A Disappointed RDSS Evaluator

[J2EEDeveloper]

Originally Posted by BJennet

J2EED,

After reading both your e-mail and the later post, it's still not entirely clear what you expect from RDSS. As Ted says, you may be happier with database software, but you expressed unhappiness with HTR, which is used by at least a few pro handicappers, and is highly regarded.

If you're looking for black-box software, there are none commercially available, although there are some successful proprietary programs of which William Benter's logit model is the most famous and undoubtedly the most successful. All developers of the latter describe having invested years of time and labor in the development of their programs. It took Benter five years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to get his into the black. I think it's easy to understand why these programs they won't be available commercially.

In addition, a number of people with graduate-level training in statistics have described, on the Paceadvantage website, their many failures to come up with a successful model, and the grueling nature of their investigations, despite their knowledge. The dangers of backfitting and multicollinearity are two frequently mentioned issues.

From the tone of your questions, I'd say you somewhat underestimate these difficulties, since only a very few people have succeeded. And if black-box-like performance is what you seek, you'll probably have to develop your own.

Re the Sartin methodology, it sounds as though you always had difficulties with it, so one wonders why you've returned. However if you give it a chance, and follow the instructions, the program works as claimed. In my experience, the top 3 choices win 80% of the races, but as many have noted, the low-hanging fruit of the early years is gone. This is why, as Ted points out, Doc Sartin adopted Dick Mitchell's method of betting only on overlays, a process that he describes in detail in the last dozen or so issues of the Follow Up. In my experience, the wager value of the Sartin pace figures continues to hold up, and although you probably wouldn't believe my own results, I think that an ROI of 15% is within the range of what a moderately successful user can expect.

Apparently Ted is working on a software package that will provide an additional degree of automation for this process, which may be closer to what you're looking for.

Whatever you decide, I wish you the best of luck.

Cheers,

B Jennet

I am well aware of the difficulties involved in generating a positive return, especially with a software application. I am also well aware that the solution (and the profit) is in zigging when everyone else is zagging. It is not so much that the low-hanging fruit of the years past is no longer available, but rather that it is no longer available using the same approaches that worked then.

I have had a considerable amount of success with the Sartin Methodology, and pace analysis in general. It would be misleading to think I have always had problems with it. I think other factors are involved in race outcomes, but I am in no way dissatisfied or disgruntled with the Sartin approach.

My renewed interest in the Sartin Methodology is directly related to the fact that an associate is using Bob Purdy's Synergism application with modest success, and I thought RDSS would be an improvement on that. However, my understanding (which could easily be wrong) is that contender and pace line selection is pretty much automated in Synergism.

How many tracks/races do you customarily wager on?

Best Regards

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by J2EEDeveloper

I am well aware of the difficulties involved in generating a positive return, especially with a software application. I am also well aware that the solution (and the profit) is in zigging when everyone else is zagging. It is not so much that the low-hanging fruit of the years past is no longer available, but rather that it is no longer available using the same approaches that worked then.

I have had a considerable amount of success with the Sartin Methodology, and pace analysis in general. It would be misleading to think I have always had problems with it. I think other factors are involved in race outcomes, but I am in no way dissatisfied or disgruntled with the Sartin approach.

My renewed interest in the Sartin Methodology is directly related to the fact that an associate is using Bob Purdy's Synergism application with modest success, and I thought RDSS would be an improvement on that. However, my understanding (which could easily be wrong) is that contender and pace line selection is pretty much automated in Synergism.

How many tracks/races do you customarily wager on?

Best Regards

JSEED,

This is much clearer, if I'm understand it correctly. It sounds like your simply find a more automated style of play to be able to make more bets. This is exactly the problem I have been trying to solve, and it's possible that Ted's future automated paceline selection might be the answer. I usually check the card of three or four, and sometimes five tracks, and find, on average, one bettable race per card - that is one with at least a 50% overlay. It's for this reason that I'd like to be able to automate the handicapping process. You mention Synergism, with which I have no experience, but as you say, it does offer automatic paceline selection, Bob Purdy has a very good reputation, and the product has been recommended by Dick Schmidt.

You seem particularly hung up on the notion of paceline selection. If you're interested, you might try a mechanical paceline selection that's worked well for me: after eliminating obvious horses (NL types who lack the speed to lead, herd horses that never win despite good figures) use the line for each horse that has best Total Energy figure in its last three races at a comparable distance and surface. For turf races, you can go back six deep for the best line, as Jim Quinn recommends, or use the entire PP record, as Mike Pizzola does. It might be useful to compare this with results your friend gets, if he uses Synergism's autopaceline feature.

Richie P. demonstrated how effective and autopaceline can be in a recent exercise with RDSS. As a stat guy, you might prefer a larger sample - Kahneman and Tversky were right - but you might still want to check it out.

Cheers,

[tom]

My neighbor bought a nice hedge trimmer and he did a wonder job jazzing up his property by trimming and evening up all his shrubs. He even did a little sculpturing.

I borrowed the same trimmer from him and my bushes are now uneven, have bare spots, generally look terrible. Worse than before I trimmed them.

I can only conclude that the trimmer is not what I expected it to be.

[SilentRun]

Mr. J2EEDeveloper,

Your arguments are sophistically expressed but are not convincing.
For example, in your reply to me you stated.

1. "Sufficient instruction should be provided to enable the prospective
subscriber to clearly see the potential of the software"

2. You also claim that you cannot find consistency in RDSS.

Re: 1 & 2. If you claim thay you have read the Follow-Ups, in particular
issues 70-88. then indeed you missed the potential of the software.
The Sartin Methodology message has been consistently clear for years.
This same consistency permeates throughout RDSS. A stable method
as to paceline selection, wagering, hiding low odds favorites and going
with your 2 best overlays within tier levels.

There are years of records documented in the Follow-Up that clearly
demonstrate profit potential of the Methodology. Years of 20 racing cycles
from users that show, WIN WIN and more WIN. All of this is inherent
in RDSS which has expertly fine tuned the Methodolgy.

This is not a "Black Box" and there are no user manuals
it does take work, record keeping, etc...but
there are rewards for those who persist. As for me personally I
admit I had difficulties adapting to the Methodology. But this has
turned around for me. One example is my latest post
RE;"DED R5 & R6 for 12/02".

Not everyone can be successfull using the software. Apparantly
you are one of them. You may give excellent interlectual counter
arguments but to me it is empty discourse.

Good Luck To You

[Houndog]

In addition to the programs mentioned other programs have had a form of automated paceline selections also.

Aodds Gold had an asterisk next to the suggested paceline.

HTR has several automated paceline methods and I think many of the users use the default paceline selection method which sometimes uses just 1 paceline or 2.

TMH (The Master Handicapper) had the "Expert Selector" which would also use just one paceline or two paclines.

TMM (The Master Magician) had different modes that opened a "Form Cycle Window" which is a somewhat different concept. They had LASST and Two Excuse Mode as described in the book Handicapping Magic

BLAM (Black Magic) had the LASST and Two Excuse Mode as well as WOW (Wide Open Window), and the OPM (Obvious; Poor; and Money Horses).

I am not suggesting this is what RDSS needs to do as historically the Sartin Group has picked their own pacelines. To me this is a very good and thought provoking thread and many good points have been made.

[J2EEDeveloper]

Originally Posted by tom

My neighbor bought a nice hedge trimmer and he did a wonder job jazzing up his property by trimming and evening up all his shrubs. He even did a little sculpturing.

I borrowed the same trimmer from him and my bushes are now uneven, have bare spots, generally look terrible. Worse than before I trimmed them.

I can only conclude that the trimmer is not what I expected it to be.

Have you ever considered borrowing another neighbor's trimmer? That is not meant to be facetious. I hunt with a bow that very few modern bowhunters can use successfully; they have come to depend so much on the technology of cables, wheels, and eccentric cams in compound bows and sophisticated releases that my simple fiberglass recurve "bare bow" and "finger shooting" is difficult for them to handle. Even the ones who can pull it.

