DRF vs. Brisnet - Why the price difference?

[jeebus1083]

I'm sure that upper management at DRF will disagree for philosophical and technical reasons - but I don't find DRF's Classic PPs at $2.95 much different than Brisnet's Premium Plus PPs at $1.00. Aside from a few cosmetic adjustments, a different version of speed figures, and the addition of Pace Figures/Race Shapes in Brisnet's basic product (I am aware that DRF has Moss Pace Figures in the Deluxe PPs), I can handicap a race card just as effectively with Brisnet, at nearly 1/3rd of the cost or sometimes less.

Last week, I wrote to Customer Service about this, and specifically stated that I have no interest in a volume subscription (which costs less per card over time), as I don't play every day and I'm not a multi-track player either. I received an e-mail response basically trying to sell me a volume subscription, when I stated before that I had no interest in one. The fact that this happened seems downright insulting. If I knew that I was going to get such a response, I wouldn't have bothered sending the e-mail in the first place.

IMO, DRF should reduce the price of their Classic (Basic) PP download from $2.95/card to either match your competitor (Brisnet) at $1.00/card, or beat them at $0.99/card. While I am a fan of the look and feel of DRF, I don't use the product as often because I find that I can get a better deal with Brisnet either with their $1.00/card, my 100% discount with a wager on Twinspires, or the free Ultimate (Deluxe) PP downloads from BrisWatch, by way of Whobet website, which more often than not, has all the races available for a regular card in NY. However, if DRF reduced the price of their single card downloads to either meet and/or beat Brisnet, I would reconsider my use of the Brisnet PPs, even if it meant forgoing the 100% Twinspires wagering discount.

It just stinks that I have to pay more to get basically the same information, and it doesn't make sense. Again, like I said, the suits at DRF would likely disagree, citing obvious "technical" innovations that make DRF better than Brisnet, I'm sure.

[cj]

I'm not sure customers are the best people to attempt to price the product of a vendor. If DRF thought that $1 was the best price, I'm sure they would go that route.

The fact many people will still pay the higher price probably says there "value added" information does actually have some value.

[jeebus1083]

The problem with that argument CJ (and please feel free to disagree), is that the "value added" information is basically in the Formulator Deluxe package. Not only does DRF sell the Moss Pace Figures as part of the Deluxe package, but they also sell the trainer stats that can be massaged six ways from Sunday, additional chart access, and race replays. This is where DRF beats Brisnet, and because DRF has a stranglehold on this corner of the market, I can't quarrel with their pricing of the Deluxe Formulator

However, I have to quarrel with their pricing of the Classic PPs, because I just don't think that Beyer Speed Figures and Tomlinson Ratings -- which are basically the only enhancements to the Classic DRF PPs that are different than what Brisnet offers (Brisnet includes their pace figs at all levels) -- warrant the product to be sold for the price that it is selling at. The numbers might be set up somewhat different, but when you work both sets of PPs, 99.9% of the time, you will basically produce the same contenders.

As far as people shelling out the added $ for DRF, it's all about familiarity. Until the 1990s, DRF was practically the entire PP industry until Equibase came into fruition, which is where the data for 99.9% of the industry comes from. People like the look and feel of DRF and were brought up on DRF. It's pretty damn hard to wean someone off an old friend. For some, it might be the fact that Beyer figures are in DRF, or Tomlinsons, but for most older players, I'm sure that it's because DRF is DRF, and that's a recognizable name.

I'm not sure customers are the best people to attempt to price the product of a vendor. If DRF thought that $1 was the best price, I'm sure they would go that route.

The fact many people will still pay the higher price probably says there "value added" information does actually have some value.

[Pell Mell]

And then there oddballs like me. I love the Bris condensed version because I don't need or use any of the figures or any of that other excessive info. I like the fact that the condensed version is all on one page and I don't have to flip back and forth with the pages. To each his own I guess.

[Beachbabe]

I bought the "Annual Plan" from DRF in April which was 60 cards (basic)for $119.95.
At $2.00 a card its better than the $2.95 you quoted .
When Gulfstream was open they offered the entire Gulfstream meet (80 cards) for around $60.

[jeebus1083]

The problem with volume subscriptions is that if you don't play every day, or if you don't play multiple tracks, are you really saving that much money? Honestly, I don't think that DRF's attitude should be "too bad, too sad" if you're looking to save a few bucks, yet refuse to buy a subscription.

I have that such problem. If I play a few times a week, that's a lot. I'll play more once Saratoga opens, because it's my "home" track (I live 8 miles from the track). However, what advantage do I get with a volume subscription that I won't use most of anyway? Whatever I don't use, I lose, and I essentially pay more anyway.

It's just convenient most of the time to get the $1 Brisnet, because I am saving money, while getting virtually the same amount of information. Over time, money adds up. That's fact. If I'm not getting any additional edge over Brisnet by purchasing a basic DRF, why should I have to pay an additional $1.95 for virtually the same data, less the Beyer Speed Figs and Tomlinson Ratings, which are derived differently, yet basically tell you the same story?

I bought the "Annual Plan" from DRF in April which was 60 cards (basic)for $119.95.
At $2.00 a card its better than the $2.95 you quoted .
When Gulfstream was open they offered the entire Gulfstream meet (80 cards) for around $60.

[rrbauer]

I'm not sure customers are the best people to attempt to price the product of a vendor. If DRF thought that $1 was the best price, I'm sure they would go that route.

The fact many people will still pay the higher price probably says there "value added" information does actually have some value.

It might also mean that the "creatures of habit" behavior extends to their choice of pp's as well as what tracks they play, etc. DRF has never been known for price reductions.

[SansuiSC]

People like the look and feel of DRF and were brought up on DRF. It's pretty damn hard to wean someone off an old friend.

I think you answered your own topic question right there.

[so.cal.fan]

The DRF does offer a Del Mar special deal and a Saratoga special deal, which is $1.00 a day, but you have to purchase the entire meet.
It's a good deal if you follow either of those tracks.

I wish they would do the same for all individual meets.
Offer the entire meet for $1.00 a day basic PP.

[Bettowin]

I think Thorograph should be $1 per card but that isn't going to happen:) As far as Brisnet vs DRF it took awhile to be able to feel as comfortable with Bris as I had been with DRF but now it's the opposite. Brisnet's price is perfect when you place a bet through Twinspires.

[cj]

It might also mean that the "creatures of habit" behavior extends to their choice of pp's as well as what tracks they play, etc. DRF has never been known for price reductions.

Don't get me wrong, I think the name DRF is a big part of it. They earned it over time, and they bought up the very popular Beyers and Tomlinsons. I'm just saying if DRF thought they could make more money by selling PPs for $1, they would sell PPs for $1. Customers are certainly free to choose another vendor since there are several.

[Mike_412]

I know it's a volume discount option, but doesn't the Public Handicapper site have some sort of past performance deal for DRF? Something like 100 Basic cards for $100 or 100 Deluxe cards for $150 that you have until the end of the year to use? I remember a friend telling me about it after I had already bought a package through DRF. That's a pretty good deal if I'm remembering the numbers and details right.

[Sericm]

I was brought up on the DRF and for years it has been the only thing I would use. I especially wanted the Beyers. Then when I got my computer and started checking out other products I took a look at the Bris net PP's.

In handicapping a race I go back no further than the last two races, using the best Beyer. I found that 9 out of 10 times the Bris Net prime power # would give you the same horses. At a savings of $1.95 a card, 10 cards a week thats a savings of $1014.00. I can play a lot of races for that amt. of money.

[lamboguy]

i got my option to pick what i want, i always choose the racing form even though i really don't use it. but i don't have to pay for any of these tools. i notice that they charge $2.95 for individual tracks. i am only getting the racing form on the tracks where the pace figures that i use don't carry. and they don't carry alot of tracks that i play.

[garyoz]

DRF has a big editorial staff to support and includes the paper product. Bris is part of the CDSN empire and is subsidized by the highly profitable Twinspires. Can't consider them in a vacuum. Also, Beyer figs are handmade to some extent. The Bris numbers are computer generated. I'm not taking sides in that I'm not a Beyer or Bris user. Just pointing out economic differences.

[PhantomOnTour]

All DRF has to go on is Beyers and old folks who are married to their style of pp's. BRIS offers much more data at a smaller price....NO BRAINER! I already went into the lack of customer service at DRF on another thread so I won't bore you with a reprisal. Plus, most ADW's will give you free pp's as long as you bet the card....another no brainer. Or you can do a search of a certain PA member and hit a link on his posts that will take you a free BRIS pp site.

Don't know what the future holds for DRF but they have lost me....customers go down while price goes up.

[WJ47]

I've used both, but I prefer DRF. I bet through Twinspires so I can get the BRIS for free if I wager on that track. I do have a monthly plan with DRF as I enjoy playing contests and different tracks. I can't do without my Formulator!

The DRF is expensive, but it is easier for me to read for some reason with my bad eyes. I handicap via DRF formulator on my tiny $200 netbook and its easier on my eyes than reading a paper form. I also like how I can switch back and forth between races without scrolling down.

[Bruddah]

Don't get me wrong, I think the name DRF is a big part of it. They earned it over time, and they bought up the very popular Beyers and Tomlinsons. I'm just saying if DRF thought they could make more money by selling PPs for $1, they would sell PPs for $1. Customers are certainly free to choose another vendor since there are several.

