The evolution of a system

[formula_2002]

Part 1

572 million calculations.

We start with a data base of 143,351 horses.
We set aside 20% of those horses as our ‘hold out’. We will use the ‘hold out’ to test any conclusion we make upon analyzing the remaining 114,680 horses.

We will exclude any horse that was listed as entry prior to any scratches.

Each horse in our data base is qualified by 78 factors, consisting of various ratings for speeds, pace, class, form, running style etc. Where two or more of the same ratings exist, they have been calculated by different authorities. For instance, we may have several pace figures prepared Bris, Brohammer, Hall etc

Each factor has a ranking of 1 to over 8. We will look at the top 8 ranked horses.

We begin by calculating the win%, profit or loss, actual wins, expected wins (1/(odds+)), average winning final odds, average final running odds, fair value and number of horses for each factor, for each horse, for each ranking.

[formula_2002]

Part 2

After exploring the hundreds ways to proceed from this point (the subject of another paper), we will explore the following;

We will look at the ranked factor returning best, dollar profit or least dollar loss.
We find a ‘X’ factor that returned a dollar loss of but 7 cents on the dollar in over 14,000 races.

Now we analyze that single factor by incremental odds ranges.
The first three odds ranges 0 ,1 and 2 produced losses of 10 cents, 13 cents and 15 cents respectively.

Eliminating the favorite still produces a loss of 13 cent.

There appears to be some attainable profits in odds ranges 3 to 11 in various degrees of profits and losses.

There are almost 7,000 horses in the odds range of 3 to 11 that return a loss of but 1 cent on the dollar, at a win rate of 18%. (we are left with but 6% of our 114,000 horse sample)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Larry Hamilton]

Apparently, I am missing the point here as you are appear to be describing a methodology that doesn't work to a group with 95% of it's members capable of losing on their own. There are only two scenarios horseplayers need: how to win or how to quit playing. Anything else is self-indulgent.

[formula_2002]

Larry, stick around, eventually, the point will become quite clear.


Joe M

[Larry Hamilton]

no thanks, you just made my ignore list

[hurrikane]

I believe the point will be 'Joe is a loser so everyone else is too'.

Joe...78 factors? Way to back fit buddy! You are wasting your time.

[formula_2002]

Larry, first open your mind, then your eyes.
I'm 'holding out" 20% from test sample.

[formula_2002]

Part 3, down to 2619 horses

How do these horses perform (for the bettor) at various north American tracks?

We find that 2619 horses racing at New York and California tracks returned a profit of 3% and a win % of 19%. (that’s 2.3% of our entire sample before we obtained a profit).

Time to test the system on the ‘hold out’

And the results are….see Part 4

[formula_2002]

Part 4

First the good news. In the’ hold out’ sample, the ‘X’ factor horse lost 8 cent compared to the tested sample of 7 cents.

Not so good news, in the ‘hold out’ sample, the ‘X’ factor horse in the odds range of 3 to 11, produced a loss of 5 cent son the dollar, compared to the tested sample loss of 1 cent.


The disappointing news! In the ‘hold out’ sample, the ‘X’ factor horse in the odds range of 3 to 11, at the New York and California tracks produced a loss of 14 cents on the dollar, compared to the tested sample profit of 3 cents.
There were 1035 horses in the ‘hold out’ that qualified.

Part 5 “What next ?”

[Fastracehorse]

The Extinction of a System.

By Formula 1902.

fffastt

[formula_2002]

fast, try this. click on listen now.. it may help you through this difficult period of reading my post]:rolleyes:

http://www.wqxr.com/cgi-bin/iowa/index.html

[Fastracehorse]

1902 - Come on: You are talking to a handicapper.

Not someone who speacializes in meaninglessness.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

fffastt

[hurrikane]

here's an idea. Joe...go to your website!

[penguinfan]

For what it's worth Formula, it seems you are proving you can't beat the game by playing every race, but I can win by picking my spots.

Penguinfan

[Show Me the Wire]

Joe:

I do not understand what or why you are sharing your research with us. I particularly don't understand the significance of using 78 factors or the purpose of using so many factors.

