Reverse Engineering Handicapping

[classhandicapper]

Lately, I've been thinking about something.

Most people handicap a race, form some opinions, look at the odds, and then decide whether or not to bet. Using that approach, most players will find more than enough horses where they disagree with the odds and can make a play.

After the race, if a horse they didn't like wins, they will often take another look at the PPs to see if they might have missed something or can learn something new (especially if it was short priced horse). Sometimes they see something they missed the first time and sometimes they think about an issue in a different way that makes the result seem more sensible.

During one of the hottest periods of my life, I was using a slightly different approach because of time and other constraints.

I was looking at the odds first, then digging into the PPs of the horses that were getting bet most trying to figure out if they made any sense at those odds.

Mentally, I was kind of reverse engineering the odds. Doing it that way, I seemed to miss fewer things and was able to make a reasonable case for most horses being reasonably priced. Only rarely did I disagree strongly. That's when I bet and the results were superior.

I'm beginning to wonder whether that kind of reverse engineering approach has some advantages over what most handicappers do (and what I am doing now).

[dlivery]

This will only confuse me and looking into why or how to get the winner finding a excuse why this race was won bring in a lot chaos into it.

What works for when I look into race is like reverse handicapping of reading the PP's from the bottom up.

[Grits]

I'm beginning to wonder whether that kind of reverse engineering approach has some advantages over what most handicappers do (and what I am doing now).

You're beginning to wonder? Don't dwell there, maybe give up on the business of wondering, and go back to a time and a place that you were making money and most successful.

Don't tell others how you think or handicap. Just do it.

Why even ask? This is the one point that has always puzzled me. You, gentlemen, seem to need approval regarding how you approach this game. I've never, ever understood this.

[classhandicapper]

You're beginning to wonder? Don't dwell there, maybe give up on the business of wondering, and go back to a time and a place that you were making money and most successful.

Don't tell others how you think or handicap. Just do it.

Why even ask? This is the one point that has always puzzled me. You, gentlemen, seem to need approval regarding how you approach this game. I've never, ever understood this.

Um, that's not exactly what I was getting at.

I make money both ways, but I'm beginning to think that there may be some advantages to looking at the odds first and THEN the PPs, which is the opposite of what people traditionally do.

It's not like I have the data that could confirm anything.

It's just interesting to ponder the possibly that most people start with the assumption that they will see all the relevant information and evaluate properly when it might be more effective to ponder what the public is thinking first and then draw conclusions.

[Maximillion]

Lately, I've been thinking about something.

Most people handicap a race, form some opinions, look at the odds, and then decide whether or not to bet. Using that approach, most players will find more than enough horses where they disagree with the odds and can make a play.

After the race, if a horse they didn't like wins, they will often take another look at the PPs to see if they might have missed something or can learn something new (especially if it was short priced horse). Sometimes they see something they missed the first time and sometimes they think about an issue in a different way that makes the result seem more sensible.

During one of the hottest periods of my life, I was using a slightly different approach because of time and other constraints.

I was looking at the odds first, then digging into the PPs of the horses that were getting bet most trying to figure out if they made any sense at those odds.

Mentally, I was kind of reverse engineering the odds. Doing it that way, I seemed to miss fewer things and was able to make a reasonable case for most horses being reasonably priced. Only rarely did I disagree strongly. That's when I bet and the results were superior.

I'm beginning to wonder whether that kind of reverse engineering approach has some advantages over what most handicappers do (and what I am doing now).


Many times, the first thing I do is look at who I presume to be the favorite(s)
in the race.Having a "target" sometimes helps bring the race into sharper focus for me.

[therussmeister]

I handicap virtually every race by looking at the favorites first and then trying to beat them, but I have no reason to think that I am more successful working this way than, for instance, handicapping in post position order. I think it may be a little quicker looking at favorites first, that's why I adopted it, (I do all my handicapping between races so speed is of the essence), but i'm not sure.

[proximity]

Only rarely did I disagree strongly. That's when I bet and the results were superior.


this part sounds real good, but there obviously needs to be some kind of control to determine the place from where these rare strong disagreements come from. ie not allowing recent betting results to influence your judgements. you can't allow your discipline to be compromised.

[JustRalph]

you said you make money........ stop talking and wondering.........

you have 99% of the crowd beat already

[thaskalos]

Lately, I've been thinking about something.

