How to resolve this conflicting informtion? [Archive] - Pace and Cap

Rivegauche610

05-20-2016, 04:02 PM

Greetings, a new user here but one familiar with the Sartin and Brohamer basics for many years now and who recently took the RDSS plunge. Many thanks to Ted for much help.

My question centers on the information given by several crucial screens, screens which are central to some old hands' decision - making, and hence ought ultimately to be mine, also.

I speak of Energy, TPR+E/L, BL/BL and Segments screens.

My paceline selection is generally spot-on with the program's. I will occasionally override when I feel the situation warrants, but not often.

Attached are my screen shots in numerical order.

Notice the consensus between the first three screens, then notice the graphical depiction of the final fraction and finish at Segments. How am I to account for the discrepancy between what the numbers tell me and what the graphical depiction shows me? I am inclined to lean toward the numerical evidence more than the pictorial. Please advise? Thank you all. I am enjoying this program immensely although why the horses can't understand that they are to follow the TPR+E/L beats the hell out of me.

Kevin

Mark

05-20-2016, 04:26 PM

The Segment screen illustrations represent:
1. First fraction
2. second fraction
3. True Speed +final fraction

These graphics help to see who is the fastest away from the gate to the 1st Call. And then who may run a 2nd fraction that will overcome the deficit of the first fraction. It is not the 2nd Call! That is represented in the columns displaying beaten lengths to the left.

The farthest right of the illustrations in essence double counts final fraction and will be helpful if you feel that the race will run other than early and that a Sustained type will overtake the Pressers.

I believe this is creating the confusion for you.

Rivegauche610

05-22-2016, 10:04 AM

So one has to make a discrimination between the middle panel (F2) and the third panel because they are not really sequential? I don't understand why the final fraction is "double counted" and why it therefore isn't simply a representation of the last part of the race as F1 and F2 represent the 1st and 2nd thirds of the race. Put another way, F2 is the logical successor to F1, but F3 is an entirely different outcome because it isn't simply the representation of the end of the race but is a composite showing what happens when you combine two factors? That means to me "If X, then the F2 result; if Y, then the F3 result". ?

Mitch44

05-22-2016, 10:44 AM

What this screen does is show moves in the different portions of the race. I suppose the "double counted" 3rd Fr is because a horse gaining a length there is worth two because others are decelerating 1 length. A valid Bradshaw concept.

I had the energy program however its been so long I forget how those panels were set up. I believe the way you thought they were here.

Like you this particular screen is totally confusing to me except to see moves. However I'm aware of others that consult it every race and wouldn't be without it. It makes a little more sense once you know what it actually represents. Personally I seldom use it. Additionally just because a horse makes a move in the 3rd Fr doesn't mean it'll get up, but definitely a horse that deserves more scrutiny etc. Same with the second panel.

For me what would make more sense would be to have to have 1st FR, SC and 3rd FR./ Final ( doubled up or the 3rd panel matching what B/L B/L determined or the computers final analysis) What your looking for can be determined through other readouts. My best advise to you is now that you understand it try to comprehend it. If it still confuses you then don't use it. There are other read out and factors in RDSS that are better and less confusing.

As I said IMO I think the best use of this screen is to detect moves and then look closer at these horses so their not overlooked in your analysis.

Best of luck,
Mitch44

Rivegauche610

05-22-2016, 12:11 PM

Thank you both, Mark and Mitch!

Mark

05-22-2016, 02:21 PM

Now that you know what you are looking at, work a couple 100 races and then make a decision about what you learn from consulting this screen.

The factor TS +F3 is illustrated in the panel closest to the right because research shows that this is a very good factor. Certainly in Turf racing it is deadly. But in any race that variegates OTE, the top 4 horses win a large percentage of the time. Why put the same information that is already shown in beaten length totals in the columns to the left?

Do the work, then you will know for yourself. No one ever advertised RDSS2 as a black box. You have to apply your handicapping knowledge and a high percentage of the time if you get the correct pacelines these screens will faithfully represent the likely outcome of the race!

Bill V.

05-22-2016, 02:22 PM

If you use RDSS2 in Validator mode, The 3rd panel
is the VDC readout, Just like Doc wanted it .

The problem is this screen is still skrewed up
because the little horses dont match the rankings

In this example
The best VDC horse is #4 Grand. Its ranked #1
The #3 Cosmic is 2nd best VDC but the rankings and little horse are in position 3 ????
The #7 Candy has the 3rd best VDC but is ranked and positioned 2nd :/

The best advice I can give you is just use The first 2 panels

40745

Mitch44

05-22-2016, 03:11 PM

Originally in the Thoromation program the Doc had little horses running across the screen which represented how the race would run and finish. To me this would make sense on this screen. E.g. the order after the 1st Fr, order at the SC and the 3rd panel represent the finish as the computer sees it, say through BL/BL. Graphically this would represent the race as it unfolds. Of course as always it would be dependent on the pace lines picked, as everything is and the type races one plays.
Mitch44

Bill V.

05-22-2016, 06:45 PM

Yes Mitch

You are correct, and may I add there were also 2 "PrePlay" screens
That showed the race broken down into EP MP and LP

The two screens were called EXDC and SP and they were separated.
You had to go out of the EXdC screen and go into the SP screen.
Also the thoromation horses running across the screen were on a third screen'
Yes it was a step to switch from screen to screen, ( a easy step )
All you had to do was hit enter and select the screen from the main menu.

