+ 0 +/0 Plus zero Plus within a zero

[Bill V.]

Hello Ted

I think this would be a good feature.
In the follow up Doc and Jim often talk about the value
of taking the time to do your plus zero and plus within a zero
notations. I think its an important step and since I have been doing it
I feel my line selection and contender selection has
improved. Would something like what I have worked up in the picture here be possible. I hope it would. Using the same type drop down boxes
like you have for the projected pace, rather than numbers can you
make the 3 notations and the user can select one for each line
maybe a + 0 and +/0
thanks
Bill

[noddub62]

Great idea Bill! Ii would be a great help as well as a comment line.

Bud

[Tim Y]

It is far better to use the two calculated vales TPP and E/EP to evaluate objectively, and not subjectively by beaten lengths which have NO relation to the POR.

[mikesal57]

good idea Bill...will be useful to the " form cycle" cappers here..

as u can see this horse can run a few good races in a row...and after 2 bad ones he looked like he was coming back to form...he won and paid $5.60

.mike

[For The Lead]

good idea Bill...will be useful to the " form cycle" cappers here..

as u can see this horse can run a few good races in a row...and after 2 bad ones he looked like he was coming back to form...he won and paid $5.60

.mike

Hi Mike,

Although, as you said, the horse ran two BAD races I don't think the horse was "coming back to form", I don't think it ever went "out of form".
Let's start by looking at the 10th race back. The horse shows that it can win AT CT AND AT 9 furlongs, but look at the class of the race, NW1X. What types of horses are most likely to be in this type of race? Well, if you have a horse that just broke its' maiden, the most logical choices for that horses next race are either NW2L or NW1X. At that point in this horses career, he had ALREADY won 5 races out of 16 starts, which is a little bit better than a 30% win rate. Those 5 wins consisted of a maiden win and claiming wins, otherwise it would not be eligible for this race. This is a much better horse than those horses that remain "1 for something" while continuing to try and win that 2nd race. Appropriately, the horse went off as the favorite and won, for the 6th time in 17 races at that point.
So why didn't the horse win at CT at 9 furlongs in the race 3 back? Well, the class"SH" (Starter Handicap) presents a completely different challenge than NW1X. Now this horse is facing other horses with multiple wins. Not as easy as NW1X. No doubt this horse went off the favorite in the race since it was coming off a win. Ok, so I give the horse a "legitimate" excuse for this race. In the race 2 back this horse was on the turf, perhaps for the first time. Obviously, the horse did not care for the surface. Another "legitimate" excuse. In the horses last race, a return to a surface it likes and in a race where it can be competitive resulted in a good race.
So was the horse really ever out of form? I don't think so.

[Ted Craven]

Thanks Bill, I'll look to see if anything like that is feasible. I think you'd want a 4th state as well: 'irrelevant line' (e.g. intervening surface or distance switch). Also, will you be wanting to save your choices, for the next time you load that race, or that horse? ;)

IMO, you want a combination of positional, beaten length, race conditions, surface and energy readouts to know more about form cycles. A race where the horse ran in the back half of a field, never making a move, or even fading against a hot Pace of Race doesn't mean that an otherwise poor looking effort is magically a good one because of good E/ep or Tpp readouts - the horse didn't produce those numbers: the POR did. Tempering those hot energy figs with apparent positional effort, or ability to close, comes closer to knowing if the horse was advancing, declining or stable in its cycle. Conversely, an even effort in the back half of the field against a torrid pace, or 1 call of effort after a layoff or against a too fast pace doesn't necessarily mean decline.

By pattern recognition practise, and by showing the Original and Energy panels together, you can pretty well see all this at a glance.

But let's see if there's a visually impactful way to show this (and yes, Bud and others), permit user comments by running line or by race as a whole.

Ted

[Bill V.]

Thanks Ted

I am confident you can do it .. I think the base plus, zero, and plus within a zero is fine. If you would like to add a 4th option that is you right.
But like Tom Brohamer says "The horse should always show something".
Just because the trainer is crazy. I'm looking for a horse with a desire to do well. I want to see a horse perform well often in its history more often then once in the last three or 4 races.

