|
|
07-05-2021, 11:05 AM
|
#16
|
Irrationally exuberant
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 740
|
Hey, Matt! I did not mean to make a negative post - just the voice of caution based only on my experience. In fact your posts and work-up are really interesting and I am going to take a deep dive into this portfolio.
I'm sure you've looked at this a lot of different ways but I took a look at the races that are "proceed with great [extreme] caution" and found them to be profitable with 35 bets and 5 winners. I only looked at June 1- 16 because I'm doing it manually so it's a small small small sample - but all of this is very promising.
Thanks for sharing and discussing your work.
Best, Frank
|
|
|
07-05-2021, 12:27 PM
|
#17
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cato
Hey, Matt! I did not mean to make a negative post - just the voice of caution based only on my experience. In fact your posts and work-up are really interesting and I am going to take a deep dive into this portfolio.
I'm sure you've looked at this a lot of different ways but I took a look at the races that are "proceed with great [extreme] caution" and found them to be profitable with 35 bets and 5 winners. I only looked at June 1- 16 because I'm doing it manually so it's a small small small sample - but all of this is very promising.
Thanks for sharing and discussing your work.
Best, Frank
|
Hi Frank,
I will give you a hint, eliminate any stakes race or MSW race, through 6 months this year that decreased total bets from 232 to 204 and did not eliminate a single winner. This actually makes sense because stakes quality horses run well off layoffs all the time and layoffs are a big part of antivalue. MSW are stakes quality horses in a lot of cases.
I have never tried this on orange races, have always eliminated them, but I may have to look into that if what you found holds true.
I also have to do this manually so it is very time consuming. I didnt think your post was negative, I just wanted to make sure everyone understood that I didnt just post this out of the blue, I have looked at it for several years, so what I say has definitely held true in the past, but its horseracing so as we all know to well, the past doesnt always predict the future. Best of luck.
|
|
|
07-05-2021, 01:46 PM
|
#18
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 69
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cato
Hey, Matt! I did not mean to make a negative post - just the voice of caution based only on my experience. In fact your posts and work-up are really interesting and I am going to take a deep dive into this portfolio.
I'm sure you've looked at this a lot of different ways but I took a look at the races that are "proceed with great [extreme] caution" and found them to be profitable with 35 bets and 5 winners. I only looked at June 1- 16 because I'm doing it manually so it's a small small small sample - but all of this is very promising.
Thanks for sharing and discussing your work.
Best, Frank
|
Cato - Are you using the program out of the box or have you made some modifications to the settings or process as Matt has done?
Also, are you only playing/checking AVC horses that meet a minimum odds requirement?
For a true test of any profile. I would assume that you would select that profile and only play or evaluate the races that are listed in the race list after being filtered by that profile.
Or you can take the approach of looking at all races changing the odds bias and mark any races that now contain an AVC Horse for further evaluation.
This would be an interesting test!
Thanks!
|
|
|
07-05-2021, 06:34 PM
|
#19
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 736
|
VC Again
Thanks, Matt for stoking my interest in VC again. Doing much better this time than first time around.
|
|
|
07-06-2021, 11:04 AM
|
#20
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kbatch57
Cato - Are you using the program out of the box or have you made some modifications to the settings or process as Matt has done?
Also, are you only playing/checking AVC horses that meet a minimum odds requirement?
For a true test of any profile. I would assume that you would select that profile and only play or evaluate the races that are listed in the race list after being filtered by that profile.
Or you can take the approach of looking at all races changing the odds bias and mark any races that now contain an AVC Horse for further evaluation.
This would be an interesting test!
