HTR 2001 TLC Screen

[Wizard]

HTR 2001 TLC Screen

Just had a question about the energy portion..........I see above it there's a energy number........lets say its %52.48...........I'm assuming thats the best or average energy number for that race............My question is.............lets say you have horse 1. %55.49 2. %52.18 3.%53.40 4.%53.00 5.%52.00............am i correct in assuming that horses 2-5 are the stronger horse because they are below the average ?...............or do i have this backwards meaning higher the number the better ?...............Really haven't used the energy numbers but i saw something interesting they other day..........There were a couple nice paying horse that when i saw there energy # there # was below the average energy # and there were only 3 that were below..........thats what caused me to ask this question..........Thanks :D

[Paladin]

Was looking for info about the Early Energy % Screen, (HTR2001 & HTR2) and ran across this thread.

I understand that each horses' %E changes with PL. But, about the %E at the top of the Energy ratings for the horses, (above the word Energy), - What does this stand for? Is this the %E profile for winners at this track, this dist., this par ? If so, why does it also change with PL mode?
Even though I've read a lot of messages about how (futile?) there are so many variables to consider when using %E, (also states that in the book MPH), I still find it intriguing. I've been experimenting with it , (in a small sample). I know how the number % E is derived for each horse (depending on PL). But what about the Main %E number for the race? That's the number I'm interested in! Is that supposed to be the "ideal %" for the race? Then why should it change with PL mode?

[C_Martin]

The # above is the avg of the #'s below. I think.

[km]

C_Martin is correct - the E% shown in the header is the average of those that appear below. The "ideal" is more likely determined by perusing the Track Bias data.

The BIAS report shows you the average Ee% actually run by the winners at each distance and surface. So it is your best bet for understanding typical E% requirements.

However, Ee% is as much dependent on the geometry of the track as it is on the individual race effort. If thoroughbreds ran the same distance and track week after week, as harness standardbreds do, we could depend the on Early energy%. But thoroughbreds are coming from all over the map and assorted distances and courses, so the Ee% is not accurately comparable. This situation is particularly problematic on grass where even the same turf course and distance can alter the E% due to variable rail placement.

[Paladin]

Thanks guys, now I know why it's PL sensitive. It's an avg.
I would think that the % E of the winners might be more what I need. So I downloaded the 1yr profile, since my sample races (i'm examining a spot play) start at the beginning of the year. Then when that screen comes up, I click on Mdn or non-Mdn, TrackBias/Win Profile. Then a report appears, and I look up the dist of the race and see a % Energy. I guess this is what I'm looking for? I'm using the Track Bias button at bottom of HTR2.

There are other abbreviations though that I don't know the meaning of: AFS, W2W, 123, INS%, OUT%, xrail(2/18), xOUT(3/18). I assume that Bias+1 is the TV.
This is for Lrl Jan. 9, Race 1.,Mdn

[km]

Correct on the %Energy, it is the average Early Energy of the winners in the sample.

Check past newsletter this year that detailed the abbreviations or you can find them by clicking the BIAS (need a 30day track profile) as it has a data key.
"W2W = % of winners that went wire to wire"; and so on

[fhbjr]

A couple things bother me about %e. Example 2 horses can have the same %e but one can do 6f in 112 and the other does 6f in 109.

Are the horses in todays race running against an average %e number or against the matchup of the individual horses numbers in the race? I E a lone ealy in todays race might have a very high %e number compared to the average number that wins this race but the horse will be a formatable contender to win todays race despite his high number.

[Paladin]

fhbjr- "Are the horses in todays race running against an avg %e number, or against the matchup of individual horses' numbers in the race?"

I must admit, my (skeptic) thinking was also along those lines. After all, the avg. % e (at the top of the energy column), doesn't belong to Any of the horses in the race. So I wanted to checkout the accuracy of the main(avg.) %e number for the race.

Since I'm in the process of building a little spot play system, I decided to check %e with the list of horses this (work in progress) system came up with. Object was to eliminate certain system picks that don't have a favorable %e. (too high) Thus increasing the % of winners and ROI.
So I compared the horses with Two different %e's. Study #1 used the avg%e at top of energy column, (as mentioned above)
Study #2 used the avg.%e from the WINNERS, from the track bias button. Downloading 1yr of stats for each track. My thinking was that study #2 would be more accurate, since those numbers were made by actual winners, at that track, that distance.

To my Suprise and Amazement: So Far, Study #1 has outperformed Study #2 !!
It has in fact increased the win% and roi.
Why is this? I can only guess. But it may have something to do with class!
The track bias screen (study#2) can be set for Mdn/nonMdn and dist/surface. But that's about it. Because there wouldn't be enough races in the sample (at a lot of tracks), if it was broken down into finer catagories. Thus when todays race is a cheap claimer, the %e number is taken from ALL NON-MDN races at that dist. That means Alw,Hdcp., Stk winners too. Many cheap claimers have a par below even straight Mdns (MSW). So the class of the winners %e doesn't jive with the race your handicapping for today.

Study #1 However: Even though it uses an avg. (that 99% of the time is not possesed by any horse in the race). It's an avg from ALL horses in the race. And what do all these horses have in common? They are all in the SAME CLASS RACE. And I think it was Ken who mentioned that %e is tied to class.

This brings up fhbjr's observation that two horses have the same %e, but Horse A runs a 1:12, while Horse B runs a 1:09. That's a difference in class.
Also the Lone F type wih a high%e: Sure, he might be able to pull it off. But if you took all the Lone F's and used the ones with a "not too high %e", in other words giving some consideration to %e, I think you would increase the % winners. This is just my take on it.

