Picking Contenders & Pacelines

[For The Lead]

Here’s a little exercise for everyone.

I am posting a race from the follow ups. It is not marked up in any way. The idea here is for you to look at the horses and become familiar with them.

Look at their races and try to determine which horses are the real contenders and the reason why they are real contenders. You can use any tools you have as long as you don’t use a computer. THAT would defeat the purpose.

WHAT TOOLS ARE THEY? (Ah, “the basics”!!)
Take a piece of paper and for each horse mark down if you think they are “early”, “presser” or “sustained”. If you think the horse has no discernible form, mark that down too.
Pick what you think is an appropriate paceline.
If you can calculate APV, do that.
If you can attempt to determine the 2nd call time, do that.
Look at the tracks where the horse has been running and consider the track it is running at today. Do you think it can compete at today’s track?
Try to identify the horse(s) you think will not win.
When you get done, look at what you have and try to determine how you think the race will run and which horse(s) you think have the best chance of winning.
In a couple of days I will post what the follow ups had to say about each horse along with the “marked up” version of the race as well as the results. Compare what you thought about each horse to what the follow up says. See if you could spot the winner just from this exercise. The first thing I’m posting is what the follow up said PRE-race and then the race itself.

[Bill V.]

This will be the place were lessons, questions, answers and example races will be posted

I want to make a Teaching Thread were post like FTL's will appear in one area, rather than muck up each persons picks thread

Bill

[Bill V.]

Hi FTL

I will give it my best. Its tough for me as I am not used to the racing form
I don't see the date of the race but it looks like all the race are recent
enough

also I have to cheat and I will use my old energy program to
figure the apv and class

Thanks this will be fun
Bill

[For The Lead]

Hi FTL

I will give it my best. Its tough for me as I am not used to the racing form
I don't see the date of the race but it looks like all the race are recent
enough

also I have to cheat and I will use my old energy program to
figure the apv and class

Thanks this will be fun
Bill

Sorry, Bill and all. My mistake. The date of the race is JUNE 1, 1990.

The instructions from the follow up were to NOT use a computer. Not everyone has an old ENERGY program, so it wouldn't be fair to those who do not. Like I wrote in my post..."IF" you know how to figure APV, then do it.

Everyone do the best they can. In 1990 the Racing Form is all there was. The idea is to analyze the race as best you can using visual information. That is the reason for the NO COMPUTER guideline.

Also, in retrospect, I think my timing here was bad, with the Breeders Cup coming up on Friday and Saturday. I will wait until Monday to put up the next post and allow everyone to concentrate on the Breeders Cup races. I know these races are important to the contest.

[For The Lead]

Here's what the follow up had to say.
31520

31521

31522

31523

31524


How did YOU make out?
Were you able to isolate the winner?
This is all good advice.
If it wasn't, it wouldn't be in the follow up!

Next up, the second race in this daily double (of sorts). It gets more difficult now.

[shoeless]

Those would have been my two horses to bet.


Actually might have leaned more to Chicken Dinner as 2 races back
he was coming out of the fastest race by far.Something that the
Hat has preached about horses coming out of the fastest races.

[shoeless]

FTL,

None of my buisness but afraid your posts will be hidden here and you
would be better off having your own thread in the handicapping discussion
section.

[Bill V.]

Thanks FTL

I found this one to be hard only because I'm so used to the RDSS
PP's. Its almost like learning a new language. I saw the lone early
but thats about as far as I could get

Hope to do better next race
Bill

[For The Lead]

Those would have been my two horses to bet.


Actually might have leaned more to Chicken Dinner as 2 races back
he was coming out of the fastest race by far.Something that the
Hat has preached about horses coming out of the fastest races.

Allow me to use another 'hatism".

HORSE RACING IS AN EASY GAME. WHEN THE GATES OPEN ONE HORSE GETS THE LEAD, IF NO OTHER HORSE CAN PASS IT, IT WINS!

This is the point of this exercise. To look at each horse in the race and determine their running style by labeling them with an E, P or S (and EP,SP). By doing this, you will find the mixture of early runners, pressers and sustained (closers) runners. When you find just one E runner with the rest of the horses being S runners, there is a clear edge to the E runner, as long as it is currently fit, which this example shows it was.

One of these S runners may be coming out of the fastest race, but that in itself will not make it the winner. "S" type horses need a pace to run at. This was the other point of this exercise. The 3/4 time used was 111.3. Take note that the actual 3/4 time of the race was 113.1, so there certainly wasn't as much pace for the "S" horses to run at. That is the reason this "E" runner was able to go wire to wire.

[DaveEdwards]

I see there are several posts following the teaching example, but I want to be honest with myself here and do this exercise & post whatever I come up with. I’ll be using the concepts that I am familiar with, which are the 0,+ & (+) (albeit there appears to be varying definitions of exactly where the cut off lies between each, back to guidelines & no rules!) & what I have gathered from Richie’s Match Up Thread. This is typed in word & will be posted when I'm done.

I’m afraid I have no idea how to calculate APV, or anything else for that matter. OK, let’s do this!

Cozy Road. Running Style U. Initial thoughts are this horse like to start far back & then drift further away from the pace. Without looking at any other horses already looks to have no chance unless racing against Shetland ponies.

To Be Impressive. Running Style EP likes to lead if pace isn’t sub 22:00 in sprints. Candidate to set pace.

No Se Porque. Running Style S. Late swooper.

Situada. All turf form. Running Style. Slight evidence of S, apart from that U. As the only running style is very late, if at all, this turf runner most probably doesn’t have the credentials to make the transition to dirt racing where more evidence of being involved early would be to it’s advantage.

Lap of Luxury. Running Style S. Last 3 races it’s best BL being 5 lengths.

Chicken Dinner. Running Style S. Again, getting beaten by fair distances.

Now for paceline selection. There is only one horse likely to set the pace here with the rest being Sustained types. This is already screaming out To Be Impressive as having a really good shout here. Will select the POR from one of his recent line & take it from there (going to use horses initials now to make it easier):

TBI – 23rd May 46:3 1:11:3 1:45 1-1.5 1-3 1-4 1-0.5
(the bold figure above being the BL of course)

CR – on 15th Mar 90 & 1st of May 90 faced similar pace & was destroyed both times. Out.

NSP – 23rd May Tandem with TBI beaten by 8L. Out as there is no reason for the pace set to be different as it is highly likely the same horse sets the pace here.

S – as stated, I just can see how this gets involved, but will look at it’s line from 30th Mar which had a SR of 85.

47:4 1:11:4 1:43:1 9-11 10-11 10-11 9-10.5

If attempting to keep pace with the 46:3 will be forced to run 6 lengths faster than in this race, plus the 10.5L to make up at the end. Don’t think so.

LOL – In tandem with TBI on 23rd May & beaten 5L. Out with same pacemaker.

CD – Line 2 has SR of 80 & very similar pace.

46:1 1:11:1 1:42:4 6-5.75 3-2.5 2-4 2-6

Now this is an interesting horse. Power move gaining position & lengths against a pace 2 lengths faster over the 46:1 & 1:11:1.

OK, I’m taking TBI to lead all the way round & get mugged late by CD. Hopefully the prices are worth it & I could have backed both, but my call here is CD to win in a race with essentially two contenders.

OK, will copy & paste this in now & then check the result!

[DaveEdwards]

Fair enough.

Very much enjoyed doing that.

[gl45]

FTL,
I will wait for the daily double....

[For The Lead]

Fair enough.

Very much enjoyed doing that.

Good job!

You did really well, right up to the point where you picked one of the "S" horses to mug the "E" horse late! :) But that's 'OK'. It's the reason the follow ups provide example races. It's called "LEARNING". I hope this example helps.

By the way, using the +,(+) and 0 really helps in identifying horses so you can give them the proper label. It makes you look closely at the horses running lines.

You also mentioned some confusion with the cutoff definition for each symbol.
If you can expand on that, I'm sure between Bill V and I, we can clear it up for you and others.

I have posted this elsewhere, but it is important, so I'll post it again here. What you are looking for are "usable" lines.
The following is my definition of each symbol;

+ = any race where the horse ran, 1st, 2nd or 3rd
(+) = any race where the horse shows one of the following
A – showed good early form by being 1st or 2nd at the first and/or 2nd calls, even if it faded down the stretch
B – any race where the horse made a good middle move (that’s call 1 to call 2) gaining in lengths and being within 2 lengths of the leader at the second call, even if it faded down the stretch
0 = any other line

The best definition I can offer for a “usable” line is;
“any line where the horse shows it had an impact on the outcome of the race”
The most important words here are “had an impact on the outcome of the race”.
Obviously a horse that finished 1st,2nd or 3rd had an impact on the outcome of the race and was trying to win the race
Any horse that is running 1st or 2nd at the first and/or second calls are obviously having an impact on the race, even if they fade down the stretch.
Horses that show they make a good middle move, as noted above, are impacting the race at the second call, even if they fade down the stretch. Generally, these types of lines will show the horse moving into 2nd or 3rd position or even taking the lead at the second call and then fading down the stretch.

[For The Lead]

Ok, here’s the second of the two example races.

I know it’s from the Racing Form of more than 20 years ago, but that’s what the follow ups have… Examples from the old Racing Form! Do the best that you can with it. The idea here is to pick contenders and lines for those contenders AND to pick the non contenders. Make a determination as to why you think contenders are contenders. Make a determination as to why you think the non contenders are non contenders. Without telling you 'what' to look at, make sure you consider everything...the follow up does.

Here’s the horses.
Look at each horse.
Do the +, (+) and 0
Label each horse
Pick the contenders AND the non-contenders
Once you have the contenders, pick lines for each one

Now in the follow up example, they asked you to finish the process by entering your contenders and pacelines into the program(s) of that day. I understand that there are those of you that don’t have that type of manual entry software. That’s ‘OK’. I’ll give everyone an opportunity to do what they can and then I’ll post the race with the contenders and lines marked as well as the non contenders eliminated. There will also be comments on each horse and, of course, the results.

[DaveEdwards]

FLT,

I've gone over it again & what I was thinking about were the definitions from the Red Manual (p16 on the pdf) and Follow Up 56 (p30 on the pdf).

There's no issue to clear up really. There is a little more latitude in what can be accepted as a + line in FU 56 included 3rd & 4th position finishes, depending on the pace of the race the horse was racing in.

As I alluded to in my post above, as with most things relating to the Methodology there are no rules. Each individual situation ought to be judged on it's merits. The issue I was questioning about definitions on the overlap between + & (+) races probably doesn't really need exploring further as both are acceptable as line selections.

This does raise a couple of further questions however:

1) At what point is a horse considered to have gone out of form & not expected to return in the next race?
My own thoughts are through form cycle analysis and also how it is performing against the POR it has faced recently. Clearly the POR can show an excusable 0 line due to the horse just not being able to compete.

2) In latter issues of the FU when talking about the best of last 3 (which I acknowledge may not be to everyone's taste) The Doc suggests not using a line where the BL was 7.5 or over. This in itself raises further questions:
a) Was the 7.5L a top end of the (+) which would be qualified by the fact the POR was too hot?
b) The formula that were a part of the latter programs were better able to handle such races?

3) Is it too late to claim a both ways exacta on yesterday's post?

[DaveEdwards]

FTL 2nd Example Race.

Same approach as yesterday for me. I made an elementary mistake yesterday in not giving the leader enough credit for being able to control the pace, which indeed it did as the fractions showed……..

Bold Current – Already this is trickier. Race is over 7F & here we have a horse that has proven to be competitive in sprints over 6F (albeit Mdns) and very much not so over 1m 1/16th. Evidence that this horse tries for the lead. I’ll take a tentative EP for this horse.

Quick The Tiger – All races over 6F and all wins when the 1C was 22:0. Failed to win on the 3 occasions it faced sub 22:0. Mixture or running styles. P.

Flame Driven – SP. Wins over 6.5F & 1m, so he gets 7F. Bumped in last race so that can be excused.

Heza Pepper – SP. Appeared to lose position in last race, but no other data available as to why.

Doc Murray – P. Likes to stay close with the pace. Possible pace setter here. Not a natural leader and so probably a throw out.

Agitate Borincano – U, looks to be struggling here without looking at the pacelines.

Murphy’s Gang – Took the lead in it’s last race over 1m. Not it’s usual running style. Possibly set pace here & then collapse.

Dirty Old Man – S - A slight move towards the end of it’s last race gaining 2L between the SC & finish.

Big Bad Wolf – S. May find the 7F trip a little on the sharp side as it appears to do it’s best running at the end of it’s route races.

As we have more evidence of Doc Murray being up with the pace in it’s races I am going to take it’s last line of 22:1 46:1 1:13:0 as the pace of the race.
All lines will be equalised if required on the basis of 6.2 seconds per 1/2F as per Jim Bradshaw’s Match Up.

Initials used from now on

Anticipated POR:
22:1 46:1 1:13:0

BC – Showed good run against a faster pace on 9th March, however, it’s last two races against a slower pace at the 4F mark were shockers. Out of form & out.

QTT
24th May 6F 22:0 45:00 1:11:1 5-4 5-5 4-4 1-0.5
Overcoming a faster pace in it’s last race. Now the horse to beat.

FD – last line is excused.
27th Apr 1M 46:00 1:11:4 1:39 3-2.5 1-hd 1-hd 1-0.5
This horse is most certainly a contender. Evidence of holding on after fighting it’s way around.

HP – actually ran against some much sharper horses.
2nd May 6.5f. 21:4 44:4 1:17:2 8-6.75 5-5.5 6-4 5-2.25
Gains 1.75L after faster pace through 1C & 2C.
Using the 6.2sec per F adjustment I think this horse has the beating of FD & was clearly running on towards the end of it’s 6.5F race.

DM – already out.

AB – Out. It’s only + race was over a slower pace on 19th Apr.

MG – Out. As above. + line on 5th May not good enough here.

DOM. Beaten by QTT in tandem on 24th May
24 May 22:0 45:0 1:11.1 6-4.25 6-6 5-5.5 3-0.5

BBW – Out. Only + line over much slower pace on 1st Feb.

I make this race between Heza Pepper & Quick The Tiger. By my reckoning I feel Heza Pepper will be closer to the lead factoring in POR and so that is my selection.

Sorry about my post showing as icons for some of the times over 1 minute, but I'm sure you all catch my drift.

If it’s the other way around I want the exacta!!

[For The Lead]

FLT,

I've gone over it again & what I was thinking about were the definitions from the Red Manual (p16 on the pdf) and Follow Up 56 (p30 on the pdf).

There's no issue to clear up really. There is a little more latitude in what can be accepted as a + line in FU 56 included 3rd & 4th position finishes, depending on the pace of the race the horse was racing in.

As I alluded to in my post above, as with most things relating to the Methodology there are no rules. Each individual situation ought to be judged on it's merits. The issue I was questioning about definitions on the overlap between + & (+) races probably doesn't really need exploring further as both are acceptable as line selections.

