Tom Brohamer Adjustment
 

I don't have access to my copy right now, but in his FIRST edition of MPH, TB had a procedure for "converting" a one turn route to a two turn route.
What I am looking for is the value he used for a length in his total energy number. I think it is .11 for sprints and .17 for routes.

Can anyone verify this for me?

Thanks.

I took a quick look through the book (the one Tom signed for me at the 1992 Toronto seminar) - didn't see a mention of a FPS value of a beaten length relative to 1 turn versus 2 turn routes.

Would that have been in the early chapter on the basic FPS calculations, or some other side-note later on, perhaps in race examples?

Ted

Gulp - just realized that is nearly 30 years ago!

Ted

I believe it is in the section where he talking about the 10K pars? He was adjusting the one turn paceline to a two turn to use to "normalize" the lines for use in the program. The whole thing was only one page.



...30 years?? :eek:

Got it! Page 268-269, Modern Pace Handicapping, 1st Edition -

For the purposes of a $10K par chart for different distances at different tracks, parallel segmental times by distance, Tom gives a 'rule of thumb' FPS value of a length in expressing Total Energy (Average Pace) as:

sprint = .14 per length
route = .11 per length

For anyone thinking of asking: this is not how we do it in RDSS, or later iterations of the Sartin Methodology (we use 'par gaps' to equalize running times - an ad hoc internal matchup, along with TrackMaster inter-track and inter-distance variants).

I was just responding to Tom's specific query.

Good luck Tom! (Hope you're getting better ...)

Ted

Perfect!

That is what I needed.
Thanks Ted, appreciate your help.

:thumb:

Ted,


The Par Gaps you mention within RDSS, are they static or do they update say year to year?


Mitch44

Static, though you can edit them in RDSS.

Check a Follow Up on the topic of Par Gaps (issues late 60s early 70s?). They are not PARS per se (like Brohamer's $10,000 Class pars, or publicly available par times), rather they form the basis of a system in the later Methodology to determine gaps or differentials between paceline segments from different tracks and distances so that they could all be equalized. Some people don't like the resulting Pace of Race times on the Adjusted screen (and thus resulting velocities, compounded factors and oddslines) and want to tinker with them (i.e. 'too fast/slow for this track/distance', etc). But they forget that after all the projections and adjustments are made, we're not running the race at say, Parx, or Oaklawn, anymore, rather we're running all races on a hypothetical equalized/normalized/adjusted track we've come to call 'Sartin Downs'. Any changes one makes to the base 'pars' by distance and surface affect the resulting gaps/differentials equally for all pacelines for all horses in the race, so it really doesn't matter if you bump the 2nd call time here by 2 tenths, or lower the final time there by whatever increment: it affects everyone equally. If Adjusted call times offend the eye, well, there's other software which works differently.

The whole system was created (in my view) to implement the Matchup based on data obtainable from the current race PPs (and supplied TrackMaster inter-track and daily-track adjustments). Sartin never really endorsed the concept of Par Time charts, and was always a little fuzzy if I recall about just how those Par Gaps worked (intentionally, I presume), and so am I. But they work/ed.

Ted

I have always agree that Pars are a problem because their not immediate and Sartin plus Bradshaw take on Pars (Match Up) to make them absolute immediate to todays race was nothing short of amazing and brilliant.

I believe where Pars are helpful is with distance adjustments. While I use a standard adjustment based on their findings (close enough for determinations) I can't help but wonder if a more up to date look at this could help determine a more accurate Par Gap for distance adjustments only, especially now that races are timed in hundreds verses using 1/5 increments.

If only I had the time, must balance research time with actual handicapping, Although I find research fascinating, sometimes more than playing.

Mitch44

What I remember from early Sartin works is that you adjusted the 2nd call by five ticks (1 second) and the final time by 8 ticks or 1.6 seconds to account for the long straight run to the half mile pole in one turn routes and then the lack of the second turn in the one turn mile.

Sartin was against Pars for sure and like Ted said or indicated they were instrumental in the conception of the Match Up.

Perhaps if they were just called Gaps or something else with Gaps he would not oppose that. Those Gaps are very important in the adjustment of horses. Seldom do we see races where the contenders all come from the same distance, a simple sprint race can have horses with 5.5,6.5 7.0 Furlong etc. for selected lines which must be accounted for or more races will be lost.

Nothing makes all these distance adjustments better than the RDSS program. The distance of lines selected is ignored by the public and RDSS users hardly ever give it a thought as their totally unaware of all the going on in the program to pump out those final Factor ratings.

I actually do this in my head at times for cutbacks and stretch outs using just a standard theory from Sartin & Bradshaw to get a time for comparison purposes to upgrade or downgrade a contender. RDSS users have all this within the program and can even see the projected finish times.

I personally wouldn't be one that would recommend tinkering with them, than again to each their own.

Mitch44