh... I'll make them, put an appropriately fancy name on them (SuperThoroEquiCap Numbers (TM)) and decry any attempt to OBJECTIVELY measure them, since handicaping is an essentially SUBJECTIVE activity. Double up on the SUBJECTIVE if there is paceline picking involved. The numbers one SUBJECTIVELY handicaps with are determined by the pacelines one SUBJECTIVELY picks. Ergo, it is meaningless at best, deeply misrepresenting the numbers at worst, to even attempt an objective measurement, whether one is measuring last race, a complicated automatic (and thus programmable) paceline picker or a sheets style pattern. In other words, in the absence of 10 willing people to lock themselves away for 2 years, the ONLY true measure is user testimonials.

I think this position is well represented on this bbs. I don't think it can be summarily dismissed. And frankly, I have no knock down argument against it. I do know I am somewhat of an empiricst dinosaur on this issue though. To paraphrase Percy Bridgeman and Rene Descartes, it is measured, therefore it is.

Unapologetically positivistic,

Ron Tiller
HDW

[Rick]

I should point out that I do NOT dismiss subjective handicapping as being not worthwhile. BUT, what I do is find an objective rating as a starting point then, based on my experience with other OBJECTIVE factors, try to decide who to bet, at least at race tracks and race books. I am totally objective about how I make my selections on a day-to-day basis betting from home. But, I'm willing to admit that there might be a better way to do it. I just like the certainty of knowing how following a fixed set of rules does because it might be more repeatable. I DON'T think, however, that you can take a method that does really badly to start with and somehow make it win money because you're a "handicapping genius". That's my "philosophy" and I guess I could be wrong but no one has ever proven it. Everyone who has tried has had some excuse for why their subjective method always works every other time but doesn't work when I watch. For you physicists out there, it's kind of like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which I don't believe applies to horse racing. BUT, it does sound really scientific so, who knows, someone might write a paper on it and build a web site and sell some really nifty software.

[Rick]

While I'm on a rant I'll say that I still think that the best selection sytem would be derived from a combination of independent ratings. BRIS Prime Power didn't help my ratings but probably others would. CJ's probably would if it weren't being censored. Even Boxer's might help, though the evidence is not there. I'm sure there are several others out there that are sufficiently different than mine that they would add considerable value. But, I don't have an unlimited amount of funds to invest in the many possibilities so I'll probably never know. No, I'm not getting rich but I'm getting by just fine being retired and I don't want to change that just to prove that somebody's method is "bandini".

[keilan]

I have never thought that treating a horse's performance as a FRICTION problem makes much sense.


Understood everything in your post except this comment. Can you elaborate?

TIA

[legs]

I have his program and have been testing it on a day to day basis with different tracks. It has been hanging in there with only one rule not betting anything under 2-1. What I need is a fixed set of rules of which I don't have to take it a step further as you mentioned in one of your posts with the CJ figs. If it's not asking to much would you consider sharing your set of rules so that I can test it further. thanks legs [also retired]

[socantra]

From an old post by Zafonic:

"I believe this is how its done using the performance figure.

Race selections based on these simple rules:

1. Find last race on today's surface (dirt or turf)
2. ===== type layoff horses are excluded
3. Top figure is the bet
4. Ties, bet the highest odds"


"=====type layoff horses" are those laid off over 180 days.

socantra...

[legs]

I have those rules from CJ. What I was looking from Rick is his set of rules for eliminating horses from a race. I'm in the process of testing computrak and thought his rules might help in my testing.

[Rick]

legs,

Some things I've used in the past were:

1. Not morning line favorite.

2. Not top speed last race.

3. Not highest average earnings.

What I'm using right now is something that probably wouldn't be available to everyone, but the main idea is to eliminate horses that would be obviously overbet. You can also try 3rd or worse rank in any of those categories. I've never used actual odds because I'm too lazy to monitor every race, which also means I sometimes miss late scratches.

[RonTiller]

keilan, I'll answer your question but first I guess I should explain what I DIDN'T mean in my post.

First, I am NOT stating or implying that Mr. Boxer is getting his math wrong. I am not an engineer, as he is, and by professional standards, I have a very meager physics/math background (2 years as a physics major in college before switching majors).

Second, I am NOT promulgating some kind of anti-SUBJECTIVSM in handicapping. When I first met Jim Cramer in Las Vegas, we both sort of assumed that since Jim was a demonstrably profitable handicapper, we just needed to somehow model the processes that went on in his head; simply program the model in a computer and automatically make winning bets. We never got anywhere with this but we never really tried to hard. The closest Jim came to "laying bare" his thought processes was when he sat down and came up with the 100 questions he wants answered when handicapping a race. But this still barely scratched the surface. Tom Hambleton used these meticulously for a number of races but then, like Jim, he found he had internalized these questions and prioritized them without ever EXPLICITLY asking them.

I guess the point is this: Faced with a mass of data, some people can consistently convert that data into profitable bets through processes even they cannot fully articulate. This is different from the position that one needs to objectively measure whatever numbers one is making, whether they are Speed Ratings, Class Ratings, Performance Ratings or Yabadabado Ratings. In fact, this is so self evident to me that I am speechless in the face of its denial.

Third, years ago, I saw what I call OBJECTIVE measurement of numbers in a totally SUBJECTIVE handicapping context. This person processed data files for 1000 races, manually selecting pacelines and using the programs generated odds line, first using Data Provider A's files, then with Data Provider B's. The speed ratings were the biggest difference between the data and one did MUCH better than the other in this sample. But it took a long time and a lot of patience.

