Track to Track Adjustments

[DanBoals]

How does RDSS handle track to track adjustments?

This has always been a problem I have run into, the horses never seem to be adjusted correctly when coming from different tracks. In RDSS it is pretty good, but I still have problems. Tracks like Keeneland are the worse, since they are short meets and horses are coming from all over.

I know ATM has a good equalization chart :

https://www.americanturf.com/equalization/

I have never used it in a program, but it passes the "eyeball" test.

And of course, with the old manual entry Synthesis, I used to use the chart :

http://www.drf.com/node/246417

which gave the 3 year best times at different distances. I would need to extrapolate and interpolate some distances based on others at the track for the manual entry Synthesis, but this wasn't too difficult to do mathematically on the spot.

What has me wondering about the RDSS track to track adjustments is that I found that Howard over adjusted with the manual entry Synthesis program, and I would have to cut his adjustments for track to track in half to get them to be more accurate.

Is there any way with RDSS to manually adjust track to track?

If not, does anyone have any advise for which track to track adjustments need to be more carefully looked at?

This has always been one of the things that fascinated me the most with horse racing. I believe Len Ragozin was probably the best at equalization, but then he had people at most of the major tracks doing the work. Any light anyone can shed on this subject would be much appreciated. Thanks,

Dan

[Mark]

Hi Dan,

What I can tell you is what Ted mentioned to me in and email. The Track to Track adjustment employed by Trackmaster is proprietary. So Ted can't divulge it. What can happen is you can get a double effect sometimes when there is a DTV on the race from the shipping track when combined with the ITV. So you have to sense when it just looks out of whack.

I am a Jim Bradshaw devotee so my style of handicapping really doesn't rely on final speed. You want to have a general idea that it is in the ballpark, like Bull Ring lines to mile tracks but final time is a product of the early pace and the combination of Early horses battling up front. To a point they drag the field with them and then when exhausted others go by. It is such an illusion but it is true. Pressers and Sustained horses don't speed up they just don't decelerate as fast as tired early speed.

Whether with Phase 1 or Velocity POR or POH when you get to the BL?BL screen and see that array of rankings take note of the Dcl column. It is often the tipoff to 3rd and 4th ranked CPR horses beating the faster early and final time horses. I wish it were easier to post screen shots because you can see this. At TAM on the 9th in the 9th was #4 TE, #4 EPR, #4 LPR and #3 CPR. It was an E horse by visual running style but Late energy ESP. Its DCL was #5. He won by 2, having a multiple length lead the entire way and paid $51and keyed a $201 $2 exacta with the 6/5 betting favorite. This was 8.5f on the Turf.
I either read or heard "The Hat" say there are 3 types of Sustained horses 1. Those that can go to the lead 2. those that run from the back in the pack and 3. Slow horses.
Hope this helps!

[DanBoals]

Thanks Mark

Knowing it is a trackmaster thing helps. If it were an RDSS thing, it might be fun to have the ability to tinker with or adjust, but if it is coming into the software "as is", no telling what trackmaster is doing.

[Mitch44]

Whatever Trackmaster uses it is a consistent computer driven program therefore very reliable. Nothing is foolproof or a 100%. You must put the higher percentages on your side.
Any consistent procedure will our perform a hap hazard inconsistent one. Trackmaster has proven to be very reliable. Trust it and it'll will reward you.
Mitch44

[Ted Craven]

Dan,

As several have mentioned, RDSS uses a Track-to-Track (or Inter-Track Variant - ITV) adjustment factor supplied by TrackMaster. From the RDSS FAQs, here is a video by TrackMaster of how they compute their entire Speed/Class/ITV/DTV system: http://paceandcap.com/forums/showpost.php?p=100129&postcount=16

The only thing you can do with the ITV adjustment in RDSS is to either use it or NOT use it (on the Config Tab), but there is no means to micro-adjust it. As Mitch mentions, individual adjustments may vary, and some may be too fast or slow, but they are all self-consistent over a large number of running lines and races handicapped.

One thing you can do - if you believe you have better ITV adjustments for a given track pair, or distance/track pair (i.e. from a distance/track to another distance/track) - is: start with the Adjusted Time projection created for your chosen paceline on the Adjusted Tab (which time thus feeds into all the subsequent velocity and Factor rankings and Line Scores based on them), then, when consulting your ranking screen of choice (e.g. BL/BL) - IF you think a horse was rated say, only 3rd because of an erroneously bad ITV adjustment (or improperly rated 2nd because of a too generous adjustment) - THEN, simply mentally say this horse should be ranked a bit better, or a bit worse because of my overriding personal opinion. Then, construct your wager with that in mind.

The way RDSS and the later (perhaps all) Sartin programs are constructed: you get a set of true Contenders which are rated against each other in the most consistent manner possible - then you need to apply value considerations offered by the tote board to the ranked Line Score (e.g. BL, or VDC) or other Factor rank you are paying attention to. In many cases: given a ranking of say, 1 through 4, you don't necessarily bet on rank 1, or rank 2 etc just because of the high rank. Rather, you bet on valid Contenders because of odds offered. If in your opinion an ITV was out of whack, seldom (IMO) does that change a horse's rank outside of Top 4 Contention. The onus is still on the user to choose among the ranked contenders, and (in the Sartin Methodology) typically to choose 2 (or more) bets from among those Contenders. Or no bet.

