2nd fraction and 2nd call.

[osophy_junkie]

I'm reading through Sartin's "The Dynamics of Incremental Velocity & Energy Exertion". And on page 59, it has two values for 2nd fraction and 2nd call at 6 furlongs. According to my charts both are at 1/2 mile. Could someone clarify this?

[cj]

Originally Posted by osophy_junkie

I'm reading through Sartin's "The Dynamics of Incremental Velocity & Energy Exertion". And on page 59, it has two values for 2nd fraction and 2nd call at 6 furlongs. According to my charts both are at 1/2 mile. Could someone clarify this?

I believe for Sartin stuff, the "second fraction" refers to the second 1/4 mile, i.e. between the 1/4 and the 1/2.

So 22 and 45 would be 1st Fraction of 22, 2nd Fraction of 23, and 2nd call of 45.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by cj

I believe for Sartin stuff, the "second fraction" refers to the second 1/4 mile, i.e. between the 1/4 and the 1/2.

Correct. Also referred to in Sartin methodology as the "hidden fraction" or as "turn time".

[Tom]

Contender Factor, Factor C from the Contender Scan program, was the average of 2nd call and Second fraction. Sly old dog had it hidden pretty good - I remember going through about 30 pages of the large size fanfold printer paper late one night in my basement, looking through all the lines of code from the printout of Contender Scan from my Commodore Computer. He would have lines like A=F, then B=A and all kinds of changes so if you missed one, you couldn't figure it out!

It was a kind of presser rating and it worked really well at Finger Lakes in the context of the rest of the Phase III readouts. I used it to separate the Early runners.

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by osophy_junkie

I'm reading through Sartin's "The Dynamics of Incremental Velocity & Energy Exertion".

Link --> Here.
Password --> Here.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

Link --> Here.

Is the key factor, besides toteboard value, distance limitations?

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

Is the key factor, besides toteboard value, distance limitations?

There are a small constellation of 'key factors' - and of course Sartin evolved his methodology for another 10 years beyond the ideas described in that paper in 1990, as have others for another 13 years beyond that).

In a nutshell, Incremental Velocity refers to the fraction by fraction interplay (yes, when the gate opens, followed by the 1st fraction, then the 2nd, then the 3rd) of likely velocity relative to deceleration of each horse, starting with the Early horses, then the Pressers, then the Late horses (and these designations BOTH from a 'visual' positional stand-point as well as how the horses disburse their available 'energy').

In short - the 'key factor' is --> The Matchup, which might also be conceived as 'race shape', but coupled with a consistently measurable set of values of how and to what extent a horse exerts itself in each stage of the race - and by implication, how much of its Total Energy expended early on is then unavailable in the later stages (aka 'deceleration'). And of course, not in a vacuum - but relative to every other horse running. A slow horse can win a race against someone - it depends just 'how slow' and when the competition gets exhausted.

Clearly horses do have distance limitations or preferences, but I think knowing only that does not give the full picture of what Sartin was trying to say in that early manual (which BTW I always found confusing - the software made it much easier to grasp and apply in practice, but concept is outlined in that paper).

Jim Bradshaw said it in more pithy fashion: 'It's just a dang horse race: one horse goes out for the lead and the others try to catch him. If they do, he loses, if they don't, he wins'. Measuring that, and getting a price, as you say, is the rub ...

Ted