Hey..Bris students...

[grahors]

My brain is mush.....to many calculations lately...
The question is?
Which BRIS number best represents the final time of a race in question.
1. Adjusted speed fig (10/length of race)*beaten lgths + horses spd fig
or
2. E2 pace of race + LP pace of race
or
3. a speed fig derived by Matt.
(E2 POR*2nd call dist + LP POR*remaining dist of race)/dist of race.
I am still trying to "upgrade" Taulbot's pace slide rule/computer to more modern figs instead of raw times that it uses.
By the way...The taulbot program had Coin Silver on top. I was tooooo smart to even think about him...going wild and RH drew my attention.
Sorry if I keep asking these questions, but they drive me nuts.
Grahors :cool:

[Light]

I use E2+LP as one of my 13 outputs per horse. After the Coin Silver race,I checked it and it had him on top by 201 to 197 over second ranked Rockport Harbor. I only noticed this after the race,cause I put more faith in my other outputs as the E2+Lp usually points to obvious favorites,but this taught me a lesson.

I've never seen this formula you described: (E2 POR*2nd call dist + LP POR*remaining dist of race)/dist of race.It's a bit unclear to me.Can you give me an example of how you would use it in a calculation.

[grahors]

Light,
I did the same thing...noticed after the fact...oh well.
OK, here we go...
E2 pace of race(POR)= horse E2+2* beaten lgths @ 2nd call
LP POR = LP of horse + 2*(lgths behind at finish - lengths behind at 2nd call)
ie. 6f race E2 POR = 90 LP POR = 80
2nd call in sprints is @ 4f
so (90*4) + (80*2) sum divided by 6
if it was 5.5f race 90*4 + 80*1.5 sum divided by 5.5
2nd call in routes is at 6f so adjust accordingly.
You could do POR and Pace of horse in question and compare to see how the horse ran against a certain pace....whatever...many questions.
Hope this helps.
Grahors
Just a way of weighting the different pace calls and bringing them in line.

[bettheoverlay]

The Bris E2 + LP top figure is almost always the top final speed figure as well. In the 30 races I printed yesterday it was 100% the same. Coin Silver had a last race speed figure of +2 over Rockport Harbor. E1 + LP produces far more of a variance to the final #. I don't know how useful it is.

[grahors]

I think many of us were blinded by the hype.
Many people had Coin on top and just ignored.

[Zaf]

I use E2+LP as one of my 13 outputs per horse. After the Coin Silver race,I checked it and it had him on top by 201 to 197 over second ranked Rockport Harbor. I only noticed this after the race,cause I put more faith in my other outputs as the E2+Lp usually points to obvious favorites,but this taught me a lesson.

I've never seen this formula you described: (E2 POR*2nd call dist + LP POR*remaining dist of race)/dist of race.It's a bit unclear to me.Can you give me an example of how you would use it in a calculation.

Light,

Do you use software for these calculations ? Are there any outputs which aren't quite so obvious to the public ?

Thanks,

ZAFONIC

[formula_2002]

My brain is mush.....to many calculations lately...
The question is?
Which BRIS number best represents the final time of a race in question.
1. Adjusted speed fig (10/length of race)*beaten lgths + horses spd fig
or
2. E2 pace of race + LP pace of race
or
3. a speed fig derived by Matt.
(E2 POR*2nd call dist + LP POR*remaining dist of race)/dist of race.
I am still trying to "upgrade" Taulbot's pace slide rule/computer to more modern figs instead of raw times that it uses.
By the way...The taulbot program had Coin Silver on top. I was tooooo smart to even think about him...going wild and RH drew my attention.
Sorry if I keep asking these questions, but they drive me nuts.
Grahors :cool:


The best bris fig I find, is the Bris first call pace rating when it is the favorite.
In a 3000 horse sample it cut the effect of the take-out in half.
That is to say, the top figure loses 8.2 cents per dollar, while the others lost 17%.

[Light]

grahors

Sorry,I cant grasp your formula.Maybe if you did Coin Silver's figure with your formula I can figure it out.Sounds interesting.

bettheoverlay

You are correct that the Bris E2+Lp rank should equal the Bris speedfigure rank.For some reason,I find this is untrue approxamatly 10% of the time.

zafonic

I had a friend create a program in Dos(unfortunately that's the limit of his expertise),that extracts the 13 factors I want from the Bris data files and writes them to a text file in Windows. I then use Excel to refine this text file output. Excel ranks the horses in each of the 13 categories. What I am doing now is creating a template database for each track I play that will tell me which of these 13 factors are winning particular races based on age,sex distance,and surface.Once I find these specific criteria for specific races,I can then choose contenders by filtering a race(in Excel) by the criteria of factors that win the race according to rank.The purpose of all this is to reduce the number of contenders from 4 or 5 to 1 or 2.I have had some surprising success with Template Handicapping.

[Zaf]

Pretty cool stuff Light !

ZAFONIC

[grahors]

Light,
Coin Silver....
last race......
1 1/8mile=9 furlongs
E2 = 99
LP = 102
Coin was leading at 2nd call and beaten by 3l at the finish
E2 pace of race= 99
LP pace of race= 102 + 2*(3-0(leading))= 108
Matt's#= 99*6(2nd call route) + 108*3(LP dist @ 9f) all devided by 9 = 102
This would be for the pace of race.
Coin's # would be...
99*6 + 102*3 devided by 9 = 100
I have not done any real testing on the fig. but it seems to help narrow the field down somewhat. I guess it is a "speed" fig.
Hope this helps,
Grahors

[grahors]

Light,
The figures I used for Lexington were...
E2 POR + LP POR and compare with horses speed.

Coin= 99 + ( 102+(2*(3-0))= 99+108 = 207 POR with speed fig 102
RH = 103 + ( 94 +(2*(1/2-0))= 103+95=198 POR with speed fig of 100

Always seems like an easy call when we look back at it!

Grahors

[exactajack]

I don't have the pp's for that race but from what I can see the bris SPD for your example is Coin 102, RH 100. Those figs are calculated using the formula you posted (10/dist of race) for beaten lengths. Which means that for 9fur it's 1.1.
All your calculations are using 2pts/beaten length. My point is that if you want the true speed fig for the horse it's (E2+LP)/2. Now when you compare the Pace of Race or speed of race or what ever compound rating you come up with that uses E1,E2, or LP they are all based on 2pts/beaten length. Either way the bris SPD ranks and E2+LP ranks are always the same but you've used the same conversion for beaten lengths for all. In this case (E2+LP)/2 you have coin=100.5 and rh=98.5. bris coin=102 rh=100
race horse bris
por spd hp spd spd
coin 99 103 99 100.5 102
rh 103 99 103 98.5 100
now if you want to make a rating using horse spd use 100.5 and 98.5.
example: if you wanted LP+SPD or POR+SPD they're all based on 2pts/beaten length. If you made POR+SPD and used bris spd then you calculated the POR using 2pts/bL but yet bris SPD used 1.1 for 9fur. so you added apples and oranges. This is just my opinion. The true speed or the horse is (E2+LP)/2.

[exactajack]

for some reason the columns didn't line up in the example I posted.
the 1st fig is pace of race, 2nd fig is spd of race, 3rd fig is pace of horse, 4th is spd of horse and last is bris spd

[BillW]

racehorse bris por spd hp spd spd
coin 99 103 99 100.5 102
rh 103 99 103 98.5 100




Ex,

You have to use the CODE delimiters (pound sign above the edit area) for formatting. Space columns using tabs.

Bill

[Light]

grahors

Thanks,I get it now. But I dont understand the reasoning behind your adjustments . If Bris says Coin Silver ran a 102 LP, I'm sure that figure includes the 3 lengths he finished behind the winner in his last race. Why modify the LP as if it doesn't include the 3 length loss?

Coin Silver ran 1:11.91 and 1:50.35 (his fractions,not the leader's)on April 2.Raw Lp=38.44. I suppose with Bris that equals a 102 for the distance, track variant,etc.Sartiners would say it equals an 89,and then modify by TV.But if you modify again by lengths lost which is allready included in the calculation,seems unbalanced to horses who lose lengths in a race as opposed to gate to wire horses.

[grahors]

Light,
I know it sounds goofy.....and that's what I am trying to figure out, if I'm not thinking straight or what.....
what I am trying to deterimine is the LP "of the race".
If the horse in question had a Bris LP of 80 and lost 3 lengths from 2nd call to finish, wouldn't it mean the horse ran 3l slower than the LP "pace of the race" so the actual pace of the race would be 80+2*3l=86 (not pace of the horse)

Exacta,
The Bris spd for Coin=102 and RH = 100...I didn't calculate them from that 10/dist formula I was just using the bris spd to compare how each horse ran against the Pace of the race in each race not in addition to.
Much like Taulbot's slide rule does..compares raw times of "race" to each horses bris spd (or DRF spd and variant) which ever you prefer.
I do see your point of apples and oranges and will try your calcs and run it up the flag pole to see what happens.

Thanks guys, let me know your thoughts...
Grahors

[grahors]

Exacta,
Instead of spd=E2+LP/2 wouldn't you have to adjust for the differences in length of 2nd call and dist of the late pace.
At 6f.....2nd call is 4f and LP is covered in 2f.
Like I said, I am just thinking out loud..head is still spinning from the weekend calcs.
Grahors

[exactajack]

grahors,
again this is just my opinion. I've been using bris numbers for quite a number of years and do not claim to have all the answers or the correct ones for that matter. I just believe that the in order to make any compound ratings using E1, E2 or LP and then try to compare them to the bris SPD is incorrect. Because the bris SPD is figured using different beaten lengths depending on the distance. In order to solve that problem I use (E2+LP)/2. That way everything is based on 2pts/beaten length. Many times they are exactly the same as bris SPD. I don't know if it's coincidence or what. I use methods from Cary Fotias (Blinkers Off) and using the E2+LP version has produced better and more accurate results than using the bris SPD. Another good example would be kind of what you're doing. You calculate the PoR, say E2=90 and beaten lengths @ 2c=3 then PoR=96. Now you want to see how the horse performed overall against that 96 pace. You need a speed fig. Well bris has one in bold easy to see. Say it's a 100. I can't say that the horse ran a 100 spd fig against a 96 pace. I calc (E2+LP)/2 to get the spd of the horse. Could be no difference to some. I've run enough tests to know that I feel better with this.

As far as breaking down the distance (At 6f.....2nd call is 4f and LP is covered in 2f). I tried a test on about 40 or so past races at diff distances, turf and dirt. The original formula was better. The only thing that I saw or think I saw (I haven't done enough races yet) was if a horse was cutting back from say 7fur last race to 6fur today and you wanted to know what the LP would be for the 6fur. I started to run some tests and things didn't look right so I decided to leave things alone.

[grahors]

Cool..I will give it a whirl and see what happens.
Are you a Wm Scott fan? Have you ever tried applying Bris figs to some of his theories....ability times or when stretch loses are important or figuring when a horse is improving or declining?
Thanks for your thoughts,
Grahors

[Big Bill]

Two methods for calculating a speed rating using the BRIS Pace Ratings (E2 and LP) have been posted on the board recently.

1) Matt’s for sprints: ((E2*4)+(LP+Dist of LP))/Dist. of race
2) exactajack’s: (E2+LP)/2

Like exactajack, I too ran a test on 62 dirt sprints in an effort to determine which formula produced a speed rating closest to the BRIS SPD Rating.

Nineteen (19) of the 62 races returned a speed rating closer to the BRIS SPD Rating using Matt’s formula, while 41 of the 62 races returned a speed rating closer to the BRIS SPD Rating using exactajack’s formula. The remaining two races were tied in closest.

I could not detect any characteristics in the 62 races that might account for why one formula performed better than the other. Both formulas, in several instances, returned speed ratings that were greater than 10 points from the BRIS SPD Rating???

Big Bill

[mhrussell]

Big Bill-

Were all the test sprint cases you compared 6f sprints? If not, then my weighting factors of 4 and 2 (for the E2 and LP fractions, respectively) are not correct for other sprint distances (5,5.5,6.5,7,7.5 f) and will impact the results.

Also, I think you have a typo in your last post. The correct formula for total pace is:

TOTAL PACE = (E2*(dist to 2nd call) + LP*(dist from 2nd call to finish))/(distance of race)

Funny, I am looking at exactly this situation too as I am considering 'doing away' with the BRIS speed figure in my PBS calcs and going to a Total Pace based 'speed figure'. This in order to: 1) eliminate another hand data point when refining the rated/projected pace line; and 2) making the fulcrum effect more pronounced (the conversion factor between beaten lengths of the BRIS pace vs. BRIS speed figure reduces this effect by ~ 0.33 to 0.50.

[grahors]

Matt,
I am by no way asking you to go into an area you would rather not discuss...but the "projected pace line" idea has my interest as does the total pace (spd) formula. If you could explain further it would be wonderful. I have been playing with it and seeing good results. I don't utilize a computer data base so I can't run querries but I sure have fun with a pencil and old bris pps.
Always willing to learn.
Grahors

I too have HM and utilize Pizzola's concepts and trying to use with bris #'s. Many posts to go over in PA regarding this. I also love Wm Scott and Taulbot and would love to model my hcping around all 3.

[Big Bill]

Matt,

You wrote:

"Were all the test sprint cases you compared 6f sprints? If not, then my weighting factors of 4 and 2 (for the E2 and LP fractions, respectively) are not correct for other sprint distances (5,5.5,6.5,7,7.5 f) and will impact the results."

In the test I ran I used 4 times the E2 and then multiplied the LP by 2 in 6f races, 2.5 in 6 1/2f races, and 3 in 7f races, which I believe is exactly in accordance with your formula.

