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

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


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 10-30-2018, 06:16 AM   #46
ARAZI91
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReplayRandall View Post
It's a "Brit" thing, CJ....They still think the US is ruled by the Queen.
As a Scotsman living in a city divided by the religious bigotry of the Green or the Blue of two football teams (soccer to you) and the nonsense that surrounds that , i could not give two hoots for The Queen(or the Pope for that matter) but i am well aware of who is currently ruling your Land at the moment Randall

Attached Images
File Type: jpg 887131_v9_ba.jpg (330.0 KB, 2 views)
ARAZI91 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-30-2018, 06:21 AM   #47
steveb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARAZI91 View Post
Was actually just reading their take on the Cox Plate there Steve. http://ww1.racingandsports.com.au/en...e-story-464580

saw that, but i think timeform and me have some philosophical differences.

not that that is bad, it takes all types, just that i prefer to do stuff my own ways.
well i guess that is past tense because i don't bet or do stuff for other people these days, i have found something that gives me greater satisfaction, even if not monetary.
i guess because i don't do it these days, is why i can shoot my mouth off speaking crap!

i talk ever more crap when i am pissed. so i have been pretty verbal on here today.
thank christ it's nearly bed time.
hopefully i will be better tomorrow, and will be able to do what i would rather.




i have been reading that rowlands thing on sections and straight away that first formula grabbed me.
did not make sense.
this one (100*T*d)/(D*t)
it's hard to visualise it until you go....
100(D/d)/(T/t)

.....which is the same thing but much easier to understand and visualise.
do you reckon its valid calc?
sensible?
one is time the other distance and never the twain shall meet!
i have a lot more to read yet, so hopefully i can pull it all together and maybe learn something.
sections are probably more interesting than overall because they explain everything that made the overall.
steveb is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-30-2018, 06:25 AM   #48
steveb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 900
gee ariz your last post had me laughing, maybe i best have one more before bed!
steveb is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-30-2018, 10:11 AM   #49
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveb View Post
i missed this first time around.
as regards your bit in bold...

i have no idea how beyer does it now.
i just have those books that he wrote in the long ago, that got me interested it time, when i was naysayer.
but i don't think you need to treat them(surfaces) differently, because.......
margins on dirt will be magnified more than turf and i can so no reason why the same would not be the case in your country.

thus the proportions would be the same.
it's no different to say fast turf one day, and heavy turf the next where the margins would be magnified.
you just need to keep the ratios right.


regarding the margin chart in 'picking winners' on pages 146 and 147 is basically where it is all wrong.....for several reasons.
beaten 6 lengths over 6f he says to deduct 15 speed points, over 1.5 miles the same 6 length you deduct 7 points(half as much), which is plainly silly.
but worse than that.....you deduct 15 points regardless of the race time, be it 69 or 74 seconds
ditto with the mile and half.
that is plainly wrong.
if one knew the conversion factor used at the track, then you would be better converting margin back to time and using that simple formula i posted earleir.
or if lucky enough to have the individual times, then forget margin and use the times.


as for turf and dirt races being paced differently, where it may be correct, it will be because dirt tires them faster than turf, and the proportions may well be different because of that.
but i don't think that is an overall time issue, you would just have differing optimums for pace, so it's more like a section issue in my point of view.
that's certainly how i would handle it anyway.
Deducting a fixed amount per length isn't a big deal here because the range of times doesn't vary all that much at different tracks. The differences will be small. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for being as accurate as possible, just saying it doesn't matter all that much here. That said, I do it your way.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-30-2018, 10:12 AM   #50
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARAZI91 View Post
Well aware of your position with TimeformUS CJ , just did not know how much common ground the UK/US methods share. Have a lot of respect for Rowlands and he has gave me many clues which after testing have came up true. Not all speed raters here use such methods and there are still some churning out Mordin type figures , with no regard to weight (nearly 70% of our races are handicaps lol) and using class pars and averages for standard times. There are even some who have tried to adapt some Brohammer type calculations for the All Weather tracks that have full sectionals.
Thanks, I wasn't sure since I saw you hadn't many posts and might be new. Thanks for your contributions.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-30-2018, 10:26 AM   #51
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveb View Post
that's interesting, was their any conflict in methodolgy between the two of you?

i have no idea of how good timeform(we have one in aust as you would know) is, because i have always done everything for myself, but weight is a fair whack of what they do isn't it?
i had always thought that in america they don't have as much emphasis on it.