Anyway, that's my perspective. Also I find that ranking horses and designating them Win Contenders or not - is perhaps not even half the battle: the rest being structuring wagers or passing. At least, having a consistently adjusted and comparable set of pacelines ('warts-and-all'), consistently selected for a given race (e.g. an automated or user-consistent selection criteria) subsequently makes studying your race by race decisions (analysis and betting decisions) over a 20 or 100 race collection, whatever, an exercise in consistency, rather than one in zig-zagging between differing decisions each race.

I don't deny that some 'local knowledge' about which automatic ITV adjustments will repeatedly bite you - is a good thing in a handicapper's arsenal. You just have to find a way to apply that knowledge consistently.

Also - all this is highly theoretical (possibly even boring). I always invite folks to give specific illustrated examples of a problem observed (e.g. a specific race). Perhaps suggest a race or 2 for discussion in the Races of Interest Forum. Perhaps there are alternate ways of looking at things?

Ted

[Lt1]

Like Doc always said if you don't have all the information use what you have. Ted is correct if you don't put in the proper contenders and pacelines it doesn't matter what the track variant is or for that matter anything else one may worry about.

[Mark]

Years ago in a Dick Mitchell seminar at Del Mar He made a fairly persuasive argument that due to timing errors, differing run up distances and of 5ths of a second then the standard, at 6f you could have as much as 2 lengths error at the finish line. The longer the race the greater the discrepancy. I have always remembered that. Depending on the scale of speed figures you use, that could be 4, 5, up to 8 point difference in final time numbers. Dick was a mathematician and had taught at several levels of higher education. His "All-In-One" software is still available I think. He was also a prolific author and wrote some excellent books on wagering strategy.

The point here is that no matter how good the software, the data that our numbers are calculated from is really crappy. Just think of lengths behind at various calls. How many different people are calling races across the US on one Thursday or Saturday. This chart caller is in a little room at the top of the grandstand with binoculars and is calling this out to someone writing it down. It is an amazing skill but the likelihood of everybody's length being the same is ridiculous. Calling the race requires remembering each horses' name and saddle cloth number and each decision is made instantaneously.

I think this is why Ragozin or Thorograph numbers can be so much more precise: one number, Final time. It is also what gave life to the original Pace guys. Over shorter distances the surface speed has less impact, so chances are the Pace of Race fractional times were subject to less error. Start adjusting these with Final Time variant and look out.: A + B doesn't not equal C.

One of the reasons that compounded factors have predictive value and the screens like BL/BL and Energy are so useful is that they somewhat generalize the importance of the specific time interval and they are consistent.

So is the ITV from Trackmaster perfect? No!! The real question is: Is it good enough?

[Bill V.]

I understand your position, Yet you say to give examples
I did that once and all I got was lots of answers from other members about what is or is not a daily track variant. I did weeks worth or back research, I followed the horses from the race in question, I gave plenty of supporting examples why I feel the numbers trackmaster put out were not correct , in 1 particular race, Yet I was told here I was wrong or worse ignored, Nobody at trackmaster wrote to me or acknowledged my question, From that point on I decided the numbers can be inaccurate, This cause me to go with an attitude of just bet your comfort zone , don't take this stuff too serious . like Tim and Mitch say just go with what you see, Showing examples is just whistling in the dark.

[Mark]

Bill,
You've created a way to make money. About 98% of handicappers don't, for some it is an expensive hobby. I agree with you that the numbers are not always accurate, but then I don't think any mass produced numbers are as good as those crafted by the individual for the tracks they play.

In light of this you have found a way to make the good enough. Don't get you feelings hurt because others don't want to agree with you. In their case, it is not in their profit interest to expend more money to get them right. It would probably take quite a few more staff to do it. They can minimize their expense by getting close enough for their statistical tests.

I've suggested that the 2nd and 3rd fractions are screwed up in races under 6f. Hell, you can just look at the feet per second numbers and see it. And more importantly the horses don't run to them.

Maybe we are just old school guys and have been looking at these numbers so long that we know the difference. "Examples, I don't need no f--king examples!" to paraphrase John Belushi.

[DanBoals]

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

Ted, what I am worried you are saying is that I will need to find some other software if I want to go to do tournament handicapping, which I do. I thoroughly understand the Sartin software, having worked with Howard on Synthesis back in 1999. I have made over $2000 this year to date using RDSS2 for exactas, betting my top three horses for a $4 box.

I understand that if you get the contenders you are 90% done with the fight, I bet exactas, believe me, I understand the value of contender selection.

I have had the same luck with Trackmaster that Bill has though, they are happy with what they have. Which is fine for RDSS2 if I only use it in a certain way.

What I am after is a way to remove the Trackmaster track to track adjustments and use my own, OR, to be able to modify them by a %. In Synthesis, I learned working with Howard, that the manual entry track to track adjustments were off by as much as 50%. He said the same thing most people here have said, it is close enough to make money.

Making money is great, don't get me wrong, I am very proud of the exactas I hit using RDSS2 this year. My dream however is to play tournaments, especially the big one some day. In order to do that, I need software that is better than good enough. I know this asking for a lot, :), and I am quite sure most people using their own track to track adjustments would do worse, not better, so I understand wanting to use something like Trackmasters. It's just that in perfect world, I could get RDSS2 to do everything I want it to, and, I figured there might be something I overlooked, since I am still new to this software and don't know all it's ins and outs yet.

