Spot Play Controversy!

[km]

The tension is brewing in the spot play contest.

It appeared that Mark's most recent play scored a 1.50 ROI to get the lead - but others are disputing it.......

Was there a flaw in my test? Mark and i have about the same result using the Robot.

Is there an error or quirk in the Robot? I used LEARN ALL, but will retest with Standard Test. I also ran the parameters through GET MY PLAYS today and it appears to have fished out the correct horses.

Or perhaps in the HX4 export?, as MikeDee and DanG report far fewer plays with the same apparent criteria used.

Will be this mystery be solved in time for the final $500 prize to be awarded, or will someone come up with a play that beats the 1.50 ROI and make this all a moot point?

If you have a comment or diffferent test result, put it here so we don't extend the contest thread too much.

[njcurveball]

Movin on upppppppppppp!!!!

I feel like George, although PLEASE do not let me be married to Wheezie! :eek:

700+ plays and an astronomical ROI!!!!

I feel like the JC on TV when I say BUY! BUY! BUY!!

Looks like someone did just that today as the 10-1 at Beulah paid $5!

Will they make him give money back like they did to OPM (I think that was who I read about) in the HWS?

Will someone come up with the holy grail of a $2 ROI!

Oh Boy! I love the East Side!

[km]

GET MY PLAYS - Mark's 1.50 play for Saturday

10:37 TP-02 #6 The Gol 8/1
14:50 SUN-08 #2 Ship Ah 20/1

Do these match the criteria completely? I think they do. Do you get a match in Access?

With a play count of around 700 per year as i tested, this play should produce about 2 plays per calendar day and that's what i have been seeing.

Mike or Dan (or anyone), when you run this play through Access, how many plays do you get for the last 365 days?

Everyone should try running HTR=1 and $$, bare bones, no other filters. The results are excellent with a large amount of plays. With LEARN ALL, you can see all the other general criteria listed. This is what Mark did, he then removed the items that had deficient ROI and re-tested with new filters over and over until he got an optimal result.

[DanG]

Ken;

The play count follows a logical path…until you get to rClass =1 & nCla =2 (or claimers) only.

Without even going into the entire play it’s in the low 300’s with 6 criteria.

• HTR= 1
• Long = 2
• rClass =1
• nMLO >=8 and <=20
• nPED >=350
• nCla =2 (claimers only)

This is without getting into K-9, Lay or age restrictions.

Mike help me out here. :)

Ken, (Since you asked to run it in Access) for the record, I’m NOT trying to rain on Marks parade. As I said I e-mailed Mark with the count discrepancy before KM looked at it and suggested an Access work around that would up the count AND maintain the spirit of a sound play.

[Mark]

Ken, should this be resolved in my favor, please rerun the play without the 3yr and with the 8-20/1 MLO. The M/L is probably a non-event but the 3yr were eliminated at some point in the development.

As an aside, I actually started with the 350 PED filter, to CL=1, to $$ and finally HTR=1.

I'm pouring some champagne regardless. Cheers!

[Mark]

[/QUOTE] ... As I said I e-mailed Mark with the count discrepancy before KM looked at it and suggested an Access work around that would up the count AND maintain the spirit of a sound play.[/QUOTE]

Dan, is this really necessary. The spirit was and is not an issue.

[DanG]

... As I said I e-mailed Mark with the count discrepancy before KM looked at it and suggested an Access work around that would up the count AND maintain the spirit of a sound play.[/QUOTE]

Dan, is this really necessary. The spirit was and is not an issue.
As HDW would say…”Hold your horses” there Mark,

You misunderstood the intent of my post / e-mail or I did not write it correctly.

I was NOT in any way questioning the “spirit” of the play. Just the opposite. The substitution that worked in Access was in the “spirit” of your original play. (By “sprit I meant were Class=1 limited plays, a factor of ClassFit did not. This ClassFit variable is only available through the export.)

I suggested it because when I ran the play it fell short in count. I admired the “spirit” of the play so I tried it with “Classfit” parameters and sent you the suggestion.

My good Samaritan deed was poorly conveyed I guess. Mark, in trying to be helpful here I think you misunderstood my intentions.

OK…I’m back to SA. Mark, sorry for a misunderstanding? :confused: And Mike Dee, the Access fact checking is all yours my friend!

BTW: Ironically, this and Qrick’s play are the only ones I checked through Access. I admired the clever simplicity of their design and was curious about their construction.

[njcurveball]

I do not think anyone involved here is really taking a side. The question is whether the Access query using the export has a discrepancy from the Robot.

Ken is the official and his ruling is final. He has tested and confirmed the spectacular ROI.

I say let's use this number as a target and if no one can beat it, then Mark deserves his picture in the Winners Circle.

I would also like to see the dialog continue with comparing the Robot results with the HX4 export.

I helped a co-worker today who was beside herself because her data was not matching and she suspected Key Personnel records were being deleted. Since the Personnel are Air Marshalls, losing one of them (even on paper) would be a big deal.

Turns out she was missing something simple. She has almost 20 years experience, so it could happen to anyone.

We are all in this together, so if someone finds a discrepancy it helps all of us in the long run.

Congrats again Mark. I am gunning for $1.60 now! It is expensive here on the East Side. ;-)

Jim

[Mark]

Thanks, Jim. My emotions are running high at the moment. There is definitely a problem somewhere, fortunately not in the wine that is pouring oh so easily.

A grand weekend to us all.

[km]

No worry Mark, the $500 is in the bag unless someone beats your 1.50 ROI.

I'll see if i can bullet proof my result tonight.

[AwolAtHTR]

first let me say, I do not think Mark's 1.50 is '..in the bag..'!!
Recall, as this progressed, Ken thought the 1.3x was a clear winner. Well, I think the target of 1.50 will be just another plateau for the contest.

We have benefited from this PROBLEM because it emphasizes the different data sets that HTR players will have from collecting ALL the tracks. Here is my procedure to get ALL the data from ALL the tracks:

1. check number of tracks posted for CHARTS, if count does not agree with Race Files than try again LATER.

2A. when Chart number agrees, (ie, 1 is YES), download to separate folder for each type of data.

2B. When Chart count disagrees with Race files and Entries, In other words, the order of downloading is important unless you hassle with deleting the Race and Entries files, Yes, I did the delete for a while before I recognized that Charts first was the correct procedure to insure that I would not have unnecessary files. So, be sure that RaceFiles and Entries are UNCHECKED for the download when track is cancelled or not available.

note: some small tracks, especially Fair circuits are not ready for 2-3 days after that day.
SOMETIMES, I would give up on these and NOT download these slow posting tracks.

so, NUMBER one source of 'miissing' data between two HTR users.

3. When Ron announces a correction, redownload that track.

Back in 2004, this happened maybe three times but clearly a second source of missing data between two HTR users.

-------------
However, with the same data sets, I expect two users with Access could get different results. Even with a simple query, Microsoft has problems with LARGE data sets such as the HTR data will have for a full year of data.

So, more than one issue could be the source of DanG's different count. Now, I am not challenging completeness of DanG's data base or the validity of his query. I say, let us leave this as a reality of large data bases. Sure, to learn WHY there is a difference would be interesting but why bother?

Since Ken probably has the most complete data set, I expect his counts would be the reference value for the 'valid' record count by the Robot. The record count by Mike's Access report must be qualified by which version of Access. Duane uses Access 2.0 which will not even handle the template. So, Duane's Access 2.0 is a 'homegrown' version which has been debugged for HX4. However, Duane does not have the data for this period of time and does NOT want to validate the record count.

ok, feel I have rambled on more than enough.

duane

[MikeDee]

I ran a test of data from 1/1/07 through 2/11/07.

I ran the same data set through HTR and the robot and the hx4 export.

With Marks spot play I got the exact same results from both access and the robot.

The only thing I can figure is that my 2006 DB is corrupted as it relates to the rclass rank.

by the way here are a few tidbits from Marks spot play for this year.

tDATE tTRK nRACE tPGM xWIN
15-Jan-07 TUP 8 1 $111
09-Feb-07 CT 9 3 $38
04-Feb-07 GG 2 5 $32
10-Feb-07 GG 1 7 $28
12-Jan-07 BEU 8 2 $25

If this keeps up we can move up to Dom Perignon

[km]

This month has been the most shallow period in a long time for horseracing with loads of cancellations and wet tracks. Mark's play still gets 19 hits thru FEB 14th. Easily extrapolating to 700 or more in a year.

GET MY PLAYS Mark #3
Feb1, 2007 - Feb14, 2007

<racefile>, <program#>, <horse>, <win$>

"0214B01.DED","8","Silky Zarb"," "
"0214B05.GP","1","Privy Seal (IRE)","$18.4"
"0212B03.BEU","3","Annies Prospect"," "
"0212B08.BEU","11","Lootshoot Attitude"," "
"0211B02.TP","12","Cosmic Star"," "
"0209B09.CT","3","Highly Appealing","$38.4"
"0209B06.TP","9","Enhanced Edition"," "
"0208B06.DED","9","Storm Gulch"," "
"0208B01.SA","5","Royal Classic"," "
"0208B07.TAM","1","New Kid in Town"," "
"0205B06.TUP","6","Pitufa"," "
"0205B08.TUP","7","Basket Wave","$18.2"
"0204B04.CT","6","Pioneer Miss"," "
"0204B02.GG","5","Pistachio","$32.4"
"0204B09.PHA","10","Sammy P"," "
"0203B02.BEU","1","Wazzup Bonnie"," "
"0203B05.CT","2","Incredible Indeed","$9.8"
"0203B01.PHA","7","Faster Tapper"," "
"0201B06.SA","3","Mob Rule"," "

Booming ROI with several longshot winners in 19 tries.

No more controversy - Mark is in the lead for the $500 -- back to the salt mines everyone!

thanks NJ, Duane and MikeDee for your candor.

[ERNIE LOGSDON]

Mike : FYI ONLY,
Did you notice that beu 1-12 and gg 2-10 was on a wet track ?

Mark left wet tracks out.......(still very good prices for a spot )<e>

[MikeDee]

No I didn't know that I thought it was all dirt and artificial.

In my test I included wet in both the robot and the acsess.