Time for some help

[Bill V.]

horse

[clore1030]

Originally Posted by mikesal57

Charlie, Pino, Charles,Ernie, Bill and FTL your incites were right on ...
Line 3 was to be used since its back to where he prefers and that he was on a track that he probably disliked..This is sound handicapping and I can be more confident in my line selecting than to just "use best of last 3"
But do we expect this to be known from someone starting out?

Maybe we can create a "Newbie" forum or something for us guys to take it easy on someone just coming in...What do you think??

mike

Thank you for the compliment, and congrats on your score.

One thing that I forgot to mention was that I noticed that for a change of pace (to use an expression), the bard went for a journeyman rider rather than the bug boy of one name or another that seemed to be the par.

Funny how racing terms have become everyday lingo.

Yeah, I know, we've been told not to notice such things but as yours was a DRF example, I can't help but use the kind of analysis that I did use when I did buy the paper.

The idea of a newbie forum would be interesting if it could stay on topic and if all "concepts" would be welcomed. Without naming names of the individual pro handicappers involved, what's a newbie to do when one guy says that a racetrack does not display any particular bias, yet a track model shows otherwise? We can argue all day whether it's an interpretation of the pace of the race that makes it seem as if a bias is present, or if it's an actual physical bias of the track that effects the pace.

I do know that I had one day at Belmont where there were seven dirt races, six of them sprints and the race was won almost automatically by the horse in the one or two slot if it had the highest EPR in the race. I was sitting next to Bruce Levine in the clubhouse and told him between the fifth and sixth race that his horse would win the seventh race based on its figs, post and the day's events thus far. This wasn't a favorite either, third choice in the betting as i recall. "From your lips to God's ears" he said and I replied "you may just be right."

Without referring to any methods or "rules" therein - I prefer to call them guidelines - one must first set their goals and also come to a realization as to what kind of play they prefer.

To my own end, I'll admit that I got tired of the daily grind using one method or another that led to the same result - tons of chalk that wasn't really advancing the bankroll. I found that even winning at a 50% clip but scoring mostly mutuels of $5.00 to $6.00 was just too time consuming and not worth playing two horses.

My own preferred style of play and consideration of the time involved would find me happier with a 33% win ratio if I could get higher prices. I'm also playing fewer races this way, which frees me for other things instead of sitting through a whole card. Add the time involved in handicapping and record keeping and that could mean up to half of my waking hours spent on all of this.

I'm also only betting one horse, which itself may be breaking a "rule" but I'm also the one putting forth the effort and putting down the coin. As far as I'm concerned, I'm allowed to make my own rules under such conditions. After all, I'm not one to whine when I lose and you don't see me asking for assistance or complaining that the software or method isn't working.

I know from my own experience that I can make something work based on just a few pieces of information, if I do the homework. I once tried an experiment with the use of just one NYC newspaper selector. He was hitting perhaps 20-22% winners, so I did some analysis to determine his strengths. He was better with particular distances in certain class levels - I'm going back some 30 years so forgive me if I no longer recall exactly levels and distances were involved.

It came down to being able to up his winning percentage to 33-36% by eliminating certain kinds of races. What I wanted to prove was that I could determine someone else's strengths just as I could my own. This is the motivation behind all of the homework that I've done to reach my present style.

The reason that I use software now is simply because my eyes are no longer what they used to be. Too many years (30 of them) of reading the small print of Nielsen rating books under fluorescent lights has done its damage. I won't compare myself to Jim Bradshaw in any other manner except to say that in those days I barely marked up a DRF except to make certain notes in the margins when faced with large fields.

I can't do that anymore, the strain on my eyes makes the intuition process difficult. It isn't the same using a magnifying glass as it was when I could see and visualize "the big picture." It was also easier when the DRF was a larger formatted paper, races weren't spread across three pages.

Anyway, I think that you have a good idea and I would love to participate but on the other hand, I don't enjoy being told that I am wrong when my bankroll says otherwise.

Mike, you and I may take a different route to get to Aqueduct, but the key consideration is to get there in one piece without spending too much time in traffic.

[mikesal57]

Nice post Charles...

It takes a little time ( hopefully not 30 years) but we can achieve our goals..but...it takes baby steps at first...

[Bill V.]

