A Disappointed RDSS Evaluator

[Ted Craven]

I received this email following a prospective RDSS user's 30 day evaluation. I sincerely thank that user for taking the time to send me his thoughts, for better or for worse - some folks say nothing. My response to him follows.Ted,
I have thoroughly enjoyed experimenting with your RDSS software, as well as reading much of the material on your forum and in the Sartin Library. However, the major question is whether or not using RDSS software is profitable. I have heard all the various arguments about "only a tool" before, as well as how it is essential to "use your own handicapping skills," many, many times before.

What I see is a software application that generates values with Sartin-type labels. What I DON'T see is a fundamental difference between this application and dozens of others, or between this application and a laptop with a simplistic app that works by entering selected paceline data from TrackMaster by hand.

I really, really want RDSS to work. Specifically, I had intended to learn enough about how to use it during the trial period to spend the winter in Miami, and at least be able to cover the cost of expenses by handicapping the races there with RDSS. After a month of hours each day exploring the software, developing pace line selections, developing contender selections, I am left with that same feeling of emptiness that many experienced using the Sartin materials.

That is, there are a lot of high hopes and expectations, and after the race is over, it always seems that one COULD have picked the right horse, but didn't. Having spent several years of near total immersion in the Sartin Methodology, I understand the philosophy quite well. I also understand that the majority of users did not bet on races--they cultivated the illusion that they could "turn professional" at any given moment, and make a decent living betting on races.

Of those who actually tried to apply the Sartin Methodology in the real world, most failed and abandoned it. The few that stuck with it were those who believed they were just one step away from pari-mutuel fame and fortune, and maintained that illusion by either not betting, or betting trivial amounts occasionally. Bluntly, the most "successful" Sartin Methodology users wagered primarily on paper, and picked the true contenders and proper pace lines AFTER the race. That is based on my experience with a number of Sartin groups in various locations over several years of intense effort.

Unfortunately, I don't see anything in RDSS that is an improvement on the Sartin Methodology, or that is suitable for professional use. It appears to be--just as the original--a hobby application for true believers and wishful thinkers. If all the application can do is crunch numbers, there are hundreds of other applications that do the same, with equivalent lack of success and profit.

I don't buy into the "you have to work harder to deserve winning" theory. I have paid my dues, done my homework, learned all the processes and procedures, and RDSS still comes up short in the specific department of picking winners. In general, I can pick as many (or more) winners with a perfunctory scan of past performances, and few or no calculations other than rough comparisons of TrackMaster speed ratings. I had hoped for considerably more.

I wish you well with your application, and with your group. I wish even more that the application had actually contained something innovative that could be used profitably.

ThanksFirst of all, possibly you feel that you know all there is to know about Sartin's Methodology (since you say, separately, that you spent 3 years studying and using it intensively in the mid 1980's) and therefore there is no need to ask any questions - to me or to the support line or to the general user base here - whether there is possibly anything about the evolution of the Methodology since that time which you have not yet fully grasped. (I acknowledge you did enquire about how to create models, and we talked about the existing Export to Excel feature). I believe you also did download several of the older manuals and several RDSS videos, however no Follow Up Issues. I also observe that you never registered the software or downloaded any current cards from TrackMaster, though you say you did work with the Demo Database of cards from late February 2009 - which is what it's there for.

For the record, the modern Sartin Methodology is a long way from the mid 1980's (or even the mid 1990's). Follow Ups 70 - 88 tell that story. The modern Sartin Methodology is not just what Brohamer described in his book Modern Pace Handicapping, or what was described in Pace Makes the Race, both circa 1991. The modern Methodology involves incremental energy disbursement (deceleration), aggregate factors such as BL/BL and VDC, taking a contrarian approach to contender identification and wagering. We do not pick winners - we pick valuable wager opportunities. Check RichieP's 250 race workup. Check a few others' posted periodic aggregate records.


So, possibly you trust your own understanding from 20+ years ago more than the advice and assistance of those who post here and profess to be successful with RDSS (or Speculator or Validator or other predecessors). I only assume this since you did not ask for any help - and you have now formed the unhappy conclusion that the Methodology does not work, does not produce a reliable profit.

Let me say this, and with all respect possible - I do not care if you use RDSS. There are other fine handicapping software products and methodologies out there: HTR, HSH, Black Magic, Jcapper and others. I believe you voiced almost identical disappointment after studying HTR, and I feel honoured that RDSS seems to be as unprofitable as HTR (though please forgive me if I confuse you with someone else). If you still believe betting on thoroughbred racing holds any promise for profit, and you have given it your all studying RDSS as a modern tool for applying the Sartin Methodology, then consider trying other software: perhaps one of them will work for you, or perhaps another one will better match your learning style.

But you have not given it your all. You have not (that I can see) asked members here who post both their pre-race selections and screenshots how they analysed a race (or a dozen races). You have not posted, or offered to send me your workup records from your study of the Demo Database races: 20 races per batch, wager selections made, BL/BL and VDC ranks of the winners (i.e. betting 2 horses, did you hit 10 of 20, 11 of 20, at what average mutuel). Did you try hiding a top ranked favourite with odds too low to bet (e.g. below 5/2) and see if the BLBL readout elevates the remaining contenders to bettable status (you can get free detailed Result Charts and closing odds for all races now from either Equibase or BRIS). What about races posted here with Analysis screens, showing either modest mutuels or much higher mutuels? You could download those cards (or just ask for them) and try to work them yourself to understand what the posters understand, and get the success the posters got. But if you think you already know how it all works and don't need to ask for help, well then you get what you expect to get.

I don't know how many (if any) people bet races professionally using RDSS or Sartin Methodology tools. I would be extremely surprised to learn that no one makes a persistent net profit from it, that it's merely a hobby for everybody, or that we are all actually lying to ourselves (and to each other). And several people whom I respect and trust would have to be lying to me for years now. Perhaps no amount of records would be sufficient proof of individual accomplishment (and thus hold promise for your own similar achievement) - since perhaps they might be fabricated. Though perhaps you would care to state what proof of profitability would satisfy you, sufficient to answer for you: "well, if 'someone' can do it with hard work and correct study, then so can I". But if you are already certain that it can't be done, that you cannot semi-retire to Florida with RDSS (i.e. that 'the grapes are sour - I don't need to try them'), then no amount of proof is sufficient: you know what you believe you know. But perhaps it will take more than 30 days to master the modern Sartin Methodology.

I post your email and my response here so that others may reply if they want. They might choose to answer whether they are profitable or not, whether it is merely an enjoyable (but not profitable) hobby, or whether they just enjoy being part of a club. Undoubtedly some will indeed empathize with you that they suspect there is something to this, and that they feel they are perennially 'just around the corner' from making it big time. Perhaps some will have advice for you as to what course of study or action you can take to gain a handle on RDSS and make it profitable for you. Possibly you are wanting to know if there is any long-term potential here, and if so - then you are ready to roll up your sleeves and dig in. But if not - then why waste more time? I can't think of another way to do that than to let the users speak, if they care to.

I have lots of plans for RDSS, which I wrote you about. Record keeping (wagers and models), ADW connections, wager decision advice, even better numbers, etc, etc. Check back later if you feel like it (but you'll still have to learn then what the tried and true analysis concepts are). When I started this project in late 2005, no-one needed another horse-race handicapping program, least of all by some guy named Ted Craven. What was needed, though, was a modern rendition of Sartin's final work (and the worthy Speculator follow-on program), based on Sartin's own code. My first goal was to replicate Validator and Speculator - as is - identical numbers, identical (or better) usefulness. And see if anyone would buy it (and would Sartin endorse it), AND, was it an interesting and enjoyable thing for me to spend my time on. I've done that, answered that. And now I am working on what I think the true promise of Sartin's work has been - an integrated system for contrarian velocity/energy/deceration/matchup analysis, coupled with mostly automated wager and model record-keeping and live tote and ADW integration. It won't ever do more than a very dedicated person could do and has for years done already, but it will be easier.

Maybe that's what you are waiting for, though I contend there remains work for you to do now. Feel free to check back. Also feel free to respond here if I've misrepresented your view, or if someone posts something that inspires you or challenges your understanding.

Best wishes!

Ted

[Bill Lyster]

Dear Ted:

Nice controlled response. Hope he hears you. I started with the Methodology about the same time I got married and 23 years later I have the same wife and 23 years of great shared memories and a still evolving understanding of the methodology. I would never be so bold as to say I understand either my wife or the methodology totally, but anytime I discover something new, it makes the experience of both of them better.

My handicapping is always evolving and the best part of the evolution was your directing me to this site and all the guys who sincerely share info towards a common goal of getting better, making fewer mistakes, etc.

Thanks and looking forward to revisions to come. And speaking of those revisions, would you care to crystal ball a future publishing date, so we can razz you when last minute details delay its release?!

Thanks for all you do,

Bill L

[dlivery]

I received this email following a prospective RDSS user's 30 day evaluation. I sincerely thank that user for taking the time to send me his thoughts, for better or for worse - some folks say nothing. My response to him follows.
.
.
.
Ted

Hi Ted

Every one has there right to stardom:eek: Having said that I am still using the old traditional daily racing form and still coming up with winners. I have not read enough to convince my self I would need to step it up to rdss as this is a big step for me as I am still a recreational type player.

Keep up with all of your hard work Ted I just can not get enough reading up on rdss

dlivery:D

[SilentRun]

Ted,

The point that you made about not being privy to the race records of this
disgruntiled RDSS user is valid. Although he maintains that he has expierence
with the Methodolgy, only by reviewing his records, paceline selection and
other decision making criteria could you understand where is he coming from.

