Class/form horses
- Thread starter JennyK
- Start date
MySportsAI
Filly
Then
Then how do you explain Bill Benter ?"I am sure you are all familiar with Hugh Taylor, he has recorded profits year on end on the ATR site. His whole MO is selecting horses that he feels are overpriced,"
That makes the point. He is interested in horses he feels are overpriced. No problem with that, but the "he feels" means it is subjective, and if he is as successful as stated, he is clearly a good judge.
WhereMySportsAI is way off,
BC, is not posting on this thread, about which I as the thread starter, and I hope others, are not overly precious, but in posting nonsense like this:
"Partly correct, one can identify value via 2 means
1. Correctly identifying the true chance of horses over a sample and backing those that exceed that price
2. Identifying a subset of horses where the public systematically under bet them eg Mordins back female jocks from years ago"
Identifying the apparent chances of a horse winning from a sample is a wholly subjective matter and has zero to do with anything that can properly be labelled true. It is subjective because it relies on chosen criteria, ie how to define the appropriate sample, and choice always means subjectivity. Yes, if one defines a sample in objective terms, such as only 8 runner races at Thirsk race course over 8f, and one is looking at a race with those characteristics, it may feel as though any probability stats are objective. They are, one hopes, statistically correct but only within the subjective framework of the chosen defined characteristics.
I have little doubt that some back on the basis of what feels to them to be true odds, and they may well be successful. But they are incorrect about the logical status of what they are doing (which, in fairness, probably is of no practical concern to them).
The second point is equally misconceived as a matter of logic.
The late Richard Rorty, arguably the most compelling theorist of pragmatism as a philosophy, argued that we should forget truth and concern ourself with what is justified or warranted, ie soundly based on the relevant evidence. "Justified but not necessarily true" is one of his observations; ie one might find the evidence as one sees it compelling but it may not be true. The existence/non existence of a higher being, God or whatever, is a case in point. Millions believe, on the basis of what they have been taught and their life experiences that there is such. Millions believe the opposite. And none is us will know in our lifetimes whether either is true, rather than, to us as individuals, being justified or warranted.
JennyK
Gelding
Again, I've run into the not being able to type after the box problem. Hence this post. But first,
BC. what I think you have probably been concerned about honesty, not truth.
Turning to the race above, the 8.34 at Newcastle, the starting point for a traditional VDW is the ability ratings, and here we have a good example of truth/objective/subjective.
The ability ratings are, I believe, true in the sense of accurate (only inaccurate if either the Post's database is incorrect or I have miscalculated dividing total win prize money by races won in a case or two). The ratings are objective, in the sense that anyone trying to calculate them will get the same numbers, assuming he or she uses the Post and I haven't made one or more calculating errors. They are the same now as they were last night, and as they will be for long as the Post maintains the database, subject only to the Post itself correcting them if it finds a runner had a previously unrealised win abroad that requires a recalculation. These figures are both objective and, in ordinary terms, true.
But they arise from a very specific way of expressing a horse's ability numerically, and obviously there are numerous other ways, some of which might even be better, whatever better means in a situation like this. The way is VDW's choice, and he claims to have tested each aspect of his method and therefore it can be taken as warranted in his (subjective) view. Just as any other way of expressing a horse's ability numerically is equally subjective.
If we move on to the second aspect of VDW's method, form, his way of assessing whether a particular horse is or is not for him a "form" horse on the basis of what it had done in its last three races is both idiosyncratic and some would argue not the best approach. It is plainly VDW's subjective choice. Whether it is objective in its own terms, like the ability rating, we don't know. I suspect it is but can see no way to be sure. What constitutes "less obvious form" is likewise subjective.
Thirdly, conditions and here we might appear to be heading onto objective ground where the truth might put in an appearance. But again, no. Even on something that at first sight looks objective - distance - as
TheBluesBrother has amply demonstrated, 5f does not always equal 5f. Etc etc.
So, with VDW's approach we don't have an objective way of analysing a race, but a framework of considerations - ability, form and conditions - that he found (or more accurately claimed to have found) regularly enables the likely winner to be found, and other considerations, again subjectively chosen, to distinguish between those class/form horses which can be backed with confidence and those which have question marks and should be left.
