You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
** JACKPOT SYNDICATE ** POST MORTEM OF NEAR MISS AT SANDOWN ON 12/11/17 **
StayOrGo
Member Posts: 12,181
Hi guys, some things came to light that I would like to address after the attempt at Sandown today.
Firstly, it was a great effort by the team, we had 5 winners in every perm, just unfortunate how things unfolded. (Not having MARIA'S BENEFIT (which was in two perms) in the same perm as GOLAN FORTUNE.
In my opinion, the "problem" was in the first leg. (Only having GOLAN FORTUNE in one perm)
Ever since I made the mistake a few weeks ago with ASK THE GURU (which Vaigret was absolutely right to point out), I have felt on the back foot when it comes to making unilateral decisions that place statistics/probability over remover choices.
Let me try and explain further.
I deliberated a long time over the first leg, going backwards and forwards with my selections.
The "problem" I had is that "GOLAN FORTUNE" was backed from 20/1 to 6/1, whilst other horses like PADDYS RUNNER drifted from 11/2 to 11/1 at one point before coming back in slightly.
My preference was to have GOLAN FORTUNE in PERM A and PERM C and leave out PADDYS RUNNER completely.
Seems like the "statistically sensible thing to do".
In the NON BANKER/SEMI BANKER legs typically, I try to cover anything 3/1 or less in all perms, horses that are 7/2 to 8/1 ideally in 2 perms and horses 9/1 to 12/1 in one perm.
Due to perm costs something had to give here. I "should" have made the decision to trust my statistical gut and leave out PADDYS RUNNER and have GOLAN FORTUNE in twice.
It really was a dilemma, those of you that may have been watching me prepare the perms, would have seen that I actually wrote GOLAN or PADDYS in the selection and made a decision just before the off that went with PADDY's.
The reason for this was that GOLAN had 3 removals and PADDYS NONE. I was thinking about the repercussions if I left PADDYS out and it won, when no-one had removed it, where in fact statistically, without a doubt, the better play was GOLAN's in two perms. (I have to confess, I thought that after the ASK THE GURU situation if I AGAIN leave out a horse with no removers and it wins, I might get metaphorically lynched. :=)
This isn't sour grapes or being results orientated. I removed GOLAN FORTUNE myself.
Anyway, I have decided that myself AND other removers need to be able to act upon price moves (before the first race starts) and amend their selections if they want to.
If I was "allowed to" change GOLAN for PADDYS in my own removals I surely would. I'd rather remove a big drifter than something that had so much market support. (The horse was probably 20/1 when most people removed it)
Anyhow, due to this, I am going to allow some leniency with making changes to remover selections.
Whilst I would still like removers in 90 minutes before the first race, I am going to allow a small number (3 horses max) of amendments until right before the off of the first race. (Obviously if it is right on the off, it will be too late for me to act upon.)
I am sure if people were allowed to do this, that I may not have been the only one to change my selection.
Also, whilst I was glad that Vaigret brought the "ASK THE GURU" situation to my attention a few weeks back and since then we now have plans in place to try and avoid those errors.
However, I do believe that sometimes, I must do what I believe to be right, even if it means going against the removals data. I have always combined many criteria when making my choices, of which the NAPS and REMOVERS are a significant part, but they are not the only variables in my decision making.
Anyhow, I have promised myself, that I will always try and make what I believe are the best choices for the syndicate even if it means that I am unpopular if I leave out a horse that didn't have any removals and it wins, or a banker lets us down when people have casted doubt over it.
Of course I am hoping that Vaigret and I continue with our "cordial disagreements" of statistics over form interpretation and I may well make last minute modifications based on our chat discussions on the sheet.
However, I will at times stick to my guns in trying to statistically get the best coverage we can, even if it goes against the grain regarding the removals. So I will apologise in advance if I do not choose a horse than had no or few removers.
Please note however that the NAPS and REMOVALS do impact quite heavily the selection process, but at times the plain statistics will "over power" the removals data.
At the end of the day, all our "bankers and semi-bankers" won and even still we were very unlucky that both lines that had MARIA'S BENEFIT in were not on the same line as GOLAN.
Anyway, the logical thing to do here, is to allow a few updates of removers right up until the off, so that adjustments for drifters and springers can be made, especially as the merge list for removers is now automated.
To change a selection remove the old one by copy/pasting a white square over the old one and pasting a new blue square with the replacement.
Cheers, and GL today at SOUTHWELL(AW)
G
Firstly, it was a great effort by the team, we had 5 winners in every perm, just unfortunate how things unfolded. (Not having MARIA'S BENEFIT (which was in two perms) in the same perm as GOLAN FORTUNE.
In my opinion, the "problem" was in the first leg. (Only having GOLAN FORTUNE in one perm)
Ever since I made the mistake a few weeks ago with ASK THE GURU (which Vaigret was absolutely right to point out), I have felt on the back foot when it comes to making unilateral decisions that place statistics/probability over remover choices.
Let me try and explain further.
I deliberated a long time over the first leg, going backwards and forwards with my selections.
The "problem" I had is that "GOLAN FORTUNE" was backed from 20/1 to 6/1, whilst other horses like PADDYS RUNNER drifted from 11/2 to 11/1 at one point before coming back in slightly.
My preference was to have GOLAN FORTUNE in PERM A and PERM C and leave out PADDYS RUNNER completely.
Seems like the "statistically sensible thing to do".
