Go Back   Pace and Cap - Sartin Methodology & The Match Up > Classic Sartin Programs - Support, Discussion > Speculator
Mark Forums Read
Google Site Search Get RDSS Sartin Library RDSS FAQs Conduct Register Site FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts

Speculator Speculator - FAQs, Technical Support, Examples, etc

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-01-2007, 12:32 PM   #41
froggy
Grade 1
 
froggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bullhead City Az
Posts: 921
Mufasa,

If for example the horse you scratched was say 1st or 2nd & 3rd in a couple of rankings then that would change the entire picture.

Sometimes when I've put in 12 pacelines and then eliminate down to just 4 the 1st ranked horse has moved down to 2nd.

When all of the extra noise is gone then things fall into their correct place.

Good Luck

Froggy
froggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2007, 01:03 PM   #42
mufasa
Grade 1
 
mufasa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 310
Thanks for your response Froggy.

I was thinking of not when I scratch or hide but when I am at the track and I have the BLBL printout and/or the Perceptor 1 printout for which I have already gotten the race contenders down to the top five choices. If there is the inevitable scratches at the track and now one of my higher rated choices is scratched how will that affect my line up (or the remaining contenders) as to movement within the initial ranking arrangement. I believe that in my reading of the Sartin Methodology that I came across an explanation that when it comes to the BLBL outcome if there is a scratch while at the track of one of the higher rated contenders that the ones below it do not necessarily move up in a linear fashion but can at times leap frog. At the same time when it comes to the Perceptor 1 readout of information/rankings that these results are more linear allowing equal movement up in ranking (i.e. 8 ranked becomes 7 and 6 becomes 5, etc). I guess what I really need to do is dig out from the Sartin material where I came across the information.

Thanks again,

RR
mufasa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2007, 01:56 PM   #43
froggy
Grade 1
 
froggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bullhead City Az
Posts: 921
I am used to doing everything from my desk now.
But I do remember what it was like to take printouts to the book and then have 2 contenders in a race get scratched.
Your memory is correct PER I is more linear and that would make it good to use as a back up.

I've never had the opportunity to read much of the later Sartin material but what you have stated from my experience with Spec160 and I have been doing at least 2 cards a day for the last several months

Froggy
froggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2007, 11:00 AM   #44
Ted Craven
Grade 1
 
Ted Craven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 8,853
Mufasa,

I would love for someone here to make a counterargument to my observation but I think the BLBL rating is a lot more 'linear' in the way it actually predicts the contenders than the 'advertising' would suggest. Sure, the rankings to Primary Factors will change depending on pacelines in the mix and some rank 4's may become 3's or 2's, and a line which had a BLBL tier 1 or 2 on the basis of several 2 ranks or 3 ranks may slip a tier as other lines move up. But if you boil it down to where the hit rate comes from (e.g. tier 1, 2 etc) and more importantly where the ROI comes from (e.g. overlays from tiers 1/2 and also 3), I wonder if a reasonably large study would show it made any real matter in hit rate or ROI whether you just moved your BLBL ranks up one following late scratches, and got on with it.

To prove an effective method for you, perhaps conduct a 20 race (for starters) paper study on races already run, starting with Results charts for races where there were late scratches which made it into your top 3 on BLBL. Then, after removing the scratched line(s), see if just using the remaining lines would have gotten you a worse 2 horse wager opportunity than recalculating the race without those scratches (and without adding in more horses). I remember doing something like that in the late 90's and it doesn't leap out in my memory that just moving everything up in BLBL rank wasn't just as good as refiguring everything.

BLBL isn't the only effective readout in the toolbox: E/L, MU/CBL and of course Perceptor1 (and V/DC in Validator and RDSS) can serve as corollaries to using a 2nd or 3rd Tier BLBL over the first tier. But I think BLBL is not as sensitive to the contender mix as say Jim Bradshaw's Match Up procedure: where the whole picture changes if, for example, 1 of 2 Early horses scratch, or the lone Early scratches.

For more insight into BLBL, may I suggest the following experiment. Select any 3 pacelines (same horse, or 3 horses) and bring them up in BLBL, then Hide 2 of the lines, so you have only 1 line. You now have 7 rank 1's in Primary Factors, a Primary Line Score of 7 and a BLBL of 24.5. Divide 24.5 by 7 and record that number (3.5). Then Unhide so you have only 2 lines, so now you have a mix of rank 1's and rank 2's. Take one of the BLBL scores and subtract 3.5 for each 1 rank and divide the remainder by the number of rank 2's for that paceline and record that number (3.25). Then Unhide the 3rd line...you get the picture.

Now, consider just these 2 thoughts (among other posers):

1. based on your model keeping for today's track, distance, surface, some factors are obviously more indicative of win potential than others. For example, on AQU Inner sprints in the winter, which is more valuable: Early or Late (answer: EARLY!). BUT, does a horse ranked 1 in LPR deserve the same number of points in the BLBL total FOR THAT RACE as a horse ranked 1 in EPR? Most likely not (unless it dominates the others in Total Energy). Thus, the high ranked LPRs in this example are overrated, in fact, should probably have lower BLBL components. And the same concept applies to other factors depending on their (recent) historically modeled impact value.

