View Full Version : Saturday Beyer BC figures
Blame, 111
Dangerous Midge, 101
Dakota Phone, 104
Goldikova, 105
Uncle Mo, 108
Chamberlain Bridge, 100
Big Drama, 108
Pluck, 86
PaceAdvantage
11-06-2010, 11:54 PM
No wonder Gio Ponti was able to finish second. That number came back surprisingly light for Goldi, did it not? Her final time of 1:35 was legit so it seems.
No wonder Gio Ponti was able to finish second. That number came back surprisingly light for Goldi, did it not? Her final time of 1:35 was legit so it seems.
She certainly wasn't all out, so that was a few points shaved. Gio, he's always second!
Jacques Ponti
Who?
:confused::rolleyes:
Turkoman
11-07-2010, 12:56 AM
Blame, 111
Dangerous Midge, 101
Dakota Phone, 104
Goldikova, 105
Uncle Mo, 108
Chamberlain Bridge, 100
Big Drama, 108
Pluck, 86
Looking at those numbers, I guess Uncle Mo was really moving.
Valuist
11-07-2010, 01:16 AM
Looking at those numbers, I guess Uncle Mo was really moving.
Big time gaps in the Juvenile. Uncle Mo beat Boys at Toscanova by 4 1/4 and it was another 6 lengths back to 3rd.
I've got Pluck quite a bit better than Beyer, otherwise largely agreeing with him.
CincyHorseplayer
11-07-2010, 08:12 PM
This might be a good batch of 3yo's next year!!That is definitely something to get excited about.
classhandicapper
11-08-2010, 11:17 AM
No wonder Gio Ponti was able to finish second. That number came back surprisingly light for Goldi, did it not? Her final time of 1:35 was legit so it seems.
That figure is probably very accurate, but it in no way reflects the difference between Goldikova and the horses she beat that day.
They came home quickly and she was absolutely flying late.
I hope no one is silly enough to not recognize that Goldikova is one of the greatest turf milers ever despite modest Beyer figures.
PaceAdvantage
11-08-2010, 11:30 AM
That figure is probably very accurate, but it in no way reflects the difference between Goldikova and the horses she beat that day.
They came home quickly and she was absolutely flying late.
I hope no one is silly enough to not recognize that Goldikova is one of the greatest turf milers ever despite modest Beyer figures.I can't believe you're silly enough to post such a suggestion.
Her substantial body of work against the best males available would make such a suggestion insane.
I've got Pluck quite a bit better than Beyer, otherwise largely agreeing with him.
If you agree with Goldikova, how can you not agree with Pluck?
I gave the Classic a 110, with a 6f pace figure of 125. Blame's pace number is 106.
For Goldikova, the race was 114-105. She went 105 for 6f and clearly could have went faster late.
Uncle Mo, 113-108, serious racehorse.
If you agree with Goldikova, how can you not agree with Pluck?
Dunno. We do things differently I guess.
Keeping in mind that I adjust for weight/age/going/race dynamics/course+surface+distance profile, and that 90 is usually enough to win a grade 1 on my scale, I have
Pluck 89
Big Drama 97
Chamberlain Ridge 87
Uncle Mo 97
Goldikova 91
Dakota Phone 93
Dangerous Midge 85
Blame 89
Big Drama ran a giant race imo, as did Uncle Mo obviously.
PhantomOnTour
11-08-2010, 12:03 PM
I gave the Classic a 110, with a 6f pace figure of 125. Blame's pace number is 106.
For Goldikova, the race was 114-105. She went 105 for 6f and clearly could have went faster late.
Uncle Mo, 113-108, serious racehorse.
Quirin style, my Classic figs came back 113-121-114.
Morning Line ran one hell of a race in the Dirt Mile. Ran pretty darned fast early and shrugged everyone off, then almost held the winner in decent time.
Agree with you about Uncle Mo, although my pace fig isn't as high as yours.
Cratos
11-08-2010, 03:14 PM
Blame, 111
Dangerous Midge, 101
Dakota Phone, 104
Goldikova, 105
Uncle Mo, 108
Chamberlain Bridge, 100
Big Drama, 108
Pluck, 86
What would Zenyatta's BC Classic figure be?
Valuist
11-08-2010, 03:34 PM
What would Zenyatta's BC Classic figure be?
111
Dunno. We do things differently I guess.
Keeping in mind that I adjust for weight/age/going/race dynamics/course+surface+distance profile, and that 90 is usually enough to win a grade 1 on my scale, I have
Pluck 89
Big Drama 97
Chamberlain Ridge 87
Uncle Mo 97
Goldikova 91
Dakota Phone 93
Dangerous Midge 85
Blame 89
Big Drama ran a giant race imo, as did Uncle Mo obviously.
So Pluck ran just as good as Zenyatta and Blame. Wow. He must be the greatest 2yo turf horse in history.
So Pluck ran just as good as Zenyatta and Blame. Wow. He must be the greatest 2yo turf horse in history.
The 87 is adjusted for age. Like I said before. Like you do yourself.
Your tendency to ridicule my numbers is very disappointing. I don't do the same with yours.
The 87 is adjusted for age. Like I said before. Like you do yourself.
Your tendency to ridicule my numbers is very disappointing. I don't do the same with yours.
I'm not ridiculing them, I just don't get it. I was hoping you would explain how this is possible. How does adjusting for age give him the same figure?
Cardus
11-08-2010, 05:57 PM
What would Zenyatta's BC Classic figure be?
I'll speak for CJ: 111.
TurfRuler
11-08-2010, 05:59 PM
So Pluck ran just as good as Zenyatta and Blame. Wow. He must be the greatest 2yo turf horse in history.
I want to ask you one question. How do you know that he is not or will be?
I want to ask you one question. How do you know that he is not or will be?
I don't, and wasn't implying such.
I guess it is just confusing when somebody compares figures that have no relation whatsoever to each other.
The 87 is adjusted for age. Like I said before. Like you do yourself.
Your tendency to ridicule my numbers is very disappointing. I don't do the same with yours.
OK, I get it now, you are adjusting to some point in the future. That makes sense. I only adjust as time goes by. In other words, a figure may be a 90 now, a 94 in May, and a 100 when the same horse runs in December.
Cratos
11-08-2010, 09:48 PM
The 87 is adjusted for age. Like I said before. Like you do yourself.
Your tendency to ridicule my numbers is very disappointing. I don't do the same with yours.
The central tenets in my opinion in handicapping two-years come from the late Phil Bull which says:
“A time-figure will tell you how bad a horse isn’t, but not necessarily how good a horse is” and that you should “rate horses on races, not races on horses.”
The central tenets in my opinion in handicapping two-years come from the late Phil Bull which says:
“A time-figure will tell you how bad a horse isn’t, but not necessarily how good a horse is” and that you should “rate horses on races, not races on horses.”
Two year olds are slower than older horses. How much slower? There are various ways to find out. You can just use the weight-for-age scale, which has been used for centuries across the globe and which you can find in many American books. You can calculate your own 'points-for-age' scale if you don't like assessing horses by 'weight'. I did my own time-for-age scale a long time ago.
While I agree with Mr. Bull's view on speed ratings, I don't see anything wrong with upgrading every two year old's final time by the amount that they biologically deserve. Yes, some two year olds are precocious and you will see them actually regress in numbers, but what is wrong with that? At least this gives you a quantification of what precociousness actually is.
I would even argue that it's better than not doing it. I remember looking at Beyers and other figures, there'd be a 3 year old who had not run for six months, and I'd think, well how do I treat his historical figs? We can clearly expect something higher now, but how much higher?
I am not saying is a perfect solution, but it has its advantages, and its occasional drawbacks, such as a 2yo being very precocious and registering too high numbers, usually are clear straight away after the first two runs.
CBedo
11-09-2010, 04:27 AM
The 87 is adjusted for age. Like I said before. Like you do yourself. So if Pluck's number gets upgraded for him being a 2 year old, how big does that make Mo's number?
So if Pluck's number gets upgraded for him being a 2 year old, how big does that make Mo's number?
Mo's number is upgraded already too. Do you want his pre-adjustment number?
Mo's number is upgraded already too. Do you want his pre-adjustment number?
Do you use distance as a factor for how much to adjust?
For me, it is a lot more likely horses will improve by more at longer distances than short ones.
Do you use distance as a factor for how much to adjust?
For me, it is a lot more likely horses will improve by more at longer distances than short ones.
