Posting screen Captures

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by Boe777

I am going a little of the subject here, how do you post screens from Rdss?
I could not figure out even how to print from Rdss.

Alex

Alex,

The current RDSS version, V0.99.2, the version you are using - does not print by itself. RDSS 2.0 will print, various ways.

To print RDSS screens is the same way to make images for posting online here: use a screen capture tool like ScreenHunterFree, or Snagit, or the built-in Windows SNIP tool. Google the first 2 for free or evaluation downlods, or in Windows Vista or Windows 7, simply open your Start Menu, then type 'snip' in the Search bar and the SNIP tool will open on screen, over top of whatever program you are using (e.g. RDSS).

To post an image, first capture a rectangle of the RDSS screen using your new screen capture tool, for example the BLBL screen like you see posted from time to time, then saved it as a PNG format file. Then create a post like you just did and use the Attachment icon (looks like a 'paperclip') to upload the file you just saved to your message. Then insert the file somewhere in your message and voilà - just like you see so often. (Tip: try to make the image just the size you want to show - eliminating the surplus white space or unneeded parts of the screen will let the image be larger and clear to see).

The way to print a collection of RDSS screens, in V0.99.2, is the same technique - capture a screen rectangle then simply print it from your capture tool instead of (or in addition to) saving it as a file. You can copy a screen to the Windows clipboard using your capture tool then paste from the clipboard into a Word format, or RTF format document like WordPad or Word (or others), then when you have all the screens you want to print, simply print the whole document.

After you do this once or twice, it becomes quite fast.

RDSS 2.0 will dispense with this screen capture intermediary. The problem was/is - there are SO MANY different combinations of what you could possibly want to print: you don't want to much, and not too little - i.e. just right, which will be different for many people (and some will NEVER print).

Hope this helps - looking forward to your screen shot!

Ted

[Boe777]

Thanks Ted,
I found the snip tool and it works like a charm.
Alex

[Boe777]

My first race with RDSS MNR Oct 30 race 1

It looks like that this is exactly the setup of a race that we are looking for with all the number 1 reds are in the top contender and with super odds, a perfect win and exacta bet with 9 as a key with the other 3 contenders.
The 9 won the race and paid $20.80 for the win
The 1 came in 2nd and the Exacta paid $107.00



The 2nd race was totally different, all the number 1 reds are scattered all over the place, I gather that this is a no bet race.



And the 3rd race looks like the odds are too low on the first contender #4 and should be hidden and a win bet on #7 and an exacta key #7 with the other 3.
The 7 won the race and paid $8.80 to win
The 8 came in 2nd and the exacta paid $48.00
Hopefully I am on the right track.

[Mr.Pagine]

Here is my first attempt at snip-it

[Ted Craven]

Alex, re your Oct 30 MNR races above, Race 1 is a good example of looking further back for a line representing what a horse is capable of when fit. You chose line 4 for the #9 winner, and it looks like its 3rd line would also have put it on top. Best of the last 3 comparable will do it here. In this race of sketchy maiden claimers, this horse at least finished ahead of half its field at good odds last, so I can see no reason to eliminate it from win contention (and 2 lines make it better than the rest). Given the odds, I see this makes a consistent case for betting.

Race 2, not sure if the #1 ranks being all over the board is a warning sign - we don't necessarily need to have the top ranked horse all RED #1s. We give careful consideration to the Top 3 and ties horses on that BLBL screen. By your line selection and by my alternate line selection, the horse ranks lower than 4th, leaving in reasonable contenders - a likely loss for me given that the other contenders were ranked higher and at reasonable odds. I note that the #8 winner was by far the best APV and CR horse - a measure of at least its back-class in 2010, and for those using NewPace, was the #1 Early. You have to admit, he's always there at the top of the stretch. I can see a case for including this horse in a trifecta, at least. At the odds, some may have seen him for better than that. If your analysis sees a 'fractured' race, inconclusive dominance by anyone - congratulations on the PASS assessment!

