Statistics!!!!

[TESTAROSSA]

I have a opinion about all these statistics thrown around the forum , i.e 31% of winners raced within 1-7 days or 64% of winners have the TAB no 1-5 etc.

People may not agree with this opinion and any criticism would be welcomed but i think statistics are pretty much a complete waste of time.

No successful plan (long term) would have rules based on past statistics , sure these plans based on statistics might work short term , but long term NO.

I have been using statistics for about 6 years since i was 15 trying to come up with "The Perfect Plan" , statistics such as Days since L.S or Weight increase or decrease since L.S or beaten lengths L.S , but the fact is after a significant amount of races these statistics can alter significantly therefore sometimes rendering these plans useless.

A successful plan i think is a point based plan where every runner is given points based on the rules and then added up , with the highest one being the selection , i have recently come up with a plan like this and it is the most successful plan SHORT TERM then any of the many other plans i have created in the past , hopefully it works long term as well and i feel confident it will.

Any thoughts or criticisms gladly welcomed.

[becareful]

Testarossa,

I tend to agree that many people either don't understand the statistics they are trying to use or make mistakes when trying to interpret them. Certainly the stats on days since last run or TAB number are totally useless in my opinion. The days since last run is too dependant on the type of race, what the previous run was, the individual horse, etc - trying to generalise across all races/horses will not work.

The biggest mistake by far is looking at a particular statistic on winners without comparing it to the non-winners. For example they see a statistic that 70% of winners have run in the last 21 days (I just made that one up!) and think this is a good indicator. The problem is that if 70% of losers also ran in the last 21 days then the statistic is absolutely useless.

Another common mistake is coming up with a number of statistical criteria with various percentages (eg. 50% of winners have Criteria A, 65% of winners have criteria B, etc) and then if they find a horse that satisfies all these they assume it has an even greater chance of winning. In actual fact the chance is no higher than the highest of the criteria (and this only applies in the long run anyway).

Another big problem is that all this type of analysis often just ends up selecting the favourite.

I do use statistics as part of my analysis but not as the sole basis. Also I do not try to "come up with the winner" for every race - instead I try to work out a fair price for the runners that I think have a chance and then look for value when placing my bets (ie. horses that are paying over my calculated price).

[Equine Investor]

I don't think that statistics are useless. It is how you use them which determines whether they will be of assistance. One statistic on it's own is useless, you have to give varied weight to each combination.

As becareful says, rating chances according to combinations of information ensures that you bet when there is value about a specific runner.

For example, did anyone hear the rap the racecaller gave Citichy today as it was being loaded into the stalls - he gave the various races he had won. At $78/1 surely he was over the odds, but even more so 15/1 for the place!

[Hammers]

Eq Inv,
Could you explain the $15 a place is better value than $78 the win reasoning.
Thanks.

[TESTAROSSA]

Becareful ,

I also think that people tend to only recognise 1 point of a statistic , eg that 70% of winners raced within 21 days would be the first point but people tend to forget that that means 30% of winners raced 22+ days , what about them do we just forget about those runners because they are not in the majority of just 1 statistic.

I think that is when point plans come in very handy , it can pick a horse even though it is not in the majority of every statistics you tend to use.

[becareful]

And the ones in the Minority portion of the statistics are usually the ones that pay the best! If you can work out what it is that gets those 30% horses over the line first you can pick up some great divs.

[TheDuck]

I agree that the problem with statistics is misinterpretation. Did you know that cigarettes are the leading cause of statistics in North America?

Often people think that a 71% chance in one area plus a 38% chance in another area plus a 45% chance in another statistic is great news! Unfortunately, you don't add, you multiply. So .71 x .38 x .45 = .12141 -- 12%! You're placing a bet on that?

Another one is cause and effect. A study was done in a city that showed an increase in churches has resulted in a increase in crime. It was true. The number of churches had doubled and crime had just over doubled. However, these are NOT coincident events. They are dependent but not on each other. The simple fact is the population had increased that resulted in more people wanting to go to church and more people wanting to break into the houses of people going to church.

So the key to using statistics is proper interpretation. You might say, they're not bad just misunderstood. Don't discount statistics altogether but understand what you're reading and how you're applying it.

My favourite quote is in the movie Naked Gun when Leslie Nielsen says something to the effect of, "The doctors say there's an 80% chance Nordberg will recover but even then they're only giving a 50/50 chance of that."

These days nothing is impossible, but there are a still a lot of things that are HIGHLY improbable!

-Duck

[Equine Investor]

On 2002-07-18 09:50, Hammers wrote:
Eq Inv,
Could you explain the $15 a place is better value than $78 the win reasoning.
Thanks.


Sorry Hammers,

I didn't mean it was better value, I just meant that obviously a horse with the kind of career record of Citichy, had a much better than 6.67% chance of running a place.

[Hammers]

Thanks Eq Inv.
I wish it did run the place - I had Caissa.