Anatomy of the Superfecta

[jonnielu]

Sorry that I haven't been posting a whole lot lately, I know how the speed guys get to missing me, when I'm not around regular. I've been pretty busy at the institute lately. Not that institute.... the Institute of Superfecta Technology.

The new Ebook "Anatomy of the Superfecta" is almost complete and scheduled for release July 15th. I had hoped to have it done for the 4th of July, because that is my favorite holiday, but the schedule has been too full lately. And, I spent some extra time studying that one horse that you never put in, to make sure that the reason to always include him is consistent.

Then the testing took a little extra time too, when I saw that nobody would be happy wirh consistent 6 horse superfecta's at GP, I started tinkering with 5 horse superfectas at CD. I didn't even try to cut to 5 at Keeneland because all of the races were so competitive. But, then at CD, I learned that I could reasonably cut to 5, even with full competitive fields. Because I finally learned what is going on with that 3rd and 4th place horse.

I had to separate the win/exacta perspective from the show/superfecta perspective and understand them both and what makes them different. And, how Ability-X ratings point both out, even though they are almost opposites.

Then, the racing went to hell at CD, and with the sparse fields, the 5 horse super didn't pay anything anyway, so I moved my gear to Arlington where they can at least get 10 horses in a race. At the same time, I figured my studies couldn't be complete until I won at least two 4 horse superfectas in the same day. I spot checked Belmont, just so I can still say that track variance has nothing to do with it.

So now, even though I am a little behind, I will be able to turn it loose in time for all of the PA horseplayers to beat up on the Saratoga Superfectas with Ability-X ratings and "Anatomy of the Superfecta".

This amazing offer will work like this:

PA members can IM me to reserve their copy of "Anatomy of the Superfecta" and 30 days of Ability-X ratings for Saratoga for only $19.95.

Just to sweeten the deal, and attempt to soothe the savage beast for making you wait another two weeks, I will deliver "Anatomy of the Superfecta" to you on a spanking new 2GB USB Flash Drive, for your data moving pleasure (ratings will be delivered via email). And guarantee your satisfaction, if you aren't happy with the performance of anything, just send it back for a refund.

What could be better??

jdl

[timtam]

How about the play the races in your pajamas? I think I paid $12 for an
e book and just read 25% of the entire book on the post of the day page?

[jonnielu]

How about the play the races in your pajamas? I think I paid $12 for an
e book and just read 25% of the entire book on the post of the day page?

There wasn't a word about how and/or why Ability-X ratings point out contenders. I like to think that part is the part that is worth a couple of dollars.

It is about if you wanted to take the time to develop your skills with Ability-X ratings, you may have pocketed $87,000 in Pk3 and Pk4 wins during 14 days of racing. Then, you get 30 days of Ability-X ratings on top of that. If you had read the Ebook, and had Ability-X ratings for Belmont on Saturday, you might have spotted Dutrow's horse in the suburban and taken a wag with $2.

If you feel that isn't worth $12, it is also unconditionally guaranteed if you want to take advantage of that.

jdl

[sammy the sage]

EZpace asked a similiar question in another thread?

Why don't you just bet your own stuff...as IF ACCURATE...will kill pay-offs?

[andicap]

EZpace asked a similiar question in another thread?

Why don't you just bet your own stuff...as IF ACCURATE...will kill pay-offs?

I've actually thought a bit about this question and have an answer, not necessariliy THE answer, but AN answer.:p
.
However, I will wait until I hear Jonnielu's response before offering what my rationalization would be (assuming I had such a product of course).

[timtam]

My point exactly. You sell an ebook and then push ability ratings.
I have to pay to get an advertisement? Waiting until post time to see which
horse dropped in odds and then looking at those horses more closely doesn't
an e book make. That was the most useless baloney I've read passing off
as a revolutionary idea. Please!

[jonnielu]

EZpace asked a similiar question in another thread?

Why don't you just bet your own stuff...as IF ACCURATE...will kill pay-offs?

I do, I've become kind of partial to the PK3 also. I've also been observing the wagering public for 30 years, and based on that, I am quite sure that I could tell every last one, how to win at the track. Six months later, 3 might have done it. Not quite enough to affect any payoffs.

Let's say that 1000 bettors are reading this right now, I tell them to watch every race for the next 30 days at the same track, and bet the horse that warms up well without a lead pony, and bet that horse to place, and don't bet any other scenario.

900 won't even check it out, because horse racing can't be that simple, and they prefer to bet a speed rating/jockey combination that came in 7 times last week, and they are busy working anyway.

