Pace and Cap - Sartin Methodology & The Match Up - View Single Post

Because I Can Jim · 08-13-2013, 10:53 AM

Bill,
Thanks for your thinking. I appreciate the sharing of thought without being adversarial. Your point is well taken.

Let me play the devil's advocate here.

To keep things simple, let's say that I wager on only one horse to win per race. (Wagering in other fashinons is just an expansion of the concept which is that I have preset guideines as to how I am going to wager.) If therace is too confusing, I pass the race. If I can narrow down to the one horse that I am going to wager on with confidence I will make the wager. As part of my guidlines, I will wager only on the horse if it is going off at say, I don't know, let's say 5-1 to keep it simple.

Also, as part of the scenario, I track my wagering results on a 20 race cycle basis which seems to be "the norm." (As an aside for those who haven't read my thoughts about a 20 race cycle, click on this link http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9258)
And as I think about this... this may also be an arguement in favor of your line of thinking if one thinks about lonoger cycles, but, not shorter ones.

So my guidelines are that I am wagering on one horse to win if I have confidence in the horse and it is going at 5-1 or greater. (Notice, I did not say "going off at...")

Now, I will wholeheartedly agree with you that if I am looking at whether the horse wins or not, they yes, does it matter if the race is live or after the fact on paper? I agree and don't think so as long as how you put it "I am consistant in my approach" meaning that as long as the final odds are 5-1 or better it goes on my records as a playable race and if less than 5-1, it is a passed race.

However (and here is where the devil's advocate comes in), I am sitting in the racebook atching the odds. It is 1 MTP. The odds on the horse I like is 3-1 on the tote. (Saturday, 08/10/13 at MNR the 9th race - Horse #5) Doesn't meet my criteria so I pass the race. The race runs and the winner pays 14.60.

Now, as I said, I will agree with you that if I am tracking my ability to select the winner in a race, then yes, it doesn't matter if the race was live or on paper.

However, if I am tracking my profit......over a 20 race cycle..... my numbers can be a bit skewed, because that particular race would not be included in my "live" races which would be different from tracking my profit from "paper races".

And this is where I think having a larger race cycle helps because the argument can then be made that the opposite can happen. I can be sitting there in the racebook. The odds are 6-1. I make the wager. Then the simulcast money gets dumped into the pools and the odds drop to 3-1.

Think about the ramifications.

Over 20 race cycles, things are slightly not what they seem. Over 773 races, how many times will these to scenarios play out and become a sort of wash? And even if one side of the scenario is posted however many times, over 773 races, the effect becomes statistically insignificant.

So, I will agree with you as to it depends upon your sample size of your records. The shorter the cycle, the skewing can have an effect which then effects one's thinking about profitablility. With much longer cycles (and that is why I wrote the thread about cycles) the effect becomes minimal.

Good point that you made Bill...good point.

Jim

08-13-2013, 10:53 AM	#7
Because I Can Jim Grade 1 Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 203	Bill, Thanks for your thinking. I appreciate the sharing of thought without being adversarial. Your point is well taken. Let me play the devil's advocate here. To keep things simple, let's say that I wager on only one horse to win per race. (Wagering in other fashinons is just an expansion of the concept which is that I have preset guideines as to how I am going to wager.) If therace is too confusing, I pass the race. If I can narrow down to the one horse that I am going to wager on with confidence I will make the wager. As part of my guidlines, I will wager only on the horse if it is going off at say, I don't know, let's say 5-1 to keep it simple. Also, as part of the scenario, I track my wagering results on a 20 race cycle basis which seems to be "the norm." (As an aside for those who haven't read my thoughts about a 20 race cycle, click on this link http://paceandcap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9258) And as I think about this... this may also be an arguement in favor of your line of thinking if one thinks about lonoger cycles, but, not shorter ones. So my guidelines are that I am wagering on one horse to win if I have confidence in the horse and it is going at 5-1 or greater. (Notice, I did not say "going off at...") Now, I will wholeheartedly agree with you that if I am looking at whether the horse wins or not, they yes, does it matter if the race is live or after the fact on paper? I agree and don't think so as long as how you put it "I am consistant in my approach" meaning that as long as the final odds are 5-1 or better it goes on my records as a playable race and if less than 5-1, it is a passed race. However (and here is where the devil's advocate comes in), I am sitting in the racebook atching the odds. It is 1 MTP. The odds on the horse I like is 3-1 on the tote. (Saturday, 08/10/13 at MNR the 9th race - Horse #5) Doesn't meet my criteria so I pass the race. The race runs and the winner pays 14.60. Now, as I said, I will agree with you that if I am tracking my ability to select the winner in a race, then yes, it doesn't matter if the race was live or on paper. However, if I am tracking my profit......over a 20 race cycle..... my numbers can be a bit skewed, because that particular race would not be included in my "live" races which would be different from tracking my profit from "paper races". And this is where I think having a larger race cycle helps because the argument can then be made that the opposite can happen. I can be sitting there in the racebook. The odds are 6-1. I make the wager. Then the simulcast money gets dumped into the pools and the odds drop to 3-1. Think about the ramifications. Over 20 race cycles, things are slightly not what they seem. Over 773 races, how many times will these to scenarios play out and become a sort of wash? And even if one side of the scenario is posted however many times, over 773 races, the effect becomes statistically insignificant. So, I will agree with you as to it depends upon your sample size of your records. The shorter the cycle, the skewing can have an effect which then effects one's thinking about profitablility. With much longer cycles (and that is why I wrote the thread about cycles) the effect becomes minimal. Good point that you made Bill...good point. Jim __________________ I can explain it to you, but, I can't understand it for you.