RE: Pen - Race2 - Dec 14th

[kylelenn]

Greeting All,

I’m evaluating RDSS as a possible add-on to my current methodology…. I’m especially interested in a couple of (what I’ve deemed) unique RDSS factors = BLBL, V/DC, TE, RX2 and TPR.

Even though I’m still just learning to use the software, I’m very impressed with the layout and presentation of each and every feature. Like many of you, I’m a long-time handicapper with lots of experience; however, I have a preference for HDW data and a bit of a bias against Trackmaster (probably undeserved!). Anyway, I use more of a comprehensive (modeling multiple factors) and generally using multiple pacelines as opposed to the RDSS single paceline approach. Please understand, I don’t mean to imply my method is better, it’s just different; hence my question regarding the above race….

My attention was drawn to this race due to a possible key contender standout (#4) so in turn, I wanted to compare my methodology to the RDSS approach…. I reviewed each of the seven horses using the “original” screen coupled with the “trip” screen and ended up using the last paceline for each horse except #4…. I used the line 3 back due to trouble at the start for the previous two…. In some of my reading, I picked up on using TE for PoH and PoR with Percept Total for picking the best recent paceline (awesome feature!).

Then I compared all horses using the RX screen and learned that my potential key contender was rated outside the top 5 for BLBL, V/DC, TE and ranked 5th for TPR…. Equally surprising was that the top-rated horse in each of these factors was #6 who was a non-contender using my stuff…. I was wondering how some of you would evaluate the #6 as a possible win contender?

I understand that the #4 has a very poor final fraction and perhaps that is why he rated so poorly on the above mentioned factors…. Conversely, the #6 was the best closer; but I had him as a R0 running style (rally type, one run closer with “0” Quirin early speed points)…. He did go off at 18/1 so I would never argue with anyone for including as my only concern was, he did not qualify as a contender for me.

Also, I know Rmath and other members would disagree; but, I wanted to mention that I would prefer to ignore Bris PrimePower and Bris ProfitLine as those rating are so readily available and to me, do not hold much value added….

In closing, it seems to me that the Trackmaster data adjustments took a lesser view of the #4 and gave too much credit to the #6…. Am I nuts?

[ranchwest]

I'd be curious as to which lines others picked. Now, I know I am a rebel on picking lines, but on #4, I don't like the 3rd line because I show a high variance, but I am using BRIS data on my own software, so my "underbelly" is different from either of your products. Anyway, my line for #4 was line 4.

Here are my lines:

1) 6
2) 2
3) 1
4) 4
5) 2
6) 1
7) 8

So, I am wondering whether it's the data or the line selection. I see #4 as a rather clear cut favorite.

Other viewpoints welcome.

[ranchwest]

Just so you know, I don't sell my software, so I am not trying to sell anything. Just pointing up why I have a difference in line selection.

[kylelenn]

Thanks RW for your comments…. I agree that the best line performance for #4 was the 4th line back; however, since that race was on poly track, I would be reluctant to choose that race. On my software, I actually used the average of the last line and the 3rd line back…. I was concerned about the two previous trouble lines (hopped at start) and wanted to use one of those lines (in case of a reoccurrence) to temper the 3rd line back…. Using just speed figures, this “average” projected the #4 to be second best behind the #3…. Anyway, final time speed figures are a very small part of my modeling analysis and like yourself, I was much more curious about the RDSS single paceline contender approach regarding the #4 and #6.

[ranchwest]

That's true about the poly line, but I took it anyway. I think RDSS should show #4 as the top CSR horse... is that correct?

[tom]

RW, I like your paceline selection.

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by tom

RW, I like your paceline selection.

Thanks, Tom. I know I said I am a line selection rebel, but actually I programmed many of the tips I got on this forum and added a few ideas of my own. I weighted all of the many factors. So, I do think there's a method to my madness. lol

[rdiam]

My pacelines for this race:

1 -- line 1 (Dec 6)

2 -- try line 1 (Nov 23) and line 3 (Sept 24)

3 -- line 1 (Nov 16)

4 -- try line 1 (Nov 10) and line 3 (Oct 19)

5 -- try line 1 (Nov 23) and line 2 (Nov 2)

6 -- try line 1 (Nov 23) and line 3 (Oct 6)

7 -- try line 1 (Dec 1) and line 2 (Nov 16)

Using these lines => win contenders are 3,4, and 7

The 3 was first off claim by top trainer, the 4 looked in form and comes from hot trainer/jockey combo, and the 7 was ridden by hot jock.

Richard

[Ted Craven]

Purists might insist on a paceline-dependent only analysis method, although even (and particularly) back in Doc's day the process was always to find CONTENDERS first then rate those by selecting the most representative paceline. Only then, compare the horses.

However, over the past several years, I have attempted to add to the tools in RDSS by introducing (re-introducing, sometimes) factors which are automatically computed from MULTIPLE lines for a horse. See recent video webinar and discussion with Dick Werpy for more from this point-of-view.

In particular, the Rx factors on the Rx screen are intended to synthesize a high-level Oddsline by mixing ONE paceline-dependent factor: V/DC, with 5 other non-paceline-dependent factors (Morning Line, CSR, ProfitLine, CR+, EL+). Rx also mixes EXTERNAL factors(ML, PL) & NON-CORRELATED to pace/speed/deceleration factors (CR+, EL+) to size up the Contenders from multiple angles. I would add in BRIS Prime Power and PW% tote ratio and/or live Win odds into the final mix for the highest-level Oddsline available in RDSS.

In this context, the specific paceline chosen for a horse (which ends up affecting Total Energy, TPR, BL/BL and thus V/DC) is but ONE component of a higher-level Oddsline (Rx) -- if you choose to use it.