EXDC was a normal view and SP was weighted to show the race winner
most likely If the race ran Other Than Early

I think Teds only downfall with the Segments screen is he tried to put too much clutter/ readouts one screen

In validator the readout is called The Incremental Match Up Graph.
This is all that was shown
The heading for panel 3 is 3F + Total Pace
but in truth the 3rd panel was just the VDC rankings

40746

Mark

05-22-2016, 07:00 PM

I think I would give my left nut to have Thoromation updated to work on the modern operating systems without having to enter paceline information.

That program which actually was two was the beginning of Energy versus Velocity and incorporated everything that RDSS is based upon. There are many nice presentation aspects to RDSS and the adjustment process works from Trackmaster variants rather than the triangulated variant of Total Energy. Your paceline selection and contenders had to be spot on or you got some off the wall results. Back then I really didn't know what I was doing so couldn't take advantage of it. It always made me nervous when it called for the #2 adjustment because that usually would slew the race from EXDC to SP.

The Doc and Jim were so far ahead of mainstream handicapping, in another zip code.

Mitch44

05-22-2016, 10:25 PM

As a continuation of post #8 : or the 3rd panel could be V/DC. To the right of the 3rd panel I would put the opposite of what the 3rd panel was. If B/L B/L then V/DC would be to the right of the 3rd panel and if the 3rd panel was V/DC to the right would be BL/BL.

V/DC is presently on that screen but would be better used as a direct corollary to the right of the 3rd panel. It kind of gets an out of sight out of mind treatment where it presently resides.
Dreamer,
Mitch44

lone speed

05-22-2016, 10:32 PM

I think I would give my left nut to have Thoromation updated to work on the modern operating systems without having to enter paceline information.

I had to read this quote at least three times....

At my first reading, I had spilled my coffee on my keyboard; thinking that "Thoromation" was being updated to today's computer operating system-Hallelujah!!!!:)

In second reading; reality set it, as I realized it was not possible as Sartin had some disenchanted associates after this program and new EXDC were published...It made Sartin changed direction to PaceLaunchers up to Validator.

In my third reading, I think that I felled off my chair as I realized that people only donated their blood or their organs in their afterlife; but their "left _ _ _"?????:eek::eek::eek:

Rivegauche610

05-23-2016, 12:23 AM

My own paceline selection tends to be identical to the RDSS algorithms' selections pretty consistently, even at this early stage of interaction with the program.

So Bill, my take on your comment is that I should use the Velocity/Deceleration percentages column figures over the 3rd panel pictorial? I frequently see the discrepancies here. I take it, then, that in the current system the depiction is NOT just VDC rankings but includes an additional or alternate algorithm?

Now, Bill, you also mentioned using "RDSS in Validator mode"...would that refer to the "Paceline Selection Strategies" menu whereby one can select "Best VDC, last 3"? Does that cause RDSS to emulate the legacy Validator program? Not that I can do much with that knowledge since I've never used anything other than this program and I've only seen "screen shots" in many of the Follow Up articles I've read. Or do you mean something else?

Finally, could someone please explain the red and blue underlines in the screen shot below, please?

Thank you all!

Bill V.

05-23-2016, 04:57 AM

Hi
I am only suggesting if you use RDSS like we used to use Validator.
Then I would ignore the 3rd panel and just use the F1, F2 and the VDC percentages. What I mean by Val mode is to set your config tab to Val mode Like this

40750

I do not use the RDSS default - But its just a suggestion, Its just a suggestion,only if you want to keep things like Doc left them. If so then use the Val mode and use the VDC percentages and forget the 3rd panel

There is a slight difference between Default and Val Mode
Here is the segment screen for race 8 today at WO
I put them together. Default is on top . Then Val mod is below.
The numbers here are close but there are differences,
I am not going to say one way is better than another, But since the change is small, why bother with a "improvement"
I use what Doc left us

40751

Mitch has a good wish for how he would like to see the screen reinvented

For me,In a perfect world Ted would get rid of the little horses
and just use the numbers like we saw in Validator, and the numbers would be in order. The best VDC would be #1 second would be #2 third #3 and stay in order

Also all the beaten lengths data would be on a separate tab.
But It is no big deal. We need to use the tools we have,
I use Phase 1 and Ted put the VDC readouts on the Phase 1 TPR screen in the new RDSS2.1So I am a happy guy.
I just peak at the F1 and F2 portion of the segs and then go back to the Phase 1 TPR screen :)

Bill V.

05-23-2016, 05:16 AM

Hey Mark

I'm not sure if you know this but In RDSS2 you can pick your raw pace lines
and then send the pace lines over to Thoromation or any of the old Sartin
programs in a RAC file , in either 3 or 4 call format.

I used to use KGEN or Entropy. with Thoromation They seem to separate the fat better than just total energy

Mitch44

05-23-2016, 09:13 AM

Bill my wish list could tie in with the mode selected.
Mitch44

Ted Craven

05-23-2016, 11:13 PM

Rivegauche (Kevin), did you get your original question answered? If not, please feel free to call any time :)

Some of the explanations for the factors were accurate, some were confused. If anyone is still confused, please let me know and I will explain everything, although it is all explained many times before.

