TimeformUS Figs Key to Belmont Longshot Win

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

If you want to check something new, I have an idea. This is a study I am eventually going to do, but I haven't had the time yet.

I want to check "off the turf" races.

I don't think I have "off the turf" annotated in my database anywhere. I should, but I don't.

[o_crunk]

Originally Posted by cj

Label	Count	Pct	AvgWPay
Hot	14253	0.29	13.53
Solid	14959	0.31	11.61
Even	7676	0.16	10.20
Mild	8050	0.16	 9.07
Cold	1422	0.03	 8.54
Valley	1985	0.04	 9.93
Peak	506	0.01	11.29

Nice call Randall, interesting.

Having studied this stuff a million different ways I'd say avg field size will help explain the different avg win pay. The slower pace races will be - on average - much smaller fields.

[cj]

Originally Posted by o_crunk

Having studied this stuff a million different ways I'd say avg field size will help explain the different avg win pay. The slower pace races will be - on average - much smaller fields.

Good point on field size, meant to include that!

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Here's reality as I see it.

1. We have a theory on what should happen given a certain pace pattern.

2. We have data that suggests "on average" certain things do happen given that pattern

3. We have a specific race where the pace pattern suggests something specific should have happened.

4. The race didn't develop anywhere near what our theory, the averages, or the pace pattern suggests should have happened.

So what happened?

We can pretend that what should have happened did happen and misunderstand the race or we can try to figure out why what we thought would happen didn't happen.

What I am adding is that I have data that suggests the pace or pace pattern can become less relevant depending on the makeup of the field, how the race developed positionally, and how the track was playing.

Pace handicappers sort of understand that biases matter, but the makeup of the field part of it less so.

If there were 6 speed horses in the race and it developed in pattern A that's way different than if there were 0 speed horses in the race and it developed in the exact same pace pattern and fractions.

If you are referring to the Belmont race where the entire field did not as expected by traditional single pave figure theory, that is where I discovered there may be be some other factor at work. when I looked at pace pattern instead the whole race made sense. I then remembered the same effect was at play in the article on the Travers. I also remembered how I learned, the hard way, the effect of uneven pace running from my college track days. In addition the laws of Physics tell us that repeated accelerations - decelerations - accelerations require additional energy expenditure. That's why I got this whole thread started and what this thread and study are all about. We should not stray too far afield from this
Of course, even the most promising theories cannot be confirmed by only a couple of races. That is why cj is wisely doing a study examining this effect. This can be of tremendous import as these findings may change the way final speed figures are adjusted for pace.

If you are referring to a race contradicting the theory of pace patterns, a single race contradicting a theory being studied with thousands of races likely has little on this on this particular study.

Now while this effect can vary with different circumstances and race types and one must also be careful in splitting up the study for too many circumstances, such as distance, surface, field size, etc., one must be careful in the sample size too much for the study to be valid in the search for specificity. There are many factors that may act as confounding variables on any study. As they cannot all be filtered out we need a sufficient sample size to average out their effect. They may well be at play in he example you cited with a sample size of one.. A question me and all my fellow researchers had to struggle with is sample size vs. specificity. There must be limits to the number of factors included in any one study. I remember a comical line in the play "1776" where one of the representatives in the Continental Congress complained that the Constitution did not contain any reference to off shore fishing rights. I trust that cj will not try to answer all questions in this preliminary study to satisfy everybody's questions regarding the effect of pace patterns.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Now while this effect can vary with different circumstances and race types and one must also be careful in splitting up the study for too many circumstances, such as distance, surface, field size, etc., one must be careful in the sample size too much for the study to be valid in the search for specificity. There are many factors that may act as confounding variables on any study. As they cannot all be filtered out we need a sufficient sample size to average out their effect. They may well be at play in he example you cited with a sample size of one.. A question me and all my fellow researchers had to struggle with is sample size vs. specificity. There must be limits to the number of factors included in any one study. I remember a comical line in the play "1776" where one of the representatives in the Continental Congress complained that the Constitution did not contain any reference to off shore fishing rights. I trust that cj will not try to answer all questions in this preliminary study to satisfy everybody's questions regarding the effect of pace patterns.

