Evd race 1 for 5/13

[SilentRun]

Ted,

I hand caluclated the race and I came up with the same EE - LL but I have differences for rrSe for the # 4 and # 8 horses as follows:

For the # 4 horse:

From RDSS original the horse was within 1 length of the first call:

4/29/11, 1/14/11, 7/28/10, 5/7/10 and 3/10/10....5 x's = 50
E/L 2.0 shows 60.

For the 8 horse he was only within 1 length of the first call on 12 sept 10
therefore he should receive a 10. E/L 2.0 shows 20.

In using Dave's New Pace Developments to modify the EE - LL horses.

My interpretation is: There is no dominant horse that has a 58% over the 2nd horse and the #5 horse does not have at least a 25% edge himself then:

There is no need of a POR. So according to the New Pace Developments there
is 0 (zero) early horses.

Therefore my interpretation for 3. SPEED RATINGS FOR EARLY are now based on RegSpeedHigh The 2 and 1 are tied for speedreqhigh.

I am using my own method to break ties and going with the 2 because:

a) The 2 ranks higher early than the 1.

b) The 2 was up close in its last race finishing 2nd whereby the 1 was off 55 days.

c) And RDSS ranks the 2 as BL/BL =1

So my EE - LL are: 2,10 - 3, 6

Ernie

[Ted Craven]

Ernie,

I'll have to review this and get back to you later tomorrow, I'm gone for the evening.

Note, that anything Dave S wrote this past weekend on an updated approach to NP is NOT a part of EL 2.0 yet. The calculations of speed points is unchanged though, so if you have some differences from what EL 2.0 shows, we can look at that for sure.

Ted

[SilentRun]

Originally Posted by SilentRun

Ted,
Therefore my interpretation for 3. SPEED RATINGS FOR EARLY are now based on RegSpeedHigh The 2 and 1 are tied for speedreqhigh.

I am using my own method to break ties and going with the 2 because:

a) The 2 ranks higher early than the 1.

b) The 2 was up close in its last race finishing 2nd whereby the 1 was off 55 days.

c) And RDSS ranks the 2 as BL/BL =1

So my EE - LL are: 2,10 - 3, 6

Ernie

The 5 won and paid 13.80 the exacta was 5/1 and paid 55.60 for a buck.
I missed a nice exacta payoff boxing the 2-5-6-10.

The 2 bolted somewhere around the top of the stretch and the 1 picked up the pieces. I''ll consider this bad luck not knowing if the 2 would have been up there.

Ernie

[SilentRun]

Happy to say I hit an exacta in each of the races 4, 5 and 6 and also caught a 14.00 win in race 5.
In each case I used the top 3 or 4 BL/BL with the 4 EE-LL horses from 2.0 and selectively eliminated horses based on my personal evaluation.

So I will continue to use RDSS in conjunction with E/L 2.0 and track the results.

(Using RDSS in conjunction with TX did not work out and I have since abandoned it.)

Ernie

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by SilentRun

Ted,

I hand caluclated the race and I came up with the same EE - LL but I have differences for rrSe for the # 4 and # 8 horses as follows:

For the # 4 horse:

From RDSS original the horse was within 1 length of the first call:

4/29/11, 1/14/11, 7/28/10, 5/7/10 and 3/10/10....5 x's = 50
E/L 2.0 shows 60.

For the 8 horse he was only within 1 length of the first call on 12 sept 10
therefore he should receive a 10. E/L 2.0 shows 20.

In using Dave's New Pace Developments to modify the EE - LL horses.

My interpretation is: There is no dominant horse that has a 58% over the 2nd horse and the #5 horse does not have at least a 25% edge himself then:

There is no need of a POR. So according to the New Pace Developments there
is 0 (zero) early horses.

Therefore my interpretation for 3. SPEED RATINGS FOR EARLY are now based on RegSpeedHigh The 2 and 1 are tied for speedreqhigh.

I am using my own method to break ties and going with the 2 because:

a) The 2 ranks higher early than the 1.

b) The 2 was up close in its last race finishing 2nd whereby the 1 was off 55 days.

c) And RDSS ranks the 2 as BL/BL =1

So my EE - LL are: 2,10 - 3, 6

Ernie

Ernie,

Horse #4 was also beaten .7 lengths on 12 Nov (though position 4). Horse #8 was also beaten .9 lengths on 12 Nov (though position 6) -same race, actually. Don't forget to count these as well, even though not top 3 positions.

Your tie breaking method seems valid enough if you apply it consistently. RDSS came up with the #1 only because program #1 comes before program #2 (not a very good tie breaking system!) I looked at it to see if I should change to the #2 (both having the same 76 Hi SR) and decided to leave it with the #1 because the #1 had better recent Total Energy #s than the #2 and against faster paces of race than the #2.

This last logic is subjective on my part (so far) but I made it in searching for the 'best intrinsic rating' of the 2 horses, which is apparently what you did as well - only you came up with the other horse! No worries.

Hope that helps!

Ted

[SilentRun]

Ted,

Thanks for the feedback....yes, I was only counting the color coded horses.

Tie breakers are important and making the right decisions using criteria that
stands up over time could mean the difference between profit and loss.

Ernie