The Default Mode in RDSS is default for a reason - it works better. If someone asks me what Mode to use, I say: use the Defaults.

If someone wants to use the Mode which emulates Validator, for whatever compelling reason, then by all means use it. Only, kindly do not say 'Ted 'skrewed' up this readout or that readout', or - RDSS (or perhaps, RDSS in Val4 Mode) should only present things that were displayed in Validator. Be careful what you ask for - are you sure you mean this? For those who never used Validator or any of the other older Sartin programs, this will all be a moot point, and oldies quibbling about angels on the head of a pin. For newcomers, I recommend using RDSS the way it is presented, and just go ahead and collect the money.

For us 'oldies', re Validator Mode, and 'RDSS should not include things which were not in Validator', or 'Leave it well enough alone as Doc left it' - this is the same philosophical argument offered by fundamentalists everywhere - i.e. that no improvement can be made to the 'words of the Prophet'. I had enough long and serious conversations with Doc in his latter days when I was developing RDSS to firmly believe he was and would now be all in favour of constant improvement, experimentation and new thinking. Anyone may dispute this - no one else was in on those conversations.

There is also another long story - which I have told a number of times before on this site - about the genesis of RDSS, which has everything to do with Guy Wadsworth, Doc's programmer of Validator and several earlier programs, as well as his own Speculator program. I may retell that soon if I need to. Essentially, RDSS exists today - and Validator4 exists (an update by me to Doc's last 2001 Validator program which was rendered degraded by a TrackMaster Speed Rating/Variant change in 2006) - ONLY because Guy Wadsworth gave me the Validator source code and Doc later confirmed its authenticity. And Guy's additions to Validator (i.e. in his Speculator) earned a place in RDSS.

Here is a short list of readouts in RDSS which I suspect people appreciate which were NOT in Validator (and which will disappear from Val4 mode if that's the way we're going):

1. the EPR, LPR and TPR numbers. Not the ranks, or the E/L differentials - the numbers

2. The VDC% number - essentially - the velocity/deceleration number itself - the successor to Entropy. Not the VDC rank on the BL/BL screen, but the number shown as a differential from 0.0% captioned VDC% on the TPR+E/L screen (V2.1) and the Segments screen.

3. Tote board, and tote analysis factors

4. All the numbers for each horse on all Tabs other than the Original, Adjusted, Trip and Workout screens, including so-called Perceptor (on ALL screens)

5. APV, CR Class Rating

6. Visual Running Style (RS) designations; Quirin Speed Points; Grouping of Running Styles by E+EP / P/ OTE, etc (V2.1)

7. Projected Pace tool

8. Power Moves underline designators on Original Screen

9. TS+F3 readout; DCL; PF3 (Projected F3, per Bradshaw and Pizzolla); CSR; NP

10. Automatic paceline selection

11. Workout Patterns and Speed Ratings

12. Result Charts

More, plus everything that would ever come in the future ...

If someone wants a preview of RDSS2.x in Val4 Mode in a pure state, here is a preview: http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6416 (Windows XP or Vista or DOS emulator program required)

If I sound peeved, well -- busted.

Stay tuned.

Ted

Lt1

05-23-2016, 11:41 PM

Hi Ted
I been with the Methodology since 1990 and have used just about every program that was available form that time on. I was very happy to find this site and RDSS. I find that using this program is like flying a plane on auto pilot compared to the old days of pondering which adjustment to use 1-2-3. I guess we tend to forget the amount of work that goes into this and other programs. Sure I'm sure most of us have a wish list but let's face it none of us ever gets 100% of what we want or think we need. Like Doc use to say you don't need to know how it works just that it does work. So thanks for all your hard work and help. Looking forward to the new version.
Tim

DanBoals

05-24-2016, 04:37 AM

If I sound peeved, well -- busted.

Stay tuned.

Ted

Ted, you should not be worrying. Thanks to your excellent program, and the wonderful help I have received on this forum, I had my first winning year in I don't know how long. Without RDSS2, I would either use manual entry Synthesis (which takes forever to enter data into) or visually handicap and I would either lose a little or break even. Now that I have RDSS2, I am actually making money, consistently, on the ponies like never before. Are there minor tweaks I would like to see made, sure. But, hey, it works damn good right now, so I really can't complain. I am REALLY looking forward to the new version to see what goodies you have added for us.

Thanks,

Dan

Bill V.

05-24-2016, 04:40 AM

So Ted
I am sorry to offend your ego,
I am very happy you left Validator alone, and extremely happy for the added features you outlined. I make a great profit with the phase 1 readouts and VDC

If you take away Val mode then I will have to live with it
If you leave it alone that makes me very happy.

Please leave Doc's Validator alone via the Val mode , allowing us an option.
I have every right to tell people how I use RDSS and how I feel about how Doc left things

I was in on those conversations too.

Bill

Mitch44

05-24-2016, 11:04 AM

I'm sure no one would like to go backwards. Your efforts Ted are notable, everyone is well aware of your great contribution and without those efforts we would be unsuccessful.