This does raise a couple of further questions however:

1) At what point is a horse considered to have gone out of form & not expected to return in the next race?
My own thoughts are through form cycle analysis and also how it is performing against the POR it has faced recently. Clearly the POR can show an excusable 0 line due to the horse just not being able to compete.

2) In latter issues of the FU when talking about the best of last 3 (which I acknowledge may not be to everyone's taste) The Doc suggests not using a line where the BL was 7.5 or over. This in itself raises further questions:
a) Was the 7.5L a top end of the (+) which would be qualified by the fact the POR was too hot?
b) The formula that were a part of the latter programs were better able to handle such races?

3) Is it too late to claim a both ways exacta on yesterday's post?

I'll start with your last question first.
OF COURSE NOT! Your post was quite clear on which two horses you thought would be at the wire! Chalk up an exacta for you!!

On your second question, I am one of those who do not care for "the best of last three distance surface" method, so I will bow to Bill V to answer that question.

Your first question is a good one, but not an easy one to answer.
The class of today's race and the class of its' recent races give an indication, i.e.-if today's race is at the same class/condition and the same distance/surface as its' last couple of races and the horse has shown nothing in those recent races, I would think it is safe to say the horse will not be a contender in today's race.

There are instances where a horse shows it was clearly facing a pace that was just to fast for it. It happens. But more often, a poor effort will be due to an increase in class level and/or condition level and, of course, a change in distance or surface.

Keep in mind that the higher you go in class level, the more consistent horses are, so you don't incur this problem that often. However, in the cheaper races, you can find a horse that wins a NW2L race and the very next race vs NW3L it throws in a real clunker. This is common. But be aware, this does not mean the horse went out of form "just that quick". Many times that horse will come back off that clunker race and come right back to win that same NW3L condition. Naturally, the class level (claiming price) of these races are a factor. There are many possible scenarios and you just have to be aware of them. There is no teacher like experience, so be on your toes and pay attention. Take notes.

[For The Lead]

Here are the results of the 2nd race in this set. I'll let the follow up do the talking.

[For The Lead]

ON to the horses, contenders, non-contenders and lines.

[For The Lead]

On to the comments on each horse.

[For The Lead]

To those who took the time to look at these races, I hope you were able to learn something from them.

[Bill V.]

Thank you FTL
( I sent FTL these readouts last night)
The race was a real challenge but I felt I had it about 51%
I had some doubt that one of the routers internal fractions would be the killer

Anyway here is what I sent FTL


Race 2 7 furlongs open 20000 claimer or nw2l ?

+ (+) and 0's

Bold 0 (+) (+) 0

Quick + (+) + 0 +

Flame + (+) (+) (+) + 0 0 0 0

Heza (+) 0 0

Doc + + + + + 0

Agitate (+) (+) + (+) O O O

Murphy (+) + 0 (+) + (+) + 0

Dirty + 0 0 0 0 + (+) (+)

Big Bad + 0 0 ++0 0 0 0

Running style

Bold - Press

Quick - Sus

Flame - SP/NF

Heza - NF

Doc - EP

Agitate - No sprint form

Murphy - SUS

Dirty - was a EP now is SUS

Big Bad- SUS

APV Class

Bold 171.5 165

Quick 125.3 196

Flame 24.7 058

Heza 22.4 0.54

Doc 51.2 163

Agitate 149.4 147

Murphy 34.8 0.58

Dirty 69.9 0.74

Big Bad 196 203

Contenders

Bold Line 3 Press

Quick line 1 Sus

Doc Murry line 1 EP

Dirty Line 1 Sus


Bold wins

[DaveEdwards]

I have to admit to not thinking about class or APV when looking at a race, but this was clearly not the case when this race was first worked through & then used in the Follow Up.

APV is even colour coded in RDSS so perhaps I ought to pay more attention.

Was this one of those races to sort the men from the boys???

Bill,

May I ask, your use of the 0, + & (+), do you use it to ensure you are using an appropriate line only or also as a tool for the form cycle analysis? I know The Doc has made reference to doing form cycle analysis when there is a discernible pattern, but in many cases it appears to my admittedly untrained eye that no pattern does exist. Is this an area you've been able to explore?

I keep having a quote Jim made at the Las Vegas seminar '91 running round & round my head. Paraphrasing now, but "......if you put the right horses into the programs they will sing & dance for you".

Essentially, if I can get to the point where in most cases I can confidently eliminate the non-contenders, especially the shorter price ones that are easier to get sucked into entering, then V/dc & the Incremental Match Up graph can take care of the rest (with appropriate line selections of course). Perhaps a Teaching thread on the elimination of non-contenders might be appropriate? It would be interesting to perhaps gather the various strategies that people deploy in this area.

Thanks FTL & Bill!

[Bill V.]

Bill,

May I ask, your use of the 0, + & (+), do you use it to ensure you are using an appropriate line only or also as a tool for the form cycle analysis? I know The Doc has made reference to doing form cycle analysis when there is a discernible pattern, but in many cases it appears to my admittedly untrained eye that no pattern does exist. Is this an area you've been able to explore?



Dave
Rdss makes doing the + 0 and (+) notations so easy
The lines are color coded so you don't even have to mark them
but i still do . Here is a Early horse I can see how it runs all its plus lines
and I can see why it runs 0 races

31655


I mark both the lines and the Early Late numbers
I note what running stle and the fractions and distance and surface it runs its Plus races at When I see a horse with very little color I know its up against it in todays race

I am sure you will be seeing more on the topic of non contenders that should not be entered in the program

GS
Bill

[For The Lead]

Let me take this one thing at a time.

Was this one of those races to sort the men from the boys???
Well, that's one way to put it! :) If you go back a couple of posts to the post just before the results, read the last attachment. It makes the point that this is the type of race that can turn "weekend warriors" into professionals. I didn't say it. The follow up did. More specifically, Tom Brohamer did.
Bill,

May I ask, your use of the 0, + & (+), do you use it to ensure you are using an appropriate line only or also as a tool for the form cycle analysis? I know The Doc has made reference to doing form cycle analysis when there is a discernible pattern, but in many cases it appears to my admittedly untrained eye that no pattern does exist. Is this an area you've been able to explore?

If you don't mind my "butting in", it works for both, line selection AND form cycle. Naturally, with regard to the form cycle, class, race condition, distance, surface and track, all have to be taken into consideration.


I keep having a quote Jim made at the Las Vegas seminar '91 running round & round my head. Paraphrasing now, but "......if you put the right horses into the programs they will sing & dance for you".
I can't argue with that. I will, however, expand on it. It's not just the "right horses", but the right horses with the right lines.

Essentially, if I can get to the point where in most cases I can confidently eliminate the non-contenders, especially the shorter price ones that are easier to get sucked into entering, then V/dc & the Incremental Match Up graph can take care of the rest (with appropriate line selections of course).
I would caution about "ELIMINATING" short priced non-contenders. I'm not saying they don't exist, but in most cases, short priced horses ARE contenders with decent form, recent races and good running lines. It's up to YOUR handicapping ability to use the tools provided by RDSS to assist you with that endeavor. Remeber, RDSS, or any other software, is not a "black box". The user still has some evaluation to do on their own. Here's a recent quote from TED that gives some indication as to how he uses his software.

I recommend you never just uncritically accept the auto-pacelines offered. Double check every horse for current condition, best ever performance, competitive paceline, surface preference, matchup surviveability.


Ted also said:
my software is not a betting black box - but since I could not otherwise rank pacelines or properly identify contenders without the computations and rankings of my software - then I'd have to call winning a race a partnership between my own consistent decision making and the software's number crunching, sorting and filtering.

Perhaps a Teaching thread on the elimination of non-contenders might be appropriate?
I thought that was what this thread was about! (lol)

It would be interesting to perhaps gather the various strategies that people deploy in this area.
Have you ever heard the saying "TOO MANY COOKS SPOIL THE BROTH?"
I think that applies here. The follow ups are good places to go for information on this subject, just like the race I just posted. Any those example are consistent, which is important.

Finally, I thought I would post some running lines from my own racing form. Although it is not nicely color coded like RDSS, I don't think you will have any problem in identifying the good lines from the bad. I don't think you will have any problem in identifying the points of call where the horse was actually "impacting" the race. And I don't think you will have any problem in identifying the horses running style. Using a line that is NOT colored would not be advisable. Early in this thread you can see where Doc said, "never use a bad line. It defeats the purpose of trying to pick winning horses".
Thanks FTL & Bill!

31661

31662

31663

31664

Hope all this helps.

[DaveEdwards]

Terrific posts & thanks for your time both.

I don't want to slip into the "do me something" trap now & so I'm going to explore the issues raised and then come back with my thoughts/findings.

There has been a lot of views of this thread so presumably a few others are seeking guidance in this area too. It would be nice I think if a few fed back later how they have found things. I certainly will.

[For The Lead]

This is good advice from the 'Doc".

[For The Lead]

Sometimes you just don't have a choice.
I mean, you follow the guidelines on line selection and you run into a horse like the one below. What are you suppose to do?
Well, given the dilemma this horse confronts you with, just take the last line.
You'll see what I mean.
Those who did were rewarded with a $35.00 winner!

31728

Of the 10 races in the past performances, this horse encountered "trouble" in 9 of them.
Since the last line is a good race, a + race, USE IT!

[For The Lead]

I thought it would be of interest to read how "Doc" went about looking at horses on the basis of being contenders, or not, and how he selected lines. He offered this example. Take note that the first thing "Doc" did was READ THE CONDITIONS"!

31782

31783

[For The Lead]

Read "Doc's" comments on each horse carefully.

[For The Lead]

Please don't become confused where Doc mentions "Early Energy %". Today, you know this as "Median Energy". It is the same thing expressed as a different number resulting from a different calculation.

[shoeless]

I know Bill V does the X and O's and it really has stepped his game up

[Bill V.]

FTL

This horse looks to me like a bad bet at 5/2 I don't want to use line 4
Its its best ever race. To me it looks like the horse maybe injured itself
in that race.
Its been dropping and going shorter distances since that race and running
zero's
If I used this horse Should I rate it off the last line Even than its shaky as a (+)

31874

[For The Lead]

FTL

This horse looks to me like a bad bet at 5/2 I don't want to use line 4
Its its best ever race. To me it looks like the horse maybe injured itself
in that race.
Its been dropping and going shorter distances since that race and running
zero's
If I used this horse Should I rate it off the last line Even than its shaky as a (+)

31874

Bill,

This horse is a bad bet at any price.
I would not consider it a contender in today's race....and DIDN'T consider it a contender since I was watching PRX today.

Line 4 is out of the question. If this line is so predictive of today's performance, then why wasn't it predictive in its' last three races and why did the horse run so bad in the last three races?

I would never give this horse a '(+)" in its' last line, for the following reasons.
1 - did it run 1st,2nd or 3rd?
2 - did it run 1st or 2nd at the first and/or second calls?
3 - did it make a good middle move(from first call to second call) to be within 2 lengths of the leader at the second call?
The answer to all three questions is "NO"! Therefore it gets a "0" from me.

This is a 5 year old at the end of its' 5 year old season. Although it may have sustained an injury in line 4, as you suggested, I don't think that is the case since the horse was right back to the races 13 days later.

Actually, until its' last race, the horse had been running longer distances since line 4. It went from 5.5f in line 4, to 6.0f in line 3, to 6.5f in line 2 and then it dropped back in distance to 5f in its' last line.

Rather than use a "shaky" last line, just throw the horse out as a non-contender. That's what I did.

The winner of this race paid $9.20 and I suspect it paid that much for 3 primary reasons. Those reasons are....the #3 horse, the #6 horse and the #7 horse. All are taking a fairly significant drop in class. Had it not been for those three horses, I suspect the winner would have paid more in the neighborhood of $4.00. The public likes drop down horses and this race gave them three to bet on.

That pretty much covers your question(s) to me. The rest of my comments here should really go in the "Making Money With Early" thread, but I'm here talking about this race anyway, so here goes.

All you have to do in this race is look at the first two calls for each horse. I'm going to suggest you look at the first two calls for each horse using their last 5 races. Why? The last 5 races are the most recent. Most horses don't run 5 races in the last 90 days, so this will generally take you back a little further, but what the horse has done in the "recent past" is of much more importance than what it has done in its' "ancient history past".

At any rate, if you just look at the first two calls for each horse, eliminating any turf race or route races that may be part of those last 5 races, I don't think anyone will have a problem identifying the "TRUE EARLY" horse in this race...the winner #1. In its' last 5 races it has failed to have the lead at the first two calls just once, line 4 at the second call where it was behind by a half length.

Beside that, review each horses first call ONLY. What horse is consistently close to the lead that can challenge the #1 horse? None.

The result? A fairly easy wire to wire win.

[Bill V.]

Hi FTL

I see what your saying about the 3. I still think something went wrong after
that line 4 race, maybe you can expand on why and if they are dropping
it in class way down to 7500 Nw 1 Y and after nearly winning for 16000?

I gave the 3 the "Shakey" plus with a zero 'because it finished 5th
but only beaten by 3 lenghts. It made its move late and only had 5 furlongs to do I thought I should rate it off the last line since it was dropping in class down from 12000 to 7500 an d going back to 6.5 furlongs

You bring up many good points about the winner # 1
I would like to add todays parx race 3 into the making money with early
thread I have arked my pace lines
I then will post the RDSS segments screen
GS

[shoeless]

FTL,

When you say look at the 1st two calls of every horse are you taking
in consideration what track the horse is coming from or daily variant.

There is no way that a 6.5 horse from CT will be able to compete fraction
wise with a 6.5 Parx horse.

[For The Lead]

Hi FTL

I see what your saying about the 3. I still think something went wrong after
that line 4 race, maybe you can expand on why and if they are dropping
it in class way down to 7500 Nw 1 Y and after nearly winning for 16000?

I gave the 3 the "Shakey" plus with a zero 'because it finished 5th
but only beaten by 3 lenghts. It made its move late and only had 5 furlongs to do I thought I should rate it off the last line since it was dropping in class down from 12000 to 7500 an d going back to 6.5 furlongs

You bring up many good points about the winner # 1
I would like to add todays parx race 3 into the making money with early
thread I have arked my pace lines
I then will post the RDSS segments screen
GS

Bill,
I can only speculate on the reason for the drop in class. Before I do that, consider that after the race 4 back it was back in a race in 13 days, then it was back in a race in 19 days, then it was in a race again in 17 days and then again in 19 days. This is not the racing schedule of a horse that is injured. If this horse is, indeed injured, perhaps the trainer should be in some other line of work. Racing an injured horse 5 times in a period of 70 days is a recipe for disaster (breaking the horse down).

