Quote:
Originally Posted by For The Lead
Well, you’re right. I was making a point for the numbers I deem significant right from the outset.
From the outset, I was simply making the point that regardless of whether one looks at 2010 or 2001, the average price of a winner is $12.00+. Further, the percentage of all winners at 5/1 or greater was 30% regardless of whether or not it was in 2010 or 2001.
From the outset, I was trying to make the point to readers that with all the “doom and gloom” about lower prices, smaller fields, more winning favorites,etc., etc., they can still make a profit.
From the outset I was never “resisting” the point Dave was making in his video. I wasn’t even discussing the merits of his numbers in the video. I can’t “resist” his numbers since I have the same numbers done in the exact same way, that is, what Dave refers to as “dollar nets”. There isn’t anything that Dave can put up there that I don’t already know. Dave and I happen to be two guys with massive databases of horse racing information. Save for any proprietary information, our research on certain basic things must match.
My point from the outset was that regardless of any downward trend for low odds winners for any reason(s), as long as the average winning mutual remains at $12.00+ and the percentage of all winners at 5/1 or better remains at 30%, what is the difference how the lower mutuals move? After all, the name of this game is value and profits and they are still there for those who know how to get them. And you certainly won’t find value among low odds horses.
Dave also mentions in his video the fact that the top two public betting choices win 59% of all races or 6 out of 10 races. This is something I have written about on this site several times over the past couple of years. The purpose of my writing was to inform the readers that if they are searching for value they only have 4 out of 10 races in which to be successful. That they must strive to know when they have a chance to beat these top two public betting choices and when they do not.
So, I trust that this clears up this matter and thank you for your responses.
|
Hi FTL,
Since you seem to be pretty much repeating points you've already made, and I have nothing more to add on the issue of the declining odds of longshot winners, maybe we should bring this exchange to a close.
But, there is one more point I think worth making. While many people in the handicapping world cite statistics, and many more are misled by them, very few have the knowledge to interpret them. Among those few are people like Dave Schwarz, Jeff Platt, and Ken Massa of HTR, a former partner of Tom Brohamer's. To me, the most valuable aspect of their work is their willingness to provide objective measurements - generally acknowledged benchmarks - of the value of horseraceing statistics, such as $Net and Impact Value. Rather than the typical citation of isolated, and hence meaningless, handicapping statistics, they provide context, and statistical significance - factors crucial to making a profit in this difficult game.
Cheers,
B Jennet