Gutted , it was exciting while it lasted ! Have a look at Horseracebase Dave ? It does similar things as Geegeez . i subscribe to On Course Profits magazine and people such as Dave Renham write up articles in it using HRB for systems etc . HRB has everything GG has but maybe not as polished . However, if you could bow out with a Scoop 6 win , that would be ideal !!
Yeah I'm going for it today, taking time to build the perms. TBH I would face the same issues with data sharing with any product and knowing how much the source, source data is going, it's not going to be workable going forward.
Well what a shame that is, was really enjoying the sheets image and following your analysis of the various filters and angles you were testing.
What is exactly the problem with sharing this data of YOUR findings? How does this detrimentally affect GeeGeez in any way? I find it a bit petty as I’m sure there’s many other data form suppliers that wouldn’t have any issue with someone relaying their findings of the data and how the systems take shape etc as you build a bigger database of results!!
Surely this is a benefit to Matt as you are literally advertising how good the site and what you can do? I was tempted to take a subscription out with GGs as I’m looking for a new racing resource, I will be going with Proform now.
Thanks for what you’ve done in the last few months Dave 👍
Thanks James. Well, I guess I can see his point of view, especially regarding the Report Angles which are a part of GeeGeez Gold but the QT Angles I felt was OK as I had built and filtered them myself but I guess sharing some of the source data is not on, it's why I asked him the question last week and respect his opinion. Ultimately, I would only have eventually been sharing a subset of the data going forward till I had enough to build on but I'm hoping he is ok with me just sharing an analysis of a race and quoting some of the key stats, as yes, ultimately it does show how good his website/data is. I've never used Proform but I understand it's a good product but I'll keep chipping away at trying to find and share a few report angle filters without revealing any source data, it is after all my own interpretation of the data. Appreciate the comments.
That’s a shame Dave. I’ve been a member of Geegeez since day one and can kind of see Matt’s point. Ironically if you never mention Geegeez and just filters that can be found with any data set you will be fine. How we use geegeez or any data provider is up to the end user as long as data isn’t shared , keep cracking on and all the best.
Yes it's why I messaged him. I thought sharing a subset of my own personalised QT filters was ok but I've probably revealed too much of the source data from there and Report Angles, my bad, although have always continued to promote the end product and hopefully still can and use the data just to provide previews.
Don't despair Dave, your use of the QT angles was enlightening (and this is from someone who has endeavoured to utilise the facility on GeeGeez - and failed). Maybe I'm being naive, but I can't see anything wrong in writing the blog-narrative with your opinions based on your own investigations; it's the sharing of the source-data that's the issue. Personally, I don't need to see the screenshots to "prove" that the stats quoted - for me, the most important element isn't the stats, it's the interpretation of the stats.
Take this afternoon: the Newbury London Gold Cup h'cap has the sole runner from Aiden O'Brien in the UK today: Chantilly, and he has stable jockey Ryan Moore riding. Now, O'Brien hasn't the best record in handicap races (according to GeeGeez) but hey - this well bred (and well related) horse seems to be maturing into a top-class 3yo and it probably should not be 5/1 for this race, but 5/2.
Thanks Ian, yes I understand it and it did worry me which is why I messaged Matt but I've gone a step too far. I've asked if it's still ok to share my analysis based on the interpretation of the data and I don't see a problem sharing my own filters so I will see what he comes back with. Hopefully I can just keep it going in some form or the other. I'm hoping we at least go close with the Scoop6 today and will just see what happens going forward.
I'm not sure, something doesn't feel right charging to access source data for another provider. Those that remember the hoo-ha when Ratingtheraces shared my own data derived from Press Association data and my ratings will remember how pissed off I was. I should have known better but at the end of the day, I can't afford to pay the PA or Racing Post for source data so we shall see what the future holds.
Yeah, I remember that Dave (I've had my own issues with Ratingtheraces).
My opinion is it's all about interpretation (of data). When I started writing my blog back in 2010, there wasn't much written about trends and just by interpreting basic trends I was ahead of the game and had decent success finding 7/1 winners that should have been 7/2. Now, every "tipster" in the UK knows these trends, and those same winners are going off at 7/2 so there's no value in them - to find any value you have to do what you've been doing Dave; deep-diving into more obscure trends.
The hard part is why do it; how do you justify the effort required?
Well, I'm hoping to still build out a results database with the systems I've built and have it perform the type of comparison I was doing the last few days without revealing the source data and hopefully pinpoint a few decent winners and give us a chance of landing a decent Scoop6 payout. I also enjoy the challenge but it has to be a time/reward ratio otherwise it becomes too cumbersome and convoluted. Still early into the flat season but already seeing a few angles showing consistency and profit and a database and some comparison reports will cut down on the time involved, while getting results updated easier.
Thanks for sharing those filters: I already use the 12month Jockey/Course stats as it shows quickly which jocks know how to ride the course well. I also use the Trainer 5-year course stats, and combine that with a couple of filters that GeeGeez doesn't provide: single entries (by the trainer) and long-distance travellers. However, all this info does not guarantee winners - it just gives you a vital edge. Interpretation of the data is the key.
