Question
 

I have a question which has been confusing me. An example is show in the attachements for MNR, 0925, race 9, Gaelic Terms. The Aug 20th original pace line shows the race being won at the time of 1:11:2 with GT finishing 8th 7.6 lengths behind. The adjusted gives a projected time of 1:03:5 which is far less than the actual wining time. Also an adjusted SR of 79. My confusion is what causes this paceline to end up being so good?
Dave

Hi Dave
That 103.5 showing is the program adjusting the line to todays 5.5f distance.

Reason why that speed rating is good probably has to do with it being a very fast pace of race. Guessing this after looking at the splits for the race

Richie

Richie, thanks for the response. I pretty much understand what is happening with the adjusted paceline screen, for the most part. lol lol If I look at the original paceline screen for the Aug 6th race it show GT wining a 5.5f in 1:06:5. Apparently GT never ran any better than that. The next race a 6f at 1:11:2 ,7 lengths behind in my thinking would project out no greater than 1:06 or some where in that neighborhood. Where has my thinking go awry?
Dave
PS Elvis in my mind was also the king of Gospel

Dave,

These are observant and excellent questions, which go to the heart of the system Doc invented for 'Equalized/Normalized/Adjusted' (or - 'comparing apples to apples', to use another metaphor).

Here are a few core concepts to always remember:

1. After the raw data is finished being adjusted, today's race is NOT being run at today's track: it is being run at a mythical Sartin Downs. Read that again, please.

2. All pacelines are adjusted as follows:
a) Equalized to today's distance, by applying a 'Par Gap' differential between a base time for each distance/surface and the raw final time,
b) Normalized by an InterTrack Variant (ITV) supplied by TrackMaster which serves to adjust final time from different tracks/distances/surfaces to today's circumstances,
c) Adjusted by a Daily Track Variant (DTV) which serves to adjust final time by how fast or slow that day's average surface times were compared to a par for that surface.

So, there are 3 adjustments which happen to change Raw final time to Adjusted final time. The most obvious is converting the 6f final time to 5.5f, the less obvious adjustments are the ITV and DTV. Remember, we're not adjusting to MNR 5.5f dirt, we're adjusting to our our hypothetical Sartin Downs 5.5f dirt - and all horses' pacelines have their own respective ITV adjustments, so we are comparing all lines on an equal footing. The visual disconnect comes if you think the Adjusted times are for today's track: they're not, even if the track/distance/surface is the same as today's.

Even if the winner of Gaelic Terms' last race were running again today, it too would get the same adjustments to the POR times, so the issue does not have to do with Gaelic Terms, but with the adjustment process.

Does the adjustment process have any flaws? Yes, sometimes (if no ITV is available for new tracks or surfaces, e.g. PID, DMR, SA, AP poly - and this requires another article), or if the DTV is extreme, for example due to high class weekend races and fast times, or mid-week low class races and slow times - but we seek to avoid the worst of the excesses by using only HALF the DTV. Plus, our ITV extraction formula inherited from Validator and Speculator needs and will soon get an overhaul using precise ITVs now supplied to RDSS by TrackMaster. Etc, etc. So, when encountering a new surface (like PID, or DMR, or SA, or AP poly) tread with caution during early meet stages.

But aside from those musings, the adjustment process often works surprisingly well. How is it working out for you - aside from appearing to not make sense on the surface sometimes?

Hope that helped, somewhat. I've omitted some details which are getting close to what I want to keep proprietary, and as I said, I need to write another article (in the next few days) about what I've come to understand about TrackMaster's general process for generating pars, and ITVs and DTVs and Class Ratings and Speed Ratings during the early stages of new racing surfaces (and what of all that we make use of and what we ignore).

