Re: To Mike H. (1012 Views)
Posted by:
mike holbert (IP Logged)
Date: May 29, 2002 07:49PM
sorry for not getting back sooner. we generally run thursday thru sunday, but with the holiday, ran thru monday this week.
1. i would be extra careful in using ziemba's work. things have changed somewhat in the last 18 years. there is a great deal of research out there. racetrack betting offers fertile ground for economic research due to the availability of data. however, if you want some humor, look at dick mitchell's work on 'fair pays'.
2. i would agree on monte carlo. back when ziemba's work came out, i was using a trs model 100 at the track doing monte carlo simulation. it that instance, monte carlo was vastly superior. however, you must remember that it is only as good as the prediction model. in looking at your exacta fair pays, they looked off. the one good thing is that they were higher than what they should have been. i wonder if you could show all the possible combinations and your calculated 'fair pays'. i'm not saying your model is wrong. let's rule out a math error. the numbers just don't align with a very large race sample.
3. on the peter pan. deputy dash had to be an overlay on most odds lines. we had him at 15/1. our model used deputy dash and puzzlement lightly and fast decision more heavily weighted.
4. i got a chuckle out of your quote.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.