RDSS 2.1 Factor Statistical Study

[Ted Craven]

Bill Lyster volunteered to gather statistics from RDSS2.1 Factors, some existing and some new ones, and present them in a way which might give some validation that the factors represent either an improvement over what we have now (e.g. the new CR+ Class Rating compared to the traditional CR Class Rating) or new factors which we have not seen before: the Rx Line Score and the Rx1 variant of it (which excludes the external 'Power Number' component of it, currently BRIS ProfitLine).

I can't keep straight (sorry Bill :o ) how many races are involved, because some races from 2015 did not involve Rx (only Rx1) and we added VDC only after a large number of races has already been captured. But it 2000+ races in all from 2015 and 2016 were input (Bill, feel free to clarify).

(Note: in future, this is what the Modeler is for - statistical including Impact Value studies).

Attached here in Excel spreadsheets are some of the results of what Bill has presented to me, broken down in various ways. The sheets show Hit Rate, average Mutuel and ROI by rank, and a subtotal by Top 4 combined ranks (also Rank 5 in the overall Summary sheet). Also a combined ROI% betting ALL Top 4 ranks (i.e. the loss involved)

The sheet named '...by distance...' is broken down by distance groupings. It has separate lines for races from Southern California (SA and DMR) in 2015 and for all other races (2016 GP, TAM - possibly other tracks).

The other Summary sheet is broken down by Winners/Maidens, then Field Size groupings, then Surface.

The overall takeaway is:

1. The new CR+ as a Class factor is several percentage points better than the old CR factor.

2. CSR Composite Speed Rating is a very predictive factor - 74% Top 4 and > 80% Top 5. CSR ranks > 5 hit less than 20% of the time (all distances, tracks, surfaces, field sizes)

3. Of the new Rx and Rx1 factors (Rx1 excludes the external 'Power Number' / ProfitLine), Rx has a slightly higher Hit Rate (74.8%), and Rx=1 (Rx rank 1) average mutuel than Rx1, though lower average mutuel from Ranks 2 and 3. The Top 4 combined ROI for Rx is slightly better than Rx1 (4% loss versus 6% loss). However for day-to-day use, the Rx and Rx1 line Scores can probably be used interchangeably (i.e. you don't need TwinSpires' ProfitLine number - except perhaps in Maiden races with FTS, where it is a definite help along with Workout Patterns and Tote Analysis).

4. VDC Top 4 Hit Rate is 73% - always reliable, although a fair number of tied ranks.

Notes: These initial studies are imperfect in that they often have multiple ties, which means that in someraces, there are more than 4 horses in the Top 4 ranks. VDC has more tied ranks than CSR which has more ties than Rx and Rx1. CR+ has almost no ties. Further studies need to be done (i.e. in the Modeler) to create proper Impact Values for these and other Factors.

However, I have found that there is almost NEVER a doubt in identifying which are the Top 4 ranked Rx or CR+ horses. Also - the BL/BL ranks/tiers are almost always unique, though not yet part of these studies.

FWIW, I almost never include CSR horses with rank > 5 as Primary Contenders - unless there are extenuating circumstances such as trouble or unsuitable distance/surface or other legitimate excuse in usually the last 2 lines, being the most highly weighted in the CSR formula (in which case there is a method of recalculating CSR without that line).

All in all - I found these stats sufficiently encouraging to create a new Analysis screen around them - the Rx Screen.

The Studies: * 40315
* 40316

If Bill Lyster is available to comment on these studies or correct any mis-statements I have made, I will appreciate his help with that while I am gone the rest of the month.

Again, thank you Bill - it was a monumental amount of hand data entry (though I know you love it ;) ). In the future, the Modeler should make this and much more, much easier.

Enjoy!

Ted

[RichieP]

FWIW, I almost never include CSR horses with rank > 5 as Primary Contenders - unless there are extenuating circumstances such as trouble or unsuitable distance/surface or other legitimate excuse in usually the last 2 lines, being the most highly weighted in the CSR formula (in which case there is a method of recalculating CSR without that line).

