RDSS 2.0 E/L data to look at

[Bill Lyster]

I am starting to see patterns in some of the data gained from the use of E/L 2.0

I listed the choices as E1, E2, L1 and L2. In 34 races at Woodbine last year (I used the database cards from September) the results were 8-8-4-4 which might indicated an early bias or just not enough data.

I also did 91 races from last summer at DMR and SAR and threw in a few current ones from SA.

In 91 races the results were 25-8-20-14 which again could be a limited data thing, but it could also mean that the logic for labeling the #2 E horse might need some revision.

I would expect #1s to win more than #2s and so 45 of the 91 races were won by either the #1 E or L horse.

It seems like the program chooses the swing horse a lot whether it is E1 of E2. Sometimes due to the running styles of the horses and particularly in shorter field races the 2nd choice of either E or L may not be the best decision given the makeup of the field. When there are few Late runners in the field the 2nd best Late horse may be one of the Pressers that gets discarded in the early analysis and vice versa when there are few legitimate Early horses, again one of the Pressers might be a better #2E. You really need to look at how the numbers line up and ask yourself a few questions.

Still a work in progress. I am seeing many exactas - just over 50% and 25% trifectas. Of course its all on paper so far. My thoughts are to look at playing exactas, trifectas and even supers (the 10c kind). I figure that if you can hit 25% trifectas with 4 horses, just hit the all button for the 4th slot for the supers (in a 10 horse field with 4 horses in the first three spots, the remaining horses can be covered for 8 or 9 bucks! Just a thought.)

Looking forward to reading about other finds or nuances from others....


Bill

[SilentRun]

Originally Posted by Bill Lyster

I am starting to see patterns in some of the data gained from the use of E/L 2.0

I listed the choices as E1, E2, L1 and L2. In 34 races at Woodbine last year (I used the database cards from September) the results were 8-8-4-4 which might indicated an early bias or just not enough data.

I also did 91 races from last summer at DMR and SAR and threw in a few current ones from SA.

In 91 races the results were 25-8-20-14 which again could be a limited data thing, but it could also mean that the logic for labeling the #2 E horse might need some revision.

I would expect #1s to win more than #2s and so 45 of the 91 races were won by either the #1 E or L horse.

Still a work in progress. I am seeing many exactas - just over 50% and 25% trifectas. Of course its all on paper so far. My thoughts are to look at playing exactas, trifectas and even supers (the 10c kind). I figure that if you can hit 25% trifectas with 4 horses, just hit the all button for the 4th slot for the supers (in a 10 horse field with 4 horses in the first three spots, the remaining horses can be covered for 8 or 9 bucks! Just a thought.)

Looking forward to reading about other finds or nuances from others....


Bill

Hello Bill,

I have been reworking the races that were posted theu RDSS such as Parx 4/11 and GP
4/10 as I have no access to the automated process. I only ran 17 races at this point.
Currently I am experimenting with merging the best contenders from RDSS with those contenders from 2.0 E/L.

For example:

I first run RDSS without reference to E/L 2.0. I then compare to E1, E2, L1 and L2 and try to eliminate as many contenders from RDSS 2.0 E/L as I can.
Usually at least 3 contenders (many times all 4 2.0 contenders match) match between RDSS and 2.0 E/L. I then use the best RDSS contender that is not listed in 2.0 E/L or conversley the best 2.0 E/L contender that is not in the top 5 of RDSS. I enter the 2.0 E/L contender in RDSS and make a judgement whether to keep or toss. Based on the limited data I am having good results with trifectas when 3-4 contenders match or I can use a strong RDSS contender. when 3 contenders match. Or I can eliminate two 2.0 contenders and hook them with 2 RDSS contenders. Anyway it is fun doing this and if it could
lead to better profits...great !

Can you clarify what you mean by 8-8-4-4 and 25-8-20-14 ???? as I am not understanding what you have posted. (I hope it is clear what I have written)

Thanks,

Ernie

[seattlesnake]

Here is the readout for the condition aided results at AQU:
Sloppy/sealed and small fields... favoring the Earlies...

[seattlesnake]

cont.











A few safe bets for the show bettors betting the speed...

[barb craven]

Ernie, As I understand Bill, he's listed the EL/2 horses asE1. E2.L1 and L2, so his numbers for the races he did for Woodbine last year were 8 for E1, 8 for E2, 4 for L1 and 4 for L2. Same for the other 91 back ones he did. Correct me if I'm wrong..
I haven't had much time, but I'm going back over TP for the same info. I'm finding so far, like Bill it looks like it's might be a good opportunity for exotics.
When I'm finished tomorrow, I'll post those results.

