Speculator Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

[Ted Craven]

Hello,

I started this topic so there could be a place to post Questions and Answers, usually of a technical nature, about Speculator. How to install it, reinstall it if it crashes, screen shots of error messages and what to do about them, or other issues related to care and feeding of these old DOS programs.

In some cases, advice will pertain to any of the DOS Sartin programs, or in some cases, just how to use Windows, or how to use the DOS command prompt.

[Ted Craven]

Question:

Spec (or Val) crashed on a particular card. Won't subsequently load that card no matter what.

Answer:

On your program folder (e.g. SpecPA, Val3c), look for 3 files representing your race card, for example, AQU0223R.DBF, AQU0223H.DBF, AQU0223P.DBF. Delete these 3 files using Windows Explorer. Now try loading the card afresh.

[Ted Craven]

Question:

Spec won't even run and get to the Main Menu. It crashes with various error messages.

Answer:

Some of the files needed to run are damaged, missing or corrupt. Best to delete and reinstall the whole program.


Procedure to use if you have the software on a diskette:


Using Windows Explorer:

Let's presume the software is SpecPA and installed in the folder SpecPA.
In Windows Explorer, delete ALL the files in the current SpecPA directory
Put the SpecPA diskette in the A drive, and view that drive’s files as well in Windows Explorer
Highlight all those Drive A files (Ctrl-A), the copy them to the clipboard (Ctrl-C)
Move to the (now empty) SpecPA folder; Paste the copied files from the (A Drive), by Ctrl-V
The files are thus moved from the A drive to the SpecPA folder
Click on SpecPA.exe to see if it works
Make a Desktop icon for SpecPA, by right clicking on SpecPA.exe, Send To, Desktop (create shortcut)Using the DOS prompt:
Get a DOS prompt (DOS command window).
Delete all the files in SPECPA directory by typing: DEL \SPECPA\*.*
With the SpecPA diskette in your A drive, copy the files to the (now empty) SPECPA directory, by typing: COPY A:*.* \SPECPA
After all the files are copied, make sure you are in the SPECPA directory, by typing: CD \SPECPA, then type SPECPA to load up the SPECPA program.
You should still follow point #7 above to make a Desktop icon for easy access to the software Procedure to use if you have the software in a ZIP file:
In Windows Explorer, delete ALL the files in the current SpecPA directory, BUT, DON'T DELETE THE ZIP FILE!
In Explorer, find the ZIP file and double-click on it. In WinXP, this usually opens the ZIP file, displaying the contents of the ZIP as if it were a folder of files. (In other than WinXP, your experience may vary - that's another FAQ).
Press Ctrl+A to highlight all the files contained within the ZIP file.
Press Ctrl+C (or right-click, then choose Copy) to Copy all the highlighted files to the Windows Clipboard (there's no message - it just happens)
Switch back to the (now empty) SpecPA folder (usually, pressing the Backspace key moves you out of a ZIP file view and back into the folder you were just looking at, before you went into the ZIP file)
Press Ctrl+V (or right-click, then choose Paste) to paste the files you just Copied, into the SpecPA folder. You should see the same files you highlighted now being copied one by one.
Locate the SpecPA program and double-click on it to try to run the software. Hopefully now it will not crash.
Again, make a Desktop icon for SpecPA, by right clicking on SpecPA.exe, Send To, Desktop (create shortcut)

[Ted Craven]

Question:

These old DOS programs run really slowly, hog all of Windows resources.

Answer:

Use TameDOS (www.tameDOS.com). It costs $20 bucks, you get a 30 day free trial first. It will solve all your problems with DOS misbehaving under WinXP and earlier Windows version.

I can run several DOS apps (e.g. multiple copies of Spec, Val, on different directories) at the same time, with no loss of speed.

[Ted Craven]

Question:

How do I extract Speculator files from a ZIP file package, and put them in a folder where I can run the software?

Answer:

Let's presume you downloaded Spec150.zip to your Desktop. Or you may need to reinstall one of the other versions of Speculator received from Guy Wadsworth in a ZIP file. Let's presume you use Windows XP. WinXP treats ZIP files like folders: if you double-click on a ZIP file, it opens up to display a list of files contained within it, as if you were looking at a regular folder of files.
First, using Windows Explorer, make a new folder for your Speculator files. It is always best to start with a clean, empty folder.
Next, double-click on the ZIP file containing your Speculator (e.g. found on your Desktop, or wherever you downloaded or stored it). A list of files appears.
Press Ctrl+A to highlight all the files contained within the ZIP file.
Press Ctrl+C (or right-click, then choose Copy) to Copy all the highlighted files to the Windows Clipboard (there's no message - it just happens).
Switch to the new Speculator folder you created in Step #1.
Press Ctrl+V (or right-click, then choose Paste) to paste the files you just Copied, into the new Speculator folder. You should see the same files you highlighted now being copied one by one.
Locate the Speculator program (depending on version: Spec150.exe, SpecPA.exe, etc) and double-click on it to test run the software.
For future use, make a Desktop icon for Speculator, by right clicking on the program (e.g. Spec150.EXE, SpecPA.exe, etc)then choose 'Send To' from the popup menu, then 'Desktop (create shortcut)'. A small DOS icon will be placed on your Desktop which you can click on to run the program you just installed.Don't forget, you need to download TrackMaster files to a folder named C:\TRKMAST - that's where Spec and Val look for race cards.

Now, if you use a Windows vesion earlier than WinXP (e.g. Win98, WinME, Win2000) or your Windows XP does not have ZIP extraction built in by default, you will need to first download a ZIP file extraction utility such as WINZIP (http://www.winzip.com/). Install this software, then when you double-click on a ZIP file to open it, choose to open it with (e.g.) WinZIP (and make WinZIP the default program to open ZIP files), then follow the instructions above.

[Ted Craven]

Question:

In Spec150 and Spec160, the Pre Analysis screen is sometimes blank. Why, and how do I fix it.

Answer:

This is a bug which occurs as follows. Pick a card, then a race, the go to the Pre Analysis screen. Pick any Menu item to view Pre Analysis (e.g. 1 = All Pacelines 2 = Pacelines by Surface 3 = Pacelines by Sprint or Route and Surface), then view the resulting Pre Analysis ranks. Exit to the Pre Analysis Menu, then immediately again select one of the PA view (1,2,3 menu choices). The PA ranks screen will be blank - no ranks are displayed.

To fix this, return to the Pacelines and Calculations Menu and again select Pre Analysis. You can now view PA ranks again.


Comment:

In Spandx and Spec150, Guy attempted to merge the Pre Analysis ranks with the Past Performance screens. You only have to display the PA ranking screen once (for the chosen filters you prefer - days/distance/surface), then the ranks are included in the PP screens, to the right of the Equalized, Normalized, Adjusted upper panel. In previous versions with Pre Analysis, you could mark a < symbol indicating the best rank for a given factor. In Spandx and Spec150, this data entry is no longer possible - instead the ranks just show up on the PPs.

