From tonymoffat at bigpond.com Sun Apr 1 02:12:44 2018 From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat) Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 23:12:44 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] Testing the Favourite - a system Message-ID: <000001d3c902$bad1b720$30752560$@bigpond.com> ROBERTA - Testing the favourite. These are probably based on the writing of Quirin (USA) although not all the topics are discussed here. Knowles did a similar treatise way back also. The favourite is the shortest priced horse in the field - obvious. Its abilities have been talked up and its price talked down but is that enough. This system suggests you delineate the form around the favourite then look for others with similar attributes, or items of form better than the favourite and there may be a runner worth supporting as a result. Disregarding the favourite, and examining similar runners, those with attributes to win may takes us onto a different sub-set of runners, still popular but not hot in the market - that is ROBERTA. I don't know the story behind the name, but presume it is the first letters of a phrase of encouragement. Think R>O>T>A or FIGJAM or ASAP. ROBERTA 1. Similar finishes - finish position is my interpretation, say 1st and 3rd, or 2nd and 5th. Determine the finish position of the F last start and compare that with finish of similar horses. 2. All runners are male, or the favourite is female is allowed, however the similar runners cannot be female. But, in a F&M, disregard. 3. There is less than 4 kilograms (9 pounds - my conversion) between weights carried. This involves all runners, the F and the similar horses and my interpretation is 2kg up or two kilograms under the F weight - which gives the 4 kg spread, anything else exceeds that rule. 4. Days since last start not to exceed 29. 5. The F has raced at today's track, so too the similar horses - or neither have. That includes or excludes depending on the circumstances. The F has raced here, the similar horses also, all good. The similar horses have not raced here, disregard. The similar horses have raced here, the F not, eliminate the race!. The F and similar horses are on new ground, continue exam. 6. For sprint distances, the F is a sprinter, so too the similar horses. For distance races (routes) the F is a distance winner (won over a distance?), or a sprinter who won its last race. 7. The F came from a similar or lower class race last start. The similar horses also had similar or lower class races last start. It is a bit short on detail and there is nothing to suggest any previous tests have been done to support the instructions. Similar finishes - perhaps a finish separation <5 positions. The favourite female is allowed, otherwise females appear to be on the outer here. The runners are required to be involved in racing and this may account for the 29 day rule. The F must have raced on the track for the others to be considered, or, nobody has raced there and the consideration continues. The sprint and distance rules are familiar. Today at Rosehill 7 - Hiyaam was the choice after 7 others eliminated -won and paid $13.10 ******* Rosehill 8 - Cellarman was the choice, similar attributes - won and paid $5.90 ******* Rosehill 9 - the favourite won off good form, Horse 8 also qualified but finished down the track *******Caulfield 9 - the favourite won off good form, other qualifiers eliminated *******Caulfield 8 - qualifiers 3,6,7,10,15,17 - the winner 10 paid $9.30 *******Caulfield 7 - Winner, Shoreham, qualified but was out beyond $39, it had much better, more, attributes than the F. Today at Caulfield 6 - Magic Console was the qualifier and placed at 8.30 I may write some more - the favourites for this test, the results, were after the event. Cheers Tony --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tonymoffat at bigpond.com Sun Apr 1 18:39:33 2018 From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat) Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2018 16:39:33 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] The Principle of Maximum Confusion - a system Message-ID: <000001d3c994$f7349ec0$e59ddc40$@bigpond.com> Or is it? - Some of the following is based on the writings of James Quinn (Morrow & Co. New York) who quotes the work of Burton Fabricand (see Science of Winning) The principle derives from the proposition that the betting public scores its well recorded 9 percent loss on favourites by over betting most and under betting the others. The derivative clauses for choosing a favourite(F) are known to all bettors. It is often the morning line F and its rank is never challenged although its price and those dividends of the other runners are modified. There is often a strata of hopefuls, runners who can with prices within the sphere of runner numbers/3 and as these appear to be value, they have similar form attributes to the F for instance, they can be overbet. If, when, all runners are examined every which way and their probabilities calculated the F may be under bet in this circumstance. This is the Principle of Maximum Confusion. Somebody, somewhere, or now, more likely, software, has determined the name of the F for us, the commencement. That others overtake the early F, when nothing else seems to have occurred shows the possession of information, information strength, and the application of the Principal. This holds that the public is most likely to underestimate the true winning probabilities of favourites in races where the past-performance record of the F is highly similar to one or more other horses. The rational for the principle is the crowds handicapping; that is, there must be some reason(s) not immediately obvious for one horse to be made favourite, notwithstanding its similarity to other horses, using the revealed information as a guideline( morning line, form line, etc.) The F is under bet as a result and the Principal confusion is held to be maximal if enough other runners look enough like the favourite to make the F a good bet now. As written before if a runner looks superior in every fundamental respect, it is certain its outstanding form record will not be lost on the betting public. Should the horse be bet then? No say the authors, it will be overbet, and value is being lost otherwise, or at least properly bet in respect of the F, and no chance of profit long term, and the best result will be 9 per cent loss, again long term. That's depressing. To reverse engineer the Principle, thus assuring ourselves profit of 10 per cent or more, it is necessary to recognise those races where the F is so similar to other contenders that confusion arises and value arrives. Fabricand, through Quinn, Quirin, and others has devised seven rules comprising the definition of similarity, as well as the probability formula, for betting purposes, the whole reason for starting this. To wit, the F is similar to another horse if: 1 Both show a race within the past 29 days 2 Both have raced at today's track or neither has 3 The favourite's last race was at a class level equal to or lower than the similar horse (different) 4 There is less than 9 pound weight shift between two horses off their latest races. 5 Both are male, or the F is female 6 Both last start finishes were the same, greatly similar, or the F last race finish was slightly inferior to the other horses(different) 7 For sprints, the F is a sprinter in its past, for routes the F is a router (last three races were routes) or is a sprinter who won its last run. All seven rules of similarity must be resolved. All races are susceptible to the Principle, the public is known to estimate the winning probabilities of F regardless of the class of the race. Handicappers that have isolated betting favourites that are similar to other horses can be assured the betting public are maximally confused and can proceed to bet on the F. ROBERTA sought to find value around the F, hopefully to score in the 66 per cent of races that the F does not feature, it may place however. The Principle of Maximum Confusion is to isolate the F, identify it's attributes, and determine if it can be value bet. There is more perhaps Cheers Tony --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Fri Apr 13 08:43:28 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 08:43:28 +1000 Subject: [AusRace] Sportingbet.com.au Message-ID: <007b01d3d2af$affd01e0$0ff705a0$@ozemail.com.au> Just when I thought Sportingbet.com.au could not get weaker, more incompetent, they prove me wrong. Noticing that they shortened any horse I backed, I put $1.00 place on one horse at each meeting today (Darwin not open), resulting in immediate shortening: Bea 7/1 1.92 into 1.72 Wan 3/9 7.60 into 6.60 Cra 2/4 2.30 into 1.92 Ora 4/10 4.35 into 3.70 PtM 3/3 2.15 into 1.86 We used to have stronger SP bookies at school 55 years ago. From: Racing On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Monday, 5 March 2018 19:51:43 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: [AusRace] Sportingbet.com.au Another gutless, incompetent "bookmaker" Cut me to $9 @ 2.00 Place Orange 7/6. Ran at 2.35 Sportsbet and Ladbrokes. Risking $9.00!!!! Presumably they laid off at 2.35 and made a couple of bucks for God knows how much effort - the minnows manually check each of my bets and decided in this case to risk $9, so why would they not lay it off? Pathetic begets extra pathetic. Pathetic does not do Sportingbet.com.au justice. PS, Racing Victoria not only did not acknowledge my complaint against Centrebet's refusal of MBL bets, but did not even reply to my request of acknowledgement of the complaint. We all know, or should know, whose side those tasked with protecting punters are on - the corporates, not the punters, the corporates, not the on-course bookies. Amazing what being treated to the corporate boxes does to one's principles. LBL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tonymoffat at bigpond.com Sun Apr 15 12:33:34 2018 From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 10:33:34 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Message-ID: <000001d3d462$2747b250$75d716f0$@bigpond.com> There was a time when electronic devices, communication articles the signs said, were banned on course. Computers, calculators, mobile phone bricks, anything interpreted as a communication article, you had to take them off course, you had to leave and take the devils tools with you. There were signs about this, at the entrances - no phones basically Place Power was a software package, chosen for installation on Canon calculators, with programs for specific HP, TI and other brands of the time - these were programmable calculators with minimal RAM and the program in the ROM and so scientific. I had an upmarket Texas Instrument (I worked for an affiliate of theirs for some years) which was hard on battery power but had a proper sized keyboard. It was a brilliant piece of hardware for the time, blue and black, with a large screen, and of a size that was a boast, a display of knowledge that perhaps you didn't have but the device might. It came with a holster, to complete the manliness aspect, or, a vest with a sizeable elasticised pocket for it to be warmed and comforted by contact. That vest was unlikely to be worn on course I suggest. There was a pen, a plastic rod, that you used to select the keys, they had a moulded hole in their centre to accept the point, this was to prevent moisture, sweat then, from contacting the facia, where the keys were. They were sealed against Resch Pilsner, I tested that aspect. No, I never used it in the bath, or shower. It is military grade, volo 7, and meant for the Moon and Mars and beyond, truly. You purchased the calculator wherever you could get the best deal, then you sent it to Place Power who loaded up the program, they said it was specific to each brand, each model. It came back to you in the mail, wrapped in that bubble wrap stuff, kids love it, and you went ahead with making your fortune. My program had a lot of other data with it, statistics for barriers, TAB numbers, parlay programs, all up programs, about 30 data cases in all (34 actually). There is a downside to all this scientific magnificence, this being when they purged the ROM to install their program, they wiped the surveying program and the navigation program. It was expensive, the program, the purchase of the calculator, the time element. It can be torture, in the seconds before race starting time, keying in the data elements, hitting RUN, and waiting for the BASIC program to enliven the screen with the data you need, needed. The technique, perhaps, was to enter all the data with 10 minutes to start time, run it, then update only those runners which were sorted to the top of the list. The day-ta or da-ta, it was spelt that way in the book, 230 pages of an advertisement for the program, was the win and place dividends. The program displayed these as % values of the whole dividend field, the book %, then reduced this to a 100% market, for win divs. It did the same for place, the 300% market was reduced to 100%. The win dividend win % and the place dividend % were compared with stored data and if there was a variation, more money on the win side, or more money on the place side, or even over the whole bet then the calculator did its thing and informed you and made a betting suggestion, just off this. The runner(s) to be supported were those which had less % in the place line than in the win line. The instruction was that more money had been bet, for the win, than for the place, this shows confidence, this is information not available to anybody (else - except system users). The method, the rationale of all of this is investigated several times in academic texts. The data revealed is used by several authors, who take the first findings forward in an endeavour to correctly isolate a runner with the best credentials, off investment input. The writings are heavy on algebra, mystic like, with assertions that .0062 is marvellous whilst .0053 is not, useless. A starting point might be Peter Asch and Richard E Quandt 'Racetrack Betting' or/and 'Market Efficiency in Racetrack Betting'. Google for more, heaps, to be non-scientific about it at all. The endeavours of them all in attempting to straighten the line, the arrow that points to a dividend, is appreciated. Them and their regression analysis equations, god bless 'em. The process in the program is described in detail in Asch and Quandt (1986) page 117 onwards, although it, the process, is not given ownership to anybody in the expansive book that comes with the program. It just is, with flowery adjectives describing how it is good, better, best. The principle was known well before the date of manufacture of the calculator. Perhaps it was a parallel development, he asks mockingly. When I returned to the program supplier, to have the navigation and surveying programs re-installed several years later, he told me they had sold two copies of Place Power, although copying, pirating was a common activity back then, especially for HP model 41 schemes and programs. I still have mine, giant robust device that it is, it feels like you could open bottle tops with it, hammer nails, and a child has had it as a cot toy, although this was not planned, honestly, it has no taste, no flavour. It has a heft which is comforting, and it fires up instantaneously, still does. If a runner had 14% of the win pool and 12%, or 11% of the place or some figure less, this would ear mark itself as a runner to do further research, especially if these differences occurred later in the betting, less than 100 seconds say. It is assumed that all the money is in the pool then, bettors with known information, bettors with private information, all ups, and later money, after 100 seconds, it is an assumption though, is from bettors, little and large, private and corporate, betting into a niche now revealed. Who knows this? The runner information, the dividend clauses, is similar to test done by several persons in several way (days since last start, form, last start finish position etc), and further, the runner to be supported must be 1.2 times less than the win dividend per centage holding, found by dividing the place percent dividend holding into the win dividend place holding. Starting with Randwick R1 yesterday - selections were scored from after the race data, the final dividends. The win dividend % holding was 10.1, the place dividend % holding was 8.5, 10.1/8.5 = 1.18 (it was 1.3 when the decision to select was made) result 2nd $2.6. Race 2 1.53 3rd $1.60 Race 3 1.6 2nd $2.3 - the system selected 1st,2nd and 3rd Race 4 1.22 1st $2.4 Race 5 1st 1.7 $2.9 Race 6 1st 1.47 $1.8, the system selected 2nd also Race 7 1st 2.36 $1.04 -this was Winx Race 8 3rd 1.22 $1.7 Race 9 2nd 1.19 (it was 1.4 when selected) $3.7 -there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v1 Race 10 1st 1.41 $2.4 - there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v2 It selected a winner, a dividend, in every race bar the 1st at Caulfield - it made no selection in this race. I did 33 races, on a spreadsheet program (Smartbet v2.05), and it selected a dividend in all of them. Too good to be true? Summary: Compare the win dividend with the place dividend - there are several ways. If the win dividend appears oversubscribed, determine if the place dividend is a value bet now, $W/$P and if the runner has other attributes (decided by you) consider it for a bet. This last clause is necessary to reduce qualifiers, there can be 3 or so, depending on the betting volatility, and is suggested in the book with the program. Winx was a selection. She had a dividend score of 2.36 (Win divided by place) and other winning attributes. Cheers Tony --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Sun Apr 15 20:39:46 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 20:39:46 +1000 Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system In-Reply-To: <000001d3d462$2747b250$75d716f0$@bigpond.com> References: <000001d3d462$2747b250$75d716f0$@bigpond.com> Message-ID: <003c01d3d4a6$1531c800$3f955800$@ozemail.com.au> Interesting Tony. It was well over 20 years ago that I was the first person to bring a laptop (Epson, yes they used to make computers) into Randwick on race day. Incredibly about 10 years ago a goon tried to stop me taking a laptop into Randwick and I had to call the TAB boss to come and tell him to wise up. The relationship between chances of winning and chances of placing, while I'd not call it tenuous, is not the perfect relationship that corporate whiz-kids make it. Way back you would know that bookmakers gave place odds as 1/4 the win odds in fields of 8 or more, sometimes restricting you to horses 4/1 and over, usually betting win only with an odds-on pop in the race. We could see that was not right, but they did not bet place only, so you had to cop the win odds as well if you wanted to bet place. The horse that brought that sharply to my attention was Silver Sharpe back in 1970, which only won 3 races, but never placed. The 3 wins were all Group 1, so you'd have thought it could run into a place sometimes, but it never did (at least had not at the stage it came to my attention). We hear of the "professional placegetter", but there are also those that tend to win or come no-where, like SS. The whiz-kids are not smart enough to adjust markets to reflect that reality. Take the 8 meetings today - in every case where they had horses in the same race at the same win price (final market), BetZero, Ladbrokes, Crown and WilliamH had the same prices for the place (their algorithms vary wildly, so one may have 41/8.0, another 41/11.0 for the same horse, but they will both have, respectively 8.0/11.0 the place about every other 41.0 horse in that race. SportsBet (6), TAB (7) and Tatts (6) had some not quite in sync (eg 4.10/1.50 and 4.10/1.55). In the morning market, all seven bookmakers had the same place prices for all horses with the same win prices in the same race, so the few out-of-sync ones in final markets would be due to weight of money, not whiz-kids, heaven forbid, having an opinion LBL. From: Racing On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Sunday, 15 April 2018 12:34 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system There was a time when electronic devices, communication articles the signs said, were banned on course. Computers, calculators, mobile phone bricks, anything interpreted as a communication article, you had to take them off course, you had to leave and take the devils tools with you. There were signs about this, at the entrances - no phones basically Place Power was a software package, chosen for installation on Canon calculators, with programs for specific HP, TI and other brands of the time - these were programmable calculators with minimal RAM and the program in the ROM and so scientific. I had an upmarket Texas Instrument (I worked for an affiliate of theirs for some years) which was hard on battery power but had a proper sized keyboard. It was a brilliant piece of hardware for the time, blue and black, with a large screen, and of a size that was a boast, a display of knowledge that perhaps you didn't have but the device might. It came with a holster, to complete the manliness aspect, or, a vest with a sizeable elasticised pocket for it to be warmed and comforted by contact. That vest was unlikely to be worn on course I suggest. There was a pen, a plastic rod, that you used to select the keys, they had a moulded hole in their centre to accept the point, this was to prevent moisture, sweat then, from contacting the facia, where the keys were. They were sealed against Resch Pilsner, I tested that aspect. No, I never used it in the bath, or shower. It is military grade, volo 7, and meant for the Moon and Mars and beyond, truly. You purchased the calculator wherever you could get the best deal, then you sent it to Place Power who loaded up the program, they said it was specific to each brand, each model. It came back to you in the mail, wrapped in that bubble wrap stuff, kids love it, and you went ahead with making your fortune. My program had a lot of other data with it, statistics for barriers, TAB numbers, parlay programs, all up programs, about 30 data cases in all (34 actually). There is a downside to all this scientific magnificence, this being when they purged the ROM to install their program, they wiped the surveying program and the navigation program. It was expensive, the program, the purchase of the calculator, the time element. It can be torture, in the seconds before race starting time, keying in the data elements, hitting RUN, and waiting for the BASIC program to enliven the screen with the data you need, needed. The technique, perhaps, was to enter all the data with 10 minutes to start time, run it, then update only those runners which were sorted to the top of the list. The day-ta or da-ta, it was spelt that way in the book, 230 pages of an advertisement for the program, was the win and place dividends. The program displayed these as % values of the whole dividend field, the book %, then reduced this to a 100% market, for win divs. It did the same for place, the 300% market was reduced to 100%. The win dividend win % and the place dividend % were compared with stored data and if there was a variation, more money on the win side, or more money on the place side, or even over the whole bet then the calculator did its thing and informed you and made a betting suggestion, just off this. The runner(s) to be supported were those which had less % in the place line than in the win line. The instruction was that more money had been bet, for the win, than for the place, this shows confidence, this is information not available to anybody (else - except system users). The method, the rationale of all of this is investigated several times in academic texts. The data revealed is used by several authors, who take the first findings forward in an endeavour to correctly isolate a runner with the best credentials, off investment input. The writings are heavy on algebra, mystic like, with assertions that .0062 is marvellous whilst .0053 is not, useless. A starting point might be Peter Asch and Richard E Quandt 'Racetrack Betting' or/and 'Market Efficiency in Racetrack Betting'. Google for more, heaps, to be non-scientific about it at all. The endeavours of them all in attempting to straighten the line, the arrow that points to a dividend, is appreciated. Them and their regression analysis equations, god bless 'em. The process in the program is described in detail in Asch and Quandt (1986) page 117 onwards, although it, the process, is not given ownership to anybody in the expansive book that comes with the program. It just is, with flowery adjectives describing how it is good, better, best. The principle was known well before the date of manufacture of the calculator. Perhaps it was a parallel development, he asks mockingly. When I returned to the program supplier, to have the navigation and surveying programs re-installed several years later, he told me they had sold two copies of Place Power, although copying, pirating was a common activity back then, especially for HP model 41 schemes and programs. I still have mine, giant robust device that it is, it feels like you could open bottle tops with it, hammer nails, and a child has had it as a cot toy, although this was not planned, honestly, it has no taste, no flavour. It has a heft which is comforting, and it fires up instantaneously, still does. If a runner had 14% of the win pool and 12%, or 11% of the place or some figure less, this would ear mark itself as a runner to do further research, especially if these differences occurred later in the betting, less than 100 seconds say. It is assumed that all the money is in the pool then, bettors with known information, bettors with private information, all ups, and later money, after 100 seconds, it is an assumption though, is from bettors, little and large, private and corporate, betting into a niche now revealed. Who knows this? The runner information, the dividend clauses, is similar to test done by several persons in several way (days since last start, form, last start finish position etc), and further, the runner to be supported must be 1.2 times less than the win dividend per centage holding, found by dividing the place percent dividend holding into the win dividend place holding. Starting with Randwick R1 yesterday - selections were scored from after the race data, the final dividends. The win dividend % holding was 10.1, the place dividend % holding was 8.5, 10.1/8.5 = 1.18 (it was 1.3 when the decision to select was made) result 2nd $2.6. Race 2 1.53 3rd $1.60 Race 3 1.6 2nd $2.3 - the system selected 1st,2nd and 3rd Race 4 1.22 1st $2.4 Race 5 1st 1.7 $2.9 Race 6 1st 1.47 $1.8, the system selected 2nd also Race 7 1st 2.36 $1.04 -this was Winx Race 8 3rd 1.22 $1.7 Race 9 2nd 1.19 (it was 1.4 when selected) $3.7 -there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v1 Race 10 1st 1.41 $2.4 - there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v2 It selected a winner, a dividend, in every race bar the 1st at Caulfield - it made no selection in this race. I did 33 races, on a spreadsheet program (Smartbet v2.05), and it selected a dividend in all of them. Too good to be true? Summary: Compare the win dividend with the place dividend - there are several ways. If the win dividend appears oversubscribed, determine if the place dividend is a value bet now, $W/$P and if the runner has other attributes (decided by you) consider it for a bet. This last clause is necessary to reduce qualifiers, there can be 3 or so, depending on the betting volatility, and is suggested in the book with the program. Winx was a selection. She had a dividend score of 2.36 (Win divided by place) and other winning attributes. Cheers Tony Virus-free. www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Mon Apr 16 22:57:02 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 22:57:02 +1000 Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system In-Reply-To: <000001d3d462$2747b250$75d716f0$@bigpond.com> References: <000001d3d462$2747b250$75d716f0$@bigpond.com> Message-ID: <001a01d3d582$6cbf56a0$463e03e0$@ozemail.com.au> Tony, I calculated Winx on final Vic TAB which I see you used, and got 2.37, so that matched, but had differences with others (eg R2, Renewal I got 1.02). Not to matter, I calculated 33,000 races (360,000 runners), minimum starters 8, no late scratchings, using Tatts Final Dividends, mainly to be 100% sure that what I "knew" held up. It did - the average ratios when Final Win Dividend: <2.0, 2.12 2.0 & <5.0 1.35 5.0 & <10.0 0.95 10.0 & <25.0 0.74 25.0 & <50.0 0.63 >=50.0 0.55 Cheers, LBL From: Racing On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Sunday, 15 April 2018 12:34 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system There was a time when electronic devices, communication articles the signs said, were banned on course. Computers, calculators, mobile phone bricks, anything interpreted as a communication article, you had to take them off course, you had to leave and take the devils tools with you. There were signs about this, at the entrances - no phones basically Place Power was a software package, chosen for installation on Canon calculators, with programs for specific HP, TI and other brands of the time - these were programmable calculators with minimal RAM and the program in the ROM and so scientific. I had an upmarket Texas Instrument (I worked for an affiliate of theirs for some years) which was hard on battery power but had a proper sized keyboard. It was a brilliant piece of hardware for the time, blue and black, with a large screen, and of a size that was a boast, a display of knowledge that perhaps you didn't have but the device might. It came with a holster, to complete the manliness aspect, or, a vest with a sizeable elasticised pocket for it to be warmed and comforted by contact. That vest was unlikely to be worn on course I suggest. There was a pen, a plastic rod, that you used to select the keys, they had a moulded hole in their centre to accept the point, this was to prevent moisture, sweat then, from contacting the facia, where the keys were. They were sealed against Resch Pilsner, I tested that aspect. No, I never used it in the bath, or shower. It is military grade, volo 7, and meant for the Moon and Mars and beyond, truly. You purchased the calculator wherever you could get the best deal, then you sent it to Place Power who loaded up the program, they said it was specific to each brand, each model. It came back to you in the mail, wrapped in that bubble wrap stuff, kids love it, and you went ahead with making your fortune. My program had a lot of other data with it, statistics for barriers, TAB numbers, parlay programs, all up programs, about 30 data cases in all (34 actually). There is a downside to all this scientific magnificence, this being when they purged the ROM to install their program, they wiped the surveying program and the navigation program. It was expensive, the program, the purchase of the calculator, the time element. It can be torture, in the seconds before race starting time, keying in the data elements, hitting RUN, and waiting for the BASIC program to enliven