May I ask what goes into computing stretch run (SR) and best horse (BH)? — Steven

First, a little history.
My AI has two primary AI designs.

GA 47: The biggest is an engine that (essentially) created 200 "systems" and uses the "shape of the race" (as defined by the AI) to decide which system to use in each race. BTW, there are actually 2 different types - one for previous starters and one for FTS and foreign shippers.

Thus, there are actually 200 x 200 systems - resulting in 40,000 combinations.
("GA47" is a reference to this engine being my 47th Genetic Algorithm.)
________________________________
GA 37: This was a code-only system that I first developed about 15 years ago.
The purpose of GA37 was that it was MY PERSONAL TOOL for building power HANDICAPPING OBJECTS for HSH.
________________________________
Now, to your question...
I've continued developing GA37 to the point where it now does an excellent job of "integrating my specific goals directly into a fitness function." In other words, with relatively simple code, I can get "Core AI" to generate DIRECTED OPTIMIZATION towards a WELL-DEFINED SUBSET of data.

Specifically, I "told it" to bias all results in favor of horses that did not figure to be low odds.

HSH has, at it's core, about 3,500 factors, of which perhaps 500 have even an outside shot and having any real impact in the end result. (As the whales get better - i.e. the pools become more efficient - the core factors slip in value and the outliers' importance increases.

The end result was to generate 30 weighted factors for each column. These factor sets change depending upon the "AI's perceived shape of race.

Then, those factors are used at race time in a Monte Carlo Simulation.
________________________________
So, the final answer to your question...
May I ask what goes into computing stretch run (SR) and best horse (BH)?...

is, "I don't actually know."

Thanks. Plan to check out a few more races next week. Not sure if it matters, but I've been modeling only the 3-4 tracks that I wager on. — Jim Pommier

You only want to model the races you're actually betting.

In fact, only put in races that you fully handicapped and bet. (Paper bets count.)

.

.

You're correct.
I spoke to an attorney friend about how a class action suit actually works when there isn't a potential giant paycheck for the law practice. He said, it generally takes about $500k just to get to the trial date - and this was about 25 years ago.

Ryan Dickey is a fine man - I know him personally.

Could we employ the morning line in the handicapping for the method that you display here? Or do you still recommend against that, and instead to use an "artificial" morning line? Also, in the last video you mentioned an alternative way of being able to play the chaos horses. Would that involve playing all of the horses going off at above natural odds? — Dave Salvini

______________
Could we employ the morning line in the handicapping for the method that you display here?
I assume you mean in HSH.
But even not, yes, absolutely.

The only challenge in doing it by hand is that you have to adjust for scratches so that the odds aren't out of whack. In the next couple of weeks I will put up a spreadsheet that would make that easier.
______________

Would that involve playing all of the horses going off at above natural odds?
The best way is not currently available to you. (In the videos, I briefly mentioned "The Neal". That's not something you could reproduce because its 100% AI based.

But other than that, you simply take the longest MLs. Natural odds does not apply to ML, because the scale is different.

Shorter answer: "I think Longest Morning Line method is best ."

Took at stab at doing a little modeling on the races I handicapped yesterday using the Pace 5-Column approach. Not sure if I'm doing this right.
There were 34 races. 14 of the 34 races were won by a horse that did not qualify under the Pace 5-Column approach. However, 10 out of these 14 winners were Ranked 1 or 2 using factor tTrk - (Trainer: Today's Track).
Next, looked at a handful of races from last week. 14 winners that did not qualify under the Pace 5-Column approach. 5 out of the 14 winners were Ranked 1 or 2 using factor tTrk. Not quite as good as yesterday.
Again, not sure if I'm doing this right or if these results have any significance. — Jim Pommier

Now I have a little time to respond properly.

What you'll notice with this non-DET approach is that the L horses do not dominate.

There must be 2 models - L's & H's.

When you look at the L winners you'll get a drastically different look than when you look at the H winners.

That point might have been a little overlooked last night.

I think Saturday we'll do 2 sessions:
8:30 to 9:30 will be a shorter version of last night and then 10:30 to 12noon will be to actually work on modeling with the TWO spreadsheets.

I watched all the videos. Good stuff! Unfortunately, I couldn't make the meeting. — Dio

We'll get another going - probably Saturday.
We'll also work on the spreadsheet.

I can put the spreadsheet in your DropBox if you like.

If you attended last night's CHALK TALK conversation, I've put the 5-Column Spreadsheet in your DropBox.

For those who didn't watch the videos, please do so and post here.
We'll do another meeting as soon as we get a few responses.

Meanwhile, I will attempt to meet with any of the people below in a meeting late today.

ping: @ponyplayer,@Jim Pommier,@Ira Yorn,@Gillycapper,@Greg Gentzler,@Jeff Capper

Took at stab at doing a little modeling on the races I handicapped yesterday using the Pace 5-Column approach. Not sure if I'm doing this right.
There were 34 races. 14 of the 34 races were won by a horse that did not qualify under the Pace 5-Column approach. However, 10 out of these 14 winners were Ranked 1 or 2 using factor tTrk - (Trainer: Today's Track).
Next, looked at a handful of races from last week. 14 winners that did not qualify under the Pace 5-Column approach. 5 out of the 14 winners were Ranked 1 or 2 using factor tTrk. Not quite as good as yesterday.
Again, not sure if I'm doing this right or if these results have any significance. — Jim Pommier

(Ping @Gillycapper)

First order of biz for me to do today is to add some robustness to the Model spreadsheet and post it up for you guys. I'll try to have it up by 11am.
[Edit] Looks more like noon.

Excellent videos Dave!! If you had told me that PSR Rank 1 horses that are NOT 1st or 2nd Public Choices only win at 12.2%-- I would not have believed you. The same with FTBL2 and FTB2L3.
Also, "Horses bet down to the Favorite are better bets than horses that were projected to be the Favorite to begin with". — Jim Pommier

Most important was the SIMPLE STRATEGY that I built for the non-DET users - from DET.

In fact, I think we should do a MEETING to discuss all of this.
Going to check with @ponyplayer

Content should be available now.
Please reply here if you can see it.

What are you actually looking for?

You're talking about HDW?

I'll look for an updated link.

We get data every day from them.

You’re working hard at this stuff.

Let me know if you need some time.

Yes
And, when a column contains a minus sign, the purpose is a reminder that LOW is still better.

They are different formulaic approaches to using PSR, CPW, RTG.

The formulas really don't matter, do they?

Jimmy probably nailed it.

I think there were two very important takeaways:

1. No matter which approach we used, we had almost every race in our top 3, and usually top 2 horses.
That included a couple of $20+ horses and a whole bunch of exactas.

2. The quote you made: "I have never clicked any of the buttons you clicked tonight."

Saturday everyone will have the version Tony saw tonight.