Predicting Speed Ratings from Past Ratings

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Tom

Try this....

Thanks Tom, but I still don't see a 34.72% hit rate anywhere, the highest is rank 1 at 31.2%.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Somewhere in the original thread someone explained to me that it is possible that w3 could be so correlated to w1 and w2 that you gain very little upside from including it.

Yes...it may well be that w3 could be discarded without having the final results suffer much adverse effect. But it could also be that, the minute you decide to exclude w3...that's when you'll miss the big payoff which would make your month.

When I first started in this game...I envisioned that I would discover a way of playing which would allow me to methodically grind consistent profits over time...without going through long "dry spells". What I found instead was that this game is very volatile...and the profits in it come in unpredictable waves. Yes...you can try to simplify things when you handicap, by eliminating this or that...trying to make the process more "logical". But this "simplification" often comes with a costly price-tag.

As more and more people mine these races with the help of vast databases...certain "rules" are bound to be created, which appear to simplify the handicapping process. But the horseplayer needs to be careful, IMO...because the profits in this game are often found in the EXCEPTION...and not the "rule".

[raybo]

Originally Posted by ebcorde

not surrendering at all. it's just that no matter what you do with "numbers" you'll end up with the top picks

when I started in this game, I spent 2 weeks learning the form, the old equibase form. Then I tested myself for a few months. The old track equibase form always had their top 3 selections at the bottom of the page, so I would cover it up. I almost always ended up with the same picks they had.

Later on in life I handicapped solely using other methods, I came up with the same picks as when using speed.

Today most races I can handicap strictly on class alone If i want. However I use 4 different methods, and when all 4 methods produce the same horse, that type horse wins a lot of races.

I prefer the horse who meets or comes closest to meeting the metrics of all 4 methods I employ. so I don't get all worked up over speed/pace

I do use speed and Pace heavily. but also recent form , class and negative/positive situations for today's Trainers and Jockeys.

I posted for Tampa what Horses I would throwout based on my software.

That highlighted statement is patently false. I use nothing but numbers and logic decision trees in my program and I get selections, and winners, from all odds ranges, from 1/9 to triple digits.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes...it may well be that w3 could be discarded without having the final results suffer much adverse effect. But it could also be that, the minute you decide to exclude w3...that's when you'll miss the big payoff which would make your month.

When I first started in this game...I envisioned that I would discover a way of playing which would allow me to methodically grind consistent profits over time...without going through long "dry spells". What I found instead was that this game is very volatile...and the profits in it come in unpredictable waves. Yes...you can try to simplify things when you handicap, by eliminating this or that...trying to make the process more "logical". But this "simplification" often comes with a costly price-tag.

As more and more people mine these races with the help of vast databases...certain "rules" are bound to be created, which appear to simplify the handicapping process. But the horseplayer needs to be careful, IMO...because the profits in this game are often found in the EXCEPTION...and not the "rule".

Not being argumentative, on purpose, but wouldn't you agree that universally ignoring the 3rd race back is an EXCEPTION.. and not the "rule"?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by raybo

Not being argumentative, on purpose, but wouldn't you agree that universally ignoring the 3rd race back is an EXCEPTION.. and not the "rule"?

No. If your database tells you that you could afford to ignore w3...then that becomes your newly-discovered "rule". I don't believe in ignoring ANYTHING. What possible determination could I make about w3...without carefully considering the circumstances of that race? Why would I reject w3...while still keeping w4?

The order in which these races appear on the page should be the main determinant when deciding which race we keep...and which race we throw away?

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

No. If your database tells you that you could afford to ignore w3...then that becomes your newly-discovered "rule". I don't believe in ignoring ANYTHING. What possible determination could I make about w3...without carefully considering the circumstances of that race? Why would I reject w3...while still keeping w4?

The order in which these races appear on the page should be the main determinant when deciding which race we keep...and which race we throw away?

Whew... I know what you're saying Gus, and I don't disagree, but universally ignoring a particular race based on recency ranked order would definitely be an exception to the rule in racing. Just because one person decides to use that method, doesn't now make it a rule in racing, for everyone else. I seriously suspect that most people who think that stepping out of the box of traditional experience is becoming more and more important in order to make profit in racing, would agree that universally ignoring the 3rd race back is indeed stepping out of that box, and is an exception.

Do I do that? No, I don't, but then I haven't done that research either. Mostly because I'm still doing fine and I don't use pace or speed figures anyway.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by raybo

Whew... I know what you're saying Gus, and I don't disagree, but universally ignoring a particular race based on recency ranked order would definitely be an exception to the rule in racing. Just because one person decides to use that method, doesn't now make it a rule in racing, for everyone else. I seriously suspect that most people who think that stepping out of the box of traditional experience is becoming more and more important in order to make profit in racing, would agree that universally ignoring the 3rd race back is indeed stepping out of that box, and is an exception.

