WOX 07-06-11 Race (4)
 

WOX 07-06-11 Race (4)

This is a race of interest for me.
My techniques may differ from many of the boards handicappers
but I am always will to learn new techniques.
I would welcome opinions on this race and comparison screen shots
showing the group how one came to their decision.
I believe we can always learn from each other. There is no disgrace in
picking the wrong horse in a race. We all do it on a daily basis.

I'm very impressed with the RDSS E/L projections and some of the screen shots that have been posted by Ted's mom. I believe she has developed into a top rated handicapper. Evidently, RDSS works for her.:)
Nice work, mom.

Here is the 4th race at today's WOX and the way it plays out for me.

I figured I may as well include my Energy screen shots.

Thank you for those kind works Parsnut, but I have to tell you, I put those cards up with the results and EL/2 readouts because it was requested by some people on the board. I by no means caught them all, but the ones I did were double digit ones. I just happen to be one of the lucky ones who are testing the alpha RDSS2. Woodbine is on an upswing for the moment, but who knows for how long.
Barb (Ted's proud mom yes, but Barb in my own right)

Pardon my ignorance, but where is WOX?

Hi Barb,

That is the 3 digit code used by brisnet to denote Woodbine.

Jim

barb craven: Hi Barb, Please feel free to call me "Bill".
We have a couple of Bills here. I'm Bill H.

The Alpha RDSS2 sounds exciting. I haven't tried RDSS in quite a while but
hopefully will do so in the near future.
There are certain features that I have been watching in your screen shots
that I believe have merit.

If you are at liberty to say, I have a few questions?
Will the new software eliminate the users pace line selection and will it incorporate Dave Schwartz's "New Pace"?
Dave says that "New Pace" does not pick pace lines. If it doesn't then will it incorporate his impact values for distances and surfaces at all tracks? Or possibly, Ted has formulated his own?

From what I've read, this is supposed to be a new concept which if so, would be refreshing. Hopefully it will have an accurate contender selection algorithm which in my mind is the heart of the handicapping process.

[quote=partsnut;71683]barb craven: Hi Bill
No the RDSS2 won't eliminate the user's need for pace line selection, but will give you several options that will be automated according to your wants and/or needs... As for the other questions, I don't want to presume to talk for Ted, but I think if you haven't already, you should go to http://paceandcap.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=78 and http://paceandcap.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=92 and read them. They will answer most if not all your questions of what will be included in RDSS2 Beta. It's going to be exciting when all the features are incorporated.
Barb

Bill,

The upcoming EL 2.0 module in RDSS 2.0 is my implementation of all Dave's rules from his NewPace video (and subsequent amendments by him). With the exception that we are using Speed Rating data supplied by TrackMaster (Equibase) and also familiar Ratings calculated internally by RDSS (Total Energy, Adjusted Speed Rating, Perceptor Total) - the rules used are as faithful to his product as I can make it and any errors (so far) are mine.

As such, it does indeed use a method of automatically identifying a statistically sound range of "Speed" ability. It is a semantic quibble whether or not it 'selects pacelines', but it does consider the horse's entire Past Performance. It doesn't use other aspects of any of Dave Schwartz other software, impact values, etc - it is stand alone.

There's got to be pushing a hundred races published here using this method. Richie P compiled a short (profitable) study from Evangeline using EL 2.0, and though no one has published a larger (multi-hundred) statistical study I can refer to, anecdotally the contender selection seems to be fairly sound. Users will be the judge. I believe Bill Lyster intends to conduct just such a larger study when the upgrade to EL 2.0 I am working on is ready for Beta testing Round 1, later this month.

EL 2.0 (NewPace) is just a small part of RDSS 2.0 - and it requires a related betting strategy to take best advantage of it (outlined in Dave's video and also in his subsequent Basics of Winning video series). In my opinion, it becomes most useful in exotic vertical wagers - less so for Win. You do need to license NewPace from Dave in order to use it in RDSS2, but I thought that many NewPace users would appreciate having a software implementation of it other than Dave's HSH product, and simultaneously get the opportunity to discover the strengths of the modern Sartin Methodology. Calculating the NewPace numbers and ranks by hand (or entering them manually to a spreadsheet) will get old very fast!

Aside from NewPace, RDSS 2.0 will have several automated Paceline Selection Strategies, as well as the means to 'roll your own'. Being bold, yet consistent in paceline selection is what sometimes gets you onto horses the crowd does not like, which is our only hope for long-term profit.

cheers,

Ted

barb craven: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barb, thank you for your response. I'll follow the links and try to get a better understanding of the new product.

