Track to Track Adjustments

[Bill V.]

I feel for you Dan. I also feel bad for Ted - really what can he do ?
The issue is not that the numbers can sometimes be off, The issue is" sometimes the numbers can be off," What I mean by that last statement,
once I got burned by a wacky adjustment It will always be in the back of my mind, Is this race clean?. I believe in Ted's attempted advice of using the odds to decide if a wacky number/readout is worth the risk/reward, Which echo's Doc's feeling of " you will still make money" is sound .Again what was Doc suppose to do,
Its not like Ted or Doc can just say to Trackmaster FIX it or else, The program
is dependent on the data track master gives Ted
My issue is the damaging effect a wacky number not only effects 1 horse but the whole race because the inner workings of the readouts relative to the "dream race ' are now out of wack . The second part being now I have a doubt in my mind, Remember there are a few people out there with fragile
self confidence and big egos, When they see something that possibly could have contributed to them losing they will fight it inside their minds.
It takes hard work to believe in your self enough to bet enough to make this
more than a hobby, We need to know the numbers are accurate and if
we find mistakes I hope we don't just get told how the numbers are made but the fact that they are made wrong is the issue.

Bill
Albuquerque New Mexico
On my way to Roswell,
Hope no flying saucers grab me

[Mitch44]

To get there DanBoals I would recommend keeping records of factors to find the best corollary that works across all tracks and surfaces. These type of factors puts a greater percentage on your side.

Even then it always becomes a choice of payoff vs. position in the contest or what you'll accept on a daily basis.

The two biggest influences on a race are the match-up of the field and form. Sartin stated 80% was due to the match up. Form is the hardest to get correct and is why the public only gets 33.33% or so correct. Like trying to nail jelly to a tree. If the public were to ever catch up with it than the game is dead. It's an area where one can improve their game because most become figure blind and fail to evaluate the contenders.There are areas where you can increase those percentages with form and cycle analysis.

One of the benefits of Taskmaster is that they incorporate run-up distances whereas others do not. Few players pay much attention to this and at some tracks and surfaces its more important than track to track and inter-track variants. Especially at GP in turf races where on the exact same day and distances, the distance can be almost as much as a furlong difference for identical distances. While dirt races are more uniform they are not between tracks. Players would be shocked if they checked out run-up dis.'s that can be more than 200 feet difference. Their given in Equibase results charts.

Its tough to beat a consistent computer program for variants or a program like RDSS that consistently adjust for different distances of pace lines selected etc. etc. Fortunes await those with a better mouse trap.

Mitch44

[DanBoals]

Bill

Sorry if I sound like I am down on Ted and RDSS2, that is the exact opposite. Thanks to this software, I have made more than $2000 year to date; which is PDG for software that costs $100 a year. I am a HUGE fan of RDSS2.

What I am asking for amounts to a wish list that would help me reach the next level. The only thing I have problems with are lots of horses coming from lots of different tracks, which is very prominent in places like Keeneland. I am trying to get myself to the next level and that is hard.

Currently I am making a decent profit for $4 exacta boxes. If I bet multiple horses, I tend to do ok as well, although my ROI isn't as good. I am just at the point where I want to play against the "big boys" in the tournaments, and I am clearly not at that level yet. Not good enough to make top 10 anyways

Dan

[DanBoals]

Mitch

Thanks for the advise... I did not know about run up distances until I read Len Ragozin's excellent book. I was not aware Trackmaster used them, but that is definitely a good thing that they do.

Corollary analysis has not helped me with getting winners. I don't know if this is the way I handicap or what, but I have never had luck with it. % Medium is the only one of the factors that has helped me, but it is not used in the primary or secondary line scores, so it technically doesn't count as a corollary. And, it is only useful to me at certain tracks.

For contender selection, my own secret formula , is to use the Trackmaster/RDSS2 SR ratings for the horses that I find in form. The top horse's SR or the second top horse's SR if the top horse is way above the field, is my base. I try to keep any horse that comes with 5 or 6 points of this SR number as a contender, some races that is only 3 or 4 horses, some as many as 9. What is frustrating to me, is that there are sometimes horses shipping in that don't have a high enough SR number to qualify as contenders, but they win. When I go back and use the eyeball test, they are usually "good enough" to have been a contender based on their fractions, but for some reason Trackmaster didn't like them and nerfed them. This is what I am trying to avoid, since these are usually high paying horses and I love a good longshot.

I suppose I could use another method for contender selection, but I have been very profitable using my listed method with exactas and I don't want to start losing. Like I said, I LOVE RDSS2, I am just seeing if it is possible to add some kind of advanced feature that would let me tinker with track to track when it seems the software is over or under inflating the numbers.

This is by far the best software I have ever used. I truly believed for a LONG time that nothing would ever be as good as manual entry Synthesis, but RDSS is. The only feature from manual entry Synthesis that it is missing is the ability to adjust the adjustments. And, like I said, it would be a very advanced feature, but one that I would adore if it ever got added.

Hope this explains somewhat where I am coming from with the desire for track to track adjustment,

Dan

[Mitch44]

Don't give up what you have confidence in and is working for you. You may want to due a comparison study of what you do and using the top CR ratings for your contenders and see if its an improvement etc. One thing about CR is it has absolutely nothing to do with variants etc. Hopping it works out for you.

Best of luck,
Mitch44

[Peteman]

I am not a RDSS user but have made a lot of Brohamer, Purdy type numbers over the last 25 years and have found that some lines will kill you if you use them. So if the variant is
Too fast or slow there is no way of making it normal its aberrant and a final time variant
Does not always equate to the fractional variant, in short I stay away from lines that are
extreme at your track. I do not think it’s the track to track adjustment.

Remember when We used to use, the drf variant one meet at Tampa I compared it to my variants and it was off like 4.5 lengths or more like 45% of the time and I was still winning using the drf variant. So I guess we can survive with even some large discrepancies

Refrence for separate final and fractional variants
http://www1.drf.com/products/moss/mossfaq.html

[Mitch44]

A consistent procedure greatly helps that survival. With the old SR+ variant we avoided lines that had a extremely fast or slow variant. E.g. under 8 and above 27 with 17 being the norm. Very few members today actually look at the variant for the line they have chosen, LT1 is an exception. When the line is abnormal it pays to select another line. Most horses can be gotten with more than one line so it pays to avoid these very high or very low variants.

Perhaps a review of the variant of line a player has selected is the answer to the variant problem if there is one that can be corrected by the handicapper. A set parameter for a variant (8 to 27) gives one another consistent procedure that should up their game. With 1 variant point about equal to 1/2 a length that puts the player to within 5 lengths of the norm. Then again you can set your own parameters of 3 or 4 lg. and adjust the variant to fit your criteria. To me this is the best approach to solve the variant question.
Good luck with it.

Mitch44

[Mark]

Personally, I handicap all races without any DTV. Recently I started to use ITV. So my configuration is "Don't use DTV" and "Use ITV. At this point I don't know if the program actually applies the ITV if the Don't use DTV selected or if it just applies the whole ITV for a shipper. I haven't asked TED.
I have made variants myself and it is seldom an easy task. The DRF variant was horribly flawed by the composition of races run on any day.
If you use a single line in your handicapping then you will have problems. To me it is another piece of questionable information that is probably best ignored. If you have made variants you understand the problems. Too many double digit horses win off these supposed fast lines, because the PUBLIC looks at that information and the speed figures are made from that information and alot of them bet it.
When you look at a paceline, pace of the race, you can see the calls and calculate the fractions. Fast early races that fall apart late with S horses swooping in to win tell you something. But you have to evaluate all the horse's pacelines to get an understanding of what kind of pace does a horse succeed against and what causes him to fail. Looking at one line will not do. Find a confirming one. When are you going to get speed favoring surfaces? Sloppy tracks are often sealed and hard surfaces that lend themselves to fast fractions and final times. The surface is hard and takes little energy to get over for the Early horses. A deep surface is tiring for Early horses as it takes them much more energy to get over it causing them to fade. Look at the paceline and see compare fractions and final time. That is a much better indication of surface speed than the variant! Don't just accept the "Best of the last 3 comparable" and say you've handicapped the race. That's nonsense!! If it worked prices would all be like the Quarterhorse's or Harness horses. If the Thoroughbred racing industry wanted to make the timing of their races and the positions of the horses exact, the technology has been there for decades. The reason they continue with their methods is because it is inexact which leads to more dollars put through the window which means more profits. Their sole interest is to drive handle, although now they have to contend with safety issues or PETA will close them down.
The mind is the best computer ever made. Use it to evaluate these horses and their performances, learn what a fast final fraction is, TT or whatever. Study this stuff and you will be way ahead and not always betting into the toteboard!

[Mitch44]

The flip side of that coin is the horse the same horse that ran that better line? There are Derby winners that never win another race. And everyday horses that run one too many races or an overtaxing race that never repeat it. So using more that one race can be dangerous. Its a judgement call as to weather its the same horse or not. You'll be right at times and wrong at other times.

On pg. II of the yellow manual Sartin states; " On page 16 in the Basic Phase III manual we state that averaging can be dangerous at best. While certain individuals can use averaging, for most it is a disaster. DO NOT AVERAGE. We have better tools for selecting a PREDICTIVE PACELINE." Mark obviously your the exception but for the average Joe probably not a good idea.

I agree variants are difficult to make and would be a full time job with no time for handicapping. But there is a big difference between tracks & variants and how different makers compute this stuff. Regardless they do it by a consistent method which is about as good as it gets. Its just insane to think one doesn't need these adjustment as you'll win more with them than without them.

By going to three fractions and compounded ratings it lessen the need for accurate adjustments. I said lessen not elimate them. It insane to think you can compare Calder with a race from SA or not use variants for off track or on turf courses that aren't firm. I never have agreed on where they distribute the variant E.g. 2/3rs early and 1/3 late or equally to each FR. Myself I would distribute to where it accelerates as that is where it'll effect the horse the most. I.e. if early than all on that part for that horse and if an S or L all on HE for that horse. Regardless its like the Doc said ;"it doesn't make any difference what you use for a beaten length as long as its consistent." All these variants and track to track adjustments are the same as long as all tracks and methods are consistent. The commercial makers like BRIS and Trackmaster do this on a consistent procedure by computer without mans prejudices.
I do agree with you Mark on the POR and its effect on the horse. A horse going against a weaker POR amounts to a huge class drop that is hidden from the public. Few look at this aspect or factor. Additionally it is really easy now that RDSS rates every race in the horses chart for a total pace rating and the POR for that line also. They should use it more in context to todays POR that it'll encounter in todays matchup.

Mitch44

[Mark]

For no particular reason here are 3 Turf from GG that I handicapped yesterday without looking at the results or replays. I play a lot of Turf races all over the country because they generally have fuller fields and the horses are sounder. I use no DTV but do use the ITV. Here is my configuration:Attachment 40429
Attachment 40430
Attachment 40431
Attachment 40432
Attachment 40433





I project the pace and select pacelines where the horse competed against that early pace using his normal running style. I don't care if it is the 5th, 7th or 10th paceline. I just have to answer Jim Bradshaw's 3 questions:
1. Is he still a horse? 2. Has he changed his running style and become a slow horse? 3. For Early horses, can he still get on top of his fractions.