PDA

View Full Version : Basing opionions on flawed evidence


46zilzal
11-09-2007, 02:45 PM
I hear these ongoing discussions (now mulit-year talks with NO results) on the pains people go trough trying to understand the whole, by looking at a single part (one paceline). Hmm which pace line do I pick to represent this horse today??? The answer is, there is no answer: evaluate the WHOLE not a fragment. Imagine a laboratory giving out test results using a single sample for analysis? That would be criminal.

There is the old story of the blind men coming across an elephant. Each only inspected the part right in front of him via tactile input only. Without the idea the whole, the references to the part became their perceptive whole and they were all wildly inaccurate.

The Form gives us up to ten lines which record the efforts of a horse versus a variety of pace pressures. To somehow understand EACH one using a single data input vs. the makeup of today's unique combination of racing styles is risking gross sample error and then some.

bigmack
11-09-2007, 02:52 PM
The title of your thread is amiss. Using one paceline is not flawed evidence.

Tom Barrister
11-09-2007, 03:17 PM
It might be insufficient, but unless the user is deliberately picking a non-representative paceline, the "evidence" is hardly "flawed".

46zilzal
11-09-2007, 03:19 PM
Think local versus global. Out of context, alone without substantiation, all prone to sample error.

skate
11-09-2007, 03:32 PM
Think local versus global. Out of context, alone without substantiation, all prone to sample error.


aaaaaa, say what.

are you saying, that if you want to find any validity to any info (such as CLOCKERS) you need to talk to more than just, as in ONLY, ONE CLOCKER?:)

46zilzal
11-09-2007, 03:34 PM
aaaaaa, say what.

are you saying, that if you want to find any validity to any info (such as CLOCKERS) you need to talk to more than just, as in ONLY, ONE CLOCKER?:)
Conversing with someone who neither understands nor can write in the English language will obviously get a pass on comprehending ANY of this.

Tom
11-09-2007, 03:37 PM
The idea of looking at all the pacelines and then selecting one to rate and use as representative of today's match up is hardly new. It is neither flawed nor misleading. Indeed, it can be shown statistically to be profitable,

46zilzal
11-09-2007, 03:49 PM
The idea of looking at all the pacelines and then selecting one to rate and use as representative of today's match up is hardly new. It is neither flawed nor misleading. Indeed, it can be shown statistically to be profitable,
Never said it was close to being NEW. More likely OLD HAT and still flawed big time.

I see them bomb all the time when people choose the 3rd back never looking at how the form had eroded. STATISTICAL error in looking locally and not globally.

skate
11-09-2007, 03:55 PM
Conversing with someone who neither understands nor can write in the English language will obviously get a pass on comprehending ANY of this.

too deep...wooo:sleeping:

Greyfox
11-09-2007, 03:57 PM
All handicapping opinions are based on "flawed evidence."
Best estimate lines reflect the "least flawed" most often.
Even if you get the winner, doesn't mean that the info input wasn't flawed.

46zilzal
11-09-2007, 04:05 PM
I see them bomb all the time when people choose the 3rd back never looking at how the form had eroded. STATISTICAL error in looking locally and not globally.
Kind of like the way a certain HTR capper here jumped on the colts obviously not suited to the Derby last year? No Biz and Scat Daddy? Isolated lines out of context like those?

Tom
11-10-2007, 10:39 AM
At least they post their selections BEFORE the races.
YOu have the benfit of hindsight when you continually post great winners AFTER the race has been run. MAny people have the records - based on pre-race selections - that show they are profitable using one paceline.
As I said in my post, using one line is not the same thing as ignoring al lthe others. If you knew thing one about HTR, you would know that there are many things in there that take the whole record into account, including three "sheet" type pp screens. You should get out more. And learn to read.

46zilzal
11-10-2007, 01:13 PM
At least they post their selections BEFORE the races.

How soon they forget. Who utilized line, form cycle analysis, on multiple lines to predict two choices, from someone we both know, called Scat Daddy and NoBiz, that were no where the first Saturday in May?