VDW's basic belief, that it is the balance of ability, form and conditions that best identifies winners, may itself be wrong (though it seems highly plausible to me), and his way of operationalising all three may not be the best even if one is content to work within the ability, form and conditions paradigm. The only validity of VDW's method, or any other, is not whether it is true, but whether results achieved through it are good enough.
In the 8.34 we have the usual mix of "form" horses on "exposed form", possible examples of "less obvious form", and horses not in form under either heading, which can be then placed against the ability rating ranking.
If we do that, and work downwards, I believe we find four "form" horses on the basis of exposed form, two who may be examples of "less obvious form" and seven not "form" horses under either heading.
Working downwards on ability, the first "form" horse is Smart Vision, the second Lethal Nymph, both with ability ratings in the 90s, separated by 6 points. Does that mean that Smart Vision is the class/form horse or are they close enough to be regarded as essentially equal? Again, choice, and therefore subjective. Were we dealing with two horses with ability ratings in the several hundreds, 6 points is neither here nor there, but 99 v 93? My guess is that VDW would have thought that the difference is just about big enough to make Smart Vision the class/form horse with Lethal Nymph second on class/form, but it is only a guess.
So though subjectively chosen tools which in their own terms are objective, we have Smart Vision as the class/form horse, or maybe joint class/form horses in Smart Vision and Lethal Nymph. VDW's postulate is that, within his subjectively chosen means, the class/form horse is logically the likely winner (and we hope he satisfied himself that in practice that postulate is born out).
Within his framework it would thus be true, in the sense of correct, to say that either Smart Vision or him and Lethal Nymph, is/are the class/form horse(s) - a subjective method with a correct outcome in its own terms.
And the next stage is much the same - looking for the correct answer within subjective criteria. So we are warranted, on the basis of VDW's examples, never mind our own, to think that Smart Vision (and Lethal Nymph) are not good class/form horses, good in the sense that they should be backed at the right minimum price, for the same reason - they are both dropping in class and neither has the kind of support via the key horse that VDW believed was necessary in finding class dropping winners. Either may win today, but backing a flawed class/form horse much increases the chance of backing a loser and is something VDWers are likely to avoid.
As we go on down the ability ranking we find other "form" horses, all as it happens going up in class today, with perfect/close to perfect VDW profiles for class risers. Azinthejungle the most clear cut. But because they are below Smart Vision and Lethal Nymph in the ability rankings it would be risky to back them.
As so often, an analysis which is clear cut in VDW terms, conclusive, but not in a positive way, ie the logical conclusion is no bet. And as always in this very common situation, there is a risk that one is passing up the eventual winner, as VDW claims to have done with, for example, Merce Cunningham.
MySportsAI
"Then how do you explain Bill Benter ?"
You'd need to be more precise in your question, ie what exactly Bill Bentner said or did that needs explaining, before I could make sense of that question.
BC. what I think you have probably been concerned about honesty, not truth.Turning to the race above, the 8.34 at Newcastle, the starting point for a traditional VDW is the ability ratings, and here we have a good example of truth/objective/subjective.
The ability ratings are, I believe, true in the sense of accurate (only inaccurate if either the Post's database is incorrect or I have miscalculated dividing total win prize money by races won in a case or two). The ratings are objective, in the sense that anyone trying to calculate them will get the same numbers, assuming he or she uses the Post and I haven't made one or more calculating errors. They are the same now as they were last night, and as they will be for long as the Post maintains the database, subject only to the Post itself correcting them if it finds a runner had a previously unrealised win abroad that requires a recalculation. These figures are both objective and, in ordinary terms, true.
But they arise from a very specific way of expressing a horse's ability numerically, and obviously there are numerous other ways, some of which might even be better, whatever better means in a situation like this. The way is VDW's choice, and he claims to have tested each aspect of his method and therefore it can be taken as warranted in his (subjective) view. Just as any other way of expressing a horse's ability numerically is equally subjective.
If we move on to the second aspect of VDW's method, form, his way of assessing whether a particular horse is or is not for him a "form" horse on the basis of what it had done in its last three races is both idiosyncratic and some would argue not the best approach. It is plainly VDW's subjective choice. Whether it is objective in its own terms, like the ability rating, we don't know. I suspect it is but can see no way to be sure. What constitutes "less obvious form" is likewise subjective.
