Time for some help

[clore1030]

I would have to see the Perceptor rankings.

I tend to use the best of the last three SRs, but if that line is Perceptor-ranked 2 or 3, and the next ranking up is within 4 SR points, I will take that line.

Thus, if the best of the last three is an 82 SR and ranked #3 in Perceptor, I will take the 2nd or 1st Perceptor line is the SR is no more than 86.

It may sound wacky but in conjunction with a decision model, it works for me.

EDITED TO ADD:
Now that I see that a later post has the Perceptor rankings, I would take line #2.

[Bill V.]

Great post Charlie. I am nowhere near these great men you mention. But I am starting to get a very sight picture in my mind of the energy readouts and early late graph by looking at some pacelined and the pace of the race. Now when I do my Sartin energy parameters. For PARX
I just kind of am seeing the numbers before hand

[Charlie D]

automotan

1.A self-operating machine or mechanism, especially a robot
2.One that behaves or responds in a mechanical way.



It is very easy to become the above and if you become the above you are going to be just like a robot and loose "feel" , "intution" , "Minds eye" or whatever term you want to call it.

[Charlie D]

People know a horse is not a machine. Students of the Sartin methodology that have been here a decent period should also know from their learning a horse race is not a mechanical process.

Then why treat the horses and the races they run in as if they are.

[clore1030]

Originally Posted by Charlie D

automotan

1.A self-operating machine or mechanism, especially a robot
2.One that behaves or responds in a mechanical way.



It is very easy to become the above and if you become the above you are going to be just like a robot and loose "feel" , "intution" , "Minds eye" or whatever term you want to call it.

Are you speaking disparagingly of those who wish to mechanically pick pace lines or are you just pointing out the errors of their ways?

As one who described above a relatively mechanical way of my own, I would like to be clear on that. In the meantime, [*** deleted ***].

Rest assured, there is still plenty of room for me to use my intuition (note proper spelling) as I'm not wedded to the final rankings that my method chooses. A person can use a mechanical selection method for pace lines but still apply judgment when it comes to the wagering process. There are still other details to be sweated - such as whether to even make a wager being the most crucial.

Also, in this example, we are certainly operating in a vacuum - we're not looking at the other contenders, so there isn't much of a race shaping up at this point. There is always room for fine tuning later.

[Ted Craven]

Yes, I edited and deleted a few posts just now (they were unrelated to paceline selection anyway). The topic is useful, but must not decay into any disrespectful or distracting commentary.

Plus, I'll be gone for a few days and can't allow anything here to go off topic.

Thanks for understanding.

Ted

[Charlie D]

Hi Ted


I don't usually query forum admin, but why was my reply to this deleted??

Are you speaking disparagingly of those who wish to mechanically pick pace lines or are you just pointing out the errors of their ways?

*** Charlie: please check your Private Messages *** Ted

[Ted Craven]

I have only 3 words to add to this discussion at the moment: consistency, consistency, consistency!

Well maybe a few more. IMO, the way to pick pacelines is the way you have discovered - either through reading and testing the advice of others, or through your own trial and error - that you consistently and persistently make money doing do. For one person to advise another that such and such a method is wrong is to likely invoke a shrug from someone who knows full well that they profit from paceline selection using the 'disfavoured' method.

Maybe Sartin, or Bradshaw or Brohamer or Pizzolla each used and taught their respective dissimilar (or similar) approaches, but they are not here with you, by your side, as you select your lines today. You must do it by yourself, and you must do it the same way for each and every next race, otherwise you have no method at all (i.e. you approach is not 'methodical'). Since racing is chaotic and often unpredictable in the short term, while it can be predictable in the long-term, if you don't pick your lines using consistent rules you won't know if a WIN in a given race is the result of your method or merely random, OR whether a LOSS in a race is the evidence of short-term randomness or the result of a weakness in your method. Hence consistency - in the long-run, you'll find out if you're headed in the right direction with your method.

I have seen perhaps more peoples' paceline selection strategies up close (at least using RDSS) than many here, and I can say with no care to whether folks believe me that there are some VERY different approaches to line selection AND some successful (profitable) RDSS users among them. In almost EVERY case I can think of, the people tend to pick their line or lines for horses the same way race after race (allowing that lines for Turf routes may be chosen differently than lines for dirt sprints, and Graded races differently than for Maidens). Consistency.

