Projected Power Fraction Pars & Handicapping Magic

[maddog42]

I have had quite a few requests for the pars and have sent out the route Pars. I feel more confident in routes and have had a bit of success with them.(translation: I am breaking even with routes and losing my ass with sprints) My gathering of these Pars was in response to my frustration with Handicapping Magic. If you assume that the distance adjustment of 6.6 seconds per half furlong in sprints and 6.8 sceonds in routes Will work at all tracks and distances , you're CRAZY!!!!!
I constructed these pars so I would KNOW what the different adjustments should be. I will give you an example:
Churchill 8f ppf Par= 25.64
Churchill 8.5f ppf Par=31.57 difference=5.93
Calder 8f ppf Par=27.59
Calder 8.5f ppf Par=34.83 difference= 7.24
Now when you average the two differences 7.24 + 5.93 you get 6.58. Pretty close to that 6.8 second difference that Pizzolla used in his book.
If a horse runs a ppf of 26.8 at Calder and you are rating it against a horse that ran 25.77 at Churchill you might assume that the Churchill horse ran a better PPF. You would be wrong, if the second call times were similar.
My rating would be: Calder horse: 26.8/27.59=.971 percent of par.
Churchill horse 25.77/25.64= 1.005 percent of par. Remember lower is better.
I try to use 10k claiming race to construct these pars, with older male male horses, but sometimes that is not practical.
Sometimes it works great, because you have info that no one else has. After you hit an $80 and $20 horse back to back, you feel invincible!!! But then reality crashes back in. You pick the wrong pace line and make a sprint to route adjustment that has no basis in reality, and you lose 12 in a row with 1 of your horses finishing 3rd at 70 to 1. You know what I mean.
I have only been making Pars for a few years. When I was going to the Sartin seminars, Doc seemed to sneer at pars. After I read modern pace handicapping and saw what Brohamer was doing, it gave me the confidence to try my hand at it. I wasn't very good at making them, but after reading Picking Winners for about the 8th time, I decided to give it another go using pars in Pace handicapping.
Race courses are all constructed differently with varied manners of turns and surfaces. If you make your own fractional Pars you will come up with some surprising facts. A course might run faster than another course but the
3rd fractions are very similar. Horses might be running faster to the 2nd call to make the final times faster.

[Fastracehorse]

......affecting intratrack pars are is differing jurisdictions for the use of drugs

The East is different than the West

And Kentucky is an animal all of it's own

Your pars may be more accurate than you believe when making comparative analogies; there are other factors that may be affecting their 'apparent' utility

fffastt

[maddog42]

Had a good weekend with the PPF Pars. Hit $60 $28 and $20 horses Plus a couple of other winners. I bet 2 horses to win when I thought they were both overlays. More than tripled my meager bankroll betting strictly to win. I was playing Gulfstream, Tampa and Turfway. I bet 3 horses to win on 2 occasions when I hated the favorite.

[Dave Schwartz]

What are PPF pars, exactly?

[maddog42]

They are described in another thread, but I took the winning PPF(Handicapping Magic) times for every track in north America for 10k horses on dirt and turf. I have had mixed success with them, but on some tracks at route distances they work great. I use equibase times and rate each horse by the percentage of par.
The other thread explains this in more detail.
I gave the pars away to about half a dozen people here at PA. Because I am a fan of GBC, I will give them to you too, if you want.

[Dave Schwartz]

Well, since I have absolutely nothing to do with GBC I am thinking you have me confused with Howard Schwartz (who I do not believe still owns GBC).

So, it is described in another thread. Any possibility that you could be a little more specific?

[GameTheory]

Well, since I have absolutely nothing to do with GBC I am thinking you have me confused with Howard Schwartz (who I do not believe still owns GBC).

So, it is described in another thread. Any possibility that you could be a little more specific?He's only got 6 posts, mate. Pretty easy to find.

[maddog42]

Sorry about the name confusion. I will email the method.
Mike Madden

[Dave Schwartz]

Received. Thanks, Mike.

I was wondering if people would have enough interest in this type of par to add it to my own annual pars.


Dave

[Tom]

Yes....they would. ;)

[maddog42]

I plan to publish them my self. Indeed I have published them. Keep in mind that I did not invent the PPF concept. Michael Pizzolla did. As far as I know I did invent PPF Pars and this unique way of using them (percentage of par) and using them with Carrolls 8 feet per length and variable beaten lengths. Just as I give credit to Pizzolla and Carroll, I would prefer People give credit to me and ask for permission.
Also the Pars I sent you are the raw Par times with no Track to Track class adjustment. You will be surprised at how well they work.
Some buddies of mine are urging me to enter handicapping tournaments. After this past weekend I am inclined to agree. I'd have been in the top 10 in most handicapping tourneys.
These results are not typical. But about one weekend in 10 I will go on a longshot run. Picking 70 to 1 shots and having them place or show is not that unusual .
My problem with Pizzolla is that he gave very little credit (or none) to Howard Sartin, Dick Schmidt or Hambleton and Bradshaw. The TPR numbers in particular seemed to originate from Hambleton.
These pars were not computer generated. I used the Andy Beyer method of notebooks and charts and about 10 fifths of whiskey. These Pars are also obviously 2nd call sensitive. If you don't watch out for aberrant 2nd call times, you will generate garbage.
The Pars also contain a few errors....

[Light]

All number rating systems are interdependent with many other factors, known and unknown.This is why any system based on numbers alone without their corresponding creator will have a negative ROI in the long run.

[bigmack]

any system based on numbers alone without their corresponding creator will have a negative ROI in the long run.
"Without their corresponding creator" - Wha?

[lsosa54]

My problem with Pizzolla is that he gave very little credit (or none) to Howard Sartin, Dick Schmidt or Hambleton and Bradshaw. The TPR numbers in particular seemed to originate from Hambleton.

Hambleton had an interest in the 3rd fraction since the late 80's. He published an article in the first Sartin Follow Up in 1989 (#13) called Balanced Third Fractions. Not exactly the PPF concept but similar.

The next to last Sartin Follow Up in 1988 headlined Pizzola's article on PBS numbers, Pizzola Sartin Bradshaw Pace Balanced Speed Rating. Basic concept was the DRF rating modified by the 2nd call.

As for not giving credit, I think when things get nasty as they did in late 1992, attitudes drastically change. These ideas and concepts are never developed in a vacuum and they are refined and added to over time.

[maddog42]

In the Book Handicapping Magic Pizzolla never mentions Sartin, Bradshaw or any Pirco teaching member except Hambleton. He credits Hambleton for making him a 3rd fraction nut. He only mentions a certain "Pace Handicapping Group". Many of the readers of his book think that he thought all the stuff about reversals(tandems) PBS (TPR) and a few other concepts are all his own. I know because I have met a few of them at the OTB and Remington Park. They have never heard of Sartin.
Don't get me wrong. Handicapping Magic is a great Book. Easily in my top 3.
In another thread I mentioned that Lawyers probably advised him on the matter.
Thanks for the Followup PDF. I could not get it to open, but I will go to Pace and Cap and read it. My subscription stopped at around 54.

[Light]

"Without their corresponding creator" - Wha?

Everything is created including ppf's and pace numbers. Their corresponding creator may be a form cycle,a track bias, a pace bias,a new trainer,etc. Take that away and your numbers are now backfiring. You go back and try to tweak the numbers like this: :bang: The system goes in the toilet if you can't see what's behind the numbers.

[Tom]

That is for the handicapper to evaluate when he uses the numbers, just like a speed or pace figure. The numbers just help to clarify things (sometimes).

[Light]

Tom

What you and I said is handicapping 101. But I'm getting the impression that maddog42 is basically just using the numbers and not associating them with form.

