The Hats Equalization Times
 

In the hat check forum there is a thread that talks about equalization time. Richie said to use 6.2 seconds (in fifths) per 1/2 furlong. Does this still hold true and does this hold true for increasing or decreasing in distance?

Late to the party here, but here is a shot.

I haven't seen the thread, but this looks familiar. In Handicapping Magic, Mike Pizzolla, formerly of Pirco, uses the 6.2 seconds factor to convert between sprint differences. He uses it to compare final fractions at different sprint distances. He uses 6.8 seconds per 1/2 furlong for routes. I have used those numbers and they seem to work out okay. For odd route distances, I add 2.4 to a mile to get 1M 40 yds, and subtract 2.6 from a 1 1/16 to get 1M 70 yrds.

For those who are using RDSS, here is the internal distance equalization table for Dirt surfaces (and the one used in Validator). As the distance increases, the final time gaps per half furlong rise from 6.4 to 6.6 and bounce around for reasons best known by Doc Sartin. Internal gaps also increase accordingly. Those who want to tinker with decelerations by distance, or try different distance cutback strategies will have the opportunity in the next version. (And those who prefer to stick with what works, can do that too.)

Note: RDSS and later Sartin programs don't project or extract distances to these exact times: they use the GAPS between the segments as differentials to actual running time segments (plus DTV and ITV adjustments), then project all lines to today's distance at a hypothetical, equalized norm (i.e. 'Sartin Downs', i.e. NOT today's track).

Attachment 38500

FWIW, here is an earlier 2014 thread which discusses the final time half furlong increments currently used in RDSS, and some challenges to existing equalizations: http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9805 (see my post #11)

Ted

Thanks for the reply guys.

Came across a copy of Jim's matchup book and been trying just looking at PP to hc. Taint easy McGee.

If it matters, I just double checked, and I grabbed on to that 6.2 second number too quickly. Pizzolla uses 6.6 seconds for sprints and 6.8 seconds for routes.

Woodbine observation
 

For some reason that I do not totally understand, most horses who can run successfully in sprints and routes at Woodbine do not run to projected route times using six and two-fifths per half furlong adjustment. Using the 6.2 fifths adjustment to the route distance appears to make sprinters way faster than the routers in the race upcoming.

So for example, say your horse won at six furlongs in 111.0 and is going today at 8.5 furlongs. The projection of final time would be 111.0+0.2+5*6.2 or 111.0+.02+32.0 totaling 143.2 (in fifths). The race results will more likely show a final route time of somewhere around 146.2, indicating an adjustment of about 7 seconds per half furlong (111.0+.2+5*7= 146.2)

My personal thought is that as the class of the horse lowers you need more adjustment per half furlong just because most of the stock cannot run to meet the 6.2 fifth adjustment standard. But even with higher class horses who win six furlong races at 1.09.00 you rarely see them stretch out and win at 8.5 furlongs at 141.2. More often their final route times are in the hi 142 or 143-lo 144 range, appearing to validate the use of more than 6.2 seconds per half furlong.

Woodbine is the only track that I play where the need for a larger differential appears to be needed. All the Socal tracks and NY seem to fit nicely using 6.2 fifths.

Has anyone observed other tracks with adjustment differentials larger or smaller?

When I did my research I only considered horses that had won both in sprints and routes.

Bill

Ted, if I hand a par chart from a particular track would I be able to adjust the times manually in RDSS?

For instance if I was to use the attached with RDSS how would I go about it?

In your opinion would it even make sense to use it?

Thanks, Mike

Routs
 

Routs

Ted,

1) Is this table current and 2) are the EPR/LPR ratings
based on this table rather than the PMTR book by Hambleton? 3) Is there a turf and poly equalization table?

Quote Richie P

THAT is how it supposed to be when one starts*relying NOT on numbers,*rules*etc but instead FOCUSES on Intuition, pattern recognition and the "Mind's Eye".

Hope this helps because it helps me a lot
As one would say a blind squirel comes across nuggets that work them.
And far a handicapping I'm a pure Last line player staring from the minute the gate pops:1:

It makes perfect sense that as the distance increases the figure used,deceleration number or 6.2 should increase. A horse that travels 6F in 12 second per furlong runs it in 72 sec. or 112:00 and another at 1 1/4 in 12 second per furlongs runs the distance in 120 sec. and in 2:00 or two minutes. The sprinter is a cheap claimer and the router is a grade 1 champion.Therefore it makes perfect sense to increase the number(6.2) as distances increase.

