1ST call times

[mikesal57]

hi guys...Does anybody have a good list of tracks that have abnormal 1st call times, either fast or slow?

thxs Mike

[Tim Y]

Philly park usually transfers too fast to other tracks.

[grahors]

I believe I have read someplace that when adjusting fractional times for the track variant, final time should be adjusted the full amount of the deviation from the track average variant, the pace call adjusted by 1/2 the amount and the 1st quarter adjusted by 1/4 the amt.
Assuming ala Sartin that a universal variant average is 17,18,19. A race with a variant of 10..17-10=7..final would be adjusted 7 ticks upward, pace call adjusted 3 up ( I round down) and 1/4 adjusted up 1.
I would think track to track could be adjusted the same way using the ATM track equalization chart or some other means.
ie. if Arlington gets per the chart a 100 for sprints, Belmont a 90. horse shipping to Belmont from Arlington needs to be slowed down to equate with Belmont by 10ticks on final time, 5 ticks for the pace call and 3 for the 1/4.
Please correct me if my thinking is off.....too many pain pills slow the brain down.

[Houndog]

In 6 furlong races Churchill Downs is faster I think because of the run up before they start timing.

On the West Coast Emerald Downs and Golden Gate at 6 furlongs is quicker.

[clore1030]

hi guys...Does anybody have a good list of tracks that have abnormal 1st call times, either fast or slow?

thxs Mike

I have no data on it, but for 30 years the clockings at Monmouth always seemed too high compared to the NYC circuit.

[Houndog]

At 6 furlongs Pimlico and to a lesser extent Keeneland are slower. This is by referencing a recent set of par times.

[Turbulator]

At 6 furlongs Pimlico and to a lesser extent Keeneland are slower. This is by referencing a recent set of par times.You know, I just thought of something that has never been done to my knowledge. 1st call "par" times.

It's got me thinking.

[socantra]

You know, I just thought of something that has never been done to my knowledge. 1st call "par" times.

It's got me thinking.

Dave Schwartz at Horsestreet and the folks at Cynthia Publishing have been doing pars for all three calls for years.

Dick

[Turbulator]

Dave Schwartz at Horsestreet and the folks at Cynthia Publishing have been doing pars for all three calls for years.

DickDoes Cynthia actually do them or is it Gordon Pine?

[lsosa54]

Does Cynthia actually do them or is it Gordon Pine?

http://www.netcapper.com/

Gordon Pine has been gone from Cynthia for quite a long time. He has his own site and software. Not sure who does them over at Cynthia now - maybe Steve Unite if he's still around.

[Turbulator]

http://www.netcapper.com/

Gordon Pine has been gone from Cynthia for quite a long time. He has his own site and software. Not sure who does them over at Cynthia now - maybe Steve Unite if he's still around.Speaking of Steve Unite, wasn't he the guy who did so well on Jeopardy a while back?

[RichieP]

hi guys...Does anybody have a good list of tracks that have abnormal 1st call times, either fast or slow?

thxs Mike

Cd:
6f d - too fast 3 ticks
8.5f d - too slow. Makes fast horses look slow

Penn:
Virtually all distances are abnormally fast (1c,2c) especially turf

Mnr:
7f turf - too fast

Pln:
6f d - too fast

Yav:
all sprint distances - Insane fast

Rp:
turf sprints - too fast

[mikesal57]

thxs guys..i'll write them all down...any more- just add them on..

mike

[RichieP]

Penn:
Virtually all distances are abnormally fast (1c,2c) especially turf



Morning Mike
Little followup from last night at Mnr. If the above is true and we know this going into the 10th race when you see the contenders grouped together all kinds of good things might come to the mind. Like maybe the race will be WON O.T.E.

??

safe day
1) reason going back to line 6 for #6 - Last race sharp speed and fade off layoff with out of the money finish. Classic longshot producing angle when the horse fits the race. Well he certainly "fits" when entering lines off a projected 1c-2c pace.

