Best Software

[laker]

What is the Best Software for narrowing the field down to the Prime Contenders? Not necessarily being a black box. But a software able to narrow the field and save time without a pen and pencil method.:)

[DeltaLover]

What is the Best Software for narrowing the field down to the Prime Contenders? Not necessarily being a black box. But a software able to narrow the field and save time without a pen and pencil method.:)

What exactly do you mean by prime contenderes? If you are refering to maximizing hit ratio, the best method you can follow is following the crowd who excels in picking winners. No software in the world is going to outperform the top three or top four of the win betting. This is the easy part of horse handicapping and betting!

[pandy]

I wonder how the top 3 or 4 betting choices do on win % and ROI when compared to the top 3 or 4 Bris Prime Power.

[Track Collector]

I wonder how the top 3 or 4 betting choices do on win % and ROI when compared to the top 3 or 4 Bris Prime Power.

For year 2013 (only) to date with no other restrictions, but using HDW Prime (instead of Bris Prime), I get the following average $2 payouts and winning percentages:

Crowd Top 3 --> $ 1.624, 24.8% (i.e. the crowd top 3 gets the winner 74.4% of the time)
Crowd Top 4 --> $ 1.626, 21.3% (crowd top 4 gets winner 85.2% of the time)

HDW Prime Top 3 --> $ 1.682, 22.3% (gets 66.9% of the winners)
HDW Prime Top 4 --> $ 1.675, 19.5% (gets 78.0% of the winners)


Unlike the famous Miller Lite commercials where it may have been possible to have a less filling beer that also tasted great, high levels of profitability (ROI) and high winning percentages are in a basic sense diametrically opposed (or traded off against each other). The HDW Prime numbers improve the ROI by approximately 5-6%, but the winning percentages are about 7.5% less than those by the crowd.

In a study of the Bris Prime, I would expect the results to be in the same "direction" as the HDW Prime, that is, better ROI than the crowd, but less winning percentage-wise.


...

[pandy]

Good post, thank you for taking the time.

[Fingal]

Best software for narrowing down a field to the main contenders ?

For me it's one that gives the information to create a track profile.

[Sinner369]

Best software for narrowing down a field to the main contenders ?

For me it's one that gives the information to create a track profile.


Fingal...........what do you mean by track proflie.............???

[Tape Reader]

This is not software but for me, identifying all horses <ML at 10 MTP are the contenders, regardless of where they may end up in the betting at PT. A good ML odds maker is helpful. NYRA works best for me.

[raybo]

Best software for narrowing down a field to the main contenders ?

For me it's one that gives the information to create a track profile.

Agree. The program that shows what types of horses contend well at specific tracks, in specific surface, distance, classes/field aggregates, etc.. We're talking modeling by track, surface, distance, etc.. Contenders to win at one track, or surface, or distance, etc., are not necessarily contenders at other tracks, surfaces, distances, etc.. Of course, a good "class/form" program will do a pretty good job of handling several tracks, in races of similar types, but maybe not well enough to be profitable long term. One needs a way of classifying tracks and race types/field types in order to create good models. IMO!

[Sinner369]

Agree. The program that shows what types of horses contend well at specific tracks, in specific surface, distance, classes/field aggregates, etc.. We're talking modeling by track, surface, distance, etc.. Contenders to win at one track, or surface, or distance, etc., are not necessarily contenders at other tracks, surfaces, distances, etc.. Of course, a good "class/form" program will do a pretty good job of handling several tracks, in races of similar types, but maybe not well enough to be profitable long term. One needs a way of classifying tracks and race types/field types in order to create good models. IMO!

Thanks Ray...........appreciate the information.......!!!

[Capper Al]

All I know is that JCapper seems to do well in Jay's exacta contest that I have played in. What I hear is that HDW is the professional's choice, and RDSS is a good value budget plan for us low rollers.

[raybo]

All I know is that JCapper seems to do well in Jay's exacta contest that I have played in. What I hear is that HDW is the professional's choice, and RDSS is a good value budget plan for us low rollers.

I agree, JCapper, HSH, etc., allow the user to create models combining many individual or composite factors and filters, and can be created for specific tracks and race types, etc.. They both use HDW data, as do I in my program, having switched from Brisnet due to Brisnet not having an unlimited data file plan like HDW, and I think HDW takes more care in producing their data files, to take care of errors and missing data. However, there is a learning curve involved with these types of programs that some just never get through successfully. I know that JCapper, and I think HSH as well, have instructional videos that guide you through the learning curve, regardless of the time involved, if one sticks with it and doesn't try to skip the basics and jump ahead they can probably create models that will at least put them on logical contenders, and probable winners. But, then the wagering/ticket structure aspect must still be dealt with in order to become profitable or increase ones profitability. I mentioned the 2 that I have at least a basic knowledge of, there could be other programs that will accomplish the same things. I don't use either software but that is only because I created my own. If I did not have my own method I would probably choose one of those 2, I have no knowledge of RDSS so I can't comment on it.

[Ted Craven]

All I know is that JCapper seems to do well in Jay's exacta contest that I have played in. What I hear is that HDW is the professional's choice, and RDSS is a good value budget plan for us low rollers.

'Jay's Exacta Contest' - is that the one permitting Win, Place and Exacta bets, leading up to the Kentucky Derby? The RDSS/Sartin/Bradshaw Contest, where the top 2 places were won by RDSS users?

Or perhaps the PAIHL Team Contest with WPS and Exacta bets, won by one of the 5 RDSS Teams (Squatheads)?

Ted

[DRIVEWAY]

'Jay's Exacta Contest' - is that the one permitting Win, Place and Exacta bets, leading up to the Kentucky Derby? The RDSS/Sartin/Bradshaw Contest, where the top 2 places were won by RDSS users?

