When calculating factors for each paceline(s) such as E1, E2 etc has anyone ever experimented with a metho Dave calls synthetic pacelines? Dave maybe you could add a brief explanation of the synthetic paceline calculations? That way I won't lead anyone astray. I have to say that synthetic calculations have led me to many lone speed opportunities especially in maiden race. — Tony Kofalt

Sure!

What Pace Handicappers Do
Let's take the typical horse with 10 pacelines.
And let's imagine that we're using the basic Sartin approach of EP, SP, W.

So, if one considers the 10 pacelines, with each having 3 ratings, we have the potential for 30 ratings. Or, if you prefer, 10 rows with 3 ratings each.

What Synthetic Pace IS
So, we would have the same 3 columns - EP, SP, W.
But we have 13 rows and those rows are labeled as follows:
13 Rows

• Last Race
• Best of Last 2
• Best of Last 3
• Best of Last 4
• Best 2 of Last 3
• Best 2 of Last 4
• Best 3 of Last 4
• Average of Last 2
• Average of Last 3
• Average of Last 4
• Best Ever (last 10 races)
• Best 2 Ever (last 10 races)
• 2nd Best Ever (last 10 races)

Let's consider "Best 2 of last 3."
If we used the Sartin approach (i.e. EP, SP, W), we'd have 3 of those:

Best 2 of Last 3 EP
Best 2 of Last 3 SP
Best 2 of Last 3 W

So, 13 rows x 3 columns = 39 ratings.

Our modeling tool goes through the races that are LIKE THIS ONE and picks out the best of those 39 factors.

Thus, doing it this way, we might get:

• Best 2 of Last 3 EP
• Best 3 of Last 4 W
• Best Ever SP

In other words, we didn't pick a single ROW (or paceline). Instead, we created a SYNTHETIC PACELINE.

In Reality
In reality, we actually have 13 rows x 8 columns = 104 ratings.
F1,EP,SC,FT,FW,PWR,SP,LP

In addition, we can mix a bunch of other columns in with it, such as PSR, Jockey Ratings, etc. just to see if they have an real value.

Hope this helps.

@Tom & @RanchWest,

Great answers. Love how both of you have worked to "systematize" your approaches.
I'll have to grab some screenshots of what I do - will work on it tonight.

Well, let's get somebody else to start the thread and then we can tell them what we do.

Of course, I don't CURRENTLY use it because I don't "select pacelines," but my system is built into HSH where anyone can see it.

(HSH has a programmable paceline selection mechanism. Well, it has a couple of dozen, actually, and the users can create their own.)

And, I have my program select my pace lines. — RanchWest

"HOW TO SELECT PACE L;INES" would make for a great topic.
Would like to see someone else post it.

@Colty - How about you? Do you have any opinions?

I do have a spot play that has hit 9 of 45 (20%) and returning only 39 cents on the dollar. — RanchWest

Ironically, THAT is what I generally look for in a play-against horse: the overwhelmingly obvious.

Losing 17% is just not strong enough.

The bidding starts at -35%.
But it won't be a single factor that produces that. It would be a combination of factors.

I've done quite a bit of work on negative spots against low-odds horses, with quite a bit of success.

In this age - where the whales dominate our game - these NegSpots have become antithetical in nature.

Example: (Weekdays only) top jockey + top trainer + low odds = play against.

But it isn't because they don't win races. They win a carload of them. They just lose so much money that it creates a highly playable race.

@Jack Price

This is an awesome analysis.

What I find interesting about this thread is that everyone has gone about this in their own way.

This kind of INFORMAL COLLABORATION is what I've been hoping for with this site.

Good fortune with that!

So, you're saying that your bets are 7 & 8 only.

Tom, I love ALL of this!

Interesting topic. Ranch pushes the creative boundries! — Tom

Indeed he does!

He's been the driving force on getting this forum moving. I was ready to give up, and he beat me into continuing.

Suddenly, we're getting a little traction.

IMHO, the biggest challenge to racing's continuity is that there is no governing body to manage the rudder.

Racing is pretty much the only sport that does not have an industry-wide C-suite of people to make policy & direction.

Worse, the tracks are completely oblivious to WHAT'S GOOD FOR RACING. Instead, they are completely self-centered, with most concentrating on squeezing the turnip until it is dry as opposed to helping it grow.

However, the bottom line is the takeout structure MUST change to something competitive with sports betting. Since I do not ever see that happening, I see this as just one more indicator of the impending death of racing.

A few months back, I ran across a business & marketing expert who (coincidentally) also had knowledge of racing. He uttered a great truth: "The racing world exists for just one group: old, white guys. Considering how different that demographic thinks from the younger generations, it is pretty obvious that there will be no new generation of horse players.

Hated admitting that he was spot on.

Maybe have a rule that after a pre-race cutoff time, wagers would be limited to, say, $500. If an individual is found to have violated the provision, their wagers would be held and invalidated. Tracks need to take such a measure, but I seriously doubt they ever will. They probably like those last second huge wagers. — RanchWest

You're spot on with this.

The wagers came from an exclusive ADW and computer aided wagering was involved. Is this good for the sport? Is this type of wagering unfair? Does this type of betting affect the way you approach the game? — Tony Kofalt

Whales are bad for the game.
Period.

