Tom Console's wonderful "Q" method tested

[midnight]

I had a look at Mr. Console's latest magic wand, called "Q". A friend of mine was naive enough to shell out the $75 asked for it.

Here are the outrageous claims, straight out of the RPM/Handicappingedge catalog, based supposedly on a 4+ year study of 33 thoroughbred tracks

W% 32.9%
WP% 51.3%
WPS% 74.3%
ROI 1.33


Impressive, if you overlook that fact that a horse that wins 32.9% of its races and finishes second 18.4% of the time somehow manages to finish 3rd 23% of the time------5% more often than it placed. 13% would be more in line with reality. A 33-18-23 distribution is impossible over any reasonably large sample. For example, public favorites hit at about a 33-21-14 rate.

I know a man who has a database of 250,000 races from most North American tracks, dating back to 1993. Every past performance item (including the horse's color if you wanted to) can be used in a query. He normally charges $50 per query. Because he knows me and because I've done a lot of business with him in the past, he agreed to do two Tom Console queries for $25, just to cover the hour of time he'd have to spend at it.

I plugged in the sensational "Q" method. We even confined it to the tracks recommended. I just don't understand it. It didn't work like the ads claimed.

Wins: 23.3%
Place: 15.2%
Show: 11.6%
ITM: 50.2% (rounding error of 0.1%)
ROI: 0.80
Avg Mutuel: $6.95

In the readout, 1.0 is breakeven for ROI

It must have been a bad eight-year sample, huh?

Next, we tested your famous "FG" method (You know, the one where you use the first and second call times and beaten lengths). I'd have loved to test Mr. Console's True Tenders, Space, K-whatever, etc., but I couldn't find anybody with a copy, and I sure wasn't going to spring $30--100 or whatever to buy them. The same guy had a copy of "FG"----you'd think he'd have learned after that one, but hope springs eternal. We tested it at the same 33 major tracks as the :Q: method

Here are the results

Wins: 16.6%
Place: 13.4%
Show: 10.0%
ITM: 40.0%
ROI: 0.78
Average Mutuel $9.60

Not a bad win %, but not terribly out of line for a method that focuses on early pace.

Before Mr. Console puts his spin of "You have to spot-play any horse with an advantage that is 8-1 or better" as he did in the FG manual, we covered that, too, since it only required one more field to query (final odds).

Here we are:

Wins: 5.1%
Place: 8.0%
Show: 8.3%
ITM: 21.5% (rounding error of 0.1%)
ROI: 0.72
Average Mutuel: $ 28.23

I can't understand how the database can be so wrong.

Just for fun, he plugged in one of his stock queries: public favorites. Here are the results, and to be fair, we'll plug in the same 33 tracks:

Wins: 33.1%
Place: 20.3%
Show: 14.0%
ITM: 67.4%
ROI: 0.83
Average Mutuel: $5.02

Just about what it should be. Odd how the database did this flawlessly and got the Console methods so wrong, because We all know that "Dave Powers" wouldn't lie about how well something he sold did.

Now don't get me wrong. I've talked to Clint Tracy (Dave Powers) on the phone a few times over the years. Always polite, always took the time to answer questions, always easy to get along with.

So was Victor Lustig.

Sorry to waste everybody's time, but these magic-medicine show salesmen get under my skin.

[Speed Figure]

Great post Midnight!:cool:

[GR1@HTR]

The ads in that handout remind me of the ads in the back of comic books:

X RAY Glasses
The Atlas Body
Seamonkeys
Hot A$$ chewing gum

All too good to be true...I actually sent away for the seamonkeys only to find out they nothing but plankton...

[Derek2U]

Yeah Midnight that was a great piece of research & a great post.
I've seen that catalog (RPM) & I was gonna order a few things,
but then I saw an ad from some kinda inspirational guy & so
I just sheved my idea. Now I'm glad I did.

