Capper Al's hierarchy of handicapping

[Capper Al]

The idea here is like Maslow's Pyramid. Let's do this upside in reverse going from the lowest to the highest.


Form Reader with basic math formulas like Earnings Per Start.
System players like the Dot system including rudimentary eliminations rules.
Factor players like Class, Speed, Trip, Pace, and even Comprehensive.
Race Classification players like Quinn differentiating by classification. This is what one looks for in a claiming race which is different than an allowance race, etc.
At the top, the self actualization is Form and Intent (Willingness and able). How will your horse run today? Will the barn go for it? Understanding of form cycle and trainers is needed here.


How would you make the handicapper's pyramid?

[HUSKER55]

ok.....I will try......

me Tarzan king of jungle... the easy life begins

me Tarzan can't see for the trees

me Tarzan climb higher to get a better view

me Tarzan get hungry, this is work..but the view from the top will be worth it

me Tarzan grab apples on way up the tree...everyone has to eat

me Tarzan,... when did elephants start hiding in trees

Dearly departed, Tarzan died picking apples

[traynor]

ok.....I will try......

me Tarzan king of jungle... the easy life begins

me Tarzan can't see for the trees

me Tarzan climb higher to get a better view

me Tarzan get hungry, this is work..but the view from the top will be worth it

me Tarzan grab apples on way up the tree...everyone has to eat

me Tarzan,... when did elephants start hiding in trees

Dearly departed, Tarzan died picking apples

Good description. Also makes clear why--when one is at the top of the trees--one is in a much better position to ignore those below as irrelevant, or to summarily deal with them in an expedient and effective manner if they become problematic.

[Capper Al]

I asked for your opinion. I believed a discussion on how a capper develops might help. My problem. I forgot where I was.

[traynor]

I asked for your opinion. I believed a discussion on how a capper develops might help. My problem. I forgot where I was.

When one asks for the opinion of another, it is unseemly to be distressed when that opinion is provided, honestly and without malice. Such distress might be interpreted (correctly or incorrectly) as a generic underlying fear of losing control.

[PaceAdvantage]

My problem. I forgot where I was.Yeah, this place sucks. Thanks for keeping the thread classy in your own right.

[Magister Ludi]

Your "handicapper's pyramid" bears more resemblance to Dante's Circles of Hell than it does to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Purgatorio is not reachable from it, much less Paradiso.

Extreme intelligence, creativity, and orginality is your letter of redemption.

[raybo]

Your "handicapper's pyramid" bears more resemblance to Dante's Circles of Hell than it does to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Purgatorio is not reachable from it, much less Paradiso.

Extreme intelligence, creativity, and orginality is your letter of redemption.

Define "extreme intelligence" as it pertains to horse racing analysis. It appears that you think only geniuses have any shot.

[notoutofpounds]

I asked for your opinion. I believed a discussion on how a capper develops might help. My problem. I forgot where I was.

Horseplayers have long memories, perhaps some members read all 800 pages of The One Truth thread or whatever it was, and do not feel like responding with a Maslow Hierarchy. Husker's response was spot on.

[thaskalos]

I asked for your opinion. I believed a discussion on how a capper develops might help. My problem. I forgot where I was.

Maybe your "will the barn go for it" reference turned people off.

[Capper Al]

Yeah, this place sucks. Thanks for keeping the thread classy in your own right.

Not that this place sucks as such, but more to my fault of not remembering the audience here. I was speaking to my experience of growth as a developer.

[Capper Al]

Your "handicapper's pyramid" bears more resemblance to Dante's Circles of Hell than it does to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Purgatorio is not reachable from it, much less Paradiso.

Extreme intelligence, creativity, and orginality is your letter of redemption.

Over my head. I'll take your word on this.

[raybo]

I asked for your opinion. I believed a discussion on how a capper develops might help. My problem. I forgot where I was.

Maybe you should have titled the thread, "How does a handicapper develop", not "Capper Al's hierarchy of handicapping". That tends to make people think the thread is all about you, and what you think, or think you know, not how other handicappers develop over time. Your history here tends to precede you in such matters.

[Capper Al]

Horseplayers have long memories, perhaps some members read all 800 pages of The One Truth thread or whatever it was, and do not feel like responding with a Maslow Hierarchy. Husker's response was spot on.

The one truth still stands. Because you don't get it, doesn't mean that i did anything to intentionally upset people. Trust me. This is spot on.

[raybo]

The one truth still stands. Because you don't get it, doesn't mean that i did anything to intentionally upset people. Trust me. This is spot on.

If you care to reread that thread, your "truth" was never proven to be truth, except to you.

[Capper Al]

Maybe you should have titled the thread, "How does a handicapper develop", not "Capper Al's hierarchy of handicapping". That tends to make people think the thread is all about you, and what you think, or think you know, not how other handicappers develop over time. Your history here tends to precede you in such matters.

You might be on to something here. I do enjoy to go all out. Could be a bad habit. My plan was to come back to PA and to publish some testing for my new system. This place is good for criticism. That should help me with my study. I think I'll go back to the plan.

[Tom]

How would you make the handicapper's pyramid?

What is so hard to understand here?
He presented a point of view and asked for others.

Isn't that why we are here?

Here is my take on it -

1. What type of race is it? What kind of horse do we expect to win races like this? (ie, Maiden claimer, Gr1, allowance Turf route, 3yo claimer....

2. How does each horse match up on those expectations?

3. Are there any factors that may dominate today? (Strong track bias....)

4. What are the provable outcome scenarios for this race, and how likely is each to occur?

5. The horse - speed, pace, form, trainer, jockey, class......

6. Last minute considerations - the horse's appearance, odds, odds changes, "buzz",

7. Betting options - how do you maximize your return on this race?

8. Post-race - what happened, why? Did you glean something to help in later races today? Did the track "change"

[JohnGalt1]

Each type of race I weight the factors differently.

For marathons, 1 1/4 and longer, in order of importance--1) Performance Class Rating and distance breeding (tied) 2) if turf race, turf breeding. 3) Final fraction 4) Form

For turf routes, 1) PCR 2) pace/speed rating 3) Form 4)Turf breeding 5)Trainer win % of 25% or higher in turf races or 30% or higher in objective factors like 1st or 2nd after claim, long lay offs, etc. and Jockey/Trainer together win % 305 and higher.

Dirt Routes 1) PCR 2) pace/speed rating 3) Form 4) Trainer 5)jockey/trainer

Sprints 1) pace/speed rating 2) PCR 3) Form. 4)Trainer 5 Jockey/trainer

Maiden Special. All tied at most important PCR, pace/speed, form, breeding for first or second timers, trainer win % for first or second starters--must be higher than 30% with at least 4 wins. and Jockey/trainer

Maiden Claimers. 1)Breeding for first and second timers and class droppers since it's a new race for them at the class, (Thanks Mike Helm for this tip.) 2) pace and speed rating, 3)form 4)Trainer win % for first and second starts at 30% or higher. 5)Jockey/trainer. 6) PCR because it is usually unreliable do to the numerous in the money finishes of horses with many races inflating the rating.

I'll also play a few quarter horse races. 1) Speed 2)speed 3)speed, etc.

[Capper Al]

What is so hard to understand here?
He presented a point of view and asked for others.

Isn't that why we are here?

"

Thanks. That's what I thought too.

[Capper Al]

Each type of race I weight the factors differently.

For marathons, 1 1/4 and longer, in order of importance--1) Performance Class Rating and distance breeding (tied) 2) if turf race, turf breeding. 3) Final fraction 4) Form

For turf routes, 1) PCR 2) pace/speed rating 3) Form 4)Turf breeding 5)Trainer win % of 25% or higher in turf races or 30% or higher in objective factors like 1st or 2nd after claim, long lay offs, etc. and Jockey/Trainer together win % 305 and higher.

Dirt Routes 1) PCR 2) pace/speed rating 3) Form 4) Trainer 5)jockey/trainer

Sprints 1) pace/speed rating 2) PCR 3) Form. 4)Trainer 5 Jockey/trainer

Maiden Special. All tied at most important PCR, pace/speed, form, breeding for first or second timers, trainer win % for first or second starters--must be higher than 30% with at least 4 wins. and Jockey/trainer

Maiden Claimers. 1)Breeding for first and second timers and class droppers since it's a new race for them at the class, (Thanks Mike Helm for this tip.) 2) pace and speed rating, 3)form 4)Trainer win % for first and second starts at 30% or higher. 5)Jockey/trainer. 6) PCR because it is usually unreliable do to the numerous in the money finishes of horses with many races inflating the rating.

I'll also play a few quarter horse races. 1) Speed 2)speed 3)speed, etc.

The question is how did you get to this understanding? You must have evolved somehow through trial and error and growth.

[whodoyoulike]

What is so hard to understand here?
He presented a point of view and asked for others.

Isn't that why we are here?

Here is my take on it -

1. What type of race is it? What kind of horse do we expect to win races like this? (ie, Maiden claimer, Gr1, allowance Turf route, 3yo claimer....

4. What are the provable outcome scenarios for this race, and how likely is each to occur?

5. The horse - speed, pace, form, trainer, jockey, class......



FWIW, I really like the above. Btw, the others are also good.

[Sinner369]

The idea here is like Maslow's Pyramid. Let's do this upside in reverse going from the lowest to the highest.


