Go Back   Pace and Cap - Sartin Methodology & The Match Up > RDSS
Mark Forums Read
Google Site Search Get RDSS Sartin Library RDSS FAQs Conduct Register Site FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts

RDSS Racing Decision Support System – The Modern Sartin Methodology

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-26-2009, 05:36 PM   #1
Bill Lyster
Grade 1
 
Bill Lyster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Escondido CA just 25 minutes from where the turf meets the surf - "...at Del Mar"
Posts: 2,418
Race Analysis Confirmation using the VELOCITY SCREEN

Handicapping from the Velocity Screen

During the days when the Followup was being published Howard would often point to what now is the velocity screen in RDSS and point out a horse that made a move against the field in the middle or latter part of the race. I usually look at this screen to verify the rest of the readouts now, but I have always been curious about the relativity of the numbers. Now, I understand that review of this screen may not be a part of your handicapping process, so if you don't use it and have no comment, that's fine too.

I understand that if we match two need-to-lead types that fractional times (velocities) ought to match up until one or the other caves and the same might be said for trying to determine which of two or more closers or two or more pressers might make the better move.

What I don't really even yet have a feel for is when, for instance, a deficient second fraction from a presser or closer is SO bad that it takes the horse out of contention relative to the horses ahead of it. Obviously when pressers and closers have near equal 2nd fractions and better 3rd fractions than the horses in front of them that is really a positive sign for those horses and really negative for the potential pace setters.

More often the horses that sit behind the leaders have 2nd fractions that appear to make them lose ground only to have bigger #3F's that are more than enough to make up the ground (either that or the up front pace kills them off). I acknowledge that the program does an admirable job most of the time, but it usually overrates closers to the exclusion of horses on the lead. If we could find a way to highlight this potential overrating of the late info, it might provide added consistency to the selection process.

Obvious factors are the differences between 2nd call numbers of the horses being compared and some permutation of the deceleration number possibly combined with the second call number and/or the 3F number. Then too, two horses could have the same third fraction number but the horse with the better total energy would probably get the nod,all else being equal.

Here is an example of what I was talking about. I would also add that writing this after the fact as I am doing is probably allowing too much foresight into the analysis. The example race is from this year’s Preakness.

