DEPENDS ON WHO IS MAKING THE FIGS

[karlskorner]

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Sports/222434/

[cj]

Pretty basic stuff. The "upgrading" of the Essex is one of the reasons I make my own figures instead of using the Beyers. With my pace number next to it, I know why the race came back slow.

There is one inherent problem with simply "upgrading" the figure to what Moss tihnks it should have been, and that is it treats all horses in the race equally. Imagine you had had a 5 horse race where 4 were capable of a 100, and one capable of a 85. The 85 horse is a cheap longshot the others aren't worried about, and they let him go to the front in a dawdling pace (for them). Now, the others run by him and beat him two lengths in a slow time because of the pace.

By the clock, the race should be given an 89 and the cheap horse gets his 85. But now a guy like Moss "upgrades" the race to a 98 to reflect the true ability of the winner. Fine, but what happens to the cheap horse? He now gets a 94! Good like betting him back expecting that number.

[john del riccio]

Points of note from this article.


“The first thing you look at is the race after — maybe the track changed. Maybe it got slower. Maybe it rained. Something happened.”

“If you’re good at it [making figures ], you don’t have many screwy days,”

"only uses par times — an average of what horses in each class run — as a backup in making figures."

“That’s the single most important thing,” Brown said. “Moisture content in the track is changing all the time because they’re watering the racetrack or they’re not watering the racetrack, or the sun is out, or it’s windy, a building is casting shade. These things can effect moisture content.

“ The bottom line in this stuff is moisture content affects track speed.” Brown said his eyes were opened to this phenomenon in the mid-1980 s at Belmont Park in New York.



Good Stuff !

John

[bobphilo]

Pretty basic stuff. The "upgrading" of the Essex is one of the reasons I make my own figures instead of using the Beyers. With my pace number next to it, I know why the race came back slow.

There is one inherent problem with simply "upgrading" the figure to what Moss tihnks it should have been, and that is it treats all horses in the race equally. Imagine you had had a 5 horse race where 4 were capable of a 100, and one capable of a 85. The 85 horse is a cheap longshot the others aren't worried about, and they let him go to the front in a dawdling pace (for them). Now, the others run by him and beat him two lengths in a slow time because of the pace.

By the clock, the race should be given an 89 and the cheap horse gets his 85. But now a guy like Moss "upgrades" the race to a 98 to reflect the true ability of the winner. Fine, but what happens to the cheap horse? He now gets a 94! Good like betting him back expecting that number.

Excellent point CJ. While I think that it's important to be able to detect changes in track speed from race to race, sometimes odd times are due to pace irregularities - both fast and slow. The problem is that the pace affects frontrunners and closers differently (in fact oppositly) and to apply the same new variant to both types and the whole field will give some horses the wrong figure. Classhandicapper has also made the same good point in the past.
Nothing wrong with cutting a race loose- just make sure the odd time is due
to a true change in track speed and not a hot or slow pace.

Bob

[proximity]

if you play alot of east coast tracks, mr del riccio's figures would be a good addition to your arsenal. horses "lines" come out a little smoother with these figures (even taking the relatively tighter scale into consideration).

the moss figures would probably be fine for louisiana, arkansas, texas, and california.

[bobphilo]

if you play alot of east coast tracks, mr del riccio's figures would be a good addition to your arsenal. horses "lines" come out a little smoother with these figures (even taking the relatively tighter scale into consideration).

the moss figures would probably be fine for louisiana, arkansas, texas, and california.

I personally like the tighter scale of John's figures. It gives a more realistic idea of the differences between horses. The wider Beyer scale tends to exagerate the differences and gives one a false sense of security. I always convert the Beyers and Bris figures to a scale similar to John's and Thoro-Graph's. I use 1/4 points as superscripts for precision while keeping the tighter perspective. I do the same with CJ's, though they are otherwise terrific.

Randy Moss only makes the Beyer figures for the Arkansas area. Beyer has different people in different parts of the country making his figures, though the methodology is similar. No one person could do all all the tracks.

Bob

[jasperson]

The average of the last 2 good race speed ratings are marginally better than just the last race.
out of 3350 sprints races
ave 29.0% winners roi -$.40
last 27.6% winners roi -$.44
out of 1704 route races
ave 31.2% winners roi -$.24
last 29.7% winners roi -$.09
The above figures are on fast track dirt only and no other handicapping factors considered.
Speed is good at picking winners, but for making money we have to look elsewhere.

[classhandicapper]

Classhandicapper has also made the same good point in the past. Nothing wrong with cutting a race loose- just make sure the odd time is due to a true change in track speed and not a hot or slow pace.

Bob

Bob,

Where have you been hiding? ;)

Welcome back.

I have long considered the pace issue an important part of making accurate speed figures and believe CJ has the right idea. You and I have discussed this often (as have CJ and I).

[Cratos]

Bob,

Where have you been hiding? ;)

Welcome back.

I have long considered the pace issue an important part of making accurate speed figures and believe CJ has the right idea. You and I have discussed this often (as have CJ and I).

"Fig Making" in today's handicapping is a very old methodology, but using it depends on your understanding of the the following:

-The racetrack where the "figs" will be applied.
-Applied statistics
-Horseracing handicapping fundamentals

However if you are able to properly integrate the above three factors, you might with good wagering decision-making realize a small profit because today's handicappers have moved this game to a much different and more sophisticated level.

[cj]

"Fig Making" in today's handicapping is a very old methodology, but using it depends on your understanding of the the following:

-The racetrack where the "figs" will be applied.
-Applied statistics
-Horseracing handicapping fundamentals

However if you are able to properly integrate the above three factors, you might with good wagering decision-making realize a small profit because today's handicappers have moved this game to a much different and more sophisticated level.

You can make much more than a small profit.

[Tom]

Dittos what he said.

[bobphilo]

Bob,

Where have you been hiding? ;)

Welcome back.

I have long considered the pace issue an important part of making accurate speed figures and believe CJ has the right idea. You and I have discussed this often (as have CJ and I).

Hi Class, thanks. You might say I'm coming out of hibernation. Hopefully, Derby fever will be my only health problem soon.

Bob

[Cratos]

You can make much more than a small profit.

It depends on how you define profit.

[cj]

Wouldn't it depend more on how you define small?

It is silly to make statements like you did as fact when you can't possibly know if it is true or not.

[FUGITIVE77]

Pretty basic stuff. The "upgrading" of the Essex is one of the reasons I make my own figures instead of using the Beyers. With my pace number next to it, I know why the race came back slow.

There is one inherent problem with simply "upgrading" the figure to what Moss tihnks it should have been, and that is it treats all horses in the race equally. Imagine you had had a 5 horse race where 4 were capable of a 100, and one capable of a 85. The 85 horse is a cheap longshot the others aren't worried about, and they let him go to the front in a dawdling pace (for them). Now, the others run by him and beat him two lengths in a slow time because of the pace.

By the clock, the race should be given an 89 and the cheap horse gets his 85. But now a guy like Moss "upgrades" the race to a 98 to reflect the true ability of the winner. Fine, but what happens to the cheap horse? He now gets a 94! Good like betting him back expecting that number.

That's one thing I like about Moss and the Beyers, they are so inaccurate compared to anyone who is making their own figs. An adjusted speed figure is just that, and it shouldn't be upgraded for a false pace or races where nobody wants the lead or fifty other reasons that can lead to a slow time. Horses are animals and not machines. Shit happens. Another reason why Beyer figures on turf are worthless.

[Cratos]

Wouldn't it depend more on how you define small?

It is silly to make statements like you did as fact when you can't possibly know if it is true or not.

I appreciate your spurious response, but apparently you don’t understand the difference between an assumptive statement and an absolute statement.

For your understanding my presumption about making “small profits” from the use of figures has nothing to do with whether the figures are good or bad, but that the global use of them has minimized the edge that figure users had in the past.

Does this say that some figure makers and users don’t make gross profits from wagering on horseracing? It does not, but it does imply that the proficiency and wide spread use of figures has reduced the margins for the many and if that is silly then I wasted my time at MIT 45 years ago.

[cj]

You implied that using figures combined with your three factors and good wagering decisions could, at best, produce a small profit. I don't know whether your statement is assumptive or absolute, but I do know it is absolutely wrong. I'm going to assume I don't use "applied statistics" either since I didn't go to MIT and wouldn't know how to do so.

MIT may be a great school for engineering, but your writing...never mind.