Go Back   Pace and Cap - Sartin Methodology & The Match Up > Sartin Methodology Handicapping 101 (102 ...)
Mark Forums Read
Google Site Search Get RDSS Sartin Library RDSS FAQs Conduct Register Site FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts

Sartin Methodology Handicapping 101 (102 ...) Interactive Teaching & Learning - Race Conditions, Contenders, Pacelines, Advanced Concepts, Betting ...

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-06-2018, 01:40 AM   #21
Jeebs
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastcharlie55 View Post
remember pizzolla was a magician and he can make your money disappear.
:d :d :d
Jeebs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2021, 04:11 PM   #22
tom
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 644
Blast from the past...spending the afternoon browsing old threads to jog the old memory...semi-annual tune up. I forgot this one - Mike's power 3rd fraction. How was that calculated?

Say a horse runs against a 46 112 pace and gains 5 lengths from the half. Raw he gets a 25 3rd fraction. How did he adjust that?
tom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2021, 09:01 AM   #23
raceman5
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Largo Fl.
Posts: 2,295
Mp

I believe he added back the 5 beaten lengths at the half
raceman5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2021, 09:03 AM   #24
Mitch44
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
I would forget about adjusting the 3rd FR by Pizzola's PBS numbers and not recommend them at all.

Sartin's adjustments have proven to be far superior, all done automatically by the computer which make them consistent and not prone to mistakes. Sartin's also considers the Match Up of todays race which changes race to race by the contenders within the race.

The bottom line is this and the fly in the ointment to Pizzola's PBR is a false narrative because each horse when gutted has its own deceleration pattern. The best decelerate gradually while others stop on a dime. Therefore no neat rule such as adjusting 2 to 1 in the 3rd FR is valid. Just a SWAG ( scientific wild ass guess) verses a WAG (wild ass guess) BTW a SWAG is slightly better as there is some reason behind it verses throwing a dart at it. Even Sartin has said it could be as much as 4 to 1 in a route. The Match Up considers this and is quite more effective as far who can survive that early pace.

Sartin teachings and RDSS is about picking winners which are the spring board to launching success. Winners are the key to all bets regardless of what they pay. Pizzola's is just about getting prices or longshots. Its also one dimensional because its limited to only one factor, his version of pace numbers. Longshots are multi-dimensional and come from many factors, not just pace. Any multifaceted approach would be a better path to travel on.

Mitch44

Last edited by Mitch44; 06-16-2021 at 09:06 AM.
Mitch44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2021, 03:29 PM   #25
Ted Craven
Grade 1
 
Ted Craven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 8,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by raceman5 View Post
I believe he added back the 5 beaten lengths at the half
This is what RDSS does in its PF3 factor (Supplementary section on BLBL and Rx screens - same as Pizzolla's PPF). RDSS just shows the rank, and to do so calculates a modified 3rd (Power! ) fraction velocity and time (not shown). I have always been allergic to hyperbole ...

Tom in your example, if you use .20 seconds per beaten length, you get 25 seconds as you say.

I have no studies to show the situational effectiveness of PPF/PF3. Some people like it. It is not used in any other compounded factors.

Ted
__________________

R
DSS -
Racing Decision Support System™
Ted Craven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2021, 10:14 AM   #26
Mitch44
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
As Sartin evolved he discounted Factors that failed to meet or exceed his standards, Fractals is an example. However after introducing things or concepts there were those who always demanded that they remain in new programs. From a business point of view I suppose it made sense. The opposite effect was that there were so many readouts and Factors it made it difficult for most to grasp. It really caused confusion or paralysis by analysis. Even today many fail to grasp the concept as they come and go.

On page 110 of Tom Brohamer's book Modern Pace Handicapping circa 1991, he states that the group or Pirco's basic criteria for a Factor to be considered viable, was that it must consistently rank the winner in the top 4. "Consistently" was defined as 67%.

Ted your absolutely correct that its not part of the Primary Factors, obviously it failed to meet Sartin's standards for inclusion. To survive the game no one should be looking backward or accept a lesser degree of winning, adapt or perish.

Mitch44

Last edited by Mitch44; 06-17-2021 at 10:17 AM.
Mitch44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2021, 04:29 PM   #27
gandalf380
Grade 1
 
gandalf380's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: central islip ny
Posts: 1,090
"On page 110 of Tom Brohamer's book Modern Pace Handicapping circa 1991, he states that the group or Pirco's basic criteria for a Factor to be considered viable, was that it must consistently rank the winner in the top 4. "Consistently" was defined as 67%."

In RDSS, at BEL most of the factors do better than that. e.g. RX1, RX2, and RX3 approach 85% in the top 4 and over 90% in the top 5.
__________________
Check out my daily picks for Saratoga in the Saratoga Special
http://www.thisishorseracing.com
gandalf380 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2021, 08:58 AM   #28
Mitch44
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
Your correct Charlie and I've been well aware of this for many years while using my own version of RX3. Lt1 can verify this. As such I always try to steer them towards later Programs for success, particularity RDSS.


I'm not a fan of RX1 or 2. but the way their weighted there is little difference and in the majority of time they come up with the same horses and order.


Any combination of Factors is effected by the worse of the Factors which will lower the effectiveness of the others, this is also why too many combinations of Factors can ruin the sauce. Of course how their weighted can also reduce or enhance their effectiveness.


Mitch44
Mitch44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2022, 11:03 AM   #29
delayjf
Grade 3
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 74
Quote:
I believe he added back the 5 beaten lengths at the half
This adjustment never made any sense to me. If a horse gained 5 length into the pace why would you not give it credit? Or am I missing something.
delayjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2022, 11:19 AM   #30
delayjf
Grade 3
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 74
Quote:
You will not get a true picture of a horse's ability if he was the benefit of a slow pace, or if he was compromised by one.
I look for the above as well. A prime example of a horse hurt by a slow pace was Giacomo in the SA Derby. Mike Smith pre-KY derby discussion on Giacomo poster on youtube is very insightful.
delayjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 Off

Forum Jump


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

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:36 AM.