New Trackmaster Pars / Val 3 / Observations - Pace and Cap

RichieP · 02-13-2006, 07:59 AM

Program: Val 3

Couple of observations since the changes on 2/1. More to do with the changed pars than the variant change.

1) Calder (CRC) horses at Tampa Bay especially are NOT projecting as strongly as they should. This is at the sprint distance with the CRC pacelines coming from the 6f distance at that track.Three BIG double digit winners in the last 7 days have projected nowhere on Val 3, went and BLEW the field away,and have projected on TOP in a 14 year old program in ALL three races. That is NOT coincidence man. I am talking EXCLUSIVELY about 6f races at Tampa using 6f pacelines from Calder. Mill around a bit with the pp's on these guys if u have to. Maybe consider going a bit deeper for paceline if the top lines are CRC and they show good efforts.

2) Finger Lakes (FL) pacelines when working Tampa Bay are very high. The horses are NOT running to the projections.The FL 5.5 lines are ridiculous.

3) Tampa Bay (TAM) pacelines when working another track ( GP for ex) are consistently showing very very high speed ratings compared to most other tracks.

Richie

Ted Craven · 02-13-2006, 08:31 AM

I know this is not possible with Validator, but on Speculator, perhaps people could consider using a manual adjustment to slow down (or speed up) these observed transitions to something which better represents current realities.

I know of several users who do exactly this - a bit labourious, but better than missing otherwise gettable winners.

Ted

admin · 02-13-2006, 11:54 PM

Sorry for Stepping on Rich's thread
I know this is a valuable feature to be able to edit the pacelines

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

I know this is not possible with Validator, but on Speculator, perhaps people could consider using a manual adjustment to slow down (or speed up) these observed transitions to something which better represents current realities.

I know of several users who do exactly this - a bit labourious, but better than missing otherwise gettable winners.

Ted

Hi Ted
I'm not trying to take you away from RDSS. That is your goal
to make that program which can do all that work,.
I understand you have to make a living.I was just thinking the code for the 3 programs Synthesis, Validator,and Speculator all seem close enough visually that adding the missing features
would not be that as you said "not possible with Validator,"
I'm wrong to expect someone just to make a few slight modifications to the code .
So that I could if I wanted too change lines
I could care less about adjustments anyway I have no clue
what to do and never have liked working with patched versions of VAl/Spec.

Ted Craven · 02-13-2006, 09:38 AM

Richie,

Out of curiousity, could you cite a few races where you observed this problem. I'm intereted to see what the moving parts are in this shipping problem.

Ted

RichieP · 02-13-2006, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

Richie,

Out of curiousity, could you cite a few races where you observed this problem. I'm intereted to see what the moving parts are in this shipping problem.

Ted

Hi Ted,

Both are 6f races run at Tampa

here are 2 for starters:

2/5/06 - Race 8 - Winner # 4 - $ 16.60

2/12/06 - Race 11 - Winner # 8 - $ 18.40

ok
Richie

admin · 02-13-2006, 06:25 PM

Hi Ted
I know nothing about programming so bear with me
I know Val 3 and Synthesis very well after years of daily use Every version of Speculator from the very beginning looks a whole lot like VAl 3
and Synthesis
Im talking about the shell program, The look, the keys to navigate to screens, The fact that some screens like the BL/BL and early late
and pace graph all look the same ,the pacelines screen although the numbers are different works the same way, Everything that is on one looks like it could very easily be added to the other
That said, please don't take this wrong but
if this is true then why can't you just take the part of the code
that lets you manually change pacelines - thats in Spec and Sythesis and Put it into VAl 3. Or make a Spec with the VDC readout taken from Val 3
I think there is a market for this for the not so hard core user
that RDSS seems to be marketed for
Good Skill
Bill

Ted Craven · 02-13-2006, 08:08 PM

Bill,

I think I understand your question. Are you suggesting that if they had a choice, people would prefer a DOS program to a Windows program? If I spend any (more) time fiddling with Val (to back fit manual entry into it, for example), or adding VDC and the special variant handling method into Spec, it is the same amount of time spent not working on RDSS, and I have to compare that relative effort to how worthwhile it would be. And then I would have to support a Windows program plus 2 DOS programs. And, plus, I don't consider Validator mine to tamper with (while Spec at least, Guy clearly intended me to continue with after him).

