View Full Version : HSH 3 Is the New Coke Of Handicapping Software
I haven’t made a single post on PA in 2006 because writing is a painful process for me. My day gets completely shot because I get very anal about choice of words and sentence structure. Generally, the only time I put myself through the agony of writing is when staying silent makes me even more agitated. Like a loyal Coke drinker from 1985, I’m not happy about what has taken place with a product that means a lot to me.
Since September, I have been living my dream life. I have taken a leave (hopefully permanent) from teaching in order to be a full time horseplayer. I have no psycho boss, no incompetent employees, no annoying co-workers and no unreasonable customers. Most days I feel free as a bird but not this week. My cherished independence is under siege because I’m being forced to deal with the fact that I am very dependent on the developers of the software I use. If they go out of business or break something in their program, I’m faced with a lot of work and the greater likelihood of betting losses.
Fortunately, everybody is still in business, but there has been a change and it is not a positive one. Comparison tests indicate that on average, HSH 3 (known as H3) produces inferior numbers to HSH 2.
I loaded up 45,938 records generated by each program into a statistical program (about 5,400 races). I ran a multiple regression on 155 variables (using finish position as the independent variable) and got these results for Adjusted R Square: HSH2: .284; H3: .282. So the old program appears to be better at predicting order of finish, but is it better at spotting overlays?
I made place payoffs the independent variable and once again HSH 2 came out on top: .100 to .096. Now, 2 to 4 points might not seem like much but it can be. I have spent many weeks of my life being hell bent on improving my own program by a few R points only to reach a dead end with each path I took.
So, if H3 had “only” improved HSH2 by 4 points, I would have been enthusiastic about that accomplishment. However, I think it’s fair to say that I have a right to be disappointed by a decrease in performance.
I shared the results of these tests with the developer (Dave Schwartz) but he has been unwilling to do any more data fixing with H3 because his personal method has shown an improvement in winning percentage and ROI. This is not surprising because his focus was naturally on the factors and methods he employs most often and the good news about H3 is that there are a substantial number of dramatically improved variables like rACL, rCond, rDays, rFT103 and rEarn.
However, if one is unfortunate enough to have been making extensive use of variables like rSt, rcES, rcClss, rPwr02, rcFrm2 and rcPrm3, he is going to get slaughtered at the betting windows.
These numbers aren’t off by just a few R points; they are typically 50 points worse. To demonstrate what this can mean in practical terms, I compared the Odds Line Handicapping feature in both HSH 2 and H3. I looked at the first 100 (in alphabetical order - Aqu 1 thru OP 3) winners from March 3rd that were not tied in Pct. (Estimated percentage of winning). HSH 2 gave the average winner a 16.04% chance of winning, H3 came in at 13.30%. HSH 2 came up with a higher winning estimate in 71% of the cases. The H3 odds line is truly a case of Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Now, I know that Dave could come back with approaches that work better in H3 and I could continue to provide further examples of methods that have declined in effectiveness. There are so many ways of using HSH that this dialogue would go on for a long time. It would be completely unrealistic to expect all aspects of the program be dramatically improved. However, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect and request that the numbers found in the current version be at least on par with its predecessor.
Dave is concerned that his customers won’t tolerate more adjusting of the variables but I’ve expressed a belief that we would be very supportive of numbers “under construction” as long as we were kept informed of the progress. A user guide similar to the master bug list could be posted on the web site indicating whether a variable was stronger in HSH 2 or H3. When the day finally comes that H3 truly has better data across the board, we’ll be able to let HSH 2 rest in peace and we can all take comfort in the fact that H3 has a strong foundation on which Dave’s exciting new features can be added.
So my unsolicited advice to current HSH users is to speak up about the importance of good numbers. It would be hard to overstate how essential they are for successful handicapping. We use an excellent product but we shouldn’t have to flip back and forth between two versions to make full use of what we have. Before HSH 2 gets consigned to the scrap heap we need to make sure that the new version contains all of its strengths.
For those who don’t own HSH, despite my current frustration, I still strongly recommend buying the program. Just make sure that you get access to the “Classic” version because like New Coke, H3 might leave you with a bit of a bad taste in your mouth.
Dave Schwartz
03-04-2006, 07:53 PM
LOL - This is just great.
A guy who made $100k+ with HSH last year bad mouths the software because the new version doesn't fit well into what he does.
A classic example of someone who believes they are the center of the universe.
His tests have shown a step backwards... my tests have seen my multi-horse win pct go from 78% to 84%, and the ROI (after substantial rebate) go from 3.5% to almost 8%; not insignificant changes.
Understand that Rook does not actually use HSH, he just uses the exported numbers and does his own handicapping.
Ironically, the great majority of the changes made in the software were because of his demands and now that they have not worked out so well for him he wants to attack.
Sorry everyone had to see this but such is life.
Now if I can just get a few more of the $100k+ players to come forward and complain, perhaps I can drum up some business. <G>
Regards to all,
Dave Schwartz
lsbets
03-04-2006, 08:54 PM
Wow - my first thought is, why isn't this on the HSH board?
My second thought is, I love H3, and have found it to be a huge improvement from HSH, at least in the ways that I use the program. I can't really comment on how Rook uses it, but for me, it has been a huge improvement. How huge? Well, I have finally reached the level of consistency that I felt like I needed to commit to the weekly handle neccesary to open an account at one of the major parimutuel rebate shops.
To me though the thing about this thread is not a pissing contest about who is doing better and who is not with HSH vs. H3. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth since the appropriate forum to address HSH users would have been the HSH board. And what really puzzles me is since both programs work with the same data, and anyone can continue to use HSH who wants to, what is the problem? Just keep using HSH. If I were Dave, I would probably refund to Rook the fee paid for the HSH license and let HDW know he was know longer an authorized user of the program. But, I'm not Dave, and I don't know if he feels this thread was as uncool as I do.
”A guy who made $100k+ with HSH last year”
To be precise, in 18 months, I have made $260k using a combination of HSH, HTR, PaceFigures and Formulator. I’ll give your program the most credit because I have been using it the longest.
“bad mouths the software”
I stated that people should buy it. That’s the highest endorsement I can make. I’m sorry that you go ballistic over criticism, even if it is justified by the facts.
“because the new version doesn't fit well into what he does.”
The new version won’t fit in with what a lot of people will do because there are many dozens of factors that don’t predict finish position or payoffs as well as in the past. I have run the tests and shown you the results. Would you be willing to let a third party PA member run similar tests to prove these claims?
”A classic example of someone who believes they are the center of the universe.”
I agree that I am an arrogant son of a bitch, especially when it comes to handicapping. It is a character flaw and I am working on it. However, I did say an awful lot of nice things about your product in my review and I did say I was dependent on you, so you are with me in the center.
”His tests have shown a step backwards... my tests have seen my multi-horse win pct go from 78% to 84%, and the ROI (after substantial rebate) go from 3.5% to almost 8%; not insignificant changes.”
I’ve already acknowledged that you have found something that works for you. If you care to, go ahead and explain the reproducible methods so that people can take advantage of the new improvements.
However, to deny that some things aren’t broken in the new version is being less than honest. The proof is very straight forward. Hit the Pct. Button. Yesterday, HSH 2 beat H3 71 to 29. Would you like to make a wager that tomorrow’s winners (Using your Pct button) will be more accurately predicted by H3 rather than HSH 2? To be sporting, I’ll give you 10 to 1 odds.
”Ironically, the great majority of the changes made in the software were because of his demands”
It’s true that I’ve been a very demanding customer and have gotten under your skin on several occasions. But did you ever think that maybe there is a correlation between being a perfectionist and being successful? I guarantee that all I’ve suggested has been well thought out and with the best intentions for HSH.
“now that they have not worked out so well for him he wants to attack.”
First of all, I’m hardly attacking. Compared to your nasty response, I have praised you to high heavens.
Secondly, things have not worked out badly for me. I have not bet a single dime with H3 because my tests indicate that on the whole it is inferior to HSH 2. I’m just very frustrated that you won’t fix what’s obviously broken.
”Sorry everyone had to see this but such is life.”
Your customers have a right to know about what works and what doesn’t in your program. People don’t bet with Monopoly money. They can get really hurt with bad info. If anyone actually uses your H3 odds line, they would be on their way to the poor house. If you know it doesn’t work, you should get it fixed or take it out of your program.
”Now if I can just get a few more of the $100k+ players to come forward and complain, perhaps I can drum up some business.”
I think you do deserve more business. I also think you should fix the dozens of weakened variables in your new program before adding any more bells and whistles. I also think that you should be less thin skinned when someone brings out suggestions for improvement. My self interest is not in embarrassing you, it is to get this program in the best possible shape. Pretending that things are perfect is not the recipe for success.
lsbets
03-04-2006, 09:07 PM
Rook - why didn't you bring this up on the HSH board?
"Wow - my first thought is, why isn't this on the HSH board?"
Good question and the answer to that is 3 fold:
1) The HSH board is not a place open to the frank discussion of the program. If you say things that Dave doesn't like, he will airbrush you out of the history of the forum. If you want proof, try to look up anything about last year's aborted HSH 3. I wrote about half a book's worth of stuff that has completely disappeared. Have you also wondered whatever happened to NcCurveball? I hold out more hope that an open discussion will take place on this board.
2) I got so tired of squabbling with Dave that I promised that I would never post on his board again. I am not going to break that promise. It was with great reluctance that I posted here as I tried to keep these problems between the two of us but my private emails to Dave were either ignored or met with rude dismissal.
3) I'm sure that people who don't own HSH are curious about the program and want to know more about it. This should stimulate some interest and I'll say it again: HSH is worth buying.
"My second thought is, I love H3, and have found it to be a huge improvement from HSH, at least in the ways that I use the program. "
I would be interested in hearing about what works better for you . I'm not shocked that it is better for some because I know that there are a lot of numbers that have improved.
"To me though the thing about this thread is not a pissing contest about who is doing better and who is not with HSH vs. H3. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth"
I agree. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth too. That's why I no longer post on the HSH board and rarely on PA. I really don't go looking for trouble but when I believe in something I do speak out. I truly tried to get this resolved privately but my efforts were in vain.
"And what really puzzles me is since both programs work with the same data, and anyone can continue to use HSH who wants to, what is the problem? Just keep using HSH."
If I had a guarantee that HSH would be available for years to come, then I would be more relaxed but it would still be irritating switching back and forth which I would do because I do recognize there is value in H3.
"If I were Dave, I would probably refund to Rook the fee paid for the HSH license and let HDW know he was know longer an authorized user of the program. But, I'm not Dave, and I don't know if he feels this thread was as uncool as I do."
I knew I was taking a chance when I posted here because Dave is infinitely more well known than I am on PA and he has a lot of ardent supporters who don't like to see him criticized.
However, when Dave went 2 days without responding to my questions in an email, I was left with 2 choices. Drop the issue and let H3 stay broken? (which I have good reason to believe it is) or Bring some pressure on him from other customers to get it fixed?
I choose the 2nd option because I have a burning desire to get things done right. It is a primary reason why I am able to bet full time.
It's pretty clear that Dave is mad as hell at me and I hope when some others chip in they can calm him down and make him realize that although I am a poor diplomat my intentions really are for the good of the program. If you or others do the Pct. test or run regression or correlation tests on 100+ variables, you will see that I do have more than 1 leg to stand on.
PatriotFan
03-04-2006, 09:53 PM
Why don't you take some of that loot and pay him to make your personal version. It's what I've done in the past with HSH 2.3. His rate is reasonable.
Why don't you take some of that loot and pay him to make your personal version. It's what I've done in the past with HSH 2.3. His rate is reasonable.
Great idea. If Dave is up for that and can pull it off, I am very willing to do that. Basically, since I only use the data for my own program, what I want is pretty straight forward. I want the superior numbers from HSH 2 combined with the fixed numbers in H3. I would think that everybody else would want the same thing but if others are happy with the status quo, I have no interest in ramming it down their throats.
