Spec or Val Mode?
 

When using RDSS, which mode do you generally use to work the race? Also, what are the basic differences between the two modes? I am not looking for proprietary calculations, just an understanding of basic fundamental differences in working with the two distinct modes. Thanks.

Jim

Val 4 Spec
 

Hi Jim
I can only answer the first part

I am working on using spec mode 100%
At first I only would use Val 4 mode I didn't trust Guy Wadsworth's idea
I wanted to stay with who took me to the dance.
I would use what Doc Sartin said to use, Val 4
After Ted and Doc started to work together. and Doc gave
his endoursement to RDSS, I figured that the spec mode must be
good and ok to use. I have no clue what the differance is and
when I ask I end up politely saying ok I understand
but in truth I have no clue what they are talking about
Basically all I can make out is that Spec does batter with projections and extractions

Bill

Hi Bill,

Happy Easter to you and thanks for taking the time to reply. The part I quoted above is what I am interested in. I take it you feel Spec mode does a better job of placing winning contenders nearer the top of the BL/BL than picking the same pace lines with Val4 mode? Thanks again for the reply and I am hoping others reply that have experience using RDSS.

Jim

Blbl
 

Hi Jim
sort of but not what it seems

The one thing I have tried to do since I started with PL4
is dedicate myself to one program at a time. I have worked hard to avoid
comparing programs or readouts. When I use any program I focus on it
only. What I meant in my above post is, at first I didn't want to look at
or work with spec mode. I looked at Val 4 because thats is what
Doc wanted me to use. I only decided to look at Spec after
I knew Doc was working with Ted on RDSS
If Ted or Doc said anything bad about Spec I would never look at it.
Since that was not the case and since both Guy Wadsworth and
Ted told me the same thing, As for as I can make out from there reasoning, is that the calculations were based on a slightly different value of beaten lenghts. These different values make for a truer readout with horses that are extractions and projections Do I kow this is the case?, No but If I think it does a better job I will bet more confidently
Thats the reason I use Spec For me it is psychological and since Doc didn't object to the Spec mode I figured to use it.

Bill

Value of BL
 

Ted, correct me if I am wrong but isn't one of the differences is the value of a BL. I think SPEC mode uses the same value but VAL mode uses different values of a BL depending on distance.

Hi,

Sorry, was gone for a few days. The distinctions between Validator4 mode and Speculator160 mode of RDSS are these, probably in descending order of significance:

1. Spec mode uses a fixed value for beaten lengths (8.333 feet). Val mode uses a variable value for each fraction depending on today's distance. This fact is the sole reason why Doc Sartin advised Val users to NOT represent a horse from lines where the horse was beaten more than 7.75 lengths (the beaten lengths were under represented, thus the third fraction would end up being too fast compared to its actual lengths back from Pace of Race performance). In Spec mode, what you see is what you get: 10 lengths back at the finish means beaten 83.33 feet and the time value effect on the third fraction which results from that. It's both a philosophical distinction and a physics one. If you want a ringside seat to Doc's long running argument about the time value of a beaten length in different fractions, read The Dynamics of Incremental Velocity and Energy Exertion (in the library) and enjoy. After 5 years on my part, and longer by other Speculator users, I favour Spec mode.

2. In my opinion, Spec mode does a better job of projecting sprints to routes than Val mode. Val mode tends to make the resulting route (projected from a sprint) too fast, unreliable. The extraction of a sprint from a route line is almost identical for each mode (short sprints less than 6f extract a little faster in Speculator).

3. Various readouts: The Computed Beaten Length (CBL) screen did not exist in Valdiator - only the 2nd call beaten length portion (SCBL), and the calculation for Val mode is slightly different than that of Spec mode (you will often get different computed beaten length values, less often different ranks)

On the same Tab, the right-most panel (F3+Total Pace) in Val mode is the VDC rank (duplicate of that shown on the BLBL screen) and the relative value of the underlying VDC number itself, shown by the horse positions. In Spec mode that formula is different - it shows the average of True Speed and F3 (from the Velocity screen).

Some rounding differences exist between Val and Spec (some calculations round to 2 decimal places for Val, some to 1 for Spec, which can result in differences of a rank, which can extend to different BL/BL values).

That is all the material differences between the 2 modes. If you asked me, I would say that Spec mode is the better one - that's why it is the default. In future, likely it will not be called Spec mode anymore, merely 'Default'. But Val compatibility will always remain. I think you will get more winners ranked more highly in BL/BL and CBL and F3+TP in Spec mode than in Val mode. And you don't have to tip-toe around not using races where the horse was beaten badly (i.e. over 7.75 lengths) even though it ran competitively through the stretch, or against a faster POR than anyone else today - just because Doc said so. Again, remember, that we don't care unto delerium so much if the horse ranks 1, 2 or 3 on BL/BL - we should be looking at ALL those horses both in a pre- and post-HIDE mode (i.e. HIDE a low odds favourite for Win) when seeking a 2 horse-entry wager. If Spec mode makes a 1 point difference between 2nd and 3rd rank and Val mode makes a 1.5 point difference, or vice versa, but the same horses are all in the top 3 - who cares (most of the time).

Important note: Validator versions prior to Val4 and Speculator versions prior to Spec160 (i.e. the old DOS software) should be avoided - you're getting more random results than you know, and missing out on consistent predictions of good contenders. Again, this is because of the TrackMaster/Equibase 2006 Speed rating change and the omission of Intertrack variants from Speculator prior to version 1.60.

Hope that answers most of the original question, JimG, but let me know!

Ted

Ted,

Very nice of you to provide such a thorough answer to my question. It really helped my understanding. Thank you so much.

