some one had a good day . aqu 11/22/03 - Page 3 - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

JustMissed · 11-24-2003, 05:44 PM

Joe,

I can't believe you mentioned "luck" in your 'no answer'.

No upstanding poker player would ever mention luck, those guys win because they understand probabilities.

I'll give you another little hint: Poker players and sports bettors have this ability, but blackjack players, crap shooters and roulette players do not.

Joe, not to toy with you but once you understand what the most significant ability a winning horseplayer has, it will rock your world in respect to data base studies.

JustMissed

cj · 11-24-2003, 05:48 PM

I'll try...

For me, the most important ability is knowing when to bet, and when not to bet.

Suff · 11-24-2003, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JustMissed
Joe,

I will answer your question as to what is" the MOST significant horseplaying factor/ability known by the winning player community."

Just for the record... I have spoken a fair amount with Larry Hamilton about Thoroughbreds Wagering and Using Systems to break down Pool and Race data. I know that Larry has a HUGE results Database...and he has MASTERED how to reach conclusions based on 100's of thousands of proven models.

I also know he has generously and freely offered anyone assistance in dupilicating his efforts or helped them in understanding his work. I had two people at the Saratoga trip go out of thier way to tell me how intelligent and Generous Larry is.
I also have traded e-mails and PM's with Joe (formula) and he's the same way... Very Intelligent and very Generous...
If you consider that Either of these Guys or BOTH of these guys are dead on correct...or even partially correct.. They're out here giving it away!

I believe I am a Very Good Handicapper. A Daily Racing form feels like one of my hands...Its part or me. Give me a Daily racing form and a pencil and 60 minutes....and I'm as good as anyone.

But as far as Playing and wagering on Thoroughbreds for PROFIT... I'm a child.

I'm listening to Joe or Larry...and anyone else because I have Much to learn.

Brian Flewwelling · 11-24-2003, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by formula_2002
Brian, I AGREE 100% and that lies at the root of so many "profital systems". The "profitable systems" cannot be proven without rigior analysis of a large sample at.

As others in this thread are trying to point out, Wining systems are proven by the wallet size.

And in stats issues, 100% is just a 'wish'

Quote:

I would appreciate what you think how many horses would represent a "large sample"

This tread is mostly a pissing contest, and not the best place for an introduction to statistics. But here is an attempt at an answer that you can find in any introductory stats book.

Since you can never be 100% sure, select a maximum Error you are happy with, and a degree of confidence you require. Suppose you want to be 95% sure the answer lies withing E of your result.

then n= (1.96 * S/E) ^2 where S is the standard deviation of a sample of size at least 30 . If you want more, register in an introductory stats class at your local college.

Quote:

Many bettors see patterns, produced by randomness, that they mistake for , for lack of a better word, non-randomness.

Joe M

reality is better word

Fleww

Suff · 11-24-2003, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
The King and I

Its Good to be the KING!!! Lol.. made my day seeing that. Good times up there...

Like I always tell the boys....if I'm lucky enough to make it into the old age home... I want to have some stories to tell!!

Toga 2003 is a story that'll be worth telling!

formula_2002 · 11-24-2003, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JustMissed
Joe,

Joe, not to toy with you but once you understand what the most significant ability a winning horseplayer has, it will rock your world in respect to data base studies.

JustMissed

And your answer is ?

sjk · 11-24-2003, 06:20 PM

Brian,

With the inherent variability of either cashing (usually exactas) or not, it takes a lot more races than I might have guessed to be 95% confindent that my historical return is within 5% of my expected return.

The std dev of my sample is 4.13 which indicates a needed sample size of 26210 races. Have I applied the formula correctly?

formula_2002 · 11-24-2003, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brian Flewwelling
If you want more, register in an introductory stats class at your local college.

Fleww

Or you can just go to my web page and use my interactive "SIGNIFICANCE TESTING" or you can use this interesting web site;

http://www.ubmail.ubalt.edu/~harsham...SampleSize.htm

Brian Flewwelling · 11-24-2003, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sjk
Brian,

With the inherent variability of either cashing (usually exactas) or not, it takes a lot more races than I might have guessed to be 95% confindent that my historical return is within 5% of my expected return.

The std dev of my sample is 4.13 which indicates a needed sample size of 26210 races. Have I applied the formula correctly?

The formula i gave applies only to Estimates of the Mean of a large sample, not to fractions or percentages.

The factors S and E must be in the same units, so if you express S as 4.13 you can't use 5% as the error. Is 4.13% the standard deviation?

If you are dealing with Percentages, the formula is a little different. If i assume you are targetting a 5% return, give or take 5% i get n=73 by the other formula.

But is this really a of interest in this thread? There are some good stats types on this board who could contribute more than I to a thread on these matters, but i doubt they have read this far on this thread. If you want to get such a discussion going start a new thread and i will be there.

Fleww

formula_2002 · 11-24-2003, 08:58 PM

TO DETERMINE 95% CONFIDENCE FOR 10% PROFIT WITH AN ERROR OF 5% YOU NEED TO LOOK AT 37610 HORSES

IN ODDS RANGE OF 1-1 THROUGH 10-1 (ASSUMING 1 BET PER RACE)

FOR THE BACK-UP TO THIS STATEMENT, YOU ARE WELCOMED TO GO TO MY WEB PAGE AND OPEN THE "SURPRISE" LOCATED AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE

Joe M

sq764 · 11-24-2003, 09:53 PM

Ok, I worked all day and the last thing I want to do is hear about math formulas..

So the real reason you win the power world series is... a cool last name!

I mean how could Chris MONEYMAKER lose??

stgeorge · 11-24-2003, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JustMissed
I'll give you another little hint

Why are we being coy about this? What is it (according to you)?

Larry Hamilton · 11-24-2003, 10:49 PM

Knowing who and what to ignore, otherwise called NOISE. The more noise you can remove the better you focus.

formula_2002 · 11-25-2003, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Larry Hamilton
Knowing who and what to ignore, otherwise called NOISE. The more noise you can remove the better you focus.

Larry, I know that one. Just go to my last 7 sessions of picks in the SELECTIONS FORUM. In those sessions I limited my selections to but 3 picks per race. Generally covered two to three tracks a day (about 60 picks) with the following posted results;

1. 4% profit
2. won 6 of 9 races, missed the pic 4 and pic 6 by 1 race
3. $13 profit in 27 picks
4. 77% winning races
5. $1.50 loss in 63 picks
6. $13.90 profit in 30 picks.

To the untrained eye this looks very impressive however lets see what trully happened.

594 picks 21% winners 17% loss. Not much better then random selection.

A winner in 64% of the races returned a loss of 17%.
But if you just bet the the top three public choices you would have a winner in 74% of the races and lose but 11%.

It's no easier eliminating noise than it is picking winners at a profit.

Joe M

JustMissed · 11-25-2003, 11:19 AM

Joe,

I saw your Aqueduct selections for 11/21. If I read your sheet correctly, it looks like you picked three horses for each of the nine races on the days card.

If that is correct, did you actually take cash out of your pocket and bet on each race. If so, what kind of bets did you make and did you bet on each race?

Thanks,

JustMissed