JCapper

[bcgreg]

Hi-

Anyone interested in selling JCapper, please email me at bob-teambcg@msn.com

I would be interested only if Jeff agreed to the transfer.

Best regards,
bcgreg

[Jeff P]

No disrespect meant to anybody but there's no way I'll support this. I halted new program sales for a reason.

Earlier this year I noticed an alarming trend. At tracks all over North America, the program's more obvious contenders were consistently opening as the heavy favorite whenever the first flash of betting for a new race appeared on the toteboard. In race after race, the top ranked JRating horse was opening at 4/5 or 6/5 or 8/5 while the actual morning line favorite would be something like 3/1 or 7/2 or 4/1. It was obvious that somebody somewhere was playing some very serious money these horses. On weekends, at tracks like AQU, GP, and SA I'd estimate somewhere between $10,000 and $15,000 in JCapper money alone was landing on these horses in the win pools. Throughout the months of January and February, 2006 - when I first really started noticing this trend, the odds on my contenders would (thankfully) almost always eventually drift up as the betting on each race played out. But the handwriting was clearly on the wall.

The value of the program's contenders was in jeopardy.

Right now there are exactly 100 JRating enabled copies of JCapper in circulation. I don't know what the true saturation point is. I don't know how many more copies of JCapper I might be able to sell before the program's selections cease to have value at the windows.

I do know one thing though: I don't want to find out.

So in early March, 2006 I pulled the program from the market. I did this to protect the value of the program's selections - for the benefit of my user base - and for myself. The last JRating enabled copy of JCapper was sold on March 05, 2006.

And on my site I've posted a notice in a bright yellow box stating that I have no plans to make any more JRating enabled copies of JCapper available - for any reason whatsoever.

I want to emphasize - "for any reason whatsoever" includes ownership transfers.

Over the past several weeks I have received dozens of emails all basically saying the same thing: "Let ME buy a copy of the program. I won't affect the odds. I'm only a $5.00 bettor."

In each case, I've stuck to my guns. I've ignored the emails or responded a few days later with a reply trying to explain how "not for any reason whatsoever" means what it means.

It's a hard decision to have to make. But in the end I think it's the right decision. Even though it hurts to turn away easy money.

Ultimately my decision not to sell any more JRating enabled copies of JCapper is based with the interests of my user base at heart. Silly as it sounds I'm asking everyone in my user base to respect that decision and protect what you have by ignoring offers such as this.

No disrespect meant Bob. From your emails I get the feeling you're a solid guy - genuine and likeable. But I have to stick to my guns. I hope you can understand.


-jp

.

[bcgreg]

Jeff-

I DO understand and my offer is hereby withdrawn.

When I did not hear from you I took it as a "I don't care". My mistake, and now corrected.

Please let me know when you have finished your new program.

Best regards,
Bob

[melman]

The more you post the more respect I have for you. Nice way to handle things. I don't 100% agree with all your thinking on the lower prices but I am sure I do not have the facts in the matter as I am not a Jcapper owner. Do know some and they love the results. Classy way to handle things nice post.

[JimG]

The more you post the more respect I have for you. Nice way to handle things. I don't 100% agree with all your thinking on the lower prices but I am sure I do not have the facts in the matter as I am not a Jcapper owner. Do know some and they love the results. Classy way to handle things nice post.

No question prices started to noticeably drop on horses in first quarter of 2006 that could easily be had with JCapper and normally pay more. Once the freebies expired and Jeff did not issue any more betas, the prices have returned to levels seen in 2004 and 2005.

Jeff is coming out with another version that I suspect could help current winners win more and break-even players to start winning. As with any software, it helps to have methods that you are already successful with, but the software can make finding them easier and testing easy as well.

It is interesting to watch as Jeff wrestles with making money selling his software vs losing money at the windows as others could land on some of the same horses he plays. The thing I like about Jeff besides being a straight shooter, is he bets real money at the windows while using his software as a very important tool. He approaches the program from a betting standpoint and a player's perspective. You gotta like that.

Jim

[46zilzal]

Earlier this year I noticed an alarming trend. At tracks all over North America, the program's more obvious contenders were consistently opening as the heavy favorite whenever the first flash of betting for a new race appeared on the toteboard. In race after race, the top ranked JRating horse was opening at 4/5 or 6/5 or 8/5 while the actual morning line favorite would be something like 3/1 or 7/2 or 4/1. It was obvious that somebody somewhere was playing some very serious money these horses.


