Moss VS Bris pace figs

[Light]

Last Monday, Aqu 7th, Navedano won at 10-1. She came from well off the pace. Although my Bris layout had her ranked 3rd in final time,she was ranked 8th in LP. I used 2 back on her and its obvious she closed in that race so I knew that LP fig was way off. In general I've been O.K. with Bris pace figs,but I do see crap like this. I realize I get what I pay for.

So I just got a trial plan from drf with their Moss pace figs( just because of that race) and manually entered the pace figs for everyone in that race using the same pl's I used with Bris. The top 3 in DRF are the same as Bris in final time rank. Navedano is 3rd rank here too. But her LP is significantly improved to 3rd rank with Moss.In the E2 category, Navedano is tied for 2nd rank in Bris and Moss also gives Navedano the 2nd highest E2 rank. So Moss clearly wins this race over Bris pace figs for its more accurate LP fig. This is a very time consuming comparison to do without deliminated files from DRF.Has anyone done a comparison test? And has anyone seen Bozo pace figs in Moss like this one in Bris?

[Dave Schwartz]

Looking at Navedano in that race points to one of the issues with using any pace figure-based approach: it does not take into consideration running style.

IMHO, it does not matter how good the pace figs are if the running style does not support it.

In looking at the horse's last 10 races one can see that in the the horse is just never going to challenge for the lead. (Okay, "never" is a long time, but would not reasonably expect this horse to ever challenge for the lead.)

Using Jim Cramer's loose definition of ESP, in the one race that the horse won it ran as an "P," taking the lead at the stretch call. In this race it moved a little later.

[mountainman]

Looking at Navedano in that race points to one of the issues with using any pace figure-based approach: it does not take into consideration running style.

IMHO, it does not matter how good the pace figs are if the running style does not support it.



Agree. I found it telling that even a figure-icon like Tom Brohammer allowed that (loosely quoted) 'pace analysis beats pace numbers'. Fractions can be crucial, but more important to me is the mix of styles and strategies that determine race-flow. Horses are creatures of habit and usually fall into the same early position no matter the rate of travel. And, as you pointed out in this instance, some horses just never take the lead. Thus some excruciating study of fractions is generally useless in predicting a leader when no speed-types are present. The pacesetter in such cases is usually some horse, however pedestrian its splits, that has proven at least willing to seize the early lead at some point in the past.
Don't even get me started on the whole 'pick a paceline' thing, wherein a single running line (often buried below recent efforts) is taken to represent a horse's ability.

[Speed Figure]

Which bris pp's were you using? If you were using the ultimate pp's, it takes each horses avg distance and surface lines with in 1 year and uses those for the ratings.

[Tom]

light,

I might be wrong, but the LP in BRIS is the last fraction, but with Moss, I think it is a point at a call, not a fraction?

That might explain the difference.

[Light]

I'm using Bris $1 data files.

It looks like I didn't understand the layout of the Moss pace figs. The Moss LP figure I thought Navedano had was actually his Moss final time fig,equivalent to a Beyer speed fig. It doesn't look like Moss has a seperate LP fig like Bris, which I find instrumental.

Dave

I checked out your webinar yesterday even though I am not looking for a new program. Interesting but overly complicated, at least to me who knows nothing about HSH. I think the learning curve must be steep.

[exiles]

From my experience Moss pace figures , and Beyer figures are superior to BRIS, as a matter of fact since i wager w/ TWINSPIRES i get BRIS PPS for free for the tracks i wager, i still pay for the DRF PPPS i found BRISS figures to be useless too many errors.

[raybo]

light,

I might be wrong, but the LP in BRIS is the last fraction, but with Moss, I think it is a point at a call, not a fraction?

That might explain the difference.

Bris "LP" is from the pace call (E2) to the finish. E1 is start to the first call, E2 is start to the 2nd call (pace call), LP is from 2nd call (pace call) to the finish line. LP includes the 2nd call to the stretch call and from the stretch call to the finish.

By the way, I have used Bris data for many years but, I don't use any of their figures, ie., pace, speed, RR, or CR.

[Speed Figure]

Why do you think her late pace figure from that race is wrong? looks like she went the last 2 furlongs in 26.2. And of her last 5 races, that was the only race where she gained any lengths from the 2nd call to the finish.

[exiles]

By the way, I have used Bris data for many years but, I don't use any of their figures, ie., pace, speed, RR, or CR.[/QUOTE]

You saved your self a lot of head scratching by not using any of the BRIS FIGURES they are a joke.

[46zilzal]

IMHO, it does not matter how good the pace figs are if the running style does not support it.


NO more true an expression has ever been uttered.

[Light]

Why do you think her late pace figure from that race is wrong? looks like she went the last 2 furlongs in 26.2. And of her last 5 races, that was the only race where she gained any lengths from the 2nd call to the finish.

This can get complicated,but the race Navedano ran on 1/7/10 that I rated her off was better than the fractions give her credit for. The charts/pp's will show her 3 1/2 back at the second call and 1 1/4 back at the finish. It looks like she gained about 2 lengths in the stretch. The fact is she was 5 lengths off the pace in the backstretch and got beat by a horse from the clouds at the wire. She finished ahead of all 3 of the horses she was behind when she was 5 lengths back and was never behind the winner who came from the moon except at the wire when the race was essentially over. So in reality,she is a better closer than she looks on paper. How could she possibly be rated 8th in LP?

