Time for some help

[Bill V.]

Follow Up 84

[Bill V.]

Follow Up 84

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Bill V.

Follow Up 84

So what's the problem?

QUESTION #3:

"Doc" says you may go back "as far as 5 lines" (THAT'S ALL, JUST 5 LINES), BUT ONLY if there are two intervening races that are non-comparable. So if there are NO intervening races that are non-comparable YOU DO NOT go back 5 lines!!! This is so you get to see 3 lines that ARE comparable. He also noted that one should keep records of these instances so that you can make a determination as to whether following such a procedure is worth while OR NOT.
I have already stated, that from the last 100,000 races I have, the winners came from line 1 or line 2 over 90% of the time, with line 1 being the greatest majority from that percentage.

Next, "Doc" says he would take a "second rated" line over a "first rated" line if taking a "first rated" line means going back too far OR projecting or xtracting, which is a practice I personally NEVER use.
Again, "Doc" is talking about taking a recent line over an old line even if the recent line isn't as good as the old line. Why? It's more recent and therefore more predictive of the horses current condition and form.

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about with regard to the #8 horse discussed earlier. Whether the last line was the "best line" or the "second best line", "Doc" is making it clear that the last line (in this case) IS THE LINE! It is the line because it is more recent. And for other reasons as I already stated.

All things considered, it seems "Doc" and I are pretty much in agreement, wouldn't you agree?

[Bill V.]

Thank you FTL
You make good points No arguments from me
Again I wish you well.

[clore1030]

Originally Posted by 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

Use it with my compliments, it's nice to be quoted even if there are no royalties.

[mikesal57]

Hi Guys...

FTL has given us some valuable info that I myself use religiously..

1) in this post- over 90% of winners line 1 or 2 is used

2) in a prior post -95 % of winners have raced within 90 days

This is a start for "newbies" or anyone else in that case that want to develop some sort of "guidelines" to get pacelines to input or for matching up.

I use the rest of the PP's to get a "story" on the horse and to compare recent lines to prior ones.

getting back to why I liked the #2.....
First of all i knew that the #1 would be the favorite by his last race, any software used would have had him on top with that race...now compare it to prior ones...Do you really think that this horse is a 1:08 or 1:09 ???
No way!!! and a 1-19 record to boot..HA
Anytime you can find a fault on the favorite all the rest are value.

In the case with the 8...with either lines this horse ranked last but there will be times when line 3 will put a horse on top and then you'll have to think real hard to bet him.

[socantra]

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

Hi Bill, I'm not FTL, but I'll take a shot or two at this one.

In this particular situation, we have a nice pat answer available. The original TM speed rating is 86, with a 10 point variant, leaving a net SR of 76. Add back half of that variant, as per traditional Sartin pratice and you get 76+5=81.

Sounds good, but unfortunately, things are not that simple. The TM speed rating is based on a sliding scale, similar to the Beyer ratings. The program speed rating is on a scale that is much closer to a fifth second per point, like the old DRF speed rating.

Ted has mentioned in other posts that the adjusted speed rating is not based on the Trackmaster speed rating, but on final time and calculated by the programs.

I can supply much more information on the TM speed ratings, but usually people's eyes start to glaze over when I get into it.

Dick...

[Charlie D]

Think i understand why Doc changed to best of last three Bill.

[clore1030]

Originally Posted by socantra

I can supply much more information on the TM speed ratings, but usually people's eyes start to glaze over when I get into it.

Dick...

I'd be more interested in the adjusted speed ratings and their derivation than the Trackmaster ones.

I've always been especially curious as to the SRs when it comes to adjusting for distances - the methodology behind the extrapolations or extractions.

With the Trackmaster SRs, my only concerns are the variants - I tend to shy away from lines that include a variant that is very high or very low. I was the same way with the DRF variant.

[socantra]

Originally Posted by clore1030

I'd be more interested in the adjusted speed ratings and their derivation than the Trackmaster ones.

I've always been especially curious as to the SRs when it comes to adjusting for distances - the methodology behind the extrapolations or extractions.

Many people would, but I strongly suspect that information remains proprietary