|
|
12-04-2022, 04:04 PM
|
#61
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,613
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
I don't really care about being more accurate about who is going to finish 6th, 7th, 8th etc.... I just want to maximize winners.
Is there anything that can be done to trick it in some way. I was thinking of keeping all the winners as a 1 and everyone else as a 0 or 99.
|
Keeping the winners as "1" and every other position as "0" improved the results significantly. This is worth pursuing.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
|
|
|
12-09-2022, 01:32 PM
|
#62
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,613
|
Here's another "potential" issue that comes up with regression analysis.
Let's say I'm ranking the horses based on multiple factors and these are the speed figures for two races.
100 - 1
90 - 2
89 - 3
85 - 4
79 - 5
100 -1
99 - 2
98 - 3
85 - 4
79 - 5
Ranks don't do a good job of getting at the gap between the top rated horse and the rest.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
|
|
|
12-09-2022, 03:10 PM
|
#63
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: near Lone Star Park
Posts: 5,153
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
Here's another "potential" issue that comes up with regression analysis.
Let's say I'm ranking the horses based on multiple factors and these are the speed figures for two races.
100 - 1
90 - 2
89 - 3
85 - 4
79 - 5
100 -1
99 - 2
98 - 3
85 - 4
79 - 5
Ranks don't do a good job of getting at the gap between the top rated horse and the rest.
|
The more commonly used factors that you use, the more likely you are going to be on the favorite. It's not a good way to pick for value.
__________________
Ranch West
Equine Performance Analyst, Quick Grid Software
|
|
|
12-09-2022, 03:55 PM
|
#64
|
crusty old guy
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Snarkytown USA
Posts: 3,920
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
Ranks don't do a good job of getting at the gap between the top rated horse and the rest.
|
Under most circumstances, raw values do a better job than ranks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranchwest
The more commonly used factors that you use, the more likely you are going to be on the favorite. It's not a good way to pick for value.
|
Picking value horses comes during the betting process, not the handicapping process. Would you eliminate using speed/pace from your handicapping method? Doubtful.
__________________
"Don't believe everything that you read on the Internet." -- Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
12-09-2022, 05:02 PM
|
#65
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: near Lone Star Park
Posts: 5,153
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by headhawg
Under most circumstances, raw values do a better job than ranks.
Picking value horses comes during the betting process, not the handicapping process. Would you eliminate using speed/pace from your handicapping method? Doubtful.
|
I don't want to leave out legit chalk, but I don't want all chalk, either.
There was a race at OP today where a 20% jockey was on a 1TS. Unfortunately I didn't have it because it paid $96 to win. There are factors other than speed and pace.
__________________
Ranch West
Equine Performance Analyst, Quick Grid Software
Last edited by ranchwest; 12-09-2022 at 05:04 PM.
|
|
|
12-10-2022, 09:56 AM
|
#66
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,879
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
Here's another "potential" issue that comes up with regression analysis.
Let's say I'm ranking the horses based on multiple factors and these are the speed figures for two races.
100 - 1
90 - 2
89 - 3
85 - 4
79 - 5
100 -1
99 - 2
98 - 3
85 - 4
79 - 5
Ranks don't do a good job of getting at the gap between the top rated horse and the rest.
|
I use Mitchel's Index Number idea for my rankings (Thanks, HH for the assist!)
I use the 60-11 scale he used in his books with good results. It puts speed, pace, class, and PP on the same scale.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
|
|
|
12-10-2022, 10:44 AM
|
#67
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,613
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
I use Mitchel's Index Number idea for my rankings (Thanks, HH for the assist!)
I use the 60-11 scale he used in his books with good results. It puts speed, pace, class, and PP on the same scale.
|
That's the issue I'm thinking about.
I have certain factors on the same scale (class and speed), but others are not. When I ran the regression that way, it lost accuracy. When I switched to rank, it worked a lot better, but I suspect there could be issues here or there related to the gap between horses that are not handled well by using rank to get at the proper weight for each factor.
I'm glad this thread was started and branched off into this direction because it gave me the motivation to revisit some of this stuff. I'm unquestionably going to learn some things.
I'll see what I can find on that Index Number idea. Thanks
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
|
|
|
12-11-2022, 12:04 PM
|
#68
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,879
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
I'll see what I can find on that Index Number idea. Thanks
|
Class, I attached an example spreadsheet for how I use it, for today's 3rd race at Aqueduct.
It uses the BRIS PP, AC3, and SR last race.
I weigh each according to current results and get a Power number.
