long term capital plays 08-15-2009

[formula_2002]

8/15/2009
http://longtermcapitalwinner.homestead.com/

LONG TERM CAPITAL PLAYS FOR FINAL ODDS <2-1 ONLY

A CAPITAL PLAY IS WHEN ML>=4 AND;
SUM >=50 OR N155>=30 OR N156>=17 OR N219)>=15 OR N157>=1
ABOUT 3% OF RACES ARE PLAYABLE.
WPS BETS SEEM TO DO EQUALLY WELL.
AVERAGE WIN POOL ODDS =1.52-1
WIN RATE =45%


see attachment.. too larg to list here

[formula_2002]

update through 5 plays.
3 wins, 1 show
wps profit =18%

full recap tomorrow..

[formula_2002]

8/15/2009 FINALS (SEE ATTACHED FOR BREAKDOWN)
10 PLAYS (COST $20)
5 WINS
WIN POOL RETURNED $25.00
PLACE POOL RETURNED $22.80
SHOW POOL RETURNED $22.00

TWO DAY RECAP
12 PLAYS
7 WINS
WIN POOL ROI 1.425
PLACE POOL ROI 1.20
SHOW POOL ROI 1.11

[formula_2002]

luck or skill?
yesterday, 8/15/2009, there were 19 horses that ran at odds <2-1 who's ml was >=4-1
9 of them won, returning win, place and show pool positive roi's

[markgoldie]

luck or skill?
yesterday, 8/15/2009, there were 19 horses that ran at odds <2-1 who's ml was >=4-1
9 of them won, returning win, place and show pool positive roi's
Well, let's see. Theoretically, the implication is, (based just on this information), that the horses in question were somehow "hot". By that we mean they were receiving tote action which was not deserved based on one standard of normal handicapping (that being the opinion of the ML handicapper). This form of tote action could be explained by one of two things: (a) "Insider's" information, that is, coming from the trainer or barn connections or (b) a superior handicapping source.

If you believe Dave Schwartz (and I have no reason not to) the closing win odds at many, if not most, tracks are made by whale groups. Since they have such a great influence, the question then becomes, how would their win percentage be positively affected by a faulty ML odds that has the horse higher than it should be? The logical answer here is that the PERCENTAGE of winners wouldn't. However, the PROFITABILITY of such winners might well be affected positively, since we can assume that the ML odds has some influence on the wagering patterns of the general public. This assumes that the whale groups are using a programmed method of selection which is more or less uniform over time and I think that is true.

If you believe that "barn" or "insider" money is likely to be more accurate than the average public, this could positively affect both the win-rate and the profitability. The question, however, is how much of this really haoppens on a routine basis? My gut says, not that much. But I could be wrong about that.

The bottom line is that I intuitively think there is promise in this approach, based both on an improved strike rate AND a possible positive ROI. I would recommend that you continue with this area of research.

Mark

[formula_2002]

The bottom line is that I intuitively think there is promise in this approach, based both on an improved strike rate AND a possible positive ROI. I would recommend that you continue with this area of research.

in 5110 recent races (03/2009 through 07/2009)
when final odds <2-1, win pool roi =.86
if ml>=4 win pool roi=.93

when odds<2-1 and ml>=4, about 200+ "system" plays produced wps pool profits.
Tomorrow? thats another story. :)

[markgoldie]

Question: What was the sample size for horses with ML of 4/1 or greater going off at 2/1 or less? Also, have you tried raising the ML stipulation to 5/1 or 6/1?

Mark

[formula_2002]

Question: What was the sample size for horses with ML of 4/1 or greater going off at 2/1 or less? Also, have you tried raising the ML stipulation to 5/1 or 6/1?


Mark

ML>=4-1, ODDS <2-1
562 RACES.
IT WORKS FOR 4-1 BUT NOT 3-1 AND LESS.
IT WORKS 4-1 .97 ROI
5-1 AND 6-1 .89 ROI
>6-1 .97 ROI