Far from what I expect.  The idea is over.  Maybe real sharing is so difficult.

Will go for other approach to look for improvement.  



(If anyone is interested, please still pm to me)

引用:

原帖由 賭鬼 於 30-1-2007 12:49 AM 發表
閒來又多事說幾句. 小胖兄的目的實在難明, 你是想與一些尚未成功的朋友一起研究出新的贏馬系統, 還是想改善自己現有投注系統 ? 若是前者, 就好比找一班連甚麼是高等數學也糢查查的人一起學微積分一樣, 目標難達成 ...

賭鬼兄,多謝你的見解.
其實小弟發覺自己的開發程序和很多接觸過的人很不一樣.  小弟鍾意比較宏觀的方法, 希望找出一些經得起時間考驗(如不怕練馬師轉手法,轉existing馬房或騎師,易不須倚靠個人判斷的方法), 同可用公式計算結果.  可能小弟EQ低,容易受消息誤導,判斷力低,又比較鍾意計數solve logical problem(對馬反而無mud感覺),所以採用這方向.

小弟覺得研究賽馬的有很多派, 可能在此能找到志同道合者.

另外, 小弟的個人意見認為, share 貼士其實對研究無mud幫助, 可能會有一時利潤, 但不能靠貼士搵食..  環顧周圍, 這種賭博情況比比皆是(唔講馬後砲,賽後post投注記錄搏稱讚).  小弟在此, 不是搵貼士或搏出位, 而是希望對自己的研究找出改善之道(當然易儘量保護知識產權).  本有兩個approach, 一係求教高人, 一係搵同自己類似的朋友合作.  而此post就是後者. (我已拜呢度一D高人為師, 不過turn down 左)

俾人當怪人或俾人鬧, 反而無mud所謂.  正如兄台所指, 忠言逆耳馬.  批評得愈多愈好.

小弟俾p兄批評得最多,所以封左佢做偶像.  佢真係俾左好多有用見解 - 雖然有D好鬼高深唔明同方向唔同.


"你是想與一些尚未成功的朋友一起研究出新的贏馬系統, 還是想改善自己現有投注系統 ? 若是前者, 就好比找一班連甚麼是高等數學也糢查查的人一起學微積分一樣, 目標難達成不只還浪費時間. 若是後者, 還是建議你找個前輩幫幫手來得實際. "
- 一起研究出新的贏馬系統, 還是想改善自己現有投注系統 <--- 改善完咪變新囉, 其實新舊都好,多個人諗應會好D啩
- 好比找一班連甚麼是高等數學也糢查查的人一起學微積分一樣 <--- 未必既,可能有D同小弟同一遭遇or level 呢!  大家個別唔成功 (小弟必認),未必一斉唔得呢!

打到手軟...

[ 本帖最後由 小胖 於 30-1-2007 01:35 AM 編輯 ]

講真, 差D搵到個, 重要work in same field and live in same district.  又believe in scientific method.

But eventually, not crazy enough as me...  (too quiet).

收工啦啩..

[ 本帖最後由 小胖 於 30-1-2007 01:43 AM 編輯 ]

引用:

原帖由 賭鬼 於 30-1-2007 01:44 AM 發表
以純靠計數去贏馬的人我也認識不少, 怎會被當怪人或俾人鬧 ? 難明.
任何派別也有其長亦有其短, 能取長補短者, 成功指日可待.
Good Luck.

謝晒
奸巴爹!

Hi, whatchee brother,
I think what you mean is that bet information and horse/stable information can support each other.  Yes, I agree with that.

The reason that I don't focus on bet system is that some brother said (I forgot who) the insiders always bet on the final minutes.  And stable guys always bet in some pattern that makes you not notice, and may change their method periodically.  You also need a sophistic system to see their pattern like super rucrazy did), and it may not be that quantative.  I don't mean that it's not useful.  I just mean you need great program/maths and careful thinking to help you in odd analysis, and for this, I don't have.

This is the reason that I'm still going for the latter.  As you're working on the former, maybe we can support each other to some extent.

For Whyte case, I believe it shows that you shouldn't bet too HEAVILY on certain race.  But in general, if you find certain formula or logic that can be evenly applied to all races, it can still drives profit.  So, apart from betting information, even/distributed betting can also save us from that (e.g. bet more than 1 horse per race, which I'm always doing).

引用:

原帖由 real 於 30-1-2007 03:41 PM 發表
...yeah that was really a joke. It kind of reminded me when my brother-in-law got into the med school at HKU. I said 仁者無敵 to him and wish him to become a good doctor.

Well, that's all histor ...

Brother real,

Thanks for your info.  Again, it's very different from others and it makes my crazy idea of opening this topic being worthwhile.

In your message, you mentioned that there were 2 main theories for calculation - Time theory and Weight&Class theory.  All involves very complicated maths.  I know your approach is to use these sophisticated maths to calculate the outcome.  But for me, my actual study is not based on complicated maths, but my focus is to make the main factors under consideration to be quantative - become numbers, and using some simple maths to find their co-relation.  I, as you guess, is so old that I have already returned my maths knowledge to my past teachers.  I just remember simple arithmetics.

On the other hand, I believe that the most important facts should not need using complicated maths to calculate.  If you becomes too fine-tuned, it'll become super data-mining.  In hk, maybe due to the tight competition status, including horses, tracks and tactics, or even may due to bribes,  my believe is that we can only filter out impossible horses + find out all horses that are planned to win and bet on all these possible horses.

Actually, I didn't give up Time, Weight&Class theory.  Maybe I use it in a simple way at the moment - using the speedmap to filter out bad horses.  If I have other findings, I'll go for other factors.  In fact, I didn't go for stable analysis for the past few years.  Only from this year onwards, I start on stable analysis (as it's not that scientific) but the result is, surprising to me, that stable analsysis is worthy and drive winning results.  As mentioned, I believe it's due to the fact that races in hk is very close and heavily rely on tactics once the horses skills are close.

I didn't mean you're wrong (actually I believe you're right, but we may belong to different groups).  I just mean that I'm focussing on "many aspects" instead of "single aspect" and I'm not good enough for complicated maths.  I'm trying to quantify the factors (which is generic) and find any worthy aspect to study on.

[ 本帖最後由 小胖 於 30-1-2007 04:22 PM 編輯 ]

引用:

原帖由 whatchee 於 30-1-2007 04:28 PM 發表
Wow!         ' Collapse of Super-position

I am not maths student, so not heard of it, may REAL show me the road to know more?  I will try search in internet myself
anyway.  if I know these ca ...

Whatchee brother,

Can you tell me what "game theory" is??  Maybe just a brief description.

I like this kind of discussion, not just tips, you know.

[ 本帖最後由 小胖 於 30-1-2007 04:48 PM 編輯 ]