Brisnet Pace Ratings: How to find E3?

[Secretariat]

The issue with Bris Pace Ratings are multifold.

First they are on different scale ranges for each distance and second the lengths are constant for pace figs but not distance changes.

For example I'll use their terminology for sprints to keep it simple
E1- Start to 2F - A G1 race winner = 99
E2- Start to 4F - A G1 race winner = 109
LP- 4F to finish - A G1 race winner = 94
FT - Start to Finish - A G1 race winner = 106

E1- Start to 2F - A C10 race winner = 94
E2- Start to 4F - A C10 race winner = 98
LP- 4F to finish - A C10 race winner = 84
FT - Start to Finish - A C10 winner race = 88

The ranges for E1 between C10 and G1 are as follows:
E1 - 94 to 99 - 5 points
E2 - 98 to 109 - 11 points
LP - 84 to 94 - 10 points
FT - 88 to 106 - 18 points

This can be adjusted for directly with linear equations for the pace figs, but I've done it and it doesn't modify the bottom line much.

Howver, the old TSN site used to print a sheet that lists what the rating was to the actual time which allowed you to get a good idea of comparing pace figs with projected times. Bris doesn't and won't give that chart. I tried. However, you could take a standard track like say Hawthorne which is a 22 2/5th for the C10 winners E1 time and construct your E1 around that. Just give 94 above for 22 2/th and then add or subtract two points for that to get your E1 sheet of points to time. Likewise for HAW at 4F it is about 45 4/5th for C10 winners. You can do the same for the LP and the FT. Since the other tracks are supposedly adjusted for variants, a 94 at HAW is supposedly equivalent to a 94 at Santa Anita.

It's easier to overcome the diffeering ranges above computing turn time and hidden energy and sustained pace, etc with actual figs than with Bris form of pace numbers. Good luck.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by Secretariat

The issue with Bris Pace Ratings are multifold.

First they are on different scale ranges for each distance and second the lengths are constant for pace figs but not distance changes.

For example I'll use their terminology for sprints to keep it simple
E1- Start to 2F - A G1 race winner = 99
E2- Start to 4F - A G1 race winner = 109
LP- 4F to finish - A G1 race winner = 94
FT - Start to Finish - A G1 race winner = 106

E1- Start to 2F - A C10 race winner = 94
E2- Start to 4F - A C10 race winner = 98
LP- 4F to finish - A C10 race winner = 84
FT - Start to Finish - A C10 winner race = 88

The ranges for E1 between C10 and G1 are as follows:
E1 - 94 to 99 - 5 points
E2 - 98 to 109 - 11 points
LP - 84 to 94 - 10 points
FT - 88 to 106 - 18 points

This can be adjusted for directly with linear equations for the pace figs, but I've done it and it doesn't modify the bottom line much.

Howver, the old TSN site used to print a sheet that lists what the rating was to the actual time which allowed you to get a good idea of comparing pace figs with projected times. Bris doesn't and won't give that chart. I tried. However, you could take a standard track like say Hawthorne which is a 22 2/5th for the C10 winners E1 time and construct your E1 around that. Just give 94 above for 22 2/th and then add or subtract two points for that to get your E1 sheet of points to time. Likewise for HAW at 4F it is about 45 4/5th for C10 winners. You can do the same for the LP and the FT. Since the other tracks are supposedly adjusted for variants, a 94 at HAW is supposedly equivalent to a 94 at Santa Anita.

It's easier to overcome the diffeering ranges above computing turn time and hidden energy and sustained pace, etc with actual figs than with Bris form of pace numbers. Good luck.

You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned scaling. What OP wants is more or less as simple as final time fig doubled and then subtract the first call fig from it, however that's only a decent solution when they're both scaled properly which is something very very few people are working with in the first place. Just converting to velocity does not scale properly between external fractions in a race.

[Running Amok]

Originally Posted by Secretariat

The issue with Bris Pace Ratings are multifold.

It's easier to overcome the differing ranges above computing turn time and hidden energy and sustained pace, etc. with actual figs than with Bris form of pace numbers. Good luck.

Something told me it wouldn't be as simple as "final time fig doubled and then subtract the first call fig from it."

After clearing up the slight confusion with Dave, his formula did what I was asking for; calculate the pace rating from the 1st call to the finish. And since it wasn't a common stat, it didn't have a designated acronym. So, I came up with E3 which caused a bit more confusion.

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Normally E3 would designate an early runner who figures to be 3rd at the 1st call.

This stuff is not MY vernacular, but you can call it whatever you want.

True, but you could also say the same thing about E1 and E2. But let's not make this more confusing than it needs to be. To be clear, I am not talking about running style. I'm talking about pace ratings, specifically, Brisnet Pace ratings as I stated in my original post.

And BTW, Brisnet E3 running style does not "designate an early runner who figures to be 3rd at the 1st call."

The E is for Early Speed but the 3 does NOT designate to be 3rd at the 1st call.

The chart I posted in Post #14 it states the numbers after the letter are Speed Points that designate how fast the horse is early. The scale is from 0 - 8. The higher the number the faster the horse is early in the race. The number has nothing to do with the position the horse figures to be at the 1st call.

