|
|
01-03-2022, 05:21 PM
|
#16
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Long Beach, Ca.
Posts: 363
|
Are they the ones under TrackMaster advanced reports?
|
|
|
01-03-2022, 07:36 PM
|
#17
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,539
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gfnut
Are they the ones under TrackMaster advanced reports?
|
Yes
|
|
|
01-03-2022, 08:23 PM
|
#18
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,539
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
We've had a number of productive conversations over the years and think in similar terms about a number of things. Without giving way the secret sauce, would you mind elaborating on what goes into the figures?
|
Horse against horse using an iterative process. Lengths, distance, surface, weight. The computer estimates the quality of the effort based upon the finish, that's 99% of what's being used in a nutshell. Data processing and no judgment.
|
|
|
01-03-2022, 08:41 PM
|
#19
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,544
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJC922
Horse against horse using an iterative process. Lengths, distance, surface, weight. The computer estimates the quality of the effort based upon the finish, that's 99% of what's being used in a nutshell. Data processing and no judgment.
|
Without any speed and pace considerations?
__________________
Live to play another day.
|
|
|
01-03-2022, 09:02 PM
|
#20
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,539
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
Without any speed and pace considerations?
|
Correct. I suspect there are probably more than a few scoffers who doubt that numbers can be as accurate as they are with so few inputs. Best thing to do is look at the samples from the previous day, run some simple tests with whatever numbers you currently use (if you're a speed handicapper) and after a large enough sample it will become clear the numbers are solid.
|
|
|
01-03-2022, 09:13 PM
|
#21
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,544
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJC922
Correct. I suspect there are probably more than a few scoffers who doubt that numbers can be as accurate as they are with so few inputs. Best thing to do is look at the samples from the previous day, run some simple tests with whatever numbers you currently use (if you're a speed handicapper) and after a large enough sample it will become clear the numbers are solid.
|
Truth be told, I did look at a couple of the samples. I also read the details page that you have composed for the trackmaster site. You say that you had come up with some excellent solutions for pars, wind and pace adjustments...but you chose to throw all that away because of some "accuracy issues" with the V1 ratings that you just couldn't live with. Pity...because I would have been more interested in those discarded V1 ratings...inaccuracies and all. After all, there is no stat that can be regarded as "rock-solid" in this game...IMO. Your V2 ratings seem to contradict my own speed/pace ratings...and I don't know how to blend this contradiction into my handicapping process.
__________________
Live to play another day.
|
|
|
01-03-2022, 09:54 PM
|
#22
|
Buckle Up
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,614
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJC922
after a large enough sample it will become clear the numbers are solid.
|
What is your version of a "Large enough sample"?
|
|
|
01-04-2022, 12:58 AM
|
#23
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: near Lone Star Park
Posts: 5,151
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thstreetpicks
How you doing sir I do love your figures I sell a daily tip sheet and I try to entice or recommend that my members get on target performance sheets the reason is because they are that good at separating my top four picks so again let me say thank you very much
Jim
5thstreetpicks
|
If I might ask, what percentage of races do your top 4 picks win? Does that include every race? Including, for instance, maiden and turf and 2YO?
__________________
Ranch West
Equine Performance Analyst, Quick Grid Software
|
|
|
01-04-2022, 06:13 AM
|
#24
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,539
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReplayRandall
What is your version of a "Large enough sample"?
|
For a simple test of accuracy between different sets of figures I would suggest 1500 races would be enough, using a straightforward metric of best figure last race. The chance that less accurate numbers would have a higher win rate then would seem very unlikely with a sample of that size. I'm not interested in having anyone pay for second rate stuff so if there's something more accurate out there definitely use that instead. Of course not everyone uses ratings in their handicapping anyway so the amount of benefit to using something like this as an input to your own individual handicapping process is going to vary.
|
|
|
01-04-2022, 11:01 AM
|
#25
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,602
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJC922
Horse against horse using an iterative process. Lengths, distance, surface, weight. The computer estimates the quality of the effort based upon the finish, that's 99% of what's being used in a nutshell. Data processing and no judgment.
|
Your ratings are similar to my own automated ratings, but I only make them for stakes races because there are so many complicated class categories nationally it would become an overwhelming job to do it for everything. It sounds like you found a way to deal with that problem.
