Huey Mahl's Physics proof elaborated

[lone speed]

Bill...

I am well aware that the Pimilco Special is a grade 3 race nowadays but it is marathon distance so perhaps the trainer wanted to see what he has in Noble Bird. Whether the trainer can aim Noble Bird for the Breeders Cup Classic at a mile and 1/4 towards the end of the year.....

Regarding the use of Epr and Lpr numbers for our topic; let's keep in mind that the EPR consists of two fractions of the early pace and is not "optimal" to break out the energy expenditure. I think that Bris early pace numbers of the first two early pace fractions might be more appropriate. (jmho )

[Mitch44]

I agree lone speed that EPR "is not "optimal" to break out energy expenditure" and one should use the 1st FR and the 2nd Fr.

Having used BRIS pace numbers for years they do not represent the 1st & 2nd FR. They represent the 1st FR, SC & or EPR and 3rd FR. One can find this in their library. The way they represent gives you an indication of deceleration but for true 2nd Fr one would have to extract the 2nd FR or turn time. This can easily be done but it won't match their formulas for ratings of the 1st FR but it can easily be done. Drudgery! You would be much better off using what's in RDSS as far as the three fractions for matching up.

Mitch44

[lone speed]

Originally Posted by Mitch44

I agree lone speed that EPR "is not "optimal" to break out energy expenditure" and one should use the 1st FR and the 2nd Fr.

Having used BRIS pace numbers for years they do not represent the 1st & 2nd FR. They represent the 1st FR, SC & or EPR and 3rd FR. One can find this in their library. The way they represent gives you an indication of deceleration but for true 2nd Fr one would have to extract the 2nd FR or turn time. This can easily be done but it won't match their formulas for ratings of the 1st FR but it can easily be done. Drudgery! You would be much better off using what's in RDSS as far as the three fractions for matching up.

Mitch44

Absolutely!!!! The energy screen is the most "optimal" place to evaluate the match-up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Energy advantage/disadvantage in the first call and/or the second call is basically the"match-up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As much as many of us would like to emulate the man with the "Stetson" hat; there is only one.

[Bill Lyster]

Well, the reason I used TPR is because in some of The Hat's explanations he considered both the first and second fractions time and added or subtracted based on the total differential to whatever race he was matching.

So a horse having to race against 21.3 (tenths) vs 22, would be running 2 ticks faster, and if the two ticks faster carried through the 2nd fraction such that 44.3 was required instead of a 45, that was counted as an addition two ticks, (now totaling 4) such that the projected 3rd fraction was going to be impacted by 8 ticks slower.

I could never understand when to count the 2nd fraction differences or whether to go with just the first fraction differences. More troublesome were route races where the variance between 4 furlong and 6 furlong calls appears greater than in sprints and where the adds in one fraction should be compounded or lessened by what happened in the next fraction. Its one thing to normally run 47-111 and then throw in a 46 - 110 vs constant pressure as opposed to running 46 -111.X that put away the early contenders. Its a mystery that I could never get a straight answer for back in the day, and don't really expect to be enlightened at this late date. But I am willing to listen, nonetheless.

Regards,

[lone speed]

Originally Posted by Bill Lyster

Well, the reason I used TPR is because in some of The Hat's explanations he considered both the first and second fractions time and added or subtracted based on the total differential to whatever race he was matching.

So a horse having to race against 21.3 (tenths) vs 22, would be running 2 ticks faster, and if the two ticks faster carried through the 2nd fraction such that 44.3 was required instead of a 45, that was counted as an addition two ticks, (now totaling 4) such that the projected 3rd fraction was going to be impacted by 8 ticks slower.

Bill...

I am not going to enlightened anyone here as my original intent was to prove that any first call expenditure affected the final time by a factor of two while any 2nd call expenditure- only affected the final time by an equal amount of energy.

Horses are limited by faster acceleration of two units generally while a higher "ability horses" can withstand a little more. It is similar to us, humans; we can only withstand so much "G Forces." Any faster acceleration will cause "energy dissipation" or "Entropy."

On the other hand; an acceleration of slower fractions than our initial baseline fraction- horses tend to carry this "conserved" energy only so far...It does have a "glass ceiling"....Friction of the track and the natural forces will allow so much energy to carry forward to the final fractions.

As far as applying the "concepts"....(K.I.S.S.)

I tend to limit myself to 1st call slowdown only for lone early speed runners or 1st call and 2nd call slowdowns for lone early speed runners. By evaluating the Energy expenditures section only. Horses must have a certain amount of energy advantage over the next closest competitor-otherwise no adjustments.

For "Fast Up"

Looking at %median of the matchup of true contenders (limited to six contenders or less)

If a horse is deficient by more than 1.5%-2% from the top fulcum horse in %median. Then I adjust the 2nd call faster by one tick or two ticks.

I focus on these adjustments exclusively.....

[lone speed]

Originally Posted by Bill Lyster

Well, the reason I used TPR is because in some of The Hat's explanations he considered both the first and second fractions time and added or subtracted based on the total differential to whatever race he was matching.

Reply: Thank you for your explanation:


I could never understand when to count the 2nd fraction differences or whether to go with just the first fraction differences.

Reply:

Since the first fraction has a more impactful difference to the final time; it might be best to prioritize on the first fraction; first and foremost....then use Sartin program to evaluate the impact of the match-up



More troublesome were route races where the variance between 4 furlong and 6 furlong calls appears greater than in sprints and where the adds in one fraction should be compounded or lessened by what happened in the next fraction. Its one thing to normally run 47-111 and then throw in a 46 - 110 vs constant pressure as opposed to running 46 -111.X that put away the early contenders.

Reply:

In route races, if the baseline is 47.0 for 1st fraction and 111.0 for 2nd fraction:

In today's match-up; if the horse is an early pace runner or an early-presser runner and will face projected pace fractions of 46.0 and 110.0 ...

Unless, the early-presser has a sustained energy paceline, this type of horse will surrender to "Entropy" in today's match-up.......

Example of an "early-presser" with a sustained energy paceline

Most Derby winner---- 3rd fraction of 31 and change from mile and 1/16th races

47.0 for 1st fraction and 111.0 for 2nd fraction and 31.0 for 3rd fraction

This horse is hugely "sustained" especially this powerful 3rd fraction that it will likely overcome the expected matchup with the faster pace.
Its a mystery that I could never get a straight answer for back in the day, and don't really expect to be enlightened at this late date. But I am willing to listen, nonetheless.

Regards,

Looking forward to your reply

[Bill Lyster]

Well, its been about 15 years since I knew what a fulcrum horse was. So all that about so many % off % median has me confused further.

As to the second part of your second reply, I am not seeing it. Sorry. I do better with pictures, screenshots, etc. I don't do abstract too well.

[lone speed]

Originally Posted by Bill Lyster

Well, its been about 15 years since I knew what a fulcrum horse was. So all that about so many % off % median has me confused further.

Okay Bill....(inho)

Say you narrowed the race to 4 or 5 contenders

Horse A: #1 E/EP ranked horse by just by looking at its %percent median; it has 68.5%

Horse A: 68.5%
Horse B: 67.5%
Horse C: 68.25%
Horse D: 67.75%

Horse E: 66.5% percent median

Horse E has a 2% difference in % median in this match-up compared to the highest -Horse A which has 68.5%

You can also look at the Early and Late Sticks and come up with your own parameters at your track. Horse E will have [late side] or - 15.0

This evaluation works best on dirt races.....and fast tracks

Horse E is deficient in percent median and is not within 1.5% of Horse A (The value of 1.5% is the parameter that I have tracked in the past)

Others playing a deep tiring track or a drying out dirt track after some heavy rain; might come up with a different value.

Regarding Horse E: We adjust the second fraction faster by two ticks and add two ticks to the Final Time:

Horse E: original paceline of 48.0 for 1st fraction and 113.0 for 2nd fraction while setting all the fractions in this paceline..

Adjusted paceline: 48.0 for 1st fraction and 112.3(fifths) for 2nd fraction and adding two fifths to the original final time.



As for your 2nd question; I have to find a computer with a "Duck" for posting screenshots...

Examples:

Smarty Jones' paceline in the Rebel

I'll Have Another in the R B Lewis Stakes

Charismatic in the Lexington

[Mitch44]

Its a fallacy to look only at the 1st & 2nd Fr as you stated before. Doing so only makes one an early speed handicapper. It has to be carried through to include the 3rd FR for completeness. Additionally some horses running styles make their 3rd Fr the best or highest and sustained horses, or closers etc. catch the speed everyday throughout the country. The manner in which some horses run make them immune to the 2 to 1 formula or ratio. Yes read that again! Otherwise S types etc. would never win.

Such analysis must be carried through the 3rd Fr or your going to lose many races. The match up is more complicated than just a 2 to 1 formula. That's fine if all the contestants are E types. Total TPR / Total Energy is another major consideration. The match up consist of several important factors. ESP or running styles is perhaps a major consideration, even class has an effect on the match up.

Few are able to carry the match up through the 3rd Fr. Sure we can all do some races and get some winners but I take both the Doc and Jimmies advice and let the computer perform what my brain can't on a consistent basis.

Know your capabilities and limitations to capture the most consistent profits and winners.
Mitch44

[lone speed]

Originally Posted by Mitch44

Its a fallacy to look only at the 1st & 2nd Fr as you stated before. Doing so only makes one an early speed handicapper. It has to be carried through to include the 3rd FR for completeness.



Few are able to carry the match up through the 3rd Fr. Sure we can all do some races and get some winners but I take both the Doc and Jimmies advice and let the computer perform what my brain can't on a consistent basis.


Mitch44

Mitch..

You make strong valid points in your posts....


Just to refresh and so that we are on the same page.

1st Fraction + 2nd Fraction + 3rd Fraction = Final Time

Moving the 3rd Fraction across the equal sign gives us:

1st Fraction + 2nd Fraction = Final Time - 3rd Fraction


In this post, we are focusing on energy expenditure adjustments to faster pace or slower pace and its effect on final time.


We borrowed the above equation and focus on energy changes exclusively.


So we have:

1st Fraction (2) (changes) + 2nd Fraction ( changes) + 3rd (-1) (net changes from 1st and 2nd fraction) = Final Time

Moving the 3rd fraction across the equal sign, we have:


1st F (2)(changes) + 2nd F ( changes) = Final Time - ( net changes from 1st F and 2nd Fractions )

So whatever changes done from the first two fractions are "carried forward" and adjusted to the third fraction. We just moved the third fraction across the "equal" sign to make things easier......


So we do always consider the effect on the 3rd fraction just not implicitly. I have always stressed the use of Sartin programs and applying Bradshaw's match up concepts.