Raising Almost Forgetten Subject

[Richard]

I am about to exhume a not-quite dead horse.In the recent publichandicapper.com contest,the PH PREP,I finished 5th in the final standings(username:Wire-To-Wire).The program that I used to get me to this lofty position was a program that a lot people on this website several months ago thought really stunk:SNAPCAPPER PRO SPECIAL EDITION.Of 47 races I played in this contest,I had 18 winners for a flat-bet profit of $68.60(based on standard $2 wager). While I dont expect a lot of converts as a result of this posting, I cant argue with the results either.Now I realize that a lot of people out there dont care a whit for this program and some may even accuse me of not being a real handicapper because I didnt slave away X ammount of hours over a hot Racing Form and that's certainly your privilege.Nonetheless, my heartiest and warmest compliments to both Tom Console and Dave Powers.As far as I'm concerned,they've done good putting out this program.If you want to reply,please do.If not,that's okay too.

[PaceAdvantage]

Not to be argumentative, but why, if you are using a program successfully, would you want to encourage others to use the same program, and perhaps erode your ROI in the process???

Sort of the eternal question as far as sellers of software goes, eh? Some software is more adaptable to multiple users than others....I've never seen Snapcapper, so I can't comment....


==PA

[Aussieplayer]

PA,

Valid question - one I used to ask myself. But I now believe, "if you can't share it, you don't have it."

Besides, I don't think in this day & age (certainly not down here) that you are going to erode the odds.
eg. Everyone knows how Ed Bain (for example) plays. It's a pretty defined way of playing too. No more profits? Rubbish!!

Same with books. Pizzolla has published his 11 secret herbs & spices. It's not gonna make one iota of diff.

There's nothing to worry about, in my very honest opinion.

Cheers
AP

[GameTheory]

Yeah,

I've never bought into that worry either. I really believe I could tell you all and everyone else who would listen THE SECRET to racing that would enable you to pick the winner 100% of the time (if I had such a secret), and it wouldn't make a bit a difference. People would still find a way to screw it up, bet stupidly, not believe it, whatever.

Now, if they started publishing it in the form, that would be different...

[PaceAdvantage]

And that's why the Dr. Z method works just as good as it did right before Ziemba published his methods??? ;)


==PA

[Aussieplayer]

Okay smartie PA, LOL :)

Good point. The Beyer's are a beaten to death but still valid argument.

Hmmmm. You've got me thinking.

Or..........on the other hand...........

Maybe it's yet another myth that Dr Z is dead?? I mean, says who?? You & I would say so - but what would we know - have we ever used the Z method extensively???

As for Beyers, well, was any win% ROI studies done on the Beyers in the so called days when the top choice ALLEGEDLY made flat bet profits. It's only been the last 12 months I read his first book. He doesn't mention many, if ANY scores in there. The "big man Beyer" seems to be able to wet himself over a 2/1 shot getting home!!

Anyway, I'm admitting I don't really know. But the players I "know" who make money (to the best of my knowledge) never seem to be shy of talking. They prob. wouldn't want things emblazened accross the track, but they don't mind sharing info.

Cheers
AP

[GameTheory]

Well,

As John S. was pointing out in another thread, it does still work, although I am sure not as well. Are you sure that is BECAUSE of Dr. Z, though? Maybe the pools are more efficient because of sophisticated speed figures like Beyers & others (which are available to everyone, and are always right there so you can never forget about them), or maybe because all the hunch bettors and numbers players are all playing slots now?

The game obviously changes over time, but to think YOU (not you in particular, anyone) can CONTROL it by giving away some secrets is basically just arrogance. That's what I'm talking about -- an individual secretly guarding all his precious secrets because if anyone found out, the mutuels would be ruined!

That sounds like RayGordon talking...

[Richard]

PA,
That's a fair question you've asked of me.I simply believe that the results and the source of same are worth bringing up here.

[Show Me the Wire]

Of course sharing information depresses mutual prices. I have experienced it first hand.

