BRISNET or DRF ?

[dav4463]

[quote=GMB@BP;2216528]

Originally Posted by jasperson

To each their own like I said.

I have used the Timeform figures for the better part of 12 years and think they are just better.

Doesnt make me right and anyone else wrong, just my opinion.

Also to be fair, comparing Timeform-Sheets type numbers which include adjustments for various factors to say Beyer or Bris etc which are just a straight figure based on variant number is apples and oranges. So maybe its not a fair discussion.

I prefer DRF. I like the layout.

I also prefer Ginger!

[FakeNameChanged]

[quote=dav4463;2217648]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

I prefer DRF. I like the layout.

I also prefer Ginger!

Sorry Dave, I couldn't resist after my wife showed me this.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/78/ff/57/7...f6a04bc56f.jpg

[dav4463]

[quote=Whosonfirst;2218745]

Originally Posted by dav4463

Sorry Dave, I couldn't resist after my wife showed me this.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/78/ff/57/7...f6a04bc56f.jpg

She was hot in her day!

[soonboomer]

Has there ever been a unbiased published comparison between any of the competing figure makers? I used to make my own in the 80's and early 90's......seems like when several sources became available, a lot of the value was sucked out of speed handicapping.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Just an idea: If the Daily Racing Form rotated their information 90 degrees and placed the binding along the 8.5 inch side that in effect would created a horizontal line 10 inches long (excluding 1/2 inch margins on each side)...

There would be about 2 more inches of white space available to include pace metrics similar to BRIS or other innovations...

I guess it just depends on the percentage of pixels now covered with ink, if rotating the information would make any difference...

We have a saying in Architecture that "form follows function" .....
If the function of the DRF printed publication is to provide buyers with the best information possible, they ought not to be limited by the format itself...

Also, many fans do not use more than 1 or 2 race cards, but the form contains many more cards of information....that is a lot of wasted ink and paper that patrons must buy in order to get what they need....it might be better to print each card individually at an incremental cost and let the buyer choose how many to buy...

...think of all the wasted ink and paper...and still no individual pace figures and pace fraction/ metrics for individual races like BRIS has...

If BRIS had a hard copy available of their format at the track, or if the DRF incorporated the latest pace metrics for individual races into their hardcopy,
I would be a very, very happy camper...

[MPRanger]

Originally Posted by ldiatone

well i do think TM and Equibase are the same speed figures. some one will correct me if i am wrong. thanks for the input.

You are correct. Trackmaster makes the figures for Equibase which are also the same as the Daily Racing Program.

I would hesitate to argue with CJ. I'm sure I could learn a lot from him. However, it doesn't seem right to say EB SF stink. I think they are fine.

I'm happy to use anyones figures interchangeably because they are all better than raw time. Plus, I don't consider speed figures to be predictive. They only show what a horse did under particular circumstances at a particular time. More important to me are the conditions the horse scored the figure under. Change the pace or the class and you will get a different SF. No?

[cj]

Originally Posted by MPRanger

You are correct. Trackmaster makes the figures for Equibase which are also the same as the Daily Racing Program.

I would hesitate to argue with CJ. I'm sure I could learn a lot from him. However, it doesn't seem right to say EB SF stink. I think they are fine.

I'm happy to use anyones figures interchangeably because they are all better than raw time. Plus, I don't consider speed figures to be predictive. They only show what a horse did under particular circumstances at a particular time. More important to me are the conditions the horse scored the figure under. Change the pace or the class and you will get a different SF. No?

Maybe stinks was too harsh. I probably don't follow them enough to make that broad of a statement. But I know there are flaws. Any figures the have Gormley's January Sham Stakes as the second best performance by a 3yo this year has some issues. Same goes for Richard's Boy being listed as the third fastest sprint this year, coming in a Cal bred stake where he barely nosed out Well Measured.

It is possible the figs are "good enough" when it comes to your everyday racing. I just can't put any faith in speed figures that are supposed to identify the fastest horses having hiccups like those mentioned above.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by soonboomer

Has there ever been a unbiased published comparison between any of the competing figure makers? I used to make my own in the 80's and early 90's......seems like when several sources became available, a lot of the value was sucked out of speed handicapping.