So my viewpoint is, SHOW ME what you did and we will discuss it from there.

Regards,

Ernie

[J2EEDeveloper]

Ted,
I appreciate your lengthy reply, and I will certainly take your advice seriously. To avoid any misconceptions, I am not a confirmed loser attempting to validate my losses by declaring everything impossible to win with.

On the contrary, I have had a healthy profit every year for the past eight years, using past performances, hand methods, and simplistic calculations. Whether or not it is possible to win is not the issue; almost anyone can turn a profit if they are willing to do the work of pre-race analysis, race observation, and post-race recordkeeping. My problem with that approach is that I am limited to a very small number of bettable races each day, and that the amount of time required is substantial.

You are correct that I did not ask the advice of others on your forum. That should not have been necessary. The software is fairly simple, the video seminars are well prepared (if a bit lengthy, considering the material covered), and I think I have studied each issue of the Follow Up at least three or four times. In addition to virtually everything else available on the Sartin Methodology--new, old, or in-between.

Similarly, I did not ask for advice on the forum because I have never found "sample races" to be much more than filler material. The lessons learned, if any, apply only to that race, or an exact replication of that race, neither of which is particularly useful in analyzing future races. An extensive dissection of the thought processes used to select a winner in a specific race is intellectually interesting, but does not help much in analyzing future races, other than pointing out areas that might be worth noting.

The only value in knowing the thought processes of another analyst is contingent on the consistent positive return of that analyst. That, in turn, implies consistency in the decision-making process. It does no good whatsoever to receive advice from someone who selects A in a given race for one reason, then B in another race for another reason, and so on, and the re-works the same race a month later only to select different cointeders, and a different finsih scenario.

If the analyst is consistent, he or she can work a race, then work the same race a month later and reach the same conclusion. If the analyst is consistent, he or she can be modeled, and in short order algorithms can be created that outperform that analyst. With all due respect to all the seat-of-the-pants handicappers in the world, structured decision-making processes will outperform unstructured processes every single time. This is horse racing, not rocket science.

If the analyst is inconsistent, but still wins, he or she is making selections intuitively, and the software readouts are simply accessories. That is, the intuitive analyst makes a superficial examination of the available data, makes a selection, and then searches the readouts for confirmation that his or her selection is a "good" one.

Finally, my question about whether or not your software could create models was not made lightly. I think race models are an invaluable aid in race analysis and wagering. HTR makes pretty models that seem a lot better than they actually are, but are not very useful unless seriously tweaked to cleanse the data. I was unfortunate enough to argue in behalf of short-term "Brohamer" models in a graduate class in descriptive statistics. The professor explained in excruciating detail exactly what the conceptual (as well as practical) flaws were in that approach, and directed me to a very readable explanation in an article by Tversky and Kahnemann called The Law of Small Numbers.

Best Regards,

[trotman]

Ted, very nice reply to this unsatisfied trial client. I found one part of their statement that does not make sence to me. If they we're as they said fully versed on the Sartin Methodogy then why did they give up,as that is the one of many things I got out of the Methodology, was if your figs don't jive dig deeper,adjust. And as many have said here why not a post asking for help? Again as always to you and Ritchie nice job on the Library.

[Rverge]

http://pirate.shu.edu/~hovancjo/exp_read/tversky.htm

this is the paper, if the link worked

[J2EEDeveloper]

Ted,

The point that you made about not being privy to the race records of this
disgruntiled RDSS user is valid. Although he maintains that he has expierence
with the Methodolgy, only by reviewing his records, paceline selection and
other decision making criteria could you understand where is he coming from.

So my viewpoint is, SHOW ME what you did and we will discuss it from there.

Regards,

Ernie


Proceeding from a superior role is not useful for either of us. In a test trial, it is reasonable to assume that the learning materials provided would have been sufficient to cover the topic, and that the potential (if not the capability) of the software would have been revealed.

Because RDSS is the information source--not the prospective subscriber--it is also reasonable to assume that the SHOW ME should be on the part of RDSS. Specifically, sufficient instruction should be provided to enable the prospective subscriber to clearly see the potential (if not the capability) of the software.

Application of a software application to race analysis at a professional level requires a reasonably consistent approach. It was that consistency I thought I would find in RDSS. Not a black box, miracle cure to each and every handicapping problem encountered, but internal algorithms that generate predictive values that are more sophisticated than the conclusions that can be reached by (relatively unsophisticated) pencil-and-paper analysis.

Rather than wasting time dissecting how potential subscribers did or did not "pick the proper paceline" or "isolate the true contenders" in a specific race, might it not be more useful to put those ideas into a coherent, consistent body of knowledge that all can benefit from?

I find the "rush to judgement" that analysis of my race records will reveal my shortcomings as an analyst a little misguided. I am the buyer, not the seller. In this world--camaraderie and group spirit aside--the primary responsibility for establishing the value of the product lies with the seller. I am unlikely to have been the only prospective subscriber who found the software coming up a bit short in the prediction department, and even more so in the instruction department.

I have been involved with the Methodology long enough to understand the basic strategy of "you failed to do thus and so, and if you had picked this paceline from a year and a half ago at Golden Gate, it would have predicted today's results" that seems so clear after the race, and so obscure before the race. Unless you are using a consistent, repeatable, stable method of contender selection, paceline selection, and wagering selection, you are not really "handicapping" a race--the process is more accurately termed "scrambling."

This is in no way intended to be demeaning to RDSS or to the Sartin Methodology (the latter of which has formed the basis for my modest success as a bettor). I am fairly certain that other prospective subscribers would have the same questions, the same concerns, and the same reluctance to use a software application that does not seem to be appreciably better than pencil-and-paper methods.

Best Regards

[BJennet]

Ted,
I appreciate your lengthy reply, and I will certainly take your advice seriously. To avoid any misconceptions, I am not a confirmed loser attempting to validate my losses by declaring everything impossible to win with.

On the contrary, I have had a healthy profit every year for the past eight years, using past performances, hand methods, and simplistic calculations. Whether or not it is possible to win is not the issue; almost anyone can turn a profit if they are willing to do the work of pre-race analysis, race observation, and post-race recordkeeping. My problem with that approach is that I am limited to a very small number of bettable races each day, and that the amount of time required is substantial.

You are correct that I did not ask the advice of others on your forum. That should not have been necessary. The software is fairly simple, the video seminars are well prepared (if a bit lengthy, considering the material covered), and I think I have studied each issue of the Follow Up at least three or four times. In addition to virtually everything else available on the Sartin Methodology--new, old, or in-between.

Similarly, I did not ask for advice on the forum because I have never found "sample races" to be much more than filler material. The lessons learned, if any, apply only to that race, or an exact replication of that race, neither of which is particularly useful in analyzing future races. An extensive dissection of the thought processes used to select a winner in a specific race is intellectually interesting, but does not help much in analyzing future races, other than pointing out areas that might be worth noting.

The only value in knowing the thought processes of another analyst is contingent on the consistent positive return of that analyst. That, in turn, implies consistency in the decision-making process. It does no good whatsoever to receive advice from someone who selects A in a given race for one reason, then B in another race for another reason, and so on, and the re-works the same race a month later only to select different cointeders, and a different finsih scenario.

If the analyst is consistent, he or she can work a race, then work the same race a month later and reach the same conclusion. If the analyst is consistent, he or she can be modeled, and in short order algorithms can be created that outperform that analyst. With all due respect to all the seat-of-the-pants handicappers in the world, structured decision-making processes will outperform unstructured processes every single time. This is horse racing, not rocket science.

If the analyst is inconsistent, but still wins, he or she is making selections intuitively, and the software readouts are simply accessories. That is, the intuitive analyst makes a superficial examination of the available data, makes a selection, and then searches the readouts for confirmation that his or her selection is a "good" one.

Finally, my question about whether or not your software could create models was not made lightly. I think race models are an invaluable aid in race analysis and wagering. HTR makes pretty models that seem a lot better than they actually are, but are not very useful unless seriously tweaked to cleanse the data. I was unfortunate enough to argue in behalf of short-term "Brohamer" models in a graduate class in descriptive statistics. The professor explained in excruciating detail exactly what the conceptual (as well as practical) flaws were in that approach, and directed me to a very readable explanation in an article by Tversky and Kahnemann called The Law of Small Numbers.

Best Regards,

J2EED,

After reading both your e-mail and the later post, it's still not entirely clear what you expect from RDSS. As Ted says, you may be happier with database software, but you expressed unhappiness with HTR, which is used by at least a few pro handicappers, and is highly regarded.

If you're looking for black-box software, there are none commercially available, although there are some successful proprietary programs of which William Benter's logit model is the most famous and undoubtedly the most successful. All developers of the latter describe having invested years of time and labor in the development of their programs. It took Benter five years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to get his into the black. I think it's easy to understand why these programs they won't be available commercially.

In addition, a number of people with graduate-level training in statistics have described, on the Paceadvantage website, their many failures to come up with a successful model, and the grueling nature of their investigations, despite their knowledge. The dangers of backfitting and multicollinearity are two frequently mentioned issues.

From the tone of your questions, I'd say you somewhat underestimate these difficulties, since only a very few people have succeeded. And if black-box-like performance is what you seek, you'll probably have to develop your own.