There's a simple mathmatical explanation for all this, DRF would need to sell 3x more at $1.00 than they do presently. All to generate the same revenue stream they do today at $2.95. The new customers they seek are presently paying $1.00 and are in the Bris column. DRF would erode the price structure and not capture any significant numbers from the Bris customer base. Seems like a futile and suicidal business plan to me. :lol:

[macdiarmida]

Against the alternative of buying a paper Form at 6 and half, what's to worry about if you apparently only want one track?

You've seen that pricing converges for DRF and Bris when you order many cards. I would hope you would agree there is a minimum cost for DRF for dispensing cards over the net. So rather than diluting that cost over the whole population of users (and charging them a little more), IMO DRF bean counters have decided that the group of very casual users carry their own costs. They are telling you de facto "You are strongly encouraged to buy more" or even "If you are a very casual user, it is not really worth it to bother with you." That's life.

Somebody will probably tell you to share the account with others to bring your cost down. I wouldn't do it. You'll hook up with someone who will expect you to print out their races for free, maybe even deliver it the night before. Woe to those who would print a crooked page or could not make the trip through freezing rain.

[Robert Goren]

On the rare times I wonder over to race track, I see very few forms, but a lot of this booklet of PP that they put out of equibase PP. The DRF cost $6.50 and you have buy 2 of them you want to bet both NY and CA. The booklet cost $3 and covers everything.

[Robert Fischer]

As far as people shelling out the added $ for DRF, it's all about familiarity. It's pretty damn hard to wean someone off an old friend. I think you answered your own topic question right there.


I think jeebus has some very strong points in this case, be it customer-to-vendor pricing or not.

We are grinding out the end of an era where the DRF enjoys a competitive advantage for being the "comfortable format" to many aging players. Another artificial market influence exists in the "on-track" market, compared with the adw/home players. On-track,the regular DRF has remained or become a "premium" product by most estimates.

[Robert Fischer]

On the rare times I wonder over to race track, I see very few forms, but a lot of this booklet of PP that they put out of equibase PP. The DRF cost $6.50 and you have buy 2 of them you want to bet both NY and CA. The booklet cost $3 and covers everything.

yea.

In the crazy isolated race-track market, DRF has become a luxury item.

[garyoz]

So PP's are to some extent a commodity. The DRF tries to product differentiate with Beyers, Moss Pace Figs, editorial content, etc.

I do think that the Deluxe PP's are very cool with the ability to watch the videos on the past races and the ability to do data queries on the trainer stats. Well worth the extra cost, or the full cost compared to free BRIS PP's--depending on how you handicap and your access to other data sources.

As I stated, I don't use Beyer's or Bris figures, but I think the computer generated figs from Bris are really bad. Bris reminds me of TVG, mediocre freebies to get you to wager.

[1GCFAN]

I have used both effectively but because I don't have a set system I want it in print. There is nothing like spreading out the form and handicapping from track to track. I do like the additional information that BRIS has when I am playing an unfamiliar venue like Indiana.

[jeebus1083]

I disagree with the assessment that PPs are "commodities". Equibase has the industry stronghold on data collection, yet sells the data to vendors (DRF, Brisnet, HDW, ITS, etc.), and leaves it up to each vendor as to how they "massage" the data for the masses.

In the old days, DRF was the de facto data collector for the entire industry, and their data was strictly proprietary. If someone dared to compete with DRF, they had to supply their own method of record keeping, which meant getting their own chart callers, and convincing racetracks to let them share the same room with the DRF chart callers - a gargantuan task considering that DRF could leverage their relationships with racetracks by threat of not allowing the paper to be sold at the track, which would have been disastrous for on-track business. As a result, competitors to the DRF didn't stand a chance. Because DRF basically cornered the market, they could sell for whatever price they wanted, because horseplayers didn't have much choice, aside from playing the picks in the paper or staring at horse's names and jockeys and trainers in the track program (which at that time didn't contain PPs). In that era, data was "gold".

Fast forward to 2010. Equibase -- a conglomerate run by and supported by the racing industry itself -- supplanted DRF as the industry's de facto data collector sometime around the mid 1990s. Instead of putting DRF out of business, which they could have in the final years prior to Steve Crist's takeover if they really wanted to, they took a different approach and sold data to whoever wanted it. The comments, running line margins, and placements that you read in DRF are now the same as you see in Brisnet, which are the same as you see with HDW, etc. Much like an overbet 2/5 shot, the data from Equibase is everywhere, simply modified slightly by each vendor to protect against possible lawsuits. The value of the information is no longer worth what it was in the prehistoric era. Everyone has access now, and it has created a large-scale market where these vendors need to price their products very competitively.

As an industry, racing has been very slow to adapt to change. In my honest opinion, DRF is the same way. Check out the evolution of the PPs from the DRF from 1894 to the present day and you would know what I mean. Although Steve Crist played a huge role in bringing DRF into the 21st century, the reality is that Equibase and Brisnet - and in a large way, The Racing Times - were the pioneers, and brought some of the common tools that are now a key part of DRF PPs into the mainstream. What saved DRF from extinction was their name recognition within the industry. If any other vendor attempted to dish out what DRF was dishing out, they would never have made it. The attitude to this day however still seems like "we still have the name, so lets run with it", even if people agree or disagree that the DRF product is inferior enough that it should be priced the same as Brisnet.


So PP's are to some extent a commodity. The DRF tries to product differentiate with Beyers, Moss Pace Figs, editorial content, etc.

I do think that the Deluxe PP's are very cool with the ability to watch the videos on the past races and the ability to do data queries on the trainer stats. Well worth the extra cost, or the full cost compared to free BRIS PP's--depending on how you handicap and your access to other data sources.

As I stated, I don't use Beyer's or Bris figures, but I think the computer generated figs from Bris are really bad. Bris reminds me of TVG, mediocre freebies to get you to wager.

[PhantomOnTour]

By the way, it's been almost six days since my issue with a DRF pp plan that I bought and I have yet to speak with someone regarding this. Good luck folks if you are dealing with them........

[jeebus1083]

By the way, it's been almost six days since my issue with a DRF pp plan that I bought and I have yet to speak with someone regarding this. Good luck folks if you are dealing with them........

I've never really had an issue with Customer Service taking forever and a day to get back. The only issue is Customer Service giving me an answer that I didn't want to hear :)

[thaskalos]

I've never really had an issue with Customer Service taking forever and a day to get back. The only issue is Customer Service giving me an answer that I didn't want to hear :) If you can handicap just as effectively using the Bris PPs, and you really don't see a difference in quality between them and the DRF...then I don't see the reason for your frustration. Stay with Bris and save some money in the process.

Contacting DRF's customer service and requesting a price reduction - because you don't find that their product is better than another cheaper product - is of questionable taste IMO.

Like someone else stated previously...there are alot of options out there...we are not forced to buy things that we feel we don't need.

[jeebus1083]

It's principle, thaskalos. I mentioned that I like the look and feel of DRF, hence I'd rather use DRF.

In most retail, places will meet and beat the price of products that are similar. IMO, Brisnet and DRF are similar, although the makeup of their PPs are different in some minor ways, minor ways that are merely cosmetic.

If I could pay $1 for a DRF, I would jettison Brisnet in a heartbeat. I just like the feel of DRF better, that's all.

If you can handicap just as effectively using the Bris PPs, and you really don't see a difference in quality between them and the DRF...then I don't see the reason for your frustration. Stay with Bris and save some money in the process.

Contacting DRF's customer service and requesting a price reduction - because you don't find that their product is better than another cheaper product - is of questionable taste IMO.

Like someone else stated previously...there are alot of options out there...we are not forced to buy things that we feel we don't need.

[dav4463]

I don't win unless I use the DRF.

[proximity]

It's principle, thaskalos. I mentioned that I like the look and feel of DRF, hence I'd rather use DRF.
.

if you download the bris pp generator software, you can get the $1 data files and create a pp profile that when applied will print the pps almost exactly the way you want them. you can print or not print almost whatever you want or don't want.... and even move things around if you want them in a different spot in the pps. of course you can also choose how many pacelines you wish to print for each horse (up to 10, i think). unfortunately if you buy a data file, i don't think they'll refund it if you bet through twinspires, but i could even be wrong about that.

[proximity]

also with the $1 bris data files and pp generator software, you could enter your quirin pace-speed numbers into the "race notes" for ALL of the races you've made quirin figures for and when the horses run back, these numbers will appear on your pps if you want them to.

i know in the past that you could ONLY enter notes for a card you'd purchased with drf, although this could have recently changed.

[nalley0710]

Ive been downloading BRIS files ever since you had to use a modem and dos to download them. I actually was signed onto the service by a live-in girlfriend who was pissed that I would go to the liquor store for my racing form and "disappear" for hours. I never found out how she discovered BRIS but one day when I was about to disappear she said "Oh, they're printed and sitting on my desk." . I have been intrigued by the formulator and how they have lifetime pps ever since I saw it at the expo years ago. I used to use both the lifetime pps in drf and bris premium pps w/ race comment. Does anyone know the cheapest to get formulator files and if they have lifetime pps for every horse?

[jeebus1083]

Unfortunately, Brisnet does not allow you to view the lifetime PPs in the PP Generator. However, DRF allows you to access a horse's lifetime PP in Formulator. It was neat in the old days to see horses that ran in the mid-to-late 1990s who were still knocking heads in 2002-2003-2004.

