Power On Line Software

[punteray]

I previously posted this under POLSW. My mistake and my appollogies to all who viewed that thread. (???what is POLSW???)

I am a potential future Power-On-Line software purchaser. There have not been any recent threads pertaining to this software.

So, I ask all Power-on-line users::::::: How is the software performing?
Does it live up to your expectations? Do you consider it a worthwhile purchase($600)? All info appreciated.

Ray

[garyoz]

I am a software Junkie, and purchased POL late last Fall. I am always interested in what makes software work. I have also read most of the handicapping literature and have a handle on methodological approaches. I also have advanced training in statistics and research design.

I posted previously about my early experiences with the software. What I found attractive about the application is that it used static (non-changing) models instead of dynamic (e.g., models that use results to develop predictor variables) models. It does have a unique approach. I also use other software and data when I'm playing.

POL indentifies contenders and develops an oddsline based upon these models. The user can assign weights to various models in developing an index that rates the contenders and develops the oddsline.

My goal was to use POL on a secondary track for action bets while I focused on whatever primary track I was playing seriously. For whatever reason, I have not used POL all that much--even after shelling out the cash to buy the program. I'm not sure if that is because it doesn't fit my playing style (too much of a black box--or what). It identifies alot of obvious contenders, but also catches some longshots. Perhaps I relied upon the Consensus pick too much and not particular models. I'll be the first to say that I probably have not used the software to its full potential. I found myself constantly rechecking and rehandicapping the contenders it identified, which is not why I bought the software. However many of the models seemed to have close to a breakeven ROI--so maybe I should have just black boxed it. The problem with a blackbox of course is regression to the mean, in this case an ROI toward the takeout rate.

So, would I recommend using the program? Depends upon your style. There is a money-back trial period--so you can see how the program fits your approach. I can see how the program can be used profitabily, but not sure if I can use it profitably.

Do you play everyday? Are you interested in developing additional insight into handicapping? If you are a frequent player and want to delve into programs that require more advanced knowledge as well as learning curves then I would suggest trying some other programs, such as HSH (which I have not used-at least yet), Synergism, and HTR. J-Capper seems like a fine program with modeling capability. Plenty of people on this board are big supporters of other software.

If inclined to use software, I think most handicappers end up migrating to more sophisticated software. Personally, I have developed the best insights into racing and handicapping when using Synergism--which is very hands-on. I'm not sure if approaches that are more black box oriented help you develop as a handicapper.

[punteray]

Garyoz

Thank you for your response!

Ray

[punteray]

I find it hard to believe that GARYOZ (thanks again, Garyoz) is the only user of Power-on-line, out of over 300 viewers, that read this thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Is this not a forum to share info?

Ray

[Red Knave]

Is this not a forum to share info?
Sure! You go first. ;)

[punteray]

If you look at some of my past posts you will see that I have, indeed, already "gone first"

Ray

[Secretariat]

Punter,

The program is solid. It programs Steve Wolson;s methods (who once did a 500 race profitable workout on this site which I can't remember any other vendor doing).

Gary is right about one thing. It is not a program that is going to set up the pace, and attempt to focus on the match up today as a Sartin type of program. But it is based on methods that have done fairly well, and gives i think like 24 methods. These methods are then modeled into a database. The Black Box feature then data mines the database looking for the most profitable methods for the race at hand depending on the critieria you have set up in your Black Box.

The program also allows for Detail queries to specialize and one can even set up their own My Picks based on this kind of research.

It allows for corrolary picking with the Dynamcis features. It also has an adjustable Consensus based on "how" the methods are doing, which you can override.

It is not a look at the form and do an Analysis kind of thing. Nothing stops a user from doing that, but it is very automated in its approach. Within this automation though there are a variety of ways to use the program. If you don't like modeling then i wouldn't get it. but if you do like knowing what has been winning, and narrowing a chocie down then I think it is an excellent peice of software.

Gary is right in that software is not necessarily good or badf, but must suit the temperament of the user. POL6 does very well by me and I recommend it, but it doesn't mean I don't keep trying to get better. I've found a lot of the pace related software seems to focus on using past pacelines to anticipate today's pace which is often wrong. So using past methods to anticipate today's race based on critiera matching in a database seems just as valid.

Good luck in your search.

[punteray]

Thank you for your response1

[skate]

i would not put the program down, the money is good. i refer to their polacy.

as i recall, they cover lots and lots of situations, but they do not include an "S" horse. this didn't sit well with my capping.

[Red Knave]

If you look at some of my past posts you will see that I have, indeed, already "gone first"
RayYou're right, of course. That was a bit rude but it was meant tongue-in-cheek (hence the ;) ). I was reacting to what seemed like a bit of a rip from you. Just because there were 300 views doesn't mean anyone felt qualified to respond to your question. Certainly no one was required to answer you. Most of those views were probably like my own, seeing what answer(s) you got.

[punteray]

Skate...........thank you for the info


Red Knave........I SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT!!! (SCUZA)