Most people handicap a race, form some opinions, look at the odds, and then decide whether or not to bet. Using that approach, most players will find more than enough horses where they disagree with the odds and can make a play.

After the race, if a horse they didn't like wins, they will often take another look at the PPs to see if they might have missed something or can learn something new (especially if it was short priced horse). Sometimes they see something they missed the first time and sometimes they think about an issue in a different way that makes the result seem more sensible.

During one of the hottest periods of my life, I was using a slightly different approach because of time and other constraints.

I was looking at the odds first, then digging into the PPs of the horses that were getting bet most trying to figure out if they made any sense at those odds.

Mentally, I was kind of reverse engineering the odds. Doing it that way, I seemed to miss fewer things and was able to make a reasonable case for most horses being reasonably priced. Only rarely did I disagree strongly. That's when I bet and the results were superior.

I'm beginning to wonder whether that kind of reverse engineering approach has some advantages over what most handicappers do (and what I am doing now).

I don't want you to misinterpret my response as being condescending...because that's not my intention at all. I am responding to you in this way simply because I too often engage in similar thinking...where it occurs to me that a "method" I was using some time in the past might have been "superior" to what I am using now.

My question to you is this:

If this different approach really led to "one of the hottest periods of your life", and the results you were getting were really "superior", as you say...then what possible reason could you have had for abandoning such a method -- and moving on to different things? Is is sensible behavior to abandon a method that leads us to "the hottest period of our life"? Of course not.

Here is what I think happened with your method...and I know this because it has happened to me as well:

Your method did indeed lead to some great results...and you got excited, thinking that you finally had it "all figured out". But the method soon started getting mixed results...and eventually ended up disappointing. That's why you abandoned it...and moved on to different things. That's why ALL of us abandon prior methods, and move on to different things. They stop working...and we abandon them. If they kept on working...then we would have continued using them.

In your case...a lot of time has passed, and, as you are again reminded of the "hot streak" that this new approach was responsible for...you are not as apt in recalling the disappointments which led you to eventually abandon the method in favor of something else. This is a normal function of the selective memory that operates in us all.

It is also the reason why we can easily recall those "hottest periods of our lives"...while we remain hazy in our recollection of what eventually happened to the money.

And here endeth the lesson. :)

[CincyHorseplayer]

Lately, I've been thinking about something.

Most people handicap a race, form some opinions, look at the odds, and then decide whether or not to bet. Using that approach, most players will find more than enough horses where they disagree with the odds and can make a play.

After the race, if a horse they didn't like wins, they will often take another look at the PPs to see if they might have missed something or can learn something new (especially if it was short priced horse). Sometimes they see something they missed the first time and sometimes they think about an issue in a different way that makes the result seem more sensible.

During one of the hottest periods of my life, I was using a slightly different approach because of time and other constraints.

I was looking at the odds first, then digging into the PPs of the horses that were getting bet most trying to figure out if they made any sense at those odds.

Mentally, I was kind of reverse engineering the odds. Doing it that way, I seemed to miss fewer things and was able to make a reasonable case for most horses being reasonably priced. Only rarely did I disagree strongly. That's when I bet and the results were superior.

I'm beginning to wonder whether that kind of reverse engineering approach has some advantages over what most handicappers do (and what I am doing now).

Class when I read your post I immediately knew what you meant.

My first thought is we do both anyway.And I'm more now convinced than ever to just burn through the whatever preliminary preparations you have.Then have a casual glance back at it for planning a betting approach for the card or cards you are playing.Then once the bell sounds it is reverse engineering time.That's how I handicap.Indifference.Love.Hate.Bet.

[menifee]

Lately, I've been thinking about something.

Most people handicap a race, form some opinions, look at the odds, and then decide whether or not to bet. Using that approach, most players will find more than enough horses where they disagree with the odds and can make a play.

After the race, if a horse they didn't like wins, they will often take another look at the PPs to see if they might have missed something or can learn something new (especially if it was short priced horse). Sometimes they see something they missed the first time and sometimes they think about an issue in a different way that makes the result seem more sensible.

During one of the hottest periods of my life, I was using a slightly different approach because of time and other constraints.

I was looking at the odds first, then digging into the PPs of the horses that were getting bet most trying to figure out if they made any sense at those odds.

Mentally, I was kind of reverse engineering the odds. Doing it that way, I seemed to miss fewer things and was able to make a reasonable case for most horses being reasonably priced. Only rarely did I disagree strongly. That's when I bet and the results were superior.