2. Per the above BLBL point derivation experiment, a horse ranked 1 in a factor gets only 7% more BLBL points than a horse ranked 2. But consider the Perceptor readout which shows the gap between rank 1 and rank 2 as 10, 20 or 30+ points. Is it fair to portray that rank 1 as only 7% better than that rank 2 - or conversely, is that rank 2 almost as good as the rank 1? Not often. Or, if the difference between ranks of several factors is quite close, say 1 point or less, ask if the aggregate rank sum of those lines with the only slightly better numbers fully warrants the apparent superiority when expressed as BLBL.

I offer these thoughts to muddy the waters a bit on the topic of only using BLBL as one's guiding readout, or to warn against over-ascribing predicability to slight differences in ranks or tiers. BLBL tiers with 2 or 3 points difference betwen them really start to mean something.

Mufasa, I don't know if this discussion helped or hurt anything! But it's a thinking game we play, and I think it sure helps to know some of the 'magic' behind the curtain, so to speak.

Ted
__________________

R
DSS -
Racing Decision Support System™

Last edited by Ted Craven; 06-05-2007 at 07:46 AM.
Ted Craven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2007, 01:51 PM   #45
mufasa
Grade 1
 
mufasa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 310
Ted:

Your response was great and an eye-opener. The realization from your thoughtful response is the need to keep in mind how important it is to look at the individual factors that make up the whole, especially as to their meaning/significance when viewed vs. today’s track, conditions, or race makeup. I am learning that the RDSS/Spec160 are great handicapping programs or tools in helping to isolate the winner among lets say top 5 in one output or another but to get it down to the 2 winning bet choices on a reasonably consistent basis requires a little more thinking and digging.

Thanks,

M
mufasa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2007, 12:46 AM   #46
chris
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Richfield, MN
Posts: 182
Mufasa:

Your thoughtfull questions sparked quite a conversation. You were the catalyst for one of the most interesting threads I've read in a some time. A great refresher for those of us who've become jaded through the years - specifically me.

The burning intensity behind your questions is something we all experienced when first grappling with this methodology. You're to be commended for jumping into the deep end of pool so quickly; that's where you learn to swim.

In the end I find these programs most meaningful when I think of, and use them, as a compass; they'll always give me true North, and after that, the direction I take will be my choosing.

Additionally, want to thank all the participants in this thread - it was a great read.

Regards,
Chris
chris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2007, 09:28 AM   #47
socantra
Grade 1
 
socantra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Craven View Post
Mufasa, I don't know if this discussion helped or hurt anything! But it's a thinking game we play, and I think it sure helps to know some of the 'magic' behind the curtain, so to speak.

Ted
Thanks Ted,

It definitely helps to know all the "magic" you can show without giving away the store to software pirates and such. The understandable paranoia had taken Doc Sartin to the point that he was reluctant to reveal anything of substance about the programs.

The actual formulas are nobody's business, but I do appreciate how much of the underlying thought you've been willing to share about the insides of the box. As you say, it's a thinking man's game and I've never been real strong on blind faith belief.

Dick
__________________
"Ils Sont Partis"
socantra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2007, 12:15 PM   #48
mufasa
Grade 1
 
mufasa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 310
Socantra:

I was never interested in the formulas that help me get to lets say EPR or LPR or any other set of factors. As a newbie to this methodology I am most interested in the definitions. What are the given factors computing and then it is up to me to use it most effectively, if I could find the way. I too agree that we need to be careful about giving away too much information since besides the software pirates this is a pari-mutuel game and we should be sharing these handicapping tool concepts amongst ourselves where possible. Perhaps because I am a newbie going over the user concepts of some of the program outputs is important. You see I am not necessarily interested in how a person particularly uses their program outputs to get to their particular level of success but it is most interesting to hear different member ideas on how these concepts/outputs could generally be used most effectively. Ted’s example with the inner track at Aqueduct is a perfect example of sharing useful user ideas that are general in nature. I do not know if this proposal has been put forth before or even if anyone else (other then a newbie) would be interested but why not start a site area with password access only where ideas could be exchanged. Set up a private place where users/owners of the software can go to think out loud. This should be the case for review of the RDSS program so as to protect the information therein.

Thanks,

Robert
mufasa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2007, 12:27 PM   #49
froggy
Grade 1
 
froggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bullhead City Az
Posts: 921
Good Idea.

There is already the private area on the bottom of the opening page of this site.

"Club Pace and Cap"

I don't know what goes on in there but I suspect it is as private and secret as the "Skull and Bones"

Froggy
froggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2007, 12:36 PM   #50
socantra
Grade 1
 
socantra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Norman, OK
Posts: 387
Robert,

I meant no criticism of you, or of sharing information. I am generally of the opinion that there is very little in the way of "secret" knowledge and that we can all help each other to use the programs more effectively.

Doc Sartin had almost all of his early work ripped off by various people and became very paranoid about it. In my point of view, a little too paranoid. He was reluctant to share any information about the inner workings of the programs.

Ted has lifted the veil a little on some broad general principles, and I'm very greatful that he has. I have gained in understanding from it. Over the last few years, I've pummeled Ted with all sorts of questions. Some he felt free to answer, some he didn't. That's fair. I've even stumbled on to some of the formulas for some of the transitional phases from the early days to now. I sent them to Ted. He's making much better use of them than I ever would.

Keep asking away. We all benefit from a richer understanding of the programs. I was merely thanking and congratulating Ted on how open and responsive he has been. That;s been the beauty of this site and the whole direction the methodology is taking. Friends helping friends.

Dick
__________________
"Ils Sont Partis"

Last edited by socantra; 06-05-2007 at 12:38 PM.
socantra is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:05 AM.