**note**
Everyone in their mother was on this horse that I correspond with. My buddy Mark calls me around 8 P.M. to tell me it is a best bet scenario on BM. He threw a c-note on the horse. YET you still get 18 clams on him if you pull the trigger and fire

Taking Penn horses and their raw times at face value will destroy a matcher's bankroll quicker than my buddy Charlie can hoist 300 lbs in a press
(and that is FAST :D)

[Charlie D]

Richie

Can you post the #7 PP please

[mikesal57]

good morning Rich...nice hit and thxs for the list of abnormalities..for matchers we need to think twice when selecting a horse from a different track...sometimes when i see a sprint turf race , theres some horses that lead in the 1c doing 20.1,,,WOW....I usually skip that race but now i'll compare it to the list..

How much can/should we adjust times when doing these tracks?

mike

[RichieP]

Richie

Can you post the #7 PP please

Morning Charlie

[RichieP]

How much can/should we adjust times when doing these tracks?

mike

Mike
One thing to consider is avoiding those lines. Other is using mental gymnastics and adjust.

[Charlie D]

Thank you


Interesting that it has only 3 runs at the comparable distance, 2 good, 1 poor and the good runs are at a comparable time of year

[Charlie D]

Also look at his "picture"


Line 9 - Clear lead - no pressure 1c
Line 8 - Clear lead - no pressure 1c
Line 7 - Clear Lead - no pressure 1c

Mnr 14th Oct - Clear Lead - no pressure 1c


I'm sure i've seen something similar before

This race WHO can possibly fight with the #6 at the 1c?

same horse just a different number cloth

[MIKE1121]

The placement of the starting gate in relation to the starting timer ( i.e. run up distance) will be a major factor in determining the first call time.If the timer is less than 10 feet from the starting gate like it is or was for pimlico( sorry my data is 5 years plus old) you will have very slow first fractions, if it is 180 to 200 feet like CD 6 furlongs you will see horses running sub 22.

Determining run up distances is a pain staking process, the drf if you visit the tracks sites will list some of the run up distances but most of them you will have to find on your own.The timers are small poles ( about 4 feet or so high, with a small bulb on top)they are spaced every 1/16th of a mile( if my memory serves me). What I did ( wearing out 2 VCRS) was Tape every track I could and in slow motion speed measure by eye ( best guesse) the distance that I estimated the starting gate to be from the first timer. I did this for each track and for each distance. I did multiple races of each to get the best fit.

Here lies the problem.......THE STARTING GATE IS NOT ALWAYS PLACED IN THE SAME POSITION........ sometimes the gate will be placed 10 feet short sometimes 10 feet longer..... this will screw up your first call fractions.. 20 extra feet will cut an extra 1/5th of the first call time easy.This is why pars are limited, they are just looking at averages.

If you are the type of person who needs absolute perfect ratings, you will need to tape all your races and record the run up distances for that day and every day.

Mike.

[Jonathan Steele]

"The placement of the starting gate in relation to the starting timer ( i.e. run up distance) will be a major factor in determining the first call time.If the timer is less than 10 feet from the starting gate like it is or was for pimlico( sorry my data is 5 years plus old) you will have very slow first fractions, if it is 180 to 200 feet like CD 6 furlongs you will see horses running sub 22."

and

"Here lies the problem.......THE STARTING GATE IS NOT ALWAYS PLACED IN THE SAME POSITION........ sometimes the gate will be placed 10 feet short sometimes 10 feet longer..... this will screw up your first call fractions.. 20 extra feet will cut an extra 1/5th of the first call time easy."

You would think by the 21st century the powers that oversee horse racing would have distance standards that would be uniform from track to track. There is absolutely NO reason for this type of inconsistency or sloppiness (re: gate placement).

NO reason at all!

Jon :mad:

[socantra]

[I]
You would think by the 21st century the powers that oversee horse racing would have distance standards that would be uniform from track to track. There is absolutely NO reason for this type of inconsistency or sloppiness (re: gate placement).

NO reason at all!

Jon :mad:

There really are no 'powers that oversee horse racing'. There are multiple jurisdictions and no overriding authority.

Personally, I think racing has many problems that require dealing with before they get around to distance standards, like drug standards, past posting, etc, that effect the integrity of the pools.

