New Program /workout %

[Mitch44]

Thanks Mike and no Ted won't. You'll like it. Put it this way, I take it to the bank.

Well, I stand corrected as my monkey takes it to the bank. He's looking over my shoulder. Ha ha ha

Mitch44

[Mitch44]

I’m leaving Monday for a week or so. While away I’ll tune in to keep up but won’t have time for any long-winded post or answers. Prior to leaving I want to get this post up.

We’ve talked about races with several contenders for this angle and incorporating it into your analysis. Any race can end up with multiple horses not just MSW. I also stated I incorporate workouts into my procedures as part of my handicapping. The last few weeks I’ve used it as a stand-alone to report data and to provide its potential. A user can use it anyway they like. Its best when separating contenders and used in a holistic approach.

How do we actually separate contenders that have these works or other contenders?
First of all, never use a single factor such as Total Energy or TPR. Their one dimensional and never will outperform a factor that contains multiple factors.

Plus, any multiple facet or Factor is only as good as its weakest component which tears down the power of the overall rating. If you’re making your own composite, one better do an awful amount of research to discover that weakest one. Additionally, sometimes less is more.

An example of a composite Factor would be BLBL. It contains the 7 Primary Factors of Pace that Sartin researched for years to come up with. Thanks Doc. It's not just one thing but a combination of 7 Factors.

Now with RDSS we have several very good composite Ratings. Their all not created equal. Now this is an area where many will be in disagreement as everyone has their own preference. If they have become attached to something they’ll die by their own sword to defend it. That’s their choice. I’m just passing along some Pro’s and Con’s.

What you should do is have an open mind and collect data on each one and the one that gets those longshots prices that are getable and possible. I won’t give you, my choice; do the work and you’ll have more confidence in your choice. That’s huge after losing a race, otherwise you’ll start zigging and zagging which is worse. Naturally there’s hardly ever is a complete agreement and just more wasted time on unchangeable minds.

Composite Factors in RDSS, not in any particular order or preference. BLBL, CR, CR+, CSR, BRIS Prime Power, BRIS Profit, RX Factors scores 1,2 & 3, APV, V/DC, Supp LS. You could say Tot Energy is a composite because it has 3 FR.’s in it, TPR 2.

A few thoughts and observations: I would not call TPR and Tot. Energy a true Composite because it's all pace and will never outperform the 7 components of BLBL. Supplementary Line Score, supplementary is subordinate to Primary or the 7 Primary Factors. Also, BLBL has some additional tweaks within it that makes it stronger than just the 7 Primary factors.

V/DC is excellent, and a composite plus contains the Match UP. How good is your pace line selection? If you use only the program picked line their wrong at times and will shew the readouts. If your exceptional at it, it’s a good Composite Factor. In fact, Tot. Energy and TPR are pace line dependent as is BLBL. Problem is its error prone even for the best. Wouldn’t be my choice but to each their own

APV is a standalone and is within CR & Cr+ so why not consider them, forget APV.

CSR is a composite of several Speed Rating placing more emphasis on recent races. Few review this and it can be faulty with a bad line, or a line rated in those 4 that shouldn’t be rated Even more so if that inappropriate line was its last line. It is still correct a high % of the time and one line can be forgiven but a horse might have two. Consider.

Bris Prime and Profit are true composites and not one dimensional. They consider class, pace, consistency etc. etc. You would be amazed how many times longshots are in its top 5. Consider.

RX Factors which are very good but are very heavily dependent of proper pace line selection with Tot. Energy. V/DC and a possible faulty CSR rating. An error here is greatly compounded. I believe CSR alone has less possible error and is a better choice.

There you have it, test these recommended ones or test them all if you want to when the new update comes, see what works best for this workout angle and or contenders or ties, particularity the ones that get the longshots in the top 4. Some of these may be good but which one captures the most winners and those big prices.

Mitch44

[Lt1]

Well stated Mitch. Thanks for sharing. Enjoy your trip. Say hi to Irene for me
Tim

[Mitch44]

BTW these workout numbers are good to help determine soundness of dropdowns. We always run into dropdowns and those pesky suspicious one.

Mitch44

[Bill Lyster]

Mitch or Ted:

Which of the three workout numbers do you consider the controling piece of info or most important? The %, the SR or the WR?



For this horse, the winner, the last 4 w/o show improvement over the works 66 and 86 days back.

the place horse in this race:



The last 4 works are within 30 days of todays race. Two strong works 90-88 and then two works with the dogs up (which might hide possibly better final times). i've seen higher rated works followed by slower works, where one might consider the last two in this case to be maintenance works as long as the 90-88 were within 30 days of todays race.

