High Percentage Small Underlays

[Rick]

In my quest to find a way to play every race on the card, I'm still baffled by those where both of my methods agree but the horse is a morning line favorite. These horses show a 41% win rate and a 4% loss. Since this is so much better than the average takeout rate and comprises such a large percentage of the parimutuel pool, it's difficult if not impossible to find another overlay in the same race, especially in a short field. So the question is, how should one play such horses? Exactas and place bets are several possible alternatives. Has anyone been able to find a good way to handle this situation besides just passing the race?

[GameTheory]

Either find a way to bet on the favorite in the exacta or trifecta (if you've got some longshots you can put in the second or third spot) or pass the race. In order not to feel like you are missing out on something by passing, pass it with a smug and satisfied attitude that you've just avoided losing money...

[so.cal.fan]

Rick-
Wouldn't a 41% win rate, help keep your bankroll in tact during a losing streak?
I'm assuming here you bet more when winning, less when losing.
If not, then I guess you pass.

[Exactaman]

i don't know, -4% doesn't sound like a good way of keeping your bankroll intact :)

i bet if you looked you'd find they were bet down as much in the exacta pools as well, unless it was with a real longshot that if you liked you probably should key on to begin with.

[so.cal.fan]

I agree, it's not going to make you any money, on paper.
I'm talking about not going through long losing streaks which may have an effect on your work.

Again, if you are playing a computer program, and your decisions are automatic.....well...no, it is not a good idea.

[Exactaman]

an additional losing bet is only going to worsen your losing streak. the effect of that might not be good :)

[ranchwest]

I usually look at the number of eliminations I can find in the field. If I can find contenders with good value in the exacta pool, I go that route.

If the exactas don't look good, I actually step down to the place position and see how that looks. A 41% horse should be well over 56% in the place pool.

If the place pool doesn't look good either, I pass. I don't like betting into what I perceive as being a losing situation.

By sometimes stepping down to the place position, I keep a winning attitude. It does take some handicapping to avoid going with losers in the place hole.

[so.cal.fan]

Well said, Ranch.
That is sort of what I meant.
I once went through 16 straight losers at a Del Mar meet.....12 of them ran second! I was betting to win only.

This ruined my game for months!

I was betting a % of my bankroll.

In this instance I would have shown a profit on place, but of course it is usually a break even bet at best.

I know one thing, it would have made that meet much easier to get through!

Again, if you are betting a computer program or you are a
Zen Master........my comments are meaningless to you....LOL

[Exactaman]

well if losing money makes betting the races easier for you i won't argue with you.

if i think back to losing streaks i remember that winning was what got me out of them :) as an exotic player i've had more than i care to remember.

what's your beef with computers anyway socal? the damn thing only does what i tell it to do :)

[so.cal.fan]

I have no beef at all with computers, exstatman.
I just don't know how to work them very well.

I'm sure they are a huge help to people who do.

I'm sure most of you that have good programs make a lot more money than I do.

I'm old.....don't like change.......:D

[ranchwest]

Yes, the real money is certainly in the exotics or big win scores generally, but it just depends on what a person needs inside their head. I like winning. And, I'm not immune to taking "money on the ground" if I think a ticket is extremely likely to cash. That "free money" buys my next exotic.

[Exactaman]

Originally posted by so.cal.fan
I have no beef at all with computers, exstatman.


Hey! now there's something i have a beef with. you can't even understand half the posts on here without a degree in statistics. :)

so i can understand how you feel about computers i guess. but i'm a young guy :) and it got me back into the races after a long spell, so i have a soft spot for it. long story

[so.cal.fan]

Sorry 'bout that....I like EXACTAman much better!
Here's wishing you "snare" some big ones!

[Jeff P]

In my quest to find a way to play every race on the card, I'm still baffled by those where both of my methods agree but the horse is a morning line favorite. These horses show a 41% win rate and a 4% loss. Since this is so much better than the average takeout rate and comprises such a large percentage of the parimutuel pool, it's difficult if not impossible to find another overlay in the same race, especially in a short field. So the question is, how should one play such horses? Exactas and place bets are several possible alternatives. Has anyone been able to find a good way to handle this situation besides just passing the race?



Rick-

Try breaking the entire group into subsets- or try looking at them ranked by some unrelated factor. A 4% loss would seem to indicate that there could be a profitable subset in there somewhere.

