DRF PP Question from the new guy.

[Jaecubed]

Hi All,

I'm using the DRF PP to do some mock picks and had the following questions as I can't find the answer online.

1: L in a shaded circle next to the weight. I know what the L stands for but what does the shaded circle around the L mean? Looks like this but the 7 = L :7:

2: Just before the fraction times what does the S and the S in a shaded circle mean?

I think that is all for now. Thanks in advance for the answers to these questions.

[TiffaniO]

Hi All,

I'm using the DRF PP to do some mock picks and had the following questions as I can't find the answer online.

1: L in a shaded circle next to the weight. I know what the L stands for but what does the shaded circle around the L mean? Looks like this but the 7 = L :7:

2: Just before the fraction times what does the S and the S in a shaded circle mean?

I think that is all for now. Thanks in advance for the answers to these questions.

Shaded L is first time lasix

Forget the S, it is a useless DRF tool...but it means a slow pace if unshaded and a super slow pace if shaded.

[Jaecubed]

Shaded L is first time lasix

Forget the S, it is a useless DRF tool...but it means a slow pace if unshaded and a super slow pace if shaded.


Thank you!

[GMB@BP]

Shaded L is first time lasix

Forget the S, it is a useless DRF tool...but it means a slow pace if unshaded and a super slow pace if shaded.

Its your opinion that the tool is useless.

But your context is completely wrong on the tool.

The idea behind it is to let people know quickly if the race set up for front runners or for closers, and weather the race played out the way that it predicted.

You can still have a fast pace that favored front runners and a slow pace that favored closers.

I have found it pretty reliable based on my handicapping before and after races using Timeform my guide for pre-race pace analysis.

[biggestal99]

Its your opinion that the tool is useless.

But your context is completely wrong on the tool.

The idea behind it is to let people know quickly if the race set up for front runners or for closers, and weather the race played out the way that it predicted.

You can still have a fast pace that favored front runners and a slow pace that favored closers.

I have found it pretty reliable based on my handicapping before and after races using Timeform my guide for pre-race pace analysis.

Right each part of the horses DRF PP is important to someone.

some think the BEYERS are useless.

Some think the Tomlinsons are useless. (if anybody thinks that look at the 10th race at aqueduct this past saturday--Thanks art)

some think the pace designations are useless.

some think the Timeform pace figs are worthless

Useless to one handicapper doesnt mean useless to all.

you as a handicapper must determine the value of each piece of information available in the DRF.

Allan

[RunForTheRoses]

The S means it was speed favoring that day (according to DRF), a C means it favored closers. I find it somewhat useful, I definitely think race shapes are useful.

http://www.drf.com/news/new-symbols-more-clearly-define-race-shape-feature

[GMB@BP]

The S means it was speed favoring that day (according to DRF), a C means it favored closers. I find it somewhat useful, I definitely think race shapes are useful.

http://www.drf.com/news/new-symbols-more-clearly-define-race-shape-feature

I think your reading that wrong, has nothing to do with how the race track was playing.

On the same day for example in race 3 you could have C and the next race have an S.

[RunForTheRoses]

I think your reading that wrong, has nothing to do with how the race track was playing.

On the same day for example in race 3 you could have C and the next race have an S.

Yes, you are right. I don't use the drf as much lately, thought it was similar to tfus color coding.

[classhandicapper]

GMB@BP has it right.

The "S" and "C" are race setup and race flow indicators for that specific race.

If the race has a "S" or S+ that means the pre race analysis of the field suggested there wasn't a lot of speed in the the race and the race flow itself leaned more towards a front running style.

If the race has a "C" or C+ that means the pre race analysis of the field suggested there was a lot of speed in the the race and the race flow itself leaned more towards a closing running style.

The standards for both pre race and the race flow are higher for the highlighted S+ or C+ (more extreme).

The method is not looking at fractions. It's looking at running styles and how the race actually developed. But since those things are correlated to fractions, you will tend to see S and C races that match the fractions and color coding of the Timeform pace figures fairly often.

They are meant to compliment each other or stand alone.

If the fractions were fast according to Timeform and the race got a C or highlighted C, there's a very good chance that race fell part due to the fast pace and vice versa (S and fast fractions).

What makes this tool useful is that sometimes a race is loaded with speed, the fractions were not particularly fast, but the race still fell apart because the pace was contested or because a lot of speed horses were rated/outrun and not in their desired position. Same thing in the other direction.

Another good use is as a supplement to running style analysis.

If a horse that usually goes to the lead was outrun in a highlighted C race, you can usually surmise that he didn't change his running style or go off form. He just got outrun in a race that was loaded with other speeds (even if the pace wasn't particularly fast).

If a horse that usually closes was on the lead in a highlighted S race, he didn't suddenly becomes a front runner. He just drew into the race with no other speeds and inherited the lead (even if the fractions were about average).

[GMB@BP]

Class,

I have found it very useful. I used to mark this more or less in my trip notes, like this (4E) meaning there were 4 need the lead types because I want to know how hard was this race on a paper for a speed horse or if the race was setup for a closer to do well, and I can make a judgement if he did or not.

It has saved me time in making notes.

[Exotic1]

GMB@BP has it right.

The "S" and "C" are race setup and race flow indicators for that specific race.

