Predicting Speed Ratings from Past Ratings

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You objected, in your prior post, to the idea of asking the original poster for a "real-life" example of what he means. Now...you say that "we could answer our own questions, by doing our own research". Does this mean that a poster could start a thread here, introducing "theoretical concepts"...but we are "wrong" to ask him for a PRACTICAL example of what he is talking about?

If the original poster's intention is to just make an opening statement here and then disappear...then what's the point of starting the thread?

What I'm suggesting is that you could answer your own question, and if so, why ask it in the first place?

BTW, I edited my previous post for errors, and also provided my answer to the example Tom posted above.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by raybo

What I'm suggesting is that you could answer your own question, and if so, why ask it in the first place?

BTW, I edited my previous post for errors, and also provided my answer to the example Tom posted above.

And I am suggesting that the original poster has the OBLIGATION to answer a few questions when he opts to start a thread here. I don't care WHAT his academic credentials are...he must be willing to clarify the point that he is trying to make. If all he is intending to do is dazzle his "followers" with his "esoteric brilliance"...then he should write his post...and send it to his friends here by personal message.

These threads are for PUBLIC view...and they invite INTERACTION. If the original poster doesn't like to answer a few questions...then he should consider starting his own BLOG.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

And I am suggesting that the original poster has the OBLIGATION to answer a few questions when he opts to start a thread here. I don't care WHAT his academic credentials are...he must be willing to clarify the point that he is trying to make. If all he is intending to do is dazzle his "followers" with his "esoteric brilliance"...then he should write his post...and send it to his friends here by personal message.

These threads are for PUBLIC view...and they invite INTERACTION. If the original poster doesn't like to answer a few questions...then he should consider starting his own BLOG.

If you read TM's OP you will see that he is asking a question of other posters, not the reverse. He is not saying that he is right or knows the answer, he's just putting a thought out there and asking what others would say to it.

What question(s) would you like TM to answer, BTW?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by raybo

If you read TM's OP you will see that he is asking a question of other posters, not the reverse. He is not saying that he is right or knows the answer, he's just putting a thought out there and asking what others would say to it.

What question(s) would you like TM to answer, BTW?

Ray...I'm not looking to start an argument with you. I've argued with you plenty in the past...and I haven't exactly enjoyed the experience. My argument isn't with you...it's with these "cryptic" posts, which certain posters submit without the inclination to offer any sort of explanation as a follow-up.

What good does it do if I tell you the question that I would like TM to answer...if I am positive that TM will never ANSWER it?

TM was "asking a question of the other posters"...you say. I disagree! TrifectaMike doesn't ASK legitimate questions; he asks questions in the same manner that SOCRATES was asking people questions, 2,500 years ago. These questions were tailor-made to show how little the OTHER guy knew about the particular topic at hand. But...once the other guy's ignorance was acknowledged...Socrates actually supplied some answers. TrifectaMike just sits there...probably secretly laughing at his audience's ignorance. And I just don't see the point of that.

Start a thread when you have something to share...I say. When you want to provide only an opening statement and then hide...then post this statement in someone else's thread.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Ray...I'm not looking to start an argument with you. I've argued with you plenty in the past...and I haven't exactly enjoyed the experience. My argument isn't with you...it's with these "cryptic" posts, which certain posters submit without the inclination to offer any sort of explanation as a follow-up.

What good does it do if I tell you the question that I would like TM to answer...if I am positive that PM will never ANSWER it?

TM was "asking a question of the other posters"...you say. I disagree! TrifectaMike doesn't ASK legitimate questions; he asks questions in the same manner that SOCRATES was asking people questions, 2,500 years ago. These questions were tailor-made to show how little the OTHER guy knew about the particular topic at hand. But...once the other guy's ignorance was acknowledged...Socrates actually supplied some answers. But TrifectaMike just sits there...probably secretly laughing at his audience's ignorance. And I just don't see the point of that.

Start a thread when you have something to share...I say. When you want to provide only an opening statement and then hide...then post this statement in someone else's thread.

I'm not looking to argue with you either, but I would like to know what question you would ask him about that topic. Obviously TM got his answer via Magister Ludi, but personally I don't know what to do with that answer, because I don't know what to think of this:

Perhaps there is a cycle of equine performance consistency. W3 could be the minimum performance consistency point.