I included Friesan Fire in the contenders and the 4th place horse for this example. I had discarded FF for all the reasons that I posted about on Pace and Cap and I didn't consider Flying Private after his Derby failure. However, if you do include FF, the BL/BL screen shows him as top BL/BL. Perhaps you can discount him from some of the numbers in the array on the final BL screen, but I have looked at that aspect.
• I included the "Original" screen to show where the horses liked to position themselves
• I included Terrain because it had beaten Pioneer of the Nile twice as a 2 YO and may have been coming into form. Terrain did finish ahead of PoN
• I thought Big Drama put speed into the race. The E/L screen shows his 7F sprint to be competitive, but sprinters IMHO need an advantage stretching (2-3 CPR pts) out so I guessed he would set or press the pace and fade somewhat.
• None of his PPs did Mine That Bird's chances any justice so I used the Derby line which confirms a lot of late energy.
• Without factoring in the required interaction of where horses normally like to position themselves, the E/L screen makes FF a contender. However, he likes to site just off slower leads. In fact, his style is almost identical to Rachel's. The Hat believed that for every fifth of a second faster or slower that a horse ran early that you could anticipate two fifths faster or slower in the latter part of the race. Applying this to FF comes next. From an E/L point of view FF needed to run 6.8 EPR pts faster to run with the winner, which would deplete him of 13.6 pts of LPR, thereby lowering his LPR to 98.4 and his CPR to 190.7 and all of a sudden, he can't keep up with Rachel's 197.5. If he decides to place himself in the field according to the time he ran, he will be farther back (8.9 L by the segments screen than he has ever trailed before). One way or another, this horse was going to be in conflict in this race. He actually pressed well to the top of the stretch when the pace cooked him.
• On the velocity screen we can see the same thing. If FF is going to run anywhere near Rachel his F1 velocity needs to be 1.41 fps faster. Where does it come from? The energy system is like a closed loop so if you have to make up energy early to run where you normally run, it has got to be sucked out from what happens later. If we mentally make Rachel and FF equal in 1F speed and just allow them to have the F2 speed as shown, then the payoff for exerting early is a minimum reduction of at least 1.41fps in 3F speed. This would make FF's resultant time 54.90. More likely (and per the Hat) the penalty is 2 for 1, which then makes FF's 3F time 53.49 and now he clearly cannot keep up with Rachel's 54.52 3F time.
• Big Drama is a little deficient at F1, loses a little more in F2 and "appears" to have a better 3F. For me here is the unknown. We see a horse that needs to be up front and in reality he was up front in the race. He loses .33 in F1 and another .45 in 2F. That in itself might be enough of a clue to flash the ? mark. So how do we reconcile the faster 3F with the slower 1F and 2F numbers? If we double the 1F loss to .66 and just add the straight 2F loss of .45, the 3F adjustment would be 1.11 and the adjusted 3F would be 53.89 - clearly not enough to keep up with the winners 54.52.. Even if we deduct the combined loss in 1F and 2F from the 3F, this horse can't catch up.
• The large 2F gains by Terrain and Flying pretty much show that if they exert at this rate there will be nothing left to pass Rachel's 54.52 3F time, because both are several lengths back as shown by the segments screen and neither has a superior 3F to pass Rachel.
• Mine That Bird and Pioneer run from back of and mid pack, respectively, and can only gain in 3F from a long ways back. Suppose you let these guys have their 1F time and force them to be competitive in 2F so they don't lose anymore ground. If you do the math even the slightly better 3F's aren't enough to get by the winner.
• Another relationship that I have looked at is how the DCL numbers of each horse relate to the SC [second call] number. Its not real scientific but if you divide the DCL difference by the SC difference and if the answer is above 3.0 the horse can likely overcome the lead of the horse in question, as long as the running style of the horse has not been compromised too much by the pace (very gray area here.)
• Big Drama - .38 back at SC; DCL diff = 1.50; 1.50/.38 = 3.95 (horse could pass Rachel if you ignore F1 and F2 losses and his normal running style
• Flying - .54 back at SC; DCL diff = 1.00; 1.00/.43 = 1.85 - can't pass
• Terrain - .70 back at SC; DCL diff = 1.80; 1.80/.70 = 2.57 - can't pass
• Friesan - 1.05 back at SC: DCL diff = 5.10; 5.10/1.05 = 4.86 (could pass if you ignore normal running style and the need to be up with leader early)
• Mine - 1.92 back at SC: DCL diff = 5.70; 5.70/1.92 = 2.97 (border line horse. In the actual race he loses by about 1 length)
• Pioneer - 1.93 back at SC: DCL diff = 6.60; 6.60/1.93 = 3.42 (candidate to pass leader, but look at Mine's 2F by comparison. Pioneer is dogging it by .80 fps. The SC speed is slower than Mine meaning that theoretically he is running behind Mine at the second call - not likely by recent observations.
Another clue here might be found in the far right hand column of the Velocity screen. If we have designated running styles (RS) correctly, the order of this screen's placement of horses is by second call (SC) ranking. Perhaps we should look with a questioning glance at any horse lower in the ranking that has been given a visual running style closer to the front than the horses shown above it in this ranking. This would be a type of corollary readout confirming how the race is to be run. Here we have a P leading an EP. If true, is the EP is ? able, or perhaps should this horse against today’s pace actually be considered a P or even an SP running style? Next we have an S behind the P and EP. Okay, except that this horse (Flying) can’t pass the leader based on 3F velocities and lengths behind. Terrain has much the same problem as Flying. Next we have FF, a Presser if we have him tagged correctly - but based on the info, he is not pressing this leader which invalidates his 3F. If you jump down to Pioneer, another Presser, and just compare FF to Pioneer, you see that Pioneer can't match up in any fraction with FF. Mine has an SP running style and is ranked at SC ahead of Pioneer, a Presser. Note here that the last two in the SC order have the lowest Total Energy by two or more points from Rachel.

I don't know how to factor that into the analysis, but it cannot help these bottom two horses. In my mind you would have to factor down the larger 3F's of these two because they have less relative energy to put into the race. They are probably better off saving their late runs until the end, as long as that suits the running style of the horses. In this case we know that the most comfortable closer from the parking lot was and is Mine That Bird.

I haven't done anything here but take numbers at face value. I like simple math and I am not adept at complex math, but it seems to me that someone well grounded in math could combine some part of what is said here to help red flag non-contenders, thereby cutting the number of horses in the final screen, which would ultimately lead to more winning bets. Many of you probably practice live with the program more than I do, so feel free to comment, or not, or pass it on to some freaking math wiz and challenge them to ID a few losers that we might normally include in the mix.
Attached Images
    
Bill Lyster is offline  
Old 12-07-2011, 07:52 PM   #2
Boe777
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 133
Velocity screen

Hi Bill,
I am just starting with RDSS and I just come across your post.
I am also using the VELOCITY SCREEN but not in the POH view but in the POR view to pick winners and it works really well, it also shows up in the Adjusted screen.
Attached Images
  
Boe777 is offline  
Old 12-08-2011, 01:19 AM   #3
For The Lead
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Lyster View Post
Handicapping from the Velocity Screen

During the days when the Followup was being published Howard would often point to what now is the velocity screen in RDSS and point out a horse that made a move against the field in the middle or latter part of the race. I usually look at this screen to verify the rest of the readouts now, but I have always been curious about the relativity of the numbers. Now, I understand that review of this screen may not be a part of your handicapping process, so if you don't use it and have no comment, that's fine too.