If I was researching (and I am not) winning factors, I would limit the factors to maybe five factors, including distance, class, fitness (find a factor that indicates such), some sort of speed rating and weight.

Distance, class, and speed rating are fairly simple to identify, but fitness is the elusive factor. Maybe that is why there are so many systems based on angles such as layoffs i.e. 2nd off a freshening layoff, trainer intent, class drops, out of the money finishes, etc.

Speed ratings are popular because a good speed figure can indicate fitness and by definiton measures pace, because final time is a function of pace. Sheet type figure usage is based on predicting how the fit the horse is coming up to today's effort, through interpreting patterns of recent prior efforts and it appears this ideology is being incorporated with Beyers.

I similarly believe the fitness factor is the most significant issue that makes it difficult to automatically select a representative pace line for velocity type ratings. In order to help identify fitness, Brohamer in MODERN PACE HANDICAPPING recommended using turn-time as the important factor to measure current form (fitness). Therefore, fitness is one of the important factors that needed to be used for velocity handicapping.

More than likely the investors that repeatedly beat the take out are the better predictors of fitness. If a valid factor(s) measuring fitness were lacking in the factor mix, then the research would be unreliable in predicting if wagering on horse racing could be profitable in the long-term.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[formula_2002]

Show Me the Wire

The only way to find the usefulness of any factor or combination of factors and the various fixed conditions like distance, surface etc. is to analyze them.
The numbers will explain it all..

[Show Me the Wire]

"The only way to find the usefulness of any factor or combination of factors and the various fixed conditions like distance, surface etc. is to analyze them.
The numbers will explain it all."

Maybe that is the problem distance and track surface are not staitic or fixed. Races are contested at different disatnces and the track surface changes at the least daily. More importantly the health, fitness of the horse changes daily or more frequently

If I understand. I think you are saying you can quantify unknownable variables. I think I undersand now. numbers can quantify the fitness of the animal after the animal stepped on a rock and bruised its foot two days prior to the race, and that the track maintenance crew left the sprinkler system on too long by accident.

I know I am citing extreme samples, but these things do happen, and the horses change subtlely or significantly at least every day.

By having this understanding it is possible to discount the value of measuring variable items as static items.

Good Luck in your quest.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[cj]

Formula,

Shouldn't you be shooting dice?

CJ

[Speed Figure]

Formula, Put it all in the FIELD!:p

[Storm Cadet]

Show Me The Wire...Nice posts...you dead on!!!!

There are sooooo many DAILY variances that never show up...try researching Belmont the past 2 weeks with all this rain we've had. Unless your there, looking at the depth of the track mud/dirt, looking at the daily changes in the shoes from race to race, which ususally are NOT noted, not to mention the condition of Belmont's 2 turf surfaces.....

the physical state of the horse changes daily...just like our 2 legged athletes. I've worked with the 2 legged type in sports medicine for over 25 years, from college to pro to Olympic level athletes...and I've seen it all change in a day, for hundreds of reason. Things are not that much different with the 4 legged ones. Talk about heat and humidity in Saratoga in August and how does that effect the races???

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by Storm Cadet
Talk about heat and humidity in Saratoga in August and how does that effect the races???

It makes the bleeders bleed.

BTW Storm Cadet thanks for kind words.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[midnight]

HTR has about 144 different factors in its export file, of which about 80 have the ability to be used to try to pick winners. I've tested them all to some degree, using a two year database of the top circuits (mainly, E-Horse's "red" and "white" tracks, plus Houston). Nothing produces a clear-cut winner by itself, although a few of them hit an ROI of close to 90 cents on a dollar. Combining them doesn't do any good, either. The best that any of them can do playing every race is a 31% win percentage and an ROI of 0.90 (1.00 being break even). Oddly, the morning line favorite wins about 30% of all races, too, though at a lower ROI (about 0.81).

By some selective filtering, a few mechanical spot plays have been generated that produced an ROI of 1.10 in the 2001-2002 database. Not oddly, they haven't duplicated that feat so far in 2003. Like most of you, I'm not interested in what a spot play did in the LAST two years. I want to know what it can do in the NEXT two years.

