BRISNET or DRF ?

[Tom]

I have a copy of that study somewhere. I'll see if I can find it.

I think DRF SR+TV won.

[pandy]

Just remember that regardless of which speed figures you use, some of the figures are wrong. Speed Figures are educated guesses and sometimes they guess wrong, very wrong. And it doesn't matter if the number is computer generated or done by a real person, they all have some bad numbers that are way off.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by pandy

Just remember that regardless of which speed figures you use, some of the figures are wrong. Speed Figures are educated guesses and sometimes they guess wrong, very wrong. And it doesn't matter if the number is computer generated or done by a real person, they all have some bad numbers that are way off.

In order to know for sure that all the speed figures out there "have some bad numbers that are way off"...don't we have to compare them to a set of speed figures that we consider "perfect"? Or are we using our OWN "educated guesses", to correct the "educated guesses" of others?

[pandy]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

In order to know for sure that all the speed figures out there "have some bad numbers that are way off"...don't we have to compare them to a set of speed figures that we consider "perfect"? Or are we using our OWN "educated guesses", to correct the "educated guesses" of others?

Since I did my own speed figures for many years, I know how the errors are made and sometimes I can spot a suspiciously high or low number. How you know for sure that the number on a particular race is bad, the horses coming out of that race run much different numbers. For instance, the figure maker gave the winner a 90, that horse comes back and runs a 75 and the race proves to be a negative key race with most of the horses running slower than they did in the "wrong" number race.

Of course, I don't think it's wise to put too much emphasis on one particular number, anyway. But with lightly raced horses, sometimes we have to. When Run Happy (Test) and Arrogate (Travers) ran those huge races at Saratoga, handicappers had to decide how much emphasis to put on those performances. But since they were both young and developing horses, it made sense to believe that they could indeed repeat that performance and that they were truly superior animals.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by pandy

Since I did my own speed figures for many years, I know how the errors are made and sometimes I can spot a suspiciously high or low number. How you know for sure that the number on a particular race is bad, the horses coming out of that race run much different numbers. For instance, the figure maker gave the winner a 90, that horse comes back and runs a 75 and the race proves to be a negative key race with most of the horses running slower than they did in the "wrong" number race.

Of course, I don't think it's wise to put too much emphasis on one particular number, anyway. But with lightly raced horses, sometimes we have to. When Run Happy (Test) and Arrogate (Travers) ran those huge races at Saratoga, handicappers had to decide how much emphasis to put on those performances. But since they were both young and developing horses, it made sense to believe that they could indeed repeat that performance and that they were truly superior animals.

IMO...the process of figure-making has taken an unfortunate turn for the worse in recent years. Instead of simply supplying the figures that the horses actually earn on the track...today's figure-makers are unduly concerned with whether on not these figures "make sense" when compared to the horses' prior efforts, and end up making "artificial adjustments"...thus bringing a certain "consistency" to these horses that I'm not sure is really there.

This game isn't as predictable as we'd like it to be...and horses run uncharacteristically bad (or good) races for a variety of reasons. When the figures indicate what the horses actually did...then the handicapper can evaluate the form-cycles of these horses...and he can use his OWN judgement when contemplating the up-and-down figures that these horses habitually run. But when artificial adjustments are made to "make sense" of these figures...then the figure-maker's "interpretive skills" take center stage...when the PLAYER'S interpretive skills should be playing the leading role in the handicapping process.

I view today's "projected figures" in the same light that I look at our two main political parties. I may be impressed by the theory that surrounds them...but I am largely dissatisfied when I see that theory being put into practice.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO...the process of figure-making has taken an unfortunate turn for the worse in recent years. Instead of simply supplying the figures that the horses actually earn on the track...today's figure-makers are unduly concerned with whether on not these figures "make sense" when compared to the horses' prior efforts, and end up making "artificial adjustments"...thus bringing a certain "consistency" to these horses that I'm not sure is really there.

This game isn't as predictable as we'd like it to be...and horses run uncharacteristically bad (or good) races for a variety of reasons. When the figures indicate what the horses actually did...then the handicapper can evaluate the form-cycles of these horses...and he can use his OWN judgement when contemplating the up-and-down figures that these horses habitually run. But when artificial adjustments are made to "make sense" of these figures...then the figure-maker's "interpretive skills" take center stage...when the PLAYER'S interpretive skills should be playing the leading role in the handicapping process.

