First 20 race cycle
 

Below is my first recorded 20 race cycle. All races are on dirt from Churchill Downs. I bet $3 on my primary choice and $2 on my second choice and recorded BL/BL and VDC. I almost always bet against low odds favorite. I started with the RDSS selected pacelines and changed them if I needed to go past 3 lines to get best comparable distance, surface and track conditions. I referred to Preceptor on all line selections

I bet a total of $100, $5 per race. The return was $155.40 for a gain of $55.40. I won 7 out of 20 races or 35%. This is much, much better than I have done in the past. It may be an anomaly.

The biggest take away for me is that if I had bet $3 on every VDC=1 horse and $2 on every VDC=2, the return would have been $235.70 for a profit of $135.70. This would increase the winners to 14 of 20 races bet.

This confirms the power of VDC. On the next 20 race cycle I plan to bet based on VDC. If low odds favorite is VDC=1, I'll pass the race. Otherwise I'll bet $3 on VDC=1 horse and $2 on VDC=2. I'll stay with dirt races at CD if possible.

The results seem to be too good to be true. I hope it is repeatable.

I would appreciate any observations, improvements,constructive criticism, etc. you might have. This is a wonderful program and a great group of teachers. Thanks to all of you that have help me.

Mike
 

Mike you had 20 wins in the top 5 VDC and 18 were in your top 4 VDC ( 90% ).
These are great results and I wish you continued success.
Doc would be proud of you.
Keep doing what you are doing.
Your friend
rmath

Mike Doc always recommended betting 2 horses per race. Your 2 horse bets show an excellent return. And yes betting 2 horses a race can and does let you win 65-70% of your bets over time if you stay consistent in your approach. Wishing good skill in the future.
Tim

Congrats Mike you've come a long ways. I would suggest you Track RX3 also as it gets a bevy of winners. While it gets a good amount of winners the prices are lower than V/DC . Go back over the cycle you just completed for RX3 and compare results.


Keep doing what your doing and keep in touch.


Mitch44

Nicely done Mike! VDC sometimes has tied ranks, by design. If you haven't encountered that yet, you might want to track the result of betting 60% on the VDC Rank #1 which also matches the higher BL/BL rank and 40% on the other VDC rank #1. This will be a lower BL/BL rank (due to the composite of Primary Factors being lower ranked) but is often what we call a 'Binder improver' after our late founder Bill V ('Binder') who noticed that such horses have a high correlation with Late Energy ratings (F3, LPR, L/ep,TS+F3) which is what helps the VDC formula 'improve' its otherwise lower BL/BL rank.

My anecdotal observation is that such 'alternate' VDC rank #1 horses when they appear, often pay noticeably better.

Another idea you can investigate is - instead of betting 60/60 on VDC #1 / VDC #2 (or co-VDC #1) - instead simply bet 50/50 on each with the proviso that you'll at least breakeven on the lower odds horse. This way, instead of having only 40% on the 2nd ranked (and usually higher odds) horse, you'll have 50% of your bet on it. Your records will tell you comparatively how often that 2nd horse wins compared to the 1st horse, and what your payoff would have been.

Dick Mitchell used to argue with Doc, insisting that his recommended 60/40 dutch should be the other way round: 60% on the higher odds horse (more typically a lower ranked VDC) and 40% on the lower odds horse (more often the higher ranked VDC) - so you'd have more money bet on better odds horses. Doc however was always mindful of the psychological/emotional state of his clients and horse players in general who tend to get cold feet and lose resolve in the face of lower hit-rates and longer runouts.

Hence the 60/40 he recommended, to preserve mental health and keep you in the game longer. However, once you know how to ride the bicycle (and disassemble and repair and rebuild it) you can then remove the training wheels, add racing stripes, perform acrobatics ... (e.g. bet 50/50 or other ratio).

Just food for thought. Keep up the diligent good work!

Ted

Over a 50% ROI - EXCELLENT!

The prices in your sheet show you are not afraid to back up your work no matter what the public thinks.

We have a word for that....WINNER!

I would second the suggestion made by Ted about betting 50-50 when making 2-horse bets. Just make sure your lower odds horse is going off no lower than 2-1 so the return on that bet will "hedge" your higher odds bet. You will make more $ this way.

If your lower odds horse is going off below 2-1 but still above 3-2 consider using that horse in an exacta (use guidelines set forth in the "50% Solution).

