Paceline Selection Algorithms

[headhawg]

Originally Posted by Light

Well his premise is wrong. You dont get free room and board at a racetrack for your horse.

Reread Driveway's post. I'm pretty sure that's not what he wrote nor what he implied. Then, when you have a moment of clarity reread my post stating that your response appeared to substantiate his.

And...what Tom said.

[Jeff P]

A while back I was putting together material for a handicapping seminar... The presentation itself is structured in such a way that it could be done as either a "light" 45-60 minute piece as part of a HANA event... or as a "heavy" full on data intensive 2-3 day JCapper seminar.

In my opinion, today's successful player needs to have reliable repeatable methods for:

1. Determining probability.

2. Determining value.

3. Play or pass decision making.

4. Backing an opinion to maximize returns.

5. Bet sizing/growing a bankroll.

6. Record keeping.

7. R&D/constantly working to improve each area of your game.

In addition, the ability to find better pricing helps.




So where does selecting pacelines fit into this?

I've spent a lot of R&D time over the years subjecting just about every method of selecting pacelines I could imagine to hard database testing.

Based on my own R&D using large data samples, I came to the conclusion that paceline selection isn't nearly as important as a lot of players think it is.

When I compared win rate and flat win bet roi of the BEST performing paceline selection methods I was able to produce vs. the worst performing paceline selection methods I was able to produce... the results kind of surprised me.

Provided that the same set of rules for picking lines was uniformly applied to every horse in every race... differences between the best and worst performing sets of paceline rules were surprisingly small.

Remember... this is a parimutuel game.

It makes perfect intuitive sense to use the most logical lines... recent ones that best match today's conditions.

But if everyone is drawn to the same lines... What do you think happens to the win mutuels of the horses possessing the lines that everyone is drawn to?

Maybe there are artists out there who are somehow drawn to lines that everyone else overlooks. I'm not saying it can't be done.

What I AM saying is that I spent considerable time evaluating paceline selection and came to the conclusion that selecting pacelines does not offer a magic bullet... at least not for me. For me, paceline selection is just one very tiny piece of the puzzle... one that can be incorporated into a much larger comprehensive selection process.

I actually use algorithms that rate and score every running line... and them roll the weighted scores together into multiple compound numbers that represent "ability from speed figs."

The factors used to represent "ability from speed figs" in turn become just one component (about 1/7th) of an overall selection process.

All that number crunching... Sounds complicated doesn't it?

Wait -- it gets worse.

The selection process itself is just one piece of the first required skill... Determining Probability.

There's actually a purpose behind all of the number crunching.

Simplicity.

In the end, algorithms in the software boil everything down to 1's and 0's... a precise Yes No decision about each horse:

1 = Yes = Good Bet = Play

0 = No = Bad Bet = Pass

That takes care of skills #1, #2, and #3 from the above list... freeing me up on race day to give focus to the other skills on my list.

Back to the point I'm trying to make.

When paceline selection is used as just one piece of a much larger comprehensive selection process, results from large data samples show that paceline selection doesn't have the ability to materially affect the quality of my Yes = Good Bet and No = Bad Bet decisions.


-jp

.

[DanG]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Based on my own R&D using large data samples, I came to the conclusion that paceline selection isn't nearly as important as a lot of players think it is.

Provided that the same set of rules for picking lines was uniformly applied to every horse in every race... differences between the best and worst performing sets of paceline rules were surprisingly small.

(#47) Not a good post…a GREAT post imo. Quoted a small section in the interest of bandwidth.

I couldn’t agree more in terms of the #1 priority concerning pace line selection is consistency. In terms of volume betting; ironically I would back the player who was consistently “wrong” (if there is such a thing) over the player who flew by the seat of their wallet picking lines. Paceline selection more then most areas of capping lends itself to being virtually 100% rule based.