Ted


Hi Ted
May I ask if this is right:
CSR is also distance (S/R) influenced in creating the number? I ask because I am betting only longer priced horses and a LOT are not top 5 CSR. I dont even look at that rating anymore (looking at all tracks, surfaces with minimum of 8 betting entries when I have time to wager).

Also a caveat I feel is needed here: since Nov 14th I have bet a total of only 45 races, I PASS a ton of races that dont look right to my Mind's Eye if you will and I am doing very well achieving a 40% ROI without rebates win betting only.

Saying this because in no way am I attempting to put down all the hard work that its creator has done on it

Please this is not meant as a redboard but todays 8th race at Oaklawn is a perfect example of my opening paragraph. $16.80 wire to wire winner is nowhere on CSR yet figures in some way,shape or form if one were to start at the bottom of the pp's and work there way up/

YES the last races were sprinting and the race today was a 2 turn mile and this horse did ALL its winning routing.

Can you please clarify a bit whats up?
Thanx for ALL your hard work!
Richie

[Bill Lyster]

The study was done before Ted and I decided that we needed the ability to forgive a really bad race (but only one race for each horse), so the CSR info includes horses who might have fared better in the CSR rankings had we used the open to recalculate. I have checked this "forgive" feature out on a limited basis and sometimes the CSR ranking changes and some times it does not. So in my view the CSR win %-ages should be looked upon as a minimum. Also note that when you use the forgive feature it usually only changes the SCR ranking if the race forgiven is the last or 2nd last race. This is because the weighting decreases the deeper into the PPs you go.

Also note that the top 5 CSR win about 80% on the dirt but only about 66% on the turf (races with at least 7 horses entered). The hit rates are a little higher in fields of 5 or 6 but that is to be expected

A couple of examples of the types of horses that might benefit with the recalculate feature:
- horses that get creamed at the break and never got into the race;
- horses that especially in the last two races ran on new surfaces and did not fare well, but which today are returning to a surface on which they have done better;
- At Santa Anita the adjusted speed ratings for horses running the downhill turf course are about 7 or 8 points LOWER than horses who ran on flat sprint turf races elsewhere or turf routes. So if you see that a horse prepped down the hill and got a 74 SR, the horse will usually bet competitive with milers or other distance horses with adjusted SRs of 81-82

[Ted Craven]

Hi Ted
May I ask if this is right:
CSR is also distance (S/R) influenced in creating the number? I ask because I am betting only longer priced horses and a LOT are not top 5 CSR. I dont even look at that rating anymore (looking at all tracks, surfaces with minimum of 8 betting entries when I have time to wager).

Also a caveat I feel is needed here: since Nov 14th I have bet a total of only 45 races, I PASS a ton of races that dont look right to my Mind's Eye if you will and I am doing very well achieving a 40% ROI without rebates win betting only.

Saying this because in no way am I attempting to put down all the hard work that its creator has done on it

Please this is not meant as a redboard but todays 8th race at Oaklawn is a perfect example of my opening paragraph. $16.80 wire to wire winner is nowhere on CSR yet figures in some way,shape or form if one were to start at the bottom of the pp's and work there way up/

YES the last races were sprinting and the race today was a 2 turn mile and this horse did ALL its winning routing.

Can you please clarify a bit whats up?
Thanx for ALL your hard work!
Richie

Hi Rich - this will probably be my last post for a few days (taking off to your fair country for 2 weeks :) ). The CSR is not really distance related - it uses the projected-to-today's-distance Adjusted Speed Rating and does a weighted composite of the last 4 of those, emphasis gradually declining as we go back in time.

However - I completely agree that that particular race - maybe many of the races you are working and winning - are won by other means in the 'big tent' of Sartin Methodology/Matchup. By my reckoning, there are approximately 17 (or 71 ;) ) ways to get various races - some used on the same race by different people and getting the same winner - some other races (or particular kinds of races) lending themselves only to being won by certain analyses.

