Timeformus Pace Projector - Glorious Empire

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The unfortunate aspect of the race flow product in the DRF is that it wasn't explained and marketed properly to begin with so people like you still have no idea what it is, how to use it, where it was going, or why it's an extraordinary compliment to fractional analysis. That capped any effort to continue developing it further for public consumption.

Fortunately, that development continued privately according to Kenny's original spec and the additional inights gained from testing.

I can tell you with 100% certainty in it's present form it's better than anything in the puiblic domain at pre/post race race flow analysis and identying horses than are better than they look on paper or that have an especially good setup today.

Now it will never come public and handicappers will continue to be ridiculously wrong about some aspects of pace, some races, and never get the more refined data and understanding that prove it. Only a few people have access to it.

Terribly unfortunate.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by cj

Yep, that is the worry and what I expect to find actually. Jockeys have tendencies, but applying it to every horse they ride (even if by distance/surface) would probably hurt more than help.

My best success in guessing when a rider change will also entail a change of tactics comes from trying to think like a jock. If a certain strategy has tanked lately, you can bet the new jock will revert to any alternative that's worked before for the horse.

To my experience, many do this in complete ignorance of today's company and pace-outlook. In other words, a horse can loom lone speed, but if it has been folding lately, but has rallied successfully in the past, the new jock may WELL take back and squander a tactical advantage.

Riders see the form in a simplistic way and DELIGHT in switching up what the last guy attempted.

[Dan Montilion]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The unfortunate aspect of the race flow product in the DRF is that it wasn't explained and marketed properly to begin with so people like you still have no idea what it is, how to use it, where it was going, or why it's an extraordinary compliment to fractional analysis. That capped any effort to continue developing it further for public consumption.

Fortunately, that development continued privately according to Kenny's original spec and the additional inights gained from testing.

I can tell you with 100% certainty in it's present form it's better than anything in the puiblic domain at pre/post race race flow analysis and identying horses than are better than they look on paper or that have an especially good setup today.

Now it will never come public and handicappers will continue to be ridiculously wrong about some aspects of pace, some races, and never get the more refined data and understanding that prove it. Only a few people have access to it.

Let me know if i have this correct please. The race shape indicator in has been improved? Yet the inferior product is still included in DRF?

[VigorsTheGrey]

In the BRIS PP’s: they use E1 E2 / LP...

...so, for example, the number can be 70 85 / 93...Does this mean that the horse is moving through each quarter mile FASTER than the previous one, and that, therefore, this horse is accelerating continuously through each of these quarters...?

Whereas, if a horse shows an 70 85 / 60...that this horse, accerated, then really flagged the last quarter, right...?

Like wise, in TFUS Early / Late, if a horse shows a higher Late number say, 85 / 90 does that mean the horse is actually accelerating late, or is this involving some other metric here...?

[linrom1]

Total con job!

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Dan Montilion

Let me know if i have this correct please. The race shape indicator in has been improved? Yet the inferior product is still included in DRF?

DRF has nothing to do with the data, new metrics, or algorithms I am talking about. But it more or less is what that product might have become if work was continued on the race flow approach to analyzing races. It's not for sale or public consumption and never will be. It was developed privately from scratch.

[Dan Montilion]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

DRF has nothing to do with the data, new metrics, or algorithms I am talking about. But it more or less is what that product might have become if work was continued on the race flow approach to analyzing races. It's not for sale or public consumption and never will be. It was developed privately from scratch.

Thank you for the clarification.

[cj]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Like wise, in TFUS Early / Late, if a horse shows a higher Late number say, 85 / 90 does that mean the horse is actually accelerating late, or is this involving some other metric here...?

These are ratings, not times, so using terms like accelerating and decelerating don't really apply. That is pretty specific to individual races.

Sprinters on dirt, for example, will almost always have much higher early ratings than late ratings. Turf routers will be the opposite. Horses change surface and distance all the time so this is a way to compare them to each other. The early / late ratings aren't meant to be compared to each other. They are designed to be compared to the same rating of other horses in the field.