As far as cheap ways of getting Formulator, there is none, except if you buy a volume subscription. The Basic Formulator is the same price as the PDF PPs for $2.95. The Deluxe Formulator is much more.

[Fingal]

Don't get me wrong, I think the name DRF is a big part of it. They earned it over time, and they bought up the very popular Beyers and Tomlinsons. I'm just saying if DRF thought they could make more money by selling PPs for $1, they would sell PPs for $1. Customers are certainly free to choose another vendor since there are several.

Comfort, name recognition & habit is a bigger thing than most people realize. Why does the DRF charge more ? It's like any business, because they can & people will pay it. When someone goes to the supermarket why do they buy the name brand vs. the store product which is the same thing & is really a better buy ? Because of perception. I grew up using the DRF, but the constant price increases for a hard copy along with the advent of computers made the switch to BRIS easy. It seems I haven't used a form or any DRF product in probably close to 20 years.

[markgoldie]

Here's my 2 cents on the subject:

As stated by others, the Beyer numbers are generally superior to the Bris Spd. numbers. The Moss paceline numbers are also superior to the Bris pace numbers.

But, Bris offers some features that are missing in the DRF: One is the Prime Power number. This number has been talked about quite a bit on the forum, so I won't rehash all of that. I have looked at it for so many years now that I have essentially reverse-engineered it to the degree that I can generally predict what it will be. However, I still find it useful in several ways: (1) The gap between the top PP number horse and the second PP number horse will usually predict the degree of favortism of the top-numbered animal. That is, the PP black box is close enough to those used by whale groups, that it will predict the degree of favortism with reliability. Consequently, when a PP advantage of say, 5 points or more is not being heavily wagered as the favorite, you have an almost automatic way of identifying a horse who is "dead on the board." This is particularly true at 1 min. to post. (2) The PP number is valuable as a check of your own handicapping. If a number seems out of whack, I will scruntinize the horse more carefully. Sometimes I will see what the PP number is driving at and maybe it was something I missed. On the other hand, if I can't find the source of the anomaly, I have no problem going against the PP ranking. (3) If you play complex verticals, you can use the PP designation as a reasonably effective tie breaker among the suporting cast. Often, when I get to the third or fourth leg, I will have more than one horse who looks identical to me based on my own handicapping. In such cases I will use the PP number as a tie breaker if there is a reasonable PP strength difference in the tied horses. And I can't complain about the results of doing so. (Of course, the odds of the tied subjects also comes into play here).

Secondly, the Bris Race Summary is an invaluable tool for someone like me who plays multi-track situational. Why? Because it gives you the initial layout of the race all on one page. And even for other type players, the idea that a comprehensive set of numbers is presented in a single-page condensed form would seem very useful. Otherwise, as with DRF, as you handicap, you need to make your own notes (at least I do) to rank the field as you scroll down this long, protracted number of lines that comprise the past performances of the individual horses. Maybe you have the memory to recall what horse #1's lines looked like after going through nine or ten other horses, but I don't. So if I don't make time-consuming notes, I am scrolling up and down endlessly. With the Bris summary, I make the notes on the single page and I can see the layout of the possibilities at a glance- extremely important to me. Why DRF doesn't do something like this is a mystery, but I suppose they depend on the Beyer and Moss numbers to keep their customers coming back.

Thirdly, the track bias and running-style bias impact values done by Bris are an essential tool for me. Also, the post-position biases are essential. Anyone using DRF who does not have access to these stats is playing with a short deck in my opinion. Again, the Bris summary lines up the entire field with Quirin speed points which gives you an immediate handle on the prospective pace profile of the race. And so if you use DRF, you have to construct your own pace profile for the race. Even if you do, you may not realize that playing an S(0) type in a slow-paced race where the impact value of such runners is .50 or less (in all types of prospective paced races), is wasted money.

In short, if the Beyer and Moss numbers were not important, you could totally jettison the DRF with no loss of efficiency. As it is, I need to use both. The prices for the subscription plans at both web sites are reasonable if you bet any kind of money on a monthly basis since cashing one or two extra races can more than pay for the subscriptions, especially if you realize that you will have to be using one or the other anyway. So there's only one additional cost to consider.

[turfnsport]

DRF offers a variety of annual plans for ANY type horseplayer. from 10 cards per year to unlimited.

For instance:

60 cards per year for $119.95 ($2 per card).

Using Formulator for me saves me hours each week.

I think back to the days where I clipped charts and did trainer stats by hand, and I don't know how I did it.

For me DRF Formulator blows away BRIS.

[PhantomOnTour]

DRF offers a variety of annual plans for ANY type horseplayer. from 10 cards per year to unlimited.

For instance:

60 cards per year for $119.95 ($2 per card).

Using Formulator for me saves me hours each week.

I think back to the days where I clipped charts and did trainer stats by hand, and I don't know how I did it.

For me DRF Formulator blows away BRIS.
I hear ya brother...I have an extensive file of winning pp's filed by trainer for NY going back to 2007. I was both happy and sad when DRF intro'd the trainer stuff in Formulator. Time was saved, but an edge was lost.

You can also get sibling reports in Formulator. The convenience of trainer stats, replays, charts, jock stats, and manipulation of the pp's (merge workouts, show incremental splits, include Moss figs) all in one place is mighty handy. The quality of DRF Formulator pp's and the unique info they contain cannot be questioned imo. It's just a matter of whether you think their price is worth it.

[turfnsport]

Yes, I forgot to mention the Sibling Summary...that is a huge time saver and a very valuable report (at least for me).

[jeebus1083]

I don't mind using the regular DRF, that is, the Non-Formulator version of the program. I can get by just fine with that version when I'm playing casually the rest of the year. It's meets like Saratoga where the Formulator version is invaluable. Even if I don't use most of the bells and whistles, Its great in a pinch if I'm interested in something related to the race (key races, a trainer stat) which will help me further filter contenders from non-contenders.

As I said, Formulator has its niche in the market, so I can't argue how they price that product. I do however, argue their pricing on the regular PPs, and I've stated my case as to why I feel that the price for that particular product should be lowered. Yes, it's about familiarity for many, but I do wonder how many people, despite their loyalty to DRF over the years, are really peeved about the constant price increases, yet remain quiet?

I have worked for retail for several years, and if a competitor is selling a product that is more or less the same as our product (same functions, different look), we'll meet the price. It's good customer service. We don't tell these people that if they don't think our price is fair, use the competitor. You not only lose customer loyalty, but you also lose potential sales, as people do talk, and will tell people that we were not interested in their business. Lots of times, people will turn to a certain retail outlet as a last resort, so its up to that retailer to build the relationship and keep them.

I just don't think charging $2.95 for a product that is essentially the same as a $1 product from a competitor is good customer service from a moral standpoint, and its not good from a support standpoint.

[markgoldie]

Couple of other things came to mind:

The Beyer numbers are based on a lower scale than the Bris numbers. This means that if you play cheaper races (and I'm not saying you should or shouldn't), often there is no way of separating a group of Beyer horses with 0 figs based on final speed considerations. On the higher Bris scale, I have seen these animals rated in negative figures all the way up to 50. So there can be extreme speed separations on the Bris scale where as on the Beyer scale there is none.

Also, the DRF Formulator gives no numerical assessment of the strength of a given field. Bris does. Granted it is based on an algorithm of the speed-strength of the contenders and may not be perfectly indicative of field quality. However, if you believe (as I do) that final speed numbers are affected by the strength of the field in which the animal competes, this assessment is crucial. Yes. It is possible for an ambitious handicapper with extreme time and effort to make his own assessments of field strengths so as to apply them to performances in those fields. But if you handicap in this sort of depth, you are already out of the league of most mortals.

[Canarsie]

I have a crazy idea hammer away at me. I really don't care for TVG except for a few ( well maybe 5) analysts and all access. But if Betfair really wanted to increase their customer base they buy the DRF and do the same deal as those getting Brisnet for free. My guess would be a whole bunch of gamblers would open accounts with them just to get it at no cost. Of course they could even say you have to wager $20 at a track that really won't make a difference.

Of course I live in NJ and wouldn't be able to take advantage of it if I could :bang:

[Light]

The Moss paceline numbers are also superior to the Bris pace numbers.



Personally, the main reason for Bris preferability is the programming option and the pace numbers. The vast majority of races are won by the top 2 E2 or LP horses and Moss's pace ratings are incomplete. Moss numbers only give you the E2 pace call of a race and not the final call (LP). What good is that unless you only play speed horses? I found this out last January when my partner in the DRF NHC decided to embrace them and we found this blatant flaw. Why an incomplete pace rating is so popular is beyond me.

[markgoldie]

Personally, the main reason for Bris preferability is the programming option and the pace numbers. The vast majority of races are won by the top 2 E2 or LP horses and Moss's pace ratings are incomplete. Moss numbers only give you the E2 pace call of a race and not the final call (LP). What good is that unless you only play speed horses? I found this out last January when my partner in the DRF NHC decided to embrace them and we found this blatant flaw. Why an incomplete pace rating is so popular is beyond me.
Maybe I'm missing something, but the Moss pace figures I'm looking at give incremental pace numbers at 3 calls for 6f and less and 4 calls at > 6f.

[cj]

Personally, the main reason for Bris preferability is the programming option and the pace numbers. The vast majority of races are won by the top 2 E2 or LP horses and Moss's pace ratings are incomplete. Moss numbers only give you the E2 pace call of a race and not the final call (LP). What good is that unless you only play speed horses? I found this out last January when my partner in the DRF NHC decided to embrace them and we found this blatant flaw. Why an incomplete pace rating is so popular is beyond me.

