MNR 8th 4.13.13 cont'd
 

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.

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

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.

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.

Make's Sense To Me
 

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.

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.

one answe
 

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.

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.