|
Google Site Search | Get RDSS | Sartin Library | RDSS FAQs | Conduct | Register | Site FAQ | Members List | Today's Posts | Search |
RDSS2 / FAQ's Information, discussion, screenshots, videos about the upcoming version, FAQ's |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
04-19-2011, 02:13 PM | #11 | |
Grade 1
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Escondido CA just 25 minutes from where the turf meets the surf - "...at Del Mar"
Posts: 2,418
|
Quote:
I am not really sure about what you are asking about re RR and E1 and E2; perhaps if you PM me your phone # I'll call you and we can discuss further. bill |
|
04-19-2011, 02:30 PM | #12 | |
Grade 1
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Escondido CA just 25 minutes from where the turf meets the surf - "...at Del Mar"
Posts: 2,418
|
Quote:
Lets be open to this new idea. So far the 2 Es and 2Ls per race show 73% wins; 51% exactas and 25% trifectas. I have only done some of the ROI stuff but the exactas and tri's are positive and I think that 10c supers with the all button in position 4 will be too. Bill |
|
04-19-2011, 02:49 PM | #13 |
Grade 1
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,014
|
I definitely agree Bill.
It looks like black box exacta boxing all contenders opening 8 cards at EVD is break even, there are HUGE rebates for exacta players FWIW. You just "had to be playing" when the big payers popped http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3htOCjafTc
__________________
"Grampy I'm talking to you!" |
04-19-2011, 03:25 PM | #14 |
Grade 1
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,676
|
Best first fraction
For the Lead,
You said you had 89/339 wins at MNR from the horse with the best first fraction. Have you broken them down to sprints and routes. Also which race do you use, best of last three or best in pps? |
04-19-2011, 05:53 PM | #15 | |
Grade 1
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 311
|
Interpreting the results
Quote:
These stats were just what I was looking for. After noting your comments, I ran the numbers and came up with this: 47 races/4-contender exacta box - 30% (.297) hit rate/ROI .85 37 races/5-contender exacta box - 51% (.513) hit rate/ROI 1.109 That's an outstanding hit-rate for the 5-contender races, with a decent profit. However, in line with my earlier comments about cutting out the lower-odds exactas (in the spirit of Dick Mitchell), I think there's an easy way to improve on this ROI. I went back and looked at the EVD results and ran the numbers again, eliminating any exacta with a horse below 3-1, leaving one less contender in either group. Here are the results: 47 races/3-contender exacta box - 11% hit rate/ROI 1.21/avg. mut. $136.6 37 races/4-contender exacta box - 27% hit rate/ROI 1.51/avg. mut. $137.1 Important to add that I cheated on the race with the biggest payoff, which illustrates a trade-off principle worth contemplating. The $433 payoff included a $1.80 horse. Of course, take this away, and 75% of your profit is gone. There has to be a trade-off between a lower-odds cutoff (in this case 3-1) and two horses whose (odds*3) are greater than $75 (based on what's emerging from the numbers, I now believe this figure to be more accurate breakeven than $60), although we should err on the side of conservatism). But I would guess that the frequency of a horse whose odds are above 20-1 is a relatively rare occurrence, so this shouldn't be much of a problem. It looks as though Dave (or Ted) has structured these factors in a way that filters for ITM consistency rather than win probability, and as a result, as many have said, exotics seems like the way to go. Reverse-engineering the numbers, it looks like .158 is the generic ITM probability for all of the contenders (although I guess the jury's still out on E2). But that number is pretty reliably reflecting the hit rates. 4-horse boxes should win at ca. .30, 5-horse boxes at .5, and 3-horse, at .15. Of course, as we accumulate a larger sample of races, we'll have a more accurate idea of E/L 2.0's capacities. Thanks again, Richie. Cheers, B.Jennet |
|
04-20-2011, 06:10 PM | #16 |
Grade 1
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 311
|
My apologies
Just wanted to apologize for an error in my post responding to Richie's EVD testing of E/L 2.0. My exacta breakeven figures were both off, as fans of Dick Mitchell and Barry Meadow here surely realized. Per both of their example, and according to the hit-rates we've been seeing, I believe the correct exacta fair pay (breakeven) for E/L 2.0 contenders to be $30. I had been using a formula I had long used and forgotten that it's designed to build in a ca. 100% overlay. I realize that most experienced players have their own betting style, but I wanted to make sure that no newer players were misled by my error.
However, I would still emphasize the value of not betting combinations that will pay below this level. Cheers, B.Jennet |
04-20-2011, 06:24 PM | #17 | |
Grade 1
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 311
|
One mo' time
Quote:
$30 is the correct fair pay for a $1 exacta, and $60 for a $2 exacta. |
|
04-20-2011, 08:46 PM | #18 | |
Grade 1
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 311
|
Separating the RR from E1 and E2
Quote:
I'm still not sure how to interprest the results, since the 'RR' horse is often also the E1 or E2. The, let's say, 'non-E1 or E2' RR horse seems to lose at a much higher rate than the RR horse that is also E1 or E2, or even E1 or E2 without the RR designation. In your results, I'd just like to know whether you are separating them, although it sounds like your are. Also, as far as your results go, I'm assuming that, as with Richie's, some of the races include 4 contenders, others 5, according the the program's instructions. I don't know whether you're breaking them down, in this manner, but, if you checked Richie's results, it makes a huge difference in the ROI. Cheers, B. Jennet |
|
04-20-2011, 10:11 PM | #19 | |
Grade 1
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Escondido CA just 25 minutes from where the turf meets the surf - "...at Del Mar"
Posts: 2,418
|
Quote:
BTW I emailed Dave about the lack of notoriety of the RR horse and his response was that, "... I have dropped the "dominant horse" from special treatment, although I still keep the "domination over 2nd horse" in." - when the RR horse won (85 times), 27 times it was greater than 62% or 31% - when the RR horse placed (84 times), 15 times it was greater than 62% or 18% - when the RR horse shoed (61 times), 16 times it was greater than 62% or 26% In total the RR horse was ITM 45% of the time. - when the RR horse came in out of the money (283 times), 55 times it was greater than 62% or 19% REMEMBER, only the E1 and E2 horses can be the RR horse. by definition the L1 and L2 horses do not have enough early points to be rated E1 or E2. |
|
04-21-2011, 12:48 AM | #20 | |
Grade 1
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 311
|
Time to can 62%?
Quote:
Appreciate your stats - obviously up to 513 races now. It's becoming clearer that the 62% figure is somewhat useless - no better than a coin toss in separating ITM horses from the rest, unless I'm missing something. And 75% of the ITM RR horses were *under 62%*. Maybe we should start thinking of this as a negative indicator, but it sounds like Dave has already gotten the message. Again, hate to be repetitious about this, but as you say, the E1 and E2 can also be RR. Are your RR stats above for 'non-E1 and E2 RR' horses, or are some of them also E1 or E2? My guess is that this might explain the difference between the win and place stats. To me, the possible value of the RR, is that it's ITM probability (and seemingly that of the contenders) is very evenly distributed. Although it's win percentage is low, 15% for place and show, is better than the average place or show probability of all but the #1 BL/BL horse, if you frame it in terms of RDSS. This program appears to fill in that gap left by RDSS. Cheers, B. Jennet |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Race Analysis Confirmation using the VELOCITY SCREEN | Bill Lyster | RDSS | 2 | 12-08-2011 01:19 AM |
Thoromation | justin13892002 | Classic Sartin Programs - Support, Discussion | 7 | 04-27-2010 11:55 AM |