** RDSS2 Beta2.5-11 (Dec 21) **

[lone speed]

Originally Posted by rmath

From the 53 winners that were among the final contenders but were not considered win contenders by my guidelines
16 were 1 or 2 LPR
11 were 1 Epr
3 were 1 TT
this gives a total of 30 winners from 681 plays or 4.4%
I hope this answers your question.

My research shows that by limiting my play to only the horses that are dual qualifiers and eliminating all the others the 87% winners remaining can be played and separated by the odds at 2 min to post time.

Most of the winners come from the top 2 final qualifiers that are the lowest vdc ratings.
This is not always 1 & 2 vdc but could be any combination that are dual qualifers.
Most races I end up with 2 or 3 final contenders and they are separated by odds at post time.

rmath

Rmath...

I guess that I should explain why I asked you about the #1 EPR and #1 and #2 LPR ranked horses that did not make your cut from the 53 that you had isolated...

My hunch from glancing at your stats was that you were missing some winners that were the pacesetters from the pacelines where they were rank #! EPR......the others that were ranked #1 or #2 LPR....I wondered if old Sartin Program like Thoromation might have produced a different outcome.


But.....eventhough you researched a great deal of races.....we might not have a statistical impact value as some experts might say....but that's another story...

You are using the tools in an impactful way to isolate contenders with strong corollaries... I wish you continued success....

[rmath]

Thanks.
This is a work in progress.
I used Thoromation many years ago and had great success with it.
rmath

[lone speed]

http://www.netcapper.com/TrackTracts...e/TT010223.htm

the link above by Gordon Pine will better explain what I meant by statistical impact value......actually Pine refers to A/E is a better tool...

[Bill V.]

I wonder if the range of speed ratings from the 0.0 horse has been tracked

As far as a test of any readout we must always remember that
a limit of 600 races is nice but rather small
Also any records of top rankings is based on your
line selection choice and that might not be everybody's choice

Here is a race Jimbob hit from DED yesterday the winner was
a 12/1 ML horse with a very usable plus pace line
2 back It was its third race off a layoff with a acceptable
excuse in line 1 -it was a sprint line in a route race The horse ranks first on BLBL and thoromation

It paid $54.00

Here is the entries screen The winner # 10 is in the top 3 CSR
The top 5 horses on CSR are 8, 9, 10, 2, and 4
the range from the 0.0 horse to the 5th ranked horse is
5.5



Here is the thing Of the top 5 CSR horses
They all have usable recent plus races at a comparable distance, surface and competition level, all except Horse #2

Now if we just use horses 4, 8, 9, 10, because they also are the only horses
in the race of all the horses in the race with usable recent plus races at a comparable distance, surface and competition level,
Is the winner a product of a SCR or proper pace line and contender selection
In my own small sample of about a week I feel that based on Ted's procedure
of more weight going to the last line, Its my feeling that the top 4 or 5 CSR horses will often have a usable plus recent paceline. The art of proper
pace line and contender selection should always be first and formost the
cornerstone of the Sartin Methodology

[shoeless]

Interesting thread even for a non RDSS user

[shoeless]

Sorry to butt in here

What is the difference between VDC and CSR?

I do know CSR is probably like a TPR final rating.

[rmath]

Shoeless, you are not butting in.
I will try to answer your question.
Vdc & CSR are two separate sets of ratings.
VDC is a rating based on the paceline that each person selects for their contenders in a race. the actual rating is based on Doc Sartins formula.

CSR numbers are similar to the TPR number but are taken from the last 4 races the horse has run.

Ted explained the CSR numbers earlier in this post.

My work with the 2 sets of numbers was done to see if there was a way to separate my final contenders down to 2 or 3 main contenders and get the highest percentage of winners in them.

Since you do not use RDSS I would highly recommend that you try it out.
You should at least take a trial month which Ted offers to anyone interested.
If you do I am more than willing to offer my help.
Rmath

[rmath]

On page 2, post 14 of this thread Ted explains the CSR numbers and how they are calculated.

[shoeless]

Rmath,


Thanks for the explanation and the offer to help as well,I commend you
for the work that your doing.

As far as RDSS I am not in the position right now to subscribe,I am a
commissioned sales rep and economy has really hit me hard.


Enjoy reading your posts

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by lone speed

Question for Ted Craven:

Bill V. asked a couple of years ago if Longshot Potential--the horse that overcame the fastest pace of race....be included in RDSS..I see it in the Speculator program ....but was it ever put into RDSS or do we have to use our eyes and make note of the fastest pace...

I have had a few requests from folks to include back some of the older readouts: Entropy, Longshot Potential, the EXDC/Thoromation readouts (Emuv, Smuv, uXr, Paragons). A LOT of them are, IMO, redundant to what we now have. None-the-less, I will undertake to display those somewhere in RDSS2.

Meanwhile, there is a quick and dirty way to see who best overcame the Pace of the Race, either in the last race or in a consistently chosen set of recent lines for all horses: compare the Total Energy for the Horse to the Total Energy for the Race, for races where the horse ran a good race (i.e. not one where it was sucked around the back half of the field against a fast pace). When the horse TE is higher than the race TE - it can only be so because the horse's velocities in a given fraction were higher than the pace setters creating those fractions (i.e. tiring less slowly than the front-runner(s) ), thus the sum of the horse's fractional velocities (i.e. Total Energy) will exceed the fractional velocities of the pace setters(s) - i.e. the horse was gaining on the pace (aka the horse was decelerating less than the pace was decelerating).

The Longshot Potential does show that - as one whole number, or ranking - but I have noticed that is fairly erratic as a standalone number, and as likely to disappoint as to thrill. It was the attempt to distill the entire Entropy/Deceleration work into a single readout. I think V/DC was (is) a much more mature expression of that question: 'who is decelerating the least compared to how fast they were traveling', which is why it evolved and the Longshot Potential languished.

But I will reinstate it somewhere. Meanwhile, an eyeball of who ran well against the fastest pace (last race, or recent good races) is pretty easy to do, and is indeed invaluable information to have in a race matchup

(Longshot Potential wasn't in Speculator, but was in Validator).

Ted