Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
Yes...but before we can rely on our methods to assist us in understanding the horses' PAST races...we have to make sure that these methods carry enough predictive value to efficiently do the job. And that can only be reliably accomplished by trying our methods out on races that have yet to be run. Once a race is run, many "theories" can be constructed to explain the race's outcome...but it's debatable whether any of them really contributed to what transpired in the run race.
It may be only me...but I am quite deadly when it comes to explaining the outcome of a race once the running is done. It's making sense of the race BEFOREHAND that gives me considerable trouble.
|
I agree.
I guess I am coming at it from a different place. I don't feel like I have theories about some of these things anymore.
Previously I had loads of opinions based on decades of experience, but it's tough to prove anything without asking a question, seeing what the data for the last "x" years says, and then testing it going forward.
Now I have a database.
It isn't exactly fun loading PPs and result charts into a database every week and writing formulas to assign running styles, pace projections, do chart analysis, do bias determination, upgrade and downgrade horses, etc.. It's a boatload of work and sometimes all the work, analysis, and fine tuning yields insights of no betting value.
But at this stage, I feel like I already know the answers to some of these questions because I've already studied it and developed good metrics to measure and prove it. All I can do is refine the metrics further and answer more handicapping questions.
The big thing is still value. I know monstrously more now than I did even 10 years ago. If I had the time I could probably make another huge leap next year given the data and metrics I have at my disposal. But imo, the game is massively harder to find an edge in now than it was years ago.