Re the Sartin methodology, it sounds as though you always had difficulties with it, so one wonders why you've returned. However if you give it a chance, and follow the instructions, the program works as claimed. In my experience, the top 3 choices win 80% of the races, but as many have noted, the low-hanging fruit of the early years is gone. This is why, as Ted points out, Doc Sartin adopted Dick Mitchell's method of betting only on overlays, a process that he describes in detail in the last dozen or so issues of the Follow Up. In my experience, the wager value of the Sartin pace figures continues to hold up, and although you probably wouldn't believe my own results, I think that an ROI of 15% is within the range of what a moderately successful user can expect.

Apparently Ted is working on a software package that will provide an additional degree of automation for this process, which may be closer to what you're looking for.

Whatever you decide, I wish you the best of luck.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[J2EEDeveloper]

Ted, very nice reply to this unsatisfied trial client. I found one part of their statement that does not make sence to me. If they we're as they said fully versed on the Sartin Methodogy then why did they give up,as that is the one of many things I got out of the Methodology, was if your figs don't jive dig deeper,adjust. And as many have said here why not a post asking for help? Again as always to you and Ritchie nice job on the Library.


There is a tacit assumption in the Sartin Methodogy that in every race, there is one particular combination of pace lines for one particular set of true contenders that will accurately predict the outcome of that race. The (often stated by Dr Sartin) objective is to train pattern recognition skills to locate the correct combination. In reality, the assumption that a correct combination exists is based more on faith than fact. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as one doesn't take it too far, and let their ego get in the way of their good sense.

There are some races in which the proper pace line cannot be divined until after the fact. After the race is over, it is relatively easy to find a correlate to today's performance in the past performances of both winners and losers. Those correlates do not necessarily apply to future races that are similar--they may have applied to this specific race, but may not extrapolate well.

Best Regards

[J2EEDeveloper]

J2EED,

After reading both your e-mail and the later post, it's still not entirely clear what you expect from RDSS. As Ted says, you may be happier with database software, but you expressed unhappiness with HTR, which is used by at least a few pro handicappers, and is highly regarded.

If you're looking for black-box software, there are none commercially available, although there are some successful proprietary programs of which William Benter's logit model is the most famous and undoubtedly the most successful. All developers of the latter describe having invested years of time and labor in the development of their programs. It took Benter five years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to get his into the black. I think it's easy to understand why these programs they won't be available commercially.

In addition, a number of people with graduate-level training in statistics have described, on the Paceadvantage website, their many failures to come up with a successful model, and the grueling nature of their investigations, despite their knowledge. The dangers of backfitting and multicollinearity are two frequently mentioned issues.

From the tone of your questions, I'd say you somewhat underestimate these difficulties, since only a very few people have succeeded. And if black-box-like performance is what you seek, you'll probably have to develop your own.

Re the Sartin methodology, it sounds as though you always had difficulties with it, so one wonders why you've returned. However if you give it a chance, and follow the instructions, the program works as claimed. In my experience, the top 3 choices win 80% of the races, but as many have noted, the low-hanging fruit of the early years is gone. This is why, as Ted points out, Doc Sartin adopted Dick Mitchell's method of betting only on overlays, a process that he describes in detail in the last dozen or so issues of the Follow Up. In my experience, the wager value of the Sartin pace figures continues to hold up, and although you probably wouldn't believe my own results, I think that an ROI of 15% is within the range of what a moderately successful user can expect.

Apparently Ted is working on a software package that will provide an additional degree of automation for this process, which may be closer to what you're looking for.

Whatever you decide, I wish you the best of luck.

Cheers,

B Jennet


I am well aware of the difficulties involved in generating a positive return, especially with a software application. I am also well aware that the solution (and the profit) is in zigging when everyone else is zagging. It is not so much that the low-hanging fruit of the years past is no longer available, but rather that it is no longer available using the same approaches that worked then.

I have had a considerable amount of success with the Sartin Methodology, and pace analysis in general. It would be misleading to think I have always had problems with it. I think other factors are involved in race outcomes, but I am in no way dissatisfied or disgruntled with the Sartin approach.

My renewed interest in the Sartin Methodology is directly related to the fact that an associate is using Bob Purdy's Synergism application with modest success, and I thought RDSS would be an improvement on that. However, my understanding (which could easily be wrong) is that contender and pace line selection is pretty much automated in Synergism.

How many tracks/races do you customarily wager on?

Best Regards

[BJennet]

I am well aware of the difficulties involved in generating a positive return, especially with a software application. I am also well aware that the solution (and the profit) is in zigging when everyone else is zagging. It is not so much that the low-hanging fruit of the years past is no longer available, but rather that it is no longer available using the same approaches that worked then.

I have had a considerable amount of success with the Sartin Methodology, and pace analysis in general. It would be misleading to think I have always had problems with it. I think other factors are involved in race outcomes, but I am in no way dissatisfied or disgruntled with the Sartin approach.

My renewed interest in the Sartin Methodology is directly related to the fact that an associate is using Bob Purdy's Synergism application with modest success, and I thought RDSS would be an improvement on that. However, my understanding (which could easily be wrong) is that contender and pace line selection is pretty much automated in Synergism.

How many tracks/races do you customarily wager on?

Best Regards

JSEED,

This is much clearer, if I'm understand it correctly. It sounds like your simply find a more automated style of play to be able to make more bets. This is exactly the problem I have been trying to solve, and it's possible that Ted's future automated paceline selection might be the answer. I usually check the card of three or four, and sometimes five tracks, and find, on average, one bettable race per card - that is one with at least a 50% overlay. It's for this reason that I'd like to be able to automate the handicapping process. You mention Synergism, with which I have no experience, but as you say, it does offer automatic paceline selection, Bob Purdy has a very good reputation, and the product has been recommended by Dick Schmidt.

You seem particularly hung up on the notion of paceline selection. If you're interested, you might try a mechanical paceline selection that's worked well for me: after eliminating obvious horses (NL types who lack the speed to lead, herd horses that never win despite good figures) use the line for each horse that has best Total Energy figure in its last three races at a comparable distance and surface. For turf races, you can go back six deep for the best line, as Jim Quinn recommends, or use the entire PP record, as Mike Pizzola does. It might be useful to compare this with results your friend gets, if he uses Synergism's autopaceline feature.

Richie P. demonstrated how effective and autopaceline can be in a recent exercise with RDSS. As a stat guy, you might prefer a larger sample - Kahneman and Tversky were right - but you might still want to check it out.

Cheers,

[tom]

My neighbor bought a nice hedge trimmer and he did a wonder job jazzing up his property by trimming and evening up all his shrubs. He even did a little sculpturing.

I borrowed the same trimmer from him and my bushes are now uneven, have bare spots, generally look terrible. Worse than before I trimmed them.

I can only conclude that the trimmer is not what I expected it to be.





:rolleyes:

[SilentRun]

Mr. J2EEDeveloper,

Your arguments are sophistically expressed but are not convincing.
For example, in your reply to me you stated.

1. "Sufficient instruction should be provided to enable the prospective
subscriber to clearly see the potential of the software"

2. You also claim that you cannot find consistency in RDSS.

Re: 1 & 2. If you claim thay you have read the Follow-Ups, in particular
issues 70-88. then indeed you missed the potential of the software.
The Sartin Methodology message has been consistently clear for years.
This same consistency permeates throughout RDSS. A stable method
as to paceline selection, wagering, hiding low odds favorites and going
with your 2 best overlays within tier levels.

There are years of records documented in the Follow-Up that clearly
demonstrate profit potential of the Methodology. Years of 20 racing cycles
from users that show, WIN WIN and more WIN. All of this is inherent
in RDSS which has expertly fine tuned the Methodolgy.

This is not a "Black Box" and there are no user manuals
it does take work, record keeping, etc...but
there are rewards for those who persist. As for me personally I
admit I had difficulties adapting to the Methodology. But this has
turned around for me. One example is my latest post
RE;"DED R5 & R6 for 12/02".

Not everyone can be successfull using the software. Apparantly
you are one of them. You may give excellent interlectual counter
arguments but to me it is empty discourse.

Good Luck To You

[Houndog]

In addition to the programs mentioned other programs have had a form of automated paceline selections also.

Aodds Gold had an asterisk next to the suggested paceline.

HTR has several automated paceline methods and I think many of the users use the default paceline selection method which sometimes uses just 1 paceline or 2.

TMH (The Master Handicapper) had the "Expert Selector" which would also use just one paceline or two paclines.

TMM (The Master Magician) had different modes that opened a "Form Cycle Window" which is a somewhat different concept. They had LASST and Two Excuse Mode as described in the book Handicapping Magic

BLAM (Black Magic) had the LASST and Two Excuse Mode as well as WOW (Wide Open Window), and the OPM (Obvious; Poor; and Money Horses).

I am not suggesting this is what RDSS needs to do as historically the Sartin Group has picked their own pacelines. To me this is a very good and thought provoking thread and many good points have been made.

[J2EEDeveloper]

My neighbor bought a nice hedge trimmer and he did a wonder job jazzing up his property by trimming and evening up all his shrubs. He even did a little sculpturing.

I borrowed the same trimmer from him and my bushes are now uneven, have bare spots, generally look terrible. Worse than before I trimmed them.

I can only conclude that the trimmer is not what I expected it to be.





:rolleyes:

Have you ever considered borrowing another neighbor's trimmer? That is not meant to be facetious. I hunt with a bow that very few modern bowhunters can use successfully; they have come to depend so much on the technology of cables, wheels, and eccentric cams in compound bows and sophisticated releases that my simple fiberglass recurve "bare bow" and "finger shooting" is difficult for them to handle. Even the ones who can pull it.

