Bris Prime Power number

[Milleruszk]

Do any of the punters on this board pay attention to the Bris Prime Power rating? The info given out by Bris is that a horse that has the top Prime Power rating of 3 points higher than the any other horse will win 39% of the time; 6 points higher 46% of the time; 10 pts 55%! The Prime Power rating takes Bris Speed, Class, Pace, form, weight, distance are all combined by a computer algorithm into an rating.
I don't imagine you will find many 2-1 horses that 10+ points higher most of those 10+ horses will probably be 1-5. However, the Prime Power rating should occasionally point out horses that the public overlooks? Anybody track these? Thanks.

Tom

[JustMissed]

Miller, I posted this at the software area 12/10/03:

" Prime Power Strikes Again!!!
My last post got me curious so I am showing last nights results from the Mountain:

R1 #9 1st Prime Power paid 4.20

R2 #4 2nd Prime Power paid 3.60

R3 #2 1st Prime Power paid 4.40

R4 #7 1st Prime Power paid 7.00

R5 #3 1st Prime Power paid 6.20

R6 #4 6th Prime Power paid 25.20(ouch)

R7 #8 3rd Prime Power paid 26.40(way to go prime power)

R8 #8 4th Prime Power paid 36.40(way to go prime power)

R9 #4 4th Prime Power paid 11.00

R10#4 1st Prime Power paid 6.60

Of course this is a small sample but I have been using TSN Ultimate PP's w/Quick Play Comments for over a year and the prime power figures work pretty good. Tuesday night was foggy and muddy as it gets but the prime power top four horses won 9 out of 10 races. Not too shabby huh.

I won't comment any further except to say that if your current software isn't getting you the top 4 contenders that win 70-80% of the time then you probably got a filter or switch or something set wrong and probably need a checkup.

JustMissed"

Miller, You can see from the payoffs that Prime Power can put you on some good payouts.

I used to keep up with Prime Power success on a regular basis but after I was convinced of its power I stopped keeping track.

You should print off Bris/TSN pp's for a week or two of your favorite track and check it out. I bet you will find that the winner comes out of the top 4 Prime Power horses 70% or more.

If you are a throw out capper, start with one half the field plus one and throw out the lower Prime Power horses. That should give you about six to look at. Just throw out two more and you are probably looking at your win & place horses.

Let us know what you think.

JustMissed

[bettheoverlay]

I've used the Prime Powers as a guide for about 2 years. Its tough to make money on the top choice but if it is 4/1 or up I will give it a look. I usually concentrate on the 2nd and 3rd choice at 6/1 or better and occasionally look at the next 3 at 8/1 and up. I ignore the numerical gap between the horses although I have noticed a top horse with an advantage of 5 or more is dangerous to bet against. They usually pay $3.40 or so. Also the gaps are much larger in turf, maiden and stakes races.

I look for horses that have good recent form or good early pace #s mostly. I played Hollywood this weekend. The 2nd horse won the 10th on Saturday and payed $17.20. In Sundays 5th race I got real lucky with the 3rd horse who was in good form but never on the turf before. Payed $34.60 although 6/1 in morning line. In the 7th I hit the 3rd horse Unfurl the Flag, in good form, paid $23.60. I passed up the 3rd choice in the G1, a maiden off a layoff who payed $14.60. I also had a bunch of losers but it was a good weekend. They're not all like that unfortunately.

I do much better at the major tracks probably because I emphasize good recent form. The #s have simplified the handicapping process for me and simplicity (and finding overlays) is my goal.

[Derek2U]

hello Bet ... I think you're right in ignoring the numerical diffs
between the horses; the rankings are really what matters, even
though I'm NOT acquainted with your particular approach. The
reason 4 this is purely a math-measurement problem. Also,
because RANKINGS & NOT SCORES matter, going to the 2nd/3rd
choices for value makes great sense. In reality, the diffs between Top Rank & Others doesnt matter anyways. Hence,
is the Eventual Winner ranked among the top or not thats what
matters. In my approach, which finds plays in 6/10 races, the
Winner is right there among the top 3 ~~92%.

[bettheoverlay]

I neglected to mention in my original post that a few months ago I started downloading the DRF files into the PP Custom Generator that allow you to print the PPs in Prime Power ranking order. Has helped my focus for sure and hopefully caught a few more winners I might have passed up.

