Pacelines with Missing Call Times

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by mufasa

Thanks Froggy.

As you demonstrate I can figure out the better Perceptor ranking with selection and then analysis of the 2-3 best TE’s.

Robert

Note: I continued here the discussion started in the main Bug List topic on how RDSS should best to respond to pacelines with missing call times.


Robert,

I think Froggy and you got the workaround for this bug working. I apologize that it has persisted so long - I should be able to swat it any minute (or week) now.

Here's a poll, please: when we can't figure out velocity due to lack of 1 call time (let's start with just 1 missing call time), what should RDSS do:

1. 'invent' the missing call time based on standard deceleration tables, and flag the line as partly 'invented', but end up with some kind of figures for it, OR

2. mark the line as UNUSABLE, as per Val and Spec

Ted

[mufasa]

Ted:

In my humble opinion a pace line is only really useful for analysis if it was a good form race (GFR). By GFR I mean a win or finish within 2.75L in sprints and 3.50L in routes and I sometimes allow an IMF within 7.5L. So if the line is not a GFR (as defined by you) then have the program declare it unusable that way we get best of both worlds. If the line is good enough to perhaps make a difference then we can use it via an estimated call time and if it is considered a bad race then it is not rated. I am assuming of course that this can be somehow programmed.

Robert

[RichieP]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

Robert,

Here's a poll, please: when we can't figure out velocity due to lack of 1 call time (let's start with just 1 missing call time), what should RDSS do:

1. 'invent' the missing call time based on standard deceleration tables, and flag the line as partly 'invented', but end up with some kind of figures for it, OR

2. mark the line as UNUSABLE, as per Val and Spec
Ted

I choose option # 1 without question Ted
Richie

[mufasa]

Originally Posted by mufasa

Ted:

In my humble opinion a pace line is only really useful for analysis if it was a good form race (GFR). By GFR I mean a win or finish within 2.75L in sprints and 3.50L in routes and I sometimes allow an IMF within 7.5L. So if the line is not a GFR (as defined by you) then have the program declare it unusable that way we get best of both worlds. If the line is good enough to perhaps make a difference then we can use it via an estimated call time and if it is considered a bad race then it is not rated. I am assuming of course that this can be somehow programmed.

Robert

Ted:

I do not know why at times I insist on making things too complicated. Choice #1 is what I would favor and the pace line selection criteria for myself is still there to be used or not.

Could you answer a question for me on another general matter, when comparing Total Energy ratings what is the measure for a length of difference between ratings.

Thanks,

RR

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by mufasa

Ted:
Could you answer a question for me on another general matter, when comparing Total Energy ratings what is the measure for a length of difference between ratings.

Thanks,

RR

Sure: http://bindfold.com/forums/showthrea...0021#post20021

Ted

[socantra]

Ted,

My 1st impression would be to go for #2, but on further thought, I have no objection to creative invention as long as it is clearly marked.

My final thought, I suppose, would be to do whatever feels the best to you and to include time spent for value gained as a major part of your analysis.

Dick

[admin]

Hi Ted I would say let the program guess

As long as its not a common problem
I think people should be able to decide if the made up
call is consistant to the horses running pattern and
ability

GS
Bill

[mufasa]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mufasa
Ted:
Could you answer a question for me on another general matter, when comparing Total Energy ratings what is the measure for a length of difference between ratings.

Thanks,

RR

Sure: http://bindfold.com/forums/showthrea...0021#post20021

Ted
End of quote.


Ted:

Response to post #5 above:

Thanks again. It looks like I had a senior moment and forgot that I already asked the question and more importantly that you had answered it.

As I continue onward through my learning curve using RDSS for handicapping I am as you had previously suggested (this I remember) trying to better understand the parts of the whole. Not to just go with rankings per say but to look at the actual differences that makes up the ranking for this item or the other. From your explanation and from what I have since read in the Sartin FU’s the beaten length question is not an easy one to answer or at least it is not clear cut for all distances and of course speeds.

I have come across what seems to be an interesting rule of thumb as I searched through the FU for information on lengths and Total Energy; although I still need to reread the section to verify my understanding in FU #4 Sartin was quoted as having said that .72 can be considered as a significant difference between Total Energy ratings. There was not much explanation as to why .72 or what this actually meant when compared to lengths. It was just thrown out there in the particular paragraph that was dealing with lengths and Total Energy. Like I said when I get home today I have to reread the FU to see if my understanding was correct. Has anyone else ever come across this item?

Thanks,

Robert

[socantra]

Originally Posted by mufasa

I have come across what seems to be an interesting rule of thumb as I searched through the FU for information on lengths and Total Energy; although I still need to reread the section to verify my understanding in FU #4 Sartin was quoted as having said that .72 can be considered as a significant difference between Total Energy ratings. There was not much explanation as to why .72 or what this actually meant when compared to lengths. It was just thrown out there in the particular paragraph that was dealing with lengths and Total Energy. Like I said when I get home today I have to reread the FU to see if my understanding was correct. Has anyone else ever come across this item?

Thanks,

Robert

I don't recall that particular quote and FU #4 was a long time ago (20+ years?), but I would say that .72 would generally be a significant difference in total energy numbers. I have no idea how that would relate to a length.

It does sound like you are reading the Follow Up in the proper manner. Doc knew tha math behind the programs better than anybody. He didn't always lay things out in the most direct manner and there are a lot of "diamonds" in those little off the cuff remarks.

I would highly reccommend that you go over and over the Yellow manual and The Dynamics of Incremental Velocity with the same fine tooth comb. Its not easy reading and a lot of things have changed over time, but the core of the methodology is in there.

Dick

[tom kalies]

Hi Ted,

I vote for Number #