Putting an end to Beyer type speed ratings

[TrifectaMike]

AITrader, a "real" Benter guy, from across the pond. An interesting and very sharp fellow. AITrader come back and say hello.

Mike

[raybo]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

This is a great thread. Thanks for the bump.

I agree, this thread, in parts, was very interesting and much food for thought. What started out as the possibility of using a time based "figures" method without the need for variants or distances, later evolved into the widespread use of "pars" for classification purposes, whether for pace/speed figures, or class, etc.. I believe that the most thought provoking posts were made by TM and AITrader, although they were terribly "vague" and seemed to involve high level math/statistics/regressions/simulations, etc., which left the vast majority out in the cold. But, that is nothing new here. Some just can't (or won't) communicate effectively with people who do not share the same educational backgrounds. And, rather than attempt to "return to their prior intelligence roots and communicate in basic, common human language", they expect everyone else to "go get an education", meaning "go study what I did or I won't talk to you, because you are below me in the class hierarchy".

Oh well, to each his/her own, I hope they feel all warm inside, after thumbing their noses at everyone else.



I think that the use of "pars", in theory, is what everyone tries to do, to one extent or another. We all try to "classify" things, horses and their performances in this case, and group them into neat little boxes in order to simplify our analysis. This grouping and classification can do exactly that, simplify. But, the tendency is to classify too strictly, meaning based on a single value (or very tight range of values) as a benchmark for which others either fall below, or match, or fall above. However, some, use wider ranges or "fuzzy" benchmarks instead, and the classification becomes less strict, enabling the possibility of more qualifiers, in racing that means more contenders with varying degrees of "belonging", regarding the conditions they face and the level of chaos that exists. IMO, this latter group of people stand a much better chance of succeeding, long term, than those who use singular values (or very narrow ranges) classification methods. I believe that because the latter group tend to throw out horses that offer the most value, and that leads to a close mirroring of the public rankings, which we all know will not produce the desired goal, making profit.

[lansdale]

Originally Posted by raybo

I agree, this thread, in parts, was very interesting and much food for thought. What started out as the possibility of using a time based "figures" method without the need for variants or distances, later evolved into the widespread use of "pars" for classification purposes, whether for pace/speed figures, or class, etc.. I believe that the most thought provoking posts were made by TM and AITrader, although they were terribly "vague" and seemed to involve high level math/statistics/regressions/simulations, etc., which left the vast majority out in the cold. But, that is nothing new here. Some just can't (or won't) communicate effectively with people who do not share the same educational backgrounds. And, rather than attempt to "return to their prior intelligence roots and communicate in basic, common human language", they expect everyone else to "go get an education", meaning "go study what I did or I won't talk to you, because you are below me in the class hierarchy".

Oh well, to each his/her own, I hope they feel all warm inside, after thumbing their noses at everyone else.



I think that the use of "pars", in theory, is what everyone tries to do, to one extent or another. We all try to "classify" things, horses and their performances in this case, and group them into neat little boxes in order to simplify our analysis. This grouping and classification can do exactly that, simplify. But, the tendency is to classify too strictly, meaning based on a single value (or very tight range of values) as a benchmark for which others either fall below, or match, or fall above. However, some, use wider ranges or "fuzzy" benchmarks instead, and the classification becomes less strict, enabling the possibility of more qualifiers, in racing that means more contenders with varying degrees of "belonging", regarding the conditions they face and the level of chaos that exists. IMO, this latter group of people stand a much better chance of succeeding, long term, than those who use singular values (or very narrow ranges) classification methods. I believe that because the latter group tend to throw out horses that offer the most value, and that leads to a close mirroring of the public rankings, which we all know will not produce the desired goal, making profit.

Hi Raybo,

You say you don't understand this thread, but I think (admittedly as a non-math guy) that your second paragraph does explain what people like TM, ML, are doing - using non-linear methods to find value. If you go the 'parallel time chart' thread, I believe there is an illustration of this. Par times are symmetrical and linear. Reality (and horseracing) is nonlinear and asymmetrical. The poster 'clem' mentioned his used of parallel time charts derived from the values of quantum physics to produce +EV.

Also, if you go back and look at the exchange between Tom, Traynor, and TM re Tom's non-use of par times, which demonstrate his instinctive awareness of their false constraint, and of the nonlinear nature of horseracing reality, and Traynor's inability to answer Tom's question, due to his belief in the normal distribution, even after prompting by TM, I believe that puts the issue in a nutshell.

