Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Handicapping Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 12-04-2022, 04:04 PM   #61
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post
I don't really care about being more accurate about who is going to finish 6th, 7th, 8th etc.... I just want to maximize winners.

Is there anything that can be done to trick it in some way. I was thinking of keeping all the winners as a 1 and everyone else as a 0 or 99.
Keeping the winners as "1" and every other position as "0" improved the results significantly. This is worth pursuing.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-09-2022, 01:32 PM   #62
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,528
Here's another "potential" issue that comes up with regression analysis.

Let's say I'm ranking the horses based on multiple factors and these are the speed figures for two races.

100 - 1
90 - 2
89 - 3
85 - 4
79 - 5


100 -1
99 - 2
98 - 3
85 - 4
79 - 5


Ranks don't do a good job of getting at the gap between the top rated horse and the rest.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-09-2022, 03:10 PM   #63
ranchwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: near Lone Star Park
Posts: 5,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post
Here's another "potential" issue that comes up with regression analysis.

Let's say I'm ranking the horses based on multiple factors and these are the speed figures for two races.

100 - 1
90 - 2
89 - 3
85 - 4
79 - 5


100 -1
99 - 2
98 - 3
85 - 4
79 - 5


Ranks don't do a good job of getting at the gap between the top rated horse and the rest.
The more commonly used factors that you use, the more likely you are going to be on the favorite. It's not a good way to pick for value.
__________________
Ranch West
Equine Performance Analyst, Quick Grid Software
ranchwest is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-09-2022, 03:55 PM   #64
headhawg
crusty old guy
 
headhawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Snarkytown USA
Posts: 3,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post
Ranks don't do a good job of getting at the gap between the top rated horse and the rest.
Under most circumstances, raw values do a better job than ranks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranchwest View Post
The more commonly used factors that you use, the more likely you are going to be on the favorite. It's not a good way to pick for value.
Picking value horses comes during the betting process, not the handicapping process. Would you eliminate using speed/pace from your handicapping method? Doubtful.
__________________
"Don't believe everything that you read on the Internet." -- Abraham Lincoln
headhawg is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-09-2022, 05:02 PM   #65
ranchwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: near Lone Star Park
Posts: 5,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by headhawg View Post
Under most circumstances, raw values do a better job than ranks.
Picking value horses comes during the betting process, not the handicapping process. Would you eliminate using speed/pace from your handicapping method? Doubtful.
I don't want to leave out legit chalk, but I don't want all chalk, either.

There was a race at OP today where a 20% jockey was on a 1TS. Unfortunately I didn't have it because it paid $96 to win. There are factors other than speed and pace.
__________________
Ranch West
Equine Performance Analyst, Quick Grid Software

Last edited by ranchwest; 12-09-2022 at 05:04 PM.
ranchwest is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-10-2022, 09:56 AM   #66
Tom
The Voice of Reason!
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post
Here's another "potential" issue that comes up with regression analysis.

Let's say I'm ranking the horses based on multiple factors and these are the speed figures for two races.

100 - 1
90 - 2
89 - 3
85 - 4
79 - 5


100 -1
99 - 2
98 - 3
85 - 4
79 - 5


Ranks don't do a good job of getting at the gap between the top rated horse and the rest.

I use Mitchel's Index Number idea for my rankings (Thanks, HH for the assist!)
I use the 60-11 scale he used in his books with good results. It puts speed, pace, class, and PP on the same scale.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
Tom is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-10-2022, 10:44 AM   #67
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom View Post
I use Mitchel's Index Number idea for my rankings (Thanks, HH for the assist!)
I use the 60-11 scale he used in his books with good results. It puts speed, pace, class, and PP on the same scale.
That's the issue I'm thinking about.

I have certain factors on the same scale (class and speed), but others are not. When I ran the regression that way, it lost accuracy. When I switched to rank, it worked a lot better, but I suspect there could be issues here or there related to the gap between horses that are not handled well by using rank to get at the proper weight for each factor.

I'm glad this thread was started and branched off into this direction because it gave me the motivation to revisit some of this stuff. I'm unquestionably going to learn some things.

I'll see what I can find on that Index Number idea. Thanks
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-11-2022, 12:04 PM   #68
Tom
The Voice of Reason!
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post

I'll see what I can find on that Index Number idea. Thanks
Class, I attached an example spreadsheet for how I use it, for today's 3rd race at Aqueduct.

It uses the BRIS PP, AC3, and SR last race.
I weigh each according to current results and get a Power number.
The constant is simply the regression line formula for the percentages of the power numbers expressed as probability ranging from .01 to .99.
Attached Files
File Type: xls ODDS POWER NUMBERS INDEX EX.xls (9.5 KB, 75 views)
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
Tom is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-11-2022, 12:21 PM   #69
headhawg
crusty old guy
 
headhawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Snarkytown USA
Posts: 3,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranchwest View Post
I don't want to leave out legit chalk, but I don't want all chalk, either.

