Michael Pizzolla's 2019 Kentucky Derby Rant

[ldiatone]

Michael Pizzolla's 2019 Kentucky Derby ValueCapping™ Rant
watch if interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGQtBsO7TdE&feature=youtu.be

[thaskalos]

Was Pizzola ever a used car salesman?

[Suff]

Italian.

[reckless]

Was Pizzola ever a used car salesman?

Worst than that, Gus.

He was a lawyer.

[Speed Figure]

Was Pizzola ever a used car salesman?

What is he saying that's a problem?

[thaskalos]

What is he saying that's a problem?

There is no real "problem"...the video, after all, is a free release. But I take my hat off to those who have the patience to listen to the whole thing. I, personally, can never make it past the first few minutes of his "analysis".

[woodbinepmi]

Me neither.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Isn't this guy responsible for Black Magic?

Not hard to rifle through.

Top Line:
:5: Improbable @ 12/1 or better
:16: Game Winner @ 12/1 or better

Line 2:
:14: Win Win Win @ 20/1 or better
:6: Vekoma @ 20/1 or better

Line 3: (Exotics fillers)

:19: Spinoff (longshot play at 45/1 or better)
:18: Long Range Toddy
:7: Maximum Security

[ldiatone]

i listen to the whole thing. :coffee:

[ldiatone]

Isn't this guy responsible for Black Magic?

Not hard to rifle through.

Top Line:
:5: Improbable @ 12/1 or better
:16: Game Winner @ 12/1 or better

Line 2:
:14: Win Win Win @ 20/1 or better
:6: Vekoma @ 20/1 or better

Line 3: (Exotics fillers)

:19: Spinoff (longshot play at 45/1 or better)
:18: Long Range Toddy
:7: Maximum Security
yes

[Speed Figure]

i listen to the whole thing. :coffee:
Me too! he's the only software seller that does these!

[classhandicapper]

Do his books have any interesting insights?

[PaceAdvantage]

I have all those out of print books...

[ldiatone]

Me too! he's the only software seller that does these!
not the only one......

[Speed Figure]

not the only one......
Who's the other's?

[lefty359]

I enjoy Pizzollas rants...

[Tom]

Who's the other's?

Monty Banks?

[098poi]

Here is Andy Serling's KD video.

https://youtu.be/N-U4-QRwKxw

[Speed Figure]

Monty Banks?
Who is that? do they sale a software program?

[Tom]

That was a guy on the old Horseplayers United board at Yahoo - he was always trying to sell his BANKS2000 software - the ultimate system!
Not real thing....:lol:

[ldiatone]

Who's the other's?

the fellow from cynthia publishing. its a short one and not as much detail.

[cj]

Do his books have any interesting insights?

Handicapping Magic I found very interesting. It is hard to find now at a reasonable price, at least the last time I checked.

[fast4522]

Worst than that, Gus.

He was a lawyer.

If he was a good one he would have better teeth today.

[PaceAdvantage]

If he was a good one he would have better teeth today.Tell that to the British Royal Family over the years.

[cj]

Handicapping Magic I found very interesting. It is hard to find now at a reasonable price, at least the last time I checked.

I see there is a new edition, looks like $97. I might give it a shot.

https://posttimedaily.com/handicapping-magic-3rd-edition/

[horseplayer]

re Pizzola - I read that he was partners with an Eric Langhfur ( not sure of spelling) - Langhfur was responsible for doing all the handicapping while Pizzola was the promoter -- Langhfur passed away and Pizzola grabbed all the software , notes etc, Langhfurs' widow sued Pizzola but was not successful due to something technical under Nevada ,Vegas law etc.
This info is probably still on the Internet.

[Clocker]

I see there is a new edition, looks like $97. I might give it a shot.

https://posttimedaily.com/handicapping-magic-3rd-edition/
I have an early edition of that book, and used the methodology for a while. I found it to be a simplified, structured take on the Sartin Methodology, with decent results. I moved on to a broader use of Sartin in general, and Jim Bradshaw's Match-Up in particular, for better results.

Pizzolla worked with Doc Sartin for some time early in his career. Two other Sartin folks, Tom Hambleton and Dick Schmidt, wrote a book called "Pace Makes the Race", also based on the Sartin Method. Pizzolla was a co-author of a later revised version of that book before writing his own.

[Clocker]

Pizzola was the promoter


A man's gotta go with his strong suit. :jump:

[delayjf]

Do his books have any interesting insights?

The concept of the fulcrum pace was interesting, but I was never able to implement the concept into my play. Anybody else have better luck than me?

[Tom]

I still use it quite a bit.
I may use raw or I may use adjusted pace ratings.
I like to use it to forgive races run against fast paces and to set up what I think is reasonable to expect today for a pace.

[Buell]

There's a whole lot of wrong stuff here.

First of all, coming from a state that has a whole lot of folks with missing teeth, especially at his age he looks like a model.

I googled him and found out that he practiced law at some fancy firm in New York that only takes the top students from the top law schools in the country. So I guess his teeth wasn't a problem.

