View Full Version : Secrecy Does Not Really Promote The Art Of Figure Making
DeltaLover
02-14-2011, 11:21 AM
Back in the 70's the patriarch of American handicappers Andy Beyer introduced the concept of speed figures. In his books he described his theories and methods in total transparency creating a revolution in the way horses are evaluated and picked.
Since then we have seen quite a few adapters of his concept providing numeric figure as a reflection of a horse performance although none of them publicized his methodologies the same way Andy has done before. Figure makers like Len Ragozin, Jerry Brown and Bris for example are providing their 'numbers' as a black box which makes them impossible to reproduce, verify and even improve as a third party.
More than this I have to notice that as a bettor I certainly would have more confidence knowing the underling methodology of the calculation of these numbers but this seems not to be the case with the majority of horse players who seem to accept them on face value without any further examination.
In top of the black box approach of the method itself, we can detect the total lack of back testing which could improve the actual use of the figures.
GameTheory
02-14-2011, 11:24 AM
Back in the 70's the patriarch of American handicappers Andy Beyer introduced the concept of speed figures, fully describing his theories and methods in his books, creating a revolution in the way horses are evaluated and picked.
Since then we have seen quite a few adapters of his concept providing numeric figure as a reflection of a horse performance although none of them publicized his methodologies the same way Andy has done before. Figure makers like Len Ragozin, Jerry Brown, Bris for example are providing their 'numbers' as a black box which makes them impossible to reproduce, verify and even improve as a third party.
More than this I have to notice that as a bettor I certainly would have more confidence knowing the underling methodology of the calculation of these numbers but this seems not to be the case with the majority of horse players who seem to accept them in face value without any further examination.
In top of the black box approach of the method itself, we can detect the total lack of back testing which could improve the actual use of the figures.So what's the solution? If you are capable of reproducing, verifying, and improving, then you are capable of also doing that from known concepts. So make your own, and publish the method if you like. Be the change you want to happen.
So what's the solution? If you are capable of reproducing, verifying, and improving, then you are capable of also doing that from known concepts. So make your own, and publish the method if you like. Be the change you want to happen.
Publish where? If you publish your innovations you are giving your edge away for free, if you want to sell your numbers and document your methodology, someone will grass you up and Equibase will come after you so in the end you have run a closed shop. The current situation only promotes a status-quo with no significant advancement in knowledge.
DeltaLover
02-14-2011, 11:59 AM
The current situation only promotes a status-quo with no significant advancement in knowledge.
This is exactly what is happening right now.... :ThmbUp:
Milkshaker
02-14-2011, 12:21 PM
I guess the comparable analogy would be the software industry.
You have some firms making money selling the black-box version, guarding their code's secrecy, while open-source software makers are thriving and being embraced by a different set of customers.
I guess the comparable analogy would be the software industry.
You have some firms making money selling the black-box version, guarding their code's secrecy, while open-source software makers are thriving and being embraced by a different set of customers.
I have been thinking the same but it isn't possible imo, you would need to find data from somewhere.
Poppycock.
There is a lot of innovation going on out there.
Some have shared their basic techniques (CJ) a while others have kept things
secret but given us the tools to test and evaluate (HTR).
I'll tell you what. I have a hard time keeping up with the new improvements of both - in the last two years, I have seen more new stuff than in the last ten.
You gotta get out more.
GameTheory
02-14-2011, 12:41 PM
Publish where? If you publish your innovations you are giving your edge away for freeWhere ever you want. If you don't want to "give away your edge", don't do it.
if you want to sell your numbers and document your methodology, someone will grass you up and Equibase will come after you so in the end you have run a closed shop. The current situation only promotes a status-quo with no significant advancement in knowledge.People run a closed shop so you have to get those numbers from them, not because of Equibase. Places like HDW have a license from Equibase. They (and their sub-licensees) can publish they methods if they like -- in fact, for certain numbers and factors they do. Others they don't. Some books tell you exactly how to make certain ratings from the raw data, others tell you to go buy such-and-such product. Do Ragozin and Thorograph have Equibase licenses? Beats me, but that isn't what's keeping them from showing all the details of their methods -- they want to sell figures and not have them be reproducible, that's why. If all the raw data was freely available they'd do the same thing.
Poppycock.
There is a lot of innovation going on out there.
Some have shared their basic techniques (CJ) a while others have kept things
secret but given us the tools to test and evaluate (HTR).
