Syn4 -- which variant setup is best to use?
 

Which is the best variant setup to use with Syn4?

You get different readouts depending on which setup you use.

Case in point, the Stephen Foster Handicap, which was the contest race here last weekend.

I lost that race. I used Syn4.

For the time being let's assume every paceline I picked was the proper one. Let's also assume that we are only interested in the TPR -- Total Pace Rating -- and SSR -- Synergy Speed Rating. Which variant setup is best to use?

As I mentioned, I lost this race.

Here's the initial setup:

Look what happens if I change the variant setup to Beyer 50%:

The winner -- #7 -- shows up as second choice on Total Pace Ratings:

And #7 is tied for first on Snyergy Speed Rating with 118:

What happens if you use 25% Beyer instead?

Then #7 shows up on top of TPR:

And #7 is tops in SSR with 117:

Here are the race results:

So, as you can see, the difference in variant setup is critical. If I'd used 25% Beyer I'd have won the race.

Obviously one race does not tell a story.

Nor does the, "I've always used the [insert the setup of your choice]."

Has anyone researched this?

Syn4 has been around for a long time and there are several users that frequent this board. Has anyone tested this, kept records and come up with a meaningful result?

By any chance has anyone come up with something statistically significant?

If not, how about a 20 race cycle tested with the different setups?

I'm sure you could find plenty of examples where the DRF variant comes up with a nice double digit winner that the Beyer variant misses. I myself don't like the Beyer figures because they are in the mainstream.

I read in one of the Follow Ups where the DRF-TV outperformed the Beyers and several other figures in a test a few years ago. I think that if the same test were run today it might outperform them again. But if you choose the DRF-TV you would have to update the pars for the tracks you follow.

I have been using the DRF variant and Syn4 has really been working well.Jeff

Drf Variant
 

I have been using the DRF Variant for the most part. I figure since I updated the Average Daily Variants with the actual pars that would be the way to go.
I think determining the optimal setting for the Beyer Variant is worthwhile whether it is .25-.50-.75 or something else. If it helps at the mutual window the time spent is worth it.

I do like the Beyer number for turf races at major tracks, because even Dave Schwartz mentioned that ADV for turf races are pretty much worthless. He included them only because of customer demand.

David,

I too lost this race but I didn't properly work the race which I regret.
But you did properly work the race as did Houndog in his post over in the thread on the race.
I've been looking over your readouts and I can't come up with any other horse than #7 Flashy Bull.

Regardless of which variant used, this was a 9f race and #7 was #1 in the following corollaries LP, FT, 1+3, 2+3, LE, SDP and SSR.

I think you did an excellent job of choosing pace lines and then having them in your program.

Froggy

David,

I don't normally use Synergism, but I've been following this thread and I can not see what the problem is, or why you think the variant setup is so critical.

I suspect that whichever variant you use, there are going to be good and bad results for each in different races. I doubt seriously that either one is always best. Pick the one you are comfortable with and stay with it.

Beyond the variant, you have 2 horses here who are virtually identical in TPR and SSR. Look at some of the other factors to seperate them. Try the fact that Master Command ran very early for a 9f race, or more importantly, look at your oddsline, which in both cases shows Master Command as an underlay even against the morning line and Flashy Bull as a generous overlay.

By the way, I lost the race too, due to a stupid bet on the #1 rather than the #7 for my 2nd bet, for which I was kicking myself from the time I made the post. I wound up with the bottom 2 of the trifecta. It is frustrating to narrow a race to 3 contenders and then bet the wrong two due to your own stupidity. Doh!

Dick

Dumptruck,

Yes, I remember reading in the Follow Ups and Pace Makes The Race that the DRF-TV outperformed the Beyer figures.

That may have been true based on a small sample. I don't have any meaningful data (and neither did Sartin), but seriously doubt they'd outperform them over thousands of races.

Someone like Michael Nunamaker probably has the results of that research. I don't know him personally. If someone here does, maybe they could ask him and share the results?

---

Jeff and Houndog, I'm glad you're having success using the DRF-TV. I am not an advocate of using any particular variant method, but was wondering if anyone had done any statistical analysis of the various options. Apparently no one has.