All the points you mentioned are noted as well as Tim's factors.
But to me these factors are ways to rate a horse against itself
which is all well and good but to quote Wm. Scott How Will Your Horse Run today against THESE horses. Doc sad it best The difference the methodology has over other systems is. "We bet RACES they bet horses"
The value I get out of doing the notations is I find horses with heart and guts Lots of Pluses with good APV and Class are horses that will give you a good effort
I also find horses that run bad most of the time but somehow it turns in a good race once in its ten races
and of course it has good E/ep or whatever but few plus races and low apv class means going back a few lines might not be as good as that line looks

Mike and FTL all ready have helped me even more to see the good that can come from doing this

I hope you can make it a manual user option I hope you don't want to
have RDSS make the call on some set rules. to me that would defeat the purpose

Bill

[Ted Craven]

If we end up with such a column, it would be optional (like the Powerline marker) and even if I give a crack at letting the software select an initial + O (+) designation, it would always be over-ridable by the user. Same with a Visual Running Style designation: user could/should double-check whatever the software thinks. There are just too many circumstances to check, I think, or legitimate differences of approach, to add yet another computer generated column which ends up at odds with what you may know better. Put the choice/responsibility on the human (if the human wants to accept it :) )

Ted

[For The Lead]

If we end up with such a column, it would be optional (like the Powerline marker) and even if I give a crack at letting the software select an initial + O (+) designation, it would always be over-ridable by the user. Same with a Visual Running Style designation: user could/should double-check whatever the software thinks. There are just too many circumstances to check, I think, or legitimate differences of approach, to add yet another computer generated column which ends up at odds with what you may know better. Put the choice/responsibility on the human (if the human wants to accept it :) )

Ted

Ted,
lol
I KNOW you know what you are doing, but since you said, "even if I give a crack at letting the software select an initial + O (+) designation" and since you also said, "There are just too many circumstances to check", I just feel compelled to tell you,"been there, done that", and it ain't fun! So I know what you mean!

[Bill V.]

Hi Ted

I really think this should be a user choice option
Just like the projected pace boxes

What is the reason they are left to the user to judge the pace ?
shouldn't the + o (0) notations be left to the user ?

I am hoping and maybe this will make my idea clearer

Here is horse 3 from AP Starting from the bottom up I have judged
its lines one at a time. So far I have all plus races
I am up to line 7 and I have hit the drop box I will choose the zero
line 1-6 are blank till I choose a notation .

I hope you could do this. In my opinion any override from what you
or equibase comes up with is all well and good but Is a Sartin Methodology
program really suppose to have someone else make pace line decisions for you ?
I think an override system is overkill

Bill

[Houndog]

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't AODDS in the BRIS download have desiginations in the paceline screen for Good (G), BAD (B) and Ugly (U).

Or was that a Clint Eastwood movie?:rolleyes:

[shoeless]

In my opinion any override from what you
or equibase comes up with is all well and good but Is a Sartin Methodology
program really suppose to have someone else make pace line decisions for you ?
I think an override system is overkill



Bill,Excellent point

[Ted Craven]

In my opinion any override from what you
or equibase comes up with is all well and good but Is a Sartin Methodology
program really suppose to have someone else make pace line decisions for you ?
I think an override system is overkill

Bill

If there ends up being a Form designation column for each paceline, by default it would likely be user supplied (like Projected Pace and Running Styles are now user supplied). You could override that default setting (e.g. in the Configure Window), by asking the software to supply initial values.

Same with Projected Pace and Running Styles - what exists now would continue to be the default (i.e. you supply it), but you could override that and ask the software to come up with something initially (which you could then tweak if you don't like everything it comes up with).

Similarly colour for rankings - by default, colour is used (i.e. red, green, yellow). You can override that now and choose no colour.

You can override the default DTV and ITV settings, the use of Powerline and Powermove and Layoff markups. You can override the default mode of some calculations (formerly known as Spec160 mode) and use Validator mode instead.

There will be an automated paceline selection strategy (several of them, actually) and you can request the software to select an initial paceline set for you if you like. By default this will be switched off, but you can override that (i.e. switch it on).

You'll be able to hide half the existing screens, if you like, or choose from a bunch of new ones.

Flexibility, but not imposed.

In keeping with my understanding of the Sartin Methodology - the user makes the decisions - the software enables the user. RDSS should help new folks to learn the Methodology, then enable users to efficiently apply the concepts by permitting the software do as much grunt work as they desire (and of which it is capable...), but not more.

I think we're on the same page, Bill :) But, I'll wager, not 1 person in 20 would make use of your manually applied + O (+) Form assessment notation. Some folks want to work 70 races a day; some just one card.

Again, let's see what I can do. (And BTW, Equibase has nothing to do with it).

