The Hats Equalization Times

[Mitch44]

It makes perfect sense that as the distance increases the figure used,deceleration number or 6.2 should increase. A horse that travels 6F in 12 second per furlong runs it in 72 sec. or 112:00 and another at 1 1/4 in 12 second per furlongs runs the distance in 120 sec. and in 2:00 or two minutes. The sprinter is a cheap claimer and the router is a grade 1 champion.Therefore it makes perfect sense to increase the number(6.2) as distances increase.

Additionally these numbers would be track specific I.e. such as Calder vs. SA with Calder being a much slower track. Ditto for most but not all syn. tracks I.e. Woodbine vs. Prescott Isle or turf tracks such as SA vs. Saratoga. So if you only play 1 or 2 tracks and know the actual adjustments it'll up your game with true and actual adjustments, if your adjustment figures are current. And for those of us that play many tracks I would trust the number adjustments in RDSS.

Finally just like the number of feet per beaten length and the amount of time per 1/2 F adjustment used makes no difference as long as a consistent number is used at the Same DISTANCE being adjusted. The "Doc" said that "Extracting is more accurate (cut back in distance) than projecting." (or stretch outs) In a cutback the horse has actually ran the distance and his deceleration is known ,where as projection is an unknown at best.
Consider a stretch out as an unknown factor however multiple stretch outs in a race can be separated but there may be other unknown factors in a race such as surface etc.
Mitch 44

[Jeebs]

No offense, but I wasnt looking for a lesson in the Match-up. It was a question directed at Ted.

Originally Posted by dlivery

Quote Richie P

THAT is how it supposed to be when one starts*relying NOT on numbers,*rules*etc but instead FOCUSES on Intuition, pattern recognition and the "Mind's Eye".

Hope this helps because it helps me a lot
As one would say a blind squirel comes across nuggets that work them.
And far a handicapping I'm a pure Last line player staring from the minute the gate pops

[mowens33]

Originally Posted by Jeebs

Ted,

1) Is this table current and 2) are the EPR/LPR ratings
based on this table rather than the PMTR book by Hambleton? 3) Is there a turf and poly equalization table?

Here you go

[mowens33]

This may be helpful if your looking to make your own figures.

Not sure if this site is still active?

Mike

[Jeebs]

Thanks Mowens33. Sadly, speedfigures.com appears to no longer exist. I used to use their Quirin figures and ability times when playing SoCal. Only downside was that there were no figures outside of NoCal/SoCal tracks.

[Mitch44]

My post had to do with the topic of equalization and not the match-up. I'm sure Ted will reply and I'm eager to hear it along with mowens33. No offence taken.
Mitch44

[Jeebs]

Originally Posted by Mitch44

My post had to do with the topic of equalization and not the match-up. I'm sure Ted will reply and I'm eager to hear it along with mowens33. No offence taken.
Mitch44

I was referring to dlivery's post. You and I must have simultaneously responded. And yes, I am looking forward to Ted's two cents.

[Mitch44]

My dumb as- didn't read what was in the highlighted box of your post Jeebs. I also hate when there is a good thread going and the topic gets changed. And this is a very good topic. Having started with Sartin in the early 90's I was surprised by Ted's chart he posted that the deceleration wasn't a constant 6.2 but varied by distance which makes perfect sense. A very important edge to those playing only one track.
Mitch44

[Bill V.]

Jeebs Ted is off for some rest and relaxation, I'm sure he will address your questions when he returns .


I wish i could help you. I really don't like to think too much about the inner workings of the Sartin programs and how to tweak or out think them.
Those folks who do and can I respect . But i just go with what RDSS spits out. I think Mitch made a great point. The numbers are not important as long as you are consistant.
If I think in my head a 85 EP and 85 LPR is "par" then when i see horses above 85 I say they are above par and below 85 below par

The key point is this will always work for me as long as I believe the 85 is "par"

Hope that makes sense

It may not to most because

[Mark]

It is my understanding that the 6.2 sec(in 5ths) was primarily used for adjustments within a distance structure. Going from 6 to 6.5f or 8 to 8.5f. It is not used to literally extend a sprint line to a route line. If memory serves me, what "The Hat" recommended when going from sprint to route was to add 2/5s of a second to the internal fractions and then find a final time amongst the horses in the race that matches those adjusted internal fractions and use that.
Of course, Jim used POWER LINES so you just don't take a crappy sprint line and try to extend it.
Additionally, Jim knew how to adjust the 1st call times of every track he played and their feeders for track speed. Since the 1st fraction is the least subject to changes in surface speed due to weather or maintenance he would. The biggest problem that I see in most automated adjustments as with RDSS2 is that some percentage of the final time variant is applied to the first fraction whether it needs it or not. Since I am a Bradshaw Match Up handicapper I use Raw data and I avoid that problem. Another caveat is in adjusting or extending mature sprinters. It is one thing to adjust a young horse that has never run in a route before and a completely different thing to think that a confirmed sprinter with 25 starts is going to suddenly become a router. Generally speaking, in the cheaper ranks a horse either sprints or routes, seldom with they do both well.
Another tidbit you may find helpful: The sprinter's final sprint time adjusted as discussed to 6f should be a full second faster than your projected 2nd call in today's route. That will save you alot of money!!
Lastly, Jim didn't carry his analysis out to final time. He focused on the internal fractions and the actual performance of the horse in that paceline line. He was all about horse behavior as expressed in the horse's running line. He didn't consider sprinters that faded in sprint lines as viable contenders to stretch out. Jim wanted to bet on fast horses or horses that became fast relatively in their races, from what I have read and studied. He wanted to see the determination of a "fighter" or horses that could overcome the pace of the race, passing multiple horses with POWER MOVES. He did this all in his head while determining whether the race would run EARLY or OTE.