I'm beginning to wonder whether that kind of reverse engineering approach has some advantages over what most handicappers do (and what I am doing now).

In other words, focus on finding true value and not winners. I agree with you completely. The problem is you can't reverse engineer the odds after they break from the gate. The odds change so late in the game at all tracks that it is becoming more and more difficult to do. The whales and their computers pour money late into the pools that so you can watch that value disappear before your eyes.

[CincyHorseplayer]

In other words, focus on finding true value and not winners. I agree with you completely. The problem is you can't reverse engineer the odds after they break from the gate. The odds change so late in the game at all tracks that it is becoming more and more difficult to do. The whales and their computers pour money late into the pools that so you can watch that value disappear before your eyes.

It's not that damn bad and dramatic though unless you are riding chalk like a bat out of hell.

Yesterday CD7,the 4 was a standout,had a few nocks about duplication but was 7/2 loading.Dropped to 7.40 win easy.Not earth shattering.

This is on a big stage with a bigger pool and some top stock.If what you mean is odds dropping on 5,000 clm at a minor league track and you are hitching your wagon to it.I just have the new age proverbial one word=seriously!

Why?

[menifee]

It's not that damn bad and dramatic though unless you are riding chalk like a bat out of hell.

Yesterday CD7,the 4 was a standout,had a few nocks about duplication but was 7/2 loading.Dropped to 7.40 win easy.Not earth shattering.

This is on a big stage with a bigger pool and some top stock.If what you mean is odds dropping on 5,000 clm at a minor league track and you are hitching your wagon to it.I just have the new age proverbial one word=seriously!

Why?

You think taking 5/2 on that horse in that race is a good play? Are you serious? That wold be riding chalk like a bat out of hell.

[CincyHorseplayer]

You think taking 5/2 on that horse in that race is a good play? Are you serious? That wold be riding chalk like a bat out of hell.

Absolutely.The pace was not likely that hot.Was not an inveterate frontrunner.And was a 3yo coming into his own.Looking at CJ's figs he was an across the board domination candidate.I thought he would be 1-1 so when they were riding Scat Daddy I was like OK,let's go.The odds were all out of whack on that race to the good.I was only pissed off SD ran 2nd.I thought he was a total dud beforehand.

Looking at the figure arrays and light pace the winner looked towering.If it was a Beulah 3500 it would have been bet against all the way.

Anyway the odds dropping did not make me happy at all.I bet at 9/2.But if you read the cry me a river threads on here they are mainly of the drop to 1-1,3-5 variety.That happens to me every 100 bets.So I have to question what everyone else is betting to where they think they are constantly getting stroked on these odds drops.Nobody says you "HAVE" to bet.Nobody says you have to ride sub 2-1 chalk around like it's a magic carpet.I bet a 9/2 that drops to 5/2 and it happens very infrequently?So be it.I have horses on the NY circuit go from 5/2 to 4-1 with glee.

[menifee]

Absolutely.The pace was not likely that hot.Was not an inveterate frontrunner.And was a 3yo coming into his own.Looking at CJ's figs he was an across the board domination candidate.I thought he would be 1-1 so when they were riding Scat Daddy I was like OK,let's go.The odds were all out of whack on that race to the good.I was only pissed off SD ran 2nd.I thought he was a total dud beforehand.

Looking at the figure arrays and light pace the winner looked towering.If it was a Beulah 3500 it would have been bet against all the way.

Anyway the odds dropping did not make me happy at all.I bet at 9/2.But if you read the cry me a river threads on here they are mainly of the drop to 1-1,3-5 variety.That happens to me every 100 bets.So I have to question what everyone else is betting to where they think they are constantly getting stroked on these odds drops.Nobody says you "HAVE" to bet.Nobody says you have to ride sub 2-1 chalk around like it's a magic carpet.I bet a 9/2 that drops to 5/2 and it happens very infrequently?So be it.I have horses on the NY circuit go from 5/2 to 4-1 with glee.

I don't play chalk in straight win bets because there is no value in the long run so I could care less about an even money getting bet down to 3/5.

That horse was solid value at 9/2 - at 5/2 that horse becomes unplayable. I've seen many 6-1 or 5-1 get bet down to 3-1 or 5/2 at the last minute and that becomes frustrating. Happens a lot more at smaller tracks (because of smaller pools), but it does happen at the bigger tracks as well.