Thirdly, conditions and here we might appear to be heading onto objective ground where the truth might put in an appearance. But again, no. Even on something that at first sight looks objective - distance - as
TheBluesBrother has amply demonstrated, 5f does not always equal 5f. Etc etc.So, with VDW's approach we don't have an objective way of analysing a race, but a framework of considerations - ability, form and conditions - that he found (or more accurately claimed to have found) regularly enables the likely winner to be found, and other considerations, again subjectively chosen, to distinguish between those class/form horses which can be backed with confidence and those which have question marks and should be left.
VDW's basic belief, that it is the balance of ability, form and conditions that best identifies winners, may itself be wrong (though it seems highly plausible to me), and his way of operationalising all three may not be the best even if one is content to work within the ability, form and conditions paradigm. The only validity of VDW's method, or any other, is not whether it is true, but whether results achieved through it are good enough.
In the 8.34 we have the usual mix of "form" horses on "exposed form", possible examples of "less obvious form", and horses not in form under either heading, which can be then placed against the ability rating ranking.
If we do that, and work downwards, I believe we find four "form" horses on the basis of exposed form, two who may be examples of "less obvious form" and seven not "form" horses under either heading.
Working downwards on ability, the first "form" horse is Smart Vision, the second Lethal Nymph, both with ability ratings in the 90s, separated by 6 points. Does that mean that Smart Vision is the class/form horse or are they close enough to be regarded as essentially equal? Again, choice, and therefore subjective. Were we dealing with two horses with ability ratings in the several hundreds, 6 points is neither here nor there, but 99 v 93? My guess is that VDW would have thought that the difference is just about big enough to make Smart Vision the class/form horse with Lethal Nymph second on class/form, but it is only a guess.
So though subjectively chosen tools which in their own terms are objective, we have Smart Vision as the class/form horse, or maybe joint class/form horses in Smart Vision and Lethal Nymph. VDW's postulate is that, within his subjectively chosen means, the class/form horse is logically the likely winner (and we hope he satisfied himself that in practice that postulate is born out).
Within his framework it would thus be true, in the sense of correct, to say that either Smart Vision or him and Lethal Nymph, is/are the class/form horse(s) - a subjective method with a correct outcome in its own terms.
And the next stage is much the same - looking for the correct answer within subjective criteria. So we are warranted, on the basis of VDW's examples, never mind our own, to think that Smart Vision (and Lethal Nymph) are not good class/form horses, good in the sense that they should be backed at the right minimum price, for the same reason - they are both dropping in class and neither has the kind of support via the key horse that VDW believed was necessary in finding class dropping winners. Either may win today, but backing a flawed class/form horse much increases the chance of backing a loser and is something VDWers are likely to avoid.
As we go on down the ability ranking we find other "form" horses, all as it happens going up in class today, with perfect/close to perfect VDW profiles for class risers. Azinthejungle the most clear cut. But because they are below Smart Vision and Lethal Nymph in the ability rankings it would be risky to back them.
As so often, an analysis which is clear cut in VDW terms, conclusive, but not in a positive way, ie the logical conclusion is no bet. And as always in this very common situation, there is a risk that one is passing up the eventual winner, as VDW claims to have done with, for example, Merce Cunningham.
MySportsAI"Then how do you explain Bill Benter ?"
You'd need to be more precise in your question, ie what exactly Bill Bentner said or did that needs explaining, before I could make sense of that question.
Last edited:
MySportsAI
Filly
Your suggestion that defining true odds is not possible and yet Benter made millions doing exactly that. I also know someone who cash bought a UK and Portugal property portfolio from executing option b). So my question is did Benter ID true oddsAgain, I've run into the not being able to type after the box problem. Hence this post. But first,
Turning to the race above, the 8.34 at Newcastle, the starting point for a traditional VDW is the ability ratings, and here we have a good example of truth/objective/subjective.
