How to resolve this conflicting informtion?

[Mitch44]

I'm sure no one would like to go backwards. Your efforts Ted are notable, everyone is well aware of your great contribution and without those efforts we would be unsuccessful.

The Doc said that individuals see things different, so in order to have that light go off in their brain he used different approaches. Some get it through numbers ,some by graphs or sticks. Individual wish lists are nothing more than a desire for clarification a crying out for help for clearer understanding. The Doc was always improving and moving forward to enhance and not to regress. I'm sure no one meant any direct insult or to disparage you in any way.

In any relationship the road is never smooth but a bump here and there or a disagreement should never be a dead-end. We all trust your judgement and guidance as we're all just wired a little different and looking for that light switch in a dark room.

All my best,
Mitch44

[shoeless]

I would like to know what is the main difference in using the program as RDSS with the default or as Validator

[Mark]

Yes I am aware of that. Ted was kind enough to send me a little program to sidestep the protection mechanism on my disk but honestly, I haven't used it.

I like just about everything in Thoromation/Kgen. However, the triangulated variant adjustment based on Total Energy disparity required only entering "True Contenders". Back then I was not really all that good at separating the wheat from the straw.

As I have read this thread and seen Ted's response and the direction of this new update, I can't say that I am all that pleased. Modeling and Database mining hold no allure to me. If I wanted to do that I would have stayed with Ken Massa and his Maxvel, HTR and Robots. But he is not interested in supporting the needs of Matcher's beyond the software he currently provides. I still feel that what Ted is offering in the current RDSS2 program is the best Matcher software available.

Remember, you don't have to upgrade from the current version of RDSS2. Ted has made that clear. So you should always have the Val4 format.

[Bill V.]

Hey Mark
I really appreciate your comments . I am kind of glad you mostly want to stay with matching. Let those old program go if you have any issues. You are one of the best matchers I have seen, You have helped me
improve how I look at the early pace and how position at the second call is so important. Thank you Mark.

Bill

[Ted Craven]

What, huh? No one said anything about removing Val4 Compatibility Mode. Please re-read what I wrote. I would never do that.

My comments related to the disputed 'purity' of the readouts shown when using Val4 Mode, as compared to what was found in Doc's last Validator program. I described the things many people like in RDSS which do NOT appear in Validator, and mused what it would be like if those things disappeared in the process of adhering to 'what Doc left us', 'why tinker or improve on that, leave well enough alone', etc, etc.

I can't believe that hardly anyone would want to lose that list of items for the sake of dogmatic adherence to what Doc left us. I assure everyone - every factor and readout from Val4 can be found in RDSS - number for number exactly. And always will be.

Plus more ...

Plus I think I've already replied to concerns about 'data mining' and decision model and track profile keeping: different strokes for different folks. If you want the HTR Robot for data mining, just get HTR.

Ted

[Rivegauche610]

What do the red and blue lines under the position numbers mean, please?

[Mark]

There is a write up about this in the release notes written by Ted. You need to read all this stuff. Between the release notes and tutorials, again written by Ted most of your questions will be answered.

As I read them long ago and my memory is fuzzy, the gist of them are:

Red: indicates a wide trip, the bolder the line the worse the trip.(you may want to read Calibration Handicapping by Jim Lehane, which I believe these are based on.)

Blue: indicates a POWER MOVE which is a Bradshaw term indicating passing multiple horses during one pace segment. However as used, I think it also includes visually impressive moves of a horse drawing away from his nearest competitor.

[Ted Craven]

Thanks Mark - indeed you are right! A collection of 'moves' against the leader, either gains or position or gains of lengths. Some of these are Jim Bradshaw's 'power moves'. Some other of these came courtesy of Jim Lehane from his Calibration Handicapping book.