The Doc said that individuals see things different, so in order to have that light go off in their brain he used different approaches. Some get it through numbers ,some by graphs or sticks. Individual wish lists are nothing more than a desire for clarification a crying out for help for clearer understanding. The Doc was always improving and moving forward to enhance and not to regress. I'm sure no one meant any direct insult or to disparage you in any way.

In any relationship the road is never smooth but a bump here and there or a disagreement should never be a dead-end. We all trust your judgement and guidance as we're all just wired a little different and looking for that light switch in a dark room.

All my best,
Mitch44

shoeless

05-24-2016, 09:52 PM

I would like to know what is the main difference in using the program as RDSS with the default or as Validator

Mark

05-24-2016, 10:52 PM

Yes I am aware of that. Ted was kind enough to send me a little program to sidestep the protection mechanism on my disk but honestly, I haven't used it.

I like just about everything in Thoromation/Kgen. However, the triangulated variant adjustment based on Total Energy disparity required only entering "True Contenders". Back then I was not really all that good at separating the wheat from the straw.

As I have read this thread and seen Ted's response and the direction of this new update, I can't say that I am all that pleased. Modeling and Database mining hold no allure to me. If I wanted to do that I would have stayed with Ken Massa and his Maxvel, HTR and Robots. But he is not interested in supporting the needs of Matcher's beyond the software he currently provides. I still feel that what Ted is offering in the current RDSS2 program is the best Matcher software available.

Remember, you don't have to upgrade from the current version of RDSS2. Ted has made that clear. So you should always have the Val4 format.

Bill V.

05-24-2016, 11:02 PM

Hey Mark
I really appreciate your comments . I am kind of glad you mostly want to stay with matching. Let those old program go if you have any issues. You are one of the best matchers I have seen, You have helped me
improve how I look at the early pace and how position at the second call is so important. Thank you Mark.

Bill

Ted Craven

05-24-2016, 11:06 PM

What, huh? No one said anything about removing Val4 Compatibility Mode. Please re-read what I wrote. I would never do that.

My comments related to the disputed 'purity' of the readouts shown when using Val4 Mode, as compared to what was found in Doc's last Validator program. I described the things many people like in RDSS which do NOT appear in Validator, and mused what it would be like if those things disappeared in the process of adhering to 'what Doc left us', 'why tinker or improve on that, leave well enough alone', etc, etc.

I can't believe that hardly anyone would want to lose that list of items for the sake of dogmatic adherence to what Doc left us. I assure everyone - every factor and readout from Val4 can be found in RDSS - number for number exactly. And always will be.

Plus more ... :)

Plus I think I've already replied to concerns about 'data mining' and decision model and track profile keeping: different strokes for different folks. If you want the HTR Robot for data mining, just get HTR.

Ted

Rivegauche610

05-25-2016, 02:56 PM

What do the red and blue lines under the position numbers mean, please?

Mark

05-25-2016, 03:12 PM

There is a write up about this in the release notes written by Ted. You need to read all this stuff. Between the release notes and tutorials, again written by Ted most of your questions will be answered.

As I read them long ago and my memory is fuzzy, the gist of them are:

Red: indicates a wide trip, the bolder the line the worse the trip.(you may want to read Calibration Handicapping by Jim Lehane, which I believe these are based on.)

Blue: indicates a POWER MOVE which is a Bradshaw term indicating passing multiple horses during one pace segment. However as used, I think it also includes visually impressive moves of a horse drawing away from his nearest competitor.

Ted Craven

05-25-2016, 03:22 PM

Thanks Mark - indeed you are right! A collection of 'moves' against the leader, either gains or position or gains of lengths. Some of these are Jim Bradshaw's 'power moves'. Some other of these came courtesy of Jim Lehane from his Calibration Handicapping book.

Here is the Release Notes PDF which documents this: http://www.sartinmethodology.com/pubs/RDSS2_Beta2_Release_Notes.pdf Please see Point #3

For reference, all RDSS2 Release Notes from earlier versions of RDSS are found in the ... RDSS2 Version Release Notes (http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9097) Thread in the RDSS Info/Reference Forum, or in other version marked Threads in that Forum. There is a link to this Documentation Forum from the Help Window within RDSS.

Mark

05-25-2016, 03:42 PM

Shoeless,
I believe that the Val4 format was derived from the beaten length formula developed in Kgen and Thoromation where the value of a beaten length matched the number of half furlongs in the pace segment. In other words, in a quarter mile the value of a beaten length was 4 ft, a half mile was 8 ft. The distance of the final fraction determined the value of the beaten length, again 2 furlongs, 4 ft, 2.5 furlongs as in a 6.5f race was 5f, all the way up to 7.5f which was 3.5 furlongs was 7ft.
The logic behind this was as follows: in the shorter segments early in the race the horse was fresh and full of energy to the value of a beaten length was less than later in the race. In the final furlong horses are decelerating and beaten lengths gained or lost are a combination of closer gaining ground and leader losing ground.
The result was that Doc recommended as Bill mention not to use a paceline with a beaten length total of 7.5 lengths as it would skew the readouts.

