Quote:
Originally Posted by For The Lead
Ok, let's make Dave's numbers the focus of attention. Here's a link to his web site and episode #1. http://thehorsehandicappingauthority...ing-episode-1/
When he puts up the slide that shows final odds for 2010, pause his presentation so you can examine that slide.
First let's look at the column header "pays". Actually, that can be replaced by "wins" since that it what it represents.
You'll notice that at the bottom of that column is the total, 38,166. That represents the total winners for the year.
Now if you add up the number of wins starting with odds of 6/1, the total of that group comes to 11,138. Dividing the total for that group of 6/1 or greater wins by the total number of wins, we get 29%.
You'll notice that in the left hand column Dave goes from 9/2 to 6/1, jumping over 5/1, so I don't know what number of wins there are in his database for horses going off at 5/1. I'm sure if we could add those in it would raise the percentage we already established of 29%, thereby resulting in an even higher percentage.
Further, if we add up the winners for the group starting at 9/1, we get total wins of 7,367. Dividing that total by the total amount of winners for the year (38166) we get 19% and we can't even be sure where he included the wins for odds of 7/1 or 8/1 so perhaps 19% is on the low side.
So as you can see, Dave's numbers confirm my numbers. |
Hi FTL,
Clearly you were looking the figures that you deemed significant rather than the one I mentioned, although neither are actually the most relevant. But let's backtrack: the figure I mentioned 4.1 %, referred to the percentage of all *starters* in the odds-range of > 6-1 that won. Your figure of 19%, referred to the percentage of all *winners* > 6-1, which is accurate. If you want to extend that to the group of > 9/2, the figures are 5.3% of all starters in this odds range win, and, as you say, the total comprises 29% of all winners. (BTW, since you brought it up, Dave mentions that a given odds range comprises all odds ranges in between, i.e. 9/2 - 6-1, includes all horses at odds 9/2 or greater, but less than < 6-1.)
But, let's think about what would be the most relevant figures to look at for the average Sartin player. If, just for the sake of example, we take 4-1 as the starting point for profit with Sartin figures, and try to understand how high-odds winners have declined in recent years (as Dave's $Net chart clearly indicates they have) the most relevant stat to consider would be that of the $Net for all horses at 4-1 (i.e. looking at mutuel price rather than public choice rank) or above in the years from, say 2003 to the present. It seems to me the real dip came in 2007, and has continued until now.
In general, you seem to be resisting Dave's main point in this video - there's much less of what poker players would call 'dead' or 'sucker' money in mutuel pools than there used to be. And, as many have pointed out, the recent closing of NY OTB removed a large volume of this 'dead' money, not only from NY tracks, but from commingled tracks everywhere.
Cheers,
B Jennet