PDA

View Full Version : Tom Brohamer


turfbar
03-09-2009, 07:22 AM
This is a quote from T. Brohamers' book "Modern Pace Handicapping" ,from chapter 4 "Turn Time",

"The logic is persuasive, but studies continue to prove the final fraction is the LEAST reliable predictor of subsequent winning performances."



Turfbar

Tom
03-09-2009, 07:44 AM
Is there a point here?

Donnie
03-09-2009, 08:06 AM
Have to agree with Brohamer.....

If the horse faced an easy pace first part of the race, he has more left in the tank at the end of that race, thus showing a good final fraction. If you study pace/final fraction figs you will see this over and over. The final fraction is a result of early running pace figures. You cannot isolate one part of the race for handicapping purposes.

rrbauer
03-09-2009, 09:13 AM
So what fraction is the MOST reliable predictor of subsequent winning performances?

Donnie
03-09-2009, 09:31 AM
Ken Massa's studies showed that IF you want to isolate one fraction, it was the first fraction that held the most weight. Early subscribers of HTR found this out and they will tell you that they made huge profits after Ken created his version of FR1. He says it has a formula that he would never divulge to anyone.

Maxspa
03-09-2009, 09:39 AM
Rich,
IMHO,the most important fraction depends on the types of horses in the race! If you have a race with a lot of front runners then the final fraction just might be the most important. A lone early horse, in a race devoid of speed, the first fraction might be your key. Second and third calls together have produced "HIDDEN" fractions have been successful in certain race types.
Black Magic identifies race types ex: Lone Speed, Heavy Pressure races etc from the races you've downloaded and one can concentrate on that particular race type for your daily handicapping.
No matter what important fraction you choose expect the unexpected-that's horseracing.
Hope this helps!
Maxspa

rrbauer
03-09-2009, 09:47 AM
I know the answer, Max. "It all depends". My question was rhetorical and the Brohamer quote while directed at the final fraction would apply to any fraction in the absence of other qualifying data.

BTW was that your friend's horse that won the 2nd at Tampa on Sunday?

turfbar
03-09-2009, 09:55 AM
So what fraction is the MOST reliable predictor of subsequent winning performances?

RE-Read the 1st sentence in my thread.

T

DanG
03-09-2009, 10:46 AM
If your saying “turn-time” is the most predictive of future performance I strongly disagree.

Used in correlation with early velocity / position; yes it has real value. As a stand-alone factor it can be downright deceiving. Let a runner get left and they will normally run a “turn time” that has no basis in reality for example. Similar in theory to a distorted final time when a one run type opens up 12L and then hands the baton to the back markers.

I feel that chapter of a brilliant book has gotten almost as many in trouble as it has helped to be honest.

Tom
03-09-2009, 11:48 AM
How does that relate to software? ;)

turfbar
03-09-2009, 11:57 AM
If your saying “turn-time” is the most predictive of future performance I strongly disagree.

Used in correlation with early velocity / position; yes it has real value. As a stand-alone factor it can be downright deceiving. Let a runner get left and they will normally run a “turn time” that has no basis in reality for example. Similar in theory to a distorted final time when a one run type opens up 12L and then hands the baton to the back markers.

I feel that chapter of a brilliant book has gotten almost as many in trouble as it has helped to be honest.

You put it brilliantly.....was re-readring MPH and thought ....Hmmmm throw that in PA and see what kind of response there would be.Tom discusses the power of turn time in chapter 4, it made sense to me when I first read it (1990) now not so sure.

Turfbar

rrbauer
03-09-2009, 12:31 PM
RE-Read the 1st sentence in my thread.

T

OK. Now what?

DanG
03-09-2009, 12:38 PM
Tom discusses the power of turn time in chapter 4, it made sense to me when I first read it (1990) now not so sure.

Turfbar
It’s no coincidence with Massa writing the first MPH software; but this HTR newsletter (pg-5 on) talks in depth about “turn time” and how to use it effectively if you’re interested….

• Jan-2003: http://www.homebased2.com/km/pdf/HTRMonthlyReport-JAN2003.pdf

raybo
03-09-2009, 11:50 PM
This is a quote from T. Brohamers' book "Modern Pace Handicapping" ,from chapter 4 "Turn Time",

"The logic is persuasive, but studies continue to prove the final fraction is the LEAST reliable predictor of subsequent winning performances."



Turfbar

That's because the final fraction is dependent on the previous fractions.

raybo
03-09-2009, 11:52 PM
So what fraction is the MOST reliable predictor of subsequent winning performances?

Distance, surface, track layout, prevailing winds, etc., etc. determine this.

BIG HIT
03-10-2009, 09:52 AM
Thank's not user of the software but still may come in handy.Ken has a lot of good info

DanG
03-10-2009, 10:07 AM
Thank's not user of the software but still may come in handy.Ken has a lot of good info
You’re not kidding BH;

I’m biased; but Massa is the greatest “unpublished” author in our game imo. There are several top shelf handicapping books available within those newsletters and most of the archives are all free.

Tom
03-10-2009, 10:21 AM
And everything is backed up with data. :ThmbUp:

jhilden
03-10-2009, 11:48 AM
You’re not kidding BH;

I’m biased; but Massa is the greatest “unpublished” author in our game imo. There are several top shelf handicapping books available within those newsletters and most of the archives are all free.

I always wondered why Ken never published a book. My guess is he is too busy improving HTR.

DanG
03-10-2009, 11:58 AM
I always wondered why Ken never published a book. My guess is he is too busy improving HTR.
Maybe were fortunate he hasn’t Joe. ;)

bobphilo
03-11-2009, 10:38 PM
That's because the final fraction is dependent on the previous fractions.

Bingo!!! The main value of any fraction lies not in its use in isolation but in its relation to the other fractions and final time. With final time as the single most predictive factor, for me the main value in individual fractions is in determining whether the pace conditions under which the final speed figure was earned can predict a better or worse performance under today’s expected scenario.

So its not just about a big individual split, early middle or late, but whether that split was so out of line with the others (indicating an inefficient distribution of energy) that the final speed figure can be expected to improve or decline with the way the horse figures to distribute its energy today.

Bob

andicap
03-13-2009, 11:39 AM
all of the above is true in regards to fractions working in tandem with each other BUT when i run spot plays through HTR, F1 (and EP, the 2nd call) consistenly brings home the best ROI.

So when I look for spot plays i will often start with early speed.

That said, many of my best longshots come with the final fraction.

raybo
03-13-2009, 11:46 AM
all of the above is true in regards to fractions working in tandem with each other BUT when i run spot plays through HTR, F1 (and EP, the 2nd call) consistenly brings home the best ROI.

So when I look for spot plays i will often start with early speed.

That said, many of my best longshots come with the final fraction.

Agreed, early speed is more consistent but the bigger scores do often come from closing speed, for obvious reasons.

CincyHorseplayer
03-13-2009, 01:26 PM
I used the Sartin numbers as outlined in Brohamer's book for a few years.Turn time like any other factor in the game is never a pure isolation stat to pick winners.This isn't sabermetrics!!

I've changed their formulas to what I think is more accurate in practice;

E/P=2nd call + 1st fraction

S/P=2nd call + (2nd fraction + 3rd fraction)

A/P=same

These point out true biases too and when you put them into a number like Mitchell's ability times,anytime a horse has a full second edge on the field in one or the other they win regularly.

jhilden
03-13-2009, 01:33 PM
Agreed, early speed is more consistent but the bigger scores do often come from closing speed, for obvious reasons.

Not so much. Looking at every race last for the past 30 days (3532) using the last paceline of the horse.

First Fraction = 1: 19% won with a ROI of 0.89, an average mutual of $9.5, winners over 20/1 = 58, and highest price paid = $118

Final Fraction =1: 18% won with an ROI 0.81, an average mutual of $9.0, winners over 20/1 = 45, and highest price paid = $187

In general, Fr1 wins for the best price, but seriously, the numbers are very close and this sample is just nitpicking :).

eastie
03-13-2009, 02:21 PM
the last fraction is easily the MOST important fraction. Horses that come home slow are not healthy to the bankroll. The last 1/16 th 1/8th and 1/4 are the most telling. any idiot can see 22 44 1:10 race I'll take the hoss from the 22 45 3/5 1:10 race any day.

michiken
03-13-2009, 03:09 PM
I use the final fraction to rule out cheap speed. Typically, I sort my data (best of last 2 pacelines) by ability time and try to figure who will be contending for the lead. I also try to figure who can RUN DOWN the pacesetters.

When a horse does not figure to contest the early pace (both 1st and 2nd calls), the only thing that you can rank him on is final fraction sometimes in spite of the speed rating earned.

These types have helped me hit some extremely good exactas and tris. These types tend to run on after the early speed battle has some horses gasping for air.

As I look at the figs, I also take into account the surface (dirt, poly or turf) and the distance. The shorter distances require a much higher early energy output. This makes me look at the entire field as I try to figure out the dynamics of a race.

Take a look at the attached pdf for the 4th race at Tampa last Sunday 03/08 at 6 1/2 furlongs. It is easy to see that the 6, 9 and 10 should be on the lead. Note that the ability time for the 5 horse denotes totally wrong energy as the horse used 6 turn time points catching up to the field while decelerating -11 points.

Comparing the final fraction of the horses below them, the 3 horse stands out as a closer. The 6 horse with a '91' 2f rating went to the lead forcing the 9 and 10 to stalk and a speed duel ensued.

The 3 horse won (http://racingchannel.com/archives/TAM/2009/03/TAM090308.HTM) at 11-1 paying 24.40 and the 3-10 exacta paid $237 as the 10 was the only surving early.

Sometimes being flexible in your handicapping to include all run styles can pay.

P.S. I was looking at CJ's numbers for the SA Handicap and noted that Champ Elyses had the highest late rating. I hope he had the exacta with Einstein!

raybo
03-13-2009, 03:33 PM
Not so much. Looking at every race last for the past 30 days (3532) using the last paceline of the horse.

First Fraction = 1: 19% won with a ROI of 0.89, an average mutual of $9.5, winners over 20/1 = 58, and highest price paid = $118

Final Fraction =1: 18% won with an ROI 0.81, an average mutual of $9.0, winners over 20/1 = 45, and highest price paid = $187

In general, Fr1 wins for the best price, but seriously, the numbers are very close and this sample is just nitpicking :).


I think you'll agree that 30 days can't be considered "historical", in the sense that an adequate sample of many thousands of races would be closer to being "historical". I also believe that if you had such an "historical" database of races and you queried it for a single fraction resulting in the highest win rate you would find that the 1st fraction would rank #1, partly because there are many more sprint races run than routes and many more dirt races than turf. And partly because a horse in the lead early has the opportunity to run the shortest/fastest path around the track. And partly because the early leader can set his/her pace and not have to negotiate as many obstacles due to traffic between him/her and the finish line.

While late closers hit far less often, in such an "historical" database of races, generally they go off at higher odds and querying the DB for the single factor resulting in the highest average payout you would find that the final fraction will show up.

jhilden
03-14-2009, 10:49 AM
I think you'll agree that 30 days can't be considered "historical", in the sense that an adequate sample of many thousands of races would be closer to being "historical". I also believe that if you had such an "historical" database of races and you queried it for a single fraction resulting in the highest win rate you would find that the 1st fraction would rank #1, partly because there are many more sprint races run than routes and many more dirt races than turf. And partly because a horse in the lead early has the opportunity to run the shortest/fastest path around the track. And partly because the early leader can set his/her pace and not have to negotiate as many obstacles due to traffic between him/her and the finish line.

While late closers hit far less often, in such an "historical" database of races, generally they go off at higher odds and querying the DB for the single factor resulting in the highest average payout you would find that the final fraction will show up.

Raybo -

I ran my database last night, all races for the past eight years (350,000+) and you are right. But the difference in prices was very close. I will post the numbers when I have time to work on the presentation. I am a big proponent of early speed and biased as it has been very good to me the past few years.

I will add that I do not ignore the final fractions but use them as a threshold guide like a barometer persay. Even at Charles Town running at 4.5 furlongs, a horse that has a Fr1 of 60.00+, but a Fr3 of 48.00 can be a dangerous bet and will drain the wallet quick.

JCB
03-14-2009, 02:13 PM
The most important fraction is the one that's the most unusual, imo.

I don't see what this has to do with software.

raybo
03-14-2009, 03:55 PM
The most important fraction is the one that's the most unusual, imo.

I don't see what this has to do with software.

Want to explain what you mean?

JCB
03-14-2009, 04:11 PM
I mean I don't see what this has to do with handicapping software.

The most important fraction to me is the one that's the most unusual, most unlike a normal fraction would be in that level and type of race. Not everybody will agree.

jhilden
03-14-2009, 06:18 PM
The most important fraction to me is the one that's the most unusual, most unlike a normal fraction would be in that level and type of race. Not everybody will agree.

Do you mean modeling? If so, yes certain fractions are stronger per distance/surface/class.

JCB
03-15-2009, 11:29 AM
No I don't mean modeling. I mean a horse has four or five listed fractions in a race, depending on the distance. If they're all normal for that situation then there's nothing to look at there. If one or more is very fast or very slow then it's worth looking at. Why did the horse go that fast for that one fraction? Did the pace pick up? Was the horse making his move? Was it a move in a race? Did he just suck along to a faster pace? Or why did the horse go slow for that fraction? Did he get into trouble? Didn't want to run? Fright at something? Run on a dead part of the track? Just get tired?

That's how I look at fractions and times. I don't try to pick races by pace or speed. Some poeple live by those, but not me. I care about what caused the weird fraction or the great or horrible final time.