[CincyHorseplayer]

I don't play chalk in straight win bets because there is no value in the long run so I could care less about an even money getting bet down to 3/5.

That horse was solid value at 9/2 - at 5/2 that horse becomes unplayable. I've seen many 6-1 or 5-1 get bet down to 3-1 or 5/2 at the last minute and that becomes frustrating. Happens a lot more at smaller tracks (because of smaller pools), but it does happen at the bigger tracks as well.

Fair enough Menifee.I certainly am not interested in fighting with a fellow player all night.I came into that race with the 4 as a bet against.I'll take it.IMO you have to take dominant horses like that.That was my assessment.5/2 rubbed me wrong but 9/5 I would have been livid.The other thing I should add is I love betting speed on turf because everyone else detests it.Watching my 12-1 get swallowed up in the 9th was way more painful!

Personally I do not experience these frequent odds drops.

[CincyHorseplayer]

And back to Class's Reverse engineering thread my example is prime.

I came into the 7th at CD on Saturday prepared to bet against what I thought would be a 1-1 or so favorite.Slop win.Double top in pace and speed.Total bet against with a speed horse directly inside.

Reverse Engineer

5-1 at 3 minutes to post.12 post position the favorite.No way.The crowd can move fast and did.But I'm taking what was 7/2 loading.

I really hated the entire race because of this horse.I believed in the horse and if any of you know me I toss these into the wasteland so I'm betting into 15% favorite win bracket.

Reverse Engineered thought=bet the horse.

[classhandicapper]

I don't want you to misinterpret my response as being condescending...because that's not my intention at all. I am responding to you in this way simply because I too often engage in similar thinking...where it occurs to me that a "method" I was using some time in the past might have been "superior" to what I am using now.

My question to you is this:

If this different approach really led to "one of the hottest periods of your life", and the results you were getting were really "superior", as you say...then what possible reason could you have had for abandoning such a method -- and moving on to different things? Is is sensible behavior to abandon a method that leads us to "the hottest period of our life"? Of course not.

Here is what I think happened with your method...and I know this because it has happened to me as well:

Your method did indeed lead to some great results...and you got excited, thinking that you finally had it "all figured out". But the method soon started getting mixed results...and eventually ended up disappointing. That's why you abandoned it...and moved on to different things. That's why ALL of us abandon prior methods, and move on to different things. They stop working...and we abandon them. If they kept on working...then we would have continued using them.

In your case...a lot of time has passed, and, as you are again reminded of the "hot streak" that this new approach was responsible for...you are not as apt in recalling the disappointments which led you to eventually abandon the method in favor of something else. This is a normal function of the selective memory that operates in us all.

It is also the reason why we can easily recall those "hottest periods of our lives"...while we remain hazy in our recollection of what eventually happened to the money.

And here endeth the lesson. :)

What you are describing has often happened, but that's not what happened in this case.

1. I have the ROI records to know my results back then vs. now and I remember what I was doing.

2. The reason I was playing in a more casual way was mostly due to time and energy constraints. I didn't have the time or desire to dig deeply through an entire card the night before or in the morning. When I had some time to play (usually on weekends) I was handicapping between races. So I would see the odds first. It wasn't a thought out approach. That's just what happened.

3. I stopped playing that way because I didn't really make a connection between seeing the odds first and my results. When I had more time, I changed back.

4. It's only now that I am wondering whether I had actually stumbled onto something that was helping me avoid mistakes and miss information.

The typical scenario was like this. I glanced at PPs and the board and saw the #1 horse was getting bet. There was nothing on the surface I could find about the horse to explain the action. The horse looked way overbet on form/figures etc.... So I started digging. Then I'd find some tidbit of information (like a trainer pattern I didn't even know about) and suddenly I understood why the horse was getting bet. On to the next one.

What I am contemplating is that if I had handicapped the night before I might have missed that trainer pattern (or some other similar relevant information) and just assumed the horse was an underlay. It was seeing the odds that triggered the thought that I better dig more deeply to see if I can find what I might be missing.

[mountainman]

Something similar to the approach that engendered this thread occured to me recently while recapping a race. While I'm not saying that every winner is predictable beforehand, or that eventual value can invariably be detected, it DID strike me looking back, with the benefit of hindsight, that there ARE always reasons, foreseeable or not, that a horse wins. Often, it's contextual and related to trip, pace, or the failure of certain rivals to fire..etc..etc, and often the seeds of victory are embedded somewhere on an animal's form.

