• Hi Guest Just in case you were not aware I wanted to highlight that you can now get a free 7 day trial of Horseracebase here.
    We have a lot of members who are existing users of Horseracebase so help is always available if needed, as well as dedicated section of the fourm here.
    Best Wishes
    AR

Dynamic Methodology

H

Horsenberg

Yearling
Hi guys..... I've been experimenting with a different approach and I'm going to give it a go by testing it out on here. As the title of the thread suggests the theory is based upon dynamic values that change if the nature of the race changes between the time I run the race on the PC in the morning and the time the race is off. Consequently it will be difficult to put them up any sooner than just a few minutes before the race. So in the case of non runners which appear to be ridiculously frequent these days, I have to run the race again after deleting the runner and that's when the fun starts as the screen can change and races that didn't have a selection now get one, occasionally two, and races that had a selection before can lose it or even replace the original pick with a completely different one. Before I got into this I just used to change my odds expectation accordingly depending upon the position of the withdrawn horse in the market same as everyone else does. Now I'm not so sure..... it all appears to depend upon the characteristics of the horse that gets withdrawn as to what happens next.

It works for Turf, AW and jumps handicaps. I'm still experimenting with non handicaps but completely unexposed horses are difficult to work with. I'll be posting five minutes before the off which I know is a downer but for now it's probably the best way to go.
 
Horsenberg said:
Hi guys..... I've been experimenting with a different approach and I'm going to give it a go by testing it out on here. As the title of the thread suggests the theory is based upon dynamic values that change if the nature of the race changes between the time I run the race on the PC in the morning and the time the race is off. Consequently it will be difficult to put them up any sooner than just a few minutes before the race. So in the case of non runners which appear to be ridiculously frequent these days, I have to run the race again after deleting the runner and that's when the fun starts as the screen can change and races that didn't have a selection now get one, occasionally two, and races that had a selection before can lose it or even replace the original pick with a completely different one. Before I got into this I just used to change my odds expectation accordingly depending upon the position of the withdrawn horse in the market same as everyone else does. Now I'm not so sure..... it all appears to depend upon the characteristics of the horse that gets withdrawn as to what happens next.

It works for Turf, AW and jumps handicaps. I'm still experimenting with non handicaps but completely unexposed horses are difficult to work with. I'll be posting five minutes before the off which I know is a downer but for now it's probably the best way to go.
Click to expand...

what kind of dynamic values?
 
12.40 Gustavian UR
1.35 No Anxiety L
2.40 Elimay 2nd
2.50 Nietzsche 2nd
3.40 Henksche F
0/5 -5 pts. Not a great start. The unseat and a faller didn't help but that's jumps racing.
 
pawras said:
what kind of dynamic values?
Click to expand...
Didn't have a lot of time this morning to go into any detail but it's not so much the ratings that are dynamic themselves it's just that the program I've created to support them has biases built in to weight them depending upon the race conditions variables such as course characteristics, distance and number of runners etc etc. I import the ratings from the database and then the machine adjusts them in accordance with which ratings are the most relevant for the track and race conditions from similar races run over the past five years. So for example if the track has a bias toward front runners and those that like to race prominently then the pace ratings will be weighted more heavily to reflect that, but as the number of runners falls so does the bias toward horses that like to be up with the pace. A similar thing can be said for the speed ratings although again it all depends upon the track as speed ratings don't always follow pace when you compare different tracks. On a track such as Newcastle AW where pace makes little difference to the outcome the pace ratings will likely remain unaltered. There are about a dozen different adjusted variables taken into account although they don't all apply to every race type (Turf, AW & Jumps), but they all seem to interact with each other which is why the selection keeps changing when you start taking horses out and running it again with a different number of runners. The final selection is made on the basis of the highest scoring horse across the board after all the adjusted ratings have been taken in to account.

It seems to find winners at all odds although I've only been playing with it in the live sense for a couple of weeks now but it dropped a 32.9 winner in at Wolverhampton of all places last week, so I'm tempted not to apply any odds filters at least for the time being until I get a feel for what to expect. From what I've seen so far nine runner fields are its limit as it seems to plateau somewhere around 10 maybe 11 runner fields and from there on it's all down hill so I'm aware of its limitations. I don't know for sure but I think the noise factor within the ratings just gets so great the accuracy is compromised but TBH on days like today and in the summer when the evening meets get busy it would be difficult to do so many races anyway.
 
Although I've decided not to apply any odds filters for now I won't be taking any of them at odds on to win so thought I ought to make that clear. I will be scoring them at Betfair SP as is no point getting involved with bookies when your not backing early. Got three for later with the first in the Naas 1.35 so back soon.
 
H Horsenberg ,

may I ask why "pace doesn't matter at Newcastle", please?

