|
|
06-20-2018, 11:12 AM
|
#31
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Benton, La.
Posts: 1,841
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by oughtoh
I know that. Just having fun with it because the guy that made it was a good friend of mine. It is always easier without money. I finally figured Greg's out, I am to old to figure another one out.
|
Greg's doesn't take much figuring out. At Lad yesterday Best5 consensus had 6 winners on top on a 7 race card.
|
|
|
06-20-2018, 12:15 PM
|
#32
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,033
|
That is why I would not change for something simple
|
|
|
06-21-2018, 02:16 AM
|
#33
|
PA Steward
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Del Boca Vista
Posts: 88,543
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing
"There is no key that unlocks all doors."
|
You just need the key that unlocks SOME doors and a way of identifying WHICH doors work with this key.
THAT is the KEY!
|
|
|
06-21-2018, 11:40 AM
|
#34
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,176
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd
I'm not sure if it's the same one, but I looked at something like that years ago. I think that's the one that uses the morning line to come up with contenders, right?
As I recall one of the rules was to only use it on fields of 8 or more, so it will work (or not work! ) just as well at any track on any race with 8 or more entries.
I'll dig around my stuff tonight to see if I still have my research on that.
|
Looks like it's been updated for races with 6 or fewer horses in the "Professional Edition." It was covered on PA back 2005. I still see they sell the printed version for $95, even with free pdf's available online. The Pro version is a LOT more complicated uses Julian calendar days or some mumbo jumbo to give you a Wild Card that overrules the regular rules. Made my head spin just reading it.
http://www.phahorseracing.com/nevpro...naledition.pdf
__________________
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.
|
|
|
06-21-2018, 12:27 PM
|
#35
|
Registered Loser
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,633
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whosonfirst
Looks like it's been updated for races with 6 or fewer horses in the "Professional Edition." It was covered on PA back 2005. I still see they sell the printed version for $95, even with free pdf's available online. The Pro version is a LOT more complicated uses Julian calendar days or some mumbo jumbo to give you a Wild Card that overrules the regular rules. Made my head spin just reading it.
http://www.phahorseracing.com/nevpro...naledition.pdf
|
Make it more complicated and more suckers will take the bait and purchase the software.
|
|
|
06-21-2018, 01:37 PM
|
#36
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 330
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
I perused the system you guys are talking about here. Actually very interesting approach.
Please know that I am not saying it has a snowball's chance in the very deep south of winning, but it is interesting.
It is interesting enough to discuss a little. It would, logically, put the average handicapper onto some exciting races and the occasional big day.
The author is putting forth the concept of "segmentation." Essentially, he is suggesting that the handicapper divide the fields into groups for a reason: to separate the most likely winners from each other (i.e. into different groups).
The next step is to look for the "right group" by applying some rules that (indirectly) have to do with how competitive the group itself is. Doesn't really matter how you do this, but occasionally you will wind up on some lopsided groups, which just scream to fit the system.
See, I read (and often buy) a lot of... what I call, "idea systems," ... just to see if the author has stumbled across something buried in their that has value.
So, allow me to offer a different approach that is actually based upon some of the same principles but makes a little more sense.
This will NOT be a winning system, but you can have a good time with it and (probably do a lot better).
Step 1: Divide the field into 2 groups based upon your belief of the odds in the race.
Group A: All horses that figure to be below 7/2. I don't suggest that you use just morning line for this but you can if you wish.
Group B: Everyone else.
Step 2: Handicap each group like they are in completely different races. The goal is to pick the best horse in each group.
This puts you on two horses in each race, one low-priced, and one higher-priced.
Summary
You will cash a lot of tickets with the Group A horses that will keep you alive and then cash the occasional Group B horse.
There are a lot of bells-and-whistles one could add to this, like:
A. Building a model of what wins at this track in Group B.
B. Instead of splitting groups based upon predicted price, put front-runners in Group A and the rest in Group B. (Group B will always be "the rest.")
C. Get creative with the groups. See how many ways YOU can come up with group segmentation.
D. If this is too simple for you, try creating multiple sets of Groups in each race. You could have Group A be early horses, class horses (what ever that means to you), recent high speed ratings, etc.
Then you could model which GROUP is doing the best.
This approach actually has a lot of potential for winning if you add a few bells-and-whistles as discussed.
Finally, personally, I am trying to do more for the don't-want-to-do-much-work handicapper. I think I will spend some time expanding on this just for fun.
