numbers

[Capper Al]

Tom,

Your mailbox needs cleaning out.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by jasperson

Computer and numbers help, but they are not the complete answer and in the near future it don't think they will be.
Jack

I have been a "numbers" player for many years...and readily admit that I would be lost without the speed and pace figures that I use.

They are not the "complete answer", and they don't explain many of the crazy race outcomes that I see...but then again, the same could be said of all the other handicapping approaches as well.

There is a "hidden" element in horse racing...and that is the biggest obstacle that we handicappers have to face.

IMO...the greatest advantage to be found in "figure" handicapping is the understanding one gets when he relates the right "numbers" to the horses' performances.

"Numbers" play a vital role in determining improving and declining form, as well as defining the "dynamics" of a race...and the proper interpretation of these numbers allows the handicapper to get a better idea of the relative abilities of the horses he encounters...and a better understanding of the maddening "form reversals" we often see.

All that said...I believe that "figure" handicapping comes with a negative side-effect, which the handicapper is advised to guard against.

When you start lumping speed and pace figures together -- as we figure handicappers often do -- you often exaggerate the differences between the horses in a race...and that can mean that you may find yourself with an opinion in every race you handicap.

The figure handicapper has a bigger problem passing races than any other player out there...

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The figure handicapper has a bigger problem passing races than any other player out there...

As a tie-in to another thread, that's another advantage of an odds line that the bettor has confidence in, especially if it is statistically based, and has taken those figures into account. It provides something more concrete than just intuition or inexact qualitative analysis to base play/pass decisions on.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

Do you look at the horse itself?
In the flesh, before the race?

Yes, at least for the horses that I bet.

Interestingly enough, I also create a number that represents my assessment of how the horse looks in the flesh. And that number gets recorded in a database as part of the wager history for every horse that I bet.

Imho, this is one of those overlooked areas that, with a little effort - can be used to improve the bottom line.


-jp

.

[JackS]

I no longer use a computer so I do pay attention to Pars and speed ratings. Since I do not generate my own figures, I accept the track Pars as gosspel but do not accept the SR published for each line on each horse as being accurate.
I'm using Bris files now so there is no published Variant. Maybe it's built into the SR but don't know one way or the other. I assume it is since there is such a wide deviation between times of races run at the same distance and yet recieve approxamatly the same SR.
This post gives me an oppertunity to share an example.\
At Calder this weekend a MDN race with a track Par of 84.
The favorite is a second time starter who ran second by 1 length and earned a SR 79. The winner of this race should have been assigned and SR of 81.
My play in this race was also a second time starter who had earned a SR of 64 and ran sixth by 22 lengths. This would mean that the winner in this race ran a SR of about 108.
The horse in the first example couldn't beat a horse that ran a couple of points below par. The horse in the second example had the best excuse in the world. He drew into a race that was way beyond average.

[Maximillion]

Originally Posted by JackS

I no longer use a computer so I do pay attention to Pars and speed ratings. Since I do not generate my own figures, I accept the track Pars as gosspel but do not accept the SR published for each line on each horse as being accurate.
I'm using Bris files now so there is no published Variant. Maybe it's built into the SR but don't know one way or the other. I assume it is since there is such a wide deviation between times of races run at the same distance and yet recieve approxamatly the same SR.
This post gives me an oppertunity to share an example.\
At Calder this weekend a MDN race with a track Par of 84.
The favorite is a second time starter who ran second by 1 length and earned a SR 79. The winner of this race should have been assigned and SR of 81.
My play in this race was also a second time starter who had earned a SR of 64 and ran sixth by 22 lengths. This would mean that the winner in this race ran a SR of about 108.
The horse in the first example couldn't beat a horse that ran a couple of points below par. The horse in the second example had the best excuse in the world. He drew into a race that was way beyond average.

Think the beyer "pars" may need updating on some classes,not sure about bris.....that being said,cant fault your reasoning for making that pick..hope you cashed.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Tom,

Your mailbox needs cleaning out.

Done.
Thanks for the alert.

