Comments

  • Question on your Percentages and Probabilities Tables etc for 2022
    I was just curious Dave, if you were updating this for 2024, otherwise the 2022 version, does it come with all the updated evaluations?.

    No Updates.
    It is very labor intensive, so perhaps every 8-10 years.

    Secondly, On another part of the blog here, I had asked when or hope to release the determinator.

    Still working hard on it.
    There is an old saying: "Being a programmer means never having to say you're finished."

    Always seems to be a month away.
    Getting close to demo time.
    Remember that the AI is completely written.

    Thirdly, Will it allow for the user to have input or say in any of the handicapping process?

    Absolutely!
    In fact, there is far more than there is in HSH.

    Also, all 3,000+ factors are ranks, too.

    It is not designed as a black box, although that's what a few people want.

    It is designed to give you a true INFORMATIONAL ADVANTAGE.
    That is, information that nobody has - not even the whales.

    For example, consider Quirin's Early Speed Points.
    Across all races, the top-ranked ES horse runs within a length of the lead at the first call 56.4% of the time.

    I tasked the AI to create a new factor to better that. It considered 800 BILLION combinations and combined 2 factors together that raised that to 65%!

    It added roughly 75 new factors to the system. I've only vetted a few because it is a lot of work. Those new factors all need to be vetted and named. So, for the first few months after release, there will be factor upgrades.
  • Going through some of the conversations and the different methods
    I see it as two different steps.

    1. Build TRACK pars.
    That is, how fast is the TRACK across usable class levels?

    2. Build Class Levels
    That is, what speed does a class level usually run two across all usable distances?

    One THINKS it is only about #1 but the two work together.

    As your pars improve, so will your class levels.
    Then your class levels improve your pars.

    If you are trying to build a class par for each class/distance, it simply doesn't work.
  • Merry Christmas Sale - Now Thru December 24th
    Here's a special code for purchasing HSH that will get you 75% off thru 12/24.

    Chr23-HSH

    Direct Link to HSH in the Pace Makes the Race store.
  • Which Tracks Are Most Handicapable?
    A function of field size and perhaps the style of track in terms of angle, i.e. like Hastings in B.C. is like a bull ring.Charles Lucas

    Surprisingly, not a function of field size except with the tiny tracks (i.e. TIL, SAL, etc.)

    But at those tracks, top trainers dominate so strongly that everything points to them anyway (i.e. speed, top jockeys, pedigree, etc.)

    Yes, pedigree.
    It's a sleeper factor I found and it matters in cheap claimers for OLDER horses!.
  • Going through some of the conversations and the different methods
    Thank you for the rewrite.
    __________________
    I'd definitely be in Python, if I were I not writing commercial software.
    It's an excellent FREE tool with a lot of FREE resources.
    The stumbling block for me is that there is no real way to protect the software or the code.

    I'd never consider Java. Just too slow.
    I do all my coding in a language called Clarion. I've been using the language since 1993.

    It is a 4GL, and is very expensive. The core language is a couple of Thousand dollars and the 3rd-party libraries bring the tab to around $6k.
    __________________
    If you are not enamored to BIG DATA, I would suggest that you learn Excel.
    • I mean, really learn.
    • Take a simple online course that gets you up to speed.
    • Figure out what you to accomplish.
    • The hard part is getting data in and populating other sheets within the file.
    • Take another course when you need to learn something.
    __________________
    HSH does not allow you to build custom databases. It does, however, allow you to FILTER the database about 15 ways from Sunday. (That 16th way will be the one you want.)

    There are roughly 3,800 factors for every horse, so there is a lot there.
    But it is a very intense program.
    Very flexible, but not the same as writing code.
    __________________
    Finally, we get to the good stuff!
    m6w6qf1lr3czz8vn.png

    I really tried to use BRIS as an import but the data just isn't robust enough. Plus, the speed, pace and class numbers are just not as good as what I'm used to.

    Then, of course, there is the issue of the way they want to compensate the developer. LOL

    But let's move on from all that.
    __________________
    Yes, I credited my wife in my software for the first time.

