beyond complexity ?

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Nitro

Finally, some rational thinking about a nonsensical approach to find some sort of plausible meaning by just comparing past running lines.

These type of questionable parameters just prove one thing: How far will someone go to create an argument with Logical Fallacies. By definition: Are deceptive or false arguments that may seem stronger than they actually are due to psychological persuasion but are proven wrong with reasoning and further examination. These mistakes in reasoning typically consist of an argument and a premise that does not support the conclusion.

Lest I sounded critical, a simple test of validity - with very little work - would be a single question? IS IT WORKING?


Cool colors, BTW.

______
PS: Grammar guys - was my usage of the word "lest" correct?




.

[denniswilliams]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Lest I sounded critical, a simple test of validity - with very little work - would be a single question? IS IT WORKING?


Cool colors, BTW.

______
PS: Grammar guys - was my usage of the word "lest" correct?




.

Dave

It's interesting how these guys are so defensive about their methods.

Not like I'm selling anything, I'm just asking for suggestions.

Please enlighten me as to how I can identify cases such as these with 'very little work'.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by Nitro

Finally, some rational thinking about a nonsensical approach to find some sort of plausible meaning by just comparing past running lines.

These type of questionable parameters just prove one thing: How far will someone go to create an argument with Logical Fallacies. By definition: Are deceptive or false arguments that may seem stronger than they actually are due to psychological persuasion but are proven wrong with reasoning and further examination. These mistakes in reasoning typically consist of an argument and a premise that does not support the conclusion.

If you model the rankings at various points of the race, then you can glean valuable information.
That other ways may yield better results, does not make it any less valid.

[MJC922]

As a trip handicapper if I looked at that chart I would want to watch the replay and focus on the 3rd horse as it did some things that were unusual relative to its competition. It may turn out to be a very live horse to watch or even claim if you're into that aspect. When I gambled full time most of my major bets were on horses that I 'followed' because while race watching I had identified in those horses what I believed to be hidden ability and made an effort to understand some of their preferences. A horse that runs third but with an easier trip should've won is another horse that I might follow. A horse second or third off the layoff that flashes speed in some segment against a race flow I might follow, a horse however that does it but visually does it under a ride while others are in hand I might decide not to follow. So it's not just mechanical, there's a subtlety involved that doesn't show on paper, there's more still that I would be looking at but no point in commenting further. There's a lot of nuance involved with trip handicapping and the result charts do capture some of what goes on. All of the data being offered up and processed comes out of the charts and good result chart analysis can point to some live horses to at least follow up on. Does it work is a good question to ask, that's best answered by consistent annual positive ROI. Simply put if it didn't work we wouldn't be trip handicapping.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by steveb

If you model the rankings at various points of the race, then you can glean valuable information.
That other ways may yield better results, does not make it any less valid.

So, apparently you support the absurd concept that viewing the running lines of a previous race without consideration for any other race related factors will lead to drawing better conclusions when contemplating a future race? The only basic validity this has is that you know that the race has already been run, and where each of the entries were located at various points on the track. Now trying to assume that these running lines will in some incredible way provide “valuable” information pertinent to a future racing event for any of the entries previously involved is bizarre at best.

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Lest I sounded critical, a simple test of validity - with very little work - would be a single question? IS IT WORKING?

I would like to see anyone test the "validity" of how viewing just the previous running lines of ANY race will lead to the successful predictions of a future event. The question of “Is it Working” isn’t the answer regarding “complexity, but any astoundingly positive results would fall into the realm of the supernatural.
.
.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by Nitro

So, apparently you support the absurd concept that viewing the running lines of a previous race without consideration for any other race related factors will lead to drawing better conclusions when contemplating a future race? The only basic validity this has is that you know that the race has already been run, and where each of the entries were located at various points on the track. Now trying to assume that these running lines will in some incredible way provide “valuable” information pertinent to a future racing event for any of the entries previously involved is bizarre at best...

