Quote:
Originally Posted by rmath
Has anyone of the RDSS2 testers had similar results?
|
And just for the record, anyone using the existing version of RDSS (0.99.2) can answer this question as well, as RDSS2 produces the
same numbers for BLBL, VDC, Velocities and Energies.
For this card, I did not run it through a paceline selection/analysis process - I didn't have the time (and also I didn't bet the races that day).
I accept that you can't bet 4 horses to win, nor 4 horse Exacta boxes (most of the time). Schwartz recommends a betting strategy accompanying his NewPace material (and in his Basics of Winning wagering strategy course).
I don't have any tested advice (yet) about how to bet those NewPace contenders, but your observations about winner
90% of the time within those 4 contenders is a good starting point! I believe you can apply some Matchup principles and an energy analysis to the #1 Early horse to determine when it
will not win (hint:
a lot of the time) which leaves you with 3 horses for the Win position and 4 horses (plus maybe a 'price-only' horse) for the other vertical wagers.
I also believe that with proper paceline selection, you can rely on the Top 4 BLBL tiers and the top 3 and ties VDC ranks to produce the winner
85% + of the time. You can win and lose different races using either method consistently. Perhaps a
portfolio concept is in order: one bankroll is bet according to EL 2.0 (NewPace contenders) and one bankroll according classical Methodology practices. Similar to how you might invest some of your total financial portfolio in large cap stocks, some in commodity-related, some in income-producing, etc, etc - and accept the average of the collection of approaches (diversification).
Ted