[jasperson]

Originally Posted by JackS

I no longer use a computer so I do pay attention to Pars and speed ratings. Since I do not generate my own figures, I accept the track Pars as gosspel but do not accept the SR published for each line on each horse as being accurate.
.

I agree with your statement about race pars. The race par is an average and just that. Speed rating can be inaccurate, but I don't understand is handicappers that don't look at them because they are not accurate. When I was designing electronic circuits we had to use resistors,capacitors, and transistors that were +or - 20%. We just couldn't throw up our hands and say we can't use these components because they are inaccurate as we used to say that they were close enough for government work. I use the same logic with speed,pace and class ratings

[raybo]

Originally Posted by JackS

I no longer use a computer so I do pay attention to Pars and speed ratings. Since I do not generate my own figures, I accept the track Pars as gosspel but do not accept the SR published for each line on each horse as being accurate.
I'm using Bris files now so there is no published Variant. Maybe it's built into the SR but don't know one way or the other. I assume it is since there is such a wide deviation between times of races run at the same distance and yet recieve approxamatly the same SR.
This post gives me an oppertunity to share an example.\
At Calder this weekend a MDN race with a track Par of 84.
The favorite is a second time starter who ran second by 1 length and earned a SR 79. The winner of this race should have been assigned and SR of 81.
My play in this race was also a second time starter who had earned a SR of 64 and ran sixth by 22 lengths. This would mean that the winner in this race ran a SR of about 108.
The horse in the first example couldn't beat a horse that ran a couple of points below par. The horse in the second example had the best excuse in the world. He drew into a race that was way beyond average.

The Bris data files do publish a track variant, it's the DRF variant. May not be the best variant available but does a decent job of pointing out fast and slow surfaces/fields.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by raybo

The Bris data files do publish a track variant, it's the DRF variant. May not be the best variant available but does a decent job of pointing out fast and slow surfaces/fields.

The old DRF+Variant can at times be surprising. There have been several times that a long shot would come in and only DRF has it, not Beyer and not BRIS.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by raybo

The Bris data files do publish a track variant, it's the DRF variant. May not be the best variant available but does a decent job of pointing out fast and slow surfaces/fields.

How can a variant be credited with doing a "decent job"...when it doesn't differentiate between the speeds of surfaces and fields?

[gm10]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

How can a variant be credited with doing a "decent job"...when it doesn't differentiate between the speeds of surfaces and fields?

Sometimes I wonder whether assuming a basic FAST/NORMAL/SLOW wouldn't be a better starting point than putting all the faith in a hyper-precise number that can never truly be verified.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by gm10

Sometimes I wonder whether assuming a basic FAST/NORMAL/SLOW wouldn't be a better starting point than putting all the faith in a hyper-precise number that can never truly be verified.

In light of what I know now, I think I wasted a lot of years trying to make ever more accurate speed figures.

You want to make sure you eliminate the gross errors (which is tough to do on some days), but final time is so much a function of pace, race development, the surface on that day (factors other than surface speed), the competitive nature of the race, and the individual talents of the horses we are talking about that worrying about a couple of fifths here or there is probably a waste of time. Really strong races come up slow and mediocre horses cut a hole in the wind all the time depending on the conditions.

I think numbers are best considered an analytic tool. For example, sometimes the information on the horses or what happened in a race is a little sketchy. The numbers can help clarify the situation. But beyond that I think a lot of the time figure handicapping is merely identifying the contenders well and not separating them well at all.

[gm10]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

In light of what I know now, I think I wasted a lot of years trying to make ever more accurate speed figures.

You want to make sure you eliminate the gross errors (which is tough to do on some days), but final time is so much a function of pace, race development, the surface on that day (factors other than surface speed), the competitive nature of the race, and the individual talents of the horses we are talking about that worrying about a couple of fifths here or there is probably a waste of time.

That's what I meant but you say it much better than I could!

[cj]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

The old DRF+Variant can at times be surprising. There have been several times that a long shot would come in and only DRF has it, not Beyer and not BRIS.

You could say the same thing about throwing darts at a program while blindfolded.