[Vigors]

....in Spike Lee's joint "DO THE RIGHT THING".
Gentlemen: midnight,gr1, derek2, speed fig et al. , It would seem Sam was yelling at some of us to "cool your jet's" Being an observer standing on the sidelines with no yellow flag's to throw....I offer the obvious...but only after I tip my hat to midnight's excellent analysis of "Q"...these are what I believe to
be the most beneficial of all post's...fact's & figures & large data
bases with R.O.I.'s letting each of us make our choice if the
program has merit to us. One small problem, I'm sure midnight
knew from T.Console's remark's, that "Q" was a Powers/Tom/
Clint/ pot luck mulligan's stew run of the mill system...NOT THE
SYSTEM balliho'd last week with all the infighting of a "Dynasty"
cat fight. So until we can get midnight to disect Tom's newest
offering, how about us sending him to the "Grassy Knowles"
or the Book Dipository in Dallas. I HOPE I didn't step on any toe's by confusing the issue WITH FACT'S !!!!
The X-ray spec's
I used trying to see through Lois Lanes dress, along with
Betty & Veronica....Archie was the loser, because he could have
had his way with Betty..at ANYTIME...Bet me !! I also sent for
that throw your voice device ( I couldn't afford the Brooklyn
Bridge at that time )

[andicap]

I tested True Tenders manually a couple of years ago (someone gave me the method to test for them).
It didn't work very well for him nor for me in picking contenders.

I have nothing about TomC, just relating my experience.

[TomC]

Midnight:
Were you the guy in the comic books that kept getting the sand kicked in his face?
I need to prove nothing. If anyone cares to buy my stuff, fine. If not, so be it. I can say this. I use FG, along with many other of my methods, all of which are done automatically in my software. I make long term money with it. Thats the fact. Maybe it would not work for others as they would not stick with it like I do. When I lived in Reno, I won 4 contests using FG ALONE. Nothing else but that. It hits HUGE prices.
I will tell you something else. Unless you get an offer in the mail coming directly from me here in Scottsdale AZ, I did not write the ad. Dave writes the ads on the methods he sells based on what he sees. So I have no control over it. I didnt even know he was selling Q, or anything he said about it. Thats from a while back. When a friend alerted me that Midnight was proving he has no life so must resort to doing nothing but being the negative liar that he is, I checked in here and saw the thread.
Ok, enough...that should give the sharks enough to destroy for now. Midnight...maybe your mommy will get you a box of Captain Crunch with the secret decoder ring if you learn to behave.
TomC

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by TomC
I need to prove nothing.

Tom,

Respectively, of course you do. If you stand to make money off of something, you have no obligation to show it is worthwhile?

Let's say I create a system. You don't know what it is until you buy it. You pay me 75 bucks for it, and then I send it to you. You find that it contains a dartboard with the numbers 1 through 12 on it and a dart. The instructions read, "Throw the dart at the board. Your pick is the number the dart hits closest to. Good luck at the races."

You find that somehow, you just can't make a profit with this system. You take me to task and say, "I think this system is garbage. I think you knew it was garbage when you sent it to me, but you took my 75 bucks just the same."

I respond, "I need to prove nothing. You are a liar. I won a bunch of contests with that dartboard."

Responses like that is why the phrase "system seller" is considered synonymous with "snake-oil salesman".

[JustMissed]

If you felt so bad for your friend why didn't you just give him the $25 you spent to have your test run.

If $75 spent on any handicapping software or aid is that painful, you probably should not be gambling anyway.

Just My Take.

JustMissed

[anotherdave]

Originally posted by GameTheory

Let's say I create a system. You don't know what it is until you buy it. You pay me 75 bucks for it, and then I send it to you. You find that it contains a dartboard with the numbers 1 through 12 on it and a dart. The instructions read, "Throw the dart at the board. Your pick is the number the dart hits closest to. Good luck at the races."



Hey I bought that one when I was a teenager, only it was 10 bucks and had a 6 sided die. (I can't remember, but I guess you had to hope no horse number 7 or above won). And another die which said told you how to bet it (win, place, show). Mickey Rooney was the spokesman, I think. (I wonder if RPM brought it back if they'd do a 20000 race workout with a 37% profit.) Anybody remember that one?

Back on the topic, I have always wondered how RPM works. Tom you said:

"I did not write the ad. Dave writes the ads on the methods he sells based on what he sees. So I have no control over it. I didnt even know he was selling Q, or anything he said about it."

Is that how it works? Did you sell the rights and he can say whatever he wants? Just curious.

AD

[GR1@HTR]

TomC,

That "is the most callous response".
-Charles Gibson

[formula_2002]

midnight

I have 1/2 the data base size. I'd love to test some of my stuff against a similar data base twice my size...

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by formula_2002
I have 1/2 the data base size. I'd love to test some of my stuff against a similar data base twice my size...

