Woodbine Saturday 5/24

[Dallas4lr]

Race 1,


Probably shouldnt bet this race with two low price favorites, but I'm playing the 5 and 7 to win.



Dallas

[Tim Y]

1st race - Woodbine - May 24, 2008
Pgm Horse Win Place Show
2 Daring Attraction 4.90 2.80 2.70
6 Fast Million 3.00 2.70
1 Dazzlin Dr Cologne 6.60

$2 Triactor 2-6-1 119.10

This race?

[Dallas4lr]

yes ,

sorry 5/24

And Rdss had both the 6 & 2 ranked on top. Just tried to beat the obvious favorites.


Carl

[Dallas4lr]

Race 3,


going with the 3 & 5 in this race. the #5 is a Binder improver from tier 5 on BL/BL to tier 1 on V/DC.

Carl

[Tim Y]

Originally Posted by Dallas4lr

Race 3,


going with the 3 & 5 in this race. the #5 is a Binder improver from tier 5 on BL/BL to tier 1 on V/DC.

Val is notorious for moving horses TOO Far up particularly off synthetic closer paradises like Keeneland. Probability convergence, thankfully is not a part of Spec.

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by Tim Y

Val is notorious for moving horses TOO Far up particularly off synthetic closer paradises like Keeneland. Probability convergence, thankfully is not a part of Spec.

You need to clarify what you think this statement means, because it is fuzzy in too many ways to be meaningful to many. Carl refered to V/DC - 'velocity tempered by deceleration', which readout is not in Spec but was arguably the core of Validator. Val on the other hand employs variable beaten length valuations which can tend to over rate the final fraction of poorer pacelines unless carefully selected. Both Val4 and Spec160 employ identical application of TrackMaster inter-track variants, and thus over- or under-advantage shippers (including from KEE and other polytracks) identically.

Tell me more what you think 'probability convergence' is and I'll tell you to what extent it is or isn't a part of Spec, and to what extent it differs (if it does) from Val. And by extension, how it is (or isn't) present in RDSS.

Otherwise, it sounds meaningful, but it could mean anything...

Ted

[Tim Y]

Probability convergence lessens the difference between the horse's that the program chooses with the idea, I am told, to get user's to consider horses that might be ranked third or fourth initially. From my experience over the years, in drawing these together (and it is my belief as to why Val always did better in turf routes) it favored late moving horses, (which other data, i.e. the early/late balance model), that simply did not win, other than on the turf.

This was always why the V/DC screen was not used by this handicapper in other than turf routes as it consistently (ovr three years of comparison) elevated later moving horses that track models did not support other than on the lawn.

[admin]

Thanks for your explanation. Your right on
I found this in the follow up #82

I am away from home so I can't make it a pdf
I can only make screenshots
I know your real busy But any way its follow up #82
page 27 and 28

Thanks Ted

Bill

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by Tim Y

Probability convergence lessens the difference between the horse's that the program chooses with the idea, I am told, to get user's to consider horses that might be ranked third or fourth initially. From my experience over the years, in drawing these together (and it is my belief as to why Val always did better in turf routes) it favored late moving horses, (which other data, i.e. the early/late balance model), that simply did not win, other than on the turf.

This was always why the V/DC screen was not used by this handicapper in other than turf routes as it consistently (ovr three years of comparison) elevated later moving horses that track models did not support other than on the lawn.

Tim,

You are conflating several ideas which should remain distinct. Bringing the supposedly lower ranked (Primary Line Score) horses closer together by weighting them is what forms the BL ranking and related Betting Line Odds, which is part of Val and Spec (which BL/BL you've said you don't use much). Doc urged to consider the top 3 ranked (viable) contenders as potential equals and to then make wager decisions based on offered odds. This is part of so-called 'Probability Convergence' in Validator.

BL/BL rank forms part of what shows up as the V/DC rank. The other part is a measure of Velocity tempered by Deceleration (shown in distinct ratio to each other in the RDSS Segments screen VDC column, in Val mode). The combination of the 2 components forms the V/DC ranking.

One thing from Validator - which was changed in Speculator - is that Fraction 3 is sometimes over-valued due to too high final beaten lengths (due to Val's variable beaten lengths formulae). This is regardless of KEE or other polytrack adjustments embedded in the TrackMaster ITVs because Spec160 and Val4 use the same ITV adjustment. So Spec160 may sometimes do a better job of getting the 3rd fraction right, but that's got nothing to do with 'Probability Convergence' as described (with a bit of hyperbole by Doc) in the article Bill posted above.

The V/DC rank is a VERY DENSE formula - Doc conceived it and Guy Wadsworth programmed it but told me he did not understand it, which is also what Doc told me. Thus Guy omitted it from his Speculator work, as he also omitted the ITV adjustments, as he also felt that TrackMaster's speed rating changes scheduled for 2006 would have no effect on readouts. Guy did some good work, but in my opinion got a number of things very wrong. That's why you now use Spec160 rather than older versions of Spec - it works better.

If Spec160 with its static beaten length formula and thus not the sometimes over-amped F3 which you complain of (except on Turf) contained the V/DC readout, and you were to track its effectiveness as you say you tracked it in Val, I'm sure you would report different findings over the long run. Those finding would mirror what a number of RDSS users who have studied V/DC have found - that top 2 and ties identify winners in too high a measure to be ignored.

For other readers, don't worry about 'Probability Convergence' - sometimes Doc put fancy labels on things which none-the-less are what they are, and work like they work. KEEP A MODEL of a few factors - simple. If you don't like V/DC - don't use it. But don't accept someone else's opinion about its usefulness.

Where you see an otherwise low ranked BL/BL horse (e.g. 4th or 5th) with a high V/DC (e.g. 2 or 1) - aka a 'Binder Improver' (), don't accept it blindly as a wager: rather seek confirmation from other factors such as F3 or L/ep or LPR or DCL and the E/L graph that such an otherwise lesser horse with an apparently good Deceleration relative to Velocity fits with today's Match Up and today's track/distance/surface energy disbursement requirements. Then make a decision - and that decision may be for other than Win (i.e. because it may truly be too slow to Win, per BL/BL and Total Energy). The idea was to draw your attention to it, rather than letting your eye dismiss it as merely a slow horse.

Ted

[admin]

Originally Posted by Dallas4lr

Race 3,


going with the 3 & 5 in this race. the #5 is a Binder improver from tier 5 on BL/BL to tier 1 on V/DC.

Carl

Thanks Jeff and Carl

Jeff's post made me think to look for myself
Carl I do see the 5 as a BI but my readouts say to look at the top 3
all color horses My bets 1 and 3
The 5 seems in trouble It will move late but against this pace will it be close enough ?
Thanks Bill