Punter57,

I can only try to explain one way I use POT by using an example.
I use a computer based system on West Aussie races which I've bored people with on this forum before but it gives me, year by year, for the years 1999 to 2004 the following POT:
6.98%, 0.55%, 9.7%, 12.81%, 6.08%, 7.17%.
This is over a couple of thousand races a year so the figures shouldn't be too wobbly and I should feel pretty safe that I won't loose a lot of money, in fact probably gain some. Based on this and a few other figures, like longest loosing streak, how much money the missus will allow me to divert to a bank, etc I can work out how much I feel like investing and estimating a POT of four or five percent how much I might finish up with in a few year's time.

I take POT a lot further than this though breaking it down by track. At Ascot races the corresponding POTs are:
-3.81% -8.53% +11.1% -25.45% -18.2% +2.86%.
and at Belmont:
+22.82% 9.54% 1.28% 29.92% 19.49% 15.73%.

This is certainly helpful in deciding the size of my bets. They are 0 at Ascot where I've come out behind year after year and as much as my weak heart will take at Belmont where I win year after year.

Up until about April this year my POT overall for all tracks was down as far as -12% but I didn't freak out and stop betting because I was confident it would come back based on many previous years positive figures. Sure enough a bunch of better bets has now boosted it up to +5.04%.

This is only a very coarse outline of how I use POT but I'm sure you must gain some insight into its usefulness and how you might use it to decide at least whether some bets are worth making at all and maybe eve how much you might be willing to stake.
If not IMHO (In My Humble Opinion) either I don't understand what you are trying to understand or you're just being perverse.
Either way, may your POT always remain positive.

Kenny

G'day,KennyVictor (and others)!!! Instead of using a computer to "calculate" standard deviation etc you'd be better off working out what it is about Ascot (versus Belmont) that YOU are unable to factor in!! (Hint;Lick your finger and hold it up, at both courses,whilst trailing a tape measure along the straight).I find it difficult to believe the horses have organized some sort of conspiracy not to "perform" for you at one track but to fulfil your plans at the other. Still...if a Pentium 4 says it's so, who am I to quibble.
Your records tell you that you bet, say, $100,000 at Ascot and lose, say, $5,000 (POT=minus 5%) while at Belmont you turned over $80,000 for a profit of $20,000 (POT 25%)?? And now you won't bet at Ascot??
Hasn't everyone been vigorously telling me that POT has NOTHING to do with deciding future bet sizes, especially (Hi Shoto) "increasing" your bets? Now KV says exactly the opposite (see below) where he'll often put his heart on the line (ie bet BIGGER: hi Shoto!) at Belmont, since POT has given him enough confidence!!!. No wonder the "POT fans" are confusing me.Is it because I really HAVEN't anything between the ears (as has been rather unkindly suggested elsewhere) or because THEY (the POT crowd) can't keep their OWN story straight???

What on Earth's "the POT crowd"? And what is the STORY (or conspiracay perhaps?) that they need to keep straight? As far as I can tell various people gave their thoughts on POT in response to queries raised (Hi P57). No-one's trying to convince anyone of anything, just trying to be helpful. Difference of opinion is just the tapestry of Racing (and thank goodness, or we'd all be betting the same horse).

If you're hinting P57 at the wind being a possible explanation of KV's results, why would you then suggest in the same breath that KV's pentium thinks it's a conspiracy? "The POT crowd" have suggested that it can be used in planning betting strategy which is exactly what KV is doing. Betting more in a winning scenario and less in a losing scenario sounds like good sense to me.

