Saratoga Race 10

[AwesomeAgain]

Decided to put Speculator to work today. It nailed the winner in the final race. -Newpace had the race designated as pressured low or favoring late running horses. The 11 horse named FOTO went off at 23-1 and gets up to win. The pick 6 for tomorrow has a carryover of $92,000

[Mitch44]

Brian anything worthwhile from any old program is within the new RDSS and these old programs are a waste of time and cause paralyses to analysis. Fuhgeddaboudit.

Mitch44

[AwesomeAgain]

Calling it analysis paralysis assumes I’m confused. I’m not. I’m selecting pacelines to match the projected race demands and testing how those programs interpret them. That’s deliberate work.

If you’ve compared the outputs, found nothing useful, and you’re satisfied with that conclusion, great. What I refuse to do is confuse the limits of your interest with the limits of their value. We can agree to disagree on this.

[shoeless]

Nice job Brian on the race


Jeff

[DanBoals]

Originally Posted by AwesomeAgain

Calling it analysis paralysis assumes I’m confused. I’m not. I’m selecting pacelines to match the projected race demands and testing how those programs interpret them. That’s deliberate work.

If you’ve compared the outputs, found nothing useful, and you’re satisfied with that conclusion, great. What I refuse to do is confuse the limits of your interest with the limits of their value. We can agree to disagree on this.

Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world.
Arther Schopenhauer

Those who can do. Those who can't sell.
Don't sweat the critics, people who are winning are rare, do what works for you.

That being said, having participated in the coding of Synthesis, I personally do better with RDSS 2. I don't have to do the manual entry or the manual record keeping. For me, RDSS 2 is cheap at the price because of the amount of time it saves me. From what I see, the formulas that were in Synthesis are basically the same. If a couple dollars are that critical, I can totally see doing all the time for Synthesis or other old program, but for me, those hours are too much and the cost of RDSS is a bargain in comparison.

What I like way more than the old programs is the old manuals and writings that go with those old programs. Every couple years I go back and reread everything I can from the old days of the methodology. These works are as relevant today as they ever were. I would recommend to everyone that they reread the old writings from Howard and the rest of the Pirco crowd. I am trying to listen to the old audio, but I have bad hearing loss at voice frequencies so it is harder for me than the follow ups and manuals, but this old stuff is a treasure imo.

[AwesomeAgain]

Originally Posted by DanBoals

Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world.
Arther Schopenhauer

Those who can do. Those who can't sell.
Don't sweat the critics, people who are winning are rare, do what works for you.

That being said, having participated in the coding of Synthesis, I personally do better with RDSS 2. I don't have to do the manual entry or the manual record keeping. For me, RDSS 2 is cheap at the price because of the amount of time it saves me. From what I see, the formulas that were in Synthesis are basically the same. If a couple dollars are that critical, I can totally see doing all the time for Synthesis or other old program, but for me, those hours are too much and the cost of RDSS is a bargain in comparison.

What I like way more than the old programs is the old manuals and writings that go with those old programs. Every couple years I go back and reread everything I can from the old days of the methodology. These works are as relevant today as they ever were. I would recommend to everyone that they reread the old writings from Howard and the rest of the Pirco crowd. I am trying to listen to the old audio, but I have bad hearing loss at voice frequencies so it is harder for me than the follow ups and manuals, but this old stuff is a treasure imo.

I do find it interesting that whenever someone else on Pace and Cap posts a race using one of the classic programs, nobody seems to have an issue with it. I post one race, and suddenly I’m being given reasons why people prefer RDSS.

If the older programs aren’t in someone’s wheelhouse, that’s perfectly fine. But I don’t need to be convinced that RDSS is a great product. I’ve used it since discovering the Sartin Methodology, I enjoy it, and it remains my primary platform. My interest in the older programs isn’t about saving money or trying to replace RDSS.

I came to the Methodology late, when most of these programs were pretty much obsolete, so I never had the chance to use them. You mentioned the value of going back and rereading the old Follow Ups and manuals, and I completely agree. My problem was that I never had a frame of reference. I could read about Synergism, EXDC, and KGEN, but without ever seeing or using those programs, I might as well have been trying to learn Russian calculus.

Now that I have access to some of them, I’m learning a lot. When I go back and reread the old material, it resonates in a way that it couldn’t before because I can finally connect the concepts to what the programs were actually showing.

I appreciate your perspective, especially given your involvement in coding Synthesis, and I appreciate everyone’s feedback, especially when it can strengthen my handicapping and improve my ticket architecture going forward.

[teb21]

I agree with danboals - o what works for you. if everyone did it the same way everyone would get the same horses and the odds would be terrible.

The Other Ted

[shoeless]

Brian and Dan good posts, nobody here is saying that the older programs
are better. Bill V put this subject on here to give people a place to talk
about the classic programs and methodology. It's nice to see people still
do care about them

Jeff

[moffett]

I do not know how to post in the forum so i am replying to your recent post. Please excuse the intrusion but it was the only way I could find to offer the information. I have not read any posts regarding the RDSS analysis of this race but feel it is a great example of how RDSS can offer great value. The attached screenshots illustrate this. Note the BLBL ratings had the winner and place horse as the 1st and 2nd rated while the RX3 ratings had the winner rated 1st and the place horse in the top 5. Also, both the winner and the place horse were the only two horses ranked in all 4 Leverage Pace factors. IMO this was a homerun for RDSS. As you can see from the attached result chart it was also a homerun for any RDSS member who used the analysis for betting purposes.
Again, my apologies for this unrelated response to your post but after an hour of unsuccessful attempts at posting this information it was the only way.
Regards,
Moffett

[AwesomeAgain]

Originally Posted by moffett

I do not know how to post in the forum so i am replying to your recent post. Please excuse the intrusion but it was the only way I could find to offer the information. I have not read any posts regarding the RDSS analysis of this race but feel it is a great example of how RDSS can offer great value. The attached screenshots illustrate this. Note the BLBL ratings had the winner and place horse as the 1st and 2nd rated while the RX3 ratings had the winner rated 1st and the place horse in the top 5. Also, both the winner and the place horse were the only two horses ranked in all 4 Leverage Pace factors. IMO this was a homerun for RDSS. As you can see from the attached result chart it was also a homerun for any RDSS member who used the analysis for betting purposes.
Again, my apologies for this unrelated response to your post but after an hour of unsuccessful attempts at posting this information it was the only way.
Regards,
Moffett

Moffett,

No intrusion at all, and I appreciate you taking the time to share the screenshots and your analysis.

I completely agree with you regarding RDSS. It is a great tool and, in fact, RDSS is my primary handicapping software. There is no question that RDSS crushed the race you posted, and your observations regarding BL/BL, Rx3, and the Leverage Pace factors are well taken.

I do want to clarify one thing. The race I originally posted was Race 10 from 9/3/26, while the race you are referencing is Race 10 from 9/4/26. We are looking at two different races.

More importantly, nothing in my post was intended to question RDSS or how well it works. I use it regularly and have a tremendous amount of respect for what Ted has built and continues to support.

Some of us simply still enjoy working with the older Sartin programs because we believe they continue to have value. Programs like Energy, Thoromation, EXDC, KGEN, Synergism, Validator and Speculator can provide a different way of looking at a race and, just as importantly, help us better understand the concepts and methodology that ultimately led to RDSS.

For me, it isn't RDSS versus the older software. RDSS remains my primary platform. I simply believe there is still useful information to be learned and extracted from the older programs, and I enjoy exploring what they can add to my overall analysis.

Thanks again for sharing the race and your observations.