Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > Handicapping Software > HandiFast Handicapping Software


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 18 votes, 5.00 average.
Old 08-12-2020, 08:12 PM   #1411
mikesal57
Veteran
 
mikesal57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NEW YORK CITY
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hues10 View Post
The program has worked fine with Saratoga and even DelMar. Just strange that two other tracks did not work. OK. Thanks for the response. Wanted to see if it was the Program possibly.
YW
mikesal57 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-14-2020, 09:27 PM   #1412
Handiman
BarelyWinning
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Santa Rosa, California
Posts: 2,828
The Drawing Board

Thought I'd take a minute and let you know what's on the drawing board. As I said earlier, Version 13 should be ready around Christmas. Right now 60 factors available instead of the 22 that exists in version 12. User will be able to create their own factor sets out of the factors available. So if there are factors you would like included, you need to speak up now. Added more tracks or will actually. Again Version 13 will be free to download.

Also in the planning stage at present is Handifast Platinum. As it stands now, that will be Version 13 on steroids with Database. As I see it now. User will be able to select Manual or Automatic Mode. In Manual, you will be responsible for creating factor sets and build analysts. In Auto mode, you choose a race to handicap and the program goes into the database and finds races similar to that race and builds a factor set for you. Then, if I can figure it out, it will build an analyst for that race also. Then handicap the race. There will be reports available to the user also. I need to hear from people what type of reports they would like. If I am capable of coding them, I will. Now is the time to speak up. AS a hobbyist programmer this is one hell of a task. As a result, for another reason I can't discuss here, there will be a charge for the Platinum version. How much I don't know yet.

Also I have heard recently that there are problems with the DRF files. I am looking into this. But it may turn out that the only files workable will be jcp and mcp data files. I think that's about it.


Handi
Handiman is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-28-2020, 07:05 PM   #1413
Handiman
BarelyWinning
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Santa Rosa, California
Posts: 2,828
Moving along

Have been busy working on design of ver 13. I have decided to make some major changes. Based on my view of things naturally. I find that I am more inclined to understand relationships when presented in a visual way. Just looking at a set of data, as in the factors layout, I have trouble coming to or understanding the actual relationships of the number in any meaningful way. but maybe that's just me. As a result, one change I am making is when the handicapping screen comes up with list of factors, the user can click on an individual factor and a bar chart will popup with the sorted results of that factor. The final rankings end result will show up in a bar graph presorted based on the total numbers. I have decided also to eliminate the scaling as it exists. Not sure what will replace it, but something will.

Also looking at developing some new factors besides the 60 I have come up with at present in the planning stage. Database idea is still floating around and is part of the design work I am engaged in at present.

Consensus screen may disappear also. Not sure yet. Don't know if anybody actually uses it. So that's what is happening lately.

Handi
Handiman is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-28-2020, 08:31 PM   #1414
mikesal57
Veteran
 
mikesal57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NEW YORK CITY
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handiman View Post
Have been busy working on design of ver 13. I have decided to make some major changes. Based on my view of things naturally. I find that I am more inclined to understand relationships when presented in a visual way. Just looking at a set of data, as in the factors layout, I have trouble coming to or understanding the actual relationships of the number in any meaningful way. but maybe that's just me. As a result, one change I am making is when the handicapping screen comes up with list of factors, the user can click on an individual factor and a bar chart will popup with the sorted results of that factor. The final rankings end result will show up in a bar graph presorted based on the total numbers. I have decided also to eliminate the scaling as it exists. Not sure what will replace it, but something will.

Also looking at developing some new factors besides the 60 I have come up with at present in the planning stage. Database idea is still floating around and is part of the design work I am engaged in at present.

Consensus screen may disappear also. Not sure yet. Don't know if anybody actually uses it. So that's what is happening lately.

Handi
Sounds good Handi.....

Some sort of weighing should be included.

What will the bar chart consist of for the factor when you bring it up?


