Decision fatigue when I bet

[dkithore]

You may have heard of the term "decision fatigue" that essentially hampers good decision making while wagering or handicapping and betting on internet or simulcast facility or at the track.

I have often wondered how personally, I bet sensibly for about first half of the card and then go on automatic pilot for the remainder. There is clear shift in the way I bet. I am seriously considering ways to postpone such decision fatigue as It directly affects how I manage my money. I do not know yet how but there are many participants more experienced than I can shed some light on how they deal with this situation. Any thoughts?

[JustRalph]

are you betting US races from Thailand ?

[dkithore]

No, only the big events like Derby and Breeders' cup due to time zone disparity. Primarily I play UK and Australia.

[Overlay]

Issues that would be relevant to me would be whether you're fatigued primarily by deciding which tracks to play, which races to bet, which horses to bet, which types of bets to make, or how much to bet (or any combinations of the above); whether you handicap in advance and/or have a definite selection and/or wagering plan in mind prior to the race; and whether your handicapping is objective or subjective. (To me, having to continually make judgment calls based on personal opinion -- with the second-guessing that would follow when I'm wrong -- would especially be a major factor contributing to both fatigue and not maintaining betting discipline.)

[Robert Goren]

I would suggest that you stop betting when you feel it coming on. This a lot easier to do at home of course. It could be that you are attempting to bet too many tracks at the same time. I tend to skip races that I don't think I have an edge in. For me that is turf races and maiden race with a lot of firsters. I have to be a little careful about skipping too many races in row because I lose my concentration when I do.
This is a great subject that I don't remember being touch on here before. I am looking forward to reading other people's thoughts on it.

[Clocker]

I have often wondered how personally, I bet sensibly for about first half of the card and then go on automatic pilot for the remainder. There is clear shift in the way I bet.

Are you still handicapping the later races while you are betting on the earlier ones? I find that my performance declines if I didn't do all my "homework" well in advance. I do best if I handicap the entire card well before the first post. After a break, I come back fresh and can concentrate on fine tuning my picture of the race as I watch the odds board. Otherwise I start to feel pressured as the races progress, and don't feel as confident about by handicapping by the time of the last few races.

[so.cal.fan]

I pretty much agree with Clocker.
I find it best to handicap before I get to the track. Have a good idea of races I like. That said, you must always be ready to take advantage of a situation that comes up.....IF you are at the racetrack live.
Otherwise....you want to decide which races are playable for you....then take action if prices are right.

[dkithore]

Issues that would be relevant to me would be whether you're fatigued primarily by deciding which tracks to play, which races to bet, which horses to bet, which types of bets to make, or how much to bet (or any combinations of the above); whether you handicap in advance and/or have a definite selection and/or wagering plan in mind prior to the race; and whether your handicapping is objective or subjective. (To me, having to continually make judgment calls based on personal opinion -- with the second-guessing that would follow when I'm wrong -- would especially be a major factor contributing to both fatigue and not maintaining betting discipline.)

Handicapping in advance with odds line, seeking overlays is part of the process. I handicap most races available, except for maidens and races with legitimate even money favorites, I find them all playable. Because there is a greater chance of finding overlays in those races.

Second guessing is inevitable. Doesn't most investors do it to an extent?

Keeping focus on value and watching ever shifting odds line contributes to the decision fatigue after a while. Like Goren suggested, may be playing fewer races is a good solution to reduce stress. I totally agree with subjective calls being stressful and draining.

[dkithore]

Are you still handicapping the later races while you are betting on the earlier ones? I find that my performance declines if I didn't do all my "homework" well in advance. I do best if I handicap the entire card well before the first post. After a break, I come back fresh and can concentrate on fine tuning my picture of the race as I watch the odds board. Otherwise I start to feel pressured as the races progress, and don't feel as confident about by handicapping by the time of the last few races.
No, I don't do that anymore. Handicapping in advance. But making a choice among so many races is still an issue.

[raybo]

If you pre-handicap the races, and you're only playing a single track at a time, there should be no "decision fatigue" as you have plenty of time between races to do what you need to do. I suspect your betting discipline problems are not due to decision fatigue, but rather to something else. Take a break and find out.

[so.cal.fan]

Yeah, Raybo is right. It really works best on one track.
I am not focused or sharp enough to do more than one.
I know most of you guys are.

[Dave Schwartz]

D,

Is the fatigue attributable to the WEIGHT of the decision? Is it the pressure that fatigues you? Or is it the workload?

[thaskalos]

You may have heard of the term "decision fatigue" that essentially hampers good decision making while wagering or handicapping and betting on internet or simulcast facility or at the track.

I have often wondered how personally, I bet sensibly for about first half of the card and then go on automatic pilot for the remainder. There is clear shift in the way I bet. I am seriously considering ways to postpone such decision fatigue as It directly affects how I manage my money. I do not know yet how but there are many participants more experienced than I can shed some light on how they deal with this situation. Any thoughts?

Do you find that this "fatigue" is there even when you are having a winning day...or is it most evident when you are losing? There is an added amount of pressure associated with "losing"...and it often causes a player to feel "beat down", especially during some days when nothing seems to be going right.

You say that you bet sensibly for half the card, and then your betting goes on autopilot. What do you mean by "autopilot"? Do you mean going through the motions of betting in a disinterested, semi-conscious manner...or do you stop betting sensibly during the last half of the card because your play is being influenced by the results of the FIRST half of the card?

Is there something in your non-gambling life that might be weighing you down?

[raybo]

Do you find that this "fatigue" is there even when you are having a winning day...or is it most evident when you are losing? There is an added amount of pressure associated with "losing"...and it often causes a player to feel "beat down", especially during some days when nothing seems to be going right.

You say that you bet sensibly for half the card, and then your betting goes on autopilot. What do you mean by "autopilot"? Do you mean going through the motions of betting in a disinterested, semi-conscious manner...or do you stop betting sensibly during the last half of the card because your play is being influenced by the results of the FIRST half of the card?

Is there something in your non-gambling life that might be weighing you down?

That's kind of what I was hinting at, by saying that it might be something other than "decision" fatigue. If he always experiences this in the last half of the card, then maybe it is decision fatigue, but if on good days early, if he still declines late then it's not that kind of fatigue, more than likely. I would tend to think that he may be letting previous results affect his emotional side, and kind of "going on tilt". Not enough info though to suggest much else.

Lots of players go into a card full of vim and vigor, expecting to hit it big, then when that doesn't happen early, they get down, and lose their discipline and consistency and start making some bad decisions on the wagering side.

[Robert Goren]

How can you pre-handicap a card when we live the age of a lot of late scratches which often change the entire pace scenario?

[dkithore]

D,

Is the fatigue attributable to the WEIGHT of the decision? Is it the pressure that fatigues you? Or is it the workload?

Dave,

Perhaps like Raybo said, playing more than one is a factor. I play three concurrently. It could be the workload (each race has more than 10 entrants on average, sometimes upto 18). Something has got to give.

[dkithore]

Do you find that this "fatigue" is there even when you are having a winning day...or is it most evident when you are losing? There is an added amount of pressure associated with "losing"...and it often causes a player to feel "beat down", especially during some days when nothing seems to be going right.

You say that you bet sensibly for half the card, and then your betting goes on autopilot. What do you mean by "autopilot"? Do you mean going through the motions of betting in a disinterested, semi-conscious manner...or do you stop betting sensibly during the last half of the card because your play is being influenced by the results of the FIRST half of the card?

Is there something in your non-gambling life that might be weighing you down?
Thask,

You are very perceptive. Autopilot for me means non-discriminating and lacking will to be engaged as when I am fresh. So, winning first half turns into either breakeven or even losing. More unconscious than first half, for example. Yes, often winning intoxicates into seeing overlays when ain't there etc. And yes, absolutely first half does affect the second half. Losing in first half shrinks the bet size and then the winning happens. It is fascinating and frustrating.

[Maximillion]

Dave,

Perhaps like Raybo said, playing more than one is a factor. I play three concurrently. It could be the workload (each race has more than 10 entrants on average, sometimes upto 18). Something has got to give.

Mental fatigue sometimes sets in for me on Friday or Saturday, when Im playing a good number of tracks.
One possible solution-if you can download or print the pps some days in advance it can lighten your workload on the bigger days and you wont have the added pressure of handicapping a large number of races in one day.

[Dave Schwartz]

Perhaps like Raybo said, playing more than one is a factor. I play three concurrently. It could be the workload (each race has more than 10 entrants on average, sometimes upto 18). Something has got to give.

I have experienced this myself recently, as I began "painting a picture" of each race. It has been taking me almost 7 minutes per race. For me, that is a huge amount of time.

In order to overcome this issue, I have spent several weeks writing code to semi-automate my "painting." I actually hope to have it finished tomorrow.

[Elliott Sidewater]

You've presented a very good discussion topic. I wonder whether there is a "preparation bias" in effect here. Do you really dig in and handicap the first part of the card with more intensity, and then tell yourself, "I'll spend more time on the late races later?".

You might decide to pass a number of races in advance, and then you reduce the mental stress. Or, possibly arrive (or start from home) halfway through the card. These suggestions don't address any psychological factors that may be in play- I'm not qualified in that area. You may find success as a spot player without changing much of what you do now. Bet within your comfort level, and try to enjoy the challenge of playing a difficult game well. Sometimes we get so down that we lose sight of that.

I think it takes courage to ask for help, so I commend you for it and wish you the best in overcoming adversity.

[dkithore]

You've presented a very good discussion topic. I wonder whether there is a "preparation bias" in effect here. Do you really dig in and handicap the first part of the card with more intensity, and then tell yourself, "I'll spend more time on the late races later?".

You might decide to pass a number of races in advance, and then you reduce the mental stress. Or, possibly arrive (or start from home) halfway through the card. These suggestions don't address any psychological factors that may be in play- I'm not qualified in that area. You may find success as a spot player without changing much of what you do now. Bet within your comfort level, and try to enjoy the challenge of playing a difficult game well. Sometimes we get so down that we lose sight of that.

I think it takes courage to ask for help, so I commend you for it and wish you the best in overcoming adversity.
Wonderful response. I do capping of them all with same intensity in the a.m. when energy level is high. I am considering reducing the plays thus on experimental basis:

Consider races with significant disparity between ML and my odds line prior to betting activity. So. I spend less or no time when public opinion and mine agree. Pass. I will start this experiment asap and continue till i find a way to reduce capping and betting. Assumption is that eventually I will find more overlay opportunities and less time spent. I could be wrong. Anyways I do not have any other stress. IT is this attachment to game (action).

[dkithore]

I have experienced this myself recently, as I began "painting a picture" of each race. It has been taking me almost 7 minutes per race. For me, that is a huge amount of time.

In order to overcome this issue, I have spent several weeks writing code to semi-automate my "painting." I actually hope to have it finished tomorrow.

Painting picture is a wonderful addition to capping. Yes, it takes time and yes it is exhausting to do 20 races a day. You are on the right track and wish you success in expediting the art work.

[traynor]

Thask,

You are very perceptive. Autopilot for me means non-discriminating and lacking will to be engaged as when I am fresh. So, winning first half turns into either breakeven or even losing. More unconscious than first half, for example. Yes, often winning intoxicates into seeing overlays when ain't there etc. And yes, absolutely first half does affect the second half. Losing in first half shrinks the bet size and then the winning happens. It is fascinating and frustrating.

It seems you might benefit from less emotional involvement in the process. That is, your primary motivation may be the emotional ups and downs, rather than winning. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't confuse one motivation as being another. It doesn't matter what you say to other people--never lie to yourself about why you do something (or why you avoid other things).

