What I Don't Understand About Last-Second Program Betting

[hellersorr]

He HAS to be using speed figures or their components. He just HAS to.

Besides \"normalized times of past races\",  you have \"performance in recent races\", \"weight carried in past races\" and \"lengths behind winner in past performances\".

He might not directly SAY he\'s using a daily track variant - but if he isn\'t  I\'m Popeye the Sailor Man.

P.S. Huge thanks to Mathcapper for posting all that from Benter.  Good stuff!

[Furious Pete]

Absolutely, Big Thanks Rocky I\'ll take some time to digest it.

First thought that hits me is; mustn\'t it be better to try to beat these guys with human touch; i.e \"Creativity and intuition\", than to try and be a very poor computer?

[richiebee]

I am rather certain that if TG Figs are being used, the computer guys have figured
out a way to \"formulate\" them.

To me a \"searchable\" (MAYBE NOT THE RIGHT WORD) TG database akin to DRF \"formulated\"
PPs would be a significant advance.

[Mathcapper]

Yeah, I understand that, and when I first read the phrase, \"normalized times of past races\" in the paper he wrote, I thought \'OK, he\'s talking about speed figures\'.

But then in the presentation he gave, he talked repeatedly about factors like \"normalized finishing position\" and \"normalized jockey performance\", etc., so I thought, well maybe he\'s just referring to putting it on a 0.0 to 1.0 scale like all the other factors.

And the fact that he never said a single word in either the paper or his presentation about speed figures or performance figures or how he\'s deriving them (assuming he\'s either computing them on his own or downloading them from some sort of database which I knew was not TG, and probably wasn\'t Beyer), or a single word about parallel time charts, track variants or daily variants left me unclear as to what he was actually doing with running times. You would think that if he\'s going to give a talk on how go about creating a computer model, these things would be the first and foremost points of the discussion.

But instead, as the excerpt from the talk I posted shows, he spends a great deal of time and emphasizes pretty strongly that the first factor one should start out with if setting out to create a computer model is normalized finishing position(!). He says virtually nothing in his entire presentation about actually running times, be they raw times, speed figures, or performance figures (ground loss? wind?), unless he just figured it was a given, or maybe he made a deliberate decision not to disclose how he computed what would seem obvious to be the most important indicator of a horse\'s performance.

In any event, he must be doing it somehow, either directly by using speed figures, or indirectly through other factors (he mentions weight as a separate factor) in the model as Templeton stated, otherwise there\'s no way the model would be able to generate anywhere near the degree of accuracy it\'s getting in terms of its probability estimates.

[hellersorr]

Howzaboutthis:  Benter\'s telling you enough to let you know he thinks he\'s the smartest guy in the room . . . which, um, it appears he IS . . . without giving you the entire KFC finger-lickin\' good recipe.

(That\'s my story and I\'m stuck with it.)

[Mathcapper]

Believe it or not, if you ever heard him talk in public, you might be surprised to find that\'s he\'s one of the humblest people around, but yeah, I agree, I think he was holding some of the best stuff back, understandably to protect his own interests not necessarily from the laymen, but from rival computer teams who were sure to be listening in on everything he had to say.

I mean really, normalized finishing position(?!) - who knew it could be so easy?

[Boscar Obarra]

I especially enjoyed this

\"Incidental factors â€" also trainers could be considered an incidental factor. The trainer effect, if the horse comes from a good stable it probably helps its performance. So some measure of the overall trainer win percentage can be thrown in.\"

 Of course this is pre Baffert, so can be excused.

[legendbets]

Perhaps I\'m completely wrong, but I don\'t believe that you need some sophisticated computer system to determine the most likely winner in a horse race.  the public gets it right 1/3rd of the time by using the most basic handicapping.  that same public that complained about Mayweather Pacquaio will line up to bet McGregor in the worst boxing match of all time. My point is, the public is not overly smart.  I\'ve long felt that the math nerds and computer system bettors aren\'t looking for a big edge, just one that\'s sustainable long term. Surely with enough money on hand at all times, they can invest into low if any risk with small returns.Unless you think the computers are the reason for so many favorites winning its hard to justify they have built something bigger stronger and faster.