speed figures analysis ? [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

anotherdave

05-18-2003, 12:57 PM

Formula, why are you here then? Why are you spending all this time on an impossible game? Clearly you can't beat it (and then logic follows that no one else can). What is all that stuff on your website? As a person with a very strong statistical background, I see this game can be beaten. I do it. What is your educational background to make such a statement?

There are two things involved in a gamble:

1. Probability of winning.

2. Odds

For a gamble to have any possibility of winning, there has to be some variability or uncertainty in one or both of those factors.

Craps has variability in neither. No chance for long term winning.
I know the probability of getting a 7 and knows what odds I will get if I win (set by the house).

Horse racing has variability in both. There are not many gambles like this. The probability is unknown-completely up for debate (as in sports betting) AND the odds are set by the bettors. Bettors do a decent job of this overall, but make serious mistakes in individual cases regularly. Difficult, but not impossible.

Blackjack, poker, and sports betting have variability in one of them.

The high take-out at the track makes it a difficult proposition, but certainly not impossible.

AD

Lefty

05-18-2003, 12:58 PM

Formula, wow, a man such as you, inundates himself in racing stats, and now hopes to get lucky at Bellagio. You have looked at the stats too long and have failed to see the "little picture" the subsets of those stats. Anyway, good luck at craps; you're gonna need it, no overlays.

formula_2002

05-18-2003, 04:39 PM

Just one example why no one can beat the track take-out.

For many years I have seen about 20% of the exacta pay offs as overlays.
Simple math will calculate the expected exacta pay off based upon the win pool odds and the win pool take-out.

Just compare that calculation to the actual payoff and you should also find 20% of the races are won by exacta overlays.

There is gold in them hills.

So I proceeded to write some programs that would spot these overlays by down loading online exacta probable tables into the program.

So what did I find?

10 minuets to post, the programs is spitting out many overlays.
5 minuets to post, fewer overlays
2 minuets almost no overlays
1 minuet to post, nada.

After the races, I find that once again, about 20% of the races were won by overlay exacta combinations.

So what happened?

In the smallest amount of time, the public is adjusting every win odds and exacta payout based on what it sees happening to the odds boards. Handicapping is over. It's now a matter of arbitrage, and last minuet heavy betting

Sharks in a mad feeding frenzy.
In that short period of time, without any one being able to fully adjust to the odds boards, they over bet the win pool, which then creates the exacta pool overlay.

So if you bet into a race that produces no exacta overlays, the take-out beats you.

If you bet into a race where the winning exacta combination is an overlay, not only did the track beat you, but that owner (or owners) that put in a $30,000 win bet just killed you. He turned your 2-1 horse into 9/5, or worst yet, 8/5.

Joe M

05-18-2003, 04:46 PM

None of which has a damn thing to do with today's 8th at Belmont...trust me, I hope you stop betting less, I'll miss your money in the pools.

Perhaps its not "the more I know, the less I bet" but "the more I lose, the less I bet!"

CJ

formula_2002

05-18-2003, 04:55 PM

anotherdave writes

"For a gamble to have any possibility of winning , there has to be some variability or uncertainty in one or both of those factors. "

Assuming, and i'm sure you do, mean winning at a profit,
I agree, but the variability or uncertainty must exceed the take-out.

The betting public is just not that stupid to allow that large a variability or uncertain to exist.

Joe M

formula_2002

05-18-2003, 05:00 PM

CJ

dont get upset..betting requires a clear head.
Even when it's on the body of a rooster :D

anotherdave

05-18-2003, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by formula_2002
anotherdave writes

"For a gamble to have any possibility of winning , there has to be some variability or uncertainty in one or both of those factors. "

Assuming, and i'm sure you do, mean winning at a profit,
I agree, but the variability or uncertainty must exceed the take-out.

The betting public is just not that stupid to allow that large a variability or uncertain to exist.

Joe M

I am a statistician and I only use the computer to do calculations. You seem to use it to handicap. I still handicap the old-fashioned way, but use technology to speed the process. I'd lose if I used a computer to handicap. For me handicapping is not running numbers through a data base (I've never even used a data base. My brain is my data base I guess), it is visualizing the running of the race and looking for the mistakes the public makes. As cj says they happen regularly. I don't find all of them, but I find enough of them to make a profit.

AD

sjk

05-18-2003, 05:54 PM

formula_2002

I'm sure I'm not the only one that takes offense at the idea that one cannot bet races in a profitable way. I would agree that trying to make an arbitrage between the win pools and the exacta pools will not get you far. I bet mostly exactas, but I know that when my horses do not offer value in the win pools the exacta prices will not hold up.

I bet thousands of races each year and have been in the black each of the last 6 years. I will admit that my ROI has decreased over that period of time. I wonder if the game is getting tougher or if it is me failing to keep up. Anyone have an opinion?

Dave Schwartz

05-18-2003, 07:15 PM

SJK,

I think your assessment is accurate.

The issue is the proliferation of electronic information and software programs. With everyone using (basically) the same information, we are all pretty much in agreement on who the best horses are. That is why it is nearly impossible to find value in low-priced horses these days; they are so overbet because we all agree.

My experience is that profit is generally found by taking the "prime contenders," eliminating the favorites, and betting what is left.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

hurrikane

05-18-2003, 07:58 PM

unbelievable.

I guess we won't be hearing the 'go to my website' mantra anymore. There is always a bright side.

Joe, you have spent the last 2 months telling everyone what they have to do to win, to make the right selections to make any money as if you were some kind of friggin handicapping god. Then we have to put up with this 'go to my website' bullshit.
Then you come up with this
to paraphrase....'If I can't beat it no one can. '

what a pompus ass.

I'm going to miss taking your money in particular buddy.

Tom

05-18-2003, 08:55 PM

So just 'casue YOU can't win, nobody can??
Wow!
Thanks for clearing that up.

Lefty

05-18-2003, 09:13 PM

I can't do a heart transplant. So, obviously, it can't be done.

dav4463

05-18-2003, 09:34 PM

Trifectas have the highest takeout, but if played right, can definitely make a profit.

formula_2002

05-18-2003, 09:43 PM

Hey boys, I not trying to get people po'd here.
I'm giving my opion and attempting to support it with facts.

I'm more then willing to read anyone's position on winning or losing. Meaningful numbers always get my attention.

The concept of the web page has not changed, and I always welcome your comments.

If anyone is making steady profits in a game that has a win pool take-out of 15 to 18% and where we all have basically the same information, there is more meaningfull work for them.

Wall street, the cia, the bio-sciences, the federal reserve, and medicine can all benefit by engaging such minds.

Joe M

PaceAdvantage

05-18-2003, 09:49 PM

I've known Joe M. since the old Prodigy Horse Racing Bulletin board days. Go a little easier on him....he's a good guy....

Debate the hell out of the topic with him, but there is no need to drag it down to a lower level.....

formula_2002

05-18-2003, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by Lefty
I can't do a heart transplant. So, obviously, it can't be done.

I'm not an expert at heart transplants either, and I dont try to be, else you know I'd be the very best...:cool:

Lefty

05-18-2003, 10:05 PM

Formula, you say there's more meaningful work for anyone that can beat the takeout...
Sometimes, it's not always about the money, but knowing you've done something that most of society says can't be done.

formula_2002

05-18-2003, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by dav4463
Trifectas have the highest takeout, but if played right, can definitely make a profit.

Care to give us one of your examples of playing it right.

dav4463

05-18-2003, 11:07 PM

I have had success with trifectas when I am able to play races with a chance of a big hit. I rank the horses from 1-6 and pick a key horse. For me to play a trifecta, I want to concentrate on those races where at least 2 of my top 6 ranked are 10-1 or higher at about 3 MTP, or at least one at 20-1 or higher. Then structure tickets involving those big odds horses. For example top choice at 5-2, 2nd pick at 4-1, 3rd at 11-1 , 4th at 22-1 , 5th at 5-1, 6th at 4-1.........................I would key my top choice on top with 3,4 with 3,4,2,5,6 and then another tri with top pick with 3,4,2,5,6 with 3,4...........I always try to cut down the bet size by keying the longer odds horses for the place and show spots....even better when a longer odds horse is my top pick. I also try not to play the favorite in the show spot, because the boxers hurt the price. Many times the exacta is a much better bet if the favorite finishes third. Demanding at least two horses at 10-1 or higher insures the chance of the big payoffs while eliminating those plays where the trifecta doesn't pay much. Due to such a low hit rate...might as well go for the payoffs. On the tickets where the favorite is not your top pick but is in the top 6 ranked, replace with a longshot bomb in the show spot who may stagger home for third.

Fastracehorse

05-19-2003, 12:47 AM

I've told you that for months.

I'll say it again: You believe quantity speaks volumes. That is, your 1 million horse database based on a thousand factors gives it ultimate credibility.

When in reality, you really don't understand handicapping or else you would take the quality approach - ie, understanding what a horse really needs to win and, what a trainer does to point horses to run well.

You in fact, take a less intellectual approach and because of it, recieve, a very ineffective result.

Such is the shagrin of a #'s cruncher.

PA said your a nice guy and I feel an allegiance to any fellow horse player, but your methods will give you handicapping colic.

fffastt

SAL

05-19-2003, 01:38 AM

fffastt,

I agree with you here. Though tbred racing is a game where you can pump thousands of stats through a database, the bottom line is you still have to HANDICAP to be successful.

The reality is:

You can't bet every race.
You can't bet every track.
You can't like the same stats that everybody else likes.

Sometimes, you just have to go with your "gut feeling' about a horse or a race.

I know the game can be beaten, because I know someone that is making a living doing exactly that. I'm sure there are a lot of players on this board who make money at this game every year.

Joe, good luck in your continued research, may you find the magic formula to beat the takeout.

SAL

hurrikane

05-19-2003, 06:22 AM

Joe,
At first you are a bit insulting. After thinking about it you may be my biggest asset.

You have ballyhooed the need to compare everything to the odds. That you have all the data for this or for that. Your 'global data' decisions are the only way you can invest in this business. That if you want to win you have to do things your way. And, oh, by the way, your way is a loser. Go figure.

As I see it you're thinking and acting like every other lemming in this game. You try to select the best horse and like a friggin zombie off you go to make the bet.

IMHO this game isn't about picking horses. It's about waiting for the public to make a mistake. There are many many ways to do that and not one involves one friggin 'global' pick.

In every walk of life there are winners and losers. Every winner I've ever met has sat by and laughed at every damn loser that says authoritatively, "it can't be done, it can't be done".

At first I was insulted. But actually I embrace you. I understand that without people like you saying 'it can't be done', and trying to convince other losers that "it can't be done", there could be no winners.

The fact is without losers ..there can be no winners.

hmmm...maybe I'll start telling everyone to go to your website. lol

formula_2002

05-19-2003, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by Lefty
Formula, you say there's more meaningful work for anyone that can beat the takeout...
Sometimes, it's not always about the money, but knowing you've done something that most of society says can't be done.