[Rick]

Jeff,

Yeah, the problem is that these are very good favorites and it's hard to come up with a weakness anywhere to eliminate them on or a strength to like them on better. They all rank best on two very independent methods and also happen to be morning line favorites which suppresses the odds. They're already about 20% better (.96/.80 = 1.20) than the usual favorite so there's not much room for other horses to be underbet significantly. I'll probably try exactas and see what happens.


socal,

I do like to minimize losing streaks and that's why I hate to see something with that high of a win % go to waste. My own worst, or at least most depressing, losing streak was at Fairplex about 5 years ago when I lost 26 in a row and 10 of them finished 2nd!

Obviously I don't have to play every race, but I really think the ultimate handicapping challenge is to be able to find an overlay in every race. It's more interesting to have an opinion on each race even if I'm not betting it.

[so.cal.fan]

I couldn't agree with you more, Rick. The best player I know on track plays every race, looks for the value, if he has to use a favoite, he keys it in exotics, and usually gets his value one way or another.
You're so right about the fact you have something going, makes you pay a lot more attention.
I wish I had the b***s to do that!
Good luck to you.

[LOU M.]

I guess you could bet at pinnacle and end up with a 3% profit after the rebate.

LOU M.

[Rick]

Lou,

Yeah, I've thought about that. Not a bad solution really.


socal,

Well, with Janet Jackson in the news these days maybe you DO have the b***s to do that. Oh, I guess you meant something else.

[pmd62ndst]

Rick,

Do you play the California tracks? I find wagering place on legitimate favorites here profitable.

My black box shows a 37.3% win pct at a -8.7% ROI but a 65.8% place pct at a -4.7% ROI. Add in a little human intervention to the equation and you can push that ROI to the black.

The only problem with playing favorites to place is that the difference between winning and losing is the difference between going 4/6 or 5/6 for the day. And 0/6 days can take weeks to recover.

PMD

[Hosshead]

Yes, that is the problem with playing favs to place. You have to maintain such a high % of hits, that when you have a bad day, it does take a long time to recoup the losses. And during that time, you better not have another "bad day". And hitting just One less win can make for a bad day.

Curious ... what is the "human intervention that pushes the ROI into the Black"?

[pmd62ndst]

LOL

I have no real secrets. What I meant by "Human Intervention" was eliminating statistical anomalies. A couple examples may be:

- Trainer has 100% win pct but is actually 1 for 1.
- All first time starters except one that ran a 30 Beyer, thus has a "30 Beyer advantage".
- Horse ran a few days ago.
- Post time odds are 1/5.

Geez, I could go on and on on this one. I think every "Black Box" player has to sift through all the choices to learn what works and doesn't work.

For inspiration, I recall an interview that I read with the local weatherman. He said that computer models of weather patterns are fairly accurate, but if you add in a little human intervention, you will always increase the hit rate. I believe that the same kind of thinking can be put into horseplaying.

PMD

[kenwoodallpromos]

I was a public handicapper for 12 racing days, playing every race. I had overall profit and profit 10 of 12 days (lost Sundays!) but had to use different methods for different days and races. Maybe you can do a lot of paper testing to tweak your methjods to better suit different types of races. 41% sounds very good to me considering what you are trying to do. You probably have to get a much higher win % on big favorites in order to maintain a positive ROI. Try checking your favorite picks to eliminate some losers. Check your picks' place and show prices in large fields. $3.00 to $3.60 may be worth 2nd or 3rd!

[Rick]

I don't play California tracks now because they don't fit in with my schedule very well. However, I did develop the rating method I use now mostly based on California (southern) races from about 3-5 years ago.

The 41% races I'm referring to are only about 8% of the overall total. Another 5% of the races have the same selection both ways but aren't morning line favorites. Those show a similarly high win % but a very high ROI (about +70% so far). So, it's being the morning line favorite that really kills the odds.

I've tried playing short priced favorites to place before with other methods and it hasn't worked out that well so I'm not too optimistic about it here. Maybe quinellas would work better.

[VetScratch]

Rick,

Let's look at your selected sample of favorites that win 41% and show a 4% loss.

A 4% loss is the same as a $2NET return of $1.92.

Since you mentioned developing your selection method at CA tracks, consider that 41% of the win pool would produce average odds almost dead equal to 1/1, or even money. Should the actual win percentage turn out to be 41%, the $2NET would be $1.67 on account of CA takeout and breakage.