Is he saying that the 3rd race back is generally the most insignificant speed figure of the last 4, or is he saying something else? And, is he saying that one can reliably ignore the speed figure (regarding long term play) for the 3rd race back, or is he saying something else? We all can point to exceptions to refute universally ignoring that 3rd race back, but how does it work out long term, regarding assigning weightings to the last 4 speed figures? Does it only apply to the sample of data he provided to his assistant, or does it apply to other sets of data?

He went on to state that he uses a "Hierarchical Bayes Model" to predict speed figures from past speed ratings, while he had previously stated that modeling was not involved in the exercise. So, what does that mean? Does he actually use the statistical study data, regarding the "insignificance" of the 3rd race back, or not, or does he use it for something else? My understanding of Bayes is that it offers data where lack of data is a problem. If that is so, then why worry about the significance of one speed rating over another? Wouldn't the use of Bayes take care of that on its own?

If I knew what "W3 could be the minimum performance consistency point" means maybe I could answer some of my own questions, without input from TM or Magister Ludi. Maybe a Google of that might explain that phrase more?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by raybo

I'm not looking to argue with you either, but I would like to know what question you would ask him about that topic. Obviously TM got his answer via Magister Ludi, but personally I don't know what to do with that answer, because I don't know what to think of this: Is he saying that the 3rd race back is generally the most insignificant speed figure of the last 4, or is he saying something else? And, is he saying that one can reliably ignore the speed figure (regarding long term play) for the 3rd race back, or is he saying something else? We all can point to exceptions to refute universally ignoring that 3rd race back, but how does it work out long term, regarding assigning weightings to the last 4 speed figures? Does it only apply to the sample of data he provided to his assistant, or does it apply to other sets of data?

He went on to state that he uses a "Hierarchical Bayes Model" to predict speed figures from past speed ratings, while he had previously stated that modeling was not involved in the exercise. So, what does that mean? Does he actually use the statistical study data, regarding the "insignificance" of the 3rd race back, or not, or does he use it for something else? My understanding of Bayes is that it offers data where lack of data is a problem. If that is so, then why worry about the significance of one speed rating over another? Wouldn't the use of Bayes take care of that on its own?

If I knew what "W3 could be the minimum performance consistency point" means maybe I could answer some of my own questions, without input from TM or Magister Ludi. Maybe a Google of that might explain that phrase more?

That's my point...NO ONE knows what any of this means. And it was never INTENDED for any of us to eventually get to KNOW what any of this actually means.

TrifectaMike wanted to test our group here, in much the same way as a teacher occasionally chooses to test his class...to see which student is the 'brightest". He asks a cryptic question of the class...which 99% of the class is unable to decipher. And then one kid raises his hand, and provides the appropriate answer. "BINGO!"...the teacher announces emphatically, as the bright student flashes a proud smile.

And then the topic is dropped and the class moves on to something else...because the rest of the class isn't "smart enough" to warrant pursuing that topic any further.

That's pretty much what went on in that thread...IMO.

[MJC922]

This one again eh.

As I recall the first problem was the thread title, as it turned out the results of the study had nothing to do with predicting a speed figure, it had to do with predicting the winner.

SJK and I went down the wrong (thread title) path of testing how well it predicted today's speed figure. As expected in that case the third race back is closer to today's figure than the 4th race back. The fact that 3rd back is slightly less predictive than the 4th race back I suppose means something profound to someone? I can verify that it is true.

In the end it comes down to finding what's most predictive not what isn't. And yes you can do better than the last race, in my case about 5% better.

[aaron]

Jim Cramer of HDW has projected speed ratings for every track. I don't know the exact % of winners,but I think it was about 32-33% and the roi was better than the takeout rate.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by aaron

Jim Cramer of HDW has projected speed ratings for every track. I don't know the exact % of winners,but I think it was about 32-33% and the roi was better than the takeout rate.

Might want to find out how many ifs ands or buts are involved to hit that number.

[traveler]

Originally Posted by MJC922

Might want to find out how many ifs ands or buts are involved to hit that number.

