Originally Posted by cato
kbatch57 asked -
"Cato - Are you using the program out of the box or have you made some modifications to the settings or process as Matt has done?"
----> After tinkering around a great deal with various settings, I went back to the default settings, which are the ones Michael P. uses. Many people tweak them especially on the length of days in a layoff. I found that it did not make a big difference for me but I wanted to be consistent and follow along with Michael. Unless people do something crazy in their settings, I don't think it makes a lot of difference.
-----> As to process, I think just about everyone uses different approaches, emphasis, processes, etc. The program provides a LOT of information that you can slice and dice in many different ways. Even those who follow the basic line of finding a horse with some "good" stuff per the VC program (possibly hidden from public or at least opaque) that the public should not like (e.g., bad recent finish, bad recent #s, mediocre trainer/jock, class challenged, shipper, etc.) have an almost infinite of options (well maybe not infinite, but a lot of options to proceed from there. Some gals go for Lone closers, lone speed, certain patterns, fields of x horses, class risers, droppers, etc. But I follow a relatively consistent approach along the lines that Michael P suggests (and I think Matt's approach) but I have not gone back to study it.
"Also, are you only playing/checking AVC horses that meet a minimum odds requirement?"
---> I checked all AVC horses for my study and I had different categories of acceptable odds, (acceptable odds and odds too low) and races that say "consider passing" or come with a warning of "proceed with great care" aka the orange races. I normally check "odds too high" but I did not do that this time. Normally I will only bet a horse at minimum odds of 9/2 +/-.
"For a true test of any profile. I would assume that you would select that profile and only play or evaluate the races that are listed in the race list after being filtered by that profile."
--->Yes, it's an easy way to evaluate a portfolio.
"Or you can take the approach of looking at all races changing the odds bias and mark any races that now contain an AVC Horse for further evaluation."
----> Oh no! That sounds terrible and a lot of wasted time! There are so many things you can click on to take a different look at pace scenarios, pace lines. output, etc., that it's a never ending rabbit chase. I'm like Matt and the only time I may change the pace scenario is when it is highlighted in red which means the pace scenario and track profile are inconsistent - so if I am interested in that race I'll click around (and normally pass that race).
--->I've called what I did a "study" but I just reviewed 15 days of races to get a feel for the portfolio - to see if my experience with the AVC portfolio was relatively consistent with Matts' - and it was. So that's enough for me to keep it in my radar screen and see if I can make it produce, when is it more effective etc. But I'm not big on large data base studies because all the ones I've seen end up negative in the long run (and often the short run for that matter). I'm also data challenged and pass out when people start throwing data and stats at me... zzzzzzzzzz (having said that I am incredibly impressed by people like CJ et al who maintain or have access to a data base and can interpret the information in a meaningful way).
That's all folks!
|
