Parx -Saturday 11/12 - TM 103 Race Class

[Capcondo]

Thanks for posting this race Richie:

My analysis:

I am going to look at the 2 horse 3 back. The 2 ran a 23.6 first call loose by a length. Fought later in the race. Always loose at first call when running well. 23.6 is not that fast. Here are the rest:

1: Against slow paces. Out
3: Handled 23.8 once but failed against 23.7. Out
4: E type. Lines 6 and 8 push the 2 with a 23.5.
5: Power line against 23.8 4 back and good race against a 23.6 3 back. last line while slower fought through 1st 2 calls. Contender.
6: Late running type. Tough call. Failed against 23.3 lines 4 & 9. Ran well vs. slower. Out.
7: I put this horse as an E/P. Two back ran as an S type. May push the 2.
8: Last 2 not good. Has run close against 23.4 and 23.7. My push the 2. Out.

I think this race will run OTE. 5 and 6 are sustained types. i think the 5 will be ahead of the 6 and uis my choice.

[raceman5]

2-6

[RichieP]

Well the race has run and Emilio,Partsnut,Delmarscott,Ernie have ALL hit the sweet 5/1 winning #1 (OTE) while some have also hit the exacta! Tremendous work guys and a big tip of the "Hat" to each of you.

Thank you to EVERYONE who took time out to jump in and participate here

[For The Lead]

Here is my post mortem. The usual "disclaimer" applies.

First, a word about the condition of the race.
To be eligible for this race, a horse needed to have started in a race for $8,000 OR LESS anytime in 2010 or 2011.

#1 - last line is a win 22 days ago at a similar distance and surface, no reason to go back
#2 - Last race was a good race on the lead and finished 3rd within 1 length just 10 days ago on the same track at a similar distance, there is no reason to go back
#3 - Last race was was a win on the same track and similar distance 19 days ago, there is no reason to go back.
#4 - last line is the line although the horse finished out of the money and beaten more than 9 lengths, the race was on the same track and at the same distance 55 days ago, the last line is the only race in the last 90 days so there is no reason to go back, the horse appears to be a part of the early pace scenario and I want that to be included in the software so the software gets a clear pace picture
#5 - SCR
#6 - Line 2 is the line since line 1 was on the turf, it is a win on the same track at a similar distance 52 days ago and the horse has had a race since then so there is no reason to go back, but I have issues with this horse, in its' last race it won an overnight Stakes race at the state bred level for a purse of $75,000, the general thought is that state bred race artificially increase a horses earnings by approximately 20%, so even if you reduce the purse by 20% it still would be equal to an 'OPEN' $60,000 purse, why is this horse in here for a $32,000 purse?, it seems "too" easy. I understand it is "eligible" but if a horse is on the "improve" it should move UP not DOWN, I am very leery of this horse regardless of how the software shows it.
#7 - line 2 is the line since the last race was a sprint race, it is a good 2nd on the same track at a similar distance 10 days ago, there is no reason to go back
#8 - you're kidding, right? NO LINE!!

The software shows this as a very tight race as you will see in the screen shots below. The software calls for the "sustained" horse as the projected winner. In this case there is a tie between #1 and #2.
Remember that #4 horse? The one with the "questionable" line? Check him out in the screen shots. He ends up being the "energizer" and ranks quite well.
With the ENERGY software, projected winners are NOT based on TOTAL ENERGY (TE), but rather, the winners are projected on the basis of the "match up". That is the reason the #4 horse (or any horse like that) gets entered into the program. Your job is to show the software the "WHOLE" race, from beginning to end, then let the software figure it out. Sometimes it works out well and other times, not so much. The old story is, if you have in the right horses and lines, the software will get it right.

[alydar_ David]

How would Syn4 have done using FTL's pacelines (which I may or may not have chosen, but that's moot, this is to compare the programs)?

*Note-for setup I used the trackmaster speed rating, 50% adjusted for variant. Different settings may produce different results. For example, using the Daily Racing Form or Trackmaster SR & Var, Beyer number or projected variant might alter the results. Changing the percentage of variant used can also affect the ratings.









This would not have been a winning race for Syn4 based on the above.

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by alydar_David

How would Syn4 have done using FTL's pacelines (which I may or may not have chosen, but that's moot, this is to compare the programs)?

