|
Google Site Search | Get RDSS | Sartin Library | RDSS FAQs | Conduct | Register | Site FAQ | Members List | Today's Posts | Search |
Sartin Methodology Handicapping 101 (102 ...) Interactive Teaching & Learning - Race Conditions, Contenders, Pacelines, Advanced Concepts, Betting ... |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
02-06-2018, 01:40 AM | #21 |
Grade 1
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 909
|
|
06-15-2021, 04:11 PM | #22 |
Grade 1
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 644
|
Blast from the past...spending the afternoon browsing old threads to jog the old memory...semi-annual tune up. I forgot this one - Mike's power 3rd fraction. How was that calculated?
Say a horse runs against a 46 112 pace and gains 5 lengths from the half. Raw he gets a 25 3rd fraction. How did he adjust that? |
06-16-2021, 09:01 AM | #23 |
Grade 1
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Largo Fl.
Posts: 2,295
|
Mp
I believe he added back the 5 beaten lengths at the half
|
06-16-2021, 09:03 AM | #24 |
Grade 1
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
|
I would forget about adjusting the 3rd FR by Pizzola's PBS numbers and not recommend them at all.
Sartin's adjustments have proven to be far superior, all done automatically by the computer which make them consistent and not prone to mistakes. Sartin's also considers the Match Up of todays race which changes race to race by the contenders within the race. The bottom line is this and the fly in the ointment to Pizzola's PBR is a false narrative because each horse when gutted has its own deceleration pattern. The best decelerate gradually while others stop on a dime. Therefore no neat rule such as adjusting 2 to 1 in the 3rd FR is valid. Just a SWAG ( scientific wild ass guess) verses a WAG (wild ass guess) BTW a SWAG is slightly better as there is some reason behind it verses throwing a dart at it. Even Sartin has said it could be as much as 4 to 1 in a route. The Match Up considers this and is quite more effective as far who can survive that early pace. Sartin teachings and RDSS is about picking winners which are the spring board to launching success. Winners are the key to all bets regardless of what they pay. Pizzola's is just about getting prices or longshots. Its also one dimensional because its limited to only one factor, his version of pace numbers. Longshots are multi-dimensional and come from many factors, not just pace. Any multifaceted approach would be a better path to travel on. Mitch44 Last edited by Mitch44; 06-16-2021 at 09:06 AM. |
06-16-2021, 03:29 PM | #25 |
Grade 1
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 8,855
|
This is what RDSS does in its PF3 factor (Supplementary section on BLBL and Rx screens - same as Pizzolla's PPF). RDSS just shows the rank, and to do so calculates a modified 3rd (Power! ) fraction velocity and time (not shown). I have always been allergic to hyperbole ...
Tom in your example, if you use .20 seconds per beaten length, you get 25 seconds as you say. I have no studies to show the situational effectiveness of PPF/PF3. Some people like it. It is not used in any other compounded factors. Ted
__________________
RDSS - Racing Decision Support System™ |
06-17-2021, 10:14 AM | #26 |
Grade 1
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
|
As Sartin evolved he discounted Factors that failed to meet or exceed his standards, Fractals is an example. However after introducing things or concepts there were those who always demanded that they remain in new programs. From a business point of view I suppose it made sense. The opposite effect was that there were so many readouts and Factors it made it difficult for most to grasp. It really caused confusion or paralysis by analysis. Even today many fail to grasp the concept as they come and go.
On page 110 of Tom Brohamer's book Modern Pace Handicapping circa 1991, he states that the group or Pirco's basic criteria for a Factor to be considered viable, was that it must consistently rank the winner in the top 4. "Consistently" was defined as 67%. Ted your absolutely correct that its not part of the Primary Factors, obviously it failed to meet Sartin's standards for inclusion. To survive the game no one should be looking backward or accept a lesser degree of winning, adapt or perish. Mitch44 Last edited by Mitch44; 06-17-2021 at 10:17 AM. |
06-17-2021, 04:29 PM | #27 |
Grade 1
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: central islip ny
Posts: 1,091
|
"On page 110 of Tom Brohamer's book Modern Pace Handicapping circa 1991, he states that the group or Pirco's basic criteria for a Factor to be considered viable, was that it must consistently rank the winner in the top 4. "Consistently" was defined as 67%."
In RDSS, at BEL most of the factors do better than that. e.g. RX1, RX2, and RX3 approach 85% in the top 4 and over 90% in the top 5.
__________________
Check out my daily picks for Saratoga in the Saratoga Special http://www.thisishorseracing.com |
06-18-2021, 08:58 AM | #28 |
Grade 1
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
|
Your correct Charlie and I've been well aware of this for many years while using my own version of RX3. Lt1 can verify this. As such I always try to steer them towards later Programs for success, particularity RDSS.
I'm not a fan of RX1 or 2. but the way their weighted there is little difference and in the majority of time they come up with the same horses and order. Any combination of Factors is effected by the worse of the Factors which will lower the effectiveness of the others, this is also why too many combinations of Factors can ruin the sauce. Of course how their weighted can also reduce or enhance their effectiveness. Mitch44 |
08-31-2022, 11:03 AM | #29 | |
Grade 3
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 74
|
Quote:
|
|
08-31-2022, 11:19 AM | #30 | |
Grade 3
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 74
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|