Remember Occam's Razor. "Avoid excessive hypotheses"

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

Remember Occam's Razor. "Avoid excessive hypotheses"

I have a database with pre-calculated running styles for every horse in every race at every major racetrack; a metric that looks at the running styles of each horse and calculates a pace pressure rating for each race before it's run, the actual pace figures that resulted for that race after the fact for each call, a metric that analyzes the race chart and compares the race flow to the average race flow for that distance and surface, and the ability to look at any combination of distance, surface, pace pressure range, pace figure pattern, and chart pattern to study the data and figure out what happens with any combination. It also gives me to ability to test my ability to predict these things beforehand and try to improve the metrics.

What I am telling you after 4 years of studying this data (and I have a long way to go) is that there's more going on in these races than the fractions and pace patterns even though the fractions are obviously a very important part of the puzzle. I don't have a theory that more is going on. I know it because the data tells me that.

If you don't believe me, that's fine. I'm trying to add to the conversation, not argue about something I already know to be a fact.

The tough part is converting that knowledge into profitable betting opportunities. The public understands some of these race flow and development issues and patterns well enough to take some of the value out.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

I don't think I have "off the turf" annotated in my database anywhere. I should, but I don't.

When I eventually get around to looking at it, I'll post the results. I haven't really defined what it is I want to know. Lately I've just seen a few off the turf races where I thought the pace was slow, but some turfer made a giant close and won anyway. So I started to think that maybe I need to think about these races a little differently because the horses are different.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I have a database with pre-calculated running styles for every horse in every race at every major racetrack; a metric that looks at the running styles of each horse and calculates a pace pressure rating for each race before it's run, the actual pace figures that resulted for that race after the fact for each call, a metric that analyzes the race chart and compares the race flow to the average race flow for that distance and surface, and the ability to look at any combination of distance, surface, pace pressure range, pace figure pattern, and chart pattern to study the data and figure out what happens with any combination. It also gives me to ability to test my ability to predict these things beforehand and try to improve the metrics.

What I am telling you after 4 years of studying this data (and I have a long way to go) is that there's more going on in these races than the fractions and pace patterns even though the fractions are obviously a very important part of the puzzle. I don't have a theory that more is going on. I know it because the data tells me that.

If you don't believe me, that's fine. I'm trying to add to the conversation, not argue about something I already know to be a fact.

The tough part is converting that knowledge into profitable betting opportunities. The public understands some of these race flow and development issues and patterns well enough to take some of the value out.

I have never argued that there are factors other than pace patterns that effect a horses' final figures and winning chances. The subject of this thread, and the purpose of the study, is to see whether the pace pattern is an improved method of adjusting the final figure than a single pace figure alone and which pace pattern is most effective at doing so. The purpose is also to show how variations in these patterns can be used to adjust the final figure. I refer you to the start of this thread to see what is the question at hand. Also, please read Quirin to understand the methodology and what we are trying to do.

There are, or course other variables involved but, in the case of the thesis being studied they are merely confounding variables to the original question.
As we seem to be talking about different things, I believe what you are saying would be more relevant in different thread.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

I have never argued that there are factors other than pace patterns that effect a horses' final figures and winning chances. The subject of this thread, and the purpose of the study, is to see whether the pace pattern is an improved method of adjusting the final figure than a single pace figure alone and which pace pattern is most effective at doing so. The purpose is also to show how variations in these patterns can be used to adjust the final figure. I refer you to the start of this thread to see what is the question at hand. Also, please read Quirin to understand the methodology and what we are trying to do.

.

The subject of this thread is this----->TimeformUS Figs Key to Belmont Longshot Win

So let's have CJ, who produces those TimeformUS figs, continue breaking down the different categories of races, to find the more profitable race labels for a specific type of race, while simultaneously finding the pockets of value in his current batch of 48,000 races.....How about we do that for now?....Next.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

The subject of this thread is this----->TimeformUS Figs Key to Belmont Longshot Win

So let's have CJ, who produces those TimeformUS figs, continue breaking down the different categories of races, to find the more profitable race labels for a specific type of race, while simultaneously finding the pockets of value in his current batch of 48,000 races.....How about we do that for now?....Next.

