Kentucky Oaks Day
 

I am tracking the new RDSS 2.1 - Rx screen, rank and Oddsline for today's races at Churchill Downs (sometimes in advance ...). The Paceline selection and Contender separation process is almost entirely automated (or at least, quite rigorous and defensible on request). Betting decisions and possibilities are myriad, and up to the user. Starting to use the tote, after these first 2.

Attachment 40599

Attachment 40600

Attachment 40602

Attachment 40603

This should be fun, i'll be following along. Sometimes the automated lines can be changed a bit and i usually do some moving around and changing after the program selects the lines, but i think that everyone is different so doing it the way you are doing it here is most effective. Looking forward to how this Rx and new program perform today.

Pretty icky chalk so far, though Rx=1 is 4/4 so far. Exacta part wheels of Rx=1 / Rx=2,3,4 has 2 hits so far and is nicely ahead.

Ted

Indeed, Grant. I'm not saying I never change pacelines - I do (for better and for worse - LOL!). I have been studying what possibilities exist from simply and rigorously following an (almost) automated procedure. This arose over the past year or so, by my and a few others' observations that sometimes when I modify chosen pacelines, I catch a better bet - AND, sometimes I miss a better bet ;). What happens if I stay rigorous, even if the program drops a blooper sometimes? What happens over a hundred races ...

Let's see.

Ted

CD Race 5 Maiden Allowance.

I'm requiring my Win Contenders to have a CSR <= 5

Attachment 40604

#8 looks good on most markers, especially tote. Also the #2

CD Race 5
 

I will allow that the CSR <= 5 rating is probably less effective in lightly raced Maidens, where the composition of it is based on few numbers.

Here is the Top 5 rated, at the final. Also, a reliable approach of requiring a Turf line for winning a Turf race probably gets more winners (and eliminates more non-winners) than not - see the #6 horse who had no Turf lines in its 5 starts, and could probably have been designated a non-Win Contender.

Attachment 40605

CD Race 6
 

The top 2 just look great. In an otherwise unbettable race, I would hedge the #2 at EVEN odds (i.e. to break-even) and go for 7/4 odds on the #1 who looks great in her return from a layoff, and has won previously from similar.

Win Bet #1 and #2, equal units. Exacta Box on 2-1-5

Attachment 40606

CD Race 6
 

Won the Win bet, lost the Exacta.

Attachment 40607

Just found this site and methodology yesterday (and registered) so trying to get my brain around it, and the info and the software, but I am appreciative of your analysis here if only to get an understanding of your philosophy which brings me to a question. I understand the Doc philosophy of betting top 2 horses, but would that still hold with one of them at 4/5 like this most recent race?

Thanks and i'm excited to learn from everyone here.

Hi Drew, welcome to the neighbourhood!

I try not to be dogmatic about 2 horse wagering ;) I try to make money, not pick horses. I would have liked to single one of the Top 2 horses in the 6th race, but I could not separate them except on Odds. Thus, the hedge strategy (as odds dropped on the #2, I would have had to pay a bit of 'insurance' if the #2 had won).

But the hedge worked anyway: consider $50 bet on BOTH #1 and #2 (the 'equal units' referred to). $100 bet, $165 returned on the #1, or - $90 returned ($3.80) if the #2 won, or an insurance cost of $10 or 10%. It depends on a fairly good hit rate to take combo wagers of that low odds.

I'm just trying to see how effective a semi-automated method is. If you are looking in on things to learn more about the Sartin Methodology in action, there are a WHOLE lot more ways of approaching analysis and wagering than presented here. Consider this thread as an experiment, if you will. Hopefully lots of other analysis today elsewhere, or for tomorrow.

Good luck!

Ted