To achieve your $2NET of $1.92, you are actually betting on horses that account for an average of 35.7% of the win pool but are winning 41% of the time.

In a technical sense, you are betting on overlays... horses that win at a higher percentage than their underlying probabilites in the win pool, but not quite high enough to surmount takeout+breakage and break even ($2NET = $2.00).

At the same time, the average difference by which your selections are underbet (41.0% - 35.7% = 5.3%) has been bet on other horses in the field, which inevitably makes some of them worse propositions than par ($2NET = $1.67). In other words, your selections can be thought of as creating the tendency to turn other horses into underlays.

These circumstances, for your chalk favorites that lose at the rate of 4%, are why you have such difficulty finding financially profitable overlays in the rest of the field.

I think what you have really discovered is a selection of horses that should flag their races as generally unplayable, barring an occasional overlay plum that you might be able to find among other horses in the fields.

[Derek2U]

Why do tracks post a ML anyways? Its a parimutuel system so
why tamper? The ML affects too much so I vote GET RID OF IT.
Ps: this is what happens when i spend a weekend away from
city lights: i get up b4 any birds/ fall asleep with my puter still on/
cant wait 4 breakfast & The Times/ just calld 2 buds of mine who
are still in the City & got told "F OFF Derek its 6 oh,"are u ok"
CLICK/ thank Budha 4 the Internet/etc ... god i need city lights.
2nd PS: GOOD SUNDAY MORNING ***

[Derek2U]

What ya think of this approach: FIRST .... Develop a SYSTEM
that turns out ~~1-2-3% LOSS. But, once again, that stat MUST
be stable. Ideally, its a LOSS after betting straight win bets.
NO EXACTAS etc .... bring all math methodology 2 PROVE that
the loss is < 4% --- IOWs You got wiggle room on your % Loss.
SECOND ....This is the EZ part. Now, you can turn that < 4% into
a < 2% LOSS by using a math formula that says, OK, bet to WIN or says NO, BET exactas with your pick on TOP. That YES/NO
math formula can gain you from 2-5% IMPROVEMENT with NO
additional capping provided you did PART 1 right. THIRD, take
parts 1 & 2 to PINNACLE and get a +3% MORE. hehe ... iows:
STOP TWEAKING YOUR SELECTION PROCESS .... just get a steady
system (probly best if its a COMPUTER selection system) that
loses a predictably small amount then nudge it UP by parts
2 & 3 ... i suppose even a moderate better could WIN ~20K a year EZ.

[VetScratch]

D2U,

When we drop the ML, let's get rid of MS (morning sickness), and MR (morning renaming... where guys go to sleep as Tom, Dick, or Harry but all wake up as Woody). :D

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by VetScratch
Rick,

Let's look at your selected sample of favorites that win 41% and show a 4% loss.

A 4% loss is the same as a $2NET return of $1.92.

Since you mentioned developing your selection method at CA tracks, consider that 41% of the win pool would produce average odds almost dead equal to 1/1, or even money. Should the actual win percentage turn out to be 41%, the $2NET would be $1.67 on account of CA takeout and breakage.

To achieve your $2NET of $1.92, you are actually betting on horses that account for an average of 35.7% of the win pool but are winning 41% of the time.

In a technical sense, you are betting on overlays... horses that win at a higher percentage than their underlying probabilites in the win pool, but not quite high enough to surmount takeout+breakage and break even ($2NET = $2.00).

At the same time, the average difference by which your selections are underbet (41.0% - 35.7% = 5.3%) has been bet on other horses in the field, which inevitably makes some of them worse propositions than par ($2NET = $1.67). In other words, your selections can be thought of as creating the tendency to turn other horses into underlays.

These circumstances, for your chalk favorites that lose at the rate of 4%, are why you have such difficulty finding financially profitable overlays in the rest of the field.

I think what you have really discovered is a selection of horses that should flag their races as generally unplayable, barring an occasional overlay plum that you might be able to find among other horses in the fields.


This idea has often been put forth much more succinctly:

DON'T BET AGAINST A LEGITIMATE FAVORITE.


Find a way to play the 41% horse, or pass.

[VetScratch]

Originally posted by GameTheory
This idea has often been put forth much more succinctly:

DON'T BET AGAINST A LEGITIMATE FAVORITE.


