Why pay for software and downloads if it doesn't automatically show a profit?

[GR1@HTR]

From another board:

Excellent answer by Mr. Tiller:

This is a very good question: Why buy software and data files to feed it if it doesn't give you winning bets? I will not play the role of apologist for Gordon, Kitts or anyone else. They can defend themselves very capably However, having dealt with a lot of handicappers, software developers and computer junkies over the last 8 or 9 years, I can share some of what I have learned. ---------- Why pay $5.00 for a Racing Form if it doesn't give you winning bets? That adds up to a lot of money, esecially if you play 4 or 5 days a week. More still if you want to play a lot of tracks. For that much money, shouldn't handicappers expect either picks that mechanically generate a profit or a clear and unambiguous bet selection procedure (perhaps based in part on an odds line) that in the long run, if not the short run, results in winning bets or a positive ROI? Was the DRF decision to include the Best Beyer a waste of time, since you can't just mechanically bet the horse with the best number and make a profit? ---------- Well, the DRF is a tool that handicappers buy to provide them with information with which they all hope to use to make winning bets. Everybody brings their knowledge, experience, prejudices (or lack thereof) to assimilate that massive amount of data to come up with bets (or no bets). That's called handicapping. ---------- Many people buy programs and data files with the expectation that they will "give" you winning bets: bet the top Yabadabado number with the Super Enhanced Equine VelociPaceOGraph (TM) factor and you will make 22 cents on the dollar, automatically, with no handicapping. After all, I paid $400 (or $1000 or $99) for this dang program, it ought to just "give" me a profit. Otherwise, its just another worthless gizmo. ---------- These customers rarely last very long with any program, because they are universally disappointed. Most software developers do not peddle their programs with any such promise. If they do, then they should be held accountable for the results of mechanically using the program in the prescribed way. If it really does "give" winning bets mechanically, with no handicapping by the user, then it truly deserves whatever hype and over the top marketing gimmicks the software developer can muster. If it doesn't, there are plenty of message boards like this one with which to call them to the carpet. Really. ---------- So what IS the point of all these programs? Like the DRF, they all provide a consistent framework for handicapping, asking questions, doing research, etc. They calculate, present, format, filter and provide context for a massive amount of data that is available for each and every race being handicapped. Many do extensive statistical analyses on this data to AID in the handicapping process, not to "give" picks. Many, like The Capper, keep records on how various factors are performing and this information can be used by the handicapper however they choose. Tom Hambleton used to refer to his program as an Information Manager and I believe this is a good description of most programs, although I would add that they are also Information Processors (who wants to do all the velocity calculations by hand?). ---------- So, different handicappers find different handicapping tools helpful or worthless. There are dyed in the wool DRF people who would quit if they couldn't get their DRF to handicap with; they would be literally lost without it. Similarly, The Capper may have a lot of features that really gel with the way you handicap and make you job of picking winning bets easier or more pleasurable. Or maybe it opens up avenues of play that you had previously not considered. Maybe, like Dan and Kitts, you take the output of the program an try to use it in novel ways. ---------- Or, maybe (rightly or wrongly) you expect the program's printout to provide you with winning bets, with no handicapping on your part. Instead of an Information Manager/Processor, you are interested in a sort of Cyber Tout Program. And you judge all programs according to whether they measure up to being a good Cyber Tout (which would be: do I may money with its picks). This is the same criterion people use to judge actual touts, like the handicappers at Trackmaster or a hundred other places on the internet (I am not using the word "tout" in any perjorative sense here). In my experience, people who buy programs and/or data files from this perspective are almost always disappointed. ---------- Ron Tiller HDW

[formula_2002]

As you well know, if making a profit was "that" easy, the profits would disappear as indeed they have.
I can attest to the fact that the 80 plus factors I use from Bris are directly correlated to the odds.
That is the top rank wins more then the 2nd rank the 3rd rank wins more then the 4th ranked etc....
Congratulations to them for their accuracy and congratulations to the racing public for establishing final odds that is extremely accurate.
However , they all lose to the track take-out but not to each other.

The results of all that work is so efficient, profits are much more difficult to come by.
The data is quite good. Unfortunately too many people have it and believe in it.

Still I wonder how those guys in the 1930’ did it so well. They were also very good determining odds of a horse…

The thrill is in the journey….Perhaps tomorrow……

Joe M

[Bob Harris]

GR1,

I agree...excellent response by Mr. Tiller to that tired old question.

Thanks!

