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 10-29-2018, 06:49 PM   #31
ARAZI91
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro View Post
Well Arazi91 thank you for taking the time for explaining why the overall average position of the Placer is so important!

Apparently, you’ve also answered the question as to why my figures that were based on ACTUAL time splits, final time, beaten lengths and track variants were so flawed and misguided. You see, I never considered the fictional concept of the using numbers based on HYPOTHETICAL theories such as “how the race should be run” or where the horses “should finish behind each other”.

Gee, I always thought that analyzing the running and of each race was based on REALITY. Thank goodness I gave all that up!

By all means - Carry on!
Fair Do's Nitro - you asked a question regarding the significance of studies such as the type requested by the opening poster and i tried to answer from a viewpoint which seems quite obvious to me. Replace the Actual , Hypothetical and Reality terms in bold with something more probabilistic and we may even have some common ground. If your using times , beaten margins , worth of beaten margins , weight etc , it seems quite sensible (to me anyway) to study/model those variables as well.
ARAZI91 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 07:43 PM   #32
ARAZI91
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
This is what I get for average beaten lengths at the finish.

Code:
Surf	Dist	Races	Avg BL
1-Dirt	1-Spt	106333	2.55
1-Dirt	2-Rte	43351	2.89
1-Dirt	3-Mar	61	2.73
2-Turf	1-Spt	9132	1.54
2-Turf	2-Rte	15829	1.49
2-Turf	3-Mar	191	1.50
3-Poly	1-Spt	10752	2.05
3-Poly	2-Rte	6191	2.21
Sprint is < 1 mile, Route is > 1 mile and < 1 1/4 miles, Marathon (LOL) is > 1 1/4 miles.

This definitely argues for the popular beaten length adjustments changing too much as distance changes as steveb suggested.

What is interesting is that the value of time seems to need two measures IMO. You need one to rate horses behind the winner, and another to rate the winners and be able to compare races run at different distances.

You could easily assign a value of one point to, for example, 0.15 seconds and apply that for all distances on dirt as a "beaten lengths" value. A horse beaten 0.60 seconds is rated 4 points below the winner.

What you can't do is use that same 0.15 seconds and apply it to winning times. If you have calculated a baseline of 1:10 for 6f and 1:22 for 7f, both equal to 100, you'll get in trouble if you try to use that same 0.15 at both distances for the winners. For example, if a 6f race goes in 1:12.50 and a 7f race goes in 1:23.50, both are 1.50 slower than the baseline. If you use that same 0.15 both races would be docked 10 points and be rated as 90, but in reality the 7f races should be higher rated, all other things being equal.
Over here in the UK we work in in terms of weight and usually in pounds instead of your "speed" points. The official handicappers here work on a scale of 0-140. First thing i would do with the two races in your example is equate those 1.50 differences to relevant poundage using a simple equation and a constant of 1500lbs (25lbs per second) , i have added a few other theoretical races at increased distances with the same time difference from standard(baseline) and for illustration used a base of 140 to show the effect it has on the base ratings - obviously this is pre-variant and not accounting for weight/wind/maturity/sex etc.
We also construct the variant (termed a "Going Allowance" over here) by use of the official handicap ratings as a measure of expected/actual ability and this is generally expressed in pounds as well so that it ties in with the official scale.

Attached Images
File Type: jpg equate.JPG (35.0 KB, 32 views)
ARAZI91 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 08:15 PM   #33
steveb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARAZI91 View Post
Hi Steve

Yes the times are official taken from the PF (Racetech is the operator) and already converted by the lengths per second scale as stated used by the BHA based on the official going (usually done by readings from the Turftrax Going Stick) - https://www.turftrax.co.uk/goingstick.html