The ability ratings are, I believe, true in the sense of accurate (only inaccurate if either the Post's database is incorrect or I have miscalculated dividing total win prize money by races won in a case or two). The ratings are objective, in the sense that anyone trying to calculate them will get the same numbers, assuming he or she uses the Post and I haven't made one or more calculating errors. They are the same now as they were last night, and as they will be for long as the Post maintains the database, subject only to the Post itself correcting them if it finds a runner had a previously unrealised win abroad that requires a recalculation. These figures are both objective and, in ordinary terms, true.
But they arise from a very specific way of expressing a horse's ability numerically, and obviously there are numerous other ways, some of which might even be better, whatever better means in a situation like this. The way is VDW's choice, and he claims to have tested each aspect of his method and therefore it can be taken as warranted in his (subjective) view. Just as any other way of expressing a horse's ability numerically is equally subjective.
If we move on to the second aspect of VDW's method, form, his way of assessing whether a particular horse is or is not for him a "form" horse on the basis of what it had done in its last three races is both idiosyncratic and some would argue not the best approach. It is plainly VDW's subjective choice. Whether it is objective in its own terms, like the ability rating, we don't know. I suspect it is but can see no way to be sure. What constitutes "less obvious form" is likewise subjective.
Thirdly, conditions and here we might appear to be heading onto objective ground where the truth might put in an appearance. But again, no. Even on something that at first sight looks objective - distance - as
So, with VDW's approach we don't have an objective way of analysing a race, but a framework of considerations - ability, form and conditions - that he found (or more accurately claimed to have found) regularly enables the likely winner to be found, and other considerations, again subjectively chosen, to distinguish between those class/form horses which can be backed with confidence and those which have question marks and should be left.
VDW's basic belief, that it is the balance of ability, form and conditions that best identifies winners, may itself be wrong (though it seems highly plausible to me), and his way of operationalising all three may not be the best even if one is content to work within the ability, form and conditions paradigm. The only validity of VDW's method, or any other, is not whether it is true, but whether results achieved through it are good enough.
In the 8.34 we have the usual mix of "form" horses on "exposed form", possible examples of "less obvious form", and horses not in form under either heading, which can be then placed against the ability rating ranking.
If we do that, and work downwards, I believe we find four "form" horses on the basis of exposed form, two who may be examples of "less obvious form" and seven not "form" horses under either heading.
Working downwards on ability, the first "form" horse is Smart Vision, the second Lethal Nymph, both with ability ratings in the 90s, separated by 6 points. Does that mean that Smart Vision is the class/form horse or are they close enough to be regarded as essentially equal? Again, choice, and therefore subjective. Were we dealing with two horses with ability ratings in the several hundreds, 6 points is neither here nor there, but 99 v 93? My guess is that VDW would have thought that the difference is just about big enough to make Smart Vision the class/form horse with Lethal Nymph second on class/form, but it is only a guess.
So though subjectively chosen tools which in their own terms are objective, we have Smart Vision as the class/form horse, or maybe joint class/form horses in Smart Vision and Lethal Nymph. VDW's postulate is that, within his subjectively chosen means, the class/form horse is logically the likely winner (and we hope he satisfied himself that in practice that postulate is born out).
Within his framework it would thus be true, in the sense of correct, to say that either Smart Vision or him and Lethal Nymph, is/are the class/form horse(s) - a subjective method with a correct outcome in its own terms.
And the next stage is much the same - looking for the correct answer within subjective criteria. So we are warranted, on the basis of VDW's examples, never mind our own, to think that Smart Vision (and Lethal Nymph) are not good class/form horses, good in the sense that they should be backed at the right minimum price, for the same reason - they are both dropping in class and neither has the kind of support via the key horse that VDW believed was necessary in finding class dropping winners. Either may win today, but backing a flawed class/form horse much increases the chance of backing a loser and is something VDWers are likely to avoid.
As we go on down the ability ranking we find other "form" horses, all as it happens going up in class today, with perfect/close to perfect VDW profiles for class risers. Azinthejungle the most clear cut. But because they are below Smart Vision and Lethal Nymph in the ability rankings it would be risky to back them.
As so often, an analysis which is clear cut in VDW terms, conclusive, but not in a positive way, ie the logical conclusion is no bet. And as always in this very common situation, there is a risk that one is passing up the eventual winner, as VDW claims to have done with, for example, Merce Cunningham.