My point was helping society, because it NEEDED to be done.

formula_2002

05-19-2003, 08:14 AM

OK so far its 11 of you guys against me when I say "no one can beat the take-out"

How many of you can I whittle away if I say only up to 1% of the bettors can beat the take-out?

Joe M

formula_2002

05-19-2003, 08:28 AM

hurrikane@HTR

You just gave me an idea how I can market all of my data.

I'm going to send letters to all the race tracks and tell them, unless they give me 1 million dollars (a month), I'm going to turn my "non-commercial" web page into an activist web site promoting anti-horse race betting.

Membership is free, and all monies collected from the track will be distributed to web site members and other needy.:cool:

Joe M

05-19-2003, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by formula_2002
OK so far its 11 of you guys against me when I say "no one can beat the take-out"

How many of you can I whittle away if I say only up to 1% of the bettors can beat the take-out?

Joe M

I would think the percentage is higher than 1% overall. Many people who lose have a gambling problem, and they lose big, just like the craps players :).

As for this board, I'd say the % of winners is higher than the overall % in the general population. Just my opinion.

CJ

karlskorner

05-19-2003, 09:52 AM

All those months of wonderful "stats" and now this. Here I thought I was in the land of "high flying" Eagles" and me just a Kiwi bird walking around on the ground, depressing.

I am heading out early to the track, find Dr. Feelgood with a Boston Creme doughnout and coffee, find a bench in the paddock and try to understand what is happening.

anotherdave

05-19-2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by formula_2002
I'm going to turn my "non-commercial" web page into an activist web site promoting anti-horse race betting.

Joe M

Before you do that you might think about changing the name of your web site.

AD

hurrikane

05-19-2003, 10:50 AM

as far as winners to losers. Probably the 20% rule. As far as making a living. Probably the 5% rule.

As far as your business idea..sorry Joe..anouther loser.

And now you go Karl all depressed. lol

Fastracehorse

05-19-2003, 12:18 PM

<My point was helping society, because it NEEDED to be done.

Help yourself.

fffastt

formula_2002

05-19-2003, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by hurrikane@HTR
as far as winners to losers. Probably the 20% rule. As far as making a living. Probably the 5% rule.

As far as your business idea..sorry Joe..anouther loser.

And now you go Karl all depressed. lol

I was trully sorry when i read Karls note. But Boston Creme doughnuts have been known to solve many a problem.
Especially on a beautiful sunny day.

I think the 5% is way too high, unless they have formed a cartel.

Now all we have to guess is what percentage of the total handle that 5% is responsible for.

Rick

05-19-2003, 12:28 PM

Since I've been hearing this "you can't beat the races" crap for many years I'll add my two cents here. Winning at the races requires creativity, not huge databases. Yes, a large database is useful in order to verify that your ideas work, but if you don't have the good ideas in the first place you'll never get anywhere. You have to be a contrarian by nature in order to come up with the best ideas. Checking obvious things like whether any single factor can beat the takeout is bound to result in you thinking that the task is impossible. There are a lot of winners out there and they do it in many different ways. It may be a small percentage but it's still a significant number.

Here's a hint. Don't look at a huge database and try to find something that wins at every track. Sometimes the small picture is better than the big picture.

Lefty

05-19-2003, 12:53 PM

Formula, PA says be nice to you, but you're kinda going off deepend. First you say it can't be done, now it's 1%. And you're going to turn website into anti-gambling site. Now, anybody who does win should help society and turn their talents elsewhere.
Joe, you're right, YOU can't win. Go to the Bellagio and play craps. Perhaps you'll be happier, or maybe you'll just look at the elegance and tell the owners they shoulda used the money to build a hospital. Joe, you're not making much sense. Sorry.

karlskorner

05-19-2003, 06:44 PM

The aroma in the paddock cleared my depression caused by the statement "nobody can win at the track because of the take out" and I came back to reality and realized that horses don't understand "stats". The colorfully painted animals on a merry go round make for beautiful "stats", as they do the same thing day in, day out, they don't change paths, they keep the same pace, they have the same speed rating every time they go around and they race against the same animals. Not so with warm blooded animals.

As I have said before, horses understand pain. The medication and tools used to "relieve" pain and the equipment and tools used to "give" pain, these a horse understands. The changes in a horses everyday life cannot be put in a computer and become a "stat"

formula_2002

05-19-2003, 06:50 PM

karlskorner

Unfortunately Karl, they must know more then we give them credit for. They run to their odds.

Thats not my doing. It just how it is.

That fact is very well documented.

Just check my web page report "PUBLIC'S ESTIMATION OF THE ODDS" or any good horse racing book.

Hope you enjoyed those Boston Creams!!

Fastracehorse

05-19-2003, 07:00 PM

You do not have enough insight into the game to make any defintive statements about it - errrrrrrrr, except for yourself - that you can't beat it.

I've told you that - you argued my point - now you've accepted it.

:p :p :p :p :p :p :p

fffastt

formula_2002

05-19-2003, 07:37 PM

Fastracehorse@DRF

You are my guiding light (but a little low on battery)

Joe M

karlskorner

05-19-2003, 08:00 PM

I would go to your web page, but I can't handle 2 depressions in one day, maybe tomorrow.

formula_2002

05-19-2003, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Rick
....... Yes, a large database is useful in order to verify that your ideas work, but if you don't have the good ideas in the first place you'll never get anywhere ......

What confounds me is this. How come, in over 800 members to the board, I'm the only one that says you can not beat the take-out.

I'm sorry boys, there is more data out there to support my position. I have seen none to support any other..have you?

what a nightmare
total handle $18,000,000
amount returned to bettors $14,400,000

Just to break even you have to equal the take-out. That could be 15 to 20% better then the public. And you and I are the public.

JimG

05-19-2003, 08:07 PM

JoeM

You have people on this board that say they win long term at the track. Are you calling them all liars because your data allegedly does not support such a conclusion?

Not sure where this thread is going. It is very hard to win at the track long term and very hard to beat the vig. I have had many winning years over my 20 years or so playing the horses...so I know it can be done...takes alot of work...and luck...and in my case hitting some big bets...but it can be done.

Jim

formula_2002

05-19-2003, 08:08 PM

Karl

I had to glance where you were from. I new you could not be from the west coast. Most of those guys have no sense..............of humor.

Joe M
ny

Dave Schwartz

05-19-2003, 08:08 PM

Formula,

>>>What confounds me is this. How come, in over 800 members to the board, I'm the only one that says you can not beat the take-out.<<<

Because some of us win, and some win significantly. The rest probably believe that SOMEONE is winning. That refutes your statement.

In fact, I find your position confusing. Don't you say that you, yourself, beat the game?

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

anotherdave

05-19-2003, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by formula_2002
What confounds me is this. How come, in over 800 members to the board, I'm the only one that says you can not beat the take-out.

Formula

Two questions:

1. Why are you here?

2. Why is your website called globalWINNINGpicks.com. Don't you know you can't win?

AD

formula_2002

05-19-2003, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by JimG
JoeM

You have people on this board that say they win long term at the track. Are you calling them all liars because your data allegedly does not support such a conclusion?

Not sure where this thread is going. It is very hard to win at the track long term and very hard to beat the vig. I have had many winning years over my 20 years or so playing the horses...so I know it can be done...takes alot of work...and luck...and in my case hitting some big bets...but it can be done.

Jim

Jim i'd never call anyone not running for public office a liar.

But you mentioned a very important thing " luck...and in my case hitting some big bets..."
Thats how most of us win, luck and a few big bets"
But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about day in and day out win pool betting. Its the true measure of long term success.
And I just dont see how the math can support successful win pool betting.

I made some studies about dd, pick 3 and exacta pool betting possibly being profitable if you could get the effect of the win pool take-out down to about 7%. But I have to revisit that.

JimG

05-19-2003, 08:28 PM

Joe,

Thanks for the reply. Like you, I used to post on the old Prodigy Board so I've been around awhile <g>

I have never been able to make a consistent profit on win betting so I have concentrated my efforts on putting together exotic (trifecta, pk3, DD only) wagers based on the odds and chance of winning of my contenders.

Keep plugging.

Jim

GameTheory

05-19-2003, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by formula_2002
karlskorner

Unfortunately Karl, they must know more then we give them credit for. They run to their odds.

You're mistaking an effect for a cause, and this the fundamental flaw with your obsession with the odds. (It is more of a religion with you at this point, I'm afraid.) If the odds determined the way they run, then the act of making a bet would make them run differently. Do you believe that is the case? I suppose in non-betting races they wouldn't even be able to get out of the gate.

formula_2002

05-19-2003, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
Formula,

In fact, I find your position confusing. Don't you say that you, yourself, beat the game?

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Dave, most all my stuff is on my web site. I try to make clear, what the system is based upon, separating back fitted data from "live" data.

Such as;
"The system picks are based on a data base sample of over 16,000 races (over 126,000 horses)
The system picks started on 03/10/2003.
If I can approximate the results achieved in the sample, I will win about 21% of the time, achieving a profit of about 33%"

Unfortunately;

"system picks results: through 05/15/2003
number of races: 211
win %: 16
profit: -7%"

The previous system was based on over 6000 back fitted picks which showed a profit of 6%.
Unfortunately, the next "live" 1000 or so races showed a 11% loss.

Joe M

Lefty

05-19-2003, 08:56 PM

Formula, I know this is going to be falling on blind eyes but, the fact that horses run to their odds is not new, read it when I first stated betting back in the 50's. The public is very good, it's a very efficient marketplace. We, as bettors and 'cappers have to find the inefficiencies. They come along a few times every day.
You saying noone wins is kinda like a scientist saying the hummingbird can't fly; but the damn thing does. Hmmm.

lousycapper

05-19-2003, 09:19 PM

As a neophyte... what studies have been done using Equibase speed and variant numbers? Say, looking at the last 3-5 starts, taking the best three and averaging them to find your speed contenders? I don't want to invent the wheel all over again. Thanks in advance for your help.

-L.C.

formula_2002

05-19-2003, 09:23 PM

gt

6761 horses w/ average odds 1-1 win 43% of the time
10,665 horses w/ averag odds 2-1 win 28% of the time
11,295 horses w/ averga odds 3-1 win 21% of the time.

etc.

do you see a correlation ?

Are you saying, in the future an 1-1 horse will NOT win an average of 43% of the time?

