DRF/Moss Pace figs begin.

[trigger]

http://www.drf.com/products/moss/moss.html

[Speed Figure]

They don't give you a sample card of these figures. I don't need them anyway, my figures do JUST FINE!!

[Tom]

Actually, if you sign up (free) you get all the triple crown prep races with Moss commentary - emailed each week.

[Marc At DRF]

We'll put a sample up on the main Moss page on our site, but additionally, beginning this week, if the Race of the Week races are from tracks that have Moss figs, we'll include a separate link to those PPs as well.

Race of The Week is linked to prominently from the top nav off of our homepage.

[crownx]

I'll be interested to see them in action

[rastajenk]

Are these numbers associated with Randy Moss, or some other Moss, or a "a fast paced stone gathers no moss" kind of Moss?

[Tom]

Marc - a suggestion - put the pace pars for today's race in the PPs as well, so we can compare past figs to today's par.

[Marc At DRF]

rastajenk,
Yes, Randy Moss.

Tom, the pars are there, though it takes a bit of getting used to. The far left column, beneath the fractions of the running line of the PPs, there's the "Race Shape". This gives you the pace numbers for the frontrunners at various points of call (depending on distance). Next to each of these numbers is a small superscript number plus or minus number, for example, a "+4". In that case, a +4 means the race was four points faster than par for this particular condition/class of race. So there's your pars.

[crownx]

http://www.drf.com/promotions/email/mossprep/holybull020307.pdf


sample up...

I can tell you now, I don't like the fact they are on seperate line.. breaks up the PP flow race to race... glad to have it, but print outs now 2X. how about filling in white space with more race comments or something..

[SMOO]

Are these numbers associated with Randy Moss

Yes, during the NFL offseason the wide reciever moonlights as a horse handicapper. :cool:

[Marc At DRF]

That sample file is outdated--it will be updated momentarily. Currently, the third column (far right) is filled with "race shape notes" which are effectively text versions related to the superscript numbers on the far left-- this race was very fast early, fast middle, slow late, etc. Whatever the case may be.

That said, we're still contemplating how to best maximize the third column.

As for the increased print-out, there's no doubt this is the case (though it's not 2x overall, just 2x on the running lines). We're offering a pretty comprehensive look at pace with these numbers, so it unfortunately takes up a whole extra line. If the product is good, it's worth it. If not, it's not, of course.

[Speed Figure]

These figures look pretty weak to me. The way they are set up is real weak.

[Pickwick]

Hey C.J.,

No knock intended on Marc at DRF or the Moss pace figures (and I wish them success with the general public), but somehow I don't think we the members of pacefigures.com are going to need/use them after years of proven success with yours.

-Jim

[Tom]

I played wtih them this weekend - I thinkg they performed pretty well - but then, in my expert hands....:rolleyes:;)

Serioulsy, I think they are going to be an improvement. Got to get used to that extra speed figure, though. I definately found them far superior to the BRIS pace numbers.

[betovernetcapper]

Also tried them this weekend and there is a lot to like. I'm not sure of the best way to use them but I'm hopeful. :)

[Marc At DRF]

Some thoughts on these figs vs. the others in the market.

1) If you're using pace figs that you're really successful with already, we certainly wouldn't expect you to make a change now.

2) 90%+ of the audience for these figs will be existing DRF customers. Believe it or not, some of them post and read here. ;) That's the main reason I've been posting on the topic here.

3) Some customers of racing data seem to like purely mechanical speed or pace figures. My impression of a lot of the speed and pace figure marketplace is there's a lot of purely mechanical stuff out there. Some customers prefer a certain amount of human intervention. Both in terms of evaluations of changing track speed, but perhaps most importantly, a system for flagging (and potentially adjusting) aberrant figures when things like wind or the aforementioned changing track speed or other factors come into the mix that no purely automated system can adjust for. While no figures are perfect, and there's some fairly fascinating disputes between figure makers (Beyer vs. the sheets guys on ground loss, for example), the reason why so many do prefer Beyer (or the sheets guys, for that matter) is they do prefer human intervention to catch aberrant numbers and make adjustments. Again, some people don't want any intervention, but for those who do, they look to the figure makers who get involved with the numbers that way. Similarly, Randy is going to be offering the sort of human intervention that is lacking from many (but I suspect not all) of the pace figures on the market. The idea is basically what Beyer is to speed figures, Moss will be the same for pace figures, especially once all circuits are available.