Well, it is missing in print, but basic math makes it pretty simple to figure out the LP if given the EP and the speed figure.

[Light]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the Moss pace figures I'm looking at give incremental pace numbers at 3 calls for 6f and less and 4 calls at > 6f.

It's misleading. The 3 calls are not all pace numbers.The final figure of the 3 figs displayed is the Moss final time rating, not a late pace rating.

[Light]

Well, it is missing in print, but basic math makes it pretty simple to figure out the LP if given the EP and the speed figure.

I suppose, but you are paying $4.50 a track mainly to use Moss's supposed superior pace ratings which people like me and MG would assume are complete. Instead you would end up having to do alot of math yourself just to get a horse's LP. At Monmouth that's like 100 horse's LP's alone just to figure out. Then you have to sort them to find out who the top LP horses are. That's a joke and poor customer service on DRF's part while charging a premium price.

[cj]

It's misleading. The 3 calls are not all pace numbers.The final figure of the 3 figs displayed is the Moss final time rating, not a late pace rating.

Not true. They are pace numbers. 6f races have a 2f, 4f, and final figure. 7f races have 2f, 4f, 6f, and final. Races up to 1 1/16th mile have 2f, 4f, 6f, and final. Races at 9f have 4f, 6f, 1m, and final.

[cj]

I suppose, but you are paying $4.50 a track mainly to use Moss's supposed superior pace ratings which people like me and MG would assume are complete. Instead you would end up having to do alot of math yourself just to get a horse's LP. At Monmouth that's like 100 horse's LP's alone just to figure out. Then you have to sort them to find out who the top LP horses are. That's a joke and poor customer service on DRF's part while charging a premium price.

I agree they should include them.

Upon further thought, the way Moss does pace figures would make this tough. He uses "raw speed" instead of relating the pace figure to final time. That would make a big difference, and make it very difficult to come up with LP figures.

[markgoldie]

It's misleading. The 3 calls are not all pace numbers.The final figure of the 3 figs displayed is the Moss final time rating, not a late pace rating.
Never realized that, probably because it's not something that I generally use. I use the pace figures for early speed possibilities, but I use the Beyer numers for final speed figs. But interestingly, what you are saying means that Moss is producing a competing final speed fig to the Beyer number. Hmmm... why would DRF want that?

[Robert Fischer]

I suppose, but you are paying $4.50 a track mainly to use Moss's supposed superior pace ratings which people like me and MG would assume are complete. Instead you would end up having to do alot of math yourself just to get a horse's LP. At Monmouth that's like 100 horse's LP's alone just to figure out. Then you have to sort them to find out who the top LP horses are. That's a joke and poor customer service on DRF's part while charging a premium price.

I don't get this line of thinking.

If it was me, without knowing additional info, I would prefer the data not be available and have to do my own late calculations using the first calls and final figure. Logically using a readily available pace figure would have little parimutuel value. However I could imagine some value in scenarios such as methods that don't use direct figures straight from the source, but instead use a "method" which would then only add inconvenience by having an incomplete LP figure.

[Light]

what you are saying means that Moss is producing a competing final speed fig to the Beyer number. Hmmm... why would DRF want that?

Not really. Its only reconstituted Beyer to Moss. Here's what DRF says about that:

" The Final Time Pace Figure is simply that horse's Beyer Speed Figure converted to the Moss Pace Figure Scale."

http://www1.drf.com/products/moss/mossreport.html

You can also see by the pace chart in the link that when they give you the 3rd figure in a 6f race,(for example) it cannot be a pace rating because the chart shows there is no Moss 3rd pace rating in a 6f race. The 3rd fig will be the "PF", a final time pace fig which is a reconstituted Beyer number. This whole Moss stuff is suspect. They act like its "new" but it looks like its just different packaging of an older product.

[harness2008]

The Moss final time figure is the equivalent of the final time Beyer figure. There is no discrepancy in the final time figures for both formats. They both are equal though on a different scale.

Now whether or not you can use the Moss pace figures and come up with the comparable Beyer pace figure, that I am not sure about. However if you use regression on your calculator and use the comparisons between Moss and Beyer as given by the DRF you can come up with the comparable Beyer pace figures using the Moss scale as a base.

The reason that I am not so sure that the internal Moss pace figures stack up with the comparable Beyer pace figs is that Moss also shows you how fast or slow in lengths or is it points each fraction is in relation to par and sometimes I see that things don't match up the way that they should.

[Light]

I don't get this line of thinking.

I would prefer the data not be available and have to do my own late calculations using the first calls and final figure. Logically using a readily available pace figure would have little parimutuel value. However I could imagine some value in scenarios such as methods that don't use direct figures straight from the source, but instead use a "method" which would then only add inconvenience by having an incomplete LP figure.

If I paid $4.50 for pace figs per track, I want all the pace figs including the LP's. Let them do the work, cause that's what I'm paying them for. I disagree that having the LP's would affect the parimutuel values of horses. By far, it is the speed ratings that most affect parimutuel values.

[cj]

The Moss final time figure is the equivalent of the final time Beyer figure. There is no discrepancy in the final time figures for both formats. They both are equal though on a different scale.


This is true, and it is also a big flaw in the Moss figures. He uses the Beyer final figure (and variant), but MANY times the Beyer is "broken out" from the other races because of aberrant pace scenarios.

For example, maybe all the sprints on a card are given a 10 FAST variant, but there is one race smack in the middle that is given a 0 FAST (EVEN), so the figure is 10 points faster than if the other variant was used.

I would say at least 80% of the time this is done, the pace had a big effect on final time.

Here is an example of five 6f sprints with raw pace/speed figures and "projection":

92 90 : 80
68 70 : 58
85 55 : 55
80 80 : 71
45 55 : 46

So, you have projected variants of FAST 10, FAST 12, EVEN, FAST 9, FAST 9. Ignoring the EVEN, the daily variant would be about FAST 10. However, instead of giving the middle race a final figure of 45, often times it will be given the 55. It is obvious to those that make pace figures why the race was slow, but not so to a final time only figure maker.

The problem with this is Moss just uses the same variant. Now, instead of a FAST 10 variant for the race, thus a 75-45 pace/speed figure combo, it will get an 85-55.

I probably lost a bunch of people and I apologize, but the BIG PROBLEM with Moss numbers is that the same person is not making the pace and the speed figures. It just doesn't make sense, and there are lots more errors than if one person did both.

[markgoldie]

Not really. Its only reconstituted Beyer to Moss. Here's what DRF says about that:

" The Final Time Pace Figure is simply that horse's Beyer Speed Figure converted to the Moss Pace Figure Scale."

http://www1.drf.com/products/moss/mossreport.html

You can also see by the pace chart in the link that when they give you the 3rd figure in a 6f race,(for example) it cannot be a pace rating because the chart shows there is no Moss 3rd pace rating in a 6f race. The 3rd fig will be the "PF", a final time pace fig which is a reconstituted Beyer number. This whole Moss stuff is suspect. They act like its "new" but it looks like its just different packaging of an older product.
Well, if that's what they're trying to do, they're doing a pretty poor job of it.

Here is a random example from today's EVD card. Same horse, consecutive races:

Race 1: Beyer 28 Moss 66
Race 2: Beyer 36 Moss 69

The increase in Beyer number from race 1 to race 2 is 28.5%
The increase in corresponding Moss number is 4.5%

Same horse two other consecutive lines:

Race 1: Beyer 29 Moss 67
Race 2: Beyer 31 Moss 67

Increase in Beyer number is 6.9% Moss is 0 and the Moss numbers are on a greater scale. I'm sure I could find more blatant anomalies if I felt like digging. This was simply the first horse in front of me when I read your post.

[cj]

Well, if that's what they're trying to do, they're doing a pretty poor job of it.

Here is a random example from today's EVD card. Same horse, consecutive races:

Race 1: Beyer 28 Moss 66
Race 2: Beyer 36 Moss 69

The increase in Beyer number from race 1 to race 2 is 28.5%
The increase in corresponding Moss number is 4.5%

Same horse two other consecutive lines:

Race 1: Beyer 29 Moss 67
Race 2: Beyer 31 Moss 67

Increase in Beyer number is 6.9% Moss is 0 and the Moss numbers are on a greater scale. I'm sure I could find more blatant anomalies if I felt like digging. This was simply the first horse in front of me when I read your post.

The scale for Moss is MUCH tighter than the Beyer scale. It is also raised so that very slow horses don't have lots of negative numbers. There is a reason these numbers haven't caught on, there are a lot of issues.

[garyoz]

If I paid $4.50 for pace figs per track, I want all the pace figs including the LP's. Let them do the work, cause that's what I'm paying them for. I disagree that having the LP's would affect the parimutuel values of horses. By far, it is the speed ratings that most affect parimutuel values.

CJ is the expert, but I think pace figures are far more complicated than final speed figs. Personally, I don't trust the Bris computer generated pace figs. I would never wager money based upon them. Eye-balling the raw splits in the context of the running position seems more useful to me.

I don't understand how to use the Moss pace figures. They don't make intuitive sense to me--and I've been happy with Cary Fotias' pace figures when I've used them. But, the equiform approach to pace figs is really in a different league. The problem is they take on a methodology of their own.

