Rdss2 & NewPace

[rmath]

I now have a total of 200 races, that I have run thru RDSS2.
Top vdc 83
2nd vdc 42
3rd vdc 27
4th vdc 20
total vdc top 4: 172 wins with 136 exactas in top 4

New Pace:
E 1: 53
E 2 :26
L1 : 43
L2 : 29
total 151 wins with 96 exactas.

I made no preliminary eliminations for any reason. I sorted the contenders after picking the best of last 3 comparable pacelines using the line scores to get it down to the final 5. From these I eliminated any horse with a 5 vdc rating. This eliminated 7 wins and 19 exactas.
There were 11 wins in New Pace that were eliminated by the use of line scores. One at 53.80, 7 were between 20.00 and 26.60, and 3 were to low to bet.
I will let each of you draw your own conclusions from these findings.
rmath

[pilot]

Thanks for posting as it is greatly appreciatied.

Wayne

[Ted Craven]

Richard,

Thanks for this work!

Are you able to report the average mutuel in each of the 8 categories you mention (4 VDC, 4 NP).


Ted

[rmath]

Ted, Here are the figures you requested.
1 vdc 7.48 31 were below 3/2
2 vdc 8.32 15 below 3/2
3 vdc 9.06 5 below 3/2
4 vdc 11.12 3 below 3/2

E 1 8.03 24 below 3/2
E 2 9.70 10 below 3/2
L 1 7.37 14 below 3/2
L 2 9.65 5 below 3/2

Hope this helps.
rmath

[rmath]

PS. I forgot to include one other fact.
1 vdc 27/83 were 3/1 or higher
2vdc 13/42 were 3/1 or above
3 vdc 12/29 were 3/1 or above
4 vdc 8/20 were 3/1 or above

E 1 12/53 E 2 10/26
L 1 13/43 L 2 14/29 3/1 or above

This would give you 60 wins in 200 races assuming a play in each race at 3/1 or higher.

[BJennet]

I now have a total of 200 races, that I have run thru RDSS2.
Top vdc 83
2nd vdc 42
3rd vdc 27
4th vdc 20
total vdc top 4: 172 wins with 136 exactas in top 4

New Pace:
E 1: 53
E 2 :26
L1 : 43
L2 : 29
total 151 wins with 96 exactas.

I made no preliminary eliminations for any reason. I sorted the contenders after picking the best of last 3 comparable pacelines using the line scores to get it down to the final 5. From these I eliminated any horse with a 5 vdc rating. This eliminated 7 wins and 19 exactas.
There were 11 wins in New Pace that were eliminated by the use of line scores. One at 53.80, 7 were between 20.00 and 26.60, and 3 were to low to bet.
I will let each of you draw your own conclusions from these findings.
rmath

Hi Rich,

Much thanks for the ongoing testing. I was amazed, although maybe I shouldn't have been, by the similarity of the VDC results with those I got for TE a couple of years ago in a 1200-race survey. Although these two factors are not completely correlated, I'm beginning to believe the correlation is much closer than I had realized. Also, VDC appears to have slightly better ordinality (higher-ranked horses win more often than lower) than TE. For example, both produced a combined win of about 60% for the top two places, but VDC divides them .41,.21, where TE (at least in my survey) had them .37, .25. If the average mutuel holds at $7.48, this is better than the $7.00 I found for TE. Also, if this stat holds up over a larger sample of races, it would mean a flat-bet profit against all races for VDC #1 - pretty mind-blowing.

The results for NP are also similar to what Bill Lyster and others have posted.

Just a couple of questions: re filters, were there really no filters used to test either of these methods? That's what it sounds like.

Also, you say you used the line scores to sort out the top 5 for VDC, and then chose the 'best' 3 pacelines. Was this mechanical or was some judgement involved. If it was mechanical, what was the selection factor?

Re the 3/1 and 3/2 odds for grouping winners, what is the significance of using these particular odds?

