The "Over There" System

[RichieP]

Got the above from a friend at the track. Basically it means what works "here" might not work "over there."

Let me give 2 examples ok?

These results are from a pace oriented software program that is NEITHER Val Or Spec. This way maybe an objective and non -biased point might show itself to be a reality WITHOUT arrows finding their way to my head.

Setup:
same paceline criteria
100 Races
NO maiden races
NO turf races for 3 year olds only
NO hiding of any kind
Top 2 selections based on oddsline

Findings:

Churchill Downs- 100 Races
32 Wins in top 2
Avg. Win $ = $ 9.85
Tot bet= $ 400.00
Tot ret = $ 315.20
Loss = $ 84.80 appx -22% ROI


Findings:
Mountaineer- 100 Races
41 Wins in top 2
Avg. Win $ = $ 12.70
Tot bet = $ 400.00
Tot ret = $ 520.70
Profit = $ 120.70 appx + 30% ROI

Same MECHANICAL application. Totally different bottom lines.

On a smaller scale yesterday at the track I went 5 for 6 at Delaware ( destroyed it). same application I went 1 for 6 at Monmouth ( got crushed).

Summary:
If you are having trouble at a particular track (s) with WHATEVER your software of choice is consider looking " OVER THERE". That old saying about the grass being greener on the other side might just apply if you look "OVER THERE".

[JimG]

Very sound advice! That is why I like software that contains a separate model/database by track. I also like it broken down by race condition to some extent by track.

Jim

[shoeless]

Anybody have any idea why this would happen that the same procedure and program would not work at all tracks the same.Do you think that par times would work with the Sartin programs?Of course this will probably be second hand info. Shoeless

[socantra]

Originally Posted by shoeless

Anybody have any idea why this would happen that the same procedure and program would not work at all tracks the same.Do you think that par times would work with the Sartin programs?Of course this will probably be second hand info. Shoeless

No mechanical procedure is going to work the same at all tracks, or even at any one track over time. There are simply too many variables.

I find it fairly impressive that, betting the top two horses, the mechanical procedure showed a net profit of near 8% over a couple of hundred races. If that swmi-automatic procedure remains that consistant, you can bet a lot of tracks, churn a lot of money, and show a profit.

I'm not sure what you mean by second hand info, but par times work beautifully with Sartin programs. When I was fooling with accurate pars, I was nailing the top three horses with great consistency. You could sit back and cash tickets on little exactas and trifectas all day long. The only problem was they didn't make enough to pay for the losers.

Its the same problem with most mainstream procedures. We can all pick some winners, but if we all sit there and stare at the form long enough, we're going to come down on that horse that looks the best, and there's no money there.

Dick...

[shoeless]

I didnt know if anybody wanted to fess up about using par times with Sartin Programs so that's what I meant by second hand info. Shoeless

[Ted Craven]

Sartin programs since about Synthesis onwards use par times (what Doc refers to in FU #85 as Par Gaps), a universal set of pars per distance/surface that helps the sofware adjust distances/surfaces at one track to today's race.

It is debatable whether the universal nature if these pars (as opposed to pars by track) is the best solution, and whether the pars employed in 1998 are still totally accurate today, but there you go. If you employ the Pizzicara/Socantra 'patch' to Validator, you are using a good attempt at an update to these pars.

regards,

Ted

[socantra]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

Sartin programs since about Synthesis onwards use par times (what Doc refers to in FU #85 as Par Gaps), a universal set of pars per distance/surface that helps the sofware adjust distances/surfaces at one track to today's race.

It is debatable whether the universal nature if these pars (as opposed to pars by track) is the best solution, and whether the pars employed in 1998 are still totally accurate today, but there you go. If you employ the Pizzicara/Socantra 'patch' to Validator, you are using a good attempt at an update to these pars.

regards,

Ted

Ted,

I suppose the par times were needed whenever they first went to downloaded data. They no longer had the mechanism of three year best times to do track to track adjustments.

The universal pars were simply the easiest way to do it. I've been playing with alternatives for over a year now, and the more I learn, the more I appereciate what a simple, elegant solution the universal par table is.

There are a few glaring errors, like the 8.3 time, but at a majority of tracks they are amazingly close, and adjusting the final times is not difficult using
Trackmaster speed ratings. The only real way to get at better fractional numbers is to go to full bore pace pars, and I'm not sure I believe in them any more than Doc did.

Dick...

[Jonathan Steele]

Oh yeah...I'm a firm believer in finding out what works at what tracks. If there is one truism (i.e. rule) regarding this endeavor it's this: one size does not fit all. No siree, Jim-Bob!

That's why Doc constantly stressed that one keep records. No excuses. It don't get any simpler than that.

Jon