Go Back   Pace and Cap - Sartin Methodology & The Match Up > General Discussion
Mark Forums Read
Google Site Search Get RDSS Sartin Library RDSS FAQs Conduct Register Site FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts

General Discussion General Horse Racing Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-05-2020, 10:41 AM   #21
Ted Craven
Grade 1
 
Ted Craven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 8,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmath View Post
Race6: First the 3 & 7 are both scratched.
second I listed the 2 & 5 as tied since both had two # 2s.

As a result of the two scratches there were only 5 horses running and all 5 contenders had all 4 ratings. In cases with only 5 horses running I hace found that 85+% of the time the winner has a 2 or lower in the 4 Factors.
Richard
Sorry about that Dick, I thought I had eliminated all scratches from those races, but I re-assembled and must have missed Race 6

Name:  4F.GP6.png
Views: 1831
Size:  35.3 KB

Now, it sounds like you're saying, when comparing Rank #2s, unlike when comparing Rank #1s when the PL/BPP #1s outweigh the VDC/CSR Rank #1s, in this case 2 horses with 2 Rank #2s as the 2 and 5 horses have - they should be treated equally (and not the #2 outweighing the #5 because its Rank #2s come from PL/BPP).

Is that correct?

(It is clear why the 1 horse is the next in line (Tier C) and not the 4 horse: it has more Rank #4s compared to the 4 horse's Rank #5s.)

Ted
__________________

R
DSS -
Racing Decision Support System™
Ted Craven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2020, 11:13 AM   #22
rmath
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,676
Ted , Yes in this case these two horses are tied.
What I have found in my study of several thousand races over the past 4 or 5 years is that the placement of the 1s & 2s is very important.

A 2-2 in vdc & csr OR PL-PP has a higher value than a 2-2 ranking in CSR & PP.
Why I do not know, but the thing that matters most is which set wins the most races.
It has taken me several years to discern this suttle difference, but it has paid off when looking at DD, p-3,4,5 and p-6 plays.

Richard
rmath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2020, 11:36 AM   #23
Ted Craven
Grade 1
 
Ted Craven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 8,853
Thanks Dick. To summarize (so far) -

Rank 1-1s in PL/BPP outweigh Rank 1-1s in VDC/CSR.
Rank 2-2s in PL/BPP are equal weight to 2-2s in VDC/ CSR (the outer 2 factors), but both outweigh 2-2s in CSR/PL (the inner 2 factors).

Correct?

For completeness - I presume that 1-1s or 2-2s which are adjacent (VDC/CSR or PL/BPP or CSR/PL) outweigh non-adjacent 1-1s or 1-2s. Non-adjacent combos would be:

VDC/PL
VDC/BPP
CSR/BPP

For example, a horse with 1-1 in VDC/CSR (adjacent) outweighs another horse with 1-1 in VDC/PL (non-adjacent). Or, CSR/PL 2-2s (adjacent) outweigh CSR/BPP 2-2s (non-adjacent). Etc.

Correct?

Ted
__________________

R
DSS -
Racing Decision Support System™
Ted Craven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2020, 11:50 AM   #24
rmath
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,676
Ted, the difference from a 1-1 Vdc- Csr and a 1-1 PL-PP is only about 3%.
I only separate these when it occurs in a race and both horses post time odds are very close.
It is really a judgement call. IN the P-6s I use the ML.
Dick

Last edited by rmath; 08-05-2020 at 11:52 AM.
rmath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2020, 02:56 PM   #25
rmath
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,676
4 Factor method

1. Eliminate all horses with a Profit Line or Prime Power rating above 5.
these are your main contenders.
2. Run the contenders thru RDSS and go to the RX3 screen and eliminate all contenders with less than 3 of the 4 ratings.
# From the final contenders look to see which horses have the 1 or 2 in their ratings.
these are the primary win horses.
Richard
rmath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2020, 06:52 PM   #26
RichieP
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,014
My opinion

Hi Ted,
First off if I think all of this "picking of Richie M's brain for specific bet structuring and working toward EXACT duplication" of his method should stop right here and these are MY reasons:
1) unlike the Matchup taught by Hat Bradshaw ( which is completely subjective based entirely on user interpretation) the "4 factor" method can be duplicated to the largest extent and used by MANY to land on the same horse(s). Structuring and some small nuances garnered by YEARS of freakin work by Richie are all that is left to "chance" or user choice and it should stop right HERE.

2) The most important reason:
I have known Richie for a long time and he uses this for his PROFIT to take care of his family and himself. Sharing his innermost ides (and he will help virtually anybody) is going to cost him without question on his profit bottom line. For WHAT?? so folks can turn on a machine and access all his hard work by a click or 2? or checking a post for exact breakdown of bets to be made? Or some syndicate can put together proper bet structures and take cash again out of his pocket? See whats happening with racing for the past years with the computer teams, smaller prices, rebates and the like??

