Is it possible that there are no real speed figs?

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by CincyHorseplayer

Reads more like an editorial on disenchantment with numbers Al? There are plenty of people who use no speed/pace figures. I know many who use trainer/pedigree information and that's it. Whatever works.

Cincy,

I'm in awe of those who can do pedigree/trainer. These usually are real horse people, not us guys playing with numbers.

Ciao

[illinoisbred]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Without giving away any secrets if you can, what do you project on, horse to field?

Pretty much the same as CJ stated in post #12. I project the individual horse off his/her previous efforts.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

That is a very interesting alternative approach. Thanks for sharing.

You should read Beyer's books. He goes over creating projection variants.

The major problem with projection variants is that they are subjective. They are only as good as the figure maker is at interpreting the results of races. That's why you see multiple competent figure makers disagree so often about the same race. Also, subtle little biases in thinking can cause your figures to drift faster or slower over time unless you have some way of anchoring them (which others would argue causes still other problems) .

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

You should read Beyer's books. He goes over creating projection variants.

The major problem with projection variants is that they are subjective. They are only as good as the figure maker is at interpreting the results of races. That's why you see multiple competent figure makers disagree so often about the same race. Also, subtle little biases in thinking can cause your figures to drift faster or slower over time unless you have some way of anchoring them (which others would argue causes still other problems) .

What he wrote about is a long, long way from what I do now.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by cj

You are comparing the times the horse runs to what the horse has run in the past. I look at each horse's last four races compared to what it ran today. So for each race card I can have hundreds of data points. I'm not comparing horse to horse, I'm comparing each horse to itself.

I think that's what thorograph does too.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

You are comparing the times the horse runs to what the horse has run in the past. I look at each horse's last four races compared to what it ran today. So for each race card I can have hundreds of data points. I'm not comparing horse to horse, I'm comparing each horse to itself.

Yes...but those four past races don't exist in a vacuum; their figures are determined, at least theoretically, by the four races that preceded THEM. And those four races were influenced by the four races that were run even EARLIER...and so on down the line. In order to compare the horse "against itself"...we have to form some sort of definition of the horse's "self", as it was BEFORE we could have four races at our disposal to base our assessment on.

How do we form a numerical opinion about a horse when it only has one or two prior starts...and we can't review its last four races in order to make up our mind?

[illinoisbred]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes...but those four past races don't exist in a vacuum; their figures are determined, at least theoretically, by the four races that preceded THEM. And those four races were influenced by the four races that were run even EARLIER...and so on down the line. In order to compare the horse "against itself"...we have to form some sort of definition of the horse's "self", as it was BEFORE we could have four races at our disposal to base our assessment on.

How do we form a numerical opinion about a horse when it only has one or two prior starts...and we can't review its last four races in order to make up our mind?

Just speaking for myself here... I don't make projections on very lightly raced young horses. I generally look at the older horses in the races before and after and strive to obtain the "best fit" off older established runners. There can be real havoc when a track runs 2,3 consecutive maiden races for 2,3 yr olds,particularly if you suspect the surface speed may have changed during the time interval.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by Capper Al

Cincy,

I'm in awe of those who can do pedigree/trainer. These usually are real horse people, not us guys playing with numbers.

Ciao

As a guy who looks at everything and I mean eeeeevvvveeeerrrryyyyytttthhhhhiiiinnnnggggg (pace figs, speed figs, ALL replays, sire stats, dam stats, dam's dam's stats. dam's sires stats, trainer intent, trainer %, track biases, j/tr tedencies, charts, competition of each horse in each race for all runner's last 5 races, betting patterns, etc.) I am SHOCKED that people out there actually only look at a couple of things and not everything.

[illinoisbred]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

As a guy who looks at everything and I mean eeeeevvvveeeerrrryyyyytttthhhhhiiiinnnnggggg (pace figs, speed figs, ALL replays, sire stats, dam stats, dam's dam's stats. dam's sires stats, trainer intent, trainer %, track biases, j/tr tedencies, charts, competition of each horse in each race for all runner's last 5 races, betting patterns, etc.) I am SHOCKED that people out there actually only look at a couple of things and not everything.

That might be jumping to conclusions. I'm pretty sure most competent figuremakers also use much other data in arriving at wagering decisions. Pace and speed figures are a tool..a big tool...the biggest wrench in the toolbox for many.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by illinoisbred

Just speaking for myself here... I don't make projections on very lightly raced young horses. I generally look at the older horses in the races before and after and strive to obtain the "best fit" off older established runners. There can be real havoc when a track runs 2,3 consecutive maiden races for 2,3 yr olds,particularly if you suspect the surface speed may have changed during the time interval.

It doesn't have to be a young horse. It could be a foreign older horse, coming to this country for the first time. Or a shipper from a "better" circuit, which finds the local stock much more to his liking, and improves dramatically in his local races. Or an old claimer who suddenly awakens...once getting claimed by a "miracle-working" trainer.

There are times when the past about a horse must be discarded...and we must begin anew in our grading of the horse. How do we progress in those cases where we DON'T have four relevant past races to rely on for our calculations? What do we use for a bench-mark then?

[Flysofree]

Is there a simple explanation, that even a slow learner like me can understand WHY times include "run up distances" and are not simply timed from the gate?

If it's a complicated math formula than that lets me out..

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

As a guy who looks at everything and I mean eeeeevvvveeeerrrryyyyytttthhhhhiiiinnnnggggg (pace figs, speed figs, ALL replays, sire stats, dam stats, dam's dam's stats. dam's sires stats, trainer intent, trainer %, track biases, j/tr tedencies, charts, competition of each horse in each race for all runner's last 5 races, betting patterns, etc.) I am SHOCKED that people out there actually only look at a couple of things and not everything.

I use trainer stats also, but couldn't play on only trainer/pedigree.

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by illinoisbred

That might be jumping to conclusions. I'm pretty sure most competent figuremakers also use much other data in arriving at wagering decisions. Pace and speed figures are a tool..a big tool...the biggest wrench in the toolbox for many.

Maybe I wasn't clear, my fault.

I wasn't saying that fig makers don't. I was replying to AL's comment about how certain players only use some tools and can't rely upon only a few tools.

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

You should read Beyer's books. He goes over creating projection variants.

The major problem with projection variants is that they are subjective. They are only as good as the figure maker is at interpreting the results of races. That's why you see multiple competent figure makers disagree so often about the same race. Also, subtle little biases in thinking can cause your figures to drift faster or slower over time unless you have some way of anchoring them (which others would argue causes still other problems) .

Can't say I remember his projection time. But might that still involve a daily variant?

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Flysofree

Is there a simple explanation, that even a slow learner like me can understand WHY times include "run up distances" and are not simply timed from the gate?

If it's a complicated math formula than that lets me out..

I believe it's just how they setup their tracks. They all set them up differently.