Meadow calls Sartin con man

[lefty359]

Way back when I could get a racing form a day early, I did 4 tracks using manual enry.
Doc's later prgms went way beyond velocity ratings!

[Tom]

I had an old Comodore 64 for Contender Scan and Phase III and it was slow. The hand held Sharp 360 took about 7-10 minutes to do the calculations AFTER you had entered all the pacelines. And that was no joy. And if yo made a key entry......

[jasperson]

Originally Posted by Tom

I had an old Comodore 64 for Contender Scan and Phase III and it was slow. The hand held Sharp 360 took about 7-10 minutes to do the calculations AFTER you had entered all the pacelines. And that was no joy. And if yo made a key entry......

I used a Timex Sinclair to do my beyers speed rating inputs back in the 1980's.

[46zilzal]

In the 3 years before hooking up with PIRCO, I constructed my own database and speed rating programs on the old dBase II then III program...

The Canadian equivalent of 60 Minutes (called the 5th Estate) heard about a newspaper article (in the Vancouver Province) about the system and came to my office/home and did a very interesting segment on the early marriage of computer and handicapping....

Still have the tape and get a giggle about how I used it then..We all need baby steps on the pathway to learning.

[JohnGalt1]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It also isn't too easy to look at a series of races and determine how to weigh them or what to expect today for that specific horse given all the different possible race conditions and trips in his prior races, all the possible form patterns, the age and experience of the horse, the trainer, etc...

**** I make A Performance Class Rating, which forces me to use all races in the Pat perfrmances.

You can put yourself into a coma.

I tend to focus on a horse's last race. If it's vague because of an extreme trip or the wrong conditions, I'll look further back for clarification. Then I'll look at the horse's overall record and try to figure out how likely the horse is to run back to that race (or better or worse).

It's tough to be consistent without some guiding rules, but it's tough to create rules that apply to all horses.

**** This is what I do.

[speculus]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

22 on a straight is not the same at 22 on the turn, but I have yet to find a formula that tells me how much to adjust times on the turn for both how much the turn tends to slow a horse down and what the difference in energy consumed is if the times are the same.

Now THAT's the seventh veil of handicapping!

[highnote]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

22 on a straight is not the same at 22 on the turn, but I have yet to find a formula that tells me how much to adjust times on the turn for both how much the turn tends to slow a horse down and what the difference in energy consumed is if the times are the same.

velocity numbers should help clarify it.

For example there was a quick, short-legged filly called Wild Wings that was virtually unbeatBle on the aqueduct inner dirt at 6 furlongs, but when she ran at 6 furlongs on Belmont dirt she got beat by closers.

She could get the early lead, slow the early pace, and conserve energy at AQI, but at Belmont she could run full speed around those big, sweeping turns. She would get the lead at BEL, but could not maintain her speed.

Sartin pace analysis helps clarify this. By comparing her velocity numbers at AQI with hers st BEL you could see how much the AQI turn affected her compared the Belmont which is virtually a straightaway. .

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post

22 on a straight is not the same at 22 on the turn, but I have yet to find a formula that tells me how much to adjust times on the turn for both how much the turn tends to slow a horse down and what the difference in energy consumed is if the times are the same.

Pars should do that as well, since the times will change depending upon the distance, and, therefore, the gate position relative to the turn.

As long as the run-up is consistent he pars should adjust for that as well. (Often the run-ups are not consistent.)

[cj]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

As long as the run-up is consistent he pars should adjust for that as well. (Often the run-ups are not consistent.)

Nope, they are not. Sometimes it is accidental, sometimes it is on purpose (as in they move it around, especially on turf), and other times it is flat reported incorrectly. What you see in the charts is where the track tells Equibase the gate will be placed, not where it is actually placed.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Pars should do that as well, since the times will change depending upon the distance, and, therefore, the gate position relative to the turn.

As long as the run-up is consistent he pars should adjust for that as well. (Often the run-ups are not consistent.)

Let's set aside the run up issue for now.

Let's say I am comparing 2 horses that ran 1 mile. One ran in NY around 1 turn and the other somewhere else around 2 turns.

I know the "PARS" or "averages" for those 2 types of races, but I don't think I necessarily know how much energy each horse consumed relative to each other.

46 on a straight does not equal 46 with a turn

I don't think it's as simple as looking at the PARS because part of the reason the paces are slower on a turn is that the riders are riding less aggressively to avoid bearing out. That's a tactic that's reducing energy consumption.

I would argue that 46 on a turn uses more energy than 46 on a straight, but I'm not sure at what point they are equal. 46 1/5? 46 2/5? ......

[Tom]

Originally Posted by cj

Nope, they are not. Sometimes it is accidental, sometimes it is on purpose (as in they move it around, especially on turf), and other times it is flat reported incorrectly. What you see in the charts is where the track tells Equibase the gate will be placed, not where it is actually placed.

And add to that the rail placement. A lot of times, BRIS charts just "forget it" and other times, it is just wrong. DRF charts listed a rail placement for a dirt race the other day. I told the story before, at FL, I sat on a cement bench - could not move it. Three 1m70 races that day - all the same run run. On race, the gate was in front on me, one race, it was two rail poles to my left, and the other, three pols to my right. All listed the same in charts.

[Tom]

I would argue that 46 on a turn uses more energy than 46 on a straight, but I'm not sure at what point they are equal. 46 1/5? 46 2/5? ......

But is it harder to close on a turn than a straightway?
The 10 horse at Belmont's 9 furlong race is not having to gun it early to avoid going wide like the 10 horse at Saratoga's 9 furlongs race.

Don't turns give the opportunity for the leaders to "rest" while on the straights, it is all in, all out?

This would make a great thread to discuss in real time races.....

[Tom]

Originally Posted by speculus

Now THAT's the seventh veil of handicapping!

What are the first six?

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Let's set aside the run up issue for now.

Let's say I am comparing 2 horses that ran 1 mile. One ran in NY around 1 turn and the other somewhere else around 2 turns.

I know the "PARS" or "averages" for those 2 types of races, but I don't think I necessarily know how much energy each horse consumed relative to each other.

46 on a straight does not equal 46 with a turn

I don't think it's as simple as looking at the PARS because part of the reason the paces are slower on a turn is that the riders are riding less aggressively to avoid bearing out. That's a tactic that's reducing energy consumption.

I would argue that 46 on a turn uses more energy than 46 on a straight, but I'm not sure at what point they are equal. 46 1/5? 46 2/5? ......

I can tell you it is in the HSH software because we do, in fact, have an energy rating.

That energy rating has shown itself to be more accurate than speed ratings.

Another interesting point is that the stretch call rating also out-performs speed ratings. I think that is for a different reason, though.

I think it is because the best speed ratings (as a general rule) will come from horses that won their race, while the best stretch call ratings are often from horses that did not win.

[Tom]

I think it is because the best speed ratings (as a general rule) will come from horses that won their race, while the best stretch call ratings are often from horses that did not win.

There was a system a while ago that was basically you re-calculate the Beyer for the stretch call position and use that. He did quite well with it. Powers, I think was the author.