I would be happy to loan you my bow for hunting, but you would almost surely fail to use it successfully. That is not a fault in the bow itself--just as the fault was not in the hedge trimmer itself--as much as it is a fault in who you asked. Another neighbor may use a type of hedge trimmer (or even a set of manually-operated hedge clippers without a motor) that might be perfectly suited to your style of hedge clipping.

Remember: you have to pick the proper neighbor to ask to get the best hedge trimming results. The hedge trimmer is only a tool.

Best Regards :)

[J2EEDeveloper]

BJennet,
Thanks for the advice. I appreciate it. That is generally the approach I use, with recency and interim races considered. For example, if an entry has a record of 5.5f good, 6f good, 6f fair, 6f poor in last, entered in 5.5f today, I would use the most recent 6f because it appears the entry ran well for a few races, and is now in a low part of its form cycle.

I would really have to see something besides the pace lines as an excuse to go back to the better races for comparisons. It is in that gray area--of what seems to many to be form-reversals--that a lot of potential profit exists. Unfortunately, making excuses for poor performances in one or more recent races is also an area that leads a lot of handicappers astray. I used to be one of them.

Best Regards, and thanks again for the advice

[gl45]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgbNymZ7vqY

relax & enjoy

[Rverge]

Wow, so my question is, What is your next "step" or software to examine?
just asking. if you do find one as you discribe will you write us? now that you will not be using RDSS will you still come and post on this board?
i'm not trying to be a "jerk" just asking.
Rverge

[J2EEDeveloper]

Wow, so my question is, What is your next "step" or software to examine?
just asking. if you do find one as you discribe will you write us? now that you will not be using RDSS will you still come and post on this board?
i'm not trying to be a "jerk" just asking.
Rverge

As I said before, I have had a lot of good results using the Sartin Methodology and pencil-and-paper methods. As BJennet pointed out, there is a finite limit to the number of bettable races that can be located and bet successfully. Paper trials excepted, betting in the real world requires either a large number of bettable races or large bets on a small number of bettable to provide a return commensurate with the effort involved.

Thirty bets a week at $50 is $1500. A 15% (VERY good) POI means a net take of $225 a week--which is peanuts considering the time I have to spend locating and analyzing those 30 races. If I stick to major tracks, I can up the bet considerably without affecting the mutuel pools too much, and betting $200 a race brings my expected return up to $900 a week. Better, but still a long way from giving up my day job.

However, if I can model the races competently, and model the process of selecting contenders and pace lines, then create algorithms to implement that information, the time invested decreases, with little or no loss in accuracy. Because the decision-making process is structured, errors are eliminated, which usually increases accuracy. In the bootstrapping process of modeling expert selections, the automated process is usually able to substantially increase the accuracy of the "expert's" selections by eliminating errors and structuring an unstructured process.

I would really like to use RDSS. I like the interface, I like the readouts, and I like the underlying processes. About my only real complaint is the time involved; I am much more comfortable with "full-time" handicapping in which I (normally) bet 40 to 50 races a day at a dozen or more tracks. Unfortunately, my all-too-infrequent vacations seem to be the only times I am able to handicap races at that level competently, and then only by specializing in specific class levels and distances. I hoped RDSS would enable me to do the same thing by automating the most time-consuming processes--contender selection and pace line selection.

There is nothing "wrong" with RDSS software, other than that it is not a significant improvement--for me--on what I can accomplish with a stack of TrackMaster past performances, a yellow hi-liter, a red flair pen, and a graphing calculator (I don't use the graphing capability for handicapping, but the TI-94 is easy to program with the limited number of calculations I use in handicapping.) I also have stacks of nicely marked PPs showing pace lines, contenders, and notes to myself about why I chose what, so I can continually improve my own processes and discover my own analytical deficiencies. Just like Doc Sartin told me to do.

[BJennet]

As I said before, I have had a lot of good results using the Sartin Methodology and pencil-and-paper methods. As BJennet pointed out, there is a finite limit to the number of bettable races that can be located and bet successfully. Paper trials excepted, betting in the real world requires either a large number of bettable races or large bets on a small number of bettable to provide a return commensurate with the effort involved.

Thirty bets a week at $50 is $1500. A 15% (VERY good) POI means a net take of $225 a week--which is peanuts considering the time I have to spend locating and analyzing those 30 races. If I stick to major tracks, I can up the bet considerably without affecting the mutuel pools too much, and betting $200 a race brings my expected return up to $900 a week. Better, but still a long way from giving up my day job.

However, if I can model the races competently, and model the process of selecting contenders and pace lines, then create algorithms to implement that information, the time invested decreases, with little or no loss in accuracy. Because the decision-making process is structured, errors are eliminated, which usually increases accuracy. In the bootstrapping process of modeling expert selections, the automated process is usually able to substantially increase the accuracy of the "expert's" selections by eliminating errors and structuring an unstructured process.

I would really like to use RDSS. I like the interface, I like the readouts, and I like the underlying processes. About my only real complaint is the time involved; I am much more comfortable with "full-time" handicapping in which I (normally) bet 40 to 50 races a day at a dozen or more tracks. Unfortunately, my all-too-infrequent vacations seem to be the only times I am able to handicap races at that level competently, and then only by specializing in specific class levels and distances. I hoped RDSS would enable me to do the same thing by automating the most time-consuming processes--contender selection and pace line selection.

There is nothing "wrong" with RDSS software, other than that it is not a significant improvement--for me--on what I can accomplish with a stack of TrackMaster past performances, a yellow hi-liter, a red flair pen, and a graphing calculator (I don't use the graphing capability for handicapping, but the TI-94 is easy to program with the limited number of calculations I use in handicapping.) I also have stacks of nicely marked PPs showing pace lines, contenders, and notes to myself about why I chose what, so I can continually improve my own processes and discover my own analytical deficiencies. Just like Doc Sartin told me to do.


J2EED,

This post makes clear that you have a fairly good grasp of the reality of what you're up against. You're correct in your assessment that most of the people who post who here are social and recreational players rather than professionals, and I think that's always been the case with the Methodology. I think that few have career aspirations. And Doc himself perhaps misled clients into believing that this was a possibility, although a couple of the more talented practioners of the Methodology, such as Dick Schmidt and Tom Brohamer, played professionally for a time. But the very important point you bring up, and which their careers underline, is that it's really impossible to think about making a living from the game betting less than $200 a race, which was their average bet size - and remember, this was the '80s.

Re your point about increasing volume - certainly this is the way to go - but in that direction, one runs into the problem of bumping up against pool limits at smaller tracks, a problem we've discussed here. With a $200 bet at smaller tracks you would be seriously cutting your odds, so the question remains as to how many tracks have pools large enough to handle these bets. This is actually a problem I'm getting some consultation on now, and will post about as I learn more.

However, I think you're generally headed in the right direction, and I wish you luck.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[Ted Craven]

J2EE Developer,

Some interesting back and forth! I agree with many of your points, and at the same time, I cannot understand some of your assertions at all.

I acknowledge it is my responsibility as proprietor/developer of RDSS to provide not only the software but the learning tools, and I am sorry you found not all the tools you had hoped for, for example: automated paceline/contender selection, more integrated modeling tools, search for race/betting opportunities among all races today matching your observed situational strengths (i.e. a 'portfolio' of types of races you're good at). These specific tools do not exist yet, though as I mentioned, I am working on each of them, and more, for RDSS 2.0.

Other users are currently making use of 'good-enough-for-now' versions of paceline selection (the Perceptor ranking in concert with Total Energy and Primary Line Score on the Primary Screen), and factor modeling (including mutuels and tote info) via the Export to Excel feature. With some practice, you should expect be able to select consistent pacelines and winnow them down to 5 contenders in just a few minutes per race (some races demand a bit more investigation); exporting to an external model keeper and collating the output - a few minutes more.

If you thought you might be getting the foregoing tools and improvements on teh Methodology you knew - and didn't - I accept your disappointment, though I note that Sartin, Bradshaw and others always advised that if you don't have all the data (or tools) you need, use what you've got...

I believe you are evaluating tools from a specific point of view of how optimally you might 'ramp up the volume' so as to get enough bets at your current hit rate to make it worthwhile without breaking the pools (and your psychological wager limits). Also, since you can see Synergism 6 as a baseline for at least modest profit, you are seeking to improve from there. Completely reasonable goal.

Some things I don't understand at all: you say RDSS (or the modern Methodology of circa late 1990's forward) offers no improvements to figures you are able to compute by hand entry to your TI calculator, or which dozens of other software provide equally well. If you have read all the Follow Ups 3 times, including the later ones, you will know that Sartin considered his later figures (adjusted by TrackMaster DTV and ITV variants) far superior to earlier efforts. Perhaps you either disbelieve him, or you have succeeded in reverse engineering those formulae and have them already embedded in your calculator (though I wonder at the source of the inter-track variants). If RDSS is no better at compounded incremental energy calculations than dozens of other software (or your own manual efforts) - I am alarmed that the sometimes generous mutuels which various folks post screenshots pointing to - often by selecting lines from the most recent 3 races - continue to persist, given that users of dozens of other software must be seeing (and if so, why not betting more on) the same horses. I submit that RDSS has a few tricks up its sleeve, which enable a practitioner to gain insight into more races, or more formerly obscure races, than some of its peers (or predecessors). If this last assertion is true, perhaps you could gain a few more playable races per track than presently, or perhaps a few more ROI points than before. If you think it's not true, or at present too much work - well, just keep doing what you're doing.

