VDC Ties/Separation Discussion

[Ted Craven]

This thread is a VDC-related continuation of another thread which wasn't really initially about VDC. (http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?p=73598)

Here might be a better place to continue the VDC part of that discussion

Congratulations Bill, and a job well done!

Do you believe the 0.0 % V/DC horse(s) was any improvement on using the V/DC rank #1?

Ted

I moved some replies related to VDC from that thread to this one.

Ted

[kenr3138]

Hey Ted:
My opinion, the answer is yes. It reflects the differences between VDC rankings but more important it separate the ties within each rank. This is key in using VDC with the
positions of the horse icons in the third frame of the Segments Tab in RDSS1 & soon to be in RDSS2.
The horse to beat is the best VDC/POH(TE).

Ken

Ken

[rmath]

Ted, I went back and checked the races where I had a tie for top and found that the 0.0 % horse beat the other tie over 75 % of the time.
The use of the percentile ratings appears to be a good way to separate ties.
I was going to ask Bill V. if he got similar results when he had ties in the top rated position?
I am now recording these rankings along with the VDC rankings to get a more accurate read on ties. Also noticed that if the 0.0% does not win, it places more often than the other tied horse.
I have also noticed that a second or third VDC horse at times will have a lower % difference than a higher rated Vdc horse. Example a 3 vdc has .9% and a 2vdc might have a 1.4% . So would this imply that the 3rd ranked horse is actually better than the 2nd ranked horse?

[Ted Craven]

Richard and Ken,

I think the VDC % versus rank # addition to RDSS2 needs a bit more discussion, both usage and exactly what is being referred to, and what Doc Sartin was thinking (as best I see it) in the whole VDC thing.

Richard (or Ken, or both), could you post a screen example of a Segments screen showing the VDC numbers, ties % and # ranks (either the same one you refer to, or analogous) and I would be happy to comment on what we are seeing (and perhaps what we are not seeing).

I suspect some people are either misinterpreting what's being displayed, OR there are new and valuable ways of utilizing it which should be examined.

Here's a reference to an initial discussion about how I am portraying VDC %, distinct from rank # in RDSS2: http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7595

Ted

[Ted Craven]

To recap, the VDC rank (from Val4 and RDSS1) is the better rank of BL/BL or the actual VDC factor - that's where ties come from, and Doc Sartin's idea was to consider 2 such equally ranked horse as EQUAL and to separate (if needed) based on bet-time odds. V/DC is derived from a fairly complex calculation (paceline dependant) which measures deceleration relative to velocity during several segments of the race - see FU 70 - 72?? for Doc's white paper on VDC and some early readouts.

Richard, now that we can see the % diff of the actual VDC factor (on the Segments and Primary screens) and see the actual rank of that factor (and not just the merging of VDC+BL/BL, which we have traditionally seen), what I hear you saying is you think the actual VDC factor is stronger than the merged factor, so much so that (when you need to) you just go with the better actual VDC factor to separate tied VDC ranks. Did I understand you correctly?

And Ken, I hear you saying you focus on combo of best VDC rank and PoH Total Energy. Correct?

Again, someone put up a screenshot with some ties to discuss, and I am happy to clarify anything.

The research on the utility of the underlying factor (and Bill V's, as well) is worthy of much more study!

Ted

[rmath]

Ted, I sent two attachments from race 6 at Del. from yesterday.Hope you got them.
They show an example of what I was referring to.
I am new to doing these attachments. Please forgive me if they did not get there.
I sent them thru the email notice.

23714

23715

** I attached them to your post. (FYI, all you have to do is click the 'paperclip' icon to add attachment files to your post - give it a try!) - Ted

[Ted Craven]

Thanks Richard for the illustration.

I'll add a few comments, after I finish another thing.

Ted

[rmath]

Ted, Where is the paper clip? I have looked every where for it,
I wanted to send race 7 also.

[rmath]

Ted, I tried to send race 7 to you thru a reply thread but was unable to send it.
So I sent it thru my email. Sorry for the trouble.
rmath

23712

23713

*** Here they are.

[rmath]

The race ran 6 6.00, 4,7,3. exacta 1.00 25.30, 1.00 tri 95.90.
the 2 &6 were tied for 1st vdc,with the 6 at 0.0 % the 2 was 2.1%
the 3 &4 are tied for 2nd vdc, 3 has 1.9 % and the 4 has 1.2%.
the 1 is 3rd ranked with 1.5%.
The 6 was also a Binder Improver.
Notice that the 3 had a lower % than the 2 horse but was rated below the 2 on vdc. Same goes for the 1 horse.

