Fulcrum

[shoelessjoe]

I was listening to an old Sartin Seminar tape with Pizzolla talking about using the Fulcrum Pace?He was saying that it was an excellent way of getting down to the contenders of a race.Has anybody ever tried doing it this way?Shoeless

[Achilles]

Hello Shoeless,

Here are the steps to the method as Pizzolla wrote them in Pace Makes the Race (Copywrite 1991):

"The fulcrum pace is the fastest second call pace among the last pacelines of all the horses in the race, provided that (1) the horse was competitive at both the second call and the finish......, and (2) the pace is not atypically fast for that horse."

It must be the last paceline, no exceptions.

Competitiveness guideline defined as less than five lengths behind at both calls.

Not atypically fast means that the horse has run equally fast (to the second call) in the past.

At this point, you may or may not have a fulcrum pace. Not all races have one.

Pizzolla then looked at all the horse's good finishes and checked what the second call pace of race was. If it was slower than the fulcrum, then the horse probably was not a contender. He threw out lots of non-competitive horses that way.

Another approach (the way I did it) was to look at all the horses' pace lines where the second call pace of the race is within (+/-) a couple of lengths of the fulcrum pace fig. I think he used the fractional times within +/- one fifth second, but you should be able to use whatever pace figs you use. If fulcrum was 46-3/5 sec, he looked at races where the second call was between 46-2/5 and 46-4/5. You might say that the fulcrum is a 75 EP. You then look at races where the second call pace of race is between 71 and 79.

Wherever the horse ran against that fulcrum pace, check to see if it ran a good race (1st, 2nd or 3rd, or within 2 lengths in a sprint or 3 lengths in a rte.) If it did run good races against the fulcrum pace, it's a contender. Some of this stuff I have probably borrowed from some other stuff Pizzolla wrote in some Follow-Up articles for Sartinistas.

I don't know how he has modified the basic method since 1991.

There's some other stuff about applying it that I can pass along if you're interested.

[shoelessjoe]

Achilles,Thanks for the reply if you think of anything else I would be interested.It's sort of like what another old Pirco member Gary Owens from Canada used to talk about where he would look for the best 2nd call and final time and only use horses who could compete against it.I tried to use Pizzola's Handicapping Magician at one time but didnt have much luck with it.Shoeless

[Light]

It must be the last paceline, no exceptions.



I never really paid attention to that.but you may be right? However, if a speedball stumbles in his last then faces a bunch of closers,the speedball may not be the fulcrum. Or if the speedball ran on Turf and hated it resulting in no speed,he's out as the fulcrum?

Yet Pizzolla talks about reasons to go beyond the last paceline in "Form Cycle Windows".Among the reasons he cites to go past the last paceline is the reaons I just mentioned above such as trouble,wrong surface or distance etc.

I have a hard time believing Pizzola is totally rigid in picking the last race for fulcrum without exception. Only an amateur would do that and he certainly is not one.

[Achilles]

Shoeless,

In races where there is no horse whose last line qualifies as a fulcrum, Pizzolla said that top TPR (EP + 3rd Fraction) win a lot. Maybe it's like saying that in a paceless race, final time is more predictive??

More Pizzolla: Fulcrum horses place frequently in competitive races.

The fulcrum is not used to predict the pace of today's race; it is often slower than what will be run today. Therefore horses that are not competitive against the fulcrum are easy eliminations.

One cautionary note: If you are evaluating an off-pace type, they may show good races against much faster paces than the fulcrum. Don't be misled. They probably need that faster pace to run against, but are not likely to see it unless today's race is loaded with E types. I think the fulcrum is much more significant in evaluating the chances of horses that run closer to the pace. However, if a closer runs well against slow paces where the final time is not slow, that's a very good effort. Not exactly new info, but maybe a different way of getting at it.

There have been some similar discussions on the Pace Figures forum (C.J.'s board), but not exactly like the fulcrum as Pizzolla defines it. Jim Lehane (Pickwick on that forum) and Joe Prunes have contributed some really good stuff there, centered around CJ's figs. Jim's ideas focus more on on-pace types and Joe seems to make an effort to uncover strong off-pace horses.

