PPF or the Final Fraction

[Charlie]

I enjoy both harness and thoroughbred racing and have posted on the harness side a few times in the past. This is my first posting on the thoroughbred side.

I was wondering if anyone knows just how good Pizzola's Projected Power Fraction is as a reliable handicapping tool. In other words, is it better than a final fraction calculated in the normal manner. For example, lets suppose the 1/2 mile call fraction of a race was 46.0 and the final time was 112.0. Now lets suppose the horse was 6 lengths behind at the 1/2 and 2 lengths behind at the finish. According to Pizzola's Handicapping Magic, the PPF would be 26.2, while the normal calculated FF would be 25.1. I realize Pizzola stresses the fact that the PPF is a number that doesn't over estimate the validity of the FF, but still, I wonder. Any answers would be appreciated.

[ryesteve]

My opinion is that anything based on raw times with no track or daily variant adjustements, isn't going to give good results. That said, I don't think you'd want to look at a horse's final fraction out-of-context with the effort he expended earlier in the race. Not necessarily an endorsement of PPF, but rather a recommendation against relying purely on the final fraction.

[46zilzal]

limited experience with the PPF (however I would combine it with the 2nd fraction) has shown it to help on the grass: no where else.

[cj]

Steve nailed two things I don't like about the PPF. The third is the lack of any track to track adjustments.

I really enjoyed the Handicapping Magic book and it gave me lots of new ideas to play around with, but using his specific ratings didn't prove to be very successful.

I have incorporated some of his ideas with better numbers and enjoyed success.

[delayjf]

CJ,

Which ideas did you find useful? Other than the fulcrum pace, I didn't get that much out of it.

[Charlie]

I do take into account the early part of the race. In fact, I was attempting to use the methodology taught in the book "Pace Makes the Race", until I quickly realized that the Total Pace Rating which is acquired by adding the EPR and the FFR produced a # that was nothing more than the horse's final time. Another dilemna???
But anyway, I too found Pizzola's fulcrum to be somewhat helpful, but that's it. I just never found the PPF to produce MAGIC on the grass for me. That's why I've seeked the opinion of others regarding the PPF.

[cj]

Hey Jeff,

I like the idea of a fulcrum. I also enjoyed, and have implemented, the "form cycle windows" and the LASST method. I also agreed with the book about the importance of late speed, but that was old news. Trying to use it alone without considering the pace is asking to lose.

[Blackgold]

The PPF is the only number I've ever found that doesn't seem to need track to track adjustments.

Some of my biggest exotic scores and longshot winners have come when many runners are coming from different tracks. This is especially true at the beginning of meets.

The PPF can be discounted a little if it comes from a 1-1/8th race. I always look to see if the runner had anything like it in 1-1/16 or 1m races, before I consider backing him.

The PPF can also be discounted a little if the runner won by daylight and has no other line with a PPF near that number.

It typically works best at 6.5f and longer races or sprint races with a hot to suidical pace. Will point to some monsters to use in the gimmicks in 5-1/2 to 6f races, if the runners speed figs all come from different tracks.

It will also notify you if that Lone E has what it takes to last, as compared to the others in today's race.

And it's helpful in comparing routes to sprints and vice-versa.

Overall, I find it to be as mentioned in the book, Handicapping Magic. . . to be the handicapper's secret weapon and magic on the grass.

This past Mon., the 8th at SAR on the turf. The fulcrum won at 1.95-1 and the 2nd highest ppf runner came 2nd at 46-1. The exacta paid $202.

Good luck!

[The Judge]

I'm re-reading all the material I have on final fractions now this includes the PPF numbers. I feel that any final fraction number has to have some sort of adjustment if it is from different distances. As Hambelton and Pizzola noted a final fraction in a sprint must be changed to relay to longer distances. If the horse is now in a route or the horse is in a route and today is a sprint what is a good final fraction and how does it relate to todays distance.

This is why Hambleton, Pizzolla,Schmidt,Sartin went to a rating system in "Pace Makes The Race". A 100 in a sprint is adjusted so that it is the same as a 100 in a mile or 1 1/16 and so on. I like this and with the charts in the book or a computer program you know who should be there late. I think you have to remember these rating and PPF numbers are "good enough" numbers.

[ryesteve]

This past Mon., the 8th at SAR on the turf. The fulcrum won at 1.95-1
Why wasn't Moonshine Gal the fulcrum?

[Blackgold]

I don't know why Moonshine Gal wasn't set as the fulcrum by the program, although that one ran the same PPF as the 9 last out, even though that was in Jan.

I'm sure I could find out technically, if I was so inclined to go and look at all the criteria. All I care about is I had the exacta 2-1/2 times and had the 3 won, would have had the tri too.

Wait a day or two and one of the more technical users of the program will come across this thread and set the record straight.

I'm merely a degenerate that builds exotics from what I see on the screen.

Good luck!

[The Judge]

I think the program made the correct call if you look at the PP's of the horses Safari Queen is competive at 112:1 and consistantly runs this time. Moonshine Gal's last race was a 110.1 but it was "atypical". All its other races were any where from 111 -115.1 and even in some of those the horse was not competitve. So we must remember its the last race.

The definiton of the Fulcrum Pace is " the fastest second call of all contestants in the race from their last race, provided that the race is competitive and not atypically fast for the horse".

[ryesteve]

I don't know why Moonshine Gal wasn't set as the fulcrum by the program

I'm sure I could find out technically, if I was so inclined to go and look at all the criteria
Maybe a program bug... if so, good deal!

[delayjf]

adding the EPR and the FFR produced a # that was nothing more than the horse's final time

Are your sure about the above. If your adding the separate pace "times" I could see your point, but your not adding race time but rather race ratings (at least that was my understanding). Also your given a .50 weight to a fraction that comprises only 1/3 of the race distrance. (6 furlongs) Seems to me that TPR were the equivilant of Sartin Sustained pace.

[The Judge]

By combining EPR with FFR you would indeed get TPR which would be the same as final time. Horse A runs second call 45 and a final fraction time of 25 beaten 0 lengths at both calls. Horse B runs 46 second call and 24 final fracton beaten 0 lengths at both calls both would run a final time of 1:10 flat. A would be EPR 95 and FFR 85 TPR 180 Horse B would run EPR 90 and FFR of 90 TPR 180. A diffierent number but still final time.

The dynamic is in looking at the EPR and relating that to the FFR considering the other horses in the race. Sometimes no matter what the EPR is or the FFR the TPR will not be enough to win. So its not a useless number you just can't combine the two a run off and play the top TPR horse and say you are a pace handicapper..