2019 Software Poll!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Nitro

We certainly play this game differently, but I also like idea of turning a toothpick bet (even with multiple selections) into log return (If and Only If the Value is there)!

The contenders are those entries with values closest to PAR.
Tote Analysis - Del Mar Fri 8/23
Race # 5 – 5-9 W/ 7-8-1 @ 3 mins to post
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...53220&page=199

3min	7min	12min	Ent#
256	228	168	1
342	343	268	2
351	419	429	3
388	379	359	4
110	100	74	5
404	432	328	6
220	223	167	7
252	248	234	8
209	195	175	9
242	246	185	PAR

Results:

Race # 5 = 8-9-7-5 – EX – TRI & SUPER BX

•	POS	#	Horse	                  Win	Place	Show
•	1st:	8	Nothing But Heat	$10.00	$5.60	$4.00
•	2nd:	9	Y Not Sizzle		       $5.40	$3.40
•	3rd:	7	Our Romance			       $10.20
•	4th:	5	Too Hot For Curlin	
•			
•	•	$2.00 QUINELLA 8-9 $20.20
•	•	$2.00 EXACTA 8-9 $39.80
•	•	$2.00 TRIFECTA 8-9-7 $394.80
•	•	$2.00 SUPERFECTA 8-9-7-5 $1,341.60 

LOL! Yeah, we do play this game differently. And it's obvious that there are way to arrive at Rome by more than one road. . The winner you cite above would have been an incredibly good overlay play on the basis of several of her ratings in my number one, uno, go-to Everything Module. Do you like bagels? I do. I love 'em. And my favorite is the Everything Bagel...for real. Well, this particular module is bursting at the seams with very important data. I can look at this one module and usually size up the preliminary contenders in the race and one of those contenders will cross the finish line first. What would have made this winner such a standout in this mod is that she ranked 1 in all the most important ratings.

The PV and CR headers are background highlighted because the mod is sorted by the sum of these two ratings. There simply was no room to insert a third column to display it, so it's hidden in the background. Here's the rundown on the important columnsL

ELP = the sum of the sum of the EP and LP rankings. She ranked 1.

CS = consensus score, 50% of which is weighted with various pace ratings. The other 50% with class, consistency and trainer ratings. She ranked 1.

The PV = the late Ray Taulbot's Angles Percentage Values, which consists of various performance and class-related attributes. She ranked 1 here,too.

The CR = pace + speed rating composite rating that is distance and surface-sensitive. She ranked 1 here, too.

The CP = a complex rating. It consists of the Sum of EP and LP ratings viewed 3 ways: best, current and median. Ranked 1.

The TR = Bob Pandolfo's Diamond Pace Rating taken from his Diamond Formula Racing System and is his proprietary rating which we have imported into our program . Ranked 1 here, too.

Finally, the SR = Sum of Rankings which consists of the CP, TR and 2 other ratings not shown in this module. Since her sum was the smallest, she ranked 1 here too.

To see a horse like this in this particular mod is rare, and when I do the horse is almost always sent off as the prohibitive favorite. Such a horse for me would be a DBA -- Don't Bet Against. LOL! If I had been playing yesterday, I would have gotten down on this little filly in a heart beat with no second thoughts. As you can see, the 5 was an outright false favorite when compared to the horses ranked above her.

As far TI-related stuff, the trainer had a Bain category and he was the minimum 3 pts. better than his generic rating (16% v. 13%).

Also, there was excellent synergy between between today's jock and the trainer -- as a team the jock had a 25% hit rate with a + 0.32 ROI compared to a modest 7% generic/overall rating.

The horse's current form cycle was excellent, as she has improved her SR in her last three outings, and she certainly was not overtaxed in her last race, as she lost ground steadily from the 2C to the FL. It was reasonable and logical to project further improvement today off this well rested filly.

[Speed Figure]

I can post this horse on top too! not very hard to do. A 7/2 ML that went off at the same price that the SVP recommended. It's a pretty easy winner to have.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Speed Figure

I can post this horse on top too! not very hard to do. A 7/2 ML that went off at the same price that the SVP recommended. It's a pretty easy winner to have.

It's really cool when once in a while, the racing gods offer us a no-brainer.

And when the no-brainer is going off at very nice odds, that's icing+ on the cake.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Personally, I am not a fan either.

However, I respect anyone who has the diligence to create and fine tune a tool to turn it into "factors."

As I said earlier, what is parimutuel wagering if not a money game? If someone can follow the money successfully, more power to him or her. However, when I "follow the money", which I can do with two very good but relatively infrequent occurring tote board angles, I want to know that the money I'm following is very likely the real deal, i.e. [inside money. I want to see horses today take some serious money for no apparent reason that can easily be discerned from the PP data. Qualified horses represent excellent investment opportunities and many of them can pay quite handsomely.

