Math Question

[JJMartin]

How would you create a math formula that would normalize the following:

Horse A life record wins is 4/4
Horse B life record wins is 9/10

At face value, Horse A won 100% of its races while B won 90%, however Horse B is more accomplished considering the difficulty of obtaining such a record. Any ideas on a mathematical solution that would give more weight to Horse B?

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by JJMartin

How would you create a math formula that would normalize the following:

Horse A life record wins is 4/4
Horse B life record wins is 9/10

At face value, Horse A won 100% of its races while B won 90%, however Horse B is more accomplished considering the difficulty of obtaining such a record. Any ideas on a mathematical solution that would give more weight to Horse B?

How about square the number of wins and divide by starts

[Ocala Mike]

I don't see it as a math problem at all. Without quantifying the "value" of the wins, how do we know horse B has actually "accomplished" more than horse A?

Even if all the wins are of equal "value," it's still a judjment call, i.e,, is a horse with 7 starts and 4 wins more "accomplished" than a horse with 3 starts and 2 wins or not?

Some things can't be reduced to math; IMHO this is one of them.

[JJMartin]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

I don't see it as a math problem at all. Without quantifying the "value" of the wins, how do we know horse B has actually "accomplished" more than horse A?

Even if all the wins are of equal "value," it's still a judjment call, i.e,, is a horse with 7 starts and 4 wins more "accomplished" than a horse with 3 starts and 2 wins or not?

Some things can't be reduced to math; IMHO this is one of them.

I came up with something that I believe is suitable:

(x wins/x starts)*(x wins/100)

To pose this to the earlier example:

Horse A life record wins is 4/4
Horse B life record wins is 9/10

(4/4)*(4/100)= 0.04
(9/10)*(9/100)=0.081

In this case Horse A (9 of 10 horse) has the higher rating.

Another example:

Horse C 7/10
Horse D 5/5

(7/10)*(7/100)=0.049
(5/5)*(5/100)=.05

Now the rating is slightly higher on the 5/5 horse, the opposite of the first example.

[Some_One]

So if horse C was getting its record in group races while horse d was doing it in 10k claimers at the Mountain, you're going to bet horse d? well at least you'll get great odds.

[JJMartin]

Originally Posted by Some_One

So if horse C was getting its record in group races while horse d was doing it in 10k claimers at the Mountain, you're going to bet horse d? well at least you'll get great odds.

Not at all, this is for horses that have to meet other criteria first but good observation.

[Ocala Mike]

Handicapping is more art than science, for me. Obviously, you are working on some grand "unified theory" to use as a selection method. People have been grappling with this for centuries, but it's not for me.

Reducing every entrant to a figure has never been my cup of tea, but I guess that's what makes horse racing. Good luck in your pursuit.

[JJMartin]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

Handicapping is more art than science, for me. Obviously, you are working on some grand "unified theory" to use as a selection method. People have been grappling with this for centuries, but it's not for me.

Reducing every entrant to a figure has never been my cup of tea, but I guess that's what makes horse racing. Good luck in your pursuit.

Thanks, I love reducing horses to figures

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by JJMartin

Now the rating is slightly higher on the 5/5 horse, the opposite of the first example.

But does that weighting reflect anything? If your weights were based on claiming price or purse value or some other criteria, that could provide some additional information.

In your example of A vs B and C vs D, I don't see that the results tell you anything.

[JJMartin]

Originally Posted by Clocker

But does that weighting reflect anything? If your weights were based on claiming price or purse value or some other criteria, that could provide some additional information.

In your example of A vs B and C vs D, I don't see that the results tell you anything.

There are additional criteria in place, I use Excel to process races with my own formulas. It tells me quite a bit actually.

[Ocala Mike]

Originally Posted by Clocker

In your example of A vs B and C vs D, I don't see that the results tell you anything.

What I was tryng to say; well put!

[misscashalot]

compare amount of average $ banked per start for each runner
it's an old capping factor

[Some_One]

Originally Posted by JJMartin

Not at all, this is for horses that have to meet other criteria first but good observation.

The more criteria you add, the more the result will align with public consensus.

[JJMartin]

Originally Posted by Some_One

The more criteria you add, the more the result will align with public consensus.

Except when it doesn't.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by Some_One

The more criteria you add, the more the result will align with public consensus.

2nd the motion