I understand that if we match two need-to-lead types that fractional times (velocities) ought to match up until one or the other caves and the same might be said for trying to determine which of two or more closers or two or more pressers might make the better move.

What I don't really even yet have a feel for is when, for instance, a deficient second fraction from a presser or closer is SO bad that it takes the horse out of contention relative to the horses ahead of it. Obviously when pressers and closers have near equal 2nd fractions and better 3rd fractions than the horses in front of them that is really a positive sign for those horses and really negative for the potential pace setters.

More often the horses that sit behind the leaders have 2nd fractions that appear to make them lose ground only to have bigger #3F's that are more than enough to make up the ground (either that or the up front pace kills them off). I acknowledge that the program does an admirable job most of the time, but it usually overrates closers to the exclusion of horses on the lead. If we could find a way to highlight this potential overrating of the late info, it might provide added consistency to the selection process.

Obvious factors are the differences between 2nd call numbers of the horses being compared and some permutation of the deceleration number possibly combined with the second call number and/or the 3F number. Then too, two horses could have the same third fraction number but the horse with the better total energy would probably get the nod,all else being equal.

Here is an example of what I was talking about. I would also add that writing this after the fact as I am doing is probably allowing too much foresight into the analysis. The example race is from this year’s Preakness.

I included Friesan Fire in the contenders and the 4th place horse for this example. I had discarded FF for all the reasons that I posted about on Pace and Cap and I didn't consider Flying Private after his Derby failure. However, if you do include FF, the BL/BL screen shows him as top BL/BL. Perhaps you can discount him from some of the numbers in the array on the final BL screen, but I have looked at that aspect.
• I included the "Original" screen to show where the horses liked to position themselves
• I included Terrain because it had beaten Pioneer of the Nile twice as a 2 YO and may have been coming into form. Terrain did finish ahead of PoN
• I thought Big Drama put speed into the race. The E/L screen shows his 7F sprint to be competitive, but sprinters IMHO need an advantage stretching (2-3 CPR pts) out so I guessed he would set or press the pace and fade somewhat.
• None of his PPs did Mine That Bird's chances any justice so I used the Derby line which confirms a lot of late energy.
• Without factoring in the required interaction of where horses normally like to position themselves, the E/L screen makes FF a contender. However, he likes to site just off slower leads. In fact, his style is almost identical to Rachel's. The Hat believed that for every fifth of a second faster or slower that a horse ran early that you could anticipate two fifths faster or slower in the latter part of the race. Applying this to FF comes next. From an E/L point of view FF needed to run 6.8 EPR pts faster to run with the winner, which would deplete him of 13.6 pts of LPR, thereby lowering his LPR to 98.4 and his CPR to 190.7 and all of a sudden, he can't keep up with Rachel's 197.5. If he decides to place himself in the field according to the time he ran, he will be farther back (8.9 L by the segments screen than he has ever trailed before). One way or another, this horse was going to be in conflict in this race. He actually pressed well to the top of the stretch when the pace cooked him.
• On the velocity screen we can see the same thing. If FF is going to run anywhere near Rachel his F1 velocity needs to be 1.41 fps faster. Where does it come from? The energy system is like a closed loop so if you have to make up energy early to run where you normally run, it has got to be sucked out from what happens later. If we mentally make Rachel and FF equal in 1F speed and just allow them to have the F2 speed as shown, then the payoff for exerting early is a minimum reduction of at least 1.41fps in 3F speed. This would make FF's resultant time 54.90. More likely (and per the Hat) the penalty is 2 for 1, which then makes FF's 3F time 53.49 and now he clearly cannot keep up with Rachel's 54.52 3F time.
• Big Drama is a little deficient at F1, loses a little more in F2 and "appears" to have a better 3F. For me here is the unknown. We see a horse that needs to be up front and in reality he was up front in the race. He loses .33 in F1 and another .45 in 2F. That in itself might be enough of a clue to flash the ? mark. So how do we reconcile the faster 3F with the slower 1F and 2F numbers? If we double the 1F loss to .66 and just add the straight 2F loss of .45, the 3F adjustment would be 1.11 and the adjusted 3F would be 53.89 - clearly not enough to keep up with the winners 54.52.. Even if we deduct the combined loss in 1F and 2F from the 3F, this horse can't catch up.
• The large 2F gains by Terrain and Flying pretty much show that if they exert at this rate there will be nothing left to pass Rachel's 54.52 3F time, because both are several lengths back as shown by the segments screen and neither has a superior 3F to pass Rachel.
• Mine That Bird and Pioneer run from back of and mid pack, respectively, and can only gain in 3F from a long ways back. Suppose you let these guys have their 1F time and force them to be competitive in 2F so they don't lose anymore ground. If you do the math even the slightly better 3F's aren't enough to get by the winner.
• Another relationship that I have looked at is how the DCL numbers of each horse relate to the SC [second call] number. Its not real scientific but if you divide the DCL difference by the SC difference and if the answer is above 3.0 the horse can likely overcome the lead of the horse in question, as long as the running style of the horse has not been compromised too much by the pace (very gray area here.)
• Big Drama - .38 back at SC; DCL diff = 1.50; 1.50/.38 = 3.95 (horse could pass Rachel if you ignore F1 and F2 losses and his normal running style
• Flying - .54 back at SC; DCL diff = 1.00; 1.00/.43 = 1.85 - can't pass
• Terrain - .70 back at SC; DCL diff = 1.80; 1.80/.70 = 2.57 - can't pass
• Friesan - 1.05 back at SC: DCL diff = 5.10; 5.10/1.05 = 4.86 (could pass if you ignore normal running style and the need to be up with leader early)
• Mine - 1.92 back at SC: DCL diff = 5.70; 5.70/1.92 = 2.97 (border line horse. In the actual race he loses by about 1 length)
• Pioneer - 1.93 back at SC: DCL diff = 6.60; 6.60/1.93 = 3.42 (candidate to pass leader, but look at Mine's 2F by comparison. Pioneer is dogging it by .80 fps. The SC speed is slower than Mine meaning that theoretically he is running behind Mine at the second call - not likely by recent observations.
Another clue here might be found in the far right hand column of the Velocity screen. If we have designated running styles (RS) correctly, the order of this screen's placement of horses is by second call (SC) ranking. Perhaps we should look with a questioning glance at any horse lower in the ranking that has been given a visual running style closer to the front than the horses shown above it in this ranking. This would be a type of corollary readout confirming how the race is to be run. Here we have a P leading an EP. If true, is the EP is ? able, or perhaps should this horse against today’s pace actually be considered a P or even an SP running style? Next we have an S behind the P and EP. Okay, except that this horse (Flying) can’t pass the leader based on 3F velocities and lengths behind. Terrain has much the same problem as Flying. Next we have FF, a Presser if we have him tagged correctly - but based on the info, he is not pressing this leader which invalidates his 3F. If you jump down to Pioneer, another Presser, and just compare FF to Pioneer, you see that Pioneer can't match up in any fraction with FF. Mine has an SP running style and is ranked at SC ahead of Pioneer, a Presser. Note here that the last two in the SC order have the lowest Total Energy by two or more points from Rachel.