The more things that are standardized, the less use 'local knowledge' is, and the less advantage to the player who goes to the trouble to learn that local knowledge.

I don't really require the precision that comes with videotaping all the races, but do obtain some small advantage from knowing that Churchill Downs 1st quarters run fast. I'd just as soon not give that advantage away by standardizing everything in sight, no matter what century it is. I'm sure they will get around to it at some point, but I can wait.

Dick

[alydar_ David]

....THE STARTING GATE IS NOT ALWAYS PLACED IN THE SAME POSITION........ sometimes the gate will be placed 10 feet short sometimes 10 feet longer..... this will screw up your first call fractions.. 20 extra feet will cut an extra 1/5th of the first call time easy.This is why pars are limited, they are just looking at averages.

If you are the type of person who needs absolute perfect ratings, you will need to tape all your races and record the run up distances for that day and every day.

Mike.

Or, buy the Sheets which are hand-timed from the gate, although that's not going to help with the first call.

[Tim Y]

I have asked repeatedly (of our starter) and from TWO years of observations at both our track and many many others (using videotapes to measure static reference points along the course relative to the gate) and the result is that the gate positon varies only slightly. THE GATE POSITION, on dirt, varies in position a few INCHES. I use the relative camera position of a taped result (as I am used to that reference and knowing that the point of view of the lower pan camera is the same race to race) at courses, then pick a static point (whether that is a overhang of a building, a point on the rail, or the relative position of a light standard) stop the tape, then observe the gate end relative to that point of reference over a time period. At our course (and the starter who has worked at many other race tracks agrees upon questioning), there is a mark aloing the outside fence where the gate crew aligns the gate race in and race out. My camera placement has to be in the same place race to race as I am on attena to the roof and moving more than one foot left or right alters their reception and I know that the view I get race to race is monotonously the same to the point where I rarely have to change focus once set. Another thing that happens at many tracks is that there is a small lane where the crew moves the gate after the field breaks: if there was much variance, the gate couldn't be pulled out of the way down that ramp race to race. The timers are built into points around the course along the rail so that fractional times are taken from STATIC POINTS around the course and it usually takes a thoroughbred only a few strides to get up to speed (see Carrol's book on Speed) .

I always get a kick out of clowns, looking for another reason to buy their book, complicate a rather simple thing, or throw some new variable into something that simply does not exist in order to somehow discover a NEW insight into this or that. ......and then usually put their name on that NEW discovery...that isn't there, but then MIGHT be from the grandstander's point of view....You know the ones who never actually have anything to do with the gate placement but are the annointed "arms length" experts.

THE ONLY REAL VARIABLE, track to track, is how far from that rather static gate position, does the timer rest: some are close some not so close.

[MIKE1121]

As I said my data on starting gate placement is over 5 years old. Have they become more consistant in recent years? I don't know. SOME TRACKS were more consistant than others in gate placement, but many were not. As far as the gate crew goes do they care if the starting gate is plus or minus 10 feet?
Is there a rule for them to be accurate in the gate placement? If they are not are there any reprimands?Are there exceptions for standing water following a rain storm or etc etc... ?


Mike.

[Tim Y]

As far as the gate crew goes do they care if the starting gate is plus or minus 10 feet?
Is there a rule for them to be accurate in the gate placement? If they are not are there any reprimands?Are there exceptions for standing water following a rain storm or etc etc... ?



The are rather ANAL about it since the stewards are all over them to be as consistent as possible. It is the resposiblity of the starter and his crew to place the gate correctly. If there is even slight variance, WE ALL HEAR IT LOUD AND CLEAR from the starter and the stewards.
No exceptions the gate goes to the same place each time. Even when several races are at the same point, the gate is moved to re-sruface and then put exactly back at the same spot.

