|
Google Site Search | Get RDSS | Sartin Library | RDSS FAQs | Conduct | Register | Site FAQ | Members List | Today's Posts | Search |
RDSS Racing Decision Support System – The Modern Sartin Methodology |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
12-03-2009, 11:32 AM | #11 | |
AlwNW1X
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16
|
Quote:
I am well aware of the difficulties involved in generating a positive return, especially with a software application. I am also well aware that the solution (and the profit) is in zigging when everyone else is zagging. It is not so much that the low-hanging fruit of the years past is no longer available, but rather that it is no longer available using the same approaches that worked then. I have had a considerable amount of success with the Sartin Methodology, and pace analysis in general. It would be misleading to think I have always had problems with it. I think other factors are involved in race outcomes, but I am in no way dissatisfied or disgruntled with the Sartin approach. My renewed interest in the Sartin Methodology is directly related to the fact that an associate is using Bob Purdy's Synergism application with modest success, and I thought RDSS would be an improvement on that. However, my understanding (which could easily be wrong) is that contender and pace line selection is pretty much automated in Synergism. How many tracks/races do you customarily wager on? Best Regards |
|
12-03-2009, 02:17 PM | #12 | |
Grade 1
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 311
|
Much clearer
Quote:
This is much clearer, if I'm understand it correctly. It sounds like your simply find a more automated style of play to be able to make more bets. This is exactly the problem I have been trying to solve, and it's possible that Ted's future automated paceline selection might be the answer. I usually check the card of three or four, and sometimes five tracks, and find, on average, one bettable race per card - that is one with at least a 50% overlay. It's for this reason that I'd like to be able to automate the handicapping process. You mention Synergism, with which I have no experience, but as you say, it does offer automatic paceline selection, Bob Purdy has a very good reputation, and the product has been recommended by Dick Schmidt. You seem particularly hung up on the notion of paceline selection. If you're interested, you might try a mechanical paceline selection that's worked well for me: after eliminating obvious horses (NL types who lack the speed to lead, herd horses that never win despite good figures) use the line for each horse that has best Total Energy figure in its last three races at a comparable distance and surface. For turf races, you can go back six deep for the best line, as Jim Quinn recommends, or use the entire PP record, as Mike Pizzola does. It might be useful to compare this with results your friend gets, if he uses Synergism's autopaceline feature. Richie P. demonstrated how effective and autopaceline can be in a recent exercise with RDSS. As a stat guy, you might prefer a larger sample - Kahneman and Tversky were right - but you might still want to check it out. Cheers, |
|
12-03-2009, 03:42 PM | #13 |
Grade 1
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 644
|
My neighbor bought a nice hedge trimmer and he did a wonder job jazzing up his property by trimming and evening up all his shrubs. He even did a little sculpturing.
I borrowed the same trimmer from him and my bushes are now uneven, have bare spots, generally look terrible. Worse than before I trimmed them. I can only conclude that the trimmer is not what I expected it to be. |
12-03-2009, 03:58 PM | #14 |
Grade 1 Aspiree
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 678
|
Mr. J2EEDeveloper,
Your arguments are sophistically expressed but are not convincing. For example, in your reply to me you stated. 1. "Sufficient instruction should be provided to enable the prospective subscriber to clearly see the potential of the software" 2. You also claim that you cannot find consistency in RDSS. Re: 1 & 2. If you claim thay you have read the Follow-Ups, in particular issues 70-88. then indeed you missed the potential of the software. The Sartin Methodology message has been consistently clear for years. This same consistency permeates throughout RDSS. A stable method as to paceline selection, wagering, hiding low odds favorites and going with your 2 best overlays within tier levels. There are years of records documented in the Follow-Up that clearly demonstrate profit potential of the Methodology. Years of 20 racing cycles from users that show, WIN WIN and more WIN. All of this is inherent in RDSS which has expertly fine tuned the Methodolgy. This is not a "Black Box" and there are no user manuals it does take work, record keeping, etc...but there are rewards for those who persist. As for me personally I admit I had difficulties adapting to the Methodology. But this has turned around for me. One example is my latest post RE;"DED R5 & R6 for 12/02". Not everyone can be successfull using the software. Apparantly you are one of them. You may give excellent interlectual counter arguments but to me it is empty discourse. Good Luck To You |
12-03-2009, 04:15 PM | #15 |
Grade 1
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,258
|
Paceline Selection Methods
In addition to the programs mentioned other programs have had a form of automated paceline selections also.
