Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
Here's another phenomenon in models and factors I've noticed on occasion.
If you test a factor on "all" cases you will typically find that you'll lose the track take or thereabouts and tend to discard it.
I've seen cases where a factor seems to have no value at very short prices (everyone else sees it too) and very long prices (the horse may have a positive going for it but it's simply not good enough to win in today's race) but have some value among contenders that are not big favorites.
So maybe a guy like Benter incorporated the live odds into his model, but it may make sense to incorporate odds ranges also.
|
Good post. Just in the last year, or two, I've begun to realize that ROI as compared to win%, perhaps the most utilized means of attempting to estimate the odds range that a specific trainer's winners tend to fall into, leaves lots of blind-spots and variables. Nearly identical stats, incorporating both strike-rate and flat-bet return, can reflect very different tendencies.
But while many times the obvious conclusions are actually misleading, even a trap, I'm not so sure this gives computer programs an insurmountable edge.
Real time experience and expertise lead to strong and accurate opinions on the comparative skills of trainers, and intuitive understanding of their tendencies. An opinion and understanding that can transcend cold data and lead to good value when the stats don't jive with what you know.