Clearly, if your primary motivation is winning (rather than the excitement of betting) you would tend to emphasize the times of optimal performance, and avoid betting at other times. One of the really great things about horse racing is that one can choose whether to bet or not, or one can choose to ignore racing for the entire day (week, month). One can usually be assured there will be a whole lot of races to bet on when one chooses to do so.

[dkithore]

It seems you might benefit from less emotional involvement in the process. That is, your primary motivation may be the emotional ups and downs, rather than winning. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't confuse one motivation as being another. It doesn't matter what you say to other people--never lie to yourself about why you do something (or why you avoid other things).

Clearly, if your primary motivation is winning (rather than the excitement of betting) you would tend to emphasize the times of optimal performance, and avoid betting at other times. One of the really great things about horse racing is that one can choose whether to bet or not, or one can choose to ignore racing for the entire day (week, month). One can usually be assured there will be a whole lot of races to bet on when one chooses to do so.
I agree for the most part of your first para.
Not to be argumentative, but (arguing) why can't one have both: cool headed decision making (as Overlay poignantly pointed out earlier) and the excitement of making a score. Are they mutually exclusive? Just asking.

[Capper Al]

You may have heard of the term "decision fatigue" that essentially hampers good decision making while wagering or handicapping and betting on internet or simulcast facility or at the track.

I have often wondered how personally, I bet sensibly for about first half of the card and then go on automatic pilot for the remainder. There is clear shift in the way I bet. I am seriously considering ways to postpone such decision fatigue as It directly affects how I manage my money. I do not know yet how but there are many participants more experienced than I can shed some light on how they deal with this situation. Any thoughts?

I was having similar problems. I added a summary dashboard to my spreadsheets and then a summary of the summary sheets that included live odds for wagering. Set up some condition rules for what to wager and what not to wager. So far, it's working. It presents to me without emotion, what I must do according to my plan. Some of the problems with the second half of the card is that one might get caught up in the 'it's now or never to make the kill before the day ends' fever.

[raybo]

I was having similar problems. I added a summary dashboard to my spreadsheets and then a summary of the summary sheets that included live odds for wagering. Set up some condition rules for what to wager and what not to wager. So far, it's working. It presents to me without emotion, what I must do according to my plan. Some of the problems with the second half of the card is that one might get caught up in the 'it's now or never to make the kill before the day ends' fever.

Which dashboard add-in for Excel are you using Al?

[Capper Al]

Which dashboard add-in for Excel are you using Al?

A homemade one. I didn't know Excel had some pre-made. I'll need to check it out. Any info on them?

Thanks

[dkithore]

I was having similar problems. I added a summary dashboard to my spreadsheets and then a summary of the summary sheets that included live odds for wagering. Set up some condition rules for what to wager and what not to wager. So far, it's working. It presents to me without emotion, what I must do according to my plan. Some of the problems with the second half of the card is that one might get caught up in the 'it's now or never to make the kill before the day ends' fever.
AL, that would definitely work, that is set up rules and conditions based on odds. Is their commercial product similar to that works with excel?

[Capper Al]

AL, that would definitely work, that is set up rules and conditions based on odds. Is their commercial product similar to that works with excel?

Raybo might know something about that.

[traynor]

I agree for the most part of your first para.
Not to be argumentative, but (arguing) why can't one have both: cool headed decision making (as Overlay poignantly pointed out earlier) and the excitement of making a score. Are they mutually exclusive? Just asking.

Absolutely not. It is the implication that when you go on "autopilot" that the accuracy and effectiveness of your decision-making deteriorates that indicates a problem. That seems to me a clear indication that you are pushing the process past the point when you realize you are at your best. My question would be--if you are functioning better when you are NOT on "autopilot," why don't you use that as a saturation point and stop betting?

What you are doing may well be interpreted as "extinguishing." Not a good thing to do in relation to decision making and wagering. That is, when you go on "autopilot" and continue, you are essentially turning a pleasant experience into an unpleasant experience. So the root problem may be that you are continuing until it becomes unpleasant, and are now seeking a way to continue with (and prolong) the unpleasant experience.

Rather than looking for ways to keep betting longer, you may be better off doing it while it is enjoyable, then stopping at the switch to "autopilot." You might consider there may be a reason other than fatigue for the change in mental state.

[raybo]

A homemade one. I didn't know Excel had some pre-made. I'll need to check it out. Any info on them?

Thanks

Al,

I don't use one myself, I use decision trees within my program that send me pass/play notifications, and alternate play method notifications, based on specific scenarios in a race. These notifications appear automatically in our RS display, both during live daily play, and also during our reviewing of races with their results, after the results data file has been imported into the program.

I have one that counts the number of horses with no velocities data, for example, that will give me a "PASS - No Vel. !!" notification, another that will give me a "PASS - No Match !!" notification, another that gives me a "PLAY FWC" notification, another with "Alt. >> FV", or "Alt. >> FVIV" alternate method play notifications, etc..

Excel "dashboards" are external apps that can be downloaded, allowing them to become internal "add-ins" for Excel, just like any other add-in, like "ASAP Utilities", for instance.

Just do an internet search for "Excel dashboards". As I said, I have not tried any of them myself so I really don't know much about them, what they do or how they can be customized, etc..

Ray

[FocusWiz]

From the time I was a kid, I knew that analyzing the race in a relaxed, comfortable setting was best for me. My barber probably knew it better than I did. He would give me the racing form while I was getting my haircut and ask me what I liked in the double. Then he would question what I did not like about certain horses (that he apparently liked).

Later I learned that I should have gotten those haircuts for free. He told me he made tons of money when I got a haircut. I had never followed up on those picks nor played them myself.

Playing with my own money is very different. The thought process is different and I have trouble identifying a race I should skip. When the process goes awry, I may second guess myself or look for angles and miss the obvious. I become a very different handicapper.

That is why I prefer to handicap in advance and plan the wagering in advance. However, it still becomes a problem when they move the turf races to the dirt or when the two horses I liked are scratched. I have tried to put my thoughts into an excel spreadsheet, but I find that I need far more evaluation of my thought process and some of the logic is very hard to put into Excel.

At this point, I am just trying to use Excel to highlight certain key things and to remind me to check certain items before placing a wager. If I can make sure that I follow the process, I generally do much better.

[traynor]

From the time I was a kid, I knew that analyzing the race in a relaxed, comfortable setting was best for me. My barber probably knew it better than I did. He would give me the racing form while I was getting my haircut and ask me what I liked in the double. Then he would question what I did not like about certain horses (that he apparently liked).

Later I learned that I should have gotten those haircuts for free. He told me he made tons of money when I got a haircut. I had never followed up on those picks nor played them myself.

Playing with my own money is very different. The thought process is different and I have trouble identifying a race I should skip. When the process goes awry, I may second guess myself or look for angles and miss the obvious. I become a very different handicapper.

That is why I prefer to handicap in advance and plan the wagering in advance. However, it still becomes a problem when they move the turf races to the dirt or when the two horses I liked are scratched. I have tried to put my thoughts into an excel spreadsheet, but I find that I need far more evaluation of my thought process and some of the logic is very hard to put into Excel.

At this point, I am just trying to use Excel to highlight certain key things and to remind me to check certain items before placing a wager. If I can make sure that I follow the process, I generally do much better.

A consistent, repeatable, structured approach to decision making will outperform seat-of-the-pants decision making every time. Picking horses is not all that tough. The tough part is what you do with the information--and that falls into the province of decision making rather than handicapping.

It is always useful to improve your handicapping skills. Unfortunately, most bettors fail to realize that they should devote equal or greater effort to improving their decision making skills. A good place to start is:
http://http-server.carleton.ca/~aramirez/4406/Reviews/TPham.pdf

[raybo]

From the time I was a kid, I knew that analyzing the race in a relaxed, comfortable setting was best for me. My barber probably knew it better than I did. He would give me the racing form while I was getting my haircut and ask me what I liked in the double. Then he would question what I did not like about certain horses (that he apparently liked).

Later I learned that I should have gotten those haircuts for free. He told me he made tons of money when I got a haircut. I had never followed up on those picks nor played them myself.

Playing with my own money is very different. The thought process is different and I have trouble identifying a race I should skip. When the process goes awry, I may second guess myself or look for angles and miss the obvious. I become a very different handicapper.

That is why I prefer to handicap in advance and plan the wagering in advance. However, it still becomes a problem when they move the turf races to the dirt or when the two horses I liked are scratched. I have tried to put my thoughts into an excel spreadsheet, but I find that I need far more evaluation of my thought process and some of the logic is very hard to put into Excel.

At this point, I am just trying to use Excel to highlight certain key things and to remind me to check certain items before placing a wager. If I can make sure that I follow the process, I generally do much better.

Generally speaking, if you can "think it" you can put it in Excel or other programming language programs. But, you must be able to discern, within your mind, each step in the process in order to put all of those steps into a "decision tree" in any program. Basically, if you can't state exactly all the steps your mind takes in evaluating these scenarios, you won't be able to automate them. Highlighting is just the first step towards that automation, but it certainly helps keep you from missing things.

[FocusWiz]

Generally speaking, if you can "think it" you can put it in Excel or other programming language programs. But, you must be able to discern, within your mind, each step in the process in order to put all of those steps into a "decision tree" in any program. Basically, if you can't state exactly all the steps your mind takes in evaluating these scenarios, you won't be able to automate them. Highlighting is just the first step towards that automation, but it certainly helps keep you from missing things.I am a programmer by trade and did some programming in LISP back in the 70s and actually designed systems for bank traders at one time, but the decision process I use is more complicated than I have ever tried to program. For traders, many of the key ratios and comparison are available for them already. They are all making similar decisions based on the same numbers, just trying to be first in the process. We are dealing with a bunch of variables which matter more one day and for one horse than the next.

I could probably design the process into Excel, but the thought process is often quicker than I can identify it. When I was first learning, it would have been much easier. Then the translation of my somewhat linear thought into a nonprocedural tool like Excel forces me to evaluate the same thought process from a different viewpoint (which can actually be better). Identifying the data and computing the actual differences and multiplying things out to the 12th decimal point is fun, but I never needed that much accuracy when I was just glancing at the form. Approximations are all I need sometimes, but it is often easier to be precise in Excel and that precision is occasionally of dubious value.

After all is said and done, I currently don't play enough to make it worthwhile to evaluate all of the things I consider and to codify it.

By the same token, I am changing and the world is changing. I used to shy away from MSW races. I don't any more. Likewise, I would never bet on Fillies and Mares, but that bias is far less of a concern now. Workouts meant a lot to me once, but I rely on their results less now. Playing an even money favorites would be a fate worse than death when I was younger, but with the smaller fields and more sophisticated players, I need to be able to decide when the play is worthwhile.

In addition to having Excel check some of the more mundane aspects and presenting me with certain key comparisons to rethink, have found Excel useful in another way. By the time I have coded some facet of my thought process in Excel I often realize there is a flaw that makes me rethink the entire process over again.

Continuous improvement is the goal, I guess.

[raybo]

I am a programmer by trade and did some programming in LISP back in the 70s and actually designed systems for bank traders at one time, but the decision process I use is more complicated than I have ever tried to program. For traders, many of the key ratios and comparison are available for them already. They are all making similar decisions based on the same numbers, just trying to be first in the process. We are dealing with a bunch of variables which matter more one day and for one horse than the next.

I could probably design the process into Excel, but the thought process is often quicker than I can identify it. When I was first learning, it would have been much easier. Then the translation of my somewhat linear thought into a nonprocedural tool like Excel forces me to evaluate the same thought process from a different viewpoint (which can actually be better). Identifying the data and computing the actual differences and multiplying things out to the 12th decimal point is fun, but I never needed that much accuracy when I was just glancing at the form. Approximations are all I need sometimes, but it is often easier to be precise in Excel and that precision is occasionally of dubious value.

