Bill that 406 only represents slightly a fraction more that 20% which tells me there were many good paying horses in there. I myself would rather have a primary factor much higher. At those percentages it should be regulated to a secondary factor for possible ex. and a longshot factor. For winners it destroys the other readouts for the line or score.

In Brohamer's book their objective was to use factors with a high percent in the top 2 for winners. Anytime a low producing factor is added to a group it tears the group down significantly.DD ,Ex. etc. all spring from winners.

Mitch44

Bill, the screen shots show the set up and paceline selection strategies used in this study. I was not allowed to self select any line during the study. As much as a black box as we could make it.

Disregard this post - I misinterpreted the data
 

In the following post, I misinterpreted the data; please disregard the ROI information.

What is BLT/C Syndicate as an automatic paceline selection?

Bill we're in agreement on reviewing pace lines to insure we're in agreement with the selected line.

As far as the study I understand the parameters to which you had to work under. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that because all horses and races were treated equally. Absolutely fair and I'm in total agreement with that.

Bill you did an outstanding job and a more difficult task then most are aware of. Again congrats for your hard and consistent approach,especially not adding your own ideas to it. Real discipline and challenging.

My post really has to do with my experience with CSR as I have found it to be a non-factor with low percentages. For me it clutters up the program and distorts the line score etc. I wish the option to exclude it existed. Many reasons for its failure, too many to address here and a non-factor for me. IMO I'm sure the contrarian member is out there, all I can say is good luck with it.

Mitch44

best of last 3
 

Doc's guidelines were to use the best adjusted speed rating of the last 3 or 4
pacelines at a comperable distance surface and competition level.

Ted has decided that his perceptor should replace Doc's work
I am not sure if Ted considers "at a comperable distance and competition level."
Or is Ted just taking the best perceptor values
So the new default setting is best perceptor last 3 lines .

What is perceptor , Here is a good explanation
http://paceandcap.com/forums/showpos...73&postcount=2

Understood and thanks,

Thanks Bill...... I couldn't see the forest for the trees. I'm familiar with the best of last three comparable but I never saw it written in that format. Its easy to confuse an old guy like me. lol

Wrong Direction in my opinion
 

I used MaxVel, HTR and the Robots from Ken Massa for about 10 years prior to finding the Pace and Cap Website and the Hat Check blog. He has been adjusting for Run-Up distances for probably 15 years. The Modeler in MaxVel has gone through 3 of 4 iterations. His Robot allows you to query not only single factors but combinations of factors and is ultra sophisticated. If I wanted to Data Mine I would have stayed with him. He uses HDW for data which I think is superior to Trackmaster as well.

But Richie demonstrated how to stack lines and use RDSS to do things that I wanted to do. I wanted most of all to use the Match Up. Now the little we have heard about the new version is that Ted is moving into a direction that his been fully exploited by some very sharp and dedicated people. I was hoping that the new version would have a greater focus on "The Match Up" we will have to see

Touché!!!!!

When I first registered years ago, one of my first correspondence with Ted was about the capacity to adjust for the match- up from the pace lines after adjustments from Trackmaster and inter-track adjustments....


I can still hope...:D