In the OP race you cite, someone looking for an Early horse who could dominate the other Earlies (including slowing down sufficiently to still stay ahead and throw the other Earlies off their preferred position) might have clearly landed on the #8 winner. I see different tools for different practitioners. The use of a collection of aggregate factors like CSR (and its involvement in the Rx) in no way invalidates the Matchup (haha - as if). That horse also showed the largest E/L Early stick (as did several of its other pacelines going all the way back to its deep past) - so, I would like to think that if I was (or if any astute person was) paying attention to fundamentals (i.e. the Matchup) they would have clued into that horse. Maybe not - who knows.

40323

I guess my question is (a rhetorical question) - because some races can be won by the means cited above - does that mean that NO races should be looked at by means suggested by the weight of stats Bill has gathered, and as portrayed in the BLBL screen and (perhaps) the upcoming Rx Line Scores? I suspect there are enough races for BOTH approaches - sometimes at the same time.

Some approaches allow you to play A LOT more races - some less so. Each method is valid for a particular person's temperament, IMO. I salute your focus on the races which work for you - and your winning record lately!

No problem with any point-of-view you have taken here - and no problem if - on balance - you choose to 'kick to the curb' the CSR or ANY other factor. It's the winning, the thickness of the wallet, and the enjoyment and sharing of good times which is the measure of things (IMO ;) )

Continued success!

Ted

[Mitch44]

I agree with RichieP and totally ignore the CSR and wish it wasn't even in the line score or program. Modelling has proven it to be a nonfactor for me. While the recalculate feature can probably help some IMO we would have to recalculate surface also. Additionally going back too many races one has to wonder if their still dealing with the same horse. The best two of the last three at a similar dis. & surface would be a much better factor.
A top four ranking is good for exactas but we should be concerned with factors with a high ranking of # 1 & # 2 for winner getting.

IMO wishing it was excluded.

Mitch44

[Bill Lyster]

Mitch, when the study was done, we set the paceline selection to automatically select the best of the last three according to how the program is coded. In many cases, I personally would not have chosen the lines that the program did, but the results are what the program chose, not me. In some cases, the program chose grass lines for dirt races and vice versa when races on todays surface were not competitive - which really surprised me! So in that respect there was no deviation in the selection of pacelines. In my own handicapping I am learning that I do a lot of zigging and zagging and as a result my paceline selections get shaded towards my own long held beliefs which long term have not yielded much to crow about. 2500 races later, my beliefs are changing for the better because of what this study shows. Races came from SA, DMR, TAM, GP, BEL, with the number of races approximately split between east and west.

[Mitch44]

Your zigging and zagging is completely understandable. And anyone not reviewing those automatic pace lines is asking for trouble. Every horse and line must be reviewed for agreement and success.

Mitch44

[Bill Lyster]

Mitch:
While in concept I totally agree with you about reviewing paceline selection, let me put this infront of you:

With automatice line selection based on "best of last three ..." In races with more than 7 horses there were 406 races where the winner was in the top three CSR AND in the top three Rx. So the bet would be $2 x 3 horses, total $2436. The return for this bet was $3,298.70, a profit of $862.70 and an ROI of +35.4%.

When both are top two, the profit on 248 races $658.40, ROI +66.4%

To put this in perspective this number of wins is approximately 10% of the study, so there is about one play per card.

[Mark]

What is Rx?

[Bill V.]

You say " Best of the last 3"
Did you use Doc's guidelines of the best of the last 3 speed ratings based on the adjusted track master speed ratings. at a comparable distance and surface ,and competition level based on total energy ?
With the 50 % dtv? While using Validator mode
Or did you test your best of last 3 using other methods ?

[Mitch44]

Bill that 406 only represents slightly a fraction more that 20% which tells me there were many good paying horses in there. I myself would rather have a primary factor much higher. At those percentages it should be regulated to a secondary factor for possible ex. and a longshot factor. For winners it destroys the other readouts for the line or score.