Anyway, I think that you have a good idea and I would love to participate but on the other hand, I don't enjoy being told that I am wrong when my bankroll says otherwise. Do you have a patent on that line its so true. I tip my hat to you sir

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Bill V.

horse

Bill,
Thank you for posting each horse in this race along with your line selection and reasoning for same. It is a PERFECT example of what is wrong with the concept of "BLINDLY" employing “best of last three comparable.” Specifically I want to review the #8 horse.

Here is a horse with just 3 races. In those 3 races it has demonstrated that it has a front running style. So you went back to its’ first lifetime race 158 days ago (more than 5 months ago) for a line because that line has the highest speed rating. Do you think it is objective to use this horses first start ever rather than its’ last race? Did you feel there was no room for this horse to improve as it showed it did in its’ last race by running its’ best early fractions?

You also noted that you were concerned that as a result of choosing the 3rd line back that the horse ran against a slow pace. THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE USED THE LAST LINE! It is the most current piece of information for this horse, NOT the oldest, AND it comes from the same track the horse will be competing on TODAY!! It shows that it can compete with fast early fractions.

Speed ratings are based on the best time in the past 3 years at a given track for a given distance. There IS NOT one standard time from which all horses at every track in the country is measured. Every track, every distance and every surface is calculated on its’ own. It is quite possible that the #8 horses last race speed rating of “78” could actually result in a faster time than the “81” speed rating from HAW.

Consider this example. The 3 year best time at 6f at track “A” is 108, while the 3 year best time at 6f at track “B” is 109.
Keep in mind that at each track the 3 year best time represents “100”.
Keep in mind that for each one fifth of a second a horse runs slower than the 3 year best time, one point will be deducted from the base 100.
A horse that runs a 6f race at track “B” in 1:12.4 will get a speed rating of “81”, because that time is 19 fifths (one fifth = 1 length) slower than the 3 year best time.
A horse that runs a 6f race at track “A” in 1:12.2 will get a speed rating of “78”, because that time is 22 fifths (one fifth = 1 length) slower than the 3 year best time.

Which horse ran the faster time?

[Bill V.]

Thanks ftl for your opinion. I wish you a win in every race

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Bill V.

Thanks ftl for your opinion. I wish you a win in every race

Thanks for that sentiment, but I don't think THAT is going to happen, for me, or any other human betting on horse races.

My post had nothing to do with winning "a race" let alone "every race", rather, the intent was to provide readers, especially those learning, with some insight. It never hurts to learn something that previously you did not know.

Had I closed my mind to learning, I wouldn't know anything about the Sartin Methodology.

[Bill V.]

Hi FTL

Can you explain to me the difference in the Speed ratings
and how they are calculated ?

Here we have the same horse
top screen is original Bottom is Adjusted
We get an 86 on original and a 81 Adjusted

How is this done and why is there such a difference

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Bill V.

Hi FTL

Can you explain to me the difference in the Speed ratings
and how they are calculated ?

Here we have the same horse
top screen is original Bottom is Adjusted
We get an 86 on original and a 81 Adjusted

How is this done and why is there such a difference

Sure Bill.

For the "real" answer you would have to ask Ted since these adjustments are made by the RDSS program.

I'm reasonably sure that the differences are as a result of adjustments made in the RDSS program based on track variant.

I make these adjustments in my own program, but that doesn't mean Ted and I make the adjustments in the same way.

If you recall, in the "Energy" program and/or "Thoromation" programs and possibly others as well, there were 3 potential adjustments, automatic adjustments, #2 adjust and manual adjust. I know "Doc" was never a big fan of people making their own adjustments via the manual adjust. He was pretty straight forward with his reasoning. Most people DON'T KNOW HOW to make adjustments and therefore they are better off making no adjustment. For that reason he always suggested the automatic adjustment. Now in the event that total energy's were vastly different, the #2 adjust was recommended, although reviewing pace line selection would have been the first a first step towards correction before using the #2 adjust. The reason for that was because horses entered off of slow lines would get so much of the equalization adjustment it would drastically reduce the top horses, thereby making all the horses equal in total energy. The caution was to make sure the horses entered with slower lines were "real" contenders.

[Bill V.]

Ok Great when Ted answers I will be very happy