In Canada, all racing is under scurtiny of a federal agency the CPMA (Canadian Parimutuel Agency) and they have several observers at each track to make sure racing is fair and consistent. At a big course like Woodbine, the CPMA sponsored photo patrol crew works INDEPENDENTLY from the Woodbine photo crew, being the ONLY one used for stewards review of racing infractions. I took Ted up to see them when we met there over the summer and their director took us on a tour of the two distinct camera controls. EVERY DAY when I am doing the photo finishing, I have to sign a federal oversight sheet outlining any variations on my duties: I just had to put a note in last week as I missed a straggler who finished 60 lengths behind the field in a harness contest as he broke stride and I lost him. EACH racing day, a fellow we jokingly call Rick the regulator, comes up to my booth to check the alignment of the photo finish camera to make sure that my two targets are consistently parallel.
What kind of confidence in racing would the crowd have if they could not depend upon consistentcy in racing distances? There would be an uproar.

[MIKE1121]

[QUOTE=Tim Y;41942I always get a kick out of clowns, looking for another reason to buy their book, complicate a rather simple thing, or throw some new variable into something that simply does not exist in order to somehow discover a NEW insight into this or that. ......and then usually put their name on that NEW discovery...that isn't there, but then MIGHT be from the grandstander's point of view....You know the ones who never actually have anything to do with the gate placement but are the annointed "arms length" experts.

QUOTE]


Everyone who has a different observation from you is a clown. Ok I get it.

Funny, I thought this was a forum to exchange ideas.

Question: Who is selling anything here?

The only thing I get from sharing my findings with this board is the satisfaction of helping others. I could very easly just keep my findings to myself and profit from them.

Mike.

[Tim Y]

Everyone who has a different observation from you is a clown. Ok I get it.

Funny, I thought this was a forum to exchange ideas.

Question: Who is selling anything here?

The only thing I get from sharing my findings with this board is the satisfaction of helping others. I could very easly just keep my findings to myself and profit from them.


IF there were a SHREAD of evidence for that observation, A SHREAD, I would consider it a viable possibility. The grass is where there is probably a wide variation since rail placement changes the circumfernece of the course and the gate palcement is REQUIRED to be changed to account for that difference, and keeping it consistent with the rail changes probably misses the mark.. BUT on dirt, my first hand observations, and dozens and dozens of 2nd hand videotape observations DOES move gate palcement variations on dirt courses into the realm of fiction.....

I would keep fictional observations where they belong.

[gl45]

Mike,
don't waste your time. Use the ignore list. Long time ago I did suggest him to consider a lobotomy with no success.
lbj

[Tim Y]

Mike,
don't waste your time. Use the ignore list. Long time ago I did suggest him to consider a lobotomy with no success.
lbj

Facts often do get in the way of opinion.

In clinic we were often called to have an OPINION, but it did not count without FACTUAL evidence...Same here..anyone can believe what they want to (much like politics) but without evidence to back it up, it rings fairly hollow.

It also is a hoot coming from these database grandstanders who are never acutally part of the business, yet draw wild conclusions from that "at arms length" position far from the real business at hand.

I liken it to a great example from a movie about Dizzy Dean. A father has taken his son to a ball game and wonders what the pitcher and catcher are saying when the two come together near the mound. WITHOUT first hand evidence, the father takes the obvious approach and tells his son "They are probably talking about how to pitch this hitter, or which out to try and get if it is a gound ball." LOGICAL from a distance, but then the scence repeats with the voices of the two actually involved. Dean: "Still go that shot gun you wanted to sell?" Catcher: "yes, but why do you need to know now?" Dean: "One of the outfielders is going to ask you about it in the clubhouse and I wanted to beat him to it."

One never knows SECOND hand what happens FIRST HAND even with all these touted databases and second hand information.

[socantra]

As I said my data on starting gate placement is over 5 years old. Have they become more consistant in recent years? I don't know. SOME TRACKS were more consistant than others in gate placement, but many were not. As far as the gate crew goes do they care if the starting gate is plus or minus 10 feet?
Is there a rule for them to be accurate in the gate placement? If they are not are there any reprimands?Are there exceptions for standing water following a rain storm or etc etc... ?


Mike.

I haven't been there much in recent years, but when I was in daily attendance at Remington Park, they were pretty casual about gate placement. That being said, it rarely varied by more than six feet or so.

Maybe Canadian gate crewa are more anal than those in the states.

