Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin
Content Analysis
 Wizard Forum : Content Analysis
Subject Topic: Consistency Bonuses Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Wenona
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 01 August 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Posted: 01 August 2003 at 4:56pm | IP Logged Quote Wenona

I have been using the Wizard for many years, and the hardest thing I have found to deal with is the inclusion in the ratings figures of large consistency bonuses. I actually rang many years ago and was told it was not possible to get the criteria and bonuses used. I therefore spent about three years working out what I thought were the bonuses used through direct comparisons of runners who raced against each other.

The reason I did this is because I find the adjustments used for consistency in the Wizard ratings (up to +4kgs) to be far beyond any adjustements I would use in my own analysis.

I think it would be very helpfull to disclose the adjustments used for consistency so that people analysing a race can make adjustments to reflect their own opinion.

For the record my calculation of the adjustments used in the Wizard ratings (standardised to the lowest being +0) are as follows:

HORSES THAT HAVE HAD 13 STARTS OR MORE:
Win% - Consistency Bonus
0-4 : Zero Bonus
5-9 : +.5Kg
10-14 : +1.5kg     
15-29 : +2.5kg
30-39 : +3kg
40-49 : +3.5kg
50 and above +4kg

HORSES THAT HAVE HAD 1-12 STARTS
Win% - Consistency Bonus
Maiden : +1kg
1-14 : +2kg
15-24 : +2.5kg
25-59 : +3.5kg
60 and above : +4kg

Of course I would be very interested to know how close I got to the actual schedule.

Regards Wenona
Back to Top View Wenona's Profile Search for other posts by Wenona Send Private Message Add to Buddy List
 
warrenblock
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 July 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 267
Posted: 01 August 2003 at 5:27pm | IP Logged Quote warrenblock

G'day Wenona

The Wizard past ratings do have a consistency adjustment built into them because they are designed to be used as the equivalent of a horse's final rating... thereby allowing direct comparisons between horses.

The consistency adjustments I decided upon are as follows:

If the horse has had more than 12 starts ...

Win Percent     Bonus/Penalty

   0 - 4.9              -2.5

   5 - 9.9              -2.0

10.0 - 14.9           -1.0

15.0 - 29.9           zero

30.0 - 39.9           +0.5

40.0 - 49.9           +1.0

50.0 - 59.9           +1.5

60.0+                  +2.0

If less than or equal to 12 starts:

Win Percent     Bonus/Penalty

   0 - 4.9              -1.5

 5.0 - 14.9            -0.5

15.0 - 24.9           zero

25.0 - 59.9           +1.0

60.0+                   +1.5

As you can see the adjustments are quite conservative.

Hope that answers your question.

Warren Block

Back to Top View warrenblock's Profile Search for other posts by warrenblock Send Private Message Add to Buddy List
 
everychance
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 31 July 2003
Posts: 19
Posted: 01 August 2003 at 5:45pm | IP Logged Quote everychance

Warren,

Does that mean it is unnecessary to add a consistency factor if you use the past ratings as a base for your analysis?

I have been using a combination of recent win% and overall career place%. The range of these bonuses is from -2.5 to +3.5kg.

everychance

 



__________________
"Analysing the present with a view to the past to predict the future."
Back to Top View everychance's Profile Search for other posts by everychance Send Private Message Add to Buddy List
 
Wenona
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 01 August 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Posted: 01 August 2003 at 5:47pm | IP Logged Quote Wenona

Thanks for that Warren, the 60%+ for 13 starts or more was the only one I missed.

The bonuses/penalties used mean that if 2 horses that have had over 12 starts deadheated at level weights one week - one with a win% of 10% and the other with a win% of 30%, and met 7 days later under the same conditions - the one with the 30% would be rated 1.5kgs or a length better than the other. It's certainly more than I would feel comfortable with, however you view it as conservative.

I would be very interested in how other handicappers treat the figures and if they make their own adjustments. Also if anyone has done a comparison between adjusting and not adjusting.