Right now Val and Spec don't have automated downloading of TrackMaster data and Result Charts, don't have modeling or financial record keeping built in, don't have a search across 70 races per day for spot plays like Richie has been discussing, don't have a track-to-track equalization par chart built in, and a bunch of other things. If I create all these new things in RDSS, including what Spec and Val currently do, then OMIT the afore- mentioned things which Spec and Val currently DON'T do, then we can, yes, have a RDSS (or effectively, a Val/Spec) Lite version. We can even remove other readouts which no one uses, if someone can let me know which ones those are.

I guess what I'm saying is,

1. If I make the 'hard-core' feature list, I can strip it down, or hide some features and make them available by user Preference settings so the initial software appears slim, simple, introductory, but eventually expandable, customizable when someone is ready to handle more complexity.

2. I want to do almost anything else rather than program a DOS software anymore, and make my way through the code that Guy wrote, it's that painful! It would take me a serious amount of time to modify Spec and Val (if I thought I had the right to do that to Val), and I can't imagine seriously marketing or taking responsibility for that DOS software, ultimately someone else's creation, not mine, and not the way I'd like my professional reputation as a software developer to be represented. This is NO knock against the magic or potency of either program. It's just a commentary on my general desire to face future, rather than prolong the past.

I'm working as fast as I can (while keeping my mortgage paid and the lights on) on this new project, but it will take a while longer yet.

Does this make sense?

yours,

Ted

socantra · 02-15-2006, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichieP

Program: Val 3

Couple of observations since the changes on 2/1. More to do with the changed pars than the variant change.

I may be mistaken, but I don't think what you are seeing has anything to do with the new pars. The speed rattings in races run before 2/1 should still reflect the old pars.

The speed ratings now reflect the new SCALE used in the speed ratings, but I don't believe trackmaster refigured all past races using the new par times. They simply converted the old numbers to the new scale.

As an example, races run at EVD since the track was redone last summer ahow lower speed ratings than races run before that. I notice the new par time at EVD is close to a full second slower than the old one at a mile distance. From that, I would expect the speed ratings on races run after 2/1 to be higher, because the horses will be running closer to par.

I'm speaking of the raw TM speed ratings here. As far as the adjusted speed ratings, I think the only connection between them and the original TM sr is the variant. Ted is the only one who could say for sure on that.

dick...

RichieP · 02-15-2006, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by socantra

I may be mistaken, but I don't think what you are seeing has anything to do with the new pars. The speed rattings in races run before 2/1 should still reflect the old pars.

The speed ratings now reflect the new SCALE used in the speed ratings, but I don't believe trackmaster refigured all past races using the new par times. They simply converted the old numbers to the new scale.

As an example, races run at EVD since the track was redone last summer ahow lower speed ratings than races run before that. I notice the new par time at EVD is close to a full second slower than the old one at a mile distance. From that, I would expect the speed ratings on races run after 2/1 to be higher, because the horses will be running closer to par.

I'm speaking of the raw TM speed ratings here. As far as the adjusted speed ratings, I think the only connection between them and the original TM sr is the variant. Ted is the only one who could say for sure on that.

dick...

Hi Dick
if that's true then I was wrong with that statement you quoted for sure. Here I go again man. Every time I try to be like "Tomassi" the old " Tamuska" rears his head.

Richie

socantra · 02-15-2006, 09:26 AM

Richie,

You are definitely not alone, man. This whole speed rating, variant change is a bear. I've had a hell of a time getting comfortable with the new ratings and having them make sense to me. Paceline selection has been giving me fits because they are jumping around so much. Last week I did a card at EVD where five races in a row were not in my top five. That's when I tore it up and went back to square one.

I'm now picking pacelines largely off the original Trackmaster speed ratings, using a modified version of Doc's DRF SR-TV routine and not accepting variants that are too far out of line. So far it seems to be working well. I'll write it up if it holds up.

dick...

02-13-2006, 07:59 AM	#1
RichieP Grade 1 Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 7,019	New Trackmaster Pars / Val 3 / Observations Program: Val 3 Couple of observations since the changes on 2/1. More to do with the changed pars than the variant change. 1) Calder (CRC) horses at Tampa Bay especially are NOT projecting as strongly as they should. This is at the sprint distance with the CRC pacelines coming from the 6f distance at that track.Three BIG double digit winners in the last 7 days have projected nowhere on Val 3, went and BLEW the field away,and have projected on TOP in a 14 year old program in ALL three races. That is NOT coincidence man. I am talking EXCLUSIVELY about 6f races at Tampa using 6f pacelines from Calder. Mill around a bit with the pp's on these guys if u have to. Maybe consider going a bit deeper for paceline if the top lines are CRC and they show good efforts. 2) Finger Lakes (FL) pacelines when working Tampa Bay are very high. The horses are NOT running to the projections.The FL 5.5 lines are ridiculous. 3) Tampa Bay (TAM) pacelines when working another track ( GP for ex) are consistently showing very very high speed ratings compared to most other tracks. Richie