"Then how do you explain Bill Benter ?"
You'd need to be more precise in your question, ie what exactly Bill Bentner said or did that needs explaining, before I could make sense of that question.
For the 2024 i make it between 3 Horses
Copper Knight Ability 63 Final URM 142
Lethal Nymph Ability 62 Final URM 144
Star Material Ability 56 Final URM 142
The top 2 are clear on Ability ,Class and Form Lethal Nymph a couple of points ahead to me Copper Knight but not sure if this is an Ability or Final Urm course yet
Copper Knight Ability 63 Final URM 142
Lethal Nymph Ability 62 Final URM 144
Star Material Ability 56 Final URM 142
The top 2 are clear on Ability ,Class and Form Lethal Nymph a couple of points ahead to me Copper Knight but not sure if this is an Ability or Final Urm course yet
TheBluesBrother
Dam
8:24 Newcastle
Mike.
| Horse | OR | Flat MR Values Found | Best MR | Rank | Avg Best 2 MR | MR+17 | MR+17 − OR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Little Mi Mi | 76 | 64, 52, 41, 20, 32, 43 | 64 | 1 | (64+52)/2 = 58 | 81 | +5 |
| Castan | 74 | 57, 46, 25, 47, 37, 52 | 57 | 2 | (57+52)/2 = 54.5 | 74 | 0 |
| True Promise | 81 | 42, 54, 66, 44, 48, 66 | 66 | 3 | (66+66)/2 = 66 | 83 | +2 |
| Azuinthejungle | 76 | 41, 59, 53, 48, 45, 30 | 59 | 4 | (59+53)/2 = 56 | 76 | 0 |
| Buzz Box | 75 | 45, 25, 55, 56, 58, 49 | 58 | 5 | (58+56)/2 = 57 | 75 | 0 |
| Lethal Nymph | 79 | 38, 52, 67, 36, 57, 64 | 67 | 6 | (67+64)/2 = 65.5 | 84 | +5 |
| Smart Vision | 77 | 31, 62, 41, 17, 34, 42 | 62 | 7 | (62+42)/2 = 52 | 79 | +2 |
| Changeofmind | 79 | 39, 46, 56, 63, 34, 59 | 63 | 8 | (63+59)/2 = 61 | 80 | +1 |
| Copper Knight | 77 | 37, 41, 62, 26, 60, 42 | 62 | 9 | (62+60)/2 = 61 | 79 | +2 |
| Duran | 78 | 47, 42, 58, 12, 66, 56 | 66 | 10 | (66+58)/2 = 62 | 83 | +5 |
| Too Much | 62 | 32, 11, 22, 6, 45, 27 | 45 | 11 | (45+32)/2 = 38.5 | 62 | 0 |
| Ice Cold Alex | 70 | 51, 25, 33, 43, 13 | 51 | 12 | (51+43)/2 = 47 | 68 | −2 |
| Star Material | 82 | 47, 66, 39, 33, 45 | 66 | 13 | (66+47)/2 = 56.5 | 83 | +1 |
Mike.
BC
Colt
If any of us were as clever as Bill Bentner or Tony Bloom, then maybe we'd do things differently. I can't say for sure, as I'm not as clever as they are.
And if you were as clever as them, you'd be quietly making your millions from betting, rather than wasting your time posting on an open Internet forum.
1. I asked you: "Do you know much about VDW's work?" SILENCE
2. And: "What makes you think contributors to this forum don't have a grasp of their own historical evidence?" SILENCE
3. And I said: "...it would be great for members who want to improve to see your pre-race selections, though I can't seem to find them."
To which you replied, "the AI explanation is exactly corresponding with my examples posted on here." Although I haven't been able to find them. Which thread do you use for your pre-race selections?
This made me chuckle because I was literally just bemoaning another one of those "news" articles that appear in my Apple News feed where somebody will tell you which items to sell on Vinted that made them 100k or such like.
And I always think, if you've found a way to make that sort of money why on earth would you tell everyone else how to do it?
I mean why would you want to snuff out your edge?
