Need Help Finding the Win Bet

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by Bill V.

Is RDSS just calculating the 1 5 7 and 8
as the only 4 horse's in the contenders BLBL ?

In Validator If you hid the 3 6 and 2
Validator's BLBL would calculate the
race with just those horse ( 1 5 7 8 )

I don't have the card or know your config settings si I can't try this myself,
But if you just did not enter a line for horse
3, 6 and 2 would the BLBL be the same
as what you show here?

Attachment 36422

Yes. The Primary group is calculated without reference to the other groups. The other groups show what the ranks were when those lines were in the Primary group (i.e. so you don't forget about them, so you can see the tote for them).

Ted



And, as always, these are my Settings.

[Ted Craven]

Don, replies in blue text:

Originally Posted by CaptDon100

Thanks Ted This is great.
1.

Are you getting that from the RS screen or the Original Screen, where you highlighted the Fractions. By the way, those highlighted numbers in that screen
do they have a track variant on them, is it raw numbers, that will be different
from track to track.

I modified some of the Running Styles from what the program initially calculated. If it runs 1st the first call or 2nd fighting for that lead (within .5 lengths - i.e. along side the leader) - it's Early. When you do that, the Running Styles show up on ALL screens.

Those Early horses are what I check a Projected Pace on. Not the fastest 1st fraction - just the fastest among the Earlies (and EPs if any). Yes the times on the Original Screen are RAW, no variant. Usually that's good enough to identify a) too much pressure b) an Early who cannot get the lead or who will 'die' trying (and take other Earlies down with it). Sure, some tracks with a longer run-up will look faster than others with a shorter run-up, and I guess you have to know a bit about that. But checking several lines for horses, not just one recent one, you usually get the drift if an Early can dominate or survive the other Earlies using the Projected Pace tool.

2.

Yes, I didn't follow FTL 90 days and I know that?

Don, it's a useful guideline, however if a horse has previously shown in can return first asking and win or finish very close, and if it was working at regular intervals, perhaps with some good Workout Patterns, and especially if it was a good price - I would be somewhat liberal with that 90 day guideline.

3.

The 3 and 6 are still getting back in shape, is it because there last line, that is their 1st line back and they could not finish

I meant - those 2 horses are returning after 100+ days and this race is where they're working themselves back into shape. It was their last lines - and their reaction to it - which put them on the shelf. Many horses need at least a race. Where there are sufficient PPs, look to what they did before for guidance.

I understand this, If it was a snake it would of bit me

Also, how do you tag a non contender, I use the ITM for that

Segwin answered that. But to recap - if you have a paceline selected but NEITHER the Win or ITM Contender boxes checked on either the Entries Screen or the horse's PP Header - they will appear in the Non-Contender group. Use the Secondary Group (ITM Contender check-boxes) for horses who you want to retain for 2nd-4th contention - OR to visually retain their 'counter-energy' readouts (i.e. for Place status).

Thanks for all for taking the time to post and thanks Ted

A pleasure! Let me know if you still need help getting images to appear in your posts.

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by Segwin

Ted, didn't you make a video once of how you went about the process of paceline and contender selection?

Terry, I made a few videos Not sure which might have been about pacelines specifically ...

In this case, re pacelines - it was simple: use BLT/C (best of last 3 comparable) PSS setting (the default). I poked around a bit to see if my eye identified any chosen lines as truly 'non-comparable' to today's surface and distance structure. Also checked for last line excuses (#5).

The most important changes I made from programmed choices were:

a) the Earlies Running Style markings (getting the software better at that, but not the current circulating version)

b) Identifying the long layoff horses as non-win contenders (partly due to the layoffs, but also partly due to their compromised Early Positional tendency - the #3 and #6).

These steps are pretty much what I do regularly (it is programmable).

Maybe I should make another video.

cheers,

Ted

[Bill V.]

Thank you

Ted I think that you have added a very powerful tool
and thank you for the good work up on Don's race

Bill

-

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by Bill V.

Thank you

Ted I think that you have added a very powerful tool
and thank you for the good work up on Don's race

Bill

-

Bill, instead of 'hiding' lines (i.e. removing them) - this is what I have called 'hiding in plain sight'

Ted

[Bill V.]

Ted

This is a good feature, because in Validator Doc said to "hide the favorite" for win bets only.
to do this it only happened when you hid a horse you took away its pace line.
Then in Validator you had to re- enter a line for the favorite
to see how it ranked and ran on the early late graph if you wanted to bet
exactas and trifecta's so this saves a step for sure.

Bill

[lone speed]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

Further to my comments above, please consider the following line selections and contender identifications:

Attachment 36407

Attachment 36408

Attachment 36409

Attachment 36410

There are 4 Early horses in this 7 horse race, and 3 of those are arguably Fighters (they are inclined to go head to head for the lead). Question #1: do the Early horses suffer ANY compromises? (YES).

Question #2: Have any of the 3 horses returning after 100+ days off shown they've been able to win first back off such a layoff? (NO). Are they compromised? (YES) In other words, are there any negatives to mitigate that they will perform just as well as they did in their chosen pacelines? (YES - plus the traditional stats, see FTL's writings, about percentage of Winners returning after > 90 days off).

Question #3: Does the #5 horse have an excuse for his last race poor performance? (YES - 'bumped start, 2 path', per the Trip notes; also it was a route). Forgive that last race, especially as he's returning in 17 days (trainer thinks he's fit). Then try using any of his other previous 7 races (though the 2nd race will do) - you will find that he stays in 3rd position on the BL Odds line = a contender at good odds. He closed very well in the Nov 22 Tandem against the #7 and #1 horse. Allow that that Tandem may reverse. 10-1 odds is excellent insurance against the possibility that it doesn't.