Thanks again for all your work.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[rmath]

B.J., In answer to your ?s
1) I did not use any filters at all, I wanted to give both programs an equal and fair test.
2) pacelines were chosen exactly as DOC suggested in all of the Follow Ups starting around issue 70. He said to use the best of the last 3 comparable & use the line with the best adjusted SR. If you have doubts about two or more lines, put both in and choose the one the program likes the best.
This procedure has worked very well for me over the past 20+ years.
3) the use of 3/2 odds only has significance for me in that if the top or second vdc horse is at or below these odds I will probably be looking to pass this race. Too many win at low odds.
3/1 was used because above this range I can make a good profit. I could have used 7/2 or 4/1. I rarely play more than 3 races a day at any given track. I run all the playable races according to DOCs guidelines but my actual betting is reserved for the ones I feel I have the best chance to make a profit in.
Hope this answers your questions.
rmath

[rmath]

The 200 races in my test were taken from 8 different tracks.
I like to run only the tracks and races that have a minimum of 7 or more horses entered. This seems to give a truer picture of the programs capabilities.
Personally I prefer races with 8 to 10 entrants, but this is not always possible.
In my 200 race test I did NOT record any races that had less than 6 official starters,and there were not very many of these. I think the results would be unrealistic if any of the testers only ran races with 6 or less horses.
This is only my opinion and is not to be taken as a judgement of anyone else.
We are all trying to help one another to improve our results and enjoy this sport we all love.

[Ted Craven]

Thanks again Richard!

One thing to remember regarding V/DC: there are frequently tied ranks, e.g. 2 horses ranked 1, or 2 horses ranked 2 or 3, etc. Up to 50% of the time? This makes direct comparisons to factors which always have discreet ranks (such as Total Energy, or NewPace) a little more fuzzy.

So, it might make this V/DC related study a bit clearer to know how you dealt with those ties when counting the number of #1s and#2s etc.

For example, how would V/DC in this race be ranked in your tabulation process?

23563


Bye the bye, this race is a perfect example illustrating the distinction Doc tried to make between ranks and tiers. The #1 and #6 are in the same exact tier, both for BL/BL and for V/DC (the display order is goverened by the Total Energy tie-breaker) and should be considered equal on our odds line. The idea is to break these ties (if you must) according to bet-time odds. The 3rd listed #5 horse is effectively equal to the top 2.

Eliminate a low odds horse (from Win betting) below a certain threshold if it does not justify its public odds, compared to your betting line. The #1 at 3/2 (1.4 - 1) is no better (though also no worse) than the other horses in our top 3. For Win, we are offered better odds on the net of the #6 and #5, and the #6 should also be bet to Place as well. The #1 belongs in an Exacta box.

I believe these instructions (more or less) will also be found among Doc's words written in Follow Ups #70 and forward.

23564

[rmath]

1) eliminate the 4 , 5th vdc
2) hide the 1 , odds to low
3) bet the 5 & 6 to win and the 6 to place
This would be the preferred play by Docs guidelines.
Personally I would only bet the 6 horse win & place as I prefer to bet no more than two at 4/1 minimum, or one horse win and place when the odds are good as in this case.
I rarely play the exotics, and yes I agree totally with Teds assesment to Docs guidelines.
When I do play an exacta I prefer both of my top 2 or 3 in case of ties to be above 4/1

[Ted Craven]

Richard,

If I understand the VDC rank recording protocol correctly from the email you sent me, you would have recorded the winner above as VDC rank 2 even though there were 2 VDC rank 1's above it. And if the winner had been horse #1, you would have recorded the winner's VDC as rank #1, despite there having been 2 rank 1's.

What this means, if I understand correctly, is that out of the 200 races in your study, there were (likely) more than 200 horses with a VDC rank1, so the hit rate of VDC rank 1 was actually 83 out of 200+ rank 1's to choose from, depending on how many rank 1 ties there were. And likely the same for rank 2 and rank 3 at least . Did I understand you correctly?

It has been a long-challenged, oft-asked question: why are there VDC ties. The answer as always: to elevate deserving horses who otherwise rank poorer on the basis of weighted line score (i.e. BL/BL) alone.

The above discussions on treatment for betting purposes versus study purposes, I think, answer how to actually make use of VDC.