I also don't understand your assertion that a practiced user can do no better currently than zigging and zagging in their paceline selection, employing largely intuition, certainly not applying their method consistently enough that their demonstrations, or screenshots, or analysis of approach is mostly useless to a new user. Sure, in a post-mortem of a lost wager, one might frequently see that another line selection, or contender decision would have obtained a better bet - but that's not what the mature analyst does! The mature analyst creates a consistent line selection method and contender winnowing process (by reading published materials, observing others' strategies, their own trial end error and 'bootstrapping') then applies it rigourously - winning where they win and losing where they lose (and with equanimity), always focused on their records which tell whether that method is producing profit over reasonable session lengths (e.g. 20 cycles). If it is - one the one hand, who cares of you lose 50% of your bets (though post-mortem zigzags may point to a winner in every race): that is a fantasy which must be surmounted to get a method producing a base of profit from which one can fine tune. I assert than you can develop and apply currently a rigourous enough approach that it could later be captured as rules in software. And the proof is in one's own betting records. Different people may have differing line selection and wagering approaches, and win and lose different races with that. Doesn't mean one can't develop a rigourous approach.

If you don't have access to RDSS, you can't answer the question: would I have done as well over a card of races as whatever poster did (and there are several almost full card workups posted recently and ongoing for new users to model). But you could if you wanted to. Maybe you don't bet 'those kinds of races': no maidens, no 2 years olds, no 3 year olds, no Turf, no artificial, no routes, no Mountaineer, no Penn National, no Tampa - no exactas...whatever filters one has previously identified as requirements to success using your method so far. Well and good. Though, consider expanding your horizons...

As for the Law of Small Numbers, and Messrs. Kahneman and Tversky, I only understood enough of it to suspect that neither were horse-race bettors, or at least, were discussing measurements from longitudinal enough samples and domains which did not require very recent, small sample intel from the very current time frame in which we need to be making a wager. Headline: "statistician drowns in average lake depth of 18 inches!" I want to know how deep the water is 2 feet in front of me (cause I need to make a wager now, not at any average point over a race meet or track's entire 4 year history). I don't need to know that a small local sample doesn't necessarily conform to other small local samples taken from hundreds of locations over the lake's surface (or a given handicapping factor's 6 month or 4 year history). I'm sure that analogy has been answered a thousand times in Statistics 101 classes (which I never took). But I believe it is pertinent. Anyway, some people haven't yet discovered that they can be making more money than they currently are if they only used a factor model.

I really enjoy an informed (and articulate) skeptic's point of view, and hope that you find that some views of others shared so far (some contrary to your own) are offered not only from a need for self-justification or as knee-jerk protectionism, but also from a helpful stance. I almost want to offer you a long-term software and data account so that you can challenge RDSS as it evolves, and be challenged to disprove, that the toolset offers distinctive abilities compared to the dozens, and is both in the spirit of Sartin's prior work but an evolution of it - and capable of professional level use.

Wishing you well in your further explorations.

Ted

[jms62]

Very well put Ted. By the name J2EEDevloper it isn't a stretch to assume said user is a software developer. Maybe I am cynical but I can't help to wonder if there is an alterior motive at play?

[Ted Craven]

Absolutely he's a software developer, and I knew that before the beginning. As RDSS is available (so far) on demand, I don't see how I can prevent reverse engineering attempts, though naturally, commercial exploitation of workalike factors thought to be currently proprietary would be pursued legally to the greatest degree possible.

I am not expecting that of our friend.

Ted

[Ted Craven]

One thing I meant to add in my last reply to Mr. J2EE (but forgot), is that I have several times over the past 6 months contemplated simply removing RDSS from general availability to new users, due to the fact that the educational materials and current state of the program were not all I wished they were, or had time to make them, given my concentration on rewriting the whole program. Early in 2009, in my design plan, I though about 50% rewrite was what was going to happen. The more I rewrote, the more I found I needed to. RDSS 2.0 will probably be about 80%+ new code, largely self-documenting, but at least significantly different enough from the current version that I have felt loath to offer more tutorials or promotion.

Soon enough, I'll start discussing the range of new or improved aspects, along with screenshots and videos and requests for commentary on approach. (Don't worry - it will produce the same or better numbers and at least be configurable to look like the current one does). But I have fretted about people thinking that what RDSS currently is - is all there will ever be (memory problems, crashes, no printouts, models, automation, Result Charts, etc), and that's not the case by miles. It's the reason I resist TrackMaster's bugging me to advertise more, or Mike's at PaceAdvantage.

Should I just take it down for the time being?

Ted

[trotman]

Ted I would pat yourself on the back, Mr J2EE is only knocking RDSS because he wants something,deep down he likes it a lot. First e-mail you got as I read it you could tell he was a software developer or wannabe.

[BJennet]

J2EE Developer,

Some interesting back and forth! I agree with many of your points, and at the same time, I cannot understand some of your assertions at all.

I acknowledge it is my responsibility as proprietor/developer of RDSS to provide not only the software but the learning tools, and I am sorry you found not all the tools you had hoped for, for example: automated paceline/contender selection, more integrated modeling tools, search for race/betting opportunities among all races today matching your observed situational strengths (i.e. a 'portfolio' of types of races you're good at). These specific tools do not exist yet, though as I mentioned, I am working on each of them, and more, for RDSS 2.0.

Other users are currently making use of 'good-enough-for-now' versions of paceline selection (the Perceptor ranking in concert with Total Energy and Primary Line Score on the Primary Screen), and factor modeling (including mutuels and tote info) via the Export to Excel feature. With some practice, you should expect be able to select consistent pacelines and winnow them down to 5 contenders in just a few minutes per race (some races demand a bit more investigation); exporting to an external model keeper and collating the output - a few minutes more.

If you thought you might be getting the foregoing tools and improvements on teh Methodology you knew - and didn't - I accept your disappointment, though I note that Sartin, Bradshaw and others always advised that if you don't have all the data (or tools) you need, use what you've got...

I believe you are evaluating tools from a specific point of view of how optimally you might 'ramp up the volume' so as to get enough bets at your current hit rate to make it worthwhile without breaking the pools (and your psychological wager limits). Also, since you can see Synergism 6 as a baseline for at least modest profit, you are seeking to improve from there. Completely reasonable goal.

Some things I don't understand at all: you say RDSS (or the modern Methodology of circa late 1990's forward) offers no improvements to figures you are able to compute by hand entry to your TI calculator, or which dozens of other software provide equally well. If you have read all the Follow Ups 3 times, including the later ones, you will know that Sartin considered his later figures (adjusted by TrackMaster DTV and ITV variants) far superior to earlier efforts. Perhaps you either disbelieve him, or you have succeeded in reverse engineering those formulae and have them already embedded in your calculator (though I wonder at the source of the inter-track variants). If RDSS is no better at compounded incremental energy calculations than dozens of other software (or your own manual efforts) - I am alarmed that the sometimes generous mutuels which various folks post screenshots pointing to - often by selecting lines from the most recent 3 races - continue to persist, given that users of dozens of other software must be seeing (and if so, why not betting more on) the same horses. I submit that RDSS has a few tricks up its sleeve, which enable a practitioner to gain insight into more races, or more formerly obscure races, than some of its peers (or predecessors). If this last assertion is true, perhaps you could gain a few more playable races per track than presently, or perhaps a few more ROI points than before. If you think it's not true, or at present too much work - well, just keep doing what you're doing.

I also don't understand your assertion that a practiced user can do no better currently than zigging and zagging in their paceline selection, employing largely intuition, certainly not applying their method consistently enough that their demonstrations, or screenshots, or analysis of approach is mostly useless to a new user. Sure, in a post-mortem of a lost wager, one might frequently see that another line selection, or contender decision would have obtained a better bet - but that's not what the mature analyst does! The mature analyst creates a consistent line selection method and contender winnowing process (by reading published materials, observing others' strategies, their own trial end error and 'bootstrapping') then applies it rigourously - winning where they win and losing where they lose (and with equanimity), always focused on their records which tell whether that method is producing profit over reasonable session lengths (e.g. 20 cycles). If it is - one the one hand, who cares of you lose 50% of your bets (though post-mortem zigzags may point to a winner in every race): that is a fantasy which must be surmounted to get a method producing a base of profit from which one can fine tune. I assert than you can develop and apply currently a rigourous enough approach that it could later be captured as rules in software. And the proof is in one's own betting records. Different people may have differing line selection and wagering approaches, and win and lose different races with that. Doesn't mean one can't develop a rigourous approach.

If you don't have access to RDSS, you can't answer the question: would I have done as well over a card of races as whatever poster did (and there are several almost full card workups posted recently and ongoing for new users to model). But you could if you wanted to. Maybe you don't bet 'those kinds of races': no maidens, no 2 years olds, no 3 year olds, no Turf, no artificial, no routes, no Mountaineer, no Penn National, no Tampa - no exactas...whatever filters one has previously identified as requirements to success using your method so far. Well and good. Though, consider expanding your horizons...

As for the Law of Small Numbers, and Messrs. Kahneman and Tversky, I only understood enough of it to suspect that neither were horse-race bettors, or at least, were discussing measurements from longitudinal enough samples and domains which did not require very recent, small sample intel from the very current time frame in which we need to be making a wager. Headline: "statistician drowns in average lake depth of 18 inches!" I want to know how deep the water is 2 feet in front of me (cause I need to make a wager now, not at any average point over a race meet or track's entire 4 year history). I don't need to know that a small local sample doesn't necessarily conform to other small local samples taken from hundreds of locations over the lake's surface (or a given handicapping factor's 6 month or 4 year history). I'm sure that analogy has been answered a thousand times in Statistics 101 classes (which I never took). But I believe it is pertinent. Anyway, some people haven't yet discovered that they can be making more money than they currently are if they only used a factor model.

