Sartin Parameters

[OverlayHunter]

I'm familiar with the early Sartin factors such as AP, SP, etc. but have never seen any literature that describes E/L, Deceleration, or V/DC which are terms I bump into from time to time.

From what I've been able to glean, there seems to be favorable comments about E/L if nothing else as an eliminator. (I believe it has something to do with some ratio or relationship between the horse's early and late energy use but I may be wrong and I don't know how that would fit with or compare with % early.)

I haven't seen much if anything about Deceleration or V/DC (which I think also has something to do with deceleration).

Does anyone have insight into the value and use of these factors and concepts?

Is there literature that discusses them (Followup issues, for example)?

Are the formulas known like SP and the others?

[shanta]

Regarding deceleration/vdc:
Followup #77 - Entropy-Deceleration
Followup #82 - Probability Convergence -the new science
Followup #85 - Probability Convergence pt.2

Hope this helps OH
Richie

[Ted Craven]

Hi OverlayHunter,

Early/Late Difference is the surplus/deficit of EPR (Early Pace Rating to the 2nd call) compared to LPR (Late Pace Rating - the 3rd fraction measurement). EPR and LPR (or FFR) are pretty well described in editions of Pace Makes the Race and form a part of the core measurements of Sartin's later software programs. E/L is referred to as Diff. in the Advanced Concepts chapter of Edition 1 of PMTR, and also described and illustrated in numerous mid 90's issues of the Follow Up. An extremely useful tool if you know a persistent or temporary energy expenditure bias for a track (i.e. from your record keeping). Sometimes horses with relatively low Energy ability will show up as the most Early when the E/L Difference is graphed and this is sometimes all you need to know at a given track, in a given match up. The counter-energy horse also often shows up on these kinds of graphs (i.e. a horse whose E/L is most opposite to the likely win energy, and thus a strong contender to Place).

Richie's references for V/DC are good ones, along with a couple of other FU issues between 75 - 80 (I'll try to dig them up). It is an evolution of Sartin's earlier Entropy or Deceleration formulae, coupled with his Bottom Line/Betting Line work (the probability convergence reference of Richie's). Basically, it is aggregate Velocity tempered by Deceleration (V/DC). The improvement over the old Entropy is that slow horses tend to decelerate the least (in the 3rd fraction), so fast horses who decelerate the least (and project to do so again today) should rank higher. It was never in the public domain, but is part of Validator and RDSS.

Lots more about those concepts at the Pace and Cap Sartin site (www.PaceandCap.com/forums (http://www.PaceandCap.com/forums)).

Hope it helps!

Ted

[46zilzal]

At many speed favoring tracks, when the bias is really on, the E/L can often be the only factor one needs.

PLEASE go to that website to learn their version of reality, PLEASE. You will get all the IRONCLAD rules. No latitude, only rules rules rules and more rules.

[46zilzal]

When using the Sartin Methodology one has to remember what Michael Pizzolla states in Pace Makes the Race p. 158 "How do we begin the journey to successful predictions and decisions? AGAIN THERE ARE NOT RULES, but there are some things which you can do to move along. To those who must have a mechanical approach, I can only tell you that you are sentencing yourself to mere competence at best. One of my favorite quotes is attributed to Lao Tsu, the compiler of the Tao Te Ching. He said, "When the WAY is lost, there arise codes of conduct and behavior."

[Ted Craven]

For a bit more on the antecedants and components of the V/DC soup, also check Follow Up Issue #76, Page 64.

Ted

[46zilzal]

At many tracks, on many many days, energy distribution trumps all other aspects of handicapping. It is amazing.

[richrosa]

46zilzal is right. Energy alone can be a superb handicapping tool. I put together a tutorial some time ago explaining some E/L angles using a track history model and understanding the energy distribution that winners generally show at specific tracks, distances, and surfaces.

http://handicappingos.com/node/52

[shanta]

PLEASE go to that website to learn their version of reality, PLEASE. You will get all the IRONCLAD rules. No latitude, only rules rules rules and more rules.

I have 87 registered members on "that website" who have been getting an 18 month outline of Jim "The Hat" Bradhsaw's Matchup concepts/application under his watchful eye and guidance.

The first thing stated upfront by Mr. Bradshaw is that there are no rules regarding racing. 87 folks (89 including myself and Jim) are prospering and thriving on "that website" with NO rules as part of Jim's initial outline of his work.Our numbers are growing by the month.