Anyways, I love RDSS2, don't get me wrong, I am just trying to get from a place where I get the contenders, and 3 horse box for my exacta win, to picking the winner cold.

Dan

[Bill V.]

I feel for you Dan. I also feel bad for Ted - really what can he do ?
The issue is not that the numbers can sometimes be off, The issue is" sometimes the numbers can be off," What I mean by that last statement,
once I got burned by a wacky adjustment It will always be in the back of my mind, Is this race clean?. I believe in Ted's attempted advice of using the odds to decide if a wacky number/readout is worth the risk/reward, Which echo's Doc's feeling of " you will still make money" is sound .Again what was Doc suppose to do,
Its not like Ted or Doc can just say to Trackmaster FIX it or else, The program
is dependent on the data track master gives Ted
My issue is the damaging effect a wacky number not only effects 1 horse but the whole race because the inner workings of the readouts relative to the "dream race ' are now out of wack . The second part being now I have a doubt in my mind, Remember there are a few people out there with fragile
self confidence and big egos, When they see something that possibly could have contributed to them losing they will fight it inside their minds.
It takes hard work to believe in your self enough to bet enough to make this
more than a hobby, We need to know the numbers are accurate and if
we find mistakes I hope we don't just get told how the numbers are made but the fact that they are made wrong is the issue.

Bill
Albuquerque New Mexico
On my way to Roswell,
Hope no flying saucers grab me

[Mitch44]

To get there DanBoals I would recommend keeping records of factors to find the best corollary that works across all tracks and surfaces. These type of factors puts a greater percentage on your side.

Even then it always becomes a choice of payoff vs. position in the contest or what you'll accept on a daily basis.

The two biggest influences on a race are the match-up of the field and form. Sartin stated 80% was due to the match up. Form is the hardest to get correct and is why the public only gets 33.33% or so correct. Like trying to nail jelly to a tree. If the public were to ever catch up with it than the game is dead. It's an area where one can improve their game because most become figure blind and fail to evaluate the contenders.There are areas where you can increase those percentages with form and cycle analysis.

One of the benefits of Taskmaster is that they incorporate run-up distances whereas others do not. Few players pay much attention to this and at some tracks and surfaces its more important than track to track and inter-track variants. Especially at GP in turf races where on the exact same day and distances, the distance can be almost as much as a furlong difference for identical distances. While dirt races are more uniform they are not between tracks. Players would be shocked if they checked out run-up dis.'s that can be more than 200 feet difference. Their given in Equibase results charts.

Its tough to beat a consistent computer program for variants or a program like RDSS that consistently adjust for different distances of pace lines selected etc. etc. Fortunes await those with a better mouse trap.

Mitch44

[DanBoals]

Bill

Sorry if I sound like I am down on Ted and RDSS2, that is the exact opposite. Thanks to this software, I have made more than $2000 year to date; which is PDG for software that costs $100 a year. I am a HUGE fan of RDSS2.

What I am asking for amounts to a wish list that would help me reach the next level. The only thing I have problems with are lots of horses coming from lots of different tracks, which is very prominent in places like Keeneland. I am trying to get myself to the next level and that is hard.

Currently I am making a decent profit for $4 exacta boxes. If I bet multiple horses, I tend to do ok as well, although my ROI isn't as good. I am just at the point where I want to play against the "big boys" in the tournaments, and I am clearly not at that level yet. Not good enough to make top 10 anyways :)

Dan

[DanBoals]

Mitch

Thanks for the advise... I did not know about run up distances until I read Len Ragozin's excellent book. I was not aware Trackmaster used them, but that is definitely a good thing that they do.

Corollary analysis has not helped me with getting winners. I don't know if this is the way I handicap or what, but I have never had luck with it. % Medium is the only one of the factors that has helped me, but it is not used in the primary or secondary line scores, so it technically doesn't count as a corollary. And, it is only useful to me at certain tracks.

For contender selection, my own secret formula :), is to use the Trackmaster/RDSS2 SR ratings for the horses that I find in form. The top horse's SR or the second top horse's SR if the top horse is way above the field, is my base. I try to keep any horse that comes with 5 or 6 points of this SR number as a contender, some races that is only 3 or 4 horses, some as many as 9. What is frustrating to me, is that there are sometimes horses shipping in that don't have a high enough SR number to qualify as contenders, but they win. When I go back and use the eyeball test, they are usually "good enough" to have been a contender based on their fractions, but for some reason Trackmaster didn't like them and nerfed them. This is what I am trying to avoid, since these are usually high paying horses and I love a good longshot.

I suppose I could use another method for contender selection, but I have been very profitable using my listed method with exactas and I don't want to start losing. Like I said, I LOVE RDSS2, I am just seeing if it is possible to add some kind of advanced feature that would let me tinker with track to track when it seems the software is over or under inflating the numbers.

This is by far the best software I have ever used. I truly believed for a LONG time that nothing would ever be as good as manual entry Synthesis, but RDSS is. The only feature from manual entry Synthesis that it is missing is the ability to adjust the adjustments. And, like I said, it would be a very advanced feature, but one that I would adore if it ever got added.

Hope this explains somewhat where I am coming from with the desire for track to track adjustment,

Dan

[Mitch44]

Don't give up what you have confidence in and is working for you. You may want to due a comparison study of what you do and using the top CR ratings for your contenders and see if its an improvement etc. One thing about CR is it has absolutely nothing to do with variants etc. Hopping it works out for you.