And to add to the confusion, you called the pace rating I'm trying to determine "LP".

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

In the vernacular of pace, that's actually called LP for Late Pace.

It's widely accepted that in the vernacular of pace that LP is from the 2nd call to finish in a 6f race (the final 2 furlongs). The pace figure I'm after, starting at the 1st call to finish (the final 4 furlongs) is not called LP. It's actually not called anything because it's a number Brisnet doesn't post. So I came up with my own acronym: E3.

[Dave Schwartz]

It's widely accepted that in the vernacular of pace that LP is from the 2nd call to finish in a 6f race (the final 2 furlongs). The pace figure I'm after, starting at the 1st call to finish (the final 4 furlongs) is not called LP. It's actually not called anything because it's a number Brisnet doesn't post. So I came up with my own acronym: E3.

I shall defer to your expertise.

[Running Amok]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I shall defer to your expertise.

With all due respect, I specifically stated in my original post I was talking about Brisnet pace figures.

I am not an expert, nor do I claim to be. I'm just going by what Brisnet states LP represents.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Running Amok

With all due respect, I specifically stated in my original post I was talking about Brisnet pace figures.

I am not an expert, nor do I claim to be. I'm just going by what Brisnet states LP represents.

Yes, I understand.
Thank you.

[ranchwest]

The chart I posted in Post #14 it states the numbers after the letter are Speed Points that designate how fast the horse is early. The scale is from 0 - 8. The higher the number the faster the horse is early in the race. The number has nothing to do with the position the horse figures to be at the 1st call.

While it is true that Quirin Speed Points are not a projection of future position, they are not a measure of speed. They measure position in past races.

[Tom]

A useful rating I use is QSP + E1



QSP E1 ES RATE

5 98 103 E/P
8 93 101 E
7 93 100 E

[Tom]

Total energy = F1+F2+F3 F= FRACTIONS not race time

F1 = E1
F2 = (F2-F1) + F1
F3 = LP

E3, time from 1st call to finishe = F2 +f2 Sartin's Hidden Energy

Assume 2fur :22 =100 4fur = ::44 = 100 ans 1 pt = 1/5

Do the math 22.2 45.4 70.4

F2 - 45.4 - 22.2 = 22.3 98 93 / 90

23.2 = 93 93-98 - -5; 98 - 5 = 93

[Running Amok]

Originally Posted by Tom

Total energy = F1+F2+F3 F= FRACTIONS not race time

F1 = E1 ( is E1 the same as Brisnet E1 pace rating or something else?)
F2 = (F2-F1) + F1 (wouldn't this always just be the same as F2?)
F3 = LP (again, are you referring to Brisnet LP rating or something else?)


E3, time from 1st call to finishe (yes, the fraction I'm trying to convert into a pace rating)

E3, time from 1st call to finishe = F2 +f2 Sartin's Hidden Energy
(not sure what you mean by F2 +f2).


Assume 2fur :22 =100 4fur = ::44 = 100 ans 1 pt = 1/5
(OK, for the sake of the math I'll assume your example, but just know Brisnet pace rating are actually 2pts = 1/5)

Do the math 22.2 45.4 70.4

F2 - 45.4 - 22.2 = 22.3 (I think you meant 23.2)

98 93 / 90
(going by your scale mentioned above, I get that 22.2 = 98 and 23.2 = 93 but where does the 90 rating come from?)

23.2 = 93 93-98 - -5; 98 - 5 = 93
(like I mentioned above, it seems like that formula is always going to be the same as F2 if you subtract a number from it (F1) and then add it back in)

Hi Tom, I looked at your formulas several times and I'm not quite following the math here. Please look at my comments above and try to explain.

[Running Amok]

So several folks proficient in pace handicapping have chimed in.

I was hopeful extracting a rating from the first call to the finish would be simple math and I easily coded a formula in Excel that uses the formula Dave Schwartz was kind enough to offer.

But after reading the responses from Secretariat and MJC922 it appears combining the Brisnet speed rating with Brisnet pace ratings may not be a well-grounded approach.

Originally Posted by Secretariat

The issue with Bris Pace Ratings are multifold.

First they are on different scale ranges for each distance and second the lengths are constant for pace figs but not distance changes.

Originally Posted by MJC922

You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned scaling. What OP wants is more or less as simple as final time fig doubled and then subtract the first call fig from it, however that's only a decent solution when they're both scaled properly which is something very very few people are working with in the first place.

Originally Posted by Secretariat

Howver, the old TSN site used to print a sheet that lists what the rating was to the actual time which allowed you to get a good idea of comparing pace figs with projected times. Bris doesn't and won't give that chart.

Not sure if this helps but I found the chart below somewhere online that someone posted regarding Brisnet pace ratings.

Brisnet Pace Ratings Chart.JPG

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Running Amok

So I'm sure y'all know what Brisnet Pace ratings represent:

• E1 Pace Rating - rates how fast the horse ran from the start to the 1st call
  
• E2 Pace Rating - rates how fast the horse ran from the start to the 2nd call
  
• Late Pace Rating (LP) - rates how fast the horse ran from the 2nd call (pre-stretch call) to the finish

So after looking at these pace ratings I wondered how I could calculate an E3 rating (or I guess it could be called LP1)

• E3 or LP1 Pace Rating - rates how fast the horse ran from the 1st call (2f in sprints, 4f in most routes) to the finish.

