Understanding V/DC
 

Recently, thanks to Ted and those who worked to preserve them, I've been reading through many of the FUs from 70-88. This was fascinating reading, and one of the things that particularly struck me was the performance of the V/DC factor in the earlier models of Validator. I'd just like to make sure I understand what this factor is - the average of Velocity and Deceleration which is represented in Spec 160 by the Incremental Match-Up Graph - 3+ Total Pace. I would appreciate anyone letting me know if I'm wrong about this.

I usually only check this screen when dealing with turf races, routes, and occasionally sprints on late-running tracks. But it doesn't appear to me to have the same hit rate as major factors like TE, LS, CPR, or BL/BL. However in the FU reports and spreadsheets from, say 2000-01 timeframe, it has what appears to be an amazing hit rate - about 15% better than the major factors, which, as we know, are already very good. Can anyone explain this?

Cheers,

B Jennet

Sorry, that's not V/DC (i.e. the F3+Total Pace column on the Speculator IMUG screen).

It was V/DC, in the Validator series (i.e. a duplicate readout to the V/DC ranking on the #7 Validator screen). In Speculator, Guy changed it. V/DC does not appear in Speculator (serious omission, IMO). In Spec, what the IMUG F3+Total pace column shows is the average of F3+True Speed. This is still a very useful figure and should definitely be modeled. But, it's not V/DC as described in the Follow Ups 70+.

V/DC (Velocity relative to Deceleration) is a fraction by fraction summing of deceleration relative to how fast the horse was going in that fraction, then ranked and merged with the Bottom Line ranking, such that you could have ties if the BL rank was lower but the V/DC rank was higher. Guy (and lots of others) were troubled that you could have ties in a factor ranking, but Doc wanted people to look at horses who did well at overcoming the pace of the race, even if they ranked lower on BL/BL which they would often do if they happened to have a lower Total Energy. If odds permit, such horses should be strongly considered for some kind of a wager.

I have seen stats from a several data keepers (Froggy comes to mind) who report that Top 2 and tie V/DC ranked horses win about 65% of the time, and Top 3 and ties 80%+. Of course, it varies by track, distance surface, etc. In my opinion, everybody should consult the V/DC rank in their analysis.

Val4 and RDSS show V/DC.

Hope that helps.

Ted

Thanks Ted
 

Thanks for the heads-up. Obviously what I was describing is not the same as the factor that was a part of Val. I was struck by a spreadsheet sample of 80 races at Calder compiled by Ed French in the FU. Generally, the V/DC was one rank higher than the primary factors I mentioned, and the hit rate was incredible - something like .67 - but as I say, it was a limited sample. Doc also mentioned the superiority of V/DC a number of time, which is why I asked. But if the true hit rate is what you say, it sounds very similar to what I'm finding for the 'usual suspect' primary factors.


Thanks again.

Cheers,

B Jennet

V/DC favors, too much in my opinion, late speed. GREAT ON THE LAWN or at distances of 9 plus furlongs, bu not so great in sprints where deceleration is often an after thought.

I occasionally run other programs along with Speculator for fun. Dusting off an old computer with the old floppies that were about the size of an old 45 rpm record and found my old ENERGY disk.

One forgets what a breakthrough this program really was: it looked at energy distribution WITHOUT reference to total energy (a factor that always skews ones confidence in number much akin to Beyer numbers), and, probably influenced my constant harping on the e/l as a strong handicapping factor.

Great program and it still works well.

:D Funny you should mention that. I have a computer with an older version of windows that still allows DOS programs to run. I have ENERGY, ENGEN, KGEN and THOROMATION on it and they print from a 9 pin Okidata printer. Like you, just for fun since I no longer use these programs, I will run a couple of races through them. As you stated, they still work well!

On the topic of V/DC:

I encourage people to make their own decisions about the usefulness of V/DC as a factor. Spec160 does not include V/DC. Validator did include V/DC (obviously) but uses a beaten length and projection formula which (IMO) has been improved upon in Spec160. Thus you cannot say what V/DC would look like if only it were in Spec160 (which it isn't) - unless you use RDSS where there is both V/DC and the Spec160 improvements.

V/DC has been found to rank winners a very high percentage of the time in the Top 2 and ties across all distances, surfaces and tracks.

For that matter, so does Total Energy, but go to Top 3. I prefer it over Beyer Speed Figures ;)

Slightly off-topic: I agree, Energy was a good program!

Ted

Found this old V/DC
 

Anyone have thoughts on this?

Thank you in advance.

:)

I totally disagree that V/DC favors Late Speed( defined as the rating from the Stretch call to the finish) or the 3rd FR for that matter. Very few really understand how its computed or arrived at otherwise wouldn't make such a statement.

Within the program its one of the top Factors and Sartin said it'll get a few more winners than other great Factors.

See my thread on Concept of Deceleration for a better understanding of V/DC. It does not give a formula, remember you don't have to be a mechanic to drive a car,. just drive the thing. Bottom line is that it works.

I believe the below link will take you to the thread:

Concept of Deceleration
http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11631


Mitch44