He never said without consideration for any other race related factors.

Originally Posted by steveb

If you model the rankings at various points of the race, then you can glean valuable information.
That other ways may yield better results, does not make it any less valid.

Having done it I'm pretty sure it's worthwhile to create algorithms that score running line data (positional calls, beaten lengths, gain or loss between calls, etc.), normalize the scores - and create running line factors from the normalized scores.

Then include some of your running line factors in a fundamental model - with many other factors.

Benter wrote about doing this (with time decayed positional calls) in one of his presentations.

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

It's not enough to win, so I'd say not.

And the calcs are monstrous for someone using paper & pencil.

But your point is not too far off in the sense that doing what everyone else is doing isn't enough.

I used to think that meant "do something different."

Now I believe it means "do more." That is, add another step of analysis.

The way it often works (but not always you have to test it) if you add something new to an already decent fundamental model --

For example factors based on positional calls data --

And provided the existing model doesn't have anything in it with a strong correlation to what you just added:

You tend to get a small incremental improvement in the performance of the resulting new model vs. the old model.



-jp
.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by Nitro

So, apparently you support the absurd concept that viewing the running lines of a previous race without consideration for any other race related factors will lead to drawing better conclusions when contemplating a future race? The only basic validity this has is that you know that the race has already been run, and where each of the entries were located at various points on the track. Now trying to assume that these running lines will in some incredible way provide “valuable” information pertinent to a future racing event for any of the entries previously involved is bizarre at best.

I would like to see anyone test the "validity" of how viewing just the previous running lines of ANY race will lead to the successful predictions of a future event. The question of “Is it Working” isn’t the answer regarding “complexity, but any astoundingly positive results would fall into the realm of the supernatural.
.
.

Looks like I'm not the only that likes a drop or twenty of wine!
I have stuck up for you in the past, as far as your tote stuff goes, but now it's pretty obvious with this post, that you are not as smart as you think are.

[Dave Schwartz]

Apparently the phrase, "Is it working?" was not clear.

If you are winning with what you are doing then it is working.

And by "IT," I mean the sum total of all that you do.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Apparently the phrase, "Is it working?" was not clear.

If you are winning with what you are doing then it is working.

And by "IT," I mean the sum total of all that you do.

even if you are not winning, but losing less than the rake, then you are doing better than most.
nobody is going to be winning with ranking alone, but it can be a useful piece of the puzzle, especially if normalised and recency weighted.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by steveb

even if you are not winning, but losing less than the rake, then you are doing better than most.
nobody is going to be winning with ranking alone, but it can be a useful piece of the puzzle, especially if normalised and recency weighted.

Unfounded statements like the bolded part do not help.

It may be so in your world - using your particular modeling techniques - but that does not make it a UNIVERSAL TRUTH.

I would hold that:

• Most of the world's handicappers use ranks.
• The ultimate goal is to analyze and take advantage of the mistakes of the "pool collective."
• Therefore, ranks are quite viable.

Of course there are factors in racing that are better addressed in an analog fashion, but dismissing all ordinals out of hand only indicates that you have a strong belief/bias towards your way of seeing things.

The way it often works (but not always you have to test it) if you add something new to an already decent fundamental model --

For example factors based on positional calls data --

And provided the existing model doesn't have anything in it with a strong correlation to what you just added:

You tend to get a small incremental improvement in the performance of the resulting new model vs. the old model.

Absolutely!
Incremental improvement is the key.

[steveb]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Unfounded statements like the bolded part do not help.

It may be so in your world - using your particular modeling techniques - but that does not make it a UNIVERSAL TRUTH.

I would hold that:

• Most of the world's handicappers use ranks.
• The ultimate goal is to analyze and take advantage of the mistakes of the "pool collective."
• Therefore, ranks are quite viable.

Of course there are factors in racing that are better addressed in an analog fashion, but dismissing all ordinals out of hand only indicates that you have a strong belief/bias towards your way of seeing things.





Absolutely!
Incremental improvement is the key.

Viable and useful yes; but I will stick to my opinion that nobody is going to be profitable with rankings as their ONLY factor.
And why would it be, when with basic data you could get many more viable factors to add to the whole?



Normalised and recency weighted throws up coefficients of .19 for me in HK, so yes, it is a strong factor, but why stick with .19 when higher can be had?

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by steveb

Viable and useful yes; but I will stick to my opinion that nobody is going to be profitable with rankings as their ONLY factor.
And why would it be, when with basic data you could get many more viable factors to add to the whole?

Normalised and recency weighted throws up coefficients of .19 for me in HK, so yes, it is a strong factor, but why stick with .19 when higher can be had?

I do not have a horse in the race named "Convince SteveB to Agree With Me Stakes."

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

How can the positional line of the horses mean anything without referencing the pace fractions of the race?

In a definitive sense it means nothing.

Assuming it of quality, then it is its own separate model.

Then you have to consider the relatedness of these in any other significant factors, and you have to consider the effects of the relayaness related nest.
I quit voice to text is. Ruin me

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by MJC922

As a trip handicapper if I looked at that chart I would want to watch the replay and focus on the 3rd horse as it did some things that were unusual relative to its competition. It may turn out to be a very live horse to watch or even claim if you're into that aspect. When I gambled full time most of my major bets were on horses that I 'followed' because while race watching I had identified in those horses what I believed to be hidden ability and made an effort to understand some of their preferences. A horse that runs third but with an easier trip should've won is another horse that I might follow. A horse second or third off the layoff that flashes speed in some segment against a race flow I might follow, a horse however that does it but visually does it under a ride while others are in hand I might decide not to follow. So it's not just mechanical, there's a subtlety involved that doesn't show on paper, there's more still that I would be looking at but no point in commenting further. There's a lot of nuance involved with trip handicapping and the result charts do capture some of what goes on. All of the data being offered up and processed comes out of the charts and good result chart analysis can point to some live horses to at least follow up on. Does it work is a good question to ask, that's best answered by consistent annual positive ROI. Simply put if it didn't work we wouldn't be trip handicapping.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by denniswilliams

Say I have a race positional running line as follows (an actual 1400M race @ Sha Tin):

8 8 8 1
7 7 4 2
1 3 1 3
9 9 9 4
12 12 10 5
6 6 5 6
11 11 12 7
4 4 2 8
2 2 6 9
3 5 3 10
10 10 11 11
5 1 7 12

I can measure the 'complexity' of the race (the level of positional changes) using a formula but it won't 'reveal' that the horse that finished 3rd ran the best race given the setup. A huge race, in fact.

Obviously, I can look at the chart for the race and see this. And more broadly, that pace horses did not fare well.

But perhaps there's a way to automate this and not have to do as much work. Or maybe train a model to do the work for me.

Any ideas?

I suddenly understand what you are asking for.

I am doing exactly what you are asking.

The first step is to analyze the chart systematically. You can apparently already do that.

In my case the chart/race flow will be described on a scale between of -2 (extremely front flowing) to +2 (extremely closer flowing). That means between 1-2 standard deviations away from average for that distance and surface in either direction. The averages were calculated separately and set to zero.

I then systematically look for the extreme races in either direction and systematically identify horses that either ran well against the grain (potential upgrades) or ran well with the grain (potentially downgrades) with a set of rules. There are slightly different upgrade/downgrade rules depending on how extreme the flow was measured to be.

On race day, I run a report and it gives me list of all the upgrades and downgrades running on that day (track and race). So when I handicap I can go straight to the races where I may have a play.

Your example race would probably be identified with a closer flow. The horse that finished 3rd would be picked up as an upgrade and couple of others would be downgraded and reported to me when they race back. After that it's going to be a subjective handicapping process as to whether I want to play someone back or key against them or how much better/worse a horse ran than it looks on paper.