- This topic has 99 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
For example:
"If Beef or Salmon is running on soft ground in a small field, back him, if not, don’t"
Hi Kifill
no it’s far more general than that.  It will all depend on what cormack15 approach is.
Personally, my approach is to create 8 ratings. One of which would be a jockey rating. The pseudocode would be like this.
"Add Jockey’s 14 day % to Jockey’s course %.  Divided this number by 2.  Giving an indication of the Jockey’s worth in terms of a rating."
(I do something a bit more involved, but you get the idea, I give additional marks for placed effort within 2L of the winner)
These instructions can then be turn into programming code.
Thus producing automated, useful, ratings.  That hopefully start to make sense of any race.
byefrom<br>carlisle<br>
(Edited by carlisle at 10:43 pm on Nov. 21, 2006)
Aaaah – so that is pseudocode !
In the late 80’s I spent hours, days, weeks… nay months tirelessly feeding data into a database which I then analysed every which way. I even took entire weeks off work to work on it. It paid off. It led me down countless paths but finally to a strange little system, based around Clive Holt’s Fineform formula with additional filters for race type, age, Distance/Going and price. For four seasons that little system proved a minor goldmine, paying for the deposit on my first flat after I moved to the big City.
Then, alas, as quickly as it had appeared, it began to fail and I quickly abandoned it. I’ve revisited it several times since but to no avail.
That little system taught me several things. It taught me that hard work brings its rewards. It taught me that it is possible to find ways to get in front. It illustrated the power of data analysis. It also taught me to be constantly vigilant because things are always changing.
I’ve never had, or made, the time (marriage/jobs/kids) since then to really focus on developing  and maintaining a database (maybe if I didn’t spend two hours analysing races in the way I currently do I might!) but if what you are saying, Carlisle, is that you have one (a database that is)  and that you’re looking for a person(s) to help with the analytical work then I’d be interested, although I don’t think my current analytical technique is going to make us rich, whether it’s transferred to pseudocode or not! I do have some fiendishly interesting other ideas I’d like to explore though, given access to a robust set of data.
You’re right, I do need to smarten up and I completely agree with what the guy says in that article. It’s similar to apracing’s point earlier in the thread. It’s no good standing on the boat with the other mugs looking at the surface, you need to get the diving gear on and plunge into the murky waters if you want to find the treasure!<br>
Hi cormack15
I am all for a analogy, well done.
More later, I will have a ponder.
byefrom<br>carlisle
<br>
(Edited by carlisle at 7:47 pm on Nov. 23, 2006)
Aranalde – She’s only a clumsy girl in the hands of a clumsy boy, like me.
She does the odd turn though, like all good clumsy girls!
Corm
In your handling of Miss Nalogy you were a complete gentleman. It was Carlisle’s clumsy wielding of the indefinite article that led me to invoke her full name lest we incur her wrath and find ourselves plagued with mixed metaphors and strangled similies.
Hi Aranalde
have got you one my definitely not list.
byefrom<br>carlisle
ps please no more english lessons, I hate detentions.
Carlisle
I am no position to criticise anyone’s grammar. You did nothing wrong, I was in a frivolous mood.
Carry on with the horse-related conversations
Hi Aranalde
cheers mate.
byefrom<br>carlisle
ps I was never taught grammar, I know "it’s shows"
Hi cormack15
yes I have access to a large amount of data.  This resource can be made available to be used by Pool united.
Early days yet, lets see what gives. I think a few seeds have been planted.  I am having a few personal difficulties at the moment, so I haven’t been able to fully throw myself into this project….yet.
I am sure things will Evolve nicely.
Next race please.
byefrom<br>carlisle
(Edited by carlisle at 8:01 am on Nov. 24, 2006)
Next race is the Hennessey and Flat Season Lover has volunteered to kick that off, he’s started a thread but hasn’t posted his analysis yet. I’ll be doing a bit of work on it and will post up my bits and pieces. This time I’ll be incorporating more trend work into my analysis than was the case with the BF Chase last week.
I have some ideas for some analytical work when you’re ready.
- Total Posts 17716
Quote: from cormack15 on 9:49 am on Nov. 24, 2006[br]Next race is the Hennessey and Flat Season Lover has volunteered to kick that off, he’s started a thread but hasn’t posted his analysis yet. I’ll be doing a bit of work on it and will post up my bits and pieces. This time I’ll be incorporating more trend work into my analysis than was the case with the BF Chase last week.
{quote]
Errmmm….. Forgive me for pointing this out Corm, but lack of trend work analysis didn’t seem to be the problem last week?<br>From where I’m looking, your main drawback was that you seriously under-rated Kauto Star – possibly because your approach is value-driven?<br> You had him as a 2/1 – 9/4 chance, yet he won like a long odds-on shot which surely tells you something?
Absolutely spot on RH.
The flaw with my approach last week was that it failed to identify/allow for the Kauto Star improvement factor. However that was just one race remember. Quite often horses coming into races with the KS profile (unproven at trip, reputation shortening price rather than achievement) do fail and it was just a case of KS not being one of those. Perhaps I need to get better at spotting the occasions when the likes of KS do warrant the hype but, when I try to second guess my analytical work, the analysis usually comes up trumps and I rue going against it.
Usually, and I did point this out last week, my overall approach uses trend analysis as a major factor and I was just pointing out that my Hennessey analysis will make much more use of this than my approach last week. I wasn’t using it as an excuse. I was happy with my analysis last week. generally if I back horses with BOS profile against horses with KS profile (generally being teh key word) I get it right often enough to be in front although I will still be ‘wrong’ on more than, say, 66% of occasions (depending on prices I back at).
But , yes, I did get KS wrong. Is it a case of that type of horse coming good on a certain % of occassions or, as apracing pointed out, were there enough precedents to alert me that the step up in trip wasn’t the negative factor I had it as. (However, even without the step up in trip, I still would have had KS as bad value so that isn’t the flaw).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.