As for my statement " I have never thought that treating a horse's performance as a FRICTION problem makes much sense." Let me qute from Wikipedia.com's article on friction:

"In physics, friction is the resistive force that occurs when two surfaces travel along each other when forced together. It causes physical deformation and heat buildup. The frictional force is a function of the force pressing the surfaces together and the coefficient of friction between the materials.

The coefficient of friction also depends on the type of friction. There are two general types of friction:
* Static friction occurs when the two objects are not moving relative to each other (like a desk on the ground). The coefficient of static friction is typically denoted as μs. The initial force to get an object moving is often dominated by static friction, sometimes called "stiction".
* Kinetic friction occurs when the two objects are moving relative to each other and rub together (like a sled on the ground). The coefficient of kinetic friction is typically denoted as μk, and is usually less than the coefficient of static friction.
o Sliding Friction is when two objects are rubbing against each other. Putting a book flat on a desk and moving it around is an example of sliding friction.
o Rolling friction occurs when the two objects are moving relative to each other and one "rolls" on the other (like a car's wheels on the ground). The coefficient of rolling friction is typically denoted as μr.
o Fluid Friction is the friction between a solid object as it moves through a liquid or a gas. The drag of air on an airplane or of water on a swimmer are two examples of fluid friction."

I apologize for quoting this at length, but it seems clear to me that a horse running around a race track is NOT akin to a sled SLIDING on the gound, a train ROLLING on tracks or a swimmer SWIMMING in a fluid trying to minimize fluid friction. Granted, I am not an engineer, but it seems to me that treating a horse as a black box with weight X, whose movement is decisively or primarily determined by friction equations, is an extremely counterintuitive assumption that begs for some kind of justification. The horse is not sliding or rolling or (except for air resistance) encountering decisive fluid friction. The horse's hooves come in contact with the ground sporadically and are certainly not sliding or rubbing. Where's the friction? "Kinetic friction occurs when the two objects are moving relative to each other and rub together"

Now, for a physics based analysis of a sport where friction IS a key factor, how about skiing? One is SLIDING the whole way on a surface (snow). As expected, there is even a book on the physics of skiing. I quote again from Wikipedia:

"Friction is what allows you to stay in control while skiing. It is what slows you down. You apply wax to the base of your skis to try and reduce this in order to go faster. In ski racing it is the person who allows the least amount of friction between themselves the snow and air who wins. But without friction we would not be able to experience the true joy of skiing. There are several ways to model this friction, and also theories on ideal carves."

I hope this explains why I find using friction equations in an analysis of snow skiing a no brainer (the skis are SLIDING and in almost constant conact with the snow) whereas using friction equations to analyze a running horse seems completely out of place.

As I stated before, the proof is in the pudding. If the numbers generated can be measured and prove better than numbers generated using different (non-frictional) assumptions, then so much the worse for non-friction. But if the only acceptable measurement is glowing testimonials, and standard objective measuements are eschewed on principle, I'm not much inclined to eat my words; that would be an indigestable lunch anyway. Besides, I still believe that Dave Powers, Clint Tracy, Dave Schwartz and Dick Mitchell are all the same person.

Still not Dick Schmidt,

Ron Tiller
HDW

[Rick]

Ron,

I agree with everything you said. I'm not against subjective handicapping either, but even a totally subjective handicapper would keep records about how well he's done. Of course, it may be more difficult to maintain consistency over time with subjective analysis but I think it could be done with enough experience. But, a talent like that would be of no value to someone else trying to imitate it if it couldn't be explained as some set of rules to follow.

As to the idea of using friction, I had the same reservations about the theory but if it could be proven to work then I'd accept it. It seems to me that a theory based on energy expenditure would be more valid, which would require measuring acceleration and deceleration. I'm sure some Sartin devotee has beaten that theory to death by now.

[NoDayJob]

Ron,

As to the idea of using friction, I had the same reservations about the theory but if it could be proven to work then I'd accept it. It seems to me that a theory based on energy expenditure would be more valid, which would require measuring acceleration and deceleration. I'm sure some Sartin devotee has beaten that theory to death by now.

Looking at Mr. Boxer's equations, I find velocity, distance and time are used. So, if you look at all of the equations involved in his process, they are measuring the energy expended by the horse at various points of call, the way I see it.

NDJ

[keilan]

Thank-you for the explanation.

Many players interchange the term “friction” with “% energy” numbers thus leading to my question.

If horses ever start sliding across the track surface, I’ll wager on the longest ones.

I think I fully understand your comments relating to the amounts of data some players are able to process without ever explicitly asking the questions within any type of structured framework. I believe this is learnt from studying thousands and thousands of PP’s and the mind learning to recognise patterns, adjust for variables (rain-med-equip etc) and interpret data based on situational information (relative strength of each horse the field).

Ø I still believe that Dave Powers, Clint Tracy, Dave Schwartz and Dick Mitchell are all the same person.

Oh my, Schwartzie gonna love this!!!

[Rick]

It might be enlightening to do some research on what people have learned about optimal pacing for human athletes. It turns out that the problem is a WHOLE lot more complicated than just applying something out of a Physics textbook. But, thanks everyone for giving me a whole new set of ideas to explore. No, they don't have anything to do with friction. It just started me thinking about how things might really be. And, I guarantee you that I'll test the ideas before I bet on them or recommend them to someone else.