---

Froggy, thanks for your input. One race is anecdotal though. And I'm only basing my testing on something objective -- TPR and SSR. I can't measure the subjective art of interpreting readouts. What I'm endeavoring to do is find which application is going to make us the most money. As Howard was fond of saying, I have no pet theories to prove.

---

Dick wrote, "I don't normally use Synergism, but I've been following this thread and I can not see what the problem is, or why you think the variant setup is so critical."

The setup is critical to test which method is the most profitable. Using only TPR and FFR (yes, I realize there's more to handicapping than blindly betting numbers, but I'm looking for something I can gauge) I need to see how the winner is fairing. How many winners are making it to the top two in those categories only?

In the last seven races I lost using the projected method, five of them would have been won using a Beyer adjustment. That's a big difference.

Incidentally, the other three winners in this small sample were gotten using any of the variant methods.

I won't mention which Beyer variant is best because the sample is too short and I don't want to encourage people to start using something that's unproven. The Beyer method(s) could easily fall flat on their faces and lose the next ten races in a row. Ergo, my initial question -- which method is best?

Dick also wrote, "I suspect that whichever variant you use, there are going to be good and bad results for each in different races. I doubt seriously that either one is always best. Pick the one you are comfortable with and stay with it."

I'm comfortable with all of them. So, that is not an issue. As Dick Mitchell once said, small differences in your win percentage with the same expected mutuel can have a drastic impact on your ROI.

I guess I'll start researching this on my own. I didn't want to reinvent the wheel though, if you catch my drift.

;>)

Beyer Adjustments
 

David, regarding your post which 2 factors are you tracking? Is it TPR and SSR, or is it TPR and FFR? I assume it is TPR and SSR because you also mentioned FFR.

Syn4 Variant Worksheet
 

Here is a worksheet that you can use to track how the different variants work.

David,

I don't mean to be critical mean, but I do mean to be critical positive.

You say that in the Follow Up that using DRF track variant "may" have been based on a small sample.

First when Dr. Sartin said what he said about variants that it was not based on a small sample. It was based on 100s and 100s of races that the Pirco people did and on 100s of races sent in.

If you want some meaningful data all you have to do is do 10,000 races using each style of variant. How many styles have you got times 10,000?

Me I would not use a popular variant method either unless it worked. Using DRF variants work for me. DRF speed ratings don't do too well.

Beyer numbers I understand are mainly based on final time and are not a big winning number yet everybody and their uncle uses them (read the form or listen to the talking heads and what are they talking about).

You say you lost seven races using Projected Variant.
Well you lost the race you used for an example and you had the winner looking you right in the eye.

There are three fixed rules to winning in this endeavor and trying to use just two factors (TPR and FFR) aren't one of them.

The Only Three Rules that I know of:
Corollaries,
Consistency,
Confidence.

If I had those same readings that you got on that one "anecdotal race" a thousand times on a thousand races I would bet that same horse to win a thousand times and get a fat wallet doing it.

What exactly more do you want?

The race was 9f long, not exactly a sprint.

It was
1st in late pace,
1st in final time,
1st in factor X,
1st in hidden energy,
1st in speed rating and
1st in Doctor factor(SDP)

9f normally doesn't figure to go early so sustained is what I would have relied upon.

I have seen that pattern a thousand times and I have bet against it when I didn't have the confidence in what it said.
I instead listened to what others where saying or betting.
Not any more.
I trust what the program says and my feel for the race.

You have to know what factors are winning today at the tracks you are betting?

Not something that was winning last week because by the time you get that meaningful data it will no longer be meaningful.

Short term records are a must do for me and for others.

I think Richie is about one of the best handicappers around and I don't know what he does or how he does it but I will bet that he has short term records.
If you were to contact him I think he would help you understand better that I would be able to do.

I wish you all the best and nothing but good luck.
Froggy

Houndog,

Looks like you've been there and done that.

Froggy

Houndog,

Yes, it was TPR and SSR. I made a typo (and that's after editing it...oh well, I'm blonde, what can I say? :>)

Thanks, Houndog. I guess you *really* don't like the projected variant method!

;>)

Froggy wrote:

I don't mean to be critical mean, but I do mean to be critical positive.

Gee, I don't remember asking for criticism. I thought I asked if anyone had done any statistical analysis?

You say that in the Follow Up that using DRF track variant "may" have been based on a small sample.

First when Dr. Sartin said what he said about variants that it was not based on a small sample. It was based on 100s and 100s of races that the Pirco people did and on 100s of races sent in.

Let me get this straight. Because you read that in the Follow Up you consider "100s and 100s of races " to be statistically significant?

If you want some meaningful data all you have to do is do 10,000 races using each style of variant. How many styles have you got times 10,000?

Oh, that's all I have to do? If that's so easy to do perhaps you could spend the next year doing it by hand for the rest of us who are a little slower. I'm curious. Have you ever even used projected pace? Do you even have the remotest idea of what you're talking about?

Me I would not use a popular variant method either unless it worked. Using DRF variants work for me. DRF speed ratings don't do too well.

How do you know you don't like chocolate if you've only tasted vanilla? That's an analogy. Hopefully, others, if not you, will understand it.

Beyer numbers I understand are mainly based on final time and are not a big winning number yet everybody and their uncle uses them (read the form or listen to the talking heads and what are they talking about).

Goodness, why should I bother reading the form after that erudite explanation. Rather amusing coming from someone who admits he doesn't even understand how the numbers are constructed.

You say you lost seven races using Projected Variant.
Well you lost the race you used for an example and you had the winner looking you right in the eye.

If you'd taken the take to actually read the post you'd notice that all the readouts shown were based on Beyer adjustments. But please don't let a minor inconvenience like a fact detract from your posturing.

There are three fixed rules to winning in this endeavor and trying to use just two factors (TPR and FFR) aren't one of them.

Once again you've managed to miss the point entirely; I can only hope others reading the initial post have greater reading comprehension abilities.

The Only Three Rules that I know of:
Corollaries,
Consistency,
Confidence.

Well, golly. I didn't know it was that simple. Fort Knox here we come.

If I had those same readings that you got on that one "anecdotal race" a thousand times on a thousand races I would bet that same horse to win a thousand times and get a fat wallet doing it.

I'm speechless. Did you really say that?

What exactly more do you want?

Would intelligent discourse be completely out of the question?

The race was 9f long, not exactly a sprint.

Thanks for that keen insight.

It was
1st in late pace,
1st in final time,
1st in factor X,
1st in hidden energy,
1st in speed rating and
1st in Doctor factor(SDP)

9f normally doesn't figure to go early so sustained is what I would have relied upon.

I have seen that pattern a thousand times and I have bet against it when I didn't have the confidence in what it said.
I instead listened to what others where saying or betting.
Not any more.

Of course not. You've obviously discovered the Holy Grail.

I trust what the program says and my feel for the race.

You have to know what factors are winning today at the tracks you are betting?

Not something that was winning last week because by the time you get that meaningful data it will no longer be meaningful.

Short term records are a must do for me and for others.

I think Richie is about one of the best handicappers around and I don't know what he does or how he does it but I will bet that he has short term records.
If you were to contact him I think he would help you understand better that I would be able to do.

I wish you all the best and nothing but good luck.
Froggy

I'd like to wish the you best as well.

In the future please take the time to actually read my posts before making imbecilic replies though. And I can do without the condescending attitude, especially from someone less experienced and versed in the material than I am.

I could have just ignored your post, as I often do with such drivel, but I tire of sophomoric retorts left unanswered and from time to time feel the need to clear the air.

You may be a nice guy, and I wish you well. Seriously.

And I'm glad you no longer have to listen to what others are saying. Not so seriously.

David,

Thank you for your comments.
You are right I am a sophomoric imbecile and what I have to say is probably only just drivel and not intelligent discourse.
I just could not understand how some one as experienced and well versed as you could loose that race with those readouts.

Thank you again,

Froggy

well, that was certainly refreshing.

tlt