But the point is, there are always reasons. Consequently, I wondered how a handicapper might fare by looking harder for these unlikely, but potentially lucrative, possibilities BEFORE the race. In other words, try to envision each entrant in turn as the eventual winner, and concoct some reason or scenario accordingly. At worst it will at least unleash your creativity, and at best lead to longshot winners.

In short, I now sometimes handicap with the following question as my creed: "Were this horse to win, what reasons would I likely be citing in the recap?"

[thaskalos]

Something similar to the approach that engendered this thread occured to me recently while recapping a race. While I'm not saying that every winner is predictable beforehand, or that eventual value can invariably be detected, it DID strike me looking back, with the benefit of hindsight, that there ARE always reasons, forseeable or not, that a horse wins. Often, it's contextual and related to trip, pace, or the failure of certain rivals to fire..etc..etc, and often the seeds of victory are embedded somewhere on an animal's form.

But the point is, there are always reasons. Consequently, I wondered how a handicapper might fare by looking harder for these unlikely, but potentially lucrative, scenarios BEFORE the race. In other words, try to envision each entrant in turn as the eventual winner, and concoct some reason or scenario accordingly. At worst it will at least unleash your creativity, and at best lead to longshot winners.

The downside to this is that there is usually a case to be made for practically every horse in the race...if we envision each horse as the eventual winner.

The researcher has to make sure that he maintains the "integrity" that the task demands.

[Greyfox]

I don't want you to misinterpret my response as being condescending...because that's not my intention at all. I am responding to you in this way simply because I too often engage in similar thinking...where it occurs to me that a "method" I was using some time in the past might have been "superior" to what I am using now.

My question to you is this:

If this different approach really led to "one of the hottest periods of your life", and the results you were getting were really "superior", as you say...then what possible reason could you have had for abandoning such a method -- and moving on to different things? Is is sensible behavior to abandon a method that leads us to "the hottest period of our life"? Of course not.

Here is what I think happened with your method...and I know this because it has happened to me as well:

Your method did indeed lead to some great results...and you got excited, thinking that you finally had it "all figured out". But the method soon started getting mixed results...and eventually ended up disappointing. That's why you abandoned it...and moved on to different things. That's why ALL of us abandon prior methods, and move on to different things. They stop working...and we abandon them. If they kept on working...then we would have continued using them.

In your case...a lot of time has passed, and, as you are again reminded of the "hot streak" that this new approach was responsible for...you are not as apt in recalling the disappointments which led you to eventually abandon the method in favor of something else. This is a normal function of the selective memory that operates in us all.

It is also the reason why we can easily recall those "hottest periods of our lives"...while we remain hazy in our recollection of what eventually happened to the money.

And here endeth the lesson. :)

Excellent post.
I think that you've nailed it to a point anyways.
Let me give you an additional thought:
"Time tends to diminish negatives, and magnify positives."
For example, a dating couple breaks up.
At the time of break up they don't want to see each other again.
But being apart, they tend to start remembering the positives.
Subsequently, they get together, but more often than not they split again because the negatives which were diminished are all still there.
The same is true in horse racing, or gambling.
Gambling relies heavily on intermittent reinforcement.
If you are being rewarded often enough, you'll stay with an idea.
If not, you'll look elsewhere.
Well said Thaskalos. :ThmbUp:

[mountainman]

The downside to this is that there is usually a case to be made for practically every horse in the race....

Certainly true. But my point is a more plausible case might be made beforehand on certain longshots by adhering to this creative mindset.

More and more, MY mindset is to imagine myself recapping the race and explaining why a horse won. It ventilates the grey matter. lol.

[thaskalos]

Certainly true. But my point is a more plausible case might be made beforehand on certain longshots by adhering to this creative mindset.

More and more, MY mindset is to imagine myself recapping the race and explaining why a horse won. It ventilates the grey matter. lol.

Mountainman...I have a question for you:

I have always maintained that there just HAS to be some way of including the closing odds of the horses' prior races into the handicapping mix...but I've never been able to come up with a satisfactory way of doing it. The crowd's collective wisdom in assigning these odds is so profound when looking at it over the long haul...that there just HAS to be a way of taking this into account during the handicapping process -- in my opinion, at least.

Do you agree with me...and have you ever given this any thought yourself?