Are you , Lefty and Fast close friends??:rolleyes:

formula_2002

05-19-2003, 09:27 PM

lousycapper

Ah Mr Anthony. The simpler times of radio. "The Answer Man"

Lefty

05-19-2003, 09:33 PM

Formula, you are presenting blind averages. You don't believe in subsets? You don't blve, say, for istance, an accomplished 'capper might find a subset of those 1-1 horses that might only encompass 100 or so plays and win 70 times?
I do not know the gentlemen you mentioned but I imagine I would be honored to have them as friends.

lousycapper

05-19-2003, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by formula_2002
lousycapper

Ah Mr Anthony. The simpler times of radio. "The Answer Man"

=======================

Grampa has referred to him on many occassions. I didn't know who he was until Grampa told me. Thought it was a funny saying. He sometimes uses "Agony" in place of "Anthony".

-LC.

Handle

05-19-2003, 09:44 PM

Seems to me that a lot of this "can't beat the game" is based on statistical evaluation of the performance of so-called overlays. The problem is that one man's overlay is another man's pig. The statistical basis is flawed because its based on very subjective criteria. If the numbers don't come out using one set of criteria, change the criteria (that you use to make wagers with). If looking to win playing _every race_, then expect to end up where Joe's coming from.

Regarding number crunching. It seems too many people think its an either or approach -- you either crunch numbers and make your plays, or you do something else. Personally, I use a statistical approach to find contenders. When I find one that the public doesn't, and the rest of the race falls into shape, its a play. For example, a stat showing that a trainer wins at a high percentage with first time starters may indicate a contender. If his horse is going off at, say, 5/1, I'll be very interested. But, if the race shows other viable contenders, I'll pass the race (at least, when I'm playing well I will).

anotherdave

05-19-2003, 10:13 PM

From previous formula post:

"What suggestions do you have for a “Global Winning Picks” business and marketing plans?"

Now I get it! This is just an elaborate marketing plan using reverse psychology - absolutely ingenious!

AD

GameTheory

05-19-2003, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by formula_2002
gt

6761 horses w/ average odds 1-1 win 43% of the time
10,665 horses w/ averag odds 2-1 win 28% of the time
11,295 horses w/ averga odds 3-1 win 21% of the time.

etc.

do you see a correlation ?

Are you saying, in the future an 1-1 horse will NOT win an average of 43% of the time?

I'm saying it is an effect, not a cause. I've explained before (in detail) the problems with what you're doing, and why your worship of the odds is misguided before, so I won't do it again. Go look up the old posts if you want.

I've also asked you dozens of direct questions, and you haven't answered any of them. Lots of people have pointed out all sorts of contradictions and the flaws in your reasoning, and you just ignore them. Now I'd be the last person to say that I am some guru and you should just listen to me and you'll win lots of money, but you're very stubborn and unwilling to confront fundamental errors in your methodology. You're even unwilling to simply *respond* to such questions, and you leave some blow-off answer like above -- answering questions with questions, etc. Why?

Being stubborn is for winners -- everyone else should be trying to learn. I just don't understand your know-it-all attitude. After all, it hasn't gotten you anywhere except to become an excellent case-study of why people lose. Why why why?

Fastracehorse

05-20-2003, 12:01 AM

<there is more data out there to support my position. I have seen none to support any other..have you?

Your data is meaningless and supports no position of any sort.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

fffastt

Fastracehorse

05-20-2003, 12:08 AM

Joe I'm giving you a hard time but you sort of deserve it.

<Formula, you are presenting blind averages.

What you do is butcher a beautiful game with obnoxious and meaningless data.

How can you be so B L I N D??

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

fffastt

Fastracehorse

05-20-2003, 12:11 AM

<But, if the race shows other viable contenders, I'll pass the race (at least, when I'm playing well I will).

But if you use statistics how do U know what viable contenders are?? - other than the obvious, ex., ( high % trainers ).

fffastt

:) :) :) :) :) :) :)

formula_2002

05-20-2003, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by GameTheory
. You're even unwilling to simply *respond* to such questions, and you leave some blow-off answer like above -- answering questions with questions, etc. Why?

I'll bite. Which questions ?

Joe M

hurrikane

05-20-2003, 09:00 AM

you now folks. Just let him go. He's never been more than a $2 bettor anyway so I don't see him contributing to the pools much as it is.

If after all this he can't even comprehend the idea of an overlay I say just let him go.

At least we won't have to read the friggin 'go to my website' bullshit anymore.

formula_2002

05-20-2003, 10:13 AM

hurrikane@HTR

Have a very fine day yourself.

Joe M

karlskorner

05-20-2003, 11:03 AM

I visited your site as promised, I think I was visitor 956. Tried to understand what your are accomplishing. It's turned into another B/C doughnut and coffee day, finding a shade tree to sit under and stare at my belly button.

Many years ago an old timer name of Ace (funny thing I am his age now) who sat in the same seat everyday and carried 10K with him at all times (he had a little side business going cashing tickets) repeated many times "There is a winner in every race, you just have to find it". My conclusion Joe, your just not finding enough winners.

I was going to send you a P/M on what winning days should look like but decided against it, you will answer me with more "stats" and prolong my agony.

Rick

05-20-2003, 11:20 AM

formula,

You're quite correct in observing that some methods of analyzing back-fitted data do not produce a winning method in the future. For example, linear regression techniques don't work very well with horse racing data since they tend to emphasize a lot of the noise that is inherent in the data. And using too many variables will usually result in the same problem. But if you use a smaller number of variables and try to eliminate the noise, you can come up with something valid.

You should read about the techniques used by the Hong Kong Betting Syndicate. The same approach works on US races. Although there are easier ways to achieve the same results, their success should convince you that it's possible to win. I've tried just about every method of statistical analysis over the years and can tell you from experience that, although the most obvious ones don't work well enough, there are some that do. I'm still showing a nice profit after several thousand races using one of them involving three numerical factors plus one filter. Don't give up just because one idea doesn't work.

Racehorse

05-20-2003, 04:26 PM

formula 2002 ..

I have little interest in debating with anyone whether or not the races can be beaten.

I've been a small scale wagerer for a some time.... as an example, I've bet opening day at OP for thirty six (36) consecutive years.

I limit myself to select types of races to place a bet....
claiming sprints is the largest catagory

with what do I open the files on your website?
as I'd like to examine your findings.

I downloaded "tracks" and when I attempted to open the file, WinME flipped up a menu asking with what program did I want to open ....

thanks,
horse

Racehorse

05-20-2003, 04:30 PM

Rick ....

would you be kind enough to give a hint as to which "area of information" your three numerical factors are located and maybe a "hint" about the filter ....

hey ... it never hurts to ask <ggggg>

horse

formula_2002

05-20-2003, 04:35 PM

Horse, I gather you need excel or some other spread sheet.
Did you try to open it without downloading?

If you click on "e-Mail me", I can e-mail the file as "picture". I have done that for a few people and it seems to work.

Thanks for the interest.

Joe M

formula_2002

05-20-2003, 04:48 PM

Horse, one thing further. More claiming sprints are ran then other other race.

Most of my studies show those races to have the best best results.

Fastracehorse

05-20-2003, 06:10 PM

<Most of my studies show those races to have the best best results.

Studies is too strong of a word.

:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

fffastt

Derek2U

05-20-2003, 06:26 PM

Of course, RA (regress analysis) does NOT work & CANNOT work
with racing data --- case closed, mathematically speaking.
But there are so many other math techniques available .... yes
filters are the way to go, no question about it. But I've said this
before here & only about 3 months ago did I start to collect &
anaylse data from formulator. (as i said b4 --- my father is a
almost-retired math prof + a Vgood capper & so I do have an
edge) --- but the thing is this: how U apply ur filters --- in what
order --- matters most, if u wish NOT to eliminate the eventual
winners.

GameTheory

05-20-2003, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Derek2U
Of course, RA (regress analysis) does NOT work & CANNOT work
with racing data --- case closed, mathematically speaking.

Derek --

Can you elaborate on that statement?

Formula --

I'm not about to spend hours sifting through a bunch of old posts looking for questions I've asked. But they're all there to be found if you feel like it using the search feature.

lousycapper

05-20-2003, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by Derek2U
Of course, RA (regress analysis) does NOT work & CANNOT work
with racing data --- case closed, mathematically speaking.
But there are so many other math techniques available .... yes
filters are the way to go, no question about it. But I've said this
before here & only about 3 months ago did I start to collect &
anaylse data from formulator. (as i said b4 --- my father is a
almost-retired math prof + a Vgood capper & so I do have an
edge) --- but the thing is this: how U apply ur filters --- in what
order --- matters most, if u wish NOT to eliminate the eventual
winners.

===========================

I agree with you regarding using filters. However, while linear regression is not applicable to horse racing, logistical regression works nicely. For those mathmatically inclined it's a whole new ball game. I suggest going to a college text book store and buying a book on it. You'll have more fun than a barrel of monkeys. [Another of Grampa's sayings.]
.
Most horse racing studies that I have seen use linear regression and they are decades old. Logistical regression has been around for a couple of decades but I have yet to see it used in horse racing. Maybe some of you out there are using it now?

-L.C.

formula_2002

05-20-2003, 07:30 PM

GameTheory

I thought you had more on the ball then that .

thats a dodge.

Joe M

socantra

05-20-2003, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by formula_2002
[
Just to break even you have to equal the take-out. That could be 15 to 20% better then the public. And you and I are the public. [/B]

Yes we are the public, but it seems enormously silly to say that all members of the public are equally skilled.

The figure I've heard most often for long term, consistant winners is 2%.

I found beating the takeout to be fairly easy, as a win bettor. What I'm finding much more difficult is getting to a meaningful level of profits above that, but I am very slowly gaining on it.

Its not an engineering problem. As a number of people keep stating, its a matter of being very selective and recognizing patterns and soft spots.

I would imagine the reason you can't find anyone who agrees with you, is that it seems damn foolish for anyone who doesn't believe the game can be beaten, to spend large amounts of time aand effort studying it. You're talking to the wrong group.

formula_2002

05-20-2003, 08:31 PM

socantra and all

How many people do you think that 2% represents.

Recall, we have 800+ members here, and by some accounts, we represent a higher % of winners then all the common folk.

Look at all the other bb's that competed in the PA's contest. say they have an equal amout of players and winners.

Say there are 1000 more players outside of each bb
and say 19 additional bb's did not enter the contest,

Thats ((19 contest boards + 19 additional boards)*800 )+(1000*38) +10 Ernie Dahlman types that play in the win pool=
68,410 players.
Thats less round that up to 100,000 players.

100,000 players x .02% = 2000 winners through out the world, all trying to beat each other in $200,000 + win pools.

I would think a case could be made for more players then 100,000.

Scarry huh?

Joe M

Fastracehorse

05-20-2003, 08:58 PM

Statistically I am 99.99 % certain that you are not one of the 2 %.

:p :p :p :p :p :p :p

fffastt

formula_2002

05-20-2003, 09:06 PM

Fastracehorse@DRF

Thanks for that .01 chance. You are a liberal guy after all.

Joe M

05-20-2003, 09:08 PM

Hey Formula,

Explain this away!