Yes, the adjustments are per month of the year, and per race distance.
I used to do separate ones for fillies and colts for a while but then decided it wasn't really worth it.
The adjustments should probably be slightly different for each surface, too.
Valuist
11-09-2010, 11:49 AM
So Pluck ran just as good as Zenyatta and Blame. Wow. He must be the greatest 2yo turf horse in history.
According to his numbers, Dakota Phone got a higher number than Blame also.
Lets be hypothetical and say Blame and Zenyatta weren't retired and they along with Quality Road and the other major competitors from the Classic came back to run in a 1 1/8 mile stake at Gulfstream. I guarantee you Dakota Phone would be at least 40-1 in the wagering.
According to his numbers, Dakota Phone got a higher number than Blame also.
Lets be hypothetical and say Blame and Zenyatta weren't retired and they along with Quality Road and the other major competitors from the Classic came back to run in a 1 1/8 mile stake at Gulfstream. I guarantee you Dakota Phone would be at least 40-1 in the wagering.
We'll have to let gm10 handle this one. Maybe he doesn't know the mile is around one turn.
According to his numbers, Dakota Phone got a higher number than Blame also.
Lets be hypothetical and say Blame and Zenyatta weren't retired and they along with Quality Road and the other major competitors from the Classic came back to run in a 1 1/8 mile stake at Gulfstream. I guarantee you Dakota Phone would be at least 40-1 in the wagering.
Or even better. Imagine we let Uncle Mo (BSF 108) run against Goldikova (BSF 105) over a mile on the turf? Who are you with Smarty Pants?
Greyfox
11-09-2010, 07:41 PM
Pluck 89
Big Drama 97
Chamberlain Ridge 87
Uncle Mo 97
Goldikova 91
Dakota Phone 93
Dangerous Midge 85
Blame 89
Big Drama ran a giant race imo, as did Uncle Mo obviously.
Geez, if they have validity I'll have to rethink my vote for HOY. :lol:
(And look how slow Z must have been from a speed figure perspective.)
OK are we talking about speed figures here or are you confusing these with ability ratings? It's not my fault that Blame's final time was the slowest in almost 20 years. Speed is speed, it can only be measured within the context of the race.
Valuist
11-09-2010, 07:49 PM
Or even better. Imagine we let Uncle Mo (BSF 108) run against Goldikova (BSF 105) over a mile on the turf? Who are you with Smarty Pants?
What is your point? I would seriously doubt on turf Uncle Mo would be anywhere in the same hemisphere ability-wise as he was on dirt. And likewise if Goldikova tried him on dirt, he'd a$$ whip her.
Greyfox
11-09-2010, 07:50 PM
OK are we talking about speed figures here or are you confusing these with ability ratings? It's not my fault that Blame's final time was the slowest in almost 20 years. Speed is speed, it can only be measured within the context of the race.
Beyers are speed figures. They are called "Beyer Speed Figures."
What is your point? I would seriously doubt on turf Uncle Mo would be anywhere in the same hemisphere ability-wise as he was on dirt. And likewise if Goldikova tried him on dirt, he'd a$$ whip her.
Yes I agree. My point was that a speed figure is based on the speed of the race. It doesn't mean that the winner couldn't have gone faster, it doesn't mean that the winner can duplicate the same performance over a different distance or surface.
Beyers are speed figures. They are called "Beyer Speed Figures."
Yes and?
Greyfox
11-09-2010, 08:21 PM
Dunno. We do things differently I guess.
Keeping in mind that I adjust for weight/age/going/race dynamics/course+surface+distance profile, and that 90 is usually enough to win a grade 1 on my scale, I have
Pluck 89
Big Drama 97
Chamberlain Ridge 87
Uncle Mo 97
Goldikova 91
Dakota Phone 93
Dangerous Midge 85
Blame 89
Big Drama ran a giant race imo, as did Uncle Mo obviously.
Yes and I see little correlation between Beyers and yours, if yours are speed figures too, except Pluck rates low in both.
Blame, 111
Dangerous Midge, 101
Dakota Phone, 104
Goldikova, 105
Uncle Mo, 108
Chamberlain Bridge, 100
Big Drama, 108
Pluck, 86
OK are we talking about speed figures here or are you confusing these with ability ratings? It's not my fault that Blame's final time was the slowest in almost 20 years. Speed is speed, it can only be measured within the context of the race.