The sheets are a good example. I starting using sheets 20 plus years ago. Unfortunately, I taught people how to use sheet figs and encouraged the use of them, my mistake.

Using sheet speed figures you had some great scores back then, now it is difficult to to find a good sheet play over 2:1. Once everyone has good information it becomes useless. So I do not use sheet figs anymore and this really mystifies the regular crowd.

Now, I use diferent information and I now will not divulge my selection method, even though people ask. The reglars are curious, because I pick winners that consistently outperform the sheet figs. However, I will give out my selections to associates only if they promise not to depress my prices. And believe me $50. exacta boxes and doubles depress prices.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[JimG]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire


Now, I use diferent information and I now will not divulge my selection method, even though people ask. The reglars are curious, because I pick winners that consistently outperform the sheet figs. However, I will give out my selections to associates only if they promise not to depress my prices. And believe me $50. exacta boxes and doubles depress prices.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

SMTW,

I really want to know your selection method. I won't tell anyone, promise<g>

Jim

[Show Me the Wire]

JimG:

I guess I did not clarify my point. I did not intend to imply that my selection process is the best, but it is valuable to me and I want to avoid my past mistake of encouraging my competition from having the same info as me. I intended to support the position, once good or unique information becomes common knowledge, it loses its value. My acquaintances are curious, because they know I was a devout sheet player and I do not look at sheet figs now.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire


ã Copyright 2002, Show Me the Wire. All rights reserved. No portion of this material may be reproduced mechanically or electronically without permission.

[GameTheory]

SMTW --

I think Jim was joking...


Anyway, yes of course information can depress the prices. I guess I should amend my point to say that I don't think there is much danger is telling people about a METHOD, but giving out the RESULTS of that method for every race (like Beyers, the Sheets, etc.) can and will depress the prices if widely available.

Now very general handicapping trends like "pace handicapping" obviously come into their own at certain time, but I was really referring to single individuals giving (or selling) their methodologies.

I suppose an argument could be made that if your particular method happens to fall into the hands of the wrong millionaire, you could be in trouble. Personally, I don't care if any one method stops working. There will always be *something* to bet on.

People often say, "Why in the world would you sell your great method if it is so great?", "Why don't you just make money off it yourself, why do you need to sell it?" etc. They say these as criticisms of whoever might be selling something.

While there is an unbelievable amount of total crap that is sold, that doesn't mean those arguments stand up on their own. The fact is, there are lots of reasons to sell or share GOOD information. It may ACTUALLY BE that money isn't the most important value to everyone!

I don't claim to have any great knowledge myself, but whatever I know I'm generally only too happy to share with whoever wants it. I've made a couple of software programs that many of you are using, and I'm giving them away for free. I got an email from someone who was ANGRY that I was giving away my charts parser (of course he wanted it for himself). I just don't understand some people...

[JimG]

Originally posted by GameTheory
SMTW --

I think Jim was joking...



as Andy Griffith would say...."I was just funnin' Barn"


Jim

[Show Me the Wire]

Game Theory and JimG:

I understand your post was in fun and no offense was taken. After reading my original post though, I felt I should clarify it. I inadvertently did sound like I was bragging about or touting my selection method in my original post.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[Rick]

It seems to me that if you have a truly original idea and tell people, nobody will listen to you anyway. But if people start writing bpoks and giving seminars the idea has probably lost most of it's value. Why? Because that's when people can make more money by selling it to others than they can by betting it on their own.

I've always wondered why more con artists haven't duped people into paying for selections at the track by betting on every horse in a few races and showing only the winning tickets. People are really gullible when it comes to these things.

[Handle]

Rick,

No doubt, there's truth in what you're saying. Still, I think there are people who find it difficult to make money by using the system or software they develop. There are those that just aren't very good at following their own rules (lack patience, etc.).