My original goal was only to test Class Ratings vs. Speed Figures and settle that internal struggle I was having for decades anyway.
Ultimately, it became obvious to me I could generate automated comparative class ratings that were very close to as good as speed figures (1% lower win% over 6+ years), but I also learned that when I combined them, the results were superior to either alone (about 2%-3% better than either alone).
My own automated ratings tend to suffer when impressive 2yo MSW winners of unknown quality are moving into stakes, ALW horses of unknown quality are trying stakes against older, a horse wins by a huge margin and it's hard to tell in an automated system whether he was very good, the field very bad, or a little of both etc..
In my gambling, I resolve these issues with a more subjective analysis of the field and race in a similar way to how Timeform Europe makes their numbers. But I think there are still situations where the speed/pace figures scream the right answer and it's not so clear with a comparative class analysis. The problem of course is that the speed/pace figures generally tend to drag you towards the favorite and the goal is to find horses that are better than they look on paper so you have a chance to get a better price.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
Last edited by classhandicapper; 01-04-2022 at 11:11 AM.
|
|
|
01-04-2022, 11:07 AM
|
#26
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,602
|
Quote:
Your V2 ratings seem to contradict my own speed/pace ratings...and I don't know how to blend this contradiction into my handicapping process.
|
Welcome to my world.
I am always exploring different ways of measuring things. When conflicts occur it can become difficult to fit things together and clarify your thinking.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
|
|
|
01-04-2022, 11:56 AM
|
#27
|
what an easy game.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 43,096
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
Welcome to my world.
I am always exploring different ways of measuring things. When conflicts occur it can become difficult to fit things together and clarify your thinking.
|
So much chatter when just a few numbers are required.
For any given paradigm.
actual wins/ expected wins
amout returned/ amount bet.
__________________
Peace on earth, good will to all
GOD BLESS AMERICA
" I pass with relief from the tossing sea of cause and theory to the firm ground of result and fact"
Winston Churchill
|
|
|
01-04-2022, 05:30 PM
|
#28
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,544
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
Welcome to my world.
I am always exploring different ways of measuring things. When conflicts occur it can become difficult to fit things together and clarify your thinking.
|
My goal since I first started playing this game has been to try and "understand" it as thoroughly as I possibly can. I figured that if my understanding of this game became complete enough...then the profits would also have to come along, as a reasonable side-effect. The speed/pace figures might not be the complete answer to the puzzle of this game...but they provide a level of understanding without which the game can't be properly comprehended, IMO. This "who-beat-whom, and by how much" philosophy detracts from the level of understanding that I am trying to achieve in this game. But if it helps other players...then that's what really counts.
__________________
Live to play another day.
|
|
|
01-04-2022, 06:09 PM
|
#29
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,602
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
My goal since I first started playing this game has been to try and "understand" it as thoroughly as I possibly can. I figured that if my understanding of this game became complete enough...then the profits would also have to come along, as a reasonable side-effect. The speed/pace figures might not be the complete answer to the puzzle of this game...but they provide a level of understanding without which the game can't be properly comprehended, IMO. This "who-beat-whom, and by how much" philosophy detracts from the level of understanding that I am trying to achieve in this game. But if it helps other players...then that's what really counts.
|
Here is the problem.
There are an endless number of technical and subjective issues involved in the speed/pace figure making process that make accuracy an idealistic fantasy.
That's easy to demonstrate by putting the 3-4 best figure sources next to each other and comparing them. They are often all over the map and sometimes quite significantly.