Happy handicapping...............Achilles

[Achilles]

Light,

I don't know what MP's attitude might be now, but when he presented in the book in '91, he was verrrrrry insistent about using the most recent line, and only the most recent. He claimed that going back past a trouble line often led to setting faster fulcrums that eliminated too many legit contenders.

Achilles

[shanta]

Light,

I don't know what MP's attitude might be now, but when he presented in the book in '91, he was verrrrrry insistent about using the most recent line, and only the most recent. He claimed that going back past a trouble line often led to setting faster fulcrums that eliminated too many legit contenders.

Achilles

100% correct. The fulcrum is NOT supposed to predict pace of race. The last line is the only line to consider in setting the fulcrum.

In heavy pressured races a lot more leeway is allowed as the collapsing pace might enable horses who are marginal at best competing against the fulcrum to be able to close strongly enough to win.

[shoelessjoe]

On the tape he was also very clear to point out to only use the last race in getting the fulcrum.Also not to use it as a means to getting a winner but only as a way to get the true contenders in the race.The thing I wondering about was he said not to make too many adjustments, yet the variant of the track is not always the same.So depending how fast or slow the track was that day could affect the 2nd call time.Shoeless

[Blackgold]

What I like best about the Fulcrum horse is. . . they often finish ITM.

So for us exotics players, if we have a price runner and we combine that one with the Fulcrum, we only have to cover one spot in tri boxes and two spots in super plays.

[First_Place]

Shoeless,

Sure, all the time. It's a pretty quick way to find an "in the money" horse. There is, however, an additional tweak to the Fulcrum that I use in selecting a "Fulcrum horse" that makes it even more effective (i.e. eliminates false Fulcrum horses) than what Pizzolla reveals about its use. I leave that to its users to find...sorry.

Regards,

FP

[ryesteve]

There is, however, an additional tweak to the Fulcrum that I use in selecting a "Fulcrum horse" that makes it even more effective. I leave that to its users to find...sorry.

You left out, "Nyah, nyah!"
:D

[Light]

Shoeless:

I don't think Pizzolla believes in TV's. Another of his beliefs I find irrational.

There''s only one good thing about the fulcrum,and that is the notion that some horses cannot handle the expected pace(fulcrum) of the race. But the way Pizzolla deals with it leaves alot to be desired.

[Tom]

Shoeless:

I don't think Pizzolla believes in TV's. Another of his beliefs I find irrational.

There''s only one good thing about the fulcrum,and that is the notion that some horses cannot handle the expected pace(fulcrum) of the race. But the way Pizzolla deals with it leaves alot to be desired.

The way he uses it or the way you use it?
HE has been using it a long time, I expect he is happy with the results.

[Vegas711]

I wouldn't waste much time on the fulcrum it is not very helpful, mostly a waste of time.

[Light]

The way he uses it or the way you use it?
HE has been using it a long time, I expect he is happy with the results.


I don't use it cause I think its flawed. Pizzolla sells books and software. Doubt he would criticize his own work.

[46zilzal]

the problem with a fulcrum is in the belief that a single line will repeat vs. a possibly different pace scenario. SAMPLE error it rampant in such a concept

[First_Place]

"the problem with a fulcrum is in the belief that a single line will repeat vs. a possibly different pace scenario. SAMPLE error it rampant in such a concept"

That's not what the Fulcrum pace horse is about. I suggest you re-read (or read for the first time) Handicapping Magic.

Regards,

FP

[First_Place]

Vegas711 burped:

"I wouldn't waste much time on the fulcrum it is not very helpful, mostly a waste of time."

Really?? Thanks for letting me know!

FP

[46zilzal]

"the problem with a fulcrum is in the belief that a single line will repeat vs. a possibly different pace scenario. SAMPLE error it rampant in such a concept"

That's not what the Fulcrum pace horse is about. I suggest you re-read (or read for the first time) Handicapping Magic.

quote from Pizzolla's own hand:"The fulcrum is the fastest second call pace among the last pacelines of all the horses in a race provided 1) the horse was competitive at both the second call and finish of the race and 2) the pace is not atypically fast for that horse." Sounds like a single performance to me which could be subject to signficant sample error.

