Quote:
Originally Posted by dnlgfnk
I didn't read it straightforwardly, but gathered its point from excerpts as well as the Amazon reviews, Steven Crist references to it, etc. As mentioned, I think its point is well represented in parimutuel betting, which seems to meet the four criteria for WOC being met as I understand them (diverse opinion, independence in forming opinion, balancing of errors, no weighting for single expert opinion).
My point was that based upon Andy's emphasis, I chose a "specialist" path that I don't think he even pursued beyond obvious pace scenarios, good races/ saved ground twice and now widest, etc. His "kindergarten level" judgements.
After a few years of watching jockey's hands, acceleration, position on the track, etc., I would end up asking myself, "What am I supposed to be seeing"? I switched to using the figures contrarily. The lower the figure the tougher the trip, and in the end attempting to visualizing ability. I made visual charts of the points of call (not realizing Steve Chaplin did this for harness), detecting where a horse made his move prior to the stretch in terms of pace and position on the track, all in the attempt to upgrade an obviously bad looking horse.
But when I slowly realized the public was the collective expert, from some data presented by computer handicappers, I knew I had to estimate again the impact of trips, i.e., the impact of Andy's devoting significant writing to it.
|
good stuff.
if you're interested in a copy of WOC send me a pm for a link, but it sounds like you know more (the 4 criteria) than I caught skimming the actual book lol
the crowds and the pools are so good. In my view if I like a favorite (or any sort of direct agreement w/ the money), there's little chance of value unless the field size is big and somehow your favorite is even more dominant than he appears. Otherwise you are paying 16% or so to gamble and be entertained.
But that works both ways. When you have competence, and you see an occasional race that is misjudged by the crowds/money it opens up a decent margin of safety. That's what pari-mutuel games are all about. contrarian opinions
side note - also have a tote movement 'model' in mind, but I don't have the tools for it, and I wouldn't be surprised if a syndicate or so already used it.
My implementation of it is cave-man memory or sometimes I will take two screen shots to compare pool moneys. It's a solid theory, but I don't even know if it works, and i don't lean on it.