I really enjoy an informed (and articulate) skeptic's point of view, and hope that you find that some views of others shared so far (some contrary to your own) are offered not only from a need for self-justification or as knee-jerk protectionism, but also from a helpful stance. I almost want to offer you a long-term software and data account so that you can challenge RDSS as it evolves, and be challenged to disprove, that the toolset offers distinctive abilities compared to the dozens, and is both in the spirit of Sartin's prior work but an evolution of it - and capable of professional level use.

Wishing you well in your further explorations.

Ted

Hi Ted,

Thanks for having the courage to make public a complaint which has produced a very interesting thread. First, I don't think you should feel too much of a need to defend the Spec 160/RDSS software - most of the members here, including myself will attest to its high value. And I don't think this poster was being very critical of the program per se - but was simply looking for functions that are currently not part of it.

Also, although I usually agree with most of your posts, I think your comments on Kahneman and Tversky really represent a misunderstanding of the application of their work to handicapping. Bear with me if I'm repeating familiar information, but the basic nature of their work deals with the difficulty the human mind has in grasping the nature of randomness. In particular, they uncovered a misperception of reality based on an overemphasis on the predictive power of recent events, as characterstic of the human mind.

As one of many examples, I'll mention their exposure of the 'hot hand' fallacy, in which an study of the Boston Celtics shooting percentages found that the likelihood of a given player to be 'hot' - to hit a number of shots in a row - was well within the range of the normal distribution, rather than an aberration.

Thus the poster is reasonably asking for more statistical validation of, say, the Brohamer Model, which is unavailable. The usual response is - 'Well it just works.' But, as with almost all of the Sartin material, the response demonstrates a lack of awareness of the difference between correlation and causation.

Sartin, in the later Follow Ups, also mentions that both he and Brohamer had abandoned the model, feeling that it was less predictive than the BL/BL, and that he himself modelled nothing.

You say that Kahneman and Tversky are irrelevant, as non-horseplayers, but it's worth keeping in mind that their frequent colleague in the world of behavioral finance, Richard Thaler, has collaborated on articles on the nature of handicapping with William Ziemba, who needs no introduction here. Ziemba was also an advisor to William Benter, who employed long-term statistical studies in the creation of his enormously successful handicapping model. And it's safe to say that all of these people understand the nature of stochastic processes, of which a horse race is an example, better than we do.

I've touched on some of these issues before, and I don't want to seem to be haranguing anybody, but given their crucial importance to the nature of gambling, I think it's worth continued discussion.

Thanks for your efforts, as always.

Cheers,

BC

[J2EEDeveloper]

Ted,
I appreciate your detailed comments. There are three "gray areas" that I would like to clear up.

First, yes, I am a software developer. I have no intention, nor have I ever had any intention, or reverse-engineering or copying RDSS software. My interest in RDSS is exclusively in the area of personal use, in my own race analysis, for my own personal wagering. That is based on a very simple assumption; if RDSS can generate a consistent and meaningful profit, I can benefit far more from using it than I can from attempting to steal and market it. I am a professional bettor first, and a software developer second.

Second, zigging and zagging seems to be causing a bit of confusion. I was not referring to pace line selection, but rather to the approach to racing in general. When everyone else is focused on early speed on the rail (for example), that is "zagging." In that case, locating a decent wager on a deep closer that may benefit from a speed duel of early-speed types would be "zigging." In essence, looking for opportunities beyond the simplistic "horses that run fast tend to win more races than horses that run slow" approach used by many racing fans.

Third, the easiest way to understand Tversky and Kahnemann is the display of what is essentially a Brohamer Model at every roulette table in Las Vegas. If a passing bettor sees a table at which black has appeared a disproportionately high number of times in the most recent 20 or so coups, there is a strong tendency to believe that red is more likely to occur in the next few coups. It is called the Gambler's Fallacy. (The inverse would be to consider the wheel biased, and bet on black--both are equally foolish.) In essence, short range models don't mean much when considering long range results.

Do short range models work? No. If you happen to win, it is not because the short range model predicted you would win; it is because the result of your win was within the normal range of a larger scale of events. One of the most difficult things to accept in horse racing is that there is no such thing as "statistical pressure" in short runs. That is the reason for building long-term models.

I look forward to working with RDSS in the future, as time permits.

Best Regards

[wilbur porter]

I had sat down earlier tonight to read this note from a dissatisfied customer to Mr Craven after putting away my computer this evening after failing to win again today. It pretty much expressed my feelings after less than a week of using the Rdss. I read some of the positive responses from Barb Craven and others - my wife and I both responded that these were probably "plants" by Ted and associates to market their product. Despondent, I went to bed at 2 am and couldn't sleep so I got out of bed at 6 am to return to my computer.
I guess that I am one of those "smart people" that we all here about. I've read the books, handicapping, positive thinking, New Thought and psychology. I've handicapped thousands of races the last 3 year using other Sartin-based software, astrology and numerology. I was very good with the astrology as I could sometimes predict 7 consecutive winners at a time - that is, when I didn't bet! But I never could seem to win regularly when it mattered most - when betting. It occurred again on Tuesday when I decided to place my first wager. I had picked horse #4 "Diva in Training" as one of my horses but missed the post time (12:30 PM, not 1:00 PM. Diva paid $55.00 to win.
So when this pattern repeated itself earlier, I felt so frustrated and hopeless. Yes, I have been ravaging the videos, the "Follow Up" and manuals, etc. What's wrong? This software doesn't work.
So when I woke a few minutes ago, I decided to go over my Rdss picks and list them - as demonstrated by Barb Craven...AND LO
Out of the first 5 races that I have listed, I would have won 4 and lost 1 ( (This one selection finished 2nd and paid $5.00 to place and $5.20 to show). I didn't bet.
As for the other 4 selections, $20.00 going out, net profit of $19.20. It was an eye opener. I had felt certain that the software and methodology had worked only once or twice in over 40 attempts. It was all in my mind and attitude.Perhaps this is why many people fail to succeed with the Sartin Methodology. Perhaps there is a certain amount of "surrender" to the process (and to yourself, your deity, to your God) and "listening" that is needed for success. It's difficult for some of us who think that we "know it all" to step back and work "with" a system. I may or may not succeed at working with Rdss but come on new folks, open up and give the process a chance!

[JimG]

The following is not directed at anyone in particular, just an observation based on my years of reading horse racing boards.

It's human nature to try to blame something else when we fail. Regardless of what software anyone is using to assist in horse investing, it is the player making the decision to play.

No matter what software one chooses, it is vital to learn the software and give yourself much time to evaluate your strenghts and weaknesses with it.

Nothing makes me cringe more that to hear "the software picked this..." BS. The horse player makes the picks and decisions based partly or wholly on the software output.

Good luck Wilbur in the future and always give yourself much more than a week to determine if any software tool is a good fit for you.

Jim

[trotman]

JimG I have to agree with you. Wilbur here sounds like he wants to get this house built in record time and I can tell you with over 40 years of handicapping you might say I'm still looking at the plans of this house I'm building. The only advice I could give here to Wilbur is learn to work with your tools and measure twice and cut once.

[dlivery]

I my self have much to learn from the rdss but one thing for sure what I have learned is to be patient and relax and move forward this has me thinking about something a long time ago my father told me was with out failure there would not be sucess.

[Ted Craven]

Wilbur,

Firstly - welcome to PaceandCap, and to your evaluation pf RDSS - and great first post, thank you! Next, I must say that you have done something right off the bat which a majority of folks have difficulty with - and that is expressing your anxiety and concerns with your initial success/failure in public (though I see why you chose this Topic to post in).

I would say one of the most difficult things to do is to be self-critical, let alone exposing oneself to potential criticism (even constructive criticism) from others. But the fact that you have done just this - beginning with expressing your doubts and frustration, then opening up to examining your records, seeing what you actually accomplished, checking your commitment to your work (you got the time wrong on a race, etc) - speaks volumes to me about what your mindset is. And that mindset is: someone who has a strong desire and a commitment to find out what a toolset can do, AND to work on yourself to achieve a goal. (I also am aware of how you have chosen to not just tip your toe in these waters, but have jumped in with both feet, so congratulations on intention).

My reading of your post is that you don't necessarily want everything handed to you on a plate up front, and are willing to work. Good - that's the ONLY way it will work. This game will challenge you to understand a central truth of things - that there is no 'other guy' - you are responsible, for everything! The software is a calculator, an assistant bookkeeper or idiot savant in a box, if you will - blithely (and uncaringly) willing to be accepted or rejected by you. The software told me that Blame (and several other horses) looked better than Zenyatta in the BC Classic. Several folks cashed nice tickets on Blame and the Blame/Zenyatta exacta by heeding the readouts. It is MY responsibility for having chosen (and touted!) Zenyatta to win - largely for sentimental reasons (and for knowing her huge 3rd fraction, stretch run ability and reserves). Result: they won, I lost. No one to Blame ;) but me (and I also get the credit for the other winners I did have last weekend - me and my tools).

