Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JJMartin
The PP's and results are 2 separate files. I don't use track variants or create them but I did write a program for someone who wanted to automate their own manually derived variant formula.
I have done thousands of tests over 12+ years. I look at both value and strike rate. In the beginning I was probably more focused on ROI. Any time I see an outlier I convert it to the win average of the rest of the group. The main thing I have realized is that static testing of the most common or obvious factors such as speed figures, distance, surface and class or any combination of them will generally result in a negative ROI in the long term. For example looking at a long list of past data and just filtering factor "A" with factor "B" then moving on to factor "A" with "C" and so on. Without developing some external formula or calculation that creates a new metric that is not in the raw data per se but is derived from the data (or not), I would say there is no hope of developing anything of any value (unless possibly you are extremely selective with great discipline or are very intuitive with visual cues or something like that). The novice and most handicapping software/services usually end up with a selection in the top 2 or 3 M/L or post time odds. Since this category is over bet, you end up with underlays consistently. I look at the more competitive races that are more confusing to the public and find an edge there. The general public will gravitate towards the easier or obvious choices without fail. So part of what I do is handicap the handicappers and use "outside" factors that can still be derived from the data through their theoretically (hopefully objective) implied meaning. So a big part of the battle is overcoming the majority consensus which dictates a high percentage of the finish order in the results. It is no secret that the post time odds are extremely efficient. When analyzing data, the trick is to distinguish the things that truly have a real effect from the ones that are merely illusions. The problem is that the illusions can be very convincing when looking at patterns. The hardwired human ability to detect patterns can be detrimental in this scope. I would agree about trying to increase the win rate and looking at attributes.
|
I agree with the difficulties, primarily because people tend to seek validation in the form of agreement. Every bettor wants the horse with "everything going for it" that wins frequently--but always goes off at long odds. The easy way out is to look for primaries, and diminish the reliance on (and impression with) secondaries. Not as many "sure things" but better returns.
An example would be "cheap speed"--almost always labeled AFTER the race (as an excuse for doing or not doing whatever). Many "speed handicappers" (and more than a few "pace handicappers") believe their area of specialization overcomes something that "class handicappers" consider an obvious deficiency. If speed is viewed as a primary, with secondary attributes of pace and class ignored or diminished in significance, results (and models) tend to vary significantly when compared to scenarios in which the latter are considered equivalent (or near-equivalent) in importance.
The primaries (in any given sample, regardless of size) may NOT be the same as the factors most bettors consider important. They also may exist (in equal or greater measure) in entries considered throw-outs.