MySportsAI
Filly
You are very aggressive in your responses, do you think you could be a little more friendly
As for selections I think discussing methods is more illuminating than posting bets
As for the 'AI is exactly quote' I was answering a posters question about whether my interpretation of the theory of maximum complexity corresponded with Fabricands. The poster was having some trouble understanding it
Chesham
Sire
8.24 Newcastle – Full Field Master Summary Chart
Class 4 Handicap | 5f All-Weather | Avg OR: 75 | Class Par: RPR 84-92| No. & Horse | TFR | Tfigs (Last 3) | Timeform Snapshot | OR | RPR (Master) | DOD | EP (fps) | F3 (fps) | %Early | Exact Tissue | Target Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 4. Lethal Nymph | 88 | 75, 68, 72 | "Ready to cash in on his reduced mark before long" | 79 | 86 | +1.5 | 55.91 | 50.46 | 52.5% | 3/1 (25.0%) | Primary Target |
| 10. Buzz Box | 84 | 61, 38, 55 | "Shaped as if retaining all ability... entitled to strip fitter" | 75 | 88 | +1.5 | 55.05 | 52.12 | 51.3% | 9/2 (18.1%) | Value Target |
| 9. Little Mi Mi | 85 | 73, 60, 55 | "Proven a revelation... possible there may be even more to come" | 76 | 84 | +2.0 | 58.20 | 55.09 | 51.3% | 13/2 (13.3%) | Pass (Pace Victim) |
| 8. Azuinthejungle | 83 | 51, 63, 67 | "Completed a hat-trick... will continue to merit respect" | 76 | 84 | +0.5 | 57.22 | 54.59 | 51.1% | 8/1 (11.1%) | Pass (Pace Victim) |
| 11. Castan | 81 | 69, 55, 40 | "Back down to last winning mark and could well be building up to something" | 74 | 83 | +7.0 | 57.68 | 53.62 | 51.8% | 12/1 (7.6%) | Pass (Pace Victim) |
| 7. Copper Knight | 88 | 36, 53, 78 | "This is more his level nowadays and further success can't be ruled out" | 77 | 87 | +2.0 | 54.05 | 54.19 | 49.9% | 14/1 (6.6%) | Pass |
| 1. True Promise | 88 | 51, 63, 74 | "Had become a tad frustrating so isn't certain to back this up" | 81 | 83 | +5.5 | 57.23 | 53.23 | 51.8% | 16/1 (5.8%) | Pass |
| 13. Too Much | 70 | 34, 18, 24 | "Cashed in on her much-reduced mark... in a reapplied hood" | 62 | 83 | -1.0 | 54.35 | 50.54 | 51.8% | 25/1 (3.8%) | Pass |
| 5. Duran | 84 | 51, 46, 69 | "Was beaten by more than the 6-week absence..." | 78 | 82 | FU | 55.50 | 51.50 | 51.0% | 33/1 (2.9%) | Pass |
| 6. Smart Vision | 83 | 53, 67, 59 | "Again underperformed kept to 6f" | 77 | 84 | +6.0 | 56.00 | 52.00 | 51.2% | 40/1 (2.4%) | Pass |
| 3. Changeofmind | 89 | 47, 58, 72 | "Found life tougher in a better race than the one he'd won last time" | 79 | 84 | +14.0 | 56.50 | 52.50 | 51.8% | 50/1 (1.9%) | Pass |
| 2. Star Material | 85 | -, 50, 73 | "Not getting any more professional with experience" | 82 | 81 | +6.5 | 56.10 | 52.10 | 51.5% | 66/1 (1.5%) | Pass |
| 12. Ice Cold Alex | 77 | 2, 66, 40 | "Beaten a long way in the end... better than he could show here" | 70 | 80 | FU | 55.20 | 51.20 | 51.5% | 100/1 (1.0%) | Pass |
(Total Book Probability: 101.0% - A perfect mathematical baseline to compare against the live exchange).
MySportsAI
Filly
It is not usually good to accuse someone of posting nonsense unless you can prove that what they are saying is indeed nonsense"I am sure you are all familiar with Hugh Taylor, he has recorded profits year on end on the ATR site. His whole MO is selecting horses that he feels are overpriced,"
That makes the point. He is interested in horses he feels are overpriced. No problem with that, but the "he feels" means it is subjective, and if he is as successful as stated, he is clearly a good judge.