Then showing multiple examples of the same trend (by the way process in discovering trends is by review) on 30 or 40 colts, the same pattern produced colts who were also no where.

Bob and John produced the same pattern going into the Belmont and he finished up the track via multiple line analysis that showed a trend "hidden" unless one looks at the overall records IN CONTEXT.

chickenhead
11-10-2007, 01:19 PM
so where is your evidence to back up this opinion? A 10,000 race sample, for instance, so as not to be subject to sample error. Proffering up one race (or 10 races, or 50 races) from quite some time ago as evidence of anything is exactly the same sort of thing you are criticizing.

46zilzal
11-10-2007, 01:22 PM
so where is your evidence to back up this opinion? A 10,000 race sample, for instance, so as not to be subject to sample error. Proffering up one race (or 10 races, or 50 races) from quite some time ago as evidence of anything is exactly the same sort of thing you are criticizing.
Do not utilize a database: specificity is lost. Gave them up ages ago. Talking about a basic difference of style and sample error. Beyond that read into it what you will.

Tom
11-10-2007, 02:27 PM
Like hot air? How many lines per horse do you end up with in your final screen shots?

OTM Al
11-10-2007, 02:35 PM
Biased statistics are still useful if one realizes and accounts for the bias. If you used one paceline 3 back and considered nothing else, you are not accounting for the bias. If you use one paceline as a basis for comparison, but take into account other factors to adjust judgement (like any intelligent capper would do) then there is no problem. What you are saying is exactly like the person that uses only the last BSF and doesn't even consider how it was earned. They will win a few, but probably won't finish up too well.

gallahadion
11-10-2007, 03:07 PM
It seems everyone here, especially the software guys, are using outdated information...ie. the pp's in some shape, form or fashion. Does anyone use CURRENT (Race day) information like the odds on the tote board, the physical condition of the horse, whether the owners are at the track, whether the owners are dressed up, is the trainer dressed up, etc....

Tom
11-10-2007, 03:19 PM
Biased statistics are still useful if one realizes and accounts for the bias. If you used one paceline 3 back and considered nothing else, you are not accounting for the bias. If you use one paceline as a basis for comparison, but take into account other factors to adjust judgement (like any intelligent capper would do) then there is no problem. What you are saying is exactly like the person that uses only the last BSF and doesn't even consider how it was earned. They will win a few, but probably won't finish up too well.

46 seems to imply that we do not use common sense.

Ray
11-10-2007, 04:30 PM
everyone has there own way of doing things ...
if your way was the best way you would be out spending all the money you made betting instead of acting like a know it all.

I have an aunt that plays the same tri box 1-4-7 every single time for $6 she has hit for more than $50 grand an amazing 7 times (I know this cuz I have cashed every one of them so i can reap the tax benefits) and hit many more for more than $10k. there couldn't possibly be a more narrow minded approach but I dare anyone to tell her that.

shanta
11-10-2007, 04:33 PM
Does anyone use CURRENT (Race day) information like the odds on the tote board, the physical condition of the horse, whether the owners are at the track, whether the owners are dressed up, is the trainer dressed up, etc....


Yes
No
No
No
No

HuggingTheRail
11-10-2007, 05:09 PM
everyone has there own way of doing things ...
if your way was the best way you would be out spending all the money you made betting instead of acting like a know it all.

I have an aunt that plays the same tri box 1-4-7 every single time for $6 she has hit for more than $50 grand an amazing 7 times (I know this cuz I have cashed every one of them so i can reap the tax benefits) and hit many more for more than $10k. there couldn't possibly be a more narrow minded approach but I dare anyone to tell her that.

My grandmother loved to do a 5-10 exacta box. If we had lived in Northern California, she would get to bet once every 3 years...

bellsbendboy
11-10-2007, 05:51 PM
This pace thing annoys me. I would concur that using the pace from any recent (non turf) race at todays distance would be ok, but it still seems very primitive to me.