Additionally these numbers would be track specific I.e. such as Calder vs. SA with Calder being a much slower track. Ditto for most but not all syn. tracks I.e. Woodbine vs. Prescott Isle or turf tracks such as SA vs. Saratoga. So if you only play 1 or 2 tracks and know the actual adjustments it'll up your game with true and actual adjustments, if your adjustment figures are current. And for those of us that play many tracks I would trust the number adjustments in RDSS.

Finally just like the number of feet per beaten length and the amount of time per 1/2 F adjustment used makes no difference as long as a consistent number is used at the Same DISTANCE being adjusted. The "Doc" said that "Extracting is more accurate (cut back in distance) than projecting." (or stretch outs) In a cutback the horse has actually ran the distance and his deceleration is known ,where as projection is an unknown at best.
Consider a stretch out as an unknown factor however multiple stretch outs in a race can be separated but there may be other unknown factors in a race such as surface etc.
Mitch 44

No offense, but I wasnt looking for a lesson in the Match-up. It was a question directed at Ted.

Here you go

This may be helpful if your looking to make your own figures.

Not sure if this site is still active?

Mike

Thanks Mowens33. Sadly, speedfigures.com appears to no longer exist. I used to use their Quirin figures and ability times when playing SoCal. Only downside was that there were no figures outside of NoCal/SoCal tracks.

My post had to do with the topic of equalization and not the match-up. I'm sure Ted will reply and I'm eager to hear it along with mowens33. No offence taken.
Mitch44

I was referring to dlivery's post. You and I must have simultaneously responded. And yes, I am looking forward to Ted's two cents.

My dumb as- didn't read what was in the highlighted box of your post Jeebs. I also hate when there is a good thread going and the topic gets changed. And this is a very good topic. Having started with Sartin in the early 90's I was surprised by Ted's chart he posted that the deceleration wasn't a constant 6.2 but varied by distance which makes perfect sense. A very important edge to those playing only one track.
Mitch44

Ted
 

Jeebs Ted is off for some rest and relaxation, I'm sure he will address your questions when he returns .


I wish i could help you. I really don't like to think too much about the inner workings of the Sartin programs and how to tweak or out think them.
Those folks who do and can I respect . But i just go with what RDSS spits out. I think Mitch made a great point. The numbers are not important as long as you are consistant.
If I think in my head a 85 EP and 85 LPR is "par" then when i see horses above 85 I say they are above par and below 85 below par

The key point is this will always work for me as long as I believe the 85 is "par"

Hope that makes sense

It may not to most because

My understanding...
 

It is my understanding that the 6.2 sec(in 5ths) was primarily used for adjustments within a distance structure. Going from 6 to 6.5f or 8 to 8.5f. It is not used to literally extend a sprint line to a route line. If memory serves me, what "The Hat" recommended when going from sprint to route was to add 2/5s of a second to the internal fractions and then find a final time amongst the horses in the race that matches those adjusted internal fractions and use that.
Of course, Jim used POWER LINES so you just don't take a crappy sprint line and try to extend it.
Additionally, Jim knew how to adjust the 1st call times of every track he played and their feeders for track speed. Since the 1st fraction is the least subject to changes in surface speed due to weather or maintenance he would. The biggest problem that I see in most automated adjustments as with RDSS2 is that some percentage of the final time variant is applied to the first fraction whether it needs it or not. Since I am a Bradshaw Match Up handicapper I use Raw data and I avoid that problem. Another caveat is in adjusting or extending mature sprinters. It is one thing to adjust a young horse that has never run in a route before and a completely different thing to think that a confirmed sprinter with 25 starts is going to suddenly become a router. Generally speaking, in the cheaper ranks a horse either sprints or routes, seldom with they do both well.
Another tidbit you may find helpful: The sprinter's final sprint time adjusted as discussed to 6f should be a full second faster than your projected 2nd call in today's route. That will save you alot of money!!
Lastly, Jim didn't carry his analysis out to final time. He focused on the internal fractions and the actual performance of the horse in that paceline line. He was all about horse behavior as expressed in the horse's running line. He didn't consider sprinters that faded in sprint lines as viable contenders to stretch out. Jim wanted to bet on fast horses or horses that became fast relatively in their races, from what I have read and studied. He wanted to see the determination of a "fighter" or horses that could overcome the pace of the race, passing multiple horses with POWER MOVES. He did this all in his head while determining whether the race would run EARLY or OTE.

Hang around the methodology for a time, make careful observations and you realize it is all about EARLY evaluation since the last part of the race is WHOLLY dependent upon what happened to set it up.

Projection of ability starts with how a horse does against the early pace of race PERIOD.