The conclusion that I've come to is that there isn't a black box (at least not in HTR), and that it boils down to what it always has boiled down to: handicapping, using judgement, looking for overlays. Having good tools to work with is wonderful, but they won't build your house for you. You have to do the work.

[Rick]

midnight,

I'd be really surprised if no combination of two factors out of 80 ever did better than a 10% loss. Are you sure you tested all of the combinations (there are a lot of them)? There should be a two factor method that gets you to 5% or less loss and a three factor one that's around break even (playing every race). That can be done using BRIS factors and, except for a few things, HTR should be more accurate. 31% wins sounds too high though for something with uncorrelated factors. A combination that gets 29% wins would usually have a better ROI.

[formula_2002]

Rick, based on a sample test of over a 111,000 horses and a "hold out sample" of over 28,000 horses;
The best I can do with a single bris factors is 7 cent loss on the dollar, in both samples.
That single factor was present in but 14,000 of the base sample and 3500 in the "hold-out" sample.

when combined with the two other factors the combination always showed a small profit in the base sample (about +2%)
and a 5 to 9 cent dollar loss in the "hold-out"
Ofcourse once you start to join any one factor with another the number of horses diminish.

the X factor had 14,000 horses in the base sample
the xy 3100 horses
the xxy but 408 horses.


Now once you start to analyze the factors by race type, distance, surface, etc,,,, well no sense saying it again but too little data to prove a profit.

[Diamond K]

Formula,

I cannot understand, after all these years of modeling that anyone would continue to use RANKINGS?. Various important figures with varying degrees of separation and 'ties' skew the figures.

I am assuming you are using Allways figures. I won't disagree with what you do but RANKINGS cannot work continually over time, no matter how large the sample. Simple logic dictates otherwise. If any RANKINGS do work then the sample, no matter how large is skewed 'within', somewhere down the line.

Keep up the work...

[Rick]

formula,

OK, I see what the problem is now. You're looking at horses that are ranked first in all of the factors. That's the wrong way to do it. You should be combining them with weightings for each. The worst plays will be the ones who rank first in everything. In fact, it may be worthwhile to use negative weightings for some things, especially those involving the last race since the public overbets them so much.

Diamond K,

Actually rankings will work just fine most of the time and sometimes will be better than the raw data. That's because if you don't normalize the raw data correctly sometimes you'll get garbage and rankings are what statisticians would call more "robust". For those of you who are interested it's called "nonparametric statistics" and it works much better in some cases and not much worse in others.

[Rick]

As a matter of fact I could give examples of how a horse ranked first in one area and NOT ranked first in another area is an overlay but I won't because I sometimes use that concept in otherwise unplayable races to find an overlay. Anyone who puts in the necessary effort can find it out themselves though.

[formula_2002]

Diamond K
What impresses me about the ranking is that they are so well correlated to the odds.

They are not profitable, but they appear to clearly indicate the public's inclination, before the race is ran.

In every case, the top ranked factor, regardless what it may be, out performs all other rankings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rick
In the past, I calculated the win % for each and every factor ranking 1 to 8 . Summed the win % for every horse in the race, normalized it and came up with an odds line.

I also performed the above for just 1 leading factor in class, pace, speed etc. and various other combinations.

It gave me no better result then just using the top ranked factor.
It does get better when you add in a negative factor.

As previously mentioned, the best performing factor lost 7 cents on the dollar in the sample and 8 cents on the dollar in the hold out.
Didn't beat the take-out , but cut it in half. No small feat in over 17,000 plays.

Not too sure where to go from here.

Anyone want to play into a 7 to 8% take-out?

Joe M

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by Rick
As a matter of fact I could give examples of how a horse ranked first in one area and NOT ranked first in another area is an overlay but I won't because I sometimes use that concept in otherwise unplayable races to find an overlay. Anyone who puts in the necessary effort can find it out themselves though.

Similar thing worked to me in 6000 back fitted races (6% profit), then bombed in the next 1000 (14% loss)

Joe M

[Diamond K]

Formula,

Please explain what you mean by "the top ranked factor" in all cases will outperform all other rankings?