Regards Wenona

Back to Top View Wenona's Profile Search for other posts by Wenona Send Private Message Add to Buddy List
 
warrenblock
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 July 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 267
Posted: 01 August 2003 at 5:55pm | IP Logged Quote warrenblock

G'day Everychace

The amount you want to credit a horse for consistency is a very personal decision. If you rate it more important than I do, then make an additional adjustment.

G'day Wenona

I like to favour proven "winners" over proven "losers". You know what I mean. Other handicappers are even more aggressive in this respect than my conservative self.

Warren

Back to Top View warrenblock's Profile Search for other posts by warrenblock Send Private Message Add to Buddy List
 
Wenona
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 01 August 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Posted: 01 August 2003 at 6:05pm | IP Logged Quote Wenona

Gee everychance, I see your range of bonus/penalties is 6kg's!.

I get the impression my view of allowing only minimal consistency adjustments for win/place% may be in the minority.

I do allow some though - it's a 1kg range fo me best to worst.

Everychance - If you are adding your own adjustments in without taking out those already included, your range goes to 10.5kgs best to worst, so maybe you should try not doing your own or deducting the included adjustment from Warrens above table and then adding back in your own.

Even though I do allow a small adjustment based on life place%, I also include an adjustment based on a view of a horses ability to return consistent ratings results (regardless of win%).

Thus a horse that rated say 68.0; 67.5; 70.0; 69.0 in it's last 4 starts might get a .5kg bonus added to its base and expected peak ratings, while a horse thats rated 64.0; 62.0;70.0; 65.0 might get a 1kg penalty on its base and expected peak ratings.

In this case I'd probably take the 70.0 figure as the base run for each horse. I would make the adjustments in this case even if the first horse had a 10% win rate and the second a 30% win rate.

I'd be interested to know if anyone else incorporated this type of consistency adjustment into their analysis.

Regards Wenona

Back to Top View Wenona's Profile Search for other posts by Wenona Send Private Message Add to Buddy List
 
everychance
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 31 July 2003
Posts: 19
Posted: 01 August 2003 at 6:36pm | IP Logged Quote everychance

Wenona,

I haven't been doing this for a long time(10mths) so don't take anything I say as gospel! I have been fiddling a bit and making minor adjustments all the time. In saying that I managed to turn a profit last season, which I was very pleased with, so I was either lucky or am doing something right.

I don't have the exact breakdown of %'s of horses that receive the various levels of bonuses however I do know it is concentrated around the -1 to 0 range and it is rare for a horse to be at either extreme. Last sat gave 2 horses 3kg bonuses and both won but were still under the odds on my assessment. Week before was nothing over 2. To get a 3.5kg bonus the horse must have the highest p%, have won its last 2 starts or be 2nd up and won 1st-up and have a recent win% greater than 60%. Not many horses fit into this category and those that do are proven consistent & current winners and as such deserve a significant bonus IMO only.

everychance

 



Edited by warrenblock on 01 August 2003 at 6:38pm
Back to Top View everychance's Profile Search for other posts by everychance Send Private Message Add to Buddy List
 
Wenona
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 01 August 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Posted: 04 August 2003 at 1:52pm | IP Logged Quote Wenona

everycahnce - thanks for that - the biggest bonuses I give are based on anticipated improvement. Some factors taken into consideration are - age, life starts, runs from spell, recent winning form, winning margin if won last start, if last start is highest the difference between that rating and the previous peak. So horses that meet your criteria would probably be up for a bonus using my criteria - we're probably giving bonuses to the same horses but just for different reasons.
Back to Top View Wenona's Profile Search for other posts by Wenona Send Private Message Add to Buddy List
 
jb1942
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 04 August 2003
Posts: 7
Posted: 04 August 2003 at 10:18pm | IP Logged Quote jb1942

Warren Block,

Just a quick couple of question, as a long time read of the Wizard, I think it is great that we can ask these questions directly to you.

Malcolm once told me that the Wizard ratings were not in the ratings. However, from your post I see that you say that they now are. Can you please provide the "jockey rating" as a separate value, so we can make our own adjustments.

Also, given that most fields when priced come down to less than 4kg between the first 4 or 5 main chances how do you line that up against your consistency bonuses of 4.5kg difference, especially when you say "the adjustments are quite conservative" . I know that Don Scott said that consistent keep winning, but don't you think it's a bit much. Personally I only use 2kg difference . Have you found that these bonuses produce better computer generated results?

