BRIS Turn Time

[Tom]

A question came up on another board about how to get a turn time number similar to E1 and E2 out of BRIS or TSN pace figs.
The example given was:


Fleet Boss 80 84
Biblical 86 88

The race was a route, and both horse are coming out of the same race. Using Fortunehunter's formual, Fleet gets a TT of +4 and Biblical gets a +2 (E2-E1). But the desire is to get the +2 and +4 expressed in something like E1 and E2 numbers.
The challenge is to come up with a formula that will give each horse a rating in the 80ish neighborhood so that FB 's rating is 2 point better than Bib's.
I though this would be simple, about two tablets and 10 pencils ago!
What I want to do with the TT number is add it to LP to get a Brohammer Late PAce (Hidden energy) number, and a total energy number (F1+F2+F3).
Any ideas?

[Speed Figure]

Making turn time figures with the bris route numbers is not easy. How can do get a good TT figure if the E1 is for 2F and the E2 is for 4F. It would be best to have some kind on 6F pace figures that you could use to get the real turn time figure.

If the horse runs 4F in a route it's still on the back side. I have been using my own 6F route pace figures to get a good TT figure. Does this sound crazy?

[BillW]

The Bris pace figs are first call and second call, not 2f and 4f for routes.

Tom,

Since (in the case of a sprint) E1 is 0 -> 2f and E2 is 0 -> 4f. How about 2*E2-E1. This would remove the 0 -> 2f influence from E2 and provide a scaled TT. It would follow that 3*E2-(2*E1) for routes.

I've seen arguments against this, but considering the use of TT in handicapping (And no other reasonable alternative), I've found this an OK way to go.

The way you describe to get the +4 and +2 never made sense to me because of the first call component being included in the second call in the Bris figs.

Bill

[Shacopate]

Fleet Boss E2-E1 + 80 = 84
Biblical E2-E1 + 80 = 82

[Shacopate]

The problem is that doesn't reflect how fast they were going.

A horse going 80 84 gets the same rating as one going 100 104.

Back to the drawing board.

[Shacopate]

Maybe this will work.

If the horse ran it's E1 and E2 race in the "80 range" then use
E2-E1+80. Horses running in the "90 range" E2-E1 + 90.
Same for 100.

Not perfect. But might be workable.

I kind of feel like Tom Hanks in Castaway on this thread by myself.
Where the hell is that soccer ball?

[Dave Schwartz]

Try this:


Fleet Boss 80 84
Biblical 86 88


I am assuming that the 1st number is the EP rating and the 2nd number is the FT rating.

Let's assume that this is a 6fur race.

1. Figure the total energy for each horse:


FT x RaceFur = TotEnergy

Fleet Boss 84 x 6.0 = 504
Biblical 88 x 6.0 = 528


2. Compute the energy used to the EP call:

EP x EpFur= EpEnergy


Fleet Boss 80 x 4.0 = 320
Biblical 86 x 4.0 = 344


3. Compute the energy left for the stretch run:

TotEnergy - EpEnergy = SrEnergy


Fleet Boss 504 - 320 = 184
Biblical 528 - 344 = 184


4. Compute SR Rtg

SrFur = RaceFur - EpFur

SrEnergy \ SrFur = SR


Fleet Boss 184 \ 2.0 = 92
Biblical 184 \ 2.0 = 92


So, this was actually a bad example because they are both running the exact same final fraction. There ratings look like this:


EP SR FT
Fleet Boss 80 92 84
Biblical 86 92 88


If anyone is interested I will create a better example that illustrates the real power of this calculation.

Dave Schwartz

[Storm Cadet]

Shacopate:


WILSON in Castaway was a VOLLEYBALL...not soccer...:D :D :D

[Big Bill]

Tom,

Several years ago Nathan and I discussed this problem, i.e., how to get a turn time (second fraction) number similar to E1 and E2 out of BRIS pace figs.

He suggested three methods to me at that time for calculating such a number. I think he may even use one of them in his software.

