Quote:
Originally Posted by McCarron7000
I'm the author of the piece in question and appreciate the comments and critcism.
To answer a few of your points, which are well taken, let me first say that the roughly 1,500 word limit doesn't allow for the type of depth necessary to adequately convey and reinforce certain concepts.
As far as the delineation between value and overlay are concerned, you have an apt point. I do believe there is a very (very) small percentage of the horseplaying world that is truly capable of creating a value line and exploiting that relationship in a meaningful way to be profitable. This is likely the result of decades of study and reserved for only the best of the best.
Please keep in mind, the article was not written for an advanced audience (say for example, members of a Sartin Methodology forum), but rather a typical horseplayer that gets force-fed terms such as value in a horribly erroneus context on a regular basis. They are rarely challenged with anything other than the same recycled concepts, many of which are utterly useless and entirely DRF and Beyer fig centric in nature. This was intended to provoke thought on a different level, whether or not the reader agrees or disagrees with the content.
My methodology as it relates to the 10:1 qualifier is based on several years of pouring over my individual results bet by bet and coming to the conclusion that is where I can optimize my play. Do I always conform to this? No. However, without setting strict guidelines based on my historical performance, I'd be much less disciplined as a horseplayer and would be much more likely to repeat past transgressions.
|
Hi Mr. Dinkin (if I have the correct name)
I'm glad to see you were not offended by my comments. For me, the most important aspect of your piece was in revealing the concept of the 'overlay', as, in fact, chimerical. My basic criticism centered around the lack of practical application for the concept of 'reflexivity', and a certain vagueness about your own handicapping, although you're obviously very successful. However, you did clarify the latter with your comments about your research on your own hit rate for longshots, which I agree is essential.
But just to disagree somewhat with the notion of the impossibility of creating a value line you express here. First, it's certainly true that relatively few players have the understanding or willingness to put in the work to create an accurate line. However doing so requires only a month or so with a piece of handicapping software - not decades of research. Second, winning play doesn't require a line with this kind of mathematical precision. I have known long-term winners who simply have an instinctive sense of the true probability of their choices vs. the public line and can profit accordingly. It sounds like you may be this kind of player.
But regardless of whether one is using software to create an accurate line, or simply has an instinctive sense of one, every winning player, everyone playing with a long-term edge, must, by definition have the ability to find value.
Cheers,
lansdale