Find a way to play the 41% horse, or pass. That would be a pretty simple-minded way to communicate with all the various folks who pass through this board.

Without a legitimate explanation, lazy dependence on sound bites (even if they are aphorisms) invites visitors to think our posters are just self-styled icons passing gas on the Internet.

BTW, you owe me a public apology for the accusations you levied against me in another thread. The way PA put it was to refute your public complaints, which painted me as a liar, or make a public apology to you. Well... been there and done that! So the ball is in your court if you are man enough to admit you were wrong.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by VetScratch
That would be a pretty simple-minded way to communicate with all the various folks who pass through this board.

Without a legitimate explanation, lazy dependence on sound bites (even if they are aphorisms) invites visitors to think our posters are just self-styled icons passing gas on the Internet.

BTW, you owe me a public apology for the accusations you levied against me in another thread. The way PA put it was to refute your public complaints, which painted me as a liar, or make a public apology to you. Well... been there and done that! So the ball is in your court if you are man enough to admit you were wrong.

Yes, you are right. Your obfuscated nonsense style of writing is much superior. No one can argue with you because you can take what you wrote and claim it means anything you want.

I have a book recommendation for you:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060937238/qid=1076268395/


I believe the accusations levied were against me, and the apology owed is to me, since you didn't do anything but evade the questions, as usual. I don't expect to ever get that apology, but this thread is not the place to get into that again.

[Rick]

VS & GT,

That's what I was getting at. Finding a legitimate favorite, especially in a short field, makes it much harder to find ANY other overlay in the field. Obviously it's best to just pass the race, and that's what I do now, but it's just such an interesting problem to me that I can't help thinking about what the best solution might be. One thing that would probably work is using the small underlay horse in Pick 3's, but I was really looking for a solution betting only the one race. The more experience I get, the more I believe that almost every race has at least one overlay somewhere but you can't find them all using only one method.


Derek,

I don't understand how you would turn a 4% loss into a 2% loss using a "math formula" but I have a hard time understanding your heiroglyphics sometimes. The sample I'm looking at is pretty small right now and it could turn out being much different later on. Since the two methods I'm using are very independent of one another, the problem only occurs in about 7-8% of the races anyway. I mainly brought it up because I think it's happened to just about all of us at one time or another. Your selection is winning 20% more than the odds say it should but there seems to be no way to take advantage of the superior knowledge. Very frustrating.

[VetScratch]

I believe the accusations levied were against me, and the apology owed is to me, since you didn't do anything but evade the questions, as usual. I don't expect to ever get that apology, but this thread is not the place to get into that again.I certainly did answer your accusations... if PA has elected not to make you privy to our exchanges on the matter, you have simply been excluded from the loop. If that's the case, waffle on.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Rick

That's what I was getting at. Finding a legitimate favorite, especially in a short field, makes it much harder to find ANY other overlay in the field. Obviously it's best to just pass the race, and that's what I do now, but it's just such an interesting problem to me that I can't help thinking about what the best solution might be. One thing that would probably work is using the small underlay horse in Pick 3's, but I was really looking for a solution betting only the one race. The more experience I get, the more I believe that almost every race has at least one overlay somewhere but you can't find them all using only one method.


Play the favorite on top in the exacta and trifecta if you've got some clear "second-best" horses. That's about all you can do in a single race. So many people box the favorite into the other slots that the fave-on-top combos are often overlaid somewhat if the favorite is a near-overlay in the win pool...

[Rick]

GT,

Yeah, that makes sense. However, my method for selecting win horses is not nearly at good as selecting "second best" horses. There are some cases, in very large fields, where the short-priced favorite works on the bottom half of the exacta. For example, I think it's happened quite a bit in the Kentucky Derby over the years.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by VetScratch
BTW, you owe me a public apology for the accusations you levied against me in another thread. The way PA put it was to refute your public complaints, which painted me as a liar, or make a public apology to you. Well... been there and done that! So the ball is in your court if you are man enough to admit you were wrong.

Stop disrupting the flow of threads.

[VetScratch]

Ok, PA, but why do you favor that phony? Anyone who reads this thread can see that the disruption was started by GT's snippy post. Is this guy paying you? I'm beginning to agree with Suff on matters like this. I have an apology coming, and you know it!

[PaceAdvantage]

NO, the disruption was caused by YOU taking it OFF TOPIC (read my QUOTE of your post AGAIN)

You are owed no apology in my opinion. I told you in PM that YOU owe GT an apology for your baseless claims against him.