The Early horses can ALL match each others' Fraction 1 times, causing some of them to try to exert more energy to attain their preferred lead position than they can spare (and especially the #3 and #6 who are still getting back into shape).

The OTE horse who runs positionally closest to the fastest pace is the #5. It IS a contender. For all the foregoing reasons, I make the #6 a not-for-win contender - PLUS, it will only pay us 5/2 or 2-1 if it wins despite the drawbacks it faces.

Thus, regardless of whether you make the #1 and #7 non-win contenders due to the Earlies getting wiped out, the #5 is your primary OTE horse and deserves to be one of your 2 win bets (some might say the ONLY Win bet).

For your consideration ...

Ted

Ted already presented a great "work-up" of this race so I don't want to beat a "dead....."

I will try to keep it simple as this endeavor is challenging enough...The best "Matcher" was Jim Bradshaw, hands down! But on this board, we have RichieP. Pete C, and Capcondo...just to name a few...

We cannot be self-absorb in rankings, especially the top rankings....Who is number #1 in V/dc or on B/L......You have to take into consideration how they earned the rankings or final times...Keeping in mind that final time (raw or adjusted with the best speed figures are not the answer to the matchup puzzle)

Bradshaw stated that using One-fifth or one tick of energy early creates a lost of two-fifths or two ticks late (in the final time adjusted for the loss of energy)

So first call (loss of one-fifth) results in the loss of two-fifths in final times.

In this matchup:
#7 is the fastest to the first call at 22.0...

what happens then....

the #7 will cause the #3 and the #1 to run 3 ticks faster at the first call and the #6 who came off a race on the poly surface which are run like turf races. #6 will have to run more than one second faster since he ran his last race in 23.3 and 46.6 on the lead. So all these early horses will be force to use more energy early at the expense of losing their closing ability in the last fraction of this 6 furlong race.

In this readout by Ted, the #1 horse is clearly the best of the early front runners but will not be able to run his final time from the last paceline of 1:10.5 since he will be forced to run 3 ticks faster early at the first call. So to use Bradshaw's "formula", he loses at least 6 ticks on his final time.

Like Ted stated, we are looking for an OTE horse with the abundance of early pace runners in this matchup.

May the better match up posters carry the baton from here...

Good skills

[Appy]

That is really impressive borodin. I like it.
Only thing is I think you are using unadjusted fractions to denote POR. As I understand it the only true numbers (as shown) for the first fraction are by horses leading at that point in their chosen line. All others need to be adjusted by 1/5 per beaten length.
I'm sure you already know this, but you can make that adjustment by entering the line fraction number shown then left clicking for each 1/5 you want to slow it to the actual pace that horse ran. Right clicking speeds the POR time by 1/5 per click. That way you can get adjusted times to use for comparison without going to the adjusted screen which no longer shows your matchup POR.

Is that correct?

[borodin]

Originally Posted by Appy

That is really impressive borodin. I like it.
Only thing is I think you are using unadjusted fractions to denote POR. As I understand it the only true numbers (as shown) for the first fraction are by horses leading at that point in their chosen line. All others need to be adjusted by 1/5 per beaten length.
I'm sure you already know this, but you can make that adjustment by entering the line fraction number shown then left clicking for each 1/5 you want to slow it to the actual pace that horse ran. Right clicking speeds the POR time by 1/5 per click. That way you can get adjusted times to use for comparison without going to the adjusted screen which no longer shows your matchup POR.

Is that correct?

I didn't know that the highlighted numbers could be adjusted that way.

I don't trust the internal fractions on the adjusted time screen, except to give me a barometer of a generally faster track (i.e. Turf Paradise) vs a generally slower track (i.e. Mountaineer).

I look to see what PoR the horse ran well off of.. When I figure out what the pace of today's race is, I look at each horse and see if it can run well against that or a faster pace. If it ran well against a slower pace, I see if recent races show it running well against today's pace. When I know which horses can run well against today's pace, I then see how many horses run early and match those against each other. Sometimes I throw all of them out. Then I look at the non-early (OTE) horses and see which one had the best move against this pace or had any kind of move against a better pace. I then figure what position they'll be in today and if they can run well from that position---I believe it's called "comfort level" here.

In the race above, I figured #3 and #7 would go for the lead, with #3 quitting, and #1, which could sit in 3rd, a good spot for it, would challenge #7 at the second call and probably wear that one down. From there it was a question of whether the effort/energy #1 used to get to the lead would take enough out of it for #5 to go by in the stretch. My instinct told me that #5 would arrive too late to catch #1, making #1 a good bet at 5-1, but at 10-1, #5 was still a decent win bet. Had 5 been 4-1 or lower, I probably wouldn't have played it.

[Appy]

You're doing very well, IMO. I think you have accomplished more in less time than I did.
It's just that I think those raw fractional times can be misguiding in a matchup attempt where differences can be slight. But they're easy to adjust for beaten length by noting their running line position to the right of the fractional times.
I LOVE that feature of being able to enter your POR fractional times at top of form. Those times though, even adjusted for beaten lengths, still don't address differences in track deviance for times from various tracks in chosen pace lines. I believe that difference (as well as surface) IS addressed once you switch to the adjusted screen.

I only mention all this because I'm just like all students trying to get better at incorporating all this info and use of the software.
As for this race, it is THE RACE where I ceased actually trying to play anything and just capped the races to see what happened relative to my top contender choices. That turned out to be my best choice of all.