I have attached the Lengths Per Second scale used here , although as i said previously through my own studies i have noticed inconsistencies from what they have stated they "should" be using to what they have actually used.
On Flat Turf the scale should be 6 lengths per second (0.166) on Firm ground to Good ground , 5.5 lengths per second (0.181) on Good To Soft and 5 lengths per second (0.20) on Soft / Heavy. They have separate scales for All Weather Racing and National Hunt Racing.
I basically replicate these conversions so that my figures are in line with the BHA's Official Handicap ratings , as these are a big part of my method of rating.

if you have the times then you need not worry about margins or seconds per length or anything.
if you have times for all runners then what more could one ask?
the times will mean you don't need to worry about anything those official guys say on the subject, you can ignore them and be better off for doing it.



forgetting weight(mass & hcp) and pace and all the extraneous stuff for now.....
time is just about percentages/ratios, nothing else.


if you win a 1000m race in 58 and a beaten runner does the trip in 59 then assuming the race speed was 100 then it's just 58/59 = 0.983050847



if the race was 2000m(and again assuming 100 speed for race) and they run 124 and a beaten one runs 125
then it's 124/125=.992


now i am being a bit precious here because one of them is wrong, and it's the way of beyer(even if he does not realise it himself)

the above are just beyers but expressed as simple percentages.


to understand them better then......
0.983050847 needs to be converted to .....of a 1000

(0.983050847-.9)*1000 = 83.05
so if the winner was 100 then the beaten one is 83.05


for the 200m race....
(.992-.9)*1000= 92



now lets just assume there was another race of 1000m and 2000m on the card and they were for jeju ponies!the 1000m was won 64s and the 2000 in 130 and each race had a runner beaten that same 1 second.
64/65= 0.984615385 = (0.984615385-.9) * 1000 = 84.6

130/131= 0.992366412 = (0.992366412) * 1000 = 92.37

thus beaten a second in 58 second race is not the same as being beaten a second in a 64 second race.
ditto for the 2000(which is still wrong in both cases, as would be beyer)


now let's compare the speeds of the four races....assuming the first two were run equivalent to the standard which would give them a speed of 100


if 58 equals 100 then 64 equals.......58/64=.9375 = (0.90625 -.9) *1000 = a race speed of 6.25....i said they were jeju's!

if 124 equals 100 then 130 equals 124/130=0.953846154 = 53.85


in this case the race speeds would be correct even though using the same way for beaten runners is incorrect.


it's just a long winded way of saying raw times are about ratios and not much else.
it also means that you don't need any constants.
everything is proportionate.
no assumptions and in my view making asumptions when none needed is bad.



how the beaten runners should be handled is only slightly different, and you need to account for the race distance in your calculation but is basically the same....any takers on how?


EDIT: just needed to fix some errors.....too early for wine stephen!
hopefully there is no more mistakes.

Last edited by steveb; 10-29-2018 at 08:24 PM.
steveb is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 08:58 PM   #34
Tom
The Voice of Reason!
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro View Post
Just telling it like is my friend! (Without any personal bashing BTW)

It’s truly unfortunate how many are duped into believing that they can use an exact science like math to analyze a game loaded with continually changing variables. Now we’re moving on to Physics no less! That’s interesting because I’m sure many talking about it couldn’t tell you the difference between Velocity and Acceleration. Or even explain the basic formula F=ma and how that might pertain to a moving object.

But as I mentioned, Carry On
I'll leave this thread in peace!
You should not criticized things you obviously know nothing about.
Just because YOU can't understand it doesn't mean it can't be done. Obviously, a lot of people know much more than you ever will.