I was wondering about that -- I've got some 225,000 races since 1999. Seems like he should have a lot more going back to 1993. I guess that is the difference between "major tracks" and "all tracks"?

[Tom]

Originally posted by GR1
The ads in that handout remind me of the ads in the back of comic books:

X RAY Glasses
The Atlas Body
Seamonkeys
Hot A$$ chewing gum

All too good to be true...I actually sent away for the seamonkeys only to find out they nothing but plankton...

I bought the X Ray specs.....BOY was I disappointed!

[Tom]

Boy! Makes me want to go right out and buy some of his stuff!
You just can't beat that kind of customer focus!

[midnight]

Typical Tom Console reply. When the facts are against you, call the other person names.

I'm sure Mr. Console has made some money off of FG. There must be quite a few naive people who paid the $35 or $40 for the poorly copied 15 or 20 pages. Nor do I doubt that he won some one-day local contests with it. It's based on early speed, and that does get a lot of big prices. But you could use Stanford Wong's contest method of looking for the longest shot in every race and win some small tournaments scored by mutuel payout.

Magic medicine salesmen.

[Speed Figure]

Originally posted by TomC
I did not write the ad. Dave writes the ads on the methods he sells based on what he sees. So I have no control over it.

Sure tom o.k.:p

[TomC]

Well, seems like you were all busy on the board today? Must be snowed in maybe?
No responce is needed for most of the posts, as you all have the answers. I will leave it at that.
Thanks for the e-mails fo support to those of you who send e-mails. Dont worry, it has no effect on me in the least. To me, its pretty humorous.
On that one post that someone asked, yes, Dave gets my system, tests it on his own, and writes the adds on his own. I then get a commission of the sales, after expenses are taken out. Those who have purchased from me directly can tell when its an ad written by me, or one writtenm by Dave. Our styles are different. Of course, that doesnt mean a thing to those who say Dave & I are the same person!
I will end posting on this thread here...I dont want to be even more callous, Charlie.
Tom C

[anotherdave]

Originally posted by TomC
On that one post that someone asked, yes, Dave gets my system, tests it on his own, and writes the adds on his own. I then get a commission of the sales, after expenses are taken out.

I really don't understand how you can let RPM take control like that. They are marketing your system, your name. When claims are made that are false it is reasonable that people get upset at you since he's marketing it under your name. Doesn't that bother you? It sure would if it was me.

I think you are doing the correct thing by marketing with your own name and your own sales fliers, then you can stand by your claims. But by using RPM as well, you have to deal with claims being made about you and your methods that you didn't write or research.


AD

[PaceAdvantage]

May I interject a bit of sense into this discussion??

Not to take sides, but why does everyone seem to put more belief into midnight's posted results than TomC's claims otherwise??

Quite frankly, unless I ran the system myself, or KNEW PERSONALLY of someone who did, I would take BOTH opinions with a grain of salt.

Who's to say (and I AM NOT SAYING I BELIEVE THIS) that midnight isn't a competitor of TomC??? Is it really hard to make up some numbers??

Bottom line, my point is that neither midnight or TomC can be taken as the be-all, end-all of this debate.


Thanks for your ear,

==PA

[zieglerjw]

I purchcased a couple ( and tried them ) and was quite disappointed in the reults, BUT what the HELL , everyone has to make a living , even at someone else's EXPENSE !!!!

[formula_2002]

Just had to do a search on "Q method" just my kind of stuff.

http://www.rz.unibw-muenchen.de/~p41bsmk/qmethod/

[formula_2002]

Wow.. between that q method web site and "A New Kind Of Science" By S.Wolfram, how can we miss!!!

[GameTheory]

You know in the ad for Q in the RPM catalog it offers something like triple your money back if you can show a 60-day period where it loses (I think at any of a group of select tracks).

Maybe there is a way to make money with it after all...


Also, regarding "taking sides" and assuming midnight is totally truthful. That's not the point (the whole point, anyway). The point is that when a system is sold with all sorts of claims of huge win% and ROI% (or even without), it is natural to be skeptical. It is prudent, smart, and simply right to look at these things critically. They're asking for your money -- the burden is on them.