[nomadpat]

Just for kicks, I queried my CRC database to see the results of this question about the effectiveness of BRIS Prime Power. Here are the results:

All Dry Dirt Sprints: 868 races.

Horse ranked 1st win %: 31%.
Horse ranked 1st or 2nd win %: 52%.
Horse ranked 1st, 2nd or 3rd win %: 62%.

Let's add some profitability numbers to this:
Betting the top Prime Power resulted in a return of $1.60 for every $2.00 bet.
Second Prime Power choice returned $1.55.
Third Prime Power choice returned $1.40.

Non maiden dirt sprints: 451 races.
Horses with an advantage in Prime Power, listed by amount of edge, win %, ROI and ITM %. Number of horses listed in ()
1 - 33% winners, -20% ROI, 70% ITM (383)
2 - 33%, -21%, 71% (299)
3 - 35%, -19%, 75% (210)
4 - 38%, -19%, 74% (138)
5 - 42%, -15%, 79% (106)
6 - 49%, -6%, 81% (63)
7 - 49%, -12%, 81% (47)
8 - 41%, -29%, 76% (29)
9 - 39%, -33%, 74% (23)
10 - 50%, -16%, 79% (14)

The way to read the above is that in 451 races, there were 210 horses that had a 3 point edge in Prime Power. They won 35% of the time, for a -19% ROI and ran in the money 75% of the time.

Enjoy

[VetScratch]

Nomadpat,

Horse ranked 1st win %: 31%.

A rating like top Prime Power should be like best Beyer and other obvious positive factors... characterized by a very high Impact Value but unprofitable when played blindly in every race.

At 8.5 starters per race (about right for CRC), a win percentage of 31% yields an Impact Value of 2.64. This is a respectably high I.V. for any ranked data factor that is present in each race. For your 868 race sample (all dry dirt sprints), some winners must have been 1st-time-starters (without a rating), so the I.V. would need tweaking to measure precise impact among horses with ratings.

When I last looked at top Prime Power in about 4,500 races, it was about as valueless as the betting favorite... both returned a $2Net "around" $1.65, which is less than a randomly selected wager.

However, one virtue of Prime Power ratings is that they are available far in advance of the final odds which determine favoritism. This suggests that rather than focus on ordinal rankings for Prime Power, a computer study of Prime Power frequency distributions in the manner final odds have been studied postmortem may produce some financially useful findings... with the goal of identifying races with the greatest probability of offering attractive win payoffs and/or exotic payoffs.

[dav4463]

How does using the Prime Power number compare with using the Daily Racing Form consensus or any other public handicapper consensus? Has anyone ever done a study of the DRF consensus win percentage, profitable odds, etc. I know Mark Cramer did a study of the second or third consensus choice vs. the top choice as long as at least one handicapper picked the second or third consensus choice on top. I believe the second and third choices showed a profit at 4-1 and higher.

[JustMissed]

Nomad, You said:"The way to read the above is that in 451 races, there were 210 horses that had a 3 point edge in Prime Power. They won 35% of the time, for a -19% ROI and ran in the money 75% of the time."

You guys with data bases are dangerous.

All the other post above were about how players use Prime Power to select contenders and/or pass or play races and then you come along with your study doesn't mean squat.

Your study makes the FALSE assumption that a player would play every race in your sample. This just does not happen in the real world and you know it.

I'm sure your little test and post was for the purpose of discrediting Prime Power and its users and I'm sure you are like some other here who get a real kick out of typing "-19%".

JustMissed

[lsbets]

Nomadpat,

What I would be curious about is if you broke those horses down into odds ranges. I would imagine that a large number of them went off at less than even money, but what would the results be for horses over 1-1, 3-1, 4-1 (how many would even be 4-1 or higher). I would be curious as to the ROI for the horses with a 3 point edge as their odds get higher. That could be very useful information.

[BillW]

Originally posted by JustMissed
Nomad, You said:"The way to read the above is that in 451 races, there were 210 horses that had a 3 point edge in Prime Power. They won 35% of the time, for a -19% ROI and ran in the money 75% of the time."

You guys with data bases are dangerous.

