Re: Come on, Len. Knock it off. (649 Views)
Posted by:
sighthound (IP Logged)
Date: September 01, 2005 02:59AM
I'm no statistics major, and I didn't see Jim's proposal for the study. I'm a lurker, and a very minor player, but this certainly piques my interest. My suggestion:
10 players, competently trained to each system, and with their own individual backgrounds of experience handicapping - obviously not novices. 5 use TG, 5 sheets. Heck, you could even add 5 more using Beyers.
Each handicaps all races on the card for one or two designated days a week, at a designated meet, throughout a 6-month period. At 13 weeks (halfway) into the study, they simply switch products and continue.
They handicap their usual way, watching simulcast, tote, track conditions, whatever additional adjuncts they normally use with the exception of the other product.
They have to pick three horses: designated most likely winner, and two additional placers in no particular order. This has to be submitted somewhere (time/date stamped e-mail) before each race.
Players have to be dedicated enough to not be sloppy on the assigned handicapping day - offer the player at the end with the largest straight win percent $500 or something.
Will yield objective analysis by many different measures: % wins, % place/show, breakdown by type of race (turf, sprint, route, maiden, age, etc), "quality" of track/meet/horses/trainers, payoffs for variety of bet types placed on those three horses can be created in the lab later with ROI for each type of bet based upon real payoffs calculated, etc.
The working hypothesis is that there is no difference in results between products.
Alot of the "statistical nightmare" worries of individual user differences and style of handicapping or betting inherently and simply taken care of by the double-blind study design.
Come on, Len. Knock it off. (1312 Views)
|
TGJB |
08/31/2005 06:24PM |
Re: Come on, Len. Knock it off. (714 Views)
|
kev |
08/31/2005 08:13PM |
Re: Come on, Len. Knock it off. (731 Views)
|
jimbo66 |
08/31/2005 09:54PM |
Re: Come on, Len. Knock it off. (650 Views)
|
kev |
08/31/2005 10:20PM |
Re: Come on, Len. Knock it off. (680 Views)
|
jimbo66 |
08/31/2005 10:50PM |
Re: Come on, Len. Knock it off. (588 Views)
|
|
09/01/2005 09:42AM |
Re: Come on, Len. Knock it off. (637 Views)
|
miff |
09/01/2005 10:39AM |
Study, What Study? (667 Views)
|
Chuckles_the_Clown2 |
09/01/2005 12:31AM |
Re: Come on, Len. Knock it off. (649 Views) |
sighthound |
09/01/2005 02:59AM |
Here We Go Again (680 Views)
|
TGJB |
09/01/2005 03:36PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (610 Views)
|
jimbo66 |
09/01/2005 04:01PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (610 Views)
|
TGJB |
09/01/2005 04:06PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (664 Views)
|
jimbo66 |
09/01/2005 04:32PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (696 Views)
|
richiebee |
09/02/2005 03:46AM |
Re: Here We Go Again (642 Views)
|
richiebee |
09/01/2005 04:16PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (634 Views)
|
TGJB |
09/01/2005 04:21PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (607 Views)
|
miff |
09/01/2005 04:22PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (625 Views)
|
TGJB |
09/01/2005 04:30PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (585 Views)
|
miff |
09/01/2005 04:39PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (699 Views)
|
TGJB |
09/01/2005 04:42PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (673 Views)
|
|
09/01/2005 05:01PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (682 Views)
|
TGJB |
09/01/2005 05:06PM |
Re: Here We Go Again (637 Views)
|
miff |
09/01/2005 05:07PM |
Re: Come on, Len. Knock it off. (636 Views)
|
richiebee |
08/31/2005 10:18PM |
Re: Come on, Len. Knock it off. (659 Views)
|
TGJB |
09/01/2005 11:57AM |
please JB (685 Views)
|
horsegoer |
09/01/2005 11:00AM |
Re: please JB (691 Views)
|
TGJB |
09/01/2005 11:39AM |
Re: please JB (651 Views)
|
Chuckles_the_Clown2 |
09/01/2005 11:45AM |
Re: please JB (675 Views)
|
|
09/01/2005 11:48AM |
Re: please JB (594 Views)
|
Chuckles_the_Clown2 |
09/01/2005 11:58AM |
Re: please JB (622 Views)
|
horsegoer |
09/01/2005 12:19PM |
Re: please JB (635 Views)
|
|
09/01/2005 01:10PM |
Re: please JB (696 Views)
|
jimbo66 |
09/01/2005 01:27PM |
Re: please JB (640 Views)
|
|
09/01/2005 01:30PM |
Re: please JB (669 Views)
|
kev |
09/01/2005 06:29PM |