NEW RESEARCH PROJECT PICKS

[markgoldie]

Results for Sat. 9/12:

There were 6 qualifying horses and all of them failed to win.

Running total 76 plays Win return $168.90 ROI +11.1%

Note: I am shutting this down now. When I started, I had no idea what we would find. I could have researched it for past results, but I don't have the time for stuff like that, so I decided to post it so we all could see what it would do. The problem is that it ususally does little more than predict favorites and we all know where that leads. Even when the ROI was very high, I predicted that it would collapse because the lower-priced selections had a much lower (negative) ROI and even a lower percentage strike-rate than the qulaifying selections of 5/2 or over. This never boded well since as Dave Schwartz in particular has pointed out many times, tote action is actually a very good predictor of strike-rate success. Another running example is Formula 2002's project which works best (as he says) when the system-selected horse is either the favorite or the co-favorite.

Even if the system were to go back on a better streak, I don't believe that it would be useful, again, because I think it predicts favorites too much and that is no way to show reasonable profits. As we went along, I began to eliminate more and more horses that were "called" by the system but which I knew would not make the odds' cut. In fact, by the end I was eliminating more calls than I was posting. This alone should have been an indication that we were bucking a strong negative tide.

Hopefully, we all have better angles than this one for uncovering value. In fact, I am noticing something new recently, which predicts long-shot winners. To make up for shutting this down, I will open a new thread where we may research this new angle together.

Thanks to those who offered encouragement over the course of this. I am now convinced that there are better ways for us to make money.

Sincerely,

Mark

[formula_2002]

Mark, in dark times, it's good to seek out Churchill..he had so many of them and yet lived long with great accomplishments.

Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.
Sir Winston Churchill
British politician (1874 - 1965)

[speculus]

Originally Posted by formula_2002

then obviously the odds posted in the result charts are not accurate.
the book % summed to bit more than 1.10

Formula,

The odds posted in the result charts you are talking about are BOOKMAKERS' ODDS (we have a dual system--Tote as well as bookies).

Bookmakers' odds on all horses are generally, on the average, 20% better than the Tote odds on the same horse. My profits of the said public trial would have been extra-ordinary if I had logged in records for those odds. But there would never be agreement on the bookies' odds at any given time, as there are about 50 bookmakers operating in an enclosure (we call it the "bookies' ring), and in their frenzied efforts to collect maximum business, they constantly keep on changing odds to outbid one another. So generally, there is no consensus figure for those odds, only approximate.

Although more profitable, the bookmakers' odds therefore serve no purpose as benchmark.

By contrast the Tote collections and dividends are absolutely transparent, though not as lucrative for profit. But since transparency is soul of a public trial, I kept track of only the Tote odds although that meant my profit figures would be way less than they would have been if someone followed those choices by backing with the bookies.

Hope this clears the issue for you,

[speculus]

Originally Posted by markgoldie

Even if the system were to go back on a better streak, I don't believe that it would be useful, again, because I think it predicts favorites too much and that is no way to show reasonable profits.
Mark

I have nothing to say about your desire to stop here, because you know what you are doing and must be justified in taking this step. However, one thing I can personally vouch for is that if you predict 40+% winners, even if most of them are favorites, you will normally be able to still beat this game over both short term and long term. The trick could be to invent some sensible qualifier rules (like I did with my choices in the public trial) which would automatically eliminate many more losers than winners, helping your strike rate to go over the desired 40+%. or better still, close to 50%.

Think about it before you summarily scrap your present system, because I think it surely must have some merit. Of course, I understand you are not really too enthused about it.

[formula_2002]

Originally Posted by speculus

Formula,

The odds posted in the result charts you are talking about are BOOKMAKERS' ODDS (we have a dual system--Tote as well as bookies).

Bookmakers' odds on all horses are generally, on the average, 20% better than the Tote odds on the same horse. My profits of the said public trial would have been extra-ordinary if I had logged in records for those odds. But there would never be agreement on the bookies' odds at any given time, as there are about 50 bookmakers operating in an enclosure (we call it the "bookies' ring), and in their frenzied efforts to collect maximum business, they constantly keep on changing odds to outbid one another. So generally, there is no consensus figure for those odds, only approximate.

Although more profitable, the bookmakers' odds therefore serve no purpose as benchmark.

By contrast the Tote collections and dividends are absolutely transparent, though not as lucrative for profit. But since transparency is soul of a public trial, I kept track of only the Tote odds although that meant my profit figures would be way less than they would have been if someone followed those choices by backing with the bookies.

Hope this clears the issue for you,

thank you...i wish we fix odds betting here !!!