Mark, just so I understand what you are saying. If your sprinter can run 110, you would want the route projection to be 111 or slower in order to give the sprinter a reasonable chance in today's race, is that correct?

Thanks for the clarification.

Stretch Out
 

Yes, but no adjusted numbers, RAW. And we're talking about younger more lightly raced horses that have not proven that they can't route. Remember this is normally an experiment based upon the horse's training, running style, conformation and breeding.

The ability to carry speed over a distance of ground generally makes a horse much more valuable. In the maiden ranks or NW-2L, NW-3L ranks it is speed against slow routers, so by demanding the speed differential you are guaranteeing yourself a solid lead at the 2nd call.

I've found that %med is also another tool to judge if a horse can stretch out. If the sprinter is at or near the top parameter of energy exertion for that dist and track they usually don't stretch out well. Again as Mark stated this is for horses with no route experience.
Tim G

Mark,

Any specific guidance when extracting a route to a sprint? I seem to recall that you need to have a little advantage with such horses but cannot remember what it is.

And in cases where tracks run one turn miles do you have more faith in the internal fractions of such races as opposed to races that need extracting from two turn miles?

Thanks,

Route to Sprint
 

Bill,
Route to Sprint is a tougher call. Again you subtract 2/5ths of a second from the internal fractions as you eliminate the 2nd turn to arrive at a 6f time. The nature of a route race is the slower early fractions which is a serious disadvantage for a router making this switch. Generally you would like to see a 2nd call in the route line that was fast. Much will be determine in this type of move by the make up of today's race and also the Running Style of the horse you are considering. The more Es and EPs in the race suggests a potential early duel which can suck the Pressers along "too fast". If your router is an E, Ep or P and shows no flexibility in Running style then you have a problem. If he is an SP or S then you want a paceline where the horse made as big a move as possible 1c -2c in the route as this equates to the 2c - finish in the sprint. Any evidence from other sprint pacelines in the horse's pps can help you determine the horses adaptability to this switch.
Two things to keep in mind: 1) the reason that the horse has run in routes is he has not demonstrated competitiveness in sprints when younger or previously - he just is not a quick, fast horse. 2) The Early pace set up will most likely determine his ability to run by fading horses.
There are times of year when this angle is more potent than others. Route horses tend to be sounder than sprinters. In the fall after the horses have had a hard campaign over the summer and the sprinters are beat up you can see a router that will have success. Other situations are very specific and are more or less dependent on the class of horse. Better horse flesh is generally more flexible and competitive.

Bill,
I view 1 turn miles as elongated sprints and no adjustment is made to the internal fractions.

moved
 

I moved this to the teaching forum
Thank you all, Nice topic and lots of helpful replies

On a route to sprint cutback, does one still adjust the fractions by 2/5ths in addition to subtracting the appropriate fractional and final time gaps to equalize distance? Or is it now just the equalization of the fractions/final time?

No! What you are doing is removing the influence of the second turn. Horses slow down on the turns or they can't run as fast as on a straightaway because of the centrifugal forces.
Bradshaw was not interested in finding the fastest final time, he seldom took his analysis passed the Stretch Call as I understand from his writings and Richie P. The early pace was his focus. To finish a horse has to handle the early fractions in today's race. What will it do to the early speed horses? Who can press that pace and survive and not get caught by some late runner. This has nothing to do with final time.
If you have the ability to project the 1st and 2nd calls in today's race you can 1) Figure out who has successful run against it in their pps,2) Will a speed duel result among the Es and EPs and if not you very well can have a LONE F, 3) Who has the correct Running Style to get into or stay in contention through the 2nd call, 4) Who has demonstrated the ability to run against this pace and close or press past the leaders.
In my opinion, you have to visualize what is going to happen early in a race by looking at each horse, determining his Running Style or the way he distributes his energy from all the pacelines in his pps where he wins or runs very close. Then decide what kind of pace the early runners are going to set and what kind of battle is going to take place up front. If you don't find a horse that can run comfortably in the lead without excessive challenges then you have to look OTE and find the horses that have shown they can successful close on that early pace.

Mark, my comment is something based on suggestions given in the book, Pace Makes The Race. Tom Hambleton suggested subtracting fractions by 2/5 and halving the beaten lengths. However in RDSS, the times are normalized by the gaps between distances. I was not sure if RDSS employed both adjustments in tandem or just the gap equalization with the beaten lengths halved. I know sprint to route, there needs to be some sort of adjustment or else it makes some sprinters stretching out appear faster than they really are. Case in point, there was such the case in the opener at Mahoning Valley yesterday. When I adjusted their 6F times, their half and 3/4 times were much faster than the rest of the field. Of course, no adjustment is foolproof.