*Note-for setup I used the trackmaster speed rating, 50% adjusted for variant. Different settings may produce different results. For example, using the Daily Racing Form or Trackmaster SR & Var, Beyer number or projected variant might alter the results. Changing the percentage of variant used can also affect the ratings.

Attachment 24839

Attachment 24840

Attachment 24841

Attachment 24842

This would not have been a winning race for Syn4 based on the above.

I accept what you said, but I have no frame of reference. I am not familiar with syn4 so I don't know what it is I should be looking for in your screen shots that tells me the race is either a play or not a play. I don't see anything that tells me which horse(s) should be played.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to help me and others who are not familiar with this software to understand by providing an explanation.

[partsnut]

From the Synergism graphics displayed by David and the pace lines that were used by FTL,I would conclude that this race would run a slow 3 pace. Not withstanding, we all have our ways of picking pace lines. Pace line selection is subjective.
can we rely on them ? Not always.
The race in reality ran a Fast 1
which indeed favored a sustained horse. The winner was a sustained horse.
As with most software I have seen, there is no perfection.
In that race, I used Energy and came up with the same horse as Ernie.
My pace line selection for this race might be considered as unorthodox.
They are not the same or near what Ernie used.
If I would have used Synergism 4, my projected outcome may have been different.
Here's the pace lines I used.

[partsnut]

Synergism 4 (Projected Variant)

I did a Synergism 4 projection and had to estimate or equalize one of the pacelines because the belmont par for 8.138 is not in my par files.
However The results were pretty straight forward. I used my own pace lines.

[alydar_ David]

Bill, too bad you didn't use FTL's pacelines. Then we could have had a comparison.

[alydar_ David]

Here's how I'd interpret my posted SYN4 readouts based on FTL's pacelines.

First, I'd look at the fractional velocities.



Under F1 you can see they are close early. Indeed #4 and #6 are tied. They're all over each other at F2. SC is also contentious. FT I pretty much ignore. Some people can handicap from these velocities readings alone. I'm not one of them. I look to get a gestalt -- an overall view -- of the race.

Then I'd look at the projected 2nd Call Beaten Lengths.



This gives me a general idea of where they'll be at the second call. Looks like a pace duel here. But I don't handicap alone from this screen. Some people, Pino I think, used to box four horses in the exacta from this readout alone (although I might be wrong about that). In any event I use it to give me an idea of how the race sets up. Also, if I see someone way behind at the second call I'd have to think twice about betting him.

From the Pace Ratings screen I look to see who has the top TPR.



Here it's #6 with 186. At this point I'd eliminate anyone more than five points away from win contention. 186-5=181. So, you'd need at least 181 to be a contender here. They all qualify. If you keep records of your track you can note the EPR/LPR difference. This is the same as BAL on later programs. It's a numerical representation of the graphic sticks you see in Val, etcetera.

From the Rankings screen I look for further eliminations.



Any horse that does not have a "1" or a "2" in at least one category is a throwout. Here #7 is the only horse that doesn't have a "1" or "2". At this point I'd scratch (hide) him.

If it's a dirt sprint I'd then look at the Medium Energy percentages. Any horse with a 70% or higher has to knock my socks off in other areas or out he goes. This is a route race so that's not applicable.

At this point I'd check my track model to see which categories are producing winners. Since I don't have a track model for this I'll go back to the Pace Ratings screen and see if I have any bets.

SYN4 generates Fair Odds. You can select how much of an overlay you're willing to accept before the horse becomes bettable. I choose 50% and follow Barry Meadow's betting suggestions. (See Barry Meadows' Money Secrets At The Racetrack)



Looking at Fair Odds of 6-1 or less I find only one overlay. #4 has overlay odds (odds I can bet at) of 5.8 to 1. In other words I can bet this horse if it's paying at least 5.8 to 1 to win. According to the result chart Richie posted the horse went off at 12.90 to 1. That's enough to make it a good bet.

So, if I were betting this race that's who I would of bet.

I should mention that other folks might have bet the winner based on these readouts. The above is only my way of looking at all this stuff.

And of course if my track model indicated horses with a "1" or "2" in LP, 1+3, 2FR and LE were winning then I'd be all over this horse. I'd also be able to see if his Medium Energy falls within the winning parameters for this track, distance, class, sex, age (depending on how detailed you want, or can make the model).