Checklist

[PICSIX]

Can a checklist designed to find a single win contender work? I read that most successful people use checklists for their decision making. I imagine it would have to be precise like that of a pilot's checklist before takeoff....all systems go before unloading the wallet. For a checklist to work the final item to be checked has to be: Is the horse an overlay?

What "must have" would be on your list? Maybe we could construct a checklist & track its success or failure on this board in the selections forum. :ThmbUp:

[Milkshaker]

I read an interesting piece on decision-making a few months back that pertains to this sort of method (as an aside, I find that my best handicapping strategies come from non-horse racing reading & research).

One of the key points was that you don't necessarily need a checklist with many data points to be successful. The catch, however, is that you must be dead-on accurate with the factors you DO choose to include.

The example given to illustrate this point was something like "determine a checklist to figure out if people are happy in their marriages."

One approach to accomplish this would be to compile a long, detailed checklist asking couples about varied factors in their marriage.

However, the researchers found a super-simple set of two questions yielded highly accurate results: Take the number of times a couple has sex per month and subtract from that figure the number of arguments per month. If this equation yielded a positive number, it was a fairly good predictor that the coupes were "happy."

The point being, fewer items on the checklist can be worth more if you choose your data points wisely.

[Overlay]

Can a checklist designed to find a single win contender work? I read that most successful people use checklists for their decision making. I imagine it would have to be precise like that of a pilot's checklist before takeoff....all systems go before unloading the wallet. For a checklist to work the final item to be checked has to be: Is the horse an overlay?
Except that the more items that you have on the checklist (especially if the items are go/no-go criteria that don't recognize comparative degrees of conformance among the horses in the field), the more likely it will be that any horse that survives all the winnowing will not be an overlay, because its superiority will be obvious to everyone else.

I use a mix of factors, but I apply them to each horse in the field (rather than using them as elimination tools), and I consider them in light of the probabilities associated with each horse's relative ranking in comparison to its competition to arrive at an overall win probability for each horse. That way, I'm not restricted to any one horse, and I have a sound basis for play/pass decisions, depending on which horses/combinations are overlaid and which aren't.

[DeltaLover]

Can a checklist designed to find a single win contender work? I read that most successful people use checklists for their decision making. I imagine it would have to be precise like that of a pilot's checklist before takeoff....all systems go before unloading the wallet. For a checklist to work the final item to be checked has to be: Is the horse an overlay?

What "must have" would be on your list? Maybe we could construct a checklist & track its success or failure on this board in the selections forum. :ThmbUp:

I am not sure that a checklist can be used as an exclusive decision mechanism to pick horses.

Besides that though, I think it certainly has its place in handicapping especially when a computer is involved. What might be more interesting instead of a mere check list might be a finite state machine (which conceptually is nothing else than a handicapping factor albeit more complicated)

[Phantombridgejumpe]

* Horse that has raced in the last 6 weeks.

* Horse that has a competent rider and trainer.

* Horse in a race that fits both class and style.

* Horse that has been over the track - prefer a race
but not a must.

* Approximate odds are appropriate.

* Looks okay on track warming up.

* Post and condition of surface is okay.

* Major competition has serious flaws.

If I get all those I'm in, and that doesn't happen often.

[PICSIX]

Assuming odds are appropriate & betting to win only....if you are 7/7 with remaining checklist would that constitute a full unit wager, 6/7 a half unit wager and 5/7 or less a pass? Something like that may work???

[Overlay]

Assuming odds are appropriate & betting to win only....if you are 7/7 with remaining checklist would that constitute a full unit wager, 6/7 a half unit wager and 5/7 or less a pass? Something like that may work???
If I were going to size wagers on the basis of how many criteria a horse qualified under, I would do it in proportion to a number such as the impact value or winning percentage associated with each level, provided that the top-to-bottom flow of those values was smooth for the criteria that I was using. If the criteria had an irregular flow of such values, I would continue refining or re-ordering my list until that had been corrected.

[Stillriledup]

* Horse that has raced in the last 6 weeks.

* Horse that has a competent rider and trainer.

* Horse in a race that fits both class and style.

* Horse that has been over the track - prefer a race
but not a must.

* Approximate odds are appropriate.

* Looks okay on track warming up.

* Post and condition of surface is okay.

* Major competition has serious flaws.

If I get all those I'm in, and that doesn't happen often.

I think you want a competent jock and trainer, but you don't want "top" humans because your price will suffer (no Pletcher, No Baffert, etc)

I have no problem betting a layoff horse, you get value on those because plenty of bettors just assume that the horse 'needs' the race. Know your connections and know which connections bring them in ready off a layoff.

[TJDave]

A checklist is the conerstone of any successful endeavor. Not using it places one at a serious disadvantage. My personal experience suggests +/- 15%.

[pondman]

* Horse that has raced in the last 6 weeks.

* Horse that has a competent rider and trainer.

* Horse in a race that fits both class and style.

* Horse that has been over the track - prefer a race
but not a must.

* Approximate odds are appropriate.

* Looks okay on track warming up.

* Post and condition of surface is okay.

* Major competition has serious flaws.

If I get all those I'm in, and that doesn't happen often.

The only agreement I'd have would be class. I don't know the world style. I guess you must mean front spped or pace. i'd throw all of that away. I want to see high end breeders looking for a softer spot. In many cases I'm looking for improvement, so I lean towards layoffs, slower times, auxiliary jockeys, and a change in surfaces. But conditions of the race is everything.

[TJDave]

But conditions of the race is everything.

Agree. For me, it's where the elimination process begins. Once I determine whether they belong I try and deduce intent... then if fit and ready. All working down a checklist to arrive at a bettable position.

[Phantombridgejumpe]

I am more looking for any red flags here.

A big jump or decrease in class for no obvious reason would scare me.

And yes, style red flags would include a front end horse with a lot of other speed in the race or a closer with no speed in the race.