In Brohamer's book their objective was to use factors with a high percent in the top 2 for winners. Anytime a low producing factor is added to a group it tears the group down significantly.DD ,Ex. etc. all spring from winners.

Mitch44

[Bill Lyster]

Bill, the screen shots show the set up and paceline selection strategies used in this study. I was not allowed to self select any line during the study. As much as a black box as we could make it.

[Bill Lyster]

In the following post, I misinterpreted the data; please disregard the ROI information.


Mitch:
While in concept I totally agree with you about reviewing paceline selection, let me put this infront of you:

With automatice line selection based on "best of last three ..." In races with more than 7 horses there were 406 races where the winner was in the top three CSR AND in the top three Rx. So the bet would be $2 x 3 horses, total $2436. The return for this bet was $3,298.70, a profit of $862.70 and an ROI of +35.4%.

When both are top two, the profit on 248 races $658.40, ROI +66.4%

To put this in perspective this number of wins is approximately 10% of the study, so there is about one play per card.

[gentz]

What is BLT/C Syndicate as an automatic paceline selection?

[Mitch44]

Bill we're in agreement on reviewing pace lines to insure we're in agreement with the selected line.

As far as the study I understand the parameters to which you had to work under. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that because all horses and races were treated equally. Absolutely fair and I'm in total agreement with that.

Bill you did an outstanding job and a more difficult task then most are aware of. Again congrats for your hard and consistent approach,especially not adding your own ideas to it. Real discipline and challenging.

My post really has to do with my experience with CSR as I have found it to be a non-factor with low percentages. For me it clutters up the program and distorts the line score etc. I wish the option to exclude it existed. Many reasons for its failure, too many to address here and a non-factor for me. IMO I'm sure the contrarian member is out there, all I can say is good luck with it.

Mitch44

[Bill V.]

What is BLT/C Syndicate as an automatic paceline selection?

Doc's guidelines were to use the best adjusted speed rating of the last 3 or 4
pacelines at a comperable distance surface and competition level.

Ted has decided that his perceptor should replace Doc's work
I am not sure if Ted considers "at a comperable distance and competition level."
Or is Ted just taking the best perceptor values
So the new default setting is best perceptor last 3 lines .

What is perceptor , Here is a good explanation
http://paceandcap.com/forums/showpost.php?p=74573&postcount=2

[Bill Lyster]

Bill we're in agreement on reviewing pace lines to insure we're in agreement with the selected line.

As far as the study I understand the parameters to which you had to work under. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that because all horses and races were treated equally. Absolutely fair and I'm in total agreement with that.

Bill you did an outstanding job and a more difficult task then most are aware of. Again congrats for your hard and consistent approach,especially not adding your own ideas to it. Real discipline and challenging.

My post really has to do with my experience with CSR as I have found it to be a non-factor with low percentages. For me it clutters up the program and distorts the line score etc. I wish the option to exclude it existed. Many reasons for its failure, too many to address here and a non-factor for me. IMO I'm sure the contrarian member is out there, all I can say is good luck with it.

Mitch44

Understood and thanks,

[gentz]

Thanks Bill...... I couldn't see the forest for the trees. I'm familiar with the best of last three comparable but I never saw it written in that format. Its easy to confuse an old guy like me. lol

[Mark]

I used MaxVel, HTR and the Robots from Ken Massa for about 10 years prior to finding the Pace and Cap Website and the Hat Check blog. He has been adjusting for Run-Up distances for probably 15 years. The Modeler in MaxVel has gone through 3 of 4 iterations. His Robot allows you to query not only single factors but combinations of factors and is ultra sophisticated. If I wanted to Data Mine I would have stayed with him. He uses HDW for data which I think is superior to Trackmaster as well.

But Richie demonstrated how to stack lines and use RDSS to do things that I wanted to do. I wanted most of all to use the Match Up. Now the little we have heard about the new version is that Ted is moving into a direction that his been fully exploited by some very sharp and dedicated people. I was hoping that the new version would have a greater focus on "The Match Up" we will have to see

[lone speed]

I was hoping that the new version would have a greater focus on "The Match Up" we will have to see

Touché!!!!!