This the history of my bets since I've been with BrisBET, from January 1, 2001, til May 18, 2003.

Account History for #740153

# of Bets Win % $1 ROI Wagered Payoff Profit/Loss
4610 7.81% +0.43 $48830.00 $69930.75 $+21100.75

By the way, those are only the exactas, those pools the other gamblers are so adept in.

CJ

lousycapper

05-20-2003, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
Hey Formula,

Explain this away!

This the history of my bets since I've been with BrisBET, from January 1, 2001, til May 18, 2003.

Account History for #740153

# of Bets Win % $1 ROI Wagered Payoff Profit/Loss
4610 7.81% +0.43 $48830.00 $69930.75 $+21100.75

By the way, those are only the exactas, those pools the other gamblers are so adept in.

CJ

===========================

I make your average payoff to be on the sunny side of $194.00. Just wondering if you box your selections? When my Grampa bets exactas for me I use my top 2 selections and wheel them to 5 likely choices that my program generates. The only other proviso is... the morning line odds on the top 2 choices must be 3/1 or greater or must be a qualified non-scratch morning line favorite. These M.L. favorites win for me a very high percentage of the time, but they are few and far between.

-L.C.

formula_2002

05-20-2003, 10:08 PM

cjmilkowski

Except for the fact that you are ahead, and i'm very happy for you, there is not much I can say given the data you presented.

Does it pove that you can make steady profits in the win pool. NO.

To be meaningful, you have to start to examine the odds on small incremental basis,and it has to meet SIGNIFICANCE TESTING.

Best thing I can think of to say is quit while you are ahead and spend the winnings.

Joe M

05-20-2003, 10:08 PM

I play a lot of exacta boxes, and I also play many straight exactas. I do not play many combinations, no more than 3, usually less. As you can tell by my win %, I'm usually wrong. When I am right, I make sure it is going to pay very well.

The point of this wasn't to say, hey look how great I am. I could post my win/place bets, which show a slight loss, or my win bets, around 10% profit. Neither very exciting.

My point is this...Formula can tell everyone it can't be done and quote all the stats and mathematical formulas he wants. I know it can be done, and I refuse to let him off the hook.

Here is why I think I win in this game...
I've seen my competition betting off Equibase programs, or worse yet scratch sheets. I know what factors they bet. I know when I have a price horse with a much better chance than his odds. I have no great desire to hit a high % of races, its about one thing. Did I get back collect more money this month than I put in...period...end of story.

Bumble bees aren't supposed to be able to fly, but they do it quite well.

CJ

PS...I'll be happy to show my records to anyone who wants to see them at the "Toga Party"!

05-20-2003, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by formula_2002
cjmilkowski

Except for the fact that you are ahead, and i'm very happy for you, there is not much I can say given the data you presented.

Does it pove that you can make steady profits in the win pool. NO.

To be meaningful, you have to start to examine the odds on small incremental basis,and it has to meet SIGNIFICANCE TESTING.

Best thing I can think of to say is quit while you are ahead and spend the winnings.

Joe M

Umm...you go ahead and do your testing, I'll continue to withdrawal money from my account and deposit it in my bank account. I do make profits in the win pool, around 10%, but most of my money goes into exactas for obvious reasons. By the way, I am horrid at trifectas, but that taught me not to play them anymore. No testing needed.

CJ

formula_2002

05-20-2003, 10:20 PM

cj,

I'd be more interested in seeing an oddsline x oddsline stat on the 10% win pool profit.

I think with brisbet.com you can isolate on the win pool bets and down load the data from the beginning of tme.

It's been a few months since I've made a bet.

Be glad to run through it and give you my comments.

Joe M

05-20-2003, 10:31 PM

Its in your email...if you want more, let me know, but you can't see the odds of the losers, only the winners by the payoff.

CJ

lousycapper

05-20-2003, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by formula_2002
cjmilkowski

Does it pove that you can make steady profits in the win pool. NO.

Joe M

============================

Grampa has been handcapping the horses since the end of WWII and according Gramma he has never done anything except handicap. I have never seen him with less than $25k in his moneybelt. I am hoping to follow in his footsteps after college. No, I am not in his will.

-L.C.

Tom

05-20-2003, 10:49 PM

....you have to have bet money on it. If you didn't bet it, it dosen't count. Anything without cash at risk is fun with numbers.
When you can count the bills, you can count the win.
The trouble with massive samples is you aren't going to bet every race in them anyway, so the results are not what you will live to see. No one bets averages - they bet single events. The secret is to win enough single events to put more cash in to your pockets than comes out.

Check out this Longshot chart:

http://www.homebased2.com./km/longshotchart.htm

There are prices to be had out there. Stop playing with data simulations and go bet some. BTW...I play MNR whenever I can.
Rule number one: throw out the favorite. Rule number two:
go from there and wing it.

Good luck.

formula_2002

05-20-2003, 11:08 PM

Tom, you got to to love those web sites

# wins , # plays, win % all clearly spelled out.

What are the profits?

GameTheory

05-20-2003, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by formula_2002
GameTheory

I thought you had more on the ball then that .

thats a dodge.

Joe M

Joe, I can only waste so much time and effort in a losing battle. If you don't want to engage in a discussion on your various pronouncements of so-called fact, then it becomes obnoxious to make them all the time. Ad nauseum, you know? That's my point. I'm not interested in the answers anymore; I'm through with you.

anotherdave

05-20-2003, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by formula_2002
cjmilkowski

Except for the fact that you are ahead, and i'm very happy for you, there is not much I can say given the data you presented.

Does it pove that you can make steady profits in the win pool. NO.

To be meaningful, you have to start to examine the odds on small incremental basis,and it has to meet SIGNIFICANCE TESTING.

Best thing I can think of to say is quit while you are ahead and spend the winnings.

Joe M

Joe,

You quote all these "statistics" and throw around the term "significance testing". I am curious what statistics courses you have taken. Bonus question: what is the probability that the parameter lies in a 95% confidence interval?

AD

Fastracehorse

05-21-2003, 12:01 AM

<No one bets averages - they bet single events. The secret is to win enough single events to put more cash in to your pockets than comes out.

And as I said to Joe, the best profits are always short-term.

Also, I post my selections on DRF. I have a thread devoted to my longshots: Top pick winners only - 6-1 or greater only - posted before the race only.

I'm at # 47 so far this year - and there are two one hundred dollar-plus winners in that total.

Short-term value - sorry far-sighted Joe.

:p :p :p :p :p :p :p

fffastt

Shacopate

05-21-2003, 02:52 AM

I agree that overcoming the takeout is tough. Especially for the average player or weekend warrior. And I think it's great that you've compiled tremendous data on the sport. Alot of truth can be found in mathmatics. But I think you're overlooking a serious factor: TALENT.

Some people are more talented (or gifted) than others. Be it music, art or in the case of a 10 year-old chess grandmaster. And I've seen some very talented horseplayers.

One who possesses an intuative ability to predict form cycles.

Another who makes his the majority of his wagers based on a horses appearance.

Neither one has a second job.

You may think these are abberations, but I know some very talented "grinders" as well. The types that bet many races a day and come out on top because they know where to find VALUE.

Alot of winning players I know are specialist that focus on one type of race such as turf or maiden races. But all of them have one thing in common: they work their asses off.

And they possess high degree of talent.

formula_2002

05-21-2003, 07:33 AM

GT and all.
I'd be happy to answer any question on the work I'm doing.
Much of the work is posted on my web page.

formula_2002

05-21-2003, 08:03 AM

I'll make a reference to a book that one of the PA members alerted me to when we were both on Prodigy

Its a bit pricy.
Over $60 about 8 or 9 years ago.

While the math in the book appears to be involved, the object of each of the appox 65 papers the conclusions tend to be clear.

Many of the authors are from places like Prinston, Yale, The Rand corp, The Federal Reserve Bank, etc.

There is also a paper William Benter
of the "HK Betting Syndicate, Honk Kong"

Perhaps this is the same syndicate Rick referred to in aprevious note.

"Efficiency Of Racetrack Betting Markets" Edited by Hausch, Lo and Ziemba. Published by the Academic Press.

Joe M

hurrikane

05-21-2003, 08:34 AM

Here's another book that may interest everyone,

"Losing for Dummies"

http://globalwinningpicks.homestead.com/GLOBALWINNINGPICKSX.html

05-21-2003, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by formula_2002
...

Many of the authors are from places like Prinston, Yale, The Rand corp, The Federal Reserve Bank, etc...

Joe M

Is Prinston anywhere near Princeton, in New Jersey?

CJ

anotherdave

05-21-2003, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by formula_2002

Many of the authors are from places like Prinston, Yale, The Rand corp, The Federal Reserve Bank, etc.
Joe M

Is this your answer to my question? I will assume that you have never taken a course in statistics?

AD

lousycapper

05-21-2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by formula_2002

"Efficiency Of Racetrack Betting Markets" Edited by Hausch, Lo and Ziemba. Published by the Academic Press.

Joe M

I believe Ziemba is also known as Dr. "Z". He has been known to bet huge amounts of money... sometimes up to $3.00 on his place and show bets. His last known address was a cardboard box under an I-95 overpass.

-L.C.

formula_2002

05-21-2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by anotherdave
Joe,

You quote all these "statistics" and throw around the term "significance testing". I am curious what statistics courses you have taken. Bonus question: what is the probability that the parameter lies in a 95% confidence interval?

AD

Sorry Dave, I missed your question.

I have not taken a stat course since high school, and that could have been 50 years ago. (I went to a Top NY high school).

If you go to my web page, you will find an interactive excel table on "significance testing" that I prepared.
I would certainly appreciate your comments.

The basis for the work represented by the interactive excel table is documented on the web page.

Joe M

formula_2002

05-21-2003, 11:12 AM

lousycapper

Wow a guy from the west coast with a sense of humor.;)
thinks are looking up..

Z didn't write the book, he edited it with the others..

Jaguar

05-21-2003, 11:45 AM

Joe, I used Dr. Z's method, as programmed in a module for my HP41CV calculator, successfully for 3 years in the early '90's.

Sadly, the method lost its effectiveness as the betting pools became more accurate- due to the appearance of better pace programs- not to mention strong A.I. discs, such as Thorobrain, Multi-Strats, All-Ways, etc.

Everybody got smart and gradually the only value left in the game was the win bet(in States with lower vig) and the tris and supers.

That's the condition we are in today. Among the small group of guys whom I know to be consistent winners, only one of them bets exactas. For me, the bet is the win bet, since I can step up after a loss and make my profit goal for the day. Moreover, I won't bet below even money.

I did a casual study of my bets, using Multi-Strats, and I see that I rarely bet an Allowance race below a 78% consistency rating and that my larger bets are in races to which Multi-Strats assigns a consistency rating of 84% and above.