[classhandicapper]

Something similar to the approach that engendered this thread occured to me recently while recapping a race. While I'm not saying that every winner is predictable beforehand, or that eventual value can invariably be detected, it DID strike me looking back, with the benefit of hindsight, that there ARE always reasons, foreseeable or not, that a horse wins. Often, it's contextual and related to trip, pace, or the failure of certain rivals to fire..etc..etc, and often the seeds of victory are embedded somewhere on an animal's form.

But the point is, there are always reasons. Consequently, I wondered how a handicapper might fare by looking harder for these unlikely, but potentially lucrative, possibilities BEFORE the race. In other words, try to envision each entrant in turn as the eventual winner, and concoct some reason or scenario accordingly. At worst it will at least unleash your creativity, and at best lead to longshot winners.

In short, I now sometimes handicap with the following question as my creed: "Were this horse to win, what reasons would I likely be citing in the recap?"

What you are describing is very similar to what I am describing except that I don't waste time on some 30-1 shot that looks like a legitimate 30-1 in the PPs. I spend time on the horse that I thought was going to be 30-1 that's actually 5-1 and ask myself "what did I miss if anything".

[classhandicapper]

I have always maintained that there just HAS to be some way of including the closing odds of the horses' prior races into the handicapping mix...but I've never been able to come up with a satisfactory way of doing it.

Do you agree with me...and have you ever given this any thought yourself?

Let's say 2 horses finished in a dead heat in their last start with similar trips, but one of them was 7/5 and the other was 30-1. Today there is a rematch.

The one that was 7/5 last time out will almost always go off at a shorter price again the next time even though they ran equal races last time out. The odds will just be a lot closer.

The reason is that the public builds more than 1 race into the odds. So if that 7/5 horse looked that much better last time, it probably still looks better off of multiple races and will get bet accordingly. The previous odds are acting like a substitute for analyzing the horse's entire record.

Personally, I don't use the odds that way often. I prefer to actually look at the horse's overall record. But there is an occasional exception.

Two first time starters meet and finish in a dead heat for 2nd. One was 7/5 and the other 30-1.

In this case there is no overall record to analyze.

But we can assume that handicappers, clockers and the connections liked the 7-5 shot that day and expected him to run well. So there's not much reason to think this was some mediocre horse that just happened to have a good day. The 30-1 shot on the other hand was a bit of shock. So the chances that he is a mediocre horse that just happened to have a good are higher. I would say the horse that was bet first time is more likely to fire another big race.

[TJDave]

The crowd's collective wisdom in assigning these odds is so profound when looking at it over the long haul...that there just HAS to be a way of taking this into account during the handicapping process

Depending on field size 32-35% of crowd favorites win. I'm not impressed with those numbers. I'd ask why would the collective wisdom be wrong two of three times.

[thaskalos]

Depending on field size 32-35% of crowd favorites win. I'm not impressed with those numbers. I'd ask why would the collective wisdom be wrong two of three times.
Being right only a third of the time may not seem like much...but no one else has ever been able to match it -- while picking every race on the card.

[Greyfox]

Being right only a third of the time may not seem like much...but no one else has ever been able to match it -- while picking every race on the card.

I'm sure many of us here have surpassed that number many many times, but our picks may have included the public favorite in some of the races.

[mountainman]

Mountainman...I have a question for you:

I have always maintained that there just HAS to be some way of including the closing odds of the horses' prior races into the handicapping mix...but I've never been able to come up with a satisfactory way of doing it. The crowd's collective wisdom in assigning these odds is so profound when looking at it over the long haul...that there just HAS to be a way of taking this into account during the handicapping process -- in my opinion, at least.

Do you agree with me...and have you ever given this any thought yourself?

Absolutely agree. In fact, your post made me realize just how MUCH I survey a horse's odds-column as a routine part of my handicapping process. And the public's incredible proficiency at tabbing winners has shaped my thinking.

Take beaten favorites, for instance. Unlike old-school methodology that actually RECOMMENDS them as good bet-backs, a skeptical mindset works best for me concerning horses that perform poorly as favorites, or have been beaten as chalk several times on form. Given that the win-rate on public choices now reaches 40% for extended periods at numerous tracks, my knee jerk thought is that something is amiss with such runners. Thus, a failure to run well with an asterisk next to the odds compels me to look for concurring negatives on the horse's form.