You might e-mail him for a good discussion on this problem. I have always found Nathan willing to discuss handicapping questions/concerns.

Big Bill

[VetScratch]

It is understandable why BRIS E1P, E2P, and LP figures cause confusion.

E1P - pace rating from start to 1st call.
E2P - pace rating from start to 2nd call.
LP - pace rating from stretch call to finish.

The confusion arises because of the many points of call.

See this BRIS chart: http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/static.cgi?page=calltimeschart

E1P may span start to 3/16, 1/4, 1/2, or 1 (mile).

E2P may span start to 3/8, 1/2, 3/4, 1 (mile), 1-1/4, 1-3/8, 1-1/2, 1-5/8, or 1-3/4.

At the same time, BRIS premium files contain each of the following pace rating data fields for each past performance. Which and how many of these fields contain data always depends on race distance.
2fP - start to 2f.
4fP - start to 4f.
6fP - start to 6f.
8fP - start to 1 (mile)
10fP - start to 1-1/4
LP - stretch call to finish.

If you are trying to figure "turn time" pace you must hurdle obvious considerations with respect to distance and course layouts.

What most calculations with E1P and E2P are intended for is to measure pace in the interval segment between 1st call and 2nd call. This again asks you to hurdle obvious considerations and begs for tweaks/adjustments when all distances/courses are not the same.

The two people that I know personally (including me), who extract data from BRIS premium files with their own programs, tackle the subject of "turn-time" or "interval" pace figures by equating track/surface/distance to a table of course profiles and then working with the most appropriate BRIS pace ratings.

No, our course profile tables will not appear here :)

[Terry Riggs]

storm cadet


last I heard wilson was riding shotgun with earnhardt jr. in the

#8 car in winston cup. but who really knows?

Terry

[Tom]

Originally posted by Shacopate

I kind of feel like Tom Hanks in Castaway on this thread by myself.
Where the hell is that soccer ball?

Wilson?
Wislon?
Willlllsoooooooon?!?!?!?!?!:rolleyes:

[Tom]

WHAT DO THE BRIS PACE RATINGS MEASURE ?
BRIS Pace Ratings measure how fast a horse ran up to a specific point-of-call (2f,4f,6f,...) in a race - the higher the number, the faster the horse ran.
2f Pace Rating - rates how fast the horse ran from the start
to the 1/4 mile call. (2f)

4f Pace Rating - rates how fast the horse ran from the start
to the 1/2 mile call. (4f)

6f Pace Rating - rates how fast the horse ran from the start
to the 3/4 mile call. (6f)

E1 Pace Rating - rates how fast the horse ran from the start
to the 1st call (2f Pace in sprints, 4f Pace
in most routes).

E2 Pace Rating - rates how fast the horse ran from the start
to the 2nd call (4f Pace in sprints, 6f Pace
in most routes).

Late Pace Rating - rates how fast the horse ran from the 2nd call
(pre-stretch call) to the finish.



Dave,
I would interested in your example, but in mine, I forgot to mention that it was a route race, E1 and E2 pace numbers.
On the ESROI board, it was solved by determining the pace of race TT - both E1 and E2 POR were 95, so TT was 95. But if it come out 95-98, I am not sure how to proceed.
I also did it substituting times for E1 and E2...might be worth a second look. I used TSN coversion numbers, but should be on the same scale - they are listed here

http://www.a1handicapping.com/tsn/html

(credit to Jerry Stokes for the link)

[Dave Schwartz]

I think I misunderstood... I thought the two numbers were EP & FT. Apparently they were F1 and EP. The example still works IF the race was at 8f but the labels would need to change.

However, since there does not appear to be interest in my formula, I'll not bore anyone with it here.

Just email me privately and I'll write something up. Or call me and I'll explain it to you.


Dave

[Tom]

Will do. Thanks.

My link is incorrect...should be

http://www.a1handicapping.com/horse.htm

Go to Free Stuff

[azibuck]

Good thread (for me, because I use Bris).

I think the original premise may be flawed. I'm not sure 80-84 NECESSARILY means a better TT than 86-88. The 86 was moving faster to begin with. Consider other examples. I went through a few PP's (but just one pencil so far) and found lot of thing like this:

87 82
79 76

Who had the better TT? The first horse "lost" five points while the second lost only 3. But the first TT could be better. Or for that matter, they could be the same.

A better example is to make the gap between horses more dramatic:

95 100
75 85

Who had the better TT? The first horse may have gone in 45.0, 110.0, or 25 seconds. The second may have gone 47.0, 113.0, or 26 seconds.

With this tidy example, I present a cockeyed theory I came up with during lunch just now. I think it will have to be adjusted for routes.

But for sprints, take the above examples 95-100 and 75-85. Halve the first number. Which would make the first call numbers 47.5 and 37.5. This is the "real" first call rating. Assume it was doubled to "normalize" it. So really, we have first and second call ratings of:

47.5-100
37.5-85

Now subtract the second from the first:

100-47.5=52.5
85-37.5=47.5

This is the turn "distance" or "interval" or whatever you want to call it. Now double the number to normalize it (normalize meaning, make all the numbers in the same neighborhood in relation to 100).

52.5x2=105
47.5x2=95

To my cockeyed brain this makes sense. The first call, turn time, and second call ratings are now:

95-105-100
75-95-85

Will it work for a less dramatic example? If your example were a sprint:

80-84
80/2=40
84-40=44
44x2=88 Turn rating for your first horse

86-88
86/2=43
88-43=45
45x2=90 Turn rating for your second horse

This also looks like it could be correct to me. The second horse was going faster to start, and kept going fast. The first horse did keep moving well, but only in relation to it's first call rating.

Problem: With a higher first call rating, and a higher turn rating, how did the first horse get "closer" at the second call rating? I'll get back to work.

My example might work better if they were in feet per second.

az

[VetScratch]

E1P = start to 2f
E2P = start to 4F

Horse-#1 E1P=80 E2P=84
Horse-#2 E1P=86 E2P=88
Horse-#3 E1P=90 E2P=86

BRIS "Turn" Time (TT) when past performances were 6f, 6.5f, or 7f on most tracks/courses.

Horse-#1: TT=88=(2*(84-80))+80
Horse-#2: TT=90=(2*(88-86))+86
Horse-#3: TT=82=(2*(86-90))+90

Proofs:
Horse-#1: (E1P+TT)/2=E2P=84=(80+88)/2
Horse-#2: (E1P+TT)/2=E2P=88=(86+90)/2
Horse-#3: (E1P+TT)/2=E2P=86=(90+82)/2

[Tom]

Assume the 95 = 22.0 and the 100 = 45.0
TT = 23.0

If 95=22, then 75 =24.0 ( 2- points=2 seconds)

IF 100=45.0, then 85 = 46.5 (15 points = 1.5 seconds.

TT=22.2

In this example, the second horse was 10 lengths back at the first call, gains in TT and is 7.5 lengths back at the second call.
So, B's TT is 2.5 lentgths faster than A's.
Which is true=100-95=5
85-75=10
The net 5 = 2.5 lengths.
But, how to make it a numbers on the same scale as the E1E2????
I am going broke buying pencils!

[VetScratch]

Tom,

Like BRIS speed figs, converting BRIS pace figs back into actual times is not straightforward because of variants and track-to-track par adjustments.

What I don't get is why?

If you read "Turn Time" as "Turn Pace Rating," doesn't this do the job for most handicapping evaluations.

E1P = start to 2f
E2P = start to 4F

Horse-#1 E1P=80 E2P=84
Horse-#2 E1P=86 E2P=88
Horse-#3 E1P=90 E2P=86

Interpret TT to mean TPR (turn pace rating):

BRIS "Turn" Time (TT) when past performances were 6f, 6.5f, or 7f on most tracks/courses (although at 7f, the concept of "turn time" is "backstretched" a bit).

Horse-#1: TT=88=(2*(84-80))+80
Horse-#2: TT=90=(2*(88-86))+86
Horse-#3: TT=82=(2*(86-90))+90

Proofs:
Horse-#1: (E1P+TT)/2=E2P=84=(80+88)/2
Horse-#2: (E1P+TT)/2=E2P=88=(86+90)/2
Horse-#3: (E1P+TT)/2=E2P=86=(90+82)/2

H#1: ran 2f at 80 pace, then 2f at 88 pace, to arrive at 4f with 84 cumulative pace rating.
H#2: ran 2f at 86 pace, then 2f at 90 pace, to arrive at 4f with 88 cumulative pace rating.
H#3: ran 2f at 90 pace, then 2f at 82 pace, to arrive at 4f with 86 cumulative pace rating.

[VetScratch]

From my childhood to now (age 39, and before you ask the avatar was age 34), I have been keenly interested in the training and performance of about 300 horses.

Stepping back from the Sartin-Brohamer empirical stuff, every owner and handicapper should appreciate horses who are nimble on the turns. A jockey can ride such horses differently in tight quarters than other horses who may be faster but less nimble. As a result, you hit the board more often and earn purse money with horses that can show you superior turn times on their good trips, but can also give you a useful effort on the turn when it is necessary to overcome a bad trip. Clumsy horses need easy trips to maintain momemtum on turns, and will usually cost owners/handicappers a tidy sum over the course of their careers. Jockeys hate horses that are timid/rank about changing lanes on the turn, and will sometimes just wrap up when such horses are not getting a perfect trip.

[JustRalph]

Dave,

Very interesting stuff there. I often wonder how some of you guys come up with some interesting horses. This kind of stuff is how you do it.

I kind of feel like Wilson myself. Everytime I try to learn some of this industrial strength figuring, it starts to penetrate my brain and my head explodes..........

[VetScratch]

Adding to my nimble/clumsy post....

Considering "clipped heels" trip-note comments where horse #2 runs up on the heels of horse #1, this occurs with greatest frequency when fields are entering a turn.

Some DRF trip-note handicappers interpret this to mean horse #2 was full of run and should run better with better luck today. It is just as probable that horse #2 was not so full of run and may still have healing lacerations. Horse #1 may have been one of those who isn't nimble on turns and shortened up at the first sign of the bend.

This is like the illusion that closers are accelerating when (except for the likes of Secretariat) the whole field is de-accelerating.

I think turn times cause controversy among pace handicappers because not enough attention is paid to what kind of trip earned these times.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by VetScratch
From my childhood to now (age 39, and before you ask the avatar was age 34), I have been keenly interested in the training and performance of about 300 horses.

Stepping back from the Sartin-Brohamer empirical stuff, every owner and handicapper should appreciate horses who are nimble on the turns. A jockey can ride such horses differently in tight quarters than other horses who may be faster but less nimble. As a result, you hit the board more often and earn purse money with horses that can show you superior turn times on their good trips, but can also give you a useful effort on the turn when it is necessary to overcome a bad trip. Clumsy horses need easy trips to maintain momemtum on turns, and will usually cost owners/handicappers a tidy sum over the course of their careers. Jockeys hate horses that are timid/rank about changing lanes on the turn, and will sometimes just wrap up when such horses are not getting a perfect trip.

You said it correctly, athletic versus clumsy on the turn is important. The turn is usually the most important part of the race and either a horse needs to maintain his position if up front or it needs to close some ground on the turn if behind the front runners to have a chance to win the race. You need an athletic horse to put yourself in a positon to win.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by VetScratch
Adding to my nimble/clumsy post....

I think turn times cause controversy among pace handicappers because not enough attention is paid to what kind of trip earned these times.

Good clarification, the visual is more important than the calcualtion.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[Tom]

Horse-#1 E1P=80 E2P=84
Horse-#2 E1P=86 E2P=88
Horse-#3 E1P=90 E2P=86
H#1: ran 2f at 80 pace, then 2f at 88 pace, to arrive at 4f with 84 cumulative pace rating.
H#2: ran 2f at 86 pace, then 2f at 90 pace, to arrive at 4f with 88 cumulative pace rating.
H#3: ran 2f at 90 pace, then 2f at 82 pace, to arrive at 4f with 86 cumulative pace rating.

Horse 1 = TT =+4
Horse 2 = TT =+2
Horse 3 = TT = -4

Your formula gives #2 a better TT than #1, but! 1 actually ran a faster F2 by 2 points (i length).

[BillW]

Originally posted by Tom
Assume the 95 = 22.0 and the 100 = 45.0
TT = 23.0

If 95=22, then 75 =24.0 ( 2- points=2 seconds)

IF 100=45.0, then 85 = 46.5 (15 points = 1.5 seconds.


Tom,

The flaw is that E1 and E2 are scaled differently. The 2*E2-E1 equation assumes that they are not. To say it a different way, an E2 of 100 does not equal twice the time (in seconds) of an E1 of 100. Interesting (and flawed!) that an individual point of each is scaled the same ( = 0.5 length).

I think what you are looking for is that scaling factor. It will take some empirical study to determine if it is a constant. If the figures are based on pars at each individual track, which I assume they are, then that factor will be track specific and vary when they update their pars. :eek:

Bill

[VetScratch]

Tom,

I agree that Horse #1 increased his pace the most during the 2nd 2f-segment. Interpretation of what this means is another matter. BRIS pace figs are based on adjusted track pars and each race has a set of projected pace pars.

[VetScratch]

(Two: one to watch for traffic while the other eats.):)

Many BRIS value-added figures/ratings for pace, speed, performance class, and (blah, blah, etc.) will produce outstanding impact values when a database is analyzed.

How to compare, convert, formulate, or synthesize them into an encompassing method is quite another matter.

A friend and I use different premium files (if you can call them different except by name) to extract both standard and premium variables for our databases.

Like the Texas Aggies, we both look to a "Twelfth Man" to gain a handicapping edge.

Our 12th man is a database-derived race-par-winner, expressed as a multitude BRIS download variables, and he "runs each race with the actual field."

How he handicaps against the actual field helps resolve some interesting issues, like the probability that a style-based pace scenario will really develop and have a "traditional" impact on the outcome.

It took us a long time to build and refine this approach (which will always be a work-in-progress), but we keep each other going through friendly competition.

[Show Me the Wire]

VetScratch:

I am impressed. The use of a "twelfth man" is the best idea I have heard for a program. Now that is a program that is a valuble tool especially if it was combined with Equisims graphics.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[VetScratch]

BillW,The flaw is that E1 and E2 are scaled differently. The 2*E2-E1 equation assumes that they are not. To say it a different way, an E2 of 100 does not equal twice the time (in seconds) of an E1 of 100. Interesting (and flawed!) that an individual point of each is scaled the same ( = 0.5 length).
I agree, but you can't get BRIS to agree. Here is the official BRIS definition, which anyone can download from the BRIS Library:
Unlike the BRIS Speed Ratings which employ a differing points-per-length scale depending on the race distance, the BRIS Pace Ratings use a fixed scale of 2-points-per-length for all pace calls (2f,4f, etc.) - regardless of the race distance. The fixed 2-points-per-length scale is based on the fact that, regardless of the entire race's distance, the ground covered for any given pace call (2f,4f,etc.) is the same - that is, a 1/4 mile call is equal to two furlongs regardless of whether the entire race is six furlongs or ten furlongs (1 1/4 miles). Since the pace calls being measured are equivalent across differing distances ( a 1/2 mile call in a sprint is the same distance as a 1/2 mile call in a route), the BRIS Pace Ratings use the same 2-points-per-length scaling for all pace calls across all distances.

My friend has talked to BRIS, argued that something is not stated clearly, been connected to a BRIS guru, and BRIS stands by this definition. BRIS added nothing to suggest that these pace ratings are anything more than adjusted incremental speed ratings scaled as noted.

