[AusRace] Racing Digest, Vol 16, Issue 9

[norsaintpublishing at gmail.com]

Thanks Tone, I was about to ask.



<https://mailtrack.io/> Sent with Mailtrack
<https://mailtrack.io?utm_source=gmail&utm_medium=signature&utm_campaign=signaturevirality&>

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:58 PM, <racing-request at ausrace.com> 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" <tonymoffat at bigpond.com>
> To: <racing at ausrace.com>
> 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' <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
> <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com> > On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 April 2018 2:21 PM
> To: racing at ausrace.com <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com> > On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
> Sent: Sunday, 15 April 2018 12:34 PM
> To: racing at ausrace.com <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&u
> tm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
> Virus-free.
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&u
> 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: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/
> 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: <http://ausrace.com/pipermail/racing_ausrace.com/attachments/20180419/22276afc/attachment.html>