Tracking The Early Dominant Horse

[SilentRun]

I am interested in finding out the profit potential of the Early Dominant horse as to WPS betting.
I used only those E/L 2.0 races that I also ran thru RDSS using the following criteria:

Dirt sprints except 7F. Dirt routes: 8F to 8.3F only
Turf sprints only.
Early Dominance starts at 56%.
My betting is: $2 win, $4 place and $12 show.
I have only 22 races that meet the above so I am presenting a 20 race cycle.

As you can see from the spreadsheet data below the WPS resulted in a 17.8%
return. There were 6 races out of 20 that the early dominant horse won but at some nice prices. Also there was some nice show prices that help kick up my WPS return and of course it is only 20 races. For the races of 7/17 MNR R9 and ASD R5 for 7/06/11 the early dominant horse was out of the money.
Those horses were also not in my 5 top RDSS contenders so for the next cycle any early dominant horse must be within my top 5 of RDSS. I also didn't eliminate low odds dominant favorites.

In any case the results of this first cycle is favorable and I thought that this would be of interest.

Ernie

[Ted Craven]

Ernie,

That's an interesting study on Dominance. What is your reasoning on setting Dominance at 56%, instead of Dave S's newly suggested 58% (http://paceandcap.com/forums/showpos...5&postcount=22) or the original 62% ?

I am about to release RDSS 2.0 Beta 1 this week, and have hard-coded NewPace Dominance as 58%. Do I need to make that user-definable (e.g. 56...58...62%) ?

Thanks for this work Ernie. This issue of Dominance and returns from these horses (or their failure to Win) is all over the map! One guy swears they are mostly the kiss-of-death, at MNR low class claimers they are pretty weak. Iit will be very valuable to get more detailed, and track specific, models on this particular factor.

Ted

[SilentRun]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

Ernie,

That's an interesting study on Dominance. What is your reasoning on setting Dominance at 56%, instead of Dave S's newly suggested 58% (http://paceandcap.com/forums/showpos...5&postcount=22) or the original 62% ?

I am about to release RDSS 2.0 Beta 1 this week, and have hard-coded NewPace Dominance as 58%. Do I need to make that user-definable (e.g. 56...58...62%) ?

Thanks for this work Ernie. This issue of Dominance and returns from these horses (or their failure to Win) is all over the map! One guy swears they are mostly the kiss-of-death, at MNR low class claimers they are pretty weak. Iit will be very valuable to get more detailed, and track specific, models on this particular factor.

Ted

I set 56% based on 2 races in my 20 race cycle where two 56% ran ITM.
So as flimsy as it is...it is my user-definable number.
Since other users may have their own minimum Dom % then yes....it would be better to make it user-definable.

I could look into building another 20 race cycle using the prior E/L 2.0 posts.

Ernie

[Bill Lyster]

Ernie:

Here are over 150 races that meet your criteria, as outlined above. Most are from the 2010 data base, but the 2011 races were from cards that I handicapped. I included only races where the #1 early was 56% or greater than the #2. Race results are shown on the right and if the #1 early dominant won it should also be highlighted in yellow. I did not record odds info, but much of the legwork has been done if you would like to take a whack at this expanded sample.

I worked the races and recorded info as the RDSS info was being updated so there is a chance that some of the later worked races (which are unfortunately, not necessarily in the order that I worked them) were worked with later versions of the EL 2.0 info.

Hope this helps. Oh, BTW, I could download but not read your attached spreadsheet in the first post.

Bill

[SilentRun]

Originally Posted by Bill Lyster

Ernie:

Here are over 150 races that meet your criteria, as outlined above. Most are from the 2010 data base, but the 2011 races were from cards that I handicapped. I included only races where the #1 early was 56% or greater than the #2. Race results are shown on the right and if the #1 early dominant won it should also be highlighted in yellow. I did not record odds info, but much of the legwork has been done if you would like to take a whack at this expanded sample.

I worked the races and recorded info as the RDSS info was being updated so there is a chance that some of the later worked races (which are unfortunately, not necessarily in the order that I worked them) were worked with later versions of the EL 2.0 info.

Hope this helps. Oh, BTW, I could download but not read your attached spreadsheet in the first post.

Bill

Bill,

Thanks for the data I'll look into it.
Sorry I have no answer why you cannot read the spreadsheet.
All I can say is when you click on the spreadsheet it does not open up
directly.. It produces a tab on the bottom left of the screen that you must further click on and then it opens.

Ernie

[pktruckdriver]

Bill

May I ask if these were just the races where you meet Ernie's requirement's only, because if I read this right it seems that it seems out of about 156 races or so, there may be a dozen races where the E1 E2 L1 or L2 did not win the race , yet in those races the #1 or #2 did win the race.

Could you explain to me what #1 and #2 are exactly , please. I ask because sometimes but not always the #1 horse was an E1 or E2 horse , but not always, and I was wondering why??

Great work thou, thanks for sharing it.

From what I see, this EL 2.0 is showing ti can find winners , am I right there, and the percentage must be very high, not sure how I could see what % each particular horse, similar to what Ernie is looking at as the Dominant horse, I was wondering about the % of the E1 and E2 and L1 and L2 of being winners and then of being ITM also, how could I set up a spreadsheet to do that???

something like this

E1 wins 33% ITM 47%
E2 wins 28% ITM 48%
L1 wins 31% ITM 33%
L2 wins 18% ITM 47%

Of course my numbers are guesses here and could be way off, okay, and most likely are on the low side

patrick

[Bill Lyster]

Originally Posted by pktruckdriver

Bill

May I ask if these were just the races where you meet Ernie's requirement's only, because if I read this right it seems that it seems out of about 156 races or so, there may be a dozen races where the E1 E2 L1 or L2 did not win the race , yet in those races the #1 or #2 did win the race.

Could you explain to me what #1 and #2 are exactly , please. I ask because sometimes but not always the #1 horse was an E1 or E2 horse , but not always, and I was wondering why??

Great work thou, thanks for sharing it.

From what I see, this EL 2.0 is showing ti can find winners , am I right there, and the percentage must be very high, not sure how I could see what % each particular horse, similar to what Ernie is looking at as the Dominant horse, I was wondering about the % of the E1 and E2 and L1 and L2 of being winners and then of being ITM also, how could I set up a spreadsheet to do that???

something like this

E1 wins 33% ITM 47%
E2 wins 28% ITM 48%
L1 wins 31% ITM 33%
L2 wins 18% ITM 47%

Of course my numbers are guesses here and could be way off, okay, and most likely are on the low side

patrick

Yes, these are only races that matched Ernie's study parameters.

#1 is the EL program's earliest horse. In the first race (#246) the #1 early points horse was the 7 with 22%; the #2 (2nd earliest) early horse with 17% of the early points was the 2. The #1 early horse had a 56% advantage over the #2 early horse (22/(22+17))=56%

The E1,etc horses are as shown; yellow hilights a winner (unless I goofed)

The finish order for this race was 3-4-10

Bill

[SilentRun]

Originally Posted by Bill Lyster

Ernie:

Here are over 150 races that meet your criteria, as outlined above. Most are from the 2010 data base, but the 2011 races were from cards that I handicapped. I included only races where the #1 early was 56% or greater than the #2. Race results are shown on the right and if the #1 early dominant won it should also be highlighted in yellow. I did not record odds info, but much of the legwork has been done if you would like to take a whack at this expanded sample.

Bill

I computed the WPS results for the top 20 races from the spreadsheet.
This is based on betting $2-$4-$12 for WPS respectively.

Cost: $360
Return: 193
(Loss) $167 (-46%)

Pretty bad....There were only 3 dominant winners out of 20 races and they
were all low odds favorites paying 3.40, 4.00 and 4.80 for win.

However when I will be doing this the next time....
I would be passing these low odds favorites. I would also pass those races
where the dominant early horse does not make my top 5 RDSS contenders.

Also if the dominant horse's high speed for the low req sort is lower than the low speed for the other early/swing contenders then that horse is eliminated.

I would also evaluate how long the horse has been laid off and current form.

So I would have to run this cycle form my perspective only and not use the black box approach and hope to generate profitable results.

Ernie