At some point every handicapper gets fooled by flawed data. One need not look further than under the posted picks thread by Adv capper regarding his comments on Beyer, the DRF speed ratings and track variants. He is not even close.

Good cappers minimize mistakes, and weigh important factors (class, distance, pace weight, etc.) better than weaker cappers. We all get fooled.

A thread caught my eye recently that stated that polytrack reduced a horses energy thruout the race. That the energy was more evenly distributed or something similar; anyone recall the thread?? It makes big time sense and "might" be accurately quantifiable.

Tom: Empty your private mail. I tried to give you a big priced winner the other day. He ran an uninspriring fourth. BBB

Tom
11-10-2007, 07:32 PM
Empty...thanks BB

I'm looking into that FL thing you mentioned.

dutchboy
11-10-2007, 08:07 PM
Using only a software program that computes a speed figure based on one paceline these are a few of the winners. Doubt if it is flawed data.

Crc 11-10 W r5 63.00
Crc 11-10 W r8 13.80
Woo 11-10 W r8 17.00
Mth 10-27 W r6 25.40
Mth 10-27 W r1 23.80
Bm 9-22 W r8 64.60
Mth 10-26 W r8 27.20
Mth 10-26 W r7 55.40
Woo 10-21 W r7 38.70
Bel 10-20 W r4 31.80

Semipro
11-10-2007, 09:25 PM
It seems everyone here, especially the software guys, are using outdated information...ie. the pp's in some shape, form or fashion. Does anyone use CURRENT (Race day) information like the odds on the tote board, the physical condition of the horse, whether the owners are at the track, whether the owners are dressed up, is the trainer dressed up, etc....Yes if I'm at the track tote board can can definately reveal some clues problably too long to post, use some physical signs if a horse gets really lathered I sure don't see as a positve but the dressed up part I ignore unless they are dressed in drag that's an autotoss.

gallahadion
11-10-2007, 09:34 PM
Using only a software program that computes a speed figure based on one paceline these are a few of the winners. Doubt if it is flawed data.

Crc 11-10 W r5 63.00
Crc 11-10 W r8 13.80
Woo 11-10 W r8 17.00
Mth 10-27 W r6 25.40
Mth 10-27 W r1 23.80
Bm 9-22 W r8 64.60
Mth 10-26 W r8 27.20
Mth 10-26 W r7 55.40
Woo 10-21 W r7 38.70
Bel 10-20 W r4 31.80

Did you actually make bets on all of those?

Kelso
11-11-2007, 01:22 AM
I have an aunt that plays the same tri box 1-4-7 every single time for $6 she has hit for more than $50 grand an amazing 7 times (I know this cuz I have cashed every one of them so i can reap the tax benefits)


What tax benefits does one derive from declaring income?

Ray
11-11-2007, 04:10 AM
What tax benefits does one derive from declaring income?

I am able to itemize my losses against the 25% to 28% tax hit she takes when she wins big tris like that I clean up every year.

Pell Mell
11-11-2007, 06:02 AM
everyone has there own way of doing things ...
if your way was the best way you would be out spending all the money you made betting instead of acting like a know it all.

I have an aunt that plays the same tri box 1-4-7 every single time for $6 she has hit for more than $50 grand an amazing 7 times (I know this cuz I have cashed every one of them so i can reap the tax benefits) and hit many more for more than $10k. there couldn't possibly be a more narrow minded approach but I dare anyone to tell her that.

Where does she find tris that pay 50 grand for a buck?

dutchboy
11-11-2007, 09:26 AM
yes

Did you actually make bets on all of those?

gallahadion
11-11-2007, 09:47 AM
yes

Dutchboy, what is the name of the software program, I could be interested.

sally
11-11-2007, 11:16 AM
My grandmother loved to do a 5-10 exacta box. If we had lived in Northern California, she would get to bet once every 3 years...