Do I do that? No, I don't, but then I haven't done that research either. Mostly because I'm still doing fine and I don't I use pace or speed figures anyway.

In his original thread here...TrifectaMike suggested that there was a way of accurately predicting the horse's upcoming speed figure, by assigning different weights to the horse's prior 4 speed figures. Greyfox asked him in a subsequent post if these prior 4 races shouldn't be examined for class and distance concerns...before these weights are assigned. TrifectaMike casually brushed that suggestion off...as if it were an unimportant consideration. "Let's move on"...TM said.

Move on to WHAT?

We are going to ignore the class, surface and distance of the horse's prior 4 races...and we are going to endeavor to predict the horse's upcoming speed figure...by assigning different weights to those 4 prior races. And then what? We march off to the betting window...and confidently put our money down on our choice?

We are not razzing the thread, Ray. We are trying to UNDERSTAND it. But someone has to explain the basic premise here...and it's obvious that TM won't be the one to do it.

Will YOU?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by raybo

I seriously suspect that most people who think that stepping out of the box of traditional experience is becoming more and more important in order to make profit in racing, would agree that universally ignoring the 3rd race back is indeed stepping out of that box, and is an exception.

Again...I disagree. If our site here is indicative of the public opinion at large, I submit that the vast majority of the players have already IGNORED the horse's 3rd race back...so, CONSIDERING this race would seem to be the "exception". The majority of the posters here have expressed the opinion that they are even unwilling to go beyond the horse's most RECENT race...unless there was a "valid reason" to do so.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

In his original thread here...TrifectaMike suggested that there was a way of accurately predicting the horse's upcoming speed figure, by assigning different weights to the horse's prior 4 speed figures. Greyfox asked him in a subsequent post if these prior 4 races shouldn't be examined for class and distance concerns...before these weights are assigned. TrifectaMike casually brushed that suggestion off...as if it were an unimportant consideration. "Let's move on"...TM said.

Move on to WHAT?

We are going to ignore the class, surface and distance of the horse's prior 4 races...and we are going to endeavor to predict the horse's upcoming speed figure...by assigning different weights to those 4 prior races. And then what? We march off to the betting window...and confidently put our money down on our choice?

We are not razzing the thread, Ray. We are trying to UNDERSTAND it. But someone has to explain the basic premise here...and it's obvious that TM won't be the one to do it.

Will YOU?

To my knowledge of the thread, TM never said that there was an accurate way of projecting speed figures, he even went on late r to say that he uses a hierarchical Bayes Model to project speed figures. The "story" he posted was just an exercise, IMO, something to get a conversation going, and in TM's typical MO act as the professor teaching a class. That's fine and good with me, there are other posters who are worth conversing with. Al;so, he never said that the speed figure projection example would be of any value at all, and had nothing to do with value.

Some people just overstayed themselves because they really expected TM to offer an answer, which he almost never does.

"Let's move on" was just his way of getting to the next part of his "story". He's not the only one here who illicit participation in threads that lead nowhere. His moniker alone should be enough to warn some here from participating in the thread, but they do it anyway, maybe they get something out of it, I don't know.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

But someone has to explain the basic premise here...and it's obvious that TM won't be the one to do it.

Will YOU?

I think the premise may be that a lot of the things we "think" are so when it comes to handicapping come from intuition and experience. But perhaps some aren't accurate. Our minds tend to correlate and confirm things we think going in.

So in the case of w3 or in some of the cases I have tested, the conventional wisdom may not be true.

I'm not sure what to with that w3 information.

But if I was evaluating an older horse with relative stable form and I knew that weighing the last 3 races at 58%, 32% and 10% was better than just looking at the last race or using some other weight, I might make better value oriented decisions. On the flip side, if I found that looking at all 3 races was making my decision making more complex but not adding anything over the long haul relative to looking at just the last race, I could adjust my thinking in the opposite way.

I argued in the original thread that there are no formulas that will work all the time. I still think that. But there may be some general principles that will help.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Again...I disagree. If our site here is indicative of the public opinion at large, I submit that the vast majority of the players have already IGNORED the horse's 3rd race back...so, CONSIDERING this race would seem to be the "exception". The majority of the posters here have expressed the opinion that they are even unwilling to go beyond the horse's most RECENT race...unless there was a "valid reason" to do so.