JustRalph
03-04-2006, 10:22 PM
you can't continue to use the older version? Interesting.....260k in 18months....? Wow! I wouldn't have time to bitch.......I would be fishing or cruising around on my boat.........Rook.......it's an embarrassment of riches........
you can't continue to use the older version? Interesting.....260k in 18months....? Wow! I wouldn't have time to bitch.......I would be fishing or cruising around on my boat.........Rook.......it's an embarrassment of riches........
It would be an embarrassment of riches if I hadn't had lots of expenses (travel and supporting my wife's family) and/or invested my money properly over the years. Sadly, 18 months ago, my bank account was less than $1,000 and I've been paying rent so I essentially had no net income. My Pinnacle account was funded by a $5,000 credit card loan. My wife had every reason to think I was a maniac when I said I could make it betting horses but she trusted me and that's why she's the best.
So, $260k will get me a house but not long to live off of if the horse racing starts to falter. I'm not home free yet but I am very proud at what I've accomplished. Once I get my house and have enough money to leave teaching for several years, I'll start to relax. But right now, I still feel tons of pressure to avoid having to go back to the classroom in September.
I know it sounds ridiculous to even consider going back next year but both of my parents are conservative retired teachers and no matter how old you get, you still hear their voices in your head. I have not convinced them that I have made enough money in my new "career" to safely cut the safety net.
Light
03-04-2006, 10:52 PM
Sadly, 18 months ago, my bank account was less than $1,000 and I've been paying rent so I essentially had no net income. My Pinnacle account was funded by a $5,000 credit card loan.
If you were in this poor of a financial state,how did you figure you would suddenly be a an instant handicapping success since obviously up to this point,you weren't or you would't be borrowing money.
If you were in this poor of a financial state,how did you figure you would suddenly be a an instant handicapping success since obviously up to this point,you weren't or you would't be borrowing money.
I was no "instant" success. I've gone into more detail about this in a previous posting but I will summarize it here. The reason why I was confident in my abilities was that I had quite a lot of experience handicapping. I secretly dropped out of university in my third year to study handicapping and I spent every summer from '88 thru '95 at Fort Erie or Woodbine. During that last summer, I truly got over the hump and made $90k in June. However, July was so bad that my bankroll was reduced to $35k before I quit.
It was such a stressful experience that I decided I was going to do other things with my life. So over the next decade I spent almost all of my summers travelling in Asia. This is where I met my wife back in 2001.
When I found out my wife was pregnant 20 months ago, it really jolted me into making money a priority. I immediately turned back to racing because I knew that if I could make a fair bit of money betting on only 2 tracks with no rebate (the pre internet days), I should be able to make a lot of money getting a rebate and having lots of tracks to choose from. Happily, that theory has so far been correct.
My particular impression of DS and his players is that that you'd hard pressed to find a group of guys more passionate about horse gambling.
Their goal is winning to the point that its no fun. Then again, money you don't earn is pretty godamn fun.
I don't think you can do wrong by sticking with Schwartz
SUFF
Vegas711
03-05-2006, 01:51 AM
Rook
You sound like a smart enough person, why not design your own program? There are plenty of people who can put your ideas into code.
What type of betting did you do inorder to make that kind of money?
PaceAdvantage
03-05-2006, 01:53 AM
He's a superfecta player last time I heard....
Dave Schwartz
03-05-2006, 01:55 AM
I am going to try to make this my last post on the subject.
In HSH we have lots of factors - hundreds of them. (Actually, several thousand, but what is the point, really?)
Among those factors are what we call the "Composite Factors," of which there are about 2 dozen or so. Of these, we have a bunch of important ones.
How important are these composites? Well, in H3 they are so improved that they are all I use to make a solid line in every race. Now, the factors I use in each race (I use exactly 4 per race) and their weights will differ from one race to the next but it is this list of factors from which I draw my 4 factors.
Here is an analysis I did of these composites: http://www.horsestreet.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/001376.html
If anyone is interested in just the tables themselves:
http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/H3test.txt
http://www.horsestreet.com/BBSImages/H2test.txt
If one takes the time to look at these factors they will see that hands down H3 is superior to H2.
So, why does Rook think that they are inferior?
After all, he is not a stupid man. He may be highly irritating, abrasive and demanding but he is not stupid.
Well, for starters, he emphasizes the performance of each ranking, all the way down. One of his big arguments was that the ranks stop at 9 in our system. That is, horses beyond 8th are all tied for 9th.
That is because I do not believe that I want to give an edge to a horse that is 11th over a horse that ranks 12th. Please.
Nevertheless, it works for him and I salute him for that.
In addition, Rook uses everything but the kitchen sink in his handicapping. Are there factors that have weakened? Perhaps. Probably, even.
Frankly, I don't care. When you can get a major factor to jump from 22% winners to over 26% winners with no loss in $net I get excited. When you tell me that the "start rating" (i.e. how they break) is now weaker, I simply do not care.
As for ignoring his emails, I believe I used the phrase, "Beating a dead horse" no fewer than 5 times in the 3 emails before I began ignoring him.
And, make no mistake. I am really trying to ignore him here, but it is tough.
BTW, one reason Mr. Rookley did not post this on the HorseStreet BBS is that his posting rights were removed a long time ago for one-to-many similar outbursts.
Once again, I apologize to the PA and the members of this board for you having to be exposed to this... unpleasant drama. I usually try to avoid participating in this sort of thing and will try to allow Mr. Rookley to get the last word.
Regards to all,
Dave Schwartz
Rook
You sound like a smart enough person, why not design your own program? There are plenty of people who can put your ideas into code.
What type of betting did you do inorder to make that kind of money?
I have designed my own program and I use the HSH export as one of the building blocks.
Yeah, PA is correct, I am a superholic, although I've finally got my ass in gear and started to show a profit in Win & Place too.
Dave Schwartz
03-05-2006, 01:59 AM
PS: Since everyone had to endure so much of this, please enjoy these racetrack images courtesy of Google.
http://horsestreet.com/package/Backgrounds/
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
PA - Google's license agreement with the pay-for version of Google Earth (which I have - I seem to buy everything these days) says that they may be made available on a website.
He's a superfecta player last time I heard....
And you put your ear to the rail for this info?
I resent anyone that knows more than me. Zo WHO told you he plays SUPA"s
PaceAdvantage
03-05-2006, 03:36 AM
Anyone who has paid any attention to Rook's prior posts on this board would know he is a self-proclaimed superfecta player....
”If one takes the time to look at these factors they will see that hands down H3 is superior to H2.”
And if one takes a broader sampling of 100+ factors, they will likely see that H2 is superior to H3. Shouldn’t it be the goal to have H3 superior in both cases?
”Well, for starters, he emphasizes the performance of each ranking, all the way down. One of his big arguments was that the ranks stop at 9 in our system. That is, horses beyond 8th are all tied for 9th.”
”That is because I do not believe that I want to give an edge to a horse that is 11th over a horse that ranks 12th. Please.”
As a super player, I need to know the difference between the 9th best horse and the 12th best horse. The former has a decent chance of making it into the 4th leg of my ticket. The 12th best never does because there is a significant difference between the two groups.
I’ve given up bringing up this issue with you because I know it is a lost cause. However, I was certainly hoping that reporting to you that dozens of factors aren’t working properly would be something you would be interested in fixing. I was wrong and that still astonishes me.
”Are there factors that have weakened? Perhaps. Probably, even.”
Why do you use words like Perhaps when you know damn well that Certainly is the correct term? I sent you the SPSS (stastistical software) exports. They showed a huge percentage of factors were weaker and as a whole H3 was inferior to HSH 2. If you didn’t believe those numbers, why didn’t you run your own test? Is data integrity that unimportant to you?
And let’s be honest about how many factors have been crippled. It is more than a handful. It is several dozen.
Once again I ask: are you willing to have a 3rd party do a comparison test of the 2 versions? I’ll bend over backwards and take all sorts of abuse from the crowd if I screwed up with my assessment but if the 3rd party verifies the problems will you issue an apology for sweeping my concerns under the rug?
How come you haven’t answered my question about the Percentage lines available in HSH/H3? Do you now acknowledge that HSH 2 is vastly superior in this area? Or do you want to take me up on my offer of 5 to 1 odds on tomorrow’s races?
”When you can get a major factor to jump from 22% winners to over 26% winners with no loss in $net I get excited.”
I get excited by things like that too. Go back through our emails and count the number of times when I confirmed that various numbers were better and labeled that as good news.
However, the difference between us is that you stopped your data optimizing when you had around 48% of the numbers better. The 52% that were weaker didn’t matter to you because you weren’t going to use them anyway but as a software developer you need to think about all of your users.
I posted the results of your Percentage Lines because they show that a prominent aspect of your own program uses variables that have significantly deteriorated. How many features in your program have been negatively affected like this? I don’t know. I only tested 2 (The Line and the Export) and they both were. It would take a lot of testing to find out, but one thing is for sure, if the variables across the board are at least as good as HSH 2, then no aspects of your program will be broken and every single customer would be well served.
I’m not asking for H3 to have 100% of the variables show better performance. That would take a lifetime of research and development. But I am asking that the truly broken numbers get restored close to their original predictive value. Once H3 beats HSH in predicting finish position and mutual payoffs using a wide spectrum of variables, you will have truly done an outstanding job.
“When you tell me that the "start rating" (i.e. how they break) is now weaker, I simply do not care.”
That’s rather short sighted of you. I’ve found that factor to be of considerable value in certain situations. Throwing a decent factor in the trash bin is never a good idea. You never know when it’s going to be the one that brings success at a particular distance or type of race.
”As for ignoring his emails, I believe I used the phrase, "Beating a dead horse" no fewer than 5 times in the 3 emails before I began ignoring him.”
You actually used that phrase twice but I guess that’s within your margin of error.
”And, make no mistake. I am really trying to ignore him here, but it is tough.”
You are trying to ignore one of your most dedicated and methodical customers who stays up for 2 nights to run comparison tests and reports back to you with very troublesome findings. That makes a lot of sense from a quality control standpoint. It reminds me of how Hitler would only give an audience to generals who presented good news.
”BTW, one reason Mr. Rookley did not post this on the HorseStreet BBS is that his posting rights were removed a long time ago for one-to-many similar outbursts.”
That’s interesting. You never informed me that my posting rights were removed. I just found out tonight when you announced to your board at 7:55 PM PST. Is 5 hours a long time ago? Anyways, you needn’t have worried about me posting there because I am a man of my word and when I said I was not going to post there again, I meant it.
Besides, what is the point when you act like Stalin and purge all traces of dissent? Pace Advantage is a far better place to have a conversation because it is open to the public. Democracies actually believe that freedom of speech brings about progress. The North Koreans think differently. Which camp do you subscribe to?
On several occasions, you have character assassinated me as a trouble maker that is impossible to please but I am also a customer of HTR and PaceFigures. Ask Ken or CJ if I have ever bitched or complained about a single thing with them.
It’s obvious that we both have clashing personalities despite us both making an effort to get along at times over the last year and a half. You seem to think that my major goal in life is to make you miserable when in fact it will always be to provide the necessities and luxuries in life for my family. I know I am relentless and abrasive while working towards that goal and for that I apologize. However, if you are able to overlook our differences for a minute, you will clearly see that I want what you want: A better H3 that provides a steady source of income.
PaceAdvantage
03-05-2006, 04:14 AM
If I didn't know any better, I would swear this is some cleverly designed ruse meant to skirt the now more strictly enforced "no unauthorized advertising" rule of this website....for as you may know, I am now accepting and running paid advertisements.
However, I know Dave, and I know of Rook, thus I also know my theory is incorrect, although the timing is certainly right, as there appears to be a new version of HSH on the horizon (is it out already?)
In any event, carry on boyz....I for one find this all mildly entertaining in a perverse sort of way, at Dave's expense of course....