The constant is simply the regression line formula for the percentages of the power numbers expressed as probability ranging from .01 to .99.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
|
|
|
12-11-2022, 12:21 PM
|
#69
|
crusty old guy
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Snarkytown USA
Posts: 3,920
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranchwest
I don't want to leave out legit chalk, but I don't want all chalk, either.
There was a race at OP today where a 20% jockey was on a 1TS. Unfortunately I didn't have it because it paid $96 to win. There are factors other than speed and pace.
|
I am not arguing that there are multiple factors affecting a race; that's common sense. But what are your "uncommon" factors for a $96 FTS? The 20% jockey? Nope. Trainer stats with maidens/FTS? uh-uh. Pedigree? Probably not. Workouts? Definitely not. If a person is using PPs or data files then there are no factors that aren't common. An edge probably goes to experts in physicality and trip handicapping, things not found in the PPs.
__________________
"Don't believe everything that you read on the Internet." -- Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
12-11-2022, 12:35 PM
|
#70
|
crusty old guy
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Snarkytown USA
Posts: 3,920
|
One thing to remember about the Indexing system -- the range doesn't have to be 60 to 100. Mitchell implied that 50 to 100 or 70 to 100 might be more appropriate depending on the factor. Using something like IV scores (IV ratio) might be an indicator of whether or not the index range needs to be narrower or wider. I began working on the spiritual successor to Handifast recently and have been playing around with different ranges. Food for thought.
__________________
"Don't believe everything that you read on the Internet." -- Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
12-11-2022, 11:52 PM
|
#71
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: near Lone Star Park
Posts: 5,153
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by headhawg
I am not arguing that there are multiple factors affecting a race; that's common sense. But what are your "uncommon" factors for a $96 FTS? The 20% jockey? Nope. Trainer stats with maidens/FTS? uh-uh. Pedigree? Probably not. Workouts? Definitely not. If a person is using PPs or data files then there are no factors that aren't common. An edge probably goes to experts in physicality and trip handicapping, things not found in the PPs.
|
Yeah, 20% jockey being a common factor must be why the horse was 47/1.
__________________
Ranch West
Equine Performance Analyst, Quick Grid Software
|
|
|
12-12-2022, 08:36 AM
|
#72
|
crusty old guy
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Snarkytown USA
Posts: 3,920
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranchwest
Yeah, 20% jockey being a common factor must be why the horse was 47/1.
|
Don't be dumb. Are you going to tell me that people don't look at jockey stats as a regular part of handicapping? Forget it. Go back to mining your "uncommon" factors. You're just another guy here who thinks everything he posts is gold but gets defensive when called out on flawed logic.
__________________
"Don't believe everything that you read on the Internet." -- Abraham Lincoln
Last edited by headhawg; 12-12-2022 at 08:38 AM.
|
|
|
12-12-2022, 12:21 PM
|
#73
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,613
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
Class, I attached an example spreadsheet for how I use it, for today's 3rd race at Aqueduct.
It uses the BRIS PP, AC3, and SR last race.
I weigh each according to current results and get a Power number.
The constant is simply the regression line formula for the percentages of the power numbers expressed as probability ranging from .01 to .99.
|
Thanks Tom.
I'd be more than willing to put my spreadsheet out when I get some decent weights, but most of the ratings are my own. So I'm not so sure my weights would be very applicable to the ratings other people are using.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
|
|
|
12-12-2022, 06:24 PM
|
#74
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: near Lone Star Park
Posts: 5,153
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by headhawg
Don't be dumb. Are you going to tell me that people don't look at jockey stats as a regular part of handicapping? Forget it. Go back to mining your "uncommon" factors. You're just another guy here who thinks everything he posts is gold but gets defensive when called out on flawed logic.
|
So you defend jockey win percentage being a common factor despite this horse having a 20% jockey and paying 47/1 ($96.00). Brilliant, just brilliant. Handicappers bet on NAME JOCKEYS.
__________________
Ranch West
Equine Performance Analyst, Quick Grid Software
Last edited by ranchwest; 12-12-2022 at 06:25 PM.
|
|
|
12-12-2022, 06:41 PM
|
#75
|
crusty old guy
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Snarkytown USA
Posts: 3,920
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranchwest
So you defend jockey win percentage being a common factor despite this horse having a 20% jockey and paying 47/1 ($96.00). Brilliant, just brilliant. Handicappers bet on NAME JOCKEYS.
|
You're the dolt who posted to classhandicapper that using common factors will lead to the favorite. (Brilliant insight, btw ) So given your $97 horse example are you saying that jockey win% is not a common factor? It's an easy question. Just answer yes or no so people here can understand your level of handicapping competence. I already know what it is.
__________________
"Don't believe everything that you read on the Internet." -- Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|