If I misunderstood your method, please do let me know.

cheers,

Ted

[rmath]

Ted, Yes you are correct that I do not distinguish the ties for the purpose of record keeping. I have never been able to find a way to separate them with any degree of accuracy. My figures are correct for the number of wins per ranking.
I have found that if I have a tie for the #1 ranking ,then those two are my main win contenders that I use to decide if I am going to bet the race or not.
If I have only one top and one second then I look at them as if they were tied.
I have found that my win % for my top two horses stays pretty much the same regardless.
If I have 3 or more horses tied in the top 2 rankings I use post time odds to find my 1 or 2 bets OR I just pass the race.
Like I said in my email , recording and betting are two totally and separate items.
I rarely bet more than two horses in a race and really prefer to bet only one horse to win and to place if the odds are high enough.
I have found that if I restrict my biggest bets to a top rated horse at 3/1 or higher, I will cash in 28% to 34% of my actual plays (one horse) to win and between 50and 55% place.
I hope this helps to clarify the difference between record keeping and my actual betting. About 90% of the races that I actually bet only have 1 top horse. This is why I rarely bet more than 2 or 3 races per day at any one track.
rmath

[Bill Lyster]

Thanks again Richard!

One thing to remember regarding V/DC: there are frequently tied ranks, e.g. 2 horses ranked 1, or 2 horses ranked 2 or 3, etc. Up to 50% of the time? This makes direct comparisons to factors which always have discreet ranks (such as Total Energy, or NewPace) a little more fuzzy.

So, it might make this V/DC related study a bit clearer to know how you dealt with those ties when counting the number of #1s and#2s etc.

For example, how would V/DC in this race be ranked in your tabulation process?

23563

Bye the bye, this race is a perfect example illustrating the distinction Doc tried to make between ranks and tiers. The #1 and #6 are in the same exact tier, both for BL/BL and for V/DC (the display order is goverened by the Total Energy tie-breaker) and should be considered equal on our odds line. The idea is to break these ties (if you must) according to bet-time odds. The 3rd listed #5 horse is effectively equal to the top 2.

Eliminate a low odds horse (from Win betting) below a certain threshold if it does not justify its public odds, compared to your betting line. The #1 at 3/2 (1.4 - 1) is no better (though also no worse) than the other horses in our top 3. For Win, we are offered better odds on the net of the #6 and #5, and the #6 should also be bet to Place as well. The #1 belongs in an Exacta box.

I believe these instructions (more or less) will also be found among Doc's words written in Follow Ups #70 and forward.

23564

One of the nice things I have been finding here is that there is a nice elimination corollary if the fifth VDC horse is also the 5th or 6th DCL horse.

Also in turf sprints or routes where you sometimes have to use a poly or dirt line for some horses. If the TE of the dirt or poly horse is greater than 3rd and the DCL is 5th or 6th you can eliminate such horses from win and place a lot of the time.

Bill

[So Cal Al]

Hi, Ted, Richard, and Bill:
I've been following this thread with interest. Great stuff, Richard, and I agree with Ted that, because of ties, there will be a total number of V/DC contenders that is larger than the the total of 4-horse contenders in NP. Nevertheless, the test information is very viable. Ever since my PIRCO days, I have always believed that the key was a proper pace line selection process. As we know, in some races it is easier said than done because of layoffs, surface changes, etc., but we can learn from experience (and by sharing that experience with others). Dave S. has indicated that the Sartin Methodology is interested in current form, and NP is not so constrained. In fact, I get a sense of the Pizzolla "way back" approach to turf races, when reviewing some NP race contenders. For myself, I'm still evaluating NP and V/DC from a standpoint of how each may possibly aid the other, and in the strengths and weaknesses of each. Good work, all!

[Bill Lyster]

2011 Delmar ONLY, 163 races through August 28th WITH filters:

Hid all route horses away 75 days; hid all sprint horses away 95 days
Hid all horses with ML odds of 20:1 or greater.
Hid all horses without a race or workout in 40 days - but there weren't any!!
No more than 2 FTS in maiden races; no more than 2 foreign horses making first start in States.

[Interesting info from Delmar website handicapping data. From 2007 to 2010 93% of route winners returned in 77 days or less; 92% of sprint winners returned in 88 days or less; 92.2% of turf route winners returned in 81 days or less; ONLY 83% of turf sprint winners returned in 145 days or less!]

Hid horses but only down to five contenders. Used top 5 TE unless horse was top three VDC rated; kept the top 3 VDC rated no matter their TE rank.

With remaining lowest ranked horses looked at both TE and DCL info.

In these 163 races there were 28 instances where the top 4 VDC had 5 horses, so about 1 out of every 6 races as many as 5 horses. I did not record rating ties so if three horses were #1 VDC I entered the data in my results table according to TE.