After all is said and done, I currently don't play enough to make it worthwhile to evaluate all of the things I consider and to codify it.

By the same token, I am changing and the world is changing. I used to shy away from MSW races. I don't any more. Likewise, I would never bet on Fillies and Mares, but that bias is far less of a concern now. Workouts meant a lot to me once, but I rely on their results less now. Playing an even money favorites would be a fate worse than death when I was younger, but with the smaller fields and more sophisticated players, I need to be able to decide when the play is worthwhile.

In addition to having Excel check some of the more mundane aspects and presenting me with certain key comparisons to rethink, have found Excel useful in another way. By the time I have coded some facet of my thought process in Excel I often realize there is a flaw that makes me rethink the entire process over again.

Continuous improvement is the goal, I guess.

It takes time, and lots of trial and error, to finally get everything included, and in the right order. But, it makes your method much more consistent (and disciplined) and less prone to decision errors. I used to think that it was impossible in Excel, I was wrong.

You can be as precise, or imprecise, as you wish, in Excel. It's up to you.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I've never seen a book on handicapping have a detailed chapter on "Handicapping Yourself".When once a solid foundation has been established it is the greatest factor IMO.I started to keep notes in a small Cambridge notebook,with nothing about handicapping just jotting notes on betting mistakes or great decisions.How you were feeling before this bet,if some random feeling hit you,or if you felt dead and lobotomized etc.I started putting how a day unfolded into statistical means like;

1)up early,flatten out

2)O for day

3)slow start,strong finish

4)won early,middle,and late

5)even distribution of wins and losses

It might seem overly simplistic or even nonsensical,even after a few weeks.But patterns of behavior do emerge and they are correctable or able to be better cultivated.I'm high strung and even when I do my homework beforehand I miss things because I know I'm prepared and lack focus and get complacent.It's a weakness.Over the years I've become even tempered enough to maintain during undesirable circumstances.Hell I'll just type out what I have in my notebook from 10 years ago I remember and repeat everyday before I hit the action,no matter how cheesy;

Stay positive
Stay disciplined
Keep a cool head
Focus on the task at hand
This should be fun.Have fun!

As some have mentioned,if peripheral circumstances are affecting you,don't bet.The game will be here when you have things in order.

[magwell]

Stay positive
Stay disciplined
Keep a cool head
Focus on the task at hand
This should be fun.Have fun!......that's all good stuff....:ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[traynor]

I've never seen a book on handicapping have a detailed chapter on "Handicapping Yourself".When once a solid foundation has been established it is the greatest factor IMO.I started to keep notes in a small Cambridge notebook,with nothing about handicapping just jotting notes on betting mistakes or great decisions.How you were feeling before this bet,if some random feeling hit you,or if you felt dead and lobotomized etc.I started putting how a day unfolded into statistical means like;

1)up early,flatten out

2)O for day

3)slow start,strong finish

4)won early,middle,and late

5)even distribution of wins and losses

It might seem overly simplistic or even nonsensical,even after a few weeks.But patterns of behavior do emerge and they are correctable or able to be better cultivated.I'm high strung and even when I do my homework beforehand I miss things because I know I'm prepared and lack focus and get complacent.It's a weakness.Over the years I've become even tempered enough to maintain during undesirable circumstances.Hell I'll just type out what I have in my notebook from 10 years ago I remember and repeat everyday before I hit the action,no matter how cheesy;

Stay positive
Stay disciplined
Keep a cool head
Focus on the task at hand
This should be fun.Have fun!

As some have mentioned,if peripheral circumstances are affecting you,don't bet.The game will be here when you have things in order.

One of the best accounts on mental states associated with gambling I have seen was that described by Lyle Stuart in one of his books on baccarat. He used a mini-recorder to record his moods, mental states, etc. and correlated the descriptions with his wins and losses. Very useful stuff. Interesting concepts.

If you are not familiar with Lyle Stuart (the publisher), his typical wager at baccarat at the time of writing the book was $2000 a hand. According to his book, he used his insights to win more than a quarter million (in a relatively short period of time) playing baccarat, by playing only in his "up" states, and avoiding play when his mood changed.

[CincyHorseplayer]

One of the best accounts on mental states associated with gambling I have seen was that described by Lyle Stuart in one of his books on baccarat. He used a mini-recorder to record his moods, mental states, etc. and correlated the descriptions with his wins and losses. Very useful stuff. Interesting concepts.

If you are not familiar with Lyle Stuart (the publisher), his typical wager at baccarat at the time of writing the book was $2000 a hand. According to his book, he used his insights to win more than a quarter million (in a relatively short period of time) playing baccarat, by playing only in his "up" states, and avoiding play when his mood changed.

I've got a corkboard right next to my bed and that name just went up on it.Will check it out Traynor.Thanks.

There's always going to be something to learn.It's like breathing.We will do both til the day we die.I'm more interested in the internal revolution.I recognized that trait early on.While not an iconoclast,I definitely fight with the ideas I am influenced by.Til I know it from my experience,ideas are somebody else's truths.Other than some pedigree projects I have been working on I've been trying to collect my thoughts on everything and put it to paper,sort through it,refine it.It's like shedding skin.You come out better on the other side of it.Knowing from my personal journey through this,I can say I think handicappers suffer from lack of balance.Too much outer.Not enough inner.

[thaskalos]

One of the best accounts on mental states associated with gambling I have seen was that described by Lyle Stuart in one of his books on baccarat. He used a mini-recorder to record his moods, mental states, etc. and correlated the descriptions with his wins and losses. Very useful stuff. Interesting concepts.

If you are not familiar with Lyle Stuart (the publisher), his typical wager at baccarat at the time of writing the book was $2000 a hand. According to his book, he used his insights to win more than a quarter million (in a relatively short period of time) playing baccarat, by playing only in his "up" states, and avoiding play when his mood changed.

I use a mini-recorder to record the peculiar wagering patterns that I encounter during the race, along with the corresponding results. I was noticing plenty of peculiar betting action, especially at the minor tracks...and I wondered if some of the connections were more successful than others when this unexpected betting action showed up.

It's been an enlightening experience...which I have kept to myself up 'til now. I highly recommend it...

[raybo]

Good post Rod! I am fortunate to know myself very well, since my burnout the year I played full time. Being able to recognize that you aren't "at your best" is extremely important, in this game, and many others. Again, I am very fortunate to have that ability, and the absence of the need for action or chasing losers. As I've said before here, I could quit tomorrow and things would be just fine in my life. But, as long as they let me bet I'll play until the profits dry up, then it's "so long".

[dkithore]

you guys are sharing some amazing personal strategies to deal with decision making. Keep it coming.

[dkithore]

A consistent, repeatable, structured approach to decision making will outperform seat-of-the-pants decision making every time. Picking horses is not all that tough. The tough part is what you do with the information--and that falls into the province of decision making rather than handicapping.

It is always useful to improve your handicapping skills. Unfortunately, most bettors fail to realize that they should devote equal or greater effort to improving their decision making skills. A good place to start is:
http://http-server.carleton.ca/~aramirez/4406/Reviews/TPham.pdf
Definitely worthy of further study. Thanks.

[traynor]

Definitely worthy of further study. Thanks.

The book (reviewed on the link) was the "textbook" in a graduate class in managerial decision-making at a state university. Of particular interest is the study of the results of professional race handicappers--as the number of elements used to analyze the race(s) increased, so did their confidence in the accuracy of their choices.

However, as the number of elements used to analyze the race(s) increased, and their confidence in the accuracy of their choices increased, their actual accuracy decreased. Something for comprehensive handicappers to consider--the more comprehensive the approach, the less accurate the final choices may be.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I actually think that this thread probably sums up my lack of play the last few years almost as well as the external factors beyond my control. Well, the two are probably entwined, but I definitely find myself more in recent years simply unable to stay mentally engaged for long durations the way that I used to be able to.

I suspect that in my case, being at the racetrack daily and focusing almost exclusively on a single track shaped my routine almost to the point where certain elements of my decision making were purely almost intuitive. Now, without the power of observation at my disposal to help weight certain decisions and trying to compensate for that by making other decisions that fill that void based on non-observational methods, the intuitive element is gone and there are just too many decisions to be made to reach the same conclusion that was previously just there without much consideration at all.

I would probably revise my approach yet again at this point in light of all the great new products and available data that I have seen utilized in such a way that some of these decisions can be made for me in many cases, but that's not something I want to attempt while sitting in a crack-den OTB with a swarm of aggravating drunks pestering me and turning a single quinella wager into a three minute ordeal at the teller window while I wait two-deep in a line that may as well be forty deep.

So, I have basically just stopped wagering. I don't think clearly in the environment in which I'm forced to wager if I so choose to. Other than a weekly trip to the track - when I generally fare well even if it is fairly lighthearted in approach - I may stop once a month to bet a single horse or race and eliminate all the distractions that seem to weigh me into poor choices.

I had never really thought of it as "decision fatigue" - but I guess that's probably a good label for it. It's a little more appealing than what I had been going with - "getting dumber by the day". :D

[vegasone]

Handicapping is at least as much psychological as anything else. Getting to the race where you already have your choice(s) at hand and the only decision is based on odds is one way to ease up on the frustration. Even approaching a race with a yes/no decision can be tiring but at least it should be easier to handle.

Try to leave the previous races behind and approach each race with a clear mind and just use that yes/no decision.

That said, it still remains difficult after a losing streak but that is just the way it is.

[Dave Schwartz]

Something for comprehensive handicappers to consider--the more comprehensive the approach, the less accurate the final choices may be.

Statistically and historically, I do not find that to be true of my own handicapping.

[raybo]

Statistically and historically, I do not find that to be true of my own handicapping.

Yeah, but then you're not normal Dave. :lol:

[traynor]

Statistically and historically, I do not find that to be true of my own handicapping.

Simplistically, the aggregation of numerous factors creates an almost infinite variety of "new" factors and "new" confounding variables that are separate and distinct from the discrete variables used. More is definitely not better. It may seem so to an individual playing a limited number of races. Serious research indicates otherwise.

Not just my personal opinion.

[JohnGalt1]

I don't get "decision fatigue", but because I handicap with pen and paper I sometimes get "handicapping fatigue."

It happens when I play multiple cards on consecutive days, where I handicap Thursday afternoon almost continuously through Saturday on days when I go to the track Saturday and Sunday.

Say I handicap a card for Friday to watch while I handicap 2-3 cards for Saturday and 2-3 card or Sunday, though I may handicap only the last 6 races on some cards.

I've mentioned before, since my handicapping is done, and after late scratches, I usually put all my bets in at once.

The if my 5-1 is 9-5 2-3 minutes before a race or a later scratch changes the make up of a race, I cancel my bet.

I never get shut out.

The fun for me is the physical handicapping process, and once I've decided who should win, or in some cases when no one/ every one can win, and the bets I plan to make or not make is the most challenging and the actual betting is the least thrilling for me.

[dkithore]

Simplistically, the aggregation of numerous factors creates an almost infinite variety of "new" factors and "new" confounding variables that are separate and distinct from the discrete variables used. More is definitely not better. It may seem so to an individual playing a limited number of races. Serious research indicates otherwise.

Not just my personal opinion.
can u give more specific examples?
what is new andconfounding in horse racing that we have not discussed in this forum? i would like to know and learn about what does not work.

[dkithore]

Handicapping is at least as much psychological as anything else. Getting to the race where you already have your choice(s) at hand and the only decision is based on odds is one way to ease up on the frustration. Even approaching a race with a yes/no decision can be tiring but at least it should be easier to handle.