Here is the Release Notes PDF which documents this: http://www.sartinmethodology.com/pub...ease_Notes.pdf Please see Point #3

For reference, all RDSS2 Release Notes from earlier versions of RDSS are found in the ... RDSS2 Version Release Notes Thread in the RDSS Info/Reference Forum, or in other version marked Threads in that Forum. There is a link to this Documentation Forum from the Help Window within RDSS.

[Mark]

Shoeless,
I believe that the Val4 format was derived from the beaten length formula developed in Kgen and Thoromation where the value of a beaten length matched the number of half furlongs in the pace segment. In other words, in a quarter mile the value of a beaten length was 4 ft, a half mile was 8 ft. The distance of the final fraction determined the value of the beaten length, again 2 furlongs, 4 ft, 2.5 furlongs as in a 6.5f race was 5f, all the way up to 7.5f which was 3.5 furlongs was 7ft.
The logic behind this was as follows: in the shorter segments early in the race the horse was fresh and full of energy to the value of a beaten length was less than later in the race. In the final furlong horses are decelerating and beaten lengths gained or lost are a combination of closer gaining ground and leader losing ground.
The result was that Doc recommended as Bill mention not to use a paceline with a beaten length total of 7.5 lengths as it would skew the readouts.

I spent months figuring this out back in the day. It was all trial and error. Doc gave me a little program for making pars and in conjunction with Thoromation I was able to determine these values. I wa also able to accurately predict the Running Style that Thoromation projected from each paceline using what they called Par Median and final fraction velocity. I don't know that this has ever appeared in print before. It was a huge amount of work but I threw the computer away that had it on it when I moved years ago.(Original Dumb Ass)

[Ted Craven]

This is essentially correct for Val4, except for some of the F3 and Final Time beaten length values. If that was how Kgen and Thoromation applied beaten lengths for purposes of calculating Velocity, Doc must have made some adjustments to that formula by the time he got to Validator (or perhaps even earlier).

Particularly in distances longer than 8f, excessive beaten lengths are undervalued, thus F3 and Final Time (i.e. TS True Speed) velocities are inappropriately fast (i.e. over valued). Hence the 7.5 length rule for Validator and RDSS Val4 Mode.

So - 4 ft per beaten length per half furlong per segment and Finish, except F3 and Finish in 6.5f, 7f, 7.5f and all distances over 8f - in which distances beaten lengths are valued at 5 ft. I don't explain it, or endorse it. I just code it.

In Default Mode, ALL beaten lengths are valued equally: 8.333 feet per beaten length. Thus, Final times and F3 times and velocities fairly represent bad lines (i.e. high beaten lengths). And good lines. Thus in Default Mode, no need to worry about beaten > 7.5 lengths skewing readouts.

The valuation of beaten lengths at different call points and segments is the main difference between Val4 Mode and Default Mode. There are a few other minor computation rounding differences between modes.

Just to clarify any confusing info given previously, displays of data in RDSS2 (which are calculated differently between Modes, as described above) are the same regardless of Mode. In Validator's Incremental Matchup Graph (same as right side of RDSS Segments screen) the Panel labeled 3F + Total Pace is in fact the VDC rank (and not what the label says, not Fraction 3 added to True Speed / average velocity beginning to end). In RDSS, it is ... well, 3F + Total Pace (or TS+F3, same thing). Total Pace = True Speed: same thing, different labels. In RDSS, the VDC rank is instead shown under the Segments Column VDC #. The VDC% in RDSS - the underlying velocity relative to deceleration ratio complex - is not shown in the old DOS Validator; only the VDC rank which is merged with the BLBL rank, hence the ties. VDC% is simply the underlying VDC number with highest value = 0.0% and all other numbers expressed as differentials from best.

FWIW, in Validator (i.e. the old DOS program, not RDSS Val4 Mode) - EPR/LPR and TPR values were not shown, only ranks and Early/Late Differential. Doc wanted it simpler. Blame me for adding detail. (But that's a different story ...)

Hope that helps (though I usually find that the above info confuses just as much as it clarifies).

Ted