I've watched racing from there all afternoon - even though I hate the track - and, my conclusion was that "pace" is the crucial factor in winning. :)
 
That said, I don't really know what pace is; but, I take it to mean going at the right speed in the right place and at the right time.

I'm wide open for dynamic destruction on this. It's very interesting, even if I don't know what it is.
 
Sandhog said:
H Horsenberg ,

may I ask why "pace doesn't matter at Newcastle", please?

I've watched racing from there all afternoon - even though I hate the track - and, my conclusion was that "pace" is the crucial factor in winning. :)
Click to expand...
When you look at the stats for pace ratings, at some courses you find that the winners are relatively evenly distributed down the list of pace rankings. Newcastle is one of these tracks so pace ratings are not something that would be prioritised by means of a bias, but Lingfield by comparison has a very strong tendency to favour horses that are up with the pace so a horses position on the pace chart needs to be taken much more seriously. Obviously one days action is a very small sample to apply to determine as to whether something is the case or not so I set it up to take the bias value from the past five years racing classified by numbers of runners as smaller fields are generally less likely to provide a strong pace even on tracks that are suited to a strong pace.
 
Horsenberg said:
When you look at the stats for pace ratings, at some courses you find that the winners are relatively evenly distributed down the list of pace rankings. Newcastle is one of these tracks so pace ratings are not something that would be prioritised by means of a bias, but Lingfield by comparison has a very strong tendency to favour horses that are up with the pace so a horses position on the pace chart needs to be taken much more seriously. Obviously one days action is a very small sample to apply to determine as to whether something is the case or not so I set it up to take the bias value from the past five years racing classified by numbers of runners as smaller fields are generally less likely to provide a strong pace even on tracks that are suited to a strong pace.
Click to expand...
Obviously you have looked at stats and I have never bothered but it’s funny the impression you get from watching and betting in-running , I always had Lingfield down as one of the tracks where you are most likely to have one finish wide and late to pip the front runners. That is assuming you are talking about the AW track.
 
Sandhog said:
That said, I don't really know what pace is; but, I take it to mean going at the right speed in the right place and at the right time.

I'm wide open for dynamic destruction on this. It's very interesting, even if I don't know what it is.
Click to expand...
That's ok Sand I'd rather people ask than just assume something to be correct. We are all on here to learn and the only way to do that is question. When people talk about being 'up with the pace' they generally mean that a horse is being allowed to race prominently with the leader(s). When they say 'setting the pace' they are saying that the horse is being allowed to dictate the speed the race is run at and is usually applied to front runners. Obviously the horse that's setting the pace has the luxury of giving itself the advantage of the race being run at a pace that suits itself which is why on certain tracks well ridden front runners can take advantage of this.
 
Horsenberg said:
Didn't have a lot of time this morning to go into any detail but it's not so much the ratings that are dynamic themselves it's just that the program I've created to support them has biases built in to weight them depending upon the race conditions variables such as course characteristics, distance and number of runners etc etc. I import the ratings from the database and then the machine adjusts them in accordance with which ratings are the most relevant for the track and race conditions from similar races run over the past five years. So for example if the track has a bias toward front runners and those that like to race prominently then the pace ratings will be weighted more heavily to reflect that, but as the number of runners falls so does the bias toward horses that like to be up with the pace. A similar thing can be said for the speed ratings although again it all depends upon the track as speed ratings don't always follow pace when you compare different tracks. On a track such as Newcastle AW where pace makes little difference to the outcome the pace ratings will likely remain unaltered. There are about a dozen different adjusted variables taken into account although they don't all apply to every race type (Turf, AW & Jumps), but they all seem to interact with each other which is why the selection keeps changing when you start taking horses out and running it again with a different number of runners. The final selection is made on the basis of the highest scoring horse across the board after all the adjusted ratings have been taken in to account.

It seems to find winners at all odds although I've only been playing with it in the live sense for a couple of weeks now but it dropped a 32.9 winner in at Wolverhampton of all places last week, so I'm tempted not to apply any odds filters at least for the time being until I get a feel for what to expect. From what I've seen so far nine runner fields are its limit as it seems to plateau somewhere around 10 maybe 11 runner fields and from there on it's all down hill so I'm aware of its limitations. I don't know for sure but I think the noise factor within the ratings just gets so great the accuracy is compromised but TBH on days like today and in the summer when the evening meets get busy it would be difficult to do so many races anyway.
Click to expand...

interesting, what technology have you built the software in?

have you back tested your weightings? if so over what sort of time frame/size of dataset?
 
Thank you, H Horsenberg and O Outlander for the replies.
Do we think Newcastle favours front-runners?

I've heard that it does, but, I'm not convinced myself. I note a lot of jockeys going too early with their effort, and, about the same number, hanging back and doing next to nothing throughout the race.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top