[fmolf]

CJ is the expert, but I think pace figures are far more complicated than final speed figs. Personally, I don't trust the Bris computer generated pace figs. I would never wager money based upon them. Eye-balling the raw splits in the context of the running position seems more useful to me.

I don't understand how to use the Moss pace figures. They don't make intuitive sense to me--and I've been happy with Cary Fotias' pace figures when I've used them. But, the equiform approach to pace figs is really in a different league. The problem is they take on a methodology of their own.
I love the bris and use their pace figs in a general way to determine race shape and who will sit where.....True pace handicappers are using velocity anyway to handicap the race.Bris offers so much value compared to drf.I use their class ratings and their race ratings in conjunction with the acl rating in the race summary...drf offers none of these pieces of the puzzle,so for a comprehensive handicapper like me bris is the way to go.

[garyoz]

I love the bris and use their pace figs in a general way to determine race shape and who will sit where.....True pace handicappers are using velocity anyway to handicap the race.Bris offers so much value compared to drf.I use their class ratings and their race ratings in conjunction with the acl rating in the race summary...drf offers none of these pieces of the puzzle,so for a comprehensive handicapper like me bris is the way to go.

Great they work for you. That's all that matters. As far as being a "comprehensive handicapper" that is a relative and personal term. Comprehensive may refer to methodologies that go far beyond computer generated class, race, speed and pace ratings ratings. I still think you get what you pay for, but value is in the eye of the user.

[letswastemoney]

I think they might have fixed this...but it wasn't too long ago BRIS was treating dirt races and synthetic races as the same thing. That always bugged me.

[harness2008]

Well then, since all horseplayers no matter what pace figures that they use are basically working in the dark with some obvious errors inherent in their calculation of the pace numbers. So do we just accept what seems to work for us in regards to pace figures whether purchased or comprised by our own calculations or are there methods out there at a reasonable price that can provide an accurate assessment of the internal pace in terms of figures? This is a thorny question which I don't believe has a correct answer.

I personally have used par time tables for years which can match up a typical final time with its pace call equivalent. In fact I've used it on the Beyer scale however Beyer has his problems with figures at times also.

[thespaah]

I disagree. Consumers decide the marketplace.
If two products are of similar value with one being priced 2/3rds lower than the other ,obviously the lower priced one will sell more briskly. It is up to the producer to react to the desires of the consumer and act accordingly or face loss of business. Essentially, this is how we the consumer can have some control of the marketplace.
There is no comparison or analogy that can usurp this observation.
I have found the Bris and DRF PP's to be equally useful. SOme may desire the addtional information included with the DRF's. I do not. SO the BRIS PP's work best for me.
At the end of the day DRF managment may very well believe their presentation and the addtional figures are worth more to the user and thus the price point appropriate.

[Robert Fischer]

If I paid $4.50 for pace figs per track, I want all the pace figs including the LP's. Let them do the work, cause that's what I'm paying them for. I disagree that having the LP's would affect the parimutuel values of horses. By far, it is the speed ratings that most affect parimutuel values.

Well, I can certainly understand frustration when analyzing the pace figs, and realizing that there was no "late" fig.:ThmbUp:

[Robert Fischer]

Well then, since all horseplayers no matter what pace figures that they use are basically working in the dark with some obvious errors inherent in their calculation of the pace numbers. So do we just accept what seems to work for us in regards to pace figures whether purchased or comprised by our own calculations or are there methods out there at a reasonable price that can provide an accurate assessment of the internal pace in terms of figures? This is a thorny question which I don't believe has a correct answer.

I personally have used par time tables for years which can match up a typical final time with its pace call equivalent. In fact I've used it on the Beyer scale however Beyer has his problems with figures at times also.

:ThmbUp:
given that the scienc3 and technology of pace figs are still in a "dark age",
and given that insight of internal pace is an untapped resource...

could be interesting:cool:

[markgoldie]

This is true, and it is also a big flaw in the Moss figures. He uses the Beyer final figure (and variant), but MANY times the Beyer is "broken out" from the other races because of aberrant pace scenarios.

For example, maybe all the sprints on a card are given a 10 FAST variant, but there is one race smack in the middle that is given a 0 FAST (EVEN), so the figure is 10 points faster than if the other variant was used.

I would say at least 80% of the time this is done, the pace had a big effect on final time.

Here is an example of five 6f sprints with raw pace/speed figures and "projection":

92 90 : 80
68 70 : 58
85 55 : 55
80 80 : 71
45 55 : 46

So, you have projected variants of FAST 10, FAST 12, EVEN, FAST 9, FAST 9. Ignoring the EVEN, the daily variant would be about FAST 10. However, instead of giving the middle race a final figure of 45, often times it will be given the 55. It is obvious to those that make pace figures why the race was slow, but not so to a final time only figure maker.

The problem with this is Moss just uses the same variant. Now, instead of a FAST 10 variant for the race, thus a 75-45 pace/speed figure combo, it will get an 85-55.

I probably lost a bunch of people and I apologize, but the BIG PROBLEM with Moss numbers is that the same person is not making the pace and the speed figures. It just doesn't make sense, and there are lots more errors than if one person did both.
I believe you have successfully isolated the reason that the Moss final speed numbers do not match the Beyer number- the Moss numbers do not use projections. In that sense, the Moss final speed numbers should be very similar to the Bris Speed number, because Bris does not (as far as I'm aware) use projections for "smoothing" apparent anomalous numbers.

I suppose it might be reasonably said that the quality of a number-maker's projections in major part dictates the quality of the number itself. That is, cranking out pars from a data base, cranking out variants from the pars, and applying the variant to the animal's final time is a piece of cake for a computer program. So the value-added artful part of number construction is making sense of anomalies and thereby not assigning impossible or even implausible numbers.

That being said, while I am a big believer in the existence and random appearance of anomalous race times, I do not believe that they are particularly pace-based in nature. In fact, I believe there is overwhelming evidence in both the literature and in empirical fact that unusually fast paces will generally lead to slower final times. (We've discussed this on the forum before and I certainly do not want to reopen it here). However, it is quite true that an anomalously slow race will tend to feature an anomalously slow pace. In such case, the fig will need adjustment. What I'm saying, though, is that the source of the anomaly is not the unusually slow pace.

[cj]

I believe you have successfully isolated the reason that the Moss final speed numbers do not match the Beyer number- the Moss numbers do not use projections. In that sense, the Moss final speed numbers should be very similar to the Bris Speed number, because Bris does not (as far as I'm aware) use projections for "smoothing" apparent anomalous numbers.



I think you misunderstood. Moss does, in fact, use the actual BEYER speed figure. He does not make the variant. He just runs it through a standard conversion to put it on his scale. I've never bothered trying to figure out the conversion, but it appears pretty simple to me. Maybe I'll work it out tonight. The scale is much tighter. While Beyer may go from 0 to 125, Moss might be 40 to 100.

Just to be clear, the Moss final figure is the Beyer final figure, just converted to a new scale.

So, he is using whatever the Beyer group comes up with for a variant. This is what I was saying, when Beyer "breaks out a race", it can cause big issues with the pace numbers.

[formula_2002]

coming on late here.
how well do the figures you fellows are talking about describe "Christmas Future".
with respect to say, Bris Prime Power figure what's the ratio of roi's

using roi's in about 1270 races.
for example, using my top n228 composite figure, favorites out performs BPP's by 1.034,
my top n155 composite figure, favorites outperforms BPP's by 1.07.

My best performance uses the n155 for all horses, regardless of odds ranking. there the n155 roi ratio is 1.09.

the n155 and the n228 are the back bones for my "LTCP" plays which produce a publicly posted positive roi, and seem to be able to continue to do so.

[Light]

the Moss numbers do not use projections.

That's one thing I don't like about Beyer numbers. Just give me the facts and I'll make the projections, thank you. And I'll decide if a projection is warranted. That way if I'm wrong, I can blame myself. But when you have different people in different parts of the country making adjustments to Beyer figs the odds are they are going to be flawed somewhere if not everywhere and I don't want to pay for them at the checkout and at the windows.

Bris figs also leave alot to be desired as well as any other fig source. But I don't think the differences in data error between these different sources is enough to warrant paying double or triple to one company over the other. The only thing someone is paying for between different data forms is personal preference,not quality,and that goes for ANY source. I have not seen any proof to the contrary, just opinion.

[harness2008]

I think you misunderstood. Moss does, in fact, use the actual BEYER speed figure. He does not make the variant. He just runs it through a standard conversion to put it on his scale. I've never bothered trying to figure out the conversion, but it appears pretty simple to me. Maybe I'll work it out tonight. The scale is much tighter. While Beyer may go from 0 to 125, Moss might be 40 to 100.

Just to be clear, the Moss final figure is the Beyer final figure, just converted to a new scale.

So, he is using whatever the Beyer group comes up with for a variant. This is what I was saying, when Beyer "breaks out a race", it can cause big issues with the pace numbers.



According to DRF:

Moss 100 = Beyer 120
Moss 56 = Beyer 0

Moss fig X 2.73 - 152.73 = Beyer (some error due to rounding)

Does Moss use this tighter scale as a so called benefit to all subscribers so as to avoid seeing horses with possible negative pace or final time numbers? I don't see it much as a benefit if that is his reasoning, it just seems to cloud the picture a bit more. I can circumvent the disparity between the two but does the average fan have any idea how to? At a time when racing needs more patrons it seems like its a 1 step ahead, 2 steps back method.