In my view, inventors and sellers of such things should expect and welcome such skepticism/criticism, and respond to it intelligently and back up their claims. But we've seen this a number of times on this board from people who "sell things". Any bit of critical attention, no matter how slight, and the author/seller will *freak out* and start firing insults and saying things like, "You have no life, you pathetic loser." Ask yourself what is the more likely response from a person with a legitimate product that works. (Good products also usually have no shortage of customers that will vouch for the quality of something.)

[Tom]

Anyone who claims a certain rio or win %, in my mind, is obligated to provide the proof. Exact dates, horse names, bets, etc.
Anyone who doesn't provide this should not be making claims. they had to have specifica data on which to base the claim, so how hard is to share that info?

[PaceAdvantage]

They're welcome to send me a copy to test.....

[formula_2002]

PA

"They're welcome to send me a copy to test....."

?

[PaceAdvantage]

Why the ??? I have a review section here....not saying I'll ever get around to it though....LOL


==PA

[andicap]

Originally posted by GameTheory
You know in the ad for Q in the RPM catalog it offers something like triple your money back if you can show a 60-day period where it loses (I think at any of a group of select tracks).

Maybe there is a way to make money with it after all...


Also, regarding "taking sides" and assuming midnight is totally truthful. That's not the point (the whole point, anyway). The point is that when a system is sold with all sorts of claims of huge win% and ROI% (or even without), it is natural to be skeptical. It is prudent, smart, and simply right to look at these things critically. They're asking for your money -- the burden is on them.

In my view, inventors and sellers of such things should expect and welcome such skepticism/criticism, and respond to it intelligently and back up their claims. But we've seen this a number of times on this board from people who "sell things". Any bit of critical attention, no matter how slight, and the author/seller will *freak out* and start firing insults and saying things like, "You have no life, you pathetic loser." Ask yourself what is the more likely response from a person with a legitimate product that works. (Good products also usually have no shortage of customers that will vouch for the quality of something.)

AMEN!!!!!
great post, GT

[formula_2002]

PA .
I sent my last 10 days of picks, on a daily basis , to Newsday Sports Editor.

182 picks returned a 3% profit.
Those picks were also e-mailed to all that request them..

Add you to my list?

Joe M

[PaceAdvantage]

Actually, the RaceMaker guy sent me his program to review. I still owe Dave Schwartz a review of HSH....I've been promising him this for what, almost two years now??? LOL (Sorry Dave)

You can send me whatever you want....however, I can't promise when I will get to everything....


==PA

[midnight]

The results I listed are accurate, but even if they were fabricated, it still remains that nobody has ever produced a system that can play most of the races on a card, hit 33% winners, and show an ROI of 1.25 or better. Yet RPM is full of systems that claim to do just that, and every one of them is a magic software program or a method so simple that it only takes a few easy to learn rules.

Magic medicine salesmen.

[PaceAdvantage]

midnight,

Please don't take from my post that I don't believe what you posted. I'm just playing devil's advocate here...that's all...


==PA

[hurrikane]

sigh. :<

I bought the ATLAS BODY from the comic book.

GR1..you've seen me. Think it worked?

Maybe the 'Q' is the ticket. Ok...take my money.

[David McKenzie]

Originally posted by midnight
...and every one of them is a magic software program or a method so simple that it only takes a few easy to learn rules.

In a somewhat segued but related thread on another bulletin board Mary Hickey [one of the best backgammon players in the world] wrote the following. I asked her for permission to reprint it and she said graciously said yes.

"This fallacy most often rears its ugly head in Roulette..the flawed notion that after 16 straight Blacks..Red is "due." At that point, I might wonder if the real "flaw" was in the design or operation of the wheel, and would suspect Black might be more favored than Red!

IIRC Dostoevsky wrote The Gambler in part to cover his own gambling debts. He agreed to write it in just three weeks, and would have lost the copyright to both it and other of his works if he hadn't delivered it on time.

Denial, magical thinking, intermittent reinforcement, self-deception, and enabling behavior are apparently nothing new:

"Oh, you self-satisfied persons who, in your unctuous pride, are forever ready to mouth your maxims...What could you say to me that I do not already know?...Yet, had things befallen otherwise, these moralists would have been among the first (yes, I feel persuaded of it) to approach me with friendly jests and congratulations." (Dostoevsky, The Gambler, 1866)

James Thurber's Golux believed some of what he made up: He told some gullible people a tale of buried treasure in the woods, then after awhile went and joined them in digging for it. The prince-minstrel Xingu asks him why, and he responds, "I thought the story might be true." Despite this unpromising start, these two become partners in a successful effort to bring down the villainous Cold Duke, allow the prince to escape with the lovely Saralinda whom the Duke had kidnapped, and presumably all three live happily ever after.