Dick

[MIKE1121]

IF there were a SHREAD of evidence for that observation, A SHREAD, I would consider it a viable possibility. The grass is where there is probably a wide variation since rail placement changes the circumfernece of the course and the gate palcement is REQUIRED to be changed to account for that difference, and keeping it consistent with the rail changes probably misses the mark.. BUT on dirt, my first hand observations, and dozens and dozens of 2nd hand videotape observations DOES move gate palcement variations on dirt courses into the realm of fiction.....

I would keep fictional observations where they belong.


For over 3 years everyday I used to tape all the replays I could get my hands on. I must have over 600 plus VHS tapes with horse races on them. I could go spend a ton of time finding the races which would PROVE my point that there are times where the gate is off. It is not fictional, it does happen.It isn't worth it.

Think the way you want to think, it doesn't matter to me. I am not interested in getting into an EGO battle with you. My time is too valuable to waste and it is VERY ANNOYING TO OTHER PEOPLE.

I quit posting a couple of years ago at a popular Pace forum becouse it became a breeding ground for people to boast their egos, it got so sickening it made me heave.Just a bunch of know it alls. Maybe they needed to boast their egos to help them deal with lossing, I don't know.

The reason people visit sites like this is to learn NEW IDEAS not worship a handicapper.

Want recognition fix the stock market.


Mike.

[Tim Y]

EGO has nothing to do with over 40 years of observation, many years of that as a member of the group who actually PLACES THE GATE, not a 2nd hand observation from a distance. Observations over decades are what this rational handicapper bases this point: experimental evidence that I first noted in 1969 at the old Fairplex and my brother in law and I stood by the 6 furlong gate over two entire cards to see how different the placement was. How much???, less than two feet. In a race of 3960 feet that is 0.051 per cent: NOISE.

I am sure that there is some sloppiness course to course, but the long term effect? Hardly a bit as the rational handicapper never never bases a conclusion on a single observation as it has the possible contamination of sample error. At 6 furlongs again even wth a 10 foot variance, that would be 0.25 % of the whole, again NOISE.

Even a variance of 10 feet to the overall race would be substantially negated when an overview of the animal's energy distribution and form cycle is considered.

Much Ado about Nothing as the Bard would call it. How did Pizzolla phrase it in Pace Makes the Race? When the great way (the Tao) is lost there appears RULES of etiquette. In years and years of handicapping discussion there remains a myriad of TINY observational variances introduced that just complicates the obvious. Read Gladwell's BLINK: UNDERSTAND what is implicit to an idea and forget the rest.

[Tim Y]

My thesis director (Dr. Kenneth Maxwell)when I was studying lead poisoning and it's effect on calcium metabolism, would remark, when we drew conclusions based upon less than first hand evidence; "Ignorance blossums at a distance."

I never forgot that wisdom as many things SEEM one way or the other until you put them to the test.

[Ted Craven]

ENOUGH! Point made. Move along. Do not confuse Pace and Cap with another horse racing site...

Ted

[Jonathan Steele]

Interesting thread. I learned a few things; thanks gentlemen.

Regards,

Jon

[Jonathan Steele]

Tim,

One question though: what do you say to someone who is matching-up races a la The Hat? Don't you think accuracy of first call times are of paramount importance, especially when horses have raced at different venues?

Regards,

Jon

[Tim Y]

Tim,

One question though: what do you say to someone who is matching-up races a la The Hat? Don't you think accuracy of first call times are of paramount importance, especially when horses have raced at different venues?



TIMES, yes. but that has everything to do with the run up variances track to track, and NOT the placement of the gate race to race. I talked yesterday with Joe Gray (our starter) and he related to me: we PLACE THE GATE within a foot of the same place race to race. As Joe said, "it is often closer than that."

[RichieP]

Delta Downs (meet opened last night):
8.5f - 1st FRACTION is wild fast due to long run from a chute to the 1st turn. Wild fast like unusable when comparing to other tracks. The 1st call also runs VERY fast.

[Jonathan Steele]

Tim said,

"TIMES, yes. but that has everything to do with the run up variances track to track, and NOT the placement of the gate race to race"

Oh, I see now. I still don't understand why something so simple (consistant run-up distance from track to track) cannot be standardized.