the screen with the data you need, needed. The technique, perhaps, was to enter all the data with 10 minutes to start time, run it, then update only those runners which were sorted to the top of the list. The day-ta or da-ta, it was spelt that way in the book, 230 pages of an advertisement for the program, was the win and place dividends. The program displayed these as % values of the whole dividend field, the book %, then reduced this to a 100% market, for win divs. It did the same for place, the 300% market was reduced to 100%. The win dividend win % and the place dividend % were compared with stored data and if there was a variation, more money on the win side, or more money on the place side, or even over the whole bet then the calculator did its thing and informed you and made a betting suggestion, just off this. The runner(s) to be supported were those which had less % in the place line than in the win line. The instruction was that more money had been bet, for the win, than for the place, this shows confidence, this is information not available to anybody (else - except system users). The method, the rationale of all of this is investigated several times in academic texts. The data revealed is used by several authors, who take the first findings forward in an endeavour to correctly isolate a runner with the best credentials, off investment input. The writings are heavy on algebra, mystic like, with assertions that .0062 is marvellous whilst .0053 is not, useless. A starting point might be Peter Asch and Richard E Quandt 'Racetrack Betting' or/and 'Market Efficiency in Racetrack Betting'. Google for more, heaps, to be non-scientific about it at all. The endeavours of them all in attempting to straighten the line, the arrow that points to a dividend, is appreciated. Them and their regression analysis equations, god bless 'em. The process in the program is described in detail in Asch and Quandt (1986) page 117 onwards, although it, the process, is not given ownership to anybody in the expansive book that comes with the program. It just is, with flowery adjectives describing how it is good, better, best. The principle was known well before the date of manufacture of the calculator. Perhaps it was a parallel development, he asks mockingly. When I returned to the program supplier, to have the navigation and surveying programs re-installed several years later, he told me they had sold two copies of Place Power, although copying, pirating was a common activity back then, especially for HP model 41 schemes and programs. I still have mine, giant robust device that it is, it feels like you could open bottle tops with it, hammer nails, and a child has had it as a cot toy, although this was not planned, honestly, it has no taste, no flavour. It has a heft which is comforting, and it fires up instantaneously, still does. If a runner had 14% of the win pool and 12%, or 11% of the place or some figure less, this would ear mark itself as a runner to do further research, especially if these differences occurred later in the betting, less than 100 seconds say. It is assumed that all the money is in the pool then, bettors with known information, bettors with private information, all ups, and later money, after 100 seconds, it is an assumption though, is from bettors, little and large, private and corporate, betting into a niche now revealed. Who knows this? The runner information, the dividend clauses, is similar to test done by several persons in several way (days since last start, form, last start finish position etc), and further, the runner to be supported must be 1.2 times less than the win dividend per centage holding, found by dividing the place percent dividend holding into the win dividend place holding. Starting with Randwick R1 yesterday - selections were scored from after the race data, the final dividends. The win dividend % holding was 10.1, the place dividend % holding was 8.5, 10.1/8.5 = 1.18 (it was 1.3 when the decision to select was made) result 2nd $2.6. Race 2 1.53 3rd $1.60 Race 3 1.6 2nd $2.3 - the system selected 1st,2nd and 3rd Race 4 1.22 1st $2.4 Race 5 1st 1.7 $2.9 Race 6 1st 1.47 $1.8, the system selected 2nd also Race 7 1st 2.36 $1.04 -this was Winx Race 8 3rd 1.22 $1.7 Race 9 2nd 1.19 (it was 1.4 when selected) $3.7 -there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v1 Race 10 1st 1.41 $2.4 - there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v2 It selected a winner, a dividend, in every race bar the 1st at Caulfield - it made no selection in this race. I did 33 races, on a spreadsheet program (Smartbet v2.05), and it selected a dividend in all of them. Too good to be true? Summary: Compare the win dividend with the place dividend - there are several ways. If the win dividend appears oversubscribed, determine if the place dividend is a value bet now, $W/$P and if the runner has other attributes (decided by you) consider it for a bet. This last clause is necessary to reduce qualifiers, there can be 3 or so, depending on the betting volatility, and is suggested in the book with the program. Winx was a selection. She had a dividend score of 2.36 (Win divided by place) and other winning attributes. Cheers Tony Virus-free. www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tonymoffat at bigpond.com Tue Apr 17 14:21:08 2018 From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 12:21:08 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system In-Reply-To: <001a01d3d582$6cbf56a0$463e03e0$@ozemail.com.au> References: <000001d3d462$2747b250$75d716f0$@bigpond.com> <001a01d3d582$6cbf56a0$463e03e0$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <000001d3d603$83c184a0$8b448de0$@bigpond.com> Len - thanks I did not intend to discombobulate, flummox even - the system instruction is to use those runners with the ratio of 1.2 or better and then I went with 1.12 or similar. The idea was good, the execution not so. No, I did not sit a shift at the keyboard watching these, I did watch a couple of closing minutes for a few races, betting off my own ratings of course so I saw the trending for those I observed (to state the obvious) - if you must know I spent most of the day sieving compost - and listening to an album by Hem. (For broad beans Northerly, yes, I wore a mask.) The 'Dr Z System' focuses on discrepancies between betting patterns in the win pool and the place pool (being American it has an element of the show pool included) This system is involved, if you follow it to the letter, but again its object is to identify those runners under bet in the place pool, relative to their pool portion in the win pool. Another variation, continuation, or some such of 'Place Power' -see Beat the Racetrack and Betting at the Racetrack (Ziemba and Hausch) two books full of algebra. I don't want to seem to be disparaging about algebraic maths, finding a winner is complicated enough, without finding a value for C, when A and B are minute numbers, and those with another letter in them. Ok, I'm disparaging, deriding, but only because I don't understand. Cheers Tony From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 8:57 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Tony, I calculated Winx on final Vic TAB which I see you used, and got 2.37, so that matched, but had differences with others (eg R2, Renewal I got 1.02). Not to matter, I calculated 33,000 races (360,000 runners), minimum starters 8, no late scratchings, using Tatts Final Dividends, mainly to be 100% sure that what I "knew" held up. It did - the average ratios when Final Win Dividend: <2.0, 2.12 2.0 & <5.0 1.35 5.0 & <10.0 0.95 10.0 & <25.0 0.74 25.0 & <50.0 0.63 >=50.0 0.55 Cheers, LBL From: Racing > On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Sunday, 15 April 2018 12:34 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system There was a time when electronic devices, communication articles the signs said, were banned on course. Computers, calculators, mobile phone bricks, anything interpreted as a communication article, you had to take them off course, you had to leave and take the devils tools with you. There were signs about this, at the entrances - no phones basically Place Power was a software package, chosen for installation on Canon calculators, with programs for specific HP, TI and other brands of the time - these were programmable calculators with minimal RAM and the program in the ROM and so scientific. I had an upmarket Texas Instrument (I worked for an affiliate of theirs for some years) which was hard on battery power but had a proper sized keyboard. It was a brilliant piece of hardware for the time, blue and black, with a large screen, and of a size that was a boast, a display of knowledge that perhaps you didn't have but the device might. It came with a holster, to complete the manliness aspect, or, a vest with a sizeable elasticised pocket for it to be warmed and comforted by contact. That vest was unlikely to be worn on course I suggest. There was a pen, a plastic rod, that you used to select the keys, they had a moulded hole in their centre to accept the point, this was to prevent moisture, sweat then, from contacting the facia, where the keys were. They were sealed against Resch Pilsner, I tested that aspect. No, I never used it in the bath, or shower. It is military grade, volo 7, and meant for the Moon and Mars and beyond, truly. You purchased the calculator wherever you could get the best deal, then you sent it to Place Power who loaded up the program, they said it was specific to each brand, each model. It came back to you in the mail, wrapped in that bubble wrap stuff, kids love it, and you went ahead with making your fortune. My program had a lot of other data with it, statistics for barriers, TAB numbers, parlay programs, all up programs, about 30 data cases in all (34 actually). There is a downside to all this scientific magnificence, this being when they purged the ROM to install their program, they wiped the surveying program and the navigation program. It was expensive, the program, the purchase of the calculator, the time element. It can be torture, in the seconds before race starting time, keying in the data elements, hitting RUN, and waiting for the BASIC program to enliven the screen with the data you need, needed. The technique, perhaps, was to enter all the data with 10 minutes to start time, run it, then update only those runners which were sorted to the top of the list. The day-ta or da-ta, it was spelt that way in the book, 230 pages of an advertisement for the program, was the win and place dividends. The program displayed these as % values of the whole dividend field, the book %, then reduced this to a 100% market, for win divs. It did the same for place, the 300% market was reduced to 100%. The win dividend win % and the place dividend % were compared with stored data and if there was a variation, more money on the win side, or more money on the place side, or even over the whole bet then the calculator did its thing and informed you and made a betting suggestion, just off this. The runner(s) to be supported were those which had less % in the place line than in the win line. The instruction was that more money had been bet, for the win, than for the place, this shows confidence, this is information not available to anybody (else - except system users). The method, the rationale of all of this is investigated several times in academic texts. The data revealed is used by several authors, who take the first findings forward in an endeavour to correctly isolate a runner with the best credentials, off investment input. The writings are heavy on algebra, mystic like, with assertions that .0062 is marvellous whilst .0053 is not, useless. A starting point might be Peter Asch and Richard E Quandt 'Racetrack Betting' or/and 'Market Efficiency in Racetrack Betting'. Google for more, heaps, to be non-scientific about it at all. The endeavours of them all in attempting to straighten the line, the arrow that points to a dividend, is appreciated. Them and their regression analysis equations, god bless 'em. The process in the program is described in detail in Asch and Quandt (1986) page 117 onwards, although it, the process, is not given ownership to anybody in the expansive book that comes with the program. It just is, with flowery adjectives describing how it is good, better, best. The principle was known well before the date of manufacture of the calculator. Perhaps it was a parallel development, he asks mockingly. When I returned to the program supplier, to have the navigation and surveying programs re-installed several years later, he told me they had sold two copies of Place Power, although copying, pirating was a common activity back then, especially for HP model 41 schemes and programs. I still have mine, giant robust device that it is, it feels like you could open bottle tops with it, hammer nails, and a child has had it as a cot toy, although this was not planned, honestly, it has no taste, no flavour. It has a heft which is comforting, and it fires up instantaneously, still does. If a runner had 14% of the win pool and 12%, or 11% of the place or some figure less, this would ear mark itself as a runner to do further research, especially if these differences occurred later in the betting, less than 100 seconds say. It is assumed that all the money is in the pool then, bettors with known information, bettors with private information, all ups, and later money, after 100 seconds, it is an assumption though, is from bettors, little and large, private and corporate, betting into a niche now revealed. Who knows this? The runner information, the dividend clauses, is similar to test done by several persons in several way (days since last start, form, last start finish position etc), and further, the runner to be supported must be 1.2 times less than the win dividend per centage holding, found by dividing the place percent dividend holding into the win dividend place holding. Starting with Randwick R1 yesterday - selections were scored from after the race data, the final dividends. The win dividend % holding was 10.1, the place dividend % holding was 8.5, 10.1/8.5 = 1.18 (it was 1.3 when the decision to select was made) result 2nd $2.6. Race 2 1.53 3rd $1.60 Race 3 1.6 2nd $2.3 - the system selected 1st,2nd and 3rd Race 4 1.22 1st $2.4 Race 5 1st 1.7 $2.9 Race 6 1st 1.47 $1.8, the system selected 2nd also Race 7 1st 2.36 $1.04 -this was Winx Race 8 3rd 1.22 $1.7 Race 9 2nd 1.19 (it was 1.4 when selected) $3.7 -there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v1 Race 10 1st 1.41 $2.4 - there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v2 It selected a winner, a dividend, in every race bar the 1st at Caulfield - it made no selection in this race. I did 33 races, on a spreadsheet program (Smartbet v2.05), and it selected a dividend in all of them. Too good to be true? Summary: Compare the win dividend with the place dividend - there are several ways. If the win dividend appears oversubscribed, determine if the place dividend is a value bet now, $W/$P and if the runner has other attributes (decided by you) consider it for a bet. This last clause is necessary to reduce qualifiers, there can be 3 or so, depending on the betting volatility, and is suggested in the book with the program. Winx was a selection. She had a dividend score of 2.36 (Win divided by place) and other winning attributes. Cheers Tony Virus-free. www.avg.com --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robbie at robwaterhouse.com Tue Apr 17 14:50:47 2018 From: robbie at robwaterhouse.com (Rob Waterhouse) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 14:50:47 +1000 Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system In-Reply-To: <000001d3d603$83c184a0$8b448de0$@bigpond.com> References: <000001d3d462$2747b250$75d716f0$@bigpond.com> <001a01d3d582$6cbf56a0$463e03e0$@ozemail.com.au> <000001d3d603$83c184a0$8b448de0$@bigpond.com> Message-ID: <019201d3d607$a6cf3970$f46dac50$@robwaterhouse.com> The place (1-2) and show (1-2-3) calculations are, I think, different in the US. Simply put, they exclude successful investments, divide the pool into 2 or 3, add the investment and pay out Simply put, we divide the whole pool into 2 or 3 and pay out. Therefore there is a big difference, in the US, to the dividend if share with long or short priced horses. From: Racing On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Tuesday, 17 April 2018 2:21 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Len - thanks I did not intend to discombobulate, flummox even - the system instruction is to use those runners with the ratio of 1.2 or better and then I went with 1.12 or similar. The idea was good, the execution not so. No, I did not sit a shift at the keyboard watching these, I did watch a couple of closing minutes for a few races, betting off my own ratings of course so I saw the trending for those I observed (to state the obvious) - if you must know I spent most of the day sieving compost - and listening to an album by Hem. (For broad beans Northerly, yes, I wore a mask.) The 'Dr Z System' focuses on discrepancies between betting patterns in the win pool and the place pool (being American it has an element of the show pool included) This system is involved, if you follow it to the letter, but again its object is to identify those runners under bet in the place pool, relative to their pool portion in the win pool. Another variation, continuation, or some such of 'Place Power' -see Beat the Racetrack and Betting at the Racetrack (Ziemba and Hausch) two books full of algebra. I don't want to seem to be disparaging about algebraic maths, finding a winner is complicated enough, without finding a value for C, when A and B are minute numbers, and those with another letter in them. Ok, I'm disparaging, deriding, but only because I don't understand. Cheers Tony From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 8:57 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Tony, I calculated Winx on final Vic TAB which I see you used, and got 2.37, so that matched, but had differences with others (eg R2, Renewal I got 1.02). Not to matter, I calculated 33,000 races (360,000 runners), minimum starters 8, no late scratchings, using Tatts Final Dividends, mainly to be 100% sure that what I "knew" held up. It did - the average ratios when Final Win Dividend: <2.0, 2.12 2.0 & <5.0 1.35 5.0 & <10.0 0.95 10.0 & <25.0 0.74 25.0 & <50.0 0.63 >=50.0 0.55 Cheers, LBL From: Racing > On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Sunday, 15 April 2018 12:34 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system There was a time when electronic devices, communication articles the signs said, were banned on course. Computers, calculators, mobile phone bricks, anything interpreted as a communication article, you had to take them off course, you had to leave and take the devils tools with you. There were signs about this, at the entrances - no phones basically Place Power was a software package, chosen for installation on Canon calculators, with programs for specific HP, TI and other brands of the time - these were programmable calculators with minimal RAM and the program in the ROM and so scientific. I had an upmarket Texas Instrument (I worked for an affiliate of theirs for some years) which was hard on battery power but had a proper sized keyboard. It was a brilliant piece of hardware for the time, blue and black, with a large screen, and of a size that was a boast, a display of knowledge that perhaps you didn't have but the device might. It came with a holster, to complete the manliness aspect, or, a vest with a sizeable elasticised pocket for it to be warmed and comforted by contact. That vest was unlikely to be worn on course I suggest. There was a pen, a plastic rod, that you used to select the keys, they had a moulded hole in their centre to accept the point, this was to prevent moisture, sweat then, from contacting the facia, where the keys were. They were sealed against Resch Pilsner, I tested that aspect. No, I never used it in the bath, or shower. It is military grade, volo 7, and meant for the Moon and Mars and beyond, truly. You purchased the calculator wherever you could get the best deal, then you sent it to Place Power who loaded up the program, they said it was specific to each brand, each model. It came back to you in the mail, wrapped in that bubble wrap stuff, kids love it, and you went ahead with making your fortune. My program had a lot of other data with it, statistics for barriers, TAB numbers, parlay programs, all up programs, about 30 data cases in all (34 actually). There is a downside to all this scientific magnificence, this being when they purged the ROM to install their program, they wiped the surveying program and the navigation program. It was expensive, the program, the purchase of the calculator, the time element. It can be torture, in the seconds before race starting time, keying in the data elements, hitting RUN, and waiting for the BASIC program to enliven the screen with the data you need, needed. The technique, perhaps, was to enter all the data with 10 minutes to start time, run it, then update only those runners which were sorted to the top of the list. The day-ta or da-ta, it was spelt that way in the book, 230 pages of an advertisement for the program, was the win and place dividends. The program displayed these as % values of the whole dividend field, the book %, then reduced this to a 100% market, for win divs. It did the same for place, the 300% market was reduced to 100%. The win dividend win % and the place dividend % were compared with stored data and if there was a variation, more money on the win side, or more money on the place side, or even over the whole bet then the calculator did its thing and informed you and made a betting suggestion, just off this. The runner(s) to be supported were those which had less % in the place line than in the win line. The instruction was that more money had been bet, for the win, than for the place, this shows confidence, this is information not available to anybody (else - except system users). The method, the rationale of all of this is investigated several times in academic texts. The data revealed is used by several authors, who take the first findings forward in an endeavour to correctly isolate a runner with the best credentials, off investment input. The writings are heavy on algebra, mystic like, with assertions that .0062 is marvellous whilst .0053 is not, useless. A starting point might be Peter Asch and Richard E Quandt 'Racetrack Betting' or/and 'Market Efficiency in Racetrack Betting'. Google for more, heaps, to be non-scientific about it at all. The endeavours of them all in attempting to straighten the line, the arrow that points to a dividend, is appreciated. Them and their regression analysis equations, god bless 'em. The process in the program is described in detail in Asch and Quandt (1986) page 117 onwards, although it, the process, is not given ownership to anybody in the expansive book that comes with the program. It just is, with flowery adjectives describing how it is good, better, best. The principle was known well before the date of manufacture of the calculator. Perhaps it was a parallel development, he asks mockingly. When I returned to the program supplier, to have the navigation and surveying programs re-installed several years later, he told me they had sold two copies of Place Power, although copying, pirating was a common activity back then, especially for HP model 41 schemes and programs. I still have mine, giant robust device that it is, it feels like you could open bottle tops with it, hammer nails, and a child has had it as a cot toy, although this was not planned, honestly, it has no taste, no flavour. It has a heft which is comforting, and it fires up instantaneously, still does. If a runner had 14% of the win pool and 12%, or 11% of the place or some figure less, this would ear mark itself as a runner to do further research, especially if these differences occurred later in the betting, less than 100 seconds say. It is assumed that all the money is in the pool then, bettors with known information, bettors with private information, all ups, and later money, after 100 seconds, it is an assumption though, is from bettors, little and large, private and corporate, betting into a niche now revealed. Who knows this? The runner information, the dividend clauses, is similar to test done by several persons in several way (days since last start, form, last start finish position etc), and further, the runner to be supported must be 1.2 times less than the win dividend per centage holding, found by dividing the place percent dividend holding into the win dividend place holding. Starting with Randwick R1 yesterday - selections were scored from after the race data, the final dividends. The win dividend % holding was 10.1, the place dividend % holding was 8.5, 10.1/8.5 = 1.18 (it was 1.3 when the decision to select was made) result 2nd $2.6. Race 2 1.53 3rd $1.60 Race 3 1.6 2nd $2.3 - the system selected 1st,2nd and 3rd Race 4 1.22 1st $2.4 Race 5 1st 1.7 $2.9 Race 6 1st 1.47 $1.8, the system selected 2nd also Race 7 1st 2.36 $1.04 -this was Winx Race 8 3rd 1.22 $1.7 Race 9 2nd 1.19 (it was 1.4 when selected) $3.7 -there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v1 Race 10 1st 1.41 $2.4 - there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v2 It selected a winner, a dividend, in every race bar the 1st at Caulfield - it made no selection in this race. I did 33 races, on a spreadsheet program (Smartbet v2.05), and it selected a dividend in all of them. Too good to be true? Summary: Compare the win dividend with the place dividend - there are several ways. If the win dividend appears oversubscribed, determine if the place dividend is a value bet now, $W/$P and if the runner has other attributes (decided by you) consider it for a bet. This last clause is necessary to reduce qualifiers, there can be 3 or so, depending on the betting volatility, and is suggested in the book with the program. Winx was a selection. She had a dividend score of 2.36 (Win divided by place) and other winning attributes. Cheers Tony Virus-free. www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Wed Apr 18 14:18:57 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 14:18:57 +1000 Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system In-Reply-To: <000001d3d603$83c184a0$8b448de0$@bigpond.com> References: <000001d3d462$2747b250$75d716f0$@bigpond.com> <001a01d3d582$6cbf56a0$463e03e0$@ozemail.com.au> <000001d3d603$83c184a0$8b448de0$@bigpond.com> Message-ID: <001b01d3d6cc$615e9fa0$241bdee0$@ozemail.com.au> Tony, The apparent imbalance between %age of win pools and place pools is somewhat a reflection of reality. I first saw a "mathematical" calculation of one-race exotic odds based on win odds in Scott's book - I don't know whether he devised the formulae, or got them from another's work, but I instinctively knew they were flawed, and my better calculations held me in good stead for many years. But I can't beat 20% take-out by enough to bother. To explain via a straightforward example of the simplest one-race exotic to calculate - the Exacta. Let's say we have calculated a 100% win market, (or SP adjusted to 100%): 1/1, 5/1, 10/1, 10/1, 20/1, 20/1, 20/1, 100/1 (=100.124298%) Let's say the 100/1 shot wins Scott then says you have a "race" between the other 7 for second, so ignoring the 0.990099% reduction to 99.1432%, Scott says the 1/1 is still 1/1 and the 5/1 shot still 5/1 etc. It just isn't so. 47% from my very large sample that start at 1/1 win (SP market, not adjusted to 100%), whereas only 38% of those that do not win come second, viz "win" the race for second, whereas it should be around the same 47% if 100/1 shots won the races the 1/1 shot lost, even higher in practise - eg in the above race, say the 5/1 shot wins, Scott takes the 17% of the 5/1 shot from 100%, giving 83% and says the chances of the 1/1 shot coming second having not won is 50/83 = 7/10, but they come second nothing like that often. I'm a mere statistician by training and practise, and seldom watch races, let alone base my ratings on what I have seen, but my explanation is that whatever prevented them from winning often also prevented them from coming second (eg interference, missing the start, being poorly ridden, sea gulls, being a stallion when a mare comes on heat..). At the other end, the opposite applies - a 100/1 shot is 2.5 times as likely to run second having lost, as it is to win, while a 10/1 chance is 1.43 times as likely to run second having lost as it is to win. LBL From: Racing On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Tuesday, 17 April 2018 2:21 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Len - thanks I did not intend to discombobulate, flummox even - the system instruction is to use those runners with the ratio of 1.2 or better and then I went with 1.12 or similar. The idea was good, the execution not so. No, I did not sit a shift at the keyboard watching these, I did watch a couple of closing minutes for a few races, betting off my own ratings of course so I saw the trending for those I observed (to state the obvious) - if you must know I spent most of the day sieving compost - and listening to an album by Hem. (For broad beans Northerly, yes, I wore a mask.) The 'Dr Z System' focuses on discrepancies between betting patterns in the win pool and the place pool (being American it has an element of the show pool included) This system is involved, if you follow it to the letter, but again its object is to identify those runners under bet in the place pool, relative to their pool portion in the win pool. Another variation, continuation, or some such of 'Place Power' -see Beat the Racetrack and Betting at the Racetrack (Ziemba and Hausch) two books full of algebra. I don't want to seem to be disparaging about algebraic maths, finding a winner is complicated enough, without finding a value for C, when A and B are minute numbers, and those with another letter in them. Ok, I'm disparaging, deriding, but only because I don't understand. Cheers Tony From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 8:57 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Tony, I calculated Winx on final Vic TAB which I see you used, and got 2.37, so that matched, but had differences with others (eg R2, Renewal I got 1.02). Not to matter, I calculated 33,000 races (360,000 runners), minimum starters 8, no late scratchings, using Tatts Final Dividends, mainly to be 100% sure that what I "knew" held up. It did - the average ratios when Final Win Dividend: <2.0, 2.12 2.0 & <5.0 1.35 5.0 & <10.0 0.95 10.0 & <25.0 0.74 25.0 & <50.0 0.63 >=50.0 0.55 Cheers, LBL From: Racing > On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Sunday, 15 April 2018 12:34 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system There was a time when electronic devices, communication articles the signs said, were banned on course. Computers, calculators, mobile phone bricks, anything interpreted as a communication article, you had to take them off course, you had to leave and take the devils tools with you. There were signs about this, at the entrances - no phones basically Place