A Disappointed RDSS Evaluator

[trotman]

JimG I have to agree with you. Wilbur here sounds like he wants to get this house built in record time and I can tell you with over 40 years of handicapping you might say I'm still looking at the plans of this house I'm building. The only advice I could give here to Wilbur is learn to work with your tools and measure twice and cut once.

[dlivery]

I my self have much to learn from the rdss but one thing for sure what I have learned is to be patient and relax and move forward this has me thinking about something a long time ago my father told me was with out failure there would not be sucess.

[Ted Craven]

Wilbur,

Firstly - welcome to PaceandCap, and to your evaluation pf RDSS - and great first post, thank you! Next, I must say that you have done something right off the bat which a majority of folks have difficulty with - and that is expressing your anxiety and concerns with your initial success/failure in public (though I see why you chose this Topic to post in).

I would say one of the most difficult things to do is to be self-critical, let alone exposing oneself to potential criticism (even constructive criticism) from others. But the fact that you have done just this - beginning with expressing your doubts and frustration, then opening up to examining your records, seeing what you actually accomplished, checking your commitment to your work (you got the time wrong on a race, etc) - speaks volumes to me about what your mindset is. And that mindset is: someone who has a strong desire and a commitment to find out what a toolset can do, AND to work on yourself to achieve a goal. (I also am aware of how you have chosen to not just tip your toe in these waters, but have jumped in with both feet, so congratulations on intention).

My reading of your post is that you don't necessarily want everything handed to you on a plate up front, and are willing to work. Good - that's the ONLY way it will work. This game will challenge you to understand a central truth of things - that there is no 'other guy' - you are responsible, for everything! The software is a calculator, an assistant bookkeeper or idiot savant in a box, if you will - blithely (and uncaringly) willing to be accepted or rejected by you. The software told me that Blame (and several other horses) looked better than Zenyatta in the BC Classic. Several folks cashed nice tickets on Blame and the Blame/Zenyatta exacta by heeding the readouts. It is MY responsibility for having chosen (and touted!) Zenyatta to win - largely for sentimental reasons (and for knowing her huge 3rd fraction, stretch run ability and reserves). Result: they won, I lost. No one to Blame but me (and I also get the credit for the other winners I did have last weekend - me and my tools).

I believe you (and everyone who does it) is on the right path if you record every single wager decision you make (bet, pass, 2-horses, single horse, win pool, other pools) along with initially a small handful of composite factor rankings of your bet candidates: BL/BL tier, VDC, Total Energy and the Class Rating (CR), especially at the middle to upper class tracks. If you're doing this on paper, figure out what your Hit Rate% is and ROI and thus what net odds from 2 horse (or single horse, when possible) must be to break even. This helps you know what betting situations you must pass on due to too low odds.

But above all, never stop the self-examination process. When you do, you implicitly start believing that someone else is more responsible for your success than you are, and when you deeply believe that, you will not succeed - at horse-racing and probably not at anything else either.

I love the expression: 'you have what you want', which is another way of saying if you keep doing what you're doing, you'll keep getting what you got. To achieve something different, you have to step outside current comfort zones and use your mental and emotional skills in a different way, and maybe also use different tools, OR, use your tools differently. RDSS is not Phase III of the Sartin Methodology: though it evolved from the Brohamer era, and the Energy era. Phase III still works fine, but lots of others now see what it sees, and you have to be a lot more accurate than before to stay even, let alone profitable.

Finally, though RDSS as a tool works well in the hands of someone who takes time to learn and accept what it offers, having a mentor will shortcut the process to learning alone and only listening to one's own advice! I have made this suggestion and offer to everyone, though few seem to have taken it up: don't just brood over a losing cycle of races - first, review them in detail, looking for consistently applied choices which would have resulted in even one, maybe two more hits per 20 race session, or per card of races. Then, post on this bulletin board the series of races you are studying, starting with simply the race identities and your choices, won, lost or passed and net result. Then simply ask a few leading questions: what analysis could I have done differently in this race , how could I have made a better wager decision in that race. (Learning how to post screenshots speeds up the feedback and learning process).

While it's true, we are all in competition with each other for the winner's slice of the mutuel pool, some of us also have a strong desire to share, to teach and to grow the game by introducing its glories, its potential profits and its opportunities for self-knowledge to those who are interested.

You sure seem like you're on the right path - may I encourage you to keep it up, focus, expect to take some time, ask for help, share you process like you've done so far.

All the best,

Ted

P.S. As for my mother being a 'plant' - well if that's true, she planted herself and now I can't get rid of her . Plus, she only does what I tell her part of the time anyway

[Rverge]

its a grind, a grind . like a job, everyday a grind. no matter what pencil/paper,/software/system/service one uses.

[clore1030]

I use RDSS in combination with a Decision Model. I have a fairly rigid method of determining pace lines and use the TE, DCL and primary factors (plus BL/BL) in my model.

By distance, I look for price when top rated factors are apparent. I just a few minutes ago caught a 26 dollar horse at Aqueduct. At 7 furlongs, Turntime was the primary factor in my model - 67% winners. I'm such a discerning spot player that this was my first wager at Aqueduct so far this meet.

