Quote:
Originally Posted by ultracapper
Here's something that I don't think has been discussed before.
I've found, and pretty much live by, what I've perceived that positive indicators in the horses previous race is more reliable that a good race is forthcoming than negative indicators in a horses past race is reliable that a poor race is forthcoming. In other words, it's less likely that a horse you're expecting a good performance from will let you down than it is likely that a horse you're expecting a poor performance will pop up and surprise you. You're going to be surprised by a horse that you're expecting nothing from more often than a horse you're expecting something from will let you down.
Positive indicators are more reliable than negative indicators in the previous race. I dig further into horses that ran so-so to see if there is something lurking deeper in the pps than I have to when a horse is showing in it's last race that it will run well. If it's showing in it's last race that it will run well today, I pretty much just go with it and move on to the next horse.
|
Your statement is valid but what is missing from your approach is an empirical methodology that will allow you to validate it.
A statement like the following:
Quote:
|
Positive indicators are more reliable than negative indicators in the previous race.
|
is meaningless if you do not have a methodology to reject it based on a specific universe of data.
(Anyway, your conjecture can be easily falsified.)
