Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
Because the goal is not to agree with the public but to find the spots when the public is wrong.
If we used your approach to the letter we'd simply give the horses the precise probabilities indicated by the tote board.
Where would that leave us?
|
I think you're missing the point. You don't know
which ones are the top three, especially #1, until after the race is over, or halfway around the track. I defy anyone to give me the #1 odds horse at post time, and get a win bet down on it in 20 straight races. The top three, NFW.
Trust me, I understand what overlays and underlays are. I think Benter was wise in using the public along with his other 9 hcp factors. The public has an outstanding record of consistently picking the exact order of how often horses finish, 1 thru 10 positions.
I thought it was interesting in Benter's article, that he also used the picks of 47 newpapers pickers or touts(Only in Hong Kong I suppose) and their R2 value in selecting the winner almost duplicated his Fundamental Hcp model: .1016 to .1014. That makes perfect sense, since the majority of those newpaper picks come from hcapping the PP's.
I wasn't proposing betting the top three,(even though we currently don't know), but how can we use that info to improve our models. Top four, and it must be closer to 90%, granted not that hard in a 5 horse race, but 10 or 12, that's a lot of toss outs.
At no time did I say follow Wm. Scott's method, "to the letter" as you say. I was just suggesting focusing on the top three or four using whatever model you use, pace, money flow, hieroglyphics, it doesn't matter to me. When I attempted his method 3-1/2 decades ago, you couldn't tell who the top three were going to be. I was suggesting a model to get us closer to that as a starting point.