Bob

[formula_2002]

Ray, once I get data loaded I can 'cap 10 tracks in less then 30 seconds.

However , it would be very nice if the results were as profitable as the 5000 back fitted picks used to establish the program..

[Chico]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by formula_2002
[B]As you well know, if making a profit was "that" easy, the profits would disappear as indeed they have.
<snip>

Congratulations to them for their accuracy and congratulations to the racing public for establishing final odds that is extremely accurate.
However , they all lose to the track take-out but not to each other.

The results of all that work is so efficient, profits are much more difficult to come by.
The data is quite good. Unfortunately too many people have it and believe in it.
________________________________________________

The one constant that remains is that if you see what everyone else sees there is no money to be made in the race (over the long run.) Just about everything that can be quantified or digitized has been, and it has been analyzed to death. Good PROFITABLE handicapping requires what no computer program can give it: Human insights and intuitions as to trainer intentions, fitness of the horse to the conditions of the race, etc. (Just one person's opinion.) <g>
Regards,
Chico

[Chico]

Originally posted by RayGordon
I maintain that it's easier to win in an era where my basic research is done for me, where I can bet 80-120 races from home, where the cost of horseplaying is next to nothing (as opposed to spending $15-20 before placing one's first bet like in the old days), and where ANY sustainable advantage can be exploited 50-70 times a day in a period of 6-8 hours instead of 5-10, or at most 15-20 times a day, in a period of 14-16 hours.
.
_______________________________________________

The hook in the comments above lies in the expression "sustainable advantage." Any such advantage that you claim may be exploitable 50-70 times a day at even as little as +10% ROI should make you a multimillionaire in less than a year. Somehow I don't believe you have reached that plateau.
Regards,
Chico

[Derek2U]

Of course he hasn't --- and it's not because I know RG cause
I don't. The proof of such a claim could be "arranged" in a very
scientific way, but all we need now is for the "WINNER" to step
forward. hehe.

PS: I read in todays POST that since NYRA reduced its takeout
in 2001, NYRA'a total handle increased by $223 Mil -- which works
to a 9.8% increase ($950,000 per day). And, $55 MIL has been
returned to the bettors.

[tcat]

Ray, since the amount of info available from Equibase is a constant.....no one has any more info than any one else, and many people have been grinding on this info for years with data bases, what can anyone give us "new" in the analysis of a thoroughbred horse race?
Further more, this information is available free. Why would anyone pay for this information in this day and age?

Respectfully,

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by tcat
Ray, since the amount of info available from Equibase is a constant.....no one has any more info than any one else, and many people have been grinding on this info for years with data bases, what can anyone give us "new" in the analysis of a thoroughbred horse race?
Further more, this information is available free. Why would anyone pay for this information in this day and age?

Respectfully,


Although people "have" this information, two thing still remain.
1. to accumulate a sufficient amount of it to analyze.
2. to analyze it correctly and in a meaning full and useful manner.


.

[Derek2U]

Yes Ron Tiller's answer was right on. But regarding BackFitting
data : All systems need tweaking. All systems require testing, hence the need for past data in which the outcome is known. Now here's is where MOST (All?) system-makers fail.

(1) They DO NOT define, b4 hand, the population to which they
are going to generalize their findings. (2) They do not take a
FRESH sample and, with zero tweaking, test their system.
And, beyond ANY doubt, ALL systems will obtain LESS prediction
with a fresh sample. And, (3) System makers still don't use common sense in giving us the TRUE expectation. Think about
it: Jim Cramer, a very respected & very capable guy tells us what
to expect from a variable AFTER looking at 500,000 races. Now
let's see, I bet on weekends, at NYRA tracks, so I would have to
wait until thr year 3050 to see if my data agrees with his. ummm.
There are very easy techniques available that give GREAT output
to players, but I have never seen them used.

[formula_2002]

There are very easy techniques available that give GREAT output
to players, but I have never seen them used.


D... any specific techniques you care to mention.



The 500,000 races is too general an estimate.
Each bet bet must be analyzed incrementally by odds.

To determine the confidence levels, the total number of plays to be analyzed is a function of odds.

[so.cal.fan]

"PS: I read in todays POST that since NYRA reduced its takeout
in 2001, NYRA'a total handle increased by $223 Mil -- which works
to a 9.8% increase ($950,000 per day). And, $55 MIL has been
returned to the bettors".


