velcoity/deceleration

[46zilzal]

This new ratio gives insight I have never been able to get a handle on especailly with the blade runners (turf). Speculator is the program that gives this ratio out.

[shanta]

Originally posted by 46zilzal
This new ratio gives insight I have never been able to get a handle on especailly with the blade runners (turf). Speculator is the program that gives this ratio out.



Validator, Validator2 and Validator 3 have these formulas and readouts also.
Richie

[Lefty]

Richie, Guy Wadsworth has changed the deceleration formulae for Speculator. Also, Validator series no longer available and Speculator is.

[shanta]

Originally posted by Lefty
Richie, Guy Wadsworth has changed the deceleration formulae for Speculator. Also, Validator series no longer available and Speculator is.

Hi Chuck,
Thanx for the info. I hope you and yours are doing great. I have not spoken to you in a while.
Richie:)

[Richard]

I have to confess my ignorance.On which screen in VAL3 would you find this velocity/deceleration ratio?

[46zilzal]

Didn't make myself too clear: in Validator the deceleration is within the computation for the Validator ranking screen. In Speculator it is a stand alone calculation

[Binder]

Hi Richard

On Val 2 and Val 3 ( Im not sure about The original Validator)
Its been a long time since I used the original Validator

The read out for V/DC can be found on 2 screens

The main readout is on screen 7
on Val 2 its all the way to the right
on Val 3 its in 1 row more towards the center Because they added the
Supplemental readouts to the right

The V/dc readout is also on the # 5 screen
The Incremental Match Up Graph
The last set of numbers
which Doc calls 3F + Total Pace
These are the same numbers as V/DC

Hope I helped

Binder
V/DC Messenger

[Tom]

Is the deceleration the same as Doc had in the orignal D/C Pars program? Sometimes those numbers really nailed down a distance at specific tracks.

[Binder]

Hi Tom

No In Validator
V/DC is different


This is from Follow Up # 77

Doc is introducing his new program Vaidator
and its key readout V/DC

"In the final analysis, how fast a horse will DECLERATE is AT LEAST
as important as how much Velocity it generates . i.e. How fast
it can run. So, like final time and the historic attempt to
average and codify them, my deceleration formulae began
with an attempt to create what I euphemistically called DECLERATION PARS. However, I did not apply an averaging
technigue .Instead I measured EACH contender in a race seperately.This was based on the fact that the winner of every
race ran PAR for that PARTICULAR race. It may be faster or slower
than the average time that produce commercialized Par Times
But it cannot be disputed that it ran par for THAT race : Fast
Slow, Mud, or Slop
Pars are for Golf. Averages are for baseball and for making mediocre students look better.
Handicappers win and profit by DEVIATING from all overlooked
concepts reffered to by the great mainstream as "Conventional
wisdom." Except for our own work , there is no conventional
wisdom about a formula to determine the relationship and predictive power of Velocity's interrelationship with
Deceleration
Having established that there is no possible way to profitably use averages to make a formula that could express the effect of ACCELERATION on velocity relative to a horse's Total Energy,
our only alternative is to accept the fact that each horse's DECELERATION ratio will have a slightly different effect on its ability to WIN even when final time measurements are virtually the same .
As previously stated, I started by making a formula for deceleration that, whith tongue in cheek, I called Deceleration Pars. The use of the word Pars was pure whimsy. The title
should be DECELERATION RATIOS
The Second Step was to add Velocity figures for the exact same catergories used for Deceleration and then combine the two.
The name given that process then was DC/V .Deleration/Velocity
It was effective. A lot of my clients won using nothing else.
Yet ,it was not effective enough to satisfy me. Something was missing in the equation. After much deliberation and experamation
I found that the Missing Link was TOTAL ENERGY "

Tom. I hope this answered you question

Good Skill
Binder
V/DC messenger

[delayjf]

Can anyone explain in broad terms what deceleration ratios are and the theory behind using them??:confused:

[shanta]

Originally posted by 46zilzal
Didn't make myself too clear: in Validator the deceleration is within the computation for the Validator ranking screen. In Speculator it is a stand alone calculation


Hi Zil,
on the val series of programs if you are looking strictly for deceleration readout it is on the "6" screen under "e" for entropy.

The readout is then coupled with total energy giving the v/dc readout.

As Lefty points out however the validator series is history as far as things go with Doc having folded up his tent.

Richie

[shanta]

Originally posted by delayjf
Can anyone explain in broad terms what deceleration ratios are and the theory behind using them??:confused:

Delay,
I do not use this ( decel, entropy) but I will give it a shot.

Deceleration or "entropy" is a measurement of energy no longer available. It works the best when winning horses are strongly weighted in "early" , "late", or "fx". That is according to Doc Sartin from one of his followups.

