Variegate Improvement Project - Page 2 - Pace and Cap

Houndog · 06-21-2006, 07:15 PM

The third Screen

Houndog · 06-21-2006, 07:18 PM

This is what I think what Michael Pizzolla means about the lack of disparity in the second call. AAA, BBB, and CCC are not far apart in MUV.

Houndog · 06-21-2006, 07:20 PM

The final screen

Houndog · 06-21-2006, 07:38 PM

I think you may encounter many races like this where the 0.00 Muv and the horses following it are close. I have to believe the Variegate Predictor will always be other than Early in these cases. In this example I could see where some people might want to use DD6 as one of your win contenders since afterall he is number one PARAGON B. Not to say DD6 never wins a match-up like this, but his other numbers such as his low raw Total Energy and having the highest UXR should give one pause about this horse.

The only way you would really know if DD6 can win with a MUV of 3.01 at 6 furlongs is by modeling this number from your own handicapping. As I said this was an extreme example and some races are not as obvious as this.

As of now I really don't have any ideas on how to improve the Variegate predictor other than this.

JoeLong · 06-22-2006, 09:32 AM

Great stuff, things I had not thought about, thanks. My original thinking when starting this thread centered around the idea that paceline & contender selection coupled with surface & distance switches might be adversely effecting the variegate predictor, and with the proper paceline adjustments the variegate predictor could be improved.

My reasoning was that Energy was first developed on the West Coast under optimal track conditions where they can paint the variant on the wall because it rarely changes. Again, my thinking was that tracks outside of the So-Cal circuit were more challenging due to daily variant adjustments and if the paceline was adjusted and normalized prior to entering it into Energy maybe, just maybe there would be rewards for the effort.

I really appreciate all the deep thinking and sharing that goes on here.

All the best.

JoeLong

Rxlawyer · 06-23-2006, 07:20 AM

Houndog:

I was looking at your screen 4 and I do not think those MUV numbers are close at all. The numbers actually look fairly normal for an average race. DD6 has almost no chance of winning any race because an MUV over 2 (or so) is a definite disadvantage. I find that horses with an MUV over 2.00 rarely win - PROVIDED - and this is a BIG PROVIDED - the 0.00 MUV horse is a true contender with a valid line. Most of the time when I go back and look at a race where a horse with a MUV over 2.00 wins I usually see that I used a bad line (in retrospect) for the horse that earned the 0.00 MUV.

Gary

Houndog · 06-23-2006, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rxlawyer

Houndog:

I was looking at your screen 4 and I do not think those MUV numbers are close at all. The numbers actually look fairly normal for an average race. DD6 has almost no chance of winning any race because an MUV over 2 (or so) is a definite disadvantage. I find that horses with an MUV over 2.00 rarely win - PROVIDED - and this is a BIG PROVIDED - the 0.00 MUV horse is a true contender with a valid line. Most of the time when I go back and look at a race where a horse with a MUV over 2.00 wins I usually see that I used a bad line (in retrospect) for the horse that earned the 0.00 MUV.

Gary

Yes Gary I gave an extreme example in this race. To you as an experienced user of Energy these numbers do not seem close. The program seems to think they are close enough to warrant a S/P variegate predictor, especially in the case of the top 2. As far as a horse like DD6 I used to play horses like this alot when I first started using Energy because of all the 1's in the sort.

I was just trying to illustrate areas where some users may need to look closer at other readouts. Obviously you know by experience and your records what the MUV cut-off point is.

Rxlawyer · 06-25-2006, 10:29 AM

Houndog:

Thank you for your comment. What I was trying to point out is that an MUV over 2.00 is always a bad sign. If the 0.00 MUV horse is a true contender then any horse in any race with MUV over 2.00 is in trouble. Do horses with MUV over 2.00 win? Yes, but not very often. It is a good way to determine to bet against an odds-on favorite.

Gary

06-21-2006, 07:15 PM	#11
Houndog Grade 1 Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,258	Variegate Screen 3 The third Screen Attached Images

06-21-2006, 07:18 PM	#12
Houndog Grade 1 Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,258	Variegate Screen 4 This is what I think what Michael Pizzolla means about the lack of disparity in the second call. AAA, BBB, and CCC are not far apart in MUV. Attached Images

06-21-2006, 07:20 PM	#13
Houndog Grade 1 Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,258	Variegate Screen 5 The final screen Attached Images

06-21-2006, 07:38 PM	#14
Houndog Grade 1 Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,258	The Variegate Challenge I think you may encounter many races like this where the 0.00 Muv and the horses following it are close. I have to believe the Variegate Predictor will always be other than Early in these cases. In this example I could see where some people might want to use DD6 as one of your win contenders since afterall he is number one PARAGON B. Not to say DD6 never wins a match-up like this, but his other numbers such as his low raw Total Energy and having the highest UXR should give one pause about this horse. The only way you would really know if DD6 can win with a MUV of 3.01 at 6 furlongs is by modeling this number from your own handicapping. As I said this was an extreme example and some races are not as obvious as this. As of now I really don't have any ideas on how to improve the Variegate predictor other than this.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Energy Help	shoeless	Velocity Programs	93	05-30-2006 10:49 AM

06-22-2006, 09:32 AM	#15
JoeLong Grade 3 Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 50	Great stuff, things I had not thought about, thanks. My original thinking when starting this thread centered around the idea that paceline & contender selection coupled with surface & distance switches might be adversely effecting the variegate predictor, and with the proper paceline adjustments the variegate predictor could be improved. My reasoning was that Energy was first developed on the West Coast under optimal track conditions where they can paint the variant on the wall because it rarely changes. Again, my thinking was that tracks outside of the So-Cal circuit were more challenging due to daily variant adjustments and if the paceline was adjusted and normalized prior to entering it into Energy maybe, just maybe there would be rewards for the effort. I really appreciate all the deep thinking and sharing that goes on here. All the best. JoeLong

06-23-2006, 07:20 AM	#16
Rxlawyer Grade 1 Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 212	Houndog: I was looking at your screen 4 and I do not think those MUV numbers are close at all. The numbers actually look fairly normal for an average race. DD6 has almost no chance of winning any race because an MUV over 2 (or so) is a definite disadvantage. I find that horses with an MUV over 2.00 rarely win - PROVIDED - and this is a BIG PROVIDED - the 0.00 MUV horse is a true contender with a valid line. Most of the time when I go back and look at a race where a horse with a MUV over 2.00 wins I usually see that I used a bad line (in retrospect) for the horse that earned the 0.00 MUV. Gary

06-25-2006, 10:29 AM	#18
Rxlawyer Grade 1 Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 212	Houndog: Thank you for your comment. What I was trying to point out is that an MUV over 2.00 is always a bad sign. If the 0.00 MUV horse is a true contender then any horse in any race with MUV over 2.00 is in trouble. Do horses with MUV over 2.00 win? Yes, but not very often. It is a good way to determine to bet against an odds-on favorite. Gary