New Software Poll Part 2

[JimG]

To add to the software SpeedFigure listed:

[Dave Schwartz]

Oops. wrong thread.

[Speed Figure]

To add to the software SpeedFigure listed:Jim, your the man! you started this stuff in the 1st place. ;)

[TonyK@HSH]

HSH is my package of choice..in fact it's the only software I've touched in years.

Tony

[JimG]

HSH is my package of choice..in fact it's the only software I've touched in years.

Tony

That's why I entitled it "Part 2". SpeedFigure's original poll includes HSH.

Jim

[andicap]

Im surprised by the low figures on the Power line stuff. The developer made black box picks on this board for 500 races and came out with a decent profit. Where else have you seen that kind of evidence?

Of course I didn't buy it, so I guess everyone else was like me, impressed, but not enough to change my style of play.

[cj]

The guy (Wolson, Steve) appears to have vanished. Anyone heard from him?

[betchatoo]

I Emailed him a couple of weeks ago. He said that he still lurks here when he has the time. He is working on a couple of new projects and they are working on the software to speed it up. he said the update (which I gather won't be done till late this year) will be a whole lot faster.

[JimG]

Im surprised by the low figures on the Power line stuff. The developer made black box picks on this board for 500 races and came out with a decent profit. Where else have you seen that kind of evidence?

Of course I didn't buy it, so I guess everyone else was like me, impressed, but not enough to change my style of play.

I'm surprised as well Andy, although I recall reading that the database feature ran slow on some machines. I had that same problem with Gordon Pine's software, The Capper when I tried that...it tied up my machine way too long updating the database.

Jim

[Speed Figure]

Well, It is ranked 4th on the poll. I guess that's not to bad.

[hurrikane]

wolfson posted he was going to do the ROI Club bs. then it turned into a cf and he declined.

[mainardi]

I didn't know that I even had six Hor$ense (Horse$ense in the poll) customers! :D :rolleyes:

Seriously, though, I would welcome comments -- preferrably in a PM, so as not to be viewed as being promotional -- as to what makes it your "weapon of choice". Thanks in advance to those that respond... feedback is ALWAYS a good thing! :cool:

[shots]

Why would anyone sell a system or program that is very good and would show a profit? And at the same token , why would anyone anyone claim to sell superior data, speed figures, or pick. If you know you have that kind of information, why are they putting it on he market to whoever will pay for it if its going to dilutes in value when you want to wager and get the best possible price. Why aid your competition?

[JimG]

Why would anyone sell a system or program that is very good and would show a profit? And at the same token , why would anyone anyone claim to sell superior data, speed figures, or pick. If you know you have that kind of information, why are they putting it on he market to whoever will pay for it if its going to dilutes in value when you want to wager and get the best possible price. Why aid your competition?

Hi shots,

Wish I had a dollar for everytime that first question was asked on PaceAdvantage. The usual replies are.."they" sell it to make profit, it can be used many different ways so not everyone comes up with the same horse to dilute the the value. Making money at the races is usually sporadic, not steady while making some profit selling software and in the case of some, getting a piece of monthly download income can be nicely profitable.

Jim

[shots]

Hi shots,

Wish I had a dollar for everytime that first question was asked on PaceAdvantage. The usual replies are.."they" sell it to make profit, it can be used many different ways so not everyone comes up with the same horse to dilute the the value. Making money at the races is usually sporadic, not steady while making some profit selling software and in the case of some, getting a piece of monthly download income can be nicely profitable.

Jim
Jim, I understand that but it still bothers me that they could sell something that is profitable unless they are holding something back.

[Dave Schwartz]

Shots,

Why would anyone sell a system or program that is very good and would show a profit?

If one has the attitude that anything for sale is worthless, why bother to purchase anything at all?

Are books any different? After all, if the authors really knew anything, would they put it in a book?

Is free information (such as one gets here) any different?

If "good information" wouldn't be sold it seems logical that it certainly would not be given away.


I can give you 4 reasons why I sell or give away the "good stuff."

1. Profit. It supported my horse racing endeavors until I could become seriously profitable (something that did not happen that long ago).

2. Respect of Peers. Being a successful handicapper (especially from your point of view) can be very lonely.

3. Altruistic Behavior. Yup. Some people simply like to share.

4. Ability to keep the best for self. I typically share yesterday's successful strategy with my users. Judging by my users' feedback, that seems to be an acceptable arrangement.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[mainardi]

I can give you 4 reasons why I sell or give away the "good stuff."