Results: Betting or boxing all top 4 VDC contenders

Wins: 136, avg odds 5.25:1, avg $2 mutual : $12.51; ROI 27.4%
Exactas: 96 , $1 Exacta average $33.53; ROI 60.6%
Trifectas: 59 , $1 Trifecta average $194.81; ROI 186.8%
Superfectas: 21 , $1 Superfecta average $511.90; ROI 173.1%


Good luck to all of you---

[rmath]

320 races run at 9 different tracks. No filters of any kind.
Pacelines were chosen using best of last 3 comparable for all entries adj sr.
Sorted down to final 5 using Primary Line scores.
#1 vdc 112
#2 vdc 74
#3vdc 55
#4 vdc 33
total wins 274 .856
Exactas in top 4 box 220 .688

New pace
E1 81
E2 48
L1 68
L2 45
total 242 wins .756
Exactas in all 4 161 .503

[Bill Lyster]

Nice work

And I note the use of the Adjusted Speed Ratings, NOT the raw speed ratings.



bill

[rmath]

Thanks Bill, and yes ever since the adj. sr ratings were made available I have followed DOCs guidelines. These guidelines are just as potent today as they were when Doc and Trackmaster first released them.

[rmath]

Ted , I thought you might be interested in how the vdc % has been doing since I started recording it also.
In the last 120 races of my testing the top 3 vdc won 94 or .783,
85 of the 94 were in the top 3 vdc%.
One thing that has caught my attention is that when I have 3 or 4 horses tied in the top 2 vdc , one of the top 2 vdc% horses will run 1st or 2nd over 75% of the time.
Not sure if this is any help in deciding on the usefulness of the vdc% or not.
Since I rarely play the exoctics anymore I am more interested in getting as many double digit winners in my top 2 or 3 as is possible.

[BJennet]

320 races run at 9 different tracks. No filters of any kind.
Pacelines were chosen using best of last 3 comparable for all entries adj sr.
Sorted down to final 5 using Primary Line scores.
#1 vdc 112
#2 vdc 74
#3vdc 55
#4 vdc 33
total wins 274 .856
Exactas in top 4 box 220 .688

New pace
E1 81
E2 48
L1 68
L2 45
total 242 wins .756
Exactas in all 4 161 .503

Hi Rich,

Thanks again for continuing to provide these results on VD/C. I see that, in terms of hit rate these results are converging even more closely with my stats on TE, which convinces me more than ever that VD/C, Adj. SR, and TE, like many of the other Sartin factors are almost completely correlated, i.e. that VD/C has no statistical independence. I know that everyone's time is at a premium, but if you could check this correlation - how often is VD/C #1 also Adj. SR #1, and so on down the line, I would be grateful. If it turns out that they are not correlated, we have a new, tremendously powerful Sartin factor. However, I suspect that they are.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[rmath]

I understand that my win % for the top vdc horse dropped a few % points but the average mutual went up to over 8.00 because of a few longshots. One in particular that paid 72.00.
My top 3 & top4 win % stayed the same, and this is what I am interested in.
I would like to get more of the 4th ranked plays moved up to 1,2,or 3.
I assume the adj. srs you want are from the final 5 contenders.
Over the last 20 years I have stopped keeping track of many different ratings as like Bill posted the average is around 2.74 for each of them.
I concentrate on the top 3 vdc and bet exclusively off the post time odds.

[BJennet]

I understand that my win % for the top vdc horse dropped a few % points but the average mutual went up to over 8.00 because of a few longshots. One in particular that paid 72.00.
My top 3 & top4 win % stayed the same, and this is what I am interested in.
I would like to get more of the 4th ranked plays moved up to 1,2,or 3.
I assume the adj. srs you want are from the final 5 contenders.
Over the last 20 years I have stopped keeping track of many different ratings as like Bill posted the average is around 2.74 for each of them.
I concentrate on the top 3 vdc and bet exclusively off the post time odds.

Hi Rich,

I understand that you don't usually keep those stats, and wouldn't want to add to your workload. A couple of other interesting things that came up in your survey, again similar to my findings for TE, is that the #3 and #4, really don't win much, and, if you check their average mutuels, they're pretty bad in relation to their hit rate. OTOH, the #1 is slightly in the black. Thus, although I understand why you're interested in the possibility of betting the #4 horse, it's rarely a good idea.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[mikesal57]

Hi Rich...