Here is how I get the pace rating from the 1st call to the finish:

Let's say that a horse has recorded Brisnet sprint pace ratings of 98 - 96 - 80.

The 2-furlong rating is 98, and the 4-furlong rating is 96. Since the 4-furlong rating is a combination of the first 2-furlong rating and the missing second 2-furlong rating, I ask myself: What number do I need to add to the 98 in order to get an average rating of 96 at the second call? In this particular case, that number would be a 94. If we add a 94 to the existing 98, and divide by 2...we get 96.

The horse's complete fractional ratings then become: 98 - 94 - 80.

From then on we can easily compute how fast the horse ran from the 1st call to the finish.

[Dave Schwartz]

So several folks proficient in pace handicapping have chimed in.

I was hopeful extracting a rating from the first call to the finish would be simple math and I easily coded a formula in Excel that uses the formula Dave Schwartz was kind enough to offer.

But after reading the responses from Secretariat and MJC922 it appears combining the Brisnet speed rating with Brisnet pace ratings may not be a well-grounded approach.

I would tend to agree.

Hence, the approach used by HDW, which actually makes the BEST EVER F1 rating the absolute best single factor in all of racing for $net.

It almost breaks even by itself.

10-15 years ago it was actually flat bet profitable all by itself. Nothing big, but name another factor that could produce a $2.03 $net (+1.5% ROI) with no other handicapping and a bet in every race?

(Profitable in routes but not sprints.)

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Here is how I get the pace rating from the 1st call to the finish:

Let's say that a horse has recorded Brisnet sprint pace ratings of 98 - 96 - 80.

The 2-furlong rating is 98, and the 4-furlong rating is 96. Since the 4-furlong rating is a combination of the first 2-furlong rating and the missing second 2-furlong rating, I ask myself: What number do I need to add to the 98 in order to get an average rating of 96 at the second call? In this particular case, that number would be a 94. If we add a 94 to the existing 98, and divide by 2...we get 96.

The horse's complete fractional ratings then become: 98 - 94 - 80.

From then on we can easily compute how fast the horse ran from the 1st call to the finish.

Another example:

Let's say that the horse has recorded Brisnet pace ratings of 83 - 93 - 85.

In this case, a 103 would need to be added to the existing 83 in order to bring the 4-furlong rating to an average of 93. So...the horse's fractional pace ratings would be: 83 - 103 - 85.

[Secretariat]

Originally Posted by Running Amok

Not sure if this helps but I found the chart below somewhere online that someone posted regarding Brisnet pace ratings.

Attachment 33193

That is the TSN chart. It is based on TSN figs that are different than Bris and is from a while back since TSN isn't around anymore.

But for the sake of argument let's say they and Bris were the same.

A C10 winner according to Bris runs generally in a sprint (according to bris library):
E1 - 94
E2 - 98
LP - 84
FT - 88

So imagine a C10 horse who ran these figs wire to wire converting to your TSN chart:

94 -22.32
98 - 46.35
84 - late pace, they don't have listed on the TSN Chart
88 - final time using poster CJ's Bris to Beyer formula and comparing to Beyer's Speed chart from his book is about 72.1 or a minute and 12.1 seconds.

So the individual fractions are 22.32- 24.03 - 25.75

Now let me compare to a relatively normal mile track like Hawthore whose C10 par fractions are: 22.40 - 45.8 - 71.0

or the internal fractions would be:
22.40 - 23.40 - 25.2

What's noticeble is the turn time or the second fraction here.

In the HAW Par times there is about one exact second "deceleration" on the turn time, but on the Bris/TSN conversion method it is 1.71 seconds "deceleration". That's a huge difference for the turn time. The late pace or 3rd fraction above deceleration is 2.72 seconds on the Bris/TSN chart and 1.8 seconds on the HAW C10 par. Too big a difference for any kind of reliability.

If Bris would publish an updated chart of their internal pace times it may be more accurate, but maybe not. Garbage in, garbage out.

However, forget the TSN chart.

I could simply use the HAW C10 pars I found via an old Dave Schwartz par book, and assign 22.4 to the normal 94 Bris E1 for C10. I could assign the HAW 45.8 to the normal 98 Bris E2 for C10. I could assign the HAW 71.0 final time to the normal 88 Bris FT for C10.

You could then go up and down 2 points for every fifth of a second as Bris does, OR in the case of the FT you could go up and down 10/(# of race furlongs) to go up and down on FT Bris fig.

I have done this and it improves matters. However, there is more than one way to beat horses, and I don't use speed and pace nearly what I used to as they're more overbet than in the past. I try to find things bettors might not pay as much attention to. In other words try not to get to lost in the numbers. It was hard for me, as there's something comforting and nice and tidy as knowing one horse runs a two or three hundredth faster than another. Problem is horses are not machines that run the same race to race. Suggest reading a little of Mark Cramer's work to just look at some things differently.