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

[TexasDolly]

Hi Dl,
A variation yes, but it's not big really. We are now faced with
finding another condition which might help lead us to the 58 % breakeven point. Unfortunately, my thinking always heads toward parameters which undoubtedly, have been considered over and over in the original BPP calculation.

TD

[Light]

Originally Posted by Red Knave

The PP number already includes form.

What I meant by "form" was the form of the horse coming into today's race since his last race.There is no numerical rating for that period of time and it is up to the handicapper to determine whether that form will affect his performance today in a positive,negative or neutral way.

Originally Posted by Red Knave

I think DL is looking for something he can apply without being subjective.

I think you're right.

[DeltaLover]

So far, we have only consider limiting our selections between the top and second prime power.

Is there anything magic about these two? What is going to be if instead of the 1 - 2 we decide to use some other pair?

It can be 1 - 5, 2 - 3 or whatever else. For example if we use 4 - 5, we will see that the breakpoint is going to be 0.66:


Total Amount Bet: 29748.0 Total Winnings: 30173.0 ROI: 1.01
total races: 14874
A: 1058 B: 825 C: 12991
A / B = 1.28

Is it valid at this point, to assume that for each pair (1-2 or 4-5 or 2 - 9 or whatever) there is a breakpoint threshold?

If this is correct, can we assume that we can concentrate in any race in finding a specific pair of horses where we have a specific rating of success that we try to exceed?

[raybo]

I'm sorry I'm late to this thread, but after reading the first page of posts, I got tired of reading them.

Your original hypothesis was between the 1st and 2nd ranked BPP horses, in each race, at all tracks. You want to know (I think anyway, very confusing the way it is stated, to me) how many times you must hit the winner to break even, in ROI, if you have a 100% effective way of selecting the winner from those 2 horses. Whew!

Then you posted a table showing the long term (I assume) hit percentages of the BPP rankings. The 1st BPP ranked horse, in all those races, has a hit percentage of 31.53%. The 2nd ranked BPP horse has a hit percentage of 20.66%. So, the absolute maximum percentage of winners using those 2 horses is 52.19%. That is the very best you can do, if you choose the correct horse, of those 2, 100% of the time.

So, your break even point, regarding ROI hinges on the average payout you receive over the whole sample of races in which one of those 2 BPP horses actually wins. So, if betting a $2 flat wager each time, in 14,890 races you would bet $29,780. You will hit 52.19% of all races which would be 7771.091 winners. You will automatically receive your bet back for all of those winners which would be $15,542.182. Subtract that from the total amount bet and you have $14237.818 that you need to get from those horses' odds.

Am I missing something else? Or, has the original answer been provided already? I'm not going to go back and read all the other posts in this thread right now, so excuse me if this has been provided already.

[classhandicapper]

I think this problem would be a lot easier to solve if you had the average payoff of the top ranked horse and average payoff for the second ranked horse. Then you could calculate how much you needed to increase the win percentage of the 1st ranked horse to put it in the black by moving some of the 2nd ranked horses that won to the top (assuming the average payoff remained steady when you shifted the rank). Presumably you would be able to do that because you are a little smarter at ranking the top 2 horses than BRIS.

If you are talking about continuing to bet the top 2 ranked horses, then you would need more payoff information about the 3rd or even 4th ranked horses because again you are theoretically smart enough to put them into the top 2 and improve the overall win% of the top 2.

[Red Knave]

What about just randomly betting PP1 60% of the time and PP2 40%?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

So far, we have only consider limiting our selections between the top and second prime power.

Is there anything magic about these two? What is going to be if instead of the 1 - 2 we decide to use some other pair?

It can be 1 - 5, 2 - 3 or whatever else. For example if we use 4 - 5, we will see that the breakpoint is going to be 0.66:


Total Amount Bet: 29748.0 Total Winnings: 30173.0 ROI: 1.01
total races: 14874
A: 1058 B: 825 C: 12991
A / B = 1.28

Is it valid at this point, to assume that for each pair (1-2 or 4-5 or 2 - 9 or whatever) there is a breakpoint threshold?

If this is correct, can we assume that we can concentrate in any race in finding a specific pair of horses where we have a specific rating of success that we try to exceed?

DL, forgive me for taking this conversation a little outside the parameters that you've set in this thread...but I've had this question ever since I first saw this thread of yours:

It's obvious that you've done some research on these Prime Power numbers...and it's also obvious that these numbers have shown an admirable predictive ability. It's a noteworthy achievement when a methodology's top-rated choice wins more races than its second choice, who in turn wins more races than the third choice...and so on, all the way down the line. Might there be a "weakness" in these numbers that we might be able to identify...so we could lend a helping hand and perhaps boost them into the profitability level?