A dumb question....how do you use "adjusted speed ratings" in RDSS

I know that New Pace has that option

thxs

mike

[rmath]

Mike, I use the adj. srs. to pick my pace lines, just like Doc says in the Follow Up and on the instructions for all of the newer programs.
Doc and trackmaster worked on this project for over a year ( if memory serves me right ) to get a better method of picking the best contenders to use. I have found that I get over 90% of the winners in the top 5 and ties.
Hope this answers your question.

[rmath]

BJ., I will add the sr of the winners to my records. I am not trying to find a way to bet 4 horses in a race. I usually never look at more than the top 2 vdc horses for most of my plays. The only time I consider the 3rd or 4th vdc horse is when their odds are above 8/1 or better. When the odds are high enough I will place a small saver wager on one of them, I donnot want to miss any 30.00+ winners when they are a contender.
Most of the time I restrict my bets to the top 2 if they are going off at the min. odds I use to decide if I am going to make a bet. I rarely play any of the exotic wagers. I only track them for testing, because most players like to bet them.

[rmath]

I now have 400 races in my testing. Same guidelines as before.


1 vdc 142 E1 97
2 vdc 94 E2 59
3 vdc 70 L1 81
4 vdc 40 L2 58

total 346 .865 295 .74
exactas 270 .675 199 .50
The average mutuals has not changed much, a couple of cents up on the top two vdc.

[rmath]

Ted , I put in spaces between the vdc and new pace ratings but they apparently did not go thru on my post. Sorry about that. If need be I can resubmit them tomorrow.

[mikesal57]

Glad your back buddy.....

For NP to be at a 74% range tells me that a lot of non contenders and long odds are in there. From my study of the daily tracks I put up ..rarely do I see horses paying over 40 bucks....maybe if we leave out horses going over 20-1 , we can get better results...

comments?

mike

[mikesal57]

Rich..if you dont mind..

can you continue these results in an open forum for all to see..

since we are not talking about the mechanics, I'd think it will be OK with TED

[Ted Craven]

Rich..if you dont mind..

can you continue these results in an open forum for all to see..

since we are not talking about the mechanics, I'd think it will be OK with TED

Mike,

Actually, this is an open forum - the RDSS 2.0 Forum. Everybody can view, including guests.

Ted

[Ted Craven]

Ted , I put in spaces between the vdc and new pace ratings but they apparently did not go thru on my post. Sorry about that. If need be I can resubmit them tomorrow.

Richard,

I tidied up your original table post. Here's the trick to laying out stuff in proper tabular format:

1. use a font with a fixed width like Courier New You can do this in the message editor by highlihgting the block of text you want to work with, then choose the Courier New font from the drop down Font list.

2. wrap 'Code' Tags around your table to preserve the spacing you add to make columns align. In the message editor, with your block of text still highlighted, click on the 'Code Tag' Icon, which looks like this: # ('pound' symbol, or 'hash-tag' symbol).

This will add the message tags around your tabular organized text . Unless you put your table within this 'Code' block, despite how many blank spaces you add, only 1 blank space will be used and your columns won't line up. You have to put a table in a Code block.

Cheers,

Ted

[Bill Lyster]

I had 218 races tracking VDC at DelMar. I eliminated all morning line horses at 20/1 or greater and got 81% in the top 4 Vdc. Only one winner using this method paid over $40 dollars ($46.40). I did not track place horses with ML>20/1, so I just have a gut feeling on place prices. The ROI was 67% boxing the top 4 in exactas.

An ROI comparison with Rmath's info might provide a little more insight as to the better overall return of the two concepts.


Bill

[rmath]

Bill , in answer to your ? on roir for a 4 horse box using my guidelines. Mine was 1.52.
You stated yours was 67%, so using your guidelines appears slightly better than mine.
My goals were to see if I could get at least 80+ % of all the horses paying4/1 and above. So far I have accomplished that goal. Now I am trying to get these in my top 2 or 3. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
rmath

[Bill Lyster]

Richard:

here are a few things that helped narrow the contenders.