There was a race at OP today where a 20% jockey was on a 1TS. Unfortunately I didn't have it because it paid $96 to win. There are factors other than speed and pace.
I am not arguing that there are multiple factors affecting a race; that's common sense. But what are your "uncommon" factors for a $96 FTS? The 20% jockey? Nope. Trainer stats with maidens/FTS? uh-uh. Pedigree? Probably not. Workouts? Definitely not. If a person is using PPs or data files then there are no factors that aren't common. An edge probably goes to experts in physicality and trip handicapping, things not found in the PPs.
__________________
"Don't believe everything that you read on the Internet." -- Abraham Lincoln
headhawg is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-11-2022, 12:35 PM   #70
headhawg
crusty old guy
 
headhawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Snarkytown USA
Posts: 3,909
One thing to remember about the Indexing system -- the range doesn't have to be 60 to 100. Mitchell implied that 50 to 100 or 70 to 100 might be more appropriate depending on the factor. Using something like IV scores (IV ratio) might be an indicator of whether or not the index range needs to be narrower or wider. I began working on the spiritual successor to Handifast recently and have been playing around with different ranges. Food for thought.
__________________
"Don't believe everything that you read on the Internet." -- Abraham Lincoln
headhawg is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-11-2022, 11:52 PM   #71
ranchwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: near Lone Star Park
Posts: 5,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by headhawg View Post
I am not arguing that there are multiple factors affecting a race; that's common sense. But what are your "uncommon" factors for a $96 FTS? The 20% jockey? Nope. Trainer stats with maidens/FTS? uh-uh. Pedigree? Probably not. Workouts? Definitely not. If a person is using PPs or data files then there are no factors that aren't common. An edge probably goes to experts in physicality and trip handicapping, things not found in the PPs.
Yeah, 20% jockey being a common factor must be why the horse was 47/1.
__________________
Ranch West
Equine Performance Analyst, Quick Grid Software
ranchwest is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-12-2022, 08:36 AM   #72
headhawg
crusty old guy
 
headhawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Snarkytown USA
Posts: 3,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranchwest View Post
Yeah, 20% jockey being a common factor must be why the horse was 47/1.
Don't be dumb. Are you going to tell me that people don't look at jockey stats as a regular part of handicapping? Forget it. Go back to mining your "uncommon" factors. You're just another guy here who thinks everything he posts is gold but gets defensive when called out on flawed logic.
__________________
"Don't believe everything that you read on the Internet." -- Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by headhawg; 12-12-2022 at 08:38 AM.
headhawg is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-12-2022, 12:21 PM   #73
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom View Post
Class, I attached an example spreadsheet for how I use it, for today's 3rd race at Aqueduct.

It uses the BRIS PP, AC3, and SR last race.
I weigh each according to current results and get a Power number.
The constant is simply the regression line formula for the percentages of the power numbers expressed as probability ranging from .01 to .99.
Thanks Tom.

I'd be more than willing to put my spreadsheet out when I get some decent weights, but most of the ratings are my own. So I'm not so sure my weights would be very applicable to the ratings other people are using.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-12-2022, 06:24 PM   #74
ranchwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: near Lone Star Park
Posts: 5,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by headhawg View Post
Don't be dumb. Are you going to tell me that people don't look at jockey stats as a regular part of handicapping? Forget it. Go back to mining your "uncommon" factors. You're just another guy here who thinks everything he posts is gold but gets defensive when called out on flawed logic.
So you defend jockey win percentage being a common factor despite this horse having a 20% jockey and paying 47/1 ($96.00). Brilliant, just brilliant. Handicappers bet on NAME JOCKEYS.
__________________
Ranch West
Equine Performance Analyst, Quick Grid Software

Last edited by ranchwest; 12-12-2022 at 06:25 PM.
ranchwest is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 12-12-2022, 06:41 PM   #75
headhawg
crusty old guy
 
headhawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Snarkytown USA
Posts: 3,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranchwest View Post
So you defend jockey win percentage being a common factor despite this horse having a 20% jockey and paying 47/1 ($96.00). Brilliant, just brilliant. Handicappers bet on NAME JOCKEYS.
You're the dolt who posted to classhandicapper that using common factors will lead to the favorite. (Brilliant insight, btw ) So given your $97 horse example are you saying that jockey win% is not a common factor? It's an easy question. Just answer yes or no so people here can understand your level of handicapping competence. I already know what it is.
__________________
"Don't believe everything that you read on the Internet." -- Abraham Lincoln
headhawg is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.