PowerOnLine?

[jackad]

Would anyone using this Steve Wolsons program care to share with the rest of us how they've been doing with it lately?

Jack

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by jackad
Would anyone using this Steve Wolsons program care to share with the rest of us how they've been doing with it lately?

Jack

I use it and am selective with it.

Playing 2004 Saratoga Meet using "every play" showed a couple of strong ratings.

Best Bets
76 attempts
27 wins
35.53% inw
1.25 ROI

Turf
93 attempts
24 wins
25.81% win
1.17 ROI

The Exotic Machine Top Play
213 plays
66 wins
30.99% win
1.19 ROI

Power Line Plus
230 plays
60 wins
26.09% Win
1.09 ROI

Performance Angle
209 plays
35 wins
16.75% Win
1.04 ROI

Explosion Angle
47 plays
14 wins
29.79%
1.08 ROI

Powerline 96
219 plays
56 wins
25.57 ROI
1.05 ROI

A few showed slight losses: PFS 0.92, Ultraline 0.98, System 2000 0.96, Class Angle 0.90, Speed Class Factor 0.93, Consensus 0.96

A few did poorly such as C3 and TJF

This was playing every play listed for the whole meet. With the Black Box feature and using Steve's recommended approach in the manual I had some real good days.

The program isn't for everyone and not every track performs equally . But playing all 22-23 methods without any filtering for SAR for the meet was 4,253 plays. and you still got 23.37% and an 0.91 ROI or 9 cent loss. With filtering, a good performance.

Steve has posted his selections here before in the Selections section and showed a profit with pre-race posting of his picks in advance over 500 races I beleive.

I think some people prefer to be do more of the handicapping than allow it to be totally database driven with another guy's methods, but you can win with it as he has demonstrated here.

[Bob Allen]

Jack,

You asked a question so I'm going to give you my answer which will be quite a bit different from Secretariat's answer.

The design of the program is a dog. It is built on a blazingly slow Access 1.x (no typo there) platform. This is because as I was told they still have a number of customers using Win 3.1. Huh? They must also be running them on 25 mHz 286s too. Did I forget to say the program is as slow as molasses running uphill?

If it could take advantage of 32 bit speed it might help things out some. But it would need a major league reprogramming effort because as the program exists now it is a backfitting program.

To compare and contrast this with, say, EquiSim - Nathan has gone to great programming lengths to prevent backfitting. It used to do that but he reprogrammed it and unless you just want to backfit (why, I don't know) you can't do it with the right settings.

As long as you are content with a few very low priced wins with an occasional $12 to $20 win you will be happy, otherwise ...

Queries into the database will tell you you're knocking 'em dead. You're not really. All of the original picks and results have been merged to reflect the results. That means checking the database is practically worthless and it doesn't hold up for future races. Using it in combination with EquiSim if you bet the EquiSim choices you will be a lot happier.

Plus I think anyone who buys software for handicapping should insist on a software forum. If it doesn't have one, that should tell you something. Plus if you look at sites like Nathan's, Dave's, Ken's, and Gordon Pine's you will see they give you some great information to use their product. Nobody does it as well as Ken at HTR and Gordon at Netcapper and that should certainly figure into your decision.

On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia,

Bob

[Diamond K]

My machine is one of the slow ones they refer to, about 566 mgz. The program ran so extremely slow, especially the black box, that I had to make a separate database for each and every track. Strangely there is a problem in the program on creation of a track database. I have to take the entire major database, make a copy of that and delete all tracks but the one I want to use, such as APX. A problem I have is that even with all the other tracks removed, the size of the database stayed as large as prior to track removal. Now I was creating a storage problem. Further, this created a major housekeeping job for I have to put each track and the results (TSN advantage plan) into the proper individual track database. This is too time consuming and I spend more time on this than with handicapping. I find the fact that the program doesn't generate results on a per race basis that we can view a very disturbing factor.

Results? I believe my database is way too small and the one provided is very small on a per track basis. I started in July. I am getting small samples and my losses exceed my wins by quite a bit. I believe that I must be playing the wrong tracks so I will give the program the benefit of the doubt. I didn't play SAR. The winners I do get are chalk or close to it.

The program seems to be designed for the user to preferably print out the card analysis. As I said above, there is no way to view the race results and payoffs. It takes 4 pages to print a card.

I am going to shelve this program for the time being until I get a faster computer, but even then I don't know what use I will get from it as I feel I need at least 2 years of data for it to be effective. These comments are not meant to degrade the value of this program for Steve proved it worked. It just doesn't work for me.

Diamond K.

[Lefty]

Because of its slowness, I too shelved it.

