Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro
Something that you might want to consider.
So, who has more credibility when it comes to basic handicapping?
The “Figure” makers or someone who has actually proven himself in the betting arena?...
|
And:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitro
No, actually what’s absurd is anyone one believing that the use of our so-called modern measuring technology is capable of considering all of the real-world environmental effects (pointed out by Pittsburg Phil) on any given horse’s condition before, during and after a racing event. These thoroughbreds don’t run in a vacuum.
One might also want to consider who was more successful using their handicapping methodology and approach to the game.
|
A few days ago,
in post number 82 in
one of the Handicapping Library threads, you posted a link to
a PDF written by Bill Benter.
As a result I reread the PDF in its entirety.
I've probably read that paper at least 20 times over the years.
Every time I read it I manage to pick up a nugget - some little detail I somehow missed during all of my previous readings about the way Benter was doing things when he wrote that paper.
Why does it have to be one or the other?
Why is it ok to use Tote data but not ok to use past performance data?
It seems pretty obvious to me that Benter created a successful model.
Based on what he wrote - it seems pretty obvious that Benter used BOTH past performance data and tote data in his model.
Beginning on page 184 Benter penned a chapter on "HANDICAPPING MODEL DEVELOPMENT" and specifically mentioned a handful of factors based on past performance data that he used in his model including "normalized times of past races."
What are speed and pace figures? Are they not simply a way of expressing normalized times from past races?
-jp
.