1. Profit. It supported my horse racing endeavors until I could become seriously profitable (something that did not happen that long ago).

2. Respect of Peers. Being a successful handicapper (especially from your point of view) can be very lonely.

3. Altruistic Behavior. Yup. Some people simply like to share.

4. Ability to keep the best for self. I typically share yesterday's successful strategy with my users. Judging by my users' feedback, that seems to be an acceptable arrangement.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz
Dave... good post.

Let me cheat off of your list for my reasons...
1. Profit. Actually, the profits for me go to upgrading software and hardware.

2. Respect of Peers. Not so much, but respect in the form of the thrill of getting a positive review!

3. Altruistic Behavior. Agreed... nothing wrong with helping others.

4. Ability to keep the best for self. That's true for me... but only in as much as my customers get the stuff that's "mine" as soon as an update is released.

[traynor]

shots wrote: <Why would anyone sell a system or program that is very good and would show a profit? And at the same token , why would anyone anyone claim to sell superior data, speed figures, or pick. If you know you have that kind of information, why are they putting it on he market to whoever will pay for it if its going to dilutes in value when you want to wager and get the best possible price. Why aid your competition?>

Honestly? Because most handicappers fancy themselves to be so clever, they will almost invariably second-guess the software, ratings, or selections. Worse yet, they will trundle to the mutuel windows, clinging to their computer printouts while looking back over their shoulders at a monitor to see what everyone else is betting on. If the selection is chalk, they will bet with both hands. If it is going off at 10 to 1, they suddenly doubt themselves, the ratings, the honesty of racing in general, and the good intentions of the trainer/jockey/owner/whatever--and dump their money on the favorite, with a $2 "saver bet" on the selection. Which, I might add, usually wins in a romp.

What does that mean? It means people in general--despite protestations to the contrary--rarely bet to make money. They bet for fun, for excitement, for thrills, for the satisfaction of being right (when they win), or for the bitter remorse and self-guilt that goes along with betting on the wrong horse when they started for the window planning to bet on the horse that won.

Is this sarcastic or mean? Not in the least. It is human nature, and nothing more. All the reasonable arguments about "why" completely fall apart because people are usually too emotional to stick to a consistent enough approach to actually make a profit. The best selections, ratings, or software are no solace for racing fans who want to completely change everything they do because they lost two races in a row, won two races in a row, or the odds on their selection looks "too good to be true."

The best selections in the world are only useful if they are used competently. The bettors who use software, ratings, or selections competently are usually well rewarded at the mutuel windows. For every competent user, there are a (large number) who use the exact same software, ratings, or selections in a way that is almost guaranteed to make them lose.

The idea that predictive information will suddenly cause the mutuels to drop like a rock is unfounded.
Good Luck

[shanta]

The idea that predictive information will suddenly cause the mutuels to drop like a rock is unfounded.
Good Luck

absolutely incorrect. Here are 2 examples:

1) Beyer numbers being released in the racing form for all to access.

2) From a pace viewpoint the widespread use of the Total pace ratings or TPR for short starting in the mid 1990's. At that time in a sample that approached 100,000 races betting the top ranked TPR number blindly produced a positive ROI of around 10%. Try doing that today and see where it gets you.

Want more examples?
1) widespread use of the "sheets" especially in NY. Ask ANYONE who used them 15 years ago and today.

2) Software developers like CJ and Jeff Platt who recognize that mass use of their "predictive" figures WILL diminish mutuals so the STOP selling at a point they have determined.

Richie

[traynor]

shanta wrote: <absolutely incorrect. Here are 2 examples:

"1) Beyer numbers being released in the racing form for all to access."
Because there was no control, it is impossible to conclude that the display of Beyer numbers in the DRF had any effect whatsoever on the (real or imagined) "profitability" of those numbers. Just as with most other racing-related "research," the methods used were simple averages, not controlled.

The argument is identical with claiming that "if you had bet every race over this sample, you would have won blah blah." The results are only manifest when aberrant results are included that only apply to that sample, and are unprofitable when used to predict the outcomes in other samples. In short, interpolation and extrapolation are two fundamentally different activities; interpolation looks at what happened in a given sample. Extrapolation is using that result to generalize to other results.


"2) From a pace viewpoint the widespread use of the Total pace ratings or TPR for short starting in the mid 1990's. At that time in a sample that approached 100,000 races betting the top ranked TPR number blindly produced a positive ROI of around 10%. Try doing that today and see where it gets you."
TPR use was never "widespread." It was used initially by a small group, and the 100,000 race sample may or may not have been representative of a MUCH larger population (all races).

"Want more examples?
1) widespread use of the "sheets" especially in NY. Ask ANYONE who used them 15 years ago and today. "

Sorry. I tend to ignore things that use the "Everybody knows that ..." argument. Fifteen years ago a LOT of things were different; life was wonderful, winners came easily, everyone bet on the other horse ... whatever. Any real or imagined reduction in the prices of "sheet" selections cannot be attributed solely to dissemination. It may have been related to the makers getting older and less astute, a proliferation of computer users betting on the same horses, or any one or more of hundreds of other reasons.

"2) Software developers like CJ and Jeff Platt who recognize that mass use of their "predictive" figures WILL diminish mutuals so the STOP selling at a point they have determined."
Two people state their opinions. That is not a really good basis for a belief change. It is simply two people stating their opinions.

This is not intended as argument, or even as rebuttal. It is intended to emphasize (again) that one of the most common deficiencies in handicappers is the tendency to regard very small samples as representative of the larger population. Again, do a search on Tversky and the Law of Small Numbers, and read the book "Decision Traps" by Russo and Schoemaker.

Or, as an alternative, take a half dozen graduate and undergraduate classes in statistics and research methods, then supplement them with a year or two of classes in data modeling and information architecture. With a little luck and a lot of thought, Tversky and "Decision Traps" will allow you to get to essentially the same place a whole lot easier.

The basic issue is that the best software, ratings, or selections in the world can only be profitable if they are used competently. Too many handicappers seem more intent on arguing that their view is "right" than they are in cashing tickets. For those handicappers, even the best software-ratings-selections are largely wasted.
Good Luck

[shanta]

The basic issue is that the best software, ratings, or selections in the world can only be profitable if they are used competently. Too many handicappers seem more intent on arguing that their view is "right" than they are in cashing tickets. For those handicappers, even the best software-ratings-selections are largely wasted.
Good Luck

I am only replying to your statement that predictive ratings will not cause a drop in mutuals. I totally disagree.

that's all.

Richie

[trying2win]

COMPUTRAK is missing from the list. That's the handicapping software I now use.

T2W

[Niko]

4. Ability to keep the best for self. I typically share yesterday's successful strategy with my users. Judging by my users' feedback, that seems to be an acceptable arrangement.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz[/QUOTE]

Huh?? That comment really surprised me after reading a lot of other posts. You relied on selling your software for your living, have benefited from others sharing their ideas with you, believe it's some of the best software out there but decided to keep the best for yourself? I guess it works for you now that you're more profitable enough but seems like an interesting way to treat customers that have supported your livelihood? But at least you've gotten feedback from your users and they find it acceptable.

I understand why people would sell good software but I'm not sure about point #4 from your previously making a living selling software

[Dave Schwartz]

There is no such thing as an optimum system. There is no best. There is only bext for you.

I believe that they find it acceptable because they always wind up with stuff that has already been proven to work.

The fact that I may be using something even better just means that there is even more good stuff on the horizon.


If someone cannot accept this then they are probably not a good match for our software.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[Niko]

That makes a little more sense based on your reputation. As new things are tested (by yourself and ideally a couple other testers) they're incorporated into the new versions of the program. Not a bad deal if they're incorporated while still effective.

Thanks for the clarificiation

[Dave Schwartz]

That is not exactly what I meant.

We have many technologies in HSH - most developed from my ideas and some were developed from user's ideas. I believe it is comforting to know that someone has found a particular technology to actually work for them. Better still, if a particular approach with that technology works.


Dave

[kitts]

I would like to vote for All-In-One V6. It is missing from the poll. Again.

[JimG]

I would like to vote for All-In-One V6. It is missing from the poll. Again.

I posted this poll over a year ago. It is "Part2" I believe you would find that SpeedFigure included AIO in Part 1 of the poll....Also, well over a year ago.

[Richard]

Ditto Kitts vote.

[Ponyplayr]

I also vote for AIOV6