:D :D :D

I think I might try Ray's aunt's approach....;)

46zilzal
11-11-2007, 11:56 AM
Like hot air? How many lines per horse do you end up with in your final screen shots?
Several times as it shows a trend. Just like the way Bob and John could be eliminated here. Unless you look at the "trend" (several lines) you miss the significance of their going off form or meeting a distance at which they cannot compete. Total energy down, % median going up, again and again.

Tom
11-11-2007, 12:32 PM
I don't see three lines for each horse in the examples you post here and on
your site?????

Pace Cap'n
11-11-2007, 12:38 PM
I have an aunt that plays the same tri box 1-4-7 every single time for $6 she has hit for more than $50 grand an amazing 7 times (I know this cuz I have cashed every one of them so i can reap the tax benefits) and hit many more for more than $10k. there couldn't possibly be a more narrow minded approach but I dare anyone to tell her that.

This is just wrong on so many levels as to be comical. What track does she play? More than one? All of them? Can you point to one race at any track that EVER had a trifecta paying over 50 large? Much less 7 of them? That just happened to be the 1-4-7? Not to mention "many more" over $10k.

Why do you not just box the 1-4-7 yourself rather than wait for her to hit? When you cash those tickets, do you pay her in cash or a check? And who ever devised a tax strategy to pay less taxes by declaring more income? You must really have a large stack of losing tickets to offset those gains.

46zilzal
11-11-2007, 01:38 PM
I don't see three lines for each horse in the examples you post here and on
your site?????
You haven't looked much then. There is no standard for each as each is unique.

Hosshead
11-12-2007, 11:12 AM
Several times as it shows a trend. Just like the way Bob and John could be eliminated here. Unless you look at the "trend" (several lines) you miss the significance of their going off form or meeting a distance at which they cannot compete. Total energy down, % median going up, again and again.
In your correlation, could you substitute TPR for Total Energy?
Also:
If Total Energy down and % median up = negative
Then the opposite:
Total Energy up and % median down = positive ?
With TPR's I noticed (several races-same horse) that many times when the EPR goes down, the FFR goes up. So it's just distributing the energy in a different section of the race. Even though the total may go up or down a point.

------ Hoss

badcompany
11-12-2007, 11:22 AM
This is just wrong on so many levels as to be comical. What track does she play? More than one? All of them? Can you point to one race at any track that EVER had a trifecta paying over 50 large? Much less 7 of them? That just happened to be the 1-4-7? Not to mention "many more" over $10k.

Why do you not just box the 1-4-7 yourself rather than wait for her to hit? When you cash those tickets, do you pay her in cash or a check? And who ever devised a tax strategy to pay less taxes by declaring more income? You must really have a large stack of losing tickets to offset those gains.

What's even more comicial is that, if she plays only $6 per race, she's only getting 1/2 of the tri. So, these tris that she is supposedly hitting are paying 100K. LOL.

The amount of bs on this forum is staggering.

46zilzal
11-12-2007, 01:36 PM
In your correlation, could you substitute TPR for Total Energy?
Also:
If Total Energy down and % median up = negative
Then the opposite:
Total Energy up and % median down = positive ?

Just because one is true, the opposite does not follow. If going NORTH makes a difference, it does not follow that going south would have anywhere close to the opposite effect.

MOST of the time when a horse's SP goes up in response to the EPR going down, the pace was slow early.

bigmack
11-12-2007, 02:57 PM
What's even more comicial is that, if she plays only $6 per race, she's only getting 1/2 of the tri. So, these tris that she is supposedly hitting are paying 100K. LOL.

The amount of bs on this forum is staggering.
Some guy squawks about his Aunt hitting 5 figure tri's with $6 same numbered combo's - now that's BS. Point me to a bunch more so I can see this "staggering" that you refer 2. Or is your post part of the BS?