When I first registered years ago, one of my first correspondence with Ted was about the capacity to adjust for the match- up from the pace lines after adjustments from Trackmaster and inter-track adjustments....


I can still hope...:D

[RichieP]

Hi Ted and thanx for the detailed reply!

You know there really are so many ways to utilize RDSS and to be honest I would be out of the game completely without your software.

I am "software matching" and many of the readouts help me with pass/play decisions as I was telling your Mum today on the phone. The key for me is PASSING races I dont completely understand and also dont have TWO value bet win bets going off at 4/1 and higher on BOTH runners.

Lets put aside CSR, APV, New Pace, Class ratings and the like cause I dont use any of that (i'm SURE its all good for others as it should be!)

For MY matching what really helps is the segment screen especially when I have a race with multiple early runners that I believe will cancel each other out leaving me with an OTE outcome for the WIN. I throw out the earlies and of my remaining OTE contenders go straight to the segments and look for the 2 best F1 runners ( remember Hat's teaching us to bet the horse closest to the pace even when OTE is the race shape) well I bet the TWO best if they are good odds! I like a cushion if you will :)

Since my post earlier in this thread 2 nights ago I looked at 36 races and I have bet exactly one which was today's grade 1 turf at Keeneland Race #9. Right away there were 2 pure early runners who matched (#3, #7) so I focused on quality runners who ran well from up close against a pace I thought would happen. after throwing them out and keeping ONLY the OTE runners I had 4 contenders, here are screenshots showing original lines and the help RDSS gives me (LOOK at who the TWO best F1 runners are, These are the horses I want to bet in this race shape. PERIOD) I am also including my wager from Twinspires. It's the #2 and #4 all the way looking at F1 forget all the other readouts in this race shape. $14.60 winner blowing by the 2 earlies was beautiful! BTW the winner was #2 so one horse bettors focusing on closest to the pace OTE runner (LOOK at F1) nail her in a 1 horse bet!!

Are there things I would like to see added? Sure (not sure what else you have going with the new update) but for now THANK YOU for what I have!
Richie

[Ted Craven]

Hi, checking in from beautiful Charlottesville, Virginia near the Blue Ridge Mountains before I head out for a week's seminar working on my 'intuition / minds-eye' (better late than never :D ). Then on to Las Vegas and area for a week, returning for May 2 (got to stay balanced - LOL!)

Re some of the comments here:

1. Don't worry - nothing from the current RDSS will be missing from RDSS2.1 (except hopefully most of the bugs). You can even run the current version side-by-side with the new one. You don't even have to update if you don't want to. I am only adding additional things.

2. Stuff people don't want to see. I take the advice given above and will make it so that CSR (like Morning Line Odds, requested previously) can be hidden wherever it appears if you really don't want to see it. And as I mentioned in the RDSS2.1 Feature List, the Analysis Panel will have the same Layout Tool as the PP Panels do now, so if you don't want to see the new Rx screen, you can hide it (and you can hide as many of the other Analysis screens as you want to, as well). For those who think they may be interested in new things - don't worry: you can still check it out. (And I assure you: the profits made by making use of these newer things is still as spendable and virtuous as if made using any of the other screens.) Is there anything else I should make optionally 'hideable' - remembering, you can hide entire screens?

3. Matchup Stuff. Mark, as far as I can tell, everything you asked me for is included in the Feature List, and some of it has been displayed in Bill V's screens (grouping by Running Style). If I left something out, please send me an email or PM. Lone Speed - if you would kindly send me (or re-send me) the specifics of your 3 years ago request, I would be grateful. Maybe it's in my mind to do and did not get described in the Feature List. Besides FPLR, Projected Pace on the Adjusted screen, sorting by Running Style, improved accuracy (IMO) on creating Running Styles -what other Matchup Stuff is there, please?