Re TM's supposed disdain for non-math people - he has tried on many occasions to teach the use of Bayesian math for handicapping, and been roundly and often abusively rejected. I'm surprised he returns at all. But I think people should accept that these methods are challenging and counterintuitive for those without training, and can't easily be packaged in a user-friendly format. Those who really want to benefit from TM's posts are going to have to make some effort to learn something new.

Re explaining the value of nonlinear thinking and the distorting effect of the normal distribution, Taleb's 'Black Swan' isn't a bad place to start. Maybe others have relevant suggestions.

Cheers,

lansdale

[arkansasman]

Originally Posted by TrifectaMike

AITrader, a "real" Benter guy, from across the pond. An interesting and very sharp fellow. AITrader come back and say hello.

Mike

I use to correspond with him via email and Skype, then he disappeared. The last time I heard from him was 11/12/2012. He had a very different life.

John

[osophy_junkie]

This is what I got using a beyer style sped figure:
normal pars 8
cluster 13


So using beyer style instead of quirin style has some effect.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by lansdale

Hi Raybo,

You say you don't understand this thread, but I think (admittedly as a non-math guy) that your second paragraph does explain what people like TM, ML, are doing - using non-linear methods to find value. If you go the 'parallel time chart' thread, I believe there is an illustration of this. Par times are symmetrical and linear. Reality (and horseracing) is nonlinear and asymmetrical. The poster 'clem' mentioned his used of parallel time charts derived from the values of quantum physics to produce +EV.

Also, if you go back and look at the exchange between Tom, Traynor, and TM re Tom's non-use of par times, which demonstrate his instinctive awareness of their false constraint, and of the nonlinear nature of horseracing reality, and Traynor's inability to answer Tom's question, due to his belief in the normal distribution, even after prompting by TM, I believe that puts the issue in a nutshell.

Re TM's supposed disdain for non-math people - he has tried on many occasions to teach the use of Bayesian math for handicapping, and been roundly and often abusively rejected. I'm surprised he returns at all. But I think people should accept that these methods are challenging and counterintuitive for those without training, and can't easily be packaged in a user-friendly format. Those who really want to benefit from TM's posts are going to have to make some effort to learn something new.

Re explaining the value of nonlinear thinking and the distorting effect of the normal distribution, Taleb's 'Black Swan' isn't a bad place to start. Maybe others have relevant suggestions.

Cheers,

lansdale

I wasn't, necessarily, referring to the implementation or the calculation portions of the subjects you mention, but rather to the topics themselves, in more general, more understandable terms that will reach a larger audience of more varying degrees of thought processing. It is quite obvious, and understandable, that people don't want to make public the exact "ingredients" of their analysis methods, but even when some finally jot down 3 or 4 points, as hints at what they do or think they know, those points are not even understandable to many, because of the terminology and vagueness used. The best teachers, regardless of the subject, while knowing, and having the ability to use and implement all the complexities of the topic, use common examples in order to keep their students interested, involved, and in touch with what is being taught, or what will be taught in the future. For instance, if you took a college freshman "non-calculus" physics course, and the professor used calculus in his work on the chalkboard ("because it's much better to do it this way"), that would immediately hinder, or completely prevent, any learning that might normally be expected to take place. Some of the people here seem to relish taking that approach, and realistically, fail to offer anything of actual value in their posts. And, even when one of the others, who actually understand the complexities of the subject, enter into the conversation, all that results is a war of words, ego, chest pounding, and controversy, possibly because neither of them really are able to converse efficiently and without personal bias as to their own personal philosophy. In other words, the reader is left with a feeling that neither of those people really has anything to offer, nor do they really know what they are talking about themselves, and immediately, or eventually, tune them out from sheer frustration and boredom.

Forums of this type are great ways to "learn", but only if the participants know how to talk to each other, in understandable language, and make a conscious effort to try to do that.

I don't expect to learn how to apply "Bayes", or "regression analysis", or "Monte Carlo simulation", etc., from this forum, but it might be nice for someone to describe them in a way that can be readily understood by a novice in those areas. Invariably, when asked "dumb" questions about such things, the response is "Google is a great tool for learning", or posting a link from a major university discussing the subject that has several prior levels of prerequisite study as being understood. Basically, they are dead ends, resulting in no gained knowledge, of even basic, general information about the subject..