[RichieP]

Ted,
what is Per-2 on the perceptor tab? The "tot11-r" over on the right side?

very interesting readout. at some tracks and distances it dominates per-1

Richie

[Ted Craven]

This is the Fraction 1, Fraction 2, Fraction 3 velocities, velocity to the Second Call, and Total energy (sum of F1+F2+F3), expressed in the 'Perceptor fashion', then summed horizontally to equal the PII Total and rank.

The "Perceptor" representation of a group of numbers is merely, (in each column) the highest number is 100 (100%), and the rest of the numbers (the velocities) are expressed as percentages of the highest number.

So PII shows the array of raw velocities and TE, rather than the more massaged compound factors in PI. There is a one-to-one relationship between the PII numbers and the underlying Velocities shown on the 7. Velocity-True Speed-Deceleration Screen (upper panel). This gives you an alternate, 'reality' view of how the horses actually ran. It also helps highlight who's at the 1st and 2nd call and how far behind others are - whether there's likely to be early pace contention.

The PII Total and rank is an aggregate of all the energy and positional velocities.

Ted

[shoeless]

Ted,Do you find that the horse who has the 100% in the 3rd fraction or close to it will end up in the exactas most of the time?Jeff

[Ted Craven]

Jeff,

I haven't observed this to be the case, nor would I necessarily. 100% (in the Perceptor II readout 3rd fraction) simply means the horse had the highest F3 velocity, or energy, but utilizing this energy effectively would be a function of where it horse could be positioned at the beginning of that 3rd fraction. In a sprint, it would probably have to be not too far behind at the 2nd call (e.g. good rating on 2nd call beaten lengths, or 2C Perceptor II rating). In a route, I'd also like to see a reasonable HE and FW rating, in addition to the F3.

I'd think the Match Up would be a much more determining factor as to whether a horse's good F3 would get it in the top 2, e.g. does a horse possessing good F3 stand to benefit from a collapsing speed duel; will a slower 1st and 2nd call pace permit it to keep close enough to the front to make its bid; how does the horse typically run when it finishes up close, from deep behind or as a mid-pack runner (i.e deep closer will always subject it to traffic issues).

I would give a close look to a horse with good F3, who also was in the top 3 True Speed + Deceleration.

I haven't studied this, perhaps others have, but I think top F3 alone is not sufficient to win a place bet most of the time...

regards,

Ted

[Ted Craven]

Question:

Sometimes when using Spec150 a horse's Past Performance Screen displays all 0s for call times and beaten lengths. At the same time, the Pre Analysis screen is all blank (see screenshot below).

Answer:

This is a bug with Spec150 which occurs if you also use the Pre Analysis screen, however there is a simple workaround which prevents it.

The bug occurs by the following sequence:

1. load a new race card for the first time and select a race

2. from the Pacelines and Calculation menu, select Pre Analysis and display the Pre Analysis screen (using any criterea)

3. exit the current race to the races list display (the display of all today's races), WITHOUT displaying any Past Performances for the current race (i.e. do NOT select Pacelines and Details)

4. choose another race. Now, if you display the Pre Analysis screen, it will be all blank. If you display any horse's Past Performances (the Pacelines and Details menu option), the call times and beaten lengths will show 0s.

5. if you now go to any subsequent race, the same thing will occur and you will not be able to handicap those races.

The workaround for this bug is: if you display the Pre Analysis screen in any race, you MUST subsequently hit 3 = PACELINES and DETAILS on the Pacelines and Calculations screen to display Past Performances BEFORE exiting that race and proceeding to another race. You don't have to select any pacelines and you don't have to display more than the 1st horse, but you must do this before opening up a different race. If you exit the race in which you displayed the Pre Analysis screen, then re enter the same race before going to a different race, then display a Past Performance, then exit and continue to a different race, the bug will not occur.

Again, if you use the Pre Analysis Screen, be sure to display at least one horse's Past Peformances for that race before you continue to a different race, or else all the rest of the card's Past Performance and Pre Analysis displays will not work. If you don't use the Pre Analysis Screen, you should not encounter this bug. If you select the Past Performances first, then go to the Pre Analysis screen for that race, you will also not encounter the bug.

(Thanks to Gerald Springer for helping to reproduce this bug.)

[Ted Craven]

Question:

Sometimes Spandx, Spec150 or Spec160 crashes with the message: 'Error BASE/1003 Variable does not exist: RACE'.

Answer:

Among the reasons why this happens, unfortunately, is the use of the F9 Comments key in a horse's Past Performance. When you enter Comments for one or more horses, then go to any subsequent readout screen (e.g. Energy Generator), the Comments will display the first time only, then subsequently disappear. When you continue to the next race, you will get the above error. When you re-enter the program and select the same race card, you'll get the same error message. If you use the Fix Download feature on the Main Menu to delete the offending race card, you'll get a slightly different error and crash:

'Error BASE/1003 Variable does not exist: RACEDATE'.

Use of Comments via the F9 key in Past Performances is buggy, and should be avoided. This is a hard one to fix - the code for the Speculator user-interface is inscrutable (bless Guy's heart) and I'd rather stick pins in my eyes. How about using a piece of paper? I promise RDSS will permit lots of comments!

To delete the offending race card files if Fix Dowload does not work, go to your Spec150/160 directory in Windows Explorer, find the 3 files named for your race card (in the example below, DMR0727R.DBF, DMR0727H.DBF, DMR0727P.DBF) and delete them. Then return to Speculator and try the card again.

Many thanks to 'Dugoutgold' Doug for persistent sleuthing to track this one down!

Ted

[Bill Lyster]

Ted:

I too have had this problem on occasion. I tend to use F9 a lot.

Remember we once had this conversation and I had remarked that if you open all the race files on a card before working any race this problem appears to go away.

Every once in a while I forget to do this and get jammed with an error message and have to start over. Hope this helps.


Bill

[dugoutgold]

Hi Bill, Can you tell me exactly how your opening all the race files on the card, in other words what sequence are you using? Do you mean 1, seclect and calculate race on the main menu first? Im the one who found this bug so Im interested in this. I nver found a way to get around it.

Best Doug

[Ted Craven]

Bill,

I tested this and you're exactly right (but obviously I've forgotten that conversation!)

Here's what I did: from the race menu, open each card you wish to handicap (no need to go to pacelines) before you hit F9 Comments for the first time. For example, if you wanted to handicap races 1,3,5,7,9 for the day, open all those first before handicapping any of them. Then return to the first one (or any one) and F9 Comments will not crash. Unfortunately, the comments still display only once on any of the Ratings screens, but they print out fine.

Doug, F9 Comments are still imperfect, but hope this helps!

Bill, many thanks for the additional workaround!

Ted

[Bill Lyster]

Doug:

Ted got there first, but just follow what he explained because he explained it perfectly. It should eliminate that type of crash.



bill

[dugoutgold]

thanx Bill, i gave up on the coments screen, just keep the ole pen and and paper handy here.

[mufasa]

Hello to everyone on this site and especially as to the Speculator area.

