answer

[Bill V.]

This was posted in the Matchers area

Pace and Cap is about the Sartin Methodology right ??
Surprised it was just laid out there and nobody stepped up

WoW

Well I will be the idiot with my Doc wrote quotes but I feel my opinion might
make a little sense

this was posted

AD..

look at this scenario....

4 horses going wire to wire with a tick more or less difference between the fractions..they all move up to a 12,500 claimer

a....10,000 nw16
b....10,000 nw1y
c....10,000
d....10,000 nw2l

Which one would you bet?

If you don't take c, I'll book your future bets...

So Horse C must be bet or else

Please list for me the
class order that is best to worst

Is it
Horse C best
Horse A second
Horse B third
Horse D Fourth

Please list the correct order ????

to be continued

Bill
The fool on the hill

[Ted Craven]

I know that the original poster quoted above was trying to make a point about contender identification based on performance in relative race conditions last out.

But the question posed is too simplistic (IMO) to be answered as is, and I would never advise people trying to understand or implement the Methodology to base a bet solely upon class (based upon entry conditions) of the last race. How a horse ran its last race is a function of the match up of contenders, energy disbursements and running styles in that last race. As it is in today's race.

It depends on what the other horses are likely to do in today's race (i.e. other than the 4 horses cited - no one should make a bet on a 4 horse race ...). Neither should one rate a horse based solely upon what it did in its last race. Last race performance is an indicator (one indicator) of current fitness - but if it's the worst performance of the past 3 or shows declining Total Energy, and hard fought all the way - will that horse improve or decline today, regardless of the 'class' designation of the last race?

And 4 horses who need the lead (no indication of who might be 'speed of the speed') - of course we then want to know who will NOT be on the lead.

And - you should never bet independent of the odds. The crowd may favour that Claiming $10000 open winner moving up today (an obvious last race stat) - but you won't last long betting with the crowd.

That's why, although I personally want to observe class rises (as designated by the man-made class structure) and I would make use of it to break ties at some point along the decision making process, it is not the first (or third) factor I want to consider.

Rather, I want to primarily consider current fitness markers (last race performance - in some segment, recency, workouts since, progression in the last 3 races or so, last 90 days or so), then how the energy based figs (Total Energy, BL/BL, VDC, E/L) stack up using the best of last 3 comparable pacelines. THEN, see if I have a significant enough divergence with the crowd opinion, in any betting pool - otherwise PASS the race.

That's my answer. But - we know all the above, don't we? Or is there some disagreement?

Ted

[Bill V.]

Thanks Ted


My point exactly

If Horse C is the bet or else
and my list is correct( I have no clue if it is or not)
but for now lets say it is.

Then every race these 4 horses run the order of finish would be
best to worst class horses ?

Of course not

Doc writes about how close most races finish
Anyone recall Doc writing about standing at the finish line
and blinking your eye as the winner crosses the finish line,
Then seeing how many horses finish pass the line
at the blink of an eye.

Races are not won in linear fashion
The best horse does not win by 1 length over the second best horse
who beats the third best horse by 1 length and so on

The difference between the finisher and the 4th place horse is often
very close and they don't finish in class order -If there is such a thing

So why must the best class horse be the bet

Anyway thats my stand on the class issue

I may be wrong to the masses here but I don't believe I am

Bill

[rmath]

Bill, I agree wit you and Ted. With the info given in the example I would not even consider placing a bet on any of the 4 horses. There was no mention of odds for any of the horses or of the size of the full field.
And yes I heard Doc mention about blinking as the winner crossed the finish line. He mentioned it several times in the Follow Up.

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

I know that the original poster quoted above was trying to make a point about contender identification based on performance in relative race conditions last out.

But the question posed is too simplistic (IMO) to be answered as is, and I would never advise people trying to understand or implement the Methodology to base a bet solely upon class (based upon entry conditions) of the last race. How a horse ran its last race is a function of the match up of contenders, energy disbursements and running styles in that last race. As it is in today's race.

It depends on what the other horses are likely to do in today's race (i.e. other than the 4 horses cited - no one should make a bet on a 4 horse race ...). Neither should one rate a horse based solely upon what it did in its last race. Last race performance is an indicator (one indicator) of current fitness - but if it's the worst performance of the past 3 or shows declining Total Energy, and hard fought all the way - will that horse improve or decline today, regardless of the 'class' designation of the last race?

And 4 horses who need the lead (no indication of who might be 'speed of the speed') - of course we then want to know who will NOT be on the lead.

And - you should never bet independent of the odds. The crowd may favour that Claiming $10000 open winner moving up today (an obvious last race stat) - but you won't last long betting with the crowd.

That's why, although I personally want to observe class rises (as designated by the man-made class structure) and I would make use of it to break ties at some point along the decision making process, it is not the first (or third) factor I want to consider.

Rather, I want to primarily consider current fitness markers (last race performance - in some segment, recency, workouts since, progression in the last 3 races or so, last 90 days or so), then how the energy based figs (Total Energy, BL/BL, VDC, E/L) stack up using the best of last 3 comparable pacelines. THEN, see if I have a significant enough divergence with the crowd opinion, in any betting pool - otherwise PASS the race.

That's my answer. But - we know all the above, don't we? Or is there some disagreement?

Ted

I’m not sure that the original poster was making the point of contender identification based solely on a horse’s last race or not. Perhaps it was based on each horse’s body of work (all races in the PP’s).
Regardless of which scenario applies, how good could certain horses bodies of work be when one horse just beat NW2L, another horse just beat NW16M or another horse just beat NW1Y, when you compare them to a horse that just beat an “OPEN” race? In either event, it seemed clear to me that each horse won its’ last race at the condition stated, in times that were comparable and the poster was just making the observation that the horse that beat “open” company was the best horse…regardless of odds, which obviously had nothing to do with his question. His question was simply intended to illustrate the difference in $10,000 claiming horses, an issue that was raised by another member in a prior post.

My opinion on the subject is this;
A horse that just beat “open” $10,000 claimers may have beat a field of horses that had 15 to 20 wins each, with the winner itself being among that group.

There is no way a horse that just beat $10,000 NW2L can be compared to a horse that just beat “open” $10,000. The horse that beat NW2L beat a field of horses, that like the winner, had never beat anything other than maidens.

A horse that just beat $10,000 NW16M just beat exactly what the condition says, horses that have not been able to win a race in the last six months. By way of comparison, the horse that just beat an “open” $10,000 claiming race vs. a field where the horses in that race were 15 to 20 race winners, have been running against and beating fields of like horses over and over again during the same 6 months period. Again, there is no comparison here.

A horse that just beat $10,000 NW1Y is in the same position as the above horse with the exception that this horse’s win was against even lesser horses than the horse above, since this field hasn’t been able to win a race in a year. By way of comparison, how many fields were beat by the “open” $10,000 claimer and/or the horses it beat during that same time period? Again, there is no comparison here.

To ignore these facts and say that the $10,000 NW2L winner is equal to the “open” $10,000 claiming winner because they each ran an identical time, is to say that a $5,000 claiming NW2L winner is equal to SECRETARIAT if they both ran identical times.

I think “Doc”, himself, took this approach when handicapping the Kentucky Derby. If I remember correctly, he suggested dismissing horses that have not been able to demonstrate they were capable of at least a Grade II win. This may not be exactly correct, but it is very close.

The point to the above is, does this kind of thinking ONLY APPLY to the Kentucky Derby??
Was “Doc” not aware of this concept of eliminating horses when they are in a race that is clearly above the class at which the horse can perform to its’ capability?
From the outset, “Doc” made APV a part of his methodology. (please, I am aware of the effect that "racinos" have on this calculation)
And it remains a part of the Sartin Methodology, although many people may not pay much attention to it beyond a glance at the numbers.
Clearly, “Doc” was aware of “class”.