Try to leave the previous races behind and approach each race with a clear mind and just use that yes/no decision.

That said, it still remains difficult after a losing streak but that is just the way it is.
:lol:

[Vinman]

What I like about playing the 50 cent Pick 4's & Pick 5's is that there is no decision fatigue. You put together your play in advance, tweak it for late scratches and let 'er rip. Once your play is in, you simply sit back and watch it unfold.

Vinman

[traynor]

can u give more specific examples?
what is new andconfounding in horse racing that we have not discussed in this forum? i would like to know and learn about what does not work.

I would be happy to do so. Unfortunately, the folks who paid hefty amounts to have the research done are much less generous than I am. That is an area in which I am prohibited by (non-disclosure) contract from discussing in greater detail.

[Capper Al]

Absolutely not. It is the implication that when you go on "autopilot" that the accuracy and effectiveness of your decision-making deteriorates that indicates a problem. That seems to me a clear indication that you are pushing the process past the point when you realize you are at your best. My question would be--if you are functioning better when you are NOT on "autopilot," why don't you use that as a saturation point and stop betting?

What you are doing may well be interpreted as "extinguishing." Not a good thing to do in relation to decision making and wagering. That is, when you go on "autopilot" and continue, you are essentially turning a pleasant experience into an unpleasant experience. So the root problem may be that you are continuing until it becomes unpleasant, and are now seeking a way to continue with (and prolong) the unpleasant experience.

Rather than looking for ways to keep betting longer, you may be better off doing it while it is enjoyable, then stopping at the switch to "autopilot." You might consider there may be a reason other than fatigue for the change in mental state.

My dashboard isn't an autopilot. It's a method of focusing on what I believe matters in a wagering decision. By narrowing the scope (a.k.a focusing), I eliminate a lot of the external noise created by multiple non-relevent statistics. This allows one not to burn up unnecessary energy and keeping a clear head for a longer period.

[traynor]

My dashboard isn't an autopilot. It's a method of focusing on what I believe matters in a wagering decision. By narrowing the scope (a.k.a focusing), I eliminate a lot of the external noise created by multiple non-relevent statistics. This allows one not to burn up unnecessary energy and keeping a clear head for a longer period.

On the surface, that seems like a good idea. In the real world, the operant phrase is, "what I believe matters in a wagering decision." If that (highly subjective) belief is incorrect, the most sophisticated statistical analysis in the world is not going to help. Specifically, when the wrong questions are asked in research, the "answers" are invariably skewed in the direction of the preconceived beliefs of those framing the questions. That is not "personal"--some of the most seriously misguided comments (on this board and elsewhere) are by those who believe themselves to be experts.

It is fairly easy to develop a process (system, method, whatever) that one can use on an individual basis to pick enough winners to make a modest profit, to break even, or to lose less. Developing a process that can be used to make a profit when substantial sums of money are being wagered is entirely different. Some seem to believe that it is little more than two-dollar betting on a different scale. Their statements amply display their lack of knowledge of the topics about which they profess "expert status."

That said, I still don't understand how you interpreted what I wrote as saying that using your dashboard is equivalent to "going on autopilot."

[Capper Al]

On the surface, that seems like a good idea. In the real world, the operant phrase is, "what I believe matters in a wagering decision." If that (highly subjective) belief is incorrect, the most sophisticated statistical analysis in the world is not going to help. Specifically, when the wrong questions are asked in research, the "answers" are invariably skewed in the direction of the preconceived beliefs of those framing the questions. That is not "personal"--some of the most seriously misguided comments (on this board and elsewhere) are by those who believe themselves to be experts.

It is fairly easy to develop a process (system, method, whatever) that one can use on an individual basis to pick enough winners to make a modest profit, to break even, or to lose less. Developing a process that can be used to make a profit when substantial sums of money are being wagered is entirely different. Some seem to believe that it is little more than two-dollar betting on a different scale. Their statements amply display their lack of knowledge of the topics about which they profess "expert status."

That said, I still don't understand how you interpreted what I wrote as saying that using your dashboard is equivalent to "going on autopilot."

You're not a supposed expert on this thread? You didn't read your own warning about autpolit? And yet, I still agree with some of your comment. A wager has to be interpreted to the particular horse vs the field. Generalizing a wager will blind us in some instances. We won't win them all or bet every race to perfection. My goal and track record suggests that I'll profit in the long run by taking on the chin a few times more with a generalized approach. It would be an enormous drain of personal energy, which might create more losses, if every race had to be individually interpreted for each unique circumstances. And again, I'm not saying that I won't a wager if the unique circumstances popped out to me. I do alter wagers. I just limit how far down in the weeds that I go.

[traynor]

You're not a supposed expert on this thread? You didn't read your own warning about autpolit? And yet, I still agree with some of your comment. A wager has to be interpreted to the particular horse vs the field. Generalizing a wager will blind us in some instances. We won't win them all or bet every race to perfection. My goal and track record suggests that I'll profit in the long run by taking on the chin a few times more with a generalized approach. It would be an enormous drain of personal energy, which might create more losses, if every race had to be individually interpreted for each unique circumstances. And again, I'm not saying that I won't a wager if the unique circumstances popped out to me. I do alter wagers. I just limit how far down in the weeds that I go.

I am not a supposed (or any other kind of) expert on this thread. I understand a lot about how people think (and more importantly, why they think that way) but that definitely does not make me an expert.

It sounds like you have an approach that works (is working) for you. That is great! Rather than thinking your failure to "individually interpret" each race is a deficiency, you might consider it a primary component of your success. Specifically, that "more is better" stuff is a myth when it comes to horse racing.

The more "individually" you interpret a given race, the more likely you are to base your decision on inappropriate criteria that overshadow what you should have been looking at. And the more filters you set to "fine tune" your model, the more likely you are to corrupt it with anomalies that are not repeatable. That whole silliness about people having a "95% ROI" so all they need is a rebate and they will be instant rolling in money is little more than wishful thinking by those who have never actually done it.

[Robert Goren]

I don't that I have had decision fatigue or handicapping fatigue, but I sure have had plenty of cases of losing fatigue. It general takes about 5 losing racing races in a row for it to set in.

[traynor]

I don't that I have had decision fatigue or handicapping fatigue, but I sure have had plenty of cases of losing fatigue. It general takes about 5 losing racing races in a row for it to set in.

Well said! It is the onset of losing fatigue (and the attention paid to it) that separates the winners and the losers. Forget all that "tough it out" nonsense. If I'm not winning, I don't wanna play.

[thaskalos]

Well said! It is the onset of losing fatigue (and the attention paid to it) that separates the winners and the losers. Forget all that "tough it out" nonsense. If I'm not winning, I don't wanna play.

It isn't quite that cut and dry. Some bettors have adopted styles of betting which, although profitable, virtually guarantee that there will sometimes be long droughts in-between winning bets...so, "toughening it out" in these instances becomes a necessity.

The most profitable day I've had this entire year was one where I cashed on only 2 of the 29 races I wagered on...while striking out on the first 16 of them.

[traynor]

It isn't quite that cut and dry. Some bettors have adopted styles of betting which, although profitable, virtually guarantee that there will sometimes be long droughts in-between winning bets...so, "toughening it out" in these instances becomes a necessity.

The most profitable day I've had this entire year was one where I cashed on only 2 of the 29 races I wagered on...while striking out on the first 16 of them.

I think it is fairly safe to say that anyone who has been at it awhile has developed an approach that works for him or her. That approach may not work at all for another person. I am skeptical of long losing streaks, and of any approach that accepts such as a requirement. That suggests the possibility of even longer losing streaks as normal events (with the spacing of windfalls continually increasing until they are non-profit). It also suggests that the infrequent wins may evaporate completely, because the strategy was (is) based on rarely occurring events.

[thaskalos]

I think it is fairly safe to say that anyone who has been at it awhile has developed an approach that works for him or her. That approach may not work at all for another person. I am skeptical of long losing streaks, and of any approach that accepts such as a requirement. That suggests the possibility of even longer losing streaks as normal events (with the spacing of windfalls continually increasing until they are non-profit). It also suggests that the infrequent wins may evaporate completely, because the strategy was (is) based on rarely occurring events.
I used to think the exact same way. It's much more reassuring to be cashing tickets with more regularity...and it requires a smaller bankroll to boot.

But it finally dawned on me that I was playing this game for the money...so it made sense to search for the best way to maximize my profit. And I discovered that the super-exotics were the best way of accomplishing this...for me at least.

The fact that this style of betting also seems to suit my temperament and disposition made my decision a no-brainer.

As you say...to each his own.

[Capper Al]

The more "individually" you interpret a given race, the more likely you are to base your decision on inappropriate criteria that overshadow what you should have been looking at. And the more filters you set to "fine tune" your model, the more likely you are to corrupt it with anomalies that are not repeatable. That whole silliness about people having a "95% ROI" so all they need is a rebate and they will be instant rolling in money is little more than wishful thinking by those who have never actually done it.

My dashboard prevents me from looking where I shouldn't be looking. It keeps my focus on what I know over the long run. This is in contrast to the fact that every race will have it's own optimal wager. I found out the hard way that chasing the optimal bet is too costly over the long run.

[DeanT]

I play five or six tracks a day, and generally make quick decisions. I have done it for quite awhile, but I do get beat down as much as anyone (especially when losing).

One thing that may work is setting your betting limits throughout the day. Mike Maloney was interviewed for the next Horseplayer Monthly emagazine, and I was surprised to learn he sets betting limits for himself.

If he wins a certain amount he will adjust his limit to make a profit for the day. If he loses a certain amount - and this can be based on many factors - he quits.

This is contrary to other people I know who grind each day to try and make a living.

If one finds the second half of the day, or cards to be problematic for them, I wonder if setting these limits would do the job. If you've had a great day and you're up a grand, set the limit to $800. If you lose $200, quit. If you set your loss limit at $1000 and are at $800 down at 3PM, play for another $200 and call it a day.

[traynor]

I used to think the exact same way. It's much more reassuring to be cashing tickets with more regularity...and it requires a smaller bankroll to boot.

But it finally dawned on me that I was playing this game for the money...so it made sense to search for the best way to maximize my profit. And I discovered that the super-exotics were the best way of accomplishing this...for me at least.

The fact that this style of betting also seems to suit my temperament and disposition made my decision a no-brainer.

As you say...to each his own.

It is not so much reassurance as validation of the models used. I wager in substantially different ways according to the particular models used. For each model, there is a specific point at which an "alarm" goes off, indicating anomalies in the results. It is too difficult (and complex) to keep track of each model separately in real time, so I have automated the process as much as possible.

It was apparent to me long ago that whenever I had discovered a particular (profitable) pattern, others were likely to have discovered the same pattern. The only way (for me) to stay ahead was to compensate for the increased knowledge of the other bettors, and to locate and capitalize on emerging patterns. It works for me.

[raybo]

It is not so much reassurance as validation of the models used. I wager in substantially different ways according to the particular models used. For each model, there is a specific point at which an "alarm" goes off, indicating anomalies in the results. It is too difficult (and complex) to keep track of each model separately in real time, so I have automated the process as much as possible.

It was apparent to me long ago that whenever I had discovered a particular (profitable) pattern, others were likely to have discovered the same pattern. The only way (for me) to stay ahead was to compensate for the increased knowledge of the other bettors, and to locate and capitalize on emerging patterns. It works for me.

I also have "alarms" that tell me things are changing at the track in question. When this happens I re-evalute all my methods and switch if necessary. Works for me, too.