How fast a horse slows down at some tracks and distances can prove to be a big negative and keeping records of this "deceleration " readout is supposed to give you clues about when horses might be "too early" to win.

I find it MUCH easier to use the "EARLY /LATE" graph to see horses that probaly are too early to win. Often these types look real good to the public cause they show high early speed and are bet.

I never paid much attention to the readout. Others SWEAR by it!
Richie

[Binder]

Hi Rich

I'm sorry How could I have forgot
Entropy ?


We had some great wins on the turf looking for over 100's
on the weeds

back in the pl4 and systhesis days

Since Validator and V/Dc I just stopped looking at
Entropy

Thanks for your help
see you soon

[entropy]

did someone call ?? :cool:

[shanta]

Entropy!
come on man! Jump in here. This is right up your alley.
Richie

:)

[delayjf]

Ritchee,

Thanks for the explaination, I have entropy, but never really used it because I never really understood what it was supposed to indicate.

One area that has occured to me where decelaration might be a valueable indicator is when a horse is changing distances. For example, using two horses, one from a 6 furlongs race another from a 7 fulongs race.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the compound ratings like SP and FX, don't take into account the length of the final fraction only the velocity. As such, ratings like SP and FX in 7 furlong races will almost always be lower due to the normally slower / longer final fractions(final 1/4 vs. final 3/8). (Assume the early pace of the races is equal)

Given that, horses with the same SP / FX rating coming from longer distances are IMO superior to the shorter distance horses, why?? Because to achieve that same rating, the 7 furlong horse's 3rd fraction velocity would have to be equal to the 6 furlong 3rd fraction. BUT, while the 7 furlong horse did showed the same decelaration, his decelaration took place over a longer distance(3/8). In other words, he was able to hold his velocity longer. Without adjusting for the longer final fractions, the 7 furlong horse's superiority would not be reflected in ratings like SP or FX. Here is where a decelaration factor would come in.

[shanta]

Originally posted by delayjf
Ritchee,

Thanks for the explaination, I have entropy, but never really used it because I never really understood what it was supposed to indicate.

One area that has occured to me where decelaration might be a valueable indicator is when a horse is changing distances. For example, using two horses, one from a 6 furlongs race another from a 7 fulongs race.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the compound ratings like SP and FX, don't take into account the length of the final fraction only the velocity. As such, ratings like SP and FX in 7 furlong races will almost always be lower due to the normally slower / longer final fractions(final 1/4 vs. final 3/8). (Assume the early pace of the races is equal)

Given that, horses with the same SP / FX rating coming from longer distances are IMO superior to the shorter distance horses, why?? Because to achieve that same rating, the 7 furlong horse's 3rd fraction velocity would have to be equal to the 6 furlong 3rd fraction. BUT, while the 7 furlong horse did showed the same decelaration, his decelaration took place over a longer distance(3/8). In other words, he was able to hold his velocity longer. Without adjusting for the longer final fractions, the 7 furlong horse's superiority would not be reflected in ratings like SP or FX. Here is where a decelaration factor would come in.

Hi Delay,
Wow that was some post! Listen I do not want to pretend I am someone I am not ok? I have no clue as to even approach answering your remarks. I came to the sartin method in 1991 with "pace makes the race" and those wonderful "TPR" numbers.

I hand charted them for 3 years and the first Sartin program I used was the Pace launcher series. The only experience with "entropy" or deceleration was back in the day hitting some real bombs mostly on the turf with the program.

There are a lot of others here who were exposed to Doc and his methods for years BEFORE I even knew what a "Sartin" was. Maybe they can chime in and offer you some real insights into your questions Delay.

My use of the programs is based in utter simplicity and I use only 2 pieces of information to make wagering decisions.

all the best,
Richard Pizzicara

[socantra]

Originally posted by delayjf

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the compound ratings like SP and FX, don't take into account the length of the final fraction only the velocity. As such, ratings like SP and FX in 7 furlong races will almost always be lower due to the normally slower / longer final fractions(final 1/4 vs. final 3/8). (Assume the early pace of the races is equal)

In all of the newer Sartin programs using the Trackmaster downloads, all lines are equalized and normalized to today's distance. While you might be able to question the whole process, I don't believe your case for seperation of distances will hold up.

socantra...

[delayjf]

Socantra,

I'm sorry if it seemed that I was questioning the process. That's not the case, I've used Sartin programs with a lot of success. My point was only to point out what in my mind are limitations to a few of some the compound ratings. My experience told me that as long as the Sartin programs were comparing apples to apples (in this case distances), they did an outstanding job of evaluating the horses in question. In my case, I was quite successful with SP on the Turf. But, I noticed repeatedly that horses that with @ the same SP rating that were rated off a longer distance (say 11/8 ) usually defeated those with equal SP ratings derived from a shorter distance. As I considered the the formulas involved, it dawned on me why that might happen. Even Quinn in his book "figure handicapping" agrees with me that "running fast longer should count more". By that he meant that running a final 3/8 in 36 seconds is superior to running a final 1/4 in 24 seconds. Yet both fractions were run at the same velocity. It also occured to me, that given the greater decelaration in the latter stages of dirt races, the above relationship would be even more accute.

As to the track master distance equalization. While I admit, I have no idea how they do there're distance equalization, I'm skeptical. I've looked at a few different approaches and thus far, I've not been impressed. Right now I think decelaration might hold the answer. If trackmaster has broken the code, then more power to them. IMHO, distance equalization is the toughest adjustment to impliment.

Shanta,

We joined PIRCO about the sametime. Did you attend any Beaumont / or Vegas seminars. I went to a few in Beaumont and was at the infamous "Bananna" seminar in Vegas.

[socantra]

Originally posted by delayjf
Socantra,
As to the track master distance equalization. While I admit, I have no idea how they do there're distance equalization, I'm skeptical. I've looked at a few different approaches and thus far, I've not been impressed. Right now I think decelaration might hold the answer. If trackmaster has broken the code, then more power to them. IMHO, distance equalization is the toughest adjustment to impliment.



The track equalization and normalization is from Doc and Guy Wadsworth, not Trackmaster. He mentioned it on several tapes, and in the Followup. Trackmaster worked with them, but all they actually supply is the raw figures. Their equalization is pretty much limited to their speed and class ratings.

Validator, or whatever you are using, does the equalization and normalization to today's distance.
That is why I said you might question the whole process. I agree that distance equalization is the toughtest adjustment to implement, and I have some severe doubts about it, but it seems to work out pretty good in most situations.

What I was saying is that after you've tweaked and twisted your way to what are probably somewhat artificial numbers, worrying about an extra furlong or so here and there is probably not worth the effort.

I understand what you're saying. I did a bunch of work a year or to ago trying to tie in precentage of race run in the different sections in the race. It got very complicated, and in the end I realized I was still missing the impact of different portions on the turn, etc. Also, it occurred to me that the fps numbers themselves are only average rates of speed. Besides that, it didn't seem to add anything to my results. After a while I decided I was adding adjustments on top of the previously adjusted adjustments to the equalizatioon and normalization, so i said to hell with it.

Dick...

[shanta]

Shanta,

We joined PIRCO about the sametime. Did you attend any Beaumont / or Vegas seminars. I went to a few in Beaumont and was at the infamous "Bananna" seminar in Vegas.


Delay,

No I have never been to any of the seminars. I am pretty much a "loner" and have never been one for the "group thing".
Richie:)

[wes]

ENTROPY AND THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

http://www.2ndlaw.com/
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

where and how did Sartin come up with the name ENTROPY?

wes

[DJofSD]

"running fast longer should count more". By that he meant that running a final 3/8 in 36 seconds is superior to running a final 1/4 in 24 seconds. Yet both fractions were run at the same velocity. It also occured to me, that given the greater decelaration in the latter stages of dirt races, the above relationship would be even more accute.

Doc had commented that adjusting/equalizing the final fraction was the difficult part. It always seemed to me when comparing the various flavors of programs that came out of PIRCO, the final fraction was handled differently. None more so than T'mation/EXDC and Entropy/DC PARS.

DJofSD

[socantra]

Originally posted by wes
ENTROPY AND THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

http://www.2ndlaw.com/
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

where and how did Sartin come up with the name ENTROPY?

wes

Doc liked big words and scientific terms. A great deal of his writing was done with what he referred to as "fat tongue firmly implanted in skinny cheek."

For Entropy, he used the 2nd definition given in your 2nd link;
" a measure of the amount of energy which is unavailable to do work." According to Doc Sartin, in the limited area of horse racing, this translates to deceleration.

In his words;
"Horses exhibiting high velocity with minimal deceleration within the distance structures of that velocity, win virtually every race..........Hence, the ability to measure deceleration becomes every bit as important as velocity and all speed figures derived therefrom."

Hope that helps,
socantra...

[46zilzal]

Found that if a nag has close to top decel and velocity ....as the statement goes "they win virutally every race." Often at odds that will astound.

[delayjf]

Socantra,

I agree and can relate to your quest to find the appropriate way to handle the distance changes. Right now my approach is simplistic, I simply prefer the top turf SP horses coming from the longer races. Where the advantage might really show up is on dirt, say a 7 furlong horse vs. a 6 furlong horse that are equal in SP, if anybody out there would like to do a study, I'd love to see the results.

Quinns method seems flawed outside a given range of final fraction times. I think he overestimates the value of 1/5 in the longer distance. One simplistic approach that occurred to me was to simply interchange the 1/5 second values of various turf distances. IE:
if we know the pars for a given track on turf are
1mile 1 1/16 1 1/8
1:34 1:40 1:46

Assuming that in some sence, these times are related.

On dirt Beyer would give a higher point value per 1/5 of a second at shorter distances. In the above example, on dirt 1/5 of a second at a mile might be worth 2.0 points, at 1 1/8 1.8 points. We could interchange the mile point values with the 1 1/8 point values and construct a parrallel time chart in that manner. Not as drastic as Quinns chart, which might a bit closer to reality. MAYBE. More and more it appears that attempting to tie it all up into one neat number can be a folly. Maybe its simply best to "qualify" a number. Any body else got any ideas.

[cj]

Originally posted by delayjf
Socantra,

On dirt Beyer would give a higher point value per 1/5 of a second at shorter distances. In the above example, on dirt 1/5 of a second at a mile might be worth 2.0 points, at 1 1/8 1.8 points. We could interchange the mile point values with the 1 1/8 point values and construct a parrallel time chart in that manner. Not as drastic as Quinns chart, which might a bit closer to reality.

I do this exact thing, and I have been murdering the turf racing in NY and SoCal this year. I do incorporate some early pace, but by and large the same. One thing I have learned though, do not compare 8f races to 9f races, or 9 to 10, etc. 1/2 furlong is as far as I'll go. You can find many a bad favorite trying to go from 8 to 9 or 9 to 8. Take the SP rating with a grain of salt in either direction, because it doesn't mean much.

[delayjf]

CJ,

I agree, but isn't the point of all this to some how be able to compare the different distances? Are you find the same relationship I found with regard to SP and distance?

[cj]

Originally posted by delayjf
CJ,

I agree, but isn't the point of all this to some how be able to compare the different distances? Are you find the same relationship I found with regard to SP and distance?

I just think its comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare races that are spread that far apart in distance. I have found the same relationship with regards to SP, but I haven't found horses cutting back in distance to be at any advantage UNLESS they also have shown the ability to keep up early in shorter races.

[thoroughbred]

Binder,

I respectfully beg to differ with the following:

"Except for our own work , there is no conventional
wisdom about a formula to determine the relationship and predictive power of Velocity's interrelationship with
Deceleration"


You are probably not aware that for over 10 years now, the mathematics in my paper, "Engineering Analysis of Thoroughbred Racing", and which has been included all this time in the CompuTrak program measures acceleration/deceleration. It is described by the term "Horse Friction" and is one of the program's outputs. The higher the Friction number the greater the deceleration, and vice versa. Among other things, the Friction concept has proven to be especially useful in Turf Routes. Looking at the output reports of CompuTrak, you can easily see the inter-relationship between velocity and acceleration/deceleration.

[NoDayJob]

Originally posted by thoroughbred
You are probably not aware that for over 10 years now, the mathematics in my paper, "Engineering Analysis of Thoroughbred Racing", and which has been included all this time in the CompuTrak program measures acceleration/deceleration.


:D Too esoteric for this group of meat an potatoes, guys and gals (potatoes/potatos it's yo' choice). Been using a version of your equations since '92. Great stuff. :D

NDJ

[socantra]

Originally posted by thoroughbred
Binder,

I respectfully beg to differ with the following:

"Except for our own work , there is no conventional
wisdom about a formula to determine the relationship and predictive power of Velocity's interrelationship with
Deceleration"



Binder was quoting Doc Sartin from '98 or so. Don't know why he didn't mention your work, which he obviously knew about. Maybe he didn't consider it part of the conventional wisdom.

In truth, he overlooked several other attempts to deal with deceleration, but I don't believe any others besides yours go into it in such a comprehensive manner. Your approach differs from Sartins, but I think your engineering report should be required reading for anybody interested in the idea of measuring deceleration.

I haven't tried your software, lagely because I use Trackmaster files on a daily basis, and the thought of getting used to the subtleties of another provider is exhausting, but the nevt time I take a break from daily handicapping, Computrak is high on my list of new things to look at.

Congratulations on an innnvative approach. Have you ever considered a version that uses Trackmaster data files?

socantra...

[thoroughbred]

Originally posted by socantra
Binder was quoting Doc Sartin from '98 or so. Don't know why he didn't mention your work, which he obviously knew about. Maybe he didn't consider it part of the conventional wisdom.

In truth, he overlooked several other attempts to deal with deceleration, but I don't believe any others besides yours go into it in such a comprehensive manner. Your approach differs from Sartins, but I think your engineering report should be required reading for anybody interested in the idea of measuring deceleration.

I haven't tried your software, lagely because I use Trackmaster files on a daily basis, and the thought of getting used to the subtleties of another provider is exhausting, but the nevt time I take a break from daily handicapping, Computrak is high on my list of new things to look at.

Congratulations on an innnvative approach. Have you ever considered a version that uses Trackmaster data files?

socantra...

Socantra,

Thank you for your gracious words; I truly appreciate them.

I should let you know that we are very close to upgrading our web site. Although those who have used the program from there have been doing fine with their handicapping, we did get a number of suggestions for making some improvements.

For example, the registration process for the demo will be much easier, the program will be windows oriented so that everything will be available with just a few mouse cliciks, and perhaps most important of all, the program wll include an odds line which I have been researching for some time. I found that the most successful oddsline was obtained by using 3 of the fundamental CompuTrak outputs: Early Speed, Form Rating and Magic Number.

When this becomes available, and as I mentioned, it should be quite soon now, I'll announce it here.

Again, thanks.

[delayjf]

Is there a way to get a copy of your paper. Sounds like it would be over my head, but I'd still be interested in reading it.

[NoDayJob]

Originally posted by delayjf
Is there a way to get a copy of your paper. Sounds like it would be over my head, but I'd still be interested in reading it.

Try this:

http://www.revelationprofits.com/

NDJ

[First_Place]

Are there any simple formula(s) for "pen and paper" handicappers like me that someone would be kind enough to share that calculate deceleration? Or is deceleration simply comparing the difference between the first and last fractions as mentioned by Doc in one of the Trackmaster interviews hosted by Ellis Starr?

http://www.trackmaster.com/track/select/info/audio_arc.htm


FP

[First_Place]

Hey Rube, thanks for making your CompuTrak User's Manual and original research papers available for online viewing. I'm downloading them as I type. Although I'm a blue collar-type guy with no more than a high school level math proficiency, I'm sure that I--like Doc Sartin, who's no engineer (but a creative genius nonetheless)--will glean some useful info from your research.

Thanks again.

FP

[46zilzal]

When you find the rare bird with both the best several velocity and decel lines BET WITH BOTH HANDS. THey win at a tremendous rate.

[socantra]

Originally posted by First_Place
Are there any simple formula(s) for "pen and paper" handicappers like me that someone would be kind enough to share that calculate deceleration? Or is deceleration simply comparing the difference between the first and last fractions as mentioned by Doc in one of the Trackmaster interviews hosted by Ellis Starr?

http://www.trackmaster.com/track/select/info/audio_arc.htm

FP

The Sartin formulas(which are proprietery), and others I've played with are considerably more complicated than that, taking into account several segments of the race, but something as simple as what you're talking about would get you started on considering deceleration as a factor.

The problem is finding a basis for comparison. Generally, the slowest horses in the race are going to have the least deceleration You have to make sure that the horse is fast enough to be in contention for the win.

Almost any deceleration calculation you come up with is going to make late runners look better, and one dimensional late runners don't win a lot of races, at least not on dirt.

I've never really seen what I thought was the one true velocity/deceleration formula. Make it up yourself. Try if from the 1st call, then the 2nd call, and play around with it until your own records show that it makes sense to you.

The basic principal is simple; those horses who run the fastest and slow down the least are going to win most races.

Good luck,
socantra

[thoroughbred]

Originally posted by First_Place
Hey Rube, thanks for making your CompuTrak User's Manual and original research papers available for online viewing. I'm downloading them as I type. Although I'm a blue collar-type guy with no more than a high school level math proficiency, I'm sure that I--like Doc Sartin, who's no engineer (but a creative genius nonetheless)--will glean some useful info from your research.

Thanks again.

FP

First Place,

You are very welcome.

If you have any questions about any of it, just contact me.

I should tell you that we have been working very hard the last few months, and are, hopefully, within a few weeks of putting improvements on the Web Site.

While users have been satisfied with the handicapping, we did receive a number of procedural suggestions which we are incorporating. Things like making the registration process easiier and making CompuTrak Windows oriented so that all the handicapping information is available with just a few mouse clicks.

In addition, I am adding the results of further research that lead to a good odds line.

If you are working with the present version of CompuTrak, you have gotten to know the wealth of useful information it provides.

It turns out that using a combination of a particular three of those outputs, (Early Speed, Form Factor and Magic Number) led to a very effective odds line. So such an Odds Line will be added to CompuTrak based on those three factors.

When it is up and running on the Web Site, I'll announce it here on P.A.

I really appreciated the suggestions I received from the P.A.ers.

[delayjf]

Thoroughbred,
There was an article in the ATM written by Dave Barrios about applying non-linear math to horse racing. Basically is that your approach??

[thoroughbred]

Originally posted by delayjf
Thoroughbred,
There was an article in the ATM written by Dave Barrios about applying non-linear math to horse racing. Basically is that your approach??

Delayjf,

While I haven't seen the Barrios article, it's clear that the approaches are different. I dd not use "non-lnear" math.

Fundamentally, my approach was to realize that much of the data available to us about a horse race: time, position, jockey weight, track condition, etc. can truly be considered as engineering data. As such, it was possible to use, what, in this case can be called, fundamental "engineering math" to do the research.

As someone else mentioned in this thread, you can see my original paper, "Engineering Analysis of Thoroughbred Racing" at the web site: revelationprofits.com

[Derek2U]

NEVER has the simple Quadratic Equation been given such press.
Why bother telling us how great you feel about your product; just
post like WOLSON does for ~100 plays. Let us determine if you
have anything useful to sell. But no, all we keep hearing about
is that bloody engineering background. Why not try less dazzle
& give us PREDICTIONS (or at least ~100 races w/ ratings).
Is that too hard for you to do?

[DJofSD]

I dd not use "non-lnear" (sic) math.

Why the use of the quotations marks around the word non-linear? Your formulae are either linear or non-linear. There's not any semi-linear that the use of the quotation marks seem to imply.

fundamental "engineering math" to do the research.
What exactly is "engineering math"? Is this different from scientific mathematics?

My experience has been that either (1) you take a simplified approach by taking a linear fit to the data and limit yourself to the middle part of the curve to reduce errors to an acceptable level, or (2) your divise, derive or discover a better formulae that reduces the errors, fits more of the curve and points in the right direction to create a fundamentally correct model. A large amount of real world situations are accurately modeled with non-linear formulae.

As an engineer, isn't it true that solutions to boundary condition problems often are non-linear? That a large part of mechanical engineering is non-linear? Electrical engineering is repleat with non-linear formulas?

DJofSD

[thoroughbred]

Originally posted by Derek2U
NEVER has the simple Quadratic Equation been given such press.
Why bother telling us how great you feel about your product; just
post like WOLSON does for ~100 plays. Let us determine if you
have anything useful to sell. But no, all we keep hearing about
is that bloody engineering background. Why not try less dazzle
& give us PREDICTIONS (or at least ~100 races w/ ratings).
Is that too hard for you to do?

Derek2u,

Thanks for the suggestion.

As of the moment, as you can tell, I'm very much tied up in getting the upgraded web site software in place. Unless you, yourself have tried to get programming to be right and bug free, it must be hard to imagine how time consuming, and attention grabbing it is.

In parallel with any predictions I might make, remember, that the free demo is absolutely full featured, so you and others will able to judge for yourself, AT NO COST TO YOU, whether it meets your needs and does what it it is supposed to do. Do others make such an offer available, full featured and free trial? I do that because of the confidence I have in it.

As to the quadratic equation you keep referring to as simple; sure it is. But it's how it is applied, and what it does, that counts.

How much more simple in appearace can e=mc^2 be, yet it is awesom in its implications?
How about F=Ma, which takes our astronauts to the planets?

Simplicity in the appearance of an equation itself doesn't tell the whole story.

Again, thanks for your comments.

[NoDayJob]

Originally posted by Derek2U
NEVER has the simple Quadratic Equation been given such press.
Why bother telling us how great you feel about your product; just
post like WOLSON does for ~100 plays. Let us determine if you
have anything useful to sell. But no, all we keep hearing about
is that bloody engineering background. Why not try less dazzle
& give us PREDICTIONS (or at least ~100 races w/ ratings).
Is that too hard for you to do?

Perhaps you could download his program on the free trial offer and give us a fair assessment as to its predictiive powers. Your critique would be more valuable because, from what I've seen, you won't pull any punches.

NDJ

[thoroughbred]

Originally posted by DJofSD
Why the use of the quotations marks around the word non-linear? Your formulae are either linear or non-linear. There's not any semi-linear that the use of the quotation marks seem to imply.


What exactly is "engineering math"? Is this different from scientific mathematics?

My experience has been that either (1) you take a simplified approach by taking a linear fit to the data and limit yourself to the middle part of the curve to reduce errors to an acceptable level, or (2) your divise, derive or discover a better formulae that reduces the errors, fits more of the curve and points in the right direction to create a fundamentally correct model. A large amount of real world situations are accurately modeled with non-linear formulae.

As an engineer, isn't it true that solutions to boundary condition problems often are non-linear? That a large part of mechanical engineering is non-linear? Electrical engineering is repleat with non-linear formulas?

DJofSD

DJofSD

No way did I intend to imply that "non-linear" was in anyway inferior in any sense. I used the quotation marks. perhaps incorrectly, like I do here, to quote part of the message I was responding to.