The first ever Jim "The Hat" Bradshaw Matchup Webinars are being planned right now and we will sell out(even though they are actually free) every one with NO RULES as the main starting point.

Life is good man. Tell someone you love them today. You'll be glad you did :)

[richrosa]

Sartin conversations are a lot like the TVG conversations around here. They both quickly digress into the mud. I can never understand why.

Lets move on to more productive things.

[46zilzal]

Sartin conversations are a lot like the TVG conversations around here. They both quickly digress into the mud. I can never understand why.

Lets move on to more productive things.
We both have been on the receiving end of the rath. Hardly surprising that free thinkers would get knocked.

[Tom]

While I agree the E/L graph is very predictive, I am not really sure I understand what it is. I have assumed it was the difference between EP and F3 in velocity. Take the horse who goes wire to wire in 46 111. His EP is 57.39 and his F3 is 52.80. His E/L number should be –4.59? (F3-EP). A horse who is 10 back at the half earns and EP and F3 of 55.21 and 56.80 ( using 10 feet per length) and has an E/L of 1.59?



Looking at many readouts, though and now Rich’s tutorial, I see a big spread of numbers.

In Rich’s graph, horses range from –26 +++ to + 22 or so. Am I to assume a range of over 20 fps between EP and F3 exists here? Seems like too much.

[46zilzal]

Difference between the weighed 2nd call and final fraction. That "weighting" is proprietary.

[46zilzal]

The e/l tells several things when in context:
1) is this horse in form or going off form: a rising e/l vs similar pace is a telling sign of form reversal.
2) In some fields it can predict position
3) It can eliminate some contenders when their e/l is far out of bounds to what wins at that track, that distance.
4) tells of track bias when it is truly there
5) tells when a horse is meeting distance limitations as it will rise when the animal is asked to go beyond a distance where it is capable of winning.

[shanta]

In Rich’s graph, horses range from –26 +++ to + 22 or so. Am I to assume a range of over 20 fps between EP and F3 exists here? Seems like too much.


Rich's graph is showing anything can win. Not a very good example of using to eliminate/qualify contenders imo. -5 to +20 brings in everybody except the most radical early and/or late sticks.

Here is Hoosier park last 2 nights it ran. 8f distance fast track only

now check the e/l range Tom. Early energy is dead and the degree of late winning is increasing. See if this would help chop out or qualify some contenders.Big difference here

[shanta]

Rich's graph is showing anything can win. Not a very good example of using to eliminate/qualify contenders imo. -5 to +20 brings in everybody except the most radical early and/or late sticks.

Here is Hoosier park last 2 nights it ran. 8f distance fast track only

now check the e/l range Tom. Early energy is dead and the degree of late winning is increasing. See if this would help chop out or qualify some contenders.Big difference here

Now let's tied this in with Overlay Hunter's interest in v/dc or deceleration ok?
Same race set at Hoosier but now we bring in the v/dc read as a corrolary for support in wager decision/exclusion.

ALL winners are showing top 3 V/dc.

So a very rudimentary "easy' method might be to consider for wager any horse that is top 3 V/dc with an e/l in the range shown above. Tightens things up quite a bit
screenshot of V/dc reads on same Hoosier set of 8f races

[shanta]

to finish of my work here these are the win prices in the subset of races.

best of luck
Riche

[46zilzal]

The vast majority of tracks, JUST LIKE Dr. Quirin showed in Winning at the Races, are early biased.

Wonder why one calls themselves CONTRA-ENERGY? Couldn't mean an underlying bias now could it?

In a long series of study, called e/l relativity, the earliest of almost every group, at almost every dirt track studied showed the same thing: earlier is where it's at. Always has been on the dirt.

Could show all kinds of late ones at Keeneland, but we all know that one to be biased the other way.

[Tom]

Thanks, guys.
Weighted EP explains it - I just couldn't see 20 fps fall offs winning!:eek:

[richrosa]

In Rich’s graph, horses range from –26 +++ to + 22 or so. Am I to assume a range of over 20 fps between EP and F3 exists here? Seems like too much.



The calculation is converted into a percentage-like number to make it easier to track and understand. Tim is correct, we all have subtle differences in our formulas. I especially like my formula as it relates to mixing sprint and route pacelines.

In my example Mountaineer 5.5f sprints, you can examine specifically the spreads of winners. Sometimes they tell you a lot, sometimes not so much. In my example as a laid out, you could use the frequency and the makeup of the race to draw a conclusion. The conclusion is not always there for you to draw, but when it is, it is something to pay attention to. I've been able to nail some of my best prices this year, by playing angles off this.