[wes]

http://www.fearofphysics.com/Friction/friction.html


Check this one out on friction.


wes

[Rick]

Well, we really ought to be talking to kineseologist rather than a physicist or engineer about this kind of problem.

[socantra]

Looking at Mr. Boxer's equations, I find velocity, distance and time are used. So, if you look at all of the equations involved in his process, they are measuring the energy expended by the horse at various points of call, the way I see it.
NDJ

Thanks NDJ. Its nice to see that someone actually read the article in question.

socantra...

[NoDayJob]

Well, we really ought to be talking to kineseologist rather than a physicist or engineer about this kind of problem.

I don't think a kinesiologist would do much good on studing the mechanics of a horse, unless an interpolation between humans and horses could be deduced.

NDJ

[Rick]

NDJ,

Yeah, I know they don't study horses but wouldn't they know something about efficiency of movement that could be applied to horses?

[NoDayJob]

NDJ,

Yeah, I know they don't study horses but wouldn't they know something about efficiency of movement that could be applied to horses?

:) I suppose a kinesiologist might be able to come up with a workable theory, but I doubt it would materially change the way you handicap, unless some solid numbers could be extracted. Perhaps Fibonacci numbers should be investigated too? :)

NDJ

[Tote Master]

Ron Tiller
I myself have never met Mr. Boxer nor have I even seen or tested his program, so I have no personal asides to offer (huckster or brilliant engineer?). I did read his Engineering Analysis piece years ago and recently reread it. I have never thought that treating a horse's performance as a FRICTION problem makes much sense......

First, I am NOT stating or implying that Mr. Boxer is getting his math wrong. I am not an engineer, as he is, and by professional standards, I have a very meager physics/math background (2 years as a physics major in college before switching majors). I haven’t read what Mr. Boxer’s approach is and I could really care less. Its apparently of interest to those who continue to fight this game with every imaginable handicapping factor they can come up with. However, after reading your previous dissertation and so-called explanation of what “friction” is (on page 3 of this thread), I’m certainly glad you’re not working for NASA. Your general description for each type of friction literally only scratches the surface. This is perhaps because you never involved a discipline which required a complete understanding of the subject.

I don’t plan on making you look foolish, because the things that you did mention about friction are true. However, you’re over simplistic details leads one to believe that’s all there it to it. Unfortunately that’s not the case. As an example, what do you think a horse is traveling in? A vacuum? Do you think there might be resistance to movement of a large object through air traveling at 40mph? And what if there’s a tail or head wind? What effect might that have? Don’t believe it? Then put you hand out the window of your car at that speed, then divide the area of your hand into frontal surface area of a typical horse. Why do you suppose the jockeys don’t ride sitting up? Or position themselves as they do on the horse itself?

But that’s only half the story. The track surface and its resistance to movement by a heavy object is another story entirely. Again your description completely misses the boat. If you don’t understand the difference between running on a beach where the sand is dry and loose versus where its wet and compact, then you really don’t understand resistance to movement over a given distance by a weighted object, which is what friction is all about. If you’re really interested in the subject I suggest doing a bit more research, and then perhaps an expansion of your previous statements.

Aside from all of this nonsense, and using it to evaluate “whatever” about an animal’s performance is once again an effort in futility. There is absolutely no guarantee that a horse will duplicate its previous performance, whether it was good or bad. This is especially true if the conditions for racing change in any way. The only factor that never changes is the money that’s being wagered. Once you understand that you’ll discard all of the traditional handicapping approaches, and realize that the only real force that drives this game is money. I simply recommend putting more emphasis on those who are “in the know” because they’re in control of how their animal performs no matter what the conditions are.

Now there's a "frictional" statement. The resistance is just incredible!

Best of Luck!

[NoDayJob]

Once you understand that you’ll discard all of the traditional handicapping approaches, and realize that the only real force that drives this game is money. I simply recommend putting more emphasis on those who are “in the know” because they’re in control of how their animal performs no matter what the conditions are. Best of Luck!

Money drives most games and business. I'd like to know more about your method if you are willing to divulge it publicly. Are you one of those who are "in the know" or have deciphered their methods of operation? Since I play two horses in a race most of the time, perhaps your method might help me separate them. Thank you for your consideration.

NDJ

[thoroughbred]

I feel the need to clarify, to all who have discussed here, my "Friction" concept as it applies to horses.

It is possible, as some have pointed out, that some of the comments are being made without having read the derivation of the concept which appeared in my paper, "Engineering Analysis of Thoroughbred Racing." (It can be viewed at: www.revelationprofits.com at the "Documentation" link.)

As shown in its derivation, the "Friction" value I am referring to relates to that which is INTERNAL to a horse. It is NOT, the interaction of the horse with the track surface, the wind or other such aspects. Rather it comes out of the equations as an equivalent frictional term that measures whatever is happening physically, internally to the horse, that causes him to slow down, independently of those other external frictional effects.

One aspect of the "Friction" value is very clear, the lower the value, the more inherent that the horse is a closer.

[PaceAdvantage]

I haven’t read what Mr. Boxer’s approach is and I could really care less.

How very kind of you! For your benefit, I'll let you in on a little secret:

The phrase is "I COULDN'T really care less."

By saying you COULD care less, that means you actually care, somewhat....

Another pet peeve of mine.