[SilentRun]

Originally Posted by barb craven

Ernie, As I understand Bill, he's listed the EL/2 horses asE1. E2.L1 and L2, so his numbers for the races he did for Woodbine last year were 8 for E1, 8 for E2, 4 for L1 and 4 for L2. Same for the other 91 back ones he did. Correct me if I'm wrong..
I haven't had much time, but I'm going back over TP for the same info. I'm finding so far, like Bill it looks like it's might be a good opportunity for exotics.
When I'm finished tomorrow, I'll post those results.

Barb,

Thanks for the feedback.....Yes, the "New Pace" methodolgy is pointing to opportunties in exotic wagering.

Ernie

[Bill Lyster]

Originally Posted by Bill Lyster

I listed the choices as E1 (first Early choice), E2, L1 (first Late choice) and L2. In 34 races at Woodbine last year the results were E1-8, E2-8, L1-4, L2-4 which might indicate an early bias or just not enough data.

I also did 91 races from last summer at DMR and SAR and threw in a few current ones from SA.

In 91 races the results were E1-25; E1-8; L1-20; L2-14 which again could be a limited data thing, but it could also mean that the logic for labeling the #2 E horse might need some revision.

Bill

Ernie, I hope this clarifies things a little.

Bill

[BJennet]

It's interesting to read through these beta-tests of this form feature, which I assume is based on D. Schwartz's 'Improve or Decline'. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If someone could interpret and explain these figures and the theory behind them in greater detail, I would be grateful.

One of the things that struck me here, was Ernie's comments about the high degree of correlation between these new indicators and the Sartin primary factors. To me this is the key problem that affects all the experimentation with assigning weights that surrounds the Methodology - almost everything can be too easily correlated with the primary factors, TE, BL/BL etc.. It seems to be that for any new factor, the most important aspect to test for and determine would be its independence from the primary factors - how much it actually adds to their well-established ROI. As far as I know now, the only other truly independent factor is E/L.

Any feedback appreciated.

Cheers,

B.Jennet

[Bill Lyster]

Originally Posted by BJennet

It's interesting to read through these beta-tests of this form feature, which I assume is based on D. Schwartz's 'Improve or Decline'. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If someone could interpret and explain these figures and the theory behind them in greater detail, I would be grateful.

One of the things that struck me here, was Ernie's comments about the high degree of correlation between these new indicators and the Sartin primary factors. To me this is the key problem that affects all the experimentation with assigning weights that surrounds the Methodology - almost everything can be too easily correlated with the primary factors, TE, BL/BL etc.. It seems to be that for any new factor, the most important aspect to test for and determine would be its independence from the primary factors - how much it actually adds to their well-established ROI. As far as I know now, the only other truly independent factor is E/L.

Any feedback appreciated.

Cheers,

B.Jennet

It is more properly taken from Dave's Early-Late work, which I highly recommend. You can find his product page at http://thehorsehandicappingauthority.com/products-page/

Dave starts with a statistical math concept that anything can be measured to a certain degree, to a certain probability. The source is cited in his material.

With this concept in mind he set out to determine which horses ran closest to the pace of their races no matter what the actual time. He ultimately has two concerns. What are the likely lowest and highest raw speed ratings for each horse and whether the horse will be in the early or late half of the field. The two best early and two best late horses usually are the horses that you have seen in the beta testing posts so far.

There are certain aspects of this method that have been part of the Sartin Methology for a long time, like the best early and best late (opposing styles) often showing up in exacta play. The fact that ALL races in the past performance are looked at, no matter when they happened, strikes familiarly with how Jim Bradshaw looked at horses.

The number parameters developed throughout the years of the Methodology cant be found in Dave's method. I would venture a guess that other published works that evaluated speed with points might have been the beginnings of Dave's ideas, but since I haven't read all of that stuff I couldn't say.

As a black box tool without any changes it is a remarkable evaluator of races. I think that RDSS has several tools that might enhance some of the grey areas that have to come up with the number of different race types that are to be encountered.

Once you understand the basic theory of what is being offered I am sure that there will be several ways to tweak what already is a usable product.

All the best,

Bill

[barb craven]

I just finished going back over Turfway Park from Mar.3 to Apr 2. 121 races, no maidens.
36 - #1E, 16 - #2E, 22 - #1L and 15 - #2L. Of the other 30, 13 had colour in the % accumulation and 16 were designated late with no particular favorable readings.

I don't know how useful this information is, but I thought I'd just put in my 2 cents worth. I found it a useful exercise as I saw patterns of one early or late style continue for several races and then totally change. It is probably old hat for most of you, but it is helping me on my journey and I thank my son for letting me be a part of this first testing.