Are These Beyer Figures Correct?

[highnote]

Originally Posted by raybo

Hmmm. I believe that finish position is dependent on both pace and final time, so how could finish position be independent to anything, except possibly final time, when horses are so far back that they quit racing and thus run a slower final time than they would have had they kept racing to the wire?

I was thinking in terms of regression analysis. Final Time is the independent variable and it is used to predict the dependent variable Finish Position.

The horse with the fastest final time is usually the winner of the next race -- all else being equal.

Now there are a million other factors that can influence the outcome of the race, but if you could only use one factor to predict future winners Final Time would be more predictive than any fractional time.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Cratos,

I'm not going to argue with you over the terminology that most people have been using for decades to communicate to each other about the times of races and classify their style of handicapping. They are called pace and speed figures and the handicappers are called pace or speed handicappers (or a combination). You can either communicate with people on the terms that most will understand or not. If not, you'll endlessly be making posts about how the term "speed" is being misused.

You've spent enough time talking about your approach to get a gist of some of the things you do that are different than the standard speed figure approach. Some of it has been interesting. But like I said, I haven't seen a study on the ability to pick winners using your approach.

There is much work done with math, statistics, and science in the handicapping of horseracing and much of it can be found on the Internet. For instance, if you use a search engine you might find:

• Speed, pacing strategy and aerodynamic drafting in Thoroughbred horse racing

• High-speed gallop locomotion in the Thoroughbred racehorse

• Centre of mass movement and mechanical energy fluctuation during gallop locomotion in the Thoroughbred racehorse.

• THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MECHANICAL WORK AND ENERGY
EXPENDITURE OF LOCOMOTION IN HORSE

I am not trying to encourage you to change your way of thinking, but the speed figure methodology which appears to be your frame of reference is a very small part of the racehorse speed analysis in the global sense.

However I will have no more say in a direct relationship to this topic although I would hope we can continue to exchange opinions about horserace handicapping in future discussions on this forum.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by highnote

Or final time could be the dependent variable and finish position could be the independent variable.

Intuitively, final time seems like it would have greater predictive value of finish position than pace would have toward final time.

I believe it was Tom Brohamer who said (and I am paraphrasing) that “ final time is the time of the race and pace is the time the race was run in.”

Just final time of any moving object including race horses tells you very little. If you have the pace and the distance you can derived an objective singular the final time of a race.

However if you have just the final time and the distance it is very difficult to derive an objective singular final time of a race.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Cratos

I believe it was Tom Brohamer who said (and I am paraphrasing) that “ final time is the time of the race and pace is the time the race was run in.”

Just final time of any moving object including race horses tells you very little. If you have the pace and the distance you can derived an objective singular the final time of a race.

However if you have just the final time and the distance it is very difficult to derive an objective singular final time of a race.

I don't agree with a lot of this because Beyer speed figures have been a mainstay of horse race handicapping and produced a lot of winning bets, but the surface is a big factor. Dirt races are usually run in a quick pace and the horses decelerate. Turf horses can have an excruciatingly slow pace and then a sprint for the wire. Pace can help in turf races, but less so in dirt. But I am a big fan of pace handicapping, but final time can tell you a lot.

Plus the shorter the distance the more "objective singular final time of a race" you have.

On the other hand, Secretariat set the world record by running 12 furlongs in two and a half minutes. I don't care what his pace was in the Belmont he was going to beat most other horses in his upcoming races and all you needed to know was his final time. Now, it's not always helpful to use an extreme example to prove a point. Many systems break down at the tails.

But even in a 6 furlong race Final Time can tell you a lot. You have one horse that ran 1:10 flat in it's last race and another that ran in 1:11 flat. In a head to head match up the 1:10 horse will win more often, all else being equal.

Now if the 1:10 horse went 47 to the half and the 1:11 horse went 45 to the half then things definitely get interesting in a match race between the two.

