Quote:
Originally Posted by denniswilliams
I'm not a 'figure' person but much of what you write makes sense.
What I've noticed about HKG in my couple of years playing there is the 'complexity' of the races: half the field could be 'gaining' the last 400M or, even, last 200M. Or the difference between the first 4 or 5 or 6 finishers could be less than 1 length. Who ran the best? The same pool of horses runs against each other repeatedly. Eventually, most end up winning at least 1 race (or certainly placing).
Obviously, your figures must capture these nuances (more so at ST than HV, from what you've written). But the large fields, the seemingly closely matched horses, and all the race incidents makes this seem like a very difficult task.
|
for HK my times are only part of it, and for HV, not much at all.
currently(it varies), the most important thing in my models are rider, and last start public probability.
the most important thing though is todays probs, but i purposely don't consider them, for reason i would rather not get into.
then i think time/section stuff in various ways is next best
someplace else the rider may not be much of a factor at all, but HK, is for me at least.
i guess it depends on the riders whereever, and the difference between best and worst
i don't take much notice, as i rarely bet(if they had betfair i would).
my computer does all the work, with factors, i figured out years ago, so the coefficients are probably way out of date.
there will be factors for running style and whatever, but it's a while since i checked which is which.
@blume_steve
that's my twitter handle, and sometimes i will post what probs my computer comes up with for all the nags in the race.
but keep in mind, they are not selections as such.
if i was betting, i would back any(and all) horses where the publc gives less chance than me(up to a certain cutoff point).