You made a good point about the efficiency of the exacta pools, I almost never see any value there.

If Dr. Z were to analyze horse racing mutuels today, I believe he would be compelled to look elsewhere than the place and show pools for value. I would enjoy reading his conclusions after such a study.

All the best,

Jaguar

lousycapper

05-21-2003, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by formula_2002
lousycapper

Wow a guy from the west coast with a sense of humor.;)

============================

Yup, a few of us left-coasters do... it's the only way we can survive.

-L.C.

Fastracehorse

05-21-2003, 11:54 AM

<Many of the authors are from places like Prinston, Yale, The Rand corp, The Federal Reserve Bank, etc.

But are they horse players #1??

And #2, horse racing isn't run solely in a theoretical world - it is bound by less academic, but equally important hypotheticals.

Also, that book made alot of assumptions - mistakes non-players would assume.

fffastt

Racehorse

05-21-2003, 12:33 PM

formula ..

thanks for the reply as to using Excel to open the files from your site ...

use and run four computers at my home office none of which has an Excel program currently loaded up.

as selective about what is used on each of the four boxes as I am concerning the types of races upon which I wager.

I'm a daytrader for wage and profit, so I have one box exclusively run my charting program, one which has only my trading screen, one email only, and the new one I bought a couple of weeks ago is for web trafficing, etc .... and I've not downloaded Office onto it yet.

today, when I finish downloading my just received copies of Norton SystemWorks 2003 onto the machines, I'm going fishing, so tomorrow I'll download Office and take a look at your files.

I've read all the messages on this particular subject here (def NOT all the subjects since my last visit a couple of months ago) and I can see you've proceeded to stir up a nest of discussion, to say the least.

and just to add a side comment ....
yes, I have a positive ROI for both the Derby and Preakness this year ... as well as last year, too.
even though these were NOT claiming sprints ...
one of my "other catagories" for wagering is

black type stakes

I'll be back in touch.

horse

Rick

05-21-2003, 12:38 PM

L. C.,

I agree with you that logit regression does work. I've used it to establish the significance of the factors that I use, although I did select the factors originally based on a much simpler method of analysis. Linear regression produced bad weightings for those factors though. I did use it as another check on significance though by predicting finish position from odds (actually log (odds + 1)) and my variables. It's crucial to know that your factors add significant information not included in actual odds. If you can't prove significance, no matter how great your results were in the past they will not be repeated in the future.

horse,

My only hint is that none of them involve speed. And, the best factors may be different for different tracks. I don't care if I win at all tracks, just if my bottom line is significantly positive at those that I do play. I wouldn't have time to play a lot of tracks anyway.

Racehorse

05-21-2003, 01:09 PM

Rick ..

you use no speed indicators

that is about ALL I use

guess that shows there is more than one manner in which a cat pelt can be removed from a cat, no?
<gggggg>

horse

Racehorse

05-21-2003, 01:18 PM

Rick ...

I will throw this out into the melee of discussion here ...

waaaaaay back ...
used a RadioShack TRS 80 model III running TrisDOS and a program which melded PosiCalc and ProData *(as IF that matters .. either then OR now)
and
compiled over fifty thousand races ****(hand input if one can nowadays envision such archaic methods) to quantify any identifiable factors from which profit could be obtained ....

golly gee ...
I surely did get upset when some idiot thief (when he was captured, he proved that identifier was correct .. idiot) broke into my office and stole the computer AND five cases of 5.25 floppies ....
that was a blow ....

but, I lived
and
am certainly pleased with these new computers ..
the new Dell I just got is a screamer ... have to install a 512 stick into the innards
and then I'm leaving to go fishing ....

any more hints?

heh heh heh heh

thanks for the reply
horse

05-21-2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Jaguar

...You made a good point about the efficiency of the exacta pools, I almost never see any value there...

How do you guys figure this "value" that isn't there...I love the exacta pools and exploit them regularly.

If you are trying to calculate "value" based on the win odds of the horses, forget it. The win odds don't mean anything about a horses chances of being second.

CJ

lousycapper

05-21-2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Rick
L. C.,

I agree with you that logit regression does work. I've used it to establish the significance of the factors that I use, although I did select the factors originally based on a much simpler method of analysis. Linear regression produced bad weightings for those factors though. I did use it as another check on significance though by predicting finish position from odds (actually log (odds + 1)) and my variables. It's crucial to know that your factors add significant information not included in actual odds. If you can't prove significance, no matter how great your results were in the past they will not be repeated in the future.

horse,

My only hint is that none of them involve speed. And, the best factors may be different for different tracks. I don't care if I win at all tracks, just if my bottom line is significantly positive at those that I do play. I wouldn't have time to play a lot of tracks anyway.

===========================

My program has a screening process much like a Tyler-Rotap screener. The final selections (2) are at the bottom and the probability of one of them winning is high enough to be profitable. Speed is just one of my screens. The beauty of Logistical Regression is you can get closer to true scientific parsimony than was formally possible.

-L.C.

Rick

05-21-2003, 05:16 PM

horse,

I don't mean to imply that it's not possible to win using speed as a factor, just that I don't. In fact, I used a two factor model with speed as one of the factors a few years back that was profitable, although somewhat less so than the model I now use. The biggest problem I've found with speed ratings is that races where a horse is many lengths behind seem to be underrated somewhat, especially in the 5-10 length category. But it is possible to adjust for this problem so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a highly successful model using speed as one of the factors.

Also, after thinking about my previous statement about regression techniques, I have to add this thought. I think it may be possible to develop a successful linear regression model if one codes the dependent variable properly. Based on my experience, I'd try predicting finish position coded as 1st = 2 points, 2nd = 1 point, any other finish = 0. I think that might work pretty well. Of course there may be other weightings that would work better. But, I think it's important not to give too much credit to finishing anywhere worse than 2nd. What do you think?

Racehorse

05-22-2003, 09:35 AM

Rick ..

>>>>>> But, I think it's important not to give too much credit to finishing anywhere worse than 2nd. What do you think?

fwiw
in my long enduring research *(which has now ceased) I found two items which had some bearing beyond your above statement ...

perhaps it was due to primitive method, non selective universe, rounding, etc
but
I found a high degree of correlation and goodness of fit when I used two factors

fourth (4th) place finish or better
not beaten by more than four (4)legnths

to expound on that somewhat ...
the horse could be eighth (8th) or tenth (10th) or whatever finish position that would be greater than fourth (4th) AS LONG AS
he was NOT beaten by more than four(4) length

or, of course, finish 4-3-2-1 position beaten by any number of lengths ..

not saying that is the final word/answer, just what I found

horse

Racehorse

05-22-2003, 09:47 AM

LC ..

not having read a great deal of the fantastic information on this forum, but "sifting through" some of yours ...

I gather that your method is one of elimination as opposed to active selection..

perhaps I'm only reading into what "I think you said" rather than "what you said" ....
but
I've found that my first and most important move is to chunk em out
before I pretend to even start picking a winner

any comment(s) .. or from anyone?

horse

Fastracehorse

05-22-2003, 10:55 AM

Nice to see you posting again.

<But, I think it's important not to give too much credit to finishing anywhere worse than 2nd.

One of my strongest suits is numerically defining a horse's effort. There are many occasions where a horse may have finished worse than 2nd but actually was best in the race.

About the horse being beaten by 5 to 10 lengths - I can numerically assign exactly how fast he ran. I'm not saying U are interested in changing anything U are doing, but if U knew this information, would you be doing anything different??

Just curious,

fffastt

hurrikane

05-22-2003, 10:58 AM

this is interesting.

I have usually picked contenders as opposed to eliminating non contenders.

Has anyone done this both ways and did you find a significant difference?

formula_2002

05-22-2003, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Fastracehorse@DRF

About the horse being beaten by 5 to 10 lengths - I can numerically assign exactly how fast he ran. I'm not saying U are interested in changing anything U are doing, but if U knew this information, would you be doing anything different??

Just curious,

fffastt

"Numerically assign" wow
welcome to the world of numbers Fast!!!!:D

lousycapper

05-22-2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Racehorse
LC ..

not having read a great deal of the fantastic information on this forum, but "sifting through" some of yours ...

I gather that your method is one of elimination as opposed to active selection..

perhaps I'm only reading into what "I think you said" rather than "what you said" ....
but
I've found that my first and most important move is to chunk em out
before I pretend to even start picking a winner

any comment(s) .. or from anyone?

horse

===========================

I will have to make this brief because I have a lot of school work to do.

I get my contenders from 4 places:

1- Either of two class ratings.

A- Purse level.
B- Purse level weighted toward wins.

2- Either of two ways of determining the horses potential speed.

3- Special Horses... High win frequency at high odds.

4- Consistancy rating.

Any horse that doesn't qualify on at least one of the above is out. Then I winnow the preliminary qualifiers using pace/velocity. Now I'm down to the 5 best horses. Of these I use the 3 horses with the best pace at the stretch call. Now the real handicapping starts. You are on your own at this point.

-L.C.

Rick

05-22-2003, 04:01 PM

horse,

Thanks for the hint about close-up finishes. I didn't keep track of lengths behind so I can't check that though.

Usually I can use the win + place % and payoffs for the top two rated horses to optimize the weightings for a method and have them work well on retesting. I have also used finish positions, with those worse than 5th counting as 5th, to make automatic adjustments to weightings on a race-by-race basis to try to identify short-term track biases. After a lot of research I decided that trying to identify short-term biases was not worth the effort and a longer term model was just as accurate. Also, some studies of serial correlation and exponential smoothing showed insignificant results. Statistically, pace in recent races has almost zero effect on how this race will be run. I wasn't happy to find this, but that's the way it turned out.

Anyway, a lot of what you should use for an evaluation has to do with how many races you have in your sample. Small samples may require counting deeper finish positions and huge samples may only require win % and payoffs for the top ranked horse. I prefer to evaluate the top two ranked horses for medium sized (hundreds of races) samples because this method seems to be less susceptable to noise than just looking at top-ranked horses. For the same reason, it seems to be better to look at both 1st and 2nd place finishers. All of this is just based on experience, but it does seem to have some validity if you look at how Benter and others have been able to squeeze more information out of their data by looking at 2nd (and sometimes 3rd) place finishers.

fast,

I'm not sure I know what you mean about assigning how fast a horse ran in a different way than using lengths behind. A non-linear adjustment for lengths seems to work better than a linear one in my testing. And you could make adjustments for pace. But, I think you're talking about something that predicts future races better rather than being more accurate about calculating the speed in a past race. For some reason, 5-10 length finishes seem to be underbet by a little. But, it might be for psychological reasons rather than an inaccurate measurement of the true performance of the horse.

As to whether I'd be interested in any information regarding a better way to do it, well of course I would. My method is certainly not set in stone and whenever I find something that adds to it or works better I'll change it. But, I've tested literally hundreds of different ideas in the last couple of years and only two of them have been worthwhile. So, based on my experience I'd say that there's probably less than a 1% chance that any new idea will result in me making any changes.

