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

Bill Lyster · 04-13-2011, 09:07 PM

I am starting to see patterns in some of the data gained from the use of E/L 2.0

I listed the choices as E1, E2, L1 and L2. In 34 races at Woodbine last year (I used the database cards from September) the results were 8-8-4-4 which might indicated an early bias or just not enough data.

I also did 91 races from last summer at DMR and SAR and threw in a few current ones from SA.

In 91 races the results were 25-8-20-14 which again could be a limited data thing, but it could also mean that the logic for labeling the #2 E horse might need some revision.

I would expect #1s to win more than #2s and so 45 of the 91 races were won by either the #1 E or L horse.

It seems like the program chooses the swing horse a lot whether it is E1 of E2. Sometimes due to the running styles of the horses and particularly in shorter field races the 2nd choice of either E or L may not be the best decision given the makeup of the field. When there are few Late runners in the field the 2nd best Late horse may be one of the Pressers that gets discarded in the early analysis and vice versa when there are few legitimate Early horses, again one of the Pressers might be a better #2E. You really need to look at how the numbers line up and ask yourself a few questions.

Still a work in progress. I am seeing many exactas - just over 50% and 25% trifectas. Of course its all on paper so far. My thoughts are to look at playing exactas, trifectas and even supers (the 10c kind). I figure that if you can hit 25% trifectas with 4 horses, just hit the all button for the 4th slot for the supers (in a 10 horse field with 4 horses in the first three spots, the remaining horses can be covered for 8 or 9 bucks! Just a thought.)

Looking forward to reading about other finds or nuances from others....

Bill

04-13-2011, 09:07 PM	#1
Bill Lyster Grade 1 Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Escondido CA just 25 minutes from where the turf meets the surf - "...at Del Mar" Posts: 2,498	RDSS 2.0 E/L data to look at I am starting to see patterns in some of the data gained from the use of E/L 2.0 I listed the choices as E1, E2, L1 and L2. In 34 races at Woodbine last year (I used the database cards from September) the results were 8-8-4-4 which might indicated an early bias or just not enough data. I also did 91 races from last summer at DMR and SAR and threw in a few current ones from SA. In 91 races the results were 25-8-20-14 which again could be a limited data thing, but it could also mean that the logic for labeling the #2 E horse might need some revision. I would expect #1s to win more than #2s and so 45 of the 91 races were won by either the #1 E or L horse. It seems like the program chooses the swing horse a lot whether it is E1 of E2. Sometimes due to the running styles of the horses and particularly in shorter field races the 2nd choice of either E or L may not be the best decision given the makeup of the field. When there are few Late runners in the field the 2nd best Late horse may be one of the Pressers that gets discarded in the early analysis and vice versa when there are few legitimate Early horses, again one of the Pressers might be a better #2E. You really need to look at how the numbers line up and ask yourself a few questions. Still a work in progress. I am seeing many exactas - just over 50% and 25% trifectas. Of course its all on paper so far. My thoughts are to look at playing exactas, trifectas and even supers (the 10c kind). I figure that if you can hit 25% trifectas with 4 horses, just hit the all button for the 4th slot for the supers (in a 10 horse field with 4 horses in the first three spots, the remaining horses can be covered for 8 or 9 bucks! Just a thought.) Looking forward to reading about other finds or nuances from others.... Bill