Previous Classics at CD:
Tiznow 200.75
Invasor 202.18
Awesome Again 202.16
Blame 202.28
Concern 202.41
Black Tie Affair 202.95
Alysheba 204.80
Yes and I see little correlation between Beyers and yours, if yours are speed figures too, except Pluck rates low in both.
Blame, 111
Dangerous Midge, 101
Dakota Phone, 104
Goldikova, 105
Uncle Mo, 108
Chamberlain Bridge, 100
Big Drama, 108
Pluck, 86
Since my figs pick as many winners as BSF, I would say that the low correlation is a good thing. If I have a top figure, it's just as likely to win, but it's also likely that the BSF isn't top for that horse and I might a better price.
I am not really interested in 'beating' BSF anyway. Beyer reported 28%-30% winners for horses om the dirt who have a 3 point advantage in their last race. I get similar results (but also on turf and synthethics), and I don't think any other set of numbers would do a lot better than 30%. That 30% is probably close to the optimal prediction rate. So why try to improve on that?
There are other advantages to keeping your speed figs, but that is a very different discussion.
Cratos
11-10-2010, 03:42 PM
Since my figs pick as many winners as BSF, I would say that the low correlation is a good thing. If I have a top figure, it's just as likely to win, but it's also likely that the BSF isn't top for that horse and I might a better price.
I am not really interested in 'beating' BSF anyway. Beyer reported 28%-30% winners for horses om the dirt who have a 3 point advantage in their last race. I get similar results (but also on turf and synthethics), and I don't think any other set of numbers would do a lot better than 30%. That 30% is probably close to the optimal prediction rate. So why try to improve on that?
There are other advantages to keeping your speed figs, but that is a very different discussion.
Please explain to me the 28%-30% winners you speak of in your post. I am not being cynical, but if the random win percent for favorites in North America is historically 30% for any given period, then what am I getting by using speed figures?
However if you are speaking of a conditional win percent based on odds; that is totally different story.
Please explain to me the 28%-30% winners you speak of in your post. I am not being cynical, but if the random win percent for favorites in North America is historically 30% for any given period, then what am I getting by using speed figures?
However if you are speaking of a conditional win percent based on odds; that is totally different story.
The 30% is just a measure of how effective the figs are. I don't suggest betting them each time, that would not be profitable (just like betting the public top choice isn't). I use them for other things - ultimately I use them to create my own odds-line which I use to detect 'value'.
Anyway, I think 30% is pretty good, I don't think many other figs do significantly better (certainly not on turf/synthetic). All I want to say is ... if they pick the winner 30% of the time, you can trust them and you can use them as a handicapping tool.
Cratos
11-10-2010, 06:09 PM
The 30% is just a measure of how effective the figs are. I don't suggest betting them each time, that would not be profitable (just like betting the public top choice isn't). I use them for other things - ultimately I use them to create my own odds-line which I use to detect 'value'.
Anyway, I think 30% is pretty good, I don't think many other figs do significantly better (certainly not on turf/synthetic). All I want to say is ... if they pick the winner 30% of the time, you can trust them and you can use them as a handicapping tool.
Am I wrong in saying that you cannot leave out odds of the winning horse(s) in your speed figure 30% because winning at the racetrack is about profitability not about accountability.
Therefore if we believe that the historically win percent of favorites is approximately 30% (not the speed figure 30%) then we should subtract 30% of X and then calculate the expected value of X-.3x based on the odds of the horses remaining in X-.3X that was selected by our speed figure as winners.
Correct me if I am wrong but is it not the mathematical expectation the long run average and in this case would it not be average payoff (odds)?
Am I wrong in saying that you cannot leave out odds of the winning horse(s) in your speed figure 30% because winning at the racetrack is about profitability not about accountability.
Therefore if we believe that the historically win percent of favorites is approximately 30% (not the speed figure 30%) then we should subtract 30% of X and then calculate the expected value of X-.3x based on the odds of the horses remaining in X-.3X that was selected by our speed figure as winners.
Correct me if I am wrong but is it not the mathematical expectation the long run average and in this case would it not be average payoff (odds)?
I think I know where you are going, but just to be sure what is X?
