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

clore1030 · 02-05-2009, 11:40 AM

Richie - nice post.
But from my experience, what's most important in a group such as that is how closely the BL ranks fall. The second horse is eight-tenths away from the top, and the third ranked is just 3 or so points below that.

Let's for the sake of argument, imagine that as lengths. The top horse is just 3/4 ahead of the second horse who in turn, is only three lengths ahead of the third contender.

On the other hand, I've found that if the top ranked horse is about 25% higher on a point scale than the second horse, that one should be considered stronger than one who is only 5% ahead.

Right now, after some disastrous post-holiday results on the Inner Dirt Track at AQU, I'm tracking the individual rankings that make up the primary line score, plus the BL score.

At first I was using full fields because I was finding out that by reducing it down to five horses (six in races of 10 or more), I had too many horses that didn't make the cut.

I was eliminating by lowest Total Energy scores on the Energy screen.

What I discovered when compiling the full field data was that a bunch of the winners at 6 furlongs who didn't make it on Total Energy DID qualify on Hidden Energy.

So I went back and used the same selection criteria, but whittled the fields down by Hidden Energy instead, and was at least getting the winners in the finals, even if not on top.

Again, this was purely 6 furlongs, so I don't advocate this for all distances on the Inner Dirt Track.

I'm still massaging the data, looking for more patterns. But I'll throw out a few highlights:

With 26 races tracked, not one horse that was ranked second in EP has won a race! Top ranked took six of the heats, while third-ranked EP won seven. Thus, that's 13 of 26 races. But LP also had 13 of 26 in the top 3, but here the split was a more evenly distributed 5-5-3 for first-second and third.

The strongest category is the FW one, where 16 of the 26 winners were in the top 3, fairly evenly split at 5-6-5 for first-second and third.

Mile races seem the hardest to rate, the data is all over the place and until I get a better handle on them, I'll be passing all mile races on the IDT.

Only 7 of 17 races at 1m70 were in the top two BL ranks, but 10 of 17 made the top two in FX. 12 of 17 were in the top 3 LPR while only 9 of 17 made the top 3 EPR.

6 of the 17 were ranked 5 or 6 in EP at 1m70, which is an aberration from the old IDT and what prompted this project of mine in the first place.

I'm just using these as a guide to further narrow down contenders, it doesn't mean an automatic wager.

02-05-2009, 11:40 AM	#5
clore1030 Grade 1 Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,678	Richie - nice post. But from my experience, what's most important in a group such as that is how closely the BL ranks fall. The second horse is eight-tenths away from the top, and the third ranked is just 3 or so points below that. Let's for the sake of argument, imagine that as lengths. The top horse is just 3/4 ahead of the second horse who in turn, is only three lengths ahead of the third contender. On the other hand, I've found that if the top ranked horse is about 25% higher on a point scale than the second horse, that one should be considered stronger than one who is only 5% ahead. Right now, after some disastrous post-holiday results on the Inner Dirt Track at AQU, I'm tracking the individual rankings that make up the primary line score, plus the BL score. At first I was using full fields because I was finding out that by reducing it down to five horses (six in races of 10 or more), I had too many horses that didn't make the cut. I was eliminating by lowest Total Energy scores on the Energy screen. What I discovered when compiling the full field data was that a bunch of the winners at 6 furlongs who didn't make it on Total Energy DID qualify on Hidden Energy. So I went back and used the same selection criteria, but whittled the fields down by Hidden Energy instead, and was at least getting the winners in the finals, even if not on top. Again, this was purely 6 furlongs, so I don't advocate this for all distances on the Inner Dirt Track. I'm still massaging the data, looking for more patterns. But I'll throw out a few highlights: With 26 races tracked, not one horse that was ranked second in EP has won a race! Top ranked took six of the heats, while third-ranked EP won seven. Thus, that's 13 of 26 races. But LP also had 13 of 26 in the top 3, but here the split was a more evenly distributed 5-5-3 for first-second and third. The strongest category is the FW one, where 16 of the 26 winners were in the top 3, fairly evenly split at 5-6-5 for first-second and third. Mile races seem the hardest to rate, the data is all over the place and until I get a better handle on them, I'll be passing all mile races on the IDT. Only 7 of 17 races at 1m70 were in the top two BL ranks, but 10 of 17 made the top two in FX. 12 of 17 were in the top 3 LPR while only 9 of 17 made the top 3 EPR. 6 of the 17 were ranked 5 or 6 in EP at 1m70, which is an aberration from the old IDT and what prompted this project of mine in the first place. I'm just using these as a guide to further narrow down contenders, it doesn't mean an automatic wager.