4) Randy is making adjustments to the database based on windy days, changing track speeds, etc. Additionally, and I mentioned this in another thread, he's catching some SERIOUS issues with changing track run-ups on a day to day basis on a MAJOR circuit running right now. Perhaps other pace figure makers are doing the same. I suspect a few of them are. But I suspect a lot of them aren't.

[xtb]

4) Randy is making adjustments to the database based on windy days, changing track speeds, etc. Additionally, and I mentioned this in another thread, he's catching some SERIOUS issues with changing track run-ups on a day to day basis on a MAJOR circuit running right now. Perhaps other pace figure makers are doing the same. I suspect a few of them are. But I suspect a lot of them aren't.

Marc, is Randy using actual measurements of wind speed and/or run-ups as a basis or is he making adjustments based on perceived differences? Thanks.

[befuddlem]

4) Randy is making adjustments to the database based on windy days, changing track speeds, etc. Additionally, and I mentioned this in another thread, he's catching some SERIOUS issues with changing track run-ups on a day to day basis on a MAJOR circuit running right now. Perhaps other pace figure makers are doing the same. I suspect a few of them are. But I suspect a lot of them aren't.

Good luck on this one! It doesn't take long to find a Beyer figure that is completely out to lunch, and I'm sure these pace figures won't be any different. I like it though, it should provide some potential overlays.

[44PACE]

The layout is terrible, the race shape (i.e. Average Late is almost meaningless). Large data bases are meaningless unless the Author of the Figures is an expert of the subject. Sorry other than being on wire to wire I never heard of Moss.

CJ has nothing to worry about nor does anyone else.


Having Pace figures is meaningless unless you understand Pace handicapping, 90 % of people don't. IT takes more than a seminar to understand Pace, it takes years of hard work without this hard work Pace handicapping will cost you more money than just using Speed figures.

[PlanB]

^^ Stop splashing ice cold water, it's only the beginning I hope. BUT, why Randy Moss? If he's who I think, I've never seen him pick a winner over 6:5. Yet again, with the numbers cranking out, who knows.

[Robert Fischer]

They look fine to me. It is VERY nice to see the pace pars for each call and be able to compare them to the pace of this specific horse.

I enjoy watching Moss review a race, especially narrating to the "blimp cam". If Moss is the brains behind the numbers or simply the big name doesn't matter to me.
I like the DRF, and they needed pace figures. I also look at the track variants for a "ballpark" idea of the track weight.

:ThmbUp:

[Niko]

Marc;

Tough crowd isn't it...lol...nice job bringing out out the pace figs. I look forward to giving them a really good look over.

[Marc At DRF]

A few more comments that may be helpful:

-I linked the sort of methodologies behing Beyer Speed Figures with the methodologies (human intervention, etc) behind Moss Pace Figures; befuddlem responds by noting that it doesn't take long for him to find a Beyer he disagrees with. Let me make this clear--no one is suggesting either Beyers or MPFs (or any figure) are perfect, but we do think they're better than purely mechanically generated figs. I'd also add that a segment of the marketplace clearly disagrees with the DRF position on this, and I'm particularly respectful of that fact. To each his own.

-Randy is not just the name behind the figures. They're very much his baby on a day to day basis. Lotsa info here:
http://www.drf.com/products/moss/moss.html

-The display issues that 44Pace complains about. We expect people who are used to looking at pace in whatever layout they are used to will take some time to get used to this layout, but generally the feedback has been good here. As for the dreaded third column (far right), as I mentioned, it's very much a work in progress. I believe the direction Randy is going to take this within the next few days is "race progression notes", in an effort to pick up interior moves in the race. Moreover, he may use this area to make specific notes about weather or other factors that may have affected the race. Have something you'd like to see in the third column? E-mail me at mattenb@drf.com and I'll pass it along.