1. If at any time a top two VDC showed up near the bottom of the array, I kept those VDC 1 and 2 horses no matter what their total energy. I eliminated others outside the top 4 VDC in these races.
2. Dirt horses in turf races with #5 DCL should be eliminated and vice versa. So when ever you have to take a line from another surface, be wary of the VDC number if the deceleration rank is 5 or lower. Some of these horses get listed in the top 3 VDC, but the decel becomes important. You can also see how far back the horse projects from the Segments screen and then combine the lengths back with the decel info compared to the other highest ranked contenders.

3. Early horses or horses that have the lead at the second call, should be in the top 3 TS (total speed) rating; also look to TS+F3 placement. You can find the TS rating on the velocity screen and unless the contenders are really close together in TS you can discard a lot of early horses ranked below 3.


Test with your info before adopting. It works for my style of line selection and other stuff.

Bill

[rmath]

I have been using New Pace and Vdc and thought you guys &gals might appreciate my findings.
105 races; top4vdc 88 wins 84% 62 exactas 59%
NP 77 win 73% 52 exactas 49.5%
When you combine the two sets you get 68 wins 65% and 34 exactas 32%
I usually end up with 2 and sometimes 3 horses in the combined group.
If only2 then I bet both to win if odds are acceptable.
When I have 3 I play the 2 with the highest acceptable odds.
Any remaining horses that are singles are only bet as savers if they are 20/1 or higher, there were 5 winners in this group 80.50, 54.60, 42.40, 57.60 and 78.00.
rmath

[Bill Lyster]

Very nice Richard, thanks for the info.


Bill

[BJennet]

[QUOTE=rmath;75592]I have been using New Pace and Vdc and thought you guys &gals might appreciate my findings.
105 races; top4vdc 88 wins 84% 62 exactas 59%
NP 77 win 73% 52 exactas 49.5%
When you combine the two sets you get 68 wins 65% and 34 exactas 32%
I usually end up with 2 and sometimes 3 horses in the combined group.
If only2 then I bet both to win if odds are acceptable.
When I have 3 I play the 2 with the highest acceptable odds.
Any remaining horses that are singles are only bet as savers if they are 20/1 or higher, there were 5 winners in this group 80.50, 54.60, 42.40, 57.60 and 78.00.
rmath[/QUOTE

Hi Rich,

Appreciate you willingness to share your results. Since I believe you have 400 or 500 in this survey, by now, I was wondering if, at some point, you could give us the overall stats: hit rate by rank for both RDSS and NP, and ROI for both. If this too much additional work, no problem. Time as at a premium for everyone.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[rmath]

Bjennet, here are the figures you asked for;
vdc
1 7.86
2 8.98
3 9.40
4 10.68

New Pace
E1 8.85
E2 10.12
L1 7.66
L2 10.25

These are the average mutuals for each rank for 505 races.
All have increased a little over the averages previously posted due to several payoffs above 50.00 in each catagory.

Hope this helps
rmath

[rmath]

505 races
vdc
1 183 .36
2 116 .23
3 86 .17
4 48 .10

332 exactas .66

New Pace
E1 125 .25
E2 81 .16
L1 101 .20
L2 65 .13

251 exactas .50

BJ. I neglected to put all the data together in one post.

Rdss outperforms New Pace in both wins and exactas.

[BJennet]

Hi Rich,

Much thanks for this summary. Looks like the hit-rates for RDSS are virtually unchanged, while the ROI keeps improving. However the win probability distribution among NP contenders seems to be favoring E1 and L1 more than before, although the total win probability is unchanged.

Most amazing to me continues to be the ROI of #1 V/DC - even after adjusting for the take, it's producing a flat-bet profit of 1.22. I would guess that using a 5/2 minimum, that ROI might come close to doubling. If anyone is looking for a simple betting metric, this is it.

Thanks again for all your work.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[rmath]

Happy New Year to everyone. I have been concentrating my plays on one track lately because of the pick 4 contest at Aqu.
Here are my results so far ;
1 vdc 16/36
2vdc 8/36
3 vdc 7/36
4 vdc 3/36
The top three are doing exceptionally well 86% winners.
26 of the 31 top 3 wins were also a New Pace contender, this is 72 % of all wins.
So far most of the time I only have two horses to key, About 1 out of every 4 I have 3horses. I was lucky in this contest so far as I hit a 900.00+ pick 4 eight times and am in the lead.
If these stats continue to hold up it will be a very good new year.
The combination of VDC & New Pace at Aqu may prove to be a blessing, and I invite every one to join in on the good times.
Again HAPPY NEW YEAR to everyone,
rmath

[mikesal57]

Good going.....