I have just started using Speculator 160 (as of 5/6/07) and obviously have a long way to go. I have been handicapping for a long time and own and have read most of the recent books that deal with Sartin numbers and concepts written by previous PIRCO members. Currently my handicapping approach is based on "The Hat's" recent book Match Up 2. It is not my attempt to try to pick the same pace lines that he would have picked (assuming that I ever could) but to use his early or late running race ideas and the general need to match running lines of the copntenders so as to reach the eventual 4-5 preferred contenders. In this regard, as to Speculator 160, in helping me to pick my own pace lines how best can I utilize the very first screens-that is before any calculations are made and/or reduction of contenders to the 4-5 is considered. I have been thinking of using Perceptor 1 (which is available in the pace line selection area via F3) with its pace line ranking to either point me in the right direction or more importantly to help me pick the best line especially when I am fighting over more then one line to use. How does the Perceptor 1 in this early screen come to its ranking? If i have to use different distances and even surfaces does it take this into account in the calculations to its rankings. I need to know the basis for its ranking so that I can as much as possible work with its considerations (or not) in the selection of my own lines. I would think, and have read in other post on this matter, that sometimes others have not used let say ranking #1 or even #2 but instead have gone to another ranking which in their minds represents the horse better as to today's race. Having said that is there a Perceptor 1 ranking in this early analysis that you would not want to go beyond. Perhaps lets say that you would not trust yourself or have too much confidence on using a pace line that is ranked 5th or worse. In any pace line that I do pick it must have been a good form race.

I enjoy the software very much even though I am just starting out with it and still have a large learning curve to get through. It certainly gives me allot of information to work with but I need to know what is pertinent in today's race and/or match up.

Thanks,

RR

[mufasa]

Could someone with experience printing with Spec160 advise me on which is the best way to print some of the after calculation screens (i.e. Summary, Match Up by lengths, and BLBL). I have the capability to convert a file to PDF but it does not help. Many times while trying to print different screens the pertinent items do not line up and therefore are unreadable.

I like going to the track and therefore the need for printing (I do not bring a computer to the track). Because of the inevitable scratches can someone recommend the best screens to print so as to be able to reanalyze?

Thanks,

RR

[Ted Craven]

Could someone with experience printing with Spec160 advise me on which is the best way to print some of the after calculation screens (i.e. Summary, Match Up by lengths, and BLBL). I have the capability to convert a file to PDF but it does not help. Many times while trying to print different screens the pertinent items do not line up and therefore are unreadable.

I like going to the track and therefore the need for printing (I do not bring a computer to the track). Because of the inevitable scratches can someone recommend the best screens to print so as to be able to reanalyze?

Thanks,

RR

Mufasa,

Sorry to not have made a reply here until now, and also sorry for the brevity now (need to leave for the weekend, but back Monday).

Re printing, Spec160 uses Windows Notepad to print to the default Windows printer. In Notepad, set the Font to a uniform-spaced Font like Courier New (e.g. 10 point size) and this will cause the columns on printouts to line up properly. If you use a proportional Font such as Times New Roman, or Arial, the resulting file and thus printout will be askew.

If you are studying the utility of Perceptor readouts (i.e. Primary Line Score), or the BL/BL screen, I can recommend trying printouts from those 2 screens for starters. You will find that readouts appear from several other screens when you Print any one screen, so you should print them all out and cross-reference what you get to the original source screens in the software. Fewer printouts may be be better to start with: the E/L graph, Perceptor 1, BL/BL should be more than enough.

If any other Spec users care to describe the concept of the Perceptor numbers and how to use them to select pacelines on the Past Performance screens or during subsequent analysis, please feel free to jump in. Otherwise, I shall respond to that early next week.

Best wishes this weekend, mufasa!

yours,

Ted

[RichieP]

Currently my handicapping approach is based on "The Hat's" recent book Match Up 2. to use his early or late running race ideas and the general need to match running lines of the copntenders so as to reach the eventual 4-5 preferred contenders. In this regard, as to Speculator 160, in helping me to pick my own pace lines how best can I utilize the very first screens-that is before any calculations are made and/or reduction of contenders to the 4-5 is considered. I have been thinking of using Perceptor 1 (which is available in the pace line selection area via F3) with its pace line ranking to either point me in the right direction or more importantly to help me pick the best line especially when I am fighting over more then one line to use. How does the Perceptor 1 in this early screen come to its ranking? In any pace line that I do pick it must have been a good form race.

I enjoy the software very much even though I am just starting out with it and still have a large learning curve to get through. It certainly gives me allot of information to work with but I need to know what is pertinent in today's race and/or match up.
Thanks,
RR

Good morning "Mu"
Is there a race or 2 that you could show using YOUR approach that worked out great?

Asking because having an idea how YOU work a race and things that are important to YOU in your interpretation of the matchup will make it easier to
suggest some things to CONSIDER.

Richie

[mufasa]

Richie:

Thanks for trying to help me. As of now I have nothing that has worked out great but then today is really my first attempt at using Spec160 as a tool in my handicapping/selection process. I used it once before (last week) but that was really and experience in maneuvering around a DOS software. Perhaps when I return home from Belmont today I will have some successful races to discuss or at least more pointed questions as to what I am trying to do.

Right now I am trying to utilize the Match Up 2 concepts in my pace line selections and when not sure I try to select the best effort (speed rating) against the best 2nd call pace time (rating) in the PP’s. The selected lines must have been in a good form race (win, or within 2.75L in sprints and 3.50L in routes) at similar surface and distance when possible. Sometimes when it comes to surface and distance I have to pick the best possible and in maiden races I try to stay within last 3 races (no matter the finish).

My thinking originally (and still testing) was that I could use the Perceptor 1 (F3) in the first screen when I need help in selecting a pace line, especially if I am not sure between 2 or more lines. In fact, there is something that I just noticed while going over the Belmont card for today and that is that many of my preferred pace lines were not rated well (5 or higher) and that made me a little uneasy. I have done 2 calculations: one with agreed pace lines rated on Perceptor 1 at no more then a ranking of 3 or better and another calculation with my own preferred pace lines no matter the P1 ranking. I have printed some of the screens to take to the track consisting of both calculations so lets see what happens. [Thanks Ted your advice on how best to print with Speculator 160 did the trick for me. Ted helped me with how best to print on an earlier post.]

What I really wanted to know at this early time in my learning process especially since many times the Perceptor 1 rankings do not necessarily agree with my pace line selections for the race—is how exactly is the Perceptor 1ranking the lines? How or does it take into account surface and distance? Sometimes it rank’s a not so hot finish higher then another race that is at similar distance with a better finish. I need to have a good idea of how exactly (or close to it) Perceptor 1 works so that I can use it with confidence and ignore its ranking when I feel better about my choice or otherwise ignore my choice of pace line and go with the higher ranked.

Thanks. I am sorry about the extensive post.

RR

[RichieP]

Richie:

Thanks for trying to help me. As of now I have nothing that has worked out great but then today is really my first attempt at using Spec160 as a tool in my handicapping/selection process. I used it once before (last week) but that was really and experience in maneuvering around a DOS software. Perhaps when I return home from Belmont today I will have some successful races to discuss or at least more pointed questions as to what I am trying to do.