Power was a software package, chosen for installation on Canon calculators, with programs for specific HP, TI and other brands of the time - these were programmable calculators with minimal RAM and the program in the ROM and so scientific. I had an upmarket Texas Instrument (I worked for an affiliate of theirs for some years) which was hard on battery power but had a proper sized keyboard. It was a brilliant piece of hardware for the time, blue and black, with a large screen, and of a size that was a boast, a display of knowledge that perhaps you didn't have but the device might. It came with a holster, to complete the manliness aspect, or, a vest with a sizeable elasticised pocket for it to be warmed and comforted by contact. That vest was unlikely to be worn on course I suggest. There was a pen, a plastic rod, that you used to select the keys, they had a moulded hole in their centre to accept the point, this was to prevent moisture, sweat then, from contacting the facia, where the keys were. They were sealed against Resch Pilsner, I tested that aspect. No, I never used it in the bath, or shower. It is military grade, volo 7, and meant for the Moon and Mars and beyond, truly. You purchased the calculator wherever you could get the best deal, then you sent it to Place Power who loaded up the program, they said it was specific to each brand, each model. It came back to you in the mail, wrapped in that bubble wrap stuff, kids love it, and you went ahead with making your fortune. My program had a lot of other data with it, statistics for barriers, TAB numbers, parlay programs, all up programs, about 30 data cases in all (34 actually). There is a downside to all this scientific magnificence, this being when they purged the ROM to install their program, they wiped the surveying program and the navigation program. It was expensive, the program, the purchase of the calculator, the time element. It can be torture, in the seconds before race starting time, keying in the data elements, hitting RUN, and waiting for the BASIC program to enliven the screen with the data you need, needed. The technique, perhaps, was to enter all the data with 10 minutes to start time, run it, then update only those runners which were sorted to the top of the list. The day-ta or da-ta, it was spelt that way in the book, 230 pages of an advertisement for the program, was the win and place dividends. The program displayed these as % values of the whole dividend field, the book %, then reduced this to a 100% market, for win divs. It did the same for place, the 300% market was reduced to 100%. The win dividend win % and the place dividend % were compared with stored data and if there was a variation, more money on the win side, or more money on the place side, or even over the whole bet then the calculator did its thing and informed you and made a betting suggestion, just off this. The runner(s) to be supported were those which had less % in the place line than in the win line. The instruction was that more money had been bet, for the win, than for the place, this shows confidence, this is information not available to anybody (else - except system users). The method, the rationale of all of this is investigated several times in academic texts. The data revealed is used by several authors, who take the first findings forward in an endeavour to correctly isolate a runner with the best credentials, off investment input. The writings are heavy on algebra, mystic like, with assertions that .0062 is marvellous whilst .0053 is not, useless. A starting point might be Peter Asch and Richard E Quandt 'Racetrack Betting' or/and 'Market Efficiency in Racetrack Betting'. Google for more, heaps, to be non-scientific about it at all. The endeavours of them all in attempting to straighten the line, the arrow that points to a dividend, is appreciated. Them and their regression analysis equations, god bless 'em. The process in the program is described in detail in Asch and Quandt (1986) page 117 onwards, although it, the process, is not given ownership to anybody in the expansive book that comes with the program. It just is, with flowery adjectives describing how it is good, better, best. The principle was known well before the date of manufacture of the calculator. Perhaps it was a parallel development, he asks mockingly. When I returned to the program supplier, to have the navigation and surveying programs re-installed several years later, he told me they had sold two copies of Place Power, although copying, pirating was a common activity back then, especially for HP model 41 schemes and programs. I still have mine, giant robust device that it is, it feels like you could open bottle tops with it, hammer nails, and a child has had it as a cot toy, although this was not planned, honestly, it has no taste, no flavour. It has a heft which is comforting, and it fires up instantaneously, still does. If a runner had 14% of the win pool and 12%, or 11% of the place or some figure less, this would ear mark itself as a runner to do further research, especially if these differences occurred later in the betting, less than 100 seconds say. It is assumed that all the money is in the pool then, bettors with known information, bettors with private information, all ups, and later money, after 100 seconds, it is an assumption though, is from bettors, little and large, private and corporate, betting into a niche now revealed. Who knows this? The runner information, the dividend clauses, is similar to test done by several persons in several way (days since last start, form, last start finish position etc), and further, the runner to be supported must be 1.2 times less than the win dividend per centage holding, found by dividing the place percent dividend holding into the win dividend place holding. Starting with Randwick R1 yesterday - selections were scored from after the race data, the final dividends. The win dividend % holding was 10.1, the place dividend % holding was 8.5, 10.1/8.5 = 1.18 (it was 1.3 when the decision to select was made) result 2nd $2.6. Race 2 1.53 3rd $1.60 Race 3 1.6 2nd $2.3 - the system selected 1st,2nd and 3rd Race 4 1.22 1st $2.4 Race 5 1st 1.7 $2.9 Race 6 1st 1.47 $1.8, the system selected 2nd also Race 7 1st 2.36 $1.04 -this was Winx Race 8 3rd 1.22 $1.7 Race 9 2nd 1.19 (it was 1.4 when selected) $3.7 -there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v1 Race 10 1st 1.41 $2.4 - there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v2 It selected a winner, a dividend, in every race bar the 1st at Caulfield - it made no selection in this race. I did 33 races, on a spreadsheet program (Smartbet v2.05), and it selected a dividend in all of them. Too good to be true? Summary: Compare the win dividend with the place dividend - there are several ways. If the win dividend appears oversubscribed, determine if the place dividend is a value bet now, $W/$P and if the runner has other attributes (decided by you) consider it for a bet. This last clause is necessary to reduce qualifiers, there can be 3 or so, depending on the betting volatility, and is suggested in the book with the program. Winx was a selection. She had a dividend score of 2.36 (Win divided by place) and other winning attributes. Cheers Tony Virus-free. www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tonymoffat at bigpond.com Thu Apr 19 13:58:00 2018 From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:58:00 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system In-Reply-To: <001b01d3d6cc$615e9fa0$241bdee0$@ozemail.com.au> References: <000001d3d462$2747b250$75d716f0$@bigpond.com> <001a01d3d582$6cbf56a0$463e03e0$@ozemail.com.au> <000001d3d603$83c184a0$8b448de0$@bigpond.com> <001b01d3d6cc$615e9fa0$241bdee0$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <000001d3d792$9cf89450$d6e9bcf0$@bigpond.com> Len ? Dr Dedman gave the formula for calculating a fair place price against the price of the favoured horse (which includes the favourite) Dedman wrote Commonsense Punting and the newer Commonsense Punting Revisited ? more sums with letters and numbers. His equation determines the price of a horse running second as ? second horse price (this is the price you entered in the equation) * the favourite horse price ? 1. so (s*(fp-1)) Eloquent isn?t it? So, in an equation involving $2.5(f) and $4(s) it sees the $4(s) winning at a calculated price of $4 ? as if the (F) $2.5 did not exist. Continuing: the results of further calculations using the inputs mentioned (2.5 as F &4.00 as S) S wins $4 ? this is the exacta with these runners also. F wins, S second $6 Any other horse(an outsider) wins, S second $10.8 F wins, S third $9.3 F second, S third $ 14.6 S third, F unplaced $ 32.6 The sum of these is the fair place price for S (0.25+0.166667+0.09292+0.107693+0.068618+0.030681) Totals 71.66% = $1.40 ? this is the calculated place price for 1st or 2nd or third. Thank you to Sean (an Ausracer) for paring it back to referential reasoning (in my case at least). I have 10 (ten) of these equations working for me each race. 1st and 2nd, 3rd,4th, 5th fav 2nd and 3rd,4th , 5th 3rd and 4th, 5th 4th and 5th. I want to look and see if there is any obvious overs ? well I did, I went back to sensible punting and losing (with the occasional windfall) quick smart. The equation chokes on big numbers, the relevance seems to go when you force it to compute unrealistic combinations eg your $101 winner with a few other lesser prices (as S) S=$4 ? calculated place price $1.60 when old school ? gives you $1.75 S=$5 ? calculated place price $1.80 S=$6 ? calculated place price $ 2.10 I mentioned old school 1/4 there ? you take your win return, minus 1, divide this by 4, then add one. So $4 goes (($4-1)/4)+1) I tend to rank the quinella dividends, all of them, then highlight the top 10 and speedbet those if they exceed/comply with another rule ? this is how I grow my bank now. Often a $2 quinella will exceed an exacta dividend (often by a lot) ? it $2 because I reverse the exacta too, 1 and two, two and 1 as a demonstration. Cheers ? raining here, so wet Saturday in Mel-bourne Tony From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 12:19 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Tony, The apparent imbalance between %age of win pools and place pools is somewhat a reflection of reality. I first saw a "mathematical" calculation of one-race exotic odds based on win odds in Scott's book - I don't know whether he devised the formulae, or got them from another's work, but I instinctively knew they were flawed, and my better calculations held me in good stead for many years. But I can't beat 20% take-out by enough to bother. To explain via a straightforward example of the simplest one-race exotic to calculate - the Exacta. Let's say we have calculated a 100% win market, (or SP adjusted to 100%): 1/1, 5/1, 10/1, 10/1, 20/1, 20/1, 20/1, 100/1 (=100.124298%) Let's say the 100/1 shot wins Scott then says you have a "race" between the other 7 for second, so ignoring the 0.990099% reduction to 99.1432%, Scott says the 1/1 is still 1/1 and the 5/1 shot still 5/1 etc. It just isn't so. 47% from my very large sample that start at 1/1 win (SP market, not adjusted to 100%), whereas only 38% of those that do not win come second, viz "win" the race for second, whereas it should be around the same 47% if 100/1 shots won the races the 1/1 shot lost, even higher in practise - eg in the above race, say the 5/1 shot wins, Scott takes the 17% of the 5/1 shot from 100%, giving 83% and says the chances of the 1/1 shot coming second having not won is 50/83 = 7/10, but they come second nothing like that often. I'm a mere statistician by training and practise, and seldom watch races, let alone base my ratings on what I have seen, but my explanation is that whatever prevented them from winning often also prevented them from coming second (eg interference, missing the start, being poorly ridden, sea gulls, being a stallion when a mare comes on heat .). At the other end, the opposite applies - a 100/1 shot is 2.5 times as likely to run second having lost, as it is to win, while a 10/1 chance is 1.43 times as likely to run second having lost as it is to win. LBL From: Racing > On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Tuesday, 17 April 2018 2:21 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Len ? thanks I did not intend to discombobulate, flummox even ? the system instruction is to use those runners with the ratio of 1.2 or better and then I went with 1.12 or similar. The idea was good, the execution not so. No, I did not sit a shift at the keyboard watching these, I did watch a couple of closing minutes for a few races, betting off my own ratings of course so I saw the trending for those I observed (to state the obvious) ? if you must know I spent most of the day sieving compost - and listening to an album by Hem. (For broad beans Northerly, yes, I wore a mask.) The ?Dr Z System? focuses on discrepancies between betting patterns in the win pool and the place pool (being American it has an element of the show pool included) This system is involved, if you follow it to the letter, but again its object is to identify those runners under bet in the place pool, relative to their pool portion in the win pool. Another variation, continuation, or some such of ?Place Power? ?see Beat the Racetrack and Betting at the Racetrack (Ziemba and Hausch) two books full of algebra. I don?t want to seem to be disparaging about algebraic maths, finding a winner is complicated enough, without finding a value for C, when A and B are minute numbers, and those with another letter in them. Ok, I?m disparaging, deriding, but only because I don?t understand. Cheers Tony From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 8:57 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Tony, I calculated Winx on final Vic TAB which I see you used, and got 2.37, so that matched, but had differences with others (eg R2, Renewal I got 1.02). Not to matter, I calculated 33,000 races (360,000 runners), minimum starters 8, no late scratchings, using Tatts Final Dividends, mainly to be 100% sure that what I "knew" held up. It did - the average ratios when Final Win Dividend: <2.0, 2.12 2.0 & <5.0 1.35 5.0 & <10.0 0.95 10.0 & <25.0 0.74 25.0 & <50.0 0.63 >=50.0 0.55 Cheers, LBL From: Racing > On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Sunday, 15 April 2018 12:34 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system There was a time when electronic devices, communication articles the signs said, were banned on course. Computers, calculators, mobile phone bricks, anything interpreted as a communication article, you had to take them off course, you had to leave and take the devils tools with you. There were signs about this, at the entrances ? no phones basically Place Power was a software package, chosen for installation on Canon calculators, with programs for specific HP, TI and other brands of the time ? these were programmable calculators with minimal RAM and the program in the ROM and so scientific. I had an upmarket Texas Instrument (I worked for an affiliate of theirs for some years) which was hard on battery power but had a proper sized keyboard. It was a brilliant piece of hardware for the time, blue and black, with a large screen, and of a size that was a boast, a display of knowledge that perhaps you didn?t have but the device might. It came with a holster, to complete the manliness aspect, or, a vest with a sizeable elasticised pocket for it to be warmed and comforted by contact. That vest was unlikely to be worn on course I suggest. There was a pen, a plastic rod, that you used to select the keys, they had a moulded hole in their centre to accept the point, this was to prevent moisture, sweat then, from contacting the facia, where the keys were. They were sealed against Resch Pilsner, I tested that aspect. No, I never used it in the bath, or shower. It is military grade, volo 7, and meant for the Moon and Mars and beyond, truly. You purchased the calculator wherever you could get the best deal, then you sent it to Place Power who loaded up the program, they said it was specific to each brand, each model. It came back to you in the mail, wrapped in that bubble wrap stuff, kids love it, and you went ahead with making your fortune. My program had a lot of other data with it, statistics for barriers, TAB numbers, parlay programs, all up programs, about 30 data cases in all (34 actually). There is a downside to all this scientific magnificence, this being when they purged the ROM to install their program, they wiped the surveying program and the navigation program. It was expensive, the program, the purchase of the calculator, the time element. It can be torture, in the seconds before race starting time, keying in the data elements, hitting RUN, and waiting for the BASIC program to enliven the screen with the data you need, needed. The technique, perhaps, was to enter all the data with 10 minutes to start time, run it, then update only those runners which were sorted to the top of the list. The day-ta or da-ta, it was spelt that way in the book, 230 pages of an advertisement for the program, was the win and place dividends. The program displayed these as % values of the whole dividend field, the book %, then reduced this to a 100% market, for win divs. It did the same for place, the 300% market was reduced to 100%. The win dividend win % and the place dividend % were compared with stored data and if there was a variation, more money on the win side, or more money on the place side, or even over the whole bet then the calculator did its thing and informed you and made a betting suggestion, just off this. The runner(s) to be supported were those which had less % in the place line than in the win line. The instruction was that more money had been bet, for the win, than for the place, this shows confidence, this is information not available to anybody (else ? except system users). The method, the rationale of all of this is investigated several times in academic texts. The data revealed is used by several authors, who take the first findings forward in an endeavour to correctly isolate a runner with the best credentials, off investment input. The writings are heavy on algebra, mystic like, with assertions that .0062 is marvellous whilst .0053 is not, useless. A starting point might be Peter Asch and Richard E Quandt ?Racetrack Betting? or/and ?Market Efficiency in Racetrack Betting?. Google for more, heaps, to be non-scientific about it at all. The endeavours of them all in attempting to straighten the line, the arrow that points to a dividend, is appreciated. Them and their regression analysis equations, god bless ?em. The process in the program is described in detail in Asch and Quandt (1986) page 117 onwards, although it, the process, is not given ownership to anybody in the expansive book that comes with the program. It just is, with flowery adjectives describing how it is good, better, best. The principle was known well before the date of manufacture of the calculator. Perhaps it was a parallel development, he asks mockingly. When I returned to the program supplier, to have the navigation and surveying programs re-installed several years later, he told me they had sold two copies of Place Power, although copying, pirating was a common activity back then, especially for HP model 41 schemes and programs. I still have mine, giant robust device that it is, it feels like you could open bottle tops with it, hammer nails, and a child has had it as a cot toy, although this was not planned, honestly, it has no taste, no flavour. It has a heft which is comforting, and it fires up instantaneously, still does. If a runner had 14% of the win pool and 12%, or 11% of the place or some figure less, this would ear mark itself as a runner to do further research, especially if these differences occurred later in the betting, less than 100 seconds say. It is assumed that all the money is in the pool then, bettors with known information, bettors with private information, all ups, and later money, after 100 seconds, it is an assumption though, is from bettors, little and large, private and corporate, betting into a niche now revealed. Who knows this? The runner information, the dividend clauses, is similar to test done by several persons in several way (days since last start, form, last start finish position etc), and further, the runner to be supported must be 1.2 times less than the win dividend per centage holding, found by dividing the place percent dividend holding into the win dividend place holding. Starting with Randwick R1 yesterday ? selections were scored from after the race data, the final dividends. The win dividend % holding was 10.1, the place dividend % holding was 8.5, 10.1/8.5 = 1.18 (it was 1.3 when the decision to select was made) result 2nd $2.6. Race 2 1.53 3rd $1.60 Race 3 1.6 2nd $2.3 ? the system selected 1st,2nd and 3rd Race 4 1.22 1st $2.4 Race 5 1st 1.7 $2.9 Race 6 1st 1.47 $1.8, the system selected 2nd also Race 7 1st 2.36 $1.04 ?this was Winx Race 8 3rd 1.22 $1.7 Race 9 2nd 1.19 (it was 1.4 when selected) $3.7 ?there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v1 Race 10 1st 1.41 $2.4 ? there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v2 It selected a winner, a dividend, in every race bar the 1st at Caulfield ? it made no selection in this race. I did 33 races, on a spreadsheet program (Smartbet v2.05), and it selected a dividend in all of them. Too good to be true? Summary: Compare the win dividend with the place dividend ? there are several ways. If the win dividend appears oversubscribed, determine if the place dividend is a value bet now, $W/$P and if the runner has other attributes (decided by you) consider it for a bet. This last clause is necessary to reduce qualifiers, there can be 3 or so, depending on the betting volatility, and is suggested in the book with the program. Winx was a selection. She had a dividend score of 2.36 (Win divided by place) and other winning attributes. Cheers Tony Virus-free. www.avg.com --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From norsaintpublishing at gmail.com Thu Apr 19 15:02:59 2018 From: norsaintpublishing at gmail.com (norsaintpublishing at gmail.com) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 15:02:59 +1000 Subject: [AusRace] Racing Digest, Vol 16, Issue 9 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Tone, I was about to ask. Sent with Mailtrack On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:58 PM, wrote: > Send Racing mailing list submissions to > racing at ausrace.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > racing-request at ausrace.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > racing-owner at ausrace.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Racing digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Place Power - a system (Tony Moffat) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:58:00 +0800 > From: "Tony Moffat" > To: > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system > Message-ID: <000001d3d792$9cf89450$d6e9bcf0$@bigpond.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Len ? > > > > Dr Dedman gave the formula for calculating a fair place price against > the price of the favoured horse (which includes the favourite) > > > > Dedman wrote Commonsense Punting and the newer Commonsense Punting > Revisited ? more sums with letters and numbers. > > > > His equation determines the price of a horse running second as ? > second horse price (this is the price you entered in the equation) * > the favourite horse price ? 1. > > so (s*(fp-1)) > > Eloquent isn?t it? > > > > So, in an equation involving $2.5(f) and $4(s) it sees the $4(s) > winning at a calculated price of $4 ? as if the (F) $2.5 did not > exist. > > Continuing: the results of further calculations using the inputs > mentioned (2.5 as F &4.00 as S) > > S wins $4 ? this is the exacta with these runners also. > > F wins, S second $6 > > Any other horse(an outsider) wins, S second $10.8 > > F wins, S third $9.3 > > F second, S third $ 14.6 > > S third, F unplaced $ 32.6 > > > > The sum of these is the fair place price for S > (0.25+0.166667+0.09292+0.107693+0.068618+0.030681) > > Totals 71.66% = $1.40 ? this is the calculated place price for 1st or > 2nd or third. > > > > Thank you to Sean (an Ausracer) for paring it back to referential > reasoning (in my case at least). > > > > I have 10 (ten) of these equations working for me each race. 1st and > 2nd, 3rd,4th, 5th fav > > 2nd and 3rd,4th , 5th > > 3rd and 4th, 5th > > 4th and 5th. > > I want to look and see if there is any obvious overs ? well I did, I > went back to sensible punting and losing (with the occasional > windfall) quick smart. > > > > The equation chokes on big numbers, the relevance seems to go when you > force it to compute unrealistic combinations eg your $101 winner with > a few other lesser prices (as S) > > S=$4 ? calculated place price $1.60 when old school ? gives you $1.75 > > S=$5 ? calculated place price $1.80 > > S=$6 ? calculated place price $ 2.10 > > > > I mentioned old school 1/4 there ? you take your win return, minus 1, > divide this by 4, then add one. So $4 goes (($4-1)/4)+1) > > > > I tend to rank the quinella dividends, all of them, then highlight the > top 10 and speedbet those if they exceed/comply with another rule ? > this is how I grow my bank now. > > Often a $2 quinella will exceed an exacta dividend (often by a lot) ? > it $2 because I reverse the exacta too, 1 and two, two and 1 as a > demonstration. > > > > Cheers ? raining here, so wet Saturday in Mel-bourne > > > > Tony > > > > From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of > L.B.Loveday > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 12:19 PM > To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system > > > > Tony, > > > > The apparent imbalance between %age of win pools and place pools is > somewhat a reflection of reality. > > > > I first saw a "mathematical" calculation of one-race exotic odds based > on win odds in Scott's book - I don't know whether he devised the > formulae, or got them from another's work, but I instinctively knew > they were flawed, and my better calculations held me in good stead for > many years. But I can't beat 20% take-out by enough to bother. > > > > To explain via a straightforward example of the simplest one-race > exotic to calculate - the Exacta. > > > > Let's say we have calculated a 100% win market, (or SP adjusted to > 100%): > > 1/1, 5/1, 10/1, 10/1, 20/1, 20/1, 20/1, 100/1 (=100.124298%) > > > > Let's say the 100/1 shot wins > > > > Scott then says you have a "race" between the other 7 for second, so > ignoring the 0.990099% reduction to 99.1432%, Scott says the 1/1 is > still 1/1 and the 5/1 shot still 5/1 etc. > > > > It just isn't so. 47% from my very large sample that start at 1/1 win > (SP market, not adjusted to 100%), whereas only 38% of those that do > not win come second, viz "win" the race for second, whereas it should > be around the same 47% if 100/1 shots won the races the 1/1 shot lost, > even higher in practise - eg in the above race, say the 5/1 shot wins, > Scott takes the 17% of the 5/1 shot from 100%, giving 83% and says the > chances of the 1/1 shot coming second having not won is 50/83 = 7/10, > but they come second nothing like that often. > > I'm a mere statistician by training and practise, and seldom watch > races, let alone base my ratings on what I have seen, but my > explanation is that whatever prevented them from winning often also > prevented them from coming second (eg interference, missing the start, > being poorly ridden, sea gulls, being a stallion when a mare comes on > heat?.). > > > > At the other end, the opposite applies - a 100/1 shot is 2.5 times as > likely to run second having lost, as it is to win, while a 10/1 chance > is 1.43 times as likely to run second having lost as it is to win. > > > > LBL > > > > > > From: Racing > On Behalf Of Tony Moffat > Sent: Tuesday, 17 April 2018 2:21 PM > To: racing at ausrace.com > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system > > > > Len ? thanks > > > > I did not intend to discombobulate, flummox even ? the system > instruction is to use those runners with the ratio of 1.2 or better > and then I went with 1.12 or similar. > > The idea was good, the execution not so. > > No, I did not sit a shift at the keyboard watching these, I did watch > a couple of closing minutes for a few races, betting off my own > ratings of course > > so I saw the trending for those I observed (to state the obvious) ? if > you must know I spent most of the day sieving compost - and listening > to an album by Hem. > > (For broad beans Northerly, yes, I wore a mask.) > > > > The ?Dr Z System? focuses on discrepancies between betting patterns in > the win pool and the place pool (being American it has an element of > the show pool included) > > This system is involved, if you follow it to the letter, but again its > object is to identify those runners under bet in the place pool, > relative to their pool portion in the win pool. > > Another variation, continuation, or some such of ?Place Power? ?see > Beat the Racetrack and Betting at the Racetrack (Ziemba and Hausch) > two books full of algebra. > > > > I don?t want to seem to be disparaging about algebraic maths, finding > a winner is complicated enough, without finding a value for C, when A > and B are minute numbers, and those with another letter in them. > > Ok, I?m disparaging, deriding, but only because I don?t understand. > > > > Cheers > > > > Tony > > > > > > From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of > L.B.Loveday > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 8:57 PM > To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system > > > > Tony, > > > > I calculated Winx on final Vic TAB which I see you used, and got 2.37, > so that matched, but had differences with others (eg R2, Renewal I got > 1.02). > > > > Not to matter, I calculated 33,000 races (360,000 runners), minimum > starters 8, no late scratchings, using Tatts Final Dividends, mainly > to be 100% sure that what I "knew" held up. > > > > It did - the average ratios when Final Win Dividend: > > > > <2.0, 2.12 > > 2.0 & <5.0 1.35 > > 5.0 & <10.0 0.95 > > 10.0 & <25.0 0.74 > > 25.0 & <50.0 0.63 > > >=50.0 0.55 > > > > Cheers, > > > > LBL > > > > > > > > From: Racing > On Behalf Of Tony Moffat > Sent: Sunday, 15 April 2018 12:34 PM > To: racing at ausrace.com > Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system > > > > There was a time when electronic devices, communication articles the > signs said, were banned on course. Computers, calculators, mobile > phone bricks, anything interpreted as a communication article, you had > to take them off course, you had to leave and take the devils tools > with you. There were signs about this, at the entrances ? no phones > basically > > > > Place Power was a software package, chosen for installation on Canon > calculators, with programs for specific HP, TI and other brands of the > time ? these were programmable calculators with minimal RAM and the > program in the ROM and so scientific. I had an upmarket Texas > Instrument (I worked for an affiliate of theirs for some years) which > was hard on battery power but had a proper sized keyboard. It was a > brilliant piece of hardware for the time, blue and black, with a large > screen, and of a size that was a boast, a display of knowledge that > perhaps you didn?t have but the device might. It came with a holster, > to complete the manliness aspect, or, a vest with a sizeable > elasticised pocket for it to be warmed and comforted by contact. That > vest was unlikely to be worn on course I suggest. There was a pen, a > plastic rod, that you used to select the keys, they had a moulded hole > in their centre to accept the point, this was to prevent moisture, > sweat then, from contacting the facia, where the keys were. They were > sealed against Resch Pilsner, I tested that aspect. No, I never used > it in the bath, or shower. It is military grade, volo 7, and meant for > the Moon and Mars and beyond, truly. > > > > You purchased the calculator wherever you could get the best deal, > then you sent it to Place Power who loaded up the program, they said > it was specific to each brand, each model. It came back to you in the > mail, wrapped in that bubble wrap stuff, kids love it, and you went > ahead with making your fortune. My program had a lot of other data > with it, statistics for barriers, TAB numbers, parlay programs, all up > programs, about 30 data cases in all (34 actually). > > > > There is a downside to all this scientific magnificence, this being > when they purged the ROM to install their program, they wiped the > surveying program and the navigation program. > > > > It was expensive, the program, the purchase of the calculator, the > time element. It can be torture, in the seconds before race starting > time, keying in the data elements, hitting RUN, and waiting for the > BASIC program to enliven the screen with the data you need, needed. > The technique, perhaps, was to enter all the data with 10 minutes to > start time, run it, then update only those runners which were sorted > to the top of the list. > > > > The day-ta or da-ta, it was spelt that way in the book, 230 pages of > an advertisement for the program, was the win and place dividends. The > program displayed these as % values of the whole dividend field, the > book %, then reduced this to a 100% market, for win divs. It did the > same for place, the 300% market was reduced to 100%. The win dividend > win % and the place dividend % were compared with stored data and if > there was a variation, more money on the win side, or more money on > the place side, or even over the whole bet then the calculator did its > thing and informed you and made a betting suggestion, just off this. > > > > The runner(s) to be supported were those which had less % in the place > line than in the win line. The instruction was that more money had > been bet, for the win, than for the place, this shows confidence, this > is information not available to anybody (else ? except system users). > > > > The method, the rationale of all of this is investigated several times > in academic texts. The data revealed is used by several authors, who > take the first findings forward in an endeavour to correctly isolate a > runner with the best credentials, off investment input. The writings > are heavy on algebra, mystic like, with assertions that .0062 is > marvellous whilst .0053 is not, useless. > > A starting point might be Peter Asch and Richard E Quandt ?Racetrack > Betting? or/and ?Market Efficiency in Racetrack Betting?. Google for > more, heaps, to be non-scientific about it at all. > > > > The endeavours of them all in attempting to straighten the line, the > arrow that points to a dividend, is appreciated. Them and their > regression analysis equations, god bless ?em. > > > > The process in the program is described in detail in Asch and Quandt > (1986) page 117 onwards, although it, the process, is not given > ownership to anybody in the expansive book that comes with the > program. It just is, with flowery adjectives describing how it is > good, better, best. The principle was known well before the date of > manufacture of the calculator. Perhaps it was a parallel development, > he asks mockingly. > > > > When I returned to the program supplier, to have the navigation and > surveying programs re-installed several years later, he told me they > had sold two copies of Place Power, although copying, pirating was a > common activity back then, especially for HP model 41 schemes and > programs. I still have mine, giant robust device that it is, it feels > like you could open bottle tops with it, hammer nails, and a child has > had it as a cot toy, although this was not planned, honestly, it has > no taste, no flavour. It has a heft which is comforting, and it fires > up instantaneously, still does. > > > > If a runner had 14% of the win pool and 12%, or 11% of the place or > some figure less, this would ear mark itself as a runner to do further > research, especially if these differences occurred later in the > betting, less than 100 seconds say. It is assumed that all the money > is in the pool then, bettors with known information, bettors with > private information, all ups, and later money, after 100 seconds, it > is an assumption though, is from bettors, little and large, private > and corporate, betting into a niche now revealed. Who knows this? > > > > The runner information, the dividend clauses, is similar to test done > by several persons in several way (days since last start, form, last > start finish position etc), and further, the runner to be supported > must be 1.2 times less than the win dividend per centage holding, > found by dividing the place percent dividend holding into the win > dividend place holding. > > > > Starting with Randwick R1 yesterday ? selections were scored from > after the race data, the final dividends. > > The win dividend % holding was 10.1, the place dividend % holding was > 8.5, 10.1/8.5 = 1.18 (it was 1.3 when the decision to select was made) > result 2nd $2.6. > > Race 2 1.53 3rd $1.60 > > Race 3 1.6 2nd $2.3 ? the system selected 1st,2nd and 3rd > > Race 4 1.22 1st $2.4 > > Race 5 1st 1.7 $2.9 > > Race 6 1st 1.47 $1.8, the system selected 2nd also > > Race 7 1st 2.36 $1.04 ?this was Winx > > Race 8 3rd 1.22 $1.7 > > Race 9 2nd 1.19 (it was 1.4 when selected) $3.7 ?there was lots of > electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v1 > > Race 10 1st 1.41 $2.4 ? there was lots of electronic action on this > race, the get out stakes v2 > > > > It selected a winner, a dividend, in every race bar the 1st at > Caulfield ? it made no selection in this race. > > > > I did 33 races, on a spreadsheet program (Smartbet v2.05), and it > selected a dividend in all of them. Too good to be true? > > > > Summary: Compare the win dividend with the place dividend ? there are > several ways. > > If the win dividend appears oversubscribed, determine if the place > dividend is a value bet now, $W/$P and if the runner has other > attributes (decided by you) consider it for a bet. This last clause is > necessary to reduce qualifiers, there can be 3 or so, depending on the > betting volatility, and is suggested in the book with the program. > > > > Winx was a selection. She had a dividend score of 2.36 (Win divided by > place) and other winning attributes. > > > > Cheers > > > > Tony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> > > Virus-free. > tm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avg.com > > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: attachments/20180419/09285a3b/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Racing mailing list > Racing at ausrace.com > http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Racing Digest, Vol 16, Issue 9 > ************************************* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Fri Apr 20 11:27:40 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 11:27:40 +1000 Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system In-Reply-To: <000001d3d792$9cf89450$d6e9bcf0$@bigpond.com> References: <000001d3d462$2747b250$75d716f0$@bigpond.com> <001a01d3d582$6cbf56a0$463e03e0$@ozemail.com.au> <000001d3d603$83c184a0$8b448de0$@bigpond.com> <001b01d3d6cc$615e9fa0$241bdee0$@ozemail.com.au> <000001d3d792$9cf89450$d6e9bcf0$@bigpond.com> Message-ID: <000e01d3d846$c87c5c60$59751520$@ozemail.com.au> Tony, Just amused myself by looking at the Fixed Quinella odds offered by Centrebet. 170% markets! And I thought TAB's 130% markets on F4s was bad. That "surely" means they realise they are incompetent at calculating prices and try to cover themselves by dishing up ridiculous 170% markets, or They figure punters are so na?ve that they will bet into 170% markets. LBL From: Racing On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Thursday, 19 April 2018 1:58 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Len ? Dr Dedman gave the formula for calculating a fair place price against the price of the favoured horse (which includes the favourite) Dedman wrote Commonsense Punting and the newer Commonsense Punting Revisited ? more sums with letters and numbers. His equation determines the price of a horse running second as ? second horse price (this is the price you entered in the equation) * the favourite horse price ? 1. so (s*(fp-1)) Eloquent isn?t it? So, in an equation involving $2.5(f) and $4(s) it sees the $4(s) winning at a calculated price of $4 ? as if the (F) $2.5 did not exist. Continuing: the results of further calculations using the inputs mentioned (2.5 as F &4.00 as S) S wins $4 ? this is the exacta with these runners also. F wins, S second $6 Any other horse(an outsider) wins, S second $10.8 F wins, S third $9.3 F second, S third $ 14.6 S third, F unplaced $ 32.6 The sum of these is the fair place price for S (0.25+0.166667+0.09292+0.107693+0.068618+0.030681) Totals 71.66% = $1.40 ? this is the calculated place price for 1st or 2nd or third. Thank you to Sean (an Ausracer) for paring it back to referential reasoning (in my case at least). I have 10 (ten) of these equations working for me each race. 1st and 2nd, 3rd,4th, 5th fav 2nd and 3rd,4th , 5th 3rd and 4th, 5th 4th and 5th. I want to look and see if there is any obvious overs ? well I did, I went back to sensible punting and losing (with the occasional windfall) quick smart. The equation chokes on big numbers, the relevance seems to go when you force it to compute unrealistic combinations eg your $101 winner with a few other lesser prices (as S) S=$4 ? calculated place price $1.60 when old school ? gives you $1.75 S=$5 ? calculated place price $1.80 S=$6 ? calculated place price $ 2.10 I mentioned old school 1/4 there ? you take your win return, minus 1, divide this by 4, then add one. So $4 goes (($4-1)/4)+1) I tend to rank the quinella dividends, all of them, then highlight the top 10 and speedbet those if they exceed/comply with another rule ? this is how I grow my bank now. Often a $2 quinella will exceed an exacta dividend (often by a lot) ? it $2 because I reverse the exacta too, 1 and two, two and 1 as a demonstration. Cheers ? raining here, so wet Saturday in Mel-bourne Tony From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 12:19 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Tony, The apparent imbalance between %age of win pools and place pools is somewhat a reflection of reality. I first saw a "mathematical" calculation of one-race exotic odds based on win odds in Scott's book - I don't know whether he devised the formulae, or got them from another's work, but I instinctively knew they were flawed, and my better calculations held me in good stead for many years. But I can't beat 20% take-out by enough to bother. To explain via a straightforward example of the simplest one-race exotic to calculate - the Exacta. Let's say we have calculated a 100% win market, (or SP adjusted to 100%): 1/1, 5/1, 10/1, 10/1, 20/1, 20/1, 20/1, 100/1 (=100.124298%) Let's say the 100/1 shot wins Scott then says you have a "race" between the other 7 for second, so ignoring the 0.990099% reduction to 99.1432%, Scott says the 1/1 is still 1/1 and the 5/1 shot still 5/1 etc. It just isn't so. 47% from my very large sample that start at 1/1 win (SP market, not adjusted to 100%), whereas only 38% of those that do not win come second, viz "win" the race for second, whereas it should be around the same 47% if 100/1 shots won the races the 1/1 shot lost, even higher in practise - eg in the above race, say the 5/1 shot wins, Scott takes the 17% of the 5/1 shot from 100%, giving 83% and says the chances of the 1/1 shot coming second having not won is 50/83 = 7/10, but they come second nothing like that often. I'm a mere statistician by training and practise, and seldom watch races, let alone base my ratings on what I have seen, but my explanation is that whatever prevented them from winning often also prevented them from coming second (eg interference, missing the start, being poorly ridden, sea gulls, being a stallion when a mare comes on heat .). At the other end, the opposite applies - a 100/1 shot is 2.5 times as likely to run second having lost, as it is to win, while a 10/1 chance is 1.43 times as likely to run second having lost as it is to win. LBL From: Racing > On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Tuesday, 17 April 2018 2:21 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Len ? thanks I did not intend to discombobulate, flummox even ? the system instruction is to use those runners with the ratio of 1.2 or better and then I went with 1.12 or similar. The idea was good, the execution not so. No, I did not sit a shift at the keyboard watching these, I did watch a couple of closing minutes for a few races, betting off my own ratings of course so I saw the trending for those I observed (to state the obvious) ? if you must know I spent most of the day sieving compost - and listening to an album by Hem. (For broad beans Northerly, yes, I wore a mask.) The ?Dr Z System? focuses on discrepancies between betting patterns in the win pool and the place pool (being American it has an element of the show pool included) This system is involved, if you follow it to the letter, but again its object is to identify those runners under bet in the place pool, relative to their pool portion in the win pool. Another variation, continuation, or some such of ?Place Power? ?see Beat the Racetrack and Betting at the Racetrack (Ziemba and Hausch) two books full of algebra. I don?t want to seem to be disparaging about algebraic maths, finding a winner is complicated enough, without finding a value for C, when A and B are minute numbers, and those with another letter in them. Ok, I?m disparaging, deriding, but only because I don?t understand. Cheers Tony From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 8:57 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Tony, I calculated Winx on final Vic TAB which I see you used, and got 2.37, so that matched, but had differences with others (eg R2, Renewal I got 1.02). Not to matter, I calculated 33,000 races (360,000 runners), minimum starters 8, no late scratchings, using Tatts Final Dividends, mainly to be 100% sure that what I "knew" held up. It did - the average ratios when Final Win Dividend: <2.0, 2.12 2.0 & <5.0 1.35 5.0 & <10.0 0.95 10.0 & <25.0 0.74 25.0 & <50.0 0.63 >=50.0 0.55 Cheers, LBL From: Racing > On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Sunday, 15 April 2018 12:34 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system There was a time when electronic devices, communication articles the signs said, were banned on course. Computers, calculators, mobile phone bricks, anything interpreted as a communication article, you had to take them off course, you had to leave and take the devils tools with you. There were signs about this, at the entrances ? no phones basically Place Power was a software package, chosen for installation on Canon calculators, with programs for specific HP, TI and other brands of the time ? these were programmable calculators with minimal RAM and the program in the ROM and so scientific. I had an upmarket Texas Instrument (I worked for an affiliate of theirs for some years) which was hard on battery power but had a proper sized keyboard. It was a brilliant piece of hardware for the time, blue and black, with a large screen, and of a size that was a boast, a display of knowledge that perhaps you didn?t have but the device might. It came with a holster, to complete the manliness aspect, or, a vest with a sizeable elasticised pocket for it to be warmed and comforted by contact. That vest was unlikely to be worn on course I suggest. There was a pen, a plastic rod, that you used to select the keys, they had a moulded hole in their centre to accept the point, this was to prevent moisture, sweat then, from contacting the facia, where the keys were. They were sealed against Resch Pilsner, I tested that aspect. No, I never used it in the bath, or shower. It is military grade, volo 7, and meant for the Moon and Mars and beyond, truly. You purchased the calculator wherever you could get the best deal, then you sent it to Place Power who loaded up the program, they said it was specific to each brand, each model. It came back to you in the mail, wrapped in that bubble wrap stuff, kids love it, and you went ahead with making your fortune. My program had a lot of other data with it, statistics for barriers, TAB numbers, parlay programs, all up programs, about 30 data cases in all (34 actually). There is a downside to all this scientific magnificence, this being when they purged the ROM to install their program, they wiped the surveying program and the navigation program. It was expensive, the program, the purchase of the calculator, the time element. It can be torture, in the seconds before race starting time, keying in the data elements, hitting RUN, and waiting for the BASIC program to enliven the screen with the data you need, needed. The technique, perhaps, was to enter all the data with 10 minutes to start time, run it, then update only those runners which were sorted to the top of the list. The day-ta or da-ta, it was spelt that way in the book, 230 pages of an advertisement for the program, was the win and place dividends. The program displayed these as % values of the whole dividend field, the book %, then reduced this to a 100% market, for win divs. It did the same for place, the 300% market was reduced to 100%. The win dividend win % and the place dividend % were compared with stored data and if there was a variation, more money on the win side, or more money on the place side, or even over the whole bet then the calculator did its thing and informed you and made a betting suggestion, just off this. The runner(s) to be supported were those which had less % in the place line than in the win line. The instruction was that more money had been bet, for the win, than for the place, this shows confidence, this is information not available to anybody (else ? except system users). The method, the rationale of all of this is investigated several times in academic texts. The data revealed is used by several authors, who take the first findings forward in an endeavour to correctly isolate a runner with the best credentials, off investment input. The writings are heavy on algebra, mystic like, with assertions that .0062 is marvellous whilst .0053 is not, useless. A starting point might be Peter Asch and Richard E Quandt ?Racetrack Betting? or/and ?Market Efficiency in Racetrack Betting?. Google for more, heaps, to be non-scientific about it at all. The endeavours of them all in attempting to straighten the line, the arrow that points to a dividend, is appreciated. Them and their regression analysis equations, god bless ?em. The process in the program is described in detail in Asch and Quandt (1986) page 117 onwards, although it, the process, is not given ownership to anybody in the expansive book that comes with the program. It just is, with flowery adjectives describing how it is good, better, best. The principle was known well before the date of manufacture of the calculator. Perhaps it was a parallel development, he asks mockingly. When I returned to the program supplier, to have the navigation and surveying programs re-installed several years later, he told me they had sold two copies of Place Power, although copying, pirating was a common activity back then, especially for HP model 41 schemes and programs. I still have mine, giant robust device that it is, it feels like you could open bottle tops with it, hammer nails, and a child has had it as a cot toy, although this was not planned, honestly, it has no taste, no flavour. It has a heft which is comforting, and it fires up instantaneously, still does. If a runner had 14% of the win pool and 12%, or 11% of the place or some figure less, this would ear mark itself as a runner to do further research, especially if these differences occurred later in the betting, less than 100 seconds say. It is assumed that all the money is in the pool then, bettors with known information, bettors with private information, all ups, and later money, after 100 seconds, it is an assumption though, is from bettors, little and large, private and corporate, betting into a niche now revealed. Who knows this? The runner information, the dividend clauses, is similar to test done by several persons in several way (days since last start, form, last start finish position etc), and further, the runner to be supported must be 1.2 times less than the win dividend per centage holding, found by dividing the place percent dividend holding into the win dividend place holding. Starting with Randwick R1 yesterday ? selections were scored from after the race data, the final dividends. The win dividend % holding was 10.1, the place dividend % holding was 8.5, 10.1/8.5 = 1.18 (it was 1.3 when the decision to select was made) result 2nd $2.6. Race 2 1.53 3rd $1.60 Race 3 1.6 2nd $2.3 ? the system selected 1st,2nd and 3rd Race 4 1.22 1st $2.4 Race 5 1st 1.7 $2.9 Race 6 1st 1.47 $1.8, the system selected 2nd also Race 7 1st 2.36 $1.04 ?this was Winx Race 8 3rd 1.22 $1.7 Race 9 2nd 1.19 (it was 1.4 when selected) $3.7 ?there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v1 Race 10 1st 1.41 $2.4 ? there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v2 It selected a winner, a dividend, in every race bar the 1st at Caulfield ? it made no selection in this race. I did 33 races, on a spreadsheet program (Smartbet v2.05), and it selected a dividend in all of them. Too good to be true? Summary: Compare the win dividend with the place dividend ? there are several ways. If the win dividend appears oversubscribed, determine if the place dividend is a value bet now, $W/$P and if the runner has other attributes (decided by you) consider it for a bet. This last clause is necessary to reduce qualifiers, there can be 3 or so, depending on the betting volatility, and is suggested in the book with the program. Winx was a selection. She had a dividend score of 2.36 (Win divided by place) and other winning attributes. Cheers Tony Virus-free. www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tonymoffat at bigpond.com Fri Apr 20 11:53:29 2018 From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 09:53:29 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system In-Reply-To: <000e01d3d846$c87c5c60$59751520$@ozemail.com.au> References: <000001d3d462$2747b250$75d716f0$@bigpond.com> <001a01d3d582$6cbf56a0$463e03e0$@ozemail.com.au> <000001d3d603$83c184a0$8b448de0$@bigpond.com> <001b01d3d6cc$615e9fa0$241bdee0$@ozemail.com.au> <000001d3d792$9cf89450$d6e9bcf0$@bigpond.com> <000e01d3d846$c87c5c60$59751520$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <000701d3d84a$61ebf6f0$25c3e4d0$@bigpond.com> Len ? I multiply the displayed quinella offerings by .83 (point 83) which I feel deals with the take, and may give me an over also, certainly if it is still over after that it seems to be value. It is voodoo, I?m increasing the unit bet size to counteract and provide a profit, if the runners comply. I am not that convinced that quinella prices are in league with win/[lace price, yes, there is a link but a ripple in the win market does not often come through to the quinella market, not readily any rate. I am wondering if the number of nominations for inclusion in a short quinella is not a sign to follow when selecting a winner, win betting. As an example Tab 1 may be the most popular in quinella couplings but is that the effect of boxing, or do quinella bettors really go further and truthfully do the form to find those hidden wonders, then bet the quinella because the dividend is better, or was. When you make a win market out this, it can follow the win dividend eerily, which may answer my question. Cheers Tony From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 9:28 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Tony, Just amused myself by looking at the Fixed Quinella odds offered by Centrebet. 170% markets! And I thought TAB's 130% markets on F4s was bad. That "surely" means they realise they are incompetent at calculating prices and try to cover themselves by dishing up ridiculous 170% markets, or They figure punters are so na?ve that they will bet into 170% markets. LBL From: Racing > On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Thursday, 19 April 2018 1:58 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Len ? Dr Dedman gave the formula for calculating a fair place price against the price of the favoured horse (which includes the favourite) Dedman wrote Commonsense Punting and the newer Commonsense Punting Revisited ? more sums with letters and numbers. His equation determines the price of a horse running second as ? second horse price (this is the price you entered in the equation) * the favourite horse price ? 1. so (s*(fp-1)) Eloquent isn?t it? So, in an equation involving $2.5(f) and $4(s) it sees the $4(s) winning at a calculated price of $4 ? as if the (F) $2.5 did not exist. Continuing: the results of further calculations using the inputs mentioned (2.5 as F &4.00 as S) S wins $4 ? this is the exacta with these runners also. F wins, S second $6 Any other horse(an outsider) wins, S second $10.8 F wins, S third $9.3 F second, S third $ 14.6 S third, F unplaced $ 32.6 The sum of these is the fair place price for S (0.25+0.166667+0.09292+0.107693+0.068618+0.030681) Totals 71.66% = $1.40 ? this is the calculated place price for 1st or 2nd or third. Thank you to Sean (an Ausracer) for paring it back to referential reasoning (in my case at least). I have 10 (ten) of these equations working for me each race. 1st and 2nd, 3rd,4th, 5th fav 2nd and 3rd,4th , 5th 3rd and 4th, 5th 4th and 5th. I want to look and see if there is any obvious overs ? well I did, I went back to sensible punting and losing (with the occasional windfall) quick smart. The equation chokes on big numbers, the relevance seems to go when you force it to compute unrealistic combinations eg your $101 winner with a few other lesser prices (as S) S=$4 ? calculated place price $1.60 when old school ? gives you $1.75 S=$5 ? calculated place price $1.80 S=$6 ? calculated place price $ 2.10 I mentioned old school 1/4 there ? you take your win return, minus 1, divide this by 4, then add one. So $4 goes (($4-1)/4)+1) I tend to rank the quinella dividends, all of them, then highlight the top 10 and speedbet those if they exceed/comply with another rule ? this is how I grow my bank now. Often a $2 quinella will exceed an exacta dividend (often by a lot) ? it $2 because I reverse the exacta too, 1 and two, two and 1 as a demonstration. Cheers ? raining here, so wet Saturday in Mel-bourne Tony From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 12:19 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Tony, The apparent imbalance between %age of win pools and place pools is somewhat a reflection of reality. I first saw a "mathematical" calculation of one-race exotic odds based on win odds in Scott's book - I don't know whether he devised the formulae, or got them from another's work, but I instinctively knew they were flawed, and my better calculations held me in good stead for many years. But I can't beat 20% take-out by enough to bother. To explain via a straightforward example of the simplest one-race exotic to calculate - the Exacta. Let's say we have calculated a 100% win market, (or SP adjusted to 100%): 1/1, 5/1, 10/1, 10/1, 20/1, 20/1, 20/1, 100/1 (=100.124298%) Let's say the 100/1 shot wins Scott then says you have a "race" between the other 7 for second, so ignoring the 0.990099% reduction to 99.1432%, Scott says the 1/1 is still 1/1 and the 5/1 shot still 5/1 etc. It just isn't so. 47% from my very large sample that start at 1/1 win (SP market, not adjusted to 100%), whereas only 38% of those that do not win come second, viz "win" the race for second, whereas it should be around the same 47% if 100/1 shots won the races the 1/1 shot lost, even higher in practise - eg in the above race, say the 5/1 shot wins, Scott takes the 17% of the 5/1 shot from 100%, giving 83% and says the chances of the 1/1 shot coming second having not won is 50/83 = 7/10, but they come second nothing like that often. I'm a mere statistician by training and practise, and seldom watch races, let alone base my ratings on what I have seen, but my explanation is that whatever prevented them from winning often also prevented them from coming second (eg interference, missing the start, being poorly ridden, sea gulls, being a stallion when a mare comes on heat .). At the other end, the opposite applies - a 100/1 shot is 2.5 times as likely to run second having lost, as it is to win, while a 10/1 chance is 1.43 times as likely to run second having lost as it is to win. LBL From: Racing > On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Tuesday, 17 April 2018 2:21 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Len ? thanks I did not intend to discombobulate, flummox even ? the system instruction is to use those runners with the ratio of 1.2 or better and then I went with 1.12 or similar. The idea was good, the execution not so. No, I did not sit a shift at the keyboard watching these, I did watch a couple of closing minutes for a few races, betting off my own ratings of course so I saw the trending for those I observed (to state the obvious) ? if you must know I spent most of the day sieving compost - and listening to an album by Hem. (For broad beans Northerly, yes, I wore a mask.) The ?Dr Z System? focuses on discrepancies between betting patterns in the win pool and the place pool (being American it has an element of the show pool included) This system is involved, if you follow it to the letter, but again its object is to identify those runners under bet in the place pool, relative to their pool portion in the win pool. Another variation, continuation, or some such of ?Place Power? ?see Beat the Racetrack and Betting at the Racetrack (Ziemba and Hausch) two books full of algebra. I don?t want to seem to be disparaging about algebraic maths, finding a winner is complicated enough, without finding a value for C, when A and B are minute numbers, and those with another letter in them. Ok, I?m disparaging, deriding, but only because I don?t understand. Cheers Tony From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 