This is great news! Why doesn't the DRF and all the papers print this on the front page?
Thanks for posting that Derek....you just made my day!:)

[hurrikane]

just a few comments Derek,

1. I've never know Cramer to sell a 'System'. What's he selling?

2. Anybody who knows anything about data analysis and prediction uses a testing set of data and a clean predictive set.
your statement ' And, beyond ANY doubt, ALL systems will obtain LESS prediction with a fresh sample." Actually it's not the prediction that would be less..it's the results that would be different.
It is simply not true that the 'ALL results(prediction) will be less' (besides..what's less for one is more for anouther).

3. Because someone says 'over 500,000 races x happens y percent of the time can mean something or nothing. If 85% of all races are won by 'E' type horses are you going to run out and bet all the 'E' type horses? Well...my bankroll hopes so. :D


It amazes me why so many people who do little of no data mining are so sure it doesn't work.

[Derek2U]

hehe ... i think you missed my point. No matter how you look at
it, the way systems are DERIVED & TESTED need serious re-work.
But this is nothing new, except to re say that in so many, many
fields, the WAY stats are used innovative. LargeSample size is
the easiest thing to amass.

[Derek2U]

#1 ... I didn't say Jim Cramer was selling a system ... but he
does discreetly promote his data providing service ... but he has
written a lot about factors & shows off his large database.

#2 ... Predictions / Results .... if a system is re-tested on a FRESH
sample, that system will almost always show LESS HITS than
the original.

but hey ... whatever pleases is ok by me

[hurrikane]

Ray,

I for one haven't heard you tell anyone they don't know what they are doing (probably not a good idea in general).
I certainly haven't heard you say/prove/explain/or detail anything you have figured out.

So, what is it you can't discuss?

I would add...if you think everyone here is going to jump up and bow down because you think you know something you have come to the wrong place my friend.

Have fun, lighten up...and good luck

[tcat]

Ray, does that long reply mean it's the players own fault?

Why did you dismiss Hurricane's question?

Respectfully,

[tcat]

Ray, 2 questions since it is obvious you are hustling your stuff:
1. Do you play the ponies, where and how often?
2. What % winners will your top power number produce?

[Tom]

He shoots, he scoooooooooooooooores!

[LOU M.]

To Ray:
Pick a track and publish your oddsline for the next four weeks and let everyone decide for themselves.

To Derek2U
You wrote:"There are very easy techniques available that give GREAT output to players, but I have never seen them used".

Obviously you're the only one who knows about these techniques, how about enlightening us?

[Derek2U]

I have in previous posts & I haven't seen any replies/posts.
So, I have decided to DO the things I've mentioned .... for
NYRA tracks ONLY (mainly?) .... I just am getting DRF formulator
& I will begin storing races & etc etc .... so thats it boss-man.

[LOU M.]

Could you please give me a couple of search words so I could look up these posts to learn about these techniques .Also how about one technique here now just to wet our appetite.Thanks.

[Rick]

Am I missing something? What's new about calculating a power rating and why would you need permission to publish it? And why couldn't you program it on a computer? Is this another one of those fuzzy "I can do it but you can't" methods?

[ranchwest]

Rick,

In Ray's previous week here, he was about to reveal the miracles of the universe in a book when he was informed that in order to publish the past performances, you need permission from DRF, just like every other author. MarcDRF told him that it is normally just a formality, but it needs to be done. But, alas, Ray was stymied and we're without the miracles of the universe.

[Rick]

ranchwest,

If you publish power ratings based on information combined from various sources do you need to identify each source and say exactly how the power rating was computed? I don't think so. Everyone who makes selections uses similar information but, unless you only use one piece of information, I don't see how you could be found to be violating anyone's copyright.

[ranchwest]

Rick,

It is my understanding that he cancelled the project when he found out that he could not use DRF past performances, which are copyrighted.

[Rick]

ranchwest,

Well, I don't see why he couldn't have done it without using DRF past performances, but it's not my decision.

[Dick Schmidt]

Rick, Ranch and all,

I haven't waded through this entire thread, but I have published several books, 3 years of a magazine and numerous racing articles. The Racing Form was always gracious in allowing me to use any past performance or results chart information. They didn't ask to preview the information, or censor it in any way. They only thing they asked was that I attribute the information to them and tell the world that it was copyrighted by the Form. I did this in one line on the frontpiece of every publication and never had a problem. Sometimes I asked specifically for each item, sometimes not. Many publications I'm sure the Form was not aware of at the time and most likely still not aware of. Never had a minute's problem. After all, it is very good advertising for the Racing Form and costs them nothing. Anyone who says that they can't publish because they are being blocked by the Form is blowing smoke. The Form has never been anything but very cooperative.