Best of luck,
Mitch44

[Peteman]

I am not a RDSS user but have made a lot of Brohamer, Purdy type numbers over the last 25 years and have found that some lines will kill you if you use them. So if the variant is
Too fast or slow there is no way of making it normal its aberrant and a final time variant
Does not always equate to the fractional variant, in short I stay away from lines that are
extreme at your track. I do not think it’s the track to track adjustment.

Remember when We used to use, the drf variant one meet at Tampa I compared it to my variants and it was off like 4.5 lengths or more like 45% of the time and I was still winning using the drf variant. So I guess we can survive with even some large discrepancies

Refrence for separate final and fractional variants
http://www1.drf.com/products/moss/mossfaq.html

[Mitch44]

A consistent procedure greatly helps that survival. With the old SR+ variant we avoided lines that had a extremely fast or slow variant. E.g. under 8 and above 27 with 17 being the norm. Very few members today actually look at the variant for the line they have chosen, LT1 is an exception. When the line is abnormal it pays to select another line. Most horses can be gotten with more than one line so it pays to avoid these very high or very low variants.

Perhaps a review of the variant of line a player has selected is the answer to the variant problem if there is one that can be corrected by the handicapper. A set parameter for a variant (8 to 27) gives one another consistent procedure that should up their game. With 1 variant point about equal to 1/2 a length that puts the player to within 5 lengths of the norm. Then again you can set your own parameters of 3 or 4 lg. and adjust the variant to fit your criteria. To me this is the best approach to solve the variant question.
Good luck with it.

Mitch44

[Mark]

Personally, I handicap all races without any DTV. Recently I started to use ITV. So my configuration is "Don't use DTV" and "Use ITV. At this point I don't know if the program actually applies the ITV if the Don't use DTV selected or if it just applies the whole ITV for a shipper. I haven't asked TED.
I have made variants myself and it is seldom an easy task. The DRF variant was horribly flawed by the composition of races run on any day.
If you use a single line in your handicapping then you will have problems. To me it is another piece of questionable information that is probably best ignored. If you have made variants you understand the problems. Too many double digit horses win off these supposed fast lines, because the PUBLIC looks at that information and the speed figures are made from that information and alot of them bet it.
When you look at a paceline, pace of the race, you can see the calls and calculate the fractions. Fast early races that fall apart late with S horses swooping in to win tell you something. But you have to evaluate all the horse's pacelines to get an understanding of what kind of pace does a horse succeed against and what causes him to fail. Looking at one line will not do. Find a confirming one. When are you going to get speed favoring surfaces? Sloppy tracks are often sealed and hard surfaces that lend themselves to fast fractions and final times. The surface is hard and takes little energy to get over for the Early horses. A deep surface is tiring for Early horses as it takes them much more energy to get over it causing them to fade. Look at the paceline and see compare fractions and final time. That is a much better indication of surface speed than the variant! Don't just accept the "Best of the last 3 comparable" and say you've handicapped the race. That's nonsense!! If it worked prices would all be like the Quarterhorse's or Harness horses. If the Thoroughbred racing industry wanted to make the timing of their races and the positions of the horses exact, the technology has been there for decades. The reason they continue with their methods is because it is inexact which leads to more dollars put through the window which means more profits. Their sole interest is to drive handle, although now they have to contend with safety issues or PETA will close them down.
The mind is the best computer ever made. Use it to evaluate these horses and their performances, learn what a fast final fraction is, TT or whatever. Study this stuff and you will be way ahead and not always betting into the toteboard!

[Mitch44]

The flip side of that coin is the horse the same horse that ran that better line? There are Derby winners that never win another race. And everyday horses that run one too many races or an overtaxing race that never repeat it. So using more that one race can be dangerous. Its a judgement call as to weather its the same horse or not. You'll be right at times and wrong at other times.

On pg. II of the yellow manual Sartin states; " On page 16 in the Basic Phase III manual we state that averaging can be dangerous at best. While certain individuals can use averaging, for most it is a disaster. DO NOT AVERAGE. We have better tools for selecting a PREDICTIVE PACELINE." Mark obviously your the exception but for the average Joe probably not a good idea.

I agree variants are difficult to make and would be a full time job with no time for handicapping. But there is a big difference between tracks & variants and how different makers compute this stuff. Regardless they do it by a consistent method which is about as good as it gets. Its just insane to think one doesn't need these adjustment as you'll win more with them than without them.

By going to three fractions and compounded ratings it lessen the need for accurate adjustments. I said lessen not elimate them. It insane to think you can compare Calder with a race from SA or not use variants for off track or on turf courses that aren't firm. I never have agreed on where they distribute the variant E.g. 2/3rs early and 1/3 late or equally to each FR. Myself I would distribute to where it accelerates as that is where it'll effect the horse the most. I.e. if early than all on that part for that horse and if an S or L all on HE for that horse. Regardless its like the Doc said ;"it doesn't make any difference what you use for a beaten length as long as its consistent." All these variants and track to track adjustments are the same as long as all tracks and methods are consistent. The commercial makers like BRIS and Trackmaster do this on a consistent procedure by computer without mans prejudices.
I do agree with you Mark on the POR and its effect on the horse. A horse going against a weaker POR amounts to a huge class drop that is hidden from the public. Few look at this aspect or factor. Additionally it is really easy now that RDSS rates every race in the horses chart for a total pace rating and the POR for that line also. They should use it more in context to todays POR that it'll encounter in todays matchup.

