Brisnet bettors anomaly

[markgoldie]

In the upcoming San Diego Handicap at Del Mar (R8), the current 1-2 public choice Well Armed is listed next to last by the Brisnet Prime Power algorithm, some 8.5 points behind the top number. Somebody's got to be wrong. Interesting.

[CBedo]

Prime Power 1
Public 0

at least when it comes to Well Armed

[andymays]

As a guy who watches a lot of races and race videos I would have to say that Aaron Gryder and Richard Migliore are the two worst jouneymen I have ever seen get out of the gate. They are always a step slow compared to the others and many times they will be out of position early. Well Armed lost the race at the start. There is no way he should have been sitting any worse than second early in the San Diego Handicap!

Sorry about not knowing anything about the numbers.

[markgoldie]

Brisnet prevails as Well Armed was totally off the board.

A 4 -horse trifecta box of Bris' first 4 Prime Power runners produced a $358.70 return for the $24 investment ($1 ticket). And a superfecta box of Bris' first five for a dollar, cost you $120 as an investment and returned $2785.20 for the $1 ticket.

My interest here was in the apparent disrepancy between the public odds and the Bris algorithm. I can't remember seeing something like this, especially in a feature-type race with class horses. Has anybody else seen such a disparity of opinion?

[njcurveball]

Originally Posted by CBedo

Prime Power 1
Public 0

at least when it comes to Well Armed

This horse was ranked #4 by HTR as well. Not a strong favorite!

[ryesteve]

Before we overcongratulate the Prime Power algorithm, isn't it likely that the low rating was because the Dubai race could not be quantified?

[speed]

Originally Posted by andymays

As a guy who watches a lot of races and race videos I would have to say that Aaron Gryder and Richard Migliore are the two worst jouneymen I have ever seen get out of the gate. They are always a step slow compared to the others and many times they will be out of position early. Well Armed lost the race at the start. There is no way he should have been sitting any worse than second early in the San Diego Handicap!

Sorry about not knowing anything about the numbers.

With any luck my jockeys in the future wont come back after the race saying we lost by 10 but if we didn't break a step slow we had em.

Hopefully it just wasnt his day and nothing else.

[BeatTheChalk]

Originally Posted by markgoldie

In the upcoming San Diego Handicap at Del Mar (R8), the current 1-2 public choice Well Armed is listed next to last by the Brisnet Prime Power algorithm, some 8.5 points behind the top number. Somebody's got to be wrong. Interesting.

Am I the only person on the planet = who even dares to mention the Dreaded ...word......R E C E N C Y ? Hmm let's see ..First tiime back
since February. With 123 pounds yet.

[CBedo]

Originally Posted by BeatTheChalk

Am I the only person on the planet = who even dares to mention the Dreaded ...word......R E C E N C Y ? Hmm let's see ..First tiime back
since February. With 123 pounds yet.

I think that's related to the "Dubai Bounce."

[markgoldie]

Originally Posted by ryesteve

Before we overcongratulate the Prime Power algorithm, isn't it likely that the low rating was because the Dubai race could not be quantified?

I think their algorithm is used to dealing with foreign imports of all nature and no, I don't think the algorithm punishes the horse for such races.

[ryesteve]

Originally Posted by markgoldie

I think their algorithm is used to dealing with foreign imports of all nature and no, I don't think the algorithm punishes the horse for such races.

You could be right, but it makes me a bit skeptical that a horse coming off a 14 length demolition in a $6 million dollar race would score poorly. Perhaps their model tosses out non-betting races, on the assumption that these were traditionally trials, exhibitions, or in some way not considered "real" races?

[positive4th]

Originally Posted by CBedo

I think that's related to the "Dubai Bounce."

I keep hearing about the Dubai Bounce and personally, I think it's getting over-used and under-defined..............can we get a handful of horses who have "suffered" from it to the degree that it is an angle all to itself??

[markgoldie]

Originally Posted by BeatTheChalk

Am I the only person on the planet = who even dares to mention the Dreaded ...word......R E C E N C Y ? Hmm let's see ..First tiime back
since February. With 123 pounds yet.

Correct about the recency question and the Bris algorithm. There is a definite punishment for lack of activity. However, it is not unusual to see horses with similar layoffs who are the top number, provided they have enough other positive attributes relative to the field.

My own numbers had the horse a potential contender but nothing more. Frankly, however, I would not have rated the horse as low as PP did. I don't play specific tracks, but the race inquestion was red-flagged to me not as a "vulnerable favorite" opportunity based on ML odds, but as a potential "chaos" race (which I bet with regularity, usually in supers and using a wide spread). For me, "chaos" is too many contenders, bunched too closely in strength to begin to predict a winner. I don't play the other type of chaos, which is non-handicappable due to lack of or insufficient information.

At any rate, I was the lucky recipient of a double bonus when they bet Well Armed to 3-5. A steady diet of these situations (win, lose, or draw in the individual case) might make the most inept player rich.

[CBedo]

Originally Posted by positive4th

I keep hearing about the Dubai Bounce and personally, I think it's getting over-used and under-defined..............can we get a handful of horses who have "suffered" from it to the degree that it is an angle all to itself??

I actually agree with you that it is overused. It seems to be an excuse whenever a horse comes back and runs bad, but we don't mention it when they come back and run well.

[markgoldie]

Originally Posted by ryesteve

You could be right, but it makes me a bit skeptical that a horse coming off a 14 length demolition in a $6 million dollar race would score poorly. Perhaps their model tosses out non-betting races, on the assumption that these were traditionally trials, exhibitions, or in some way not considered "real" races?

I think you hit it on the head. They go by domestic performance, which makes sense since they have the means to quantify such performances.

Listen rs: I know you are one of the sharpest analysts on the forum. Let me make a general recommendation as to approach, which has strengthened my game immensely over the course of some years. I key off the Bris PP algorithm as a great research tool. Naturally, I don't mean I PLAY what it says. Instead, I focus on how and why it selects horses. By doing this, I can see how IT assesses various handicapping factors. I then compare it to my own handicapping methodology and I see who does better and in what situations. That way, I can tweak my own methodology using an unfailing standard that approaches each race with the same, steady dispassion of a computer program.

You could use a different standard of comparison but I choose the Bris PP because it's cheap, easily available AND I believe has an influence over the post-time odds of horses, meaning that the aggregate of players who at least consult this number have a reasonably substantial influence over final odds. (OR the other possibility is that it is similar enough to "whale" programs that there is a direct correlation bewteen it and those programs that ARE driving the final odds. Either way, it doesn't matter. The result is the same in that the Bris number is PREDICTIVE in the main of final odds.)

My aim is, therefore, to find a mis-weighting in their program so as to yield wagering value over time. I believe I have found some and continue to use them to my advantage (hopefully). But here's the crazy thing. Although I can almost predict with 95%+ accuracy where the bris PP number will rate a horse, I still get these infrequent anomalies that for the life of me I just can't explain. Sometimes it seems that it must be some sort of typographical or reading error rather than anything else. The Well Armed rating was close to that category, although I have seen worse examples.

Do you have any insight on what can cause these apparent anomalies??