[shoelessjoe]

No matter if you like the Fulcrum or not the premise is still a valuable one to see what horses can run against today's pace and to eliminate the ones that cant.Nothing worse then putting horses in a computer program that cant win the race.Shoeless

[46zilzal]

Nothing worse then putting horses in a computer program that cant win the race.
Often, VERY OFTEN when one PRE-JUDGES lines that CANNOT possibly win, without first seeing if some aspect of those pacelines will effect today's matchup, one is unable to get a realistic idea of the entire pace scenario. Brohamer goes to great lengths, as did Sartin, to show that to understand the HOLISTIC nature of a race scenario, one has to put in the pacelines that are going to effect TODAY'S match up, particlarly the ones having a negative aspect on other competitors. Some of the horses which are outrun at every call can surely be eliminated, but there are many hidden aspects of pacelines one would NEVER discover without "figeting" and trying two or three in a row both to see the effect on the overall projected pace and to see the form cylce.

This all goes back to getting an understanding of the PERFORMER (the horse's capabilites) and not the PERFORMANCE (pp lines). Doing the latter makes selection full of SAMPLE ERROR.

[shoelessjoe]

In a 1991 Sartin Seminar tape Doc said there was nothing worse than putting in horses that didnt have a chance to win because it would just make a lot of noise in the readouts.Especially the one move horses that would just do it in the 3rd fraction.He claimed these type horses would most of the time favor the late horese in the readouts.Shoeless

[socantra]

From your quote, I would suspect Sartin was talking about the algorithms of the particular program he was using/selling at the time. It's also not a good idea to take a specific statement like that and generalize it to all software.

A horse who runs strong to the second call, then fades in the stretch may not have a prayer of winning, but it can certainly impact the pace scenario of the race.

socantra...


.

[Vegas711]

Vegas711 burped:

"I wouldn't waste much time on the fulcrum it is not very helpful, mostly a waste of time."

Really?? Thanks for letting me know!

FP

I am not putting down Mike Pizzolla, I like many things he has said, I just am not a fan of the Fulcrum, I have tossed too many winners becouse they failed to meet the fulcrum.

[thebeacondeacon]

In my opinion, none of the posts to this thread have done justice to the fulcrum concept.

First of all, the only thing mechanical about the fulcrum is its calculation.

As a handicapping tool, the method of its application depends upon the fulcrum horse's odds, numbers, and form and the race situation, itself. Michael Pizzolla does not ignore these factors in deciding whether or not to bet the horse or whether to use the fulcrum pace as an elimination tool. This is evident from the seminars he has taught since leaving PIRCO.

For example, a fulcrum horse with low odds and low numbers is a poor betting proposition -- no value and no ability. On the other hand, he indicates that a fulcrum horse with high odds and low numbers should be used underneath -- potential return and a pace threat.

In my own experience, low odds and strong numbers on the fulcrum suggest staying out of the race, because of price considerations. The horse may finish well, but the straight and exotic payoffs are likely to be too low to warrant the risk, in the long run.

Whether a horse should be excluded because it may not meet the fulcrum depends upon the race conditions and projected pace scenario. Pizzolla points out that if the race is for maidens or the horse has never run against the projected fulcrum pace, the fulcrum should not be used to eliminate. In the book "Handicapping Magic", he also implies that in a heavy pressure race, a sustained runner that has not met the fulcrum is still a threat, particularly at a price. And a horse that has met the fulcrum pace only once is a doubtful proposition, but still usable in the right circumstances.

The fulcrum is a insightful handicapping tool. However, its value and utility are not inherent in the facts that it reveals. These things are dependent upon the context given to it by the perception, talent and ability of the handicapper who attempts to apply it.

[shoelessjoe]

Socantra,No it was not for just a particular software.Also I guess I posted it wrong ,Doc was talking about horses who make the big stretch run at the end of the race not to the second call.Doc said and Bradshaw agreed that early horses would adjust themselves in the program but those late one move closers would not.But this was back in the early 90's so Im not sure if it would apply to his later programs or not.Anyhow we are getting off the topic here as I originally posted about Fulcrum.I am impressed though how many early Sartin members there are here.I usually have trouble finding them to discuss the early days of the Methodology.Shoeless

[turfbar]

As a user of TMH, Master magician and disciple of pace(this means Brohammer also)there is one glaringly factor that everyone forgets when they discuss fulcrum and have been a watcher of this board for a year and never have I seen anyone discuss it including MP, and that is, there are levels of fulcrum and one must be able to discern what those levels are and what they mean to the race that you are dealing with, which I mean the one you are putting your cash into.
I would like to stress that MP fulcrum does work and brilliantly its just needs that tweak, so I am looking to any other students of fulcrum if they have figured what that tweak is and would like to hear from them and to the non believers
im glad you contribute to the pari-mutual pool.

