Bl & Vdc
 

I HAVE BEEN WORKING HOLLYWOOD PARK WITH RDSS. AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR ALL OF YOU OUT THERE THAT USE RDSS.
DOES BOTTOM LINE AND VDC ALWAYS MATCH? "THIS IS ON THE BL/BL SCREEN. MINE ALWAYS MATCH. EX BL/BL PICKS A HORSE 1st VDC RANK IS
1st THANK FOR THE EXPLANING THIS TO ME.

BlBl VDC
 

Hi Stormbringer

On Validator I would say
90% of the time BLBL and VDC will not match
in fact I have seen 5th rank horses on BLBL move up to 1st
On VDC almost always you will see horses improve.
But I may have seen once but more likely never will you see a horse
better rated on BLBL than VDC

I only did two races yesterday
Race 2 from FL and race 2 from MNR
In both races I did I see that the blbl and VDC readouts
are the same ..on RDSS

Blbl Vdc
 

In the MNR race 2 with Val 4
BLBL and VDC match

is a bad thing in rdss when thay don't match?bl & vdc
and how do you enter the summer stakes?
thanks always for your help.

Rdss
 

I will leave that on to Ted
since Its the rdss area

here is the link to the contest discription
http://bindfold.com/forums/showpost....35&postcount=1

Bill,

Have you tried doing the same several races with Val and RDSS and comparing the results side by side to see what the differences were and which one had the winner most often.
Particularly in regards to VDC.
I suspect that they would probably have the same number of winners, but not always in the same race.

Froggy

side by side
 

Hello Froggy

To be honest No ....
Now here is the reason. Over the years I have always been updating
my Sartin software. From the very first program I started with
Pace launcher 4 manual entry, to what ever. Every time something new came out
updates or download versions whatever Even did a few races with many versions of Speculator, Every time I got something I would do what you
said these side by sides Guess what It messed me up ...

The differances in the programs are sometimes slight and some times
wildly different. I think this is because of Doc use of Chaos math

To be honest if I found a program was better at routes or sprints or
turf or at some track or another It would screw me up anyway

I am very stuborn I brainwashed myself to only look at Validator
I was also very lucky that I had Rich to keep me focused

his simple statement "Just do the race like you did when you were working
with doc in his office and he was looking over your shoulder"
has helped me greatly

I could do more side by sides but I'm selfish. I admit it
I want to win races. I really think it would mess me up

When Ted includes the numbers from Val 4 onto RDSS
I will use that

I am using Rdss once in a while as a training process
to get used to the program and its "feel"
But I don't look at the readouts on BLBL on RDSS
when I wager I use Val 4

GS
Bill

Hi All,

Was gone for the weekend, visiting with, setting up and giving a whirlwind primer to my newest RDSS Beta Tester and person I have known the longest in this life: my MOM! (Happy Birthday and Mother's Day, Mom :))

We started working the contest race Saturday, but got distracted then actually finished a race at Woodbine on Sunday which she won (WO race #4).


Re V/DC and BL/BL:

On Validator and in RDSS, the V/DC ranks which appear are the lower of (i.e. the better ranked of) the Primary Line Score (PLS) or the actual V/DC ranking. For a given horse, if PLS = 2 and V/DC = 1 then the rank will be 1. That's why you get ties. One horse could be PLS #1 and another horse could be PLS #2 but VDC #1, so both horses will show #1 under V/DC.

You never actually see the underlying V/DC number, which is a composite number of Velocity relative to Deceleration, measured at several points in the race, with a dash of PLS thrown in for extra seasoning... When a horse shows improvement on V/DC relative to PLS, it's because of its worth-noting deceleration aspects, which you should not disregard without closer inspection.

That said, there's a small bug in the current RDSS V/DC readout which sometimes will interpolate a ranking, though probably over 90% of the time on RDSS currently, the V/DC matches the BL/BL.

When the Validator 4 upgrade thing is done (any minute or week now), I'll be asking RDSS testers who use Val4 to compare the readouts side by side. They should match down to the rank, and to within .1 on numerical readouts. As currently configured, RDSS readouts and ranks will match Speculator, but not always Validator (due to using variable beaten lengths, different sprint-to-route projections). I'd advise holding off until the next release before attempting BL/BL and V/DC comparisons between Val and RDSS.

Ted

"When the Validator 4 upgrade thing is done (any minute or week now), I'll be asking RDSS testers who use Val4 to compare the readouts side by side. They should match down to the rank, and to within .1 on numerical readouts. As currently configured, RDSS readouts and ranks will match Speculator, but not always Validator (due to using variable beaten lengths, different sprint-to-route projections). I'd advise holding off until the next release before attempting BL/BL and V/DC comparisons between Val and RDSS.

Ted"


Ted:

Could you at your convenience explain to me what is exactly happening when one configures RDSS to run as Val4? My only real experience to date has been with Spec160 and that is how I am currently approaching working with RDSS but since there is this ability to configure and presumably work from a different platform (Val4), I would like to know what is the effect on the outputs of Perceptor, Velocity, BLBL TPL, etc when the configure OK is given to RDSS.

Thanks,

Robert

Robert,

In the Release Notes to V0.97.0, I describe the differences in detail between Val4 and Spec160, so you could review that (and I attach it here for others to review, if interested).

If you're asking what's the net effect on the numbers: well, they change a bit. In Val, beaten lengths are valued differently from Spec and differently according to today's distance, and for each race segment. So comparing individual fractional velocities for the same paceline, Val to Spec: they will vary depending on beaten length component, but Val velocities will tend to be faster, in general. Since all energy factors are based on velocities, these differences propagate through to all else.

That's why I say (not to be flippant) that they change a bit. And I personally have no preference or proof that one is superior to the other. I do know that folks are loyal to the platforms they have become familiar with (that's also why TPR numbers are in RDSS). As with everything, I'd recommend comparing strategic screens for the same pacelines in both modes. Since you can't print or save to Excel right now, how about a screen capture in both modes of the following screens for several races at different tracks, surfaces and distances, place them side by side in a Word doc and study them: Velocity, Energy, Primary Factors, BLBL. See what the differences and similarities really are.

One note about the exhortation not to use lines with final beaten lengths exceeding 7.5 in Validator: try comparing several lines with high final beaten lengths (Val to Spec mode), focusing on F3 Velocities and also True Speed. Val mode Velocity will always be faster (because beaten lengths in that segment are valued lower than Spec). Unless there is a very good reason to use that line with high beaten lengths, you may be over-valuing the horse by accepting that faster velocity. There could be lots of good reasons to ignore that: horse shortening up today from a route line, horse finished 2nd or 3rd beaten 10 lengths by a runaway winner, etc. Judgement calls. But the effect of using lower beaten lengths values (especially in F3) is one of the main differences and contentious points between Val and Spec.

The notion for Speculator was to call a spade a spade and value beaten lengths by physical reality (e.g. 8.33 feet). Doc Sartin had always emphacized the importance of measuring incremental velocity. A very interesting article is in the 'Dynamics of Incremental Velocity' paper presented to the 1990 Thoroughbred Handicapping Expo (it's in the Pace and Cap Lilbrary somewhere), Page 44 where he discusses concepts of measuring beaten lengths differently in different race segments, at different distances.

If you're more familiar with Spec160 than Validator, no need to get into Val just to respond to my request for testing that new mode. But if you are restlessly curious or want to prove for yourself if one is superior to the other (or perhaps situationally so), then fire away! I just hope you don't get too diffused or confused in your focus on making a method that works for you - that's the only thing all this (and other) software is there for.

Ted