I believe you (and everyone who does it) is on the right path if you record every single wager decision you make (bet, pass, 2-horses, single horse, win pool, other pools) along with initially a small handful of composite factor rankings of your bet candidates: BL/BL tier, VDC, Total Energy and the Class Rating (CR), especially at the middle to upper class tracks. If you're doing this on paper, figure out what your Hit Rate% is and ROI and thus what net odds from 2 horse (or single horse, when possible) must be to break even. This helps you know what betting situations you must pass on due to too low odds.

But above all, never stop the self-examination process. When you do, you implicitly start believing that someone else is more responsible for your success than you are, and when you deeply believe that, you will not succeed - at horse-racing and probably not at anything else either.

I love the expression: 'you have what you want', which is another way of saying if you keep doing what you're doing, you'll keep getting what you got. To achieve something different, you have to step outside current comfort zones and use your mental and emotional skills in a different way, and maybe also use different tools, OR, use your tools differently. RDSS is not Phase III of the Sartin Methodology: though it evolved from the Brohamer era, and the Energy era. Phase III still works fine, but lots of others now see what it sees, and you have to be a lot more accurate than before to stay even, let alone profitable.

Finally, though RDSS as a tool works well in the hands of someone who takes time to learn and accept what it offers, having a mentor will shortcut the process to learning alone and only listening to one's own advice! I have made this suggestion and offer to everyone, though few seem to have taken it up: don't just brood over a losing cycle of races - first, review them in detail, looking for consistently applied choices which would have resulted in even one, maybe two more hits per 20 race session, or per card of races. Then, post on this bulletin board the series of races you are studying, starting with simply the race identities and your choices, won, lost or passed and net result. Then simply ask a few leading questions: what analysis could I have done differently in this race , how could I have made a better wager decision in that race. (Learning how to post screenshots speeds up the feedback and learning process).

While it's true, we are all in competition with each other for the winner's slice of the mutuel pool, some of us also have a strong desire to share, to teach and to grow the game by introducing its glories, its potential profits and its opportunities for self-knowledge to those who are interested.

You sure seem like you're on the right path - may I encourage you to keep it up, focus, expect to take some time, ask for help, share you process like you've done so far.

All the best,

Ted

P.S. As for my mother being a 'plant' - well if that's true, she planted herself and now I can't get rid of her ;). Plus, she only does what I tell her part of the time anyway :)

[Rverge]

its a grind, a grind . like a job, everyday a grind. no matter what pencil/paper,/software/system/service one uses.

[clore1030]

I use RDSS in combination with a Decision Model. I have a fairly rigid method of determining pace lines and use the TE, DCL and primary factors (plus BL/BL) in my model.

By distance, I look for price when top rated factors are apparent. I just a few minutes ago caught a 26 dollar horse at Aqueduct. At 7 furlongs, Turntime was the primary factor in my model - 67% winners. I'm such a discerning spot player that this was my first wager at Aqueduct so far this meet.

In the fifth race today, my model says to bet the 6 horse. The top categories so far at AQU at six furlongs have been DCL, LPR and HID, all hitting at 67% so far this meet. It just so happens that the 6 horse is number one in each of those categories and he's going off at a 15/1 morning line. I've passed on races where a different horse might be top-rated in each of those three categories, too much guesswork.

This method of mine was determined after much trial and error, and while I'm a single horse bettor, I haven't had a losing meet in a year-and-a-half. I had one Belmont meet where I only managed 22% winners but managed a profit as I was getting decent prices.

In doing things as I do, I may be in violation of many of the Sartin guidelines, but in the end, it's my money on the line. I've gotten flack from some around here who are perhaps a bit too in awe of certain practitioners, but I go with my own plan. I'm still using Sartin-methodology based tools, I've just adapted them to the way that my own brain analyzes the data and my own wallet is comfortable. If I lose, I have no one but myself to blame. What I've come up with is based on my own "mind's eye" of what I've researched, but RDSS has been a heaven-sent tool because it's sensibly priced and it's design made it easier for to to discover what works for me.

As to your mom Ted, and the claim that "she only does what I tell her part of the time anyway" endears her to me even more. If she's discovering something that works for her, she's my kind of thinker.

EDITED TO ADD
My 6 horse in the fifth ran a fast-closing second and while I lost the wager, I'm content that my adaptation of the method did accomplish part of its original intention - it puts me on live horses at decent prices.

[wilbur porter]

Yes to everyone who has taken their time to reply. You all are correct and I understand that it does take time. I do not blame it on the Rdss - so far I have determined that it and the Sartin methodology are excellent tools compared to other methods that I have used. On the contrary, I am impatient with myself and that is more "my character flaw". After reading Ted's response and others, it becomes apparent even more that the lack is not in the method or software but in myself - so I am determined to stay the course and "listen" - something that is most difficult for us to do these days...a little humility. Thanks Ted, JimG, and Rverge.

[SilentRun]

Hello Wilbur,

Sorry I got to this thread late but I would recommend that for anyone that is new to the Methodology to first focus on specific sprints only.
(5F, 5.5F, 6.0 & 6.5).
I feel that they are easier to analyze because horses are primarily bred for speed
not stamina. The early horse usually wins these sprints. One of the above posts mentioned that currently the winners for Aqueduct 6F were late.
Of course late horses win sprints but my records show that the majority of sprint winners are early.

Since there are different factors that dominate for sprints, routes, turf, maidens it is easier to focus on one of these categories when starting with RDSS.

The factors that I model for sprints are early speed F1, Second call (SC), E/EP,
EPR , E/L graph, TT and %Med. You can even start out by playing only claiming and allowance races.
Different factors usually dominate for Turf routes such as: TE, DCL.TPP, LPR and HE.

So I recommend start out by playing and learning to win with one of the categories above.

Ernie

[wilbur porter]

Thank you most graciously for the tips Ernie, After re-readiing your reply again I received some more insights - that is, on another level. I had handicapped Aqueduct in the past, particularly the sprints as early pace and have used the Brisnet Track Stats - but the track did seem a little slow last week. But again your point about which factors to use for the various distances is exactly what I have started working on more in depth. Your reply was synchronous. I've paid too much attention to the stat books and other's pace quotes. Appreciate it!

[gandalf380]

I have been very fortunate that for one week each of the last two Saratoga meetings, Ted and his mother have been my houseguests in Saratoga. I have seen close up that Barb has no preconceived notions towards horse racing and thus she applies the principles of the Sartin Methodology to the best of her ability. She does the work, keeps the records and has a fair amount of success. One of the problems with using a computer to handicap is the inclination to get bogged down in too many factors because it is so easy to look at so many things. During the seminar this past summer, I personally handicapped two stakes races for the group. One was post-race and one was pre-race. Both of them were very easy in my eyes because I did not get bogged down in too many details. I figured out who was going to be in front and could they be caught. (A variation of what Jim Bradshaw used to say constantly.) By keeping it simple, both winners jumped out at me and I made money on both races. Keep it as simple as possible. If it looks like a complicated race, there is no sin in skipping it. With simulcasting, there is always another race somewhere in a few minutes.

[wilbur porter]

Thank you for your remarks. It makes a great deal of sense. Synchronicity, as I have been feeling that way. I had used the I Ching (I believe that Jim Bradshaw spoke of it as well) and got the hexagram "Decrease", which I interpreted as "Keep it simple and small" when asking about what more I should or could do. It seems that this may well indeed be at the core of the Sartin methodology. It seems that there is much needed work to gain proficiency, but perhaps it is so easy to complicate things as well - perhaps being so intent on looking at the horses run, watching the posts, the jockeys, the spray of dirt and mud amidst the pacing hooves- but not seeing the race. It is difficult work. In Indian religion they use a word "Maya". It's like building floating sand castles in the imagination. But alas, here I go on. Thanks again. Wilbur

[froggy]

Wilber,

This is an interesting thread. More than a year since its inception.
What people seem to want is something new and shiny.

Validator is a 20 year old program, and the best one of it’s kind. Then and now.
Doc Sartin was a genius. RDSS (Val4) is simply a Windows version of it.
The Trackmaster variants and speed ratings that are used by RDSS, I believe, sometimes to be inaccurate. However they are by and large right on the money.

It is best to use the Wagering Decision Form. With it you are modeling yourself.
You keep track of BLBL and V/DC and money bet and won.
It is simple and easy and these are the most important factors.

I am not trying to slay a giant or climb Mt Everest. I just want to keep in the black.
I bet NYRA where the favorites or near favorites are usually the winner.
My horses are normally 1, 2, or 3 on BLBL and 1 or 2 V/DC.
Sometimes there are $45 horses, but usually they run in the $5 to $12 range.
I select my pace lines with Preceptor.
Pace line selection and passing races is a learned art and therefore most peoples down fall.

As far as being a professional at the horses. I only have a $600 month income and that doesn’t cover rent, food and utilities. So you see I can’t afford a long run out at the races.
However I eat well and get to see the name entertainment in the casinos and loose a little a poker.

With RDSS, you, Wilber, can and will be able to succeed in this endeavor.

Thanks to Doc Sartin and Ted Craven.

Froggy

[Jonathan Steele]

Validator is a 20 year old program...

Not to the best of my knowledge; ten year-old is more like it.

Doc Sartin was a genius.

Ditto.

J.S.

[froggy]

JS

You are right.
I think the first copyright was in 96 and the best version was the 2001.

Froggy

[JimG]

Wilber,


Pace line selection and passing races is a learned art and therefore most peoples down fall.




What factors lead you to pass races on the NYRA circuit froggy?

Jim

[froggy]

Jim,

That’s a complicated question.
I have been analyzing myself every day since you asked, and have found that I’ve been using a single simple rule that I wasn’t even aware of.
If a race doesn’t pass the sniff test, then there is no wager.
In other words if there are any unanswered questions then the race has failed the sniff test.

Thanks for asking because I needed that question.

Froggy

[wilbur porter]

Thanks Froggy. You sound like you know what you're talking about. I've studied Aqueduct and Belmont a lot the last 2 years. They are fairly predictable. I would never wager a favorite with Dominguez, JR Velasquez or the other big names because of course the ROI is way too low. The same goes for California - Bejarno, Russell Baze, etc. It would seem to me that it might be possible to stay afloat if one had an understanding of this fact - that is the promotion of the jockeys and horses by the race tracks. What Doc Sartin said about not paying heed to jockeys or names seems sensible. There have been some high mutuals in Aqueduct the last month or so that i picked but didn't wager. Can a poor person really supplement their income with only marginal wagering?

[mikesal57]

Wibur..

handicap the horse!!! ..the jockey is on just for the ride...
Its a shame that you lost high payouts because of the jockey...

Cap the race and and set your required odds..then bet

you wont be disappointed

mike

top jockeys will almost always get the best horse in the race and it should be a pass anyway cause of the low odds..

the answer to your question is ..Yes...a person can do it

[Dallas4lr]

Wilber,

This is an interesting thread. More than a year since its inception.
What people seem to want is something new and shiny.

Validator is a 20 year old program, and the best one of it’s kind. Then and now.
Doc Sartin was a genius. RDSS (Val4) is simply a Windows version of it.
The Trackmaster variants and speed ratings that are used by RDSS, I believe, sometimes to be inaccurate. However they are by and large right on the money.

It is best to use the Wagering Decision Form. With it you are modeling yourself.
You keep track of BLBL and V/DC and money bet and won.
It is simple and easy and these are the most important factors.

I am not trying to slay a giant or climb Mt Everest. I just want to keep in the black.
I bet NYRA where the favorites or near favorites are usually the winner.
My horses are normally 1, 2, or 3 on BLBL and 1 or 2 V/DC.
Sometimes there are $45 horses, but usually they run in the $5 to $12 range.
I select my pace lines with Preceptor.
Pace line selection and passing races is a learned art and therefore most peoples down fall.

As far as being a professional at the horses. I only have a $600 month income and that doesn’t cover rent, food and utilities. So you see I can’t afford a long run out at the races.
However I eat well and get to see the name entertainment in the casinos and loose a little a poker.

With RDSS, you, Wilber, can and will be able to succeed in this endeavor.

Thanks to Doc Sartin and Ted Craven.

Froggy

Froggy,

Just had a quick question I assume you wager cap and are betting two horses in each race. If so how large is your average wager per race and do you split this amount equally between your two horses.



Carl

[froggy]

Carl,

I normaly bet $10 a race.
60/40 and 50/50.
Without the bombs Roi is around #1.40
But I keep running into one or two $20 horses per twenty race cycles.
Yesterday I worked TP & TUP (19 races).
I bet one lock of the century $20 on the nose, finished third.
I would have had about a $10 profit.
But one of those bombs came in in the 2nd at TP.
After throwing out the heavy favorite, I bet two $2 win bets and on the second choice $2 across, $10 total on three horses.
#10 the second choice paid $69.20 $24.80 and $12.40.
My racebook buddy has no problem puttihg thousands on a single race betting favorites or near favorites.
One just has stay in their own compfort level.

Froggy

[Dorianmode]

I am a VERY satisfied user. I have only marginally kept up with the developments of the Methogology since the late 80's and 90's, but I am aware of most of the new concepts, even though I have not had time to use them, frequently. I had an EXTREMELY profitable two days at Saratoga and Del Mar, in fact SO profitable that I have to stop, and figure out how I am going to keep track of all the data that gets generated.

So my question is, does anyone know of a good record keeping system, software which is "queriable". I need to maximize my racing stats, by manipulating all the data that gets generated by even few races. Thanks.

[Ted Craven]

Dorianmode,

Well congratulations on 2 good initial days, and welcome back to the great game! Did you know you can export your Analysis screens to an Excel template which does at least a rudimentary job of tracking factors? If that suits yours purposes, here are the Release Notes about that:

http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5947

Here is a video by RichieP (always entertaining): http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5987

Here's a Google Search query which will return you numerous hits on making and using the export model maker: site:paceandcap.com excel export

It's a good start. My longer range goal (RDSS 2.1) is to have a comprehensive searchable database driven recordkeeping tool integrated into the RDSS database.

Hope that helps some,

Ted

[Dorianmode]

Thanks. I think I will use Excel, and also try out, (ie write my own) in the free spreadsheets in Google docs, (in my gmail).

Something interesting happened yesterday, which rasied another question. In one of the later races at Saratoga, (I will post speciics when I get around to entering my data/results), but there was a HUGE anomaly in the place pool. First, I was going to have to pass on a win bet on my first choice, because it was 3/5, but I clicked on the "pools" tab in TrackMaster, and noticed there was less money bet in that, (place) pool, (for the favorite), than in the show pool, AND far less money than in the competitor's place pools. So I bet on the favorite in the place pool, AND dutched the second and third choice also in their place pools, and cashed in BOTH, as the favorite won, and my second choice came in second. Which raised a question for me... Howard used to have a BASIC program for a hand held 1350 (Sharp?), which had a number of tote board utilities in it. Anyone have a copy of that, or know if they are around anywhere ? I assume the 1350s are long gone, (it WAS an elegant little machine), but I can't find mine, and even if I could the battery would have long ago gone dead, so I would have to re-enter the programs, (which were on a cassette tape, and entered by a tape recorder interface). There were also Ziemba utilities, and odds utilities on it, (for place and show overlays), and a bunch of other stuff for dutching/odds which I can't remember. Thanks.

[froggy]

Dorianmode,

I found that printing out a copy of the RDSS pages( using Screenhunter) and then putting them in a loose leaf binder. After about a week you'll have 80 to 100 races and on the off days you can go over them and find a gold mine of info.
That is what I did when I posted "an Investment with RDSS" and "100 Race report" pages 16 and 19 under RDSS on this site.

It makes me feel good that someone like you without a contaminated mind is doing well with RDSS.

Froggy

ps: you can get new batterys for the old sharp at radio shack

[Ted Craven]

... Which raised a question for me... Howard used to have a BASIC program for a hand held 1350 (Sharp?), which had a number of tote board utilities in it. Anyone have a copy of that, or know if they are around anywhere ? I assume the 1350s are long gone, (it WAS an elegant little machine), but I can't find mine, and even if I could the battery would have long ago gone dead, so I would have to re-enter the programs, (which were on a cassette tape, and entered by a tape recorder interface). There were also Ziemba utilities, and odds utilities on it, (for place and show overlays), and a bunch of other stuff for dutching/odds which I can't remember. Thanks.

Dorianmode,

If you do happen to find any such tote analysis/wager calculation utilities which are in the public domain, please let me know and I will put them in the Tote/Wager module.

Continued good luck and skill to you!

Ted

[Dorianmode]

Holy cow,
I double dog dare anyone to put in the 8th race at Saratoga this afternoon, Saturday, August 6th, 2011. Look at the number one and number two in BL/BL, then look at who won and placed. And then then me this frickin' thing doesn't work. OMG. All I can say is THANK YOU TED !

[Ted Craven]

Ummm,

23178

23179

Hope you cashed well! :)

Ted

[Dorianmode]

Tizway was #1 in BL/BL, and just won the Whitney.

:o

[Dorianmode]

A couple things bugged me about the original email embedded in Ted's first posting in this thread, (well actually a lot more than 2, but I will confine myself to two..for now).


a. The idea that in two months one would be able to come up with sufficient sample of races to use for a statistically significant representation of any of the segments, ( and YES, every race exists in a SEGMENT of horse racing), is rather preposterous, (unless one had an almost perfect record), and even then it would be a stretch, getting them ALL done. I won't here go in to the statistical computations, necessary for EACH of the segment cohorts. Did he actually do ANY record keeping ? Or did he just do the "Wilbur" thing, and try it out, and not keep detailed searchable records ? And BTW, ANY of the data series would theoretically be made profitable if one ONLY bet on the appropriate odds for that series. Seems his problem is his race and contender SCREENING process, which again, I am not going to go into here. But those problems have been SOLVED, even if he is unaware of the solutions.


b. I resent the implication that those of us who don't use racing to "make a living" are any less serious about it than those who choose to. I am VERY serious about EVERYTHING I do, including my "hobbies".

Those who have worked hard to develop this methodology in the past had a great time doing so, but they were VERY serious about doing it, maybe MORE serious than he ?




Anyone who did the seventh race at Saratoga yesterday, I need to ask whether you used the turf line, (most recent), (which would have put him in the picks for BL/BL), and going back one line to the same surface would have left him out, with considerably less TE. Fortunately my screening process flagged him, and make me look again and I left him in, but a cursory exam might have left out the winner. any ideas ?


Thanks.

[Ted Craven]

Anyone who did the seventh race at Saratoga yesterday, I need to ask whether you used the turf line, (most recent), (which would have put him in the picks for BL/BL), and going back one line to the same surface would have left him out, with considerably less TE. Fortunately my screening process flagged him, and make me look again and I left him in, but a cursory exam might have left out the winner. any ideas ?
Thanks.

Dorianmode,

May I request that you repeat this last query (on paceline selection strategy) in a new Topic, so as to prevent this particular topic from drifting too far from its original theme.

Ted