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by lansdale

Hi Raybo,

You say you don't understand this thread, but I think (admittedly as a non-math guy) that your second paragraph does explain what people like TM, ML, are doing - using non-linear methods to find value. If you go the 'parallel time chart' thread, I believe there is an illustration of this. Par times are symmetrical and linear. Reality (and horseracing) is nonlinear and asymmetrical. The poster 'clem' mentioned his used of parallel time charts derived from the values of quantum physics to produce +EV.

Also, if you go back and look at the exchange between Tom, Traynor, and TM re Tom's non-use of par times, which demonstrate his instinctive awareness of their false constraint, and of the nonlinear nature of horseracing reality, and Traynor's inability to answer Tom's question, due to his belief in the normal distribution, even after prompting by TM, I believe that puts the issue in a nutshell.

Re TM's supposed disdain for non-math people - he has tried on many occasions to teach the use of Bayesian math for handicapping, and been roundly and often abusively rejected. I'm surprised he returns at all. But I think people should accept that these methods are challenging and counterintuitive for those without training, and can't easily be packaged in a user-friendly format. Those who really want to benefit from TM's posts are going to have to make some effort to learn something new.

Re explaining the value of nonlinear thinking and the distorting effect of the normal distribution, Taleb's 'Black Swan' isn't a bad place to start. Maybe others have relevant suggestions.

Cheers,

lansdale

Hi Lansdale,

You made some good points in your post, but a correction is needed and I hope you don’t take this as an offense.

Therefore I am quite sure the poster, “Clem” didn’t intend to use quantum physics as the reference in his analysis; he probably intended to state that he used “Newtonian Physics” or simply the branch of physics called “Mechanics”.

Also a simple explanation of why the nonlinearity of a racehorse’s motion is real is because its Total Mechanical Energy (TME) curve is nonlinear.

Furthermore, you don’t need math and science to understand that; it can be observed by the movement of two objects of different mass.

However you will not get to TM’s answer with just statistical manipulation of data; eventually you will need a basic understanding of physics and math to make the pieces fit together.

Additionally, this is why I stated in another thread that the 4 major constraints on a horse’s race motion are: Aerodynamic Drag, Surface Wind Force (not speed), Surface Resistance, and the Racetrack’s Geometric Turn Resistance.

[Tom]

It's been a 5 month thread....have the Beyers been ended yet?

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

What's wrong with Beyers other than they are bet down?

Very little. A Beyer's style SR was extremely profitable until the Beyer SRs became widely available.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Tom

It's been a 5 month thread....have the Beyers been ended yet?

I still think class PARs (average winning Beyer figure for the class) are useful for many applications.

Sometimes the sample sizes will be too small and other times you will get results that don't show a nice smooth progression up and down the class ladder, but these problems have been understood for decades. There are ways of dealing with that. You can look at the surrounding classes and manually smooth the numbers. That's an enormous exercise nationally, but it's not that bad for just a couple of circuits.

Once you have information like that you can answer a lot of questions that often confuse handicappers.

It's easy to figure out the class pecking order when horses stay within their own category (msw and open allowance, statebreds, statebred claimers, claimers, conditional claimers starter alw, 2yos, 3yos, etc...) but it's not so easy to figure how where all these horses fit when they cross back and forth at various times of the year. PARs help answer that question.

All this stuff about averages, ranges, K averages etc... is useful, but in the end I think the best approach is lots of data and informed manual massaging.

The parallel time charts that are used to equate times at various distances and create the final time figures are an entirely different and more complicated exercise. That's probably a book in itself. The proof in how difficult it is easy to find. Just look at multiple sets of figures. You'll see how often Beyer and CJ disagree, Thorograph and Ragozin disagree, etc... Throw different variant calculation processes on top of that and it's a wonder that speed figures pick as many winners as they do given the broad and sometimes significant disagreement.

[MJC922]

I think if we had truly accurate final time speed figures we might be rather disappointed in the results. IMO the willingness of the figure-makers to split variants and pin the tail on 'changes in surface speed' to keep up appearances is one of the reasons why they're as predictive as they are. I'm not being critical as I did it for many years myself, but who can say just adding them up and dividing by nine wasn't closer to the real truth of the matter. I know, it's heresy.

[Tom]

So they are not gone yet, huh?

[lansdale]

Originally Posted by Cratos

Hi Lansdale,

You made some good points in your post, but a correction is needed and I hope you don’t take this as an offense.

Therefore I am quite sure the poster, “Clem” didn’t intend to use quantum physics as the reference in his analysis; he probably intended to state that he used “Newtonian Physics” or simply the branch of physics called “Mechanics”.

