Extreme Pace by Examples

[cj]

Originally Posted by GameTheory

That sample is exactly how they appear in his book. How long ago did you give him multipliers? He's always had lists of multipliers, even on his old site from several years back. I have all that old material somewhere...

It predates the book. He did send me a copy. I'm really not upset about it or anything, it was a while ago. I was just surprised. I also wanted to show that I understand his stuff completely despite what partsnut was trying to imply.

As I said, I am 100% sure looking at his posted sample. Nobody could come up with the exact same multipliers to the fourth decimal place because the data includes a proprietary calculation for lengths behind (they are for winners, not the leader) and I exclude certain races that would likely not be the same for any other individual.

[GameTheory]

Originally Posted by cj

It predates the book. He did send me a copy. I'm really not upset about it or anything, it was a while ago. I was just surprised. I also wanted to show that I understand his stuff completely despite what partsnut was trying to imply.

As I said, I am 100% sure looking at his posted sample. Nobody could come up with the exact same multipliers to the fourth decimal place because the data includes a proprietary calculation for lengths behind (they are for winners, not the leader) and I exclude certain races that would likely not be the same for any other individual.

Out of curiosity, I looked up his old stuff. His AQU multipliers circa 2001 for 6f, 6.5f, 7f: .647, .591, .544.

Do you update these as time goes on or are they pretty stable? (For tracks that haven't changed surfaces.)

[cj]

Originally Posted by GameTheory

Out of curiosity, I looked up his old stuff. His AQU multipliers circa 2001 for 6f, 6.5f, 7f: .647, .591, .544.

Do you update these as time goes on or are they pretty stable? (For tracks that haven't changed surfaces.)

I update them every year. Stability depends on how often the distance is run. 6f, pretty stable, 1 3/16th miles, not so much. Using the time of the winner helps a lot with stability.

[speed]

Originally Posted by Partsnut

c.j, the multiplier from Randy's book is actually .07412 with relates to 116.20 at the pace call in accordance with the final time which makes the projected pace even slower so in that respect, I stand corrected. However, there's not doubt in my mind that the pace of this race was slow. 116.20 - 114.95 = 1.35 which relates to a Slow 7. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Partsnut using your multipliers it is fast 6. The multipliers use the race pace and race final time.They do not compare the race pace to the average pace for that distance.
I will say this thread has been hilarious to read.

Here's your sign

[cj]

Originally Posted by speed

Partsnut using your multipliers it is fast 6. The multipliers use the race pace and race final time.They do not compare the race pace to the average pace for that distance.
I will say this thread has been hilarious to read.

Here's your sign

Thanks speed, I was starting to think I might be losing my mind. Of course, that is still a possibility.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

I update them every year. Stability depends on how often the distance is run. 6f, pretty stable, 1 3/16th miles, not so much. Using the time of the winner helps a lot with stability.

CJ...do these multipliers remain constant as we go up and down a given racetrack's class levels?

I tried doing something like this for 6 furlong sprints, years ago...but I found that the multipliers increased as the classes got higher.

[Capper Al]

How about less talk and some doodles. I started this thread as a place to discuss our doodles. Randy's doodles are simple and neat. They do add a dimension to the game. I believe most of this discussion is correct about using speed points or not to use them. Again it comes to Art vs Science in handicapping, and that is why we need to get out of our heads and look at some doodles to discuss. I'm handicapping a few races this weekend and will place a couple of doodles here myself.

[Partsnut]

CapperAl

How about less talk and some doodles. I started this thread as a place to discuss our doodles. Randy's doodles are simple and neat. They do add a dimension to the game. I believe most of this discussion is correct about using speed points or not to use them. Again it comes to Art vs Science in handicapping, and that is why we need to get out of our heads and look at some doodles to discuss. I'm handicapping a few races this weekend and will place a couple of doodles here myself

Hi Al,

I'd like to apologize to you and all that were involved for any confusion I may have caused on this thread. It was I that was confused. A simple mistake in basic mathematics caused me to come up with a opposite result.
CJ recognized this and I appreciate his effort to help me correct my error.
CJ was right and I was wrong. I verified this last night and Randy did as well.
I thank all that tried to correct my error and show me what I was doing wrong.