.

And all that action was because of ONE version of software?

Amazing deduction.

[Jeff P]

posted by 46zilzal - And all that action was because of ONE version of software?

Amazing deduction. I've been posting here for what - about five years now? In all that time - in all of my posts - every one of them - I've held myself to a certain standard. I'd like to think that I've made a conscious effort to think carefully about what I'm about to say before hitting that submit button. In other words, treat others the way I expect to be treated myself, avoid lashing out at others when confrontation serves no purpose other than to escalate things further, and above all not to make shit up just to make myself look good. Hopefully me conducting myself the way that I have lets others know they can count on me for one thing: If I'm not absolutely sure about what I'm about to post then you won't see me post it.

This post (the one you're reading right now) is no different from any of my other posts.

Believe me when I say this 46...

If you knew what I knew - if you had not just seen the output generated by the software - but written it yourself - so that it isn't something general where the user has to interpret it - but so that the software instead makes decisions about horses and selects only a handful of plays - usually just 3 or 4 horses per race card - if you had seen how the horses selected by the software's decision process are highlighted in bright yellow whenever the morning line oddsmaker misses the mark - and how the horse's name is spelled out in bright red whenever that horse is selected by a set of rules that define a spot play - with the names of the models/spot plays picking that horse spelled out in red beneath the horse's name - and then seen the way the selections were getting hammered in the betting earlier this year - after playing them myself for years without them get hammered at all - then you would KNOW.

The crack you made says far more than you simply don't know what you're talking about. On a deeper level it says something about the inner you.


-jp

.

[headhawg]

The crack you made says far more than you simply don't know what you're talking about. On a deeper level it says something about the inner you.


-jp

.Jeff,

He's just angry because you don't have %Median in big, bold letters included in JCapper.

[46zilzal]

no one's angry: no ONE software has that much influence on wagering that's all I was trying to get across.

[ryesteve]

And all that action was because of ONE version of software?

Amazing deduction.
Not that Jeff really needs my help on this, but it's hardly an "amazing deduction" at all. I analyzed a year's worth of data on betting action, and it was apparent that during an aberrant period of JCapper's distribution, horses highlighted by the program were being overbet to the point where it was showing up even when rolling up data across 20-30 different tracks over a period of months.

Why the knee-jerk skepticism? All that's required in this scenario are a handful misguided people with large bankrolls.

[ryesteve]

no one's angry: no ONE software has that much influence on wagering that's all I was trying to get across.
Unfortunately, the data had something entirely different to say.

[46zilzal]

without ANY proof it is very far fetched conclusion, VERY FAR

[JimG]

no one's angry: no ONE software has that much influence on wagering that's all I was trying to get across.

46..It's not the software. It's the heavy hitters that were using it. They were moving the tote on certain horses. The data supports what Jeff was saying.

[cj]

All of this is the reason I've spread my wagering over many different tracks, betting smaller amounts per race, but about the same total amount per day. There are lots of advantages to this approach if you can follow lots of tracks at once.

[ryesteve]

without ANY proof it is very far fetched conclusion, VERY FAR
Why would you think that? Have you ever seen what the JCapper output looks like? Not that Jeff would recommend this, but it CAN be used as a black box; if someone with a large bankroll concludes that since JR1 horses have an ROI of -5% or -6%, that he can just pound them all and grind out money on rebates, how would that NOT affect the odds?

What exactly would constitute "proof"? A confession from the person who lost his shirt during this fiasco betting? I don't think that's likely to be forthcoming. But if you're interested in the analysis of the betting trends, you can find all that on the JCapper board. I don't think it makes any sense to reproduce it here.

[46zilzal]

AGAIN in simple English, NO single evalution has THAT much influence in the wagering of thousands of individuals.

[JimG]

AGAIN in simple English, NO single evalution has THAT much influence in the wagering of thousands of individuals.

:bang::bang:

You win.

[ryesteve]

Yeah, I guess "simple english" wins out over "complex" math :D

[Free Bird]

This sounds like an argument with my wife....always ends the same way, yes dear, you are right as usual... :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

AGAIN in simple English, NO single evalution has THAT much influence in the wagering of thousands of individuals.

