speed figures analysis ?

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by JimG
JoeM

You have people on this board that say they win long term at the track. Are you calling them all liars because your data allegedly does not support such a conclusion?

Not sure where this thread is going. It is very hard to win at the track long term and very hard to beat the vig. I have had many winning years over my 20 years or so playing the horses...so I know it can be done...takes alot of work...and luck...and in my case hitting some big bets...but it can be done.

Jim

Jim i'd never call anyone not running for public office a liar.

But you mentioned a very important thing " luck...and in my case hitting some big bets..."
Thats how most of us win, luck and a few big bets"
But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about day in and day out win pool betting. Its the true measure of long term success.
And I just dont see how the math can support successful win pool betting.

I made some studies about dd, pick 3 and exacta pool betting possibly being profitable if you could get the effect of the win pool take-out down to about 7%. But I have to revisit that.

[JimG]

Joe,

Thanks for the reply. Like you, I used to post on the old Prodigy Board so I've been around awhile <g>

I have never been able to make a consistent profit on win betting so I have concentrated my efforts on putting together exotic (trifecta, pk3, DD only) wagers based on the odds and chance of winning of my contenders.

Keep plugging.

Jim

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by formula_2002
karlskorner

Unfortunately Karl, they must know more then we give them credit for. They run to their odds.

You're mistaking an effect for a cause, and this the fundamental flaw with your obsession with the odds. (It is more of a religion with you at this point, I'm afraid.) If the odds determined the way they run, then the act of making a bet would make them run differently. Do you believe that is the case? I suppose in non-betting races they wouldn't even be able to get out of the gate.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
Formula,


In fact, I find your position confusing. Don't you say that you, yourself, beat the game?


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Dave, most all my stuff is on my web site. I try to make clear, what the system is based upon, separating back fitted data from "live" data.

Such as;
"The system picks are based on a data base sample of over 16,000 races (over 126,000 horses)
The system picks started on 03/10/2003.
If I can approximate the results achieved in the sample, I will win about 21% of the time, achieving a profit of about 33%"

Unfortunately;

"system picks results: through 05/15/2003
number of races: 211
win %: 16
profit: -7%"

The previous system was based on over 6000 back fitted picks which showed a profit of 6%.
Unfortunately, the next "live" 1000 or so races showed a 11% loss.

Joe M

[Lefty]

Formula, I know this is going to be falling on blind eyes but, the fact that horses run to their odds is not new, read it when I first stated betting back in the 50's. The public is very good, it's a very efficient marketplace. We, as bettors and 'cappers have to find the inefficiencies. They come along a few times every day.
You saying noone wins is kinda like a scientist saying the hummingbird can't fly; but the damn thing does. Hmmm.

[lousycapper]

As a neophyte... what studies have been done using Equibase speed and variant numbers? Say, looking at the last 3-5 starts, taking the best three and averaging them to find your speed contenders? I don't want to invent the wheel all over again. Thanks in advance for your help.

-L.C.

[formula_2002]

gt

6761 horses w/ average odds 1-1 win 43% of the time
10,665 horses w/ averag odds 2-1 win 28% of the time
11,295 horses w/ averga odds 3-1 win 21% of the time.

etc.

do you see a correlation ?

Are you saying, in the future an 1-1 horse will NOT win an average of 43% of the time?

Are you , Lefty and Fast close friends??

[formula_2002]

lousycapper


Ah Mr Anthony. The simpler times of radio. "The Answer Man"

[Lefty]

Formula, you are presenting blind averages. You don't believe in subsets? You don't blve, say, for istance, an accomplished 'capper might find a subset of those 1-1 horses that might only encompass 100 or so plays and win 70 times?
I do not know the gentlemen you mentioned but I imagine I would be honored to have them as friends.

[lousycapper]

Originally posted by formula_2002
lousycapper


Ah Mr Anthony. The simpler times of radio. "The Answer Man"

=======================

Grampa has referred to him on many occassions. I didn't know who he was until Grampa told me. Thought it was a funny saying. He sometimes uses "Agony" in place of "Anthony".

-LC.

[Handle]

Seems to me that a lot of this "can't beat the game" is based on statistical evaluation of the performance of so-called overlays. The problem is that one man's overlay is another man's pig. The statistical basis is flawed because its based on very subjective criteria. If the numbers don't come out using one set of criteria, change the criteria (that you use to make wagers with). If looking to win playing _every race_, then expect to end up where Joe's coming from.

Regarding number crunching. It seems too many people think its an either or approach -- you either crunch numbers and make your plays, or you do something else. Personally, I use a statistical approach to find contenders. When I find one that the public doesn't, and the rest of the race falls into shape, its a play. For example, a stat showing that a trainer wins at a high percentage with first time starters may indicate a contender. If his horse is going off at, say, 5/1, I'll be very interested. But, if the race shows other viable contenders, I'll pass the race (at least, when I'm playing well I will).

[anotherdave]

From previous formula post:

"What suggestions do you have for a “Global Winning Picks” business and marketing plans?"

Now I get it! This is just an elaborate marketing plan using reverse psychology - absolutely ingenious!

AD

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by formula_2002
gt

6761 horses w/ average odds 1-1 win 43% of the time
10,665 horses w/ averag odds 2-1 win 28% of the time
11,295 horses w/ averga odds 3-1 win 21% of the time.

etc.

do you see a correlation ?

Are you saying, in the future an 1-1 horse will NOT win an average of 43% of the time?

I'm saying it is an effect, not a cause. I've explained before (in detail) the problems with what you're doing, and why your worship of the odds is misguided before, so I won't do it again. Go look up the old posts if you want.

I've also asked you dozens of direct questions, and you haven't answered any of them. Lots of people have pointed out all sorts of contradictions and the flaws in your reasoning, and you just ignore them. Now I'd be the last person to say that I am some guru and you should just listen to me and you'll win lots of money, but you're very stubborn and unwilling to confront fundamental errors in your methodology. You're even unwilling to simply *respond* to such questions, and you leave some blow-off answer like above -- answering questions with questions, etc. Why?

Being stubborn is for winners -- everyone else should be trying to learn. I just don't understand your know-it-all attitude. After all, it hasn't gotten you anywhere except to become an excellent case-study of why people lose. Why why why?

[Fastracehorse]

<there is more data out there to support my position. I have seen none to support any other..have you?

Your data is meaningless and supports no position of any sort.



fffastt

[Fastracehorse]

Joe I'm giving you a hard time but you sort of deserve it.

<Formula, you are presenting blind averages.

What you do is butcher a beautiful game with obnoxious and meaningless data.

How can you be so B L I N D??



fffastt