1st 20 race contest cycle

[Ted Craven]

Froggy, Bud, Mufasa,

There were a lot of folks using RDSS, Spec160, Val4 and earlier versions of Sartin's software this past weekend, and even just considering the Pacific Classic (let alone all the other contest races this year) there is STILL such a diversity of interpretations of the same available readouts that I personally have little fear for the general aggregate mutuels. Froggy, even on straight Win betting, you could give back a hefty portion of your ROI and still be doubling your money.

I see the demands for rigourous application of one's own methodology being such that only a small percentage of any software users will make the consistent effort to apply it, and that will further safeguard mutuels. It's like being a brain surgeon, or concert pianist, or a monk - it's so much damned work you can only do it if you're in love, or obsessed (or have high alimony payments.)

Even the most brilliant among us will screw up regularly enough to keep the game interesting for the rest of us. A very good friend of mine, and excellent user of Spec, RDSS and all previous Sartin programs, performed a brilliant analysis of the Pacific Classic - and expertly eliminated the winner. He wrote me: "I love this game!! It's the only one where you can be so smart you're stupid!"

Reports of the sport's demise are overrated, just yet.

Ted

[froggy]

Ted,

Do they really have alimony in Canada?

I marvel at what we have does.
It takes horses from different tracks, surfaces and distances and comes up with a probable winner and is right more times than it is wrong.
I no longer keep track profiles or Brohammer Models.
No more worrying about whether a track is faster or slower or is a different class level than todays track.
No more worrying about par times or whether its muddy or sloppy or poly or turf.
I just look at the corollaries a little and ask "can this horse do the distance and do I have the right odds".
This week will be spent going back over several 100 races to see if I can streamline things some as per your suggestion.

Thanks for everything.

Froggy

[lsosa54]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

Lou,

I think you'd get a lot out of slowly and carefully reading Follow Ups 75 - 88 (in the Pace and Cap Library, write Admin if you need access). Focus on:

- discussion of selecting relevant pacelines (using the Paceline Indicator in Val, now Perceptor in Spec and RDSS),
- elminating to top 5 and ties Total Energy/Primary Line Score (on Val Total Energy and Primary Factors screen - BL/BL screen in Spec and Primary Factor screen in RDSS)
- evaluating the top 3 ranked (or tiered) on BL/BL, seeking corollaries by V/DC ranking, and conformation to your records re Early/Late distribution for the track, surface and distance structure
- hiding, or mentally skipping over horses you won't bet on due to low too odds, though remembering them for exotics
- selecting a 2 horse win box (or a 2 horse entry, or 2 horses to win, etc) comprising your remaining top tiered horse, and the best overlay in your top 3, if you get a worst case resulting net mutuel of 1.5 - 1 (or whatever your records say your edge is) or pass the race if you can judge a legitimate favourite
- setting up a good record keeping system to know how you're doing, where your strengths currently are, what's the next area to focus on; try the wagercapping decision form in the Follow Up, or similar ones posted here and there on this website
- use that record keeping system to seek constant and never ending improvement, every single 20 race cycle; use that as a source of positive endorphins
- if you learn something true, share it with others

Ted

Thanks for the guidance, Ted. Looks like Follow Up #75 was done in the Spring of 1999. My involvement with the Methodology was approximately between 1989 - 93, and I got as far as Thoromation, although I was not successful with it, but that's on me.

I'll start with #75 and slowly go through #88, which I assume is the last Follow Up produced in late summer/fall of 2001.

In your opinion. does the "modern" phase of the Methodology, for lack of a better term, start with Follow Up #75?

Thanks again for the help. Lou.

[Ted Craven]

Lou,

I just noticed an atricle about BL/BL (Bottom Line / Betting Line) in Follow Up Issue #70, and I think there are some articles about Synthesis for TrackMaster in #67 and forward. There was sort of an organic progression from PaceLauncher -> SYnthesis -> Validator I and II, then after Doc, Speculator. You could also scan through those issues as well, looking for discussion about how to interpret the BL/BL readouts, keep track of which tiers winners come from and at what odds (i.e. wagercapping).

A noteable change in program usage came when Doc started using TrackMaster downloads (Synthesis), as he then made use of the Inter Track equalization tables inherent in those data, along with the Daily Track Variant to enable better comparison of disparate lines to each other. The cherry on the cake came with the V/DC rankings and the wagercapping concept, epitomized in Val2 and Val3. (Val4 repaired the 'broken' ITV and DTV formulae, due to TM's 2006 change to Speed Ratings and base units, but is otherwise Val3, unchanged).

Ted

[lsosa54]

Thank you again, Ted. Having the historical progression of the programs helps me put it in perspective. So Speculator, then, was all post Doc and driven by Guy Wadsworth and maybe some ideas he had for improvement?

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by lsosa54

Thank you again, Ted. Having the historical progression of the programs helps me put it in perspective. So Speculator, then, was all post Doc and driven by Guy Wadsworth and maybe some ideas he had for improvement?

Yes.

Perhaps, if you want to continue this aspect of the discussion, you could start a new thread, either here or in the Speculator forum. Lest we wander too far from Froggy's original thesis for this topic...

Ted