[rangiles]

Had to just in here...

I’ve been doing multipliers for many years. I believe it was ’93 or ’94 when I started. Anyway, CJ was kind enough to send me his research a while back, which I compared to my own. I update my multipliers every year and sometimes more if need be. It never occurred to me that I had stepped over a boundary by offering them for sale since I’ve been doing them for so long. I was on automatic, I guess. I’ve always used my own research in every thing I’ve done over the years. But CJ did help me verify my own numbers and I should have acknowledged that important fact. So CJ I want to make a public apology for the oversight.

Randy Giles

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

CJ...do these multipliers remain constant as we go up and down a given racetrack's class levels?

I tried doing something like this for 6 furlong sprints, years ago...but I found that the multipliers increased as the classes got higher.

Yes, they change, but it is not nearly as dramatic as I thought it would be. If you do it using the leader's time, it is more pronounced than if you use the time of the winner.

[cj]

Originally Posted by rangiles

Had to just in here...

I’ve been doing multipliers for many years. I believe it was ’93 or ’94 when I started. Anyway, CJ was kind enough to send me his research a while back, which I compared to my own. I update my multipliers every year and sometimes more if need be. It never occurred to me that I had stepped over a boundary by offering them for sale since I’ve been doing them for so long. I was on automatic, I guess. I’ve always used my own research in every thing I’ve done over the years. But CJ did help me verify my own numbers and I should have acknowledged that important fact. So CJ I want to make a public apology for the oversight.

Randy Giles

No worries, Randy, I'm not worried about it. We'll be even if you explain to partsnut that I do know what I'm talking about in this thread!

EDIT:

I just read partsnut's post...all good. We all get stubborn from time to time. It is a good trait for a horseplayer to have sometimes.

[rangiles]

Thank you, CJ.

Here's what I have:

The first race on the 26th at AQU was a mile. I have the race at Fast 7, which was a perfect setup for the winner Seven in a Row. Par for that particular final time of 1:42.84 is 1:16.1 (very slow final time). The pace of the race was 1:14.4, which makes the race a Fast 7.

The math is: 102.84 X .7402 = 76.12 or 1:16.1 in fifths or 1:16.2 in tenths. So we’ll call it 1:16.1/5th.
The pace of the race: 1:14.4 or 1:14.8 in tenths…so 1:16.2 (tenths) – 1:14.8 (tenths) = 1.4 (tenths) X 5ths = 7 or Fast 7 --favors out pace types. The Pace Pressure Gauge reading for the race was 36 X 1, which points to off pace types.

Randy Giles

[Partsnut]

I just read partsnut's post...all good. We all get stubborn from time to time. It is a good trait for a horseplayer to have sometimes.

cj: I just want to thank you for your help and understanding.

[Capper Al]

Hey Randy,

How about some doodles from the master doodler himself? I like to see them made before the race. Too many another here show there stuff after the race.

Thanks

Originally Posted by rangiles

Had to just in here...

I’ve been doing multipliers for many years. I believe it was ’93 or ’94 when I started. Anyway, CJ was kind enough to send me his research a while back, which I compared to my own. I update my multipliers every year and sometimes more if need be. It never occurred to me that I had stepped over a boundary by offering them for sale since I’ve been doing them for so long. I was on automatic, I guess. I’ve always used my own research in every thing I’ve done over the years. But CJ did help me verify my own numbers and I should have acknowledged that important fact. So CJ I want to make a public apology for the oversight.

Randy Giles

[teddy]

Originally Posted by CapperAl

Hey Randy,

How about some doodles from the master doodler himself? I like to see them made before the race. Too many another here show there stuff after the race.

Thanks

I second that, im always a fan of those that post. If it doesnt take that long to doodle one , can you do the most obvious races for Sat..