Formula for Speed Figs..

[mattcooke]

I was wondering what sort of formulas the people on this board who make their own figures use? Do you find the time pars for each individual track?
Do you use any other aspect to tweak ur figures?

thanks, matt C
( no, not matt curothers)

[JohnGalt1]

To decide what pace line to use, I use the guidelines suggested in the book "Handicapping Magic" by Michael Pizzola.

I make my pace figures using the method in "Pace Makes the Race" by Sartin, Schmidtt, Hambleton, etc.

I buy Cynthia's par book to compare one track to another.

Another thing I do is punish closers from a chart from "Total Victory at the Track" by Scott. Example--Horse A (lengths behind) 2 2 1 nk
Horse B 12 10 5 nk
Race time 45.0 1:10.0

My pace figures for each horse A EPR 95 FFR 85 TPR 180
B EPR 85 FFR 92 TPR 177

Though they run the same time, early horses win more and closers may have traffic problems, and sometimes the gain isn't as big as it appears. The horse may be passing tiring horses.

Finally I use the drf tack variants. 16-18 no change and I halve the smaller numbers to subtract each fifth of a second and halve larger numbers to add a fifth of a second.

In the above example if A ran in a race with a 6 variant and B in a race with a 28, the new Pace figs would be A is 92 83 175 and B would be 88 94 182.

If today's race was at Belmont and A's ratable race was at Calder and B's ratable race was at Churcill A is 97 86 183 And B 87 94 181.

I do my own figs to get a better feel for the race, I hope this answers some of your questions.

[Kelso]

Who is John Galt?

(An intriguing question; with an important answer.)

[sjk]

It is remarkable how few people appear to be making their own figures (and posting here about it).

I would answer that you need time pars and class pars for all the tracks. You start with the tracks you play but with shippers bringing in additional information you soon end up doing pars for all the tracks.

As to how to make the figures I think everyone starts with the traditional methods but uses their different twists based on what their reseach has indicated gives best results (all two of us).

I am sure there are posts to search for where this has been discussed.

Equibase seems to have furthered their wrong-headed goals with respect to individuals using data to make figures and bet money on races.

[DaveP]

As to how to make the figures I think everyone starts with the traditional methods but uses their different twists based on what their reseach has indicated gives best results.
.. I'd agree with that, start off with the basic formula and then go on from there.

[PriceAnProbability]

I was wondering what sort of formulas the people on this board who make their own figures use? Do you find the time pars for each individual track?
Do you use any other aspect to tweak ur figures?

thanks, matt C
( no, not matt curothers)

I convert each horse's speed-figure history into a singular power rating.

[sjk]

.. I'd agree with that, start off with the basic formula and then go on from there.

I don't know that I would call it a formula. You need class pars for each track, distance time pars for each track and track variants for each date/race/track. If you have 2 of three of these you can develop a means of deriving the third. Still need to bootstrap the process.

As to the class pars I have over 10k of those.

It takes some effort and commitment to make figures.

[DaveP]

I don't know that I would call it a formula. You need class pars for each track, distance time pars for each track and track variants for each date/race/track. If you have 2 of three of these you can develop a means of deriving the third. Still need to bootstrap the process.

As to the class pars I have over 10k of those.

It takes some effort and commitment to make figures.
I dont agree .. its pretty easy but takes a long time. It took me about a year to get everything set up and now I can produce figures automatically. But thats just a good starting point.

You have to look at what you want to achieve, why you want to do it and then come up with some sort of plan and see it through.

[joeyreb]

I sugguest reading "Modern Pace Handicapping" Tom Brohammer and "Figure Handicapping" - James Quinn

[Kelso]

I convert each horse's speed-figure history into a singular power rating.
PaP
What is the minimum number of races (figures) a horse must have for you to develop a power rating in which you have betting confidence?

Do you pass on a race if it doesn't present a minimum percentage of bettable power ratings ... or do you allow a maximum #/% of less experienced, unratable horses in a race, above which you will not bet it?

Thank you.