Thanks!
|
One should not be changing the odds bias without a good reason. I normally do this if a race comes up red highly pressured because it simply means that the track profile shows that horses do not generally win these races from far off the pace. I stay fairly conservative here and simply switch the bias to neutral, I probably miss some winners this way and catch a few winners this way. I think consistency is paramount here.
|
|
|
07-06-2021, 11:07 AM
|
#21
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by lefty359
Thanks, Matt for stoking my interest in VC again. Doing much better this time than first time around.
|
That is good to hear, just stick with it, if you hit a rough patch, decrease your bet size or better yet simply focus on one profile until you can consistently make a profit with it. I find myself having to return to the basics every so often as well, this can be a very tough game
|
|
|
07-07-2021, 10:32 AM
|
#22
|
Irrationally exuberant
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 740
|
kbatch57 asked -
"Cato - Are you using the program out of the box or have you made some modifications to the settings or process as Matt has done?"
----> After tinkering around a great deal with various settings, I went back to the default settings, which are the ones Michael P. uses. Many people tweak them especially on the length of days in a layoff. I found that it did not make a big difference for me but I wanted to be consistent and follow along with Michael. Unless people do something crazy in their settings, I don't think it makes a lot of difference.
-----> As to process, I think just about everyone uses different approaches, emphasis, processes, etc. The program provides a LOT of information that you can slice and dice in many different ways. Even those who follow the basic line of finding a horse with some "good" stuff per the VC program (possibly hidden from public or at least opaque) that the public should not like (e.g., bad recent finish, bad recent #s, mediocre trainer/jock, class challenged, shipper, etc.) have an almost infinite of options (well maybe not infinite, but a lot of options to proceed from there. Some gals go for Lone closers, lone speed, certain patterns, fields of x horses, class risers, droppers, etc. But I follow a relatively consistent approach along the lines that Michael P suggests (and I think Matt's approach) but I have not gone back to study it.
"Also, are you only playing/checking AVC horses that meet a minimum odds requirement?"
---> I checked all AVC horses for my study and I had different categories of acceptable odds, (acceptable odds and odds too low) and races that say "consider passing" or come with a warning of "proceed with great care" aka the orange races. I normally check "odds too high" but I did not do that this time. Normally I will only bet a horse at minimum odds of 9/2 +/-.
"For a true test of any profile. I would assume that you would select that profile and only play or evaluate the races that are listed in the race list after being filtered by that profile."
--->Yes, it's an easy way to evaluate a portfolio.
"Or you can take the approach of looking at all races changing the odds bias and mark any races that now contain an AVC Horse for further evaluation."
----> Oh no! That sounds terrible and a lot of wasted time! There are so many things you can click on to take a different look at pace scenarios, pace lines. output, etc., that it's a never ending rabbit chase. I'm like Matt and the only time I may change the pace scenario is when it is highlighted in red which means the pace scenario and track profile are inconsistent - so if I am interested in that race I'll click around (and normally pass that race).
--->I've called what I did a "study" but I just reviewed 15 days of races to get a feel for the portfolio - to see if my experience with the AVC portfolio was relatively consistent with Matts' - and it was. So that's enough for me to keep it in my radar screen and see if I can make it produce, when is it more effective etc. But I'm not big on large data base studies because all the ones I've seen end up negative in the long run (and often the short run for that matter). I'm also data challenged and pass out when people start throwing data and stats at me... zzzzzzzzzz (having said that I am incredibly impressed by people like CJ et al who maintain or have access to a data base and can interpret the information in a meaningful way).
That's all folks!
|
|
|
07-07-2021, 02:39 PM
|
#23
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 69
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cato
kbatch57 asked -
"Cato - Are you using the program out of the box or have you made some modifications to the settings or process as Matt has done?"
----> After tinkering around a great deal with various settings, I went back to the default settings, which are the ones Michael P. uses. Many people tweak them especially on the length of days in a layoff. I found that it did not make a big difference for me but I wanted to be consistent and follow along with Michael. Unless people do something crazy in their settings, I don't think it makes a lot of difference.
-----> As to process, I think just about everyone uses different approaches, emphasis, processes, etc. The program provides a LOT of information that you can slice and dice in many different ways. Even those who follow the basic line of finding a horse with some "good" stuff per the VC program (possibly hidden from public or at least opaque) that the public should not like (e.g., bad recent finish, bad recent #s, mediocre trainer/jock, class challenged, shipper, etc.) have an almost infinite of options (well maybe not infinite, but a lot of options to proceed from there. Some gals go for Lone closers, lone speed, certain patterns, fields of x horses, class risers, droppers, etc. But I follow a relatively consistent approach along the lines that Michael P suggests (and I think Matt's approach) but I have not gone back to study it.
