New Posts For Thread: The RSA winner must racing in calendar year stat - debunked.https://community.betfair.com/cheltenham2011/go/thread/view/113609/28978571/the-rsa-winner-must-racing-in-calendar-year-stat---debunkedthis is a mathematical certainty what I post below. It's fundamental statistics. ---------------------------------------- So last 18 years of RSA winners and beaten horses in the top 5 in the betting who hadn't run in that year. Bostons Angel - Timecant see what difference it makes if a horse last run on say 31st of december would it have less chance than if it ran on 1st of january ?https://community.betfair.com/cheltenham2011/go/thread/view/113609/28978571/the-rsa-winner-must-racing-in-calendar-year-stat---debunked?post_id=517308301#517308301cant see what difference it makes if a horse last run on say 31st of december would it have less chance than if it ran on 1st of january ?Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:06:25 -0600CV ...have you backed JT, FL or GC by any chance?https://community.betfair.com/cheltenham2011/go/thread/view/113609/28978571/the-rsa-winner-must-racing-in-calendar-year-stat---debunked?post_id=517308047#517308047CV ...have you backed JT, FL or GC by any chance?Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:00:04 -0600People can make their own betting decisions and people did last year with regards Montjeu stat. I'm just showing there is no statistical evidence to back up the claim about it being a disadvantage to not have run in the calendar year. It's simply norhttps://community.betfair.com/cheltenham2011/go/thread/view/113609/28978571/the-rsa-winner-must-racing-in-calendar-year-stat---debunked?post_id=517305669#517305669People can make their own betting decisions and people did last year with regards Montjeu stat. I'm just showing there is no statistical evidence to back up the claim about it being a disadvantage to not have run in the calendar year. It's simply norThu, 08 Mar 2012 12:58:17 -0600ballydoyle...that just about sums it uphttps://community.betfair.com/cheltenham2011/go/thread/view/113609/28978571/the-rsa-winner-must-racing-in-calendar-year-stat---debunked?post_id=517301847#517301847ballydoyle...that just about sums it upThu, 08 Mar 2012 11:16:41 -0600With regards to the above, I believe the stat is last 48 winners have ran in same calendar year so is there a further 30 years of analysis to be undertaken?Of the 6 in the top 5 of the betting, how many were placed? None won, regardless of falling lthttps://community.betfair.com/cheltenham2011/go/thread/view/113609/28978571/the-rsa-winner-must-racing-in-calendar-year-stat---debunked?post_id=517301041#517301041With regards to the above, I believe the stat is last 48 winners have ran in same calendar year so is there a further 30 years of analysis to be undertaken?Of the 6 in the top 5 of the betting, how many were placed? None won, regardless of falling ltThu, 08 Mar 2012 10:53:40 -0600Fair enough.https://community.betfair.com/cheltenham2011/go/thread/view/113609/28978571/the-rsa-winner-must-racing-in-calendar-year-stat---debunked?post_id=517299075#517299075Fair enough.Thu, 08 Mar 2012 09:54:09 -0600I wasn't being snotty sorry if it came off that way in my post.https://community.betfair.com/cheltenham2011/go/thread/view/113609/28978571/the-rsa-winner-must-racing-in-calendar-year-stat---debunked?post_id=517298875#517298875I wasn't being snotty sorry if it came off that way in my post.Thu, 08 Mar 2012 09:47:35 -0600I used the same logic to break my rule and back Somersby in the Arkle 2 years ago, won't make the mistake again. The 84 days is based on being just long enough to accommodate rest pattern horses (who typically need 42 days+ between races) and is acthttps://community.betfair.com/cheltenham2011/go/thread/view/113609/28978571/the-rsa-winner-must-racing-in-calendar-year-stat---debunked?post_id=517298835#517298835I used the same logic to break my rule and back Somersby in the Arkle 2 years ago, won't make the mistake again. The 84 days is based on being just long enough to accommodate rest pattern horses (who typically need 42 days+ between races) and is actThu, 08 Mar 2012 09:45:57 -0600You can use your cut offs and guides, whatever suites you. But the simple point I'm proving here is. If someone says have horses who have not run in that calendar year fared worst than they were expected to in the RSA. The answer is no. I proved thehttps://community.betfair.com/cheltenham2011/go/thread/view/113609/28978571/the-rsa-winner-must-racing-in-calendar-year-stat---debunked?post_id=517298325#517298325You can use your cut offs and guides, whatever suites you. But the simple point I'm proving here is. If someone says have horses who have not run in that calendar year fared worst than they were expected to in the RSA. The answer is no. I proved theThu, 08 Mar 2012 09:27:27 -0600Said in one of the many threads that I really don't like simplistic statistics applied to just a single race. There are logic based exceptions, like the stat for experience being essential in the CH - would pass your test above comfortably with loadhttps://community.betfair.com/cheltenham2011/go/thread/view/113609/28978571/the-rsa-winner-must-racing-in-calendar-year-stat---debunked?post_id=517297863#517297863Said in one of the many threads that I really don't like simplistic statistics applied to just a single race. There are logic based exceptions, like the stat for experience being essential in the CH - would pass your test above comfortably with loadThu, 08 Mar 2012 09:12:58 -0600