Early/Late 2.0 at Gulfstream (April 2)

[socantra]

Originally Posted by SilentRun

The correlation between current RDSS and RDSS 2.0 using NP is very
high... I would estimate about 80-85%. I ran 6 races through RDSS and compared the E/L designations to 2.0. Given the differences that were mentioned..i.e TM vs DRF/HDW plus conceptual gaps..the E/L is very positive.
Race 1 below is an example.

RDSS 2.0 (NP) shows Early: 2 and 7...Late: 8 and 9
RDSS current (below) shows Early: 2, 7, 9....Late: 8

There is obviously a big E/L difference in the 9 horse between the 2 versions of RDSS. I just ordered NP Videos from D. Schwartz so I can understand the concepts. In the interim can you say the difference in this case is due to the points mentioned above ?

The biggest difference is that early/late designations in the "New Pace" material are not dependent on the individual pacelines selected by the user but on all the races showing in the past performances. It should provide another, hopefully complimentary point of view.

Dick...

[SilentRun]

Originally Posted by socantra

The biggest difference is that early/late designations in the "New Pace" material are not dependent on the individual pacelines selected by the user but on all the races showing in the past performances. It should provide another, hopefully complimentary point of view.

Dick...

OK..thank you...my ignorance of "New Pace" will soon be amended after I educate myself with the materials.

Ernie

[Ted Craven]

Someone wrote me:

In the GP races you put up with the E/L module the 3rd race had a listed POR of 91 and race 11 had a POR of 92 when neither of their related to any of the top early horses. In one or perhaps both cases the number was not the high of any horse still in the race. Is this because scratched horses had those PORs associated with them? Would your printouts have changed materially if the numbers shown as POR were changed?

In GP3 (Apr 2), you're correct that the POR is misstated, the 91 figure belonging to the scratched #6 horse as shown below. The program should have recalculated the POR to 83 (belonging to #7 Neat Lightning). The reasoning here is that the #3 has such a dominant Lo SR (101), 12 or more points better than the next rated Early, and will NOT run to that high number as no one will push him to run that fast. Thus the anticipated POR will be slower: we take the next rated Early's Hi SR, which before scratches was the 91 belonging to the #6. With the #6 (and #2) scratched, the next highest Early's Hi SR is the 83 belonging to the #7. The POR should have been 83, and the 2 Early horses would still have been the #3 and #7.

The #3 is what Dave terms a 'Monster' (hence the little M next to the Hi), with a Hi SR 10+ points greater than the next highest Hi. Watch out for these - tough to bet against, though he proposes some guidelines for inclusion in exotics. #3 won handily despite being mugged out of the gate.




In GP11, the POR was the 92 Hi SR of the #2 and not the 94 Lo of the #7 because the #7s Lo SR is 12+ points better than the #2's 82 Lo, and the #7 will not have to run that fast - the POR will not be 94. So we project a slower POR (92) using the Hi SR of the next rated Early, which is the #2.

[Ted Craven]

I don't know that I have grasped this method of Early/Late analysis any better than anyone else who is studying it. I am facilitating my education by writing a program and learning while implementing it (it's what I tend to do...). After doing it a few hundred times, and getting folks to point out errors or improvements, I learn a little

I still can't get my ears around using a final time Speed Rating and calling it 'POR - Pace of Race'. I don't hold it against Dave, as the overall concepts have value, IMO, but I would like to work on that nomenclature. Pace of Race, to me, is what a horse has to set or run against in the 1st and 2nd fractions and to the 2nd call.

Not to quibble, though...

Ted

[Ted Craven]

Someone also asked if I thought they should buy just Dave's Early/Late product or BOTH the E/L and the Improve/Decline Forum product.

The Improve/Decline will also make an appearance in RDSS 2.0, in one form or another. For those interested in the theoretical ideas, the measurement process, the notions of 'campaign theory' and how he measures form cycle and identifies contenders qualified on Form - I say buy them both. Give Dave his due for good ideas, then use RDSS 2.0 (and your brain) to do the work. Life is too short (and good mutuels still lurking) to be fooling with all these numbers...

I've had comments from a few RDSS users who are implementing Improve/Decline with some good success. I have not had nearly the time to study those ideas, so I can't comment first hand. The measuring system is similar to NewPace, i.e. based on ideas presented in the book 'How to Measure Anything' by Douglas Hubbard, found in the Sartin Methodology bookstore, here: http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7097

Ted

[Houndog]

Ted I think incorporating NP in RDSS is a great idea. I have also purchased the NP and Improve/Decline from Dave Schwartz and I find that both products to be excellent tools to add to one's handicapping arsenal.

As another poster said working races manually with the NP concepts can be quite time consuming (for me anyway) and it seems you have automated much of the process.

Ted as you stated before Dave Schwartz's NP concepts in no way negates the work of Doc Sartin, Jim Bradshaw's "Match-UP" concepts, and other teaching members of the Sartin Methodology.

I wish you much success moving forward with RDSS 2.0

Regards-----Mike "Houndog"

[Ted Craven]

Mike,

Thanks! It's a fine balancing act, between new ways of looking at things and 'too much or too many different kinds of information'. I don't think an accomplished Matcher has much to fret over NP. I think we have great ways of knowing the relative merits of Earlies, for which NP (or E/L 2.0 whatever) is yet a 'blunt instrument'. These are early days, for both RDSS2 and for NewPace, but I believe in the fullness of time, folks will use the tools that suit their temperament and learning style, and which make the best returns for them. There is no standing still. I want to be able to work 40 races a day and not turn into a zombie - not just 5 races a day.

I actually think we can improve on what is currently presented in Dave's NewPace, and am looking forward to study and commentary by all.

Just a note, and I'll elaborate elsewhere - Dave Schwartz wants to extend a discount offer for both NewPace and Improve/Decline (Form Cycle Analysis) to RDSS users. If anyone is thinking of buying those products from him, either wait a day or 2 for a coupon, or buy now and inform Dave if you are currently a RDSS user (or at least a previous user, and hopefully a future one ). You'll get a few dollars off, and possibly a deal on your next RDSS subscription. (Just working this out, right now).

Mike, looking forward to your input, as always!

cheers,

Ted