Fastracehorse

05-22-2003, 07:55 PM

U previoulsy stated that: <The biggest problem I've found with speed ratings is that races where a horse is many lengths behind seem to be underrated somewhat, especially in the 5-10 length category.

I was saying that I can calcualte how fast a beaten horse ran, accurately. And yes, using lengths beaten in conjunction with a speed figure. And like you said, many horses are under-rated because of the psychological aspect of defining the ability of a well beaten animal. However, most people don't have reliable speed ratings either.

<But, I think you're talking about something that predicts future races better rather than being more accurate about calculating the speed in a past race.

This is absolutely not the case - I wish it predicted future speed figs better but horses, as U know, often do not run to their last efforts. This adjusted speed figure tells me the past, and it is not always an easy skill to predict if they can repeat their last effort/#.

Further, because of the inherent nature of the animal to improve in some situations, I can project a future figure - but that is a slightly different subject.

I guess I could re-phrase my original question to you:

If you had a reliable speed figure - that found you alot of overlays within a 20 + win % at any odds - could it help U??

Again, it is more an inquiry about the similarity of factors we both
might share.

My best asset is to determine a horse's past effort numerically - and with this # find alot overalys. The reason overlays exist is because of exactly what we mentioned earlier - the difficulty is assigning a value to a horse's effort when well beaten, that is one aspect of my figure. The other majors are: surface and distance switches and ground loss.

These #'s are sound fundamentally as they are based on many good handicapping techniques such as the key race theory for beaten lengths. The # is my own innovation - alot of thievery involved but a marked improvemenet on the originator in my estimation - and logical.

Lastly, I'm curious again - it really is a remarkable #. I post all my longshots on the DRF forum - top pick only - 6-1 or greater only - right now I'm at # 48 for 2003 with 2 one hundred dollar winners ( top pick ). There are at least 48 2nd picks in that odds range that have won as well - but I only count top picks.

Interestingly, something you said a few months ago stuck in my mind - that tactical runners do better for U than pure speed runners. Well, it happens that I get alot more winners with my 2nd picks as overlays than I do with my first pick.

The above is important to me Rick because I am naturally a speed biased handicapper. Every time a 2nd pick wins I think of you and how I might want to depend a little less time on the pure speed types.

Lastly for sure, I do handicap - I use experience as a gauge to how well my #'s will work - I weigh certain intent factors by trainers - although that is still a study. I don't think U like the experience part, too fickle but anyways, I doubt U read through this long-winded post anyways.

:) :) :) :)

fffastt

Fastracehorse

05-22-2003, 08:04 PM

Shouldn't it be Formula 1902??

:p :p :p :p :p :p :p

fffastt

Racehorse

05-22-2003, 08:15 PM

questions directed to everyone ...

a) does anyone here use a daily variant?
----aa) a purchased one (where)
----bb) a homemade one (calibration)

b) does anyone here use feet per second per second to analyze speed?

c) does anyone here use anything similar to a "jerk"?

d) does anyone here get deep enough into figures to use third, forth or even <this is deep stuff and beyone ME> a fifth derivative?

as I have no idea how many folks will actually read this message, I could well post one concerning these and other areas in a new subject ...
not now, but, perhaps in the future

so, if you answer and I do engage in an additional subject heading, it doesn't mean I don't appreciate your answer here

NOW .. to forestall any ricicule or funny comment about the "jerk" .. this is an actual term that has meaning beyond the normal intrepretation

lousycapper

05-22-2003, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Fastracehorse@DRF
Shouldn't it be Formula 1902??

:p :p :p :p :p :p :p

fffastt

============================

Are you sure? Might even be the wrong millennium, hmmmmmmmm? :D

Racehorse

05-22-2003, 08:29 PM

hurrikane@HTR

>>>>>> I have usually picked contenders as opposed to eliminating non contenders.

Has anyone done this both ways and did you find a significant difference

yes, I've used both methods

a) eliminate non contenders

b) consider all as potential winners

and the main consideration, for ME, is time .. my time spent on handicapping ....

I find, that for me, a rigid set of rules which will eliminate "some" horses will pay off in the long run.
NOW, I do "lose some winners" in my chunking sometimes,
but, I also am able to throw out some "contenders" without looking and peering and wishing and trying to fit them in ....

so, I use the elim method exclusively now
and,
yes I have found a significant difference, especially in time saved.

This said, I normally only bet straight....
rarely an exacta, tri or any other ...
and even dd is not a regular wager for me, as both ends must be claiming sprints for me to even look at the races.

btw ..
NO mdn claiming sprints are considered to be eligible for bets.

horse

lousycapper

05-22-2003, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by Racehorse
questions directed to everyone ...

a) does anyone here use a daily variant?
----aa) a purchased one (where)
----bb) a homemade one (calibration)

b) does anyone here use feet per second per second to analyze speed?

c) does anyone here use anything similar to a "jerk"?

d) does anyone here get deep enough into figures to use third, forth or even <this is deep stuff and beyone ME> a fifth derivative?

as I have no idea how many folks will actually read this message, I could well post one concerning these and other areas in a new subject ...
not now, but, perhaps in the future

so, if you answer and I do engage in an additional subject heading, it doesn't mean I don't appreciate your answer here

NOW .. to forestall any ricicule or funny comment about the "jerk" .. this is an actual term that has meaning beyond the normal intrepretation

==========================

a) Yes, The Equibase variant.

b) Yes!

c) Referring to an odds-line? No!

d) Mathematical derivatives? Yes!

Fastracehorse

05-22-2003, 08:46 PM

<) does anyone here use a daily variant?
----aa) a purchased one (where)

I use the built-in one of the Beyer.

<b) does anyone here use feet per second per second to analyze speed?

Indirectly but integrally.

<) does anyone here get deep enough into figures to use third, forth or even <this is deep stuff and beyone ME> a fifth derivative?

I do a mathematical equation but I don't use calculus.

fffastt

Rick

05-23-2003, 12:29 PM

fast,

I'm still a little confused. I think you said that you have a more accurate method of measuring the speed at which a horse ran in a previous race than that measured by other speed ratings. Measuring speed in feet per second would be a more accurate way of measuring actual speed but you'd still be using lengths without any adjustment. You could also adjust for racing wide and post position, and a better track variant would certainly help.

But my comments were about how using speed ratings adjusted linearly for lengths behind don't do a very good job of predicting speed the next race. In fact, it's probably better to use finish position instead of lengths to make an adjustment if you want to have a good approximation of what the horse will run in the next race.

More accurate speed ratings are certainly interesting and may have some value in predicting future races, but whether they would add anything to my current method is difficult to guess. I usually find that the most useful additions are those that I couldn't anticipate in advance. Whatever works is good, whatever doesn't isn't. All I know is that using conventional speed ratings adds little or nothing to the win % or ROI of my current method so I'm unlikely to use them. In fact, I could raise my ROI a little by eliminating all horses with the best last race speed rating. Betting against top speed horses is almost as good as eliminating morning line or actual favorites.

formula_2002

05-23-2003, 12:35 PM

Efficiency of Racetrack Betting Markets (Economic Theory, Econometrics, and Mathematical Economics)
by Donald B. Hausch (Editor), et al
Average Customer Review:
Out of Print--Limited Availability

buy used: $109.52

Maybe I just collect books and winning triple crown tickets.

Joe M

Racehorse

05-26-2003, 10:23 AM

>>>>Maybe I just collect books and winning triple crown tickets.

I try to only collect.

my forays to the track over the years has been one of the few places I get to use my favorite sentence in the English language

====================

"Give it to me in hundreds, please"
====================

I do dearly love to use those words ... heh heh heh heh

Dave Schwartz

05-26-2003, 11:43 AM

Race Horse,

Great quote, especially to have a your favorite sentence.

Dave

Jaguar

05-26-2003, 04:03 PM

Joe, I respect your opinions and I have read alot of the literature you have referred to.

If you don't think this game can be beaten, you need to speak with Manhal or Jim Love at TB5- or David Schwartz right here on PA, who developed this first dynamite A.I. program for beating the horse game, called Thorobrain. Ron Hall at All-Ways could also share valuable insights with you.

Even the antique, but excellent, disc that I use(Multi-Strats), which is an expert system, beats the races every day. The answer is in the consistency ratings and also in having a big database for each track that you play.

Betting to win and exercising good money management is just part of the "management" aspect of this business.

With your skills at quantitative analysis, you should be wealthy from betting on horses.

All the best,

Jaguar

hurrikane

05-26-2003, 04:35 PM

perhaps as an example we should do this

everyone compile stats on how many time Joe has mentioned the odds or his web site compared to the number of posts he's made.
We'll set an odds line and we can all bet each time he posts on whether he will mention either one in his post.

Of course you could play short and lay the odds. hmmm...
could have a whole new parimutual system going here.

Can you set that up PA? You could get the take on it. :eek:

Larry Hamilton

05-26-2003, 04:56 PM

if he mentions both or either, are the events coupled?:cool:

formula_2002

05-26-2003, 05:15 PM

Jaguar

Thanks for your comments.
I spoke with Dave Schwartz a few days ago and had a very interesting talk. He is quite enthusiastic about what he does and tries to be helpful.

He did give me cause to re-read Benter.

I've spoken with Gary Hall quite a few times, mostly about all-ways technical stuff.

I still can not figure out why All-Ways uses impact values to make an odds line.

The best I can tell, Quirin never used the IV's to calculate an odds line. And I can not under stand the logic for using IV's to calculate an odds line.

All_way linear regressions do not appear to hold much value.

Not that they are inaccurate, they just are not profitable.

The two benefits I got from over 2000 all-ways data base files...

1. They have great downloadable factors (which correlate very well with the odds) and allowed me to do my own testing.

2. I stopped losing serious money by just not betting.

Joe M

formula_2002

05-26-2003, 05:26 PM

I give up boys, we are just going around in circles (a bull ring).

You guys have obvioulsy also found the weapons of mass destruction.
Just another feat no one else has been able to accomplish.

Joe M

Fastracehorse

05-26-2003, 08:30 PM

<Measuring speed in feet per second would be a more accurate way of measuring actual speed but you'd still be using lengths without any adjustment.

I adjust using a pace/class/beaten length factor - it's a neat little mathematical formula I innovated. It is more accurate than any speed figure I have encountered but I am sure it is not perfect.

<But my comments were about how using speed ratings adjusted linearly for lengths behind don't do a very good job of predicting speed the next race. In fact, it's probably better to use finish position instead of lengths to make an adjustment if you want to have a good approximation of what the horse will run in the next race.

My adjd sp fig is especially good at what U commented - it is an excellent predictor.

I really have to go but I'll be back on tomorrow to finish.