And if you're ever in the market for an ad, please think of me first! LOL
hurrikane
03-05-2006, 04:51 AM
Unless Dave changed the data downloads why don't you just use the old program.
Of course you could pay Dave to program the software the way you want it. People pay Ken Massa to program special versions of HTR all the time.
Why in the world would you think anyone up here would give a f**k about your problems with HSH. Are you trying to pressure Dave into doing things your way by posting up here. Don't think that will work..duh.
I feel for you Dave. Been there many times. Anyone thinking they want to have their own company, be their own boss, just so they don't have to put up with jerk bosses. Believe me there are not bigger jerks than customers.
If I didn't know any better, I would swear this is some cleverly designed ruse meant to skirt the now more strictly enforced "no unauthorized advertising" rule of this website....
Boy, talk about getting it from both sides!:eek: Dave thinks I'm trying to destroy his business and you think I'm a corporate shill!
I also know my theory is incorrect, although the timing is certainly right, as there appears to be a new version of HSH on the horizon (is it out already?)....
It's out and about. As you can see, I wasn't one of the beta testers:cool:
Topcat
03-05-2006, 05:01 AM
Funny Rook would use New Coke/Old Coke as an analogy.
I had a boss in the food business who was convinced Coke brought out New Coke just waiting to bring back regular Coke. He was sure they did it all for the unpaid advertising it brought them. Market shares would lend some credence to it. At the time they were losing share of shelf to Pepsi and after New Coke and bringing back regular Coke their shares were up.
On HSH and H3.
I'm still using HSH but for different reasons then Rook.
IMHO:
Rook is obviously passionate- as is Dave.
Rook is to be congratulated not only for winning $260k but doing it on a shoe string budget under pressure-that is just as amazing. Congrats!-talk about Mr Clutch!
With a baby on the way and thinking of buying a house he should be execused for being a little stressed.-But with regular HSH out there still and not going away, (HDW data should be the bigger concern) and being up $260K maybe a little decaf might be in order.
Unless Dave changed the data downloads why don't you just use the old program.
I am using the old program but I also see the value in the new one too. Call me greedy. I want the best of both worlds. I can easily program something that merges the output of the 2 programs together but time is the problem. Keeping up with the maintenance of a 2nd HSH generated database would conservatively add about 6 hours a week to my workload.
Why in the world would you think anyone up here would give a f**k about your problems with HSH.
Well, as Dave put it, I think I'm the centre of the universe so of course it's interesting:cool:
Are you trying to pressure Dave into doing things your way by posting up here. Don't think that will work..duh.
Of course, that's what I'm trying to do. Even though the horse is apparently dead, I'm still beating it because I know just how valuable the numbers are that are being tossed aside. I knew that confronting Dave in a place where he is an icon would be a very stressful experience but people will go to all kinds of lengths to save time and earn money.
Rook is to be congratulated not only for winning $260k but doing it on a shoe string budget under pressure-that is just as amazing. Congrats!-talk about Mr Clutch!
Thanks Topcat. Those are kind words. BTW, the baby arrived 14 months ago. She is more than I every dreamed of. Now that I see it's 5:27 AM, I'm might start taking your advice about the decaf.:D
Dick Schmidt
03-05-2006, 05:59 AM
It's reading posts like this that brings home exactly why I got out of the racing business, if not racing betting. Rook, do you have any idea how petty you sound or what dealing with real software out in the real world is like? Try dropping a line to Microsoft telling them there are bugs in Windows and to please get busy and fix them or you'll stamp your little feet and hold your breath until you turn blue. See what response you get. The only possible reason you could have for posting this here is to hurt Dave enough to get him to do what you want, and the hell with anything or anyone else.
Dave is running a business here; he's not some part timer who does a little software on the side. You "demand" that he essentially shut down his business for a few months to fix a problem in the software that only you have noticed. Dave has kids in college, a mortgage and the usual assortment of bills to pay, but he should shut down and fix a problem that doesn't matter, or even exist for the rest of his users. Center of the universe indeed, especially since you know that you could cobble together a work around and get the benefit of the new and the accuracy of the old. You don't want an extra 6 hours a week, but it's OK to ask Dave to shut down without pay.
You should also realize that you're lucky to be dealing with someone who has some patience. If it were me, I'd have bounced you five minutes after reading this post. I've tossed guys out of seminars for a lot less.
Dick
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
hurrikane
03-05-2006, 06:16 AM
Dick,
I love the trailer man!!!!!!!! :lol:
GaryG
03-05-2006, 06:29 AM
Dick,
I love the trailer man!!!!!!!! :lol:I keep forgetting it until it is too late....:bang:
Rook, do you have any idea how petty you sound?
I’m sure I sound petty to one of Dave’s best friends but if you were a buddy of mine, you would know how important my betting is to me. It is my only source of income. I don’t have book and software royalties coming in. Worrying about your only source of income is not petty, it’s good sense. Especially when it involves something as risky as betting on horses. I know full well that I have to constantly improve in order to maintain my edge with the public. I can’t afford to have an odds line that is worse than last year.
or what dealing with real software out in the real world is like? Try dropping a line to Microsoft ...
I totally agree. Their contempt for their customers makes them one of the most hated companies in the world.
Dave has promised to be different from them: Here is what he stated last year:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From this point on, our prime goal will be -
Client Retention
First, we are going to change the way we treat customers, both new and old. In the past we have simply not paid enough attention to "customer retention."
Sure, I am quick on the tech support and blazing fast on critical bug fixes, but I believe we have many current and past (read that as "no longer downloading") users that simply walked away from HSH because they did not get enough help from me.
So, the first thing we will do is change that.
Well, he sure didn’t change that with regard to me. I don’t hold Dave to the crappy standards of Microsoft, I hold him up to the honorably high standards he set for himself.
You "demand" that he essentially shut down his business for a few months to fix a problem in the software that only you have noticed. ...
Who knows how many people have noticed? Dave does not exactly operate an open book policy regarding problems. He prefers to deal through email or at the most a “Picks” section which rarely has anything to do with picks but instead is where problems are brought and are only seen by “approved” customers. My troubles with Dave started on the day that I posted a serious bug in the HSH Tech Support section. Within minutes, I received a phone call (well past midnight, waking up my wife and child) from Dave berating me that I had revealed a problem that could be seen by the general public rather than posting it in the Picks section or sending him an email. Bad me for thinking Tech Support was for bugs.
However, even if I was the only one who has noticed the data problems it does not surprise me because my area of HSH expertise is quite different from most users. What does the typical car buyer notice first: a rip in the upholstery or a flaw in the engine? When I got my hands on H3, my first order of business was to export 2 months worth of data and load it into SPSS. I think I can safely say I was the first one to do that.
Right from the very first day I bought HSH, I told Dave that I was only going to use the program for export purposes. This was not a slight against him; it’s just that in the area of handicapping, I will always trust my own abilities more than having blind faith in another individual. I know that Dave works hard to improve his product but mistakes get made. I take it upon myself to spot those mistakes and either bring them to Dave’s attention and/or develop workarounds. Last year, I added PaceFigures and HTR to my arsenal because they helped me overcome some shortcomings in HSH.
If there were substantially more than 100 or so people using his software and if more of his customers took it upon themselves to find data problems, he would be inundated with complaints. People have put their trust in Dave that his product is well tested. Most of the time they are well served by that trust but not this time. In our email correspondence, I had this to say after Dave wrote that, “changing the numbers is a huge ordeal and my customer base would not tolerate it"
No doubt it would be a ton of work but it would solve the problem of garbage in, garbage out. Your customer base would be extremely supportive if they saw a list of factors each week that had been improved. People just want to know that you have the highest standards and that the product is getting better with each passing month. Right now, many of your customers would be pretty disappointed if they knew that several dozen factors had deteriorated from HSH to H3 and you didn't spend an iota of time correcting the problem.
Imagine how a guy would feel if he had lost a ton of money in March and then discovered that if he had stuck with HSH, he would have been better off. He'd have every right to be pissed off at you if he was given no warning that many new numbers were unreliable. If however, you posted a list of factors that were still "under construction" you would be doing the honourable thing in giving people a heads up and steering them in the right direction.
You don't want an extra 6 hours a week, but it's OK to ask Dave to shut down without pay.
What are you talking about? Dave gets plenty of pay from multiple income streams. He gets it from program licenses, monthly downloads, purchases of his pars, maintenance fees, and a percentage of the wagers from the rebate shop he is connected to. He essential gets the same pay whether he’s improving the data integrity of H3 or building a new widget to be attached to the program down the road. In each case he is upgrading his product to stay competitive in the marketplace.
I’m not asking Dave to do anything that is against his self interest. When Dave improves his product, people like me make more money, so that I can bet more at his rebate shop and he gets a bigger commission. I wouldn’t be the slightest bit surprised that Dave’s personal betting would also improve dramatically when he incorporates some of the factors that he currently thinks are worthless.
I have spent virtually every day of the last year and half working with HSH data. I’m pretty confident that I have a solid grasp of what is currently going on under the HSH hood. Just like BMW would be wise to consult with their engineers when working on a new model, Dave would not be wasting his time seriously considering what I have to say.
If you think I am just a crank, pestering Dave with petty complaints, here is my challenge to both of you: I would be more than happy to submit to a third party my homemade odds line for each race at every track and go up against what you and Dave derive from H3. If after a full week, your odds lines have a higher win percentage and ROI, I will forever hail you two as superiors unworthy of my criticism. Dave will never hear a peep of complaint from me again.
If on the other hand, I have the better odds line, you two will acknowledge that I know what I’m talking about and that Dave would be wise to open his mind to my suggestions. What could be more fair and productive than that?
Old Timer
03-05-2006, 10:06 AM
Those priceless words from the Surely Member should be the epitaph on the tombstone of this thread!
Old Timer
Dick doesn't mince words....he minces people with words! :D
shanta
03-05-2006, 12:54 PM
I saw the thread name and it kicked my sh*t up. Memories of the old party days running wild. :ThmbDown:
Rich
formula_2002
03-05-2006, 02:24 PM
Rook,
Regarding your first post. Is all that analysis for the win pool plays only?
Thanks
Joe M
Rook,
Regarding your first post. Is all that analysis for the win pool plays only?
Thanks
Joe M
Joe, the 5,400 race regression test was on the Place payoffs only. The 100 race Odds Line Test compared the predicted win percentage for the actual winner of each race.
formula_2002
03-05-2006, 03:08 PM
Rook,
"I loaded up 45,938 records generated by each program into a statistical program (about 5,400 races). I ran a multiple regression on 155 variables (using finish position as the independent variable) and got these results for Adjusted R Square: HSH2: .284; H3: .282. So the old program appears to be better at predicting order of finish, but is it better at spotting overlays?"
For the win pool odds only, could you sum
1/(odds+1) for hsh2 and then again for h3;
and finally what were the actual number of winners for each (hsh2 and h3).
I'd just like to put your results into my frame of reference.
Thanks again.
PS, I have no idea what "hsh2" and "h3" mean, but the results I request may help indicate their value.
Rook,
For the win pool odds only, could you sum
1/(odds+1) for hsh2 and then again for h3;
and finally what were the actual number of winners for each (hsh2 and h3).
I'd just like to put your results into my frame of reference.
Thanks again.
PS, I have no idea what "hsh2" and "h3" mean, but the results I request may help indicate their value.
If you are talking about the regression study, here are the numbers:
HSH 2 Model Summary
Model
R .872(a)
R Square .760
Adjusted R Square 759
Std. Error of the Estimate .06321
H3 Model Summary
Model
R .871(a)
R Square .758
Adjusted R Square .757
Std. Error of the Estimate .06354
I'm not sure what you mean by actual winners for each. HSH does not have a field for overall rank and I did not try to create one for this study. Each of these tests was conducted with an identical sample which contained 5208 winning horses.