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Bill V.

Thanks Ted


The difference between the finisher and the 4th place horse is often
very close and they don't finish in class order -If there is such a thing

So why must the best class horse be the bet


Bill

Is there such a thing as class?

I think that would be a good question for "Doc".
"Doc" used APV. Clearly a measurement of class.
"Doc" advocated only using certain horses in the Kentucky Derby as contenders based on the "class" of races they demonstrated they could win.
(maybe that would apply to other types of races as well, hhhmmm)
Yes, I believe "Doc" had a clear idea of what class was even though he may not have professed it because of his basic methodology, he knew more about class (a "horsey" thing) than he let on.

[Bill V.]

Thanks FTL. For your explanation of the 4 different class races. I would love to see this race. There seems to be a lot of. What ifs and this will happen and that happened but I have yet to see the actual race. The speed ratings the total energy calculations. Or most important the odds. Was the 1Om open claimer even worth a win bet? I agree with Ted here this is all rather shady. As posted with no past performance data. Anyway. Respect to you and your. Look at the methodology. Agree to disagree and wishing you a win in every race

[Bill V.]

Originally Posted by rmath

Bill, I agree wit you and Ted. With the info given in the example I would not even consider placing a bet on any of the 4 horses. There was no mention of odds for any of the horses or of the size of the full field.
And yes I heard Doc mention about blinking as the winner crossed the finish line. He mentioned it several times in the Follow Up.

Thank RMath

Yes Doc says it in the Video too

I found a copy of the audio portion of the video Its on a CD but
it will play on my trucks cd player I looking to convert it over to something that will play
Will be fun to listen to Doc on the road to fortune ! or was that
South Hackensack New Jersey

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Bill V.

Thanks FTL. For your explanation of the 4 different class races. I would love to see this race. There seems to be a lot of. What ifs and this will happen and that happened but I have yet to see the actual race. The speed ratings the total energy calculations. Or most important the odds. Was the 1Om open claimer even worth a win bet? I agree with Ted here this is all rather shady. As posted with no past performance data. Anyway. Respect to you and your. Look at the methodology. Agree to disagree and wishing you a win in every race

Hello Bill,

I think you have missed something here. I might be wrong, but I don't believe there is an "actual" race involved here, rather, it is a hypothetical situation. If I am correct, there are no other horses, no speed ratings, no total energy, no odds or anything else. This simply appears to be a hypothetical question in response to a prior post, which I have copied and pasted here, in part:

Originally Posted by alydar_David

Mike, a few thoughts crossed the old brain:

For example, how much difference is there between 10K claimers at different tracks? It most certainly is not like it was when Quirin ran his stats.
[/LIST]

As you can see, the idea was to show the possible differences between $10,000 claiming horses as all $10,000 claiming horses are not equal.

The post in question goes on to state:
"4 horses going wire to wire with a tick more or less difference between the fractions..they all move up to a 12,500 claimer. Which one would you bet?"

So the poster asks "which" is the best horse should these 4 horses all meet in an "open" $12,500 claiming race? (presumably in their next start)

We can conclude from the hypothetical information provided that:
1 - they all ran the same distance in their last race
2 - they all ran on the same surface in their last race
3 - they all ran the same fractional and final times (within a "tick" one way or the other)
4 - therefore speed ratings and total energy would be close

Given that hypothetical information, along with the numerical class and conditions for each horse, which horse is the best horse should they all meet in an "open" $12,500 claiming race?
It is an opinion question based on numerical class and condition. Odds have nothing to do with it.
There are no "if's", "and's" or "but's", just which horse is the best horse?!
The poster goes on to make his opinion known, by saying if you don't choose the horse that won the "open" race, then he is willing to book any bets on any of the other three choices.

It really is straight forward.

[gl45]

Mike,
I'll take the nw16m vs the open claimer for $2 @ any odds