"Also, are you only playing/checking AVC horses that meet a minimum odds requirement?"
---> I checked all AVC horses for my study and I had different categories of acceptable odds, (acceptable odds and odds too low) and races that say "consider passing" or come with a warning of "proceed with great care" aka the orange races. I normally check "odds too high" but I did not do that this time. Normally I will only bet a horse at minimum odds of 9/2 +/-.
"For a true test of any profile. I would assume that you would select that profile and only play or evaluate the races that are listed in the race list after being filtered by that profile."
--->Yes, it's an easy way to evaluate a portfolio.
"Or you can take the approach of looking at all races changing the odds bias and mark any races that now contain an AVC Horse for further evaluation."
----> Oh no! That sounds terrible and a lot of wasted time! There are so many things you can click on to take a different look at pace scenarios, pace lines. output, etc., that it's a never ending rabbit chase. I'm like Matt and the only time I may change the pace scenario is when it is highlighted in red which means the pace scenario and track profile are inconsistent - so if I am interested in that race I'll click around (and normally pass that race).
--->I've called what I did a "study" but I just reviewed 15 days of races to get a feel for the portfolio - to see if my experience with the AVC portfolio was relatively consistent with Matts' - and it was. So that's enough for me to keep it in my radar screen and see if I can make it produce, when is it more effective etc. But I'm not big on large data base studies because all the ones I've seen end up negative in the long run (and often the short run for that matter). I'm also data challenged and pass out when people start throwing data and stats at me... zzzzzzzzzz (having said that I am incredibly impressed by people like CJ et al who maintain or have access to a data base and can interpret the information in a meaningful way).
That's all folks!
|
Cato,
Thanks for the explanation and clarification!
It is appreciated!
Question: If you were just starting out with the Program which portfolio's would you begin with?
Thanks!
|
|
|
07-07-2021, 03:56 PM
|
#24
|
crusty old guy
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Snarkytown USA
Posts: 3,909
|
I don't use ValueCapper nor do I plan to, but I just want to say I think the help and positive feedback in this thread is refreshing. Nice job guys. Good luck to all.
__________________
"Don't believe everything that you read on the Internet." -- Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
07-07-2021, 04:45 PM
|
#25
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by headhawg
I don't use ValueCapper nor do I plan to, but I just want to say I think the help and positive feedback in this thread is refreshing. Nice job guys. Good luck to all.
|
Thank you sir, I try to be helpful in the horse racing part of the forum. Besides, if I want to argue and call names I can just jump over to Off Topic General lol.
|
|
|
07-08-2021, 12:49 PM
|
#26
|
Veteran
Join Date: May 2021
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,554
|
MP just sent out an unusual email out to guys that that gets his RANTS
Its unusual because its not for big races..its a handicapping video...
I have never seen this before...
Anyway , it should be a good watch....
GB
|
|
|
07-08-2021, 02:49 PM
|
#27
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 318
|
FULCRUM
ITS A RANT ALL ABOUT THE FULCRUM ENJOY.
|
|
|
07-08-2021, 02:51 PM
|
#28
|
Veteran
Join Date: May 2021
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,554
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fight
ITS A RANT ALL ABOUT THE FULCRUM ENJOY.
|
It was good info
|
|
|
07-08-2021, 02:57 PM
|
#29
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 736
|
Yes, it was a good video. Race players have a lot of misconceptions about the Fulcrum.
|
|
|
07-08-2021, 03:14 PM
|
#30
|
Veteran
Join Date: May 2021
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,554
|
The key is.......... "playing horses that the public doesn't"
This should be a starting point for all players, software or not.
It all starts with a vulnerable favorite which I preach all the time...
GB
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Rate This Thread |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|