46zilzal
11-12-2007, 05:26 PM
In your correlation, could you substitute TPR for Total Energy?

yes

andicap
11-12-2007, 08:06 PM
About the aunt,

maybe he meant she hit for a TOTAL of $50K on her seven wins. maybe she's just an extraordinary lucky person. why would he lie?

PaceAdvantage
11-13-2007, 12:37 AM
why would he lie?:lol:

Ray
11-14-2007, 10:33 PM
screw you!!! let me know if you want my address so you can say something like that to my face so I can punch you right in the mouth.

PaceAdvantage
11-15-2007, 12:28 AM
screw you!!! let me know if you want my address so you can say something like that to my face so I can punch you right in the mouth.Huh? Whatcha talkin' 'bout Willis?

That was my way of telling Andy he's being completely naive, not my way of calling you a liar. I took your post at face value and think you are telling the truth.

But Andicap should know better than to ask that kind of question on an internet message board. That was my joke to him....

Sorry for the confusion...and you may want to take an anger management class while you're at it....

andicap
11-15-2007, 05:44 AM
PA,
I'm not naive -- I didn't think HE had a motive for lying. Unless it was for ego reasons -- to pump himself him anonymously as many do on the Internet. But he didn't come across like that to me, so that's why I made that remark.

PaceAdvantage
11-16-2007, 02:19 AM
PA,
I'm not naive -- I didn't think HE had a motive for lying. Unless it was for ego reasons -- to pump himself him anonymously as many do on the Internet. But he didn't come across like that to me, so that's why I made that remark.Let's chalk it up to another one of my poor attempts at humor....forget I said anything....

RonTiller
11-16-2007, 11:19 AM
I have an aunt that plays the same tri box 1-4-7 every single time for $6 she has hit for more than $50 grand an amazing 7 times (I know this cuz I have cashed every one of them so i can reap the tax benefits) and hit many more for more than $10k.
This is just wrong on so many levels as to be comical. What track does she play? More than one? All of them? Can you point to one race at any track that EVER had a trifecta paying over 50 large? Much less 7 of them? That just happened to be the 1-4-7? Not to mention "many more" over $10k.
I did a quick check of our database back to 1991. There have been 112 cases of a trifecta payoff of $50,000 or more. However, quite a few must have involved 10 cent trifectas, as the payoffs were sometimes larger than the pools (the payoffs are normalized to $1 or $2 so a $50,000 payoff in a $40,000 pool is possible - nobody actually GOT $50,000 but somebody may have gotten $5,000 for a 10 cent ticket).

A recent one is CD July 6, 2007 race 5 - $63,917.00 - a 15 to 1, 49 to 1 and a 102 to 1 came in 1, 2, 3.

As for 1-4-7, here's a list, from highest payoff down, of trifectas I found with 1-4-7, in any order, in the winning numbers, since 1991:

RP...3/2/1994...4-1-7...$54,488.80
PLN...7/2/1994...4-7-1...$31,336.20
FG...12/18/1995...7-4-1...$27,483.60
EVD...8/18/2003...1-4-7...$16,914.40
PEN...7/13/2006...1-4-7...$15,849.60
FG...12/13/1996...1-4-7...$12,949.40
HOL...12/17/1993...1-7-4...$10,808.00
FG...12/22/2000...7-1-4...$10,182.60
GP...4/24/2000...4-1-7...$9,861.10

That's pretty impressive to get every one of these!!! I wouldn't stand next to her in a lightning storm or a meteorite shower!

Ron Tiller
HDW

formula_2002
11-16-2007, 11:53 AM
variuos roi's based on the 1st letter of the horse's name
(6500 horse sample)
name
A 0.64
B 0.72
C 0.65
D 1.01
E 1.18
F 1.04
G 0.90
H 1.07
I 0.85
J 1.08
K 0.66
L 0.67
M 0.74
N 0.85
O 0.74
P 0.81
Q 1.15
R 1.09
S 0.77
T 0.73
U 0.81
V 0.64
W 0.86
X 0.40
Y 0.06
Z 0.43