Richie said:

"Delta Downs (meet opened last night):
8.5f - 1st FRACTION is wild fast due to long run from a chute to the 1st turn. Wild fast like unusable when comparing to other tracks. The 1st call also runs VERY fast."

That really emphasizes the problem!

What's the best way to compensate for this if you are forced to use "wild" first call times like this?

Regards,

Jon

[Tim Y]

Tim said,

"TIMES, yes. but that has everything to do with the run up variances track to track, and NOT the placement of the gate race to race"

Oh, I see now. I still don't understand why something so simple (consistant run-up distance from track to track) cannot be standardized.



It has a lot to do with track layout and where the timers are located.

If we had a racing commissioner like MLB and the NBA have overseeing the runnng of those sports, standardization might be a reality...Until then, the differences will remain.

[Jonathan Steele]

Okay Tim, I understand. Still, how does one compensate if forced to use first call times? Par charts? It's not clear to me how to do this as I've never done this (but would like to know how) before.

Any thoughts, anyone?

Regards,

Jon

[Tim Y]

Okay Tim, I understand. Still, how does one compensate if forced to use first call times? Par charts? It's not clear to me how to do this as I've never done this (but would like to know how) before.



Any cheap plug can run a 22.3 in competition, but few can go along and continue to as mild a half of 45.5 or less in a route...the first call is also fraught with "lucky break" errors......Look back at the history of hundreds of people looking at thousands upon thousands of races: THE SECOND CALL IS THE KEYSTONE TO THE WHOLE ENCHILADA.

If the first call were predictive, we would all be using it.....Remember the truck driver research? Did they find the first call predictive? Seems to me that Brohammer recalled that the 2nd call, average pace and sustained pace passed the test.

[Jonathan Steele]

Tim,

I agree with what you're saying using 1st call times in a conventional way. What I'm referring to specifically is when 1st call times are used for matching horses via The Match Up.

Jon

[Charlie D]

Any cheap plug can run a 22.3 in competition, but few can go along and continue to as mild a half of 45.5 or less in a route...the first call is also fraught with "lucky break" errors......Look back at the history of hundreds of people looking at thousands upon thousands of races: THE SECOND CALL IS THE KEYSTONE TO THE WHOLE ENCHILADA.

If the first call were predictive, we would all be using it.....Remember the truck driver research? Did they find the first call predictive? Seems to me that Brohammer recalled that the 2nd call, average pace and sustained pace passed the test.

A horse race is a match up of horses running against each other from the STARTING GATE to WIRE

The Match Up is the essence of the SARTIN Methodology


See Yellow Manual for examples

[tom]

Johnathan, I believe it was the Factor Analysis manual - it has been a while - that talked about making mini track profiles for the lines found in today's racing form. You only needed a few races. Glen Connoly wrote an article about it one of the follow ups. He got a general adjustment for the typical feeder tracks to Laurel, ie., Pimlico is very slow to F1, so he mentally deducted 3 or 4 fifths from Pim lines.

I would guess the advanced programs, using TM track to track will address this in the equalization normalization of the pace lines?

[Bill V.]

Any cheap plug can run a 22.3 in competition, but few can go along and continue to as mild a half of 45.5 or less in a route...the first call is also fraught with "lucky break" errors......Look back at the history of hundreds of people looking at thousands upon thousands of races: THE SECOND CALL IS THE KEYSTONE TO THE WHOLE ENCHILADA.

If the first call were predictive, we would all be using it.....Remember the truck driver research? Did they find the first call predictive? Seems to me that Brohammer recalled that the 2nd call, average pace and sustained pace passed the test.

If the first call were predictive, we would all be using it.....Remember the truck driver research? Did they find the first call predictive?


