Making your own speed figs? It's multi-dimensional now or bust!

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Actually, I disagree. I believe A ran the better race.

My reasoning is that horses who run faster early times are supposed to run faster final times. The fact that horse A ran 4 ticks slower means he should have wound up with a slower final time.

We could add endless complications as to how the race developed, how the track was playing, how many horses were battling etc... It misses the point I was making.

Horse A might be the typical mid pack closer. (I don't think the example pace I used was so slow as to impact his time negatively, but it doesn't matter).

Horse B might be the typical front runner. (I think that pace was fast enough that it wasn't the most efficient set of fractions and took a little out of him, but it doesn't matter).

The point is that ANY TIME you adjust a rating up for pace, you are assuming the horse will run more efficiently next time. But a lot of inefficient sets of fractions are running style related. So you could be upgrading a horse that's going to do the same exact thing next time. If so, that won't help you pick winners.

That's always been my problem with using segment analysis of the type that Clem is recommending. IMO, in theory, he is correct. You should look at each segment individually and have a formula that adjusts the rating in a way that he is recommending (I have no idea what his formula is or what the correct formula should be). In practice, there are problems with that approach.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Actually, I disagree. I believe A ran the better race.

My reasoning is that horses who run faster early times are supposed to run faster final times. The fact that horse A ran 4 ticks slower means he should have wound up with a slower final time.

A horse who runs faster early expends energy reserves at a faster rate than the horse who is running slower early...and this rapid depletion of energy reserves always takes its toll during the latter parts of the race. The faster early the horse goes, the slower it will run in the end. And if it runs TOO fast...it may not even finish the race.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by Cratos

The main productive function of the racehorse is work.

Therefore the conversion of chemically bound energy (energy from food/medications) is by work (speed) into mechanical energy for the horse's muscular movement.

However the effect of the horse's speed on the horse's energy use does not appear to be linear.

Sorry, but I need some clarifications..
What do you mean by: work (speed) ? Are you referring to the kinetic energy of the horse? The way you are use the parenthesis is confusing as it implies that speed is another name for work..

What do you mean by However the effect of the horse's speed on the horse's energy use does not appear to be linear. ??

Obviously the horse's speed is not linear to the kinetic energy (E = (1/2) m v**2)

but how you define the horse's energy ??? This is not clear to me... Αt any point during the race a horse has a specific kinetic energy and the total energy consumed during a race depends on the maze of the horse, the distance or the race, the various frictions applied... None of these though represent the energy of the horse... The energy spent by any horse completing a race, will be very close (minor differences might occur due to differences on distance or friction), so I cannot really see how this info can be used for handicapping purposes.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Sorry, but I need some clarifications..
What do you mean by: work (speed) ? Are you referring to the kinetic energy of the horse? The way you are use the parenthesis is confusing as it implies that speed is another name for work..

What do you mean by However the effect of the horse's speed on the horse's energy use does not appear to be linear. ??

Obviously the horse's speed is not linear to the kinetic energy (E = (1/2) m v**2)

but how you define the horse's energy ??? This is not clear to me... Αt any point during the race a horse has a specific kinetic energy and the total energy consumed during a race depends on the maze of the horse, the distance or the race, the various frictions applied... None of these though represent the energy of the horse... The energy spent by any horse I completing a race, will be very close (minor differences might occur due to differences on distance or friction), so I cannot really see how this info can be used for handicapping purposes.

I meant that when speed is exerted by the horse it is by its work. Obviously work and speed is not the same definitionally, but work is needed to obtain speed.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

We could add endless complications as to how the race developed, how the track was playing, how many horses were battling etc... It misses the point I was making.

Horse A might be the typical mid pack closer. (I don't think the example pace I used was so slow as to impact his time negatively, but it doesn't matter).

Horse B might be the typical front runner. (I think that pace was fast enough that it wasn't the most efficient set of fractions and took a little out of him, but it doesn't matter).