[Ted Craven]

Richard, sorry I got caught up in another thing. I'll get back at this later on tonight.

BTW, here is the 'paperclip' icon in the message editor, for uploading attachments.

23710

You get this message editor when you click on reply in a thread.

Ted

[Ted Craven]

The race ran 6 6.00, 4,7,3. exacta 1.00 25.30, 1.00 tri 95.90.
the 2 &6 were tied for 1st vdc,with the 6 at 0.0 % the 2 was 2.1%
the 3 &4 are tied for 2nd vdc, 3 has 1.9 % and the 4 has 1.2%.
the 1 is 3rd ranked with 1.5%.
The 6 was also a Binder Improver.
Notice that the 3 had a lower % than the 2 horse but was rated below the 2 on vdc. Same goes for the 1 horse.

Here is what we are seeing :

23716
23717

Per the BL/BL screen, the #2 and #6 are VDC ranked 1: the #2 gets its rank 1 from its BL/BL rank 1 and the #6 from being the rank 1 on the underlying VDC factor. In fact, the #2 has the worst VDC number ( = 2.1% worse than the best VDC number of the #6). So the #6, despite having the worst Total Energy (rank 5) has the best VDC and deserves to be treated equally as a contender (off the chosen paceline) as the #2 with the best Total Energy. We happen to call this #6 horse a 'Binder Improver' because its better VDC value improves its rank on the BL/BL screen sort.

Richard, I hear you reporting that you find that horses having tied VDC ranks but with the better VDC number should be considered superior to the other one(s) in the tie. I accept the evidence of your recent short-term study, but I'd caution against accepting this as a long-term truth. I'd actually recommend (in general) treating them as equals and breaking ties based on bet-time odds (or Morning Line, if you must).

The #3 has a better (i.e. lower) VDC% than the 2 (1.9% versus 2.1%) but has a lower VDC rank - because, as stated above, the #2's VDC rank 1 is because of it's BL/BL rank.

If it turns out that significant strength (and usefulness) is being found in the actual VDC number (represented by the VDC% differential from best), distinct from the traditional merged BL/VDC ranking, I might have to think about relabeling that original VDC rank # to something like BL/VDC (perhaps similar to how we have a rank for TS/F3), so we can treat the actual VDC number as an independent entity.

I have to say, that this new RDSS2 VDC% column (on Segments and Primary screens) has turned out to be rather confusing for a number of folks, solely because it has never been broken out before from the merged BL/VDC rank.

Ted

[gandalf380]

for what it's worth, after our gettogether on Alabama weekend I started to rely more heavily on the %vdc on the segments screen. From that weekend to the end of the meet, I showed a net profit on my selections.

[kenr3138]

Here is what we are seeing :

23716
23717

Per the BL/BL screen, the #2 and #6 are VDC ranked 1: the #2 gets its rank 1 from its BL/BL rank 1 and the #6 from being the rank 1 on the underlying VDC factor. In fact, the #2 has the worst VDC number ( = 2.1% worse than the best VDC number of the #6). So the #6, despite having the worst Total Energy (rank 5) has the best VDC and deserves to be treated equally as a contender (off the chosen paceline) as the #2 with the best Total Energy. We happen to call this #6 horse a 'Binder Improver' because its better VDC value improves its rank on the BL/BL screen sort.

Richard, I hear you reporting that you find that horses having tied VDC ranks but with the better VDC number should be considered superior to the other one(s) in the tie. I accept the evidence of your recent short-term study, but I'd caution against accepting this as a long-term truth. I'd actually recommend (in general) treating them as equals and breaking ties based on bet-time odds (or Morning Line, if you must).

The #3 has a better (i.e. lower) VDC% than the 2 (1.9% versus 2.1%) but has a lower VDC rank - because, as stated above, the #2's VDC rank 1 is because of it's BL/BL rank.

If it turns out that significant strength (and usefulness) is being found in the actual VDC number (represented by the VDC% differential from best), distinct from the traditional merged BL/VDC ranking, I might have to think about relabeling that original VDC rank # to something like BL/VDC (perhaps similar to how we have a rank for TS/F3), so we can treat the actual VDC number as an independent entity.

I have to say, that this new RDSS2 VDC% column (on Segments and Primary screens) has turned out to be rather confusing for a number of folks, solely because it has never been broken out before from the merged BL/VDC rank.