That's the great dilemma. People want more and better information. But if it's good information, once it's public and gains widespread acceptance it loses value. From a gambling perspective you are probably better off trying to create your own metrics and then testing them. If you find something that works pretty well and it gets better prices, don't tell anyone what's in the special sauce.

[cutchemist42]

Bris simply because of Whobets.

Timeform is my 2nd choice.....my only gripes being how the racw class is shown, the colour scheme, and I camt zoom in on the page on my Android.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

That's the great dilemma. People want more and better information. But if it's good information, once it's public and gains widespread acceptance it loses value. From a gambling perspective you are probably better off trying to create your own metrics and then testing them. If you find something that works pretty well and it gets better prices, don't tell anyone what's in the special sauce.

The problem I see with all commercial figures is that “more and better information” is very difficult if not impossible to be justified based on the way the data is provided (either on paper or as part of a website).

The main issues I see are the following:

(1) Figure makers insist to keep their algorithms proprietary something that makes it impossible to detect errors on their creation of the form an opinion about the data flow and realize potential weaknesses and strengths.

(2) For most of them there is no way to download historical numbers in an electronic format so they can be used as parts of handicapping models. (Bris figures consist an exception to the rule if you have an extensive set of downloaded DRF files; testing them I decided that there is a lot of room for improvement so I quickly lost interest on them).

[VigorsTheGrey]

No matter how well a metric is divised, there are inherent limitations based on the vagaries and vissicitudes of just being horses and humans...this is especially true when the two are combined into sets of even greater number...it is amazing that we get it right as much as we do....and there are only a few ways to win a race, and many more ways to lose..

[soonboomer]

You'd have thought that sometime over the past 25 years someone would have looked at Beyer vs Bris vs Equibase over a set time period.......something like top number win % and average mutual.....same thing for top 3 exacta box and/or any other type of bet that interests you.

[cj]

Originally Posted by soonboomer

You'd have thought that sometime over the past 25 years someone would have looked at Beyer vs Bris vs Equibase over a set time period.......something like top number win % and average mutual.....same thing for top 3 exacta box and/or any other type of bet that interests you.

I remember seeing one from years ago but I don't remember the results. The toughest thing I think is defining the criteria. What do you use? Last race only, last race on surface, last race on surface at similar distance? Do you average figures?

The other problem is having access to the figures. Who is going to pay to buy PPs for all the data providers just to study the figures? You couldn't just buy a few weeks and have a real sample. I think you'd need at least a year, maybe more.

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by cj

I remember seeing one from years ago but I don't remember the results. The toughest thing I think is defining the criteria. What do you use? Last race only, last race on surface, last race on surface at similar distance? Do you average figures?

The other problem is having access to the figures. Who is going to pay to buy PPs for all the data providers just to study the figures? You couldn't just buy a few weeks and have a real sample. I think you'd need at least a year, maybe more.

This was done in the mid 1990-s by Sports Stats ( Jim Bayle) and it was going to be repeated around 2000 but it wasn't as (I believe) Jim was too busy gambling on sports full time.

There are references to it here on PA from years ago. It used simple metrics of best last figure, best average last three figures, best average last five figures and perhaps a few others.

At the time the win percentage for Beyer, Bris and TrackMaster (now the Equibase figure) was about the same. Again, if I recall correctly it was in the 28% range.

The difference was the TrackMaster figure had a slightly higher R.O.I. on all three metrics. This was fairly easy to explain as it wasn't in as much use at the Beyer figure or Bris figure.

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by cj

I remember seeing one from years ago but I don't remember the results. The toughest thing I think is defining the criteria. What do you use? Last race only, last race on surface, last race on surface at similar distance? Do you average figures?

The other problem is having access to the figures. Who is going to pay to buy PPs for all the data providers just to study the figures? You couldn't just buy a few weeks and have a real sample. I think you'd need at least a year, maybe more.

I forgot to add that at the time all three figure makers supplied the data for the study at no cost. That addresses your comment about who is going to pay, or at least who paid at that time.