V/DC Question

[AwesomeAgain]

I have a question for the Validator users who have had real success with it.

I have been going back through the later Follow Ups, especially Issue 85, where Sartin explains Probability Convergence. He describes V/DC as the point where multiple factors are combined, reduced, and weighted into one final readout, specifically saying they are never merely averaged.

That got me thinking.

Was V/DC, in your actual Validator workflow, essentially the final arbitration factor once you had selected proper pacelines, hidden the non-contenders, and let the program establish its hierarchy?

In other words, did you view TE, TPP, FX, FW, EPR/LPR, CPR, and the other readouts as the individual evidence, while V/DC was the final weighted synthesis of that evidence?

And if so, how much of V/DC’s effectiveness depended on getting the pacelines right before anything else?

I am starting to believe that V/DC was never meant to be just another column on the screen. It was intended to be the program’s final convergence point, assuming the right horses and the right lines were fed into it.

Would love to hear from anyone who used Validator profitably and trusted V/DC as the final decision maker.

I use Rdss in Val4 Emulation mode and I am starting to look at V/DC differently.

Brian

[shoeless]

Brian

If I may ask, why do you use RDSS in Val4 rather than RDSS

Sorry I am unable to answer your VDC question

Jeff

[ray lopez]

Brian,

These were according to my notes that i wrote when i talked to Doc after getting my Val2.
He also gave me a free copy of the Validator Manual,which i have used a lot specially after Trackmaster changed their speed ratings.It rendered Val2 useless after that...The new Trackmaster speed ratings were programmed by Ted to work on Val4.

According to Doc,in the Validator I can ignore the TPV and TDC. The V/DC was the most important column...In the Primary Screen,it was the combination of Total Energy,EP,SP,CPR,HE,FX and the Primary Line Score Ranking all weighed together to get the final V/DC ranking...
But i do not believe it was the 'ultimate' readout in the Validator program.I agree more on the conclusion of Mark Cramer after he concluded his tests with real money that the BL/BL
was the most important.I included the last "Farewell" race at Aqueduct yesterday,race 9...
I went with BL/BL and bet #4 and #2.( I made a mistake when i checked later that the #2 had a Balance of 9 and i should have used the #6 instead,although i still won with #4...even i had my win bet winner,but missed giving my wife her exacta win...So i go more with the BL/BL as the final decision maker when it comes to making that bet.

[ray lopez]

I have made changes to the VAL 2 program with the help of a friend for my own use only of which i prefer to use the Full Variant ,not the half variant in Val4.I cannot share that VAL2 copy out of respect for the Doc and Guy Wadsworth.

[ray lopez]

Val2 can now use the current Trackmaster speed ratings as shown in this screen shot and using the full variant.

[ray lopez]

here's VAL2...

[ray lopez]

the V/DC with all the primary factors weighed in to make that final V/DC ranking.

[AwesomeAgain]

Originally Posted by shoeless

Brian

If I may ask, why do you use RDSS in Val4 rather than RDSS

Sorry I am unable to answer your VDC question

Jeff

Jeff, fair question.

I use RDSS in Val4 emulation because I’ve found the readouts align better with the way I handicap races, particularly when evaluating pace pressure, energy distribution, and race shape.

A major part of my work involves NewPace, which I use to project the likely pace of race and stress level a field will encounter. NewPace helps me determine whether today’s race is likely to be soft, transitional, pressured, or severe, and once I understand that projected demand, my focus shifts to identifying which horses have previously demonstrated the ability to operate efficiently within similar environments.

I’ve found Val4 often gives me cleaner separation in the factors I rely on most particularly TPR, FX, FW, Perceptor, and V/DC which helps expose horses whose past performances may contain stronger underlying efforts than the running line alone suggests.

Val4 simply complements that approach better for me.

That said, I don’t believe mode selection alone creates an edge. Proper paceline selection, contender identification, understanding race demand, and disciplined wagering matter far more than any software setting.

I also prefer Validator’s use of variable beaten lengths, because I believe it captures fractional energy distribution more accurately than a fixed model. In pace-intensive races, those small differences can help reveal hidden efforts that may not be obvious from the running line alone. This one reason why I'm envious of you guys (in a good way) because I never had the chance to use it. I think I could really do well if I had it.

[AwesomeAgain]

Originally Posted by ray lopez

Brian,

These were according to my notes that i wrote when i talked to Doc after getting my Val2.
He also gave me a free copy of the Validator Manual,which i have used a lot specially after Trackmaster changed their speed ratings.It rendered Val2 useless after that...The new Trackmaster speed ratings were programmed by Ted to work on Val4.

According to Doc,in the Validator I can ignore the TPV and TDC. The V/DC was the most important column...In the Primary Screen,it was the combination of Total Energy,EP,SP,CPR,HE,FX and the Primary Line Score Ranking all weighed together to get the final V/DC ranking...
But i do not believe it was the 'ultimate' readout in the Validator program.I agree more on the conclusion of Mark Cramer after he concluded his tests with real money that the BL/BL
was the most important.I included the last "Farewell" race at Aqueduct yesterday,race 9...
I went with BL/BL and bet #4 and #2.( I made a mistake when i checked later that the #2 had a Balance of 9 and i should have used the #6 instead,although i still won with #4...even i had my win bet winner,but missed giving my wife her exacta win...So i go more with the BL/BL as the final decision maker when it comes to making that bet.

Ray, thank you. That helps clarify something I was trying to understand.

What I’m hearing is that V/DC and BL/BL served two related but distinct purposes within Validator.

V/DC appears to be the major probability convergence factor on the Primary screen, the point where multiple energy and velocity measurements were reduced and weighted into a single ranking. In that sense, it was never just another column, but rather a major synthesis of the underlying evidence.

BL/BL, however, seems to function more as the final wagering decision screen, where those rankings are further contextualized and ordered for actual betting decisions. I used BL/BL to find out which horses were overbet relative to BL/BL. Personally, I think more people need to understand the value that brings to wagering and ticket construction. But I play more horizontals than verticals. Vertical mainly on the turf and tapeta.

That distinction makes a lot of sense to me.

It also reinforces something I strongly believe: none of these readouts can overcome poor paceline selection or weak contender identification. If the wrong horses or wrong lines are fed into the program, even the best convergence model becomes compromised.

Using RDSS in Val4 mode along with NewPace, I’m becoming increasingly interested in V/DC not simply as another rank, but as a survivability metric, a measure of which horses can best sustain usable energy relative to race demand.

That may be where its real power lies. Or am I way off?

[ray lopez]

I think in your RDSS setup.since you are using VAL4 mode you have the option of using the Full or Half Variant.