But if the pace is unknown and you only have speed figures based on final times available, then the 1:10 flat horse is going to have a higher figure and I'm going to bet him to win every time -- especially if they're both even money.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Cratos

I am not trying to encourage you to change your way of thinking, but the speed figure methodology which appears to be your frame of reference is a very small part of the racehorse speed analysis in the global sense.

I haven't discussed what I think much at all. I've been discussing the methodology of Beyer and the other well known figure makers.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by highnote

I don't agree with a lot of this because Beyer speed figures have been a mainstay of horse race handicapping and produced a lot of winning bets, but the surface is a big factor. Dirt races are usually run in a quick pace and the horses decelerate. Turf horses can have an excruciatingly slow pace and then a sprint for the wire. Pace can help in turf races, but less so in dirt. But I am a big fan of pace handicapping, but final time can tell you a lot.

Plus the shorter the distance the more "objective singular final time of a race" you have.

On the other hand, Secretariat set the world record by running 12 furlongs in two and a half minutes. I don't care what his pace was in the Belmont he was going to beat most other horses in his upcoming races and all you needed to know was his final time. Now, it's not always helpful to use an extreme example to prove a point. Many systems break down at the tails.

But even in a 6 furlong race Final Time can tell you a lot. You have one horse that ran 1:10 flat in it's last race and another that ran in 1:11 flat. In a head to head match up the 1:10 horse will win more often, all else being equal.

Now if the 1:10 horse went 47 to the half and the 1:11 horse went 45 to the half then things definitely get interesting in a match race between the two.

But if the pace is unknown and you only have speed figures based on final times available, then the 1:10 flat horse is going to have a higher figure and I'm going to bet him to win every time -- especially if they're both even money.

You loss me because I thought the subject was about determining the speed of a horse race using either pace or the final time.

Also I hope you realize that final time is a static entity that can be converted into an average speed which is based on an average pace if nothing else is known.

Speed figures are assigned based on the speed figure methodology and I think that is what Andy Beyer does, assigns a figure to a race based on his methodology.

This really has nothing to do with final time being a function of pace.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Cratos

You loss me because I thought the subject was about determining the speed of a horse race using either pace or the final time.

I guess it depends on the definition of speed that you use. One definition is the distance traveled divided by travel time.

Also I hope you realize that final time is a static entity that can be converted into an average speed which is based on an average pace if nothing else is known.

Distance divided by Final time is speed per the formula above.

Speed figures are assigned based on the speed figure methodology and I think that is what Andy Beyer does, assigns a figure to a race based on his methodology.

Agreed.

This really has nothing to do with final time being a function of pace.

The final time of a race is function of pace.

Run too fast early in the race then the final time will suffer.

Run too slow early in the race then the final time will suffer.

In general, a horse that runs an evenly paced race (that is, not too fast or slow for his ability) will produce the best final race time for that given horse.

[PhantomOnTour]

I think this entire thread (and the one about the Derby fig) is testament to why people should make their own figs.
You know exactly what went into every number, and why.
You also know which races to re-visit in order to verify a number.
Excellent par times are available for purchase and that's all you need to get going.

It's time consuming, esp if you play multiple tracks, but you gain an intimate knowledge of what's going on at your track.

Following a circuit day to day & track to track is the best education a player can get...all the better if you make your own figs for that circuit, too.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

I think this entire thread (and the one about the Derby fig) is testament to why people should make their own figs.
You know exactly what went into every number, and why.
You also know which races to re-visit in order to verify a number.
Excellent par times are available for purchase and that's all you need to get going.

It's time consuming, esp if you play multiple tracks, but you gain an intimate knowledge of what's going on at your track.

Following a circuit day to day & track to track is the best education a player can get...all the better if you make your own figs for that circuit, too.

Totally agree -- with a couple of caveats. If you're a casual player then using speed figures made by others is better than nothing, but if you're a serious player then you probably want to make them yourself. But there is probably a point where the super serious or professional player uses a combination of their own figures and figures made by others.

