Rmath's contender elimination using CSR rankings

[lone speed]

Rmath.....

I was rereading your comments about narrowing the true contenders in a race by using the CSR rankings in RDSS 2.0... I think that your initial research holds a lot of promise and potentials. I was curious about some update info on your research.

You wrote:

When I started comparing the WINNERS rankings on these two ratings I wanted to see if it was possible to narrow most races down to as few horses as possible.
What I found was that the Winner in over 90% of my playable races had a rating of 4 or lower on one of the two sets of numbers.
From these contenders I then looked to see how many were actually rated in the top 4 on both and then broke it down even farther.


rmath

I truly believe that your research is of utmost importance to follow up, it helps to isolate true contenders....as most may have some issues with this step.....

Some thoughts ......(jmho):)

Sprint races might require different evaluations than route races...I prefer using Entropy but now it is V/dc......

Turf races....

Somehow, mile races in turf races required different energy exertions than other distances as we know that the energy distributions in turf races are tilted towards sustained fractions versus the energy distributions in dirt races...this remains a work in progress...


I started using Doc's Entropy program first to weed out the one move late horses.....then evolved ( :cool: ) to use other factors in updated Sartin programs.....


Looking forward to your updated research on CSR rankings.....but I have some initial hesitations as horses, who are coming off extended layoffs and whose last paceline was an obvious race tightener, may not fare well in Csr rankings as it gives more weight to the last race's speed rating....

The second place horse contender is usually the counter energy horse that Sartin mentioned a zillionth times.....its energy total or distribution might be lower in energy total or speed rating rankings compared with the true matchup contenders...This Dph (designated place horse) or the top hidden energy horse is key to isolating a race's matchup.......


Good skills :)

[lone speed]

I believe Ted Craven has a post that explains more eloquently what I was referring to.....

For The Lead,

I will accept your stats about the co-relation of winners to recency (or maybe Richie's friend is correct, but let's accept that a recent race impacts strongly on likelihood to win today). I'm sure that the smaller percentage of winners from over 45 days away includes such situations as

- start of a meet, where NO horses have raced within 45 days, e.g. Woodbine, Fort Erie in my neck of the woods, after winter holiday (which then strengthens your < 45 days stat)

- at least some instances of: a rested horse, regular works, previously much stronger metrics than all the other 'neverwozzers' today

Including the above, I also think Buzz's observation is quite important: that probably the horses winning from layoffs > 45 days would generally show a higher median odds than < 45 days, since it is natural for both educated and uneducated bettors to associate readiness to win with recent performance. Perhaps you have some stats on that. To me, this means that while I should probably have a yellow post-it reminding me of recency and its impact on winners, I should never fail to also analyse whether a well prepped layoff horse of superior prior ratings might be one of those 18% winners (or whatever %) today, yet pay possibly much more than its fair share - a share my bankroll and hit rate needs a regular if only occasional dose of.

Further, a caveat to recency (which I think is not contradicted by your stats on winners, as presented), is that for many of us, we're seeking contenders for ALL pools, thus while a certain share of winners pay uninteresting mutuels (which differs by track), knowing the place horse or legitimate other in-the-money horses gives also the opportunity to participate in place and vertical exotic pools. Laid-off horses working their way back to form will place and show along their route to the winner's circle, so I want to include them in my analysis today, then vet them as appropriate for the win wagers.


Under the Topic theme of Pacelines, and related to the notion of 'best-of-last-3 comparable', I think it very important to define the distinction between the ideas:

a) recency as highly predictive of win contention (per your stats), and

b) which line(s) to use to represent a horse in our analysis (computerized or otherwise) - independent of how long the layoff was

I like the stats on winners and layoffs, including Buzz' possible caveat, above. But that's not the same thing as saying that we'd be advised to select a line for the horse within 45 days - that's not what I read your stats to report. I'll betcha that only doing that gets you more lower mutuels than one's edge on the game can afford, and is what Doc preached for decades about a more creative paceline selection technique, which perhaps came to be known as 'best-of-the last-three-comparable'.