If an average player (i.e. not a winning player) takes any "segmentation" approach, he will open himself to having some pretty good races simply because sometimes he will find himself looking past the obvious horses in the race and playing the best-of-the-rest.
Hope this helps.
Dave
|
Funny. Tried this on the 1st at Belmont out of curiousity. A horse was the 1 Carrick and B was the 6 Sentry.
Lets see if I can get off it before I dump my roll for the day.
|
|
|
06-21-2018, 01:44 PM
|
#37
|
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,139
|
This system is not even worth an opinion. The only thing I am curious about is what logic does the author of this system use for "grouping" program numbers and then comparing the groups. This seems to be the foundation and key to this system yet the author gives no explanation of why he does this which gives the system even less validity than the zero validity it already has.
|
|
|
06-21-2018, 02:00 PM
|
#38
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 330
|
Oh no. 2/2 with Dave's method. GP 2nd, B was the 1 and A was the 3.
Belmont 2nd my A is 5, B is 3.
|
|
|
06-21-2018, 02:41 PM
|
#39
|
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,909
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by WP1981
Oh no. 2/2 with Dave's method. GP 2nd, B was the 1 and A was the 3.
Belmont 2nd my A is 5, B is 3.
|
Glad you are having a good time. You will likely be highly competitive but please do not start with visions of grandeur just yet.
;-)
|
|
|
06-21-2018, 04:54 PM
|
#40
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,033
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
This system is not even worth an opinion. The only thing I am curious about is what logic does the author of this system use for "grouping" program numbers and then comparing the groups. This seems to be the foundation and key to this system yet the author gives no explanation of why he does this which gives the system even less validity than the zero validity it already has.
|
If I remember from 45 years ago when I had friends that were tellers that played the Chinese system, these were the groupings for their system that they played. The Julian calendar days that he is using is the same that he used for his variants.
|
|
|
06-21-2018, 06:59 PM
|
#41
|
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,139
|
What is the Chinese system?
|
|
|
06-21-2018, 08:21 PM
|
#42
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,033
|
something like this system. It has been so many years ago that I don't remember. Might be the same system.
|
|
|
06-21-2018, 08:42 PM
|
#43
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,176
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
This system is not even worth an opinion. The only thing I am curious about is what logic does the author of this system use for "grouping" program numbers and then comparing the groups. This seems to be the foundation and key to this system yet the author gives no explanation of why he does this which gives the system even less validity than zero validity it already has.
|
Funny, but your Less than Zero comment brought back memories of a simple system I devised over my lunch break many years ago. I called it, Plus, Minus, Zero as in ( +, -, 0). I gave all the horses, a +, -,or 0 for each handicapping factor, such as recency, form, class, speed, gains in stretch, distance, early spd. and weight. May have missed a few like jockey, post, etc. Then just add up all the pluses and I had my contenders.
The contenders may have looked like: one with 5+'s, two with 3+'s, one with 2+'s, the rest with high numbers of -'s, and 0's. I seem to remember all the rules fitting on a 3x5 card.
If you think about this Never Plan system, it's often going to zero in on two or three of the lowest ML's, so it's going to hit fairly often. By breaking the ML's up into four different group's, it's shuffling some random numbers into play, thus not always landing on the lowest ML, or even the 2nd lowest ML, but will get to the 3rd or 4th ML quite often. Someone on here recently quoted that the 4 lowest ML's usually hit about 80% of the time historically.
__________________
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.
|
|
|
06-21-2018, 09:05 PM
|
#44
|
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 16,909
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whosonfirst
Funny, but your Less than Zero comment brought back memories of a simple system I devised over my lunch break many years ago. I called it, Plus, Minus, Zero as in ( +, -, 0). I gave all the horses, a +, -,or 0 for each handicapping factor, such as recency, form, class, speed, gains in stretch, distance, early spd. and weight. May have missed a few like jockey, post, etc. Then just add up all the pluses and I had my contenders.
|
This is just a great way to play!
The best part is that if you feel like doing a little more work, you can improve the individual components, or even weight them a little.
|
|
|
06-21-2018, 09:17 PM
|
#45
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 330
|
Well the Dave System worked out well today at GP with winners in the 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 8th, which included a $42 and $31 winner. The B is doing very well which I got by going off of the first horse I have at over 5-1 on my own odds line.
Was actually profitable for me at Belmont and SA as well (including a monster double at SA). Didnt play the double in the GP 2nd which returned $250+
Having fun with it along with my regular plays. Even worked it up for Ballina and Geelong tonight. We shall see how that goes.
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|