27% of these factors show a flat bet profitiable roi
in the odds range>0 and <20

point. when doing analysis, its possible to find things that randomly return a profit without you!! :cool:

gallahadion
11-16-2007, 12:18 PM
variuos roi's based on the 1st letter of the horse's name
(6500 horse sample)
name
A 0.64
B 0.72
C 0.65
D 1.01
E 1.18
F 1.04
G 0.90
H 1.07
I 0.85
J 1.08
K 0.66
L 0.67
M 0.74
N 0.85
O 0.74
P 0.81
Q 1.15
R 1.09
S 0.77
T 0.73
U 0.81
V 0.64
W 0.86
X 0.40
Y 0.06
Z 0.43

27% of these factors show a flat bet profitiable roi
in the odds range>0 and <20

point. when doing analysis, its possible to find things that randomly return a profit without you!! :cool:

I love this kind of analysis! What about horses where the first letter of the first name of the jockey was they same as the horse?

Tom
11-16-2007, 12:34 PM
I made millions on the old "alphabet" system.
Well, mabye not millions, but , well, I cashed a few, well, one or two.
All I needed was a NY Post.:lol:

Jeff P
11-16-2007, 12:36 PM
Let me play devil's advocate for a second. How many horse names begin with the first letter of the sire? Is the horse's name really 100 percent random?

-jp

.

RonTiller
11-16-2007, 02:22 PM
Starts, Win% and ROI for Jockey Luis S. Quinonez, by 1st letter of horse's name he rode. (All this data goes back to 1991)

Note the large positive ROI when he rides horses starting with 'Q', and this is off 125 starts, considered a large sample by many. He also does especially well on horses starting with 'W' (568 sample size).

Luis S. Quinonez A 722 11.2 0.60
Luis S. Quinonez B 1201 12.7 0.63
Luis S. Quinonez C 1375 14.6 0.75
Luis S. Quinonez D 1003 15.7 0.84
Luis S. Quinonez E 495 12.7 0.81
Luis S. Quinonez F 646 13.5 0.77
Luis S. Quinonez G 615 17.4 0.84
Luis S. Quinonez H 668 12.4 0.73
Luis S. Quinonez I 428 18.5 0.96
Luis S. Quinonez J 512 13.7 0.83
Luis S. Quinonez K 428 15.0 0.86
Luis S. Quinonez L 702 13.7 0.80
Luis S. Quinonez M 1187 13.6 0.86
Luis S. Quinonez N 491 15.7 0.70
Luis S. Quinonez O 316 16.5 0.97
Luis S. Quinonez P 927 13.3 0.76
Luis S. Quinonez Q 125 16.0 2.84
Luis S. Quinonez R 872 12.8 0.88
Luis S. Quinonez S 2405 13.7 0.77
Luis S. Quinonez T 1050 15.7 0.80
Luis S. Quinonez U 85 12.9 0.91
Luis S. Quinonez V 188 12.2 0.50
Luis S. Quinonez W 568 17.8 1.32
Luis S. Quinonez X 16 18.8 1.39
Luis S. Quinonez Y 98 19.4 1.04
Luis S. Quinonez Z 77 11.7 0.98

Same for Earlie Fires. Note on 'Q' and 'W' horses he is terrible! On horses starting with 'U' he is a complete throwout.

Earlie Fires A 483 11.6 0.73
Earlie Fires B 861 11.8 0.53
Earlie Fires C 844 11.7 0.60
Earlie Fires D 599 11.5 0.74
Earlie Fires E 252 11.9 0.53
Earlie Fires F 493 12.8 0.49
Earlie Fires G 446 14.3 0.78
Earlie Fires H 365 14.5 0.73
Earlie Fires I 247 12.6 0.60
Earlie Fires J 227 13.7 0.64
Earlie Fires K 198 15.2 0.72
Earlie Fires L 435 13.3 0.79
Earlie Fires M 869 14.5 0.86
Earlie Fires N 261 12.6 0.45
Earlie Fires O 260 16.5 0.84
Earlie Fires P 595 11.4 0.76
Earlie Fires Q 64 10.9 0.44
Earlie Fires R 563 14.7 0.76
Earlie Fires S 1349 12.2 0.67
Earlie Fires T 649 12.5 0.81
Earlie Fires U 52 5.8 0.15
Earlie Fires V 120 17.5 0.74
Earlie Fires W 281 10.3 0.45
Earlie Fires X 2 0.0 0.00
Earlie Fires Y 53 11.3 0.96
Earlie Fires Z 75 6.7 0.40

