Variegate Improvement Project

[JoeLong]

The question... Is it possible to improve the predictability of Energy's variegate above the current published 66%?

I believe the weakness in Energy's variegate predictor is due to a few factors that modern technology & cheap data files (DRF) may be able to help improve.

Proposition #1... All who have experimented with Energy have discovered the variegate is highly sensitive to contender/paceline selection, which is hindered by a manual data entry system that discourages multiple pace-line use, entry and/or replacement. Improvement may be found if it were possible to linearly view the electronic pace-line data within another program, make selections based on both linear and graphic screens which could then transport the selected paceline directly to an Energy file.

Proposition #2... Could the variegate predictor (and the overall performance) be improved by employing linear track-to-track and variant adjustments to the selected paceline prior to transporting that line over to Energy?

The program to create adjusted Energy files exists. I propose putting together a small group of like-minded individuals to explore the possibilities for fun, education & profit.


Yours truly,

JoeLong

[Houndog]

Originally Posted by JoeLong

The question... Is it possible to improve the predictability of Energy's variegate above the current published 66%?

I believe the weakness in Energy's variegate predictor is due to a few factors that modern technology & cheap data files (DRF) may be able to help improve.

Proposition #1... All who have experimented with Energy have discovered the variegate is highly sensitive to contender/paceline selection, which is hindered by a manual data entry system that discourages multiple pace-line use, entry and/or replacement. Improvement may be found if it were possible to linearly view the electronic pace-line data within another program, make selections based on both linear and graphic screens which could then transport the selected paceline directly to an Energy file.

Proposition #2... Could the variegate predictor (and the overall performance) be improved by employing linear track-to-track and variant adjustments to the selected paceline prior to transporting that line over to Energy?

The program to create adjusted Energy files exists. I propose putting together a small group of like-minded individuals to explore the possibilities for fun, education & profit.


Yours truly,

JoeLong

JL, I would not how to proceed with improving the variegate predictor. As you stated above Doc's studies showed the Variegate predictor to be correct within 1 66% of the time. By within 1 I assume he means a Variegate predictor of E/P as opposed to an E, or an SP compared to an S predictor. An E compared to an S is not within 1.

So, as you say their is a wide range for a possible false variegate predictor. We have the means to change a false Early variegate predictor by using the (C) Change Variegate procedure. The problem lies when you have a false other than Early variegate predictor. For example a S/P variegate. They don't have a procedure for changing this type of variegate.

Recently their has been many postings about the variegate predictor being off. Especially in terms of a false other than early predictor is where most problems occured. If the Variegate predictor said sustained the tendency was just to look at PARAGON B horses as win contenders, with the results being at times bypassing the win horse. Richie P finally decided to use other readouts such as the UXR to determine his win contenders.

To quote from page 58 of Follow-Up #26 Doc states " to compensate for the problem of a false sustained variegate, we have asked that you model your MUV and UXR. These numbers indicate just how far back a horse can be from the 0.00 MUV horse and still win. Hence if the Variegate is Sustained and the top two Sustained horses register a too high of a MUV or UXR number based on your records, you can mentally alter the Variegate to comply with your records."

JL, I know this does not really answer your question, but other than Doc's suggestion I would not know how to proceed on how to improve the Variegate. Others may have better ideas in this area. Your suggestion #2 concerns me about employing linear track-to-track and variant adjustments to the selected paceline before entering them in Energy. In affect wouldn't we be making another adjustment when these lines are entered in Energy which may have the opposite desired affect?

This is only my opinion on this topic, as others may have more knowledge in this area.

[RichieP]

I have an idea on this and it has nothing to do with adjusting anything.Instead of worrying about a single paceline and whether it needs to be adjusted use the horse's ENTIRE past performances and consider any line in the pp that feels right. FOCUS on the break and first call to find patterns that horses exhibit.

Everyone looks to the far right of a past performance line for answers including adjustments. Maybe if we take time to LEARN better answers and MONEY can be found looking to the far LEFT of a line. NOBODY is looking there man. This also can completely eliminate any worries and work as far as adjustments are concerned. Food for thought.

BEFORE entering anything into software:

1) Select your pacelines for as many horses as you feel are needed.

