Pace and Cap  - Sartin Methodology & The Match Up

Pace and Cap - Sartin Methodology & The Match Up (http://paceandcap.com/forums/index.php)
-   Sartin Methodology Handicapping 101 (102 ...) (http://paceandcap.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=116)
-   -   Vector Graphs (http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15329)

DanBoals 12-01-2022 05:45 PM

Vector Graphs
 
Hey there,

I am reading the old Follow Ups and have made it up to Issue #63. Some of the writing and predictions and methods that have changed over the years are really neat to look at with 20/20 hindsight.

An example is that Jim Bradshaw got good at handicapping and the match up by making hundreds and hundreds of Vector Graphs on paper by hand as he was learning the methodology. I am not sure when the vector graphs were dropped, but would like to ask: Does anyone still use them?

I know in Synthesis, the software calculated and showed on screen the Vector Graph. For those that do not know, the data the graph shows is basically just the PoH / PoR of each horse at each of the 3 fractions, based on its chosen paceline. In the made by hand graphs, they were a half circle going from 0 degrees to 180 degrees.

As an example, if a horse wired the race in its paceline, its vector graph numbers would be 0.00 for F1, 0.00 for F2, and 0.00 and in the Synthesis software that would be displayed as a straight line across the screen. If the horse were deficient by 1 fps in F1 and 1 fps in F2 and then caught up to win in F3, its graph would show down -1.00 in F1, down -1.00 in F2 and +2.00 in F3. The idea of the graph is to visually show people how the horse ran in its paceline in comparison to the Pace of the Race, PoR.

It seems like this would be a good thing to look at if you were making a profile.

Has anyone used this before?

Did it help your handicapping / ROI at all?

Is there any way we could get the numbers back? I do not need the graph for modeling, but it would be interesting to see the F1, F2 and F3 numbers. It seems like the 3 numbers would fit on the PoR or PMTR/TPR screen.

tom 12-02-2022 12:59 PM

Tangent reply, but IHMO, the best thing Doc ever did was K Gen, with the paceline graphs. It was so easy the see abberent lines, and made paceline selection so much more effective. Some people see graphically what they don't numericall

shoeless 12-02-2022 01:18 PM

Hi Tom

I remember that was a favorite of Bill V of the older programs

Jeff

Ted Craven 12-02-2022 01:30 PM

Dan, I vaguely remember that. Remind me the FU Issue - is it #63?

I wonder, on net balance, how the graphing of PoR / PoH differential is different from how Doc evolved the Dream Race presentation as shown on the RDSS Segments screen? The best segments (the 'Dream Race/Segments') are shown with RED colouring and everyone else shown/ranked in units-converted-to-beaten-lengths worse than best/dream.

Then, the staggered positioning of the little horses shows that difference in graphical fashion (with final position weighted by TS-F3).

Is the line graph concept just a different method of showing the same thing, communicating info to some folks in ways the existing, particular Segments graphical portrayal does not? Or -- is it possible that it is a 'comfort' hold-over from earlier software which was what initially captured some folks imagination and thus is welcomed because familiar? BTW Tom - I also loved KGEN, though not as much as Thoromation I guess (and now, not as much as RDSS ;)).

I only ask this in general - because, of course, anything can be programmed, but does it give ENOUGH extra value to ENOUGH people to warrant the time spent on it (and conversely, time NOT spent on other things ...). As a programmer, I know you know this calculus :jump:

Thanks Dan for a blast from the past - looking forward to a quick read if you can point me there.

Ted

DanBoals 12-02-2022 02:01 PM

Hey Ted,

It goes back quite a ways, way before #63. When Jimmy became a teaching member, they already had the graphs, so that means they were around pre 1985 or so. I am not sure when they were added to the software so you wouldn't have to make them by hand.

I programmed them into my spreadsheet in less than 5 minutes, but that is only for result charts, not for pre race analysis. If I were adding them, I would go to the Pace of Race Screen and put them between the RS and Tote. The formula, like most of Howard's stuff, is pretty simple. You just take the F1 from the PoH Screen and divide it by the F1 from the PoR screen, multiply by 100, then limit to 2 decimal places. As an example, a line I took from a 6f msw at FG was: -3.03, 2.65, 0.38 which tells us that the horse was behind in F1, then made a big F2 move which it carried into F3 winning. Compared to a lot of the 6f races which were 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 ( which shows a wire to wire victory ) it is an unusual winning effort, especially for a maiden.

The segments screen is different. It uses the F1 and F2 that are the fastest of the horses entered and then an average of the F3 and Total Speed for the final segment. This is a good screen for how the horses running today match up against each other. Howard really loved this "Dream Race" concept.

The difference between the values I am talking about from the old Vector Graphs and the Segments Screen is that the Vector Graph numbers tell how the horse set, overcame or failed against the pace of the race from its paceline. The Segments Screen is projecting how the horse will fare against the horses running today based on the pace of the horses from their pacelines. For class horses that run just fast enough to win, the Vector Graph seems to be a truer show of what they can do.