The book Pace Makes The Race (I have an original hardback) was written by Doc, Dick Schmidt (RIP), Tom Hambleton (RIP) and Pizzola. It was later edited so that only Dick and Tom's stuff was in it. Rumor is Pizzola never got a dime from the sales of either book.

I talked to Eric in Vegas one day at the Imperial Palace when I was out there with my wife. He told me that Pizzola had come up with refinements on the PIRCO numbers and gave him the formulas to program into the software. He was a really nice guy Eric, and told me that Pizzola was the best player he ever saw, but it wasn't Eric's style to play exotic bets.

So it seems like to me that Pizzola came up with the math and the formulas, and Eric figured out how to program it.

I still have some old Follow Ups from PIRCO with articles by Pizzola with very technical math so that all makes sense to me.

I wanted to take Eric to dinner with me and my wife, and I asked him and his wife to have dinner, and told me he wasn't married, so I don't know how his widow could sue Pizzola. Unless he got married right before he passed on.

I really like the Match Up but I have to say Pizzola's fulcrum is still working for me, even though Bradshaw hated it.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

There's a whole lot of wrong stuff here.

First of all, coming from a state that has a whole lot of folks with missing teeth, especially at his age he looks like a model.

I googled him and found out that he practiced law at some fancy firm in New York that only takes the top students from the top law schools in the country. So I guess his teeth wasn't a problem.

The book Pace Makes The Race (I have an original hardback) was written by Doc, Dick Schmidt (RIP), Tom Hambleton (RIP) and Pizzola. It was later edited so that only Dick and Tom's stuff was in it. Rumor is Pizzola never got a dime from the sales of either book.

I talked to Eric in Vegas one day at the Imperial Palace when I was out there with my wife. He told me that Pizzola had come up with refinements on the PIRCO numbers and gave him the formulas to program into the software. He was a really nice guy Eric, and told me that Pizzola was the best player he ever saw, but it wasn't Eric's style to play exotic bets.

So it seems like to me that Pizzola came up with the math and the formulas, and Eric figured out how to program it.

I still have some old Follow Ups from PIRCO with articles by Pizzola with very technical math so that all makes sense to me.

I wanted to take Eric to dinner with me and my wife, and I asked him and his wife to have dinner, and told me he wasn't married, so I don't know how his widow could sue Pizzola. Unless he got married right before he passed on.

I really like the Match Up but I have to say Pizzola's fulcrum is still working for me, even though Bradshaw hated it.


OK.


Ummmmm. WTF are you trying to say here? I'm more confused than a black man in Cheyenne, WY.

[thaskalos]

OK.


Ummmmm. WTF are you trying to say here? I'm more confused than a black man in Cheyenne, WY.

In the Pizzolla video, his lower front teeth look a tad discolored...and fast4522 made a derogatory comment about it in post #23. Buell was obviously displeased with that comment.

[fast4522]

In the Pizzolla video, his lower front teeth look a tad discolored...and fast4522 made a derogatory comment about it in post #23. Buell was obviously displeased with that comment.

That is a very interesting observation thaskalos, but I think Buell made a greater reference to Pizzola and Eric Langhfur at the time of his death who was not married or something like that. Horseplayer in post #26 has a slightly post that he was married. I can tell you that "Pace Makes the Race" was a product of PIRCO and because Pizzola was a member of PIRCO and got nothing a case was litigated in California court against Howard Sartin because of it.

[PaceAdvantage]

His name was:

Eric Langjahr

[PaceAdvantage]

OK.


Ummmmm. WTF are you trying to say here? I'm more confused than a black man in Cheyenne, WY.This is your first and final warning to stop with the inappropriate posts/comments/whatever. Your very last.

[EQUIPACE]

Hey Guys, Michael Pizzola is a brilliant handicapper. One of the smartest handicappers in the business and you guys talking $hit about his teeth and questioning his ability need to Stand Down... His pace approach to handicapping and using it to find Value is by and far better than many out there. Tom Brohammer is the king of pace handicapping in my opinion and Pizzola, Brohammer along with the rest of the Sartin Group, not to mention Schmidt, Our own Dave Schwartz, and others are the leaders that have taught us well. Show Some Respect!!!

[Speed Figure]

OK.


Ummmmm. WTF are you trying to say here? I'm more confused than a black man in Cheyenne, WY.
Being a black man this is a stupid comment!:mad:

[classhandicapper]

Wow, this thread has gone off the rails.

[headhawg]

Wow, this thread has gone off the rails.This shouldn't surprise anyone as that seems to happen in a lot of threads, usually by the same attention-seeking culprits.

[Elliott Sidewater]

Well, at least Michael puts it out there pre-race, like Andy Beyer used to do. Both got pilloried for their opinions, but kept putting them out there. That's a trait of winners in my book, you can't be scared of being wrong or offended by others' criticisms when you are.

I knew Michael a little when I was associated with the Sartin group, and during Saratoga seminars it was just the two of us in the coffee shop at 6:30 AM Saturday morning with our racing forms and sleep deprived baggy eyes. We wanted to give the seminar attendees the very best of our opinions on the day's racing card. The guy knows who he is, and is true to himself. He was also a helluva handicapper, one of the best I've met. He had an uncanny instinct for uncovering overbet favorites. At the time I knew him, he had integrity.

