Morning Line Contenders Test

[Swifty0x0]

I recorded 200 races using the top 5 Morning Line as the contenders and entered the winner's RDSS factors into the Model Spreadsheet provided by Ted.

The records include tracks along the east coast from NY to Florida, and some Central Time Zone tracks. All surfaces were included, but only a handful of the records were synthetic surface.

Races not recorded were those carded for 2 year olds, maidens with more than 1 first time starter, and races with less than 5 runners.

Lines chosen were primarily best of last 3 perceptor, and I only changed the line in about 10% of the cases due to the usual reasons (distance, surface, lay off, off track, etc.).

Here's the overall results...

BLBL rank #1 - 25.5% win at average mutuel $7.47
BLBL rank #2 - 24% win at average mutuel $8.66
BLBL rank #3 - 25.5% win at average mutuel $10.59
BLBL rank #4 - 14.5% win at average mutuel $16.44

Therefore, top 3 BLBL ranks had the winner (from the morning line contenders) at 75%. Top 4 BLBL ranks had the winner at 89.5%.

To compare, here are the percentages from the morning line contenders in the Rx categories.
The top 3 Rx1 had winner at 72.5%, top 4 Rx1 had winner 85.5%.
The top 3 Rx2 had winner at 66%, top 4 Rx2 had winner at 83%.
The top 3 Rx3 had winner at 69%, top 4 Rx3 had winner at 84%.

One conclusion: when the morning line contenders are ranked by BLBL it has the winner in its top 3 and top 4 more often than any of the Rx factors.

Another note: The third ranked BLBL shows the best profit margin. In this sample if you had bet only the third ranked BLBL (base $2) hitting 25.5 out of 100 races at $10.59 you'd gross $270.05. That's a profit of $70.05, or 35% ROI (1.35 for those that like it in this form). This tracks with what Doc tried to hammer into everyone about the third ranked contender.

I also broke the data out into all sprints and all routes (for BLBL).

SPRINTS
BLBL #1 wins 29% at $5.67
BLBL #2 wins 21% at $9.32
BLBL #3 wins 26% at $8.28
BLBL #4 wins 14% at $19.72

ROUTES
BLBL #1 wins 26% at $6.51
BLBL #2 wins 34% at $8.32
BLBL #3 wins 22% at $17.16
BLBL #4 wins 14% at $11.24

Note: in routes the third BLBL rank was a gold mine (88.7% ROI if just betting that horse).

Comments and questions?

[Mitch44]

This coincides with what Lt1 and I say, which is anyone can get 50% winners pretty much doing nothing with RDSS. A few years back Mick asked me what the program will do with proper contenders and good pace lines. My reply to him was 50%.

Getting beyond 50% and the norm is a whole other issue. It takes much experience, skill, knowledge etc. But with those attributes one can meet or rise above 65%.Sartin's old standard to be a teacher was 65%. Most fail due to lack of discipline and money management. Human nature just wrecks havoc with discipline and the overwhelming majority fail in this principle. In sports this would be called the whole package. Few make it to the Pro's or big leagues, they just don't have the "whole package."

Swifity0x0 you did an excellent study and are well on your way. Trying to get players to do back studies, collect data etc. is worse than pulling teeth. When you mention work their gone, just allergic to it. Its all about them and instant gratification.

Swifty your future is bright and when you get an idea, test it to prove its worth. It'll serve you well. When you do things yourself, it remains in your brain housing group forever. WE learn by doing and practical application.

Finally, someone else's research is useless due to different contenders, pacelines, final decisions, discipline etc. No skin in the game or positive reinforcement with that and like money; "easy come and easy go."

Hard work paves the road to success.