8:57 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Tony, I calculated Winx on final Vic TAB which I see you used, and got 2.37, so that matched, but had differences with others (eg R2, Renewal I got 1.02). Not to matter, I calculated 33,000 races (360,000 runners), minimum starters 8, no late scratchings, using Tatts Final Dividends, mainly to be 100% sure that what I "knew" held up. It did - the average ratios when Final Win Dividend: <2.0, 2.12 2.0 & <5.0 1.35 5.0 & <10.0 0.95 10.0 & <25.0 0.74 25.0 & <50.0 0.63 >=50.0 0.55 Cheers, LBL From: Racing > On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Sunday, 15 April 2018 12:34 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system There was a time when electronic devices, communication articles the signs said, were banned on course. Computers, calculators, mobile phone bricks, anything interpreted as a communication article, you had to take them off course, you had to leave and take the devils tools with you. There were signs about this, at the entrances ? no phones basically Place Power was a software package, chosen for installation on Canon calculators, with programs for specific HP, TI and other brands of the time ? these were programmable calculators with minimal RAM and the program in the ROM and so scientific. I had an upmarket Texas Instrument (I worked for an affiliate of theirs for some years) which was hard on battery power but had a proper sized keyboard. It was a brilliant piece of hardware for the time, blue and black, with a large screen, and of a size that was a boast, a display of knowledge that perhaps you didn?t have but the device might. It came with a holster, to complete the manliness aspect, or, a vest with a sizeable elasticised pocket for it to be warmed and comforted by contact. That vest was unlikely to be worn on course I suggest. There was a pen, a plastic rod, that you used to select the keys, they had a moulded hole in their centre to accept the point, this was to prevent moisture, sweat then, from contacting the facia, where the keys were. They were sealed against Resch Pilsner, I tested that aspect. No, I never used it in the bath, or shower. It is military grade, volo 7, and meant for the Moon and Mars and beyond, truly. You purchased the calculator wherever you could get the best deal, then you sent it to Place Power who loaded up the program, they said it was specific to each brand, each model. It came back to you in the mail, wrapped in that bubble wrap stuff, kids love it, and you went ahead with making your fortune. My program had a lot of other data with it, statistics for barriers, TAB numbers, parlay programs, all up programs, about 30 data cases in all (34 actually). There is a downside to all this scientific magnificence, this being when they purged the ROM to install their program, they wiped the surveying program and the navigation program. It was expensive, the program, the purchase of the calculator, the time element. It can be torture, in the seconds before race starting time, keying in the data elements, hitting RUN, and waiting for the BASIC program to enliven the screen with the data you need, needed. The technique, perhaps, was to enter all the data with 10 minutes to start time, run it, then update only those runners which were sorted to the top of the list. The day-ta or da-ta, it was spelt that way in the book, 230 pages of an advertisement for the program, was the win and place dividends. The program displayed these as % values of the whole dividend field, the book %, then reduced this to a 100% market, for win divs. It did the same for place, the 300% market was reduced to 100%. The win dividend win % and the place dividend % were compared with stored data and if there was a variation, more money on the win side, or more money on the place side, or even over the whole bet then the calculator did its thing and informed you and made a betting suggestion, just off this. The runner(s) to be supported were those which had less % in the place line than in the win line. The instruction was that more money had been bet, for the win, than for the place, this shows confidence, this is information not available to anybody (else ? except system users). The method, the rationale of all of this is investigated several times in academic texts. The data revealed is used by several authors, who take the first findings forward in an endeavour to correctly isolate a runner with the best credentials, off investment input. The writings are heavy on algebra, mystic like, with assertions that .0062 is marvellous whilst .0053 is not, useless. A starting point might be Peter Asch and Richard E Quandt ?Racetrack Betting? or/and ?Market Efficiency in Racetrack Betting?. Google for more, heaps, to be non-scientific about it at all. The endeavours of them all in attempting to straighten the line, the arrow that points to a dividend, is appreciated. Them and their regression analysis equations, god bless ?em. The process in the program is described in detail in Asch and Quandt (1986) page 117 onwards, although it, the process, is not given ownership to anybody in the expansive book that comes with the program. It just is, with flowery adjectives describing how it is good, better, best. The principle was known well before the date of manufacture of the calculator. Perhaps it was a parallel development, he asks mockingly. When I returned to the program supplier, to have the navigation and surveying programs re-installed several years later, he told me they had sold two copies of Place Power, although copying, pirating was a common activity back then, especially for HP model 41 schemes and programs. I still have mine, giant robust device that it is, it feels like you could open bottle tops with it, hammer nails, and a child has had it as a cot toy, although this was not planned, honestly, it has no taste, no flavour. It has a heft which is comforting, and it fires up instantaneously, still does. If a runner had 14% of the win pool and 12%, or 11% of the place or some figure less, this would ear mark itself as a runner to do further research, especially if these differences occurred later in the betting, less than 100 seconds say. It is assumed that all the money is in the pool then, bettors with known information, bettors with private information, all ups, and later money, after 100 seconds, it is an assumption though, is from bettors, little and large, private and corporate, betting into a niche now revealed. Who knows this? The runner information, the dividend clauses, is similar to test done by several persons in several way (days since last start, form, last start finish position etc), and further, the runner to be supported must be 1.2 times less than the win dividend per centage holding, found by dividing the place percent dividend holding into the win dividend place holding. Starting with Randwick R1 yesterday ? selections were scored from after the race data, the final dividends. The win dividend % holding was 10.1, the place dividend % holding was 8.5, 10.1/8.5 = 1.18 (it was 1.3 when the decision to select was made) result 2nd $2.6. Race 2 1.53 3rd $1.60 Race 3 1.6 2nd $2.3 ? the system selected 1st,2nd and 3rd Race 4 1.22 1st $2.4 Race 5 1st 1.7 $2.9 Race 6 1st 1.47 $1.8, the system selected 2nd also Race 7 1st 2.36 $1.04 ?this was Winx Race 8 3rd 1.22 $1.7 Race 9 2nd 1.19 (it was 1.4 when selected) $3.7 ?there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v1 Race 10 1st 1.41 $2.4 ? there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v2 It selected a winner, a dividend, in every race bar the 1st at Caulfield ? it made no selection in this race. I did 33 races, on a spreadsheet program (Smartbet v2.05), and it selected a dividend in all of them. Too good to be true? Summary: Compare the win dividend with the place dividend ? there are several ways. If the win dividend appears oversubscribed, determine if the place dividend is a value bet now, $W/$P and if the runner has other attributes (decided by you) consider it for a bet. This last clause is necessary to reduce qualifiers, there can be 3 or so, depending on the betting volatility, and is suggested in the book with the program. Winx was a selection. She had a dividend score of 2.36 (Win divided by place) and other winning attributes. Cheers Tony Virus-free. www.avg.com --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From greg.j.conroy at gmail.com Fri Apr 20 13:57:33 2018 From: greg.j.conroy at gmail.com (Greg Conroy) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 13:57:33 +1000 Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system In-Reply-To: <000701d3d84a$61ebf6f0$25c3e4d0$@bigpond.com> References: <000001d3d462$2747b250$75d716f0$@bigpond.com> <001a01d3d582$6cbf56a0$463e03e0$@ozemail.com.au> <000001d3d603$83c184a0$8b448de0$@bigpond.com> <001b01d3d6cc$615e9fa0$241bdee0$@ozemail.com.au> <000001d3d792$9cf89450$d6e9bcf0$@bigpond.com> <000e01d3d846$c87c5c60$59751520$@ozemail.com.au> <000701d3d84a$61ebf6f0$25c3e4d0$@bigpond.com> Message-ID: <92651EDA-C7FC-460C-A800-27A819B1B584@gmail.com> Hi all, IMO, there?s still a lot of inefficiencies in the exotic markets. The other day (Scone R4, Apr 9 18 for those playing at home) I was able to extract an effective WIN dividend of $5.01 about my top fancy (General Artie) when the best price IN THE MARKET was $4.50. How did I do this? I stood out General Artie with the FIELD for 2nd/3rd using RewardBet?s staking. BTW, that is a matter of public record as I provide those selections daily to over 100 interested people. Greg. > On 20 Apr 2018, at 11:53 am, Tony Moffat wrote: > > Len ? I multiply the displayed quinella offerings by .83 (point 83) which I feel deals with the take, and may give me an over also, certainly if it is still over after that it seems to be value. > It is voodoo, I?m increasing the unit bet size to counteract and provide a profit, if the runners comply. I am not that convinced that quinella prices are in league with win/[lace price, yes, there is a link but a ripple in the win market does not often come through to the quinella market, not readily any rate. > > I am wondering if the number of nominations for inclusion in a short quinella is not a sign to follow when selecting a winner, win betting. As an example Tab 1 may be the most popular in quinella couplings but is that the effect of boxing, or do quinella bettors really go further and truthfully do the form to find those hidden wonders, then bet the quinella because the dividend is better, or was. > When you make a win market out this, it can follow the win dividend eerily, which may answer my question. > > Cheers > > Tony > > From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 9:28 AM > To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system > > Tony, > > Just amused myself by looking at the Fixed Quinella odds offered by Centrebet. 170% markets! And I thought TAB's 130% markets on F4s was bad. > > That "surely" means they realise they are incompetent at calculating prices and try to cover themselves by dishing up ridiculous 170% markets, or > They figure punters are so na?ve that they will bet into 170% markets. > > LBL > > From: Racing > On Behalf Of Tony Moffat > Sent: Thursday, 19 April 2018 1:58 PM > To: racing at ausrace.com > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system > > Len ? > > Dr Dedman gave the formula for calculating a fair place price against the price of the favoured horse (which includes the favourite) > > Dedman wrote Commonsense Punting and the newer Commonsense Punting Revisited ? more sums with letters and numbers. > > His equation determines the price of a horse running second as ? second horse price (this is the price you entered in the equation) * the favourite horse price ? 1. > so (s*(fp-1)) > Eloquent isn?t it? > > So, in an equation involving $2.5(f) and $4(s) it sees the $4(s) winning at a calculated price of $4 ? as if the (F) $2.5 did not exist. > Continuing: the results of further calculations using the inputs mentioned (2.5 as F &4.00 as S) > S wins $4 ? this is the exacta with these runners also. > F wins, S second $6 > Any other horse(an outsider) wins, S second $10.8 > F wins, S third $9.3 > F second, S third $ 14.6 > S third, F unplaced $ 32.6 > > The sum of these is the fair place price for S (0.25+0.166667+0.09292+0.107693+0.068618+0.030681) > Totals 71.66% = $1.40 ? this is the calculated place price for 1st or 2nd or third. > > Thank you to Sean (an Ausracer) for paring it back to referential reasoning (in my case at least). > > I have 10 (ten) of these equations working for me each race. 1st and 2nd, 3rd,4th, 5th fav > 2nd and 3rd,4th , 5th > 3rd and 4th, 5th > 4th and 5th. > I want to look and see if there is any obvious overs ? well I did, I went back to sensible punting and losing (with the occasional windfall) quick smart. > > The equation chokes on big numbers, the relevance seems to go when you force it to compute unrealistic combinations eg your $101 winner with a few other lesser prices (as S) > S=$4 ? calculated place price $1.60 when old school ? gives you $1.75 > S=$5 ? calculated place price $1.80 > S=$6 ? calculated place price $ 2.10 > > I mentioned old school 1/4 there ? you take your win return, minus 1, divide this by 4, then add one. So $4 goes (($4-1)/4)+1) > > I tend to rank the quinella dividends, all of them, then highlight the top 10 and speedbet those if they exceed/comply with another rule ? this is how I grow my bank now. > Often a $2 quinella will exceed an exacta dividend (often by a lot) ? it $2 because I reverse the exacta too, 1 and two, two and 1 as a demonstration. > > Cheers ? raining here, so wet Saturday in Mel-bourne > > Tony > > From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com ] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday > Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 12:19 PM > To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system > > Tony, > > The apparent imbalance between %age of win pools and place pools is somewhat a reflection of reality. > > I first saw a "mathematical" calculation of one-race exotic odds based on win odds in Scott's book - I don't know whether he devised the formulae, or got them from another's work, but I instinctively knew they were flawed, and my better calculations held me in good stead for many years. But I can't beat 20% take-out by enough to bother. > > To explain via a straightforward example of the simplest one-race exotic to calculate - the Exacta. > > Let's say we have calculated a 100% win market, (or SP adjusted to 100%): > 1/1, 5/1, 10/1, 10/1, 20/1, 20/1, 20/1, 100/1 (=100.124298%) > > Let's say the 100/1 shot wins > > Scott then says you have a "race" between the other 7 for second, so ignoring the 0.990099% reduction to 99.1432%, Scott says the 1/1 is still 1/1 and the 5/1 shot still 5/1 etc. > > It just isn't so. 47% from my very large sample that start at 1/1 win (SP market, not adjusted to 100%), whereas only 38% of those that do not win come second, viz "win" the race for second, whereas it should be around the same 47% if 100/1 shots won the races the 1/1 shot lost, even higher in practise - eg in the above race, say the 5/1 shot wins, Scott takes the 17% of the 5/1 shot from 100%, giving 83% and says the chances of the 1/1 shot coming second having not won is 50/83 = 7/10, but they come second nothing like that often. > I'm a mere statistician by training and practise, and seldom watch races, let alone base my ratings on what I have seen, but my explanation is that whatever prevented them from winning often also prevented them from coming second (eg interference, missing the start, being poorly ridden, sea gulls, being a stallion when a mare comes on heat?.). > > At the other end, the opposite applies - a 100/1 shot is 2.5 times as likely to run second having lost, as it is to win, while a 10/1 chance is 1.43 times as likely to run second having lost as it is to win. > > LBL > > > From: Racing > On Behalf Of Tony Moffat > Sent: Tuesday, 17 April 2018 2:21 PM > To: racing at ausrace.com > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system > > Len ? thanks > > I did not intend to discombobulate, flummox even ? the system instruction is to use those runners with the ratio of 1.2 or better and then I went with 1.12 or similar. > The idea was good, the execution not so. > No, I did not sit a shift at the keyboard watching these, I did watch a couple of closing minutes for a few races, betting off my own ratings of course > so I saw the trending for those I observed (to state the obvious) ? if you must know I spent most of the day sieving compost - and listening to an album by Hem. > (For broad beans Northerly, yes, I wore a mask.) > > The ?Dr Z System? focuses on discrepancies between betting patterns in the win pool and the place pool (being American it has an element of the show pool included) > This system is involved, if you follow it to the letter, but again its object is to identify those runners under bet in the place pool, relative to their pool portion in the win pool. > Another variation, continuation, or some such of ?Place Power? ?see Beat the Racetrack and Betting at the Racetrack (Ziemba and Hausch) two books full of algebra. > > I don?t want to seem to be disparaging about algebraic maths, finding a winner is complicated enough, without finding a value for C, when A and B are minute numbers, and those with another letter in them. > Ok, I?m disparaging, deriding, but only because I don?t understand. > > Cheers > > Tony > > > From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com ] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 8:57 PM > To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system > > Tony, > > I calculated Winx on final Vic TAB which I see you used, and got 2.37, so that matched, but had differences with others (eg R2, Renewal I got 1.02). > > Not to matter, I calculated 33,000 races (360,000 runners), minimum starters 8, no late scratchings, using Tatts Final Dividends, mainly to be 100% sure that what I "knew" held up. > > It did - the average ratios when Final Win Dividend: > > <2.0, 2.12 > 2.0 & <5.0 1.35 > 5.0 & <10.0 0.95 > 10.0 & <25.0 0.74 > 25.0 & <50.0 0.63 > >=50.0 0.55 > > Cheers, > > LBL > > > > From: Racing > On Behalf Of Tony Moffat > Sent: Sunday, 15 April 2018 12:34 PM > To: racing at ausrace.com > Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system > > There was a time when electronic devices, communication articles the signs said, were banned on course. Computers, calculators, mobile phone bricks, anything interpreted as a communication article, you had to take them off course, you had to leave and take the devils tools with you. There were signs about this, at the entrances ? no phones basically > > Place Power was a software package, chosen for installation on Canon calculators, with programs for specific HP, TI and other brands of the time ? these were programmable calculators with minimal RAM and the program in the ROM and so scientific. I had an upmarket Texas Instrument (I worked for an affiliate of theirs for some years) which was hard on battery power but had a proper sized keyboard. It was a brilliant piece of hardware for the time, blue and black, with a large screen, and of a size that was a boast, a display of knowledge that perhaps you didn?t have but the device might. It came with a holster, to complete the manliness aspect, or, a vest with a sizeable elasticised pocket for it to be warmed and comforted by contact. That vest was unlikely to be worn on course I suggest. There was a pen, a plastic rod, that you used to select the keys, they had a moulded hole in their centre to accept the point, this was to prevent moisture, sweat then, from contacting the facia, where the keys were. They were sealed against Resch Pilsner, I tested that aspect. No, I never used it in the bath, or shower. It is military grade, volo 7, and meant for the Moon and Mars and beyond, truly. > > You purchased the calculator wherever you could get the best deal, then you sent it to Place Power who loaded up the program, they said it was specific to each brand, each model. It came back to you in the mail, wrapped in that bubble wrap stuff, kids love it, and you went ahead with making your fortune. My program had a lot of other data with it, statistics for barriers, TAB numbers, parlay programs, all up programs, about 30 data cases in all (34 actually). > > There is a downside to all this scientific magnificence, this being when they purged the ROM to install their program, they wiped the surveying program and the navigation program. > > It was expensive, the program, the purchase of the calculator, the time element. It can be torture, in the seconds before race starting time, keying in the data elements, hitting RUN, and waiting for the BASIC program to enliven the screen with the data you need, needed. The technique, perhaps, was to enter all the data with 10 minutes to start time, run it, then update only those runners which were sorted to the top of the list. > > The day-ta or da-ta, it was spelt that way in the book, 230 pages of an advertisement for the program, was the win and place dividends. The program displayed these as % values of the whole dividend field, the book %, then reduced this to a 100% market, for win divs. It did the same for place, the 300% market was reduced to 100%. The win dividend win % and the place dividend % were compared with stored data and if there was a variation, more money on the win side, or more money on the place side, or even over the whole bet then the calculator did its thing and informed you and made a betting suggestion, just off this. > > The runner(s) to be supported were those which had less % in the place line than in the win line. The instruction was that more money had been bet, for the win, than for the place, this shows confidence, this is information not available to anybody (else ? except system users). > > The method, the rationale of all of this is investigated several times in academic texts. The data revealed is used by several authors, who take the first findings forward in an endeavour to correctly isolate a runner with the best credentials, off investment input. The writings are heavy on algebra, mystic like, with assertions that .0062 is marvellous whilst .0053 is not, useless. > A starting point might be Peter Asch and Richard E Quandt ?Racetrack Betting? or/and ?Market Efficiency in Racetrack Betting?. Google for more, heaps, to be non-scientific about it at all. > > The endeavours of them all in attempting to straighten the line, the arrow that points to a dividend, is appreciated. Them and their regression analysis equations, god bless ?em. > > The process in the program is described in detail in Asch and Quandt (1986) page 117 onwards, although it, the process, is not given ownership to anybody in the expansive book that comes with the program. It just is, with flowery adjectives describing how it is good, better, best. The principle was known well before the date of manufacture of the calculator. Perhaps it was a parallel development, he asks mockingly. > > When I returned to the program supplier, to have the navigation and surveying programs re-installed several years later, he told me they had sold two copies of Place Power, although copying, pirating was a common activity back then, especially for HP model 41 schemes and programs. I still have mine, giant robust device that it is, it feels like you could open bottle tops with it, hammer nails, and a child has had it as a cot toy, although this was not planned, honestly, it has no taste, no flavour. It has a heft which is comforting, and it fires up instantaneously, still does. > > If a runner had 14% of the win pool and 12%, or 11% of the place or some figure less, this would ear mark itself as a runner to do further research, especially if these differences occurred later in the betting, less than 100 seconds say. It is assumed that all the money is in the pool then, bettors with known information, bettors with private information, all ups, and later money, after 100 seconds, it is an assumption though, is from bettors, little and large, private and corporate, betting into a niche now revealed. Who knows this? > > The runner information, the dividend clauses, is similar to test done by several persons in several way (days since last start, form, last start finish position etc), and further, the runner to be supported must be 1.2 times less than the win dividend per centage holding, found by dividing the place percent dividend holding into the win dividend place holding. > > Starting with Randwick R1 yesterday ? selections were scored from after the race data, the final dividends. > The win dividend % holding was 10.1, the place dividend % holding was 8.5, 10.1/8.5 = 1.18 (it was 1.3 when the decision to select was made) result 2nd $2.6. > Race 2 1.53 3rd $1.60 > Race 3 1.6 2nd $2.3 ? the system selected 1st,2nd and 3rd > Race 4 1.22 1st $2.4 > Race 5 1st 1.7 $2.9 > Race 6 1st 1.47 $1.8, the system selected 2nd also > Race 7 1st 2.36 $1.04 ?this was Winx > Race 8 3rd 1.22 $1.7 > Race 9 2nd 1.19 (it was 1.4 when selected) $3.7 ?there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v1 > Race 10 1st 1.41 $2.4 ? there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v2 > > It selected a winner, a dividend, in every race bar the 1st at Caulfield ? it made no selection in this race. > > I did 33 races, on a spreadsheet program (Smartbet v2.05), and it selected a dividend in all of them. Too good to be true? > > Summary: Compare the win dividend with the place dividend ? there are several ways. > If the win dividend appears oversubscribed, determine if the place dividend is a value bet now, $W/$P and if the runner has other attributes (decided by you) consider it for a bet. This last clause is necessary to reduce qualifiers, there can be 3 or so, depending on the betting volatility, and is suggested in the book with the program. > > Winx was a selection. She had a dividend score of 2.36 (Win divided by place) and other winning attributes. > > Cheers > > Tony > > > > > > > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > _______________________________________________ > Racing mailing list > Racing at ausrace.com > http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com Greg Conroy, Inventor of Award Winning and Free: www.rewardbet.com ? more: https://about.rewardbet.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nick.aubrey at twonix.com Sun Apr 22 21:43:10 2018 From: nick.aubrey at twonix.com (nick.aubrey at twonix.com) Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 21:43:10 +1000 Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system In-Reply-To: <92651EDA-C7FC-460C-A800-27A819B1B584@gmail.com> References: <000001d3d462$2747b250$75d716f0$@bigpond.com> <001a01d3d582$6cbf56a0$463e03e0$@ozemail.com.au> <000001d3d603$83c184a0$8b448de0$@bigpond.com> <001b01d3d6cc$615e9fa0$241bdee0$@ozemail.com.au> <000001d3d792$9cf89450$d6e9bcf0$@bigpond.com> <000e01d3d846$c87c5c60$59751520$@ozemail.com.au> <000701d3d84a$61ebf6f0$25c3e4d0$@bigpond.com> <92651EDA-C7FC-460C-A800-27A819B1B584@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001d3da2f$1905b980$4b112c80$@twonix.com> Hi Ausracers, Clearly there is more volatility in Exotic dividends and I agree with Greg that there are lot more inefficiencies compared with Win betting. BUT inefficiencies doesn?t imply better returns. In the race Greg mentioned, the trifecta paid $69 on VIC and $58.40 on NSW. That?s +18% on VIC. This advantage would have been lost if the wrong Tote was selected. Analysis of 1.4 million horse race runs over the last 5 years shows Best Bookie Odds losing -6% vs TAB VIC Win Div loss of -16% vs TAB VIC Trifecta loss of -20%. So Best Bookie Odds, on the average, performs 14% better than a dutchbook standout trifecta on the winner ! Cheers, AN From: Racing On Behalf Of Greg Conroy Sent: Friday, 20 April 2018 1:58 PM To: Ausrace Racing Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Hi all, IMO, there?s still a lot of inefficiencies in the exotic markets. The other day (Scone R4, Apr 9 18 for those playing at home) I was able to extract an effective WIN dividend of $5.01 about my top fancy (General Artie) when the best price IN THE MARKET was $4.50. How did I do this? I stood out General Artie with the FIELD for 2nd/3rd using RewardBet?s staking. BTW, that is a matter of public record as I provide those selections daily to over 100 interested people. Greg. On 20 Apr 2018, at 11:53 am, Tony Moffat > wrote: Len ? I multiply the displayed quinella offerings by .83 (point 83) which I feel deals with the take, and may give me an over also, certainly if it is still over after that it seems to be value. It is voodoo, I?m increasing the unit bet size to counteract and provide a profit, if the runners comply. I am not that convinced that quinella prices are in league with win/[lace price, yes, there is a link but a ripple in the win market does not often come through to the quinella market, not readily any rate. I am wondering if the number of nominations for inclusion in a short quinella is not a sign to follow when selecting a winner, win betting. As an example Tab 1 may be the most popular in quinella couplings but is that the effect of boxing, or do quinella bettors really go further and truthfully do the form to find those hidden wonders, then bet the quinella because the dividend is better, or was. When you make a win market out this, it can follow the win dividend eerily, which may answer my question. Cheers Tony From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 9:28 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Tony, Just amused myself by looking at the Fixed Quinella odds offered by Centrebet. 170% markets! And I thought TAB's 130% markets on F4s was bad. That "surely" means they realise they are incompetent at calculating prices and try to cover themselves by dishing up ridiculous 170% markets, or They figure punters are so na?ve that they will bet into 170% markets. LBL From: Racing < racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Thursday, 19 April 2018 1:58 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Len ? Dr Dedman gave the formula for calculating a fair place price against the price of the favoured horse (which includes the favourite) Dedman wrote Commonsense Punting and the newer Commonsense Punting Revisited ? more sums with letters and numbers. His equation determines the price of a horse running second as ? second horse price (this is the price you entered in the equation) * the favourite horse price ? 