Don't forget the TAPE MEASURE, Shoto!! Many of us can run against the wind for a certain time but NOT forever (even Bob Seeger admits that!!!)
I fear you're missing the point again (deliberately?? You stirrer!!).KennyVictor makes a lot of sense at times, but I was (playfully) suggesting that this time he was mistaken in only visiting Belmont (or betting it) in Perth,due to his "stats" there. As there is no mathematical "law" which makes Ascot unplayable (or is there?), why accept defeat? The ONLY excuse would be if there was a certifiable,insurmountable obstacle in your way. For example ... A Horse Conspiracy! (Sorry you didn't accept that to be a little joke,Shoto) Anyway here's a real life example.
I was betting longshots sent to Adelaide from the N.T., one summer. and was having a pretty bad time at Morphettville. My POT (as you might say)was IN THE RED there,though I only saw it as LOSING DAYS (I was oh so ill-informed mathematically). Victoria Park, conversely, was excellent. A lot of figuring left me with 2 possibilities 1) Drop Morphettville, thereby increasing my POT (stop losing, in dailyspeak) immediately, and maybe increase my bets at VP (and Cheltenham as well, since it was O.K.,just not as good as VP) using the money "saved" by avoiding the "losing track". This is essentially KVs solution in Perth,or 2) Find the cause of the problem and continue taking (the delightful) Glenelg Tram to Morphettville, AS USUAL, every few meetings. If I could find the winning way I would continue to have, at least SOME playable races (at M'ville) and consequently keep more TO to put the P in front of.
Opting for solution number 2, I eventually came to the conclusion that a great number of "rank" outsiders (20-1 up to 200-1, even) had one of two major faults: either going flat out too early or else getting well back at the jump before storming home (if!!), too late (not a surprise, since most CONTENDERS are usually "on the pace" types or "leaders but not bolters") At any track, when the leader is running TOO FAST or "pulling" (at 50-1) there is a great chance of it getting tired, regardless of track layout. But, if it's a "slowly away, come-from-behind" type it has a MUCH better chance to COME FROM BEHIND and cause a boilover if it's on the longest suburban straight in Australia (ie VP).That's all: continue betting both sorts of longshot at VP but ONLY the leaders (at 50-1) at M'ville. Not only did my winnings increase still further, but,by refusing to accept the umpire's word (the stats programme, powered by PENTIUM, in this case....that was another little jest,Shoto) to be final, I could win more and still go racing more often than poor KV now does in Perth.
Finally; what surprises me most about POT adherents is that while they all agree it exists (calculated after the fact) very few can agree on it's Practical implementation. Is it the Dog that wags the tail, or the other way round??? Cheers and good punting.

Me, stirring? Surely that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Ah Glenelg - the only suburb in Aus that you can spell backwards and still be right.

Your investigation of those losing races shows a very good nose for sniffing out what's going on - it's those discoveries that can give you a very profitable edge.

I'm so glad you've moved away from the "POT crowd" description, "POT adherents" is clearly a whole new view. To me that's like calling public companies "Annual Report adherents". I do honestly think you're trying to see too much in this discussion. For me, it's simply a measure of profitability, which could be used as a planning tool, similar to the concept of a company making some use of its previous annual report in its forward planning.

I think this whole POT thing has run its race, so I won't go on with it. May all those longshots keep romping in for you!

Thanks for a good read eveyone.....

Hi Kenny!
Re. Ascot v Belmont
Email me, marcus_aurelius_25@hotmail.com
Cheers

Morning Shoto (and everyone else, too!). Glad to see you don't hold a grudge! Kenny Victor has already rejected my application to join the "POT crowd" (on another thread--100 Pointers) so I'll soldier on in my own LONELY crowd!!
Glad to see you mention Company Annual Reports as THEY are celebrated for hiding a lot more than they clarify. In the cases of One Tel, HIH etc the historical data (including POT) was unsustainable, unreliable, misleading and fraudulent to boot.
Though I accept the need (sometimes) to agree to disagree, I'll just add one further nail to the POT coffin (please don't consider this as "stirring the POT pot") A ridiculously small, but certain POT (a la arbitrage betting) is more attractive, than an uncertain "maybe 20%" POT using even my own (fabulous!) selection methods. If I could actually find a few more true "under-round" situations, I'd literally "bet the bank" , quite happy to get a measly 1% ON THE LOT with no risk. Cheers

Blimey P57, I just congratulated you on another thread for the flair and initiative you show betting on outsiders and I arrive here to find you slavering over a piddling 1% with no risk.
Looks like I'm going to have to look for another role model.

What I meant KV is that IF there was such a thing as a "certainty" the logic of POT would FORCE you to bet it BIG. In such a case( and only then) it would be correct to use the Low Risk/Low Reward (percentage -wise) model. However since punting, in reality, IS always high risk I WON'T be changing my methods, rest assured. Please see "Class!!! What is it?"