Workouts

[racer100]

I am posting this hoping to open a limited recommendation list for Ted as far as the workouts screen. In reading some material by William Scott and Doc Sartin I see that they both recommend to translate the workout times into a feet per second speed. I think this would be helpful to have as a new column added next to the existing "Rank" column. The most important workouts are at 6 and 8 furlongs. The rest are pretty much meaningless per these 2 authors. a workout at 3F will have a highly abnormal speed and anything higher than 8F will have a lower speed. Pretty meaningless when you are trying to compare this with 5F, 6F, 7F. Even after having the feet per second speeds, it will not allow us to compare against a contender with previous lines since the actual contender with lines does not have the feet per second calculated. A way to compare would be to "translate" the workouts into call times. Take for example a 6F workout. Its 1st call would be at 1/4 mile and 2nd call would be at 1/2 mile. Knowing the speed as feet per second at the finish line (for the workout), a linear proportion can be established where times can be calculated for the 1st and 2nd workout calls. These figures in turn can be used to compare this "only workouts" contender (without any lines) to the rest of the field. The paceline established by one of the contenders with lines can be matched up against workout lines as well. This is just an idea and I would appreciate any feedback on this since it will be helpful to all of us to have this feature implemented instead of simply just passing the race in case of no lines on more than 2 contenders. Thanks for your input.

[tompkins]

No pace pressure, no idea if they worked in company close to or off the rail, no idea if the trainer was teaching another animal along with it or trying out new equipment, rider could be upwards of 160 pounds and is often the trainer looking to find out the horse's action NOT trying any particular speed work...WORKOUTS are mutually exclusive to races and only mean exercise or training NOT racing. Would you score a gymnast by looking at his/her workouts? A concert painist by the exercises he did?

[socantra]

Most of my favorite tracks don't even show a workout unless the trainer specifically asks for it because he needs an official work.

Not passing races with more than two first time starters is a good way to piss away your bankroll.

William Scott did like to consider workouts, but I suspect that the collected writings of Doc Sartin on workouts over the last 25 years would take up less than 4 pages. Its a factor he generally ignored, in part because of all the information you don't get from the workout tab. Listing them in feet per second might make the info look more meaningful, but it won't ,make it any more useful.

Dick...

[JimG]

My use of workouts involves SoCal only and I am concerned with when and how often a horse works (looking for consistency) as opposed to how fast the horse works. I pretty much ignore workouts at other tracks due to their lack of consistent availablility.

Jim

[racer100]

Originally Posted by JimG

My use of workouts involves SoCal only and I am concerned with when and how often a horse works (looking for consistency) as opposed to how fast the horse works. I pretty much ignore workouts at other tracks due to their lack of consistent availablility.

Jim

Jim,
I mean this is fine and dandy..but even if the horse has been worked out often -- how do identify it as a contender if it does not have any lines?? How do you match it against the other contenders that have actual lines? This is why I believe a better protocol is needed for the workout screen..do you agree?

[socantra]

Originally Posted by racer100

I mean this is fine and dandy..but even if the horse has been worked out often -- how do identify it as a contender if it does not have any lines?? How do you match it against the other contenders that have actual lines?

The point is, under the Sartin Methodology you can't identify a horse as a contender if it does not have any lines and you can't match it up against the other contenders.

It is not a methodology for first time starters and the near universal reccomendation is that if you have many first time starters or foreign horses with no running lines, you pass the race. If you only have one and it has long odds you can usually ignore it. If a first time starter goes off at short odds you should probably also consider passing the race.

From the very beginning, the Sartin methodology has stated over and over again that it is not for first time starters. You are certainly free to bet on whatever races you choose, but to ask the program to give some sort of apparent legitimacy to something it was never intended to be used for is IMO not a reasonable request and is more akin to putting lipstick on a pig. It would still be a pig.

Dick

[JimG]

Originally Posted by racer100

Jim,
I mean this is fine and dandy..but even if the horse has been worked out often -- how do identify it as a contender if it does not have any lines?? How do you match it against the other contenders that have actual lines? This is why I believe a better protocol is needed for the workout screen..do you agree?

I merely use workouts as a negative, not as a positive. A lack of consistent works in SoCal is a negative for me, unless Mullins is the trainer. I do not play many races wherein a horse has never run before. The only exception to that is in a mandatory contest race and when that rarity occurs I use trainer/breeding information to make an educated guess.

To answer your question, for me current workout screen in RDSS is okay.

Jim