1. so (s*(fp-1)) Eloquent isn?t it? So, in an equation involving $2.5(f) and $4(s) it sees the $4(s) winning at a calculated price of $4 ? as if the (F) $2.5 did not exist. Continuing: the results of further calculations using the inputs mentioned (2.5 as F &4.00 as S) S wins $4 ? this is the exacta with these runners also. F wins, S second $6 Any other horse(an outsider) wins, S second $10.8 F wins, S third $9.3 F second, S third $ 14.6 S third, F unplaced $ 32.6 The sum of these is the fair place price for S (0.25+0.166667+0.09292+0.107693+0.068618+0.030681) Totals 71.66% = $1.40 ? this is the calculated place price for 1st or 2nd or third. Thank you to Sean (an Ausracer) for paring it back to referential reasoning (in my case at least). I have 10 (ten) of these equations working for me each race. 1st and 2nd, 3rd,4th, 5th fav 2nd and 3rd,4th , 5th 3rd and 4th, 5th 4th and 5th. I want to look and see if there is any obvious overs ? well I did, I went back to sensible punting and losing (with the occasional windfall) quick smart. The equation chokes on big numbers, the relevance seems to go when you force it to compute unrealistic combinations eg your $101 winner with a few other lesser prices (as S) S=$4 ? calculated place price $1.60 when old school ? gives you $1.75 S=$5 ? calculated place price $1.80 S=$6 ? calculated place price $ 2.10 I mentioned old school 1/4 there ? you take your win return, minus 1, divide this by 4, then add one. So $4 goes (($4-1)/4)+1) I tend to rank the quinella dividends, all of them, then highlight the top 10 and speedbet those if they exceed/comply with another rule ? this is how I grow my bank now. Often a $2 quinella will exceed an exacta dividend (often by a lot) ? it $2 because I reverse the exacta too, 1 and two, two and 1 as a demonstration. Cheers ? raining here, so wet Saturday in Mel-bourne Tony From: Racing [ mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 12:19 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' < racing at ausrace.com> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Tony, The apparent imbalance between %age of win pools and place pools is somewhat a reflection of reality. I first saw a "mathematical" calculation of one-race exotic odds based on win odds in Scott's book - I don't know whether he devised the formulae, or got them from another's work, but I instinctively knew they were flawed, and my better calculations held me in good stead for many years. But I can't beat 20% take-out by enough to bother. To explain via a straightforward example of the simplest one-race exotic to calculate - the Exacta. Let's say we have calculated a 100% win market, (or SP adjusted to 100%): 1/1, 5/1, 10/1, 10/1, 20/1, 20/1, 20/1, 100/1 (=100.124298%) Let's say the 100/1 shot wins Scott then says you have a "race" between the other 7 for second, so ignoring the 0.990099% reduction to 99.1432%, Scott says the 1/1 is still 1/1 and the 5/1 shot still 5/1 etc. It just isn't so. 47% from my very large sample that start at 1/1 win (SP market, not adjusted to 100%), whereas only 38% of those that do not win come second, viz "win" the race for second, whereas it should be around the same 47% if 100/1 shots won the races the 1/1 shot lost, even higher in practise - eg in the above race, say the 5/1 shot wins, Scott takes the 17% of the 5/1 shot from 100%, giving 83% and says the chances of the 1/1 shot coming second having not won is 50/83 = 7/10, but they come second nothing like that often. I'm a mere statistician by training and practise, and seldom watch races, let alone base my ratings on what I have seen, but my explanation is that whatever prevented them from winning often also prevented them from coming second (eg interference, missing the start, being poorly ridden, sea gulls, being a stallion when a mare comes on heat?.). At the other end, the opposite applies - a 100/1 shot is 2.5 times as likely to run second having lost, as it is to win, while a 10/1 chance is 1.43 times as likely to run second having lost as it is to win. LBL From: Racing < racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Tuesday, 17 April 2018 2:21 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Len ? thanks I did not intend to discombobulate, flummox even ? the system instruction is to use those runners with the ratio of 1.2 or better and then I went with 1.12 or similar. The idea was good, the execution not so. No, I did not sit a shift at the keyboard watching these, I did watch a couple of closing minutes for a few races, betting off my own ratings of course so I saw the trending for those I observed (to state the obvious) ? if you must know I spent most of the day sieving compost - and listening to an album by Hem. (For broad beans Northerly, yes, I wore a mask.) The ?Dr Z System? focuses on discrepancies between betting patterns in the win pool and the place pool (being American it has an element of the show pool included) This system is involved, if you follow it to the letter, but again its object is to identify those runners under bet in the place pool, relative to their pool portion in the win pool. Another variation, continuation, or some such of ?Place Power? ?see Beat the Racetrack and Betting at the Racetrack (Ziemba and Hausch) two books full of algebra. I don?t want to seem to be disparaging about algebraic maths, finding a winner is complicated enough, without finding a value for C, when A and B are minute numbers, and those with another letter in them. Ok, I?m disparaging, deriding, but only because I don?t understand. Cheers Tony From: Racing [ mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 8:57 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' < racing at ausrace.com> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Tony, I calculated Winx on final Vic TAB which I see you used, and got 2.37, so that matched, but had differences with others (eg R2, Renewal I got 1.02). Not to matter, I calculated 33,000 races (360,000 runners), minimum starters 8, no late scratchings, using Tatts Final Dividends, mainly to be 100% sure that what I "knew" held up. It did - the average ratios when Final Win Dividend: <2.0, 2.12 2.0 & <5.0 1.35 5.0 & <10.0 0.95 10.0 & <25.0 0.74 25.0 & <50.0 0.63 >=50.0 0.55 Cheers, LBL From: Racing < racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Sunday, 15 April 2018 12:34 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system There was a time when electronic devices, communication articles the signs said, were banned on course. Computers, calculators, mobile phone bricks, anything interpreted as a communication article, you had to take them off course, you had to leave and take the devils tools with you. There were signs about this, at the entrances ? no phones basically Place Power was a software package, chosen for installation on Canon calculators, with programs for specific HP, TI and other brands of the time ? these were programmable calculators with minimal RAM and the program in the ROM and so scientific. I had an upmarket Texas Instrument (I worked for an affiliate of theirs for some years) which was hard on battery power but had a proper sized keyboard. It was a brilliant piece of hardware for the time, blue and black, with a large screen, and of a size that was a boast, a display of knowledge that perhaps you didn?t have but the device might. It came with a holster, to complete the manliness aspect, or, a vest with a sizeable elasticised pocket for it to be warmed and comforted by contact. That vest was unlikely to be worn on course I suggest. There was a pen, a plastic rod, that you used to select the keys, they had a moulded hole in their centre to accept the point, this was to prevent moisture, sweat then, from contacting the facia, where the keys were. They were sealed against Resch Pilsner, I tested that aspect. No, I never used it in the bath, or shower. It is military grade, volo 7, and meant for the Moon and Mars and beyond, truly. You purchased the calculator wherever you could get the best deal, then you sent it to Place Power who loaded up the program, they said it was specific to each brand, each model. It came back to you in the mail, wrapped in that bubble wrap stuff, kids love it, and you went ahead with making your fortune. My program had a lot of other data with it, statistics for barriers, TAB numbers, parlay programs, all up programs, about 30 data cases in all (34 actually). There is a downside to all this scientific magnificence, this being when they purged the ROM to install their program, they wiped the surveying program and the navigation program. It was expensive, the program, the purchase of the calculator, the time element. It can be torture, in the seconds before race starting time, keying in the data elements, hitting RUN, and waiting for the BASIC program to enliven the screen with the data you need, needed. The technique, perhaps, was to enter all the data with 10 minutes to start time, run it, then update only those runners which were sorted to the top of the list. The day-ta or da-ta, it was spelt that way in the book, 230 pages of an advertisement for the program, was the win and place dividends. The program displayed these as % values of the whole dividend field, the book %, then reduced this to a 100% market, for win divs. It did the same for place, the 300% market was reduced to 100%. The win dividend win % and the place dividend % were compared with stored data and if there was a variation, more money on the win side, or more money on the place side, or even over the whole bet then the calculator did its thing and informed you and made a betting suggestion, just off this. The runner(s) to be supported were those which had less % in the place line than in the win line. The instruction was that more money had been bet, for the win, than for the place, this shows confidence, this is information not available to anybody (else ? except system users). The method, the rationale of all of this is investigated several times in academic texts. The data revealed is used by several authors, who take the first findings forward in an endeavour to correctly isolate a runner with the best credentials, off investment input. The writings are heavy on algebra, mystic like, with assertions that .0062 is marvellous whilst .0053 is not, useless. A starting point might be Peter Asch and Richard E Quandt ?Racetrack Betting? or/and ?Market Efficiency in Racetrack Betting?. Google for more, heaps, to be non-scientific about it at all. The endeavours of them all in attempting to straighten the line, the arrow that points to a dividend, is appreciated. Them and their regression analysis equations, god bless ?em. The process in the program is described in detail in Asch and Quandt (1986) page 117 onwards, although it, the process, is not given ownership to anybody in the expansive book that comes with the program. It just is, with flowery adjectives describing how it is good, better, best. The principle was known well before the date of manufacture of the calculator. Perhaps it was a parallel development, he asks mockingly. When I returned to the program supplier, to have the navigation and surveying programs re-installed several years later, he told me they had sold two copies of Place Power, although copying, pirating was a common activity back then, especially for HP model 41 schemes and programs. I still have mine, giant robust device that it is, it feels like you could open bottle tops with it, hammer nails, and a child has had it as a cot toy, although this was not planned, honestly, it has no taste, no flavour. It has a heft which is comforting, and it fires up instantaneously, still does. If a runner had 14% of the win pool and 12%, or 11% of the place or some figure less, this would ear mark itself as a runner to do further research, especially if these differences occurred later in the betting, less than 100 seconds say. It is assumed that all the money is in the pool then, bettors with known information, bettors with private information, all ups, and later money, after 100 seconds, it is an assumption though, is from bettors, little and large, private and corporate, betting into a niche now revealed. Who knows this? The runner information, the dividend clauses, is similar to test done by several persons in several way (days since last start, form, last start finish position etc), and further, the runner to be supported must be 1.2 times less than the win dividend per centage holding, found by dividing the place percent dividend holding into the win dividend place holding. Starting with Randwick R1 yesterday ? selections were scored from after the race data, the final dividends. The win dividend % holding was 10.1, the place dividend % holding was 8.5, 10.1/8.5 = 1.18 (it was 1.3 when the decision to select was made) result 2nd $2.6. Race 2 1.53 3rd $1.60 Race 3 1.6 2nd $2.3 ? the system selected 1st,2nd and 3rd Race 4 1.22 1st $2.4 Race 5 1st 1.7 $2.9 Race 6 1st 1.47 $1.8, the system selected 2nd also Race 7 1st 2.36 $1.04 ?this was Winx Race 8 3rd 1.22 $1.7 Race 9 2nd 1.19 (it was 1.4 when selected) $3.7 ?there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v1 Race 10 1st 1.41 $2.4 ? there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v2 It selected a winner, a dividend, in every race bar the 1st at Caulfield ? it made no selection in this race. I did 33 races, on a spreadsheet program (Smartbet v2.05), and it selected a dividend in all of them. Too good to be true? Summary: Compare the win dividend with the place dividend ? there are several ways. If the win dividend appears oversubscribed, determine if the place dividend is a value bet now, $W/$P and if the runner has other attributes (decided by you) consider it for a bet. This last clause is necessary to reduce qualifiers, there can be 3 or so, depending on the betting volatility, and is suggested in the book with the program. Winx was a selection. She had a dividend score of 2.36 (Win divided by place) and other winning attributes. Cheers Tony Virus-free. www.avg.com _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com Greg Conroy, Inventor of Award Winning and Free: www.rewardbet.com ? more: https://about.rewardbet.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Mon Apr 23 00:37:14 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:37:14 +1000 Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system In-Reply-To: <000001d3da2f$1905b980$4b112c80$@twonix.com> References: <000001d3d462$2747b250$75d716f0$@bigpond.com> <001a01d3d582$6cbf56a0$463e03e0$@ozemail.com.au> <000001d3d603$83c184a0$8b448de0$@bigpond.com> <001b01d3d6cc$615e9fa0$241bdee0$@ozemail.com.au> <000001d3d792$9cf89450$d6e9bcf0$@bigpond.com> <000e01d3d846$c87c5c60$59751520$@ozemail.com.au> <000701d3d84a$61ebf6f0$25c3e4d0$@bigpond.com> <92651EDA-C7FC-460C-A800-27A819B1B584@gmail.com> <000001d3da2f$1905b980$4b112c80$@twonix.com> Message-ID: <00d401d3da47$6a678a20$3f369e60$@ozemail.com.au> Nick, The 1.4m shows how many international races TAB bets on nowadays - I make it "only" 928,657 Oz runs in the last 5 years (plus a couple of non-TAB meetings over the weekend I'll pick up tomorrow), not all of which were TAB races (maybe only 825,697, but I'm less sure of that figure). Your TAB VIC Trifecta loss of 20% presumably comes from their commission rate (21% on Oz races, 25% on international) but it may be of interest to some that backing all Trifecta combinations, viz taking FieldxFieldxField will return only around 67% (loss 33% ) - the long-shot effect is alive and well in Trifectas, as it is, and ever has been, in bookmaker markets; backing every horse at top price of the final markets of the bookmakers I track (average 108%) will return only around 86% (loss 14%) if all horses have the same amount bet on them - the 108% (indicating a 7.5% loss) only applies if each horse is backed to win the same amount. Cheers, LBL From: Racing On Behalf Of nick.aubrey at twonix.com Sent: Sunday, 22 April 2018 9:43 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Hi Ausracers, Clearly there is more volatility in Exotic dividends and I agree with Greg that there are lot more inefficiencies compared with Win betting. BUT inefficiencies doesn?t imply better returns. In the race Greg mentioned, the trifecta paid $69 on VIC and $58.40 on NSW. That?s +18% on VIC. This advantage would have been lost if the wrong Tote was selected. Analysis of 1.4 million horse race runs over the last 5 years shows Best Bookie Odds losing -6% vs TAB VIC Win Div loss of -16% vs TAB VIC Trifecta loss of -20%. So Best Bookie Odds, on the average, performs 14% better than a dutchbook standout trifecta on the winner ! Cheers, AN From: Racing > On Behalf Of Greg Conroy Sent: Friday, 20 April 2018 1:58 PM To: Ausrace Racing > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Hi all, IMO, there?s still a lot of inefficiencies in the exotic markets. The other day (Scone R4, Apr 9 18 for those playing at home) I was able to extract an effective WIN dividend of $5.01 about my top fancy (General Artie) when the best price IN THE MARKET was $4.50. How did I do this? I stood out General Artie with the FIELD for 2nd/3rd using RewardBet?s staking. BTW, that is a matter of public record as I provide those selections daily to over 100 interested people. Greg. On 20 Apr 2018, at 11:53 am, Tony Moffat > wrote: Len ? I multiply the displayed quinella offerings by .83 (point 83) which I feel deals with the take, and may give me an over also, certainly if it is still over after that it seems to be value. It is voodoo, I?m increasing the unit bet size to counteract and provide a profit, if the runners comply. I am not that convinced that quinella prices are in league with win/[lace price, yes, there is a link but a ripple in the win market does not often come through to the quinella market, not readily any rate. I am wondering if the number of nominations for inclusion in a short quinella is not a sign to follow when selecting a winner, win betting. As an example Tab 1 may be the most popular in quinella couplings but is that the effect of boxing, or do quinella bettors really go further and truthfully do the form to find those hidden wonders, then bet the quinella because the dividend is better, or was. When you make a win market out this, it can follow the win dividend eerily, which may answer my question. Cheers Tony From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 9:28 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Tony, Just amused myself by looking at the Fixed Quinella odds offered by Centrebet. 170% markets! And I thought TAB's 130% markets on F4s was bad. That "surely" means they realise they are incompetent at calculating prices and try to cover themselves by dishing up ridiculous 170% markets, or They figure punters are so na?ve that they will bet into 170% markets. LBL From: Racing < racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Thursday, 19 April 2018 1:58 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Len ? Dr Dedman gave the formula for calculating a fair place price against the price of the favoured horse (which includes the favourite) Dedman wrote Commonsense Punting and the newer Commonsense Punting Revisited ? more sums with letters and numbers. His equation determines the price of a horse running second as ? second horse price (this is the price you entered in the equation) * the favourite horse price ? 1. so (s*(fp-1)) Eloquent isn?t it? So, in an equation involving $2.5(f) and $4(s) it sees the $4(s) winning at a calculated price of $4 ? as if the (F) $2.5 did not exist. Continuing: the results of further calculations using the inputs mentioned (2.5 as F &4.00 as S) S wins $4 ? this is the exacta with these runners also. F wins, S second $6 Any other horse(an outsider) wins, S second $10.8 F wins, S third $9.3 F second, S third $ 14.6 S third, F unplaced $ 32.6 The sum of these is the fair place price for S (0.25+0.166667+0.09292+0.107693+0.068618+0.030681) Totals 71.66% = $1.40 ? this is the calculated place price for 1st or 2nd or third. Thank you to Sean (an Ausracer) for paring it back to referential reasoning (in my case at least). I have 10 (ten) of these equations working for me each race. 1st and 2nd, 3rd,4th, 5th fav 2nd and 3rd,4th , 5th 3rd and 4th, 5th 4th and 5th. I want to look and see if there is any obvious overs ? well I did, I went back to sensible punting and losing (with the occasional windfall) quick smart. The equation chokes on big numbers, the relevance seems to go when you force it to compute unrealistic combinations eg your $101 winner with a few other lesser prices (as S) S=$4 ? calculated place price $1.60 when old school ? gives you $1.75 S=$5 ? calculated place price $1.80 S=$6 ? calculated place price $ 2.10 I mentioned old school 1/4 there ? you take your win return, minus 1, divide this by 4, then add one. So $4 goes (($4-1)/4)+1) I tend to rank the quinella dividends, all of them, then highlight the top 10 and speedbet those if they exceed/comply with another rule ? this is how I grow my bank now. Often a $2 quinella will exceed an exacta dividend (often by a lot) ? it $2 because I reverse the exacta too, 1 and two, two and 1 as a demonstration. Cheers ? raining here, so wet Saturday in Mel-bourne Tony From: Racing [ mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 12:19 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' < racing at ausrace.com> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Tony, The apparent imbalance between %age of win pools and place pools is somewhat a reflection of reality. I first saw a "mathematical" calculation of one-race exotic odds based on win odds in Scott's book - I don't know whether he devised the formulae, or got them from another's work, but I instinctively knew they were flawed, and my better calculations held me in good stead for many years. But I can't beat 20% take-out by enough to bother. To explain via a straightforward example of the simplest one-race exotic to calculate - the Exacta. Let's say we have calculated a 100% win market, (or SP adjusted to 100%): 1/1, 5/1, 10/1, 10/1, 20/1, 20/1, 20/1, 100/1 (=100.124298%) Let's say the 100/1 shot wins Scott then says you have a "race" between the other 7 for second, so ignoring the 0.990099% reduction to 99.1432%, Scott says the 1/1 is still 1/1 and the 5/1 shot still 5/1 etc. It just isn't so. 47% from my very large sample that start at 1/1 win (SP market, not adjusted to 100%), whereas only 38% of those that do not win come second, viz "win" the race for second, whereas it should be around the same 47% if 100/1 shots won the races the 1/1 shot lost, even higher in practise - eg in the above race, say the 5/1 shot wins, Scott takes the 17% of the 5/1 shot from 100%, giving 83% and says the chances of the 1/1 shot coming second having not won is 50/83 = 7/10, but they come second nothing like that often. I'm a mere statistician by training and practise, and seldom watch races, let alone base my ratings on what I have seen, but my explanation is that whatever prevented them from winning often also prevented them from coming second (eg interference, missing the start, being poorly ridden, sea gulls, being a stallion when a mare comes on heat?.). At the other end, the opposite applies - a 100/1 shot is 2.5 times as likely to run second having lost, as it is to win, while a 10/1 chance is 1.43 times as likely to run second having lost as it is to win. LBL From: Racing < racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Tuesday, 17 April 2018 2:21 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Len ? thanks I did not intend to discombobulate, flummox even ? the system instruction is to use those runners with the ratio of 1.2 or better and then I went with 1.12 or similar. The idea was good, the execution not so. No, I did not sit a shift at the keyboard watching these, I did watch a couple of closing minutes for a few races, betting off my own ratings of course so I saw the trending for those I observed (to state the obvious) ? if you must know I spent most of the day sieving compost - and listening to an album by Hem. (For broad beans Northerly, yes, I wore a mask.) The ?Dr Z System? focuses on discrepancies between betting patterns in the win pool and the place pool (being American it has an element of the show pool included) This system is involved, if you follow it to the letter, but again its object is to identify those runners under bet in the place pool, relative to their pool portion in the win pool. Another variation, continuation, or some such of ?Place Power? ?see Beat the Racetrack and Betting at the Racetrack (Ziemba and Hausch) two books full of algebra. I don?t want to seem to be disparaging about algebraic maths, finding a winner is complicated enough, without finding a value for C, when A and B are minute numbers, and those with another letter in them. Ok, I?m disparaging, deriding, but only because I don?t understand. Cheers Tony From: Racing [ mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 8:57 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' < racing at ausrace.com> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Tony, I calculated Winx on final Vic TAB which I see you used, and got 2.37, so that matched, but had differences with others (eg R2, Renewal I got 1.02). Not to matter, I calculated 33,000 races (360,000 runners), minimum starters 8, no late scratchings, using Tatts Final Dividends, mainly to be 100% sure that what I "knew" held up. It did - the average ratios when Final Win Dividend: <2.0, 2.12 2.0 & <5.0 1.35 5.0 & <10.0 0.95 10.0 & <25.0 0.74 25.0 & <50.0 0.63 >=50.0 0.55 Cheers, LBL From: Racing < racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Sunday, 15 April 2018 12:34 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system There was a time when electronic devices, communication articles the signs said, were banned on course. Computers, calculators, mobile phone bricks, anything interpreted as a communication article, you had to take them off course, you had to leave and take the devils tools with you. There were signs about this, at the entrances ? no phones basically Place Power was a software package, chosen for installation on Canon calculators, with programs for specific HP, TI and other brands of the time ? these were programmable calculators with minimal RAM and the program in the ROM and so scientific. I had an upmarket Texas Instrument (I worked for an affiliate of theirs for some years) which was hard on battery power but had a proper sized keyboard. It was a brilliant piece of hardware for the time, blue and black, with a large screen, and of a size that was a boast, a display of knowledge that perhaps you didn?t have but the device might. It came with a holster, to complete the manliness aspect, or, a vest with a sizeable elasticised pocket for it to be warmed and comforted by contact. That vest was unlikely to be worn on course I suggest. There was a pen, a plastic rod, that you used to select the keys, they had a moulded hole in their centre to accept the point, this was to prevent moisture, sweat then, from contacting the facia, where the keys were. They were sealed against Resch Pilsner, I tested that aspect. No, I never used it in the bath, or shower. It is military grade, volo 7, and meant for the Moon and Mars and beyond, truly. You purchased the calculator wherever you could get the best deal, then you sent it to Place Power who loaded up the program, they said it was specific to each brand, each model. It came back to you in the mail, wrapped in that bubble wrap stuff, kids love it, and you went ahead with making your fortune. My program had a lot of other data with it, statistics for barriers, TAB numbers, parlay programs, all up programs, about 30 data cases in all (34 actually). There is a downside to all this scientific magnificence, this being when they purged the ROM to install their program, they wiped the surveying program and the navigation program. It was expensive, the program, the purchase of the calculator, the time element. It can be torture, in the seconds before race starting time, keying in the data elements, hitting RUN, and waiting for the BASIC program to enliven the screen with the data you need, needed. The technique, perhaps, was to enter all the data with 10 minutes to start time, run it, then update only those runners which were sorted to the top of the list. The day-ta or da-ta, it was spelt that way in the book, 230 pages of an advertisement for the program, was the win and place dividends. The program displayed these as % values of the whole dividend field, the book %, then reduced this to a 100% market, for win divs. It did the same for place, the 300% market was reduced to 100%. The win dividend win % and the place dividend % were compared with stored data and if there was a variation, more money on the win side, or more money on the place side, or even over the whole bet then the calculator did its thing and informed you and made a betting suggestion, just off this. The runner(s) to be supported were those which had less % in the place line than in the win line. The instruction was that more money had been bet, for the win, than for the place, this shows confidence, this is information not available to anybody (else ? except system users). The method, the rationale of all of this is investigated several times in academic texts. The data revealed is used by several authors, who take the first findings forward in an endeavour to correctly isolate a runner with the best credentials, off investment input. The writings are heavy on algebra, mystic like, with assertions that .0062 is marvellous whilst .0053 is not, useless. A starting point might be Peter Asch and Richard E Quandt ?Racetrack Betting? or/and ?Market Efficiency in Racetrack Betting?. Google for more, heaps, to be non-scientific about it at all. The endeavours of them all in attempting to straighten the line, the arrow that points to a dividend, is appreciated. Them and their regression analysis equations, god bless ?em. The process in the program is described in detail in Asch and Quandt (1986) page 117 onwards, although it, the process, is not given ownership to anybody in the expansive book that comes with the program. It just is, with flowery adjectives describing how it is good, better, best. The principle was known well before the date of manufacture of the calculator. Perhaps it was a parallel development, he asks mockingly. When I returned to the program supplier, to have the navigation and surveying programs re-installed several years later, he told me they had sold two copies of Place Power, although copying, pirating was a common activity back then, especially for HP model 41 schemes and programs. I still have mine, giant robust device that it is, it feels like you could open bottle tops with it, hammer nails, and a child has had it as a cot toy, although this was not planned, honestly, it has no taste, no flavour. It has a heft which is comforting, and it fires up instantaneously, still does. If a runner had 14% of the win pool and 12%, or 11% of the place or some figure less, this would ear mark itself as a runner to do further research, especially if these differences occurred later in the betting, less than 100 seconds say. It is assumed that all the money is in the pool then, bettors with known information, bettors with private information, all ups, and later money, after 100 seconds, it is an assumption though, is from bettors, little and large, private and corporate, betting into a niche now revealed. Who knows this? The runner information, the dividend clauses, is similar to test done by several persons in several way (days since last start, form, last start finish position etc), and further, the runner to be supported must be 1.2 times less than the win dividend per centage holding, found by dividing the place percent dividend holding into the win dividend place holding. Starting with Randwick R1 yesterday ? selections were scored from after the race data, the final dividends. The win dividend % holding was 10.1, the place dividend % holding was 8.5, 10.1/8.5 = 1.18 (it was 1.3 when the decision to select was made) result 2nd $2.6. Race 2 1.53 3rd $1.60 Race 3 1.6 2nd $2.3 ? the system selected 1st,2nd and 3rd Race 4 1.22 1st $2.4 Race 5 1st 1.7 $2.9 Race 6 1st 1.47 $1.8, the system selected 2nd also Race 7 1st 2.36 $1.04 ?this was Winx Race 8 3rd 1.22 $1.7 Race 9 2nd 1.19 (it was 1.4 when selected) $3.7 ?there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v1 Race 10 1st 1.41 $2.4 ? there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v2 It selected a winner, a dividend, in every race bar the 1st at Caulfield ? it made no selection in this race. I did 33 races, on a spreadsheet program (Smartbet v2.05), and it selected a dividend in all of them. Too good to be true? Summary: Compare the win dividend with the place dividend ? there are several ways. If the win dividend appears oversubscribed, determine if the place dividend is a value bet now, $W/$P and if the runner has other attributes (decided by you) consider it for a bet. This last clause is necessary to reduce qualifiers, there can be 3 or so, depending on the betting volatility, and is suggested in the book with the program. Winx was a selection. She had a dividend score of 2.36 (Win divided by place) and other winning attributes. Cheers Tony Virus-free. www.avg.com _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com Greg Conroy, Inventor of Award Winning and Free: www.rewardbet.com ? more: https://about.rewardbet.