On Brisnet prime number criteria

[VigorsTheGrey]

On Wednesday November 28, 6th race Aqueduct...11 horse Yamano Maker and the 12 horse Tough Times both came out of the same last race, the only race that both have run before today...

Even though Yamano Maker finished ahead of Tough Times last time, Brisnet has Tough Times at 129.6 Prime Power (1st) and has Yamano Maker at 123.8 (4th) Prime Power...

Yamano Maker goes on to win the race paying 9/2 odds while Tough Times runs fourth as the heavy favorite...

What explains the discrepancy here...for the Brisnet Prime Power figures..? One would think their Prime Power-ratings would be reversed and closer together...

Where do your programs have each of these two horses...?

And what explains the difference between your program and the Brisnet ratings...?

[KyRacer]

That is interesting. I would like to know too, Bris. Looks like Tough Times had a slightly better late pace rating. Bris's Profit Line did rank Yamano Maker as their 4th choice at 10-1 and Tough Times as their 5th choice at 14-1. It takes in other factors than Prime Power.

Profit Line

[davew]

Brisnet Prime Power ratings are proprietary, but I suspect they include factors that you do not use in your ratings ...

such as..

percent of win pool last start
last sales price
breeding fees of sire
workouts since last race

not sure what they used to get 5.8 more Bris PP points

[Jeff P]

Could the Prime Power differential between the two horses be traced back to breeding?

The race was taken off the turf.

From a breeding standpoint #12 TOUGH TIMES was sired by TAPIT and #11 YAMANO MAKER (JPN) was sired by EMPIRE MAKER.

According to my database, from 01-01-2017 current through yesterday 11-27-2018:

Runners sired by TAPIT recorded 125 wins from 829 starts on the turf = 0.1508 win rate.

Runners sired by EMPIRE MAKER recorded 5 wins from 74 starts on the turf = 0.0676 win rate.

If the record of the sire on today's surface is part of the "kitchen sink" that goes into the Prime Power Rating inserted by Brisnet into their data files --

Given that the race came off the turf --

That might (at least partly) explain the differential between the two horses.


-jp

.

[Andrick]

I would suspect that, along with the breeding, the lack of a jockey assignment listed by them when it came to Yamano Maker (whereas Irad was listed on Tough Times) may have accounted for a bit of the difference as well.

[FakeNameChanged]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

On Wednesday November 28, 6th race Aqueduct...11 horse Yamano Maker and the 12 horse Tough Times both came out of the same last race, the only race that both have run before today...

Even though Yamano Maker finished ahead of Tough Times last time, Brisnet has Tough Times at 129.6 Prime Power (1st) and has Yamano Maker at 123.8 (4th) Prime Power...

Yamano Maker goes on to win the race paying 9/2 odds while Tough Times runs fourth as the heavy favorite...

What explains the discrepancy here...for the Brisnet Prime Power figures..? One would think their Prime Power-ratings would be reversed and closer together...

Where do your programs have each of these two horses...?

And what explains the difference between your program and the Brisnet ratings...?

You actually expect the Bris prime number rating to work perfectly? in horse racing? I emailed them a few years back to ask how the rating was constructed. Got a nice "propietary" mumbo jumbo explanation, that it includes a LOT of factors.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Thanks for your replies everyone...some of the things from above that may help shed some light on the point swing between these two were (not in any order of importance) :

Sire progenys’ wins from turf starts percentages;
Breeding fee of sire
Last sale price/ Keeneland sale graduate
Lack of jockey data on one only
High percentage jock
Bullet/ Best work recent

[davew]

I suspect as horses have more races, the input from breeding/connections goes down and running lines/horses raced against/competitive level goes up ... but only they know for sure.


It would be interesting to see if scratched horses numbers change on next race if distance/surface change ... but I have not tracked that or how a horses numbers change during its career.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Thanks for your replies everyone...some of the things from above that may help shed some light on the point swing between these two were (not in any order of importance) :

Sire progenys’ wins from turf starts percentages;
Breeding fee of sire
Last sale price/ Keeneland sale graduate
Lack of jockey data on one only
High percentage jock
Bullet/ Best work recent

I would be absolutely shocked if those items were actually part of BPP.

