Originally Posted by rastajenk (Post 2821687)

You are correct on both points.

But aren't you essentially saying that most viewers would do themselves a favor to ignore Maggie and Gabby, because most viewers are like me and don't really know much about physical interpretations? They're just relying on someone's expertise, and the current crop certainly makes it fun and entertaining. The original post queried about "the most important information" and I happen to be in the group that disagrees. That's all. :cool:

Originally Posted by westernmassbob (Post 2821689)

The info that Maggie and Gabby bring to the table is priceless. " I noticed during the warmup the number 6 horse seemed to slightly be limping and his gate was off." This may sound a bit extreme but things they have brought up have not been far off. What professional or non professional capper would not take this information into consideration ?

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk (Post 2821698)

Are the "whales" often mentioned here still holed up in their headquarters, merely looking at the whole process quantifiably and with the law of large numbers in place, ala Benter/Woods? Do they have a quantifiable/algorithmic method for incorporating what Maggie describes 15 minutes before post?

Originally Posted by Jeff P (Post 2821702)

I have been told at least some of the whale teams are paying observers for physicality information.

And yes, they do have quantifiable algorithmic methods for incorporating physicality observations.

Interesting sidebar:

I have been told the observers are compartmentalized.

All communication is supposed to be one way. The observer's job to simply submit physicality observations and nothing else.

The system is designed so that the observers have no way of knowing who the other observers are, how to contact team members they don't have a need to know, or whether or not their physicality observations are actually used in the team's fundamental model.

This is done to make it difficult for team members and observers to go out and form a new team on their own while taking other team members, source code, and/or the team's fundamental model, etc. with them.

Which apparently, has actually happened a few times.


-jp

.

Originally Posted by Jeff P (Post 2821702)

I have been told at least some of the whale teams are paying observers for physicality information.

And yes, they do have quantifiable algorithmic methods for incorporating physicality observations.

Interesting sidebar:

I have been told the observers are compartmentalized.

All communication is supposed to be one way. The observer's job to simply submit physicality observations and nothing else.

The system is designed so that the observers have no way of knowing who the other observers are, how to contact team members they don't have a need to know, or whether or not their physicality observations are actually used in the team's fundamental model.

This is done to make it difficult for team members and observers to go out and form a new team on their own while taking other team members, source code, and/or the team's fundamental model, etc. with them.

Which apparently, has actually happened a few times.


-jp

.

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro (Post 2821704)

Those guys get information from all the top stables, vets, and whoever else can give them an edge.

Originally Posted by CBYRacer (Post 2821711)

What's in it for those other parties? Why would they provide this info?

Originally Posted by Tom (Post 2821691)

It's not that anyone is "changing on the fly" as making the betting drcision.
I'm going into a race with several options, waiting to see the odds, get the paddock information, then decide the bet. A horse I like last night at 4-1 ml is now 8-5 and Maggie says he dosen't look good, yeah, that is not my bet. Another at 10-1 ml is now 6-1 and Maggie says this has nevr looked better.....

The process is not over until you make the bet.

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro (Post 2821712)

$$$$$$$

Some of those guys meet with Racing Execs on a regular basis. I doubt all they're asking for is another quarter point rebate. It's about access

Originally Posted by CBYRacer (Post 2821716)

I guess I'm imagining these whales as more quant-geek...Ingenious and above board. For what it's worth, I consider rebate negotiation above board.

Originally Posted by CBYRacer (Post 2821709)

First, there would probably be significant variability in terms of how individual observers rate horses across the physicality dimensions.

Originally Posted by CBYRacer (Post 2821709)

Second, you can't buy historical datasets so you need to build these observational datasets ground-up which would take time.

Originally Posted by Jeff P (Post 2821726)

I not only agree but suspect the team leads are well aware of this.

I think they are able to work around this by employing multiple observers who collectively make a lot of observations over the course of a meet.

If I were modeling horse physicality myself :) I would create three columns in a database table:

phys01 value=ObserverId (a number unique for each observer.)

phys02 value=0 for horses where no physicality observation was made. Value=1 for horses where a physicality observation was made.

phys03 value=0 for horses where no physicality observation was made. Value=Some_Number (a physicality score created by the observer making the observation.)

From there, once you've gathered observations from multiple observers for a meet or two, it shouldn't be difficult to perform significance testing by running the observations data through a stat package.

If the observations of an individual observer aren't statistically significant after a couple of meets, or have far less significance than those of the other observers:

You'll know. At which point you can decide to cut that observer loose.

But if the observations of an individual observer are statistically significant or consistently better than those of the other observers:

You'll know that too. At which point you can implement that observer's work in your model. And possibly make that observer an offer he or she isn't likely to refuse.



Agree here as well.

But if you do find an observer who provides statistically significant insight:

Now you have information not readily available to others.

From there, you should be able give your model a leg up over the competition.


-jp

.