HSH 2 is the abbreviation for HorseStreet Handicapper 2. H3 is the just released new version. Hope this helped.
formula_2002
03-05-2006, 04:30 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by actual winners for each. HSH does not have a field for overall rank and I did not try to create one for this study. Each of these tests was conducted with an identical sample which contained 5208 winning horses.
Ah..well if you can rank the HR odds line and determine it's roi you may find it telling.
Ofcourse if you study the top ranked roi across incremental odds lines, it would be more telling.
My gut feeling is you will find no statistical difference between the "old" and the "new" Hr's.
If, this is not in the direction of your interest, that ok!
Thanks
Joe M.
Ah..well if you can rank the HR odds line and determine it's roi you may find it telling.
I can't rank the HR odds line because neither the line or the estimated percentage are part of the export. Only the variables that make up those numbers are part of the export and only Dave knows which of these variables are used to caluclate these percentages. (It's obviously not all of them).
I was able to do the Odds Line comparison study, only by tediously clicking the Ptg. button 100 times for each program and manually typing the results into Excel. This is not an activity that I recommend for mental stimulation.:sleeping:
I agree that the regression differences between the 2 collections of variables are minor but the differences in the 2 odds lines are quite significant. Go ahead and start tossing a coin and get back to us when you get heads or tails 71 times out of 100.
tahoesid
03-06-2006, 01:59 AM
Seems to me that someone who buys a program and goes to great lengths to analyze it and comes up with some inconsistensies that affect his playing isn't being petty. If he was complaining that he didn't like the font of a new screen or the way some report looked, that would be petty.
Whether or not it makes a difference in other people's playing ability is not going to be relevant to him.. More than likely most people aren't going to analyze the outcome as much since they are paying someone for a program to use, and are not going to over analyze how much of a change there is...if it works they are happy.
Seemed more to me like constructive criticism on just a few points and less like trying to just knock the program itself since he indeed pays for it, uses it and finds it an important part of his tools.
That said, depending on someone else for your numbers in this game is always a risky business.
formula_2002
03-06-2006, 07:04 AM
Rook
Go ahead and start tossing a coin and get back to us when you get heads or tails 71 times out of 100.
If I understand my "numbers" there is a 5% probability of getting 60 heads or tails and a 1% probability of getting 63.
71 may be reaching a little bit ;)
Seems to me that someone who buys a program and goes to great lengths to analyze it and comes up with some inconsistensies that affect his playing isn't being petty. If he was complaining that he didn't like the font of a new screen or the way some report looked, that would be petty.
Whether or not it makes a difference in other people's playing ability is not going to be relevant to him.. More than likely most people aren't going to analyze the outcome as much since they are paying someone for a program to use, and are not going to over analyze how much of a change there is...if it works they are happy.
Seemed more to me like constructive criticism on just a few points and less like trying to just knock the program itself since he indeed pays for it, uses it and finds it an important part of his tools.
Thanks tahoesid,
It is comforting to know that somebody can put themselves in my shoes and understand why I'm upset by what's taken place. I know because of the money I've made that I'm not the most sympathetic PA member. I can understand why some people have told me to just enjoy the money and quit complaining.
However, as hard as it might be to believe, I don't take it for granted that I'm going to continue to rake in the bucks. I've been around the block enough times to know that systems can come crashing down. On July 1st, 1995, I was thoroughly convinced that I was set for life. I was winning about 70% of the time I went to the track and the daily profits far exceeded the amounts I lost on the bad days. With $30k in my pocket and another $60k in the bank, I felt perfectly comfortable cranking my bets up to $1,000 a race but then I went through the pure agony of losing day after day (I think the exact number was 22 days out of 25).
The experience was so traumatic that I waited 9 years before resuming my horse betting career.
Even though I concede that I have an overinflated ego, I am still humble enough to know that my pari-mutual opponents are going to beat me some months and even in entire seasons. I can be certain that I had an edge in the past but predicting the future is never so reliable. My margin of safety is not so large that I can afford to be lazy. That's why I'm constantly thinking about ways of getting better and if I spot problems like I see in H3, I feel driven to raise the red flag.
Rook,
If I understand my "numbers" there is a 5% probability of getting 60 heads or tails and a 1% probability of getting 63.
71 may be reaching a little bit ;)
So, you have no interest in betting on H3 at 5 to 1 odds? How about if I sweetened the pot and gave you 20 to 1? :cool:
formula_2002
03-06-2006, 08:42 AM
Trends, hot and cold streaks?
Probably they all are better defined by “variance”.
The range in which things can and do happen.
System gone bad? Probably was bad from the beginning, it’s just that one may have hit the system while it was on the positive side of the normal curve.
Incremental odds analysis, standard deviations. It’s done all the time, but seemingly.
never here!! I think it’s the only way to evaluate a system
Just my opion.
Joe M
Unlike the HSH board where only good news is tolerated and people who reveal ugly truths are airbrushed from history and not even allowed to read the news in the "Picks" section (where there hasn't been a pick since September), the PA forum is a place where actual facts can be found.
On Dave's Pravda, I read with interest his laughably biased defence of H3. He cherry picked 20 of his favorite factors and found that H3 beat HSH2 15 to 1 with 4 ties.
I decided to be a little more objective and grab ALL of the ranks from 1 to 175. (Data is from Jan 1st thru Feb 25th)
Here are the ones that are better in H3:
rEs, rCLstGd, rcBStGd, rACL, rBkCl, rCond, rDist6, rEarn, rWgt-, rDays, rDaysWR, rJkyTyp, rJkyRtg, rF101 thru rF113, rEP01 thru rEP13, rSC01 thru rSC13, rFT01 thru rFT13, rFW01 thru rFW13, rLP02 thru rLP13 (3 exceptions), rcFrm1, rcForm, rcLstRc, rcF1, rcEP, rcSC, rcFT, rcFW, rcF2, rcRtg, rcBFrm
Here are the ones that are worse in H3:
rSt, rCLst, rClass, rMRCT, rAPV, rWork30, rWork45, rWorkL1 thru rWorkL5, rPwr01 thru rPwr02, rSP01 thru rSP12 (3 exceptions), rLP08, rcES, rcFrm2 thru rcFrm4, rcClss, rcLvl, rcPw, rcSP, rcF3, rcF4, rcSR, rcFX, rcPrm2, rcPrm3, rcBCls
There are 23 variables where there was less than a 4 point difference in R.
Overall, H2 had an R of .520 and H3 was .518. If any HSH user would like to see the actual margin of difference for each variable, I would be happy to email them Excel file.
I would also be delighted if another user took the time to examine the variables beyond number 175 and reported back to us.
Despite my crankiness, the one thing that does excite me is that if we were able to get a program that merged the strengths of both verisons together, we would be in fantastic shape.
Trends, hot and cold streaks?
Probably they all are better defined by “variance”.
The range in which things can and do happen.
System gone bad? Probably was bad from the beginning, it’s just that one may have hit the system while it was on the positive side of the normal curve.
Joe M
Several months ago, I started a thread called Seasonally Streaky Betting. I am of the strong opinion that I have an approach that works very well in the spring and fall but for whatever reason, does not hold up in the summer and winter. Instead of trying to buck the pattern, in December, I researched instead of bet and this February I took the month the off to go on a tropical vacation.
Dave Schwartz
03-06-2006, 10:49 AM
I try, I really try...
And, before I bother to respond, let me say publicly, "Rook, you are beating a dead horse."
Rook has outlined the factors that he says are stronger or weaker.
First, I do not accept his statements as fact, not because he is prevaricating but because his approach is not what I believe in. Although I am not precisley sure what he is doing, I believe he is judging performance of the factors based upon smoothness of fit to a line through all the ranks.
This is simply not how the software was designed. It was designed to cluster the winners at the top.
Now, Mr. Rookley is certainly entitled to handicap anyway he wants but he is not entitled to decide how my software is designed to work.
But, given the above statement, let us take a look that the factors he says have improved versus those he says have not.
When you change the base numbers in a system it is possible (or even probable) that some factors which are effected by these numbers can get weaker.
As you glance through the lists, just note which list seems more important to you.
To me, it appears obvious that what has improved are the numbers which relate to speed and pace. That is exactly what I intended to do.
The weakening of the class numbers, ironically, was caused by public outcry from a handful of people to remove some of my proprietery calculations from some rather standard numbers.
Finally, some of the numbers in Rook's "better-in-H2" list are actually on my better in H3 list which I posted publicly. So, mine are better at getting the winners near the top but his are better at a smooth line.
In my opinion, and remember it is my opinion that matters most when it comes to my program, getting winners near the top of the rankings is more important than a smooth line.
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
Here are the ones that are better in H3:
rEs, rCLstGd, rcBStGd, rACL, rBkCl, rCond, rDist6, rEarn, rWgt-, rDays, rDaysWR, rJkyTyp, rJkyRtg, rF101 thru rF113, rEP01 thru rEP13, rSC01 thru rSC13, rFT01 thru rFT13, rFW01 thru rFW13, rLP02 thru rLP13 (3 exceptions), rcFrm1, rcForm, rcLstRc, rcF1, rcEP, rcSC, rcFT, rcFW, rcF2, rcRtg, rcBFrm
These are:
Raw Early Speed
Class of Last Good Race
Class of Best Good Race
Avg Competitive Level
Back Class
Condition
Distance Rating, Last 6 Races
Total Earnings
Rank by weight, low is better (which has not changed at all)
Days since last race (which has not changed)
Days since last race or work (which had bug fixed)
Jockey Standings Rank
Jockey Standings Rating
1st Fraction Rating (Last, BestLast2,BestLast3,BestLast4,Best2Last3,Best2Last 4,Best3Last4,AvgLast2,AvgLast3,AvgLast4)
Early Pace Rating (Same as 1st Fraction)
Stretch Call Rating (Same as 1st Fraction)
FinalTime Rating (Same as 1st Fraction)
Factor W Rating - (Same as 1st Fraction)
Late Pace Rating (Same as 1st Fraction)
Form-Last Race
Overall Form
Overall Last Race
Overall 1st Fraction
Overall Early Pace
Overall Stretch Call
Overall Final Time
Overall Factor W
Overall 2nd Fraction
Overall Rating
Best Form
Here are the ones that are worse in H3:
rSt, rCLst, rClass, rMRCT, rAPV, rWork30, rWork45, rWorkL1 thru rWorkL5, rPwr01 thru rPwr02, rSP01 thru rSP12 (3 exceptions), rLP08, rcES, rcFrm2 thru rcFrm4, rcClss, rcLvl, rcPw, rcSP, rcF3, rcF4, rcSR, rcFX, rcPrm2, rcPrm3, rcBCls
Start Rating - (a weak concept to begin with)
Last Race Class
Earnings-based class
Consistency Rating
Avg Purse Value (In H2 the factor is ranked backwards but Rook says this is better)
Best Work in last 30 days (has not changed at all)
Best Work in 45 days (has not changed at all)
Best Last Workout (has not changed at all)
Best of Last 2 Workouts (has not changed at all)
Best of Last 3 workouts (has not changed at all)
Best of Last 4 Workouts (has not changed at all)
Best of Last 5 workouts (has not changed at all)
Last Race Power Rating (Energy rating)
Best of Last 2 Power Ratings (Energy rating)
Sustained Pace (several)
Late Pace (avg of last 3)
Composite Early Speed
Form, 2nd race back
Form, 3rd race back
Form, 4th race back
Composite Class
Composite Level
Composite Power
Composite Sustained Pace
Composite 3rd Fraction
Composite 4th Fraction
Composite Stretch Run
Composite 1st+4th Fraction
Composite Prime2 best
Composite Prime3 best
Composite best Class Rating
Light
03-06-2006, 11:01 AM
With $30k in my pocket and another $60k in the bank, I felt perfectly comfortable cranking my bets up to $1,000 a race but then I went through the pure agony of losing day after day (I think the exact number was 22 days out of 25).
The experience was so traumatic that I waited 9 years before resuming my horse betting career.
So over 9 years ago you prospered in your craft. Were you using HSH at that time? If so, did you figure out the reason for the crash?
