RESEARCH ASSISTANT WANTED

[markgoldie]

No pay. Just a chance to make some money. I supply the ideas, you do the work. We share the intel. No lazy guys who just want more info. PLEASE.

As a start, here are the results of some limited research I did a while back. As you will see, the results are limited but promising. Research was conducted at The Meadows in Western Pa.

(1) A superfecta angle. Number of plays 244. Each race played for $81. ROI +31.3%
(2) An angle involving what I term a "breaking-point quarter," or a first quarter that is unusually fast. Trials: 255. ROI +21.58%
(3) An "inherent speed" angle involving the best half-mile time in last 3 races. Trials: 181. ROI +15.9%
(4) Inherent "early speed" angle. Trials: 53. ROI +33.58%
(5) Barn change angle. Trials: 87. ROI +11.1%
(6) A "beaten favorite" angle. Trials: 96. ROI +5.6%

Negative angles which are useful for eliminating horses from the win spot or more profitably, the top spot of a gimmick ticket. Here, the WORSE the ROI, the better. Also note, these all pertain to race favorites, making their use all the more juicy.

(7) A beaten favorite angle. Trials: 91. ROI -25.6%
(8) Racing-style defect: Trials: 82. ROI -16.7%
(9) A specific form defect. Trials: 27. ROI: -45.6%
(10) Another specific form defect. Note: Not detailing these because they are too complicated. Trials: 79. ROI -16.9.

That's what I have at the moment, but I have an active imagination for other angles as well. Would like to extend the research to different tracks and greatly expand the number of trials. Those who know me from the forum know I am a straight shooter. And you may also know that I am busy pumping money through the windows in both t-bred and h-racing so that I can keep my rebate schedule in tact. So I just don't have the time to do what needs to be done.

Anyone interested, send me a PM.

Mark

[markgoldie]

I omitted a trifecta angle that showed 386 trials with a +7.87 ROI.

[Sea Biscuit]

Mark did you get any response for the job offer?

[markgoldie]

Yes, about 5. Thanks.

[castaway01]

The "no pay" part sounded too much like my present freelancing gigs, but otherwise it was appealing. :) Best of luck.

[markgoldie]

The "no pay" part sounded too much like my present freelancing gigs, but otherwise it was appealing. :) Best of luck.
Trust me, my problem isn't being too cheap to pay. I would LOVE to pay someone but I don't have the time or inclination to train a newbie who doesn't know a racing form or chart from alien transmissions. This is particularly relevant when we get to more complicated angles.

The problem with paying players and bettors, which I assume we all are, is that they're going to be free to use the angles for themselves if they show a universal profit. Even angles that prove to be track-specific can be valuable. So what am I supposed to say, "Ill pay you as long as you don't bet the angles yourself?" How is that agreement enforceable?

So at least this way there is shared risk. The researcher's risk is that he does some boring work and the angles I provide don't pan out well enough to be sufficiently monetized to compensate him. My risk is that some of the angles prove excellent through larger samples, but the researcher bets or causes them to be bet to the degree that their profitability is sapped.

And so we have a partnership based on a shared risk/reward calculation. Anyway that was my thought.

Mark

[fmolf]

Trust me, my problem isn't being too cheap to pay. I would LOVE to pay someone but I don't have the time or inclination to train a newbie who doesn't know a racing form or chart from alien transmissions. This is particularly relevant when we get to more complicated angles.

The problem with paying players and bettors, which I assume we all are, is that they're going to be free to use the angles for themselves if they show a universal profit. Even angles that prove to be track-specific can be valuable. So what am I supposed to say, "Ill pay you as long as you don't bet the angles yourself?" How is that agreement enforceable?

So at least this way there is shared risk. The researcher's risk is that he does some boring work and the angles I provide don't pan out well enough to be sufficiently monetized to compensate him. My risk is that some of the angles prove excellent through larger samples, but the researcher bets or causes them to be bet to the degree that their profitability is sapped.

And so we have a partnership based on a shared risk/reward calculation. Anyway that was my thought.

Mark
hello mark i am usually on the t bred side but i am participating in the big m contest and am beginning to like the chariots a bit now.....I neither have the time nor the computer skills to apply for the job ,but it seems to me that a good avenue to pursue for all your angles might be to relate specific angles to how they fare from each post positions.This might further help with eliminations in your gimmick plays.For instance early speed angle may not play well from the outer posts as horses may be used to hard.I am sure you could think of plenty of angles that are either helped or hindered by post position as you do your research....good luck in this endeavor.I hope it proves fruitful for you.

....beaten favs might be a good bet if they had a bad post last race,and a bad bet if statred from an advantageous post last race...possibilities are endless really.

[offtrack]

Calling All Quants?