[maddog42]

It is true that I excuse the last race much more easily than most. That is how I get longshots that most don't. I demand a race on the same surface and distance sprint or route. The horse must be within 8.5 lengths of winner. The contender must be within 15 points of the best Beyer in the race and not achieved his ppf # with an absurdly slow route time. Of course I violate any of these rules with almost any excuse. I often go back 4 races at a similar distance and surface.

[Capper Al]

How's GBC doing nowadays? Last time I looked they almost dropped all there horse racing stuff. It's too bad. I enjoyed them in their heyday. They stirred me toward a couple of good books.

[Light]

maddog42

That's cool. I had got the impression of you ignoring form because of a couple of things you said,like:

I am breaking even with routes and losing my ass with sprints) My gathering of these Pars was in response to my frustration with Handicapping Magic.

and this:

But about one weekend in 10 I will go on a longshot run. Picking 70 to 1 shots and having them place or show is not that unusual .

That's what usually happens when you ignore form and just play numbers. You can go on wild swings both ways but usually the wrong way and for extended periods of time.Good to know you are above that.

I have yet to be impressed with Pizzolla's works. Seems like a likable guy but I think the stuff he has is nothing that's going to make you beat this game. His Fulcrum theory is just another way of saying,"who's the speed of the race". His PPF's that he thinks is his best angle in HM is basically a rehash of ability times. I don't like the penalization of closers in it. That's fine on a speed biased track but pity someone stuck in that dogmatic approach on a surface where closers are ruling. He now has a feature he likes to use in Black Magic that will immediately bring up all pressured pace races at any track in the country. He picks these races in a video or newsletter I get from him and its funny. In a lot of cases,the duels in these "highly pressurized races" does not materialize or the two speed go wire to wire because of a bias, or they are just gutsy types of horses who do not give up on the front end. There is some disconnect to the total picture on his part too. We all suffer from this as handicappers but his type is supposed to be a pro who has overcome this and charges money for his extraordinary ability. I don't buy it. And I have never seen his ROI either. I consider him like I do Andy Beyer (whose bets I have seen and ughh!). Interesting to read or listen to both these gentlemen but they will add very little to your wallet.

[maddog42]

I do go on wild swings. No doubt about it. If you want steady income go work at McDonalds. When Andy Beyer published Picking Winners, it started a speed handicapping revolution. It was so much better than any Handicapping book ever written THAT IT WAS NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!!! In the years after its publication and before the Racing Times started publishing Beyers, speed handicapping ruled. Go to the Desert Sea website and read what even another rival numbers guy had to say about him. Speed horses prices have plummeted.What used to pay $25 now pays $7.

[thaskalos]

Tom

What you and I said is handicapping 101. But I'm getting the impression that maddog42 is basically just using the numbers and not associating them with form.I am not convinced that you and Tom are talking about the same thing.

Tom is stating, correctly, that the figures - whether pace or speed - need proper interpretation, whereas YOU keep on referring to the "creators" of these figures...and the role that "form" plays in their effectiveness.

Could you please explain to me what FORM means to you...and can this "form" be properly analyzed and determined without using accurate speed and pace figures?

[dansan]

sounds like you guys are all playing the same horses

[Light]

I am not convinced that you and Tom are talking about the same thing.

Tom is stating, correctly, that the figures - whether pace or speed - need proper interpretation, whereas YOU keep on referring to the "creators" of these figures...and the role that "form" plays in their effectiveness.

Could you please explain to me what FORM means to you...and can this "form" be properly analyzed and determined without using accurate speed and pace figures?

I think we are saying the same thing using different words.

By form,I mean where is the horse at in his form cycle. Is he ready for a peak performance or has he peaked? My strongest angle in horse racing after playing almost 30 years is a simple form angle that tells me when a horse has run a prep race,whether that prep was successful,and whether today is the day the barn is out for a score. And it is all literally in the form.

[Xman2]

Pizzolla's Black Magic has added a lot of weight to my wallet.

Xman2