Power Number for MSW

[Tom]

I'm working on a program to calculate odds for MSW races.

My factors to start are:

1. Trainer
2. Jockey
3. Horse performance

To rank each, I am using a simple Fibonacci of 10-6-4-2 = 22
applied to the win % in BRIS Ultimate PPs as follows:


.0-10% 2
11-15% 4
16-20% 6
.>20% 10

[Tom]

I will use win % for trainer, jock, and horse that match today's conditions, hopefully 2-4, without double dipping as much as possible.

Here is the ML favorite in Saratoga's 1st race Thursday.

I will use some judgement on conditions to use. In this case, Todd's w% for 2021, Toga meeting. and MSW were all within 1% of each other, so it makes no diff, but his Toga number or his MSW number were lower, I would use the worse of the two along with his FTS stat, as that one the key.

[Tom]

The rest of the field looks like this...
1 - 10
2 - 07
3 - 6.8
4 - 7.6
5 - 04
6 - 4.5

[Tom]

Now, as far as the horse goes, I have the FTS w%, but that is not always in every race, and if other horses have run to par or better, the FTS has a tougher job to win. In the example race, nothing has run close to par, so the FTS stat is more important, the key imho.

So I will add this - for FTS horses, see how many horses have run to par previously.

1. if 0 horses have run to par, use the full FTS number
2. if 1 horse has run to par, deduct 1 point from the FTS number
3. if 2 or more have run to par, deduct 2 points from the FTS number.

For horses who are not FTS, the following Fibonacci ratings will be used:

10 - has run to par or better recently
6 - has run to within 4 points of par recently
4 - has not run within 4 points, but is showing improving SR, E2, or LP
2 - undecided specifically yet but I might split this into a 2 and a 0 group,
and put the terrible form as 0's and use 2 for things like a good work,
patterns, like speed, fade, middle moves, favorable pace...

[Tom]

I'd like to hear some opinions on the power number.
Should I use it as is or make three ratings, one for trainer, jockey, and horse, and weight them for a power number?

[Mulerider]

That sounds like it will be more accurate than my crude FTS method, which is to add the trainer's FTS win % and the jockey's FTS win % (indicated on Bris Ult. PPs as N/A running style). If the sum of those two numbers is 25 or greater, then I'm interested. But so is the public, usually.

[FakeNameChanged]

Originally Posted by Tom

Now, as far as the horse goes, I have the FTS w%, but that is not always in every race, and if other horses have run to par or better, the FTS has a tougher job to win. In the example race, nothing has run close to par, so the FTS stat is more important, the key imho.

So I will add this - for FTS horses, see how many horses have run to par previously.

1. if 0 horses have run to par, use the full FTS number
2. if 1 horse has run to par, deduct 1 point from the FTS number
3. if 2 or more have run to par, deduct 2 points from the FTS number.

For horses who are not FTS, the following Fibonacci ratings will be used:

10 - has run to par or better recently
6 - has run to within 4 points of par recently
4 - has not run within 4 points, but is showing improving SR, E2, or LP
2 - undecided specifically yet but I might split this into a 2 and a 0 group,
and put the terrible form as 0's and use 2 for things like a good work,
patterns, like speed, fade, middle moves, favorable pace...

Tom, what about in the case of ties or closely matched power numbers, you add any unusual or high early betting to break ties? I've found with maidens, that sometimes the word gets out amongst insiders, and they don't wait to bet late. This only applies if you're playing live during the betting cycle, and not pick and pray bets.

[Mick]

Originally Posted by Tom

Now, as far as the horse goes, I have the FTS w%, but that is not always in every race, and if other horses have run to par or better, the FTS has a tougher job to win. In the example race, nothing has run close to par, so the FTS stat is more important, the key imho.

So I will add this - for FTS horses, see how many horses have run to par previously.

1. if 0 horses have run to par, use the full FTS number
2. if 1 horse has run to par, deduct 1 point from the FTS number
3. if 2 or more have run to par, deduct 2 points from the FTS number.

For horses who are not FTS, the following Fibonacci ratings will be used:

10 - has run to par or better recently
6 - has run to within 4 points of par recently
4 - has not run within 4 points, but is showing improving SR, E2, or LP
2 - undecided specifically yet but I might split this into a 2 and a 0 group,
and put the terrible form as 0's and use 2 for things like a good work,
patterns, like speed, fade, middle moves, favorable pace...

The example you have there are 4 FTS, how do you rate FTS horse performance?

To me, a horse with a race has an experience advantage and may have better fitness (having to really work, instead of work out). In fact, I've seen MSW where many FTS are facing a horse with 3 or more races and scored with non-winners but the more experienced and fit horse wins.

A horse with a race isn't always fittest, so I watch videos where possible or listen to analysts like Maggie W, to tell me what they see. I am trying to develop my own eye for that aspect of racing.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by FakeNameChanged

Tom, what about in the case of ties or closely matched power numbers, you add any unusual or high early betting to break ties? I've found with maidens, that sometimes the word gets out amongst insiders, and they don't wait to bet late. This only applies if you're playing live during the betting cycle, and not pick and pray bets.

No ties, I will end up with a betting line to use to decide who to bet.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Mick

The example you have there are 4 FTS, how do you rate FTS horse performance?

To me, a horse with a race has an experience advantage and may have better fitness (having to really work, instead of work out). In fact, I've seen MSW where many FTS are facing a horse with 3 or more races and scored with non-winners but the more experienced and fit horse wins.

A horse with a race isn't always fittest, so I watch videos where possible or listen to analysts like Maggie W, to tell me what they see. I am trying to develop my own eye for that aspect of racing.

The procedure allows for that. It ends up with an odds line to clarify the risk

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Tom

The rest of the field looks like this...
1 - 10
2 - 07
3 - 6.8
4 - 7.6
5 - 04
6 - 4.5

OK, I made an error - I did not give points for the actual races of the two horses who had run before, so here is the revised work of the race.
There was a clear gap in this race, with the top 4 getting about 80% of the points, so I used Steve Fierro's 4-horse odds charts to make line. As you can see, the was a clear overlay, and the a slight one.
I always bet real money on test plays, and when odds are 9-2 or higher, I bet
1 unit win and 3 units place, so my bet was:

2w6p
2w6p
Total bet $16
Returned $79.10

Exactly what I am looking for.
Last night, doing "eye ball" handicapping, my picks were the and
I had tunnel with Todd's impressive stats coupled with Johnny V's stats.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by Tom

I'd like to hear some opinions on the power number.
Should I use it as is or make three ratings, one for trainer, jockey, and horse, and weight them for a power number?

Imo, one way to know is to:

1. Compile your numbers - as is - as well as making three ratings, one for trainer, jockey, and horse, and weighting them with an eye towards making your own power number.

2. Setup a database containing both horse past performance attributes and chart results attributes.

3. Populate the database with a recent 45 days or so of races.

4. Analyze what you have.

5. Experiment with the weightings/numbers a bit and repeat steps 1-4 (above) a few times.

After a while you should have some very good ideas about how best to proceed.



-jp

.