Paulick on Figure Makers
 

Each day this week the Paulick Report will feature a review of the different figure makers. First up are the Beyers.

https://www.paulickreport.com/horsep...-beyer-method/

I was interviewed for this, hopefully I'm one of the days. :)

Timeform
 

Key CJ quote:

Q:What's the most common trap figure makers fall into, according to Milkowski?

A:“I think the most common is we underestimate how much winners improve when they win races,” he said. “Most people are using a projection method or a par or something like that. But so many horses — I think this is quoting the Beyer study from a long time ago — I think they found the average winner improved more than 10 points over their previous figures. When horses win, they're usually improving and often by a lot and the younger the horse the more that's true.

Possible improved timing upgrade:

In the last week, it should be noted, three North American tracks officially installed a British company's GPS-based timing system. Woodbine, Laurel Park and Pimlico have been testing Total Performance Data for several months and the feedback Milkowski has gotten about it has been positive. The tracks seem to like it.

Cj, looks like you got a good and fair write-up. I learned something new about your methodology from your interview. I had noticed that sometimes you project a better figure for the horses in their spotlight figure - even better than their best representative figure, especially with young lightly raced horses. I seem to remember that one of the things Quinn's research found that the typical winner improves about 10 points over their last figure. This is doubly important with 2nd time starters, like my friend Cheerleadin' Cupcake. Remember her? Gotta love that filly. :)

Data Scientists
 

This is related but unrelated... I saw it last week and it got me thinking about people like Beyer, CJ, others, that were pioneers in horse racing data.

Horseplayers that were digging into data long before digging into data was the big money it is today. Lotus 123 days and up...

If they were all born into today's age, 150K is out there

Landing a 150k USD #datascientist job: Seven things you need to know

2) Working with large and high volume and often real time datasets: If you see the uber tech stack and the problems it is designed to handle, the volume and velocity of data implies that you need to rethink many aspects of the stack. The experience of working with large data volumes and real time datasets will be valuable

Something that you might want to consider.
So, who has more credibility when it comes to basic handicapping?
The “Figure” makers or someone who has actually proven himself in the betting arena?
It’s your decision (and your money).

Figure Makers: An Open Mind Rules The Beyer Method
Racing Maxims and Methods of Pittsburg Phil-- by Edward Cole (1908) (Excerpts from)

Pittsburgh Phil was referring to an era before accurate electronic timing or video replays to be used in pace analysis or track variants of any kind. Old Phill knew nothing of the technology available to modern figure makers and handicappers.
To compare handicapping methods of such different eras is absurd.

No, actually what’s absurd is anyone one believing that the use of our so-called modern measuring technology is capable of considering all of the real-world environmental effects (pointed out by Pittsburg Phil) on any given horse’s condition before, during and after a racing event. These thoroughbreds don’t run in a vacuum.

One might also want to consider who was more successful using their handicapping methodology and approach to the game.

Not if of one wants good figures.
The two are not always found in the same person.
I don't use CJ's figs the same way he uses them.
Same for Beyer.

Yes, your quotes from a 109-year-old book prove that no one has come up with any ideas since then that could possibly overcome any of the limitations "Pittsburgh Phil" mentioned. :bang:

And:A few days ago, in post number 82 in one of the Handicapping Library threads, you posted a link to a PDF written by Bill Benter.

As a result I reread the PDF in its entirety.

I've probably read that paper at least 20 times over the years.

Every time I read it I manage to pick up a nugget - some little detail I somehow missed during all of my previous readings about the way Benter was doing things when he wrote that paper.

Why does it have to be one or the other?

Why is it ok to use Tote data but not ok to use past performance data?

It seems pretty obvious to me that Benter created a successful model.

Based on what he wrote - it seems pretty obvious that Benter used BOTH past performance data and tote data in his model.

Beginning on page 184 Benter penned a chapter on "HANDICAPPING MODEL DEVELOPMENT" and specifically mentioned a handful of factors based on past performance data that he used in his model including "normalized times of past races."

What are speed and pace figures? Are they not simply a way of expressing normalized times from past races?



-jp

.

Look Nitro, if you don't want to use figures or PP data, good for you. But really there is no reason to try to derail the thread. Thanks in advance.

You mean by simply offering a different (and valid) opinion about the thread’s topic is “derailing the thread”?
I certainly don’t want to burst anyone’s bubble, but I sure wish I would have read Pittsburg Phil’s “Axioms” before Andy Beyer’s “Picking Winners”.

I’ll just respond to Jeff P’s very reasonable comments and I’ll leave this thread to those who seem enjoy talking “figures”.
Good luck!

Regarding Benter’s paper I too have read it many times over. I even went so far as to post it on PA and high-lighted many items that I believed were for serious consideration. I’m not sure if many realize this, but Bill B. had no background in horses or handicapping them whatsoever. (Anyone can read about his background and eventual involvement with horseracing in Hong Kong by reviewing his recent published interview) He of course developed an extremely detailed program which according to what I read ultimately used over 130 race data variables. He certainly did not exclusively rely on Speed figures (which is what this thread is all about) in his model. Yet, he admittedly claims that without incorporating the tote data his overall profit margin would have been comparatively reduced. He also stated the following:
From my personal perspective “it is ok to use Tote data, but not ok to use past performance data” for the following reasons:
A) PP data is limited to providing dated factual data about a horse’s performance at specific race conditions while competing against a limited number of entrants.
B) Any detailed analysis of PP data (be it Speed figures or otherwise) is open for subjective interpretation which inevitably results in a variety of deductions.
C) No conclusions can be drawn from the PP’s about a horse’s current mental or physical condition.
D) The interpretations of the PP’s can very often lead to over bet and under-valued selections because critical assumptions are made about a horse’s competitive nature.
E) A detailed review and final interpretation of analyzed PP’s can become cumbersome, tedious and time consuming.

I won’t bore you with my feelings about the tote analysis because I’ve stated it many times before. I will say that I’ve tried both methodologies simultaneously and it became counter-productive.

Here are a few Excerpts (as related to tote information) from:
“Computer Based Horse Race Handicapping and Wagering Systems:” Bill Benter.
A) B)