One cannot say the same for the National Race Masters, who are probably busy as we speak preparing tout mailings claiming that most (or all !!) selected Country House to win. I can almost see the text now: "Modesty nearly prevented us from sending this newsletter to you, but our excitement got the best of us, and our readers deserve to know - we picked Country House to win the Derby" !!

And they have air cover for doing this -- at what point in history has lying become more acceptable?

[Tom]

The good old days, at the Desmond Americana in Albany!
You and Mikey capping at 6:30am and Dick Schmidt rolls in around noon! :lol:

Good times.
Good presentations.

Miss the 4 days of fun and racing.

[Elliott Sidewater]

Thanks for the memories Tom. Overall, PIRCO was a pretty aged organization. Among the teaching contingent, Michael and I were the youngest two, and I'm almost 70 now. Many in the organization have passed and are missed, but you're right - the good old days were very good.

[thaskalos]

One cannot say the same for the National Race Masters, who are probably busy as we speak preparing tout mailings claiming that most (or all !!) selected Country House to win. I can almost see the text now: "Modesty nearly prevented us from sending this newsletter to you, but our excitement got the best of us, and our readers deserve to know - we picked Country House to win the Derby" !!

And they have air cover for doing this -- at what point in history has lying become more acceptable?

You might change your mind if you read the bios of their stable of "experts"...:)

[delayjf]

I really like the Match Up but I have to say Pizzola's fulcrum is still working for me, even though Bradshaw hated it.

I seem to recall while reading Bradshaw's match up concepts. that Bradshaw also used something akin to Pizzola's fulcrum pace, or so it seemed to me. I don't think he ever pinned a name to the procedure.

[Clocker]

I seem to recall while reading Bradshaw's match up concepts. that Bradshaw also used something akin to Pizzola's fulcrum pace, or so it seemed to me. I don't think he ever pinned a name to the procedure.


Bradshaw called his procedure the Match-Up. In the simplest of terms, the procedure was to project a likely early pace for the race, 1st and 2nd calls, and to start by eliminating any horse that did not demonstrate an ability to be in contention at those pace figures.

Some might think it a chicken and egg question, but after studying both, my take is that Pizzolla's "Fulcrum Pace" is a derivative of the projected pace concept of Sartin and Bradshaw.

[highnote]

The concept of the fulcrum pace was interesting, but I was never able to implement the concept into my play. Anybody else have better luck than me?

Fulcrum never worked for me. I frequently used Bradshaw's match-up when I used to handicap U.S. races.

[Tom]

The Hat taught the PBS numbers to Mike on an airplane ride.
PBS - Pace Balanced Speed is also Pizzola Bradshaw Sartin.
The fulcrum was the key to modify the speed figure by.

At a track like Finger Lakes, where they ran basically 4 distances all on dirt, and you made an adjustment for the DRF SR at the sprint and routes, you could do nicely using that simple idea.
I did for more than a couple of years.

Few shippers, same horse populations, minimum of noise - worked like a charm.

Fulcrum, PBS number, power third fractions - that was my life.
(oh, and Genny drafts and White Owls - the full track package).

[delayjf]

power third fractions

I found the way he adjusted or didn't adjust the third fraction didn't make sense to me. I felt there were better ways to rate turf races (Sustain pace or Quinns turf ratings). So I never really tried to put his power third fraction into play.

[Light]

The problem with Pizzola's program is evidenced in his video in that the "fulcrum" horse often does not turn out to be the fulcrum horse. In the video it shows Vekoma as the fulcrum horse but that horse was a no factor all the way around.

Vekoma can easily be seen as the fulcrum horse using Bris. In the race summary section,the top horse in the "early pace last race" by far is Vekoma. Has a 105 to the next horse with a 95. So Pizzola and Bris are in agreement. But that is a mediocre way at best of deciding who will be the fulcrum horse. In the video Pizzola admits to not knowing what to do with MS because his last speed figure is below par to his other 3 races.

No offense to Pizzolla but if you play this game just a couple of years you know a horse will only expend as much energy it needs to win. This is why it is more complicated than you think to find the fulcrum horse. It's not always the last pace line that gives the answer. And you don't want someone coming into the derby that was "all out" in his last when he's now going to meet stiffer competition. So I thought his lack of understanding of that well known concept was below par for someone selling a program called "value capper" Because that is where you get value, when speed figures look below par, especially the last. You must look at what the horse is capable of and decide if he will replicate a previous better performance.

I mainly looked at the video trying to decide whether I should try his $2K program. But after looking at this video and seeing how off the wall his predictions were of the fulcrum and the odds he thought he may get on MS, Improbable, Game winner etc, I am less inclined.

[classhandicapper]

No offense to Pizzolla but if you play this game just a couple of years you know a horse will only expend as much energy it needs to win.

I agree with this.