Second reason she gets shortchanged as a closer on numbers is that whoever made the variant for that day that gets incorporated into the pace numbers,does not take into account exaggerated win margins that day. What am I talking about?

The race right before Navedano's race on 1/7/10 had the same race for the same sex, age, except one level higher,10k instead of 7.5K.Navedano's race had a faster pace but a slower final time of 13.52. The 10K race had a final of 12.27. Looks like Navedano's race was for creampuffs. But the winner of the 10K race went w-w by 5 and the 2nd place horse was 2nd by 5 at 4/5 because of a huge class drop. Of course makers of track variants never adjust this exaggerated margin out of their figs.Thus you get Navedano with a weak Lp for that day. Back to the 10K race. This means the 3rd place horse, Divorce Court, ran approxametly 14.27 (12.27+ the combined 10 length loss),much slower than Navedano that day. As it turns out, Divorce court was another victim of someone who does not know how to adjust winning margins and tv's as she promptly won @ 6-1 when dropped to Navedano's level.

I don't have time or patience to make tv's and pace figs anymore and alot at times what Dave says about incongruous pace numbers and running style is true. I always double check. That's why I'm talking about it. But the opposite is also true. When running style and pace numbers compliment eachother,you can have a pretty strong contender. I would say Bris's pace numbers are more right than wrong or wouldn't use them at all. But one of the worst thing handicappers get in this sport is buying misrepresented information.

[bisket]

Looking at Navedano in that race points to one of the issues with using any pace figure-based approach: it does not take into consideration running style.

IMHO, it does not matter how good the pace figs are if the running style does not support it.

In looking at the horse's last 10 races one can see that in the the horse is just never going to challenge for the lead. (Okay, "never" is a long time, but would not reasonably expect this horse to ever challenge for the lead.)

Using Jim Cramer's loose definition of ESP, in the one race that the horse won it ran as an "P," taking the lead at the stretch call. In this race it moved a little later.
running styles are very important to me, and is usually how i come up with my best plays. this is why i use raw times in formulator for pace time and compare that with the beyer. to really get a good idea of running style you have to look at split times for each point of call.

[Dave Schwartz]

I have not researched the Moss numbers but I can unequivocally say that Jim Cramer's pace numbers (HDW) are the best ever.

When he told me how he made them my thought was, "Oh, that can't work," but danged if I can make one that even approaches his.

[raybo]

By the way, I have used Bris data for many years but, I don't use any of their figures, ie., pace, speed, RR, or CR.

You saved your self a lot of head scratching by not using any of the BRIS FIGURES they are a joke.[/QUOTE]

I said that with no intent to deride Bris' figures, in particular.

I use nobody's figures.

[Partsnut]

There's a lot to be desired with the numbers supplied by the various data providers. That's why I choose to use PaceAppraiser which Accurately transposes the Bris data into a precise assessment of running style, speed points and pace. For me, this works very well.

[cj]

I have not researched the Moss numbers but I can unequivocally say that Jim Cramer's pace numbers (HDW) are the best ever.

When he told me how he made them my thought was, "Oh, that can't work," but danged if I can make one that even approaches his.

How can you say this if you haven't seen or tried others? Isn't all you can say that you think they are very good?

I would never say mine are better because I'm not familiar with them so I don't know. I do know mine are better than Moss and BRIS because I test them all the time.

[Tom]

I think CJs are the cat's pajamas.
CJs...don't leave home without them. ;)

I find BRIS to be sometimes good sometime not so good.
I found Moss's to be a waste time.
I find CJs to be day in day out good.

[Charlie D]

Jim "The Hat" Bradshaw's ain't bad Tom imho ;)

[proximity]

bris pace figures, cj pace figures, and moss pace figures are not just different in scale, but are also different in what they are meant to convey. so any comparisons are not apples to apples.

it is more a matter of determining which type of pace figures best fit your own handicapping style as opposed to which pace figures are the best in quality.

[Light]

I found Moss's to be a waste time.


Can you elaborate?

[Dave Schwartz]

How can you say this if you haven't seen or tried others? Isn't all you can say that you think they are very good?

I did not say that I had not tested them against ANY numbers. I said I had not tested them against the Moss numbers.

[Zaf]

I think CJs are the cat's pajamas.
CJs...don't leave home without them. ;)

I find BRIS to be sometimes good sometime not so good.
I found Moss's to be a waste time.
I find CJs to be day in day out good.

Tom too kind on Bris pace figs. They really suck most of the time.

The prime power number is actually very good, but

as far as pace figs, CJ's are the best !

Z

[PhantomOnTour]

How does one get a hold of these pace figs by cj that are so good?

[Tom]

Can you elaborate?

Biggest compliant is that they don't cover enough tracks. Many races at tracks I play have no figures, so using them on some horses and not others was all I could do. Highly overpriced - you have to buy an "upper end" PP to get them...no thanks.

Side by side to CJs, I found Moss to be not as predictive and even with pace right there, final figs were not modified to account for pace.