Normalized, Equalized and Adjusted and Corollaries
 

I decided to go through some later follow-ups last night, and one point of information that consistently stuck out to me was Doc's recommendation that clients/students ignore the "Original" (raw) pacelines (except when projecting/extracting is considered) and simply focus on the "Normalized, Equalized and Adjusted" pacelines produced by the program. Yet, when we post races, the "Adjusted" screen is seldom mentioned or referenced by the user, myself included. Since adjusted times are paramount to our readouts and factors, would it be of greater help to eschew the raw pacelines (except when Doc recommends we do so) and place more emphasis on the adjusted data?

Also, in reading through Follow-Ups, Doc attempts to explain the use of the Primary Corollaries to narrow down contenders/non-contenders, but several of his examples are illustrated AFTER he has hidden the noise (non-contenders). He discusses "cracking the corollary code" in a number of follow-ups, but does so in such a way that to me, seems like he is talking all over the place, thereby confusing me to no end. While I understand what a corollary is, I don't follow its purpose in narrowing down the true contenders and non-contenders. In fact, Doc presents many articles in such a way, that it is very easy to get lost in his language. I'm not sure if others have had the same issue, or if is merely my adult ADHD kicking in.

Can anyone help me please?

A corollary to your question, has anyone used the adjusted times to do the match up with an success?

I tried matching with the Adjusted screen data, won some prize money in a matching contest on P&C, and then decided matching was too much like work. FWIW, one of my first posts on this forum was a suggestion that Ted put the "projected pace" buttons on the Adjusted screen and not just the Original screen. I have never understood why anyone would want to work from raw data. I know Mr. Bradshaw worked from raw data but that's all he had at the time and he adjusted the fractions in his head, never making a mark on his racing form (according to several friends on P&C who knew him personally). I'm not that smart and I have nothing but admiration for those who are trying to follow in his boot steps. A tip of the Hat to you all.

When I joined in 1990 I was taught to use the normalized,equalized,and adjusted figures. If one listen to the Docs' 1 on 1 1998 videos[available in the library] you will hear the Doc going away from the visual matchup in favor of the computer compounded ratings. I talked with the Hat and he told me that as long as one is getting the proper contenders and selecting proper pacelines that the modern programs took care of the matchup. That's what I've been doing for the last 28 yrs with a pretty good strike rate and Roi. Tim you are not crazy the Doc did indeed tend to write in a sometimes confusing manner, He never said it, but I believe he did it on purpose, to make us dig deeper and to become consistent in our approach and therefore to become winners.
Tim

IMHO, Use the program as Howard intended. Spend more time and energy on money management, ticket construction and most importantly the psychological side of profitable wagering and you will win. This is the reason Howard continued his research to come up with new advances. He wanted us the user to focus more proper wagering, learn to pass races with no value, self reliance ,building a winning mindset.

That’s the direction I am striving to take, and have made strides in being more consistent in that direction. However, as I point out, and Tim G concurs, Howard has a way with words that confuses the hell out of me. It’s almost like he says one thing, then does opposite, or delves into an example, but doesn’t explain how he arrived at it.

P&C IS the modern “Follow Up” of sorts, but with so many players in so many different directions, and the posts in different directions, it is hard to find the resources from a member POV in an orderly manner. We have both the Match Up Compilation series and the FTL guideline series for easy reference, but nothing firmly concrete regarding Sartin’s modern procedures other than the Follow Ups (that I know of). Plus, all of the examples that Doc references is pre-RDSS.

Perhaps it is up to me to pour in the sweat equity to find “what I want” to make the recommended procedures work for me, and that’s OK. I just want to be able to understand what Doc is saying and why he’s saying it so I can better understand why I am doing what I’m doing.

Hi Tim. If you want to see the Docs' latest approach I would like to suggest that you watch the 1 on 1 videos [1998] that are in the library. You will hear it right from the man himself.Like you stated there are several approaches posted on the site but this is the one the Doc left us with. And it's in plain english
Tim

Here’s some enlightenment
 

I did an Internet Wayback search and came across Bill V’s old V/DC Messenger Service site. I found a small “how-to” guide for Val 2. Even though the program is outdated, the concept is the same and can be applied in RDSS.

Attachment 46992

A perfect example was made by Bill V. over 12 years ago. I bumped the thread in Selections, and am copying the link for those interested:

http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1429

I couldn't possibly agree more.

I noticed after my 1st month (back in '91) of reading pps and result charts,
that track-surface-"variants" change frequently enough where handicapping intelligently
is virtually impossible with raw data.