[note] I can see that the process of researching this issue is going to take a lot of recording and reviewing, just from this one race. We need to come up with the most important factors to study in order to get meaningful info.

bill

[Mitch44]

The % is the most important.

On the 6 horse Dolly May the key workout was the 76 earned on 23 July That occurred since its last race. Note also this horse and trainer normally don't work this particular horse fast so for that horse it's an excellent work. Under the SR their all pretty much consistent and a rating of 80 or so is easily attainable. The WR here is insignificant because it does not rate every workout, not a very good tool. Keep in mind, what is a good work for that horse and trainer and where does it occur. This is a perfect example where % shines and outperforms SR & WR. Don't forget context or is the horse properly placed. Dis. & Surface are fine, plus this one is dropping class, tipped off also by APV. Has only had 1 race at today's class.

#5 Unfaithful Ways. Shows all very slow works but finish positions demonstrate this horse responds to this slow type of training. The trainer may believe in not leaving a horse's race on the training track and saves the horse for the afternoon. Unlike a Bob Baffert who works all horses fast. Also, some trainers hide a workout within a workout. By going very fast early or late and very slow the rest of the workout. Last race distance may have been too far, but today's surface and dis. are OK. Note: again, this horse responds to slow works and has finished in the money in 6 of 8 races with 2 wins.

Both these horses appear to be properly places when you look at their CSR, CR, BPP.
These % rating should be put in context, which I stated early on in the discussion. A valid question always is, what is a good work for that horse and where did it occur. The most important workouts are since last race. However, if a horse finishes in the money after a good workout prior to last race, then the trainer may only give a slow workout as it is in form. Or no workouts, when no workouts since last race it hasn't been staying in the barn. Just doing slow jogs and gallops which contribute and enhances its form.

Remember a good % workout for that horse and using a good Factor that's multi-faceted makes it a solid contender. The public frequently makes mistakes on odds with horses and create overlays or value every day, especially if a poor race in last or out of the money.

Mitch44

[Bill Lyster]

Give the Monkey a banana from me. Nice explanation, appreciate your contributions.

Bill

[Mitch44]

That monkey is getting fat, try to watch his diet but seems to no avail. At my age winning is more important. Your welcome Bill, glad to be of help.

As far as the SR verses the % workouts. SR workouts are more an indication of soundness and maintenance works, rather than a horse's improvement in form but they can be an improvement in form also.

Their based on a horse working in 12.2 second per furlong or roughly that as they use a parrel time chart. Ray Taulbot the originator of this used 12 second per furlong, Sartin refined it and improved it with his chart deceleration studies etc. That may be good for a marathon race say 1 1/4 and longer but not so much for sprints. With that standard an 80 SR workout is achievable by numerous horses or class of horses. Just not impressive but sort of common. Some of these are questionable as to whether they're really a workout, say 70's. Think about this, a horse ranks 30th of 100 horses' (beat 70horses) that workout 30/100 it receives a 70%, or a horse works and he runs 4F work in around 51 sec.? I doubt many were even using any data on workouts to judge the condition factor. It's a huge one that shouldn't be ignored.

Mitch44

[Mitch44]

Some horses don't respond well to fast workouts and don't have Energy to spare. At times you'll see a very fast work or % of work and the horse fails to respond in the afternoon. Perhaps it took to much out of the horse or made it sore or it's just a Morning Glory. A smart trainer will adapt and follow up with slower workouts which causes a lower % against other horses. Others never adapt. Some that work slow run gangbuster in the afternoon in a race for love of the competition. A mart trainer will work them with another horse to get them to extend their selves.

Some trainers like Baffert work all his horses fast and other trainers always work theirs slow. The key is how the horse reacts to their training in a race.

Normally I see two slow workouts to follow a fast workout where the horse failed to respond and bang, they run a big race. Sometimes this is deliberate to fool watchful eyes or the public. Like pace lines they can't beyond the last one. Or the slower works are at a longer distance to build stamina. Naturally any horses has to be entered at the proper distance, surface and class to be seriously considered. Cause and effect, how has it responded?

Normally the higher the % of a workout are the best horses but a good workout followed by a couple slow ones or race mixed in there and a lower % horse can win. No hard and fast rules and there are exceptions to every rule when it comes to horseracing. Percentage wise the higher % horses are best which are what I go to. But I have learned to look at 2 slow workouts very closely since a high % one that failed to show it in a race. Especially if its longer like 5F or more as a stamina builder to go along with that speed.

Beware of horses that have not disgraced themselves at a dis., surface, or class.
(Unknown factor.) Particularity young horses that have not disgraced themselves at today's conditions. They pay well and have upside.

Some of this sounds more complicated than it really is. Its rather simple and the % of workout helps tremendously to determine form, which allows us to downgrade contenders or elevate others. Work with it for a while and it becomes 2nd nature and ups your game.
Good luck,

Mitch44

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by Bill Lyster

Mitch or Ted:

Which of the three workout numbers do you consider the controling piece of info or most important? The %, the SR or the WR?

Attachment 50367

For this horse, the winner, the last 4 w/o show improvement over the works 66 and 86 days back.

the place horse in this race:

Attachment 50368

The last 4 works are within 30 days of todays race. Two strong works 90-88 and then two works with the dogs up (which might hide possibly better final times). i've seen higher rated works followed by slower works, where one might consider the last two in this case to be maintenance works as long as the 90-88 were within 30 days of todays race.

[note] I can see that the process of researching this issue is going to take a lot of recording and reviewing, just from this one race. We need to come up with the most important factors to study in order to get meaningful info.

bill

Bill, Mitch is adding an emphasis to a readout which has been in RDSS forever - the Rank% - and giving spot-play examples of using it, so to the extent that it is another useful tool, and knowing examples of HOW to employ it, I am grateful for the contribution!

Essentially, Mitch has suggested extending the Rank% measurement to ALL Workouts, not just the last 5 maximum and only since the last race, as it was before. He has also suggested marking the BEST Rank% (or collection of BESTs within a tolerance range e.g. 4%) since last raced (or BEST ever, in the case of FTS or 2TS) to see improvement or readiness.

For horses for whom we have less other info to go by (FTS/2TS, other Maidens, longer layoffs, etc), and coupled with observations about changes today (changed equipment, Trainer, distance/surface) this represents additional information to judge potential fitness. Maybe get a few more races at longer prices, take on a few more horizontal bets, maybe downgrade a 'hollow' favourite.

It's another 'angle', IMO with situational use, not necessarily broad use like BLBL/VDC/CSR/PP/PL. I have seen Mitch's examples publicly and privately focusing on longer priced horses and Maidens (though not exclusively), as he has written here. Some good hits, indeed. Many times, there are too many potential horses in a race with this angle so it gets confusing. A proper study would include all the hits AND MISSES and tally the ROI from legitimate and consistent inclusion of the angle in candidate races at candidate minimum Odds thresholds. Until then, it's anecdotal - which is not nothing! - and you don't have to give the money back when you hit. But you also don't get a refund if you lose by betting indiscriminately!

I don't think we have found the final presentation of this information about uses of Rank%, but we're working on it. I've added a Summary column on the Entries screen in the Workout section to highlight this Rank% angle, and filter it by other more well-known composite figure ratings (CR, CSR, Prime Power, ProfitLine, etc). Also to indicate degrees of effort against more horses - for further investigation. Screen shots to follow soon; testers to get an update soon

One note about Work Rank (WR) which Mitch says he does not like/use (no problem): per the FAQ on this, this is a COMPOSITE factor, not something pertinent to each Workout, hence why it only shows on the top line beside the 1st workout, like all the other Form Patterns. It measures average Workout Rank% PLUS cumulative distance worked and raced within the past 30 day. Horses working slower, finishing behind more horses, working fewer or shorter distances will get a lower WR than the converse. All the detail is in the inputs to this factor - this is a Summary, with the shortcomings that a summary often entails. It is what it is, but again it's not nothing.

Also FWIW, though thanks for the opinions , I think I'll stick with the long-standing formula for Rank% I gave earlier. We already know that the bullet work or 1/nn will be 100%, so the suggested alternate formula delivers no NEW information and while producing different numbers, tends to also be quite co-related to the ups and downs of the existing formula, so not really any lost info.

Also, the existing formula does give extra info related to how many horses were beaten (work time was faster than), in that due to the higher denominator in the formula when more horses were beaten (1/35 versus 1/11) the resulting higher Rank% will tend to indicate that the effort was better than more other horses the same day and distance.

I also added a few tweaks to Rank% to respect efforts from longer distances (4f and up) and from a standing Gate start or around 'Dogs'.

Let's see what we see during subsequent testing rounds.

Thanks Mitch for your suggestions and feedback, and thanks Bill and others for the useful questions and challenges. Nice teamwork!

Ted