Beginners and Refresher Course

[Bill V.]

Hello Mitch

The most positive thing about the RDSS model capabilities is that although it tracks many factors, It is rather easy to sort and customized only the factors
each user feels are vital to their needs.

I have been modeling using the RDSS tool for quite some time.
The way RDSS gathers data and exports to a spreadsheet
is a real gift. Once the spreadsheet data is gathered, a few clicks of the mouse can easily hide and allow total focus on whatever factors are relevant to winning at a given track or circuit.

EARLY/Late

Once I gather my data I focus on the early/late difference graph and the parameters of what wins, by distance and surface at the few tracks I wager at, Years of studying these readouts, along with the book Pace Makes The Race has got me using the phase 1/TPR readouts EPR and LPR and there relationship to each other to their optimal capabilities

Doc in his most recent follow-ups, before his passing, was a very big
advocate of the early/ late graph

Almost every example race in which readouts were presented show the early late graph.

The early-late graph is the difference between the EPR rating and the LPR rating An example



Looking at line 2 we see Little Blaker ran a 92.3 EPR This resulted to in him running an 86.7 LPR. The difference between 92.3 and 86.7 is 5.6
Since the EPR total is greater than the LPR total the readout shows a RED or positive line IF the reverse were true and the EPR was 86.7 and the LPR was 92.3, the readout would be -5.6 and a blue line would be shown.

Doc was a strong believer in the parameters of early and late by distance
and surface

From Follow up 82 ( i happen to be reading this one ) But there are many other such notations in the latter Follow Ups.





The factors I focus on are The Early Late Graph Total Energy
VDC and the prarmateters of the EPR and LPR by distance and surface

I model the actual EPR and LPR and TPR numbers, not the compounded ratings , Because I do believe that modeling compounded ratiing will generally average out to be around 2.75 for winners


Thanks
Bill

[Mitch44]

Hello Bill,


Glad to see you add to this post and give some insight as to how RDSS gathers data to a spread sheet form, greatly easing the burden for beginners.

I'm not a fan of large data bases nor was Sartin. Some of the problems with them is that members keep adding to them making them outdated and skewing results. Current data is more important than data collected say a year ago. The ability to sort by distance, surface etc. greatly reduces the time and makes all that data more manageable. Data is also skew if picking wrong contenders and pace lines and input that into a data spread sheet,they give little thought to that.

Sartin later favored using the Primary Line Score but I believe that by keeping track individually of the 7 factors and the Primary Line Score, one can reap further nuggets. For example they MAY FIND HE is a bigger factor in longer routes and turf races etc. He also said the average win for factors was 2.89, pg.' 35 of FU # 82. I never have seen .89 of a horse so just rounded it up to 3.

Sartin was also always placing emphasis on recording 3rd FR which is seldom ever mentioned. There are parameters which horses can't win such as your example of Early and Late by distance. For example I have found that a difference of -20 3rd FR at 6 F seldom wins and a tool I use to narrow contenders in looking at the Match-Up. Most are speed crazy and always favor the early speed types. In actually the even pace horse and better 3rd FR horses frequently catch them.

Understanding the inner working of V/DC I defer more to it. Its more holistic and measures deceleration in other parts of the race for a better more complete picture of deceleration and not just the 3rd FR or DCL. Far too many ignore it and lean more toward BLBL because they have a score that they can grasp. Sartin deliberately disguised it by putting it in % percentile which confuse most. It works as most find it hard to comprehend and to this day we are the only ones using it.The thieves also don't comprehend it.

With the adding of V/DC to the TPR screen greatly enhances the performance of TPR, it measures deceleration throughout the chosen line not just the 3rd FR.

Again thanks for your input Bill.

Mitch44

[Mitch44]

FU # 48 The Track Profile


Pg. 26 "The PROFILING concept is based on keeping a record of VIABLE factors recorded by Winners from the Result Charts." I.e.% Med, beaten lengths at the Second Call, ESP etc. The place horse differs so if playing EX. one is needed for horses that Place.

pg. 26 "I recommend, and still do,that clients determine MINIMUM 3rd fractions that WIN,PLACE,& SHOW by Track, Distance and surface relative to Hi-Lo & Ave. Class Levels as determined by Total Energy. " I only know of one person that does this; "is a big factor that has for some reason remained relatively secret, in winning ANYWHERE." Sartin's definition of class was Total Energy. This has to do with deceleration not just from the Match-Up but from the configuration of the track itself as the length of stretches are different, composition of soil, banking etc. One of the biggest mistakes that I see with track profiles is they use the POR(pace of the race) rather than the POH(pace of the horse) also.

