RDSS vs Synergism--Ted?

[Jake]

Ted,

Do you feel like RDSS's ability to make its own adjusted times makes Synergism essentially redundant?

In other words, is Synergism bringing to the table something that RDSS is currently incapable of doing? I have been following this discussion
for some time now, and frankly I feel like I must be missing something conceptually crucial about how both programs work. Thanks.


Jake

[partsnut]

Hi Jake,

Actually, I find that the adjusted times from RDSS enhances the usage of Synergism 2. For me, personally, Synergism2 has factors I can easily find, read and relate to. I incorporate RDSS, Synergism2 and the knowledge and methodology I have acquired from my good friend Randy Giles and PaceAppraiser. It is easier to know what to look for if you have a reasonable idea of how the pace of the race sets up and how the race may travel.

[Ted Craven]

is Synergism bringing to the table something that RDSS is currently incapable of doing?
Jake

Jake, in a word, and in my opinion - NO.

I made the Synergism export (and still working on it) because some people are familiar and comfortable with it, and would like to use the program they perhaps came to the Methodology with, or remembered being quite successful with but just can't manage doing all the data entry to use it regularly. Most of those people (those who signed the Poll saying they did not use RDSS but might if it exported to Synergism) are unfamiliar with the power of RDSS, and its own adjustment set. Perhaps they will become more familiar - and satisfied - in the course of using it initially as a source of SYnergism data exports.

Dr Sartin billed Synergism as the last velocity program, and 'on the cusp of Energy', and indeed the Energy style programs of the late 80's and early 90s (Energy!, Kgen, Thoromation) were where the Methodology evolved (deceleration, incremental energy exertion). That evolution culminated over the 1990s with a fusion of Energy and velocity programs in Synthesis and Validator, which along with Speculator are the direct forbears of RDSS. SO RDSS has the velocity compound factors, the dream race, but also deceleration and incremental energy disbursement (V/DC), as well as the Pace makes the Race style ratings and Early/Late differential, and the weighted lines score which is BL/BL. In short - it is the combination of much of what went before - and it makes use of an industry standard and publicly maintained set of adjustments (from Equibase/TrackMaster). Plus, model making tools, plus tote board integration, plus form cycle analysis, plus info to help analyse First Time Starters, plus maintaining portfolios of race types for focusing on your strengths (My Races).

I believe Synergism is still a fine program, as are all the older programs. If people are comfortable with them and successful, they should use them. If RDSS can enable them to continue to make use of what is familiar and successful (Synergism, Energy, Kgen, Thoromation) then I am happy to be of service.

But RDSS is not lacking anything that these programs provide. In my opinion :)

Hope that helps,

Ted

[Jake]

Thanks, both replies were crystal clear and to the point. I appreciate the thought processes at work here,
and the relevant history lesson, given how difficult handicapping without the proper tools can be these days.
I will take another look at RDSS again.

Jake

[shoeless]

Jake,

I am by no means any type of expert using Synergism but the way it
is shown to be used is really defeating the purpose of the program. Myself
and Pino were intially intoduced to it by Richie P who really knew the power
of the program.Later on Pino added more to it with the power of 50 and by
using track records instead of 3 year best.Also through various e mails with
the developer Bob Purdy I learned more.

The main power of this program is the way it makes adjustments to the
horses by a Par Variant.The way it accomplishes this is by putting in setup
times of the various horses using RAW DATA.Once you get your contenders
you setup the race by what distance is the majority of like pacelines you have.

I feel by using adjusted data and only using one setup time(unless that is all
you have to work with) is not the way to use the program.Then again if the people doing it are having success with it more power to them.

[Jake]

Jake,

I am by no means any type of expert using Synergism but the way it
is shown to be used is really defeating the purpose of the program. Myself
and Pino were intially intoduced to it by Richie P who really knew the power
of the program.Later on Pino added more to it with the power of 50 and by
using track records instead of 3 year best.Also through various e mails with
the developer Bob Purdy I learned more.

The main power of this program is the way it makes adjustments to the
horses by a Par Variant.The way it accomplishes this is by putting in setup
times of the various horses using RAW DATA.Once you get your contenders
you setup the race by what distance is the majority of like pacelines you have.

I feel by using adjusted data and only using one setup time(unless that is all
you have to work with) is not the way to use the program.Then again if the people doing it are having success with it more power to them.