Also a simple explanation of why the nonlinearity of a racehorse’s motion is real is because its Total Mechanical Energy (TME) curve is nonlinear.

Furthermore, you don’t need math and science to understand that; it can be observed by the movement of two objects of different mass.



However you will not get to TM’s answer with just statistical manipulation of data; eventually you will need a basic understanding of physics and math to make the pieces fit together.

Additionally, this is why I stated in another thread that the 4 major constraints on a horse’s race motion are: Aerodynamic Drag, Surface Wind Force (not speed), Surface Resistance, and the Racetrack’s Geometric Turn Resistance.

Hi Cratos,

Belated thanks for the heads-up here. Although I try to keep my terminology in these areas straight when I'm using it, my numerous lacunae in the STEM subjects at times trips me up. To make sure I'm clear - 'Clem' is using classical mechanics to analyze the motion of a racehorse. Based on you background as an engineer and from your posts here, I assume that this is close to your own approach.

Cheers,

lansdale

[lansdale]

Originally Posted by raybo

I wasn't, necessarily, referring to the implementation or the calculation portions of the subjects you mention, but rather to the topics themselves, in more general, more understandable terms that will reach a larger audience of more varying degrees of thought processing. It is quite obvious, and understandable, that people don't want to make public the exact "ingredients" of their analysis methods, but even when some finally jot down 3 or 4 points, as hints at what they do or think they know, those points are not even understandable to many, because of the terminology and vagueness used. The best teachers, regardless of the subject, while knowing, and having the ability to use and implement all the complexities of the topic, use common examples in order to keep their students interested, involved, and in touch with what is being taught, or what will be taught in the future. For instance, if you took a college freshman "non-calculus" physics course, and the professor used calculus in his work on the chalkboard ("because it's much better to do it this way"), that would immediately hinder, or completely prevent, any learning that might normally be expected to take place. Some of the people here seem to relish taking that approach, and realistically, fail to offer anything of actual value in their posts. And, even when one of the others, who actually understand the complexities of the subject, enter into the conversation, all that results is a war of words, ego, chest pounding, and controversy, possibly because neither of them really are able to converse efficiently and without personal bias as to their own personal philosophy. In other words, the reader is left with a feeling that neither of those people really has anything to offer, nor do they really know what they are talking about themselves, and immediately, or eventually, tune them out from sheer frustration and boredom.

Forums of this type are great ways to "learn", but only if the participants know how to talk to each other, in understandable language, and make a conscious effort to try to do that.

I don't expect to learn how to apply "Bayes", or "regression analysis", or "Monte Carlo simulation", etc., from this forum, but it might be nice for someone to describe them in a way that can be readily understood by a novice in those areas. Invariably, when asked "dumb" questions about such things, the response is "Google is a great tool for learning", or posting a link from a major university discussing the subject that has several prior levels of prerequisite study as being understood. Basically, they are dead ends, resulting in no gained knowledge, of even basic, general information about the subject..

Hi Raybo,

You seem not to realize how strange your position is on this - and on this site you're far from alone.

First, let's keep in mind that this is a zero-sum game. By helping someone else you can hurt yourself - this is too self-evident to debate. When Alan 'entropy' Woods posted here, one of his frequent themes was that even a player who loses only the take is a serious competitor for anyone trying to make money, and that he himself never gave away anything to anyone that they could use. There is even a funny post where someone is asking for something specific and Woods says something to the effect of, 'Are you kidding, Bill would kill me.' For anyone who is making serious money at this game, that should be their attitude.

That said, it should be obvious, that unless someone has sufficient training to understand TM's posts, he can't 'give' them anything they can 'use'. To be able to use something requires the ability to understand the context of its use. And your teaching-by-simplification example is a false analogy. I have a friend who is an astrophysicist, and was a co-author of a rocks-for-jocks type textbook called 'Physics for Poets'. This is the kind of thing you're talking about, and it obviously has its place. And the students who take this course can understand the concepts in a metaphoric way, without the math, per your description, but they still can't 'do' physics, in the same way that if TM gave metaphoric lectures on Bayes (which are out there in cyberspace), you still wouldn't be able to do the necessary math. In addition, I assume that TM, if he's still teaching, is working with postdocs or at least grad students, and hasn't been near a 101 course in years, if ever. As he says, that's what Google is for, and you're surely someone who is smart enough to use it.