You're forgetting one very important fact. Given your sample of 1000 individuals, probably upwards of 90% of the TOTAL handle of this "group of 1000" is actually generated by 100 or less players. And if more than one of that subgroup is using the same number, there's your major impact.

[betchatoo]

AGAIN in simple English, NO single evalution has THAT much influence in the wagering of thousands of individuals.

One individual wagering thousands of dollars has more influence than a thousand wagering $2 bucks each. As a JCapper handicapper, I saw the effect.

In simple English, you're wrong! (By the way, if the English were that simple, you wouldn't have misspelled evaluation.)

[Doug3312]

Jeff, You said that the figures have returned to prior levels. Why would the person or group stop if it was profitable? Did they wager so much that they brought the odds down it ceased working for them as well as everyone else?

[ryesteve]

Jeff, You said that the figures have returned to prior levels. Why would the person or group stop if it was profitable?
He/They were not registered owners of the software. They no longer have access.

And no, it wasn't profitable... at least not the way he/they were betting.

[Bruddah]

The mans product (JCapper) is an excellent piece of software. I am a very happy user and would recommend it to anyone hoping to improve their betting results. I use it differently, probably, than any other user Jeff has, which means it's very versatile and user friendly. I can attest to his integrity, honesty and availability to answer questions.

From a selfish point of view, I am happy Jeff has taken the action to limit the availability of "free use" of JCapper. I am sure there are 99 other happy users, as well.

Jeff, just keep to the narrow path. You have 100 of us willing to follow. :jump:

[46zilzal]

You're forgetting one very important fact. Given your sample of 1000 individuals, probably upwards of 90% of the TOTAL handle of this "group of 1000" is actually generated by 100 or less players. And if more than one of that subgroup is using the same number, there's your major impact.

but the impression was that ALL the odds changes were the result of ONLY ONE brand of software? I kind of doubt that in spades.

BRIS, Trackmaster, the Sheets, Thorograph, etc. MIGHT have had something to do with it as well.

I am sure that the capper is a good tool, but it doesn't control betting.

[headhawg]

BRIS, Trackmaster, the Sheets, Thorograph, etc. MIGHT have had something to do with it as well.

I am sure that the capper is a good tool, but it doesn't control betting.So you think that it's just a coincidence that the J1 horses stopped getting hammered when Jeff stopped allowing people to use the trial version of his software?

[shanta]

Headhawg's signature line reads: " Fact No. 533
Adult movie star Ron Jeremy has a master's degree in special education."


Fact 544 - Jeff's J1 horses at a price are the "Bomb" :ThmbUp: :eek:


From Richie's library of little known facts.
Rich

[ryesteve]

I am sure that the capper is a good tool, but it doesn't control betting.
I'm not even sure what "it doesn't control betting" is supposed to mean, but perhaps you can demonstrate how someone can load $5k or $10k into a win pool and not lower the odds.

[PaceAdvantage]

I am sure that the capper is a good tool, but it doesn't control betting.

In the hands of one whale, or in the hands of a couple of big tunas, it sure can impact (and quite visibly I might add) the tote....

This is Pari-Mutuel 101 we're talking about here....

[46zilzal]

gather up all the wagerers who USE the software in question and have them "tag" their wagers as exclusively from that source, and THEN yu can prove, or disprove how much this ONE software output changes the outcome of the odds. UNTIL THEN, it is all conjecture

[JustRalph]

gather up all the wagerers who USE the software in question and have them "tag" their wagers as exclusively from that source, and THEN yu can prove, or disprove how much this ONE software output changes the outcome of the odds. UNTIL THEN, it is all conjecture

I think Jeff has a pretty good idea of who uses his stuff and the kind of players they are. I think that would be good enough.......to make a damn good educated guess as to what is happening. PA is right. A few decent size fish with the program could effect some of these pools pretty easy. Especially on week days.

[ryesteve]

gather up all the wagerers who USE the software in question and have them "tag" their wagers as exclusively from that source, and THEN yu can prove, or disprove how much this ONE software output changes the outcome of the odds. UNTIL THEN, it is all conjecture
Yes, that's very practical too.

I think you need to sort out the distinction between "conjecture" and deductions and inference.