Turfbar

[Light]

there are levels of fulcrum and one must be able to discern what those levels are and what they mean to the race that you are dealing


What do you mean by this statement?

[turfbar]

Exactly what I said there are levels of fulcrum.
are you a student of fulcrum?

turfbar

[Light]

Exactly what I said there are levels of fulcrum.
are you a student of fulcrum?



If you look @ page 1 of this thread,you will see I've allready commented 3 times about the fulcrum,so there is no need to ask if I am a student of the fulcrum.

You said you have never seen anyone discuss this concept of various levels of the fulcrum including MP. So how is anyone supposed to know what you are talking about. That's why I asked you to elaborate.

[andicap]

As a user of TMH, Master magician and disciple of pace(this means Brohammer also)there is one glaringly factor that everyone forgets when they discuss fulcrum and have been a watcher of this board for a year and never have I seen anyone discuss it including MP, and that is, there are levels of fulcrum and one must be able to discern what those levels are and what they mean to the race that you are dealing with, which I mean the one you are putting your cash into.
I would like to stress that MP fulcrum does work and brilliantly its just needs that tweak, so I am looking to any other students of fulcrum if they have figured what that tweak is and would like to hear from them and to the non believers
im glad you contribute to the pari-mutual pool.

Turfbar

I take from this statement that in some races there are only a limited number of contenders who can meet the fulcrum while in others almost every horse can.
If you concentrated on races where but a single horse or two are "contenders," that could be an advantage.
Also, some horses just barely meet the fulcrum while others do so consistently. E.G. If the fulcrum is 45.1 in a field of 8, maybe three horses meet it with a 45.3 they've done a couple of times, another two have done 45.1 consistently and the others have never met it.
Take another field where five horses have blown past 45 and meet it easily. Five horses met the fulcrum in both races but the latter example is a much more powerful field.

Am I close, Turfbar?

[Niko]

For those Handicapping Magician Users;

At first I threw out the concept of the Fulcrum horse after I tried using it (common theme for me :) )

Then I used the Handicapping Magician for a while and became intrigued with the Fulcrum horse depending on the pace scenario. If the race shape was lone early (this one really surprised me) or heavy pressure I tended to discount the fulcrum horse. It seemed to be most effective with Neutral races, especially Maidens.

What I'd like to know is this (and this may help others in their use or understanding of the fulcrum). How does Pizzolla come up with the lone fulcrum horse in his program. I thought a horse was only a lone fulcrum horse if no other horse was able to meet today's fulcrum pace? But when I looked at the ITS pace ratings other horses were able to meet or exceed the fulcrum pace and win. Sometimes there'd be 4-5 contenders and the horse was still listed as lone fulcrum.

Now if I found a neutral race where not many horses could run to the Fulcrum, The Fulcrum horse was an extremely solid key. Most times a low price but once in a while you'd get a nice one. But I never did figure out why the program listed some Fulcrum horses and not others. I should've called with examples but someone here can enlighten me.

[Light]

I just completed a $475 pk3 at GGF,Ended in R6. The winner of the last leg(6th race)was a horse named "Cool Red". This was a sprint race and this winner was coming out of 2 routes. Going back to page 1 of this thread everyone said I had to use the last race and no exceptions. Well this horse was a full second off the expected fulcrum in his last race(the route) in which he finished 4th. So was he supposed to be a toss?

What I did was found his last sprint,3 races back.I didn't consider the routes representative for today's race. In the 3 races back sprint he did run against today's expected fulcrum and finished a competitve 3rd. This is my tweak of MP's method. Using Pizzola's last race only method,would have eliminated this horse and cost me $475. Correct?

