Question - V/DC Ranking and Percentage Correlation

[partsnut]

Question - V/DC Ranking and Percentage Correlation

I have read an interesting thread regarding this topic but I don't think
there was a proper explanation as to whether there was a correlation
to both these factors as well as a direct relationship to total energy.
As displayed together, percentage and rank, one might assume that there was a direct correlation between the two but evidently this is not the case.
RMath's keen observations brought this to my attention and to those members that were and are still interested in this. As of this writing, I have not seen any definition or explanation that would help me distinguish the correct usage of these readouts either individually or in tandem with each other.
I believe Kenr3138 also made so very astute and keen observations as well but these were not, in my opinion, properly addressed or explained.

I believe that the latter observances and findings are significant and
should be defined and properly explained.

[rmath]

Parts, I tracked the relationship between % rank and vdc rank when there was a tie for the top vdc ranking and after 150 races I found that the top ranked % won about 65% more often than the other horse but the prices paid by this horse were for the most part below3/2, so I have stopped tracking this relationship. Most of the top ranked horses were obvious standouts. The win % was about 35 to 36% and about 55 to 56% win or place. Perhaps if one would run a test as Pino did at MNR you might be able to find a way to show a profit.

[Ted Craven]

Partsnut,

From your original post above, I understand you are not so much asking what is VDC or VDC%, rather how to best to use them in relationship to each other. (If the former, I have written extensively on what VDC and VDC% is, and I can't think of anything more to add).

Re best practices for use, I believe I will defer to those who have been making serious use of this info, like rmath and Bill V and others, since their race by race examples, and/or their aggregate stats (like rmath above) mean a lot more than any hypothetical advice I can give.

Just so I am clear on the stat rmath reported: I understood him to say that in a given race, when faced with 2 VDC rank #1s, the VDC% rank 1 wins 65% more frequently than the other VDC% rank - but this 65% superior horse paid below 3/2 a majority of the time. rmath, please correct me if I got that wrong.

If correct, this stat surprises me somewhat as, among other scenarios, it includes the affectionately named 'Binder-improver' scenario where a horse on the BLBL screen has a superior VDC rank (usually rank #1) to its BLBL tier (e.g. tiered 4th BLBL and ranked co-first VDC). These types of horses have lower Total Energy but disproportionate 3rd fraction energy, and if they win (which will be less frequently) they often pay big, and if they finish in the money, can often provide the only bet in the race (a good Place bet or a good under-part of an exacta box or key).

A good study would show the top 2 VDC ranks and VDC%, their respective closing odds, finish position, the win, place and perhaps exacta mutuel. I understand rmath to say that in such a study, the combination of VDC% 1 and VDC 1 has a much higher hit rate at low mutuel - which is what I said would surprise me. His study will be sensitive to the kinds of races he includes and his method of paceline selection.

FWIW, it is my strong desire and intention to provide analytical tools built into RDSS in Version 2.1 (Spring 2012) to perform just such queries, and countless more.

Ted

[rmath]

Ted, your assumption is correct that when one of the ties was a binder improver that it paid quite well. most of the horses that were tied also ranked 1 or 2 on BL/BL and were not binder improver horses. When a 4 or 5 ranked BL/BL horse was also ranked 1 Vdc then that was where the % ranks did not hold up as well.
This is why I do not use the % rankings any more. The payoffs did not justify the extra record keeping.
AT the present time I am using the Monty approach with a combination of VDC, New Pace and a home grown SR&class ranking. What I have found is that when RDSS and my SR/class rankings are both in the top two and the horse or horses are also one of the New Pace contenders then I am hitting the winner over 65 +% depending on the track that I am running.I have not been able to separate the New Pace numbers down to a 1,2,ranking.
With this approach I get a one horse bet about 35 to 40% of the time and two horses the rest of the time.In the last 175 races I have only had three horses
7 times because of a tie. In these races I had the winner 6 times and ran 2nd in the other.

[Ted Craven]

Thanks Richard.

Ted

[Mr.Pagine]

rmath - Ted and others .......

Great info here - thanks for the input.

JDL

[torrejon]

What does VDC stand for? I can't find the definition anywhere in the site !

Thanks,

Rafael.-

[SilentRun]

Originally Posted by torrejon

What does VDC stand for? I can't find the definition anywhere in the site !

Thanks,

Rafael.-

Rafael,,

Just do a "Google Search" on the top bar showing: Google Search, Sartin library,....... search on "V/DC" and one of the posts, "Understanding V/DC....will provide the info.

Ernie

[torrejon]

Thank you so much !!! Ted's post on Understanding V/DC explains it perfectly !!!

Thanks again,

Rafael.-