Also, I think that %e can be used to most advantage when used Last. By that I mean say you've got a system or method that spits out picks. After that pick has run the gauntlet (through all the conditions that it must meet, to be a pick), THEN examine %e.

You might be pleasantly surprised at the few horses %e can throw out,- That Don't Win !
Of course my study is from only a small sample, and as we all know, things can change.
But I've seen enough good results at this point, to be very interested in %e, and inventing ways to use it. And that's what I like about HTR. I feel like a Mad Scientist With A New and Strange Chemistry Set !!!!!!!!

[fhbjr]

Paladin

Congratulations on your study.

I looked into %e and %median also in the past without the benefit of access and while i find the concept intrigueing i couldn't find a way to use it profitably. Im glad to see someone do a more thorough study like yourself. A couple questions.

"So Far, Study #1 has outperformed Study #2 !!
It has in fact increased the win% and roi."

OK study #1 used the average %e at the top of the screen. So how was the winner picked in relation to the average %e? Or how was it used as the "last" step? And the increase in win% and roi is
compared to what?

The example i gave of the 1;09 horse and the 1;12 horse was extreme to illustrate the point. But the same applies to 2 horses in the same race or class. If they run 1:12 and 1:12 3/5 they can still have the same %e.

My experience with the lone e with maybe an extreme %e is that the horse is not pressed to run that fast early in todays race and frequently goes wire to wire with a much lower %e.

Any light you can shed with us on %e is appreciated.

Thanks

Frank

[Paladin]

Frank, Interesting that you mention that you looked into %e and %median. By that, do you mean the median of the %e for all the horses in a race? If so, that's something I was thinking about also. But I also don't have the benefit of access. But you say the median %e didn't help either?

In study #1: The list of picks was already selected by the spot play system i'm working on.
I then compared the %e of each pick, to the %e for that race. (just above the energy column)
I then threw out the horses that were greater than this number.
The improved win%/roi was comparing the "list" of picks Before using %e to disqualify, VS the shorter list After disqualifing.

I did the same thing in Study #2, using the Track Bias Report - the %e of Winners.
But study #1 came out better. But like I said, I think that's because Study#2 used winners not in the same class as the races I was studying. Maybe if I could download 2yrs for each track, and break it down into some basic class levels, to match the level of "todays" race, then maybe Study #2 would come out on top. But who knows, as I increase the sample size of my study, none of it may hold up, you know how that goes! But for now, it seems High %e is NOT a good sign.

[Huguenot]

I do have been studying %E a bit and without the benefit of a huge study,
these findings stand out:

-- horses that come close to the average %E in a race have been doing well.
-- in a race with lots of speed, consider horses below the average %E, unless
a) track is heavily speed-biased or b) there is a speed of the speed contender.
-- Conversely in races without much speed, consider horses above the average.

in the last two instances, do not necessarily take the most extreme types (highest
/lowest %E).

whether a high %E in a paceless race can lower his energy distribution to
win the race depends on the horse itself. If he's a habitual "puller" and can't
rate at all, I'd be doubtful. But if he's shown the ability to rate a bit,
this kind of horse can be dangerous.

-- low %E's in a heavy pace race are great exotic types, they often lug up for 2nd
or 3rd even without great speed numbers, hence their high odds. But they
are not necessarily good win bets unless the pace REALLY collapes and
there is no way of predicting that. In these races I prefer lower than average
%E's who have shown tractable speed -- the ability to stay close to the
pace in slow races and further back (and make a good run) in fast races.

huguenot

[fhbjr]

Paladin

%m is f1+f2/f1+f2+f3

[Donnie]

Paladin....be careful...a lot of the high E% are also FR1, and if you are looking for high priced horses, those are not the ones to arbitarily throw out. It was an FR1 on the turf at AP that won it for nearly all the tournament qualifiers this past weekend. To throw that horse out, spelled defeat for us other contestants!
BOL

[Paladin]

Donnie, I hear what you're saying about the Fr1's. They often go hand in hand with high%e.
But actually I'm Not looking for high price horses (tournament types). I'm looking for high % of winners. For long term, day in/day out, reliable profits. So if you happen to miss a play, you haven't missed that longshot that will take who knows how long to make up. Admittedly these are not high paying types. With the %e method I mentioned above, I was amazed at how many horses that were thrown out, placed instead of winning. My study is definitely aimed at betting to win, and consistency. If I can accomplish that, then someday maybe I can turn my sights on the longshots that you and other HTR members are so darn good at.
Right now i'm just plugging away at the, not so glamorous life of lower paying horses. Slumming. Trying to invent a steady income. (for those senior years)

[Donnie]

Paladin,
Have you had a chance to read Modern Pace Handicapping, by Brohammer? Obviously a good read for pace handicapping, including the thoughts on E %. I used to use pace handicapping exclusively, but never really looked into the E % numbers. Good luck on your research!

BOL.

-Donnie

[Paladin]

Excellent book, read it a few times. But it never hurts to re-read certain parts. I also re-read some of Ken's ideas on %e, in past newsletters. Wish there was a search engine for the HTR newsletters!

[Donnie]

Ahhhh my friend ....there is...if you own a copy of Acrobat (the full program, not Reader). You can make an index of the content of the newsletters and then use it to search across those newsletters. I would be willing to make one tomorrow, if there is any interest....? Can send it to Rick here with instructions on how to use it.

[fhbjr]

Donnie

An index to the content of Ken's newsletters would be very useful imo. I have gone back through past newsletters and printed out items that i refer too frequently. Ive also spent a lot of time going back and opening up old newsletters looking for a study i rember reading about but don't remember when it was. It should be especially useful to newcomers to help them come up to speed.

Thanks

Frank