So over 9 years ago you prospered in your craft. Were you using HSH at that time? If so, did you figure out the reason for the crash?
1995 sure was a long time ago. Back then I manually studied the DRF and entered my assessments and projections into a 3 year old database. I made sure I never missed a race at FE or WO. Each card took about 6 hours to process. It was brutal work but I was in my 20's then and I had the energy and freedom to do what I wanted.
So, although I stopped handicapping on only the 2nd year that I finally showed a substantial profit (In '92 I bought a car thanks to the Greenwood meet), I was happy to let it go because with the massive amount of free time I now had, I started doing other things with my life.
As I stated in earlier posts, July has always been my Achilles Heel. I am an unbelievable 0 for 9 in that month. I would say that is the reason for the crash. In '95, I was already 0 for 7 and it is too bad that I was so arrogant to think that this time it would be different.
Light
03-06-2006, 11:30 AM
July has always been my Achilles Heel. I am an unbelievable 0 for 9 in that month. I would say that is the reason for the crash.
So you did not use HSH at that time which tells me your former and current prosperity is not so much due to HSH as your innate abilities. Would you agree?
I have a really hard time swallowing your reason for your crash.Unless you are possessed by a July jinx,I would think there is a more logical explanation to your crash is missing that costed you $55k. That's too expensive a lesson to lightly toss as a jinx.
So you did not use HSH at that time which tells me your former and current prosperity is not so much due to HSH as your innate abilities. Would you agree?
Absolutely. I believe I could win with a variety of approaches because I truly am a fanatic when it comes to handicapping. Today, I'm proud of the fact I followed my heart and dropped out of university to study handicapping but on the day that I broke the news to my parents (who had spent 8 months believing I was still in school), my mom said she thought she might have a heart attack and they insisted that I take a visit to a psychiatrist or else they would disown me.
When I made the decision to study the DRF instead of textbooks, I knew I would get a reaction similar to that but I still did it because there were so many burning questions I just had to know. It took 16 years before I was totally able to justify that choice.
I have a really hard time swallowing your reason for your crash.Unless you are possessed by a July jinx,I would think there is a more logical explanation to your crash is missing that costed you $55k. That's too expensive a lesson to lightly toss as a jinx.
If you go back to the Seasonally Streaky Betting thread, there is more detail about what I've gone through and there were several excellent theories proposed by various people.
The $55k lesson that I learned that summer was that there were easier ways of making money, so I took that $35k and put it into penny resource stocks on the VSE. Within a year, I had turned the $35k into $102k and with money flowing in like that, I took a leave from teaching.
My life on easy street didn't last too long though. The BRE-X scandal caused penny stocks to get completely nuked, and within 2 years after extensive travelling, I had blown the money in my portfolio. I resumed teaching for another 6 years until my success at the betting windows let me take a 2nd stab at early retirement.
So with that life story, you might have a better understanding of why I am a little edgy about history repeating itself. I have been on top of a mountain 2 times before only to come tumbling down. Hopefully, wisdom, maturity and being responsible for 2 other people will prevent that from happening again.
Light
03-06-2006, 12:24 PM
I haven't read the "seasonally streaky" thread,but regardless of what it says,don't you think you owe it to yourself to find out if there may be another explanation to the crash that you may be missing? What if the July jinx starts speading into other months?
Generally speaking, I think this is a major issue we all like to sweep under the rug. Whenever we take the monotonous,slightly depressing time of looking for the cause of our handicapping failures,not only does it help prevent history from reapeating,but usually uncovers new territory and takes our game to a new and improved level. I've allways noticed the correlation between life as a horserplayer and real life.
Light
03-06-2006, 02:02 PM
My point is I find it paradoxical that you are arguing so vehemently with Dave S. about a detailed technicality in his program,yet believe in a superstition to explain an important part of your failure.
I haven't read the "seasonally streaky" thread,but regardless of what it says,don't you think you owe it to yourself to find out if there may be another explanation to the crash that you may be missing?
If you are refering solely to the July of '95 crash, my further explanation is that I was in too much of a rush to make money quickly. I really wanted to take a leave from teaching that upcoming September, so I pressed myself too hard and too recklessly to turn $90k into a quarter of a million. If I had been betting $200 a race, I would have been safely tucked inside my comfort zone instead of pushing my comfort to the breaking point and I would have lived to fight another day.
What if the July jinx starts speading into other months?.
If that were to happen I would be out of this game in a hurry. Fortunately, my spring results have been pretty much as consistent in a positive direction and my last two autumns have been even better.
Generally speaking, I think this is a major issue we all like to sweep under the rug. Whenever we take the monotonous,slightly depressing time of looking for the cause of our handicapping failures,not only does it help prevent history from reapeating,but usually uncovers new territory and takes our game to a new and improved level. I've allways noticed the correlation between life as a horserplayer and real life.
Well, I admit I haven't been able to prevent history from repeating. I no longer try to buck it. I just manage it a lot better than I used to. All of my vacations will come in July/Aug and Jan/Feb.
My point is I find it paradoxical that you are arguing so vehemently with Dave S. about a detailed technicality in his program,yet believe in a superstition to explain an important part of your failure.
I don't see anything paradoxical about it. I believe that better numbers will make me more money in the good months and will possibly help my show my first profit in the bad months.
I never said I was superstitious about July. I just know it's a fact that I have never won in that month before. It stands out with me because there are months like April and May where I have rarely lost. I have no answer for it. If I did, the streak would have ended many years before.
Light, I've shared a lot about my history, I'd be interested in hearing about yours too, if you have the time.
Dave wrote:
“Now, Mr. Rookley is certainly entitled to handicap anyway he wants but he is not entitled to decide how my software is designed to work.”
You’re right Dave. I can’t force you to do anything. I think you are being stubborn instead of sensible but if I’m the only one who wants you to work on improving the data instead of adding new features; I’m sure you’ll go ahead and do that.
My intention with this thread was to make other HSH users aware that there are data related problems. The Odds Line Handicapping comparison makes that quite clear, unless you have some other explanation about why it performs so badly.
I think that if your customers accept that various parts of the program don’t work as well as in the past, they are making a mistake but if there is no outcry to fix things, I will go ahead and merge the two versions together for my own use. I know that you have made some substantial improvements in H3 and I want to take advantage of them. As long as you also keep supporting HSH 2 (i.e. making the future par times compatible) then I will be happy with the results. I’m just not looking forward to spending an additional 6 hours a week maintaining another database when I could be playing with my daughter.
Dave wrote:
“I believe he is judging performance of the factors based upon smoothness of fit to a line through all the ranks…. This is simply not how the software was designed. It was designed to cluster the winners at the top.”
Your interpretation of what I do is fair. The only way we would ever find out who had the better approach would be to exchange odds lines for several days. If we did that and my software predicted a higher percentage of winners, I promise not to be obnoxious about it. I would only ask that you try to fix some of the things that are holding H3 back. If your line was the better one, I promise to come back to this thread and apologize for questioning your work.
Rook
Dave Schwartz
03-06-2006, 03:02 PM
Last time, (I hope) because you are beating a dead horse.
I do not have the need to have the best possible system. I only need one that is really good.
I have no need to prove that you are right or wrong because you are beating a dead horse.
I am a multi-horse dutch player in both the win pool and the exacta pool. My handicapping is done as the horses are literally at the gate... the odds change, the probabilities change, the values change. A multi-day comparison is not an insignificant task.
In addition, I would only be interested in whether or not my approach works or not. (It would seem that this should be your interest as well.) I have no interest in how smooth the values are.
Now, two rhetorical questions for you and I will try once again to retire from this thread:
1. Have you actually tested against some live races to see that H3 does not work as well (or, heaven forbid) better for you?
2. If you can do this with any software, data etc. Why do you not simply go elsewhere for your data? (Instead of continuing to beat this very dead horse)
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
andicap
03-06-2006, 04:48 PM
well that's five minutes of my life I'll never get back...
I do not have the need to have the best possible system. I only need one that is really good....
Well that's a big difference between you and I because I am always working towards being the best. I don't know why anyone would settle for $100k a year, when a few improvements might take them to $500k.
I have no need to prove that you are right or wrong because you are beating a dead horse
That's too bad because the loser of the competition could have used a healthy humbling of his ego and been forced to open up his mind to a more profitable way of looking at the races.
In addition, I would only be interested in whether or not my approach works or not. (It would seem that this should be your interest as well.)
If you were truly interested about whether your approach worked, you would accept my offer of exchanging odds lines. You are putting your pride ahead of your potential success. In order to protect your self image, you are missing an opportunity to either learn from an expert or convert a pestering customer into your fiercest advocate.
Now, two rhetorical questions for you and I will try once again to retire from this thread:
1. Have you actually tested against some live races to see that H3 does not work as well (or, heaven forbid) better for you?
If I spent several weeks tweaking things, I'm pretty sure that I could get an H3 only program to be comparable to H2 by itself. However, I also know that an H3 only program will not be as good as a hybrid of H2 & H3. I know this because many variables that I have found to be of good use have been broken.
2. If you can do this with any software, data etc. Why do you not simply go elsewhere for your data? (Instead of continuing to beat this very dead horse)?
For better (you have made thousands of dollars from me) and for worse (I've gotten under your skin at times), you were the 2nd data source I turned to when I came out of retirement. Your program compared favourably to TrackMaster, so I went with you.
I have spent countless hours researching how to use HSH numbers effectively under various settings, and it would be an incredible waste of time to throw that work away and start again from scratch. As I've stated many times but clearly not enough for your satisfaction: I am happy with my decision to purchase HSH.
I just wish I could be equally happy with the way you've treated this particular customer.
Light
03-06-2006, 05:24 PM
Light, I've shared a lot about my history, I'd be interested in hearing about yours too, if you have the time.
The details of my life are inconsequential to this thread.
I never said I was superstitious about July. I just know it's a fact that I have never won in that month before.
Unusual to say the least. Perhaps the tracks running in July are not accomodating to your style of play or betting.Could also be due to the hottest time of the year's affect on the track surface and pace bias.
The details of my life are inconsequential to this thread.
It's too bad you feel that way. I was hoping you were going to offer us an example of what "new territory" you uncovered to "take your game to a new and improved level." Did you reveal this in an earlier thread? I'd be interested in looking that up.
ezpace
03-06-2006, 05:58 PM
I haven't had the pleasure of meetingy you or using your software. However,You would be at the top of the list if i was looking for a new software provider after reading this string..
Rook , I would thank the guy and continue on with what your're doing.GEESH!!
This site, is lucky to have software /program members and forum management that give a damn,many don't elsewhere. .
PaceAdvantage
03-06-2006, 06:12 PM
well that's five minutes of my life I'll never get back...
Really? In the context of the Handicapping Software forum, I find this thread quite entertaining and informative....if I were a perspective customer of HSH, I'd find even more compelling....and isn't that the purpose of this section of the message board?
PaceAdvantage
03-06-2006, 06:14 PM
I am a multi-horse dutch player in both the win pool and the exacta pool. My handicapping is done as the horses are literally at the gate... the odds change, the probabilities change, the values change. A multi-day comparison is not an insignificant task.
God Dave, we must be connected somehow on some level. Multi-horse dutch in both win pool and exacta is the direction I am trying to go....I've had some good success on the win end as of late, but exactas are another story. I don't have much of a clue how to effectively dutch exactas....
Dave Schwartz
03-06-2006, 06:29 PM
PA,
I can help with the "How" of exacta dutching... but what say you we do that in some other thread? <G>
You know, if I ever hire a shill, it should be a guy who screams how much money he is making as loudly as he does my name (even if he adds what a jerk I am). Now, if I could just get Rook to put up the telephone number.
Honestly, I should thank Rook for this thread - it has been very good for business.
That being said, feel free to kill it any time.
Dave
Honestly, I should thank Rook for this thread - it has been very good for business.
