Originally Posted by Whosonfirst (Post 2343554)

No expert here on commercial pace ratings, but thought someone could explain Bris pace ratings to me. Before you give me a link I've read how they supposedly develop the numbers.
Case in Point, Delaware Race 1(today) 7/19-5f Dirt.
:1: Magnificentmindset ran 22.3-47.3-1:01.0-1:08.2(1/5's) LR at 5.5f -E2=80

:2: Theresa's Honor ran 22.4-47.4-1:00.3-1:07.1 LR at 5.5f - E2 = 82
The above was in the same race. :1: set the first fraction and was 1 hd behind at 2nd call, so her times using 1L = 1/5 sec are basically the same as the leader.

:2: was one beaten length behind at both 1st and 2nd calls. So using 1L = 1/5 sec. the :2: still arrived at the 2nd call slower than :1: Her TT would be an identical 25.0 as the :1: although she arrived there in a slower time.

I was questioning how they gave :2: an 82 pace rating vs. :1:'s 80 rating? While this is only a 2 pt. difference, I've seen some that are real head scratchers. In another program of my own, I do equate 1 hd to .2 length, but rarely use it.

Originally Posted by cj (Post 2343564)

Why in 2018 we're still using calls and fractions that don't match is beyond me.

Originally Posted by jay68802 (Post 2343567)

The same reason that we do not time from the gate and use about distances.

:confused::confused::confused::confused:
:bang::bang::bang::bang:

Originally Posted by cj (Post 2343564)

The second call can be a little tricky at these short distance because the time is given for four furlongs but the call is given at a different point. Here is a good reference point:

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/stati...calltimeschart

Could be that BRIS does what I also do. I match the calls to the fractions given. In this case, here is how the second call looks, but keep in mind it comes at the 3 furlong mark:

:1: 0.1
:2: 1.0

The next call is the stretch call, which always comes one furlong before the finish. So in this case it is 4.5 furlongs, which more closely matches the given fraction which is being used to make the pace figures:

:1: 5.0
:2: 2.5

What I do is figure out the time at both points and estimate each horse's time at four furlongs. It isn't perfect, but it is all you can really do unless you want to watch every replay and chart them yourself. You could also blend the beaten lengths to give a decent estimate.

The :1: was 0.1 back at 3f and 5 lengths back at 4.5f, so you can estimate the horse was ~3.35 lengths back at 4f.

The :2: was 5.0 back at 3f and 2.5 lengths back at 4.5f, so you can estimate the horse was ~3.33 lengths back at 4f.



Obviously the :2: passed the :1: at some point between the 3f call and the 4.5 call and based on the beaten lengths the 4f point looks like a pretty good estimate of when it happened.

Main point is you do the best you can with poorly constructed data. Why in 2018 we're still using calls and fractions that don't match is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Whosonfirst (Post 2343601)

Thanks CJ & Tom, I was thinking that only 5f was using 3f. for 2nd call, thought that 5.5f was like the 6f, duh. Okay, using your estimates for lengths back at 2nd call(4f) we have:
:1: 3.35 bl's = 80
:2: 3.33 bl's. = 82 so .02/100's of a length = 2 pts.
It almost looks like they're using 4.5 f mark. No need to respond. These two look to be the favorites today.

Originally Posted by DeltaLover (Post 2343627)

How much better would it be for the bettor if completely accurate data existed?

I dare to say that low quality of data can very well provide higher chance for profit, assuming the necessary effort to clean and reshape it.

Originally Posted by cj (Post 2343791)

It would help the better players IMO. It would also shed a more positive light on the game. Imagine a sharp, eager newcomer to the sport with a math degree fresh out of college, then you explain the 5f and 5.5f thing to him or her. After the laughter was finished, they'd probably move on to something else.

Originally Posted by DeltaLover (Post 2343816)

Although I do not understand the reasoning behind the laugher, I have no doubt about the "moving on to something else"; simply stated. this "sport" does not have to offer enough of to a sharp newcomer and makes no sense for him to get hooked with it,

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey (Post 2343760)

I glance at the pace figs, but have seen so many anomalous numbers that I decline to use them seriously.



Their numbers for long routes are just plain ridiculous

Originally Posted by Tom (Post 2344003)

If you are using a mechanical method, ie, best of last three, you might be saying the horse is a great late runner with that 89 LP. But the slow 14 pace is the reason why - it used no energy early on.

Originally Posted by Light (Post 2344101)

Good point. And many times the horse with a great LP is not really a closer at all nor does he/she have the ability to close.

For "quick handicapping" I frequently look at the "Late Pace Last Race" category in the Ultimate PP's which I get for free on TS. I look for a strong closer for either exacta key horse betting or show betting at a price. I especially look to see if the Top LP horse has a significant point separation from the rest of the pack.

But many times the top closer listed is actually a speedster that went w-w and has never passed a horse in its life. Hence another reason besides yours stated above as to why the horse earned such a high LP figure. So you have to verify whether a high late pace figure horse is really a late pace type of horse by looking at its running style and how it earned that LP figure. Of course after all that, there is no guarantee that the horse will not bounce or that the jockey will not give him a bonehead ride.