TPR Program

[socantra]

Thanks Rich,

I was having a hard time getting accross that the relationship netween the fractions is quite often much more important than the TPR on its own. Yhe TPR will get you a number of winners by itself, but the 'magic' is in the internals.

Dick

[JoeLong]

Hi Richie,

Thanks for the information, tell me what software do you use to create a TPR track profile?

Joe.

[RichieP]

Originally Posted by JoeLong

Hi Richie,

Thanks for the information, tell me what software do you use to create a TPR track profile?

Joe.

Joe,
I never used software to generate a track profile when I was using "Tpr". I always used the result charts and raw numbers. They were amazingly accurate.

Let me show you how ok? It's easy.

I am using the ORIGINAL epr/ffr numbers that were in the black edition of PMTR. The one that DID have Doc and Pizzola in it.

I have those epr/ffr charts memorized in my head though I haven't seen one in over a decade.

Here is a result chart from yesterday at Philly. The winner was in the lead at the 2nd call and the time was 45.3. That is a 92 Epr rating.

Final time is 116.3. That means it took 31 seconds exactly to run the final fraction. at 6.5f the ffr rating based on the ORIGINAL Pmtr chart earns the 31 an 88 rating.

so we have 92+88=180. Epr+Ffr=Tpr. Now we insert a "difference" number at the end to show the relationship of early (epr) to late(ffr).

the "difference" between 92 and 88 is a -4.
if Epr was 88 and Ffr was 92 "difference" would be +4. Follow?

So our profile sheet for the race would look like this Joe:
92-88=180 Diff -4

You DO need the charts from the book to figure them til they become ingrained in your head.

Does this help you?

[froggy]

Joe,

I love it when there is this much input on a subject. See what you started.

What everybody is pointing out is quite true. How a horse runs the race is one of the best predictors of his chances to win today.

What Shoeless and myself pointed out about a horse with 4 or more TPR/CPR
points is a horse that probably will dominate today and is tough to bet against.
A favorite that is weak in early/late and total TPR/CPR like the one that Richie pointed out is a good one to bet against.
Here are the results of that race.

[shoeless]

Joe,Im just using total numbers.I use Forego's method which he learned by Richie and only doing early or other then early races.I then only enter those horses which fit the way I precieve the race.It's been working well so far.Jeff

[shoeless]

Dick,In the older book did you read Pizzolla's section on using the fulcrum with TPR numbers?Im rereading it now and thought it was interesting.What do you think of using the fulcrum as a way to get down to contenders?Jeff

[socantra]

Jeff, I never really found the fulcrum concept to be of much value at all. I was mostly playing Remington Park the last time I gave it a serious look, and it seemed like after going to all the trouble, the fulcrum was so loose that it only got rid of 2 or 3 horses that you could pretty well eliminate just by looking at the numbers themselves.

Remington was Equitrack in those days and all but the slowest of critters could turn fairly decent early fractions. Maybe its of more use other places. I tend to agree with Jim Bradshaw, that the 2nd call is too late to start trying to figure out the pace of the race.

I also used to note the pace of the race that all the horses ran their EPRs against in the form. I didn't use it as part of my TPR, just a stand alone number on the same scale. So, if the horse ran a 90 EPR and 82 FFR and was 2 lengths back at the 2nd call, I'd have a stream of numbers like 92-90-82-172. It seemed to be about as useful as the fulcrum.

Dick

[thelyingthief]

you know, i sometimes founder in these discussions because they're so "program" oriented. i think every one of sartins's programs will do the job; it's mostly determining which program is most effective with your particular bent and handicapping style. after that, you're home free. or i should say, you start dealing with the real issues. and if asked to name what the "real" issues are, i'd say contender and paceline selection--with contender selection heading the list.

and there's hardly any discussion of that here. i had a 50+ horse at WO last week, and the ONLY way i hit it was through a longitudinal study of every kind of race condition, and which paceline selection works best with it. obviously, studies like these lie outside of any in-situ handicapping procedure.

it is a fact that, for me, i either adhere to my indicators, and interpret them exactly the same every time, or i am lost in a sea of judgments, nuance, and speculation. it is true that my most successful and spectacular plays have been the product of "handicapping", seeing deeply into the character of a race, and nailing it down hard; but even there, the selections were produced by the dent of hard labor, use of pencil and paper, db's, and isolations, things that had been done without reference to the race in hand.

as an aside, this argument over the epr/lpr difference is over-simplified. in SCal racing, whatever that difference may be is generally of no use. that does not mean it should not be tracked, because it CAN and sometimes DOES become a viable readout; it just means that none of these numbers are the grail, that the difference number, or the ranking of the seperate factors, has no significance in vacuo.

as another observation, it seems to me that TPR is subject to the very same criticism often directed to Beyer's figs: they are pace handicapping's equivalent of "mainstream", and have a deflated value, by and large. i am much more inclined to base my decisions on factors i know the majority of users of these programs, or this methodology, are ignorant of, or dismiss. and i can categorically state that my largest and most successful runs have come when i detect a readout that contradicts the prevaling perception of a track's bias. the EP bias at SA or WO; the LP bias of turf races on the summer lawns at HO, eg.

i can only re-state (although with reservations, since i have not tested every program that PIRCO or its offshoots have produced) that it is the work i do OUTSIDE the methodology, per se, that accounts for my beating this game. i just do not think success can be had any other way, not on a long term basis.

[peter e]

Michael Pizzolla sold a program called "The Essential Handicapper". It was a TPR program. Haven't heard anything about it in about ten years. Occasionally a copy shows up on ebay
You could manually enter the data or download it, though the download was full of mistakes.
On the left side of the readout would be the first line entered for each horse. On the right side would the paceline you selected. You could enter different pacelines and the readouts would change automatically.
You could keeep a model and a track profile which would be printed below your numbers.
It is a very nice program for using TPR.

[tom]

I liked to use the fulcrum as a way to excuse a race.
If I was projecting a 92 today, and the pace of race for one of the horses was 98, I would excuse that race and go back. That worked very well.