Please keep in mind that I am completely aware of how insincere your intentions have been since day 1.

[VetScratch]

PA,

What baseless claims? EquiBase verified what I said. What purpose is served by hiding the facts?

PaceAdvantage wrote on 01-20-2004 11:15 PM:
I've very concerned about your recent exchange with Game Theory. He says what you posted about him is untrue. Please provide proof that what he is denying is indeed true...if you can't provide such proof, a public apology to him would be necessary for you to continue posting on this forum.

===============
PA,
I will link or quote as you asked... but where? New thread? The thread where Game makes these accusations is closed.

===============
PaceAdvantage wrote on 01-21-2004 11:10 PM:
Why, RIGHT HERE, in private messaging! Why would you want to take our private conversation public? I haven't taken it public....

===============
PA,
Why do you insist that the truth come out in private messages?

You seem to have no problem with Game Theory posting misleading policy information about EquiBase, then you close the thread. Here is the truth:

Information on equibase.com is designed in a way that allows consumers to quickly and efficiently look up information online to assist them with their handicapping needs. This data is intended for online use only and is not made available for end users to download. The use of automated retrieval is not permitted for accessing our data. We can monitor activity on equibase.com, and in order to provide the best possible service for all users, block addresses that are using automated functionality to pull data down from our site.

Why do you favor suppressing the truth in this matter by closing the thread? Getting blocked shuts off all access to equibase.com.

===============
PaceAdvantage wrote on 01-22-2004 11:28 PM:
Did I post to you in public regarding this? No, I did not, so why in the world would I want to take this public right now? Sometimes I don't understand you at all....

===============
PA,

I guess because I have a difficult time believing that you actually buy any of Game Theory's arguments... ok, we'll resolve this in private... and we can certainly invite Game Theory and EquiBase management to join us if that will help get past Game's facade.

===============
PaceAdvantage wrote on 01-22-2004 11:37 PM:
The charts are available FOR FREE. FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE

Here's a link to the free charts:

http://www.equibase.com/premium/eqb...ndex.cfm?CHRT=Y

AND, here is the only line that matters in the terms of use on the EquiBase website:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF DATA
You understand that information acquired hereunder is for your personal use. You agree that you will not disseminate information acquired hereunder to any third party without having first obtained the written permission of EQUIBASE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Game Theory's program is in FULL agreement with this restriction. It is the USER who controls whether they adhere to the terms of use, NOT GT's Chart Parser program!

===============
PA,

Right at the top of TERMS OF USE page that you quote a subsection from is the following notice:

THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE PRECEDENT TO YOU PURCHASING AND RECEIVING ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS (Products) PROVIDED BY EQUIBASE COMPANY LLC (EQUIBASE) VIA THE INTERNET. IF YOU AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, BY CLICKING ON THE ACCEPTANCE BOX BELOW, THIS SCREEN WILL NOT BE SHOWN AGAIN WHEN FUTURE PURCHASES ARE MADE.

Who gave you that subsection out of context without bothering to tell you it applies to purchased products? Please read the above carefully!

In a previous reply, I gave you the official EquiBase position on programs like Game's Chartget program, but I will repeat it again:

Information on equibase.com is designed in a way that allows consumers to quickly and efficiently look up information online to assist them with their handicapping needs. This data is intended for online use only and is not made available for end users to download. The use of automated retrieval is not permitted for accessing our data. We can monitor activity on equibase.com, and in order to provide the best possible service for all users, block addresses that are using automated functionality to pull data down from our site.

At what level in EquiBase management shall we begin to resolve these matters?
(1) That the terms of use apply to purchasing products.
(2) That permission is denied to use programs like ChartGet to automate downloading of free charts meant for online use only.

I have a hunch Game probably tried to mislead you by cleverly omitting the fact that terms of use apply to purchased products.

===============
PA,
As postscript to my last reply concerning your statement: The charts are available FOR FREE. FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE

I dealt with this issue at length towards the end of the thread where this issue erupted.

In summary:

Free is not among copyright "fair use" exclusions, as determined consistently in cases where explicit restrictions on the use of free materials were upheld by judicial opinions that such restrictions rightfully protect the holder's potential rights to sell materials.

EquiBase sells charts to data resellers (who sell chart data) and has every right to protect the commericial value of free charts by restricting usage.

