PDA

View Full Version : the tandem concept


46zilzal
03-12-2010, 11:15 AM
One of the more interesting angles taught in the Sartin Methodology is the tandem. Before going into its application and an example that worked well yesterday, it is interesting in finding out where it arose.

Howard Sartin befriended a middleweight boxer AS THE STORY GOES, a fellow named Bo Bo Olsen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobo_Olson , who first noticed this phenomena in boxers. In the mid 50's there was no dominant middleweight and the various contenders took turn defeating one another, not a single one able to string together multiple victories versus the same opponent. They surmised, as it was explained to me, that when two boxers met in a rematch, the winning camp would approach the fight exactly the same way they did the first time since that was successful, they thought, that the approach would work again. The loser of the first match, realizing that the effort was not successful, would CHANGE part of the training or fight logic, and upon meeting that same boxer the second time, this fighter would surprise his former foe thus accounting for a win in their return match.

Sartin applied this general logic to a horse race when he noted the same thing happening: horses returning to face each other again, often had new winners.

Much like the Davidowitz key race concept, it finds COMPETITIVE races which allows a handicapping to discover several entrants coming into today's race from a contest that is far superior, or inferior, to the entrants in today's field.

What the angle suggests is to change the beaten lengths of the best of the tandem finishers as the final beaten lengths of the others coming from that tandem.

The 7th race at Aqueduct was a prime example of this working out well, and serves as example of it. Review of examples of an angle working make up the bulk of each and every book on handicapping I have ever read,

The tandem involved three horses all coming from a race that had the fastest pace of race of any of the entrants most recently few attempts.

the three horse had the following beaten lengths coming from that same pace of race
2 Brock and Roll beaten 4.8 lengths
4 Well Meant beaten 9.3 lengths
7 Golden Caesar beaten 14.8 lengths

In giving each horse the best of the beaten lengths improves each by the following amount
2 no change
4 +4.5 lengths
7 +10 lengths

as a tandem coming from the same pace of race, which was the best of all recent lines, the 7 horse improves the most and was the winner.

Does it work all the time? NOTHING DOES, but it worked very nicely here and does often.

Tom
03-12-2010, 11:30 AM
I have used that for years - both versions of the tandem.
My cut off is 10 lengths, unless the horse was on or pushing for the lead.
Some of those "speed/fade" horses beaten badly have paid boxcar prices.

Ted Craven
03-12-2010, 11:36 AM
46zilzal,

Did you mean to say that the #4 improved the 2nd most in that tandem and won the race? The #7, unfortunately, broke down at the 1/2 pole.

Ted

46zilzal
03-12-2010, 11:53 AM
46zilzal,

Did you mean to say that the #4 improved the 2nd most in that tandem and won the race? The #7, unfortunately, broke down at the 1/2 pole.

Ted
correct but the same concept gets the winner as betting the standard two horses negates the accident which could not be anticipated.......

markgoldie
03-12-2010, 12:13 PM
I admit I don't know very much about the brilliant Dr. Sartin. However, I am very familiar with the concept. It applies brilliantly in team sporting events, such as the NFL, where it has been shown conclusively that it is very difficult for a team to defeat an opponent twice vs. the line in a given season. Clearly, the tandem theory you depicted is the reason: the winning team is comfortable that the same approach will secure a second victory, while the losing team understands that it must do things better AND differently in order to reverse the verdict. Generally, this concept is referred to by sports' bettors simply as "revenge".

There is, however, a problem in extrapolating the theory to horse racing. The most glaring difference, of course, is that horses do not know that they are preparing themselves for "revenge" against an opponent or opponents who defeated them in the past. That being said, there is a significant contribution to the animal's preparation which is due to the efforts of the trainer. So, in a way, we might say that the trainer is "out for revenge," even if the horse isn't. And this part of the concept holds some merit.

On the other hand, many trainers are creatures of habit and particularly if they have a large stable, they will tend to do the same things over and over when it comes to the preparation of a horse for a race. Only the best, most creative, and thoughtful trainers will change their pattern of training in response to a single poor or sub-par effort by one of their charges. Those that do, tend to be the high-percentage conditioners and frankly, the kind of change that they are most likely to make is along the lines of veterinary care, rather than training methodology. Not that this alone cannot be effective. The injection of sore joints, the "blocking" of sore feet, the extra jugging, and spinal alignments, etc., all can have beneficial effects.

Because of this, I tend to expect routine "rebound" performances from the best trainers. They maintain their high batting averages by refusing to accept mediocracy. In many cases, this simply may involve the lowering of the claiming tag, in which event, the conquered will not normally face the conqueror in an upcoming race. So we are denied a tandem opportunity. But in stakes or allowance races, this may occur.

