$67.50 winner at Saratoga

[clore1030]

One of the top two scorers in the ninth race, but no, I didn't play it. I'm going to have to get SNAGIT for future posts, but for now, take my word for it that on just using the top ranked Perceptor ranked pace lines (I admit to doing the race after it was run), the big winner was ranked #2 in BL/BL.

[Ted Craven]

Charles,

What was your reasoning for using the 8f line (if that's what you used), rather than one of the 3 more recent sprint lines to represent this non-turfer's sprint ability today? Any of the 3 recent sprints put it out of contention.

(Winner #9 Judge's Pide)

Ted

[clore1030]

Alas, nothing like embarrassing oneself in public. It was my eyes playing tricks on me, I thought the line selected was the third sprint line. Even with the big violet square and the #4 tipping me off, I literally was not seeing straight.

A lesson at the expense of my humuliation.

[Ted Craven]

Charles,

I certainly had no intention to humiliate! It's a fascinating match up, and not the least issue is: how much do you bend the rules, or get 'creative' when such a price is available. For example, given the following observations, would one be justified in making a $2.00 bet across the board on the winner:

The #9 and the #1 (the heavy favourite) are the legitimate EP horses and will likely have to vie for the lead today. Use a Projected Pace of 21.7 45.5 off the #1's best Turf line and observe that the #9 runs well against a faster pace than that last while well placed, so at least some credit for early ability in sprints.

If we say that its consistent up close positioning in its recent sprints is indicative of its spirit (at least on Dirt), and the line #4 route shows that the sprint portion of that race blows away the field (if you accept the route to sprint extraction and track equalization formulae), my question is (and perhaps what I was wondering if you were proposing), at 33-1, do you say that line #4 represents its best ability and give it a shot? It's not a proven loser on Turf, so the risk/reward ratio could be worth it.

That said, I am always cautious (having been plenty burned) about zigging and zagging, and consistent application of a paceline selection method is paramount in my view. It's just that part of a consistent methodology might be (for example) that when the offered odds rise above a certain price, and enough of, say, the above noted observations kick in, is that when the 'side-bet' wager button gets pressed?

You stimulated some interesting thoughts, Charles. Thank you!

yours,

Ted

[froggy]

As an observation:
I have found over the years that routes can at times be highly predictive in 5f & 5.5f turf races and especially so in Santa Anita's 6.5f downhill turf dash with it's 113 final times.
Their wins are usually upsets with a price.

Go figure!

Froggy

[clore1030]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

Charles,

I certainly had no intention to humiliate! It's a fascinating match up, and not the least issue is: how much do you bend the rules, or get 'creative' when such a price is available. For example, given the following observations, would one be justified in making a $2.00 bet across the board on the winner:

The #9 and the #1 (the heavy favourite) are the legitimate EP horses and will likely have to vie for the lead today. Use a Projected Pace of 21.7 45.5 off the #1's best Turf line and observe that the #9 runs well against a faster pace than that last while well placed, so at least some credit for early ability in sprints.

If we say that its consistent up close positioning in its recent sprints is indicative of its spirit (at least on Dirt), and the line #4 route shows that the sprint portion of that race blows away the field (if you accept the route to sprint extraction and track equalization formulae), my question is (and perhaps what I was wondering if you were proposing), at 33-1, do you say that line #4 represents its best ability and give it a shot? It's not a proven loser on Turf, so the risk/reward ratio could be worth it.

That said, I am always cautious (having been plenty burned) about zigging and zagging, and consistent application of a paceline selection method is paramount in my view. It's just that part of a consistent methodology might be (for example) that when the offered odds rise above a certain price, and enough of, say, the above noted observations kick in, is that when the 'side-bet' wager button gets pressed?

You stimulated some interesting thoughts, Charles. Thank you!

yours,

Ted

And thank you Ted, you are a diplomat. Were I to have done the race by hand, I would have extracted the internal fractions from the horse's 4th line down. If there were to be any manual override that I'd like to see in the program, that would be it as, based upon the material in "Pace Makes The Race" I have caught a number of boxcars that way through the years.

I'm trying in my application of RDSS to stick to races within one furlong of today's distance, of course that isn't always possible and when too many unknowns show in any race, I find it best to pass. It's a hard enough game to beat, or at least stay even with, so that has worked to keep me from temptations of action bets.

I am however compiling a spreadsheet of the past week's races and will go on with it for a bit, just to see what the winning percentage is for top perceptor-ranked races when the distance is within one furlong of the heat in question. Less with the idea of seeking a black box and more with the idea of seeing just how many pace lines should be included for each horse and how much intuition (my own) plays in selecting the right one and just how correct that intuition is relative to the perceptor ranking when appropriate.

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by clore1030

Were I to have done the race by hand, I would have extracted the internal fractions from the horse's 4th line down. If there were to be any manual override that I'd like to see in the program, that would be it as, based upon the material in "Pace Makes The Race" I have caught a number of boxcars that way through the years.

Charles,

All lines for a horse are equalized to today's distance (and adjusted for DTV and ITV) on all screens other than Original, so for the 4th line, 8f distance, the internal fractions (i.e. the first 2 fractions and a bit) are extracted from the route and massaged a bit, and that is what gives the superior extracted sprint measurements for today's contest.

Does that clarification address your point? (Modern Sartin programs owe a lot to PMTR foundations...)

Ted

[clore1030]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

Charles,

All lines for a horse are equalized to today's distance (and adjusted for DTV and ITV) on all screens other than Original, so for the 4th line, 8f distance, the internal fractions (i.e. the first 2 fractions and a bit) are extracted from the route and massaged a bit, and that is what gives the superior extracted sprint measurements for today's contest.

Does that clarification address your point? (Modern Sartin programs owe a lot to PMTR foundations...)

Ted

It certainly does help to clarify, thanks. As I've said before, the PMTR textbook was my introduction to the methodology and I treasure my copy of it highly.

Has there been a poll as to Spec vs Val mode - which one is used more? I'm unfamiliar with the difference but i believe I saw a post of your own preferring the former.

[Ted Craven]

Having worked so much with Guy Wadsworth on Speculator before he passed away, I became much more familiar with Spec and thus handicapping with it. However after I updated Validator to Val4, and delved into the V/DC code and started going back over the later Follow Ups, and became comfortable again with using V/DC as a prime corollary despite ties (knowing how ties are derived), I believe I'd say right now that I am agnostic as to which 'mode' I prefer. I definitely appreciate having V/DC and it is available in both modes, but is affected by the different behaviour for each mode.

There are the 2 modes in RDSS to accomodate users who have a loyalty to one software predecessor or another. The main distinctions are:

- Val mode uses variable beaten lengths according to distance (canon in the Sartin Methodology), and Spec uses a fixed beaten length value
- different sprint to route projection formula
- readout rounding differences (which can affect rankings, thus BL/BL)
- the component of the Segments right-hand panel (V/dc for Val vs F3+TS fpr Spec)
- the formula for Segments Computed Beaten Lengths (which had only a 2nd Call component in Val).

So the Beaten Length value difference and any sprint to route projections will have the most effect on rank orders between the 2 modes.

Personally, I don't much care. If someone forced me to use Val4 mode, I would not complain a bit. I tend to use Spec mode out of habit.

It would be interesting if someone wanted to do the work to compare ROI on the 2 modes, but you could not simply select lines under 1 mode then change mode and record differences. You'd have to reselect lines under each mode, and may choose different lines to respresent a horse today.

Ted

[Cellarfunk]

Ted-

Maybe I'm looking the obvious in the face but...if one were choosing lines from the original, unadjusted numbers, why couldn't you use the same lines for comparison in both modes Spec and Val?