Which PL would you select?
 

I chose the last race because, well it was the most recent, the same distance, and the same surface. However, Preceptor suggests PL2 which is 6.5 Poly. As you can imagine, it makes a big difference. With PL1 the horse is the Tier 4 horse, with PL2 it jumps to Tier 1. Unfortunately, the horse was scratched so I'll never know which line was most appropriate.

Any thoughts on this?

Bill

http://www.paceandcap.com/forums/pic...&pictureid=952

Unless the horse got hit by a runaway Good Humor truck, I'd use a turf paceline for a turf race.

Bill

Unless you have no option use a comparable surface lines

field
 

Hi Bill

Looking at the rest of the field and seeing
wins and ITM finishes for horse 2 3 and 5 on the 6.5 down the hill turf course
plus some good races turf sprinting for the FH#4, I would not be too forgiving of the not so hot effort on the hill for horse 1 I would base my judgement for horse 1 off the 6.5 turf down the hill line #1

In this example with these hill and dale 6.5 furlong course
I'm from the show me state

Thanks guys. That's good advice.

In that race I bet my top two picks, the 2 and 3 horses. The 3 horse paid 26.40. I only bet three races on that card and it was a nice hit. The other 2, not so much.

Thanks,

Bill P

Before I answer YOUR question, I have a question for you.

If this horse had NOT been scratched, and if you had used line 2, and if this horse had run “up the track”, what would YOU have thought looking back at YOUR line selection for this horse or even YOUR decision to include the horse at all?

I ask you this question in this way, since “failure” is the only reason for re-consideration of what you have done. There is nothing worse than an “early success” that will ultimately lead you down the path of ruin because you are not aware that you are doing anything wrong.

Now my answer to your question.

( c ) none of the above

1 – I would not use any horse that hasn’t run in the last 90 days (94% of all races at all tracks all over the U.S. and Canada are won by horses that have raced in the last 90 days year in and year out.)

2 – had the two races in question been within the last 90 days, I would choose NOT to use this horse. It was beat by 5 horses in its’ last race and 6 horses in the 2nd race back and was NOT “in the hunt” in either race

3 – turf lines should always be used in favor of any other surface. Turf is turf and anything else is "other than turf". If the horse does not have a turf line, eliminate the horse.

4 – if the field of horses you are currently working with do not have many turf lines, you always have the option to PASS THE RACE or.......... throw darts while being blindfolded

5 – if you look across each line there is a column labeled “SR” (speed rating), you will notice that line 1 indicates an SR of 90, while line 2 has a SR of 104. THAT is the reason for the horse showing much better using line 2 than line 1

6 – computer programs “crunch numbers” that’s all. It is up to YOU to make decisions about the numbers you ask the computer program to analyze.

7 – better decisions by YOU equals better results

Good Luck!

Sea The Stars wins Guineas over 8f and then steps up to the Derby distance of 12f 10yds

Should we eliminate him just because of this??


Ravens Pass and Henrythenavigtor have never run on Pro-Ride or ran a distance of 10f or ran at a track like SA.

Should we eliminate them just because of these unknowns too ??

FTL, thanks for the insights and advice. I tend to be a person that likes order so the guidelines of the "methodology" are very comforting to me. In the race we're discussing I selected the most recent 6.5 turf line because that is what the "methodology" suggest in this case. People smarter than me have figured this out some time ago and I abhor reinventing the wheel.

I'm a tad anal retentive about research so I have been searching the various threads I find in the forum archives on a variety of topics. I have to say I have very few questions that I can't find an answer for somewhere in the archives.

Because of my research, and your insights and advice, I think I'm making better decisions each new race, not too many, I still struggle, but still getting better. I also think I'm improving on my ability to pass on races. Maybe I'm passing on too many value opportunities; but, at this stage of my learning, I'd rather be too choosy than too loose with the races I actually wager on.

Again, thanks for the help.

Bill

Sidenote on use of 6.5 turf lines from SA
 

last year I did a study of the relationship between all turf sprints in Socal and SA 6.5 turf sprints down the hill. The adjusted speed ratings (SR) for down the hill turf sprints are about 4 to six points less than flat sprints at Hollywood for the same horse (only compared what each horse did vs himself on the different surfaces). My study included sprint winners on both surfaces. Very few approached their Hollywood SRs at SA, Even California Flag was 3-4 points low, so I mentally do not dismiss a SA 73 when matching against other flat turf sprinters in the 76 to 78 range. The program usually adjusts the SA turf sprint lines out of such matchups. So if I have 3 or 4 flat sprinters vs 3 or 4 SA down the hillers, I usually eliminate the worst of both and bet accordingly.