There is, however, an additional reason why these "bouncing" proximate performances may occur. And that is simply, the "bounce" effect itself. The idea here is that a better-than-expected performance may be stressful to the animal to the degree that a subsequent performance is likely to show a performance regression. Conversely, the horse performing in a sub-par manner may rebound well simply because he was not over-exerted in his last outing.

In summary, look for rebound performances from good trainers and/or horses who have shown up-and-down performance patterns in the past. If this was what Doc Sartin was driving at in his tandem concept, then I agree. On the other hand, if he was extrapolating human revenge-type motivation to horses, then I do not concur.

GameTheory
03-12-2010, 12:25 PM
Can anyone demonstrate that this tandem effect is anything more than random fluctuation? Of course sometimes the loser will beat the winner. It happens "often" -- what does that mean? Nothing unless it happens more than it should.

Show Me the Wire
03-12-2010, 01:06 PM
Do you think part of the strategy change is due to the mere passenger on the back?

ranchwest
03-12-2010, 01:53 PM
This seems to suggest that tandems can predict form cycles. I find that difficult to believe except that a lot of horses will reverse form from a recent race. I don't get it as to how the tandem has anything to do with it. Maybe the tandems are being used as a yardstick, but would't pars work just as well?

cj
03-12-2010, 02:02 PM
This seems to suggest that tandems can predict form cycles. I find that difficult to believe except that a lot of horses will reverse form from a recent race. I don't get it as to how the tandem has anything to do with it. Maybe the tandems are being used as a yardstick, but would't pars work just as well?

I identify all the horses in my database with a form cycle label. There are many that often lead to better performances in the future and provide value at the window when betting those horses. This isn't one of them.

QuarterCrack
03-12-2010, 02:12 PM
People can debate whether the tandem concept has any form cycle considerations, maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. I can say that I don't really agree with the idea of changing the beaten lengths to fit the angle, but that's just me.

But if you think about it, the real appeal of tandems is the value aspect: you'll usually get a better price on the horse(s) that were beaten in the first race, since most people assume that if Horse "A" couldn't beat Horse "B" the first time, he won't be able to beat him again today. Often times, you'll get a good overlay this way.

ranchwest
03-12-2010, 02:56 PM
I've always figured horses and jockeys more or less take turns, so I'm not far off from this concept. 37 years ago my girlfriend would get ticked at me about this, but I digress.

I just don't get the specifics of the tandem concept.

bks
03-13-2010, 02:32 AM
Rick Pitino once said something that stuck with me. I think he was the coach of Kentucky at the time and was having a lot of success at the time. He said:

"If it ain't broke, break it".

I took this to mean that when what you are doing something that is working, change it anyway when others might not expect you to. Don't get complacent.

jasperson
03-13-2010, 06:20 AM
I looked at the race again and the 4 horse's 3rd race back was a c25000. He dropped to c15000 for 2 races in the mud. Maybe the other horse liked mud more tban he did. We have an 2 tandems at gpx in the 8th.

Robert Fischer
03-13-2010, 09:18 AM
...

What the angle suggests is to change the beaten lengths of the best of the tandem finishers as the final beaten lengths of the others coming from that tandem.

...



the three horse had the following beaten lengths coming from that same pace of race
2 Brock and Roll beaten 4.8 lengths
4 Well Meant beaten 9.3 lengths
7 Golden Caesar beaten 14.8 lengths

In giving each horse the best of the beaten lengths improves each by the following amount
2 no change
4 +4.5 lengths
7 +10 lengths

as a tandem coming from the same pace of race, which was the best of all recent lines, the 7 horse improves the most and was the winner.

can you spell it out for me. I'm often slow with new concepts.

what i gather:
the winner lost by 4.8
so you want to bring the tandem up to 4.8
and "improve" each by the difference of their beaten Lengths

so the :7: improves by 10 ,
but what i don't get on the logical level is why that makes him the pick...
he's still at 4.8, even with the +10L

Or is it treat them all as equals for that race, and play the bigger price?

?
Or is it basically saying whoever "improves the most"??
in that case why bother with the BL, and not just flip flop the 1st and 3rd finishers of the last race tandem??

any help?

Tom
03-13-2010, 09:50 AM
Changing beaten lengths is only part of the tandem. The other, more used part ( by me) is that you use the tandem winner and then go back to find other pace line for the other horses. It was a reason to go past the last race, which was the key in those days of Sartin - you needed a reason to go past it.

ranchwest
03-13-2010, 10:59 AM
Was this a chaos race? Seems like it to me, but I'd like to hear some opinions on what chaos is.