1. Because they draw out money on a regular basis, it is like playing Texas Hold 'em at a table with two dealers, each taking a rake.

2. It's also bad for the tracks because it makes it too hard for the other players to win, and, thereby they find other sports to gamble on.
________________________
3. The odds change drastically because the biggest wagerers (the whales) bet late and there are only a handful of them. It is much easier for (say) 4 of the big 6 to agree than if those same dollars were spread across (say) 200 players.
________________________
#3 is the CAUSE of the odds changes.

As for barring the whales, that's just not going to happen. And it SHOULDN'T HAPPEN anyway. They have every right to play!

The only real solution to the problem race mentioned by Paulick is to close the pools for 2 minutes BEFORE the horses enter the gate. While there would still be the exact same odds changes, and least the public's perception would not lead towards past posting.

As for limits on CAW, they'd just get around it by having multiple agents betting each race.

BTW, making a couple of win bets in a race are just not a big deal. It's the trifectas & supers that produce the big edge in CAW. So many tickets can be sent in the blink of an eye.

That is why the PSR number caught my eye when I was reviewing ThoroManager. By projecting a number unlike a last race I think I distance myself from mimmicking the public to a small degree. — Tony Kofalt

I'll tell you a way to use that if you have the ability.

Look down the PPs for each horse at the previous PSRs.

PSR rating is actually a projection of what each horse is expected to run today. Speed/pace, class, form, jockey and trainer were among the list of factors used to construct the rating. — Tony Kofalt

That is correct.
Of course, at the end of the day, it is just a number, right?

BTW, the biggest challenge with PSR is that it includes a jockey rating. Therefore, technically when there is a jockey change, the rating is invalid.

Still, it is one heck of a number.

We also have what we call cPower - an older version of PSR. Similar, but grandfathered in from before PSR came about in the early 2000s. It has a slightly different flavor - not quite as powerful and correlates with the tote board a little less.

Then there is my own rating - simply called RTG. It is a composite factor because it is made up of 28 other factors and most of those are composites as well. Because only HSH users have RTG, it does not correlate near as much as cPwr or PSR, but still has a hit rate of 30% on the top horse.

None of these produce anything resembling profit and are best used for predicting the final odds, although they can be way off-base at times. I like to say that using our Artificial Morning Line object predicts how the public SHOULD bet.

The other thing that these high-level factors are good for is to pick contenders, which, logically, should correlate closely with the tote.

I know that nobody likes hearing that. They'd rather be able to say, "My top horse in this race paid $42!" But the reality is that if your handicapping is any good, your top horse should be the favorite (or close to it) in almost every race.

Not saying "best bet" or "horse to bet," but if you really thing that all those 8/1 & 12/1 horses are really the best horses in the field, your handicapping is probably not reality-based.

Your thoughts?

Okay, I read the blog post. My apologies... I did not know you have a chaos product. — RanchWest

Oh, I didn't mean it that way.
"Chaos" is really just a word, right?

It could be a matter of semantics, but to me the word means, "disorder." Or, possibly more correctly, is the concept of "chaos" in the mathematical sense - where it actually means "order out of seeming disorder."

I think that fits both our meanings.

IMHO, your work is really what it really takes to succeed at today's game - but with a small catch. We need a TREE.

Think of a question - "DOES THE HANDICAPPING FIGURE TO STAND UP IN THIS RACE?"

If it does, then we must, by all means, do the best handicapping we can do, assessing the horses' chances, and deciding which of the logical horses hold value and bet on those.

But, if it doesn't... well, that's a completely different story.

Consider that you have a race with a 1/5 favorite. He became the 1/5 favorite because, logically, he's by far the best horse in the race. I mean, he's got to be pretty obvious, right?

So, if he wins, the handicapping was RIGHT.

But if he loses, then the handicapping must have been wrong. CORRECT?

So, if the handicapping was wrong, why would we want to use that same or similar handicapping to pick who we should be?

Now, the logical question here is, "Yes, but how do I know that he's going to lose before the race is going to go off?"

Well, of course, you don't. But if you're betting anybody but Mr. 1/5, in order for you to win he must lose. Therefore, we must look at the other horses with the attitude of "conventional handicapping will fail."

So, what is the alternative to CONVENTIONAL HANDICAPPING?

I contend that it is no handicapping at all!

WHAT?
Yup.

Question for you, Ranch.
If I told you that in today's 5th race the winner will not be gotten with handicapping. What would you do to pick the horses to bet?

Good to see you back, old friend.

I think the issue becomes how many other races point to CHAOS and what percentage of them actually produced a chaotic winner?

Also, have you seen this blog post?
How to Score the Big Dollar Horse in a Chaos Race

Most people look at 20/1 winners and say that they only happen very rarely, so why bother? I look at those races as untapped potential. — RanchWest

I completely agree.
I know you know this but...
It is imperative that we identify when such a race is LIKELY to happen because to swing for the fences in every race is to subject ourselves to a gigantic number of losers.

In P&P 2022, I showed a stat that said (if memory serves) for every winner above 8/1 there are TWENTY FIVE starters at 8/1 and above. Picking the right one out of 25 is not something one does easily.