Pace & Rating

[Beetlebomb]

How can all these different software programs accurately project/predict pace lines for a horse if the race shape dictates a slower pace or a horse is being rated.

It seems it would totally invalidate the software's # crunching mechanism and make pace handicapping very suspect to each individul race??

[Capper Al]

We just beat this topic up in the thread "What's the case for Pace?" at the following link:


http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=39585

[Tom]

What makes you think they all project/predict pacelines?

[Jeff P]

How can all these different software programs accurately project/predict pace lines for a horse if the race shape dictates a slower pace or a horse is being rated.

It seems it would totally invalidate the software's # crunching mechanism and make pace handicapping very suspect to each individul race??

IMHO, the question posed is a valid one.

In my own case, for JCapper, I created comprehensive pace ratings after some serious study of historical results of large data samples.

Instead of being "very suspect" (as you put it) the selections of the CPace and Pace Model Index algorithms that I developed for JCapper have proven to be pretty reliable. Neither factor is flat bet profitable on its own. But both can be included in UDMs (user defined models or spot plays) with other factors. For the most part I have found that UDM performance (as well as individual player performance) can be improved upon significantly when pace (defined as including both a horse's ability and running style along with the makeup of the race) are added into the factor mix.

My own calendar year 2006 database broken out by both PMI and CPace shows the following results:

  All Starters in the Database:

     Data Window Settings:
     999 Divisor
     Surface: (ALL*)  Distance: (All*) 
     From Index File: C:\2007\Q1_2007\pl_Complete_History_06.txt


     Data Summary         Win     Place      Show
     Mutuel Totals  309882.70 305170.00 303211.00
     Bet           -404684.00-404684.00-404684.00
     Gain           -94801.30 -99514.00-101473.00

     Wins               24997     49798     73448
     Plays             202342    202342    202342
     PCT                .1235     .2461     .3630

     ROI               0.7657    0.7541    0.7493
     Avg Mut            12.40      6.13      4.13

     By: PMI Rank (2006)

     Rank       Gain       Bet       Roi   Wins  Plays     Pct    Impact
     1.00   -3279.90  49722.00    0.9340   6335  24861   .2548     2.0627  
     2.00   -7019.30  49682.00    0.8587   4538  24841   .1827     1.4787  
     3.00   -8754.00  49804.00    0.8242   3592  24902   .1442     1.1676  
     4.00  -10107.80  49716.00    0.7967   2825  24858   .1136     0.9199  
     5.00  -14347.80  49094.00    0.7077   2207  24547   .0899     0.7278  
     6.00  -16764.30  45968.00    0.6353   1517  22984   .0660     0.5343  
     7.00  -34649.90 110226.00    0.6856   3961  55113   .0719     0.5818  
     8.00     141.40    414.00    1.3415     17    207   .0821     0.6648  
     9.00     -18.00     18.00    0.0000      0      9   .0000     0.0000  
    10.00      20.10     12.00    2.6750      4      6   .6667     5.3964  
    11.00      -3.80     10.00    0.6200      1      5   .2000     1.6189  
    12.00      -4.00      4.00    0.0000      0      2   .0000     0.0000  
    13.00      -8.00      8.00    0.0000      0      4   .0000     0.0000  
    14.00      -6.00      6.00    0.0000      0      3   .0000     0.0000  
    15.00       0.00      0.00    0.0000      0      0   .0000     0.0000  
    16.00       0.00      0.00    0.0000      0      0   .0000     0.0000  
    17.00       0.00      0.00    0.0000      0      0   .0000     0.0000  
    18.00       0.00      0.00    0.0000      0      0   .0000     0.0000  
    19.00+      0.00      0.00    0.0000      0      0   .0000     0.0000

    By: CPace Rank (2006) 

     Rank       Gain       Bet       Roi   Wins  Plays       Pct    Impact
        1   -3887.30  50402.00    0.9229   5442  25201     .2159    1.7437
        2   -8310.90  50298.00    0.8348   4250  25149     .1690    1.3646
        3   -8864.10  50344.00    0.8239   3720  25172     .1478    1.1933
        4  -10202.10  50298.00    0.7972   3166  25149     .1259    1.0166
        5  -13914.90  49820.00    0.7207   2622  24910     .1053    0.8500
        6  -13153.70  46756.00    0.7187   2222  23378     .0950    0.7675
        7  -13780.10  39054.00    0.6472   1605  19527     .0822    0.6637
        8   -9921.90  28840.00    0.6560   1029  14420     .0714    0.5762
        9   -7619.60  19580.00    0.6108    638   9790     .0652    0.5262
       10   -4685.20  12616.00    0.6286    370   6308     .0587    0.4736
       11   -2751.90   6834.00    0.5973    173   3417     .0506    0.4088
       12   -1681.80   3394.00    0.5045     66   1697     .0389    0.3141
       13    -113.20    484.00    0.7661     12    242     .0496    0.4004
       14     193.00    200.00    1.9650      6    100     .0600    0.4845
       15      -2.00      2.00    0.0000      0      1     .0000    0.0000
       16      -2.00      2.00    0.0000      0      1     .0000    0.0000
       17      -2.00      2.00    0.0000      0      1     .0000    0.0000
       18      -2.00      2.00    0.0000      0      1     .0000    0.0000
       19+     -4.00      4.00    0.0000      0      2     .0000    0.0000

-jp

.

