Quote:
Originally Posted by J2EEDeveloper
In the first stage of race analysis, the color designations for top 3 are based on APV and CR. That immediately points out entries that may be glaringly deficient in this area (45%, 50%). Are there any generic guidelines for eliminations/contender designations at this point, using only the APV and CR?
Individual races vary, of course, but I am wondering if anyone has done any serious testing of the APV and CR designations. For example, how often does an entry with APV and or CPR 50% or less actually win? Or 60% or less? And how much confusion is introduced in the readouts by including such an entry as a contender?
Information, insights, suggestions, and ideas will be appreciated.
Thanks
|
Hi J2,
The late Guy Wadsworth, who wrote most of the late Sartin software told me that 90% of all winners were in the top five of APV, in all classes, and although he presented no validating charts or evidence, this seems accurate to me as a ballpark figure.
Just anecdotally, I've found APV to be most useful at the high end, above GR. II, and the low end, below 10k - not incidentally the areas in which the various pace numbers, including TE, tend to be less useful. It's not unusual to get a stakes race exacta by simply boxing the top three APVs. BTW, this is true for winners only sub-10k, not place and show necessarily.
The main problem with APV, as FTL's useful chart indicates, is that it's a very obvious and overbet factor, with subsequently no wager value under most circumstances. As far as its utility in eliminating 'false positive' TEs with cheap speed, it's not as accurate as simply eyeballing the PPs. In general TE 'false positives' are more likely to fall into the category of 'herd' horses - those that generally run well but prefer to lose. You can recognize them by the preponderance of yellow and green in their PP finish positions.
Best of luck.
Cheers,
B Jennet