[jeebus1083]

When comparing the Classic DRF PPs to Brisnet Premium Plus PPs, there really isn't much additional information. If anything, Brisnet offers slightly more in their basic publication (Prime Power, Pace/Race Shape figures, additional published workouts) than DRF does in theirs. Just like how some may see no benefit to Brisnet's enhancements, some see no benefit to Beyer Speed Figures. When it comes down to it, both sets of PPs are on equal footing.

If the philosophy at DRF is that $2.95 for a basic card is more than fair based on A) name recognition of the brand, B) the reluctance of the elder set to switch to another, less expensive publication, and C) Beyer Speed Figures, then not enough people are coming forward to complain, instead letting the status quo influence the pricing in this market.

I think people need to let DRF know -- loud and clear -- that if competitors can sell essentially the same set of data for much, much less, they should be able to do the same. It's not like the racing industry is booming right now either. Now, I doubt that lowering the price of DRF to a buck is going to bring in a new generation of racing fans, but it would be an appropriate nod by DRF that the demand for this industry is in a decline, and because of that, basic past performance information should not be priced at a premium. I'm sure that there's an audience of horseplayers who abandoned DRF years ago due to cost who would go back. Rather than sit back and let people be at their own device, DRF should be trying to get those customers back!

DRF and Brisnet should be equally priced for the basic product. Let the horseplayer market decide. Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. Winner gets bragging rights.

I disagree. Consumers decide the marketplace.
If two products are of similar value with one being priced 2/3rds lower than the other ,obviously the lower priced one will sell more briskly. It is up to the producer to react to the desires of the consumer and act accordingly or face loss of business. Essentially, this is how we the consumer can have some control of the marketplace.
There is no comparison or analogy that can usurp this observation.
I have found the Bris and DRF PP's to be equally useful. SOme may desire the addtional information included with the DRF's. I do not. SO the BRIS PP's work best for me.
At the end of the day DRF managment may very well believe their presentation and the addtional figures are worth more to the user and thus the price point appropriate.

[miesque]

I have a crazy idea hammer away at me. I really don't care for TVG except for a few ( well maybe 5) analysts and all access. But if Betfair really wanted to increase their customer base they buy the DRF and do the same deal as those getting Brisnet for free. My guess would be a whole bunch of gamblers would open accounts with them just to get it at no cost. Of course they could even say you have to wager $20 at a track that really won't make a difference.

Of course I live in NJ and wouldn't be able to take advantage of it if I could :bang:

Interesting idea and I see where you are coming from. Churchill Downs purchased both Brisbet and Brisnet back in 2007 for $80 Million (so in other words an ADW and a data provider). Private venture captial firm Arlington Capital purchased DRF for a price reported between $170-200 Million from Wicks Capital (another venture capital firm) who had purchased it for $75 Million in 2004. I am sure Arlington Capital would love to sell DRF, that is what venture capital firms do. The sticky part is how they spin this into a profitable deal because as an outsider looking it I find it hard to believe that the intrinsic value of DRF is more now than it was in 2007 and arguably even in 2004.

[jeebus1083]

It would be good if DRF provided PPs for free at an ADW. It would help drive the business of the ADW way high.

The value of DRF is higher than it was 10-15 years ago, but the industry is in a tail spin. Again, that doesn't help to justify the high price of the basic, non-Formulator PPs.

Interesting idea and I see where you are coming from. Churchill Downs purchased both Brisbet and Brisnet back in 2007 for $80 Million (so in other words an ADW and a data provider). Private venture captial firm Arlington Capital purchased DRF for a price reported between $170-200 Million from Wicks Capital (another venture capital firm) who had purchased it for $75 Million in 2004. I am sure Arlington Capital would love to sell DRF, that is what venture capital firms do. The sticky part is how they spin this into a profitable deal because as an outsider looking it I find it hard to believe that the intrinsic value of DRF is more now than it was in 2007 and arguably even in 2004.

[Tom]

DRF and Brisnet should be equally priced for the basic product. Let the horseplayer market decide. Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. Winner gets bragging rights.

The market has already decided. Both a market for their products. This is a business, some stupid bar bet. Bragging rights? You accept bragging rights in your paycheck? :rolleyes:

[jeebus1083]

You got me there, Tom. :)

But I do wonder how many people use Brisnet only because of the difference in price. I'd bet that DRF reducing the price would send a goodly amount of Brisnetters migrating back to DRF for basic PP info.

The market has already decided. Both a market for their products. This is a business, some stupid bar bet. Bragging rights? You accept bragging rights in your paycheck? :rolleyes:

[miesque]

You got me there, Tom. :)

But I do wonder how many people use Brisnet only because of the difference in price. I'd bet that DRF reducing the price would send a goodly amount of Brisnetters migrating back to DRF for basic PP info.

Well you have to realize it is pretty hard to outprice "free" :D

But on a more serious note, you do have a point and from at least a personal perspective I can state that having PPs free for the tracks on which I wager has resulted in significantly more wagering activity when I am playing from home because it enables me to more effectively pick and choose my spots. The problem with DRF is they are not owned by an ADW or even owned indirectly by tracks which benefit from increased wagering like Equibase is. DRF solely exists as a publication and lives and dies on advertising revenue and pp sales both online and on paper. The publishing business is not the place to be at the moment from a general business investment perspective. I cannot think of a single ADW that would buy them at present. Churchill Downs is the largest domestic ADW with its acquisition of Youbet and already having a data provider in its arsenal with BRIS there is no way they are not going to pay an exhorbinant sum of money to buy DRF. Xpressbet is owned by a bankrupt company so that is not going to happen. TVG is owned by Betfair who bought Timeform for 15 Million Pounds in 2006 and I suppose theoretically they could buy DRF but I can only see them willing to pay a mere fraction of what the current owners of DRF paid for it.

I have been using the BRIS Ultimate PPs with comments for years and have grown to prefer all the info it provides and I have some friends who are DRF PP users who think there is too much info to deal with on the BRIS PPs, so there is definitely a personal preference aspect. I know some who are willing to pay the money for a newspaper DRF copy because they like the feel and layout of it (I hate getting that black newspaper smear on my hands so that perspective is an alien concept to me) As others have stated on this thread the main differentiating factor between BRIS and DRF are the Beyer speed and Moss Pace figures (unless you are talking about Formulator which is not an apples to apples comparison). From my perspective it is only worth paying for a DRF pp if I happen to be playing an entire card (or the majority of a card) at a conventional dirt track. If I am jumping around between different tracks and surfaces while playing at home, I am only going to use BRIS. If I am at a track which has turf races all day (like Colonial will next Saturday for Virginia Derby Day) or playing a synthetic track card (like today I am playing Hollywood Park), it is not worth it to me to pay for it, especially since I prefer BRIS figs for synthetics. If I do pay for DRF I will pay for the Deluxe Formulator since I do really like that application (especially the lifetime performance aspect) and wish BRIS had something similar for free (or almost free).

[cj]

According to DRF:

Moss 100 = Beyer 120
Moss 56 = Beyer 0

Moss fig X 2.73 - 152.73 = Beyer (some error due to rounding)

Does Moss use this tighter scale as a so called benefit to all subscribers so as to avoid seeing horses with possible negative pace or final time numbers? I don't see it much as a benefit if that is his reasoning, it just seems to cloud the picture a bit more. I can circumvent the disparity between the two but does the average fan have any idea how to? At a time when racing needs more patrons it seems like its a 1 step ahead, 2 steps back method.

Yes, he uses this to avoid negative numbers. You would have some very slow numbers in, for example, Indiana bred maiden claimers at the 1/4 mile call going 1 1/16 miles.

Personally, I think the scale is way too tight, but that is just my opinion.

[jeebus1083]

Miesque,

I haven't purchased a print DRF in God knows how long. If I'm not playing simulcasts, it's bulky to use and yes, messy with the newsprint getting on everything.

It would not surprise me if in the next 20 years, DRF ceased to exist as a newspaper publication, instead existing as an online market only. Virtually all of the news and features in a print DRF are found online at no cost to the user, as are the PPs. The same can be said for virtually all newspapers. The newspaper industry has been dying for years, a money-loser because the situation in our lifetime has changed.

It's much easier to handle 20-30 pages of 8 1/2 x 11 stapled together than a thick newspaper. More room for other handicapping tools or good eats. If I'm at the computer, having the PPs stapled rather than a DRF laid out on the desk produces more room.

I'm sure that with sponsorships and advertising revenue, DRF does very well for itself. The reality is that the present and future is online. As the elder generation petrified of change and computers dies off, this reality will prove even stronger.

[Canarsie]

You got me there, Tom. :)

But I do wonder how many people use Brisnet only because of the difference in price. I'd bet that DRF reducing the price would send a goodly amount of Brisnetters migrating back to DRF for basic PP info.

You would be surprised how many people buy the simulcast program because of price. :bang:

When I go to the Meadowlands I pay (or use points) to get into a room. My friend and I did a count one day and less then 25% of the people in there had the DRF. How one makes money (it's hard enough as it is) from a simulcast program is beyond my comprehension.

[fmolf]

You would be surprised how many people buy the simulcast program because of price. :bang:

When I go to the Meadowlands I pay (or use points) to get into a room. My friend and I did a count one day and less then 25% of the people in there had the DRF. How one makes money (it's hard enough as it is) from a simulcast program is beyond my comprehension.
Hello tautog...long time ....was knocked out early in the big m contest...still in the mon one.....I was at belmont today sitting on the clubhouse side and it amazes me how many people who wager serious monies are using the track bought simulcast program which also means that most will not be doing any preparation or handicapping before they arrive at the track.I hope this trend continues!