Thanks.

fffastt

Racehorse

05-27-2003, 11:17 AM

Dave
>>>>Great quote, especially to have a your favorite sentence.

yes .. that is a pretty nice one, but I have to admit that I get to use it much less frequently the past few years
as my parents have started to become very strict regarding my trips to the track

you might even know my folks ...
Mother Nature
and
Father Time

heh heh heh

Fastracehorse@DRF
>>>>>>I really have to go but I'll be back on tomorrow to finish.

well, it is tomorrow and I'm full of eager anticipation

Fastracehorse

05-27-2003, 02:03 PM

Joe,

Also implies that you have too - don't U mean self-destruction??

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

fffastt

Fastracehorse

05-27-2003, 02:36 PM

<I'm still a little confused. I think you said that you have a more accurate method of measuring the speed at which a horse ran in a previous race than that measured by other speed ratings. Measuring speed in feet per second would be a more accurate way of measuring actual speed but you'd still be using lengths without any adjustment. You could also adjust for racing wide and post position, and a better track variant would certainly help.

Horse racing is alot about pace and class. These terms are sweeping I know but necessary for my explanation. Horses that rate have more energy late - nice rhyme but almost anyone could see this intuitively. Hence, an animal that doesn't rate vs. a classier foe is going to be sapped late of finish - so there is a class element here affecting the outcome of the less classy horse.

To re-iterate - higher class horses have tougher pace scenarios. I can make a numerical adjustment to accurately reflect the weaker animal's ability based on exerting too much energy early - and yes, beaten lengths is integral to this calculation.

If this sounds far-fetched try this. Key-race theory. Very popular and effective handicapping tool where one identifies a group of horses that are much better than average. The result?? Better than average next-out performances by this group.

Now I have an adjd speed fig so I don't do the tedious key-race work anymore.

Why are key races popular?? It is just a another way for handicappers to acquire evidence converging on a selection. Very good evidence I might add. Further, why is the key-race tool put into practice?? Because it shows that most people do not have reliable speed figs and also, how difficult it is to assign accurate assessments of animals' abilities. This is so because the key race is a rather imprecise measurement - again it is good evidence however - I've witnessed it's power.

<But my comments were about how using speed ratings adjusted linearly for lengths behind don't do a very good job of predicting speed the next race.

So based on the above my adjustment isn't linear.

<I usually find that the most useful additions are those that I couldn't anticipate in advance.

That is called learning - I want to do that all the time. Takes beyond normal effort though.

;)

<All I know is that using conventional speed ratings adds little or nothing to the win % or ROI of my current method so I'm unlikely to use them.

The beauty of my speed rating is that it is an innovation that finds a plethora of overlays - for exactly what U were trying to adjust linearly for. It looks ugly to see a horse beaten by many lengths - but I know how fast he ran and will run - if all systems are the same ( physiological ) - LOL.

<Betting against top speed horses is almost as good as eliminating morning line or actual favorites.

I believe U. What speed figs would those be?? Beyers are as good as any commercial ones.

What is interesting about you Rick, is that you have found factors that can net you a significant profit. You are less of a handicapper, which I think you have no problem with me saying, because U are making money.

I am asking this: If you had a very accurate speed figure, that also picked alot of overlays could U see how to make it work for U?? I guess if I were to try something like this I would have to weight other factors that predict future replication of this speed fig - because, I'm sure U don't just rely on one factor, as I don't.

Anyways, hope I didn't bore U - thanx for humouring me.

fffastt

Rick

05-27-2003, 06:06 PM

fast,

If you adjust for pace or class I certainly think you're making a better assessment of the horse's performance, especially if you want it to be a better predictor of future performance. But, that's not a speed rating according to my way of thinking. I'd call it a performance rating. Speed ratings, in my way of thinking anyway, would use nothing except time and beaten lengths with possibly some adjustments for trips, wind, and condition of the track (track variant).

I still don't understand why you keep asking me about what I'd do if I had a more accurate speed figure though. According to my above definition, I doubt if it would help in any way since Beyers, BRIS, and others seem to be fairly accurate at describing the actual speed at which a horse ran in a particular race. They're not very good at predicting future performances because, no matter how accurate you make these things, it's important to take pace and class into account in order to predict future performances.

You make a very good point about me not being a good handicapper because I have a winning method. But, I've never really cared about being a great handicapper, only about showing a profit. Yeah, it's fun to sit down in a race book or race track and try to pick a winner in every race using every trick you can muster up and whatever subjective handicapping skills you can summon. But, that's a lot harder to do on a day-to-day basis and, to be perfectly honest, I don't really find it interesting to spend all of my time obsessing about horse racing.

As a matter of fact, I'm mostly interested these days in enjoying everything I do and avoiding stress as much as possible. I had a long career in some very stressful jobs and I really don't need it any more. For example, tomorrow I'm going camping for three days and I couldn't care less about what tracks run while I'm gone. When I get back, I'll be more interested in playing the races again. That's why some of you may occasionaly think I've gone away for a while. I haven't stopped posting, I just stop worrying about it for a while.

Fastracehorse

05-27-2003, 08:28 PM

<Speed ratings, in my way of thinking anyway, would use nothing except time and beaten lengths with possibly some adjustments for trips, wind, and condition of the track (track variant).

That's exactly right. On this forum I've stated many times that speed figs/ratings whatever, are all encompassing - meaning that the speed fig measures many factors - including time/variant.

What I am suggesting with my discussion on pace and class is that they are also inherent to the speed fig.. I believe strongly that any commercial speed fig measures pace. Again, what does a fig measure?? It measures a race from point A to B, of which pace is an integral factor.

Then why is class a factor?? Because pace is proportional to class. Pace and class to me are almost the same thing - I don't define class any other way.

<I still don't understand why you keep asking me about what I'd do if I had a more accurate speed figure though - no matter how accurate you make these things, it's important to take pace and class into account in order to predict future performances.

You just stated what I've been trying to express to you. Does this help you with what I've been trying to ask, ie, hypothetically speaking.

< I don't really find it interesting to spend all of my time obsessing about horse racing.

I understand that - I'm the obsessive one - I strive for balance in life however.

Have a great time camping Rick - I'm not trying to add stress to your life.

fffastt

:)

Rick

05-28-2003, 11:17 AM

fast,

Anything that measures class and/or pace would probably be worthwhile. And, you're quite correct in saying that they're pretty much equivalent. We're on the same page as far as that goes. In my opinion though, you don't need to include speed. It's probably just a matter of definition though.

Anyway, got to go now. I'll be up in Modoc National Forest in California between Susanville and Alturas. Great area without the crowds. I don't know why so many people who claim to be successful at horse racing want to live in Southern California. If you don't need a job it's just a horrible place to live with a high cost of living. The same people usually have vacation homes in other beautiful locations. You should see all of the homes at Lake Tahoe that are unoccupied for most of the year. One of my main motivations for getting involved in horse racing was to be able to live wherever I want. Technology has now made it possible to do so.

hurrikane

05-28-2003, 03:37 PM

have a great time Rick. nothing like the outdoors for a little refresher.

As for So Cal...try living in the bulleye for a while. Haven't see the sun for more than a few hours in weeks....

Catch some rays for me!

Fastracehorse

05-28-2003, 04:58 PM

Just for interests sake can U clarify this for me??:

<Anything that measures class and/or pace would probably be worthwhile. And, you're quite correct in saying that they're pretty much equivalent. We're on the same page as far as that goes. In my opinion though, you don't need to include speed. It's probably just a matter of definition though.

By speed I mean time with a variant for the measure of the quickness of the entire race.

I don't mean early positional speed or quickness from the gate. What do U mean by speed??

And, by your definition that U will hopefully define speed by - U use speed as a factor in selecting winners don't U??

fffastt

Gekish

05-29-2003, 11:46 AM

I am new on the board, but like to add to history of speed figs. First I heard of speed charts was in a book by Bob Hebert, who was the capper for the LA Times in the 60's. Never realized the concept. In the 70's Prof. Gordon Jones, who BTW as a capper for the LA Herald Exemaner beat the odds for several meetings with his selected picks, published a book that completely explained how to make speed figs. Using a HP programable calculator I made my own figs and made a killing at the CA tracks. THEN came Beyer with his book and prices declined. Once the DRF carried the B. figs the ROI became negative.
In the 80's I hooked up with Dr? Sartin and his gang. Let me tell you it was like a cult. Sartin was the God and Dick Mitchell the prophet. The only people that made sense were Brohamer and Schmidt.
Let me add a little anectode. Around 84 I went on a seminar trip to New Orleans with the good Doctor and Mitchell. There was a lot of racing gospel spread and the donations were flowing in. In the 3 days we were there I went to the races at FG every afternoon. Mitchell came once and made 2 dollar bets to place and show using a DR. Z calculator. The Doc never came out to the track and you could not nail him to analyze a race. One evening in bar of the Royal Orleans Hotel as I sat with a Baton Rouge lawyer and real southern gentleman whom I befriended exclaimed in the purest southern accent:
"Sir Ah think, that this Doctor is a charlatan"
Nowdays I only bet longshot angles with some succes. Nothing to write home about, but keeps me in the game.

lousycapper

05-29-2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Gekish

The only people that made sense were Brohamer and Schmidt.
In the 3 days we were there I went to the races at FG every afternoon. Mitchell came once and made 2 dollar bets to place and show using a DR. Z calculator. The Doc never came out to the track and you could not nail him to analyze a race. One evening in bar of the Royal Orleans Hotel as I sat with a Baton Rouge lawyer and real southern gentleman whom I befriended exclaimed in the purest southern accent:
"Sir Ah think, that this Doctor is a charlatan"

============================

:D And now we know the rest of the story... another URBAN LEGEND debunked. :D

plainolebill

05-29-2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Gekish
In the 70's Prof. Gordon Jones, who BTW as a capper for the LA Herald Exemaner beat the odds for several meetings with his selected picks, published a book that completely explained how to make speed figs.

I've still got his book, a picture of Jones and 'The Shoe' on the cover.

Bill

Fastracehorse

05-29-2003, 06:45 PM

Wasn't he a professor in P.E. class??

LOL.

fffastt

Gekish

05-29-2003, 09:27 PM

Fasthorse

Prof. Jones is now the resident guru at Sams Place Casino in LV. The daughter can be seen on one of the racing broadcasts as a commentator. She is a great capper in her on right.

Fastracehorse

05-29-2003, 10:45 PM

Commentators are not good handicappers.

fffastt

Gekish

05-29-2003, 11:50 PM

fffastt,

Agree, but it goes for system peddlers, tipsters and published authors. Why share a good thing if it works. Think, except for 600-1 combos it is tax free income. I found, that even among close friends a good think will be shared sometimes, but the angle of the pick is a closely held secret. If writing is the loneliest profession, hadicapping is close to being a Carthusian monk.

