E/L Screen 2.0 black box results opening week at EVD

[Bill Lyster]

Originally Posted by BJennet

Hi Bill,

Much thanks for this information. One question that it suggested to me was whether the results for the RR horse are correlated with those of any of the contenders- presumably E1 or E2. Not trying to create more work for you, but I would be curious to see if it's possible to isolate the value of 'E' dominance, in itself.

One other very interesting thing about these results - win and place probability are identical. This is very different from my results with TE, where the place probability was almost exactly .5 for both place and show. If this is consistent with all the contenders - and the high exacta hit rate suggests it is - maybe this points toward a way to use this feature in conjunction with the Sartin primary factors.

Cheers,

B Jennet

The distribution that I referenced was for the double red horse (RR); if you look at the percentages its a bout 16% win rate for each - not very enticing. I added 110 races last night from Aqueduct and Keeneland and while the short field at AQU added to the win % the prices were v low in all categories. Still the RR horse only finishes in the money 43% of the time in a 474 race sample.

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

[Bill Lyster]

Originally Posted by For The Lead

By contrast, I keep records of the best (fastest) first fraction horse in every race, i.e.- the "best early" horse in each race. At MNR so far this year there have been 89 winners from 339 races or a win percentage of 27%. The return for these winners (as of 4.17.11) is $2.12. I think Dave Schwartz referred to this number as a "dollar net". I just call it by its' old fashion name, ROI (return on investment).

Based on this information I would say the "new pace" system is not identifying the best early horse in each race.

Also, I must say that in all of my research, there is no single stat that achieves an ROI of $2.00 (or break even) on its' own. In other words, to this point in the MNR meet, the best early horses are doing much better than could normally be expected, therefore, early speed at MNR is not only winning better than its' fair share of races, but is returning a profit as well.

I agree that New Pace does not ID the best early horse in the way that the Sartin Methodology does and its really not trying to either. Its Dave's terminology and his method relies on identifying horses that run on or within 1 length of the lead at several calls. The pace of the race does not matter. a horse that lead or was close in 44.0 gets the same points as one who leads in 47.0; same for routes 1:09 leaders earn the same points as 1:14 leaders. What ultimately separates the point getters is the statistical probability of their running within the bounds of their low and high raw speed ratings as defined by the book Dave cites as the statistical guide.

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

[RichieP]

Originally Posted by Bill Lyster

Lets be open to this new idea.
Bill

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

[rmath]

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?

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by RichieP

Morning "B"

here are the stats for # of contenders (broken down race by race for the 8 cards.)

I also tracked the performance of the double red when it had the dominance # of 62 or higher.

4/6:
r1-5
r2-4
r3-4
r4-5
r5-4
r6-5
r7-4
r8-4
r9-5
r10-4

4/7:
r1-5
r2-5
r3-4
r4-5
r5-5
r6-4
r7-4
r8-4
r9-5
r10-5

4/8:
r1-5
r2-5
r3-5
r4-4
r5-4
r6-5
r7-5
r8-4
r9-4
r10-5
r11-5

4/9:
r1-4
r2-5
r3-5
r4-5
r5-4
r6-5
r7-4
r8-4
r9-4
r10-4
r11-4

4/13:
r1-5
r2-4
r3-5
r4-4
r5-4
r6-5
r7-4
r8-4
r9-4
r10-5

4/14:
r1-4
r2-5
r3-4
r4-4
r5-4
r6-4
r7-5
r8-5
r9-5
r10-4

4/15:
r1-4
r2-5
r3-4
r4-5
r5-5
r6-5
r7-4
r8-5
r9-4
r10-5
r11-4

4/16:
r1-4
r2-4
r3-4
r4-4
r5-4
r6-4
r7-4
r8-4
r9-5
r10-5
r11-4

84 races
37 races with 5 contenders
47 races with 4 contenders


"Dominant "E" runners (62% or higher double red)
1) 4/6 race 3 - #1 - off 8/1 - out
2) 4/8 race 4 - #3 - off 3/2 - out
3) 4/9 race 5 - #4 - off 6/1 - ran 3rd
4) 4/9 race 10- #3 - off 5/1 - ran 3rd
5) 4/13 race 3- #5 - off 33/1 - out
6) 4/13 race 7- #13- off 16/1 - out
7) 4/14 race 2- #10- off 10/1 - out
8) 4/14 race 3- #7 - off 5/2 - ran 3rd
9) 4/14 race 8- #1 - off 17/1 - out
10)4/14 race 10-#7 - off 2/1 - out
11)4/15 race 3 -#5 - off 12/1 - out
12)4/15 race 4- #14- off 36/1 - out
13)4/15 race 11- #4- off 2/1 - out
14)4/16 race 1 - #7- off 4/5 - WIN 3.60
15)4/16 race 6 - #3- off 7/2 - ran 3rd

1 win from 15 races.

Hi Richie,

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

[BJennet]

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

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by BJennet

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

I guarantee that this is my last post on this subject (at least for awhile :-)).
$30 is the correct fair pay for a $1 exacta, and $60 for a $2 exacta.

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by Bill Lyster

The distribution that I referenced was for the double red horse (RR); if you look at the percentages its a bout 16% win rate for each - not very enticing. I added 110 races last night from Aqueduct and Keeneland and while the short field at AQU added to the win % the prices were v low in all categories. Still the RR horse only finishes in the money 43% of the time in a 474 race sample.

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

Hi Bill,

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

[Bill Lyster]

Originally Posted by BJennet

Hi Bill,

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

No, I only included E1,E2, L1 and L2 in the mix (4 contenders only-always).

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.

[BJennet]

Originally Posted by Bill Lyster

No, I only included E1,E2, L1 and L2 in the mix (4 contenders only-always).

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.

Hi Bill,

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