Barb,

I can't read this link because I am refused access to it.

http://paceandcap.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=92

Bill,

That particular link is to the private discussion Forum for the RDSS2 Alpha (soon Beta) testers. It really is just for reporting bugs and interim instructions for testing. I will be publishing for everyone the features of RDSS 2.0 when I release the Beta 1 version later this month, and making some videos for everyone to see.

The other link is to the general RDSS 2.0 Forum, with lots of screenshots of different aspects of the software as it develops, including EL 2.0

Ted

Ted Craven: Bill,

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted, I will look forward to your beta release.
Thanks for responding.

Getting back to Woodbine Race-4
Here's the RDSS E/L2 projections
The horse that I favor(#6 Eddington Limit) is by no means a standout.
I guess I'm in the overall top 3 but nothing definitive on the E/L2
rating.
Should be an interesting race.

There is a bug in the EL 2.0 screen for this race - there should be 2 Early contenders, and #6 should be the top ranked Early.

Attachment 22760

Here is my BLBL screen. Purely by my own subjective handicapping opinion, I downgraded #5 Lucky from the Primary contender group (win) to Secondary (in-the-money) contender, because I believe its last line maiden claiming win overrates its Total Energy.

Attachment 22761

At Morning Line Odds of 20-1, consider #7 Jadran. Wagers, if any, to be decided near post-time.

Good luck all!

Ted

Ted Craven: Ted, thanks for the update. Now all I need is a decent price on the horse
to bet on it.:) I would settle for 5-2 or better.
#2 (Call For Silver) would be my value play if the #6 is bet down and not worth a bet.

This should prove interesting. WO's ONLY JUICER trains and its top jock rides this plug. Under 'normal' circumstances, EL couldn't outrun a poodle past 5.5F (or 6F). Today he's going 6.5F against horses that have run well going 7F.

The interesting question is why this horse is starting to take money (and could be the favorite):

Contreras is up -- not a strong sign
Jordan has the good stuff in him and has put the word out -- this is usually MONEY

Updated Odds @ 2 MTP

Attachment 22762

So much for my subjective handicapping opinion :o

Result: 5-3-2-7

I finally figured out (by checking the jockey) that you are talking about #6 Eddington. You got the 'poodle' part right.

Ted

Ted Craven: Ted, don't beat yourself up. Your opinion was honest and well placed.
This was a very tough race.
This is not a sport of perfection.

My (6) went to post at 2-1 and the (2) had no value.

TED

The two best races going 7F were:

Altius -- 11/3/10 -- a HUGE, and I do mean HUGE, against the grain effort
Lucky Lotto -- last race, where he WIPEDOUT the field.

How in the world do people make the 6 the chalk? The horse has DEMONSTRATED that it can't go beyond 5.5F/6F. Even with the Jordan JUICE and the top jock it quit like a pig. You can't juice went it comes to distance limitations on POLY.

I'd pay money to see the look on Jordan's face during the running of the race. Or, even better, the look on the faces of all the people he gave the horse out to. :rolleyes: Or still even better: Jordan's supplier.

ha ha ha

Bill Wood
 

Thanks Bill for the race
I just got a chance to work it.
I feel for you Ted I was not on the 5 here either
But looking back It does have the 5.0 workout
6 days since last racing 18 days ago
A powerful plus factor at some tracks
Its been a plus at Monmouth
Have to watch it. Beware of horse working 5.0 with poor recent form
The 5.0 works better with layoff horse 30 - 50 days
and good form horses running back in less than 21 days
The 5.0 within 14 days is a good factor

GS
Bill V.
Agusta GA.
Attachment 22764

Bill and Bill:

Putting my 2cents worth. I came up with exactly the same RDSS readout as you did. I guess it it is......as always.....a matter of paceline selection.

Al B.

Looks the programs pretty much had all the finishers as top contenders. What I meant, was that sometimes the program is smarter than I am ;). EXDC had the top 3, RDSS EL 2.0 had the top 2, BLBL had the race 1-2 - only I chose to downgrade the winner's maiden race effort. Reinstating it as a Win Contender does the trick. TFM was right - the winner's last line was a major effort.

Thanks for the tip Bill V about workouts at MTH.

Redux
Attachment 22765

Bill V.
Are you reading Taulbot?