-xtb asks: "Marc, is Randy using actual measurements of wind speed and/or run-ups as a basis or is he making adjustments based on perceived differences?" He's using actual measurements of run-ups and paying particular attention to which tracks change and which are more consistent. And of course he has a formula to adjust pace figures based on the deviation of runup from the norm at that distance. On wind speed, there's a variety of work being done here, but obviously there are no actual measurements of wind speed in thoroughbred racing. Says Randy: "If a noticeably
strong wind coincides with a fluctuation in pace figures - and it usually
does - I'll make changes in the pacefigs on a race-by-race basis. I don't
want too much human element to enter into the figs, so if I can't make a
confident judgement, I'll pass and let the actual clockings take priority." Strictly, IMO, but I think he should use that third column to flag races like this.

[44PACE]

My post came across more negative than I meant it too, If someone wishes to pursue new ideas I wish them the best.New ideas should always be sought.

[Kelso]

-befuddlem responds

<snip>

-Lotsa info here:
http://www.drf.com/products/moss/moss.html

<snip>

-issues that 44Pace complains about. <snip> Have something you'd like to see in the third column? E-mail me at mattenb@drf.com and I'll pass it along.

<snip>

-xtb asks




Marc,
I don't know if you respond to this board as part of your job or simply as an effort to generously share with other racing fans things that you've picked up on the job, but either way I think you and/or the Form are very good to do so. I'm not nearly so sophisticated as to understand pace handicapping, but even I can see how your responses provide valuable understanding to the PA pace-types who read them.

There's a lot of informed and well-intentioned opining on this site, on various racing-related matters, and it would be great if the objects of those opinions (speaking in particular of track managements and NTRA executives, here) would at least acknowledge that they're reading them. Getting their side of issues directly would be even better.

Thanks very much for the insights.

[Marc At DRF]

Thanks Kelso.

I used to represent DRF more than I do now, but for something like pace figures, I couldn't help but come and respond to feedback here, given the depth of knowledge here on that topic. I'm with you--both the posters and lurkers here know a lot more about pace handicapping than I do.

[Tom]

Kudos o DRF for not only adding the pace figs, but going to a guy who knows his way home from the dance. Moss has been making his own for a long time, and his experience in Beyers and access to the data base can only help the product.

Now, I sense a market for another DRF PRess book - Pace Handicapping by Randy Moss. Put me on the list.;)

[kingfin66]

Not to be too picky, but I just checked out the sample product. The format looks okay and I'm glad to hear the positive feedback about these pace figs. The one big thing I noticed is that there are no pace figures for turf races. This seems to diminish the value of these figures. Are there plans to include pace figs for turf races anytime soon?

[cj]

Yes, they will be added in the future.

[GMB@BP]

I liked the relationships to par, thats good information to have.

[JustMissed]

I played wtih them this weekend - I thinkg they performed pretty well - but then, in my expert hands....:rolleyes:;)

Serioulsy, I think they are going to be an improvement. Got to get used to that extra speed figure, though. I definately found them far superior to the BRIS pace numbers.

If only CJ's numbers could be purchased by BRIS/TSN. That would be real kick ass for CJ who deserves the money and acclaim for all his hard work.

Probably not be too good for Jim Lehane and the others that make up the select group that has access, but that is life isn't it.

As a pace guy, I honestly never knew how one could handicap races without the availablity of pace figs.

Just my take,

JM :)

[delayjf]

I definately found them far superior to the BRIS pace numbers.

Tom, how so??

[kingfin66]

Tom, how so??

This is a good question. In the past few days I have seen BRIS pace figures referred to as unreliable, poor, horrible, etc. This is getting a little off topic in terms of the thread being about Moss Pace Figures, but for those that have indicated this, what is it that makes BRIS figures bad and other figures good?

[Light]

And every year Bris lays claim to the winner of the NHC as a Bris user and Bris pace fig user. Yeah they suck alot of times,but they also have picked me 50-1 shots on top. I'm sure other figs do this,but are those other figs saying they never suck? Not to mention the Bris data files are a buck and the DRF is now $5.50.

[Tom]

I find BRIS pace figs do not reliably predict the runing of today's race.
They are erratic, and IMHO, not based in reality. MOss figs were , for the few cards I used thme on, been very good - the horses they predicted to be the early speed were infact, the early speed.
With BRIS, that was no the case more often than not.
Ihav eused BRIS in the past, but when I do use the, it not as easy as CJ or Moss. I have to be willing to just completley ignore some races - say go back 3 to get an E2 number that makes the horse competitive today. They don't seem to be very good at predicting from cycles where Moss and Cj are very good in that respect.

Just my opinion but I feel comfortable using other than BRIS numbers.

[delayjf]

I've been looking at some of Fotias theories using the Bris pace numbers (pace tops, etc). Using the Bris numbers I've seen the theories hold up. I thought the Bris numbers would be ideal as according to their website, their pace numbers are not adjusted by distance - a 1/2 mile in 45 flat in a sprint earns the same pace number as a 1/2 mile in 45 flat in a route. This is also how Fotias constructs his pace figures.

But I have not gotten into comparing pace figures between horses within a race. One thing that has throw me off at times when I've switched from one style of speed / pace figure to another (Beyers to Bris etc.) is the different point scale each figure maker uses. The Bris scale is smaller/tighter, 1/5 of a second might only be 2 points where as on the Beyer scale it might be more like 4 points or more. As a result, switching to Bris figures made a horse appear more competive than they would have had I still been using Beyer style figures. Also, I believe Beyer does normalize (adjust) his pace figures for distance and as I recall, if the dfr is using the scale Beyer printed in his last book, the pace point scale was even greater than (1/5 = 4 pace points). Can anybody verify that?

I'm going to go back and take a look at the pace predictive performance of the Bris numbers.

[Tom]

Jeff,
Moss pace figs use different scales for each race segment, and offer a second final fig, not on Andy's scale.

Best advice with BRIS pace figs is- if you win with them, use them. Theory bows to cash! :lol:

[delayjf]

Theory bows to cash!

INDEED,

Just to clarify, I'm not saying Bris is or is not as predictive as Moss's figures. Only that the theory of new pace tops seems to work with Bris numbers as well. It also works with CJ's pace numbers too. Personally, I'm starting to prefer the tighter Bris scale. I recall reading how Bob Velasqez (I think) made his speed / pace figures (scale simular to Bris) and he felt he saw the form cycles better using a tighter scale - to each his own.

The idea of not normalizing pace figures makes sence to me. But when I've compared Bris's sprint pace figures to the route numbers - I'm not convinced that is what they are doing. No matter what scale you prefer, how you construct your variants is what makes them work or not.

[bobphilo]

Marc,

I've been using the moss figures and find them very good, both in theory and, so far, practice. I do have one question, though and there sems to be an inconsistency between the pace figure and the superscript indicating its deviation from par.
For example, in the race shape, if a race earns a 90 final figure and the pace call is 86, indicating the pace was 4 points slower than the final time, the superscript will usually say the pace was -1, only 1 point slower than par for given the final time. Similarly, when the pace figure is 93, or 3 points faster than the final time, the superscript will be something like +6 or +7 - again 3or 4 points higher than the pace figure seems to indicate.
Does this mean that the pace figure and superscript are based on different pars - maybe one for the particular track and the other a generic par?

Bob

[Marc At DRF]

Light writes:

"And every year Bris lays claim to the winner of the NHC as a Bris user"

Light, in 1999, a friend of mine signed up for free BRIS PPs for Gulfstream and used them for one day before going back to his preferred methodology--Ragozin data coupled with basic Equibase program files. My friend recently qualified for the NHC. If he wins, what chances do you think he will be claimed by them as a "BRIS member"???

"Not to mention the Bris data files are a buck and the DRF is now $5.50."

