Optimum Field Size?

[JJMartin]

Anyone prefer or have more success (best roi) with a specific field size? In my recent tests from 2012-2016 it seems the magic number is 7.

There are certainly an assortment of variables involved that are associated with the generation of my results which may render this field size to be incidental at best. So I am interested in hearing any opinions about field size effects on your results to see if there is any significance to this number.

[rsetup]

OVerfitting, at best.

[BCOURTNEY]

Anyone prefer or have more success (best roi) with a specific field size? In my recent tests from 2012-2016 it seems the magic number is 7.

There are certainly an assortment of variables involved that are associated with the generation of my results which may render this field size to be incidental at best. So I am interested in hearing any opinions about field size effects on your results to see if there is any significance to this number.

You are correct that a field size of 7 is significant. Now logically figure out why.

[Tape Reader]

I am perplexed at this as well. As a tote board player, I always thought that the lager the field, the better the read off the tote.

Excluding rainy day scratches, the 7 horse field has produced my biggest scores when boxing a TRI.

[thaskalos]

If the field holds less than 8 horses...then I consider it a short field. And I HATE short fields.

[EMD4ME]

If the field holds less than 8 horses...then I consider it a short field. And I HATE short fields.

I agree. 8 is the number I like to see for supers and pick 4's pick 5's. At a minimum.

If it's under 8, I hope the chalk is a horse I hate.

[BCOURTNEY]

Anyone prefer or have more success (best roi) with a specific field size? In my recent tests from 2012-2016 it seems the magic number is 7.

There are certainly an assortment of variables involved that are associated with the generation of my results which may render this field size to be incidental at best. So I am interested in hearing any opinions about field size effects on your results to see if there is any significance to this number.

There is also some aberrations in a field size of 9 as well, for the same reason as field size 7.

[JJMartin]

There is also some aberrations in a field size of 9 as well, for the same reason as field size 7.

What I am finding, and I am just speculating, is that the 7 horse field is the hit-rate and avg pay-off 'equilibrium' for roi. But again, there are many other factors involved in the results and without any one of them, the whole thing falls apart. (I should add that the 8 horse field seems also to be conducive to a positive result with a little tweaking but anything above that is terrible)

I think you are suggesting that there is an effect with odd numbered fields that you have discovered.

[thespaah]

Anyone prefer or have more success (best roi) with a specific field size? In my recent tests from 2012-2016 it seems the magic number is 7.

There are certainly an assortment of variables involved that are associated with the generation of my results which may render this field size to be incidental at best. So I am interested in hearing any opinions about field size effects on your results to see if there is any significance to this number.
More starters spreads the money. Increases value on live horses. 10-12 is my favorite field size

[JJMartin]

More starters spreads the money. Increases value on live horses. 10-12 is my favorite field size

True, I am just stating that within the scope of my specific parameters, the 7 field and to some degree the 8, was the only range that did the best roi wise for 5 years straight.

[bobphilo]

Anyone prefer or have more success (best roi) with a specific field size? In my recent tests from 2012-2016 it seems the magic number is 7.

There are certainly an assortment of variables involved that are associated with the generation of my results which may render this field size to be incidental at best. So I am interested in hearing any opinions about field size effects on your results to see if there is any significance to this number.
I prefer shorter fields. While some like large fields because the odds are higher, the odds indicate that the results are less predictable due to more traffic problems. It's also easier to keep track of all the horses.
I think the ideal balance between price and fair more predictable races is about 6 or 7

[BCOURTNEY]

What I am finding, and I am just speculating, is that the 7 horse field is the hit-rate and avg pay-off 'equilibrium' for roi. But again, there are many other factors involved in the results and without any one of them, the whole thing falls apart. (I should add that the 8 horse field seems also to be conducive to a positive result with a little tweaking but anything above that is terrible)

I think you are suggesting that there is an effect with odd numbered fields that you have discovered.

There is an effect and it has everything to do with people and nothing to do with horses.

[JJMartin]

There is an effect and it has everything to do with people and nothing to do with horses.

Interesting, a psychological effect?

[BCOURTNEY]

Interesting, a psychological effect?

It is not psychological. If you were able to notice the effect - think about what would cause it to emerge, it has other important applications as well.