Very few horses are going to run as fast at they are capable of early. They are only going to run only as fast as they have to secure the position the rider wants. It works the other around also. Even if a horse is capable of running very fast early and getting the lead, it will often run slower next time in securing a similar position behind horses instead of going to the lead.

In looking at MS's PPs, I thought his last race pace figure was kind of meaningless in terms of his likely early position. It was obvious he had sprint speed and it was obvious the horse tended to race on the lead. So it was likely he was going to be part of the pace early unless others used their horses hard to take it and he was comfortable rating just off it.

I think figuring out race development is more about running styles, then within that how much speed the horse has, and then within that, the strategy the jockey uses given the makeup of the field. The latter part and randomness at the gate being the toughest part.

[Speed Figure]

The problem with Pizzola's program is evidenced in his video in that the "fulcrum" horse often does not turn out to be the fulcrum horse. In the video it shows Vekoma as the fulcrum horse but that horse was a no factor all the way around.

Vekoma can easily be seen as the fulcrum horse using Bris. In the race summary section,the top horse in the "early pace last race" by far is Vekoma. Has a 105 to the next horse with a 95. So Pizzola and Bris are in agreement. But that is a mediocre way at best of deciding who will be the fulcrum horse. In the video Pizzola admits to not knowing what to do with MS because his last speed figure is below par to his other 3 races.

No offense to Pizzolla but if you play this game just a couple of years you know a horse will only expend as much energy it needs to win. This is why it is more complicated than you think to find the fulcrum horse. It's not always the last pace line that gives the answer. And you don't want someone coming into the derby that was "all out" in his last when he's now going to meet stiffer competition. So I thought his lack of understanding of that well known concept was below par for someone selling a program called "value capper" Because that is where you get value, when speed figures look below par, especially the last. You must look at what the horse is capable of and decide if he will replicate a previous better performance.

I mainly looked at the video trying to decide whether I should try his $2K program. But after looking at this video and seeing how off the wall his predictions were of the fulcrum and the odds he thought he may get on MS, Improbable, Game winner etc, I am less inclined.
I guess everyone's pace projections must be perfect right! You do know that Timeformus had the #6 as the leader on the pace projector right? he did clearly say he didn't know if the horse bounced, had a performance decline or basically coasted home and did just enough to win. Did you watch any of the other videos?

[thaskalos]

I guess everyone's pace projections must be perfect right! You do know that Timeformus had the #6 as the leader on the pace projector right? he did clearly say he didn't know if the horse bounced, had a performance decline or basically coasted home and did just enough to win. Did you watch any of the other videos?

Are you using this particular print type so you can force us to pay special attention to your posts?

[Speed Figure]

Not at all! I simply like writing in courier font!

[Light]

I guess everyone's pace projections must be perfect right! You do know that Timeformus had the #6 as the leader on the pace projector right? he did clearly say he didn't know if the horse bounced, had a performance decline or basically coasted home and did just enough to win. Did you watch any of the other videos?

If you read my post in a calm state, your brain would see that I covered everything you just said. I said Bris, (instead of TF) also had #6 as the leader. So there is no disagreement there and no surprise that TF had the same figs.

I said Pizzolla did not know what to do with the horse because MS's last SR was kind of low to Pizzolla. So there is no disagreement there either.

Are you just interested in fighting for the sake of fighting?

What I am saying that you may disagree with is that the fulcrum horse is often not the horse with the best E2 figure. Speed figures are not always the correct tool for that. Picking the Fulcrum horse is more complicated in a lot of cases.

This race (the KD) is another example of old school theory having been dis proven time and time again. The "fulcrum" method needs an overhaul.

[Appy]

"What I am saying that you may disagree with is that the fulcrum horse is often not the horse with the best E2 figure. Speed figures are not always the correct tool for that. Picking the Fulcrum horse is more complicated in a lot of cases."

I agree with your statement that speed figures may not be dependable in accurately predicting the fulcrum horse.

"This race (the KD) is another example of old school theory having been dis proven time and time again. The "fulcrum" method needs an overhaul."

I do not agree with this statement. Max Sec past performance indicated he would likely be on the lead or at least contending for it, and could hold it with strong finish. That is exactly the way the Derby unfolded. Apparently a lot of people read it that way, as MS was the fave. The Derby order of finish did not disprove any old school theory with exception of surprise performance of Country House, who IMO did not project to produce that caliber a race.

I studied Sartin Methodology and everything included in the compilations branded as such. Used to have a complete collection of the Followups (lost in a computer crash). Still have a stack I printed out, including the Matchup. I learned a good deal from the experience that will stick with me forever. I also acquired a number of friendships I value highly during that time, including Ted.
I moved on from that to, among others, studying Pizzolla's writings and methods. Again, I learned a good deal which I will always use to advantage. He is a handicapper, player, and instructor, I admire a good deal. IMO he is, in his own right, a proven commodity.
Whether I agree with each and everything any of those guys present is my own business and I am free to accept or reject at my own discretion. In any case I am appreciative to all of them for the considerable gains I have made. I do not see how trashing any of them could make me feel any better about myself.

