FORM ANALYSIS

[delayjf]

Has anybody had any success using pace figures (Your homegrown figures or another vendors) and applying the concepts from Cary Fotias's "Blinkers Off".

If so, I'd be curious how you reconciled your figures with his.
By that I mean his research and theories are geared toward using his figures which use a tight spread (one point equals one length at 4 furlongs, 1 1/2 lengths at 6 furlongs).

[GR1@HTR]

I've tested most of his stuff in Access using HTR figs...I know Fortias says his figs are better than anybody elses...But name me one vendor who claims not have the best figs...IMHO, figs are figs unless you are using some whacky variant...My findings are that like most books, most of it is not worth an ant p*ss but some of it has merit.

[Tom]

I have been trying to expand my use of pace figures and I am re-reading Cary's book, carefully this time. I am using the pace figures in HTR in combination with the Crammer final figs expressed in sheets format (Fig2 screen).
So far, I am a beginer to Cary's ideas, but I have been noticing that a lot of horses form cycles make a lot more sense when you pay attention to the pace numbers. If a horse shows improvement in his pace figs, but his final figs are static, or even drop off a bit, you can still get improvement. I am also seeing some horse run recent pace tops last out not fire today, even though the final figure patterns may be positive.
At this point, I can't say whether what I am seeing is real or coincidence, but the more I use this idea, the more confident I am getting. One thing I think might be valuable is that an E or F horse
(E or EP outside HTR) runs a new pace top and improves his final fig, he will most likely decline on both today, all things being equal. And closers who face a very fast pace and make a big jump in their own final figs are not repeating that good number against a slower pace.
I will try to find a good example from a recent day.
As far as reconciling the numbers, I haven't tried-I just use what HTR gives me and go by one point beins sigmificant.

[delayjf]

GR1
I agree, I don't think his figures are any better than anyone elses. The merit to his approach (if any) is his form analysis using the pace figures he provides. Like you, when I first attempted to incorporate his theories, I had little success. But Then I realized that I was making two mistakes.
First of all I was applying his concepts on all races, which is not how they were applied in the book. Some concepts were meant for only light races horses or were best with maiden claimers.
Secondly, I suspended the handicapping process and assumed for example that a new pace top would lead to victory in the next race. After rereading the book, Cary Fotias admits that his concepts are designed to predict and improved performance, but what level that performance would be could be better determined using pace match ups ala HTR or HSH.

Tom,
Using his ideas with other pace figures required some adjustments. His pace/final figure scale is very tight, a lot like Quinns while I used Beyer style pace/ speed figures. As such its harder to see the compression lines and the reversals he's refering to in the book.
At first I thought that his figures did not adjust for distance in any way shape or form. But if that were true his route figures would always be smaller than the sprint figures. Along those same lines it makes no sence when he describes a dirt reversal as a race whereby a horse runs a faster final figure than a pace figure. How often on dirt does a horse actually run faster at the end of race than at the beginning (turf excluded).
Another mistake I made was using the 3rd call fraction for my pace figure and not the second call (1/2 mile call in both sprints and routes) that he uses. After some research I've discovered good reasons to use the second call vice the 3rd in both sprints and routes. So, back to the drawing board. If I ever get a handle on this I might try the samething with the concepts in "Calibration Handicapping". Have you taken a look at those concepts?

[Tom]

I like Jim Lehane's stuff. Simple, straightforward, and you get some good winners using it.
He has a website and a monthly newsletter with example races keyed around a specif idea each month.
I have them all-if you want to read some, let me know and I'll send you some. They have his website on them near the end.

[andicap]

Fascinating. Two excellent handcappers, GR1 and Tom, see things almost completely differently. This is why I believe handicappers have to try concepts out for themselves -- for some reason, those that work for some people won't work for others.

For example: How many of us like the Beyers -- like me -- and how many of us think they are worthless? (That's a rhetorical question, BTW). Same with the Sheets, modeling, etc.

[delayjf]

Tom,
I'd would like to take a look at some of the examples you mentioned. My email address is: delayjf2002@yahoo.com. Anything that can predict an improved performance, I'm interested in.

GR1
Was curious to know if you made any of the same mistakes in your look at Fotias's concepts that I did.

Andicap
Agreed, this is what makes the handicapping world go around. Lots of ways to skin this cat.

[GR1@HTR]

Don't know if I said anything much different than Tom. Just that as Delay had mentioned, one has to be real careful in which races to apply his stuff. Age of the horse is real significant when applying his thoughts. I had a custom export file created to test pace tops, final time tops, and the turf thing (pace low/top final fig?). Was interesting results.

[Tom]

When I using the orignal Synergism program (Sartin version) at Finger Lakes, a fellow Sartin-ista used to meet at the track on Saturdays and we would compare notes. It was funny how I would see the track, through my models, favoring late speed while he would be talking about how early it was playing. All in the way we picked pacelines and contenders.
He keyed in on early speed, while I would be throwing out early quitters. My number on early horse might well be his 3rd or 4th ranked early. Our models were based only on the computer rankings of our 4 or 5 contenders, not the whole field.