FWIW, I have been fooling around with spreadsheets lately, employing manual entry of the Timeform US adjusted times for each individual horse since they are already variant and track to track adjusted. My original plan was trying to extrapolate times using just the pace and speed figures but the times created proved too suspect and inconsistent.

I am not sure what Ted uses in RDSS for his stretch outs and cutbacks. I read somewhere in his release notes what he did but have forgotten. When I look at a horse stretching out or cutting back in a race and he doesn't show any similar races in his pps I always ask myself why is the trainer doing this? Is he just a slow horse? Is he just a Speedball? Is the trainer just conditioning the animal as he has had a recent layoff? Is he at his wit's end and just trying something different? If he is a sprinter stretching out is he a young horse, lightly raced or an older cheaper claimer with his best days on the track behind him? There are valid reasons to make distance and even surface switches employed by sharp horsemen. You have to make a couple of decisions about these horses 1) will he have any impact on the pace of the race that I should take into consideration? 2) is this horse a Contender? Then proceed.

Thanks mark, that is what I do as well. I was hoping it was the right way.

When Hollywood used to run one turn miles the six furlong times compared to SA miles were about 5 ticks faster and the 8 furlong times about 8 ticks faster, just to give an idea of how the extra turn causes the horses to run slower.

Jim Bradshaw
 

Bill,
I have been around the Sartin Methodology since the early 90s and have read and studied all the materials I could get my hands on as well as attend a number of seminars. But frankly, this last 4 years I have attempted to learn the Match Up exclusively. All I am doing is paraphrasing what I know that Jim Bradshaw said or wrote or conveyed through Richie P. I came no credit whatsoever.
The Match Up is foreign to any other handicapping methodology. Your focus is not on final time but how a horse reacts and performs to early pace. While everyone is trying to make the perfect adjustment, Matchers are focused to the left. The mutuels are much, much better and while it takes a lot of work and study and practice, I would never go back.

Marc Cramer has an interesting pace alteration based upon the first fraction: faster the better.

I have used it for some time to discover many a long shot.

Mark Cramer
 

I've read most of what he has written and don't recall anything regarding 1st fraction adjustment. He's living in France now and I think for about the last 10 years or so, so this must have been written before then. No racing form for European racing.

Speed and quickness. For many years I subscribed to "The Bloodhorse" magazine which was just packed with breeding and racing information. One of the many things I noticed was the horses in training 2yo sale which occurred annually in Florida. These two year olds were breezed and then worked 1 furlong. Every year the fastest workers brought the most money pedigree aside. Horses that worked near 10 seconds flat brought very good money. I never understood this until I began my study of the Match Up. What does a single furlong tell you when the majority of the purse money for Thoroughbred was in route racing. Well, I am learning! Slow horses will forever be relegated to front end meltdown and racing luck. Speed and the ability to carry it over a distance of ground is the hallmark of the Thoroughbred!

quote: "Speed and the ability to carry it over a distance of ground is the hallmark of the Thoroughbred!"

Yes the better ones do it FAR MORE often than most realize: the front end is the CORE of racing that the field reacts TO. Passive pace does not have as much a chance to score.

Hi guys -

Totally unrelated, but I've been in touch with Mark Cramer due to the fact that he is in to bicycling. I did a ride across the United States and he was quite interested in the details. This was about 5 years ago. Correct, he is in France.

When we were communicating, I told him I doubt he remembered, but we met each other at the Baltimore seminar in about 1991. We spoke for maybe 5 minutes. A few seconds later, I was able to talk to Tom Ainsle. Ainsle told me that after all he had been through in racing, at this point (in 1991), he was selecting contenders, running them through Thoromation, and going out to Yonkers to play them.

Just thought I would toss that memory in here!

Best,

Chuck

Chuck,

I was at the seminar. Maybe we met there?
I remember Saturday night in the bar, I was sitting at a table with Ainslie, Crammer, Brohammer, Doc, Hat, and thinking, maybe this how the Bilderbergs started out! :D

Hi Tom -

This was right in the middle of one of the days - probably Saturday - in the seminar room, although I would have like to have been at the bar with that list of names!

Ainsle said something like: 'You know, this Thoromation is really something. I used to do all this work, and now I just put my contenders in and go to the track'.

He also told me he was partners with Henry Kuck on the speed ratings they developed and sold. But Tom broke off from Henry at some point.

Best!

Chuck