[Light]

I do not agree with this statement. Max Sec past performance indicated he would likely be on the lead or at least contending for it, and could hold it with strong finish. That is exactly the way the Derby unfolded.


It was clear to me as it was to you and the general public that MS would be the fulcrum horse and could go w-w. It was not clear to Pizzolla who is the fulcrum expert. Pizzolla did NOT pick MS as the fulcrum horse. He picked Vekoma. So did Timeform and so did Bris.

[Tom]

My take on MS was that he was certainly an early horse but he lacked anything close to early pace figures good enough.
He needed major improvement in the Derby.
I will bet against this type every time.

He was lucky, IMHO, that so many other riders chose Derby day to show what bad rides they are capable of.

[Tom]

Here is how i used the Fulcrum for the Derby.
Best E2 was by Far Vekoma with his 114 E2 last race. He had a previous 110, within 2 lengths ( 2 pts = 1 length) BUT, it was by and far the best. The fulcrum is not supposed to be the best, but the one that keeps the most horse involved - most likely to be run today. That said, I used Tax as the fulcrum with his 105 last time backed up by his 103 two back.

Not sure if your carried it out to PBS, but in BRIS, a length is equal to 10/dist, so 1.2 at 9 furlong and 1.2 at 8.5. I just use 1 for both distances for sake of ease.

MS had a 101 off a 77 E2, so his figure need to be reduced by 7 lengths, making him a non contender with a 94 SR.
Vekoma gets a 105 after adding four lengths to his SR, off a 114 E2.

BMS - 99, Tacitus - 104, Game Winner - 98

Now it didn't pan out, but I don't think you can use one race to throw out a whole method.

This was not like any other race you are going to betting this week! ;)

[Appy]

The way I saw the derby in preview had a lot in common with yours, Tom, except I did see MS as forwardly placed, at worst, but with enough late speed and energy to take it.

I agree conceptually with Light but I would say it differently in that due to so many variables even running style is getting very difficult to nail every time, particularly if you are depending on figures software automates. That's why I always do a manual take (ignoring any odds line) on the pps for the important races. But regardless what I did I had a number of horses in consideration ahead of Country House.

[Light]

One flaw I see in Pizzolla's method is to rigidly use the last race to decide which horse is the fulcrum. The flaw was exemplified with the 77 E2 for MS and a 114 E2 for Vekoma. Come on, you know something is wrong with those figs. Especially when you see that MS ran a 100 E2 in a mud sprint 3 back and the 114 for Vekoma he never did before.

Another flaw is if you are hung up in the discrepancy between MS and Vekoma look at their total pace E2+LP in their last race. According to Bris:

Vekoma: 114 E2 + 84LP =198 Total Pace

MS 77 E2 +123LP =200 Total pace

So its a matter of distribution of energy, not that MS is slower than Vekoma early.

Also using the Bris Quirin style designations in Bris, MS and Spinoff are tops with EP7. But MS has 3 calls at the E2 point where he is 1st. Spinoff has one. No contest who gets the lead using Quirin style. Many times the horse with the slower E2 but faster Quirrin style indicator, will get the lead. Vekoma had an EP5.

[classhandicapper]

I think there is a major difference between running style and pace. One tells you how the horse typically likes to run and the other tells you how fast he has run in the past.

IMO, you start with style and then see if he's fast enough to achieve it.

But you absolutely have to look past races where the horse made the lead in a slow pace. No horse (other than an unrateable lunatic) is going to go at their maximum speed once it has made the lead just so handicappers can figure out who the fulcrum horse is. ;)

You have to look back to see how fast the horse is when actually asked. And by this I don't mean his pace relative to his final time. I mean how fast is he. MS has sprint speed. Even if some of the those sprint paces were kind of slow they were still fast enough to run with any of these other horses at 10F.

The next step would be to estimate if he could run with these other horses at the likely pace and still get 10F. IMO, that was the question mark.

It was easy to see he was a front runner that was fast enough to be on the likely pace.

[Tom]

I think there is a major difference between running style and pace. One tells you how the horse typically likes to run and the other tells you how fast he has run in the past.



Mike told me once that running style tells you where the horse wants to be, velocity tells you where he can be.

[Tom]

One flaw I see in Pizzolla's method is to rigidly use the last race to decide which horse is the fulcrum. The flaw was exemplified with the 77 E2 for MS and a 114 E2 for Vekoma. Come on, you know something is wrong with those figs. Especially when you see that MS ran a 100 E2 in a mud sprint 3 back and the 114 for Vekoma he never did before.

Another flaw is if you are hung up in the discrepancy between MS and Vekoma look at their total pace E2+LP in their last race. According to Bris:

Vekoma: 114 E2 + 84LP =198 Total Pace

MS 77 E2 +123LP =200 Total pace



Excellent points!
I must confess, I also said American Pharoah was far too slow early to win. :faint:

[coachv30]

One flaw I see in Pizzolla's method is to rigidly use the last race to decide which horse is the fulcrum. The flaw was exemplified with the 77 E2 for MS and a 114 E2 for Vekoma. Come on, you know something is wrong with those figs. Especially when you see that MS ran a 100 E2 in a mud sprint 3 back and the 114 for Vekoma he never did before.