This is another thing I don't do, I do not keep a Track Profile. Sartin says that; 80% of the outcome of a race is determined by the Match-Up of the race and 20% by the track etc. Here is a place I disagree with Sartin because I believe its even higher, perhaps 90 to 95 % due to the Match Up.

Pg. 27 "Your OWN handicapping readouts. properly interpreted, are FAR MORE predictive than a misinterpreted PROFILE." People tend to get caught in the switches with Track Profiles because their not kept up or current and the track could change from day to day because of the weather or track maintenance. Its very common for a track to be speeded up by the maintenance crew on a big race day.

Other ways I get around this issue is on big race days and I'm only going to play that track, I closely observe how the first couple races are run. If a horse wins in 1:10 and in his chart he never ran faster than 1:11, I know the tack has been speeded up about 6 lengths and favors E,EP & P over SP,S or L. I adapt to that in my selections of my top horses and Exotics.

I also consult the Bris PP summary where they give you a track profile for the meet and one for the last week by ESP and the beaten lengths. This can alert you to a lone speed horse etc. It a good ball park method without any work.

Primarily I use the Match Up within the program and in most cases discard track profiles altogether. I consider it a waste of time that could be spent on other more valuable things such as evaluating my top contenders PP's. I haven't kept a track profile since the early 90's when first starting out with Sartin. It is very worthwhile to keep 3rd FR. parameters as in bold print above.

Mitch 44

[Mitch44]

Read page # 70 of FU # 82 by Sartin on Profiling.


Mitch44

[Lt1]

Great stuff guys. As a believer of keeping models I've found that keeping one for each track I play by dist and surface is very beneficial. My models consist of the 7 primary rankings,vdc rank,tpr range %med range bl/bl and rx+ ranks. By doing so I identify what factors are predominate for the winner and place horse. By doing so daily I get on top of changes that might be taking place due to weather or track maintenance etc. I usually require 2 days of variation from my current model before accepting a define change has taken place. I've also found that %med range is more helpful then the tpr range which tends to varying much more. I realize this is due to my contender and pace line selections. In almost all cases VDC is one of the predominate factors. As stated in another thread I no longer keep a track profile but rather I accept the BRIS pps stats which I've found to be close enough.
Tim

[Mitch44]

FU # 49 E.S.P.


Pg.9 " There are two versions of ESP(early,sustained, presser): The VISUAL as determined by position calls, and ENERGY YIELD ESP..." as seem in RDSS screen readouts or the computerized Energy version.

"We have some clients who prefer the visual because they have an inflated notion of their sensory perception and cling to that notion even through it produces losses when the computerized designation would produce wins."

ESP caught on and everyone has a different meaning as to what constitutes these designations. Even within the group. They tend to use beaten lengths at various calls to designate their ESP or in other words a par.Sartin says there are no pars within racing.

The visual ESP only serves two purposes: 1.to identify NEED to LEAD horses and ONE MOVE closers. A NTL horse is characterized by many ones(1) at the position calls and it gives up the fight when passed and then may drop completely out of it or just follow the lead horse to the wire. They never win or come close unless they can get the lead at the 1st or 2nd call. 2. A one run closer is a horse that only runs a good 3rd Fraction, passing tired horses.

With a NTL you must determine where it needs the lead as some must have it at the First Call(have to go wire to wire) or the Second Call(take charge there and must keep the lead to win).

The NTL and one run closer is the only thing the visual is good for. By identifying these it allow us to toss or discount horses to reduce our contenders.

Note: ESP includes EP,SP,Late etc., additional styles came about with the computerized version of ESP.The computerized version of ESP came about and used all 3 Fractions verses the old % Early that only used SC and TPR. The formula isF1+F2) / (F1+F2+F3) or Total Energy / by F1+F2. More commonly called % Median. It considers the total Energy of the race and what the Second Call was. It gives very defined parameters for each ESP and is more efficient than a visual perception. A horse can go wire to wire and not be an E horse. Most fail to understand this. Horses on the lead tend to only exert the energy necessary to keep the lead. So a horse can go wire to wire and even be a S type horses based on the pace of the race. If used, % Med should only be taken from a race where the horse is in form, because its uses Tot. En. and obviously if beaten badly it Tot. En. will be poor thus effecting its ESP designation.

% Med can also be used for a Track Profile and is more efficient than a visual profile that is based on beaten length which greatly vary depending on who is using it.% Med also was widely misused for a track profile because they used a specific number(%Med) rather a parameter or range.

Tom Brohamer in his book gave us situations that % Med could be used for such as stretch outs, first time turf horses etc., it allows you to discount horses and can turn an unknown factor horse into a definite non-contender.

I have found these tools to be very helpful but their only helpful if employed correctly. Most fail to employ them correctly therefore they cause more harm than good. In the majority of cases most failed to follow instructions on this stuff and did more harm than good. Some still cling to the old visual ESP or % Early etc. such as Pizzola.

