Go Back   Pace and Cap - Sartin Methodology & The Match Up > Sartin Methodology Handicapping 101 (102 ...)
Mark Forums Read
Google Site Search Get RDSS Sartin Library RDSS FAQs Conduct Register Site FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts

Sartin Methodology Handicapping 101 (102 ...) Interactive Teaching & Learning - Race Conditions, Contenders, Pacelines, Advanced Concepts, Betting ...

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-26-2017, 01:26 PM   #11
Bill V.
The egg man
 
Bill V.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Carlsbad, California
Posts: 10,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by delayjf View Post
That's news to me, I always considered TPR as another version of sartin, sustained pace.
TPR or total pace is the sum of Early Pace and Late pace
More specifically the second call plus the 3rd fraction The numbers are velocity based but the Lpr ratings scale takes in a deceleration formula, to compensate for the various distances
horse run in 3rd fractions
Bill V. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2017, 01:36 PM   #12
Mitch44
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
The three fractions in feet per second are raw. The three fractions in FPS ratings have no deceleration in them. Total energy which consist of the 3 FR in FPS added to produce Total energy. TPR does not use the 1st fraction, it consists of the second call and 3rd fraction. Also the 3rd FR within TPR contains a deceleration factor built within that number which is where much of its effectiveness comes from.

The Sartin sustained pace comes from feet per second and is SC + 3rd FR divided by 2. As I said the beaten length formula used in TPR and FPS are different, with FPS coming later and being more accurate for beaten lengths. Actually the BL formula in later programs was changed again from FPS to be even more accurate and effective.

When you see a higher Total Energy figure than TPR in most cases that horses runs a faster 1st FR however it could be the deceleration incorporated in the 3rd FR of TPR.

Because it considers all 3 fractions and has a better beaten length formula if I had to choose only one I would use Total Energy in this example. But what the hell why worry if the number 6 TPR or the number 6 Tot. En. is best. Simply put them both in after picking appropriate lines and let the computer separate them for you on BLBL. Also if you can't decide on a correct pace line ,enter them both and take the best BLBL readout.

Using all 3 fractions advanced programs to a higher state and produced other factors such as FX,HE, DCL etc. which propelled programs and read outs to be unquestionably more effective today but that doesn't make TPR any less important. There is much that can be gained from various readouts or factors, once you can understand them. Each contains a piece of the puzzle. One thing I love about TPR is gaps in ranking which jump off the page at you where as with FPS they don't. Ditto for other factors or readout.

Mitch44

Last edited by Mitch44; 07-26-2017 at 01:46 PM.
Mitch44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2017, 01:46 PM   #13
dlivery
Grade 1
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Thornhill ON
Posts: 437
Tpr

Just noticed the Revived TPR discussion

This rating certainly with me is one tool I use.
The tool shed is full of many tools
One can examine all of them and RDSS has many.
But the horse runs the race
How it ends up is still quit an accomplishment for these animals.

Good skill to all

Lawrence
__________________
May all wagers be Winners...
dlivery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2017, 10:20 PM   #14
delayjf
Grade 3
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 74
Quote:
The Sartin sustained pace comes from feet per second and is SC + 3rd FR divided by 2
By SC I assume you are referring to 2nd call which would be the 1/2 mile call in a sprint and the 6 furlong call in a route.

Is the deceleration factor something RSDD added, or have they always been a part of the TPR formula?
delayjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2017, 07:11 AM   #15
Mitch44
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
delayjf:

Your correct that SC was second call, 1/2 mile in sprints and 6 F in routes. The deceleration factor has always been a part of TPR . Its also in RDSS however in a more refined format,(better) and in several factors. The biggest factor being V/DC.

Mitch44
Mitch44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2017, 07:48 AM   #16
Bill V.
The egg man
 
Bill V.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Carlsbad, California
Posts: 10,005
Deceleration

The EPR or Second Call numbers
are straight forward. The distance of the SC
is set at 4 furlongs and 6 furlongs
So there is no deceleration figure
If you run the second call in 48 seconds you get
an 80 If you run the second call in a route in 113
you get an 80 anything faster t gets you 1 point per 1/5 second added, anything slower get 1 point deducted.
The deceleration formula is in the LPR
number
The Scale is different than the EP scale
In the LPR scale, the time a horse takes to run the 3rd fraction is influenced by the distance of the race.
The distance of the 3rd fraction does change based on the different distances horses run.

An example is 25 seconds
In a 6 furlong race, a 25-second 3rd fraction gets an 85 LPR

But at 1 mile a 25-second 3rd fraction gets a 90
At 5.5 furlongs the 3rd fraction is very short
a horse that runs a 25 3rd fraction is crawling
and only gets a 53
At 7 furlongs the 3rd fraction is longer than
6 furlongs and 1 mile!
The 100 rating on the scale for 7 furlongs is 35 seconds, at 6.5 furlongs it is 28.3 seconds.

