Quote:
Originally Posted by Segwin
Question regarding the +, (+) 0 selections.
In the attached picture the Doc wrote the rules for their use. There was no (+) in his rules and he also included that if the horse finished within 4.5 lengths it could be a +.
Later on I wrote this down for a post here (sorry don't remember which post)
+ = any race where the horse ran, 1st, 2nd or 3rd
(+) = any race where the horse shows one of the following
A – showed good early form by being 1st or 2nd at the first and/or 2nd calls, even if it faded down the stretch
B – any race where the horse made a good middle move (that’s call 1 to call 2) gaining in lengths and being within 2 lengths of the leader at the second call, even if it faded down the stretch
0 = any other line
When did these rules change?
Also, how far back can we go for a useable line (was it 90 days)?
Thanks.
|
Beside the fact that I don’t know the date of “any” change in the methodology, I don’t think the date matters. I will suggest, you may want to read the Paceline Manual.
I have written this before, but it doesn’t hurt to go over it again. With regard to the “90 day” question you asked, this has nothing to do with methodology teachings. This is “my” guideline and one I believe everyone should, at least, evaluate for themselves. The problem with this suggestion is, people will not evaluate the guideline over a long enough period of time to reach a valid conclusion. I dislike saying this all the time, but I have more than 600,000 races and more than 5,000,000 horses from which to draw a conclusion. If you read through the various publications in the library, you will eventually come across statements of how a particular thing was evaluated based on a trial of 1,000 races or 2,000 races. That was nice for pre-computer/internet days, but next to nothing today.
Further, I don’t think asking “when” the rules (guidelines) were changed is a matter for consideration. Instead, giving consideration to the changes would be more appropriate.
Read those “+”, “(+)” and “0” guidelines over again, while picturing in your mind what they represent.
If a horse does not have a recent “+” or “(+)” line, is it really a contender?
Just to review the “90 day” guideline, it comes in two parts.
1 – no horse is a “win” contender if it has not had a race in the last 90 days. Only 5% of races are won by a horse that has not raced in the last 90 days.
2 – do not use any line that is more than 90 days old.
I am always amazed that people “want” to go back in the PP’s for a line. WHY? Is there some magic in going back deep for a line?
Recently, someone posted this.
“I have been going over all of the follow ups and in issue 77 ,Dr Sartin says that in a 1000 race study "the Win horse of each races ranked in the top 5 and ties in Total Energy 98% of the time" and the top three 75% of the time.”
So let me put up a recent study of my own from this year.
91% of winners came off a “+” or “(+)” line in one of their last two races. These races were also less than 90 days old.
And this comes from considerably more than 1,000 races.
Now I
DO NOT hold with the "best of last 3 comparable" line of thinking. Instead,
I prefer "Doc's" original line of thinking of using the last line, if it is a qualifying line. Nevertheless, here is what "Doc" said.
Even with the best of last 3 comparable concept, "Doc" tells you how rare it is when he would go back further than the 3rd line.