[shanta]

I just completed a $475 pk3 at GGF,Ended in R6. The winner of the last leg(6th race)was a horse named "Cool Red". This was a sprint race and this winner was coming out of 2 routes. Going back to page 1 of this thread everyone said I had to use the last race and no exceptions. Well this horse was a full second off the expected fulcrum in his last race(the route) in which he finished 4th. So was he supposed to be a toss?


he was NOT supposed to be a toss Light. The last race ONLY is used to set the fulcrum pace for the race. It must have come from a horse within the same distance structure of todays race. Competitve within 5 lenghts at 2c and finish of the race. Also that can not be the ONLY race showing where he competed against that pace successfully. In other words can NOT be a one race wonder horse being the fulcrum. You were perfectly correct in going right by those routes to the sprint line.

Rich

[turfbar]

OK OK its not all that complicated, what I mean by tweaking is understanding that there are fulcrums, and they must be graded ,there are fast fulcrums, slow fulcrums and no fulcrums,and based on those gradings you must look to in certain areas of the form cycle that will give you the best representation of what that horse is capable of doing in todays race.

Turfbar

[thebeacondeacon]

Turfbar,

This is a very good insight, and one that Michael Pizzolla should address. Had I been a Pace Advantage forum member back in October, I would have asked him at the Handicapping Magic Seminar, per your message #18 in that thread. I know that I am going to review my handling of the fulcrum and see what nuances I can discover.

However, when you originally raised the issue of fulcrum levels, earlier, I came away with a different take. On the one hand, I saw MP's fulcrum, whose betting influences I outlined in message #25.

It also occurred to me that you might have been alluding to the pace comfort zones of the contenders, a different kind of fulcrum peculiar to each horse. That is, what kind of pace can the horse perform well against and what pace times are either too fast or too slow for it to influence the cash results, based upon its earlier finishes.

The third type of fulcrum that occurred to me was making a non-mechanical interpretation of the probable pace of the race -- a deeper level fulcrum. While this touches on the other question, who can run with it and who can't, it also illuminates the probable race shape.

I appreciate your posing such a provocative question.

[turfbar]

An aside,please understand I don't want to come off like a know it all having the secret to "FULCRUM", I don't, but I am not just going blab nilly willy all over here or there things(tweaks) that I think should and could be helpful in using it.

[Tom]

GGF Race 6 2/15/06

I am setting the fulcrum at 451 off the last races by both #6 and #8.
The range I am now looking at for pacelines in 444 to 453 .

The 1 is marginal at best, I’d keep him in only if there are few other contenders and is odds are high. In this race, he is a throw out.

The 2 shows one good race against a faster pace, but a long time ago. Marginal at best.

The 3 cannot match up to the fulcrum and is a throw out.

The 4 horse is 3 for 3 good races against the fulcrum range and a contender.

The 5 has several good races against faster paces and is a contender.

The 6 is co-fulcrum and a contender.

The 7 can’t run to the fulcrum and is a throw out.

The 8 is the co-fulcrum horse and 2 for 4 good races against the fulcrum and is a contender.

Major contenders are 4-5-6-8. The results are 4-6-5.

The fulcrum did it’s job

[shanta]

GGF Race 6 2/15/06

I am setting the fulcrum at 451 off the last races by both #6 and #8.
The range I am now looking at for pacelines in 444 to 453 .

The 1 is marginal at best, I’d keep him in only if there are few other contenders and is odds are high. In this race, he is a throw out.

The 2 shows one good race against a faster pace, but a long time ago. Marginal at best.

The 3 cannot match up to the fulcrum and is a throw out.

The 4 horse is 3 for 3 good races against the fulcrum range and a contender.

The 5 has several good races against faster paces and is a contender.

The 6 is co-fulcrum and a contender.

The 7 can’t run to the fulcrum and is a throw out.

The 8 is the co-fulcrum horse and 2 for 4 good races against the fulcrum and is a contender.

Major contenders are 4-5-6-8. The results are 4-6-5.

The fulcrum did it’s job

Bravo! that's how it's done man.
:jump: :jump:

Rich

[Light]

GGF Race 6 2/15/06

I am setting the fulcrum at 451 off the last races by both #6 and #8.
The range I am now looking at for pacelines in 444 to 453 .

The 1 is marginal at best, I’d keep him in only if there are few other contenders and is odds are high. In this race, he is a throw out.

The 2 shows one good race against a faster pace, but a long time ago. Marginal at best.