There is Best of last 3 (SR, TE, CPR, Perceptor) comparable, roughly per Bill's example; there is last line except when it's not comparable (but favouring last); there is not the best/not the worst rating of the past 'n' days (90/120/270 whatever) but sticking to the last 3 lines and comparable surfaces and distance structure; there is finding the probable Projected Pace, then searching other horses entire PPs for a line which pits them against that pace or shows them running in a typical position against such pace (i.e. visual Match Up); there is picking the best 3 PoH TE's from entire PPs; there is picking the best Early Energy style (e.g. using E/L) from lightly raced maidens; and likely several more distinct ones or flavours of the above.

People can win and lose different races by consistently employing different paceline selections - but end up with a profit none-the-less. In my view - there are definitely rules - the rules of your adopted or created method. The rules must be almost rigorous enough that they could be coded in a computer program. Which method to use? Try them - see which suit you, which profit for you. Some people work dozens of races a day, really quickly choosing lines from fairly mechanical approaches. Perhaps they bet superfectas or Pick 3s, while someone else bets Win only. Such a person cannot spend too much time analysing the deep possibilities in each race. They may also work 10 races and hold out for odds such that they typically bet 2 or 3 of them only. Or work 40 races to get 8 bets. Someone else may focus in great detail on just one card per day (or per weekend), and seek 5 or 10 different bets from just one card so they want to understand deeply what is going on in each race's matchup.

This all stems from differences in people's personalities and personal histories, and RDSS (or the entire Methodology as I see it) enforces no required way of going about this - only exhorting one to be serious and develop something which works - since it does work! That's why you can choose your own lines in RDSS (even while you may eventually make use of an automated or semi-automated strategy to do some of the heavy lifting).

If someone (e.g. someone new) asks me my advice, I would now say investigate not the best/not the worst (if possible) from comparable distance structures and surfaces within the last 3 lines PERIOD, erring on the side of last line for recent races i.e. within 28 days (for the reasons For the Lead elaborated earlier). Be cautious of blindly using a horse's best ever effort recently (unless, perhaps, a lightly raced young horse with a recent obvious improvement vector). Too many things can go wrong demanding a horse duplicate its best ever, especially if it has just done so recently. This approach (like several of the above itemized paceline selection strategies) can be fairly well automated (which I have been doing, the past few months) in the interests of applying a consistent approach.

For the record, re the initial example, I would choose the 3rd line (not the best, not the worst SR from the last 3 lines). I would always check to see if the energy disbursement pattern of a candidate line (check E/L readout) is reasonably consistent with how a horse typically gives its energy on a similar surface/distance structure (i.e. no use using the ONLY line in an entire career with an Early side, when EVERY other line shows somewhat Late - the Early type line is atypical, so choose a different one as more likely to represent the horse today).

My 2 cents...

Ted

[Charlie D]

Thanls for the explanation in the PM Ted.

Onward.



If a mechanical process were the successful methodology Ted, you as a programmer (or other programmers )could write a programme and there would never be another question like the one Bill put forward here.

In other words, we would have no need to think, in fact, no need to do anything except download the PP's and press RUN.



The reason or reasons i think you or other programmers can't solve the above problem is because of what i wrote here

People know a horse is not a machine. Students of the Sartin methodology that have been here a decent period should also know from their learning a horse race is not a mechanical process.

(This then begs this question i think)

Why treat the horses and the races they run in as if they are machines and mechanical processes.

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

I have only 3 words to add to this discussion at the moment: consistency, consistency, consistency!

Well maybe a few more. IMO, the way to pick pacelines is the way you have discovered - either through reading and testing the advice of others, or through your own trial and error - that you consistently and persistently make money doing do. For one person to advise another that such and such a method is wrong is to likely invoke a shrug from someone who knows full well that they profit from paceline selection using the 'disfavoured' method.

Maybe Sartin, or Bradshaw or Brohamer or Pizzolla each used and taught their respective dissimilar (or similar) approaches, but they are not here with you, by your side, as you select your lines today. You must do it by yourself, and you must do it the same way for each and every next race, otherwise you have no method at all (i.e. you approach is not 'methodical'). Since racing is chaotic and often unpredictable in the short term, while it can be predictable in the long-term, if you don't pick your lines using consistent rules you won't know if a WIN in a given race is the result of your method or merely random, OR whether a LOSS in a race is the evidence of short-term randomness or the result of a weakness in your method. Hence consistency - in the long-run, you'll find out if you're headed in the right direction with your method.

I have seen perhaps more peoples' paceline selection strategies up close (at least using RDSS) than many here, and I can say with no care to whether folks believe me that there are some VERY different approaches to line selection AND some successful (profitable) RDSS users among them. In almost EVERY case I can think of, the people tend to pick their line or lines for horses the same way race after race (allowing that lines for Turf routes may be chosen differently than lines for dirt sprints, and Graded races differently than for Maidens). Consistency.

There is Best of last 3 (SR, TE, CPR, Perceptor) comparable, roughly per Bill's example; there is last line except when it's not comparable (but favouring last); there is not the best/not the worst rating of the past 'n' days (90/120/270 whatever) but sticking to the last 3 lines and comparable surfaces and distance structure; there is finding the probable Projected Pace, then searching other horses entire PPs for a line which pits them against that pace or shows them running in a typical position against such pace (i.e. visual Match Up); there is picking the best 3 PoH TE's from entire PPs; there is picking the best Early Energy style (e.g. using E/L) from lightly raced maidens; and likely several more distinct ones or flavours of the above.

People can win and lose different races by consistently employing different paceline selections - but end up with a profit none-the-less. In my view - there are definitely rules - the rules of your adopted or created method. The rules must be almost rigorous enough that they could be coded in a computer program. Which method to use? Try them - see which suit you, which profit for you. Some people work dozens of races a day, really quickly choosing lines from fairly mechanical approaches. Perhaps they bet superfectas or Pick 3s, while someone else bets Win only. Such a person cannot spend too much time analysing the deep possibilities in each race. They may also work 10 races and hold out for odds such that they typically bet 2 or 3 of them only. Or work 40 races to get 8 bets. Someone else may focus in great detail on just one card per day (or per weekend), and seek 5 or 10 different bets from just one card so they want to understand deeply what is going on in each race's matchup.

This all stems from differences in people's personalities and personal histories, and RDSS (or the entire Methodology as I see it) enforces no required way of going about this - only exhorting one to be serious and develop something which works - since it does work! That's why you can choose your own lines in RDSS (even while you may eventually make use of an automated or semi-automated strategy to do some of the heavy lifting).

If someone (e.g. someone new) asks me my advice, I would now say investigate not the best/not the worst (if possible) from comparable distance structures and surfaces within the last 3 lines PERIOD, erring on the side of last line for recent races i.e. within 28 days (for the reasons For the Lead elaborated earlier). Be cautious of blindly using a horse's best ever effort recently (unless, perhaps, a lightly raced young horse with a recent obvious improvement vector). Too many things can go wrong demanding a horse duplicate its best ever, especially if it has just done so recently. This approach (like several of the above itemized paceline selection strategies) can be fairly well automated (which I have been doing, the past few months) in the interests of applying a consistent approach.

For the record, re the initial example, I would choose the 3rd line (not the best, not the worst SR from the last 3 lines). I would always check to see if the energy disbursement pattern of a candidate line (check E/L readout) is reasonably consistent with how a horse typically gives its energy on a similar surface/distance structure (i.e. no use using the ONLY line in an entire career with an Early side, when EVERY other line shows somewhat Late - the Early type line is atypical, so choose a different one as more likely to represent the horse today).

My 2 cents...

Ted

If in no other way, Ted and I are on the same page with regard to consistency of paceline selection.
When people post their races here, I always pay attention to which line(s) they have selected. I think if the readers would pay attention to Ted's posts, seldom will you see him stray to far from the last line, much the same way that "Doc" did not stray far from the last line, and I find that Ted has as much success as anyone.

Ted indicated that he is working on an automated pace line selection method. Knowing that his approach to paceline selection is different from mine, I don't envy him, since I have already been down that road. But since he mentioned it, I will take the opportunity to provide more detail of the results of my automated paceline selection method, the results of which are the basis for what I post for the readers information.

I researched the last 100,000 races or so and here is what that research shows.

1 - a little more than 71% of the winners were chosen from their last line
2 - a little more than 21% of the winners were chosen from the 2nd line back. Obviously the last line did not qualify.
3 - 6% of the winners came from the third line back. Again lines 1 and 2 did not qualify
4 - 2% of the winners came from the 4th line back. Again, line 1, 2 and 3 did not qualify

Naturally, all my lines selections are based on distance surface.
I do not use turf on dirt or poly.
I do not use dirt or poly on turf.
I do not use sprints in routes.
I do not use routes in sprints.
I do not use horses that haven't raced in the last 90 days
I do not use lines that are over 90 days old
I do not use lines where the horse was never "in the race" and got beat by less than 7.75 lengths.
I do not look at speed ratings
Naturally, I use races where the horse ran 1st,2nd or 3rd
I use lines where the horse showed early speed and got beat by more than 7.75 lengths


Because my paceline selection is automated, this is the way my pacelines are selected on all races.
CONSISTENT, CONSISTENT, CONSISTENT!!

Because I have all this information in a database, I have TRACK PROFILES and DECISION MODELS at my fingertips.
And I use them.
Handicapping is more than final time or any other measure that equates to final time.