In the NON BANKER/SEMI BANKER legs typically, I try to cover anything 3/1 or less in all perms, horses that are 7/2 to 8/1 ideally in 2 perms and horses 9/1 to 12/1 in one perm.
Due to perm costs something had to give here. I "should" have made the decision to trust my statistical gut and leave out PADDYS RUNNER and have GOLAN FORTUNE in twice.
It really was a dilemma, those of you that may have been watching me prepare the perms, would have seen that I actually wrote GOLAN or PADDYS in the selection and made a decision just before the off that went with PADDY's.
The reason for this was that GOLAN had 3 removals and PADDYS NONE. I was thinking about the repercussions if I left PADDYS out and it won, when no-one had removed it, where in fact statistically, without a doubt, the better play was GOLAN's in two perms. (I have to confess, I thought that after the ASK THE GURU situation if I AGAIN leave out a horse with no removers and it wins, I might get metaphorically lynched. :=)
This isn't sour grapes or being results orientated. I removed GOLAN FORTUNE myself.
Anyway, I have decided that myself AND other removers need to be able to act upon price moves (before the first race starts) and amend their selections if they want to.
If I was "allowed to" change GOLAN for PADDYS in my own removals I surely would. I'd rather remove a big drifter than something that had so much market support. (The horse was probably 20/1 when most people removed it)
Anyhow, due to this, I am going to allow some leniency with making changes to remover selections.
Whilst I would still like removers in 90 minutes before the first race, I am going to allow a small number (3 horses max) of amendments until right before the off of the first race. (Obviously if it is right on the off, it will be too late for me to act upon.)
I am sure if people were allowed to do this, that I may not have been the only one to change my selection.
Also, whilst I was glad that Vaigret brought the "ASK THE GURU" situation to my attention a few weeks back and since then we now have plans in place to try and avoid those errors.
However, I do believe that sometimes, I must do what I believe to be right, even if it means going against the removals data. I have always combined many criteria when making my choices, of which the NAPS and REMOVERS are a significant part, but they are not the only variables in my decision making.
Anyhow, I have promised myself, that I will always try and make what I believe are the best choices for the syndicate even if it means that I am unpopular if I leave out a horse that didn't have any removals and it wins, or a banker lets us down when people have casted doubt over it.
Of course I am hoping that Vaigret and I continue with our "cordial disagreements" of statistics over form interpretation and I may well make last minute modifications based on our chat discussions on the sheet.
However, I will at times stick to my guns in trying to statistically get the best coverage we can, even if it goes against the grain regarding the removals. So I will apologise in advance if I do not choose a horse than had no or few removers.
Please note however that the NAPS and REMOVALS do impact quite heavily the selection process, but at times the plain statistics will "over power" the removals data.
At the end of the day, all our "bankers and semi-bankers" won and even still we were very unlucky that both lines that had MARIA'S BENEFIT in were not on the same line as GOLAN.
Anyway, the logical thing to do here, is to allow a few updates of removers right up until the off, so that adjustments for drifters and springers can be made, especially as the merge list for removers is now automated.
To change a selection remove the old one by copy/pasting a white square over the old one and pasting a new blue square with the replacement.
Cheers, and GL today at SOUTHWELL(AW)
G
Comments
I feel as a whole, this little syndicate is now ticking along nicely and hopefully will continue to do so for some time yet. The 'new forum' has let us down badly, but with a lot of input from yourself, we are getting round some obstacles in other ways.
Anyway.....you best get some beauty sleep now....well overdue
statistically the more selections the better but not if it makes 3 weaker perms than 1 strong perm? does that make sense? lol im not great at writing my thoughts down.
as for leaving selections out, so be it, if its moved out rapidly and something moves in then for me id rathr be on that. same goes if nap is left out, infact my naps are so bad id not even look at them lol.
either way very unlucky today and sure more success is coming soon.
You may not believe me, but long term I have NO DOUBT that it is the better approach, I won't explain why again, other than to get you to read the various posts I have made on the subject.
Of course occasionally one big perm will succeed where three smaller ones fail, but again, I have NO DOUBT that three smaller perms (using "our structure") will succeed more often, and is more +ev than one perm three times their size over a significant time period.
Unless you can give me statistical argument to counteract the various arguments that I have explained on other threads, I suggest you just trust me, and lets close this issue as it can create doubt.
Cheers,
G
You could also argue Maria's should have been in all three perms making the case against Penny's being left out.
At the end of the day horses are not machines and we have also had lots of other things thrown at us this year. Horses rearing in stall and being NR, wrong horse brought to the course !!!!. however much work you put in Graham you cannot cover everything.
AND IF YOU WATCH THE RACE AGAIN GOLAN WOULD NOT , I REPEAT, WOULD NOT HAVE WON THAT RACE, Just look at what happened to BASTIEN in the home straight and he was still a very close 3rd. By the way all, get on him next time!!!!!
And Marias wouldnt have won either if it hadnt of knocked the fence out which then got stuck between Fidux legs and brought hm down.
What I would say is that we might need to go with more Might Bites instead of having two or three selections in massive banker races. The problem is agreeing which are the massive bankers. LOL
I know we are not in profit over all, but the loss, percentage wise, is fairly small, and I think we've had significant run bad, so I am still confident in the longer term with a bigger sample size, I still believe it to be +ev.
Although I must admit, when I first set this up, I was hoping we'd be showing a nice profit by now, that may have bank rolled us to be able to branch out to the SCOOP6.
But tortoise and the hare and all that, patience is required, and I feel the processes are becoming more "optimal" over time, despite all of our near misses. :=)
Cheers,
G