Saratoga Factor Information thru 8/7

[Bill Lyster]

Starts on day 1, does not cover races won by FTS or when more than two FTS or foreign starters in their first outing. There were a couple of days without data because I did not assemble all races. it started out as being a study of the four main factors, but ended up with most of the factors on the RX screen but not CR+, or New pace info. I forgot to show the final contender's TE ranking info and that could be a mistake. I like to look at the TE from POR top horses and compare it to my contenders, especially when making the final cuts to four or three. But just as interesting is a horse from say the #5 POR with only a 4 ranking in the contender mix – usually an easy elimination for win.

Finally, based on my handicapping and my SEGMENTS screen info I recorded the Lengths Back at 2nd call, so on the first worksheet that has all the races, 85% win within 4.5 L at 2nd call; also listed is wins from less than 2.6 L back.

All of the worksheets have the same info, but sorted differently. the 2nd sheet is by distance and distances that have top 3 in all races are highlighted in yellow; those with 2 or 3 outside the top three are in light green. I am not finished playing with this info, however.

[Mitch44]

Many years ago Tom Brohamer used 5 lengths behind for the Second Call, its a great down and dirty approximation. It can be improved on with a current track profile which would eliminate more horses and tighten up the parameters.

Generally looking at your data and based on my research you did an excellent job on this.

I can gather by the data that your Pace Line selection is very good. Also whatever setting your using is getting great results.

If you use this data I believe your getting the maximum from the program and only need to have discipline in betting and money management for success.

For others you may not get the same results due to settings and the all important selection of Pace Lines and contenders, therefore they should do their own research and collect data to expose their weak areas.

Excellent work Bill, your hard work has given you the tools for success. CONGRATS!!!

Mitch44

[Bill Lyster]

Thanks Mitch,

One thing I was surprised at was the LB at 2nd Call data and how much of it was a lot closer than what TIM, LT1, had produced, but having looked at my paceline choices it was clear that several were from lines where the horse was more than 4 L back and it was the internal adjustments in the program that made it come together so that, overall, 63% of winners were no more than 2.5 L back at the 2c call once the program adjusted for variants, etc.

For pacelines I try to find representative lines near zero track variant and no more than +/- 5, sometimes +/- 10. I think that above -15 fast tracks give too much advantage to horses with those lines (unless all the contenders have representative lines at that amount), so as a consequence my lines may go a lot deeper in the PPs than others to find those lines, BUT, the lines I choose are within the horse's normal/average running line based on its TPR style. Also, no off tracks on dirt, but firm and good on turf are okay, for me.

[Bill Lyster]

One thing I was hoping by publishing this info was to get someone with a higher degree of math background to possibly distill this information further, through the use of algorithms or other math voodoo to create another factor that might be better than we already have.

ALL MATH WIZARDS DON'T NEED TO APPLY, JUST DIG IN!!!

Regards,

[MJS6916]

Originally Posted by Bill Lyster

One thing I was hoping by publishing this info was to get someone with a higher degree of math background to possibly distill this information further, through the use of algorithms or other math voodoo to create another factor that might be better than we already have.

ALL MATH WIZARDS DON'T NEED TO APPLY, JUST DIG IN!!!

Regards,

Bill,
Did you have all runners as win contenders when you put each race through
the RDSS analysis?

Thanks, Mike

[Bill Lyster]

I gave each horse a line consistent with its history as close to the race distance as possible, then during analysis I eliminated down to those horses with the four main factors with top 5 ratings.

Be careful with horses that fail to hit the top 5 in BPP. If you hover your mouse over the BPP column for the #5 horse, check out how close that is only missing a top 5 rank in BPP. RDSS rarely, if ever shows ties in BPP, so a 6th ranked BPP could only be 0.1 of a point below #5 and might be a real contender if it ranks top 5 or better in the other main factor categories.

By my count there were 23 races out of the 144 studied that were missing one or more of the four main factors ranked 5 or better, or 121/144 = 84% of all WINNERS had all four of the main factors in the top FIVE ranks, irrespective of distance.

You can play with each distance to see where the anomalies exist.

[Lt1]

Well done Bill and thanks for sharing. You point out a very important fact about Profit Line ranks. According to Twin Spires when there are ties in PL odds the tie is broken by post position. Let's say the #3 and #5 both have PL odds of 15-1. By default the 3 would rank ahead of the 5 although closer examination may show the 5 is the stronger of the 2. Another thing to check is BPP ranks. You will find that sometimes a horse that has NEVER been on todays' surface will rank higher then those that have. You may want to[and I do] downgrade this horse when you make your final selections. Bottom line DON'T blindly accept any rankings. Do your due diligence.
Tim

[raceman5]

Here is the $60,000 question Bill, after you get your top 5 how do u narrow it down to your top 2? After all, in today's racing, the av field is around 7-8 horses in a race on the dirt, unless it is a turf race.

Bob

[Bill Lyster]

Originally Posted by raceman5

Here is the $60,000 question Bill, after you get your top 5 how do u narrow it down to your top 2? After all, in today's racing, the av field is around 7-8 horses in a race on the dirt, unless it is a turf race.

Bob

In previous posts in this thread we have covered rankings of the four main factors. So any horse without a top 5 ranking in ALL four factors is suspect - in this study 84+% of all winners had top 5 ranks in all four factors across all distances and surfaces (but see LT1's post further on about PL and BPP.) You would be surprised how few races where there are five horses with all of the four main factors!

What follows is pretty much basic Sartin Methodology.

Next you can look on the TPR graph to see who the top 3 EPR, LPR and TPR horses are and if they are within 5 points of the best. Exceptions to the within 5 points might be extreme early and late horses, but the early horses need to be their and 2C.

Look at the total energy TE ranking and the actual TE value of the remaining contenders. If there are more than about 2.75 points (my estimate, could be different with others) difference between a horse under consideration and the best, consider dropping this horse as a win contender.

In this regard you can always consult the POR TE on the RX3 screen (rt side of Rx3 info) and compare the POR from the paceline to the TE rank within today's contenders. If the horse is coming out of a race whose POR was #5 and today the horse is #4 or #5 in your mix of contenders, probably downgrade it.

If you suspect any of this is "suspect" go back and have RDSS auto choose lines and go to the Analysis Rx screen and see who won. Based on the information in this study I went back over the weekend's races at Saratoga and kept for final consideration, the top 3 PL, the top 3 BPP and the top 3 TPR. Then I did what I suggest above and made some eliminations. You would be surprised at how many of the races had W/P/S horses in the top 4 or 5 picks.

The more races you see, the better you will get at eliminations. Go back and record what you did, how it turned out, and you will find areas where downgrading a pick should be required.

Buenos knot holes going forward,

[raceman5]

Originally Posted by Bill Lyster

In previous posts in this thread we have covered rankings of the four main factors. So any horse without a top 5 ranking in ALL four factors is suspect - in this study 84+% of all winners had top 5 ranks in all four factors across all distances and surfaces (but see LT1's post further on about PL and BPP.) You would be surprised how few races where there are five horses with all of the four main factors!

What follows is pretty much basic Sartin Methodology.

Next you can look on the TPR graph to see who the top 3 EPR, LPR and TPR horses are and if they are within 5 points of the best. Exceptions to the within 5 points might be extreme early and late horses, but the early horses need to be their and 2C.

Look at the total energy TE ranking and the actual TE value of the remaining contenders. If there are more than about 2.75 points (my estimate, could be different with others) difference between a horse under consideration and the best, consider dropping this horse as a win contender.

In this regard you can always consult the POR TE on the RX3 screen (rt side of Rx3 info) and compare the POR from the paceline to the TE rank within today's contenders. If the horse is coming out of a race whose POR was #5 and today the horse is #4 or #5 in your mix of contenders, probably downgrade it.

If you suspect any of this is "suspect" go back and have RDSS auto choose lines and go to the Analysis Rx screen and see who won. Based on the information in this study I went back over the weekend's races at Saratoga and kept for final consideration, the top 3 PL, the top 3 BPP and the top 3 TPR. Then I did what I suggest above and made some eliminations. You would be surprised at how many of the races had W/P/S horses in the top 4 or 5 picks.

The more races you see, the better you will get at eliminations. Go back and record what you did, how it turned out, and you will find areas where downgrading a pick should be required.

Buenos knot holes going forward,

Good info Bill, thanks for that.