Dave
Good. Show some class and truly thank me and then send me a referral check.:cool:
Sly7449
03-06-2006, 09:42 PM
Rook,
Sense of direction is great!
Could there not be only one data source as opposed to four to feed your Program?
That can be rather costly for Joe Blow. Something like $300 - $400 per month.
Before the release of your New Program, you will have to trim that to just one Mega Data File.
Let us know when you release your Program and I am sure you can trust this Forum for feedback.
Maybe someone here will be able to show you where the Off months can become On months.
You may be the only one knowledgable enough to Test Dave's, give us a chance to Test Your's.
Fair Enough?
Bring it on.
Thanks
Sly
Light
03-06-2006, 11:16 PM
It's too bad you feel that way. I was hoping you were going to offer us an example of what "new territory" you uncovered to "take your game to a new and improved level." Did you reveal this in an earlier thread? I'd be interested in looking that up.
Was that a joke? If not,how about you tell everybody on this public forum exactly how you make over a 100g's per year,and I'll tell you what I know. If you did,you'd probably break Boxcar's record.
PaceAdvantage
03-07-2006, 12:31 AM
Honestly, I should thank Rook for this thread - it has been very good for business.
So then, my theory might be valid after all??!!?? :lol: :p :lol:
Could there not be only one data source as opposed to four to feed your Program?
Yes, I find it unlikely but I suppose there could be. Is there a source you would suggest I try?
That can be rather costly for Joe Blow. Something like $300 - $400 per month.
Yes, that is the cost.
Let us know when you release your Program and I am sure you can trust this Forum for feedback.
As I stated in an earlier post: I live as close to a perfect life as I can: no boss, employees or customers. The only thing I'd be willing to change is joining forces with another serious player.
Maybe someone here will be able to show you where the Off months can become On months.
That would be great. About a year ago, I started a thread offering to partner up with anybody who created their own effective odds line. I didn't receive any serious takers but until the day comes when I show a profit 52 weeks of the year, I am still very open to that idea.
You may be the only one knowledgable enough to Test Dave's, give us a chance to Test Your's.
I didn't say I was the only one knowledgable. Far from it. I've been encouraging other users to do their own tests.
Fair Enough?
Bring it on.
If you want to exchange odds lines with me, I'll be happy to do that.
Was that a joke? If not,how about you tell everybody on this public forum exactly how you make over a 100g's per year,and I'll tell you what I know. If you did,you'd probably break Boxcar's record.
It was not a joke. I was seriously interested. I answered every one of your questions sincerely and with some depth. It would have been nice if you had reciprocated. I'm sure there are some life experiences you could share that would be not be a threat to your bottom line.
Light
03-07-2006, 02:56 AM
O.K. I can tell you that we have something in common.I have a similar dilemna as you. I also use software to help select horses. Homemade,crudely done in old Dbase by a friend. The ideas are mine,he did the programming. I then massage the output in Excel.
The program has 2 main outputs. The first page lists 8 factors. The second page is mainly a pace page with 6 factors. We debuted our program in the 2001 K.Derby and the program's main page had the top 2 finishers cold @ 10-1 and 60-1.So we knew we had something. Many similar results since then.The main page has been credited for most of this. As time passed,we've noticed that many times what the main page missed the secondary page had.
So my problem has been similar to yours. The main page is still what I look at first,but the secondary page really fills the gap that the first page misses. This is similar to what you are talking about in having H2 complimented by H3. You want to join them together to form a stronger program cause each lacks what the other has.This year I've been mainly using and focusing more on the less successful secondary page and trying to marry it to the first page. I've recently come to the KISS realization that horses qualifying on both pages are more frequent winners.Time will tell if this marriage will work out.
yak merchant
03-08-2006, 03:26 AM
I never said I was superstitious about July. I just know it's a fact that I have never won in that month before. It stands out with me because there are months like April and May where I have rarely lost. I have no answer for it. If I did, the streak would have ended many years before.
Equine athletes don't respond equally to extreme weather conditions. Bronchoconstriction can affect horses in the winter (especially from training), and over 20% of thoroughbreds suffer from Anhidrosis in summer. No real way around it, you can stick to southern tracks in the winter, and northern tracks in the summer, and you can favor races for older horses, cross referencing there performances against weather databases trying to find horses you know going to crap the bed, but might just be easier to take a vacation.
Equine athletes don't respond equally to extreme weather conditions. Bronchoconstriction can affect horses in the winter (especially from training), and over 20% of thoroughbreds suffer from Anhidrosis in summer. No real way around it, you can stick to southern tracks in the winter, and northern tracks in the summer, and you can favor races for older horses, cross referencing there performances against weather databases trying to find horses you know going to crap the bed, but might just be easier to take a vacation.
Thanks for that informative response. It's as good a theory as any of I've thought of. The vacation option is the one that I'm leaning heavily in favour of. I'm a pretty hard core player who virtually never skips a day in the good months, so by the time I encounter some hardship, recharging my batteries is a refreshing change of pace.
Also, I don't think too many people look back on their lives and say, "I wish I hadn't travelled so much." If you can afford to do it, it's one of the best things you can do first by yourself and later with your family.
Light
03-08-2006, 11:28 AM
Rook
I just looked at the "Worst Software" thread next to this one and HSH is ranked 2nd worse. So you can't be the only complaining customer.
From this thread I understand you use the HSH output and then do something with them. If I took the output of my program without further refinement,it's garbage.This may be why HSH is ranked 2nd worse software,no refinement after output. In general what do you do after you get your HSH output?
Rook
I just looked at the "Worst Software" thread next to this one and HSH is ranked 2nd worse. So you can't be the only complaining customer.
From this thread I understand you use the HSH output and then do something with them. If I took the output of my program without further refinement,it's garbage.This may be why HSH is ranked 2nd worse software,no refinement. In general what do you do after you get your HSH output?
During the months that I'm not actively betting, I shop from among the hundreds of factors that are produced from the HSH export. I test them under various conditions (distances, class levels etc.) and create equations from combinations of them.
The reason why I call H3 the New Coke is that many of these equations, which took hundreds of hours to develop and refine do not work effectively with a purely H3 output because tons of factors have been broken.
It's the same reason why Dave's own H3 Odds Line gets killed in a side by side comparison with his old HSH2 line. The factors that he used to feel were important went into that line but now he has abondoned them in favour of a different set.
This would be all fine and dandy if he was creating software for his own personal use but since he's not, I think he should be held to a higher standard. However, since I seem to be the only customer who is complaining about a lack of quality control, it is understandable why Dave is refusing to spend the hours of drudgery needed to get the job done right. It's always more fun to work on new widgets.
And H3 has more widgets than you can possibly imagine. On the main HQ page, there are 4 dozen buttons. If none of them help you spot enough winners, try using any combination of composite ratings, synthetic pace, composite objects, Reynolds numbers, Pickmaster, collective speed, race reports, the pace module, ants or swarms.
Because of my strict adherence to the KISS principle, this bewildering array of choices is not my cup of tea, so I'm not too keen on seeing even newer flavours of the month being introduced. Call me lacking a spirit of adventure but I'd much rather buy a box of top notch Earl Grey or Orange Pekoe rather than taking a chance on an Indian spiced mango soya blend.
Dave Schwartz
03-08-2006, 02:19 PM
It's the same reason why Dave's own H3 Odds Line gets killed in a side by side comparison with his old HSH2 line.
WHere did you get this from?
My odds line is doing better than ever.
Dave
WHere did you get this from?
My odds line is doing better than ever.
Dave
Ok, your personal odds line is doing better. I should have stated the Odds Line Handcapping feature found on your software when you hit the Pct button is doing far worse. (the one you wouldn't take 5 to 1 odds on or explain why it is inferior).
Dave Schwartz
03-08-2006, 04:38 PM
Interesting that you would take a 7-year old, never used, grandfathered-in button to measure.
Let me state publicly, here and now, that clicking that single button will probably never produce long-term profit.
It will take more than that.
You have to realize by now that I am not going to cave in to your demands; that you really are beating a dead horse (which I think I may have mentioned in the past). Why don't you give this a rest?
Just so you know, you are not punishing me as you seem to think... the business activity from this thread has been substantial... but why don't you give the people on this board a rest from all this?
Dave Schwartz
Interesting that you would take a 7-year old, never used, grandfathered-in button to measure.
It's the first thing I looked at because coming up with an odds line is the bottom line. If you have a better line available, I'm sure your users would love to have one prominently available at the push of a button.
It amazes me that you never bother to answer the simple question I have asked repeatedly: Why is that line so much worse in H3 vs. HSH 2? Is it data related?
Let me state publicly, here and now, that clicking that single button will probably never produce long-term profit.
That's the understatement of the century. Why don't you save your users some time and money by making a list of other things in H3 that no longer work? Or don't you know what's better or worse because you stopped testing once your own personal line was improved?
You have to realize by now that I am not going to cave in to your demands;
I'm well aware of your stubbornness and unwillingness to admit a mistake. However, getting this off my chest was a necessity for my own self respect and it has interested many people, so it has not been a waste of time.
Why don't you give this a rest?
And why don't you give me the last word like you magnanimously proclaimed you were going to try to do back in post 16? Show some self control. Of course, the last time I read your promise that I would have the last word, all of my postings mysteriously disappeared from your board so I know how much stock to put into such promises.
I have been prepared to give this thread a rest but Light asked me a question directly, and I have been taught that it is plain decency to respond to questions. It's a lesson you have forgotten many times when dealing with me.
Just so you know, you are not punishing me as you seem to think...
Stop being paranoid that I am out to destroy you. We have a mutual self interest. It would do me no good to see your business harmed. However, keeping silent about the bad data and crappy customer service I received from you would have been self punishment because I would have regretted not making every last effort to get things done right.
the business activity from this thread has been substantial... but why don't you give the people on this board a rest from all this?
If people don't want to read this thread they won't. I believe in freedom of the press and the benefits that come from having open discussions. You believe in secrecy and denying product support to those who have embarrassed you. I hope your increased business activity from this thread has taught you an important lesson: Criticism can actually be constructive and beneficial.
Dave Schwartz
03-08-2006, 06:42 PM
You have repeatedly made claims about your negative experience with the output of the HorseStreet Handicapper software using your software.
My prime repsonibility is to make the factors work for users within HSH. It is not my responsibility to make sure that the factors work better in your home grown software. Perhaps it is your programming that should in question here.
As for my posting in this thread, I said I would allow you the last word... You (apparently) don't have a "last word;" only more and more words.
You have repeatedly made claims about your negative experience with the output of the HorseStreet Handicapper software using your software.
Wrong. I have repeately discussed the negative findings about H3 using SPSS, a statistical package. I also did an extensive test on the Odds Line Handicapping feature of your program, H3. At no time did I discuss the output of my program.
My prime repsonibility is to make the factors work for users within HSH.
Agreed. And it is my position that you are not living up to that responsibility due to your unwillingness to admit mistakes and spend the extra time on dreary debugging. When I bring up the problems in HSH, you duck the questions.
It is not my responsibility to make sure that the factors work better in your home grown software. Perhaps it is your programming that should in question here.
The fact that I have been willing to exchange my odds line with yours and you have backed away from that offer should be a good indicator to the public about who is more confident in their quality control.
Dave Schwartz
03-08-2006, 07:17 PM
Agreed. And it is my position that you are not living up to that responsibility due to your unwillingness to admit mistakes and spend the extra time on dreary debugging. When I bring up the problems in HSH, you duck the questions.
Just because a factor does not perform as well the way you choose to test it, does not make it a bug.
Just because a factor does not perform as well the way you choose to test it, does not make it a bug.
It's not a bug in the sense it will cause a General Protection Fault... but it is a bug in the sense that bad data will cause features like your H3 Odds Line Handicapping to get beat 71 to 29 by the old program.
