Am I the only one? - Pace and Cap

froggy · 08-13-2007, 03:15 PM

Using RDSS for the contest it is at 76% win betting two horses regardless of odds with an ROI of $3.08.
Yet with the races I normally wager on the results aren't any where near this.
What class races does the program work best with?
What does the equalized, normalized and adjusted have to do with things?
How much of that have to do with Trackmaster and how much of it is Sartinized.
For instance at Dmr yesterday was a blank except for the contest race which I won and I completely forgot to bet the contest.

Froggy

Forego · 08-13-2007, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by froggy

Using RDSS for the contest it is at 76% win betting two horses regardless of odds with an ROI of $3.08.
Yet with the races I normally wager on the results aren't any where near this.
What class races does the program work best with?
Froggy

froggy it seems to me like you have answered your own question.

fwiw there is a race posted above about an 80 dollar plus winner at saratoga. putting in the last turf route line for every horse in that race into energy the 40/1 winner is top total energy and on top of both paradigms.

patience is a virtue i guess.

Rxlawyer · 08-13-2007, 04:10 PM

Froggy:

In my view RDSS is an excellent tool. I am a frequent contest player and I go all over the country entering contests. Last year I made the NHC in Las Vegas and I was using RDSS along with another program. RDSS is a definite part of my regular routine.

From my own experience I know that I do better at contests than I do in regular betting. I think it is because I really make the effort in contests. I am learning to play less races and focus more in my regular betting. Therefore, the real answer for me is operator error. My opinion is that RDSS is an excellent computer program, but you know computers - garbage in - garbage out.

Hope this helps.

Gary L.

froggy · 08-13-2007, 04:26 PM

Forego and RX,

Thanks for your remarks.
I think that you both may be right.
It's just that I find at times I can't miss even on doubtful races and other times are like the time I strongly bet three horses in a six horse field and not one hit the board.
One thing I have to be thankful for is that I am still working with my original $20 that I started with at the beginning of the year.
This is the best site to be on for someone that wants to learn.

Froggy

chris · 08-13-2007, 05:40 PM

You're not alone on this one. My first conclusion was that we're handicapping better races, and therefore experiencing better results. However in this case, obvious conclusions are as likely to be wrong as right.

So why the better results?

I believe the most compelling reason is that we're focussed in our handicapping, and we know our judgements will be out there for all to see; I'm not aware of anyone who willingly shoulders the mantle of buffon.

The lesson for me is to focus on one or two quality races daily. I should be able to keep the intensity turned up for at least two races. I believe that's what it will take for me to move forward.

Regards,
Chris

Ted Craven · 08-13-2007, 09:58 PM

Froggy,

For myself, concentration and more practise selecting contenders and good wagers is where my wagercapping practice needs work. I don't see why all the tools (such as they are, so far) wouldn't work properly over any reasonable group of say 20 races, and that should include the low class races as well as the weekend Stakes races.

Random distribution of events can just sometimes be...random. Even if you tank on 1 whole cycle, there's probably improvements you could observe on review, and I bet the next group averages out for you. The growth of your original $20 bankroll is powerful proof that things are going right for you!

Ted

08-13-2007, 03:15 PM	#1
froggy Grade 1 Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bullhead City Az Posts: 921	Am I the only one? Using RDSS for the contest it is at 76% win betting two horses regardless of odds with an ROI of $3.08. Yet with the races I normally wager on the results aren't any where near this. What class races does the program work best with? What does the equalized, normalized and adjusted have to do with things? How much of that have to do with Trackmaster and how much of it is Sartinized. For instance at Dmr yesterday was a blank except for the contest race which I won and I completely forgot to bet the contest. Froggy Last edited by froggy; 08-13-2007 at 03:21 PM.

08-13-2007, 05:40 PM	#5
chris Grade 1 Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Richfield, MN Posts: 182	Am I the only one? You're not alone on this one. My first conclusion was that we're handicapping better races, and therefore experiencing better results. However in this case, obvious conclusions are as likely to be wrong as right. So why the better results? I believe the most compelling reason is that we're focussed in our handicapping, and we know our judgements will be out there for all to see; I'm not aware of anyone who willingly shoulders the mantle of buffon. The lesson for me is to focus on one or two quality races daily. I should be able to keep the intensity turned up for at least two races. I believe that's what it will take for me to move forward. Regards, Chris

08-13-2007, 04:10 PM	#3
Rxlawyer Grade 1 Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 212	Froggy: In my view RDSS is an excellent tool. I am a frequent contest player and I go all over the country entering contests. Last year I made the NHC in Las Vegas and I was using RDSS along with another program. RDSS is a definite part of my regular routine. From my own experience I know that I do better at contests than I do in regular betting. I think it is because I really make the effort in contests. I am learning to play less races and focus more in my regular betting. Therefore, the real answer for me is operator error. My opinion is that RDSS is an excellent computer program, but you know computers - garbage in - garbage out. Hope this helps. Gary L.

08-13-2007, 04:26 PM	#4
froggy Grade 1 Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bullhead City Az Posts: 921	Forego and RX, Thanks for your remarks. I think that you both may be right. It's just that I find at times I can't miss even on doubtful races and other times are like the time I strongly bet three horses in a six horse field and not one hit the board. One thing I have to be thankful for is that I am still working with my original $20 that I started with at the beginning of the year. This is the best site to be on for someone that wants to learn. Froggy

08-13-2007, 09:58 PM	#6
Ted Craven Grade 1 Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada Posts: 9,251	Froggy, For myself, concentration and more practise selecting contenders and good wagers is where my wagercapping practice needs work. I don't see why all the tools (such as they are, so far) wouldn't work properly over any reasonable group of say 20 races, and that should include the low class races as well as the weekend Stakes races. Random distribution of events can just sometimes be...random. Even if you tank on 1 whole cycle, there's probably improvements you could observe on review, and I bet the next group averages out for you. The growth of your original $20 bankroll is powerful proof that things are going right for you! Ted