Notifications
Clear all

Win and Place  

Page 2 / 2

Avatar
(@andrewp)
Honorable Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 549
Topic starter  

How does one avoid the huge gap between a paragraph of text and a table?


ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@mikeywilding)
Member Admin
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2650
 

The only way I've found at the moment is to change the edit box to Source and then cut it out of the HTML. I think what's happening is the forum software is converting the CSS code into spaces when you paste it in.

Follow the Race Advisor on social media on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Instagram. You can also find my personal accounts on Instagram and Facebook
.


ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@andrewp)
Honorable Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 549
Topic starter  
TEST

All three 20+ horses placed yesterday. Today's are,

14.45 LIME CAPTAIN MC(IRE)
14.45 LIME FISSA(FR)
20 WOLV ROYAL PLEASURE(IRE)

Thanks Michael. I can't help thinking some sort of time or sequence factor would help the form figures. After all, there's a difference between a horse with figures of 4-4-1 and one with 1-4-4 especially if there's a long seasonal break somewhere between the runs. I guess this is your 'weighting' factor.

A logistic regression would do the same thing and view 4-4-1 total 9 and 1-4-4 total 9 completely differently. How many years of data did you use? I'll run a regression on last three finishing positions, days since run and distance beaten in last race and see what figures I get.


ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@mikeywilding)
Member Admin
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2650
 

@andrewp looks like it isn't something in there, it just be something to do with how the forum is handling the code. I will contact them.

Follow the Race Advisor on social media on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Instagram. You can also find my personal accounts on Instagram and Facebook
.


ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@michael-clarke)
Noble Member Customer
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1238
 
Posted by: @andrewp

Thanks Michael. I can't help thinking some sort of time or sequence factor would help the form figures. After all, there's a difference between a horse with figures of 4-4-1 and one with 1-4-4 especially if there's a long seasonal break somewhere between the runs. I guess this is your 'weighting' factor.

A logistic regression would do the same thing and view 4-4-1 total 9 and 1-4-4 total 9 completely differently. How many years of data did you use

Hi Andrew, I have given a weighting of 1,2,3 to the 3 runs so 4-4-1 would total 15 and 1-4-4 would total 21.

I am not convinced that applying a time sequence would help as the days since last run is not a linear correlation. Quick returners (1-7 days) have an AE of 1.06 but this then declines to 0.98 (8-14 days) and 0.96 (15-21 days) before improving to 0.99 (22-28 days) and 1.02 (29-35 days). 36-100 days is 1.01 and over 100 days is 1.02.

The analysis was for the NH seasons 14-15 to 18-19 (5 years).


ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@andrewp)
Honorable Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 549
Topic starter  

I am not convinced that applying a time sequence would help as the days since last run is not a linear correlation.

Perhaps it's something to be factored into the final 'bet/no bet' decision. I'm just thinking about my own thought processes when I assess a race. Taking our two theoretical competitors,

A: 4-4-1 total 15

B: 1-4-4 total 21

Assuming they are equal on lengths beaten and all other factors, things look different if A's last run was 365 days ago and B's last two races were 15 and 30 days a go.

I tend to negatively weight the horse returning after a long lay-off (even though it would have been prepared for the race) and positively weight the 'match fit' horse. I'd have them at least equal but I'd be more likely to favour B.

The weighting could simply be binary such as 'first run this season' / 'has already run this season'. 


ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@mikeywilding)
Member Admin
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2650
 

Would it not be better to weight the long lay-off and/or short return based on the horses previous performance under similar break times, if the data is available?

Follow the Race Advisor on social media on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Instagram. You can also find my personal accounts on Instagram and Facebook
.


ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@michael-clarke)
Noble Member Customer
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1238
 
Posted by: @andrewp

Assuming they are equal on lengths beaten and all other factors, things look different if A's last run was 365 days ago and B's last two races were 15 and 30 days a go.

I tend to negatively weight the horse returning after a long lay-off (even though it would have been prepared for the race) and positively weight the 'match fit' horse. I'd have them at least equal but I'd be more likely to favour B.

The AE for A is 1.02, the AE for B (15 days) is 0.96.

So whilst it is logical to view a horse that ran 15 days ago more positively than 1 that ran 365 days ago the AE figures do not support this.

Fitness may well be positive from a strike rate point of view but if most punters consider this a positive then it is likely that they will be over-bet and not offer value.

A key factor in a lot of my systems is that the horse is not fit, I think this automatically creates value because fit horses are over-bet.

Perversely there is value in the super-fit horses (less than 7 days). Perhaps this is because punters feel that these horses need a longer rest period and therefore under-bet them.


ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@andrewp)
Honorable Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 549
Topic starter  

The AE for A is 1.02, the AE for B (15 days) is 0.96.

So whilst it is logical to view a horse that ran 15 days ago more positively than 1 that ran 365 days ago the AE figures do not support this.

In which case the longer lay-off might be weighted more positively than the recent runner.

Which way the weighting goes is immaterial. The question is, does the '365 days and 15 days' information add anything significant to your 'good run' figures of 21 and 15? Or more generally, do days since last run (however you group/categorise them) add anything to the picture?

The answer could be 'no'. To some extent its significance will depend on whether DSLR is co-variable with the finishing positions that preceded it. If the pattern of finishing positions already tells you something about when the horse will next race, then DSLR won't be adding much. If it doesn't, DSLR could be adding significant information. 

Out of curiosity, how have you treated horses with fewer than three runs?


ReplyQuote
Avatar
(@michael-clarke)
Noble Member Customer
Joined: 6 years ago
Posts: 1238
 

I have excluded horses with fewer than 3 runs. These have an AE of 0.99 with horses that have had just 1 run having a particularly poor record (AE of 0.99).

To be fair form figures don't figure prominently in the various systems that I use, odds, age, DSLR and weight are the dominant figures that I have been using.

I am really looking at approaching this from a different angle and identifying those horses that have run well so that I can then further analyse them to see if going, distance etc. make much difference on their next run.

The trick as always is to identify those factors that are not obvious to the betting public.

Is a horse that ran well last time and is now running over the same distance and same going a good bet? Or are these factors obvious to everybody so that it is not value?

Is being trained by a top trainer and ridden by a top jockey good or bad ?

Etc etc.

As always we are looking for the value horse, not the winner.


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2
Share:
Back to top button
Close