The 3 cannot match up to the fulcrum and is a throw out.

The 4 horse is 3 for 3 good races against the fulcrum range and a contender.

The 5 has several good races against faster paces and is a contender.

The 6 is co-fulcrum and a contender.

The 7 can’t run to the fulcrum and is a throw out.

The 8 is the co-fulcrum horse and 2 for 4 good races against the fulcrum and is a contender.

Major contenders are 4-5-6-8. The results are 4-6-5.

The fulcrum did it’s job



Wow!Who would have thunk horseracing was this easy! How bout the next time you do another flawless analysis,you do it before the race.

[Tom]

Wow!Who would have thunk horseracing was this easy! How bout the next time you do another flawless analysis,you do it before the race.

YOU picked the race - and WHINNED that the fulcrum didn't work.
There is NOTHING in my post that ANYONE who used the fulcrum would not get. It picked the contenders-not me. Period. All I was doing was illustrating a concept YOU apparently do not understand. Your sarcasm, as always, is appreciated. :rolleyes:

"Using Pizzola's last race only method,would have eliminated this horse and cost me $475. Correct?"

Your lack of understanding how to make a fulcrum and what lines to use - that was the point of it.

HAND

[First_Place]

"OK OK its not all that complicated, what I mean by tweaking is understanding that there are fulcrums, and they must be graded ,there are fast fulcrums, slow fulcrums and no fulcrums,and based on those gradings you must look to in certain areas of the form cycle that will give you the best representation of what that horse is capable of doing in todays race."

As well as 'recency' fulcrums. What's that you say? I have found that a Fulcrum horse who meets the Fulcrum pace (that he is setting in today's race) too far back in its past performances is a poor Fulcrum horse. Does that apply 100% of the time? No, not at all--just like virtually all other handicapping factors. But it does many times I've noticed.

Regards,

FP

[FORGO]

Shoelees is getting confused with what he heard on an old tape about falcrum pace. You have to read Mike Pizzolla book handicapping magic. Falcrum pace is only his first step to his handicapping procedure. It is not the final answer and it is only one of the tools that he uses. Also it might not be the horse that ran the fastest pace to the second call. Here again you have to read his book to see the whole picture and how he applies the different tools he uses to perdict the out come. I may not always agree with anothers views but if he makes money with his own metholgy I want to learn from his exspierence and knowledge. Close your eyes cash the tickets and take the money. KISS remember that one.
Falcrum pace does work as a tool. But you have to understand how to use it.
FORGO in front going away

[Light]

Your sarcasm, as always, is appreciated. :rolleyes:


Was just playin with ya. You've got to admit your example is similar to Pizzola's examples in his book which are a bit of redboarding but I appreciate the illustration.

What I don't like about Pizzola's fulcrum is I find it a bit constrictive with rules. First off it's nothing new. We all look for who will be the pace(fulcrum) of the race. Here are some flaws I find with Pizzolas fulcrum:

a) I don't think it works good with horses @ different distances/surfaces. If my route horse was showing all routes and turf in his pp's he would have been a toss as not able to meet the fulcrum. Yet he still would of won due to the expected pace collapsing.

b) When checking to see if the horse meets the fulcrum,he goes back 10 races. Those races may have been too long ago,or taken when the horse was in better shape and at a higher class that he can't compete at now. So instead of tossing a 10k claimer,he's included cause 2 years ago he met the fulcrum when he was a stake horse. Obviously if he could do that,he wouldn't be in for 10k today. So neither class nor time is considered.

c) The atypical race may not apply to 3yo's who may be improving.

d) Track variants and track to track adjustments are not included

e) He considers atypically fast but not atypically slow.Exclusively relying on the last race to find the fulcrum horse may not be wise as weather or track condition may have caused an atypically slow pace for an otherwise fast horse

F) There is no consideration of trouble, post position,equipment change,medication,workouts,trainer change etc. that could affect running style.

In short I don't see the advantage of using Pizzola's methods that leaves out alot of commonsense handicapping factors. What is the advantage of using a constrictive approach to pace,with many rules over commonsense handicapping that includes a broader spectrum of pace?

