This is a follow-up to my last post, where I stated my new intent as:

*“My intent is to view the photosite represented by the photo associated with the horse with the maximum return-on-investment (ROI) for a win bet on this race.”*

You may have noticed that this may make my ARV feedback problematic – how do I know which is the correct feedback photo – which horse has the max ROI?

Here are my thoughts:

When the race is declared official, the probability “wave packet” collapses – the winner has probability 1, the rest of the horses 0.

So the winner is the only one with positive ROI (equal to its odds), the rest are all -1.00 ROI (certain loss if you bet them). In that sense, the max ROI horse *at the time the race is official* is always the winner of the race, so it makes sense to make the winner’s photo the feedback.

However, the ROIs are non-zero for all the horses at the time I make my prediction. The max ROI horse at that time is not necessarily the horse that ends up winning the race, as I explained in my previous post – the winner’s odds may be so low that its ROI is negative, and betting such horses will over time result in losses.

Now I can never know which horse has the maximum ROI at prediction time – that requires precise knowledge of the probabilities at that time.

If I knew that, I would not need ARV at all, because I would make huge profits betting only horses with positive ROIs. So, the best I can do is use the race winner’s photo as feedback. In fact that usually will be the same horse with the max ROI.

I want to illustrate these concepts some more with an example, as they may be hard to grasp in the abstract. Plus I want to talk about how time factors into this.

Suppose there is a race where a strong favorite #1 is 6-5 (1.2 to 1), and another horse #2 is 6-1. But the universe/my inner being knows that #1 is not well intended by the trainer, is just out for exercise, or is not feeling well, or some combination of factors which either require intense logical analysis of past performances, in-person pre-reace inspection of the horse (which few people do) or is based on information not available logically at all. The universe/my inner being also knows that the #2 horse is feeling great, is crying to run, is in fact much better than he looks on paper because of trainer deviousness, or some such combination, again information largely unavailable to the public.

According to the betting, #1 has high probability and #2 low; whereas the universe/my inner being knows it is exactly the opposite.

Say #1’s true probability is around .05, and #2’s about 0.60.

Then their ROIs at this point in time are

ROI/1 = .05*1.2 – .95 = -.89

ROI/2 = .6*6 – .4 = +3.20

You can see that using ARV to access the universe/my inner being’s knowing is a tremendous advantage.

Now as post time approaches, the probability of one of the horses will get close to 1, while the rest will get close to 0. These probabilities could fluctuate with time, depending on any number of factors such as how the jockey feels, if a new jockey is named, how the weather affects the track, how the heat/cold affects the horse, whether a turf race is switched to the dirt, if the horse gets frightened of something in the crowd, how the jockey decides in a split second to go inside or outside (this during the race), or any number of infinite possibilities.

It could be our #2 whose probability gets closer to 1, or it could be 2 horses whose probabilities are both converging on 0.5 – the proverbial toss-up, or 3 or more horse close together in probability – again the possibilities are endless.

What I really want from my ARV session is a clear signal about the horse with the highest ROI, at the time of my prediction. Considered like this, it appears that one would want to do ARV sessions as close to post time as possible, since the probabilities will be converging then – approaching 1 or 0.

Now I know that this appears to against what many who use RV have discovered, that time (like space) has no effect on remote viewing.

I am not yet sure how to reconcile this; but I am going to be analyzing the horse race data to see if predictions made closer to post time are more accurate.

I believe Lincoln has some data on this, which he may want to talk about.

I allow for the possibility in some races that the probabilities are so close that it is hard to ARV the winner. With my previous intent of ARVing winners, this would possibly lead to ARV sessions that contain elements of several photosites, corresponding to the several horses close together in probability. (that’s the ideal, anyway 😉

But with my new intent, of ARVing the max *ROI* horse, if two horses are close in probability, say, the one with the higher odds becomes the higher ROI horse – and that is the one to bet. Of course there will also be races where the ROIs are nearly equal, even if the probabilities are different – those would be the ones with multiple photosite hits now. Actually though the situation is better here, because you can bet *both* high ROI horses and still make a profit in the long run, whereas betting both high win probability horses will not, since some of them will have negative ROI.

The upshot of all this is, that my new intent implies that the main reason I am doing all this is to make money – to have the highest ROI possible, in the long run. This is in contrast to my prior intent, which was to have the most winners – to have the highest win percentage possible in the long run.

I will be publishing the data as soon as I can, to see whether our past ARV efforts have resulted in high ROIs and in which situations, for which Targ CRs. field sizes and such.

[damn, once I get started I can’t stop ;-]

Tom