Mitch44

[Mark]

For no particular reason here are 3 Turf from GG that I handicapped yesterday without looking at the results or replays. I play a lot of Turf races all over the country because they generally have fuller fields and the horses are sounder. I use no DTV but do use the ITV. Here is my configuration:40429
40430
40431
40432
40433
40434
40435
40436
40437
40438
I project the pace and select pacelines where the horse competed against that early pace using his normal running style. I don't care if it is the 5th, 7th or 10th paceline. I just have to answer Jim Bradshaw's 3 questions:
1. Is he still a horse? 2. Has he changed his running style and become a slow horse? 3. For Early horses, can he still get on top of his fractions.

[Mark]

Configuration:
40439
40440
40441
40442

[Mark]

40443
40444
40445

[Mark]

In the 5th race I have pacelines from SA turf, GG Turf SA Dirt, and GG Poly. I took the #9's dirt line because he was a P7 and the only horse that had wired his field and while these horses rarely win, they will go to the lead and set the early pace. Now it is up to you to figure out how I got my lines but you can see that my 2nd ranked horse #4 is 20/1 on the morning line. You can also see that the #6 that I didn't even include in my contenders was the best opposite energy horse by final beaten lengths. But I am a lousy exotics player so primarily stick to win/place.

Note that it is very confidence building to see your place and show horses highly rated. If you just get a big price horse on top, that is great but shouldn't a valid handicapping method get to top finishers in the top rankings?

The 7th was tough for me and I would have lost this race. Most likely I would have bet the #11 to win and place. Well, he finished 3rd at 42/1. What made it hard was that the winner only had one turf line. But he was at the very peak of his game, setting a new top according to the speed figures in his last race on POLY. I will use POLY when I don't have a Turf line and probably should have used one of his recent POLY lines. This horse just ran off. He had 4 lengths on the field at the 8th pole and needed every one to win over the hard charging favorite.
Why use the 10th line on the 11? He had run 3 very good races in Open Allowance, purse $27 before something took him to the farm. Delia has been training since I was a boy. Look at the 3 works: 3f, 36.8, 4f, 48.4 and 5f, 101.2. Horses are trained to 24 second quarter miles or 12 second furlongs. This is beautiful. Watch out for this guy next time, but you won't get 42/1 on him.
The 9th had two keys: The #10 horse was returning after 261 days. Eddie Truman must be in his 80s. Nice works but this guy either needs 9f or a pistol hot early pace. I made the decision to toss him. The other was the sprinter stretching out. I used the #4's 4th line as my projected pace. I used it instead of the 3rd because it was slightly faster early. So in essence you are taking out the E and EPs. Those were my eliminations. the 4th I though was good enough to hang on for a piece, he ran 4th, that is why I don't be exactas. Look at the winner closely. He is not a dirt horse. When TuP closed last spring he went to EMD, Larry Ross is headquarters up there but there is an established circuit EMD - GG - TuP that they follow as the season's change. Some go from TuP to Canterbury. This guy goes to EMD for the summer. After time away, 3rd race off a 174 day layoff sprint -route -turf route. He is much better on POLY as most Turf horses are. Nice POWER MOVE going to the stretch call in his last. This is a logical placement for this horse.
Nowhere in this did I mention Daily Track Variants. i let the program make the distance equalizations and apply the Track to Track adjustments. If you get all concerned about these adjustments it will undermine your belief in what you are seeing in your read outs. Review the pp from the bottom up, don't focus exclusively on the last 3 or 4 lines. Yes it is important the the horse shows something in his recent races but when there is a valid reason for some poor form, like a layoff or wrong surface, distance, too high class or even outside post don't get stuck on that. What has the horse been able to compete against successfully, what is he competing against today? Now answer your 3 questions.

[The Pook]

Mark

Does it really make a difference if you use or don't use DTV or anywhere in between? As long as you're consistent it shouldn't matter as far as matching goes. And as I recall from what Jim said looking at the PP's from the bottom up, it is to try and get people to look at the entire picture of the horse and away from "last three only..itis".

Your matching above is well done. It is interesting how the two approaches on this site Sartin/Bradshaw are almost polar opposites.
Adjustments/Raw
Best of last 3/All the PP's
Corollaries,Track Profiles/Todays Matchup only.
Fulcrum Pace/Projected Pace etc.
and yet both are pace based and still tie together.

Bradshaw learned to win from Sartin and yet went on to create his own subset. I do them both and find that Bradshaws Matchup lends itself more easily to creativity. In that respect I find it more satisfying. I switch them from time to time to keep things interesting because I find one way all the time can become tedious. I have perfected neither but Matching as you've shown above is what I truly love to do. Just have to get my ROI a little higher and improve my mental ability to handle losing streaks. Like FTL's tagline says "If it was easy everybody would do it". It must be confusing for anyone new to this to decide what approach or hybrid thereof to utilize. For sure it will take time.

