Total Energy

[Charlie D]

Hi guys

In Brohamers book, Total Energy = EP+ LF, but on the RDSS screenshots i've seen the Total Energy of Big Brown and others in the high 160's

I've done a search of the forum and found a post on Total Energy for a 6f Sprint where the FPS was added up to make a TTL in the 160's, but cannot find an explanation of how TTL calculated for other distances


of the UK

[Tim Y]

Total energy (Sartin) sum of the velocities of the three fractions of the race.

[Ted Craven]

Hi Charlie of UK, and a big welcome to Pace and Cap!

Indeed, later Sartin programs (i.e. post Brohamer's Phase 3 book), use the sum of the three fractional velocities as Tim explains, hence numbers in the range of 150 - 170. Further, percent median energy (roughly energy - as represented by velocity - expended to the 2nd call point) is represented as F1 + F2 velocity as a percentage of Total Energy, or F1 + F2 as a percentage of F1 + F2 + F3 velocity summed. This contrasts with Brohamer's (and others') usage of the older % Early concept (Second Call as a percentage of Second call + F3 velocities).

Cheers,

Ted

[Charlie D]

Cheers Tim

Fr1+Fr2+Fr3 = Sartin TTL??

So how is the Sartin %E computed? as this would also differ also to Brohamer's methood

[Tim Y]

That is correct.

We no longer use % early but % median: the percentage of total energy used by the 2nd call. i.e. 69+ for sprinters

[Charlie D]

OK Tim


I got the %Median calc from RichieP's thread



Cheers Guys

[RichieP]

It has been the same stuff for over 20 years.

total energy
beaten lengths
speed ratings based on final time adjusted by daily variants
F1-F2-F3
database
profiles

There hasn't been any original thinking unless 1 considers changing the values of a beaten length(Validator series) "revolutionary"

The status quo has reigned supreme

[Tim Y]

There has been several original ideas based upon the rock solid foundations of the methodology, NONE of which had ever been mentioned before.

[RichieP]

Arlington - 42%
Bay Meadows 42%
Belmont     36%
Calder      40%
Churchill   42%
Charlestown 38%
Delaware    40%
Evangeline  32%
Hollywood   36%
Lone Star   40%
Monmouth    40%
Mountaineer 37%
Penn        39%
Philly      33%
Pimlico     37%
River Downs 39%
Suffolk     52%
Thistle     58%
Woodbine    32%

The above are the % of winning favorites TODAY.

So all the stuff (Foundational info??) about favs winning a third of the races is gone. The number is approaching 40% with some tracks over 50%. As we all know the prices on the majority of these winning favs is no longer 8/5 or 9/5 but more in the line of 3/5 and 1/1.

The proliferation of software and information virtually all of which rely on the things I posted above are putting much of the same info in every players posession.

Everyone is "seeing" virtually the same things gleaned from the same "status quo" stuff created over 20 years back.

Creative thinking and risk taking FOR THE MOST PART has been replaced by profiles,models and rote methods of working races.

Doc Sartin was prescient when he wrote almost TEN years ago in an open letter to TM posted in the followup: We might have to change our formulas as we determine the competitors for our wagering dollars has become more sophisticated.

I did not use quotes because I am paraphrasing and am not gonna go find the article but when you find it you will see that is the crux of what he wrote.

Regarding "rock solid foundations" even the best of them have to be reworked and maintained and yes even replaced when they become outdated.

Opinions of a 47 year old horse racing enthusiast

[Tim Y]

Handicapping utilizing the tools the methodology has to offer does not need to change. WAGERING is the aspect the internet has offered the public via Thorograph, Sheets, variants of other programs offered, etc. and accounts for the increase in favorites winning.

They (handicapping and wagering) are the two sides of the equation at the races and are disciplines mutually exclusive to one another.