BRIS also agrees with Tom's formula (e.g., yielding +4, +2, -4), but we couldn't find much use for these results because almost all sprinters are one-move horses and few sustain a move much further than 2f. Thus, if you look at horse #1 (80 84), who has already made the biggest move (albeit not a spectacular move) on the turn, what does this suggest about the stretch drive? If all the pace lines are good representatives for the 3 horses, then only a an edge in LP (late pace) would suggest Horse #1 will pass Horse #2, who has run more evenly through 4f. Our 90 rewards horse #2 for this, versus 88 for horse #1, and implies horse #2 must show a weak LP to get caught.

I would like to hear how you or Tom might use +4, +2, and -4 (with a question mark about scaling) if you were looking at these three horses.

[Tom]

An old Sartin compound factor from ContenderScan was TT averaged with second call(Contender Factor)...in this case, the 80 - 84 horse would get a 84 +(+4) for an 88. the 86-88 horse would get and 88+(+2)
for a 90. This factor has stood the test of time and a sign of improvment. I like to see this number improve over the last couple of races while the speed figure doesn't (ties in the stretch)
can show me an improving horse. A nice way to use this also is when a horse goes ffrom route to sprint and has one of the top two Contender Fators even though he look horrible in the late part of the routes.
I slos use it in conjucntion with late pace in turf races. I prefer my closers to be moving in the second fraction, not just the third.
I like to look at the two numbers together for the several closers to choose between them.

[VetScratch]

Tom,
An old Sartin compound factor from ContenderScan was TT averaged with second call(Contender Factor)...in this case, the 80 - 84 horse would get a 84 +(+4) for an 88. the 86-88 horse would get and 88+(+2) for a 90.

Then what am I missing, since.....
Horse-#1: TT=88=(2*(84-80))+80 (TT=88)
Horse-#2: TT=90=(2*(88-86))+86 (TT=90)
end up at the same place?

Our "TT-fig" incorporates the second call and can be used as the compound factor without further calculations. Where else do you use +4 and +2 so that it would be advantageous to retain these values as separate variables?

If you index variables that can range between let's say -20 and +20 and also index variables that range between let's say 70 and 110 you get the same relationships.

I get the nagging feeling that I am missing something?????

[Tom]

Originally posted by VetScratch
Tom,


Then what am I missing, since.....
Horse-#1: TT=88=(2*(84-80))+80 (TT=88)
Horse-#2: TT=90=(2*(88-86))+86 (TT=90)
end up at the same place?



No...not the same place. You are saying TT is 88 and 90 andI am saying TT+E2 is 88 and 90. I don't want the +2 +4 numbers as is..I want TT alone, in the same general scale. I want to be able to add TT+LP and come up with Sartin's Hidden Energy as well.

[VetScratch]

Tom,

Sorry for the confusion.

It's a nomenclature deal. We don't use the Sartin names for stuff, so I'm sorry to start confusion. Our "TT-fig" is not the same as what you want, "TT" (Sartin).

We use E1P plus twice the signed difference between E2P and E1P, where you want to use E2P and the signed difference to replicate a true Sartin variable.

Is it just coincidence that the final numbers are the same?

In any case, whether or not the final numbers are synchronized, we are not trying to use our number for the same purposes. We combine our "TT-fig" with LP+SR+HC and just call it a performance rating (where SR is BRIS speed rating and HC is BRIS horse-class rating). And the highest combined rating in a horse's season/career (known to us) is like a Rags season/career top in our way of thinking. In some cases, we could miss part of a horse's season/career if he doesn't appear in our downloads for ten straight races, but this almost never happens.

[VetScratch]

For any BRIS download user thinking about building a database that includes access by horse, when you process downloads, you should consider absorbing the overhead of re-examining past performances that already exist in your database. This enables you to pick up the occasional corrections and the more frequent revisions, as when, like Beyer figs, some BRIS ratings are subject to review and adjustment.