selecting contenders

[mikesal57]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

I think that is two different things.

IF everybody used the same horses and lines...in different software...you would be evaluating the software.

IF you used the same software...and used different handicapping approaches....you would be evaluating the "approach".

Well...I thought it would be fun and interesting but I dont want to offend anyone..

Just to prove your point...5 people could use RDSS in this exercise and then we could see 5 different outcomes??

If anyone is game ,besides Bill, i can put a race for all to cap

mike

[Bill V.]

If you don't mind . with all respect
why don't you take $80 out of you wager bankroll
and just bet your top 2 picks don't look at the odds at all
Try a 20 race cycle

If your using Thoromation or RDSS try using the segments screen

and just bet the top 2 horses that hit the wire

Here is your $64 horse #4 star

[shoeless]

Bill,

I dont mind thanks for the advice.

I chucked the 8 horse in my pre selecting of contenders,I didnt like the
big drop it was taking.

[Dorianmode]

Have always thought, as the race day/card moves along, (especially towards the very end of the day), that the odds on the good horses might improve, as the wagering public becomes more irrational in their wagering behaviors than they were at the beginning of the day, (ie betting more on long-shots at the end of the day in an attemp to remake lost wagers), thus favoring more value towards the end of the day. Am trying to do some analysis of my spreadsheets on the slow race days, and I looked at this question today. The numbers DO NOT support my theory. The average position on the race card for the races in which I found a minimum pay off, was statistically no different, ((5.12 (position on the race card) vs 5.13 overall)) than the median race position on the card, for my selected races to play. The average race # in which I found a 1.00 or greater, 2 horse dutch payoff, was 5.16. There are a few assumptions that could be skewing my observation, but I guess that's good enough for me. Interesting, and (to me), unexpected. Sample was 787 races. Average # races on a card was 9.23. I suppose the null hypothesis was that there would be no difference for the value race from the average position on the race card. I guess there is a small one, but nothing like I thought there might be.

[rmath]

Did you ever get a chance to run that comparison on DCL & LPR that you said you would?.

[Dorianmode]

Originally Posted by rmath

Did you ever get a chance to run that comparison on DCL & LPR that you said you would?.

I just looked at that, and was working on an explanation for what I see. 96.2% of my top 3 horses HAVE LPR #1, and DCL #1 in the SAME horse, but with only 3 horses left to look at in RDSS, I guess that's not too surprising). For sprint races, one of either the top ranked RDSS horse OR the #1 LPR / DCL horse, in my final 3 contenders, win about 88.5 % of the time. On reviewing the races "missed", 4.3 % were marked as "mistake made in contender selection", (1578 races total in sample). So I have to go back through them, (the "lost" races), to see where the DCL/LPR #'s would sort out, had the contender selection been done correctly, before I can give you an accurate answer.

Right now, I'm spending my extra time keeping track of the "quality", (accuracy) of the morning lines at various tracks, to see if there is a significant difference, so it might be a while before I get to going through the bad contender selection races. By far, the most accurate single objective, (non-personal) contender selector so far, is "final odds" rank, but I'm trying to narrow it down further by crossing it with TE ranking of the final 5, 4, and 3, and eventually will do a sort by track. When the sample of the ML races is big enough, I will report the results. Also, am slowing working backwards, to add a few other possible elimination factors, and BY FAR, the most useful tool for eliminating the last horse from the 3 final contenders, is MY OWN pace handicapping, ("eyeballing") intuition/judgement. Was also surprised today that in my last 5 contenders, dropping the lowest APV horse seems to work, in getting the 5 down to 4, (I was NOT expecting that), but have a WAY too small a sample for that to be reliable, at this point. If you have any factors/ideas about anything you want added to the ML study/data, let me know.

[Charlie D]

Currently listening to Contenders and Paclines.

Interesting stuff imho.

[rmath]

Dorian, Thanks for the update. Since you are already getting 88.5% winners from your final 2plays from only 3 horses what else could you hope for.
I find it truly amazing and congratulate you on your efforts.
The best I have ever been able to get in my final 3 has been 78-80%. These figures are at all distances. Perhaps if I would concentrate on the higher class sprints I might approach your truly amazing results.
Keep posting, I enjoy reading your posts and all the other ones even when they disagree, since this is how we learn from one another.
Good luck with you study of of postime odds.
rmath

time odds.

[shoeless]

DM and Rmath

Very nice on those win %

[rmath]

Shoeless, Thanks.
Biggest problem, too many 3/5 winners.
Have been passing a lot of races lately.
Does not affect playing the pic 4 contest, especially when you do not have to put up real
money.
Thanks again.
rmath