If your lower odds horse is going off below 3-2 but at least 1-1 consider a one horse win/place bet if this horse stands out above the field.

Pass betting a horse or the race if you cannot receive at least 1-1 on the win side.

Richard

Thanks for the great feedback.. I need it.

Cd 29 race cycle evaluation
 

I'm having fun evaluating data I've collected on 29 CD dirt races. My first comparison was between BLBL and VDC for 20 races and I shared that with the group. It was suggested I look at RX3 so I did. I also added 9 more races and three more fields that have superior results to the original three. F3POR#, TSPOR# AND TSF3+#. I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

Hi Mike,


I would not consider the 3 fields you added to be of significant importance. The reason is the POR does not consider todays Match Up. Which is going to be different. It also considers many different match ups, depending on the number of horses in the race.

If you have 12 horses you have 12 POR's and everyone of them is going to be different than today's match up. (naturally barring Tandems)

In RDSS all we have is POR and nothing as to how the horse performed against that POR. Sure we have POH but that is a very limited gauge and not very refined.

POR alone can be very deceptive such as this years Triple Crown races or any perhaps G1 races. Just because the horse was entered and ran in those races means nothing. In a 12 horse field of a G1 there is only one winner and someone has to be last, actually all races. A horse that ran last in that race or any race with a very high POR means nothing. What means something is if the horse can overcome the POR and won. Was and is it competitive against that POR.

Sartin's guidelines of not selecting a line where the horse was beaten 7.5 lengths or more helps but even that is insufficient.

POR must be put into context of how the horse handled it to have any real meaning and just looking at it as a stand alone won't cut it. The same thing goes for 3rd Fr of POR or even DCL of the actual horse. They must be put in context. A horse can have the best 3rd FR of POR or best DCL against today horses and not win. Context could be its a one run closer that can't overcome todays projected Second Call. Or it could be a very fast E type horse with a high % Med. that stops on a dime and a one run closer can beat it or a horse with a decent HE.

Comparing the POR and its POH does provide some comparison but todays Match Up of what it must do is the very best context.

Single factors or a single components (such as the 3 you added Mike) seldom will out perform a Factor with multiple viable components such as BLBL, V/DC or RX 3. Than again too many factors can ruin the sauce because the worse one tears down the proficiency of the good ones.

The original concept of POR and POR as in the original Yellow Manual is a valid concept to determine what best surface, distance and class a horse is good at or can handle but it does not consider today's Match Up.

Even horses that are competitive in G1 or against good POR's never win. They don't have the will to win or really are G2 or G3 horses and are misplaced to be winners.

Over reliance on POR will get you a tryout but keep you playing in the minors, or if not a baseball fan you'll get an interview but not hired. Actually in this game it gets you a ticket that'll get torn up or thrown on the floor in disgust.

Mitch44

Thanks mitch44

The F3 PoR and TS PoR factors (Fraction3 and True Speed aka Final Time velocity for the race, respectively) are not good indicators for models if only because some pacelines for today's horses will be drawn from Tandem races (i.e. the same race) and thus will have identical PoR values and thus TIED ranks. Thus, results in more hits in the Top 4 (and why 100% for TS PoR).

However, TSF3+ is comprised of TS and F3 for the pace of the race (PoR) of the line chosen PLUS the Total Energy for the horse. It is not a single factor rating, but a blending of the final speed (True Speed) of the race the horse ran against weighted by the 3rd fraction of that race weighted by the Total Energy of the horse. If you hover your mouse over the header on the Rx+ screen, it tells you the components, as does this Documentation entry here: http://paceandcap.com/forums/showpos...02&postcount=5)

For the foregoing reasons, according to your paceline selection practice, I would consider it a good factor for you to track. The Match Up = how the horse set or overcame the pace of the race. Thus, TSPoR is an indicator of the calibre of pace of the race, while the F3 weighting shows performance of the pace settor in the critical 3rd fraction, while a good showing in Total Energy shows that the horse itself (compared to the pace it faced) faced or overcame well that pace of race.

Further, there are NO ties in TSF3+ because the Total Energy for the horse component guarantees uniqueness even if horses raced in the same Tandem race. This blended factor is there because the modeled results of over 1300 races showed hit rates not quite as good as your small sample shows, but in the mid to upper 80% range across race classes, tracks and distances (possibly surfaces, can't remember).

This factor is a (much) simpler rendition omitting most of the internal segments of what VDC essentially shows (which uses all of the internal segments, plus segmental gains against pace, plus overall Primary Factors).

You may find it interesting to research what the intersection ranks show using Top 5/4 ProfitLine, Top 5/4 Bris Prime Power, Top 5/4 TSF3+ and Top 5/4 Rx3. For extra (and in my experience - impactful) measure, compare the Top 3 Tx2 (Place to Win Ratio) from the toteboard readings.

This always leads to a very high percentage of Winners and not a few Place finishers, Top 4.

Again, your choice of pacelines matters, as does how you decide to filter Non/Contenders.

Ted

My apologies regarding a particular explanation of the TSF3+ factor in the previous post. I have edited that post for clarity, so now the explanation is correct.

I had said that TSF3+ was TS PoR + F3 PoR + TS PoH (or Adjusted SR, or Final time of the horse). I was mistaken when I wrote that. Per the documentation I referenced, and per the popup 'tooltip' in the Rx+ screen (which are correct), instead of TS PoH it is actually Total Energy for the horse (TE PoH) Total Energy TE is of course the sum of the velocities of the horse for F1 + F2 + F3.

Thanks Mitch44 for bringing this to my attention :thumb:

Ted

I'm a bit confused about TS POR In first paragraph below you say not a good indicator and the second paragraph you recommend tracking TS POR#.

The F3 PoR and TS PoR factors (Fraction3 and True Speed aka Final Time velocity for the race, respectively) are not good indicators for models if only because some pacelines for today's horses will be drawn from Tandem races (i.e. the same race) and thus will have identical PoR values and thus TIED ranks. Thus, results in more hits in the Top 4 (and why 100% for TS PoR).

You may find it interesting to research what the intersection ranks show using Top 5/4 ProfitLine, Top 5/4 Bris Prime Power, Top 5/4 TSPoR+ and Top 5/4 Rx3. For extra (and in my experience - impactful) measure, compare the Top 3 Tx2 (Place to Win Ratio) from the toteboard readings.

Mike, my bad :o:o. Instead of TSPoR+ (not a thing) I MEANT to write TSF3+ which we had been discussing initially and which I agreed could be highly impactful. (So my advice would be: DO model TSF3+, DON'T bother with TS PoR).

I corrected (again) my initial post so that future readers won't have to read 3 more posts to become unconfused. Very sorry for the typo!

Ted

Tks

Mike,

To clarify this the formula TS+F3+ has absolutely nothing to do with POR and POH.

1.POR and POH consists of F1,F2 and F3 or the 3 fractions of a race, that can be added as in Total Energy or each Fr. can be measured by the POR to see how it handled the pace for that FR as in the original Yellow Manual.

2. TS or true speed is a measurement of the final time of the race. Total Distance divided by time( I.e. Final time and a SR or a ASR is another way of looking at the whole or final time. TS = Dis. divided by time (Dis.) I.e. 6 F =3,960 feet divided by time (1:10) 3960 / 70 = 56.57 FPS or True Speed

These have nothing to do with Pace. Pace according to Sartin consisted of the 3 Fr's. The 3 Fr's ( and Tot. En. the adding of those 3 Fr's) place it in context or how it achieved it verses TS. TS,ASP or a SR is solely based on final time and not incremental Velocity.

Where this formula is placed, under POR leads one to misinterpret what it is. perhaps this formula would be better placed elsewhere such as on the opening page where APV and other data is contained or before the LPR rating outside the box of POR.

As Ted states it ( TS+F3+)can be used for contender selection if one doesn't already have one and perhaps you might want to compare it to the one you presently use. Its what I would call a quasi formula for deceleration and not a true one. V/DC is best for measuring deceleration. Also I believe there are better Factors or solutions for breaking those pesky ties with V/DC than TS+F3+.

Today's Match Up supersedes the old use of POR and POH. If shown or used as in the old Yellow Manual and adapted further it could provide insights into todays Match Up. However most winners come from the top 3 of many Factors. Asking whether or not its the same horse that earned that figure and its odds determine many winners from losers. Hopefully this clarifies all this and lays to rest the confusion.