Continued good skills,
Pook

[Mark]

Pook,
I think people misunderstand this idea of consistency. If all inputs were consistent then applying a consistent mathematical process to them would be consistent. But we are handed inputs with both positive and negative values and then attempt to apply a variant application process to it but the result can be in the opposite direction in the extreme. The Absolute value is the same but what gets applied when velocity is adjusted can have the opposite effect. There is an additional problem which I have addressed to Ted but he is silenced on the matter by an agreement with Trackmaster prohibiting him from divulging the proprietary information. However, what I have been able to confirm is that when applying both DTV and ITV you can, operational word can, get double counting. I have farted around with these different configurations for 2 years now and by far the best results come from only applying the ITV. Again I work mostly turf races.
Speaking frankly, and I do not wish to offend anyone nor the spirit of Howard Sartin, as he was always very gracious with his time and attention with me, and I will say I have mostly read everything put out by O'Henry House, Sartin Methodology, as well as Jim Bradshaw, I think Howard's goal was to save addicted gamblers starting with his initial group of Truck drivers. He provided the infrastructure and methodology for the whole Pace Movement. No question he was a brilliant man with tremendous energy and a sincere desire to help people. But he also was a bit of a showman and promoter. Jim Bradshaw was a natural genius with powers of memory and mathematical skills I find astounding. Almost Savant like! The methodology completely changed with the release of Energy/Thoromation. Manually charting paceline velocities introduced Acceleration and Deceleration which require Calculus to derive in computer code. That was Bradshaw.
Jim's thesis is that you must find out the fastest early pace a horse has ever competed against successfully: POWER LINE. Concept: the true measure of a Thoroughbred race horse is speed and the ability to carry that speed over a distance of ground. Once you know this in a field of horses, you know who the best horse was at one time. Now the problem is to determine if the horse can reproduce that effort today or if wear and tear, fatigue, mishandling and such have caused the horse to deteriorate. And how the various energy distribution patterns within the race mix allowing one to prevail. His 3 questions were distilled from handicapping 10s of 1000s of races manually from the racing form. 1) Is he still a horse? 2) Has he changed his running style and become a slow horse 3. If an Early horse, can he still get on top of his fractions? I have pondered these questions for the last couple of years looking for some kind of hidden meaning or interpretation and realized that he meant what he said literally.

It really comes down to this in my view. I trained and managed 100s of sales people in my formal career. In a nutshell, there are two types of people, 1. Those that are security motivated and 2. those that are incentive motivated. The former group wants to be guided by strong core of fairly black and white information that they can follow. The latter is much more likely to operate in an open environment developing the useful knowledge based upon their success or failure. Neither is bad, they are just preferences.

With the Match Up you have to develop confidence in your ability to predict who will take the lead and thereby project an early pace. This is a very tough thing for a new handicapper to do and maybe why the failure rate is so much greater than a more conventional somewhat rule bound philosophy.

That's my two cents...

[Bill V.]

hi Mark

Pook wrote
Mark

Does it really make a difference if you use or don't use DTV or anywhere in between? As long as you're consistent it shouldn't matter as far as matching goes. And as I recall from what Jim said looking at the PP's from the bottom up, it is to try and get people to look at the entire picture of the horse and away from "last three only..itis".

I agree with Mr Pook
I think people will have the same success using your settings or the settings
Doc left us and validator mode or Ted's ideas of settings
I feel its not really the adjustments, they will take care of themselfs over the long run

Just for kicks using val mode and 50 percent DTV and using the ITV
I just entered the highest TPR for every horse as long as it was a route line
If the high TPR was tied or very close I took the one at the closer distance and turf over poly but I used poly and turf lines for this

I just did race 9
Horse 11 is right up top, a 2 horse better could land here for sure based on the odds

My settings
Best TPR comparable looking at all lines

40448

40447

[Bill V.]

For this one I used Marks same pace lines
but my "Doc" settings = full ITV and 50% DTV and Val mode

Again the winner # 4 is ranked third so a 2 horse win better could get this one

40449

[Bill V.]

For race 7 I used both Marks lines andthen I did the race using just the highest TPR at a comparable distance , using poly and turf lines But I used "Doc's"
settings

Marks Lines The winner # 8 is low

40451

High TPR did better here The 8 is closer to the top

40450

[Mark]

Bill,

I have done extensive studies on long meets using both TPR and Total Energy and have found that using this method immediately eliminates 25 -30% of the winners, normal the higher paying horses. I just can't reconcile that. I don't want to bet into the toteboard. I rarely bet a horse less than 6/1 to win, 8/1 I bet win and place. That is how I avoid betting two horses.
Additionally, you want to have confidence in the various readouts that RDSS2 does such a great job of producing. I have grown to love the Segments screen since I have confidence that the numbers in the F1, SC and FIN column are meaningful and I never had that before with all the various configuration setups and mucking around with various paceline selection concepts. The 7th race was difficult for the general betting public because they don't think horses can go gate to wire at 9f on the turf. That's why this horse went off at 6.8/1. now look at the readout:
40452
In the F1 column off the only turf line for the #8, he is 2.2 lengths behind the #2. Hey, the #2 is a SP, by definition they lay behind the Pressers between 3 and 5 lengths off at the 1st call. He's not going to be in the lead. The other E is way back 12.4 lengths off the lead he will try to run with the #8 but that will just kill him off. The EP is also well back. Both these horses are out of position and will not run a best effort. So we are looking at an open lead for the #8 of probably 3 lengths and if he runs 3 lengths slower and conserves energy. At the SC the #8 will have the lead as he is the 0.0 horse. the #2 actually loses lengths in the 2nd fraction so he will either have to gitty up thereby to hold his SP position and that will rob his energy in the final fraction.
The #5 has to gain 9 lengths in the 2nd fraction just to hold his 5th position and he is still 1.6 lengths back and 4 horses behind the leader. The rest of the horses are along for the exercise accept the #3 and #11. They are where they should be at the 1st call and being SP and S type horses are going to be running late.
If you find the correct pacelines these illustrations repeatedly will be reliable and you don't always have to bet the #1 and #2 ranked horse, especially strong E horses. In a thread on the Hat Check blog, Richie recounts Jim saying to him, "You give these sustained horses too much credit, Rich". The E horse is out in front sailing along. There are no traffic problems out there. There is no dirt or sand or clumps of grass flying back into their faces. An E horse that is not forced to run "Too fast, Too Early" is in front enjoying the view. He's not looking up another horse's ass. He's up front because he is the fastest horse. Now conformation, genetics and injury can stop these horses but you can see their limitations in their pps. Jim also hypothesized that a 1/5 of a second saved or expended in the 1st fraction is worth 2/5s in the final fraction. If the #8 saves 3 lengths in the 1st fraction that means he will be better by 6 lengths at the finish. He needed 5.6 lengths to beat the #3. He needed every bit of it.
This is my interpretation of the Match Up after studying it for 3 years. Mostly it has been reading and rereading the Hat Check blog. I have worked 100s of races and a lot of those have been screwing around with Configuration settings. When to use this one or when to use that one. Too many horses win at great prices with high negative DTV to have any confidence in it whatsoever. I don't have Jim Bradshaw's or Richie P's minds I can't do all that stuff in my head anymore but if you pick a setting stick with it and get used to the readouts it produces. Just as Jim and Richie developed Pattern Recognition skills based on RAW data, you need to develop your own Pattern Recognition skill in interpreting the readouts.
One man's Opinion.

[Bill Lyster]

Mark:

I have learned a lot from your last few posts and the ones provided by Richie of late. great to have your reasoning so evenly laid out. I hope you have time for more examples.

Thanks,

[Bill V.]

good work Mark
I appreciate your match up work. You do an excellent job,
I am a little concerned with you opening line in post # 29

i hope you don't think and I hope you don't project me as only using the top 5 TPR off the last line only

I do look at every horse ,
Looking at the last line TPR number - all the numbers EPR LPR and TPR
is just step 1 in phase 1

The winner of the race is very often one of these 5 horses but not always
Almost every race I can go to an even better line within the last 3,4 or even 5 pacelines
GL45's practice race is a good example.

Once I see who the top 5 TPR horses are off the last line , then and only then will I start to see if the last line is not the pace line to use,
Please just to be clear I do not just look at the top 5 TPR horses off the last line.

GS
Bill

[Mark]

I appreciate that. I really have no agenda other than for the supporters of this Website and Ted's program to improve and make money!!

Those of us that have been in the game awhile have seen all the BS and the hype. But what really is going on out there on the track? I owe my understanding to Richie P and Jim Bradshaw. And I really have only discovered in in the last 3 years. To paraphrase, Mr Bradshaw, "It's just a horse race. One horse goes to the lead and the others try to catch him. If they don't he wins". So we better find the horse that is going to the lead!! The rest of it is just Physics.

[Mitch44]

Pook ; I agree with Bill's last post on these variants etc. I also use Ted's recommended settings and they work for me. This is another area that requires a consistent approach. There is no doubt adjustments are needed between tracks. As far as the same track well it can change throughout the day such as on the day of the Woodward where Outwork won. That particular day the track got slower as the day went on due to the weather. Last year at GP many races were run slower than previous years, the reason was the track maintenance crew wasn't watering as much as ordered to save money. And when there were 2 or 3 turf races in a row the track really slowed down.

So much of this comes down to what you believe in or how much you become aware of these things. Myself I trust their consistency of application as do others here. In fact Mark is the first I have ever heard that doesn't use any. Either way its dependent on your beliefs and knowledge etc. With the exception of Mark I've never heard of anyone else not using adjustment on a regular basis, well I suppose the matchup guys don't . Perhaps part of Jimmy's Voodoo magic. He did make track to track adjustments and could do that based on the SR & variant and determine the track record for different tracks.

For beginners its easy to learn RDSS IMO. Much of what you learn can help in learning the matchup later. I.e.NTL, the 3 fractions etc. With either one you should work from the bottom up to evaluate the horse. I would also say the success rate of those getting the matchup on any consistent basis is very small as compared to RDSS. I know of few who can do what 'The Hat" could do to include Sartin who readily admitted it.Perhaps Mark is one of those exceptions and if he joins up for the next challenge we'll see.

Everyone has to make their own decision with your question as to which one is the right one. I'M sure RDSS has more successful users however neither is a quick study. There's no instant gratification in either. Both require discipline, study and experience.
Mitch44

[Mark]

I honestly don't know where you get your information from. I'm the only one that doesn't use adjustments. Hell, that is Jim Bradshaw's teaching, that's the way Richie P plays and many more that keep to themselves and just make money. Matchers don't average anything and they rarely make a decision on a horse based on one line. True Matchers don't project the pace beyond the 2nd call. They look left on the paceline not right. Maybe you can invest a little time in study of the Hat Check blog or reading Jim Bradshaw's books as your understanding is flawed.

[Mark]

My apologies Bill. I was under the impression that your TPR method began with the TPR of the last line. I look at the last line as well because I want to find the "Fastest Pace of the Last Race" horse or tandem. That can quickly make pace projection much easier and quicker.

Anyway, my mistake no offense intended. I know you do well at the track and are dedicated and disciplined so that didn't make sense to me.

