gimme da winner/loser

[freeneasy]

With Hurrikanes new " Bet em and weep" favorites report, and Kendalwood going public with his new " Favorites that win report" it occurs to me that if one report could be blended together in combination with the other, and, if one report can solidify and strengthen the other as well as vise a versa, then it seems possible to me that a singletary and more seperate report can be derived at, in theory. for example.
1)Kendalwood comes up with his "favorites that win" report for that days racing.
2)Hurrikane comes up with his "favorites that lose" report for that days racing.
3)If one of Kendalwoods 'favorites that win' shows up on Hurrikanes 'favorites that lose' then
4)those favorite on Kendalwoods ' favorites that win' report can be eliminated and eliminated confidently. thereby
5) being left only with and creating a new and individual listing of favorites that "truly" win after having passed thru the listing of favorites that "truly" lose. and on the other side
1) Theres a favorite on Hurricanes favorites that lose report, and
2) after that losing favorite passes thru Kendalwoods winning favorites report and
3) if it is found that that losing favorite wins more then the 19% rate that the other losing favorites win at then
4) that losing favorite might need to be eliminated from Hurrikanes losing favorites report.
Of coarse all this after a stringent testing and results proving positive.
If it all worked out, it would narrow down the favorites that win report while increasing and making stronger the winning percentage, thereby giving greater excellence to such a report, and vise versa to the favorites that lose report.
There could be something like a three sheet report for those who are looking for spacific type of action. Everything thats on Kendalwoods favorites that win report, unadjusted, everything thats on Hurrikanes favorites that lose report, and the adjusted best of the favs that win and lose report.
Of coarse you'll be needing a manager to guide and lead you thru such difficult processing;) thats me. and of coarse i'll need a small slice o' the pie, lets say mmm, a controlling interest of 50 1/2%:) a limo with waterfall, new jet, a house, life insurence, retirement, vaction home in switzerland, new wardrobe, dancing girls, movie contracts, wide screen tv, did i say dancing girls already, a date with joy scott, what a fox;) lifetime tickets to disneyland and world, and an autogaphed picture of granny clampett:D if not well i'll take a couple a free days of free picks:) hey and i went easy on youse two.
so give it a thought and you never know if it works, boy you gyts might really have something worth while goin here.

[hurrikane]

huh? :D


I think I get the jist of it. I'll post em..you play with em. Let me know what happens. IF you get the picture of granny I want a copy. :D
I don't think Ken has any reasonable sample set to validate his bets. I could be wrong but he hasn't posted any such stats.
At least no more than a day or two.

[freeneasy]

well it was just a thought hurrikane, i mean if i had method that picked a good percentage of winning favorites and also had a method that picked a good percentage of losing favorites, i would look to see if the one method can have an above positive effect on the other method.
say at hollywood one method (kendals method) picks five favorites in the first ten races as good betting favorites, the 1 horse in the 1st, the 2 horse in the 2nd and so on up to the 10th race.
and say again the other method ( your method) picks one of those favorites in one of those ten races as being a bad betting favorite that wins only 19% of the time.
lets say again that, that one bad betting favorite in the first ten races is the 1 horse in the 1st race.
so now you have a single horse ( the 1 horse in the 1st race) that has two distinctions to it, a good betting favorite and a bad betting favorite.
the thinking is,it probably cant be both and that it either has to be one or the other. good or bad.
and so the idea is to track those horses that come up as BOTH the good and the bad betting favorite.
lets say that these "good/bad" betting favorite win at 22% and now it is known that this "good" betting favorite has turned out to be a "bad" betting favorite, therefore he can safely be eliminated as a good betting favorite.
lets now say that kendalwoods method had an 80% win rate before any elimination process took place.
then the culmination of all this would be this, and that is,if your win per cent was 8 out of every 10 races, then after elimination your win per cent would be 8 out of every 9 races.
i'll take a half dozen of those anyday.
and the same thing should work the other way around, that is if your bad betting favorites lose at 81 out of 100 then when one of your bad betting favorites is proved to win more then 21 out of 100, then if that betting favorite can safely be omitted from your list of bad betting favorites, then your losers will lose at 81 out of 99 and if it works out that you find a few more that can be eliminated, who knows, the list might even get up to/ down to 81 losers out of, oh say 91-92 bad bet favorites then i'll sure as shooten take a half million of those.
hey, if something already works and you can make it better, fix it, i said that.

[freeneasy]

at the start i said
Say at hollywood kendals method picks five favorites in the first 10 races, thats
10 favorites in the first 10 races

[kenwoodall]

10 day test on gambleinparadise, in the black 9 days.
BTW, you need to start a new category! My Saturday I had 10 Pimlico races, was 5 of 6, and in 3 races bothe my 1st and 2nd choices Scratched! How about a Fav no inning or bbeaten, but Scratched column?!!!!