Stretchout Logic

[lsosa54]

Hi folks. This is a race I played using my own methods. At the time I thought the sprinter had a large pace advantage but my only concern was his F3. I also thought he also wasn't going to have to use all that early and if he took to the route, might have some energy for the stretch run.

The original screen I think clearly shows the advantage early but the adjusted screen slows him down by more than 10 lengths if I'm reading it right. Off the top of my head, I would venture to say that SA is a faster track than DMR, so I'm a bit confused. Looking at adjusted fractions, why is this horse so "slowed down" and the routers' tandem race actually "sped up". It would be tough to consider this horse off the adjusted screen.

I have all default settings except I'm using Val 4 Emulation. Any thoughts?

[Capcondo]

I don't know how the the adjusted speed rating is calculated but I think the daily track variant has something to do with it. In the case of this horse, the SR is a 91 and the track variant is 1. If an average variant is say 17 and the SR is adjusted at one-half the difference between 17 and 1, the adjustment would be 8 which would be subtracted from the SR of 91 (because the track was faster than normal) leaving an 83. There also may be a sprint to route adjustment here. 81 seems reasonable to me.

Ted could give you a better answer on this one but you get the idea.

Tim

[lsosa54]

Thanks Tim. The daily variant for the routers was similar.

I can see their times made a bit faster as HOL is probably a bit slower than Santa Anita.

For the Sprinter, my sense is that DMR is slower than Santa Anita. I can see some type of sprint to route adjutment, but since the DTV's are the same, that is a huge ITV and sprint to route adjustment.

Even though the sprinter's 3F was not good, his pace calls were substantially faster than the routers. Since I feel the track to track should have sped him up a bit more pacewise, I can't understand the adjustment.

My off the cuff sprint to route is to add a couple of ticks at the 1st & 2nd calls and stretch out the final time 6.2 secs per 1/2 furlong. I'm really not interested in the sprinter's final time but where he will be early in the race and what he might have in reserve if he doesn't have to run as fast. I could see something like 45.6 110, maybe even faster if SA is faster than DMR.

Thanks for responding.

[For The Lead]

The average or "base line" daily track variant from the Racing form is "17".

The "base line" for Trackmaster is "0".

Trackmaster's daily track variant of "1" means the track was "1" tick slow.

I'm not sure about this, but I think RDSS is set to adjust by 50% of the difference or 50% of "1".

I also think that adjustment can be changed by the user.

[lsosa54]

FTL: Thanks for the post. Had not explored the variant yet but yes there are 3 options: 0, 50, or 100 as a DTV % adjustment.

So to confirm, what you're saying is that the DRF avg DTV of 17 (all distances, all tracks, nationally according to Doc) that us old Sartinites used to adjust from in a couple of different ways for TM would be 0?

In any case, the tandem route race dtv was not much different. Logically to me, with the dtv's similar and the DMR track speed slower than SA intuitively, the slowdown of the sprinter doesn't make sense, even adding a couple of ticks to the pace call times to adjust spr to rte..

[For The Lead]

So to confirm, what you're saying is that the DRF avg DTV of 17 (all distances, all tracks, nationally according to Doc) that us old Sartinites used to adjust from in a couple of different ways for TM would be 0?



Correct.

[Ted Craven]

Lou,

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to this. I studied this race a while, specifically regarding that DMR line 2 for horse #4, and the projection of the 6.5 DMR poly sprint to an 8.5 distance. In summary, it DOES look too slow to me, at all call points, but the logic that does all projection adjustment is employed blindly here: we're working with the same formulas as for all other projections, all other tracks.

Remember, in the TrackMaster supplied ITVs, we adjust NOT from the paceline's track to today's track, BUT from the paceline's track to a hypothetical norm (i.e. Sartin Downs). In this race, even SA lines are projected NOT to SA but to 'Sartin Downs'. In this event, the ITV final time adjustment from DMR 6.5 to Sartin Downs was .79 seconds slower, the DTV was negligible (DTV was +1 or almost par). The meat of the oddball adjustment is the 'par-gaps' equalization, which slowed down the adjusted call times considerably at the projected 4f and 6f 1st and 2nd call new route times. I think this may be based on not the best 'par times' for 6.5 poly which when we grind things through the projection process, starts not conforming to reality.

I will look at the poly 'par times' used as a basis for sprint to route projections to see if the database of pars needs updating. I would appreciate other examples of sprint to route projections which seem too slow. It is important to specify whether using Val4 mode or Spec mode (which you did = Val4).

The above discussions re TrackMaster Par for DTV being 0 is pretty clear, and accurate. TrackMaster just uses a different scale than BRIS or DTV. Par is 0, slower than par are positive numbers (+5) while faster than par are negative numbers (-5). We ADD time to call times to slow them down in the event of fast DTVs, and do the reverse for slow DTVs, at the % rate specified in your Configurations, to the Min and Max ranges also in your Configurations.

Ted

[lone speed]

Lsosa54....

