How do the Europeans Handicap?

[traynor]

Originally Posted by romankoz

Hi Traynor,
Google Vince Accardi His site/service is at www.dailysectionals.com

If you can find any podcast from him via rsn.net.au (try this site and see if you can find him).

If you can listen he will amaze you with the apparent depth of how he delves into times.

I typed "where to find sectionals for victorian horseracing" into Google. Some options elsewhere.

www.trackdata.com.au/RaceSectionals.aspSectional Times (Pay), Racing & Sports (Free), Fagan's Service (Pay). AUSTRALIA. A Bettor Edge (Pay). Australian Turf Club (Free), Sky Racing (Free) ...

racingandsports.com.au
skyracing.com.au

Looks like they have something. I am not a times man so am a tad vague but Vince Accardi stands out in Oz as long as you don't mind paying a bit.

Hope this helps

I think racing.com have sectionals as part of their results service. Logging on is a bit clunky

Thanks for the links! I have been so immersed in refactoring my computer modeling app that I missed your response until now. Again, thanks!

I don't mind one bit paying for good data and/or good information.

[TonyMLake]

It's always approximately 33%. There are people with limited mathematics training who will get excited and point out they believe it is higher than that now in the United States or over the last ten years or within some other (relatively) small subset of data, but even if it were true its only a matter of time before there is a regression to the mean.

It has been and will always be about 33% (and similar predictions for the second and third favorite) as an artifact of a mathematical principle known as Zipf's Law.

[cj]

Originally Posted by TonyMLake

It's always approximately 33%. There are people with limited mathematics training who will get excited and point out they believe it is higher than that now in the United States or over the last ten years or within some other (relatively) small subset of data, but even if it were true its only a matter of time before there is a regression to the mean.

It has been and will always be about 33% (and similar predictions for the second and third favorite) as an artifact of a mathematical principle known as Zipf's Law.

It will only return to 33% if field size returns to past levels. There are many tracks where 40% favorites win. It won't be returning to 33% any time soon.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by TonyMLake

It's always approximately 33%. There are people with limited mathematics training who will get excited and point out they believe it is higher than that now in the United States or over the last ten years or within some other (relatively) small subset of data, but even if it were true its only a matter of time before there is a regression to the mean.

It has been and will always be about 33% (and similar predictions for the second and third favorite) as an artifact of a mathematical principle known as Zipf's Law.

It helps if one's mathematical knowledge is tempered by his horse-racing knowledge.

[traynor]

Originally Posted by TonyMLake

It's always approximately 33%. There are people with limited mathematics training who will get excited and point out they believe it is higher than that now in the United States or over the last ten years or within some other (relatively) small subset of data, but even if it were true its only a matter of time before there is a regression to the mean.

It has been and will always be about 33% (and similar predictions for the second and third favorite) as an artifact of a mathematical principle known as Zipf's Law.

It's a lot like Pareto. It seems to work just often enough to keep the true believers believing. It seems to fail just often enough to keep the skeptics skeptical. What a great world! Always something to think about.

[Capper Al]

No, I believe the information age has made the public better.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It helps if one's mathematical knowledge is tempered by his horse-racing knowledge.

Math alone should tell you that today's reality of smaller fields mean it is no longer the same population as is was years ago. We actually hit a "long run" and are now in an "new run."

[Light]

Saw a race today on TVG from the Royal Ascot. I think there was around 28-30 horses? It was run on a straight turf course over a mile.

Half of the field raced bunched up on the right of the course and the other half raced bunched up on the left of the course. It seemed you could easily have have fit another group in between them with room to spare.

Why do they race like that? And why during the course of the race did none of the horses drift into the middle where there was a lot more room to run unimpeded by traffic? Never seen that before.

[Tom]

Why do they race like that?

Their daily double is only one race!

[Capper Al]

Originally Posted by Tom

Their daily double is only one race!

Have to pick the left side winner and the right side winner for the double.

[TonyMLake]

Don't get me wrong.... there's some possible fluctuation... power laws like Benford's Law and Zipf's law are all power laws that range ABOUT

1 = 30%
2 = 18%
3 = 12%
4 = 9%

but are adjusted by a small multiplier... for example, in horse racing, the favorite is closer to 33%... so there's some "fudge factor" even over gigantic sample sizes.

Basically, it happes this way because there is a natural law which enforces
"rank versus frequency" ... these laws are unalterable and MUST be adhered to ESPECIALLY if the betting public has become more informed.

The only way they have been "improved" is in the case of special circumstances... for example, large statistical fluctuations or large scale cheating (far, far more likely).

I encourage any of you to study up on Benford's Law or Zipf's law. It really has nothing to do with what you are all saying but is much more related to the simple fact that a hysterical system tends to naturally find the "favorite" about 1/3 of the time and (using fractal regression) 1/3 of the time on down the line from that. Any DEVIANCE from that doesn't indicate an educated public but more likely someone with "inside knowlege" - ie, cooking the books in accounting, or, doping or nose spongeing a horse in horse racing.

I'm so sorry folks, the recent uptick in favorites being in the money (if it even exists) is NOT a mathematical likelihood and is FAR more likely to indicate wide spread cheating.

It's because of the way numbers distribute on a logarithmic scale. It's really pretty basic statistics.

Please don't take my word for it, I've give you the keys. Unlock the door by examination. I'm not going to offer some kind of passionate defense, but I used to teach college algebra, so if any of you actually really want to know I will try to help you understand. Not gonna get into a debate over 200 year old math, though... hehe...

[TonyMLake]

Here's a fun high school math primer that I think explains it pretty well:

http://www.kirix.com/blog/2008/07/22...-benfords-law/


Whenever the orator talks about the frequency of a "leading digit (x)" replace "(x) with that favorite... in other words leading digit (1) means the 1st favorite... leading digit (7) is the 7th favorite horse.

This law is absolutely inviolable in all bookmaking, and it's exact how the government catches companies who cook the books.

IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IF THERE ARE 5 or 18 HORSES.

Please, I beseech you, learn these very basic statistical skills. I'm willing to help, but I'm not gonna listen to a lot of flames.

[TonyMLake]

Originally Posted by cj

It will only return to 33% if field size returns to past levels. There are many tracks where 40% favorites win. It won't be returning to 33% any time soon.

I understand EXACTLY why it would seem that way, but actually, the smaller field sizes make the predictive power laws MORE on target (ie, closer to 33% for the highest ranked horse). Please read up on Benford's law.

If you have an accurate data set that shows smaller field sizes with precision higher than 33%, this is a heavy indicator of CHEATING.

It's exactly how the feds catches cheaters in bookmaking, I promise. Read up on Benford's law, Zipf's Law, and Power Laws in General.

I'll try to help.

[TonyMLake]

And finally, don't get me wrong, knowing that the favorite is going to win about 33% of the time if nobody is cheating WONT help you if you cant find an over or underlay because the track take always reduces your maximum possible takeout on favorites to a -15% ROI (or worse).

It's just that simple folks.

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by TonyMLake

I understand EXACTLY why it would seem that way, but actually, the smaller field sizes make the predictive power laws MORE on target (ie, closer to 33% for the highest ranked horse). Please read up on Benford's law.

If you have an accurate data set that shows smaller field sizes with precision higher than 33%, this is a heavy indicator of CHEATING.

It's exactly how the feds catches cheaters in bookmaking, I promise. Read up on Benford's law, Zipf's Law, and Power Laws in General.

I'll try to help.

There was a post earlier this year and a link regarding a Woodbine study which seems to contradict your recent posts. See posted links in posts #1 and #2.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...ze#post1778455

See page 3 ..... Average & Median Win Odds Per Field Size

and,

page 15 ..... Race Competitiveness

one of the bullet points: "Overwhelming favourites increase as field size decreases. Econometric models consume this effect with the field size test"


This makes sense to me and seems to agree with my own observations.