sartin tpr software

[PhillyFan]

does anyone use sartin tpr numbers and is there software that will make them

[46zilzal]

does anyone use sartin tpr numbers and is there software that will make them
yes and yes


matchup program

http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/SartinAlums/files/Old%20Sartin%20Programs/

[Dick Schmidt]

TPR numbers are indeed still alive and well. Developed by Tom Hambleton and first published by Doc Sartin, they are an attempt to simplify the complexity of feet per second analysis that actually performed better than FPS for many people. They were developed by Tom when he found he couldn't compare third fraction performance at different distances like Doc could in his head. The full method developed from there and went on to take on a life of their own after their publication in Pace Makes the Race.

I have offered to provide anyone a copy of the software we used to prototype TPR and to write the first edition of the book. Note that it runs under DOS (or in a DOS window) and you must enter all times by hand. SOP back in the day.

Dick

"No wife can endure a gambling husband, unless he is a steady winner. "Thomas Robert Dewar

[Ted Craven]

does anyone use sartin tpr numbers and is there software that will make them

RDSS, as one of the later Sartin programs, also includes these calculations, adjusted (or not) by daily and track-to-track variants.

www.sartinmethodology.com/forums (http://www.sartinmethodology.com/forums)

http://sartinmethodology.com/images/pa/AQU0422-1.gif

[shoelessjoe]

Synergism 4 which thanks to a good friend of mine who updated the pars really gives terrific TPR numbers.Purdy told me that Syn 6 numbers are even better.

[JoeLong]

TPR numbers are indeed still alive and well. Developed by Tom Hambleton and first published by Doc Sartin, they are an attempt to simplify the complexity of feet per second analysis that actually performed better than FPS for many people. They were developed by Tom when he found he couldn't compare third fraction performance at different distances like Doc could in his head. The full method developed from there and went on to take on a life of their own after their publication in Pace Makes the Race.

I have offered to provide anyone a copy of the software we used to prototype TPR and to write the first edition of the book. Note that it runs under DOS (or in a DOS window) and you must enter all times by hand. SOP back in the day.

Dick

"No wife can endure a gambling husband, unless he is a steady winner. "Thomas Robert Dewar


Dick,

Wasn't there a version of this program you and Mike Pizzaolla sold on a protected disk that would use the $1 file, or am I mistaken?

[Jingle]

Bris Multicaps Program also includes TPR numbers and FPS numbers.

[Tom]

Joe,

You might be talking about TEH - The Essential Handicapper?

I bought from Mikey when he and Dick did a seminar at Philly Park.
That was back in the Toshiba laptop days. I had to buy a new HD to be able to use the disk because it was over 1.0 whatevers!

That was a good program - you could change pace lines and the sumamry window would show you a revised view of the race.

[raybo]

What does TPR stand for? Total Pace Rating?

[lsosa54]

What does TPR stand for? Total Pace Rating?

Yes, Ray, though technically it's Total Pace Ratings. They are covered in the hard cover edition of Pace Makes The Race (1991) by Tom Hambleton, with Sartin, Pizzola & Schmidt and then the 2nd soft cover revised edition by Hambleton & Schmidt

[raybo]

Yes, Ray, though technically it's Total Pace Ratings. They are covered in the hard cover edition of Pace Makes The Race (1991) by Tom Hambleton, with Sartin, Pizzola & Schmidt and then the 2nd soft cover revised edition by Hambleton & Schmidt

Thanks!

So, there is more than one total pace rating?

[Jingle]

Ray--each paceline has its own TPR. Its picking a representative line or two for today's distance & surface is the challenge.

[lsosa54]

Thanks!

So, there is more than one total pace rating?

No, only one TPR per pace line. It's arrived at by adding the EPR (early pace rating) and the FFR (final fraction rating). EPR is basically 2nd call, adjusted for beaten lengths. FFR is the time from the 2nd call to the finish, adjusted for lengths gained/lost . There's a chart that puts the FFR on the same scale depending on race distance. Adjustments are also made for variant and track to track, and can be made for track class. You also an adjust for sprint to route and vice versa.

As an example forgetting any adjustments, a 2nd call of 44.0 in a sprint and 109.0 in a route is an EPR of 100. At 6f, a final fraction adjusted for lengths gained or lost of 23.0 is an FFR of 95. 100 + 95 is a TPR of 195.
Using the same 100 EPR for a route, an adjusted final fraction for a mile of 25.0 is a 90, so the TPR would be 190.

You can model the absolute numbers by track and distance and also model the relationship between early/late (EPR/FFR) by track/distance.

And so on... Hope that helps.

[Jingle]

Dick S

Is that a 9mm Glock your shooting? I've been watching it now for 20 min and it never seems to jam/misfire.

[Dick Schmidt]

Rambling replies to some questions posed by several people in no particular order.

Ya, I think it is a Glock. Just a pic I found on a gunsite. I don't own one, prefer a 1911.

No, BRIS Multicaps programs does NOT have TPR ratings. It has something they call TPR (without permission of the copyright holders I might mention) but it is not done correctly.

TPR can stand for Total Pace Rating or Ratings. Depends on if you are talking about one rating or the ratings in general.

lsosa54's explanation is correct. However, the power of TPR is not just in the numbers. It is a whole handicapping system and takes a fair amount of work. You really need to read the book, not just bet numbers. As I said in the book, if the numbers were good enough to win on their own, I would never have published them.

Paceline picking is indeed a black art. The last few years I played full time, I evolved away from using just one line and moved to using multiple lines for pattern analysis. More like what Dave Schwartz is doing on his recent CD, though Dave is more advanced than I ever was. Anyway, TPR works a treat for form analysis and isn't bad at speed and pace as well. (It will also wash your car, sing you to sleep and make you a sandwich between races. The all purpose wonder program!)