[LottaKash]

It is in most insightful threads such as this one, that gives me pause to completely read and digest all of these wise thoughts on the subject....I found this thread quite enlightening for my purposes....:ThmbUp:

It is threads such as these that allow me to get a good gauge on where I may me in my handicapping life....I have found because of this, that I perceive my game, as is, to be on quite solid ground these days.....This thread had me comparing my way with others, and I came away with that feeling as a result....I understand much more, than I did than before this thread

When the right of my "handicapping passage" progresses up to the point, that when a special thread such as this pops up, it is then, when I can really appreciate the part of my game that is the weakest....The mental part....The rest is ez for me now...

Thanks all, for your insights....Brain Food...

[overthehill]

I dont know how one can go on automatic pilot. every race is different. i dont have a one size fits all. I know that when i get tired i start to miss factors in my handicapping that affects my ability to correctly assess the odds. then its time to stop or leave or whatever. My methodology is not based on picking an absolute winner in a race but getting odds on a horse that is significantly better than the probablity i assess of the horse winning the race. that assessment is sometimes determined ahead of time but frequently not.
for me the most important thing i can do is to try not to become emotionally affected by what happens during the course of a day. making a mistake losing a close one, jockey imcompetence , not getting the anticipate price can all cause emotional fatigue. for example. i lost 6 wagers in a row today, including 3 seconds and two horses that did no running but then i made a pick which because of the track condition sloppy i felt moved the horse's chances up considerably because of its breeding despite it being a cheap race i would not normally play. the horse was 15-1 in the ml but was 7-1 early. when it moved up to 9-1 I wagered on it because i thought it had about a 20% chance of winning the race. It won the race by a scant nose after leading by two in the stretch but I happily collected and it made me a winner for the day.

[dkithore]

I dont know how one can go on automatic pilot. every race is different. i dont have a one size fits all. I know that when i get tired i start to miss factors in my handicapping that affects my ability to correctly assess the odds. then its time to stop or leave or whatever. My methodology is not based on picking an absolute winner in a race but getting odds on a horse that is significantly better than the probablity i assess of the horse winning the race. that assessment is sometimes determined ahead of time but frequently not.
for me the most important thing i can do is to try not to become emotionally affected by what happens during the course of a day. making a mistake losing a close one, jockey imcompetence , not getting the anticipate price can all cause emotional fatigue. for example. i lost 6 wagers in a row today, including 3 seconds and two horses that did no running but then i made a pick which because of the track condition sloppy i felt moved the horse's chances up considerably because of its breeding despite it being a cheap race i would not normally play. the horse was 15-1 in the ml but was 7-1 early. when it moved up to 9-1 I wagered on it because i thought it had about a 20% chance of winning the race. It won the

race by a scant nose after leading by two in the stretch but I happily collected and it made
me a winner for the day.
I define autopilot as a state of mind when the critical faculties take the back seat and you go through the motion, for instance, checking and double checking the sudden or subtle changes in odds of a horse that is not your horse but very significant from betting view point. Not necessarily due to losing streak as u described though at times that too is a factor. I hope i am clearer about the term auto pilot. And i appreciate your sharing.

[Capper Al]

My autopilot is simple. I rank my horse to win and/or finish in the money and set minimum odds. When the tote gives me the minimum odds or better on a horse, I have a play. I wheel them as to how I see it for the individual race, but usually it's some combinations of double, win, place, exactas, and tris.

[traynor]

I define autopilot as a state of mind when the critical faculties take the back seat and you go through the motion, for instance, checking and double checking the sudden or subtle changes in odds of a horse that is not your horse but very significant from betting view point. Not necessarily due to losing streak as u described though at times that too is a factor. I hope i am clearer about the term auto pilot. And i appreciate your sharing.

"Autopilot" could just as easily be considered the decision-making process defined as optimal in Blink and similar recent writings. Specifically, decisions based primarily on "unconscious" processes. Great when those processes pick winners. Not so great when they pick losers. So one could consider themselves "in tune" with (their own) unconscious processes when "autopilot" generates better results, and "out of tune" when unconscious processes generate worse results (than purely conscious-based decisions).

When performance on "autopilot" deteriorates, it is an indication of problems with the processes involved. Capper Al neatly avoids the problem with a hardcore, structured, conscious decision-making process. Others may encounter problems when they try to mix the two, if there are difficulties in the unconscious decision-making process.

[dkithore]

"Autopilot" could just as easily be considered the decision-making process defined as optimal in Blink and similar recent writings. Specifically, decisions based primarily on "unconscious" processes. Great when those processes pick winners. Not so great when they pick losers. So one could consider themselves "in tune" with (their own) unconscious processes when "autopilot" generates better results, and "out of tune" when unconscious processes generate worse results (than purely conscious-based decisions).

When performance on "autopilot" deteriorates, it is an indication of problems with the processes involved. Capper Al neatly avoids the problem with a hardcore, structured, conscious decision-making process. Others may encounter problems when they try to mix the two, if there are difficulties in the unconscious decision-making process.
I agree with your analysis and insights. My betting is not as evolved as yours or Al's but it is work-in-progress. I suppose my goals are to put the structure in place where "let the bet make you". A classic Pizzola expression in his rants on value capping. Lately I keep asking myself before committing a play, "do I really have a play here with utmost honesty I can conjure up or am I just seeking action? I often lean towards later, with unflattering results. But that awareness is slowing me down with the number of action bets and the size of the ticket. That is a progress IMO. This game is brutal in that at the end you will be either self-actualized or be a roadside bum (obvious exaggeration).

I recall there was an attempt by Hambleton or someone else in qualifying races as to how risky they were by percent of confidence in the race. Some qualitative or quantitative measure that alerts you about how deep the waters are before you jump. The Blink concept does help at times to sort this out but the self-deception of seeing an opportunity that does not exist and the randomness of this game is the crux of this game IMO.

To make all this automated (alarms, alerts, warnings) seem nearly out-of-reach with paper and pencil. Not implying that no one can do it without the software.

[thaskalos]

I agree with your analysis and insights. My betting is not as evolved as yours or Al's but it is work-in-progress. I suppose my goals are to put the structure in place where "let the bet make you". A classic Pizzola expression in his rants on value capping. Lately I keep asking myself before committing a play, "do I really have a play here with utmost honesty I can conjure up or am I just seeking action? I often lean towards later, with unflattering results. But that awareness is slowing me down with the number of action bets and the size of the ticket. That is a progress IMO. This game is brutal in that at the end you will be either self-actualized or be a roadside bum (obvious exaggeration).

I recall there was an attempt by Hambleton or someone else in qualifying races as to how risky they were by percent of confidence in the race. Some qualitative or quantitative measure that alerts you about how deep the waters are before you jump. The Blink concept does help at times to sort this out but the self-deception of seeing an opportunity that does not exist and the randomness of this game is the crux of this game IMO.

To make all this automated (alarms, alerts, warnings) seem nearly out-of-reach with paper and pencil. Not implying that no one can do it without the software.

The number of legitimate contenders in a race will tell you how deep the waters are...and how risky it is to get involved.

[Capper Al]

The number of legitimate contenders in a race will tell you how deep the waters are...and how risky it is to get involved.

This is part of my algorithm. My top pick must get at least as much as there are contenders. Then it grows from there focusing on natural odds.

[dkithore]

The number of legitimate contenders in a race will tell you how deep the waters are...and how risky it is to get involved.
TRUE.

[traynor]

The number of legitimate contenders in a race will tell you how deep the waters are...and how risky it is to get involved.

That presupposes that such a thing exists as the legitimate contenders in a race, and that knowledge of such is knowable--meaning that any reasonably competent race analyst should be able to determine the same legitimate contenders in a given race as any other reasonably competent race analyst. That is rarely the case. It is more like Lee Rousso's response when asked what he thought of the chances of X winning in the upcoming race, "I think X has a shot at it."

I think the most profit awaits those who go beyond the legitimate contenders--however defined--in seeking reward. The legitimate contenders (as ordinarily perceived by the majority of the betting public) tend to be a bit too chalky for my liking.

[precocity]

I got the good drinking spirits with me so either I win big or lose my azz!
side note when im sober i do look at pps? :cool:

[traynor]

I got the good drinking spirits with me so either I win big or lose my azz!
side note when im sober i do look at pps? :cool:

Some of the best bets I ever made were based on 20-30 second scans of the BR or Btva harness PPS stuck up on the wall of the Niagara Falls OTB--while I was there to wager on (or cash tickets from) my agonizingly detailed computer printout for thoroughbreds. Whatever works.

[raybo]

That presupposes that such a thing exists as the legitimate contenders in a race, and that knowledge of such is knowable--meaning that any reasonably competent race analyst should be able to determine the same legitimate contenders in a given race as any other reasonably competent race analyst. That is rarely the case. It is more like Lee Rousso's response when asked what he thought of the chances of X winning in the upcoming race, "I think X has a shot at it."

I think the most profit awaits those who go beyond the legitimate contenders--however defined--in seeking reward. The legitimate contenders (as ordinarily perceived by the majority of the betting public) tend to be a bit too chalky for my liking.

"Legitimate contenders" is a personal thing. So stating that legitimate contenders "tend to be too chalky" just means that you're using the same factors as many others to determine your contenders. And that, my friend, will lose you money long term.

[thaskalos]

That presupposes that such a thing exists as the legitimate contenders in a race, and that knowledge of such is knowable--meaning that any reasonably competent race analyst should be able to determine the same legitimate contenders in a given race as any other reasonably competent race analyst. That is rarely the case. It is more like Lee Rousso's response when asked what he thought of the chances of X winning in the upcoming race, "I think X has a shot at it."

I think the most profit awaits those who go beyond the legitimate contenders--however defined--in seeking reward. The legitimate contenders (as ordinarily perceived by the majority of the betting public) tend to be a bit too chalky for my liking.

I would argue that there indeed exists such a thing as the "legitimate contenders in a race"...and I also think that we would have wide areas of agreement if we were to publicly handicap a bunch of races and reduce these races down to the "legitimate contenders".

As I've said before...I believe that reducing a race down to its legitimate contenders is rather easy; the hard part is separating the "legitimate contenders". When I brought up the term "legitimate contenders", it wasn't to imply that my handicapping of a race is concluded once I identify the "contenders" in a race. My personal handicapping style entails meticulously assessing the attributes of the particular horses in the race, and how they relate to one another given the circumstances likely to be presented in the race itself. If you ask me for my opinion on a given horse...I won't give you a a Russo-like reply like, "I think X has a shot at it"; I will tell you that I consider X to be the third-best horse in the race, or whatever else I believe the case to be.

[traynor]

I would argue that there indeed exists such a thing as the "legitimate contenders in a race"...and I also think that we would have wide areas of agreement if we were to publicly handicap a bunch of races and reduce these races down to the "legitimate contenders".

As I've said before...I believe that reducing a race down to its legitimate contenders is rather easy; the hard part is separating the "legitimate contenders". When I brought up the term "legitimate contenders", it wasn't to imply that my handicapping of a race is concluded once I identify the "contenders" in a race. My personal handicapping style entails meticulously assessing the attributes of the particular horses in the race, and how they relate to one another given the circumstances likely to be presented in the race itself. If you ask me for my opinion on a given horse...I won't give you a a Russo-like reply like, "I think X has a shot at it"; I will tell you that I consider X to be the third-best horse in the race, or whatever else I believe the case to be.

The existence of higher mutuels indicates that races are won by other than what most bettors consider to be the legitimate contenders. There is some circumstance--however obscure--that would make pretty much every horse in the race a possible contender (legitimate or otherwise).

Reducing races to choices among a sub-group of legitimate contenders is great if the primary motivation is to be right. If the primary motivation is to make money, it may be more useful (and considerably more profitable) to seek out those factors and attributes that indicate winning potential other than the cascades of factors and attributes used by most bettors in selections.

