mr jfc
you still have not disputed the fact that your figures are invalid. who cares what the numbers say. if the numbers are invalid then so are your conclusions.
thats 4.
Thank you. Winston.

winston,

Everyone who bothers to look back through my actual words as opposed to your distortions of them can verify that I have never claimed nor suggested that every horse in a field of N has a 1/N chance of winning.

In fact my precise words were:



An intelligent and knowledgeable person would know what I meant by that. That person would realise that this was one of many contexts where Expected does not mean Chance.

For a start here Expected = Chance is an absurd notion so therefore Expected is intended to have some other meaning than Chance.

Here the context was as in Actual versus Expected.

Now if I really believed that Expected was Chance why would I bother going to the trouble of counting Actual and computing A/E?

And why do I have to go to the trouble of demonstrating as I just have, that I did not suggest that Expected = Chance, when anyone who was concerned about that could have easily figured out my meaning for themselves?

Long ago I assumed that everyone else was well and truly bored with this discussion so I let your obvious misquotations and errors go, on the basis that most would see them.

But you insist on labouring your distortions, probably in the belief that if you drag your false accusations out long enough others will begin to believe you.

On the other hand I hope that more people will instead see you for what you really are.

Most words have a number of different meanings, so it is very easy going through others' work looking for something to misinterpret. If that fails, then misquote them, and start quoting the misquotes. But if even that backfires on you, merely change your identity again.

mr jfc
personally i do not think you can say that you expect horse to win 1/N without giving it 1/N chance. yes i paraphrase your words here but i think intelligent people will understand my point. in the context we talk "expect" and "chance" are related. i agree not exactly the same but related. however let us agree to disagree on this point. it is irrelevant to discussion.

you say that
this is the crux of the problem with your figures and why they are flawed. let us say we pick horse A that has 10 races and each race has field of 10. you calculate you expect it to win 1/10 for each race and therefore you expect it to have won 1 race by the end of those 10.

now. what if horse A is favorite in each race. your calculation still expect it to have won 1 race of the 10.
now. what if horse A is donkey and start at 200/1 in each race. your calculation still expect it to have won 1 race of the 10.
your calculation put Lonhro in 10 maiden races at taree and expect him to win only 1.

this is where your expected figures are flawed. using 1/N takes no account of ability of horse. extend this to a group of horses and the figure take no account of ability of that group of horses. your figure of 1/N whether you like it or no is just like a "participation rate" figure - very similar (but better calculated) than impact value.

if you really want to analyse "actual versus expected" then you need to calculate expected taking into account ability and actual chance of horse to win each race. this is what Nick do. when you do this then you will find some very interesting statistics.
Thank you. Winston.

"Expected Win = 1/N"
Means exactly that!
In every race there is a winner!!
jfc!
While I disagree with some of the stuff you wrote in the past, in this case I think you are right, but I still would let it go if I were you, because by the looks of it you are pushing it uphill trying to convince your opponent.
Good luck.

Winston,

In recent Saturdays I receive e-mails with:

"results are now based on proportional staking according to the SP of each favuorite(sic)"


Pleasingly this outfit has now started to do what I've been doing for decades (even millennia).

Note I'm not suggesting anything untoward. Others have also independently settled on such a method, including that UK article on Impact Values.

And I often disclosed here that my ROT is calculated that way. Earlier I suggested you look back through my earlier posts for a discussion on that very topic. Incidentally I was trying to discuss that with an obvious acquaintance of yours.

So why are you trying to tell me something I evidently already know?

There is no flaw in my indicator because I don't use that for estimating probabilities.

It simply happens to be a more meaningful indicator than strike rate, because it usually copes with strike rate anomalies caused by field sizes.

I used it here late in the discussion merely to highlight what I consider a significant difference between 2 large samples.

But considering the abundant evidence I doubt whether any of this is really news to you or to any regular.

huh? how did we go from trying to show one group of horses is a better proposition than another to staking? i think this is more camoflage.

whether you use it for estimating probabilities or not is irrelevant. there is a flaw in your indicator. i can see it. mr chrome prince can see it. i think many intelligent people can see it. much more accurate indicator is easy to calculate. if you wish to continue to use flawed indicator to "highlight what i consider a significant difference" then so be it. it brings to mind famous quote by Mr Mark Twain

i go now. i can see there is no point to continue this discussion.