PDA

View Full Version : Long-$$ suggestion…

DanG
11th July 2009, 02:28.14 PM
Down the road suggestion if I may…

The $$ / long indicators are such a powerful group of factors you’ve isolated as price potential; it’s almost a shame to tie them in with the inconsistent MLO.

True; their power is undeniable the way they are now…but when the MLO is off, scratches, the betting drifts in odd ways it seems a shame to have those good indicators left blank.

Case in point in the 3rd at Belmont today (7/11) that paid a very fair 5-1 in a short field. With his 7/2 MLO the $$ indicators are correctly blank, but I would wager he would have rung up a nice score between his PED, WO, Razor, 1st time gelding, 2nd lasix and all the other goodies you have discovered that potentially produce prices.

Just a thought and the export would be a great spot to having a sum of the nLong field that would just tally the indicators instead of maxing out at 2.

BTW: The ‘eye-ball’ does indicate many of these alerts but you’ve spoiled us with these summary ratings. :)
Rick
11th July 2009, 03:05.25 PM
Which leads to this thought for $ and $$ plays that have MLO below 6/1.

How about adding something like @ and @@ (or something) as a screen alert for those that would qualify as longshot plays but start the day at MLO less than 6/1. The off odds can drift up on some of them and it would be nice to have a visual alert.
DanG
11th July 2009, 04:12.38 PM
Which leads to this thought for $ and $$ plays that have MLO below 6/1.

How about adding something like @ and @@ (or something) as a screen alert for those that would qualify as longshot plays but start the day at MLO less than 6/1. The off odds can drift up on some of them and it would be nice to have a visual alert.
I like that Rick; nice idea.
Rick
11th July 2009, 04:29.28 PM
You are the one that got my thoughts going in that direction.

I probably never would have occured to me without your post.

Thanks
km
11th July 2009, 04:46.53 PM
I never tested the same factor set that identifies the $$ on horses lower than 6/1 ML.

But if you want it, you got it. Should be able to add it into HX4 without a new data field.

nLONG = 3 ?
Rick
11th July 2009, 04:50.43 PM
I would want 3 and 4.

I like $$ much more than I like $.
DanG
11th July 2009, 08:50.42 PM
I would want 3 and 4.

I like $$ much more than I like $.
Sure; 3, 4…9 let’s see where it takes us. Thanks Ken, Rick very much. :)
Rick
11th July 2009, 09:31.11 PM
Clarification:

I want 3 for $ < 6/1

I want 4 for $$ < 6/1