Handicapping vrs Systems

[Robert Goren]

I switching from a handicapper to a system player because handicapping has just become to much work for me. I was doing my own version of John Sterling type of handicapping. I kept running into things I need to know but didn't. Most of it involved trainers, especially trainers that had stables at several tracks. I would liked to have known who the asst trainer was them at each track. Next to impossible to find out. I need to know how each trainer treated each type of horse. At the bottom level, did they normally WO a horse 0, 1, or 2 times between races. Did they work them fast or slow. Was no WOs a bad sign ? Is 2 fast WOs a good or bad sign. These things not only matter from trainer to trainer, but from asst trainer to asst trainer. Then there were Biases . At Belmont , there is 3 track to worry about change bias and do the biases hold in both sprint and route races. Then there was back biases to keep track of individual horses. And of course, the trips they had. And did the Jockey fit the horse's running style. Maybe I should have just moved to circuit that ran year around with very few turf races although I still would have to do a lot of work on the training methods of most of trainers. It became too much for me and having to do it a set time was also getting to be a problem. Maybe some day I will write a book about what I did since a lot of it hasn't been covered before.

Although I am not sure exactly what he does for sure, I am picking out one thing like shippers like pondman talks about. Currently I am looking shippers by trainer to NYRA especially those going off at 5/1 + and going from there. I have no data base, so it is going back over old charts and PPSs. At least I am able to choose the time when I do my research. That very important right now. This is foreign to me, so everything is a learning process. My guess it was it easier to find high % winners getting good odds with shippers from lesser tracks to better ones. I have even touched the surface yet so I don't if that is true. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

[traynor]

I switching from a handicapper to a system player because handicapping has just become to much work for me. I was doing my own version of John Sterling type of handicapping. I kept running into things I need to know but didn't. Most of it involved trainers, especially trainers that had stables at several tracks. I would liked to have known who the asst trainer was them at each track. Next to impossible to find out. I need to know how each trainer treated each type of horse. At the bottom level, did they normally WO a horse 0, 1, or 2 times between races. Did they work them fast or slow. Was no WOs a bad sign ? Is 2 fast WOs a good or bad sign. These things not only matter from trainer to trainer, but from asst trainer to asst trainer. Then there were Biases . At Belmont , there is 3 track to worry about change bias and do the biases hold in both sprint and route races. Then there was back biases to keep track of individual horses. And of course, the trips they had. And did the Jockey fit the horse's running style. Maybe I should have just moved to circuit that ran year around with very few turf races although I still would have to do a lot of work on the training methods of most of trainers. It became too much for me and having to do it a set time was also getting to be a problem. Maybe some day I will write a book about what I did since a lot of it hasn't been covered before.

Although I am not sure exactly what he does for sure, I am picking out one thing like shippers like pondman talks about. Currently I am looking shippers by trainer to NYRA especially those going off at 5/1 + and going from there. I have no data base, so it is going back over old charts and PPSs. At least I am able to choose the time when I do my research. That very important right now. This is foreign to me, so everything is a learning process. My guess it was it easier to find high % winners getting good odds with shippers from lesser tracks to better ones. I have even touched the surface yet so I don't if that is true. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

"Chunk it down." That process is used in "shadowing"--a procedure for making the procedures used by an expert explicit. It involves analyzing the steps used by the expert to break them down into even smaller steps so that a non-expert can replicate (or exceed) the performance of the expert. It is called "shadowing" because many experts cannot describe what they do. The modeler "shadows" (observes closely) the expert at work, with minimal disturbance, and makes a list of questions to clarify issues during an after-process session.

If you expand on the idea of writing a book, you can get most of the benefit on your own. Start at the beginning, and write down each step of the process as if you were teaching it to someone else. Initially, the "why" part is not necessary. You can always add that later if you decide to write the book. For now, concentrate on the "what" part. What information you use and how you use it.

One of the things that some experts find surprising is that many complex procedures are no more than a series of small steps--often endlessly repetitive and overlapping. By chunking the process down, the exact steps used are made explicit, and can often be streamlined and improved with even better results. That is, the process of modeling and shadowing is as beneficial (or more so) to the expert as to those who want to emulate the expert's performance.

For example, in "comprehensive handicapping" (or any other complex process) an expert may believe he or she is juggling and evaluating hundreds of factors, while emphasis is really only being placed on a few key indicators. All the rest is just checking, re-checking, comparing, checking again, etc.--what modelers call "busywork." Finding those key indicators on which the real decision-making process of the expert are based is the driving motivation behind the procedures used.

[Dave Schwartz]

...John Sterling type of handicapping.

What does that mean, please?