Dick

[ranchwest]

Dick,

I understand and agree. In an earlier post I mentioned that a representative of DRF (MarcDRF?) came on here and presented basically the same statements you have made, how simple it is to get permission.

Gordon Ray Parker simply chose not to ask. He made the statement that he couldn't use the past performance data and therefore could not publish his information.

[LOU M.]

Anyone see Derek2Us' response to my post to explain one of his "techniques" or the search words to the posts he said he made explaining his "techniques"?

[Rick]

Dick,

Very good point. It's seems to be only a formality that's required to protect their copyright. If they didn't enforce it they would lose it according to what I've heard.

Does anyone know if the others (BRIS, etc.) are equally as cooperative?

[GameTheory]

I believe Derek may be referring to his theories about testing systems, sample sizes, etc., which he thinks most people do wrong (and he's right, incidentally). Instead of testing something over one large sample, you ought to test it on many (as yet unseen) smaller samples and look at the distribution instead of individual results.

Something like that, Derek?

[LOU M.]

I don't want free picks. I certainly would not bet on anyones picks but my own. If you say you can do something you should back it up thats all.No malice intended.Besides it would shut everyone up, wouldn't it?

[hurrikane]

I think Ray, the reason everyone is on you is because you have, much like your friend fffastt, have offered nothing while implying everyone is an idiot for not following your beliefs.

Formula posts picks with a ROI of 5% or so. I don't see anyone bashing him. Why don't you quit making excuses and put em up bud.

[LOU M.]

I was just hoping to learn something new. Since he was the one to make the statement I thought he might share his thoughts.

[Derek2U]

RE: testing, GameT, you expressed my thinking 100%.

[GameTheory]

See, I was paying attention, just nothing much to comment on there....

[LOU M.]

Even if the point was misunderstood why did some one else have to answer for you?Where I come from we fight our own battles.

[Fastracehorse]

Sample this from 1/12:

4th Race, Next Post 2:46 Off: 2:20

7 Furlongs. 3-year-olds Fillies Maiden Special Weights Purse: $32,000

4 Gold Player Bailey J D 121 18.20 10.40 6.80
10 Glowing Colors Santos J A 121 13.40 7.40
8 Shocktics Coa E M 121 6.20
Times in 5ths: :223 :46 1:113 1:25
Times in 100ths: 22.60 46.15 111.78 125.11

Also ran:Cherokee Lite, Shower Scene, Ice N' Gold, French Snob, Another Chapter, Saphiria and Silver Snow.
Winning Trainer: Hennig Mark - Owner: Evans Edward P
$2 Exacta 4-10 Paid $182.20
$2 Trifecta 4-10-8 Paid $1,120.00


fffastt posted: 4. 10/8/4/1

[Zaf]

Originally posted by hurrikane
I think Ray, the reason everyone is on you is because you have, much like your friend fffastt, have offered nothing while implying everyone is an idiot for not following your beliefs.

Formula posts picks with a ROI of 5% or so. I don't see anyone bashing him. Why don't you quit making excuses and put em up bud.

I agree , I would like to see some of Ray's and fffast's picks.

Props to formula for having the guts to post, and showing a positive ROI !!!

ZAFONIC

[Fastracehorse]

I post thousands of races a year.

I didn't win this contest Sunday but I had the higest ROI ( which really is more indicative of long-term success ):

General - Results Aqueduct 1/12 Subscribe
From: FASTRACEHORS 6:06 pm
To: ALL (1 of 2)

3880.1

Truform wins going away!

1st - Truform - 3 wins, 3 place, 1D/D = $156.90

2nd - Fastracehorse - 3 wins, 2 place, 2 show = $88.90

3rd - JJHottalker - 3 wins, 4 place = $72.70

4th - Yoda On Acid - 2 wins, 1 place, 1 show = $50.00

5th - DibbsNDubbs - 1 win, 2 place, 1 show = $39.90

6th - Nomadd2 - 1 win, 2 place, 1 show =$29.30

7th - BMOREKEN - 1 win, 1 place, 1 show = $16.70

8th - bozz2k - 1 win, 1 place, 1 show = $14.90

fffastt

[Chico]

Originally posted by RayGordon
Is it the player's own fault? For what? Losing? Yes!!