    She's been my whiteboard partner for so almost 3 decades. But in the last 2 or 3 years, I have seen Beth's intellect just go ballistic! (There is a logical reason for that's for another day.)

    While Beth does not write code, she actually understands my whiteboarding. As I explain things to her, I am working through issues and problems - usually starting on a very base level.

    She actually helped me design the Artificial Intelligence within the software.
    __________________
    About the deTerminator...
    It Determinates. LOL

    It is not about picks... although it does make good ones.

    It's real goal is to provide something that everybody wishes they had but nobody actually has:
    an INFORMATIONAL ADVANTAGE

    It does this by allowing the user to have information:
    • Nobody else has (by inventing its own factors).
    • The whales wouldn't use (because it doesn't fit their approach).
    • Produces a killer artificial morning line.
    • Calibrates who the whales are likely to be.

    It's coming and it will rock the world.

    Intro price will be $79 per month plus $100 per month to HDW for unlimited data.
  • I was wondering, small brain thought on a new method in terms of a Breeding handicapping number
    Yes, there are some pedigree stats.

    However, one of the best quotes I've ever heard about pedigree came from Jim Cramer of HDW.

    "I've never found a single pedigree factor that performs as well as the morning line."

    Our stats would indicate that to be true.
  • Going through some of the conversations and the different methods
    I'm sorry, but that post is just indecipherable to me.

    Perhaps you'd consider some paragraphs?
  • Track Pars
    I extrapolate the class levels for every distance.

    Reasoning:
    Obviously, they can't be built distance-by-distance for each class because there just aren't enough races.

    Example: A track might run 30 class levels across 14 distances. Some class levels will never run some distances.


    There are some kinds of races that I do not offer class level info for.
    Examples
    • Starter Races
    • Optional Claiming

    Reasoning:
    These races are just all over the place.

    Starter races are very dependent upon the horses on the grounds this year and they are generally far different than last year.

    OC races come in 2 extreme varieties:
    • Lots of horses entered for a tag
    • Lots of horses NOT entered for a tag
  • Dave Your Class Par
    Secondly, I realize that you do not do things for free, I was curious how much would you charge me create a daily racing form past performance template from the daily racing form and a brisnet pp template. It is for my own recreation ..just

    Chuck (remember I am the guy struggling not working) ... P.S.When do you plan on releasing your new software

    I get a few requests like that every year.
    You just have no idea the magnitude of effort involved.

    Not so long ago I fellow wrote to me asking the same question, offering me $500.

    Even adding a zero to that is not enough to make it worth my effort.
  • Dave Your Class Par
    Can I ask how you came up with your Class Table #Charles Lucas
    Good class numbers come from good par times.
    Good par times come from good class numbers.
    They work together.

    I have my own very sophisticated software to do this. While it is somewhat automated, every track-surface-distance is hand-crafted. (Yes, it is a joy to do.)

    Stabilizing Pars and Classes
    1. For class levels, I grab a year of races at one track across all distances. (But only dirt races.)

    2. I have the software create all the pars based upon the most recent levels.
    It does this in about 20 seconds.

    3. Then I lock in the pars.
    (This is not the final job; just temporary.

    4. Then, using these pars, I have it assign levels to all the classes.
    (Again, this is not the final job; just temporary.

    5. There is an indicator of the change in $10k claimers. (Or some other class that is closest to $10k.)

    I note the amount of the change.
    What I want is for that error to be shrinking.
    If it gets larger, there is a problem either in some classes or some pars that must be corrected before making good levels or good pars.



    I repeat steps 2 thru 5 until the number stops changing.

    Making the final Class Levels
    1. I look at the classes and see where they are out of whack.
    Each type of race is done by itself.

    2. Always begin with the most common class type.
    Place them and lock them in.
    Make the others fit in.
    Imagine you have a solid $18k level of 103.8 and a $12k level of 101.9.
    You've got a $15k with only one race that indicates it ran like $22k.

    Don't agonize.
    Just put it between 101.9 and 103.8.
    Averagae = 102.85.

