Bookmakers weaknesses.

[carlisle]

Hi Artemis

thanks for your sensible questions.

I take the prevailing going on the day of the race as my benchmark.  Lets say genuinely soft going. (s2)

I will then consider any form produced on y3 s1 s2 s3 v1.<br>Every week I produce my own going assessments

Take best Len +/-, best class level and best speed rating.

Give values for each data item out of 10.

-2L  (6 marks), equal to today class, (7 marks), poor speed rating  (1 mark)

Score = 14/30   (47%)    Nothing special

When the going changes it gets complicated.

I have coded this, I may need to look at it again.  I have got a detailed way of awarding the marks.

Any suggestions welcomed

byefrom<br>carlisle

<br>"You are obsessed with reds!"

(Edited by carlisle at 9:18 pm on Oct. 20, 2006)

[Artemis]

carlisle,

I can’t make head nor tail of this.

Were you, by any chance, a pupil of Professor Stanley Unwin?

[carlisle]

Hi

I have written it in a short hand way, admittedly.

Intelligence is what you use when you don’t know the answer.

Please explain the three pipe reference, Sherlock.

I am still trying to get my head around ‘the Monty Hall Dilemma’

byefrom<br>carlisle

"you lucky pig"

[Artemis]

carlisle,

I’m sure it makes sense to you, which is all that is important. I could figure it out, but I was hoping you would provide a bit more in the way of explanation, so that the discussion could move forward.

Don’t worry about giving secrets away. The few informed people who read these posts know that there are no secrets. The uninformed readers are a very tiny proportion of the betting public and won’t change their ways.

Probably best left there.

[carlisle]

Hi Artemis

I was trying to explain my approach to you.  I guess it was a bit too different for you to cope with.

I am an open book, just ask away.

All that y3 s1 s2 s3 v1 threw you.

My method is all there, no secrets.

It’s all about refining the raw data and giving the user easy access to truly meaningful ratings.

If you don’t mind me saying I think your ratings are far too close together to be useful.

Is there anyone with any imagination out there?

byefrom<br>carlisle

"you lucky pig"<br>

(Edited by carlisle at 8:34 pm on Oct. 21, 2006)

[cormack15]

Good stuff Carlisle – excellent contributions to  a good thread.

[carlisle]

Hi cormack15

thanks mate, I find setting ideas free gives them a chance to grow.

byefrom<br>carlisle

<br>"how do you feel about your box?"  Deal or no deal.

<br>

[Artemis]

Quote: from carlisle on 8:01 pm on Oct. 21, 2006[br]Hi Artemis

.

If you don’t mind me saying I think your ratings are far too close together to be useful.

Is there anyone with any imagination out there?

byefrom<br>carlisle

"you lucky pig"<br>

<br>No, I don’t mind at all.

The ratings for handicaps are close together as you might expect, but for non-handicaps they can cover a broad range.

I use an approximate conversion of

1 ratings point  = 4 percentage probability points

for handicaps (1 = 5 for non-h’caps), when making a decision about what represents value. It works reasonably well given that it is quite a crude measure.

If the ratings points range was broader, it would be a matter of;

1 ratings point = x  percentage probability points, where x is greater than 4. <br>

EDIT: That last line should read LESS THAN 4, and not GREATER THAN FOUR

<br>

(Edited by Artemis at 4:42 pm on Oct. 22, 2006)

[carlisle]

Hi Artemis

thanks for that, I will bear it in mind.

I find I need to think about handicaps and non handicaps in very different ways.  No great revelation there.

My ratings are not weight adjusted.  It’s a bit of a quandary. Let’s say I get an overall score of 105.67 and the horse is getting 10lbs from the field.  Adding 10 to the total is surely too simple.

Personally, I have no real ideas on this one.

byefrom<br>carlisle

<br>ps Max. score is 180

(Edited by carlisle at 1:29 pm on Oct. 22, 2006)

[Artemis]

carlisle,

I’m going to let you have the last word on this thread, because I can’t really take it any further.

I’m going now. I may be gone for a while.

au revoir and cheerio

[carlisle]

Hi Artemis

make sure you wrap up, and mind that hole.

Any worthwhile contributions welcomed.

Hey ho from<br>carlisle<br>

[carlisle]

Hi

if handicaps and non handicaps should be thought of in different ways, it’s logical that I need to alter my list of priorities accordingly.

For handicaps…………….

I think Ability will be less important, trainer and jockey more worthy of attention.

byefrom<br>carlisle

"I am not the finished article, yet"

(Edited by carlisle at 8:32 am on Oct. 24, 2006)

[carlisle]

looks like a have got some catching up to do.

https://theracingforum.co.uk/cgi-bin … 06&start=0

byefrom<br>carlisle<br>

[carlisle]

Hi

the main reason bookies have to give every runner a price, is……………

because if you cannot win, then you cannot lose.

byefrom<br>carlisle

[Author]

Posts