Modern Pace Handicapping questions

[gregrph]

Hi Folks, I started a thread last week basically on what I perceived as some inaccuracies in the nook "Modern Pace Handicapping - Second Edition" by Tom Brohamer. I have received MANY excellent pieces of advice and for that I thank you all! I am still working through the first chapter but with 14 hour days at work and a family that needs attention at home when I am (<img>), it's slow going. I think that I am getting some of the concepts down.

"First Fraction (1Fr)" is the velocity of the horse from the sart of the race to the first call, correct? That makes sense. basically feet/time

"Second Fraction (2Fr)" and "Third Fraction (3Fr)" is where I think I might be getting stuck. The 2Fr equal to the distance run from the point of the first call to the point of the second call OR the start of the race to the second call? I think is the first call to second call. That would also be equal to (the total distance run to the second call minus the distance run to the first call)/(time of second call-time of first call).

Likewise the 3Fr seems to be JUST the distance run from the second call to the third call/(time of the third call-time of the second call).

Am I on the right track?

Also, in the "Second Fraction (2Fr) ", the term Beaten Lengths (BL) is not simply the betaten lengths as listed in the Racing Form at the third call, is it? It seems to me that the bl to subtract from 1320 (feet in a sprint race) should be beaten lengths at the third call minus the beaten lengths at the second call. If a horse is 3 lengths behind the leader at the 2nd call and 5 lenths behind the leader at the third call, the distance should be: (1320-(5-3)*10)=1340feet. Of course if a horse gains ground in that period of time, say from 5 lengths behind at the 2nd call to 1 length behind at the third call, it would be: (1320-(1-5)*10)=1360feet. {1-5=-4, multiply by 10 for -40. SUBTRACTING a NEGATIVE number is the same as ADDING a positive number.}. If the same horse goes from 3 lengths back at 2nd call to LEADING by 2 lengths at third call it would be (1320-(-2-3)*10)=1370 feet.

Am I correct, over-analysing, totally off base or...too tired to think straight? Thanks you any input and help!
Greg
(p.s. - I do like math!)

[cj]

Example 6f race:

1 Fr = 1st Quarter of race, between 0 and 2f
2 Fr = 2nd Quarter of race, between 2 and 4f
3 Fr = 3rd Quarter of race, between 4 and 6f
2 Call = 1st Half of Race, between 0 and 4f

You are right about beaten lengths, they only count in the fraction(s) being measured.

That should be a start.

[robert99]

Example 6f race:

1 Fr = 1st Quarter of race, between 0 and 2f
2 Fr = 2nd Quarter of race, between 2 and 4f
3 Fr = 3rd Quarter of race, between 4 and 6f
2 Call = 1st Half of Race, between 0 and 4f

You are right about beaten lengths, they only count in the fraction(s) being measured.

That should be a start.

From this end of the telescope, there seems to be an issue with 1Fr in that the race is not timed until the leading horse trips the light beam, which is not met until a variable distance D past the gates. One poster says D is chosen to suit by the track crew - where they place the gates. So the horses run 1320 feet + D feet, instead of 1320 feet, to the first quarter post. The recorded quarter time, however, unless hand clocked from the start, is for the leading horse at the end of first quarter to run a distance 1320 feet plus the number of lengths it was behind the leader at the light beam. unless you have all that information (D, plus lengths behind at light beam, plus hand time from gate to 1st quarter) you cannot actually calculate 1Fr at all accurately in feet travelled per second.

[Tom]

Not exactly. The time is for exactly 1320 feet, but the hroses are at various speeds by the time the timere is tripped. If tripped failry close, the horses are not yet at full velocity. If the gate is back aways, they are traveling faster, so the F1 time is quicker.

[KingChas]

So in essence shouldn't the 1FR be used just to judge the horse's running style ( E'S'P.....)?Since most tracks/distance (1Fr timing) of races vary on this set up.

[Tom]

Positionally I use mainly F1 to judge running style. Speedwise, track-track adjustments take care of most of the gate placements.

[cj]

...Speedwise, track-track adjustments take care of most of the gate placements.

Bingo!!!

[KingChas]

Positionally I use mainly F1 to judge running style. Speedwise, track-track adjustments take care of most of the gate placements.

So in judging a shipper for the F1 you would go by "pars' or some track equalization type procedure?Or am I way off?