Carry on.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
Tom is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 09:41 PM   #35
steveb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARAZI91 View Post
Over here in the UK we work in in terms of weight and usually in pounds instead of your "speed" points. The official handicappers here work on a scale of 0-140. First thing i would do with the two races in your example is equate those 1.50 differences to relevant poundage using a simple equation and a constant of 1500lbs (25lbs per second) , i have added a few other theoretical races at increased distances with the same time difference from standard(baseline) and for illustration used a base of 140 to show the effect it has on the base ratings - obviously this is pre-variant and not accounting for weight/wind/maturity/sex etc.
We also construct the variant (termed a "Going Allowance" over here) by use of the official handicap ratings as a measure of expected/actual ability and this is generally expressed in pounds as well so that it ties in with the official scale.

and going off topic!


weight is an interesting variable
where i can figure how much it is worth, then it's worth as a predictor is more or less depending on how well the official handicappers do their job.


i can get minimal value out of weight in hk where the spread is great and they are nearly all handicaps, and the people doing it don't cater to the whims of whingeing trainers and owners.



conversly when i used to do japan(not sure if still the same) weight was very very important because there was usually bugger all spread and they were set weights.
which of course means the weights were more similar than the abilty of the horses involved , thus far easier to find the advantaged/disadvantaged.


all the other countries have those same variations that make them all different as to how good a predictor weight is.


but imo weight has almost the same impact at any distance.
it's when they are under pressure that the weight is important, not when they are just following the leader early and mid stage doing bugger all work



a long time ago i had a conversation with aw's 2ic and he told me that they could find nothing to indicate weight was more important at longer distances.
that matched my own thinking.
it's more about how they work in the run than it is about distance.
steveb is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 10:10 PM   #36
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARAZI91 View Post
Over here in the UK we work in in terms of weight and usually in pounds instead of your "speed" points. The official handicappers here work on a scale of 0-140. First thing i would do with the two races in your example is equate those 1.50 differences to relevant poundage using a simple equation and a constant of 1500lbs (25lbs per second) , i have added a few other theoretical races at increased distances with the same time difference from standard(baseline) and for illustration used a base of 140 to show the effect it has on the base ratings - obviously this is pre-variant and not accounting for weight/wind/maturity/sex etc.
We also construct the variant (termed a "Going Allowance" over here) by use of the official handicap ratings as a measure of expected/actual ability and this is generally expressed in pounds as well so that it ties in with the official scale.
I work for an affiliate of Timeform (TimeformUS) so I'd like to think I at least know the basics of how things are done in the UK.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 10:13 PM   #37
ReplayRandall
Buckle Up
 
ReplayRandall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
I work for an affiliate of Timeform (TimeformUS) so I'd like to think I at least know the basics of how things are done in the UK.
It's a "Brit" thing, CJ....They still think the US is ruled by the Queen.
ReplayRandall is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 10:26 PM   #38
steveb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
I work for an affiliate of Timeform (TimeformUS) so I'd like to think I at least know the basics of how things are done in the UK.

i was going to ask you that and forgot.
are your figures done so as to line up with figures from timeform in other countries?
ie: is 100 of yours meant to equal 100 of theirs?
i read where simon rowlands was involved is setting up timeformUS.
steveb is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 10:31 PM   #39
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveb View Post
i was going to ask you that and forgot.
are your figures done so as to line up with figures from timeform in other countries?
ie: is 100 of yours meant to equal 100 of theirs?
i read where simon rowlands was involved is setting up timeformUS.
Yes, they are. I did a lot of work with Simon on that project.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 10:42 PM   #40
steveb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
Yes, they are. I did a lot of work with Simon on that project.

that's interesting, was their any conflict in methodolgy between the two of you?

i have no idea of how good timeform(we have one in aust as you would know) is, because i have always done everything for myself, but weight is a fair whack of what they do isn't it?
i had always thought that in america they don't have as much emphasis on it.


EDIT: there not their!!! hiccup.

Last edited by steveb; 10-29-2018 at 10:50 PM. Reason: pissed!
steveb is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-29-2018, 11:11 PM   #41
steveb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 900
just to show what beyers really are.
examples taken from 'picking winners' starting page 139 where they are rounded

in effect if you want to do raw beyer you don't need any charts, just one simple calculation. (time1/time2-.9)*1000-100+ race speed.

just that you need to accept they are wrong to use for the beaten brigade.


of course time is much more involved than this, just showing what beyers are, but even that simple little calculation is better than beyer because it also accounts for going/surface and the like automatically,
Attached Files
File Type: xlsx beyerstuff.xlsx (10.1 KB, 37 views)
steveb is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-30-2018, 12:48 AM   #42
Nitro
Registered User
 
Nitro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 18,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom View Post
You should not criticized things you obviously know nothing about.
Just because YOU can't understand it doesn't mean it can't be done.
Obviously, a lot of people know much more than you ever will.