Continuing along those lines, I'm not sure that closing odds can ever be a factor unto themselves in handicapping, but representative of well-informed expectations, they make a great starting point for assessing individual performances. Like when a runner seemed sharp and well-spotted, but got ignored at the windows, it compels me to look back at the race. Often, it turns out that the field was deep and above par. Or maybe the horse's prior form was correctly sniffed out by the public as less impressive than it seemed, or even outright bogus. In either instance, the crowd's prescience is simply uncanny, and its opinion on a horse's chances makes, for me, at least, an excellent prism through which to interpret past performances.

[pondman]

Depending on field size 32-35% of crowd favorites win. I'm not impressed with those numbers. I'd ask why would the collective wisdom be wrong two of three times.

Yep. You want to focus on the unknown, and stay away from what can be seen by everyone.

Maybe it would be wiser to approach the game as a player who focused on a bet if it met your criteria and would pay +$12. It's not for the junkie, someone who needs action, but with the belief it's going to be positive over time.

But to do that you're not going to be able to generalize. Your data will have to be localize and specific, and have a focus not easily digested by the crowd.

[classhandicapper]

Like when a runner seemed sharp and well-spotted, but got ignored at the windows, it compels me to look back at the race. Often, it turns out that the field was deep and above par.

This one comes up for me with shippers from tracks I am unfamiliar with.

In NY, I am very familiar with the class pecking order and look at most of the races. So I know what's going on. When I can't remember something I dig through the charts and look at PPs of the horses that were in the race.

But when some horses ship in, I may not know the class pecking order or horses at that track. So I don't know whether a field was particularly strong or not.

If I see a horse that was in good form suddenly throw in a clunker before shipping in, but he went off at 20-1, I am immediately inclined to think he must have drawn into a really tough spot. I'll be more forgiving than if he ran poorly at 5/2.

[MJC922]

I can think of a lot worse ways to approach handicapping between races. In short, the degree to which a race presents any worthwhile opportunity often revolves around the favorite and how vulnerable it is. If starting there greatly reduces the amount of time you're investing in the entire process, it makes a great deal of sense to me.

[mountainman]

This one comes up for me with shippers from tracks I am unfamiliar with.



Same here. And the crowd's accuracy in dissing seeming contenders always astounds me.

[Robert Goren]

There is one thing I have found out over the years. There are some trainers who have gotten really good at making good horses look really bad just before they ship them out. It doesn't seem to matter where they are shipping to. I have seen horses run bad at Del and win in NY first out. And the other way around. The odds will sometimes tip you off, but not always.

[davew]

classhandicapper,
how long ago was your hot streak? the reason I ask is that it sure seems the 'parimutual pool' mix has change alot for many tracks in the last 20 years- by that I mean who bets there and when does the money show up into the pool.

For your method to work, you still need time to 'evaluate' the horses' past performances and decide on a pass/play (then what) - so how many minutes to post do you look at the odds board?

Now for quite a few tracks, the pool size doubles or triples after the first horses enters the first gate until it is all into the pool, which seems sometimes after the race is actually finished.

There was a time years ago that early money seemed smart money, I am not so sure now.

[fasteddied]

I start around 5-530 am at the kitchen table every day I plan on wagering, I look at Trainers of course, and always want to know who is gonna have the lead at the far turn, class and DISTANCE changes. With all that said I then go to the computer and watch numerous replays from the horses I like and favorites I dislike. I spotted a cheap claimer from the replays 11-29 race 3 at laurel with a agressive rider change named Friendly Princess and put down a 40-20 bet on that horse who rolled home at 15-1 and picked up 770.00. I believe the replay along with hours of studying can payoff and what a great sport when it does!

[classhandicapper]

classhandicapper,
how long ago was your hot streak? the reason I ask is that it sure seems the 'parimutual pool' mix has change alot for many tracks in the last 20 years- by that I mean who bets there and when does the money show up into the pool.

For your method to work, you still need time to 'evaluate' the horses' past performances and decide on a pass/play (then what) - so how many minutes to post do you look at the odds board?

Now for quite a few tracks, the pool size doubles or triples after the first horses enters the first gate until it is all into the pool, which seems sometimes after the race is actually finished.

There was a time years ago that early money seemed smart money, I am not so sure now.

The period between 10-15 years ago.

You are making an interesting point about the pools changing, but I don't think it would impact me too much. It's not like I am building the exact odds into my own betting. I am being signaled to check a horse out more carefully. So as long as some horse is getting some "action" I would take a closer look if it wasn't originally on my radar.