I'm still a little lost on this one, as it was mentioned in another thread. Our volume discounting on DRF.com makes it fairly competitive with many, though not all, of the online PP providers in the marketplace. $99 a month, unlimited access. $799 a year, which comes out to less than $70 a month for unlimited access. Even small plans such as monthly 20 card plans for $29.95 keep it down to $1.50 a card... 60 cards a month, and you're down to a buck a card...

The print product is an entirely different animal. If you're happy with a competitor's quality and pricing, I assume you're a winning horseplayer, and why would anyone change in that scenario? But comparing the pricing a 6-card, $5.50 cent bulky newspaper with a single card file of data online? 2 different animals, no?

[Tom]

Apples and oranges.

BRIS is a buck a track.
DRF is 5.50 for 4-6. depending on the edition.
Or 3.50 for 3 downloaded.

[Marc At DRF]

Bobphilo,

Randy's response--

Bob-
Maybe this will help:
The Race Shape figures by themselves have nothing to do with par, at
least directly.
The figs are designed so that at almost all tracks, any classification
that averages a Beyer Speed Figure of 84 (which is usually in the $15k
claiming range) will have a 6F par Pace Profile of 87-87-87. The better
horses will average an upward progression, while the cheaper horses will
average a downward pacefig progression.
I didn't design it that way. It's just that almost any $5k claiming
frontrunner is capable of running, say, 22.2 for a quarter-mile and 45.8 for
a half-mile. What separates them from the better horses is that they tend
to fall apart during the final quarter; the cheaper the horse, the more
dramatically they fall apart.
At Santa Anita, the par for maiden-claiming type horses (averaging a
final Beyer figure of 58) at 6F is 84-81-77. Therefore, if those horses
actually run in a Pace Profile of 88-84-77, then the superscript numbers
will show +4 and +3, since the pace was actually a few points FASTER than
par for those horses.
By contrast, top-level allowance horses at 6F have a par of 89-91-94.
Thanks for your interest.
RM

[Marc At DRF]

Also, Bob, as I mentioned in another thread, try the mosspacefigs@drf.com e-mail address in case I don't catch something here or no one else has an easy answer.

[BIG RED]

Apples and oranges.

BRIS is a buck a track.
DRF is 5.50 for 4-6. depending on the edition.
Or 3.50 for 3 downloaded.

The two I just threw out had 7 and 8 tracks. Yes, I did say threw out :)

I can't keep boxes and boxes of them anymore :D That's one thing I love about computers and discs!

[bobphilo]

Thanks Marc, and thank Randy.

I think I understand. So apparently race shapes change with different classes, and different final times, and the superscript represents deviation from the expected pace figure given the final time, or speed figure. The figures themselves are perhaps a more "standardized" measure of actual speed at each call. I was getting what I thought were condradictory figures because I was assuming the race shapes remained the same at different class levels, or final times.
That's what I suspected and what I meant by saying that the figures and the superscripts were based on different pars or averages.

I appreciate your reply.

Bob

[Light]

Light, in 1999, a friend of mine signed up for free BRIS PPs for Gulfstream and used them for one day before going back to his preferred methodology--Ragozin data coupled with basic Equibase program files. My friend recently qualified for the NHC. If he wins, what chances do you think he will be claimed by them as a "BRIS member"???

The winners that Bris claims allways put in a plug for Bris that they use their products. So unless they're getting paid under the table by Bris,which I doubt,I dont see why they would attribute their winning a championship to Bris if they use some other data. Shouldn't they have grounds to sue Bris if they dont use them and Bris claims they do?


But comparing the pricing a 6-card, $5.50 cent bulky newspaper with a single card file of data online? 2 different animals, no? ...

Bris gives me more flexibilty than DRF and they're cheaper. I dont have to buy a package deal just to get a lower rate.I usually play 2 tracks max,so(on days when I go to the track) I'd rather print out $2 of online data than buy a $5.50 newspaper that has all these other tracks I dont need.