The 7 was far the best horse, but had a miserable last out, slowing significantly. That the horse broke down is not a huge surprise.

The 10 looks to press the 7 for the lead and will surely quit.

The 1A will also attend the early pace.

Most of the horses are trying to keep up early on.

Meanwhile, the 4 obviously looks to just sit chilly. When everything falls apart in front, the 4 passes all of the tiring horses and comes home the winner at a nice price.

Isn't this chaos? Or do I just not understand the term "chaos"?

I can't attribute this result to tandems.

46zilzal
03-13-2010, 11:36 AM
Every race, when one looks at sensitive dependence on initial conditions, qualifies in some degree as chaos as small things at the start (bumps, block, lost an iron) things that have no chance of being predicted, change the outcome by changing the initial set of circumstances.

QUOTE:The 10 looks to press the 7 for the lead and will surely quit.

the exact same scenario happened twice in the last month, once at Philly and another one last Saturday at Oaklawn and BOTH WON.

Ted Craven
03-13-2010, 11:43 AM
It is useful to note that in the cited Feb 25 5 AQU Tandem, the 1st and 2nd finishers are NOT returning today (so the #2 is not that Tandem winner but that Tandem best-finisher) - thus those horses who are returning will face a different match up scenario than they faced last race, and thus it is both unfair to their prospects today and unlikely that they will identically reproduce their last race ratings. (The 2nd place finisher Feb 25, dueled and killed off today's #7, and in turn gave it up to the pace-pressing winner, also not returning today).

So that invokes Tom's advice to seek different, possibly better recent lines to represent those horses today - an alternative which I am much more comfortable with than hypothetically doctoring lines into an imaginary occurrence. Any excuse to consistently choose a less recent line (within reason, and done with rigour) gets you a better price, as here. If you simply use the 2nd back line for the #7 and the 4th back line for the #4 winner (still within 90 days, best of last 3, same distance, surface) you get a much better take on the #4. At first glance, the #4 looks dodgy and certainly not better than the #1A, but if it's fit enough today, it has shown (by it's 4th race, let alone its 6th race effort) that it has the means to run as well, and better than the favourite #9. Plus the offered 6-1 odds are reasonable insurance against failure, as is the 3-1 net if you bet both the #1A and the #4.

Whether or not a recent Tandem will reverse, its analysis can provide a rationale for going against the crowd and ranking returning horses by less obvious means.

Ted

speldedo
03-13-2010, 11:46 AM
I thought this thread was about the Beulah twins! :D

ranchwest
03-13-2010, 11:55 AM
Every race, when one looks at sensitive dependence on initial conditions, qualifies in some degree as chaos as small things at the start (bumps, block, lost an iron) things that have no chance of being predicted, change the outcome by changing the initial set of circumstances.

QUOTE:The 10 looks to press the 7 for the lead and will surely quit.

the exact same scenario happened twice in the last month, once at Philly and another one last Saturday at Oaklawn and BOTH WON.

Dang, I wish I could have booked your bet on the 10.

ranchwest
03-13-2010, 11:57 AM
I thought this thread was about the Beulah twins! :D

Threads about the Beulah twins usually end pretty quickly because most people only have a couple of things to say.

Ted Craven
03-13-2010, 12:06 PM
Meanwhile, the 4 obviously looks to just sit chilly. When everything falls apart in front, the 4 passes all of the tiring horses and comes home the winner at a nice price..

And interestingly, the other horse demonstrating the most consistent late energy disbursement (over its recent races) while still knowing how to attend the pace, was the #5 horse who placed at 32-1. You could have done worse than to have had a little something across the board on it, or underneath the #4 and #1 in an exacta or tri.

Ted

Charlie D
03-13-2010, 12:51 PM
"Pictures" of horses come from the PP, the more lines you have the clearer the picture becomes.

"How does this horse like to win"

Jim "The Hat" Bradshaw

Or go close to winning.

Your looking for repeating patterns.


On the 11th the #4's winning pattern looks to have been repeated.

Fastracehorse
03-13-2010, 07:17 PM
Other less thoughtful analyses: They take turns.

I'm sure strategies change - it just seems to me there is less strategy can do in an athletic event where pure speed, power, and, stamina are factors. Not alot of coaching in run to the wire first - usually it's: go! or save! or get the jump on!

The biggest factors for me in new winners would be: form reversals ( injuries, bounce, ready to fire ) and trip.

Whether or not Sartin's theory is a good one, it's a great idea to theorize good price horses.

fffastt