Scott
 

Hello Pino

I have read some.
I follow Wm.Scott's How Will Your Horse Run Today
Most of whats in the book does not seem to work as well as it once did.
But understanding form has helped me
The 5.0 work out chapter seems to be working well at Mth

some examples
my last 27 races that I bet from Monmouth

8 winners had 2,3 or 4works since there last race no longer layoff than 57 days
with one of those works being 5.0 or longer
2 winners had only one 5.0 work but they both were in the less than 14 days
since last good race window

In this 27 race sample
11 had 1 WSLR (work since last race)
3 had 2 WSLR
3 had 3 WSLR
3 had 4 WSLR
7 had 0 Works but all 7 had raced in the last 21 days

GS
Bill
Someplace in South Carolina :confused:

Ted, about the #7 horse, horses with a ML of 20/1 or higher only win about 5% of all races. For me, they are immediate "throw outs". I mean, one could look at a ML 20/1 shot if they want to, but they should understand that the odds AGAINST that horse winning REALLY ARE 19/1, regardless of how the public makes the odds through betting.

I understand that everyone is searching for "value" so let me offer this. I searched two random years and found each of those years to be almost identical. This is what I searched for.
(1) how many horses won at a price of $40.00 or higher
(2) how many horses won at a price of $40.00 or higher and had a ML of 20/1 or higher
In the first year the answer to #2 came back 28%
In the second year the answer to #2 came back 26%

So the answer to "value" is to look for it among the horses that have a ML LESS THAN 20/1. Not only do those horses win more frequently, but they represent the majority (by a large margin, about 75% to 25%) of the horses that actually end up paying $40.00 or more.

Ted, really, I'm not picking on you!:) The condition of this race happens to be one of my favorites. Regardless of the condition abbreviation, N1-X or NW1X, it is still a race for "non winners of a race, OTHER THAN maiden,claiming, starter, etc, etc." It means, the most likely race for a horse to enter after it broke its' maiden is this race, especially if the maiden win came in a "maiden special weight" race. Think of a maiden special weight race and an allowance race of being similar, in that a horse cannot be claimed out of either type of race. So what you would expect to find in these races are a bunch of horses that are "1 for ?"

I didn't look at this race, but what I look for in these races are horses that HAVE won more than one race and they would be "claimers". The fact is, they have demonstrated the ability to beat a field of horses OTHER THAN maidens.

In races like these where ALL the horses have only one win, just keep in mind that none of them have ever beat anything except a field of maidens, so where it is generally not a good idea to back a horse coming off a maiden win, in this case it isn't quite as bad.

Hope this helps.

FTL,

I accept that those statistics are valid. I accept that one will lose many more bets including 20-1 shots than less than. What to do when a consistent (e.g. automated) contender selection method points to a horse, which type has appeared to finish in the money sufficient enough over many races in the past to pay for itself? To not bet it somehow because the public has over-valued another odds-on horse or horses (thus pushing our longshot above the statistically magic 20-1 point) is squandering a hidden observation in deference to those who have no means to see it.

Consider WO Race 6 last night July 6, two races after my 20-1 longshot failed to win (analysis posted well before it ran: http://paceandcap.com/forums/showpos...93&postcount=1). The winner, a horse whose PPs looks like that and let go at 22-1 should lose more than it wins (must lose, for the game to remain valid). Yet when it appears on your own validated method - you must bet it, otherwise your method is useless. You count on winning a few of these, plus many more at < 20-1 as you point out, to spike the average mutuel resulting from mostly betting 2 or more horses at < 10-1 (for example).

NewPace (and a few EL 2.0) users around the world had to have included at least something on this horse if they were deploying that method in a series of races including that one last night. The recommended betting strategy would also have included the 7/5 favourite in a vertical exotic strategy. All vertical exotics, plus a Win and Place mutuel were accessible.

Attachment 22768

Attachment 22769

Attachment 22770

Attachment 22771

Again, I have no doubts whatsoever the statistics show all horses over 20-1 lose 95% of the time. The really interesting statistic (which I accept is inaccessible to you at the moment) is how much net does a horse over 20-1 pay who looks like this one did on a valid longshot method (NewPace or EL 2.0, to be specific). I submit the win frequency is a lot higher than 5% and the ROI in the Win/Place pools alone (forget about exotics), is greater than 0%. When such a horse loses, I look to getting a reduced share of my other 5-1 or 10-1 horses who do win. When this type of longshot horse wins, I look to set aside a majority of the profits to cover when it will lose (then spend a little bit on my celebratory beverage of choice ;))

In the end, you have to bet according to your method. As the readouts show, the BLBL readout had this horse nowhere for Win due to very low relative Total Energy, however its opposite E/L Differential energy distribution pattern (TPR+EL screen) showed that it was possibly capable of at least finishing in the money. The EL 2.0 (NewPace) suggestion that it was worthy of further investigation is dismissed only at one's peril. I don't yet have long term stats on such horses' ROI, but I believe Dave Schwartz does.

