WHAT EVER HAPPEN TO FACTOR W

[delayjf]

To all those old Sartin methodology users, what ever happen to factor w and how was it calculated. Checked Brohamer's book but found no mention of it.

[andicap]

Isn't Factor W just Average Pace.

(one of the "Factors" was Fx, 1st and 3rd fractions, good only in sprints. Wasn't that Factor X?)

[Dick Schmidt]

Factor W

EP+SP=FW

EP is EARLY PACE, which is the average speed to the second call (routes or sprints) expressed in feet per second.

SP is SUSTAINED PACE, which is the third fraction in feet per second added to EP and divided by two.

I believe that Tom did call this Average Pace, but it is the same factor and works just the same. The two names were used interchangeably in the Sartin Methodology.

Tom also at times used Factor X, which is indeed the first and third fractions added together and divided by two and Turn Time, which is the second fraction alone. He always liked TT, as it had to be calculated and was not obvious in the PP's. Most people were too lazy to do it before computers made everything easy.

Dick

[Tom]

Factor X is still a strong indicator of good performances at many tracks. I like to look at horse who are in the front half of the field in both F1 and F3, but not really a top horse in either - say in an 8 horse field, a hors eis ranked 4-4, 4-3, 3-,4, 3-3.....these horses are rihgt in there the whole race and if one of the higher ranked horses tires, don't fire, whatever, the 3-4 might become a 2-4 or 2-3 in reality. I fill exotic slots with these "even horses."

[turfspec]

Dave, of course, is right about FW but correct me if I'm wrong, weren't there several versions of FW or AP? I always considered it the most predictive rating in the Sartin Method. Still use a couple of versions in my own method. Never found Turn Time or FX to be very effective as ratings. In that vein, I was reading through some older material looking for some inspiration for a current problem and came across an interesting study done by J. Meyer of the National Railbird Review some yrs. ago. He looked at winners of several thousand races nationwide to find the % of winners with the fastest velocity in different fractions:

Start to 1st call, 1st to 2nd (TT),2nd to Fin (LP)
Dirt spt .25 .19 .09
Dirt Mile .21 .16 .26
Dirt rte .43 .09 .09
Turf rte .20 .17

Start-2nd(EP), start-finish, 1st&Last, AP 1st 3 calls
Dirt spt. .22 .41 .19 .31
Dirt Mi .16 .32 .26 .16
Dirt rte .43 .39 .17 .35
Turf rte .23 .30 .17 .27

Rob

[turfspec]

Sorry, dropped one. 2nd call to Finish (LP) in Turf Rte. is .23

Rob

[andicap]

Dick,
it was my understanding that in sprints AP was just the average of F1+f2+f3 and in ROUTES, it was EP+SP/2.

Page 116 of original edition of Modern Pace Handicapping.

Why was the formulas different in routes than sprints? Why not just F1+f2+f3 in routes?

[delayjf]

Andicap,

I had the same reservations about this formula myself until I did the math by hand. Turns out you get about the same answer (to within .02 seconds).

Turfspec,
Interesting study, I'd like to run those numbers by Ken Massa to see if he can add some validity.

[turfspec]

My apologies to Dick S., I typed Dave but meant Dick. Andi & delay , if I remember correctly the differences in the FW formula you point out was Sartin's attempt at weighting the factor for the different distances. The Sartin Method had some good ideas but the math involved in some of the factors was pretty poor. I'd be very interested if KM or anyone out there with a db setup for a query of this sort would confirm Meyer's results. These were circa mid-eighties - wonder if they still hold up. Of note is the 43% winners @1st call in dirt rtes. Always thought more rtes were lost on the first turn than the 2nd.

Rob

[DJofSD]

Gee, would you still call the 2nd fraction in a route turn time if it didn't take place on the turn <g>?

DJofSD

[delayjf]

I had the same reservations concerning the mathamatics of the Sartin Methodology. Without going into the details I wondered why Sartin didn't use the D=RT formula when calculating his compound ratings (average pace).

I put that question to a few on this board including Dick Schmidt and other who were involved with Sartin back in the methodology's hayday.

The most insightful (and simple) answer came from Ken Massa, to guote a great american the answer was "IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER". Ken Massa acknowleged that the Sartin Methodology did not weigh the race sepments properly according to D=RT. However, doing so would not effect the rankings at all, which he said were more inportant than the actual fps numbers the formulas produced.

[delayjf]

TURFSPEC,
Ran the numbers of the study you presented by Ken Massa below is his response.


Quote
I'm not sure how he derived those numbers delay, but they are way way out of whack for normal comparative velocity computations. If E/P or Fr1 woulds hit 43% winners with dirt route, I would be king of the world.

A few of the numbers look correct, but it is possible he computed these figures after the fact from the charts? But for pre-race analysis, raw velocity (or even with sophisticated adjustments as in HTR) they are not realistic. Maybe you can clarify his method.
ENDQUOTE

[turfspec]

Delayjf:

It threw me too at first but if you read my post carefully you'll see that what John Meyer did was look at winners and then go back and see what percentage of them ran the fastest velocity at the specified fractions. So, .43% of WINNERS had the fastest velocity for the first fraction in dirt rtes. not necessarily the fastest velocity rating going into the race. I think it's still an interesting observation of the pace characteristics shown in winning efforts.

I think that's the proper explaination anyway...

Regards,

Rob