My original question was trying to touch on whether or not the adjusted times
from RDSS give you the same relative par variant adjusted times that Synergism
would give you, using its own (Purdy's ) algorithms. If so, then Synergism is redundant,
because the rest of its functionality is already embedded in RDSS. That was why I worded
the question the way I did. You can decide for yourself if you felt the question was directly
answered or not. I have found all the answers very interesting.

[alydar_ David]

My original question was trying to touch on whether or not the adjusted times
from RDSS give you the same relative par variant adjusted times that Synergism
would give you, using its own (Purdy's ) algorithms. If so, then Synergism is redundant,
because the rest of its functionality is already embedded in RDSS. That was why I worded
the question the way I did. You can decide for yourself if you felt the question was directly
answered or not. I have found all the answers very interesting.

To the best of my knowledge and experience the answer to your original question is no, RDSS will not give you the same par variant using adjusted times and Trackmaster adjustments. Additionally, the use of the three year best time is not the same as the track record. Furthermore, using the actual distance of the race as opposed to the most common distance will produce different results.

So, what's the advantage of using RDSS to SYN2? In my opinion the advantage lies in importing the raw data as opposed to manually typing it in. Using it in any other manner will produce inferior results to the way SYN2 was designed to be used. This is my best educated guess, not fact.

Sure, it's faster and easier to do everything automatically. But at what cost? How many winners do you miss this way? How many big mutuels do you miss?

I have posted my readouts using SYN2 manually for comparison purposes, but no one has bothered posting their results using the same contenders and pacelines via the automated process. So why bother? I know SYN2 works well the way it was designed to work. How it compares to the adjusted version is anyone's guess.

Sidebar: In no way am I implying that SYN2 is better than the full version of RDSS. For me personally, using it like The Matchup has been profitable. I have nothing but admiration for those who can use The Matchup by eye. I'm not good at it. The SYN2 "crutch" works for me, sort of like a Matchup Hamburger Helper if you will. LOL

[gl45]

My 2 cents,
well said AD. Syn2 is an excellent tool if properly used. RDSS make Syn2 data input faster that's all. If you try to change the hows Syn2 is to be used you will do it at your peril.
Is anybody here is making money using Syn2 with RDSS adjusted whatever. If so, show me the money, until then don't try to make Syn2 a winner b/c RDSS, it's not.
Syn2 is a stand alone velocity program and doesn't need RDSS to make you it a winner unless you are promoting RDSS as the accellerator.
I have to give credit to Ted for eliminating the tedious the manual input.

Btw, Ted if you read this...have a great time, don't forget to visit Trevignano Romano, and if you don't due to the multitude of family members, enjoy the food, and the Frascati wine.
Have a wonderful time and a safe trip. I wish I could meet you there, maybe next year.
Pino

[Jake]

Thanks for the responses. I would think doing side by side comparisons of the
automated versus manual input, same pacelines and contenders re alydar_David's
comments, would readily answer this. Thought that might have been done, either
privately or publicly. My apologies for stirring up any deep waters here.


Jake

[shoeless]

Jake,

No apologies needed


Pino,

Hope next time you go to Italy you will take me with you

[shoeless]

After reading Ted's post I believe he is right if someone is going to get RDSS you would be better off using the readouts from that program and just use
Syn export as a bonus feature

[shoeless]

My conclusion to all of this is if your going to spend the money you are
better off using RDSS and all of it's wonderful features.


I feel Synergism 2 is best used by putting in raw data and using the
program as it was intended.Unless your doing a lot of tracks I really
dont get people's laziness not willing to put in their own pacelines. I
prefer this program as for someone who has difficulty interperting readouts
that there are only a few screens that have all the important info there.


If you really want to use Synergism with downloaded data there is
always Synergism VI as an option which I understand to be a very good program
with data supplied by HDW.

[davesnew]

Ted, do you still plan on implementing the feature for the exporting of data for the Sartin 4 call programs?