Gutted , it was exciting while it lasted ! Have a look at Horseracebase Dave ? It does similar things as Geegeez . i subscribe to On Course Profits magazine and people such as Dave Renham write up articles in it using HRB for systems etc . HRB has everything GG has but maybe not as polished . However, if you could bow out with a Scoop 6 win , that would be ideal !!
Yeah I'm going for it today, taking time to build the perms. TBH I would face the same issues with data sharing with any product and knowing how much the source, source data is going, it's not going to be workable going forward.
Well what a shame that is, was really enjoying the sheets image and following your analysis of the various filters and angles you were testing.
What is exactly the problem with sharing this data of YOUR findings? How does this detrimentally affect GeeGeez in any way? I find it a bit petty as I’m sure there’s many other data form suppliers that wouldn’t have any issue with someone relaying their findings of the data and how the systems take shape etc as you build a bigger database of results!!
Surely this is a benefit to Matt as you are literally advertising how good the site and what you can do? I was tempted to take a subscription out with GGs as I’m looking for a new racing resource, I will be going with Proform now.
Thanks for what you’ve done in the last few months Dave 👍
Thanks James. Well, I guess I can see his point of view, especially regarding the Report Angles which are a part of GeeGeez Gold but the QT Angles I felt was OK as I had built and filtered them myself but I guess sharing some of the source data is not on, it's why I asked him the question last week and respect his opinion. Ultimately, I would only have eventually been sharing a subset of the data going forward till I had enough to build on but I'm hoping he is ok with me just sharing an analysis of a race and quoting some of the key stats, as yes, ultimately it does show how good his website/data is. I've never used Proform but I understand it's a good product but I'll keep chipping away at trying to find and share a few report angle filters without revealing any source data, it is after all my own interpretation of the data. Appreciate the comments.
That’s a shame Dave. I’ve been a member of Geegeez since day one and can kind of see Matt’s point. Ironically if you never mention Geegeez and just filters that can be found with any data set you will be fine. How we use geegeez or any data provider is up to the end user as long as data isn’t shared , keep cracking on and all the best.
Yes it's why I messaged him. I thought sharing a subset of my own personalised QT filters was ok but I've probably revealed too much of the source data from there and Report Angles, my bad, although have always continued to promote the end product and hopefully still can and use the data just to provide previews.
Don't despair Dave, your use of the QT angles was enlightening (and this is from someone who has endeavoured to utilise the facility on GeeGeez - and failed). Maybe I'm being naive, but I can't see anything wrong in writing the blog-narrative with your opinions based on your own investigations; it's the sharing of the source-data that's the issue. Personally, I don't need to see the screenshots to "prove" that the stats quoted - for me, the most important element isn't the stats, it's the interpretation of the stats.
Take this afternoon: the Newbury London Gold Cup h'cap has the sole runner from Aiden O'Brien in the UK today: Chantilly, and he has stable jockey Ryan Moore riding. Now, O'Brien hasn't the best record in handicap races (according to GeeGeez) but hey - this well bred (and well related) horse seems to be maturing into a top-class 3yo and it probably should not be 5/1 for this race, but 5/2.
Chin-up mate!
Thanks Ian, yes I understand it and it did worry me which is why I messaged Matt but I've gone a step too far. I've asked if it's still ok to share my analysis based on the interpretation of the data and I don't see a problem sharing my own filters so I will see what he comes back with. Hopefully I can just keep it going in some form or the other. I'm hoping we at least go close with the Scoop6 today and will just see what happens going forward.
If this was a Private subscription based and not a Open forum , would that make a difference ?
I'm not sure, something doesn't feel right charging to access source data for another provider. Those that remember the hoo-ha when Ratingtheraces shared my own data derived from Press Association data and my ratings will remember how pissed off I was. I should have known better but at the end of the day, I can't afford to pay the PA or Racing Post for source data so we shall see what the future holds.
Yeah, I remember that Dave (I've had my own issues with Ratingtheraces).
My opinion is it's all about interpretation (of data). When I started writing my blog back in 2010, there wasn't much written about trends and just by interpreting basic trends I was ahead of the game and had decent success finding 7/1 winners that should have been 7/2. Now, every "tipster" in the UK knows these trends, and those same winners are going off at 7/2 so there's no value in them - to find any value you have to do what you've been doing Dave; deep-diving into more obscure trends.
The hard part is why do it; how do you justify the effort required?
Well, I'm hoping to still build out a results database with the systems I've built and have it perform the type of comparison I was doing the last few days without revealing the source data and hopefully pinpoint a few decent winners and give us a chance of landing a decent Scoop6 payout. I also enjoy the challenge but it has to be a time/reward ratio otherwise it becomes too cumbersome and convoluted. Still early into the flat season but already seeing a few angles showing consistency and profit and a database and some comparison reports will cut down on the time involved, while getting results updated easier.
Thanks for sharing those filters: I already use the 12month Jockey/Course stats as it shows quickly which jocks know how to ride the course well. I also use the Trainer 5-year course stats, and combine that with a couple of filters that GeeGeez doesn't provide: single entries (by the trainer) and long-distance travellers. However, all this info does not guarantee winners - it just gives you a vital edge. Interpretation of the data is the key.
And as my mate keeps telling me " Is the Handbrake off " !!