Ron Tiller
HDW

formula_2002
11-16-2007, 02:29 PM
Let me play devil's advocate for a second. How many horse names begin with the first letter of the sire? Is the horse's name really 100 percent random?

-jp

.
The nutty thing about that is, many on this borad can dip into their data base and find out!!

What did those 1930's cappers do. they weren't that far off of the mark..
(I have the data to prove it ;) )

Pace Cap'n
11-16-2007, 06:36 PM
As for 1-4-7, here's a list, from highest payoff down, of trifectas I found with 1-4-7, in any order, in the winning numbers, since 1991:

RP...3/2/1994...4-1-7...$54,488.80
PLN...7/2/1994...4-7-1...$31,336.20
FG...12/18/1995...7-4-1...$27,483.60
EVD...8/18/2003...1-4-7...$16,914.40
PEN...7/13/2006...1-4-7...$15,849.60
FG...12/13/1996...1-4-7...$12,949.40
HOL...12/17/1993...1-7-4...$10,808.00
FG...12/22/2000...7-1-4...$10,182.60
GP...4/24/2000...4-1-7...$9,861.10

That's pretty impressive to get every one of these!!! I wouldn't stand next to her in a lightning storm or a meteorite shower!

Ron Tiller
HDW

Just as I suspected--ONE! Actually, that is one more than I expected. And besides, everbody knows the best numbers to box are 2-3-6.

Dave Schwartz
11-16-2007, 07:17 PM
Dang, Ron. That is some pretty fancy data mining!

ddog
11-16-2007, 08:36 PM
I did a quick check of our database back to 1991. There have been 112 cases of a trifecta payoff of $50,000 or more. However, quite a few must have involved 10 cent trifectas, as the payoffs were sometimes larger than the pools (the payoffs are normalized to $1 or $2 so a $50,000 payoff in a $40,000 pool is possible - nobody actually GOT $50,000 but somebody may have gotten $5,000 for a 10 cent ticket).

A recent one is CD July 6, 2007 race 5 - $63,917.00 - a 15 to 1, 49 to 1 and a 102 to 1 came in 1, 2, 3.

As for 1-4-7, here's a list, from highest payoff down, of trifectas I found with 1-4-7, in any order, in the winning numbers, since 1991:

RP...3/2/1994...4-1-7...$54,488.80
PLN...7/2/1994...4-7-1...$31,336.20
FG...12/18/1995...7-4-1...$27,483.60
EVD...8/18/2003...1-4-7...$16,914.40
PEN...7/13/2006...1-4-7...$15,849.60
FG...12/13/1996...1-4-7...$12,949.40
HOL...12/17/1993...1-7-4...$10,808.00
FG...12/22/2000...7-1-4...$10,182.60
GP...4/24/2000...4-1-7...$9,861.10

That's pretty impressive to get every one of these!!! I wouldn't stand next to her in a lightning storm or a meteorite shower!

Ron Tiller
HDW


Ron

I will try to find it , but I could have sworn there was one at LoneStar and it would have been on a Sat or Sun afternoon.
Sunday sticks in my mind.

I could have sworn the tri paid 1 ticket at around 115,000 and the exact was like 5,000.

Man, I really seem to have a strong feeling about that.

Seems it may have been either 5.5F or 6.5f on dirt for 3 yo males.

Do you have everything for LS since they started?

Not the end of the world, but you got me curious now.

