Quote:
Originally Posted by headhawg
It was a 2nd call pace thing. Using the last race for each horse, find the fastest 2nd call time. The last race must have been competitive, and the time not unusually fast for the horse. Once the fulcrum pace has been determined the other horses running lines are compared to it in order to find the pace contenders.
I think I have this right; it's been a long time since I read the book as well. I always liked the concept but I don't think it had any practical handicapping value.
|
Sometime back in 2008 or 2009, a long time customer decided to pay me to build a custom version of JCapper.
He wanted me to add the following capabilities to JCapper: identify the fulcrum horse, rank and gap the other horses in the race relative to the fulcrum, and write fulcrum data for each horse in the race to a JCapper database. From there: Handle fulcrum data just like data for any other factor. Query the database, display query results for fulcrum data, and use fulcrum data in UDMs.
We agreed on a price, and he even sent me a copy of Handicapping Magic.
I worked mostly nights, an hour here, two hours there, squeezing in what little free time I could find. A few weeks later I had a working prototype and I sent him a download link.
Based on large data samples, there was nothing special about fulcrum data.
It turned out that if you created a simple average based on a horse's second call pace numbers (either Bris E2 Pace Fig or feet per second based on raw time) -- doing that was every bit as good (or bad) as the fulcrum.
This was true for the 10 most recent running lines, the last 3, the last 5, or those within X number of days, etc.
This was also true no matter what the surface, distance, or class level -- or whether or not you implemented rules for selecting or rejecting running lines based on any of the above.
No matter we looked at, the fulcrum was really no better (or worse) than whatever it was we were looking at.
While it's certainly true you can look at back races and find cases of winners that were mis-priced in the odds relative to the fulcrum --
It is every bit as true you can look at back races and find cases of winners that were mis-priced in the odds relative to second call running line numbers generated by just about any other means.
He and I were forced to conclude there was nothing special (from an roi standpoint) about the fulcrum.
The real key (from an roi standpoint) is the ability to identify horses that are mis-priced in the odds.
If the fulcrum helps you do that: great.
But as someone who has tested the fulcrum concept using large data samples:
The results you will get from an roi standpoint will be just as good (or bad) using second call numbers --
no matter how you select your running line(s.)
-jp
.