I try to remember one axiom: a horse does not always run as fast as it can - it runs as fast as it needs to. It might not run as fast as it has the ability to in any given race (i.e. its intrinsic powerplant), given fitness, because

a) it got its preferred running position and exerted its energy typically, in slower time and could win or finish as best it could without running as fast as it previously showed it could, or

b) it was forced by the matchup of running styles to run too fast too early (if Early), or perhaps ran Late against a slow pace where the energy conserving winner had enough left over to minimize its Late deceleration and thus persist - all the while our horse ended up running slower final times or 2nd call times than it showed the (perhaps consistent) previous ability to do.

So, in the case of the foregoing scenarios, why penalize a horse (if it shows signs of fitness, or an excuse) by using the last line or only lines within 45 days or so, if there's every possibility that the horse will be able to revert to its previous demonstrated ability against today's matchup? Hence, the argument for identifying the horse's best ability (e.g. Total Energy, Factor Line Score, 2nd call performance, etc), on a similar surface, similar distance structure, similar/same track within a reasonably recent portion of its history (aka best of the last 3 similar). The more you have to excuse recent poorer (or apparently poorer) lines, the better mutuel prices will likely be. And, the better odds compensate for the misses which inevitably occur in reaching back for a paceline, e.g. sometimes there will be no excuse for recent blah performance, but other times there will be.

So, for me, that's a rationale for combining both recency (per your stats) and a forgiving approach to choosing a paceline or lines. For me, a horse has a kind of form-defect if it has not raced within 28 days (but I'll find lots of mitigating excuses to forgive this if I can). Some caveats to 'best of the last 3 similar', for me, would be:

- if a horse returns from a long layoff, there's nothing particularly sacred about the last 3 races compared, say, to the last 5 races

- Turf: I've seen enough personal experience (and respect the writings and observations of others) to feel comfortable using a line from the entire PP, if the horse shows evidence of fitness today or has won off a layoff before (i.e. can approach that prior and perhaps intrinsic ability)


I also think this is a crucial topic for focused debate, and within a context of stats where they exist. I want to win, and learn more than I yet understand or apply - that's why I'm here. Actually, just so we're on the same page, were you arguing against, for a horse running within 45 days, using a paceline from 60 or 80 days ago. My understanding of the proposition Bill V started the Topic with, was classical guidelines on what line(s) to use, not necessarily recency (though your data appears to speak for itself and thanks for the spark to the discussion!)

:)

Ted

[rmath]

Lone Speed, in answer to your questions.
My research is and never will be the only answer to finding the true contenders in every race. But it has shown me how to get 90% of the WINNERS in the races that I play, from the top 4 VDC or top 4 CSR.
While some of the winners will always be eliminated because of a last race tightener on CSR ratings by using the best of last 3 comparable for the VDC most are covered.
As I stated earlier I was only trying to find the winner and was not trying to get the place horse (the counter energy horse in most races) in my final contenders. The place horse is in the win contenders a high percentage of the time. My only goal was to get the highest percentage of WINNERS from the lowest number of horses in each race.

Layoff horses, Turf races and maiden races with first timers, or with fewer than 3 North american running lines are harder to predict.
As I stated earlier I tried to limit my plays to races with at least 8 official starters.I also try to only play races that are at least 5.5 f upto 8.5 furlongs in distance. Races within these guidelines are the most frequently run at most North American race tracks.
Like Jimmy Bradshaw use to point out, winners usually fit into a specific set of guidelines, but the place horse would not always fit the same guidelines.

I hope this answers your questions. If not please feel free to ask again.
I will try my best to answer any and all questions regarding my research.
Yours,

rmath

[Dorianmode]

Can someone point me to a thread or threads where this (CSR) ranking is discussed. I think there was a nice race with it as #1 ranking at Prx this afternoon. (#5). I bet EPR # 1 and 2 in 5 and 5.5 furlong races, but I noticed CSR is # 1 (10/1) also.

[Ted Craven]

Dorian,

See the Release Notes to the Current Version: www.rdss2.com/r2b2.5

Ted

[Dorianmode]

I see now. I will add it to my research lines. Looks like it could be very helpful.

[stormbringer]

Ted here please Help

[Ted Craven]

Ok, got it. Let me see what this old thread and links are all about and I'll get back soon.

Meanwhile, why not just CLICK on that link above to READ what it says ... ;)

Ted