Synergism does indeed generate excellent TPR numbers and Bob Purdy was polite enough to ask for permission to use them. They are what I use on my occasional trips down memory lane. No idea what Synergism 4 does, but 6 is great. The program is free, but needs data from HDW, which is a good thing. Best data going. I wouldn't bet a race based on BRIS data with your money.

Finally in answer to the inevitable question "Does it still work?" the answer is yes. My wife just retired as a senior math coach for LA City Schools (she taught teachers how to teach math). The guy who replaced her likes racing so she gave him a copy of "Pace Makes the Race." He's a $5 and $10 bettor and goes to the track two or three times a month. To date, he is up over $1,000 since June.

Dick

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius --- and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." – A. Einstein

[raybo]

No, only one TPR per pace line. It's arrived at by adding the EPR (early pace rating) and the FFR (final fraction rating). EPR is basically 2nd call, adjusted for beaten lengths. FFR is the time from the 2nd call to the finish, adjusted for lengths gained/lost . There's a chart that puts the FFR on the same scale depending on race distance. Adjustments are also made for variant and track to track, and can be made for track class. You also an adjust for sprint to route and vice versa.

As an example forgetting any adjustments, a 2nd call of 44.0 in a sprint and 109.0 in a route is an EPR of 100. At 6f, a final fraction adjusted for lengths gained or lost of 23.0 is an FFR of 95. 100 + 95 is a TPR of 195.
Using the same 100 EPR for a route, an adjusted final fraction for a mile of 25.0 is a 90, so the TPR would be 190.

You can model the absolute numbers by track and distance and also model the relationship between early/late (EPR/FFR) by track/distance.

And so on... Hope that helps.

Appreciate the explanation!

I've just finished the "TPR"(s) in AllData (didn't know that it was called TPR), using my fully adjusted fractional times (variable beaten length multipliers and fractional variants), as well as a total for EPR+PPF, adjusted the same way for the times. Both are done utilizing my distance equalized times (equalized to today's distance). The latter (EPR+PPF) looks pretty darn good, in helping to determine paceline selection and also in selecting contenders/winner, from AllData's Summary view.

I also calculated average EPR and FFR, and, EPR and PPF. Haven't looked at those much yet, don't know if there is much value there or not.

[raybo]

Modeling them would be the next, logical, step, although I'm trying to wrap my head around whether it would be more beneficial to model them or to leave them as is. If they are left as is, it appears, to me anyway, that class will emerge.

Haven't done a whole lot of thought on that, but, class emergence keeps jumping out at me, with what I have so far. (via the relationships between EPR, FFR (PPF) and their ratios vs TPR)

Thoughts?

[lsosa54]

Ray: Not sure what you mean by "class emergence". The question I want to answer about class when I'm 'capping is based on today's race conditions, has the horse indicated he has the ability to win today? Then I have to try and answer the current form question, is it good enough to allow him/her to show their ability? Then running styles, pace, etc.

I've found that even if a horse shows a superior TPR or speed rating at let's say, a C6.25n2l race, he may not contend for the win if moved up to a C6.25n3l race. Obviously, different logic is used for class droppers vs. class risers and I usually evaluate last out maiden winners on whether they show competitive first fractions and turn times vs. today's field.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't rely on the "numbers" in isolation, whatever they may be, to show me class. I'd be interested in hearing more on what you mean by "class emergence" and how you look at it.

[raybo]

Ray: Not sure what you mean by "class emergence". The question I want to answer about class when I'm 'capping is based on today's race conditions, has the horse indicated he has the ability to win today? Then I have to try and answer the current form question, is it good enough to allow him/her to show their ability? Then running styles, pace, etc.

I've found that even if a horse shows a superior TPR or speed rating at let's say, a C6.25n2l race, he may not contend for the win if moved up to a C6.25n3l race. Obviously, different logic is used for class droppers vs. class risers and I usually evaluate last out maiden winners on whether they show competitive first fractions and turn times vs. today's field.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't rely on the "numbers" in isolation, whatever they may be, to show me class. I'd be interested in hearing more on what you mean by "class emergence" and how you look at it.

Isosa,

I understand what you're saying and many players use race classifications as their "class" vehicle. I'm not saying that you use only those classifications to denote class, you probably use other factors, also.

For me, class is defined by the pace and final fraction times (possibly with the new "ratings", figures instead of times). Sure I look at the race conditions also, but, I believe class is; how much pace can a horse create or handle, and still finish strong enough to win (or at least "be there" at the wire).

Class includes both objectivity and subjectivity. I am only speaking about the "objectivity" portion, the portion that can readily be quantified.

When you analyze EPR, FFR (PPF) in relation to TPR, you get a readily quantifiable measure of a horse's class, in that race and all of that race's "stuff": pace, variant, quality of animals, surface, trip, etc., etc..

Of course form will help determine what "class" the horse runs, in each race, but the analysis I mentioned , in relation to TPR, tends to point towards form cycle, also, IMO. So, in effect, the analysis is killing more than one bird with one stone.

Once the analysis has been conducted, on each horse in today's race, "class" drops and rises can be seen just as well, if not more so, as in looking at the differences in the race conditions. That's my feeling, anyway.

Does this make any sense to you?

[lsosa54]

Makes some sense, Ray. I guess I'd have to look at a few examples off your sheets to internalize it.

[raybo]

Makes some sense, Ray. I guess I'd have to look at a few examples off your sheets to internalize it.

Workin' on it.

[countgema]

hi there, years ago i had a match up disk, it worked out quite well for me, then 1 day it just fried out. So i sent it to where i thought they would fix it, never heard from them again, was wondering if you have a copy of match up. Can you get back to me at warail@shaw.ca