[singunner]

"Who is John Galt?", when taken in context, is not a question. At worst, it could be considered a rhetorical question, but it is more effectively used as a statement.

It's mildly amusing that this is the first place I've ever seen it written.

[Kelso]

[QUOTE=singunner]
"Who is John Galt?", when taken in context, is not a question. At worst, it could be considered a rhetorical question, but it is more effectively used as a statement.
QUOTE]

It's been many years since my last visit with Dagney Taggart, but in that context I recall "WIJG?" being a genuine question ... often raised in trepidation and/or exasperation ... almost all the way through. But, again, it's been many years.

I used to put the question on my scrolling "marquee" screen saver at work. It ignited many great discussions, particularly with the younger set.


(BTW ... do you see Angelina as an apppropriate DT, as I recently heard Hollywood is planning to foist upon us?)

[singunner]

It occurs to me I haven't read the book in over a decade, but it was most certainly never asked as a "genuine question". Nobody actually wanted to know who John Galt was. It was almost exclusively stated as a counter to any question which could not be answered or to reference the overly glum nature of the modern world.

As I recall, it is the first line in the book and sits quite poorly with Ms. Taggart, who doesn't tend to believe in a hopeless situation, as the phrase tries to imply.

In its most literal sense, it is a code. Anyone who actually knows John Galt has an answer to the question, which always catches Dagny off gaurd, as it is supposed to be unanswerable. Whether it be Prometheus who voluntarily chained himself to the rock or a sea captain who saw Atlantis at the bottom of the ocean and destroyed his own ship rather than allow knowledge of its existence to be brought to the land, the false stories of John Galt always served to identify his moral character and goals against a mythical backdrop, while the struggle of the actual man was of even greater proportions than the protagonists of the stories about him.

Thereby, the only instance of "Who is John Galt?" actually being a question would be in the instance of it being asked to someone who has met him to verify their actually knowing who he is through the relation of some mythical tale about him. This is evidenced by Dagny's experience of insisting to the boy on the train that the piece he was whistling was not one of the known works of Richard Halley who had disappeared and his responding to her incredulity "Who is John Galt?".


-An interesting epilogue to an otherwise boring lecture: An instance of "anchoring", as discussed in a separate thread, occurred to me when I originally typed "Dagney" but revised it to "Dagny" upon having to look up Halley's name.

And no, no movie in color or made for more than 10 million dollars will do justice to the book. As such a movie will not be made, I can only see myself watching the end result due to a deeply-rooted, stubborn strain of masochism.

[PriceAnProbability]

PaP
What is the minimum number of races (figures) a horse must have for you to develop a power rating in which you have betting confidence?

Zero.


Do you pass on a race if it doesn't present a minimum percentage of bettable power ratings ... or do you allow a maximum #/% of less experienced, unratable horses in a race, above which you will not bet it? Thank you.

There is no such thing as an "unratable horse," and passing races only kills your options in the double, p3, p4, and p6. They can attach any type of race to your "best bet" that way, so to not handicap every race is to shorten your men, which generally leads to difficulty if your "bread and butter" lets you down.

The only time I pass races is if I hit my loss limit for the day, week, month or year. I don't differentiate race types anymore, nor do I weigh races as being "stronger" than one another beyond the value patterns contained within. I do have three to five tracks where my numbers seem much more accurate due to in-depth knowledge of the circuit, but the system should work anywhere.

My guess is out of 100 other guys using this method, a good number would do better with it than me once they got the hang of it.

[joeyreb]

There is no such thing as an "unratable horse," .

I guess you have never seen Brother Derek run!! lol

[singunner]

I'm new here, and not all that informed on the whole, but I have to say that I know when someone has "jumped the shark", and that honor goes to PriceAnProbability.

[Kelso]

[QUOTE=PriceAnProbability]
I convert each horse's speed-figure history into a singular power rating.
QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kelso]
What is the minimum number of races (figures) a horse must have for you to develop a power rating in which you have betting confidence?
QUOTE]

[QUOTE=PriceAnProbability]
Zero.
QUOTE]

Contradiction, or did I misunderstand your "convert" post? How do you convert a "horse's speed-figure history" with "zero" speed figures?