I'll tell you what. I have a hard time keeping up with the new improvements of both - in the last two years, I have seen more new stuff than in the last ten.
You gotta get out more.
Name me three breakthroughs in terms of NEW KNOWLEDGE in the last 10 years.
I mean big new insights, not refinements of existing concepts, or ways to test your own ideas.
Where ever you want. If you don't want to "give away your edge", don't do it.
People run a closed shop so you have to get those numbers from them, not because of Equibase. Places like HDW have a license from Equibase. They (and their sub-licensees) can publish they methods if they like -- in fact, for certain numbers and factors they do. Others they don't. Some books tell you exactly how to make certain ratings from the raw data, others tell you to go buy such-and-such product. Do Ragozin and Thorograph have Equibase licenses? Beats me, but that isn't what's keeping them from showing all the details of their methods -- they want to sell figures and not have them be reproducible, that's why. If all the raw data was freely available they'd do the same thing.
But that's what I mean.You can't do anything unless you pay someone 'royalties' for your own discoveries. You already pay for the data, so why do you have to pay them a second time once you have a valuable new idea and what to commercialize it? It's similar to Bloomberg demanding royalties for every new method that the financial sectors finds to make money.
I agree with 'books', that is at least one way of making it pay.
Name me three breakthroughs in terms of NEW KNOWLEDGE in the last 10 years.
I mean big new insights, not refinements of existing concepts, or ways to test your own ideas.
The workout ratings (HTR)
The form cycle ratings (HTR)
CJ's method of making pace figures
And ways to test (HTR Robot) is a huge advancement for the horse player.
Dave Schwartz
02-14-2011, 01:04 PM
You have some firms making money selling the black-box version, guarding their code's secrecy, while open-source software makers are thriving and being embraced by a different set of customers.
Open-source only generates revenue when the users are prepared to either pay for training, customization or to make a product "industry standard" to monetize from an advertising direction.
The horse racing industry simply will not support such a model.
For anyone interested, I have published this free document which explains our par times, including how we make them.
http://www.horsestreet.com/products/pars/2005Pars/index.html
The workout ratings (HTR)
The form cycle ratings (HTR)
CJ's method of making pace figures
And ways to test (HTR Robot) is a huge advancement for the horse player.
The first two are implementations of existing concepts. I read about both in books that were written decades ago.
I'm not trying to be difficult Tom, and I'm not denying there are many quality products out there, but they mostly seem to be based on things that were first thought of a long time ago.
DJofSD
02-14-2011, 01:31 PM
Back in the 70's the patriarch of American handicappers Andy Beyer introduced the concept of speed figures. In his books he described his theories and methods in total transparency creating a revolution in the way horses are evaluated and picked.
Since then we have seen quite a few adapters of his concept providing numeric figure as a reflection of a horse performance although none of them publicized his methodologies the same way Andy has done before. Figure makers like Len Ragozin, Jerry Brown and Bris for example are providing their 'numbers' as a black box which makes them impossible to reproduce, verify and even improve as a third party.
More than this I have to notice that as a bettor I certainly would have more confidence knowing the underling methodology of the calculation of these numbers but this seems not to be the case with the majority of horse players who seem to accept them on face value without any further examination.
In top of the black box approach of the method itself, we can detect the total lack of back testing which could improve the actual use of the figures.
Do you think because you have a brokerage account with GS or MS that you get to know their formula for their internal metrics?
The first two are implementations of existing concepts. I read about both in books that were written decades ago.
I'm not trying to be difficult Tom, and I'm not denying there are many quality products out there, but they mostly seem to be based on things that were first thought of a long time ago.
No, you didn't. Trust me.
No, you didn't. Trust me.
Had a look at those numbers. I'm certainly not questioning the quality or their use (on the contrary) but I certainly read about those concepts before.
You assume he is using those concepts.
You assume he is using those concepts.
That's why I gathered from the newsletters and user guide, yes.
thaskalos
02-14-2011, 06:00 PM
The first two are implementations of existing concepts. I read about both in books that were written decades ago.
I'm not trying to be difficult Tom, and I'm not denying there are many quality products out there, but they mostly seem to be based on things that were first thought of a long time ago.The game has been going on for well over a century...can there really be something totally new "under the sun"?
Just because "speed" handicapping was revealed to us in the 70s...and "pace", along with "trip" handicapping, made their public appearance in the 80s...that doesn't mean that these were ORIGINAL concepts either; handicappers were using these methodologies for many years before they became publicly known...they just didn't have a name for them yet.