My software automatically accrues the E/L from the rich data history that I possess which is made available for the default user. You don't have to keep track of this and calculate it yourself. I'd hate to try to make sense of this kind of data if you were tracking it manually. If its piecemeal, or not as rich, the conclusion becomes less relevant.

[shanta]

Could show all kinds of late ones at Keeneland, but we all know that one to be biased the other way.

But my races are current from the last 2 nights amigo. This is what is going on now and they are paying money there. Short term trends.

Of course early is universal bias and often early dominates and pays good too.
:)

[46zilzal]

Even works better with maidens.
6th race Aqueduct - November 01, 2007
Pgm Horse Win Place Show
3 Jump Commander 6.20 4.10 3.70
4 Firstfromthebox 11.60 7.50
1A Tothelefttotheleft 4.50

not a long price but an easy decision.

[shanta]

At the conclusion of the Mnr 10/29 card i posted this on "that other site":

"There was a massive late energy bias at Mountaineer last night.Lasted the ENTIRE card".

Anyone paying heed to short term energy trends and took a chance on following it through on the following night's card were rewarded with a $30.00 Bomb winner in the first race coming from way out of it at the 5f distance. ANY software will show that buck being a late runner.

Short term

[richrosa]

Are you suggesting that I should only bet races late in the card after the bias appears to be obvious for that particular race day or hope that the daily bias carries over?

I'm confused. Is that what you do?

[46zilzal]

Physical exertion, particularly at the levels the thoroughbred undergoes in most races, is stacked toward an animal's preforming BETTER earlier. Late exertion not only requires a speed advantage, but said horse has to do that anaerobically in the midst of lactic acid build up.

Unless an animal has a huge advantage over an equivalent earlier horse, the basic physiology of exercise favors the combatant that is out front setting a pace over those that have to come up with that extra exertion late to overcome the advantage gained by the other horse while fresh.

No wonder the majority of races are won from the front half of the field.

[sammy the sage]

all I know...War Pass has not read the book....somebody should take away his carrot's til he does. :lol:

[OverlayHunter]

Thanks to you all for the information and insights they are greatly appreciated. I'll do the reading and follow up on the suggestions.

[46zilzal]

The great thing about a computerized evaluation of a horse's past performances it allows for you to find the best STYLE for this horse. How does this one handle the pace stress of a very fast half mile, a group of big closers? Is this horse seeing any of those pace stresses today? Can this horse repeat (always evaluate MULTIPLE lines to negate sample error) this BEST style against the specific race crowd it will meet today?

Is this horse's form cycle on the wane? improving? showing NO pattern?

FAR too many people simply look at a single paceline as if it were GOSPEL line and verse to this horse. I always respond that if you met a person, a very nice open minded person 5 minutes after he was robbed at gun point, isn't there a chance you might get a skewed idea about this person that would be negated by meeting him multiple times under differing situations? All the time I see people choosing a LATE paceline (because it has a higher speed rating) for a horse who has nothing but PRESSER lines in the other nine and then somehow telling themselves that THIS is the pace line to run through the computer for this horse. What a waste of a good program.

Just like any scientific endeavor, the more samples one takes, the less prone is sample error.

[46zilzal]

all I know...War Pass has not read the book....somebody should take away his carrot's til he does.
Babies do their running early as they are just learning to apportion their speed. The e/l ranking here was key as well.

[46zilzal]

As this 6/5 one (Nicely Put, Eibar Coa up) backs right out of the picture in the 2nd today (11/2/07) at Aqueduct, the energy distribution told you this one was going off form. Median UP, total down. Ran off the board.

[Binder]

I have 87 registered members on "that website" who have been getting an 18 month outline of Jim "The Hat" Bradhsaw's Matchup concepts/application under his watchful eye and guidance.

The first thing stated upfront by Mr. Bradshaw is that there are no rules regarding racing. 87 folks (89 including myself and Jim) are prospering and thriving on "that website" with NO rules as part of Jim's initial outline of his work.Our numbers are growing by the month.

The first ever Jim "The Hat" Bradshaw Matchup Webinars are being planned right now and we will sell out(even though they are actually free) every one with NO RULES as the main starting point.