[Trotman]

Jeebus1083 petrified elder generation are you kidding me. Obviously you have no idea what the hell your talking about. Sure we will all die off but chances are young bucks like you who show no respect and still wet behind the ears will live alot shorter lifespan.

[raybo]

The following is a "pasting" from the "Home" page of my website. It pretty much describes my abandonment of the "Form", in favor of home grown software and downloadable data file PPs. (Forgive the lack of formatting, easier to copy/paste than insert an image).



AllData

Horse Racing Past Performance Spreadsheet



History

I am a thoroughbred horse racing handicapper. My experience dates back to 1978. The journey has been a long, satisfying one. Over these past 30+ years I've run into some pretty tough obstacles, as most handicappers have. One of those obstacles was the use and manipulation of past performance data. I started, like most players of that era, with the "Daily Racing Form". I don't know about other handicappers, but, finding a place at the track where I could sit and lay out the "Form", without infringing on the space needed by adjacent players, was hard to come by. I soon came to the realization that there had to be a better way. This "realization" was the beginning of the search for that "better way". Several years later, sometime in the early '80s, I bought my first computer, a "TI 99-4a", I think (?) Anyway, I began to learn the "Basic" computer programming language, and, even as limited as this dinosaur of a computer was I recognized that there was potential there. I graduated to a "Tandy Color-Trak 2" (again, I think), and discovered that it was possible to write a program that could be used for handicapping. After struggling for months trying to get the program working, the way I envisioned, I gave up on it, but, not the idea.

Sometime in the late '80s I discovered spreadsheets and was the proud owner of a PC, with an internet connection. After much trial and error, with them, I discovered "Excel" and past performance data files and I was "off to the races"! It was much easier to manipulate these data files in "Excel" than using a programming language. So, I started designing and creating my first handicapping spreadsheet.



My experience, at the track, tells me that very, very few track-goers prepare, prior to raceday, by purchasing the DRF, or any other PPs, prior to going to the track. The vast majority of these players either use no PPs or buy the track program or tip sheets, when they enter the track. Very few buy the "Form". In my opinion, this lack of preparation and lack of tools and knowledge is the main reason it is possible to beat the game. All you have to do is beat these players, and if you can't beat them, then you're in the wrong game.

[jeebus1083]

What are you trying to imply?

Jeebus1083 petrified elder generation are you kidding me. Obviously you have no idea what the hell your talking about. Sure we will all die off but chances are young bucks like you who show no respect and still wet behind the ears will live alot shorter lifespan.

[jeebus1083]

Just so you know, Trotman, before you fly off the handle again, the "elder generation petrified of change and computers dies off" was not directed toward ALL old people. It's fact that old habits die hard with many people, especially when those habits are 30-40-50+ years old. It's also fact that not everyone can or will use computers. The fact that the computer is now an integral, if not almost a mandatory daily tool, is forcing people to adapt. In some years time, a higher percentage of Americans will be computer-proficient in some form due to necessity, and the fact that computers have taken over our lives.

I wasn't trying to show disrespect, but was attempting to generalize certain people within a generation.

[jelly]

Miesque,

I haven't purchased a print DRF in God knows how long. If I'm not playing simulcasts, it's bulky to use and yes, messy with the newsprint getting on everything.

It would not surprise me if in the next 20 years, DRF ceased to exist as a newspaper publication, instead existing as an online market only. Virtually all of the news and features in a print DRF are found online at no cost to the user, as are the PPs. The same can be said for virtually all newspapers. The newspaper industry has been dying for years, a money-loser because the situation in our lifetime has changed.

It's much easier to handle 20-30 pages of 8 1/2 x 11 stapled together than a thick newspaper. More room for other handicapping tools or good eats. If I'm at the computer, having the PPs stapled rather than a DRF laid out on the desk produces more room.





I'm sure that with sponsorships and advertising revenue, DRF does very well for itself. The reality is that the present and future is online. As the elder generation petrified of change and computers dies off, this reality will prove even stronger.



Agree,I think the DRF day's are numbered.

I think there under 30k a day circulation.

[thaskalos]

The following is a "pasting" from the "Home" page of my website. It pretty much describes my abandonment of the "Form", in favor of home grown software and downloadable data file PPs. (Forgive the lack of formatting, easier to copy/paste than insert an image).



AllData

Horse Racing Past Performance Spreadsheet



History

I am a thoroughbred horse racing handicapper. My experience dates back to 1978. The journey has been a long, satisfying one. Over these past 30+ years I've run into some pretty tough obstacles, as most handicappers have. One of those obstacles was the use and manipulation of past performance data. I started, like most players of that era, with the "Daily Racing Form". I don't know about other handicappers, but, finding a place at the track where I could sit and lay out the "Form", without infringing on the space needed by adjacent players, was hard to come by. I soon came to the realization that there had to be a better way. This "realization" was the beginning of the search for that "better way". Several years later, sometime in the early '80s, I bought my first computer, a "TI 99-4a", I think (?) Anyway, I began to learn the "Basic" computer programming language, and, even as limited as this dinosaur of a computer was I recognized that there was potential there. I graduated to a "Tandy Color-Trak 2" (again, I think), and discovered that it was possible to write a program that could be used for handicapping. After struggling for months trying to get the program working, the way I envisioned, I gave up on it, but, not the idea.

Sometime in the late '80s I discovered spreadsheets and was the proud owner of a PC, with an internet connection. After much trial and error, with them, I discovered "Excel" and past performance data files and I was "off to the races"! It was much easier to manipulate these data files in "Excel" than using a programming language. So, I started designing and creating my first handicapping spreadsheet.



My experience, at the track, tells me that very, very few track-goers prepare, prior to raceday, by purchasing the DRF, or any other PPs, prior to going to the track. The vast majority of these players either use no PPs or buy the track program or tip sheets, when they enter the track. Very few buy the "Form". In my opinion, this lack of preparation and lack of tools and knowledge is the main reason it is possible to beat the game. All you have to do is beat these players, and if you can't beat them, then you're in the wrong game.It is very easy to under-estimate your competition if you rely on what you see at the track and the OTBs.

Yes...the vast majority of the horseplayers we see, buy the "sketchy" programs and tip-sheets...but, unfortunately, that majority only represents a small percentage of the betting pools.

The mutuel pools don't reflect people...they reflect dollars!

And you can be sure that the vast majority of those dollars are wagered by people who are informed enough to make this, the hardest "sports related" game to beat in existence.

You can outplay the entire program and tip-sheet buying public...and still end up a big loser!

[formula_2002]

Yes...the vast majority of the horseplayers we see, buy the "sketchy" programs and tip-sheets...but, unfortunately, that majority only represents a small percentage of the betting pools.

The mutuel pools don't reflect people...they reflect dollars!

And you can be sure that the vast majority of those dollars are wagered by people who are informed enough to make this, the hardest "sports related" game to beat in existence.

You can outplay the entire program and tip-sheet buying public...and still end up a big loser!
The only thing I'm somewhat sure about, is that the majority of those dollars determine the final odds of all the horses, and most accurately the shorter priced horses and, are willing to bet into perhaps the highest vig game in the world.

[raybo]

It is very easy to under-estimate your competition if you rely on what you see at the track and the OTBs.

Yes...the vast majority of the horseplayers we see, buy the "sketchy" programs and tip-sheets...but, unfortunately, that majority only represents a small percentage of the betting pools.

The mutuel pools don't reflect people...they reflect dollars!

And you can be sure that the vast majority of those dollars are wagered by people who are informed enough to make this, the hardest "sports related" game to beat in existence.

You can outplay the entire program and tip-sheet buying public...and still end up a big loser!

I mentioned the public at the track because that is where one can actually see what tools they are using, unlike internet wagering where you cannot. Prior to the mass exodus from track-goers to internet wagerers, the vast majority of the entire wagering community did not prepare prior to race day, that was observable. If the entire wagering community didn't prepare then, what makes you think that it is, all of a sudden, preparing prior to race day now?

The only change in this community, that I am aware of, has been the ability of some whales placing lots of dollars in the pools at the last minute, and the fact that many ADWs have the ability to place many wagers in the pools at the last minute, also. Are you saying that just because more money is going into the pools at or after post time that that money is smarter than what was taking place in the past, before the internet?

It's still the wagering public placing those wagers, the money just gets in the pools later. Except for those very few "smart" whales that are dumping lots of dollars in the pools, the wagering game is still the same. You still can beat the game by preparing yourself, utilizing the proper tools and data, and beating the "non-prepared" player, which I am confident represents enough money to allow you to be successful.

[raybo]

The only thing I'm somewhat sure about, is that the majority of those dollars determine the final odds of all the horses, and most accurately the shorter priced horses and, are willing to bet into perhaps the highest vig game in the world.

Well said!!

Just because some whales get lots of dollars placed in the pools later, they are still placing those wagers on what become the favorites and near favorites.

The game is still the same, for me anyway, look for value, whether placing WPS wagers or exotics. Win bettors should be looking for underlays, which the whales have created. The favorite still only wins 1/3 of the races, that leaves 2/3 of the winners where value exists.

[fmolf]

Well said!!

Just because some whales get lots of dollars placed in the pools later, they are still placing those wagers on what become the favorites and near favorites.