I spent months figuring this out back in the day. It was all trial and error. Doc gave me a little program for making pars and in conjunction with Thoromation I was able to determine these values. I wa also able to accurately predict the Running Style that Thoromation projected from each paceline using what they called Par Median and final fraction velocity. I don't know that this has ever appeared in print before. It was a huge amount of work but I threw the computer away that had it on it when I moved years ago.(Original Dumb Ass)

Ted Craven

05-25-2016, 06:38 PM

This is essentially correct for Val4, except for some of the F3 and Final Time beaten length values. If that was how Kgen and Thoromation applied beaten lengths for purposes of calculating Velocity, Doc must have made some adjustments to that formula by the time he got to Validator (or perhaps even earlier).

Particularly in distances longer than 8f, excessive beaten lengths are undervalued, thus F3 and Final Time (i.e. TS True Speed) velocities are inappropriately fast (i.e. over valued). Hence the 7.5 length rule for Validator and RDSS Val4 Mode.

So - 4 ft per beaten length per half furlong per segment and Finish, except F3 and Finish in 6.5f, 7f, 7.5f and all distances over 8f - in which distances beaten lengths are valued at 5 ft. I don't explain it, or endorse it. I just code it.

In Default Mode, ALL beaten lengths are valued equally: 8.333 feet per beaten length. Thus, Final times and F3 times and velocities fairly represent bad lines (i.e. high beaten lengths). And good lines. Thus in Default Mode, no need to worry about beaten > 7.5 lengths skewing readouts.

The valuation of beaten lengths at different call points and segments is the main difference between Val4 Mode and Default Mode. There are a few other minor computation rounding differences between modes.

Just to clarify any confusing info given previously, displays of data in RDSS2 (which are calculated differently between Modes, as described above) are the same regardless of Mode. In Validator's Incremental Matchup Graph (same as right side of RDSS Segments screen) the Panel labeled 3F + Total Pace is in fact the VDC rank (and not what the label says, not Fraction 3 added to True Speed / average velocity beginning to end). In RDSS, it is ... well, 3F + Total Pace (or TS+F3, same thing). Total Pace = True Speed: same thing, different labels. In RDSS, the VDC rank is instead shown under the Segments Column VDC #. The VDC% in RDSS - the underlying velocity relative to deceleration ratio complex - is not shown in the old DOS Validator; only the VDC rank which is merged with the BLBL rank, hence the ties. VDC% is simply the underlying VDC number with highest value = 0.0% and all other numbers expressed as differentials from best.

FWIW, in Validator (i.e. the old DOS program, not RDSS Val4 Mode) - EPR/LPR and TPR values were not shown, only ranks and Early/Late Differential. Doc wanted it simpler. Blame me for adding detail. (But that's a different story ...)

Hope that helps (though I usually find that the above info confuses just as much as it clarifies).

Ted

shoeless

05-25-2016, 08:45 PM

Thanks Mark and Ted

Mark

05-25-2016, 11:15 PM

The value of a beaten length in feet depends on the velocity the horse is traveling at. When the gates open the horses jump away and those Early horses that want the lead charge ahead, at the end of the first fraction a horse that covers that quarter mile distance in say 22 seconds is traveling at 60 ft per second while a horse covering the same distance in 22.2 is traveling at 59.46 fps. So in that 1/5 of a second the leader has traveled 12 more ft than the horse running in second place or 6 ft in a 1/10 of a second which races are timed in today.
At the 2nd Call the leader passes the timer beam in 45 seconds so it took him 23 seconds to run the 2nd fraction. Yes the 2nd fraction was completed in 23 second and his average velocity was 57.39 fps but that is totally misleading. If he starts the 2nd fraction at 60 fps and he averages 57.39 fps over that distance his velocity at the 2nd call timer is actually 54.78 fps(assuming linear deceleration). At that rate a beaten length is worth less than 5ft.

The front runner wins the race by a nose in 1:10 flat. So he ran the last quarter mile in 25 seconds or 52.8 fps. over that final fraction. again if he enters the final fraction at 54.78 fps and his average velocity for that pace segment is 52.8 fps that means when he hits the wire he is traveling 50.85 fps(again assuming linear deceleration). So when you see slow horses charging down the center of the track, "looking like he jumped in at the 8th pole" you know why these horses who never travel faster than 55 fps in any of the earlier race segments can nip you at the wire. They decelerate much more slowly than the early speed and although they may be traveling only 52 or 53 fps that last furlong, that's enough. and what it tells you is that a beaten length in that stage of the race is less than 5 ft, much less in some cases.

I don't know who ever came up with 8.33 ft for a beaten length but it is nonsense.

The Doc and Jim Bradshaw figured this out. In think in large part due to Jim's observations of many, many races and the charting by hand of many pacelines(original form in the Red Match Up manual). They needed to find a way to chart acceleration and deceleration and they did it with Calculus and a programmer who knew how to convert a paceline into a vector or curve. That was the beginning of Kgen and Thoromation and it is a testament to their brilliance that we are still using their work 20 or 30 years later as the basis of our programs.

I guess my expectations were completely over the top. But when i found this website and the Hat Check blog and its apparent focus on Matching I really felt that we were going to see some advances in the science of handicapping. Some original investigation and research, after all it has been 3 years since the release of RDSS2. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised when we finally do see it but what I have read thus far is extremely disappointing. But that is not to say that the current version is not the best Matching program I have found, because it is. Its graphics and ease of use are head and shoulders above HTR and Maxvel, the latter i used for 10 years before finding Pace and Cap. In a sense, I guess I have just gotten greedy.

