Which Screens to Use?
 

A newer Spec160 user writes:

'With Validator I found that LS was the most predictive factor. Earlier versions of Spec I used the CBL screen. With Spec160 I am not sure what screen I should be using. Maybe the BL/BL screen?? What do you think?'

I think that different factors apply to different races, though some have near universal utility. Presuming using a regular, consistent paceline selection procedure, Total Energy should show the winner in the Top 5 a high percentage of the time, though not enough to succeed with.

In general, focusing on the Perceptor I ranking or the BL/BL rankings will get you the prime contenders within the Top 3 or 4, then you can determine if other rankings (screens) tell you to eliminate one of those high rated or include another lower rated contender. If your record of certain track/distances show you that surplus Early energy Difference (E/L screen) trumps Total Energy (e.g. often Aqueduct Inner sprints, or Woodbine sprints, but check your own records), investigate the chances of such ranked horses and seek corrollaries.

In a Turf route, I'd want to see good rankings from LPR and HID (from Turf lines) and correlate that with similar rankings from TPP and maybe L/EP. If you keep some records of different races you handicap, you will start to see which factors always show up in certain types of races, at certain tracks.

Ted

Thanks Ted--very helpful for a new user.

it varies
 

Toral energy is much more predictive in ROUTES than sprints. TPP is a good one for routes.
Often a horse with improving early speed does not "finish up" the race before it wins next out and the 2nd calls are more important.

Turf routes, the incremental deceleration screen or the True Speed/Deceleration can be the most predictive.

ALWAYS consult the longshot detector screen to see pace of race/pace of horse. A great one to see if you get verification from other screens.

To complicate matters, all these VARY by track......The answer is not an easy one.

Remember what the watch words are
CONSISTENCY
CONFIDENCE
COROLLARIES - this last one is often overlooked and depends on the specifics of the course you are following.

Once you get into a good habit of reviewing, then you can begin "splitting hairs."

E/L relativity helps tremendously. You have your choices down to three? Go for the more positive average e/l from the standards you have gleaned from many races.

i.e. a sprint a inner Aqu where the averge winning e/l for 6.0 is around +12. Your three finalists have an average e/l of +2, +11, +12....No brainer, the last two would be the dutch bet.

If there were ANY modification I would ask for Spec, it would be to allow a "window" to outline the range of e/l's established at a distance and track to overlay the e/l screen to remind the user what the NORMAL range of winners is for that track. These numbers are NOT collected from charts, but from the lines projected into today's contest.

I agree wholeheartedly with this! Alas it won't be happening with Spec160. With RDSS, absolutely, as part of normal model-keeping.

Ted