Simplistically, the more a horse has going for it, the more obvious it will be to all, and the less it will pay. It is precisely those considerations that would give pause to the average bettor--and possibly persuade him or her to eliminate that horse from further consideration while focusing only on what she or he perceives to be the legitimate contenders in that race--that may yield the most profitable results.

That is not a spurious comment.

[thaskalos]

The existence of higher mutuels indicates that races are won by other than what most bettors consider to be the legitimate contenders. There is some circumstance--however obscure--that would make pretty much every horse in the race a possible contender (legitimate or otherwise).

Reducing races to choices among a sub-group of legitimate contenders is great if the primary motivation is to be right. If the primary motivation is to make money, it may be more useful (and considerably more profitable) to seek out those factors and attributes that indicate winning potential other than the cascades of factors and attributes used by most bettors in selections.

Simplistically, the more a horse has going for it, the more obvious it will be to all, and the less it will pay. It is precisely those considerations that would give pause to the average bettor--and possibly persuade him or her to eliminate that horse from further consideration while focusing only on what she or he perceives to be the legitimate contenders in that race--that may yield the most profitable results.

That is not a spurious comment.

I said "legitimate contenders"...I didn't say "obvious contenders".

It's true that "the existence of higher mutuels indicates that races are won by other than what most bettors consider legitimate contenders"...but this fact does not prove that these "higher mutuels" would have been predicted by the more "esoteric" types of handicapping.

You seem obsessed with the terms "average bettor", and "most bettors". We are not talking about the "majority" of the bettors here. Haven't you figured out yet that all of us here are "well above average"...and that we are not enslaved by the "obvious" handicapping techniques employed by the masses?

[raybo]

I said "legitimate contenders"...I didn't say "obvious contenders".

It's true that "the existence of higher mutuels indicates that races are won by other than what most bettors consider legitimate contenders"...but this fact does not prove that these "higher mutuels" would have been predicted by the more "esoteric" types of handicapping.

You seem obsessed with the terms "average bettor", and "most bettors". We are not talking about the "majority" of the bettors here. Haven't you figured out yet that all of us here are "well above average"...and that we are not enslaved by the "obvious" handicapping techniques employed by the masses?

Well said!

This membership, in general, is not "average" and is not "most bettors". PA includes the very best players in existence. Saying, or believing, otherwise only reveals one's lack of racing and wagering knowledge.

[Capper Al]

In a ten horse field, if I think there are 4 contenders then I add 1 for the unknown horse. This would give me 5 contenders. Or 4/1 odds which is the same as the amount of contenders.

[dkithore]

Reducing races to choices among a sub-group of legitimate contenders is great if the primary motivation is to be right. If the primary motivation is to make money, it may be more useful (and considerably more profitable) to seek out those factors and attributes that indicate winning potential other than the cascades of factors and attributes used by most bettors in selections.

That is one view point and there are others. For example if you are playing exotics, it is a necessity to know the rank order, however approximate it may be. And believe me making money is the primary motivation for doing it. I doubt many players can do it with the confidence it takes to undertake such an endeavor. IMO.

[traynor]

I said "legitimate contenders"...I didn't say "obvious contenders".

It's true that "the existence of higher mutuels indicates that races are won by other than what most bettors consider legitimate contenders"...but this fact does not prove that these "higher mutuels" would have been predicted by the more "esoteric" types of handicapping.

You seem obsessed with the terms "average bettor", and "most bettors". We are not talking about the "majority" of the bettors here. Haven't you figured out yet that all of us here are "well above average"...and that we are not enslaved by the "obvious" handicapping techniques employed by the masses?

No, I have not figured out yet that all of you there are well above average. Perhaps that is due to a lack of support for that claim. More specifically, I see very little that would persuade me those posting actually possess the level of skill they believe they have. That, of course, does not mean they fail to possess those skills--only that the content and substance of the various postings is insufficient to persuade a skeptical audience that the warrants are valid.

Or it may simply be that I have encountered an unusually skilled bunch elsewhere, and do not see indications of the level of skill those others possess in the majority of postings here. None of which should be taken as denigrating the expertise of the posters here--I am sure that the level of skill of those posters may in fact be "well above average," and the discrepancy is in my perception of how valid or meaningful "average" is as a baseline for comparison. In an activity in which (98%?) of bettors lose, being above average is not a very noteworthy accomplishment.

[traynor]

Horse racing is a bit like martial arts. There are many practitioners, and the level of expertise of those practitioners is assumed to be in some kind of hierarchy related to the individual's skill in his or her particular area of endeavor. However, many of those who believe they are skilled martial artists--including many of those who presume to teach their art to others--have never actually used their skills in a serious confrontation. They are in the same league as deer hunters sitting comfortably in their tree stands waiting to bushwhack Bambi believing they are equivalent to experienced veterans of jungle combat.

For the latter group, it is fairly easy to weed out the pretenders.

[Robert Goren]

Horse racing is a bit like martial arts. There are many practitioners, and the level of expertise of those practitioners is assumed to be in some kind of hierarchy related to the individual's skill in his or her particular area of endeavor. However, many of those who believe they are skilled martial artists--including many of those who presume to teach their art to others--have never actually used their skills in a serious confrontation. They are in the same league as deer hunters sitting comfortably in their tree stands waiting to bushwhack Bambi believing they are equivalent to experienced veterans of jungle combat.

For the latter group, it is fairly easy to weed out the pretenders. As a former deer hunter, I resemble that remark. :rolleyes:

[raybo]

No, I have not figured out yet that all of you there are well above average. Perhaps that is due to a lack of support for that claim. More specifically, I see very little that would persuade me those posting actually possess the level of skill they believe they have. That, of course, does not mean they fail to possess those skills--only that the content and substance of the various postings is insufficient to persuade a skeptical audience that the warrants are valid.

Or it may simply be that I have encountered an unusually skilled bunch elsewhere, and do not see indications of the level of skill those others possess in the majority of postings here. None of which should be taken as denigrating the expertise of the posters here--I am sure that the level of skill of those posters may in fact be "well above average," and the discrepancy is in my perception of how valid or meaningful "average" is as a baseline for comparison. In an activity in which (98%?) of bettors lose, being above average is not a very noteworthy accomplishment.

You are so full of it! You're the worst offender when it comes to "lack of support" regarding being profitable, or even being an average player. And,regarding this "unusually skilled bunch elsewhere" that you keep harping about, that you supposedly have done so much research for, where's the support for that statement? Don't ever make such statements about others claims of "expertise" while making the same statements yourself and never supporting any of those claims.

You're a real piece of work man! Put up or shut up!

[PaceAdvantage]

You're a real piece of work man! Put up or shut up!Your rhetoric is getting out of hand. Nobody should have to "put up or shut up" in reality.

It is up to each of us to decide whether or not we put stock into something someone posts around here. There is no requirement in the Terms of Service that a user must "put up" before or after they post something.

Thanks.

[Pensacola Pete]

Nobody should have to "put up or shut up" in reality.


You beat me to it, Chief. The do it better or you can't comment mentality is so YouTube.

[raybo]

Your rhetoric is getting out of hand. Nobody should have to "put up or shut up" in reality.

It is up to each of us to decide whether or not we put stock into something someone posts around here. There is no requirement in the Terms of Service that a user must "put up" before or after they post something.

Thanks.

My apologies, but Traynor was the one who stated that there was no support for others' claims here. Has he ever supported anything he has stated here? Then why does he seem to insist on others to provide support for their claims? Just saying ----

[baconswitchfarm]

Read on here for a while. If you think this isn't an above average group you haven't been around many tracks.

[Robert Fischer]

I would guess one of the solutions to 'decision fatigue' would be to keep records and to often assess yourself.

It's not an issue for me, but that seems like the logical solution.

You guys have 7 pages on this, and I haven't read everything. About as close a related topic that I can add is managing sessions and daily goals. As recently as this year, I would often stop for the day, winning. It was easier mentally to stop after I reached a goal for the day. I felt that carrying that to the next day was helpful mentally. I felt that losing after I had been above my goal, and then feeling the pressure for the whole 24 hours as well as being tempted to overbet my bankroll and win it back on the next race was a legitimate consideration to avoid.

Right now, I feel I have gotten past that. Some of the adjustments I have made have eliminated the highs and lows for the most part. In a perfect world your current, specific, daily actions would be the same optimal course of action as if it were an infinite connected series of days.
You certainly don't want to leave an average of 1-5 playable races off your play sequence because of the mental game. I feel that I've improved in that aspect.

[Robert Fischer]

The number of legitimate contenders in a race will tell you how deep the waters are...and how risky it is to get involved.

That presupposes that such a thing exists as the legitimate contenders in a race, and that knowledge of such is knowable--meaning that any reasonably competent race analyst should be able to determine the same legitimate contenders in a given race as any other reasonably competent race analyst. That is rarely the case.


I took it to mean that you as a horseplayer, would determine the number of legitimate contenders.

If it wasn't knowable, I would assume you would you would quickly notice that you don't know this specific race.

(And) On the opposite end of the spectrum, if it were an obvious group that "any reasonably competent analyst" would get the same group of contenders, it would also be a specific race that had better have something else going for it.


It's a little hard for me to read something like Thaskalos' suggestion and Traynor's response, and know the context.
Are we are talking about the advanced thought process of a specific player?
Or are we are talking about a generic process that can be applied by all??
Or perhaps it can be either or...

The context and perspective here would matter for something like this.

[thaskalos]

I took it to mean that you as a horseplayer, would determine the number of legitimate contenders.

If it wasn't knowable, I would assume you would you would quickly notice that you don't know this specific race.

(And) On the opposite end of the spectrum, if it were an obvious group that "any reasonably competent analyst" would get the same group of contenders, it would also be a specific race that had better have something else going for it.


It's a little hard for me to read something like Thaskalos' suggestion and Traynor's response, and know the context.
Are we are talking about the advanced thought process of a specific player?
Or are we are talking about a generic process that can be applied by all??
Or perhaps it can be either or...

The context and perspective here would matter for something like this.
Hi Robert...

I was responding to a post submitted by the OP, in which he wondered if there was some way to determine how risky a particular race might be to get involved in.

I am not in possession of any "absolute truths" when it comes to handicapping; the most I can do is narrate my own experiences, which are based on many continuous years of active participation in this game...experiences which guide me in my own play. In my own play, I determine how risky a race is by the number of legitimate contenders in the race. If the race is loaded with horses who appear to have a realistic chance of winning, then I know that my chances of cashing a ticket in this particular race are correspondingly lessened...and I demand a higher financial reward in order to compensate for the additional risk that this race presents. Otherwise, I refuse to get involved.

This is what I implied by my response.

Traynor's observation -- that all handicappers will not come up with the same list of legitimate contenders in every race -- does not refute the point that I was trying to make. Handicappers will ALWAYS disagree...IN EVERY FACET OF THE HANDICAPPING PROCESS! That's a given! Even though we may be using basically the same "tools" while handicapping...our "craftsmanship" in the game varies greatly depending on where we currently find ourselves as players...so, wide areas of disagreement are to be expected. But in spite of the differences in our opinions, our goal remains the same. We are trying to decipher the races to the best of our ability...and we are trying to make the best bets possible -- given our own level of knowledge...and the unique circumstances that each race presents.

Each handicapper will have his own list of contenders in a particular race...and there will likely be a few disagreements concerning these contenders between the different handicappers. But even so...the more contenders the individual handicapper finds in a race...the riskier the race becomes from a betting perspective...and the higher the financial reward needs to be to compensate for that risk.

The contenders may change from player to player...but the thinking remains the same. In my opinion, at least...

[Robert Fischer]

Hi Robert...