Life is good man. Tell someone you love them today. You'll be glad you did :)

I'm looking forward to the webinars
I am very proud that Mr Bradshaw and you will do this on pace and cap

Hello overlay

One more use of the Early Late graph is That I can use it as a
picture view of the energy excertion of the runners in each race match up
To pick up on Shanta's point of a late bias detector
The night before shanta's race I bet a lone late horse with a # 1 VDC readout

The winner was #1. It is the only horse in this match up
on the left side of the zero center lline
To the left is late, the bigger the stick is either right or left, means the
horse uses more of its energy early or late. The VDC readout is
a powerful tool The winner is tier 1
thanks

[richrosa]

It is not a coincidence that a thread on Early/Late attracts Tim, Ted, Richie, Bill and myself, since I'm quite sure we're amongst the most passionate about its usefulness. Although we all use slightly different methods, I think we all agree that it is a tool that cannot be ignored.

[andicap]

Well shoot you don't need a Sartin program to do this form of energy handicapping. I was using counter-energy with the Colt's Neck figures 10 years ago and give it up only because it was a DOS interface and I had to do all the calcs by hand. Very tedious.

CN gave you weighted pace figures for each third of the race for all the horses and I would average them all up, compare them against a "par" for that track and look for races where those averages were skewed very far one way or the other. In other words if the average for AQU (hypothetically) was 44% for the first third and a particular race averaged 48% for that fraction I would look for high-value runners with large late energy numbers.
That's no different than what's been talked about here.

I now do something similar using Craig's Pacefigures using his early Speed Points and the Quirin Points to model what's winning at a particular track.
(Short and long-term are both important to know.) I use a formula incorporating both figures. As has been pointed out here sometimes there is a marked bias that basically points you to the winner and sometimes there is not. (Or I'm not smart enough to figure it out.)

For example, at the Saratoga PA gathering on Aug. 18 I recall one of the turf courses was playing pretty early. All three races on this course (I believe it was Mellon Course, but I could be wrong) had winners ranked second in the "early" category. Prices long and short.

Place winners are not ALWAYS counter-energy to the winners. Depends on the bias, pace set-up, the quality of the early/closer types, etc.

Another concept I use in connection with the energy set-up is "pace quality." The track bias and/or pace match-up does not always dictate the result. I label the quality of the early pace horses in varying degrees from weak to strong (using the tote odds and Craig's PF figures) and compare it to the expected pace pressure in a race. Look at enough races and you get a feel for how the different scenarios might play out.

When horses consistently don't run to the expected pace scenario you might have a real bias.

I'm not always right but if you take the value horses you don't have to be 100% to make money.

there's 1 minute to post at meadowlands 9th as I type this. I rate the pace pressure here as moderate and the quality as better than average so I expect the 1 or 2 to win, but the 6 and 10 are live longshots to finish 1st or 2nd IMHO

[andicap]

I meant to say the 6 and 10 were good horses to key 2nd and 3rd, but never mind, the 2 wins (OK he was 2-1 no big surprise) and the 6 is 2nd at 11-1.
the exacta pays $88.60

And that wasn't even redboarding ---

As an aside, for once I'd like to see people talk about handicapping principles IN ADVANCE of a race instead of pointing to past races.

[46zilzal]

And that wasn't even redboarding ---

As an aside, for once I'd like to see people talk about handicapping principles IN ADVANCE of a race instead of pointing to past races.
EVERY book one buys on handicapping does the same thing: shows a principle by examples of that principle from a PAST situation where it occurred. WE LEARN THAT WAY.

The scientific method states one has a premise then TESTS the premise over and over reviewing the findings of said premise. REVIEW is where one learns, just like all the books people tout about the field.

One does not learn by projection but by review. You cannot accurately illustrate a point without an example of it working.

[andicap]

EVERY book one buys on handicapping does the same thing: shows a principle by examples of that principle from a PAST situation where it occurred. WE LEARN THAT WAY.

The scientific method states one has a premise then TESTS the premise over and over reviewing the findings of said premise. REVIEW is where one learns, just like all the books people tout about the field.

One does not learn by projection but by review. You cannot accurately illustrate a point without an example of it working.

Isn't that what I just did?

Oh yeah, but in advance.

[rrbauer]

EVERY book one buys on handicapping does the same thing: shows a principle by examples of that principle from a PAST situation where it occurred. WE LEARN THAT WAY.

The scientific method states one has a premise then TESTS the premise over and over reviewing the findings of said premise. REVIEW is where one learns, just like all the books people tout about the field.

One does not learn by projection but by review. You cannot accurately illustrate a point without an example of it working.

What is "testing" if it's not "projection"? Everytime we make a bet we are testing something. Presuming the bet has some rational basis (beyond dart tossing) it is the culmination of some projection.

The idea that you can validate a point by showing an example of it "working" simply opens the door for back-fitting. That speaks to the creativity of the example and has nothing to do with "validation". What do you "learn" if you "review" contrived "findings"?

[Tom]

I think doing it BEFORE the race is far more valuable. Win or lose, it is rreal life. Doc Sartin used to say to really test something, use real money, if only $2, to make it areal test. I agree with him.

BTW, good stuff Andy.....you should think about starting a blog to post your energy thoughts.......:rolleyes::bang:;):lol:

[njcurveball]

Mark Cramer did some articles on the "new" Sartin Methodology a while back (circa 1999, I believe).

He sent Sartin a check for $100 and had someone bet $2 per race using strict rules.

He certainly could have back tested it and modified a few rules or switched some strategies to fit the result.

Many of the systems sold before computers did just that. Find a few high priced winners, see what they have in common, make the rules to fit that and go to the Printer.

By the way, I believe Cramer more than doubled his money in the test. I don't have the exact C&O or C&X issues, but if someone does, they can post them here for verification.

Jim

[shanta]

Mark Cramer did some articles on the "new" Sartin Methodology a while back (circa 1999, I believe).

He sent Sartin a check for $100 and had someone bet $2 per race using strict rules.

He certainly could have back tested it and modified a few rules or switched some strategies to fit the result.


By the way, I believe Cramer more than doubled his money in the test. I don't have the exact C&O or C&X issues, but if someone does, they can post them here for verification.
Jim

C&O report - Volume 6 -Number 9 - Page 5

Betting 100% overlays in top 3 Bl/Bl at $2.00 per win wager
6 days
Bet = $114.00
Ret = $371.00
Profit = $257.00 or 225%

Thanks Tom for this :)

[andicap]

I didn't have time this morning to make the point that Richard did -- that's the problem I've always had with handicapping books. (What I like about Quinn is that he has posted LOSING examples in his books saying, iin effect, well this one didn't work out but in the long run it's a good idea.)

Of course what else can you do in a book but post examples of past races? So I can't criticize writers who do.

That's what's so great about the Internet. You can make a point and then put it to the test (not that one resuilt is a test -- even if I had lost the race I would still feel confident in my theory). I just think its more illustrative to do it in real time and you can't be accused of "redboarding."
I realize one MTP is not really that helpful but it was a very spur of the moment thing.

And there are many races where one horse is just so much better than the rest that pace scenarios/pace quality, etc. has little impact and little handicapping value. I find that a lot at the smaller tracks because so many of the horses are such cripples there are times when just one horse is in form that night.

[Tom]

When you do an example race live, youget immediate feedback. Then you can go ahead and work the next 10 races and see if it holds up. Nothing wrong with past race examples, I do it all the time with my db. But real time, to me, makes a more lasting effect.

[jonnielu]

EVERY book one buys on handicapping does the same thing: shows a principle by examples of that principle from a PAST situation where it occurred. WE LEARN THAT WAY.

The scientific method states one has a premise then TESTS the premise over and over reviewing the findings of said premise. REVIEW is where one learns, just like all the books people tout about the field.

One does not learn by projection but by review. You cannot accurately illustrate a point without an example of it working.

Yeah, but, what worked really? And does the review do you any good if you think it was this when it was actually that. Unless you are trying to reinforce the shifting sand theory.

[jonnielu]

When you do an example race live, youget immediate feedback. Then you can go ahead and work the next 10 races and see if it holds up. Nothing wrong with past race examples, I do it all the time with my db. But real time, to me, makes a more lasting effect.

Figures, monkey see monkey do. So do you start over if it breaks down after 10 races, or do you give it another ten. You know the book writers say that you have to work it over 1000's of races to give it a fair chance.

[Tom]

Oh thank you, guru for your insights, but me doing it 10 times is far more revealing to me than reading about someone else doing it 1000 times. And which book writers - can you name the ones who said that?

[andicap]

I think doing it BEFORE the race is far more valuable. Win or lose, it is rreal life. Doc Sartin used to say to really test something, use real money, if only $2, to make it areal test. I agree with him.

BTW, good stuff Andy.....you should think about starting a blog to post your energy thoughts.......:rolleyes::bang:;):lol:


LOL!!! Yeah I SHOULD start one.