Sidebar

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by clemkadiddle

BRIS or Beyer are based on the same flawed theory of parallel time. I use them...but only to reverse-engineer the final time of the race where the 100-point score was awarded and compare that to standard parallel time charts to calculate the variant...which I do as a ratio...so it can be used when parsing the segments of the race into pace calculations.

Parallel time is flawed because it assumes the base 10 logarithm of the average feet per second differs by .0064 for each furlong. For each additional turn, add .0040.

The biggest mistake that practically everyone (but me) makes is to add 1/5 of a second for each length to the time at the fraction at the point of call. Many don't realize that the points of call don't necessarily correspond to the fractional times and the lengths need to be pro-rated to synchronize them. So too is the fact that handicappers try to make their calculations from point to point in the race, but fail to see that this method is lost in the averages from the preceding points in the race. The best approach is to cut the race into segments and analyze the speeding up and slowing down of the horse...even then, one fails to see that the average feet per second within each segment are just that...averages. They don't visualize just how fast the horse was going at the beginning of the segment and again at the end.

The only method that has any value is one that can truly estimate the amount of "work" a horse performs during the course of the race. As a horse runs faster, he expends energy exponentially; as he begins to slow down, he is still expending energy but the mode changes into more of a coasting.

After about 8 years of research I do believe I have that model. After all, if Beyer, BRIS, Brohammer, Sartin...or any of these approaches that are available were really worth anything...we would all be rich. That's why I didn't bother with this stuff.

Me: Computer programmer/analyst for over 25 years. Been a race fan for almost 40. It was only about 8 years ago that I really thought that I would take a shot at this in my spare time...and it has been paying off since last June. (However, I really need to spend more time and fine tune some things but basically I am staying ahead of the game.)

HINT: A horse really doesn't start spending racing energy until he crosses the 44 FPS threshold...the "2 minute lick".

Nice post, my fellow computer programmer/analyst.

Parallel time isn't flawed. Parallel time still is the most published speed and the best single handicapping factor for a win percentage. I'm not disagreeing with making your figs. One might just get a higher ROI with numbers that the crowd doesn't use. My recent figs are feet per second (FTS) based also.