Tim . Every Sartin program I have, and I think I have them all
is driven by my pace line selections. Every one of them is either a hand entry
model or takes the Trackmaster download
In every one of the hand entry programs I have to type in
The first call and on the download models when I look at the pace lines screen Guess what I see the first call .
The programs of the Sartin Methodology use the first call period. How exactly do you know what the original 20 convicted truck drivers were looking at,? If you have this information thats amazing because it was my understanding that
It was not until Huey Mauls article in Frontline and Gambling Times
much later, that anyone knew about the Methodology. It was suppose to be kept a secret. Only after the Gambling Times article did the public get involved

GS
Bill

[Charlie D]

Bill

As Voodoofan rightly pointed out elsewhere, it is a waste of time and energy

[Tim Y]

I first used computerized pace handicapping with my old Commodore,(remember that old one that was almost a toy by today's comparisons?) and began using THREE times 1st 2nd calls and final time. After reviewing two years of data, the first call times of sprints (BY THEMSELVES) contributed little to nothing in the evaluations whereas the 1st call times of routes DID have SOME relevance.

The break is so quick and random and with many riders whipping out of the gate, it varies so much race to race that UNLESS you consider the 1st and 2nd call TOGETHER, the first call by itself has little predictive value. Routes are different and people forget that the second call of a route is over 60% of the contest....

The essence of understanding is QUESTIONING contentions and then PROVING their worth to YOURSELF by your own data not to just accepting a tenant because an authority figure says it is this way or that. IT narrows creativity and makes you intellectually lazy to have blanket acceptance without objective first hand proof....

[Tim Y]

How exactly do you know what the original 20 convicted truck drivers were looking at,?

Modern Pace Handicapping by Brohammer. He relates the THREE factors out of the hundreds they considered that "made the grade."

get a copy ...look it up. I recall they were 2nd call velocity or EP, SP and average pace.

[Tim Y]

I can see where the mis-understandings are: NO ONE who uses the match up principle misses the USE of the first call, but RELATIONALLY to the 2nd is what I have been trying to relate here as in this animal (the 8) that just missed in the 4th the other day at Aqueduct: the IMPROVEMENT was there and reflected over two fractions not just one.
4th race - Aqueduct - October 29, 2008


Pgm Horse Jockey Win Place Show
3 Wonderous Day Pablo Fragoso 10.00 5.20 3.70
8 Nolite Timere Rajiv Maragh 6.70 4.90
7 Flo's Honor Sebastian Morales 10.60

[Bill V.]

Hi Tim

In your last post I have a question
You used line 2 for the 8 horse That seems right as this was a turf race
and I can see using the off track line .
You also used line 3 but not line 1 both dirt lines
For horse 2 you used a dirt sprint, and only one line
and you didn't use line 2 which is also an off track As a matter of fact
Its the same race as the line you used for
the 8 horse Sept 12 can you tell my why ?

Thanks
Bill

[Tim Y]

There are NO rules...if there are no lines available use what is there.

If you are looking for pace line choice logic, don't as I let the program choose the line as I NEVER DO.

[Tim Y]

One should never, if they can possibly help it, NEVER make a decision to bet on ANY Horse based upon a single line.........The mantra that made a long term positive ROI move more positive..

[Bill V.]

I agree I often put in more than one line for a horse
I then either keep them in or let the program tell me what line
to use -thats the way I do it. I'm not saying it is a right way or wrong way
I am only asking you why you used the one line for the 2 horse and two lines for the 8 horse. when the line you ignored for the 2 horse was the same race as the 8 horse.
Thats all I'm asking Thanks
Bill

[Tim Y]

I don't use hides so my final might have "left overs" that are irrelevant to the race but remain there.

It is a worksheet not a final statement.

[Bill V.]

Thanks Tim

I see that point. Now that, Since you don't hide horses,
Why did you only use 1 line for the 2?
thanks
Bill

[Tim Y]

the program told me that was the line even though I was aware that the form cycle was in regression.

[Bill V.]

Tim
Is that because it ran less early but also had less total energy?

BILL

[Tim Y]

Tim
Is that because it ran less early but also had less total energy?

BILL

several indexes pointed to regression as well as total

[Bill V.]

Hi Tim

and the last line was the key to the connections saying thats
enough time for a rest
57 days first out so you used that one line

Ok just want to understand your race

GS
Bill

[Tim Y]

races don't happen in isolation: many take, as much as they promote from the horse. This one was regressing.