After a close reading of the above quote there is only one thing with which I can quibble: it should be "sceptical".

After a close reading of the above quote there is only one thing with which I can quibble: it should be "sceptical".

The forum is based in the USA so wouldn't skeptical be correct?

 

American logit freaks can't spell as well as jfc. Even he can't spell as it's supposed to be JFK    

The paceadvantage forum discussion left me wondering whether the participants were trying to impress one another with mathematical shop-talk or just making a joke of it. Bottom line is it's way over my head and I'll have to stick with my own simplified, but still successful methodology. Computers are wonderful with numbers, but ascribing mathematical values to the behaviour of living creatures looks more of an art than a science at this stage.

Most semi-serious punters look at a race and consider a whole bunch of variables, eg last start finish position, jockey, barrier draw, trainer, different details in past form, etc etc.

They then place a different level of importance on the individual variables and also different variable combinations eg the jockey/trainer combination.

They then crystalise that plethora of information into some type of opinion about the chances of the various runners, and invest on the runner or combination of runners they think will reap a profit.

The models being discussed simply do the same thing in a more systematic and quantifiable way usually using some type of statistical package or techniques.

There's more than one statistical approach that can be taken to do the task, thus the discussion relating to classic regression analysis versus other methods.

Understanding the statistical theory doesn't guarantee a profit. Bill Benter and Alan Woods etc took many many years to develop their methods and previously went broke in the process.

To identify the variables, gather the data, combine them and analyse them in a profitable way is a far more difficult task than grasping the mathematical theory. (Probably more difficult than building a rocket) Thus the discussions about different variables and in particular about to what extent variables are independent.

It's not some mystical voodoo going on here.

The fact is a punter like rad, who claims to have been profitable for many years (and I have no reason to doubt him) has probably developed a capacity to carry out a similar process in his head.

His thinking will obviously be a simpler version and not have the capacity for volume that the methods being discussed have, however those shortfalls are probably balanced by the fact his thinking would be far more flexible in adjusting for the vagaries of the individual race at hand.

Any punter with an academic interest in probability would probably enjoy and benefit from further reading on these subjects. It's not necessary to understand the math in detail, often the premise underlying the exercise is enough to stimulate ideas that will improve your performance on the punt.

Wenona, I agree with most of your posts.

 

Understanding the methods and concepts and why they are used is more important than being a maths, stats or computer whiz.

That comes with experience and thought.

if you can get the computer right

    That being the problem in its entirety. The old saying, "garbage in, garbage out " still applies.

I have tried putting my ratings into formulas many times and they performed worse than using old fashioned pen and paper.

Me too.

Pen and paper told me Shocking was a $4 chance in the cup. Computer formula told me $8.20.

 

Worth another read

WW
He also employed computer people from the old Racenet forum and TNHRCF , not sure if they are members here but one is still active on the asian forums, last time I looked..

Mattherat & imaufo were two that I remember.

Muttonbird
Were you a member of Racenet Forum when it existed.