The game is still the same, for me anyway, look for value, whether placing WPS wagers or exotics. Win bettors should be looking for underlays, which the whales have created. The favorite still only wins 1/3 of the races, that leaves 2/3 of the winners where value exists.
I still feel that most players do not handicap or prepare ahead of time.The professionals using sophisticated computer programs are of course doing their homework.the average player i can see that most do not.I make a good deal of plays on exactas involving the short priced favorite.If facing aneven money fav. i feel is solid i will couple him with a few(no more than 3)logical 2nd place horses as long as they are overlaid according to meadows "exacta overlay chart"...I use the bris ultimates downloaded off the internet right now.in a few years i will retire and then i am going to investigate computerizing my operation.Perhaps learning to use the formulator at drf or maybe bris will have a similar tool by then.

[formula_2002]

I still feel that most players do not handicap or prepare ahead of time.The professionals using sophisticated computer programs are of course doing their homework.the average player i can see that most do not.
I think it matters little if they do their home work or not, with a 18% or so take out, they,as well as the "professionals" all get a failing grade..Perhaps it takes a bit longer for the "professional" to fail .
By the way, I dont exclude the professional from knowing so much that he determines this is not the game for him...I tend to count myself in that lot
But I'm always holding out for hope... :)

[thaskalos]

I mentioned the public at the track because that is where one can actually see what tools they are using, unlike internet wagering where you cannot. Prior to the mass exodus from track-goers to internet wagerers, the vast majority of the entire wagering community did not prepare prior to race day, that was observable. If the entire wagering community didn't prepare then, what makes you think that it is, all of a sudden, preparing prior to race day now?

The only change in this community, that I am aware of, has been the ability of some whales placing lots of dollars in the pools at the last minute, and the fact that many ADWs have the ability to place many wagers in the pools at the last minute, also. Are you saying that just because more money is going into the pools at or after post time that that money is smarter than what was taking place in the past, before the internet?

It's still the wagering public placing those wagers, the money just gets in the pools later. Except for those very few "smart" whales that are dumping lots of dollars in the pools, the wagering game is still the same. You still can beat the game by preparing yourself, utilizing the proper tools and data, and beating the "non-prepared" player, which I am confident represents enough money to allow you to be successful. Raybo...if the crowd that we saw at the track was a fair representation of our "real" competition, then this game would be easy to beat...even with today's take-out. Can we at least agree that the game is VERY difficult to beat?

You mentioned in your initial post that the crowd that we see is so uninformed and ill-prepared, we should find another game, if we can't outplay them...

My point is that the crowd we see is not our "real" competition; they only represent a small percentage of the mutuel pool. The "real" competition is largely unseen...and includes professional bettors, whales, "insiders", and other regular players who are well informed and well prepared.

This group of informed bettors may be small in number, compared to the uninformed group, but - because they bet alot more - their money represents the large majority of the betting pools. It is THIS group, together with the excessive take-out, that is our "real" competition...and that's why the game is so tough to beat.

[raybo]

Raybo...if the crowd that we saw at the track was a fair representation of our "real" competition, then this game would be easy to beat...even with today's take-out. Can we at least agree that the game is VERY difficult to beat?

You mentioned in your initial post that the crowd that we see is so uninformed and ill-prepared, we should find another game, if we can't outplay them...

My point is that the crowd we see is not our "real" competition; they only represent a small percentage of the mutuel pool. The "real" competition is largely unseen...and includes professional bettors, whales, "insiders", and other regular players who are well informed and well prepared.

This group of informed bettors may be small in number, compared to the uninformed group, but - because they bet alot more - their money represents the large majority of the betting pools. It is THIS group, together with the excessive take-out, that is our "real" competition...and that's why the game is so tough to beat.

I didn't say the game was easy to beat, of course it's difficult. What I said was that if you can't beat the public, you should find another game to play. These whales, professionals, insiders, and well informed regular players that govern the pools, still, after everything the industry has evolved into, create the favorites, and, the favorites still win only 1/3 of their races. Nothing has changed, in that regard, and there lies the key to beating the game.

Takeout is higher than it should be, agreed, but the fact that it is high makes it even more important that the smart wagerer insure value for his investments.

If I'm a 33% win rate player, I'm not going to place large win wagers on low priced horses. That only drives the return on my investment downward, even more. I'm going to demand a higher return, not accept a lower one, for my investments.

I would be part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[thaskalos]

If I'm a 33% win rate player, I'm not going to place large win wagers on low priced horses. That only drives the return on my investment downward, even more. I'm going to demand a higher return, not accept a lower one, for my investments.

I would be part of the problem, not part of the solution. A 33% win rate player figures that there is no way he can lose if he restricts his win wagers to horses that go off at odds of 2-1 and higher. Theoretically, of course, that is correct.

But when he limits his wagers to those horses...he often discovers that he no longer wins 33% of the time...

A player says that his wagers win 33% of the time...but that win rate is not constant across all odds levels. His short priced horses will win at a higher rate...and the win rate will decline as the odds of the selections get higher.

[takeout]

Beats me. I never saw much difference between the two. They’ve both had the same trainer names wrong for CT for the last 20 years. It’s just a few but I leave them that way as a check to see if they ever fix them. They haven’t yet. This, at least to me, speaks to the integrity of both of these products. If factual data can be so lightly regarded, for decades, then I’m not so eager to use/trust the “value added” stuff from either of them.

The track program, and TSN, (RIP) didn’t seem to have that trainer name problem.

I miss TSN. I doubt that anyone’s basic PP’s should be over fifty cents. CDI really screwed the little guy when they took away the TSN option. Can’t blame them though. Most everybody else was already screwing us three times as much.

[raybo]

A 33% win rate player figures that there is no way he can lose if he restricts his win wagers to horses that go off at odds of 2-1 and higher. Theoretically, of course, that is correct.

But when he limits his wagers to those horses...he often discovers that he no longer wins 33% of the time...

A player says that his wagers win 33% of the time...but that win rate is not constant across all odds levels. His short priced horses will win at a higher rate...and the win rate will decline as the odds of the selections get higher.

You must be referring to just any 33% win rate player. I said that if, I, was a 33% win rate player, I wouldn't place large wagers on low priced horses, but would demand a higher return for my investments. Meaning, that my previous 33% win rate would not be necessary anymore. My demand for a higher return relieves me of the need for a high hit rate. I said that placing large wagers on low priced horses drives the price down even further, therefore, I would not proceed under those conditions. If we are talking about me, personally, I would not wager to win, in the first place, I would have to be far too selective in my wagers and would have to wager large amounts in order to make a reasonable profit. Indeed, I would be very selective with my wagering, but, I would not have to wager large amounts in order to make a reasonable profit. How about an 8% hit rate and a 45+% net profit? How about 5 years straight at that ROI, and in 6 months, another year of similar ROI?

The game is beatable. High takeout, whales, late changing odds, and the rest, defeated consistently.

Players have beaten this game since it's inception, and players will continue to beat it. Are you one of them? If not, then possibly a change of direction and a change in your beliefs, in these matters, is due, first.

[thaskalos]

You must be referring to just any 33% win rate player. I said that if, I, was a 33% win rate player, I wouldn't place large wagers on low priced horses, but would demand a higher return for my investments. Meaning, that my previous 33% win rate would not be necessary anymore. My demand for a higher return relieves me of the need for a high hit rate. I said that placing large wagers on low priced horses drives the price down even further, therefore, I would not proceed under those conditions. If we are talking about me, personally, I would not wager to win, in the first place, I would have to be far too selective in my wagers and would have to wager large amounts in order to make a reasonable profit. Indeed, I would be very selective with my wagering, but, I would not have to wager large amounts in order to make a reasonable profit. How about an 8% hit rate and a 45+% net profit? How about 5 years straight at that ROI, and in 6 months, another year of similar ROI?

The game is beatable. High takeout, whales, late changing odds, and the rest, defeated consistently.

Players have beaten this game since it's inception, and players will continue to beat it. Are you one of them? If not, then possibly a change of direction and a change in your beliefs, in these matters, is due, first. I never meant for this discussion to become personal...nor did I mean to imply that I am questioning your expertise in this game.

I was just trying to point out that the betting public is alot better informed than they appear to be...that's all.

As far as my horseplaying exploits are concerned...anything I say can never be proven - so I will abstain....

[snoadog]

"The favorite still only wins 1/3 of the races, that leaves 2/3 of the winners where value exists."
__________________
Ray

I have recently switched to using Brisnet data files and excel to print my own PPs. It never ceases to amaze me that despite all the tools at the public's disposal the above statement remains an indisputable fact, year in and year out. It's one of the best reasons this game is so facinating.

[raybo]

I have recently switched to using Brisnet data files and excel to print my own PPs. It never ceases to amaze me that despite all the tools at the public's disposal the above statement remains an indisputable fact, year in and year out. It's one of the best reasons this game is so facinating.

Ah!! There you go.

If you haven't figured out a way to automate your Excel process, check out "AllData NI Beta", on my website. Database is coming, in Excel, also.

It's all FREE!

[jeebus1083]

The Brisnet Result Chart files are great for record-keeping. Ray helped develop a Chart parser that took information from the charts to produce raw Sartin figs for a race. Later, I added a Quirin figure generator. It's pretty cool.

[snoadog]

Yeah, thanks I have downloaded it - very nice! I have made something a little different. It's just a spreadsheet formatted to look racing formish with some of my own figures added to take with me on the days I go to the track.