VDC Ties/Separation Discussion

[Ted Craven]

This thread is a VDC-related continuation of another thread which wasn't really initially about VDC. (http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?p=73598)

Here might be a better place to continue the VDC part of that discussion

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

Congratulations Bill, and a job well done!

Do you believe the 0.0 % V/DC horse(s) was any improvement on using the V/DC rank #1?

Ted

I moved some replies related to VDC from that thread to this one.

Ted

[kenr3138]

Hey Ted:
My opinion, the answer is yes. It reflects the differences between VDC rankings but more important it separate the ties within each rank. This is key in using VDC with the
positions of the horse icons in the third frame of the Segments Tab in RDSS1 & soon to be in RDSS2.
The horse to beat is the best VDC/POH(TE).

Ken

Ken

[rmath]

Ted, I went back and checked the races where I had a tie for top and found that the 0.0 % horse beat the other tie over 75 % of the time.
The use of the percentile ratings appears to be a good way to separate ties.
I was going to ask Bill V. if he got similar results when he had ties in the top rated position?
I am now recording these rankings along with the VDC rankings to get a more accurate read on ties. Also noticed that if the 0.0% does not win, it places more often than the other tied horse.
I have also noticed that a second or third VDC horse at times will have a lower % difference than a higher rated Vdc horse. Example a 3 vdc has .9% and a 2vdc might have a 1.4% . So would this imply that the 3rd ranked horse is actually better than the 2nd ranked horse?

[Ted Craven]

Richard and Ken,

I think the VDC % versus rank # addition to RDSS2 needs a bit more discussion, both usage and exactly what is being referred to, and what Doc Sartin was thinking (as best I see it) in the whole VDC thing.

Richard (or Ken, or both), could you post a screen example of a Segments screen showing the VDC numbers, ties % and # ranks (either the same one you refer to, or analogous) and I would be happy to comment on what we are seeing (and perhaps what we are not seeing).

I suspect some people are either misinterpreting what's being displayed, OR there are new and valuable ways of utilizing it which should be examined.

Here's a reference to an initial discussion about how I am portraying VDC %, distinct from rank # in RDSS2: http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7595

Ted

[Ted Craven]

To recap, the VDC rank (from Val4 and RDSS1) is the better rank of BL/BL or the actual VDC factor - that's where ties come from, and Doc Sartin's idea was to consider 2 such equally ranked horse as EQUAL and to separate (if needed) based on bet-time odds. V/DC is derived from a fairly complex calculation (paceline dependant) which measures deceleration relative to velocity during several segments of the race - see FU 70 - 72?? for Doc's white paper on VDC and some early readouts.

Richard, now that we can see the % diff of the actual VDC factor (on the Segments and Primary screens) and see the actual rank of that factor (and not just the merging of VDC+BL/BL, which we have traditionally seen), what I hear you saying is you think the actual VDC factor is stronger than the merged factor, so much so that (when you need to) you just go with the better actual VDC factor to separate tied VDC ranks. Did I understand you correctly?

And Ken, I hear you saying you focus on combo of best VDC rank and PoH Total Energy. Correct?

Again, someone put up a screenshot with some ties to discuss, and I am happy to clarify anything.

The research on the utility of the underlying factor (and Bill V's, as well) is worthy of much more study!

Ted

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

Richard and Ken,

I think the VDC % versus rank # addition to RDSS2 needs a bit more discussion, both usage and exactly what is being referred to, and what Doc Sartin was thinking (as best I see it) in the whole VDC thing.

Richard (or Ken, or both), could you post a screen example of a Segments screen showing the VDC numbers, ties % and # ranks (either the same one you refer to, or analogous) and I would be happy to comment on what we are seeing (and perhaps what we are not seeing).

I suspect some people are either misinterpreting what's being displayed, OR there are new and valuable ways of utilizing it which should be examined.

Here's a reference to an initial discussion about how I am portraying VDC %, distinct from rank # in RDSS2: http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7595

Ted

Ted,
As you know, I am not an RDSS user, so I cannot speak to the ranking of VDC, per se. However, I rank a myriad of factors and have found over hundreds of thousands of races that the numeric difference between a horse ranked #1 and a horse ranked #2 is not the important factor. The fact that one horses' number is higher than another horses' number is all that is needed, regardless of the spread in that number from one horse to another. I just wanted to add my experience with rankings of numbers vs. the difference in value of those numbers for whatever value it may be to you. Whether or not this will hold true with VDC is yet to be decided. Best of luck with however it works out for you.

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

Ted,
As you know, I am not an RDSS user, so I cannot speak to the ranking of VDC, per se. However, I rank a myriad of factors and have found over hundreds of thousands of races that the numeric difference between a horse ranked #1 and a horse ranked #2 is not the important factor. The fact that one horses' number is higher than another horses' number is all that is needed, regardless of the spread in that number from one horse to another. I just wanted to add my experience with rankings of numbers vs. the difference in value of those numbers for whatever value it may be to you. Whether or not this will hold true with VDC is yet to be decided. Best of luck with however it works out for you.

FTL,

So, when second call velocity = 56.61 fps for horse A and 56.59 for horse B, horse A has rank 1 and horse B rank 2 - a gap of .03 - are you suggesting that horse B ranked 2 is none-the-less equally inferior to horse A in that factor as in a different scenario when the second call velocity gap between the top 2 horses is much larger (say, 56.61 to 56.0) ?

In the first case, the velocity difference is likely completely attributable to chart caller error (was that horse behind 2.5 lengths or 2.25 lengths). Or, is there a certain minimal gap above which you start to consider the ordinal ranks to be absolutely definitive, regardless of the numeric value gap between ranks?

In general, I hear you suggesting that gaps between ranks are (relatively) unimportant. That would be a different way of approaching final contender analysis than I employ.

Ted

[Bill V.]

Hi Ted
I didn't see this thread I posted my first answer in the Survivor post

Here is a example were the 0.0 horse method helped

This is the Smarty Jones G3 from Parx on Sunday I Bet the 5 and 3
The 5 Won!

The 5 is the 0.0 the 3 is close 2nd then ther is a gap to the 9 and 10 then the 1

This clears for me the BLBL

and make the 5 and 3 top 2 on blbl the clear bet choice


GS
Bill

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

FTL,

So, when second call velocity = 56.61 fps for horse A and 56.59 for horse B, horse A has rank 1 and horse B rank 2 - a gap of .03 - are you suggesting that horse B ranked 2 is none-the-less equally inferior to horse A in that factor as in a different scenario when the second call velocity gap between the top 2 horses is much larger (say, 56.61 to 56.0) ?

In the first case, the velocity difference is likely completely attributable to chart caller error (was that horse behind 2.5 lengths or 2.25 lengths). Or, is there a certain minimal gap above which you start to consider the ordinal ranks to be absolutely definitive, regardless of the numeric value gap between ranks?

In general, I hear you suggesting that gaps between ranks are (relatively) unimportant. That would be a different way of approaching final contender analysis than I employ.

Ted

Ted, I'll send you a PM.

[rmath]

Ted, I sent two attachments from race 6 at Del. from yesterday.Hope you got them.
They show an example of what I was referring to.
I am new to doing these attachments. Please forgive me if they did not get there.
I sent them thru the email notice.





** I attached them to your post. (FYI, all you have to do is click the 'paperclip' icon to add attachment files to your post - give it a try!) - Ted