Or perhaps the PAIHL Team Contest with WPS and Exacta bets, won by one of the 5 RDSS Teams (Squatheads)?

Ted

These results are very impressive.

Does RDSS have any constants like Bris's Prime Power? Prime Power is the result of a proprietary formula which generates a rating totally independent of anything the software user does with the data. Bris provides this rating along with the past performance data.

ROI and Impact Values are tracked by this rating. Win percentages for the top pick vary from 30% to as high as 55% based upon the gap between PP rank one and PP rank two.

Prime Power is a strong measuring stick to reference when making your selections.

Again congratulations on RDSS user results.

[Capper Al]

'Jay's Exacta Contest' - is that the one permitting Win, Place and Exacta bets, leading up to the Kentucky Derby? The RDSS/Sartin/Bradshaw Contest, where the top 2 places were won by RDSS users?

Or perhaps the PAIHL Team Contest with WPS and Exacta bets, won by one of the 5 RDSS Teams (Squatheads)?

Ted

Sorry, I don't know which contest it is. The DaCappers play in one here at PA every year. I have good things about RDSS also. It sounds like they did well too.

[Capper Al]

These results are very impressive.

Does RDSS have any constants like Bris's Prime Power? Prime Power is the result of a proprietary formula which generates a rating totally independent of anything the software user does with the data. Bris provides this rating along with the past performance data.

ROI and Impact Values are tracked by this rating. Win percentages for the top pick vary from 30% to as high as 55% based upon the gap between PP rank one and PP rank two.

Prime Power is a strong measuring stick to reference when making your selections.

Again congratulations on RDSS user results.

Interesting point using BRIS Prime as a measuring stick.

[raybo]

These results are very impressive.

Does RDSS have any constants like Bris's Prime Power? Prime Power is the result of a proprietary formula which generates a rating totally independent of anything the software user does with the data. Bris provides this rating along with the past performance data.

ROI and Impact Values are tracked by this rating. Win percentages for the top pick vary from 30% to as high as 55% based upon the gap between PP rank one and PP rank two.

Prime Power is a strong measuring stick to reference when making your selections.

Again congratulations on RDSS user results.

While I agree that Prime Power, as a single factor, is one of the best for hit %, if not the best, but are you saying that Bris Prime Power should be used solely for contender selections? I don't think that's what your saying, but still, what was the point of your post? Are you just asking if RDSS has such a rating? HDW does but I would not recommend it as a contender selection method.

Perhaps Ted should expound on how RDSS selects contenders, which directly pertains to the OPs question. Is RDSS a modeling program or something else? The OP is asking about contender selection software, not which software has the best contest record. I would definitely be interested in what RDSS is all about. I know it is related to Sartin's work but that's about all I know about the software. Heck my program also uses Sartin's work, and is a track modeling program, what is RDSS?

[DRIVEWAY]

While I agree that Prime Power, as a single factor, is one of the best for hit %, if not the best, but are you saying that Bris Prime Power should be used solely for contender selections? I don't think that's what your saying, but still, what was the point of your post? Are you just asking if RDSS has such a rating? HDW does but I would not recommend it as a contender selection method.

Perhaps Ted should expound on how RDSS selects contenders, which directly pertains to the OPs question. Is RDSS a modeling program or something else? The OP is asking about contender selection software, not which software has the best contest record. I would definitely be interested in what RDSS is all about. I know it is related to Sartin's work but that's about all I know about the software. Heck my program also uses Sartin's work, and is a track modeling program, what is RDSS?

Contender selection has nothing to do with PP. However, after breaking down the race and deciding on my top 1 or 2 choices, PP is used to determine quality of decision. If my selections are out of line with PP then I'll start over.

For example, If my top choice in a field of 10 is ranked 7th on PP with a gap of 6 from the top PP, I'll need a strong reason to stay with the choice. Certainly, I'll need the appropriate value to compensate for the poor PP ranking.

Generally, I'll skip maiden, turf, 2yr old and races shorter than 5.5fl or greater than 1 1/16th. Generally, I'll give a meet 30 days before engaging. On any given day, I'll check the weather before deciding to handicap a track.
PP seems to work best on sunny days and fast tracks.

PP is a great yardstick to work against when deciding to wager. Will generally avoid the top PP and look for horses within 10 points of top PP and/or in the top five PP rankings.

If my top choice is PP#1 and ML Favorite, I'll look at possible exactas but will normally wait for a better spot. But boxing 2 horses and betting the stronger one straight over number two with a small saver on number two to win is an acceptable approach as well.

Decisions are the name of the game and PP is like a street light(Red, Yellow, Green) telling me to stop, slow down or keep going.

I quess Prime Power is more of a pass/play factor for me. Perhaps the HDW factor could have similar use. As far as RDSS, I'm wondering what software generated factors there are and their possible use.

[Capper Al]

Contender selection has nothing to do with PP. However, after breaking down the race and deciding on my top 1 or 2 choices, PP is used to determine quality of decision. If my selections are out of line with PP then I'll start over.

For example, If my top choice in a field of 10 is ranked 7th on PP with a gap of 6 from the top PP, I'll need a strong reason to stay with the choice. Certainly, I'll need the appropriate value to compensate for the poor PP ranking.

Generally, I'll skip maiden, turf, 2yr old and races shorter than 5.5fl or greater than 1 1/16th. Generally, I'll give a meet 30 days before engaging. On any given day, I'll check the weather before deciding to handicap a track.
PP seems to work best on sunny days and fast tracks.

PP is a great yardstick to work against when deciding to wager. Will generally avoid the top PP and look for horses within 10 points of top PP and/or in the top five PP rankings.

If my top choice is PP#1 and ML Favorite, I'll look at possible exactas but will normally wait for a better spot. But boxing 2 horses and betting the stronger one straight over number two with a small saver on number two to win is an acceptable approach as well.