Cramers Projected SR - 10,000 race sample - ties bump number in the rank of 1, but 34.72% at $1.73 retrun per $2 bet. No ifs, lots of buts here...

WIN BETS
Field1 Field2 Starts Pays Pct $Net IV PIV HV
---------------------------------------------------------------
1 11,127 3,472 31.2 $1.73 2.50 1.06 1.33
2 9,050 1,811 20.0 $1.62 1.60 1.00 1.14
3 9,876 1,463 14.8 $1.60 1.19 0.97 1.04
4 9,976 1,118 11.2 $1.57 0.90 0.95 0.95
5 9,986 806 8.1 $1.50 0.65 0.89 0.84
6 9,992 603 6.0 $1.43 0.48 0.89 0.77
7 8,448 367 4.3 $1.34 0.37 0.85 0.69
8 6,258 204 3.3 $1.24 0.30 0.83 0.64
9 8,771 172 2.0 $1.08 0.21 0.74 0.53

Total 83,484 10,016 12.0 $1.48 1.00 0.95

[raybo]

Originally Posted by traveler

Cramers Projected SR - 10,000 race sample - ties bump number in the rank of 1, but 34.72% at $1.73 retrun per $2 bet. No ifs, lots of buts here...

WIN BETS
Field1 Field2 Starts Pays Pct $Net IV PIV HV
---------------------------------------------------------------
1 11,127 3,472 31.2 $1.73 2.50 1.06 1.33
2 9,050 1,811 20.0 $1.62 1.60 1.00 1.14
3 9,876 1,463 14.8 $1.60 1.19 0.97 1.04
4 9,976 1,118 11.2 $1.57 0.90 0.95 0.95
5 9,986 806 8.1 $1.50 0.65 0.89 0.84
6 9,992 603 6.0 $1.43 0.48 0.89 0.77
7 8,448 367 4.3 $1.34 0.37 0.85 0.69
8 6,258 204 3.3 $1.24 0.30 0.83 0.64
9 8,771 172 2.0 $1.08 0.21 0.74 0.53

Total 83,484 10,016 12.0 $1.48 1.00 0.95

Hmmmm - looks like 31.2%, not 34.72%. Maybe I'm wrong though?

[Dave Schwartz]

Traveler,

Well, I certainly recognize that output.

Dave

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by traveler

Cramers Projected SR - 10,000 race sample - ties bump number in the rank of 1, but 34.72% at $1.73 retrun per $2 bet. No ifs, lots of buts here...

WIN BETS
Field1 Field2 Starts Pays Pct $Net IV PIV HV
---------------------------------------------------------------
1 11,127 3,472 31.2 $1.73 2.50 1.06 1.33
2 9,050 1,811 20.0 $1.62 1.60 1.00 1.14
3 9,876 1,463 14.8 $1.60 1.19 0.97 1.04
4 9,976 1,118 11.2 $1.57 0.90 0.95 0.95
5 9,986 806 8.1 $1.50 0.65 0.89 0.84
6 9,992 603 6.0 $1.43 0.48 0.89 0.77
7 8,448 367 4.3 $1.34 0.37 0.85 0.69
8 6,258 204 3.3 $1.24 0.30 0.83 0.64
9 8,771 172 2.0 $1.08 0.21 0.74 0.53

Total 83,484 10,016 12.0 $1.48 1.00 0.95

Trust me I've been working with speed figures for over thirty years. If god comes to you and says he has a top fig last race that wins 34% you should call BS. In terms of accuracy the high-water mark for a number might be 27 without pace, with pace maybe a point or two higher. Top fig last race isn't exceeding 30% for anyone. People scam with this in two ways, first they like to use selective application, that is, they want to dig out a turf number for a turf race and ignore the last race if its dirt and / or more commonly they say the top ranked horse with an edge of X number of points wins 30+%, ignoring races when the top rank has a point edge which is small.

[traveler]

Trust me, I don't trust you at all based on your response. The figure presented is a Rank of number 1 for the PSR. Ray, your math is off too.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by traveler

Trust me, I don't trust you at all based on your response. The figure presented is a Rank of number 1 for the PSR. Ray, your math is off too.

What does ties bump number in the rank of one mean? How about we tie everyone, then we have 100% wins. Yipee!!