Using BRIS PPWR figures

[harpowitz]

Sometime during the Saratoga meeting, I began tracking the use of BRIS' PPWR figures. The reults of a win bet on the #1 rated horse and an exacta 3-horse box of the #'s 1-3 follow.

Win: Races = 130 Exacta: Races = 130
Bet = $260.00 Bet = $1548.00
Won = $314.00 Won = $1848.6
Total = +$54.00 Total = +$300.6
ROI = 20.8% ROI = 19.4%

I am not sure I did the ROI figures correctly. Also, there were some races in which there were only 2 horses who had run previously which lowered the total bet amount on the exactas. These results are based on a non-handicapping approach and I would use them ro help make decisions knowing the track odds. A very high percentage of the win bets were on odds-on favorites. Exactas included maiden races which I probably would not bet on and often included 1st time starters at a 2/1 or 3/1 ratio. The best win bets were horses first time on grass who had a PPWR of #1. The best exactas were those in which one of the #1-3 rated horses went of at double digit odds. While I kept no records on this angle, I believe using a double-digit horse from the #1-3 group boxed with #1,2,4 would be profitable.

[Some_One]

That's some great info, excellent work! Did you keep track of Del Mar and/or will you be looking at Belmont?

[kingmambo]

interesting take on BRIS POWER NUMBERS.
i've used them off and on since their inception
and i always thought they were most effective in
higher level allowance and stakes races on grass.

[harpowitz]

I did not keep track of other racetracks. I did play Delaware on a few occasions and Finger Lakes once with so-so results lost once at Delaware(big)won once(small) broke about even at Finger Lakes. I will continue to keep track of at least these two categories at Belmont and may include some other categories, probably odds based.

[Rick Ransom]

Don't go overboard on those Prime Power numbers. My testing showed that the top rated horse is a big loser when tested over a lot of different tracks. There are some meets where it looks amazingly good but watch out when it underperforms later. Using the top 3 for selecting contenders is probably OK though since the 2nd and 3rd rated horses do better on ROI and it will get you a high percentage of the winners. All in all I'd say it's roughly equivalent to a good morning line.

[ceejay]

When I used prime power (I don't anymore), I discounted numbers off of a long layoff, and with surface changes. I think that PP is basically a composite of speed and class. In my experience, their class numbers are good, except when comparing state-bred restricted horses to open company.

[mhrussell]

I've found these numbers to be very good on the dirt, not so good on the turf and with layoff horses.
The "10 point minimum difference" angle hits a high percentage of dirt races; but the horses usually don't pay anything.
I use the Prime Power numbers to "sanity check" my own handicapping to make sure I did not overlook something on a high rated Prime Power horse or vice versa on a lower rated Prime Power horse.

But I agree with a previous reply that these numbers are inconsistent by themselves and should not be used in lieu of a total handicapping approach. Keep in mind that even 130 races is a small sample size.

[PaceGuy]

Here is what I have year to date using the top rated Prime Power horse. My database query shows the results of a $2.00 win bet on the top rated horse without consideration of any other handicapping factors. This includes all tracks, all distances, and all classes, for both dirt and turf.




BRIS PRIME POWER- TOP RATED HORSE- ALL DIRT RACES

Data Summary Win

Mutuel Totals 8349.50
Bet -9558.00
Gain/Loss -1208.50

Wins 1485
Plays 4779
PCT 31.07

ROI -12.64

Avg Mut 5.62







BRIS PRIME POWER- TOP RATED HORSE- ALL TURF RACES


Data Summary Win

Mutuel Totals 1554.50
Bet -1790.00
Gain/Loss -235.50

Wins 255
Plays 895
PCT 28.49

ROI -13.16

Avg Mut 6.10




I feel that Prime Power would be a very good way to look at horses IF you were the only player (or one of a handful of players) in the world to have access to it. Using a database, it is possible to uncover a handful
of profitable angles using the top prime power horse as a starting point. But, from an roi standpoint, I feel it is
much easier to find profitable bets using my own numbers and ideas simply because nobody else
has access to them. For the most part, the top prime power horse is overbet although there are always a few exceptions.

One recent example would have to be turf horses at the recent Saratoga meet with outside post positions. The outside on the turf at Saratoga has always been considered "difficult" by the betting public. At the recent Saratoga meet, there were a few top prime power horses on the turf with outside posts who were overlooked by the public for this reason. Many went off at long prices (for prime power horses) and, not surprisingly, quite a few of these won.

[PaceGuy]

Here is a follow up query that I ran showing a $2.00 win bet on the top prime power horse, year to date, when it is 10 or more points higher than the second rated horse. Notice that this almost overcomes the takeout on the dirt.





PRIME POWER by 10 or more points
ALL DIRT RACES-

Data Summary Win

Mutuel Totals 306.80
Bet -324.00
Gain/Loss -17.20

Wins 74
Plays 162
PCT 45.68

ROI -5.31

Avg Mut 4.15



PRIME POWER by 10 or more points
ALL TURF RACES-

Data Summary Win

Mutuel Totals 147.50
Bet -164.00
Gain -16.50

Wins 36
Plays 82
PCT 43.90

ROI -10.06

Avg Mut 4.10

[harpowitz]

I appreciate all the comments made about the use of these figures. Being a new member, I have not read all the posts and any of the data presented that was previously posted was unknown to me. In fact, in an earlier post, I asked if anyone had looked at PPWR and got no response. Enough defense. I don't think I presented the data as the TRUTH. I have been chasing will o' the wisps in racing for almost 40 years and haven't caught so much as a wisp yet. The only silver bullets I' ve encountered were those used to kill Lon Chaney Jr when he became the Wolfman. I presented the data, a woefully small sample, as an approach not a solution. I have a sense that PPWR's will be more effective at major tracks or at tracks where form is consistent. By looking at Belmont, I hope to get a better idea of how PPWRS work, good, bad, or indifferent. I was never a good handicapper but balanced that by being a modest bettor so betting on the ponies (as we used to term gambling) is an inexpensive hobby for me. It certainly beats stamp-collecting and raising tropical fish, both of which I did at one time. Again, I appreciate the comments and will post my Belmont stuff, good or bad.

[Rick Ransom]

harpowitz,

PaceGuy's results are a little better than mine but sound like realistic numbers especially considering the sample size. The top rated horses that go off at 4-1 or better may very well be slightly profitable. The reason I'm somewhat negative about using them is that you should be able to easily come up with something that loses less that 10% on all top ranked horses. If you've been doing it for a while and know what to avoid, you should get to around break even.

You won't find very many overlays when the top horse loses 12-13% even if you're very selective. Get that down to 5% and you'll find a lot.