I was responding to a post submitted by the OP, in which he wondered if there was some way to determine how risky a particular race might be to get involved in.

I am not in possession of any "absolute truths" when it comes to handicapping; the most I can do is narrate my own experiences, which are based on many continuous years of active participation in this game...experiences which guide me in my own play. In my own play, I determine how risky a race is by the number of legitimate contenders in the race. If the race is loaded with horses who appear to have a realistic chance of winning, then I know that my chances of cashing a ticket in this particular race are correspondingly lessened...and I demand a higher financial reward in order to compensate for the additional risk that this race presents. Otherwise, I refuse to get involved.

This is what I implied by my response.

Traynor's observation -- that all handicappers will not come up with the same list of legitimate contenders in every race -- does not refute the point that I was trying to make. Handicappers will ALWAYS disagree...IN EVERY FACET OF THE HANDICAPPING PROCESS! That's a given! Even though we may be using basically the same "tools" while handicapping...our "craftsmanship" in the game varies greatly depending on where we currently find ourselves as players...so, wide areas of disagreement are to be expected. But in spite of the differences in our opinions, our goal remains the same. We are trying to decipher the races to the best of our ability...and we are trying to make the best bets possible -- given our own level of knowledge...and the unique circumstances that each race presents.

Each handicapper will have his own list of contenders in a particular race...and there will likely be a few disagreements concerning these contenders between the different handicappers. But even so...the more contenders the individual handicapper finds in a race...the riskier the race becomes from a betting perspective...and the higher the financial reward needs to be to compensate for that risk.

The contenders may change from player to player...but the thinking remains the same. In my opinion, at least...

Makes sense.

[dkithore]

While asking the question about the degree of risk involved with a particular race I have rediscovered some specific factors I used in past. For some reason they were unavailable to me until recently.

Not new (to perhaps many readers here) was the favorite's win percent by the type of race offered on the card. Racing digest used to provide for northern Cal for instance. If the race was for 3 year old fillies and the favorite's win percent was 18% vs. 40% for older horses in sprints (example) and not to use generic 35% rule of thumb. This type of information is helpful. There are other factors, track profile by distance and others too many to enumerate here. The point is, within the context of such factors, identifying the legitimate contenders adds more confidence in one's decision making that the you have left no stone unturned.

Perhaps, the process of finding legitimate contenders already accounts for all these besides the speed, form and pace. (I am sure there is overlap here). I guess it comes down to personal style and the tools you use to gauge the probabilities of contenders chance of winning.

[traynor]

Opinions about the eventual winner may indeed vary considerably. However, "contender selection" assumes a high degree of congruence between selectors. While the eventual winner choice may vary, the subgroup of entries considered contenders should include that winner a very high percentage of the time--regardless of which of the group may be considered "best" (for whatever reason).

Higher mutuels are the result of bettors overlooking individual entries as legitimate contenders in the race, or of minimizing the potential of those entries by applying standard evaluation criteria.

[Robert Goren]

There is no doubt that older horse sprints are easier for the average handicapper to pick a winner in. They are what most handicapping books written in the 60s and 70s were about. Many old timer handicappers hate F&M races and turf routes, but love bottom male claimers going 6F because that is what they were raised on.

[raybo]

Opinions about the eventual winner may indeed vary considerably. However, "contender selection" assumes a high degree of congruence between selectors. While the eventual winner choice may vary, the subgroup of entries considered contenders should include that winner a very high percentage of the time--regardless of which of the group may be considered "best" (for whatever reason).

Higher mutuels are the result of bettors overlooking individual entries as legitimate contenders in the race, or of minimizing the potential of those entries by applying standard evaluation criteria.

I agree. For many players, including a horse as a win contender that is not among the low M/L assignments is not even a consideration. I'm not saying that there are not races where only low M/L horses belong in the contenders area, but to approach all races as if higher odds horses have no chance of winning is, IMO, an indication of a non-comprehensive contender selection method, and maybe an indication of a lazy handicapper. A comprehensive contender selection method is paramount to making net profits in this game.

[thaskalos]

Higher mutuels are the result of bettors overlooking individual entries as legitimate contenders in the race, or of minimizing the potential of those entries by applying standard evaluation criteria.

If we all relied on "non-standard" criteria for the selection of the race's "legitimate contenders"...would that mean the end of the "higher mutuels"?

Won't the apparent non-contenders still win some of the races?

IMO...the higher mutuels are not caused only by what you've referenced above; they are also caused by the fact that the world of horse racing is not exactly as it seems on paper...or on the track.

There will always be race results which will only make sense in hindsight...and that won't be because of a weakness in our handicapping methods.

[raybo]

If we all relied on "non-standard" criteria for the selection of the race's "legitimate contenders"...would that mean the end of the "higher mutuels"?

Won't the apparent non-contenders still win some of the races?

IMO...the higher mutuels are not caused only by what you've referenced above; they are also caused by the fact that the world of horse racing is not exactly as it seems on paper...or on the track.

There will always be race results which will only make sense in hindsight...and that won't be because of a weakness in our handicapping methods.

That's not what I got from his post. I think he means that the mutuels are higher than they should be, in many cases, due to many players not looking at factors that are "out of the realm" of the common factors most of the public uses for win contender selections.

There will always be high prices to be had, regardless, because "all" players will not change their habits and long held beliefs. So, life will go on, in racing. But, the ones who do start thinking a bit more "out of the box" on contender selection methods may become better players and come closer to becoming profitable players, or more profitable players.

[thaskalos]

That's not what I got from his post. I think he means that the mutuels are higher than they should be, in many cases, due to many players not looking at factors that are "out of the realm" of the common factors most of the public uses for win contender selections.

Traynor's point has always been the same. That there are supposedly some "esoteric", "non-standard", contender-evaluation methods out there...which the "masses" are unwilling to gravitate to...because the "masses" do not like to step out of their comfort zone. The "masses" choose instead to use those "exoteric", "well-publicized", "standard" handicapping techniques...which are incapable of selecting those "hidden" horses who trigger these "higher mutuels".

He has voiced this opinion in post after post...and I think he is wrong.

There have been many studies done to determine the crowd's proficiency in predicting the winning probabilities of the horses...and these studies have been based on hundreds of thousands of races. In each case...the crowd has proven -- beyond any doubt -- that its collective handicapping prowess is near-miraculous.

So...I am not about to criticize the "masses" for their handicapping knowledge deficiencies...in a game where only 1-2% of the players can win.

Yes...there are many ignorant people in this game...but they don't affect the odds as much as we think they do...so they are not our "real" competition.

Our REAL competition comes from the relative few who bet the REAL BIG bucks...because THOSE are the people who really affect the odds in a big way.

And we can never really know what methods these people use.

To say that we can out-handicap those people is sheer speculation.

[raybo]

Traynor's point has always been the same. That there are supposedly some "esoteric", "non-standard", contender-evaluation methods out there...which the "masses" are unwilling to gravitate to...because the "masses" do not like to step out of their comfort zone. The "masses" choose instead to use those "exoteric", "well-publicized", "standard" handicapping techniques...which are incapable of selecting those "hidden" horses who trigger these "higher mutuels".

He has voiced this opinion in post after post...and I think he is wrong.

There have been many studies done to determine the crowd's proficiency in predicting the winning probabilities of the horses...and these studies have been based on hundreds of thousands of races. In each case...the crowd has proven -- beyond any doubt -- that its collective handicapping prowess is near-miraculous.

So...I am not about to criticize the "masses" for their handicapping knowledge deficiencies...in a game where only 1-2% of the players can win.

Yes...there are many ignorant people in this game...but they don't affect the odds as much as we think they do...so they are not our "real" competition.

Our REAL competition comes from the relative few who bet the REAL BIG bucks...because THOSE are the people who really affect the odds in a big way.

And we can never really know what methods these people use.

To say that we can out-handicap those people is sheer speculation.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree, to a point. I agree that, long term, the public's odds are accurate, but in individual races the public, including those whales you mention, are grossly wrong. In those cases, the player who beats the public gets rewarded heavily, and if that player does it often enough he/she is in a great position to be a profitable player. Those high prices can make or break you, over the long run, when you're talking about players who consistently hover around break even play.

I think the gist of what Traynor is saying is that horse players are a very stubborn group, to the point of sticking with poor methods even when year after year they are losing players. They never take that step "out of the box" that can change their game for the better. Long held beliefs and myths have been, and continue to be, the ruin of many players.

[thaskalos]

I understand what you're saying, and I agree, to a point. I agree that, long term, the public's odds are accurate, but in individual races the public, including those whales you mention, are grossly wrong. In those cases, the player who beats the public gets rewarded heavily, and if that player does it often enough he/she is in a great position to be a profitable player. Those high prices can make or break you, over the long run, when you're talking about players who consistently hover around break even play.

I think the gist of what Traynor is saying is that horse players are a very stubborn group, to the point of sticking with poor methods even when year after year they are losing players. They never take that step "out of the box" that can change their game for the better. Long held beliefs and myths have been, and continue to be, the ruin of many players.

Perhaps Trainor's position would be clearer to see if he had supplied a concrete example or two to go along with the rhetoric. The only concrete examples of his that I have seen have been posted in the harness section...and they have left plenty to be desired.

I, for one, am reluctant to accept that Trainor is privy to the "esoteric handicapping knowledge" that he often speaks of...

[raybo]

Perhaps Trainor's position would be clearer to see if he had supplied a concrete example or two to go along with the rhetoric. The only concrete examples of his that I have seen have been posted in the harness section...and they have left plenty to be desired.

I, for one, am reluctant to accept that Trainor is privy to the "esoteric handicapping knowledge" that he often speaks of...

I totally agree! When he has produced examples, in the past, they are all "non-horse racing" examples. One wonders if he really plays the horses at all, as he seems predisposed to other, non-race wagering, disciplines, like research for others who supposedly pay him well for that research. :confused:

[traynor]

If we all relied on "non-standard" criteria for the selection of the race's "legitimate contenders"...would that mean the end of the "higher mutuels"?

Won't the apparent non-contenders still win some of the races?

IMO...the higher mutuels are not caused only by what you've referenced above; they are also caused by the fact that the world of horse racing is not exactly as it seems on paper...or on the track.

There will always be race results which will only make sense in hindsight...and that won't be because of a weakness in our handicapping methods.

That may be because of the (almost) unquestioned acceptance that the past performance lines present a clear and relatively complete description of an event.

[Tom]

There are plenty of factors out there, or maybe they should be called metrics, that the "crowd" does not know about, nor can they figure them out fro the PPs.

Just try a demo of HTR and you see what they are.
The thing is, they can be tested, verified.
To refer to mystery factors without an example is a waste of time.
That is so 20th century.....Mike Warrenish.

[Tom]

That may be because of the (almost) unquestioned acceptance that the past performance lines present a clear and relatively complete description of an event.

They don't always.

[traynor]

There are plenty of factors out there, or maybe they should be called metrics, that the "crowd" does not know about, nor can they figure them out fro the PPs.

Just try a demo of HTR and you see what they are.
The thing is, they can be tested, verified.
To refer to mystery factors without an example is a waste of time.
That is so 20th century.....Mike Warrenish.

Nothing mysterious. Nothing that a motivated bettor could not discover for himself or herself with a bit of work. Certainly nothing requiring a PhD in statistics or math (which could be more of a hindrance than an asset).

As you point out in regard to HTR, it may be no more than looking at the same thing(s) in a different way. My contention is that the "what" of the metrics is far less important than the methods used to discover those metrics. That is, some specific metric or other is only useful for a finite amount of time. The process of discovering--and effectively utilizing--factors that are not generally viewed as "predictive" by most bettors has to be ongoing, because those factors will be uncovered and used by others (in a relatively short period of time).

