[thelyingthief]

FWIW:

using the two horse here is the reason auto fails - the horse set a pace 6+ lengths slower in his race than the other early, Moon on a ho-hum -16 TV, and is NOT a true contender. Moon has a slower final time, but this is not a final-time methodology.
He will not need to run to the 113+ pace here, and have 10 units of increased energy at the finish (2 for 1, Pizzola). Hence, when synergism interprets the matchup, it concedes a huge adjustment to the 2 and skews the readouts accordingly.
Moreover, when using raw figures in synergism, you are in Phase lll, and this requires inputting your own variants, your own track class adjustments, and your own track intra-class adjustments, and looking at the energy demands of the track, determined by model.

i personally try to look at contenders through Bradshaw's eyes - pace/race shapes and, the match-up/fulcrum. As he points out, the fulcrum must include the early fraction, as the probable location of a horse, no matter the running style, at both that and the pace calls makes him a contender or not.

The great thing about synergism, and all the early programs, is the reliance on one's own brain, you have to handicap the race. This is also the bad thing, as it's a lot of work. And to that, in this age of statistical approaches to the game, and ADW take-out allowances to the big players, it is precisely in one's doing what they do not do that gives us an edge - and they do not do match-ups, they do not do analysis. They have IV's for a race's participants, and when those are above the ROI for one or another horse (set by breakage and takeout (their price - ours is 10+ percentage points higher), their algorithm pulls the trigger (trying, by the way, not to affect the odds, so at small tracks they might be betting 50 dollars). They are playing 30 tracks a day, floating big handles. Good news, we get better mutuels than they, understand our track better than they, and suck their money down.

tlt