Right now I am trying to utilize the Match Up 2 concepts in my pace line selections and when not sure I try to select the best effort (speed rating) against the best 2nd call pace time (rating) in the PP’s. The selected lines must have been in a good form race (win, or within 2.75L in sprints and 3.50L in routes) at similar surface and distance when possible. Sometimes when it comes to surface and distance I have to pick the best possible and in maiden races I try to stay within last 3 races (no matter the finish).

My thinking originally (and still testing) was that I could use the Perceptor 1 (F3) in the first screen when I need help in selecting a pace line, especially if I am not sure between 2 or more lines. In fact, there is something that I just noticed while going over the Belmont card for today and that is that many of my preferred pace lines were not rated well (5 or higher) and that made me a little uneasy. I have done 2 calculations: one with agreed pace lines rated on Perceptor 1 at no more then a ranking of 3 or better and another calculation with my own preferred pace lines no matter the P1 ranking. I have printed some of the screens to take to the track consisting of both calculations so lets see what happens. [Thanks Ted your advice on how best to print with Speculator 160 did the trick for me. Ted helped me with how best to print on an earlier post.]

What I really wanted to know at this early time in my learning process especially since many times the Perceptor 1 rankings do not necessarily agree with my pace line selections for the race—is how exactly is the Perceptor 1ranking the lines? How or does it take into account surface and distance? Sometimes it rank’s a not so hot finish higher then another race that is at similar distance with a better finish. I need to have a good idea of how exactly (or close to it) Perceptor 1 works so that I can use it with confidence and ignore its ranking when I feel better about my choice or otherwise ignore my choice of pace line and go with the higher ranked.

Thanks. I am sorry about the extensive post.

RR

Hi Mu
Perceptor 1 is combining of SEVEN (7) factors:
1) Early pace rating - Epr
2) Late pace rating - Lpr
3) Composite pace rating - Cpr
4) Turn time - Tt
5) Factor win or "Fw" - Fw
6) Hidden energy - He
7) Factor x or Fx - Fx

On the PACELINE screen with Perceptor 1 the horse's pacelines are matched against HIMSELF.

For example in the screenshot attached the FIFTH (5) line down is the best EPR rating the horse has run in the 10 lines showing on his pp's.

The FOURTH line down shows the highest possible 100 score in Lpr,Cpr,He,Fx.

Now the cloumn to the right "Tot 1" is simply adding the 7 factors up for that particular paceline and shows the total ok? The "R" to the right is a RANKING of the lines according to the totals.

So the line on the pp's where the horse performed HIS best OVERALL (ignoring individual corrolaies and focusing on the whole) would be that 4th line shown by the 1 ranking under "R". Next best overall would be the turf line above it. Third best would be line 8 another turf route. etc etc.

here is this screenshot

[RichieP]

ok so now you have selected pacelines for the field. On the menu screen you see a "perceptor" screen ( screen 6). Let's go there.

Once pacelines for the field have been selected this screen's Perceptor now matches the horses against ONE ANOTHER using those same 7 factors Mu.

So in this screenshot the 5 horse is best early ( 100 total in Epr). The 1 horse is best late (100 total in lpr). The 4 horse is best composite or Cpr. This is more of an early/late balanced ranking Mu.

Now over to the right we see the old "Tot-I" again. This time it is adding up the lines of the field. The "R" shows the 6 Oodles as being best OVERALL in this matchup of selected pacelines. The 4 Dancy is a close 2nd OVERALL.

To see this we have a "Diff" column. The 6 being best shows nothing. The
2nd best 4 horse shows he is 4.3 points total behind the top ranked 6.

Then there is a HUGE gap from the 4 to the 3rd best horse OVERALL the 1 horse. he is showing 22.9 points behind the top rated 6 horse which also puts him like 18 behind the 2nd best 4 horse.

Top 2 here look very strong Mu.

Hey hope this helps you a little bit with the Perceptor stuff ok?

Initially on the PACELINE screen the Perceptor matches the horse against ITSELF.

Once contenders are chosen the 6 screen Perceptor then switches the focus to matching the horses in the race against one another.

Richie

[mufasa]

RichieP:

Thanks a million for your excellent and very helpful explanation. Now I can use these particular 2 screens with much more confidence in the areas of initial analysis of pace line selection and then carry that forward to reduction to no more then 5 contenders and eventual 1-2 choices for win. Now I fully understand Ted’s initial advice to utilize these screens (especially P1 after pace line selection and calculations) as a base tool.

I want to let you know that I had the best day ever at Belmont yesterday wining 6 out of 9 races bet which included win, exacta, and even some trifecta hits. My top 5 contenders won 7 of 9 races and I collected on 6 of those. This great day could not have happen without the Speculator 160 information. I have always been a numbers guy when it comes to handicapping so I am sold and look forward to RDSS. Form considerations is very important but you need to start with solid pace line selection.

Thanks again,

RR

[Turbulator]

Hi Mu
Perceptor 1 is combining of SEVEN (7) factors:
1) Early pace rating - Epr
2) Late pace rating - Lpr
3) Composite pace rating - Cpr
4) Turn time - Tt
5) Factor win or "Fw" - Fw
6) Hidden energy - He
7) Factor x or Fx - Fx

On the PACELINE screen with Perceptor 1 the horse's pacelines are matched against HIMSELF.

For example in the screenshot attached the FIFTH (5) line down is the best EPR rating the horse has run in the 10 lines showing on his pp's.

The FOURTH line down shows the highest possible 100 score in Lpr,Cpr,He,Fx.

Now the cloumn to the right "Tot 1" is simply adding the 7 factors up for that particular paceline and shows the total ok? The "R" to the right is a RANKING of the lines according to the totals.

So the line on the pp's where the horse performed HIS best OVERALL (ignoring individual corrolaies and focusing on the whole) would be that 4th line shown by the 1 ranking under "R". Next best overall would be the turf line above it. Third best would be line 8 another turf route. etc etc.

here is this screenshot

Which paceline would YOU select for this horse? Would you take the last race because it was a win, or would you go with the 8.5F race because it is the same distance. Or...would you take the fourth race back because it is his best and, well "only" four races back.

Do you stick with the last "three comparable" pretty closely or is it simply a judgment call.

After all his last race win has a 16.4 differential over his fourth race back, and I'm guessing it would make a significant difference whether or not you selected line one or line four. There is also a five point difference in speed rating.

Thanks.

[RichieP]

Which paceline would YOU select for this horse? Would you take the last race because it was a win, or would you go with the 8.5F race because it is the same distance. Or...would you take the fourth race back because it is his best and, well "only" four races back.

Do you stick with the last "three comparable" pretty closely or is it simply a judgment call.

After all his last race win has a 16.4 differential over his fourth race back, and I'm guessing it would make a significant difference whether or not you selected line one or line four. There is also a five point difference in speed rating.
Thanks.

