Question about computing Sartin Figures

[jeebus1083]

In Modern Pace Handicapping, the formula is to add or subtract the beaten lengths x 10 feet from the number of feet traveled within the fraction, divided by the leader's fraction time.

1320 + or - (BL * 10) / Leader fraction

However, couldn't the same thing be accomplished if one multiplied the beaten lengths by 1/5 of a second (or if you feel like I do that 1 length = 6 lengths, 1/6 of a second), and added that to the leader's time?

BL * (1/6) = # of Seconds Behind Leader (SBL)
1320/(Leader fraction + SBL)

This method wouldn't require one to make adjustments to the number of feet traveled (since we're estimating the trailing horse's time, and not taking the length of a horse into account), and in all honesty, feel that it's a time saver. Opinion?

[ryesteve]

it's a time saver. Opinion?I'm not sure why it's a time saver. Either way, you need to divide two numbers. Instead of adjusting the numerator, you want to adjust the denominator. You're introducing error to gain a benefit that isn't apparent.

[jeebus1083]

I'm not sure why it's a time saver. Either way, you need to divide two numbers. Instead of adjusting the numerator, you want to adjust the denominator. You're introducing error to gain a benefit that isn't apparent.

As far as introducing error is concerned, that's always going to be a concern with The feet traveled component (numerator) introduces error because the length of a racehorse varies. When figuring beaten lengths, it's an estimate of the trackman, and 1 length at one track isn't always 1 length elsewhere.

If you use the software version of Formulator, the Form Note Charts provide estimated fractional and elapsed times based on lengths x 1/6 of a second. In that instance, that's why it's a time saver. Less math within math. No need to calculate BL * the length of a horse, or adjusting the feet traveled to estimate what the horse's time was behind a leader. Of course, if you do a database or have software, it's a moot point, as any formula that is used will run the numbers within a second.

I think the Sartin figures are a decent estimation of feet traveled per second, and the concepts are highly effective, but until the technology of Trakus spreads beyond Keeneland, Del Mar, and Woodbine, they will never be 100% perfect.

[Greyfox]

but until the technology of Trakus spreads beyond Keeneland, Del Mar, and Woodbine, they will never be 100% perfect.

Excellent point. :ThmbUp:
Trackus data should provide a more accurate representation.
Otherwise, if you think about it, it doesn't matter if you use 1/5 seconds, 1/6 seconds, or 10 feet, 11ft, or 9 feet per sec, as long as you are being consistent and applying the concept to every horse. (Yes, I know some people will argue this latter point, but the rank order of the animals will turn out the same.)

[Tom]

GF, agree.

A = Using 10 feet per length,
B = Using .167 sec per length (1/6)
C = Using .172 sec per length

If you want your velocity numbers to be close to the Brohamer variety, use .172

[jeebus1083]

Excellent point. :ThmbUp:
Trackus data should provide a more accurate representation.
Otherwise, if you think about it, it doesn't matter if you use 1/5 seconds, 1/6 seconds, or 10 feet, 11ft, or 9 feet per sec, as long as you are being consistent and applying the concept to every horse. (Yes, I know some people will argue this latter point, but the rank order of the animals will turn out the same.)

100% agree, Greyfox. Good point.