Mike

Last edited by mikesal57; 08-28-2020 at 08:33 PM.
mikesal57 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-28-2020, 10:21 PM   #1415
Handiman
BarelyWinning
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Santa Rosa, California
Posts: 2,828
Horse name on one axis and numerical range on the other axis. One thing I am considering is letting raw figures scale themselves, ie; Last Speed. User gives the factor a weight of 100. Horse has speed rating of 85 that horse gets 85% of the factor weight. Next horse could have say a speed rating of 80, That one would earn 80% of the factor weight. And so on for however many factors the user had in their handicapping object. Then add the earned factor numbers together and arrive at a fair odds line. Some tweaking to the line may be needed, I'm not sure.

Handi
Handiman is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-28-2020, 10:26 PM   #1416
mikesal57
Veteran
 
mikesal57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NEW YORK CITY
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handiman View Post
Horse name on one axis and numerical range on the other axis. One thing I am considering is letting raw figures scale themselves, ie; Last Speed. User gives the factor a weight of 100. Horse has speed rating of 85 that horse gets 85% of the factor weight. Next horse could have say a speed rating of 80, That one would earn 80% of the factor weight. And so on for however many factors the user had in their handicapping object. Then add the earned factor numbers together and arrive at a fair odds line. Some tweaking to the line may be needed, I'm not sure.

Handi
So you setting fixed weights.....like Fib


not what I would do....

The user should set his own weights....

EX: if he wants 100% for each...so be it

if he wants a Fibonacci ...so be it

if he want 100...90...70...65...43....so be it...

this is user custom....

Mike
mikesal57 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-29-2020, 01:01 AM   #1417
Handiman
BarelyWinning
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Santa Rosa, California
Posts: 2,828
No I am not setting weights. user chooses what factors to use and what weight to give them. It's then just a matter of the raw figures doing the scaling. If a guy uses Fib let's say and he weights Last speed at 100. Horse A has a speed number of 89 and horse B has a 79. Use Fib and since B is 10 points less than A, A should get 100 points and B only 62? Does that really correlate .... If they are only 10 points apart in raw figure they should be 38 points apart with points for that factor? Or what if there is only a 2 point difference in their speed number. Is it fair to give A 100 points and B just 62? I don't think so, or at least it doesn't make sense to me anyway.

Handi

And besides in an earlier post you suggested getting rid of all scaling.
Handiman is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-29-2020, 09:40 AM   #1418
mikesal57
Veteran
 
mikesal57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NEW YORK CITY
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handiman View Post
No I am not setting weights. user chooses what factors to use and what weight to give them. It's then just a matter of the raw figures doing the scaling. If a guy uses Fib let's say and he weights Last speed at 100. Horse A has a speed number of 89 and horse B has a 79. Use Fib and since B is 10 points less than A, A should get 100 points and B only 62? Does that really correlate .... If they are only 10 points apart in raw figure they should be 38 points apart with points for that factor? Or what if there is only a 2 point difference in their speed number. Is it fair to give A 100 points and B just 62? I don't think so, or at least it doesn't make sense to me anyway.

Handi

And besides in an earlier post you suggested getting rid of all scaling.
Handi...

A lot of thoughts were going thru my head on this "scaling" .
I really didnt know if it would change things because I never tried it.
Well, I just did....
I am positive that factors DO NEED to be scaled.

In pix #1....no scaling
pix #2......scaling

noticeable difference in jk

Attached Images
File Type: jpg test 1.JPG (17.4 KB, 23 views)
File Type: jpg 2.JPG (16.6 KB, 17 views)

Last edited by mikesal57; 08-29-2020 at 09:44 AM.
mikesal57 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-29-2020, 09:52 AM   #1419
mikesal57
Veteran
 
mikesal57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NEW YORK CITY
Posts: 3,670
My thoughts on you going forward....

1) create factors...

