Grade 1 Aspiree

[SilentRun]

A question about picking the best turf line.

I heard that you should go back to the best line regardless of recency. Thus if the best line is 280 days ago it is ok to use it. To me this is contrary to Sartin's concept of using the best of the last 3 or 4. The horse's form is usually different today than over a year ago.
What is the rationale for doing this ?

Thanks,

Ernie

[mikesal57]

hi ernie..

i believe it was a Michael Pizzola thing using the best turf race in PP, but the condition of the race was for a limited amount of wins. Example- n/w of 2 races lifetime.

mike

[Charlie D]

What is the rationale for doing this ?

Hi Ernie, to find the answer to the above question , you need to find the person who made the statement "go back to the best line regardless of recency"

Mike indicates it was Michael Pizzola who made the statement, so if Mike is correct, what i would do is, try to find the Pizzola article (Mike, anyone? ) where the statement was made or write to Mr Pizzola at Post Time Daily to get the rationale behind the statement.

[mikesal57]

http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthr...hlight=Pizzola

try this from our good friend Tim

[Charlie D]

There you go Ernie, you are now on the path of enlightenment.

BTW, I believe "best of last 3" is a guideline and not a rule

[Ted Craven]

Ernie,

IMO, you should satisfy yourself from experimentation whether the proposition is true (or functional, from a ROI impact point of view): that selecting a line from anywhere in a horse's PPs to represent it in today's Turf race matchup is better than sticking to the 'best of the last 3 similar' guideline.

For myself, I have found it to be so (provided there is some evidence the horse is fit today). I don't know why it works (for me) for Turf. I do stick to rather more recent lines for other surfaces.

From my reading of Pizzolla's Handicapping Magic, Form Cycle Windows chapter 6, there is precisely 1 paragraph about why to 'open the window' more broadly to lines in the past due to surface changes, and that has to do with liking for a particular surface (e.g. Turf), so why not rate the horse off its Turf performance, etc, etc. I think it might be Tim Y's particular observation (although, semper caveat emptor): that you can feel comfortable using the 6th, 7th, 8th lines, for example, if they represent a horse's best/better Turf performances, and not necessarily Pizzolla's specific point of view re Turf. Perhaps users of his Black Magic software can elaborate further here.

Again, if you consider this technique, IMO, require that the horse has some kind of form today (e.g. on dirt/poly, good works, freshened and can run fresh, etc).

Ted

[Charlie D]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

Ernie,

IMO, you should satisfy yourself from experimentation whether the proposition is true (or functional, from a ROI impact point of view)

Wise words in bold IMO. What kind of timeframe (number of races say )would you advise for Ernie or any another handicapper Ted?

[SilentRun]

Thanks guys for the feedback

Ernie

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by Charlie D

What kind of timeframe (number of races say )would you advise for Ernie or any another handicapper Ted?

I'd think you could get the gist of any selection method within 100 races or so. I'm not talking about validating an entire methodology - we're using the Sartin Methodology, incremental energy disbursement analysis here - but more specifically a criteria for consistent line selection for subsequent analysis by factors which are germane to your race types (e.g. for Turf, emphasis and more weighting on Late and Hidden energy readouts, but as always, the E/L graph and Total Energy).

So, perhaps, take 100 Turf races. Select pacelines to represent horses for today from best of the last 3 or so on Turf, filter and rank them according to your own Turf readout analysis, record a win wager (single/mutliple horses), record ROI, hit rate.

Then take the same 100 races and use a good Turf line or lines (e.g. Total Energy/Perceptor Total) from the last 10 races where the horse seems competitive today (e.g. recent IM finishes, or comptetitive Total Energy while making a run at the pace or run to or through the Stretch, or as always, a failed run at the pace which it won't have to face today). Using these alternate set of lines, perform the same analysis above, record your wagers. Compare the 2 sets of notes of 100 Turf races, ROI and hit rate versus each other. That's your quick and dirty study.

My guess is you may have a lower hit rate but higher ROI from the 2nd approach as horses with better recent performance are more obvious and pay less when they win. So, a few more longer prices winners by using horses with proven (but older) intrinsic ability who are fit today will bump up ROI on any 20 race set, let alone a 100 race set.

I have made this my approach (in general) to Turf analysis for about 2 years now, and I am happy (though I did not perform the above 100 race analysis for myself ). Probably about 50 - 60 races (I am not the most prolific bettor, these days), but definitely profitable over that set, and definitely due to the longer prices from more obscure horses which the software ranks well.

Ted

[alydar_ David]

Last year I tallied the results of 457 turf races throughout the country. These were races I bet with real money.

For this 457 race sample I took the best SP and the best LP horse who was also in the Top 5 of Total Energy. I used the best turf race shown in the horse's past performances for the paceline. I'm not suggesting this is the best way to proceed. I'm only explaining what I did. Note, I used a Sartin program other than RDSS, but RDSS is capable of doing this and more (and it's probably better).

For record keeping purposes I made an imaginary $2 flat bet on each of them.

I showed a profit at nine tracks and a loss at ten tracks. Surprisingly, sprints showed a slightly higher ROI than routes.

The overall ROI was 1.06. In other words I got back six cents profit for every dollar invested.

MTH and CD were by far the most profitable tracks, with respective ROIs of 2.59 and 2.25. However, one $100+ horse at MTH skews those results.

As Ted suggests, you're better off doing your own record keeping. And I agree 100 races should give you an idea of whether what you're doing is working or not.

It's a royal pain in the butt, and most people simply refuse to do it, but record keeping is essential if you really want to know how you're doing.