Another flaw is if you are hung up in the discrepancy between MS and Vekoma look at their total pace E2+LP in their last race. According to Bris:

Vekoma: 114 E2 + 84LP =198 Total Pace

MS 77 E2 +123LP =200 Total pace

So its a matter of distribution of energy, not that MS is slower than Vekoma early.

Also using the Bris Quirin style designations in Bris, MS and Spinoff are tops with EP7. But MS has 3 calls at the E2 point where he is 1st. Spinoff has one. No contest who gets the lead using Quirin style. Many times the horse with the slower E2 but faster Quirrin style indicator, will get the lead. Vekoma had an EP5.

Could one tweak the method and use another prior race to find this fulcrum horse?

[coachv30]

One flaw I see in Pizzolla's method is to rigidly use the last race to decide which horse is the fulcrum. The flaw was exemplified with the 77 E2 for MS and a 114 E2 for Vekoma. Come on, you know something is wrong with those figs. Especially when you see that MS ran a 100 E2 in a mud sprint 3 back and the 114 for Vekoma he never did before.

Another flaw is if you are hung up in the discrepancy between MS and Vekoma look at their total pace E2+LP in their last race. According to Bris:

Vekoma: 114 E2 + 84LP =198 Total Pace

MS 77 E2 +123LP =200 Total pace

So its a matter of distribution of energy, not that MS is slower than Vekoma early.

Also using the Bris Quirin style designations in Bris, MS and Spinoff are tops with EP7. But MS has 3 calls at the E2 point where he is 1st. Spinoff has one. No contest who gets the lead using Quirin style. Many times the horse with the slower E2 but faster Quirrin style indicator, will get the lead. Vekoma had an EP5.

Could one tweak the method and use another prior race to find this fulcrum horse? Why does it have to be last out race?

[mistergee]

I could be wrong but I dont believe the Fulcrum race is necessarily the last race although I read his book many years ago

[jay68802]

The three questions.

Who are the E horses?

Who has the best (fastest) figures?

Are there any of the other E horses that have not had to run that fast?
This really applies to younger horses.

The figures indicated that Vekoma would be on the pace, MS figured to be there because he did not have to run figures like Vekoma to get the lead. Then it became deciding what effect the higher early pace would do to MS. When he ran the second two furlongs in about 24 seconds, the race was over.

[Gakiss2]

Thank You for that

[Gakiss2]

Mike told me once that running style tells you where the horse wants to be, velocity tells you where he can be.

I mean this one.

[classhandicapper]

IMO, everyone is making this too complicated.

1. Horses develop running styles
2. Horses have varying amounts of natural speed
3. Horses tend to only run fast enough early to secure their preferred position.
4. Connections adjust strategy to the circumstances
5. Random things like the break matter

a. Classify the horse's running style (most important)
b. Look for the fastest fractions the horse has run in recent races

At that point you should know who wants the lead and who has enough speed to get it if they try.

However, #3 is telling you that if a horse very consistently goes for the lead, he may be even faster than he has shown in his fractions in his last or even last few races. So you have to look for clues in how consistently he gets the lead, does he open up big clear leads, does he seem to get the lead without even being asked for his best, has he ever outrun other known really fast horses etc..

Over and above that, owners, trainers, and jockeys are not all dumb. They don't give a crap about fulcrum and past fractions. They are trying to win races or at least not commit suicide and cost themselves positions. So if some horses are more versatile they are going to avoid disastrous paces or take advantage when they can.

It's hard to get projections correct, but imo it was pretty obvious that MS was a fast front runner and Vekoma might take back a bit despite recently running fast fractions.

[Maximillion]

The way the fulcrum was presented in the HM book.....its not really about predicting the actual pace of the race,its more of a conservative/common sense type of tool used to make eliminations or to give possible excuses for bad races-in that context i think it can be useful.

[Tom]

The way the fulcrum was presented in the HM book.....its not really about predicting the actual pace of the race,its more of a conservative/common sense type of tool used to make eliminations or to give possible excuses for bad races-in that context i think it can be useful.

Bingo!

[cj]

Over and above that, owners, trainers, and jockeys are not all dumb. They don't give a crap about fulcrum and past fractions. They are trying to win races or at least not commit suicide and cost themselves positions. So if some horses are more versatile they are going to avoid disastrous paces or take advantage when they can.



Did you notice the geniuses that came up with the plan to rate Motion Emotion in the Oaks? It was actually quoted, they really said it.

You have to worry about the dumb ones as much as you have to realize the smarts ones might mess up your plans too!

[Niko]

Did you notice the geniuses that came up with the plan to rate Motion Emotion in the Oaks? It was actually quoted, they really said it.

You have to worry about the dumb ones as much as you have to realize the smarts ones might mess up your plans too!

I was hoping they were bluffing, the horse had the fastest quarter (my opinion) and the way the track was playing I thought the horse had a chance at the odds on the lead, couldn't have been more wrong. Not sure if Motion Emotion would have won (or have gotten the lead if sent) but in hindsight was probably still the horses best chance.