Ted

22-1
 

Hi Ted
If I see a 22- 1 on my vital readouts i'm putting a little something on it too
Hey don't forget the show pool

found out
Aiken SC

Ted, I was probably remiss in not prefacing my comments with the fact that all of my comments are directed at the "win" spot only. In no way was I suggesting that these horses could not be used in the "place", "show" or even the "4th" spot (for super players), since it is my opinion that "anything" can run 3rd or 4th. In some cases, horses run 3rd or 4th simply because they are able to still be "on their feet" (so to speak) at the end of the race. Of course this is NOT always the case. Some finishes are very close among the top 4 horses.

For the sake of clarity, the 20/1 mark is NOT the horses actual odds, but rather, the horses ML. I play many horses whose actual odds are greater than 20/1, but not the ones whose ML is greater than 20/1. Again, this is for "win" betting, since that is all I do.

As you suggested, I cannot answer for New Pace or any other method, but you may recall that I use an "automated" line selection method. Naturally, from time to time, one of these ML 20/1 horses are among my automated contenders. On that basis I can tell you that they are not worth using. The "net" is just not there. And again, I am speaking of the "win" position only.

For those using some other type of automated selection method, all I can say is, it takes quite some time to build up enough information to reach a valid opinion on the worth of certain statistical information. A day, a week or even a month, is not enough.

Finally, some may think that I am looking for the shorter priced, high win percentage horses. I am not! I don't even bet a horse unless I am getting at least 4/1, so my whole approach is geared toward high priced winners. Over the years I have spent a great deal of time in evaluating the profitability of horses that pay higher prices. Of course, although I use or handicap with all the "Sartin" numbers, as well as many other numbers of my own, and "model" all of them, I also incorporate "actual" handicapping in my analysis of a race. No, I don't care about jockeys, trainers, weight or even the color of the horse, just knowledge of horse racing.

The above was for BEL R6 July 3.

Too bad I wasn't aware of the latest STATS about 2O+:1 shots before the race. ;)

Oh, and I didn't need to box 4 horses to nail the exacta.

20/1
 

Hi FTL
Right on a 20/1 post time horse and a 20/ 1 ML horse is something else
Back in the pre casino pre PARX days of Philly Park I was weary of 15/1
M/L horses let alone 20/1. When looking back on nice price horses more often its
was a 6/1 or so horse that just got ignored or a horse that was way over bet
and all the other horses were overlays.

Looking at Teds line selection and field size from race 6 It looks like a very strange race to say the least. with sprint lines poly dirt route

Looking at the 7 horses lines I think about Tom Brohamer
laughing at a seminar, but they do win.

Getting back to Race 4
It was a 7 horse field with 3 of the horses being 2/1 5/2 and 7/2
Do you have any data in your records for horse that pay over $40
and the odds of the 3 favorites
Thanks
Bill

FTL,

I feel the need to take huge issue with your approach, especially as it relates to NewPace.

What you are essentially doing is adding ML as an elimination factor. I do not believe that is a good approach, especially considering that many line makers are not very good at distinguishing between a 15/1, 20/1, 25/1 or 30/1 (the usual breakpoints).

IF a player has studied their own personal contenders and determined that historically eliminating such horses from that sample would have been beneficial, then by all means apply such elimination.

BTW, here is a table from a Dirt Claiming Sprints, 2010 filter I just happen to have open at the time of writing this response.

The first column is odds, the 2nd is ML.

"Below" means under 20/1 and "above" means 20/1 and above.

In looking at this table one could easily build a case for NEVER betting a horse above 20/1, arguably, a bad idea IF YOU ARE SHOWING AN EDGE with such horses.

Please note that the $2.06 $net for below/above is, I expect aberrational. (i.e. horses under 20/1 who were ML'ed at 20/1 or higher)


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Thanks for joining in, Dave.

I think if you re-read my post, here is what I did say, "As you suggested, I cannot answer for New Pace or any other method", so no need to take issue with anything in regard to "New Pace".

I took a couple of years and got "the net" for ML=>20.
In one year the "net" was $1.14
In the second year "the net" for ML=>20 was $1.15
Take note that this is about $0.40 below the "net" for all winners at any ML.
In the same years ML=>20 won 5% of all the races.

I did not limit this to any particular category of races, distance or surface.

