The Hat Method and the "Mind's Eye"

[azbacks]

1st call time - 21.4

#3 - late closer will be too far behind - OUT
#4 - too slow - OUT
#5 - tad slower - keep
#6 - too slow - OUT
#7 - our early, still quickest - keep
#8, 9, 10, 11 - too slow at 1c - OUT

Leaves the 5 & 7

7 has edge

Pete

[lsosa54]

1C Projected Pace: 7-Gloriously 21.4. Seems to have been set without much pressure.

3-Mailgram - faced a 21.4 on the turf and finished 4th, 9+ lengths behind, not making a real move during the race. Don't know what he can do on dirt, but based on this, he's OUT.
4-Possible - Fastest he's faced is a 22.2 on a fast track, 8 tenths behind the pace setter. He closed nicely but OUT.
5-Royal Diana - my other E. Faced a 22 and finished 2nd beaten 2+ lengths. If you look at the sloppy 21.8, she finished 2nd by 4 lengths. That's still 4 tenths behind the pace setter so OUT.
6-Lady On Holiday - best 1C faced in a sprint is a 22.4, where she finished 3rd by 2.6. OUT
7-Gloriously - pace setter
8-Liza Lu - did face a 21.8 1st time out and ran 3rd by 3.5. Still 4 tenths behind the pace setter so out.
9-BR's Girl - I originally considered her for an E designation but she was on the lead or very close on turf, at a route, and at 5f, so I decided to use P here. Fastest she's faced is a 21.7 where she finished 5th by 5.5. OUT
10-Champagne Coolie - Won off a 22.7 but then could only muster a 4th off the same 1C. She did run against a 22.2 in the mud, but lost by 14 lengths. OUT.
11-And A Cherry Tree - faced a 21.9 at 5f and finished 3rd by 3. OUT


Well, this is an uneasy feeling for me, but I can't find a 2nd horse to beat the pace setter, 7-Gloriously.

I would probably consider 3-Mailgram as a potential danger based on those turf fractions, but she didn't do much against them and she's a dirt unknown.

6-Lady On Holiday did run decently against the 45.1 2nd Call that 7-Gloriously set, but there's a 5 fifth difference in the horses 1st calls.

8-Liza Lu ran well against a 21.8, 45.1 which is close, but 7-Gloriously set a 2 length faster stretch call of 57.7 and let's not forget the 2 fifths at the 1st call.

It appears that 7-Gloriously won't need to run 21.4 to the 1st call and can conserve some energy for when the running starts. Positionally, she also seems to have the advantage against today's pace.

Trust me, this seems too easy to be correct. My confidence in my match up skills is not high.

[admin]

Originally Posted by RichieP

Step 3:

Now that you have a first fraction pace and have made a PRELIMINARY "mental call" on how the race will be won:

1) Keeping that first fraction in your head match the first 2 horses against one another focusing on races where that 1c pace existed. If a horse has not faced that pace throw him out. Remember that 1st call pace you have established by an early runner is a racer where the horse either WON or finished very close so you know it's real. So if a horse has not faced that pace OR faced it and done poorly THROW HIM OUT.

2) Keep the winner of that first matchup/throw the loser out and move to the next horse. Repeat the process.

3) Do this until you have reached the final 2 horse matchup. Post those 2 up please(who you have left)

If you would consider posting your process that would be great. Allows for feedback.
Richie

Hi Rich I'm sorry
I'm mixed up

Is my Peliminary mental call the 21.4 from the 7 horse

How the early pace will run or how the race will be won ?
I know Jim says his best students just do and don't ask why
but I am confused ??

1) Keeping that first fraction in your head match the first 2 horses against one another focusing on races where that 1c pace existed. If a horse has not faced that pace throw him out. Remember that 1st call pace you have established by an early runner is a racer where the horse either WON or finished very well

At this step am I looking for a first fraction pace of race that was
21.4 ? and only keeping horses that ran well against that pace ?

Then match two horses against each other that ran well
aginst the 21.4 Pace ??

throw the loser out ?

Thanks Rich If you can help me

Bill

[MIKE1121]

Originally Posted by lschofiel

Rich,
From an outsiders prespective, I'd suggest the following for this thread:

1. Either redefine Early, Presser, and Sustained or post the link to the definitions.

2. Either redefine how to match-up the first two and continue through the field or post the link to the process.

3. Post what the results of step 1 should have been so users can see areas that need improvement in their own process. As each step is concluded, it would be helpful to show what you/HAT came up with.

Thanks
Larry

Check some of his matchup posts in the hat section you will find his definitions there.None of them have been removed.

You can also give your own definition of running stlyes as long as you are consistant.

I assign a horse EARLY if he is less than 1 beaten length at the first call. 2nd by a head may be how he gets listed in the PPs but if you think about it you will see that maybe a split second earlier he may have been 1rst by a head.
Horses who are within 1 beaten lenght are running just as hard as the leader.Most of the time they too are trying to get the lead.
Keep it simple , this is the whole point of this exersize.