Race 3. Your 'hiding' of the #4 (or skipping over for Win) at EVEN odds is indeed a principle of wagercapping. Ask: does the #4 have ANY defects? It does look pretty good, according to your screenshot of the BLBL (and its own PPs), but I want to see an EVEN odds horse look a LOT better than the next one, let along the next 2 ranked contenders. Your BLBL screen shows the top 3 horses tied, so your analysis of the #4 shows it has no superiority over the #7 or the #3 - a great reason to pass over it (i.e. as opposed to passing the race) in favour of the #7 or #3 as Win bets, and whatever exacta combo you prefer. In its defense, the #4 did have severe trouble out of the gate, losing ground, BUT making up a lot late to finish a charging 3rd. Under other racing circumstances, you might have lost your bet against the #4 - but I can support the wagering decision you made. You need to make this kind of decision consistently - and take the inevitable losses when the occur (i.e. in betting against a heavy favourite).

Good work on the first 3 races! I believe you are on the right track!

cheers,

Ted

[Ted Craven]

Jon (Mr Pagine),

By Jove, I think you've got it (the screen capture thingy)! Plus a $6.40 winner

Ted

[JIMBOB1002]

Here is my first attempt at screen captures using ScreenHunter.Also I had a question concerning reducing your picks to 5 in the primary screen.I notice sometimes the total energy,perceptor total and primary line score have different rankings.Is there anyone that takes priority over the other to reduce the horses down to 5.thanks Jim

[Ted Craven]

Welcome Jim to PaceandCap and to RDSS!

You will get variable advice on this finesse. My own practice is, when shooting for 5 horses from which come the Win and Place horse, to err on the side of Top 5 Total Energy - from well (and consistently) picked pacelines.

In this example, this would eliminate #9 Margaret (a recent maiden claim winner, now vying against NW-3 Lifetime - a bit above her pay grade, this time).

The race went (spoiler alert): 10-6-3-2, the winner paying $3.20 - so everybody got this one. The only reason to play the race was for the Place mutuel ($9.60), or Exacta ($41.20). This time, eliminating the worse than 5th TE retains the #6 - other times it will eliminate a useful Place horse. Success in any given race is not in your control, but consistency of method is!

I might suggest a valuable nuance: when looking at tie-breaks to eliminate down to 5 horses, consider looking at the Analysis Pace of the Race figures (on the Velocity Tab - PoR view), or simply on the Adjusted screen. This shows the pace of the race the horse ran against, whether it finished well or not. When eliminating horses in the neighbourhood of 5th, consider retaining the better ranked PoR horse and eliminating the worse PoR horse. The #6 horse simply had to face a faster pace in its chosen line, its last, than all but the #7. And to its credit, it ran more forwardly than it did in August (not against the paces it formerly handled, but perhaps returning to some kind of previous form) If you use its good races from this Spring, it tops the field.

All the foregoing is often an exercise in too much handicapping, what to speak retrospective handicapping! But on the theme of how to eliminate down to 5, a supplementary analysis like that can often help.

FWIW, another view, which you will read Doc Sartin speak of, is to retain the combination of top 5 Total Energy and top 5 and ties Primary Line Score - all the while trying to retain for consideration a set of horses producing at least the Win and Place horse. Unfortunately in this example, you would not eliminate any more horses using that guidance, and end up with the most likely eliminations - the #6, #7 and #9 - as the bottom tiered BL/BL horses, which in my opinion are not Win Contenders anyway. Then you have to fight it out to see if you would use any of them in a Place or Exacta bet, or pass the race given the low odds fave or bet against it (dicy, here). For me, hard to distinguish between the #6 and #7 as bad-looking horses who might none-the-less deserve a Place/Exacta bet due to price. Easy to choose the wrong horse there.

Anyway, some thoughts about elimination guidelines down to Top 5 (seeking to retain Win and Place horses).

Good luck going forward!

[JIMBOB1002]

Thanks Ted for the info.I have been reading through the follow ups and there is a lot to absorb.I'm very excited about being part of this and have been interested in horse racing for quite a while.

[Ted Craven]

Right-o, Jim. Consider posting a few more like this, perhaps seeking guidance on murkier decision points you encounter. The answers will not always be absolutely clear, but you might get (several alternate) suggestions re process to help you make consistent decisions.

It really is all about making consistent decisions: these tools help perform fancy calculations, display alternate scenarios, reveal hidden information, but there's always plenty of unknowns in a horse race, not only on the analysis side but on the wager decision side. You may ultimately make your decisions differently than me - and win and lose different races than me (and all the rest of us), but if you apply them on a consistent basis, your hit rate, your ROI will presumably reveal a gradual positive trend, and your decision model records will point to factors derived from your specific paceline and contender elimination strategies which you can use to guide you when doing new races - if you employ repeatable strategies.

Good luck!

Ted