Valm Question

[shoeless]

Tompkins I really dont see how you think these programs have been advanced.I really dont know the programs but by looking at the posts it seems it's just Validator with more bells and whistles.Just because it has that doesnt make it a better program.By looking at what Bill has been doing going back to the basics Val2006 would be just as good as any of them.Jeff

[socantra]

Originally Posted by tompkins

Just because it did not come out of the oracle's mouth, does not mean it does not work. What works, in the real world, works. A lot of very capable people have advanced the programs a long way since then.

It has nothing to do with any oracle or guru. It has everything to do with listening to the man who knew the algorithms in the programs and the adjustments that the programs made. You seem to have a problem with any sort of deference to Doc Sartin on these matters. I don't worship the Doc, but if I want to know how something works I will give some credence to the man who created it. That doesn't mean his word is law, but it is usually worth a listen.

Dick...

[tompkins]

Originally Posted by socantra

It has nothing to do with any oracle or guru. It has everything to do with listening to the man who knew the algorithms in the programs and the adjustments that the programs made. You seem to have a problem with any sort of deference to Doc Sartin on these matters. I don't worship the Doc, but if I want to know how something works I will give some credence to the man who created it. That doesn't mean his word is law, but it is usually worth a listen.

I pay homage to Drs. Banting and Best too for discovering insulin but just like in the evolution in the treatment of diabetes, the implementation of these programs is based upon ONGOING tests and cannot rest on initial laurels alone. Things advance, they are not static. Major advances in any field of endeavor happen, oft times from sources that are not drowning in dogma but rather responding to a challenge of the rule set forth as unchallengable.

The 7.5 beaten lengths rule does not hold up to testing amongst many others that are considered dogma. The program is a tool and there is no one way to use it: never was.

[admin]

hello Tompkins


I look forward to your posts of horses that win at good odds
with lines that have over 7.5 BL
May I ask that you also show how using that line is the best of
the horses lines ,and that it ran against a very fast POR
and that it was running against a group of other horses
all of which also had only lines with over 7.5 BL

I have seen that example for years
It happens in maiden claimers mostly
and also non winners of 2 lifetime

Nothing is 100% and we all are happy for you
that there are exceptions and you will find them

For me finding exceptions gets me nothing in my pocket
there is a pattern which these exceptions usually come from
but I find these races are usually more a case of form
and training not energy excertion so I avoid them

One last point The 7.5 Beaten Lengths is a guidline/ rule
from Doc when using VALIDATOR so when you show
your examples using Speculator Please explain that Speculator uses a
differnt formula and the beaten length calculations are differnt

GS
Bill

[socantra]

Originally Posted by admin

I am looking at the box named TV ADJ
see how the numbers are adjusted 1/2 point up or down
from a equal to zero 16 17 and 18

here is the screen again

If you enter 1/2 of the varient arn't you messing up this adjustment that the program is making already ??

I think Ramon's cutting the variant in half would be necessary to adjust the new Trackmaster variant back to the original, but if you enter variants from Trackmaster in their original form you are badly skewing the adjustments. Ramon's post mentioned cutting a -20 variant down to -10 or -9. On the DRF 16-17-18 scale, a -9 is an fast track indeed.

So, if you were entering variants from Trackmaster, you would cut the variant in half to make up for their 2006 change in speed rating scale, then add or subtract the variant from 17 to translate it into DRF terms. Example: a -10 Trackmaster variant would be cut in half to -5 and subtracted from 17, to give you a final variant of 12. For a +10 variant you would do the opposite and your final result would be a variant of 22. From that point the program would perform something close to its original adjustments.

If entering data from the DRF, you would just enter the variant as it appears in the form.

Does that make any sense to anyone, or am I off my meds again?

Dick...

[socantra]

Originally Posted by admin

One last point The 7.5 Beaten Lengths is a guidline/ rule
from Doc when using VALIDATOR so when you show
your examples using Speculator Please explain that Speculator uses a
differnt formula and the beaten length calculations are differnt

Good point, Bill. It makes little sense to criticize Doc Sartin because the instructions he gave for Validator, an energy based program, may not apply to Speculator, which he had nothing to do with, probably never saw and is at heart a velocity based program.

If you enter a horse beaten more than 7.5 lengths into Speculator, it will be penalized for the full amount of beaten lengths. If it still shows up good in the rankings you may well have a good bet.

If you enter a horse beaten more than 7.5 lengths into Validator, it may be penalized considerably less for those beaten lengths and show up better in the rankings than its performance merits.

Dick

[RichieP]

Originally Posted by socantra

If entering data from the DRF, you would just enter the variant as it appears in the form.
Does that make any sense to anyone, or am I off my meds again?

Dick...

Makes very good sense Dick.

The ONLY thing Howard ever said to me (sounds VERY similar to what he did with Bill btw) was to be VERY wary of DRF variants
1) over 27
2) lower than 7

fwiw he NEVER questioned ANY line I used with the DRF variant in the 7-27 range and ALWAYS suggested grabbing another line when the DRF variant was less than 7 or more than 27.

Also for clarity these were instructions to a new user of Sartin software ok? They worked.

Richie

[RichieP]

Here is an example from Kee today. These are the drf sr and variants over to the right.

to paraphrase Howard on the phone with me

" Line 1 ok to use. Line 2 ok to use. line 3 no good. line 4 very good. today is layoff. line 4 is off layoff. look at his work pattern. they are consistent and very good. Use line 4 as it's good and replicates todays form cycle"

fwiw he did this before some races ran with me also and gave me 2 BOMB winners at Santa Anita within a 2 week period over the phone that were running the next day. He knew what the hell he was doing.

[RAMON201]

Paceline selection to me is much more important than a TV. I use Bris PPs for most of my races and they do not have a TV. In that case I enter 0 and use the best paceline that suits his normal running style. Whatever works for you is where its at. Some days (weekends) the TV will be faster that during the week , not because the track got any faster , but because there are better horses running . At least thats what I think.

[MIKE]

Ramon

--then you're just using the bris speed rating and no variant????

--is this what you find what works the best???