Speed Figures Revisited

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

I was surprised to find the Bris figures to be the most used when in my experience they were among the least accurate. I wonder if their greater use is due to the act that they are compatible with the most software. Particularly with the numerous free software offered by Brisnet.

agree, you used to be able to get them very cheap though that may have changed.

[mikesal57]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

I was surprised to find the Bris figures to be the most used when in my experience they were among the least accurate. I wonder if their greater use is due to the act that they are compatible with the most software. Particularly with the numerous free software offered by Brisnet.

What is the accessibility to get them?

Price?

[headhawg]

Bris has an unlimited single or multi file plan for $125 monthly. No results files included though. There was a thread about this when they first started the plan and users were disappointed that the results weren't included in the subscription.

[Speed Figure]

Originally Posted by headhawg

Bris has an unlimited single or multi file plan for $125 monthly. No results files included though. There was a thread about this when they first started the plan and users were disappointed that the results weren't included in the subscription.

It's pretty awful that the results files are not included in this deal. I use the unlimited plan and absolutely hate that the results aren't included.

[mikesal57]

I have a sub with HDW......for 7-8 years

If you pay up front , the year, you get data and results for around $107/mth


if you get it with JCApper...JCapper software is "free"

but dont quote me on that

best thing .jcp files are comparable with drf stuff

[Shandaken]

I use Trackmaster Premium.

Anyone know if the figs are the same as Equibase or if they are their own?

[dansan]

Nice to know that a significant amount of bettors are using speed figures when your using something else go get "em

[cj]

Originally Posted by dansan

Nice to know that a significant amount of bettors are using speed figures when your using something else go get "em

You can use speed figures in many ways, doesn't mean not using them gives any kind of edge in my opinion.

[Tom]

Even people who use the same figures don't come up wit the same horse. Why do people assume anyone just use the best last number?

There is a process out there called handicapping. What if we used the same non-fig method YOU used, but then brought in the figures to tell us more of the story?

Just because someone uses figures doesn't mean they have a clue what they are doing. They will just luck onto a lot of horses others won't.

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by Shandaken

I use Trackmaster Premium.

Anyone know if the figs are the same as Equibase or if they are their own?

The Equibase Speed Figures is also in all TrackMaster Products.

[classhandicapper]

I think the issue with speed figures is that even though various services will sometimes disagree and different people will interpret the PPs and past trips differently and come up with different horses, horses that have run fast figures recently will all tend to get bet down.

The flip side of course is who wants to bet slow horses?

The trick would seem to be to come up with situations where you think a popular figure maker is clearly wrong about a race or that the race/horse is stronger/weaker that it looks based on the figures.

That's all easier said than done.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by highnote

I read all the posts you made a couple of years about making speed figures and then tried to follow along and re-create what you said. I did not understand some of the methods you mentioned about automating the process using iteration.

The main thing that helped me was that you pointed out an error in the way I was making speed figures. I was not accounting for the difference in time that it takes to cover a length as the distance of a race changes. So the value of a length at one distance may be slightly different than at another distance. I had always known that, but Quirin's method that I was using did not account for it. You also showed that it is better to use the difference between a standard time figure and the actual figure to determine the variant, rather than using the difference between the standard time and the actual time. I believe this is what Beyer describes in his book.

To be honest, I don't know if using Beyer's method over Quirin's method would result in more winners because once you start averaging the difference of actual speed figures to standard figures over the course of the race day to make a variant you have already entered a lot of inaccuracy -- especially if the track is changing throughout the day. This is why some figure makers prefer to make projected variants.

So when I say modified steveb, what I mean is that I read what you wrote and then used the parts that made sense to me. The rest of my process I had to figure out on my own.

So basically, I determine the class par figure and the raw race figure. The difference between them is the race variant. So if the class par is 100 and the race figure is 98 then the race variant is 2 slower than par. Then all race variants for the day are then averaged to create a daily variant that is used to adjust all the speed figures for the day's races. The daily race variant is added to the race figure to determine the final time speed figure.

There are no doubt better ways to do this, but since my way is unique to me, it does add some value.

Sorry to burst your bubble but your method is pretty much the classic original method which I used myself back in the day when I started to make my own figures. Beyer used that method early until he had built enough figures to do projections on. Quirin used that as well as several of the original figure makers. I then switched to the projection method when I realized that there is too much variation in inter-class pars. This was more accurate but took more time than I could afford and switched to Beyers, TFUS and, occasionally T-Graph, which followed that methodology and did a lot of the same work for me.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Sorry to burst your bubble but your method is pretty much the classic original method which I used myself back in the day when I started to make my own figures. Beyer used that method early until he had built enough figures to do projections on. Quirin used that as well as several of the original figure makers. I then switched to the projection method when I realized that there is too much variation in inter-class pars. This was more accurate but took more time than I could afford and switched to Beyers, TFUS and, occasionally T-Graph, which followed that methodology and did a lot of the same work for me.

sorry to burst your bubble , but the method steveb uses is nothing remotely similar to beyer, or anybody else(unless they learned from me!).
beyer was the inspiration admittedly, but it has evolved way past that.
once one unravels beyers and understands what they are, then it is easy to see the faults.


you projection method may well be fine for YOU, for ME it's a faulty way of doing it.

besides that mine will find the class and the par(or standards as i call them) at the very same time.
thus one will define the other.
it will also define the inherent speeds of the particular tracks at the same time too.

if highnote actually does it my way is questionable.
but not impossible, as over the years i have given plenty of clues without actually detailing it

[classhandicapper]

IMO, there are significant faults with the way everyone makes speed figures now over and above the obvious complexities and subjective nature of determining the correct track variant to use that everyone discusses.

There are so many problems and complexities, once you start understanding them all you get to a point where you stop worrying about a couple of points here or there and simply ask:

"Does this horse look fast enough to win in this spot given his recent figures, trips, his likely trip today, and given the probability of him duplicating his recent form, improving or declining?"

"Is the price fair?"

Even if you had perfect figures from God, there is still so much about a horse's trip and form that's subjective and/or fuzzy, you'd still be in the same position most of the time asking the same questions.

Unless a figure is WAY off or there is a large disagreement between sources (which does sometimes happen) you are probably fine with "fast enough to win?".

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

IMO, there are significant faults with the way everyone makes speed figures now over and above the obvious complexities and subjective nature of determining the correct track variant to use that everyone discusses.

There are so many problems and complexities, once you start understanding them all you get to a point where you stop worrying about a couple of points here or there and simply ask:

"Does this horse look fast enough to win in this spot given his recent figures, trips, his likely trip today, and given the probability of him duplicating his recent form, improving or declining?"

"Is the price fair?"

Even if you had perfect figures from God, there is still so much about a horse's trip and form that's subjective and/or fuzzy, you'd still be in the same position most of the time asking the same questions.

Unless a figure is WAY off or there is a large disagreement between sources (which does sometimes happen) you are probably fine with "fast enough to win?".

Be honest, did you just paste this from your notebook?