[classhandicapper]

Bobphilo,

Randy's response--

Bob-
Maybe this will help:
The Race Shape figures by themselves have nothing to do with par, at
least directly.
The figs are designed so that at almost all tracks, any classification
that averages a Beyer Speed Figure of 84 (which is usually in the $15k
claiming range) will have a 6F par Pace Profile of 87-87-87. The better
horses will average an upward progression, while the cheaper horses will
average a downward pacefig progression.
I didn't design it that way. It's just that almost any $5k claiming
frontrunner is capable of running, say, 22.2 for a quarter-mile and 45.8 for
a half-mile. What separates them from the better horses is that they tend
to fall apart during the final quarter; the cheaper the horse, the more
dramatically they fall apart.
At Santa Anita, the par for maiden-claiming type horses (averaging a
final Beyer figure of 58) at 6F is 84-81-77. Therefore, if those horses
actually run in a Pace Profile of 88-84-77, then the superscript numbers
will show +4 and +3, since the pace was actually a few points FASTER than
par for those horses.
By contrast, top-level allowance horses at 6F have a par of 89-91-94.
Thanks for your interest.
RM

In case anyone questions the validity of what Randy is saying here, every single study I have ever done on fractions and pace figures (including those that covered multiple pace calls) supports Randy's view.

[delayjf]

Their usefulness aside, I don't care for the layout and would prefer a format simular to Bris / TSN. All the figures on one line. Easier on the eyes :eek:

[bobphilo]

Hi Class,

Good to hear from you again. I also concur that Randy's figures and race shapes are very similar to the one's I would get from my own analysis after much work, so the Moss figures save me a a lot of time as well. Happily, they are also on the same scale as mine (and similar to Thoro-Graph) so I don't have to convert them like I have to do with the Beyers and Brisnet, which tend to exagerate the difference between performances (by a factor of 3 for Beyers and a factor of 2 for Bris).

Bob

[garyoz]

For the record, in a post in a thread regarding the MPF's I suggested that Randy Moss might be a beard (a brand name if you will). I would like to withdraw and apologize for that comment. It has become clear to me that these figs are all his baby (including information I received in a PM). So much for being a cynic.

My only question is that it he has a good gig and seems like a sane guy. Why would he do this to himself? Making public figs is a tough task.

I must say so far very good, and I wish him and the DRF much success in creating valid and reliable numbers. I do think the average player is going to find pace figs far more difficult to understand, let alone use, than the Beyer numbers.

[Marc At DRF]

delayjf writes:
"Their usefulness aside, I don't care for the layout and would prefer a format simular to Bris / TSN. All the figures on one line. Easier on the eyes"

Totally valid request, should have been a no-brainer for yours truly, but I've heard it enough now that I see the light. The existing format for MPF-enhanced PPs is designed primarily (though not exclusively) for the existing DRF customers who will want it all-the trad DRF running line plus a separate pace line.

This week, I'll look to have a second format added, a single-line format. Gotta figure out how to do that (don't hesitate to e-mail me at mattenb@drf.com with suggestions), in terms of what to leave in and what to take out. But we'll do it. And when the customer goes to look at Moss PPs, they'll see both links in the same place--two line format and the one-line format right underneath, obviously for no additional charge.


garyoz writes:

"For the record, in a post in a thread regarding the MPF's I suggested that Randy Moss might be a beard (a brand name if you will). I would like to withdraw and apologize for that comment. It has become clear to me that these figs are all his baby (including information I received in a PM). So much for being a cynic."

No worries, Gary. The best horseplayers are cynics, no?

"My only question is that it he has a good gig and seems like a sane guy. Why would he do this to himself? Making public figs is a tough task."

He's been doing it privately for a couple decades, he's got the power of the DRF database and development group fully behind him now, he's passionate about it, etc.

"I do think the average player is going to find pace figs far more difficult to understand, let alone use, than the Beyer numbers."

No doubt. I think it will be a couple thousand loyal customers, perhaps 3k at most. Nonetheless, our customers have been absolutely howling for them for years.

[Good4Now]

Seems I remember Trigger could count to FOUR!

