Single Factor +ROI

[pandy]

On the "turf handicapping" thread that's going on I mentioned that when I tested Late Speed (late pace) for 7 months at the NYRA tracks years ago, the top two ranked late speeds both generated a positive ROI and the top ranked late speed won 19%. Of course the reason why the ROI was positive was because many of the winners were longshots. The late speed figure I used was an average of 3rd fraction and my Kick Rating and based on the best race in last three, so it was based on one race.

Any single factor that can generate a consistent positive ROI, or even come close, is a powerful handicapping factor.

I believe a good early speed rating can also show a + ROI.

My question is, has anyone tested single factors and found good results with any?

[Grits]

My question is, has anyone tested single factors and found good results with any?

To answer the question? Yes. I'm testing "the condensed" daily.

Cj's highest early figure won the 4th ($6.10) and the 5th ($8.00) yesterday. His highest late figure won the 8th, ($11.00) the 9th ($6.60) and the 10th ($13.00) with the highest early and late figures running 1-2 for the $56.50 exacta. (I seldom play Pic 3s--it paid $286.)

This is what I know about ROI..this morning.

I'm good to go. ;)

[mikesal57]

over a period of time , not one single factor will get you more than 88-90 cents on your dollar...

mike

[pandy]

over a period of time , not one single factor will get you more than 88-90 cents on your dollar...

mike

If you have a single factor that will get you 90 cents, you should be able to generate a profit with it. All you have to do is find the best minimum odds range. In other words, eliminate the favorites and the ROI goes up.

[pandy]

To answer the question? Yes. I'm testing "the condensed" daily.

Cj's highest early figure won the 4th ($6.10) and the 5th ($8.00) yesterday. His highest late figure won the 8th, ($11.00) the 9th ($6.60) and the 10th ($13.00) with the highest early and late figures running 1-2 for the $56.50 exacta. (I seldom play Pic 3s--it paid $286.)

This is what I know about ROI..this morning.

I'm good to go. ;)


The condensed sheet is very good. Highest last speed figure, however, should show a considerable loss over time because it's too obvious.

The late figure on the condensed is an average. It would be interesting to see which number generates a higher ROI, the late speed average, or the best of last 3 late speed (based on one race).

[Dave Schwartz]

The only thing I have seen within the last decade that was profitable (and now shows a slight loss) was HDW's "best ever" F1 rating, and only in route races.

For several years it hovered around $2.03, but has now (last time I tested) slipped down around $1.94.

Still within rebate territory.

Pandy, of course, has it right. Anything readily available will be exploited.

Of late I have been working on a somewhat new form of modeling that shows great promise because it is highly effective and only a limited number of people will have such information. When I get back to doing free seminars in another month, I will get it shared.

[bugboy]

in 5.5f races i'm testing running style and front spd dirt only, if mdn race, no more than 2 first timers. days since last race, with works, no more than 60 days. don't have enough races as yet to post if it has a positive r.o.i.

[Grits]

The condensed sheet is very good. Highest last speed figure, however, should show a considerable loss over time because it's too obvious.

The late figure on the condensed is an average. It would be interesting to see which number generates a higher ROI, the late speed average, or the best of last 3 late speed (based on one race).

Pandy, keep testing. ;) However, both, my reading skill and my common sense tells me that when horses have gone off at 3-1, 4-1, and 5-1 they were not so obvious. ... This is easy stuff. Really.

[pandy]

Pandy, keep testing. ;) However, both, my reading skill and my common sense tells me that when horses have gone off at 3-1, 4-1, and 5-1 they were not so obvious. ... This is easy stuff. Really.


We had a debate about speed figures in another thread a few weeks ago. I said that there are professional horseplayers who rely almost solely on speed figures to make their bets. A few people on here told me that was impossible. But, as you suggest, the key is the odds. First of all, these guys don't just bet the top fig horses, they look for contenders and top fig horses that are overlays. With patience, you could find a lot worse ways to handicap. Many of the commonly accepted handicapping factors are weak and have to be viewed with suspicion. Pace and speed are far and away the strongest factors.