Carry on.
Thanks for the invite, and so I will close with this:

That’s the problem Tom! I question and perhaps criticize only because I thoroughly understand the numbers game. I know it might be hard for you and perhaps others to believe, but I’ve been there and done that with an intensity that would shock even the die-hards around here. Besides I never said it “couldn’t be done”.

Some might find that methodology a real and interesting challenge in terms of time and effort. I’m the last person that would want to deprive anyone of that sort of objective especially if they really have faith in it. However, the bottom line (for me anyway) is why do it when the ends don’t justify the means?

I feel that way only because I know I can play this game more efficiently with superior results by simply using objective information that’s up to the minute, and in point of fact takes everything about each race into consideration. The only decision that’s left is determining whether or not there’s enough value in the race to make it playable.

Some of course will have their doubts and that’s fine. But I also defy any so called handicapper (especially those who do a lot of writing without actually demonstrating their stuff) to simply provide 2 Key selections along with any 3 Others of Interest that will produce above average results in 3 consecutive races.

In terms of time spent, each of my examples (below) took me just a portion of time of a typical betting cycle (about 7 minutes).
All that's required is comparing the Entry Value (E Value) with the PAR Value at each betting interval.
Occurred on Sept. 29th at Churchill Downs: Live Tote Analysis for Races 9, 10 & 11.

Code:
 
RACE – 9 – Selections: 6-1 W/ 3-5-4
	 1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	0	PAR
M/L	 2.5	15.0	12.0	15.0	15.0	1.0	10.0	6.0	 	 
12-MinP  2.5	17.0	9.0	9.0	9.0	1.4	11.0	8.0	 	 
E VALUE	114	323	212	238	218	111	194	271	####	168
7-MinP   2.5	17.0	9.0	10.0	9.0	1.4	10.0	8.0	 	 
E VALUE	140	322	181	197	182	105	203	247	####	165
5-MinP   3.0	18.0	7.0	11.0	10.0	1.2	11.0	8.0	 	 
E VALUE	132	334	169	175	172	105	211	239	####	161
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	0	PAR
Code:
 
RACE – 10 – Selections 1-2 W/ 5-4-8
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	0	PAR
M/L	2.0	5.0	30.0	2.5	3.5	20.0	20.0	12.0	12.0	 	 
12-MinP	2.0	5.0	19.0	6.0	3.0	19.0	13.0	7.0	7.0	 	 
E VALUE	121	170	330	204	245	272	301	128	139	####	196
7-Min P	1.8	4.5	22.0	6.0	3.0	22.0	14.0	9.0	10.0	 	 
E VALUE	130	191	380	219	223	285	335	184	263	####	216
5-MinP	1.6	4.5	21.0	6.0	3.5	23.0	15.0	9.0	12.0	 	 
E VALUE	114	168	356	202	210	298	325	197	278	####	201
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	0	PAR
Code:
 
RACE – 11 – Selections 8-9 W/ 4-5-2
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	0	PAR
M/L	Scr.	8.0	5.0	6.0	3.0	15.0	Scr.	3.5	10.0	 	 
12-MinP	SCR	5.0	8.0	4.0	3.5	11.0	SCR	2.5	3.5	 	 
E VALUE	####	159	198	163	171	185	####	142	107	####	154
7-MinP	SCR	5.0	8.0	4.0	3.5	13.0	SCR	2.0	3.5	 	 
E VALUE	####	162	186	155	158	268	####	109	127	####	157
5-MinP	SCR	6.0	6.0	4.0	4.0	15.0	SCR	2.0	4.0	 	 
E VALUE	####	175	181	162	173	272	####	104	121	####	169
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	0	PAR
Red-boarding!? Heaven forbid!
If you’re interested in seeing the actual posts and results:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...=147747&page=3