4. Re 'data-mining' - well, one man's data-mining is another man's Brohamer Decision Model. As above, if you don't want to keep Decision Models (or Track Profiles, or track your wagers), then simply don't use the new Modeler. As for performing the various searching and slicing and dicing of HTR, or HSH or whatever - if I knew more about what these programs do, I could tell you better what RDSS will or won't do sooner or later. I have no interest in 'wannabe' anything.

If you'd like to keep an automated Wager Decision Form like Doc Sartin suggested in numerous Follow Ups - on any factor you like (e.g. like I did with Rx for Aqueduct), or if you want to track your decisions on what combo of factors works well for YOU at PENN National sprints for Winners in field sizes of 7+ horses and what is your average ROI and Hit rate (for example) - maybe the Modeler will help you. If you never keep very many records at all because it's all too damned much work ... etc, etc.

5. Re 'Ted has decided that his perceptor should replace Doc's work' -- Perceptor is none other than the F6 Feature in Validator - created by Doc to tell you which paceline the software thinks is strongest: no more, no less. It's not even my label (it's Guy Wadsworth's). And Doc never included automated paceline selection in any of his programs, so I never replaced anything - only added for consideration. Please repeat after me: if you don't want to use automated paceline selection - please don't use it.

Further, Best of the LAST 3 Distance and Surface (or BLT/C) has been the Default PSS option for years now, and should surprise no one that is suddenly appears. Feel free to use it as a starting point then review the line choices and change them, or ignore it. For the PSS Screen Label 'gentz' saw and queried ('BLT/C Syndicate') - it is simply an 'artifact' of a prvious testing version and has already disappeared from the latest one. It's a test I did on doing Contender separation based on user-defined rules, and as mentioned in the Feature List, would run on whatever collection of pacelines the user came up with - automated or manual.

For the initial Study Bill Lyster did (thank you again Bill) - to validate whether any of these new factors were valuable - it would make no sense for him to make his own decisions about line selection as no one else could trust whether theirs wold be similar, and thus if the factors under study would perform the same in their hands. At least with an automated method, if you do the same as Bill did, you'll get the same results. Plus - if the research method were not automated, likely he would not have been able to gather a tenth the data he did.

Bill concluded (so far) more or less what I thought: the new Class Rating CR+ is much better than than the old one: CR. Whatever you think of CSR, it is highly predictive of Winners and in-the-money finishers - at the average mutuels and ROI stated. As are the Rx factors - even more so. Judge them now, or judge them later (I suggest later ...).

6. Please see Point #1.

That's all folks. Enjoy the rest of April - see you in May :)

Ted

[Bill V.]

Hi Ted

Enjoy your visit to the USA. :)
I don't care what you do with Doc's readouts
If you want to rename factors , Who cares . well I guess I do but I'm stubborn
If you want to call The F6 key Preceptor, or Wodswother, or Cravenator, Its fine with me, I'm just wishing you would call things what Doc left us


Gentz Ted is correct, If you set your RDSS to the Validator defaults
The lines picked by Preceptor will be EXACTLY the same as what you would
see on Val 4 by selecting the last 3 lines and then pushing the F6 key The only difference is some times on Validator when you push F6
you will get ties. The way doc left it. Which i liked because I then had to leave in both lines and I had to let the program readout tell me which was the better pace line

[The Pook]

Hi Ted and thanx for the detailed reply!
Are there things I would like to see added? Sure (not sure what else you have going with the new update) but for now THANK YOU for what I have!
Richie

Richie, nice work finding a gem like this at Keeneland. Sorry if this is getting off topic a bit in this thread but I was curious about your workup. I had the race similarly figured out although I did not actually bet it. I had the same four contenders with the same pace lines accept the 6 I used the last pace line. I can't figure what made you want to go back to the 7th line? Thoughts?

Much Thanks,
Pook

[RichieP]

Richie, nice work finding a gem like this at Keeneland. Sorry if this is getting off topic a bit in this thread but I was curious about your workup. I had the race similarly figured out although I did not actually bet it. I had the same four contenders with the same pace lines accept the 6 I used the last pace line. I can't figure what made you want to go back to the 7th line? Thoughts?

Much Thanks,
Pook

Hi Pook
Looking at the pp's of the 3 and 7 I had the first call in about 47 and change to a 48. the 2 fastest races of the 6 including last line was against 46 1c paces. so looking at the pps I saw line 7 which fit perfect and it was a win against quality runners - negative on the horse for me was this - I didnt like the winning positions at 1c for this guy when I am trying to find a 3rd or 4th position runner, he's just positionally (compared to the 2 and 4) too much of a "martian" or out of the clouds runner.

Here are his pps as well as the winning #2 and the #4.

Hope it makes a bit of sense and FWIW I NEVER look back on losing bets(races). Never

Regards,
Richie

[jscammer69]

Hey Ted,

I see that you will be out of town for a couple of weeks so have fun! When you get back I have a couple of questions.

1. Whatever happened to entropy, SPN, and LSP?
2. Is supplemental line score still figured the same way as old Sartin programs or is it with what shows up in RDSS2 with PF3, TS+F3, TS, and TPP? Or is SUPP LS in RDSS2 like old Sartin programs and you just don't show old factors?
3. Does new RDSS 2.1 now show all time calls and positions as DRF or still just 4? The Hat used 1/4 mile time in routes as well.
4. I read that Entropy was also good at getting the proper contenders and once was used to get a race down to 4 and even 3 with over 88% success. Is that not the case anymore?
5. I'm interested to see if you thought about making a contender screen comprised of APV, CR+, Entropy, CSR, and BLT SR?

Thanks and God bless for all your work!

James

[Old Arkie Gal]

My title is an allusion to Ted's remarks that there 17 or 71 ways to use RDSS and to the big tent of the Sartin methodology. I don't use the Match-Up but I stand in awe of those who are able to use it. The closest I come to using it is when I have one or several E6, E7, or E8s in a race and my attempt to discover if they have too little, too much, or enough early speed to win or lose. That at the very least is an attempt. Richie, thanks for your post it was an eye opener for me. I have not looked at the OTE and it's first fraction pace/ and or closeness to the pace. I expect that information will be applied in my future handicapping.
However, my purpose here is not to address the Match UP, but to say I am one of the contrarians who uses CSR following the guidelines outlined by rmath in earlier posts. It is not a stand alone number and I use it in conjunction with other numbers. It works for me and the way I use RDSS. I think there is a lot of room under that "big tent".
Pat

[jscammer69]

Just to clarify question 3, the positions with lengths behind in routes at the quarter mile are not included in RDSS2.

[Bill Lyster]

I was looking at possible exacta wagering possibilities in the statistics and it became apparent that the exacta data for West coast and East coast charts reports different information.

The West Coast charts report $1 exacta payoffs while the east coast charts report $2 payoffs, so all of the Belmont, Tampa Bay and Gulfstream exacta payoffs need to be divided in half so that they compare to the data reported for Del Mar and SA (or vice versa). I have not checked the pick three payout info, but I will report back after having done so.

[Bill Lyster]

Only West Coast tracks post $1 exacta payoffs; the rest post $2 payoffs;
All tracks report Daily Double payoffs as $2 bets;
SA/GP/TAM report pick three payoffs as $1 bets; AQU reports $2 payoff info;
SA/GP reports pick 4 payoffs for $0.50 bets;Tampa Bay reports pick 4 payoffs for $1.00 and AQU reports for $2 payouts.

I used the Brisnet Chart Archives for the information in the study.

So if you are doing any workouts based on horizontal play, please note you need to make adjustments for some of the information reported depending upon which tracks you are studying

[Mitch44]

Like others in here Ted I have my own pet factors that I strongly would like in a secondary LS or Supp. LS. Is it possible for a set-up where the individual can pick say 4 out of 8 etc., then can use the ones their particularity fond of or have found over the years to be more profitable and or stronger? Eliminating the remainder to make a stronger or best Supp. LS. If limited to 3 or 5 it would also prevent ties as its an odd number.
Mitch44