Just think about your (and others.) reasoning process: 'I really don't know anything about what TM is doing with numbers, but he might be doing something that's profitable, although I don't know enought to know whether it is or it isn't. And the idea the it might be, really annoys me. And on top of that TM, you know the way he writes, he just wants to rag on me.' Does this not sound childish? I see at least a few people doing this every time I check the site.

Finally, despite all this, TM 'does' put things out there that non-math or semi-math people might be able to use and does so explicitly saying he's offering a 'simplified' or crude version that won't hurt his bottom line. There's even one of those in this thread, and someone thanked him for it. He posts something like this roughly every other week.

Cheers,

lansdale

[raybo]

Originally Posted by lansdale

Hi Raybo,

You seem not to realize how strange your position is on this - and on this site you're far from alone.

First, let's keep in mind that this is a zero-sum game. By helping someone else you can hurt yourself - this is too self-evident to debate. When Alan 'entropy' Woods posted here, one of his frequent themes was that even a player who loses only the take is a serious competitor for anyone trying to make money, and that he himself never gave away anything to anyone that they could use. There is even a funny post where someone is asking for something specific and Woods says something to the effect of, 'Are you kidding, Bill would kill me.' For anyone who is making serious money at this game, that should be their attitude.

That said, it should be obvious, that unless someone has sufficient training to understand TM's posts, he can't 'give' them anything they can 'use'. To be able to use something requires the ability to understand the context of its use. And your teaching-by-simplification example is a false analogy. I have a friend who is an astrophysicist, and was a co-author of a rocks-for-jocks type textbook called 'Physics for Poets'. This is the kind of thing you're talking about, and it obviously has its place. And the students who take this course can understand the concepts in a metaphoric way, without the math, per your description, but they still can't 'do' physics, in the same way that if TM gave metaphoric lectures on Bayes (which are out there in cyberspace), you still wouldn't be able to do the necessary math. In addition, I assume that TM, if he's still teaching, is working with postdocs or at least grad students, and hasn't been near a 101 course in years, if ever. As he says, that's what Google is for, and you're surely someone who is smart enough to use it.

Just think about your (and others.) reasoning process: 'I really don't know anything about what TM is doing with numbers, but he might be doing something that's profitable, although I don't know enought to know whether it is or it isn't. And the idea the it might be, really annoys me. And on top of that TM, you know the way he writes, he just wants to rag on me.' Does this not sound childish? I see at least a few people doing this every time I check the site.

Finally, despite all this, TM 'does' put things out there that non-math or semi-math people might be able to use and does so explicitly saying he's offering a 'simplified' or crude version that won't hurt his bottom line. There's even one of those in this thread, and someone thanked him for it. He posts something like this roughly every other week.

Cheers,

lansdale

Fine and good, I would expect someone of your obvious higher education to take that kind of stance. However, I never said anything about anyone here giving away anything that might impact their own success, or espoused success. But, if someone enters into a topic, and offers some highly technical suggestions that obviously are not understood by the majority of people participating in the thread/topic, what is the point in posting these types of things without at least explaining or describing the general subject matter in such a way that those less highly technical participants can at least know what the heck they are talking about? As I said, "Googling" subjects like those are invariably dead ends, because of all the prerequisite study required, many times, several years of it. Are those people expected to spend the money and time required to take all those courses, just to comprehend the basic subject matter?

I sincerely agree, and defend, that anyone here has the right to post anything, on any subject they choose, but when it becomes absolutely obvious that the subject matter one posts about is not being understood by people other than a couple of similarly highly educated individuals, shouldn't one make the conscious effort to try to explain things more simply, in order for others to at least have some basic knowledge base from which to relate? Or, should one continue, without that effort, and further aggravate the situation?

The general explanation/description of a particular highly technical, and educationally challenging subject, can indeed take place, without "giving away the farm". Why post something that requires others to have an MBA or PHD (or a BS degree for that matter) just to understand the subject? Obviously, explaining something that requires years of education and experience, isn't likely to "help" them decrease one's own success, especially when you're talking about something like horse racing where the age demographic is so high. I doubt anyone here will go back to college and take courses just so they might be able to better participate when a common topic suddenly becomes "rocket science" material.

While I'm sure it becomes extremely boring to guys like you, and Magister Ludi, and TM, and Cratos, and a couple of others, to discuss less technical subjects, likewise, it also becomes boring and frustrating for the rest of us when things are so far over our heads that we can't relate, even in general terms. At least you guys understand those less advanced subjects, that's a heck of a lot more than the rest of us can say about your subjects.