This said, if one is ONLY focusing on classical Sartin factors dependent on paceline selection, you could 'simulate' non-paceline dependent Sartin factors by always using and accepting a standard, automated (e.g. the Default) Paceline Selection Strategy = 'Best of Last 3 Comparable Surface/Distance structure' (or affectionately: BLT/C). OR, by engaging the handicapper's mind further, make RIGOROUS changes to that automated line selection by your own consistently enforced rules ONLY. FWIW, I'll remind folks that Rich Mathie ('4-Factor Method') almost NEVER changed pacelines selected by the program (at least that's what he usually answered when asked).

So with that preamble, and using the Default Configuration settings, in this race RDSS selects the LAST LINE for ALL horses (the best Perceptor Rating from the last 3 at a comparable Surface and Distance structure). Only the #1 horse which has no recent route lines is rated from a sprint line: a non-contender. I have been experimenting with a setting using Best of Last 4 lines (or last 'N' lines) so the program can skip over non-comparable distances or Surfaces within the past 4 (or 'N') lines. Doing this, or just LOOKING at the horses PPs assigns line 4 to the #3 and #4 horses (skipping over intervening Sprint lines) and line #4 to the #1 (still a non-contender). See the Analysis screenshots above.

Choosing line 4 on a Poly surface for the #4 horse raises a foundational question about figure calculations and adjustments in later Sartin Methodology software and in RDSS. ALL the data about horses' pacelines beyond the Original screen are Adjusted for distance equalization to today's distance, and normalized for Daily Track and Track-to Track variants. This is supposed to also take care of the effect of wet surfaces and shipping from other tracks and OTHER SURFACES (e.g. Poly vs Turf vs Dirt). Then the resulting velocities, segmental and compounded factors, Speed Ratings and Perceptor Rating are calculated from this (at least hypothetical) common basis. Of course, factors like whether a horse handles wet-going (e.g. Earlies more-so, closers less) or whether a horse likes Turf vs Poly vs Dirt are subjective assessments for the handicapper from PPs, hopefully done on a consistent basis, Alternately, you could just accept that RDSS does something useful comparing Poly to Turf to Dirt.

You can tinker with and DISAGREE with this equalization methodology as much as you like (or, as much as is FUNCTIONAL). But those are the tools available within RDSS. Thus, feel free to accept the 4th Poly line for the #4 horse - or not. Or try MANY other lines from good races: most of them put the #4 horse in the Top 3 BL/BL and V/DC. Which raises another good recommendation if one is doing a deep-dive analysis: if you can, always get confirmation of a rating based on a single paceline by selecting other lines and comparing. By studying the Trip data like the OP did, you can see the trouble at the break and skip those lines plus the sprint line to get to the previous history of the horse starting with Line 4.

That's how you reasonably rank the #4 as a contender on the BL/BL screen, without reference to anything on Rx if you'd rather not. HOWEVER, also employing Rx - and even not having the PL and BPP figs from TwinSpires (which I did not have) we see that the horse is #1 on CR+ (from its consistency and earnings related to the others PLUS its well-bet status in ALL of its past 10 races, favourite in the last 4 races), 2nd on ML and 2nd Early on EL+ (co-equal 1st Early IMO, signifying a consistent Early Running Style when finishing well). Thus, with ANY PACELINE YOU LIKE - if you choose to employ the Rx screen ratings and even discounting ProfitLine and Prime Power - also given that the horse was 2nd favourite and I suspect Top 2 ranked PW% , it was a Prime Contender.

Re the poorer ranking of the #6 horse on BL/BL - based on its last line and its other recent lines - it is clearly the best Closing horse and Late energy expending horse too. On BL/BL it ranks co-equal 2nd though 7 points below the #4 - not a good sign for those lower ranked horses. Its finishes recently in the exact same race class as today are not encouraging for Win. Bet-time Win odds of 18-1 (and likely poor PW% ratio) were also not encouraging. A very weak Win Contender, likely non-contender given the strength of the #4 and #3. It would also not surprise me if its PL and BPP ratings lowered the overall Rx scores.

That's what I've got re the #4 vs #6 horses in this race.

Lastly - to a point asked by the OP privately: the velocity, compounded, segmental, deceleration and Final Time Speed Ratings shown in RDSS (e.g. Total Energy, BL/BL, VDC, TPR, E/L difference, CR+) do NOT come from TrackMaster (excepting a TrackMaster SR for corollary purposes). Otherwise, RDSS only uses RAW data from TrackMaster/Equibase along with Daily and Track to Track adjustments. The rest of the classical Sartin factors are calculated internally by RDSS. RDSS makes use of external figs from TwinSpires (ProfitLine and Prime Power) for purposes of assisting Contender identification, giving a cross-reference to pace/speed/deceleration figs, info on FTS and insight into probable public betting. Agreed that these external, public ratings are usually baked into the Odds (though not always ...). Thus, the credit/blame for good/poor ratings is all on RDSS/Doc Sartin and me and not on TrackMaster.

In Summary -
1. There are more factors available in RDSS than paceline-dependent factors (see Rx screen).
2. Anyway, when relying on paceline-dependent factors, always try to compare SEVERAL lines to be sure the 1 line you picked is representative of what the horse is currently capable of (or is innately capable of, if in reasonable form, versus the competition's current ability).
3. You can trust the equalization routines to (more-or-less) put different tracks and surfaces on a comparable footing for rating. Though 'caveat emptor' but consistently please ...

Good luck on your handicapping and wagering adventures, with or without RDSS!

Ted

[ranchwest]

Thanks, Ted! Very good response.

From the webinars you have recently linked, your point of not relying solely on the powerful Sartin factors is very relevant.

I know I look at data in a variety of ways. Is a particular horse truly early, truly late, truly classy, etc.? I know RDSS users value the tools you provide once they learn to use them.