Go Back   Pace and Cap - Sartin Methodology & The Match Up > Sartin Methodology Handicapping 101 (102 ...)
Mark Forums Read
Google Site Search Get RDSS Sartin Library RDSS FAQs Conduct Register Site FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts

Sartin Methodology Handicapping 101 (102 ...) Interactive Teaching & Learning - Race Conditions, Contenders, Pacelines, Advanced Concepts, Betting ...

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-11-2016, 03:09 PM   #1
DanBoals
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 301
Track to Track Adjustments

How does RDSS handle track to track adjustments?

This has always been a problem I have run into, the horses never seem to be adjusted correctly when coming from different tracks. In RDSS it is pretty good, but I still have problems. Tracks like Keeneland are the worse, since they are short meets and horses are coming from all over.

I know ATM has a good equalization chart :

https://www.americanturf.com/equalization/

I have never used it in a program, but it passes the "eyeball" test.

And of course, with the old manual entry Synthesis, I used to use the chart :

http://www.drf.com/node/246417

which gave the 3 year best times at different distances. I would need to extrapolate and interpolate some distances based on others at the track for the manual entry Synthesis, but this wasn't too difficult to do mathematically on the spot.

What has me wondering about the RDSS track to track adjustments is that I found that Howard over adjusted with the manual entry Synthesis program, and I would have to cut his adjustments for track to track in half to get them to be more accurate.

Is there any way with RDSS to manually adjust track to track?

If not, does anyone have any advise for which track to track adjustments need to be more carefully looked at?

This has always been one of the things that fascinated me the most with horse racing. I believe Len Ragozin was probably the best at equalization, but then he had people at most of the major tracks doing the work. Any light anyone can shed on this subject would be much appreciated. Thanks,

Dan
DanBoals is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2016, 08:42 PM   #2
Mark
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 318
t - t adjustments

Hi Dan,

What I can tell you is what Ted mentioned to me in and email. The Track to Track adjustment employed by Trackmaster is proprietary. So Ted can't divulge it. What can happen is you can get a double effect sometimes when there is a DTV on the race from the shipping track when combined with the ITV. So you have to sense when it just looks out of whack.

I am a Jim Bradshaw devotee so my style of handicapping really doesn't rely on final speed. You want to have a general idea that it is in the ballpark, like Bull Ring lines to mile tracks but final time is a product of the early pace and the combination of Early horses battling up front. To a point they drag the field with them and then when exhausted others go by. It is such an illusion but it is true. Pressers and Sustained horses don't speed up they just don't decelerate as fast as tired early speed.

Whether with Phase 1 or Velocity POR or POH when you get to the BL?BL screen and see that array of rankings take note of the Dcl column. It is often the tipoff to 3rd and 4th ranked CPR horses beating the faster early and final time horses. I wish it were easier to post screen shots because you can see this. At TAM on the 9th in the 9th was #4 TE, #4 EPR, #4 LPR and #3 CPR. It was an E horse by visual running style but Late energy ESP. Its DCL was #5. He won by 2, having a multiple length lead the entire way and paid $51and keyed a $201 $2 exacta with the 6/5 betting favorite. This was 8.5f on the Turf.
I either read or heard "The Hat" say there are 3 types of Sustained horses 1. Those that can go to the lead 2. those that run from the back in the pack and 3. Slow horses.
Hope this helps!
Mark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2016, 11:43 PM   #3
DanBoals
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 301
Thanks Mark

Knowing it is a trackmaster thing helps. If it were an RDSS thing, it might be fun to have the ability to tinker with or adjust, but if it is coming into the software "as is", no telling what trackmaster is doing.
DanBoals is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 08:34 AM   #4
Mitch44
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: The Villages, Fl.
Posts: 3,705
Whatever Trackmaster uses it is a consistent computer driven program therefore very reliable. Nothing is foolproof or a 100%. You must put the higher percentages on your side.
Any consistent procedure will our perform a hap hazard inconsistent one. Trackmaster has proven to be very reliable. Trust it and it'll will reward you.
Mitch44
Mitch44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 03:45 PM   #5
Ted Craven
Grade 1
 
Ted Craven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 8,853
Dan,

As several have mentioned, RDSS uses a Track-to-Track (or Inter-Track Variant - ITV) adjustment factor supplied by TrackMaster. From the RDSS FAQs, here is a video by TrackMaster of how they compute their entire Speed/Class/ITV/DTV system: http://paceandcap.com/forums/showpos...9&postcount=16

The only thing you can do with the ITV adjustment in RDSS is to either use it or NOT use it (on the Config Tab), but there is no means to micro-adjust it. As Mitch mentions, individual adjustments may vary, and some may be too fast or slow, but they are all self-consistent over a large number of running lines and races handicapped.