Form Reader with basic math formulas like Earnings Per Start.
System players like the Dot system including rudimentary eliminations rules.
Factor players like Class, Speed, Trip, Pace, and even Comprehensive.
Race Classification players like Quinn differentiating by classification. This is what one looks for in a claiming race which is different than an allowance race, etc.
At the top, the self actualization is Form and Intent (Willingness and able). How will your horse run today? Will the barn go for it? Understanding of form cycle and trainers is needed here.


How would you make the handicapper's pyramid?


Al, a little clarification please?..............are we discussing Factors or are we talking about the Handicapping Process?..........we seem to be getting both!!!

[Capper Al]

Maybe your "will the barn go for it" reference turned people off.

Putting this on top hit the nail on the head even if it may have pissed some people which I don't beleive was the case. The beauty with "will they go for it" elavates handicapping from a science to an art.

[VeryOldMan]

Al, a little clarification please?..............are we discussing Factors or are we talking about the Handicapping Process?..........we seem to be getting both!!!
+1

I thought this was about the evolution of the handicapping process in the larger scheme for the handicapper, not as it applies to a particular race?

Liked M_L's Circles of Hell line, but that's another story.

[Capper Al]

Al, a little clarification please?..............are we discussing Factors or are we talking about the Handicapping Process?..........we seem to be getting both!!!

My original intent was to discuss the growth of the handicapper more with the software coder in mind like myself. But I enjoy talking handicapping, so it's okay with if people want to chime in with where they are at. There's been some good pointers brought up.

[Capper Al]

The height of understanding for me was understanding the gamble, not a mechanical process which so many handicappers strive for.

[Capper Al]

ok.....I will try......

me Tarzan king of jungle... the easy life begins

me Tarzan can't see for the trees

me Tarzan climb higher to get a better view

me Tarzan get hungry, this is work..but the view from the top will be worth it

me Tarzan grab apples on way up the tree...everyone has to eat

me Tarzan,... when did elephants start hiding in trees

Dearly departed, Tarzan died picking apples


Angry bird.

[Capper Al]

When one asks for the opinion of another, it is unseemly to be distressed when that opinion is provided, honestly and without malice. Such distress might be interpreted (correctly or incorrectly) as a generic underlying fear of losing control.

Trayon, do you understand what you mean? Then that makes one of us.

[raybo]

If we're talking handicapping evolution process, then mine was:

1. Finding out what the tote board was really telling me. And learning to read the DRF.
2. Studying and cataloging many hundreds of results charts from the newspaper, in a notebook.
3. Breaking those results down by track, then later by surface, distance, age, and race classification, all pen and paper stuff, and studying the relationships between off odds and hit percentages, also the relationships between odds spreads and vertical exotic payouts (Exacta first, then later Tri, and finally Super), at various tracks, with the goal of being able to accurately estimate exotic payouts.
4. Buying a cassette fed computer (TI-99) to start learning Basic programming, and later a Tandy Color Trac !! (I think that was the name) and purchasing a handicapping program, on cassette tape, and printing out the "Basic" code from it, to get ideas for writing my own program.
5. Giving up on Basic programming after discovering Excel spreadsheets.
6. Manually typing in the raw data into Excel and writing formulas to manipulate that data.
7. Learning to record and modify VBA macros for importing Bris data files into Excel, to create PPs that included my own factors calculated within Excel. The rankings priorities have always been track, surface, distance, age/class specific, in nature, relying on pace, speed, and form cycle analysis for the final rankings. Also created a limited, simplistic Excel database program for historical research.
8. Became highly influenced by Sartin and began velocities based pace analysis, rather than pace and speed figure analysis.
9. The "AllData Project" was begun, and via Harry ("Hcap"), we got everything automated within Excel without external data parsing, and we evolved into batch processing capabilities with file export, which led to a full blown Excel database app for querying and model creation for daily play.
10. Randy Giles' PPG work "grabbed me by the collar" and I began work on the "RS Black Box" program, and emphasizing small, recent, track specific databases for win contender eliminations.
11. Many, many versions of the BB later, brings me up to today.

[burnsy]

The height of understanding for me was understanding the gamble, not a mechanical process which so many handicappers strive for.

That's the best thing you wrote on this thread and the only thing you need to know to be a good gambler. ;) Some people know every stat, number and process but they can't gamble worth shit. If one can't think outside the lines.........stick to crayons.

[Capper Al]

That's the best thing you wrote on this thread and the only thing you need to know to be a good gambler. ;) Some people know every stat, number and process but they can't gamble worth shit. If one can't think outside the lines.........stick to crayons.

Yep, the capper gets seduced into believing that they can avoid the gamble by using their numbers.

[raybo]

That's the best thing you wrote on this thread and the only thing you need to know to be a good gambler. ;) Some people know every stat, number and process but they can't gamble worth shit. If one can't think outside the lines.........stick to crayons.

It's always been about risk versus potential reward. But, handicapping skills don't hurt. Without handicapping skills one doesn't know if the risk/reward is positive or negative.

[JohnGalt1]

The question is how did you get to this understanding? You must have evolved somehow through trial and error and growth.


Yes. I got to this point in handicapping life from losing, and from trial and error.

I started making $2 place bets when my company went to Canterbury in the late "80's. Went with a friend the following year made place bets, the a customer of mine suggested the way to make money is to play 3 horse exacta boxes. I used the newspaper grid of public handicappers, and if I remember took the consensus top, third and a horse of my choosing and lost $120 in ten races.

I wondered how handicappers selected their horses since they all looked the same to my untrained eye. So I bought my first handicapping book, "Eliminating the Losers" by Bob McKnight.

I felt proud to handicap and collect on my first wining bet from my own handicapping. But since the book was written in the 1960's racing was different then. Horses ran every other week on average, and his method said not to rate horses if off a lay off.

By the 1990's only the cheapest tracks ran horses every 2-3 weeks.

So I bought more books to see if other opinions and methods had merit.

If something made sense to me I incorporated it into my handicapping, if something didn't work out it went. Sometimes a book or article had only one valuable item. Great!

I try to keep my handicapping simple. Too many factors is confusing and either leads to chalk if they all point to one horse, or is confusing if each factor leads to 6 different horses.

I handicap with pen and paper and have it down that I can do each race in less than five minutes, and since I only want good bets, 2-4 win bets per card on average, I'm looking for any reason to pass a race.

I just finished Belmont's Friday 6/27 card and will not make any bets.

So I will not have any losers!

[HUSKER55]

When I made that post I thought I was keeping things simple.

When a punter starts he thinks that anyone can do this. Then the punter finds out you have to study and "climb the ladder", (I used trees). Everyone scores on their way up, (picking apples),or else why would you do it. then you find out that to bet the big bucks to make big money takes a lot more work, (elephants in the trees). If you want to make a living doing this you have to climb the tree.

We all die hunting for the holy grail, (or picking apples), because only a few make it to the top of the tree. Sooner or later we find out swinging from tree to tree does not cut it.

For those of you who did not follow that....then your problem has nothing to do with the amount of work that you do.

[Capper Al]

When I made that post I thought I was keeping things simple.

When a punter starts he thinks that anyone can do this. Then the punter finds out you have to study and "climb the ladder", (I used trees). Everyone scores on their way up, (picking apples),or else why would you do it. then you find out that to bet the big bucks to make big money takes a lot more work, (elephants in the trees). If you want to make a living doing this you have to climb the tree.

We all die hunting for the holy grail, (or picking apples), because only a few make it to the top of the tree. Sooner or later we find out swinging from tree to tree does not cut it.

For those of you who did not follow that....then your problem has nothing to do with the amount of work that you do.

I agree with the generality of what you said. This would apply in a way to Maslow's hierarchy too. Journalizing the trip to the top of the tree and making categories of neighborhoods on the way up, like Maslow did, is what I was aiming for with the hierarchies. One might see a top skater perform and appreciate their dance and not be able to duplicate their performance themself.

[Robert Fischer]

The idea here is like Maslow's Pyramid. Let's do this upside in reverse going from the lowest to the highest.



Form Reader with basic math formulas like Earnings Per Start.
System players like the Dot system including rudimentary eliminations rules.
Factor players like Class, Speed, Trip, Pace, and even Comprehensive.
Race Classification players like Quinn differentiating by classification. This is what one looks for in a claiming race which is different than an allowance race, etc.
At the top, the self actualization is Form and Intent (Willingness and able). How will your horse run today? Will the barn go for it? Understanding of form cycle and trainers is needed here.

How would you make the handicapper's pyramid?






good thread idea Capper Al

[Capper Al]

good thread idea Capper Al

Thanks. I thought this subject had potential. I couldn't be the only one here who tweaked their methods and watched their pick just walk out of the gate while the other horses ran out. This is what I was referring to as the tip of the hierarchy, knowing the gamble.

[Capper Al]

If you care to reread that thread, your "truth" was never proven to be truth, except to you.

Let me remind you about the origins of the post. I bought Dave's "Basics of Winning" and was excited that we came to the same conclusion independent of each other. People like yourself jump on me for posting the "One Truth" thread which was free to the readers here.Not one person has jumped on Dave for charging them money for the same truth. Why? If this truth is false, wouldn't you think that those who purchased Dave's product have a bigger complaint against Dave then me who didn't charge people a dime? Why isn't anyone jumping all over Dave? Not that I'm recommending that anyone should jump on Dave. What he published was true even if you don't get it.