3) validate the validity of them ( I do have a way )

2) scaling them to 100-60

once this is done , I can run raw numbers thru Handi Search...

and then analyze thru regression logic

Mike
mikesal57 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-29-2020, 10:20 AM   #1420
Longshot6977
Registered User
 
Longshot6977's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 1,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handiman View Post
No I am not setting weights. user chooses what factors to use and what weight to give them. It's then just a matter of the raw figures doing the scaling. If a guy uses Fib let's say and he weights Last speed at 100. Horse A has a speed number of 89 and horse B has a 79. Use Fib and since B is 10 points less than A, A should get 100 points and B only 62? Does that really correlate .... If they are only 10 points apart in raw figure they should be 38 points apart with points for that factor? Or what if there is only a 2 point difference in their speed number. Is it fair to give A 100 points and B just 62? I don't think so, or at least it doesn't make sense to me anyway.

Handi

And besides in an earlier post you suggested getting rid of all scaling.
I agree Handiman, leave the scaling out. Simpler is better in most things. For yourself and the user. Let the raw figures speak for themselves. If others don't agree, so be it.
Longshot6977 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-29-2020, 10:50 AM   #1421
mikesal57
Veteran
 
mikesal57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NEW YORK CITY
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Longshot6977 View Post
I agree Handiman, leave the scaling out. Simpler is better in most things. For yourself and the user. Let the raw figures speak for themselves. If others don't agree, so be it.
I just proved "scaling" works....

and it worked with the Mitchel factors of PS CS PWR before I did any research

the scaling provides uniformity between each factor.....

EX:

However CL is calculated the very best you could get is say a 96 rating...

JK is calculated by the exact percentage of jk wins vs mounts...best say 33%

now You have 2 distinct ranges here...right....

with scaling , you now bring that CL 96 to 100 and that jk 33% to 100

now you have uniformity between factors....

I think I'm right but...

Last edited by mikesal57; 08-29-2020 at 10:57 AM.
mikesal57 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-29-2020, 12:52 PM   #1422
Handiman
BarelyWinning
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Santa Rosa, California
Posts: 2,828
Mike. The same thing can be achieved through weighting. Say Class gets a number and then say Jockey gets 3 times that number with number of starts adjustment. I am considering all possibilities. May even have a scaling and no scaling toggle switch. The one thing that bothers me about Mitchell normalizing, is the fact that some horses in some factors don't deserve a floor of 60. They in fact could be so bad that their particular number for a factor should be no more than say a 30. You are effectively giving that horse a 50% artificial boost it didn't earn. So in a a race with 5 horses the worst horse has a 20% chance of winning, just because he only has to beat 4 other horses. But by giving him the protection of a normalized floor figure, you are saying he has a better chance than what reality gives him just due to the field size. Hope that makes sense.

Handi
Handiman is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-29-2020, 01:40 PM   #1423
headhawg
crusty old guy
 
headhawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Snarkytown USA
Posts: 3,759
Mitchell also suggested lowering the floor to 50 so the range could be 50-100. The bigger the range, the larger the gaps between the horses' ratings. You could go lower if you want.
__________________
"Don't believe everything that you read on the Internet." -- Abraham Lincoln
headhawg is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-29-2020, 03:31 PM   #1424
Handiman
BarelyWinning
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Santa Rosa, California
Posts: 2,828
I have his book in my library. I actually built a program a long time ago using his numbers. Can't remember for who or what I did with it. That was about 4 laptops ago... I wonder why he settled on 60? I don't remember if he said so or not.

Handi
Handiman is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-29-2020, 04:36 PM   #1425
headhawg
crusty old guy
 
headhawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Snarkytown USA
Posts: 3,759
He wrote that the range is basically arbitrary -- you could use 50-100 or 70-100. He did not give a reason for the 60-100, not that I could find in the book anyway.
"The most important thing is to apply the same set of standards to each contender."
There might be an "ideal" range to use but that would obviously require a lot of research. And the indexing range could be like a factor -- track and/or class specific. A LOT of research.
__________________
"Don't believe everything that you read on the Internet." -- Abraham Lincoln
headhawg is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2022 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.