Thank you.

[Kelso]

Singunner,

As things began to unravel in the world, and references to the "legendary" JG became increasingly frequent and ominous, I seem to recall the bad guys asking the question with alarm. But, again, it's been many years.


Very good point on color detracting from the flik.

[JohnGalt1]

It occurs to me I haven't read the book in over a decade, but it was most certainly never asked as a "genuine question". Nobody actually wanted to know who John Galt was. It was almost exclusively stated as a counter to any question which could not be answered or to reference the overly glum nature of the modern world.

As I recall, it is the first line in the book and sits quite poorly with Ms. Taggart, who doesn't tend to believe in a hopeless situation, as the phrase tries to imply.

In its most literal sense, it is a code. Anyone who actually knows John Galt has an answer to the question, which always catches Dagny off gaurd, as it is supposed to be unanswerable. Whether it be Prometheus who voluntarily chained himself to the rock or a sea captain who saw Atlantis at the bottom of the ocean and destroyed his own ship rather than allow knowledge of its existence to be brought to the land, the false stories of John Galt always served to identify his moral character and goals against a mythical backdrop, while the struggle of the actual man was of even greater proportions than the protagonists of the stories about him.

Thereby, the only instance of "Who is John Galt?" actually being a question would be in the instance of it being asked to someone who has met him to verify their actually knowing who he is through the relation of some mythical tale about him. This is evidenced by Dagny's experience of insisting to the boy on the train that the piece he was whistling was not one of the known works of Richard Halley who had disappeared and his responding to her incredulity "Who is John Galt?".


-An interesting epilogue to an otherwise boring lecture: An instance of "anchoring", as discussed in a separate thread, occurred to me when I originally typed "Dagney" but revised it to "Dagny" upon having to look up Halley's name.

And no, no movie in color or made for more than 10 million dollars will do justice to the book. As such a movie will not be made, I can only see myself watching the end result due to a deeply-rooted, stubborn strain of masochism.

The book is over 1100 pages. In my opinion, the greatest book ever written.

I took the handle John Galt because it represents the essence of Ayn Rand's philosphy, that being Objectivity.

I strive for objectivity in my handicapping. If something doesn't work or needs changing, and if I find a logical reason to change or tweak my method, I will. The latest tweaking was incorporating Pizzola's method of which pace line to use. I'm now getting longer priced horses. And I'm using fewer horses in my exotics keeping my tickets cheaper.

I won't use horoscopes, lucky numbers, gray horses (just becaue they're gray) or other voodoo methods. I won't bet on a horse/jockey because he won for me last time or beat my horse last time for emotional reasons.

Though I sit around many who do. I know they're in trouble when I hear "I'm going to take a shot with..."

I (we) are betting real money, whether it's $2 or $200 bets.

The start of this thread was about making your own pace figs.

If there is anybody else who does this, I'd like to hear your method as I may be able to tweak my handicapping if it fits in with what I do.

[PriceAnProbability]

[QUOTE=PriceAnProbability]
I convert each horse's speed-figure history into a singular power rating.
QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Kelso]
What is the minimum number of races (figures) a horse must have for you to develop a power rating in which you have betting confidence?
QUOTE]

[QUOTE=PriceAnProbability]
Zero.
QUOTE]

Contradiction, or did I misunderstand your "convert" post? How do you convert a "horse's speed-figure history" with "zero" speed figures?

Thank you.

A power rating is today's projected speed figure for the horse. First-timers have things like pedigrees, trainers, workouts, owners, jockeys, etc.

[Tom]

Not all power ratings.
Some incorporate pedigree, trainer, jockey, stuff like that.

[PriceAnProbability]

Not all power ratings.
Some incorporate pedigree, trainer, jockey, stuff like that.

That was what I meant and thought I had said.

This is how you can rate a debut horse.

[Tom]

OK, I mis-read your post. Sorry.