PCT e

[mikesal57]

Lets get back to real handicapping.....

I'm sure most have heard of PctE when dealing with "pace" programs.

In the 1st screen....its obvious where the winner will(should) come from..

But, in the 2nd screen , where do you think the winner is coming from..??

A friend of mine takes ROI over win percentage , I believe its the opposite..

Your thoughts?

Mike

query start: 7/8/2016 9:07:50 AM
query end: 7/8/2016 9:07:51 AM
elapsed time: 1 seconds

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE TRACK = 'BEL'
AND [DATE] >= #01-01-2016#
AND INTSURFACE <= 3
AND DIST < 1760


Data Summary Win Place Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 1869.70 1895.70 1761.60
Bet -2184.00 -2184.00 -2184.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L -314.30 -288.30 -422.40

Wins 151 304 436
Plays 1092 1092 1092
PCT .1383 .2784 .3993

ROI 0.8561 0.8680 0.8066
Avg Mut 12.38 6.24 4.04


By: SQL-F34 Rank

Rank P/L Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 -145.60 332.00 0.5614 10 166 .0602 0.4356
2 -84.20 308.00 0.7266 20 154 .1299 0.9392
3 36.40 332.00 1.1096 30 166 .1807 1.3069
4 -71.10 292.00 0.7565 25 146 .1712 1.2383
5 22.20 298.00 1.0745 28 149 .1879 1.3590
6 -63.80 236.00 0.7297 15 118 .1271 0.9193
7 11.90 172.00 1.0692 11 86 .1279 0.9250
8 48.20 108.00 1.4463 9 54 .1667 1.2053
9 -34.40 52.00 0.3385 1 26 .0385 0.2781
10 -13.90 34.00 0.5912 2 17 .1176 0.8508
11 -12.00 12.00 0.0000 0 6 .0000 0.0000
12 -6.00 6.00 0.0000 0 3 .0000 0.0000
13 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
14 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
15 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
16 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
17 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
18 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
19 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000



query start: 7/8/2016 9:14:15 AM
query end: 7/8/2016 9:14:15 AM
elapsed time: 0 seconds

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE TRACK = 'BEL'
AND [DATE] >= #01-01-2016#
AND INTSURFACE <= 3
AND DIST >= 1760


Data Summary Win Place Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 928.50 867.20 864.00
Bet -1154.00 -1154.00 -1154.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L -225.50 -286.80 -290.00

Wins 84 168 253
Plays 577 577 577
PCT .1456 .2912 .4385

ROI 0.8046 0.7515 0.7487
Avg Mut 11.05 5.16 3.42


By: SQL-F34 Rank

Rank P/L Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 -116.20 168.00 0.3083 8 84 .0952 0.6542
2 30.80 168.00 1.1833 11 84 .1310 0.8995
3 -49.10 168.00 0.7077 13 84 .1548 1.0631
4 -61.00 168.00 0.6369 13 84 .1548 1.0631
5 -17.20 168.00 0.8976 16 84 .1905 1.3084
6 -57.50 146.00 0.6062 10 73 .1370 0.9410
7 -2.70 94.00 0.9713 7 47 .1489 1.0230
8 68.60 34.00 3.0176 4 17 .2353 1.6162
9 -11.00 24.00 0.5417 1 12 .0833 0.5724
10 -4.20 10.00 0.5800 1 5 .2000 1.3738
11 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
12 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
13 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
14 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
15 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
16 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
17 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
18 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
19 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000

[mikesal57]

I guess all the cappers are at work... :lol:

[traynor]

The results of ANY study of pace are strongly influenced by the criteria of the racelines selected for analysis. Tweak the process of selecting input (even slightly) and the results are tweaked.

Most who are (or want to be) pace handicappers realize (or should realize) this fundamental aspect of race analysis, and explicitly declare the process used to arrive at the results generated.

PctE can be usefully predictive. It can also be totally misleading, contingent on the specifics of how the analysis is set up. Specifically (as just about every pace handicapper has discovered to his or her dismay), the lines used to generate the results (on a specific group of races) may generate quite different results when applied to a different group of races, or when slight tweaks are made in input content.

[raybo]

%E is a measurement of how a horse "might" expend its energy (early, late or neutral). Which leads many to the assumption that, in shorter sprint races, horses that tend to expend more energy early are advantaged. And, in the long term, that is probably true, when looking at hit rates. However, much depends on the individual field dynamics (running styles, pace pressure, and early speed capabilities of the entire field).

The theory of early energy expenditure being important, in shorter sprint races, is well known, and as a result, well bet. Therefore, the better early expenditure horses will often be bet down, to the point that a normal hit rate (an expected hit rate under the specific circumstances) will probably not overcome the low averageodds associated with these types of horses.

IMO, for win wagering and probably horizontal wagering, if %E is going to be your selection priority, regarding the shorter sprint races, and your priority is going to be hit rate, then that hit rate had better be unusually high, to the point of being unattainable, or at least not sustainable over time. Therefore, ROI becomes more important, in my mind anyway.

[mikesal57]

Ray...thx for answering

Tray...I need someone from MIT to translate for me

Mike

[traynor]

Ray...thx for answering

Tray...I need someone from MIT to translate for me

Mike

How is the value %E derived? What--exactly--goes into the calculation? However it is defined, it is virtually guaranteed that another "pace analyst" will use a different set of criteria to "calculate" a rating he or she then defines as "%E." Are only recent races used? Only one race? Two races? Best two of last howevermany? Only this distance? Only this track? Only races in which the entry in question was a serious contender? The list is endless.

Profiling pace (and profiling "energy distribution") seems easy if one simply crunches numbers and declares whatever comes out as whatever one chooses. The notion of %E is intimately connected the notion of "track profiles" and both are subject to (highly subjective, individual, and wildly differing) "interpretations."

One person's %E output will only be in the same ballpark as another person's %E output if and only if the exact same inputs and calculations are made. That is rarely the case.

Consider--would you calculate the (expected, and presumed "predictive") %E of an entry that had not been in contention at any point in any of its last three, four, or five races? Or of an entry that "normally" is fast early, then quits in the stretch, but only wins when it trundles around midpack and closes?

Simplistic (and seriously misleading) "pace calculations" are far more impressive in the viewing stage than in the betting stage. Pace analysis can be highly predictive, but is way more complex than parsing a few values from recent races, adding, subtracting, averaging, and otherwise massaging those values, then declaring them to be a "pace analysis."

Fortunately, few are willing to analyze pace (and probable pace) on anything more than a superficial, simplistic level. That leaves a LOT of opportunity for those willing to do more sophisticated pace analysis.

[BCOURTNEY]

Ray...thx for answering

Tray...I need someone from MIT to translate for me

Mike

Tray means that method by which you identify and select input variables for whatever pace approach you choose should be consistent because slight variations in data and data selection will aggravate the results and make analysis difficult or impossible, especially when trying to peel a few pennies off every dollar. Your approach should be well defined at the outset, so you can truly test if it is achieving the desired result.

I just noticed Tray was responding as I submitted, wasn't trying to provide a response different than his.

[mikesal57]

Lets take it back a step....

I have a program ,as you can see, is JCAPPER...

I don't have a clue on how Jeff programmed his factor PctE
I'm sure after 10+ years he has a hold on how he did it & how it works...

So , back to my post , with all things being as it is

look at screen 2...

My contenders are 2 & 5

Who would you bet and why?

Mike

[JustRalph]

From the jcapper factors page


"PctE - or Percent Early. This number represents the percent of total energy expended by a horse during the first two thirds of a race. This number is an average taken from each of the running lines found in a horse's past performance record. The PctE number is calculated using the Bris E1, E2, Late Pace, and Final Time based Speed Figure. Each number is weighted according to the impact of historical occurances and each of the separate factors is then combined into a single number. The higher the PctE, the more likely it is that a horse will contend for the lead in today's race. The lower the PctE, the more likely it is that the horse will not contend for the lead in today's race. Hint~ PctE can often be a very useful identifier of track specific speed and closing biases when they are present. (Accessible via the Profile Table Interface)"

[cj]

The original %E is from Sartin stuff. I think it worked like this:

2nd Call Feet Per Second / (2nd Call Feet Per Second + Last Fraction Feet Per Second)

So an example from a 6f race:

22 45 1:10

2640 / 45 = 58.67

1320 / (70 - 45) = 52.80

(These two added together were called Total Energy)

%E = 58.67 / (58.67 + 52.80) = 52.63%

Where it has evolved over the years I don't know, but that was the original as best I remember.

[traynor]

From the jcapper factors page


"PctE - or Percent Early. This number represents the percent of total energy expended by a horse during the first two thirds of a race. This number is an average taken from each of the running lines found in a horse's past performance record. The PctE number is calculated using the Bris E1, E2, Late Pace, and Final Time based Speed Figure. Each number is weighted according to the impact of historical occurances and each of the separate factors is then combined into a single number. The higher the PctE, the more likely it is that a horse will contend for the lead in today's race. The lower the PctE, the more likely it is that the horse will not contend for the lead in today's race. Hint~ PctE can often be a very useful identifier of track specific speed and closing biases when they are present. (Accessible via the Profile Table Interface)"

I think most (if not all) professional-level pace analysis software goes way beyond the averaging of all races concept. As with nearly every other speed/pace rating generated with computer analysis, such averaging suffers from the conceptual flaw of regarding every horse in every race as having exerted its optimal effort to win that race. In any race in the PPs in which this is NOT the case (and in numerous other instances), inclusion of that clump of data in the overall analysis is flawed. The result is more semantic noise than prediction (or even accurate description).

This is in no way a criticism of jcapper (or anyone else's) definition of, or use of, %E as a factor in pace analysis. I only mean to point out that the term is used for a wide spectrum of output that is comprised of an equally wide spectrum of input.

[cj]

I think most (if not all) professional-level pace analysis software goes way beyond the averaging of all races concept. As with nearly every other speed/pace rating generated with computer analysis, such averaging suffers from the conceptual flaw of regarding every horse in every race as having exerted its optimal effort to win that race. In any race in the PPs in which this is NOT the case (and in numerous other instances), inclusion of that clump of data in the overall analysis is flawed. The result is more semantic noise than prediction (or even accurate description).

This is in no way a criticism of jcapper (or anyone else's) definition of, or use of, %E as a factor in pace analysis. I only mean to point out that the term is used for a wide spectrum of output that is comprised of an equally wide spectrum of input.

Awesome. Now lets try to respect the premise of the thread and get back on topic.

[mikesal57]

I guess I have to settle on the college course I got from all here.. :sleeping:

But no one answered my question

I give up!!

[cj]

I guess I have to settle on the college course I got from all here.. :sleeping:

But no one answered my question

I give up!!

Hey, I just tried, give it time! (and mine was only algebra :) )

That said, since most of us don't use Jcapper, explain. Why is the first screen obvious where the winner should come from as a starter?

[whodoyoulike]

I think most (if not all) professional-level pace analysis software goes way beyond the averaging of all races concept. As with nearly every other speed/pace rating generated with computer analysis, such averaging suffers from the conceptual flaw of regarding every horse in every race as having exerted its optimal effort to win that race. In any race in the PPs in which this is NOT the case (and in numerous other instances), inclusion of that clump of data in the overall analysis is flawed. The result is more semantic noise than prediction (or even accurate description).

This is in no way a criticism of jcapper (or anyone else's) definition of, or use of, %E as a factor in pace analysis. I only mean to point out that the term is used for a wide spectrum of output that is comprised of an equally wide spectrum of input.

This is the first I've heard of PctE but, this isn't describing pace analysis but rather energy expended which is an indication of stamina or energy remaining. It seems the value is noting the value over several records for each horse. If you're able to estimate the energy expended for each horse at each of the four fractional calls for the upcoming race then I can see it as a part of pace analysis.

[mikesal57]

Hey, I just tried, give it time! (and mine was only algebra :) )

That said, since most of us don't use Jcapper, explain. Why is the first screen obvious where the winner should come from as a starter?


Sorry CJ, I thought people could have figured the charts out for them selves...

These charts are for Belmont .....

1st one is for Dirt Sprints

2nd one is Turf Routes....

The charts show each rank for % E and their stats...

EX:

Take rank 3 on 1st chart , 1.10 Roi at a 1807 % ...a strong rank & percentage

Say you have 2 contenders both at 3-1..
one of them has a rank of 1....the other has a rank of 3
Which one would you bet ? (I'm hoping you said the 3 rank)
This was an easy one because the roi and the win percentage are tops on both for the 3 rank..

Now..

2nd chart...

You have 2 contenders at 3-1....

one has a PctE rank 2...a higher roi but lower win percent

the other is ranked 5.....a lower roi but higher win percentage..

Which one do YOU bet?

[Tom]

I guess I have to settle on the college course I got from all here.. :sleeping:

But no one answered my question

I give up!!

Still trying to figure out what the ? was? :confused:

[mikesal57]

Still trying to figure out what the ? was? :confused:
Now..

2nd chart...

You have 2 contenders at 3-1....

one has a PctE rank 2...a higher roi but lower win percent

the other is ranked 5.....a lower roi but higher win percentage..

Which one do YOU bet?

[NorCalGreg]

Now..

2nd chart...

You have 2 contenders at 3-1....

one has a PctE rank 2...a higher roi but lower win percent

the other is ranked 5.....a lower roi but higher win percentage..

Which one do YOU bet?


say what now?

[Tom]

Now..

2nd chart...

You have 2 contenders at 3-1....

one has a PctE rank 2...a higher roi but lower win percent

the other is ranked 5.....a lower roi but higher win percentage..

Which one do YOU bet?

I would not even think about ranking %E. It is not a factor, it is a result.
%E needs to be looked at in context.

[BCOURTNEY]

Now..

2nd chart...

You have 2 contenders at 3-1....

one has a PctE rank 2...a higher roi but lower win percent

the other is ranked 5.....a lower roi but higher win percentage..

Which one do YOU bet?

Assuming this is the only factor you are considering to make the decision, then the rank 5 is not playable as it doesn't have a positive expected return. The rank 2 is playable if the offered odds are 9.1 or higher factoring in the historical win rate and a 16% Belmont take out (I didn't add the dime breakage) on a win bet.

So pull the trigger on rank 2 at 9-1 or better for the turf chart (if they are both 3-1 you pass)

[cj]

Sorry CJ, I thought people could have figured the charts out for them selves...

These charts are for Belmont .....

1st one is for Dirt Sprints

2nd one is Turf Routes....

The charts show each rank for % E and their stats...

EX:

Take rank 3 on 1st chart , 1.10 Roi at a 1807 % ...a strong rank & percentage

Say you have 2 contenders both at 3-1..
one of them has a rank of 1....the other has a rank of 3
Which one would you bet ? (I'm hoping you said the 3 rank)
This was an easy one because the roi and the win percentage are tops on both for the 3 rank..

Now..

2nd chart...

You have 2 contenders at 3-1....

one has a PctE rank 2...a higher roi but lower win percent

the other is ranked 5.....a lower roi but higher win percentage..

Which one do YOU bet?

Thanks for the explanation. I'll check it out in depth a bit latter. But to answer the last question, I personally nearly always side with better ROI.

[andicap]

IMO, those charts are irrelevant-- in all likelihood the result of pure randomness. Sample size is not large enough. And as it was pointed out you can't rank %E. It's usefulness depends on the pace match up.

Also, you can't compare 6f sprints with 7f sprints because they are run much differently. You'll see final fractions fall off drastically at 7f.

Same with turf routes: 8f and 10f are as different as sprints and routes.

This all shows a lack of fundamental understanding about %E.

[JustRalph]

I would not even think about ranking %E. It is not a factor, it is a result.
%E needs to be looked at in context.

I stopped using it in jcapper. I found you could get much better info from other factors.

IMO, those charts are irrelevant-- in all likelihood the result of pure randomness. Sample size is not large enough. And as it was pointed out you can't rank %E. It's usefulness depends on the pace match up.

Also, you can't compare 6f sprints with 7f sprints because they are run much differently. You'll see final fractions fall off drastically at 7f.

Same with turf routes: 8f and 10f are as different as sprints and routes.

This all shows a lack of fundamental understanding about %E.

Same with 5-5.5 races. Hey Andy! Hope you are well

[mikesal57]

IMO, those charts are irrelevant-- in all likelihood the result of pure randomness. Sample size is not large enough. And as it was pointed out you can't rank %E. It's usefulness depends on the pace match up.

Also, you can't compare 6f sprints with 7f sprints because they are run much differently. You'll see final fractions fall off drastically at 7f.

Same with turf routes: 8f and 10f are as different as sprints and routes.

This all shows a lack of fundamental understanding about %E.

Your last statement , pertaining to whats been said here, is absolutely true!!
People don't understand it nor knows how to use it.
In Tom Brohamers book, Modern Pace Handicapping, there is a whole chapter on "energy distribution". A track profile can be determine by how the horse uses his energy and then ranked vs the other horses in the race.
I can pull out an exact distance but I was using a general statement here.
By the way, here's a screen that has years 2015 & 2016 for Bel Dt Sprints...
as you can see both ranks 5 & 3 continue to be prominent....

Thxs
Mike

query start: 7/8/2016 11:42:02 PM
query end: 7/8/2016 11:42:03 PM
elapsed time: 1 seconds

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE TRACK = 'BEL'
AND [DATE] >= #01-01-2015#
AND INTSURFACE <= 3
AND DIST < 1760


Data Summary Win Place Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 5129.30 5153.90 4917.90
Bet -6342.00 -6342.00 -6342.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L -1212.70 -1188.10 -1424.10

Wins 450 897 1293
Plays 3171 3171 3171
PCT .1419 .2829 .4078

ROI 0.8088 0.8127 0.7754
Avg Mut 11.40 5.75 3.80


By: SQL-F34 Rank

Rank P/L Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 -221.40 980.00 0.7741 55 490 .1122 0.7910
2 -365.00 938.00 0.6109 59 469 .1258 0.8865
3 -61.30 922.00 0.9335 76 461 .1649 1.1617
4 -134.50 878.00 0.8468 73 439 .1663 1.1718
5 -67.50 896.00 0.9247 84 448 .1875 1.3213
6 -205.70 714.00 0.7119 45 357 .1261 0.8882
7 -73.00 486.00 0.8498 32 243 .1317 0.9280
8 -4.10 272.00 0.9849 17 136 .1250 0.8808
9 -32.80 138.00 0.7623 4 69 .0580 0.4085
10 -10.70 76.00 0.8592 4 38 .1053 0.7418
11 -22.00 22.00 0.0000 0 11 .0000 0.0000
12 -12.00 12.00 0.0000 0 6 .0000 0.0000
13 -4.00 4.00 0.0000 0 2 .0000 0.0000
14 3.30 2.00 2.6500 1 1 1.0000 7.0467
15 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
16 -2.00 2.00 0.0000 0 1 .0000 0.0000
17 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
18 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
19 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000

[traynor]

IMO, those charts are irrelevant-- in all likelihood the result of pure randomness. Sample size is not large enough. And as it was pointed out you can't rank %E. It's usefulness depends on the pace match up.
...
This all shows a lack of fundamental understanding about %E.

I agree.

[Red Knave]

People don't understand it nor knows how to use it.Right.

A track profile can be determine by how the horse uses his energy and then ranked vs the other horses in the race. The way to keep a PctE profile is not by rank but by value and by track/distance/class/.
As the ultrawise Andicap, JustRalph, Traynor and mostultrawise Tom have suggested, Rank of PctE is just noise.

[pandy]

I have my own Energy number that I created but it's percentage of energy that's left for the finish. More like Median energy than E.

It can also be used for modeling. For instance, at most major tracks, on my late Energy numbers, at 6 furlongs, the majority of winners have between :30 and :30.3, which essentially means that they'll have 30% of their energy left for the stretch drive.

Horses with higher energy numbers, say between :31 and 32, would most likely be too far back in 6 furlong races (that's why they have more left,they ran slower to the quarter pole). Horses with lower than :30 should burn out, unless they've only raced once or twice, in which case they could improve.

But energy between :31 and 32 works good for races between a mile and a mile and a sixteenth.

This can vary at the lesser tracks, because the horses are slower.

So it is good for modeling if you're trying to narrow down contenders. As a stand alone number, horses with the highest energy number often do win turf routes. Usually in the :34 range. Many win and pay big prices. So with an energy number like mine, it could be used as a stand alone kick rating in turf routes.

There are other ways to use it, such as comparing pace figures to the late energy rating and looking for horses that have the best average of those two for the distance.

[mikesal57]

Right.

The way to keep a PctE profile is not by rank but by value and by track/distance/class/.
As the ultrawise Andicap, JustRalph, Traynor and mostultrawise Tom have suggested, Rank of PctE is just noise.

Thx Red K.....I can be that specific with JCP
I just asked Jeff why he's got it by rank ..

Listen guys, I'm being persistent here because I want to not leave any stone upturned in handicapping...
Until I can label this as good/bad/ or indifferent...I'll work it out

Mike

[mikesal57]

I have my own Energy number that I created but it's percentage of energy that's left for the finish. More like Median energy than E.

It can also be used for modeling. For instance, at most major tracks, on my late Energy numbers, at 6 furlongs, the majority of winners have between :30 and :30.3, which essentially means that they'll have 30% of their energy left for the stretch drive.

Horses with higher energy numbers, say between :31 and 32, would most likely be too far back in 6 furlong races (that's why they have more left,they ran slower to the quarter pole). Horses with lower than :30 should burn out, unless they've only raced once or twice, in which case they could improve.

But energy between :31 and 32 works good for races between a mile and a mile and a sixteenth.

This can vary at the lesser tracks, because the horses are slower.

So it is good for modeling if you're trying to narrow down contenders. As a stand alone number, horses with the highest energy number often do win turf routes. Usually in the :34 range. Many win and pay big prices. So with an energy number like mine, it could be used as a stand alone kick rating in turf routes.

There are other ways to use it, such as comparing pace figures to the late energy rating and looking for horses that have the best average of those two for the distance.

Thxs Pandy....looks like you went in your way of looking at it and came out with something positive..

But it can work!!!.....and not be dismissed

Mike

[traynor]

Thxs Pandy....looks like you went in your way of looking at it and came out with something positive..

But it can work!!!.....and not be dismissed

Mike

A suggestion. Your charts show average mutuels. Double (or even triple) those average values, use the sum as an odds cap, and re-run your data. The most likely result is that you will find an anomaly (an "outlier mutuel") that creates the illusion of a positive ROI. In small samples, one unusual (and almost never repeatable) race result can seriously tweak the result and cause endless rainbow chasing. Interesting, and possibly even fun if you have nothing else to do, but not very useful.

[andicap]

\


Same with 5-5.5 races. Hey Andy! Hope you are well

Hale and hearty, Ralph. Am ditching my four years in local politics soon and will return to the racing wars.

[raybo]

Hale and hearty, Ralph. Am ditching my four years in local politics soon and will return to the racing wars.

I hope your 4 years in politics brought about some positives!! :ThmbUp:

[andicap]

I hope your 4 years in politics brought about some positives!! :ThmbUp:

It did!! We were quite successful in turning our town from a one-party community to a very competitive two-party town. (I won't say what party for fear of turning this into an off-topic flame war. :D )

Back to horse racing, one of the things that kind of turned me off about the sport was all the negativity. It kind of influenced me and convinced me, consciously or subconsciously that I couldn't win. I finally decided that if I specialize on one particular type of race where the prices are better and fewer favorites win -- turf -- I would have a decent chance and have more fun.

I have some opinions about using %E in an unusual way using spreadsheets that I will post when I get some time.

[cj]

So, back to the topic...has anyone found that horses stretching out run roughly the same %E as they did in sprints? How about horses moving from dirt to turf? I remember those were the biggest selling points along with finding horses that fit the model of the track today.

[Delta Cone]

Back to horse racing, one of the things that kind of turned me off about the sport was all the negativity.

You were turned off by the negativity in horse racing...and went into politics? :lol:

[Red Knave]

Back to horse racing
I, also, am very happy to see you back.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I, also, am very happy to see you back.

Add me to the list. I still remember a message that you (andicap) sent me years ago where you had uncovered a little gem buried under a heap of data that amazingly held up well for a few years. And it got my attention in a more general sense as well as getting you a mental checkmark as double sharp. :)

[Tom]

E% at Belterra Parks has been amazingly consistent for all of June.
No matter what distance, it has been between 0% and 0%.
Never seen such a tight model.

[reckless]

I make and use %E for most of the tracks I play (plus the feeder tracks and major circuits such as So Cal and Ky. which I don't usually play). It is a great way for me to make daily variants per track and for any adjusting that might be required because of track-to-track differences when shippers arrived.

[thaskalos]

The %E's main advantage is its supposed ability to distinguish the characteristics of various racetracks...so as to allow the horseplayers to make accurate assessments when horses migrate from one track to another. The theory is that different racetracks place different pace demands on the particular horses...demands which might help one horse while hindering another.

IMO...this is one case where "theory" and "practice" remain far apart from one another. From what I've witnessed, horses are a lot more "maneuverable" than some pace handicappers make them out to be.

[Tom]

If a horse ran 52.15% early last time, and today faces horse with lesser Total energy, it may only need to use 51.25% of that total and have much more left over for the stretch.

My two cents, race bias trumps track bias.

Welcome back, btw.

[thaskalos]

If a horse ran 52.15% early last time, and today faces horse with lesser Total energy, it may only need to use 51.25% of that total and have much more left over for the stretch.

My two cents, race bias trumps track bias.

Welcome back, btw.

I agree...but we don't need %E calculations in order to determine which horse holds an early pace advantage, or which front-runner might be able to set a comfortable early pace while reserving some energy for the stretch run. Accurate pace figures accomplish this task quite nicely.

Thanks for the welcoming back...I appreciate it.

[Tom]

I have long since stopped using %E myself.
Pace/Speed figs do the job nicely.
Except at Belterra.....pace figure there are not so good this year.... :rolleyes:

[cj]

I have long since stopped using %E myself.
Pace/Speed figs do the job nicely.
Except at Belterra.....pace figure there are not so good this year.... :rolleyes:

I hear BRIS has some good ones for Belterra :)

[Tom]

Doc Sartin used to refer to the "hidden fraction.....must be he was using BRIS? :lol: