Val 4 mode

[socantra]

I'm just curious if there are many out there using RDSS in Val4, or energy mode. I know there is Binder and now myself but most of the discussion I see here leads me to believe (perhaps mistakenly) that most people are using RDSS in the default, or Speculator velocity mode.

This is not a gotcha question and I am not trying to imply that one is superior to the other. I do wonder though whether we might not sometimes be talking past each other.

Dick...

[noddub62]

Hi Dick,

I'm not sure why but I seem to do better using Val 4 mode and pretty much stick with it now. My particular methodology seems to like it.

Go Texas Rangers!

Bud

[sureshotlink]

Hey Dick,

Good Q.....i was wondering the same thing!.......i left off with val-3 before taking some time off from wagercapping.I recently found this forum and started using rdss a few weeks ago.i feel it comes down to your comfort level.i prefer using val-4 mode because it look familiar to ME! i'm sure speculator fits the eyes of others.

" Change is the sign of a youthful mind"

[Ted Craven]

For reference, here are the differences between RDSS' Val4 mode and Default mode (aka Spec160 mode): http://www.sartinmethodology.com/pub...Notes_0970.pdf (see point #2).

I'm not sure I get the distinction between the terms Validator/energy and Speculator/velocity (and the consequent differences between modes in RDSS). Both DOS software (and both RDSS modes) use pretty much the same calculations though some of the adjustments and screen layouts are different, as discussed in the above notes. Both use velocity to represent fractional and Total Energy and % Median energy disbursement, both show energy percentages on the Velocity screens, both modes display V/DC (Velocity relative to Deceleration) which is the epitome of incremental energy disbursement blended with compounded velocity figures (i.e. the components of BL/BL).

One thing which comes to mind as an often-mentioned difference between modes is that Doc advised not using pacelines with beaten lengths over 7.50 (or 7.75?) in Validator. Besides the fact of generally wanting a horse to be closer than that at the finish, to be competitive today - the main reason was that Validator uses a variable beaten length value depending on race segment and race distance, with final beaten lengths receiving an artificially low value in order to promote unlikelier looking horses who still had good Fraction 3 energy. However, if final beaten lengths are too high (e.g. over 7.75) bad horses can start to look too good, hence the warning.

Speculator values all beaten lengths equally (about 8.3 feet), thus high beaten lengths at the final call cost the horse a clear amount of time/velocity/energy, and the caveat about not using lines over 7.75 beaten lengths in Spec/Default is not so important as far as skewing the actual resulting velocity numbers. You still have to decide if a horse with higher beaten lengths made any moves at all in a race, or was merely sucked around the track in the wake of a fast pace of race which it had nothing to do with.

Both modes exist because a lot of folks came to RDSS via Speculator, while many others came via Validator (though of course still others are coming who had no exposure to either, or to the Methodology at all).

It is for each one to choose, and perhaps do some comparative research as to which produces more winners (and prices) in the top 3 of your chosen prime ranking (e.g. BL/BL, Total Energy).

Ted

[socantra]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

I'm not sure I get the distinction between the terms Validator/energy and Speculator/velocity (and the consequent differences between modes in RDSS).

Ted,

The distinction between the velocity and energy programs is largely the variable beaten lengths you spoke of. I believe I mentioned that I was not implying any superiority of one over the other.

At one time, they actually produced an ENGEN Energy and an ENGEN velocity program and the only difference between the two was the use of variable beaten lengths in the energy version and a fixed 10 foot length in the velocity version. I believe they finally settled on one foot per half furlong in the various segments for the energy version. The variable beaten lengths tended to bring the horses closer together in the readouts.

The differences may be slight, but it did create separate groups within the methodology. Some went with the energy concept and others were never comfortable with not having a fixed number of feet for the length of a horse. The other difference between the two approaches was an increased focus on percentage of energy used in the fractions and less on fractional velocity. That has become more common no matter how you like to think of beaten lengths.

I am personally much more comfortable with the Validator variable beaten length concept. I will admit that it may be mostly in my head, but it is there nonetheless.

I salute you for including both within RDSS.

Dick...

[Bill V.]

now that I have done a full Del Mar and 2 months of PARX profiling
I am more confident in using Val 4 mode
Doc knew what he wanted . Horses beaten by over 7.5
are just too far back most of the time

Doc was correct "Bill, Eventully everybody thinks they know better"