    3. Do this for all types and all levels.

    4. Don't bother with OCs or Starters. They are just too volatile from year to year and race to race.

    5. After all the class levels are set, look at the $10k claimer.
    Adjust it by as much as necessary (up or down) to make it a "100.00."

    6. Adjust all the other classes by the same amount.


    Next, you build the actual par times.
    1. Again, start with the most commonly run sprint distances.
    Here's the real challenge for you.

    It may take you 3 or 4 seasons to get your classes right, so just start with the class types you have confidence in. Logically, claiming races for older males.

    (On that topic, females are an adjustment. Don't try to make specific pars for them. You'll find they're all over the place.)

    Make your pars by taking all the races that fit (i.e. clm, older males, fast tracks).

    2. Weight each race based upon where the winner first challenged for the lead.
    Currently, I use this weighting system:
    • 9 for 1st call
    • 5 for 2nd call
    • 2 for stretch call
    • 1 for finish

    Races that run late are just naturally going to be slower. Way slower sometimes.

    Build a par for all the sprints that you have enough races to assess.

    3. Determine the Track's "Pattern."
    Quirin had a nice table in his book where he outline how tracks we typified by A-B-C, etc. with each letter representing a pattern.

    It's up to you to decide what pattern should be used for sprints and routes at each track.

    You do this once you have at least 2 sprint distances.

    4. After you have those, fill in the others in the order of how many races or where they fit.

    Make sure they match the pattern.

    5. Follow the same process for routes.

    THAT'S IT.

    If this seems like too much, just buy my pars. :)
    (They come with several different CSV formats.)

    2023 HorseStreet Par Times
  • Track Variant Dave
    Just to be clear, about what I said elsewhere, I am saying that every attempt I ever did to make a computational daily variant failed badly when compared with using simple ratings derived from par for the track.

    As most are aware, the Average Daily Variant is flawed, simply because the horses that run on Wednesday are (as a general rule) not as strong as those who run on Saturday.

    The logic has typically been to apply an adjustment to each day of the week.

    However, even that fails because not all Saturdays are the same caliber of races.


    The solution would be to build a Strength of Field Rating for every single race, and then address the issue on a daily basis, asking the question, "How strong was this day?"

    However, the challenge is not over there because the very definition of the fast/slow-ness of each race is in question.

    This is best evidenced is found in the improvement of my own par times.
    A little over a decade ago I committed to LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENT in my par making.

    I designed something I called The Speed Reliability Index. (SRI)

    Year over year I began making changes.

    The first thing I noticed was that the *1ST CHALLENGE CALL of the eventual winner of a race made a huge difference in the final time.

    IOW, winners that challenged for the lead at the 1st call resulted in faster final times than winners that did not get their heads within a length of the leader at the stretch call.

    Of course, this is all very logical.

    When a horse is on the lead wire-to-wire the time will be faster than when he's (say) 8 lengths back at the first call.

    I began weighting the races in the sample using a 4-3-2-1 approach.
    That is, races where the winner of the race mounted their 1st challenge at the 1st call were weighted at "4," while winners who did not get within 1 length until the last fraction were weighted as a "1."


    The improvement was both immediate and drastic.
    So much so that each year I changed the weightings to even heavier weighting of the EARLIER CHALLENGERS.

    It went from 4-3-2-1 to the current 9-5-2-1!

    On a higher level, the impact of this change can be seen in our internal Flagship Rating, simply called "RTG" in our software.

    Note that RTG is a "Composite Factor;" a combination of 32 other factors, many of which are Composites themselves.

    Speed Ratings make up the biggest part of RTG.
    ___
    Think of RTG as being like the BRIS PRIME POWER rating, as well as HDW's PSR and CPW (an older version of PSR).

    Back when I started, PSR, CPW and BRIS PP, were all hitting about 29-30% winners on the top ranked horse. (Now about 31%.)

    RTG was at 24.6%.
    Today, RTG stands at slightly over 31%, with the highest return of the 4 listed numbers. (That's because it does not correlate with the tote quite as much as the other numbers.)


    So, what do you do?
    The answer seems to lay in weighting each race by the running style of the winner.