Just some questions:

Selecting Lines...

1) best of last 3....what if horse is off a layoff?
2) what if line 2 & 3 are more than 90 days and line 3 is best adjusted?
3) All races playable? maidens with lines?
4) Enter a line for each horse..even though not in the money or closer than 4 lts?

5) All your plays need to be a New Pace contender also?

Thxs
mike

Your New Year looks promising :)

[rmath]

Good morning Mike & Happy New Year.
In response to your questions.
1) best of last 3 regardless of time off.
2) I would use line 3
3) yes all races are playable in this case because I am playing in a pic 4 contest.
4) yes, If the lines are really bad the horse will be eliminated by the Primary Line score.
5) Yes

Mike , for the contest only this is my procedure, I have no other choice.
BUT for my actual bets I do pay attention to days away and recent form.
What I am looking for is that one or two good priced horses that will make the pic 4 pay well and hopefully not too many other players have used either of them.
rmath

[mikesal57]

thxs buddy...good luck in the contest

i will give your approach a test at other tracks and let you know

[rmath]

Mike here is a little update for Aqu.
I now have 60 races
Vdc
1) 24
2) 18
3) 8
4) 5
55 win .9167
43 pbx .717
New Pace
E1) 12
E2) 16
L1) 16
L2) 7
51 win .85
35 pbx .583

49 of the Vdc wins were also NP contenders .82 wins with about 3 horses per race being dual qualifiers. The perfecta was in the dual qualifiers 29 times for a .48 hit rate.
6 of the other wins were top 2 vdc and only 2 were New Pace contenders.
Aqu appears to be a very solid track to play with RDSS & New Pace.

The guidelines mentioned above and in all my testing have remained the same.
between Vdc and New Pace I have only eliminated 3 winners of 60 races
or 5% , this is my starting point for the horses that I am using in the Pic 4 contest. I am working on getting the contenders down to 3 or less and maintain at least 80% winners.
The horses that I am actually betting are the dual qualifiers that go postward at 3/1 or higher.
In the pic 4 contest I am not worrying about the odds as much as I am about hitting the ticket.

[BJennet]

Mike here is a little update for Aqu.
I now have 60 races
Vdc
1) 24
2) 18
3) 8
4) 5
55 win .9167
43 pbx .717
New Pace
E1) 12
E2) 16
L1) 16
L2) 7
51 win .85
35 pbx .583

49 of the Vdc wins were also NP contenders .82 wins with about 3 horses per race being dual qualifiers. The perfecta was in the dual qualifiers 29 times for a .48 hit rate.
6 of the other wins were top 2 vdc and only 2 were New Pace contenders.
Aqu appears to be a very solid track to play with RDSS & New Pace.

The guidelines mentioned above and in all my testing have remained the same.
between Vdc and New Pace I have only eliminated 3 winners of 60 races
or 5% , this is my starting point for the horses that I am using in the Pic 4 contest. I am working on getting the contenders down to 3 or less and maintain at least 80% winners.
The horses that I am actually betting are the dual qualifiers that go postward at 3/1 or higher.
In the pic 4 contest I am not worrying about the odds as much as I am about hitting the ticket.

Hi Rich,

Congratulations on your performance in the AQU contest. The one thing that seems unclear to me in your post is how NP is contributing. The stats you've presented for hit-rate at AQU are almost exactly the same as those I've posted about getting at two of the three big NY tracks (AQU, BEL) and the three big CA tracks for the last couple of years using TE, which is about .95 correlated with V/DC.

From the stats you've previously posted, and from what I've observed myself re NP, comparing top four, it hits about .85 of all the winners that Sartin/RDSS gets (roughly .72:.85). If you used Venn diagrams to map their relationship, about .95 of NP winners would be inside the Sartin/RDSS diagram, with the other .5 outside, representing all of the NP winners that RDSS missed.

If nearly all of NP is contained within RDSS, how is it contributing to picking winners? Most crucially, unlike RDSS, NP isn't correctly rank-ordered, so if you are only betting the top two in a race, its top two will always be measurably worse than RDSS.

Any clarification here would be helpful.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[rmath]

Bjennet, You are right about New Pace not giving a ranking order and that the majority of the winners are already ranked on VDC.
The way I use them is as a corrollary to separate ties on vdc, I have found that if the 3rd & or 4th VDC horses are not also New Pace contenders they rarely Win.
They do place or show, but I am only interested in getting the winner in my top 2 or 3 horses. My goal is to get 80 to 90 % in these 2 or 3 final contenders.
At the present time I am looking at another ranking method ( another Monty) to see if I can narrow my final 3 to 5 horses to 3 or less without eliminating more than 5% of my main contenders. So far things are looking very promising.
While this adds a little extra work it appears to be helping. I am using a ranking system, like Dave Schwartz talked about in one of his seminars that is based on an unrelated set of factors.
When I have worked it on at least 500 + races I will post the results here.
So far I only have about 100 races recorded, but as Doc always said if you can get one more winner in each 20 race cycle then it is worth doing.
Hope this helps in how I am using NP to separate the VDC contenders.
rmath

[BJennet]

Bjennet, You are right about New Pace not giving a ranking order and that the majority of the winners are already ranked on VDC.
The way I use them is as a corrollary to separate ties on vdc, I have found that if the 3rd & or 4th VDC horses are not also New Pace contenders they rarely Win.
They do place or show, but I am only interested in getting the winner in my top 2 or 3 horses. My goal is to get 80 to 90 % in these 2 or 3 final contenders.
At the present time I am looking at another ranking method ( another Monty) to see if I can narrow my final 3 to 5 horses to 3 or less without eliminating more than 5% of my main contenders. So far things are looking very promising.
While this adds a little extra work it appears to be helping. I am using a ranking system, like Dave Schwartz talked about in one of his seminars that is based on an unrelated set of factors.
When I have worked it on at least 500 + races I will post the results here.
So far I only have about 100 races recorded, but as Doc always said if you can get one more winner in each 20 race cycle then it is worth doing.
Hope this helps in how I am using NP to separate the VDC contenders.
rmath

Hi Rich,

Got to admit this made me scratch my head somewhat. I can understand the idea of substituting (which is the same thing as the testing you describe) an NP horse for #3 V/DC - but how much of a gain is there in doing this, when the hit rate of the #3 V/DC is .17 (according to your 500-race sample) and the average hit rate of an NP horse is .18? I think your sense that you're getting a better hit rate this way may be the result of looking at a too-small sample size. In theory #4 seems like a better candidate for this kind of substitution. However another problem that I think might arise when you try this is that you'll find that V/DC #1 & #2, are, in effect, taking some of the win probability from the substituted NP horses, since they are taking a larger overall share of the win probability than the NP contenders with whom the substituted NP horse is usually grouped. I know this sounds kind of long-winded and confusing, but it's just a way to say that correct rank-ordering is really important, and its lack in NP greatly detracts from its value, at least in this context.

BTW, to be clear, I'm not trying to persuade you to change any of your procedures - everybody's got to do his thing - but more for the general group, something to think about re NP.

Continued good luck in the contest. Hope you hang on to the lead and take it all.

Cheers,

B Jennet

[rmath]

BJ., I will try to clarify somethings that I do regarding the use of NP.
1) I get every race down to 5 horses using Primary line scores & total energy if needed.
2)From these final 5 I eliminate any horse that does not have a NP rating (unless it has a top 2 vdc rating)
3) At this point I usually only have 2 or 3 horses left

In the 60 races at Aqu 21 winners paid 3/1 or higher
18 of these were dual qualifiers
2 were top rated Vdc
1 was NP L1 that was eliminated by PLS

So 20/60 winners .33 were in my final bettable contenders
18/60 winners .30 were dual qualifiers
Only one of these was (in my opinion was a bettable horse) it went off at 11/1 and paid 24.20: The other single paid 8.30
So by using this set of guidelines 19 of 21 winners at 3/1 or higher were actually gettable.
I hope this helps to clarify any confusion.
My main goal has always been to get as many Winners (at 3/1 & above)as possible in my final 2 or 3 contenders.
At Aqu so far I have achieved my goal. I realize that not everyone likes to wait and only bet 2 or 3 races per day, but this has proven in my case to be the most profitable.
In regards to the contest I want to thank you and everyone for the best wishes. It is my hope to at least finish in the top 5 or better.
Richard