I joked with Bill V about his using RDSS1 to illustrate paceline analysis in the 'Older Sartin Programs' Forum (since RDSS2 is too new to render RDSS1 an 'older' program just yet
). But I understand it is easier to deliver details to make a point. I will use RDSS2 to deliver mine, but the details would be the same in at least RDSS1, and possibly many earlier programs, give or take adjustments.
Re paceline selection, I try to follow (at least) 2 main principles:
1. Consistency of method
2. Conservatism (don't use the best line if a worse one will do just as well - this builds in 'reserve' ability, or ability to perform better than rated)
3. Be demanding (yet not too demanding) of current form (my 3rd of 2 main principles ...)
Here is the horse in question and its position in the mix of others chosen on, hopefully, a consistent ranking approach (generally, Perceptor Total/Total Energy from last 3 lines or so):
It's last line was not its best ever (3rd best - line 5 was best, also as per KGEN). If you use the 5th line, it ranks the horse on Top. I don't need the horse to be ranked on top to bet it - I'd like it to be ranked in the Top 3, that's good enough for a 2 horse wager based on odds offered.
As usual, analysis of a single horse is not done in isolation. If I use the 1st line, it ranks in 4th position but then I would not be making consistent line choices on all the other horses. I believe that when making decisions in a
current race, I am really making decisions in 20 races similar to it. If my decisions in this race result in a loss (or a non-winning wager decision) I really want to know if the analogous decisions would lead to me winning money over the subsequent 20 races - I want to keep my decisions consistent because the outcome of any particular race is certainly not consistent.
Which then leads me to think of the principle of Conservatism, but which also leads me to make a judgement call on the horse which outranks our #7 horse when we use its (inconsistent) last line, which is Alydar_David's #6 The Elevator. Here is the picture using the 1st line (a conservative choice, i.e.
not its best of last 3) for the #7 and a view of the #6:
I don't like the fact that this #6 horse emits
declining Total Energy despite pretty consistent Pace of Race TE, I don't like that it runs consistently
less early positionally in each of its last 3 races, I don't like that its E/L Differential sticks are
so Early (I don't have a 6f model for energy disbursement for LRL), and I don't like that its Morning Line is 8/5 yet it is not higher ranked given consistent paceline selection for everyone else. For me, this is a horse which could surely finish in the money, but I want more from it, at 8/5 ML, to consider it a Win contender. (And I'm irritated that I can't figure out how it even
qualified to run in its last race: a non-winners of 2 since April 29
)
SO - excluding #6 from Win contention (either hide it or regroup it) - elevates our #7 horse back to Top 3 position despite using a conservative line (its last line) to rank it.
I know this analysis employs specific readouts of RDSS to make the point, but it would be the same in Val, Spec, likely Sythesis and PaceLauncher at least. Now we wait to see what odds are offered on our top 3 to see if a wager is available. Using ML odds, I would image that the #2 is one of them and likely #1 the other. I think #7 may have some 'splaining to do regarding his 43 day layoff, despite his interim good workout.
But I think this illustrates some of the
principles I would use.
Re using mostly last lines, Jim, I do tend to start out hitting that 'last line' button and reviewing it closely, but I am cognizant that
everyone else out there is doing that too, and decisions made on that basis (I imagine) will tend to produce generally lower mutuels than going back a bit further on a consistent basis.
The bankroll tells the tale ...
Ted