On top of that, there are track surface/race development issues too subtle to measure that impact the times. So even if you have accurate figures, it doesn't always fully reflect the quality of the performance.
That's the kind of stuff the qualitative class approach does not have to deal with. If you know the quality of the horses well, watch the race, look at the relative trips, and see who beats who by how much, you don't care if the track variant changed during the course of the day, if the wind was blowing for a few races, if the timer malfunctioned, what the run up was, where the rails were set, if the figure maker had accurate figures going into the race and projected the variant correctly, if the pace or flow impacted the final time etc.. You re just looking at who beat who, by how much, and how.
On the flip side, there are times the qualitative approach doesn't allow for you to really know the quality of the field because it's loaded with 1st time starters, very lightly raced horses that are improving, horses from a track you are not familiar with, a class with very volatile performances, etc... There are loads of situations where it's not clear what the quality is or what actually happened in the race.
The pace/speed figure guy doesn't have to worry about that. If the pace/final time was fast or vice versa it often screams what happened.
I'm the guy caught between.
I understand most of the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches and am always trying to refine my methods and understanding.
When they agree, there's not much of a problem, but it's unlikely you will get a price.
When they disagree, it's not always clear which is right.
Both approaches are trying to measure the same things in different ways with clear advantages and disadvantages.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
|
|
|
01-04-2022, 06:50 PM
|
#30
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,544
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
Here is the problem.
There are an endless number of technical and subjective issues involved in the speed/pace figure making process that make accuracy an idealistic fantasy.
That's easy to demonstrate by putting the 3-4 best figure sources next to each other and comparing them. They are often all over the map and sometimes quite significantly.
On top of that, there are track surface/race development issues too subtle to measure that impact the times. So even if you have accurate figures, it doesn't always fully reflect the quality of the performance.
That's the kind of stuff the qualitative class approach does not have to deal with. If you know the quality of the horses well, watch the race, look at the relative trips, and see who beats who by how much, you don't care if the track variant changed during the course of the day, if the wind was blowing for a few races, if the timer malfunctioned, what the run up was, where the rails were set, if the figure maker had accurate figures going into the race and projected the variant correctly, if the pace or flow impacted the final time etc.. You re just looking at who beat who, by how much, and how.
On the flip side, there are times the qualitative approach doesn't allow for you to really know the quality of the field because it's loaded with 1st time starters, very lightly raced horses that are improving, horses from a track you are not familiar with, a class with very volatile performances, etc... There are loads of situations where it's not clear what the quality is or what actually happened in the race.
The pace/speed figure guy doesn't have to worry about that. If the pace/final time was fast or vice versa it often screams what happened.
I'm the guy caught between.
I understand most of the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches and am always trying to refine my methods and understanding.
When they agree, there's not much of a problem, but it's unlikely you will get a price.
When they disagree, it's not always clear which is right.
Both approaches are trying to measure the same things in different ways with clear advantages and disadvantages.
|
They say that there would be no horse races without differences of opinion...and my opinion differs from yours on this. As far as I am concerned...there can be no true knowledge of the "quality of the horses" without taking pace into consideration in their corresponding races. I have seen impressive-looking winners whose performances were attributed entirely to the pace of the race...and I've seen fit horses finish dead last also entirely due to the pace of the race. Pace is a vital component of the handicapping puzzle...and I see no reason to ignore such an important handicapping factor. Of what possible use would my knowledge of "who-beat-whom, and by how much" be...if pace, and its affect on the individual horses, was not a prime handicapping consideration?
Yes...the "figure horses" might be overbet at times, and the figure-making process is fraught with "uncertainty"...but the class-handicapper and the replay-watcher must deal with uncertainty as well. As I said before...nothing is "iron-clad" in this game. But I can't totally disregard the horse's speed in a racing game...even if making accurate figures is an "idealistic fantasy".
__________________
Live to play another day.
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Rate This Thread |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|