|
I followed all that.
We do similar, just template based instead of SQL.
The ultimate issue is that the query creates a system, but how do you know that the system is any good? First, you test backwards, but how do you track them ALL going forward?
Personally, I am not a big believer in angle handicapping simply because it is always based upon backfit.
Of course, you can always leave (say) a year of data going forward to test but with racing changing faster and faster, I really question whether or not races from (say) 5 years ago have much relevance this year.
So, instead, we test our approaches going forward, lumping them all together into a single system: Did it work? After a few hundred races you will have a good clue.
Even after a couple of hundred races we can diagnose WHY the system isn't working. For example, perhaps your contenders are not significantly outperforming your non-contenders.
One of the big targets for us is a series of questions that begin with:
1. Do your non-contenders that ultimately go off below 7/2 lose big money? What we want here is at least a 35% loss.
2. Do your contenders that ultimately go off below 7/2 lose small money? We'd like to see something around -12% or better.
There are more questions but even after question 1, if you can get the low odds non-contenders down to around a $1.10 $net (per $2) you can almost throw darts at the rest of the horses and be even.
|
