Sartin on the cutback/stretchout

[jeebus1083]

In Modern Pace Handicapping, Brohamer suggests that for stretchouts, the difference between the sprint and route feet-per-second pars be taken and applied to each horse's AP, EP and SP. For cutbacks less than 7F, he suggests that one use the 3/4 mile be treated as a final time minus 2 lengths, the 1/2 mile time minus 2 lengths, and the 1/2 mile time divided in half minus 1 length in an attempt to simulate what the horse would have run if he had been sprinting. For races at 7 and 7 1/2F, it is the reverse of the stretchout calculation, except one would add the difference between the sprint and route pars to the AP, EP and SP.

For you Sartin experts out there, is there a better way to treat stretchouts and turnbacks than what Brohamer recommends or is this the best method out there? Or, is using the FPS data as is the best method?

[Dick Schmidt]

The Sartin group, including Tom Brohammer, did a lot of work on this problem. This is as good as anything we came up with, but the true answer is that there is no really accurate way to do this conversion. Sprint to route is much more common, as young horses almost always start out in sprints and then stretch out. You can use Tom's method to aproximate what to expect, but remember, you, along with everyone else including the trainer, are guessing.

Route to sprint is easier, as very few routers have the speed to keep up with dedicated sprinters. They are left behind early in the race and unless it sets up for a dead closer, you can eliminate any horse in a sprint that shows only routes in the PP. Most are in "for the work" and to prep for a longer race. Of course if they have sprint lines showing, use them.

Dick

Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a
mistake when you make it again.

[cj]

This is as good as anything we came up with, but the true answer is that there is no really accurate way to do this conversion.

Truer words have never been spoken. The same is true for surface switches. While numbers can be made that compare relative abilities at different distances and on different surfaces, they mean very little when an individual horse is making a change.

[GaryG]

There are some trainers that use a burst of speed in a route as a tightener for a sprinter. Then cut back to a sprint for the money.

[pandy]

For my Diamond System, my partner and I started with this formula and it does not work. We tweaked it quite a bit. I don't have the tables handy but it is definitely more than 2 lengths, the formula they use is really not that good.

[46zilzal]

For you Sartin experts out there, is there a better way to treat stretchouts and turnbacks than what Brohamer recommends or is this the best method out there? Or, is using the FPS data as is the best method?
yes and agree it works much better on the stretch out than cutback...AND Modern Pace Handicapping is SO FAR REMOVED from what Sartin became after the change to ENERGY in the late 1980's as to be almost irrelevant.

[46zilzal]

One of the advances that energy distribution gained over positional analysis was the insight (energy wise) in more easily predicting which sprinters could go 7 furlongs, which dirt horses could exchange their winning ways on turf, and which routers could shorten up effectively.

Energy distribution patterns are generally specific to the same distances and surfaces..

[Robert Goren]

There are some trainers that use a burst of speed in a route as a tightener for a sprinter. Then cut back to a sprint for the money.There are also some trainers who pull this one. They take a route horse and drop him in class and into a sprint and run him as fast he can go for as long as he can go. Then the jump him back up to his original class and back into a route. Not all trainers do this, but a lot of wily veterans have this in their bag of tricks.

[Tom]

Unrelated, maybe, but irrelevant?
BS. People are still using that methodology and winning.
What a crock.

[cutchemist42]

Sorry for bringing back an old topic but since I'm just reading this now and came to this part, I was wondering what value the book is subtracting when it says to subtract 2 or 1 lengths. Thanks for the help.

[raybo]

In my tinkering with distance and surface equalizations, I have found that one cannot accurately project times or FPS, but one can obtain "form" improvement or decline, which in turn can be used for projecting improvement or decline on the switch back to preferred distance/surface.

[Pensacola Pete]

It's one of those things that probably can't be solved numerically. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

[classhandicapper]

The thing that makes the comparison complex is that the length of the straightaway to the turn is different in 2 turn routes than 1 turn sprints and there is also some natural rating going on because of the longer distance of routes.

If you look at average differences between the fractions and times, it tends to overestimate the actual impact on many occasions and you'll tend to overrate the route to sprint types.

I've had better luck looking at running lines and running styles than trying to adjust the fractions for all those complexities

You start with the basic - on average, a horse that has the lead at 6F in a route is not as fast as a horse that has the lead at 6F in a sprint and go forward form there.

Was is a fast paced route?

Was it a route at a higher class?

How close to the pace was the router all the way?

How good are the sprinters?

[cj]

It's one of those things that probably can't be solved numerically. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

Agree totally, from someone that spent a lot of time trying. There are a few factors that can help predict this (horses that run "evenly" in sprints, for example), but breeding and the trainer are better indicators than sprint performance.