Ok, in the race of line 4, the horse was entered for 16K with a NW16MX condition. The class of the race in line 3 is clearly over the horses head. Then there was a return to the same claiming price and condition as line 4, where it ran poorly. Line 1 finds the horse in an "open" 12,500 claiming race at 5 furlongs. While it is true that it ran 5th, beaten 3 lengths, there were only 9 horses in the race, so this horse was only able to finish right in the middle, beating 4 horses but being beaten by 4 horses. It ran 7,7,7,5 having never impacted the running or outcome of the race. I suspect that today's drop to the same condition where it was last successful, but for half the claiming price, was an effort to learn just where the horse is at this point. In other words, to find out just what level of competition it is currently able to compete at. I know "I" don't want to bet on that type of horse.

Maybe the owner and trainer can afford to "speculate", but I can't. I have to see the horse for what it is. A horse that is currently out of form and searching for a level where it can compete. And it certainly can't compete early with the #1 horse. Obviously, it is not the same horse as it was four races ago.

One last thought. If you truly believe this horse was injured 4 races back, why would you want to make it a contender today?

[Bill V.]

Oh I do not think the horse was a contender That was my reason for the original post. I saw the 4th line selected in a contest selection and
that lead me to the what is going on with this horse train of reasoning To answer your question, and not this is not a contradiction
I will gladly admit when I make mistakes THAT HOW I LEARN:)

My reasons were
1. It made a move. all be it a late move in the last race
2.As you say its been running without any layoffs
3.They are bringing it back to a longer distance
4.The drop in class

Even now I see I was wrong but at the time I had my doubts thats why I asked.
Thanks for your help

Bill

[For The Lead]

Oh I do not think the horse was a contender That was my reason for the original post. I saw the 4th line selected in a contest selection and
that lead me to the what is going on with this horse train of reasoning To answer your question, and not this is not a contradiction
I will gladly admit when I make mistakes THAT HOW I LEARN:)

My reasons were
1. It made a move. all be it a late move in the last race
2.As you say its been running without any layoffs
3.They are bringing it back to a longer distance
4.The drop in class

Even now I see I was wrong but at the time I had my doubts thats why I asked.
Thanks for your help

Bill

No problem. Your doubts were well founded. TRUST your doubts.:)

[For The Lead]

FTL,

When you say look at the 1st two calls of every horse are you taking
in consideration what track the horse is coming from or daily variant.

There is no way that a 6.5 horse from CT will be able to compete fraction
wise with a 6.5 Parx horse.

I'm sorry. Somehow or another I overlooked your post. AND, I agree with you.

The answer to your question is "YES"!
I pay a lot of attention to the track the horse is running at and the track where the horse ran in the line I am looking at.

Keeping it close to home for you, in large part, where I see horses coming from CT to MNR, PEN or PRX, I basically eliminate the CT horse.
RDSS makes adjustments, "I" make adjustments and other software out there makes adjustments, but a bullring is a bullring. I find it very difficult to compare horses from bullring tracks to 1 mile tracks and visa versa.

Also, I give "extra credit" to horses coming FROM PRX TO PEN. However, I do not give "extra credit" for horses coming FROM PEN TO PRX.
When I say "extra credit", what I mean is, I make a mental note of it. From playing these tracks, I know the horses coming FROM PRX TO PEN tend to run better. There are other examples as well. This is just one.

It really pays to play just one track or, at least, one circuit. Using that approach you can "learn" things that other people who are just stopping by for a race and then moving on to the west coast or wherever, will never know.

[For The Lead]

There is a post in another thread by Bill V that I responded to. I'm putting a link here to that thread because I thought it was more appropriate to this thread.

http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8847

[Bill V.]

What I refer to is this capture from follow up 83

32083



Lets look at the final comment by Doc
Now I would never disrespect Doc but I feel his comment is odd here

32084

what troubles me is the "I had that horse reference" getting a $18 winner last week is wonderful and apparantly Doc found a unique race were
a horse with such poor form was able to win, probably against a bunch of other poor form horses.

But how many loses accure if we chase these type of horses ?
that $18 probably turns out to be as profitable as betting
show on the favorite every race
Its just a matter of time till your money is gone

I wish Doc had not printed that last line or expanded on the
factors that got him the winner.

There are so many longshots that come along
by using proper pace lines from true contenders

[For The Lead]

I thought I would take a day and go over each race at PRX for 12.10.12. It’s a rainy day with a sloppy track, which many would say are terrible conditions for handicapping. There are 12 scratches on the card, which is a little over one per race, on average. As I said, I am going to do every race on the card. Yes, even those dreaded (?) maiden races.

First let me go over my line selection process. I will NOT be using…
1 – best of last 3 distance/surface, or..
2 – best of last 3(regardless of distance or surface), or…
3 – best of last 3 perceptor
I am not saying #1 or #3 (above) are bad (#2 is), I am just saying they are not my preference.
I will be using the original methodology concept of using the last line “UNLESS” there is a valid reason to go back a line. The lines chosen will be “+” races or “(+)” races.
Continuing on with the original methodology, a line will NOT be given to every horse in the race. Instead, I will look at each horses PP’s and determine the contenders prior to giving them a line.
I will also run down the horses in each race so you can “get a feel” for how I arrived at the contenders and the lines used. If there are any “special” comments, they will be included.
I can tell you right now,any horse with a ML=>20/1 will NOT get a line or be considered a contender.
Also, no horse that has been OFF for more than 90 days will be considered a contender.
Also, no horse will receive a line that is more than 90 days old.

This is not an attempt on my part to "pick" the winner. I have marked certain attributes the winner displayed and leave it up to the reader to determine whether or not the winner would have been apparent to them playing 2 horses per race. Could you have made the winner one of your two bets?

[For The Lead]

This is a maiden claimer 15k

#1 - last line 29 days ago. In its' last two race it ran "ote" whether the distance was 5.5 furlongs or 7 furlongs, so I can assume it will run "ote" at 6 furlongs as well.
#2 - no line. no form.
#3 - FTS
#4 - FTS
#5 - last line 21 days ago
#6 - no line. just one bad race
#7 - last line 36 days ago

As you can see, I only have 3 horses with lines.

The winner, #7, paid $4.60.

[For The Lead]

I didn't see any need for screen shots here. I only had lines for two horses, #2 and #5. Both were last race lines.
If anyone has a question about why lines were not chosen for any other horse or horses in the race, just ask and I'll be glad to provide my answer.

The winner #5 paid 4.20.

[For The Lead]

This is a $7,500 claiming race for horses that have never won 4 races (NW4L) at 5.5 furlongs.

#1 - SCR
#2 - last line. I could have gone back to the line 3 back because it is the same distance at today's race, but this is an early horse and its' last was was a good 2nd where it ran early.
#3 - last line. this horse has only one race in the last 90 days. it is a (+) race.
#4 - no line. the only sprint line in the last 90 days is the last line, which wasn't very good.
#5 - last line. this horse has three races in the last 90 days, all sprints. the last line is an improvement over the other two. you may wonder why I would use this race. the horse made the lead at the first call and was just 1/2 length off the lead at the second call although it was 3rd at that point. I want to include horses that are on or close to the lead at the first call so that the "pace" of the race is representative.
#6 - last line. this horse doesn't have many good races, so it is hard to gauge its' running style. "Doc" wrote in the paceline manual that any horse that is on the lead at the first two calls is coming to form and you can expect a good race from it. I understand the race is at 7 furlongs and today's race is 5.5 furlongs, but it is the only race across the PARX track, so I would rather have that line than one from SUF.
#7 - last line. this is an early horse, probably the best early horse in the race. we will see how it matches up to other potential early horses in the race.

The #7 wins and pays $5.20.

[For The Lead]

This is a $16,000 claiming race with a none winners of 1 in the last 6 months condition (NW16MX) Any win for $12,500 or less does not count.

#1 - last line. this horse is coming off of two consecutive wins, one for $5,000 and the other for $10,000. Now it is moving up to $16,000. it may be hard for this horse to win three race in a row.
#1A - SCR
#2 - last line. this horse has had three races back after a long layoff. it won two of those races. In the race 2 back it tried today's class level and conditions and ran a creditable race.
#3 - no line. it tried today's class level and condition in lines 2 and 3 without success. it dropped down in its' last race and ran worse.
#4 - last line. ran a good second last out and is moving up in class in the same condition.
#5 - 2 back. last line is a route. this horse only shows two sprints. it ran 3rd each time.
#6 - no line. tried this class level and condition in each of its' last two races. both races were dismal.

The winner was #4 and paid $39.60.

[For The Lead]

This is a $12,500 claiming race with a non winners of 1 race in the last 6 months condition. Races won for $7,500 or less do not count.

Horses 1, 3 and 6 were scratched.

#2 - last line. this is an early horse
#4 - no line. no route races.
#5 - last line. won last and moving up in class within the same condition.
#7 - last line.

The winner, #2, paid $7.00.

[For The Lead]

This is another maiden claiming race where I only have lines for two horses, #3 and #9. The last line was chosen for each horse.
Again, I see no need to post screen shots.


The winner, #9, paid $10.20.

[For The Lead]

This is a $25,000 claiming race with a non winners of 2 races condition. (NW2L)

#1 - no line. although the last race was a "starter allowance" it is very close in purse and exactly the same condition. The horse did not perform well and I did not see an excuse for going back a line. It's lifetime record suggests the horse like to run 2nd and 3rd.
#2 - no line. dull form.
#3 - no line. dull form.
#4 - last line. a good 2nd.
#5 - SCR
#6 - last line. The horse ran well to the top of the stretch and I want to see how it fits with other pace players.
#7 - no line. last race was the first race back after a long layoff. it was a dull race.
#8 - line 2. the last race wasn't a bad race to the top of the stretch against starter allowance horses with today's condition. the line 2 back was against the same class level and same condition as today's and the horse ran a good second.
#9 - last line. I could have used line 2. the last race was against starter allowance horses with a NW2L condition and its' race two back was exactly the same as today's race. I'm not concerned about the finish position. My interest is how it will match up with the early pace.

The winner, #8, paid $27.60.

NOTE: when I looked at the segments screen the #6 horse showed it was fastest at the first two fractions. This shows the horse as early, but the horse really isn't an early horse. it has never been better than 3rd (once) at the first call of any race.

[For The Lead]

This is an allowance race with a non winners of one race other than maiden, claiming, etc. (NW1X)

#1 - SCR
#1A - last line
#2 - last line. this horse has been claimed 3 times in its' last 5 races. I'm not sure if that has any bearing on its' change of running style last race or not.
#3 - line 3. here is a horse with just 4 lifetime races, but at three different tracks. it has two sprints and two routes. This horse has won a small stake race albeit a state bred race and ran second in another small stake race that was restricted. some trainers run routers in sprints in an effort to put some speed into them. then there are trainers who put early sprinters into route races in an effort to put stamina in them. I was faced with the dilemma that the most recent sprint race was 93 days ago. I believe this horse to be the early speed of this field and put it in off of line 3.
#4 - last line. tough call on this one. although the horse didn't gain much ground between the first and second calls last race, it did pass three horses. it got to within one and a half lengths running second at the stretch call and was beaten less than 2 lengths at the finsih, even though four horses finished in front of it. also, this horse has ONLY beat maidens. In this condition, it makes it hard for these kind of horses to win versus horses with better win records.
#5 - last line. the horse has won its' last two races.
#6 - no line. no form. another "1 for".
#7 - last line. a good race against the same class and condition as today.

The winner, #3, paid $5.20.

[For The Lead]

This is another (dreaded) maiden claiming races.

#1 - no line. no route line to choose from
#2 - no line. ML 20/1 and no form.
#3 - last line
#4 - no line. this horse is "0 for 26" and I'm not going back to line 3 for a horse like this.
#5 - last line
#6 - line 3. I'll throw out the last line (TURF) and line 2 (sprint) and use line 3 even though is is 93 days old.
#7 - no line. the horses only race is a sprint. it wasn't all that good.
#8 - SCR
#9 - FTS
#10 - FTS

The winner, #3, paid $6.60.

[Bill V.]

Thank you FTL
I know this was a big job and I know how much effort you put into
this presentation.

I hope many take the time to absorb the lessons from a day at the races
from PRX

Race 7 is a very good price winner. Your teachings will earn
these types of winners just as they earn $7.00 winners

FTL you made a comment about the 6 horse being the 0.0
horse in the first two segments and appearing to be early

The pace line you used is from 7 furlongs
a small glitch in the data from equibase/trackmaster
rates all PRX 7.0 furlong races too early
In this pace line the early late balance is a crazy
+36 this line is a bit atypical
I would not have used the line but I agree with your use of it.

32734

Here is the 6 horse and the winner # 8 I am showing the PP's with the EPR FFR and TPR numbers in the bottom readout

To my point, Look at the EPR readouts for the winner
in race 5 and 9 both 7.0 furlongs from Parx and both times its EPR
is atypical
all its readouts from these lines will also show the horse to be a little more early energy than it really is .

32733

[noddub62]

Very helpful post. I need to spend time going over this.

Thanks to both of you.

Budman

[barshoe]

thanks guys love reading from you both and everyone too learning so much. GREAT POST

[JIMBOB1002]

Ditto here. These are very helpful. Jim

[Ted Craven]

If anyone would like to follow along in RDSS with FTL and Bill's analysis of this day at Philly, here is the data file for that day, if you don't already have it:

PRX Data File: 32735

Place this file in the following folder: c:\rdss2\data\PP\2012\PRX\.

While the file is still available from TrackMaster's server (and shows up in the Data Centre's available listing - perhaps another day or so yet), simply uncheck the Data Centre Download Task to skip that (you already got it, free!), check the Convert Task, check PRX for Monday Dec 10, then hit Perform Selected Tasks.

If you try this after the PRX Dec 10, 2012 data file no longer shows as available in the Data Centre, use the Import old Data cards instructions (http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5621).

Here is an import instructions file you can use for importing (per instructions above):

Import Instruction File: 32737

Put this Import Instructions file in your c:\rdss2 folder.

If you get an error message after the import is complete, ignore it and restart RDSS2. Don't forget to switch your settings again when you're done to Download and Convert normally again.

Any questions on this import procedure, please put them in the above Import thread (http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5621).

Good luck, and thanks again FTL for your detailed approach to your line selection strategy.

Ted

[lone speed]

This is great thread....

Many thanks to Bill and FTL.....takes time and especially a strong innate desire to teach...many thanks...

I hope those who want to learn.....will soon see a common theme in these races and not because the winners ranked number one on readouts....

Focus on who faced the fastest pace of race among the contenders and who faced/or has the fastest last fraction....with time and practice..know what is a fast pace and a fast closing fraction...

Thanks again...

Good skills..

[For The Lead]

Here is the 8th race from LRL. It is an Allowance race with a NW1X condition (non winners of a race other than maiden, claiming,etc.) There are only 6 horses after a scratch.

#1 – no line. The horse has never raced in the USA or CANADA.
#2 – line 2. This horse has been in a series of race at today’s class level and condition. The last race is not bad. It was with the early leaders at the first two calls, but I went back a line to where the horse was running closer (positionally) to the leader. Also, the speed rating in the last race was way out of line with the speed ratings it has been running in its’ other recent races. With only three contenders in the race, I think either the last line or the line 2 back would work.
#3 – SCR
#4 – no line. Has not run in a year.
#5 – no line. This horse was off for 294 days before coming back to the races last out. It was in a route race and lead for the first two calls. That doesn’t matter. This horse WILL NOT be a pace player in today’s race against other horses in the race with sprinters speed.
#6 – last line. Definitely a pace player
#7 – last line. This horse is a “serious” pace player in this race. It does, however, have one problem. It loves to run 2nd with 9 seconds from 16 races.

