ATipster
Open user 1491
 Offline
Alias: None
Posts : 106
|
|
|
 Original Post 2011-May-18, 01:24 PM
|
All,
I have created a program to download data from thedogs.com.au and analyse a dogs form to compute a time at todays distance and track.
The program essentially analyses the time to determine the dogs likely average time at this distance/Track and then determines a standard deviation for a likely minimum and a likely maximum time the dog could run. It then compares each dog to the other dogs using a simple monte carlo simulation running the race 10000 times and works out the probability of the dog winning. Of course this probability can then be set to a price.
Using this complex rating program and selecting the dog with the best time (I have analysed 11 months of unitab data) returns 3240 selections for 795 winners (24.54%) and a level stakes loss of 3.8% (121 units). Over the same period unitab 100 raters returned a loss of 21.5%. So I am guessing my rating method is not too bad.
By applying 2 filters I can weed out over bet selections (box 1 and last start winners) so that only 908 selections are used. These return 19.32% profit at a strike rate of 18.83%.
These 2 filters are pretty standard overbet situations as even adding the to the unitab top rater improves the loss from -21.5% to a -13% loss.
If I apply a value filter (price higher then estimated chance) I can further reduce this to 305 selections for 75 winners (25%) and a 37% profit.
Which of these methods would you recommend to bet ? The first with 908 selections but it can have dogs running around at $1.10 through to $150. Or the value filtered selections ?
On $1 bets the 908 selections return $175.50 where as the value filtered selections return only $113. I am mindful of the maximum I would likely to be able to get on (in the future) without affecting the odds and this is leading me to the 908 selection method. Also it had 2 losing months whereas the value selections had 3 losing months. This seems obvious to me as the value filters selections will be of a higher price and a lower strike rate.
Any thoughts are appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| |
fours
Group3 user 704
Offline
Posts : 946
|
|
|
2011-May-23, 01:39 PM
|
A Tipster,
Is that 10 losses on the trot. If so have you had 10 losses on the trot in the data looked at before you started?
If your longest losing run now exceeds your database LLR then your database is likely to be too small to be depended upon as a valid indication of its worth.
Fours
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ATipster
Open user 1491
Offline
Alias: None
Posts : 106
|
|
|
2011-May-23, 02:18 PM
|
yeah longest losing run historically is around 40 selections from memory. And I think it had a period of 100 bets where it only hit 4 selections. I'll give it 1000 selections before I make any judgements. It does hit longer priced selections.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ATipster
Open user 1491
Offline
Alias: None
Posts : 106
|
|
|
2011-May-24, 07:19 AM
|
There were 3 selections last night for 1 winner at $6.20
Selections : 13
Winners : 1
Returned : $6.20
Loss : $6.80
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ATipster
Open user 1491
Offline
Alias: None
Posts : 106
|
|
|
2011-May-25, 07:28 AM
|
There were 6 selections last night for 1 winner at $5.70
Selections : 19
Winners : 2
Returned : $11.90
Loss : $7.10
A lot of the selections which are not value are getting up in the $1.50 - $3 range. For example last night Big Tommiee got up at $2.70 which was not value as I had it rated at $3.40
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
junior
Open user 1532
Offline
Alias: Junior
Posts : 123
|
|
|
2011-Nov-23, 06:56 PM
|
How many variables are you using for this program?? and how heavy are you weighing speed?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