Since I am only looking at raw lines Steve I would use line 2 as his fastest mile time where he was on the lead at the stretch call and then use the Cby turf splits for a faster pace of race in my head if thsi horse was a final contender to matchup.

attached is a screenshot.

[Turbulator]

Since I am only looking at raw lines Steve I would use line 2 as his fastest mile time where he was on the lead at the stretch call and then use the Cby turf splits for a faster pace of race in my head if thsi horse was a final contender to matchup.

attached is a screenshot.

Okay, thanks for that, Rich. It looks like you're really starting to mix and match pace lines using the matchup. That's great. You're leaps and bounds ahead of me in that regard.

But just for the sake of discussion, let's say you were doing things the "old" way and using Validator or Speculator and not matching up.

In that case which line would you use--and why?

Thanks.

[RichieP]

let's say you were doing things the "old" way and using Validator or Speculator

In that case which line would you use--and why?

Thanks.

I'd use line 3. Best of last 3 comparable Steve

[mufasa]

Which paceline would YOU select for this horse? Would you take the last race because it was a win, or would you go with the 8.5F race because it is the same distance. Or...would you take the fourth race back because it is his best and, well "only" four races back.

Do you stick with the last "three comparable" pretty closely or is it simply a judgment call.

After all his last race win has a 16.4 differential over his fourth race back, and I'm guessing it would make a significant difference whether or not you selected line one or line four. There is also a five point difference in speed rating.

Thanks.


Hi Steve:

I certainly am no expert on the proper/effective utilization of Speculator 160 but I am developing preferences. I had a hell of a great day on Saturday at Belmont (5/12/07) using Spec160 for the first time but I am not necessarily confident at this early date that I could repeat the success. I am although most definitely happy with the software which has allowed me to look at the numbers in a different and/or more detailed manner.

As to your particular question, I would definitely select the Perceptor 1 ranked pace line between 1-3 so long as it was in a good form race. In this case I would certainly select pace line number 4 (ranked #1) in RichieP’s example. In addition, separately, I would definitely consider pace lines 1, 3 and 8 and most likely settle as per given on pace line #3 for additional Spec 160 computations. More often then not I would pick line #3 because it meets my base pace line requirements as follows: good form race, similar surface and distance, and best effort at better pace call time/rating. And of course there are always gray areas and all other kinds of areas and as you should know that is racing.

Thanks for your question because it makes me think about what I think I am doing,

RR

[mufasa]

Richie:

In responding to Turbulator (post #30) and while reviewing your RDSS screen shot of the horse in question (Starlet Sky) I have come across a problem when using my base principles. When responding in post #30 I selected pace line #3 as the one that I would pick from among the last 3-4 lines in using Speculator 160 and insisting when I could that it must have been a good form race at similar distance and surface, and more importantly that the chosen line was against the best pace time (base principles-BP). I am OK with that if I am going to limit myself to the last 3-4 races. In reality though I consider all 10 given pace lines when selecting my preferred pace lines and on the basis of my BP’s I would have selected pace line #6 for the horse-Starlet Sky. This preferred line has a Perceptor One ranking of 4 seemingly a disadvantage in Speculator 160 computations when compared to pace lines #3 ranked 2 or even pace line #4 ranked 1. As far as I can see pace line #6 has a better raw pace call time then pace line #3 and when adjusted, normalized, and equalized it has the better pace call time then either pace lines 3 or 4. A good choice of a pace line to my way of thinking but maybe not so hot as to Spec160 computations.

I have to rethink my use of the Perceptor 1 screen since my most important qualifying rule is anchored in good form race finish against the best pace time. Perceptor 1 uses all of the 8 factors in its ranking and I am at this stage most interested in pace call times.

I have plenty of work to do in better understanding how best to use this great tool-Speculator 160 (and equally I presume RDSS). I had such a great day on Saturday (5/12/07) at Belmont but now I must revisit that card and see why my pace line selections worked so well given that pace call time is just one of 8 factors considered in the ranking.

Back to the drawing board-

RR

[Ted Craven]

Mufasa,

Others may disagree, but i consider it critical to establish a consistent paceline selection method, complemented by a consistent analytical approach. Many rules, applied in a dimishing order of importance, may apply, but apply them the same way over a large number of races.

In your Starlet Sky example, applying a consistent approach of best of the last 3 or 4 lines, similar distance, surface, track (in that order), would land you on the 3rd line because the 4th line was a projected 7f sprint, not on Turf, even worse, from KEE polytrack, a notoriously fast projecting surface. If you think the horse is demonstably fit or could conceivably be rounding into fitness (e.g. after a recent layoff), and could run back to its previously demonstrated ability, going back 4 lines, or 6 lines, or keeping to a maximum time window (e.g. 180 or 240 days), whatever, all make sense. Zigging and zagging in the collection of choices to make will in turn make it harder to review a set of 20 or 50 or 100 past races to see how your contender selection method is working out, or your winner and money horse identification process.

I like your approach of considering all pacelines, but demanding evidence of fitness. Spec (or Val or RDSS) can tell you how the lines compare to each other, but you need to decide whether a given line best represents the horse in today's contest. I will often put in 2 lines for a horse and if I find they both put it in the top 5, I'll sometimes even choose the worse of the 2, knowing it is capable of better.

If you must use a projected sprint line in today's route race, or a dirt line in today's Turf race, go ahead if there's no other choice, otherwise: similar distance, surface, track if you can.

The Equalized, Normalized, Adjusted times seek to treat all lines as if they were run as today's race. An internal distance equalization table is employed, a portion of the TrackMaster supplied Daily Track Variant is applied to normalize faster and slower days, and the TrackMaster Inter Track Variant is applied to attempt to adjust times run at one track, surface and distance to a norm. The foregoing are all an imprecise science, admittedly, but they are all applied equally consistently, warts and all. That's why you should have some confidence using a GP turf line for an AP turf race, or a 1 turn BEL route in a 2 turn HAW route race, etc. You may get to know when the adjustments don't satisfy you, then you can tinker with them in the Manual Edit screen (but perhaps save that for the 2nd or 3rd hundred set of races analysed).

Other guidance to apply consistently could be: don't use a line (even a recent one) showing the best ever Speed Rating (either Trackmaster's or internal SR), and consider the entire PP set to determine this. Or, limit yourself to a number of days back for a paceline, e.g. 180, 240, etc. If you come to include any such guidelines in your practise, do so because you validated yourself that they produced a better or more consistent, or more profitable result than not including them - not because soemone else suggested it from their own observations.

Consider using the PreAnalysis tool (which ranks ALL pacelines from ALL horses), setting the filters to a reasonable timeframe and track/distance/surface settings, then look to see which horse owns the best Second Call rating (or multiple ratings), or best Total Energy. After you do this, the PreAnalysis ratings will appear to the right of each horse's Past Performaces and you can see how it compares to its competitors on an array of factors. If one horse has multiple lines better than the others, look closely!

Just a few ideas...

Ted

[mufasa]

Ted:

Thanks very much for your response. I definitely will seriously consider your suggestions.