The winner, #2, paid $30.60.
Not bad for a 6 horse field and just three contenders. It doesn’t matter if you wagercap or hide the favorite and play the other two. One way or another I don’t think anyone should have a problem having this winner.

[Bill V.]

#2 – line 2. This horse has been in a series of race at today’s class level and condition. The last race is not bad. It was with the early leaders at the first two calls, but I went back a line to where the horse was running closer (positionally) to the leader. Also, the speed rating in the last race was way out of line with the speed ratings it has been running in its’ other recent races. With only three contenders in the race, I think either the last line or the line 2 back would work.

Hi FTL

Just when it seems so easy these horses come along
I would have missed this race. I would have thought line 1 was
a no excuse bad race

thats how to learn Thanks for the lesson
32749

[For The Lead]

Here is a claiming race for $15,000 with a NW3L condition. ACTUALLY...it is a "C" condition. Here is the condition: Purse $23,000. For Fillies Three Years Old Or Fillies And Mares Four Years Old And Upward Which Have Never Won Three Races.
So what does this mean? It means three year olds may have won MORE THAN 3 races and still be eligible. Only the older horses are restricted to just 2 wins.
In this race, #'s 3 and 5 have already won 4 and 3 races respectively. All the rest have just 2 lifetime wins.
There are only 6 horses in the field.

#1 - last line. same class level and condition as today's race
#2 - last line. the horse is shipping in from PRX where it has been runnning in starter allowance race with a NW3L condition
#3 - last line. This is the early horse in this race. I have labeled it an "F" which means it is an early fighter. I encourage everyone reading this to look at this horse's PP's and see how this horse WILL fight for the lead from beginning to end. Although this horse is moving up in claiming price, it is also moving down in condition, from an "open" race to a NW3L or "C". This horse has already won 4 lifetime races.
#4 - no line. this horse's most recent two lines are in route races.
#5 - last line. this is another horse moving up in claiming price, but moving down in condition, from an "open" race to a NW3L or "C". This horse has won 3 lifetime races.
#6 - last line. same class level and same condition.

The winner, #3, paid $22.00.
Not bad in a 6 horse field.

[Bill V.]

Here is a race from Tampa using as best a consitent set of steps

I hope this race is helpful

Here aare my notes and since its a rather short field I will add the PP's

Tampa 2
CL16000
FLA state breds 3 and up non winner 2 life
races for less than 12500 ot counted in weights

Lifetime records
H1 1-7
H2 1-18
H3 1-10
H4 1-19
H5 1- 11
H6 1-12
H7 1-12
so everyone has just 1 win

Running styles
H1 Press2
H2 No form 30/1
H3 Early/EP6 has not passed a horse in the stetch
H4 E/P3 will break well and sit behind leader
shows 4 place finishes
H5 Early6 has passed horses on the turn
H6 No recent form 20/1
H7 EP1 will sit just behind the early pace

Pacelines
H1 Line 1 CD Plus race place finish
H2 No line
H3 Line 3 early wire to wire win
H4 Line 1 Place finish
H5 Suf Line 1 is muddy line 2 is a recent plus race
in its perferred running pattern
H6 no line
H7 line 2 is a plus race line 1 is also but line 2
is recent enough although 96 days ago
its early energy and positioning in line 2
from Mth is mor typical than the late energy
7.0 line 1 from Belmont

Contenders are 1 3 4 5 7

the 5 has the 0.0 1st fraction look at the lead it will have compared to its rivals early
Its third on he turn but being the 0.0 horse it
still has a commanding lead


32814


here is the BLBL
Top 2 gets you a
Big winner $27.20

32813

[Bill V.]

Horse entries conditions

32815

32816

32817

32818

32819

[Bill V.]

5 6 7

32820

32821

32822

[lone speed]

Bill....

Great analysis and thanks for putting up the pps...

Great race to learn as many races are like this scenario...

At first glance, it looks like the number #7 horse Sardegna's Gold will dominate the race...but using all the tools and screens at our disposal, we evaluate further the matchup screens and we find that #5 Bruski's Star owns the first call in the matchup...it is the second line back..but the last race was in the mud...(no absolutes)

For those who wonder, if #5 does own the first call and this is so important, then why do we not see the #5 on top of the #7 on the programs.....Is the computer program incorrect?? we might ask....

The answer is a definite no...the computer program is correct...the #5 owns the first call in this particular matchup..since in the second paceline, it chased a faster pace and in today's race and specifically in today's match up, it will not have to run as fast for its first fraction because the rest of his competition are coming from slower internal fractions...Yes, this is indeed challenging,,,,but if it was so crystal clear...there will be no double digit mutuels available...

Thanks for your time Bill...

[vderdak]

Thank you FTL, all of a sudden my contenders seem logical again. Previously way to many false contenders I was making excuses for, I've left them out today and doubled my money. Thanks again!

[For The Lead]

Thank you FTL, all of a sudden my contenders seem logical again. Previously way to many false contenders I was making excuses for, I've left them out today and doubled my money. Thanks again!

Thank YOU!

That kind of feedback is very rewarding.

I wish you continued success.

[For The Lead]

Bill....

For those who wonder, if #5 does own the first call and this is so important, then why do we not see the #5 on top of the #7 on the programs.....Is the computer program incorrect?? we might ask....



I’m new to RDSS, but I’ll take a shot at answering your question anyway. I’m sure if I don’t get it right, Ted will clean up the mess I make.

The third segment on the “segments screen” is a combination of total speed and 3rd fraction (TS+F3). Understandably, any early horse that fades coming down the stretch will not compare well to a horse that comes from off the early pace and makes up ground through the stretch. Obviously, the program is giving a “double dose” of third fraction, which benefits the closers and penalizes the front runners. As you pointed out, the program put the #7 horse on top of the #5 horse, which is exactly what it should have done based on the aforementioned.

Now, since the #5 was placed in second position by the program, I think Bill V is due some “props” for understanding how the programs works and rationalizing that on a level playing field the #5 horse was probably best. The results confirm his reasoning.

[lone speed]

There are two types of horses that behoove us to master……

The high energy early horse who exerts the most effort or “energy in physics” when setting the pace of the race…..Huey Mahl in “Pace is Race” wrote that the early pace has a” telescopic effect” on the rest of the race. This short sentence has such a powerful meaning in terms of understanding the concepts of energy exertions and the final time posted on the teletimer at the finish of the race…Energy used up early in the pace will not be available late in the finish of the race.

Jim “the Hat” Bradshaw understood these concepts as he was the master of the matchups and he had “voodoo powers” in predicting the winners of races. He did not need a computer program to dictate who would be the winner although he was one of the programmers of Thoromation. Many have tried to emulate him without much success as it seems that his powers were ordained from mystical forces…some have criticized him for his betting style as to say that he would bet on cockroaches for his many actions albeit in the nickel and dime varieties…..But no matter the opinions, his legacy and his unique concepts are skillful, powerful, and lasting…..race after race in our endeavor in this field, we must keep his concepts foremost in our mind and in our practice of handicapping.

The other type of horse is the high sustained horse who can overcome the pace of race with his powerful late move. This type of horse can just lay back off the pace and when the turn for home is in sight, the high sustained horse unleashes his powerful late move and motors past the front runners as if they were standing still motionless and powerless to stop his locomotive late kick thru the stretch…..High caliber stakes horse in turf races usually are blessed with these sustained move and some dirt horses like Zenyatta. (Oh now, I didn’t want to open a can of worms and start another long threads of debates….lol)

[cody]

TOTAL ENERGY

Can some one explain this to me it has me baffled,and i see it often.I always thought the faster the pace the higher the total energy,but yet I
always see races where horses run a crawling pace and there T E is much
higher.example GP R 5 the 1 horse,line 1 crawling pace high energy,line 2 faster pace low T E,which pace line do I use,I know this horse is not making the lead today.

Thanks Cody

[cody]

screen shot

[Hoof 11]

TOTAL ENERGY

Can some one explain this to me it has me baffled,and i see it often.I always thought the faster the pace the higher the total energy,but yet I
always see races where horses run a crawling pace and there T E is much
higher.example GP R 5 the 1 horse,line 1 crawling pace high energy,line 2 faster pace low T E,which pace line do I use,I know this horse is not making the lead today.

Thanks Cody
"Total Energy (TE), when not otherwise qualified, refers to the Total Energy of the Horse: the sum of the 3 fractional velocities of the horse itself (F1+F2+F3 velocity = Total Energy; i.e. the velocities of the horse itself, adjusted for lengths gained/lost). We show 2 Velocity screens: PoH and PoR - and the difference between the 2 is that the Horse (PoH) is adjusted for beaten lengths gained/lost while the PoR screen shows the velocity resulting from measuring the running times of the front runner at each point.

It is important to note when a horse has faced a fast PoR (perhaps the fastest it has ever, or recently, faced). If the horse shows a credible run against such a fast pace, closing steadily, finishing in the money or up close at one or more points, you can also infer that it is in some kind of shape (of course, facing a healthy PoR in tis recent races is all relative to what PoR's other horses have faced too). You see the PoR shown to the right of the Original Screen, and on the PoR Velocity screen.

Otherwise, all Total Energy (TE) readouts are the Total Energy of the horse itself, and are ALL identical - they do NOT differ over the different screens."

[Bill V.]

Hi Cody

Here are the PP's with the POH screen added
Line 1 has a fast total energy because
The horse was able to jog along alone on the lead in a slow pace
It had plenty of energy in the tank and ran one of its best ever 53+ fps 3rd fraction
Since the total Energy is the F1 + F2 + F3 it ranks high
This is kind of why total energy is just a corrolary
to use with other readouts

32866

[cody]

Thanks Hoof and Bill,which paceline would you use 1 which would put him
many lenths behind the leader even though he a p6 or line 2 which would
put him closer to lead,which is the way he likes to run.

Cody

[Hoof 11]

Personally i would use the second line, it ran a peak performance in it's last race and has not shown in the past to be able to duplicate consecutive races. I look at the Adj. Speed ratings and the Total Energy, and you can see the horse has a threshold of 80 on the speed rating, and a 162 on the Total Energy. She generally runs the same distance and stays somewhat within the same class level. I would have to see the other runners but i would say it is unlikely that she is going to win but i would definately use her underneath.

[Bill V.]

I would use line 2 Its a plus raceand its recent
In todays expected Match Up I dont see the 1 getting such a
slow pace The 4 and the 9 are Early or EP sprinters

here are the EPR and TPR numbers for all the horses last line
From what I see here Its more likely that the 1 will be a EP
in todays race and have to use its energy more on the early side of the
E/L graph

32867
32868

[lone speed]

So the question is which line is best.......I have learned through experiences and through trial and error, that for my procedures.....

It is best to let the program that I am using to choose the best line depending on the race level...for example, I am not going to use a Grade 1 winning line in a Grade 3 race or in a Classified Allowance race....

Most of the time, we can guess so wrong through our observations of the pacelines.. I say let the program choose the line so we can learn what the program favors.....what type of energy horse does it require to finish in the top two in the readouts...

Here are some examples....let's use some Derby horses

32870

32871

32872

For the Derby, old Sartin programs always favors the high sustained energy lines....

In the case of War Emblem, we can outsmart ourselves right out of the race to assume that War Emblem crawled through soft fractions in the Illinois Derby and that in the Kentucky Derby...it will never see the lead....But is important is that huge 3rd fraction...It depends....

Going extra distance in its next race, high sustained horses can convert their high sustained energy into dictating the race with early energy to control the race....JMHO...

[lone speed]

Here is the past performances of Fort Larned in this year's Breeder's Cup Classic....

32873

32874

32875

32876

The third paceline back was the best line as it was a huge sustained energy race especially for the mile and a quarter distance....I understand that my comments run counter what some have posted...but it is from my experiences and from the Sartin programs that I have studied and evaluated...

Good skills

[For The Lead]

Here is race 5 from PEN today.
The reason I picked this race is because it has A TON of early speed horses in it.
It is a field of 8 starters and there are no less than 6 early types.
In this type of race it is not unusual for handicappers to look for a horse that comes off the pace, with the idea that a speed duel will weaken the front runners and a closer will pick up the pieces coming down the stretch. As I have mentioned before, this is a scenario that seldom plays out the way it seems. Instead, one of the early types will dominate the early pace. This relegates the other early types to chasers, a position they don’t like. This race played out in this fashion. I’ll go over the field now.

This is a Starter Allowance race. To be eligible, a horse had to have started for a claiming price of $6,250 or less since March 1, 2012.
#1 – last line. It is a “+” race from 22 days ago. It is a race across the same track and at a similar sprint distance.
#2 – last line. It is a “+” race from 16 days ago. There is no choice here. Every race in the horse’s PP’s are from FL, so it will have to do.
#3 – no line. I prefer not to use lines from CT and I especially don’t want to use lines from CT from 4.5 furlong races. Please note, I will not go back to line 7, which is a race at a similar distance across the PEN track. THAT was THEN. THIS is NOW! For those who are interested, I did put this horse in off its’ last line, just to see. It ranked no better than 3rd in the early mix. I also use line 7 and it ranked worse.
#4 – no line. Its’ only two races in the last 90 days are quite dull.
#5 – last line. It is a “+” race across today’s track just 9 days ago at today’s distance.
#6 – last line. It is a “+” race across today’s track just 23 days ago at today’s distance.
#7 – last line. It is a “+” race across today’s track just 26 days ago at a similar sprint distance.
#8 – last line. It is a “(+)” race across today’s track just 22 days ago at a similar distance.

I have marked up areas of the various screen shots to point out the attributes of the winner, as well as noting the multitude of early horses in the race.

The winner, #8, paid $8.60.

[For The Lead]

Here is an interesting race from PEN today. It is the 2nd race on the card.
Like the race I posted yesterday, it is filled with early type horses, but there is somewhat of a “twist” to this race or, at least, how to go about handicapping it.

Yesterday’s race was straight forward. Almost every horse had a good last line. All the horses had recent races. There were no real issues.

In this race, today, two of the early horses have not run in quite a while. One horse was off 161 days and the other horse was off 186 days. For those of you who read my posts, you know I eliminate horses that have been off this long, but these two horse are early horses and although they probably won’t win, they may still have an impact on the race. How will we know unless we put them in and see how the other early horses in the race stack up against them? Or, maybe they don’t matter if they aren’t the best early horse anyway. We’ll just have to put them in and see what happens. IN NO CASE WILL THESE HORSES GET BET! In fact, before finishing the handicapping process, they will be eliminated. Depending on what we find, the race will either be betable or, perhaps, the race should be passed. We’ll find out.

