mardigras Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 On 27/06/2018 at 1:26 PM, Thomass said: ...go back to your stats statsman... Look at every neddy you've top rated...forget your system of "any top 3 I back at value" shit... Run the 'Blinkers On' button with those runners and you'll find out if Blinkers have a positive or negative effect on your algorithmic system statsman... Responding to this. And if he wants to discuss it, then at least it can be removed from wally's thread. I ran my selections across data I hold relating to races where I hold gear change data. I run a dual approach. One which gives me the most likely winner based on standard form analysis and one which defines chance for every runner (if they have had at least one race day start). Below is details relating to just chance based assessments. These are Oz only as I don't have gear change information for NZ races. Don't need it for Oz races either. So if thomass wants to attempt intelligent discussion, feel free. The main issue with these stats are that assessing them from blinkers on or off is flawed. As historical stats relating to something that is horse specific has no bearing on future impact. There is no 'general' impact. It isn't something like suggesting weight will slow a horse down since weight will slow a horse down (even if it is marginal to what degree). If you apply an impact to a horse based on a percentage of horses experiencing that impact, then a) the positive impact had better occur at such a rate that it outweighs the times when it doesn't AND b) the general change to price would have to be less than the positive impact. So, from my data (which is just my own and not the sole source of truth), wouldn't support any notion of benefit based on what was asked in the quote above. I welcome intelligent debate/discussion. Top Selections Winners Bet Fair Win Divs Avg Winning Chance Actual Winning % ROI (gross) Avg Bet Fair Win Div All 73224 17134 $78,180.38 23.44 23.40% 1.0677 4.562879654 Blinkers On First Time 1183 316 $1,259.90 23.77 26.71% 1.0650 3.987025316 Blinkers Off First Time 984 238 $1,046.74 23.58 24.19% 1.0638 4.398067227 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted June 29, 2018 Author Share Posted June 29, 2018 Just want to add. I mention weight above. But weight is probably the single biggest advantage I get from assessments. My assessment is that whilst weight affects horses, it doesn't affect them to the level the general punter believes. So high weights will impact price massively more than how I assess the impact on the horses chance. That for me is a huge area of 'value' difference. Barrier often being another one treated the same. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 Looks like there's a definite winning % advantage for blinkers on first time but value taken into account, you'd be better to drop those bets, not invest more on them? I.e., if you removed both blinkers on and off runners from your investments, your ROI would improve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted June 29, 2018 Author Share Posted June 29, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, curious said: Looks like there's a definite winning % advantage for blinkers on first time but value taken into account, you'd be better to drop those bets, not invest more on them? I.e., if you removed both blinkers on and off runners from your investments, your ROI would improve? Yes, and the stats on such a small sample would be questionable. What I would suggest is that punters think like thomass and the end result is they are backed more. Resulting in less likelihood of achieving value. Those result are for all runners - not for runners achieving a price above expectation. I didn't put those'stats' up as yet. But they essentially read that if you achieve a price higher than my 'assessed chance', your ROI goes up (as one would expect). But it goes down for horses with blinkers on first time to around 1.02, from the 1.06 above. Suggesting that price is seriously impacted by that metric. Yet determining when it results in any improvement is tantamount to guesswork. Edited June 29, 2018 by mardigras 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 You have me doing some homework, but unfortunately I only have data for any gear change, not specifically blinkers on or off. I get the point that this may be different for runners priced above expectation because the market has already incorrectly repriced itself. Thinking .... Not willing to play at 1.02 but 1.06 would be gold! Already envious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted June 29, 2018 Author Share Posted June 29, 2018 8 minutes ago, curious said: You have me doing some homework, but unfortunately I only have data for any gear change, not specifically blinkers on or off. I get the point that this may be different for runners priced above expectation because the market has already incorrectly repriced itself. Thinking .... Not willing to play at 1.02 but 1.06 would be gold! Already envious Haha. But those prices are gross. So on things like Betfair, you have to pay commission. So I am looking for 1.15+ in order to allow for commission and premium charges. So bet on less races for more gain % wise is my goal. Funnily enough, a model where they charge winners more than those 'contributing' their own funds to the experience. If I decided a horse with 'blinkers on first time' has a 30% greater chance than I thought (as per the Thomass theory), and assessed it against being priced above that new expectation, the ROI reduces and the number of qualifying bets increases (as you would expect) since more exceed the vastly reduced price required to exceed the 'new' chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 6 hours ago, mardigras said: Yes, and the stats on such a small sample would be questionable. When you say that, I'm assuming you mean the blinkers on and off samples, not the 70k+ runner All sample? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted June 29, 2018 Author Share Posted June 29, 2018 2 hours ago, curious said: When you say that, I'm assuming you mean the blinkers on and off samples, not the 70k+ runner All sample? Yep. I could run a sample out of the larger sample that might show much greater returns. Something like horses names starting with the letter 'x'. As useful as blinkers stats. The larger sample works across all bands of chance. I can split that up into groups like >40% chance, 30 - 40, 25 - 30 etc, and they all produce consistent returns. When you do that with blinkers on, the returns fluctuate massively because the 'blinkers on' doesn't relate to the specific horses chance, probably relates to the individual needing behavioral correction. And that would be the only way I can see anyone using gear changes effectively - understanding at least the idea of what impact they are expected to have for the horse being assessed,and tracking that against what actually happens to work out whether your ability in that sense stacks up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted June 29, 2018 Author Share Posted June 29, 2018 As it turns out, horses starting with 'x' could be the go. They bring that X-factor. And if only I had known the impact to a horses ability when they get named starting with the letter 'P'. Bugger. Punters are over-rating horses starting with the letter C - I'm going to have to starting keeping clear of those. Stats can say anything. But Thomass doesn't understand when they can and when they can't be applied. Top Selections Winners Bet Fair Win Divs Avg Winning Chance Actual Winning % ROI (gross) Avg Bet Fair Win Div Names starting with 'P' 3553 883 $4,134.37 22.70 24.85% 1.1636 $4.68 Names starting with 'X' 32 6 $42.60 21.62 18.75% 1.3313 $7.10 Names starting with 'C' 5379 1227 $5,256.75 22.93 22.81% 0.9773 $4.28 Take for example. If historically, it was shown that 90% of all the Thomass' in NZ had an IQ above 110. You can't then take an individual known Thomass now in NZ and say that they have a 90% chance of having an IQ above 110. There is no relationship between a name and an IQ. If there was, people would then simply name their future child on such a flawed basis. The same flawed basis of applying 'blinkers on' because I rate it on top. All horses that race will be rated on top by someone in the world. And therefore, applying the 'theory' means that every horse with 'blinkers on' would meet the rule for someone in the world - yet Thomass says the rule can't be applied by those other people in that way. Simply because you can't invent a relationship that doesn't exist. The idea would have to be assessed against the horse itself, not the horse population. That is what punting is about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Diceman's Been Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 And bitofayarn.........apparantly 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted June 29, 2018 Author Share Posted June 29, 2018 Maybe right Diceman. However, most people won't understand why ideas like that are flawed. In fact, many will use similar ones. I'm just trying to present why you shouldn't. If you do like ideas like Thomass presents, may I suggest you start backing horses with names starting with 'P' - it would be as beneficial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 I think your X sample is too small to be reliable but I've removed all horses starting with C from my bets this morning. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted June 29, 2018 Author Share Posted June 29, 2018 8 minutes ago, curious said: I think your X sample is too small to be reliable but I've removed all horses starting with C from my bets this morning. Maybe the ones starting with 'P' are on 'P' and that is a factor previously not considered. And the 'C' are the 'Cobalt' group?? Disclaimer: I am not inferring this to be the case, obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 My favourite snack at a nighttime with a beer is CCs and I’ve gone right off them now!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 (edited) Yes, that could explain it. I've been advised that the effect size of cobalt administration is similar to sprinkling them with hundreds and thousands. I just ran my last 7,000 odd top chances and there were 423 beginning with H and T. ROI on them `.961. ROI on the whole group 1.048. So, you might want to think about leaving out the Hs and Ts as well as the Cs. Going well this morning so far though. Three bets starting with C that I normally would have had all lost! You may be on to something here mardi. Edited June 29, 2018 by curious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newmarket Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 Good that rod & curious started this thread all alone, they can feed each other’s ego for the next 12 months or so, Thomarse will pipe in with his thoughts, should be entertaining to say the least. But rather than people trying to convince others that they are a maths genius, how about this. Most on here are not going to delve into racing stats as much as rod & curious, so help with ways