Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Handicapping Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 08-20-2019, 11:58 PM   #16
steveb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
I just provided what the original poster asked for, at least as I read it. Judging by his response I think I did.

yes, but it should be obvious why it is not the correct way(in this situation) to find the average.
maybe it would be helpful if it was explained, WHY it's the wrong way to do it.

the guy has asked the question most certainly, but I would bet he does not understand why the straight average does not compute.
steveb is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-21-2019, 12:12 AM   #17
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveb View Post
yes, but it should be obvious why it is not the correct way(in this situation) to find the average.
maybe it would be helpful if it was explained, WHY it's the wrong way to do it.

the guy has asked the question most certainly, but I would bet he does not understand why the straight average does not compute.
By all means, expound and let us know. Personally I think in this case the median is probably good enough and that is what I would use.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-21-2019, 12:18 AM   #18
steveb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 900
odds is just another way of expressing probability.
with the graphic the arithmetic mean is 6

if one converts each odd to probability and then finds the average, it's .214
1/.214 equals 4.67



thus you are getting different averages for the same thing.
but only one way gives you the correct answer and it's not arithmetic mean.

Attached Images
File Type: jpg Untitled.jpg (35.8 KB, 17 views)
steveb is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-21-2019, 12:24 AM   #19
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveb View Post
odds is just another way of expressing probability.
with the graphic the arithmetic mean is 6

if one converts each odd to probability and then finds the average, it's .214
1/.214 equals 4.67



thus you are getting different averages for the same thing.
but only one way gives you the correct answer and it's not arithmetic mean.
Certainly not arguing that, but without knowing for what purpose he wanted the information I didn't see the point of changing it. There is nothing incorrect about what I posted.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-21-2019, 12:32 AM   #20
steveb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj View Post
Certainly not arguing that, but without knowing for what purpose he wanted the information I didn't see the point of changing it. There is nothing incorrect about what I posted.

i never said there was, i am just stating fact, it's not the way it should be done.
if he wants it that way, then fine, l don't care how he does it.
i doubt one could improve anything using the wrong methods though.

but it's not really any of my business, i was just trying to be helpful is all.
steveb is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-21-2019, 11:06 AM   #21
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,528
My guess is that he was simply interested in seeing how much higher the "average win payoff" gets as the field size increases and whether it was different from track to track.

When I check my own results from gambling, I look at payoffs too.

Averaging "odds" causes some problems. Averaging payoffs is fine.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 08-22-2019, 03:57 PM   #22
mike_123_ca
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 66
Thank you for your comments. To clarify, I was looking for the correlation of mean average payoffs per field size as compared against various tracks, while using a relevant volume of data. I always suspected some tracks are more chalky than others on a consistent basis regardless of field size and this data confirms that.
mike_123_ca is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.