IMO...it is not necessary to invent new concepts, in order to better understand our game. There is a lot of "original" work that can still be done on the existing concepts and methodologies.
There is no need to reinvent the "old" game of handicapping; all we have to do is to look at the old game with a new set of eyes...
The game has been going on for well over a century...can there really be something totally new "under the sun"?
Just because "speed" handicapping was revealed to us in the 70s...and "pace", along with "trip" handicapping, made their public appearance in the 80s...that doesn't mean that these were ORIGINAL concepts either; handicappers were using these methodologies for many years before they became publicly known...they just didn't have a name for them yet.
IMO...it is not necessary to invent new concepts, in order to better understand our game. There is a lot of "original" work that can still be done on the existing concepts and methodologies.
There is no need to reinvent the "old" game of handicapping; all we have to do is to look at the old game with a new set of eyes...
I don't think progress ever comes from reviewing old ideas alone. The more incentive there is to develop new ideas, the better the rate of progress imo.
Native Texan III
02-14-2011, 07:25 PM
They were using time methods in UK in 1890s and Pittsburgh Phil used them in the 1900s.
I think progress is limited right now because of the inaccurate or lack of timing for all horses at all points of call. We have 21st century technology with 19th century timing. It could be worse, Europe still has a sun dial in place at most tracks.
Times at many points of call along with accurate distance traveled could only help speed and pace figures. Of course, with anything in racing, it is only valuable until everyone else catches on, which brings us full circle to the beginning of the thread.
I think progress is limited right now because of the inaccurate or lack of timing for all horses at all points of call. We have 21st century technology with 19th century timing. It could be worse, Europe still has a sun dial in place at most tracks.
Times at many points of call along with accurate distance traveled could only help speed and pace figures. Of course, with anything in racing, it is only valuable until everyone else catches on, which brings us full circle to the beginning of the thread.
Haha. Actually made me laugh.
I fully understand your perception of European handicapping information but to some extent this really is a case of if you let two people look at the same problem long enough they may well come up with two entirely different solutions. The British way of handicapping works too, even if there isn't much available in the way of sectional times.
Having more accurate times in the US would indeed increase accuracy but it's a technological improvement, not really a breakthrough idea in terms of creating figures (although it may or may not lead to some of course).
And there is little incentive for Equibase to invest in this anyway. It's not like there's a serious competitor out there who might beat them to it.
Haha. Actually made me laugh.
I fully understand your perception of European handicapping information but to some extent this really is a case of if you let two people look at the same problem long enough they may well come up with two entirely different solutions. The British way of handicapping works too, even if there isn't much available in the way of sectional times.
Having more accurate times in the US would indeed increase accuracy but it's a technological improvement, not really a breakthrough idea in terms of creating figures (although it may or may not lead to some of course).
And there is little incentive for Equibase to invest in this anyway. It's not like there's a serious competitor out there who might beat them to it.
Of course it works in Europe. However, there is no way the handicapping wouldn't be better with accurate timing and distances (which are also often way off as I'm sure you know).
US racing has a lot bigger issues than more accurate timing. I'm fine with what we have now. The money could be spent spent in other areas. I have no confidence it would be, but it could be.
DeltaLover
02-14-2011, 07:55 PM
The game has been going on for well over a century...can there really be something totally new "under the sun"?
Just because "speed" handicapping was revealed to us in the 70s...and "pace", along with "trip" handicapping, made their public appearance in the 80s...that doesn't mean that these were ORIGINAL concepts either; handicappers were using these methodologies for many years before they became publicly known...they just didn't have a name for them yet.
IMO...it is not necessary to invent new concepts, in order to better understand our game. There is a lot of "original" work that can still be done on the existing concepts and methodologies.
There is no need to reinvent the "old" game of handicapping; all we have to do is to look at the old game with a new set of eyes...
You are up to the point Δάσκαλε...
This new 'set of eyes' is what really can innovate the game from the gamblers perspective...
Meaning where Beyer was going by hand through each race performing his laborious calculations, today we can evolve his original approach to a more sophisticated one using for example graphs instead of class pars, AI for running line selection, least squares for time projection etc.
There is no doubt that the conceptual foundation is still the same and will remain for the years to come, what can improve our understanding of the game is the application a more scientific and generic approach!