Mitch44

05-26-2016, 06:10 AM

The value of a beaten length is dependent on the speed (time) and distance. So it actually does vary, particularly in the last fractions as they vary the most.

Like the Doc said it doesn't make any different what you use as long as all horses are treated the same. 10 foot was used for many years and in Brohammer's book because it made the math easier. The actual length of a horse is closer to 8 foot(average) as some are longer.

To the best of my knowledge Doc was using 2 foot per 1/2 furlong in later programs. As he said mathematically as long as all are treated the same its a mute discussion.
Mitch44

Mark

05-26-2016, 12:55 PM

The value of a beaten length is exclusively based on the speed the horse is traveling at the point of call. Time is based on speed and distance. Don't confuse these things.

The horse's energy distribution calculation for all horses not on the lead is based upon speed at all points of call. It is the horses that race off the pace who are impacted most by constant or varying beaten length valuations as they are credited or penalized ground made up or lost in the calculation of their fps ratings. Middle moves and Turn time are significantly impacted just as length gain or loss in the final fraction. Horses are entered into consideration based upon their performance from a unique paceline unless from a tandem race. The value of beaten lengths in that paceline will determine their Total Energy as it will raise or lower their fractional speed. So it is not true that they are all treated by the same measure if that measure rewards or penalizes the individual horse.
It will also distort the ESP of an individual horse in there past performance lines.
After all, it is horses that make moves in their races that are signaling their fitness and ability to overcome the pace of the race. For off pace runners neglected by the Public that we can obtain significant mutuels. Just as it is the hidden Early horses that the Public does not see that also reward those that can. Rewarding this type of runner with greater speed leads to lost wagers.
Additionally, in Thoromation and Kgen which both came on the disk I bought their ESP was determined by the calculation Par Median/FR3. Par Median was 2nd call velocity. Using the number of 1/2 furlongs in the pace segment and their sum at the 2nd call, as well as the number of 1/2 furlongs in the final fraction may have been an initial expedient, later revised to mirror reality. I did not reverse engineer the later programs. But this would not surprise me. However, it provides additional evidence that overstating the value of beaten lengths led to less than optimal results. As Richie P reported the comment from Jim in one of their communications, "I think you give these sustained horses to much credit, Rich!" Horses running on an unpressured lead are not driving and therefore they have reserve energy in the stretch which prevents their deceleration from becoming acute. It is only when the leaders and Pressers have exhausted themselves that an "S" horse can utilize their slower deceleration to reach the front before the wire. Most often they will run second at very good prices.

Ted Craven

05-26-2016, 02:10 PM

So - 4 ft per beaten length per half furlong per segment and Finish, except F3 and Finish in 6.5f, 7f, 7.5f and all distances over 8f - in which distances beaten lengths are valued at 5 ft.

Just to correct my earlier summary re value of beaten lengths used in Validator -

I meant to say: 4 ft per beaten length per 2 furlong segment, except ... (I was agreeing with what Mark introduced in his immediately previous post, just stated the ft per bl wrong). Thus - at F1 call point in sprints (2f distance) = 4 ft, at F1 call point in routes = 8 ft (i.e. 2 x 2f = 4f distance). Etc.

Sorry for the typo :o

Ted

Mitch44

05-26-2016, 05:09 PM

As Ted said in RDSS the Doc and or the program uses 8.3333 for BL. As long as it applies a consistent approach its a mute point. The only way any of this means anything is if you make your own figures, otherwise trust the program.

I've made my own figures (for phase 1) specifically because the value of a beaten length does change depending on the speed of the segment being measured. The reason was to make a better mousetrap and TPR numbers which I accomplished. Even with that I chose 10 feet per length as did the original TPR. It just makes the math easier. 8 foot is closer to the length of a real horse. As long as a consistent number is used for a B L and all horses are treated equal it makes absolutely no difference in a mathematical formula.

Unless your going to make your own figures it really doesn't make any difference or does one need to know what formula is used in RDSS. Although Ted did provide 8.3333 One doesn't need to be a mechanic to drive a car, just drive it.

Enjoy the road trip,
Mitch44

lone speed

05-26-2016, 07:27 PM

The "Match-up" of the early pace of race supersedes even the most accurate numbers devised...

Mark,

I can understand a little of your "angst" about the number of lengths used in the calculations....as one who had the privilege to work with speed figures based on energy exertions many years ago based on racing data that were based in fifths...

Back then, these energy exertion numbers were sensitive to one tick or one-fifth....I would questioned the variant in question at times but in reality; it was the "rounding" to the nearest fifths that distorted the energy exertion numbers....

example 1:10 and .59 tenths for a six furlong race would be rounded to 1:10 and 2 fifths.....

Another area where one can have a huge error in calculation even though one has more accurate numbers is the "troubled trip".

One prime example is Nyquist in last year's Breeders Cup Juvenile race. In the paceline of the Daily Racing Form, nowhere is a wide trip "duly" noted.

Nyquist in the first turn out of the starting gate of race was 6 wide going into the first turn and Nyquist stood in the wide path all around most of the race, as Nyquist was also 6 wide going into the far turn and 4 wide going into the stretch run. Thorograph credited Nyquist for the wide trip but their numbers is based on final times so it can be debated in another thread.