the small sat punter can improve his chances of winning. No system is wrong, I worked with a guy once that bet on NZ gallops & harness. He took no notice of draws, track conditions, weights, drivers etc. Only rule was, horse must have won same time as previous year, one month either side. We thought he was mad, we wrote down each week his horses, he returned a profit each year, for the 3 years I worked with him. So he had his system, stake was always same, $5ew on every runner, but he stuck to his plan. To this day, I still look back to how a horse was performing 12 months back. So my advice to the small punter, stick to what you follow. If it’s league, know the time to bet after an intercept try against play, darts , horses what ever. All you have to do is gain a slight edge, and your winning. Do agree with Barry, getting best odds is important, but also understand that many NZ punters will only be with tab, so their pretty limited. MOST IMPORTANT, listen to others, but make your own decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted June 29, 2018 Author Share Posted June 29, 2018 My advice is. Don't use stats like that. It isn't really about being a maths genius or a maths ignoramus. It is about common sense. The common sense being that two things that are unrelated, don't actually impact each other. Which has been the point the entire time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newmarket Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 2 minutes ago, mardigras said: My advice is. Don't use stats like that. It isn't really about being a maths genius or a maths ignoramus. It is about common sense. The common sense being that two things that are unrelated, don't actually impact each other. Which has been the point the entire time. My advice, let others decide what’s best for them. Remember, some are in it for fun, I know that’s probably hard for you to understand. Anyway, we all know your views Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted June 29, 2018 Author Share Posted June 29, 2018 1 minute ago, Newmarket said: My advice, let others decide what’s best for them. Remember, some are in it for fun, I know that’s probably hard for you to understand. Anyway, we all know your views Thanks for the heads up. Are you the determiner of what topics should be written about? Next time, I'll ask your permission. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newmarket Posted June 30, 2018 Share Posted June 30, 2018 6 hours ago, mardigras said: Thanks for the heads up. Are you the determiner of what topics should be written about? Next time, I'll ask your permission. Ha, No, just saying that everyone has their own ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted June 30, 2018 Share Posted June 30, 2018 Well you finally got there Benny Im surprised you didn’t throw in a couple of bogan terms just to test the water Ah the illusion of knowledge!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 On 29/06/2018 at 8:52 PM, curious said: Looks like there's a definite winning % advantage for blinkers on first time but value taken into account, you'd be better to drop those bets, not invest more on them? I.e., if you removed both blinkers on and off runners from your investments, your ROI would improve? Haha missed all this b/s... While I was out cavorting, sans clothes, in the Black sand dunes of Muriwai...with the Princess and Beth... ...yous guys were giving up more stats...so boring But this is relly relly enlightening curios So does a "definite winning advantage" translate to neddys going faster with said hoods or not...seeing as you said "prove they make them go faster" Cant wait...answers on the back of a postage stamp thanks...save packaging Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted August 14, 2018 Author Share Posted August 14, 2018 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Thomass said: Haha missed all this b/s... "prove they make them go faster" You've missed a heck of a lot in your lifetime. If you consider that proof, then you missed an education. If that is proof, then that is the same as saying you now have proof that horses with names starting with 'P' makes them go faster. Go back and find all those things you clearly missed. Your self humiliation is boring. Edited August 14, 2018 by mardigras Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 Don't tell me this'll be the first time you disagree with your BFF?? Its in writing!! And this would include all of the no hopers who were on 'last chance saloon' stays as well?.. Doesnt even take into account observing a needy's need...by 'observing'...wtf knew that could be done? And the stunning but simple process to be had with moi's adding 20% to already superior form neddys...after basic form analysis...read PERFORMANCE ..after I've trusted the trainers that a neddy will GO FASTER with them on... Its great to be finally vindicated by the 'intellectual' university Professor though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardigras Posted August 15, 2018 Author Share Posted August 15, 2018 You're not too good at this stuff. Whether I agree with curious or not is irrelevant. The problem with your claim is that you took 'a winning % advantage' and decided that meant blinkers made them run faster. Which can't be determined from that data. Horses starting with P also had a winning percentage advantage but that doesn't make the statement that starting with the letter P made them run faster. As I say, go back to school and this time pay attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.