Ted

[Ted Craven]

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't AODDS in the BRIS download have desiginations in the paceline screen for Good (G), BAD (B) and Ugly (U).

Or was that a Clint Eastwood movie?:rolleyes:

Mike, that Aodds thing sounds familiar!

But in permitting the software to make those designations for you, "you got to ask yourself one question: Do ya feel lucky? Well, do ya...?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0-oinyjsk0

;)

Ted

[Ted Craven]

I notice a strong co-relation between + races and finish positions having colour (1st, 2nd 3rd). Is there any scenario where a horse finishes in the money where the line should not be considered a 'good line'? Is there any scenario where the horse finishes worse than 3rd where the line should still be considered 'good'? For example: Bank of Dad's 7th line, finished 4th but a bit closer than his good 6th line where he finished 3rd (and against a faster pace than his good 8th line). I think the 7th line could probably be considered as 'good' Sometimes (and often in Turf routes) a herd of horses finish within a few lengths of each other - the distance between 3rd and 5th sometimes being only a length.

What about (+) lines (good within bad). What are a collection of scenarios for this? How about:
- finish out of the money but in the top half of field + 1
- colour in any 2 non-finish positions
- showed a Powermove markup up to the Stretch call where it was in the top half of field + 1

Bad lines. Is this everything else, except for lines where the horse clearly had no hope of demonstrating what form it may have had (e.g. clear trouble such as poor start, bumps, forced wide, etc) or a surface it clearly hates or an obviously irrelevant class maneuver (quick raise after claim, way too high conditions)?

Here's where I'm going with this: if good lines show colour at the finish, and good within bad lines show colour or some kind of markup within the race (e.g. some kind of new colour or marking for such out of money finishes), and excusable or bad lines are everything else (e.g. no colour, no markings), is this an alternate (or, nearly existing) way of portraying the horse's form cycles over its history?

In my philosophy of software user-interface, less is more: another symbol for the brain to interpret can sometimes mean info overload. If we end up with an optional column of user-supplied form cycle symbols such as Bill suggests, and some people choose not to put in the effort to mark pacelines + O (+), are those people missing very much if they still have the above described colour and markup system?

Keeping in mind that the whole point of this exercise is to help clarify which line or lines best represent what the horse will likely do today, given the entire context of its history. (BTW, next release optionally shows as many PP lines for a horse as you happen to have on file.)

All comments appreciated.

Ted

[noddub62]

Good points Ted.

Let's not use sight of the KISS theory or application though. I remember that in one of the follow ups there was an article about too much info. Being able to customize the screens and other settings would solve the too much data problem, at least for me.

But on the other hand Bill's suggestions, as well as others, would be a great teaching tool for newbies and a good refresher for some of us oldies. I'm just glad I don't have your job and figure it all out.

Thanks for all of your help,

Bud

[For The Lead]

All comments appreciated.

Ted

Ted,
As you know, I am not an RDSS user and for that reason I am not as familiar with your program as others who are users. I get to see parts of it from time to time when someone posts screen shots, but when it comes to “color” I think I have an understanding of what the colors are and what they represent.

This is a subject that I could go on and on about, but I’m sure you don’t want to get involved in that. But I do want to say that this is a subject that really opens up things to what boils down to “a matter of opinion”.

There is a lot to discuss here and I’m not going to try and cover all of it in one shot, but here are just a couple of thoughts. One note before I begin, I am showing running position and beaten lengths only, as becoming involved with “pace times” and “final times” only adds to the problem.

Is there any scenario where a horse finishes in the money where the line should not be considered a 'good line'?
Suppose you have a running line that looks like this?
10-11.0, 6-9.0, 4-8.0, 2-10.0
The horse finished “in the money”, in fact, the horse finished second. This line would get color, but it is a “good race”? And suppose the horse finished 3rd rather than second? It would still get color, but when you look at it, is it really a good race?

Is there any scenario where the horse finishes worse than 3rd where the line should still be considered 'good'?
10-11.0 6-9.0 4-4.5 4-1.0
This horse finished “out of the money” and does not get color, but which race is the better race, this one or the one where the horse finished 2-10.0?

