The Handicapper's Cafe

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by traynor

That may be an accurate and honest evaluaton of your experience, as well as an eloquent statement of your opinions developed as a consequence of that experience. That said, my experience--and the experience of others--may be totally different than yours.

I do not presume to expect others to fully accept my view as being the only possible view. It is only my view, my experience, and my opinion based on that experience. Similarly, I do not accept the views, experiences, and opinions of others as Truth With a Big T. In the end, we are simply two people expressing our internal, subjective opinions based on our limited experience. Neither of us is defining the parameters of some universal reality that applies to all other people.

To be fair...I did preface my remarks with "in my opinion".

The most any of us can do is state our opinions...

[raybo]

Originally Posted by traynor

My brain has a hiccup when I read things like, "put forth the effort to test tracks in the program, for potential profitability before playing them with real dollars." I thought we were discussing a black box. That implies the developer has already done all the work, and all I need do is hit the Go button to start making money.

All the testing should have been completed already, all the algorithms should have created and coded in already, the various research, analysis, and modeling should have all been completed, and my not-very-bright brother-in-law from Poughkeepsie should be able to get exactly the same results with it that I do. Specifically, he should hit the Go button and get a sorted-ranked prediction for the seventh race at Del Mar that is identical to mine, and identical to everyone else's. That is what black boxes do.

If it requires "effort" on my part, that in turn implies some type of subjective decision-making process, and that in turn tends to negate the concept of a black box. If my results are dependent on further study, and my own subjective evaluation of the results of that further study, I am the key component in the profitability (if any) that results, not the software.

You think that way because you haven't any idea what it takes to create a profitable black box racing program. No, there is no subjective anything required. The testing of tracks is done within the program, all automated by macros. I have tested many tracks myself, but don't have the time, or the energy to test every track in the US.

If you're looking for a program that does everything, including the testing before the user gets it, then you will never find one that is profitable. There is a certain amount of "effort" required with my program, by the user, but the actual testing of tracks and live play is all done with the click of a couple of buttons.

And, if you're intent on being condescending in your remarks we can stop discussing my program right now, and you can go create your own, or just keep making all that money with your college buddies.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by traynor

IMHO, I am still waiting to see the black box. It is a lot like a South African gold mine. The question "What is it worth?" is meaningless unless one knows how much gold is there. In the case of black box applications, the REAL question would be, "If it is that good, what possible earthly motivation could there be to sell it (or lease it) at ANY price?"

I don't know if you are familiar with the South African gold situation, but it is a lot like the Mexican petroleum refining industry. That is, there is a lot of gold (and a lot of oil) but it costs more to get it out than it is worth once it is out.

In the real world, a black box app that generates a substantial profit is only of value if no one else has it. And--even if it exists--it will only continue to generate that profit as long as no one else has it. That is not meant to be spurious, nor is it meant to be facetious. Some folks thought they had such an app for Sha Tin a few years ago. Worked great in the planning and research stage, not so good in the doing stage. The obvious problem created by the fact that all the research was on races that were not bet should not be overlooked when serious money is involved--either for the application or for wagering on the output of that application.

You, and many others seem to think that all "black boxes" are created equally, producing the same picks for every user. If you could open your mind a little, you might actually see that a black box does not have to produce exactly the same picks for every user, it depends on how the program is constructed and, in my case, what races you have in your database. If your database differs from mine then you might not get exactly the same picks that I get, but that doesn't mean your program will not show a profit long term just like mine. A realistic, profitable black box program is not some magical, all knowing, all doing entity. It is self evolving and dynamic, if done right, not static and self-defeating over time like most think.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I would say 1/10 of 1% would be a big number.

It can be done. It can be done with a black box.

IMHO, 10% isn't enough.