Thanks for the forumn and look forward to many interesting and informative debates and discussions.

jb



Edited by warrenblock on 04 August 2003 at 10:48pm
Back to Top View jb1942's Profile Search for other posts by jb1942 Send Private Message Add to Buddy List
 
warrenblock
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 July 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 267
Posted: 04 August 2003 at 11:09pm | IP Logged Quote warrenblock

G'day jb,

Thanks for your contribution.

Not sure what you mean when you say ... the Wizard ratings were not in the ratings ... but given you go on to talk about jockey ratings I will assume that is the point of the sentence.

As I wrote in an earlier post, in the "jockey thread" I think, I mentioned that there is no jockey rating actually reflected in the final Wizard race specific rating, the one on the left hand side of the formline.

I have posted all of my jockey ratings (the ones we use for Superform) in the Wizard Information category and you are free to access it and print it. This should help you.

With respect to consistency bonuses, I am comfortable with the scale I use, and have proved it to my satisfaction, and remember the 4.5kg difference to which you refer is only between the "worst" of horses and the "best". Seems fair enough to me.

Regards

Warren Block

 

 

Back to Top View warrenblock's Profile Search for other posts by warrenblock Send Private Message Add to Buddy List
 
Showpony
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 04 August 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Posted: 05 August 2003 at 12:43pm | IP Logged Quote Showpony

I have tried different consistency bonuses/penalties but ulitimately come back to using the Don Scott scale of consistency bonuses as i find them more reliable. The only time i dont think they are as reliable are in 2YO and 3YO races even using his table for less than 20 starts.

Does anyone else come to the same conclusion?

Warren from reading the above posts, the ratings on the left hand side of the form include your consistency bonuses in the range from worse to good of 4.5 kg? So if a horse for example rated 61 kg..this figure would already include a consistency bonus of 0.5 kg if it had a win strike rate of 30%? That is, in that race it rated a 60.5 plus you added 0.5kg consitency bonus?

Also i want to thank you for the jockey ratings...subtracting their rating ability from the final rating makes good sense.

 

 



Edited by warrenblock on 05 August 2003 at 12:56pm
Back to Top View Showpony's Profile Search for other posts by Showpony Send Private Message Add to Buddy List
 
warrenblock
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 July 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 267
Posted: 05 August 2003 at 1:03pm | IP Logged Quote warrenblock

G'day Showpony,

Correct.

Each of the ratings on the left hand side of the formline has had the 0.5kg added to it to reflect the horse's current consistency.

Glad that the Rider Ratings that I posted elsewhere will be useful to you.

Regards

Warren Block

 

Back to Top View warrenblock's Profile Search for other posts by warrenblock Send Private Message Add to Buddy List
 
freelance
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 19 October 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 7
Posted: 21 October 2004 at 3:27am | IP Logged Quote freelance

The above thread is an interesting one ! Especially the part about Malcolm and the "Wizard ratings" not being in the ratings ???? ( I can only guess that Malcolm was saying that Wrat/Trat are not included in the kg ratings for each run.)

Personally, although I do take good note of Win & Place %`s (especially the ones above 40%) and they are a small part of my ratings process ( 6 ratings per horse per race assessed), I have often found that one`s time is better used to assess the suitability of the coming race to the conditions (circumstances) of the race in question. Often, when one spends too much time in the mathematics of it all, one sees only the "mathematics tree in the forest", instead of the trees in the forest, and one`s ability to perceive or ascertain becomes clouded.

I have only recently joined this forum and this is amongst my first few posts. It is good to see "moderate" behaviour encouraged and respected instead of reactivity and less than honourable relations. 

I have been fortunate to have been purchasing the Wizard for many years now and the new additions over the last year or so are excellent. One could not find better (no pun intended) information in Australia and it is rare to see a company with depth, breadth, and clarity in this field of endeavour . However the plethora of information can be daunting to some and it is a matter of utilising the information that one feels may be most important and adjusting and readjusting until a good level of accu~racy is achieved.