Non-linear equations are fine, and in fact, when used correctly, they solve many problems where attempting to use liinear equations would fail.

As an historical aside, I always felt that Electrical Engineers were very fortunate compared to Mechanical Engineers. Why? because the fundamental elements Electrical Engineers had to deal with, like resitance, capacitance, and inductance, could be achieved in a linear manner in the real world, whereas mechanical objects, for example, were more inherently non-linear. That made it easier in my belief, for Electrical Engineers to solve some problems more easily than their fellow engineers in other fields. In fact the great spurt in system theory during the '40's and 50's came from Electrical Engineering, primarily because it was so mostly linear.

By the way, as to your message. You are absolutely correct in your comments.

[thoroughbred]

NDJ Quote

Perhaps you could download his program on the free trial offer and give us a fair assessment as to its predictiive powers. Your critique would be more valuable because, from what I've seen, you won't pull any punches.

NDJ

NDJ,

Yes he should do that, and I certainly agree he pulls no punches.

In fact, it might be useful if he could do it twice, now with what is already available at the web site, and, hopefully, in a few weeks when the version with the odds line and summary becomes available.

It would be very interesting to see the results from someone, who, clearly, is not associated in any way with the program.

[socantra]

Originally posted by delayjf
Thoroughbred,
There was an article in the ATM written by Dave Barrios about applying non-linear math to horse racing. Basically is that your approach??

Searching ATM's articles index, I find one from 1997 by Dave Barrios entitled "A Handicapping Theory of Relativity". Is that the one you're talking about, or is there one more recent? In either case, do you think the article/s is/are worth ordering for those interested in this area?

socantra,,,

[delayjf]

I have the article and I could fax anyone a copy, but as I sit here without it in front of me, I don't think it really gets into the mathamatics that he uses. His main point was that one needs non-linear math to really understand the energy dynamics of horseracing. I'll reread the article again and have more on Monday.

[thoroughbred]

Originally posted by delayjf
I have the article and I could fax anyone a copy, but as I sit here without it in front of me, I don't think it really gets into the mathamatics that he uses. His main point was that one needs non-linear math to really understand the energy dynamics of horseracing. I'll reread the article again and have more on Monday.

I would very much like to read the article and would appreciate your Faxing a copy to me.

Thanks.

Fax No: 216-803-5490

[modred]

I found an old copy of the deceleration program DC/V which was given to me in the early 80s. I think by either Howard Sartin or Jimmy Bradshaw...memory fails though. Anyway I copied it into QuickBasic to make sure it would run and listed it. I put it on my website www.modred.com/DCV/DCV.bas if anyone wants to tinker with it. It's crude and I don't know if the logic is good or not. I never used it or did anything with it so asking me the mechanics of the program wouldn't help you cuz I don't know.

Again it can be found here

http://www.modred.com/DCV/DCV.bas

Good luck and have fun

[First_Place]

Thanks very much. Now, if only I could decipher this (if only I were a computer programmer!) and convert this Chinese into a formula that one could do with pen, paper and calculator.

Any interpreters (i.e., programmers) out there that can help?

FP

[DJofSD]

d == distance of race in furlongs

a, b, c are the fractions in ss.x where x is fifths of a second; the program converts the values into decimal and reuses the same variables; express values that are a minute and greater as 107.2 for 1:07 and 2/5's

e, f, g are the beaten lengths; probably standard Sartin values for nose, head, neck are good enough; value of a length is 10 for 10 feet

v is an adjustment in lengths - likely for track to track; also for pacelines w/ "abnormal" SR and/or TV

r is adjustment in time - looks like seconds and tenth of a second expected

the formulae for sprint races preceeds line 155; routes, line 155 and after

line 177 and forward are your linear computed values; they corespond to the descriptions in the PRINT statements at the end

It's straighforward - you could do it by hand on paper, program a spreadsheet or if you have an old enough system, use the built in BASIC interpreter - it would likley work by entering the program exactly as posted.

DJofSD

[First_Place]

Thanks much. I was able to decipher some of the "Chinese" all by myself. Thanks for filling in the rest of the blanks.

Now, let's see if I can put it all together. . .

FP

[modred]

I made some changes. Hope it helps in reading so re download it.

www.modred.com/DCV/DCV.bas

[First_Place]

Ah!! More Chinese! :-)

Thanks again.

FP

[chickenhead]

delay --

I don't have a fax, but if you (or tbred) could describe the gist of the article in a little more detail I'd be grateful.