Ted

Question
 

Ted, thank you very much for the in-depth answer. I now understand this better and I believe, correct me if I am wrong, all paclines are treated with same logic therefore the answer weather appearing odd or not will be viable for all the horses. I believe as long as something is consistant the answer is consistant regardless of the logic. I can now get a better flavor the adjusted pace line screen. As for me, a novice, the program has helped me tremendously with making correct paceline choosing, and making better bets. Once you have the modler function working there won't be many programs that will beat RDSS. In choosing my paceline most of the time I only have to use SR. That issue right there has helped me from "outthinking" the process.
Dave

[quote]"Dave,

These are observant and excellent questions, which go to the heart of the system Doc invented for 'Equalized/Normalized/Adjusted' (or - 'comparing apples to apples', to use another metaphor).

Here are a few core concepts to always remember:

1. After the raw data is finished being adjusted, today's race is NOT being run at today's track: it is being run at a mythical Sartin Downs. Read that again, please.

2. All pacelines are adjusted as follows:
a) Equalized to today's distance, by applying a 'Par Gap' differential between a base time for each distance/surface and the raw final time,
b) Normalized by an InterTrack Variant (ITV) supplied by TrackMaster which serves to adjust final time from different tracks/distances/surfaces to today's circumstances,
c) Adjusted by a Daily Track Variant (DTV) which serves to adjust final time by how fast or slow that day's average surface times were compared to a par for that surface..."[end quote]

Ted::

As to your above post, I have on more then one occassion commented on my distrust of the adjuted times especially as it pertains to the use of the Match Up Methodology. Many times the call times are adjusted to times that are either unrealistic or certainly greater then the pp's show possible for the contender. The adjusted times seem to work great with the BLBL output although I have never compared using vs. not using. I wonder if anyone has in fact compared the BLBL results using adjusted times vs. not?

Thanks,

Robert

Dave,

You are precisely right - all lines are treated equally (if sometimes mysteriously) - that's the attempt at comparing apples to apples. A subsequent article about TrackMaster's process of creating pars/ITVs/DTVs and CRs for new surfaces should clarify a few additional items (soon, I promise:)).

Ted

Robert,

Well, I nominate you! Under the hood in RDSS is a way to ignore ITV and set boundaries or ignore DTV. I'll add that to the Configure settings (caveat emptor) in due course, and you can do a set of races referring to BL/BL comparing unadjusted to adjusted (though pacelines will still be distance equalized not using the Match Up 6.4 tenths per half furlong - perhaps another time).

Would it help if instead of adjusting to Sartin Downs, we adjusted everything to today's track/distance/surface? The adjusted times night look more normal to your eye, but since everything would still be equally adjusted (just to a different target) the final adjusted velocities, factors, ranks should be relatively the same. (By the way, that would be a lot of work just to get the Adjusted call times not to offend the eye! In the meanwhile, hopefuly you can hold your nose and see if records based on adjusted readouts are working for you.)

That said, sometimes it's a good thing to limit DTV adjustments, for example, to a high and low envelope (e.g. -15 to +15, or whatever), so a very slow DTV (say +30) doesn't end up unfairly advantaging a horse when its time is optimistically sped up to compensate. I'll keep you posted.

Ted

That sounds like allot of work Ted and to what end? I was only wondering and would surely confuse myself to no end since there are so many items to either adjust or not and any inclusion or exclusion can have a slightly different result. Like I said the adjusted times as they stand now have been working good enough for me as to the BLBL output. It seems that the reason that I am getting acceptable results as to the RDSS program is because as already stated all of the races and entries are being adjusted in the same way (apples to apples) and therefore no actual distortion.

My particular problem with the adjusted times as it pertains to the MU Methodology stems from the fact that I use a printed Brisnet version of the usual DRF format with some special additions. These times are not comparable with the adjusted Trackmaster times when I am trying to gauge abilities at different distances then today for one contender or another. Perhaps if some day I could get myself to just handicap a race electronically then the adjusted times could be put to better use as it pertains to matching.
Thanks,
Robert

Thanks Ted and mufasa
 

Although I am not a tester of RDSS Ted's answer on how the races are Equalized, Normalized, and Adjusted to "Sartin Downs" instead of today's track is something I was not aware of. It probably was mentioned in the past, but I must have missed it. Anyhow I am going to print out Ted's very detailed explanation on how these adjustments are calculated. I look forward to your future posts in this area.

mufasa, you also raised a good point about how sometimes the adjustments may make a horse's times seem unrealistic. I have seen first fraction velocity's on some horse's in the 61 and over FPS. Now with Ted's explanation I know why this is the case. It is probably as you suggest in your post not to try to compare these with the DRF or BRIS pp's.