I view today's "projected figures" in the same light that I look at our two main political parties. I may be impressed by the theory that surrounds them...but I am largely dissatisfied when I see that theory being put into practice.

I agree. I prefer a basic speed figure based on final time and track variant. And if the figure comes up surprisingly low, leave it alone. So, the pace was slow and the race was slow, it happens. Let us decide how to deal with it. The adjustments that some figure makers add for ground loss for wide trips, I don't see how that makes any sense. On some days the rail is the worst place to be, and vice versa.

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO...the process of figure-making has taken an unfortunate turn for the worse in recent years. Instead of simply supplying the figures that the horses actually earn on the track...today's figure-makers are unduly concerned with whether on not these figures "make sense" when compared to the horses' prior efforts, and end up making "artificial adjustments"...thus bringing a certain "consistency" to these horses that I'm not sure is really there.

This game isn't as predictable as we'd like it to be...and horses run uncharacteristically bad (or good) races for a variety of reasons. When the figures indicate what the horses actually did...then the handicapper can evaluate the form-cycles of these horses...and he can use his OWN judgement when contemplating the up-and-down figures that these horses habitually run. But when artificial adjustments are made to "make sense" of these figures...then the figure-maker's "interpretive skills" take center stage...when the PLAYER'S interpretive skills should be playing the leading role in the handicapping process.

I view today's "projected figures" in the same light that I look at our two main political parties. I may be impressed by the theory that surrounds them...but I am largely dissatisfied when I see that theory being put into practice.

Got some real life examples, particularly from recent racing? I'd like to investigate.

[Franco Santiago]

Nearly every swinging d**k is making decisions based on speed figures. They provide no edge. Scrap them and do a lot better.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Franco Santiago

Nearly every swinging d**k is making decisions based on speed figures. They provide no edge. Scrap them and do a lot better.

Why scrap them? Instead, why not use them wisely? They are part of the equation, not the whole thing, or even the majority. But they have a place in the arsenal.

[Franco Santiago]

Originally Posted by cj

Why scrap them? Instead, why not use them wisely? They are part of the equation, not the whole thing, or even the majority. But they have a place in the arsenal.

Because they do nothing but put you on what everyone else is on, which means you have no edge. There are so many other tools that one can use, I just don't see any reason to use one that provides literally no edge whatsoever. But, to each his/her own. I am sure there are those that can use them for an edge in SOME manner.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Franco Santiago

Because they do nothing but put you on what everyone else is on, which means you have no edge. There are so many other tools that one can use, I just don't see any reason to use one that provides literally no edge whatsoever. But, to each his/her own. I am sure there are those that can use them for an edge in SOME manner.

Again, it depends how you use them. If you are just picking the highest figures all the time of course you'll lose long term.

[Franco Santiago]

Originally Posted by cj

Again, it depends how you use them. If you are just picking the highest figures all the time of course you'll lose long term.

Precisely. So, if you need to look for other than the highest fig to find value, why use them at all? The highest fig provides NO value, so what good it is it?

And I was a fig disciple. I thought they were the greatest thing ever. Not anymore. It was HARD to quit using them.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Franco Santiago

Precisely. So, if you need to look for other than the highest fig to find value, why use them at all? The highest fig provides NO value, so what good it is it?

And I was a fig disciple. I thought they were the greatest thing ever. Not anymore. It was HARD to quit using them.

I think in combination with trips, they are great for identifying form, whether improving or declining.

[Franco Santiago]

Originally Posted by cj

I think in combination with trips, they are great for identifying form, whether improving or declining.

That seems reasonable. That's what I used to do. I only bet P4s these days, and for whatever reason - could even by my lack of proficiency at using them - I feel other things are better for finding value.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Franco Santiago

Precisely. So, if you need to look for other than the highest fig to find value, why use them at all? The highest fig provides NO value, so what good it is it?

And I was a fig disciple. I thought they were the greatest thing ever. Not anymore. It was HARD to quit using them.

High and low figures are bright bobbing floats,
rising and falling on racing's vast ocean swell...

Tethered to crab pots below, we
need to find, hook and still, haul...

'Tis work, the pots heavy,
often, there's no crab at all...

Still, without these figures, these tell-tails
how could we ever taste that prized
and elusive crustacean....?