One thing you can do - if you believe you have better ITV adjustments for a given track pair, or distance/track pair (i.e. from a distance/track to another distance/track) - is: start with the Adjusted Time projection created for your chosen paceline on the Adjusted Tab (which time thus feeds into all the subsequent velocity and Factor rankings and Line Scores based on them), then, when consulting your ranking screen of choice (e.g. BL/BL) - IF you think a horse was rated say, only 3rd because of an erroneously bad ITV adjustment (or improperly rated 2nd because of a too generous adjustment) - THEN, simply mentally say this horse should be ranked a bit better, or a bit worse because of my overriding personal opinion. Then, construct your wager with that in mind.

The way RDSS and the later (perhaps all) Sartin programs are constructed: you get a set of true Contenders which are rated against each other in the most consistent manner possible - then you need to apply value considerations offered by the tote board to the ranked Line Score (e.g. BL, or VDC) or other Factor rank you are paying attention to. In many cases: given a ranking of say, 1 through 4, you don't necessarily bet on rank 1, or rank 2 etc just because of the high rank. Rather, you bet on valid Contenders because of odds offered. If in your opinion an ITV was out of whack, seldom (IMO) does that change a horse's rank outside of Top 4 Contention. The onus is still on the user to choose among the ranked contenders, and (in the Sartin Methodology) typically to choose 2 (or more) bets from among those Contenders. Or no bet.

Anyway, that's my perspective. Also I find that ranking horses and designating them Win Contenders or not - is perhaps not even half the battle: the rest being structuring wagers or passing. At least, having a consistently adjusted and comparable set of pacelines ('warts-and-all'), consistently selected for a given race (e.g. an automated or user-consistent selection criteria) subsequently makes studying your race by race decisions (analysis and betting decisions) over a 20 or 100 race collection, whatever, an exercise in consistency, rather than one in zig-zagging between differing decisions each race.

I don't deny that some 'local knowledge' about which automatic ITV adjustments will repeatedly bite you - is a good thing in a handicapper's arsenal. You just have to find a way to apply that knowledge consistently.

Also - all this is highly theoretical (possibly even boring). I always invite folks to give specific illustrated examples of a problem observed (e.g. a specific race). Perhaps suggest a race or 2 for discussion in the Races of Interest Forum. Perhaps there are alternate ways of looking at things?

Ted
__________________

R
DSS -
Racing Decision Support System™
Ted Craven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 05:46 PM   #6
Lt1
Grade 1
 
Lt1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Valley Stream NY
Posts: 9,042
Like Doc always said if you don't have all the information use what you have. Ted is correct if you don't put in the proper contenders and pacelines it doesn't matter what the track variant is or for that matter anything else one may worry about.
Lt1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 08:32 PM   #7
Mark
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 318
Lousy Data

Years ago in a Dick Mitchell seminar at Del Mar He made a fairly persuasive argument that due to timing errors, differing run up distances and of 5ths of a second then the standard, at 6f you could have as much as 2 lengths error at the finish line. The longer the race the greater the discrepancy. I have always remembered that. Depending on the scale of speed figures you use, that could be 4, 5, up to 8 point difference in final time numbers. Dick was a mathematician and had taught at several levels of higher education. His "All-In-One" software is still available I think. He was also a prolific author and wrote some excellent books on wagering strategy.

The point here is that no matter how good the software, the data that our numbers are calculated from is really crappy. Just think of lengths behind at various calls. How many different people are calling races across the US on one Thursday or Saturday. This chart caller is in a little room at the top of the grandstand with binoculars and is calling this out to someone writing it down. It is an amazing skill but the likelihood of everybody's length being the same is ridiculous. Calling the race requires remembering each horses' name and saddle cloth number and each decision is made instantaneously.

I think this is why Ragozin or Thorograph numbers can be so much more precise: one number, Final time. It is also what gave life to the original Pace guys. Over shorter distances the surface speed has less impact, so chances are the Pace of Race fractional times were subject to less error. Start adjusting these with Final Time variant and look out.: A + B doesn't not equal C.

One of the reasons that compounded factors have predictive value and the screens like BL/BL and Energy are so useful is that they somewhat generalize the importance of the specific time interval and they are consistent.

So is the ITV from Trackmaster perfect? No!! The real question is: Is it good enough?
Mark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 10:33 PM   #8
Bill V.
The egg man
 
Bill V.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Carlsbad, California
Posts: 10,005
Ted

I understand your position, Yet you say to give examples
I did that once and all I got was lots of answers from other members about what is or is not a daily track variant. I did weeks worth or back research, I followed the horses from the race in question, I gave plenty of supporting examples why I feel the numbers trackmaster put out were not correct , in 1 particular race, Yet I was told here I was wrong or worse ignored, Nobody at trackmaster wrote to me or acknowledged my question, From that point on I decided the numbers can be inaccurate, This cause me to go with an attitude of just bet your comfort zone , don't take this stuff too serious . like Tim and Mitch say just go with what you see, Showing examples is just whistling in the dark.
Bill V. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2016, 10:51 PM   #9
Mark
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 318
Ultimate Proof

Bill,
You've created a way to make money. About 98% of handicappers don't, for some it is an expensive hobby. I agree with you that the numbers are not always accurate, but then I don't think any mass produced numbers are as good as those crafted by the individual for the tracks they play.

In light of this you have found a way to make the good enough. Don't get you feelings hurt because others don't want to agree with you. In their case, it is not in their profit interest to expend more money to get them right. It would probably take quite a few more staff to do it. They can minimize their expense by getting close enough for their statistical tests.

I've suggested that the 2nd and 3rd fractions are screwed up in races under 6f. Hell, you can just look at the feet per second numbers and see it. And more importantly the horses don't run to them.

Maybe we are just old school guys and have been looking at these numbers so long that we know the difference. "Examples, I don't need no f--king examples!" to paraphrase John Belushi.
Mark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2016, 06:22 PM   #10
DanBoals
Grade 1
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 301
Thanks everyone for the feedback.

Ted, what I am worried you are saying is that I will need to find some other software if I want to go to do tournament handicapping, which I do. I thoroughly understand the Sartin software, having worked with Howard on Synthesis back in 1999. I have made over $2000 this year to date using RDSS2 for exactas, betting my top three horses for a $4 box.

I understand that if you get the contenders you are 90% done with the fight, I bet exactas, believe me, I understand the value of contender selection.

I have had the same luck with Trackmaster that Bill has though, they are happy with what they have. Which is fine for RDSS2 if I only use it in a certain way.

What I am after is a way to remove the Trackmaster track to track adjustments and use my own, OR, to be able to modify them by a %. In Synthesis, I learned working with Howard, that the manual entry track to track adjustments were off by as much as 50%. He said the same thing most people here have said, it is close enough to make money.

Making money is great, don't get me wrong, I am very proud of the exactas I hit using RDSS2 this year. My dream however is to play tournaments, especially the big one some day. In order to do that, I need software that is better than good enough. I know this asking for a lot, , and I am quite sure most people using their own track to track adjustments would do worse, not better, so I understand wanting to use something like Trackmasters. It's just that in perfect world, I could get RDSS2 to do everything I want it to, and, I figured there might be something I overlooked, since I am still new to this software and don't know all it's ins and outs yet.

Anyways, I love RDSS2, don't get me wrong, I am just trying to get from a place where I get the contenders, and 3 horse box for my exacta win, to picking the winner cold.

Dan
DanBoals is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Track to track adjustments kpmats10 General Discussion 6 07-15-2015 06:03 PM
Adjustments Question Ted Craven RDSS2 / FAQ's 3 06-29-2014 03:22 PM
New Track Code: BHP = HOL Ted Craven RDSS2 / FAQ's 11 04-28-2012 03:12 PM
Daily varient Bill V. Previous 'Handicapping Discussion' Forum 13 02-01-2012 05:25 PM
To Model your track or wagers pktruckdriver Previous 'Handicapping Discussion' Forum 26 09-03-2009 12:32 PM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:17 AM.