You can see the deceleration formula results
in the LPR charts I posted at this link


http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11141
Bill V. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2017, 02:03 PM   #17
Mark
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 318
TPR vs TE

For my money there is no better tool for contender qualification than TPR. I have started to use it in turf races when I have horses coming from numerous tracks and comparing a 1:12.6 and a 1:14.2 2nd calls confounds me. Once I know that track speed and track to track differences contributes to the difference in 2nd call times and I have a meaningful number for comparison I can match the horses realistically.
As RDSS2 is configured, final time DTV is applied to all 3 fractions in differing percentages. Its application to the 1st fraction, for me, makes any further analysis meaningless. In cheaper races fast early fractions result in slower final times, generally, so to apply a positive adjustment to the 1st fraction makes no sense to me. The opposite is also true. Depending on your configuration, 50% or 100% you are applying 105% to 210% of the final time DTV to the raw velocity segments, with 20% to 40% going on the 1st fraction. You better have great confidence in those Trackmaster variants and the RDSS application of them, in my view.
This is a important consideration in the use of TPR and TE. The former applies the variant in different percentages to the second longest segment of the race besides the final time, the 2nd Call. The likelihood of this being more efficient is therefore enhanced. So as I have said I use it in turf racing where times can be very divergent. Once I have my contenders I use the Match Up with RAW data.
Mark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2017, 10:55 AM   #18
delayjf
Grade 3
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 74
Quote:
Depending on your configuration, 50% or 100% you are applying 105% to 210% of the final time DTV to the raw velocity segments, with 20% to 40% going on the 1st fraction.
A sharp poster on the Paceadvantage board did a three year study to determine what the average fraction times differences were when considering different final times. In his case he determined that when comparing final times with a difference of 1/5 of a second (for 6 furlongs), the time differences were distributed across the fractions in the following ratios.


17.5% to the first 1/4

27.5% to the second 1/4

55% to the final 1/4

So if one wanted to use a final time variant and apply that variant to the race fractions, you would do so using the percentages above. I should also point out that when conducting his averages, he was using win pars or the winners final and fractional time - not pace of the race fractional times.
delayjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2017, 03:02 PM   #19
Mark
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 318
I appreciate everyone who does work...

For the gentleman you reference, I take my hat off to him. He was willing to invest 3 years of this life to track something in an objective manner. However, I don't believe there is a useful average based on any kind of Pars. Maybe 30 -40 years ago. What determines good mutuels today is outright PUBLIC brainfart or deviations from the average. Averages get you $6.00 or less horses and I have no interest in that.
In any handful of claiming races at say 6f, there will be slow 1st fractions, moderate 1st fractions and fast 1st fractions because each race is made up of different horses with differing amounts of early speed. The 1st fraction is truly dependent upon the horses in that race. A field loaded with n-t-l Early horses will run a hell of a lot faster on the same day as a field that is paceless.(I made pars 30 years ago and assume same distances, surfaces and relative class) In reality, you end up penalizing fast horses and making slow horses faster.
I am a Bradshaw Match Up handicapper the last 4 years. I don't adjust races, I handicap RAW. I have some ideas I have shared with Ted that I want to explore but as a rule I will only use adjustments in Turf races with numerous shippers. Dirt and Poly racing is very straight forward and if you can't find a line on a horse that makes him competitive from the 10 provided, than most likely he doesn't belong in the race. One thing is absolutely clear fast horses win races and only lose when they are forced to run "too fast too early".
Mark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2017, 04:17 PM   #20
delayjf
Grade 3
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 74
Quote:
I don't adjust races, I handicap RAW.
In my experience, as long as you are comparing fractions from the same track, I do the same thing.

Its just my personal theory and I've got nothing to back it up as I've never really attempted to handicap tracks anywhere but in SoCal, but I have always believed that one reason the Sartin Methodology did so well in CA was that the tracks were more stable due to the lack of inclement WX that the east coast has to contend with. Also, there are a lot less shippers into the SoCal circuit than the east coast.

Last edited by delayjf; 08-02-2017 at 04:20 PM.
delayjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Huey Mahl's Physics proof elaborated lone speed Matchup Discussion 19 06-16-2016 01:13 PM
'Running Style' Discussion - Changed Styles mikesal57 RDSS2 / FAQ's 8 07-05-2012 04:44 PM
Total Energy / Total Speed TS Bill V. Classic Sartin Programs - Support, Discussion 1 11-25-2011 10:08 PM
Items on BL BL screen and Pace Balance speed CC Brown RDSS 19 03-28-2011 05:12 PM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:41 AM.