The professional player that uses computer assisted wagering probably has an automated system to generate figures and the professional probably also buys certain data from various services -- some of those services might include speed figures or daily variants.

[Tom]

I think this entire thread (and the one about the Derby fig) is testament to why people should make their own figs.

But at what cost?
You won't do every track in the country and Canada. You won't have access to powerful computer programs to review your work and how the track to track stuff plays out. For the few races you gain insight, you take alot of other convenience off the table.

If you are limiting yourself to one track or circuit, that is one thing, but the ability to play anywhere any time can be pretty profitable.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Tom

But at what cost?
You won't do every track in the country and Canada. You won't have access to powerful computer programs to review your work and how the track to track stuff plays out. For the few races you gain insight, you take alot of other convenience off the table.

If you are limiting yourself to one track or circuit, that is one thing, but the ability to play anywhere any time can be pretty profitable.

I'm with you Tom. I used to make my own pace and speed figures for NY for a long time. There were some advantages that Phantom highlighted, but there was also an opportunity cost. Whatever time and energy I put into figures was not available for other things.

Trying to get the best of both worlds is why I got into using multiple sets of figures. When the services disagreed, I would take a better look at the race and decide for myself. Otherwise I'd assume the figure was fine.

I also like to use the Formulator Charts with the Beyer Figures function on. Then I can see all the horses' Beyer figures in and out of a race quickly to see if anything seems out of line and worthy of investigation.

[highnote]

My take on this is that in order for me to be moderately successful I would make my own figures for one circuit and then make huge bets when I know I have an edge, but most of the time I will just be watching and waiting. That is how Pittsburgh Phil did it. He would study the charts from the previous season during the off-season. Then eventually he was successful enough that he could afford to own horses. Then he bet on his own horses. Until the 1980's he was probably the most successful horse race bettor of all time. He also bet with and against bookmakers. The books I have read about him say that he was eventually kicked out of NY tracks because he was too successful at betting.

Bill Benter also received the same push back from the HK racing authorities because he was too successful. Authorities felt he had an unfair advantage. He did. He was smarter than everyone else.

If you want to be extremely successful and join the ranks of the most successful bettors then you would automate your betting so that you can bet all the tracks in the country and even tracks in other countries. For this you need powerful computers, lots of data to create a factor model, you would probably need to make your own figures for your model as well as buy figures from others and you will need a team of people working with you.

There are degrees in between these two scenarios a person or persons could do. And an individual might even be successful buying figures and betting multiple tracks. It depends on your definition of success.

Some people consider losing only a little money at the track as being successful. The small loss was the cost of their entertainment.

Other people only feel successful if they make a million dollars per year.

A computer team might need to make tens of millions per year in order to be successful.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Tom

But at what cost?
You won't do every track in the country and Canada. You won't have access to powerful computer programs to review your work and how the track to track stuff plays out. For the few races you gain insight, you take alot of other convenience off the table.

If you are limiting yourself to one track or circuit, that is one thing, but the ability to play anywhere any time can be pretty profitable.

I agree, the cost is too high. Its easier to purchase others figs, let them do the work, i like to spend my time on breaking down tape, as far as i know there's no service out there that sells detailed notes on video replays.

[Tom]

Is Logic Dictates still around?
I think they did trip notes for NYRA?

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Tom

But at what cost?
You won't do every track in the country and Canada. You won't have access to powerful computer programs to review your work and how the track to track stuff plays out. For the few races you gain insight, you take alot of other convenience off the table.

If you are limiting yourself to one track or circuit, that is one thing, but the ability to play anywhere any time can be pretty profitable.

Am I missing something here, or do I have you confused with someone else on this forum? I seem to recall a fairly recent post in which you stated that your current wagers were a small fraction of what they had been previously, and you were doing so poorly you were considering a complete cessation of wagering. Was that you or someone else?

If I have you mixed up with some other poster, please accept my apology in advance. My impression (possibly erroneous) is that you were not doing very well at all in the profit department.