[classhandicapper]

Did you notice the geniuses that came up with the plan to rate Motion Emotion in the Oaks? It was actually quoted, they really said it.

You have to worry about the dumb ones as much as you have to realize the smarts ones might mess up your plans too!

I thought that was a terrible idea (especially considering I bet the race expecting a contested pace :D).

I honestly don't know what to do in those cases. You more or less know you aren't going to win if you take a horse that looks like a "need the lead" type off the pace. But you also know that if other riders get aggressive and you get into it with them, you aren't going to win either.

If I owned the horse, I probably would have instructed the rider to go for the lead, but if someone else was hell bent on it or just faster out of the gate to not strangle the horse but not commit suicide either. Then you live with the fact that you probably aren't going to win because of the setup, but maybe you can salvage something. However, you have to least try for it.

[classhandicapper]

The way the fulcrum was presented in the HM book.....its not really about predicting the actual pace of the race,its more of a conservative/common sense type of tool used to make eliminations or to give possible excuses for bad races-in that context i think it can be useful.

That makes perfect sense to me, but I still think if you are trying to evaluate how much speed the horse has, if he's going to impact the pace, or if he can run fast early and sustain it, you have to keep in mind that horses only run as fast at they have to secure the position the rider wants. So if the horse just happened to draw into some slow paced races recently, that's telling you nothing about how fast he's capable of running and whether he can sustain it. You have to look further back.

Also, if you ask me, the only reason Vekoma ran fast early fractions in his last race was that a lot of people thought KEE was somewhat speed favoring and the inside couple of paths were better that day. So it made perfect sense to get more aggressive than usual to secure a forward position near the inside. Then the track would help carry you even though you ran very fast early. IMO, that's pretty much exactly what happened. He ran fast early but that extra effort did not take a toll and he won.

So to me (and obviously sometimes I am very wrong :D) he was not as good as any energy or pace related figure suggested and probably wasn't going to be as aggressive in the Derby. Of course it didn't matter because my horses were losing a ton of ground :bang: but maybe that was predictable too.

[Tom]

That makes perfect sense to me, but I still think if you are trying to evaluate how much speed the horse has, if he's going to impact the pace, or if he can run fast early and sustain it, you have to keep in mind that horses only run as fast at they have to secure the position the rider wants. So if the horse just happened to draw into some slow paced races recently, that's telling you nothing about how fast he's capable of running and whether he can sustain it. You have to look further back.


You have to remember, Sartin was a teaching outfit, and key to success was having a procedure for people to follow to ensure everything was considered. After setting the fulcrum, you would then do form cycle analysis, +, 0 and look to see the horse's form in race within +/- 2/5 of the fulcrum. This kept you focused on races similar to today's and somewhat compensated for using raw numbers (IMHO).

Nowadays, we have multiple tracks we can play everyday, so it is even more beneficial to have a set procedure in place to tell you quickly if a race is worth your time going any further into.

[cj]

I thought that was a terrible idea (especially considering I bet the race expecting a contested pace :D).

I honestly don't know what to do in those cases. You more or less know you aren't going to win if you take a horse that looks like a "need the lead" type off the pace. But you also know that if other riders get aggressive and you get into it with them, you aren't going to win either.

If I owned the horse, I probably would have instructed the rider to go for the lead, but if someone else was hell bent on it or just faster out of the gate to not strangle the horse but not commit suicide either. Then you live with the fact that you probably aren't going to win because of the setup, but maybe you can salvage something. However, you have to least try for it.

Oddly enough there was another horse that was basically exactly the same. They tried for the lead, got it, and won. That is what you do if you really want to win. If you don't get the lead, you lose. If you don't try for the lead, you still lose.

[Tom]

Richard Migliore said it it best - they have to go where you have already been.

If I owned a horse and the rider grabbed it, I would certainly grab HIM when he got back!

[classhandicapper]

Oddly enough there was another horse that was basically exactly the same. They tried for the lead, got it, and won. That is what you do if you really want to win. If you don't get the lead, you lose. If you don't try for the lead, you still lose.

It can be trickier than that for the connections sometimes.

Depending on the size of the field and the specifics of your horse, each position is worth a lot of money. So if you try for it and can see you are getting outrun, it can make sense to back off and and try to save a minor award. i'd rather go for it, but if it's clear the other horse is faster, I'd rather pray for 2nd or 3rd than commit to being up the track.

[cj]

It can be trickier than that for the connections sometimes.

Depending on the size of the field and the specifics of your horse, each position is worth a lot of money. So if you try for it and can see you are getting outrun, it can make sense to back off and and try to save a minor award. i'd rather go for it, but if it's clear the other horse is faster, I'd rather pray for 2nd or 3rd than commit to being up the track.

This was their prerace strategy and it was dumb. In all honesty that horse probably shouldn't have been put in the Oaks. But if you're going to run, what was the point? That horse was never hitting the board or even getting a check if not on the lead.

[jay68802]

This was their prerace strategy and it was dumb. In all honesty that horse probably shouldn't have been put in the Oaks. But if you're going to run, what was the point? That horse was never hitting the board or even getting a check if not on the lead.