Here's the rundown on each horse.

#1 - line 2. last race was the first race across the track at the current meet. This is right out of the Paceline Manual.
#2 - SCR
#3 - no line. as stated above, the last line will be used just for evaluation. this horse will not be bet or considered as a contender.
#4 - no line. as stated above, the last line will be used just for evaluation. this horse will not be bet or considered as a contender.
#5 - no line. I have no excuse for the last line and the horse is 3 for 30 lifetime, so it really doesn't warrant going back for a line.
#6 - last line.
#7 - last line.
#8 - last line.

As you can see on the first screen shot of the lines used, they are all either "+" or "(+)" races.
32964


as stated above, the last line will be used just for evaluation. these horses will not be bet or be considered as contenders.
If you wonder why I highlight the "RS" column, it is because this is the column where I get to label the horse myself based on its' running style as I see it.

32965

As you can see, the two horses that have been off are exactly even on "EPR". Also note, the #8, an EP, is capable of running right behind them.

32966
On the segments screen, you can also see that the #8 has the second best second fraction, which puts it in a good position going to the second call.

Finally, the #8 is tops on the BL/BL screen.
32967

The next post will show the race after the two horses that have been off are eliminated.

[For The Lead]

Here are the screens after eliminating the two horses that were non-contenders because they were off more than 90 days.

The winner, #8, paid $6.20.
The price wasn't much, but it was the circumstances of the race that made it interesting...at least for me.
I hope it was interesting to you as well.

[Bill V.]

I strongly suggest everybody read the Pace line manual,

This is an example of going back past the first two lines

This is a 5.5 furlong race at LRL on 2/28 its an open 10000 claimer

Here is horse # 2
Nothing in horse racing works 100% but looking at this horse
its pretty safe to expect it to be one of the pace setters
at about 46 to 46.6 at the second call it has done this 4 times in its last 5 races
33747
Now here is horse 7
at first glance line 1 looks just like a zero effort
but this BOLD type helper from the pace line manual
fits this horse
33745

I have marked all its plus races
It runs very well at this level and against about today expected pace of
about 46-46.6
Line 1 was at 7.0 furlongs against a slower pace but the horse used more
of its energy early than its normal plus race pattern
Line 2 is a plus race I could have used it but I feel line 3 is best representative of the horses plus race form and condition
33746
The 7 horse won and paid $7.60 it sat just behind horse 2

33744

[Bill Lyster]

FTL:
ran across this last Saturday. 4 contenders, 3 of which are E or EP. In this case the lowest TE early horse has a pretty good lead at both of the first two calls. The #3 horse an EP or E is 4th best in the Incremental Match Up @ the 1st call. Assuming that I have labeled the running style correctly, does this make the #3 an automatic toss out? Race finished 4-2


Thanks,

Bill

[For The Lead]

FTL:
ran across this last Saturday. 4 contenders, 3 of which are E or EP. In this case the lowest TE early horse has a pretty good lead at both of the first two calls. The #3 horse an EP or E is 4th best in the Incremental Match Up @ the 1st call. Assuming that I have labeled the running style correctly, does this make the #3 an automatic toss out? Race finished 4-2


Thanks,

Bill

Hi Bill,

I like your questions, they give me the opportunity to say more than I normally would. So to get started, let me give a clear and straight forward answer to your question.
NO! An "early" horse seldom, if ever, gets thrown out because it has a low total energy number.
A low total energy number is exactly what you would expect from an early horse that backs up! I don't mean "backs up" a neck or a nose or even a length or two, but backs up considerably out of the money.

Is a closer that fails to close thrown out because it didn't close or does it get an excuse of some kind and given another shot?

A closer that fails to close and an early horse that fails to carry its' speed to the wire amount to the same thing...two losers!

What happens when that closer gets a good speed duel in front of it? The early speed horses fade down the stretch allowing the closer to come on and pick up the pieces.

What happens to an early horse that doesn't back up? It just keeps on going, right to the wire!

Jim Bradshaw use to say, " Horse racing is an easy game. When the gates open one horse gets the lead. If no other horse can pass it...it WINS!"'

What I never heard him say, nor have I ever read anywhere that he said is, "Horse racing is an easy game. When the gates open make sure you have the horse that is dead last and stays there until the top of the stretch. Then turns in a huge third fraction to get up at the wire."

Do you see what I mean?

Jim Bradshaw said a lot of things in his match up that I AGREE with.
There are also things I DISAGREE with.
Without getting into that discussion, let me just say that one of the things he had absolutely correct is, every handicapper should be starting every race they handicap at the same place...which horse will make the lead.

You can't start with which horse will run the best third fraction, because you don't know if the race will set up for that horse until you know if the horse with the lead will give it up or not.

You also can't make the assumption that because an early horse gave up the lead last race it will automatically give it up again today.

Ok, about the race in question. First, I added a horse you didn't have, the #9 horse. Why did I add it? It's last race was the first race over today's track at the current meet. It's a legitimate reason to excuse the race and it can be found right in the Paceline Manual.

Also, I went back one line on this #9 horse, which happens to be its' maiden win. Since today's race has a NW2L condition, it is allowable to use the maiden win. Again, this is right out of the Paceline Manual.

So here is what my "original" screen shot looks like.

33797

Like I mentioned in my last post in the "maiden thread", this is a very important screen. Why? You can see several important things on this screen.
1 - the class level of the line for each horse. This allows for a comparison of class levels where the horse ran a good race.
2 - The "running style" of each contender, which includes the Quirin Speed Points.
3 - for those that are as connected to BL/BL as they are death and taxes, that is also on this screen.

Looking at this screen, we can see there are two "E" horses with "7" Quirin Speed Points.
There is one "E" with "4" Quirin Speed Points.
There is one "EP" with "4" Quirin Speed Points.
And then there is one horse that has an "S" running style.
At this point, without looking at any other factors, has something already caught you attention?

33798

You mentioned that the #3 horse had a clear advantage at the first two calls. I think you meant the #10 horse.
At any rate, the #10 horse shows a clear lead in the first fraction, but it has a weak second fraction. Now the first fraction advantage shows it carries the horse to the lead at the second call. However, there is certainly a difference in your segments screen when compared to mine. I suspect the difference is in our individual settings. This is a good lesson for those reading this that use RDSS. The settings you use can affect what you see on your various screens. I'm not saying mine are correct and Bill's are wrong. I'm just saying different settings can show you different information leading you to a different conclusion than others working the same race, even when you are using the same contenders and pacelines.

Moving right along, my segments screen shows a much more contentious race at the second call and it becomes clear the field is bunching up. Remember the "original screen"? The one that shows the running styles of each contender? Remember that thing that should have caught you attention on that screen?

Just remember, on the day the early horse that backs up keeps right on going, it will give you all the total energy you need.
It is the handicappers job to make that determination.

Here's the chart of the race. 4 of the 5 contenders ran 1,2,3,4.
Look at the "original" screen shot.
Compare it to the chart of the race.

33799

[Bill Lyster]

Thanks FTL, I got a better lesson than I bargained for. You may have already answered my question early in your response. After reading what I wrote originally I suspected the way I wrote it would not read how I wanted it to. You were right about meaning the 10 had the lead/or had best 1st call time.

I recognized the 4 early types and one S, but what I was trying to do was find a way to eliminate one of the early types, in this case the EP listed #3. Using Matchup techniques it would be an easy throw out compared to the early running style and times of the 10 and 2, but in keeping with your focus on what the segment screen was telling us I was hoping that your conclusion would be something along the lines of "... this early horse is only 4th at first call and 4th at 2nd call, so since two other earlies are ahead of him, discard him..." (my words, not yours) So what I was looking for was some further elimination criteria that might spring from the Segments screen when you end up with more than two or three contenders on that screen.

And my settings are 100% of DTV and +/- 50 DTV just to account for some of the odd ball slower track times that came up at end of Hollywood and some of SA.

Many thanks again,


Bill

[For The Lead]

Thanks FTL, I got a better lesson than I bargained for. You may have already answered my question early in your response. After reading what I wrote originally I suspected the way I wrote it would not read how I wanted it to. You were right about meaning the 10 had the lead/or had best 1st call time.

I recognized the 4 early types and one S, but what I was trying to do was find a way to eliminate one of the early types, in this case the EP listed #3. Using Matchup techniques it would be an easy throw out compared to the early running style and times of the 10 and 2, but in keeping with your focus on what the segment screen was telling us I was hoping that your conclusion would be something along the lines of "... this early horse is only 4th at first call and 4th at 2nd call, so since two other earlies are ahead of him, discard him..." (my words, not yours) So what I was looking for was some further elimination criteria that might spring from the Segments screen when you end up with more than two or three contenders on that screen.

And my settings are 100% of DTV and +/- 50 DTV just to account for some of the odd ball slower track times that came up at end of Hollywood and some of SA.

Many thanks again,


Bill

Bill,

Ok. Let's get away from the segments screen.
Before I go on, I guess I don't understand the reason for wanting to eliminate an early horse. Anyway....
if you wanted to eliminate an early horse, in this race, you could eliminate the #10. WHY? Because it is a THREE YEAR OLD. This race was run on March the 2nd. Now count backwards. Just 62 days ago this horse was a two year old. When it broke its' maiden 44 days ago, it beat other three year olds only. In this race it is being asked to not only run against older horses for the first time in its' life, but to beat them. That's a tall order at this time of year.
We have reached the time of year when racing secretaries start writing races for "three year olds and up" rather than "four year olds and up". The thing is, in general, you don't see many three year olds in those races.

Now let's look at something else.
You have a race where there are 3 or 4 early types. Remember, we're not using the segments screen, we're just talking horse racing and handicapping now. One of these horses is going to make the lead. What happens to the other 2 or 3 early types if they can never pass the horse that makes the lead? They are going to tire from their efforts and back up through the stretch. Now this doesn't automatically mean the horse that did make the lead is going to go on and win the race. It might, but if its' efforts to make and keep the lead to the top of the stretch were too much for it, it becomes vulnerable to be caught coming down the stretch by a closer. So that early horse that made the lead has effectively eliminated ALL the other early horses in the race and possibly, itself. This was the case in this race. Every handicapper has to make these decisions.

[Bill Lyster]

FTL
Thanks for the reminder on the newly turned 3YO vs older. I completely missed it.

As for wanting to eliminate one of the earlies, I wanted to because of being a two horse bettor vs one. I didn't have any trouble with this race as far as getting my two bet choices, I was just looking for any guidance related to whittling down the contenders when there are several, especially in non maiden races where I assume the win percentage of the 1st or 2nd placed Segments horses do not win as much as the maiden percentages you quoted in the Why Not Maidens area.

Thanks,

Bill

[Alice0607]

I would like to see more information on the elimination of non-contenders using the RDSS program

[Bill V.]

I would like to see more information on the elimination of non-contenders using the RDSS program


I think a good idea would be something like we used to get in the follow up
Were a race is posted daily and we all get to make our own pace line, and contender selections and then AFTER the race is over we can review the race

a similar thing happens in the Match Up forum Were a race is presented
and after the race there is some discussion on how things worked out.
I find this approach is very educational,
I find selections before the fact and a blanket set of rules
such as eliminate down to the best 5 speed ratings
or TPR or preceptor to limit the growth potential we need to
win consistently

[bobsbet]

For The Lead:

Thank you for all your inciteful analysis.

I primarily handicap sprint races and would appreciate your comments in regard to which RDSS are most predictive.

Thanks

Bobsbet

[For The Lead]

For The Lead:

Thank you for all your inciteful analysis.

I primarily handicap sprint races and would appreciate your comments in regard to which RDSS are most predictive.

Thanks

Bobsbet

I'm afraid I don't understand the question.

What do you mean when you say "which RDSS"?
Do you mean which version?
Do you mean which corollary?

[Alice0607]

Bobsbet, I have broken down my analysis with each of the seven paceline selection category for dirt sprint, dirt route, turf sprint, turf route. The total numbr of races examine was 138, of which 64 was dirt sprint, 38 was dirt route, 3 was turf sprint, and 33 was turf route. the turf sprint selection was not valid, to small sample size. turf route had the highest win percentage using the top 3 energy paceline selection and picking the top two picks from the total preceptor rank -was 73 %( 24 winners out of 33 races.) Next was dirt sprint that was using best of bl/bl last three paceline selection and picking the top two rank in the total preceptor was 52 percent ( 33 winners out of 64 races.)

[PassRace]

OK. What about Dirt Routes?
ALF

[bobsbet]

For The Lead:

My mistake. Left out the key word.

Shoud have read: Which READOUTS in RDSS are most predictive in dirt sprints.

My apologies.

Bobsbet

[Alice0607]

dirt sprint that was using best of bl/bl last three paceline selection and picking the top two rank in the total preceptor was 52 percent ( 33 winners out of 64 races.)

[For The Lead]

Bobsbet, I have broken down my analysis with each of the seven paceline selection category for dirt sprint, dirt route, turf sprint, turf route. The total numbr of races examine was 138, of which 64 was dirt sprint, 38 was dirt route, 3 was turf sprint, and 33 was turf route. the turf sprint selection was not valid, to small sample size. turf route had the highest win percentage using the top 3 energy paceline selection and picking the top two picks from the total preceptor rank -was 73 %( 24 winners out of 33 races.) Next was dirt sprint that was using best of bl/bl last three paceline selection and picking the top two rank in the total preceptor was 52 percent ( 33 winners out of 64 races.)

I appreciate the work you have done, but with just 138 races, any results are hardly what you would call conclusive.

I have posted this several times, but for newer members like yourself, perhaps you have never seen this before, so I will repeat it again.

I have a database that has more than SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND, that's 600,000 races in it.
It also has more than FIVE MILLION, that's 5,000,000 horses in it.
When I post statistical findings you can count on those findings being as close as possible to accurate.

[For The Lead]

Having posted the above, I would like to encourage everyone reading this to go back to the very first post in this thread and read forward from there. Why?

I started this thread using examples from "Follow Ups" and/or the "Paceline Manual". Why?

I wanted readers to see that the guidelines for contender selection and line selection came from "Doc" and/or teaching members such as "Tom Brohamer", NOT from me.
I learned from these very same sources and just carried them through into my own learning experience, which came in the form of a rather large database. As a result of my own findings I added to the lessons learned from these follow ups and the Paceline Manual.

Now, I understand there came a point in time when the Sartin Methodology morphed into the Modern Sartin Methodology and I'm not here to argue the reasons for that change. I will only say that I am from the school of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"! I have never found that the original teachings were broke, not back then, not now, so there was no reason to fix them. I think it would be in everyone's best interest to learn those original guidelines for contender and line selection first, then make the decision to move forward to the modern methodology IF you think you need to make that change. Keep in mind, you can always go back.

Someone wrote to me the other day and commented that they can find $10 to $15 winners every day using the guidelines I have set forth (many times). I agree. Neither they nor I want to embellish this claim by saying you can hit $30, $40, $50 or higher winners, even though you can from time to time. You will certainly also find your share of short priced winners.

[Alice0607]

Note I am not saying this definite example, but I was testing to find which paceline selection was the best for dirt sprint, dirt route, turf sprint, turf route. and then find which one was the best in picking win horse's (using the top 2 picks) and the best in picking the exacta (using the top 3 picks for the exacta wager.)

[atkinsrr]

For the lead...thx for the comment about the Sartin Methodology if it ain't broke why fix it??? You are so right...I started in 1991 and still read Follow Ups over and over and still go by the old guidelines....I'm tellin' ya...they will never break mainly because we are wagering against a lot of people who really have some crazy rules for handicapping & betting and as Doc said 95% of the people who bet horses lose. We are so fortunate to have the info that is in our possessions. Doc said that racing goes thru changes approx every 5 years and he always tried to stay ahead of the public...but it looks to me that the public isn't really getting any better at this and if we as investors keep using the Methodology as it was taught to us we will be able to make money at this for years to come without making any drastic changes in our procedures.....just my thinking...good luck to all this weekend with all these delicious stakes races at GP & FG

[For The Lead]

Note I am not saying this definite example, but I was testing to find which paceline selection was the best for dirt sprint, dirt route, turf sprint, turf route. and then find which one was the best in picking win horse's (using the top 2 picks) and the best in picking the exacta (using the top 3 picks for the exacta wager.)

You are already on the wrong road.
RDSS does NOT have "picks".
RDSS is NOT a black box.
Here is a quote from Ted, "my software is not a betting black box - but since I could not otherwise rank pacelines or properly identify contenders without the computations and rankings of my software - then I'd have to call winning a race a partnership between my own consistent decision making and the software's number crunching, sorting and filtering."
So as you can see, the man that wrote the software is telling you his software is a "tool" not a black box.
If you would like to see how some of the various tools in RDSS can work for you, I would suggest reading the threads in the teaching section.

[bobsbet]

For The Lead:

My mistake. Message should have read which readouts in RDSS are most predictive in dirt sprints?

My apologies.

Thanks

Bobsbet

[Alice0607]

I have read most of post from (1) matchup, rdss, rdss 2.0, teaching examples. I have also printed most of the posting. I am just trying to find what is the best way to used rdss software program. I am not making any judgement about anyone's talent's of picking pacelines. What will work for me.

[Ted Craven]

You are already on the wrong road.
RDSS does NOT have "picks".
RDSS is NOT a black box.
Here is a quote from Ted, "my software is not a betting black box - but since I could not otherwise rank pacelines or properly identify contenders without the computations and rankings of my software - then I'd have to call winning a race a partnership between my own consistent decision making and the software's number crunching, sorting and filtering."
So as you can see, the man that wrote the software is telling you his software is a "tool" not a black box.
If you would like to see how some of the various tools in RDSS can work for you, I would suggest reading the threads in the teaching section.

It is possible that by the word 'picks' he really meant 'ranks' ...

And, not to nitpick, but I (vaguely) recall the context of that quote above and FWIW the phrase 'my software' is not one I regularly use since RDSS has a heritage far beyond just me. I was probably distinguishing RDSS from some other supposed black-box software. But the idea of RDSS being a tool to leverage the human mind is of course the point. Just saying.

Ted

[Ted Craven]

I have read most of post from (1) matchup, rdss, rdss 2.0, teaching examples. I have also printed most of the posting. I am just trying to find what is the best way to used rdss software program. I am not making any judgement about anyone's talent's of picking pacelines. What will work for me.

Alice,

Give me a call, let's spend some time. Check your email.

Ted

[For The Lead]

It is possible that by the word 'picks' he really meant 'ranks' ...

And, not to nitpick, but I (vaguely) recall the context of that quote above and FWIW the phrase 'my software' is not one I regularly use since RDSS has a heritage far beyond just me. I was probably distinguishing RDSS from some other supposed black-box software. But the idea of RDSS being a tool to leverage the human mind is of course the point. Just saying.

Ted

Ted,

I would agree with you that "picks" probably meant "ranks", since the BL/BL screen displays horses by the ranking of line score even though it displays the actual line score number rather than a ranking number. However, it has been my observation that the BL/BL screen is right where users go and look at the top two horses there for their horses to bet or characterize them as RDSS "picks". Many times I have read where users post such things as "RDSS had it right on top" or "RDSS had it" and what they mean is the winner was at the top of the BL/BL sort or at least 2nd on the BL/BL sort. It seems clear to me that the BL/BL sort is interpreted to mean the "selection(s)" RDSS is providing.

When I posted races in the teaching area, specifically the "why NOT maidens" thread and "making money with early" thread, my purpose was to show RDSS users the versatility of RDSS. That RDSS can be used to isolate winners in ways other than the BL/BL sort.

Here is a link to the post where I took the quote I used. It is post #3. http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8763 I agree with this as well. I think we are both saying that RDSS is not a black box that gives the user selections to bet on. Rather, it is a tool (a very good tool), that helps to aide the user in making final betting decisions. And this can be true even where two users take different roads to their final decision.

[Ted Craven]

FTL,

A very good elaboration on the dangers of using only one screen, or one section of a Summary screen (i.e. the BL/BL screen). I agree it can be a costly 'shorthand' to refer to 'RDSS Ranks' meaning the BL/BL sort, when a Matchup analysis will clearly show that, either from a positional or an energy distribution point of view, we need to be focusing on either the Early or the Other Than Early (OTE) rankings. That's why the BLBL Summary screen conveniently has Early rankings, Late rankings, some compound rankings (TS+F3, VDC, CPR) and E/L differentials. Folks could be forgiven for considering it a one-stop-shop destination - but don't just look at the friendly numbers in the middle of the screen :).

If 'Alice' is trying to get one or 2 comprehensive numbers which fit in a broad number of race categories, I would urge him to break it down not only by distance and surface (which he's probably doing), but also by Matchup scenario (bias toward early, bias toward late).

It's true that aggregate BLBL, VDC and CSR values can probably get you 4 bona fide contenders 80+ percent of the time, but knowing when and WHY to focus on Early and when and WHY on Late (what to speak taking a consistent and repeatable approach to picking fair pacelines for the horses) - is the secret to winnowing that down further. By watching the toteboard, you can probably make money dutching 3 or 4 of those horses in exactas a lot of the time, but being able to narrow it down to 3, or 2 (let alone 1) horse makes it so much easier (and profitable).

I do take your point about the 'not a black box', and (still) heartily concur.

Ted

[atkinsrr]

Hi guys...would like to add something about pace line selection....The Follow-Ups and pages on instructions for pace line selections are as follows: not in numerical order:
FU#81 pg 35 FU#84 pg 38(VAL 2 only) FU#86 pg 33 and 53(surface changes only)
FU#88 pg 30 FU#76 pg 24 FU#41 pg 60 thru 63 FU#50 pg 50 FU#49 pg 13
Then we have the Follow-Ups that instruct us about record keeping, as follows:
FU#7 pg 31 FU#47 pg 39 FU#73 pg 17 FU#67 pg 17-27 FU#78 pg 28...hope this will help some of the newer people to find answers more quickly.....

[Ted Craven]

Thanks Randy! Looking forward to reviewing those articles. (And thanks for those 2 missing FU pages you mailed me - posting them any moment now ...).

Ted

[For The Lead]

For The Lead:

My mistake. Message should have read which readouts in RDSS are most predictive in dirt sprints?

My apologies.

Thanks

Bobsbet

First, let me make something clear. I have only been using RDSS since December via an agreement between Ted and I.
However, if you haven't read this anywhere else, I have a database with more than 600,000 races and 5,000,000 horses. Ok, on to the answer to your question.

You asked your question generically, so I will give you the generic answer. NONE. That was the easy part. Now I will give you the more detailed answer.

There is no one statistic or corollary or other piece of information that will show you a profit over time. Nothing in horse racing is that easy. But don't be disheartened just yet.

My database and RDSS share many common statistics. My database and RDSS each have statistics that the other does not have. This does not make one program better than the other, they are very similar with a few exceptions. Let's just look at one statistic from the current year at the distance of 6 furlongs.

The dollar net return for this statistic is currently at $ 1.60. This means for every $2.00 wagered you would get back $ 1.60, a $0.40 loss. Not very good.
Now let's look at this statistic after we investigate a little further.
Let’s break it down between males and females.
Males returned $ 1.28
Females returned $ 1.97

Neither of these returns is a winner on their own, but females do MUCH BETTER than males.
Now let’s take the same group of winners and see how it turns out in only claiming races.
Males return $ 1.12.
Females return $ 2.18
Now we have a group that is returning an profit.

Now let’s take this just one step further. Let’s compare the above information to ALLOWANCE races.
Males come back at $ 1.28.
Females come back at $ 1.36
WOW! The males increased by $0.16, but look at the females. They dropped from $ 2.18 to $ 1.36!

Naturally the next thing to do would be to look at females running in claiming races that are being run at 6 furlongs. Then look at the results by track. When that is completed you will know which tracks to play.
So you can see how one piece of information can start off badly and yet turn into a winner.

Anyway, I hope this short illustration gives you some insight into why one generic piece of information just doesn't work.

I know this isn't the answer you were hoping for, but it is what it is, good information. I hope you can make the best of it.

[bobsbet]

For The Lead:

Thank you very much for this information. I have read virtually all of your posts and have learned something valuable from each. This is no exception.

Thanks again.

Bobsbet

[For The Lead]

Here is a race from PARX today that I thought was interesting. This is a race where running style (RS) collides with time. You will see what I mean as we move through the race.

I will post all the horses in the race first along with comments on each horse.
Before I go any further I just want to review my guidelines for picking contenders and pacelines since that is what this thread is about. I know many of you are already familiar with these guidelines, but I'll cover the material again anyway.

When I started this thread I did not have access to RDSS, so I used screen shots taken from the Follow Ups and the Paceline Manual. The purpose of the thread was to familiarize people with contender and paceline selecting as it was at the beginning of the methodology. To the original guidelines I added a couple of my own that came from much research through my database. Here they are.

I will be using the original methodology concept of using the last line “UNLESS” there is a valid reason to go back a line. The lines chosen will be “+” races or “(+)” races.
Continuing on with the original methodology, a line will NOT be given to every horse in the race. Instead, I will look at each horses PP’s and determine the contenders prior to giving them a line.
I will also run down the horses in each race so you can “get a feel” for how I arrived at the contenders and the lines used. If there are any “special” comments, they will be included.
I can tell you right now,any horse with a ML=>20/1 will NOT get a line or be considered a contender.
Also, no horse that has been OFF for more than 90 days will be considered a contender.
Also, no horse will receive a line that is more than 90 days old.

Before I go any further, let me just mention the conditions for this race. It is a $7,500 claiming race for NW26MX (non winners of 2 races in the last 6 months) Please keep these conditions in mind.

Now the horses. The 1A was scratched.


#1 shows nothing but sprint races. By the guidelines, this horse is dismissed.

33971

#2 ran a dull race in its' last race, but that was against "OPEN" company. In its' race 2 back it beat $7,500 clm, NW16MX. Today's race is the logical next step up, a NW26MX. I'll use the line 2 back.

33972

#3 horse's last 5 races covering the last 113 days are all sprints. Again, by the guidelines, this horse will be dismissed.

33973

#4 horse's last race was at today's track, today's surface and at today's distance. Although it was at a much higher level, it was a really bad race. The two races prior to that were sprint races. This horse will be dismissed.

33974

#5 won it's last race just 24 days ago. The thing to notice here is that last race was for the same $7,500 claiming level and at a NW16MX condition. Today's the horse is moving to the next very logical class level and condition, $7,500 claiming with a NW26MX. I'll use the last line.

33975

[For The Lead]

#6 is another horse in this field that beat $7,500 claimers 2 back and then faced "OPEN" claimers in its' last race. Like the other horse in today's race, today this horse is moving to its' next logical level, a $7,500 claimer with a NW26MX condition. I'll use line 2.

33976

#7 won its' last race and I will use that line, however, notice that it beat NW3L. In that race it was not facing the same quality of horses it will face today. On top of that, take notice that this horse is just 3 for 52 LIFETIME!! Not a real good record and hardly a record that would suggest it would win back to back races.

33977

[For The Lead]

Ok, so what was interesting about this race?

Let's look at the screen shots. Here is the "original" showing the contenders and the lines used for them. I think it is clear that the #6 horse is the EARLY horse in the race. Look at the lines used for each contender. Which horse stands out as the early horse? Then notice the ""RS" and Quirin speed points. All of this points to the #6 as the EARLY horse. In addition, I would suggest that you look at the PP's for all the horses in the race with particular attention to the first call for each horse. Can you find any horse in the race that is earlier than the #6?
33978

Now we move on the the TPR screen and look what we see. #6 ranks 3RD for EPR! But notice there is no early horse by the "E/L" standard. In fact, the #6, who appears to be the early horse, has the biggest blue stick! What are we to make of this?

33979

The segments screen is just as bad if not worse. it shows the #6 trailing at F1. However, it also shows the #6 overpowering the field by the second call.

33980

The BL/BL screen shows the #6 "on top".

Although the screen shots show 4 contenders, there are really only 3, since the #7 is really not a viable betting opportunity as I mentioned when reviewing that horse.

I don't think there are many of you that would not end up with the#6 as one of your two horses to bet.

1 - it is on top on the BL/BL
2 - if you trust your instincts, you know this horse will take the lead in this race and it is unlikely it will get caught.

This race is a case of "lines" showing a false race because of the times.
Early horses are always early horses. They either get the lead and perform well or they don't get the lead and fade back into the pack. The faster first fraction times shown by the horses in this race that are "ote" will not propel those horses to the lead. They are still "ote" horses.

33981

Here's the chart of the race. The #6 wins and pays a very nice $20.20.

33982

[vderdak]

Can you explain the guideline rule regarding all sprint pp's in a route race, I'm not familar with it and I often include sprinters, I would have included the #1 horse, 2nd race back at 7F, thanks.

[Bill V.]

Thanks FTL
This is a great race to keep in all our lesson notebooks.

I agree with your pacelines,

looking at the race using phase 1 ( the tpr screen )
you wrote

Now we move on the the TPR screen and look what we see. #6 ranks 3RD for EPR!
But notice there is no early horse by the "E/L" standard. In fact, the #6, who appears to be the early horse,
has the biggest blue stick! What are we to make of this?

In your screen shot we see the 6 2 5 and 7 all within 1 point of each other
In Phase 1 each full point of EPR, FFR (LPR) or TPR (CPR) = equals 1 length
Phase 1 is velocity based, So what we see developing is the 4 contenders within
1 length of each other at the 3/4 mile call. This tight group will head for home
We know the 6 will be all out to be the leader of this group.
As followers of Phase 1 know the beauty of the numbers is that you can visualize
the race and the positions of the contenders.
In your screen shot we have the golden egg
We have a Early horse with one of the the best EPR's ( less than 1 length) and also the best FFR ( LPR ) rating

Now lets look at the race we have the 6 2 7 and 5 all within 1 length of each other as they enter the stretch.
But as apposed to the cluster at the 2nd call (3/4) look at the advantage
the 6 has in the 3rd fraction ! FFR - LPR

The reason the 6 is the biggest blue stick is because it has a much better
FFR - LPR than the other contenders in the race
The difference between the EPR number and the LPR number is what the sticks
are telling us

Here is the race from the result charts Once again we see the winner
who went wire to wire as running with late energy EPR 72 FFR 80
Its EPR is 8 points less than its LPR so next time this horse runs its PP
line will show another blue stick with a -8


33983

[Lt1]

Thanks for the post FTL. I won this race also but didn't have it as cleanly as you. Bet it because of odds. Still getting use to RDSS. Your explanations are very good.

[dogkatcher]

FTL

When looking at the #6, I may have elected to use line 3. It seems to me
that the 2nd race back may have been somewhat atypical, as the first call time was the slowest in it's entire pp's.

Much like forgiving a race which a horse may have come across a too rapid early pace, would you consider going further back in this particular race?

Would position early be more important then the posted time?

I want to thank you for all your contributions, and find them to be highly beneficial.

John

[For The Lead]

Can you explain the guideline rule regarding all sprint pp's in a route race, I'm not familar with it and I often include sprinters, I would have included the #1 horse, 2nd race back at 7F, thanks.

Sure, when you are looking for a line, you are looking for a line that is on the same surface and at same approximate distance.
Route races are route races and sprint races are sprint races. The times are different, the points of call are different, and not all horse have the same running style in both sprints and routes.
You mentioned using a 7 furlong race. Ok. A 7 furlong race runs out of a chute on the backstretch. The horses run approximately 4 furlongs before encountering a turn.
By contrast, the first thing the horses in an 8 furlong race encounter after breaking from the gate is a turn. In fact, the first call of an 8 furlong race is run around the first turn. Not exactly the same, wouldn't you agree?
Does this mean that a horse with only sprint races can never win a route race? Absolutely not!
Let me put it this way. You're walking along a road and it is on your mind that you need a needle. You walk right up to a pile of needles laying in the middle of the road. Off the road is a haystack. It has a sign on it that says, "there is one needle in this haystack". Is it really that important to find the needle in the haystack or will one of the needles in plain sight work just as well?

At the beginning of this thread there are some sample races taken from the Follow Ups and/or Paceline Manual. These posts primarily center on labeling each horse for its' running style and also choosing a line. I would encourage you to not only read these posts, but also go to the library on this sight and read the Paceline Manual. I believe what you are looking for starts on page 17.

Hope this helps and good luck to you.

[For The Lead]

FTL

When looking at the #6, I may have elected to use line 3. It seems to me
that the 2nd race back may have been somewhat atypical, as the first call time was the slowest in it's entire pp's.

Much like forgiving a race which a horse may have come across a too rapid early pace, would you consider going further back in this particular race?

Would position early be more important then the posted time?

I want to thank you for all your contributions, and find them to be highly beneficial.

John

Your observation is correct. The first call time in line 2 is the slowest in the PP's.
If you chose line 3 for the reason you mentioned, it would certainly be understandable, however, I think your reasoning is a step above the basics.

Earlier in this thread, I posted a screen shot that came from a Follow Up where "Doc" said...

33984

In every race I have reviewed on this site, I have used the same basics as I used in this race, because it is the concept of the basics that I am trying make clear. I am speaking to a group, an ever changing group, not an individual. One of the most important aspects of contender selection and line selection is consistency. On that basis, I would answer your question "no" I would not go back on this horse.

"The posted time". I take that to mean the time taken from the line chosen. If that is true, then my answer is "yes", early position is more important. The time from one race is incidental, whereas a look at the horse's "body of work" (all its' PP's) provides a much clearer picture of what can be expected from the horse today.
Again, earlier in this thread I posted an example race from the Follow Ups where the idea was to find the winner without a computer. The idea was to find the winner based on "Running Style". It was very much a race like this one, where there was just one early horse. Where there is clearly only one early horse, that horse will make the lead in whatever time it needs to run in order to be in front, probably in a slower time than what might be anticipated.

[vderdak]

FTL, thank you for the insight regarding my question.

[Lt1]

FTL with regards to your answer to Vderdak I would like to add that not all routes are run around 2 turns For example at Aqu 8f races on the main track are run out of the shute around 1 turn and at Bel most of the commonly run route dists on the dirt are around 1 turn. As to a sprinter going long I look to make sure he can't route. If I remember correctly if a sprinter is 5 lenghts better at the second call then all the routers in the field it is a threat to win.Enjoy reading your post.
Tim

[For The Lead]

FTL with regards to your answer to Vderdak I would like to add that not all routes are run around 2 turns For example at Aqu 8f races on the main track are run out of the shute around 1 turn and at Bel most of the commonly run route dists on the dirt are around 1 turn. As to a sprinter going long I look to make sure he can't route. If I remember correctly if a sprinter is 5 lenghts better at the second call then all the routers in the field it is a threat to win.Enjoy reading your post.
Tim

You can also add Arlington Park to the extremely short list of thoroughbred race tracks that have one turn routes.

Since the vast majority of tracks have two turn routes, I thought it appropriate to address that group, rather than the handful of tracks that have one turn routes.

This was a good "heads up" on your part. Thanks.

[For The Lead]

Can you explain the guideline rule regarding all sprint pp's in a route race, I'm not familar with it and I often include sprinters, I would have included the #1 horse, 2nd race back at 7F, thanks.

Another member saw your post and wrote to me asking for more information on the subject. I thought it would be good information for everyone. The following are his questions and my answers.

He wanted to know the win stats for ...
1 - horses whose last two races were sprints and today's race is a route. Answer=11%

2 - horses whose last three races were sprints and today's race is a route. Answer=11%

3 - horses whose last two races were routes and today's race is a sprint. Answer=9%

4 - horses whose last three race were routes and today's race is a sprint. Answer=9%

All the answers were rounded either up or down.

Just remember a little piece of advice from "Doc".

33992

[vderdak]

Mountainer Race #2 04/08/13 - #2 horse owns 1st and 2nd fraction for my contenders 2,4,6, & 8, fades big time in stretch last race, goes off 5/1 today, I loved him, he wins going away!

[atkinsrr]

Race tracks with one turn miles: Gulfstream, Aqueduct, Belmont, Churchill, Arlington, all others are 2 or more turns except Ellis Park..Ellis miles start in a turn ..very unfair to outside posts

[Bill V.]

Mountainer Race #2 04/08/13 - #2 horse owns 1st and 2nd fraction for my contenders 2,4,6, & 8, fades big time in stretch last race, goes off 5/1 today, I loved him, he wins going away!

hello vderdak

Can you give a short comment on your thoughts for these 4 contenders
and selected pace lines

Thanks
Bill

34036

34033

34034

34035

[Bill V.]

Race tracks with one turn miles: Gulfstream, Aqueduct, Belmont, Churchill, Arlington, all others are 2 or more turns except Ellis Park..Ellis miles start in a turn ..very unfair to outside posts


hello Atkinsrr
Laurel runs their mile races out of the 7.5 furlong chute with a second
finish line

[vderdak]

Bill V.

Here are my thoughts on the race - Mnr #2 04/08/13 MC5

I actually meant to post this under Why Not Maidens

#1 - out - shows nothing last race
#2 - Contender - last race - up close first two calls
#3 - out - shows nothing last race
#4 - out - shows nothing last race, I said I chose this horse, meant #5
#5 - contender - last race - up close first two calls
#6 - contender - last race - finished within 4.5 lengths
#7 - out - last race over 90 days ago
#8 - contender - first two calls marginal up close - put in to see
#9 - out - only 1st call up close
#10 - out - 1st time starter

So I had 4 contenders, 2, 5, 6, and 8
#2 ranked 1st on both fraction 1 and 2, 1st EPR
It looked like the last two races he fought for the lead, just didn't get it, no confirmed early runner in the race except for the #8 which I didn't forgive his last race so at 5/1 to me he was an excellent wager at the odds.

[For The Lead]

Since I started posting in this thread, the real focus has been on picking contenders and pacelines ( as the title of the thread implies) NOT on picking winners. When using a solid contender selection and paceline method, the winners will come.
If one uses a consistent method of picking contenders and pacelines, they will, over the long run, get much better results than if the contender and paceline selection method is all over the place.
This is not to say that if you follow the contender and paceline selection method I have used throughout this thread (and others) that you will have the winner among your contenders in each and every race you handicap. You won't. I don't know of any that will.
What you will learn from following my posts are the type of winners that you will come across from time to time that make it all worthwhile. The following race is one of them.
My suggestion is to read this example race and decide for yourself whether or not you would have had this winner either by wagercapping or handicapping.
I will make comments on each horse. You will notice that the guidelines I use are the same as I always use.
I'll post the horses first, then the usual screen shots I post and finally the result chart.

The obvious line to use here is the last line. Every other line is too old. (more than 90 days) This is the problem horse for most people. Why? Because the last line comes from DeD, which is a "bullring" track. Personally, I don't mix bullring lines with lines from standard one mile track lines. In addition, this horse is moving up in class from 5k to 10k. I'll leave it up to the reader to decode, I just know I wouldn't bet this horse.
34065

After being OFF for over 500 days, this horse has come back to break its' maiden (2 back) and run a good second in its' last race. I'll use the last line.
34066

This horse has only one race in the last 90 days. It is a poor effort at a class half of what it will be running for today. I will not give this horse a line and will not consider it a contender.
34067

With 6 races in the last 87 days, this has been the busiest horse in the race.
It ran a good second in it's last race, so I'll use the last line.
34068

This is the class horse in the race. There is just one problem. The horse has no form. In addition, it doesn't have any race at today's distance and surface. This horse will not get a line and will not be considered a contender.
34069

[For The Lead]

Here is another horse that has been meeting better horses, however, it hasn't shown anything against those horses. It has one race in the last 90 days and it was a poor effort. So was the effort in it's older race 2 back. This horse will not get a line and will not be considered a contender.
34070

This horse has two lines to choose from, line 2 and 3. Both lines show poor efforts, so this horse will not get a line and will not be considered a contender.
34071

#8 was scratched

This horse does not have a "+" or "(+)" line at today's distance and surface in the last 90 days. Therefore it will not get a line and will not be considered a contender.
34072

This horse hasn't had a race in the last 90 days, so it will not get a line and it will not be considered a contender.
34073

[For The Lead]

OK, there are only three contenders. Here are the screen shots. Now if you think the "bulling" horse is really that much faster than the other two contenders, then that's your horse. Myself, that horse will have to prove it to me. I don't believe it.

So, it's up to you. How do you think you would have played it?

[Segwin]

I'm late to the party (just signed up here) but this thread has been wonderful. Packed with very useful information.

I might have all this down pat just about the time I kick.

[For The Lead]

I'm glad you enjoyed the thread and hope that you will find the other threads in this section just as informative.

[Segwin]

Dave
Rdss makes doing the + 0 and (+) notations so easy
The lines are color coded so you don't even have to mark them
but i still do . Here is a Early horse I can see how it runs all its plus lines
and I can see why it runs 0 races

31655

GS
Bill

Unfortunately a quote does not port over the attachment(s) however how did you mark the + 0 etc Bill? Did you take a screenshot and then mark it in a program like paint or is there a marker within RDSS?

Thanks.

[Segwin]

Question regarding the +, (+) 0 selections.

In the attached picture the Doc wrote the rules for their use. There was no (+) in his rules and he also included that if the horse finished within 4.5 lengths it could be a +.

Later on I wrote this down for a post here (sorry don't remember which post)

+ = any race where the horse ran, 1st, 2nd or 3rd
(+) = any race where the horse shows one of the following
A – showed good early form by being 1st or 2nd at the first and/or 2nd calls, even if it faded down the stretch
B – any race where the horse made a good middle move (that’s call 1 to call 2) gaining in lengths and being within 2 lengths of the leader at the second call, even if it faded down the stretch
0 = any other line

When did these rules change?

Also, how far back can we go for a useable line (was it 90 days)?

Thanks.

[For The Lead]

Question regarding the +, (+) 0 selections.

In the attached picture the Doc wrote the rules for their use. There was no (+) in his rules and he also included that if the horse finished within 4.5 lengths it could be a +.

Later on I wrote this down for a post here (sorry don't remember which post)

+ = any race where the horse ran, 1st, 2nd or 3rd
(+) = any race where the horse shows one of the following
A – showed good early form by being 1st or 2nd at the first and/or 2nd calls, even if it faded down the stretch
B – any race where the horse made a good middle move (that’s call 1 to call 2) gaining in lengths and being within 2 lengths of the leader at the second call, even if it faded down the stretch
0 = any other line

When did these rules change?

Also, how far back can we go for a useable line (was it 90 days)?

Thanks.




Beside the fact that I don’t know the date of “any” change in the methodology, I don’t think the date matters. I will suggest, you may want to read the Paceline Manual.

I have written this before, but it doesn’t hurt to go over it again. With regard to the “90 day” question you asked, this has nothing to do with methodology teachings. This is “my” guideline and one I believe everyone should, at least, evaluate for themselves. The problem with this suggestion is, people will not evaluate the guideline over a long enough period of time to reach a valid conclusion. I dislike saying this all the time, but I have more than 600,000 races and more than 5,000,000 horses from which to draw a conclusion. If you read through the various publications in the library, you will eventually come across statements of how a particular thing was evaluated based on a trial of 1,000 races or 2,000 races. That was nice for pre-computer/internet days, but next to nothing today.

Further, I don’t think asking “when” the rules (guidelines) were changed is a matter for consideration. Instead, giving consideration to the changes would be more appropriate.

Read those “+”, “(+)” and “0” guidelines over again, while picturing in your mind what they represent.

If a horse does not have a recent “+” or “(+)” line, is it really a contender?
Just to review the “90 day” guideline, it comes in two parts.
1 – no horse is a “win” contender if it has not had a race in the last 90 days. Only 5% of races are won by a horse that has not raced in the last 90 days.
2 – do not use any line that is more than 90 days old.

I am always amazed that people “want” to go back in the PP’s for a line. WHY? Is there some magic in going back deep for a line?

Recently, someone posted this.
“I have been going over all of the follow ups and in issue 77 ,Dr Sartin says that in a 1000 race study "the Win horse of each races ranked in the top 5 and ties in Total Energy 98% of the time" and the top three 75% of the time.”

So let me put up a recent study of my own from this year.

91% of winners came off a “+” or “(+)” line in one of their last two races. These races were also less than 90 days old.

And this comes from considerably more than 1,000 races.

Now I DO NOT hold with the "best of last 3 comparable" line of thinking. Instead, I prefer "Doc's" original line of thinking of using the last line, if it is a qualifying line. Nevertheless, here is what "Doc" said.

Even with the best of last 3 comparable concept, "Doc" tells you how rare it is when he would go back further than the 3rd line.

[dlivery]

Thank- You FTL.