I agree, I meant "anything close to that", meaning anything more than break even. $40k to $60k per year is attainable, even with my program, but you will have to work for it because it's a win program, and to create that kind of profit you will have to start with a very large bankroll, or work your way up to one, and then make either many, many bets per day, waiting until the last minute to wager on horses with acceptable odds, or make very large bets, and many pools won't support that magnitude of wagers without dramatically reducing the odds you receive.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

How would you ever see it?

Are you a candidate to purchase it? Really?

I think not.

I would not see something that exists only in someone's imagination. And--quite obviously--I would have little or no interest in purchasing (or leasing) something that is purely in the imaginary stage.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by raybo

You think that way because you haven't any idea what it takes to create a profitable black box racing program. No, there is no subjective anything required. The testing of tracks is done within the program, all automated by macros. I have tested many tracks myself, but don't have the time, or the energy to test every track in the US.

If you're looking for a program that does everything, including the testing before the user gets it, then you will never find one that is profitable. There is a certain amount of "effort" required with my program, by the user, but the actual testing of tracks and live play is all done with the click of a couple of buttons.

And, if you're intent on being condescending in your remarks we can stop discussing my program right now, and you can go create your own, or just keep making all that money with your college buddies.

Actually, I did create my own, thank you, and it works quite well. Better than anything I have seen anyone else do. However, I am a pragmatist. If your application works better, I would switch in a flash and never look back. I am more interested in profit than stroking my own ego with fantasies of analytical or programming superiority.

I am quite well aware of what is required for a black box application. That is mostly what I have been doing for the last 10 years or so.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by raybo

You, and many others seem to think that all "black boxes" are created equally, producing the same picks for every user. If you could open your mind a little, you might actually see that a black box does not have to produce exactly the same picks for every user, it depends on how the program is constructed and, in my case, what races you have in your database. If your database differs from mine then you might not get exactly the same picks that I get, but that doesn't mean your program will not show a profit long term just like mine. A realistic, profitable black box program is not some magical, all knowing, all doing entity. It is self evolving and dynamic, if done right, not static and self-defeating over time like most think.

I don't think so. If two people have the same set of races in the database, would not the "picks" be identical? And, if not, why not?

I understand the process of regression on a finite number of races in a database to create what looks like an algorithm that can be used to "predict" future results. Pretty much every non-trivial race analysis application developed in the last 10-15 years has that. Not rocket science. And a long, long way from a black box.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by raybo

I agree, I meant "anything close to that", meaning anything more than break even. $40k to $60k per year is attainable, even with my program, but you will have to work for it because it's a win program, and to create that kind of profit you will have to start with a very large bankroll, or work your way up to one, and then make either many, many bets per day, waiting until the last minute to wager on horses with acceptable odds, or make very large bets, and many pools won't support that magnitude of wagers without dramatically reducing the odds you receive.

Uhhh. It is a long way from $40K to $60K per year absolutely, to "anything more than break even."

[barn32]

Since no one will ever share their "black box," and no one will ever be able (or willing) to "prove" that theirs works, how about we shift the conversation to something that isn't straight out of Alice in Wonderland.

[Dave Schwartz]

I would not see something that exists only in someone's imagination. And--quite obviously--I would have little or no interest in purchasing (or leasing) something that is purely in the imaginary stage.

So nobody could possibly have a black box that makes money at the races. Is that what you contend?

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

So nobody could possibly have a black box that makes money at the races. Is that what you contend?

Not at all.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by barn32

Since no one will ever share their "black box," and no one will ever be able (or willing) to "prove" that theirs works, how about we shift the conversation to something that isn't straight out of Alice in Wonderland.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WANNqr-vcx0

[Dave Schwartz]

I would not see something that exists only in someone's imagination. And--quite obviously--I would have little or no interest in purchasing (or leasing) something that is purely in the imaginary stage.

I guess I do not understand your response then.

No need to explain, though.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

I guess I do not understand your response then.

No need to explain, though.

Thank you. I thought the meaning was fairly clear.

[Dave Schwartz]

So I am assuming that what you mean is that you think I am just making it up.

LOL