Pressers... 1 beaten lenght to 3 beaten lenghts. They are positioned in the FRONT 1/2 of the pack.In a 10 horse field they will be 2nd or 3rd.

Sustain.... more than 3 beaten lenghts at first call, their position should be seen as mid pack to the back of the pack. In a 10 horse field Sustain types will be 4th to 10th at the first call.


Mike.

[PeteC]

Well Rich, I'll give it my best shot...1st call pace = 21.4

#3 vs #4...#3 faced that pace in its last race, which happened to be on the turf).she basically held position, (5-5-5-4) but didn;t do much else. 2 back she won versus a little slower pace than I'm looking for (21.8), but it's in the ballpark and she made a winning move (7-6-5-1). Those efforts look a heck of a lot better than #4 who has never faced today's pace. Edge to #3

#3 vs #5...#5 is an Early horse who won against a 22.7. Last out set the pace versus 21.8, in today's ballpark but still not quite 21.4. I give the edge to the #3 in this pair because I can't see #5 winning versus a 21.4 pace.

#3 vs #6...An easier call as the #6 has never faced today's pace. Edge to #3

#3 vs #7...Here is my projected pacesetter at 21.4. So far, I see that he should be able to get that 1 length comfort zone she had at the 1C last time. I also remember the 5-5-5-4 positioning of the #3 versus today's pace, I give the edge here to #7.

#7 vs #8...#8 ran well 7 back versus 21.8 (8-6-6-3), but, again, not quite 21.4, and I still don't have a challenger for the #7.

#7 vs #9...#9 is intguing because of the fighting especially evident in lines 1 and 3. However, I see those were versus much slower paces. Line 9 is against a 21.7, but she really went nowhere (4-4-4-5). Still gotta give it to the #7.

#7 vs #10...#10 has never faced a pace close to today's.

Final match-up is between #7 and #11...#11 ran well versus a 21.9 (6-6-5-3), but still not quite as fast as 21.4 and positionally is still further back in the pack. At this point, I'm ready to select #7 and hope that one of the others don't pop up and press him unexpectedly (at least to me).

Pete

[Bill Lyster]

Match up notes:
3 vs 4: 3 is turf S; 4 router with no internal splits close to this pace, even adjusted route to sprint doesn't get close;
3 vs 5: E type with best on sloppy track not good enuf for our leader; fast track splits too low, out with the 5
3 vs 6: 6 is P type. 2nd sprint back horse runs positionally closer to lead, perhaps closing on todays leader. gained on race leader 1c-2c and 2c-stretch. 3 is not gaining ground against fast pace. take the 6 over the 3.
6 vs 7: 7 is race leader and 6 cannot gain on him. 6 is losing ground at 5f if you interpolate the info; appears to fade more after that.

the 8-9-10-11 have no lines against a 21.4 first call. The 9's best finishes come off softer paces and the horse has run against some quick 6F times, one in a 6.5 turf race down the SA hill and one in a 7F.

I can't find anyone to eyball the 7 so I looked at what I thought were the two horses positionally or time-wise in the best spot. My final screen has the 6-7-9. the 9 closes position and lengths in his 7F race in a good time - much better than the 6. My second horse, reluctantly, is the 9.

[Bill Lyster]

Here is the screen shot of my last screen

[RichieP]

Originally Posted by admin

1) At this step am I looking for a first fraction pace of race that was
21.4 ? and only keeping horses that ran well against that pace ?

2) Then match two horses against each other that ran well
aginst the 21.4 Pace ??

3) throw the loser out ?

Thanks Rich If you can help me
Bill

Bill I have numbered your questions so I can answer them below in order ok?

1) YES
2) YES
3) YES

Are you following me?
Richie

[Bill Lyster]

Just a clarification:

I'm working in RDSS for this exercise, but others might not be. How much latitude do you give when comparing projected pace lines in the one on one process? RDSS highlights times within a few tenths of the projected pace, but if you are doing it by eyeball with the form, for instance, how far above the 21.4 (this instance) to you still consider as being competitive?

Do you use the same latitude with successive call points or does the useable data range widen or narrow?

THanks,

[RichieP]

Originally Posted by Bill Lyster

Just a clarification:

I'm working in RDSS for this exercise, but others might not be. How much latitude do you give when comparing projected pace lines in the one on one process? RDSS highlights times within a few tenths of the projected pace, but if you are doing it by eyeball with the form, for instance, how far above the 21.4 (this instance) to you still consider as being competitive?

Do you use the same latitude with successive call points or does the usable data range widen or narrow?
THanks,

Hi Bill
Just a couple of things please:

1) Hat NEVER wanted me working in tenths. He knew I would convert in my head quickly to fifths.

2) I'd rather NOT "answer" the questions you posed. Answer being in " " because IF there is one it becomes one found through personal discovery and work.