In the fifth race today, my model says to bet the 6 horse. The top categories so far at AQU at six furlongs have been DCL, LPR and HID, all hitting at 67% so far this meet. It just so happens that the 6 horse is number one in each of those categories and he's going off at a 15/1 morning line. I've passed on races where a different horse might be top-rated in each of those three categories, too much guesswork.

This method of mine was determined after much trial and error, and while I'm a single horse bettor, I haven't had a losing meet in a year-and-a-half. I had one Belmont meet where I only managed 22% winners but managed a profit as I was getting decent prices.

In doing things as I do, I may be in violation of many of the Sartin guidelines, but in the end, it's my money on the line. I've gotten flack from some around here who are perhaps a bit too in awe of certain practitioners, but I go with my own plan. I'm still using Sartin-methodology based tools, I've just adapted them to the way that my own brain analyzes the data and my own wallet is comfortable. If I lose, I have no one but myself to blame. What I've come up with is based on my own "mind's eye" of what I've researched, but RDSS has been a heaven-sent tool because it's sensibly priced and it's design made it easier for to to discover what works for me.

As to your mom Ted, and the claim that "she only does what I tell her part of the time anyway" endears her to me even more. If she's discovering something that works for her, she's my kind of thinker.

EDITED TO ADD
My 6 horse in the fifth ran a fast-closing second and while I lost the wager, I'm content that my adaptation of the method did accomplish part of its original intention - it puts me on live horses at decent prices.

[wilbur porter]

Yes to everyone who has taken their time to reply. You all are correct and I understand that it does take time. I do not blame it on the Rdss - so far I have determined that it and the Sartin methodology are excellent tools compared to other methods that I have used. On the contrary, I am impatient with myself and that is more "my character flaw". After reading Ted's response and others, it becomes apparent even more that the lack is not in the method or software but in myself - so I am determined to stay the course and "listen" - something that is most difficult for us to do these days...a little humility. Thanks Ted, JimG, and Rverge.

[SilentRun]

Hello Wilbur,

Sorry I got to this thread late but I would recommend that for anyone that is new to the Methodology to first focus on specific sprints only.
(5F, 5.5F, 6.0 & 6.5).
I feel that they are easier to analyze because horses are primarily bred for speed
not stamina. The early horse usually wins these sprints. One of the above posts mentioned that currently the winners for Aqueduct 6F were late.
Of course late horses win sprints but my records show that the majority of sprint winners are early.

Since there are different factors that dominate for sprints, routes, turf, maidens it is easier to focus on one of these categories when starting with RDSS.

The factors that I model for sprints are early speed F1, Second call (SC), E/EP,
EPR , E/L graph, TT and %Med. You can even start out by playing only claiming and allowance races.
Different factors usually dominate for Turf routes such as: TE, DCL.TPP, LPR and HE.

So I recommend start out by playing and learning to win with one of the categories above.

Ernie

[wilbur porter]

Thank you most graciously for the tips Ernie, After re-readiing your reply again I received some more insights - that is, on another level. I had handicapped Aqueduct in the past, particularly the sprints as early pace and have used the Brisnet Track Stats - but the track did seem a little slow last week. But again your point about which factors to use for the various distances is exactly what I have started working on more in depth. Your reply was synchronous. I've paid too much attention to the stat books and other's pace quotes. Appreciate it!

[gandalf380]

I have been very fortunate that for one week each of the last two Saratoga meetings, Ted and his mother have been my houseguests in Saratoga. I have seen close up that Barb has no preconceived notions towards horse racing and thus she applies the principles of the Sartin Methodology to the best of her ability. She does the work, keeps the records and has a fair amount of success. One of the problems with using a computer to handicap is the inclination to get bogged down in too many factors because it is so easy to look at so many things. During the seminar this past summer, I personally handicapped two stakes races for the group. One was post-race and one was pre-race. Both of them were very easy in my eyes because I did not get bogged down in too many details. I figured out who was going to be in front and could they be caught. (A variation of what Jim Bradshaw used to say constantly.) By keeping it simple, both winners jumped out at me and I made money on both races. Keep it as simple as possible. If it looks like a complicated race, there is no sin in skipping it. With simulcasting, there is always another race somewhere in a few minutes.

[wilbur porter]

Thank you for your remarks. It makes a great deal of sense. Synchronicity, as I have been feeling that way. I had used the I Ching (I believe that Jim Bradshaw spoke of it as well) and got the hexagram "Decrease", which I interpreted as "Keep it simple and small" when asking about what more I should or could do. It seems that this may well indeed be at the core of the Sartin methodology. It seems that there is much needed work to gain proficiency, but perhaps it is so easy to complicate things as well - perhaps being so intent on looking at the horses run, watching the posts, the jockeys, the spray of dirt and mud amidst the pacing hooves- but not seeing the race. It is difficult work. In Indian religion they use a word "Maya". It's like building floating sand castles in the imagination. But alas, here I go on. Thanks again. Wilbur