Properly employed there is merit here. But do you need to know all this to be successful? NO!! Say what? NO! The Match-Up done within the program supersedes all this and handles it.

Read FU # 80 pg. 12-16 Methodology Factors Altered By Time.

Pg. 12 " However, I feel that it's my responsibility to point out factors have been rendered obsolete and have been replaced or incorporated into current programs."

"We left Median Energy % in our new advanced programs because so many would loudly complain if we didn't. For newer clients who did not go through the Energy period with us, it can be as destructive as it was once helpful"

"It is still both valid and valuable as it appears on the Early-Late graph."

Pg. 13 ESP " Once determining a horses running style, ESP was considered another tremendous breakthrough. Why, I'll never know." "We remain the only source(as far as I know)of computerized ESP designations."

pg. 14 "In reality a horse's perceived running style is secondary to the running patterns of all the other viable contenders in a race. The competitive match up" The match up in other words supersedes the ESP. This why a horses chart will show different ESP styles such as E, EP or P. Their basically early but run according to the match up their up against. " However, all potential bias is factored into the V/DC output."

"The only time one needs to look at Early, Late or Hidden Energy is in Turf races."

Adjustments: "User adjustments are now UNNESSARY in current programs. Don't make any."

pg. 15 "Eliminating horses based on man-made class distinctions is another danger. A long study of the value of Total Energy as CLASS, proves that TE is a FAR superior measurement."

When I tell people I don't use a track profile, model, power moves, fulcrum, tandems etc., they probably wonder how I win races. The RDSS program supersedes all this and it all comes down to the Match-Up which is within the program. Many overthink all this and make it more complicated than it really is and squander much time that should be devoted to analyzing contenders. Naturally contenders and proper pace line selection is a must.

Doing these by Follow Ups so sorry I couldn't make it more concise.



Mitch44

[Mitch44]

FU # 50 The Yellow Manual(called so because of its yellow cover)

pg. 15 "Also most importantly, NEED TO LEAD horses will try for the lead no matter how fast they have to run." We discussed NTL horses in a previous post and the yellow manual has been around since 1980's. This still is as valid today as it was back then. If they can be passed their a toss as far as a Win bet.

"One area needs re-defining. When I wrote it I was deluded into believing too much in the concept of "Track Bias." Current reality dictates that this alleged bias is not as prevalent as once thought. The Match-Up, which is also in the manual, but has since been raised to an art form by Jim "The Hat", determines Bias by the Match-Up of contenders more than the track itself."

We discussed this also and Sartin says the match up is 80% of the effect on a race and 20% the track bias. I believe it even greater perhaps 90 to 95%.

The Match-Up that he refers to in this manual is the ranking of the computer graph. This was the first match up that was devised or birth of the match up by ranking the 3 different Fractions. A very crude way of the Match-Up as compared todays RDSS's match up.

He gives an explanation of how much a horse has to make up in the 3rd FR. if forced to run 1 length early. Its not the standard 2 lg. for every 1 lg. forced early as many believe. It could be 1,2 or 3 lg. needed for 1 lg. early. He gives a formula for determining this. The bottom line is that all horses do not decelerate at the same rate. Some decelerate gradually and others stop on a dime. The present day RDSS handles all this stuff for you.

" The Basic Manual remains essentially as valid as a basic Methodology text for winning(NOT handicapping) as it was in 1982.With the slight addition of Hidden Energy, which could easily be figured from the basic text. The Methodology is still based on Early Pace, Sustained Pace and Factor W." The key word here is essentially as other factors have been added such as FX. V/DC etc.

I myself would not recommend the reading of this manual. The reason is that much of the stuff in it is no longer valid today and everything which is valid is within the present day RDSS, along with all of Sartin proven developed concepts. I.e. a better Match-Up, adjustments, BLBL,V/DC etc. It would take a very experienced expert to wade through all of this manual to determine what's relevant today. And like anything the experts may not even agree. A huge task with the bottom line being that anything of value is within today's RDSS and members need to read the glossary for definition of factors and read outs.

Mitch44

[Lefty]

Sartin also said if BLBL and VDC were different to go with VDC. I have been doing that and have caught some winners I wouldn't have had going wtih BLBL.

[Bill V.]

Thanks for your post Mitch. They are helping me tremendously.

Chuck ... Good for you. VDC is built to improve horses tiers from the BLBL

[Mitch44]

Lefty that's a very good choice. V/DC is better than BLBL. Most lean to BLBL because they find it easier to interpret with the points such as 22.5 etc.
V/DC accounts for track bias's and really gets to the nitty gritty of deceleration. When in doubt go with it.


Mitch44