Bruddah
11-11-2010, 11:29 AM
I love reading the forums by you numbers guys. All you seem to do is PICK each other's systems and numbers apart. Never agreeing on anything and disagreeing on everything. Numbers are not and will never be the "be all, end all" of handicapping. But, it gives you mathmatical types something to do in your spare time. Obviously, you guys have too much of that. It's just one piece of the puzzle. Mr Beyer provides numbers free in the DRF, which are as good as any, when using them as a piece of the puzzle.
Nevetheless, you numbers guys please continue to picking each other and your numbers apart, while the rest of us Handicap winners.
I love reading the forums by you numbers guys. All you seem to do is PICKeach others systems and numbers apart. Never agreeing on anything and disagreeing on everything. Numbers are not and will never be the "be all, end all" of handicapping. But, it gives you mathmatical types something to do in your spare time. Obviously, you guys have too much of that. It's just one piece of the puzzle. Mr Beyer provides numbers free in the DRF, which are as good as any, when using them as a piece of the puzzle.
Nevetheless, you numbers guys please continue to picking each other and your numbers apart, while the rest of us Handicap winners.
Yeah, you are right. Can't remember the last winner I picked.
Bruddah
11-11-2010, 11:50 AM
CJ, I have a lot of respect for you, your numbers and your old man. However, even you will admit your numbers are just another piece of the handicapping puzzle. Why your numbers are, or are not better than Beyers is just another debate to nowhere.
Numbers extrapolated from a horse's last race give very little clue to todays race. They don't give you form cycle, distance, breeding, class, racing surface etc. In essence, numbers are a picture of yesterday. Added to factors which give a picture of today, they become a window to the possible. Therefore, numbers are a piece of the puzzle and not the "be all, end all".
No insults intended and please accept my apologies if I have.
CJ, I have a lot of respect for you, your numbers and your old man. However, even you will admit your numbers are just another piece of the handicapping puzzle. Why your numbers are, or are not better than Beyers is just another debate to nowhere.
Numbers extrapolated from a horse's last race give very little clue to todays race. They don't give you form cycle, distance, breeding, class, racing surface etc. In essence, numbers are a picture of yesterday. Added to factors which give a picture of today, they become a window to the possible. Therefore, numbers are a piece of the puzzle and not the "be all, end all".
No insults intended and please accept my apologies if I have.
You are right, part of the puzzle, but you took it a lot further than that. No worries, never personal.
Nevetheless, you numbers guys please continue to picking each other and your numbers apart, while the rest of us Handicap winners.
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't work.
Being proud of your ignorance is never flattering.
Bruddah
11-11-2010, 06:48 PM
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't work.
Being proud of your ignorance is never flattering.
All modesty aside, I probably understand these numbers very well because I have purposely tried to find the truth in them. I also understand how they are made. I could never understand their inconsistency, which called for the makers own biased input into the final number. Therefore, I choose to use them as one sector of my handicapping puzzle. I let others make them and argue over whose are more accurate. No offense to any of the makers, I choose to use the ones which have been around the longest and are free.
In my ignorant way of handicapping (but I'm blissful) I use PP's and numbers to get a picture of the horse's ability (past) I use other factors to decide how the horse is coming up to todays race (present). I then construct my ticket (future)
I'll take being ignorant over being rude, anyday. ;)
PaceAdvantage
11-11-2010, 07:14 PM
I'll take being ignorant over being rude, anyday. ;)This was a pretty rude thing to state:
Nevetheless, you numbers guys please continue to picking each other and your numbers apart, while the rest of us Handicap winners.I find your thinly veiled putdowns of "numbers guys" quite rude. Not sure if you are including me in that bunch, but speaking for myself, I have a pretty good track record here of picking winners and posting them before the races are run.
I may not post a lot of picks because I simply don't have the time given my other duties here, but I think most will agree that the quality is there.
So if indeed you are lumping me in with the "numbers guys," you can see where I might see this as a rather rude comment. If you're not lumping me in with them, then never mind.
Bruddah
11-11-2010, 08:08 PM
This was a pretty rude thing to state:
I find your thinly veiled putdowns of "numbers guys" quite rude. Not sure if you are including me in that bunch, but speaking for myself, I have a pretty good track record here of picking winners and posting them before the races are run.
I may not post a lot of picks because I simply don't have the time given my other duties here, but I think most will agree that the quality is there.