    But even that has problems.
    It is simply difficult to look at a day with 8 races on the card:
    4 sprints
    2 routes
    1 4f race
    1 turf race

    And make a viable daily variant.

    Add the complexity of maiden races, first-time-starter races, off-track for the 1st few races... and a myriad of other complications... and you have a system that is ripe for over-inflating or under-inflating the races.
    _____________
    [SIZE="4"]That is why every test I have ever done leads me to NO VARIANT as the best approach.[/SIZE]



    * 1ST CHALLENGE CALL must be credited to Jim Cramer, the great mind behind HDW's ratings.
  • Track Variant Dave
    Can't say they aren't worthwhile, but I've only been exposed to the average daily variant approach and every study I have ever done has shown that using a par without a daily variant works better.

    Actually FAR better.

    Now, just to be clear, I am not a guy who would put time into building a real, race-by-race variant that is dependent upon the true skill of the variant maker. I give honor to such people.

    If you are that person... making an estimate of what each horse could do and comparing each to the other, considering post position, jockey impact (both good and bad), trips, and all the other complications, I am humbled by your skill.

    If you try that and they don't work well, then I honor your effort.

    But, alas, too much for me.
  • Artificial Intelligence: Questions they should answer
    Really great questions.
    ________________
    I did a little reading on "Agents" in AI". "Each of the 8 Agents has their own approach to the game". Is each approach somewhat predetermined by the AI programming?Jim Pommier

    The goal of the AI engine is to develop a system that allows each agent to become their own person, so to speak.

    Imagine you're going to teach...
    ... a brand new horse player how to handicap. What do you teach him?
    • You teach what you know and believe.
    • This becomes his own personal starting point.
    • He will begin with the factors you gave and proceed from there.
    While he can - and most certainly will - eventually change how he handicaps, his roots will always be in his beginnings.

    Will one Agent look at say Pace Shape while another looks at FTS's? Then each one builds from their experience in their particular approach? One agent may like horse #1, while another may like horses #2 and #3?

    This is a very simplistic way to explain exactly how it works.

    ____________________
    For example-- "Is there a vulnerable favorite in this race? Which horses' figure to improve or digress? Will only some Agents review and respond to the question, while other Agents do not based on their AI approach to handicapping? Thanks.

    Again, precisely right.

    There is one significant difference between HUMAN handicappers and AI AGENTS:
    While humans are dedicated to improvement, there is a natural tendency to want to continue doing what they are doing now.

    To some degree, we just naturally defend our current approach and resist changing it beyond minor improvements.

    Agents are not encumbered by such complications.

    HOWEVER, the will always be trapped (to some degree) relatively near their starting points; their POINT OF ORIGIN.

    ____________________
    I've designed the 8 agents with HANDICAPPING PERSONALITIES that will have VERY GOOD HIGH contender hit rates.

    There is one such agent whose approach will likely have the very highest contender hit rate. However, he will have a difficult time hitting price horses.

    Each agent's tendency will be to stay somewhat close to his roots in contender selection, but his (or her) actual handicapping is completely free form in the sense that they have ALMOST ALL of the 3,000+ factors available to them.
  • Artificial Intelligence: Questions they should answer
    Knowing that there's a vulnerable favorite, I can then pass the race or look at other entriesJim Pommier
    Yes, this is valuable information.

    Also, does the AI take into consideration the trainer/jockey win and ITM percentage, class rating, earnings per start and the actual horse's win and ITM percentage?Jim Pommier

    It considers just about EVERYTHING.

    Of course, it doesn't actually USE everything in every race.

    BTW, there isn't actually ONE AI.

    They are called AGENTS and there are 8 of them.

    Each has their own approach to the game. You can select as many as 5 to be active in any given race.
  • Saratoga 2023
    Yes, @RanchWest - take care.
  • Need some help with NOTE TAKING
    That's a big step towards understanding what people want and could use.
    Thank you.

    I'm trying to design something that allows for almost free-form notes.

    I think that the key is to have them readily available - so you don't have to go looking.
  • Need some help with NOTE TAKING
    Do you keep the notes?