57 adventurous types will actually do it, and then blow any profits by taking flyers on exactas. 23 will hook this horse up in reaching trifectas, thinking that it will run third with the two first choices, one of which runs out.

17 will break even by also betting on other horses that they thought warmed-up real well, and abandon the technique for not being truly indicative.

3 will study the scenario, and make note of the positive results without having bet money on the situation, but will now incorporate it into their overall method. I don't believe that this .003% has ever really knocked down the odds.

None of this has anything to do with whether the above scenario actually indicates a winner or not. It is not really about what anybody does or does not know. Success at the windows depends more on ones skill in applying what is true, knowing what is true is about half of the battle for success. The second half is more about you developing the skill of using well any truth that you have actually learned.

jdl

[jonnielu]

My point exactly. You sell an ebook and then push ability ratings.
I have to pay to get an advertisement? Waiting until post time to see which
horse dropped in odds and then looking at those horses more closely doesn't
an e book make. That was the most useless baloney I've read passing off
as a revolutionary idea. Please!

My point is that maybe you should read past the forward of that Ebook, but you'll also probably get the CD tomorrow, send it right back and I can have you refunded on Friday.

jdl

[timtam]

With all do respect I thought that was the ebook I apologize and did
not know there was more coming. I thought that was the entire book
so once again I goofed :blush:

[Greyfox]

I do, I've become kind of partial to the PK3 also. I've also been observing the wagering public for 30 years, and based on that, I am quite sure that I could tell every last one, how to win at the track. Six months later, 3 might have done it. Not quite enough to affect any payoffs.

Let's say that 1000 bettors are reading this right now, I tell them to watch every race for the next 30 days at the same track, and bet the horse that warms up well without a lead pony, and bet that horse to place, and don't bet any other scenario.

jdl

jonnielu, I've disagreed with you before, but not on this point.
Your points are well taken and certainly accurate. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

I've heard the argument before that if someone really knew something they would keep it to themselves.
Well some people would. A lot of other people wouldn't.
Thank God for the likes of Andy Beyer, Jim Quinn, Tom Ainslie, Litfin, and others who have been willing to share their insights over the years.
They know that they won't break the game by giving out secrets, that if applied with diligence, would make one a better player. The truth is a lot of players just won't see it or won't do the work. It's as simple as that.
I make good numbers myself. I can give them to the next guy at the track and they may or may not work for him. Maybe he has an unconscious desire to lose or maybe he doesn't recognize when they apply and when they don't.

[jonnielu]

With all do respect I thought that was the ebook I apologize and did
not know there was more coming. I thought that was the entire book
so once again I goofed :blush:

Well, in the first few pages, I try to explain how contenders were identified in the old days with the same viewpoint that I still use. What is new is how the real contenders are identified, and then analyzed in the same basic process, but my ratings also help to tighten up that same process and do reveal some things that were only thought to be significant in the old days.

I do push Ability-X ratings, and for 15 days of hard hitting racing action at Keeneland, I believe that I build a fair case for the idea that they do identify the real contenders very well. But, I do include that you can use other methods of isolating those same contenders. They could be pointed by bris early speed ratings.

I believe that many have trouble understanding my ratings because they are quickly associated with speed ratings that they do understand. In that particular book, I work specifically from a "winner" perspective in an attempt to get across a better understanding that my ratings are descriptive of "run" and not fast or slow as a linear measurement.

The news in that ebook, from start to finish, is how fast and slow will influence a race over the distance to the point that the best execution of "run" on the part of either arrives at the wire ahead of the other. A time-based measurement of ability will only show one of these contenders. That can lead to un-needed mystification when things like this happen daily:

9th -10fD
# POST ErlSpd / ML/Comp

58 6 94 4.5 152
46 4 93 6 139
37 1 93 2.5 130
68 5 92 3.5 160
55 3 91 15 146
79 8 87 5 166
80 7 87 8 167
77 2 81 12 158
r2,4,5,6

2 Frost Giant Rodriguez Rudy R. 115 82.00 29.20 10.40
4 Solar Flare (ARG) Saez Gabriel 114 7.00 4.30
5 Rising Moon Velasquez Cornelio H. 116 4.00

[njcurveball]

9th -10fD
# POST ErlSpd / ML/Comp

58 6 94 4.5 152
46 4 93 6 139
37 1 93 2.5 130
68 5 92 3.5 160
55 3 91 15 146
79 8 87 5 166
80 7 87 8 167
77 2 81 12 158
r2,4,5,6

2 Frost Giant Rodriguez Rudy R. 115 82.00 29.20 10.40
4 Solar Flare (ARG) Saez Gabriel 114 7.00 4.30
5 Rising Moon Velasquez Cornelio H. 116 4.00

I have figured them out now! If the bottom horse is in RED, run to the windows. :ThmbUp:

[applebee]

No matter what winning system is out there (long term) 99% of horse players
will trash it as a piece of junk after 3 straight losers! View it as instant gratification . The remaining 1% are making money with little to no impact on pools.Sure a well advertized method might impact pools for a short while but
when the quiters leave its back.So sell away.