Where
"Partly correct, one can identify value via 2 means
1. Correctly identifying the true chance of horses over a sample and backing those that exceed that price
2. Identifying a subset of horses where the public systematically under bet them eg Mordins back female jocks from years ago"
Identifying the apparent chances of a horse winning from a sample is a wholly subjective matter and has zero to do with anything that can properly be labelled true. It is subjective because it relies on chosen criteria, ie how to define the appropriate sample, and choice always means subjectivity. Yes, if one defines a sample in objective terms, such as only 8 runner races at Thirsk race course over 8f, and one is looking at a race with those characteristics, it may feel as though any probability stats are objective. They are, one hopes, statistically correct but only within the subjective framework of the chosen defined characteristics.
I have little doubt that some back on the basis of what feels to them to be true odds, and they may well be successful. But they are incorrect about the logical status of what they are doing (which, in fairness, probably is of no practical concern to them).
The second point is equally misconceived as a matter of logic.
The late Richard Rorty, arguably the most compelling theorist of pragmatism as a philosophy, argued that we should forget truth and concern ourself with what is justified or warranted, ie soundly based on the relevant evidence. "Justified but not necessarily true" is one of his observations; ie one might find the evidence as one sees it compelling but it may not be true. The existence/non existence of a higher being, God or whatever, is a case in point. Millions believe, on the basis of what they have been taught and their life experiences that there is such. Millions believe the opposite. And none is us will know in our lifetimes whether either is true, rather than, to us as individuals, being justified or warranted.
BC
Colt
MySportsAI If you can post with less arrogance, I'm sure I can be friendlier. Shall we both try?You can't expect to post unchallenged when you've no intention of backing up your ideas with selections.
To
JennyK you wrote:By not posting pre-race selections, you set them an impossible task.
It is surely up to you to provide evidence for your claim, no?
You used the names Bill Bentner and Hugh Taylor as evidence that looking for who is overpriced, even if they are not the most likely winner, is a successful method. I have no doubt you're right. I even mentioned Connor500 as a further example of your premise.
But what you don't seem to realise is that those who look to see who will win the race might also have found a way to win. And I'd add, a far less stressful one than waiting for a long, losing run to end.
In post #2023, you wrote :
It sounds good on the face of it, and I agree, except your bank may run out of funds while you wait for your long losing run to end.
***
I have tried to sound friendlier. I'm not sure I managed it, but I did try.
MySportsAI
Filly
Well thats down to money management and not a flaw with value betting
You can't expect to post unchallenged when you've no intention of backing up your ideas with selections.
To
By not posting pre-race selections, you set them an impossible task.
It is surely up to you to provide evidence for your claim, no?
You used the names Bill Bentner and Hugh Taylor as evidence that looking for who is overpriced, even if they are not the most likely winner, is a successful method. I have no doubt you're right. I even mentioned Connor500 as a further example of your premise.
But what you don't seem to realise is that those who look to see who will win the race might also have found a way to win. And I'd add, a far less stressful one than waiting for a long, losing run to end.
In post #2023, you wrote :
It sounds good on the face of it, and I agree, except your bank may run out of funds while you wait for your long losing run to end.
***
I have tried to sound friendlier. I'm not sure I managed it, but I did try.
As for selections if we had backed to BFSP all favourites in group races for the last 15 years where the index of similarity was greater than the average similarity for these races (in other words the more contentious races) we would have had 1262 bets and a ROI of +4.74%. compare this with the rest of the fav's where you would have lost 3.38%
JennyK
Gelding
gerry Good luck, but if you feel only able to back them the way you describe, it does not suggest you have high confidence in them. That is exactly my position on both; more likely to win than any of the others but not sufficiently likely for me to want to back either or both. I'd rather miss a winning class/form, or in this case possibly one of two joint class/form horses, as it may well turn out I do, than lose. Happy to wait until another, much more solid class/form horse comes my way.
MySportsAI Actually my response to both your points is the same. If you had understood my argument, you'd know why I think that what you posted is nonsense, and what my response is re Bill Bentner.
I don't doubt Bill Bentner made money, or perhaps himself believed that he was betting knowing the true odds. But that is not a sphere were true odds is logically possible.
Perhaps an example where truth is possible will help. Take the question was Marilyn Monroe murdered? The on-the-record finding is that cause of death was likely suicide. There are two other theories; accidental overdose and murder. Given the identity of the man who may have either murdered Marilyn Monroe himself or paid someone to do it, there is reason to wonder about the extent to which the murder theory was investigated. At the moment, the true answer (and in principle of course in this situation there is one) is currently not known and may never be known. But if relevant historical evidence, such as a diary found posthumously by the man about whom there was/is suspicion, came to light, with testimony to its accuracy by others named in the diary to collaborate it, that would provide a genuinely true answer to the question.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying Marilyn Monroe was murdered (though I think it likely). Just that the question was she is one that could be answered definitely in principle, though it probably won't be. But true odds, in the sense of something ultimately provable by unambiguous evidence; that's for the birds. "True" odds, with inverted comas I mean to use when referring to a VDW "form" horse - another matter. Nothing to do with truth as such; rather the product of a set of subjective factors which, taken together, generate answers. The set of factors may generate results which can be put to highly effective use, as from what you say Bill Bentner's were, but they have nothing to do with truth in the usual philosophical meaning of the word.
MySportsAI
Filly
If Bill Benter is backing horses that are x% above his true odds and he is making money then his true odds are accurate across the span of his activity. It does not mean every horse he prices is correct it just means that overall his tissue is accurate.
Good luck, but if you feel only able to back them the way you describe, it does not suggest you have high confidence in them. That is exactly my position on both; more likely to win than any of the others but not sufficiently likely for me to want to back either or both. I'd rather miss a winning class/form, or in this case possibly one of two joint class/form horses, as it may well turn out I do, than lose. Happy to wait until another, much more solid class/form horse comes my way.
Actually my response to both your points is the same. If you had understood my argument, you'd know why I think that what you posted is nonsense, and what my response is re Bill Bentner.
I don't doubt Bill Bentner made money, or perhaps himself believed that he was betting knowing the true odds. But that is not a sphere were true odds is logically possible.
Perhaps an example where truth is possible will help. Take the question was Marilyn Monroe murdered? The on-the-record finding is that cause of death was likely suicide. There are two other theories; accidental overdose and murder. Given the identity of the man who may have either murdered Marilyn Monroe himself or paid someone to do it, there is reason to wonder about the extent to which the murder theory was investigated. At the moment, the true answer (and in principle of course in this situation there is one) is currently not known and may never be known. But if relevant historical evidence, such as a diary found posthumously by the man about whom there was/is suspicion, came to light, with testimony to its accuracy by others named in the diary to collaborate it, that would provide a genuinely true answer to the question.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying Marilyn Monroe was murdered (though I think it likely). Just that the question was she is one that could be answered definitely in principle, though it probably won't be. But true odds, in the sense of something ultimately provable by unambiguous evidence; that's for the birds. "True" odds, with inverted comas I mean to use when referring to a VDW "form" horse - another matter. Nothing to do with truth as such; rather the product of a set of subjective factors which, taken together, generate answers. The set of factors may generate results which can be put to highly effective use, as from what you say Bill Bentner's were, but they have nothing to do with truth in the usual philosophical meaning of the word.
MySportsAI
Filly
Also can I just double check your position you do not believe that Benter was predicting true prices with any degree of accuracy
BC
Colt
It's a flaw with value betting if someone's long, losing run is long enough. Banks aren't unlimited. Even backing a set percentage of a bank (descending stakes) will eventually reduce it to a penny.
That works out to roughly 7 bets a month. I assume you know what those selections are in advance. In which case, what is the problem with posting them pre-race?
I recall a stand-up routine by George Carlin where he claims to be a Sun worshipper. He's chosen the Sun as his god as, in his words:
"Unlike some other gods I could mention, I can actually see the sun. I'm big on that. If I can see something, I don't know, it kind of helps the credibility along, you know".
Part of a particularly funny routine, and available on YouTube. If you're in need of a laugh to cheer yourself up after chatting to me online,
just type in "George Carlin sun worship", and it'll come up.