[Bob Allen]

Diamond K,

Quick note. I was using it with 3 years worth of files from the TSN advantage plan. I wouldn't keep subscribing for two more years just to get that many files. Put $60 a month on a couple of horses and over two years you will come out way ahead.

Bob

[Lefty]

Bob, not sure I understand. The beauty of TSN Procaps files is that they can be used with many prgms. The best bargain in data in my estimation.

[betchatoo]

I too have stopped using power-online because of its' slow speed, not just to process, but to download files, unzip, adjust tracks, etc. However, I feel I must defend Steve and the product. He came on site and proved twice that he can use his software to pick races and be profitable. He is also fast to answer any questions you have about his product.
I find him to be an honorable man whose product does what it is supposed to. If he can fix the speed element I will be glad to go back and use it as a supplement to my other handicapping

[Bob Allen]

Lefty,

My comment to Diamond K. was meant to convey the idea that waiting to gather two more years of files ain't gonna make the program work better.

I totally agree the ProCaps files are the best bargain in data files. I've used the same base data files in three different software packages so I am not advising against that - just that to keep subscribing to get more files will do nothing but make TSN/BRIS more money while taking it out of your pocket if the only reason you are collecting the files is to use in this one program.


betchatoo,

Your response is exactly why I referred to Nathan's, Dave's, Ken's, and Gordon's web sites. They give you more than the program - they also tell you how to use it, particularly Ken and Gordon who put out regular newsletters with both generic handicapping tips and their program specific tips. The POL V5 Manual does NOT show you EXACTLY what Steve did to achieve his 500 race run. When asked if users would get the same results he was getting in that run his answer was, "Pretty much" not "yes" or "with the method I use you will see these results." And if you will go back to that run you will see that the profit was really made in the first 100 races or so and then the program stayed fairly even for the next 400 races.

Staying even is not my cup of tea.

I do not doubt for a minute that the program has promise. With programming for more speed and a safety solution that prevents backfitting to the results this could be a dynamite piece of handicapping software. I still love the way it is based on methods and not factors and feel that is one of the strong points of the program.

Bob

[Equineer]

Bob Allen,

I think Steve Wolfson has established a public record of prognostication that merits the widely-held opinion that he is one of America's best handicappers.

That said, I am either misunderstanding or opposed to what you have to say about backfitting with respect to handicapping software. Backfitting as an issue also has come up in other software threads.

Handicapping is all about probabilities. Profit/loss is all about wagering.

You focus on profit/loss when you talk about backfitting. Why?

As pointed out by Nunamaker and echoed by many others including me, probabilities (e.g., win probability) are much more immune to backfitting vagaries than you and others seem to suggest.

See: http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131330&highlight=overfitting#post131330

So when a software user posts financial results from a trial wagering run, why does backfitting come up as an issue with respect to the merit of the software? The posted financial results only reflect whether the user wagered intelligently versus other players.

If you want to argue a case against backfitting in handicapping software, you really need to use probabilities as your yardstick because that is the essence of handicapping.

Wagering separates the winners from the losers, and players on both sides of the ledger will emerge from a common population of users for a well-crafted handicapping program.

[Lefty]

Bob, I understand now and agree. Keep winning.

[Speed Figure]

So this program has gone from begin King, to begin nothing. Funny How things change so fast.

[Secretariat]

Well, guess I'm in disagreement.

I keep my databases on a track by track basis and have no big speed issues. I find I'm able to install it multiple times on different computers. I can query on just about anything.

As to backfitting, I don't know how any program which reviews performance in its database program does anything but backfit in it's reference to modeled data. If one uses SPAT in Nathan's program one is basically backfitting data to modeled data. I don't see anything wrong with that. It provides a historical perspective of performance.

As to the manual Steve has illustrated clearly taking a card what he does race by race. Obviously, if someone is losing, move onto another program. My results are about what Steve got in his PA workout.

I still have not seen Ken Massa, Dave Schwartz, or Nathan or any other vendors post their picks for 500 races in advance as Steve has here and shown a profit. Perhaps the problem lies in the way the users are using the program and not in the program.

As to the slowness, I think most of this deals with putting all tracks in one database and the slower platform. The program has been proftiable for me so I tolerate a little slower speed

[Tom]

Sec,
HTR has multiple ways to handicap, so it is hard to say what the program "pick" is. Closest thinkg to a black box number would likely by the K rating-which historically hits WP% of about 50%, 30-20 W to P. Many of the guys have used the database to find profitable spot plays, many us the longshot stuff in tourneys, and who knows what else. Personally, I don't play in many tourneys and don't seek out spot DB plays. I use the prgram as an enhabced tool to the way I used MPG and SRatin programs- model tracks, look for consistent patterns, and play when the odds are decent.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Tom
Sec,
HTR has multiple ways to handicap, so it is hard to say what the program "pick" is. Closest thinkg to a black box number would likely by the K rating-which historically hits WP% of about 50%, 30-20 W to P. Many of the guys have used the database to find profitable spot plays, many us the longshot stuff in tourneys, and who knows what else. Personally, I don't play in many tourneys and don't seek out spot DB plays. I use the prgram as an enhabced tool to the way I used MPG and SRatin programs- model tracks, look for consistent patterns, and play when the odds are decent.

I don't doubt that HTR is a great program. But POL has been for me. POL doesn't have to be played via Black Box. There's a odd line, consensus, individual ratings, dynamanual, and the ability to do detail queries encompassing many ways to select horses. From what you're saying, there is no "pre-defined" way one has to play HTR OR Equisim for that matter. Each player finds the way that works for him. Steve offered a profitable way he plays, and posted those picks here.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for Nathan, Ken, and Dave, and would like to see a 500 race selections posted on those programs, especially psoted by those who are trashing POL.

[Lefty]

sec, i'm certainly not reading anything about anybody trashing Pol so don't know where you get that. Steve is great about answering e-mails but the prgm just too damn slow for me. I think Steve derived most of his selections from the blackbox part and that's the part that is the absolute slowest. I have no doubt it's a good prgm. Just cumbersome.

[Speed Figure]

This program must be very, very, slow. Dave did run a test with his program.

http://www.horsestreet.com/Showcases/01PaceHcp/

[Lefty]

Speed, not getting your point. What's HSH got to do with POL?

[Speed Figure]

I still have not seen Ken Massa, Dave Schwartz, or Nathan or any other vendors post their picks for 500 races in advance as Steve has here and shown a profit. Perhaps the problem lies in the way the users are using the program and not in the program.

I was only saying that Dave, did do a test with his porgram. I was not trying to compare the two. I have never used POL or HSH before.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, i'm certainly not reading anything about anybody trashing Pol so don't know where you get that. Steve is great about answering e-mails but the prgm just too damn slow for me. I think Steve derived most of his selections from the blackbox part and that's the part that is the absolute slowest. I have no doubt it's a good prgm. Just cumbersome.

"So this program has gone from being King, to being nothing."

I would say from king to nothing is a bit of trashing. At least that was Speed Figure's comment of the previous posts.

[Lefty]

Speed's, "So, this prgm has gone from being King to being nothing" sounds like he was being facetious to me. He hasn't used the prgm by his own admission so he wasn't commenting on its effectiveness. So therefore, he wasn't trashing it.

[Speed Figure]

I'm not trying to trash anything. I've never used the program before so how can I trash it. I'm just saying that the same guys that were high on it, have now stop using it.

I would NEVER down a man's program when I saw him post 500 picks and WIN.

[Secretariat]

Speed, thanks for the clarification. Personally, if sometihng wins for me I don't care if it's slow as molasses. I don't find that with POL. I think some users took Steve's supplied CD which was in one database and huge over multiple tracks and just used that, and kept building on it. I broke mine down into individual tracks.

I also emailed Steve and he told me that they're doing some kind of swappable database for each track in V6. Personally, I don't care and a 5 race card by Dave S. in which it appears an overall loss appears to have occurred doesn't illustrate the program is good or bad. Dave S. is one of the brightest guys in the business as I purchased Thorobrain many years ago. It was cumbersome to use, and slow, but professionally done and quite imaginative. I would like to see more 500 race tests by vendors as Steve has done.

Guess what I'm saying is I don't care how slow a program runs if it gets me to the Finish Line with a profit. My take on the other posters was that it wasn't just the slowness, but they weren't turning a profit with the program. I remember hand entering data on the Sartin programs. NOW that took a long time, and there was no modeling capabiltiy in any Sartin program. I didn't care because I was able to show a profit with it. I've even looked at Validator and Guy Wadsworth's Speculator program and they are extensions of Sartin. It is amazing how much time it takes to prepare a card for these programs, but I am told they do well if you have patience.

Anyway, I have one program which runs at lightning speed and has yet to have won a race yet. I'll stick to slow but sure.

[midnight]

Bob Allen,

I think Steve Wolfson has established a public record of prognostication that merits the widely-held opinion that he is one of America's best handicappers.




Just a note: Steve Wolson, the developer of Poweronline, is not the same person as Steve Wolfson, who has won several contests, etc.