Decisions are the name of the game and PP is like a street light(Red, Yellow, Green) telling me to stop, slow down or keep going.

I quess Prime Power is more of a pass/play factor for me. Perhaps the HDW factor could have similar use. As far as RDSS, I'm wondering what software generated factors there are and their possible use.

First please refer to BRIS Prime Power as BPP not PP. When I read PP, I think past performance lines. Second, without testing, I believe your method has merit. I track the interaction between the morning line and BPP to the winner and have found a high correlation. The two work together well. The problem as I see it would be setting and getting minimum odds for a positive ROI.

[Robert Goren]

BPP is one of those things that looks like it ought to be useful in some way, but I have never really seen a way that has been able to use it profitably over the long run. I put in with such things as track MLs. Just another distraction that makes it harder to be ahead at the end of the year.

[DRIVEWAY]

BPP is one of those things that looks like it ought to be useful in some way, but I have never really seen a way that has been able to use it profitably over the long run. I put in with such things as track MLs. Just another distraction that makes it harder to be ahead at the end of the year.

Ironically, I find the BPP rating worthy of attention.

[raybo]

First please refer to BRIS Prime Power as BPP not PP. When I read PP, I think past performance lines. Second, without testing, I believe your method has merit. I track the interaction between the morning line and BPP to the winner and have found a high correlation. The two work together well. The problem as I see it would be setting and getting minimum odds for a positive ROI.

Al,

I agree with you. Back when I was doing a lot of modeling in the free AllDataBase (database) Excel workbook, I found that adding BPP rankings into almost every model increased the hit percentage dramatically, however, it also decreased the ROI dramatically.

If you include both the top M/L rankings and the BPP rankings in the same model, it's almost impossible to produce a net profit.

I find that the best use of BPP is on the top of vertical exotics, which increases the number of winners you get on the tickets. This allows you to spread out a bit more on the bottom and cash more tickets. However, you run into the same problem, lower odds horses on the win line, and thus, lower payouts.

BPP is a terrific rating don't get me wrong! But way too many people know that and bet it, lowering the odds on those horses. M/L validity, on the other hand, is totally dependent on the person creating those odds, so it varies from track to track, so if you're going to use M/L then you must filter by track in order to get an idea of how it does at each track you play.

These are the things I discovered in my testing and research, and your mileage may vary, so take it for what it's worth to you.

[raybo]

Ironically, I find the BPP rating worthy of attention.

It is worthy, but can you use it "profitably"? That's the question. If you're going to use it as a contender qualification tool, I believe you'll find that you end up on the lowest odds horses in the field, consistently. If you're only considering the lowest odds horses, then you're not much better than the public at making a profit are you?

Isn't it akin to using the best 2 of last 3 or 4 Beyers? Lots of people are doing that and those horses get bet down.

[raybo]

BPP is one of those things that looks like it ought to be useful in some way, but I have never really seen a way that has been able to use it profitably over the long run. I put in with such things as track MLs. Just another distraction that makes it harder to be ahead at the end of the year.

I find the same thing Robert. While it will definitely improve your hit rate, in the end you just can't produce enough money to make a net profit. I have found a pretty good usage for it, one that often hits winners and underneath horses, and that is to combine prime power with my class ratings, but again the payouts tend to be on the low side. It can be used as a check that sometimes will draw your attention to contenders that may not belong in your contenders, but as a stand alone factor it's value is dubious, IMO.

[Speed Figure]

The only time I really pay attention to BPP is when a horse is low on my odds line, but it's ranked in the top 3 for BPP. These are horses I make the "Dangerous Non-Contenders" BPP should be used with the "Race Pace Shape" if the race figures to have a fast pace and the top 3 BPP horses are E's and low priced are you going to use them? If they are prices than I will still give them a look even though they have the wrong running style. The same thing goes with P & S horses in slow pace races. BPP only accounts for about 8.33% on the odds line I use.

[Ted Craven]

These results are very impressive.

Does RDSS have any constants like Bris's Prime Power? Prime Power is the result of a proprietary formula which generates a rating totally independent of anything the software user does with the data. Bris provides this rating along with the past performance data.

ROI and Impact Values are tracked by this rating. Win percentages for the top pick vary from 30% to as high as 55% based upon the gap between PP rank one and PP rank two.

Prime Power is a strong measuring stick to reference when making your selections.

Again congratulations on RDSS user results.

Perhaps Ted should expound on how RDSS selects contenders, which directly pertains to the OPs question. Is RDSS a modeling program or something else? The OP is asking about contender selection software, not which software has the best contest record. I would definitely be interested in what RDSS is all about. I know it is related to Sartin's work but that's about all I know about the software. Heck my program also uses Sartin's work, and is a track modeling program, what is RDSS?

To the opening query about constant factors to aid in Contender identification - not being familiar, I cannot make comparisons to BRIS Prime Power, however RDSS has a few factors which are independent of paceline(s) selected to represent the horse in today's matchup:

1. Composite Speed Rating (CSR) - weighted composite of recent internally calculated Adjusted Final Time Speed Ratings (ASR). Top 5 win 90%+ of the time, Top 4 Win 80%+ of the time. This is somewhat of a 'mixed blessing factor' - The last race has more weight than the 2nd last, which more than the 3rd, etc. There are many reasons the last race may have a poor ASR - bad start, trouble, wrong surface, clearly wrong race class, first off long layoff, disadvantaged pace scenario, etc, etc. The CSR in any race is affected by this, as are most ratings which don't make judgements about

2. Class Rating (CR) - a mixture of Average Purse Value (APV), In-the-money finish pecentage and Earnings Per Start in the current year or the current and previous year (a supplementary number)

3. NewPace - Dave Schwartz' NewPace numbers (if you have chosen to license NP in RDSS)

Besides these overall, composite factors - EVERY factor can be calculated without user-decision, using a collection of automated Paceline Selection Strategies (PSS) i.e. using the same adjustment settings and same PSS, the same paceline is used, and every user will get the same resulting ranking of a collection of factors. The most important high-level aggregate factor is V/DC - Velocity relative to Deceleration - how much/little a horse is slowing down between race segment relative to how fast it was going during each segment. Slow horses decelerate less relative to their slower velocities than do fast horses from their faster velocities. V/DC measures the 'sweet spot' between horses moving fast and slowing down the least. (There's more to V/DC than this space permits). Top 4 and ties VDC tempered by Top 4 CSR and Top 4 Pace of Race Final Time help to instantly zero in on the Primary Win Contenders.

Overall, Sartin focused on what the horse can do, much more than the horse's human connections (Trainer, Jockey). RDSS is a Windows rewrite of Sartin's latter software; if I may say, it is not 'based on Sartin' but in the same way Sartin's software was not based on Sartin - it is Sartin.


Now the caveats:

- RDSS (indeed all the Sartin programs and concepts) are oriented toward the analysis of the bias of Early versus Other than Early (OTE) horses (aka 'The Matchup') among the true contenders. This analysis includes their demonstrable Running Styles, the number of Earlies in a race, whether any of these can dominate the other Earlies, the rankings of Early, Late and Balanced energy, gaps between horses' segmental energy ratings - to help you determine if the OTE runners can inherit the race from Earlies who are too evenly matched. Overall constant factors can help guide you to the 4 or 5 horses who can be in-the-money, and the 2 or 3 who might Win - but in the end, it's all about Early versus Other Than Early (and then how that opinion is priced in the parimutuel market).

- the constant factors will not tell you who is a contender to WIN today, who may finish in-the-money, and who is a non-contender; YOU make those determinations after applying consistent guidelines re current form cycle, surface suitability, matchup of Running Styles. An Early horse with #1 CSR, #1 VDC etc may be a dead-Early runner and be facing today 2 other similar horses with perhaps enough demonstrated speed in the 1st fraction to cause our #1 ranked horse to expend too much energy too early. In this scenario, one looks to the top ranked OTE (Late) horses. RDSS has readouts to help you make these kind of determinations very quickly.

- constant, or composite factors based on race winners will help predict today's race winner, but often the best bet in a race is NOT in the Win pool. That's a reason not to overly rely on constant factors to the exclusion of a detailed race analysis to reveal the abilities of horses undervalued for finishing 2nd (or 3rd or 4th). I'd rather have a $5.00 Place mutuel than a $3.50 Win mutuel, or a $20 Exacta key of an obvious winner on top of 2 non-obvious Place horses. There is a whole approach to identifying the 'counter-energy' horse.

- you can work most races in a few minutes, even if you choose to take different views of a matchup by getting confirmations of different pacelines, or comparing different line selection strategies. Some races require more digging. All race analysis merely leads to the 2nd half (or more) of the work - seeking a valuable bet, pricing the risk versus the relative degrees of uncertainty (all races are uncertain - a continuum of probability). RDSS has a live tote odds flow to help construct wagers, whether single horse, multi-horse, dutched or straight bets. Sartin was generally oriented to multi-horse wagers, increasing hit-rate, reducing psychological stress.

- on the topic of 'betting odds' (e.g. Top 4 Win odds) as best predictor of contenders: yes, after the fact; maybe, approaching 1 MTP; exactly who is in the Top 4 odds ranks can change too late to do anything about it; the best bet may not be in the Win pool; having Top 4 or 5 ranks of horses based on constant factors at the outset of the race analysis which are at least equivalent in Top 4 final Win odds ranks puts you in a position to benefit from public mis-pricing (when/if it occurs), and in other than the Win pool.


Re decision model keeping - while not built into the software (yet), you can export the data to provided Excel spreadsheet templates for decision model keeping. Some people use decision models to narrow down the horses disadvantaged by today's track, distance or surface. Some do not keep such models at all, relying on the race by race analysis of the Matchup. My view is that a decision model is best used in races where there is no overt bias of Early versus Late, i.e. a mix of running styles, no 'monster' Early or Late positional or energy disbursement scenarios. Some people simply make use of generally true long-term factors: Late and 'Hidden' energy in Turf routes, Early energy in Aqueduct Inner. 100 users = 100 unique approaches.

I believe that the foregoing caveats are important, relative to the opening posters query re constant factors or factors you can use to 'leap' straight into race analysis. They are useful as 'guidelines', but likely don't pay enough on aggregate to be profitable WITHOUT further analysis of supplementary factors.

Lastly, re using RDSS to win Contests (or win anything) - the fact that there were plenty of RDSS users in most of the Contests and a few of them finished near the top - is a statement about the individuals much more than about the software tools. Also, Contests are won or lost sometimes based on 'streaks' of race outcomes for one's particular tools or approach. Me and my PAIHL team finished in 1st place for the regular season, then had a particularly bad day and were finished.


Here are a few interesting readings:

- a recent discussion on Early versus Other Than Early analysis where the winner was seriously mispriced by the public: http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9503

- an older discussion by Mark Cramer and interview with Sartin on the foundational Bottom Line/Betting Line (Odds Line) in his later software (and in RDSS): http://www.sartinmethodology.com/mark-cramer-article-on-BLBL

Anyone who wants to test RDSS free for 30 days is most welcomed - just go to to www.PaceandCap.com (http://www.PaceandCap.com) and ask. Tons of free data. If you have no familiarity with the Sartin Methodology, it WILL take longer than 30 days ... If you are serious, I will spend some time with you.

Thanks for reading.

Ted

[raybo]

Thanks Ted! Very informative, and very true regarding the final decisions being up to the player. I like the fact that you can export to Excel for other activities, including modeling, I really think modeling puts one on another level, over and above the traditional handicapping methodology we've all used in the past, or still do, as the case may be. So, RDSS is a tool that is dependent on the user of the tool, regarding that user's long term success or failure. Honesty in advertising is a big plus in my world, and your explanation of RDSS appears to be just that. Again, thanks!!

[DeltaLover]

My impression is that way too much attention is put on derivatives, like BPP, CSR and similar. I do not think we need better or more of such derivatives, what is really needed is the methodology to compose them to accurate predictions.

This is where almost all the related software and literature comes short, ignoring the most critical piece of the puzzle.

In an ideal world, we would have no need for derivatives at all, since the decision can be based on raw data alone, assuming the proper approach, the correct algorithms and the required hardware. It is completely feasible to have a model receiving all the raw data of all the starters (including all races for the tracks where they have started) and query it for some opinions. Of course, in real world, something like this presents enormous implementation challenges and this is where derivatives come handy, as a short cut to the data presentation. Things like track variants, speed figures, or even prime power might be beneficial for the development of such a model, but at no point they can substitute the need for a sound methodology for the creation and back testing of it.

We should start the creation of our models with as limited input as possible, while having a very concrete fitness function to decide its value. We should then gradually add data and derivatives until we reach an acceptable performance.

Not the other way around!

Just because DRF started publishing some new derivative, it certainly does not mean that we need to start using it. We should know beforehand that something is missing from our model and we should be looking for it proactively.

The questions we can ask a model, do not need to be very specific. For example, instead of asking it for a concrete set of selections to bet, we might decide as a starting point to ask it about the likelihood of the race to produce a high or a low payout in the exacta pool or asking it for the probability of a blanket finish line where the first three horses will cross the wire within let's say one length..

These types of questions might be easier to answer than trying to narrow down the selection to one or two entries and their answers that can become derivatives to other more precise models that will try to perform the final selections.

What I describe here, is also related to a thread that I started recently, about the 'openness' of a race. If we define the 'openness' of a race to be proportional with its final exacta payout for example (given the number of horses) we can easily create the framework for a model that will have an opinion exactly about that and we can use it as input to another model that will identify the individual bets.

[raybo]

Derivatives, composite factors, whatever you want to call them, are used by everyone, even you. Modeling raw data results in derivatives, combinations of individual factors that relate to forming a complete, or almost complete, opinion or picture, as it relates to a specific entity or grouping of related events/races.

Even the non-mechanical "physicality" player is creating a model, or derivative, of all the individual physical/psychological aspects of a horse. BPP etc., is just another grouping of individual factors, but not the complete picture we need, other things must be considered and added to that picture, resulting in an even more inclusive derivative. A composite factor like BPP is not the answer, just as adjusted times are not the answer, they are both only composites of other factors, and other things are still needed to complete the picture or the final decision. So, derivatives can indeed be used, just as raw factors can be used as a portion of the complete picture. I would never suggest or recommend anyone using such a factor, alone. But, one can find uses for those in a larger model possessing the other needed pieces of the puzzle.

[DRIVEWAY]

To the opening query about constant factors to aid in Contender identification - not being familiar, I cannot make comparisons to BRIS Prime Power, however RDSS has a few factors which are independent of paceline(s) selected to represent the horse in today's matchup:

1. Composite Speed Rating (CSR) - weighted composite of recent internally calculated Adjusted Final Time Speed Ratings (ASR). Top 5 win 90%+ of the time, Top 4 Win 80%+ of the time.

Ted

I've never heard of any software that even comes close to this. Now I know why RDSS users did so well in contests.

RDSS must be the best handicapping software available.

[raybo]

I've never heard of any software that even comes close to this. Now I know why RDSS users did so well in contests.

RDSS must be the best handicapping software available.

All I can say is that any "viable" 4 contender selection method should put you on the winner in the neighborhood of 80% of the time. Add another contender and you'll be pushing 90%. Heck, the top 4 odds ranked horses will get you about 80% of the winners long term. 80% with 4 contenders is the benchmark pretty much, for a good contender selection method. That's certainly my expectation at many tracks anyway.

[DRIVEWAY]

All I can say is that any "viable" 4 contender selection method should put you on the winner in the neighborhood of 80% of the time. Add another contender and you'll be pushing 90%. Heck, the top 4 odds ranked horses will get you about 80% of the winners long term. 80% with 4 contenders is the benchmark pretty much, for a good contender selection method. That's certainly my expectation at many tracks anyway.

Other than RDSS, please name a handicapping software that does this. I'd like to research it.

[Ted Craven]

I've never heard of any software that even comes close to this. Now I know why RDSS users did so well in contests.

RDSS must be the best handicapping software available.

Driveway,

Alas, I don't think you can make any money just knowing a factor which long-term ranks the winner <= 4th. Those long-term stats will include races too murky or risky to bet on, no real overlays, lightly raced horses with unknown improvement ability, races with several First Timers you would likely avoid, etc, etc. You can't bet on 4 horses to Win, and most times you can't bet on 3 horses.

The trick is to combine your <= Top 4 rank factor with other elimination factors or angles to reduce your true contenders to 3 horses for Win, from which to select 2 horses, when net odds permit, to bet both straight or dutched. If you have manaqed to eliminate enough of the betting pool (i.e. false favourites) you can dutch say 3 horses. You can find ways to downgrade one or more of the horses from the win position to the 2nd position and compose Exactas cheaper than a 4 horse box. Then eventually vertically on downward to Tri and Super bets.

The linked example (http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=9503) I gave earlier shows a scenario where you can eliminate high ranked horses due to an unfavourable matchup, yet still have a Top 4 CSR and VDC (or other high-level factor) group of horses.