______________________________________________

Yep, Blame the victim. You fail to comprehend the true meaning of "parimutuel." If every punter were of genius ability the track would still get its 20% and a bell curve of 95% (or more) of the geniuses would still be losers. With that in mind, anyone who sells systems & software only adds to the overhead of the game. If they can't reasonably ASSURE the player a substantial gain, how can they justify their fee?
Regards,
Chico

[Chico]

Originally posted by RayGordon
Wow, four free weeks of work!

Then after I'm done if I win it's luck, or the other people didn't see it, if I go to another website it's "you didn't do it here" etc.

I got out of that rut after banging out a $1.19 ROI on win selections for two consecutive Saratogas, all free, including a $75.50 best bet winner the first day of the first meet (1999) and a cold $1,993.00 pick-3 (and $218.00 2-of-3 consolation in the next race) on the second day of the 2000 meet.

_____________________________________________

Why does this present a problem for you? Pick a respected intermediary, post your picks with him prior to post time to be released the day AFTER the races are run. If you are truly as good as you say it would get you all kinds of customers!
Regards,
Chico

[hurrikane]

4 Gold Player Bailey J D 121 18.20 10.40 6.80


Curious how you created an adjusted Beyer on a FTS?

Hmm...the emporor has no clothes!

[tcat]

Hurricane, did you notice how cleverly Ray dodged the question about the win% of his high power number? He sure is not like Ken.

[hurrikane]

Yes Tcat. I did. I'm guessing if he had'nt grown up to be a picks huckster he would have been an attourney. :D

[GR1@HTR]

RayG,
I guess I am late to the show...but nice site, horse and porn...

[Rick]

Anyone who has to guess at what the win % and ROI are on their top figure horse is not very credible. In my experience, this is usually someone who thinks they're winning but really is losing a little. It would ruin the illusion if he actually totalled up the numbers.

[trotter]

Ray,
I went to your site and while I didn't purchase your picks, I am very interested on "How to get laid".
trotter

[Doug]

TROTTER

Sounds to me that if you purchase his picks you are getting f***ed.

Doug

[Doug]

MR. GORDON

So sue me.

Doug

[ranchwest]

Litigious society, eh, Gordon Ray Parker?

[Doug]

MR. GORDON

That is two references you've made directed at me about a lawsuit.

Now, I am not going to get into a pissing match with you about the law, but if you feel the need please GET IT ON. If you don't feel the need then SHUT YOUR FACE about it.

Doug

[Fastracehorse]

Adjusted Beyer on FTS's?? Can't be done. However, I do believe I have a powerful method of picking FTS's. And, it was innovated by myself, just like the fig.

Here is another nice adjusted Beyer from Sunday that I posted:

Aqueduct - January 12, 2003

9th Race Off: 4:21

6 Furlongs. (Inner Dirt) 4-year-olds & Up Claiming ($25,000) Purse: $17,000
# Horse Jockey Weight Win Place Show
10 Lulu's Dream Chavez Luis 113 35.80 11.80 10.00

fffastt

[MV McKee]

I think i'm getting a contact high just reading this stuff........

[tcat]

Ray, what is all that sex stuff on your web site? Shame on you!

Not respectfully,

[hurrikane]

how can anybody be considered creditable with a website selling picks and tits.

A judge would get a good laugh out of you Ray.

[Fastracehorse]

Adjusted speed figs aren't everythig but they do uncover alot of overlays:

General - Results Gulfstream 1/15 Subscribe
From: JACK300S 5:55 pm
To: ALL (1 of 1)

3886.1

Todays winner at Gulfstream Park is Fastracehorse! Another fine day of handicapping Fast! Great hit in the 5th ($49.50 winner). Congratulations and keep it going.........

1st - Fastracehorse 3 wins = $98.30

2nd - JJHottalker 3 wins, 2 places = $69.60

3rd - Ezgoerbab 1 win, 4 places, 1 show = $59.20

4th - BMOREKEN 2 wins, 2 places, 4 shows = $56.80

5th - Jack300s 2 places, 2 shows = $18.20

6th - Yoda 2 places = $16.60

7th - Truform 1 place, 3 shows = $14.60

8th - Geotie 1 place, 1 show = $9.20


Options Reply Rate


fffastt

[Tom]

Originally posted by hurrikane
how can anybody be considered creditable with a website selling picks and tits.


Now, as I see it, this is a GOOD thing! One stop shopping.
I think Ray might be ahead of his time on this one. <G>

[tcat]

Ray, are the links on your web site Porn links?

What does that make you?

[Rick]

tcat,

A porn loser?

[PaceAdvantage]

Getting way off topic...time to close...