2) Group all the "pure need to lead at FIRST call" horses together. match them against ONE ANOTHER and find the fastest at 1c and 2c. Take the fastest guy, write his line chice down, remove all others from WIN consideration. He is your "surviving early".

3) Group all the " early pressers" together and once again match them only against ONE ANOTHER. Find the one that PRESSES the 2f the best and has best overall speed. Write his line choice downand once again remove all others in THIS category for the WIN. he is your " surviving e/p"

4) repeat these steps for
a) presser
b) sustained.

at the end you should have MAXIMUM 4 horses left. the FASTEST in each of the individual running styles. After all we DO want to bet on FAST horses right?

NOW fire up the computer and ONLY enter these remaing horses into Energy! ( or Validator, Speculator, Synergism, Kgen, Homebrew etc etc) and see what shakes out. Results might really be something that helps everyone in getting a better "read" on the race ok?

************* CAVEAT ***************
ALL the above mentioned "styles" are based 100% on POSITIONAL/VISUAL and NOT computer generated Esp. If you choose to rely on computer stuff for this
Caveat Emptor


Hope this helps
Rich

[RichieP]

EXACT quote from Jim's " 5 step approach to the Matchup"

[JoeLong]

Originally Posted by RichieP

EXACT quote from Jim's " 5 step approach to the Matchup"

Agreed, this is a total complete linear approach which Jim has mastered without the aid of a computer and is the crux of many handicapping programs which mostly errs on the side of the favorite.

Energy on the other hand is a departure from a pure linear model and takes the match-up concept into the realm of non-linear handicapping, which unfortunately appears to provide the user access to both brilliance and mediocrity in regards to picks when using on the variegate.

My point in all of this was to develop an approach to aid the program in improving its predictor model and hopefully produce more longshot winners, which I realize is a a mighty big task.

[RichieP]

Originally Posted by JoeLong

Agreed, this is a total complete linear approach which Jim has mastered without the aid of a computer and is the crux of many handicapping programs which mostly errs on the side of the favorite.

Energy on the other hand is a departure from a pure linear model and takes the match-up concept into the realm of non-linear handicapping, which unfortunately appears to provide the user access to both brilliance and mediocrity in regards to picks when using on the variegate.

My point in all of this was to develop an approach to aid the program in improving its predictor model and hopefully produce more longshot winners, which I realize is a a mighty big task.

Hi Joe,
I am not sure anything Jim does can be considered linear! lol. he is kind of in a very different dimension.

If Energy takes the matchup into non linear areas( I really dont know what that is) then what better food to "feed it" than the TRUE matchup?

Fastest early
fastest early presser
fastest presser
fastest sustained

Kinda makes sense that this procedure is the true matchup.

PLUS NOBODY is doing this. always an added benefit just like " looking left" when the "crowd" is "looking right"

anyway that's all I can offer here as feedback.

great thread Joe!

Richie

[Houndog]

In the Match-Up manual that Bill has uploaded to the BBS Michael Pizzolla briefly gets into the Variegate, and I think he goes into the concept of how the Variegate is determined. His explanation is somewhat different than others presented in the Follow-Ups.

JL, I do not know if this will help you in your research, but starting on page 174 thru page 179 of the Match-Up manual you may find some of this information useful. Consider what he says in the first paragraph on page 178 of the Match-Up manual.

It seems to me the more we understand how the Variegate is determined the better chance we have of knowing when it may not be accurate.

[Houndog]

From what I can figure out what Michael Pizzolla is saying on page 178 of the Match-Up manual is something I have been looking at with the 0.00 Muv Horse and the Muv reading of the horses following it. What he calls lack of disparity in the second call I assume he means lack of seperation between the top MUV horses.

I made up some pacelines and beaten lengths to determine if I am on the right track here.

My horses, por and beaten lengths are as follows.

AAA 22.2 45.2 110.4 0-0.50-1.0-4.0
BBB 22.3 45.1 110.3 0-1.0-2.0-4.0
CCC 22.1 45.2 110.4 0-1.0-2.0-3.5
DDD 22.1 45.3 110.3 9.0-8.0-7.0-6.0

This is an extreme example, but this is just for illustrative purposes.

[Houndog]

The Energy Generator

[Houndog]

This is the second screen