[raybo]

Let me remind you about the origins of the post. I bought Dave's "Basics of Winning" and was excited that we came to the same conclusion independent of each other. People like yourself jump on me for posting the "One Truth" thread which was free to the readers here.Not one person has jumped on Dave for charging them money for the same truth. Why? If this truth is false, wouldn't you think that those who purchased Dave's product have a bigger complaint against Dave then me who didn't charge people a dime? Why isn't anyone jumping all over Dave? Not that I'm recommending that anyone should jump on Dave. What he published was true even if you don't get it.

Not going to get into a big argument here but, just saying; you stated something as the "only truth" in racing, and led people on forever, and then never proved your point. In other words, it was a huge waste of time, and appeared to be nothing more than another attempt to create drama and conflict.

[Capper Al]

Not going to get into a big argument here but, just saying; you stated something as the "only truth" in racing, and led people on forever, and then never proved your point. In other words, it was a huge waste of time, and appeared to be nothing more than another attempt to create drama and conflict.

You don't want an argument when I take the time to defend myself with what I consider a pretty good retort. And then you get into your old song and dance and completely ignore what I said. If you want details buy Dave's "Basics of Winning". You don't have to believe me or attack me. You just don't get it and leave it at that.

[raybo]

You don't want an argument when I take the time to defend myself with what I consider a pretty good retort. And then you get into your old song and dance and completely ignore what I said. If you want details buy Dave's "Basics of Winning". You don't have to believe me or attack me. You just don't get it and leave it at that.

To the best of my memory, there were a huge number of posts and posters in that thread and the only one that "seemed" to support your "one truth" theory was Dave. So, are we to believe that you two are right and all the many others who disagreed with you are wrong? Some of the brightest people on this forum stated their belief that there is no "one truth" in racing, but I suppose you and Dave are the experts on this, or any other forum, and everybody else is just stupid and "doesn't get it", even though you offered no proof of your claim.

I will not entertain your need for drama, argument, and ego stroking further on this subject, so save us all the aggravation and just move on.

[thaskalos]

Let me remind you about the origins of the post. I bought Dave's "Basics of Winning" and was excited that we came to the same conclusion independent of each other. People like yourself jump on me for posting the "One Truth" thread which was free to the readers here.Not one person has jumped on Dave for charging them money for the same truth. Why? If this truth is false, wouldn't you think that those who purchased Dave's product have a bigger complaint against Dave then me who didn't charge people a dime? Why isn't anyone jumping all over Dave? Not that I'm recommending that anyone should jump on Dave. What he published was true even if you don't get it.

Did Dave advertise it as "the only one absolute truth toward profitability"...or was that your idea?

[Capper Al]

To the best of my memory, there were a huge number of posts and posters in that thread and the only one that "seemed" to support your "one truth" theory was Dave. So, are we to believe that you two are right and all the many others who disagreed with you are wrong? Some of the brightest people on this forum stated their belief that there is no "one truth" in racing, but I suppose you and Dave are the experts on this, or any other forum, and everybody else is just stupid and "doesn't get it", even though you offered no proof of your claim.

I will not entertain your need for drama, argument, and ego stroking further on this subject, so save us all the aggravation and just move on.

You want to get the last punch in? I'm afraid not. The point is that you attacked me not Dave. Your fury was targeted in a personal way by not including Dave too. You were out to destroy me, not counter an argument. And you have the never to call what I did self-indulging. Shame on you.

[thaskalos]

You want to get the last punch in? I'm afraid not. The point is that you attacked me not Dave. Your fury was targeted in a personal way by not including Dave too. You were out to destroy me, not counter an argument. And you have the never to call what I did self-indulging. Shame on you.

Al, I like your enthusiasm...but even you must admit that your "one and only absolute truth toward profitability" thread was a little unusual. You started the thread off as if you were testing us on whether or not we knew this "one absolute truth"...and you even asked us to submit the answer to you by personal message -- if we thought that we knew it. Everybody assumed that you would eventually supply the answer yourself somewhere in the thread...but then you came on and said that you couldn't reveal this "one and only absolute truth"...because it originated from Dave -- and Dave was selling it...so you couldn't infringe on his copyright of the product.

And those of us who never bought the item from Dave still have no idea what this "only absolute truth towards profitability" really is.

At least that's how I remember it...

[Capper Al]

Did Dave advertise it as "the only one absolute truth toward profitability"...or was that your idea?

That was me. .A point of view that I still hold.

[raybo]

Did Dave advertise it as "the only one absolute truth toward profitability"...or was that your idea?

I don't remember Dave saying anything about "one truth" in racing, but he did "seemingly" support Al's natural odds theory (which is as close to the Al's "one truth" as we ever got), that's why Dave was not included in all the drama that ensued. I haven't read Dave's book, but if he states the "one truth" in racing in it, then there must be a whole lot more profitable players around now, because I'm sure he sold more than a few copies.

[Capper Al]

Al, I like your enthusiasm...but even you must admit that your "one and only absolute truth toward profitability" thread was a little unusual. You started the thread off as if you were testing us on whether or not we knew this "one absolute truth"...and you even asked us to submit the answer to you by personal message -- if we thought that we knew it. Everybody assumed that you would eventually supply the answer yourself somewhere in the thread...but then you came on and said that you couldn't reveal this "one and only absolute truth"...because it originated from Dave -- and Dave was selling it...so you couldn't infringe on his copyright of the product.

And those of us who never bought the item from Dave still have no idea what this "only absolute truth towards profitability" really is.

At least that's how I remember it...

Fair enough. If anyone wants an explanation they can buy Dave's product. I should add that I have every respect for Raybo. I just want to have fun posting. I don't want to come under attack everytime I post something.

[DRIVEWAY]

Fair enough. If anyone wants an explanation they can buy Dave's product. I should add that I have every respect for Raybo. I just want to have fun posting. I don't want to come under attack everytime I post something.

Hello Al,

Are you saying that the thread was nothing more than a sales pitch for Dave's book?

Did you take advantage of all those people that added content to your thread?

Answer the question you posed in your own words and make everyone happy. Dave's already made as much as he's going to on the book. I'm sure he'll release you from any plagerism claims.

Mysteries are meant to be solved.

[Capper Al]

Hello Al,

Are you saying that the thread was nothing more than a sales pitch for Dave's book?

Did you take advantage of all those people that added content to your plagerism?
Answer the question you posed in your own words and make everyone happy. Dave's already made as much as he's going to on the book. I'm sure he'll release you from any plagerism claims.

Mysteries are meant to be solved.

I had nothing to do with promoting sales of the Dave's product other than my own excitement from having had come to the same conclusion years before on my own.

[DRIVEWAY]

Hello Al,

Are you saying that the thread was nothing more than a sales pitch for Dave's book?

Did you take advantage of all those people that added content to your thread?

Answer the question you posed in your own words and make everyone happy. Dave's already made as much as he's going to on the book. I'm sure he'll release you from any plagerism claims.

Mysteries are meant to be solved.

Al

Why did you change the word thread to plagerism? Weird.

[Capper Al]

Al

Why did you change the word thread to plagerism? Weird.

It was a copy and paste error. How did you come up with plagerism? This is too crazy for me. Didn't you catch that they were trying to make something out of what I posted? Enough of this conversation. Like I said, all I want to do is post with some flare at times. If people agree or disagree with my handicapping theories it doesn't matter. If they don't get what I have to say, it isn't some conspiracy or false statement generated on my part. I post what I do and believe and try to have fun doing it.

[Robert Fischer]

Yes, that other thread was a real drag, once it became clear that the question was rhetorical.

It wasn't well received, and Capper Al had to notice that.

What about the merits of this thread?

[whodoyoulike]

I had nothing to do with promoting sales of the Dave's product other than my own excitement from having had come to the same conclusion years before on my own.

I must have missed the other thread topic / discussion. It seems you're not going to reveal this "one truth" but, do you still feel it's still valid? There was another thread which you wanted to test some attributes, I don't get it. Is there or isn't there "one truth"?

Thanks,

[DRIVEWAY]

It was a copy and paste error. How did you come up with plagerism? This is too crazy for me. Didn't you catch that they were trying to make something out of what I posted? Enough of this conversation. Like I said, all I want to do is post with some flare at times. If people agree or disagree with my handicapping theories it doesn't matter. If they don't get what I have to say, it isn't some conspiracy or false statement generated on my part. I post what I do and believe and try to have fun doing it.

Having fun is what it's all about. As far as what you believe, everyone is hoping to hear just that. What is the TRUTH you are talking about?

It's always interesting to hear other peoples theories, approaches, ideas etc. You do a great job generating participation. That's why everyone is hoping you will share the TRUTH with them.

Keep up the good work, the suspense has everyone at the edge of their keyboard.

[Capper Al]

Yes, that other thread was a real drag, once it became clear that the question was rhetorical.

It wasn't well received, and Capper Al had to notice that.

What about the merits of this thread?

Agree. This topic had potential.

[notoutofpounds]

Not going to get into a big argument here but, just saying; you stated something as the "only truth" in racing, and led people on forever, and then never proved your point. In other words, it was a huge waste of time, and appeared to be nothing more than another attempt to create drama and conflict.

