Richards Kid

[seattlesnake]

Ted,

ATTACH]17628[/ATTACH]

His last line indicates he ran worse than his line10-AlwNW1..but based on other SR..it isnt so.

Why the huge discrepancy of his overall form cycle...is it because of the 12f adjustment?

Just wondering...

BTW...had a very profitable 2009 DMR meet..

Jess

[Ted Craven]

According to TrackMaster, the Equibase SR for 12f races (114 in this case) are never based on final time pars, as there are too few of those kinds of races for a given track/surface to make reliable average par times for (and thus to base their SR on). Looking at the Result Chart for that last line 5 August 8DMR, we see that there is indeed no PAR for the 12f distance at DMR poly. In this case, the Equibase SR is based on other measures/guesstimates which were once explained to me and which now escape me.



If you co-relate the ranks of the Equibase SR (ESR) with Total Energy ranks, every other line matches fairly closely, rank for rank, except the last one which is the one for which there is no Equibase par figure and for which they use other means different from all the other lines. I distrust that last line ESR somewhat, although it does represent a good effort by the horse, just not as good as previous efforts.

I ran Richard Kid's PPs with various alternate adjustments (no ITV/DTV, ITV, no DTV, DTV no ITV, 100% DTV combos with ITV). In all cases that last line ended up slowest of all its lines. I believe the slow final time (and slow TE) of the last line is simply due to the race being run in a slow final time - nothing to to do with the horse's form cycle. The distance equalization differential between 12f and 10f it about 6.0 seconds per half furlong (i.e. an extracted 10f race from a 12f race will be sped up less per half furlong than at shorter distances using about 6.2 seconds per half furlong, because late segments of such marathons are being run a lot slower).

I think at these marathon distances, final time can be all over the place, influenced by many factors other than pace, which should be a lot less important factor. That last race was just a slow race. That said, Richard ran as fast as he needed to to just about win it. "A horse runs as fast as it needs to, not as fast as it can." It didn't need to run faster to (almost) win that last race. How fast can it run? Check its 6th and 7th races, its top 2 Total Energies, and the peak of its last form cycle. Either line puts it as a top contender. The issue is: is there any evidence it is approaching its previous form again, will those older lines represent it or misrepresent it? Possibly its good close (albeit in a slow time) and good finish in the last race is a clue to its form, plus its very fast last 4 workouts 101, 103, 95, 99 workout SRs, the last being a 5f blowout, 5 days ago). Good signs.

I don't have evidence from that last line that the means of adjusting the last 12f race to a 10f race today is faulty, but I might suggest looking beyond Total Energy and Final Time (possibly to the Equibase SR) of that race and consider what the horse is doing over all to find a means to represent it in today's matchup.

Comments on that analysis?


Ted

[tfm]

Hard to play this horse if you're following any of the conventional methodologies. (Though I understand that some of the sheets people had him in their top 4).

He's not fast enough, first of all. Moreover, he needs a particular type of race in order to win. From a Fat Chart perspective, his last race (12F) is nothing special, as he's just one of 4 horses coming late in a race that collapsed late.

This horse is playable if you understand SETUPS, however. And, additionally, if you look at the entire race, rather than the individual figure/paceline/whatever. Given the way the race shaped up, with all the speed and pressers in the race, he figured to get the perfect setup. And, he does have one STANDOUT race in his history (LRL-2-14-09).

Those relying on the information of others, be it in terms of numbers or programs, or both, will never be able to pick horses like this. These types involve an overall knowledge/understanding of the game and come more readily to those with strong intuitions about it.

Thus, CJ, Classhandicapper (and all of the other CJ followers), Dave Schwartz, Jeff Platt (and his boys), etc. are all left with nothing else to do but bash POLY after a result like this. Or put up another thread about why REBATES are needed. If it doesn't make sense in their system of play, then there must be something wrong with the game/surface, whatever.

Not meant as a slight towards anyone. And, I've certainly given up trying to explain my method to people (as they just know better than me). But some must wonder how exactly I CONSISTENTLY pick these bombs.

All, of course, except the dlivery dude, who very conveniently showed up to try and steal my thunder.

Needless to say, I'm DONE here.

[dlivery]

Originally Posted by tfm

Hard to play this horse if you're following any of the conventional methodologies. (Though I understand that some of the sheets people had him in their top 4).

He's not fast enough, first of all. Moreover, he needs a particular type of race in order to win. From a Fat Chart perspective, his last race (12F) is nothing special, as he's just one of 4 horses coming late in a race that collapsed late.

This horse is playable if you understand SETUPS, however. And, additionally, if you look at the entire race, rather than the individual figure/paceline/whatever. Given the way the race shaped up, with all the speed and pressers in the race, he figured to get the perfect setup. And, he does have one STANDOUT race in his history (LRL-2-14-09).

Those relying on the information of others, be it in terms of numbers or programs, or both, will never be able to pick horses like this. These types involve an overall knowledge/understanding of the game and come more readily to those with strong intuitions about it.

Thus, CJ, Classhandicapper (and all of the other CJ followers), Dave Schwartz, Jeff Platt (and his boys), etc. are all left with nothing else to do but bash POLY after a result like this. Or put up another thread about why REBATES are needed. If it doesn't make sense in their system of play, then there must be something wrong with the game/surface, whatever.