Mitch44

If still confused about TSF3+, please just re-read my original post above (corrected a couple of times per my subsequent posts): http://paceandcap.com/forums/showpos...5&postcount=12

Use it or don't use it! Model it or don't - whatever.

Total Energy = F1+F2+F3 = accumulated velocity of the horse (PoH). TSF3+ comprises Total Speed for the race + Fraction 3 for the race + Total Energy for the Horse. As I said above.

Thus, TSF3+ includes PACE: of the horse, of the 3rd faction of the race according to the pacesetters. Don't want to call it 'pace'? No worries, just chill and call it 'incremental energy disbursement' (like Sartin did).

Is it as complex (and as 'good') a factor as V/DC - no (as I mentioned above). You'll get a lot of co-relations between a lot of these high-level factors.

Don't like seeing it in the PoR section on Rx+ (despite 2 of the 3 components being based on the pacesetters or race winners) - what can I say? I tried to put it in a context of how the horse itself performed (Total Energy) against the Pace of the Race it faced, in the section (PoR) which ranks the strength of the race. As I mentioned in my initial post, it did not arise from throwing darts, but rather from extensive MODELING which revealed some interesting factors using this very sheet.

No one says you HAVE TO use it. Answer for yourself if it is useful.

Thanks for reading.

Ted

Co-relations, AKA know as ties is a fact of the game. We start with the field with perhaps as many as 14 (BC races), very seldom can we single one horse and when capable is pays nothing for the effort.

There are races with as many as 6, regardless however that's a infrequent occurrence of what used. In the majority of cases there are only 3 true contenders in the majority of races. One has to separate those finalist even if a two horse bettor. And there is probability of being wrong from the start around 35 %.
Final decisions whether using your brain or V/DC is a fact of racing or the game would be dead.

Bottom Line is you have to find a factor or something that produces better results than the norm. In this sport there are many hundreds of belief factors and not as simple as one of the 39 flavors or so of ice cream they make. And rest assured if you come up with even a **** factor someone is bound to like it.

Through your own research find your own niche, its all about profit or success. Data base results are useless unless you know every detail of how its collected, only than do you own it and can separate the wheat from the chaff. A 1300 research sounds impressive but like beauty its all in the eye of the beholder.

Mitch44

2nd 20 Race Cycle
 

I've handicapped and bet 27 more races at CD for a total of 47. As before, all on dirt; sprint and rte included. NO Maidens. Bet 2 horses to win, $3/$2.
SEE ATTACHED

My intention on the 2nd 20 was to bet the 1st and 2nd ranked VDC and with decent odds. At first I bet against low odds favorites that were ranked VDC=1 or 2. I had to change due to so many top VDC low odds favorites were winning.

The first 20 ROI was 1.5. The next 27 was 1.19. With 47 races it dropped to 1.34. Quite a disappointment. I would have been worse if it were not for a win on a 18.5:1 long shot that had a VDC of 3 and Rx3 of 1. I had a winner in 40% of the races.

Based on all the data collected, I added a few more factors to track.
BL, V/DC, RX1, RX3, TSF3+ #, FX, CPR#, POS STR, TPP#, PROFITLINE, BPP.

Chose first 10 based on %top 4>80, %top 3>70 and/or %top 2>60%. A table is attached. Ted, I don't have access to the Tote factors.

My biggest take away is when RDSS says the low odds favorite should win the race, believe it. I've attached a table showing the factor ranks for the low odds winners. TABLE ATTACHED.

Would appreciate your thoughts on the factors that had the highest % for 47 races at CD. With all this information, I'm not sure how BEST to use it.

I've struggled with writing enough. I''ll share more stuff/ask more questions later.

2nd 20 Race Cycle
 

Forgot Attachments

Looks pretty good Mike.
Tim

2nd 20 Race Cycle
 

I've started doing a breakdown by sprint vs route at CD. E/EP is very powerful for routes and L/EP for sprints. This is different than I would have though. Have any of you noticed the same at other tracks.

MNL97

Have you a race
 

For further examination.

Mike this may vary from user to user depending on contender and paceline selections. I don't include either of these in my models. I lean more to the primary factors in bl/bl paying attention to which of those is producing the most top 2 rankings for the winners and place horses by dist and surface. I also pay strict attention to % med.
Tim

I won't write too much about this, but I'm not surprised with this finding at all.

Some of the better prices I've run into came from those #s just as you've noticed in routes and sprints as well.

Mike