Aodds Gold had an asterisk next to the suggested paceline. HTR has several automated paceline methods and I think many of the users use the default paceline selection method which sometimes uses just 1 paceline or 2. TMH (The Master Handicapper) had the "Expert Selector" which would also use just one paceline or two paclines. TMM (The Master Magician) had different modes that opened a "Form Cycle Window" which is a somewhat different concept. They had LASST and Two Excuse Mode as described in the book Handicapping Magic BLAM (Black Magic) had the LASST and Two Excuse Mode as well as WOW (Wide Open Window), and the OPM (Obvious; Poor; and Money Horses). I am not suggesting this is what RDSS needs to do as historically the Sartin Group has picked their own pacelines. To me this is a very good and thought provoking thread and many good points have been made. |
12-03-2009, 05:34 PM | #16 | |
AlwNW1X
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16
|
Quote:
I would be happy to loan you my bow for hunting, but you would almost surely fail to use it successfully. That is not a fault in the bow itself--just as the fault was not in the hedge trimmer itself--as much as it is a fault in who you asked. Another neighbor may use a type of hedge trimmer (or even a set of manually-operated hedge clippers without a motor) that might be perfectly suited to your style of hedge clipping. Remember: you have to pick the proper neighbor to ask to get the best hedge trimming results. The hedge trimmer is only a tool. Best Regards |
|
12-03-2009, 05:48 PM | #17 |
AlwNW1X
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16
|
Pace Lines
BJennet,
Thanks for the advice. I appreciate it. That is generally the approach I use, with recency and interim races considered. For example, if an entry has a record of 5.5f good, 6f good, 6f fair, 6f poor in last, entered in 5.5f today, I would use the most recent 6f because it appears the entry ran well for a few races, and is now in a low part of its form cycle. I would really have to see something besides the pace lines as an excuse to go back to the better races for comparisons. It is in that gray area--of what seems to many to be form-reversals--that a lot of potential profit exists. Unfortunately, making excuses for poor performances in one or more recent races is also an area that leads a lot of handicappers astray. I used to be one of them. Best Regards, and thanks again for the advice |
12-03-2009, 06:35 PM | #18 |
Grade 1
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 878
|
|
12-03-2009, 09:24 PM | #19 |
Grade 1
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: pittsburgh, now! Lancaster, CA.
Posts: 2,531
|
Wow, so my question is, What is your next "step" or software to examine?
just asking. if you do find one as you discribe will you write us? now that you will not be using RDSS will you still come and post on this board? i'm not trying to be a "jerk" just asking. Rverge
__________________
i love every single minute of life, and, if one is lucky,then you must give it to others. |
12-04-2009, 10:14 AM | #20 | |
AlwNW1X
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16
|
Quote:
Thirty bets a week at $50 is $1500. A 15% (VERY good) POI means a net take of $225 a week--which is peanuts considering the time I have to spend locating and analyzing those 30 races. If I stick to major tracks, I can up the bet considerably without affecting the mutuel pools too much, and betting $200 a race brings my expected return up to $900 a week. Better, but still a long way from giving up my day job. However, if I can model the races competently, and model the process of selecting contenders and pace lines, then create algorithms to implement that information, the time invested decreases, with little or no loss in accuracy. Because the decision-making process is structured, errors are eliminated, which usually increases accuracy. In the bootstrapping process of modeling expert selections, the automated process is usually able to substantially increase the accuracy of the "expert's" selections by eliminating errors and structuring an unstructured process. I would really like to use RDSS. I like the interface, I like the readouts, and I like the underlying processes. About my only real complaint is the time involved; I am much more comfortable with "full-time" handicapping in which I (normally) bet 40 to 50 races a day at a dozen or more tracks. Unfortunately, my all-too-infrequent vacations seem to be the only times I am able to handicap races at that level competently, and then only by specializing in specific class levels and distances. I hoped RDSS would enable me to do the same thing by automating the most time-consuming processes--contender selection and pace line selection. There is nothing "wrong" with RDSS software, other than that it is not a significant improvement--for me--on what I can accomplish with a stack of TrackMaster past performances, a yellow hi-liter, a red flair pen, and a graphing calculator (I don't use the graphing capability for handicapping, but the TI-94 is easy to program with the limited number of calculations I use in handicapping.) I also have stacks of nicely marked PPs showing pace lines, contenders, and notes to myself about why I chose what, so I can continually improve my own processes and discover my own analytical deficiencies. Just like Doc Sartin told me to do. |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RDSS 2.0/Happy Holidays/Thank You! | Ted Craven | RDSS2 / FAQ's | 4 | 01-09-2010 06:03 PM |
Release Notes - Version 0.98.7 | Ted Craven | RDSS Info, Reference | 2 | 07-17-2009 11:09 AM |
RDSS Subscription / Forum Re-organization | Ted Craven | RDSS | 1 | 03-07-2009 01:35 PM |