Kicking myself
 

Didn't have time to get down on the #2 ($45 +)in R. 5 at PARX just now. This horse was in a virtual 3-way tie for TE dominance with the #9 and #10, and 10 was NL that figured to quit.

Never beat yourself up over such things. Use positive reinforcement and say that you are glad to see that such can happen and remember that such will happen again.

Easy to say, I know but such a mindset can be better than money as it will keep one focused.

Hi BJ...I did the race yesterday...virtual tie???

the 2 was at the bottom in RDSS ..so get this one you had to dismiss the top 4....could have you done that???

ok...sorry...my mistake...I see it on the other screen...

now a question....whats the difference between TE and CPR???

Thanks
 

Hi Charles,

I appreciate your concern, but my response was just annoyance over not getting a bet down on a race that I would have won, if I hadn't lost track of the time - not any real negative vibes. As far as positive reinforcement goes, I've been getting plenty of it lately from all the bombs I've been catching :).

Cheers,

B Jennet

Maybe Ted can explain
 

Hi Mike,

Maybe Ted can explain the CPR rankings - it doesn't appear on Spec 160.

In a race like this, where you have several closely bunched TEs, the ranking protocol really misrepresents the ability of the horses, which is why I believe it's a good idea to look closely at the actual TEs, as I think I mentioned in another post.

Just to be clear about how I approached this race, although they had higher TEs, I threw out the #1 for obvious reasons, the #3, because its one higher TE was an outlier, and #4, as a typically overbet class-dropper, of the type identified by Tom Brohamer in MPH, as well as a likely herd-horse-in-the-making. This left the 2,9, and 10 tied, and, as I said, the 10 was NL. So, if I had been able to get a bet down in time, I would have been on the 2 and 9. As a value-only player, this is exactly the kind of race I'm looking for.

Cheers,

B Jennet

thxs BJ.....nice going...keep it up!!

I'll let Ted confirm/deny but since he has been away this is my understanding of it. CPR is comprised from the book "Pace Makes the Race".

In the "Member Contributions and Discussions" section you will see the thread "Pace Makes The Race 2nd Edition" with a TPRRaw.xls. Those along with calculations from the track variant (its like .65/.35 for sprints and .60/.40 for routes) are how those numbers are figured and summed up.

Last I new TE was all three FPS added together. However in Brohamer's book it is calculated differently and I do not recall which came later, either the book calculation or the one I read in the follow up.

CPR is the TPR, or Total Pace Rating from Pace Makes The Race, the 2nd edition of which is available in the Bookstore. Along with EPR (Early Pace Rating and LPR (the FFR from Pace Makes The Race), they comprise the simplified rating system based on a 100 point scale, which is available in all later Sartin Methodology programs (at least from Pace Launcher on).

It is excellent for choosing contenders, and the set of figures that first made me a winner in the early 90's. Doc Sartin later backed off from it, because, while being a wonderful contender selection tool, it lacks the sophistication of many of the fps and energy calculations. Neither Speculator or Validator show the actual numbers, but Spec shows them as a percentage of the field in Perceptor, and both show their rankings in the Primary Factors on BL/BL. At the request of a number of us old timers, Ted wsa kind enough to show them in their numerical form in RDSS.

Total energy is the sum of the feet per second readings from the fractions of the race, and is discussed at great length in many of the later Follow Ups.

Dick...