I don't know about the majority here, but I certainly don't, and most of the posters that I find most knowledgeable about the game don't either. Most people here that I have respect for, as handicappers, don't use speed figures in isolation either, it's just one of the tools and analysis they use. So, what TM was doing would not have been anything of tremendous importance anyway, even if one could actually project speed figures from the last 4 figures. Maybe it can be done, don't know, I use all surface and distance qualified pacelines for my gradings, regardless of class, time off, distance changes, trainer moves, jockey stats, or anything else. Works fine for me. So, who am I to say that projecting a speed figure from the last 4 figures won't work, or can't be done?

[thaskalos]

Well...I am in agreement with Tom in this case. As is usually the case when viewing a TM thread...I think my time could be better spent. I leave this topic to YOU guys...and I wish you luck.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I think the premise may be that a lot of the things we "think" are so when it comes to handicapping come from intuition and experience. But perhaps some aren't accurate. Our minds tend to correlate and confirm things we think going in.

So in the case of w3 or in some of the cases I have tested, the conventional wisdom may not be true.

I'm not sure what to with that w3 information.

But if I was evaluating an older horse with relative stable form and I knew that weighing the last 3 races at 58%, 32% and 10% was better than just looking at the last race or using some other weight, I might make better value oriented decisions. On the flip side, if I found that looking at all 3 races was making my decision making more complex but not adding anything over the long haul relative to looking at just the last race, I could adjust my thinking in the opposite way.

I argued in the original thread that there are no formulas that will work all the time. I still think that. But there may be some general principles that will help.

Raybo, I have re-read TrifectaMike’s original post and I have now come to the conclusion that he being a Bayesian would’ve probably suggested to start with a high probability region, or credibility interval which represents the potential values based on previous evidence.

The high probability region represents the range of reasonable values for the weights. It is not the frequency of anything; not even approximately. It describes an uncertainty range for the unknown, but fixed numbers in the data and its purpose is to generate error values used in the sensitivity analysis.

This is a very mathematical exercise.

However it is amazing to me that when certain posters don’t understand the thesis of a post they go off with unwarranted sarcasm and cynicism.

Therefore I would suggest for those who think that TrifectaMike’s posting behavior is Socratic they should read (if they haven’t) E.T. Jayne’s “Probability Theory: The Logic of Science.”

[raybo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I think the premise may be that a lot of the things we "think" are so when it comes to handicapping come from intuition and experience. But perhaps some aren't accurate. Our minds tend to correlate and confirm things we think going in.

So in the case of w3 or in some of the cases I have tested, the conventional wisdom may not be true.

I'm not sure what to with that w3 information.

But if I was evaluating an older horse with relative stable form and I knew that weighing the last 3 races at 58%, 32% and 10% was better than just looking at the last race or using some other weight, I might make better value oriented decisions. On the flip side, if I found that looking at all 3 races was making my decision making more complex but not adding anything over the long haul relative to looking at just the last race, I could adjust my thinking in the opposite way.

I argued in the original thread that there are no formulas that will work all the time. I still think that. But there may be some general principles that will help.

I think, generally, by the time the regression process gets down to the 3rd and 4th races, the weightings are so close to each other, and the weightings compared to the last and 2nd race back are so low, that the 3rd race back may well not add anything significant to the process. The same may apply to the 4th race back too, if you use the 3rd race back instead.

I suspect the weightings would be something like 6 2 1 1 rounded off, or similar. From that statement of TM's about the 3rd race back being the least significant, I take it that the majority of the time one of the last 2 races are the most significant, with the 4th having some small degree of significance long term (probably due to normal variance within that set of data), if you are using a paceline selection methodology. Sure, there will be times that the 3rd race back is more applicable, in the eyes of the handicapper, but there is also the possibility that using that figure will not help (or hurt) your hit rate, long term.

Of course, the purpose of the regression was to enable the projection of a future speed figure that would point to winners, not necessarily profits. The profits portion, as we know, is a separate function and we often don't bet the horse who has the highest probability of winning (best projected speed figure in this case), or the highest ranking after our other analysis anyway. That exercise was based, not on profit potential, but on projecting a future speed figure, and ultimately, a better rating for identifying probable winners, long term. Perhaps the end goal was to create an odds line or probability line, I don't know. But, if in fact that regression analysis really said that the 3rd race back was insignificant, then for that sample of races, and for that full population of horses, and for that full population of tracks, it would be ill advised to dispute it, IMO, unless one has done the same analysis, of the same data set, and come out with a different observation. I will accept it as true, for that sample, regardless of my own personal beliefs.

[Gamblor]

If the answer is that there is some sort of cyclicity and the third race back is the "minimum performance in the pattern" or whatever the post said, then my question is this: for the horse's next start, does that previous third run back (which is now their fourth run back) suddenly assume more importance than the run after it, when initially it was irrelevant in comparison?