Mitch44

[Lt1]

Excellent survey Lefty. Both Mitch and myself lean toward Bris Prime Power and Profit line top 5 for our contenders since our research has shown the winner to be there 90% of the time and is not tied to the relative strength of the ML maker. By doing this work you can have complete confidence in your ability to get the winner in your top 4 most of the time. Also you have pointed to the reason Doc cautioned against being locked into the top 2 tiered horses exclusively ie higher mutuals in tier 3 &4. Thanks for sharing
Tim

[lone speed]

Originally Posted by Swifty0x0

I recorded 200 races using the top 5 Morning Line as the contenders and entered the winner's RDSS factors into the Model Spreadsheet provided by Ted.

The records include tracks along the east coast from NY to Florida, and some Central Time Zone tracks. All surfaces were included, but only a handful of the records were synthetic surface.

Races not recorded were those carded for 2 year olds, maidens with more than 1 first time starter, and races with less than 5 runners.

Lines chosen were primarily best of last 3 perceptor, and I only changed the line in about 10% of the cases due to the usual reasons (distance, surface, lay off, off track, etc.).

Here's the overall results...

BLBL rank #1 - 25.5% win at average mutuel $7.47
BLBL rank #2 - 24% win at average mutuel $8.66
BLBL rank #3 - 25.5% win at average mutuel $10.59
BLBL rank #4 - 14.5% win at average mutuel $16.44

Therefore, top 3 BLBL ranks had the winner (from the morning line contenders) at 75%. Top 4 BLBL ranks had the winner at 89.5%.

To compare, here are the percentages from the morning line contenders in the Rx categories.
The top 3 Rx1 had winner at 72.5%, top 4 Rx1 had winner 85.5%.
The top 3 Rx2 had winner at 66%, top 4 Rx2 had winner at 83%.
The top 3 Rx3 had winner at 69%, top 4 Rx3 had winner at 84%.

One conclusion: when the morning line contenders are ranked by BLBL it has the winner in its top 3 and top 4 more often than any of the Rx factors.

Another note: The third ranked BLBL shows the best profit margin. In this sample if you had bet only the third ranked BLBL (base $2) hitting 25.5 out of 100 races at $10.59 you'd gross $270.05. That's a profit of $70.05, or 35% ROI (1.35 for those that like it in this form). This tracks with what Doc tried to hammer into everyone about the third ranked contender.

I also broke the data out into all sprints and all routes (for BLBL).

SPRINTS
BLBL #1 wins 29% at $5.67
BLBL #2 wins 21% at $9.32
BLBL #3 wins 26% at $8.28
BLBL #4 wins 14% at $19.72

ROUTES
BLBL #1 wins 26% at $6.51
BLBL #2 wins 34% at $8.32
BLBL #3 wins 22% at $17.16
BLBL #4 wins 14% at $11.24

Note: in routes the third BLBL rank was a gold mine (88.7% ROI if just betting that horse).

Comments and questions?

I would like to put in Bill Varone's explanation regarding one example of a third rank horse. One cannot be "mechanical" in one's approach in this endeavor.

The right mentality and prime thought after a thorough evaluation of a race is "IT DEPENDS"

Bill V's prior post regarding the third ranked BLBL.

[lone speed]

Originally Posted by Mitch44

This coincides with what Lt1 and I say, which is anyone can get 50% winners pretty much doing nothing with RDSS. A few years back Mick asked me what the program will do with proper contenders and good pace lines. My reply to him was 50%.

Getting beyond 50% and the norm is a whole other issue. It takes much experience, skill, knowledge etc. But with those attributes one can meet or rise above 65%.Sartin's old standard to be a teacher was 65%. Most fail due to lack of discipline and money management. Human nature just wrecks havoc with discipline and the overwhelming majority fail in this principle. In sports this would be called the whole package. Few make it to the Pro's or big leagues, they just don't have the "whole package."

Swifity0x0 you did an excellent study and are well on your way. Trying to get players to do back studies, collect data etc. is worse than pulling teeth. When you mention work their gone, just allergic to it. Its all about them and instant gratification.

Swifty your future is bright and when you get an idea, test it to prove its worth. It'll serve you well. When you do things yourself, it remains in your brain housing group forever. WE learn by doing and practical application.