BTW let me know if you have any difficulty structuring a Vertical Exotic with the suggested Key entry format presented.
Nitro is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-30-2018, 03:55 AM   #43
steveb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobphilo View Post
You have a point there. Beyer uses what seems to be a common sensical explanation in his books where he compares beaten lengths in horse racing to losing margins in human track and field. He points out that someone running the 100 meter dash by one second slower than an Olympic champion would barely win a high school meet while someone running the Marathon 1 second slower than an Olympic champion would be considered one of the world's best runners. The only problem is he cites the difference between 100 meter dashes and the Marathon, where the longer distance is thousands of times longer, compared to horse races where route races are less than twice as long as sprints. We do see much larger margins in 12 furlong races, like the Belmont Stakes, than in 6 furlong sprints but that is mainly because American horses are not bred for stamina and the also-rans quit long before the finish.

Pace and the way the race is run seems to be more of a factor in beaten lengths and Beyer seems to have realized this to some extent since he now applies the same value to beaten lengths to grass route races as dirt sprints since grass races are typically run like sprints in the last 2 or 3 furlongs.

This has been a very informative thread.

i missed this first time around.
as regards your bit in bold...

i have no idea how beyer does it now.
i just have those books that he wrote in the long ago, that got me interested it time, when i was naysayer.
but i don't think you need to treat them(surfaces) differently, because.......
margins on dirt will be magnified more than turf and i can so no reason why the same would not be the case in your country.

thus the proportions would be the same.
it's no different to say fast turf one day, and heavy turf the next where the margins would be magnified.
you just need to keep the ratios right.


regarding the margin chart in 'picking winners' on pages 146 and 147 is basically where it is all wrong.....for several reasons.
beaten 6 lengths over 6f he says to deduct 15 speed points, over 1.5 miles the same 6 length you deduct 7 points(half as much), which is plainly silly.
but worse than that.....you deduct 15 points regardless of the race time, be it 69 or 74 seconds
ditto with the mile and half.
that is plainly wrong.
if one knew the conversion factor used at the track, then you would be better converting margin back to time and using that simple formula i posted earleir.
or if lucky enough to have the individual times, then forget margin and use the times.


as for turf and dirt races being paced differently, where it may be correct, it will be because dirt tires them faster than turf, and the proportions may well be different because of that.
but i don't think that is an overall time issue, you would just have differing optimums for pace, so it's more like a section issue in my point of view.
that's certainly how i would handle it anyway.
steveb is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-30-2018, 05:46 AM   #44
ARAZI91
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
I work for an affiliate of Timeform (TimeformUS) so I'd like to think I at least know the basics of how things are done in the UK.
Well aware of your position with TimeformUS CJ , just did not know how much common ground the UK/US methods share. Have a lot of respect for Rowlands and he has gave me many clues which after testing have came up true. Not all speed raters here use such methods and there are still some churning out Mordin type figures , with no regard to weight (nearly 70% of our races are handicaps lol) and using class pars and averages for standard times. There are even some who have tried to adapt some Brohammer type calculations for the All Weather tracks that have full sectionals.
ARAZI91 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-30-2018, 05:52 AM   #45
ARAZI91
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveb View Post
that's interesting, was their any conflict in methodolgy between the two of you?

i have no idea of how good timeform(we have one in aust as you would know) is, because i have always done everything for myself, but weight is a fair whack of what they do isn't it?
i had always thought that in america they don't have as much emphasis on it.


EDIT: there not their!!! hiccup.
Was actually just reading their take on the Cox Plate there Steve. http://ww1.racingandsports.com.au/en...e-story-464580
ARAZI91 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 10:09 AM.


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.