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by Beetlebomb

How can all these different software programs accurately project/predict pace lines for a horse if the race shape dictates a slower pace or a horse is being rated.

MOST can't have their basic style of running altered too much and still be competitive.

[keilan]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

For the most part I have found that UDM performance (as well as individual player performance) can be improved upon significantly when pace (defined as including both a horse's ability and running style along with the makeup of the race) are added into the factor mix.



-jp

.

Cheaper horses/fields and fillies have different pace parameters than say top level runners and those dynamics can help zero in on pace projection on a more consistent basis.

When I tried to use the same formula for all runners I soon realized the pace number/time was understated in weaker fields.

Cracking the nut for an accurate pace projection is one of the keys for eliminating low priced horses.

[cj]

Originally Posted by keilan

Cheaper horses/fields and fillies have different pace parameters than say top level runners and those dynamics can help zero in on pace projection on a more consistent basis.

When I tried to use the same formula for all runners I soon realized the pace number/time was understated in weaker fields.

Cracking the nut for an accurate pace projection is one of the keys for eliminating low priced horses.

Very, very true. It is also usually overstated in classier fields.

Horse age is another example where pace is usually understated. With young 2yos, pace is about all that matters. With older stakes horses, it means very little. Every other race falls in between, where the younger and cheaper, the more pace matters.

[keilan]

Originally Posted by cj

Very, very true. It is also usually overstated in classier fields. Except in the Kentucky Derby And that brings us to "size of field" in a competitive race.

Horse age is another example where pace is usually understated. With young 2yos, pace is about all that matters. With older stakes horses, it means very little. Every other race falls in between, where the younger and cheaper, the more pace matters.

Couldn't agree more about "age of the horse"

[cj]

Very, very true. It is also usually overstated (in classier fields of older horses)

Nice catch, above is what I meant to say.

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by keilan

Cheaper horses/fields and fillies have different pace parameters than say top level runners and those dynamics can help zero in on pace projection on a more consistent basis.

BINGO....Horses of a different color, or is it colour??

[kitts]

Success rarely comes just from interpreting the software output, IMHO. A lot of software has configuration options that allows the user to get what he/she needs. I, for one, do not make a bet after the software is done. It is merely a guide while I scan the pps for more info. The race shape might be difficult for software to interpret, but I don't bet without a comfort in my understanding of the shape of the race. The software output of Fair Odds then guides me to value bets.

[russowen77]

If there is a computer program out there that can do a better job of selecting pace lines than the average informed bettor they would really have something. That is the sort of query they are not really suited for at this time imo.

[DanG]

Originally Posted by russowen77

If there is a computer program out there that can do a better job of selecting pace lines than the average informed bettor they would really have something. That is the sort of query they are not really suited for at this time imo.

There is if you factor in volume betting. I agree a good player can isolate races and do better long term than a good automated method. Having said that HTR’s PL-5 (automated) is very impressive in large samples imo.

[Jeff P]

Cheaper horses/fields and fillies have different pace parameters than say top level runners and those dynamics can help zero in on pace projection on a more consistent basis.

When I tried to use the same formula for all runners I soon realized the pace number/time was understated in weaker fields.

Cracking the nut for an accurate pace projection is one of the keys for eliminating low priced horses.

Keilan, I agree 100 percent.

The data I posted was in response to the following statement:

It seems it would totally invalidate the software's # crunching mechanism and make pace handicapping very suspect to each individul race??

I wanted to show that software developers do in fact have the ability to create fully automated algorithms that analyze pace scenarios in a way that produces uniform results. It goes without saying that within the overall results that I posted there are segments that can be identified and broken out... and some of those segments are better than others... and IMHO the player willing to focus on the better data segments has the ability to improve whatever he or she is doing to begin with.

-jp

.

[keilan]

Hey Jeff -- I fully realized what you were responding to, you are one of the good/great minds in the game.

Wish list for cj's program

The next and final step in the process of a program is having the ability within the program to distribute different measurements based on the present track weight.

ie: let’s say track weight has a range of 1 to 5 and 5 being the fastest. After the first couple of races the owner of the software estimates that the track weight is 2 and can then re-run his output based on this new information. Let’s call that calculation tw --- now the tw has the ability to assign a more likely finish of order based firstly on all of the other variables but will now include today’s track weight.

If a player understood the true abilities of each horse then was able to estimate the pace number with a high degree of accuracy and lastly could run the output based on current track weight………could it get any better?