When you can crack the code of flesh and blood with your zillions of fast running numbers you will win a Nobel Prize.
What is self-evident to those who have spent years around this business and the horses, and who have been handicapping and wagering alot longer than you have had your math degree may never be apparent to you as long as you limit yourself with flat, dry, after the fact statistics. When you realize that, it will be an “Aha!” moment. And those moments, by their very nature, are incommensurate with statistical derivatives. You don\'t even realize when you have those moments now. Rational thinking has it\'s limits.
Try picking up the racing form, pick one horse and reading through the racing lines, all those little numbers, try telling the story of that horses racing career to yourself in regular everyday language. You are delusional if you really think you can statistically hit a superfecta using a computer. If you hit, you got lucky. And if I am wrong, then you should be able to hit every race. Or, a just a percentage? Gee, maybe you should figure the odds on that first before you start throwing your money to the wind. It sounds to me like your work far from complete. I know it\'s exciting to think you can crack the super this way. But you clearly haven\'t been doing it for long or you would have seen the futility of it. Ok, yes there are a finite number of combinations. But if a horse pops a quarter crack at the quarter pole and starts to back up, how do you stats deal with that? Or the addition of lasix? Or a jockey change? They don\'t. So numerical data is incomplete by itself when trying pick a winner, or superfecta exponentially more so.
I\'ll take the racing form and TG, and you take your computer and anything else you want. Let\'s see you can pick the most winners on a card, Or who can hit how many supers, or at least who comes the closet there. If I lose, I\'ll buy you a pizza. If I win, I\'ll still buy you a pizza.