Finally, someone else's research is useless due to different contenders, pacelines, final decisions, discipline etc. No skin in the game or positive reinforcement with that and like money; "easy come and easy go."

Hard work paves the road to success.

Mitch44

Swifty,

Good research and thanks very much for sharing your input.


Mitch,

Great comments!!!!!

[Mitch44]

"prime thought after a thorough evaluation of a race" I agree with this 100 % Lone Speed.

Without analysis your just confirming contenders with the RDSS Program. Is this the same horse that earned that good rating? Is it improving and if so why? Where is it in it's form cycle. Just a few as to why analysis is so important. You won't profit with instant gratification. What can it expected to do today is valid?

Without the PP's in your example of the 4 horse, it very hard to say why it won. Just betting overlays in the top 4 isn't the answer. You must trust your analysis and have the guts to elevate or throw out horses in your contenders.

Mitch44

Thanks Lone Speed, greatly appreciated.

[Swifty0x0]

Thanks for all the comments.

Lt1: I am left handed, but not known as lefty on this forum, lol (maybe you're psychic).

I agree with all the comments about analysis rather than pure mechanical. I'm still weak in the analysis area, when determining which of the contenders are the best bets.

I was wondering if we could start a thread (or various threads) on analyzing the final contenders to determine which are the best bets? I know a lot of examples are on these forums, but they're buried deep from years ago and hard to search for. It would be a good refresher to keep people sharp, and more organized in their own threads.

One part of that analysis is determining whether the favorite (and/or second favorite) is false/vulnerable. If you can correctly assess that with good consistency it usually leads you to the 3rd or 4th ranked horse as the better bet. I think this also follows with what rdiam posts about having a positive EV (by being able to eliminate a low odds contender). I'm also aware it can be conditional (type of race, surface, past performance cycles, etc.) on how you might determine a false/vulnerable favorite, but even tips related to certain conditions can be helpful.

Would any of you winners care to share your methods of identifying those false/vulnerable favorites? I know it would help me, and I'm sure many others.

Thanks all

Bill K.

[Mitch44]

Bill;

Its really about understanding and interpreting Past Performances of horses. And I would recommend Bris PP's over that of the ones that come with RDSS. They contain much more detailed information. I would recommend them as a supplement to the program.

Few today can read and interpret PP's, as its kind of a lost art for the most part. In the 60's and 70's etc. it was all a player had. Most can read it but can't decipher it, that's the art of it. Its what separates me from others.

Most can't apply what's in the Program, which is much and have no idea how to decipher different screens and tools. I don't know how to teach art of the game and or a race. Having taught Lt1, we don't even agree at times on contenders, pace lines or the same horses. Like Sartin said; "If you have to ask what Jazz is then you can't play it."

Its also very hard to instruct on the site because many cling to false beliefs and concepts etc. Such as repeaters shouldn't be played because they only win about 17%, or last line only. They aren't very flexible and can be very combative, when told their process sucks or that old programs are dinosaurs and should be extinct. Forums aren't really conducive to instructions, a more controlled format is necessary.

I agree that searching can be frustrating, far too much minutiae and old outdated stuff. Definitely needs cleaning up, but than again those clinging on to old programs with their life wouldn't be a happy camper. I guess the "Modern" should be more about the year 2021. Perhaps posts should be more date specific or as in the military have a cutoff date.

Mitch44

[Lt1]

Sorry about that Bill. I would be all for that type of thread but Mitch has a point about putting it together. Ted had started a series of webinars in which various members, selected by him, would outline their approach an answer questions. I did one basically outlining my approach. I use Bris pps in addition to the TM pps in the program. I take the top 5 ranked BPP and Profit Line horses[plus any horse that won its' last race not in the group] as my contenders. I use Scott's form factors and Quirins' failure routine to help id false or vulnerable favs as well as other contenders who can be downgraded. Scotts' factors are available on the site. Hopefully as soon as Ted gets comfortable in his new home the webinars will resume.
Tim

[tleusin]

Could you explain what Quiran's failure protocol is please. Do not think I have ever come across that previously.