02-13-2006, 08:31 AM	#2
Ted Craven Grade 1 Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada Posts: 9,251	I know this is not possible with Validator, but on Speculator, perhaps people could consider using a manual adjustment to slow down (or speed up) these observed transitions to something which better represents current realities. I know of several users who do exactly this - a bit labourious, but better than missing otherwise gettable winners. Ted __________________ RDSS - Racing Decision Support System™

02-13-2006, 09:38 AM	#4
Ted Craven Grade 1 Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada Posts: 9,251	Richie, Out of curiousity, could you cite a few races where you observed this problem. I'm intereted to see what the moving parts are in this shipping problem. Ted __________________ RDSS - Racing Decision Support System™

02-13-2006, 08:08 PM	#7
Ted Craven Grade 1 Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada Posts: 9,251	Bill, I think I understand your question. Are you suggesting that if they had a choice, people would prefer a DOS program to a Windows program? If I spend any (more) time fiddling with Val (to back fit manual entry into it, for example), or adding VDC and the special variant handling method into Spec, it is the same amount of time spent not working on RDSS, and I have to compare that relative effort to how worthwhile it would be. And then I would have to support a Windows program plus 2 DOS programs. And, plus, I don't consider Validator mine to tamper with (while Spec at least, Guy clearly intended me to continue with after him). Right now Val and Spec don't have automated downloading of TrackMaster data and Result Charts, don't have modeling or financial record keeping built in, don't have a search across 70 races per day for spot plays like Richie has been discussing, don't have a track-to-track equalization par chart built in, and a bunch of other things. If I create all these new things in RDSS, including what Spec and Val currently do, then OMIT the afore- mentioned things which Spec and Val currently DON'T do, then we can, yes, have a RDSS (or effectively, a Val/Spec) Lite version. We can even remove other readouts which no one uses, if someone can let me know which ones those are. I guess what I'm saying is, 1. If I make the 'hard-core' feature list, I can strip it down, or hide some features and make them available by user Preference settings so the initial software appears slim, simple, introductory, but eventually expandable, customizable when someone is ready to handle more complexity. 2. I want to do almost anything else rather than program a DOS software anymore, and make my way through the code that Guy wrote, it's that painful! It would take me a serious amount of time to modify Spec and Val (if I thought I had the right to do that to Val), and I can't imagine seriously marketing or taking responsibility for that DOS software, ultimately someone else's creation, not mine, and not the way I'd like my professional reputation as a software developer to be represented. This is NO knock against the magic or potency of either program. It's just a commentary on my general desire to face future, rather than prolong the past. I'm working as fast as I can (while keeping my mortgage paid and the lights on) on this new project, but it will take a while longer yet. Does this make sense? yours, Ted __________________ RDSS - Racing Decision Support System™ Last edited by Ted Craven; 02-13-2006 at 08:10 PM.

02-13-2006, 06:25 PM	#6
admin Administrator Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,643	Hi Ted I know nothing about programming so bear with me I know Val 3 and Synthesis very well after years of daily use Every version of Speculator from the very beginning looks a whole lot like VAl 3 and Synthesis Im talking about the shell program, The look, the keys to navigate to screens, The fact that some screens like the BL/BL and early late and pace graph all look the same ,the pacelines screen although the numbers are different works the same way, Everything that is on one looks like it could very easily be added to the other That said, please don't take this wrong but if this is true then why can't you just take the part of the code that lets you manually change pacelines - thats in Spec and Sythesis and Put it into VAl 3. Or make a Spec with the VDC readout taken from Val 3 I think there is a market for this for the not so hard core user that RDSS seems to be marketed for Good Skill Bill

02-15-2006, 09:26 AM	#10
socantra Grade 1 Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Norman, OK Posts: 387	Richie, You are definitely not alone, man. This whole speed rating, variant change is a bear. I've had a hell of a time getting comfortable with the new ratings and having them make sense to me. Paceline selection has been giving me fits because they are jumping around so much. Last week I did a card at EVD where five races in a row were not in my top five. That's when I tore it up and went back to square one. I'm now picking pacelines largely off the original Trackmaster speed ratings, using a modified version of Doc's DRF SR-TV routine and not accepting variants that are too far out of line. So far it seems to be working well. I'll write it up if it holds up. dick...