|
Google Site Search | Get RDSS | Sartin Library | RDSS FAQs | Conduct | Register | Site FAQ | Members List | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read
Previous 'Handicapping Discussion' Forum General Handicapping Discussion |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
01-08-2010, 11:43 AM | #1 |
Grade 1
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 311
|
Is lower balance number always better?
I don't usually pay much attention to this feature of the Sartin software - when I get down to three or so contenders, I find they're often tied. But I've been noticing something lately that made me ask this question. My understanding was that a lower balance is always better, but it seems to me that when I do check this readout, more often than not, the winner is often 5 or when not, 4, rather than higher or lower numbers. I seem to remember reading that distance also affects the interpretation of balance, so I'd appreciate anyone who's knowledgeable on interpreting this readout.
|
01-08-2010, 12:24 PM | #2 |
Grade 1
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 8,853
|
BJ,
'Balance' in later Sartin software is the sum of the E/ep and L/ep ranks. These factors were considered improvements on the older EPR and LPR measurements of Early and Late energy distribution (and I think they are). Thus a lower Balance number shows, relatively, a good E/ep and not an unreasonably poor L/ep, or the converse - i.e. unless there are overwhelming matchup considerations (too many Early energy horses, or lone Early energy) you want a balance of energy distribution. However, when there are only 4 or fewer horses to rank, the Balance can only be 5 or less. More useful in my opinion are the components of Balance, i.e. what is the rank of E/ep and what is the rank of L/ep and how are either of these biases in energy disbursement (if a given line is representative of the horse's general and current energy style) advantaged or disadvantaged given today's matchup. Perhaps Balance is useful when trying to eliminate non-contenders (Doc said Balance over 8 are non-contenders), but you'd need 8 horses ranked to get a Balance over 8 (e.g. E/ep rank 1 and L/ep rank 8 = Balance of 9) and surely this is redundant to Total Energy, Primary Line Score and Perceptor Total when trying to eliminate to 5 or fewer horses in a contender set. So Balance is not a big readout for me. But E/ep and L/ep surely is, plus their aggregate - TPP! Cheers, Ted
__________________
RDSS - Racing Decision Support System™ |
01-08-2010, 12:36 PM | #3 | |
Grade 1
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,014
|
Quote:
with 4 horses you can have balance of 8 (4th best e/ep and 4th best l/ep =8)
__________________
"Grampy I'm talking to you!" Last edited by RichieP; 01-08-2010 at 01:12 PM. |
|
01-08-2010, 01:35 PM | #4 | |
Grade 1
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 8,853
|
Quote:
But I'd sure like to see any other rationale of how Balance info is useful in ways these other readouts are not. Ted
__________________
RDSS - Racing Decision Support System™ |
|
01-08-2010, 11:37 PM | #5 |
Grade 1
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,014
|
I am sorry I can't be of help regarding balance info when only 3 contenders are left.
I am actually working with a new user regarding balance and will report his findings in time. Funny this thread shows up now I can offer this info based on MY line selection and remaining 5 contenders. This has been consistent for over a decade in tracking this: 1) The "perfect horse" or one that has a balance of 2 wins far LESS than it should based on the readout strength. The line that projects this is often an extreme peak for the runner and is rarely duplicated. 2) Balances of 9 or 10 are throw outs for the WIN 3) Overwhelming majority of winners are Balance 4-5-6
__________________
"Grampy I'm talking to you!" |
01-09-2010, 01:24 PM | #6 | |
Grade 1
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 311
|
Thanks, Ted
Quote:
I wasn't aware of the elements that comprised 'balance' and I appreciate your filling me in on this. When I'm looking for ways to get from 3 to 2 contenders, I've been noticing this more often, and what I'm finding more or less jibes with what Richie's saying below - lower is not better past a certain point. Although this is tentative, I'm curious to know whether this points in the direction of being a variable with a degree of independence rather than one which is subject to the kind of multicollinearity you mention. Of course, when they are tied, it is just that, and its use is nullified. In any case, I will keeping tracking this more carefully. Thanks again. Cheers, B Jennet |
|
01-09-2010, 01:38 PM | #7 | |
Grade 1
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 311
|
Thanks, Richie
Quote:
What you say here about the winning range of balances matches my own experience, although I haven't been tracking this for long, and comes as kind of a surprise. I was under the impression that lower is always supposed to be better, but clearly that isn't always the case, likely for the reason you mention. The order of winning balance that has seemed most prevalent to me is 5, 4, {3,6}, 2. As you can tell, I'm still unsure about the relative frequency of 3 and 6, but if your experience says that 6 is stronger, I'll go with that. One thing that blew me away yesterday provoked this post - I was down to two horses that were difficult to separate. I happened to notice that one had a balance of 2, the other 4. On the odds, I could only pick one, so was going to pass the race, but then thought - 2 rarely seems to win - I went with the 4, which won. This is, of course, worthless as evidence, but made me want to consider taking this readout more seriously. Thanks again for your help. Cheers, B Jennet |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Items on BL BL screen and Pace Balance speed | CC Brown | RDSS | 19 | 03-28-2011 05:12 PM |
Fun Number Contest Gift Shirt | Bill V. | Golf Shirt Contest | 20 | 10-04-2009 11:10 PM |
The predictive e/l balance | Tim Y | General Discussion | 41 | 01-14-2009 01:22 PM |