[Robert Goren]

What does that mean, please?That means look at every race being run at a certain race track and looking over all the horses and trying to pick a winner with the use on the knowledge you have. It means the use of track bias both todays and past days. It means the use of trip notes. A look at how of the race sets up. It means looking at the odds. It means looking at hot and cold trainers and bunch of other stuff including the way jockeys ride. John and I don't entirely handicap alike from I can tell by his comments on his shows and we certainly don't end up the same horse all the time. A better term might be "old time handicapping" like that was done before simulcasting when you had only one track to deal with. It does not mean not using all the modern tools available like FORMULATOR. It means with some exceptions sticking to one circuit instead of cherry picking bets at a bunch tracks. I do not if John actually handicaps this way for his bets, but is the image of the way he bets that he projects on his shows. I am sure he looks at things I don't and I look at things he don't. He has some sort of advantage because he has some horseman connections at NYRA I don't have. I use to have some on the Nebraska circuit many years ago. You don't realize how valuable they are until you lose them. There is big difference between this style of handicapping and just crunch numbers even though some number crunching goes into it.
I wish I had never said I might write a book because it so unlikely happen for a number reasons not the least of which is I am a lousy wordsmith. It was late and could not sleep so I just set down and threw out some ideas.
I am however attempting to switching over to system betting as stated to before. I hope answered your question, Dave. I tried to as best I know how.

[Overlay]

I favor a combination of the two.

The weaknesses of handicapping (in my opinion) are the tendency to get too far down in the weeds with data, where the amount of time (and possibly money) expended in an attempt to gain an edge is not justified by the marginal value of the information obtained; and the largely qualitative, subjective nature of the decision-making process, which does not provide adequate assurance of consistency of application from one race to the next.

The weaknesses of systems are their tendency to be one-dimensional from a handicapping factor standpoint, and to operate on the principle of narrowing a field down through a process of elimination to the one most probable winner (regardless of odds), which leads to overbetting of the final choice to the point of loss of pari-mutuel value.

I prefer a hybrid approach that uses a workable amount of concrete, quantitative data to assign a reliable winning probability to each horse in a field, so that I can spot possible wagering value wherever it may occur, and also have a solid basis for determining which races to entirely play or pass, and which horses or combinations to bet (as well as how much to wager) in the races that I do play.

[ikeika]

Traynor, what you say is enormously true.

[thaskalos]

I switching from a handicapper to a system player because handicapping has just become to much work for me. I was doing my own version of John Sterling type of handicapping. I kept running into things I need to know but didn't. Most of it involved trainers, especially trainers that had stables at several tracks. I would liked to have known who the asst trainer was them at each track. Next to impossible to find out. I need to know how each trainer treated each type of horse. At the bottom level, did they normally WO a horse 0, 1, or 2 times between races. Did they work them fast or slow. Was no WOs a bad sign ? Is 2 fast WOs a good or bad sign. These things not only matter from trainer to trainer, but from asst trainer to asst trainer. Then there were Biases . At Belmont , there is 3 track to worry about change bias and do the biases hold in both sprint and route races. Then there was back biases to keep track of individual horses. And of course, the trips they had. And did the Jockey fit the horse's running style. Maybe I should have just moved to circuit that ran year around with very few turf races although I still would have to do a lot of work on the training methods of most of trainers. It became too much for me and having to do it a set time was also getting to be a problem. Maybe some day I will write a book about what I did since a lot of it hasn't been covered before.

Although I am not sure exactly what he does for sure, I am picking out one thing like shippers like pondman talks about. Currently I am looking shippers by trainer to NYRA especially those going off at 5/1 + and going from there. I have no data base, so it is going back over old charts and PPSs. At least I am able to choose the time when I do my research. That very important right now. This is foreign to me, so everything is a learning process. My guess it was it easier to find high % winners getting good odds with shippers from lesser tracks to better ones. I have even touched the surface yet so I don't if that is true. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

I've never heard of John Sterling; are you thinking of Andy Serling?

As to your original question...I doubt that you will find a profitable "shortcut" in this game. The workload comes with the territory...

[RaceBookJoe]

I've never heard of John Sterling; are you thinking of Andy Serling?

Or Rod Serling's " Handicapping in the Zone...the Twilight Zone " :)

[Ocala Mike]

I thought Robert was referring to the announcer for the NY Yankees, whose expertise as a handicapper was unknown to me. "Theeeeeeee Yankees win!"

Anyway, I think a hybrid approach is best for the casual player, supplemented by applying a few favorite "angles" as seasoning.

[Dave Schwartz]

Robert,

Yes, I get it now.

It sounds like you are trying to switch from what I call, "Seat of the pants" handicapping - where the handicapping attempts to discern everything from staring at data sheets, DRF, models, everything in front of him - to something more systematic.

I have always had great respect for the SotP guys - if they are successful.

It has always been just too much work for me.

[thaskalos]

IMO...it behooves the player to operate in a systematic manner, even if he is a "seat of the pants" handicapper.

What I think the detective is trying to do is adopt a one-dimensional handicapping approach...instead of the time-consuming "comprehensive" approach that he is using now.

"System handicapping" can be effective...provided it's not the simplistic type which was touted by the system sellers of yesteryear.

Things should be made as simple as possible...but no simpler.

[traynor]

Comprehensive handicapping may be no better (and could be worse) than a more systematic approach. Individual factors--whether studied in a comprehensive approach or systematic approach--are not cumulative. That myth has been pervasive since way, way back when Ray Taulbot was cranking out a new system every month for ATM. One cannot add a value for a jockey to a value for a trainer, adjust it by a pace figure, (or any number of other factors) and bet the biggest number. It doesn't matter whether one calls his or her approach comprehensive or systematic--both suffer the same defect when a (false) assumption is made that cumulative values perform better than individual or limited scope values.

A number of fairly serious studies (including studies of the performance of handicappers) argue that considering many factors ("comprehensive") tends to increase confidence, but reduce accuracy. Conversely, considering fewer (but more relevant) factors increased accuracy (usually associated with increased profits).

Comprehensive handicapping approaches are fairly easy to program. The trick is in weighting the various factors. One cannot simply add them together, because the effect of each component varies. The weighting--explicit or implicit--is what both comprehensive handicappers and systematic handicappers are doing--whether they know it or not. That is, at some point a subjective decision has to be made that Jockey A trumps Trainer B, and the horse's tendency to wilt in the stretch will be avoided by going a shorter distance today. The key point is that all the points considered in comprehensive handicapping are not cumulative--they are not simply added together. The weighting assigned to the individual points in comprehensive handicapping--explicitly or implicitly--is nearly identical to the process of assigning weights in more systematic approaches.

http://graduateinstitute.ch/webdav/site/mia/users/Rachelle_Cloutier/public/Hashemi%20Decision%20Making%20and%20Leadership%20i n%20Crisis%20Situations/Hammond%20Hidden%20Traps%20in%20Decision%20Making. pdf

[DeltaLover]

Handicapping is overvalued. It is impossible to make it big in this game simply by improving your handicapping.

When I see people trying to add as many factors possible, paddock inspection, very refined trainer and jockey stats etc, to their models, I am convinced they are trying to solve the problem following the wrong approach.

I came to believe that this is happening, because people refuse to accept the obvious truth, that the outcome of a race is not deterministic and that beyond a certain level, any additional handicapping effort is useless. Any horse can win, and more than this, it is not only impossible to make a distinction between a 7-2 and a 5-1 shot, it also does not even worth the effort.

The focal point is to handicap the crowd rather than the horses! To paraphrase a well known maxim of the poker word, horse betting is a people game that happens to use horses as a randomizer!.

In this game, it is way more important to understand how your opponents are acting than trying to predict the performance of a horse.

If you really want to excel in this game, you better spend your time analyzing how the crowd acts, understand what are the few angles used over and over forming the betting lines, get in to the psychology of the masses and look for holes that you can patch applying game theory and aggressive betting schemes.

A tight and passive approach will not help either.

As a bettor you need to be relatively loose and aggressive, if you want to give yourself the opportunity to hit it big.

In a 1-10 scale you should be close to 7 in both tightness and aggression.

BY tightness - looseness I refer on the number of races you decide to bet and by aggression - passiveness on the amount you are going to bet. (Again I am borrowing these terms from the poker literature).

If your handicapping does not allow you to bet around 70% or the races you you certainly need to improve on it.

Same thing with aggression. If you are managing a middle size bankroll ( 7K - 15K) and never make a bet more than $500 or your average bet is less than $200 (assuming large enough pools) you need to rethink your approach to the game. If you are betting with a very small bankroll (less than 2K) you should be ready to take big risks on your way of ramping it up. If your bankroll is large then almost all your bets should be as big as the pool proportions suggest.

Convince yourself that this is gambling and not some form of investing. Be prepared to take your chances with marginal calls that might create a long loosing streak. Don't kid yourself believing you can make it with a small bankroll and limited risk. It simply does not work like this.

[Robert Goren]

I have to apologize to the little guy. Of course I meant Andy Sterling, not the Yankee broadcaster with the same last name.

[Ocala Mike]

Robert, I know you have a true problem with words and such, but it's Andy Serling, not Sterling.

Carry on; we get your point.

Also, lots of great posts about the sometimes arcane truths about the "science" of handicapping in this thread.

[pondman]

My guess it was it easier to find high % winners getting good odds with shippers from lesser tracks to better ones. I have even touched the surface yet so I don't if that is true. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Actually what you are talking about is playing a limited number of races with a system. Nothing wrong with that. Play what you know, even if it's only one race a week. I learned to play with great handicappers at SA in the 70s. They didn't play everyday. They'd sit and wait to make 20K on $500. Can it still be done. Yes.

I've always talked about horses leaving NY, with the horrendous PP-- losing by 15, with terrible Beyer's #, and a unknown morning rider. That's my play.

If you can hit at 40-50%, how many races do you need to play in a year to make it profitable? Not many. Not 1000s.

[Magister Ludi]

The focal point is to handicap the crowd rather than the horses! To paraphrase a well known maxim of the poker word, horse betting is a people game that happens to use horses as a randomizer!.

In this game, it is way more important to understand how your opponents are acting than trying to predict the performance of a horse.
Excellent!

[thaskalos]

Comprehensive handicapping may be no better (and could be worse) than a more systematic approach. Individual factors--whether studied in a comprehensive approach or systematic approach--are not cumulative. That myth has been pervasive since way, way back when Ray Taulbot was cranking out a new system every month for ATM. One cannot add a value for a jockey to a value for a trainer, adjust it by a pace figure, (or any number of other factors) and bet the biggest number. It doesn't matter whether one calls his or her approach comprehensive or systematic--both suffer the same defect when a (false) assumption is made that cumulative values perform better than individual or limited scope values.

A number of fairly serious studies (including studies of the performance of handicappers) argue that considering many factors ("comprehensive") tends to increase confidence, but reduce accuracy. Conversely, considering fewer factors increased accuracy (usually associated with increased profits).