I have a clarification question on two particular factors that are provided with the BLBL printout and are found in the Synthesis Power Rankings and Fractals information table. Could you explain conceptually how the factors LS (Line Score) and TPP (Total Pace Potential) are computed or more importantly I suppose what is their foundation. I know that from previous post there has been some mention of there importance so I would like to consider them in my analysis but need to know what makes them tick and how best to either apply them or consider them.

I just want you to know that to date I am enjoying the experience of using and learning the preferred use of Speculator 160.

Thanks,

RR

[Ted Craven]

Mufasa,

LS is easy: it stands for 'Line Score' (either the Line Score of Primary Factors, or the Line Score of Supplementary Factors). It is the sum of the ranks of the Primary Factors (or Supplementary Factors). The BL/BL number is then derived from the Primary Line Score at so many points for a #1, so many for #2, etc. It is the counterpart to Perceptor 1, or, Perceptor 1 is a refinement to Primary Line Score, if you will.

TPP is 'Total Pace Potential'. TPP (found on the Energy screen and the Synthesis Superscreen) is an aggregate of E/ep (Early Energy Potential) and L/ep (Late Energy Potential). E/ep is a kind of blend of the Early fractions velocity with a smidge of F3, and L/ep is a similar blend of later fractions velocity with a smidge of F1. You would have to satisfy yourself from record keeping whether these 3 factors produced any more winners, or extra ROI, (by track, distance, surface) than simply using EPR (compared to E/ep) or LPR (compared to L/ep) or CPR (compared to TPP). Some think they do - others think it's factor overload.

Re 'preferred use of Speculator' - the discussions so far talk only of the preferred use by those who have posted (me included)! There are so many tools in that toolbox (and in Validator as well), and some tools suit particular handicapping styles, or particular happy experiences. Some people use Early/Late almost exclusively, some the Computed Beaten Lengths screen. Some hate the BL/BL and love Perceptor. One guy goes straight for the PreAnalysis. If they choose to comment, you'll also get 'their' preferred usage, but lest your head begin to spin, remember to focus on a few factors until they regularly give you positive results, then expand, experiment.

Good luck!

Ted

[mufasa]

Ted:

I have another question on one of the Spec160 screens. I have been looking at the Long Shot Detector, screen #5 at the Ratings and Graphs section. When looking at the screen on the computer monitor you get PORSC, PORFT, POH2F, POH3F, and Total. When you print it out the columns come out as F1, F2, F3, SC, and Final. I know what POR and POH mean and I am assuming that it is a projected look at particular segments of the estimated forthcoming pace. So that I can be sure and not necessarily guessing can you tell me exactly what the numbers represent per column? Is it all call/fraction times vs. percents or ratings for the segments.

Thanks,

RR

[Ted Craven]

Mufasa,

The Longshot Detector screen is a Pace of Race time weighted by Pace of Horse time - Line Score thingy, expressed in seconds and 10ths. You're right that the screen captions do not match the printed captions - the screen captions are correct. Times are the adjusted call times from the Manual Adjust Screen: equalized to today's distance, normalized according to Daily Track Variant, and adjusted by any Inter Track Variant, plus any Manual adjustment you may choose to make. In other words, the adjusted times upon which all the rest of the velocity, energy and compound factors are based.

PORSC is Pace of Race 2nd Call time (with ranks)
PORFT is Pace of Race Final time
POH2F is Pace of Horse Fraction 2 time (i.e. POR F2 time adjusted by the horse's beaten lengths)
POH3F is Pace of Horse Fraction 3 time

TOTAL is a sum of the foregoing 4 times for each paceline (with ranks). As with Perceptor Total numbers, the Sum itself is not valuable per se, rather the rank and perhaps relative difference between pacelines.

Thus, the lowest TOTAL (rank #1) will go to the horse who ran faster (i.e. who had faster F2 and F3 times) against a faster 2nd Call and Final POR.

In the example below, the paceline I chose for Curlin showed he ran against a seriously faster POR than that of Street Sense, and his own F2 and F3 times against that pace (especially F3) made him a strong contender (at least off this readout).

Hope that answers it!

Ted

[mufasa]

Thanks for the explanation it cleared it right up for me.

Let me take this opportunity to tell you that I am definitely sold on Speculator 160. The software is easily the best tool I have ever had to work a race with. I definitely want the non-expiring license for Spec160 and look forward to using and working with RDSS.

Thanks,

RR

[mufasa]

Thanks for the explanation it cleared it right up for me.

Let me take this opportunity to tell you that I am definitely sold on Speculator 160. The software is easily the best tool I have ever had to work a race with. I definitely want the non-expiring license for Spec160 and look forward to using and working with RDSS.

Thanks,

RR


Ted:

I have noticed most recently when trying to print out the Late/Early Difference Graph that the centerline (the one with the arrow depicting earl/late) does not line up in the printed product. That is, at least with my attempts to print, it aligns left of center (in the area of the late part of the graph). Perhaps this subject has been already covered.

As to printing in general, I hope that the new RDSS will allow the printing of final computation screens of choice rather then giving out a set/predetermined print. For example, I would of liked to be able to print out lets say the Incremental Match-up Graph and the Macthup Showing Computer Beaten Lengths screens on a 8.5 by 11 page.

Thanks,

RR

[Ted Craven]

Mufasa,

It has been ages since I printed anything from Speculator, so I hadn't noticed that the E/L centre line is offset - but you're right. I note that the length of the dashed-lines agrees with the screen presentation, and the numbers are the same, though. So if you can hold your nose with that printed readout and still make use of the info - I don't think I'm going to correct that for Speculator.

What I would do for Spec and Val since many years, is create my own custom printout by cutting and pasting from the DOS text screen into a Word document, or a text file, with font set to Courier New 10 (i.e. a fixed-width font).

That way, I would get 2 pages per race (usually), with the screens I most used in the order I desired. I used BL/BL followed by Perceptor, then on a 2nd page E/L followed by MU CBL (an a little wagering grid I made in a Word template document). Others use many other combinations.

I certainly intend to make printouts from RDSS customizable and in colour.

Ted

[mufasa]

Ted:

Can you confirm or help me understand what happens as to ranking/rating when a contender is scratched. My understanding from reading the Sartin material is that as to BL/BL LS (odds) placement that if lets say contender 3rd ranked is scratched that since the ranking/rating is not linear that the 4th ranked contender does not necessarily move up to now 3rd best but could move up to 2nd best with the original 2nd best becoming now 3rd best. That is a contender can leap frog over another as to BL/BL rankings/ratings when there is a scratch among the top 3. Could you verify my understanding in this area? In addition, as to Perceptor 1 rankings my thinking is that this is more linear and that if there is a scratch above all contenders move up the slot.

I know you are busy with RDSS so please respond at you best opportunity-thanks,

[froggy]

Mufasa,

If for example the horse you scratched was say 1st or 2nd & 3rd in a couple of rankings then that would change the entire picture.

Sometimes when I've put in 12 pacelines and then eliminate down to just 4 the 1st ranked horse has moved down to 2nd.

When all of the extra noise is gone then things fall into their correct place.