EDIT: there not their!!! hiccup.
Conflict, not really, but certainly plenty of discussion. At the outset we still had the scale slanted too far towards Euros. I think there was some bias towards the UK horses on the other side of the pond.

It actually worked great as shippers kept coming over and would have 10+ point edges. The good news was they kept winning, the bad news was it was obviously too much of a spread. They weren't that much better. We adjusted a few times over that first year and got it where it should be. It is something we monitor constantly. I've found as turf racing has grown in importance here the gap has narrowed.

The two sticking points are the weight for age part of the ratings and Lasix in my opinion. We take the weight for age out of the Timeform ratings so as to be similar to our scale. Lasix is the wild card. I rarely ever use horses shipping in that don't get Lasix. Get burned every once in a while, but it has paid dividends with shorter priced horses over the years.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-30-2018, 03:54 PM   #52
Tom
The Voice of Reason!
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,467
Quote:
I feel that way only because I know I can play this game more efficiently with superior results by simply using objective information that’s up to the minute, and in point of fact takes everything about each race into consideration. The only decision that’s left is determining whether or not there’s enough value in the race to make it playable.
That's great, if you do, fine.
But stat your own thread and talk about it there. Don't screw up other threads on together methods where others want to talk about other ideas.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
Tom is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-30-2018, 04:13 PM   #53
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,528
I've looked at this kind of stuff to death as part of making class ratings. One interesting thing is that the average gap between 1st and 2nd is different than the average gap between 2nd and 3rd etc..

You also have to very careful when calculating these things to look at field size. There's a difference between finishing 5th in a 5 horse field and finishing 5th in a 14 horse field. The 5th in a 5 horse field may be a horse that was dramatically overmatched and eased once he was last whereas the 5th in 15 was probably still competing until the end for better positioning. So the average gap is different.

Ultimately, I wound up putting more weight on the finishing position than the lengths between horses because it produced better results and because the margins seem to be more dependent on the surface, how it's playing, the field size, and the race development than the finishing positions.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"

Last edited by classhandicapper; 10-30-2018 at 04:23 PM.
classhandicapper is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-30-2018, 04:59 PM   #54
bobphilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
Conflict, not really, but certainly plenty of discussion. At the outset we still had the scale slanted too far towards Euros. I think there was some bias towards the UK horses on the other side of the pond.

It actually worked great as shippers kept coming over and would have 10+ point edges. The good news was they kept winning, the bad news was it was obviously too much of a spread. They weren't that much better. We adjusted a few times over that first year and got it where it should be. It is something we monitor constantly. I've found as turf racing has grown in importance here the gap has narrowed.

The two sticking points are the weight for age part of the ratings and Lasix in my opinion. We take the weight for age out of the Timeform ratings so as to be similar to our scale. Lasix is the wild card. I rarely ever use horses shipping in that don't get Lasix. Get burned every once in a while, but it has paid dividends with shorter priced horses over the years.
Interesting, cj, and this may be just due to looking at too small a sample, but I find that the Timeform ratings for Euro races tend to be significantly lower than the TimeformUS ratings for the same horses that run in the US. This may be due to the Lasix effect but it seems to go beyond it. I know the ratings are on the same global scale but I'm wondering whether there is a difference in what the equivalent base ratings are. Has anyone else noticed this?
bobphilo is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-30-2018, 05:16 PM   #55
bobphilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARAZI91 View Post
As a Scotsman living in a city divided by the religious bigotry of the Green or the Blue of two football teams (soccer to you) and the nonsense that surrounds that , i could not give two hoots for The Queen(or the Pope for that matter) but i am well aware of who is currently ruling your Land at the moment Randall
Brilliant political commentary, though I know it's know it's frowned apart in this section of the board, but so true and clever none the less.

I take it you're from Glasgow are referring to the Celtic- Ranger rivalry. I would have thought it would have died down when the Rangers were relegated but apparently old wounds and hate die slowly.

Last edited by bobphilo; 10-30-2018 at 05:30 PM.
bobphilo is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-30-2018, 06:02 PM   #56
ARAZI91
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobphilo View Post
Brilliant political commentary, though I know it's know it's frowned apart in this section of the board, but so true and clever none the less.

I take it you're from Glasgow are referring to the Celtic- Ranger rivalry. I would have thought it would have died down when the Rangers were relegated but apparently old wounds and hate die slowly.
T'was only in jest Bob and a reaction to calling a Scotsman a "Brit" - I meant no harm

Yes, Glasgow for my sins , and no , the mindlessness still continues, although the danger levels have lowered now they have Social Media to vent.
ARAZI91 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-30-2018, 06:23 PM   #57
bobphilo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post
I've looked at this kind of stuff to death as part of making class ratings. One interesting thing is that the average gap between 1st and 2nd is different than the average gap between 2nd and 3rd etc..

You also have to very careful when calculating these things to look at field size. There's a difference between finishing 5th in a 5 horse field and finishing 5th in a 14 horse field. The 5th in a 5 horse field may be a horse that was dramatically overmatched and eased once he was last whereas the 5th in 15 was probably still competing until the end for better positioning. So the average gap is different.

Ultimately, I wound up putting more weight on the finishing position than the lengths between horses because it produced better results and because the margins seem to be more dependent on the surface, how it's playing, the field size, and the race development than the finishing positions.
Class,

I understand what you are saying about horses finishing hopelessly back and out of any purse money, but we are talking here about the difference between the top 2 finishers who are in contention for either 1st place or 2nd money. This also applies to 3 and 4 place finishers who are trying to get as much of the purse as possible.
I do agree that in many cases finish position may be of more importance than beaten lengths and you are correct in raising that issue. It is up to each handicapper to decide which measure is more important in each race situation.

Last edited by bobphilo; 10-30-2018 at 06:30 PM.
bobphilo is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-30-2018, 07:03 PM   #58
steveb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
Conflict, not really, but certainly plenty of discussion. At the outset we still had the scale slanted too far towards Euros. I think there was some bias towards the UK horses on the other side of the pond.

It actually worked great as shippers kept coming over and would have 10+ point edges. The good news was they kept winning, the bad news was it was obviously too much of a spread. They weren't that much better. We adjusted a few times over that first year and got it where it should be. It is something we monitor constantly. I've found as turf racing has grown in importance here the gap has narrowed.

The two sticking points are the weight for age part of the ratings and Lasix in my opinion. We take the weight for age out of the Timeform ratings so as to be similar to our scale. Lasix is the wild card. I rarely ever use horses shipping in that don't get Lasix. Get burned every once in a while, but it has paid dividends with shorter priced horses over the years.

that's a great answer thanks.
i was able to line all the countries up that i worked on, but that did not mean the numbers always transferred well because of travel and local conditions.
not sure how it would go now that stuff is happening way more as i am basically out of it these days.
steveb is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-30-2018, 07:08 PM   #59
ARAZI91
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveb View Post
as i am basically out of it these days.
On the Wine again... Steve ??.
ARAZI91 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 10-30-2018, 07:17 PM   #60
steveb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARAZI91 View Post
On the Wine again... Steve ??.

no, i have just come home from a 3 hour session in the pool, to atone for my sins of yesterday(and help my headache)!
i am actually a non-drinker, but every blue moon......
hope i did not talk to much nonsense!
steveb is online now   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 06:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- 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.