Comprehensive handicapping approaches are fairly easy to program. The trick is in weighting the various factors. One cannot simply add them together, because the effect of each component varies. The weighting--explicit or implicit--is what both comprehensive handicappers and systematic handicappers are doing--whether they know it or not. That is, at some point a subjective decision has to be made that Jockey A trumps Trainer B, and the horse's tendency to wilt in the stretch will be avoided by going a shorter distance today. The key point is that all the points considered in comprehensive handicapping are not cumulative--they are not simply added together. The weighting assigned to the individual points in comprehensive handicapping--explicitly or implicitly--is nearly identical to the process of assigning weights in more systematic approaches.

http://graduateinstitute.ch/webdav/site/mia/users/Rachelle_Cloutier/public/Hashemi%20Decision%20Making%20and%20Leadership%20i n%20Crisis%20Situations/Hammond%20Hidden%20Traps%20in%20Decision%20Making. pdf

Do you know who Roxy Roxborough is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Roxy_Roxborough (http://) (I hope I've done this right.)

I listened to an interview where Roxy was describing how he went about creating the football line for the Las Vegas sportsbooks.

It went something like this:

"I have a group of expert handicappers and statisticians seated with me around a table...and they each bounce opinions off one another, as I carefully listen. Eventually, they will each distill their opinion down to a number, and invariably, these opinions will vary. It then becomes my job to collect all these opinions...weigh them properly, deriving some sort of balance from them...and then creating an altogether different opinion from them...an opinion which is often different from the other opinions which helped in forming it. Properly done...the whole becomes much greater than the sum of its parts."

This is the quote that best describes my handicapping process.

I have several "numbers"...and they each offer me an opinion on a particular handicapping factor. The speed numbers point to the horses who have run the fastest races...while the pace numbers tell me how the speed in those races was rationed. The class numbers tell me about the "quality" of those races...by considering the horses individually, and also by their collective performance in the race. And then there are other numbers...which tell me about the horses' fitness level...and the competence levels of their connections.

All these numbers are kept separate, and they often conflict...and it then becomes my job to collect and interpret them in a way which would allow me to derive some sort of balance from them. Done properly...a final opinion emerges, which is often different from the opinions suggested by these factors individually.

The whole has indeed become much greater than the sum of its parts... :)

[Robert Goren]

Most of what I did before was done to take horses out of contention. I tried to apply this idea/quote to my handicapping.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes
Very little of my handicapping was positive. It worked very well for me for a long time. But then I never tried with large sums of money either. I am sure it is a lot easier to ruthlessly eliminate a well bet horse with $5 at stake than it is with $500. Now for health reasons I need a different approach.

[thaskalos]

Handicapping is overvalued. It is impossible to make it big in this game simply by improving your handicapping.

When I see people trying to add as many factors possible, paddock inspection, very refined trainer and jockey stats etc, to their models, I am convinced they are trying to solve the problem following the wrong approach.

I came to believe that this is happening, because people refuse to accept the obvious truth, that the outcome of a race is not deterministic and that beyond a certain level, any additional handicapping effort is useless. Any horse can win, and more than this, it is not only impossible to make a distinction between a 7-2 and a 5-1 shot, it also does not even worth the effort.

The focal point is to handicap the crowd rather than the horses! To paraphrase a well known maxim of the poker word, horse betting is a people game that happens to use horses as a randomizer!.

In this game, it is way more important to understand how your opponents are acting than trying to predict the performance of a horse.

If you really want to excel in this game, you better spend your time analyzing how the crowd acts, understand what are the few angles used over and over forming the betting lines, get in to the psychology of the masses and look for holes that you can patch applying game theory and aggressive betting schemes.

A tight and passive approach will not help either.

As a bettor you need to be relatively loose and aggressive, if you want to give yourself the opportunity to hit it big.

In a 1-10 scale you should be close to 7 in both tightness and aggression.

BY tightness - looseness I refer on the number of races you decide to bet and by aggression - passiveness on the amount you are going to bet. (Again I am borrowing these terms from the poker literature).

If your handicapping does not allow you to bet around 70% or the races you you certainly need to improve on it.

Same thing with aggression. If you are managing a middle size bankroll ( 7K - 15K) and never make a bet more than $500 or your average bet is less than $200 (assuming large enough pools) you need to rethink your approach to the game. If you are betting with a very small bankroll (less than 2K) you should be ready to take big risks on your way of ramping it up. If your bankroll is large then almost all your bets should be as big as the pool proportions suggest.

Convince yourself that this is gambling and not some form of investing. Be prepared to take your chances with marginal calls that might create a long loosing streak. Don't kid yourself believing you can make it with a small bankroll and limited risk. It simply does not work like this.

I don't know about this opinion of yours which states that we should be wagering on a minimum of 7 out of 10 races; why should that be a requirement?

And what proof is there that the behavior of the crowd remains consistent throughout...which would make "crowd psychology" such a worthwhile pursuit?

And when you say that "handicapping is overvalued"...are you implying that a player can "make it big" even if he is an "average" handicapper?

When you say that a $7,000-$15,000 bankroll can support $500 wagers...you are assuming that the player is in a position to replenish this bankroll from some outside source when it is lost...right? :)

[Robert Goren]

Actually what you are talking about is playing a limited number of races with a system. Nothing wrong with that. Play what you know, even if it's only one race a week. I learned to play with great handicappers at SA in the 70s. They didn't play everyday. They'd sit and wait to make 20K on $500. Can it still be done. Yes.

I've always talked about horses leaving NY, with the horrendous PP-- losing by 15, with terrible Beyer's #, and a unknown morning rider. That's my play.

If you can hit at 40-50%, how many races do you need to play in a year to make it profitable? Not many. Not 1000s. I am still not going to bet $500, But that is the idea. At some point I will look at horses leaving NY although at the moment I am looking at horses coming into NY. Find a few good things, so I can do a quick scan, bet, and move on to other things. I am finding I enjoy the research more than the actual betting. Something that surprised me no end since I have always loved to gamble so much.

[DeltaLover]

Getting back $20K for a $500 represents a 39-1 shot over your total investment. I think that something like this is rather the exception than the rule. It happens but very rarely. Personally I am very happy when my $500 total bet gets me back something more than $3.5K and usually I will settle with less. What is important here is that this kind of bet usually is structured around a longshot (over or close to natural odds) and if your selection process is not capable of coming with a lot of them you might face a very long loosing stream (long in time not only in number of losers). It is not uncommon for me to have a streak of 8 - 10 consecutive loses, the good think though is that this will usually occur during one afternoon and I will have a very good chance to recover the next day. If your selection process is very slow, you might easily go through weeks without cashing, having to sustain long periods on the red.

[Dave Schwartz]

I came to believe that this is happening, because people refuse to accept the obvious truth, that the outcome of a race is not deterministic and that beyond a certain level, any additional handicapping effort is useless. Any horse can win, and more than this, it is not only impossible to make a distinction between a 7-2 and a 5-1 shot, it also does not even worth the effort.

The focal point is to handicap the crowd rather than the horses! To paraphrase a well known maxim of the poker word, horse betting is a people game that happens to use horses as a randomizer!.

In this game, it is way more important to understand how your opponents are acting than trying to predict the performance of a horse.

If you really want to excel in this game, you better spend your time analyzing how the crowd acts, understand what are the few angles used over and over forming the betting lines, get in to the psychology of the masses and look for holes that you can patch applying game theory and aggressive betting schemes.

I could easily have quoted and bolded the entire post. Delta, I completely agree with you!


Dave

[Robert Goren]

I don't know about this opinion of yours which states that we should be wagering on a minimum of 7 out of 10 races; why should that be a requirement?

And what proof is there that the behavior of the crowd remains consistent throughout...which would make "crowd psychology" such a worthwhile pursuit?

And when you say that "handicapping is overvalued"...are you implying that a player can "make it big" even if he is an "average" handicapper?

When you say that a $7,000-$15,000 bankroll can support $500 wagers...you are assuming that the player is in a position to replenish this bankroll from some outside source when it is lost...right? :) I believe that the crowd overvalues positive things about a horse and I, dare to say, not only undervalues, but down right ignores many negative things about a horse. That has been a constant through out the now 49 years of betting horses. I until recently bet most the races of a card I looked at. That comes from my youth when I had to travel 2 hours to put down a bet. You don't waste many opportunities when you spend that much time in a car just put down at most 9 bets.

[Dave Schwartz]

"I have a group of expert handicappers and statisticians seated with me around a table...and they each bounce opinions off one another, as I carefully listen. Eventually, they will each distill their opinion down to a number, and invariably, these opinions will vary. It then becomes my job to collect all these opinions...weigh them properly, deriving some sort of balance from them...and then creating an altogether different opinion from them...an opinion which is often different from the other opinions which helped in forming it. Properly done...the whole becomes much greater than the sum of its parts."

This is the quote that best describes my handicapping process.

And you just summed up what I do, except that I do it with semi-rigid formulas.

[traynor]

Do you know who Roxy Roxborough is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Roxy_Roxborough (http://) (I hope I've done this right.)

I listened to an interview where Roxy was describing how he went about creating the football line for the Las Vegas sportsbooks.

It went something like this:

"I have a group of expert handicappers and statisticians seated with me around a table...and they each bounce opinions off one another, as I carefully listen. Eventually, they will each distill their opinion down to a number, and invariably, these opinions will vary. It then becomes my job to collect all these opinions...weigh them properly, deriving some sort of balance from them...and then creating an altogether different opinion from them...an opinion which is often different from the other opinions which helped in forming it. Properly done...the whole becomes much greater than the sum of its parts."

This is the quote that best describes my handicapping process.

I have several "numbers"...and they each offer me an opinion on a particular handicapping factor. The speed numbers point to the horses who have run the fastest races...while the pace numbers tell me how the speed in those races was rationed. The class numbers tell me about the "quality" of those races...by considering the horses individually, and also by their collective performance in the race. And then there are other numbers...which tell me about the horses' fitness level...and the competence levels of their connections.

All these numbers are kept separate, and they often conflict...and it then becomes my job to collect and interpret them in a way which would allow me to derive some sort of balance from them. Done properly...a final opinion emerges, which is often different from the opinions suggested by these factors individually.

The whole has indeed become much greater than the sum of its parts... :)

Yes. That is where the subjective weighting of discrete factors comes into play.