Some NewPace users have published studies of the 4 NP horses (2 Early and 2 Late) but then eliminate 1 horse (often the #1 Early) as compromised by the potential matchup scenario: bingo - from an automated 4 horses you now have 3. An example strategy: Win bet the best of those 3 plus the longest priced of the remaining 2 if you have an acceptable net odds for your historical hit rate (Sartin's so-called 'wagercapping' strategy.)

I like to remind myself (and others) - the goal is not to pick winners, but rather to make money somehow, anyhow, always remembering that the whole exercise floats on the seas of uncertainty (though not inscrutability). Bet on 2 horses often, bet on 1 horse when the stars align, bet on a horse to Place (or Win/Place), bet an Exacta as win (key the low paying monster over the unexpectedly high-odds 'counter-energy' Place horse(s). Hell - keep your money in your pocket often.

The high-level factors (from whatever software or method you pursue) are entry points only.

cheers,

Ted

[DeltaLover]

Bet on 2 horses often, bet on 1 horse when the stars align, bet on a horse to Place (or Win/Place)

What is the reasoning behind betting 2 horse often?

This is an idea I have heard many times, especially from followers of the Sartin method. I really cannot see it. In contrary I think quite the opposite.

In the vast majority of the cases bet a single horse, the one who think offers the more value; races with more than one overlays are extremely rare.

If there was no take out at all I would say that it is a completely neutral decission at the best, while under so heavy takeout it certainly is a negative proposition.

The apparent 'hedge' is just an illusion.

[Ted Craven]

What is the reasoning behind betting 2 horse often?


Here's my view - the aim of handicapping and wagering is to make money, not pick horses. People say 'if you bet on 2 horses, you're betting against yourself - you'll always lose 1 bet'. Yet if you bet on 1 horse and lose, you also lose 1 bet.

Think of this: in an entry (#1 and #1A) you are betting on 2 horses. You don't care which one wins. Let's say the entry closes at 2-1. Now consider a 'synthetic entry' - one the bettor alone constructs: 1 horse in your entry is offered at 4-1 and the other at 8-1, your range of net odds is 4/2 ... 8/2 (or 2-1 ...4/1). I am no more averse to betting a synthetic entry than a 'natural entry' - it depends on the range of net odds I am offered and how frequently I can hit these things.

One may say: 'then bet on that 8-1 horse only, if it was a contender' (speaking strictly of Win pool bets). 8-1 horses typically fall lower on my odds line than 4-1 horses, which are lower than 2-1 horses. I can bet the 8-1 horses alone (when those quality opportunities - in my opinion - arise) and be prepared to lose a fair number of them to my better ranked horses, and at lower odds. In doing so, I will pass a fair number of races with Win pool opportunities for 2-1 ... 4-1 net payouts, and suffer (at least) 2 potential consequences:

1. lost opportunity to put more handle through by skipping those lower paying races

2. emotional turmoil from not only having missed good payouts which my handicapping clearly identified, but also from the inevitable string of losses on my losing 8-1 horses while waiting for the winning ones. This includes where my single bet (whatever the odds) loses by a head, or gets into traffic, etc. Only a 'robot' remains completely dispassionate in these circumstances, especially when there was an alternative.

So, the trade-off of lower average mutuel on multi-horse bets for greater hit rate gives greater psychological comfort, and more opportunity to bet. Of course, it depends on the functionality of ones handicapping process. However, you can only know so much about the accuracy of one's own 'odds line' and thus whether a horse is an overlay or not. Betting 2 horses is a way of being 'humble' and saying 'hey, this is a probabilistic game where anything can happen, including trouble and the best horse not winning, etc' and taking regular smaller wins by spreading your chips, so to speak, until the opportunity comes to take the large win. What is often a confidence destroyer is to bet and lose, bet and lose then make a nice hit which merely breaks you even again. Multiple horse betting helps mitigate this destruction of confidence which takes you out of the game just as surely as loss of bankroll (when the 2 don't coincide ...). Staying a little ahead or a little behind while 'ante-ing up in more hands' then being prepared to 'pounce' then the stars align is much more fun (and functional) than the alternative.

I observe that people are much more cavalier about accepting multi-horse betting in Exacta or other exotic pools than in the Win pool. Why would not the same argument apply: why bet 2 horses on top or bottom in an Exacta when you are guaranteed to lose some of those bets and dilute your winnings. My answer is: for more frequent hits, for not missing out on nice payouts, for the preservation of one's equanimity. Same difference in the Win pool.

Of course there are many scenarios where a 1 horse bet is a good one. Or a Win/Place on a 10-1 horse. It doesn't matter what wins the race - only what you get paid and how frequently. And whether you're a human being or a robot.

Anyway, that's my rationale for multi-horse betting, when indicated. Each person needs to think about these issues - and decide for themselves.

Ted

[raybo]

Driveway,

Alas, I don't think you can make any money just knowing a factor which long-term ranks the winner <= 4th. Those long-term stats will include races too murky or risky to bet on, no real overlays, lightly raced horses with unknown improvement ability, races with several First Timers you would likely avoid, etc, etc. You can't bet on 4 horses to Win, and most times you can't bet on 3 horses.

The trick is to combine your <= Top 4 rank factor with other elimination factors or angles to reduce your true contenders to 3 horses for Win, from which to select 2 horses, when net odds permit, to bet both straight or dutched. If you have manaqed to eliminate enough of the betting pool (i.e. false favourites) you can dutch say 3 horses. You can find ways to downgrade one or more of the horses from the win position to the 2nd position and compose Exactas cheaper than a 4 horse box. Then eventually vertically on downward to Tri and Super bets.

The linked example (http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=9503) I gave earlier shows a scenario where you can eliminate high ranked horses due to an unfavourable matchup, yet still have a Top 4 CSR and VDC (or other high-level factor) group of horses.

Some NewPace users have published studies of the 4 NP horses (2 Early and 2 Late) but then eliminate 1 horse (often the #1 Early) as compromised by the potential matchup scenario: bingo - from an automated 4 horses you now have 3. An example strategy: Win bet the best of those 3 plus the longest priced of the remaining 2 if you have an acceptable net odds for your historical hit rate (Sartin's so-called 'wagercapping' strategy.)

I like to remind myself (and others) - the goal is not to pick winners, but rather to make money somehow, anyhow, always remembering that the whole exercise floats on the seas of uncertainty (though not inscrutability). Bet on 2 horses often, bet on 1 horse when the stars align, bet on a horse to Place (or Win/Place), bet an Exacta as win (key the low paying monster over the unexpectedly high-odds 'counter-energy' Place horse(s). Hell - keep your money in your pocket often.

The high-level factors (from whatever software or method you pursue) are entry points only.

cheers,

Ted

I agree, betting 4 contenders is not something I would do except a large field like the Derby, with at least 3/1 odds on each of them. My program calls for betting up to 3 horses, at a specific minimum odds (3 horses = 2/1 minimum, 2 horses = 1/1 minimum odds, etc..) I don't dutch bet so minimum odds are a requirement for me. Some tracks like Belmont require that I bet only the top ranked horse, at any odds, and I have made net profit there the last 2 meets (did not play Belmont before that).

My statement about the top 4 ranked contenders containing the winner 80% of the time, long term, is certainly attainable with a good contender selection program. That doesn't mean you should bet all 4, eliminations should be used as much as possible and if you can't get any of those 4 eliminated then passing is probably the smart thing to do, unless of course it's a race like the Derby and you don't have a very low priced horse in those 4 contenders.

[Ted Craven]

For clarity, I was not suggesting betting 4 horses to Win, rather (as one example strategy) starting with your Top 4 horses from pertinent high-level factors, then seeking to reduce it to 3 horses who could win, from which to choose 2 to bet (e.g. the top ranked and highest odds of the remaining 2, given a sufficient net odds for the 2 horse bet, according to your hit rate records for this betting and handicapping strategy).

Of course, your candidate 4 horses (if that many) must pass through the tests of current form, Early/Other than Early analysis including pace pressure or lack of, and any decision model factors you believe are pertinent.

Ted

[DRIVEWAY]

Top 4 contenders in 4 horse races win 100% of the time.

Top 4 contenders in 5 horse races win 80% of the time, if all the horses have an equal chance of winning. In reality it's closer to 95%.

Similarly in 6 horse fields the top 4 contenders are well into the 80+% win range. In 7 horse fields it becomes close.

The true test of a contender selection program begins with 8,9,10.11,12+ horse fields.

Combining races with 7 or fewer betting interests will only skew the win percentage of top 4 contenders and make the statistic meaningless. To even include races with 4 or 5 horse fields in one's analysis brings into question the seriousness of the analysis.

However, if a software program can select top 4 contenders at nearly 80+% winners with field sizes of 8+ then you have something special.

If you can do that then let me be the first to congratulate you. As they say, "Job well done".

[mistergee]

one of the top 4 wins 80% of the time--well then
ok in that case those who can do that, have you tried a 4x4x4 pic 3
or a 4x4x4x4 pic 4 ?

[Capper Al]

Top 4 contenders in 4 horse races win 100% of the time.

Top 4 contenders in 5 horse races win 80% of the time, if all the horses have an equal chance of winning. In reality it's closer to 95%.

Similarly in 6 horse fields the top 4 contenders are well into the 80+% win range. In 7 horse fields it becomes close.

The true test of a contender selection program begins with 8,9,10.11,12+ horse fields.

Combining races with 7 or fewer betting interests will only skew the win percentage of top 4 contenders and make the statistic meaningless. To even include races with 4 or 5 horse fields in one's analysis brings into question the seriousness of the analysis.

However, if a software program can select top 4 contenders at nearly 80+% winners with field sizes of 8+ then you have something special.

If you can do that then let me be the first to congratulate you. As they say, "Job well done".

My contender line floats with half the field size with a 6 horse limit. A 6 horse field would be top 3. An 8 horse field would be top 4. A 12 or more filed would be 6 horses.

I say "contender line" because that is secondary imposed after my apps figures true contenders. For example, I have had 12 horse fields where my app tells me there are 10 contenders, but then the secondary limit comes in and limits it to the top 6. On the other hand, I have had 12 horses fields where my primary contender selection will tell me only 1 of 3 horses should win. In this case, the limit is 3 not 6 for the 12 horse field.

[DRIVEWAY]

My contender line floats with half the field size with a 6 horse limit. A 6 horse field would be top 3. An 8 horse field would be top 4. A 12 or more filed would be 6 horses.

I say "contender line" because that is secondary imposed after my apps figures true contenders. For example, I have had 12 horse fields where my app tells me there are 10 contenders, but then the secondary limit comes in and limits it to the top 6. On the other hand, I have had 12 horses fields where my primary contender selection will tell me only 1 of 3 horses should win. In this case, the limit is 3 not 6 for the 12 horse field.

Sounds like some very profitable opportunities.

[Capper Al]

Sounds like some very profitable opportunities.

It does well and may narrow the field.

[Dave Schwartz]

I have had 12 horses fields where my primary contender selection will tell me only 1 of 3 horses should win.

Do you know what percentage of the time you are right in assessments such as these?

[Capper Al]

Do you know what percentage of the time you are right in assessments such as these?

Indirectly. When I do my short test, I test elimination rules and demand that they won't eliminate more then 5 percent of the winners.

[McCarron]

I've seen a lot of threads similar to this with the question, "what is the best" handicapping software or program, etc. While this answer may seem cliche, I believe it to be entirely true: The best program is the one that most appropriately fits your needs as a handicapper.

Ease of use, comfort level, amount of bankroll, handicapping proclivities, available free time, preference of data output, methodology, level of programming / technical capability, and several other factors come into play when attempting to answer that question.

[traynor]

I've seen a lot of threads similar to this with the question, "what is the best" handicapping software or program, etc. While this answer may seem cliche, I believe it to be entirely true: The best program is the one that most appropriately fits your needs as a handicapper.

Ease of use, comfort level, amount of bankroll, handicapping proclivities, available free time, preference of data output, methodology, level of programming / technical capability, and several other factors come into play when attempting to answer that question.

That is true if the primary intent is recreational wagering and/or recreational handicapping with or without recreational wagering. For those intent on a monetary reward, the bottom line criteria is very, very simple--is it profitable in actual use? If not, no amount of ease of use or bells and whistles is going to make it other than a different type of video game with a sticker that says (or should say), "For Entertainment Purposes Only."

[Tom]

Assuming you use it as a black box. Many do not.
For many, the programs do not win or lose, the player does.

[traynor]

Assuming you use it as a black box. Many do not.
For many, the programs do not win or lose, the player does.

I wonder if that may be the reason why 98% (or whatever) of bettors lose, including those using software applications?

[raybo]

Regardless if you are using software, pen and paper, horse color, touts' picks, or whatever, there will always be many reasons why losing players lose. Even with a profitable black box selection program, the player can still lose if he/she does a poor job of wagering. You can have the actual winners picked for you, before the fact, but if you wager poorly you will still lose long term. So, unless you have a black box that also places the wagers for you, determining pass/play, type of bet, amount of bet, etc., etc., you can still lose long term, because of the wagering portion of the profit equation.

There are very nearly as many reasons for losing as there are losing players. And anyone who thinks there is "a" reason for losing is, IMO, sadly mistaken.

[acorn54]

for me it has been a heck of alot easier to profit in the stock market, virtually no effort just dollar cost average deposits into an index fund with a broad spectrum of small-medium-and large cap stocks such as the russell 2000 index.
yes i know short term a big gamble, but i am not in it for the short term.
plus the money grows tax free in the ira shelter.
with horses forget it, double taxation, and i will pass on the litany of other costs. suffice it to say, especially nowadays there are brainiacs involved in the parimutuel wars, and i don't think for a second i am as smart as them, i am only of average intelligence, and i would never match wits with them with my hard earned money.

[raybo]

for me it has been a heck of alot easier to profit in the stock market, virtually no effort just dollar cost average deposits into an index fund with a broad spectrum of small-medium-and large cap stocks such as the russell 2000 index.
yes i know short term a big gamble, but i am not in it for the short term.
plus the money grows tax free in the ira shelter.
with horses forget it, double taxation, and i will pass on the litany of other costs. suffice it to say, especially nowadays there are brainiacs involved in the parimutuel wars, and i don't think for a second i am as smart as them, i am only of average intelligence, and i would never match wits with them with my hard earned money.

We're getting off topic a bit, but racing does not require extreme intelligence, it requires common sense, consistency, and self control. A genius with little common sense, or little consistency, or little self control, would still lose in this game, unless he/she was smart enough to create a complete black box to include selections and wagering, and even then he would still need some common sense in order to oversee the software. It's not all about selecting winners, it's about betting the right horses at the right prices, whether they actually win or not. So, if your software doesn't do all that for you, then you have to do some of it yourself. And that means using your noggin' in a disciplined common sense approach, with your emotions under control, knowing that consistency will win out in the end.

I've always thought, and believed, that if you take 2 people who have never played the horses before, one who is extremely intelligent but is not a good gambler, and the other having only average intelligence but is a good gambler, over time the good gambler will be more successful in horse racing. The good gambler makes wise decisions "under the gun", consistently, otherwise he would not be a good gambler.

[FocusWiz]

We're getting off topic a bit, but racing does not require extreme intelligence, it requires common sense, consistency, and self control. A genius with little common sense, or little consistency, or little self control, would still lose in this game, unless he/she was smart enough to create a complete black box to include selections and wagering, and even then he would still need some common sense in order to oversee the software. It's not all about selecting winners, it's about betting the right horses at the right prices, whether they actually win or not. So, if your software doesn't do all that for you, then you have to do some of it yourself. And that means using your noggin' in a disciplined common sense approach, with your emotions under control, knowing that consistency will win out in the end.

I've always thought, and believed, that if you take 2 people who have never played the horses before, one who is extremely intelligent but is not a good gambler, and the other having only average intelligence but is a good gambler, over time the good gambler will be more successful in horse racing. The good gambler makes wise decisions "under the gun", consistently, otherwise he would not be a good gambler.I agree with these sentiments and to bring it back on topic, perhaps this is where software comes in.

Perhaps a knowledgeable handicapper who picks horses well needs a software tool to help him structure wagers and tell him when to wager and when to hold back. Perhaps a good gambler needs software to help him decide which horses are most likely to win.

I agree with the sentiments in this thread which say that the software that is best is the one that comes closest to matching the needs and tolerances and investment dollars of the player. The cost of building a database of past performance history to support someone who plays one or two cards a month is daunting. A software program that requires data files costing $14 per program card may just not be right for a $2 place bettor even if it otherwise would be a perfect match.

Some of us need to build our own tools to address our personal needs. Others of us can fill part of our needs with a software tool. Some of us would find any software product to be burdensome, almost like another mouth to feed.

Just my 2¢.

[raybo]

Well said, the software or tool one needs, is the one that addresses his/her needs. And you're right, some don't need software at all, nor would it help them. One thing I know that would benefit anyone who does not already possess it, is a good method of record keeping, that tracks each of his/her plays, including all the necessary data. Without some way of analyzing what we have been doing, we won't know where our weaknesses and strengths lie. And without knowing that, we don't know if we need software, or any other tool, or not. We would be afloat in a sea of doubt and uncertainty, or worse, believing we are on the right track.