Picking Contenders & Pacelines

[bobsbet]

For The Lead:

My mistake. Message should have read which readouts in RDSS are most predictive in dirt sprints?

My apologies.

Thanks

Bobsbet

[Alice0607]

I have read most of post from (1) matchup, rdss, rdss 2.0, teaching examples. I have also printed most of the posting. I am just trying to find what is the best way to used rdss software program. I am not making any judgement about anyone's talent's of picking pacelines. What will work for me.

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

You are already on the wrong road.
RDSS does NOT have "picks".
RDSS is NOT a black box.
Here is a quote from Ted, "my software is not a betting black box - but since I could not otherwise rank pacelines or properly identify contenders without the computations and rankings of my software - then I'd have to call winning a race a partnership between my own consistent decision making and the software's number crunching, sorting and filtering."
So as you can see, the man that wrote the software is telling you his software is a "tool" not a black box.
If you would like to see how some of the various tools in RDSS can work for you, I would suggest reading the threads in the teaching section.

It is possible that by the word 'picks' he really meant 'ranks' ...

And, not to nitpick, but I (vaguely) recall the context of that quote above and FWIW the phrase 'my software' is not one I regularly use since RDSS has a heritage far beyond just me. I was probably distinguishing RDSS from some other supposed black-box software. But the idea of RDSS being a tool to leverage the human mind is of course the point. Just saying.

Ted

[Ted Craven]

Originally Posted by Alice0607

I have read most of post from (1) matchup, rdss, rdss 2.0, teaching examples. I have also printed most of the posting. I am just trying to find what is the best way to used rdss software program. I am not making any judgement about anyone's talent's of picking pacelines. What will work for me.

Alice,

Give me a call, let's spend some time. Check your email.

Ted

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by Ted Craven

It is possible that by the word 'picks' he really meant 'ranks' ...

And, not to nitpick, but I (vaguely) recall the context of that quote above and FWIW the phrase 'my software' is not one I regularly use since RDSS has a heritage far beyond just me. I was probably distinguishing RDSS from some other supposed black-box software. But the idea of RDSS being a tool to leverage the human mind is of course the point. Just saying.

Ted

Ted,

I would agree with you that "picks" probably meant "ranks", since the BL/BL screen displays horses by the ranking of line score even though it displays the actual line score number rather than a ranking number. However, it has been my observation that the BL/BL screen is right where users go and look at the top two horses there for their horses to bet or characterize them as RDSS "picks". Many times I have read where users post such things as "RDSS had it right on top" or "RDSS had it" and what they mean is the winner was at the top of the BL/BL sort or at least 2nd on the BL/BL sort. It seems clear to me that the BL/BL sort is interpreted to mean the "selection(s)" RDSS is providing.

When I posted races in the teaching area, specifically the "why NOT maidens" thread and "making money with early" thread, my purpose was to show RDSS users the versatility of RDSS. That RDSS can be used to isolate winners in ways other than the BL/BL sort.

Here is a link to the post where I took the quote I used. It is post #3. http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8763 I agree with this as well. I think we are both saying that RDSS is not a black box that gives the user selections to bet on. Rather, it is a tool (a very good tool), that helps to aide the user in making final betting decisions. And this can be true even where two users take different roads to their final decision.

[Ted Craven]

FTL,

A very good elaboration on the dangers of using only one screen, or one section of a Summary screen (i.e. the BL/BL screen). I agree it can be a costly 'shorthand' to refer to 'RDSS Ranks' meaning the BL/BL sort, when a Matchup analysis will clearly show that, either from a positional or an energy distribution point of view, we need to be focusing on either the Early or the Other Than Early (OTE) rankings. That's why the BLBL Summary screen conveniently has Early rankings, Late rankings, some compound rankings (TS+F3, VDC, CPR) and E/L differentials. Folks could be forgiven for considering it a one-stop-shop destination - but don't just look at the friendly numbers in the middle of the screen .

If 'Alice' is trying to get one or 2 comprehensive numbers which fit in a broad number of race categories, I would urge him to break it down not only by distance and surface (which he's probably doing), but also by Matchup scenario (bias toward early, bias toward late).

It's true that aggregate BLBL, VDC and CSR values can probably get you 4 bona fide contenders 80+ percent of the time, but knowing when and WHY to focus on Early and when and WHY on Late (what to speak taking a consistent and repeatable approach to picking fair pacelines for the horses) - is the secret to winnowing that down further. By watching the toteboard, you can probably make money dutching 3 or 4 of those horses in exactas a lot of the time, but being able to narrow it down to 3, or 2 (let alone 1) horse makes it so much easier (and profitable).

I do take your point about the 'not a black box', and (still) heartily concur.

Ted

[atkinsrr]

Hi guys...would like to add something about pace line selection....The Follow-Ups and pages on instructions for pace line selections are as follows: not in numerical order:
FU#81 pg 35 FU#84 pg 38(VAL 2 only) FU#86 pg 33 and 53(surface changes only)
FU#88 pg 30 FU#76 pg 24 FU#41 pg 60 thru 63 FU#50 pg 50 FU#49 pg 13
Then we have the Follow-Ups that instruct us about record keeping, as follows:
FU#7 pg 31 FU#47 pg 39 FU#73 pg 17 FU#67 pg 17-27 FU#78 pg 28...hope this will help some of the newer people to find answers more quickly.....

[Ted Craven]

Thanks Randy! Looking forward to reviewing those articles. (And thanks for those 2 missing FU pages you mailed me - posting them any moment now ...).

Ted

[For The Lead]

Originally Posted by bobsbet

For The Lead:

My mistake. Message should have read which readouts in RDSS are most predictive in dirt sprints?

My apologies.

Thanks

Bobsbet

First, let me make something clear. I have only been using RDSS since December via an agreement between Ted and I.
However, if you haven't read this anywhere else, I have a database with more than 600,000 races and 5,000,000 horses. Ok, on to the answer to your question.

You asked your question generically, so I will give you the generic answer. NONE. That was the easy part. Now I will give you the more detailed answer.

There is no one statistic or corollary or other piece of information that will show you a profit over time. Nothing in horse racing is that easy. But don't be disheartened just yet.

My database and RDSS share many common statistics. My database and RDSS each have statistics that the other does not have. This does not make one program better than the other, they are very similar with a few exceptions. Let's just look at one statistic from the current year at the distance of 6 furlongs.

The dollar net return for this statistic is currently at $ 1.60. This means for every $2.00 wagered you would get back $ 1.60, a $0.40 loss. Not very good.
Now let's look at this statistic after we investigate a little further.
Let’s break it down between males and females.
Males returned $ 1.28
Females returned $ 1.97

Neither of these returns is a winner on their own, but females do MUCH BETTER than males.
Now let’s take the same group of winners and see how it turns out in only claiming races.
Males return $ 1.12.
Females return $ 2.18
Now we have a group that is returning an profit.

Now let’s take this just one step further. Let’s compare the above information to ALLOWANCE races.
Males come back at $ 1.28.
Females come back at $ 1.36
WOW! The males increased by $0.16, but look at the females. They dropped from $ 2.18 to $ 1.36!

Naturally the next thing to do would be to look at females running in claiming races that are being run at 6 furlongs. Then look at the results by track. When that is completed you will know which tracks to play.
So you can see how one piece of information can start off badly and yet turn into a winner.

Anyway, I hope this short illustration gives you some insight into why one generic piece of information just doesn't work.

I know this isn't the answer you were hoping for, but it is what it is, good information. I hope you can make the best of it.

[bobsbet]

For The Lead:

Thank you very much for this information. I have read virtually all of your posts and have learned something valuable from each. This is no exception.

Thanks again.

Bobsbet