Once your method of PL selection is established (and it may be very complex); it allows for further analysis….form, trip, competition level etc…but the initial pace line process that sets your software / paper and pencil in motion should be like a drum machine with one setting. It should provide the same beat…over and over.

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by DanG

(#47) Not a good post…a GREAT post imo. Quoted a small section in the interest of bandwidth.

I couldn’t agree more in terms of the #1 priority concerning pace line selection is consistency. In terms of volume betting; ironically I would back the player who was consistently “wrong” (if there is such a thing) over the player who flew by the seat of their wallet picking lines. Paceline selection more then most areas of capping lends itself to being virtually 100% rule based.

Once your method of PL selection is established (and it may be very complex); it allows for further analysis….form, trip, competition level etc…but the initial pace line process that sets your software / paper and pencil in motion should be like a drum machine with one setting. It should provide the same beat…over and over.

In this vein, I find that my handicapping adapts to the paceline selection I have. So, I think you're right. Being consistent in paceline selection lends itself to molding the rest of handicapping around the paceline method.

[headhawg]

Excellent post Jeff, and a little bit surprising especially the part about minimal differences between the best and worst performing paceline selection methods. I especially liked your concluding paragraph which is what I -- and likely many others -- had previously thought. It's nice to see an analysis done to confirm that though. Thanks.

[46zilzal]

Why use ONE paceline and have possible sample error? Horses that are good enough to consider today would have shown the same ability historically.

Pizzolla's form cycle window has shown this repeatedly

[headhawg]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

Why use ONE paceline and have possible sample error? Horses that are good enough to consider today would have shown the same ability historically.

Pizzolla's form cycle window has shown this repeatedly

Um...isn't the form cycle window intended to give rules (or perhaps guidelines is more correct) to find a single paceline to use? Are you saying that MP now prefers a multiple paceline/averaging(?) approach?

And I'm no statistics guru but there's no guarantee that using multiple lines is going to decrease that sampling error.

[Tom]

I think paceline is the most critical part of my handicapping. Using the wrong lines for pace based handicapping is disasterous. I can't agree with averaging line either - you end with something the horse never ran in reality.

[harntrox]

I compare the 2 most different approaches and get definite results:

Optimistic: use the horses last win within 120 days as the paceline
or
Pessimistic: use the last race (at any distance) that wasnt a win

No matter how different the paceline race was to todays conditions, you make the square peg fit in the round hole by normalizing everything to the current conditions. I believe this was the Brohammer approach, and is why some call this skill an art.

Then you are comparing an actual race that was run and basically linearly interpolating the positions of the fractions of the pace - (with all entries being modified consistently) - to fit todays race.

The other reason i like to use the 'optimistic' line is (imho) it shows the intent of the trainer. In that he obviously knows thats the best the horse can do, and if its entered into a race of this class, the trainer thinks he can win. The usual jockey, trainer patterns can then be used to decide if the horse can come back, usually at long odds if its been a few races since a win.

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by harntrox

I compare the 2 most different approaches and get definite results:

Optimistic: use the horses last win within 120 days as the paceline
or
Pessimistic: use the last race (at any distance) that wasnt a win

No matter how different the paceline race was to todays conditions, you make the square peg fit in the round hole by normalizing everything to the current conditions. I believe this was the Brohammer approach, and is why some call this skill an art.

Then you are comparing an actual race that was run and basically linearly interpolating the positions of the fractions of the pace - (with all entries being modified consistently) - to fit todays race.

The other reason i like to use the 'optimistic' line is (imho) it shows the intent of the trainer. In that he obviously knows thats the best the horse can do, and if its entered into a race of this class, the trainer thinks he can win. The usual jockey, trainer patterns can then be used to decide if the horse can come back, usually at long odds if its been a few races since a win.

Whew! I don't make that sort of assumption about a trainer! Trainers don't always place their horses to win, at least not from what I've seen.