[Grits]

We had a debate about speed figures in another thread a few weeks ago. I said that there are professional horseplayers who rely almost solely on speed figures to make their bets. A few people on here told me that was impossible. But, as you suggest, the key is the odds. First of all, these guys don't just bet the top fig horses, they look for contenders and top fig horses that are overlays. With patience, you could find a lot worse ways to handicap. Many of the commonly accepted handicapping factors are weak and have to be viewed with suspicion. Pace and speed are far and away the strongest factors.

Pandy, you're 100% right. So many of you, gentlemen, bet everyday. Many may bet every race on the card and multiple tracks. I don't do either. This is my fun, this is not my living. I can sit on my hands like you wouldn't believe...just waiting for an overlay to appear being ignored in the wagering.

[raybo]

On the "turf handicapping" thread that's going on I mentioned that when I tested Late Speed (late pace) for 7 months at the NYRA tracks years ago, the top two ranked late speeds both generated a positive ROI and the top ranked late speed won 19%. Of course the reason why the ROI was positive was because many of the winners were longshots. The late speed figure I used was an average of 3rd fraction and my Kick Rating and based on the best race in last three, so it was based on one race.

Any single factor that can generate a consistent positive ROI, or even come close, is a powerful handicapping factor.

I believe a good early speed rating can also show a + ROI.

My question is, has anyone tested single factors and found good results with any?

The "single factors" that you mention aren't really single factors but combinations/composites. Which means that unless you are using a single raw attribute, nothing is a single factor, they are all composite factors, and any rating or number that produces a profit over time is due to using a composite factor, not a single factor. Speed ratings/figures, pace ratings/figures, performance ratings/figures, class ratings/figures, form ratings/figures, etc., are all composite factors.

I guess I don't get what you're trying to do here. Any single factor, if publicly available, and when applied universally to a certain race type, that produces a profit (if there are, truly, any of those left), will not produce a profit for long. You can "bet" on that. Anything that currently produces profit, and it's formulation is dispersed, will not continue to produce profit. I suspect that since you just dispersed the formula for your "Kick" factor, and added that, when averaged with the late pace (which you also stated in the other thread was simply from the 4f to finish) has produced a profit in turf races at NYRA tracks over a 7 month period, will cease to produce profit soon, if not already. You probably should have kept that one under your hat.

[pandy]

I know it sounds strange, but not everyone will bet something that's profitable. A computer based rating that generates a positive ROI will normally do so with a win percentage of 15 to 20%. When people try it and it doesn't have many winners for a few days they give up. There's a built in negativity among many horseplayers. They don't believe that something could actually work, but some are willing to try it....but then they often have unrealistic expediencies, so unless it wins almost every day they quickly drop it. Which is fine by me, I'm not twisting anyone's arm. You can lead a horse to water....

That's true, my best ratings are compounded. 1st Fraction for early speed is okay, my ESR is based on first and second call and combines both position and the actual fractions so it is better than F1. I still think if it as a single factor, early speed.

[lansdale]

On the "turf handicapping" thread that's going on I mentioned that when I tested Late Speed (late pace) for 7 months at the NYRA tracks years ago, the top two ranked late speeds both generated a positive ROI and the top ranked late speed won 19%. Of course the reason why the ROI was positive was because many of the winners were longshots. The late speed figure I used was an average of 3rd fraction and my Kick Rating and based on the best race in last three, so it was based on one race.

Any single factor that can generate a consistent positive ROI, or even come close, is a powerful handicapping factor.

I believe a good early speed rating can also show a + ROI.

My question is, has anyone tested single factors and found good results with any?

Hi pandy,

I used to do very well strictly playing on the turf, where, as you say, the 3rd fraction is often very important, from 2002, when I came back to the game, through 2010, when profits from that sector took a nosedive, at least for me. I stopped playing seriously at that time, and despite occasional brief forays to see if anything had changed, I've never returned. I think it's possible that the ROI you describe that may have existed in that pre-crash era may no longer be there. Re the NY circuit, it seems to me that there was a dramatic bias change in the Belmont turf a few years back, giving front-runners much more of a chance than they had had previously, and it also seemed to me that the non-stakes races at Saratoga had always had such a bias. Regardless, the 3rd fraction lost a great deal of its power.

It would be interesting to compare the average NYRA turf winner's length's back at the pace mark for the 2000-2008 and 2009-2015 periods - both regular turf and inner, since they're usually very different - and the corresponding ROI. As I said, I would be very surprised if the latter ROI would be higher.

I tend to agree with raybo's comments - I don't think it's any longer possible to profit from a single factor or even familiar composites. Anybody that is doing well in the game today is either exploiting nonlinear relationships, like Magister Ludi, or like sjk, has found a perfect balance (like the golden section) of common factors hiding in plain sight.

Cheers,

lansdale

[raybo]

I'm not saying that common factors cannot produce profit, when combined with others, I'm saying that if you advertise your exact composites, and they really are profitable, they will soon become unprofitable. I use common factors in my program, and it is truly profitable, at some tracks (we do everything by track, not universally for all tracks), but I don't ever publish exactly how things are calculated. Only the "purposely" small number of players who have been allowed to purchased the program have access to those calculations, and even then they would have to follow the calculations back quite a ways in order to know exactly how I do it. Most couldn't care less, nor would they be willing to put in the time and effort to trace all the calculations all the way back to their beginnings, all they want to do is use the program to make profit. So, unless someone uses the same rankings method (we have 19 different, track testable rankings methods), and play exactly the same tracks and races, and put exactly the same races in the database, and use exactly the same minimum odds requirements, then they won't be betting all the same races, nor the same horses in races that are the same.

All it takes is one player, who has enough money to depress the odds, and possesses the exact calculations for a winning factor, to ruin the profit with that factor. That is why my "commercial" program is not free, like the other AllData programs. I want to be able to limit the number of users and vet them as best as I can in order to prevent widespread use. I know of several former users of CJ's pace figures that were very disappointed when he went to TFUS, they liked the fact that only a finite number of people had access to his figures, for obvious reasons (several of them are now using my program, for those very reasons). This is a paramutuel game, meaning we are playing against each other, for an extremely difficult to achieve net profit.

[pandy]

Mathematically speaking, I understand what you mean, Raybo. However, I know from experience that it just doesn't happen. I started handicapping for Sports Eye in 1976, so I've been doing this for a long time. The first 7 years my harness picks were published, 5 in Sports Eye, my two best bets a night produced a flat bet profit of 25% and Sports Eye sold way more papers back then than angle single racing publication does today. This was when harness racing was still big time.

Every harness bettor in New York knew I was a phenom who not only consistently beat the track, right in the paper, but did it with amazing consistency. People always told me that I shouldn't publish my Best Bets because eventually the odds would drop and wipe out the ROI, but that never happened. And we advertised my big days, some of which were amazing. I had several nights where my two Bests Bets won and paid between 8-1 and 15-1 odds.

I used to have owners call me and beg me not to pick their horse because they wanted to bet (which was ridiculous, the track handle was 3 million a night and I never saw any indication that the odds on my picks were being knocked down).

I know that sounds strange, but first of all, there aren't that many whales that bet horses. Most horseplayers are small bettors. The whales that do exist have their own systems. Have you ever met big gamblers? I have. They are cocky as hell and they don't believe that they need anyone's numbers. They do their own thing.

Mathematically, you're right, but I've been trying to help people enjoy this game for decades and I still get good odds on the horses I bet.

[raybo]

Helping people enjoy the game is great. I try to do the same thing by putting handicapping tools in their hands that are either free or as cheap as anywhere in the market, and use cheap data files, and run on a platform that most of them already have, and if they don't I help them get it. All that is fine, but the fact is, the more people that know the specifics of something that has been proven successful, the more the word gets around, the more likely someone will eventually try to exploit it to the extent that it declines in success. I take risks with that, and so do you and everyone else who tries to make players better by revealing things that have proven successful for them and others. I try to keep evolving mine to stay ahead of the crowd, and not publish specifics. I am not willing to give up my success, at least not yet anyway, at the expense of others, maybe that sounds selfish, maybe it is, but if I can no longer play because my profit is gone, and I will quit if I can't make profit, then the game loses one more of its supporters. My goal is to grow the game, and I prefer to do that by helping people keep some of the money they have been losing, nothing more. The longer they remain in the game the longer the game survives.

[pandy]

I agree with you. But I doubt you have anything to worry about. People are funny. I know in New York, where I grew up, horseplayers, even big losers, are cocky son of a guns. They think they know everything.