For me its a matter of not having enough time and focus left to concentrate after developing software, thinking of new ideas, and answering questions most of the day. I've done well playing the horses before when I allocated the necessary time and energy to it. So, why write the software then? I guess its a matter of what you like to do in life and how you like to be involved in this game (nonetheless, my next feature will be a "Concentrate" feature -- it will require special hardware to run the program -- electrodes that deliver a snappy shock from time to time whenever you make a stupid bet or only make a cursory look at your information before heading to the windows).

Now, those selling "picks" alone -- well, that seems like it falls in line with exactly what you're saying.

-Handle

[Rick]

Handle,

I think software is more useful in developing a method than in playing it. It provides an ojective way of testing basic ideas easily and gives you quick feedback on whether adding new ideas either helps or hurts you. Most of the time people incorporate too many interdependent factors and hurt their bottom line, what others have called "over handicapping". So I don't trust my judgement much unless I can verify it.

Actually, I've heard of several cases where software developers have said they don't need to use their programs any more in their own handicapping. After years of experience seeing what type of horses the program picks, they can pretty much spot them without any help. If you have something that works and you can apply it consistently, their's really no need for computer assistance.

I use a pretty simple mathematical formula with 3 factors for most of my selections. If I get adequate odds, I can bet on it. If not, and I still want to play the race for fun, I'll use a more subjective approach that involves looking for horses that are likely to be underbet according to my experience. My experience involves having tested a large number of spot play methods and independent factors, so I have a feel for which things are underbet or overbet. Also, I have sort of a contrarian nature, which helps greatly in going agaist the crowd.

Also, although everyone mentions ROI and win %, I still think people want the handicapping process to be a satisfying one. That's where subjective handicapping is really better. Mechanical spot plays or playing a computer selection gets a little boring after a while. It reminds me of when I learned how to count cards and played a lot of blackjack. After playing regularly for about a year I quit because I couldn't stand how mind-numbingly boring it was. I still can't play much now without thinking of it as work.

[JimG]

Originally posted by Handle
Rick,

No doubt, there's truth in what you're saying. Still, I think there are people who find it difficult to make money by using the system or software they develop. There are those that just aren't very good at following their own rules (lack patience, etc.).

For me its a matter of not having enough time and focus left to concentrate after developing software, thinking of new ideas, and answering questions most of the day. I've done well playing the horses before when I allocated the necessary time and energy to it. So, why write the software then? I guess its a matter of what you like to do in life and how you like to be involved in this game (nonetheless, my next feature will be a "Concentrate" feature -- it will require special hardware to run the program -- electrodes that deliver a snappy shock from time to time whenever you make a stupid bet or only make a cursory look at your information before heading to the windows).

Now, those selling "picks" alone -- well, that seems like it falls in line with exactly what you're saying.

-Handle

I would think ideally you would like to write software that you can use to make a long term profit but at the same time would be difficult for any other users to easily find the same method of use thereby protecting your profit center.

That way one could earn a somewhat steady income selling software and related data and earn unsteady but long term profits from the horse races. I would guess that to be a goal of many software developers.

Jim

[Richard]

Even using my program,I still look among the contenders for overall form,recency,win/money record,and the Quirin speed points.The program speeds up the process considerably,but the final decision is,to me,still instinctive.

[Derek2U]

I use 455 factors in my system. Is that too many?

I'm looking to trim it down to a respectable 100 or so.

Any advice?

[Tom]

Originally posted by Derek2U
I use 455 factors in my system. Is that too many?

I'm looking to trim it down to a respectable 100 or so.

Any advice?

Don't cut out weight - it is the most important factor of all!
If you don't use weight, whatever would you subtract the speed rating from????
Geeez!

[BillW]

Originally posted by Derek2U
I use 455 factors in my system. Is that too many?

I'm looking to trim it down to a respectable 100 or so.

Any advice?


Have you tried Russian Roulette ... that would get you down to 6.

[Show Me the Wire]

Dere2U:

Are you funnin with us again? Everybody knows you should have at least 532 factors in your sysytem. With less you do not need a computer!!!!!

Regards,
Show Me the Wire