[NoDayJob]

How very kind of you! For your benefit, I'll let you in on a little secret:

The phrase is "I COULDN'T really care less."

By saying you COULD care less, that means you actually care, somewhat....

Another pet peeve of mine.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

NDJ

[RonTiller]

Oh boy, I knew this would happen. Here we go:

I had and have no desire to enter into a debate over the values of Mr. Boxer's approach. My comments about Mr. Boxer's work, in an attempt to clarify a sidebar in a previous post, clearly opened the gate though. In fact, I am not qualified to critique the math, and I don't; I have been told by people who are qualified that it is spotless, given the assumptions. I did in fact read and study the paper, although my comments may have suggested otherwise. And I promise not to apply for a job at NASA.

Whether or not one is speaking strictly of friction (as in skiing) or creating an 'Equivalent Friction' force, a blackbox catchall for all the force responsible for decreasing velocity, it is still being treated as a friction problem. In fact, weight enters the velocity equation PRECISELY because weight factors into frictional force. All this embodies an assumption I am not inclined to make, namely:

'We structure the analysis in terms of the more usual case where speed decreases, BY ASSUMING THAT THE DECREASE IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE ENERGY USED TO OVERCOME FRICTION.' (emphasis my own)

Mathematically, Mr. Boxer expresses this as equation 2.

v(t) = Vm-uWx(t) (eq. 2)

v(t) = velocity at time t
Vm = starting velocity
u = the friction coefficient
W = the weight the horse carries (not the weight of the horse + rider)
uW = "equivalent friction".
x(t) = distance at time t

I have no personal beef with any of this. All avenues should be tried and the results objectively measured against other avenues. I hope Mr. Boxer continues his work. Godspeed and all the rest. My position has been:

1. I don't find this starting point plausible, but so what? (Goodbye NASA)

2. The work I have seen, developing velocity equations using different mathematical models, by experts in the requisite math, seems much more plausible an approach to me. Most importantly, I have seen the fruits of these equations measured and remeasured against each other, over hundreds of thousands of races, in an effort to empirically determine, in an as objective fashion as possible, what is the most predictive.

3. Regardless of how plausible or implausible I or anybody else finds a certain methodology, assumption or mathematical model, the only issue that matters is how does it measure up under objective testing. Period. You really CAN tell the temperature by counting cricket chirps, after all.

4. In the absence of large, statistically significant objective studies, I am not much inclined to embrace anything. I accept testimonial evidence in horse racing as quicky as I accept testimonial evidence for powdered beetle dung curing cancer - show me the placebo controlled, double blind study. I have worked side by side with a retired engineer for over 10 years and NOTHING, I mean NOTHING, leaves his computer without having first been measured and remeasured hundreds of ways, regardless of how pretty his equations are or how plausible his initial assumptions seem.

5. I am completely unapologetic about 1 - 4. There, I said it!

Ron Tiller
HDW

PS: To Totemaster: Ouch! I guess you woke up on the wrong side of the bed, so I won't try to make you look foolish. I'll just point out a few things.
First, part of the lengthy quotation (not MY dissertation) reads:

"Fluid Friction is the friction between a solid object as it moves through a liquid or a gas. The drag of air on an airplane or of water on a swimmer are two examples of fluid friction."

Aerodynamic drag is precisely fluid friction, by this categorization. I have in fact stuck my hand out of a fast moving car. I can recommend a few good books on the physics of skiing, swimming and bicycling (3 sports where aerodynamics is really important).

Track surface and its resistance is surely important, as you say. My beef is not that running on sand is much harder and uses more energy. I've read studies on humans precisely measuring the difference in energy expenditures running on sand and compacted dirt. Perhaps similar studies exist for horses.
And I have run 10k races in Italy where half the course was on beach sand. Thanks for the reminder of this awful event. My beef is that this is not an effect of increased or decreased friction. My understanding from physics classes in years gone by is that loose sand absorbs almost all the force of the foot impact and returns very little to the runner, whereas hard surfaces return enough to the runner to give an added boost. Not to mention that is is just plain hard to run on a shifting unstable surface. I am not wed to this explanation though, so I defer to your or anybody else's expertise on this.

[hurrikane]

One thing is very clear about this thread and horseracing in general....hell...life in general.

The people without any substantive data, the willingness to share their data findings, or even offer up anything to validate their claims....always seem to be the ones saying 'you have to do it their way!'

[Rick]

Ron,

Very well done. And, as I'm sure you know, fatigue involves glygogen depletion and lactic acid buildup and oxygen consumption, etc., that I don't understand a thing about but experienced human runners probably do. None of these things have anything to do with friction. Getting tired during a race doesn't involve wearing out your running shoes or overcoming air resistance much compared with these other factiors. There seems to be a LOT of theories about human runners and no one model seems to be accepted by everyone. But, a lot of testing has been done in order to try to determine the best approach. As for horse racing, as usual, it's mostly untested conjectures. Some talk about "velocity" as being the important thing when they really are measuring speed but that's just terminology. But, I still think it makes more sense to worry about acceleration though since F = m * a.

[Dave Schwartz]

Keith,

I still believe that Dave Powers, Clint Tracy, Dave Schwartz and Dick Mitchell are all the same person.

And all this time I thought we were friends...


Dave Schwartz

[NoDayJob]

One thing is very clear about this thread and horseracing in general....hell...life in general.

