Rmath's 4-factor Method - 'from the top'

[rmath]

Ted, I ranked the 2 and 6 as equals because the 6 only had a 3 in the 4 numbers and the 2 while only having 3 numbers one was a two.
My order was 1,4-5-2,6 making the 2 & 6 tied for 3rd.
In reality you are right in your rankings ( by the numbers) I allow a little room for judgement when it comes to separating my 3rd 4th and 5th ranked horses.
Just remember that any horse with 3 or 4 ratings will win 80- to 85% of the races.
Richard

[Mrbill]

Played yesterday at Saratoga and had a terrible day. Non-contenders won a few races which screwed up the works. This game will definitely keep you humble.

[rmath]

Mrbill, I had a similar day at GP, but on most days the numbers will hold up.
Richard

[Mrbill]

Richard;

I had a question for you. This is one of the races I lost yesterday. This is the fourth race at Saratoga. When you do the eliminations, the winner Sky Kitten is not in the contender group. However, the horse looks very good in the 3rd section (PF3, TSF3, etc.). I haven't seen this very often so far, but it blew up my pick 4 ticket. What are your thoughts on handling horses like this?

[rmath]

The horse you are asking is a longshot horse.
If you read LT1s post on a longshot he hit on last week you would understand .
While 90% of all winners are in the top 5 Profit Line OR Prime Power ratings about 5% of the non PL or PP horses have a VDC/ CSR rating and should be checked out before totally eliminating them.
Hope this helps.
If you would like to discuss this in a little more detail give me a call.
Richard
330-627-4097

[rdiam]

I will let rmath answer regarding his method, but in any race consider those with the top 2-3 SR or those within 1 point of the top 2-3 worthy of a second look. You also might consider analyzing a horse's form cycle: in this case, the line 3 back was a "new top" (to borrow a phrase from the "Sheets" guys). The horse then reacted and ran poorly in the race 2 back in a NW1, and in its last race it was circling back around with a quality race at this class level. Using the last race in your analysis would show this horse to have a significant closing kick running sustained. Finally, there was a positive jockey switch to Franco. All of these together would indicate to look a bit more closely at this horse.

Richard

[Dorianmode]

Originally Posted by Mrbill

Richard;

I had a question for you. This is one of the races I lost yesterday. This is the fourth race at Saratoga. When you do the eliminations, the winner Sky Kitten is not in the contender group. However, the horse looks very good in the 3rd section (PF3, TSF3, etc.). I haven't seen this very often so far, but it blew up my pick 4 ticket. What are your thoughts on handling horses like this?

I never use the non-contender feature of RDSS. I want to look at every horse, and make my own decisions. Sky Kitten was #2 in VDC, (so much for "syndicates" betting them), it went off at 17/1. Just using my simple "all track" turf route profile, she was #2 in both my contender profile, and my win profile. If you look at the various (other) paceline combinations she's also up there, as 2 or three, in many of them, (and you *could* be keeping records of which of the *other* paceline selectors work best in that particular race type.) She was also # 2 in my personal version of CSR, which I described a number of years ago. The Track Master speed ratings (adjusted) are well worth using systematically, (which is what I use to make the CSR). They are of help in some races, but not all. My final contenders were 2,8,6. I dutched the 2 and the 8. Besides the traditional CSR, the class ratings we get from Track Master are useful, as we can see how successful the horse was (SR) in what class ranking (number). So there are various ways they could be "combined", or used together. In this race, there is a sort of "hidden" class advantage in the 2 and the 8, which one might not notice, unless you look closely, or have a tool to do that. I find BPP and PL are nice, but not anywhere as good as the profiles you can build for yourself using only RDSS. We don't really know what the models are that either of them use, (the stats are available in a few places, and in one you can even make your own).
Has anyone every done a study to determine which of them does best in what sort of race ? One needs that information. My only point is that RDSS (plus Excel) has all the tools necessary to do above 50 % one horse betting, and in the 70's and 80 % two-horse win betting. This thread is great, as using a structured handicapping and betting method is great.

[Mitch44]

Great reply Richard.


Mitch44

[Mrbill]

Great replies guys and I appreciate your insight. My plan of attack is to first use my track model to identify contenders, use the 4 factor method to further weed out the non-contenders, then do a check of the other factors such as positive jockey switch, etc. I'm going to make myself a note on items to look for so I keep focused. I'm a very firm believer in the saying "think long, think wrong. It is my belief that contender selection should be a fairly quick. I'd rather put the focus and time on bet construction as this is very important for horizontal players.

[Mitch44]

Good analysis Dorianmode.


As far as Bris Prime and Profit they are effected by class just as any other factor, or in other words the better class of races and horses the more predicable.

The RX factors like any factor won't get all winner in the top 5. It does capture about 90%. The mistake here was making the horse a non contender with great readouts. The RDSS program will get some horses that Prime or Profit won't and Prime and Profit will get some horses that the program won't. The combination of Prime and Profit with the program factors produce more winners than just the program itself.


Mitch44