This also is some thing we have to be reminded of.

FTL. On My Computer Is This The Line I Want To Use.

When horses are in race shape why would you go looking for a what you already see by looking at the last line will tell you how the horse is feeling this day while competing in the race.

[Segwin]

Thanks for the reply FLT.

1st let me say that nothing stays stagnant. As we learn more, and as technology affords us much quicker processing of existing information, our steadfast beliefs are subject to change. Once upon a time everything revolved around the earth.

2nd if I come across as too inquiring it is just in my nature. As a home inspector I question everything. I need all the pieces of the puzzle to fit together before I can accept it and move on.

I respect your knowledge and experience. I appreciate the fact that you share here free and willinging. Do not take peronally my inquisitiveness. I'm sure I had my parents talking to themselves upon occasion.

[Giahorse]

Beside the fact that I don’t know the date of “any” change in the methodology, I don’t think the date matters. I will suggest, you may want to read the Paceline Manual.

I have written this before, but it doesn’t hurt to go over it again. With regard to the “90 day” question you asked, this has nothing to do with methodology teachings. This is “my” guideline and one I believe everyone should, at least, evaluate for themselves. The problem with this suggestion is, people will not evaluate the guideline over a long enough period of time to reach a valid conclusion. I dislike saying this all the time, but I have more than 600,000 races and more than 5,000,000 horses from which to draw a conclusion. If you read through the various publications in the library, you will eventually come across statements of how a particular thing was evaluated based on a trial of 1,000 races or 2,000 races. That was nice for pre-computer/internet days, but next to nothing today.

Further, I don’t think asking “when” the rules (guidelines) were changed is a matter for consideration. Instead, giving consideration to the changes would be more appropriate.

Read those “+”, “(+)” and “0” guidelines over again, while picturing in your mind what they represent.

If a horse does not have a recent “+” or “(+)” line, is it really a contender?
Just to review the “90 day” guideline, it comes in two parts.
1 – no horse is a “win” contender if it has not had a race in the last 90 days. Only 5% of races are won by a horse that has not raced in the last 90 days.
2 – do not use any line that is more than 90 days old.

I am always amazed that people “want” to go back in the PP’s for a line. WHY? Is there some magic in going back deep for a line?

Recently, someone posted this.
“I have been going over all of the follow ups and in issue 77 ,Dr Sartin says that in a 1000 race study "the Win horse of each races ranked in the top 5 and ties in Total Energy 98% of the time" and the top three 75% of the time.”

So let me put up a recent study of my own from this year.

91% of winners came off a “+” or “(+)” line in one of their last two races. These races were also less than 90 days old.

And this comes from considerably more than 1,000 races.

Now I DO NOT hold with the "best of last 3 comparable" line of thinking. Instead, I prefer "Doc's" original line of thinking of using the last line, if it is a qualifying line. Nevertheless, here is what "Doc" said.

Even with the best of last 3 comparable concept, "Doc" tells you how rare it is when he would go back further than the 3rd line.

I am only posting this to get more answers, it was I who posted
" I have been going over all of the follow ups and in issue 77 ,Dr Sartin says that in a 1000 race study "the Win horse of each races ranked in the top 5 and ties in Total Energy 98% of the time" and the top three 75% of the time".

What FTL didnt post was the and of the post which said

"I was wondering if that is still the case today. Any thoughts on this would be great"

The reason FTL probably didn't post it was because he was only using my post as an example. Does anyone know if that stat still applies today.

Please let me say that I am on this site for probably 4+hours a day every day reading posts that FTL and Bill V put up for teaching. I for one would like to thank them both and Ted of course for everything.

[Lt1]

I would like to respond to FTLS question as to why some people go back for a line. When I joined the group the best of the last 3 was what I learned both at seminars and 1 on 1s with Doc. Additionally in Follow Up #81 on page 1 of the Publishers Desk Doc states that our research supported by Sport Stat proves that last race is less predictive than both the 2nd and 3rd lines back and in many cases not greater than a line 4 back. I guess what I'm trying to state is that both approaches can and do produce winners provided that viable contenders are entered into the program.

[Giahorse]

I would like to respond to FTLS question as to why some people go back for a line. When I joined the group the best of the last 3 was what I learned both at seminars and 1 on 1s with Doc. Additionally in Follow Up #81 on page 1 of the Publishers Desk Doc states that our research supported by Sport Stat proves that last race is less predictive than both the 2nd and 3rd lines back and in many cases not greater than a line 4 back. I guess what I'm trying to state is that both approaches can and do produce winners provided that viable contenders are entered into the program.

Thanks

I would also like to thank you LT1, I am learing so mucj on this site.

[Alice0607]

How many races per day do you handicap? How many tracks do you handicap per day? I usually handicap the New York circuit, So California circuit, Cd, Kee, Gp, Wo, Gg, Fg tracks.

[trotman]

FTL,
This is an exercise in futility, IMO who the hell cares who wins this one, at that price I'll go for a hotdog. This was the first thing I saw, was a no form but a chaos race that the public would be all over it. No disrespect but the one person I followed from the PIRCO days was Michael Pizolla's way of thinking, move to the next race this had nothing to offer other than a strong chance you could end up on the wrong end.

[Bill V.]

FTL,
This is an exercise in futility, IMO who the hell cares who wins this one, at that price I'll go for a hotdog. This was the first thing I saw, was a no form but a chaos race that the public would be all over it. No disrespect but the one person I followed from the PIRCO days was Michael Pizolla's way of thinking, move to the next race this had nothing to offer other than a strong chance you could end up on the wrong end.

Hello Trotman

On behalf of all those who took the time and effort to present races and
ideas to this thread, especially with respect to FTL

It would be nice of you to reference which race you are commenting on.


Please provide us with exactly you want to show us and comment on

Thank You
Bill

[trotman]

Bill,
In all respect the example I was referring to was the very first race that FTL posted, Straight forward forget the race and pass. Getting involved in a race like that is senseless IMO. Even Tom Brohammer would say for what the possible return would be or what the outcome could be, just turn the page.

[Bill V.]

Thanks for the information.

The point of the first race posted here was intended to teach, using a race from an early follow up, This was to show that what was working backk then still wins today
the race is from the follow up. It was just as good a teaching tool then as it is today

The winner paid $2.20/$6.40 that is just a few cents off Doc's own minimum odds of $2.50/$7.00

When this race was first published in the follow up a 60/40 split of odds
was instructed.This is why this race is a valid Sartin methodology teaching race.
FTL goes on to show in this thread and all the threads in the teaching area,
that his guidelines and suggestions and teaching notations and comments will get you many higher priced winners.

I feel every race presented in this teaching area is justified because its
presented to teach winning consistently.

[Ted Craven]

Trotman,

Thank you for (inadvertantly) bringing up again the valuable lessons contained in the race discussed (http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8784) at the beginning of this Topic. The core of the Sartin Methodology is The Matchup: the central FACT of a horse race that:'one horse goes out for the lead and the others try to catch him; if they do, he loses, if they don't - he wins'.
The opening race exercise was about identifying Running Styles, then understanding that a Lone Early horse, with no one else to pressure him, will slow down, conserve energy and stand a good chance to go wire to wire. Another adage we are smart to remember is:'a horse runs as fast as it needs to, not as fast as it can'.
I believe that these facts about the Matchup and Running Styles are still not understood enough today. If they were understood more in 1990 (the date of that exercise race), no way would the crowd have let the horse go off at 2-1. Today, perhaps that race winner would have paid 1-1, but almost every day of the week, similar scenarios occur which pay more than 2-1, some even enough to bet another horse as a saver when uncertainties exist.

Trotman, you have been at this game for 40 years and have internalized all these truths - that's why you saw it in 20 seconds and 'moved on' (yet apparently were still unsure enough of the analysis and so declined to have taken the easy 2-1 odds). However, every week , I am in contact with newcomers to this website, to the Sartin Methodology and Matchup concepts - some of whom have only become fascinated with horse race analysis and betting for a short time (e.g. a year or less - yes, it's true: new blood!)

You will notice that this Forum is titled Sartin Methodology Handicapping 101 (102 ...). People need a resource today to learn the concepts you learned long ago from your various mentors (Ray Taulbot, Andy, Michael Pizzolla, etc). And that is what is happening in this particular Forum: the Basics - 101 (and more, 102 ...). A person can choose for themselves whether they have the skills at any point to decide whether a race contains too much uncertainty and too little price to risk a bet, and thus 'move on'. I submit that some (or many) would see the fit and ready Lone Early horse in that race and decide it was a good value. And from that lesson learned, look for other similar race scenarios today on which they can make similar wagers, whether at 2-1 or perhaps less - or sometimes more.

'Move on' perhaps, but only after having internalized the lesson being taught in this Topic.

Ted

[trotman]

Ted,
I could easily see the Lone Early in the 6 horse field and also figured the public to bet with both hands. That being said I passed the race because I figured the horse would go off at close to 9/5 which is a reasonable expectation and figured even if the public took a stab at something offering a price the odds may be 20% more which brings us to roughly what the horse paid. The Hat did say "It's a dang horse race" and I totally understand this is a teaching exercise for many new to the game, but a horse race is a horse race and anything can happen once the gates open. For the sake of a winner I'm not inclined to make that bet and my point. I agree that this exercise shows a simple match-up and that labelling each horse with it's proper run style is so important because many races are not as easy. At the end of the day each investment for me always must offer me more than just the winner.

[Neil S.]

I absolutely love this thread and the tremendous contribution that FTL has made. I have been using this paceline and contender method for a few months and the number of winners in the top two and three has increased dramatically.
Unfortunately my problem has and still is developing a consistent style of wagering that enables me to isolate the best wagers from my selected contenders. Most of the winners I do get as contenders are in the top two, but only on rare occasions does a true "value" horse show up here. The longer prices tend to fall a little lower in the rankings, however horses lower than level two don't win enough of the races to warrant regular wagers. Similarly an occasional longshot will show up in my top two, but these are not frequent enough to produce a consistent profit.
I have seen occasional races where the odds are 4-1 or greater in the top three which should normally be a prime wagering opportunity, however these races don't tend to produce significant results.
I have been a two horse bettor throughout, but I would be interested in what wagering strategies would be successful using this type of contender and paceline selection.

Neil

[vderdak]

FTL

B – any race where the horse made a good middle move (that’s call 1 to call 2) gaining in lengths and being within 2 lengths of the leader at the second call, even if it faded down the stretch.

Do you consider a horse which is running 3rd, 4th, or 5th 2 lengths behind at say both the 1st and 2nd calls a contender, they haven't lost lengths and they are up within 2 lengths at the 2nd call but they haven't made any middle move either, they qualify on time and distance otherwise. These are the horses which give me issues as to include as a contender or not, could you please clarify your thoughts on this for me.

Thank you,

Vince

[Bill V.]

Hi Vincent

I am putting your example together in my mind. It seems like it would be a plus line if the horse finished in the money or beat half the field and was not beaten
by too many lengths. that would all make it a possible (+)

Is this from a recent race? If so can you provide a screen shot or the race date track and horse you are asking about.

I also consider the match up the horse is facing in todays race and the class of the race from the last line.

meanwhile I look forward to FTL's analysis

Bill

[vderdak]

Bill

As an example if you could look at todays Woodbine WO 3 #4 Cana Red, last line or WO 9 #4 Lunar Light if the 2nd race back was the last line or like the last line which is real close but not quite 2 lengths back a the 2nd call, these iffy lines, do they qualify or not as contenders.

Thanks,

Vince

[Bill V.]

Hi Vince

I will take race 9 #4 Luna Light first

37936


I would say yes here. The last line could be excused for the 7 furlong distance
The comment says even out seep stretch. In the 6 furlong portion of the race it was up close. I look and see that the horse was given 6 week rest but comes back at the same class level were it ran 2 plus races.
If they dropped it into maiden claimers I would be concerned. For me line 2 is the line.


Now the hard one

Horse 4 Canna is one of 4 sprinters stretching out against not the greatest routers. Here are the last lines for all the horses, none of them have plus races. Can a horse go from 6 furlongs to 8.5 ? Yes but here ? When its only win was against 8000 maiden claimers ?
Its encouraging that against open 20 claimers it made a move to be just a shade over 2 back at the second call

I would just pass this race but that's does not mean you have to.

37935

37937

[vderdak]

Bill,

Thanks for your help, I appreciate it and will use your advice.

Vince

[Alice0607]

I have been reading all posting in regards to picking pace lines using the rdss program. The one thing I have found is if you select a pace line - the pace line selected should be best in the CPR ranking, Perceptor ranking, Primary line score, and VDC % ranking. Most of the time they are one of the same ranking, if you select the best of last three compariable.

[DocSartinLearner]

I have been reading all posting in regards to picking pace lines using the rdss program. The one thing I have found is if you select a pace line - the pace line selected should be best in the CPR ranking, Perceptor ranking, Primary line score, and VDC % ranking. Most of the time they are one of the same ranking, if you select the best of last three compariable.
--I am glad you are asking this interesting question but, we need a lot of patience for Anyone to come up with the answer and put together all this for a solution.

DSL

[DocSartinLearner]

Hi Folks,

To have a better understanding of these factors I went to Google Site Search:
1. Perceptor ranking
2. CPR ranking
3. Primary line score in picking pacelines
4. What is VDC % ranking?

I know, I am still Seeking a solution:eek:

DSL

[Bill V.]

Hello DSL

1. Perceptor ranking- Ted probably can explain this one better
2. CPR ranking The sum of the actual Early pace rating and Late pace rating
based on the adjusted numbers from the scales of the book Pace Makes the Race . In PMTR CPR is called Total Pace Rating
3. Primary line score in picking pacelines Each of the 6 primary readouts
which are EPR LPR CPR TT HE FW and FX,
are given a compounded rating. The lower the rating the better. The horse with the lowest total of its 6 compounded ratings gets the lowest or best primary line score. Doc's studies of 1000's of races showed that the top 5 lowest primary line score and top 5 total energy horses win just about all races If proper pace lines are used
4. What is VDC % ranking? VDC is its own Velocity/Deceleration readout. Every race has a horse with the best VDC readout - although the total number is very close.
Still there is always a best. The best horse in VDC will get the 0.0 The other horse rankings are the percentage difference from the best 0.0

[DocSartinLearner]

Hi Ted and Bill V.,
Thanks Ted, you already explained what 1. *Perceptor ranking*-
in http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7811

Thanks Bill V. for the correct explanations about 2.*CPR ranking*, 3.*Primary line score in picking pacelines*, 4. *What is VDC % ranking*.

Lots of Thanks to you both,

DSL

[vderdak]

I know there are many individual ways to pick pace lines, from highly structured to intuitive, I was interested in how FTL's method of paceline selection would handle these almost but not quite qualifying contenders, if he treats them the same as his 90 day cut off rules or does he allow some gray area when it comes to middle moves between the first call and second call and lengths gained to be within two or very close.

I appreciate every ones contribution though. It's the key to good results, good contender selection.