Trying to compare different surfaces, for instance, is apples and oranges. For instance, horses without turf conformation are not likely to show their dirt ability on turf.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by ranchwest

In this vein, I find that my handicapping adapts to the paceline selection I have. So, I think you're right. Being consistent in paceline selection lends itself to molding the rest of handicapping around the paceline method.

This is exactly why I have an automated paceline selection system, consistency.

However, this is only the first step in finalizing the paceline selection. For instance, when the automated process selects an obviously bogus paceline, bells and whistles should go off in your head. If your automated process has been thoroughly analyzed and correctly programmed and it comes up with a bad paceline then you know immediately that, either there are no qualified pacelines (a good thing to know about the animal as it relates to his/her qualifications to run in today's race), or something you may not readily see, without digging deep, caused your thoroughly programmed process to pick that line for a reason (again, maybe you need to dig deep to see why, it may be exactly the paceline you should be using, for a variety of possible reasons).

The automated selection process only sets the base or the bar, you either accept it or raise or lower it.

But, the process forces consistency and lends itself well to providing a system of checks and balances, regarding your overall approach, if nothing else.

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by headhawg

Um...isn't the form cycle window intended to give rules (or perhaps guidelines is more correct) to find a single paceline to use? Are you saying that MP now prefers a multiple paceline/averaging(?) approach?

And I'm no statistics guru but there's no guarantee that using multiple lines is going to decrease that sampling error.

RULES? who follows rules?

[headhawg]

Computers do, 46. Computers. They don't do what you want them to do they only do what you tell them to do. They need rules. This thread is entitled Paceline Selection Algorithms. Try to stay on topic.

I also noticed that you didn't answer my reply. Are you going to bring up median energy here too? Never mind. I don't need to read your response.

[Warren Henry]

What is the best pace line to use, or which is the best way to calculate the actual ratings, or which method produces the BEST speed rating. Would it be blasphemy to suggest that IT DOESN'T MATTER. (Jeff may have been saying that). Tom speaks the truth when he says that some work one time and others work another. What does matter is which ones produce the BEST ROI.

I personally never used pace in picking my contenders. I only used pace to make sure that my overlay selection based on other factors wasn't going to be significantly disadvantaged by a likely pace scenario in the upcoming race. That I could usually do at a glance.

Today, everyone is caught up in pace and speed numbers, but there may be better value elsewhere. I am absolutely sure that on certain days (based on weather conditions), I can go to the track and use the old 6-2-1 purse analysis method and make more money than the best speed and pace players. That old method worked great in its day. The only reason it fell out of favor back then was that everyone ended up using it and the selections became the chalk.

All you have to do to make money at this game is have sound/consistent methods to select legitimate contenders that do not use the exact same stuff everyone else is using.

[Light]

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Haw 12/20 /09 Race #8 1 1/16



This horse went off at 4/5 and finished 5th of 8. Why? Because of poor paceline selection by the public. Every other horse in this field had at best low 70's speed ratings. The public incorrectly judges this horse like many do here without regard to present form or class as towering over this field with consistently high 70's speed ratings.

My paceline selection says this horse gets a 71 speed rating which fits in the middle of the pack with the rest of this field's speed ratings and is where she finished.You guys here would have disregarded the class factor, averaged her last several races and had her,like the public, towering over the field. The trainer dropped her to this new low level and she should have romped. Instead she ran the worst speed rating of the last 5 showing with no trouble in the race. This is not the same horse as she was when she won for 10K. Therefore using anything but that last paceline to evaluate this horse on a numbers basis would be wrong. And that's my only beef with paceline picking. I dont care if you average or not . Take 1 race or 10. But you must take races that are relevant to where the horse is at today.

This does not take skill nor an art. It's common sense. If a horse is running at a lower class,you cannot take his races from higher classes for paceline computations without probable error. Otherwise,if you think horses can run those figures from those higher class races you should claim the horses yourself and jump them up in class. Apparently no trainer or owner was dumb enough to claim Droplet with her "towering figs". This is the folly of mindless paceline averaging.