I have been able to do something similar with the Beyer speed figures...but I knew in advance what the methodology behind these figures was, so I knew where the improvement was needed. Is it possible to do the same with the Prime Power Figures?

[raybo]

Originally Posted by Red Knave

What about just randomly betting PP1 60% of the time and PP2 40%?

Just my admittedly lacking knowledge of stats, etc., but wouldn't your results also be random? You still need some way of "deciding" when to bet the 1st and 2nd BPP horses, in order to achieve the 60/40 ratio. And, what seems obvious, you would many times be betting the 60% top BPP horses on many of the wrong races (randomly wrong), and vice versa, the 40%.

[TrifectaMike]

Raybo, read post 91.

Precious Mike

[raybo]

Originally Posted by TrifectaMike

Raybo, read post 91.

Precious Mike

Ok, so we have already tossed out the hypothetical 100% effectiveness of the selection system between BPP#1 and BPP#2, as being impossible (obviously impossible).

So, now we need a selection system between BPP#1 and BPP#2 that produces somewhere between 1.0 ROI and 1.70ROI.

0.0 ROI would mean 0% efficiency in the "improved" selection system (0 hit rate), and 1.70 ROI would be 100% efficiency in the "improved" selection system (100% hit rate)? Half of that is 0.95 ROI, so our mimicking system needs to be slightly better than 50% efficient in order to break even, which is almost a random selection system, right? If so, then our improved selection system doesn't need to be too good in order to break even (0.051% improvement needed)? Or, am I missing something again?

[TexasDolly]

Originally Posted by raybo

Ok, so we have already tossed out the hypothetical 100% effectiveness of the selection system between BPP#1 and BPP#2, as being impossible (obviously impossible).

So, now we need a selection system between BPP#1 and BPP#2 that produces somewhere between 1.0 ROI and 1.70ROI.

0.0 ROI would mean 0% efficiency in the "improved" selection system (0 hit rate), and 1.70 ROI would be 100% efficiency in the "improved" selection system (100% hit rate)? Half of that is 0.95 ROI, so our mimicking system needs to be slightly better than 50% efficient in order to break even, which is almost a random selection system, right? If so, then our improved selection system doesn't need to be too good in order to break even (0.051% improvement needed)? Or, am I missing something again?

Hi Raybo,there are a number of examples DL has run. It takes a correct selection rate of 58% to breakeven using BPP1 and BPP2, 66% for bpp4 and BPP5 as I recall. He has posted them as recently as today.
TD

[raybo]

Originally Posted by TexasDolly

Hi Raybo,there are a number of examples DL has run. It takes a correct selection rate of 58% to breakeven using BPP1 and BPP2, 66% for bpp4 and BPP5 as I recall. He has posted them as recently as today.
TD

So, I'm seeing 55.1% needed and he's showing 58% needed, what am I doing wrong?

[raybo]

Maybe I'm just dense, but if you have 2 horses to choose from, and if you always choose correctly then you will produce a 1.7 ROI. On the flip side, if you never hit a winner after "improving" the BPP, then you will produce a 0.0 ROI. if you flip a coin for BPP#1 and BPP#2 you will be right 50% of the time, which according to his initial post of 1.7 ROI with a 100% rate of choosing correctly, should produce a 0.95 ROI. You only need 5.000.....1 ROI points better than a dice throw to reach 1.000......1 ROI, right?

If so, then you only need to find out what factors are not included in the BPP and use those factors to produce a .051 ROI above what the flat BPP produces.(?)

[TrifectaMike]

Originally Posted by raybo

Maybe I'm just dense, but if you have 2 horses to choose from, and if you always choose correctly then you will produce a 1.7 ROI. On the flip side, if you never hit a winner after "improving" the BPP, then you will produce a 0.0 ROI. if you flip a coin for BPP#1 and BPP#2 you will be right 50% of the time, which according to his initial post of 1.7 ROI with a 100% rate of choosing correctly, should produce a 0.95 ROI. You only need 5.000.....1 ROI points better than a dice throw to reach 1.000......1 ROI, right?

If so, then you only need to find out what factors are not included in the BPP and use those factors to produce a .051 ROI above what the flat BPP produces.(?)

Raybo, read post #55

Precious Mike

[raybo]

Yeah, I gotta be missing something, because it sure looks like it wouldn't be that hard to improve a dice throw by 5+%. And, if it isn't then why hasn't someone done it already? Or have they?