[NoDayJob]

Yes, during the NFL offseason the wide reciever moonlights as a horse handicapper. :cool:

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

[delayjf]

Happily, they are also on the same scale as mine (and similar to Thoro-Graph) so I don't have to convert them like I have to do with the Beyers and Brisnet, which tend to exagerate the difference between performances (by a factor of 3 for Beyers and a factor of 2 for Bris).

Bob,

Not sure what you mean by " exagerate the diffrences". Can you tell me what the scale is, I thought Tom said that each pace figure uses a different scale, could you please clarify? Thanks in advance.

[bobphilo]

Bob,

Not sure what you mean by " exagerate the diffrences". Can you tell me what the scale is, I thought Tom said that each pace figure uses a different scale, could you please clarify? Thanks in advance.

Delayjf,

When I used to make my own figures I used a scale where a length was equal to 1 point at 5 furlongs and ½ point at 10 furlongs. Distances in between received intermediate figures. By coincidence it’s also the same scale used by Jerry Brown at Thoro-Graph as well as Ragozin at the Sheets. The main difference was that I set the superior figure of 100 as just above the average winning figure for a Grade 1 race and deduct for lesser performances. I was glad to see that the Moss Pace ratings are also on that scale. The principle is that the same margin is less significant as the distance increases.

BTW, while the Moss figures are on a different scale than the Beyers, their scale, within themselves, does not change.

Both Beyer and Brisnet use the same principle but use a wider scale. Beyer assigns 3 points to a length at 5 furlongs and Bris about 2. I find that this inflated scale tends to exaggerate the difference between horses’ performances and gives a false sense of security of one horse’s advantage over another. After all, 1 length is only about a quarter of a percent of a 5-furlong race and an eighth of a percent at 10 furlongs. Maybe it’s just me, but I prefer a scale where a one-point difference is significant.

After researching the figures I’ve worked out a point of equivalences between Beyers, Brisnet, Timeform, T-Graph and Moss, which I use for conversion when comparing different PP’s for the same horse. I then add or subtract from this point of equivalence according to the different scale to convert to my equivalent figure - like the formula for converting Fahrenheit to Celsius in temperature. With Beyer and Timeform it’s a 3 to 1 ratio, Brisnet 2 to 1, Moss and T-Graph, 1 to 1. I sometimes have to use small numbers as superscripts to indicate 1/3 or ½ point differences but, as superscripts, these small differences are minimized – which is the whole point.

This is a somewhat difficult topic and I hope my explanation made sense. If not, let me know and I’ll try to clear up any problems.

I’m currently in the process of transferring my conversions to one table but here’s a link to an example of a similar table to give you an idea of what it looks like. I found it at the Dosage site but has nothing to do with dosage theory, of which I am very skeptical.

http://www.chef-de-race.com/pfs/comparative_speed_figs.htm (http://www.chef-de-race.com/pfs/comparative_speed_figs.htm)

Bob

[Indulto]

delayjf writes:
"Their usefulness aside, I don't care for the layout and would prefer a format simular to Bris / TSN. All the figures on one line. Easier on the eyes"

Totally valid request, should have been a no-brainer for yours truly, but I've heard it enough now that I see the light. The existing format for MPF-enhanced PPs is designed primarily (though not exclusively) for the existing DRF customers who will want it all-the trad DRF running line plus a separate pace line.

This week, I'll look to have a second format added, a single-line format. Gotta figure out how to do that (don't hesitate to e-mail me at mattenb@drf.com (mattenb@drf.com) with suggestions), in terms of what to leave in and what to take out. But we'll do it. And when the customer goes to look at Moss PPs, they'll see both links in the same place--two line format and the one-line format right underneath, obviously for no additional charge.Marc,

This weekend I seriously tried using printouts of the PDFs with the additional pace lines. I look forward to the single-line version, but I can see additional value in a second line if done with more planning.

