RDSS 2.1 Factor Statistical Study

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by RichieP

Hi Ted
May I ask if this is right:
CSR is also distance (S/R) influenced in creating the number? I ask because I am betting only longer priced horses and a LOT are not top 5 CSR. I dont even look at that rating anymore (looking at all tracks, surfaces with minimum of 8 betting entries when I have time to wager).

Also a caveat I feel is needed here: since Nov 14th I have bet a total of only 45 races, I PASS a ton of races that dont look right to my Mind's Eye if you will and I am doing very well achieving a 40% ROI without rebates win betting only.

Saying this because in no way am I attempting to put down all the hard work that its creator has done on it

Please this is not meant as a redboard but todays 8th race at Oaklawn is a perfect example of my opening paragraph. $16.80 wire to wire winner is nowhere on CSR yet figures in some way,shape or form if one were to start at the bottom of the pp's and work there way up/

YES the last races were sprinting and the race today was a 2 turn mile and this horse did ALL its winning routing.

Can you please clarify a bit whats up?
Thanx for ALL your hard work!
Richie

Hi Rich - this will probably be my last post for a few days (taking off to your fair country for 2 weeks ). The CSR is not really distance related - it uses the projected-to-today's-distance Adjusted Speed Rating and does a weighted composite of the last 4 of those, emphasis gradually declining as we go back in time.

However - I completely agree that that particular race - maybe many of the races you are working and winning - are won by other means in the 'big tent' of Sartin Methodology/Matchup. By my reckoning, there are approximately 17 (or 71 ) ways to get various races - some used on the same race by different people and getting the same winner - some other races (or particular kinds of races) lending themselves only to being won by certain analyses.

In the OP race you cite, someone looking for an Early horse who could dominate the other Earlies (including slowing down sufficiently to still stay ahead and throw the other Earlies off their preferred position) might have clearly landed on the #8 winner. I see different tools for different practitioners. The use of a collection of aggregate factors like CSR (and its involvement in the Rx) in no way invalidates the Matchup (haha - as if). That horse also showed the largest E/L Early stick (as did several of its other pacelines going all the way back to its deep past) - so, I would like to think that if I was (or if any astute person was) paying attention to fundamentals (i.e. the Matchup) they would have clued into that horse. Maybe not - who knows.



I guess my question is (a rhetorical question) - because some races can be won by the means cited above - does that mean that NO races should be looked at by means suggested by the weight of stats Bill has gathered, and as portrayed in the BLBL screen and (perhaps) the upcoming Rx Line Scores? I suspect there are enough races for BOTH approaches - sometimes at the same time.

Some approaches allow you to play A LOT more races - some less so. Each method is valid for a particular person's temperament, IMO. I salute your focus on the races which work for you - and your winning record lately!

No problem with any point-of-view you have taken here - and no problem if - on balance - you choose to 'kick to the curb' the CSR or ANY other factor. It's the winning, the thickness of the wallet, and the enjoyment and sharing of good times which is the measure of things (IMO )

Continued success!

Ted