You seem determine to solve this race.....that's great diligence and persistence.

Normally, I wouldn't touch a race with lightly raced horses, but this payout seems justified to throw some wood into the campfire....

My approach is full of adjustments, so I don't recommend anyone to follow my steps. I am content to play the adjustments that I make IF I play this type of race.

I'll Have Another last raced in August of 2011 so that is 6 months of development for a 2 year old on the Jockey Club scale of development.

6 1/2 furlong is a sprint race but it is interchangable with a route race at a 1 1/16th distance just like 6.4 turf sprint down at Santa Anita hillside turf course is really a mile turf route which sets up well for a turf miler. Anyways, this is subject to opinions and different philosophies.

I'll Have Another earned a 84 Beyer from that race which was won by Creative Cause. A Derby contender this year. The projected improvement from August to today's race in February according to the Jockey Club's scale is 3 lengths or (3 times 2beyer points for each length) +6 Beyer points which improves the 84 Beyer to 90 Beyer for today's projections. I'll plug in a 90 Beyer to a route projection program that was developed by an acquiantance. I got a speed variant of (-2.8) for that 6 1/2 furlong race.

Now always keep in mind that some horses are just natural routers so using their sprint races would not do any justice...but this exercise is to get a ballpark figure or projection.

I used some of the pars from the RacingDigest and the (-2.8) variant and using a route projection based on deceleration, I get a projected time for I'll Have Another at Hollywood Park at: 23.2 46.4 110.3 and 142.3...(times in fifths) or 23.4 46.8 110.6 and 142.6 (in tenths)

Using the projected times, it looks that I'll Have Another has a huge pace advantage in today's match up against contenders who have faced slower fractions routing....Best of luck

I did not play this race nor do I make any claims of wouldhave, shouldhave, etc....

[lone speed]

Jockey Club Scale of Weights...for those interested...

http://horseracing.about.com/library/blscale.htm

[lsosa54]

Thanks for responding, LS. While I don't use or necessarily agree with all the concepts you stated, I appreciate and can see the logic in your own approach and I do believe in improving 2 and 3 year olds, although I may disagree about the quantification. I've also played the SoCal circuit almost exclusively for 25 years.

I'm testing RDSS to see if it can work for me, thus my question. I won this race using my basic approach - BRIS PP's, AOdds 98, EXDC/Thoromation. I too had the horse with a huge early advantage as an improving 3 yo. I didn't know whether he could route but his ML was 12-1 and at 43-1, not much to think about. I did not have the place horse. This was the type of investment that could pay my mortgage for a month when I was playing professionally in SoCal back in the mid 90's. Sort of a classic lone fast sprinter vs. slower routers. Interesting that TM had the RC on the sprinter's G2 race as a tick above the G1 tandem race - 102 vs. 101.

I just need to make sure that RDSS doesn't take me off opportunities like this in my own thought process.

Love your contribution to the discussion as I'm more of a Brohamer type 'capper (with a touch of Quinn & Mitchell) and not just a straight Sartin style type- thanks!

[lsosa54]

Hi Ted - no problem. I'm sure you were trying to get that beta release done and I'm no stranger to having no spare time.

Thanks for the reminder that we are adjusting to Sartin Downs - that's where I went wrong in trying to figure out what was going on. Glad you agree that the penalty is huge on the sprinter and doesn't reflect the reality of a stretch out, given that both HOL and DMR are poly and the DTV's were basically the same for the sprinter and routers. Wouldn't think the speeds of the DMR and HOL surfaces would be extremely different but I could be wrong.

Regarding the modes, I've never used Speculator and lightly used Validator, but am I right to say the difference is how they treat the value of a beaten length, Validator trying to get horses closer together for BL/BL purposes?

Thanks.

Lou

[lsosa54]

Lou,

I would appreciate other examples of sprint to route projections which seem too slow. It is important to specify whether using Val4 mode or Spec mode (which you did = Val4).

Ted

Ted: Another stretch out which seems way off, this time from SA dirt.

Eden's Moon adjustment also seems too much, given the 15 points in variant difference vs. the 8.5 f routers, certainly at the 1st call.

BRIS corresponding e1 e2 sr are as follows:

Renee 88 95 101 sprint line
Willa 81 87 96
Killer 74 79 92
Eden's 81 90 94

While the BRIS sr's seem to mirror the order of the TM sr's, it's in the adjusted SR where Eden gets killed. Theoretically, BRIS sr's are adjusted for track to track and dtv.

Also, BRIS would have Eden about 1.5 lengths ahead of Willa at the 2nd call where TM adjusted shows Willa 3 lengths ahead at the 2nd call.

If Renee doesn't blow the 1st turn, they run the race pretty much according to the e2 for these contenders and Renee possibly even wins.

Thanks.

Lou

[Ted Craven]

Val4 mode or Default mode?

[lsosa54]

Val4 mode or Default mode?

Still in Val 4 mode Ted. Do you suggest I switch to default?