I agree that one needs to evaluate their own method to determine the validity of anything. I'm just offering some statistical advise. One may do as they please with this.
I also said, "you may recall that I use an "automated" line selection method. Naturally, from time to time, one of these ML 20/1 horses are among my automated contenders. On that basis I can tell you that they are not worth using. The "net" is just not there."

Hope this clears things up for you.

_________________________________________________________________

Obviously you didn't understand my post.

My point pertained to "MORNING LINE" odds of 20/1 or greater NOT to the actual "off" odds.

Nevertheless, this exercise is not in vain. In the race you mentioned the winner was 12/1 MORNING LINE odds, before three scratches, and paid $45.60.

Both Bill V. and I are in agreement on this. Many times the bigger prices come from lower ML odds horses, not the higher ML odds horses.

Thank you for bringing this example to light. It was perfect.

FTL,

No, I understood. And I am not trying to be difficult here - I simply disagree STRONGLY with what you are saying.

The problem with this approach is that it can be repeated for any category of horse. You do not have to limit yourself to morning line.

For example, statistically, ANY horse over 40/1 is a hugely bad bet, therefore, NEVER bet a longshot.

Favorites lose almost 20% of every bet, therefore NEVER bet a favorite. And they are the BEST bet at the race track, therefore, one should NEVER make any bet.

The point is that whatever category you choose to eliminate on (and especially those pertaining to odds) are misleading based only upon that category.

When one applies their own subset they better be getting a reason to play rather than a reason not to.

Just my opinion.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Dave,
I think you read my reply to "tfm" and thought it was my reply to you.
I was very confident that you would understand my actual reply to your post.
At any rate, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. I believe we are coming at this from opposite ends of the spectrum, but I have just one last thought.

I have been at this game for a very long time. Longer than I care to think about. As you can imagine, along the way you develop friends and come in contact with a lot of interesting characters.

There was this one guy, who use to say, "Forget about betting money. Let's bet "body parts!" As funny as that sounds, he had a point. How much did you "really" like your selection? How sure were you that your selection would or could win the race? When you look at in that light, it makes you stop and think, "do I really like this horse? Do I really think it can win?"

Some guys take a $2 "flyer" on a horse and if they hit it, they think they are king of the world. There are other guys who play several "flyers" in a race and if any one of those flyers hit they think they are king of the world. But if you "put them to the test", they may not like their selection that much after all. They may have second or third thoughts as to whether or not their selection can actually win the race. These are generally the people that end up on the "red" side of the ledger.

When you find a horse that you are willing to bet a finger on, or a toe, or an ear, or even more harsh your.....I think you got the idea... then you have found what you believe to be, "the winner". The only question left to be answered is, are the odds acceptable to you? And I seriously doubt that this horse would be of the ML=> 20/1 or "off" more than 90 days (among other things) variety. There are so many more to choose from that look like the winner and pay prices that are just as good as those "other" horses.

If you would like to continue our discussion, drop me a "PM". I'll be happy to talk to you.

Actually, I think it would be intelligent for us to continue this discussion right here.

First, we are playing a game. To whatever degree of seriousness one may play the game - even for very significant money - it is still a game. "Playing for body parts" borders upon sickness to such a degree that I will assume you are far from serious.

I feel that it is still worth discussing because whatever form of "Russian roulette" one might choose to play it is still far short of healthy.

Do you recall the Stephen King movie where Ann Margaret was constantly wagering a finger against big $$$ that her lighter would light 10 times in a row? The ultimate result of such an endeavor is that you win most of them but the losses are so devastating as to make the wins not worthwhile. She was destined to wind up with lots of money and no fingers.

The point I am striving for here is that our game is a game of chance. The goal is to enjoy the game - whatever it takes to achieve that end, within the realm of healthiness.


When I play, I truly could not tell you who is going to win a given race. I will certainly have an idea of each horses chances but beyond that, I would be deluding myself.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

As you will.

Obviously, no one was, or is, wagering body parts, nor did I imply that such a thing actually took place. If you came away with the idea that betting body parts was a serious wagering game, you missed the entire point of my post.

This was simply an attempt by a guy to make you think about the chances of the horse you are about to wager on. I have heard many a horse player declare "I LOVE THIS HORSE!". This guy's response was, "HOW MUCH?"


Blackjack is also a game of chance, unless you are among the "informed" blackjack players, at which point it is no longer a game of chance, at least not for the player. I know I don't have to explain further since you have "been there and done that". Horse racing, too, presents a similar scenario and there are those for whom the game is no longer a game of chance. A lot of people strive for that lofty goal, but few ever achieve.

I guess I missed something along the way. I thought the idea was to "win", not to lose and enjoy it.