First, the bad news. My biggest problem was all the bolded text on the pace line, especially the race pace progression portion that interferes with discerning current entries bolded in the “company line.” PP’s for horse numbers 7, 9, and 13 in Saturday’s 6th race at SA are good examples. Assuming the purpose of bolding is to highlight information deemed out of the oridinary, there is no need to bold the repetitive text like “race shape,” “pace line,” and “race shape progression.” Indeed they aren’t even necessary.

The good news is that the placement of the pace figures underneath the fractional times and running lines is very useful. You might consider not bolding pace line figures where the horse is NOT the leader. I would also like to see the progression figures BETWEEN the race shape figures and the paceline figures, but only bolded when fast ,v. fast, fast, v. slow, and slow. I wouldn’t bold the words or abbreviations for early, mid, and late.

The remainder of that line could be used to identify common competitors of two or more of today’s entries who aren’t running in the current race. It could also identify when a horse was re-acquired by it’s current trainer OR OWNER. How many people noticed that #13, Natural Phenomenon, in that SA 6th race was running for the first time after Canani re-claimed the horse from Hollendorfer? (In a previous thread I had advocated bolding the trainer's name in the 'claimed-from line.")

It would be very nice to see the variant for the final Moss raceshape speed figure as well. My final suggestion is some numeric severity indictor for negative comments in the trouble line, perhaps even probable lengths lost in anticipation of Trackus data.

I appreciate your coming here and hope the preceding was useful. I'm posting these comments rather than E-mailing them in the hopes of triggering additional contributions from your other customers in residence.

[Indulto]

It was pointed out to me that my suggestion in post #56 to indicate trainer/owner re-acquisition on an expanded pace line was problematic as the information would be lost after 10 subsequent races.

Perhaps a better solution would be to provide Acquisition Dates for the trainer and owner that would appear next to their names at the top, respectively, along with the acquisition type, e.g., claim, private purchase, auction purchase, home-bred, etc. The date would be bolded if a re-acquisition; the type would be bolded if the owner had acquired the horse previously in that manner. This is an expansion of my suggestion in another thread that a jockey’s current minimum riding weight be listed next to his name and bolded if it exceeded the weight assigned the entry.

In implementing the Moss figures, the DRF is demonstrating a willingness and capability to adjust to changes in the information needs of its customers. In the process they are asking the entire base to adjust to changes in their product which isn’t unreasonable. While the Beyer and Moss figures are valuable handicapping resources, and likely the basis for a majority of past and future DRF sales, an opportunity now exists to provide even more options for using their product and widen its appear even further.

As horseplayers increasingly strive to find new insights to give them an edge over their competition, the DRF is promoting itself as a partner in that endeavor. The announced Youbet seminars will enable them to build demand for their product among new home viewers, so the question is not “What have you done for me, lately?” but “How will you help your customers to stay in the game once you’ve got them interested and comfortable with your product?”

Knowing how fast a horse has run previously, even at multiple intervals, is simply not enough to predict winners profitably. Like many other long-time customers of the Morning Telegraph/Daily Racing Form, I’ve reached the conclusion that higher paying contenders are often identified by “reading between the past performance lines.” The primary adjustments I’ve made on the road to senility is to place greater emphasis on determining some measure of a horse’s readiness to compete across varying conditions and levels of classification, and some indication of it’s connections’ immediate intent as well as their ability to carry it off.

The additional information I’m advocating can be utilized by modern players in computer analysis, especially if the significance of bolded data is transmitted somehow in the delimited files. I’m sure others could come up with other useful raw and derived statistics from which to draw conclusions regarding a horse’s likelihood to repeat or exceed a prior performance, but at least these represent a start in the right direction.

[garyoz]

Remember that the vast majority of DRF users are very reactionary and don't like change. Crist made that point in his book when he wrote about starting the Racing Times. It is a tough spot to innovate with an audience who needs to be convinced of the need for change. Personally, I pretty much like the dedicated pace line (as opposed to paceline-- ;) ) in the latest format.

When it gets integrated into formulator there is the potential for 3 lines per race, with trip and track notes. Not even to mention the possibility for workout lines between races--which I guess could mean 4 lines between races????