Ted

Ted:
Here is a visual of the third frame VDC from RDSS1 & the third frame from RDSS2. (I presume) The horse icons positions in the frame indicate the differences in percent of the #1 ranked VDC contenders as well as the relative positions of the other contenders. The #6 Solar is the #1 VDC horse and the #1 Thoromation horse.
When selecting pacelines I use the Primary screen....use VDC ratings to evaluate how the horse ran his POR(TE).

Ken

[Ted Craven]

Ted:
Here is a visual of the third frame VDC from RDSS1 ...

Ken

Ken, did you omit an attachment?

Ted

[kenr3138]

Ted:
Did not forget. Don't know how!!!!
I use Screen Hunter to copy and paste.
Did not work.
May be a lesson in how to do this would be helpful.
Could be I'll get the hang of it.
Ken

[rmath]

Ted, Thanks for looking over and explaining the differences. I agree with you that it may be a little early to say that these %s might be used as a tie separator since I do not have that much evidence to prove otherwise. That is why I have started to track both.
Did you get a chance to look at race 7 from Del. that I sent along also?
Again thanks for all your hard work. It is greatly appreciated.

[rmath]

Del. race 7 ran 7 5.80, 6,4,8 exacta 1.00 15.00, tri 1.00 76.10
The 6was 0.0 and top pick, 4 & 8 were tied for 2nd and the 7 was 3rd with a lower % than the 8. I eliminated the 5 horse because it was ranked 5 on vdc.
I did not bet either of these races because the odds were not acceptable on my main contenders in either race.

[For The Lead]

Richard and Ken,

I think the VDC % versus rank # addition to RDSS2 needs a bit more discussion, both usage and exactly what is being referred to, and what Doc Sartin was thinking (as best I see it) in the whole VDC thing.

Richard (or Ken, or both), could you post a screen example of a Segments screen showing the VDC numbers, ties % and # ranks (either the same one you refer to, or analogous) and I would be happy to comment on what we are seeing (and perhaps what we are not seeing).

I suspect some people are either misinterpreting what's being displayed, OR there are new and valuable ways of utilizing it which should be examined.

Here's a reference to an initial discussion about how I am portraying VDC %, distinct from rank # in RDSS2: http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7595

Ted

Ted,
As you know, I am not an RDSS user, so I cannot speak to the ranking of VDC, per se. However, I rank a myriad of factors and have found over hundreds of thousands of races that the numeric difference between a horse ranked #1 and a horse ranked #2 is not the important factor. The fact that one horses' number is higher than another horses' number is all that is needed, regardless of the spread in that number from one horse to another. I just wanted to add my experience with rankings of numbers vs. the difference in value of those numbers for whatever value it may be to you. Whether or not this will hold true with VDC is yet to be decided. Best of luck with however it works out for you.

[Ted Craven]

Ted,
As you know, I am not an RDSS user, so I cannot speak to the ranking of VDC, per se. However, I rank a myriad of factors and have found over hundreds of thousands of races that the numeric difference between a horse ranked #1 and a horse ranked #2 is not the important factor. The fact that one horses' number is higher than another horses' number is all that is needed, regardless of the spread in that number from one horse to another. I just wanted to add my experience with rankings of numbers vs. the difference in value of those numbers for whatever value it may be to you. Whether or not this will hold true with VDC is yet to be decided. Best of luck with however it works out for you.

FTL,

So, when second call velocity = 56.61 fps for horse A and 56.59 for horse B, horse A has rank 1 and horse B rank 2 - a gap of .03 - are you suggesting that horse B ranked 2 is none-the-less equally inferior to horse A in that factor as in a different scenario when the second call velocity gap between the top 2 horses is much larger (say, 56.61 to 56.0) ?

In the first case, the velocity difference is likely completely attributable to chart caller error (was that horse behind 2.5 lengths or 2.25 lengths). Or, is there a certain minimal gap above which you start to consider the ordinal ranks to be absolutely definitive, regardless of the numeric value gap between ranks?

In general, I hear you suggesting that gaps between ranks are (relatively) unimportant. That would be a different way of approaching final contender analysis than I employ.

Ted

[Bill V.]

Hi Ted
I didn't see this thread I posted my first answer in the Survivor post

Here is a example were the 0.0 horse method helped

This is the Smarty Jones G3 from Parx on Sunday I Bet the 5 and 3
The 5 Won!

