Quote:
Originally Posted by mufasa
Great job Rich in your presentation. As always there will be questions. I could be mistaken but when you first started this post it was about using the MU methodology via the adjusted velocity ratings. If I am seeing things clearly you have used adjusted times with really no mention of the velocity ratings. In addition, as to even the adjusted times you are using only exact distances but could I suppose use distances that are within 1/16F. I could be wrong and am interested in your opinion (or The Hat’s) but when using the adjusted times/velocity ratings we need to stay very close to the distance of the race because the adjustments for distances greater then 1/16F in so far as the MU methodology is concerned can be misleading.
Thanks,
RR
|
"Mu"
THIS race i used all exact distances because of the quirky 5.5f distance. Hat taught me a year ago to really focus on 5.5f lines in 5.5f races ok? It has served me well fwiw
Other races can be treated "normally".
Regarding using the adjusted fractional times I realized after seeing the FPS reads we could probably get an EASIER "picture" of a proj pace and also contender/line selection using that instead of the FPS stuff. Does that make sense?
I really do NOT want to get sooooo precise that a couple of feet per second is going to stop me from including a horse as a contender Robert. This is after all a horse race subject to a lot of random happenings.
I DO want to have an idea that a horse or horses I am considering for a wager has been able to face and COMPETE against a pace VERY CLOSE to today's matchup. I also want to be able to see that my charge is FAST when facing this anticipated pace.
The last piece in all this is:
Am I being compensated for the risk in wagering? Am I getting a PRICE on my FAST horse(s)?
That is the area where personal preferences come into play.
Richie