I would be happy to loan you my bow for hunting, but you would almost surely fail to use it successfully. That is not a fault in the bow itself--just as the fault was not in the hedge trimmer itself--as much as it is a fault in who you asked. Another neighbor may use a type of hedge trimmer (or even a set of manually-operated hedge clippers without a motor) that might be perfectly suited to your style of hedge clipping.

Remember: you have to pick the proper neighbor to ask to get the best hedge trimming results. The hedge trimmer is only a tool.

Best Regards

[J2EEDeveloper]

BJennet,
Thanks for the advice. I appreciate it. That is generally the approach I use, with recency and interim races considered. For example, if an entry has a record of 5.5f good, 6f good, 6f fair, 6f poor in last, entered in 5.5f today, I would use the most recent 6f because it appears the entry ran well for a few races, and is now in a low part of its form cycle.

I would really have to see something besides the pace lines as an excuse to go back to the better races for comparisons. It is in that gray area--of what seems to many to be form-reversals--that a lot of potential profit exists. Unfortunately, making excuses for poor performances in one or more recent races is also an area that leads a lot of handicappers astray. I used to be one of them.

Best Regards, and thanks again for the advice

[gl45]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgbNymZ7vqY

relax & enjoy

[Rverge]

Wow, so my question is, What is your next "step" or software to examine?
just asking. if you do find one as you discribe will you write us? now that you will not be using RDSS will you still come and post on this board?
i'm not trying to be a "jerk" just asking.
Rverge

[J2EEDeveloper]

Originally Posted by Rverge

Wow, so my question is, What is your next "step" or software to examine?
just asking. if you do find one as you discribe will you write us? now that you will not be using RDSS will you still come and post on this board?
i'm not trying to be a "jerk" just asking.
Rverge

As I said before, I have had a lot of good results using the Sartin Methodology and pencil-and-paper methods. As BJennet pointed out, there is a finite limit to the number of bettable races that can be located and bet successfully. Paper trials excepted, betting in the real world requires either a large number of bettable races or large bets on a small number of bettable to provide a return commensurate with the effort involved.

Thirty bets a week at $50 is $1500. A 15% (VERY good) POI means a net take of $225 a week--which is peanuts considering the time I have to spend locating and analyzing those 30 races. If I stick to major tracks, I can up the bet considerably without affecting the mutuel pools too much, and betting $200 a race brings my expected return up to $900 a week. Better, but still a long way from giving up my day job.

However, if I can model the races competently, and model the process of selecting contenders and pace lines, then create algorithms to implement that information, the time invested decreases, with little or no loss in accuracy. Because the decision-making process is structured, errors are eliminated, which usually increases accuracy. In the bootstrapping process of modeling expert selections, the automated process is usually able to substantially increase the accuracy of the "expert's" selections by eliminating errors and structuring an unstructured process.

I would really like to use RDSS. I like the interface, I like the readouts, and I like the underlying processes. About my only real complaint is the time involved; I am much more comfortable with "full-time" handicapping in which I (normally) bet 40 to 50 races a day at a dozen or more tracks. Unfortunately, my all-too-infrequent vacations seem to be the only times I am able to handicap races at that level competently, and then only by specializing in specific class levels and distances. I hoped RDSS would enable me to do the same thing by automating the most time-consuming processes--contender selection and pace line selection.

There is nothing "wrong" with RDSS software, other than that it is not a significant improvement--for me--on what I can accomplish with a stack of TrackMaster past performances, a yellow hi-liter, a red flair pen, and a graphing calculator (I don't use the graphing capability for handicapping, but the TI-94 is easy to program with the limited number of calculations I use in handicapping.) I also have stacks of nicely marked PPs showing pace lines, contenders, and notes to myself about why I chose what, so I can continually improve my own processes and discover my own analytical deficiencies. Just like Doc Sartin told me to do.