True story: Several years ago, I shared these angles with several people on another forum, which I think is now defunct. Anyway...a few years ago out of the clear blue I get this email from a fellow who I barely remembered and he thanked me profusely for "changing my life" (his words). He told that the two angles made him a consistent winner.

Evidently, this gent truly understood and appreciated the wisdom behind the core principle to the two angles and he was willing to manually search the PP data of every horse in every race to find potential plays, since the basis to both angles is in the PP data and either angle itself is completed today during real time wagering, providing the horse meets the final qualification rule.

My current software has around 4,000 factors for every horse. Most are worthless, some have value, and a few are gold when looked at from the right POV.[/b]

I have found over the years that in this game More is actually Less. I try to stick with the handful of core, fundamental factors and master those. And even with that, I often have my job cut out for me.

When you consider the entire Wisdom of the Crowd theory, why would it not have potential merit?

.

The collective wisdom of the crowd is pretty impressive, but of course the great paradox to this game is that the crowd is still wrong more often than it is right. All a serious player has to do to beat this game is find a factor or an angle that is ignored or at at least undervalued or misunderstood by the crowd and exploit that weakness.

The fact that it isn't "our cup of tea," doesn't mean it can't/doesn't work. Same with physicality and probably a couple of other approaches I've seen people succeed with over the years.

No, it doesn't but it does mean that I must be psychologically comfortable with an approach before I adopt it for my own.

Of course, the real point is, THERE'S NO FREE LUNCH.

Got that right! Gotta pay your dues in this game!

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, it doesn't but it does mean that I must be psychologically comfortable with an approach before I adopt it for my own.

This is exactly right...IMO.

We sometimes say that "this game is all about winning"...but this isn't true, from a horseplayer perspective. Along with "winning"...the horseplayer must also satisfy his own psychological and temperamental makeup. If our handicapping and betting style does not correspond with our particular psychological and temperamental idiosyncrasies...then an internal struggle is created within us, which makes long-term "winning" virtually impossible.

[incoming]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

This is exactly right...IMO.

We sometimes say that "this game is all about winning"...but this isn't true, from a horseplayer perspective. Along with "winning"...the horseplayer must also satisfy his own psychological and temperamental makeup. If our handicapping and betting style does not correspond with our particular psychological and temperamental idiosyncrasies...then an internal struggle is created within us, which makes long-term "winning" virtually impossible.

I think you and boxcar have nailed it......for myself, it was living well within my tolerance for RISK. When I step over the boundaries things start to get fuzzy and bad decisions are made. Daily records are a must for me and made the boundaries very easy to spot. I'm a risk addict.....I was lucky and discovered it very early in life.

[thaskalos]

I don't understand the poll in this thread. The poll question is Which Software do you use? I totaled up the replies and it comes out to 1,038 votes posted by 341 voters. That's over 3 votes per voter. Can that be true? The average computer handicapper is using at least 3 separate sets of handicapping software?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I don't understand the poll in this thread. The poll question is Which Software do you use? I totaled up the replies and it comes out to 1,038 votes posted by 341 voters. That's over 3 votes per voter. Can that be true? The average computer handicapper is using at least 3 separate sets of handicapping software?

The Voter count is only counting registered users. Guests (non-registered users) can also vote in the poll.

That's why you see a discrepancy in the numbers.

Interesting how all the "named" software almost all has the same number of votes.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

The Voter count is only counting registered users. Guests (non-registered users) can also vote in the poll.

That's why you see a discrepancy in the numbers.

Interesting how all the "named" software almost all has the same number of votes.

Oh...okay. I knew that non-members could vote in these polls...but I didn't know that only the registered members were counted.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Oh...okay. I knew that non-members could vote in these polls...but I didn't know that only the registered members were counted.

Not correct. All votes are counted, whether registered or not.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Not correct. All votes are counted, whether registered or not.

The VOTES are all counted...but not the VOTERS. That's why there are 1272 listed votes in the above poll...but only 383 listed VOTERS.

[MONEY]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The VOTES are all counted...but not the VOTERS. That's why there are 1272 listed votes in the above poll...but only 383 listed VOTERS.

I never voted in this poll, but I just checked without voting.
If I want to, I can check every box and then vote.
If I did the above, the poll would get 1 more voter and 13 votes.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I don't understand the poll in this thread. The poll question is Which Software do you use? I totaled up the replies and it comes out to 1,038 votes posted by 341 voters. That's over 3 votes per voter. Can that be true? The average computer handicapper is using at least 3 separate sets of handicapping software?

I wondered about this myself, earlier.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The VOTES are all counted...but not the VOTERS. That's why there are 1272 listed votes in the above poll...but only 383 listed VOTERS.

That's because, as Money pointed out, it was set up as a MULTIPLE CHOICE poll...so 383 voters made on average about 3 choices each...

[lefty359]

I for one, do at times, use more han one piece of software.