Jim

Hi Ted,

Would you mind providing me an example of how and why you might prefer a 4th or 5th ranked horse over one of the top 3 horses listed on the BL/BL, assuming none of the horses are favorites when making a two horse win wager. I came into the Sartin methodology later than most on this board and I would find this educational.

I am assuming there are other screens you think are as important if not more important than the BL/BL screen and I would love to have your thoughts on this, if it is not asking too much. Thanks for your time.

Jim

Jim,

First, I personally hardly ever bet for win horses ranked worse than 3rd (and ties) on the BL/BL screen. I think that's a low percentage game. As to betting 4th+ BL/BLs after hiding a favourite, see the body of this post below. The only exceptions, I think, would be those 4th+BL/Bls with a #1 V/DC rank (indicating excellent deceleration relative to velocity, and relative to the rest of the field) AND who had good supporting ranks in factors which I think are important to today's type of race (e.g. good late and hidden energy figs in a Turf route). In this case, if the odds are generous enough, I have a side bank from which I bet modest sums (e.g. $2 WPS).

Let's look at race #6 from Saturday April 18 at Tampa Bay. I had a (too rare) half day to work and bet some races and I guess I picked a good day and track, as I managed to win several wagers in the first half of the card.

The #1 Maxime won paying $31.20 and the favourite #5 Mac Speed placed at 9/5 ($124.00 Exacta).

Here was the BL/BL before hiding the favourite #5 which was too low to bet for win:

Attachment 15964

Already I am encouraged that the M/L and post time favourite #5 is not top ranked in BL/BL AND that it does not possess stellar (relative to the rest) Late and Hidden rankings (which, though I don't model Tampa - or much of anywhere really - I assume is generically important in Turf routes). The combination of that plus the low odds means: hide this horse for win! So we do, with this resulting BL/BL (i.e. after hides):

Attachment 15965

Some of the other screens with useful tie-breaking or confidence building info:

Attachment 15966

The result is a textbook Wagercapping 101 example.

1. Find the 1st horse for your 2-horse win wager from your top 2 BL/BL, after hides. The Top 2 here (#10 and #3) are tied both in BL/BL and VDC so we check the components. You'd think Late and Hidden energy (blend of 2nd and 3rd fractional energy) would be important in a Turf route and #3 has better than #10 in that department on all of the Velocity, Segments and Energy screens. So #3 is the prime win wager in our synthetic entry win wager.

2. The 2nd member of the win wager comes from consulting the Top 3 BL/BL (again, after hides) and selecting the longest odds horse remaining: voilà the #1 at 15-1, no subtlety required - only hold your nose at its apparent (lack of) form (it did have a workout 7 days ago...). The Late and Hidden energy credentials for the #1 are even better than the #3.

So there are 2 horses for a win wager: #3 and #1. I placed equal units on each to win, and per the opening paragraph above and because the #1 surely was a suspicious looker, I dipped into my side bankroll for a jaunty extra $2 to Place and Show.

I am also working with a small Exacta bankroll as well, from which I mainly make $1 3-horse exacta boxes right now. Here, we add the hidden 9/5 favourite #5 back in to the exacta box 1-3-5 for a lucky $124.20 for $2. In this case, the winner #1 could just as easily have not made it in time, and come 2nd, for a smaller exacta and only the Place and Show payouts. Perhaps someone could have (or did :eek:) produced the trifecta ($668.40) and superfecta ($1286.40) given the above readouts.

This, then, is how 4th+ ranked BL/BL members figure in our wager construction: through hides they become 3rd (or better), or tied with 3rd with superior corollaries (or component factors) after we hide those horses from the mix who will not pay us well if they win. The favourite of course will win 1/3 of the time or better (probably better, the lower the odds). I like to look at that as 'the glass is 2/3 full' (i.e. full of favourites who will fail to win), so if my 2-horse wagers on races with such hidden (and, if lucky, perhaps vulnerable) favourites, as here, have net minimum odds to suit my hit rate, I am happy. Sometimes a horse who appears as murky as #1 Maxime today is indeed a dud. Therein lies finesse and seeking the small clues - or luck. But 15-1 is good insurance against bad luck, or too-clever-by-half analysis.

Hope that answers your original question about 4th+ BL/BLs, and also how the other screens can serve as confirmative analysis.

I won races 1,3,4,5,6 betting 2 horses (better hit rate than normal...) Remind me why I don't bet Pick 3s...:mad:

Cheers,

Ted

Actually Jim, another reason to bet a horse 4th or worse on BL/BL is because that readout co-relates highly to Total Energy (which is NOT the same as velocity to the finish, despite what Mike Pizzolla thinks;)). So, horses who have a dominating, or at least significant energy distribution favoured EITHER by the track, distance, surface OR by today's matchup but with relatively low TE (and thus typically a lower BL/BL rank) should be respected, or given benefit of the doubt at the odds, whatever, despite that BL/BL rank. Here is where the other screens come into play, a symphony standing by, if you will, when required.

In this race, the Segments screen showed #1 Maxime as #2 (close to #1) on Total Pace+F3 (a lovely readout), and this before hiding the favourite.

Other examples which might override low BL/Bl ranks are Segments screen CBL where a horse dominates to the 2nd call (either both RED 0.0 beaten lengths, or GREEN then RED - improving to the 2nd call), as can be sometimes seen in improving Maidens for example. Or, this pattern shows an Early energy horse who can dominate the others.

Another pattern is a Lone Early or Lone Late bar on the E/L graph, despite low TE, or depending on track model, the best of the Earlies or best of the Lates on E/L despite low TE.

A caution: only make these types of decisions (i.e. disregarding BL/BL rank/VDC rank/low Total Energy) after true contenders have been identified and winnowed down to, say, 5 horses, primarily by comparative Total Energy and Perceptor ranks.

Ted