Good to hear from you.

I happen to know that you've done well with this.
Tell the people how much weight you've lost.

Knowing that there are people who care is important to me.

Thank you for the kind words.

While I appreciate this, I want to make it clear that this post is about STOPPING THE BLEEDING far more than looking at how much blood there is.
_____________________
Most of us are of a similar age.
This is a time when we are at the greatest time of EXPERIENCE & KNOWLEDGE in our lives.

Sure, we have lots of battles and wars to fight... and the biggest of all is The Battle to Live.

But this should be a time of victories for us.
Whether it be success at the window, weight loss, strengthening self, general health or building wealth.

I say that it is time to get stronger.

Look at the new 25,000 series of factors.

https://www.community.horsestreet.com/discussion/comment/7266

That was an interesting book.
The 5+ points count was a real stroke of smarts and it6 is deeply embedded in DET (as well as HSH).

I did not find the rest of the contender ideas to work well. I believe there are so factors in the field list that represent those.

100%, Gino.

That's easy compared to picking winners in 2yr, old maiden races. — Andrew Kramer

Chart me. LOL

Dave, how do you handle a race in which the Green 4 pace object is the same as the red algorithm object? There is no discrepancy with the whales in this case. Does that Green 4 object still serve a role in determining whether a horse is BALO or not? — Jeff Capper

Good question.

First
The RED is not AI.
It simply means that the whales do not agree with the AI's profile.

Second
Since the advent of The Neal, there are several better ways to find BALOs.

Third
There are also two types of BALOs:
1. In the Handicapping process (i.e. Race Window)
2. In the Final Step.

These could also be called:
1. Handicapping-Based
2. Value-Based

IOW, if there is a low-odds horse who you have determined is a BAD BET, he is, in effect, an AFTER HANDICAPPING BALO. Those are generally far better (in my experience).

It is a difficult formula to find.
I had to design my own.
It's based upon a 120-day half-life.

Well, we are rehearsing in an hour. LOL

Great first post, my old friend.

Since there is no database there cannot be any testing unless it is done manually.

The challenge with the approach you have outlined has many challenges.
_____________________
1. Since all the handicapping is dynamic, there is no mechanism that would allow automated testing.
Thus, to test against (say) 5,000 races, SOMEONE would have to literally bang those 5,000 races in manually.

In addition, if you DID pound in (say) 5,000 races, you'd logically want to do it live. Those 55 races took me about 6 hours with the tracking. That would put a 5k test at around 550 hours.
_____________________
2. Because I cannot have the data being exported and, therefore, easily available to the whale world, there can never be an automated testing process.
_____________________
3. Because the whales are the great influencer of our time, and they retrain their models annually, this new testing will need to be done once a year.
_____________________



FWIW...
In my 3+ decades in the horse betting business, I have found that the typical handicapper has no problem using the concepts and factors that he THINKS are important, and will use those without hesitation, despite the fact that he has done no real vetting.

He will consider a single pretty good day as enough proof to start using his new idea.



I suggest that the only way forward with The deTERMINATOR is to adopt a similar belief system.

Remember, I never said that AI BEST HORSE is the answer that will make you a professional. You will probably need to add your own secret sauce to make it work the way you want it to. (Truth be told: I already have created my own, derived BEFORE I did the 55 races.)

I really don't want 200 guys doing the same thing.
In fact, I'd make that a requirement if I could.

(On that particular topic, I have a practical answer.)

Hey Dave, will the video be available to view on this site? — Mark

Soon.
Check your messages.

what if I don't want to Dutch the horses, play only 3 even if 4 are possibilities, etc. — Andrew Kramer

Perhaps share your questions here?

And, did you see this thread?
About That 55-Consecutive-Race Test

As a follow up to a question I asked Dave during last week's meeting, can we get a general sense about what data the AI models are trained on? Is it a fair assumption that they were fed all of the 3000+ factors from HSH during training? Similarly, were they then evaluated against out-of-sample test data? — Atakante

A GENERAL answer would be: It started with one year of everything, plus multiple years for some of the small sample types.

As for what factors were permitted, the answer is all but a handful that had some known issues.

I do not understand what "evaluated against out-of-sample test data" means. If you mean was the AI TESTED, the answer is no.

I ask b/c it feels right to look deeper into how AI predictions fare in real life with an eye towards their performance based on factors/variables the models were NOT trained on. Given tens of thousands of pace lines the models are using to make inference, it seems to me an uphill battle trying to prove them right/wrong with even couple hundred manually tracked races for those variables they already considered during training. — Atakante

You are correct.
There is zero proof.

If memory serves, the chaos race variable/factor was NOT an input to the models so that's one candidate factor worthwhile manually diving into. Is it a safe assumption that race-level factors were excluded from training data? If not, is there a short list of other candidates or a shorthand logic to find others to manually "study"? — Atakante

Chaos = correct, but there was a fitness function involved.

Race Level: Nothing was left out.
___________________
The questions you have asked are actually pushing the envelope of need-to-know.

The AI is a very strong engine.
After my recent small sample test that was a day chosen at random, I am actually surprised that it performed so well.

I simply threw together a logical "system" based upon what has been discussed and it crushed the game. After going back and correcting a handful of races I had tagged, and correcting a few mistakes, manually assembled these statistics.



This is pretty amazing output.
DUTCHING: TOTE ODDS represents the actual dutched betting for the 55 races.

FLAT BETTING (A, A+) represents betting $2 on each A or A+ horse. IOW, betting only the horses that computed as having a $2.20 or higher $Net.

FLAT BETTING (BAD BETS) represents all the horses bet that were not A or A+ HORSES (according to the rules provided).

Very deep questions.

Not simple enough to answer in writing.

We'll have to discuss this in a meeting.
(Also, some will likely be proprietary.)

The video is available in the above post.

I believe the Grades (A+, D, etc.) were initially portrayed as ways to find who the whales are likely to bet on (mainly A+ and As) but I'm curious to find if anyone here really rely on those for their handicapping. It's still not clear to me what/how they contribute as opposed to say Magnitude and Rank. Any responses appreciated... — Atakante

Short version from my POV:
First, Grades are derived from pure math.

As Tom said, it is always the payoff from the "selected odds" times the hit rate.

The correct formula is (Odds x 2 +2) x Pct = $net.
"Grade" is also as Tom said; a function of the $net.
____________________
In a perfect world, All we'd need is to bet all the A+ horses and retire to wherever we want that has an internet connection.

Here's the problem:
$Net is a function of odds x hit rate and NEITHER OF THOSE IS ACCURATE!

Still, it is a good estimate of both probability and profit, but... honestly, it takes more.

BTW, Optimum% is probably a better measuring stick in the sense that you'd be better off betting more on a low odds A+ than a high odds A+.

While there is a time and a place for just using Grade, $Net, or Opt%, the game isn't that simple.

There are complications to the entire picture. At this morning's live play session we discussed a process that I call "Using Boxes" to build systems. In the coming days I will try to find time to expand on it.

Although this is not a great form - I'm sure many of us could do better...

Here it is if someone wants it to print out.

There's a potentially excellent thread going on "under the hood" that I decided should "have the hood open."

To that end, I've moved it where it can be seen.

Direct Link to that thread