[AusRace] Place Power - a system

Fri Apr 20 11:53:29 AEST 2018

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' <racing at ausrace.com>
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 naïve that they will bet into 170% markets.

LBL

From: Racing <racing-bounces at ausrace.com
<mailto:racing-bounces at ausrace.com> > On Behalf Of Tony Moffat
Sent: Thursday, 19 April 2018 1:58 PM
To: racing at ausrace.com <mailto: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 ¼ 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
<mailto: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/20180420/e0080ad0/attachment.html>