The people without any substantive data, the willingness to share their data findings, or even offer up anything to validate their claims....always seem to be the ones saying 'you have to do it their way!'

:D Yup, you're right. It's my way or the hiway. The right way, the wrong way and the handicapper's way. :D

[Tote Master]

Paceadvantage
How very kind of you! For your benefit, I'll let you in on a little secret:

The phrase is "I COULDN'T really care less."

By saying you COULD care less, that means you actually care, somewhat....

Another pet peeve of mine. A pet peeve of mine is to read undeserving criticism and commentary by those who apparently think they know the facts. If I’m wrong about something, I will stand corrected. However, since I’m not an expert in English grammar or colloquialisms, I thought I might just ask someone who is.
The following was my question and their answer:
Question:
A person is trying to say that they don't care about something. Which phrase is the correct English?

”I could really care less.” Or “I couldn't really care less.”

Reply:
The more usual phrase would be 'I really couldn't care less'.

You can think of it as meaning:

1. I could not care less (than I care).

i.e. I care about this so little, that it is not possible to care less than I care.

You also sometimes hear, mostly in American English:

2. I could care less!

This means exactly the same as #1. You can think of it as meaning 'As if I could care less!'. So obviously your (little secret) explanation of my terminology is incorrect. In either phrase, the wording is apparently correct. However, if the phrase I used is American English, I also poised the question as to what type of English the other phrase is considered.

In any case, I could really care less.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for Ron’s recent rebuttal (this page) and Thoroughbred’s description (page 4) of his “Internal Friction” concept, my curiosity has been peeked. So I will attempt to read Mr. Boxer’s paper called “Engineering Analysis of Thoroughbred Racing." I doubt that I will draw the same conclusions as Ron, because I’ve already noticed a major flaw in this paper, if Ron’s description is accurate.

Ron Tiller
"Fluid Friction is the friction between a solid object as it moves through a liquid or a gas. The drag of air on an airplane or of water on a swimmer are two examples of fluid friction."

Aerodynamic drag is precisely fluid friction, by this categorization. I have in fact stuck my hand out of a fast moving car. I can recommend a few good books on the physics of skiing, swimming and bicycling (3 sports where aerodynamics is really important). So Ron, you don’t believe that fluid friction has any effect on horse racing? Apparently Rick doesn’t, but I’m not sure if he understands the term “cause and effect” either. Perhaps he would also suggest that the horseshoes don’t wear, or that they shouldn’t be secured with nails. Horseshoe’s are available in different designs as well. I seem to recall a couple of names that might be familiar like “stickers” and “mud caulks”. If I’m not mistaken these types of shoes are designed for specific running functions, all related to friction.

Ron Tiller
Track surface and its resistance is surely important, as you say. My beef is not that running on sand is much harder and uses more energy. I've read studies on humans precisely measuring the difference in energy expenditures running on sand and compacted dirt. Perhaps similar studies exist for horses.
And I have run 10k races in Italy where half the course was on beach sand. Thanks for the reminder of this awful event. My beef is that this is not an effect of increased or decreased friction. My understanding from physics classes in years gone by is that loose sand absorbs almost all the force of the foot impact and returns very little to the runner, whereas hard surfaces return enough to the runner to give an added boost. Not to mention that is is just plain hard to run on a shifting unstable surface. I am not wed to this explanation though, so I defer to your or anybody else's expertise on this. That was exactly my point. However, the friction that you described earlier only covers a limited number of examples. The following is an excerpt from another authoritative source that describes another facet of friction. (I have taken the liberty of underlining the areas that apply).
Causes of friction
Friction is caused by the roughness of the materials rubbing against each other, deformations in the materials, and a molecular attraction between materials.
Surfaces not completely smooth
Most friction results because the surfaces of materials being rubbed together are not completely smooth. If you looked at what seems to be a smooth surface under a microscope, you would see bumps, hills and valleys that would interfere with sliding motion. Of course, the rougher the surface, the more the friction.
If both surfaces become ultra-smooth and flat, the friction from surface roughness becomes negligible, but then friction from molecular attraction comes into play, often becoming greater than the normal friction.
Deformations
Soft materials will deform when under pressure. This also increases the resistance to motion. For example, when you stand on a thick rug, you sink in slightly, which causes resistance when you try to move your feet along the rug's surface. Another example is how rubber tires flatten out at the area on contact with the road.
When materials deform, you must "plow" through to move, thus creating a resistive force. Note that the word "slide" along the rug's surface was not used. In the same respect, we all know that there are varying descriptions of a racetrack’s condition. Any one of which can fall into a category that would cause the track’s surface to deform to a certain degree under the force of a horse’s weight while standing, walking and yes even running.

While my comments about “running on a sandy beach” reminded you of your own personal unpleasant running experiences, this thread likewise reminds me of the painstaking approachs to traditional (speed) handicapping. I feel very fortunate to have abandoned it all many years ago. But then again, “To each his own”.

Best of luck!

[PaceAdvantage]

So obviously your (little secret) explanation of my terminology is incorrect. In either phrase, the wording is apparently correct. However, if the phrase I used is American English, I also poised the question as to what type of English the other phrase is considered.

In any case, I could really care less.

Well then, it's your loss I suppose. Don't say I didn't try to educate you. If you hear someone snicker the next time you utter "I could care less" make sure to say hello!

[RXB]

"Irregardless"

[Dave Schwartz]

RXB,

LOL - I lost money on that one once.


Dave Schwartz

[Dan Montilion]

What race was Irregardless in?

Dan Montilion

[Rick]

Hey guys, don't go "nukuler" about it. Anyway, I didn't say that friction wasn't a factor at all, just that it's not a very significant factor compared with others better described as exercise physiology. Horses with the best physical abilitity and in the best shape win much more often than those with the best shoes. It's entirely possible that horses slow down according to the Boxer equations anyway, but we don't know because it hasn't been tested. If you want to get picky about semantics, I'd say that it's not an "engineering" analysis at all but rather a "physics" analysis because he's not designing or building anything.

In reading about pacing for human runners, it's interesting that the experts say that you should run at either an even pace or (preferably according to most) with "negative splits" (run faster in the last part of the race). If this also applies to horses, it might explain why frontrunners can usually improve their times if allowed to set a slower pace but late runners run their best times more consistently.

Anyway, I'm still going to be more worried about whether there's enough gas in my car's tank than I am about optimizing the friction of my tires by setting the air pressure exactly right.

[socantra]

Anyway, I'm still going to be more worried about whether there's enough gas in my car's tank than I am about optimizing the friction of my tires by setting the air pressure exactly right.

And if you don't set your air pressure right, you will be putting considerably more of that expensive gas in your tank than you would otherwise.

socantra...

[Rick]

socantra,

As usual, you didn't understand that I was comparing the relative importance of two things, not saying that one of them had no effect whatsoever.

Anyway, I'm not learning anything from this debate, so I'll let the rest of you fight it out. I really need to go do something worthwhile. It's amazing how much effort people will put into arguing about things and how little effort they'll put into finding out if what they're saying is really true.

[SAL]

It's amazing how much effort people will put into arguing about things and how little effort they'll put into finding out if what they're saying is really true.


This is very true. I think this is what keeps a lot of lurkers from actually participating in a lot of discussions on this board. I'm amazed at the direction this thread took.

[Rick]

I hereby give my blessing for anyone here to believe what they want to without proof and to express their opinion in an illiterate way. Hey, if it's good enough for our top government leaders, who am I to argue.

[socantra]

socantra,

As usual, you didn't understand that I was comparing the relative importance of two things, not saying that one of them had no effect whatsoever.

Anyway, I'm not learning anything from this debate, so I'll let the rest of you fight it out. I really need to go do something worthwhile. It's amazing how much effort people will put into arguing about things and how little effort they'll put into finding out if what they're saying is really true.

And as usual. you seem to misunderstand most of what I'm saying.

"What we have here is a failure to communicate"

At any rate, I wish you well, and must get back to my efforts to put together pars for the new Evangeline Downs and deciphering the structure of Trackmaster speed ratings. Even us semi-intuitive handucappers do research from time to time.

Good Luck,

socantra...

[NoDayJob]

:lol: I just love to play "prove it"! :lol:

NDJ

[socantra]

This is very true. I think this is what keeps a lot of lurkers from actually participating in a lot of discussions on this board. I'm amazed at the direction this thread took.

Sorry Sal, I can't agree with that. I suspect what keeps most lurkers from participating is simply that they are lurkers.

This thread did take a lot of twists and turns. Like most discussions of ideas it was at times informative, vicious, silly, funny, interesting, pompous, angry, ridiculous and many other things. It did (finally) get around to some discussion of the ideas in the title of the thread.

PA does a pretty good job of keeping things from getting too far out of hand, as a good moderator should, but discussion of ideas is, like life, a messy business. You either jump in and get your hands dirty or you don't. Your choice.

socantra...

[Grifter]

Sorry Sal, I can't agree with that. I suspect what keeps most lurkers from participating is simply that they are lurkers.
Socantro -- Sorry, Sal’s right. We lurkers simply see no point in joining in to make a point, when there is no point. I’m only joining in because someone has to speak up for the “silent majority.” And since I’ve revealed myself, let me presume to speak for all the unheard and unwashed masses of lurkers out there, and render final judgment on what’s gone before. (That statement is likely to bring out more lurkers who will vehemently disagree with my presuming to speak for all lurkers. Good.)

Boxer number: Read the paper months ago. Don’t think it has any practical utility.

Totemaster said:
So obviously your (little secret) explanation of my terminology is incorrect. In either phrase, the wording is apparently correct. However, if the phrase I used is American English, I also poised the question as to what type of English the other phrase is considered.

In any case, I could really care less.
As for Ron’s recent rebuttal (this page) and Thoroughbred’s description (page 4) of his “Internal Friction” concept, my curiosity has been peeked.


Totemaster: You’re wrong. Pace Advantage is right. “I couldn’t care less” is the appropriate phrase. By the way, most people "pose" questions, not "poise" them. And the word is “peaked”, not “peeked”.

Ron Tiller: You’re right.

Dave Schwartz: You’re right. You are not Dick Mitchell. I’m Dick Mitchell.

Rick: You’ve gotta be right, if only because you use words like “kinesiologist” and “glygogen depletion and lactic acid buildup”. Tires me out just to say it.

[hurrikane]

Grifters right.

[socantra]

Grifter,

It's nice to see you come out of the closet, though with a March, 2005 join date I question your qualifications as a hard core lurker. We've got some who have been here for years.

Your input is more than welcome, even though you are obviously totally wrong in most of what you say.

It is very nice to see some one finally 'fess up to being Dick Mitchell.


socantra...

[NoDayJob]

:lol: I love reading this thread, instead of counting the fly specks on my monitor. Just the misspelled words alone are enough to keep me in stitches. Spell checker, please write. [sic] Hava great day everyone. :lol:

NDJ

[Red Knave]

And the word is “peaked”, not “peeked”.

Surely, it's "piqued".

tr.v. piqued, piqu·ing, piques


To cause to feel resentment or indignation.
To provoke; arouse: The portrait piqued her curiosity.
To pride (oneself): He piqued himself on his stylish attire.

[NoDayJob]

Surely, it's "piqued".

tr.v. piqued, piqu·ing, piques


To cause to feel resentment or indignation.
To provoke; arouse: The portrait piqued her curiosity.
To pride (oneself): He piqued himself on his stylish attire.


:D I bet he's pale now. :D

NDJ

[Tote Master]

Grifter
Socantro -- Sorry, Sal’s right. We lurkers simply see no point in joining in to make a point, when there is no point. I’m only joining in because someone has to speak up for the “silent majority.” And since I’ve revealed myself, let me presume to speak for all the unheard and unwashed masses of lurkers out there, and render final judgment on what’s gone before. (That statement is likely to bring out more lurkers who will vehemently disagree with my presuming to speak for all lurkers. Good.)

Boxer number: Read the paper months ago. Don’t think it has any practical utility

Totemaster: You’re wrong. Pace Advantage is right. “I couldn’t care less” is the appropriate phrase. By the way, most people "pose" questions, not "poise" them. And the word is “peaked”, not “peeked”.

Ron Tiller: You’re right.

Dave Schwartz: You’re right. You are not Dick Mitchell. I’m Dick Mitchell.

Rick: You’ve gotta be right, if only because you use words like “kinesiologist” and “glygogen depletion and lactic acid buildup”. Tires me out just to say it.
There we have it folks! The final judgment is in and from the silent (lurking) majority no less!

It seems all of our questions and commentary have been answered by a literary genius who seems to know it all, but appears to have very little tolerance for typos. So beware! I’m sure your comments made PA’s day. Since I’m not an English perfectionist, I’ll have to let one know who is about your detailed explanation as to why he must be entirely wrong.

I might as well not even bother to read Mr. Boxer’s paper, since you’ve already done that for everyone as well. I’m sure he’ll be glad to read about your lengthy argument as to why you find his concepts impractical. Apparently you must also know as much about friction as the other experts do. Or perhaps, like Rick you negate its significance. Maybe we should all start using Rick’s vocabulary. It certainly must impress some minds!

I for one would love to hear more about your own speed-handicapping prowess. At least some on this forum have the courage to express their ideas in more then just a few “one liners”. Although I must admit there are few who know how to get their points across very well with just a few words.

So welcome aboard and best of luck!

[Tom]

Irregardless, I could care less!:rolleyes:

[Grifter]

Totemaster -- No literary genius or English perfectionist here. I was wrong. It's "piqued my curiosity", not "peeked" or "peaked" (as I said). Must have been a typo.....

[plainolebill]

Most people 'couldn't care less' about grammatical mistakes but when you make a point of correcting someone else - you should be sure of your facts.

[Hosshead]

I think this thread should be critiqued by Norm Crosby !!!!!! :D

[RonTiller]

My final post on this thread (hip hip hooray!):

I'll take partial blame for this thread unravelling, as I was wordy, inarticulate and frequently off point. I must say, though, that it makes for better discussion if all the discusees have read the paper in question, which provides the context for the whole debate: What is Mr. Boxer attempting to do and how is he doing it. I dearly hope I am not misrepresenting Mr. Boxer's work.

The Goal: Develop a velocity equation(s) for a horse as a function of time. How does a horse's velocity change over time? How can we use this information to make useful predictions? Simple question huh.

The Method:

'A simple analogy is useful. When a weight is dragged along the ground, energy is used in overcoming the friction between the weight and the ground. The greater the friction, the greater the energy use.

'The case of a racing horse is, of course, much more complicated. The "friction" is caused by track condition effects, the contact between the horse's hooves and ground, internal interactions of muscle and bone, and other biological processes. We assume here that all factors can be included in what we term "equivalent friction".' (p. 3, PDF version of EATR)

'We structure the analysis in terms of the more usual case where speed decreases, by assuming that the decrease is proportional to the energy used to overcome friction.' (p. 4, PDF version of EATR)

The Equation: 'v(t) = Vm-uWx(t) (eq. 2)' which is more usefully expressed as: dx/dt = Vm-uWx(t) (eq. 3)

What this is NOT about: whether the horse/rider encounter any friction in the course of a race - Even NASA unworthies like myself undestand the importance of aerodynamic resistance for an animal going 50+ MPH. Perhaps there are precise studies of this effect, as their are for other sports, like auto racing and skiing).

What this is NOT about Part 2: whether the track condition matters. Of course it does. Running in loose sand sucks for humans and horses alike. Running on slippery surfaces (yes, surfaces with reduced friction) sucks for humans and horses alike. Whether or not the higher energy expenditures of running in sand are due to increased friction I'll leave to experts who have studied this. And experts HAVE studied this and precisely quantified the energy expenditure differentials.

What this IS about: Is Mr. Boxer's starting assumption true, plausible, justifiable, a good working hypothesis, etc? Namely, is he correct in "...assuming that the decrease [in speed] is proportional to the energy used to overcome friction."? (p. 4 EATR) Should this equation, dx/dt = Vm-uWx(t), be our starting point?

I put it in these terms because once one accepts this starting equation, the rest, it seems to me, is mathematical housekeeping, notwithstanding the additional adjustments he makes for track variant and wide paths on the turn.

I've got to say that this is NOT an uncontroversial starting point. I am not persuaded by anything in the paper that modelling loss of velocity as proportional to friction (real or "equivalent") IS a good starting point and I am persuaded by mathematical models other engineers and mathematicians have developed and tested against hundreds of thousands of races's, where velocity as a function of time is developed competely differently. But this has absolutely no probabtive value for anybody. Some clown unworthy to work at NASA refers to mysterious unnamed engineers and mathematicians who don't like Mr. Boxer's analysis. Whoopty-Doo! Unfortunately, qualified physicists and engineers who have done a lot of work developing and validating horse velocity, acceleration and jerk equations don't seem to be interested in posting on PaceAdvantage.Com. As near as I can tell, Mr. Boxer is the only one and has made his work available for edification and criticism, so kudos to him.

What this IS about Part 2: Testing, Measuring, Testing, Measuring. I have to admit I may have done Mr. Boxer a grave injustice. I have never had any communication with him and was relying on heresay regarding what came across to me as either a disdain for, lack of interest in or a principled refusal to accept the possibility of objective, empirical measurements of the numbers he produces. As I am immersed in an environment where testing and measuring one's mathematical models is absolutely fundamental, where incremental changes are implemented ONLY after proper measurement, it is inconceivable that one wouldn't have masses of measurements of one's numbers.

What this IS about Part 3: Sometimes, the best looking assumptions and the prettiest sets of equations measure poorly compared to alternatives. Sometimes the most implausible sounding methodologies surprise the pants off you. So in the end, this gets back to my original point 15 pages ago: Try everything, including Mr. Boxer's EATR if you are interested and let the empirical results of measurement and testing determine the winner(s). I myself insist on objective, statistically significant testing of numbers; others don't - testimonials and personal handicapping experience are enough or in the all that is possible to validate a number. And as I said before, I have no knock down argument to change their minds. To each their own.

Now that I'm done with this thread, I'm going to get back to chasing my tail for awhile, then I'll resume my real work: squaring the circle with a straightedge and compass, calculating the last digit in pi, finishing my perpetual motion machine and trying to figure out who shaves the barber who shaves only those persons who don't shave themselves. Best of all, there is no friction involved in any of these!

Ron Tiller
HDW

[Kreed]

END THIS THREAD. ITS THREAD-BARE. Suppose anyone says,

W(inning) = A + B + D

now, suppose ,
A = Track Variant
B = Track-2-Track Adjs
D = Distance Adjs

Now Focus: If you think "B" is doable, I say SHOW ME.
If you think "A" is doable, I say SHOW ME.
And, doing Distance Adjustments is Very Tricky.

All these Factors are VERY, VERY RELATED ... and if you don't use
a Black Box, then its just window dressing. A system is verifiable or NOT.
It's gotta to be a black box approach in that, if you were to be given
the same race, over & over, your selections would remain the same.
YES, A,B,D must be "tried-2-B-Solved" but in the end, ONLY black boxes
are legitimate approaches (IMO). Also, any approach that uses a single-pace
line can't win. If I had "GREAT" Values for A,B,D, then I would make a
killing. But I don't have that solved at all.

[Kreed]

Ron, wonderful clear discussion. Yet to me it doesn't really matter since
you're still left with "What Do I Do with The Ouput NOW, Before the Race?"
And, no matter how you look at Boxer's idea or many, many before him, all
these Velocity Equations rely on: Track-2-Track, Daily Variants & Distance
Adjusments .... all Very tricky stuff, no matter how long they've been talked
about. Also, I think, as I've said b4, WHAT IS YOUR DESIGN? by that I mean,
suppose you have a 3 horse-field, like any Calif Race, Lol. and each horse shows
6 races. Now, you've got 18 potential races to Rate. OK, HOW DO YOU SEQUENCE YOUR STRATEGY? it doesnt matter if your Equation is a good fit
or not, its the Values + Your Design Approach. PS: all this is my opinions,
and I have NOT achieved the solution, but I am SURE 100% I've mapped out
the Right Design.

[NoDayJob]

trying to figure out who shaves the barber who shaves only those persons who don't shave themselves. Best of all, there is no friction involved in any of these! Ron Tiller HDW

:lol: Oh yeah? Try dry shaving, especially at thirty degrees below zero. :lol:

NDJ

[Kreed]

Few words, but LOL. You bring out the OUCH in us Guys.

[NoDayJob]

Also, I think, as I've said b4, WHAT IS YOUR DESIGN? by that I mean, suppose you have a 3 horse-field, like any Calif Race, Lol. and each horse shows 6 races. Now, you've got 18 potential races to Rate. OK, HOW DO YOU SEQUENCE YOUR STRATEGY? it doesnt matter if your Equation is a good fit or not, its the Values + Your Design Approach. PS: all this is my opinions, and I have NOT achieved the solution, but I am SURE 100% I've mapped out the Right Design.

:) When you have achieved the solution, hopefully you will share some of the results. I am especially interested in separating my final two selections. So far the best results achieved are about 30% of the races there's 1 playable horse, and the rest require at least 2 horses. Best of luck :)

NDJ