The 5 is the 0.0 the 3 is close 2nd then ther is a gap to the 9 and 10 then the 1

This clears for me the BLBL

and make the 5 and 3 top 2 on blbl the clear bet choice
23721
23722
GS
Bill

[Ted Craven]

Ted:
Did not forget. Don't know how!!!!
I use Screen Hunter to copy and paste.
Did not work.
May be a lesson in how to do this would be helpful.
Could be I'll get the hang of it.
Ken

Ken,

Please see post #11 above. rmath was asking the same question - I hope my screenshot of the message editor helped. Save your ScreenHunter screen captures to a PNG format file. Then use that Attachment (paperclip icon) button to load your saved PNG files into your message.

Ted

[Bill V.]

Rmath Posted this race from Del on 9/6 in a earlier post

This race is a perfect example of a Binder Improver
Horse 4 and 6 are both BI

Looking at
these factors
1. All lines are comparable
Sprint to Sprint or Route to Route
All Dirt all short sprints here

2. The Adj Speed ratings
All with 3 points of the best

3. The line scores are all close
odds line, Primary and BL

4 The 6 and 4 are top 2 VDC but 4th and 5th BLBL

5. The Supplemental Line score shows all
5 horses in the top 3

6. The ESP E/L match up
Here we see 2 very early horses a E/P and P The 6 is a counter energy

The total energy not shown here is very close the high is 170.2
The 6 is 5th but only 1 point lower at 169

This is a Perfect Binder Improver and a winner for #6
23727
GS
Bill

[Ted Craven]

del. Race 7 ran 7 5.80, 6,4,8 exacta 1.00 15.00, tri 1.00 76.10
the 6 was 0.0 and top pick, 4 & 8 were tied for 2nd and the 7 was 3rd with a lower % than the 8. I eliminated the 5 horse because it was ranked 5 on vdc.
I did not bet either of these races because the odds were not acceptable on my main contenders in either race.


23723
23724
23728

The #6 is the clear top BL, TE, VDC rank and %. Of the next 2 VDC ranked horses (#4 and #8) the #4 is superior in VDC%. For confirmation, the #6, #4 and #7 are also Top 3 TS+F3. For myself, this might have been an opportunity to bet against the #7 in which case I would have lost, but given its clear Early superiority and ability to win sprints, I can empathize with your decision to pass.

Ted

[kenr3138]

Ted:
Here is a visual of the third frame VDC from RDSS1 & the third frame from RDSS2. (I presume) The horse icons positions in the frame indicate the differences in percent of the #1 ranked VDC contenders as well as the relative positions of the other contenders. The #6 Solar is the #1 VDC horse and the #1 Thoromation horse.
When selecting pacelines I use the Primary screen....use VDC ratings to evaluate how the horse ran his POR(TE).

Ken

23729
23730
Ted:
Here are the screen attachments I did not attach earlier.
Ken

[Ted Craven]

Ken, (Way to go with figuring out the attachments, a big large - 80% of that would work nicely, but well done for a first try!)

What you show highlights a nuance in Val4 mode, which is what you are using. In RDSS1 (your upper image), the right-most (3rd) panel shows VDC rank and the relative position of the horses shows the same thing as the VDC% on the same RDSS2 screen. The difference between RDSS1 and RDSS2 Segments screen layout is that that in RDSS2 that 3rd panel now shows TS+F3 (which was not on RDSS1 Val4 mode), and the addition of the 2 new VDC columns replicates the info from RDSS1 3rd panel.

So, more info in the RDSS2 Segments screen, and the the 2 varieties of that screen from RDSS1 (i.e. the Val4 layout and the Default layout) are now unified. (You still get slightly different numbers on that screen depending on which adjustment mode you are using: Val4 or Default).

Ted

[For The Lead]

FTL,

So, when second call velocity = 56.61 fps for horse A and 56.59 for horse B, horse A has rank 1 and horse B rank 2 - a gap of .03 - are you suggesting that horse B ranked 2 is none-the-less equally inferior to horse A in that factor as in a different scenario when the second call velocity gap between the top 2 horses is much larger (say, 56.61 to 56.0) ?

In the first case, the velocity difference is likely completely attributable to chart caller error (was that horse behind 2.5 lengths or 2.25 lengths). Or, is there a certain minimal gap above which you start to consider the ordinal ranks to be absolutely definitive, regardless of the numeric value gap between ranks?

In general, I hear you suggesting that gaps between ranks are (relatively) unimportant. That would be a different way of approaching final contender analysis than I employ.

Ted

Ted, I'll send you a PM.