[thaskalos]

And you just summed up what I do, except that I do it with semi-rigid formulas.

As I said...I am all for "systematic play"...as long as it's not made too simplistic due to lack of time.

There is a price to be paid for success in this game...

[thaskalos]

Getting back $20K for a $500 represents a 39-1 shot over your total investment. I think that something like this is rather the exception than the rule. It happens but very rarely. Personally I am very happy when my $500 total bet gets me back something more than $3.5K and usually I will settle with less. What is important here is that this kind of bet usually is structured around a longshot (over or close to natural odds) and if your selection process is not capable of coming with a lot of them you might face a very long loosing stream (long in time not only in number of losers). It is not uncommon for me to have a streak of 8 - 10 consecutive loses, the good think though is that this will usually occur during one afternoon and I will have a very good chance to recover the next day. If your selection process is very slow, you might easily go through weeks without cashing, having to sustain long periods on the red.

Is a $500 wager advisable when a player's bankroll is $7,000-$15,000?

[traynor]

And you just summed up what I do, except that I do it with semi-rigid formulas.

The synergistic blending of various expert opinions is the essence of the Delphi Model of decision-making.

[DeltaLover]

Is a $500 wager advisable when a player's bankroll is $7,000-$15,000?

Certainly such a large bet is not meant to be the usual sizing. This does not mean that we should rule it out completely. A 7K bankroll is still considered (relatively) small, so it makes it correct to take a chance from time to time looking to accelerate it growth. A loss at this level is by no means a disaster and we should be able to recover it easily, but a potential win will be a great boost allowing us to stabilize to higher levels. There is nothing wrong taking shots here and there assuming we maintain good control of the situation.

Of course as the bank grows we no longer need (or even can) take this type of risks. If our B/R reaches the 200K level, then following the same proportion the 500 bet will be equivalent to a 7K bet which is not only unjustifiable by most of the pools but also does not present the same effect to the growth of the B/R.

The rule is to become more protective and careful as your B/R becomes larger and to take more risks as long as your B/R remains small.

[Magister Ludi]

Is a $500 wager advisable when a player's bankroll is $7,000-$15,000?
That depends upon the pool size, the player's edge, and the probability of the player winning the bet.

[thaskalos]

Certainly such a large bet is not meant to be the usual sizing. This does not mean that we should rule it out completely. A 7K bankroll is still considered (relatively) small, so it makes it correct to take a chance from time to time looking to accelerate it growth. A loss at this level is by no means a disaster and we should be able to recover it easily, but a potential win will be a great boost allowing us to stabilize to higher levels. There is nothing wrong taking shots here and there assuming we maintain good control of the situation.

Of course as the bank grows we no longer need (or even can) take this type of risks. If our B/R reaches the 200K level, then following the same proportion the 500 bet will be equivalent to a 7K bet which is not only unjustifiable by most of the pools but also does not present the same effect to the growth of the B/R.

The rule is to become more protective and careful as your B/R becomes larger and to take more risks as long as your B/R remains small.

I have a different opinion on this matter.

When I say that a horseplayer should be a "fearless" bettor...I don't mean that he should take irresponsible "shots" with his bankroll...even if his bankroll is one of $2,000 - $7,000.

If a player cannot turn, say, a $5K bankroll into worthwhile profits over time...then I wouldn't wager a penny on his chances of managing a much bigger bankroll.

When I say that a player should be fearless...I mean that he should not be afraid to pull the trigger when the situation -- and his bankroll -- demands it.

If the player does not have the discipline to nurse a $7,000 bankroll, and make it grow over time...then it is highly unlikely that he has the discipline to make it in this game.

"Discipline" is something that the player works to achieve; it doesn't just magically appear when the player requests it...or when his bankroll is large.

[Dave Schwartz]

I think when Delta is referring to a $500 wager out of a $7k bank, he is saying something akin to a situation comes along that calls for such a large play MATHEMATICALLY.

Example: You have a model that screams this horse has a probability and odds that calls for a bet which is 7% of bankroll. (i.e. using Kelly.)

7% is actually not that much if you have the math behind it.

If you had valid probabilities (and historical significance to back it up) all it takes is a 14% advantage at odds of 2/1.

That would mean $2.28 and 38% hit rate.

The important point would be that your history really leads you to believe that THIS horse has a 38% hit rate (or perhaps a little higher to be safe) and WILL pay $6.00 (or a little higher to be on the safe side again).

Note that these are not these which would be trivial to prove to anyone's satisfaction.

[traynor]

I have a different opinion on this matter.

When I say that a horseplayer should be a "fearless" bettor...I don't mean that he should take irresponsible "shots" with his bankroll...even if his bankroll is one of $2,000 - $7,000.

If a player cannot turn, say, a $5K bankroll into worthwhile profits over time...then I wouldn't wager a penny on his chances of managing a much bigger bankroll.

When I say that a player should be fearless...I mean that he should not be afraid to pull the trigger when the situation -- and his bankroll -- demands it.

If the player does not have the discipline to nurse a $7,000 bankroll, and make it grow over time...then it is highly unlikely that he has the discipline to make it in this game.

"Discipline" is something that the player works to achieve; it doesn't just magically appear when the player requests it...or when his bankroll is large.

