Pace and Cap - Sartin Methodology & The Match Up - View Single Post

lsosa54 · 04-27-2010, 10:38 AM

Justin: My perspective as a 1 circuit player for the most part (Socal) is to model the 2 preplay screens to see if patterns emerge by surface and distance. Sometimes you can go by surface and distance structure (sprint or route) as there is no significant difference between distances on a surface.

I find I'm most accurate when I get my contenders to 4 and when I can't, I try not to go more than 6. You also have to make the call on using the 2 adjustment when the program calls for it, as it will make a difference in the screen results. There are reasons to use it and there are reasons one should not, esp. if a slow, false contender has slipped through. You also don't want to penalize a fast horse by adjusting his mediocre competition up.

As an example at this past SAX meet, virtually all the turf mile winners came from the exdc preplay screen. This also started extending to distances further than a mile. At last year's meet, virtually all poly routes came off the sp preplay screens with a lot of the poly sprints as well. Makes life a heck of a lot easier when you can focus on one screen.

The Thoromation screen itself doesn't do much for me nor have I found any long term success using the preplay screen that most matches the Thoromation screen. There may be some merit in modeling the EXDC & Deceleration screen (believe it's 2 screens before the odds line) for Early and Late, but it may not be much different from the preplay screens.

You won't always get a consistent model but many times you will. I sort of go week by week with each new week looking to confirm last week's model is still in place.

You being a matchup guy, sometimes the winners that go against the model are simply due to that particular matchup. If the sp preplay screen is winning, for example, but you see a horse that is first on the EP segment of that screen by a nice gap, maybe this race's matchup will defy the sp model with a wire to wire win. Horses that show first on both the EP and MP screen segments, esp. with a gap to the others, are very dangerous, no matter the model.

The DPH, which as you know is the horse with the best F2 segment, can trigger some very nice exactas but if you're playing exotics, it's best to model what's placing. It can be off the same winning model preplay screen or it can be the counter to the winning model screen. The highest APV/Class horse(s) is/are always dangerous for the place. The 55% Solution is still valid IMHO.

The other point I would make is if you've got a longshot on the counter winning model screen and you believe it was a true contender, cover it with a small bet. A horse race is still a horse race. In last year's Kentucky Derby, Mine That Bird came up first on my EXDC screen. I put through about 10 contenders (in these big publicity races I try not to go more than half the field plus 1 with contenders) basically using the last line for all. Since I use AOdds to send my data to Thoromation, I did notice that Mine That Bird had the top 1st and 2nd calls on the AOdds screen. Why? Because he ran against a fairly fast pace in the Sunland Derby, his last prep.

So why didn't I bet him? I didn't have a model for CDX but over the years I had always heard and Doc had always mentioned that it ran "sustained". I looked at the Sunland Derby prep as a non-graded race at some small track in AZ, where all my other contenders were coming out of well known graded preps. The horses running style certainly wasn't early, although I've seen many times in 20 years where a horse has a nice early advantage on the readouts but re-apportions that energy and wins the race from the clouds. The 50-1 ML didn’t help.

What did I do - I bet off the SP preplay screen which had Musket man and Pioneer of the Nile amongst a bunch clustered around the finish line. At 50-1, even a place bet on Mine would have been productive. I got distracted a bit by what Doc would call those “hossy sayings”. That’s when the Hat’s approach of ignoring ML, jockey, trainer, layoff, date, and just letting the horse and the matchup do the talking would have served me well.

Lesson learned and I’m still learning.

04-27-2010, 10:38 AM	#6
lsosa54 Grade 1 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: NYC and San Diego Posts: 627	Justin: My perspective as a 1 circuit player for the most part (Socal) is to model the 2 preplay screens to see if patterns emerge by surface and distance. Sometimes you can go by surface and distance structure (sprint or route) as there is no significant difference between distances on a surface. I find I'm most accurate when I get my contenders to 4 and when I can't, I try not to go more than 6. You also have to make the call on using the 2 adjustment when the program calls for it, as it will make a difference in the screen results. There are reasons to use it and there are reasons one should not, esp. if a slow, false contender has slipped through. You also don't want to penalize a fast horse by adjusting his mediocre competition up. As an example at this past SAX meet, virtually all the turf mile winners came from the exdc preplay screen. This also started extending to distances further than a mile. At last year's meet, virtually all poly routes came off the sp preplay screens with a lot of the poly sprints as well. Makes life a heck of a lot easier when you can focus on one screen. The Thoromation screen itself doesn't do much for me nor have I found any long term success using the preplay screen that most matches the Thoromation screen. There may be some merit in modeling the EXDC & Deceleration screen (believe it's 2 screens before the odds line) for Early and Late, but it may not be much different from the preplay screens. You won't always get a consistent model but many times you will. I sort of go week by week with each new week looking to confirm last week's model is still in place. You being a matchup guy, sometimes the winners that go against the model are simply due to that particular matchup. If the sp preplay screen is winning, for example, but you see a horse that is first on the EP segment of that screen by a nice gap, maybe this race's matchup will defy the sp model with a wire to wire win. Horses that show first on both the EP and MP screen segments, esp. with a gap to the others, are very dangerous, no matter the model. The DPH, which as you know is the horse with the best F2 segment, can trigger some very nice exactas but if you're playing exotics, it's best to model what's placing. It can be off the same winning model preplay screen or it can be the counter to the winning model screen. The highest APV/Class horse(s) is/are always dangerous for the place. The 55% Solution is still valid IMHO. The other point I would make is if you've got a longshot on the counter winning model screen and you believe it was a true contender, cover it with a small bet. A horse race is still a horse race. In last year's Kentucky Derby, Mine That Bird came up first on my EXDC screen. I put through about 10 contenders (in these big publicity races I try not to go more than half the field plus 1 with contenders) basically using the last line for all. Since I use AOdds to send my data to Thoromation, I did notice that Mine That Bird had the top 1st and 2nd calls on the AOdds screen. Why? Because he ran against a fairly fast pace in the Sunland Derby, his last prep. So why didn't I bet him? I didn't have a model for CDX but over the years I had always heard and Doc had always mentioned that it ran "sustained". I looked at the Sunland Derby prep as a non-graded race at some small track in AZ, where all my other contenders were coming out of well known graded preps. The horses running style certainly wasn't early, although I've seen many times in 20 years where a horse has a nice early advantage on the readouts but re-apportions that energy and wins the race from the clouds. The 50-1 ML didn’t help. What did I do - I bet off the SP preplay screen which had Musket man and Pioneer of the Nile amongst a bunch clustered around the finish line. At 50-1, even a place bet on Mine would have been productive. I got distracted a bit by what Doc would call those “hossy sayings”. That’s when the Hat’s approach of ignoring ML, jockey, trainer, layoff, date, and just letting the horse and the matchup do the talking would have served me well. Lesson learned and I’m still learning.