Dave S

[partsnut]

Shoeless:

If you really want to use Synergism with downloaded data there is
always Synergism VI as an option which I understand to be a very good program
with data supplied by HDW.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Why and how can you come to conclusions if you have never tried or tested RDSS with the Synergism II
conversion module?
I will tell you first hand that the combination of RDSS and Synergism II is awesome.
It works well for me.
The simplicity, performance and ease of interpretation of Synergism II
and RDSS should not even be compared to the the latest version of Synergism.
Its like comparing apples to oranges.
If you have a heavy pocket you might want to consider HDW data files. Be my guest.
If you have money to burn then go for it. See what you can achieve with it.
RDSS achieves superior results with Synergism and is a bargain at the price and in my opinion, will out perform anything out there. All you have to do is use your brain and figure it out. :confused: Oh well.......Hmmm

[shoeless]

Parts,


Good continued luck with it

Last time I checked this was an open forum just giving an opinion
not saying it was the gospel. I will refrian from posting on this topic
anymore.

[partsnut]

Parts,


Good continued luck with it

Last time I checked this was an open forum just giving an opinion
not saying it was the gospel. I will refrian from posting on this topic
anymore.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff,

Please don't be offended by my questions.
How can you offer an opinion on something you haven't tried?
It's really not fair to Ted. He put a lot of work into it.

Your always free to offer an opinion on any subject but the opinion has to have credibility.

[Ted Craven]

Ted, do you still plan on implementing the feature for the exporting of data for the Sartin 4 call programs?

Dave S

Dave,

Finding myself now engaged in the whole topic of exports to these various older file formats, perhaps now (or by the time I get it finished) is the time to add the 4 call exports to Thoro II, Super Kgen, etc (i.e. 'in for a penny, in for a pound' ...). When I get back from vacation mid Sept, I'll take another look at that and get back to you.

Thanks for the reminder, and hope you're doing well these days!

cheers,

Ted

[lsosa54]

Well, Ted, since you're in such an amenable mood, wouldn't it also be cool to cover all the bases and rig up an export to UltraPlus (later version of UltraScan)? That would not be a 4 call export, but 3 call, and might have to be tweaked a bit.

Lou

[shoeless]

Had a nice chat today with Bill V and wanted to clear up a few things


What I was attempting to do was show how I use Syn 2 as taught to me
by Richie P and Bob Purdy. I was in no way trying to say that Bill V was
doing it wrong. He has the ability to pick out one line for a fulcrum which
many people cant do,the way I was showing was for people who cant.Also
I should not have put it in RDSS thread.


Suggesting Syn VI I thought this was the right thing to do giving Purdy
a mention since RDSS exports to his program.

I will no longer post in the RDSS thread as I do not use it currently.

[Bill V.]

Thanks Jeff

I want to add that we owe Ted a great deal of thanks for getting us to
this point. Its not perfect but its a lot better than doing everything by hand
About that point, It is not a question of lazness, its a matter of acuracy. It is so easy to make a mistake entering lines by hand

I was metioning to Jeff today that maybe at some point
all the set up time calculations and entering yes or no to the
any shippers in this race question can still be done by hand ,
then at that point the lines could possibly be exported from RDSS,
We are in the process of seeing the value of this excellent velocity program
But to throw away Bill H. and I and Teds work just based on seeing a few races
worked before the fact and then when low price horses happen to win is a little hasty.
Perhaps working and testing can lead to a better syn 2 than what we have so far
I am sure it will prove to be worth Ted's efforts

[shoeless]

That is true Ted should be commended getting this far exporting to Syn 2

[Ted Craven]

Well, Ted, since you're in such an amenable mood, wouldn't it also be cool to cover all the bases and rig up an export to UltraPlus (later version of UltraScan)? That would not be a 4 call export, but 3 call, and might have to be tweaked a bit.

Lou

Lou, you're killing me! :eek: No promises, and it depends on how many people would use it - or how much work it is - but let's look at it next month when I take things up again.

Nice seeing you last weekend in Saratoga!

Ted

[lsosa54]

Lou, you're killing me! :eek: No promises, and it depends on how many people would use it - or how much work it is - but let's look at it next month when I take things up again.

Nice seeing you last weekend in Saratoga!

Ted

Ted: I posted this sort of tongue in cheek. BTW, my co-workers wil tell you that's the expression I use most with them: "You're killing me!". Very nice to see you, Barb, Don, Wayne, Paul (with that unbelievable MacBook Pro screen), Bert, his daughter Jenny, and the rest of the Pace N Cap guys I may have missed.

Even after a couple of long days back at work, I'm still somewhat relaxed.

And as to Ultrascan, NO ONE but me would most likely use it! Like Dick Schmidt said, it was the inspiartion for Doc's other programs starting with Energy that came after it.

Enjoy the vacation.

Lou