For example if DSLR is one of the 78 factors, %E another, AP, SP, EP, etc. do you mean the most prominent of these non-correlated factors will outperform the others and will relate to the publics odds?

I just have personal problems with rankings in one race or another race, when ties and large separations exist and skew the rankings.

Rick,

I am talking about non-correlated factors among the 78 factors using raw unadjusted data or not. I look at some of them as apples and oranges. I merely responded to factual analysis that I differ with logically.

[formula_2002]

Diamond K

If you send me your e-mail address I will send you a excel file of the bris power ratings rankings. It shows the win%, loss, # of horses, ect by ranking 1 to about 9 or more.

I have been sending the table out since the 12/31/2002.

Think I'll update it the end of this month.

Should make an interesting comparison.

Joe M

[Rick]

formula,

Well the point is to find overlays, not to come up with a method that calculates the odds most precisely, so one of your factors should be either actual odds or morning line odds.

Also, you should look at individual tracks since the weightings may be different. The ideal situation is to have at least one year of data at that track to use to develop the model and a second year to test it against. If it works the second year you may have something. It's quite common for a factor to work for one year, then be discovered by all of the people looking into such things and published, and become worse the second year. That kind of thing happens especially with Post Position and Trainer statistics all of the time.


Diamond K,

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying. Your response doesn't make any sense to me, but I'm sure I'm just missing something.

[Diamond K]

Rick,

It was senseless and needless to post. It was just a general opinion.

[Rick]

Diamond K,

OK. Hey, how's Turf Paradise these days? I used to live down there and have many a fond memory of very profitable days at that track. My wife worked for DRF when their corporate offices were in Phoenix and I met a lot of very nice DRF people at Christmas parties at Turf Paradise every year.

[Diamond K]

Rick,
Turf Paradise came close to being sold to a developer a few years ago. It is doing well and I think slots will soon be part of the attraction as we have them on the reservations. This whole metropolis is growing daily with people coming from everywhere. I believe 3 of us on this board live close together but have yet to personally connect. Hopefully shall when Turf reopens again.

Wonder why DRF relocated when this is a right to work state and labor is relatively inexpensive and transportation superb. It is sure getting hot as you will well remember.

I never ran my horses at Turf for I always liked the midwest, east, Kentucky and Florida circuit. The class has increased and with current growth I view an expansion at Turf a probability.

Regards,
Diamond K

[Rick]

Diamond K,

DRF relocated because Crist is a New Yorker and wanted everything there. It cost them a fortune to make that move and they lost a lot of good people. Those who did move wound up with a much lower standard of living even if they did get raises. Probably the worst business decision I've ever seen anyone make but I suppose they think they can just keep raising prices to make up for it. I've only bought a couple of forms in the last three years so I'm not too familiar with the pricing these days.

Turf Paradise has a lot of good things going for it. It's kept up pretty well so it's enjoyable to go there, the track is fast and there's not much weather to worry about. But the takeout is horrible and they need a larger parimutuel pool. Maybe if they add slots they can raise the purses enough to attract more interest from both horsemen and horseplayers.

I definitely don't miss the summers in Phoenix though. The weather's much better here and Reno has a surprising amount of services for a city it's size. Those who think this is a hick town are incredibly wrong, but it's quite common for those from large cities to be misinformed about such things. Anything you can't get here is available in Sacramento or San Francisco but it's hardly ever necessary. Northern California has so much more than Southern California does all the way around though if you're into events that require a larger population.

[karlskorner]

One of my sons , who lives in Reno is here for a month, said he couldn't breath in Reno, going to spend the month at our place in Nassau, just getting over an operation 3 weeks ago maybe the casue.

Been to Reno many times, fasinated by the Truckee river as it rushes under the bridge by the library, spent many the hour there watching it. Great little city Reno.

[Skanoochies]

Hi. I have only seen a form for Turf Par. a couple of times,but I notice they have some races for 3200 and some are 3200B. Could you tell what condition is signified by this 3200B please?

Thanks in advance,

Skanoochies.:confused:

[Dave Schwartz]

Karl,

Son lives in Reno? What does he do?

