[AusRace] Squared - a system

[Tony Moffat]

(If this doesn't format well use restore line breaks or similar.)

Or, at least, calculations in racing.

In High School I was relatively naïve, apparently. Square roots, or their mention never caused me to smile, giggle, cackle, or in Drummonds case, laugh, until he coughed and had to stand outside until he got his breathe back, he was asthmatic though and puffers were unheard of yet. Cube roots, or the mention of same, had a likewise litmus effect on the class, or in my case likewise, the others collapsed back into pandemonium much like they had done. I didn't get it, still don't. Thankfully I moved on from General Maths into Geometry hoping for Trigonometry the next year (it didn't happen). Geometry is like Fraud investigation, you probably start with the answer and go back looking for the question, or as a minimum, enrichment or benefit.

Anyways, this is a way explained to me by acquaintance while making bullets, .338 Winchester Magnums. He had tried it but rejected it as requiring too much input, and it surely has that.

Comparative relativity is the name for what occurred here. In this case disparate values were reduced until they shrank back to be near by other values and this was done by using square root to the third power ('cubed') essentially square root ( square root ( square root of 9 = 1.316 or (3)-(1.732)-(1.316) the cubed root of 9 = 1.316 . This method appears in the Least Squares solution in Regression Analysis. It is used to reduce a large number of observations to a (straight) line or central point.

 I need a maths lesson, I'm not giving one.

A cubed root is displayed as ؆
؆9-(3)-(1.732)-(1.316)
8-(2.82)-(1.68)-(1.29)
7-(2.64)-(1.62)-(1.27)
4-(2)-(1.41)-(1.18)
3-(1.73)-(1.31)-(1.14)
؆2(1.41)-(1.18)-(1.09)
؆1(1)-(1)-(1)

In the case of the 9, squared it has 3 (3 * 3 =9), then 1.732 (1.732 * 1.732 = 3) then 1.316, the cubed root (or, 1.316 * 1.316 = 1.732).

So, a form line of 7,4,2 became 1.27, 1.18,1.09 which summed to 3.54 and all form lines were dealt with similarly then sorted small to large, lower numbers were better. It is a method of giving each number (the finish position) a value somewhat diminished  but still relative to others in the sequence.

There may be benefit in multiplying the observations, rather than summing them, as the values after the decimal point are used efficiently (or more so) then. So 1.27 * 1.18 * 1.09 = 1.633474. Okay I can see more decimal points but it just seems stronger, more connected, more involved and especially when all runner form figures are treated likewise the whole seems more manageable, for starters.

Further, while reducing the numbers to the nth value, the cube root, it may be occurs that you are giving to much weight to runners with bad, sad form figures, say 994 = 1.316 *1.316* 1.18 = 2.043.. whereas 442 = 1.18*1.18*1.09 = 1.517. Perhaps then you should subtract your product from the cube value (3)+ 1 (=4). So, 4 minus 2.043 = 1.957 or 4 minus 1.517 = 2.483. The bad,sad form figure has been lessened whereas the seemingly better form figure has been heightened (2.043 down to 1.957, 1.517 up to 2.483)

It seems that almost all form data can be dealt with in this way, 'cubing' it and so reducing its numbers down to an area relative to other runners. It's just a suggestion.

Who'd thought that days since last start * last start finish position would be a powerful indicator?

Another way - perhaps.

I sold the rifle, I couldn't licence it anyway and it was held on the Dealers licence. It went to a Holt Rock farmer who wanted to control emus on the vermin proof fence, an us or them situation I believe. 

Cheers

Tony



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com