[shoelessjoe]

Forego no Im not getting confused my original question was using Fulcrum as a contender selection NOT Pizzola's whole handicapping process.Shoeless

[Tom]

Light.....glad you took my :rolleyes: in the spirit I meant it. This morning, when I read what I posted last night, I thought - uh oh....I sounded like a jerk in that one. Tough to get real meaning from just typed words.

But, I agee there are times whn the fulcrum is very hard to apply. In thoses cases, I am more apt to use HTR pace/speed figs or CJ figs. The thing I like about the raw times is you often land on horses the public passes over.
When I posted a horse met the fulcrum 3 out of 4 times it faced that range, I was implying that the other races, where it faced faster or slower pace times, could be thrown out of consideration. In fact, I am stating to assign running styles based only on those races in the fulcrum range and ignoring others, unless, like with a confirmed speedball, the horse is definately early.
I am also looking at using only those races to calulate Quirrin speed points as well, but the jury is still out on those ideas - heck, the jury hasn' t even been picked yet;)

But I will do a card and post the contenders and fulcrum horses before the races are run.

[turfbar]

[QUOTE=Tom]Light.....glad you took my :rolleyes: in the spirit I meant it. This morning, when I read what I posted last night, I thought - uh oh....I sounded like a jerk in that one. Tough to get real meaning from just typed words.

But, I agee there are times whn the fulcrum is very hard to apply. In thoses cases, I am more apt to use HTR pace/speed figs or CJ figs. The thing I like about the raw times is you often land on horses the public passes over.
When I posted a horse met the fulcrum 3 out of 4 times it faced that range, I was implying that the other races, where it faced faster or slower pace times, could be thrown out of consideration. In fact, I am stating to assign running styles based only on those races in the fulcrum range and ignoring others, unless, like with a confirmed speedball, the horse is definately early.
I am also looking at using only those races to calulate Quirrin speed points as well, but the jury is still out on those ideas - heck, the jury hasn' t even been picked yet;)
Save yourself all the time and effort so here it goes turfbars ,at least one tweak ,and using the 6th at GGF that fulcrum would be deemed as a fast fulcrum so just concern yourself with horse you are in recently good form by that I mean just look at the two most recent DRF sreed rating #'s .,without all that work the top 2 with the bnest last race speed numbers are 6 with a 89 and 4 with an 82, yes u must do some handicapping , but it gives you the contenders. So if the fulcrum is fast and by that i mean anywhere from 43.1 to 45.4 that is a fast fulcrum and your contenders will come from horses with high speed ratings, there are other measuring tools such as a good quirin style number or an ITS number but there pretty much all the same, you are not going to get lots of great payoffs with this pretty much bread and water prices and reduce the tediousness of going over every horses form cycle.

Turfbar

[Tom]

No SR/TV in the PPs I downloaded from BRIS, or I would have calulated PBS numbers from them.

[Light]

Tom

I'm sure you are aware of this but on the 1% chance you arent or someone reading this is not,if you use the Bris Custom generator and download "data files" you have to add the "SR/TV" ratings. Go to styles>Create a Style. Then give your style a name.Then you can add the SR/TV under the "Items" menu. I also add the "purse",display the horse's time,not the leader's,put the times in hundreths,and change the # of days to be considered a layoff.

I'm pretty lost without TV's. If a horse ran a 1:10 on a 5 TV and another ran a 1:11 on a 27 TV you pick the 1:11 horse. Without a variant,you pick the 1:10 horse.Of course this was Beyer's little secret in the days when the form did not publish TV's.

[Tom]

Light,

Thanks - I downloaded the PDF PPs yesterday.
I don't have Custom Generator on my work computer.

[turfbar]

:regarding fast fulcrums check out yesterdays 7th race at Tampa
the fulcrum was 110.80 deemed fast on the turf Last Stand, one of 2 strong last race speed ratings and was the fulcrum horse.This horse was not picked by MM

Turfbar

[shanta]

:regarding fast fulcrums check out yesterdays 7th race at Tampa
the fulcrum was 110.80 deemed fast on the turf Last Stand, one of 2 strong last race speed ratings and was the fulcrum horse.This horse was not picked by MM

Turfbar

I dont use TMM but this 5 horse was absolutely the fulcrum Turf. He had 2 additional races ( lines 4 and 5) where he met or exceeded the fulcum pace.

Richie