Newcastle AW

The sport of kings.
User avatar
ShaunWhite
Posts: 9731
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am

ruthlessimon wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:27 pm
Got that wrong
I almost don't want to mention that a few of those places have a turf and an AW course. But not being a follower of racing, I don't know if the turf courses are just used for jumps.
User avatar
ruthlessimon
Posts: 2094
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:54 pm

foxwood wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:29 pm
As soon as you work out what the edge was it will probably have vanished now you've publicised it so much :lol:
Yeah...?? I've "publicised" so much, I (& you) don't even know the edge I've leaked :) I was waiting for the "is it real money" question !!

.. & if I've publicised a lot here, I could make a fortune selling shite menial trade advice, & mentaility ebooks (I've kept the proper secrets well under wraps) :mrgreen: Don't tempt me Fox!!!
User avatar
ruthlessimon
Posts: 2094
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:54 pm

ShaunWhite wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:56 pm
I almost don't want to mention that a few of those places have a turf and an AW course. But not being a follower of racing, I don't know if the turf courses are just used for jumps.
foxwood wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:29 pm
Wind direction is also supposedly relevant at Newcastle - forecasts for tracks at http://www.myweather2.com/Horse-Racing/ ... harts.aspx
Ty for these insights though guys :)
ShaunWhite wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:56 pm
I almost don't want to mention..
Savage; what else you hiding eh!! :mrgreen:
User avatar
ruthlessimon
Posts: 2094
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:54 pm

Dallas wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:04 pm
Each AW meeting tends to be more volatile due to the lower lower-quality racing and liquidity,

there is much less info/data for traders and punters to base their decisions on, which can lead to more indecisiveness
Really frustrates me that post ;) - because I was looking a strategy today - & the turf courses are the weakest aspect - which means I'm missin' somethin'.

It's not the fact it's Turf - there's something else :x
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
foxwood
Posts: 390
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:54 pm

ruthlessimon wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:37 pm
It's not the fact it's Turf - there's something else :x
Sample size too small to be meaningful - although 36 out of 36 is worth a second look.

Idle thought - maybe on AW you are acting on the signature of bots for a low volume race - that should be exploitable !

However, as soon as you act on that and put money out for them you will probably change what they do so the signature will change - catch 22 :lol:
User avatar
ruthlessimon
Posts: 2094
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:54 pm

foxwood wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:32 pm
Sample size too small to be meaningful - although 36 out of 36 is worth a second look.
It's a difficult one.

There's not much I can do about the sample size, as the dataset range is May1st - Nov11th (albeit the refinements of the strategy mean I avoid the majority of races - but that's what allows it to be profitable - weakening the edge to increase the sample, will probably errode the p&l)
foxwood wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:32 pm
Idle thought - maybe on AW you are acting on the signature of bots for a low volume race - that should be exploitable !
It's a preemptive strategy (ins't utilizing what I would call "order flow" - i.e. the combo of price, volume, speed). If anything, perhaps it suggests the opposite - that it's better to be "acting on signatures" in the turf races. i.e. If it's gonna be volatile & unpredictable, better to preempt than chase... but given that same argument I can't see why it's degraded on the turf - preempting should've had a similar ratio imo
foxwood
Posts: 390
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:54 pm

So, really, your sample size is actually just over 8k and you're cherry picking around 5.5%.

Major likelihood of backfitting is my guess - probably triggered by a selective PL bias that showed itself to come mainly from AW on further analysis.

You need another 6 months dataset to prove it against or take the original data split it into two random halves and rework what the filters should be on one set then prove it on the second set. You shouldn't use the filters you currently have on a subset of the same data since the filters already have that "knowledge". Same principles as used when training AI.

No indication of staking level or single / multiple trades per race either - hopefully PL is based on single trade per race at minimum stakes.

If you want commentary on results you need to provide more background on methodology when posting - pretty graphs and tables without the background info are just a waste of everyone's time imho - apart from the occasional artistic merit ;)
User avatar
ruthlessimon
Posts: 2094
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:54 pm

Really good points there fox

Tbh, in hindsight, I'm not quite sure what I was hoping to achieve. You're absolutely right, for help to be given - I need to be more specific.. yet I kinda don't want to.. A real nasty contradiction that!
Post Reply

Return to “Trading Horse racing”