All the other post above were about how players use Prime Power to select contenders and/or pass or play races and then you come along with your study doesn't mean squat.

Your study makes the FALSE assumption that a player would play every race in your sample. This just does not happen in the real world and you know it.

I'm sure your little test and post was for the purpose of discrediting Prime Power and its users and I'm sure you are like some other here who get a real kick out of typing "-19%".

JustMissed

JustMissed,

Are you dataphobic? nomadpat only posted data. Data by itself is harmless (i.e. it doesn't bite) if you came up with a conclusion you consider dangerous based on that data, don't shoot the messanger, examine your conclusion.

Bill

[JustMissed]

Bill, Nomadpat started his post with this"Just for kicks, I queried my CRC database to see the results of this question about the effectiveness of BRIS Prime Power. Here are the results:"

When he said "to see the results of this question about the effectivenss of BRIS Prime Power" I would expect to see his results show the 'effectiveness' of Prime Power.

The use of Prime Power does not result in a -19% ROI. I know it, you know and Nomadpat know it.

If you want to see the proper use of databases and the proper way to state results you should take a look at Ken Masas work over at the HRT sight.

Most of the so called DB studies and results I see posted here are most almost a negative to someone's attempt to be a winner player. In other words, they are as useless as tits on a boar.

JustMissed

[alysheba88]

Prime Power is the greatest. Never need to look at anything else. God's gift to handicapping. The Rosetta Stone. Will let you retire a millionaire.

That better?

[BillW]

Originally posted by JustMissed
Bill, Nomadpat started his post with this"Just for kicks, I queried my CRC database to see the results of this question about the effectiveness of BRIS Prime Power. Here are the results:"

When he said "to see the results of this question about the effectivenss of BRIS Prime Power" I would expect to see his results show the 'effectiveness' of Prime Power.

The use of Prime Power does not result in a -19% ROI. I know it, you know and Nomadpat know it.

If you want to see the proper use of databases and the proper way to state results you should take a look at Ken Masas work over at the HRT sight.

Most of the so called DB studies and results I see posted here are most almost a negative to someone's attempt to be a winner player. In other words, they are as useless as tits on a boar.

JustMissed

My point was that you were criticizing your own conclusion and jumping on nomad for it. Seemed weird to me.
While averages are difficult to derive any conclusion from other than results of blindly betting a single parameter, if by saying "The use of Prime Power does not result in a -19% ROI. I know it, you know and Nomadpat know it. " you are implying that betting the top prime power number on dry dirt at CRC across the board would produce a different results, you would be mistaken.

Bill

[VetScratch]

Alysheba88,

Prime Power is the greatest. Never need to look at anything else. God's gift to handicapping. The Rosetta Stone. Will let you retire a millionaire.

How true!

However, some handicappers do not know how Prime Power is actually derived or understand how to use it. This unfortunate circumstance dates back to the PBS radio broadcast of a mock debate over the meaning of entropy that pitted Von Neumann and Shannon against Epstein and Sengbush. Scholarly thespians were recruited to portray the principals through the course of pre-scripted debate authored by graduate students at MIT and presented before a live audience at the 1992 Conclave of Handicapping Beta Testers.

The pre-scripted debate concluded with Sengbush's formal explanation of a value-added derivative that he called Prime Power and with Epstein's demonstration of using Prime Power entropy calculations to produce expectation density profiles that often reveal positive expectation plays in races that correspond to specific entropy values computed from Prime Power ratings.

Unfortunately these astonishing discoveries were never presented or broadcast because the debate ended prematurely when it erupted into a wild melee resulting in several injuries and arrests. From the beginning, the thespian who portrayed Shannon had courted audience attention by balancing on a unicycle while juggling billiard balls. These theatrics infuriated the actor playing Sengbush, who finally jammed one of Sengbush's seismic instruments into the spokes of Shannon's unicycle, catapulting Shannon's character into the orchestra pit. A rampaging brawl ensued, and the handicapping world was denied exposure to the magic of Prime Power ratings.

Legend has it that the original debate script circulated in a secret MIT student society known as The Whales until 2001 when a copy inadvertently found its way onto the BetaTesters message board moderated by Jaguar. The rest of the story is well known... and some astute handicappers are living large as they accumulate their fortunes in Swiss bank accounts.