This is the one truth.

[Capper Al]

This is the one truth.

One more time:

The Absolute Truth is that handicapping selections are preferred to random selections. If one is a descent handicapper and gets random odds (based on today's field size) on a horse then over the long run one should come out ahead. If you don't believe this then why are you handicapping at all?

The point is that this is the only thing we really know for sure about the handicapping process. We won't know what would happen if we ran a race a 100 times, or if there is any real credence to such thought. We don't know for sure if speed is going to hold up today or not, or if class tells today. We can't really make an accurate odds line for each and every race. What we do know is that handicapping works over the long out picking random selection. The Absolute Truth says that if this is the only thing we know for sure then this is the way to wager until we find some other truth to bet on. And, for me at least, nothing else has stood the test of time except this truth-- Handicapping is preferred to random selection. Bet it that way.

[traynor]

One more time:

The Absolute Truth is that handicapping selections are preferred to random selections. If one is a descent handicapper and gets random odds (based on today's field size) on a horse then over the long run one should come out ahead. If you don't believe this then why are you handicapping at all?

The point is that this is the only thing we really know for sure about the handicapping process. We won't know what would happen if we ran a race a 100 times, or if there is any real credence to such thought. We don't know for sure if speed is going to hold up today or not, or if class tells today. We can't really make an accurate odds line for each and every race. What we do know is that handicapping works over the long out picking random selection. The Absolute Truth says that if this is the only thing we know for sure then this is the way to wager until we find some other truth to bet on. And, for me at least, nothing else has stood the test of time except this truth-- Handicapping is preferred to random selection. Bet it that way.

That may be "true" for you, but it is a purely subjective, internal "truth" that applies only to you. That is a long, long way from "Absolute Truth."

[DRIVEWAY]

One more time:

The Absolute Truth is that handicapping selections are preferred to random selections. If one is a descent handicapper and gets random odds (based on today's field size) on a horse then over the long run one should come out ahead. If you don't believe this then why are you handicapping at all?

The point is that this is the only thing we really know for sure about the handicapping process. We won't know what would happen if we ran a race a 100 times, or if there is any real credence to such thought. We don't know for sure if speed is going to hold up today or not, or if class tells today. We can't really make an accurate odds line for each and every race. What we do know is that handicapping works over the long out picking random selection. The Absolute Truth says that if this is the only thing we know for sure then this is the way to wager until we find some other truth to bet on. And, for me at least, nothing else has stood the test of time except this truth-- Handicapping is preferred to random selection. Bet it that way.


Thanks for your insight. :ThmbUp:

Knew someone who did what your saying and definitely won. Had the patience to sit there all day waiting for opportunity to knock.

"Only wager on your selection when the general public provides you with a minimum of natural odds" was his way of explaining.

[Capper Al]

That may be "true" for you, but it is a purely subjective, internal "truth" that applies only to you. That is a long, long way from "Absolute Truth."

Wrong. It is the most absolute and objective truth of all. One doesn't ever know the horse and how it will run today, but they do know their own handicapping strengths and weaknesses. with this method your wagering is focused on what you know for sure. the horse is only the object of our handicapping not the subject. Knowing the horse is an illusion. What we know are numbers.

[Aner]

This board is a better place because of Capper Al's contributions. I really appreciate the many insights he has and his zeal for handicapping. He was away recently and I missed his posts. When we have such a prolific idea guy, it is inevitable no one will agree with everything he posts. But, I think we need to give him some leeway. I certainly don't want to chase him away again.

[traynor]

Wrong. It is the most absolute and objective truth of all. One doesn't ever know the horse and how it will run today, but they do know their own handicapping strengths and weaknesses. with this method your wagering is focused on what you know for sure. the horse is only the object of our handicapping not the subject. Knowing the horse is an illusion. What we know are numbers.

I really think you need to get a grip on your understanding of "truth." Other than belief in "magical thinking" (a specific description) there is no way for you to know the internal thought processes of another, except by your own subjective interpretation of what you believe to be "true" about those processes.

It is your use of the imperial "we" and the presumption that you are in a position to comment on what I (or anyone else) know/knows or do not/does not know about any topic that is in question. You can freely state what you think or believe or "know" about a given topic. You cannot do more than express an opinion about what anyone else thinks, believes, or knows.

Ultimately, you are only expressing an internal, subjective opinion. That is a long, long way from "Absolute Truth."

[Capper Al]

This board is a better place because of Capper Al's contributions. I really appreciate the many insights he has and his zeal for handicapping. He was away recently and I missed his posts. When we have such a prolific idea guy, it is inevitable no one will agree with everything he posts. But, I think we need to give him some leeway. I certainly don't want to chase him away again.

Thank you. I live in the hinterlands, about 2.5 hours from Chicago. Michigan racing has died. I .miss going to clubhouse and talking ponies. I missed being away from the PA and am determined not to let a few nay sayers ruin my experience. Thanks again.

[Capper Al]

I really think you need to get a grip on your understanding of "truth." Other than belief in "magical thinking" (a specific description) there is no way for you to know the internal thought processes of another, except by your own subjective interpretation of what you believe to be "true" about those processes.

It is your use of the imperial "we" and the presumption that you are in a position to comment on what I (or anyone else) know/knows or do not/does not know about any topic that is in question. You can freely state what you think or believe or "know" about a given topic. You cannot do more than express an opinion about what anyone else thinks, believes, or knows.

Ultimately, you are only expressing an internal, subjective opinion. That is a long, long way from "Absolute Truth."

Wrong again. And now angry. I'm guessing, because I don't know for sure, but it sounds you are having a problem with this subject. It is a paradigm shift. Sometimes the smartest people have the hardest time with new concepts.

[traynor]

Wrong again. And now angry. I'm guessing, because I don't know for sure, but it sounds you are having a problem with this subject. It is a paradigm shift. Sometimes the smartest people have the hardest time with new concepts.

It is nothing personal. I don't think you are in a position to tell others what they can or cannot know. You can express an opinion about what you personally believe or think, but that is all. Again, that is a long, long way from "Absolute Truth" (without getting into a long, convoluted exchange about whether such a thing as "Absolute Truth" could exist at all).

[cashmachine]

Wrong. It is the most absolute and objective truth of all. One doesn't ever know the horse and how it will run today, but they do know their own handicapping strengths and weaknesses. with this method your wagering is focused on what you know for sure. the horse is only the object of our handicapping not the subject. Knowing the horse is an illusion. What we know are numbers.

So essentially your "truth" is basically a statement that you cannot predict outcome of a random event but in the long term average will converge to expectation. Is it what you were trying to say?

[traynor]

It might be interesting to see what other thinkers think of "Absolute Truth."

Cogito ergo sum ... Classical Latin: ... ("I think, therefore I am") is a philosophical proposition by René Descartes. The simple meaning of the Latin phrase is that thinking about one’s existence proves—in and of itself—that an "I" exists to do the thinking; or, as Descartes explains, "[W]e cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt … ."

This proposition became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it was perceived to form a foundation for all knowledge. While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception or mistake, the very act of doubting one's own existence arguably serves as proof of the reality of one's own existence, or at least of one's thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

[thaskalos]

Wrong. It is the most absolute and objective truth of all. One doesn't ever know the horse and how it will run today, but they do know their own handicapping strengths and weaknesses. with this method your wagering is focused on what you know for sure. the horse is only the object of our handicapping not the subject. Knowing the horse is an illusion. What we know are numbers.

Al...I must disagree with you here. This is far from an absolute truth...and it hinges on many suppositions. If "knowing the horse is an illusion", as you say...then knowing one's own handicapping strengths and weaknesses is an illusion as well. We determine our strengths and weaknesses as players by our supposed knowledge of the horse. If the horse is indeed "unknowable"...then how do we presume to reduce a field of horses into contenders and non-contenders -- so we can put your "only absolute truth" to use in real life?

[so.cal.fan]

Very difficult, but the player who can classify horses correctly wins. Always, in my humble opinion.

[thaskalos]

Very difficult, but the player who can classify horses correctly wins. Always, in my humble opinion.
"Classify correctly" is like saying, "avoid the losers".

Easy to say...but tough to do. :)

[raybo]

About the only thing that both Al and I agree on is that nobody knows the results of races, before they run.

But, if the "absolute truth" is to wait until your top win selection goes off at natural odds or higher, then what's the point of wagering in the first place? In order to show profit, at natural odds or higher, you must be extremely patient, to the point of complete boredom, and you had better be about the best handicapper on the planet. And, to make any substantial profit, given the aforementioned attributes, you better bet very big and have a hell of a bankroll.

And, to the poster who missed Al when he wasn't posting, I agree that Al comes up with some "interesting" topics( :faint: ). But, the way in which he presents them, and then tries to justify his support of his own opinions on them, is just aggravating as hell, and often completely defies logic. Maybe it's just the Michigan in him, I don't know, but whatever the reason, he sure has a propensity for rubbing people the wrong way.

[traynor]

Again, it is nothing personal. It is that making statements about what others can or cannot know essentially trivializes knowledge that those others may have spent years (or decades) learning and testing in the real world. More than a few of those others are (successfully) wagering significant sums of money on (and profiting from) the knowledge you say cannot exist.

[so.cal.fan]

I believe you have to classify horses correctly, as much as is possible. Those people I've known personally, at the track, who are consistent winners do this. There are many different ways to go about this, but you need to master this.

[GaryG]

Very difficult, but the player who can classify horses correctly wins. Always, in my humble opinion.Pittsburgh Phil said this more than 100 years ago. The way I remember the quotation is: Show me a man who can class horses correctly and I will show you a man who can win all the money he wants. And he only needs $1 to start. God bless, Diane.

[Robert Goren]

I believe you have to classify horses correctly, as much as is possible. Those people I've known personally, at the track, who are consistent winners do this. There are many different ways to go about this, but you need to master this.There are many ways to get that end, but every consistent winner I ever met did the same thing too.

[so.cal.fan]

Gary G! How y'all doing?
Come out to California sometime.....Santa Anita?

[JJMartin]

From Google search: "Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.

Another absolute truth is 1+1 can never equal 3 or anything other than 2.

I see what AL is trying to say but I don't see a place for absolute truth (in the way it is generally defined) in Handicapping. Some guy who is just a beginner could essentially get lucky on a long shot and continue winning with whatever practice was applied to his initial selection process and think he knows something. For example, he may judge the horses by some method of evaluating physical appearance which may in fact have no validity at all. This would amount to nothing more than random selection. But during the course of his betting history, he was able to hit many long shots resulting in a positive ROI. This is the same as someone who enters a casino and applies a "system" (nothing to do with cheating) and wins and now he thinks he has a winning system when in fact there is no edge at all.

There is definitely ways of achieving a higher than random chance % of winning because this is a game based entirely on "opinions". Your opinion just has to be effective and strategically employed. CC was the favorite in the Belmont and he lost. Some people thought he would not handle the distance and was not as rested as the other horses and that to me is a reasonable assertion. The public was wrong that day.

[whodoyoulike]

I believe you have to classify horses correctly, as much as is possible. Those people I've known personally, at the track, who are consistent winners do this. There are many different ways to go about this, but you need to master this.


FWIW, I agree. See post #17 in this thread:

What is so hard to understand here?
He presented a point of view and asked for others.

Isn't that why we are here?

Here is my take on it -

1. What type of race is it? What kind of horse do we expect to win races like this? (ie, Maiden claimer, Gr1, allowance Turf route, 3yo claimer....

2. How does each horse match up on those expectations?

3. Are there any factors that may dominate today? (Strong track bias....)

4. What are the provable outcome scenarios for this race, and how likely is each to occur?

5. The horse - speed, pace, form, trainer, jockey, class......

6. Last minute considerations - the horse's appearance, odds, odds changes, "buzz",

7. Betting options - how do you maximize your return on this race?

8. Post-race - what happened, why? Did you glean something to help in later races today? Did the track "change"

Highlight #1, #4 and #5.

Btw, I like Al's posts and ideas a lot. He seems to always want to generate new ways of thinking. But, he shouldn't take disagreements so personally.

[Capper Al]

I have to make this fast.

Does anyone not believe that handicapping beats random selection?

If you value play then you need to have a method for determining the odds you play at. What the absolute provides is a startng rational for figuring this out. Really do you think your odds line is that accurate? These are the guys calling BS on me? Come on.

I believe part of the problem is that handicappers believe what they do is rocket science and it can't be this easy, but it is.

I'll play my fourth place contender if the price is right. My top contender is more playable at lower odds. The capper has to adjust just like everything else in horse racing. But instead of fooling yourself by saying you create an odds line and demand value on your speculation if the race was run a hundred times, come on? Listen to yourselfs. What sounds crazier? The status quo does.

[Capper Al]

So essentially your "truth" is basically a statement that you cannot predict outcome of a random event but in the long term average will converge to expectation. Is it what you were trying to say?

This sounds like it has possibility. If I know from a1000 races scenario that closers win 1 out of 4 times then my break even point should be 3/1 odds. The fallacy being made is I will be comparing the coming race to my test group. Honestly, do I really know that the coming race belongs to the group that I'm trying to extrapolate to? No, not till after the race. This is the sensible approach? However, what you do know is that 3 out of 9 of these extrapolations might be correct. So if you are getting random odds or over in the long run you should come a head.

[traynor]

This sounds like it has possibility. If I know from a1000 races scenario that closers win 1 out of 4 times then my break even point should be 3/1 odds. The fallacy being made is I will be comparing the coming race to my test group. Honestly, do I really know that the coming race belongs to the group that I'm trying to extrapolate to? No, not till after the race. This is the sensible approach? However, what you do know is that 3 out of 9 of these extrapolations might be correct. So if you are getting random odds or over in the long run you should come a head.

Its not that simple. The 25% win rate is distributed over all odds ranges. Changing the selection criteria changes the base. You are no longer looking at the entire sample (with the 25% win rate) but a subset of that sample in which odds were 3/1 or higher at a stage in betting at which you could bet. Your win rate (and break even point) may be completely different than when viewing the entire sample.

[raybo]

Its not that simple. The 25% win rate is distributed over all odds ranges. Changing the selection criteria changes the base. You are no longer looking at the entire sample (with the 25% win rate) but a subset of that sample in which odds were 3/1 or higher at a stage in betting at which you could bet. Your win rate (and break even point) may be completely different than when viewing the entire sample.

Correct! If you are using a specific set of race outcomes, that had no odds criteria, then your 3/1 scenario will not apply to any other set of races. Now, if you apply the odds criteria on new races and the outcome is positive, then you may have something.

[cashmachine]

Correct! If you are using a specific set of race outcomes, that had no odds criteria, then your 3/1 scenario will not apply to any other set of races. Now, if you apply the odds criteria on new races and the outcome is positive, then you may have something.

Why you want to measure success in terms of hit rate? Why don't use Actual/Expected where expected is determined by odds, this way you metric will automatically take odds into account.

[Capper Al]

Its not that simple. The 25% win rate is distributed over all odds ranges. Changing the selection criteria changes the base. You are no longer looking at the entire sample (with the 25% win rate) but a subset of that sample in which odds were 3/1 or higher at a stage in betting at which you could bet. Your win rate (and break even point) may be completely different than when viewing the entire sample.

That's sounds like my point. Tying your expectations to a test group is almost impossible to work. What is the first thing we think when a race doesn't run the way we had planned. Blame somebody; the jockey, horse etc. Do we really consider that we match the race to the wrong group?

[Jeff P]

This sounds like it has possibility. If I know from a 1000 races scenario that closers win 1 out of 4 times then my break even point should be 3/1 odds. The fallacy being made is I will be comparing the coming race to my test group. Honestly, do I really know that the coming race belongs to the group that I'm trying to extrapolate to? No, not till after the race. This is the sensible approach? However, what you do know is that 3 out of 9 of these extrapolations might be correct. So if you are getting random odds or over in the long run you should come [out] a head.No. To my way of thinking the bolded parts of the above quote are about the furthest thing from "absolute truth" imaginable.

Suppose for the sake of argument that you or I or another player performing R&D analyzes a 1000 race sample (or multiple 100,000 race samples for that matter) and observe that "closers" (however we might define that) win 25 percent of the time.

The break even point for that is most certainly not 3/1 in the odds.

The break even point for that is also most certainly not "natural" or "random" odds or odds at field size or higher.

The fallacy in the line of thinking that suggests 3/1 is the needed break even point in the odds traces back to what was observed in the sample.

Not all "closers" identified in the sample are the same or even similar.

Each "closer" identified in the sample had its own unique attributes and its own distinct probability of winning its race. (Just like the "closers" you or I or another player identify in the races we are betting today.)

The following question is important:

What happens if you break out (or stratify) your 1000 race sample (or your multiple 100,000 race samples for that matter) into incremental odds ranges?

When you do that:

You are going to very quickly realize that the set of "closers" in the sample between 1/1 in the odds and right up to but not over 6/5 have a much higher win rate than 25%.

You are also going to very quickly realize that the set of "closers" in the sample that are between 20/1 in the odds and right up to but not over 21/1 have a win rate that is much lower than 25%.

For example, here is what my current database looks like for the set of all horses in the greater than or equal to 1/1 but less than 6/5 odds range:

query start: 6/28/2014 3:49:35 PM
query end: 6/28/2014 3:49:38 PM
elapsed time: 3 seconds

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE ODDS >= 1
AND ODDS < 1.2
AND [DATE] >= #01-01-2013#
AND [DATE] <= #06-27-2014#


Data Summary Win Place
---------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 12819.30 13607.90
Bet -15176.00 -15176.00
---------------------------------------
P/L -2356.70 -1568.10

Wins 3122 4888
Plays 7588 7588
PCT .4114 .6442

ROI 0.8447 0.8967
Avg Mut 4.11 2.78
The win rate for such horses, be they "closers" or not is about 41 percent.

In fact, I challenge you, or anyone reading for that matter, to identify a single attribute, or a combination of attributes, than allows you to realize a 30% improvement in win rate for horses in the 1/1 incremental odds range. If you can shift the win rate for horses in the 1/1 incremental odds range from say 41% to say 53.3% and if you can do that in a repeatable way, you are probably going to enjoy betting horses A LOT!

Here's what the same database looks like for the set of starters in the greater than or equal to 20/1 but less than 21/1 odds range:

query start: 6/28/2014 3:54:31 PM
query end: 6/28/2014 3:54:34 PM
elapsed time: 3 seconds

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE ODDS >= 20
AND ODDS < 21
AND [DATE] >= #01-01-2013#
AND [DATE] <= #06-27-2014#


Data Summary Win Place
---------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 7669.30 8247.50
Bet -11486.00 -11486.00
---------------------------------------
P/L -3816.70 -3238.50

Wins 179 563
Plays 5743 5743
PCT .0312 .0980

ROI 0.6677 0.7180
Avg Mut 42.85 14.65This set of horses has a win rate of about 3 percent.

Even money and 20/1 are two widely different and very distinct sets of horses - "closers" or not.

The more time you or I or another player spend studying large data samples, the more you or I or another player will realize (or should realize) that each incremental odds range carries its own inherent probability.

Also, the deeper your understanding of data associated with incremental odds ranges, the more likely I think it is that you or I or another player will eventually come to realize that it's sometimes very hard - especially at lower odds ranges - to discover factors or attributes about the horse that enable the player to identify situations where the probability of a horse winning its race based on attributes identified independent of the odds are an order of magnitude greater than the probability inherent in the odds.

Back in post #73 of this thread Diane posted: I believe you have to classify horses correctly, as much as is possible. Those people I've known personally, at the track, who are consistent winners do this. There are many different ways to go about this, but you need to master this.
She's right.

In my mind it all comes down to the following question:

Do the factors or attributes I know about the horse independent of the odds - or when combined with the odds - lead me to believe the true probability of a win today is greater than the probability inherent in the odds?




-jp

.

[Jeff P]

PS/EDIT:

Traynor, I see you beat me to it: Its not that simple. The 25% win rate is distributed over all odds ranges. Changing the selection criteria changes the base. You are no longer looking at the entire sample (with the 25% win rate) but a subset of that sample in which odds were 3/1 or higher at a stage in betting at which you could bet. Your win rate (and break even point) may be completely different than when viewing the entire sample.



-jp

.

[raybo]

Why you want to measure success in terms of hit rate? Why don't use Actual/Expected where expected is determined by odds, this way you metric will automatically take odds into account.

Did I say that hit rate is the measure of success? No, I didn't. Hit rate is only a portion of the determination of success, average price is another portion, discipline and consistency is another portion, etc..

What I said was that if you only do historical research on a specific set of data, odds range declarations cannot be made, because you're talking about a "fixed" set of data, which will never happen again.

[thaskalos]

Its not that simple. The 25% win rate is distributed over all odds ranges. Changing the selection criteria changes the base. You are no longer looking at the entire sample (with the 25% win rate) but a subset of that sample in which odds were 3/1 or higher at a stage in betting at which you could bet. Your win rate (and break even point) may be completely different than when viewing the entire sample.
If it were as simple as CapperAl makes it seem...then we could make a wagering profit even by confining our bets to selected favorites. We already know that the favorites win over 33% of the time...so restricting our wagers to only those favorites who go off at odds of 2-1 or higher seems like a can't-miss proposition long-term. But, of course, that group of favorites will not win 33% of the time.

Alas...turning a wagering profit is never easy.

[traynor]

That's sounds like my point. Tying your expectations to a test group is almost impossible to work. What is the first thing we think when a race doesn't run the way we had planned. Blame somebody; the jockey, horse etc. Do we really consider that we match the race to the wrong group?

Not really. It just takes a bit more work (and a lot more thought).

[traynor]

If it were as simple as CapperAl makes it seem...then we could make a wagering profit even by confining our bets to selected favorites. We already know that the favorites win over 33% of the time...so restricting our wagers to only those favorites who go off at odds of 2-1 or higher seems like a can't-miss proposition long-term. But, of course, that group of favorites will not win 33% of the time.

Alas...turning a wagering profit is never easy.

The more I learn, the more I realize just how complex it really is.

[Capper Al]

It isn't the same to tie favorites to a 3/1 standard because the standard varies with the favorite and field size. For example, a 3/1 favorite in a field of 12 is much a different proposition than a 3/1 in a field of 5.

[Capper Al]

JJ,

Don't you believe that handicapping beats random selection? Doesn't this fit your definition of Absolute Truth? If not, why handicap?

[JJMartin]

JJ,

Don't you believe that handicapping beats random selection? Doesn't this fit your definition of Absolute Truth? If not, why handicap?

I agree in general, but that term Absolute truth has a very specific definition and can't really be used loosely. Absolute truth is akin to objective truth. Handicapping is a subjective process that may or may not be better than random selection as I illustrated in my post earlier. It all depends on what your method involves. Now you might be able to get away with saying it is an absolute truth that a casino game has a positive long term edge because it can be proven mathematically, not that statistically (or historically) it is demonstrated but that it is built in to the odds of the games and doesn't require proof by means of physical demonstration, it can be known (with absolute certainty) from its mathematical structure. I don't know how you would quantify handicapping factors as there is no standard.

[Capper Al]

Jeff,

I agree. I'm saying 3/1 doesn't work either and you have explained why. But focusing on random odds gives us a direction to build upon. Methods like adding up points that we contrived and creating an odds line on these contrived points is even more non sense. The field size is like counting the sides of the die when we figure our probabilities for racing not our test group that gave us 3/1.

[Capper Al]

I agree in general, but that term Absolute truth has a very specific definition and can't really be used loosely. Absolute truth is akin to objective truth. Handicapping is a subjective process that may or may not be better than random selection as I illustrated in my post earlier. It all depends on what your method involves. Now you might be able to get away with saying it is an absolute truth that a casino game has a positive long term edge because it can be proven mathematically, not that statistically (or historically) it is demonstrated but that it is built in to the odds of the games and doesn't require proof by means of physical demonstration, it can be known (with absolute certainty) from its mathematical structure. I don't know how you would quantify handicapping factors as there is no standard.

No standards other than our own handicapping that beats random selection.
This is fact to build upon.

[raybo]

No standards other than our own handicapping that beats random selection.
This is fact to build upon.

If you are so convinced of this, then I assume you have been using it ever since you discovered it before Dave, and that you have been making net profit ever since. It's so simple to do right, and the only absolute truth? Has to be a guaranteed money maker. Surely by now, you have evolved well past the "something to build on" phase.

[Maximillion]

No standards other than our own handicapping that beats random selection.
This is fact to build upon.

Maybe your method can be better explained in an an actual live race?

there are about 75 tracks running tomorrow... if you could explain to some degree what your thought process is in an upcoming race, it could maybe lead to a good discussion....do not care at all what the "selection" does.

[Billnewman]

You should change the word absolute to individual. To have absolute truth would be to know all that is. And thats never gonna happen. Your individual truth is based on your personal experiences and what you choose to believe. Where someone else might know the top 2 favorites in todays 5th race aren't going to run a lick for whatever reason. If you knew that once a day you could hand your program to the 5 year old looking at the horses in the paddock and have her make a random pick and show a positive ROI. Best line i ever heard about truth "you believe what you choose and i'll believe what I know"

[Capper Al]

If you are so convinced of this, then I assume you have been using it ever since you discovered it before Dave, and that you have been making net profit ever since. It's so simple to do right, and the only absolute truth? Has to be a guaranteed money maker. Surely by now, you have evolved well past the "something to build on" phase.

Yes, I have been profitable for over 5 years as a mini roller with it. My last couple of years have been shaky. I was profitable last year by hitting a few long tris. This was out of character with the slow and study grinding them out from the previous four years. This year I'm behind and will probably lose money overall. It's not the system's fault. I fell off the bandwagon when I had more money to play with and didn't truly follow the rules. I'm back on course for the slow grinding them out now and should be okay.

[Capper Al]

Maybe your method can be better explained in an an actual live race?

there are about 75 tracks running tomorrow... if you could explain to some degree what your thought process is in an upcoming race, it could maybe lead to a good discussion....do not care at all what the "selection" does.

I'm thinking about doing this at the PA outing at Arlington. What I'll need are two players who have a 30% top selection strike rate and an 80% strike rate from their ordered contender's list. And, of course, a little luck since it is a long shot system, but one does get a lot of action out of it.

[Capper Al]

Why you want to measure success in terms of hit rate? Why don't use Actual/Expected where expected is determined by odds, this way you metric will automatically take odds into account.

Yes, why don't you?

[Capper Al]

From Google search: "Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.

Another absolute truth is 1+1 can never equal 3 or anything other than 2.

I see what AL is trying to say but I don't see a place for absolute truth (in the way it is generally defined) in Handicapping. Some guy who is just a beginner could essentially get lucky on a long shot and continue winning with whatever practice was applied to his initial selection process and think he knows something. For example, he may judge the horses by some method of evaluating physical appearance which may in fact have no validity at all. This would amount to nothing more than random selection. But during the course of his betting history, he was able to hit many long shots resulting in a positive ROI. This is the same as someone who enters a casino and applies a "system" (nothing to do with cheating) and wins and now he thinks he has a winning system when in fact there is no edge at all.

There is definitely ways of achieving a higher than random chance % of winning because this is a game based entirely on "opinions". Your opinion just has to be effective and strategically employed. CC was the favorite in the Belmont and he lost. Some people thought he would not handle the distance and was not as rested as the other horses and that to me is a reasonable assertion. The public was wrong that day.

JJ,

You got it but you won't believe it. You are tying winning to luck. This implies that we really don't know what is happening on the track with the horses. And yes our opinion matters. It's the only thing that we know for sure, our hit rate. And as we play longer, our hit rate improves leading us to believe that maybe some day we'll get there meanwhile over looking the fact that we have a built in advantage right in front of us. We can beat random.

[HUSKER55]

DOESN'T statistics depend on data that can be duplicated?

[Capper Al]

I want to say how much I enjoy all your participation in this thread. The Truth does tie in with my top level in the hierarchy which I call The Gamble. Anyone posting here probably has spent several hundred hours going over data and handicapping horses, and it shows in your questions. It is the advanced topic in handicapping, correlating data research and expectations to the coming race.

[Capper Al]

DOESN'T statistics depend on data that can be duplicated?

The assumption that we can duplicated scenarios is what is at question here. All we can duplicate is our hit rate and even on somedays that seems difficult to do.

[Capper Al]

You should change the word absolute to individual. To have absolute truth would be to know all that is. And thats never gonna happen. Your individual truth is based on your personal experiences and what you choose to believe. Where someone else might know the top 2 favorites in todays 5th race aren't going to run a lick for whatever reason. If you knew that once a day you could hand your program to the 5 year old looking at the horses in the paddock and have her make a random pick and show a positive ROI. Best line i ever heard about truth "you believe what you choose and i'll believe what I know"

You don't absolutely believe that you know what you do at the track? Many are having difficulties with this. You are not alone.

[DRIVEWAY]

Yes, I have been profitable for over 5 years as a mini roller with it. My last couple of years have been shaky. I was profitable last year by hitting a few long tris. This was out of character with the slow and study grinding them out from the previous four years. This year I'm behind and will probably lose money overall. It's not the system's fault. I fell off the bandwagon when I had more money to play with and didn't truly follow the rules. I'm back on course for the slow grinding them out now and should be okay.

Great terminology - MINI ROLLER

[raybo]

Great terminology - MINI ROLLER


LOL - if he is using traditional handicapping methods, and is using natural odds as a minimum odds requirement, then you might call him a "slow roller".

[DRIVEWAY]

LOL - if he is using traditional handicapping methods, and is using natural odds as a minimum odds requirement, then you might call him a "slow roller".

Now I know what a MINI ROLLER means.:lol:

[Capper Al]

Now I know what a MINI ROLLER means.:lol:

I have returned to about $12 a race. Down about half from when I made it up to low roller. There shouldn't be anything funny about that. I never claimed to be a high roller.

[Capper Al]

Okay, it's my turn. Here's what I perceive some of my critics do. Their probability study of throwing a die might look like this after 60 rolls.

Hits:

Ones 5
Twos 15
Threes 10
Fours 8
Fives 12
Sixes 10

They get all excited about twos (which correlates to a factor in handicapping for this example). They hit 15 out of 60 or 1 out of 4. This makes their break even point in their mind 3/1. Add 50% to the 3/1 and they believe they can score a profit at 9/2 on twos or their racing factor. This is completely ignoring that there are six sides to a die and the true break even point on a fair die is 5/1. This is probably what most of you are doing.

[JJMartin]

Okay, it's my turn. Here's what I perceive some of my critics do. Their probability study of throwing a die might look like this after 60 rolls.

Hits:

Ones 5
Twos 15
Threes 10
Fours 8
Fives 12
Sixes 10

They get all excited about twos (which correlates to a factor in handicapping for this example). They hit 15 out of 60 or 1 out of 4. This makes their break even point in their mind 3/1. Add 50% to the 3/1 and they believe they can score a profit at 9/2 on twos or their racing factor. This is completely ignoring that there are six sides to a die and the true break even point on a fair die is 5/1. This is probably what most of you are doing.

Imo, it is a futile effort to try to assign a probability to any factor, create an odds line etc because you noticed a pattern in a bunch of races. There are just too many unknown variables and fluctuating variables to have any confidence in operating in this manner. Its like trying to predict where every cocacola particle goes after dumping a can into a bucket of water.

[thaskalos]

Okay, it's my turn. Here's what I perceive some of my critics do. Their probability study of throwing a die might look like this after 60 rolls.

Hits:

Ones 5
Twos 15
Threes 10
Fours 8
Fives 12
Sixes 10

They get all excited about twos (which correlates to a factor in handicapping for this example). They hit 15 out of 60 or 1 out of 4. This makes their break even point in their mind 3/1. Add 50% to the 3/1 and they believe they can score a profit at 9/2 on twos or their racing factor. This is completely ignoring that there are six sides to a die and the true break even point on a fair die is 5/1. This is probably what most of you are doing.
This is why you get criticized here as much as you are, Capper Al; you have an unfortunate way of expressing yourself sometimes. You say something like "this is probably what most of you are doing", in a derogatory way...even though you have no idea what anybody else is doing. Even to offer a mere opinion about what another player is doing would require that you at least know something about his play -- which you obviously don't.

Why would you even PRETEND to know what most of your "critics" are doing?

[thaskalos]

The assumption that we can duplicated scenarios is what is at question here. All we can duplicate is our hit rate and even on somedays that seems difficult to do.
What do you mean when you say that we can "duplicate our hit rate"? If you win 30% of your next 500 wagers...do you suppose that you can duplicate this win rate with the 500 wagers after that?

[Capper Al]

This is why you get criticized here as much as you are, Capper Al; you have an unfortunate way of expressing yourself sometimes. You say something like "this is probably what most of you are doing", in a derogatory way...even though you have no idea what anybody else is doing. Even to offer a mere opinion about what another player is doing would require that you at least know something about his play -- which you obviously don't.

Why would you even PRETEND to know what most of your "critics" are doing?

Okay, maybe not politically correct. But I like said it was my turn. Your post about favorites was in the same vain.

[thaskalos]

Okay, maybe not politically correct. But I like said it was my turn. Your post about favorites was in the same vain.
My post about favorites was in response to your post about the closers. I only wanted to point out that winning at the track is much more complicated than just correlating a win rate to its corresponding odds.

You couldn't guess how I handicap by just reading a few of my posts...and there is no way for you to know what anybody else is doing either. None of us have this game all figured out...and we all have much to learn. I dare say that, if you really knew as much about this game as you pretend to know...then you wouldn't have any trouble being a winning "low-roller". A person who can win while betting $12 a race, but who loses when he steps his bets up to $24 a race...cannot be believed when he states that he knows the "one and only absolute truth towards profitability". :)

[Capper Al]

My post about favorites was in response to your post about the closers. I only wanted to point out that winning at the track is much more complicated than just correlating a win rate to its corresponding odds.

You couldn't guess how I handicap by just reading a few of my posts...and there is no way for you to know what anybody else is doing either. None of us have this game all figured out...and we all have much to learn. I dare say that, if you really knew as much about this game as you pretend to know...then you wouldn't have any trouble being a winning "low-roller". A person who can win while betting $12 a race, but who loses when he steps his bets up to $24 a race...cannot be believed when he states that he knows the "one and only absolute truth towards profitability". :)

Believe me. My father lost our home to horse racing. There is no other way to the top for me but from the mini roller upwards one step at a time with the tracks money. I blew it when I moved up to low roller. I lost the discipline. Hopefully, it will come back.

[traynor]

It isn't the same to tie favorites to a 3/1 standard because the standard varies with the favorite and field size. For example, a 3/1 favorite in a field of 12 is much a different proposition than a 3/1 in a field of 5.

That is the reason why researchers shake their heads in wonder at the things people seem to believe about horse racing. Basically, just about everything is tweaked by (known, unknown, or ignored) "confounding variables"--that have varying degrees of influence over race outcomes. The more confounding variables there are left unaccounted for, the less reliable conclusions based on specific chunks of data become.

The major difference between "serious professional" (as in whale-grade) data analysis and non-professional is that the professional-grade apps focus on clarification by eliminating or compensating for confounding variables, while the recreational-grade apps emphasis specific "factors" and ignore the confounding variables that cause/create/tweak those factors.

[dnlgfnk]

That is the reason why researchers shake their heads in wonder at the things people seem to believe about horse racing. Basically, just about everything is tweaked by (known, unknown, or ignored) "confounding variables"--that have varying degrees of influence over race outcomes. The more confounding variables there are left unaccounted for, the less reliable conclusions based on specific chunks of data become.

The major difference between "serious professional" (as in whale-grade) data analysis and non-professional is that the professional-grade apps focus on clarification by eliminating or compensating for confounding variables, while the recreational-grade apps emphasis specific "factors" and ignore the confounding variables that cause/create/tweak those factors.

Hi, Traynor.

I would need you to elaborate on the difference between the pro "eliminating confounding variables" and the recreational "ignoring confounding variables".

[dnlgfnk]

Unless you said it here...

"The more confounding variables there are left unaccounted for, the less reliable conclusions based on specific chunks of data become"...

...whereby the pro has more exacting data to assign more accurate value to confounding variables. That is, the usual perception of the best players, i.e., knowing something the public doesn't know.

[Robert Goren]

The question is; Is pondering over the hierarchy of handicapping one of the stages?

[raybo]

The question is; Is pondering over the hierarchy of handicapping one of the stages?