In my posts, I certainly don't think you can find any sort of bias when something about an issue either isn't, or doesn't appear to be, kosher or beneficial to Mr/Ms. Everybody! When it has seemed appropriate, what special interest have I excluded: trainers/jockeys, wagering providers, industry surveillance, drug issues, data providers, software vendors, racetrack operators, crooked players, etc? In fact, I don't think you can find any special interest that I favor or fear!

Why do you seem to favor selective criticism and honesty? I would like to hear an argument that asserts the industry would suffer if inequitable policies were reformed, all parties revered honesty, and everyone played by the rules... instead of all the parties looking for ways to chisel each other.

===============
PA,
When you view the free chart menus and chart pages, the without-written-permission restriction appears on each page, and a universal link to Terms Of Use appears on all free and non-free pages. At the top of Terms Of Use, it plainly states:

THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE PRECEDENT TO YOU PURCHASING AND RECEIVING ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS (Products) PROVIDED BY EQUIBASE COMPANY LLC (EQUIBASE) VIA THE INTERNET. IF YOU AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, BY CLICKING ON THE ACCEPTANCE BOX BELOW, THIS SCREEN WILL NOT BE SHOWN AGAIN WHEN FUTURE PURCHASES ARE MADE.

Your subsection reference is absolutely subject to "terms and conditions are precedent to you purchasing and receiving...".

Let's stop haggling... here is the list of folks who received the email distribution that I referenced with respect to EquiBase's policy statement to anyone who doubts their printed restrictions on the use of free charts and the blocking policy for violators:

Greg Baugh, Director of Customer Service, gbaugh@equibase.com
Victor Espinosa, Sales Manager, vespinosa@equibase.com
Matt McCoy, Manager, eBusiness Operations & Development, mmccoy@equibase.com
Shelby Cook, Online Services Coordinator, scook@equibase.com

Who would you like to choose to settle this matter?

[CONTINUED......]

[VetScratch]

[CONTINUATION]

Reply From PA
I know Greg Baugh through professional association (although if you said to him do you know the guy who runs PaceAdvantage.Com, you'd get a blank stare). We can start with him.

REPUBLICATION and DISSEMINATION are restricted on each chart page. GT's program neither REPUBLISHES or DISSEMINATES.

Why do you continually cite the top of TOS? All it does is state that the following terms of service have to abide before you view the charts via the internet. And NOWHERE in the TOS does it specifically outlaw GT's program.

WHAT AM I MISSING? Please, I'm EXTRA DUMB today, so SPELL IT OUT.

===============
PA,

Republication is encompassed when you merely alter the format of copyrighted materials and render the contents in a new media format such as extracted files compatible with MS Excel or MS Access.

Dissemination by itself may suggest passing data on to third parties but that is not actually a recognized attribute of the word when it stands alone. I searched in vain for any copyright precedents that narrowed dissemination-by-itself beyond promulgate, diffuse, spread, disperse, etc. which is a consequence of parsing and extracting, and the United States Government interpretation of dissemination states that "disseminating information" is not distinguished from "providing access to information" which is what parsing and extracting data in formats accessible by MS Excel and MS Access in fact does.

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) or Privacy Act: "disseminating information" is not distinguished from "providing access to information" (following OMB Circular A-130).

===============
Reply From PA

You know, I don't have much patience anymore for this petty stuff, and I'm sure you have better things to do with your time than chase after a guy whose program might be in the hands of (at the MOST) 15-20 people......so.......

I'm not debating any more on this issue. As far as I am concerned, GT's program violates not one word of the TOS at Equibase.com, anymore than INTERNET EXPLORER or NETSCAPE violates those same terms when a user clicks on the FILE | SAVE AS command to save the chart page to their hard drive.

Republication and dissemination are clear as a bell to me. It means taking the charts and either publishing them on the web on a site other than Equibase (or in print perhaps in a newsletter or newspaper). Or, it means taking YOUR PRIVATE copy of the charts and disseminate (give to) a third party in some manner.

GT's program does none of these things. It simply browses the web (like your browser), opens a web page (like your browser) and saves the FREE chart file to your hard drive (again, just like your BROWSER's FILE|SAVE AS command).

This is all common sense. If Equibase was at all concerned, they would simply remove the free charts from the website.