Go back to the Fla Derby, when Mott said that they were trying to get Hidden Scroll to "rate" in his works and in the race. Changing a young horse's running style is never a good idea, IMO. Watch horses trained by Baffert and Pletcher. They are usually on the lead in their first race and they will try to gradually change the running style over a period of a year or so, and they do not try to do it in one race.

[classhandicapper]

This was their prerace strategy and it was dumb. In all honesty that horse probably shouldn't have been put in the Oaks. But if you're going to run, what was the point? That horse was never hitting the board or even getting a check if not on the lead.

I agree.

Having that as a pre-race strategy was a terrible idea.

[classhandicapper]

Go back to the Fla Derby, when Mott said that they were trying to get Hidden Scroll to "rate" in his works and in the race. Changing a young horse's running style is never a good idea, IMO. Watch horses trained by Baffert and Pletcher. They are usually on the lead in their first race and they will try to gradually change the running style over a period of a year or so, and they do not try to do it in one race.

That's why I'm saying it's sometimes a difficult position be in.

They already saw that if they tried to outsprint a field full of very fast front runners they could do it, but the horse couldn't last 9F, let alone 10F.

1. They could have gunned again and tried to outrun Maximum Security (who was out quickly). Maybe that would have worked, but there was also the potential of getting a replay of the last race where he tired. They also would have made no progress towards getting him to relax and go 10F.

2. They could see what would happen if they tried to rate him after giving him some work behind horses.

Both options sucked because the goal was to win AND teach him to relax with the Derby in mind.

IMO, they did the worst of all possible things. They tried to get him to relax but it was obvious fairly quickly he was not comfortable. Once a horse starts fighting, you are doomed. At that point you more or less have to try to get outside and let him go, but there was no place to go

From the rail, IMHO they should have gone. Then after he cleared most of the other horses if they were hell bent on trying to rate, they should have let MS go and then moved outside and just of him. All that is easier said than one.

It's starting to look more like he's less talented than we thought to begin with. His first start is looking more like a speed favoring slop fluke.

[cj]

Call Paul was an interesting case today. He took it to the favorite and won the battle but lost the war. If he runs his usual race he probably loses anyway, but to the favorite instead of the lucky longshot.

[classhandicapper]

Call Paul was an interesting case today. He took it to the favorite and won the battle but lost the war. If he runs his usual race he probably loses anyway, but to the favorite instead of the lucky longshot.

My feeling is that if you are confident you have the best speed, it's almost always the right move to go. Often times, you can put away the other speeds without going all out. So there's a pretty good chance your horse will keep going even if the pace seems fast.

However, if you look at the PPs and are pretty sure one or more horses are just as fast or faster and higher quality than you, you are more or less screwed. That's when if you go, it's very likely it's you that's going to be the battle loser and finish up the track.

[classhandicapper]

My feeling is that if you are confident you have the best speed, it's almost always the right move to go. Often times, you can put away the other speeds without going all out. So there's a pretty good chance your horse will keep going even if the pace seems fast.

However, if you look at the PPs and are pretty sure one or more horses are just as fast or faster and higher quality than you, you are more or less screwed. That's when if you go, it's very likely it's you that's going to be the battle loser and finish up the track.

I should add that Call Paul wound up winning that duel, but the favorite was so bad I'm not so sure how much of that was strategy and how much was the other horse just having a bad day. He may have backed up on his own.

[cj]

I should add that Call Paul wound up winning that duel, but the favorite was so bad I'm not so sure how much of that was strategy and how much was the other horse just having a bad day. He may have backed up on his own.

Quite possibly, but there was no reason to believe that horse could run with the favorite early based on the PPs. Somebody actually planned it and it worked out pretty well I'd say.

That is really my main point. Using a horse's speed works out better more often than trying to throttle a horse down does. I don't even think it is a close decision. If you are running for minor shares I guess there is something to that, but I'd like to believe most people don't enter a race hoping to be 3rd or 4th.

[classhandicapper]

That is really my main point. Using a horse's speed works out better more often than trying to throttle a horse down does. I don't even think it is a close decision. If you are running for minor shares I guess there is something to that, but I'd like to believe most people don't enter a race hoping to be 3rd or 4th.

I think all people enter to win, but their plans are sometimes dependent on the number and quality of the other speeds in the race.

IMO, the plan should:

1. Give the jockey some discretion to do whatever he thinks is best depending on the break, who else goes, and how the horse is behaving.

2. Never involve going all out in a duel with superior horses.

3. Never involve choking the horse back if he's fighting an attempt to be rated.

Some spots just suck and you know you probably aren't going to win unless the superior speed horse has a bad day or gets off poorly. I guess I don't think there are clear cut answers to these things like "always go".

[Niko]

Agreed, If I see a horse I bet on getting strangled early I'm already mentally tearing up my ticket. It seems like it results in a loss 98% of the time. As classhandicapper said, If you have the best speed a lot of other horses will give up or your horse will run a faster race than expected. Doesn't always work out but the other choice seldom does.