[KingChas]

Sorry Greg, jumped a couple chapters on Ya. :D

"From this end of the telescope, there seems to be an issue with 1Fr" ;)

[cj]

So in judging a shipper for the F1 you would go by "pars' or some track equalization type procedure?Or am I way off?

Most tracks are consistent with where the runup begins for various distances. There are a few that are not. GP and Lrl come to mind for me. With those, it is usually apparent when something was different, and a quick check of the video replay will give you the info you need.

[Tom]

So in judging a shipper for the F1 you would go by "pars' or some track equalization type procedure?Or am I way off?

For his F!1 velocity ability, yes.
HTR takes care of that. The velocity at each fraction is adjusted for me.

For his running style, strictly position.

[KingChas]

For his F!1 velocity ability, yes.
HTR takes care of that. The velocity at each fraction is adjusted for me.



Just trying to help Greg.Perhaps he would question this eventually.As I said I jumped a few chapters on him.Perhaps when he's done reading he could follow up with some HTR surfing. ;)

Myself I have always questioned this (F1=VA) calcualtion in MPH. :eek:

[robert99]

Just trying to help Greg.Perhaps he would question this eventually.As I said I jumped a few chapters on him.Perhaps when he's done reading he could follow up with some HTR surfing. ;)

Myself I have always questioned this (F1=VA) calcualtion in MPH. :eek:

KingChas,

Same here,
Is the Emperor wearing any clothes?

I did a few checks assuming a true timed start from the gate of 13 seconds first furlong, and 12 seconds (2nd furlong). That is 110 feet (6-7 start strides) and 2 seconds to get to full gallop speed. That is a true average velocity of 105.6 feet/second.

If the light beam is just 28 feet past the gate, then the apparent speed is a false 110.0 f/s (the beam may be 80 feet away which makes it even worse (higher)).

The true speed for the reduced "quarter" distance from the light beam is 108.8 f/s.

If a horse leading at the quarter is 8 feet ( 1 length) behind the front runner at the beam its true "quarter" speed is 109.2 f/s.

I can't see how you can do anything worthwhile to correct with the distortion the televideo lens makes on TV Video recordings.
Even on the same track there are significant errors. Transfering such data to other tracks to estimate which horse will get the lead seems just a matter of hope and guesswork.

It's an error that effects pace calculations as well as speed ratings and track to track par time comparisons but you don't often see this allowed for by the experts in the books. Why the light beam cannot be operated when the starting gate latch is fired seems to be something that could be considered.

[KingChas]

KingChas,

Same here,
Is the Emperor wearing any clothes?




It's an error that effects pace calculations as well as speed ratings and track to track par time comparisons but you don't often see this allowed for by the experts in the books. Why the light beam cannot be operated when the starting gate latch is fired seems to be something that could be considered.

This actually caused me to set this book down at least five times when I 1st read it.I just got to the 1fr part and couldn't agree.Nothing wrong with the book.Must Read,just didn't agree early chapter.The other fractions I understand, just that dang 1fr mainly.

[KingChas]

KingChas,

Why the light beam cannot be operated when the starting gate latch is fired seems to be something that could be considered.

If it is not how can you justify 1320 feet if the horse ran longer than that at the end of the first fraction?(energy wise)That's my question in a nutshell.

[karlskorner]

Today at CRC out of the 9 races run, 7 were sprint races. The gate was set back anywhere from 40 feet to 80 feet for these sprint races. Is there a difference in the 1/4 times ? You better believe it.

[trigger]

The Rag and TG figs take into account the run-ups.

[karlskorner]

And so do others.

[kev]

TG-Rags times their races from the start of the race, not by the beam. There's said to be people from both company's that have their own people at the track keeping taps on this stuff. Maybe that's one reason their prices are higher than most. If I had my own people at the track timing races and doing the chart reading just for me, could I sell my own data then or will someone come in and put a end to that as well?

[Tom]

Today at CRC out of the 9 races run, 7 were sprint races. The gate was set back anywhere from 40 feet to 80 feet for these sprint races. Is there a difference in the 1/4 times ? You better believe it.
Is it the same for each distance - say, 40 ft for 6, 60 ft for 6.5.....?
If not, what is their reasoning for changing it so often? Seems to be they don't give a crap for handicapers.

[ryesteve]

Is it the same for each distance - say, 40 ft for 6, 60 ft for 6.5.....?
If not, what is their reasoning for changing it so often? Seems to be they don't give a crap for handicapers.
I figure the handicappers benefit by not having horses break down when they run across the trench that'd be carved out if the starting gate was in the same spot every time.

[KingChas]

Is it the same for each distance - say, 40 ft for 6, 60 ft for 6.5.....?
If not, what is their reasoning for changing it so often? Seems to be they don't give a crap for handicapers.

Tom,you ever see some of the times of the early fractions at Calder?
They are very "strange" at times...... But then there's Suffolk too.

[Tom]

I figure the handicappers benefit by not having horses break down when they run across the trench that'd be carved out if the starting gate was in the same spot every time.

But 40 feet from one race to the next?

[Tom]

Tom,you ever see some of the times of the early fractions at Calder?
They are very "strange" at times...... But then there's Suffolk too.

I do not play Calder. Ever.

[ryesteve]

But 40 feet from one race to the next?
The post you're referring to said there were 7 sprints that day. So it's not 40 feet from one race to the next, it's a 40 foot spread across 7 races. That sounds about right. If there were 7 placements all within 15 feet of each other, that pretty much defeats the purpose of moving it around in the first place.

[karlskorner]

This subject has been kicked around in the past, I remember posters who reported that the tracks they visited and viewed the "set backs" stated they were at various distances, it's not only CRC. The "set back" is determined by the gate people, for what ever reason they have to move the gate closer or further from the light. No more or less than the Super can have the tractors grade to the rail or away from it or God forbid "clockwise" The purpose for both I would think that the Super is looking to give a level playing field. The "new" GP was a problem this year, what with "set backs" and the "dogs"/temp. rail being out as much as 80 feet. You questioned if the "set back" had anything to do with the distance of todays races, off the top of my head without looking it up one 6f race was set back 40 feet another was set back 60 feet, the 7f race was I think 80 feet. This is the reason I find fault with the "published times" and the real time of a race.

The next time you visit FL or Saratoga or what ever track you go to bring a pair of 10x50's with you, find a good spot on the top floor, count the down rails from gate to light, use 10 feet as a measure, beg,borrow or steal a stop watch and time just the entire race, forget the 1/4's and 1/2's for the moment, than look at the tote board and see the published times and compare what you just clocked. When you mastered that, do the 1/4 and 1/2 times and finish time. This is where I truly believe is the "fault" of pace ratings. Make sure you had a bowl of clam chowder before the start of the races to give you the strength to do what I just described.

[Tom]

The post you're referring to said there were 7 sprints that day. So it's not 40 feet from one race to the next, it's a 40 foot spread across 7 races. That sounds about right. If there were 7 placements all within 15 feet of each other, that pretty much defeats the purpose of moving it around in the first place.

Still, 40 feet in one afternoon sound nuts to me.
FL doesn't move their gates hardly at all - and the track is not harmed in the least bit. When they have multiple races at the same distance, the gate stays put race to trace.

[karlskorner]

Your looking at a 6f race at FL and telling me that the gate is always in the same or near same place. Your looking across approximately 1/2 mile of open space with the naked eye, same thing happens to me when I walk out on the 4th floor terrace and look across to the 6f gate, that is until I put the 10x50's up and realize that the last 6f race was set at 40 feet, this one is 80 feet from the light. To the naked eye it sure looked the same. Next time there is a route race, leave your seat, belly up to the rail by the light and count down poles, wait for the next route race and do the same. Is the gate in the same place.

[Tom]

Your looking at a 6f race at FL and telling me that the gate is always in the same or near same place. Your looking across approximately 1/2 mile of open space with the naked eye, same thing happens to me when I walk out on the 4th floor terrace and look across to the 6f gate, that is until I put the 10x50's up and realize that the last 6f race was set at 40 feet, this one is 80 feet from the light. To the naked eye it sure looked the same. Next time there is a route race, leave your seat, belly up to the rail by the light and count down poles, wait for the next route race and do the same. Is the gate in the same place.

At FL, the end of the chute is where the gate goes - can't go any farther back.
I generally sit right where the 1m70 gate is places - it is always within a few feet - it lines up with the aisle seat I sit in. Certainly no 40 feet variance.