Unless you can provide a direct quote from a "name" at Equibase saying that saving the free charts availble on the website to your hard disk is a violation of terms of service (and a copyright violation), then this argument is over. That is what GT's program does, it saves a copy of the free charts to your hard drive.

I have found nobody at Equibase who could tell me that this is a violation of the terms of service, as long as the chart is kept for one's own personal use.

Done.

===============
PA,

Why didn't you just ask whoever you talked to at EquiBase this straightforward question:

Is it acceptable to use programs that automatically retrieve free result chart pages that you offer, parse the HTML in each page of charts, and extract data in a new media format that can be used exclusively by software on my PC?

That question addresses what GameTheory's ChartGet and EqParse programs actually do with EquiBase's copyrighted charts.

Again, here are the folks at EquiBase that refute your interpretation of this issue when it is comprehensively presented.

Shelby Cook, Online Services Coordinator, scook@equibase.com
Greg Baugh, Director of Customer Service, gbaugh@equibase.com
Victor Espinosa, Sales Manager, vespinosa@equibase.com
Matt McCoy, Manager, eBusiness Operations & Development, mmccoy@equibase.com

I certainly cannot refute your right to assert that your interpretation supercedes that of the copyright holder.

On the other hand, I choose to defer to EquiBase's interpretation.

Thus, if your meaning was to say we should agree to disagree, then I guess we are done debating this issue.

===============
Reply From PA
I thought you never used GT's program?

What you just described can also be accomplished with Microsoft's INTERNET EXPLORER in combination with Microsoft EXCEL. You can save the chart file to hard disk with INTERNET EXPLORER and load the page into MICROSOFT EXCEL (which by default extracts the data in a new media format that can be used exclusively by EXCEL). Once loaded into excel, you can do what you wish with the numbers as they are in this new format that can be manipulated in all sorts of ways.....

Are we to assume Equibase is in favor of restricting access to its website from all those using Internet Explorer, the browser used by 85-90% of all internet surfers? I don't think so....

Check out the HTML functions Microsoft has added to its integrated suite of programs over the past few years. Once you save a web page with IE, you do all sorts of things to it with the data when you load it into Excel and Access....

===============
PA,

I never have used GT's programs. If you mean they actually do not automatically retrieve EquiBase result charts and re-render the copyrighted materials to produce another media format, then what do they do?

All that EquiBase demands is that we obtain written permission to do exactly whatever we might consider beyond viewing the copyrighted content and format of their charts. How should we ask? Straighforwardly or not?

In your arguments, you are not distinguishing between what you can do and what you are authorized to do, and Microsoft licensing agreements are carefully worded to protect Microsoft from liability if you use their software to breech any laws or copyright restrictions. You can bet illegally, you can ignore usage restrictions on copyrighted materials, and you can perform or solicit any number of illegal activities with Microsoft tools, but Microsoft is held harmless... the burden of compliance rests with the users.

===============
Reply From PA

Can't this same logic be applied to any software written, including GT's program? It's up to the USER to decide what they want to do with the program.

And since neither of us is intimately familiar with GT's programs, I guess maybe we should both stop debating this issue for the moment and go and actually download GT's program and see exactly what it does. One could easily apply your paragraph quoted above to GT's software, couldn't one?

===============
PA,

I think the functions of GT's two programs have been discussed in many posts on the board... even to the point of technical user questions and replies.

Did you miss my point when this issue came up:

Everyone raves that ChartGet is an excellent program, and Game has a perfect right to create such intellectual property, but using it is the rub...

The same applies to the "EqParse" program.

This is just what I said about Microsoft tools... the burden of using them appropriately falls upon the users. And I pointedly stated this with respect to GT's tools.

I can't see how we can do other than agree to disagree unless we agree to let EquiBase arbitrate this issue by defining what is appropriate. I thought Shelby Cook had already done this, but you apparently disagree. Isn't it really that simple? We simply don't agree.

If it would help, I would gladly ask Shelby if anything has changed, but you don't seem to give much credibility to what was previously stated with respect to using the free charts.

We can't even seem to get beyond your personal conviction that "free" somehow magically contravenes the tenets of copyright law and the rights of copyright holders.

===============
Reply From PA
Of course the word FREE does not mean you have the right to do whatever you'd like. Copyright laws can certainly be in force even though something is given away for free.

However, if something is free it may be considered in the public domain. And if that is the case, copyright law loses its effectiveness.