Good Luck

Froggy

[mufasa]

Thanks for your response Froggy.

I was thinking of not when I scratch or hide but when I am at the track and I have the BLBL printout and/or the Perceptor 1 printout for which I have already gotten the race contenders down to the top five choices. If there is the inevitable scratches at the track and now one of my higher rated choices is scratched how will that affect my line up (or the remaining contenders) as to movement within the initial ranking arrangement. I believe that in my reading of the Sartin Methodology that I came across an explanation that when it comes to the BLBL outcome if there is a scratch while at the track of one of the higher rated contenders that the ones below it do not necessarily move up in a linear fashion but can at times leap frog. At the same time when it comes to the Perceptor 1 readout of information/rankings that these results are more linear allowing equal movement up in ranking (i.e. 8 ranked becomes 7 and 6 becomes 5, etc). I guess what I really need to do is dig out from the Sartin material where I came across the information.

Thanks again,

RR

[froggy]

I am used to doing everything from my desk now.
But I do remember what it was like to take printouts to the book and then have 2 contenders in a race get scratched.
Your memory is correct PER I is more linear and that would make it good to use as a back up.

I've never had the opportunity to read much of the later Sartin material but what you have stated from my experience with Spec160 and I have been doing at least 2 cards a day for the last several months

Froggy

[Ted Craven]

Mufasa,

I would love for someone here to make a counterargument to my observation but I think the BLBL rating is a lot more 'linear' in the way it actually predicts the contenders than the 'advertising' would suggest. Sure, the rankings to Primary Factors will change depending on pacelines in the mix and some rank 4's may become 3's or 2's, and a line which had a BLBL tier 1 or 2 on the basis of several 2 ranks or 3 ranks may slip a tier as other lines move up. But if you boil it down to where the hit rate comes from (e.g. tier 1, 2 etc) and more importantly where the ROI comes from (e.g. overlays from tiers 1/2 and also 3), I wonder if a reasonably large study would show it made any real matter in hit rate or ROI whether you just moved your BLBL ranks up one following late scratches, and got on with it.

To prove an effective method for you, perhaps conduct a 20 race (for starters) paper study on races already run, starting with Results charts for races where there were late scratches which made it into your top 3 on BLBL. Then, after removing the scratched line(s), see if just using the remaining lines would have gotten you a worse 2 horse wager opportunity than recalculating the race without those scratches (and without adding in more horses). I remember doing something like that in the late 90's and it doesn't leap out in my memory that just moving everything up in BLBL rank wasn't just as good as refiguring everything.

BLBL isn't the only effective readout in the toolbox: E/L, MU/CBL and of course Perceptor1 (and V/DC in Validator and RDSS) can serve as corollaries to using a 2nd or 3rd Tier BLBL over the first tier. But I think BLBL is not as sensitive to the contender mix as say Jim Bradshaw's Match Up procedure: where the whole picture changes if, for example, 1 of 2 Early horses scratch, or the lone Early scratches.

For more insight into BLBL, may I suggest the following experiment. Select any 3 pacelines (same horse, or 3 horses) and bring them up in BLBL, then Hide 2 of the lines, so you have only 1 line. You now have 7 rank 1's in Primary Factors, a Primary Line Score of 7 and a BLBL of 24.5. Divide 24.5 by 7 and record that number (3.5). Then Unhide so you have only 2 lines, so now you have a mix of rank 1's and rank 2's. Take one of the BLBL scores and subtract 3.5 for each 1 rank and divide the remainder by the number of rank 2's for that paceline and record that number (3.25). Then Unhide the 3rd line...you get the picture.

Now, consider just these 2 thoughts (among other posers):

1. based on your model keeping for today's track, distance, surface, some factors are obviously more indicative of win potential than others. For example, on AQU Inner sprints in the winter, which is more valuable: Early or Late (answer: EARLY!). BUT, does a horse ranked 1 in LPR deserve the same number of points in the BLBL total FOR THAT RACE as a horse ranked 1 in EPR? Most likely not (unless it dominates the others in Total Energy). Thus, the high ranked LPRs in this example are overrated, in fact, should probably have lower BLBL components. And the same concept applies to other factors depending on their (recent) historically modeled impact value.

2. Per the above BLBL point derivation experiment, a horse ranked 1 in a factor gets only 7% more BLBL points than a horse ranked 2. But consider the Perceptor readout which shows the gap between rank 1 and rank 2 as 10, 20 or 30+ points. Is it fair to portray that rank 1 as only 7% better than that rank 2 - or conversely, is that rank 2 almost as good as the rank 1? Not often. Or, if the difference between ranks of several factors is quite close, say 1 point or less, ask if the aggregate rank sum of those lines with the only slightly better numbers fully warrants the apparent superiority when expressed as BLBL.

I offer these thoughts to muddy the waters a bit on the topic of only using BLBL as one's guiding readout, or to warn against over-ascribing predicability to slight differences in ranks or tiers. BLBL tiers with 2 or 3 points difference betwen them really start to mean something.

Mufasa, I don't know if this discussion helped or hurt anything! But it's a thinking game we play, and I think it sure helps to know some of the 'magic' behind the curtain, so to speak.

Ted

[mufasa]

Ted:

Your response was great and an eye-opener. The realization from your thoughtful response is the need to keep in mind how important it is to look at the individual factors that make up the whole, especially as to their meaning/significance when viewed vs. today’s track, conditions, or race makeup. I am learning that the RDSS/Spec160 are great handicapping programs or tools in helping to isolate the winner among lets say top 5 in one output or another but to get it down to the 2 winning bet choices on a reasonably consistent basis requires a little more thinking and digging.

Thanks,

M

[chris]

Mufasa:

Your thoughtfull questions sparked quite a conversation. You were the catalyst for one of the most interesting threads I've read in a some time. A great refresher for those of us who've become jaded through the years - specifically me.

The burning intensity behind your questions is something we all experienced when first grappling with this methodology. You're to be commended for jumping into the deep end of pool so quickly; that's where you learn to swim.

In the end I find these programs most meaningful when I think of, and use them, as a compass; they'll always give me true North, and after that, the direction I take will be my choosing.

Additionally, want to thank all the participants in this thread - it was a great read.

Regards,
Chris

[socantra]

Mufasa, I don't know if this discussion helped or hurt anything! But it's a thinking game we play, and I think it sure helps to know some of the 'magic' behind the curtain, so to speak.

Ted

Thanks Ted,

It definitely helps to know all the "magic" you can show without giving away the store to software pirates and such. The understandable paranoia had taken Doc Sartin to the point that he was reluctant to reveal anything of substance about the programs.

The actual formulas are nobody's business, but I do appreciate how much of the underlying thought you've been willing to share about the insides of the box. As you say, it's a thinking man's game and I've never been real strong on blind faith belief.