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nick.aubrey at twonix.com Mon Apr 23 08:23:22 2018 From: nick.aubrey at twonix.com (nick.aubrey at twonix.com) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 08:23:22 +1000 Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system In-Reply-To: <00d401d3da47$6a678a20$3f369e60$@ozemail.com.au> References: <000001d3d462$2747b250$75d716f0$@bigpond.com> <001a01d3d582$6cbf56a0$463e03e0$@ozemail.com.au> <000001d3d603$83c184a0$8b448de0$@bigpond.com> <001b01d3d6cc$615e9fa0$241bdee0$@ozemail.com.au> <000001d3d792$9cf89450$d6e9bcf0$@bigpond.com> <000e01d3d846$c87c5c60$59751520$@ozemail.com.au> <000701d3d84a$61ebf6f0$25c3e4d0$@bigpond.com> <92651EDA-C7FC-460C-A800-27A819B1B584@gmail.com> <000001d3da2f$1905b980$4b112c80$@twonix.com> <00d401d3da47$6a678a20$3f369e60$@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <000501d3da88$87b7e660$9727b320$@twonix.com> Hi Len, Good pickup. I made a typo ? 1.14 million runs since Sept 2012 that I have analysed using my Power BI app. When backing each runner to win the same amount shows 6% Loss on Final Best Bookie Odds and 9% Loss on Top3Totes. Consistent with your stats. IMHO the 33% Trifecta loss is caused not only by the long shot effect but also by small pool sizes not supporting 3 longshot placings (when they occur) plus the boxing effect. Interestingly dutchbook betting on trifectas will reduce but not eliminate this disadvantage as generally a 2.5 fav winning , 10/1 2nd , 50/1 3rd will pay unders whereas 5/1 in all 3 places will pay overs. Cheers, AN From: Racing On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Monday, 23 April 2018 12:37 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Nick, The 1.4m shows how many international races TAB bets on nowadays - I make it "only" 928,657 Oz runs in the last 5 years (plus a couple of non-TAB meetings over the weekend I'll pick up tomorrow), not all of which were TAB races (maybe only 825,697, but I'm less sure of that figure). Your TAB VIC Trifecta loss of 20% presumably comes from their commission rate (21% on Oz races, 25% on international) but it may be of interest to some that backing all Trifecta combinations, viz taking FieldxFieldxField will return only around 67% (loss 33% ) - the long-shot effect is alive and well in Trifectas, as it is, and ever has been, in bookmaker markets; backing every horse at top price of the final markets of the bookmakers I track (average 108%) will return only around 86% (loss 14%) if all horses have the same amount bet on them - the 108% (indicating a 7.5% loss) only applies if each horse is backed to win the same amount. Cheers, LBL From: Racing > On Behalf Of nick.aubrey at twonix.com Sent: Sunday, 22 April 2018 9:43 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Hi Ausracers, Clearly there is more volatility in Exotic dividends and I agree with Greg that there are lot more inefficiencies compared with Win betting. BUT inefficiencies doesn?t imply better returns. In the race Greg mentioned, the trifecta paid $69 on VIC and $58.40 on NSW. That?s +18% on VIC. This advantage would have been lost if the wrong Tote was selected. Analysis of 1.4 million horse race runs over the last 5 years shows Best Bookie Odds losing -6% vs TAB VIC Win Div loss of -16% vs TAB VIC Trifecta loss of -20%. So Best Bookie Odds, on the average, performs 14% better than a dutchbook standout trifecta on the winner ! Cheers, AN From: Racing > On Behalf Of Greg Conroy Sent: Friday, 20 April 2018 1:58 PM To: Ausrace Racing > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Hi all, IMO, there?s still a lot of inefficiencies in the exotic markets. The other day (Scone R4, Apr 9 18 for those playing at home) I was able to extract an effective WIN dividend of $5.01 about my top fancy (General Artie) when the best price IN THE MARKET was $4.50. How did I do this? I stood out General Artie with the FIELD for 2nd/3rd using RewardBet?s staking. BTW, that is a matter of public record as I provide those selections daily to over 100 interested people. Greg. On 20 Apr 2018, at 11:53 am, Tony Moffat > wrote: Len ? I multiply the displayed quinella offerings by .83 (point 83) which I feel deals with the take, and may give me an over also, certainly if it is still over after that it seems to be value. It is voodoo, I?m increasing the unit bet size to counteract and provide a profit, if the runners comply. I am not that convinced that quinella prices are in league with win/[lace price, yes, there is a link but a ripple in the win market does not often come through to the quinella market, not readily any rate. I am wondering if the number of nominations for inclusion in a short quinella is not a sign to follow when selecting a winner, win betting. As an example Tab 1 may be the most popular in quinella couplings but is that the effect of boxing, or do quinella bettors really go further and truthfully do the form to find those hidden wonders, then bet the quinella because the dividend is better, or was. When you make a win market out this, it can follow the win dividend eerily, which may answer my question. Cheers Tony From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 9:28 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Tony, Just amused myself by looking at the Fixed Quinella odds offered by Centrebet. 170% markets! And I thought TAB's 130% markets on F4s was bad. That "surely" means they realise they are incompetent at calculating prices and try to cover themselves by dishing up ridiculous 170% markets, or They figure punters are so na?ve that they will bet into 170% markets. LBL From: Racing < racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Thursday, 19 April 2018 1:58 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Len ? Dr Dedman gave the formula for calculating a fair place price against the price of the favoured horse (which includes the favourite) Dedman wrote Commonsense Punting and the newer Commonsense Punting Revisited ? more sums with letters and numbers. His equation determines the price of a horse running second as ? second horse price (this is the price you entered in the equation) * the favourite horse price ? 1. so (s*(fp-1)) Eloquent isn?t it? So, in an equation involving $2.5(f) and $4(s) it sees the $4(s) winning at a calculated price of $4 ? as if the (F) $2.5 did not exist. Continuing: the results of further calculations using the inputs mentioned (2.5 as F &4.00 as S) S wins $4 ? this is the exacta with these runners also. F wins, S second $6 Any other horse(an outsider) wins, S second $10.8 F wins, S third $9.3 F second, S third $ 14.6 S third, F unplaced $ 32.6 The sum of these is the fair place price for S (0.25+0.166667+0.09292+0.107693+0.068618+0.030681) Totals 71.66% = $1.40 ? this is the calculated place price for 1st or 2nd or third. Thank you to Sean (an Ausracer) for paring it back to referential reasoning (in my case at least). I have 10 (ten) of these equations working for me each race. 1st and 2nd, 3rd,4th, 5th fav 2nd and 3rd,4th , 5th 3rd and 4th, 5th 4th and 5th. I want to look and see if there is any obvious overs ? well I did, I went back to sensible punting and losing (with the occasional windfall) quick smart. The equation chokes on big numbers, the relevance seems to go when you force it to compute unrealistic combinations eg your $101 winner with a few other lesser prices (as S) S=$4 ? calculated place price $1.60 when old school ? gives you $1.75 S=$5 ? calculated place price $1.80 S=$6 ? calculated place price $ 2.10 I mentioned old school 1/4 there ? you take your win return, minus 1, divide this by 4, then add one. So $4 goes (($4-1)/4)+1) I tend to rank the quinella dividends, all of them, then highlight the top 10 and speedbet those if they exceed/comply with another rule ? this is how I grow my bank now. Often a $2 quinella will exceed an exacta dividend (often by a lot) ? it $2 because I reverse the exacta too, 1 and two, two and 1 as a demonstration. Cheers ? raining here, so wet Saturday in Mel-bourne Tony From: Racing [ mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 12:19 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' < racing at ausrace.com> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Tony, The apparent imbalance between %age of win pools and place pools is somewhat a reflection of reality. I first saw a "mathematical" calculation of one-race exotic odds based on win odds in Scott's book - I don't know whether he devised the formulae, or got them from another's work, but I instinctively knew they were flawed, and my better calculations held me in good stead for many years. But I can't beat 20% take-out by enough to bother. To explain via a straightforward example of the simplest one-race exotic to calculate - the Exacta. Let's say we have calculated a 100% win market, (or SP adjusted to 100%): 1/1, 5/1, 10/1, 10/1, 20/1, 20/1, 20/1, 100/1 (=100.124298%) Let's say the 100/1 shot wins Scott then says you have a "race" between the other 7 for second, so ignoring the 0.990099% reduction to 99.1432%, Scott says the 1/1 is still 1/1 and the 5/1 shot still 5/1 etc. It just isn't so. 47% from my very large sample that start at 1/1 win (SP market, not adjusted to 100%), whereas only 38% of those that do not win come second, viz "win" the race for second, whereas it should be around the same 47% if 100/1 shots won the races the 1/1 shot lost, even higher in practise - eg in the above race, say the 5/1 shot wins, Scott takes the 17% of the 5/1 shot from 100%, giving 83% and says the chances of the 1/1 shot coming second having not won is 50/83 = 7/10, but they come second nothing like that often. I'm a mere statistician by training and practise, and seldom watch races, let alone base my ratings on what I have seen, but my explanation is that whatever prevented them from winning often also prevented them from coming second (eg interference, missing the start, being poorly ridden, sea gulls, being a stallion when a mare comes on heat?.). At the other end, the opposite applies - a 100/1 shot is 2.5 times as likely to run second having lost, as it is to win, while a 10/1 chance is 1.43 times as likely to run second having lost as it is to win. LBL From: Racing < racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Tuesday, 17 April 2018 2:21 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Len ? thanks I did not intend to discombobulate, flummox even ? the system instruction is to use those runners with the ratio of 1.2 or better and then I went with 1.12 or similar. The idea was good, the execution not so. No, I did not sit a shift at the keyboard watching these, I did watch a couple of closing minutes for a few races, betting off my own ratings of course so I saw the trending for those I observed (to state the obvious) ? if you must know I spent most of the day sieving compost - and listening to an album by Hem. (For broad beans Northerly, yes, I wore a mask.) The ?Dr Z System? focuses on discrepancies between betting patterns in the win pool and the place pool (being American it has an element of the show pool included) This system is involved, if you follow it to the letter, but again its object is to identify those runners under bet in the place pool, relative to their pool portion in the win pool. Another variation, continuation, or some such of ?Place Power? ?see Beat the Racetrack and Betting at the Racetrack (Ziemba and Hausch) two books full of algebra. I don?t want to seem to be disparaging about algebraic maths, finding a winner is complicated enough, without finding a value for C, when A and B are minute numbers, and those with another letter in them. Ok, I?m disparaging, deriding, but only because I don?t understand. Cheers Tony From: Racing [ mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 8:57 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' < racing at ausrace.com> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Tony, I calculated Winx on final Vic TAB which I see you used, and got 2.37, so that matched, but had differences with others (eg R2, Renewal I got 1.02). Not to matter, I calculated 33,000 races (360,000 runners), minimum starters 8, no late scratchings, using Tatts Final Dividends, mainly to be 100% sure that what I "knew" held up. It did - the average ratios when Final Win Dividend: <2.0, 2.12 2.0 & <5.0 1.35 5.0 & <10.0 0.95 10.0 & <25.0 0.74 25.0 & <50.0 0.63 >=50.0 0.55 Cheers, LBL From: Racing < racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Sunday, 15 April 2018 12:34 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system There was a time when electronic devices, communication articles the signs said, were banned on course. Computers, calculators, mobile phone bricks, anything interpreted as a communication article, you had to take them off course, you had to leave and take the devils tools with you. There were signs about this, at the entrances ? no phones basically Place Power was a software package, chosen for installation on Canon calculators, with programs for specific HP, TI and other brands of the time ? these were programmable calculators with minimal RAM and the program in the ROM and so scientific. I had an upmarket Texas Instrument (I worked for an affiliate of theirs for some years) which was hard on battery power but had a proper sized keyboard. It was a brilliant piece of hardware for the time, blue and black, with a large screen, and of a size that was a boast, a display of knowledge that perhaps you didn?t have but the device might. It came with a holster, to complete the manliness aspect, or, a vest with a sizeable elasticised pocket for it to be warmed and comforted by contact. That vest was unlikely to be worn on course I suggest. There was a pen, a plastic rod, that you used to select the keys, they had a moulded hole in their centre to accept the point, this was to prevent moisture, sweat then, from contacting the facia, where the keys were. They were sealed against Resch Pilsner, I tested that aspect. No, I never used it in the bath, or shower. It is military grade, volo 7, and meant for the Moon and Mars and beyond, truly. You purchased the calculator wherever you could get the best deal, then you sent it to Place Power who loaded up the program, they said it was specific to each brand, each model. It came back to you in the mail, wrapped in that bubble wrap stuff, kids love it, and you went ahead with making your fortune. My program had a lot of other data with it, statistics for barriers, TAB numbers, parlay programs, all up programs, about 30 data cases in all (34 actually). There is a downside to all this scientific magnificence, this being when they purged the ROM to install their program, they wiped the surveying program and the navigation program. It was expensive, the program, the purchase of the calculator, the time element. It can be torture, in the seconds before race starting time, keying in the data elements, hitting RUN, and waiting for the BASIC program to enliven the screen with the data you need, needed. The technique, perhaps, was to enter all the data with 10 minutes to start time, run it, then update only those runners which were sorted to the top of the list. The day-ta or da-ta, it was spelt that way in the book, 230 pages of an advertisement for the program, was the win and place dividends. The program displayed these as % values of the whole dividend field, the book %, then reduced this to a 100% market, for win divs. It did the same for place, the 300% market was reduced to 100%. The win dividend win % and the place dividend % were compared with stored data and if there was a variation, more money on the win side, or more money on the place side, or even over the whole bet then the calculator did its thing and informed you and made a betting suggestion, just off this. The runner(s) to be supported were those which had less % in the place line than in the win line. The instruction was that more money had been bet, for the win, than for the place, this shows confidence, this is information not available to anybody (else ? except system users). The method, the rationale of all of this is investigated several times in academic texts. The data revealed is used by several authors, who take the first findings forward in an endeavour to correctly isolate a runner with the best credentials, off investment input. The writings are heavy on algebra, mystic like, with assertions that .0062 is marvellous whilst .0053 is not, useless. A starting point might be Peter Asch and Richard E Quandt ?Racetrack Betting? or/and ?Market Efficiency in Racetrack Betting?. Google for more, heaps, to be non-scientific about it at all. The endeavours of them all in attempting to straighten the line, the arrow that points to a dividend, is appreciated. Them and their regression analysis equations, god bless ?em. The process in the program is described in detail in Asch and Quandt (1986) page 117 onwards, although it, the process, is not given ownership to anybody in the expansive book that comes with the program. It just is, with flowery adjectives describing how it is good, better, best. The principle was known well before the date of manufacture of the calculator. Perhaps it was a parallel development, he asks mockingly. When I returned to the program supplier, to have the navigation and surveying programs re-installed several years later, he told me they had sold two copies of Place Power, although copying, pirating was a common activity back then, especially for HP model 41 schemes and programs. I still have mine, giant robust device that it is, it feels like you could open bottle tops with it, hammer nails, and a child has had it as a cot toy, although this was not planned, honestly, it has no taste, no flavour. It has a heft which is comforting, and it fires up instantaneously, still does. If a runner had 14% of the win pool and 12%, or 11% of the place or some figure less, this would ear mark itself as a runner to do further research, especially if these differences occurred later in the betting, less than 100 seconds say. It is assumed that all the money is in the pool then, bettors with known information, bettors with private information, all ups, and later money, after 100 seconds, it is an assumption though, is from bettors, little and large, private and corporate, betting into a niche now revealed. Who knows this? The runner information, the dividend clauses, is similar to test done by several persons in several way (days since last start, form, last start finish position etc), and further, the runner to be supported must be 1.2 times less than the win dividend per centage holding, found by dividing the place percent dividend holding into the win dividend place holding. Starting with Randwick R1 yesterday ? selections were scored from after the race data, the final dividends. The win dividend % holding was 10.1, the place dividend % holding was 8.5, 10.1/8.5 = 1.18 (it was 1.3 when the decision to select was made) result 2nd $2.6. Race 2 1.53 3rd $1.60 Race 3 1.6 2nd $2.3 ? the system selected 1st,2nd and 3rd Race 4 1.22 1st $2.4 Race 5 1st 1.7 $2.9 Race 6 1st 1.47 $1.8, the system selected 2nd also Race 7 1st 2.36 $1.04 ?this was Winx Race 8 3rd 1.22 $1.7 Race 9 2nd 1.19 (it was 1.4 when selected) $3.7 ?there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v1 Race 10 1st 1.41 $2.4 ? there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v2 It selected a winner, a dividend, in every race bar the 1st at Caulfield ? it made no selection in this race. I did 33 races, on a spreadsheet program (Smartbet v2.05), and it selected a dividend in all of them. Too good to be true? Summary: Compare the win dividend with the place dividend ? there are several ways. If the win dividend appears oversubscribed, determine if the place dividend is a value bet now, $W/$P and if the runner has other attributes (decided by you) consider it for a bet. This last clause is necessary to reduce qualifiers, there can be 3 or so, depending on the betting volatility, and is suggested in the book with the program. Winx was a selection. She had a dividend score of 2.36 (Win divided by place) and other winning attributes. Cheers Tony Virus-free. www.avg.com _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com Greg Conroy, Inventor of Award Winning and Free: www.rewardbet.com ? more: https://about.rewardbet.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Mon Apr 23 08:45:30 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 08:45:30 +1000 Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Message-ID: <00de01d3da8b$a03259c0$e0970d40$@ozemail.com.au> Nick, The 1.4m shows how many international races TAB bets on nowadays - I make it "only" 928,657 Oz runs in the last 5 years (plus a couple of non-TAB meetings over the weekend I'll pick up tomorrow), not all of which were TAB races (maybe only 825,697, but I'm less sure of that figure). Your TAB VIC Trifecta loss of 20% presumably comes from their commission rate (21% on Oz races, 25% on international) but it may be of interest to some that backing all Trifecta combinations, viz taking FieldxFieldxField will return only around 67% (loss 33% ) - the long-shot effect is alive and well in Trifectas, as it is, and ever has been, in bookmaker markets; backing every horse at top price of the final markets of the bookmakers I track (average 108%) will return only around 86% (loss 14%) if all horses have the same amount bet on them - the 108% (indicating a 7.5% loss) only applies if each horse is backed to win the same amount. Cheers, LBL From: Racing > On Behalf Of nick.aubrey at twonix.com Sent: Sunday, 22 April 2018 9:43 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Hi Ausracers, Clearly there is more volatility in Exotic dividends and I agree with Greg that there are lot more inefficiencies compared with Win betting. BUT inefficiencies doesn?t imply better returns. In the race Greg mentioned, the trifecta paid $69 on VIC and $58.40 on NSW. That?s +18% on VIC. This advantage would have been lost if the wrong Tote was selected. Analysis of 1.4 million horse race runs over the last 5 years shows Best Bookie Odds losing -6% vs TAB VIC Win Div loss of -16% vs TAB VIC Trifecta loss of -20%. So Best Bookie Odds, on the average, performs 14% better than a dutchbook standout trifecta on the winner ! Cheers, AN From: Racing > On Behalf Of Greg Conroy Sent: Friday, 20 April 2018 1:58 PM To: Ausrace Racing > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Hi all, IMO, there?s still a lot of inefficiencies in the exotic markets. The other day (Scone R4, Apr 9 18 for those playing at home) I was able to extract an effective WIN dividend of $5.01 about my top fancy (General Artie) when the best price IN THE MARKET was $4.50. How did I do this? I stood out General Artie with the FIELD for 2nd/3rd using RewardBet?s staking. BTW, that is a matter of public record as I provide those selections daily to over 100 interested people. Greg. On 20 Apr 2018, at 11:53 am, Tony Moffat > wrote: Len ? I multiply the displayed quinella offerings by .83 (point 83) which I feel deals with the take, and may give me an over also, certainly if it is still over after that it seems to be value. It is voodoo, I?m increasing the unit bet size to counteract and provide a profit, if the runners comply. I am not that convinced that quinella prices are in league with win/[lace price, yes, there is a link but a ripple in the win market does not often come through to the quinella market, not readily any rate. I am wondering if the number of nominations for inclusion in a short quinella is not a sign to follow when selecting a winner, win betting. As an example Tab 1 may be the most popular in quinella couplings but is that the effect of boxing, or do quinella bettors really go further and truthfully do the form to find those hidden wonders, then bet the quinella because the dividend is better, or was. When you make a win market out this, it can follow the win dividend eerily, which may answer my question. Cheers Tony From: Racing [mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 9:28 AM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' > Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Tony, Just amused myself by looking at the Fixed Quinella odds offered by Centrebet. 170% markets! And I thought TAB's 130% markets on F4s was bad. That "surely" means they realise they are incompetent at calculating prices and try to cover themselves by dishing up ridiculous 170% markets, or They figure punters are so na?ve that they will bet into 170% markets. LBL From: Racing < racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Thursday, 19 April 2018 1:58 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Len ? Dr Dedman gave the formula for calculating a fair place price against the price of the favoured horse (which includes the favourite) Dedman wrote Commonsense Punting and the newer Commonsense Punting Revisited ? more sums with letters and numbers. His equation determines the price of a horse running second as ? second horse price (this is the price you entered in the equation) * the favourite horse price ? 