The problem is that those items simply do not correlate well with wins across a broad sample.

Jim Cramer once told me that he wished he could find a single pedigree factor that even came close to morning line.

My experience is precisely the same.

And the really strange thing that I found was the strange place that pedigree stats seem to matter: Very cheap claimers at very low-level tracks!

[edit] To be clear, not in maiden races but races for older horses.

[Mulerider]

Just my observation on Bris Prime Power. I'm pretty convinced that on dirt the two most heavily-weighted metrics are last-race speed rating and last three average (as noted on the Summary page of the Ultimates). I also believe that a fair amount of weighting is assigned to what Bris calls the "ACL" (Average Competitive Level) and the average Race Rating.

On turf, there's no question (at least to me) that Bris's formula heavily weights its average Late Pace ratings.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Comparing these two runners for me is more an exercise attempting to reverse engineer how Bris arrived at such a distinct and measurable PrimePower spread...

I know the above listed metrics seem odd at first, yet if you eliminate them, what is left to account for the spread and reversal of points...by most known and inputable metrics pertaining to these two, Yamano Maker OUGHT to be weighted higher than Tough Times....

...that is why I was so interested in what others here had on their metrics analysis for these two horses...there isn’t much to go on because each had only that self-same race...

...did the pace of that prior race favor pace runners as opposed to sustained runners...and that became the chief weighting...in that Tough Times CLOSED better and maybe Bris heavy weights that particular metric...?

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I would be absolutely shocked if those items were actually part of BPP.

The problem is that those items simply do not correlate well with wins across a broad sample.

Jim Cramer once told me that he wished he could find a single pedigree factor that even came close to morning line.

My experience is precisely the same.

And the really strange thing that I found was the strange place that pedigree stats seem to matter: Very cheap claimers at very low-level tracks!

[edit] To be clear, not in maiden races but races for older horses.

Since the progeny of more productive sires and dams obviously would tend to have accomplished more, I would assume that's the true predictor of success for cheap veterans .

I have said many times on the show that most old-timers still performing with heart and consistency bring the gravitas of back-class and/or impressive win-totals to those successful "second" careers.

Hope all is well, Dave. Plugged you again a few weeks ago.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Since the progeny of more productive sires and dams obviously would tend to have accomplished more, I would assume that's the true predictor of success for cheap veterans .

I have said many times on the show that most old-timers still performing with heart and consistency bring the gravitas of back-class and/or impressive win-totals to those successful "second" careers.

Hope all is well, Dave. Plugged you again a few weeks ago.

Always appreciate those. Thank you.

I have a slightly different take on why this could be. However, it is purely anecdotal (i.e. I have nothing to support it.)

Imagine a scenario where there's a horse who was once a $20k horse with pretty good breeding at a track like TUP. The horse just doesn't have it any more - maybe never did - and has dropped through the claiming ranks.

So, the trainer looks in his contacts and calls Bob who has a stable going at PRM, PM, or similar track. Now, Bob is a pretty good trainer down there and finds a good spot for the horse.

So, my thought is that a well-bred (say) $4k claimer at a track like PM got there because of the trainer's connections to top trainer at a higher-level track.

One reason I find this believable is that it just doesn't seem logical to me that the breeding on a 5 or 6 year old $4k claimer with 25 or 30 races would actually matter.

If this scenario could be true then it would not be a "causative" factor.

[davew]

back to the original question between the 2 horses

Yamano Maker
Tough Times



lets follow them and post their races and BPP to this thread
they both now have 2 races in their history

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

One reason I find this believable is that it just doesn't seem logical to me that the breeding on a 5 or 6 year old $4k claimer with 25 or 30 races would actually matter.

Just to clarify: i agree that performance and other factors engulf pedigree as relevant considerations when assessing veteran horses. But the established records of those veterans would, no doubt, be more impressive on average with better-bred runners.

So, in a distant sense, pedigree would be a causative factor, but a factor much better interpreted through past performances than through blood lines.

To use an analogy...Because of the potential that his dad's legendary career implies, a Chris Long might go higher in the NFL draft than a similar player of obscure origins. But at this stage, no team will sign or covet him based on his dad being Howie Long. They will look instead at his body of work, but a body of work still tracing in no small measure to genetics.