If the race has a "S" or S+ that means the pre race analysis of the field suggested there wasn't a lot of speed in the the race and the race flow itself leaned more towards a front running style.

If the race has a "C" or C+ that means the pre race analysis of the field suggested there was a lot of speed in the the race and the race flow itself leaned more towards a closing running style.

The standards for both pre race and the race flow are higher for the highlighted S+ or C+ (more extreme).

The method is not looking at fractions. It's looking at running styles and how the race actually developed. But since those things are correlated to fractions, you will tend to see S and C races that match the fractions and color coding of the Timeform pace figures fairly often.

They are meant to compliment each other or stand alone.

If the fractions were fast according to Timeform and the race got a C or highlighted C, there's a very good chance that race fell part due to the fast pace and vice versa (S and fast fractions).

What makes this tool useful is that sometimes a race is loaded with speed, the fractions were not particularly fast, but the race still fell apart because the pace was contested or because a lot of speed horses were rated/outrun and not in their desired position. Same thing in the other direction.

Another good use is as a supplement to running style analysis.

If a horse that usually goes to the lead was outrun in a highlighted C race, you can usually surmise that he didn't change his running style or go off form. He just got outrun in a race that was loaded with other speeds (even if the pace wasn't particularly fast).

If a horse that usually closes was on the lead in a highlighted S race, he didn't suddenly becomes a front runner. He just drew into the race with no other speeds and inherited the lead (even if the fractions were about average).


Are you saying 2 conditions need to be met before a race is given a "C" (or "S")?

Condition #1: Pre-race analysis predicts a Hot Pace
Condition #2: Actual and post-race analysis confirmed a Hot Pace.

And if only Condition#2 were present, regardless of actual pace intensity, the race wouldn't earn a "C"?

[GMB@BP]

Are you saying 2 conditions need to be met before a race is given a "C" (or "S")?

Condition #1: Pre-race analysis predicts a Hot Pace
Condition #2: Actual and post-race analysis confirmed a Hot Pace.

And if only Condition#2 were present, regardless of actual pace intensity, the race wouldn't earn a "C"?

Condition 2 can be met with a slow pace if the race indeed did fall apart. 3 E types can go for the lead and it only be a moderate pace then a closer comes and gobbles them up. This is my understanding, class is the expert.

[Exotic1]

Condition 2 can be met with a slow pace if the race indeed did fall apart. 3 E types can go for the lead and it only be a moderate pace then a closer comes and gobbles them up. This is my understanding, class is the expert.

If only Condition #2 were present, it sounds like Class is saying that the race would not be given a "C". Even if 4 horses in a five horse field went head to head at a very fast rate (velocity). Why is the pre-race analysis critical in determining if a race is worthy of earning it a "C"? I guess it's a backstop.

[GMB@BP]

If only Condition #2 were present, it sounds like Class is saying that the race would not be given a "C". Even if 4 horses in a five horse field went head to head at a very fast rate (velocity). Why is the pre-race analysis critical in determining if a race is worthy of earning it a "C"? I guess it's a backstop.

1 and 2 must be met for any designation to be given, sorry if I wasnt clear.

I am just saying, it can be a fast pace and still get an S. If Pre Race prediction equals post race result, the actual pace I do not believe comes into play, it gets a designation.

[classhandicapper]

Are you saying 2 conditions need to be met before a race is given a "C" (or "S")?

Condition #1: Pre-race analysis predicts a Hot Pace
Condition #2: Actual and post-race analysis confirmed a Hot Pace.

And if only Condition#2 were present, regardless of actual pace intensity, the race wouldn't earn a "C"?

That's correct.

The idea is to look for multiple pieces of evidence that a race favored a particular style more than in the average race (running styles and race development).

The Timeform pace figures can be used as a third independent piece.

When I do my analysis, I will typically look at both the pace figures and the race flow note. When they agree, I will usually have a high degree of confidence about what happened. When they disagree, I will look at the chart of the race, see which horses were in the race, and watch the replay to decide what happened.

[classhandicapper]

Condition 2 can be met with a slow pace if the race indeed did fall apart. 3 E types can go for the lead and it only be a moderate pace then a closer comes and gobbles them up. This is my understanding, class is the expert.

Right.

I've even seen races where there were 5-6 speed types and everyone thought there was going to be a duel. Then, all the jockeys choked and rated. The fractions were not fast, but so many horses got taken out of their game the race fell apart anyway. That's something I want to know too.

[classhandicapper]

If only Condition #2 were present, it sounds like Class is saying that the race would not be given a "C". Even if 4 horses in a five horse field went head to head at a very fast rate (velocity). Why is the pre-race analysis critical in determining if a race is worthy of earning it a "C"? I guess it's a backstop.

The problem with looking at just running styles is that the horses don't always run the way you expect.

The problem with just looking at the chart is that races can flow one way or the other without it having been related to the fractions, how contentious the race was, or the fact that some of the secondary speeds got outrun or put away by a dominant one.

The problem with looking at just the fractions is that sometimes they are fast but the race does not fall apart and sometimes they are slow and it does.

Timeform is giving you the fraction related information and the Race Flow symbols are looking at the makeup of the field and the chart.

If you put it all together, you are likely to be right a lot more often than looking at any one of them alone.

If you want to take even further you can look at the PPs of the horses, look at the chart yourself, and watch the replay. A detailed subjective analysis like that will given you an even better understanding.