Modeling
 

As far as modeling goes what should we be doing, is the brohamer model still a viable option, anyone that is modeling I would love your thoughts on what you are doing. Any help at a is greafull

Thanks
Gia

Model
 

Like most things a track model is as helpful as the things you put into it.
I started out my model as a traditional Brohamer model
It still is the base.
Over time my model has changed, not that I stopped and made a new model, Its that I have added some other factors,and stopped keeping track of rankings.

I model what the winner of the race needs . I model by the exact distance, surface age/sex and class. I only have a model for Parx

In my model I can not tell you things like "my#1 EPR is winner 85% of sprints"
There are ways to model that will tell you things like that.

I can tell things like the total energy, early / late requirements and position
winners need to have within certain parameters at each distance, surface and competition level,

I started out keeping a traditional Brohamer model. Over time I changed the factors but the base is still,
What are the winning horses(or place,show) doing at the track you model

I maintain the standard Brohamer model and it works well for me. I'm a believer in keeping it simple. I have added vdc and csr to the model recently.

Bill and lt1


When you model the winner are you modeling the result chart of the winner or the info from the pp line you used if you picked the winning horse?

It's the PP line. All based on your capping. I personally use the excel file that RDSS will generate. It's one of the best features of RDSS, IMO.

Mod
 

So for modeling purpose if you did have the winner in as one of your top 5 say you wouldn't go back and add it to add to the model, only what winners you might have picked?

Both
 

I am sure the export RDSS feature is satisfactory, However I don't use it.

I don't believe anybody would follow the method I use.
I would rather just say judge for yourself, If you read all the follow ups
you will see the pros and cons of both modeling methods

You asked which do I use ?

I use a combination of the result charts and the pace lines

Its very time consuming. I do it all with hand entry. It takes me about 20 minutes per race to do all the calculations and adjustments, It takes me about 1/2 hour every morning to do the preliminary data entry. Then it takes me about 10 -15 minutes after the results are posted to finish each winners model.

But I only model 1 track = Parx

I know this is the teaching area, I would rather not go into big detail
of how I make my model because its very much my own method.

Yet its base is the Brohamer model and the model from the book
Pace Makes The Race

I use the pace line I chose. I only add the winners in my top if. If I don't have it in the top 5 I don't add it. I do however go back to see if I missed something.

Mod
 

Bill

No I understand, what I mean is I can see how we model the pp, but how do you model the result chart, is a simple way to just take model the winner and use the chart times and length behind to come up with the numbers!

Gia,

Just to establish terminology - let's use 'model' when we mean a Decision Model (or Brohamer Model) which is constructed using the paceline from the PPs you used to represent the horse (e.g. on the RDSS Analysis screens).

And let's use the term 'Profile' to mean info drawn from the Result Chart of the winner of a race (you didn't have this info before the race).

I've seen Bill's Profile/Model - it is a hybrid of the 2.

Your question - if you organize your Analysis screens on a consistent, recurring basis so that there are 5 horses in the Primary section (and the rest are in the Secondary- or Non-Contenders section - OR, are eliminated altogether, which I would not recommend), then the Export to Excel will show rankings for various factors based on a consistent 5 horses (and not 14, or 7, or 11, or varying field sizes, etc).

If you downgraded the Winner to Secondary (or eliminated it) - you should still include it in your model. You need that race to include in your total count in your Model, otherwise your model inaccurately over-represents the impact value of factors. You may have 8 of 10 winners at 6f at Sartin Downs top 5 in 'Factor OatsPeasBeans' or 80% but if you didn't include 3 winners who were ranked worse than 5th, the measurement is really 8 of 13 (62%).

The new Model Template provided (MasterTemplate2), calculates % for a given rank factor in Ranks 1 - 4, Top 2 and Ranks 5 or worse. You need to include your horses who finished 5th or worse to give these models meaning.

The rank of 5th or worse may mean that that winner truly ranks like that on a given factor, OR often it means that you misjudged an appropriate paceline, OR that the race was rather inscrutable (FTS, Foreign horse with no rankings, lightly raced horse trying something new - just 'popped up' today), etc.

Above all, you should try to develop a consistent set of line selection methods, so your models of the past are meaningful for future races. Over time, you can analyse your '5th and worse' ranks to see if they tell you something - such as, paceline inconsistencies, certain types of races, times of the year, age groups, race conditions, etc.

HTH,

Ted