[andicap]

That is exactly the answer I was thinking of.
Bert Norman gave the exact same response in the back of one his books about 40 years back. No matter that his method didn't work --but when asked why he would sell a winning system so cheaply, that's how he responded,.





I do, I've become kind of partial to the PK3 also. I've also been observing the wagering public for 30 years, and based on that, I am quite sure that I could tell every last one, how to win at the track. Six months later, 3 might have done it. Not quite enough to affect any payoffs.

Let's say that 1000 bettors are reading this right now, I tell them to watch every race for the next 30 days at the same track, and bet the horse that warms up well without a lead pony, and bet that horse to place, and don't bet any other scenario.

900 won't even check it out, because horse racing can't be that simple, and they prefer to bet a speed rating/jockey combination that came in 7 times last week, and they are busy working anyway.

57 adventurous types will actually do it, and then blow any profits by taking flyers on exactas. 23 will hook this horse up in reaching trifectas, thinking that it will run third with the two first choices, one of which runs out.

17 will break even by also betting on other horses that they thought warmed-up real well, and abandon the technique for not being truly indicative.

3 will study the scenario, and make note of the positive results without having bet money on the situation, but will now incorporate it into their overall method. I don't believe that this .003% has ever really knocked down the odds.

None of this has anything to do with whether the above scenario actually indicates a winner or not. It is not really about what anybody does or does not know. Success at the windows depends more on ones skill in applying what is true, knowing what is true is about half of the battle for success. The second half is more about you developing the skill of using well any truth that you have actually learned.

jdl

[jonnielu]

That is exactly the answer I was thinking of.
Bert Norman gave the exact same response in the back of one his books about 40 years back. No matter that his method didn't work --but when asked why he would sell a winning system so cheaply, that's how he responded,.

I believe that it was Sir Winston Churchill that summed it up so well with his observation that on occasion, a man may stumble over the truth in his travels.... at which time, he will usually pick himself up, dust himself off, and go on about his day.

jdl

[ddog]

If you are playing exotics at small tracks/pools you are incorrect.
In the medium run, if someone is playing your system and/or numbers faithfully you are likely to be TOAST.

5-10 more tickets on your system's nbrs and you knock the top end profit right off your tickets.

At real small track 1 to 3 more tickets really hurt you.

Of course, you can offset some of this with churn via rebates, but it gets to wheel spinning really quick.

If I recall one of your posts you mentioned something like 84K in a month playing PK3 PK4 at a track using your "nbrs"?
Was that correct and if so what was the net?

[jonnielu]

If you are playing exotics at small tracks/pools you are incorrect.
In the medium run, if someone is playing your system and/or numbers faithfully you are likely to be TOAST.

5-10 more tickets on your system's nbrs and you knock the top end profit right off your tickets.

At real small track 1 to 3 more tickets really hurt you.

Of course, you can offset some of this with churn via rebates, but it gets to wheel spinning really quick.

If I recall one of your posts you mentioned something like 84K in a month playing PK3 PK4 at a track using your "nbrs"?
Was that correct and if so what was the net?

I feel like I missed something, why would anybody want to do anything at a small track?

That was the Keeneland meeting, it wasn't a post here. It was $87,515.20, 14 racing days, we were blanked for 2 days out of the 14. 3 horses per race, there were a couple of late races where we added a couple of first time starters. If you want to subtract for losses, you can knock off $2,000, that would be plenty. Each day was bankrolled by betting the first two pk3's at $1, cost = $54.00, wins were put into the remaining $2 pk3's and late pk4.

After the second successful day, each day was started at the $2 level. This way losses were very minimal, and we were very quickly far ahead.

Why? Got some Ainsley to throw at me?

jdl

[skate]

Well, we could pick it apart or not, it's a very good post. Good points.

The problem (which is not really a problem) is that no answer exist to flat out winning a race. Odds must always come into the specifics.

Why would it be necessary to watch 30 races and then bet? It's like your almost saying "bet the 31 race".