In addition, just because Equibase SAYS something is restricted for use, or they SAY you can't do certain things with their files, it doesn't mean this is ENFORCEABLE in a court of law. They are just trying to protect their asses by mentioning everything under the sun, and hoping this is enough to deter someone.

In any event, as we have seen before with the invention of the copy machine, the tape recorder, the VCR, and software, the courts like to stand by the consumer when it comes to their RIGHT to make archival copies for their own PERSONAL USE.

GT's program makes a copy of the chart for the individual's personal use, which (I assume) they will neither redistribute, resell, or give away to a third party.

We'll agree to disagree, but I still would like to know what your agenda is here. My agenda was to stick up for someone whom in my opinion was just trying to help others. As a fellow software developer, I couldn't understand what the big deal was with his program. I still don't.

[CONTINUED]

[Steve 'StatMan']

Why do you care? Must you be right all the time? If you are or aren't doesn't matter. What does matter is why you're being a nasty toward GT about this!

[VetScratch]

[CONTINUATION]

PA,

Just in case you are interested, see the MIT FAQ coverage of public domain and fair use.

See: http://web.mit.edu/copyright/faq.html#public_domain

In the MIT FAQ, see #6 and #7. You can also find many other places to verify these issues to whatever depth you desire, but the MIT FAQ is handy for our purposes since both issues are summarized in sequence.

FAQ #6: free has nothing to do with public domain.

FAQ #7: all four "fair use" criteria must be satisfied, and the fourth criterion is the one which enables EquiBase to protect even potential profits from their free charts, but in this case they actually do sell charts through many channels and have every right to protect the commercial value of these distribution channels by restricting what we can do with their free charts.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Let me guess. You're an attorney in real life, and are trying to prove your side of a case you decided to take on. Dispite making your fellow posters miserable.

[VetScratch]

Steve,

If you bother to read the posts, you will see that PA demanded my answers!

And no, I'm not an attorney... you have bet on plenty of my family's horses... and I would guess we both know all the same folks in Chicago.

[Steve 'StatMan']

OR a case you're trying to build to drum up business, perhaps?

Anyone can claim everything in their copyrights. Whether it is enforaceable is another question.

RIGHT OR WRONG, WHY ARE YOU SO ADAMANT ABOUT BRINGING THIS CASE TO THEM AND PRESSING IT? ARE YOU TRYING TO HURT LOTS OF PEOPLE? AND THEN WHY SHOULD ANYONE ON THIS SITE WANT TO CORRESPOND OR EVEN CARE ABOUT YOU? THAT IS WHAT I AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND. WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?

[Steve 'StatMan']

Didn't see your last post before my most recent. Don't know if he was looking for a private or public answer to these.

Still can't help wondering why you're doing all this, though.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Sorry, I don't want to be rude, but, really. Whether you're right or wrong isn't important. Why would you want to take valuable tools from people. Do you not appreciate the learning from the statistics that many people share on this website? What if much of that came from the result of people reading through the charts to get the answers to all the questions. Do you want this to stop??? Do you at least want to volunatarily stop reading anyone's research results? I can't understand why you would want to take action to take this all away. That's what has me upset. It seems like you're taking great joy somehow in this, and I don't understand. I'm sorry.

[VetScratch]

Steve,

IMHO, PA certainly demanded answers.

Please notice that I never said GT did anything wrong by writing the programs... I have always pointed out that using them is the problem.

BTW, I have always assumed by your knowledge of the Chicago circuit (here and on BTW), that you are the same "Stat Man" that Lenny Pike, Barry Jenks, and other jockey agent/horsemen have used as a primary info/handicapping resource for quite a few years. If you are, PM me... we can meet up at AP this year.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Sorry, I'm not that Stat Man. I got the nickname from Scott McMannis. I do statistical work for him and share it with his customers.

[ranchwest]

PA, I'm really tired of ready VS's verbose and intolerant posts. Apparently VS has all day to write messages, but most of the rest of us don't have all day to read. It is really repulsive that interesting threads get hijacked by VS.

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by VetScratch
If you are, PM me... we can meet up at AP this year.

PM him with your questions. QUIT causing us to endure what is totally irrelevant to all of the rest of us. Think before you post!

[PaceAdvantage]

Very good point ranchwest....


And VS, that was a very poor choice of judgement, posting our private messages. However, I think anyone reading them will see how truly warped you can be at times....