Not meant as a slight towards anyone. And, I've certainly given up trying to explain my method to people (as they just know better than me). But some must wonder how exactly I CONSISTENTLY pick these bombs.

All, of course, except the dlivery dude, who very conveniently showed up to try and steal my thunder.

Needless to say, I'm DONE here.

I did not try to steal your thunder I evaluated all the last horses running lines and came about this selection as the horse having energy to spare in his last race. Good call but I still employed my methodology around why this horse had energy to spare.

[Bill V.]

Hi Ted

The distance equalization differential between 12f and 10f it about 6.0 seconds per half furlong (i.e. an extracted 10f race from a 12f race will be sped up less per half furlong than at shorter distances using about 6.2 seconds per half furlong, because late segments of such marathons are being run a lot slower).

I'm confused I used 6.2 when I looked to get a 9.5 furlong time
from the 12.0 furlong time I had

The old Sartin saying "If you don't have the tools you need use the tools you have"

I subtracted 6.2 from the final time of 231.2 = 225.0 for 11.5 furlongs
I did this again and again till I worked down to 9.5 furlongs


If I read what you wrote correctly why would I minus 6.0 if the
half furlongs probably get slower at such a long distance
if any change was made shouldn't the per half furlong time be
6.3 or 6.4 ?

Any comments on how Doc's and Trackmasters Normalized Equalized and Adjusted SR of 72 handled Richards 12 furlong race

[Ted Craven]

Bill,

For reference, here is the distance only adjustment from 12f to 10f (in the Configure Window, I set DTV and ITV to OFF, so the only adjustment being made is the distance adjustment). This shows a Pace of Race Final Time difference of 2:31.2 minutes at 12f minus 2:07.0 minutes at 10f or 24.2 seconds for 2 furlongs, or 6.05 seconds per half furlong (sixteenth of a mile).



RDSS (and other later Sartin software) uses an internal parallel time chart (or "Par Gaps" table, as Doc labelled it - same thing) to help adjust distances. The 'gap' between 12f and 10f happens to be 24.2 seconds at the final. I figured (my own interpretation of what I found inside Val/Spec) that by speeding up the final time for an extracted 10f race by a lesser time value per half-furlong (i.e. 6.05 seconds versus 6.2 seconds for shorter distances) that this would result in a slower 10f final time reflecting the fact that that final 2f is typically run at a slower velocity than at shorter distances. Anyway, that was my reasoning. But adjustments of 12 furlong races is a big guess in any case - anything can be happening to a collapsing pace in the final 2 furlongs.

In the actual race on August 5, we know 10f were run in 2:04.8 (2nd last call time), thus the final 2 furlongs were run in 26.4 seconds or 6.6 seconds per half-furlong - Velocity really collapsed during that final 2f. So the parallel time chart in this event was completely out of whack. Much better would have been to just take that actual 10f time of 2:04.8 as the extracted 10f time, perhaps knock a few tenths off. You might end up a bit better than, say, his 9th race, but in any event, one of his slowest.

Actually (note to self), it makes as much sense to me to indeed use the actual 10f of a 12f race, when knocking those marathons back a few furlongs, as using the WAG (wild-assed-guess) of the existing par-gap table. Maybe an update nuance.

Bill, does that help any?

Ted

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by dlivery

I did not try to steal your thunder I evaluated all the last horses running lines and came about this selection as the horse having energy to spare in his last race. Good call but I still employed my methodology around why this horse had energy to spare.

Dlivery,

Congratulations on a fine analysis, and to The Fat Man as well! And to anyone using Sartin software who felt they could justify using an older, stronger line for Richard, at the generous odds, and given that OTE was not an unreasonable race shape to expect. (Not me, I wasn't racing this past weekend ).

I don't know about poly or poor rebates. There's always an excuse, for every unexpected outcome. Using our software, at least the result was not totally inscrutable.

Ted

[Bill V.]

yes Ted
Thank you so much
This all is helping me cause my dad
Is asking all the time about. the ESR
And my answer is always. Is
don't know. One more question
Is Ross using the ESR or
the normalized equalized adjusted
times?

Bill

[Ted Craven]

Bill,

RDSS (and previous Sartin software using TrackMaster) does not use the Equibase SR per se, merely displays it. It uses the ITV and the DTV provided by TrackMaster, and it equalizes all pacelines' call times to today's distance using parallel time tables (as discussed above) and sprint to route and sprint from route projection/extraction formulas.

Tell your Dad, although the Equibase SR and the Sartin Adjusted SR (and TS velocity) readouts are on different scales, there should generally be some kind of synch in relative rankings between the 2. When there is not (as in Richard's last line), there's usually an explanation which might require various kinds of digging.

Cheers,

Ted

[seattlesnake]

With RK earning a SR-72 & F3-51.2 in velocity....and with the SR being universal....he would not even come close in winning any MC races at DMR during the meet. Which means that the group in this Stk Race all ran a bad race which IMO is unlikely. With that being said for comparison purposes im curious to see what type of ratings the 2races that were run by MC going 8.5f earlier in the same race card.





Hope everybody earned enough from the DMR meet to pay for a nice vacation!!