Seriously?
One company wagered $300m and made $27m profit.

That's a +9% ROI.

But even more amazing is that they did it out of a $3m bankroll.

Thus, that is 9x on their money for the year.

They have 100 employees.

Thanks for this interesting stat Dave! Im not so sure that the "Whales" were in action when I last played daily a decade ago.Since 2019 I've only played sporadically and selectively.Perhaps that's why I didn't recognize the pattern . — William Zayonce

They've been playing since around 2005, but their betting approaches all changed about 2014/15.

They used to feed the money in gradually, so as to not disturb things, but then changed to an "when the first horse loads."

Remember that $1.00 out of every $6.50 wagered in North America comes from SIX companies.

Be aware that this will be a PRODUCT - as opposed to something free.

& @William Zayonce,

My position is that depending upon the tote board makes me crazy.

I've adopted the practice of betting into PROJECTED ODDS.

This works so well that I only use the tote board as a last minute check for HIGH ODDS horses that SHOULD BE LOW ODDS.

Coming before Christmas is a tool that will allow all of you to let go of your dependence on the tote board.
I really need to build a sticky thread called, "What I'm working on NOW & SOON."

It goes both ways . I take the position that I can't control the odds so just accept what I get or pass. — William Zayonce

Alas, it doesn't go "both ways" very often.

We bet on what I call "Gate Odds" but get paid on "Winner Circle Odds".

If the winners odds went up even remotely close to how often they go down, then it would GO BOTH WAYS.

However, the winners' GATE ODDS actually GO DOWN 74% of the time!!!

Two examples of simple "angles" that I like are these; "1 : the only entrant to win its last race ( combined with a few "complemenary " factors) ."2 : the only entrant to finish 2nd or "good" race ( again with qualifications). — William Zayonce

Interesting approach to spot plays.
I have a project on my agenda for the spring which is called Subset Handicapping.

It begins with a subset of horses and asks the question "What makes ________ horses win?"

My concern about your current approach is that these angles you mention above are just not as exciting as you'd think.

I know you have tacked on some other conditions to your angle but the bottom line is that the difference between "Good Race Last = YES" and "Good Race Last = NO" is really negligible. Sure, the IV & hit rate is higher but it does almost nothing for the $net ($2 is break even) because the gains are destroyed by the huge downward tick in the average odds .

(from P&P, 2012)

How would you define a good race? — Steven

Standard definition is from Dr. William Quirin (found in Percentages & Probabilities.)

If these stats are already included in "Percentages and probabilities " please advise, I'll order a copy. — Zayonce William

Good races and some other stuff are in PAST 10 and a bunch of items in LAST 90 DAYS are included.
There are HUNDREDS of factors.

There are also those SAME HUNDREDS of factors (data tables) spread across 25 different kinds of races. Over 1,300 extra pages!

Buy it here.

• Allowances Sprints & Routes
• Claiming Sprints & Routes (including N2L)
• Graded Sprints, Routes, Turf
• Maidens, etc.
• Young Horses
• Marathons

@Conley
The best way to do this in the future is for you and I to create an event here (still linked to your live session), but you post the link instead of doing it via messaging.

This way, you really get it to be ALIVE as well as live.

How many attendees did you get?

Highest QES points percentage (of field total) might be interesting. — Zayonce William

Surprisingly, that is a very disappointing factor.
Check out the Early Speed series, if you haven't already.

How much of an advantage ( in percentage) is needed to produce a profitable play. — Zayonce William

You have to see it from an "out-perform the tote board" point of view.
If you've not read this book, Percentages & Probabilities, there is a lot in it like that.

Spring of 73 belonged to Secretariat and I was hooked for life! — Zayonce William

I came in later but was he not the greatest horse ever?

Your post describes a different purpose than what I use it for.

I am using it as a METRIC so that I don't have to BUILD A STORY.

That's why I can completely handicap a race in 3 minutes, giving me time to enjoy the watching of the race.

So many people see each race as a PUZZLE to be figured out.

I see RACING as the PUZZLE!

Did you use Reynolds numbers back in the old Thorobrain days? I felt that product was outstanding! At least I was getting good results. lol — Tony Kofalt

No. I discovered it around 2001 or so.

Next question "is 120 days a good half life or is there a better one, 90 days, 75 days?????". I'll get around to answering my own question when I get to sit down in front of the computer for another couple of hours. — Steven

That is the standard Benter approach.
I've tried some others a decade ago and it seemed to be better.
Might have shifted out a little further but not by much.

Is that a good thing or bad thing? — Conley

As I said, I learned a lot from him.

But I suppose the proper answer would be, "That depends upon whether or not it is working for you."

Based upon the picks you've posted it would seem that it is.
(Allowing for small sample, of course.)

Seems like your outlook is a lot like "Jimmy's" who I mentioned above.

My question for EPS/APV would be, what dat do you use?
Lifetime, this year, this surface, this track?
My own project of finding out what is winning shows that at FL and BEL the BRIS ACL (class) is hitting at 70%+ for the top 3 on dirt, but on turf, it drops to ~55%. — Tom

My answer for using the earnings box:
This year if 6 or more starts.
Otherwise, last 2 years.

Logically, anything top 3 will be weaker on turf unless the stat is ONLY turf.
That is always a problem.

I didn't take it that way at all.

Besides, you bet for a living and I don't. :clap:

18 Months ago I would have said that I didn't believe artful handicapping could lead to very many winning players. But now we face a situation where the MOST SUCCESSFUL PLAYERS IN THE WORLD are all purely systematic.

I'm of the opinion now that it might actually be EASIER for an ARTFUL player to win. At least they are not battling the best players on their turf.

I'm a firm believer in form cycles. In fact when I project a figure for a horse I almost always project improvement or regression from the last effort. Past races, some fairly old, are the basis for my projections. I often give more credit for a race from 4-6 months than I might the last 2-3 races. That's why I'm having trouble agreeing to time decay when it comes to speed and pace ratings. — Tony Kofalt

Tony, I agree on time decay. Many of today's trainers have solid intent first off a long layoff, as evidenced by their high win percentages. And, I, too, am willing to go well back into the running lines to find a race that might correspond to today's race. For instance, turf route lines tell me little about what will happen in today's dirt sprint. In fact, I've come to consider selecting a "pace line" as one of the most important aspects of handicapping. And that certainly is contrary to time decay. — RanchWest

I am saying that STATISTICALLY (i.e. as a metric) time decay produces FAR better results than something like (say) BEST-OF-LAST-2.

If one is choosing a PACELINE - especially a single running line, that is a different solution to a different problem.

In that scenario, picking the race that the horse will run today will either be good or bad - based upon the skill of the picker.

One approach is for a SYSTEMATIC approach, the other ARTFUL.

I do not see how the two can be compared.

Do you guys?

2.8 Speed - Relative to Today's Par

I assume, then, that you missed the 1,300 pages of data tables (race type specific) in the sub folders.