Because of the way the SA course is set up it messes with the internal fractions of the race a lot. So when you adjust a 21.2 first fraction from SA it shows up as a high 22 low 23 first fraction. And there is about a 2.7 second adjustment needed to slow down SA sprinters at the 6f mark in order to compare to final times for horses that sprinted 6f on turf.

Food for thought,

Bill

I'm assuming you refer to the Trackmaster #'s used by RDSS, Bill, because the BRIS speed figs I use certainly don't have that relationship. What I find is that there are few horses who like both courses - they prefer one or the other.

The downhill course is 64.5 feet less than 6.5 furlongs and those quick early fractions are generated down hill with that left turn as they cross the dirt and head for the stretch. I have found that the best bets are those who have shown a liking for the course before or sometimes a turf miler with good early positioning can do well.

I try to use SA @6.5 pace lines only if capping a SA @6.5 race and for nothing else. It's hard to adjust them to the HOL course or to use them to project a route.

This last has been what I've used in the past and only strayed recently due to the closeness of poly form to turf form. See below.

Yes, I was referring to the adjusted SR created by RDSS. In a just run race at SA you will see the winner Vikkilee had a 78 SR vs the best of other at 82. My quickly assembled model of 15 races, (which you caused to happen BTW) showed that winner came from top three F3 and top three VDC, FX and Fractal L. Unfortunately I jumped to the 3 and got nosed at wire. But if you add 5 pts or more to the 78 it bests the field. I used the last line for 3 because it looked improved.

Regards,

Bill

more screen shots
 

more shots

And the Binder Improver wins...Ouch. I bet 3-2 one way only. Oh well.

Gotcha, Bill, now I'm clear. Hey, if I got you to start looking at a track model, then I feel I did my job. Keep it as simple as you can.

I didn't have time to cap yesterday but I went back and looked at it. I'm at work so I can't put up any screens but here's the way I worked it:

My contenders were the 4 horses that had previously run on the turf - Foxy Bailey, Vikkilee, Entabeni, and Forever My Love. I did not consider the poly horses as contenders.

We gave Foxy and Vikki the same pacelines.

I used Entabeni's down the hill race - visually it's not so good looking but he was 3 lengths off at the 2nd call. I didn't want to use a dirt sprint if I could avoid it.

I wasn't particularly fond of the M/L favorite as he didn't show a turf sprint and I wasn't about to give him his last turf route as the speed fig (BRIS) seemed aberrant. I think I went one back on Forever My Love.

As i've mentioned before, the turf has leaned towards my EXDC screen, especially at a mile but at all distances, including down the hill.

I adjusted the race as the total energy produced by the down the hill pacelines is always significantly higher than an HOl turf sprint or any turf route.

My EXDC screen showed Vikkilee as a comfortable winner with Entabeni 2nd. My SP screen showed Forever My Love as the winner, which often happens when you shorten up a mile paceline - Entabeni again was 2nd.

If you're betting 2 horses to win, you bet Vickilee and Entabeni. Every $4 got you $7.20, a not too shabby 80% return.

Track Modeling
 

Bill: a bit off the specific thread topic but a model can also keep you off making a bad or forced bet.

The 7th race at SAX on April 7th if I recall correctly was a short field turf mile with 2 short favorites. I wanted to see if I could beat them so I capped it. Model for the turf mile at SAX has been almost exclusively my EXDC screen the whole meet.

I threw out one horse right away ( I think it's name was Soul something or other). Trulymet was an early horse that fit the model but was 0 or 1 for a million and Van Berg rarely wins, but it looked like it could show at high odds.

I ran the other 4 contenders through EXDC/Thoromation with recent pacelines (mostly last) and ran the race adjusted and unadjusted. Looking at the EXDC screen, both favorites came up on top of the EXDC screen, one or the other in either scenario. The other 2 contenders were going off in the 4-1,9/2 range, but to me they had no shot, esp. in a short field based on the model.

So, no win bets as no price.

What about the exacta? Didn't see any value there either, putting the SP screen horses, which were tied btw, on the bottom. What if the 2 favs finsihed 1-2? You couldn't even buy a beer with the payoff. So no exacta bet.

What about the tri? I don't play them often and I did like Truly for the show, but I decided there was no value there either. It did pay $43 and it would have been a small bet (2-2-1), but I'm not losing sleep over not betting it.

So, in essence, my model kept me from forcing a bet on the SP screen, trying to beat the favorites, as they finished 1-2.