Link to video of race: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTI5q1Koopc

40755

40756

Mitch44

05-26-2016, 08:41 PM

lone speed; your correct about the difference between 1/5 and using timing in hundreds. The timing in hundreds is much more accurate. I've seen as much as 3 lengths difference in a race and when looking at how many races are won by less, its phenomenal. Surprisingly there are also many races with none or little difference when you would think there would be.

When I made my own TPR charts for correct B L (rather than the standard of 1/5 equals 1 length) I did it in hundreds for greater accuracy of numbers and placed them on a sliding scale of 100 for ease of application and understanding.

In later programs the Doc converted fifths to hundreds and it improved the results overall. He simply made 1/5 .20 hundreds. Not as accurate as an actual number of say .26 hundreds but it did improve results. So still a step forward. All races now are recorded in hundreds by segments but they still publish in fifths. Now that's insane. Perhaps one day they will and we'll all be better off. Of course one can overcome this but its tedious. If dedicated to only one track its not that much work.

Trakus is also a future for more accurate figures that will take into account trips etc. The racing game is slow to change. Another tool if you use only certain tracks as not all have trakus yet and are slower than a sloth to adapt.

Mitch44

Mark

05-27-2016, 12:31 AM

The technology has been available for years to make the timing and detail of Thoroughbred racing much more precise. But were they to do that we would all be chasing $6.00 horses. So I don't look forward to that. After all the big betting syndicates are getting better and better and the general level of pricing has declined significantly even in the last 10 years. Why turn Thoroughbred racing into harness racing?

But on the other hand, as flawed as the basic data is it seems we don't want to add further inaccuracies to it. There is no thing as a perfect number, I don't delude myself. As a result this puts even more emphasis on contender selection. I review every line in every horses' past performances focusing specifically on POWER MOVES or races in which the horse had demonstrating early speed or was able to run reasonably close to fast sprint paces. I really do not pay much attention to final time. I want to find horses that have the ability to make POWER MOVES against paces similar to today's projected pace RAW, especially younger horses.

Bill Lyster

05-27-2016, 11:03 AM

TRAKUS data shows how much farther he ran to win vs the next few finishers. a minus in the right hand column means that horse ran fewer feet than the winner. Exaggerator ran 85 feet less while gaining from 8th to 5th to 4th while Nyquist closed 8-6-1 to the stretch call.

Mitch44

05-27-2016, 11:20 AM

Mark is correct that an increase into more accurate times or accurate distances through Trakus would lower payoffs. However it would be nice if we could capture that before others or it became available to others.

Technology has been the biggest killer of prices, specifically the advance of computers. When we look at the future of things to come and the younger generations not becoming involved in racing the future of the game is bleak. However I believe it will survive by tracks unable to compete going out of business, racing only 5 days instead of 7 and perhaps shorter meets. Slots presently keep the game together for many tracks but even that has its limits. Nothing ever remains the same forever and things are forever changing.
Mitch44

Mitch44

05-27-2016, 11:36 AM

Bill Lyster a great post for those unaware of Trakus. Trips are extremely important and why top jocks get the best horses. Cream rises to the top, or water seeks its own level. Top jocks stay out of trouble much more than lesser jocks.

If I were playing only one track Trakus would be in my arsenal, along with making my own numbers. I play many different tracks and love the success of simulcasting. Why limit yourself?

Again Bill thanks for the attached image. I can copy and paste but don't know how to snip or do these kind of posts. I'll have to learn this.

Mitch44

Mitch44

05-27-2016, 12:50 PM

Beaten lengths: 1. In a previous post I stated the Doc used 2 foot per 1/2 F, Ted also said 4 foot per F or 8 foot per 2F same thing and in agreement. Most race increments are in 2F except 3rd Fr's which can vary. I went back and looked and the Doc used 1 foot for each 1/16 which comes out exactly the same but helps for some different increments such as the 3rd F of a 1 1/16 race. My information is from circa 1994 or so. Ted said in later programs the Doc used 8.3333. I wondered why as I probably would have used 8.5 because the average length of a horse is between 8 & 9 foot. I'm thinking perhaps it was a compromise in that fillies and mares generally are smaller than C & G and 3 yr. olds aren't yet fully developed so perhaps he split the difference which would make sense to me. Again as long as a consistent measurement is used in a math equation the results are consistent.

2. Bill V. made mention in an earlier post how he has little faith in the judgement of chart callers and makers as to their accuracy of beaten lengths. Years ago that was very true however the Doc said in some studies he did that they very uniformly incorrect so it made little difference. Some years ago I read an article in a racing publication(don't remember which one) on the job of chart callers and makers at the track. Things changed dramatically from the days of old. Chart makers now use a wide angle camera that takes a picture of the whole stretch, the photo is tripped at the finish line same as the photo finish except this is a photo stretch at the conclusion of a race. Afterwards the photo is quickly developed and a ruler is used to measure the finish of each horse and or Beaten Lengths. Nice advancement and accuracy.

3. I then wondered what was the measurement in feet they were using. so I contacted Equipbase. Equipbase provides the information for all services such as BRIS,TrackMaster etc. They returned my call and I spoke with Amy from the Customer Service Department and she new the answer right off and stated it was 8 foot. I think we can put to bed the accuracy of their charts and that we're all pretty much coordinated for accuracy and using accurate data.
Mitch44

Bill V.