[gregrph]

Sorry Greg, jumped a couple chapters on Ya. :D

"From this end of the telescope, there seems to be an issue with 1Fr" ;)

KingChas-Actually, you haven't! I have read the whole book and do remember reeading about par times and track adjustments. I just haven't gotten that far the second time! Don't let me stop you though! Thanks for the info. Greg

[Dick Schmidt]

Ah, does this thread bring back memories. Heard all this so many times over the years. The engineers in the audience insisting that we must have exact figures and measure every distance to the inch. Complaining about the way times were taken, beaten lengths were measured, dogs were placed and the imprecision of racing in general. I'll say again what I told them in person: IT DOESN'T MATTER! In fact, it helps. If racing were a true science, all horse would pay $2.10 and the sport would die.

The only thing that matters here is that Tom's pace approach works, has worked for a great many people for more than 20 years and will continue to work into the foreseeable future. If the "imprecision" of the method bothers you so much, don't use it. Your loss. I've had so many people tell me that this and that can't possibly work, yet I was making a living using the procedure. I paid off the mortgage on my house, bought income property all over the country (including Maui beach-front) and in general supported a family for 15 years with this imprecise, impossible to use without knowing the exact setback, beaten lengths, etc method. It works. If you can't accept that, then please continue to do what you are doing now. I'm sure all your precision is making you tons of money.

Dick

P.S. Tom won a $60,000 plus pick-6 at Pomona using this exact method. Pomona was a hand timed track back then, as were the fair circuits shipping in to it. Impossibly imprecise, impossible to handicap with any accuracy. Can't be done. Tom should give the money back. Yup.

[cj]

This subject has been kicked around in the past, I remember posters who reported that the tracks they visited and viewed the "set backs" stated they were at various distances, it's not only CRC. The "set back" is determined by the gate people, for what ever reason they have to move the gate closer or further from the light. No more or less than the Super can have the tractors grade to the rail or away from it or God forbid "clockwise" The purpose for both I would think that the Super is looking to give a level playing field. The "new" GP was a problem this year, what with "set backs" and the "dogs"/temp. rail being out as much as 80 feet. You questioned if the "set back" had anything to do with the distance of todays races, off the top of my head without looking it up one 6f race was set back 40 feet another was set back 60 feet, the 7f race was I think 80 feet. This is the reason I find fault with the "published times" and the real time of a race.

The next time you visit FL or Saratoga or what ever track you go to bring a pair of 10x50's with you, find a good spot on the top floor, count the down rails from gate to light, use 10 feet as a measure, beg,borrow or steal a stop watch and time just the entire race, forget the 1/4's and 1/2's for the moment, than look at the tote board and see the published times and compare what you just clocked. When you mastered that, do the 1/4 and 1/2 times and finish time. This is where I truly believe is the "fault" of pace ratings. Make sure you had a bowl of clam chowder before the start of the races to give you the strength to do what I just described.

I would say you don't need to time the races, and you can determine how far the gate is placed from the beam by watching the replays in about 5 minutes.

[KingChas]

Ah, does this thread bring back memories. Heard all this so many times over the years. The engineers in the audience insisting that we must have exact figures and measure every distance to the inch. Complaining about the way times were taken, beaten lengths were measured, dogs were placed and the imprecision of racing in general. I'll say again what I told them in person: IT DOESN'T MATTER! In fact, it helps. If racing were a true science, all horse would pay $2.10 and the sport would die.
Yup.

Dick ,I agree with everything you say .It doesn't matter .You have to interpet and use methods and approaches your own winning way.The only question is .....
"The engineers in the audience insisting that we must have exact figures and measure every distance to the inch."......
Wasn't this the purpose behind MPH?.... :confused:

[karlskorner]

All I know is the "sheets" and TG have been around for a long long time, more so than most others who sell information or programs and they have a loyal following. Both time from the gate. Interesting they both welcome "new" customers while you and JCapper (who believes his program is effecting the tote board) saw fit to limit the number of programs sold. All I ever wanted was to bring to the attention of those who do pace is that there is a "difference" between the published time and the real time of the race. How you or others adjust for this is up to the individual.

[Tom]

Well, if we knew the rail positioin, the gate placement, times from the milisecond the gates open, and timed to hundredths, in the end, you make WASG about daily variants and factor in an undefined value for a beaten length that is probably mis reported in the first place.
Man, I love this precision work! :lol:


In HTR, on one of the screens, velocity is summeraized for quick reference only, into single digit numbers: 58 56 53 instead of 58.34 55.89 52.92.
I find it tells me everything I need to know and is so much easier to look at....

[cj]

All I know is the "sheets" and TG have been around for a long long time, more so than most others who sell information or programs and they have a loyal following. Both time from the gate. Interesting they both welcome "new" customers while you and JCapper (who believes his program is effecting the tote board) saw fit to limit the number of programs sold. All I ever wanted was to bring to the attention of those who do pace is that there is a "difference" between the published time and the real time of the race. How you or others adjust for this is up to the individual.

I understand your point. I am just saying there is more than one way to skin the cat. If I know the runup distance, it is easy to adjust the fractions when the runup is changed using the official track time. And to be honest, I prefer this over some guy hand timing from the gate.

Hand timing relies on a human being being very accurate race after race with his hand/eye coordination. I've seen tracks that use hand timing, and it is not very reliable when you are talking meauring things to the 1/5 of a second, let alone to the 1/100.

(Why jcapper and I saw fit to limit the number of program sold is not germane to this thread, so I won't discuss that here.)

[ryesteve]

All I know is the "sheets" and TG have been around for a long long time, more so than most others who sell information or programs and they have a loyal following. Both time from the gate. Interesting they both welcome "new" customers
Kinda like how it's interesting that you can give 5 people Sheets, and they'll end up betting on 5 different horses.

[DJofSD]

Hey, I understand all that about millisecond this and measurements to the inch that but remember all of science is accurate to only one position in any event and this stuff isn't science!!! :D

[GaryG]

I use the Hambleton/Schmidt style TPR ratings to establish the contenders and then make betting decisions based on match-ups, angles, patterns and the post parade. Figures will always have imperfections but are undeniably important. This way works for me anyway.

[bigmack]

I use the Hambleton/Schmidt style TPR ratings to establish the contenders and then make betting decisions based on match-ups, angles, patterns and the post parade.
I'll back that GG.

Guys that get a bit too neurotic about the exactness of the numbers are akin to the neurosis that's so prevalent on the golf course. In both endeavors you have several camps.

The weekend warriors who get frustrated they're not doing well.
The analyze to death crowd that gets so bogged down in details they "Johnny Miller" themselves into inaction and second guessing
The natural "got a knack for it" players that just feel it and do it (alongwith having good numbers of course without having to include barometric pressure readings, approx wind speed, run-up distances and all that sillyness)

[Vegas711]

Ah, does this thread bring back memories. Heard all this so many times over the years. The engineers in the audience insisting that we must have exact figures and measure every distance to the inch. Complaining about the way times were taken, beaten lengths were measured, dogs were placed and the imprecision of racing in general. I'll say again what I told them in person: IT DOESN'T MATTER! In fact, it helps. If racing were a true science, all horse would pay $2.10 and the sport would die.

Yup.

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. All you need are GOOD ENOUGH NUMBERS, this whole notion of measuring a horses past performance to a hundreth of a second in the end will not help your bottom line. A horse takes 1 bad step or there is 1 single hesitation and all this precise meaurements are for naught.

All you need is a GOOD ENOUGH NUMBER to point you to find horses that have an advantage in a part of the race which benefits them.NO one will ever predict a deadheat.

[delayjf]

I never got this answered on the last thread so I will ask it here. Do the Sheets adjust their numbers for the different distances that are run due to the varing run-ups?

Not that I'm an expert on the sheets, but I've never heard any sheet player proclaim that they preferred horse A over horse B because he earned a slightly higher number in a race that was 80 feet longer. Or that horse A earned a 25 running 80 feet longer than horse B who also earned a 25!!!

I guess every approach has it's pit falls.

[robert99]

I'll back that GG.

Guys that get a bit too neurotic about the exactness of the numbers are akin to the neurosis that's so prevalent on the golf course. In both endeavors you have several camps.

The weekend warriors who get frustrated they're not doing well.
The analyze to death crowd that gets so bogged down in details they "Johnny Miller" themselves into inaction and second guessing
The natural "got a knack for it" players that just feel it and do it (alongwith having good numbers of course without having to include barometric pressure readings, approx wind speed, run-up distances and all that sillyness)

Bigmack,

I hope I am not neurotic.
Jumping to the conclusion that because you want something measured correctly, so you can rely on it, does not mean that you have to have or even want figures to decimal places for them to be useable. It is not the actual figures, it is the relative difference in figures from one horse to another. The difference determines the acceptable odds. Having a horse look fast and another slow when the opposite is the case is the way to the poor house. I am only ever interested in accurate pace and time which is hardly overdoing things.

[The Judge]

To my knowledge the handicappers express themselves thru the tote board. They can pick more winners then we can. If you are using a number (sheets) or a pace program and it is picking an overlay in a out of common-sense way i.e the board has a horse a 1-2 and your program doesn't pick him up something is wrong and more then likely it's your program . If you are comfortable with your program you know when you need to check it.

You just can't say "oh boy" I sending it in I have the overlay of the century. Of course you might ,you have to know. You can look and see in the P.P's as to why the public is making such a huge mistake. My point is simple you don't need to know to the .000 the correct running of the time of a race so long as your program works.

[bigmack]

because you want something measured correctly, so you can rely on it, does not mean that you have to have or even want figures to decimal places for them to be useable.
R99
Accepted and agreed. Anyone working with numbers in this game knows the validity of their data after sizing up hundreds - rather thousands of races.

When one gets overly persnickety of the numbers they, as an observation, start to loose focus on the big picture of the game and rely on those numbers as if the horses were machines.

I trust your pursuit on the exactness of the numbers will give you an advantage over some in certain races - all the power to ya. Argueably though, it can be a never ending saga that never resolves a person on positioning themselves and/or making decisions based on data that's pretty darn good.

[The Judge]

That is not to say that we enter them into our program but we and other's use then when we decide if our numbers make any sense compared to what' on the board. Thanks for the hard work.

[kev]

Yes they do adjust for that. Speaking of the Ragozin sheets this from Bloodhorse

"On June 17, Dale Romans sent out Bright One, a son of the regally-bred Dance Brightly, to a 9 1/2-length romp in a maiden special weight race at Churchill Downs, in which he covered the mile in 1:33 4/5 in only his second career start.

Romans said he does not want to rush the colt, who got a late start due to a few minor issues. "We're just going to play it by ear," he said. "We want to give him enough time between races and not throw him back too quickly. This is as good a prospect as I've had since Roses in May. My Sheets guy told me he got a "1 3/4" on the Ragozin Sheets, which is as good as he's seen in a maiden race. There's an overnight handicap at the end of the Churchill meet he could run in. I believe by the end of the year he could be one of the best around. He's a big, strong, good-looking horse and we should have a lot of fun with him the rest of the year."

That's a big # for them (Rags) Beyer gave out a 101 I think on that one.

[DJofSD]

OK, all of this discussion about the changing distance of the run-up, whether or not it is included in the rag-numbers, etc., is all well and good.

But riddle me this: will you change a wagering decision based upon the apparent run-up for today's race?

[karlskorner]

4 pages of various ideas about the pace figures for the first 1/4, including mine. I have always thought the answer was simple. Put the clock on the gate (probably will never happen). With the clock on the gate, makes no difference how far the gate is set back, the time to the 1st 1/4 is the same for everybody and you go from there. Every evening I have to check with the 2 people who hand time for Equibase and the following day the sheets man. Are we always the same, sometimes, mostly 1 or 2 of us are off a tick or two one way or the other. I depend mostly on Equibase timers as they are in the catbird seat in the Press box, so if an adjustment has to me made I rely on theirs rather than mine. Hand timing is far from accurate, but it sure shows the difference in time from the gate to the first 1/4, rather than the light.

[the_fat_man]

The only thing that matters here is that Tom's pace approach works, has worked for a great many people for more than 20 years and will continue to work into the foreseeable future. If the "imprecision" of the method bothers you so much, don't use it. Your loss. I've had so many people tell me that this and that can't possibly work, yet I was making a living using the procedure. I paid off the mortgage on my house, bought income property all over the country (including Maui beach-front) and in general supported a family for 15 years with this imprecise, impossible to use without knowing the exact setback, beaten lengths, etc method. It works. If you can't accept that, then please continue to do what you are doing now. I'm sure all your precision is making you tons of money.

Dick



No longer playing, Dick?

[the_fat_man]

Kinda like how it's interesting that you can give 5 people Sheets, and they'll end up betting on 5 different horses.

Finding the use of the data of others to be interesting is like finding
the different ways people shoot up heroin to be interesting.

Well, in an ideal world, people would do their own work and thus have their own opinion

of course, one would then expect drug users to grow/harvest/process their own.

[AQUEBUCKS]

The science of handicapping-Will technological improvements in measuring speed really change the output of most computer programs? A discussion that could last a while (maybe too long a while). Let's say we incorporate lasers, satellites or the old fashoned inertial navigation measuring equipment (accelerometers/gyroscopes). What about microchips in the saddle cloths?

Will this slight increased accuracy in measuring velocity change the way we play? I believe that an old fashioned stop watch, video replay, and framing of the incremental position changes in lengths, from pole to pole and to the wire with raw times are good enough. An example would be Pizzolla's PBS/PPF numbers (with an option to add half or full DRF track Variants).

I guess the improved technology gives us added hope in conquering this tough game

[46zilzal]

The science of handicapping-Will technological improvements in measuring speed really change the output of most computer programs?
no since it is MORE than that.

[DJofSD]

no since it is MORE than that.

I agree 100%.

The biggest part of the total equation is biomechanics. Lactic acid build up, twitch muscle ratios, recovery rates......how do you measure those? Can they be incorporated into the handicapping process?

Pace handicapping depends upon effects. We measure those effects with the split times and beaten lengths. Various models are built and depend upon the presumptions of the model builder. Until the those models include what the horse is capable of doing your just fooling yourself thinking more precision in the timer, the exact value of the beaten lengths and run up distances will be the silver bullet. Taking pace data and handicapping methods beyond its elimentary roots is a fundamental error.

Don't get me wrong. I'm primarily a pace handicapper. But I don't try to make it more than it is.

Fire away!

[Dave]

I never got this answered on the last thread so I will ask it here. Do the Sheets adjust their numbers for the different distances that are run due to the varing run-ups?

Not that I'm an expert on the sheets, but I've never heard any sheet player proclaim that they preferred horse A over horse B because he earned a slightly higher number in a race that was 80 feet longer. Or that horse A earned a 25 running 80 feet longer than horse B who also earned a 25!!!

I guess every approach has it's pit falls.



if you have any Sheets questions, you might want to try the board at TheSheets.com.

[ryesteve]

Well, in an ideal world, people would do their own work and thus have their own opinion
So then go convince them to stop selling people their Sheets, and we're one step closer to your nirvana...

[Dave]

I am quite sure fat man has no qualms about eating someone else's pizza.

[bigmack]

if you have any Sheets questions, you might want to try the board at TheSheets.com.
And while you're there - ask em why they have a 9 year old designing their website.

Man - that's about as bad as it gets.

[Dave]

ask em why they have a 9 year old designing their website.




if you have any Sheets questions, you might want to try the board at TheSheets.com.

[bigmack]

I do not play Calder. Ever.
Never paid much attn to the thread but just nibbled through it.

You love Fort Erie and FL and never play Calder cause of the "run-up"?

The quality of racing at those Fort/Finger tracks will take precise numbers and throw em out the window as form has little in the way of reliance to bank on in those offerings.

Numbers mean the most when the quality of the animal you have numbers on - matches the quality of your numbers.

[PaceAdvantage]

if you have any Sheets questions, you might want to try the board at TheSheets.com.

Twice in one thread....interesting....how much they payin' you? :lol:

[Dave]

0

first time was helpin' some guy out, next time was pretty obviously a joke.
glad you enjoyed it.

[cj]

The joke is the web site and message board they have at the site. Both are absolutely horrible.

[kev]

From what I know why the web site is not taken care of alot is, The Sheets sale way more on-track than they do on-line. Where Thorograph is more about on-line sales. I guess as long as you can get the sheets on-line who really cares what the site looks like. I just wish they offer more sample races to view every once in awhile.

[Tom]

Never paid much attn to the thread but just nibbled through it.

You love Fort Erie and FL and never play Calder cause of the "run-up"?

The quality of racing at those Fort/Finger tracks will take precise numbers and throw em out the window as form has little in the way of reliance to bank on in those offerings.

Numbers mean the most when the quality of the animal you have numbers on - matches the quality of your numbers.

I don't play for Calder fo other reasons, not run up.
And as far as FL and FE go, you are talking through your hat. Both are goldmines at times. I find horses run to the numbers just fine.

[cj]

I don't play for Calder fo other reasons, not run up.
And as far as FL and FE go, you are talking through your hat. Both are goldmines at times. I find horses run to the numbers just fine.

I think it is a myth that you can't use numbers at the cheap tracks. They work just fine, or better, than the bigger tracks in my opinion.

[46zilzal]

I think it is a myth that you can't use numbers at the cheap tracks. They work just fine, or better, than the bigger tracks in my opinion.
Cheaper horses are more "locked in" to a single racing style and the smaller venues prove it.

[bigmack]

who really cares what the site looks like.

Looks like you did - once.

BigMack you are so right about their site, that is the same site they had from back in 99' when I first started to get on there.

[robert99]

R99
Accepted and agreed. Anyone working with numbers in this game knows the validity of their data after sizing up hundreds - rather thousands of races.

When one gets overly persnickety of the numbers they, as an observation, start to loose focus on the big picture of the game and rely on those numbers as if the horses were machines.

I trust your pursuit on the exactness of the numbers will give you an advantage over some in certain races - all the power to ya. Argueably though, it can be a never ending saga that never resolves a person on positioning themselves and/or making decisions based on data that's pretty darn good.

Bigmack,

I asked a very simple question for the first fraction time. What is the distance, what is the time measured from? The object is to get a simple velocity (distance over time). Assuming most posters on this forum come into the "Anyone working with numbers in this game knows the validity of their data after sizing up hundreds - rather thousands of races" brackets it seems a bit odd that most don't have much knowledge at all of the many possible errors in calculating that velocity figure in "thousands of races".

If people say that not knowing the first quarter pace at all accurately is not a problem in profitable selection, then the obvious conclusion is that the first quarter figure is not a very important figure in the scheme of things. The much more accurate mid and final quarters being the more informative ones.

It is just that the books like the one this thread is /was about don't mention the error but they (not me) claim the first quarter pace/velocity is important.

[kev]

Did I talk bad about it, all I said was it's the same site they had back in 99'. I didn't bring it up. It could stand to be updated, my point is what if it loooks like shi* for 10 more years they still have damn good numbers you know.

[chickenhead]

The object is to get a simple velocity (distance over time). Assuming most posters on this forum come into the "Anyone working with numbers in this game knows the validity of their data after sizing up hundreds - rather thousands of races" brackets it seems a bit odd that most don't have much knowledge at all of the many possible errors in calculating that velocity figure in "thousands of races".


You haven't yet mentioned a probably bigger error producer in most races, the fact that there is a yahoo in a booth on the roof trying to call out the beaten lengths as the horses approach each call.

I say more power to anyone who trys to tackle all the obstacles and make more "precise" figures than are gettable with a standard chart...figures which of course are going to be modified anyway using an imprecise guestimate as to track and daily variant....but you better have an umlimited amount of time on your hands.

And I am fairly certain that anyone involved with pace as a factor is well aware of the run-up and the way the positional calls are made.

[The Judge]

Brohamer states that the early pace is the most important "part of the pace scenario". Early pace is "second call" generally and do not reflect the early positions of the runners. 4f for sprints and 6f for routes. Brohamer notes that at these calls the race is very often 3/4 over before a pace number is even taken.

He then asks "what about the "earliest stage of the race? He states that it is during the first quarter-mile in a sprint and the first half-mile in a route,that "winning postitions" are established it is here that a horse must get in its best running postition on or near the lead, pressing etc in order to be competitive.

He then goes on to show how to establish the 1st call postitons for horses coming from differnt tracks ect. with wildly different 1st call times. Brohamer isn't against a good set of par-times but clearly states it's the horses in the race that most be measured one against the other.

[bigmack]

seems a bit odd that most don't have much knowledge at all of the many possible errors in calculating that velocity figure in "thousands of races
There's many possible errors in virtually every endeavor we engage in - I just don't spend the brunt of my time in the lab pouring new solutions when the solvant within the marketplace works just fine.

I know that companies make good coin off "new and improved" but sometimes the stuff with some vintage on it cuts the mustard.

In any event r99 as you adroitly point out possible errors abound and will continue to do so even in the most perfect and/or precise of worlds.

[JohnGalt1]

I do not play Calder. Ever.


I never play Calder either, but you may, and I do handicap races that were run there, so this matter is still important.