Does he play the ponies?

Dave Schwartz

[karlskorner]

Worked at the hospital across from Circus Circus (I think thats the Casino) retired from there after 10 years with a nice pension, went to work for the Penal system, retired from there with another nice pension after 10 years, so he really doesn't do anything, he is on a consulting basis with a couple of places. He eats at the Peppermint Lounge alot, loves their Sundaes. Loves CRC, doesn't play much, just soaks up the sun.

Can't stay long, I am being crucified on another post from 2 old nemises.

[Rick]

Karl,

It used to be that Reno had a very low pollen level but now I'd say it's about average. That could be the cause of his trouble. Or maybe the higher altitude. I like the lower pressure a lot but some people don't.

I don't understand what it is that people think isn't here though. If it's restaurants, I think we have some of the best around. If it's shopping, it's more than adequate. Nightlife obviously is great. Recreational opportunities are better here than almost anywhere. I'm not a golfer but I think they have some very nice courses here and nearby. The only thing we'd be missing is major league sports but there's an abundant supply in the Bay Area if you want to go to a live event. Certainly more than LA which doesn't even have a pro football team any more. We don't have live horse racing but that doesn't seem to be all that important anymore. Between what's available on the internet and the race books, it couldn't get much better. Whatever LA has more of, it's something I don't need. Smog, traffic, crime, gay bars (just kidding)?

[Diamond K]

Skanoochies:

I really never paid attention to 3200B or 3200. Years ago some states from time to time gave breeder allowances (payments) for winners bred in that state in order to promote breeding. I doubt Arizona has that for I see no move to promote Arizona breds. It could possibly be 'B' for Arizona bred.

I hope someone on the board will know for I don't.

I will drag out some past performances and see if I can find some 'B' races.

I love Canada. My wife tied the Field & Stream record for Northern Pike using 8 pound test line in the Northwest Territory. Had to fly in on the private plane and we ended up bringing back a great huskie who ended up as our stable dog. Nobody could mess with our horses when 'Chipper' was around. Got him from the Chippewan (sp?) tribe.

Diamond K

[Dave Schwartz]

Rick,

First, I love Reno. It is simply a great place to live.

But for people that enjoy some degree of culture, this place is a cultural void. You've got to drive to San Francisco for theatre or museums or zoos. I can understand why it isn't for everyone.

And, lest you get the wrong idea, I am not a cultural guy. The philharmonic puts me to sleep and plays... why anyone goes to a theatre to watch people screaming lines at each other is beyond me... okay, so I do admit to being a sucker for ballet (something else we don't have).

When all this is balanced together, I will gladly trade my lack of meaningful ballet for low crime, congestion and polution.

Just my opinion.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Fastracehorse]

That: A connoisseur of the thoroughbreds is on a level playing field with fine wine and art connoisseurs?? Indeed you are cultured.

Just a suggestion.

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

fffastt

BTW,

Did I spell that word right??

[Rick]

Dave,

Yes, I agree with you that if you want culture you need to go to SF. I'm not much on that either but someone would have to be either kidding or seriously uninformed to say that LA had more to offer even culturally than the Bay Area. Since I've lived in all of the places mentioned as well as some others, I don't think my opinion is too far off. And, since my Mom and most of my siblings live in the LA area, I usually go down there at least once a year and get a first hand look at how things have changed. Fortunately my Mom lives in Arcadia, which is an oasis compared with the rest of LA but I don't think I'd choose anywhere in the entire area over any of the other places I've lived. I really don't understand it but I'm certainly not trying to convince more yuppies to move here.

[Dave Schwartz]

Rick,

I have to seriously disagree with you about LA. and southern California. I feel it has a lot of "culta."

I can certainly agree that it is not as artful as the bay area, but that could be a lot of personal taste.

Dave

[Rick]

Dave,

Is that cults as opposed to culture? Well, there are a few good things I can say about Southern California. Lets see, they have good looking women, the right water temperature at the beaches (though not the most beautiful beaches), and a couple of nice racetracks. That's all I can think of at the moment.