Fastracehorse

05-30-2003, 01:47 AM

Commentators are sometimes sexy though - LOL.

<but the angle of the pick is a closely held secret.

LOL again - I'm a batsturd that way too.

<Carthusian monk.

Not quite sure what that is but I get the idea.

fffastt

Lefty

05-30-2003, 02:13 AM

Gordon
jones' book has speed charts but see nothing about using a programable calculator. Prof Jones was a professor of journalism.
His daughter, Joanne is a commentator AND a fine h'capper in her own right.

Gekish

05-30-2003, 04:27 PM

fffastt,

Carthusian monks take a vow of silence and live in soletary cells copying old manuscripts.

Lefty,

Jones does not explain constructing parralel charts in the book, but once I collared him at SA and he explained how to do them. In this a prog. calculator helped a lot.

Dave Schwartz

05-30-2003, 04:45 PM

f-f-f-ast,

>>Commentators are sometimes sexy though - LOL.<<

Who were you talking about here? Just curious.

Dave

Gekish

05-30-2003, 05:29 PM

Dave,

Joanna Jones. Prof. Gordon Jones daughter.

"Every system dies after you spend months building a database to make sure it works"

Dave Schwartz

05-30-2003, 05:33 PM

Gek,

Thanks.

I actually recall her from back in the early '80s when she did the weekend thing with Gordon. She was quite beautiful back then.

I thought maybe you were referring to that cutie that does the NYRA show. :-)

Dave

Fastracehorse

05-31-2003, 01:40 AM

<>>Commentators are sometimes sexy though - LOL.<<

Who were you talking about here? Just curious.

Well, I live in Canada and our local thoroughbred 'capper is a little honey.

These aren't quite commentators but have you watched Headline News lately (CNN )??

Robin Meade and Rudi Bakthir are very hot - do you know who I mean??

Yum.

fffastt

Dave Schwartz

05-31-2003, 02:29 AM

fffast,

I know who Rudy is. She is the Iranian woman on CNN that changes her look (i.e. hair color, etc.) about 3 times per week. (I am not kidding here.)

She was also conspicuously missing during the Iraq war. Coincidence? I wonder.

As for the other one, I think PA knows her name. PA?

Dave

Rick

05-31-2003, 11:26 AM

fast,

My definition of speed is final time adjusted by track variant. So it could be Beyers or BRIS figures or Cramer figures, they all seem to be pretty equivalent when you look at the bottom line. And, no, I don't use any of them in my handicapping as a positive factor. Normally I don't use them at all, but I have used last race speed as an elimination factor in place of morning line odds. It makes my win % a little higher and my ROI a little lower, so it's almost as effective in finding overlays and might allow a little higher bet sizes. So I may incorporate speed in a negative way eventually but definitely not in a positive way.

That being said though, I'm sure you can use speed as a factor in a profitable method if you don't use the last race too much. Wait a minute, this sounds like paceline selection again and I've seen more than ample evidence that no set of rules will produce a better ROI than just using the last race. Yeah, I know win % will increase if you're an excellent paceline selector but usually at the expense of ROI. Probably the best back speed when not also best last race speed would do OK though.

Fastracehorse

05-31-2003, 01:48 PM

<That being said though, I'm sure you can use speed as a factor in a profitable method if you don't use the last race too much.

You mean if the last race had a good speed figure??

I can find tremendous overlays with adjusting speed figures - and many are off their last race.

But I'm sure I don't have as many plays as you do - that is what is fascinating to me.

You get alot more plays than me, and win, with using factors that work.

Also you make certain assumptions about speed figures that I don't find to be true - that is also interesting.

Hope you had a great experience camping.

fffastt

Rick

05-31-2003, 06:01 PM

fast,

I don't like my top selection to have the best last race speed because it gets bet down too much. You might also find that it's better if the commonly published speed figures don't agree with yours on the top ranked horse. I don't claim that using speed figures can't win though. As a matter of fact I'm working on a method using speed figures to get overlays in those races that I currently don't play. But it doesn't use last race speed as a positive factor either.

The camping was great. Had the campground all to ourselves. We had some thunderstorms for a while the second day, but we just climbed in the van and watched the light show.

Fastracehorse

06-01-2003, 06:05 PM

<You might also find that it's better if the commonly published speed figures don't agree with yours on the top ranked horse.

Commercial figs are a time/variant concoction.

So adjusted figs sway from popular figs and that is how I get overlays.

For example, I can adjust numerically for wide trips. The separation between my # and the commercial # for a horse with a 4-wide trip is large.

The light show will probably be memorable - nice experience.

fffastt

Storm Cadet

06-01-2003, 07:49 PM

Fastracehorse...that seems like what Thorograph tries to do...incorporate speed ratings with the wide trip paths that horse make...either 1 turn or 2. I feel that the trip path is valid as well as speed ratings, whether it be Beyers, BRIS...they use lower numbers instead of higher ones.

Interesting, I had a nice telephone conversation with Brian Turner of Bris last week. Nice fellow, who is the chief man with their handicapping customer service dept., who discussed with me his feelings of why they don't use the actual trip path in their figures.

Fastracehorse

06-02-2003, 03:21 AM

I figured out exactly, in Beyer points, what wide-trips cost a horse.

It has caught me alot of nice overlays - I kid you not - I posted a 60-1 shot with my top pick this current Hollywood meet based partially on the above on DRF - Teeitup can verify this.

I couldn't understand why a horse was 5-1 today at Wdb - he should have been 2-1 or lower. The horse was 2nd start off the claim, big class drop, and by far the best adjd fig ( wide-trip ).

My adjd fig also adjusts for pace, and, surface or distance changes.

Your suspicions are right - wide-trips are extremely detrimental to a horse's chances - they can still win - but they have to be big.

fffastt

Rick

06-02-2003, 12:39 PM

fast,

Interesting. I would think that many wide trips are caused by the horse's running style and would tend to be repeated in future races. What information do you use to determine lengths lost?

Show Me the Wire

06-02-2003, 01:17 PM

Rick;

You are right most wide trips are due to the horses running style and in today’s race it will be more likely than not the horse will once again run wide. To respond to your question, I believe the common belief is to adjust 1.2 lengths for each path off the rail.

One of the inherent deficiencies in sheet type speed figures is they automatically weight each wide trip equally. As you pointed out the cause for the wide trip is the important factor. If the trip is a result of the horses running style no adjustment should be made or if the inside is dead and off the rail is the place to be, once again no adjustment should be made.

When I use sheet type speed figures, I prefer TG to the Rags, because TG furnishes the path number that is used to create the figure. If I notice almost every race the horse is three or four wide I expect another wide trip again, unless there is a significant reduction in class.

With TG speed figures I want to see an uncharacteristically wide trip with a regression in the horses speed figures. This is the type of horse that usually returns to its usual range of speed figure.

I only believe adjustments crediting a horse with a better race should be made when the horse is caught three wide in an average to above average speed duel, positioned wide due to problems resulting from the break, such as being impeded by another or a stumble. However, if the horse always breaks poorly from the gate the wide trip is just a result of his running style.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

anotherdave

06-02-2003, 01:23 PM

I do adjustments for wide as well, but sometimes the adjustment can be 10 or 20 lengths. One of my largest bets ever was a horse who in his last race pushed a fast pace 3 wide for 5 furlongs
of a 6.5 furlong race and then stopped badly losing by 20 lengths. I honestly believed that if he didn't race 3 wide and would have been on the rail, he would have won. He now had the rail and would almost certainly the the lead. He won easily at 8-1. Wish those came up more often!

AD

Show Me the Wire

06-02-2003, 01:40 PM

anotherdave:

Did you actually mechanically adjust the speed figure for 20 lengths by a mathemathical equation to project the running time, or intuitively believe the horse would have run his usual good effort speed figure earned at the distance and class?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

anotherdave

06-02-2003, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
anotherdave:

Did you actually mechanically adjust the speed figure for 20 lengths by a mathemathical equation to project the running time, or intuitively believe the horse would have run his usual good effort speed figure earned at the distance and class?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

Intuitively. I believed he was better than the horse that won (who had the rail). I basically just assigned him that time.

AD

Show Me the Wire

06-02-2003, 01:55 PM

anotherdave:

To clarify my question, I am asking if you used a specific value to represent the actual ground loss in an equation to compute the speed figure adjustment.

OOOPs I didn't see your answer before I posted this clarification. Thanks for your response.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

Fastracehorse

06-02-2003, 08:31 PM

I'm Canadian so you have to forgive my naiivety however, I think Rudi is a hotty.

How would PA know the other lady??

Don't tell me!

LOL.

fffastt

Fastracehorse

06-02-2003, 08:58 PM

<I would think that many wide trips are caused by the horse's running style and would tend to be repeated in future races. What information do you use to determine lengths lost?

That is often true but not always the case.

Some horses aren't extremely quick from the gate but have enough speed that they get caught wide - or the horse's running style is that of a puller, so the jockey has a difficult time in getting the horse to rate.

Having said the above, there are many instances when a horse is capable of settleing but got caught in a duel - this happens alot.

One of my fave angles is speed horses that get caught wide in short sprints ( because of the short straight-away to the turn ). The next time these horses have the rail - I'm talking Califronia - they are much tougher than the public expects. Why I said specific to Calif. is because Eastern tracks most often back off with the babies 2nd-time out.

How I devised the adjd fig was somewhat innovative but no genius involved - I did comparative analyses. I compared a template horse's Beyers to himself when he was caught wide or ran on the wood.

By template horse I mean a horse that was ultra-consistent over a period of races. So, I got a round-about figure. Then I would project thousands of horse's Beyers from their previous races (because adjustments were needed) until I was pleased with the accuracy of the projections.

I still have questions and I am still tinkering in certain areas - and actually just came up with a satisfying adjustment for sprinters going a route.

This adjd fig has taught me other interesting aspects of the game. However, it also has limitations and hence, has helped me define different angles in picking overlays.

Why is it important?? Because in some situations it is good to know how large your advantage is - ie, how much better horse A ran last-out than the rest of the field.

Why isn't it the end all?? Because there is more to handicapping than who ran best last-out - I'm big on trainer intent and profiles of horses with recent sharp outings.

Are you still awake Rick??

fffastt

Rick

06-03-2003, 06:41 AM

fast,

I'm usually doing something else around the time that most people get home from work. Then I may get up in the middle of the night to see what's going on. I guess I just enjoy keeping strange hours now since I don't have to work.

Anyway, since someone brought it up (SMTW?), I was wondering if anyone has been able to make adjustments based on how a horse broke. Some seem to regularly break better than others and that's reflected in their final times. But, if a horse uncharacteristically breaks badly, does it represent a bad trip which should be excused or does it represent declining form? Years ago I developed a dog racing method with minor adjustments for break calls in previous races but it may not be the same in horse racing.