Thanks
CH

[First_Place]

Thanks to the assistance of a couple of good hearted Samaritans I've been able to translate this "Chinese" into a formula one can do by hand. Not recommended to do between races, however. :-)

But I do have a few more questions:

SecondCall = INT(SecondCall) + 2 * (SecondCall - INT(SecondCall))
FinalFraction = INT(FinalFraction) + 2 * (FinalFraction - INT(FinalFraction))

What does "INT" mean? How about "2"?

and

IF SecondCall > 99 THEN SecondCall = SecondCall - 40
IF FinalFraction > 99 THEN FinalFraction = FinalFraction - 40

What value does "99" represent? Does "40" represent (10 * 4 Beaten Lengths = 40 ft.)? If so, when does one use this adjustment?

I'd appreciate your help.

Thanks again.

FP

[DJofSD]

INT takes the whole number part of a number - the stuff to the left of the decimal point.

The next two answers are for values of time not beaten lengths.

The part of it that is the "+ 2 * (" is taking the fractional part (the stuff to the right of the decimal point) and converting it from 1/5's to tenths of a second.

IF x > 99 THEN is taking a value for a split that is expressed as 140.x and converting it to 1:40.x. Anything entered that is larger than 99 seconds needs to be converted from the bogus value to a correct value before you can use it for any math.

DJofSD

[delayjf]

Sorry I forgot this weekend, I will read it tonight and post something tomorrow and fax a copy to those who want it.

[delayjf]

Ok, read the article last night. Basically what Barrios is saying is that a horse race is a non-linear event that is best analysed using non-linear math in this case fuzzy logic. He does not get into the math equations that he uses except to show graphically how a horses accelaration and energy graph can be combined to produce an output decelaration using non linear math.

Thoroughbred, do you still want a copy, you may get more out of it than I did. I'm not the best at math.

[thoroughbred]

Originally posted by delayjf
Ok, read the article last night. Basically what Barrios is saying is that a horse race is a non-linear event that is best analysed using non-linear math in this case fuzzy logic. He does not get into the math equations that he uses except to show graphically how a horses accelaration and energy graph can be combined to produce an output decelaration using non linear math.

Thoroughbred, do you still want a copy, you may get more out of it than I did. I'm not the best at math.

Delayjf,

Yes, I sure would appreciate it.

Fax 1 (216) 803-5490

Thanks

[delayjf]

Thoroughbred,

Look for it this afternoon, I'll use your PA nickname look for the heading of Acceleration / Deceleration.

[thoroughbred]

Originally posted by delayjf
Thoroughbred,

Look for it this afternoon, I'll use your PA nickname look for the heading of Acceleration / Deceleration.

Delayjf,

Just got it. Much appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to send it. I'll take a crack at it and get back to you.

[GR1@HTR]

Huey Maul (Pace Makes the Race)had a great simple to understand book (especially for his time) about deceleration/acceleration.

[thoroughbred]

Originally posted by thoroughbred
Delayjf,

Just got it. Much appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to send it. I'll take a crack at it and get back to you.

Delayjf,

I just emailed my comments about the Barrios article to you.
Thanks again for sending it.

[thoroughbred]

Originally posted by thoroughbred
Delayjf,

I just emailed my comments about the Barrios article to you.
Thanks again for sending it.

Delayjf,

I've tried emailing you, using a number of different ways, and each time I get a message back that you don't have an account at the email address you put on the cover page of your Fax to me.

[thoroughbred]

Originally posted by thoroughbred
Delayjf,

I've tried emailing you, using a number of different ways, and each time I get a message back that you don't have an account at the email address you put on the cover page of your Fax to me.

Delayjf

Since the other email messages didn't go through, I've sent it to you via P.A., here, by clicking "email" in your member profile. So look for it in your P.A. messages.

[Big Bill]

Eric,

I'm sure that Metairie and N.O. avoided major damage when Ivan moved eastward from the earlier predicted landfall. I live in the Florida Panhandle between Pensacola and Panama City and evacuated to Nashville. Returned home yesterday and found that my home made it through with no major damage. Blessed for sure...and my heart goes out to those less fortunate.

I downloaded the deceleration program from your post to this thread. If you or any members could answer a few questions about the program I would be very appreciative.

Total acceleration is a measure of what?
Mid acceleration is a measure of what?
Early deceleration is a measure of what?
Late deceleration is a measure of what?
Total decelereation is a measure of what?

I'm guessing that DVC is short for deceleration velocity?

And finally, in responding to the "Adj" and "Last Fract Adj" prompts, are these asking for the daily track variants and, if so, are these to be entered in 1/5's or 1/10's?

Big Bill

[46zilzal]

Doesn't mean much SHORT and means everything Long and on the Lawn and requires looking over the entire contest rather than segmentally like velocity requires.

Of course all of these require track models (distance, surface and AGE...have much different ones for babies and even 3 y/o's earlier in their life).Seems that it takes a bit to apportion speed so babies don't do it very well.