Sunday 10/2 at Parx - TM104 Race Class

[Ted Craven]

Thank you FTL - your detailed review is much appreciated!

Ted

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

Thank you FTL - your detailed review is much appreciated!

Ted

Thanks Ted.

By the way, I'm sure nobody knows the Sartin programs better than you, so my questions is this; would you say the ENERGY program you have seen me use here was more of an attempt at matching horses and determining the winner based on that match-up as opposed to what seems to me, today, to be a reliance on final time/TE?

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by SilentRun

Hello Richie,

Just looking at the PP for #4 I can see that this horse is strong early.
The other speedballs are the 2 and the 8.

Using the Quirin Speed points: The 2 & 4 both have 7 QSP.
The 8 has 6 QSP. The results of RDSS & NP both favor the 4 & 8 over the 2.

Therefore my 2 top picks are the 4 & 8 for win.

But I would consider the 2-4-8 for an exacta box.

Ernie

I don't use QSP, so I have a question for you.

If I remember correctly QSP are based on running position. Therefore, might this not be better used as "position" points since actual time is not a part of it? Is it not possible that a horse that accumulates the highest number of QSP is not the fastest early horse?

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

Thanks Ted.

By the way, I'm sure nobody knows the Sartin programs better than you, so my questions is this; would you say the ENERGY program you have seen me use here was more of an attempt at matching horses and determining the winner based on that match-up as opposed to what seems to me, today, to be a reliance on final time/TE?

Well, I would say that I have met MANY people who know their Sartin program of choice from years of familiarity much better than I know that program. I started off my computerized horse-racing career with Thoromation, a successor to the original ENERGY, but really cut my teeth on stuff like Quad-Rater, PaceLauncher etc and forward. I do consider myself a bit of an expert in Validator, Speculator and RDSS ...

Such as I do know it, I would agree with you that ENERGY is measuring the relative closeness of horses' energy expenditure (early, late and aggregate) to each other (in other words, as you say, 'matching' them against each other). That's what the Muv value is measuring - how closely bunched the horses' energy expenditures are, is there a standout Early (if so, consult Early horses), are there horses bunched closely behind the 0.0 Muv horse (if so, consult Pressers or Sustainers), etc.

As with ANY program, the input is highly sensitive to chosen pacelines, so it all comes back to one creating for themselves a consistent and sustainable line selection strategy (could be different for Turf vs Dirt, or Maidens vs Winners, or Mountaineer vs the world, etc - but within those categories it needs to be consistent - for each person).

Early always shows up somewhere - in any program, regardless of how portrayed. And same with Late. Readouts may change and measuring finesses evolve but Early versus Late is the eternal crux or a horse-race (if you're not measuring jockeys, trainers and breeding). The Methodology, IMO, is always about how Early is a horse (and yet how residual is it Late) compared to other Earlies - and how Late is a horse (and yet how much early energy does it possess in order to be positioned to best employ what Late is has) - the balance of Early versus Late. And no, Dave Schwartz did not discover Early versus Late

I think modern tools help present this Earliness and Lateness more clearly than the old ones. The aggregate of Early and Late may be presented in composite readouts like Total Energy, BLBL, VDC and TPP - and, since Doc built his methodology on typically multi-horse wagering and eschewing favourites for value, we (or some of us) don't strictly care so much about which ONE horse is the perfectly matched Early or the perfect Late horse in a race. But knowing relative Earliness, whether by the gap between Muv values in ENERGY or the magnitude of the Early/Late Differential graph sticks or dominance at the 1st and 2nd call points on the Segments screen in RDSS, and relative Lateness from who decelerates the least after the second call while travelling fast enough (though not too fast) to matter (i.e. V/DC) - these breakdowns behind the aggregate numbers give quality to those numbers and help a person break ties between the top such 3 or 4 ranked horses (along with odds).

I whole heartedly agree with your emphasis on current fitness, suitability to today's conditions and readiness to duplicate or improve on previous performance numbers. And sometimes, even with all the preparation and contender filters, and the exacting measurement tools we have - a certain percentage of the time either anything can happen and we miss it or miss-bet it, or exactly what we expect does happen - but pays nothing. It is this very uncertainty (short-term) which keeps the game complex and maddening enough to survive trite solutions - and continually invite both newcomers and hard-bitten pros to attempt to defeat it (the current state of horse-racing popularity is a separate discussion).

To summarize - I believe it is not Matchup versus final time/Total Energy - it is 'BOTH/AND'. (But I got that expression from a man with a pipe, and a man with a hat ).

Ted

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

I don't use QSP, so I have a question for you.

If I remember correctly QSP are based on running position. Therefore, might this not be better used as "position" points since actual time is not a part of it? Is it not possible that a horse that accumulates the highest number of QSP is not the fastest early horse?

Excellent point, re QSP! The most likely to take the lead horses (e.g. QSP >= 6) have to be further measured by their velocity and energy expenditure (and current fitness) - AND by who else will make a cheap attempt to force them too fast (aka pace pressure).

I like the caption 'QPP' rather than QSP, and may desigate that traditional readout so in RDSS2.

Ted