- finish out of the money but in the top half of field + 1
Suppose you have a horse that was in a field of 10 horses and its’ running line looks like this:
5-8 5-7.5 5-7.0 5-6.0
The horse finished in the top half of the field, but does it deserve a “+” of ANY kind?
Here is a horse that is coming out of a 12 horse field:
6-5.0 4-1.0 5-3.0 6-5.0
Is this the same as the horse coming out of the 10 horse field above? It finished in the top half of the field, right? In my opinion, this is a much better race even if the horse finished 7th and not in the top half of the field. This horse was within 1 length of the leader at the second call and I would think there is a “real” chance for improvement off this line, whereas I do not think the same thing for the horse coming out of the 10 horse field above. Perhaps this horse should get some type of “+” even if it did not finish in the top half of the field.

Here is another example:
7-8.0 5-5.0 3-2.0 2-1.0
Is there ANYONE who would not give this horse a “+”? Of course not, but now let’s take a look at the opposite of this line.

1-1.0 2-2.0 5-5.0 7-8.0
Is there ANYONE that would give this horse a “+”? I doubt it, yet it is basically the same thing. The differences are these:
The first horse is a “closer” and the second horse an “early” horse. When you take each race on its’ own merits, based on the style of each horse, are not BOTH of these races “+” races?
Does one horse get “extra credit” simply because it is a closer and runs its’ race late, whereas the other horse gets "penalized" (so to speak) because it ran its’ race early?
I posted the results of 42,550 WINNERS from more than 45 tracks around the country on all surfaces and at all distances from 4.5 furlongs to 2 miles that showed almost half of them were 1st or 2nd at the first call. Think about that. There are only two conditions to that. The horse has to be either 1st or 2nd at the first call. It takes every other possible scenario to make up the other half. Don't you think horses that demonstrate that ability should get some type of "+" even if they do not finish "in the money"?

[Bill V.]

Ted that all sound peachy keen
but now again you seem to be getting involved in what Ted Cravin thinks is
a good or bad or something in the middle line If people want that thats your right to do it

I think again, and sorry to repeat my point
This is my same argument as stated earlier Why is the projected pace total basic user choce
Siimple clean and clear. What makes this step different?

Also one part of the method Howard Sartin urged his clients
to do with the notations is looking for the 80 speed rating at todays track.

A 80 or better DRF speed rating or a figure relivent to the contenders in each
race. for instance at Woodland there might not be any 80's in the race but a 75 will do

The 80 speed rating at todays SAME Track in what appears to be a poor
race will warrant the (+) rating regardless of position and beaten lenghts
up to 9. BL over 9 are entersd as 9
Now the trick is what equals an 80 drf number to the ESR or Equalized normalizes adjusted Sartin numbers ?

Thanks
Bill

[raceman5]

like to keep things simple i consider a good race where a horse is less than 6 l behind at he half and fin beaten no more than 5 lengths.

Bob

[Ted Craven]

Ted that all sound peachy keen
but now again you seem to be getting involved in what Ted Cravin thinks is
a good or bad or something in the middle line If people want that thats your right to do it


:confused:


I think again, and sorry to repeat my point
This is my same argument as stated earlier Why is the projected pace total basic user choce
Siimple clean and clear. What makes this step different?


Because that's as far as I got. Give me some time...I'll get the program to suggest a Projected Pace (which you can override, or switch off). If Randy Kovach could do it for Jim Bradshaw, so can I.

Again, sounds like we are in agreement: you want user choice to designate good, bad and good within bad races - and (if I can implement such a feature), user-choice will indeed be the default.

Cheers,

Ted

[Bill V.]

Ted sorry for the misunderstanding of what you have planned

But for the record . I am not looking for a auto projected pace option
If it could be available to RDSS than I'm sure it would be good
to have the feature. Good skill to you for the efforts to make RDSS
better

Bill

[Bill V.]

In one of the seminar tapes, I believe its Las Vegas November 1991
Shane Sartin makes a comment about doing his plus zeros and plus within a zero notations. His thought was do it as if you are relaying a message up to the owner of the horse or you are the trainer and the owner wants a report on how the horse is doing.

here is horse # 4 from the 4th race at Saratoga on 9/7/09

starting at the bottom the horse runs two good sprints at Philly

"Boss the horse ran good a win and a show. The show was on a muddy track . The horse was right there in the stretch it was a good effort.

Next race #8... Boss we tried to go 6.5 The track was muddy. She ran
against this same type in the show race last time but today she didn't fire
sorry sir it was a bad race. The off track might be a problem . bless you sir
take your vitamin C

Phone rings .. The trainer wants to take the horse up to Aqueduct for the inner winter meet. No Sir we don't thing we can go to Gulfstream

next race # 7 ...Boss we moved it up to a 30 claimer the horse showed
it was second to the half mile and held for third
But sir the horse got claimed she was a nice horse. Here is your check
Hangs up the phone ...Jerk

Race 6 New Owner, trainer.. Lets try this 16.000 Starter. Same distance
8.0.
Phone rings Boss, We ran 4th. We were up there early but kind of flattened out it was not a bad race but
we did beat half the field. Lets try it one more time. We might want to stay out of the claimers. So and so might want her back.

Race 5 . Sorry boss The horse did nothing it was not good
lets rest her and will try her on the main track
and shorten her to 6.0

race 4.. Phone rings "Boss" we went up to 35.000 . He was there
he wants her back.
So we need to make some dough. Trainer says she has looked good
give him the race. Boss " go for it" Oh did you take care of that thing
with Sally. yes sir she is on her way to Miami

after the race.... Boss we won ! a darn good Plus race!
Track says your check and winners circle photo will be mailed shortly

Race 3 Phone Rings Boss Aqueduct is over. We will run at Belmont
Boss something might be wrong ..
We rested her but I think we need to drop her
Trainer says 25 at Belmont. yes 25.000
It looks like its gonna rain

after the race ... Not good sir, off track that is two times
she ain't a mudder. Yes sir her father was a mudder ..
Nothing today sir. Today was a bad one, but the guys with the laptops said something about
the pace of the race being a yellow ??
trainer says well come back in about 3 weeks at 25M

race 2 after the race .. Boss she ran like a champ. Fast track
She sat right there in 3rd and came home in excellent time.
One of those laptop guys , yeah the tall bald guy said
entropy? anyway your doing well. Trainer says lets rest her
Whats that sir? yes we should try Saratoga ..


race 1 Phone rings. Sir we are here. Trainer says that so and so is here
too. He wants her back. He has backing now. He did well down at
Philly. says he's been reading about something called Sartin
on something cappinpace, what ever.Trainer is worried so were
gonna go with a starter handicap

after the race.. Sir you and your wife look great
I see you have been watching and avoiding those fries.
sorry you didn't win Yes she did good sir. Its was a good effort
Yes sir I know. I agree We win at 6 furlongs. Yes I know
you want that winner circle photo ! Lets try again at 7.0
Lets wait till early Sept. maybe on labor day

good night sir

[shoeless]

But, I'll wager, not 1 person in 20 would make use of your manually applied + O (+) Form assessment notation


If I were using your program I would be the 1 in 20 to use it,a great tool to select contenders

[SilentRun]

Bill,

I have never used this concept so I would like to be clear on the definitions.
I never read about this in the FU but by looking at your examples it is fairly clear what they mean but please correct me.

1. (Zero) 0 refers to a horses weak performance and was out of the money,

2. Plus + refers to a good performance a win or in the money,

3. A plus within a zero refers to a horse that ran out of the money but made a
good move in the race.

Is this the above correct ?

Did I leave any combos out ?

Ernie

[Bill V.]

Bill,

I have never used this concept so I would like to be clear on the definitions.
I never read about this in the FU but by looking at your examples it is fairly clear what they mean but please correct me.

1. (Zero) 0 refers to a horses weak performance and was out of the money,

2. Plus + refers to a good performance a win or in the money,

3. A plus within a zero refers to a horse that ran out of the money but made a
good move in the race.

Is this the above correct ?

Did I leave any combos out ?

Ernie

Pretty good understanding but don't just look at Position
(in the money) look at the Pace of the Race and the Speed Rating

A trainer/or an owner goes nuts and enters the horse in way over its head in a ten horse field. The 2 top horses at the track run a suicide pace. Your horse has a presser running style but at its best, It is about 3 Speed Rating points slower than these two horses

Your horse breaks well It sits in the garden spot 3 or 4 beaten lengths
behind Its running as fast as it can but It total energy says whoa! and he
fades a little in the stretch and finishes 4th. But it beat half the field.After a 20 day rest the owner and trainer enter it back to mid level total energy horses.
The Past performances come out for the suicide race .
Your horse while running 4th out of the money earns its highest speed rating
Now you ask yourself was this a poor effort? No. Was the horse involved
in the Pace of a very fast paced race? YES. Was the speed rating earned one that will be amongst the fastest in today's race If so to me it sure is a plus within a zero and depending on the horses in todays race it would not be crazy to give it a plus

Long story short .. your on target with what you wrote But its the Pace
of the race the horse ran against that mattters and only you can make
the calls on what you feel is a + +/0 or 0 race