I believe Richie uses the raw unadusted lines in RDSS for Matching up horses. Anyhow these posts help me clarify a couple of things that I had concerns about. Thanks-----Houndog.

Robert, Houndog,

Actually, although it would be a lot of work (and definitely something for the future), soon after I digested the adjustment process Doc had created, it occurred to me that it could in fact be a better choice to adjust all lines to today's track, rather than to Sartin Downs -simply by the device of identifying the ITV for today's track/surface/distance and calling it 0, then expressing all the other ITVs as differentials from that 0 ITV. By this means, times for horses with PP lines from today's track would appear more normal when adjusted (i.e. the only remaining adjustments would be DTV and distance equalizations). There should be no relative differences in factor rankings and ultimate predictivity (though the actual numbers ranked would differ).

But I had to deliver something which could be proven to function as Val and Spec have done (for credentials). Once those credentials are established, we can start to take the steps into the future I'd like to think Doc would have done (and if we're lucky, may give guidance on, going forward).

Ted

Ted,That sounds great if it ever could be done.Jeff

Ted,

Thanks for the coverage of Sartin Downs. I've always loved that track and thought it was a brilliant solution for the problems they faced at the time. I have used a Timex/Sinclair, and its computing power was definitely underwhelming. Even if you could get the little power adapter to work, the picture tended to come and go. I love those references to it in the yellow manual.

Brohammer's 1st edition talks about using hand calculators and equalizing to the track you are playing. It makes a lot of sense when you are only playing Southern California and have few shippers.

When the Sartin Methodology spread out nationwide a few years earlier, adjusting to today's track was not feasible on the toy computers of the era. Enter Sartin Downs. When you don't have all the tools you need, use the tools you have.

I would be very curious as to whether you would gain anything with adjusting to today's track, or just add another layer of adjustment and create more error. Doc seemed to have a marvelous ability to balance pulling adjustments out of the air and then minimizing harmful effect those adjustrments might have.

I think it is great advice to get familiar with Sartin Downs from the old manuals. To a great extent, every race we handicap is still being run there.

Dick

I am officially holding my breath, and WILL hold your feet to the fire.:)

Dick

Ted,
What do you think polytracks pacelines do to Sartin Downs? Because poly isn't going away and limited at this point, would it be better to adjust pacelines to today's races? Whichever you choose it won't be easy.
Dave

Polytrack may not be going away, but at this point it has shown no consistancy at all from track to track. Places like Woodbine have shown little effect, while tracks like Keeneland have had an extremely dramatic effect.

At no place do they seem to feel they've gotten it right, so I don't see how we can start making major adjustments to Sartin Downs or anywhere else.

My general feeling is that it is hard to get a start on, but if you don't use all your energy early, you can run forever. The main complaint I've heard from people who've followed it closely is a lack of consistency on each individual track.

I came up with equitrack at Remington Park in the late 80's and early 90's. It never did develop a consistent profile in the four or so years they raced on it. It didn't freeze in the winner, but formed ice crystals between the polyester chunks and got very skittish, so they had to cancel anyway. In the summer, it was lightning fast until it got too hot and turned into goo that stuck to the horses hooves. It turned out that it did not hold up that well over the increased use in this country and the temprature extremes and required considerably more expensive maintenance than a normal dirt surface and more frequent replacement.

Maybe they can make it work this time. I wish them luck. It also may still go away after awhile if it becomes more expensive and doesn't show consistent safety benefits. More people will look stupid this time, but bottom line is bottom line, and executives can be replaced.

Dick