Tom Atwater, Ph.D.
Remote Viewing (RV) is the process by which information is obtained using human faculties other than the five senses, using one of several protocols derived from the original formerly classified government studies.
Associative Remote Viewing (ARV) is the process whereby an object (usually a random photograph) is associated with one of two or more possibilities (e.g., the up or down of a stock futures index, or a horse in a race), and the viewer attempts to remote view the one image associated with the desirable outcome (the correct direction of the stock index, or the winner of the race). It is a way to gain intuitive information indirectly, instead of directly trying to RV the stock index itself, or the winning horse's saddle cloth number, the advantage being that the waking mind has less chance for interference this way, since it has no preconceptions about a random photograph.
Training for the particular ARV protocol used here came from the Intuitive Investing Workshop run by Marty Rosenblatt and Skip Atwater (no relation); the protocol was adapted to horse race betting by increasing the number of possible outcomes from two (up or down of a stock index) to between 4 and 14, depending on the number of horses in the race.
The viewer also used both ARV and logical selections to make bets of various amounts.
For each race, the ARV protocol takes about one hour to accomplish. Logical horse selection takes an addition 1/2 to 1 hour.
It has been noted previously that the intent of the experimenter is a factor in experiments such as these that involve intuitive information, so some of the viewer's beliefs on this subject are given here. The viewer in these experiments believes strongly in the reality of extra-sensory methods of accessing information, and considers himself to have an open mind about most if not all subjects. He also strongly believes in his own intuitive self.
Since the average number of horses in a race was 8.7, selecting the winner at random would imply a win percentage of 1/8.7, or 11%.
That is, the ARV win percentage is more than double the expected rate.
In making bets, the ARV method's winners averaged 9.0 to 1 odds, resulting in a return-on-investment (ROI) of +$1.30 for $1 (more than double the bet). For example, bets of $100 on each race would have returned $25,070, or $14,170 net profit, for the total bets of $10,900 over the year.
Horse race betting is a pari-mutuel game, meaning the track takes a percentage off the top before calculating the odds for payoffs to winning bettors. For win bets this is an average of 18%; therefore, the expected ROI for random win betting is about -$.18 lost per dollar bet. (Average odds for a winning horse are about 3.5 to 1.)
So the ARV method's 130% profit is far above the expected 18% loss for random bets.
The results for the viewer's logical handicapping picks were as follows: in 111 races, the viewer selected 42 winners, or 38%; the average winning odds was 3.3 to 1, for an ROI of +$.29 per $1 bet (profit of 29%). These results are about as good as any that are reported in the horse race handicapping literature. (Note that while these races occurred over the same time period as the ARV races, they were not always the same races as the ARV method predicted, for various reasons.)
So although the logical win percentage was 30% higher than the ARV win percentage, the ARV ROI was more than triple the logical ROI, meaning one would make three times as much money betting the ARV selections. This is the result of the larger number of longshots (high odds horses) selected by the ARV method; the logical method naturally selects lower priced horses, since the public at large uses many of the same logical processes and published past performance information.
It must be noted that two of the ARV winners were extreme longshots, with odds of 48-1 and 91-1. Without these two winners, the average winning ARV odds drops to 3.7 to 1, and the ROI drops to a net loss of 15%, close to the expected random result.
One interesting bit of information: in the 14 races where the ARV choice and the viewer's logical handicapping choice was the same horse, that horse won an amazing 9 times (64%), with an ROI of +$1.78, or nearly triple the initial stake (and this did not include the two extreme longshots). The place (i.e., horse finishes first or second) success rate was even more incredible - the "same" horse placed in 13 of the 14 races.
The ROI for the ARV method was +$1.30 for $1, also well above the expected random result of -$0.18. Due to the large impact of two longshots on the ARV ROI, it could be argued that the positive ROI results stated here are fluctuations; however, the longshots have no effect on the anomalous ARV win percentage of 23%.
Although one cannot plausibly draw definitive conclusions based on 14 events, the very large win percentage and ROI for the races where the ARV and logical methods pick the same horse are a strong indication that logic and intuitive methods working together are the best methods of all.
Overall, the number of trials in this experiment are not enough to draw definitive conclusions about ARV or about intuitive methods in general - and that is one of the reasons why no effort was made to use standard statistical methods. However, these results do lend credence to the view that there are means to access information outside of the five senses. Further experimentation is needed for those that require proof of the validity of ARV methods for predicting horse race results.