Dick

[mufasa]

Socantra:

I was never interested in the formulas that help me get to lets say EPR or LPR or any other set of factors. As a newbie to this methodology I am most interested in the definitions. What are the given factors computing and then it is up to me to use it most effectively, if I could find the way. I too agree that we need to be careful about giving away too much information since besides the software pirates this is a pari-mutuel game and we should be sharing these handicapping tool concepts amongst ourselves where possible. Perhaps because I am a newbie going over the user concepts of some of the program outputs is important. You see I am not necessarily interested in how a person particularly uses their program outputs to get to their particular level of success but it is most interesting to hear different member ideas on how these concepts/outputs could generally be used most effectively. Ted’s example with the inner track at Aqueduct is a perfect example of sharing useful user ideas that are general in nature. I do not know if this proposal has been put forth before or even if anyone else (other then a newbie) would be interested but why not start a site area with password access only where ideas could be exchanged. Set up a private place where users/owners of the software can go to think out loud. This should be the case for review of the RDSS program so as to protect the information therein.

Thanks,

Robert

[froggy]

Good Idea.

There is already the private area on the bottom of the opening page of this site.

"Club Pace and Cap"

I don't know what goes on in there but I suspect it is as private and secret as the "Skull and Bones"

Froggy

[socantra]

Robert,

I meant no criticism of you, or of sharing information. I am generally of the opinion that there is very little in the way of "secret" knowledge and that we can all help each other to use the programs more effectively.

Doc Sartin had almost all of his early work ripped off by various people and became very paranoid about it. In my point of view, a little too paranoid. He was reluctant to share any information about the inner workings of the programs.

Ted has lifted the veil a little on some broad general principles, and I'm very greatful that he has. I have gained in understanding from it. Over the last few years, I've pummeled Ted with all sorts of questions. Some he felt free to answer, some he didn't. That's fair. I've even stumbled on to some of the formulas for some of the transitional phases from the early days to now. I sent them to Ted. He's making much better use of them than I ever would.

Keep asking away. We all benefit from a richer understanding of the programs. I was merely thanking and congratulating Ted on how open and responsive he has been. That;s been the beauty of this site and the whole direction the methodology is taking. Friends helping friends.

Dick

[socantra]

Good Idea.

There is already the private area on the bottom of the opening page of this site.

"Club Pace and Cap"

I don't know what goes on in there but I suspect it is as private and secret as the "Skull and Bones"

Froggy

Its even more sinister and nefarious than you can imagine. If we talked about it any more, our lives wouldn't be worth a dime.

Seriously, it includes a growing library of Sartin Methodology Manuals and FollowUps from the early days up to the demise in the late 90's. Bill first put some of it up in open areas, but they began showing up on ebay, so he password protected and made most of it read only.

Several folks talked him into accepting small donations to help defray the costs of running the site. I don't know if there is any particular amount or not. I send Bill a small donation every once in a while and as a bonus I got access to all these materials. The site has been well worth it to me even without the library. As I said, I don't know about amounts, but I can assure you that he is not planning early retirement due to my donations and its just a drop in the bucket as far as the costs of running this sight. He does it as a labor of love rather than a money making proposition and I'm very, very glad he does.

Dick

[mufasa]

Dick:

I am sorry for my poor choice of words or sentence structure that made you think that you were criticizing me. I am in complete agreement with you as to the protection of some of these program user ideas. We are all connected through the software and the Sartin methodology from which it is based. Why not consider using that connection to better understand what it is that we have and how best to use it in an effective but general way. Like I said before I do not want to copy anyone’s successful usage method but would most enjoy some perceived insight to the true power of these tools through conversation and exchange of ideas. After all, where else can you talk to someone about the ins and outs of the future program (RDSS) then here among the owners or now testers of this great tool. In the same way where else can you talk to owners and users of any of the other Sartin based software?

Robert

[Ted Craven]

Robert,

Just as a bit of housekeeping, and in deference to those readers who come to this Topic looking for Frequently Asked Questions on Speculator, may I suggest this Topic continue to focus on 'how do I?' or 'why does this happen?' type questions. Discussions about specific readouts or the optimal or variety of usage of different readouts could be posted nearby in a separate dedicated thread in either Speculator or RDSS forums.

In fact, I think I'll start one now to carry on your last thought about restricted areas and my particular philosophy on that in a new Topic, here.
(http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19742#post19742)
Not to squelch at all any of your excellent thoughts, just moderatin'. Keep up the good research! :)

Ted

[Ted Craven]

Some Speculator users (including myself) report that on some computers running Window Vista, Speculator hangs with a blank blue screen when attempting to proceed to the Calculations screen (i.e. all the ratings and readouts).

This relates not only to Spec160, but also to earlier versions of Speculator such as SpecPA, SpecNP, Spand, etc. In my tests, all three of these Spec versions failed to run on 2 of my Vista computers, but ran OK on a 3rd Vista computer. Validator4 ran fine on ALL Vista computers.

If you encounter this problem with Speculator, the recommended solution is to install Dosbox, a DOS emulator environment and run Speculator within the Dosbox. Get Dosbox here: www.dosbox.com (http://www.dosbox.com) Also read this Wikipedia article about running Dosbox on Windows Vista: http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/Dosbox_and_Vista

Ted

[reckless]

[quote=Ted Craven;19743]Robert,

Just as a bit of housekeeping, and in deference to those readers who come to this Topic looking for Frequently Asked Questions on Speculator, may I suggest this Topic continue to focus on 'how do I?' or 'why does this happen?' type questions. Discussions about specific readouts or the optimal or variety of usage of different readouts could be posted nearby in a separate dedicated thread in either Speculator or RDSS forums.

In fact, I think I'll start one now to carry on your last thought about restricted areas and my particular philosophy on that in a new Topic, here (see post #53 above)

Not to squelch at all any of your excellent thoughts, just moderatin'. Keep up the good research! :)


hi Ted:

The 'click here' link in the quoted passage above is a bindfold.com link which no longer exists as a horse-player and Bill V. site and is now owned by some other corporation. Also, those $%%&# there immediately launches multiple browser pages for IQ tests and marketing b-s that is very difficult to escape.

[Ted Craven]

Thanks for the heads up Reckless! :eek: I fixed the link.

Ted

[Ted Craven]

Some Speculator users (including myself) report that on some computers running Window Vista, Speculator hangs with a blank blue screen when attempting to proceed to the Calculations screen (i.e. all the ratings and readouts).

This relates not only to Spec160, but also to earlier versions of Speculator such as SpecPA, SpecNP, Spand, etc. In my tests, all three of these Spec versions failed to run on 2 of my Vista computers, but ran OK on a 3rd Vista computer. Validator4 ran fine on ALL Vista computers.

If you encounter this problem with Speculator, the recommended solution is to install Dosbox, a DOS emulator environment and run Speculator within the Dosbox. Get Dosbox here: www.dosbox.com (http://www.dosbox.com) Also read this Wikipedia article about running Dosbox on Windows Vista: http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/Dosbox_and_Vista

Ted

Further to this same problem with Speculator and also with Validator, and also related to Windows 7, both 32 and 64 bit versions: one user has recently reported that TameDos also solved this problem for him (www.tamedos.com (http://www.tamedos.com)).

Ted

[Rverge]

hi ted thanks for this info. it works!