Respectfully,
Richie
__________________
"Grampy I'm talking to you!"
RichieP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2020, 07:35 PM   #27
Lt1
Grade 1
 
Lt1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Valley Stream NY
Posts: 9,041
Hi Richie. Like you I have known Rich M for 30 yrs. He is without a doubt one of the hardest workers and nicest person on the site. Many don't know that he won enough money to build a house for his family. He was the king of Mtn where he was known as the computer man. Doc published many of Richies' signers. Today he continues to work hard perfecting HIS 4 numbers system. I think you are spot on when you point out how many would take advantage of his work and cheat him of his just rewards. Everyone on this site has the ability to become a winner if they will only do the work.You and other veterans here did just that and reaped the benefits of you work. I think if people want his approach they can deal with him directly. Thanks for posting your thoughts my friend.
Tim
Tim
__________________
Trust but verify
Lt1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2020, 08:11 PM   #28
Mitch44
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
I concur 100% with Richie P. and could care less about any RX4 Factor. What I would like to see is the existing problems of scratches, crashes, incorrect rank ordering of Prime. ability of updating scratches and getting Profit and Prime to update. etc. fixed and taken care of rather than something new. A new set of tires isn't going to get you down the road if the engine etc. is flawed. Priorities should be existing problems not something new. These ongoing problems have been ongoing for far too long. A user should not have to wait for everything to be updated to solve problems. The laymen / new user loses money behind these problems in the interim and priorities should be to the user.


Kindness is often taken as weakness and rather than any more exploitations I agree with Richie P. that it should stop here. One should design their own betting plan. He has a right for all his hard work to hold some things or cards close to the vest. Finders prerogative and if something is not in a written contract it doesn't exist.


Mitch44
Mitch44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2020, 08:42 PM   #29
Ted Craven
Grade 1
 
Ted Craven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 8,853
Is all this addressed to me? The one who is 'exploiting' Rich M? Please take this argument to Rich M: it is HE who wants to share it and agreed to help me document it.

Rich M - did I coerce you and fail to notice? If so, just say the word - no problem!

Should I also remove what's on the Rx+ screen so it will not be unduly exploited? What about ProfitLine and BRIS Prime Power, or everything post-Sartin? I think most of Sartin's stuff has been pretty much baked into a lot of the mutuel prices these days (maybe except VDC and some software-enabled Matchup concepts like deceleration and E/L balance/difference).

Richie P - your comments about Rich M's method causing anyone to land on the same horses is no different than any other set of factors in RDSS (BLBL, VDC, Rx, etc). It has not yet been proven that his 4 Factor method is any better than Rx3 or BLBL: maybe it is, maybe not. No one knows unless it is DOCUMENTED so someone can gather stats and duplicate what Rich M has gathered. Even betting the Selections he has posted is not yet a guarantee of profit, nor is the Rx line, etc. Am I wrong?

I agree the software needs updating. I cannot work on that 7 days a week - as a break, I am doing this too. Re 'Rx4' or anything else new - no worries, I can keep that for myself.

Who else here votes that I abandon this 4 Factor documentation project and just leave the method closely held, as it has been over the past several years?

I will defer to Rich M to elaborate - or not - on reaping his just rewards, and what is the nature of our collaboration. That's not for me to say.

For the rest of you - why so grumpy!?

Ted
__________________

R
DSS -
Racing Decision Support System™
Ted Craven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2020, 08:44 PM   #30
Bill Lyster
Grade 1
 
Bill Lyster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Escondido CA just 25 minutes from where the turf meets the surf - "...at Del Mar"
Posts: 2,418
Well, I guess we should just close down the website! Really?!

For years this site existed to propagate the sharing of handicapping information to help would be handicappers become better handicappers. Are we forgetting the fact that Howard Sartin and Jim Bradshaw started this group in order to make winners out of losing horse players?

I am looking at my desk, which prominently features a picture of two young men sitting together at the Meadowlands in 1997, with computers open, viewing the race track. The caption on this picture says, "Would you help me?...." One of those men just left us and the other advocates no further sharing of information.

If Richard Mathie was coerced into explaining his method that would be one thing. I do not get that impression after reviewing the current postings. His postings to explain his method follow in the paths taken by Sartin, Bradshaw and Bill Varone - helping others to become better.

Having researched several factors over the years it is clear to me that even the most straight forward systems that result from such efforts require a certain amount of specialized insight that in fact may be hard to explain or codify. Some times the explanation by the author causes the author to dig deeper in order to simplify the explanation so that others can understand it.

Especially when dealing in areas that might not have been explored by many of us in the past. As far as I know, no one has published any data explaining the proper weighting of the four factors Dick Mathie is studying. I welcome his discussion, of this new work, to better understand how he gets to his final choices. Once fully explained I do not expect that Dick would post ALL of his races, every day, but until then, I would love to view his choices and ask questions to help understand the process.
Bill Lyster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rmath's contender elimination using CSR rankings lone speed RDSS2 / FAQ's 7 08-28-2022 03:00 AM
Race using Rmath's method shoeless Previous 'Handicapping Discussion' Forum 23 12-31-2012 04:30 PM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:52 AM.