Old saying, "Necessity is the mother of invention." When something needs to be done, and it requires discipline to do it, it is remarkably easy to develop that discipline. Conversely, if the outcome of something is relatively trivial or insignificant, there is always something more important to do or to think about--and discipline is difficult if not impossible to implement. It is all a matter of perspective.

[Dave Schwartz]

The synergistic blending of various expert opinions is the essence of the Delphi Model of decision-making.

Traynor,

In your opinion, is there any reason why the expert opinions could not be derived from multiple algorithms instead of flesh-and-blood people?


Dave

[thaskalos]

I think when Delta is referring to a $500 wager out of a $7k bank, he is saying something akin to a situation comes along that calls for such a large play MATHEMATICALLY.

Example: You have a model that screams this horse has a probability and odds that calls for a bet which is 7% of bankroll. (i.e. using Kelly.)

7% is actually not that much if you have the math behind it.

If you had valid probabilities (and historical significance to back it up) all it takes is a 14% advantage at odds of 2/1.

That would mean $2.28 and 38% hit rate.

The important point would be that your history really leads you to believe that THIS horse has a 38% hit rate (or perhaps a little higher to be safe) and WILL pay $6.00 (or a little higher to be on the safe side again).

Note that these are not these which would be trivial to prove to anyone's satisfaction.

Tell me, Dave...

What do you think about Delta's comment that..."a $7,000 bankroll is still (relatively) small, and this makes it correct to take a chance from time to time to accelerate its growth"?

Why take unnecessary chances to accelerate a $7,000 bankroll's growth?

Are we in a hurry because we -- or the game -- are going somewhere?

[thaskalos]

Old saying, "Necessity is the mother of invention." When something needs to be done, and it requires discipline to do it, it is remarkably easy to develop that discipline. Conversely, if the outcome of something is relatively trivial or insignificant, there is always something more important to do or to think about--and discipline is difficult if not impossible to implement. It is all a matter of perspective.

If this were really the case...then people would not destroy themselves at the track.

You don't really believe that people ruin their lives while making $2 wagers...do you?

The reason that only 1-2% are able to win consistently at the track can be traced to their lack of discipline and self control.

Your philosophy of..."let's burn our ships when we get to the scene of the battle so the option of retreat is not available to us"...does not work in serious gambling.

I know more than a few people who quit their jobs and tried to make it as full-time gamblers; without exception, they all ended up divorced and despised, and living in one-bedroom apartments...even though they "wanted" to win real bad.

I would bet serious money that the guy who coined the phrase "necessity is the mother of invention", was not a gambler.

[Robert Fischer]

There are no shortcuts.

You can change your approach or your perspective, but it doesn't change the reality.

Traynor said something in the jockey thread about understanding the logic behind the data.

The closest thing to a shortcut is to stand on the shoulders of the giants. If you study under an Andy Serling, you can at least learn from his life's work and perspective and path.

[MJC922]

The reason that only 1-2% are able to win consistently at the track can be traced to their lack of discipline and self control.

Words of wisdom. So there's a very good reason many of these 'expert' handicappers are making public selections or doing pre-race shows or writing columns. Very few have the discipline or will ever acquire it. It's at times so at odds with human nature that it takes a physical toll to carry it out consistently. Every professional-level handicapper has tried their hand at this 'doing it for a living' stuff and unless other funding has brought with it rose colored glasses they will know exactly what I'm talking about. Yeah a few are born into money or receive it from outside sources so they don't quite feel the gutting of their insides along the way but they all eventually get the message just the same. So for those who are aspiring, if you're a good selector, that's just the beginning of it. The pressure to hold yourself together will literally never end until time is taken to remove oneself completely for weeks if not months, and the minute you step through those turnstiles again you will feel a presence return to you like impending doom. It becomes clear once you've beaten the game for a long time that it's not you against the crowd or you against the odds, it's you against yourself.

[Dave Schwartz]

What do you think about Delta's comment that..."a $7,000 bankroll is still (relatively) small, and this makes it correct to take a chance from time to time to accelerate its growth"?

It is relatively small if you want to make (say) $200,000 per year. I mean, that is 28x your money. I'd say that is unrealistic.


Why take unnecessary chances to accelerate a $7,000 bankroll's growth?

Are we in a hurry because we -- or the game -- are going somewhere?

Let me ask you a question. I know you own a store. If you started a new store from scratch, investing time and money, would there be some urgency to wanting/expecting/needing to get to the point of serious profit?

As for going somewhere, at my age it could be tomorrow. (I sure hope not.)

[traynor]

Traynor,

In your opinion, is there any reason why the expert opinions could not be derived from multiple algorithms instead of flesh-and-blood people?


Dave

The strength of the Delphi Model is that all "votes" carry exactly the same weight. If algorithms were used, a value for one "rating" would need to carry the exact same weight and range of values as every other "rating." If one knew that weight (for each component) exactly, it would be easier to program an app to just pick the winner.

The problem is that values in algorithms are not additive (or cumulative). That is, accumulating the output of multiple algorithms almost never works. It might make the user feel more confident that a horse is "rated on top in multiple categories" but that rarely equates to increased accuracy.

[traynor]

If this were really the case...then people would not destroy themselves at the track.