So if indeed you are lumping me in with the "numbers guys," you can see where I might see this as a rather rude comment. If you're not lumping me in with them, then never mind.
Yeah, I'm one real bad and rude dude. (lol) I don't know how you got your feelings hurt and find the need to interject yourself into my thinly veiled rude responses. But, let me address your question directly. If the shoe fits, I hope you find it comfortable. (lol)
I'll take being ignorant over being rude, anyday. images/UBGX/E5.gif
Both, maybe?
Here's a hint - if you are going to insult people, expect a reaction.
Not everyone can comprehend numbers, no need to feel bad about it.
Just do what you can do.
Bruddah
11-11-2010, 11:28 PM
Both, maybe?
Here's a hint - if you are going to insult people, expect a reaction.
Not everyone can comprehend numbers, no need to feel bad about it.
Just do what you can do.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You are as funny as your picture :lol: are you as intelligent also?
Cratos
11-12-2010, 09:21 PM
I think I know where you are going, but just to be sure what is X?
‘X’ in this context is the universal set of possible winners and .3X is the subset which is the randomly selected winners which is historically selected by the general wagering public.
Therefore to apply your speed figure methodology as 30% winners you should either include the historically 30% in your 30% speed figure win total which would make the speed figure susceptible to adjustment, but still might be meritorious if the odds of its winners are great enough.
Another way of looking at this is excluding all favorites (.3X) and take the percent of X-.3X and again if the odds are great enough your speed figure methodology would be meritorious because it would be profitable.
‘X’ in this context is the universal set of possible winners and .3X is the subset which is the randomly selected winners which is historically selected by the general wagering public.
Therefore to apply your speed figure methodology as 30% winners you should either include the historically 30% in your 30% speed figure win total which would make the speed figure susceptible to adjustment, but still might be meritorious if the odds of its winners are great enough.
Another way of looking at this is excluding all favorites (.3X) and take the percent of X-.3X and again if the odds are great enough your speed figure methodology would be meritorious because it would be profitable.
I had a look at this, and sadly it is not the case. When I take out the public favourites, the win % of the top fig drops (not unexpectedly of course), while the ROI stays fairly constant.
Considering the subset of horses that are public fav AND top fig, I found that the win % is 45%, but the ROI stays negative.
Fastracehorse
11-14-2010, 11:33 PM
CJ, I have a lot of respect for you, your numbers and your old man. However, even you will admit your numbers are just another piece of the handicapping puzzle. Why your numbers are, or are not better than Beyers is just another debate to nowhere.
Numbers extrapolated from a horse's last race give very little clue to todays race. They don't give you form cycle, distance, breeding, class, racing surface etc. In essence, numbers are a picture of yesterday. Added to factors which give a picture of today, they become a window to the possible. Therefore, numbers are a piece of the puzzle and not the "be all, end all".
No insults intended and please accept my apologies if I have.
Many races are confusing with #'s; I remember them without #'s
There is no greater factor for picking the winner of a race than speed figs
Yesterday at Aqu an $88 horse won on grass - he ran against Uncle Mo previously, was up early in that Uncle Mo race and then tired.
That is where a Key Race specialist would capitolize. That $88 winner had the 2nd highest speed fig in the race from my calculations; and my #'s are derived from Key Race Theory and the Beyer.
There are many winners with top speed figs everyday; but U are right when U say they need to be conjoined with other handicapping factors.
fffastt
Greyfox
11-14-2010, 11:53 PM
Mr Beyer provides numbers free in the DRF, which are as good as any, when using them as a piece of the puzzle.
The wisest thing you've said in this thread.:ThmbUp:
Cratos
11-15-2010, 04:02 PM
I had a look at this, and sadly it is not the case. When I take out the public favourites, the win % of the top fig drops (not unexpectedly of course), while the ROI stays fairly constant.
Considering the subset of horses that are public fav AND top fig, I found that the win % is 45%, but the ROI stays negative.
This is an interesting statistical analysis and I am not sure if the approach should be a conditional probability, P(A|B) or a joint probability.
Also you might be able to optimize your speed figure winners by wagering at odds that are equal to or greater than your win percent and never wagering on any favorites.
You will not have many wagers and you will need to wager a good of amount of money on each bet
.