The point is that ANY TIME you adjust a rating up for pace, you are assuming the horse will run more efficiently next time. But a lot of inefficient sets of fractions are running style related. So you could be upgrading a horse that's going to do the same exact thing next time. If so, that won't help you pick winners.

That's always been my problem with using segment analysis of the type that Clem is recommending. IMO, in theory, he is correct. You should look at each segment individually and have a formula that adjusts the rating in a way that he is recommending (I have no idea what his formula is or what the correct formula should be). In practice, there are problems with that approach.

Let's assume that both horses that you describe have run their last race in accordance with their true racing potential, and let's visualize those perfomances...while assuming that they both competed in the same last race:

Horse B takes the lead out of the gate, and, not only increases his lead to 4 lengths after the first quarter...but EXTENDS the lead to 5 lengths at the half. Horse A closes 5 lengths down the stretch...and they dead-heat for the win.

The two horses meet again next week. Whom do we bet?

To me...horse B holds a pace advantage, not during one, but during TWO of the race fractions...and that's huge to me. All things being equal, I would bet on horse B next time. The only two things that would dissuade me would be an abundance of early speed in the subsequent race...or a racetrack favorable to closers next time, rare though this might be.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by Cratos

but work is needed to obtain speed.

Correct, if you mean to overcome the energy loss due to friction... Still, I do not understand how energy can be used for handicapping reasons...

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

It's game of what works for you.

Exactly. There are a lot of nine-dollar-words describing it (I am particularly fond of Weick's term, "sensemaking") but your description works every bit as well.

[Magister Ludi]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Obviously the horse's speed is not linear to the kinetic energy (E = (1/2) m v**2)

The energy spent by any horse completing a race, will be very close (minor differences might occur due to differences on distance or friction), so I cannot really see how this info can be used for handicapping purposes.

Because equine conversion efficiency of metabolic energy to kinetic energy is about 25%, E = 2mv^2.

It is possible to create a profitable model from an in-depth bioenergetic input-output analysis of thoroughbred racehorses. The dearth of information on the subject is rife with error. An accurate trading model of the aforementioned type would add new information to the pari-mutuel odds.

However, though I've created an accurate model of this type, I don't incorporate the information in my trading algo. I've found that it's far more profitable to handicap handicappers than it is to handicap horses.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Magister Ludi

I've found that it's far more profitable to handicap handicappers than it is to handicap horses.

Are you charting tote board changes?

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Magister Ludi

Because equine conversion efficiency of metabolic energy to kinetic energy is about 25%, E = 2mv^2.

It is possible to create a profitable model from an in-depth bioenergetic input-output analysis of thoroughbred racehorses. The dearth of information on the subject is rife with error. An accurate trading model of the aforementioned type would add new information to the pari-mutuel odds.

However, though I've created an accurate model of this type, I don't incorporate the information in my trading algo. I've found that it's far more profitable to handicap handicappers than it is to handicap horses.

Well said.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by Magister Ludi

Because equine conversion efficiency of metabolic energy to kinetic energy is about 25%, E = 2mv^2.

References??

[Magister Ludi]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

References??

I believe that I read it in a paper co-authored by P.E. diPrampero. I don't remember which one.

[Cratos]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Correct, if you mean to overcome the energy loss due to friction... Still, I do not understand how energy can be used for handicapping reasons...

There are many studies and position papers about energy costs/horse's stride which understanding would probably be useful for handicapping, but getting into that would move the discussion away from the thesis of this thread.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by traynor

Exactly. There are a lot of nine-dollar-words describing it (I am particularly fond of Weick's term, "sensemaking") but your description works every bit as well.

Yep, whatever we do must pass in testing or it's no good no matter what the theory is. We are touching on a similar argument here with the pace boys. I agree with the concepts of energy spent. Yet this discussion was about speed, and final speed still ranks my number one factor for hit rate. So where does that leave pace?

[clemkadiddle]

Originally Posted by Magister Ludi

Over the same distance, a horse running 56.2 f/s expends approximately 4% more energy than a horse running 51.2 f/s, not 100% more.

Using "simple" algebra...but you won't win any races with that calculation.