And if you don't like the way I've tested things, I'd be happy to hear your statistical defence of factors like the new rcPrm3 and rcFrm4. Let me guess, you'll say that since they are not in your personal odds line, they shouldn't matter to H3 users?
shanta
03-08-2006, 08:21 PM
Rook wrote:
Here are the ones that are better in H3:
rEs, rCLstGd, rcBStGd, rACL, rBkCl, rCond, rDist6, rEarn, rWgt-, rDays, rDaysWR, rJkyTyp, rJkyRtg, rF101 thru rF113, rEP01 thru rEP13, rSC01 thru rSC13, rFT01 thru rFT13, rFW01 thru rFW13, rLP02 thru rLP13 (3 exceptions), rcFrm1, rcForm, rcLstRc, rcF1, rcEP, rcSC, rcFT, rcFW, rcF2, rcRtg, rcBFrm
Rook,
Is it possible for you to focus on these factors only in creating your personal output?
I ask because this is a good sized # of factors. It also seems to be a nice mix of Early speed, form,earnings,jockey,final time,late pace etc.
I have seen a couple of guys like you. Extremely focused. Super dedicated. Super ego. BIG winner. All part of the package.
I think a new user would definitely be well served to consider sorting thru the personal stuff and consider using the above named factors as a base to begin Pickmaster and object use in Dave's new "H3".
Regards,
Richie :)
Is it possible for you to focus on these factors only in creating your personal output?
Yes, it would be possible but it would take a couple of months to do it properly and the performance would be about equal to what I have now. The ideal thing to do is to merge the good H3 factors with the good HSH 2 numbers. I guess I'll be the one of the few who takes the time to do that.
I think a new user would definitely be well served to consider sorting thru the personal stuff and consider using the above named factors as a base to begin Pickmaster and object use in Dave's new "H3".
I have no idea about Pickmaster or objects but I agree that those factors are in good shape. It's just the perfectionist in me that dwells on the ones which are not.
traynor
03-11-2006, 02:10 PM
Rook wrote: <So, $260k will get me a house but not long to live off of if the horse racing starts to falter.>
Wow. First, I assume this is a documented $260k, that the IRS gets to share in? If not, you may want to tone the claims down a bit. Second, to the untrained and slightly suspicious ear of a professional bettor, this sounds like one long pitch for a software app, thinly disguised as a "complaint."
Forgive me for being overly jaundiced in my perspective, but a quarter mil up ain't a place to complain from. (I didn't realize how many grammatical sins I could commit in a single sentence. Fortunately, I bypassed the opportunity to throw in syntactic ambiguities and deleted referential indices.)
You convinced me--I'm gonna try it, and I might even buy it. Long live rhetorical strategies and those who develop them. This one was a bit overdone, but interesting nonetheless.
Good Luck
46zilzal
03-11-2006, 02:25 PM
everytime I hear these big claims of $X dollars won: that represents (if true) W-A-G-E-R-I-N-G prowess NOT software magic
Rook wrote: <So, $260k will get me a house but not long to live off of if the horse racing starts to falter.>
Wow. First, I assume this is a documented $260k, that the IRS gets to share in? If not, you may want to tone the claims down a bit. Second, to the untrained and slightly suspicious ear of a professional bettor, this sounds like one long pitch for a software app, thinly disguised as a "complaint."
Forgive me for being overly jaundiced in my perspective, but a quarter mil up ain't a place to complain from. (I didn't realize how many grammatical sins I could commit in a single sentence. Fortunately, I bypassed the opportunity to throw in syntactic ambiguities and deleted referential indices.)
You convinced me--I'm gonna try it, and I might even buy it. Long live rhetorical strategies and those who develop them. This one was a bit overdone, but interesting nonetheless.
Good Luck
Forgive me for being overly jaundiced in my perspective, but from the untrained and slightly suspicious ear of a professional EGO-BUSTER, this sounds like someone who needs to let everyone at PA know that he has a bit of a vocabulary and is a "professional horseplayer".
You seem to have an amazing ability to solve the mystery of suspicious looking posts within seconds leaving the impression that you should be head of detectives in no time.
In your first paragraph you suspect a pitch, but after verbally masturbating through your second paragraph you've seen the light by the time you get to your third paragraph and are convinced that it was a pitch. I'm sure the authorities have a few serious crimes to which they'd like you apply your superfragilisticexpialidocious intellect.
I've been away and just caught up with this thread.
Paceadvantage, thanks so much for this forum and for moderating with a near perfect touch.
I've been fortunate in knowing a few individuals like rook - smart, dedicated, exacting, critical, manic. You know what I do when they step on my toes? I let it slide. I don't duck and roll; I don't employ ad hominem tactics.
I give them a long leash and I keep them talking. And I give thanks the world is not populated exclusively by well mannered dullards, sycophants and salesmen.
Dave's program sounds weird and wonderful. I hope to try it out one day.
-clue
MichaelNunamaker
03-11-2006, 02:52 PM
Hi Traynor,
You wrote "Wow. First, I assume this is a documented $260k, that the IRS gets to share in?"
Why would the IRS get to share in it? If I recall correctly, Rook lives in Canada. Gambling winnings are not taxable there.
You also wrote "You convinced me--I'm gonna try it"
How could you possibly do that? Rook uses Dave's program only as a data source. He generates his own factors and ratings from that.
Now, if you are thinking of getting Dave's software and using Dave's variables to help in your own analysis, sure, that can work. Indeed, I've thought of doing that kind of thing myself (only reason I haven't is I don't have the time).
Mike Nunamaker
Traynor,
Since so many software venders are known masochists, I'd be willing to bet that a couple more salacious accusations will get you preferred customer status at HSH.
PaceAdvantage
03-11-2006, 06:51 PM
Koko and Traynor, no matter how much you beg and plead, I'm not going to allow you two to take this thread off into never-never land....anymore questionable posts will be deleted immediately....
Koko and Traynor, no matter how much you beg and plead, I'm not going to allow you two to take this thread off into never-never land....anymore questionable posts will be deleted immediately....
Did you say TAKE it to never-never land? Where do you think it has been?
Traynor claims that Dave is using the "made-up dialogue" as a pitch and I make fun of him for his ridiculous post.
So, PA, I'm curious how Traynor's and my remarks do any damage to this thread (how could it be damaged-it's already a train wreck), the board or anyone who might look at it? Can you explain your thinking on that point, or is questioning why you have a problem with our posts not deserve an answer?
I can only conclude that you want to kill the only entertainment portion of the whole thread. Maybe entertainment is not something to be desired here.
PaceAdvantage
03-11-2006, 07:55 PM
Forgive me for being overly jaundiced in my perspective, but from the untrained and slightly suspicious ear of a professional EGO-BUSTER, this sounds like someone who needs to let everyone at PA know that he has a bit of a vocabulary and is a "professional horseplayer".
You seem to have an amazing ability to solve the mystery of suspicious looking posts within seconds leaving the impression that you should be head of detectives in no time.
In your first paragraph you suspect a pitch, but after verbally masturbating through your second paragraph you've seen the light by the time you get to your third paragraph and are convinced that it was a pitch. I'm sure the authorities have a few serious crimes to which they'd like you apply your superfragilisticexpialidocious intellect.
I got plenty of entertainment from this thread up until the point you came in to take things personal with someone for no reason whatsoever. I don't like the tone of your post above. It's going to lead nowhere but further personal insults and bullshit posts that will accomplish nothing. Sorry if you don't like my take on things but there's not much I can do about that....
traynor
03-11-2006, 08:02 PM
MichaelNunamaker wrote: <You also wrote "You convinced me--I'm gonna try it"
How could you possibly do that? Rook uses Dave's program only as a data source. He generates his own factors and ratings from that.
Now, if you are thinking of getting Dave's software and using Dave's variables to help in your own analysis, sure, that can work. Indeed, I've thought of doing that kind of thing myself (only reason I haven't is I don't have the time).>
I have a very gullible attitude when it comes to big numbers. $260k attracts my interest. Any kind of software that can generate almost anything that will give me an advantage I consider worthwhile. I don't need to become a convert, to use only that method, or even to use it primarily--all I need is a bit of extra insight that it may give me. That may be front end, or it may be an entry I would not normally consider used in exactas, or something similar. The advantage is another viewpoint, another way of looking at the same situation from a different perspective.
Good Luck
traynor
03-11-2006, 08:06 PM
koko wrote: <superfragilisticexpialidocious >
I think the above lacks a "cala" after the "super." Mary Poppins?
Good Luck
traynor
03-11-2006, 08:15 PM
Rook wrote: <I haven’t made a single post on PA in 2006 because writing is a painful process for me. My day gets completely shot because I get very anal about choice of words and sentence structure. >
My post was a direct response to the above. I like language. I have no interest in impressing anyone with my language choices or expertise. Nor do I have any interest in insulting or demeaning anyone.
Good Luck
I got plenty of entertainment from this thread up until the point you came in to take things personal with someone for no reason whatsoever. I don't like the tone of your post above. It's going to lead nowhere but further personal insults and bullshit posts that will accomplish nothing. Sorry if you don't like my take on things but there's not much I can do about that....
PA,
I respect the fact that you gave me a straight forward response to my inquiry. It's your board and I respect the fact that it's entirely your decision how to run it. Agree or disagree, I think your reasoning makes sense. I take you didn't like the tone of Traynor's post either as I was dishing back out what I felt was a pretty low blow and a quite unlikely scenario.
koko wrote: <superfragilisticexpialidocious >
I think the above lacks a "cala" after the "super." Mary Poppins?
Good Luck
You got me there, and the spelling on the rest is probably mangled as well. Guess I didn't pay enough attention to MY vocabulary lessons.
It's my third wedding anniversary today, so I'm going to spend quality time with my wife rather than continually respond to messages on this thread, but before we get started with our day, there are a few comments I'd like to make:
- For those who like to think about or quote the number, the $260k profit figure is out of date. I've added $34k in this month of March. (And no, it's not due to a recent conversion to H3:lol: ) I'm still $8k short of my all time high which was achieved just before I got completely nuked near the end of November.
- To Traynor and anyone else who may doubt the legitimacy of this claim, if you are coming to Toronto, I'll be happy to invite you over to my place and we can go through my monthly statements. I want people to know and spread the word that money can be made betting on horses because I worry about the health of this sport.
- My heart goes out to those profitable players who let the IRS rip them off for thousands of dollars each year. Several months ago, a newbie at my rebate shop inadvertantly applied a $1,500 withholding tax to one of my winning bets. The error eventually got fixed but for several hours I knew exactly what it feels like to have your hard earned money robbed from you. All pros should seriously think about becoming Canadian citizens. Even those who hate cold weather would find it tolerable from April thru Oct, and they could spend the rest of the year back home.
- For those who now view HSH as the holy grail for profits, they have missed out on one of the most important points I made in response to a question from Light. I do not attribute my success to my data sources. From personal experience, I know that a focussed and dedicated player can make money using HSH, HTR, PaceFigures, Formulator, workout patterns, homemade speed figures etc.. And even though I've never used them, I'm quite confident that I could make money using Equisim, All In One, Master Magician, JCapper etc..
How can I make such a claim? Because I wouldn't start betting real money until I had thoroughly tested each of them and found a method that produced superior results. When I came out of handicapping retirement, before betting a dime, I spent 5 months researching the ways in which the horse betting market was inefficient. I was prepared to spend another 20 months if that's what it took to be truly confident that I had a winning approach.
I'm fortunate that I find handicapping so captivating. Besides the year I dropped out of school, several years ago, while my wife was busy taking her accounting courses, I spent almost all of my free time examining the maiden claiming races taking place each day. Even though I was thousands of miles from home and cicumstances made it virtually impossible to even consider betting, I was motivated because I enjoyed the challenge of discovering hidden numbers & patterns and I knew that what I learned could be applied sometime in the near or distant future.
Those who enjoy doing work like that are always going to be at an advantage to those who have an itchy trigger figure about betting.
- For those who I have influenced to purchase H3, welcome to the club and I hope you also will be influenced by my calls for improved data integrity and if those calls fall on deaf ears, to push for a guarantee that HSH Classic will be supported for years to come.
bobbyb
03-12-2006, 11:55 AM
Best Wishes Today Rook
bobbyb :cool:
Dave Schwartz
03-12-2006, 12:36 PM
Perhaps this thread (from my point of view) has turned into something worthwhile for all players to hear. In that case, I will make a response to Rook's above post.
- For those who now view HSH as the holy grail for profits, they have missed out on one of the most important points I made in response to a question from Light. I do not attribute my success to my data sources. From personal experience, I know that a focussed and dedicated player can make money using HSH, HTR, PaceFigures, Formulator, workout patterns, homemade speed figures etc.. And even though I've never used them, I'm quite confident that I could make money using Equisim, All In One, Master Magician, JCapper etc..
Rook
I have found this statement to be applicable to most successful, winning players - They could win with just about anything.
As Napoleon Hill said long ago, "There is a secret to success and it comes in two parts. Those with the belief are already in possession of the first part."
The first part begins with an attitude that says, "There are winners out there - I must become one of them.[/i]
It continues with a belief that says, "I believe I can win.[/i] (Note that this is not the result of mantras, affirmations and the like. It is a real belief built over time and experience.)
Rook has told his story of how he came to succeed. I would wager that he did not come by the second
So, if software is so unimportant in the equation, the logical question is:
Why buy any software at all?
Software has a huge place in the equation. Software needs to be suited to the needs of the player. If the player is succeeding as a pace handicapper, for example, then a program which ignores or highly downplays pace would obviously not be a good match for him.
See, Rook doesn't actually use HSH; he uses his own software. That software is a perfect match for him. If it isn't, he changes it so that it is.
If you are already a successful player, then you know precisely what you need to win. And I assume that you either have it or know how to get it (i.e. write it yourself or get someone else to write it for you).
But if you are not yet a successful player, then perhaps your particular direction is not etched in stone. Perhaps you are not exactly sure how to become a successful player.
If that is the case, your software needs to be more open and flexible. It still depends upon your approach to the game - value handicappers (for example) need a value tool.
That is why the major developers of "power" handicapping software are constantly in development - we have to be. We are always improving our tool box for the players who call our particular approach "home."
It is also why HSH is so flexible - we are serving the needs of a many different approaches. (I don't want this to degenerate into a commercial - it is too worthwhile - so I will stop here.)
Back to "But if you are not yet a successful player..."
If this describes you, the smartest thing you can do is locate someone who is a successful player and get them to show you how you can do it. Now, I know that everyone knows this because it is the underlying reason most people buy handicapping books - to find "the answer." Of course, the books don't usually deliver on the promise, do they? But don't sell books short. Every once in awhile something clicks in the head of a "not-successful player," he gets the belief he needs and Napoleon Hill's "second part" is not far behind.
For me that happened with Doc Sartin's Phase III program from so long ago (which I wrote about at the top of this thread: http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26318).
The light went on and led me to becoming a winning player for the first time. Once that happens you are on your way.
Regards,
Dave Schwartz
MichaelNunamaker
03-12-2006, 02:27 PM
Hi Rook,
You wrote "All pros should seriously think about becoming Canadian citizens. Even those who hate cold weather would find it tolerable from April thru Oct, and they could spend the rest of the year back home."
If a US citizen gives up US citizenship, they still have to pay US taxes for ten years on any income from the US (which I would think would cover wagers on US based races). Also, their status for visiting the US becomes that of someone who has been convicted of illegal immigration and deported. In other words, they generally can never even visit the US again.
The U.S.A., the land of the free. Unless you try to leave.
Mike Nunamaker
cratman
03-12-2006, 07:19 PM
I very much doubt that someone living in and who is a citizen of another country would owe taxes winnings on races just because they are held in the United States. While the outome is determined by the tax treaty between the US and the foreign government in question, I have never read about any such provision.
There was a bill to tax persons who immigrated due to tax reasons some time ago that may have become law, but my recollection is that it was directed to very high income persons who had large gains on property that accrued when they were US citizens.
GaryG
03-12-2006, 08:12 PM
Rook, you remind me of myself many years ago. Keep the passion and don't be discouraged by a lot of negativity. God bless from the sunny south. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:
MichaelNunamaker
03-12-2006, 08:27 PM
Hi Cratman,
You wrote "There was a bill to tax persons who immigrated due to tax reasons some time ago that may have become law, but my recollection is that it was directed to very high income persons who had large gains on property that accrued when they were US citizens."
It did become law. You can read the government's take on the new rules here
http://www.gpo.gov/congress/joint/jcs-2-03/031-047.pdf
After reading that, it certainly appears to me that horse racing income would qualify as US based income. As to whether the country the expatriot would be living in would extradite to the US, yes, you are correct, that is a matter of treaty. But would one really want the US trying to extradite them? Then they would have to worry about any country they even visit causing potential extradition hearings.
If someone wants to risk it, be my guest. My advice is to just suck it up and pay the taxes.
Indeed, from a fundamental fairness point of view, why not? If I had a job and earned X dollars, I have to pay tax on it. If I net X dollars a year from wagering, why shouldn't I pay tax on that?
Mike Nunamaker
cratman
03-12-2006, 08:45 PM
Tax treaties generally address which country gets to tax income. I skimmed the document you linked to and I continue to believe that it is very unlikely that income from betting on US horse races by a former US citizen would be taxed by the US, if all the activity (other than the horse racing) occurs in the other country. While I do not practice in the area of foreign taxation, I do read and draft documents of this type as part of my job.
ryesteve
03-12-2006, 10:26 PM
After reading that, it certainly appears to me that horse racing income would qualify as US based income.
Using the converse of that logic, does that mean if I'm ever lucky enough to hit a big money tri on a race out of Woodbine, they're not gonna make me sign for it? Somehow, I doubt it...
PaceAdvantage
03-13-2006, 01:01 AM
Thread drift?
Indulto
03-13-2006, 02:08 AM
Rook,
I’ve worked for a couple of savvy businessmen who got rich adhering to a single basic principle. One chose “The customer is always right”; the other “Never give a sucker an even break.” I think this situation falls somewhere between those two extremes. Rest assured you probably generated more pain than you endured.
I’ve had to deal with dissatisfied customers who couldn’t be placated out of court, so my sympathy would normally lie with DS if you hadn’t turned his “lemon” into lemonade. You’re obviously capable of turning this problem into an opportunity, so I won’t waste any tears on you, either.
My thanks to you, DS, and especially PA for this fascinating thread.
traynor
03-13-2006, 03:16 AM
MichaelNunamaker wrote: <If a US citizen gives up US citizenship, they still have to pay US taxes for ten years on any income from the US (which I would think would cover wagers on US based races). Also, their status for visiting the US becomes that of someone who has been convicted of illegal immigration and deported. In other words, they generally can never even visit the US again.>
It is a given that if you "renounce" your U.S. citizenship, you are not exactly welcomed back with open arms. The 10 years thing I don't know about. I do know that Canada is not exactly welcoming U.S. immigrants, and immigrant status (rather than just hanging out) is necessary to avoid taxes on gambling. I have never heard the 10 year thing before, but that could put a serious sock in a lot of people hoping to use Canada as a refuge.
Last I heard, to avoid the "100 Month Club" (application filed for about that long before being considered), it takes a "substantial investment in the Canadian economy." That is $300,000 Canadian. For $800,000 Canadian and a promise to hire Canadians within a year or two, you get preferential treatment. Quebec is easier, if you speak French, but it still takes a bucket of money up front--they want to hold $300,000 for something like two years, then return it with interest.
It is a big problem, and a lot of people have gone halfway--"moving" to Canada and then just pretending they don't need to pay U.S. taxes anymore. Bad, bad idea.
Suggestion for those of you who may be considering Canada, and discover that the red carpet has been rolled up for a number of years; England has the same exemption for gambling winnings. Most of the professional blackjack players I know--as well as most of the handicappers--headed over there years ago, and I have never heard any complain (or mention) anything about a 10 year earnings "hold."
Interesting topic. Thanks for the information.
Good Luck
Rook, you remind me of myself many years ago. Keep the passion and don't be discouraged by a lot of negativity. God bless from the sunny south. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:
Thanks, Gary. I absolutely love the South. Whenever I travel down there, it only takes about 24 hours before I ditch my Canadian accent for a southern one.
My family went to Myrtle Beach every March for about 12 years in a row. It's a tradition that I'll continue when my daughter hits school age.
When I was into Civil War computer games, I always fought for the Confederates. General Lee is a far more likable man than Ulysses Grant or any other Union general.
njcurveball
03-14-2006, 12:46 AM
WOW!
I caught wind of this thread and have been reading it and catching up with everyone and thought I had nothing to add. That was until I saw Howard Stern blasting Les Moonves on Letterman tonight.
Now I dont believe Rook ever had a very chummy relationship with Dave. And for those who think he is pulling a Trump here to get publicity, I can assure you I have spoken to both of them on the phone and in Emails. Rook is here because he is frustrated and his words are probably much sharper and harder than his thoughts.
I have used a computer to handicap for over 20 years. I can assure anyone reading this thread, if they think buying Dave's program will make them a winner, they have just as much chance as buying the newest bowling ball and going out on tour.
I like the Civil War undertones here. I feel like a Soldier of the North with family in the south (or visa versa) in writing this. But thought an impartial knowledgable party could help those reading.
OK, back to bowling balls, Dave as a software developer is trying to compete in the market and upgrade his stuff. Rook is doing great with what he has produced in the past.
Anyone who knows bowling will tell you that rubber and plastic balls made tons of dollars in their days. But to stay competitive manufacturers have to keep up.
Similar to what happened to weekend baseball and softball players. They use to buy a $20 wood bat. Now they buy a $300 graphite or whatever the latest model is. The companies selling wood bats either changed or went out of business.
So I can see where Dave is coming from here, but that shouldn't take anything away from Rook. When HSH was upgrading a year ago, I was one of the first to use the new program and did find bugs with it.
But that is usually the case with new versions of software. Anyone remember Windows 1.0? Probably not, it wasn't a stable product until 3.2. Anyone using service pack 2 for XP? Software by nature is fixed and fixed and then upgraded to something new.
But this isn't to say Dave is 100% right either. Rook bets real money on numbers generated and those need to be accurate. Dave seems to have improved his operation since I last used HSH. I am betting they are more accurate today than a year ago.
From what I read on his board, he is now using beta testers and hiring people to help him. It is hard to be a one man show these days, I think he realized that with the last try to upgrade HSH. And Dave, like Les Moonves, has a company to run and has to make decisions based on the company and not who is screaming the loudest.
However, Rook, like Howard Stern, maybe the most successful of the group and perhaps should have been given a lil better treatment because of it. Like other former users of HSH the fact that there are a few "wise guys" on the HSH BBS and they basically dictate the direction, annoy the $h1T out of those who try to give their input to improve the product.
Just like those who are jealous of Howard Stern make fun of him, those on the HSH board who are jealous of Rook try to flame him as well. They seem to think that having a smart user posting is a bad thing and try to flame posters who are knowledgable and successful.
So if you think you have the brain cells to use a program as a tool to win, go ahead and try HSH. Just be cautious posting your success on their BBS, since the dogs do bite. Of course you can also try HTR, Synergism, or many others supported by the best data company going, HDW.
From my experience, the Synergism board has very few posts. The HTR board is full of knowledgable players who constantly attend and win handicapping tournaments all over the country.
For those who have done this for a while, you may remember doing ALL the speed computations by hand, picking pacelines by hand, keeping track profiles and models by hand, trainer patterns, hot/cold jockeys by hand, and so many other things by hand.
Handicapping Software is a tool to be used by your brain. Anyone who designs it will tell you that if the all the people using it have the same opinion they will be out of business very soon.
ALL the best to Rook to keep winning!
ALL the best to Dave to keep improving his software!
Jim
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.