However another approach might be to go to a joint probability and bet exactas. I believe any exotics beyond exactas will be very difficult and expensive.
mrhorseplayer
11-15-2010, 07:50 PM
I use the drf speed fig and race variant only do not even look at beyer figs
PaceAdvantage
11-15-2010, 09:38 PM
I use the drf speed fig and race variant only do not even look at beyer figsNot sure how this is at all helpful to this thread...
Not sure how this is at all helpful to this thread...
Yeah, that is why his first edition, Post 1.0, was already deleted.
Greyfox
11-15-2010, 09:45 PM
Not sure how this is at all helpful to this thread...
Agreed. The thread is about Beyers.
But it's in a similar vein to the speed figures that GM10 makes that he posted in
post # 13 of this thread. They weren't Beyers either, but GM10 went on about them.
mrhorseplayer
11-15-2010, 11:09 PM
I know this is a thread of beyer figs. just giving some criticism. I think the most useless thing on the form is beyer figs and then again it helps me when the public uses them.
PaceAdvantage
11-15-2010, 11:12 PM
I know this is a thread of beyer figs. just giving some criticism. I think the most useless thing on the form is beyer figs and then again it helps me when the public uses them.How is posting that you don't use Beyer figures a form of criticism? Why would anyone care if you used them or not? How does that help anyone?
Why not explain exactly why you don't use them. Tell us of all the studies you've done that show they are "the most useless thing on the form." Give us something to chew on if you're going to take the thread in a completely different direction.
This is a thread on the BC Saturday Beyer figures, not a thread about how helpful or useless the figs are in your handicapping.
mrhorseplayer
11-15-2010, 11:29 PM
sorry just forgot it was abouth the saturday figs. I think any time you use something like that from someone that gambles themselves is a bad idea. he can iflate or deflate as he sees fit and get everyone that uses them on the wrong side. proly not so much these days as he could have at first. I think the speed and variant figs on the form is a truer rating. I do not know why people would use the beyer figs in there cappin in the first place. figs do not make the race the horse does. do they fit the class of the race, whos going to be where in the race and so on. I put the speed and variant figure low on the totum pole for capping although I do look at it.
This is an interesting statistical analysis and I am not sure if the approach should be a conditional probability, P(A|B) or a joint probability.
Also you might be able to optimize your speed figure winners by wagering at odds that are equal to or greater than your win percent and never wagering on any favorites.
You will not have many wagers and you will need to wager a good of amount of money on each bet
.
However another approach might be to go to a joint probability and bet exactas. I believe any exotics beyond exactas will be very difficult and expensive.
The following simple strategy return a positive ROI.
- the horse is top rating
- the horse is public fav
- the win bet has value of at least $0.30 (wrt my own value-line)
The strike rate is excellent (40%). Problem is - indeed - that there aren't many bets, one per day on average. Say we want to make $100 per day and the ROI is 10%. Then we need to put $1000 on each bet. The longest losing streak will probably be 7-8 races, so a bankroll of 10K should be enough.
But I've come across similar strategies before, there are usually some manual errors, practical problems which mean that you don't achieve the theoretical ROI but only break even.
But I've come across similar strategies before, there are usually some manual errors, practical problems which mean that you don't achieve the theoretical ROI but only break even.
Or, the fact that there is no way to know the final odds of horses, especially favorites, which are most often bet down. Betfair would help obviously, but those playing here are never going to be able to overcome that problem betting faves.
Or, the fact that there is no way to know the final odds of horses, especially favorites, which are most often bet down. Betfair would help obviously, but those playing here are never going to be able to overcome that problem betting faves.
Value = odds * winprob - (1 - winprob) > 0.30
So the condition comes down to
odds > (1.30 - winprob)/winprob
It's not impossible, but you need a bit of margin built into the condition above.
Or hope that your legislators break up the tote monopoly so that you can finally have fixed odds betting :cool: .
Value = odds * winprob - (1 - winprob) > 0.30
So the condition comes down to
odds > (1.30 - winprob)/winprob
It's not impossible, but you need a bit of margin built into the condition above.
Or hope that your legislators break up the tote monopoly so that you can finally have fixed odds betting :cool: .
I know the simple math. But, if you don't know the odds, and you don't here, the part after the > sign will not help much if betting through the tote. This is true at all the tracks. At some it is not only true, you'll die a slow death trying to bet low priced "overlays" only to watch them drop from 8 to 5 to 2 to 5 on the backstretch.
I know the simple math. But, if you don't know the odds, and you don't here, the part after the > sign will not help much if betting through the tote. This is true at all the tracks. At some it is not only true, you'll die a slow death trying to bet low priced "overlays" only to watch them drop from 8 to 5 to 2 to 5 on the backstretch.
I thought you could do conditional betting in the US? Place a bet a few minutes before the off if the odds > X.
Admittedly that is still no good at tracks like Zia, but surely it would be workable at the bigger tracks.
But, I understand the problem. It's a lot harder to make money from win bets when you don't have the option of fixed odds and lower takeout.
I thought you could do conditional betting in the US? Place a bet a few minutes before the off if the odds > X.
Admittedly that is still no good at tracks like Zia, but surely it would be workable at the bigger tracks.
But, I understand the problem. It's a lot harder to make money from win bets when you don't have the option of fixed odds and lower takeout.
It doesn't work as well as you would think. For one, it checks once, and once only, and makes or dumps the bet. So, if you set it to post time, and your horse is 5 to 2, then the race goes off three minutes late and he is 7 to 5, you still made the bet. Likewise, if the horse is 4 to 5 and doesn't meet your criteria, the bet is dumped, even if he later goes off at 8 to 5.
Two, even if you could set it to make the bets at 1 second prior to the gate opening, or do it manually, the odds still change. And yes, they even change at the larger tracks. It will wipe out your 10% edge in no time. It is much smarter, and safer, to look for longer priced overlays. Not only is there much more margin for error, the odds tend to go up on these horses, not down, after the gate springs.
It doesn't work as well as you would think. For one, it checks once, and once only, and makes or dumps the bet. So, if you set it to post time, and your horse is 5 to 2, then the race goes off three minutes late and he is 7 to 5, you still made the bet. Likewise, if the horse is 4 to 5 and doesn't meet your criteria, the bet is dumped, even if he later goes off at 8 to 5.
Two, even if you could set it to make the bets at 1 second prior to the gate opening, or do it manually, the odds still change. And yes, they even change at the larger tracks. It will wipe out your 10% edge in no time. It is much smarter, and safer, to look for longer priced overlays. Not only is there much more margin for error, the odds tend to go up on these horses, not down, after the gate springs.
Hmmm yes but there is usually less value on those longshots (favorite/longshot bias). I used to think the same as you, but it hasn't worked for me. Another problem is that you go through very long losing streaks.
Ah well.
Hmmm yes but there is usually less value on those longshots (favorite/longshot bias). I used to think the same as you, but it hasn't worked for me. Another problem is that you go through very long losing streaks.
Ah well.
I find plenty of value, not all longshots, but in the 5 to 12 to 1 range. I can deal with the losing streaks, been doing this too long not to be able to handle them.
Cratos
11-17-2010, 12:17 AM
The following simple strategy return a positive ROI.
- the horse is top rating
- the horse is public fav
- the win bet has value of at least $0.30 (wrt my own value-line)
The strike rate is excellent (40%). Problem is - indeed - that there aren't many bets, one per day on average. Say we want to make $100 per day and the ROI is 10%. Then we need to put $1000 on each bet. The longest losing streak will probably be 7-8 races, so a bankroll of 10K should be enough.
But I've come across similar strategies before, there are usually some manual errors, practical problems which mean that you don't achieve the theoretical ROI but only break even.
Are you saying that a $0.30 return is $1.50 for every $5.00 wagered and the strike rate is 40%?
Are you saying that a $0.30 return is $1.50 for every $5.00 wagered and the strike rate is 40%?
Sadly not.
Theoretically it should be (at least) $0.30 as that it where I'm setting the value criterion at, but the actual return is more like $0.10-0.15.
My subjective probabilities are efficient, as efficient as the public ones, but there is some bias to them (very similar to what Benter reported).
Cratos
11-17-2010, 08:24 PM
Sadly not.
Theoretically it should be (at least) $0.30 as that it where I'm setting the value criterion at, but the actual return is more like $0.10-0.15.
My subjective probabilities are efficient, as efficient as the public ones, but there is some bias to them (very similar to what Benter reported).
Thanks
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.