Limiting our betting choices to the two top Bris Prime Power horses

[DeltaLover]

What you should immediately notice in this picture, is that the striking rate for the second player, is very close the top bpp alone!


31.12 vs 31.53

The 31.53 is coming from the previous table, showing the BPP rankings

[Robert Fischer]

So the key will be identifying when those 2 prime power horses are most likely to win with value.

In other words you will need to apply an additional filter(s) or factor(s) to reach your hypotheticals.

[JJMartin]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

So the key will be identifying when those 2 prime power horses are most likely to win with value.

In other words you will need to apply an additional filter(s) or factor(s) to reach your hypotheticals.

When the pt odds appear to show value, the strike rate will be lower invariably. There is no magic number.

[TexasDolly]

I am missing something here. I thought it was only necessary to pick
the horse that beat the other horse 59 % of the time. The #1 appears to do that but of course he won't show a profit. DL.could you elaborate on the 2nd graph some ?
Thank you,
TD

[TrifectaMike]

A marriage of what you suggest with Dave's monte hall thingy might have possibilities.

Mike

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by TexasDolly

I am missing something here. I thought it was only necessary to pick
the horse that beat the other horse 59 % of the time. The #1 appears to do that but of course he won't show a profit. DL.could you elaborate on the 2nd graph some ?
Thank you,
TD

Excellent! What you say here, is the obvious...

The second graph was createde by a simulator who is assuming that in the case that one of the 1 - 2 horses is winning, we have a 58% chance to hit.

Nothing fancy as you can see..

Of course, it becomes obvious, that just having the highest chance of picking the best of the 1 - 2 is not enough. Always picking the 1 horse, fullfils this condition, but it fails miserably on ROI..

At this point we can see that we need another condition as well:

The rating of the selected As over the Bs should be as close as posible to the 1.53 rating of the perfect strategy.

So, we need to dicover a model that will maximize the correctness level AND have the ratio A / B as close to 1.53 as possible.

[TrifectaMike]

Dl,

Expected Win % for PP1 = Odds Ratio for PP1/ (Odds Ratio for PP1 + Odds Ratio for PP2)

Odds Ratios based on your table for long term stats and Expected Win % for PP1 is for a single event.

This will give you parameters for a uniform distribution from which you can sample to mimic Expected Win % for PP1.

Once you do this, you can look for another event to condition on or you can add PP3 to the mix and look at it as a Monty Hall problem with varying probabilities.

This is precious (Now, I know this thread will be locked).

Mike

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by TrifectaMike

Dl,

Expected Win % for PP1 = Odds Ratio for PP1/ (Odds Ratio for PP1 + Odds Ratio for PP2)

Odds Ratios based on your table for long term stats and Expected Win % for PP1 is for a single event.

This will give you parameters for a uniform distribution from which you can sample to mimic Expected Win % for PP1.

Once you do this, you can look for another event to condition on or you can add PP3 to the mix and look at it as a Monty Hall problem with varying probabilities.

This is precious (Now, I know this thread will be locked).

Mike

I will look onto it tomorow ...

Precious

[TexasDolly]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Excellent! What you say here, is the obvious...

The second graph was createde by a simulator who is assuming that in the case that one of the 1 - 2 horses is winning, we have a 58% chance to hit.

Nothing fancy as you can see..

Of course, it becomes obvious, that just having the highest chance of picking the best of the 1 - 2 is not enough. Always picking the 1 horse, fullfils this condition, but it fails miserably on ROI..

At this point we can see that we need another condition as well:

The rating of the selected As over the Bs should be as close as posible to the 1.53 rating of the perfect strategy.

So, we need to dicover a model that will maximize the correctness level AND have the ratio A / B as close to 1.53 as possible.

Thanks Dl. So there was another condition besides the 58%. I now see the point of the graph.
TD

[Sapio]

Originally Posted by TrifectaMike

Dl,

Expected Win % for PP1 = Odds Ratio for PP1/ (Odds Ratio for PP1 + Odds Ratio for PP2)

Odds Ratios based on your table for long term stats and Expected Win % for PP1 is for a single event.

This will give you parameters for a uniform distribution from which you can sample to mimic Expected Win % for PP1.

Once you do this, you can look for another event to condition on or you can add PP3 to the mix and look at it as a Monty Hall problem with varying probabilities.

This is precious (Now, I know this thread will be locked).

Mike

From Dl's table:

Odds Ratio for PP1 = 4695/(14890 - 4695) = .46052
Odds Ratio for PP2 = 3076/(14890 - 3076) = .26039

Expected Win % for PP1 = .46052/(.46052 + .26039) = .6388
Expected Win % for PP2= 1 - .6388 = .3612

So, in a matchup between PP1 and PP2, PP1 is expected to win 64% of the time and PP2 is expected to win 36% of the time.

Thomas Sapio

[Dave Schwartz]

Do you still know where Delta is going with this? Maybe now is the time for you to help this thread along...........

LOL - The first thing that came to mind was the quote that has been all over the web recently: "Not my circus..."

Actually, I am now having a difficult time following.

I thought he was moving towards some sort of Monty Hall problem solution. TM's responses look Bayesian to me as well. LOL

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by JJMartin

When the pt odds appear to show value, the strike rate will be lower invariably. There is no magic number.

There's a magic number, but it isn't bpp1+bpp2.

By structuring the question as a hypothetical where bpp1+2 meet a bunch of necessary conditions, what it really does is focus on the process of where to go from there.

The hard part is actually meeting those conditions in reality.

[HUSKER55]

hey guys and gals,

does anyone know where the numbers in tha table came from?

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by HUSKER55

hey guys and gals,

does anyone know where the numbers in tha table came from?

All the data are coming from BRIS

[JJMartin]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

There's a magic number, but it isn't bpp1+bpp2.

By structuring the question as a hypothetical where bpp1+2 meet a bunch of necessary conditions, what it really does is focus on the process of where to go from there.

The hard part is actually meeting those conditions in reality.

I don't believe it is possible to improve upon this process to the level required. It is the same in principle as trying to determine which of the top 2 pt fav horses will win by using some criteria unknown to everyone else. Either one of the top 2 choices alone always produces a negative roi, aside from a utilizing a crystal ball you will not change this reality with some arbitrary adjustment. Imo, this approach will never work because it is based on a faulty premise.