I don't know how to factor that into the analysis, but it cannot help these bottom two horses. In my mind you would have to factor down the larger 3F's of these two because they have less relative energy to put into the race. They are probably better off saving their late runs until the end, as long as that suits the running style of the horses. In this case we know that the most comfortable closer from the parking lot was and is Mine That Bird.

I haven't done anything here but take numbers at face value. I like simple math and I am not adept at complex math, but it seems to me that someone well grounded in math could combine some part of what is said here to help red flag non-contenders, thereby cutting the number of horses in the final screen, which would ultimately lead to more winning bets. Many of you probably practice live with the program more than I do, so feel free to comment, or not, or pass it on to some freaking math wiz and challenge them to ID a few losers that we might normally include in the mix.
Hello Bill,

This is a very good article with many interesting points, many of which are directly related to line selection, since that is where the infrmation you/we are looking at comes from.

You wrote this two and a half years ago and it went without a reply of any kind until a new member found it.

I'm curious, have you changed your mind in one way or another about the points you raised since you wrote the post?
__________________
"It's suppose to be hard. If it was easy, everybody would do it." Jimmy Dugan, A League of Their Own
For The Lead is offline  
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jim Bradshaw's 5 Step Approach to learning the Matchup RichieP Hat Check - How Can We Help You? 1 05-25-2009 09:52 AM
Bread and Butter Race... lueylump RDSS 2 05-11-2009 05:05 PM
BL/BL Screen of Philly Park Race 8 3/21/2009 clavezza RDSS 6 03-22-2009 01:03 PM
Release Notes - Version 0.98.5 Ted Craven RDSS Info, Reference 5 12-31-2008 10:56 AM
HOL 11-29-08 Race -3 (Fairly Straight Forward Race) partsnut Selections 3 11-29-2008 06:51 PM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:06 PM.