As you noted earlier, they aren't meant to be combined either. The ratings are combinations of other races and at times each will be looking at completely different races. I remember Monomoy Girl early in the year had some wins from well off the pace and also some from up front. The early rating was using the front running wins, the late rating the closing wins.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by cj

I remember Monomoy Girl early in the year had some wins from well off the pace and also some from up front. The early rating was using the front running wins, the late rating the closing wins.

Horses of this nature are rare, indeed...

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by cj

These are ratings, not times, so using terms like accelerating and decelerating don't really apply. That is pretty specific to individual races.

Sprinters on dirt, for example, will almost always have much higher early ratings than late ratings. Turf routers will be the opposite. Horses change surface and distance all the time so this is a way to compare them to each other. The early / late ratings aren't meant to be compared to each other. They are designed to be compared to the same rating of other horses in the field.

As you noted earlier, they aren't meant to be combined either. The ratings are combinations of other races and at times each will be looking at completely different races. I remember Monomoy Girl early in the year had some wins from well off the pace and also some from up front. The early rating was using the front running wins, the late rating the closing wins.

Really interesting comments here, cj...thank you...i’m learning a lot, or at least understanding now for sure that I really don’t understand the various ratings very well, which I think is kind of obvious by my questions...now I’ll take some time to regroup and digest all that has been said here by recent posters...

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Terribly unfortunate.

It's a terrible concept that should never been put in the pps to begin with. Hopefully that will be fixed at some point.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by the little guy

It's a terrible concept that should never been put in the pps to begin with. Hopefully that will be fixed at some point.

Is it terrible because it informs the reader that something “funky” was happening pacewise that favored speed or closers, but doesn’t really tell us what that something “funky” WAS, leaving the user to surmise various scenarios...? Or that it is just WRONG...?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by the little guy

It's a terrible concept that should never been put in the pps to begin with. Hopefully that will be fixed at some point.

You are so horribly clueless on the subject you should not be part of the discussion.

I could show you endless numbers of races where the fractions were extreme but when the horses came back and people upgraded or downgraded them based on those fractions they failed to improve or disappoint as expected.

I could also show you endless numbers of races that fell apart despite modest fractions or that were dominated on the front end despite fast fractions and the upgrades and downgrades that ignored the fractions were predictive. The commonality of this group is often the makeup of the field and what actually happened on the track that day (as opposed to what pace theory and fractions said happened or should have happened).

The makeup of the field, the fractions, the race development etc... are related, but the makeup of the field and actual development operate independently of the fractions and catch some of the inaccuracies in figures.

This is not an opinion.

I have tested this on thousands of races over multiple years using automated upgrades and downgrades to see how these horses do when they come back. With no handicapping at all the strongest upgrades were profitable and the strongest downgrades underperformed the track take significantly.

Please let me know when you find another "terrible" (or even "great") concept in any area of handicapping that works as well on automatic pilot without the benefit of handicapping.

If you want to argue that what's in the DRF now can be improved, I'd be with you all the way. That's exactly what I just said earlier in this thread. That's no different than when I argued years ago that synthetic speed figures were too low at the top and too high at the bottom and that turf figures had major problems.

Figure makers eventually figured out how to make them better years later. I'm sure they'll continue to do so. It's a process. Too bad the historical record and some strong opinions are so distorted though.

Point being that just because figures had (and still have) huge issues, that does not mean the entire concept of speed figures is bad and that we should remove that subjective information from the PPs. We should make valuable information better. And when we don't because people that have no idea what they are talking about or that have personal issues with the originator of the idea that info (Kenny Peck) trash it, that's unfortunate.

[the little guy]

I actually opened that post and my eyes started bleeding.

Anyone have a 50 word cliff notes version?

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

You are so horribly clueless on the subject you should not be part of the discussion.

Dude, what is your deal lately? Your posts have been a shade shy of horrendously boring lately, and now you come with this at TLG?.....I've chosen to not reply out of indifference in the past, but now you're on my radar as someone who needs a wake up call....Keep it up, you won't like it Sport, as I'll shoot straight fire at you...