My latest study of VDC & CSR

[rmath]

Dorianmode, am looking forward to trying your improvements for the CSR numbers.
Rmath

[Bill V.]

Hello Richard

I was wondering if you were able to wager on this one
Race 7 from Parx

My win bets were the 5 and 7 . I hid the 4 horse as its odds were .90/1
The 5 wins at 13/1 as the #1 CSR with a strong VDC

Thanks
Good Skill
Bill

[rmath]

Bill, I did not run that race Because there were only 7 horses entered.
I confine my plays to fields with at least 8 betting interests.

I would assume that since this horse was a 1 on either VDC or CSR and was also in my final 5 contenders , that I would have bet it at those odds.

Richard
PS: nice hit

[rmath]

Bill, the 2-5-7 would have been my exacta box and the 2-4-5-7 would have been my try box. The 4 was a double 4-4 rating.

This is how I would have bet this race using your pacelines and readouts.
Hope this answers your question.
If you get any more races like this let me know so I can bet along with you.

Richard

[Bill V.]

Sure thing Richard

I see you only look at fields of 8 betting interest

Here is a Hypothetical question

Lets say you have a field of 8 horses But one of the horses is a real slow horse with a 1 -57 life time record. Its speed ratings and beaten lengths are dismal compared to the other 7 horses. Its CSR is well below the 0.0 horse and all the other horses for that matter. Do you still consider this a workable race ?
If so are you not really still looking at 7 horses since one of them really bears no effect on the CSR or vdc But If you have a solid 7 horse field were all 7 horses have good comparable pacelines and the speed rating spread is very close something like 81 83 85 82 84 and 80 and the worst CSR is only
.157 from the 0.0 horse
why would this 7 horse field be different than a 8 horse field ??

Thanks
Bill

[rmath]

Bill, I see what you are saying about the field being competitive for 7 horses in both races, but I prefer the larger fields as someone will always bet on these non contenders thus making the odds on the true contenders a little higher.

Also I only enter the top 5 and ties from the CSR numbers , so even in a 10 horse field I am not looking at all the horses when I run them thru RDSS to get the vdc ratings.

Richard

[Bill V.]

Thank you Richard

I see your point..

Good to know .

Thanks
Bill

[Dorianmode]

I'm rechecking and re-doing 100 races to make sure there are no errors, in the formulas (etc ... and I did find a couple BIG fat messes to clean up), but so far in 100 races (turf routes, with 8 or more in the field, with runners of claiming value > $15,000, or their Allowance equivalent), in my adjusted CSR the winner is # 1 60% of the time, 1 or 2, also 60% of the time, (weird huh ?), 1-3, 80% of the time, 1-4, 80 % of the time also, 1-5, 86 % of the time, 1-6, 100 % of the time. Most of the races are at GP, Tampa, Aqueduct, and the SoCal circuit, with a few exception.

BUT, my "range" ((my own version -- the "standard deviation" thing I presented before) of the "bar" you see in New Pace), has the winner in 1 or 2 80 % of the time, 1-3, 86 % of the time, 1-4, 93 % of the time, so that's a little better than CSR.

Also I agree with Dick, that VDC is one of the top (third for me) most powerful tools. Final BL, and my own internally "weighted" score, are best so far. (I add up all the rankings in a profile (from the export), assign them the weighting they would get *if* the total was 100) and then when you handicap each readout from the race you are doing, that number is multiplied by the weighted ranking, and you get the ranking for that readout "weighted" (or "referenced" by your profile in Excel) by it's past performance reliability. You end up with ONE final weighted ranking number total. That number is the second most reliable thing I have been using. (It's all automated, and "does itself" ... one would never have time to *mess* with all these before each race). As I said that "weighting" from the profile, is the second most reliable indicator, for me. VDC is 3rd, it seems, in the stats I have compiled so far.

Have a great Derby Day peeps.

[Dorianmode]

The question arises : "How to put all these things together, in the most productive way". One of my next projects will be to attempt to "integrate" the top 4 or 5 indicators that "weight out" for turf routes, turf sprints, and maybe dirt sprints, (individually). There are linnear regression analysis tools in Excel. One could do individual indicators, and re-weight the best of the best based on single regression analysis stats, OR run a Mulitiple Regression analysis, and that would do the weightings for you. I was hoping to automate both of those, but apparently creating macros to enter the updated data and re-do the regressions automatically will not work, (because of the way the fields are enetered in to the regressions in Excel). If anyone knows a way to do these (by macros or automated pivot tables), please let me know. In any case, it's very easy, and could be re-run about every 5 to 10 races or so. I haven't asked "For-The Lead" about this ... he may have a solution, as he knows more about Excel than anyone on the planet.

(Oh also, I happened to notice this past weekend a turf race at Tampa with only 7 runners provided just as good odds as races with larger fields. I may have re-think my criteria for race selection, if that continues to be the case.)

I remain amazed at why the betting public doesn't seem to "get" turf racing as well as they seem to understand dirt racing, but hey ... who cares.

[Bill Lyster]

[QUOTE=Dorianmode;96708] in my adjusted CSR the winner is # 1 60% of the time, 1 or 2, also 60% of the time, (weird huh ?), 1-3, 80% of the time, 1-4, 80 % of the time also, 1-5, 86 % of the time, 1-6, 100 % of the time. Most of the races are at GP, Tampa, Aqueduct, and the SoCal circuit, with a few exception. "

Question: If, in the adjusted CSR the winner is #1 60% of the time and either #1 or #2 the same 60% of the time, doesn't that mean that there are no #2's? Similar question on your statement about "1-4 80%"

When you say 1-3, 80% of the time, do you mean that the winner is ranked either 1, 2 or 3 80% of the time or do you mean that 80% of the time the winner is ranked #1 OR #3?

I was just having a little trouble understanding what you are communicating.

Regards,