Alan Woods - Comps & Clubs - Racehorse TALK harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Alan Woods - Comps & Clubs - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Alan Woods  (Read 48865 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 18618
« 2009-Dec-26, 07:13 AM Reply #25 »
After a close reading of the above quote there is only one thing with which I can quibble: it should be "sceptical".

Offline Walter Watermelon

  • Group 2
  • User 488
  • Posts: 3121
« 2009-Dec-26, 08:35 AM Reply #26 »
You missed "bulding". Though it is possibly a Kiwi word.

Offline Wenona

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 175
  • Posts: 7319
« 2009-Dec-26, 09:26 AM Reply #27 »
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?
« Last Edit: 2009-Dec-26, 09:28 AM by Wenona »

Offline Wenona

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 175
  • Posts: 7319
« 2009-Dec-26, 09:26 AM Reply #28 »
.

Offline GamblingMan

  • Group 2
  • User 807
  • Posts: 1290
« 2009-Dec-26, 09:26 AM Reply #29 »
  :lol:

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

Offline Wenona

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 175
  • Posts: 7319
« 2009-Dec-26, 09:30 AM Reply #30 »
I usually just back the best horse in the race over the distance given the weight and fitness as long it's over the odds and it works well.

Well there you go GM - you're actually doing a version of it in your head.  :yes:

Offline Max Manewer

  • Group 2
  • User 414
  • Posts: 4998
« 2009-Dec-26, 10:42 AM Reply #31 »
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.

Offline Authorized

  • Group 1
  • User 18
  • Posts: 31171
« 2009-Dec-26, 11:02 AM Reply #32 »
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.



  emthup   emthup   emthup   emthup   emthup

Offline Wenona

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 175
  • Posts: 7319
« 2009-Dec-26, 12:32 PM Reply #33 »
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.







« Last Edit: 2009-Dec-26, 12:37 PM by Wenona »

Offline GamblingMan

  • Group 2
  • User 807
  • Posts: 1290
« 2009-Dec-26, 05:15 PM Reply #34 »
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.

You can put numbers to times, weights, prizemoney, last start position, travelling position on an individual basis but putting it altogether I agree is an art form and I would suggest a thoughful punter with experience uses art better than a computer.

Those yanks said they spent an awful lot of time working out formulas and most of them sounded more lost than succesful. They also sounded more interested in manipulating the numbers and formulas than horses.

With experience the mind naturally weights the information from the formguide and makes a decision. The mind can also put in subtle intangibles that are important that a computer cannot, for instance mounting yard appearance and fitness.


Offline GamblingMan

  • Group 2
  • User 807
  • Posts: 1290
« 2009-Dec-26, 05:21 PM Reply #35 »
Wenona, I agree with most of your posts.

  emthup

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.


Offline calgary

  • Group 1
  • User 61
  • Posts: 8937
« 2009-Dec-27, 09:46 AM Reply #36 »
I respectfully disagree.

Unless you are a genius GM (I'm guessing you are not) if you can get the computer right it will defeat the human mind in these kind of calculations any day of the week.

Offline Max Manewer

  • Group 2
  • User 414
  • Posts: 4998
« 2009-Dec-27, 11:02 AM Reply #37 »
if you can get the computer right

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

Offline GamblingMan

  • Group 2
  • User 807
  • Posts: 1290
« 2009-Dec-27, 10:12 PM Reply #38 »
Perhaps if you spend 10 years working on it, but then racing changes and you need to adjust it again. the mind can adjust more quickly.

I have tried putting my ratings into formulas many times and they performed worse than using old fashioned pen and paper. I use spreadsheets for kepting records though - data on horses, tracks and races, but I dont put it into fancy formulas.

If you want to spend 10 years and thousand of hours trying go ahead. Boring life. I spend less than 1 hour on form a day except for sat. Better to have a life than look for a holy grail that is extremely unlikely to exist. Good old fashioned pen and paper along with records on computer produce profits. It aint broken no need to fix it.

Goodnight and good luck.




Offline Wenona

  • VIP Club
  • Group 1
  • User 175
  • Posts: 7319
« 2009-Dec-28, 09:17 AM Reply #39 »

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


Me too.

Offline GamblingMan

  • Group 2
  • User 807
  • Posts: 1290
« 2009-Dec-28, 12:01 PM Reply #40 »
Wenona, I could easily have a beer with you and discuss racing.  :beer:

Offline GamblingMan

  • Group 2
  • User 807
  • Posts: 1290
« 2009-Dec-28, 12:07 PM Reply #41 »
Pen and paper told me Shocking was a $4 chance in the cup. Computer formula told me $8.20.

 

Offline BarryS

  • Listed
  • User 771
  • Posts: 278
« 2010-Jan-27, 03:40 PM Reply #42 »
This may not best the best place to post this but newcomers may  be interested in reading a little about the late legendary Alan Woods.

There was a thread on the MSN forum which may not have made it over to this one.

 This is an article which gives an insight into his operations.    emthup   


www.themonthly.com.au/monthly-essays-tony-wilson-mr-huge-alan-woods-and-his-amazing-computer-nags-riches-story-149


Yeah the guy is a legend.  I learned about him in the BRW when he sent a letter indicating his interest in being considered for Australia's rich list. Think he died before the article got posted.

Another interesting summary here along with some other great punters. I read the book on Patrick Veitch after reading some of these tid bits. Certainly gives you a different perspective on the punt.  Problem is hasn't helped me much......yet!!!

http://www.thegreattipoff.com/Engine/PTMC.cfm?Action=Legend&LegID=1

Offline westie

  • Group 1
  • User 8
  • Posts: 14337
« 2011-Jan-10, 05:46 PM Reply #43 »
Worth another read

Offline Walter Watermelon

  • Group 2
  • User 488
  • Posts: 3121
« 2011-Jan-10, 06:01 PM Reply #44 »
I remember in the early days of the forum popping into a chat room with Entropy the only other occupant. Had no idea who he was but said he lived in Asia and "punting" was his profession (Maybe he didn't use the word "punting"). A one dayer was on with Aust V India and he mentioned how much fun it was to bet on one-dayers, with the wild flucs happening.

I asked who he backed.

"I have India going for 4 grand, Australia for $3k and a tie for $6k, so I am just sitting back and enjoying it now."

Sheesh, how the f@#k did you do that?

"Cost me $85k in bets" he replied

I didn't know if he was telling porkies or not, but for the next hour we chatted about things. He never said how much he was worth or gave any indication on who he was. Invited me to drop by next time I was in the area.

Only found out who he was around the time of his demise.

Surprised there isn't a book/movie about the guy really. What a fascinating life he had.


Offline westie

  • Group 1
  • User 8
  • Posts: 14337
« 2011-Jan-10, 06:49 PM Reply #45 »
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..

Offline Gintara

  • Group 1
  • User 16
  • Posts: 12326
« 2011-Jan-10, 08:47 PM Reply #46 »
Just took me ages Westie, was trying to think of their nics, could only remember their real names  :shy:

Offline muttonbird

  • Class6
  • User 1254
  • Posts: 99
« 2011-Jan-10, 09:22 PM Reply #47 »
Mattherat & imaufo were two that I remember.

Offline westie

  • Group 1
  • User 8
  • Posts: 14337
« 2011-Jan-10, 09:53 PM Reply #48 »
Mattherat & imaufo were two that I remember.
Spot on both excellent people.

Offline westie

  • Group 1
  • User 8
  • Posts: 14337
« 2011-Jan-10, 09:59 PM Reply #49 »
Muttonbird
Were you a member of Racenet Forum when it existed.


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap