PDA

View Full Version : The System Is OK


limit2
02-07-2014, 05:41 AM
Can a turf player be out of sync with his/her system? Sometimes I think it is a mirage that the system produces such lofty results on paper. In reality the pockets are empty and the quest continues to bring cohesion between system and operator. Any suggestions on how this can be done?

HUSKER55
02-07-2014, 07:27 AM
I have been told that if a system is mathmatically sound that it will show a profit in the long haul. However, wagering is totally different. For example, your system says the horse going off at 70 to one has a shot but your second pick is 3:1.

If the 70:1 wins the problem is your wagering, not your system.

I am assuming of course that your system doesn't pick longshot horses all the time. Sometimes the favorites are the best bets cause they are going to win.

If you are a system player and are NOT a system wager player then the squeaky wheel is you. Why bother making a system?

There are a lot of players with that problem, you are not alone.

JMHO, and there will be plenty of others.

Good Luck! :)

flatstats
02-08-2014, 08:23 PM
System Performance goes up and down in waves.

The problem is that punters will paper test the system for a while and ultimately start backing the system at the wrong time. They wait for a peak, dive in and then crash. They then walk away from the system.

Researched System: 35% strike rate, 20% ROI, 1.2 A/E

A punter will paper trade this for a while "to see how it goes". He waits, sees a winner or two and gets excited. Then there are 10 losers on the trot ... but he has faith.

Then the system finds 30 winners from 60 runners. This is a 50% system man, and the profits are crazy!

The punter empties his bank account, talks his wife into investing her savings in his system.

The system has 1 winner, 2 winners .. maybe 3 winners then BAM! The next 40 runners produce just 10 winners. 25% strike rate, -15% ROI, 0.78 A/E.

The punter put all his and his partner's savings into this and it is almost gone. He gives up and tries to find another system.

What Went Wrong
The punter paper traded for a while and waited for a peak. He only dived into the water when the system was showing extreme results. Rather than the norm of ~35% strike rate the punter waited until it hit 50%. Then he dumped his whole bank over the next few weeks and ended up losing most of it.

This is why paper trading is so wrong. Not only does it encourage you to bet at the wrong time (when a system is at a random peak) but it also has no emotional element to it. If the punter started backing with real money at day 1 he would not have over bet at the peak. He would have learnt to control the staking and could have ridden out the storm.

HUSKER55
02-09-2014, 05:31 AM
Good Point!

The one that nails me is when you pick three horses and invariably the third pick wins and you are on your top two. So you say this must be one of those days and then BAM! your top pick wins at 7 : 1 and guess which pick you are on.

Have you ever looked into a mirror and asked yorself "what the hell were you thinking" and expect a logical answer?

Lesson learned: once you jump board with your system you are done for the day.

Proper wagering is as important and planning your system.

JMHO

raybo
02-09-2014, 09:30 AM
System/method play must be played with the long term in mind. Anything else and you better go back to doping horses long hand. In a system you have to be prepared to weather anything that happens and still stick with it.

Pensacola Pete
02-09-2014, 10:19 AM
Systems are usually back-fitted. I don't want something that worked for the past year; I want something that will work for the next year.

flatstats
02-09-2014, 10:36 AM
Everything is backfitted. You have to rely on history to predict the future.

Backfitting is allowable if you can totally justify the rules. If you pick random numbers, test, then observe results, change figures, test, observe good results then that is totally wrong.

Examples of bad backfitting are

"Odds are between 7/2 and 12/1"

Why 7/2 and 12/1? Why not 4/1 and 14/1?

"Jockey Hits 23%+ at the Course"

Why 23%+ Why not 20%+ or 25% to 35%?

"Distance is 8f to 10f and horse last ran 25 to 36 days ago"

If there is no valid reason why those rules should be in there then they should not be in there.

You should construct valid rules before any analysis and stick with them without changing them.

Valid rules could be:

Horse is in the top third of the market
Horse is quick returning (last ran 1 to 7 days ago)
Jockey is A List at the course (hits 20%+)

Those are common base rules that you may or may not want to use on a system. But you have to be rigid with them always. No changing the last ran 1 to 8 days just because the results look better.

raybo
02-09-2014, 11:13 AM
Systems are usually back-fitted. I don't want something that worked for the past year; I want something that will work for the next year.

Backfitting applies to everything you look at in handicapping races. It's a matter of backfitting to what is currently happening at tracks, not what happened a year ago or more.

flatstats
02-09-2014, 12:12 PM
Some things change but most do not.

Trainers are creatures of habit and tend to do the same thing year after year. This is their training regime; it's what they know.

Some run 2yos in sprints with little intention of winning with that age group. When the horses reach 3yo or older and are stretched out over longer they have decent handicap marks and thus win a few races on the trot.

Some target seasons; some target specific courses or employ get the job done jockeys. All that can be gleaned from past analysis.

Same applies to owners, sire stats. Many jockeys have strong biases too. They keep on doing what they keep on doing and you can spot that.

raybo
02-09-2014, 03:28 PM
Some things change but most do not.

Trainers are creatures of habit and tend to do the same thing year after year. This is their training regime; it's what they know.

Some run 2yos in sprints with little intention of winning with that age group. When the horses reach 3yo or older and are stretched out over longer they have decent handicap marks and thus win a few races on the trot.

Some target seasons; some target specific courses or employ get the job done jockeys. All that can be gleaned from past analysis.

Same applies to owners, sire stats. Many jockeys have strong biases too. They keep on doing what they keep on doing and you can spot that.

My data tells me things are much more fluid than your statements seem to say. Tracks, surfaces, the current way races are carded, current trainer and jockey colonies, current horse colonies, in short the whole current track environment has significant impact on the way races are set up, run, and their resulting outcomes. However, if you use too large a sample then that impact gets hidden in the large numbers and cannot be taken advantage of soon enough to make much difference, your system remains static instead of becoming dynamic.

flatstats
02-09-2014, 03:45 PM
It would depend on the system. A simple one or two rule system could run for years without any need to update it.

This can be systems such as backing A Trainer in specific races and specific conditions. An example with UK racing is

Trainer D Nicholls class dropping into a Claiming Stakes Race

This is something Nicholls is good at and continues to do so. In each of the past 10 years he's returned positive ROIs. There is nothing to change or update here. The trainer is doing what he has always done and the public are not aware of it or do not care about it.

Only more complex methods, such as ratings or form analysis require constant
updating.

limit2
02-09-2014, 05:36 PM
February has not been a good month for Thoroughbred Racing in my estimation. I have observed northern racetracks with no racing and the good weather tracks with plenty of scratches. Maybe, a hiatus is in order. In any event, my initial supposition of hit ratio of .09 X average $2 mutual of $32 =2.8 still holds, for a time when the fields get larger. $78 over a 12 race progression, 2 selections per race, average 6 consecutive race losing streaks, no more than 1 1/2 race cards per day and no more than 10 best longshots should do it for me. After 44 years am I seeing light at the end of the tunnel?

Light
02-10-2014, 11:21 AM
If you are a system player and are NOT a system wager player then the squeaky wheel is you. Why bother making a system?



You hit the nail on the head here. But in fairness to the OP practically all "systems" and "programs" are used as "guides" rather than robotic selections. My home made "system" is probably light years ahead of my ROI with some of it's hits but how many casual players have "deep pockets", and an "intestinal fortitude" to stick it out playing robotically from a "system". None? There is a "mental satisfaction" and other rewards one gets from handicapping . It's NOT all about making money.

That said, if one does get "fed up" with losing, one can start using their system or program "robotically". It shouldn't be so hard to find out what "world" you are entering as far as ROI, and what patience it would take to profit from it and if it's worth the cost of giving up the "pleasure" one gets from handicapping horse races.

When I lose, many times I see my system had the horse and it makes me want to become a robot to my system. When I win with my brain and see my system did not have the horse, I feel a sense of satisfaction that I am "smarter" than my own system. It's a schizophrenic experience. The decision as to which way to go is not necessarily based on profits but what "world" one feels most comfortable with. At least which world one wants to temporarily inhabit. And that's the best part. You are free to travel between the two worlds at will.

Robert Fischer
02-10-2014, 02:09 PM
The System Is OK
Can a turf player be out of sync with his/her system? Sometimes I think it is a mirage that the system produces such lofty results on paper. In reality the pockets are empty and the quest continues to bring cohesion between system and operator. Any suggestions on how this can be done?

If the foundation of the system is superior insight, you have more consistency in future results.

HUSKER55
02-10-2014, 02:59 PM
It's a schizophrenic experience.


Light, you are correct! I think we all fall for it sooner or later.



gotta go...there are some guys in white coats banging on my door! :D :D

Knute Chapman
02-11-2014, 03:40 AM
Light, I agree with Husker55; follow your system - that's why you developed it, and with Flatstats; there's no emotional element involved when your sitting at home checking results.

Many years ago, I'd be at the track, and I wouldn't bet on a horse that my method selected because I didn't like something about the horse, like maybe he looked washy in the paddock, or something I disliked in it's past performances, never-the-less it had nothing to do with my method of selection. While I completely understand that you can't lose what you don't put in the middle, sometimes these horses would have been the difference between a winning or losing day, because of course "the horse win", and I wouldn't have a dime on'em. Later that night, as I updated my records, I would kick myself for not betting a horse that I would have not hesitated to select if I was just sitting at home handicapping from some old DRF's.

The way I broke this habit was to purchase the DRF the night before and handicap the card using my method of selection, in your case use your system. The following day, I'd bet all of my selections before the first race, then hand over my DRF to a complete stranger, telling them to keep it because I have to leave early. I've caught horses that paid $2.80, and sometimes $28.00, I won 7 races in a row one-time and been shut-out too many times to count...got my money back if one of my selections scratched. This taught me to stick to my method, (always look to improve it), so I never have to go home thinking, "I shoulda, I shoulda". I hope this helps, I have a feeling that a lot of winning players have gone through this or something like it, hang-in there.

pondman
02-12-2014, 02:35 PM
The way I broke this habit was to purchase the DRF the night before and handicap the card using my method of selection, in your case use your system. The following day, I'd bet all of my selections before the first race, then hand over my DRF to a complete stranger, telling them to keep it because I have to leave early. I've caught horses that paid $2.80, and sometimes $28.00, I won 7 races in a row one-time and been shut-out too many times to count...got my money back if one of my selections scratched. This taught me to stick to my method, (always look to improve it), so I never have to go home thinking, "I shoulda, I shoulda". I hope this helps, I have a feeling that a lot of winning players have gone through this or something like it, hang-in there.

In today's electronic world there isn't any reason a serious player can't make all their decisions on one or two evenings a week. Have a list of plays for the week, and the bank ready. And as the race approaches, you make the decision from that list only, to play, pass, or cancel. If you don't like a horse the first time when you aren't emotionally involved, why would your judgment be any clearer when your adrenaline is high and you are stressed?

Knute Chapman
02-14-2014, 04:01 AM
If I understand your comment correctly, that a person's decision making will not be as good under stress, therefore they should or could play in a modern electronic environment where most handicapper's would say is less stressful; I agree. Just bet the selected horse, walk away, and watch the replay later, no problem.

The point I was making to Light, was that in the past, my method might also select a horse, which I would not end up betting, because after further reviewing it's past performances, or by seeing the horse in the paddock, there was something about it I didn't like, (even though my method had already selected the horse, and for all intents and purposes my handicapping was done). Yet, regardless of my personal inspection of the horse, or the further review of it's racing history, the horse would sometimes win anyway, and I could be caught shaking my head for not sticking to the horse my method had selected. Please take into consideration that this was many years ago, I was under the "severe stress" ( :rolleyes: )of being at the track...computers were still at NASA.

Light wrote that his system would sometimes choose a winning horse that he knows he would probably not have chosen if left to his own personal handicapping, (I'm thinking a system has rules, do this, do that), and that sometimes the reverse was true.

I wrote that there have been times when my method selected a winning horse that I decided not to bet on.

Neither of us wrote that we would bet on a horse that we didn't like.

Robert Goren
02-14-2014, 08:03 AM
In today's electronic world there isn't any reason a serious player can't make all their decisions on one or two evenings a week. Have a list of plays for the week, and the bank ready. And as the race approaches, you make the decision from that list only, to play, pass, or cancel. If you don't like a horse the first time when you aren't emotionally involved, why would your judgment be any clearer when your adrenaline is high and you are stressed?Just wonder. How much time do you spend on research and development?

raybo
02-14-2014, 10:34 AM
If you create a system/method that is black box in nature, and you use it only as a guide, then you must track both the system and the non-system plays. If the system out performs the non-system, then the decision is clear, play the system. If one can't play the system, due to last minute analysis, then that is a character fault, not a system fault. It is your decision to go with the system or not, a conscious decision. Conscious means you are actively making decisions, and if those decisions are causing negative results, compared to what the system is doing, then you need to "consciously" decide to follow the system, in full. Being unable to do that means you don't really care if you win or lose long term. That is NOT good, if your real goal is to profit from racing long term.

I'm sorry, and saddened, for anyone who does not have the emotional control, and intestinal fortitude, to do what is correct, when the answer is glaringly staring you in the face all along. :bang:

flatstats
02-15-2014, 08:15 PM
A negative emotion is not desirable for betting purposes. It will make you face the heat, chase loses, go on tilt, turn totally irrational.

A positive emotion is welcome. If you can reinforce the emotions you feel after a big win you will train yourself to home in on a big win.

Punters in general will always look at the negative and dismiss the positive. They do this because human nature dictates that we do not want us to be seen as a fool.

Here's a classic conundrum (for UK betting).

UK Punters can bet with bookmakers as single bets, or multiple bets such as doubles and trebles on any nominated horses. Take and example of two punters who fancy two horses in the 2:35 at Kempton and the 3:15 at Ascot. Both have £20 to spend.

The punters could put £10 on Lucky Joe in the 2:35 and win or lose put £10 on Scarlet Girl in the 3:15. The punters may choose to place a double on those horses for the potential of a big payout...

Assume punter A has £20 to stake on a double. He would write out a slip - or place online - a bet like this:

£20 Double
---------
2:35 Kempton Lucky Joe 10/1
3:15 Ascot Scarlet Girl 10/1

The punter places the bet, goes for a coffee, returns at 3:20, checks the results and sees that he has won £2,420. Sweet!

Now Punter B has done something different. He wants to place these in single bets. If the first one wins then he will roll up the winnings onto the second horse.

£20 Win
---------
2:35 Kempton Lucky Joe 10/1

The horse wins! and Punter B now writes out a ticket like this:

£220 Win
---------
3:15 Ascot Scarlet Girl 10/1

I can assure you Punter B will be uneasy about this. His mates in the bookies will think he is foolhardy. Why would he wish to blow all his £220 winnings on another 10/1 horse?

If Scarlet Girl wins the punter is King, if Scarlet Girl loses the punter is a chump.

thaskalos
02-15-2014, 08:52 PM
A negative emotion is not desirable for betting purposes. It will make you face the heat, chase loses, go on tilt, turn totally irrational.

A positive emotion is welcome. If you can reinforce the emotions you feel after a big win you will train yourself to home in on a big win.

Punters in general will always look at the negative and dismiss the positive. They do this because human nature dictates that we do not want us to be seen as a fool.

Here's a classic conundrum (for UK betting).

UK Punters can bet with bookmakers as single bets, or multiple bets such as doubles and trebles on any nominated horses. Take and example of two punters who fancy two horses in the 2:35 at Kempton and the 3:15 at Ascot. Both have £20 to spend.

The punters could put £10 on Lucky Joe in the 2:35 and win or lose put £10 on Scarlet Girl in the 3:15. The punters may choose to place a double on those horses for the potential of a big payout...

Assume punter A has £20 to stake on a double. He would write out a slip - or place online - a bet like this:

£20 Double
---------
2:35 Kempton Lucky Joe 10/1
3:15 Ascot Scarlet Girl 10/1

The punter places the bet, goes for a coffee, returns at 3:20, checks the results and sees that he has won £2,420. Sweet!

Now Punter B has done something different. He wants to place these in single bets. If the first one wins then he will roll up the winnings onto the second horse.

£20 Win
---------
2:35 Kempton Lucky Joe 10/1

The horse wins! and Punter B now writes out a ticket like this:

£220 Win
---------
3:15 Ascot Scarlet Girl 10/1

I can assure you Punter B will be uneasy about this. His mates in the bookies will think he is foolhardy. Why would he wish to blow all his £220 winnings on another 10/1 horse?

If Scarlet Girl wins the punter is King, if Scarlet Girl loses the punter is a chump.

The punter who only has $20 to spend should be content with a $650 score.

He should collect the $220 from the first bet...and only bet $50 on his second pick. If the second bet loses, he goes home with a $150 profit...and he wins an additional $500 if his pick wins again.

This way...he is not a king OR a chump.

flatstats
02-16-2014, 05:46 AM
The bets are exactly the same. This is the conundrum.

Punter A:
$20 double on Lucky Joe and Scarlet Girl.

The first horse wins and he now has $220 automatically parlaying onto the second horse.

That horse loses by a short head so the punter gets nothing and his friends say "How unlucky you are", "Boy that was unlucky"

Punter B:
$20 single win on Lucky Joe

The first horse wins and now he has $220. He cashes the winnings and then puts it all the second horse.

That horse loses by a short head so the punter gets nothing and his friends say "What a jerk", "Why did you put all of it on?", "Why didn't you split half to win and half to show"

That's the conundrum. The bets are exactly the same and yet human emotion will result in different actions and opinions.

If Punter A is correct he is a hero. If Punter A is wrong he is unlucky.
If Punter B is correct he is a foolish hero. If Punter B is wrong he is a jerk.

In reality not many people would do the same as Punter B. Most would reduce the stake on the second horse, or split the stakes win and show. And yet each day in the UK thousands of punters do exactly the same as Punter A.

traynor
02-16-2014, 10:13 AM
The bets are exactly the same. This is the conundrum.

Punter A:
$20 double on Lucky Joe and Scarlet Girl.

The first horse wins and he now has $220 automatically parlaying onto the second horse.

That horse loses by a short head so the punter gets nothing and his friends say "How unlucky you are", "Boy that was unlucky"

Punter B:
$20 single win on Lucky Joe

The first horse wins and now he has $220. He cashes the winnings and then puts it all the second horse.

That horse loses by a short head so the punter gets nothing and his friends say "What a jerk", "Why did you put all of it on?", "Why didn't you split half to win and half to show"

That's the conundrum. The bets are exactly the same and yet human emotion will result in different actions and opinions.

If Punter A is correct he is a hero. If Punter A is wrong he is unlucky.
If Punter B is correct he is a foolish hero. If Punter B is wrong he is a jerk.

In reality not many people would do the same as Punter B. Most would reduce the stake on the second horse, or split the stakes win and show. And yet each day in the UK thousands of punters do exactly the same as Punter A.

Thousands of bettors deal with this every racing day. The typical way of coping with cognitive dissonance is to create a false dichotomy between "my money" and "the track's money." Interim exchanges don't matter much--the key issue is how much difference there is between the amount one brought to the track and the amount one leaves the track with because that is the only "real money."

"Woulda coulda shoulda" aside, many would say that accepting crumbs rather than pursuing a large piece of the pie is a strategy guaranteed to result in failure because occasional wins are insufficient to compensate for the attrition of losses.

Event sequence wagers--whether parlays, exacta, trifectas, or whatever--are intended to create the opportunity for larger wins (rather than flat win bets). Remove that opportunity, and racing is little more than a boring grind for those with nothing else to do with their lives.

limit2
02-16-2014, 11:43 AM
I can see the opportunity for larger wins by using exotic wagering. However, in this case I want the assurance that my 1 Win-slot outcome provides an overall profit for the day. Portfolio % is the answer. Perhaps, 60% Win, 25% Exacta, 10% Trifecta and 5% Super.

traynor
02-16-2014, 01:26 PM
I can see the opportunity for larger wins by using exotic wagering. However, in this case I want the assurance that my 1 Win-slot outcome provides an overall profit for the day. Portfolio % is the answer. Perhaps, 60% Win, 25% Exacta, 10% Trifecta and 5% Super.

That is a situation intrinsic to wagering, and one that hinders many. The question is in regard to subjective feelings of self-esteem ("I was a winner today!") as opposed to an overall goal of profit.

It is much like hunting for food. One can pop a couple of squirrels and declare himself or herself a Mighty Hunter. Or one can pass up the distractions, and focus on larger game that will feed the whole tribe for a week.

That is in no way to demean the activities of those who wager as a hobby, and consider any day that shows a profit as a good day. However, multiple days must be considered--it is only when the overall results are positive that the strategy makes sense. It may too often be used as comfort and solace, as in, "I may have lost every day for the past three weeks, but today I won (some trivial amount). I am a winner!" "Profit for the day" is only really signicant when it is the only day wagered, and one will never wager again. Anything else is just upping-and-downing.

Some days you get the bear, and some days the bear gets you. The way to avoid the latter is to avoid any place that has bears. Unfortunately--much like taking a small profit and declaring it as a worthy goal--it also eliminates the possibility that one will get the bear.