|
JCapper Message Board JCapper 101
|
| Home |
Register
Log In |
| By | Bris to HDW | |
| rosenowsr 5/7/2012 3:39:47 PM | I am changing over to HDW from Bris. I know I have to make changes in system settings data vendor. But is it "best practice" to remove the bris files? It just dawned on me that I will have to also redo the sqUDMS.
| |
| jeff 5/7/2012 5:41:45 PM | Best practices include: • Separate database folders for the files of each data vendor. Examples: A Brisnet2012 folder (and possibly sub folders beneath that for each quarter) where you will put Brisnet data and results files for calendar year 2012. An HDW2012 folder (and possibly sub folders beneath that for each quarter) where you will put HDW data and results files for calendar year 2012. Important: As a best practice avoid mixing HDW and Brisnet files on the same folder. Hint: You can easliy toggle back and forth between the various folders on your machine by using the DFM (Data Folder Manager.) • UDM Tune Up There are a handful of differences in the data itself. The impact the differences have on the performance of your UDMs depends on the mix of factors used in your UDMs. I recommend running active UDMs through the Data Window against both HDW and Brisnet databases (if you have both) and tuning them accordingly. Off the top of my head, here's a list of differences: 1. Speed and Pace Figs - Each data vendor uses their own algorithms for generating speed and pace figs. Rank for such in your UDMs won't likely be impacted. However, because the algorithms of the two data vendors crank out speed and pace figs that are SCALED differently - if you are using numeric value and gap for speed and pace fig based factors - then breaking your Data Window results out by numeric value and gap for these factors (and adjusting cutoffs in your UDM Definitions accordingly) is a no brainer. 2. Prime Power and PSR - Brisnet Files contain a power rating called Prime Power. HDW files contain a factor called PSR (or projected speed rating.) The the top ranked horse for both factors wins more than 30% of all races. (Although flat bet win roi for HDW's PSR tests out higher than flat bet win roi for its Brisnet counterpart - mostly I think because PSR is seen by fewer pairs of eyes each day than Brisnet Prime Power which now shows up on Twinspires.) Be aware that when you make the switch to HDW - the labeling for PSR in the factors drop downs of both the Data Window and UDM Wizard is the same as the Brisnet counterpart factor: PrimePower. That means that if you are using HDW files: When you select PrimePower from a drop down, you are really selecting PSR and that even though the breakout results in the Data Window might be labeled PrimePower, if you queried an HDW database - you are really looking at the data broken out by PSR. 3. Running Style - The two data vendors each employ their own unique algorithms for cranking out run style. The Brisnet algorithm (with few exceptions) appears based on the run style a horse displays most often in its running lines. The HDW algorithm is based on run style employed by horses in their winning or near winning efforts. HDW actually has 55 individual run style designations. To make things easier on the JCapper user operating in playlist file mode, I grouped them into simple categories so as to approximate the run styles that Brisnet users are accustomed to: E, EP, P, S, and U. That means if you are operating in playlist file mode and using HDW files use of run style in UDM (from an operating instructions standpoint) is exactly the same as how you would use run style in Brisnet UDMs. For the JCapper user operating in SQL Mode, I assigned numbers to the HDW run styles - enabling the sql user to be as loose or as discriminating in use of run style as he or she sees fit. The following line of sql is how you'd make a sql udm flag E run style horses only: AND RUNSTYLE < 15 Of course it goes without saying that you'll want to adjust your existing UDMs for run style after making the switch. 4. Q Speed Points - Brisnet includes Quirin Speed Points in their data files. HDW does not. To accommodate those of you who want to use Q Speed Points in UDMs I wrote an algorithm that generates my interpretation of Quirin Speed Points and inserts same into .JCP files. The main differences between Brisnet's algorithm and my algorithm are: a. My algorithm awards 8 speed points to fewer horses than Brisnet's algorithm does. b. My algorithm is seen by far fewer pairs of eyes each day than Brisnet's algorithm - although both make it easy for players to id horses likely to race on or near the lead at a glance. After making the switch, it might be a good idea for you to look at the performance of your UDMs with the data broken out by QSpeed Points. --more to come... -jp . ~Edited by: jeff on: 5/7/2012 at: 5:41:45 PM~
| |
| jeff 4/16/2013 6:25:48 PM | UPR and UserFactors - Much of what I wrote above for UDMs applies to UPR and UserFactors too. Whether or not existing GroupNames for UPR and UserFactors need to be adjusted - and to what degree - that depends on what you based them on. Speaking strictly from my own experience, if the entries in your ImpactValues table are based on factor name and rank - and not numeric value and not gap - there is (likely) little in the way of immediate need to redo them. It might be a good idea to accumulate a significant amount of data before revisiting that. However, your mileage may vary - as your table entries are unique - and (obviously) different than mine. That said, if I were making the switch for the first time, here's what I would do different this time around vs. what I did three years ago: My primary UPR is universal in nature. I developed it at a time when most of the track surfaces behaved in a like manner: They were speed favoring. When I am betting track surfaces that are primarily speed favoring - my primary groupname produces excellent results. However, if a given surface is speed tiring - I often feel like I am trying to force a square peg into a round hole. If I had it to do over again I would break surfaces for the tracks that I play out into the same 5 categories found on the Data Window Track Weight Report: 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5. From there I would create one set of entries specifically for each category. From there, I would assign track codes (and surf-dist for some of those track codes) accordingly. In fact, now that I find myself typing this out - I am reminded that this is something I've had sitting on the back burner for quite some time now. No time like the present.  -jp . ~Edited by: jeff on: 4/16/2013 at: 6:25:48 PM~
| |
| AndrewH 4/17/2013 9:54:05 AM | Jeff, Is there an easy way to break each track down by track weight or do you have to run each track through a track weight report?
| |
| jeff 4/17/2013 11:16:40 AM | Gotta run them through the Data Window with Track Weight Report selected from the factors drop down - one at a time. (The amount of programming time needed to get track weight for all is prohibitive.) -jp .
|
| Reply |
|
Copyright © 2018 JCapper Software back to the JCapper Message Board www.JCapper.com |