Of course it works in Europe. However, there is no way the handicapping wouldn't be better with accurate timing and distances (which are also often way off as I'm sure you know).
US racing has a lot bigger issues than more accurate timing. I'm fine with what we have now. The money could be spent spent in other areas. I have no confidence it would be, but it could be.
I think the final times and distances are more accurate in Britain.
Regardless, you can use space technology if you want, but there are still fundamental problems with relying on "beaten distance" for both speed figs and performance ratings. You need ideas to fix those, not just technology.
I think the final times and distances are more accurate in Britain.
Regardless, you can use space technology if you want, but there are still fundamental problems with relying on "beaten distance" for both speed figs and performance ratings. You need ideas to fix those, not just technology.
Well, of course, that is why I said timing for all horses at various points.
Well, of course, that is why I said timing for all horses at various points.
No not of course. The problem isn't that there is a measurement error (although that bit doesn't help obviously).
No not of course. The problem isn't that there is a measurement error (although that bit doesn't help obviously).
You lost me. All I am saying is the technology is there to measure the time each individual horse takes to run various parts of the race. There is no need for "beaten lengths" any longer.
You lost me. All I am saying is the technology is there to measure the time each individual horse takes to run various parts of the race. There is no need for "beaten lengths" any longer.
Even if it was implemented at every track it still wouldn't fix some underlying problems. Think about it.
thaskalos
02-14-2011, 09:03 PM
Even if it was implemented at every track it still wouldn't fix some underlying problems. Think about it.There is a certain degree of chaos associated with our game which cannot be overcome by the advances of technology...but if, as CJ has suggested, there are accurate measurements of the horses' speed at the various points of call...it would be a monumental improvement over what we presently have.
I don't think progress ever comes from reviewing old ideas alone. The more incentive there is to develop new ideas, the better the rate of progress imo.
That is not what the thread started out about.
Even if it was implemented at every track it still wouldn't fix some underlying problems. Think about it.
Why not just say it? I probably know what you are talking about, but I don't feel like playing the guessing game.
I think progress is limited right now because of the inaccurate or lack of timing for all horses at all points of call. We have 21st century technology with 19th century timing. It could be worse, Europe still has a sun dial in place at most tracks.
Times at many points of call along with accurate distance traveled could only help speed and pace figures. Of course, with anything in racing, it is only valuable until everyone else catches on, which brings us full circle to he beginning of the thread.
Yeah, how long has Trakus been available?
And yet, it is basically 90% unused.
I think this game has hit it's technological limits at mis-timing to 100ths.:bang:
Even if it was implemented at every track it still wouldn't fix some underlying problems. Think about it.
It it your intention to play dodge ball in this thread?
You have changed the topic at every post.
Why not just say it? I probably know what you are talking about, but I don't feel like playing the guessing game.
Because it's an illustration of the thread's theme.
Suppose I have a grand solution for it, what incentive is there for me to share it with others?
Charlie D
02-14-2011, 09:39 PM
Bizarro World is still alive and kicking.
Because it's an illustration of the thread's theme.
Suppose I have a grand solution for it, what incentive is there for me to share it with others?
Maybe I'm just tired. We all do things to correct for known problems the best we can. None of it will beat using the most current technology.
Maybe I'm just tired. We all do things to correct for known problems the best we can. None of it will beat using the most current technology.
That relies on the assumption that the quantity you're measuring is being used in an optimal sense. If it's not, the positive effect of having more accurate measurements would get diluted.
That relies on the assumption that the quantity you're measuring is being used in an optimal sense. If it's not, the positive effect of having more accurate measurements would get diluted.
This is what I've always said. Give me the best possible measurements technology can provide. I'll take my chances that I can use them better than the competition.
Bizarro World is still alive and kicking.
The silliness never ends.....
classhandicapper
02-15-2011, 12:02 PM
Two points.
1. I think a lot of people were doing things privately a long time before they eventually made their way more into the public domain by people willing to sell their work or describe it in books.
2. I think there has been less of an effort to get accurate timing in Europe because turf racing is dominant and the more frequent extreme paces on turf (both here and in Europe) render final time less meaningful.
I don't know any high level European handicappers well, but I suspect that on average handicappers in Europe have a more sophisticated understanding of the sport, race development etc.. than their US counterparts specifically because they are less "numbers" oriented. Without numbers dictating their opinions and decisions, they are forced to try to understand what actually happened. I know every time I read something from Timeform, I am invariably impressed.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.