In one of the old follow ups, Howard talks about different running styles that can be analyzed from the Vector Graph, like the msw winner I showed above, he would have labeled that a horse that made a second fraction move carried into the third fraction. He had like 15 different classifications, much more than simply ESP.

I can do the math on the Windows calculator in 10 minutes per race, so it is not a deal breaker or anything, it would just be nice to have it in the software. I should probably keep things like this to myself in case they turn out to be profitable, but it seemed like something that the methodology used to have, but lost when Guy started doing the software and I thought it might be helpful to others as well as myself.

Lt1 12-02-2022 02:59 PM

Why would you want to go back to the past for something that is not needed. Everything you need to win is already in RDSS today.
Tim

DanBoals 12-02-2022 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lt1 (Post 148118)
Why would you want to go back to the past for something that is not needed. Everything you need to win is already in RDSS today.
Tim

It is ego.

I do not want a thirty cents on the dollar ROI if I can get a two dollar and fifty cents ROI. I do not want the winner in my top 3 80% of the time if I can have the winner in my top 1, 75% of the time.

For me, handicapping isn't about grinding out a small profit. It is a challenge to my mind. I joined the US Army when I was 17 years old back in 1984, my parents had to sign permission for me to join since I was still legally a child. They made me a Signals Intelligence Analyst. They sent me to school to learn Korean. I learned how to draw conclusions from patterns in communication traffic. I learned cryptography. I loved figuring out things that no one else could figure out. That is what made that job a great fit for me, even if a peace time army was not a good fit. I love finding patterns.

I got out of the army in 1992 and went to work in Los Angeles developing software. I bought Synthesis in 1999 and met Howard in 2000 when I was having trouble showing a profit with his software. I spent over a month with him helping him with his software and telling him how to incorporate his ideas into the software and how I would convert it over to Windows. Unfortunately, by 2000, Howard was pretty much a broken man. He spoke about the banquet they had for him, and his thought was not that people loved him and wanted to thank him, his thought was that people were symbolically burying him and moving on. He had lost his will to improve the software and lead the methodology and just seemed sad and tired.

I can understand how you see it as the past, since chronologically it used to be in the software and is not now. But I do not think it was supposed to be that way. Were Howard 20 years younger when I met him and not in depression, I believe that those vectors or whatever you would like to name them, the same ideas that Bradshaw and Howard had based Synthesis on, would be the basis for the current methodology.

Having studied them for the last month, I am already seeing patterns in them that are helping me to see which horses are most likely the winner, and which will end up in the money. This is to a degree that the current corollaries do not even come close to matching, at least with my pacelines and my handicapping.

I am certainly not trying to tell other people how to do it. If what you do works for you, awesome! If you like your win percentage and your ROI, great! Don't change. But for me, standing still is not an option. In horse racing, as in many fields, there are very few new ideas. Old ideas are constantly "rediscovered". What makes something profitable in a parimutuel betting system is whether or not the majority of the money is bet on it or something else. Since no one is looking at this these days, that is a good thing to me, not a bad thing.

Lt1 12-02-2022 06:29 PM

Hi Dan. I appreciate the amount of work you are doing on this but my question is do not the segment and POH screens contain the same info. You can sort the POH screen by fraction and the Segment screen gives you both numerical and visual pictures of the matchup. How exactly would the vector graphs improve upon them?. Wishing you success with your project.
Tim

Ted Craven 12-02-2022 09:21 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Dan, something like this? It took me about 5 minutes, as you said (so I feel like I didn't waste much time away from other stuff to try this ;)). Line graphing the info would take longer.

In just this example, not sure what use to make of these figs ... I will leave them in for the next round of RDSS Update testing, though not guaranteeing they will make a final/public cut.

I do recall something similar in maybe PaceLauncher, or Quad-Rater, maybe Synthesis as you suggest. Anyway, a differential between PoR and PoH velocities to see how a horse is setting or overcoming (or not) the pace of its race.

I have been guided by Doc - in person early on with RDSS - and then in 'spirit' by asking the question: why is such and such a readout (from earlier software) NOT included in Validator (the reference point for RDSS along with Speculator, since I had the source code). I have to believe, in a larger context, that Doc only removed things, compared to earlier software, because he believed it was more noise than signal - more confusion than clarity - too much detail. I don't know if this Pace Vector idea qualifies as too much, or redundant. I am open to being persuaded otherwise, but there would have to be multiple scenarios where this info provides BETTER info than what is existing.

In other words - every new readout has to earn its keep. Already, people try RDSS and are overwhelmed. I don't want to disservice future users by adding more. But - if it can be turned into some kind of (even situational) secret sauce, then lets keep on researching.

Ted

Attachment 50553

Attachment 50552

DanBoals 12-02-2022 09:25 PM

Ted,

That is pretty cool, look forward to tracking it. Thank you!

Dan


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.