Finding a subset for favorites

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

Sorry if the facts confound you.
As far as who made more money, I have no way of knowing.

Respectfully, you are out to lunch on this one.

I have first-hand knowledge that Benter not only did what is attributed to him in HK, but also that he is the real deal even today in North American racing.

I do not understand how you could confuse a man who leads a team that makes 10s of millions every year with someone who may possibly have never made a single real bet.

[headhawg]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

"Changing parameters " perhaps akin to Benter's statement "improvements to the model were made on a continuing basis, as were regular re-estimations of the model which incorporated the additional data accumulated. "

Comparing yourself and your methods with Benter and his team is completely laughable.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Oh, there were pages and pages of rules.
And they were quite clearly written.

However...
A good friend and programmer coded Fabricand's rules.

Several of them were contradictory.

He spent quite a bit of time understanding them and eventually presented the evidence to me.

After several hours of working with him, I was forced to concur.

The rules were not completely logical.

Therefore, I would tend to agree with you.

For me, that put the entire body of work in question.

For me it was his clear and thoughtful analysis for the everyday man.

today, if you want to find the similarity just look at the wps and exacta boards.
the public presents it for you, if you can find it!!

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by headhawg

Comparing yourself and your methods with Benter and his team is completely laughable.

His words not mine..

[headhawg]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

"Changing parameters " perhaps akin to Benter's statement "improvements to the model were made on a continuing basis, as were regular re-estimations of the model which incorporated the additional data accumulated. "

Originally Posted by formula_2002

His words not mine..

You used his words as a comparison to my words about your research methodology ("changing the parameters"). Ergo you were comparing yourself with Benter. Again -- laughable.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by headhawg

You used his words as a comparison to my words about your research methodology ("changing the parameters"). Ergo you were comparing yourself with Benter. Again -- laughable.

of course I am, to the extent noted .

akin:
of similar nature or character:

[headhawg]

I know what akin means and you're just proving my point.

Laughable:

: of a kind to provoke laughter or sometimes derision : amusingly ridiculous

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by headhawg

I know what akin means and you're just proving my point.

Laughable:

: of a kind to provoke laughter or sometimes derision : amusingly ridiculous

Go to sleep my friend. Tomorrow awaits you.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

For me it was his clear and thoughtful analysis for the everyday man.

today, if you want to find the similarity just look at the wps and exacta boards.
the public presents it for you, if you can find it!!

I've decided against engaging on this.

Nothing is to be gained.

[Speed Figure]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I've decided against engaging on this.

Nothing is to be gained.

You can't go against the greatest non bettor of all time! he's got all the stats, but doesn’t WIN ANYTHING!

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Speed Figure

You can't go against the greatest non bettor of all time! he's got all the stats, but doesn’t WIN ANYTHING!

I try not to ridicule people.
Except for MostPost.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

His words not mine..

It's really interesting that if you go way, way back on here to your earliest posts, when someone told you they were winning money, you would adamantly claim they had to do it in EVERY race for a million-race sample or it wasn't real. They would say "But I don't have to bet EVERY race, I bet the races that work for me, and I'm winning." And you would just deny their reality.

Now, 20 years later, YOU'RE the one claiming you can pick out some subset of favorites using math and win, and the rest of us are saying, "Yeah, it's not 20 years ago, you can't just backfit a sample and claim you're a winner."

What is the constant? Twenty years ago, you disregarded the guy who actually bet and won in favor of theory. In this conversation, you're disregarding the guy who actually bet and won (Benter) in favor of theory.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by soflant

I am wondering if there has been a study done or books where the research shows a subset where a profit is shown for betting favorites? I mean a profit of at least 10%-20% Did Burton Fabricand so such research? As we all know betting every favorite shows about a 10-20% loss at the end of a meet. Thanks so much in advance.

Considering the original note, to obtain a profit of 10% (while discounting the short to long odds bias and considering the public established the true win percentage, for which, in a considerable amount of studies they do, with the exception noted), you would have to overcome the booking percentage by the following;

the booking percentage for a track vig of 18 percent is 1.219.

if you are betting on a horse with track odds 1-1, the true win percentage is 41%, you would need to win 55% (a 134 percentage advantage ) of the time to have a profit of 10 percent.

Track odds 1-1. Bet $100 (100 $1 bets) , return =1 x 55+55 =110. 110/100= $1 return of 1.10

if you are betting on a horse with track odds 2-1, the true win percentage is 27%, you would need to win 36.74% (a 137 percent advantage) of the time to have a profit of 10 percent.

Track odds 2-1. Bet $100 (100 $1 bets), return =2 x 36.74+36.74 =110. 110/100= $1 return of 1.10.


“The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that is the way to bet.” Damon Runyon,