Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mauvais
I'm shocked then! I think you will find that Benter's model and software were anything but rudimentary and i also seriously doubt that any of the software programmes you quote here are remotely close to being as sophisticated as Benter's.
|
It was a logit model with lots of factors like "normalized last race finish position". (I think he said that was his single best factor.) It took lots of tinkering to get it right and lots of elbow grease to input other factors that were based on video replays or body language stuff, but it was not terribly sophisticated, no. It was COMPLICATED on a logistical level to keep it running and the numbers of factors involved made it COMPREHENSIVE, but the model itself was not very COMPLEX. It was just a good, solid, robust model. Nothing wrong with it being simple in principle, the best things usually are. Maybe rudimentary is the wrong word. Simple is a better one. Simple, but not simplistic. Better?
My point it was not beyond the reach of anyone else willing to put in the tedious work and was not based on some advanced or innovative technology. Many others in HK eventually did put in that work (or used Benter's same program, which seemed to get passed around quite a bit after he split with his partner), and the profits went down, although I get the feeling that Benter moved on to other things more out of boredom. And the software I mentioned is DEFINITELY more sophisticated (lots more) than Benter's model, especially HSH which *is* full of advanced and innovative technology.
I was also making the point that what really made Benter successful was not his super-awesome model, but his persistence and single-mindedness in exploiting his advantage. There seems to be several of you in this thread hanging on to the notion that achieving profitiability betting on horse racing (here or in HK) depends MOSTLY on superior handicapping, and it just isn't true...