I have a thought (amongst many) with regard to positions in running and formatting. I believe that for the purpose of making speedmaps and assessing pace that it would perhaps be better to include all/most of the positions in running between the number of horses in the field and the position at the winning post. At present the Wizard has the Wrat ranking last race, the number of horses in the field, the position at the home turn, and the final position at the winning post. After this there is the margin, the weight allotted, and the barrier.

My suggestion for formatting and inclusion of the settling position is this which hopefully may receive some consideration. (Personally, I don`t believe the last Wrat ranking to be of much use as the last odds are already there.) It could be said that the new Run Style figures already cover this. However the inclusion of the settling position will give insight as to a horses early speed - when drawn wide, - in a higher race class, - in a distance race as opposed to a sprint, - the effect of being drawn wide on a wet track etc. The format I suggest is as follows ~ Barrier Draw(after Scr) | Number of Horses in Field (after Scr.) | PIR`s(Positions In Running) Settling - Midrace - Home Turn - Winning Post | Margin | Weight Allotted | Apprentice allowance if any | Jockey | etc.        I suggest the above because it seems to me to be logical, especially for the purpose of assessing pace and making speedmaps, and also to be able to see the flow within a race, and to be able to see each individual horses running style.

One thing I miss in the Wizard is the articles in the middle page which used to be there a few years back and seem to have completely disappeared. These articles were excellent, well written, and highly informative and added to the lateral thinking ability of those who were fortunate enough to purchase the Wizard.

Best Wishes to all.

A thank you to Warren and the staff at the Wizard/Superform for the good quality information they provide and for hosting this forum. I look forward to the exchange of ideas and adding my observations and knowledge to assist others

  



__________________
The Prophet of Longshots
Back to Top View freelance's Profile Search for other posts by freelance Send Private Message Add to Buddy List
 
Wenona1
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 07 October 2007
Posts: 4
Posted: 17 February 2009 at 1:22am | IP Logged Quote Wenona1

Thought I'd raise this again after more than four years!

It was the Light Fingers Stks that made me think of it.

Glowlamp is the classic example of my problem with what I consider large bonuses/penalties for win percentages.

In the Light Fingers, Glowlamp ran third and beat Montana Flyer who ran fourth by around .8 of a length at level weights.

In all probability they will meet at level weights again in the near future.

Now however, the Wizard Ratings for that next race at level weights will give a last start rating for Montana Flyer 2.5kgs more than the last start rating for Glowlamp. This is because Montana Flyer's rating will include a 1.0Kg consistency bonus while Glowlamp's will include a 2.5Kg penalty. (ie Glowlamp is 1kg better for finishing .8 lengths ahead but cops a 3.5kg relative consistency penalty).

Using the pricing table in Don Scott's 'The Winning Way' would price these two heads up next start at $1.50 Montana Flyer and $3.00 Glowlamp This is despite Glowlamp beating Montana Flyer under exactly the same conditions last start.

Just seems to extreme to me, especially when the vast majority of the Wizard users wouldn't be aware of the magnitude of the bonuses included.

Warren, I was wondering if you had considered consistency bonuses any further over the last four years, or if my example might lead you to have another think about the levels of bonuses used or even consider not including them in the published Wizard rating figures in the future?

Regards

Wenona






Back to Top View Wenona1's Profile Search for other posts by Wenona1 Send Private Message Add to Buddy List
 
warrenblock
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 July 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 267
Posted: 20 February 2009 at 11:42pm | IP Logged Quote warrenblock

G'day Wenona,

To be perfectly honest I have not revisted the consistency bonus over the last four years. To treat consistency on a horse by horse, race by race basis is somewhat beyond us as we have algorithms that are processing up to 12 meetings on a single race day. Overall, I think the current algorithm has served us pretty well over the years and though there is always the desire to improve the 'future ratings' there would need to be some exceedingly clever 'rule making' and programming to deal with the sort of situation you describe.

Warren

Back to Top View warrenblock's Profile Search for other posts by warrenblock Send Private Message Add to Buddy List
 

If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login
If you are not already registered you must first register

  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum