20th October 2008, 04:52 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 4,432
|
|
So I do the exercise again, based on 100 raters having an impact value of 2.38 and priced to field size.
Looking at overlays to rated price, I come up with:
3,290 selections
440 winners
13.37% strike rate
$2,692.80 return
$597.20 loss
18.15% loss on turnover.
And this is rated to 100% market.
Clearly the market price is outperforming the ratings by a substantial amount, even though a 100 rated horse is 2.38 times more likely to win.
The reverse scenario is to look at horses under the rated odds to prove the price guide is better than the 2.38 times greater rated price.
2,897 selections
973 winners
33.59% strike rate
$2,538.10 return
$358.90 loss
12.39% loss on turnover
So a horse under the rated price is far more likely to win, and more likely to return less loss than backing overlays.
So the ratings still can't beat the market price despite being 2.38 times better than the raw data.
|