Reason is I was going to key a horse on the board in that race and didn't make the play because it just looked SOOO bad!


Even for me.

Kelso
11-16-2007, 11:23 PM
D 1.01
E 1.18


So THAT's how Dahlman does it!!! :jump:

formula_2002
11-17-2007, 08:27 AM
So THAT's how Dahlman does it!!! :jump:
He will kill me for letting it out!!

ddog
11-17-2007, 09:19 AM
Ron

I will try to find it , but I could have sworn there was one at LoneStar and it would have been on a Sat or Sun afternoon.
Sunday sticks in my mind.

I could have sworn the tri paid 1 ticket at around 115,000 and the exact was like 5,000.

Man, I really seem to have a strong feeling about that.

Seems it may have been either 5.5F or 6.5f on dirt for 3 yo males.

Do you have everything for LS since they started?

Not the end of the world, but you got me curious now.

Reason is I was going to key a horse on the board in that race and didn't make the play because it just looked SOOO bad!

Even for me.



my BAAAD!
it wasn't a 1-4-7.

:lol:

RonTiller
11-17-2007, 10:52 AM
The title of this thread is "Basing opionions on flawed evidence." What is flawed evidence? How small does a sample have to be to qualify as flawed? And why is it that the best way to alter the win percentage of a sample (either positive or negative) is to start betting it on current races?

I don't know about anybody else here but it gives me the heebie geebies to discover that Luis S. Quinonez has a $1.32 ROI on horses whose names start with the letter "W" and that this is based on 568 samples.

More heebie Jeebies for Earlie Fires showing a $0.49 ROI on "F" horses, with a 493 race sample size.

Ditto with a $1.18 ROI on all horses starting with the letter "E."

How much of what we do is shuffling around statistics, tweaking polynomial coefficients, minutely adjusting the weighting of factors, in a manner that is akin to discovering these amazing facts abount Quinonez and Fires?

Are we really sure that when we break down a trainer's win percentage by race type and find a significant difference that we are finding a real difference or that we are finding a Quinonez on "W" horses difference (i.e. statistical noise)?

I submit that sh*t like this is what draws so many intelligent people to this game - I can make sense of this. And indeed, not a few HAVE found a way out of this morass.

Dang, Ron. That is some pretty fancy data mining!
Dave, I better not hear that the new HSH program is coming up with Quinonez on "W" horses. I hereby assert complete intellectual property rights on this angle.


Ron Tiller
HDW

NYPlayer
11-18-2007, 07:32 PM
I hear these ongoing discussions (now mulit-year talks with NO results) on the pains people go trough trying to understand the whole, by looking at a single part (one paceline). Hmm which pace line do I pick to represent this horse today??? The answer is, there is no answer: evaluate the WHOLE not a fragment...

That's why I use the sheets. Their theory says that each race affects a horse physically, whether giving it a foundation to improve upon or a peak from which to regress. Each effort, therefore, infuences what kind of number it can run in 2,4, or 6 weeks, and one looks at the whole record when making a projection for today's race.

andicap
11-19-2007, 06:47 AM
I hear these ongoing discussions (now mulit-year talks with NO results) on the pains people go trough trying to understand the whole, by looking at a single part (one paceline). Hmm which pace line do I pick to represent this horse today??? The answer is, there is no answer: evaluate the WHOLE not a fragment.

This is a serious question. What about using up to TWO pacelines to evaluate a horse. Not so much as averaging but to qualify what might be a single aberrant line?

46zilzal
11-19-2007, 11:45 AM
This is a serious question. What about using up to TWO pacelines to evaluate a horse. Not so much as averaging but to qualify what might be a single aberrant line?
Have for years, often using MORE to get the INHERENT nature of the horse. Has this one faced today's pace before? If so, how did it do without sample error

Get your top 5 let's say A,B,C,D,E, then compare A1, A3, A4, A5 to B,C,D,E and continue down the line to see if apples are really apples.