That's about right. After I began this thread cj communicated with me and said he was doing a study to confirm my theory that race patterns are a better way to improve a horses final speed rating than the traditional single 1/2 mile pace figure. The whole point and research is to compare pace figures to pace patterns. Furthermore, the study will see to what extent a change in pace pattern translates to what change in final speed figures. That's all that there is to it for now. Unfortunately, classhandicapper seems to assume that the single pace rating is the same as pace pattern as he has been using the 2 terms interchangeably. Thinking them identical he uses them interchangeably and is comparing these figures with what he alternately calls pace pressure and race rhythm with no explanation as to what they are and how they relate to the original question. We need to get back on the original page and keep this thread on the original question. The next study could be what is the most profitable use of these figures. I gave thread its title because it was based on how the new pace patterns on TFUS predicted a good price winner better results than the traditional single pace figure. This thread is about relating pace figures to pace patterns - the rest belongs in another thread

[Suff]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

If you don't believe me, that's fine. I'm trying to add to the conversation, not argue about something I already know to be a fact.

.

I've been passively following this thread. What you're working on and sharing here is quality. Thanks.

[thaskalos]

I would greatly appreciate if someone would explain something to me:

This entire discussion began with that 7-furlong stakes race last Wednesday at Belmont, where bobphilo mistakenly thought that the TFUS speed and pace figures had fixated on the eventual "longshot" winner. Upon further investigation, bobphilo discovered that 5 of the 7 horses in that race had run the "unusual" accelerate-decelerate-reaccelerate running pattern...and the opinion was fostered that this particular race pattern was of the especially "grueling" variety, which would adversely affect the overall performance of the horses who engaged in it. The opinion sounded plausible...and Cj offered to conduct his own investigation on the "unusual nature" of this particular race pattern...and its subsequent "grueling" side-effects. But here is where I start getting confused...and the fault for this confusion could easily be mine.

Whereas bobphilo previously applied this "unusual" race pattern model to the horses' INDIVIDUAL race-lines, in order to ascertain how many horses in the race ran this particular pattern...it seems to me that Cj is now applying it solely to the fractional times of the total race as supplied by the result chart. Unless I am wrong, Cj isn't concerning himself with how many individual horses have run this particular pattern; he is scanning some 48,000 races, and he is categorizing these races in accordance with their overall fractional times...without any regard for how the INDIVIDUAL HORSES in these races ran their particular efforts.

To summarize:

When bobphilo analyzed last Wednesday's Belmont race...he was analyzing the INDIVIDUAL HORSES in the race...in order to see how many horses in the race ran that particular pace-pattern. But, unless I am mistaken...Cj isn't analyzing the individual horses in their respective races. He is analyzing the fractional times of the overall race...which tells very little about the race patterns of the individual horses, themselves. If we are to determine how "rare", or how "grueling" a particular race-pattern is, then, shouldn't we apply it to the individual performances of the horses...instead of to the clocking of the entire race as it's reported in the result chart? Does the race's overall clocking tell us anything about the individual race patterns of the horses therein?

I hope that I have made myself clear here...and if not, then I am willing to take another stab at it. Because "pace handicapping" is of great interest to me...and it pleases me to see this topic thoroughly investigated.

Thank you.

[classhandicapper]

Thaskalos

Your post is perfectly clear and absolutely correct.

This is not meant for you. I'll bow out now because people seem more interested in data on the fractions than understanding how they might interrelate with the makeup of the field and positional development to produce results we can understand better. I didn't mean to hijack the thread to insert my work. I thought it was complimentary and was planning to add some data when I had time.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Thaskalos

Your post is perfectly clear and absolutely correct.

This is not meant for you. I'll bow out now because people seem more interested in data on the fractions than understanding how they might interrelate with the makeup of the field and positional development to produce results we can understand better. I didn't mean to hijack the thread to insert my work. I thought it was complimentary and was planning to add some data when I had time.

I'm all for you adding any insights you have.

Thaskalos,

I actually did it by race instead of by horse for a good reason though I probably should have explained it. The huge majority of the time all the horses in the race follow the pattern of the race, and the top finishers is even a bigger majority. I don't think doing it by the horse will lead to any different insights but I'm certainly willing to give it a go.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

I actually did it by race instead of by horse for a good reason though I probably should have explained it. The huge majority of the time all the horses in the race follow the pattern of the race, and the top finishers is even a bigger majority. I don't think doing it by the horse will lead to any different insights but I'm certainly willing to give it a go.

I don't see how that could be. For example: In all the races where the first race call is fast, regardless of distance, the majority of the horses are well off the pace thus saving energy for the latter parts of the race. So...it would appear that they are running CONTRARY to the pattern of the race.

Please don't take this as criticism aimed at you personally. You have volunteered to do work for our benefit here...and your effort should be applauded. But this is an inconsistency that I felt should be pointed out...because not doing so would allow your investigation to lead to the wrong conclusion...IMO.