And you are correct about the typo...I had typed a "+" when I should have typed a " * ".

Big Bill

[mhrussell]

grahors-

This is an idea I have talked a little about before in some earlier posts. Basically, get your pencil and jot down the sum of E2 and LP underneath (or near) the E2/LP columns in the BRIS pps for each race in a horses pps. For now, dont' worry about the pp lines being dirt or turf or route or sprint, just look at the pattern of the E2+LP sum as it goes up, down or stays about the same. Do this for awhile in conjunction with whatever methods you are using now.. don't change a thing! Next step is to "project" improvement or regression with a horse as far as how you think he will do today... based on the last race, "bounce" potential, trainer change, weight, the 'rated' race that comes out of the Form Cycle Window analysis (this is what I do..HM technique) along with the horses energy "pattern". I have found a benchmark, good "improvement"/""regression" number on the order of + or - eight to eleven points (E2+LP "energy" points). So you take the 'rated' races E2+LP figure and add or subtract the number of energy points you think should be applied as an adjustment to reflect the horses current condition (or leave it alone if you think the horse will not improve/decline over its FCW "best" race; or rated race you have originally given it). Then the trick is how to divvy up those "extra" <or reduced> points between the E2 and LP figures. The way I do it is I look at the running style of the horse, the shape of the race and the fulcrum pace to select an appropriate E2 value that is consistent with the running style of the horse and the expected pace of the race. Then, whatever energy points are leftover, I assign to the LP figure.
For example, after determining the total energy for the horse, I will assign whatever E2 pace figure is needed to "force" an E7 or E/P6 horse to keep up with an E8 horse at the 2nd call; consistent with the positional tendencies of the horse. Then whatever points are leftover, I assign to the LP figure.

Then my spreadsheet program calculates an equivalent PBS and PPF figures (among lots of other things).

There is a great deal of "artistry" in this method <I often feel like I am 'painting' the race> and it takes some time to get the hang of it(I am still learning!). Also, this can't easily be 'programmed' into a computer, you have to do it race-by race...so reserve this technique for races you REALLY think offer good value and are worth the time. It takes me a good 25-40 minutes per race to do this method.. that is the major drawback..

For me 75-80% of the time, the "out of the box" results from my computer program will get the race close enough to bet creatively. But I need this extra pace projection technique to "nail" that other 20%. So you have to decide is 20-40 minutes of time on THIS race worth that extra 20% of "Jedi handicapping Fu"?

[mhrussell]

Big Bill-

Thanks for the clarification. You did the calcs correctly. In thinking more about this I am not surprised that you did not find a one to one "match" between a Total Pace derived number (using BRIS pace figs) and the BRIS Speed Figure. The difference in the values of a "point" per beaten length is considerable. The BRIS pace figs are all based on 2 pace points per length. For all sprint distances the BRIS speed figure is 0.6024 points per length... quite a difference! It is like comparing Beyer figures to BRIS or Timeform ratings.. you need a transformation curve fit between the BRIS total pace and Speed figs to get an "equivalent" comparison of pace based speed figure to a BRIS speed fig.

Hope that didn't confuse you all more!

Bottom line is that it seems the correlation is more linear to the sum of E2 and LP rather than to the distanced weighted total pace figure that I am using. Either way is OK.. the question is in the transformation to/from the BRIS Speed Figure.

My calc method is more of an "energy" method and I think is certainly the best way to do the "BLINKERS OFF" stuff. Which method makes for a better "speed figure" is still unclear. You would need to test it's predictive capability...

Thanks Big Bill...most interesting!

[grahors]

Matt,
"Artistry" is right...interesting.
What I am working on is predicting a "comfort zone" for each horse in the race for both E2 and LP. The comfort zone would hopefully be a narrow range of E2 pace of race and LP pace of race that each horse runs well to.
Then predict the early pace "range" of the race at hand and see who fits the model. Basically "fulcrum" but more so using a range of values.....like you said, trying to paint the race. At least, It should sure pick out the "major" contenders.
Grahors

[toetoe]

Is your computer friend 'the Fresno Whale?'

If you can hit pick-fours with two horses per race, more power to you. Four twos would be only $16 per race. Four threes would be $81. Consider that if you had 80% of the contention in every race, you would have about a 41% chance of cashing. At $16 per race, you'd only need to average about $40 per hit to break even. At $81, it's a bit above $200. But what about what Steve Crist calls the Avoid-One, that borderline no-hoper that wins way too often, yet is rarely part of a rigid 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 ticket? You know, the kind that the numbers just fail to predict? How can we give ourselves a fighting chance of hitting that one? And how will we know when to pass the pick-four altogether?