Composite Speed Rating - CSR

[Because I Can Jim]

Sorry, I forgot....

As I am working races, I realized that one of RIchard's guidelines is to work races between 5.5 and 8.5 furlongs.

So a quick summary....

Races with 8 or more horses in the field after scratches (if the race has 8 and there is one scratch he will consider it).
Non-maiden races.
Races with a distance between 5.5 and 8.5 furlongs.

Jim

[Bill V.]

Thank you Richard and BIC Jim for your input.
I was hoping to hear from Kahunhab Dick also,as his name keeps being mentioned in these tests.

Without going into settings used and what percentage the CRS shows

Let me ask one more time.



You open this race, Race 8 from Parx On Monday November 18



You see the race is for non maidens the distance is 6 furlongs

You check the results and see the 9 wins the race. The 9 is NOT in the top
5 CSR, So. there are no if and or buts, you just mark this race as one
of the few races were the winner was not in the top 5 CSR and move on to the next race in your test. Is this correct ?

Thank You
Bill

[Segwin]

Jim, you mention Richards guidelines - are those in another thread somewhere? Richard?

[rmath]

Bill, the answer to both of your ?s is yes.
1) the 9 horse would not be a contender based on CSR ratings.
2) I have posted my guidelines before,but will post them again so you will not have to search for them.
GUIDELINES:
Only races with 8 or more betting interests are considered, 3yr olds & up.
No maidens or MSW races,
Only races from 5.5f to 8.5f were used in my testing. The reason for this is because these are the most often run distances at most tracks.

I am not saying 5f races and races over 8.5f are not playable (because they are) but that I did not include them in my stats because I do not see that many of them.
Races for 2yr. olds are excluded because most of the horses have run less than 4 times and therefor their CSR numbers are questionable.
The same holds true for maiden races.

I personally like races where all the entries have at least 4 races, because then the CSR numbers hold up better.
One thing I have noticed is that in races that I have been beaten it is usually ( about 3-4% of the time ) by a 6th or 7th ranked CSR horse.

I hope this helps answer your questions.
If not feel free to ask again.
I am always willing to help anyone who asks.
Rmath

[Ted Craven]

I just wanted to comment that CSR is not, in my view, some 'magical' number or the 'new' recommended approach to things. There are so many tools, so many consistently applicable approaches possible with RDSS' tools that do not stop working because of some peoples' focus one one particularly interesting method.

As has been discussed (perhaps not enough), CSR is particularly sensitive to the impact of the last race Adjusted Speed Rating. If the last race final time (or worse, the last 2 races) was poor for whatever reason, the resulting CSR will be lower ranked than if you thought that race (or races) could be excused.

In this discussion race, the Winner #9 had 2 last races during which it finished beaten double lengths. It is a lightly raced horse, who arguably ran against higher condition races those last 2, then took a break for freshening. It was the highest APV and CR horse. It was clearly 2nd in the tote odds. If you believe either of those last 2 races can be excused, it's 'effective' CSR will be higher than shown.

Further, consider the #8 horse, ranked 4th on CSR. Given its recent performance, if you do not consider it a Win contender today (as I would not), then the #9 horse's 6th CSR rank again will be better (if indeed, you consider the #9 a win contender on any consistent set of principles).



CSR does not take into account the above issues (judgements about primary contention, surface suitability, trouble or other excuses, timeframe). You can do that yourself with some hands-on analysis.

CSR is as much useful in a 'longitudinal' sense, over a group of races, as it is in one specific race (as with ANY factor). The stats published by rmath and kahunab or others tell a larger picture of results gained by CSR and VDC and perhaps other combined factors, and one interesting thing is that they can be applied without too much (or even NO) subjective assessment. BUT - those published stats do not include ROI measurements (you may get a lot of no-bet races, or no overlay situations if you can't separate the final contenders).

I presume in many of such cases, applying other tools at our disposal - including a matchup analysis, proper contender identification, judicious forgiveness of recent poor races, etc - you can start out with a contender set indicated by CSR Top 5, validate those further by VDC and come up with a solid set of 3 win contenders from which to choose 1 or 2 to see if bettable net odds are offered.

As it stood in this race, 'out of the box' Best of Last 3 comparable PSS ranks the #9 winner 3rd on BL/BL, and with top APV, CR, 2nd Early NewPace, 2-1 odds along with 4/5 on the top ranked BL/BL #4 horse results in a potential pass for Win. A 3 horse Exacta box on the top 3 (which nets $49.40 for the 9-3-4 finish) looks like a possibility due to the 7-1 odds on the #3.



All in all, just saying that either you take your race by race lumps by using CSR uncritically and trust the longer term stats, or you use it as a further 'guideline' to the subset of horses which are likely true contenders and apply your other tools in the current race.

FWIW.

Ted

[Bill V.]

Thank you Richard and Jim and Ted

Now I am clear with my first question

Horse #9 Is Not a top 5 CSR In a race that fits Rmath's guidelines

Now may I move on to a series of questions

Ted's post is perfect timing as I now move into question #2
which in have I broken into a 2 part question.

A. Are you stats based on "checking" races after the fact.?

Here is what I wonder,

Once again lets look at how you work a race .

You open race 8 on Monday from Parx
do you note the top 5 CSR and then handicap the race ?


B. Do you only look for pace lines of those 5 CSR horses ?

I wait patiently for your answers to question 2
part A. and B.

[Segwin]

Originally Posted by rmath

Bill, the answer to both of your ?s is yes.
1) the 9 horse would not be a contender based on CSR ratings.
2) I have posted my guidelines before,but will post them again so you will not have to search for them.
GUIDELINES:
Only races with 8 or more betting interests are considered, 3yr olds & up.
No maidens or MSW races,
Only races from 5.5f to 8.5f were used in my testing. The reason for this is because these are the most often run distances at most tracks.

I am not saying 5f races and races over 8.5f are not playable (because they are) but that I did not include them in my stats because I do not see that many of them.
Races for 2yr. olds are excluded because most of the horses have run less than 4 times and therefor their CSR numbers are questionable.
The same holds true for maiden races.

I personally like races where all the entries have at least 4 races, because then the CSR numbers hold up better.
One thing I have noticed is that in races that I have been beaten it is usually ( about 3-4% of the time ) by a 6th or 7th ranked CSR horse.

I hope this helps answer your questions.
If not feel free to ask again.
I am always willing to help anyone who asks.
Rmath

Thank you Richard. One last question, do you make any changes to the standard configuration?