You don't really believe that people ruin their lives while making $2 wagers...do you?

The reason that only 1-2% are able to win consistently at the track can be traced to their lack of discipline and self control.

Your philosophy of..."let's burn our ships when we get to the scene of the battle so the option of retreat is not available to us"...does not work in serious gambling.

I know more than a few people who quit their jobs and tried to make it as full-time gamblers; without exception, they all ended up divorced and despised, and living in one-bedroom apartments...even though they "wanted" to win real bad.

I would bet serious money that the guy who coined the phrase "necessity is the mother of invention", was not a gambler.

I think the failure rate at handicapping is probably more related to unrealistic expectations and over-confidence than a lack of self-discipline. Too many people believe jumping off chairs prepares them to jump out of aircraft without a parachute. Lying to one's self about one's abilities and skills is no more prevalent in handicapping than in any other field. It is a common trait.

[traynor]

There are no shortcuts.

You can change your approach or your perspective, but it doesn't change the reality.

Traynor said something in the jockey thread about understanding the logic behind the data.

The closest thing to a shortcut is to stand on the shoulders of the giants. If you study under an Andy Serling, you can at least learn from his life's work and perspective and path.

Not so. The closest thing to a shortcut is that great line by Liam Neeson toward the end of The Grey. Standing on the shoulders of giants is a built-in excuse to fail, with the blame being attributed to the failure of the giants to properly prepare one for reality. Reality is out there all the time. One simply needs to deal with it.

[Tom]

I would say I have learned a hell of a lot more about handicapping listening to Andy than reading this thread talking about it. Andy is out there doing it. Successfully.

[PaceAdvantage]

I have to apologize to the little guy. Of course I meant Andy Sterling, not the Yankee broadcaster with the same last name.This has to be another put on...pretty good one I might add...

[DeltaLover]

Tell me, Dave...

What do you think about Delta's comment that..."a $7,000 bankroll is still (relatively) small, and this makes it correct to take a chance from time to time to accelerate its growth"?

Why take unnecessary chances to accelerate a $7,000 bankroll's growth?

Are we in a hurry because we -- or the game -- are going somewhere?


I think I've talked about it before, here in this site and certainly in private conversations with Thask..

Gambling Theory is one of the best books ever written on the topic and although a bit outdated, still has a lot to teach..

http://www.twoplustwo.com/images/bonus-images/bonuscovers/GT.jpg

I am sure that most of you already own a copy...

There you can find the essay Two tales: The Bullfrog and the Adventurer which provides a very good answer to why somebody might choose to follow an agressive path buidling his roll and why this is not necessary a wrong choice...

Another related eassay from the same book that is directly applicable to the same topic is The extremely Silly Subject of Money Management. I do not want to repeat Mason here, I just, strongly encourage anyone to revisit this two essays.

In my opinion, both are among the top writtings ever in the topic of gambling.....

[proximity]

It is relatively small if you want to make (say) $200,000 per year. I mean, that is 28x your money. I'd say that is unrealistic.


with a 1% post rebate roi and using your system where he rolls his bankroll everyday, wouldn't he at least be pretty close?

[Robert Goren]

This has to be another put on...pretty good one I might add...Sorry, it is not. I am not that good. Besides I never do it on the racing side. But the off topics side is fair game. I really am changing my style of betting for health reason. The Little Guy, at least talks, pretty close to the way I used to handicap. There are a lot of people who do basically the same thing with varying degrees of success. Most of what I was doing I was doing long before I ran across him, But several things he has said on turf sprints made me make some positive changes on the way I handicapped them.

[TurfRuler]

Comprehensive handicapping may be no better (and could be worse) than a more systematic approach. Individual factors--whether studied in a comprehensive approach or systematic approach--are not cumulative. That myth has been pervasive since way, way back when Ray Taulbot was cranking out a new system every month for ATM. One cannot add a value for a jockey to a value for a trainer, adjust it by a pace figure, (or any number of other factors) and bet the biggest number. It doesn't matter whether one calls his or her approach comprehensive or systematic--both suffer the same defect when a (false) assumption is made that cumulative values perform better than individual or limited scope values.

A number of fairly serious studies (including studies of the performance of handicappers) argue that considering many factors ("comprehensive") tends to increase confidence, but reduce accuracy. Conversely, considering fewer (but more relevant) factors increased accuracy (usually associated with increased profits).

Comprehensive handicapping approaches are fairly easy to program. The trick is in weighting the various factors. One cannot simply add them together, because the effect of each component varies. The weighting--explicit or implicit--is what both comprehensive handicappers and systematic handicappers are doing--whether they know it or not. That is, at some point a subjective decision has to be made that Jockey A trumps Trainer B, and the horse's tendency to wilt in the stretch will be avoided by going a shorter distance today. The key point is that all the points considered in comprehensive handicapping are not cumulative--they are not simply added together. The weighting assigned to the individual points in comprehensive handicapping--explicitly or implicitly--is nearly identical to the process of assigning weights in more systematic approaches.

I agree whole heartedly. But what one may find intriguing is to discount that high number as being the winner today, which they fail time and time again. But look for another that is below that top pick. Why do they fail, is it because one is including their past performance of last week, last month or last year. Don't discount the fatigue factor just because you are not the runner.