Back to roulette "systems": James Thurber also elsewhere said, "You can fool too many of the people, too much of the time."

Mary Hickey

------------------------------
Sure David...quote away...and oh yeah, I forgot to give the title of the Thurber book that featured the Golux. It was The 13 Clocks. In a recent review, Cynthia Kaplan describes him as "part magician, part logician, and part idiot." Isn't that what real creativity is about? IMO we need more people like that :0)
-Mary H."

[formula_2002]

David, too many words

Where are the numbers?

Throw in a few curves, (normal and power would do).

A chart or two would be good, (inter-active if you could )

It's all in the numbers.

Joe M

[ratpack]

I bought TBI with a model from Tom direct at one point and I liked it very much.

I am looking forward to his upgrade whenever that comes out.

[midnight]

ratpack: out of curiosity, when did you buy TBI?

[Lefty]

Hurricane, I bght the Atlas course when I was 12. It was legit; they now call those same exercises isometrics. I went from that to intense bodybuilding with the wghts at the local YMCA.
Now the Xray glasses, naw they didn't work.

[ratpack]

Originally posted by midnight
ratpack: out of curiosity, when did you buy TBI?



It was a couple of years ago.

[midnight]

ratpack: if you bought it a couple of years ago, why were you asking in the TBI/Snapcapper Pro thread if anybody had heard of it?

SnapCapper/TBI thread (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3646)

[ratpack]

I had TBI with a model but because Tom had a dispute with his programmer that software was never upgraded.

Then he put out Snapcapper with no model.

I had heard that he was working on a new program that would include things from both his TBI and SnapCapper with a model.

That is the program that I am referring to.

[TomC]

RatPack:
As we speak, I am writing the manual for Ultimate Race Track Investor. (URTI). It is a very tedious chore as I want the manual to be easy to understand and show every detail of the program. I am always available by e-mail for fast answers to any question, and I do my best to call when it is needed, but I really want the manual to answer just about anything contained in the program. Problem is this program does so much...I hope I remember it all!
Anyone that wants to be notified may e-mail me at TCONSOLE@AOL.COM and I will let you know when URTI is ready. I am finishing the manual, and Joe Zambuto is doing the final touches on the program.
Sincerely,
Tom Console

[John]

Ratpack Or Tom Console,

Can you tell me a little about TBI. Is that the software that is a Ducth method...
Thanks

[ratpack]

Originally posted by rocajack
Ratpack Or Tom Console,

Can you tell me a little about TBI. Is that the software that is a Ducth method...
Thanks

The Dutching method may be Focus 2000 from ADPA.

TBI is basically several of Tom's ratings that you "model" and get what wins best.

I don't know much about the new program "The Ultimate Race Track Investor" except that it is suppose to combine his original TBI and Snapcapper, add a model and some bells and whistles.

[Lefty]

Don't know about TBI but Focus does give a 2 horse dutch based on data derived from its DB.

[John]

Ratpack,
Which is the best model....I have a friend that has the program and likes the power numbers, But can't get any good prices with that model...He thinks Briss power numbers are just as good and does not like k-speed at all.That is all I know about the program.....

[oldstuff]

I was swindled by Charles Atlas and lost 10 cents when I sent for his "Dynamic Tension" system. I won't fall for that one again!

The xray glasses didn't work for me but I had a friend who wore them in 6th grade class and was devistated when the teacher took them. He swore they worked. I tried and tried.

I tried to send for the Fredricks of Hollywood catalog from my comics (about 1938) but my mother intercepted my coupon. Now I get it online.

My Captain Midnight secret code still works. I have the one with the whistle.

[ratpack]

Originally posted by rocajack
Ratpack,
Which is the best model....I have a friend that has the program and likes the power numbers, But can't get any good prices with that model...He thinks Briss power numbers are just as good and does not like k-speed at all.That is all I know about the program.....

I have not used it in over a year because of a computer crash but it all depends how you use the model.


What I did was check the win % for each rating for all races in my database. Then I just did the last 15 races and I looked for the best win% and the most stable rating.

That last 15 races was really the key for me, that came up with high win % but that is only effective if you download every race day.