IMO, no, because the "hierarchy" changes as we gain experience, so we would not know what that "hierarchy" is before the fact, and it is extremely personalized, by individual. Everyone does not go through the same steps, nor do they end up at the same point, nor should they.

[thaskalos]

The question is; Is pondering over the hierarchy of handicapping one of the stages?
:D Good question.

[traynor]

Unless you said it here...

"The more confounding variables there are left unaccounted for, the less reliable conclusions based on specific chunks of data become"...

...whereby the pro has more exacting data to assign more accurate value to confounding variables. That is, the usual perception of the best players, i.e., knowing something the public doesn't know.

Exactly.

[raybo]

That is the reason why researchers shake their heads in wonder at the things people seem to believe about horse racing. Basically, just about everything is tweaked by (known, unknown, or ignored) "confounding variables"--that have varying degrees of influence over race outcomes. The more confounding variables there are left unaccounted for, the less reliable conclusions based on specific chunks of data become.

The major difference between "serious professional" (as in whale-grade) data analysis and non-professional is that the professional-grade apps focus on clarification by eliminating or compensating for confounding variables, while the recreational-grade apps emphasis specific "factors" and ignore the confounding variables that cause/create/tweak those factors.

Do you not think that many handicappers spend most of their horse racing life "exacting" their data? Do you think that it is only the "serious professionals (as in whale grade)" who do this? Do you really thing that the whales actually have knowledge of the horses that nobody else has? Or, do you think that they have leveraged themselves simply by having superior technology and often, paid employees, and far superior financial resources, which enables them to exploit the odds, with basically unlimited funds, in ways that the non-whale cannot?

And, I think it is probably true that "the whales", in general, are making their profits from the rebates they receive, not due to any superior analytical skills they possess, or any publicly unknown data that they, somehow, possess, which would negate your argument that they have "more exacting" data than non-whales.

Take away the rebates and how many whales will be left in racing?

[thaskalos]

Do you not think that many handicappers spend most of their horse racing life "exacting" their data? Do you think that it is only the "serious professionals (as in whale grade)" who do this? Do you really thing that the whales actually have knowledge of the horses that nobody else has? Or, do you think that they have leveraged themselves simply by having superior technology and often, paid employees, and far superior financial resources, which enables them to exploit the odds, with basically unlimited funds, in ways that the non-whale cannot?

And, I think it is probably true that "the whales", in general, are making their profits from the rebates they receive, not due to any superior analytical skills they possess, or any publicly unknown data that they, somehow, possess, which would negate your argument that they have "more exacting" data than non-whales.

Take away the rebates and how many whales will be left in racing?

I think it's a combination of the two. I think the only reason the whales derive their profits solely from the rebates is because of the size of their bets. Their sizable wagers cut deeply into whatever positive return their bets might otherwise garner. If the whale were to confine himself to betting, say, $100 a race...then there is no doubt that he would derive a decent profit from his wagering.

The whale elects to forgo his "value wagering" profits...in favor of the much bigger profits that he gets, by way of the rebates.

[raybo]

I think it's a combination of the two. I think the only reason the whales derive their profits solely from the rebates is because of the size of their bets. Their sizable wagers cut deeply into whatever positive return their bets might otherwise garner. If the whale were to confine himself to betting, say, $100 a race...then there is no doubt that he would derive a decent profit from his wagering.

The whale elects to forgo his "value wagering" profits...in favor of the much bigger profits that he gets, by way of the rebates.

If that is the case, then that puts the whale on the same footing, analytically speaking, as those of us who bet less money while still making a positive ROI over time, wouldn't you say?

[Capper Al]

The question is; Is pondering over the hierarchy of handicapping one of the stages?

Good question. I say yes since it's a never ending journey. Most will probably want to pause and ask themselves where is this trip going.

[Capper Al]

Consider data input as a whale advantage. I use BRIS Multicaps as my only source input. Whales could afford to use DRF, BRIS Allways, Ragozin sheets, and more all at the same time. The cost of these inputs is nothing compared to their bet size. Whales should also have a most comprehensive database.

[HUSKER55]

Just a thought,

How many whales actually bet at the track?

Not very many because there is no way they could cover their expenses. If they went to every track, even if the average pool was $10K, once they bet $500 or more then down go the odds.

I am thinking most whales go to places similar to Betfair and bet "all of the horses" in every race.

Am I mistaken?

[Robert Goren]

Just a thought,

How many whales actually bet at the track?

Not very many because there is no way they could cover their expenses. If they went to every track, even if the average pool was $10K, once they bet $500 or more then down go the odds.

I am thinking most whales go to places similar to Betfair and bet "all of the horses" in every race.

Am I mistaken?Nobody would take that kind of money to a race track these days.

[whodoyoulike]

Just a thought,

How many whales actually bet at the track?

Not very many because there is no way they could cover their expenses. If they went to every track, even if the average pool was $10K, once they bet $500 or more then down go the odds.

I am thinking most whales go to places similar to Betfair and bet "all of the horses" in every race.

Am I mistaken?

I've heard this before on here. Also, "they" bet every horse in every race and the more tracks the better. What would they accomplish by doing this?

[HUSKER55]

you can bet on horses to loose

[thaskalos]

you can bet on horses to loose

How?

[thaskalos]

If that is the case, then that puts the whale on the same footing, analytically speaking, as those of us who bet less money while still making a positive ROI over time, wouldn't you say?

Here is my take on the "whale" issue:

Yes...if the whale would be content to bet a moderate amount so he could earn a moderate wagering profit, then yes...that would put him on the same footing as the rest of the hard-working, enterprising players. But the whale is not satisfied with that. He floods the mutuel pools with money to the extent that his figures dictate...and his intention is to remove as much of the wagering value as he can out of these mutuel pools. He can afford to remove as much of the "value" out of the mutuel pools as he can, because his profit comes exclusively from the rebates. Even if his wagering shows a moderate loss overall, he still operates at a sizable profit...because his rebates are quite substantial.

That's where he separates himself from the rest of us. We are looking for "value"...and he is endeavoring to negate the very value that we are looking for. Eventually...either he, or we, will end up out of business...because there will come a time when there won't be enough profit out there for the both of us.

[dkithore]

Here is my take on the "whale" issue:

Yes...if the whale would be content to bet a moderate amount so he could earn a moderate wagering profit, then yes...that would put him on the same footing as the rest of the hard-working, enterprising players. But the whale is not satisfied with that. He floods the mutuel pools with money to the extent that his figures dictate...and his intention is to remove as much of the wagering value as he can out of these mutuel pools. He can afford to remove as much of the "value" out of the mutuel pools as he can, because his profit comes exclusively from the rebates. Even if his wagering shows a moderate loss overall, he still operates at a sizable profit...because his rebates are quite substantial.

That's where he separates himself from the rest of us. We are looking for "value"...and he is endeavoring to negate the very value that we are looking for. Eventually...either he, or we, will end up out of business...because there will come a time when there won't be enough profit out there for the both of us.

It sounds like big business vs. small business. We all know the outcome. Except when the small business specializes in the product or service that big guys are too slow or least inclined to do, (e.g. angle plays and like)then the small guy has a chance to make two ends meet. Again it comes down to discipline and specialization, IMO.

[thaskalos]

It sounds like big business vs. small business. We all know the outcome. Except when the small business specializes in the product or service that big guys are too slow or least inclined to do, (e.g. angle plays and like)then the small guy has a chance to make two ends meet. Again it comes down to discipline and specialization, IMO.

Whether you are a big guy or a small guy, your survival in the game will depend entirely on your ability to adapt to a changing situation. As the unsophisticated players flee the game -- or reduce their play drastically -- after heavy losses, the betting landscape changes...and this game eventually becomes a battle between the "sharks" and the "whales". These two groups will then have to battle against each other, and against themselves...and the profit margins will get smaller as the competition gets tougher.

The whale is able to bet a lot of money into the mutuel pools only as long as he can spot enough "errors" in these pools to support his heavy wagers. As the competition gets tougher, the "errors" in the mutuel pools get fewer and smaller...resulting in a lack of adequate support for the whale's large wagers. So the whale's bets get smaller...and so do his rebates.

The whale will ultimately defeat us...and then discover that he cannot survive without us. So we all lose in the end...

[Capper Al]

Wow! Whales actually bet more than $24 a race?

[woodtoo]

When will I understand Capper Al's posts?

[TrifectaMike]

Whether you are a big guy or a small guy, your survival in the game will depend entirely on your ability to adapt to a changing situation. As the unsophisticated players flee the game -- or reduce their play drastically -- after heavy losses, the betting landscape changes...and this game eventually becomes a battle between the "sharks" and the "whales". These two groups will then have to battle against each other, and against themselves...and the profit margins will get smaller as the competition gets tougher.

The whale is able to bet a lot of money into the mutuel pools only as long as he can spot enough "errors" in these pools to support his heavy wagers. As the competition gets tougher, the "errors" in the mutuel pools get fewer and smaller...resulting in a lack of adequate support for the whale's large wagers. So the whale's bets get smaller...and so do his rebates.

The whale will ultimately defeat us...and then discover that he cannot survive without us. So we all lose in the end...

Thask, good post.

Mike

[thaskalos]

Thask, good post.

Mike

Thanks, Mike.

Good to hear from you again... :)

[Capper Al]

When will I understand Capper Al's posts?

Was it my joke about whales?