It is the testing and verification that is a stumbling point for some. Discovering processes that were productive last year is not especially useful because others are mining the same data looking for the same outcome. Discovering processes that were productive last week or last month is not much better, because the processes may be no more than random data points in a very large scatterplot and not "predictive" at all.

It is the balance of the "too big" and "too little" samples modeled that takes the skill, not some mysterious, arcane superfactor.

[traynor]

There are plenty of factors out there, or maybe they should be called metrics, that the "crowd" does not know about, nor can they figure them out fro the PPs.

Just try a demo of HTR and you see what they are.
The thing is, they can be tested, verified.
To refer to mystery factors without an example is a waste of time.
That is so 20th century.....Mike Warrenish.

If I had to use someone else's software, it would be HTR. Not so much for the handicapping side as for the modeling capabilities. Especially the ability to eliminate the distortion of outliers by locating a productive set of filters and then setting the mutuels filtered to a lower number. That insight alone (that an occasional outlier or two can thoroughly corrupt the profitability of a smallish sample by creating the illusion of "profit") can make it worthwhile for the average bettor.

I used HTR for some period of months awhile back. It is a great product. I just like my own apps better.

[raybo]

If I had to use someone else's software, it would be HTR. Not so much for the handicapping side as for the modeling capabilities. Especially the ability to eliminate the distortion of outliers by locating a productive set of filters and then setting the mutuels filtered to a lower number. That insight alone (that an occasional outlier or two can thoroughly corrupt the profitability of a smallish sample by creating the illusion of "profit") can make it worthwhile for the average bettor.

I used HTR for some period of months awhile back. It is a great product. I just like my own apps better.

So, you would filter out all winners that paid too much? If you do that then your model is not accurate, regarding the types of horses that win these races. Just because a horse is considered an "outlier", based on payouts, that mentality doesn't support removing them from the model. Just reduce those payouts to a more realistic amount. After all, the model still had those winners as selections. That's what I do, if a horse or 2 had huge mutuels, I just reduce those payouts to prevent skewing of the results data.

[DJofSD]

So, you would filter out all winners that paid too much? If you do that then your model is not accurate, regarding the types of horses that win these races. Just because a horse is considered an "outlier", based on payouts, that mentality doesn't support removing them from the model. Just reduce those payouts to a more realistic amount. After all, the model still had those winners as selections. That's what I do, if a horse or 2 had huge mutuels, I just reduce those payouts to prevent skewing of the results data.
Aren't we basically revisiting the more winners at a lower mutual v. fewer winners at a higher mutual?

[raybo]

Aren't we basically revisiting the more winners at a lower mutual v. fewer winners at a higher mutual?

Not really, not when you have 1 or 2 very high payouts involved in a relatively larger sample of lower mutuels. Those 1 or 2 very high mutuels can skew your ROI dramatically. But, to remove them completely also skews the data, hit rate especially. One must account in some way for very high payouts that may not carry forward into the future. I do this by reducing those 1 or 2 very high mutuels a bit. If the sample is showing mutuels up to $40 or so as a norm, and you have 2 mutuels that are much higher than that, say $60 or more) then I would reduce them to $40 or so, since that amount isn't an outlier, compared to the sample as a whole, it is much more likely to carry into the future.

[Robert Goren]

So, you would filter out all winners that paid too much? If you do that then your model is not accurate, regarding the types of horses that win these races. Just because a horse is considered an "outlier", based on payouts, that mentality doesn't support removing them from the model. Just reduce those payouts to a more realistic amount. After all, the model still had those winners as selections. That's what I do, if a horse or 2 had huge mutuels, I just reduce those payouts to prevent skewing of the results data. When looking at something, I am real tough on it. I reduce all the winners to minimum odds I will play. For instance if on "system" play I will not play a horse at less than 3/1 then I figure all the winners that won at above 3/1 to be 3/1. I have found out this works very well for me. If it is not showing a profit at your minimum odds then you to raise your minimum odds. Hopefully there is point that it will show a profit and still have decent sample size.

[raybo]

When looking at something, I am real tough on it. I reduce all the winners to minimum odds I will play. For instance if on "system" play I will not play a horse at less than 3/1 then I figure all the winners that won at above 3/1 to be 3/1. I have found out this works very well for me. If it is not showing a profit at your minimum odds then you to raise your minimum odds. Hopefully there is point that it will show a profit and still have decent sample size.

Yeah, I test each track, reduce the outliers' payouts then look at minimum odds reports to determine what that requirement should be. I don't penalize a horse's payouts a drastically as you do, because the odds on that horse would be large anyway, and the method still picked him.

[traynor]

When looking at something, I am real tough on it. I reduce all the winners to minimum odds I will play. For instance if on "system" play I will not play a horse at less than 3/1 then I figure all the winners that won at above 3/1 to be 3/1. I have found out this works very well for me. If it is not showing a profit at your minimum odds then you to raise your minimum odds. Hopefully there is point that it will show a profit and still have decent sample size.

Good strategy. It is far more pleasant to have a process return more than anticipated than to have it return less. The latter is almost guaranteed for any approach that fails to regard outliers for what they are--outliers.

Professional models tend to truncate mutuels to 1.5 times the average of the center 50% of mutuel payoffs (the "mean of the interquartile range"--a commonly-used statistical adjustment). If it can't show a profit after being corrected, it is probably better to keep looking than to bet on it.

[thaskalos]

How rare do these abnornally large payoffs have to be before they can be declared "outliers"...which must be discounted because they are unlikely to continue occurring in the future?

I've seen Andy Beyer declare that he, and the professional horseplayers that he is acquainted with, depend on only a few "scores" per year for their entire yearly profit...and that they are just trading money with the track the rest of the time.

Could Beyer and the rest of the pros be fooling themselves into thinking that they are winning players...when they are really just losers who are benefitting by the occurrence of a few "outliers" per year?

[raybo]

How rare do these abnornally large payoffs have to be before they can be declared "outliers"...which must be discounted because they are unlikely to continue occurring in the future?

I've seen Andy Beyer declare that he, and the professional horseplayers that he is acquainted with, depend on only a few "scores" per year for their entire yearly profit...and that they are just trading money with the track the rest of the time.

Could Beyer and the rest of the pros be fooling themselves into thinking that they are winning players...when they are really just losers who are benefitting by a few "outliers" per year?

You have to look at the whole sample. If you have several medium to higher payouts, say in the $40 range, that is ok, but if there are only a couple over $20 then they are outliers. Of course the size of the overall sample plays a part in this too. For my method, $30-$40 payouts are common place, at some tracks I play, so any outliers above that would be reduced to $40 or there about. My reasoning is that I still hit the winners, even if they paid too much according to the norm for that sample, so I keep them as winners and just reduce their payouts down to what is the norm for that whole sample. That way I don't penalize legitimate winners by pretending they didn't win, or only won at low odds. Those were high odds horses and would pay large no matter what. The key is that I got them as bets, so don't just throw them away as being illegitimate winners. That would defeat the purpose of creating a model. It would bastardize the whole thing. Why even go to the trouble if that is the result?

[traynor]

How rare do these abnornally large payoffs have to be before they can be declared "outliers"...which must be discounted because they are unlikely to continue occurring in the future?

I've seen Andy Beyer declare that he, and the professional horseplayers that he is acquainted with, depend on only a few "scores" per year for their entire yearly profit...and that they are just trading money with the track the rest of the time.

Could Beyer and the rest of the pros be fooling themselves into thinking that they are winning players...when they are really just losers who are benefitting by the occurrence of a few "outliers" per year?

That was 30 years ago. About the time Beyer was stating that trip handicapping was mandatory. And total immersion in wagering and race analysis for brief periods--to the exclusion of almost everything else. Not the same as part-time dabbling on a daily basis.

[baconswitchfarm]

[QUOTE=thaskal

Could Beyer and the rest of the pros be fooling themselves into thinking that they are winning players...when they are really just losers who are benefitting by the occurrence of a few "outliers" per year?[/QUOTE]
It is hard to fool yourself as a pro. When the mortgage comes you either have money to pay it or you don't.

[traynor]

It is hard to fool yourself as a pro. When the mortgage comes you either have money to pay it or you don't.

Absolutely true--if you depend on wagering as a primary (or only) source of income. That is fundamentally different than bettors who do not (or cannot, but don't want to admit it) depend on wagering for income. It is questionable whether professional (racing) writers, professional (racing) software developers, professional (racing) system sellers could (or should) be considered professional bettors in the same league as those who have developed a level of skill that enables them to use wagering as a primary source of income. I think not. Without regard for the amounts wagered. Losing money is one thing. Losing your home and everything else if you fail is quite another--and something the part-time bettors seem unable to understand.

[ultracapper]

I was a member here years ago, and came back because I have absolutely nobody in my circle of friends who I feel I can discuss even the slightest advanced handicapping with.......and the first thread I open is this one. WOW!!

Outstanding.

As for the original topic, "Fatigue". Get it, and I only bet a handful of races a week. I bet older horses, maidens and N2Ls, in Socal, and that's it. The reason was touched on in this thread. I have found that the average and mean returns on these races is above the average and mean for all other races in Socal. Better potential return. The busiest week will account for maybe 15 races. For instance this past week at SA, there were 9. You would think there wouldn't be much burnout, and I really don't spend more than 45 minutes on any race, but fatigue effected me this week. Why? I haven't been doing that well the past few weeks, and I have always found that an abundance of losing fuels fatigue. On the other side of the coin, I have had my "moments" when I've been profitable for multiple weeks, and I have found this fuels laziness, another issue that was touched on lightly within this thread.

In the interest of keeping this post short, I'll cut it short and hopefully hit on other points in a continuing discussion manner. However, I do want to add that "legitimate contenders" is a whole nother 500 post thread. Just chew on this......How many favorites have you been able to toss with 100% confidence over the years? All of us have tossed many, with total confidence, knowing unquestionably that that favorite will not beat us. However, there are literally thousands of bettors not only saying that horse is a contender, but that horse IS THE contender, the one to beat. Also another point on this subject to make is we have all narrowed a field down to 3 or 4 "contenders", only to watch all 3 or 4 finish in the back half of the field. Were we wrong considering them contenders? Did we just miss that particular race? Another big thread. That's for sure.

Outstanding folks. Happy to jump back in, because I need feedback and discussion bad. It's just not happening with the group I travel with. "Fatigue" for me has also been caused by not being able to "grind it out" with other handicappers. A spirited, intelligent handicapping discussion can relieve a lot of built up frustration and re-invigorate the "capping" juices.

[ultracapper]

It is hard to fool yourself as a pro. When the mortgage comes you either have money to pay it or you don't.

That's why they write books and articles for the racing publications. Ebb and flow of gambling results can be dramatic. To be successful, at least I have found, you can't push it. You don't get a winner today just because you need it.

[shouldacoulda]

Decision fatigue is a much nicer name than I call it. I refer to it as "my head is up my a$$ syndrome". When my ears start to feel very warm, I stop playing.

I don't change my betting, I just make stupid mistakes. Mistakes like playing the race in question after handicapping the wrong race. Or, playing the right race after handicapping it at the wrong track. Usually find out when the horse wins and the account balance doesn't change. I like to play multiple tracks and pick and choose. I will look at a race usually 5 min before post. It eliminates over analyzing and second guessing. Sometimes I get shut out, sometimes I get it right. Then there are those times when the "syndrome" sets in and that's when I stop playing until I get my head extracted. :eek:

Seriously, I will stop for an hour or two and go back with a fresh head. It makes a world of difference rather than beating yourself up. Things will only go south if you don't walk away usually.