Blew me away when I saw your Configuration: +/- 50. Then I realized that you played PRX and when they winterize that track the variants can be enormous.

Again though, I ask you, do you think that adjusting fractions faster from races that have run 30 to 50 points slow by some increment or percentage is reliable? That is Trackmaster's final time adjustment. I don't have that much faith that these guys are that good or care about the quality of their product. These variants are computer made. Some statistician decided that his T-test or analytical approach was good enough to get it right 50%, 70% what?
I just don't give them that much credit I guess.

[Mitch44]

As far as adjustments I said " well I suppose matchup guys don't " Outside of them I never have heard of any. I have read all about the matchup and have read about it along with Bradshaw's writing and I'm aware of it and how it works. I'm well aware that most matchers don't carry it into the 3rd FR and stop at the Second Call which is the exact reason many of them lose more races than they should. Bradshaw did carry into the last FR with his 2 for I ratio etc. Bradshaw did say " they don't pay off at the Second Call." Your wrong about stopping at the Second call.
Mitch44

[Bill V.]

No problem Mark
You are not the only one thought I only looked at the last line .
I just have to explain myself better, :)

Hey Mark
I don't want to speak for any matcher Who knows what they are really doing
I know Richie is "software matching"

Here is a recent post by Richie
http://paceandcap.com/forums/showpost.php?p=103241&postcount=21

And as I posted before Hat and Doc wanted me to use software
They wanted me to understand the concept of the match up
but use Validator

Lastly I just leave things the way Doc had them. Right or wrong I feel
"who the heck am I" to make changes and I mean that in truth
Peoples personalities may allow them to think they are better than Doc
I am not saying they are wrong to do so, But I feel Doc wanted it 50 so I leave it 50

[Mark]

Today in post #29 this thread I discussed "The Hat's" 2 for 1 in analyzing a race I posted earlier this week. Most Matchers don't stop at the 2nd call, I'd like to know your source on that that one. But tell me what percentage of the race is over by then? Most of the serious racing is over by then. The Thoroughbred is about speed and carrying that speed over a distance of ground. Horses have habitual Running styles which indicate from what positon at the 1st call they run their best efforts. Denying a horse his position because he is not fast enough to obtain it or has to exceed his capacity to obtain it makes him an also ran. The final fraction of a horse race is most abnormal because of the way length gain is computed. That was what Jim's Entropy was all about. A slow sustained horse gains lengths in the final fraction due to the difference in his rate of deceleration and that of exhausted pace setters who may have turned back challenges in the first and second fractions. It grossly overstates their velocity. That is why you have to check other lines and see how he closes against different early paces. Most of the time you see lines where they went gangbusters up front and he closed into a slow final fraction. If a front running horse runs a 50 second final fraction from a 55 second 2nd call his velocity at the finish is closer to 45 fps. A sustained runner who never topped 55 fps in the whole race but decelerates much more slowly will look like a runaway train approaching the finish line at maybe 51 or 52 fps. That's if the frontrunner's deceleration was linear. Sometimes they look like they are on a pogo stick their stride shortens so badly. But if the early fractions were fast enough the final time will be average or maybe better and it will look like "he sprouted wings at the 1/8 pole". It is a big optical illusion, the Doc said so himself.
I don't wish to be disrespectful as we all have a right to our opinions. But get your facts straight and study or ignore me. I'm trying to help some of the folks on this site that are interested in seeing it done Jim and Richie's way. If I may be so bold as to think I totally understand it all. Because I don't, I don't know how "The Hat" was able to piece together lines when they aren't there to see. But anyway, hopefully you get my point.

[Mark]

Doc Sartin was an Icon, a man that changed handicapping forever. His popularization of Incremental Velocity and then Energy stood mainstream handicapping on its head. He also was very gracious with me and a fine gentleman. He told me to keep my day job in the early 90s.

However, Doc took some work of his predecessors and made it better. He and his Pirco guys did tremendous amounts of research. I think it was Purdy that ran so much of the data on 128 column cards through and old IBM mainframe to confirm Doc's conclusion about the average DRF variant of 17. I think the Doc had one of those minds that could reach accurate conclusions on small sample sizes. He could sense it.

I think we should all strive to better ourselves and our understanding of the world we chose to operate in. It is not a matter of trying to outdo someone, it is a quest for self improvement. I never knew that the Doc said to use +/- 50. Again my mistake. Ted has always recommended +/- 15 and 50% DTV so I thought that was the standard. I thought I was getting ballsy running tests at 100% DTV and +/- 25. But it completely makes the 1st call useless.

Anyway, that's where that is at!

[Mitch44]

My source for most matchers stopping at the 2nd call was you from post # 34,"True Matchers don't project the pace beyond the 2nd call. They look left on the pace line not right."

Now to your second question as to what percentage of the race is over at the second call? That's an easy one as it really depends on the distance of the race E.g. at 6F its 66.6666% and at 5 F its 80% and at 8F its 75% etc. The distance of the race is what determines how much of the race is over at the second call. It is not 2/3 or 66% as most think but it is at 6F and 9F.

The distance of the fraction being measured along with the time covered for the distance determine the value of a beaten length.

The deceleration of those leaders at the 2nd call vs. the pressers & S types deceleration and total energy determines if they get caught or not etc.

I don't need to study, have my facts straight but the best thing you said was to ignore you which I shall as my time can be better spent.
Best of luck,

Mitch44

[Mark]

Thank You!