1. so (s*(fp-1)) Eloquent isn?t it? So, in an equation involving $2.5(f) and $4(s) it sees the $4(s) winning at a calculated price of $4 ? as if the (F) $2.5 did not exist. Continuing: the results of further calculations using the inputs mentioned (2.5 as F &4.00 as S) S wins $4 ? this is the exacta with these runners also. F wins, S second $6 Any other horse(an outsider) wins, S second $10.8 F wins, S third $9.3 F second, S third $ 14.6 S third, F unplaced $ 32.6 The sum of these is the fair place price for S (0.25+0.166667+0.09292+0.107693+0.068618+0.030681) Totals 71.66% = $1.40 ? this is the calculated place price for 1st or 2nd or third. Thank you to Sean (an Ausracer) for paring it back to referential reasoning (in my case at least). I have 10 (ten) of these equations working for me each race. 1st and 2nd, 3rd,4th, 5th fav 2nd and 3rd,4th , 5th 3rd and 4th, 5th 4th and 5th. I want to look and see if there is any obvious overs ? well I did, I went back to sensible punting and losing (with the occasional windfall) quick smart. The equation chokes on big numbers, the relevance seems to go when you force it to compute unrealistic combinations eg your $101 winner with a few other lesser prices (as S) S=$4 ? calculated place price $1.60 when old school ? gives you $1.75 S=$5 ? calculated place price $1.80 S=$6 ? calculated place price $ 2.10 I mentioned old school 1/4 there ? you take your win return, minus 1, divide this by 4, then add one. So $4 goes (($4-1)/4)+1) I tend to rank the quinella dividends, all of them, then highlight the top 10 and speedbet those if they exceed/comply with another rule ? this is how I grow my bank now. Often a $2 quinella will exceed an exacta dividend (often by a lot) ? it $2 because I reverse the exacta too, 1 and two, two and 1 as a demonstration. Cheers ? raining here, so wet Saturday in Mel-bourne Tony From: Racing [ mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 12:19 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' < racing at ausrace.com> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Tony, The apparent imbalance between %age of win pools and place pools is somewhat a reflection of reality. I first saw a "mathematical" calculation of one-race exotic odds based on win odds in Scott's book - I don't know whether he devised the formulae, or got them from another's work, but I instinctively knew they were flawed, and my better calculations held me in good stead for many years. But I can't beat 20% take-out by enough to bother. To explain via a straightforward example of the simplest one-race exotic to calculate - the Exacta. Let's say we have calculated a 100% win market, (or SP adjusted to 100%): 1/1, 5/1, 10/1, 10/1, 20/1, 20/1, 20/1, 100/1 (=100.124298%) Let's say the 100/1 shot wins Scott then says you have a "race" between the other 7 for second, so ignoring the 0.990099% reduction to 99.1432%, Scott says the 1/1 is still 1/1 and the 5/1 shot still 5/1 etc. It just isn't so. 47% from my very large sample that start at 1/1 win (SP market, not adjusted to 100%), whereas only 38% of those that do not win come second, viz "win" the race for second, whereas it should be around the same 47% if 100/1 shots won the races the 1/1 shot lost, even higher in practise - eg in the above race, say the 5/1 shot wins, Scott takes the 17% of the 5/1 shot from 100%, giving 83% and says the chances of the 1/1 shot coming second having not won is 50/83 = 7/10, but they come second nothing like that often. I'm a mere statistician by training and practise, and seldom watch races, let alone base my ratings on what I have seen, but my explanation is that whatever prevented them from winning often also prevented them from coming second (eg interference, missing the start, being poorly ridden, sea gulls, being a stallion when a mare comes on heat?.). At the other end, the opposite applies - a 100/1 shot is 2.5 times as likely to run second having lost, as it is to win, while a 10/1 chance is 1.43 times as likely to run second having lost as it is to win. LBL From: Racing < racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Tuesday, 17 April 2018 2:21 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Len ? thanks I did not intend to discombobulate, flummox even ? the system instruction is to use those runners with the ratio of 1.2 or better and then I went with 1.12 or similar. The idea was good, the execution not so. No, I did not sit a shift at the keyboard watching these, I did watch a couple of closing minutes for a few races, betting off my own ratings of course so I saw the trending for those I observed (to state the obvious) ? if you must know I spent most of the day sieving compost - and listening to an album by Hem. (For broad beans Northerly, yes, I wore a mask.) The ?Dr Z System? focuses on discrepancies between betting patterns in the win pool and the place pool (being American it has an element of the show pool included) This system is involved, if you follow it to the letter, but again its object is to identify those runners under bet in the place pool, relative to their pool portion in the win pool. Another variation, continuation, or some such of ?Place Power? ?see Beat the Racetrack and Betting at the Racetrack (Ziemba and Hausch) two books full of algebra. I don?t want to seem to be disparaging about algebraic maths, finding a winner is complicated enough, without finding a value for C, when A and B are minute numbers, and those with another letter in them. Ok, I?m disparaging, deriding, but only because I don?t understand. Cheers Tony From: Racing [ mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com] On Behalf Of L.B.Loveday Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 8:57 PM To: 'AusRace Racing Discussion List' < racing at ausrace.com> Subject: Re: [AusRace] Place Power - a system Tony, I calculated Winx on final Vic TAB which I see you used, and got 2.37, so that matched, but had differences with others (eg R2, Renewal I got 1.02). Not to matter, I calculated 33,000 races (360,000 runners), minimum starters 8, no late scratchings, using Tatts Final Dividends, mainly to be 100% sure that what I "knew" held up. It did - the average ratios when Final Win Dividend: <2.0, 2.12 2.0 & <5.0 1.35 5.0 & <10.0 0.95 10.0 & <25.0 0.74 25.0 & <50.0 0.63 >=50.0 0.55 Cheers, LBL From: Racing < racing-bounces at ausrace.com> On Behalf Of Tony Moffat Sent: Sunday, 15 April 2018 12:34 PM To: racing at ausrace.com Subject: [AusRace] Place Power - a system There was a time when electronic devices, communication articles the signs said, were banned on course. Computers, calculators, mobile phone bricks, anything interpreted as a communication article, you had to take them off course, you had to leave and take the devils tools with you. There were signs about this, at the entrances ? no phones basically Place Power was a software package, chosen for installation on Canon calculators, with programs for specific HP, TI and other brands of the time ? these were programmable calculators with minimal RAM and the program in the ROM and so scientific. I had an upmarket Texas Instrument (I worked for an affiliate of theirs for some years) which was hard on battery power but had a proper sized keyboard. It was a brilliant piece of hardware for the time, blue and black, with a large screen, and of a size that was a boast, a display of knowledge that perhaps you didn?t have but the device might. It came with a holster, to complete the manliness aspect, or, a vest with a sizeable elasticised pocket for it to be warmed and comforted by contact. That vest was unlikely to be worn on course I suggest. There was a pen, a plastic rod, that you used to select the keys, they had a moulded hole in their centre to accept the point, this was to prevent moisture, sweat then, from contacting the facia, where the keys were. They were sealed against Resch Pilsner, I tested that aspect. No, I never used it in the bath, or shower. It is military grade, volo 7, and meant for the Moon and Mars and beyond, truly. You purchased the calculator wherever you could get the best deal, then you sent it to Place Power who loaded up the program, they said it was specific to each brand, each model. It came back to you in the mail, wrapped in that bubble wrap stuff, kids love it, and you went ahead with making your fortune. My program had a lot of other data with it, statistics for barriers, TAB numbers, parlay programs, all up programs, about 30 data cases in all (34 actually). There is a downside to all this scientific magnificence, this being when they purged the ROM to install their program, they wiped the surveying program and the navigation program. It was expensive, the program, the purchase of the calculator, the time element. It can be torture, in the seconds before race starting time, keying in the data elements, hitting RUN, and waiting for the BASIC program to enliven the screen with the data you need, needed. The technique, perhaps, was to enter all the data with 10 minutes to start time, run it, then update only those runners which were sorted to the top of the list. The day-ta or da-ta, it was spelt that way in the book, 230 pages of an advertisement for the program, was the win and place dividends. The program displayed these as % values of the whole dividend field, the book %, then reduced this to a 100% market, for win divs. It did the same for place, the 300% market was reduced to 100%. The win dividend win % and the place dividend % were compared with stored data and if there was a variation, more money on the win side, or more money on the place side, or even over the whole bet then the calculator did its thing and informed you and made a betting suggestion, just off this. The runner(s) to be supported were those which had less % in the place line than in the win line. The instruction was that more money had been bet, for the win, than for the place, this shows confidence, this is information not available to anybody (else ? except system users). The method, the rationale of all of this is investigated several times in academic texts. The data revealed is used by several authors, who take the first findings forward in an endeavour to correctly isolate a runner with the best credentials, off investment input. The writings are heavy on algebra, mystic like, with assertions that .0062 is marvellous whilst .0053 is not, useless. A starting point might be Peter Asch and Richard E Quandt ?Racetrack Betting? or/and ?Market Efficiency in Racetrack Betting?. Google for more, heaps, to be non-scientific about it at all. The endeavours of them all in attempting to straighten the line, the arrow that points to a dividend, is appreciated. Them and their regression analysis equations, god bless ?em. The process in the program is described in detail in Asch and Quandt (1986) page 117 onwards, although it, the process, is not given ownership to anybody in the expansive book that comes with the program. It just is, with flowery adjectives describing how it is good, better, best. The principle was known well before the date of manufacture of the calculator. Perhaps it was a parallel development, he asks mockingly. When I returned to the program supplier, to have the navigation and surveying programs re-installed several years later, he told me they had sold two copies of Place Power, although copying, pirating was a common activity back then, especially for HP model 41 schemes and programs. I still have mine, giant robust device that it is, it feels like you could open bottle tops with it, hammer nails, and a child has had it as a cot toy, although this was not planned, honestly, it has no taste, no flavour. It has a heft which is comforting, and it fires up instantaneously, still does. If a runner had 14% of the win pool and 12%, or 11% of the place or some figure less, this would ear mark itself as a runner to do further research, especially if these differences occurred later in the betting, less than 100 seconds say. It is assumed that all the money is in the pool then, bettors with known information, bettors with private information, all ups, and later money, after 100 seconds, it is an assumption though, is from bettors, little and large, private and corporate, betting into a niche now revealed. Who knows this? The runner information, the dividend clauses, is similar to test done by several persons in several way (days since last start, form, last start finish position etc), and further, the runner to be supported must be 1.2 times less than the win dividend per centage holding, found by dividing the place percent dividend holding into the win dividend place holding. Starting with Randwick R1 yesterday ? selections were scored from after the race data, the final dividends. The win dividend % holding was 10.1, the place dividend % holding was 8.5, 10.1/8.5 = 1.18 (it was 1.3 when the decision to select was made) result 2nd $2.6. Race 2 1.53 3rd $1.60 Race 3 1.6 2nd $2.3 ? the system selected 1st,2nd and 3rd Race 4 1.22 1st $2.4 Race 5 1st 1.7 $2.9 Race 6 1st 1.47 $1.8, the system selected 2nd also Race 7 1st 2.36 $1.04 ?this was Winx Race 8 3rd 1.22 $1.7 Race 9 2nd 1.19 (it was 1.4 when selected) $3.7 ?there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v1 Race 10 1st 1.41 $2.4 ? there was lots of electronic action on this race, the get out stakes v2 It selected a winner, a dividend, in every race bar the 1st at Caulfield ? it made no selection in this race. I did 33 races, on a spreadsheet program (Smartbet v2.05), and it selected a dividend in all of them. Too good to be true? Summary: Compare the win dividend with the place dividend ? there are several ways. If the win dividend appears oversubscribed, determine if the place dividend is a value bet now, $W/$P and if the runner has other attributes (decided by you) consider it for a bet. This last clause is necessary to reduce qualifiers, there can be 3 or so, depending on the betting volatility, and is suggested in the book with the program. Winx was a selection. She had a dividend score of 2.36 (Win divided by place) and other winning attributes. Cheers Tony Virus-free. www.avg.com _______________________________________________ Racing mailing list Racing at ausrace.com http://ausrace.com/mailman/listinfo/racing_ausrace.com Greg Conroy, Inventor of Award Winning and Free: www.rewardbet.com ? more: https://about.rewardbet.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From RaceStats at hotmail.com Fri Apr 27 19:12:40 2018 From: RaceStats at hotmail.com (Race Stats) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 09:12:40 +0000 Subject: [AusRace] Check your bets Message-ID: As Len has mentioned numerous times, it is important to check you have been paid out the correct amount, but also paid for your horse winning! Yesterday I had a sizeable bet (for me) on a US horse race with Bill Hill. They looked up DRF and didn't watch the live feed. My account was deducted $1,000 as they had horse 1 as the winner. This horse was a grey horse which finished at the tail of the field. My horse was 1A which was favourite, but still o.k. odds, it won the race. After contacting live chat, the were adamant my horse lost, so I was the one who had to provide them with a racing replay from the track! They then amended the race result and credited my account, so I immediately withdrew the whole lot in protest. Who knows if I hadn't been burning the early hours and watched the race live, I would have taken their word for it. It's just not good enough for them not to have a live feed and rely on what DRF puts up, and I told them to please escalate this to senior management. I reckon I've been duded before for sure. Lindsay -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lloveday at ozemail.com.au Sat Apr 28 12:02:38 2018 From: lloveday at ozemail.com.au (L.B.Loveday) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2018 12:02:38 +1000 Subject: [AusRace] Check your bets In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007401d3de94$fe418830$fac49890$@ozemail.com.au> Don't overlook checking you have received refunds for scratchings, especially late scratchings. LBL From: Racing On Behalf Of Race Stats Sent: Friday, 27 April 2018 7:13 PM To: AusRace Racing Discussion List Subject: [AusRace] Check your bets As Len has mentioned numerous times, it is important to check you have been paid out the correct amount, but also paid for your horse winning! Yesterday I had a sizeable bet (for me) on a US horse race with Bill Hill. They looked up DRF and didn't watch the live feed. My account was deducted $1,000 as they had horse 1 as the winner. This horse was a grey horse which finished at the tail of the field. My horse was 1A which was favourite, but still o.k. odds, it won the race. After contacting live chat, the were adamant my horse lost, so I was the one who had to provide them with a racing replay from the track! They then amended the race result and credited my account, so I immediately withdrew the whole lot in protest. Who knows if I hadn't been burning the early hours and watched the race live, I would have taken their word for it. It's just not good enough for them not to have a live feed and rely on what DRF puts up, and I told them to please escalate this to senior management. I reckon I've been duded before for sure. Lindsay -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tonymoffat at bigpond.com Mon Apr 30 21:58:23 2018 From: tonymoffat at bigpond.com (Tony Moffat) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 19:58:23 +0800 Subject: [AusRace] Thommos Two Up School - A Tale of Two Jockeys Message-ID: <000001d3e07a$8b1cf8c0$a156ea40$@bigpond.com> Sunday morning at Thommos Two Up School. There was a Filipina bloke I went to boarding school with, David, who came home with me one holiday, normally he would have flown home to Luzon City. His parents were very wealthy, he said, but it did not affect him and his father sent him to our school to continue his education in maintaining the common touch. He had 41 shirts and 80 combs and had braces on his teeth, fitted in California the year before and he went there for checking and adjustments during holidays, in his family jet. He was small for his age but could throw a baseball, make that thing turn corners almost. His luggage was moulded strengthened suitcases and there were nine of those. He wore surfie modern, we were 426 miles from the surf here, but it was all good stuff. We rode motorbikes and rode around in cars on bush properties and went shooting and fishing. He played Canasta all hours with Mum, and Bridge and liked to sleep in, impossible at school. Mum asked him what he liked to eat and we had cake every day after that, thanks mate. Towards the end of the second week he flew from my home to Melbourne, in a chartered plane, to meet his father there, I could have gone as well but didn?t. Later in the year I received a Christmas card from him and a photo of him and his family and their jet in Iceland, he said he was there looking for Santa, he was wearing my St George jumper, a few sizes too big for him. Another guest from school was Ian, a big, really big, Polynesian boy from a Fiji island. He flew in to the capital city airport, then caught a series of smaller planes and a boat to get to his home island. He was a thorough gentleman, so kind to Mum and while we only had a week, he went home for a week after that, we did a lot, driving, riding, swimming, fishing, shooting, golfing, tennis-ing, swimming again. Ian said he thought he was older than it said in his passport and identification papers. He looked 25 and his muscles had muscles. He was not permitted to play football due to a stomach injury, an appendicitis operation which was done not quite properly, his words. He wore glasses, he was blind without his glasses and was losing them often, feeling for them on the blankets or across the tops of tables and benches and once he did that and he had them on his head. Mum made, braided, a cloth chain for him and he wore them around his neck all the time after that, much better he told her. He had very strong religious beliefs and went to church 4 times in a week, although he went every day at school. He got his Leaving Certificate the first year I was at school and he left after that. He returned early the next year for Uni, but ended up going to Hawaii for University, life is hard for some. It was during this brief return to UNSW that big Ian, D, David and I met up In 1965 I was at boarding school in Bathurst, my older sister was living and working in Sydney at this time and I, and two others, were collected by her on Friday afternoon, late, to return to Sydney for a concert at Double Bay ?The Kinks. It was crap. My girlfriend, D, actually left the venue and we all had after 40 minutes. Terrible. Bad, because I think still they write, wrote, good songs. The support bands were good but the stars not so ? jet lag perhaps. Anyway we strolled around Kings cross for a while then looked at the nice cars in the shop windows in William Street then went to the pictures and a club after that. My guests this weekend were David, from the Philippines, and Ian from a South Sea Island. I?m big, Ian is bigger, David is David, and D, well she is a girl. We had only been at school a week or so and had to be back there mid-afternoon on Sunday. David wanted to see a two up game. I had never been to one of those and all I could think of was the clusters or groups of men, people, in the side streets of Surry Hills when I went to collect something for the printing works in Foveaux Street. The lady at the printing works told me to be careful walking through the two up, it was gone by the time I went back that way. My Uncle Bill offered to help and did so, he announced there would be a game in Little Ridley Street, off Sophia Lane, he got that information from the RSL in the suburb ? now why didn?t I think of that. We would go mid-morning tomorrow then meet for lunch, collect our gear, get to the train and get back to student life. When I was much younger I was driving with Dad, to golf at lunchtime, when we saw a group of men running, on the footpaths and the Main Road in town. Dad said the Police must have raided the two up, and the SP as it turned out, and the runners perhaps were spreading out from there, it seemed serious but Dad was smiling then laughed. One of the runners, the leading edge almost, couldn?t work because of an injured leg, and this tickled Dad somewhat. I had seen the huddle of men in the laneway, out of sight mostly, but that laneway ran at the back of my house and sometimes I would come out our back gate, on the rear wheel of my Speedwell, and stay up there for most of the block, to be met with this group of serious faces who stopped doing what they were doing until I rode past, sedately now. This was a two up game, Dad explained. The pennies had to land on the dirt, in the dust he said, and the observation of the result, tails, heads, or one of either, that decided the result and the next action. To me it was like pokies, pokie action anyway, mindless said Dad. This day,D and I, David and Ian had an early breakfast and caught the train into town, Central, and walked out of Eddy Avenue. We followed a group of blokes and they said, yes, they were going to the game so we asked the group could we tail along, no worries. We found the school and an organiser said D could not stay, D said fine and she stood up the top of the steps nearby and read the newspaper until some passing lunatic made a sexual suggestion and she came back down to me, and we both left. My sole visit to a two up school, boring, and strangely quiet. There were perhaps 20 males there, and not a lot of money being passed around that I saw. I understand the concept of the game but can?t get enthusiastic about it, is this unaustralian or something. Ian says it is known where he lives and David says there is lots of gambling where he comes from, but not this, it?s more cards. Was it Thommos, I don?t know, I didn?t think so as I figured they would be inside somewhere, controlled, a fee to enter, some organisation, some taciturn officials. Something other than what we saw then. D said she gave up an hours cuddling for this. Enough said. This was before Sunday shopping and D wanted shopping which we could do on the North Shore, so we told those other two we were going and would meet them and my sister at a caf? for lunch. We, D, me and David, had to catch a train back to school in the early afternoon too. We had to be in uniform when travelling and we weren?t, we had to be in the presence of an adult and none of us were, we had to be in house before bounds, 5.00pm, and we weren?t, so we had to plan. First, food, as we all missed tea, so railway pies all round, good too. We spoke with a taxi driver, he was aware of the dilemma, so he drove to the Memorial Park, near D school, then walked her over the road, carried her duffle bag too, she signed in, then he came back to us and took us to the Big House, no parking allowed, so we all walked up the driveway, crunching underfoot, to be met at the front door and admitted, no questions asked. David yelled back, thank you Uncle Dazzle, as he crunched off down the drive, a fresh pound in his hand, good work. I wrote about that concert in a school essay and scored ok with it too. Jockey times two+++++++++++++++ There were two future jockeys at school when I was there. One was pre-ordained to be one, and the other grew, actually didn?t grow, to be one, in fact had never been on a horse until he did. RB was from a horse family, they had horses in their back yard in the country town where they lived and when his parents visited or collected him they always had a horse float on the back of their F100, and bales of hay and bags of feedstuff. RB wore riding boots by choice, those high heeled ones too, he was a perfectly formed small man, just absolutely zero body fat, muscly and weighed 6 stone 8 ounces after tea, that?s like 45 kilograms near enough. He was a fitness freak, one of six at the college who trained daily for some athletic pursuit, a runner of long distance when he always won the race over the car racing track at the back of the college, a gentleman really, a good catholic boy, altar boy duties, latin, led the processions from the chapel, and he was refused permission to play football. The teams were aged based, the 5ths through to the 3rds, and although he was 17 or near enough he was too slightly built to be included in the senior teams, it annoyed him but he got on with it. He played hockey, really well, and in the last year played soccer outstandingly, he had sublime skills and his fitness. He said no when asked if he was going to be a jockey, but admitted he would be horse involved somehow somewhere. Anyway he got his leaving certificate and before Christmas the same year he was doing apprentice jockey chores at a sizeable stable in Sydney. He was good at it too, and the stable had good horses, it all helps I guess and his name was often in the results, if not on a winner at least on a placegetter, elevated to the dizzy heights of third because of the jockey factor. I never got a tip from him, I saw him at the races in later years and he had a firm handshake always for me and a minute to talk my rubbish. He did well over a lot of years, I would assume better than all of us in the asset aggregation stakes and travels continuously in his retirement but that is now. Back then his honesty, and from that his integrity, were the reasons you chose him to ride your horse, the ability to control and place and present the animal to the best advantage helped too. Over tea one day he told me he was a terrible judge of a horse, he depended on another bloke to pick his rides for him, at this stage he was not aligned with a stable, he had been and had a lot of success, wins and places and places out to 5th which paid him good money in addition to his riding fee. He knew the value of a shilling, this one, because I paid for the meal and he drove me to my place in his Jaguar. He was known to be riding in the forward third of the pack, always ready to strike and run on if the horse was able, capable, and he did not see it as a science nor was there a special technique, just position your horse and run on. He had never been accused of a bad ride, or a brain fart causing his mount to lose. They lost more often than they won but he had given the best chance that he could, he avoided trouble, he missed being boxed in, or cut off, or being slow away or caught at the back when the field fanned out on the corner, he was in the forward third nearly always and missed all of that, and if his ride was good enough it won, otherwise it ran up to its merits and placed, still a sizeable cheque. He left his stable because of a personality clash with another rider, the second string man who was exceedingly ambitious, and on three occasions had ridden dangerously and on two of those occasions had won, beating RB on a stable horse. Nobody at the stable was asking questions of RB, sort of why oh why did you make us lose money by losing the race type of thing, but the second string drummed up an agenda about himself and RB and RB thought it better to part ways. The stable supporters were saddened, annoyed, gob-smacked or all of that together. RB could not see how, perhaps why, they had placed so much importance on him, as the jockey riding their horse. He told me he rode the horse within the rules of racing, wearing the assigned colours, the flashy shirt and at the weight designated. He was always a light weight jockey, always weighed his 45 kilograms, but was strong, wrestler strong because he trained with one of them, an Olympian who had specialised in training athletes. RB was unlucky in love, never married, but often in the company of pretty girls. The other bloke, TA, was never sure of what he was going to be, he was in the form before mine and had been a boarder since he was 12, and it showed. He needed a haircut, he needed a Mum really, his tie was thinly knotted always and never done up, his shirt was out, his shoes swallowed his socks, his jumper was way too big and his trousers way too tight. He looked grubby, little and smudgy. He smoked and he was incessantly hungry but he was thin and strong, and weighed less than the other bloke. He played neither football or hockey, no sports that I knew of, but he was often in the stands, yelling for the team, supporting, part of the crowd on your side. Form 9 do work experience in the second term and he did his at the railway yards, where he may have been teased, trussed up, hung upside down, and all day at that. He didn?t complain, he told us about it but was good natured with it, the College would have been annoyed perhaps if they found out. Anyway, another kid went to a stable for three days, in his home town though so he had Mum food every night for once but that wasn?t the big news, the stable had won two on the trot this day, then a third and fourth on subsequent days and there was quite a bit of money for starters, but energy, excitement, whatever comes from that when a 14 year old with no vocabulary was describing it. This fascinated TA, what, you ride the horse to a win and you are showered with money like. Pretty much, was the tale teller response, I was there, I heard them talking. I wanted to interrupt, to check the facts, but they went back and forth, wonderous news of money for results on one side, and more information wanted, or at least, confirmation that a 15 year old had upwards of $3000 in a roll of notes, all garnered from the betting and racing the day before. Seems that from that point of time onwards TA was going to be riding winning horses, daily perhaps, and will accept a money shower anytime. His father said no, expletive deleted, a jockey, no way, nah, little criminals, you are getting a proper trade, a boiler maker or welder, mechanic or something. Somewhat deflated, and annoyed with his father, I mean unhealthily out of love with his parents actually, he moped at school, which is what he did after all and before the knock. Mid term his father died, he said this was a blessing, he said this was a miracle, he said he had a belief in miracles and I wrote that just as he said it. TA left college that afternoon, bereavement pass, and has never returned, his broken guitar was on top of the lockers at year end still, the strings stolen, and his dry-cleaning, wrapped in a large brown paper parcel was still awaiting collection in the dorm at that time too, his gutted tennis racquet, with those of others though, was hanging outside under the veranda of the sport room and his school shirt, pants and shoes were on his bed in the dorm, on his pillow it is said, a real no no, an assessed stick it up the establishment motion there, his bathroom locker was open and was the receptacle for all forms of rubbish, clothing, whatever, as the weeks passed.. Look, I don?t agree with what he said, blessings and miracles aside, but if somebody was going to say something like that, it was going to be him. So he left and never returned. About the middle of next year, my last year, I was reading the Sunday paper, on Tuesday at home ? country town remember, and I saw that he had ridden a winner, in Dubbo, this was his 15th win, from 109 rides, and there was no mention of a money shower, well there wouldn?t be. But he was mentioned in the paper occasionally and he was getting a paycheck on and off it seemed. It seemed he travelled extensively to ride, to be seen, to help out a trainer, he seemed to really try to make a success of this. I never saw him ride but within 7 or so years he had gone, out of riding but perhaps still in the industry in some capacity, I don?t know what he did when race riding stopped. There were cadets at College, army trainees as this was during the ramp up for Vietnam. The cadet training was popular, a lot of weapon work, no shooting though, but the marching was superb, who would have believed that blokes could be co-ordinated like that. They won prizes, for their appearance, for their skill sets, for their marching and for their band. I applied to be in the band and had a try out, I could drum, I mean I had an understanding of the technique of drumming as required, depending on the sticks rebounding quickly off the drum head to get that distinctive sound, I had an ear as well, I picked up on the rhythm quickly, there was no other music, just drums, two bass, and a bunch of snares, with over the shoulder plaited straps. I practiced with them, and I practiced by myself, but the drummer numbers were restricted, 5 in the front row, then 3, then the two bass drums in a line after them. I didn?t make it, there were no vacancies anyway, and a couple of applicants. I was sort of relieved because they went into kilts in the last year. Kilts, dresses mate in a Polish named school with an American sourced catholic religion in the middle of New South Wales, in some oblique lined cloth, I think the tartan of a Cardinal from way back. Ok, I would have worn the kilt just to immerse myself in the experience. The marching band, without the marchers, were on Bondi Beach, when I saw them last, they sounded really good, nice and tight with the playing and their marching. So, let?s go with this again, a Polish named school, in Australia, in Scottish clothing, playing Asian made instruments, with drum sticks from the Caribbean, representing a religion head quartered in Rome, and a school managed by priests from a catholic sect from America. World music I would call that. Good band though. We were taught marching at school ? some get it wrong and it is not because they are in time with the music, just a long way from the source, therefore they look like they are out of step. That?s not it, some lose the cadence, most don?t but those out of step really make it cringe worthy for the rest of us. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: