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

General Discussion General Horse Racing Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-20-2018, 05:43 PM   #11
DaveEdwards
Grade 1
 
DaveEdwards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: England
Posts: 489
Incomplete Information

Hi all.

I've given the beaten length issue some thought in the past and ended up abandoning any notion of making adjustments for the value at each call.

I'm sure we can all agree that horses (mostly) run faster earlier in the race than later.

The problem we have is calculating the value of the BL at each call. What information do we have?

Let's assume we are working with fps. What is this telling us? It is saying that the horse covered the first call at an average speed of (say) 60fps. It does not tell us how fast the horse is running at the 1C.

Same for the 3F (as an example) with a 50fps average speed, we have no idea how fast the horse is actually running as it crosses the line.

At best we can only estimate what a beaten length is worth. By definition, a BL at the 1C in 60fps, must also be different from a BL at 59fps.


The solution? Either set up a formula that calculate the value of a BL based on the fps of the leader at each call in each race or pick an arbitrary figure and use that. Tom Brohamer uses 10 feet in MPH in his %E calculations.


If it's good enough for Tom, it's good enough for me whenever I'm thinking in terms of this now. Further to this, once these values are compounded in FW for instance, does it then become a situation of splitting hairs?


I don't believe it's ever going to be possible to be completely accurate with this. Couple that with the race readers best estimate of how far back a horse actually is. The line has to be drawn somewhere, you could go forever on this one.
DaveEdwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2018, 07:17 PM   #12
Mitch44
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
Hello Dave,


That precisely how BL are figured in that it is taken from the time of the leader that breaks the beam for that segment of the race. Then BL are deducted for all those behind the leader. At one time each chart caller determined this based on their judgement. With that Sartin found they were pretty accurate and uniform for different chart callers for each track.


Today BL are much more accurate than ever before as they are measured not by the human eye and judgement but by a photo taken of the whole stretch once the winner hits the line. After the race they use instruments to measure the exact BL for each horse.


Brohamer & Sartin used 10 feet because it made the math etc. easy with FPS ratings. As long as a uniform measurement is used and all are treated equal it works. Those that believe each 1/5 = 1 Lg are completely wrong as it just about 6 Lg not 5lg.
When they went to FPS the accuracy was much more accurate for both BL and all their factors also proved to be more accurate. That also improved and made their factors more accurate.


In a 22 1st Fr it made a more accurate rating by about .75 or 3/4 of 1 LG. many a race are won or lost by least than a length.


Using FPS and measuring all 3 FR's increased the proficiency and accuracy of the Sartin material leading them past Phase 1 or TPR and into the future.


Mitch44
Mitch44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2018, 09:17 AM   #13
DaveEdwards
Grade 1
 
DaveEdwards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: England
Posts: 489
Hi Mitch,

Thanks for the shout on that. Being in the UK it's easy to be out of touch with things like this. My only sources of data are this site, RDSS and equibase results.

When calculating %M I've thought about setting up my spreadsheet to reference the time of the winner and adjust for BL thereafter, but in the end I settled on the 10 feet. I figured that as it was a % that was then averaged with the rest of the days results it hopefully wouldn't be too significant an issue.
DaveEdwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2018, 09:45 AM   #14
Mitch44
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
Hi Dave,


For keeping a track profile Sartin recommends that winners data be used. Its more accurate and accounts for horses coming off the pace or those that didn't go wire to wire.(most winners) Pace Of Race won't be accurate as the Pace of the horse of the winner for a track profile. 10 feet per length makes the math easier and works if all horses are treated the same.

When it comes to % Med for every horse its taking from the POR, and figuring in the beaten lengths after which the % Med formula is used.

Mitch44
Mitch44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2018, 01:12 AM   #15
DaveEdwards
Grade 1
 
DaveEdwards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: England
Posts: 489
Hi Mitch,

Thanks for that. Yes, that's how I do my track profile. I've tinkered with adjusted the 10 feet, but was never truly happy with it. Further to this there is the impact of the 2:1 adjustment for horses running faster than they'd like to early. I ended up with a very messy spreadsheet that when I look back at it now I don't actually know what I was thinking with some of the formula adjustments.
10 feet seemed so much easier to work with!
DaveEdwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2018, 02:05 PM   #16
Mitch44
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
Dave:
As far as % Med I would recommend you read Brohamer's book Modern Pace Handicapping. He goes into great detail on % Med and its usage. It can be used for determining the ability of a horse to stretch out or ability to take to the turf Etc. His book also goes into detail on Feet Per Second ratings. Not an easy read for most but an exceptional book filled with great information.

One take you'll get from his book is to set a range for % Med. not a specific number. A range is designed to capture most of the winners, winners fall into a range.


That guideline of using 2 to 1 for an adjustment is highly inaccurate and I would not recommend anyone use it. I've analyzed this in some detail and came to the conclusion that there is no specific formula for all horses or racing as a whole. There is no specific rule like that that can be used with any accuracy. And this is due to two reasons; 1. every horse decelerates at a different rate. Some stop on a dime hitting a brick wall, others gradually decline while others show little or no decline. The best horses carry their speed further and decline the least such as graded horses. The lower down the class latter the less distance they can carry speed and the faster they decelerate. 2. Todays match up greatly effects how much a horse or how fast a horses decelerates. The more early pace that it can't handle, the faster it will decline. Forget that 2 to 1 ratio as its not accurate at all. Sartin even said that those that carry the match up into the 3rd FR will most of the time get it wrong. The program within RDSS(Sartin's concepts) does a much better job in all this and is much more accurate.

Some may be surprised to learn that I don't use a Track Profile or a Model. I play too many different tracks for all that work etc. If a person only played one track throughout its meet than it can be useful. Sartin believed that 80% + of a race has to do with the match up of a particular race and that every race is different. I also have found that to ring true. I believe the % is much higher than the 80 % he states. Not keeping a track profile or a model has not effected my game one bit.


All my best,
Mitch44
Mitch44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 02:35 AM   #17
DaveEdwards
Grade 1
 
DaveEdwards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: England
Posts: 489
Thanks Mitch,
Sorry for the late reply. Family etc etc.

I've got MPH. I like his concept of ranges a lot, especially when the %M point is in the middle of the contenders and none of them hit it exactly!. It's my favourite book on horse racing.


I agree with your 2:1 analysis. It isn't an exact science and all horses are definitely different. It's still something I feel the need to explore a little further at some point. Perhaps a more accurate method would be to analyse the impact of the different pace scenarios that a horse has met and from that work out the adjustment. Probably a lot of work involved!
DaveEdwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 11:10 AM   #18
Mitch44
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
Dave;


MPH was the first time the Sartin material was presented to the general public and with Sartin blessings. For one thing he had moved on to other more important discoveries. Even with that many can not grasp the concept of FPS and employ it. It really is the foundation and bed rock of all that followed to propel his material to greater heights.

While some horses run the same every time and are fairly consistent (E with very high consistent % Med) they tend to be the exceptions with the overall majority influenced by the match up in todays race. Every race matchup is different and a horse may never see the same matchup twice. A horse may have the speed or pace to force others into submission early but may just stay close and exert that advantage in the 3rd FR. Many horses tend to only do what they need to do in order to win.

Its impossible to work out an adjustment based on past different pace scenario's that a horse has met. What is important is the scenario he is up against today. One can look at the projected POR today and look to see how a horse has done against something similar for a rough idea but that fails to match the ability of the program.

The RDSS program handles all this stuff based on proven Sartin studies. The matchup is contained within the current Sartin program. Trust the program. The program will supersede what an individual can do with an eyeball scan. Even Sartin who developed all this and was no dummy couldn't do the matchup visually as Bradshaw could do.There may be 1% that can become a Bradshaw. Be on the train with the other 99% that have a shot of arriving at the proper destination.

Just too many adjustments with variants, beaten lengths, track to track, match ups etc. A properly programed computer program isn't prone to mistakes, applies a consistent approach and captures a range of gettable winners. The range of gettable winners can be improved with race selectivity. Even with all that it stills requires money management and discipline.

Having tried to find a precise adjustment for the 3rd Fr what I've learned is that it's a fool's errand. It did make me smarter and gave some insights but that road does not lead to the winners your seeking.

Wishing you success,
Mitch44

Last edited by Mitch44; 10-24-2018 at 11:15 AM.
Mitch44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2018, 05:26 PM   #19
DaveEdwards
Grade 1
 
DaveEdwards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: England
Posts: 489
Thanks Mitch,

Maybe there was a reason Jimmy said to stop matching at the 2C!
The point you make about the Match-Up having been built into the Sartin programs I have seen reference to before. This is a bit of a question mark for me. How so and and where am I looking?


Obviously I know the later formulae are trade secrets and I don't particularly care to know them. But I would be interested in what constitutes the Match-Up within the program in order to aid analysis?
DaveEdwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2018, 06:34 PM   #20
Mitch44
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
The Matchup is somewhat hidden within the program and is contained in the programs best Factors.

Sartin did not believe in Par's which are used in many of racing elements such as Speed Ratings which are the foundation of the Beyer SR and other SR ratings. While Par's moved the racing world forward to greater heights they do contain flaws. E.g. not all 10,,000 claiming races are the same or any other specific class. We have strong and weak races of all levels of racing.


Sartin came up with a better Par or way to rid averaging all levels and make a better Par that was more efficient and current . Most Pars are developed from races that are at least a year old. They don't relate to current reality.

While my answer is somewhat vague its by design. We learn by doing which reinforces lessons to the brain. Otherwise easy come and easy go. It would be meaningless for me to outright give it and would not have the same meaning to you as I. Part of winning is having an appreciation and those that are successful tend to be the old timers here at P & C . Why is that? Because they have done the work and made an investment.


Read everything Sartin has written about Pars and the answer will come to you, then anyone PM me with your answer, I'll confirm if your correct or not.


Mitch44
Mitch44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
physics value

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 On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Huey Mahl's Physics proof elaborated lone speed Matchup Discussion 19 06-16-2016 01:13 PM


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

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:13 AM.