05-27-2016, 03:03 PM

Hello Mitch

I thank you for all you have contributed to help us.

I have faith in the chart callers, You give excellent reasons why today
more than in the Doc/Pirco era.they are as good as can be made.
Actually I may have been unclear, I apologize, I think the data from the chart makers is okay, BUT
I have more of a problem with how Trackmaster fiddles with the speed rating and DTV. I posted about this once. How the DTV in a race made no sense,
I was told via Ted who went out of his way to help me, that Trackmaster told him they do something to make the daily track variant not only based on time and pars but, this is what blew my mind, by what should happen based on class !
From my understanding the people at TM think they can adjust based on
man made class. In my example the race was cheap maiden claimer or maybe a NW2. Anyway the winner of the race blew away the field,
TM made that race DTV a -9 and every other race that day -1
Track master told Ted that when more than a few horses run faster than they "normally" do they adjust the DTV for each race.
I at the time had every race from PARX charted for about 2 years. I proved that this was not the case in the race. i I proved that every other horse in the top 5 finishers ran less than par and the winner really just ran a very aberrant 3rd fraction, The connections saw this fast third fraction and entered the winner in a much higher class turf race following this wild win
The horse did nothing. I further kept track of all the other horses in the race with the -9 DTV. I waited via stable mail till all the horses ran again, This way I could see what speed rating they earned, Trackmaster was wrong here too.
Every other horse in the race ran par speed ratings

So I gave up looking too deep into what track master gives as far a speed ratings,
The good news is because of this I switched from looking at speed ratings
and adjustments, I switched to phase 1 and EPR and LPR ratings
and TPR so that has helped me win .

GS
Bill

Mark

05-27-2016, 04:18 PM

Bill,
I think Trackmaster is just a Cash Cow for Equibase. I guess they still maintain their HQ up in Mountain View but it just doesn't appear that they have any incentive improve.
Why do you see so many high fast variant horses win at decent to very good prices? Because people get scared off those lines or the software penalizes the hell out of the horse. I don't use the Trackmaster DTV but I do use the ITV. I figure it is harder for them to screw that up and generally I am happy with the result.
However, the entire theory behind Beyer's and all Speed figure makers is they just ignore early pace. My experience and some of the authors and greats have said for years "Pace makes the Race". This is not something of my concoction here lately. If the early pace is slow there is no way for the Sustained horses to make up that time especially after more than half the race has been run. Maybe I have seen a few 22 second final quarter mile races but there is a physical limit flesh and blood can giddy up at the end. Likewise, a fast early pace will allow a slower final fraction with a good final time. Pace scenario and early contention always has to be examined to determine the variegation so it plays into Match Up/ Sartin type analysis.
I can look at a paceline as I know you can and tell if it was fast early or slow. I don't need Trackmaster to tell me if the race was fast or slow. If there is a line in the horse's pps that is unusually fast as compared to the others then the "preponderance of evidence" dictum need be enforced. I don't know how many times Richie P said in the Hat Check Blog, The Hat did not use one line in his handicapping.
So there is a huge built-in error in those figures. I don't use them!!

Mitch44

05-27-2016, 04:33 PM

I understand your point clearer now Bill. I'm a firm believer in track to track adjustments because of different track configuration and the composition of tracks differ widely. The daily trc. variant can change from race to race for many reasons, primarily maintenance and weather.

The only solution to this problem I can think of is to take the preponderance of evidence and create your own variant by averaging the Beyer, TM, Rac. Form and Bris. The Beyer can be determined by the speed rating given by what it should get on his scale of time, so forth. This would smooth it out to an average. Its one method overall and don't know if I'm all that crazy about it and the work involved. A computer program could fly through it. Or you just make your own.

If I can make one observation here it would be to not worry about a few exceptions. Your goal is to capture the majority and not worry about the few exceptions. The exceptions aren't the norm, you should be looking for parameters / range not absolutes. An example would be determining % Med. for a particular track and distance. You throw out the highs and lows (exceptions) and try to capture a range / majority not a specific number..

I believe most services do capture a range that supports our goal, therefore I have no problem with it. If you can find one or a day that you know is incorrect that's information the public lacks and you can take it to the bank. I also believe that pace is far superior to a speed rating.

An incident here or there etc. can become a mental block if we don't get past it and move on. Similar to doing a post mortem of a race lost. A great idea and if you find something take it as a lesson learned but to rework it too much can cause insanity as it may have no solution. E.g. the horse improved and only the connections know why, a change in feed or training that it responded to. You can dwell on it forever and never solve it. Some things are unsolvable.

Actually I'm more favorable to Bris SR over TM because I worked with them for many years and have more confidence in them. I believe the Racing Form is the only one not using class pars to determine variants but at $7.00 a pop? One form through can give you many days of variants extracted from it.

My experience with RDSS is that it compensates very well for these problem and you can lessen the impact by adjusting it if you want. The Doc always said that given an adjustment a player will take it. He mostly believed in using raw figures as you do with TPR. I'm sure he lost races from it but he captured the bulk and range. Another thing he also did was to not dwell on a lost and went on to the next race with and uncluttered open mind. With simulcasting and racing today I get over the exceptions fast.
Mitch44